Author Topic: Name This Plane(29) (Read 888 times)

brady · « **on:** January 01, 2001, 12:36:00 PM »

???

P.S. Happy New Year

------------------

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-01-2001).]

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-01-2001).]

ispar · « **Reply #1 on:** January 01, 2001, 12:47:00 PM »

Alright... that is a Halifax heavy bomber. It was the precursor to the Lancaster, and was actually quite successful, but it's always been overshadowed by it's big sister. It usually made up the bulk of British night raids until 1944 or so.

Jochen · « **Reply #2 on:** January 01, 2001, 01:05:00 PM »

No, that is Shorts Stirling, first four engined plane of RAF Bomber Command.

------------------
jochen

Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people?

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief
Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight
Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free
But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

brady · « **Reply #3 on:** January 01, 2001, 01:49:00 PM »

No, that is Shorts Stirling, first four engined plane of RAF Bomber Command.

What he said

Brady

------------------

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-01-2001).]

Andy Bush · « **Reply #4 on:** January 01, 2001, 02:08:00 PM »

Right!

This puppy couldn't climb worth a hoot. Anyone know why?

Andy

Nath-BDP · « **Reply #5 on:** January 01, 2001, 02:24:00 PM »

Actually you are both wrong! It's Short not Short(s)!

Short Stirling

I win.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #6 on:** January 01, 2001, 03:54:00 PM »

Hi

Andy does it have something to do with RAF standard hangar size??

thanks GRUNHERZ

Replicant · « **Reply #7 on:** January 01, 2001, 04:59:00 PM »

Andy, weren't the wings not big enough to give enough lift at anything above 15,000ft?

Nexx

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #8 on:** January 01, 2001, 05:13:00 PM »

replicant we seem to be on the right track here if we both think of the same thing

pageflip · « **Reply #9 on:** January 01, 2001, 06:18:00 PM »

Several reasons why the Stirling had a poor climb and a worse ceiling than the Lancaster or the Halifax. Once the Halifax got its longer wings the Stirling had the shortest span of the 3 at 99'1".(ahem, hanger door reference there) However it also had about 15% more wing area than the others giving a lot more surface drag. It also had the heaviest empty weight of the three and the engines produced less power than the Halifax engines. Oh yeah the bombay was too small for the bigger bombs of the later part of the war. More weight + inefficient wing + more drag + mediocre power = lousy performance in comparison to the other Brit 4 engine bombers. Last flew active raid in Sept 1944.

Pageflip

Andy Bush · « **Reply #10 on:** January 01, 2001, 06:22:00 PM »

Grunherz

Yep...now there's some brilliant thinking for you!

Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

Andy

ispar · « **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2001, 09:17:00 AM »

Blast!

Author Topic: Name This Plane(29) (Read 888 times)

Nath-BDP