Short Stirling Bomber (better quality footage)

[samg9022]

i was at a warehouse where they made these :)

[2007Colonial]

The Boffins in the Air Ministry ruined this plane, Arthur Gouge Short's cheif engineer wanted a 112' wingspan for good altitude performance, he was overuled and a very good design was hobbled but not ruined! It did fly beautifully and was very agile for its size.

[marksjersey856]

only the british would build planes in dress and business suits.

[pramboy09]

@marksjersey856 it was the 1940's everyone went to work in a suit and tie in those days.

[nibornodrog]

The altidude limitation was caused by wing span being too short! It had to fit hangers that compromised wing span. Why they didnt fit folding wing tips is beyond me!

[carmium]

@nibornodrog I didn't know that, but had definitely noticed the high wing loading in plan views of the Stirling. You have to wonder what discussion were had:

"Gentlemen, in order to reach the desired altitude and avoid much danger from the enemy, our new bomber has to have a wider wingspan than current hangars can accommodate. We must modify a number of hangars."

"Wot?! That will never do! Shorten the wings, fly it into the ack-ack, but change the hangars? Totally impractical!"

[fdsdh1]

i heard that if a stirling turned too sharply it would fall into an unrecoverable stall is this true

[oldironandy]

@fdsdh1 They could spin easily on take off or landing but once airborne they were actually very manoevreable and could turn very sharply for such a large aircraft, even to the extent that they could out turn a ME 110.

[Aussiephil99]

Imagine having a choice of being posted to a Stirling squadron or a Mosquito squadron.

Stirling = almost certain death

[zarquon53]

Can anyone please explain why the thing had that Enormous bloody great undercarriage ? I dont mean the wheels diameter , that was for rough airfields , I mean the sheer HEIGHT of the thing off the deck . Crazy .

The wings were virtually straight off the Sunderland Flying boat , and at the time the plane was designed the RAF preferred lots of small bombs , hence the cramped bomb bay layout - but as the fuselage was just a parallel sided box , that could have easily been redesigned .

[VeeGlo]

@zarquon53 The Stirling was designed and built with the ludicrous requirement of having a wingspan of < 100' to fit in existing RAF hangars!! The smallish wing and under-powered engines could not generate enough lift at take off without aoa created by its' overly all landing gear.

[captmark97]

@zarquon53 The tall undercarriage was necessary for the great angle of attack on takeoff required for the relatively small wing to get the craft airborne. Angle of attack is the angle between the horizontal and the plane of the wing. A few years later Vought designers had to put a tall nose gear on the delta-wing, jet F7U Cutlass to get it off the deck from a carrier. The Cutlass was underpowered to boot; the Naval aviators called it the Gutless Cutlass.

[volumex2000]

I wonder why the USA didn't do a bomber called the 'Dollar'. Like say the Douglas Dollar ?

[mosquito1958]

Real shame there are NO known full airframes of this bomber. I wish they'd find one at the bottom of some freshwater lake complete and not too much corosion so it may be raised and restored then placed in the RAF museum Hendon.

That would be nice.

[buidseach]

@mosquito1958 could always build a replica in sections im sure the plans and dimensions still exsist

[chriswizz]

Fantastic video, thanks.

[lOmnivoreSobriquet]

2nd World War wouldn't have looked the same without the Stirling...

and arguably wouldn't have happened the same even.

I think the aircraft was more a moral booster to the Brits, than an actual moral breaker to the Germans... But it certainly looked right, for the task, and did bring a shape to Britain's effort in those difficult early war years.

I allways cherished that Airfix model that I made of it as a teenage, back in end 70's France....

Thx BG for this fine video again, discovering.

[martynpank]

@lOmnivoreSobriquet I like yr sentiments, but, in reality the Stirling was, not that good! A split bomb bay didn't help! It's ceiling & climbing was dreadful too! In this part of the war, the Wimpey was king! But, if the 'Mitchell' 4 engined bomber wasn't destroyed during the Blitz, things would have been alot different! Thank Heavens 4 the Lanc.....But then, BC was in it's infancy!!! ......& I agree! Thnx BG!

[2007Colonial]

Great shots of the Stirling, an excellent plane hobbled by the experts? in the Air Ministry, it still was an excellent flying machine!

[darren181170]

Macroberts reply is being released in 1:72 scale as a die cast model by Corgi Aviation Archive in december. A fitting tribute .

[DeeBoneham]

A very much underrated bomber. Bless all who flew in them! RIP all who died in them including Sgt Edgar Harvey of 75 (NZ) Sqn...

[muzlinkage]

I always liked the Stirling. Kind of regal

[mistersmith6000]

Did they even try fold-out wings, like aircraft carrier aircraft have. That way, they could have gotten a better ceiling as well as been able to park them in the hangars.

[SapperK9]

@dopenhagen2009 And how many German four engined bombers attacked Britain?

[KevinJKtheman]

@SapperK9 Take no notice of that sill german tart dopenhagen, she trolls Britsh aircraft videos, running down the Brits, and trying to praise up, the luftwaffe, she takes it bad that they lost the war, sad little girl.

[hunterman0953]

Many years ago I rescued a battered copy of "A Thousand Shall Fall" from a tip. The author, Canadian Murray Peden, flew Stirlings and gives many invaluable insights into the pros & cons of flying this remarkable aircraft. Lady MacRobert is mentioned in the book - she lost three sons to aviation, two during the war. Following her 25,000 pound contribution to buy a Stirling, she gave 20,000 for four Hurricanes. The book was published in 1979 - ISBN 0-920002-05-6. Thanks Bomberguy

[Aussiephil99]

It had a low service ceiling because when they designed it they had to keep the wing span small enough to fit into standard RAF hangers. Rather than build new hangers they just built a death trap of an aircraft........How would you feel in training if you got posted to Stirlings...and your mate got posted to mosquitoes.

[Y0UW1LLR34D7H15]

Back in 1942 women worked in the factory the famous saying was "Get back to the factory"

[HuasoPodrido]

christ taking off in a crosswind must have been a handfull! 

[saj37up]

At the end of this footage it shows bombs being released tail first? I believe this to be the way that the He 111 racked it's bombs, it certainly was not a stirling or any British bomber as far as I know but am prepared to be corrected.

[doddling]

I knew a Wingco who did a full tour on Stirlings. A great kite once you got it off the deck and it could take far more punishment that the Lanc or Hallie

[martynpank]

See below- 1 month ago! The Stirling was only good because it was 4 engined!  Everything else was poor! Glad it was withdrawn by end of '43. Wish the Air ministry had the foresight to throw money, earlier at the Lancaster!

[pramboy09]

@martynpank The main problem with the stirling was it could not fly as high an altitude as other bombers making it a very rough ride as well as very vunerable to AA. The reason for this was it's wing, it was designed around the hangers they had to fit in so the if you look at the wing it looked alot shorter than it should be.

[martynpank]

@pramboy09 Agree 1 million%!!! Also, its rate of climb was appalling, so, consequentally, it could not 'Corkscrew' like other bombers & it couldn't carry 'Blockbusters' as the bomb bay was split into 2 elongated sections. But then I don't need to tell you this as you seem quite knowledgable already! LOL! ATB!

[kleisteris]

@pramboy09 - a lot of people have mentioned the short wingspan to fit in the hangars, but that is actually a myth. The reason for the short wingspan was to keep the total weight of the aircraft down, as initial predictions were that it would be too heavy and underpowered.

[pramboy09]

@kleisteris Either way it would have been a huge disadvantage for the design if it had a larger wingspan as new hangers would have to been built to suit it. Like i commented earlier the biggest drawback was it's ceiling which made it hugely vuneralble.

[xGRYFONx]

Its a beautifully ugly airplane that i've only experienced up close in several Airfix models. It shouldn't be extinct :(

[canals22]

Bomberguy, pleace accept my deepest tahnks for posting these great videos.

I'm not English, but I really enjoy this stuff, I've done so scince I was a young kid.

All of these machines were very interesting, a golden era gone by.

Many thanks, I owe you a pint.

George

Brest

France

[MrBEB123]

I really have to take exception to the commentators remarks that Germans are barbaric. Look at the crime rates of non White races if you want to see what barbaric behavior is.

[martynpank]

I don't do racism! But nor do I do anti-Germanic! You had a job to do, just like us!

[martynpank]

As the vid says it could carry 3 times a wellington could but the arrangement of the bombbay meant it was restricted to types of bombs. No Blockbusters etc! Also had a poor rate of climb so could not 'corkscrew' like the wellington or later bombers. Shame the Lanc wasn't up & running by then. It could have saved so much money! .....& don't get me started about R J Mitchells planned bomber which was destroyed in the Blitz!

[tribalheadz]

Mad Dog, my questions are based on scientific evidence. Physics the law of flight. Hence 'A Question Of Physics.' The question is not how effective the fighters were but how the stirling being so large could out turn them and I also stated i am not saying it cannot be done. The question is How ? For future reference (?) means question not statement.

[mbandarra3]

Nice piece of history. Thanks !!

[tribalheadz]

A question of Physics ?

How the hell could a large heavy four engined bomber out turn a sleek fighter?

Speed may be a problem for the fighter, too much causes overshoot but turn for turn the fighter can invert and dive if attacking from above, i find it hard to believe these claims but do not say its untrue. Lets have some comments from a real pilot and see what he says !

[MadDogDucati]

well, i guess you just don't know much about german aircraft then. The Ju88 and Me110 were not sleek fighters, they were effective night fighters, a big difference. Look them up yourself.

[penguin1332003]

Thanks for the footage of the Stirling; my Uncle Harry, after whom I am named (middle name) went down in a stirling in 1943. Been looking at some other pics, I was stationed in Germany for many years with the army, and Cologne, for one place, did take a real pasting; very little of the old city centre is left!

Thanks

Ian

[buidseach]

the wings had too small a span to fit in regular raf hangers.

[canals22]

@buidseach

That my friend, is a mith.

I believed it myself for many years, but is not true.

Do some research if you like.

[82abnoff]

We Royals will just just kill.

[blownglasslide]

It is possible for a heavy bomber to out-turn a heavy fighter or another bomber. I doubt it could keep up the turn for very long, but I don't doubt the Stirling could do it. Is that a wise defensive maneuver? Probably not, but if you're alone and desperate, I'm sure it was nice for those crews to know they had a chance, however slim. There are probably good statistics and technical analysis to be found to prove the airplane could pull off such a feat.

[foofydoo]

Gauchoo1234, I expect you'll laugh out loud when you hear the Vulcan bomber could out turn an F15 fighter at 60,000ft?

[Dark0Ham]

well that's a load of shit, first off a sterling wouldn't need to out-turn a bomber, unless ofcourse you mean the ju-88 fighter version, but then it would qualify as a heavy fighter. in night bombing mission it was all about not being seen by enemy planes, and trieng to spot the enemy planes before the spot you, if an enemy gets so close u need to out-turn him you have probaply already lost

[dang1977]

Well, according to several pretty reputable sources, the crews of British heavy bombers (ie Stirlings, Lancasters and Halifaxes) fairly frequently found that they could out-turn the German nightfighters. The Stirling was noted for its maneuvrability in the hands of a skilled pilot (and one who was strong enough to throw it around), although its ceiling was not good.

The nightfighter Bf-110s in particular had their agility dulled by the addition of weight with radar, exhaust flame dampers, etc

[dang1977]

You may like to read any of the books on RAF Bomber Command by Martin Middlebrook, particularly The Nuremberg Raid, (which incidentally deals with a major defeat suffered by the RAF and is pretty even handed). Alternatively read "Eagle's Wings" by Hajo Herrman, if you would rather read a German pilot's view. It contains a description of the extreme evasive maneuvres flown by an RAF bomber he was trying to shoot down. The wings certainly did NOT rip off that one as soon as it pulled into a turn.

[Dark0Ham]

only the G-2 version which was long before the P-51 arived on the theater, the hurricane could outturn a BF-109 e3 but that BF-109 was still a better plane in almost every aspect. point is, turning isnt everything the bf-109 g was stll hopelessly outmatched

[blownglasslide]

Ummm, no one was trying to say the Stirling is a better aircraft, just that physically it could out-turn a German night fighter.  Relax buddy.

[daggers93]

After being superseded by the lancaster halifax and mosquito.The stirling was used for dropping supplies to the resitance and transport.

[nemesixsixsix]

just like the whirlwind an aircraft with a few teething problems is regarded a lemon. im sure they couldve improved the ceiling and engine rating for a better aircraft rather than phasing it out altogether.

[pramboy09]

@nemesixsixsix no point doing that when you had the halifax and lancaster entering service.

[LeoAndRas]

If the Bomber Command had thought to send them,with bigger rounds charge instead bombs, to distract the Dams anti-air defense,in Guy Gibson raid,is very possible that more Lancs had came back.

[Hanglands]

An acquaintance of mine took off behind the 'Macroberts Reply' which swung off the runway and crashed, though I think this was a completely different aircraft to the one your father flew.

Saw your website after reading Heroes Of Bomber Command : Cambs. Good work! And thatnks Bomberguy for the vid.

[BigRedBus100]

I forgot to say thanks, Bomberguy. I like your stuff alot. I thought I'd seen most archive footage, but you always come up with something new. Where do you get it all from?

[BigRedBus100]

An ingenious solution to yet another unrealistic Air Ministry specification from the late 30's. It's amazing how many good designs survived despite some breathtakingly stupid decisions. The Spitfire was nearly shelved on a number of occasions. A few good men and a lot of luck saw us through.

[EricIrl]

Stirlings were gradually withdrawn from bombing operations and became transports, paratroop droppers and glider tugs. They were used extensively on D-Day and at Arnhem.

[jonnybottle]

Those are air-cooled radial engines, Merlins are liquid cooled V12's

[senyahnoj]

These are Bristol Hercules engines - same as on the early Halifaxes.

[jonnybottle]

quite right, in fact Hercules XI's

[rpb1487]

Early operational Halifax bombers were powered by Rolls Royce Merlins actually; the Bristol Hercules was fitted to the MkIII and later marks

[TheCliffRichard]

LOL - I like the old English voices.

If you want to appreciate how scary these things were to be in, go to the London War Museum at the Elephant and Castle. There is a cutaway section; talk about a tight fit. The other thing that is quite scary is how thin the skin is, with no creature comforts. You would feel like a total sitting duck.

Great video - thanks.

[flyingpigsteve]

good videomy dad flew in stirlings

[nudemetalz]

One of the drawbacks of the Stirling was that the design was back in the age where the hangars were for the smaller twin-engined aircraft. Therefore the wingspan was designed short enough to fit and this reduced it's ceiling to way below the Halifax's and Lancaster's. By the time the latter bombers came out, the hangars were much larger. I assume that was why the Stirling was relugated to glider-tug later on in the war.

[daveymojo]

and there i was thinking i would be the only one who knew that about the stirlings wing width ha. you must a real enthusiast like me.

[NZWolf2]

Does anyone know what happened to the McRobert's Sterling?

[Bomberguy]

The aircraft in the newsreel crashed in bad weather in Jan '42 after completing 12 missions. During take off it hit a snow bank, veered off the runway and hit a Spitfire killing the pilot. Stirling Crew uninjured. It was repaired and used for training but never saw combat again. A second "MacRoberts Reply", Stirling W7531, crashed at 02.10am on 18 May 1942 in Gals Klint Forest, Funnen Island, Denmark - 2Km west of the town of Middelfart, 1 survivor. It was brought down by AAA.

[Hanglands]

@Bomberguy Believe it or not, a friend of mine was in the next Stirling to take off after the original McRoberts Reply (N6086), and witnessed the accident. The pilot of N6086 was Boggis. It happened at Lossiemouth.

[N9155E]

interesting details about industrial metalforming.