Talk:Short Stirling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Felt article was borderline Start to B, but thought I'd leave rating to someone more expert. Winstonwolfe 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another excellent contribution, Maury! I've done a little proofreading and, as I've done with several of the other British aircraft entries (which are mostly your work, I gather) anglicised the language here and there.

I should discuss my reasoning here. Anyone who disagrees, please sing out! For a British aircraft, particularly one of the pre-TV era when languages were more distinct, I don't think it is appropriate to use US aeronautic terms like "plane", "gas", "ship" or "airplane". I've been going through the entries on aircraft like the Hurricane and the Beaufighter, changing these to reflect the language of the people who built and flew them: to, for example, "aircraft", "aviation spirit" or "fuel" or "petrol", and "aeroplane". I don't think that this treatment would be appropriate to the entries on US aircraft. In an entry on, for example, the Mustang, the transatlantic terms "aircraft" and "fuel" are both OK, but "petrol" would not be appropriate; both "ship" and "airplane" are suitable (which they would not be to the Spitfire). My feeling is that the slang "plane" should be avoided in either case. Tannin

---

According to other sources, it was meant to carry 24 troops, not 100 (hard to imagine how to accomodate them in such plane). Statement The massive 14,000 lb (6,340 kg) bombload put it in a class of its own, double that of any other bomber. In fact it was larger than the Avro Lancaster and Handley-Page Halifax which would eventually replace it, but both of these were originally designed to have twin engines is not correct, because Lancaster had the same bombload, not mentioning special variants carrying almost 10-ton Grand Slam. Besides, Lancaster had greater bomb bay.Pibwl 20:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• But it is correct, it was the design of the bomb bay that hampered the Stirling's maximum bomb load. And the lancaster was originally designed as the twin-engined Manchester, and if you read up about the Halifax you will see that it too was meant to take two Rolls Royce Vultures.Dirk P Broer 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

At one point, all three bombers (Halifax, Stirling, and Lancaster) had 14,000lb as their 'book' maximum bomb loads, but the loads possible varied over time, as engine power and MTWOs were progressively increased during the war. Both the Stirling and Halifax were designed when the prevailing bombing philosophy was to saturate the target with lots of smaller bombs, so both aircraft had additional bomb cells in the wings, between the fuselage and the inner engines. This meant that the size of the bomb cells, and the width of the longitudinal bomb bay support beams in the Stirling, restricted the girth, and hence size, of the individual bombs that they could carry. The Manchester however was, in the original requirement, required to be able to carry two 18" torpedoes, so that was designed with a single long, continuous, bomb bay, enabling it (and the Lancaster) to carry larger and larger bombs. The Lancaster's increased MTOW of 68,000lb allowed a maximum normal bomb load of 18,000lb by mid 1943/early 1944. The Stirling was phased out because of the limited ceiling it could attain (due to the shortened wing), leading to higher losses from flak and night fighters, plus Harris decided to standardise on the Lancaster, so Halifaxes were on the way out as bombers too when the war ended. The original design for what was to become the Stirling had a much wider span wing, but the span was reduced when the span limitation was introduced by the Air Ministry, this limitation is usually stated to be due to 'hangar door width' but I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was actually more to do with clearing certain-sized obstacles on take off, i.e., the aircraft had to get between a specified set of obstructions at the end of a runway, but I may be misremembering that. I suspect that if Short's had been able to extend the span without completely re-tooling the wing they would have, and the Stirling might have had a longer life as a bomber, but the Lancaster was available by 1942 and did everything that was asked of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.138 (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made appropriate changes. Stirlings were not withdrawn by March 1943 from bomber duty, because from May 1943 there flew more Stirlings on bomb raids at once, than ever. Pibwl ←« 12:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Virtually references I have seen to this aircraft relate the Air Ministry requirement for a wingspan of less than 100 ft, as well as a requirement that all large components should be transportable within the standard UK rail gauge. The link the the Stirling website at the bottom of the page also reiterates the Air Ministry requirement. Could someone possibly say why it is wrong? Kitbag 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In support of the above comment, I find this whole piece of text to be unintelligible or at least lacking sufficient explanation. Could you tidy it up and explain what needs explaining, please?: -"It is often said that the wingspan was limited to 100 ft so the aircraft would fit into existing hangars but the maximum hangar opening was 112 ft (34 m) and the specification required outdoor servicing.[6] "The wing span was limited by the Air Ministry to 100 ft"[9][10][3] The wingspan limitation has been alleged to have actually been enforced as a method of restricting the designer into keeping the overall weight down.[11] " Fuficius Fango (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating source

In my search for images of and information about the Stirling I came across the site "www.luftarchiv.de", which has a section on WWII aircraft which crash-landed behind the German lines and were repaired and used by the Luftwaffe. The text states that these aircaft were often used in training units, presumably to assess performance, develop air-combat tactics etc.

The site contains many wonderful (and startling) images of e.g. Spitfires, Mosquitos and even Stirlings bearing Luftwaffe insignia! To navigate to this section:

• click on this link to get to www.luftarchiv.de
• select "English" at the top right
• click on "Captured Planes" in the panel on the left (the first Stirling appears)
• click on "England" for a gallery of captured British aircraft. This includes 3 Stirlings (one in colour) and a coloured drawing of the Stirling in Luftwaffe insignia.

Unfortunately the English is restricted largely to the site navigation; the text is (still?) in German. In the introduction it remarks that there was a good supply of spares for the operational aircraft; the colour picture of a Stirling shows that three engines have been removed - perhaps as spares, perhaps for repair.

It also states that there was a strict standing order for all Allied fighter pilots to destroy on the ground any Allied aircraft which were seen to have made a forced landing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TraceyR (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

If you can get it you might find this book interesting then:

Luftwaffe Test Pilot : Flying Captured Allied Aircraft of World War 2 by Hans-Werner Lerche - ISBN 0531037118

as if I remember correctly it includes his experience of flying the captured Stirling. Ian Dunster 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada as operator?

In my opinion Canada was never a operator of the Short Stirling. At least one Canadian unit (242 squadron) within the RAF used the Stirling, but not the Canadian Air Force. If this would be valid to be counted as Canadian use, we might also include New Zealand (75 Squadron) and Uganda (46 Squadron).Dirk P Broer (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is gone Stirling II?

Why there is not info on II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.213.228 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Been some unexplained changing of numbers in the 'specs' section, was going to revert but noticed that the specs section is not referenced, needs citing and checking. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Performance specs ??

Maximum speed is quoted as 255 mph at 21,000 feet. Service ceiling is quoted as 16,500 feet. huh ? Rcbutcher (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It's normal practice to add one good source (Janes?) at the top of the specs section (where it is asking for 'citation needed') and check that the figures match, ditching all the extra cites that have been recently added. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Service ceiling is where the climb rate falls below a certain figure, doesn't mean that it couldn't get to 21,000 ft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

German AA was effective to about 17500'. 18000' was selected as the minimum, with a bomb load. This left the Lancaster and Halifax. The Stirling managed about 12000', with load. The 99' wing span was forced by the Type-C prefab hangar. AM had the door width recorded as 100', whereas it was more like 125'. Would have been a lot cheaper and quicker to change the hangars! Some AM pen pusher was obviously a German spy, or a Cambridge gay commie!220.244.85.104 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The wing loading is stated to be 40ld/sqft. This is typical of the 1930s, but is quite low compared to say a B29 at 69lb/sqft. The poor altitude and cargo specs for the given engine power I'd say are due to something other than the supposed wing's small size. While the wing is a little too thick and too short compared to a B29, there must have been some other source of heavy drag and turbulence. Could be turrets or even engine nacelles being poorly faired. Good examples of extreme drag/turbulence the CAC-4 Woomera and the Shorts Belfast.210.185.74.240 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The poor altitude performance was due to having a thick-sectioned low aspect ratio wing designed for a flying boat that was intended for operations below 10,000 feet.

At the time the Stirling was being designed no-one in Britain knew anything about the German AA guns, as the guns were developed in secret. The RAF only found out they needed to fly above 18,000 feet when they started bombing their German targets. Therefore when the Stirling was being designed no-one knew that a ceiling of around 15,000 feet was going to be as big a drawback as it turned out to be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.167 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

One sixth scale model

In June 2013 the BBC's Antiques Roadshow, from RAF Marham, featured a unique one-sixth fully-working model of a Sterling. The model, which can fly on the tethered line, took its owner 6,550 hours to build, spread over 15 years: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The owner claimed that there were no surviving flying aircraft. I think this fact might usefully be noted in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations improvements

I began to alter the references because there are red Harv error: link from #CITEREFMason1994 doesn't point to any citation all over the place. It's the remedy of a mistake not an undiscussed change to anything. Would you like to discuss?Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There were no error messages when I looked at it, so I don't know what you are seeing. HARVNB templates were added in 2010 without any discussion or changing the bibliographic references to match. While I am not convinced that harvnb templates add anything, there are ways of matching them to targets that don't use cite xx templates I believe.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

{{{1}}} is an alternative I think.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think that explains it. User:Keith-264/common.js here is a script importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); which makes harv errors show up in bold red. By adding ref={{harvid|Surname|date}} inside the {{cite book...etc}} template the red disappears. I don't know what the harvnb format is for, unless it's to allow people to use the template on a page which has <ref></ref> refs. I get by with short footnotes. An alternative would be to replace the harvnb's with <ref></ref> refs.Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a preference for which bibliographic reference system to use?Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The citations still had red all over so I altered some of the bibliography to sfns. Happy to discuss.Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Maximum speed ?

Current specs section : Maximum speed: 282 mph

Current text states : "...the Lancaster ... was at least 40 mph faster".

Both can't be right.Rcbutcher (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Curent maxspeed listed here is bogus, should be 255/270 for Mk. I/III; Only the unarmed Mk. IV/V transports were in the 280 mph range. --Denniss (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The performance graphs in Bowyer's The Stirling Story (Appendix 1, pp. 312–316) gives a maximum speed of about 263–264 mph at between 10000 and 11000 ft for Mark 1 N6000, and about 262 mph at 13000 ft for Mk 3 BK649, both from A&AEE trials. The quoted speed of 282 may be a misreading of estimated performance for the unbuilt "Super Stirling" proposal (Bowyer p. 113") of 282 mph with MS gear and 311 mph with FS gear.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The "at least 40mph faster" refers to cruise speed, though it's a slight exaggeration: the Lancaster cruised at 210mph out, 240mph home. Maximum speed was fairly irrelevant for bombers, their performance being defined by cruise speed. Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

All A&AEE performance figures are for aircraft weights typical of actual service use, so for bombers the weight tested would be with a representative load of half the normal maximum load of bombs, in the Stirling's case of 14,000lb, i.e., 7,000lb, plus the normal fuel capacity.

All the A&AEE figures would be exceeded when the aeroplane was lightly loaded, e.g., after dropping bombs, expending ammunition, consumption of fuel, etc., as at lower weights the induced drag is lower.

The Stirling's limitations were due to having been designed with a flying boat wing intended for use mostly at low levels below 10,000 feet.

BTW, at the time the RAF's main WW II bombers were being designed it was assumed that with France as an ally then if war came the bombers would be flying to their targets from airfields in France. The early bombers were therefore not designed to bomb Germany from airfields in Britain, with the additional (and heavy) load in petrol that the greater distances dictated. Thus the bomber's performance would have been somewhat higher than that which subsequently turned out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.167 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

JFYI RAF Bomber stream cruising speed would be governed by the need to avoid collisions (all aircraft would be given the same set cruising speed at briefing) and by the possible need to be economical with petrol, bearing in mind some airfields were further from the target than others, and so their aircraft had further to fly. Thus a cruising speed would be chosen that got the bomber stream to and from the target as quickly as possible (bearing in mind the effect of the additional various dog-legs along the route) while still allowing the aircraft with the furthest to fly a reasonable reserve of petrol. Raids against nearer targets would be carried out with heavier bomb loads and with more fuel in hand, hence higher cruising speeds that consumed more fuel could be used. In other words, there was no one set cruising speed for a heavy bomber, it varied according to various factors.

IIRC, these fuel and bomb loads, together with the set cruising speed, etc., were all calculated (incorporating data from the Met. Flights, as winds affected petrol consumption) before every raid by staff at High Wycombe and sent via land line teleprinter to each bomber station.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Short Stirling/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is quite a good article, I think. Very informative and well written. It could use some discussion on the Stirling's ultimate removal from service, but that's all I can really think of. M Van Houten 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Short Stirling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823143313/http://www.austinmemories.com/page6/page6.html to http://www.austinmemories.com/page6/page6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)