Talk:Short Seamew

Question

I don't have the reference to hand, but the Seamew wasn't designed as a backup to the Gannet, it was designed as a mass-produceable, rugged and simple to maintain aircraft that could be quickly produced in the event of a war and suitable for operations from the small carriers like Ocean or Theseus. Emoscopes 03:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked this out, the Gannet and Seamew are to entirely different specifications, with the Gannet flying before the contract had even been awarded for the Seamew. I have accordingly rewritten the article in light of the reference. Emoscopes 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It was effectively designed to replace the Swordfish in the convoy escort anti-submarine role, which had proved useful long after its intended successors, the Albacore and the Barracuda. It was indeed intended to be flown from small escort carriers, as the Swordfish had been - see here: [1]

The Seamew was required to be operated off small carriers in any weather out in the North Atlantic where high performance was unlikely to be required against fighter opposition and where being able to 'stooge around' over a detected enemy submarine for some considerable time was thought desirable. This was before nuclear submarines, at a time when diesel-electric ones were slow underwater and had eventually to come up for air.

As stated above, the Seamew was intended to be quick and cheap to produce in large numbers should Britain be subjected to submarine blockade like it had been by U-boats during the previous war. Although antiquated at the time, the Swordfish had been found almost ideal for this purpose, and the Seamew was basically a more modern equivalent. Low-and-slow with a decent endurance and able to use a small-ish deck in gale-force winds was the general idea. If you look at what the Swordfish was being used for by the FAA and RAF in 1944-45, you'll get the raison 'd'etre for the Seamew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal reminiscences

Recently removed, and "stowed" here temporarily to preserve the note: "The fourth Seamew prototype (XE175) was flown by Runciman for a series of sales tours in 1956 to Italy (March), Yugoslavia (April) and West Germany (May). It was this same aircraft in which Runciman was killed when it crashed during the Sydenham (Belfast) Air Display on 9 June 1956. Rumours that the crash had been caused by a material failure were current at the time but the accident investigation board did not confirm them.{{#tag:ref| "My father was in contact with Shorts during the morning prior to the crash that afternoon. I remember something being mentioned about fixing one of the control surfaces. I think it was an aileron.", recollected Phil Runciman. John T. Davis, an Irish filmmaker, included film of the crash in his own film, The Uncle Jack (1996). "John was in my sister's class at school and he too was deeply affected by the event. The shots in this film appear consistent with a problem with the controls." As a young lad I witnessed this accident. The aircraft made a series of loops over the runway at very low altitude. Each loop, three in all (as I recall), became progressively lower and slower until at the top of the third loop the aircraft appeared to snap downwards and plummet into the runway with no apparent attempt to recover. Immediately following the crash there was speculation that the violent "snap" may have made the pilot "black out" or that his neck may have been broken. Now looking back, after a career in aviation, it looks to me like the aircraft simply stalled from a progressive loss of energy."

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Short Seamew/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.

Great info on the aircraft. Just a little tweaking and a peer review and it could be elevated! However, I assessed it as of "low" importance as it seems not to have been that influential. Correct me if I am wrong. --MoRsE 11:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)