Talk:Short Sunderland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comments in this "Talk"

We have 5 different versions of the Sunderland, all with different specifications. How would this fit into the table? Sennheiser! 14:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

MOVING CONTENT HERE BRIEFLY

The head of the design team was Arthur Gouge, later Sir Arthur Gouge. The design he produced, the Short "S.23", was a clean and elegant aircraft, with a wingspan of 35 m (114 ft), a length of 27 m (88 ft), an empty weight of 10.9 tonnes (24,000 pounds), and a loaded weight of 18.4 tonnes (40,500 pounds).

The S.23 was powered by four Bristol Pegasus engines, each providing 686 kW (920 HP). Cruise speed was 265 km/h (165 mph), and maximum speed was 320 km/h(200 mph). The S.23 featured a new hull design and a new flap scheme to reduce landing speed and run. The big flying boat had two decks: an upper deck for the flight crew and mail, and a lower deck with luxury passenger accommodations.

The first S.23, named "Canopus", flew on 4 July 1936. The S.23s were the first of a series of Shorts flying boats for commercial service, collectively known as the "Empire" boats. A total of 41 S.23s were built, all with names beginning with the letter "C", and so they were referred to as the "C-class" boats.

While the S.23 was a great step forward for Short Brothers, it was still not quite the equal of the big Sikorsky and Boeing Clippers that were opening up worldwide commercial routes. The S.23 was relatively overweight and restricted in range and payload. Nonetheless, it performed reliable service in connecting the United Kingdom with the distant regions of the British Empire: South Africa, India, Singapore, Australia.

The limited range of the C-class boats meant that they could not operate on the high-profile transatlantic route, which was an embarrassment. In 1937, the second and third C-class boats, the Caledonia and Cambria, were stripped down and given additional fuel tanks to make the transatlantic run, though their payload was minimal.

The British were so desperate to stay in the race for transatlantic commercial flight that they then came up with an extraordinary scheme, in which a beefed-up variant of the S.23 carried a smaller four-engine floatplane, the "S.20". A single example, with the carrier aircraft named Maia and the piggyback S.20 named Mercury, with flight tests in 1937 leading to a mid-air launch of Mercury in 1938.

The Maia-Mercury scheme amounted to little more than a stopgap and a publicity stunt while Short Brothers worked on a better solution. In 1938, they delivered the first of an improved C-class boat, the "S.30", with Pegasus 22 engines providing 753 kW (1,010 HP) each.

Eight S.30s were built, with four configured for mid-flight refueling from Handley-Page Harrow cargo aircraft. Limited transatlantic operations were conducted in coordination with Harrow tankers operating out of Ireland and Newfoundland, until World War II intervened and put a stop to the flights. Another C-class variant, the "S.33", never got into production.

However, three of the bigger and better "S.26" G-class boats were built, with the first, the Golden Hind, delivered in September 1939. The S.26 boats were powered by four Bristol Hercules engines, each providing 1,030 kW (1,380 HP). The G-class boats had a loaded weight of 34 tonnes (75,000 pounds), a range of more than 4,800 km (3,000 miles), and were intended for transatlantic mail shipment.

During World War II, the Empire boats were pressed into military service. Four S.30s were used for ocean patrol, fitted with twin Boulton-Paul turrets, each with four 7.7 mm (0.303 caliber) machine guns and racks for external stores. The three S.26 G-class boats were fitted with three Boulton-Paul quad turrets. Only one of these seven, an S.26, survived military service. It returned to commercial operation until scrapped in 1954.

The Empire boats would be little more than a footnote in aviation history except for the fact that this family of aircraft included a military type, the "S.25" or "Sunderland", which would become one of the most famous flying boats ever built.

Enough Ameri-fascism already. Maia-Mercury made the first commercial transatlantic flight with payload (freight and mail) in 1938. The Pan Am Boeing 314 Clippers set up the first regular mail service on 20 May 1939 and the first passenger service on 28 June, but they had to refuel in Newfoundland and at Shannon. Flights were suspended after a matter of weeks when war broke out in September, with a tiny number of wealthy passengers flown. The Pan Am service is remembered mainly because it figured in Hitchcock's 1940 film Foreign Correspondent. The A-model Clipper of 1941, remembered only because it was used by BOAC to carry Churchill, enabled the Shannon stop to be skipped, but could still only just make Newfoundland. The Short S.26 G-Class, first flown in June 1939, would have set up an Imperial Airways service in competition with Pan Am, but for the war.

The first true transatlantic airmail service was inaugurated on 22 July 1943 by Trans-Canada Air Lines using an Avro Lancaster which flew direct from Dorval (Montreal) to Prestwick in Scotland, and back. This mail service -- intended to enable RAF trainees in Canada, and RCAF aircrew in England, to communicate better with their families -- cut the mail delivery time from weeks to days and continued throughout the war. The Lancasters took typically 12 hours eastbound and 14 hours westbound and landed with up to a third of the fuel in reserve. Canadian-built Lancaster bombers were delivered nonstop to England by the same route. The Lancaster was the first true transatlantic aircraft. From 1944, Canadian-built Mosquitos were delivered to Prestwick nonstop from Newfoundland in 6 hours, later 5.5 hours. US B-17s and B-24s could not fly the Atlantic and had to be delivered 'north-about' in summer, stopping in Newfoundland, Greenland and Iceland, which took days, and 'south-about' in winter, via Latin America and West Africa, which took weeks. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

By September 1944 BOAC had already made 1,000 transatlantic crossings, and by July 1946 had made more than 2,000: [1]

In the 1930s air mail was not seen as so important on the Atlantic routes as there was already a fast RMS steamship service that could get a letter to and from Canada or the US in around four days. This contrasted with other routes such as to Africa, India, etc., which might take several weeks to deliver a letter by steamer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Radar

You might try RV Jones "Most Secret War" for general info on homing in on radar transmitters. As metox was passive (a listener) the German establishment would not have believed such a story, but crews (air and sea) are notoriously superstitious. The UK bomber crews believed their H2S sets "deflected" the German radar aimed searchlights, for instance, and continued to operate them long after it was proven that German nightfighters were homing in on the emissions and a general order was issued to only operate H2S over the target.

Didn't know about nightfihters homing in on H2S, but have read about them homing in on RAF bombers' "Monica" (tail-warning device) emissions. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

German night fighters had two homers: Naxos, which homed on H2S, and Flensburg, which homed on Monica. The superstition referred to above was nothing to do with H2S, it was to do with IFF. Some bomber crews insisted on using IFF over enemy territory, despite standing orders, in the belief that it would interfere with German radar. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Smooth liar

I'm not comfortable with the paragraph in which a British prisoner, having hood-winked the Germans, is referred to as a "smooth liar". This infers that the prisoner was an adept habitual liar! Couldn't this section be re-worded to present the prisoner in a better light for potentially saving many lives? How about: "There is a story that a British prisoner, having concocted some believable lies, confused them (the Germans) into thinking that the aircrart were homing in on the Cross of Biscay"? --Red Sunset 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Smooth liar 2

I suppose one could argue that such a description does not fit in with the tone of a factual encyclopædia! I also find the sentence slightly confusing. How about:

"There is a story that a British prisoner confused the Germans by claiming that the aircraft were homing in on the signals emanating from their own Metox system."

It sounds less racy, but it is more objective. One could argue that, since it is probably unverifiable, it should be omitted altogether, unless someone can come up with a source reference. TraceyR 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year TraceyR and thanks for your response. I'm inclined to agree with you that maybe the unsubstantiated reference should be deleted, however, I do like your version better than my own suggestion. I don't want to steal your work so I'll let you make the changes if you wish to do so. By the way, I note your interest in Short Bros generally! --Red Sunset 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks and best wishes to you too. I have done as you suggested and amended the Sunderland article. Yes Shorts was my entree into this Wiki world. I realised nthat I had some information on a few Shorts aircraft which were missing and was soon burning the midnight oil, learning how to create and edit articles! I can remember, as a young lad, standing directly below a Sperrin, looking up into the open bomb-bay as my father explained that it was designed for some secret type of bomb ... ! Thanks to researching for the Sperrin article I discovered that he had flown the 2nd Prototype Sperrin on its first flight! TraceyR 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First-class Royal Mail post

Can anyone help in respect of the sentence which starts:

"In 1934, the British Postmaster General declared that all first-class Royal Mail sent overseas was to travel by air,...."

To my knowledge, a two-class postal service didn't come into effect in Britain until 1968, so the mention of first-class mail seems inappropriate in this instance. Maybe the inference of the statement should be that urgent overseas mail was to be given the opportunity of travelling by air, at an additional cost, as opposed to by sea. I'm on un-sure ground here, so maybe someone can put me straight on this point, or perhaps re-word the article if it is indeed incorrect.--Red Sunset 18:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here: After the introduction of the Empire Airmail Scheme, which wished that all the overseas First Class mail could be carried by aviation. The Post Office decided to arrange another mail contract with fewer payments to P&O due to smaller amount of mail to be carried by P&O in the future.47 TraceyR 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged TraceyR, that appears to confirm the "first-class" status. Now I'm happy!--Red Sunset 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Seaford first flight

The article gives the date of the first flight of the Seaford as "April 45" (but no reference).

WW2 aircraft site gives 30 August 1944.

Any comments?TraceyR 11:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The site [2] contains the entry for 1944: "30 sierpnia - oblot prototypu brytyjskiej czterosilnikowej łodzi latającej Short "Seaford" (nr ewid. MZ269)."

I've checked that the Czech for August is "srpen" so I think that is confirmation of the first flight date! I'm checking with a language site that it says what I think it says TraceyR 11:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

confirmation: 30 August 1944 - test flight of the prototype British 4-engine flying-boat Short Seaford (nr. MZ269). Join wikipedia to learn Polish! TraceyR 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Survivors

Does anyone have any information on surviving Short Sunderlands around the world? Might be an interesting addition to the article. Some time ago I found this article in a Norwegian newspaper [3] about the discovery of a Sunderland in the Trondheimsfjord, just outside Trondheim in Norway. Although in Norwegian there are some quite interesting (although rather unclear) photos in the article. According to the divers who found the wreck, the plane is relatively complete and in good condition. Apparently the plane was towed out into the fjord and sunk on 7. November 1945, after having caught fire during dismantling at the harbour. Grumpy444grumpy 11:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked here? Sunderlands page

There seem to be a few preserved (one referred to a last flight in 1996!) TraceyR 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Great pictures! It certainly confirms that the Trondheim wreck indeed is a Sunderland (there is an element of doubt in the newspaper article). There are loads of wrecks like that lying around the coast of Norway, though. Apparently they still belong to the British crown, whereas German wrecks are the property of the Norwegian state. So, if you've got the money and the right permissions..... Grumpy444grumpy 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So that's about, what, six survivors? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment in this page, below. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For the details about diving on the Short Sunderland in Trondheimsfjorden, see [4] which also includes some history. The position is, however, wrong. [5] is probably the right location, found at a depth of 68 meters. The position is then 63° 27' 8" N, 10° 22' 23" E and the plane was sunk with no casualties due to an earlier fire. Joakimsk (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2nd, 1943 Story

This story does not seem to be confirmed from German side. The book "bloody biscay" by Criss Goss does not list any losses by V./KG 40 on that date, and that unit was the only one to fly the Ju 88C in the fighter role over the Biscay at the time. Two days later the unit lost a Ju 88 and its crew in a landing accident and a week earlier one was shot down by a Beaufighter, but no losses were suffered on this day. V./KG 40 claimed two Sunderlands on that day, one being identified as another aircraft and the second unconfirmed. This one is maybe the Sunderland that claimed six Ju 88s. Air gunners of all nations were notorious in overclaiming, which is hardly suprising as an air gunner normally cannot follow his victim down or confirm its impact as a single fighter pilot can. So it seems nobody shot down anything that day, but the story "aussies got Leslie Howards killers" certainly was a morale booster at the time.JCRitter 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Now that considerable and excellent work has been done by Linmhall and others to add references and citations to the article, I think that the {{Refimprove}} can be removed. Any objections? --TraceyR (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to disagree TraceyR, despite these welcome additions there are numerous facts and figures throughout the article where no references have been cited, either inline or at the end of paragraphs. Of particular note are the following entirely unreferenced sections:

• Equipment and on-water management
• Access and servicing
• Beaching
• Damage control
• Prototype
• Sunderland Marks I, II, IV and V
• Transport variants-Hythe and Sandringham

The first four of these (which collectively cover the routine day-to-day operating procedures of the type and constitute a large proportion of the article) are all very interesting, but without citing references these sections could be considered as OR. This is a comprehensive article that might make GA if it was more thoroughly referenced. Keep up the good work! --Red Sunset 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tracey, I just did a cursory "sweep" and found numerous instances of spelling and format errors that have been introduced recently. I have to agree with Rob's assessment above and question some of the new changes: "on-water management"?! I have never come across that term. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

I must agree with much of the above, in that there are larges swathes of (as yet) unreferenced material, which justify the use of the tag (which I admit I misread to mean "there are no citations"!). The problem is that, as far as I know, much of this material cannot be found anywhere else and as such needs to be preserved somewhere. Wikipedia may not be the primary place for it: would it be acceptable if it were to be published elsewhere on the web (e.g. on a blog site) and the respective sections of the article cross-referenced to it there? I must admit that I find the Wikipedia definition of OR to be a little restrictive in such contexts or possibly not 100% relevant! --TraceyR (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

TraceyR, I agree it would be a pity to lose this material since it gives an insight into the everyday problems encountered while operating the aircraft, but your comments suggest that it is OR, and as you are aware the wiki has strong feelings on the matter. Naturally, it would be ideal if you could find reliable sources to back it all up, but ongoing events on the F-4 Phantom FARC have put the "mockers" on expecting web-based sources to be acceptable – even Baugher and Goebel – so I wouldn't like to put money on a blog site hacking it! Other, more experienced editors may have better suggestions for sorting it all out without compromising the article, but I think that removing the operating procedures sections temporarily pending refs might be the best course of action. It could be copied to the talk page for the time being, or, and this is a bit iffy, enclose it in an invisible comment box together with an explanatory note. Just something to think about. (Additional comment) I've just read your past note on Linmhall's talk page and am in complete sympathy with you over this – it's a little bit of history that deserves to be documented somewhere.

Bill, I note you have removed non-breaking spaces as well as written units within the text which as you know are preferred WP:MoS guidelines. Personally I'm not bothered either way since it doesn't materially affect the article and nothing is carved in stone; however, if a MoS-stickler reviews the article for GA at some time, this is the type of thing that could make the difference. BTW Bill, I think neither Marskell nor SandyGeorgia will be swayed from their positions, but nice work trying! --Red Sunset 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rob, I began to notice a propensity for an editor who contributed to this aricle to use not only the non-breaking space format but in hyphenating every two word unit and in frustration, I just set my computer to replace these. I live for the day when that "nefarious" tag team shows up again (just kidding- I thought their work was essential but highly flawed as I observed multiple instances of not following logical or commonplace formatting). FWIW, I had seen much better editing and gave them very short shrift especially when they did their "after you, Gaston; no, no after you, Anton" routine. Bzuk (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

Preserved aircraft

This article would benefit from a section giving details of those aircraft still extant, and their locations. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just added the three preserved aircraft Mentioned in a recent aircraft magazine. there may be more, but it's something to start with.--IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the source information for the magazine; it can be added to the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

Hi All, I have at hand Feb'09 issue of Aeroplane, which includes a brief monography (they call it "Data Base") about the Sunderland and its civil derivatives (Sandringham, etc.). I'll update the mentioned section (and maybe others) based on this information, and add the source/citations. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it not strange that this superbly informative article is still classified as "Start"? Probably we should start voting? Classifications in Wikipedia seem to have more to do with activism than with content... F Almeida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.95.241 (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Story

I removed the following sentence from the end of the article for obvious (I think) reasons:

"I know that as a 13-year-old, I flew on a Short Sunderland from Buenos Aires to Asuncion on FAMA (Flota Aerea Mercante Argentina) in July, 1949. I went 'downstairs' to a bar for a coke."

Nojamus (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Crew

Jarret, Phillip. The Colour Encyclopedia of Incredible Aeroplanes, London, Dorling Kindersley, 2007 (ISBN 978-1856130714) gives a crew of 13. 109.153.210.20 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but which mark is it referring to? The figure that was cited in the specifications section is between 9 to 11 for the Mk III, is that wrong? Please comment, thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say. Although it does say that it was nicknamed the "Flying Porcupine" by the Germans. It also says that 749 were built and that there were a total of 28 Sunderland-equippped squadrons. How could Jarret get it so wrong? Is he wrong? 109.153.194.176 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• TBH, the total production figure was actually much higher, a total of 777 Sunderland of all marks were new built aircraft with the breakdown of figure being: 75 × Mk I, 43 × Mk II, 496 × Mk III, 8 × Mk IV, and 155 × Mk V. And I counted a total of 27 squadrons versus Jarret's 28, unless Jarret made an honest mistake by accidentally including No. 344 Squadron RAF, which was another Free French ASW unit like the sister unit No. 343 Squadron RAF, but equipped with the land-based Vickers Wellington. As for the crew complement of 13 you mentioned, unless you can provide me with the exact mark you're referring to, I'm afraid I can't do anything because the official cited figure for the Mk III as according to Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II is indeed, between 9 to 11. Hope this clear things up somewhat. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Very much so. Big thanks. Jarret mentions no Mks at all. And I would have thought Jane's was copper-bottomed here. Copper-bottomed with floats even. Adieu for now. 109.153.194.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC).

Sunderland at Pembroke Dock

Any mention of the Sunderlands at Pembroke Dock. During WWII Pembroke Dock was the largest flying boat base in the UK (maybe the world)

My Uncle Wallace Dan came over from Australia, trained on Lough Neagh (probably near Ram's Island where I now sail), then worked as a wireless operator / tail gunner out of Pembroke Dock. Sorry but no idea about squadron etc. He didn't enjoy Northern Ireland.

The factory still has a launching slip into Belfast Lough. Can't cite a reference but I have stood on it!

Sunderland T9044 and No. 95 Squadron RAF both get a mention. But a glaring omission in terms of its operational history. 109.153.210.20 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Calm down, Wikipedia is an ongoing project, somethings are still under construction and that's where you come in. You with your experience, information and knowledge is a boon for us; you can help to fix it by editing it directly or leave a note here for us to review, I'll help if nobody is ready at hand, alright? Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My, my.. experience, information and knowledge. You're too kind (to be an Administrator certainly). Images of Harry and Paul in scouser wigs flooding back already. I tried satire on my User Page once. 109.153.194.176 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Calm down! Calm down! You wouldn't happened to be from Blackburn or Blackburn with Darwen, eh eh? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

By 'eck lad. Not on your Nellie. 109.155.134.161 (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not today, you're from Blackpool now, eh eh? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't claim to be a Sandgrown'un. Geolocate has its limits, I've found. But still a long way from where we started. 109.155.134.161 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Gun count fuzzy

"... Defensive armament included a Nash & Thomson FN-13 powered turret with four .303 British Browning machine guns in the extreme tail and a manually operated .303 on either side of the fuselage, firing from ports just below and behind the wings. These were later upgraded to 0.5-inch calibre Brownings. There were two different nose turret weapons, the most common, later, being two Browning machine guns. The nose weapons were later augmented by four fixed guns, two each side, in the forward fuselage that were fired by the pilot. Much later a twin-gun turret was to be dorsal-mounted on the upper fuselage, about level with the wing trailing edge, bringing the total defensive armament up to 16 machine guns". ??? I add that up to 14. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

So do I. Don't think anyone can argue with the maths.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Though there may have been field modifications like this one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Flying Porcupine"

The Yagi-Uda_antenna#History article has a citation that attributes the nickname to the number of antenna arrays. --Rob* (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That assumes that the Germans even used that nickname - which almost impossible as the porcupine is not a familiar animal in Germany, being almost exclusively from North America, however the Germans do have hedgehogs ("igel"), not to mention that it is very unlikely that the Germans would have used such a complimentary nickname for an opponent. German aircraft recognition cards do not make such a reference, nor to any German memoirs. The name was an invention of the British propaganda mill, and predated the installation of lots of weapons or of the widespread use of yagi antennas, which aside from the four posts on the rear fuselage would not be readily visible during air combat, which was when most Germans would have seen one.NiD.29 (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The gnome is not found in England, but that doesn't stop people from using the word in relation to Swiss bankers, nor from having miniature statues in their gardens! I think the story of the Australian S.25 shooting down five Ju-88 in one go may be the basis for the flegender stachleschwein name.220.244.85.207 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, show me a German source that says that. In any case Gnome is just as much British folklore as continental so it is hardly a good analogy. Keep in mind that the Germans were very culturally insular at the time, and were very unlikely to be taking references from other cultures, unlike the English, where a common language is used in several very different cultures, with a regular degree of transference of memes (and where English contains a high proportion of both French and German words to begin with).NiD.29 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As there is doubt, perhaps a tweak of the wording to say something like the nickname has been attributed to - rather than definitely used by - the Germans. (A similar case to "whispering death" given as the nickname for a few aircraft?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A 1944 Flight article on a Coastal Command Sunderland patrol mentioning the German stachleschwein nickname here: [6] - Page 1 of article here: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.121 (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Show me a German magazine, or something in German, and you might have a point. Flight was a British magazine and was happy to repeat British propaganda, especially when it was helpful for the war effort so is hardly relevant. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

First success

I read "A Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Sunderland (of No. 10 Squadron) made the type's first unassisted kill of a U-boat on 17 July 1940." Should it be mentioned that Sunderlands had already achieved success some weeks before? On 29 June 1940 the Sunderland of Acting Flight Lieutenant William Weir Campbell, 230 Squadron RAF, had sunk (unassisted) the Italian submarine Rubino in the Mediterranean. It is possible that Campbell's Sunderland had already sunk another Italian submarine, Argonauta, the day before, though this is disputed.

--Olonia (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Short Sunderland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good information, but it is largely focusing on the military use. I would like to see a little more information on the civil use also. Famous aircraft, but not spectacular, thus a strong "mid" importance.

Last edited at 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Short Sunderland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006155823/http://www.killifish.f9.co.uk/Malta%20WWII/Index.htm to http://www.killifish.f9.co.uk/Malta%20WWII/Index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)