Author Topic: Short Stirling  (Read 2083 times)

Offline Pigslilspaz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Short Stirling
« on: May 19, 2011, 09:56:10 PM »
Been a while since I've asked for it, but going to give a substantial post this time for the new folks.

Specifications:
Country of origin: UK
Crew: 7
Powerplant: 4 x 1375hp (1030kW) Bristol Hercules Radial Engines
Max Speed: 410km/h (255 Mph)
Range: 3750km (2330 miles)
Service Ceiling: 5030m (16,500 ft)
Weight: 22 Tons(Empty) 29.7 Tons (Loaded)
Max Weight: 35 Tons
Wingspan: 99'1''
Length: 87'3''
Height: 28'10''
Wing Area: 1322 ft2
Propellors: 3 Blade, 13'6'' diameter
Range: 2330 miles
Wing Loading: 44.9 lb/ft2

Armament:
8 x 7.7mm Brownings, 2 nose, four tail, 2 dorsal
14,000-18,000lb Bombload

Total Produced: ~2,300 units


Quote from: Superfly
The rules are simple: Don't be a dick.
Quote from: hitech
It was skuzzy's <----- fault.
Quote from: Pyro
We just witnessed a miracle and I want you to @#$%^& acknowledge it!

Offline Blagard

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 731
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2011, 10:02:49 PM »
You might want the aerotow and troop glider option adding with that. - For whatever reason I associated the Sterling with that task, probably by seeing some old newsreel. - I know we used all sorts as tugs.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2011, 10:18:53 PM »
Wellington would be far, far more useful as a scenario or AvA aircraft.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Pigslilspaz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2011, 11:42:42 PM »
Wellington would be far, far more useful as a scenario or AvA aircraft.

I know, but this could add to scenario as well as Early, Mid and LW arenas. Also, it could be used as a para dropper in LW.

Quote from: Superfly
The rules are simple: Don't be a dick.
Quote from: hitech
It was skuzzy's <----- fault.
Quote from: Pyro
We just witnessed a miracle and I want you to @#$%^& acknowledge it!

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2011, 10:04:18 AM »
No, you really couldn't justify it as a goon. Its main role was bomber.

What I like about the Stirling for AH is that the flight characteristics are different from the lanc. Significantly so. It sets it apart. It had a big thick wing with a large cross-section. The wing didn't work so well at alt, and it was limited to medium-low altitudes. However, some choice tidbits from wiki (I've heard some of them before other places, but I'm doing a no-effort copy and paste here):

Despite the "disappointing performance" at maximum altitude,[13] Stirling pilots were delighted to discover that, due to the thick wing, they could out-turn the Ju 88 and Bf 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".[14]

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 maximum bomb load was able to be carried for only 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) GP 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 although the bomb bay was large at 40 ft long (12 m)[15] it 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. The Handley-Page Halifax and especially the Avro Lancaster offered better performance (the Lancaster could carry twice the Stirling's bombload over long distances, and was at least 40 mph faster while having an operating altitude of about 4,000 ft higher[16]), so when they became available in greater numbers from 1943, it was decided to withdraw Stirlings to secondary tasks.


Definitely an interesting choice, even if not an uber one.

With the right historic AH maps, that flying through the alps bit might be kinda cool!

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2011, 11:58:43 AM »
The Sterling is too similar to the Lancaster, imo.  The Wellington would be a better fit, the B25 just isnt the same!!!   :)
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2011, 12:06:20 PM »
It's.. uh.. nothing at all like the lancaster.

It has a superficial look, that's it. It could carry all of 4k at long ranges. It couldn't fly above 16k, often only flying 12k.



In that respect the lanc is too much like a b-17. I mean, they both have wings and 4 engines, right?  :D

Offline SDGhalo

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2011, 02:11:06 PM »
if you read the history more you can see that it would have been a great bomber.

she was supposed to have almost the exact wing span of the sunderland but because the air ministry wanted it to fit inside Existing RAF Hangers they completely redisigned the wing to just under 100 ft.

and if she didnt have those dividers in her bomb bay she would be able to carry the 4000 lps cookie.
 

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2011, 02:13:42 PM »
It was obsolete... It was based on outdated designs and thinking. Because of that it would never have been great.

However, it is "different" which is sometimes refreshing :)

It could also fill a hole in the western bomber planeset (not the biggest hole, but one of the lesser holes)

Offline Tyrannis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2011, 02:18:33 PM »
Been a while since I've asked for it, but going to give a substantial post this time for the new folks.

Specifications:
Country of origin: UK
Crew: 7
Powerplant: 4 x 1375hp (1030kW) Bristol Hercules Radial Engines
Max Speed: 410km/h (255 Mph)
Range: 3750km (2330 miles)
Service Ceiling: 5030m (16,500 ft)
Weight: 22 Tons(Empty) 29.7 Tons (Loaded)
Max Weight: 35 Tons
Wingspan: 99'1''
Length: 87'3''
Height: 28'10''
Wing Area: 1322 ft2
Propellors: 3 Blade, 13'6'' diameter
Range: 2330 miles
Wing Loading: 44.9 lb/ft2

Armament:
8 x 7.7mm Brownings, 2 nose, four tail, 2 dorsal
14,000-18,000lb Bombload

Total Produced: ~2,300 units

(Image removed from quote.)
because of its size, would we need to treat it like the b29 in the takeoff-landing sense?

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Short Stirling
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2011, 02:26:10 PM »
It's got a shorter wingspan than the Lancaster. It's a little taller because of the single tail, but it is noticably longer (in the tail section). Overall about the same size as the other non-b29-bombers.

EDIT: It's supposedly got very nice handling and a high-lift wing. So I imagine it would have a shorter take-off run.