Talk:Short SB.5

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.

SB/5?[edit]

Where has the forward slash come from? I've only ever seen a period used. Emoscopes ^Talk 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have before me a copy of the Shorts Quarterly Review, Autumn 1953, which uses "SB/5" throughout. There is a lack of consistency in designations across the normal sources but I feel that ultimately the manufacturers know best (unless they, too, are inconsistent!). TraceyR 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to go with that. I think, for simplicity's sake, it would be best to drop all dots, hyphens and slashes from Shorts namespaces, and put the "correct" punctuation (whichever they happen to be using on that day!) in the article body. Emoscopes ^Talk 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We always discuss moves first (unless it is blatantly wrong), usually at the aircraft project. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we have the RAF museum thesaurus giving S.B.5 and Flight [SB5 in a Short advert of 1954. The remainder of the articles are without "punctuation".GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the older discussion, I didn't think it needed to be discussed. I took the long-existing use of "SB/5" in the text as proof this was the accepted form, and simply moved the title to match it. You disagree, fine, but wht did you leave the text "uncorrected" for so long? - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were many ways of writing SB5; even Shorts was inconsistent, it seems. The definitive "Shorts Aircraft since 1900" (Barnes & James/Putnam) uses S.B.5, as does the Flight article here, one can find "SB.5" "SB 5" and "SB-5" on the web, while the Shorts advert referred to by Graeme above uses SB₅ and the Shorts house magazine at the time, in the Autumn 1953 issue, used SB/5 throughout, e.g.

Sweepback-60°: The Short SB/ 5 now commences a second series of trials in this configuration.
SB/5, the rather mundane nomenclature of Shorts highly unorthodox, adjustable wing research aircraft, has already completed its first series of tests with a wing sweep-back of 50 degrees, and is well into its second phase of development flying with a sweep-back of 60 degrees. The ultimate sweep-back of 69 degrees will, when achieved, make this the most swept aircraft in the world. The SB/5 is of vital importance to the aircraft industry, for through it will be gathered new facts concerning the behaviour and control of supersonic shapes at slow speeds.

and

Most impressive newcomer to Farnborough this year was undoubtedly the Seamew light anti- submarine aircraft. During the Show this aircraft naturally received wide attention, and so did the SB/5, which flew with a 60 degree sweep back.

Since there is no 'right' version, surely we are free to choose one which is consistent with other Shorts designations on WP. I must admit a preference for "SB/5" since this was used by the Shorts magazine but even that's not really definitive. --TraceyR (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably get accused of being picky here - but the 5 in the advert in Flight isn't subscript but just dropped relative to the other letters (its the same height as the "SB"). GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can be pickier than that: it is sub-scripted (i.e. lower) but the same size - I just didn't bother to adjust the character size in my post! --TraceyR (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correst designation is SB.5 because it is an SBAC designation and nothing to do with Shorts!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Short SB.5. 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/20100317143241/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/short-brothers-sb5-wg768.cfm to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/short-brothers-sb5-wg768.cfm

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) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]