FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 0193.PDF
8 February 1957 Correspondence The Editor of "Flight" is not necessarily in agreement with the views expressed by correspondents in these columns; the namesand addresses of the writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases accompany letters. Disbandment and the R.N.V.R. Air Branch /CONTROVERSY over the disbanding of the week-end fliers*-/ has so far largely concerned the fighter squadrons—so that the arguments for the R.N.V.R. anti-submarine squadrons havehardly been heard. It is not generally known that five squadrons of top-lineefficiency in anti-submarine warfare were cut in the recent dis- banding of the R.Aux.A.F. and R.N.V.R. Air Branch: twosquadrons of Gannets, three of Avengers. The saving to the country totals about £2 million a year. This minority of week-end fliers has probably even strongerground than the fighters on which to dispute the case for their disbanding. Today the potential submarine threat to Britain isnine times greater than in 1939, when Germany started the war with 56 U-boats. The R.N.V.R. squadrons are—or were until January 10—an integral pan of that A/S defence pattern. Their skill and experience in the complicated A/S technique is the equal ofregulars. Aircrews were at immediate readiness for emergency. Two squadrons operated Gannets, the most up-to-date A/S air-craft in the Navy, and better than any in the R.A.F. for the pur- pose—thus disproving the widely scouted notion that modernaircraft cannot be operated at maximum efficiency by week-end fliers. What, then, can be the justification for disbanding them? Itcannot be a question of efficiency; or it would be just as logical— or illogical—to throw away any of the regular existing A/S forces.It cannot be economy; for the R.N.V.R. squadrons are run at a fraction of the cost of those regular A/S forces. It cannot be shortage of aircraft carriers; for these squadronscan equally well operate from land bases in an emergency. It cannot be that the personnel are growing too old, and that—with the stoppage of National Service flying training there will be no further replacements—because in A/S warfare experiencecounts, and the present squadrons as now constituted are good for at least another ten years. This would be time enough for afurther review of their role, in the light of the development of weapons. London, W.I4. R. H. REDMAN. The Short SeaplanesR EADERS of the recent history of Short seaplanes in Flightmay have been disappointed by the brief reference therein to the intriguing little Short S.364: as I said in the article, "singu-larly little information about the machine has survived." I have since been provided with some notes which are of value andinterest. The Short S.364 came within the Admiralty category N.2A, butwas regarded as unsatisfactory because it was underpowered. The 200 h.p. Sunbeam engine with which it was fitted was "thepredecessor of the 275 h.p. Sunbeam Maori"—which means, almost certainly, that it must have been the Afridi, a vee-twelvewhich had a bore of 92 mm and a stroke of 135 mm; the Maori was basically the same engine with the bore increased to 100 mm.The Short S.364 had an experimental wing section designed to Admiralty Specification B.I.R. 31; the initials signified Board ofInvention and Research. The seaplane's bomb load consisted of only two 65-lb bombs. The more assiduous historians will wish to note that theillustration of the S.364, which was from a photograph taken at the Isle of Grain experimental station, depicts the aircraft withfloats of greater volume than those originally fitted. The S.364's works number is something of a puzzle. As I said, 195 Gannets of the Channel Air Division, R.N.V.R.—a photograph pro- vided by the writer of the first letter on this page. the Short works numbers S.344-S.363 were allotted to theShort 320s which had the serial numbers N.1300-N.1319. How- ever, of the later batch of 320s numbered N.1480-N.1504, it isknown that N.1498 was S.382—which means that N.1480 must have been S.364. Was the works number S.364 inadvertentlyallotted to two different aircraft, perhaps because they were built in different factories? Is there any relevant significance in thefacts that the (200 h.p.) S.364 bore the legend "Short Bros., Aero- nautical Engineers, London and Sheppey," whereas the 320N.1498 was marked "Short Bros. Aeronautical Engineers, Rochester, England"? As a final point, can anyone confirm that the 225 h.p., 240 h.p.and 260 h.p. Sunbeams used in the Short 184 were respectively the Mohawk, Ghurka and Maori I?Birmingham 32. J. M. BRUCE. [Another Short 184 "find" is the picture below showing work inprogress on a folded seaplane of this type. The original caption reads: "The war. Scenes with the French Army at Salonika. Tuning up.Photo shows: Lieut. Wright, who has performed excellent serial [sic] work at Salonika, preparing his biplane for an important observationflight." Suspecting the authenticity of this legend, we obtained from Major Maurice Wright, A.F.C., F.R.Ae.S. (a director of The FaireyAviation Co., Ltd.), confirmation that the officer was, indeed, himself. The picture, he said, was taken in the shelter of Rabbit Island, off theDardanelles, aboard the Monitor H.M.S. Roberts, from which he was doing gunnery spotting while on detached duty from H.M.S. Ben-my-Chree. "I managed to do an average of two spotting flights a day for about three months," writes Maj. Wright, "and, as you see, we had a con-siderable amount of work to do on maintenance to achieve this." He goes on to explain that he was spotting for the Royal Navy and was notworking with the French Army. The firing took place at a range of about 15 miles; and sitting up over the Dardanelles for long periodsrequired considerable physical effort, as the air was excessively turbulent. Maj. Wright used a primitive wireless set having a range of about 20miles. Nevertheless, he describes the results as "quite good." From Maj. Wright we obtained also the second photograph—anilluminating flashback to Mr. Bruce's series of articles on the F-boats (December 2, 16 and 23, 1955). It was taken at the Isle of Grain in1917 and shows Maj. Wright (left), E. S. Goodwin and E. M. I. Bird, engineer officer. The aircraft is an F.2A with Rolls-Royce Eagle VIIs.] Too Soon 'Y'OUR issue of January 25 refers to a statement attributed to*- me in Johannesburg, to the effect that nuclear-powered civil aircraft would be flying between London and Johannesburg inten to twelve years' time. My statement in fact referred to turbine-powered supersonicaircraft. I should imagine that a nuclear powered civil aircraft would be later. London, W.I. WHITNEY STRAIGHT. The World War I snapshots referred to in the footnote to Mr. J. M. Bruce's letter. On the left is a Short 184 sea- plane; on the right, an F.2A flying-boat.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
