Talk:Short C-23 Sherpa

message: Jeff, the SC.7 part was left over from the Short 330 article. You were right, it shouldn't be there.
On the C-23B/C. the Army purchased used 360s, which didn't have a rear ramp, and had a single tail. Shorts then replaced the tails with ones like the 330, with the ramp and twin tails. I'll try to find a source on that. I'm kinda waiting on a good pic of a civilian 330 before splitting of the C-23s from that page. Given the C-23's heavy use by the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we can fill out a good article based on them. Thanks as always for the help! - BillCJ 05:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SC.7

message: I cleaned up the Development content, I think.  I rewrote the text section.  See if that's OK, Bill, when you get a chance. -Fnlayson 16:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Looks like the primary units for the Short aircraft is Imperial.  Only Imp units are listed on the Short 360 page and it says it comes from company data in 1985.  I'm going that anyway. I'll add metric conversions to what we have listed.  ;) -Fnlayson 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, thanks for working out the conversions on the C-23B/C. My printed source only had Imp units. The C-23B/C are actually shorter than the 360 (which I hadn't realized), but are about the same length as the C-23A and 330. THe wings ae the same as the 360 tho, and the engines are too. I've got some data on the conversions of the 360s to C-23B+(C)s, and I'll try to scan it in in the next few days. Thanks for your work on the page, esp getting the pics. I think those are the best ones on the Commons page too. - BillCJ 03:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sure.  According the article text the B+/C are 360s with the aft portion with loading ramp and twin tail from the Sherpa. -Fnlayson 03:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, plus there was a fuselage plug in front of the wing that was taken out. I assume this is a plug added to the 330 airframe design to make it a 360, plus the diffrent tale. So in essencs they de-360ed it, but left the same wing and engines, which is essentially what the B were from new builds. THat means the B/C can carry more weight than the A with the same basic fuselage. (If my amature engineering is right!) - BillCJ 04:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yep, the B/Cs have a higher gross weight.  Strange though, the -65 engines have slightly lower power ratings.  -Fnlayson 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: THe A is listed as 1,198 shp, the B/C as 1,424 shp. I think you read something wrong, which I do all the time! - BillCJ 04:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Naw those look right. It's the britishaircraft.co.uk Short pages:  330 page, 1,198 hp, 360 page, 1,156 hp -Fnlayson 04:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs 

message: * Bill, do you know if the Short 360-based B+ models got renamed C models or did the early ones stay B+?  I thought one of your references might cover that.  Thanks.  -Fnlayson 13:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-23 models 

message: I'm going to copy this article over the C-23 redirect article.  It's ready enough, imo. -Fnlayson 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going live 

message: It's been my understanding that the A and B models were based on the Short 330UT and the B+ and C models were based on the Short 360 with the 330UT aft end.  But the DoD's Model Designation document on page 22  states larger wings the B and C models, indicating they were 360 based.  I'll see what I can find.  Any help would be great. -Fnlayson 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the C-23B was a new-build 330UT (short fuselage and twin tail/ramp) that used the wings and engins of the 360. The B+ and C were conversions of used airline 360s, with the fuselage shortended by removing the 360's froward fuselage plug), and the single tail replaced with the twin tail/loading ramp. Thus (if I'm correct), the C-23B is really a hybrid of both the 333 and 360, while the B+ and C are 360s converted to basically B standard. I know we discussed this somewhere before, where I had some links for all this, but I can't find where now. - BillCJ 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Found some of the discussions on my C-23 sandbox talk page, and have copied them above. - BillCJ 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Right, I looked over our old talk.  The DoD report could very well be off.  The Frawley military directory says the B+ models were based on 360s and Bs were 330 based with the cabin windows. -Fnlayson 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Thanks, I was a bit confused and doubting what we had on the variants. -Fnlayson 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  B models based on 330 or 360? 

message: This article talks about use in Iraq and some background on the FCA/JCA replacement program.  And this article mention C-23s modified for surveillance use under the name "Constant Hawks". -Fnlayson (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-23s in use in SW Asia 

message: The proper name of the company is Short Brothers & Harland Ltd., later changed to Short Brothers Plc.  The use of "Shorts" is slang.  For more information, see the certification documents for the Short aircraft.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroweanie (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be slang, but it's also WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really slang it is used by the company as a shortened form of its name in advertisments and as Bushranger said it is the common name used by most of the media to refer to the company. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Company Name

message: The entire first paragraph is difficult to understand due to grammatical issues. 65.59.92.214 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with the picture of the Skyvan. The caption is confusing. 67.199.215.79 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability