FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 1837.PDF
28 December 1956 sea to engage the enemy off Jutland, and Engadine sailed fromRosyth with the Battle Cruiser Fleet. H.M.S. Campania should have sailed from Scapa Flow with the Grand Fleet but, althoughready to sail, she did not receive her stationing and timing signal, and did not leave until 2\ hours after the flagship Iron Duke hadsailed—so late, in fact, that she was ordered to return to port. At 2.20 p.m. the light cruiser Galatea signalled 'Enemy insight, and twenty nunutes later Sir David Beany ordered Engadine to send a seaplane to scout to the north-north-east. At 3.08 p.m.Fit. Lt. F. J. Rutland and his observer, Assistant Paymaster G. S. Trewin, were airborne in No. 8359, and in the course of a 40-minute flight sent back four messages before a petrol pipe broke and compelled the Short to come down on the water. Rutlandrepaired the fracture with a piece of rubber tubing torn from his life-saving waistcoat but, upon reporting his readiness to continue,was told to return to Engadine. As it happened, the flight did nothing to assist the ultimate victory, for Engadine was unable topass the messages on to Sir David Beatty. In the days immediately preceding the Battle of Judand, severaltake-offs from Campania's flight deck had been accomplished by Sopwith Baby seaplanes, using wheeled trolleys under the floats.On June 3, 1916, a Short 184 was flown off in similar fashion, but this practice was not developed. Short 184s continued to be used from the early carrier vessels,and they were also employed on an ever-increasing scale as patrol and anti-submarine aircraft from many coastal stations. SeveralU-boats were attacked and many bombs dropped close to them. It seems that no enemy submarine is positively known to havebeen sunk by a Short seaplane, but N.1613 from Bambridge must have come very close to doing so on October 18, 1917: afterstriking a surfaced U-boat with a 100-lb bomb, Fit. Cdr. McLaurin and his observer saw their target submerging with a 30 deg list toport. The submarine was not seen again. But if no spectacular successes can be attributed to the Shorts, there can be no doubtthat their activities were a considerable deterrent to the enemy submarines. Engine trouble was not an unknown feature of thesepatrols, and on two occasions the crews of Short 184s were taken prisoner by the U-boats they were hunting. By this time a number of improvements had been made to theShort 184 design, and production had been extended to other manufacturers. A fairly early modification was the experimentalinstallation in No. 8104 of a 250 h.p. Rolls-Royce engine of the the type which was later known as the Eagle. The taller enginehad a rather bulky cowling; side radiators were used and there were two exhaust stacks. This variant was not built in quantity. A single-seat bomber version of the design was built under thedesignation Short 184 Type D. Powered by the 225 h.p. Sunbeam, the Type D was flown from what would have been the rear cock-pit and had internal accommodation for nine 56-lb bombs. No production was undertaken. After the Shorts ceased to be regarded as torpedo-carriers,straight cross-bars were fitted to the floats. A somewhat remark- able modification made to No. 8105 was the fitting of an unusuallytall undercarriage which yet retained torpedo crutches. The object may have been to minimize the likelihood of propeller damage inrough water. When Scarff ring-mountings became available they were fittedto many Short 184s, but some machines are believed to have had the Whitehouse mounting; external bomb racks of characteristicform were carried below the fuselage. Some of the firms of con- tractors introduced minor modifications of their own: if officialreports are to be believed, aircraft built by different firms differed in dimensions by an inch or two. As production expanded, con-tracts were given to Robey and Co. of Lincoln, J. Samuel White and Co., Ltd., the Brush Electrical Engineering Co., and ultimatelyto the Supermarine Aviation Works, Ltd. Additional orders were placed with all the original contractors except Westlands. Some ofthese new contractors followed the example of their predecessors and introduced small modifications in the aircraft they built. Mann, Egerton and Co. built a small batch of a modified versionof the Short 184, in the design of which they claimed to have had a hand. To the firm the standard Short 184 was known as theMann, Egerton Type A, and the modified machine became then- Type B. This variant had wings of unequal span, the enormousextensions of the upper wings being copiously braced by cables. The flying wires to the extensions were caught up by auxiliarycables from the upper ends of the outer interplane struts; this was done to prevent the flying wires from fouling the tailplanewhen the wings were folded. In all other major respects the Mann, Egerton Type B resembled the Short 184, but the 225 h.p. Sun-beam engine was mounted a little higher, thereby raising its thrust line to compensate for the slightly higher position of the centreof drag. Ten Mann, Egerton Type B seaplanes, numbered 9085- 9094, were delivered in 1916. Some official references couplethese serial numbers with that of No. 8070, which was a Short-built 184; the Mann, Egertoh Type B may not, therefore, have beenwholly original. . ... The Short 184 No. 8076 was used to test an experimental device 1001 A Robey-built Short 184 with 240 h.p. Renault engine, seen with wings folded and on beaching trolley. Phoenix-built Short 184 (240 h.p. Renault), showing modified wing-tip floats. for lateral control. Martin stabilizers, acting upon horn-balancedailerons, were fitted to the upper wings; in shape, though not in action, they resembled the lateral control surfaces of the James V.Martin K.I 11 scout which was built in America in 1919. It appears that deflection of a stabilizer caused a righting movementof the ailerons, thereby correcting the aircraft attitude. It is not known whether the Martin stabilizers were successful, but itseems probable that something to make the controls lighter would have been welcomed by Short pilots, for in his recent bookFirst Through the Clouds, Mr. F. Warren Merriam has written of ". . . long, thankless patrol flights in Short seaplanes, which wereso tiring to handle in rough weather." Later production Short 184s were fitted with more powerfulengines. The Sunbeam was developed to give progressively 240 and 260 h.p., and the 260 h.p. engine was the ultimate power unit.Many Short 184s had the 240 h.p. Sunbeam, and large numbers were built with the 240 h.p. Renault engine. The Shorts with240 and 260 h.p. Sunbeams could be distinguished from the 225 h.p. version by the presence of a large central exhaust stack justin front of the box-like radiator. The cowling lines were slightly different and, on the 260 h.p. engine at least, a four-bladedpropeller was fitted. The 240 h.p. Renault was sometimes referred to as the Renault-Mercedes engine, not because of any apparently impossible col- laboration between the Renault and Mercedes companies butbecause the cylinders embodied a number of features characteristic
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
