A very interesting summary. I do agree with your assessment – far more likely to be simple politics (small p). Giving projects to those seen likely to be able to do them, bad boys like Short Bros who couldn’t manage Stirling and couldn’t design the new flying boat to spec, put in the naughty corner. Why would you give a big development project to a firm who had so recently been great but currently couldn’t prove they could stay on spec and meet production targets yet?

Yes, agree, no US conspiracy, just everyday reactions of people.

As for interim types, remember the G-Class jigs were destroyed and recycled back into the war effort. Short Bros had to be stopped from building one last C-Class boat (the un-named G-AFRB) and told to ramp up Sunderland production.

So for an interim boat, surely easier and cheaper to either convert what you had (Sunderland to Sandringham and civil Sunderlands) or use the jigs and tooling still extant – Sunderland IV/Seaford to new build Solents.

And a lot of technoglogy had developed. When G Class was first drawn up it needed six engines but Bristols made a four engine boat possible. Arthur Gouge had made huge steps (pun intended) in streamlining the flying boat hulls – so why go back to old tech when the world was moving so fast? Just a couple of examples.

One little thing – why criticise only Oswald? I think the problems at Shorts came from his not being there and the board not being capable 😉

AllanK