Hi, ex-Short Brothers engineer here! I trained in the Belfast factory, starting in 1980 and I can well remember listening to the old sweats who had worked on the Stirling during WW2. They spoke with pride, but were sad at how the Stirling had been hampered by the Air Ministry.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting. A lot of its issues stemmed to the requirements set out by the Air Ministry. Thanks for sharing 👍✈️

@duncbee

Жыл бұрын

The Stirling like the Sunderland was designed and initially built at Rochester in Kent. Production was moved to Belfast due to Kents frontline position and Naval Dockyards being prime German Bomber targets.

@OTIB1

Жыл бұрын

I read that the Stirling wasn't too good, but that's because it exactly matched the specification drawn up by the Air Ministry. Has anyone ever asked the RAF what they'd like?

@lawrencefox563

Жыл бұрын

Air ministry disregarded lift formula made sterlings wings too short ,irony it's name of company, curious Bristol radials wasn't used.

@SCjunk

Жыл бұрын

Sounds a bit like that other Belfast pride -you know the one that got deleted by a giant scotch on the rocks🤣

Not forgotten mate, 🇬🇧, less well known

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Very much agree 👍✈️

Dad was a Lancaster pilot. The Stirling was always one of my favorite Airfix kits and looked great alongside the other heavies I built as a child.

@AntiqueAirshow

10 ай бұрын

That is interesting. They were brave young men. Nice that would have been good fun

My father was shot down over Germany in a short Sterling. Though it never had the glamour associated with the Lancaster, he claimed it was a very strong and reliable plane. They had to carry out cork screw manoeuvres to evade an enemy fighter on one occasion and it was more than up to the task.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

They were brave men. It seems the Stirling was popular with pilots. Not many bombers could evade nightfighters like the Stirling could. Lest we forget

@raftonpounder6696

7 ай бұрын

Stirling.

My great uncle ( Pilot Officer Gordon Joshua Dennison RCAF) my grandfather’s brother, went MIA in a Stirling from 199 Squadron RAF on the night of 15/16 September 1944 over the North Sea. To this day it is classified but the thought is they were dropping agents into Holland. Lest we forget…

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting and fascinating. They were brave men, fighting for freedom. RIP, Lest we forget

@duartesimoes508

Жыл бұрын

That is very probable, although you don't mention the year. As the Bomber Command noticed that the Stirling was hopelessly unsuitable for bombing missions and more and more Lancasters and Mosquitoes became available, the Stirling, and to a lesser extent the Halifax started flying missions in which their limitations weren't important. Dropping agents while flying low was one of them, towing gliders was another. After all, the Typhoon was created as an air superiority fighter. It didn't take long until it was found that she was a poor high altitude fighter but an excellent ground attack aircraft. Eventually they came up with the Tempest, which excelled at high altitude.

@blatherskite9601

Жыл бұрын

Respect!

@dalemartell8639

Жыл бұрын

@@duartesimoes508 sorry 1944

@shavkatturdiqulov3832

Жыл бұрын

Светлая , Вечная память пилотам Второй мировой войны,которые сражалис против фашизма.

My old man use to know a old guy who was a tail gunner on the Sterling and he use the say you could do aerobatics in the Stirling and it could almost dogfight in it. He held them in very high regard.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very fascinating. It would be a great if there was video of one doing aerobatics. They were brave men that fought and flew in them. Lest we forget.

I just love the look of this aircraft. The short wings and tall landing gear. It is so ungainly it is beautiful.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Yes I very much agree 👍✈️

@duartesimoes508

Жыл бұрын

You could walk safely under any running propeller of a Stirling unless you were a giant, but _not_ under the propellers of a Lancaster, and that caused several fatal accidents.

What an excellent topic. The much beloved but largely forgotten Short Sterling. The information about the awkward stance of this craft, with very large tyres and long landing struts now makes some sense. All of its deficits would however have been better addressed by extending the wing's in the first place, I believe.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

I agree as well. It would of fixed a lot of the problems associated to the Stirling. Still as you've said it was popular with its crews 👍✈️

Not forgotten in this neck of the woods - my grandfather worked 12 hour shifts, 7-day weeks at the Austin Motor Company at Longbridge building them (he was a toolmaker, like many in my family). The Stirling became a glider tug once the Lanc was produced in enough numbers to take most of the bombing load and was involved in airborne ops from D-Day to Market Garden. It was also used to airdrop supplies to the various resistances across occupied Europe.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is fascinating. Would of been interesting things to work on. Why many might say glider tug is a secondary role, it was still a very important role and thus the Stirling still remained an important asset for the RAF

Thanks for a video on the RAFs forgotten third heavy bomber. The Stirling carried the fight to the enemy before the more well know Halifax and Lancaster, she and her brave crews need to be remembered!👍

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Very true and well written. The Stirling was an important aspect of Bomber Command 👍✈️

@wbertie2604

Жыл бұрын

#4 was the Warwick, which was much less successful as a heavy!

@1tonyboat

Жыл бұрын

Always been a favorite of mine..nice aircraft,,

@raypurchase801

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow Think of the Vulcan, the Victor and (ahem cough splutter) the Valiant. Similar trio here.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

@@raypurchase801 Yes that is very true. I hadn't thought of it like that before

A massive aircraft. The huge chord of the wings tried to compensate for the short span but that just made it more draggy. It is not forgotten at all!

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

The wing design ultimately wasn't ideal at all. Its more overshadowed by the Halifax and Lancaster if anything. A very important aircraft

My father Albert Bishop Lancashire flew as radio op/ navigator in the war. It was his favorite plane. He flew in several different types of plane and survived 90 trips. Died in 2003 in France. His pilot was called Vernon "Stinky" Miller a Canadian whos name Vernon I inherited as my middle name.

@sergentcolon1

Жыл бұрын

You’re lucky it wasn’t “Stinky” 😋

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting and surviving 90 trips is quite remarkable. They were brave crews, lest we forget

@AlexLancashirePersonalView

10 ай бұрын

@@sergentcolon1 Would have been apt.

My favourite of the RAF 4 engine bombers. I love how high up it stands on the ground and that long fuselage. Ugly is beautiful. Nicely presented video, thank you.

@AntiqueAirshow

6 ай бұрын

Nice, its silhouette is certainly distinctive and unique. Thanks 👍✈️

Only "forgotten" by those who probably didn't know what a Halifax was either. For those of more tender years, it's the fascination with types particulalry the Lancaster and Spitfire that causes this (and many, many other types) to be "Over-shadowed". A thing cannot be forgotten if it was never taught. Thanks for the video.

@AntiqueAirshow

6 ай бұрын

That is true. I find that even in shows and doco's it is always the Lancaster that is mentioned. I was even watching one of those Antique Roadtrips tv shows the other day and they had a segment about the Hampden under restoration at the RAF museum. They managed to ensure that the Lancaster wasn't mentioned once, but quite a few times with pictures accompanying it.

Excellent video. Sad that there is not a single surviving aircraft.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. It is considering how many where built and how important it was to the war effort. At least the hard work done by the Stirling Aircraft Project should result in the front fuselage of one.

@offshoretomorrow3346

Жыл бұрын

So disrespectful when the authorities don't preserve any examples as memorials to crew.

@duartesimoes508

Жыл бұрын

No doubt. But by then, what mattered was to collect all the raw material and win the war.

@historyinbitesizedchunks5857

10 ай бұрын

I agree. I know there are bits and pieces of fuselage but shame there isn't a complete example.

@chrisst8922

5 ай бұрын

@@historyinbitesizedchunks5857 Ahh, but there will be. There a thing called The Stirling Project and the main man is one of the technicians who's working on Just Jane at East Kirkby. There's an article to be found, they're starting with the bomb bay. It'll be a replica but an authentic one. Might take 25 years but it's a great.

Proud to say that my Dad was a pilot of the Stirling G for George which is shown at the 25 second mark. It was taken in a series of photos in April 1942 at the 1651 Heavy Conversion Unit based at the time at Waterbeach. Prior to this Dad had piloted Wellington's at 115 Sqdn. On completion of Conversion training , Dad was posted to 214 Sqdn when they changed their aircraft to Stirlings and was amongst the first in that Sqdn to fly Stirlings operationally. After taking part in the first 2 1000 Bomber Raids, he was shot down on a mine laying op over the Friesian Islands crashing on the island of Memmert. The whole crew fortunately survived which was quite unusual. It was Dad's 17th op. He spent the rest of the war in a number of POW camps . He rarely spoke of his experiences but when he did, he spoke very highly of the Stirling and its manoeuvrability and robustness. Dad was Royal Australian Air Force joining in 1940 and after training and receiving his wings, was sent to England and attached to an RAF Sqdn ( as above 115 on Wellington aircraft ... again thought favourably of). Many he knew in the early 1940s who flew on ops ( never missions .... that was American terminology) did not survive. Lest we forget.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting and fascinating to read. They were brave men. Lest we forget

@christopherabbott7132

11 ай бұрын

Your dad was one of many heroes from that period, thanks to their bravery and skill they brought the Nazis to their knees. I knew a veteran who sadly passed away a few years ago who was a Tail End Charlie, not in Stirlings but in Lancasters, he flew out of RAF Waddington with 44 Rhodesia Squadron and 463/467 RAAF Squadrons in the war.

@davidbarlow431

5 ай бұрын

God bless the commonwealth. I was taught never to forget and I tried to pass that on to my own kids.

I’ve liked this ever since I built the huge Airfix model of this as a kid.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Nice, that would of been a good model to build 👍✈️

@duartesimoes508

Жыл бұрын

...Series five! 😀 I was twelve when I assembled mine. Needless to say, I had a pretty hard time.

@lawrencelewis2592

Жыл бұрын

My father built that Airfix kit when I was a kid. It was beyone my abilities but he did do a good job of it.

@larry4789

Жыл бұрын

@@duartesimoes508 I think I was about the same age.The kit had a tractor with it too.

@duartesimoes508

Жыл бұрын

@@larry4789 yes, with a bomb cart...

I’ve been looking into the Stirling for some years after I discovered I had an uncle that flew in it (149 Squadron). Didn't know that the plane was developed into a cargo carrier. Thanks for the video.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That would be quite an interesting night. The crews who flew them where brave men. Lest we forget.

@firsttheycame0211

Жыл бұрын

My father was groundcrew on 149 Squadron, stationed with them at Mildenhall, Lakenheath and Methwold. He was a big fan of the Stirling. OJ-Q was his responsibility. Always called it Queenie

@garybrader8447

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely every WW2 bomber was developed into a cargo carrier.

@None-zc5vg

2 ай бұрын

​@@garybrader8447The Stirling was designed to carry cargo and personnel: one reason why it had such a long fuselage.

Thanks for making this video about an aeroplane pretty much ignored by most KZread WW2 documentary producers who seem to prefer to make endless videos about Lancasters and Spitfires instead. Huge respect to the brave airmen who flew this machine in bomber streams where they stood out as the 'low hanging fruit' for German night fighters and flack gunners.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. The Stirling was contributed significantly to the Allied war effort and was an important aircraft. Agree, very well said. Lest we forget.

I built the Airfix 1/72 kit when I was a boy. It was moulded in black and had a bomb cart.

@thewalrus6833

Жыл бұрын

I remember looking at that model a few times but never got around to making it, I think maybe it was the complicated looking undercarriage that put me off. I did make the Halifax and Lancaster.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Nice that's cool. There seems to be a few people on here who have built it. I might try and track down one and have a go myself.

Thank you very much for spreading the word about our project!! This video is incredibly informative and gives a great overview of the aircraft!! We have just started recording the project progress with our own videos and a lot of interest is thanks to this great video!!!

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for the comment and positive words about the video. It is a real shame that there is no Short Stirling on display. It was such an important aircraft that often gets overlook. The work the project is doing is amazing and in my eyes critical. There ought to be some type of Stirling on display. Hence, it's great to know that my video is helping to drive more traffic to your channel, and hopefully helping to spread the word about the project. All the best with Stirling, I'll be following the progress of it closely. I hope that one day I have the opportunity to view the completed model. 👍✈️

My Australian Dad with English crew flew Stirling Mk 4’s, towing troop gliders in Operation Varsity and dropping supplies to the Resistance. 2:06

@AntiqueAirshow

Ай бұрын

They were brave men, fighting for freedom. Lest we forget

My father flew in the Stirling and Halfax bombers during the war. They bombed Cologne and Hamburg amongst others I believe. However my father spoke very little about his wartime service. He volunteered which wasn't necessary as he was in a reserved occupation being a Met police constable.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting. They were brave crews. Lest we forget

@donf3877

Жыл бұрын

Very few spoke of their wartime service. My dad didn't either. The only way I knew he was in the Army Air Force... was what my mom referred to as his "war buddies". And, that he too volunteered... and it took him four tries to get in, because he was already 34 years old. He nickname... "pappy" of course. He was old enough to be most of the guys father. The old vets would talk among themselves... but not much to others. After a couple rounds of cards... the three or four men "war buddies" would sit around the kitchen table and talk... and the wives and us kids would be in the living room watching TV. It was something they had to do, and they were proud to do it... but most of it was something they would rather forget and get on with their lives afterwards. I think a lot of the talks between them, was a way of reducing the PTSD... that wasn't even known about back then. After my dad passed, I talked my mom into selling the big two story house, and getting a smaller one story. In the back of the master bedroom closet... was an old wood cigar box. Inside... were all the medals from my dad. Damn I wish I would have been able to find out how he was awarded them. But.................... I will never know.

@RogerGaloubet

Жыл бұрын

@@donf3877 My father was 30 or 31 years old when he joined up so (like your dad) was a lot older than the rest of his crew. Not that you'd notice from the one photo I have as even the youngsters looked old. As a young arrogant boy I asked my father how it felt to have killed so many people. He replied that he never knowingly killed anyone. Can't argue with that. When he was demobbed he went back into the police.

Brilliant, my favourite bomber. M.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

👍✈️

I always liked the Stirling design. It figures slightly in Len Deighton's legendary 1971 novel "Bomber," wherein Stirlings were mentioned as flying lower and thus bearing the brunt of lower caliber flak.

@kaboulscabal4816

Жыл бұрын

Hah ... I was going to reference that in "Bomber" ... during mission briefing there's a slight cheer amongst the Lancaster pilots when they find out that Stirlings will be accompanying them for pretty much that reason. Morbid humour.

@sergeipohkerova7211

Жыл бұрын

@@kaboulscabal4816 In the book, the brother of the Lancaster pilot was himself piloting a Stirling and survived the Altgarten raid unlike several of the main characters higher up in Lancasters.

@kaboulscabal4816

Жыл бұрын

@@sergeipohkerova7211 IIRC ... It was the brother of squadron commander Munro who flew a Stirling, not a brother of P.O. Lambert's. The squadron commander himself survived the mission but was killed in a motorcycle crash afterwards.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is interesting. I haven't heard of the novel, but will definitely track it down and have a read 👍✈️

@tomhaskett5161

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow interesting book - I found my sympathies switching from the RAF bomber crew, then the Luftwaffe night fighter crews, then to the people being bombed.

I remember building an Airfix model of this aircraft 45 years ago

@larry4789

Жыл бұрын

Me too.The kit came with a tractor too.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Awesome that would of been a good model to build 👍✈️

Learnt about RAF Short Sterling bomber from Airfix catalogue back in the late 1970s ... Such a purposeful & rustic looking bomber indeed! 🙏 Thank You So Much for this deserving tribute to RAF Pioneering Bomber : Short Sterling during the early years of WWII ... 🌷🌿🌏💜🕊🇬🇧

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

👍✈️

For what its worth. I always thought the short Sterling was a beautiful airplane. It's a shame it's not more respected.

@AntiqueAirshow

5 ай бұрын

Agree👍✈️

Watching this in today's situation ( don't mention the war ) sorta freaks one out as to the length and breadth of this conflict . Well done sir ...

Hi my uncle FS Leslie Hyder , was co-pilot on the mentioned mission with Ron Middleton, He was awarded the DFM, only passed away a few years back.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting and fascinating. Their actions on that night are quite tremendous. Brave men. Lest we forget

@None-zc5vg

2 ай бұрын

The two crewmen who stayed to try and help the badly-injured Middleton, and who lost their lives doing so, deserved some official 'recognition' but never, a.f.i.k., never got any.

My Australian Dad with English crew flew Stirling Mk 4’s, towing troop gliders in Operation Varsity and dropping supplies to the Resistance.

1:40 The Grand Slam was a one-off and required major modifications to the few Lancasters that were rated to carry it. By the time the Grand Slam was operational in 1945, the Stirling had been withdrawn from bombing ops.

It would be cool to have a restored Sterling in flight condition for special commemorative events. Vintage aircraft just have a way to bring out the emotions of times gone by.

@AntiqueAirshow

3 ай бұрын

I agree it would be nice, but unfortunately I can't see this happening. At the very least it would be nice to have a Stirling on display somewhere

My uncle who was a Stirling pilot from Australia is still laying at the bottom of the sea off Zealand after being shot down by a night fighter after coming back from a raid.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

They were brave men. RIP, Lest we forget

My grandad was a manager at shorts in Belfast bless him 🙏🇬🇧

Great channel . Great video . Stirling effort allround .

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️

Kool - thanks for this great vid!

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️

I had a Short Stirling model before i got a Lancaster as at the time the Stirling looked more cool.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Nice. It definitely has a striking look about it

Truly a forgotten aircraft

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

indeed it is

I read that shorts wanted to use the larger Sunderland wing but that would have exceeded the 70,000 lb all up weight limit. One benefit of the short span was that it could turn tighter than some fighters

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

I've read that as well except they couldn't because it would exceed 100ft. Indeed it was an advantage. Pilots had some barrel role maneuver they could do to evade fighters if necessary

@thethirdman225

Жыл бұрын

I’ve heard that too but I’m not sure it’s true.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

@@thethirdman225 During my research details around the development of the Stirling seem to be a little vague.

My late Father flew missions on Stirlings at the start of his service before he moved onto Wellington 's and Beaufighters.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is interesting. The crews were brave men. Lest we forget

@nickwillobey2205

Жыл бұрын

My Father was a 'Tail-end Charlie'. ...a member of a non-existent group of heroes!

Thanks for this, it realy deserves a litle love.. I have for many years wondered why, when it became obvious it did´t make it as a bomber, it wasn´t chanced to serve as a marine patrol aircraft. The bombbay could have been used for both extra fueltanks, and debtcharches, and with an onboard surface radar it might have helped close the midatlantic airgab earlier, until the b24 came online. Just a thourght.. ;o)

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

It is sadly often overlooked by the Halifax and Lancaster. That is quite interesting, and you are right could of possibly worked well. It was able to carry H2S radar so I presume putting ASV radar in wouldn't have been a massive issue.

@wbertie2604

Жыл бұрын

By the time that might have been considered, the USA was offering the RAF Liberators for the role as the RAF got those fairly early when the Stirling was still very much a front line bomber (which it was until 1943). It made more sense to concentrate on Lancaster and Halifax for night bombing, get the Liberator in for patrol, and use the Stirlings drop paratroopers (the hole for the ventral turret was handy and apparently safer than jumping out the side of a C-47) or tow gliders as a secondary role. The Warwick did get use as an ASV, so aircraft did get reassigned, but the Warwick would have been a poor paradrop plane, but the Stirling had a large fuselage due to being designed to be able to carry troops from the outset.

@petesheppard1709

Жыл бұрын

@@wbertie2604 the dropping of paratroopers would be a nice video. I had heard that paras dropping out that hole lost a lot of teeth against the rear edge, but that may have been another aircraft.

@davidjones332

Жыл бұрын

I've often wondered that too, bearing in mind that both Halifaxes and Lancasters were used in that role (the former much more often than the latter). It was the one application in which high altitude capability was irrelevant, but I think it was probably the fact that it had a much shorter range which could only have been overcome with extra tankage which would have reduced the payload considerably.

@bob_the_bomb4508

Жыл бұрын

@@petesheppard1709 that was the famous ‘Whitley Kiss’

Certainly not an elegant bomber like the Lancaster was, but as far as bomb load goes, it was an improvement over the Whitleys, Wellingtons, and Hampdens of the early war years.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Definitely, very much agree 👍✈️

My father flew this aircraft with 199 squadron. it was while captain of a Stirling he won the DFC after an engagement with a night fighter that all the crew managed to survive. he was called the "The lucky Aussie" as no one was killed or hurt on any mission he flew in this aircraft. There were many

@AntiqueAirshow

2 ай бұрын

That is very interesting. He does seem to be quite lucky. They were brave men, going up and never knowing if they would come back. Lest we forget

Other documentary Sterling pilot had to land at American B17 base. US air man showed him with pride the B17, so he took the guy to the Stirling and said "that's a bomber!"

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting

Such a shame none of these leviathan’s still exist, definitely an unsung hero. Look forward to the new build front section 👍😍!!!!!!

@AntiqueAirshow

11 ай бұрын

I agree, but its great that one day we will hopefully have the front section of one. It is great work the project is doing 👍✈️

The restricted wing caused so many issues. Previously the Whitley had its wing set at an angle to increase lift aid takeoff. But this resulted in a nose down attitude in flight which was aerodynamically less than ideal. Shorts lenthened the undercarriage to achieve the same angle on the wing. In service the ground crews got used to walking upright beneath the props high above them. When the other four engined bombers came on line they were lower and some unfortunate accidents occurred. The hydraulic throttles had a habit of losing pressure and falling back with catastrophic results on takeoff when every hp was needed. The Co pilot would have to keep pushing on the throttles to stop this happening. Read an account of a Stirling pilot and he thought it was a "good bird" and that the problems could have been ironed out but that the other heavies were arriving in such numbers the ministry just decided to give up on the Stirling.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is interesting and quite unfortunate about the ground crews and props. I didn't know about that. The hydraulic throttles seem to be quite troublesome (and it can't be blamed on the Air ministry). In combat it could also be an issue. For example if a fighter started to approach and you needed power, there would be a delay.

Good work.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thanks 👍✈️

Amazing nobody ever thought of an extended wing section, for greater span and therefore altitude. When you see how the Manchester was turned into the Lancaster, it appears possible.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

You do have to wonder what could have been achieved. Short did suggest to the Air Ministry a version with a extended wingspan but it was never taken up by the Air Ministry

@HarborLockRoad

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow amazing, its like the albacore fiasco instead of just modernizing the already in full production Swordfish, a proven design! Im starting to wonder if the air ministry had German agents working inside to screw up the war effort with bad aircraft! Skua, roc, barracuda, albacore, botha, lerwick, etc etc

Great video, factual and well presented. We must never forget what the men and women of Bomber Command did, without them the outcome of the war would have been very different.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you. Very much agree. They were brave crews, fighting for our freedom. RIP, lest we forget

Being the first of it's type; a four engined heavy, the Stirling was a victim of circumstances, thus the poorer performance compawith the Halifax & Lancaster. But it served throughout the war in variius guises which is saying a lot for it's ability to be adaptable.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

I agree. The Halifax and Lancaster were both later and more modern designs. The Stirling proved to be quite a capable aircraft

EXCELLENT VIDEO......Thanks very much 👍 Shoe🇺🇸

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️

Excellent video

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️

You will see Stirlings in the film from 1942, "One of Our Aircraft is Missing," a WW2 classic!

Good Work/Info.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️

My first 4 engine airfix

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Awesome👍✈️

My Father Flt Lt RAF Roy Ellis-Brown DFC flew Stirlings with 7th Sqd Oakington 7 and I think it was 216 Sqd, An American had 58 missions with the RAF, Transferred to Army Air Corp. in 43 Flew B-24's and Mosquito' s in Photo Recon.

@AntiqueAirshow

10 ай бұрын

That is very interesting and quite fascinating. They were brave men. Lest we forget

Never noticed what a great looking aircraft it was. The tiny fin seems to indicate a stable design too. Way bigger than our other bombers - and a wasted opportunity by the pen-pushers.

@Eric-kn4yn

Жыл бұрын

Stirling was rubbish. Bomber Harris even had bad opinion of halifax compared to Lancaster

@Eric-kn4yn

Жыл бұрын

It's low ceiling was fatal for a/c

@Eric-kn4yn

Жыл бұрын

Storing halifax had bomb cells x6 in wing ????

@offshoretomorrow3346

Жыл бұрын

@@Eric-kn4yn Only had low ceiling because of the reduced wing length.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

It is definitely a unique looking aircraft. Agree, its main limitation were due to the requirements of the Air Ministry

Ah yes the Stirling bomber; while it had thicker wings to give it better turning rates (a matter of life and death against night fighters) the divided bomb bay section and narrow wingspan were its shortcomings. It's not surprising that the Stirling couldn't carry that big whacker that is the 'Cookie'.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. Its designs had some big limitations

Wow what a enouroumous aircraft.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, it is a very big aircraft

I read in a book written by an ex pilot some years ago, that the short wingspan was necessary to get the plane into the standard hanger doors, until hangers were made with wider doors. The plane suffered from a lack of lift to fly as high as a Lancaster, or B17. Pilots had to "Bump" it by diving and sharply pull the stick back repeatedly to get it up to cruising height. It was reputed to be a strong plane with under powered engines.

@AntiqueAirshow

4 ай бұрын

The hangars doors is an interesting one as that's what is commonly accepted, however it is now disputed whether that was the real reason. That is interesting, for its limitations it performed relatively well.

@christownsend686

4 ай бұрын

The hanger doors is myth, nothing to do with the size of wings, down to the spec when it was built. there were hangers with 150ft doors in ww11. Most of maintenance was done airside anyway. The tall undercarriage was to get move lift under the wings. The Stirling was a good strong aircraft, limited in its roll as a front line bomber, compared to the Lancaster and later Halifax. Did Stirling work (pardon the pun) as a glider tug, and supply drops to the resistance

@jagracershoestring609

4 ай бұрын

@@christownsend686 I agree that ministry order specs hampered design on a number of aircraft. I worked in a 1940 hanger at West Malling in Kent, it still had the Battle of Britain cannon shell holes through the doors, and you could not fit a Lancaster through the doors, we had one there in 1991, we got the Saab340's in nicely.

Good video dude. Very interesting.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️

Always liked the Stirling it is the forgotten bomber such a shame 😔🇬🇧

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Definitely doesn't get the attention it deserved. I would also argue that its role as a glider tug was also quite important.

My uncle was very badly burned in a Sterling crash while at an training establishment in Norfolk. The aircraft crashed on take off, swinging into the watch office. The office crew jumped to safety as the 2 port engines went into the building, the aircraft broke its back in 2 places and the entire fuselage back to the wing roots was burnt away, as were the crew. My uncle died from his injuries. I believe the aerodrome was Shepherds Grove or similar. Photos of the crash are on the Internet.

@AntiqueAirshow

7 ай бұрын

That is very sad, I'm sorry to hear. Many crews were lost in accidents before even making it to the frontlines. RIP, Lest we forget

Great video 👍🙂 Brilliant thumbnail of presumably an exhausted looking Stirling crew. The Stirling always struck me as a very ungainly looking bird? The rear gunner must have felt an awful long way, from the rest of the crew. The Stirling has a special place in my Grandad's family, as his younger brother was a mid upper gunner, during WW2 His first and only operational flight, in a Stirling was during the first 1000 bomber raid, over Cologne in 1942. His plane never came back and all the crew were lost. Ironically my wife was born in Cologne and her own German Grandmother, who recently passed away, clearly remembered that initial raid by the RAF and the subsequent distruction of Cologne's central districts.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️ It is one of my favourite pictures of the Stirling. Notonly does it show a good angle of the Stirling, it also shows just how big it was compared to its crew. The crew also humanize the picture, allowing us to remember the brave crew that had to fly in them. It is in many ways quite a touching picture. That is very interesting and fascinating connection. RIP, Lest we forget

@duartesimoes508

Жыл бұрын

The rear gunner in the Stirling is _almost_ as far away from the rest of the crew as Putin is seated at the table away from his cronies...

The grave problem with the Stirling is that once fully loaded it couldn't exceed 14 000ft. That was much too low and made that aircraft a very easy target for Radar Predicted Flak, more so than Night Fighters. Regarding the insufficient span, I heard both that it was for her to fit inside the standard RAF hangars, and also that Shorts wanted to build a wing identical to the Sunderland. Go figure. Whatever the reason, it was a needless disaster.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

It was a real issue. The more I read the more it seems the RAF hangars requirement was a myth and there seems to be some other reason for the limitation. I've also read they originally designed the aircraft to have the Sunderland wing, but it was too long and they had to modify it below 100ft.

I know this is not proof but I had heard about the 100’ wingspan myth years ago from an old TV show I had watched as a kid (over 60 now) and the interview had been with a Short aircraft engineer in the 60s. He had stated that it was indeed the old hangar specs that had had the Air Ministry put those requirements in place as the Stirling was the first of the newer big bombers. Unfortunately I don’t recall the show but from what I recall it was a first-hand source I saw. I am open to being corrected but that is my recollection from an interview I saw.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting. You are right it is a first hand source, so you would think there is some creditability in it. Would be great to know where it was and to have a watch. I think this debate around the Stirling will always be one that lingers

@Pantherlvr44

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow I wish I could remember. I’ve always remembered it since it was such a great example of what happens when bureaucrats meddle. If I ever find anything, I’ll link it here.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

@@Pantherlvr44 Thanks that would be great and much appreciated (no stress if you can) 👍✈

Group Captain Leonard Cheshire realised in 1942 that almost none of his Halifax bombers returned from operations with one or two engines shut down. The Halifax I and IIs were re-investigated and shockingly in tests consistently went out of control with asymmetric power which was found to be due to the vertical stabiliser and rudder design and this could only be corrected much later with the introduction of the greatly modified Halifax III. Sterlings had very good handling so this would have made them a safer aircraft in combat perhaps offsetting the lower maximum ceiling.

@kellyshistory306

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately the low ceiling was a death sentence for the Stirling. By 1943 the flak was just too heavy for Stirlings to fly as low as they did. The Lancasters and Halifaxes had moved to higher altitudes, so the Stirlings were all alone taking the flak. Even with its significant problems, the Halifax II and Vs had (marginally) lower loss rates, and importantly they had higher serviceability rates (There were a lot of issues with the reliability of the Stirling apparently).

@kellyshistory306

Жыл бұрын

@@madisntit6547 Yeah I used that source in a video I did on RAF bombers when talking about survival rates for each type. I believe those survival rate was from 1943 specifically. I have seen some references to a post-war report that looks at survival rates by aircraft type throughout the war. I'd love to get my hands on that report if i can find it, especially since there were efforts to improve the Lancaster's survival rate after it was discovered that only 11% of crews got out and I'm curious how effective it was. If you do the math with the 17% survival rate and the Stirling's 1943 loss rate, you get something like a 70% death rate for Stirling crews. Factor in the percent that survived and were POW, Stirling Crews had something like a 15% chance of completing a 30 mission tour, which was pretty abysmal. Lancasters and Halifaxes had lower death rates (both below 60%). Lancaster crews had a 1 in 3 chance of completing their 30 mission tour, and while Halifax crews were only slightly more likely to complete a 30 mission tour than a Stirling crew, their higher survival rate meant their death rate was lower at least.

@kellyshistory306

Жыл бұрын

@@madisntit6547 Yeah, unfortunately the Mark II and Mark V Halifaxes were not very good aircraft, which as it turned out was probably preventable had Handley Page not botched certain parts of the design. A big issue is Handley page ignored Rolls Royce's suggestions for how to install the Merlins on the wing of the Halifax, which caused major issues with drag and harmonics/vibration. Then there was that odd V shapped rudder which would put the bomber into an unrecoverable spin... I have a couple of operational research reports on the Halifax. I['ll check to see what I have uploaded and I can send you a link if you want to read them. They're the reports that the "History" of the RAF Operational Research section mentions. Its pretty illuminating stuff.

I was always interested in aircraft. I was around 10 when i first heard about a plane. Then for about one year i was looking for long stirling🤣🤣

@warhawk4494

Жыл бұрын

Hahahahahahaha

My uncle piloted one of these,he was shot down and together with his crew perished..They are buried in a village cemetary in Framce

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

They were brave men, fighting for freedom. RIP, Lest we forget.

My dad did his 4 engined heavy conversion in the Stirling at RAF Winthorpe but never mentioned it. According to the 1661 orbs there were quite a few casualties as these Stirlings were 'clapped out'

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is interesting. If you don't mind me asking what did he fly after his conversion?

@larry4789

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow He went onto Lancasters with 61 Squadron at Skellingthorpe. He'd started on Avro Ansons then Wellingtons, Stirlings, Lancaster Finishing School and finally ops. He didn't talk about the war much but always loved the Lancaster.

The Victoria Cross being analogous to our Medal of Honor (I'm a Yank), it's probably more appropriate to say they "were awarded" vice "won." I'm a retired Sailor and am happy to never have "won" the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Silver Star, Navy Cross, or Medal of Honor. Usually involves getting wounded or KIA.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

I agree and is something I'll aim to correct for future videos. Thanks for the pick up 👍✈️

It's unfortunate they didn't preserve at least one example for the IWM. Just sad.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree. It played quite an important role and built in significant numbers, yet not one was preserved.

Very late getting to watch this one , but it was well worth the wait . Thanks for the video , catch you next episode.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thanks you 👍✈️

0:50 The "myth" seems logical, while the alternative claim, "don't let big aircraft get too big", is somewhat absurd. If you keep the wings short (possibly to save materials), then you need to obtain the necessary lift by other means, which include wing thickness, chord and engine power. This will all increase fuel consumption, and the savings are gone. While hangar size may not be in the original specifications (why would it?), it's the obvious explanation. You can't have bombers standing outside all the time, especially during repair and maintenance - and the 1930's weren't exactly the best of times for spending money on both a lot of new, four-engined bombers and completely new hangars for them.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

It does seem to be most logical, but as other users have pointed doubt in the comments, hangars during this period were already bigger than 100ft. It really is quite a mystery why they would of limited it so much

Thanks for the video. Excellent summary. Great looking aircraft but sadly always at a disadvantage due to its low service ceiling. A combination of that low wingspan (and thus low wing area - a factor which also adversely affected take-off) and Bristol Hercules engines that didn't perform well at higher levels. Why was this so important? It meant that aircraft were far more vulnerable to flak.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️ As the war progressed, the low ceiling of the Stirling became increasingly problematic. Made it quite vulnerable

A good friend of mine flew all three bomber types, and even did SOE trips to Norway in Stirling's, a Brave man injured as his Halifax was shot up over germany the crew elected to stay with the aircraft , and it cartwheeled down the runway killing all of them, my friend was the sole survivor, such brave and dedicated men we owe them a great deal. As for the wing span i do recall reading about this way back in 1968 , some fool in the air ministry decided the wings had to be shortened due as you mentioned it wouldn't fit into the hangers. , which led to those ungainly looking U/C legs and lack of altitude my friend would tell me, thank goodness Stirling's are with us tonight as the Germans would go for them first.. ( he flew from 1939 till 1945) There was talk of a bigger and better Stirling with high altitude performance along with enhance range and bomb load, BUT production of other types would have stopped due production change over and the UK couldn't afford to do that . Thank you for this video its one of the best I've seen on this aircraft.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting and unfortunate. They were brave men, fighting for our freedom. RIP, Lest we forget. Many of the issues of the Stirling were due to the requirements of the air ministry. The wings alone caused quite a few. Interesting to see that what crews of the other heavies thought of it, albeit it is a little sad. I've read about the bigger Stirlings as well. With Lancasters and Halifaxs coming in enough quantity there probably wasn't a need for them anyway. Thank you 👍✈️

My uncle bob was killed over Holland in 43 rear gunner on stirlings bomber command hero’s all

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

They were brave men. RIP, Lest we forget

I can see why it was withdrawn from Bomber Command - but Coastal Command was very short of long range four engine aircraft, and would not need high altitude performance. Why wasn’t it used there ?

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Yes it did have some limitations as a bomber. It would of probably worked quite well in coastal command, so it is interesting that it wasn't used or considered. However it did find good use in other roles with the RAF such as the glider tug

Despite what manufacturers say, I assert the Air Ministry weren't blinkered as they got exactly the aircraft they needed not what the manufacturer thought they needed. The secondary role this aircraft performed in 1944 onwards freed up the 'stars' of the war effort for their intended duty. It was a very useful rugged enduring design as it was, despite its latent potential. During war perhaps sometimes you just need to do as your told. If the Air Ministry needed Shorts to upgrade its potential then I'm sure they would've asked. It wasn't hampered at all - it was intentionally kept to requirement and its adaptability shows at least on this occasion the Air Ministry was correct in its adherence to the requirement. They were probably thinking if it was better, then it would be subbed off to other duties, creating a vacuum of aircraft with the attendant surfeit of demand for resources.

I think they're snart to view, even though they remind of sky-barges..... Found a round and crystallised aly from the Merryton Low site, Staffs/Derbyshire border. It's RCAF crew are, but one, in Buxton Cemetery.

Thank you! I'm surprised so little has been published about this workhorse. It was a better airplane than it looked. Someone in Air Ministry must have had it in for Shorts as a bomber builder.

@kellyshistory306

Жыл бұрын

It wasn't really better than it looked, at least not against its competition. High losses, low performance, and for anything past the Ruhr valley a pretty small bomb load (since it needed to carry extra fuel tanks in the bomb bay for long range targets). It was adequate up until the end of 1942, but after that it was definitely the worst heavy bomber in terms of all performance metrics for Bomber Command.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

There does seem to be a lack of work on it, especially considering that it early on in the war was an important tool for Britain's fight back. It was popular with pilots, but as mentioned already was limited by its ceiling. However, I would contend that its role as a glider tug was also a very important role it fulfilled.👍✈️

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Agree

British engineering at its finest!

Interesting to see the twin tailwheels . . .

There is an excellent book, “A Thousand Shall Fall” about the experiences of a Sterling crew. They thought v highly of their aircraft

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That sounds a very interesting book. I'll have to check it out 👍✈️

Excellent video, what could have been with proper long wings.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you 👍✈️ indeed it is a big what if

Thanks Great video. The air ministry, seems to be a common theme with so many failures and blunders, you do need to wonder about the reasoning behind their decisions. Cheers

@wbertie2604

Жыл бұрын

The Lancaster had a wingspan of 102ft, so in principle 100ft with a decent bomb load and range wasn't impossible. However, the Stirling also needed to be able to transport troops as an Empire dual use aircraft (the concept was there would be stocks of bombs around, and the Stirling would fly out to a hot spot with troops, then become a bomber). The transport requirement and the size required for that was the real issue.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thanks 👍✈️ More I read about aircraft from this time period, the more I become intrigued by the reasoning behind decisions from the Air Ministry. They definitely made a few interesting decisions during the lead up to the Second World War. Don't get me wrong they did some things great, but other thinking perhaps not so much. I mean take the Bristol Beaufighter, which was pursued as a private venture by Bristol as they were the ones that realized the RAF's urgent need for a long-range heavy fighter. The Stirling is another example of limiting an aircraft due to its requirements. During the late part of the 30s they were in many ways quite behind the modern thinking of those in Germany. The start of Guy Gibson's book Enemy Coast Ahead highlights the fact that the RAF were quite under prepared for war. Anyhow just my thoughts on it. They were better than the somewhat of a shambles my countries air force (RAAF) was at the beginning of WW2. 👍✈️

@wbertie2604

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow given the much heavier bomb loads and better defensive turrets, I'd have put the RAF ahead of the Luftwaffe at the end of 1930s except in the areas of tactical cooperation with ground troops and electronic navigation aids.

@wbertie2604

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow also, the Luftwaffe wasn't necessarily that well organised, if just had experience in Spain. But then you had the likes of Galland rejecting the need for radio (fighters, not bombers, though).

@wbertie2604

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow areas where the RAF was streets ahead include radar, control, development and production. During the Battle of Britain, available fighter numbers INCREASED for the RAF. The RAF's presumption that it could bomb unescorted in daylight was wrong, but the Luftwaffe also moved to night bombing. The RAF had presumed, as had most of the Allies, that war would not come at all until 1940, and not seriously before 1941. You can see this in French procurement from the USA, for example, or the time in which it was expected that B.12 and P.13/36 to come on stream (4 to 5 years).

Thanks for a very interesting video. I always thought the Sterling was an absolute disaster, it sounds like a very capable aircraft badly let down by the Ministry know alls. Nothing changes eh!

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. As a bomber it was perhaps not the greatest, but a lot of that came back to the requirements put on it👍✈️

I remember an ex- Shorts engineer telling me that during the war at Rochester they sent one guy up inside a wing to hold the dolly when riveting. After they'd finished the outside guy moved onto another job and the inside man thought he'd have a sleep. He wasn't known of again until they came to scrap the aircraft in 1946. There was his remains inside the wing. What a terrible way to died.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

that is a very interesting read. a tragic thing to have happened

@duartesimoes508

Жыл бұрын

In a lighter note, I remember an incident with a Portuguese Air Force C212 Aviocar, in the eighties. The aircraft had gone through comprehensive maintenance and it's floor had been removed. In the end of a very hard working day, the aircraft was fully reassembled and an inventory of all the tools used was made. One wrench was missing. All specialists looked everywhere, ended up disassembling the floor once again and searched for hours. Nothing. The wrench had vanished. Close to midnight, dispaired and exhausted, the Sergeant Crew Chief gave up and declared the aircraft inhibited. He grabbed the thick maintenance manual and, sure enough, inside it marking a page, was the wrench... 😀

@chrisst8922

Жыл бұрын

@dhouse It was one of those stories but remember it was wartime. People were pulling 18 hour days and he fell asleep. Then the wing was whisked off to the next area and would he have been heard over the noise of the plant and engines.

@rovercoupe7104

Жыл бұрын

Are you sure? M.

@gbentley8176

8 ай бұрын

My father got clobbered by a lost wrench in his recce Mosquito. He had words as the CO when he returned to base!@@duartesimoes508

"It's murder, plain murder to send my young men out to die in an aircraft like that!" Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, to the Ministry of Aircraft Production while commander in chief of Bomber Command. Quoted in "Bomber Command" by Max Hastings. Chapter Chapter 10.

@MartyMolloy

Жыл бұрын

He was talking about the Stirling, to be clear.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That is very interesting. Yet the Stirling seems to have been popualr with crews.

if this was the short stirling, i would hate to see the tall stirling.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

hahaha very true.

One other point: you don’t ‘win’ a Victoria Cross. You are awarded it or you earn it. There are a couple of examples from WWI where there was a unit VC awarded and a raffle was held to see who would have the honour of wearing it. This happened after the infamous Zeebrugge raid in 1918. That is the only way you can ‘win’ a VC.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Yes that is very true. I didn't know about whole units winning the VC, very interesting. Thanks for the pick up and I'll make sure that future videos are correct 👍✈️

@thethirdman225

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow Your videos are basically very good. The Stirling is, indeed, the forgotten bomber but really there isn't an awful lot said about the Halifax. I've always thought that the Stirling deserved more attention because, despite its foibles, it was a real step up in capability over the Hampden, the Whitley and the Wellington and a quantum leap over the Blenheim.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

@@thethirdman225 Thanks. I'm always learning and looking for ways to improve, so I appreciate being picked up on small things. agree. The Lancaster seems to take a lot of the "limelight". The Stirling effectively allowed the RAF to take the fight to Germany. That in itself was significant. I also think its role as a glider tug was pretty important

@Jabber-ig3iw

Жыл бұрын

Semantics of language, of course you win a VC, just as legitimate as awarded.🙄

@thethirdman225

Жыл бұрын

@@Jabber-ig3iw So a VC is a matter of luck and not of merit then?🙄

I’ve read some of the comments and am frankly astounded. I’d read that being put on a Stirling squadron was akin to committing suicide, as they were so bloody slow - the Kraut Night-fighters snapped them up. Am I wrong ??

WAtched from Jamaica.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you. Hello from Australia 👍✈️

A couple of points: First of all, the Grand Slam was almost an irrelevance to Bomber Command, in much the same way that Upkeep was, though they dropped more of them. The bomb the Stirling had trouble with was the 4,000 lb ‘Cookie’, which was in much more widespread use and from memory, could only be carried by the Lancaster. The bomb racks were simply not wide enough to accommodate the ‘Cookie’ because the bomb bay longerons got in the way. Secondly, the so-called ‘Munich Crisis’ was in 1938, not 1939.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the points and feedback. The bomb bay was a real issue for the Stirling. It would have been better to mention the Cookie and not the grand slam. The Munich Crisis date was a bad error on my part. I sometimes with so many dates it can be easy to get confused what happened when. Still I should have checked it better. Thanks for the pick up 👍✈️

@thethirdman225

Жыл бұрын

@@AntiqueAirshow I hope I didn't come over as being a smart arse. It wasn't my intention. Keep up the good work.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

@@thethirdman225 No not at all. I appreciate the feedback I'm given as it helps me improve and make better videos. Thanks 👍✈

A lot of people on here think its the Sterling, it's not, its the Stirling, named after a town not the english currency!😁

@AntiqueAirshow

7 ай бұрын

Yes very correct 👍✈️

Besides the vac 1/48 kit wish there was a 3D option!🤔 Jman

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That would be good. Maybe in the not so distance future, something will come out 👍✈️

Airfoil could have been improved to reach altitude as flight characteristics were good.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

That could have been a possibility. They did look at redesigning the wing after take off and landing runs were found to be too long, however it would have taken too long. The easy solution was to increase the length of the undercarriage.

A friend flew this plane with over 30 trips to Germany he lost one plane it crashing on Aintree Race coarse he showed me his gold caterpillar for having his life saved by an Ervin parachute he ended his flying by flying Stirlings from the uk to Ireland for scrap he said it was the best of all the heavy bombers.

@AntiqueAirshow

6 ай бұрын

That is very interesting. They were brave men, Lest we forget

Interesting that this aircraft, compared to the Halifax and Lancaster, had a co-pilot and that the navigator doubled as a bomb aimer. I can imagine the poor old navigator dropping the bombs and hurrying back to navigate

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, it is interesting, and I was somewhat surprised when I learnt it had a co pilot. It's also interesting that most British bombers only had one pilot, while most American bombers had two.

@iantonkin1143

Жыл бұрын

My Dad was a pilot of a 214 Sqdn Stirling and it was his front gunner who was actually the bomb aimer. The navigator had to remain at his table ready to give the directions away from the target site as soon as the bombs were dropped to ensure they got away safely from congested airspace. The glare from the searchlights, exploding flak ( and unfortunately other aircraft at times) plus the fires below would have affected the navigator's vision and their navigation table was usually curtained off. I don't know if this was standard procedure or just in my Dad's crew. It does sound reasonable when you think about it as the front gunner is already in the required position and the space for 2 would be extremely tight.

@AntiqueAirshow

Жыл бұрын

@@iantonkin1143 That is quite interesting and fascinating. It also makes a lot of sense. I would be inclined to think that a few crews would have operated this way. Thanks for sharing.