Planes n' Cranes 11 - Recovered Recon.jpg (1/1)

[Mitchell Holman[_8_]]

[Netko]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 13:39:16 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote
(in article >):

There are a couple of things about this aircraft which make me think it is a
Short 166. Can anyone confirm this (or mock my ignorance)?

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2015-01-03 00:01:38 +0000, Netko > said:

> On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 13:39:16 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote
> (in article >):
>
> There are a couple of things about this aircraft which make me think it is a
> Short 166. Can anyone confirm this (or mock my ignorance)?

Google is your friend, and your intuition comes through as correct.



<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Admiralty_Type_166>
<http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/short_admiralty166.php>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Netko]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 00:57:55 +0000, Savageduck wrote
(in article <2015010216575555439-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>):

>> There are a couple of things about this aircraft which make me think it is a
>> Short 166. Can anyone confirm this (or mock my ignorance)?
>
> Google is your friend, and your intuition comes through as correct.

Actually I had done a search but Short's 'folder' seaplanes all look much the
same to me. I reckoned it was a 166 for two reasons:

(1) the national marking is a Union flag rather than a roundel, making it, I
thought, one of the earlier models;*and

(2) the fragment of the serial showing in the photo which Mitchell posted
looks like it could include a '6' followed by a '4' and No 164 was a 166.

However, none of that is conclusive, hence my question.

As a footnote, I was surprised to see that some UK aircraft apparently used
the flag as the national marking as late as 1916; I thought that had changed
by late 1914/early 1915.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Netko > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 00:57:55 +0000, Savageduck wrote
> (in article <2015010216575555439-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>):
>
>>> There are a couple of things about this aircraft which make me think
>>> it is a Short 166. Can anyone confirm this (or mock my ignorance)?
>>
>> Google is your friend, and your intuition comes through as correct.
>
> Actually I had done a search but Short's 'folder' seaplanes all look
> much the same to me. I reckoned it was a 166 for two reasons:
>
> (1) the national marking is a Union flag rather than a roundel, making
> it, I thought, one of the earlier models;*and
>
> (2) the fragment of the serial showing in the photo which Mitchell
> posted looks like it could include a '6' followed by a '4' and No 164
> was a 166.
>
> However, none of that is conclusive, hence my question.
>
> As a footnote, I was surprised to see that some UK aircraft apparently
> used the flag as the national marking as late as 1916; I thought that
> had changed by late 1914/early 1915.

Might it depend on whether or not it was RFC or RNAS, or whether or not it
was operating at sea as opposed to from land bases? Or the UK v. the
continent?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Netko]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:40:34 +0000, Andrew Chaplin wrote
(in article >):

>> As a footnote, I was surprised to see that some UK aircraft apparently
>> used the flag as the national marking as late as 1916; I thought that
>> had changed by late 1914/early 1915.
>
> Might it depend on whether or not it was RFC or RNAS, or whether or not it
> was operating at sea as opposed to from land bases? Or the UK v. the
> continent?

I can't see a pattern yet but it appears to have been RNAS only although not
consistently. Sometimes at least, aircraft with the flag appear to have
carried red and white roundels on their wings.