Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Shorts 360NG...?  
User currently offlineERAUgrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5123 times:

Could there ever or was there ever a plan to build an updated Shorts Brothers 360? I always loved seeing them in my city flying ILM-RDU. Only body i know of that was desined to create lift with the wing.



[Edited 2007-03-25 00:29:39]

[Edited 2007-03-25 00:30:53]


Desmond MacRae in ILM
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLegoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3313 posts, RR: 39
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5023 times:

Yes I loved seeing this aircraft as well! Even though the square fuselage does create alot of lift, I'm sure it also creates alot of drag, although I could be wrong. Also I'm not sure if Short's would be up to building a NG version.


Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4992 times:

It is a box with wings on it. Build a S-360NG? The only question in my mind is.........WHY?

You could say the S-360 is the S-330NG.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

Its a shipping container with wings

User currently offlineTIMEAIR From Canada, joined May 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4900 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
Its a shipping container with wings

Yes in which DeHavilland Twin Otter was shipped in!....
 Cool



You can't get there from here.
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4888 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
It is a box with wings on it. Build a S-360NG? The only question in my mind is.........WHY?

Agreed. The S360 is possibly the ugliest mass produced airliner the world has ever seen. It ranks among the top 5 anyway.

I will be most pleased when they are phased out. My least favorite Airliner.. well.. anything from the Shorts Brothers is my least favorite airliner.

saludos

Asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineImapilotaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4875 times:

In the ABQ Airport Administration Offices there is a wood model of a new version of the Shorts 360 designed only for cargo hauling. The aircraft has the same props as on the Q400. It's a sharp looking model. Im trying to remember for the life of me the company that was planning on building them, but they were located somewhere in New Mexico.

User currently offlineTIMEAIR From Canada, joined May 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4858 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 5):
The S360 is possibly the ugliest mass produced airliner the world has ever seen

It may be ugly. but very reliable and practically MTC free due no pressuriztion/bulkheads to limit it life cycle. Granted it is somewhat "abnormal" with a square fuselage,but, keep in mind, the Shorts brothers were very ingenious by developing this aircraft with the fuselage that provides 40-50% of the lift capability. SMART!



You can't get there from here.
User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Thread starter):
Only body i know of that was desined to create lift with the wing.

learn something everyday, I always wondered why it was a square shape with relatively small wings. Probably a neat idea in theory but I guess it must have a lot of other drawbacks as no-one else adopted the idea.


User currently offlineTIMEAIR From Canada, joined May 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 8):
no-one else adopted the idea.

No one wanted to re-tool their plant from a round fuselage to a square fuselage for a limited number of aircraft, as this "square" is good to a maximum of 10,000 ft, as above that you need pressurization, and you can't pressurize a square box.
Honestlly, the Shorts is a perfect aircraft for short, high frequency markets. I.E. YVR-YYJ/YCD (15min), and provides amazing views with those large windows. I have heard many people comment on how amazing it was to be able to see so much because of the oversized windows.



You can't get there from here.
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

Quoting TIMEAIR (Reply 7):
no pressuriztion/bulkheads

Yeah it is ugly, but no pressurization isn't a benefit for pax. For the plane perhaps, but it is nice to fly over most of the low-altitude weather.

Hello S360 and *hello* inconvenient flight.

The reason that the square thing never caught on is (besides being ugly as sin) even short-haul turboprops need to have pressurized cabin.

The Dash-8, the Saab 2000, the F50, the ATR series, etc.

Shorts isn't ingenious. It is decades behind in technology. It is reliable, but it is simple. It is ingenious design for what it does, but it isn't comfortable to fly in for more than 30 minutes at a time anyway.

I've flown those things frequently through the years. Being ugly is probably the best thing I have to say for them. I look forward to seeing them completely phased out.

saludos

Asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineYak97 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

New start-up airlines had the option of using the SD3-60 as a cheap way of proving services. As was stated above the Vomit Comet was ideal for short hops where ground transportation was not an option (inter island for example).

With the gradual demise of SD3-60 (36-39 seats) what options would new start-up airlines have. The SF340? Complex aircraft with expensive engines. The J41? Limited production. EMB120? Possible. A small Dash8? Heavy for passenger numbers. Something from Russia?

But as all of these aircraft are out of production what is going to happen in the future? The smallest aircraft still in production (as far as I am aware) is the ATR42 - 48 seats, which is a little on the large size. The costs of regional jets of the 35-50 seat very poor for start-up airlines.

Go down a size and look at options for the smaller commuter airlines (18 seats). J31/32 - the vast numbers parked in the desert are now probably beyond hope as regards getting them back into the air. EMB110 - limited numbers & non-pressurised. Beech 1900 - possible option but price a problem. Let410 - loads made but unpressurised (Certification issues?). DHC6 - limited numbers and only really suitable for specialist operations (ski, STOL airports etc). And again all of these aircraft are long out of production.

So which manufacturer is going to be brave enough to get back into these markets - 18 & 30 seats?

It is probably a similar situation to the late 50's where the DC3 was the aircraft of choice but people were looking to the future.


User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4692 times:

Quoting TIMEAIR (Reply 4):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
Its a shipping container with wings

Yes in which DeHavilland Twin Otter was shipped in!....

I love it. Best thing I've heard on here all week.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4681 times:

I love the 360 - nice big windows, nice high ceiling, no fuss no muss - only few on them a few times, in Australia and the Seychelles, but they're cool.

User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4485 times:

Quoting Yak97 (Reply 11):
So which manufacturer is going to be brave enough to get back into these markets - 18 & 30 seats?

How large would the market be over 25 years? What would the development costs be for a simple utilitarian aircraft?

If Shorts and the other manufacturers have left the market, might this sector not give some non-aviation manufacturing country the chance to establish a small manufacturing industry? Just a thought.


User currently offlineOlympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

Shorts is owned by Bombardier are they not? Why would they want to compete with themselves?

User currently offlineLegoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3313 posts, RR: 39
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4380 times:

Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 15):
Shorts is owned by Bombardier are they not?

Indeed they are. I believe the shorts factory in Belfast manufactures parts for the Bombardier CRJ aircraft.

I really miss these birds now that most of them have retired!I can see how people find the Shorts 330 ugly however the Shorts 360 is beautiful Big grin especially in the following liveries...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair T. Gardiner - WorldAirImages




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bruno Emmenegger




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rolf Wallner




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Giuseppe Atzeri




Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4329 times:

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 16):
can see how people find the Shorts 330 ugly

Lets just say that it would not win a beauty contest.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fergal Goodman



User currently offlineBFS2007 From Ireland, joined Feb 2007, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4301 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):

I once worked for shorts for a few months in the late 80's, was in Zweibruecken USAF base, we used the 360's for the transport of spar military aircraftparts between all the airforce bases in Europe. Unfortunately for me the cold war ended and so did my job after only 2 months.
I dont know exactly were Shorts is at the moment, they used to and maybe still have a military division, which used to develope hand held ground to air missile launchers.


User currently offlineSean377 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1225 posts, RR: 40
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

Spent an eventful evening on the flightdeck of this bird one evening during a mail run NCL-STN-NCL


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hutchings




Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man... Landing is the first!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

Well, it seems to have found a niche role up here in the Pacific NW USA...as a smokejumper aircraft. I was talking to the pilots of one, and most of their aircraft are retired Sherpas (C-23? Trying to remember the US Army designation). The Army Reserve still has a few of them, too, I followed one once doing the localizer back course approach at SLE.

When I worked at LRU in the early 1990's, Mesa Airlines had taken over regional flying for whoever was doing United Express out west, and a bunch of Shorts 360's in United Express colors were parked at LRU for desert storage. I'm not sure what happened to all those birds, but they're no longer there.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13195 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4228 times:

Bombardier have owned the air framing part of Shorts since 1989, making over the years major assemblies-usually fuselages, of their RJ's, Biz Jets, as well as Lear jets after Bombardier brought out that range of aircraft.

The missile division remained separate, now a part of the pan European MDBA group. Their principal product being the Mach 4 Starstreak range of close in air defence missiles.

Rubbishing the Shorts commuter-liners from today's context, is like rubbishing a DC-3 in the 1960's, what no pressurisation? Piston engines? What's with the taildragger configuration?

These boxy aircraft from Belfast, were the entry level of many commuter/local operations. They were simple and economic enough, for embryonic airline commuter services, that we now take for granted on pressurised props or even RJ's.
There was nothing really like them 30 years ago, if they were so bad, then Shorts fooled a lot of people, since the SD-330 and 360 sold steadily but well.

But by the late 80's, their time had passed.
Shorts wanted to move to the FJX, a low wing RJ with wing mounted turbofans, however, being in the UK, good luck getting finance for a manufacturing project. In 1989, the UK govt sold off it's remaining shares in Shorts, so Bombardier made them an offer, neatly stopping a potential competitor to their planned line of Challanger Biz Jet based CRJ's at birth.

Shorts had experience since the 1960's with the Skyvan, a rugged light transport, with mostly military sales. But some civil ones too and even a pax version-Olympic used these on local inter Agean Island services for example.

Easy to mock this odd looking range of Shorts commuter aircraft, they were in fact, pioneers in the regional airline world.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

Quoting BFS2007 (Reply 18):
I dont know exactly were Shorts is at the moment, they used to and maybe still have a military division, which used to develope hand held ground to air missile launchers.

The Hellfire missile from the Apache is a shorts product.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

Shorts were the original manufacturer of the nosegear door on the 777, is this still the case?

User currently offlineAeronut From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4172 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
Bombardier have owned the air framing part of Shorts since 1989, making over the years major assemblies-usually fuselages, of their RJ's, Biz Jets, as well as Lear jets after Bombardier brought out that range of aircraft.

The missile division remained separate, now a part of the pan European MDBA group. Their principal product being the Mach 4 Starstreak range of close in air defence missiles.

Rubbishing the Shorts commuter-liners from today's context, is like rubbishing a DC-3 in the 1960's, what no pressurisation? Piston engines? What's with the taildragger configuration?

These boxy aircraft from Belfast, were the entry level of many commuter/local operations. They were simple and economic enough, for embryonic airline commuter services, that we now take for granted on pressurised props or even RJ's.
There was nothing really like them 30 years ago, if they were so bad, then Shorts fooled a lot of people, since the SD-330 and 360 sold steadily but well.

But by the late 80's, their time had passed.
Shorts wanted to move to the FJX, a low wing RJ with wing mounted turbofans, however, being in the UK, good luck getting finance for a manufacturing project. In 1989, the UK govt sold off it's remaining shares in Shorts, so Bombardier made them an offer, neatly stopping a potential competitor to their planned line of Challanger Biz Jet based CRJ's at birth.

Shorts had experience since the 1960's with the Skyvan, a rugged light transport, with mostly military sales. But some civil ones too and even a pax version-Olympic used these on local inter Agean Island services for example.

Easy to mock this odd looking range of Shorts commuter aircraft, they were in fact, pioneers in the regional airline world.

RIGHT YOU ARE. And now SHORTS is delegated to the role of component manufacturer. They have no capacity to design a complete airframe anymore. In fact with further moves of manufacturing base to Mexico, I hvae some serious doubts on the their long term viability


25 GDB : To be fair EI321, the Hellfire missile is a US product. However, the version much modified for use from fast jets, now entering RAF service as the Bri
26 Post contains links and images Stirling : I would have to argue my friend that this monstrosity is quite possibly the ugliest airliner in the world: View Large View MediumPhoto © Mick Ba
27 BHMBAGLOCK : It seems like somebody's always "planning" to put some of these back in production but realistically the Twotter may actually make it. No, it's a Loc
28 EI321 : I just remember seeing an apache documentary that said it uses Shorts Hellfire Missiles, what was it refering to?
29 BHMBAGLOCK : Besides poor journalism, probably the Brimstone derivative as GDB mentioned.
30 Post contains images 757MDE : I have the chance to see the civil one at one of my local Airports. I actually don't dislike it that much!
31 Post contains images 2H4 : There is no such thing as an ugly aircraft. Only a misunderstood aircraft. 2H4
32 Access-Air : I love the Shorts 330 s and 360s and I mess seeing them. The first time I saw a Shorts 330 was a Mississippi Valley Airlines brid in Clinton, Iowa in
33 Post contains links and images Legoguy : No, not that aircraft, but this aircraft might View Large View MediumPhoto © John Allan
34 Post contains images Rp : Our favorite punch line for the Shorts 330......"Punching square holes in round clouds"
35 Post contains images DHHornet : The Shed ok it’s ugly. But I am a sucker for different looking aircraft. They all look the same in this day and age. I have never flown in one sadly
36 Post contains links and images Lincoln : Westair Commuter Airlines... my first ever flight FAT-SAN Superbowl weekend 1989 -- at the tender age of four -- was on a Westair Shorts 360. On one
37 Post contains links Srbmod : Actually, that's not Shorts who is building said a/c. It's a company called Utilicraft Aerospace who is based at LZU but are building the plant at Do
38 KC135TopBoom : Isn't the company called "NM Trucking"? [quote=Stirling,reply=26]Followed closely by this little Frankenstein: Nooooo, the B-747-SP is one of the mos
39 Post contains images Rlwynn :
40 Lowrider : Amen Brother!!
41 Avt007 : I worked on 360s for a number of years. The best thing is they are built like tanks, and with PT-6s, the dispatch reliability rate was 99.6%, a very h
42 Milesrich : If the weather was good, the Shorts was fun to fly in, a throw back to the DC-3. And compared to the Beech 99's they replaced at MVA, they were an imp
43 Post contains images AeroWeanie : The 330s/360s are not dead. A lot of them were bought by the US Army and turned into C-23s. They are in heavy, daily use in Iraq. The US Army has publ
44 Post contains images 2H4 : I wish I was better with Photoshop. It would be fun to whip up an example of a Shorts 360 JET, a la the Do-328.... 2H4
45 Post contains links and images Leamside : View Large View MediumPhoto © John Woodside She may not have been all that pretty from the outside but the young, lovely & sweet talking steward
46 Post contains links and images JBo : Done and done. Modified Airliner Photos:Design © mikephotosTemplate © mikephotos
47 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : The Do-328 mentioned above was doing relatively well before the advent of the 328Jet and the demise of Fairchild Dornier. View Large View MediumPhoto
48 Post contains images 2H4 : Ha, I love it! The winglets are a great touch....as though induced drag is a concern..... 2H4
49 Post contains links and images A388 : Correct. We still have passenger flights with the Shorts 360!!! So if you want to fly one come over to CUR via AUA!! See my photos below: View Large
50 Post contains links DEVILFISH : As indeed it does..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...estarts-twin-otter-production.html Quote: "The heritage de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter i
51 757MDE : The L-410 is also quite common here in Colombia and more seem to be coming as time passes by, production must be active.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Shorts SC-5 Belfast Refitted For Service posted Fri Jan 5 2007 01:57:53 by Connies4ever
Bombardier/Shorts. posted Sun Oct 15 2006 19:39:28 by BOE773
Is The Shorts Belfast Freighter Still Flying? posted Sat Oct 14 2006 12:46:01 by EI321
Attendants In Shorts posted Tue Aug 1 2006 06:55:59 by Shanderawx
Former USExpress/BEX/NewAir Shorts 360s And F27s posted Sun Mar 19 2006 02:01:42 by MajorNelson
Shorts 360 Flights In Europe posted Wed Dec 28 2005 10:54:59 by BHXDTW
Shorts 330 Still In Pax Service posted Mon Dec 26 2005 00:34:49 by Airevents
American Eagle And Shorts 360 posted Thu Oct 27 2005 21:54:15 by FURUREFA
Shorts Belfast - Still Flying? posted Mon Oct 10 2005 11:24:36 by Hypersonic
Shorts Belfast Being Restored? posted Fri Sep 2 2005 07:04:34 by ZKEYE