sunderland flying boat (origin of the name)
Edward Senft
one of the designers of the sunderland flying boat. I
can't find any source other than a Wikipedia article
concerning the origin of the name.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunderland), This article indicates that
that the craft was named after the city of Sunderland. I believe this
is incorrect, however. (I remember my grandfather telling me stories
about
meeting Sunderland and talking about the flying boat he designed.)
Could someone verify the origin of the name for the Sunderland. Thank
you for your time!
Edward Senft
Bob's Your Uncle
"Edward Senft" < wrote in message > I'm pretty sure that Sunderland was the
last name of
> one of the designers of the sunderland flying boat. I
> can't find any source other than a Wikipedia article
> concerning the origin of the name.
> that the craft was named after the city of Sunderland. I believe this
> is incorrect, however. (I remember my grandfather telling me stories
> about
> meeting Sunderland and talking about the flying boat he designed.)
> Could someone verify the origin of the name for the Sunderland. Thank
> you for your time!
>
> Edward Senft
Short named its aircraft after cities, i.e.
Singapore, Sunderland, Seaford,Stirling
Emmanuel Gustin
news:d49c8f42.04020...@posting.google.com...
> This article indicates that
> that the craft was named after the city of Sunderland. I believe this
> is incorrect, however.
A 1932 regulation called for Flying Boats to be names
after "Coastal towns and seaports of the British Empire".
Short also followed the tradition (not obligatory since
1921) of making the name of the aircraft alliterate with
that of the manufacturer.
Chief designer of the Sunderland was Arthur Gouge.
--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
Errol Cavit
news:7EbVb.195260$6y6.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
seaports of the British Empire". Alliterative names were preferred, and if
there was indeed a Mr Sunderland on the design team, then I wouldn't be that
surprised. Officially, it would be after the town. A quick google didn't
bring up any mention of a Mr Sunderland at Short however, and it is the sort
of thing that you would expect to get mentioned in passing.
See earlier discussion of naming schemes at
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=<atmqj3$knbd$1...@ID-172186.news.dfncis.de>
--
Errol Cavit | errol...@hotmail.com | "If you have had enough, then I have
had enough. But if you haven't had enough, then I haven't had enough
either." Maori chief Kawiti to Governor George Grey, after the Battle of
Ruapekapeka 1846.
Mycroft
name they used was Sidestrand a small Norfolk village 6 or so miles south
of Cromer on the North sea coast.
Myc
"Bob's Your Uncle" <B...@rsv.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7EbVb.195260$6y6.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
M. H. Greaves
there was the short Stirling, an early war heavy bomber,
the Short Shetland, another sea plane, (quite a biggie i've seen pics of
it).
Of course it may be that possibly there were particular people it was named
after.
regards, M.
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
RAF naming practice of the time was that the first iniial of the
manufacturer's name and the first initial of the type name should
be the same - eg:
Bristol Bulldog, Blenheim, Beaufort, Beaufighter, Brigand..
Supermarine Stranraer, Seagull, Spitfire
Short Sunderland, Stirling, Seafort, Shetland
Vickers seem to have been allowed "W" as well as "V", and Hawker
played old harry with the whole system.
Over and above that, Coastal Command aircraft were named either
after coastal towns (Stranraer, Southampton..) or navy-related
names (Anson).
The Short Sunderland was therefore mainstream coastal command
naming for the time.
Sunderland wasn't a city until 2000.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Mycroft <david_...@xspamcop.net> wrote:
>All Shorts were named after coastal towns & villages begining with S another
>name they used was Sidestrand a small Norfolk village 6 or so miles south
>of Cromer on the North sea coast.
IIRC the Sidestrand (bomber of about 1929 or so) was by Boulton &
Paul of Wolverhampton, not Shorts of Belfast, and was replaced by
the Boulton & Paul Overstrand.
M. H. Greaves
window frames, joinery products, for the house building industry, theres a
branch near me, in Blantyre, south lanarkshire.
This is confirmed by the way, as when i was in the building trade i went to
collect some materials from there and in the main office was a pic of the Bp
Defiant, i asked about it, and one of the managers father had been working
for them for many years; had told him about these days.
Its a small world, but its a big country!!!
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c059up$add0$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
robert arndt
adversery. In one engagement a lone Sunderland was attacked by eight
Ju-88 and shot-down two!!!
Rob
Ken Duffey
In the latest issue of International Air Power Review (Vol 10), Jon Lake
does a bit of a hatchet job on the Sunderland.
He mentions the German appelation of 'fliegende Stachelschwein' - saying
that it was far from the flying porcupine of the propagandists.
He concludes that its reliance on rifle-calibre machine guns left it very
vunerable to cannon-armed enemy fighters - and that many (23-46)
Sunderlands fell to long-ranging Ju 88's & Bf 110's.
The incident you mention is related - but he says that the Sunderland. of
204 Sqn, was attacked by two, then four, then six more Ju 88's and that
ONE was shot down by the rear gunner - and the rest were 'driven off'.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
M. H. Greaves
british aircraft, there was no under belly defence!
"robert arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9b35beb1.04020...@posting.google.com...
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
M. H. Greaves <mhsw...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>yes it was one of the better self defended aircraft, but like many of the
>british aircraft, there was no under belly defence!
To be fair, under-belly defence is difficult to achieve in a flying
boat without distressing consequences on landing.
The Sunderland was a quick-and-dirty adaptation of an airliner,
and as such did suprisingly well as a warplane.
M. H. Greaves
disaster on a flying boat.
But the other a/c such as the heavy bombers i think should have had some
form of under belly guns, but instead they got rid of them, and the
underside of a bomber was the most vulnerable part of a bomber, especially
in the dark.
Still, the air force will have had their reasons for this at the time.news:c08e9e$9eg$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
Emmanuel Gustin
news:9b35beb1.04020...@posting.google.com...
> The Germans called the Sunderland the "Flying Porcupine"- a respected
> adversery. In one engagement a lone Sunderland was attacked by eight
> Ju-88 and shot-down two!!!
I suspect that the 'Flying Porcupine' nickname, if it was indeed
used, was related not to the defensive armament (which was not
that impressive) but to the row of dorsal antennas for the early
(metric-wave) ASW. The British called such aircraft 'Stickleback'.
But I have been unable to confirm this.
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
M. H. Greaves <mhsw...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes i can actualy understand why an under belly defence position would be a
>disaster on a flying boat.
>But the other a/c such as the heavy bombers i think should have had some
>form of under belly guns, but instead they got rid of them, and the
>underside of a bomber was the most vulnerable part of a bomber, especially
>in the dark.
In the dark - if a fighter closed then the bomber was generally gone
regardless. The best defence was speed, and the dustbin turrets in
the ventral position really sapped that. The tail turret was worth
having as it put a pair of eyes right aft (the four brownings being
less important than the pair of eyes).
Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
(it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.
The trade off was different in daylight, of course.
Alan Dicey
> Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
> reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
> losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
> went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
> (it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
> better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.
>
> The trade off was different in daylight, of course.
>
The subject of under-turrets came up in a recent thread "Has there ever
been an off-center gun?"
From my reading, only the Sperry ball turret seems to have been
successful. Periscopic arrangements didn't have sufficient field of
view, and it was very difficult to acquire the target in the sights.
Dustbins were cold and draggy, some even being open to the breeze.
In the Manchester, for example, lowering the dustbin under-turret
apparantly produced a marked change in trim, and a gunner described the
experience of manning one as like getting into a refrigerator with the
lights out.
So in addition to being a drag, the ventral positions on British bombers
weren't much good even as look-out positions.
Ken Duffey
Has anyone mentioned the turrets on the Soviet Petlyakov Pe-8 ??
This had 'normal' nose, dorsal,& tail turrets - but it also had two turrets in
the rear end of the inner engine nacelles.
They would have had a clear view rearwards, and being mounted out on the wings,
they also had a clear field of fire downwards.
I can't say how effective they were - the Pe-8 suffered from the lack of an
efficient engine - plus the ravages of the German attack which forced the
evacuation of of all the production facilities.
But it was an interestiong design nonetheless.
I don't have any pics of the real thing - but my modelling article on the Pe-8
is at :- http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelArticles/Duffy/Pe8/index.php
Ken
M. H. Greaves
would have caused drag too, but they put in bloody big powerfull radial
engines to counter that. That said the B24 could fly at 165mph, and to get
it to fly well, it had to be flown from the step; with the tail high or it
lost alot of power and speed and (ultimately) height!!news:c08rg4$u0v$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
M. H. Greaves
ju52's (tante Ju, or autie junkers!!), they werent really turrets in the
strictest sense of the word, it looked like a big pail, hanging down, with a
hatch in the floor of the a/c to drop down into it, must have been bloody
cold in there!!
"Alan Dicey" <al...@removethis.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WCVVb.1716$h44.3...@stones.force9.net...
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
>ju52's (tante Ju, or autie junkers!!), they werent really turrets in the
>strictest sense of the word, it looked like a big pail, hanging down, with a
>hatch in the floor of the a/c to drop down into it, must have been bloody
>cold in there!!
Not uncommon pre-war - that most improbably-looking of aeroplanes,
the Handley-Page Heyford had a dustbin ventral turret, as did a fair
few other British heavies. As another poster pointed out the original
Avro Manchesters had ventral dustbin turrets, as IIRC did some of
the first Lancasters - but they were found to be useless for defence
and worse than useless because of their effect on the performance
of the aeroplane. I don't imagine the ones on the Ju52 were any more
useful.
ian maclure
[snip]
> Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
As in "Dyson Sphere?"
> reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
> losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
> went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
> (it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
> better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.
Is Dyson possibly the origin of the perhaps apocryphal story
concerning placement of armo(u)r on bombers? As the story goes
this individual made a careful analysis of the damage patterns
on returning bombers and reported that the best use of the limited
amount of weight allocated for armo(u)r was to put it where his
analysis showed no damage.
This, at first, seems counter-intuitive until you realize that the
aircraft he examined had survived, so it could be assumed that
there was little point in armo(u)ring the places that were damaged.
It also seems reasonable that the undamaged places he noted on
returning aircraft might be sites of increased vulnerability.
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>