Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Pigslilspaz on July 02, 2010, 03:41:05 PM
-
In my opinion a good heavy bomber that could fit in all arenas.
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
-
I would like the Short Stirling, it would be great for the early and mid-war arenas but it really doesn't bring anything to the table that other more capable planes do like the Lancaster or even the Mosquito.
It was only capable of carrying a maximum bomb payload for short distances only, think under 600 miles. For long range missions into Italy and Germany, it usually carried a 3,500lbs payload. Because of the way the bomb bay was designed, the largest bomb it could carry was a 2,000lbs bomb. It's thick wings also gave it very poor high altitude performance, so much so that majority of the missions were flown at medium to low altitudes. One benefit though was reported about the thick wings, pilots supposedly reported that they were able to out turn the Ju88 and Bf 110 night fighters they encountered. After 1943, the Short Stirling was almost exclusively delegated to secondary duties like troops transport and tow plane for gliders.
Having said that, I think it still can have a little niche in this game as an early war bomber in the early war arena and, if it's possible, in the late war it could be given the option of being able to transport troops. The Mk. IV was used to drop paratroopers and as a tow plane and was armed with a tail gun and was used to drop British airborne troops and tow gliders during D-Day and Market Garden. It would give another airborne troop transport and one that had some defensive capabilities.
ack-ack
-
I totally forgot about the troop capabilities. Also, I don't think the gliders would be a go, do to them not being on the C-47. Thanks for reminding me of the troops, lol
-
How many troops could it carry? 10 or above? This might replace the C-47!
-
Chances are, it would only be 10 in game. HT said that if anything can carry more than 10 troops, he'll raise capture amount to that. The C-47 could actually carry 26 troops if I remember correctly.
-
Troops as a "perked ordinance" option?
I think it is too slow and under-armed to be very viable in the LWAs, but the MWA and especially the EWA could use some variety. And a slower bomber that the EW planes could actually catch would be a definite bonus.
-
Chances are, it would only be 10 in game. HT said that if anything can carry more than 10 troops, he'll raise capture amount to that. The C-47 could actually carry 26 troops if I remember correctly.
Yes I know. The reason I ask is because if it only carried like 5, that would be lame.
-
The wing span was limited on the Stirling due to the width of RAF Hangers. Lets just say it cost the Stirling. The Halifax and Lanc guys loved knowing the Stirlings were up as they would be the ones to get hit lower down.
-
Yes I know. The reason I ask is because if it only carried like 5, that would be lame.
Not sure of the exact number but it was more than what is necessary to capture a town in AH.
ack-ack
-
Not sure of the exact number but it was more than what is necessary to capture a town in AH.
ack-ack
... as is the same with the M3 (12), the C-47 (28 paras?), and LVT-2 (18).
I wish HTC would let those units carry the amount of troops they actually could carry. Why limit them to just 10?
-
Because then the troops needed to capture base would increase to whatever is the max plane/gv can carry.
Semp
-
I don't want this just for the fact that it carried goons, and I hope that this thread doesnt derail like that. In all honesty, even if there were no goons, it would still be a great bomber.
-
I don't want this just for the fact that it carried goons, and I hope that this thread doesnt derail like that. In all honesty, even if there were no goons, it would still be a great bomber.
It would be a good early war addition as a bomber but the fact that it was able to carry a load of paratroopers helps its cause because it can be used in two roles.
ack-ack
-
It would be a good early war addition as a bomber but the fact that it was able to carry a load of paratroopers helps its cause because it can be used in two roles.
ack-ack
thats true. Im suprised nobody else has shown this much interest.
-
thats true. Im suprised nobody else has shown this much interest.
Because it doesn't fly at 357mph, carry 20,000 worth of bombs or made after mid-1944.
ack-ack
-
The Short Stirling looks really cool and would make a decent early war heavy.
-
I read some were that the stirling can turn inside a Bf. 110
-
I read some were that the stirling can turn inside a Bf. 110
Some of the pilots reportedly claimed they were able to out turn the Ju88 and Bf 110 night fighters that intercepted them.
ack-ack
-
Because it doesn't fly at 357mph, carry 20,000 worth of bombs or made after mid-1944.
ack-ack
if given the 18,000lb loadout, then it'd be the heaviest bombload in game
-
Stirling's bombload on ops was usually about 10-12,000 lbs max, mainly 250 lb or 500 lb bombs because those were the size of bombs its multiple-divided bomb-bay was designed for - and its service ceiling was so poor that it had to fly through the Alpine passes to hit targets in Italy, because it couldn't fly over them. If the Stirling had been the success the RAF hoped for from its first four-engined bomber, it wouldn't have been taken off bomber ops so soon, or been completely supplanted in Bomber Command squadrons by the Halifax and Lancaster by early 1944.
I reckon it would make better sense to model a Wellington Mk.Ic or Mk.III if you want another Brit bomber, it was produced in larger numbers than any other British bomber type (over 11,000 units if you count the trainer versions in the total).
:cool:
-
Stirling's bombload on ops was usually about 10-12,000 lbs max, mainly 250 lb or 500 lb bombs because those were the size of bombs its multiple-divided bomb-bay was designed for - and its service ceiling was so poor that it had to fly through the Alpine passes to hit targets in Italy, because it couldn't fly over them. If the Stirling had been the success the RAF hoped for from its first four-engined bomber, it wouldn't have been taken off bomber ops so soon, or been completely supplanted in Bomber Command squadrons by the Halifax and Lancaster by early 1944.
I reckon it would make better sense to model a Wellington Mk.Ic or Mk.III if you want another Brit bomber, it was produced in larger numbers than any other British bomber type (over 11,000 units if you count the trainer versions in the total).
:cool:
The usual bomb load for the Short Stirling was far less than that, more like around 3,500 pounds. When missions were less than 600 miles then the Short Stirling was able to carry a larger payload.
ack-ack
-
C'mon, the Stirling might have been a low-flyer but it could and did usually carry more bombs than that.
Example: Four Stirlings of No.15 Squadron RAF lifted off from Wyton on 30th April 1941; their first mission flying Stirlings, the target was Berlin - and each carried fifteen 500lb HE bombs. One actually made it to the Big City but found it under 10/10 cloud, so he came home via Kiel, where the bombs were dropped on a searchlight site.
Source: The Stirling Story by Michael J F Bowyer; 2001, Crecy Publishing Ltd, Manchester, ISBN 0 947554 91 2, page 63.
:cool:
-
:aok
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01015/bomber-short-stirl_1015095i.jpg)
-
Lovely picture!