Shorts Stirling ideas

[Geoff]

If it's designed to act as a transport how about an ELINT a/c with lots of lumps and bumps and antenna? Perhaps Swedish stooging around the Baltic and Nord Cap. They used Ju-86's at one point for this in real life??

[The Rat]

I'm certain that the overall shape of the Stirling's wing would have had a detrimental effect on performance. It's easy to see that the aspect ratio is less than that of the Lancaster, therefore there would be more induced drag.

[PR19_Kit]

I'm certain that the overall shape of the Stirling's wing would have hed a detrimental effect on performance. It's easy to see that the aspect ratio is less than that of the Lancaster, therefore there would be more induced drag.

At LAST a senisible reply that may well answer the original question and not confused with issues of empty v. loaded weight, hangar widths and arguments about engine power!

Well done Rat, you may have it there, thanks.  

[The Rat]

I'm certain that the overall shape of the Stirling's wing would have hed a detrimental effect on performance. It's easy to see that the aspect ratio is less than that of the Lancaster, therefore there would be more induced drag.

At LAST a senisible reply that may well answer the original question and not confused with issues of empty v. loaded weight, hangar widths and arguments about engine power!

Well done Rat, you may have it there, thanks.  

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, I just play one on the interwebs. 

[NARSES2]

Nope, the wingspan-limit-to-fit-the-hangars story is a myth. The RAF had 120ft wide hangars available and B.12/36 (the Stirling requirement) called for "good facilities for maintenance in the open". The 100ft limit was an arbitary one imposed to prevent the whole aircraft from becoming too large. See BSP.3 page 100. Tony Buttler refers from there to The Royal Air Force and Aircraft Design 1923-1939 by Colin Sinnott, pp 168-170.

Mea culpa  I'll go and stand in the rain for 4 hours - oh silly me I did that yesterday at cricket  Seriously thanks for that mate. I'd always believed the story. Just checked the ref you pointed out and there it is  Teach me to check things before refering to them.

Thanks again

Chris

[phoenix54]

I'm certain that the overall shape of the Stirling's wing would have hed a detrimental effect on performance. It's easy to see that the aspect ratio is less than that of the Lancaster, therefore there would be more induced drag.

Partly wing shape / thickness in chord also the engine thrust line, same problem with the Sunderland.
Sorry chaps, Shorts got 'em wrong, hence, in the case of the Stirling is why it got the undercarriage a Crane 'ud be proud of !!
Thrust line on both 'Hallibag' and 'Lanc' (there ya go Trev, H.P. FIRST!) were no more than minutes of a degree
away from wing dead centre, with both the Stirling AND Sunderland the thrust line was degrees above.
4 degrees (as opposed to 3 degrees, don't be silly they were a 70's girl group!) rings bells, just don't know why!
Must consult the library to find out that answer.

Paul

[The Wooksta!]

If it's designed to act as a transport how about an ELINT a/c with lots of lumps and bumps and antenna?

100 Group used Stirlings for that role anyway.

[McColm]

Then there are the other three Short aircraft, I forgot to mention:
1946 Sturgeon Torpedo Attack/Reconnaissance built for the Royal Navy's super-carrier spec. The super-carrier was cancelled and the Sturgeon used as a
high-speed banner towing aircraft. It was powered by two Merlin engines.

Then there was the Sperrin, a replacement for the Lincoln, long range bomber with 4 x Avon Engines, first flight in 1951. If you are a Tony Hancock fan then please watch Hancocks Half Hour-"There's an airfield at the bottom of my garden". There is some footage of the Sperrin and other prototypes with a Hunter formation.  Replaced by the Vickers Valiant.

The Short SC1 V/STOL first flew in 1957 up on till 1971 and was used as a research aircraft.
I have no idea if any of these are available in kit form, know doubt you'll let me know.

[NARSES2]

Then there are the other three Short aircraft, I forgot to mention:
1946 Sturgeon Torpedo Attack/Reconnaissance built for the Royal Navy's super-carrier spec. The super-carrier was cancelled and the Sturgeon used as a
high-speed banner towing aircraft. It was powered by two Merlin engines.

A contender for ugliest aircraft ever in my view. Got a couple of Magna kits in the stash and they will get built one day 

[PR19_Kit]

Magna and Anigrand do the Sperrin in 1/72 resin and S&M do it 1/44.

X-Planes used to do the SC-1 as a very nice 1/72 vacform, I've got one, and it seems that Olimp (who?) do one in 1/72 injection.

[The Wooksta!]

COntrail and Magna have both done the Sturgeon.  Nice kits, if a little basic.

[McColm]

Thanks,
I might try and build a Sturgeon look-a-like from a Douglas A-20 or A-26 to reduce my stash.

[NARSES2]

and it seems that Olimp (who?) do one in 1/72 injection.

Ukrainian resin producer Kit. Very high quality kits - up there with Czechmaster for detail and price. Got of a couple of their kits   Also sell under the "Pro-resin" name

[jcf]

The Stirling wing was similar that of the earlier S.23 Empire Boats and S.25 Sunderland, and like them used the large
Gouge flaps and the Modified Göttingen 436 airfoil. As designed the Stirling had a wing incidence of 3.5 degrees, as this
was the optimal angle for minimum cruise drag. Testing of the half-sized S.31 showed a tendency to long take-off and
landing runs due to this low incidence.
An increase of incidence by 3 degrees was recommended, however as the production tooling was so far advanced it was
considered too late to re-jig the design for a 6.5 degree incidence wing. Gouge's compromise solution was to increase the
length of the main landing gear, increasing the ground angle by 3 degrees.
Halifax wing incidence was 3 degrees (+-) 15 minutes, which was changed to 2 degrees (+-) 45 minutes on later aircraft.
Lancaster wing incidence was 4 degrees.

BTW Short's original tender to B.12/36 had a wingspan of 112 ft, and the Supermarine 316-318 designs to the same spec
varied from 93 ft to 97 ft.

The Stirling design was not like a '1900s submarine', it was very much a design of its times and improved upon structural
features of its flying boat predecessors, and it was designed from the onset for dispersed manufacture, the fuselage for instance
was built up from four separate assemblies. The Shorts S.32 high-altitude pressurized airliner design was to use a 127' 6" span
wing that was similar to that of the Stirling, again using the Modified Göttingen 436 airfoil.

The comparison to the Halifax and Lancaster ignores that both of those were developed from designs tendered to a
completely different specification, P.13/36, for a smaller twin-engined aircraft.

-info from Putnams on Shorts, AVRO, Handley-Page, Supermarine; Halifax by K. A. Merrick; and various web sources.

[DarrenP]

they were used as transports and glider tugs. so some of that might be an idea maybe commercial airliner either pre or post war?
Transport in various theatres and civil/military
ELINT aircraft
Airborne command post
AEW/nightfighter director aircraft
Maritime Patrol?
Dambuster
Grandslam

the Sunderland was fitted with more powerful American engines could the same be done with Stirling?