Shorts Stirling ideas

McColm · July 01, 2012, 03:13:20 PM

I've done a bit of research and discovered that the engines used on the Stirling were the same as the Lancaster MK.II. As a whiff combining the two Revell/Airfix kits would make a very long range Lanc or Lincoln. Without the customary stretching of the fuselage, using the Lancaster tail; cockpit and wing.
An early form of AEW either B-17 or B-29 layout or go for a mounted spin top.

raafif · July 02, 2012, 11:06:50 PM

forget about the Short Stirling ..... build the Long Sterling -- proper length wings + Merlins ..... oh, yes, & redesign the internals 1940-aircraft style not 1900's-submarine style

McColm · July 03, 2012, 09:25:38 AM

I recently won a Polish 1/72 Shackleton MR3, perhaps the Griffons would look better.
The Shack gets the radials from the Lockheed Constellation, guns off a Sea Cobra and a Lancaster could be fitted with Alison T-56 turboprops.

pyro-manic · July 03, 2012, 09:29:42 AM

Quote from: McColm on July 03, 2012, 09:25:38 AM
a Lancaster could be fitted with Alison T-56 turboprops.

Just one, in the nose as a testbed?

McColm · July 03, 2012, 11:19:10 AM

Thanks for the idea

JayBee · July 03, 2012, 11:22:05 AM

How about stretching a Stirling, then you could call it the "Long and the Shorts of a Stirling".

OK, coat hat etc.

Caveman · July 03, 2012, 02:14:00 PM

Quote from: raafif on July 02, 2012, 11:06:50 PM
forget about the Short Stirling ..... build the Long Sterling -- proper length wings + Merlins ..... oh, yes, & redesign the internals 1940-aircraft style not 1900's-submarine style

Check this out...

Stirling's wings are basically the same span as its contemporaries, they just have a really large chord length which makes them look short... How about trying to mate a stirling nose and wings to a lanc fuselage?

PR19_Kit · July 03, 2012, 03:06:54 PM

The Stirling really is a BIG mother of a bomber, which makes it all the more surprising that they were always lambasted for having poor climb and altitude performance. With lots more wing area and around the same power as a Lanc or a Halifax I wonder why?

True, it had a very inflexible bomb bay arrangement thus preventing it from carrying any realy big bombs, but that still doesn't answer the performance questions.

Gondor · July 03, 2012, 03:30:57 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 03, 2012, 03:06:54 PM
The Stirling really is a BIG mother of a bomber, which makes it all the more surprising that they were always lambasted for having poor climb and altitude performance. With lots more wing area and around the same power as a Lanc or a Halifax I wonder why?

True, it had a very inflexible bomb bay arrangement thus preventing it from carrying any realy big bombs, but that still doesn't answer the performance questions.

BIG and with a thick wing would probably not have helped. Maybe the structure was heavier as well?

Gondor

McColm · July 03, 2012, 03:53:14 PM

There was a 'Super Stirling' proposal by Shorts to increase the performance and redesign the weapons bay. Longer wings and better engines.

wuzak · July 03, 2012, 05:49:51 PM

What about doing what they did for the Manchester --> Lancaster?

Install a parallel chord inner wing section with an extra engine each side. So you end up with more span and more power (6 Hercules).

Glenn · July 03, 2012, 07:20:19 PM

Build a Shetland!
Glenn

Mossie · July 04, 2012, 01:21:58 AM

Quote from: Gondor on July 03, 2012, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 03, 2012, 03:06:54 PM
The Stirling really is a BIG mother of a bomber, which makes it all the more surprising that they were always lambasted for having poor climb and altitude performance. With lots more wing area and around the same power as a Lanc or a Halifax I wonder why?

True, it had a very inflexible bomb bay arrangement thus preventing it from carrying any realy big bombs, but that still doesn't answer the performance questions.

BIG and with a thick wing would probably not have helped. Maybe the structure was heavier as well?

Gondor

Yeah, the Stirling was about 8,000lb heavier than the Halifax.

darthspud · July 04, 2012, 02:05:40 AM

Stirling's were massively over armoured and under powered if memory serves.
Putting Merlins or Griffins on might have improved performance, but Bomber Command/RAF were in love with Lancasters by then so it wasn't going to happen.

PR19_Kit · July 04, 2012, 02:34:32 AM

According to Wikipedia the Stirling had MORE horsepower than a Lanc......

The Lanc BI had 4 x 1280 bhp Merlins, and the Stirling BI had 4 x 1375 bhp Hercules. The Halifax BIII had 4 x 1615 bhp Hercules, the same engines that powered the relatively rare Lanc BII.

The Stirling had by far the largest wing area, 1460 sq ft as against 1297 for the Lanc and only 1190 for the Halifax.

The loaded weight of a Stirling was 59000 lbs, the Lanc was 68000 lbs and the Halifax was 54000 lbs.

Something's wrong somewhere, the figures don't stack up.