Talk:Felixstowe Fury

Manufacturer of the Felixstowe Fury?

Although the major source of much of the information (contributions to The Aerodrome Forum) states that the Felixstowe Fury was "delivered" to Felixstowe (implying that it was not constructed there), I have been unable to find out from online sources where it was made. There is a photograph of the Fury, probably under construction (or during maintenance?) here [1], but no real clue as to where this is. Due to the logistics of moving such a large aircraft by road, a local manufacturer is a good possibility.

Any information? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick look around appears to indicate the Commander Porte built his own flying boats at Felixstowe, one reference [2]. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the intersting reference; I should have searched on "Super-Baby"!

While it is true that some of his aircraft were built at Felixstowe, most were built elsewhere. The F2/F3/F5 were contracted out to several manufacturers, with less than a handful being built at Felxstowe altogether; it doesn't even seem to be the case that he built the prototypes and then distributed the designs. Even the Porte Baby was built in Southampton. The reference to its being "delivered to Felixstowe" is tantalising.Aeroplane Forum. The search goes on. --TraceyR (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add only the ten production Porte Babies were built in Southampton not the prototype! MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add [3] Shed 22 is a steel-framed structure built in 1915. It was originally used for assembly of the Curtis flying boat, which had been imported in kit-form from the USA. During and after World War I it was used for the development of the Felixstowe series of flying boats. The building has been modified and reclad. English Heritage considers its significant to lie in its being probably the last surviving flying boat assembly building and its links to John Porte.. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I read something about that today! About the Baby: the entry in the British Aircraft Directory, referenced by the article, is incorrect about all 11 being made in Southampton. We ought to reference a different source which states that the prototype was produced at Felixstowe. Can you help with that? --TraceyR (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Flight PDF Archive referred to under "Specifications" contains the following statement:

"All prototypes were built at the Seaplane Experimental Station, Felixstowe. Production was undertaken by the following contractors:

The Aircraft Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Hendon, London, N.W. (May, Harden and May, Southampton Water): Porte Baby, F.2A and F.5.

Dick, Kerr and Co., Ltd., Preston: F.3.

The Gosport Aircraft Co., Ltd., Gosport: F.5.

Dockyard Constructional Unit, Malta: F.3.

The Phoenix Dynamo Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Bradford: F.3.

S. E. Saunders, Ltd., East Cowes, Isle of Wight: F.2A and F.5.

Short Brothers, Ltd., Rochester: F.3 and F.5.

The Norman Thompson Flight Co., Bognor Regis: F.2A hulls.

Canadian Aeroplanes, Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada: F.5.

U.S. Naval Aircraft Factory, League Island, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: F-5L."

This would appear to confirm that the Fury was indeed built at Felixstowe. Was there a manufacturing unit in Felixstowe, distinct from the Seaplane Experimental Station, from which delivery could have been taken? --TraceyR (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

More powerful engines

Both versions of Rolls Royce Eagle engines are described as "334 hp (249 kW)", but with the later versions being "more powerful". Is one of the sets of horsepower/wattage figures wrong?

It would be great to have an image of this aircraft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Crew members on the last flight

Although listed as J.F.Arnold, the correct name is J.F. Armitt Refer to the Casualty card in the RAF Museum online Archive, particularly the back Armitt ADM273 card in the National Archives is reference Airhistory (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I found it was reported in Flight at the time so used that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felixstowe Fury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203141104/http://martonvillage.com/index.php/museum/271-chocks-away-in-the-museum to http://martonvillage.com/index.php/museum/271-chocks-away-in-the-museum

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Construction

As the Fury was built at Felixstowe we have a reliable reference the it was Delivered to Felixstowe 31 October 1918. Does anybody know where it was actually built and is the 31 October date just the hand-over date to the Ministry/Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

See the utube link and RASoc collection. It seems the hull is being weighed at the eastern end of the base. The construction being in a long hanger with a low ceiling. Assembly in one of the larger hangers. Some deduction required against other images.80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, does this mean that the people who constructed the hull and then assembly it, then handed it over to the "ministry" for testing and it is likely that the boat never actaully moved very far when it was "delivered". ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems the base had its own boat builders and aircraft engineers, more likely the delivery was a hand over effectively. I also heard Rolls-Royce had a section there, but this is not verified. British Anzani offices were just up the road from the former site, but I do not know the history behind this - see Anzani Avenue.80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Loomis link

Hi Milborne, I see your point re the link:

American flying officer Lt. Wendell Phillipo Loomis: Photographs of the Fury's launch on the day of its first flight from the Seaplane Experimental Station.

Can we get round this using should usually not in WP:ELNO#13 and make this 'unusual' or better still 'exceptional'.

Exceptional is a reasonable description of the three Fury photos (3/13 pics) contained in the link. There are photographs of the Fury in museums, not these however. They are probably among the rarest and probably only exist in this remarkable private collection. They are not the official photographs I have seen, these are to the best of my knowledge the only pics of the launch on the maiden flight, where Maj Cooper may also be in cockpit. I think we can find the reference to Cooper elsewhere.

For information only:[4], [5]

I dare say the other photographs on the linked page are as equally rare. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the time external images dont really add anything to the text in the article, which is why most articles avoid such links. Basically the images are not titled and because of the quality do not really add anything to the article. Also remember that wikipedia is not a replacement for users using Google (other search engines exist) to find images if they were that interested. I am also minded that as a personnel website it may conflict with ELNO 11 at least. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed they are not titled which does makes them less obvious, quality wise I have seen similar/worse on Commons. ELNO 11 - the only way I can see round this is to determine whether the author of the site is a recognised authority.

Failing that, the link is saved here anyway. Hopefully the collection will find its way into a museum where it can be preserved80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)