Talk:Saunders-Roe Princess

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 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.

Airspeed

Why is the cruise speed higher then the maximum speed? Scottanon (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to intro, avoiding POV and original research

There were issues with the opening paragraph, in particular the tone of the statement added by user 82.32.2.70 that the Princess is an example of a failure of British government and industry. That is a personal opinion, and suggests bias of a kind that is discouraged in Wikipedia.

The unreferenced statement that better runways and airports were the cause of the success of land-based aircraft is personal opinion, and perhaps original research. I have a source that reasonably states that it was not the quality of runways and airports that affected large seaplane viability, but the prevalence of them.

Seaplanes were not foreshadowed to doom, and those advocating them were not necessarily ignorant. There are still commercial seaplanes -- ones whose activities cannot be taken by other vehicles. Not being able to forecast the technological future is not a mark of failure -- few people see accurately more than a few years ahead. Large commercial seaplanes failed in part due to changes in passenger demographics.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying boats had the advantage that they could be built up to much larger overall sizes and weights than landplanes, as they were not dependant on things such as airports and handling facilities. They also (as a rule) were not limited by thing such as approach angles into airports, etc.,. Being larger in size and with higher take-off weights, they could also carry more fuel, so as to make non-stop trans-Atlantic flights possible.

At the time of the Princess if you wanted an aeroplane capable of flying the Atlantic and carrying commercial passengers in what was then considered appropriate comfort - before the war all the trans-Atlantic airliners had been flying boats, and the people using them were, for the most part, the very rich - you needed a big aeroplane, which was the also reasoning behind the earlier Bristol Brabazon. Wealthy people weren't accustomed to being shoe-horned into tiny cramped cabins, and so if you wanted them to fly the Atlantic you needed an aeroplane able to offer the sort accommodation and luxury the customers required. The British flying boats of the pre- and early post-war period had such 'luxury' items as fully-stocked bars, promenade areas where the passengers could walk around and enjoy the scenic views from the cabin windows, and similar. This same 'luxury' principle also applied to the design of the later de Havilland Comet, the interior of-which was much more spacious per-passenger than later airliners. One needs to understand that at the time, the airline's competitors where the large liners such as the RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth, and these were luxury liners. The airlines needed to target these wealthy people as they were the only ones who could afford the expense entailed for the operators by operating (relatively) expensive aeroplanes.

So, for the time, the large flying boat had a considerable advantage over the landplane, as, for the most part, trans-Atlantic air travellers were wealthy (or worked for wealthy companies) and expected comfort appropriate to their expectations. Compared to the standard of airliners today, the accommodation offered, even First or Business Class, by the latter amounts to little more than what on the shipping routes was called steerage. Nowadays the rich travel instead by what has become the Executive jet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting contemporary piece on the flying boat as an airliner in a 1953 Flight article here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo landplane version

Saro designed a landplane cargo version of the Princess, rather like a greatly enlarged Douglas C-133 Cargomaster, but of course, it was never built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention added to the article - it was a proposal by Saro to rebuild the three existing Princesses into landplane troop-carrier/cargo aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I had forgotten about the Tynes. Six of them IIRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coupled Proteus ratings?

Do we have any source for the engine ratings of the Coupled Proteus?

The current article is giving the wrong figures - around 2,000 hp - which is a figure for a single Proteus (and on the low side). If we're going to say there are four of these, then the figures ought to be for the coupled engine, not the single (these aren't simply two engines in a box either). Even assuming that the engine cores are identical, was there any de-rating for the gearbox?

Claimed figures vary, but 6,400 hp seems most plausible, within the optimism of 1951 [2]. Also the actual engines fitted were a mixed bag of non-standard builds, and some are supposed to have been far from new development hacks. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]