Talk:Short Sturgeon

A fact from Short Sturgeon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 January 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Short Sturgeon started life as a high-performance torpedo bomber, became a target tug, then a naval reconnaissance bomber, and finally an anti-submarine aircraft, before failing altogether?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/January.

Wikipedia

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / British / European / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Infobox header

I don't believe that the manufacturer's name should be included in the "name" line of the infobox - it duplicates the "manufacturer" line. While SB 9 may be mentioned in the caption, IMHO it should also be in the header as part of the "proper name" of the aircraft - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: My changes are based on BillCJ who has re-added linked manufacturer's name to Intro per WP:AIR Page content guidelines. I think it is the best way to quickly show the common or familiar name of the aircraft in the article. Bzuk 20:18 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I that is a separate issue. Ericg, the Project's resident Infobox guru, has been pretty aggressive at taking the comany out of the name field of the infobox. Unless it just looks totally ridiculous without the company name, (ie. 757, 767, etc.), I don't have a problem with leaving the company out of this field. But as this a bigger issue than one or two pages, we should probably take it up at the main project talk page. - BillCJ 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.1

Are S.A.1 and S.A.2 FAA or Shorts designations?

Barnes' "Shorts Aircraft since 1900" states that the the S.A.1 and S.A.2 were initially assigned the "next vacant numbers in the design index" S.38 and S.39, but following Shorts' adoption in 1945 of the "universal designation system recommended by the S.B.A.C. ... the two designs were re-indexed as S.A.1 and S.A.2.; at the same time the official name Sturgeon was adopted, as S. Mk 1 and T.T. Mk2 respectively." So they are Shorts designations. --TraceyR (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Aero specs missing' tag

In view of the presence of the main specifications, is this tag still justified? --TraceyR (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking to clarify Development History

The Sturgeon had a fairly complex development history which the existing text did not really clarify or reflect. It is less than clear if the Sturgeon was ever submitted to S.6/43, Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects 3 deals with the competitors to the S.6/43, S.11/43 and O.5/43 requirements in detail and he states, addressing claims in Barnes, that no official documentation exists to show that the Sturgeon was submitted to S.6/43, in which case it was never developed as a torpedo bomber, but only as the reconnaissance bomber required by S.11/43, in fact Barnes notes the Shorts designers were relieved not to have to design torpedo capability into the aircraft. Barnes does claim a submission was made to S.6/43, in fact he claims the Sturgeon won and S.11/43 was effectively the production requirement of S.6/43, but he appears to have been completely unaware S.11/43 was competed amongst several firms and makes no mention of O.5/43, probably because the relevant official documentation had not been released into the public domain at the time he was writing the original manuscript in 1967.

Buttler is also more explicit on the reason for the cancellation of the S.1, the suspension of the Audacious and Centaur class carriers, and this has been added to the text.

On other matters Barnes is consistent with the contemporary articles in Flight, and as Winchester appears to be heavily derived from Barnes, but include certain handling details that are not reflected by Barnes, the text and references have been amended to match Barnes. In particular Barnes is explicit that the handling problems of the S.B.3 derived from the exhaust of the Mambas and makes no mention of the nose in relation to these. The previous text claimed the nose was responsible, but then quoted text that only related to the engines.

Other changes have been made to standardise nomenclature which occasionally confused service and manufacturer designations and to clarify the relationship between the original Shorts design numbers (S.38 and S.39) and their later replacements with SBAC universal designations (S.A.1, S.A.2, S.B.3, S.B.9). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.21.192 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]