Talk:Short SB.5

SB/5?

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)