Talk:Short S.45

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 not met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Military history: Aviation

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Types and c/ns

Nice article. I've thought before, when writing about these early Short aircraft that it would be worth making the point (early, maybe in a footnote) that these S numbers are c/ns, identifying particular machines and not types. It is confusing, especially since Shorts later used another series of S. numbers as true type numbers, from the Cockle onwards. The header makes the point, implicitly, but maybe an explicit statement would help. I think that if I've got this right footnote 4 is confusing, as it talks about types S.36 and S.45 where it should say aircraft.

These early aircraft with their hazy and sometimes multiple designations and continual evolution are always an interesting challenge!TSRL (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; in fact, the confusion runs even deeper. Depending on which schema you adopt, either the S.36 type is represented by a single aircraft (S.36) and the S.45 type by four aircraft (S.45 and S.48–S.50), or the S.36 type is represented by five aircraft (S.36, S.45, and S.48–S.50) and there is no "S.45 type". We face similar situations every time we document types where only a single example was ever built. In the case of some Shorts aircraft, the Admiralty designations (which also, after all, referred to a specific serial number) muddies the water further; and we have a trace of this confusion in this particular article where "T.5" was of course one specific aircraft, but is elsewhere (like in Jane's Encyclopedia) used as a type descriptor. Madness. FWIW, describing these particular aircraft as types has a long history; the reference in Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I is in fact a facsimile reproduction from a contemporary Jane's All the World's Aircraft (perhaps the 1918 edition?) Another way of thinking of this is in terms of ship classes, which is probably how the Admiralty was thinking :) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]