MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

[Glider]

As a transport the Sterling was pretty good and thinking about it a good contender for the aircraft in a secondary role thread.

edit - additional information
On the 5th August three Sterling's from 620 Sqd joined the USAAF base at Harrington to assist with the dropping of people taking part in a Carpet Bagger operation. The original plan was to use six Liberators but changed when it was realised that three Sterling's could do the job.
They caused quite a stir as it was the first time they had seen a Sterling close up and the whole thing was filmed by one Captain John Ford. So somewhere there is an interesting film to be dug up

 

[stona]

Yep, there was something going on. I shall try and investigate
Cheers
Steve

 

[soulezoo]

We've had discussions here to the same, IMO the C-47 was the best all round aircraft of WW2. Too many people are hung up on combat aircraft to appreciate it's importance, not only in performing its mission, but the operational and developmental legacy it paved in later years.

I have to agree with this. In many of the discussions, weight to the argument is given to length of service. DC-3/C-47 remained in service (somewhere) for a very long time. The last time I was in Port-Au-Prince I saw one sitting at the edge of the taxiway. (a quick visual left airworthiness very much in doubt)

 

[stona]

From what I can gather the Short B.12/36 design initially got the go ahead in January 1937 as a back up to the preferred design from Supermarine. The Short design was suggested as the back up by Chief of the Air Staff purely on the grounds that the company had experience of four engine monoplanes and despite extensive criticism of the design. It was this criticism which led to the firm being asked to redesign the aircraft and resubmit before any design would be considered.

Let's look at the original design, submitted in September 1936. It was a mid wing monoplane to be powered by four Napier Dagger engines (a la Hereford) . It had a 112 ft, later 102 ft wingspan of 1,300 sq/ft and a fuselage 86ft 6in long. Projected normal weight was 38,100 lb, overload 42,900 lb and maximum feasible weight 53,100 lb. Bombs to be carried in four long compartments, two either side of the fuselage centre frames. Provision was for twenty bombs in four tiers of five. A 'special arrangement' for the carriage of eight 2000 lb HE bombs was 'envisaged'. This maybe the origins of the wide fuselage.

The re-submission in April 1937 for what would become the Stirling was heavily revised. Power was to be provided by Daggers or Hercules (HE ISM whatever they were ) engines. Wingspan was to stay at 102 ft, overall length 86ft 8in (just 2 in longer). Normal loaded weight rose to 41,600lb, overload to 46,600lb and maximum feasible to 56,900lb. The aircraft could now carry twenty eight 500lb bombs or seven 2000lb bombs, tiered stowage was abandoned. The Air Ministry would have been pleased that Shorts, unlike Supermarine DID make provision for the aircraft to serve as a troop carrier. Here they may have had the advantage of the later timing. By this time they would have been aware that the Air Ministry was retrospectively looking at this role for the B.12/36 designs and possibly that funding for a purpose built transport aircraft would not be forthcoming.

It wasn't until August and then September that the mock ups were examined. Finance for two prototypes was not approved until after the final mock up conference in December.

I think that the timing is vital. There is no evidence to suggest that the fuselage size was in any way related to designs existing in 1936. There is evidence to suggest that Shorts were well aware of the developing requirements for the original specification in late 1936 and then 1937 and may therefore have built them into their design. After all this was a commercial competition, and one which Shorts were keen to win.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

I have to agree with this. In many of the discussions, weight to the argument is given to length of service. DC-3/C-47 remained in service (somewhere) for a very long time. The last time I was in Port-Au-Prince I saw one sitting at the edge of the taxiway. (a quick visual left airworthiness very much in doubt)

There are still some in commercial service to this very day.

Either in their original configuration or converted to Turboprops.

 

[stona]

Looking at the Stirling bomb bays, the problem was not the length at 42 feet, but the fact that this was divided into three bomb cells and due to the strengthening girders these could never be altered to accommodate weapons more than 19 inches in diametre. Nevertheless it could carry the bomb loads in the specification, notably the seven 2000 lb bombs which the Air Ministry thought vital for attacking enemy surface vessels. The bomb carriers could be converted from 250lb to 500lb to 2000lb in short order.
This longitudinal division of the bomb bay was not unique to the Stirling, the Wellington was somewhat similar and if I remember correctly the Blenheim was also divided, though just into two..
Cheers
Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

I always liked the unusual bomb bays located in the wings of the Stirling

 

[stona]

I always liked the unusual bomb bays located in the wings of the Stirling

The Halifax had then too.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for the time and effort you have taken in regards to the Stirling.
It seems to take quite a bit of unraveling to trace the design histories of many of these late 30s British aircraft as just as the air ministry tended to hedge their bets regarding different aircraft for the same role, a prudent air craft maker might want to hedge their bets regarding specifications from the air ministry as those tended to either swing back and forth a bit or be modified more than once between original specification and production.
A company not only had to meet the initial specification, they might have to guess which way the air ministry was going to jump next (add or subtract certain requirements) and bias the initial design accordingly. With about 4 years between initial specification and squadron service there was plenty of time for air ministry to change/amend the initial specification.

 

[Shortround6]

I always liked the unusual bomb bays located in the wings of the Stirling

Actually that was almost standard for British bombers of the 30s.
Whitley and Halifax had them in addition to many "paper" aircraft of the time.
For normal structures it actually meant lower structural weight for a given payload as the weight was more evenly distributed across the wingspan rather than being concentrated in one spot (center).
Using the "standard" RAF 250lb bomb the bays were rather easy to arrange but when the desired bomb went to 500lbs or larger the wing bays became somewhat useless.

 

[stona]

The specifications certainly did get amended and updated, as and when the Air Ministry saw fit. B.12/36 was no different in this respect.
The specifications could even be varied and adapted to a particular aircraft. For example, in the case of the Stirling, on 5th January 1939 a normal loaded weight of 50,844 lb was agreed, nearly 5,000lb over that agreed in 1937.
Cheers
Steve

 

[gjs238]

There are still some in commercial service to this very day.

Either in their original configuration or converted to Turboprops.

Buffalo Airways uses them
Buffalo Airways: Your passage to the North. - Home

 

[KiwiBiggles]

There are still some in commercial service to this very day.

Either in their original configuration or converted to Turboprops.

Air Chatham operates one on scheduled services between Auckland and Whakatane during the summer months.

DC-3 Charters

 

[wuzak]

Looking at the Stirling bomb bays, the problem was not the length at 42 feet, but the fact that this was divided into three bomb cells and due to the strengthening girders these could never be altered to accommodate weapons more than 19 inches in diametre. Nevertheless it could carry the bomb loads in the specification, notably the seven 2000 lb bombs which the Air Ministry thought vital for attacking enemy surface vessels. The bomb carriers could be converted from 250lb to 500lb to 2000lb in short order.
This longitudinal division of the bomb bay was not unique to the Stirling, the Wellington was somewhat similar and if I remember correctly the Blenheim was also divided, though just into two..
Cheers
Steve

Some pictures of the Stirling bomb bay:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8507/8484275447_b66cf4f7d9_b.jpg
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k548/k4kittycrew/Stirlingbombload.jpg
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k548/k4kittycrew/KITTY4/Slide7_zps958d0e2e.jpg

The Wellington was similar, but that could be modified to take larger bombs.

Interestingly, a Wellington bomb beam was modified to fit into a Mosquito so that it could carry 8 x 500lb bombs (or 8 x 250lb TIs) internally.

 

[Hickam Field]

"... Grumman was very underrated with their rugged birds"

Many of which were built by GM .....

Yep. Goodyear built Corsairs, Arado and Dornier built 190's....

 

[GrauGeist]

...Arado and Dornier built 190's....

So did Weserflug, Seibel, Mimetall, Feisler and Ago.

 

[stona]

As a transport the Sterling was pretty good and thinking about it a good contender for the aircraft in a secondary role thread.

edit - additional information
On the 5th August three Sterling's from 620 Sqd joined the USAAF base at Harrington to assist with the dropping of people taking part in a Carpet Bagger operation. The original plan was to use six Liberators but changed when it was realised that three Sterling's could do the job.
They caused quite a stir as it was the first time they had seen a Sterling close up and the whole thing was filmed by one Captain John Ford. So somewhere there is an interesting film to be dug up

We should be aware that these aircraft were Mk IVs, a specific transport aircraft and extensively modified. It was not a case of the removable seating envisaged in the original 1936 specification being fitted. Following two factory conversions at Rochester in August 1943, EF503 and EF506 were sent off to the A+AEE for various trials and assessments followed by operational clearance.

The conversions from Mk III bombers were initially undertaken at 23 MU (Aldergrove) starting in October 1943. The switch to Mk IV production at the Belfast factory followed in December.

The Mk IV transport was different to the bomber version, not least in having nose and dorsal turrets removed, some had all removed, but it would not have been so successful had Shorts not included a troop carrying capability (not just an overseas reinforcement capability) in its original design.

A relatively unencumbered fuselage was needed and as can be seen on the Mk I that is exactly what the Stirling had. This one has a retracted FN25 ventral turret visible at the far end. This turret was deleted on later Mk Is and is not relevant to the Mk III conversions or aircraft originally built as Mk IVs.

The squadrons involved in these 'Special Operations' were largely manned by ex- Bomber Command men, 196 and 620 squadrons had left the Command in November 1943, and they were not at all happy to discover that they would be flying Stirlings.

John Payne of 620 Squadron remembered:

" About October 1943 a large bunch of slightly bewildered aircrew were posted to Leicester East, an awful quagmire on a hill above Oadby, a suburb of Leicester....
We were intrigued to discover that we were now to be engaged in 'Special Duties', something we had only previously associated with a mysterious group of ace pilots who did hairy things like landing Lysanders in fields in France under the noses of the Jerries.
But we had no aircraft, so the burning question during the subsequent weeks of inactivity was: "WHAT are we going to fly?" We had star studded dreams that at least we would get Lancasters, but more likely some extra special type so far yet unveiled.
Imagine the near mutiny which took place when something like 600 aircrew, representing an almost equal number of Commonwealth countries, were told we would be getting...shudder...Stirlings! The CO gained a slightly better hearing when he said: "Ah, but wait till you see THIS Mark, the IV."

Eventually a Mark IV arrived, prompting more questions.

"But where was the front turret, the dorsal, and what was that enormous, horse shoe shaped, lumo of steel wrapped around the belly just below and forward of the tail? "

After a few trial flights most were happier but

"the general pleasure was tempered, in the case of veterans, with the knowledge that they were to lose their gunners as 'surplus to establishment'.... Then the questions began. "What is the purpose of that horse shoe?" "It is a strop guard to prevent strops, which serve to pull open paratroopers' chutes, from lashing holes in the fuselage." "So we're carrying paratroops?" "That's right." "In daylight ops?" "That's right." (and remember, all those crews were ex-Bomber Command). This information was supplanted by news that we were also going to tow gliders - and again, all Hell erupted."

The cloak and dagger operations started in February 1944, often launched from an advanced base at Tarrant Rushton.
So secret were the various SOE, SAS and other operations that you will find them entered in pilots' log books simply as 'operations as ordered'.
By the time they gave the Americans a hand the squadrons were experienced in this sort of operation.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

True and thanks for the information. I believe the USAAF used modified B24D's for the carpetbagger flights, which were modified for the mission but to what degree I don't know but understood that the tail and dorsal turrets were left. If you have any more info it would be appreciated.

 

[stona]

True and thanks for the information. I believe the USAAF used modified B24D's for the carpetbagger flights, which were modified for the mission but to what degree I don't know but understood that the tail and dorsal turrets were left. If you have any more info it would be appreciated.

I really don't know what the USAAF operated in this role.

The Mk IV Stirling was significantly better than the bomber version(s). Even with a take off weight of 70,000lb the service ceiling was 19,100ft and with cooling gills closed, engines at 2,400rpm, maximum weak mix cruise speed was a respectable 235 mph TAS, in MS gear at 11,800ft.

A more usual operational take off weight was 58,000lb, 66,000lb in paratrooping mode.

John Payne again.

"The first trial flights ended with the skippers outwardly reserved but inwardly jubilant. This 'ugly duckling', built like a battleship, had a TAS which proved it could outpace any other four-engined type we knew of."

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

I really don't know what the USAAF operated in this role...

The 801st PG (later renamed 492nd) of the 8th AF, primarily operated modified B-24D types with ball turret, nose MG and oxygen equipment removed, but also operated quite an interesting list of additional types:
A-26 - two aircraft; Intelligence/Insertion
B-17 - two aircraft; 406th NFS (Night Leaflet Squadron)
C-47 - Insertion/Extraction & ACRU
C-64 - one aircraft
Mosquito - two aircraft; Intelligence/Insertion
Norseman
Stirling - may have been two aircraft, operated in July 1943 with US markings.
Tigermoth
Wellington - non-combat duties.