# Short Stirling, a good or a bad aircraft?



## pattle (Jul 27, 2013)

I hope this is not an old chestnut dealt with in previous threads but was the Short Stirling a good or a bad aircraft? 
Even though the Stirling is generally accepted as an inferior aircraft to both the Handley Page Halifax and particularly Avro Lancaster I still believe it's inferiority does offer some mitigation. True the Lancaster could fly higher, further and with a much greater bombload than the Stirling and true that the Lancaster had a capacious bomb bay while the Stirling's while large was divided in two by its structure. But in mitigation the Stirling was the only one of the three aircraft designed as a four engine bomber, and perhaps for this reason may have had the greater design potential being a larger aircraft.
The Stirling was indeed further developed with Shorts having enhanced models of the Stirling on the drawing board that claimed to improve it's performance to a point were it would have allegedly rivalled the Lancaster's in most areas and bettered it in others but these versions were never put into production. Had these versions of the Stirling been placed into production they would of not only of had increased bomb load, range and ceiling but also would have been much more heavily armed with either 50 cals or cannon in place of the 303's fitted in the earlier Stirlings and its rivals. Whether these improved Stirlings would have been a success or failure we will never really know. Further mitigation is offered by the original requirement that specified that the Stirling should also be capable of carrying troops and after the Stirling was replaced as a bomber it did enjoy success in a number of transport roles. 
My own opinion on the Stirling is that it was an aircraft that suffered from it's share of limitations some of which could have been remedied while others could not. If we take the Stirling for what we actually saw of it rather than what it could have been then I believe it was an aircraft that was needed both as a heavy bomber early war and as a transport late war and as such proved itself as a very useful aircraft while not being ideal. My vote goes for the Stirling as being a good aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jul 27, 2013)

I think one of the downfalls of the stiring was that it was designed with a shorter wingspan (according to specifications). If it had had the wingspan i tended, it would have been a better aircraft.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jul 27, 2013)

The biggest problem with the Stirling was that it took away production from the much more needed Sunderland.
At that point of the war Britain didn't need bombers (they couldn't find anything anyway) it needed more maritime aircraft, of which the Sunderland was superb.

Tragic misallocation of resources that just got a lot of people killed (including its crews).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 27, 2013)

Good glider tug .... 

MM


----------



## Civettone (Jul 27, 2013)

I read it could perform a corkscrew manoeuvre no night fighter could follow


Kris


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 27, 2013)

I think the Stirling would have had a much better reputation had it been assigned to maritime patrol duties. For that, it's poor altitude performance would not have been a handicap. Was it a bad airplane? No; it was reputed to have quite nice handling and to be very maneuverable (according to the delphic wikipedia, it could out-turn the Ju88 and Bf110) . Was it a good strategic bomber? No. Could it have been more useful? Yes: ASW patrol.


----------



## pattle (Jul 27, 2013)

Plenty of aircraft types were built under license, it didn't have to be Short Bros alone to have built the Stirling, as the Stirling was largely based on the Sunderland flying boat this could have helped production through commonality. From memory both the original Stirling production plant and the first production Stirlings were destroyed by German bombing during the Battle of Britain. Supermarine's prototype four engine bomber fuselage was also destroyed when it's Southampton factory was bombed at about the same time, the Supermarine bomber was said to be a promising aircraft but I have my doubts about it.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 27, 2013)

Short Stirling, good or bad, I'm not sure. Ugly - definitely.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 28, 2013)

Nice target for german AAA and nightfighters due to having to fly that low on the inbound route to target. Bomber command wa obviously in desperate need for bombers so they kept it in production for too long.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jul 28, 2013)

Most comments agree with me here, waste of resources, workers and crews that would have far better spent on making and flying more (and much more needed) Sunderlands.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2013)

> waste of resources, workers and crews



This is pretty much the view that Harris had of the Stirling as well; he was so alarmed at the loss rate suffered by Stirlings and Halifaxes that he requested that those building these airframes begin building the Lancaster as soon as possible. Here's a quote from Max Hastings' Bomber Command that I think sums the Stirling up quite well;

"The Lancaster inspired affection unmatched by any other British heavy bomber. The Stirling was easier to fly, a gentleman's aircraft according to Stirling pilots, but its lamentable ceiling made it the first target of every German gunner and night-fighter pilot, provoking the callous cheers from the more fortunate Lancaster crews when they heard at briefings that the clumsy, angular Stirlings would be beneath them."



> as the Stirling was largely based on the Sunderland flying boat



The Stirling was not based on the Sunderland and the two had little in common, apart from immaterial detail. The bomber's wing design was similar, but not the same as the Empire boats in structure.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2013)

Because of of it's size and the short wing the Stirling had less range than the other two 4 engine bombers which makes it a poor choice for anti-sub patrols. Better than nothing perhaps but it actually won't do much more than some of the twins could on a long range (long endurance) mission and needed twice the fuel to do it.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 28, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Because of of it's size and the short wing the Stirling had less range than the other two 4 engine bombers which makes it a poor choice for anti-sub patrols. Better than nothing perhaps but it actually won't do much more than some of the twins could on a long range (long endurance) mission and needed twice the fuel to do it.



Certainly, this may be the case, but it would also carry a heavier warload than the twins. That may be irrelevant, as ASW patrol aircraft didn't even need to be armed to seriously degrade submarine utility (at least before SSN). The reason for this is that the submarine crew can't know the aircraft is unarmed or if there are armed aircraft which can be directed towards the submarine by the unarmed plane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2013)

This was one of the Stirlings failings, while it could carry a heavy bomb load it could do so only over short distances.

The full 14,000lbs was carried over 690 miles. To be fair a lot of other bombers could carry the really big loads only over short distances.
However the Stirling MK III was also rated at carrying 3500lb over 2010 miles. A MK III Wellington could carry 3500lbs over 1440 miles and 1500lbs over 2040 miles. The Whitley could carry 3500lbs about 1900 miles and the Hamden could carry 3000lbs ( two 500lbs under the wings which didn't help) 1820 miles. 

In some cases these longer ranges maxed out the existing fuel tanks and without modifying the aircraft you weren't going to squeeze more than few hundred more miles out of the plane even with no bombs. 

MK I Halifax was supposed go 3000 miles with 2500lbs and A MK III Lancaster was supposed to do 1660 miles with 14,000lb load the the Stirling carried 690 miles.

The Stirling may have been too much effort ( fuel and engine maintenance) for too little result in the anti-sub role.


----------



## pattle (Jul 28, 2013)

Nuuumann you say The Stirling was not based on the Sunderland and the two had little in common, apart from immaterial detail. The bomber's wing design was similar, but not the same as the Empire boats in structure. 
The Stirling was not a variant of the Sunderland but it shared a lot of its structure and technology, if the Sunderland had not of existed then neither would have the Stirling. How else do you explain why the Stirlings tail was raised? this was a flying boat feature designed to keep the tail out of the water and not something needed for land planes. 
Yes of course Bomber Harris realised that the Stirling was not a patch on the Lancaster but he also realised that he had to continue using the Stirling until he could get enough Lancasters to replace the Stirlings. Harris was never saying withdraw the Stirling from service, what he was saying was replace it with Lancasters asap. Harris would never have accepted the void that removal from service of the Stirling would have created before it was able to be replaced by the Lancaster, during the first 1000 bomber raids every aircraft the RAF could find was used including even OCU and Coastal Command aircraft. 


Old Skeptic, how did Stirling production create a shortage in Sunderlands? Shorts had production problems but they were mostly confined to their Belfast plant where there was a reluctance to use unskilled labour, Stirlings and for that matter Sunderlands were manufactured on a number of sites and did not conflict. The RAF had the Catalina being built for them by the Americans and during the Battle of the Atlantic the RAF needed the Catalina more than the Sunderland because of the Catalina's excellent range. In any case as Swampyankee has already pointed out the Stirling itself could have made a good ASW aircraft as it had a good bomb bay and plenty of room in the fuselage for all the equipment needed, and I assume that it would have been cheaper and easier to build than the excellent Sunderland.
While on the topic of why the Stirling was not used by Coastal Command the answer most commonly given is that the Stirling was already earmarked for the glider tug, transport troop carrying role. The Stirling was well suited for this role as it was able to carry parachute containers in its bomb bay and some twenty odd troops in its large fuselage and was equipped with the correct doors for this operation. The Stirling was in fact so good in this role that it continued in production until the end of the war and was the first powered RAF aircraft to be fitted with a rolling floor. 
Both Old Skeptic and Nuuumannn, I sense a certain amount of prejudice in your posts, and to be honest until recently I shared these prejudices with you. What has changed my mind is that I have looked at the Stirling again and what I have discovered are really two things. Firstly that as a bomber it could have been developed further as the two proposed versions put forward by Shorts claim to have been able to have remedied it's problems. Bomber Harris is said to have believed that while he believed the proposed improved Stirling would have been a better bomber he was concerned with production problems, he believed it better to concentrate on making as many Lancasters as possible. A number of very successful aircraft including the Lancaster and arguably the Mustang were not successful in their first incarnations but later blossomed into classics and it is possible that the Stirling could have joined them. 
A large part of the problem of how unfairly the Stirling was been treated by history is the lack of appreciation shown towards the undervalued members of transport command, the role performed by transport aircraft during World War Two is by far the most unglamorous and overlooked of the war. Please spare a thought for the bravery of the airmen on both sides who died delivering and resupplying the troops at Arnhem, Stalingrad, North Africa and on D Day and in Burma amongst other places. Once the Stirlings were finished as bombers they were not just melted down as scrap and we should remember when judging it how well it did as a transport and ask ourselves what would have taken its place should it not have been available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 28, 2013)

Given the Ministry requirement (that imposed the small wing...due to the then hangering 'fit', I believe) Shorts probably produced the best they could.
Of course this led to the disastrous low ceiling etc etc but I suspect few then realised or understood how deadly flak and night-fighters would become. 

As for the dilution of resources, that's a very good point and sadly it was something the UK would suffer from long after the war (the 3 V bombers being a very good case in point).
Hindsight shows that the best idea would probably have been to concentrate on Lancasters as when it was shown to be the performer it was, but in the middle of a war to the death taking the time out to drop the Halifax Sterling retool, increase component supplies educate workers all the rest to switch to just making Lancasters was probably seen as very undesirable.

Plus the usual British phobia for 'eggs all in one basket'.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2013)

> How else do you explain why the Stirlings tail was raised? this was a flying boat feature designed to keep the tail out of the water and not something needed for land planes.



Do you have any evidence that the manufacturers intended it to be this way that supports this? I thought that the Stirling's unusual gait was as a result of its awkward ground stance, which makes more sense than an imaginary and unecessary hangover from the Short brothers' flying boat experience. Yes, the all metal structure was similar, but that is as a result of accumulative experience; remember, the Short Brothers built their first all metal aeroplane in 1919. I'll repeat it; the Stirling was most certainly not 'based' on the Sunderland, it was a whole new design. Further evidence of this can be found from the fact that the Shorts' first tender to B.12/36, the S.29 was criticised for incorporating too much flying boat DNA and Shorts were asked to redesign it. That is despite being considered as an alternative to the Supermarine 316/317 as the preferred contender. As a result Shorts underwent a reappraisal of their tender to the specification, which also entailed a suggested alternative to the Napier Dagger engines in the Hercules.

As for Harris' demand that the Stirling be replaced by Lancasters, no, if I can remember correctly he wanted the Stirling removed from active service. I can't find a reference to hand, but I do remember reading it somewhere.



> A large part of the problem of how unfairly the Stirling was been treated by history is the lack of appreciation shown towards the undervalued members of transport command, the role performed by transport aircraft during World War Two is by far the most unglamorous and overlooked of the war. Please spare a thought for the bravery of the airmen on both sides who died delivering and resupplying the troops at Arnhem, Stalingrad, North Africa and on D Day and in Burma amongst other places. Once the Stirlings were finished as bombers they were not just melted down as scrap and we should remember when judging it how well it did as a transport and ask ourselves what would have taken its place should not have been available.



This is a good point well made Pattle, but in our position so many years after the fact it is easy for us to be dispassionate about technology and events. Regardless of how you look at it, the truth of the matter was that the Stirling was not a big success as a bomber; yes, it had its virtues, but in the unforgiving German skies during the war its deficiencies were too great to warrant its being classifed as anything other than unsuccessful in its intended role. As a transport aircraft it was certainly needed, but it was designed as a heavy bomber. A bomber becoming a useful transport is not an indication of its success, merely that it is able to fulfil a need. It's a bit like the argument that you were more likely to survive being shot down in a Halifax than in a Lancaster; the fact that makes this 'advantage' a little less palatable is that you were more likely to be shot down in a Halifax than in a Lancaster.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2013)

> (that imposed the small wing...due to the then hangering 'fit', I believe)



No, this is another one of those legends that has mistakenly become 'fact' due to authors repeating it in countless books. The truth of the matter was that at the time the British had hangars with door spans that were 120 feet, which negated the 'less than 100 ft to fit in existing hangars' statement. The Stirling's wing span was deliberately made smaller than 100 ft to prevent it becoming too large; it's biggest handicap was its increasing weight whilst under development. On completion as a result of this it did not meet the performance specifications laid down in B.12/36, despite having more powerful engines than the Daggers that Short Bros originally stipulated in their tender, or the shrinking of the span to keep size/wieght down.



> increase component supplies educate workers all the rest to switch to just making Lancasters was probably seen as very undesirable.



This is very true. Harris was prone to sweeping statements and on many occasions Portal just ignored his ranting requests rather than deal with him directly. Such an undertaking would have been upsetting, but the fact that Harris flew off the handle about it shows his passion for the subject - I remember reading that this was used as an example of his humility toward his 'boys', quite apart from the cold, calculating individual he's always portrayed as.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2013)

A lot of times production expediency dictated which aircraft went to which roles. Not which aircraft were actually better. 

For transports the British could have had:







or 






or ?????

Using old bombers is a cheap, don't screw with production, expedient. 

Loading anything bigger/heavier than people in the thing is a problem


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2013)

Nowt wrong with the Avro York; a very competent aeroplane. It was more capacious inside and faster than the C-54 and could carry a heavier load across a similar distance. During the Berlin Airlift the York got an unfair reputation as being unreliable; the truth was that its Merlins overheated because they didn't like the short distances flown and the frequency of use. The other problem was there was never enough of them.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 28, 2013)

"....Loading anything bigger/heavier than people in the thing is a problem "

Workaround .....


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2013)

> Workaround .....



In short, how to make the Halifax even uglier...


----------



## Denniss (Jul 28, 2013)

One positive side for the Stirling: I didn't require Merlin engines. They were most likely prioritized for fighters like Spitfire so Lancaster production may have been somewhat limited (or forcing the II design with Hercules engines).


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 28, 2013)

The Stirling tail is raised because it was a cut down flying boat myth doesnt hold up when you look at the plans. It has a straight line top to the fuselage which can give the impression the fuselage is bent up from some angles but it isnt.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Short_Stirling.svg


----------



## Njaco (Jul 28, 2013)

I've always believed that the Stirling was more a stop-gap machine somewhat similar to the P-40 at least until they could get the better bombers produced and online.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 28, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> No, this is another one of those legends that has mistakenly become 'fact' due to authors repeating it in countless books. The truth of the matter was that at the time the British had hangars with door spans that were 120 feet, which negated the 'less than 100 ft to fit in existing hangars' statement. The Stirling's wing span was deliberately made smaller than 100 ft to prevent it becoming too large; it's biggest handicap was its increasing weight whilst under development.



Thanks for that, always learning!


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Jul 28, 2013)

Most impressive bomber aircraft, anyway.
An evil 'bomber' look.


----------



## pattle (Jul 28, 2013)

Njako, yes the Stirling was a bit of stop gap sort of airplane and like a lot of other aircraft it was used because it was all there was to use.


----------



## pattle (Jul 28, 2013)

Nuuumannn, regarding the raised tail. If Shorts had of designed a four engine bomber completely from scratch it would have looked a lot different from the Stirling, there was no need for the raised tail just the same as there was no need for the Stirling to have such a long or deep fuselage or have such a tall undercarriage. The tall undercarriage was there only to shorten the Stirlings take off which was to long due to the angle of its wings. Each solution to a problem caused a fresh problem needing a solution. I am confused as to what documentary evidence you require to be convinced of this and do you have any documentary evidence to the contrary. In one sentence you say the Stirling and Sunderland share a similarity in their wings and the next you say the Stirling was a completely new aircraft. Out of curiosity why do you think the Stirling came out looking the way it did?

I don't think it realistic that Harris would have wanted the Stirling removed from active service before it was able to be replaced, after all he was desperate enough to send Hudsons to Bremen on 1000 bomber raids!


----------



## pattle (Jul 28, 2013)

Duplicate post.


----------



## pattle (Jul 28, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> The Stirling tail is raised because it was a cut down flying boat myth doesnt hold up when you look at the plans. It has a straight line top to the fuselage which can give the impression the fuselage is bent up from some angles but it isnt.
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Short_Stirling.svg


I was talking about the bottom of the fuselage.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2013)

> In one sentence you say the Stirling and Sunderland share a similarity in their wings and the next you say the Stirling was a completely new aircraft.



The Sunderland and the Empire boats were two different things. Read my post again. What I stated were that there were similarities in structure, but they were not exactly the same as the Empire boats' wings. This can be found in Shorts Aircraft since 1900 by C.H. Barnes, which, despite rehashing the 100 foot hangar door myth has a good description of the structural design of the Stirling. The reference to B.12/36 comes from British Secret Projects Fighters and Bomber 1935 to 1950 by Tony Buttler. The absense of any suggestion in any books I have read about British aircraft and access to archival material that Shorts swept the Stirling's tail upwards as a result of it being derived from flying boats and the fact that the committee rejected the original S.29 to B.12/36 because it was too similar to flying boat design is ample suggestion that this is not why the tail was swept up. Look at pictures of the Stirling on the ground. It is in that position because of the angle at which it sits. The designers have even canted the entry door at the same angle as the ground.

No worries Gixxerman  - it's a common myth and is repeated in almost every reference to the Stirling out there. When B.12/36 was written the requirement also stipulated that the aircraft had also to be able to be maintained out in the open at airfields where hangarage was not available, further evidence that the myth is exactly that.



> I've always believed that the Stirling was more a stop-gap machine somewhat similar to the P-40 at least until they could get the better bombers produced and online.



The Stirling might have unintentionally turned out as a stop-gap, but it was not intended that way. It was, as built to B.12/36 intended as the next primary heavy bomber in RAF service to replace the existing types; Wellington, Whitley and Hampden, but delays in its trials and entry into service meant that it was overtaken by events, notably the war and subsequent development of better aircraft. Originally, the Supermarine 316 and twin finned Hercules engined '317 were the preferred design to B.12/36 with the Short Brothers instructed to proceed with a prototype as a back up. Like Pattle states, earlier the partly completed fuselages were destroyed in bombing raids and a concentration on Spitfire development spelt the end of the Supermarine bomber, thus leaving the Stirling as the only contender to B.12/36 to be completed.

Simultaneously to B.12/36 being released was P.13/36, a duplicate specification for a Medium Bomber, although it is also often described as another 'heavy'. The winning submission to this was the twin engined Avro 679 that became the Manchester. The runner-up was the Handley Page HP.56, which was destined never to be built when George Volkert, HP's designer changed the design from two Vultures to four Merlins and created their HP.57, which became the Halifax. Initially the Halifax was also beset by delays and a fatal quirk of over controlling rudders that put the aircraft into an unrecoverable dive, among other defects that required sorting out, but the RAF clung to the hope that these would be rectified in the new Halifax III, promised by Volkert and this was to become the new primary heavy because the Stirling was not living up to promises.

When Roy Chadwick suggested the Four engined Manchester it was initially regarded with scepticism because it was thought it would not live up to the paper performance of the Halifax III, but, the Manchester Mark IV could, in fact out perform the newer Halifax in terms of speed, altitude, load carrying capability over distance and versatility as a bomber. So, pretty much by default, the under performing Stirling became something as a stop-gap as a result of the success of the two other four engined bombers that began life as twins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2013)

Another aspect of the Stirling's unusually high fuselage angle on the ground is because of the angle of incidence of the wings, which was placed as such to produce minimum drag at cruise speed. When the baby S.31 aerodynamic test bed was tested, the boffins at Boscombe Down recommended altering the angle of incidence because of its long take-off and landing runs, being mindful of the inevitable increase in weight that aircraft underwent in development. Because the protoype was too far into construction for such a major redesign, Arthur Gouge had the undercarriage lengthened to increase the angle that the aircraft sits on the ground. 

The upswept lower fuselage was simply to clear the rear fuselage with regards to the aircraft's sit on the ground; even the S.31 was similarly shaped. If you look closely at the Lancaster, the Halifax and most other large bombers, the parallel fuselage upper and lower surfaces where the bomb bays are located ends at the aft end of the bomb bay bulk head, which then begins a tapered rear fuselage to prevent tail strike on take-off, when the upper rear fuselage line is straight with the rest of the aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Jul 29, 2013)

The Stirling's tail wasn't raised. The fuselage top was a straight line once past the cockpit and the fuselage bottom was tapered to match the landing gear angle.

Since Short made it, it might or might not have anything in common with the Sunderland, but certainly doesn't have any noticeable flying boat features I can see. However, I CANsee that by changing the fuselage to a hull design, you could make a flying boat out of it ... but you could do the same with a Lancaster or Halifax, too, if you really wanted to do so. Hell, if you just HAD to, you could probably make a flying boat out of a C-130, too. It might look something like the Shin Meiwa US-1A.


----------



## pattle (Jul 29, 2013)

The fact that the Stirlings fuselage top is straight has never been disputed, this is easy to see on diagrams of it, plus I have two models here. The Stirling like a lot of aircraft can trace it's lineage back through previous types made by the same manufacturer, good examples being the Blenheim, Beaufort, Beaufighter, Buckingham and Brigand or Hawker Hind and Hurricane all different aircraft but from the same original idea, inflence or dogma.


----------



## pattle (Jul 29, 2013)

While we are on the topic of the Stirling can anyone tell me when the last complete example was disposed of in Britain. I ask because my understanding is that all were retired from the RAF in 1946 with some being sold to private operators. About 10 years ago I was told by a former colleague that he had been aboard one which was sitting semi derelict on an RAF airfield some time in the early 50's. Had my colleague not of been so certain that the plane was a Stirling I would be in no doubt that he was confused with another type.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 29, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hell, if you just HAD to, you could probably make a flying boat out of a C-130, too. It might look something like the Shin Meiwa US-1A.



I believe there was a proposal for an amphibious version of the C-130 out there. I don't think it was being actually expected to go anywhere, but was probably some IR&D project Lockheed put together when they were doing a bunch of Hercules variants: enlarged fuselage (larger cross section), twin-engined, VTOL, commercial passenger, etc.


----------



## jamesinnewcastle (Oct 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Stirling's tail wasn't raised. The fuselage top was a straight line once past the cockpit and the fuselage bottom was tapered to match the landing gear angle



Actually that is not true - the upper line of the Stirlings fuselage goes up by about 1.5 degrees at about a point midway between the end of the main wings and the start of the tail. Don't know why this is - it won't be on any model (why go to that much detail?). You can prove this yourself by taking a photo of the Stirling 'side-on' and applying a straight edge to the picture. Do this for a number of pictures to convince yourself. I have the AP for the Stirling and they also clearly show the angle mentioned.

Cheers
James


----------



## T Bolt (Oct 17, 2013)

The Airfix kit does have this fuselage uplift at the tail, but I think it's a bit exaggerated.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 18, 2013)

pattle said:


> I hope this is not an old chestnut dealt with in previous threads but was the Short Stirling a good or a bad aircraft?
> Even though the Stirling is generally accepted as an inferior aircraft to both the Handley Page Halifax and particularly Avro Lancaster I still believe it's inferiority does offer some mitigation. True the Lancaster could fly higher, further and with a much greater bombload than the Stirling and true that the Lancaster had a capacious bomb bay while the Stirling's while large was divided in two by its structure. But in mitigation the Stirling was the only one of the three aircraft designed as a four engine bomber, and perhaps for this reason may have had the greater design potential being a larger aircraft.
> The Stirling was indeed further developed with Shorts having enhanced models of the Stirling on the drawing board that claimed to improve it's performance to a point were it would have allegedly rivalled the Lancaster's in most areas and bettered it in others but these versions were never put into production. Had these versions of the Stirling been placed into production they would of not only of had increased bomb load, range and ceiling but also would have been much more heavily armed with either 50 cals or cannon in place of the 303's fitted in the earlier Stirlings and its rivals. Whether these improved Stirlings would have been a success or failure we will never really know. Further mitigation is offered by the original requirement that specified that the Stirling should also be capable of carrying troops and after the Stirling was replaced as a bomber it did enjoy success in a number of transport roles.
> My own opinion on the Stirling is that it was an aircraft that suffered from it's share of limitations some of which could have been remedied while others could not. If we take the Stirling for what we actually saw of it rather than what it could have been then I believe it was an aircraft that was needed both as a heavy bomber early war and as a transport late war and as such proved itself as a very useful aircraft while not being ideal. My vote goes for the Stirling as being a good aircraft.




It was not a bad aircraft (lots of pilots liked it), but it was a bad warplane and a waste of resources.
It was bad as a warplane because if its limited performance. It was a waste of resources because it took away production from the much more useful and needed Sunderland.


----------



## Ascent (Oct 19, 2013)

I think people are getting confused about the taper. It's not to prevent the tail striking the ground. It's a TAILWHEEL aircraft, the tail has already struck the ground but there is a wheel in the way. That only aplies to nosewheel aircraft where the tail goes down as the nose rotates up. 

I think it's simply a case of why waste resources and add weight keeping the fuselage the same size when all you need is it wide enough for a man to get down to the tail gun and operate it. Why taper it up ? Probably aerodynamics or simply the fact that the crawlway is above the bombbay so why add complication by sloping the crawl space downward.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2013)

Slightly broken back appearance;






Upward taper _may_ be to keep fuselage depth for strength _or_ provide crawl space over tailplane _or_ since the turret is a certain height , to provide a smooth transition to turret roof rather than a sudden hump just before turret ( given the dorsal turret the last is a bit of a stretch) _or_ some combination or other reason.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 19, 2013)

Its possibly there to make space for the ventral turret which was to be a retractable dustbin type originally.


----------



## Waynos (Oct 20, 2013)

As well as the short wingspan and short range, I think one of the Stirlings biggest handicaps was the structure of its bomb bay which would make it impossible to carry larger munitions. For example it could not accommodate a Cookie, but half-the-size Mosquito could.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 19, 2014)

This image of the Stirling overlaid on the Halifax and Lancaster says it all:
File:British WW2 bombers comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was a huge, draggy design. The empty weight of a Stirling was 4,000 lb greater than a Lancaster (10% more) which explains the much shorter range for an equivalent bomb load. The additional drag and weight of a longer span wing would have reduced the practical war load to a minuscule amount. Its interesting to compare it to the Supermarine design to the same specification which is a much much sleeker design.
The fact that it used the Hercules while the Lancaster used the Merlin is irrelevant. The Lancaster used the Merlin powered Beaufighter power eggs developed by Rolls Royce which were designed to be interchangeable with the Hercules, hence the first Hercules powered Lancaster flew at the end of 1941 and entered service a year before the Halifax III.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2014)

how does the Stirling rate compared to its contemporaries. it commenced entering squadron servic in the latter part of 1940, at least 15 months before the Lancaster, and some months before the Halifax. That entry to service date which makes it a contemporary to to the B-17C does it not. how would the early versions of the B-17 have faired in sustained operations over Germany?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 25, 2014)

> how does the Stirling rate compared to its contemporaries.



That's a very good question, Parsifal; at the time there weren't too many four engined bombers the size of and with the load carrying capabilities of the Stirling in air forces around the world when it entered service. The Stirling was quite advanced in many ways compared to its contemporaries; like I've stated in relation to other British bombers of the time, in the first year of the war the British were the only ones to equip their heavy bombers with power operated turrets as defensive armament.

At the time, despite Bomber Command's poor bombing average, apart from the Luftwaffe, no other air force in the world had more experience in heavy bombing by night and the Stirling certainly upped the ante in terms of what could be delivered on a target en masse, but despite its promise or because of its inadequacies, it was not the aeroplane the bomber squadrons really needed. If only the British could adequately find the target and hit it convincingly, the biggest problem that plagued Bomber Command at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 5, 2019)

A few months ago I read the excellent book on the Stirling written by Pino Lombardi (Short Stirling: The First of the RAF Heavy Bombers), and I would like to throw my 2 cents on the high altitude performance issue.

Many sources point out that the Stirling's lack of performance was caused by the enforced limitation of the wingspan. On the other hand, this also applied to the Lancaster and Halifax.
I have put together a table comparing the specs. The wingspan is literally the same for all 3, and the later versions of Stirling use the same engine as the Halifax.



I am inclined to think that the lack of high altitude performance is caused by the larger dimensions and especially the empty weight. The Stirling Mk I was 25% heavier than the Halifax/Lancaster, thus for a typical mission with similar bomb load/fuel it's TO weight would be higher. The larger wing area would mitigate the effect but the engine output in Mk I was also lower than for the Halifax (not so sure abut Lancaster) . Mk III was better, but RAF was not really interested due to limitations in the bomb bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2019)

Well, you may be on to something, although I _think _the wing may have something to do with it. It is probably a combination of things. 

The aspect ratio of the Stirling is about 6.5, the aspect ratio of the Lancaster is 8.0. so the Lancaster wing is more efficient if they were the same area (as we know they are not) but the Lancaster is more efficient for it's size. 

The Stirlings fuselage is huge, lots of drag. Since lift goes up with the square of the speed, changing from a 200mph cruise to a 210mph cruise gives about a 10% increase in lift. Numbers are just to illustrate the point, plug in real cruise numbers as you see fit. 

Weight may have something to do with it but the weight, at least on the trip _to_ the target may be close, the lower payload (actual amount of bombs that could be carried over the desired distance) is certainly lower for the Stirling but the actual weight of the aircraft, if both took off at nearly the same weight isn't going to be that far off (Stirling is burning a bit more fuel?) , On the trip back with bombs gone and over 1/2 the fuel gone the Stirling will certainly be much heavier. 

I Could be wrong and there are probably a few things I overlooked.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 5, 2019)

The table answers most of it, the Stirling had 6 meters and 4 tons more airframe and also a bigger fuel load but the same MTOW as the Lancaster.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 5, 2019)

As I understand it the Stirling specification required that it be able to carry it's own ground crew and spares inside it so that it could be rapidly deployed to any airfield in the Empire large enough to take it. Hence also it was expected to be able to be serviced in all climates with no hangarage. This led to the large fuselage.

The limit on the size of the bombs was simply that it only needed to take the largest bombs held in store or due for production. In a Coastal Command context it would be easy to replace the wing bomb cells with extra fuel as the bomb bay was quite adequate for depth charges and mines. The bomb cell in the period thick wings was normal in the day, appearing in the Battle, Whitley and notably the Supermarine 12/36 competitor.

The maximum bomb load was truly impressive in it's day. That it could only be carried for a fairly short distance was reasonable as the fall of France was not foreseen and the Stirling would have operated from French airfields which were far closer to industrial targets in Germany to deliver that very large bomb load.

So in 1935/6 it fitted the specifications drawn up and these were reasonable in the context of the day.

It is interesting to note that, when faced with an excessive take off, run Short went for a longer undercarriage to increase the wing incidence on the ground and a level incidence in the air whilst Armstrong Whitworth chose to change the wing to a greater incidence on the ground with a short under carriage and the result was a marked nose down fuselage in the air. What was not foreseen was the building of so many longer runways that did not require the extra wing incidence to reduce the take off distance.

The 13/36 requirement, IIRC, included a requirement to carry two torpedos and hence needed a wider open space than needed for normal bombs in the Manchester and Halifax. Thus the Stirling had nothing larger than free fall bombs and mines to carry and made good use of that to incorporate the bomb stowage into it's strong structure. This also meant that it had a very strong and rigid fuselage floor, ideal for transport of cargo and superior to the other large aeroplanes in production for that task and with no need for great altitude performance in the role. 

All in all it was a very good piece of work for what the Air Ministry wanted it to do. However reality failed to match those intents. In actual use it should have been updated for the new needs but it retained qualities that made continuing production correct as it was progressively withdrawn from use as a heavy bomber.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 5, 2019)

The biggest issue for the Stirling is that it just kept getting heavier. In 1939 Shorts were alarmed by an increase in weight of 9,200 lb (5,700 lb structure, 1,800 lb balloon cutters and de-icers, 300 lb extra flaps). Normal loaded weight had risen to almost 53,000 lb, close to the maximum permissible take off weight!

Tests at Boscombe down in the summer of 1940, with a take off weight of 57,400 lb, showed a take of run to 'unstick' of 640 yards, 1,200 yards to clear 50' and a service ceiling of 15,000'. None of these figures caused as much alarm as the low ceiling which was considered to make the aircraft, in its present condition, effectively useless for operations. It also took almost half an hour to get to 15,000' where the true maximum air speed was a mere 218 mph. Most economical cruise speed at 10,000' was just 158 mph TAS.

The aircraft's performance fell well below that specified in terms of load to be carried. It was supposed to have a maximum bomb load/range of 14,000lb for 2,000 miles. The reality was 14,000 lb for a mere 740 miles. The maximum range/bomb load figures were just as bad, specified was 3,000 miles with 8,000 lb, the reality was 1,930 miles with 5,000 lb.

The Stirling came just before its time. It was a step too far. It was not a terrible aircraft, the specifications were almost impossible to meet with the technology and engines available at the time. The most remarkable thing about the Stirling is that it was still flying to Germany, right up to the Battle of Berlin, and continued in service with the RAF until July 1946.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 5, 2019)

It has been a long time since I read the Air Ministry specification that resulted in the Stirling, but I seem to recall that it required the carriage of 4 aerial torpedoes, which would be part of the reason for the long shallow bomb bay.

Also, the specification originally called for the ability to be catapult launched, which would be part of the reason for the high weight and also the high AOA imposed by the landing gear. Apparently there was some concern about the availability of long enough airfields, particularly in foreign countries .


----------



## Graeme (Mar 6, 2019)

Nice summary by Barnes (Shorts Aircraft - Putnam -1967) as to why Gouge had to go with increasing the undercart height rather than adjust the wing incidence...

(The Martlesham test pilots are talking about the S.31 handling qualities)


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 6, 2019)

IIRC the Stirling was designed to be able to operate as a bomber out of all RAF airfields around the globe, so short wing and large wing area to get it off the ground quickly. Also it had to be able to transports troops quickly to anywhere in our global empire. The F-111 and MRCA-75 Tornado being much later and just as successful examples of multi role combat aircraft.


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2019)

The problem with lengthening the undercarriage, with what Michael Bowyer aptly describes as "an amazing array of folding struts, girders and a crate which retracted both backwards and forwards" was that it was bound to cause trouble on wet airfields or in cross winds, and it did. Stick some enormous tyres on, for operation from grass fields, and you also have a pilot sitting more than 20' above the ground!

The Stirling was built to B.12/36. A torpedo carrying capability was not specified but it certainly specified the ability to carry seven 2,000 lb AP bombs, to support the Navy. A wide range of bomb loads was specified for various conditions including various combinations of 250 lb GP/SAP/AS/LCB, 500lb GP/SAP/AS and the 2,000 lb AP bombs. Specification P.13/36 required the carrying of torpedoes. The Avro Manchester was built to this, which is why the Lancaster had such a long, open bomb bay.

The original intention was for what would become the Stirling to have a maximum take off weight, when catapult launched of just 46,000 lb. This was exceeded by a very large margin in reality, and there never was a catapult launch. The minutes of a meeting of the Operational Requirements Committee in May 1936 show that the weight and size of the new bomber(s) was discussed in terms of operational feasibility, not bombing policy.

Can we address the often repeated assertion that wing span was limited in the specification by hangar size? It was not. This goes back to Sir John Salmond's concerns, in 1931, about getting the Sidestrand replacement (Specification B.9/32) _"into our sheds"_, but it was only the size of Expeditionary Force hangars that was relevant. 
The Air Ministry allowed the Wellington, also built to B.9/32, to have an 86' wing span, well above the 70' specified. 
It is a fact that prior to 1934, before these specifications were written, The RAF's largest general service hangars (Type A) had door opening of 120' at both ends. The new Type C hangar then under consideration had a door opening of 150'. It is true that the smaller general service hangar then in use had an opening of 100', but surely I don't need to point out the absurdity of designing an aircraft with exactly the same wingspan as the hangar opening if the hangar opening was a limiting factor!

The reason that the 100' limit was proposed in 1936 was simply to stop the aircraft from getting too large. The RAF had expressed concerns that two large transports designed to C.16/28 (one was the Handley Page HP 43 at 114') were too unwieldly for ground handling. 
The opening paragraph of B.12/36 states _"Since it will be required to operate from bases anywhere in the world the aircraft must possess good facilities for maintenance in the open"._ Not much concern for hangar space there.
In October 1936 the Air staff proposed that a development of the B.12/36 heavy bomber, without any limit on wingspan, should be included in the 1937 Experimental Aircraft Programme. Again, no concern for hangar size.

I blame Harris, who does seem to have believed that some policy related to hangar size existed, at least he made scathing comments about it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Mar 6, 2019)

The low service ceiling must also have been related to the power (or lack thereof) of the Bristol Hercules, especially in the early versions.

And particularly at altitude.

The Halifax VI with Hercules 100 had a service ceiling, at maximum weight, of 20,000ft, The Halifax III had the same ceiling at a lower maximum weight and with the less powerful Hercules XVI, which had a critical altitude of 12,000ft in FS gear.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Halifax/Halifax_VI_ADS.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Halifax/Halifax_III_ADS.jpg

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> IIRC the Stirling was designed to be able to operate as a bomber out of all RAF airfields around the globe, so short wing and large wing area to get it off the ground quickly. Also it had to be able to transports troops quickly to anywhere in our global empire.



Favorable wing loading gets you off the ground quickly. A big & heavy fuselage worsens the wing loading, hence Stirling was not good in task of shortening the take off distance.
We also have almost total ignoring of existence of high-lift devices by the design team.



> The F-111 and MRCA-75 Tornado being much later and just as successful examples of multi role combat aircraft.



F-111s and Tornado IDS were lousy fighters. Tornado ADV was a lousy bomber.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 6, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Favorable wing loading gets you off the ground quickly. A big & heavy fuselage worsens the wing loading, hence Stirling was not good in task of shortening the take off distance.
> We also have almost total ignoring of existence of high-lift devices by the design team.
> 
> 
> ...



I'm a Brit, so sarcasm about those later successful fighters. LOL. So the Stirling became a troop carrier and glider tug. What a surprise. Now back to the original spec.....


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The low service ceiling must also have been related to the power (or lack thereof) of the Bristol Hercules, especially in the early versions.
> 
> And particularly at altitude.



The prototype Stirling had the Hercules HE I M engines. In 1937 the proposed alternative was the Napier Dagger, which would have been interesting. In 1940 then Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound was also considered.

The first production Stirlings got Hercules Mk II engines as Bristol failed to deliver the promised Mk IIIs. The figures posted by me earlier are for aircraft with the Mk II Hercules fitted. After these results hopes were pinned on engine development and the better performance expected from the Hercules Mk III. It was not to be. When N3662 was tested with Hercules XI engines and an auw of 62,400 lbs, it proved impossible to reduce engine revs from 2,500 to 2,300 for cruise and maintain an altitude of 15,000'.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2019)

stona said:


> In 1937 the proposed alternative was the Napier Dagger, which would have been *interesting*.




A bit like the supposed Chinese curse, "may you live in _interesting_ times".

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2019)

I think the interest in the Dagger stemmed from its impressive performance, it ran at 635 hp in 1934 and was cleared for production in 1936 at 1,000 hp (at an incredible 4,200 rpm).

The well known issues killed it off and anyway the Air Ministry fell for Napier's proposed 'Hyper' engine in 1935. That led to another interesting story, that of the Sabre. When the Dagger was still being listed as a possible alternative to the Hercules the Sabre had just about had a first run, but was a long way from production; further than most realised at the time.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2019)

A problem with the Dagger was that it was running out of places to go. 
It was a 1027 cu in engine running at 4200rpm. 
The 1000hp was at 8750 ft.

They were using 7.5:1 compression ratio and the BMEP was 183. 

I am not saying they couldn't have gotten a bit more out of it but they were pushing things pretty hard as it was, only the piston speed was on the low side.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 6, 2019)

Maybe the Vulture was a possible alternative - prior to the war.

Even detuned, it would have provided a useful performance increase over the Hercules.

Mind you, the Vulture wasn't exactly high altitude rated ether.


----------



## stona (Mar 7, 2019)

I think that it is a bit difficult to categorise the Stirling as good or bad.

It started as a back up for the Supermarine heavy bomber and then became the last man standing.

The specification was extremely demanding for the time. I doubt that any aircraft could have met it. Supermarine claimed that theirs would but then, to paraphrase the lovely Mandy Rice Davies, they would wouldn't they.

An ever evolving design, and particularly the huge increase in weight from drawing board to reality, more than 10,000 lbs, is what did for it. I'm not sure that bolting more powerful or better performing engines was the answer. It was the first real heavy bomber, but it was too low and too slow. 

We should also remember that though withdrawn from operations against Germany in October 1943, shortly before the Wellington, the last bombs dropped in anger by Stirlings were dropped on Le Havre on 8th September 1944. Stirlings continued to operate with 100 Group until the end of the war. The last _Window_ operation I can find for 100 Group Stirlings was covering a raid on Stuttgart on 18th January 1945, The last_ Mandrel_ mission was flown on 14th March 1945. That's not bad really.

Some wag at 199 Squadron wrote this little ditty when the last Stirling operation was completed.

_Goodbye old Stirling, goodbye old friend,
You've never let us down from beginning to end,
Whate'er it was, where're you went,
On bombing, mining, supporting bent,
You did a grand job, the best on Earth,
You're Stirling by name - you were sterling in worth._

Not a bad epitaph.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 7, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Maybe the Vulture was a possible alternative - prior to the war.
> 
> Even detuned, it would have provided a useful performance increase over the Hercules.
> 
> Mind you, the Vulture wasn't exactly high altitude rated ether.



Well, it was certainly rated at higher altitude than the Dagger.

Vulture may have added hundreds of pounds per engine. For some reason the Vulture in published sources weighs 2450lbs which is just over double what the Peregrine weighed (I know it is not a double Peregrine) which is a bit strange as most "doubled" engines weigh a bit less. The Vulture is going to need bigger propellers and the radiators and cooling fluid is going to add hundreds of pounds per engine. You get a lot more power but you might too much "new" airplane to use them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 7, 2019)

stona said:


> I think that it is a bit difficult to categorise the Stirling as good or bad.
> 
> It started as a back up for the Supermarine heavy bomber and then became the last man standing.
> 
> The specification was extremely demanding for the time. I doubt that any aircraft could have met it. Supermarine claimed that theirs would but then, to paraphrase the lovely Mandy Rice Davies, they would wouldn't they.



It may not have been a bad airplane to fly, It didn't have any bad habits to bite the unwary pilot, It didn't break any more than anything else. It was actually supposed to fairly maneuverable (at least if not operating near max load). It just wasn't a good "bomber" for what the British were trying to do. Even if it didn't gain as much weight (and all the 4 engine bombers and the two engine bombers gained weight ) that big, bulky fuselage would have meant more drag than it's contemporaries and that means less speed/range on the same amount of power. 

Supermarine's plane was never subject (not having really got passed the mock up stage? or first prototype?) of self sealing tanks or other increases in operational equipment. From pictures of the mock up a small man could have stood up inside the wing root. 





So it most definitely was not using the thin wing of the Spitfire. 
As you say, performance estimates should not be taken as guarantees. 370mph Beaufighter anyone?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> From pictures of the mock up a small man could have stood up inside the wing root.



One problem flagged in a report of 5th October 1937, following an inspection of the Supermarine mock up by officers from Bomber Command is that there was very little room in the fuselage.
They reported that headroom throughout the fuselage was restricted and that even the captain and navigator did not have room to stand.

Supermarine was clearly ignoring the paragraph of B.12/36 which read.

_"Consideration is to be given in design for fitting a light removable form of seating for the maximum number of personnel that can be accommodated within the fuselage when the aircraft is being used for reinforcing overseas commands." _

It was not a requirement (as is so often claimed), but Supermarine seem to have discounted it entirely. I don't believe that this was intended as a troop carrying capability at all. I think it refers to the ability to carry of RAF ground crew and other personnel when moving to Overseas Commands.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Maybe the Vulture was a possible alternative - prior to the war.
> 
> Even detuned, it would have provided a useful performance increase over the Hercules.
> 
> Mind you, the Vulture wasn't exactly high altitude rated ether.



Vulture II, per data sheet for the Manchester I, was good for 1710 HP @ 15000 ft, vs. 800 HP at same altitude for the Dagger. Data sheet for the Beaufighter I gives 1270 HP there for the Hercules III.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> For some reason the Vulture in published sources weighs 2450lbs which is just over double what the Peregrine weighed (I know it is not a double Peregrine) which is a bit strange as most "doubled" engines weigh a bit less.



The Vulture's reduction gear was basically 4 times as many gears as two Peregrines.

A planned future upgrade was to change to an epicyclic reduction, like those used on radials, at the saving of 200-300lb.

And a bore spacing about 0.5" longer than the Peregrine's.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 7, 2019)

Thank you, I knew the blocks were actually bigger due to the bore spacing but didn't know about the reduction gear.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 7, 2019)

Yep, the crankshaft drove 4 idler gears, which were coupled to another 4 gears which drove the propeller shaft.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Mar 7, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> swampyankee said:
> 
> 
> > However, I CAN see that by changing the fuselage to a hull design, you could make a flying boat out of it ... but you could do the same with a Lancaster or Halifax, too, if you really wanted to do so. Hell, if you just HAD to, you could probably make a flying boat out of a C-130, too. It might look something like the Shin Meiwa US-1A.
> ...



6 years late, but:
Boat-hulled retractable-ski version development work 1964-73, no prototype built.
Split-float version proposed 1997, no prototype built.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Mar 8, 2019)

The Supermarine stuffed it's bombs in cells into those thick wings. A thinner 'Spitfire' wing would have needed a far bigger fuselage for a full size bomb bay.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Mar 9, 2019)

yulzari said:


> The Supermarine stuffed it's bombs in cells into those thick wings. A thinner 'Spitfire' wing would have needed a far bigger fuselage for a full size bomb bay.


The following link has a plan view that illustrates how extensive the wing bomb cells were. Note the the wing leading edges were torsion boxes that also served as fuel tanks, a similar arrangement to the later long range reconnaissance Spitfires. All in all a very innovative design. Note that it could carry 3 x 2000 lb bombs in the fuselage and 2 x 2000 lb bombs in each wing root.
R J Mitchell and Supermarine: R. J. Mitchell’s Bomber and his death.


----------



## stona (Mar 9, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Note that it could carry 3 x 2000 lb bombs in the fuselage and 2 x 2000 lb bombs in each wing root.
> R J Mitchell and Supermarine: R. J. Mitchell’s Bomber and his death.



It had to. The ability to carry seven 2,000lb SAP bombs was part of the specification.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 9, 2019)

stona said:


> It had to. The ability to carry seven 2,000lb SAP bombs was part of the specification.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



So like the Stirling it can't carry any of the bigger bombs so not as good as the Lancaster. In fact removing the turrets from a Lancaster was supposed to give you an extra 50 mph so it would have matched the Supermarine proposal in top speed but not in range.


----------



## stona (Mar 9, 2019)

The Lancaster was a development of the Manchester which was built to a different specification. That specification, P.13/36, did originally specify that two 18" torpedoes should be carried. They were 18' long.

When a dedicated torpedo bomber to B.10/36, the Bristol Beaufort, was being developed the torpedo carrying capability of P.13/36 was nearly deleted, but in the end was maintained.

Eventually the Operational Requirements branch announced that torpedoes could not be dropped at 150 mph from 200 feet and that this requirement for P.13/36 was redundant. It appears that no more thought had been given to the practicalities of torpedo launching than was later given to catapult launching.

Peirse decided, in May 1937, that bombers built to P.13/36 would no longer be required to carry torpedoes. It was too late for the Manchester, and a totally unintentional benefit of the deleted requirement was the Lancaster (and Halifax's) ability to carry bombs larger than 2,000lbs.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 16, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I think the Stirling would have had a much better reputation had it been assigned to maritime patrol duties. Could it have been more useful? Yes: ASW patrol.


The large bomb bay would hold a lot of depth charges.


Waynos said:


> As well as the short wingspan and short range, I think one of the Stirlings biggest handicaps was the structure of its bomb bay which would make it impossible to carry larger munitions.


Could it carry as brace of torpedoes like the Wellington? 






Take out the nose gunner, replace it with a battery of forward firing cannons.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> The large bomb bay would hold a lot of depth charges.
> Could it carry as brace of torpedoes like the Wellington?
> 
> 
> ...



Why?

The Stirling sucked fuel like nobody's business. 
While it could lift a heavy load for short distances at longer distances it's bomb load wasn't that much greater than a Wellingtons sp it would have been a lousy patrol plane or long range strike aircraft.

Playing low level strafer with a 4 engine plane is not a good idea as you are risking a lot for little return.


----------

