FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 1838.PDF
1002 FLIGHT Production Short 184 with 260 h.p. Sunbeam engine. "['., THE SHORT SEAPLANES .V of contemporary Mercedes practice. Some of the early Short-builtRenault 184s had their radiators disposed in two elements, one on either side of the fuselage, but the majority of the aircraftreverted to having the clumsy box-like radiator above the fuselage. All the Renault Shorts had a single central exhaust stack ofslightly different shape from that fitted to the Sunbeam-powered machines. A more positive means of identifying the Renault enginewas its right-hand propeller: all the Sunbeams were left-hand engines. Some of the Short 184s which had the 260 h.p. Sunbeam had agreatly improved engine installation. A flat frontal radiator was fitted immediately behind the propeller and the engine was com-pletely enclosed. The pilot's forward view must have been greatly improved by this modification. The ultimate production version of the short 184 had the Sun-beam Maori III engine. This power unit developed 275 h.p. but differed from the other Sunbeams in having its exhaust valves onthe outboard sides of its cylinders. There was therefore no large central exhaust stack; instead there were two more slender stacks,one on each side of the engine. It appears that most of the machines with the Maori III retained the large elevated radiator. The designations Intermediate 184 and Improved 184 wereapplied to some of the later versions of the design, but the precise definition of the variants in question has not come to light. It didnot, apparently, relate to the type of engine which was fitted, for there are records of mixed batches of Short 184s: for example, theSage-built batch N.1130-N.1139 were all originally fitted with the 240 h.p. Renault engine; yet N.1130-N.1134 were described asImproved 184s, the remainder as Original 184s. No doubt the designations indicated certain modifications to structure orequipment. From early 1915 until the Armistice and beyond, the Short 184gave good service in many theatres of war. On occasions they were used as night bombers to aid the R.N.A.S. Fifth Wing's campaignof late 1916. Five 225 h.p. Short 184s went to Mesopotamia in February 1916 where, operating from the Tigris at Ora under thecommand of the G.O.C. Mesopotamia, they helped to drop supplies on the besieged town of Kut-al-Imara. Considerable numbers served in the Mediterranean, apart fromthose of the East Indies and Egypt Seaplane Squadron. In Janu- ary 1917, the seaplane base at Otranto was originally equippedwith six 225 h.p. Shorts transferred from Dundee air station; and in the following month it was decided to establish a torpedo sea-plane school at Malta with four 240 h.p. Shorts as part of its equipment. By February 1918 the agreed establishment forMalta was twelve 260 h.p. Shorts. After the Armistice the Short 184 continued in service for a Short 184 with 260 h.p. Sunbeam engine and frontal radiator. few years. A number went to North Russia in 1919 and par-ticipated in the campaign against the Bolsheviks; and in home waters the Shorts were flown on mine-spotting patrols. Othercountries, such as Esthonia, Greece and Japan, had some Short 184s in the post-war years, and a few came on to the BritishCivil Register. A landplane bomber conversion of the Short 184 was producedin 1916 and was flown by the R.N.A.S. Fifth Wing at Coude- kerque and the Third Wing at Luxeuil. The bomber had boththe 225 h.p. Sunbeam and the 250 h.p. Rolls-Royce engines, and was built in small numbers by several contractors. As a land-plane, however, it is inappropriate to this history; it was soon withdrawn when the Handley Page O/100 became available,and was outlived by its seaplane progenitor. The design which followed the Short 184 and its bomberdevelopment is one of the least-known Short seaplanes of the war, possibly because it has always—and erroneously—been con-fused with the Short 830. In point of fact, all that the two air- craft had in common was the 135 h.p. Salmson engine, for the1916 type had a longer fuselage of improved design, a larger fin, and wings of greater span with double-acting ailerons on theupper mainplanes. The wings could, as usual, be folded, and the centre section had a large circular aperture, presumably to enablethe observer to reach the retrieving sling easily and to fold the wings. The only visible indication of armament on the aircraftwas the bomb rack under the fuselage, but it is possible that a machine-gun could have been mounted at some point on theaperture in the centre section. Structure of the 1916 Short-Salmson seaplane was conven-tional, the wire-braced wooden airframe being fabric-covered with the exception of the decking about the cockpits, which was ofplywood. The floats were wooden pontoons, and the tail-float had Short 784 with Sunbeam Maori III engine. a water rudder. In appearance the new Short was much morehandsome than any of its predecessors: it was better-proportioned and more nearly merited the description of graceful than any ofits earlier, bedraggled-looking sisters. It was not produced in quantity, however: only ten (9781-9790) were built, and norecord of their operational use has survived, though it is known that at least one was used at Calshot. Doubtless it was under-powered—the fitting of bomb racks indicated an excess of optimism—and was abandoned because the Short 184 and827/830 designs fulfilled the Service needs of the time. Contemporary with the 1916 Salmson-powered machine weretwo big seaplanes powered by the 310 h.p. Sunbeam Cossack engine. Apparently four prototypes were ordered at the sametime, but it is doubtful whether more than one example of each was actually built. The two aircraft were quite different inappearance and in their designed function, but only the first type went into production. By the time that the production machineswere forthcoming, the Cossack engine had been developed to give more power and was nominally of 320 h.p. It has already been noted that the Admiralty favourednumerical designations for their aircraft, but in all earlier cases the number had been the serial number of a typical machine ofeach type. A unique departure was made in the case of the 320 h.p. Short seaplane, however, for its designation consisted of thenumerical value of the horse-power of its engine, and it was known as the Short 320. There are, however, several referencesto the aircraft as the Short 310. The Short 320 was designed to meet an official requirement'for a seaplane capable of carrying a Mark IX torpedo, an 18-inch missile which contained 170 lb of T.N.T. and weighed 1,000 1b.It was considerably larger than the Short 184, but was unmistak- ably of Short design, particularly in such design details as theengine installation, the outline of the fuselage, the floats, and the typical tail assembly. The upper wings had long extensions andwere fitted with inversely-tapered double-acting ailerons. The mainplanes could be folded.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
