• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Shorts S series

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Hi,.

The old S series are not interesting,but the second S series it is.
S.1 Cockle :single seat all metal flying boat powered by two pusher engines.
S.2 :metal-hull version of N.3 Cromarty flying boat.
S.3 Springbok :single seat all metal flying boat powered by two Bristol
engines.
S.4 Satellite :two seat mid-wing light monoplane powered by one Bristol
Cherub III engine.
S.5 Singapor I :four engined transport biplane flying boat.
S.6 Sturgeon :spotter/recce aircraft,which failed to compete the Fairey IIIF
in Spec. 19/24.
S.7 :tandem two seat low wing light monoplane powered by one ADC
Cirrus I engine.
S.8 Calcatta :three engined biplane recce flying boat powered by 540 hp Bristol
Jupiter engines.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Hi,

S.9 -----?.
S.10 Gurnard single seat high speed shipboard fighter for O22/26.
S.11 Valetta high wing cabin seaplane.
S.12 Singapore II developed from Singapore I,but not secceeful
S.13 -----?.
S.14 Sarafand was 120 ft (38.58m) span long range flyinmg boat
powered by six RR Buzzard engines.
S.15 three engined flying boat for Japanese navy.
S.16 Scion twin engined high wing six passenger transport monoplane.
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
769
Reaction score
291
S.1 Cockle :single seat all metal flying boat powered by two pusher engines.

The engines are not 'pusher'. They are set at the back of the wing, but the prop is at the leading edge, 'pull'.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Thanks dan,

S.17 Kent well known.
S.18 gull wing flyiing boat aircraft,powered by two RR Goshawh engines,
for ther spec. R24/31.
S.19 Singapore III six seat general/recce flying boat to Spec. R3/33.
S.20 Mercury & S.21 Maia (Mayo comosite) well known.
S.22 Scion Senior enlarge version of Scion and powered by four 90 hp
Pobjoy Niagara III engines.
S.23 Empire well known.
S.24 four engined Carrier-based aircraft for Spec. S23/37.
S.25 Sunderland well known.
S.26 developed from Empire flying boat for transatlantic mission.
S.27 ------?.
S.28 ------?.
S.29 Stirling well known.
S.30 Empire well known.
S.31 four engined research aircarft.
S.32 four engined mid-wing airliner.
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
769
Reaction score
291
Hesham, you may want to check this page:
http://www.mda.org.uk/aircraft/16000.htm

;)
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
I know that dan,

S.33 Empire well known.
S.34 four engined heavy bomber for Spec. B1/39.
S.35 Shetland well known.
S.36 Super Stirling four engined heavy bomber developed from Stirling for
Spec. B8/41.
S.37 Stirling .
S.38 (SA.1) Sturgeon well known.
S.39 ------?.
S.40 Shetland II civil transport version.
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
70
S.9 Single-Jupiter Monoplane project.
S.27 Catapult F.B project (35/36)
S.28 Intermediate landplane project.(4 Terriers)
S.39 S.A. Sturgeon T.T.2 (Q1/46

'Shorts Aircraft Since 1900' C.H. Barnes - Putnam London.1989 Edtn.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Thank you my dear lark,

S.41 (SA.3) -----?.
S.42 (SA.4) Sperrin four engined jet bomber for Spec. B14/46.
S.43 (SA.5) -----?.
S.44 -----------?.
S.45 Seaford well known
S.46 (SA.7) -----?.
S.47 (SA.8) -----?.
 

Jos Heyman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
597
Reaction score
13
The following from Bell, D., "The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, Directory of Airplanes":
S.41: (SA.3) Spec N.7/46
S.44: (SA.6) Sealand Prototype
S.47: (SA.8) Commercial Flying Boat Projects
S.48: (SA.9) military glider (X.30/46)
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Thank you Jos,

SA.1 Sturgeon torpedo bomber/recce.
SA.2 Sturgeon for Q1/46.
SA.3 a naval fighter project to N7/46.
SA.4 Sperrin well known.
SA.5 -----?.
SA.6 Sealand well known.
SA.7 -----?.
SA.8 Commercial flying boat projects.
SA.9 Military glider (X30/46).
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Hi,

SB.1 tailless glider.
SB.2 Sealand.
SB.3 Sturgeon anti-submarine TT.3.
SB.4 Sherpa well known.
SB.5 well known.
SB.6 Seamew single engined anti-submarine aircraft.
SB.7 Sealand III amphibian.
SB.8 ultra-light helicopter project for HR.144T.
SB.9 Sturgeon as carrier-borne target-tug aircraft.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Hi,

SC.1 well known.
SC.2 Seamew MK.2 for RAF.
SC.3 -----?.
SC.4 converted from Canberra B.28 bomber to pilotless drone aircraft.
SC.5 Belfast well known.
SC.6 -----?.
SC.7 Skyvan well known.
SC.8 -----?.
SC.9 Canberra PR.9 converted with AI.23 radar plus 1R installations in
nose for DH propeller (red top AAM) trails.
 

Jos Heyman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
597
Reaction score
13
Dana Bell's book that I quoted earlier also gives the following:
SC-3 = P.D.16
SC-8 = P.D.43, a two seat version of the SC.1

Bell also list up to 80 P.D. (for Preliminary Designs) entries. I will put them here in the next day or so.
 

Jos Heyman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
597
Reaction score
13
This is the P.D. listing from Dana Bell's book. Apparently this listing was started in 1921. Note that this book does not provide any further details - it is merely a listing of types and does only give the barest details

P.D.1 B.35/46
P.D.2 R.2/48
P.D.3 Solent M.R. proposal
P.D.4
P.D.5 N.114T
P.D.6 S.A.4 Gyron testbed
P.D.7 F.124T rocket fighter
P.D.8
P.D.9 B.126T
P.D.10
P.D.11
P.D.12
P.D.13 NA.39, M.148
P.D.14 Executive
P.D.15 Freighter
P.D.16
P.D.17 G.O.R.339; also a VTOL launching platform
P.D.18
P.D.19
P.D.20 Transatlantic
P.D.21 VTOL Tactical Transport
P.D.22 SST
P.D.23 Naval Strik VTOL
P.D.24 Air-bus
P.D.25 Ground Attack VTOL
P.D.26 Short Range Feederliner
P.D.27 Short Range Feederliner
P.D.28
P.D.29 Long Range SST
P.D.30
P.D.31
P.D.32
P.D.33
P.D.34 VTOL launcher
P.D.35
P.D.36
P.D.37
P.D.38
P.D.39
P.D.40
P.D.41
P.D.42
P.D.43
P.D.44 Maval Strik F.R.
P.D.45 VTOL low level strike
P.D.46 "Jumping Jet"
P.D.47 S.C.5 STOL
P.D.48 S.C.9
P.D.49 Light strik VTOL
P.D.50 S.C.7 VTOL Testbed
P.D.51 Skyvan 2
P.D.52 Five seater based on baron
P.D.53 S.C.5 with C-141 wing
P.D.54
P.D.55 NATO V/STOL Tactical Transport
P.D.56 NATO VTOL fighter
P.D.57
P.D.58
P.D.59 V/STOL Skytruk Light Transport
P.D.60 Short range civil transport
P.D.61
P.D.62 Skyvan feeder liner
P.D.63
P.D.64 Light communication
P.D.65 Feeder liner
P.D.66 Light rotorcraft
P.D.67
P.D.68
P.D.69 Maritime recce
P.D.70
P.D.71
P.D.72
P.D.73
P.D.74
P.D.75 200 seat Air Bus
P.D.76
P.D.77 Strategic Transport
P.D.78 Counter Insurgency
P.D.79
P.D.80 Feeder liner
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Thank you very much dear Jos,

SD.1 ----?.
SD.2 a licence built Beech Model-1072 RPV.
SD.3 later Shorts-330 transport.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Hi,

PD.8 long range bomber project against Vickers-710.
PD.12 bomber for OR.330.
PD.16 military transport against Blackburn B-104.
PD.18 Belfast with Britannia wing.
PD.36 light freighter project developed from HMD.105.
PD.67 light rotorcraft.
PD.68 light rotorcraft.
 

AM

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
208
Reaction score
6
hi,

P.D.4 = S.B.6
P.D.10 - Supermarine Swift fuselage with new wing (1953) for ER.145
P.D.12 - High-speed high-altitude reconnaissance a/c (1955) for R.156T
P.D.33 - Proposal for Canberra with increased span
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
There is a conflict over the P.D.12 designation:

- bomber project for OR.330?
- high-speed high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft for R.156T?

Thanks for helping solve the mystery!
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,895
Reaction score
233
According to 'Project Cancelled', page 118, OR.330 and R.156T are the same thing.
See also BSP2 pp.73-4.


cheers,
Robin.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
hesham said:
Thank you very much dear Jos,

SD.1 ----?.
SD.2 a licence built Beech Model-1072 RPV.
SD.3 later Shorts-330 transport.

I have finally solved the mystery of the SD.1 designation... On page 490 of C.H. Barnes's SHORTS AIRCRAFT SINCE 1910, we can read: "In 1967 a Canberra PR.3 (WE146) was adapted as a launch vehicle SD.1 for the American-built Beech AQM-37A supersonic target drone modified by Shorts for British use as the SD.2."
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,898
Reaction score
807
Could the S.13 be the monoplane civil Sarafand that was proposed?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,777
Reaction score
1,913
From the original S series, the S.80, which was a "hydro-aeroplane" developed by the Shorts Brothers in partnership with Frank McClean. Used in a 1914 aerial expedition down the Nile.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25578363
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
From British Aerplanes before WW1,

the Shorts early "S" series.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    130.4 KB · Views: 135
  • 2.png
    2.png
    96 KB · Views: 132
  • 3.png
    3.png
    209.6 KB · Views: 131
  • 4.png
    4.png
    214.3 KB · Views: 120

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Hi,

the missing S.48,was a two seat seaplane trainer biplane of 1914.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
The completing of PD series;

PD.19 was a twin engined agricultural airplane Project
PD.30 was a supersonic transport aircraft Project,SST
PD.31 was a also called SC.4,or a Canberra U.10
PD.32 was a Canberra GVP carrier
PD.35 was a target drone,based on Gnat
PD.39 was a recce target drone
PD.40 was a VTOL Launcher for Fiat G.91
PD.41 was a towed targets
PD.43 was also called SC.8 (SC.1 with six RB.108 engines)
PD.54 was a SFERMA Marquis,under licence
PD.57 was a Bristol Britannia 312 Freighter conversion
PD.58 was a Beech Queen Air for RAF
PD.63 was an Inflatable Ground Effect M/c
PD.68 was a Hiller 12-E helicopter development
PD.70 was a two-seat Ground Effect M/c
PD.71 was a Breguet Br.941 & Br.942,under licence
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
480
It is worth noting that project numbers do not appear to have been included on all official tender documents and drawings. Whether this means that they were un-numbered projects or alternative designs included within known numbered projects is not clear. I have seen examples of this from the late 1930s through to the mid 1940s
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Schneiderman said:
It is worth noting that project numbers do not appear to have been included on all official tender documents and drawings. Whether this means that they were un-numbered projects or alternative designs included within known numbered projects is not clear. I have seen examples of this from the late 1930s through to the mid 1940s

Good Point,we hope to see a Shorts Drawing numbers.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
480
Here is an example. I am looking at a full and detailed specification for a short & medium range flying boat powered by two Hercules. The document is dated 8th February 1945. The design is very similar in style to the aircraft identified as the S47/SA7 in Stuck on the Drawing Board but larger and the drawing numbers are lower, so it is an earlier project. Looking at the S series list in this thread there is no obvious place for it to sit.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
480
Another example. A detailed specification for A Long Stage Empire Landplane powered by four Centaurus. Document dated May 1944 and drawing numbers just slightly before those for the flying boat in my post above. This is a smaller version of the aircraft shown in Stuck on the Drawing Board and named as the 'Transatlantic Express'. Neither appear to have been given type or project numbers.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Schneiderman said:
Here is an example. I am looking at a full and detailed specification for a short & medium range flying boat powered by two Hercules. The document is dated 8th February 1945. The design is very similar in style to the aircraft identified as the S47/SA7 in Stuck on the Drawing Board but larger and the drawing numbers are lower, so it is an earlier project. Looking at the S series list in this thread there is no obvious place for it to sit.

Yes,that's right no designation numbered for it,but it was S47/SA8 (not S47/SA7).
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    15.2 KB · Views: 112

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
480
hesham said:
The completing of PD series;

PD.41 was a towed targets

Just to confuse things further PD numbers, including PD41, were also used on documents for the Mayo Composite. For example the annotation on one is S.20/P.D.41. With two uses of the PDxx range we must be careful not to confuse the two
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
480
Sorry, I’ve only recently given any serious thought to Short’s designation system so my posts have rambled a bit. Here is my current understanding and a few questions.

What we appear to have is an early series of ‘S’ aircraft that is almost certainly a system applied some years later. Several companies did this to catalogue their early work for which no formal numbering or naming had been applied at the time.

Then we have the main ‘S’ system which was used for aircraft and projects post WW1. You might have thought that the all-metal Swallow/Silver Streak would have been S1, but apparently not. The list we have is sequential with no gaps, yet there are several projects for which detailed tender documents were prepared that do not have ‘S’ numbers. So one question is: what criteria did Short apply to decide whether a project would be given an ‘S’ number? A second question is: how were these projects identified in company records?

Company literature, tender documents and aircraft manuals make no reference to the ‘S’ numbers. Official drawings sometimes, but not always, start with the ‘S’ number. It appears that general arrangement drawings were given numbers CR.xxxx and drawings showing internal layout are BR.xxxx. That system runs from at least 1927 to at least 1946. Blueprints of components generally seem to start with the project number. So, for example, Sunderland drawings start with S25. But there are many others that start with DS, JA, MR and others. Then, as in a previous post, technical charts etc. appear to have a PD number after the project number, as in S20/PD35.

I really don’t understand the logic behind the post-war SA, SB, SC and SD series, they are a mixture of civil and military types and some aircraft variants, such as for the Sturgeon, appear in more than one list. I am even more confused by the PD series, why are these not Sx? And what is the explanation for some projects having two designations, such as SC.3 = P.D.16 and S.47 = SA.8?

Without an understanding of the underlying numbering system it is very difficult to determine whether there are ‘missing’ projects for us to find. Clearly there are going to be many but these several designation systems give us no clues

Help!!
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
I hope we get those numbers,

I have a very small old drawings to Shorts,carried the series; 6000s,7000s,8000s & 10000s.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
480
Interesting. I see a drawing of the Kent flying boat numbered 7104 and Scylla numbered 7100, do those fit with your drawings?
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
No Schneiderman,

but after WWII,maybe they repeat using it ?.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,895
Reaction score
233
Schneiderman said:
I really don’t understand the logic behind the post-war SA, SB, SC and SD series, they are a mixture of civil and military types and some aircraft variants, such as for the Sturgeon, appear in more than one list. I am even more confused by the PD series, why are these not Sx? And what is the explanation for some projects having two designations, such as SC.3 = P.D.16 and S.47 = SA.8?

The SA, SB, SC, and SD series would appear to be the SBAC series designators, see here :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_British_Aerospace_Companies#SBAC_aircraft_designations

Sorry, can't help with the PD. series . . . :(


cheers,
Robin.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,889
Reaction score
1,192
The S.A., S.B., S.C. and S.D. series were part of the SBAC (Society of British Aircraft Constructors) designation system.
It seems a few companies partially used this system but Shorts seems to have persevered with it for some time, perhaps being majority owned by the Ministry of Supply they had no choice in the matter?

There is a thread of such designations here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6061.msg98392.html

It would seem each manufacturer was allocated a main letter B = Blackburn, S = Shorts etc. and then blocks of 9 numbers in sequential letters (S.A.1 to 9, S.B.1 to 9. etc.). I therefore assume each block was used sequentially until it filled up and then a new block was started, that probably explains why variants of the same basic airframe often had different numbers.

I don't really know what the intent behind the SBAC scheme was beyond a unified designation system for all manufacturers, maybe to ease the Ministry of Supply's headaches in paperwork without trying to decipher each firm's own systems. The PD system was probably kept in use internally, which is why they appear infrequently in official files etc.
 

Similar threads

Top