Folding wings on British bombers

The lengthy undercarriage came about from the mini Stirling's high landing speed and long take off and landing run. The answer was to increase the main wing's angle of incidence, but because the prototype Stirling had its wing already positioned when this was found out, the solution was to steepen the ground stance using a long main gear.

Initially, the S.29, Short's original entry to B.12/36, to which the firm was not on the list of tendering companies, was described as 'a robust effort but too near flying boat design'. It was considerably modified before the final design was settled on during the Mock-Up Conference in December 1937. CAS recommended that Short build the S.29 as insurance in case of failure of the Supermarine 316, because it had experience in four engine aeroplanes (flying boats).

The Stirling might have had flying boat DNA, but structurally, it had nothing in common with either the Empires or the Sunderland. It was conceived around the concept of modular construction, where each segment was built as a single unit then mated together, supposedly for ease of production, although the prototype ran six months behind schedule, then crashed before any performance trials were carried out.

stona said:

One thing Harris always did, which is a bonus for us today, was to say exactly what he thought. He can rarely be accused of mincing his words.

Click to expand...

Occasionally he'd risk a little terminological inexactitude (for example, he told Parliament the policy for bombing didn't change), or hide behind the argument that they were actually targeting the working population instead of just pounding the shit out of the population as an intended goal.

He did however come closest to telling the truth, and occasionally he'd do it: He would often say that, with the exception of Essen, they rarely took industrial sites seriously, and often aimed at the city center. Later in life he said he was told to not bomb anything unless specifically told to do so and blast the cities as a whole.

It's nice when people are more honest because you don't have to decode what they're saying -- they just said it.

Shortround6 said:

Well, we all know the Fokker DR 1 and the Sopwith triplane were agile therefor this
View attachment 643509
Must be agile too

Click to expand...

The fuselage kind of LOOKS like a bomb, complete with fins

Zipper730 said:

Occasionally he'd risk a little terminological inexactitude (for example, he told Parliament the policy for bombing didn't change), or hide behind the argument that they were actually targeting the working population instead of just pounding the shit out of the population as an intended goal.

He did however come closest to telling the truth, and occasionally he'd do it: He would often say that, with the exception of Essen, they rarely took industrial sites seriously, and often aimed at the city center. Later in life he said he was told to not bomb anything unless specifically told to do so and blast the cities as a whole.

Click to expand...

He was a realist, with the accuracy of bombing in WW2 in many cases if you aimed for the town centre of a WW2 industrial town/ city you weren't far off aiming for the industry that grew there. When I walked to my first school I walked past a foundry, my house was only a few hundred yards from the river, on the other side of the river was a steel works and in between was a railway going the the port quays. When I started working for British Steel corporation all three sites I worked on were ringed by houses, because people prior to the 1960s walked to their work place. I worked in many steel sites later in France, Germany and Italy and although many have been rebuilt post war they are still the same basic layout. I preferred to take my car but sometimes I couldnt, I have walked into work in steel plants from hotels and guest houses all over Europe, housing and steel plants are basically in the same place.