Short Stirling Bomber (better quality footage)

Short Stirling Bomber (better quality footage)

Category: Entertainment
Author: Bomberguy
Published (on YouTube): 2007-12-28
Published (here): 2012-02-11
Rating: 4.954023; Votes:87

Views: 79432; Favorites: 173

Description:
The Stirling was the first four-engined British heavy bomber of the Second World War. Built by Short Brothers, it was to have a relatively short operational career. Throughout the 1930s, the Royal Air Force was interested primarily in twin-engine bombers and invested heavily in development of huge engines in the 2,000 horsepower (1,500 kW) class in order to improve performance. In the U.S. and USSR were developing bombers with four smaller engines, which proved to have excellent range and fair lifting capacity, so in 1936 the RAF also decided to investigate the feasibility of the four-engined bomber. The Air Ministry Specification B.12/36 had a mixture of requirements.[citation needed] In addition to a 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) bombload carried to a range of 3,000 miles (4,800 km) (incredibly demanding for the era), the aircraft should also be able to be used as a troop transport for 24 soldiers. The idea was that it would fly troops to far corners of the British Empire and then support them with bombing. To help with this task as well as ease production, it needed to be able to be broken down into parts for transport by train. Since it could be operating from limited "back country" airfields, it needed to lift off from a 500 ft (150 m) runway and able to clear 50 ft (15 m) trees at the end, a specification most small aircraft would have a problem with today. The wingspan was limited to 100 ft (30 m) so the aircraft would fit into existing hangars. The wingspan limit was also imposed in an unsuccessful attempt to ensure the Stirling's weight was kept down. Operational status wasn't reached until January 1941 by No. 7 Squadron RAF. The first three Stirlings flew a mission on 10 February 1941 over fuel storage tanks in Rotterdam, and from spring of 1942 it started to be used in greater numbers. From May 1943, air raids on Germany started with over a hundred Stirlings at once. Despite the "disappointing performance" at maximum altitude, Stirling pilots were delighted to discover that, due to the thick wing, they could out-turn the Ju 88 and Me 110 nightfighters they faced. Its handling was much better than that of the Halifax and some preferred it to the Lancaster. Based on its flight characteristics, Pilot Murray Peden of No. 214 RAF Squadron flatly described the Stirling as "one of the finest aircraft ever built." Another consequence of the thick wing however was a low ceiling and many missions were flown as low as 12,000 ft (4,000 m). This was a disadvantage on many raids, notably if crews were attacking Italy and had to fly through (rather than "over") the Alps. When Stirlings were on combined operations with other RAF bombers which could fly at higher altitudes, the Luftwaffe concentrated on the low-flying Stirlings. Within five months of being introduced, 67 out of the 84 aircraft delivered had been lost to enemy action or written off after crashes. The Stirling's huge maximum bomb load was only able to be carried for relatively short distances of around 590 miles. On typical missions deep into Germany or Italy a smaller 3,500 lb (1,590 kg) load was carried, consisting of seven 500 lb (227 kg) bombs. This was the sort of load being carried by the RAF's medium bombers such as the Vickers Wellington and, by 1944, by the de Havilland Mosquito. Perhaps the biggest problem with the design was that the bomb bay had two structural dividers running down the middle, limiting it to carrying nothing larger than the 2,000 lb (907 kg) bomb. As the RAF started using the 4000 lb (1,815 kg) "cookies" and even larger "specials," the Stirling became less useful. In 1943, it was decided to withdraw Stirlings to secondary tasks. By December 1943, Stirlings were being withdrawn from frontline service as a bomber, increasingly being used for deploying mines outside German ports, electronic countermeasures and dropping spies deep behind enemy lines at night (through the now unused ventral turret ring). General characteristics Crew: 7 Length: 87 ft 3 in (26.6 m) Wingspan: 99 ft 1 in (30.2 m) Height: 28 ft 10 in (8.8 m) Wing area: 1,322 ft² (122.8 m²) Empty weight: 44,000 lb (19,950 kg) Loaded weight: 59,400 lb (26,940 kg) Max takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,750 kg) Powerplant: 4× Bristol Hercules II radial engines, 1,375 hp (1,030 kW) each Performance Maximum speed: 255 mph (410 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m) Range: 2,330 mi (3,750 km) Service ceiling: 16,500 ft (5,030 m) Rate of climb: 800 ft/min (4 m/s) Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (219.4 kg/m²) Power/mass: 0.093 hp/lb (0.153 kW/kg) Armament 8 x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns: 2 in the nose, 4 in the tail, 2 dorsal Up to 18,000 lb (8,164 kg) of bombs

Video duration: 6 min.
«Short Stirling Bombe...» screenshots:
00:02:38
 00:01:19
 00:02:38
 00:03:57
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

Comments on «Short Stirling Bomber (better quality footage)»:

2007Colonial on 2011-12-20
The Boffins in the ...
The Boffins in the Air Ministry ruined this plane, Arthur Gouge Short's cheif engineer wanted a 112' wingspan for good altitude performance, he was overuled and a very good design was hobbled but not ruined! It did fly beautifully and was very agile for its size.

pramboy09 on 2011-11-13
@marksjersey856 it ...
@marksjersey856 it was the 1940's everyone went to work in a suit and tie in those days.

marksjersey856 on 2011-11-09
only the british ...
only the british would build planes in dress and business suits.

carmium on 2011-10-22
@nibornodrog I ...
@nibornodrog I didn't know that, but had definitely noticed the high wing loading in plan views of the Stirling. You have to wonder what discussion were had: "Gentlemen, in order to reach the desired altitude and avoid much danger from the enemy, our new bomber has to have a wider wingspan than current hangars can accommodate. We must modify a number of hangars." "Wot?! That will never do! Shorten the wings, fly it into the ack-ack, but change the hangars? Totally impractical!"

nibornodrog on 2011-09-19
The altidude ...
The altidude limitation was caused by wing span being too short! It had to fit hangers that compromised wing span. Why they didnt fit folding wing tips is beyond me!

oldironandy on 2011-08-20
@fdsdh1 They could ...
@fdsdh1 They could spin easily on take off or landing but once airborne they were actually very manoevreable and could turn very sharply for such a large aircraft, even to the extent that they could out turn a ME 110.

fdsdh1 on 2011-08-13
i heard that if a ...
i heard that if a stirling turned too sharply it would fall into an unrecoverable stall is this true

Aussiephil99 on 2011-08-08
Imagine having a ...
Imagine having a choice of being posted to a Stirling squadron or a Mosquito squadron. Stirling = almost certain death

captmark97 on 2011-07-29
@zarquon53 The ...
@zarquon53 The tall undercarriage was necessary for the great angle of attack on takeoff required for the relatively small wing to get the craft airborne. Angle of attack is the angle between the horizontal and the plane of the wing. A few years later Vought designers had to put a tall nose gear on the delta-wing, jet F7U Cutlass to get it off the deck from a carrier. The Cutlass was underpowered to boot; the Naval aviators called it the Gutless Cutlass.

VeeGlo on 2011-07-28
@zarquon53 The ...
@zarquon53 The Stirling was designed and built with the ludicrous requirement of having a wingspan of < 100' to fit in existing RAF hangars!! The smallish wing and under-powered engines could not generate enough lift at take off without aoa created by its' overly all landing gear.

buidseach on 2011-07-26
@mosquito1958 could ...
@mosquito1958 could always build a replica in sections im sure the plans and dimensions still exsist

timeniazaipal on 2011-07-20
Guys, this is an ...
Guys, this is an interesting aircraft in the next year may appear in the IL-2 Sturmovik

zarquon53 on 2011-07-15
Can anyone please ...
Can anyone please explain why the thing had that Enormous bloody great undercarriage ? I dont mean the wheels diameter , that was for rough airfields , I mean the sheer HEIGHT of the thing off the deck . Crazy . The wings were virtually straight off the Sunderland Flying boat , and at the time the plane was designed the RAF preferred lots of small bombs , hence the cramped bomb bay layout - but as the fuselage was just a parallel sided box , that could have easily been redesigned .

volumex2000 on 2011-07-10
I wonder why the ...
I wonder why the USA didn't do a bomber called the 'Dollar'. Like say the Douglas Dollar ?

mosquito1958 on 2011-06-04
Real shame there ...
Real shame there are NO known full airframes of this bomber. I wish they'd find one at the bottom of some freshwater lake complete and not too much corosion so it may be raised and restored then placed in the RAF museum Hendon. That would be nice.

chriswizz on 2011-04-25
Fantastic video, ...
Fantastic video, thanks.

martynpank on 2011-04-25
@ ...
@lOmnivoreSobriquet I like yr sentiments, but, in reality the Stirling was, not that good! A split bomb bay didn't help! It's ceiling & climbing was dreadful too! In this part of the war, the Wimpey was king! But, if the 'Mitchell' 4 engined bomber wasn't destroyed during the Blitz, things would have been alot different! Thank Heavens 4 the Lanc.....But then, BC was in it's infancy!!! ......& I agree! Thnx BG!

lOmnivoreSobriquet on 2011-04-11
2nd World War ...
2nd World War wouldn't have looked the same without the Stirling... and arguably wouldn't have happened the same even. I think the aircraft was more a moral booster to the Brits, than an actual moral breaker to the Germans... But it certainly looked right, for the task, and did bring a shape to Britain's effort in those difficult early war years. I allways cherished that Airfix model that I made of it as a teenage, back in end 70's France.... Thx BG for this fine video again, discovering.

2007Colonial on 2011-02-23
Great shots of the ...
Great shots of the Stirling, an excellent plane hobbled by the experts? in the Air Ministry, it still was an excellent flying machine!

darren181170 on 2011-02-07
Macroberts reply is ...
Macroberts reply is being released in 1:72 scale as a die cast model by Corgi Aviation Archive in december. A fitting tribute .

DeeBoneham on 2011-01-03
A very much ...
A very much underrated bomber. Bless all who flew in them! RIP all who died in them including Sgt Edgar Harvey of 75 (NZ) Sqn...

Hanglands on 2010-12-20
@Bomberguy Believe ...
@Bomberguy Believe it or not, a friend of mine was in the next Stirling to take off after the original McRoberts Reply (N6086), and witnessed the accident. The pilot of N6086 was Boggis. It happened at Lossiemouth.

muzlinkage on 2010-12-15
I always liked the ...
I always liked the Stirling. Kind of regal

KevinJKtheman on 2010-12-11
@SapperK9 Take no ...
@SapperK9 Take no notice of that sill german tart dopenhagen, she trolls Britsh aircraft videos, running down the Brits, and trying to praise up, the luftwaffe, she takes it bad that they lost the war, sad little girl.

mistersmith6000 on 2010-12-04
Did they even try ...
Did they even try fold-out wings, like aircraft carrier aircraft have. That way, they could have gotten a better ceiling as well as been able to park them in the hangars.

Tags