Short Singapore

[sagindragin]

hi guys,

well the profile is finished, just doing the background stuff now, nine aircraft done out of 31, but they are easy just got to change the serial on the marking layer.

here is a small one for you, the background is only a rough draft.

i would like to thank all those that help me complete this rather daunting task, without you it would never have been finished.



if you like it, talk to Bryan Ribbans over on the Seawings site, they are is baby now.

sagindragin
JMSmith
airwarfareforum.com and Wings of Peace

[Holedigger]

Nice! Shame one of those isn't on the circuit.

[JDK]

Great stuff!

[sagindragin]

you do realise james,

you have created a monster, fancy asking me to do that hudson, life just ain't been the same since.

[daveymac82c]

The tail section of that neat flying boat has a striking resemblence to Supermarine Stranraer.

Was the designer of the Singapore the same as the Stranraer, or did companies share design innovations? Or, was that hull design just the cats meow and everyone used it until finally a better design came along?

James, I've got a feeling you may have an answer for me

Peace,

David

[Andy in West Oz]

Superb artwork!

[lestweforget]

The tail section of that neat flying boat has a striking resemblence to Supermarine Stranraer.

Was the designer of the Singapore the same as the Stranraer, or did companies share design innovations? Or, was that hull design just the cats meow and everyone used it until finally a better design came along?

James, I've got a feeling you may have an answer for me

Peace,

David

The old adage , if it isn't broke , then don't fix it may well apply here. I beleive that the step on the hull was to help break water tension on take off, but had a slight adverse effect in aerodynamics in flight. I may be wrong, and would have to do a bit of delving into my library to find out for sure. Yes, perhaps James will set us straight.

The designer of the Stranraer was R.J. Mitchell. I beleive he went on to design some fighter of some repute!!
The desiger of the Singapore was Sir Arthur Gouge. He went on to design the Sunderland and Stirling amongst others.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%202457.html

[tom d. friedman]

man is that gorgeous!!

[JDK]

you do realise james,

you have created a monster, fancy asking me to do that hudson, life just ain't been the same since.

Heh. Actually, I'm very grateful for the Hudson art, and delighted that you've built on that and your other earlier work. Keep going!

Cheers,

The tail section of that neat flying boat has a striking resemblence to Supermarine Stranraer.

Was the designer of the Singapore the same as the Stranraer, or did companies share design innovations? Or, was that hull design just the cats meow and everyone used it until finally a better design came along?

James, I've got a feeling you may have an answer for me

Hi David,
As has already been pointed out, the designers were different. There was a degree of both competition and co-operation between British maritime aircraft companies and designers in the inter war period, including presentations on design at places like the RAeS and reported in Flight and The Aeroplane.

But fundamentally, the shape of the rear of the planing hull was pretty standard at the time for what's known as a two-step hull, and based on the hydrodynamic theory of the time. (A good example of a single step hill is the Walrus, and for the development of the step after these types, the Sunderland's 'kinfe edge' second step, and the fairing of the first step between the Mk.I and Mk.III version shows a development of an aerodynamic improvement with no hydrodynamic cost in a type.) The other key point of course is size - that the Singapore was much bigger. A four engine flying boat, 64 ft long, while the Stranraer was a twin, at 54 ft - 15% shorter (smaller) if my maths is correct. Hydrodynamics would be similar within that size bracket, of course.

This touches on an interesting point, which is being able to distinguish between designer and company stylistic notes, details and themes on the one hand, and engineering and aerodynamic 'standards' of the time. Despite the lack of acknowledgement, design is very fashion-driven and engineering options are often chosen on what's believed to be the best - and liked (fashion) - at the time.

There are design similarities in the shape of the cockpit canopy and overall shape of the hull with the Stranraer and Walrus, the key difference - apart from size - being the chines on the Stranraer and flat sides on the Walrus. There are lots of design differences in Shorts 'boats to Supermarines, such as the hull's overall shape and the raised canopy. As we all know, the main 'signature' area on aircraft was the shape of the fin and rudder arrangement, and this was the strongest illustration of a theme. Aerodynamic, mass and flutter balances were the main criteria, within which the designer chose his preferred shape - Hawker's version being common through the 1930s to the Hurricane being one of the most famous examples of that. In the case of Geoffrey de Havilland, he'd sometimes chose pointed wings over a good aerodynamic option, a story telling of how he resketched a calculated wing shape to the de Havilland style and the draughtsman was told to keep quiet. In the case of the Hornet Moth, square tipped wings had to be introduced for safety reasons.

Cheers,

[daveymac82c]

James and "Letstweforget",

thank you for helping explain to me the differences in the tail section and hulls of the two types. The part that I found most similar was actually the tail gunner position and the way it was so raised, and the lines of the fuselage connecting it to the rest of the plane.

I can definitely understand how designing airplanes, and cars too for that matter has really been done for looks sometimes more than for practical purposes. It's also interesting looking at fighter competitions where two or three airplanes are vying for a military contract. It is almost always the case that the "prettier" airplanes wins the contract.

Let that be a lesson to future aircraft designers... haha.

Anyways, thanks again for the input.

Peace,

David

[lestweforget]

There is a lot to be said for the old saying " If it looks right, it flies right! "

[daveymac82c]

There is a lot to be said for the old saying " If it looks right, it flies right! "

That being said, what's up with the 'ol Lysander? j/k, she's a good looking bird.

Peace,

David

[JDK]

thank you for helping explain to me the differences in the tail section and hulls of the two types. The part that I found most similar was actually the tail gunner position and the way it was so raised, and the lines of the fuselage connecting it to the rest of the plane.

Ah, the bit I missed! The 'pulpit' rear gunner's position was pretty standard as well if you thought it might not be watertight, you'd make it high - watertight rather than 'not drowning the gunner' was the choice. The Do-24 has a similar position, as does the Vickers Virginia landplane, so we can see the idea was pretty standard.

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/online-exhi ... rginia.cfm

I can definitely understand how designing airplanes, and cars too for that matter has really been done for looks sometimes more than for practical purposes. It's also interesting looking at fighter competitions where two or three airplanes are vying for a military contract. It is almost always the case that the "prettier" airplanes wins the contract.

There is a lot to be said for the old saying " If it looks right, it flies right! "

Excuse the rant, but IMHO, one of the most annoying myths in aviation. Certainly we like aesthetically pleasing aircraft, but there's no correlation between aesthetics (which are entirely entirely subjective) and good aerodynamics or fitness for purpose. Famous exceptions to the 'looks right flies right' debate are the perfectly viable Bv 141 and Rutan's many works, while the F-4 Phantom II has a big fan club today but was regarded as pig ugly ('delivered upside down') when new. What 'looks right' normally means is 'looks conventional' i.e. familiar, i.e. safe. But there have been hundreds of 'nice looking' downright dangerous aircraft flown.

As for the Lysander, the British aircraft identification book famously stated that 'there are aeroplanes and then there is the Lysander'.

[JDK]

Back to the rear gunner's pulpit, perhaps one of the last examples was the insertion of the Boulton Paul type turret in the militarised Shorts G Class.

http://www.toycollector.com/gallery/avi ... n_-200.jpg