Short SB.5: The Aeroplane Built to Settle an Argument

by | Sep 10, 2026 | Geschichte & Legenden, Militärische Luftfahrt | 0 comments

In 1949, English Electric wanted to build a supersonic fighter with sixty degrees of wing sweep. Nobody in the world had flown a wing swept that far. The Royal Aircraft Establishment thought it would be uncontrollable at low speed, and said so.

There was no computational fluid dynamics to settle it, no wind tunnel that could reproduce a full-scale approach and landing, and a great deal of money and national prestige riding on the answer. So Britain did the only thing available: it built an aeroplane specifically to find out who was right.

The Short SB.5 had a wing you could unbolt and reset to a different sweep angle, and a rear fuselage you could swap for a different one with the tailplane somewhere else. One was built. It settled the argument, and the aircraft it de-risked became the Englische elektrische Beleuchtung.

Kurzinfo

FlugzeugShort SB.5, serial WG768
GebautOne, by Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast
Vertrag2 August 1950, to Air Ministry requirement ER.100
Erster Flug2 December 1952 at Boscombe Down, flown by Tom Brooke-Smith
Wing sweep settings50, 60 and 69 degrees, adjusted on the ground
Tail configurationsTwo interchangeable rear fuselages, one with a T-tail, one with a low tailplane
Wing constructionPlywood with light alloy at the leading and trailing edges
UndercarriageFixed, because the aircraft only ever needed to fly slowly
Original engineRolls-Royce Derwent Mk 8, 3,500 lbf, later replaced by a Bristol Orpheus
69-degree first flight18 October 1960, flown by Denis Tayler at RAE Bedford; the greatest wing sweep flown anywhere at the time
SchicksalPassed to the Empire Test Pilots’ School in 1967 and preserved at the RAF Museum

An aeroplane built to settle an argument

The P.1, which became the Lightning, was an extraordinarily bold design: two engines stacked vertically one above the other to cut frontal area, a simple pitot intake with the shock cone in the middle, and a wing swept far beyond anything then flying.

Sweep buys you supersonic performance and takes away low-speed behaviour. A heavily swept wing sheds lift outboard first, which pitches the nose up just when the pilot least wants it, and the RAE's concern was that a 60-degree wing with a low-set tailplane would put that tailplane into the wing's wake at high angles of attack, with the aircraft locked into a stall it could not recover from. English Electric disagreed.

“The P.1 was very advanced for its time with 60° of wing sweep, but with the concerns expressed by the RAE, it was decided that there was no room for guesswork.”
The Lightning Association — On the decision to build the SB.5
The Short SB.5 WG768 preserved at the RAF Museum
WG768 today. The shape is a deliberate seven-eighths echo of the Lightning, minus the supersonic bits. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The most modular aeroplane in Britain

The contract went to Short Brothers and Harland in Belfast on 2 August 1950. What they produced was less an aircraft than a test rig that happened to fly.

The wings could be reset on the ground to 50, 60 or 69 degrees of sweep. The entire rear fuselage aft of the engine detached, and two were built: one carrying the tailplane on top of the fin, the other carrying it low on the fuselage. The tailplane's incidence was electrically adjustable in flight. In the 60-degree setting, the aircraft was aerodynamically close to a seven-eighths scale Lightning.

The spare interchangeable rear fuselage and tail of the Short SB.5
The spare tail. When you want to test two tailplane positions, you build two rear fuselages and unbolt one. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Because it never needed to go fast, the SB.5 was built cheaply and sensibly. The undercarriage was fixed. The wings were plywood with light alloy sheeting at the leading and trailing edges, which capped the aircraft at around 350 knots and did not matter in the slightest, since the entire point was the bottom of the speed range. There were two twenty-foot brake parachutes and a twenty-foot anti-spin parachute stowed above the jet pipe, which tells you what the test programme expected to encounter.

Eight years of unbolting things

Tom Brooke-Smith, Shorts' chief test pilot, made the first flight from Boscombe Down on 2 December 1952 with the wing at 50 degrees. He flew a display at the Farnborough show the following year. Roland Beamont, running English Electric's P.1 programme, flew it in August 1953.

In July 1953 the wing went to 60 degrees, still with the T-tail. In January 1954 the low-tailplane rear fuselage was fitted, deliberately timed so that the results would reach English Electric before the P.1 flew.

The result was the opposite of what the RAE had feared. The T-tail turned out to be the unsatisfactory configuration. The low tailplane, the one English Electric had wanted all along, worked. Testing at 60 degrees continued until April 1958, and comprehensively confirmed that the manufacturer had been right.

“At the time of the initial conception of the Short SB5 research aircraft (1949), it was recognised that the trend towards higher angles of sweepback was likely to continue, and this was emphasised by the existence of a design for an operational fighter aircraft, the English Electric P1 (Lightning), which was to have a sweepback of 60°. There was then no flight experience with wings of this amount of sweepback.”
Short SB.5 flight test report — Royal Aircraft Establishment, on the aircraft’s purpose
Short SB.5 WG768 in Empire Test Pilots School markings at RAF Finningley in 1969
WG768 in Empire Test Pilots’ School markings, on display at RAF Finningley in 1969. The aircraft went on teaching long after it stopped proving. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Sixty-nine degrees

The Lightning question had been answered by 1958, but the airframe still had one setting nobody had used. Before attempting it, the SB.5 was given two significant upgrades: a Martin-Baker ejection seat, fitted for the first time in the aircraft's life, and a Bristol Orpheus in place of the Derwent.

The fact that the first eight years of flying were done without an ejection seat, in a plywood-winged aircraft deliberately exploring the edge of the low-speed envelope with an anti-spin parachute in the tail, is worth sitting with for a moment.

Denis Tayler flew it at 69 degrees on 18 October 1960 from RAE Bedford. It was, at the time, the greatest wing sweep flown by any aircraft in the world.

What it bought

The Lightning went on to become the only Mach 2 fighter Britain designed and built entirely on its own, an aircraft with a rate of climb that still startles people and a service career stretching into the 1980s. None of that would have been impossible without the SB.5, but the programme would have carried a large, expensive, unquantified risk right through to the P.1's first flight.

An English Electric Lightning in RAF markings
The English Electric Lightning: the aircraft the SB.5 existed to de-risk. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Instead, one cheap aeroplane with bolt-on wings and a detachable back end answered the question for a few hundred thousand pounds. It then spent its retirement teaching test pilots at the Empire Test Pilots' School, and is preserved today at the RAF Museum, complete with its spare tail.

Modern aerospace settles arguments like this in software. It is worth remembering that within living memory, the way to find out whether a wing would work was to build the wing, bolt it on, and send somebody up in it without an ejection seat.

Häufig gestellte Fragen

What was the Short SB.5?
The Short SB.5, serial WG768, was a one-off British research aircraft built to test the low-speed handling of heavily swept wings before the English Electric P.1, which became the Lightning, was committed to a configuration. Its wing could be reset on the ground to 50, 60 or 69 degrees of sweep, and its entire rear fuselage could be swapped between a T-tail and a low-tailplane arrangement.
Why was the Short SB.5 built?
To settle a technical dispute. The Royal Aircraft Establishment believed English Electric’s proposed 60-degree swept wing with a low-set tailplane would behave dangerously at low speed. English Electric disagreed. With no flight experience of a wing swept that far anywhere in the world, the Ministry of Supply ordered an aircraft to find out.
Who was right, the RAE or English Electric?
English Electric. Testing showed that the T-tail configuration favoured by the RAE was the unsatisfactory one, and that the low tailplane English Electric wanted worked. The results were deliberately produced before the P.1 flew, and the Lightning was built with the low tailplane.
How did the SB.5 change its wing sweep?
On the ground, not in flight. Unlike a true variable-geometry aircraft, the SB.5’s wings were unbolted and reset between test programmes to 50, 60 or 69 degrees. The rear fuselage was similarly detachable, with two complete alternatives built so the tailplane could be moved between the top of the fin and the lower fuselage.
How fast could the Short SB.5 fly?
Not very. Its wings were made of plywood with light alloy sheeting at the leading and trailing edges, which limited it to around 350 knots, and published figures give a maximum speed of about 311 mph in its original configuration. That was irrelevant to its mission, which was entirely concerned with low-speed handling, and it also flew with fixed undercarriage for the same reason.
What happened to the Short SB.5?
After the 69-degree tests were flown by Denis Tayler on 18 October 1960 at RAE Bedford, the aircraft joined the Empire Test Pilots’ School in 1967. WG768 survives at the RAF Museum, displayed together with its spare rear fuselage and tail.
Did the SB.5 have an ejection seat?
Not at first. A Martin-Baker ejection seat was fitted only before the final 69-degree sweep tests, around 1960. The first eight years of flying, including the low-speed handling investigations the aircraft was built for, were flown without one.

Sources: RAF Museum aircraft history file for WG768; K. J. Staples, Flight Tests on the Short SB5; Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft; The Lightning Association.

Ähnliche Beiträge

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *