Talk:Short Belfast

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 / British / European C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Old comments

Probably 2 or 3 of Short Belfast (IATA Codes SC10 & SC5, ICAO Codes SC5 & SH5 ) are maintained now in airport Boryspil (Kyiv, Ukraine) on charter flights VV 279 - VV 280 and other.

http://www1.kbp.kiev.ua/aircrafts/search/?dpost=pd77920pd

Highly unlikely statement above, all ten Belfasts are accounted for and only one in Australia is in flying condition. Perhaps a mistake sighting of an Antonov freighter. MilborneOne 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good ref for the Belfast is "Shorts Aircraft Since 1900" by C.H. Bates. Also "Belfast: Shorst Big Lifter" by Molly O'LoughLin White. It was originally the Britannic and was intended to transport large missiles (Blue Streak?) to the Woomera test range. The Cairns Heavylift machine was up for sale but no takers came forward. They may have another one based in Manila. A reasonably reliable machine with the weakest part being the Tynes. It took some mods to get a civil CoA.203.219.71.59 (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Shorts Belfast with this article

There is another article about the Belfast, containing little extra data but with useful references. I suggest merging the references into this (the current) article TraceyR 11:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go with it - I would have done it without a second thought. GraemeLeggett 12:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Where does the designation SC5 come from? The article gives C1 but nowhere is there a mention of SC5 (except on the Short Brothers page linking here TraceyR 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I have just seen the SC.5/10 mention! So where does C1 come from :-) ?TraceyR 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SC.5 was the company designation used by Short Brothers for the Belfast. C1 means nothing on its own, but the aircraft was designated Belfast C Mk 1 in RAF service. --Scott Wilson 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.1 means Transport (from "Cargo?") Mark 1, if some had been subsequently built as tankers they would have been K.2. see British military aircraft designation systems GraemeLeggett 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft was originally to be based around the wings and some other components of the Bristol Britannia and was known (not surprisingly) as the Britannic - see here (1959); Britannics On Order - I assume that 'Belfast' was the chosen RAF name and that for some reason the 'Britannic' civil name fell by the wayside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.133 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advert for the Rolls-Royce Tyne in a 1959 issue of Flight here [1] that uses the Shorts SC.5 Britannic name for what is obviously the Belfast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

0ne or two Belfasts in Australia?

The list of Belfasts is vague with respect to the fate of G-BEPS Theseus, indicating that it was at some time being restored for eventual service with Heavylift Cargo Airlines (HCA) in Australia. I was unable to nail this down last night. Some sources (including a rather sad photo) suggested that it was at Southend Airport, Essex, being cannibalised for spares, whereas others (inculding a magazine article) indicated that it was being restored for service with HCA. The airline's website didn't indicate that this was happening/has happened, but it may be in there somewhere. Can anyone shed light on this and bring the article up to date? Many thanks TraceyR 11:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only Hector is in Australia. According to all the enthusiast sources Theseus is being restored at Southend airport for service with HCA in Australia. Reported on a mailing list on 13 October 2006 "G-BEPS Belfast, now has all four engines installed and props on engines Nos.1, 2 & 4.", 27 October 06 "Engine runs on port outer engine". As of today it is still at Southend but restoration is in progress (slowly). MilborneOne 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MilborneOne, that's good to know! TraceyR 18:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Belfast at Southend Airport is clearly visible on Google Earth at the northern end of (the disused) runway 15. Three engines have propellers are fitted, so it would appear that not much has changed over the past 12 months. --TraceyR (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast in Cleveland (Ohio that is)

Back in the mid-1990s came across one of these sitting in air cargo area at Hopkins IAP in Cleveland. That airport was rather strange in that, at that time at least, the FedEx and USPS offices were located in the center of the field and you had use a little access road on the field iteslf to access them. You even crossed an active taxiway (don't worry there were automated gates that prevented civiilan drivers from making a wrong turn onto the taxiway itself). Anyway, was able to get a close look at this very impressive aircraft - it was huge compared to the C-130s that were more familiar at the time. Civilian paint scheme was nice too. Someone should add the C-133 and C-124 to the comparable aircraft section - they were huge too, but perhaps not as attractive as the Belfast (well, Old Shakey was definitely more homely for sure). Jmdeur (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chieftain tank

Although the claim that the Belfast could lift a Chieftain tank appears on RAF websites, and even in Hansard -- it was mentioned in a Commons speech by Stanley McMaster, MP for East Belfast (where the Short Bros factory was), in March 1966 -- it does not seem to be possible. The Belfast was rated for a maximum payload of 36 tons and the Chieftain weighs 55 tons. Are there any pictures or accounts of Chieftains actually being carried by Belfasts? Former RAF crew on discussion sites say they never saw it done and you'd have to take off the turret and the tracks and probably take out the engine, so the reassembly time at the other end would more than cancel the time you saved by air-freighting.

Also, what's with 'Shorts Belfast'? Idiots may say it, but then idiots say 'would of' and 'could of'. That doesn't make it right. All Short aircraft are properly known by the manufacturer name 'Short', not 'Shorts'. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was fairly common in the 1960s for the Belfast and Skyvan and others to be called the "Shorts Belfast" or "Shorts Skyvan" as an abbreviation of Short Brothers, the company itself used the term and could be found painted on some aircraft. So it fairly common to find these aircraft refered to as "Shorts" in sources. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case of doubt here is an image of the prototype Belfast with "Shorts" painted on the tail [2] MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 1963 Flight article on the Belfast stating that a Chieftain tank could be airlifted 'in emergencies' here: [3]

Taking-off the turret and other items from a Chieftain tank and then flying it from the UK to Singapore, Malaysia, or elsewhere at 294 Kts and then having to re-assemble it at the other end is still quicker than sending it complete by sea at 20 Kts. At the time Britain still had commitments to defend newly-independent countries in the Far East and elsewhere. BTW, the article states that the Belfast load limits are peacetime civil standards and could in emergencies be 'greatly increased' over all stage lengths.

First page of the above linked Flight article by Bill Gunston here: [4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.148 (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the period relevant here the company name was "Short Brothers & Harland Ltd" which was abbreviated as "Short's".

Subsequently the abbreviation apostrophe was usually dropped. FWIW I have seen the company's advertisements in older copies of Flight International using both 'Short' and 'Shorts'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]