Shorts Stirling ideas

[darthspud]

Heavier airframe and in-service weight than a B1 Lanc, plus somewhat less aerodynamic and although on paper the engines were more powerful, that's not always what came out of them.
Over engineered aircraft too.

[Caveman]

A lot of it is in the details I think. Stirling was given a lot of incidence on the wing = draggy but good takeoff/landing lengths. According to wiki it was also designed to operate as a troop carrier, hence large/heavy fuse and shallow bomb bay.

[The Wooksta!]

On top of that, the Stirling had lots of room inside, so it was ideal as a cargo or troop dropping aircraft.  Tanker or AEW versions could also have followed if the war had lasted.  I'm toying with the latter as I've an Airfi Stirling somewhere.

Egypt used three as bombers against Isreal in the late 1940s.

[kitbasher]

Egypt used three as bombers against Isreal in the late 1940s.

Really?  I knew Egypt had some Halifaxes but didn't know about Stirlings.

And yes, a transport or Tiger Force tanker variant development beyond the Mk V sounds right.

[The Wooksta!]

AEW? I'd probably go for the later Hercules engine variants used on the Hastings, so four blade props and spinners.  Ideally, I'd like to get the resin engines used in the Aircraft in Miniature release of the Hastings.  Nice solid nose the same profile as the Stirling V and preferably an FN82 tail turret with 2 .50s plus Village Inn.  Not sure on scheme, but given the tropics, MSG over PRU Blue.  All those windows would have to go.

Wonder where the wreck of that Stirling I did in 1989 is?  May try salvaging it if I still have it.

Tiger Force tanker?  Unlikely, because they'd be more use for troop dropping during the invasion of Japan or as glider tugs for the Hamilcars.

[kitbasher]

Why not a tanker?  Would free up more efficient Lancasters and Lincolns for the bombing role - Lancs were looked at for the tanker role in real life.

I see a Stirling equivalent of the Avro York - boxy fuselage and high wings.  Engine-wise, yes more powerful Hercules as Wooksta suggests plus 4-blade props.  Colours?  Yes probably MSG over PRU Blue, compromise between the Tiger Force black and white bomber scheme and the Extra Dark Sea Grey/Dark Slate Grey over Azure Blue (or was it PRU Blue?) scheme devised for RAF transport aircraft  (and applied to at least some Halifax transports).

British Pacific Fleet roundels of course, not SEAC.

[NARSES2]

Great comparison drawings - thanks Caveman 

[Mossie]

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.

The weight differences I mentioned were empty weight, it took a bit of digging to find the Halifax's as it's not on Wiki and the sources didn't all agree.  It also might be a later Halifax so the comparison might not be fair. 

[The Wooksta!]

Why not a tanker?  Would free up more efficient Lancasters and Lincolns for the bombing role - Lancs were looked at for the tanker role in real life.

I see a Stirling equivalent of the Avro York - boxy fuselage and high wings.  Engine-wise, yes more powerful Hercules as Wooksta suggests plus 4-blade props.  Colours?  Yes probably MSG over PRU Blue, compromise between the Tiger Force black and white bomber scheme and the Extra Dark Sea Grey/Dark Slate Grey over Azure Blue (or was it PRU Blue?) scheme devised for RAF transport aircraft  (and applied to at least some Halifax transports).

British Pacific Fleet roundels of course, not SEAC.

The Stirling was better at carrying troops and their kit than the Lancaster or the Halifax, so they'd be better for troop dropping.  Halifaxes as tankers would be a better compromise.

EDSG/Dark Slate over Azure blue.  Worn by some Wellingtons and Halifaxes used in the transport role and supposedly also applied to Buckinghams and Buckmasters.  It's a lovely combination.  Did it with a few Spitfires.

Markings.  Depends on where it's based.  Tiger Force was to have been split, as Iwo Jima wasn't big enough to accomodate both the US and Tiger Force at the same time.  Half would have been based in Burma or India, so they would have got standard SEAC roundels, the rest on Iwo Jima would have got BPF markings.  

[McColm]

There are conversion kits that you can buy, so the idea of fitting the Stirling nose and other parts to a Lanc makes sense.

[PR19_Kit]

Heavier airframe and in-service weight than a B1 Lanc, plus somewhat less aerodynamic and although on paper the engines were more powerful, that's not always what came out of them.
Over engineered aircraft too.

Why should the airframe weight make such a difference? It doesn't fly empty, it flies with as much load as is needed for the task.

And how does the 'over engineering' affect things?

[darthspud]

The airframe weight makes up a considerable part of the in-service( mtow)
or it did when i did trims for VC10's, C-130's and Tristar's etc.
add on the crew, mission fuel, ammo etc and the difference between prepped for flight and payload of the Stirling would be smaller than a B1 Lancaster.

Over engineered - huge amounts of crew armour, walkways, internal cross bracing,(dead weight in effect) yes i know the crew needed it, but it is dead weight to fly around, meaning less for payload - BOMBS!

[McColm]

from what I can gather, it's the Stirling wing being so short and stubby. Something to do with the size of the hangers. I suppose if it was hung on a nail it would loose it's shape!!

[Caveman]

see previous page, the wings werent short. They were stubby though...

[Mossie]

They were short compared to the initial design, IIRC.