Talk:Seaplane Experimental Station

Categories

The category "defunct aircraft manuufacturers" etc is incorrect, since it was a design unit which didn't actually manufacture aircraft. Are there any objections to this category's removal? TraceyR 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

agree - no objection. MilborneOne 12:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll check a bit further - there was a hint somewhere that some aircraft were indeed produced, I think in one of the F3 or F5 articles. Would that make the SES a bona fide manufacturer? TraceyR 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The British Aircraft Directory here has "Felixstowe" as the manufacturer of the F.2c, whereas the F.2a was manufactured elsewhere (100 by S.E.Saunders Ltd., 25 by Aircraft Manufacturing Co Ltd (?) and 48 by May, Harden & May). So maybe the category can stand after all. TraceyR 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Porte and the Felixstowe flying boats it seems that the initial Curtiss aircraft were modifed in-house by the establishment. All the later designs were built elsewhere. So probably the category should stay - just! Ephebi 12:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

According to an article in Flight, 23 Dec. 1955 ("The Felixstowe Flying-Boats" by J.M.Bruce, which I recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it, along with further contributions arising from it, "A Postscript by an ex-pilot" and "Further comment" by J.M.Bruce), "all prototypes were built at the Seaplane Experimental Station, Felixstowe. Production was undertaken by ... contractors". I suppose that this makes the unit a 'manufacturer', but not in the commonly accepted sense of 'making something for the use of and/or sale to others'. BTW the "ex-pilot" referred to above was at the time of writing his postscript Professor of Economics at Cambridge. --TraceyR (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In aviation terms it was a manufacturer in the same class as the Royal Aircraft Factory who only built prototypes with the main production contracted out to others. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MAEE

Just tried to edit to make it clear that the MAEE was not the same as the Seaplane Experimental Station other than being at the same location. As the MAEE had a life before Felixstowe at the Isle of Grain then to Helensburgh and return to Felixstowe the MAEE should be changed from a redirect to here and created an article in its own right. Leave this article to cover the SES and the RNAS Felixstowe before it. Any comment on my suggestion? MilborneOne (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment now a separate article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Erskine Childers

I have challenged the addition of Robert Erskine Childers as a "see also" link as it appears to have no relevance to the SES. It really needs to have consensus here or it will be removed again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If we have T. E. Lawrence at RAF Calshot [1] why can we not have R. E. Childers at Felixstowe and my edit is backed up by a string of cites! I see double standards and edits made where the real motivation is not clear. I also note any information in the external links that might support Childers' inclusion have also been removed. What is going on here? 80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Childers was just another unexceptional airman at Felixstowe who happened also to have written a popular novel, while Lawrence of Arabia is not only a household word but, while seconded from Calshot, also helped develop "the fastest craft of their size in the world". But yes, I have trimmed some of the irrelevancies from the Calshot article. On trimming yours here, there was nothing left. Verifying a bare fact from reliable sources (RS) is not enough, you need to explain why it is significant and then cite RS which verify that significance in a pretty obvious way, such as "XXX was important because..." or whatever. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Will have another, closer look - something about Zeppelins comes to mind.80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

My summary below for reference:

• Robert Erskine Childers - author of Riddle of the Sands, noted for his navigational skills and knowledge of the Frisian coast. Winston Churchill was instrumental in Childer's recall and following an urgent request from the Admiralty, he reported to RNAS Felixstowe 18 August 1914 as an officer in the Royal Naval Reserve, in practice attached to the RNAS; Childers flew as an observer, returning as an RAF intelligence officer at the base from April 1918.

A closer look at Childers' flying history from 1914 and intelligence work from April 1918 may yield some results. Whether Childers' was a household name I couldn't say either way at this point in time, but I dare say there is someone out there who can advise. Riddle of the Sands was a very popular book. The Spider Web system of patrolling might be relevant.80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Further reading: [2].

Loomis

Regrettably, see here for any outcome to date [3]. The photos have no titles so they could be more generically associated with the base - that is about as positive as I can be.

Loomis himself - he is evidence of US service personnel at the base and in theory he should have had clearance to use a camera from someone?80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Old annotated links for reference

• Photographs taken at Felixstowe and Lowerstoft (sic) air stations 1914–1918 on YouTube, including the athletics meeting 13 August 1918.
• Our Naval Power (Reel 4) Film of Curtiss and Felixstowe flying boats at Felixstowe, an aerial view of the base and a convoy at sea, 1917–1918.
• Sons of Our Empire: Film of the Royal Naval Air Service at Felixstowe taken after the Battle of Jutland, including John Cyril Porte studying a map with some other officers, Curtiss H-2 and prototype Felixstowe F.1 (No. 3580) fitted with Anzani engines, Flight Commander Porte and Commodore of Harwich George C. Cayley RN returning from a flight in a Felixstowe F.1; Porte, Cayley and Commander Hubert Lynes RN together in front of a Short Type 184 seaplane, 1916.
• Curtiss Model H on YouTube Film of flying boats at RNAS Felixstowe, including an Anzani engined Curtiss H-4 taxiing, Felixstowe F.2A moved down a slipway on its beaching trolley and H-12 Large Americas being launched, one loaded with bombs, c.1917.
• Seaplanes Film of Short and Fairey seaplanes including the Short 310 and Fairey N.9; scenes of Felixstowe flying boats at Felixstowe, 1918.
• Felixstowe Sports Film of an athletics meeting for RAF and Royal Navy personnel at the Seaplane Experimental Station, 13 August 1918, including Charles Rumney Samson before the formation of No. 4 Group RAF at Felixstowe.
• American flying officer Lt. Wendell Phillipo Loomis Documents and photographs relating to Felixstowe.
• Seaplanes Film of Short and Fairey seaplanes; scenes of Felixstowe flying boats at Felixstowe, 12 November 1918.
• Felixstowe, Suffolk: Pioneering Sea Plane Base Audio recording of George Edward Brice who recalls naval aviator Charles Rumney Samson testing a seaplane during World War One.

At 7:58 of the '...air stations 1914–1918' slide show, two to the left of Samson is a figure with beard in leather boots who seems to resemble George V, likewise sitting to the right of Samson in the film at 04:13 onwards, but in Naval uniform smoking a cigarette? The clown figure in hat and tails might be Porte? Difficult to identify in low resolution.Rstory (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Seaplane Lighter

The Flight citation and others in no particular order: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

The origin of the design was Porte at SES.

Between Sep 1916 and Jan 1917 design work began following a visit from Admiralty representatives to Felixstowe. Flight is not explicit in stating where the design work took place, the inference seems to be Felixstowe, unless it took place elsewhere within the Admiralty - an order was placed in Feb 1917 with Thorneycroft.

It seems further design and development work was carried out at Thorneycroft works in Chiswick between January and June 1917.

Towing trials were carried out on the Solent during July 1917. Other design and development work (tank tests) seem to have been carried out at Haslar in the Admiralty Experiment Works under Robert Edmund Froude. Brown puts Froude's concave flare before the order to Thorneycroft.

Trust the above is some assistance. Is it safe to describe the lighter as an SES design in comparison to the Felixstowe aircraft?80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It all seems pretty vague really. Perhaps it would be best to research and put together an article on it or at least a section in this article, rather than just put in a list with no link or explanation. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The Wing/Sports

Hi there, can we establish a consensus re the recent image of the Sports programme advertising The Wing and prizes presented by Wing Commander Porte, including caption? My approach is to see the unit as a whole including it's culture as part of its military capacity. Am I right or wrong and is the addition proportionate?

We know Porte is probably the most celebrated of the station commanders and he was also a 'celebrity' or 'popular' figure. Some might say 'notorious'; the Sports presentation falls three days after Porte's indictment, 25 July 1917.

The image conveniently illustrates two elements of the station culture - The Wing and sports, three if we include Porte as well.Rstory (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this cover photo of a programme from a station sports day adds to the article, as it isn't even mentioned in the article text. As I noted in my edit summary, the inclusion of this is at very best just trivia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scrapbook of anything that might have the station name on it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies here. What is next, station officers' mess menus? Lists of daily defaulters? New Year's ball invitations? None are relevant. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've explained to an extent why it adds to the article, are you sure your focus is not weighed too heavily on the military aspect of the base? We can see the article is 'bear bones' at present and my last edit was a effectively another 'rib' in the only space available.

I can see no reason why the inclusion of one item should open the flood gates to a whole pile of ephemera. Why, for example did Felixstowe Museum advise of its inclusion into the article [9] it came from? To the best of my knowledge The Wing was a significant aspect of the station culture - copies are available at the Fleet Air Arm Museum as I recall, and the sports day was significant enough to warrant the expense of a film devoted to it.

All this during Porte (Officer Commanding) and Risk's (Wing Commander) leadership; as a reader I want to know more of what happened here and what this place was like?Rstory (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well let's see if any other editors following this page agree with you. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In the last week no other editors have come forward to support including this. I would suggest, as I did above, that including this image only makes sense in an encyclopedia article if there is some written text added to put it all into some sort of context, otherwise it is just a scrapbook item. If you think that everyday life on the station is worth detailing, then we need to indicate how many sports days were held and when, what events were included, who won which prizes, etc. Were there other similar events, dances balls, mess dinners, receptions, parades? We would need refs that describe all of this of course, certainly more than just one out-of-context scan of a single program cover for one event. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps they're all on shore leave? While we are waiting, lets see what else we can winkle out of this seemingly insignificant scrap. Open to adjustment.

From left to right: C. G. Grey editor of the The Aeroplane writes specially for The Wing. An exclusive humorous drawing by illustrator Harry Rountree. RNAS orchestra and pipe band. Photographs of sports. Porte is president of the base sports committee. Judges include Flt-Com Hallam aka PIX, author of the The Spider Web [10] and Flt-Com Cooper. Starter is Sq-Com Blackburn. (might this be Norman Blackburn?).Rstory (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As noted, every military base has sports events, it is routine stuff, like lunch. I think to include this we need to show that there is something not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL about this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's possible the expense of the film and documenting the event 13 August 1918 may have been justified by the presence of George V and other dignitaries (as yet unidentified)?80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ref for that claim? - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone with the necessary expertise would have to study a high-res copy of the footage and figure it out - The Wing about that time might have a write up of the event.80.229.34.113 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Can somebody explain please what is being asked for and by whom (it is confusing are 80 and Rstory the same person?) and are they trying to add some more Porte trivia? MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Eh, what's that all about? If the relevant copy of The Wing turns up in a junk shop I'll let you know. Have a nice day.Rstory (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well it is about my inablility to work out what 80 was saying as it didnt appear to be coherent English, and my confusion in thinking that 80 and Rstory are the same person, which isnt allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the topic, none of the recent comments change anything. We exhausted the information in the scan of the two pages from The Wing and it is not so much the contents of the image, but the publication that is relevant and to the best of my knowledge, unique to the base. As Ahunt remarks the image needs supporting information put in context.Rstory (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the topic are you and IP 80 the same person ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)