Hi, ex-Short Brothers engineer here! I trained in the Belfast factory, starting in 1980 and I can well remember listening to the old sweats who had worked on the Stirling during WW2. They spoke with pride, but were sad at how the Stirling had been hampered by the Air Ministry.
The Stirling like the Sunderland was designed and initially built at Rochester in Kent. Production was moved to Belfast due to Kents frontline position and Naval Dockyards being prime German Bomber targets.
I read that the Stirling wasn't too good, but that's because it exactly matched the specification drawn up by the Air Ministry. Has anyone ever asked the RAF what they'd like?
My great uncle ( Pilot Officer Gordon Joshua Dennison RCAF) my grandfather’s brother, went MIA in a Stirling from 199 Squadron RAF on the night of 15/16 September 1944 over the North Sea. To this day it is classified but the thought is they were dropping agents into Holland. Lest we forget…
That is very probable, although you don't mention the year. As the Bomber Command noticed that the Stirling was hopelessly unsuitable for bombing missions and more and more Lancasters and Mosquitoes became available, the Stirling, and to a lesser extent the Halifax started flying missions in which their limitations weren't important. Dropping agents while flying low was one of them, towing gliders was another. After all, the Typhoon was created as an air superiority fighter. It didn't take long until it was found that she was a poor high altitude fighter but an excellent ground attack aircraft. Eventually they came up with the Tempest, which excelled at high altitude.
Thanks for a video on the RAFs forgotten third heavy bomber. The Stirling carried the fight to the enemy before the more well know Halifax and Lancaster, she and her brave crews need to be remembered!👍
You could walk safely under any running propeller of a Stirling unless you were a giant, but _not_ under the propellers of a Lancaster, and that caused several fatal accidents.
My father was shot down over Germany in a short Sterling. Though it never had the glamour associated with the Lancaster, he claimed it was a very strong and reliable plane. They had to carry out cork screw manoeuvres to evade an enemy fighter on one occasion and it was more than up to the task.
Not forgotten in this neck of the woods - my grandfather worked 12 hour shifts, 7-day weeks at the Austin Motor Company at Longbridge building them (he was a toolmaker, like many in my family). The Stirling became a glider tug once the Lanc was produced in enough numbers to take most of the bombing load and was involved in airborne ops from D-Day to Market Garden. It was also used to airdrop supplies to the various resistances across occupied Europe.
That is fascinating. Would of been interesting things to work on. Why many might say glider tug is a secondary role, it was still a very important role and thus the Stirling still remained an important asset for the RAF
What an excellent topic. The much beloved but largely forgotten Short Sterling. The information about the awkward stance of this craft, with very large tyres and long landing struts now makes some sense. All of its deficits would however have been better addressed by extending the wing's in the first place, I believe.
My old man use to know a old guy who was a tail gunner on the Sterling and he use the say you could do aerobatics in the Stirling and it could almost dogfight in it. He held them in very high regard.
That is very fascinating. It would be a great if there was video of one doing aerobatics. They were brave men that fought and flew in them. Lest we forget.
Proud to say that my Dad was a pilot of the Stirling G for George which is shown at the 25 second mark. It was taken in a series of photos in April 1942 at the 1651 Heavy Conversion Unit based at the time at Waterbeach. Prior to this Dad had piloted Wellington's at 115 Sqdn. On completion of Conversion training , Dad was posted to 214 Sqdn when they changed their aircraft to Stirlings and was amongst the first in that Sqdn to fly Stirlings operationally. After taking part in the first 2 1000 Bomber Raids, he was shot down on a mine laying op over the Friesian Islands crashing on the island of Memmert. The whole crew fortunately survived which was quite unusual. It was Dad's 17th op. He spent the rest of the war in a number of POW camps . He rarely spoke of his experiences but when he did, he spoke very highly of the Stirling and its manoeuvrability and robustness. Dad was Royal Australian Air Force joining in 1940 and after training and receiving his wings, was sent to England and attached to an RAF Sqdn ( as above 115 on Wellington aircraft ... again thought favourably of). Many he knew in the early 1940s who flew on ops ( never missions .... that was American terminology) did not survive. Lest we forget.
Your dad was one of many heroes from that period, thanks to their bravery and skill they brought the Nazis to their knees. I knew a veteran who sadly passed away a few years ago who was a Tail End Charlie, not in Stirlings but in Lancasters, he flew out of RAF Waddington with 44 Rhodesia Squadron and 463/467 RAAF Squadrons in the war.
Only "forgotten" by those who probably didn't know what a Halifax was either. For those of more tender years, it's the fascination with types particulalry the Lancaster and Spitfire that causes this (and many, many other types) to be "Over-shadowed". A thing cannot be forgotten if it was never taught. Thanks for the video.
That is true. I find that even in shows and doco's it is always the Lancaster that is mentioned. I was even watching one of those Antique Roadtrips tv shows the other day and they had a segment about the Hampden under restoration at the RAF museum. They managed to ensure that the Lancaster wasn't mentioned once, but quite a few times with pictures accompanying it.
My father Albert Bishop Lancashire flew as radio op/ navigator in the war. It was his favorite plane. He flew in several different types of plane and survived 90 trips. Died in 2003 in France. His pilot was called Vernon "Stinky" Miller a Canadian whos name Vernon I inherited as my middle name.
Thanks. It is considering how many where built and how important it was to the war effort. At least the hard work done by the Stirling Aircraft Project should result in the front fuselage of one.
@@historyinbitesizedchunks5857 Ahh, but there will be. There a thing called The Stirling Project and the main man is one of the technicians who's working on Just Jane at East Kirkby. There's an article to be found, they're starting with the bomb bay. It'll be a replica but an authentic one. Might take 25 years but it's a great.
I’ve been looking into the Stirling for some years after I discovered I had an uncle that flew in it (149 Squadron). Didn't know that the plane was developed into a cargo carrier. Thanks for the video.
My father was groundcrew on 149 Squadron, stationed with them at Mildenhall, Lakenheath and Methwold. He was a big fan of the Stirling. OJ-Q was his responsibility. Always called it Queenie
My favourite of the RAF 4 engine bombers. I love how high up it stands on the ground and that long fuselage. Ugly is beautiful. Nicely presented video, thank you.
Thanks for making this video about an aeroplane pretty much ignored by most RUclips WW2 documentary producers who seem to prefer to make endless videos about Lancasters and Spitfires instead. Huge respect to the brave airmen who flew this machine in bomber streams where they stood out as the 'low hanging fruit' for German night fighters and flack gunners.
I remember looking at that model a few times but never got around to making it, I think maybe it was the complicated looking undercarriage that put me off. I did make the Halifax and Lancaster.
Thank you very much for spreading the word about our project!! This video is incredibly informative and gives a great overview of the aircraft!! We have just started recording the project progress with our own videos and a lot of interest is thanks to this great video!!!
Thank you for the comment and positive words about the video. It is a real shame that there is no Short Stirling on display. It was such an important aircraft that often gets overlook. The work the project is doing is amazing and in my eyes critical. There ought to be some type of Stirling on display. Hence, it's great to know that my video is helping to drive more traffic to your channel, and hopefully helping to spread the word about the project. All the best with Stirling, I'll be following the progress of it closely. I hope that one day I have the opportunity to view the completed model. 👍✈️
The two crewmen who stayed to try and help the badly-injured Middleton, and who lost their lives doing so, deserved some official 'recognition' but never, a.f.i.k., never got any.
I always liked the Stirling design. It figures slightly in Len Deighton's legendary 1971 novel "Bomber," wherein Stirlings were mentioned as flying lower and thus bearing the brunt of lower caliber flak.
Hah ... I was going to reference that in "Bomber" ... during mission briefing there's a slight cheer amongst the Lancaster pilots when they find out that Stirlings will be accompanying them for pretty much that reason. Morbid humour.
@@kaboulscabal4816 In the book, the brother of the Lancaster pilot was himself piloting a Stirling and survived the Altgarten raid unlike several of the main characters higher up in Lancasters.
@@sergeipohkerova7211 IIRC ... It was the brother of squadron commander Munro who flew a Stirling, not a brother of P.O. Lambert's. The squadron commander himself survived the mission but was killed in a motorcycle crash afterwards.
@@AntiqueAirshow interesting book - I found my sympathies switching from the RAF bomber crew, then the Luftwaffe night fighter crews, then to the people being bombed.
1:40 The Grand Slam was a one-off and required major modifications to the few Lancasters that were rated to carry it. By the time the Grand Slam was operational in 1945, the Stirling had been withdrawn from bombing ops.
My father flew in the Stirling and Halfax bombers during the war. They bombed Cologne and Hamburg amongst others I believe. However my father spoke very little about his wartime service. He volunteered which wasn't necessary as he was in a reserved occupation being a Met police constable.
Very few spoke of their wartime service. My dad didn't either. The only way I knew he was in the Army Air Force... was what my mom referred to as his "war buddies". And, that he too volunteered... and it took him four tries to get in, because he was already 34 years old. He nickname... "pappy" of course. He was old enough to be most of the guys father. The old vets would talk among themselves... but not much to others. After a couple rounds of cards... the three or four men "war buddies" would sit around the kitchen table and talk... and the wives and us kids would be in the living room watching TV. It was something they had to do, and they were proud to do it... but most of it was something they would rather forget and get on with their lives afterwards. I think a lot of the talks between them, was a way of reducing the PTSD... that wasn't even known about back then. After my dad passed, I talked my mom into selling the big two story house, and getting a smaller one story. In the back of the master bedroom closet... was an old wood cigar box. Inside... were all the medals from my dad. Damn I wish I would have been able to find out how he was awarded them. But.................... I will never know.
@@donf3877 My father was 30 or 31 years old when he joined up so (like your dad) was a lot older than the rest of his crew. Not that you'd notice from the one photo I have as even the youngsters looked old. As a young arrogant boy I asked my father how it felt to have killed so many people. He replied that he never knowingly killed anyone. Can't argue with that. When he was demobbed he went back into the police.
Depending on what the medals are, your dad would have citations for them which will be in military records. I know my dad helped the family of one of his old mates (who was in the army) to obtain the citation for his military medal. They were very proud indeed when they found out what he had done, but never spoken of.
It would be cool to have a restored Sterling in flight condition for special commemorative events. Vintage aircraft just have a way to bring out the emotions of times gone by.
My uncle who was a Stirling pilot from Australia is still laying at the bottom of the sea off Zealand after being shot down by a night fighter after coming back from a raid.
Learnt about RAF Short Sterling bomber from Airfix catalogue back in the late 1970s ... Such a purposeful & rustic looking bomber indeed! 🙏 Thank You So Much for this deserving tribute to RAF Pioneering Bomber : Short Sterling during the early years of WWII ... 🌷🌿🌏💜🕊🇬🇧
Other documentary Sterling pilot had to land at American B17 base. US air man showed him with pride the B17, so he took the guy to the Stirling and said "that's a bomber!"
I read that shorts wanted to use the larger Sunderland wing but that would have exceeded the 70,000 lb all up weight limit. One benefit of the short span was that it could turn tighter than some fighters
I've read that as well except they couldn't because it would exceed 100ft. Indeed it was an advantage. Pilots had some barrel role maneuver they could do to evade fighters if necessary
Certainly not an elegant bomber like the Lancaster was, but as far as bomb load goes, it was an improvement over the Whitleys, Wellingtons, and Hampdens of the early war years.
Thanks for this, it realy deserves a litle love.. I have for many years wondered why, when it became obvious it did´t make it as a bomber, it wasn´t chanced to serve as a marine patrol aircraft. The bombbay could have been used for both extra fueltanks, and debtcharches, and with an onboard surface radar it might have helped close the midatlantic airgab earlier, until the b24 came online. Just a thourght.. ;o)
It is sadly often overlooked by the Halifax and Lancaster. That is quite interesting, and you are right could of possibly worked well. It was able to carry H2S radar so I presume putting ASV radar in wouldn't have been a massive issue.
By the time that might have been considered, the USA was offering the RAF Liberators for the role as the RAF got those fairly early when the Stirling was still very much a front line bomber (which it was until 1943). It made more sense to concentrate on Lancaster and Halifax for night bombing, get the Liberator in for patrol, and use the Stirlings drop paratroopers (the hole for the ventral turret was handy and apparently safer than jumping out the side of a C-47) or tow gliders as a secondary role. The Warwick did get use as an ASV, so aircraft did get reassigned, but the Warwick would have been a poor paradrop plane, but the Stirling had a large fuselage due to being designed to be able to carry troops from the outset.
@@wbertie2604 the dropping of paratroopers would be a nice video. I had heard that paras dropping out that hole lost a lot of teeth against the rear edge, but that may have been another aircraft.
I've often wondered that too, bearing in mind that both Halifaxes and Lancasters were used in that role (the former much more often than the latter). It was the one application in which high altitude capability was irrelevant, but I think it was probably the fact that it had a much shorter range which could only have been overcome with extra tankage which would have reduced the payload considerably.
My father flew this aircraft with 199 squadron. it was while captain of a Stirling he won the DFC after an engagement with a night fighter that all the crew managed to survive. he was called the "The lucky Aussie" as no one was killed or hurt on any mission he flew in this aircraft. There were many
The restricted wing caused so many issues. Previously the Whitley had its wing set at an angle to increase lift aid takeoff. But this resulted in a nose down attitude in flight which was aerodynamically less than ideal. Shorts lenthened the undercarriage to achieve the same angle on the wing. In service the ground crews got used to walking upright beneath the props high above them. When the other four engined bombers came on line they were lower and some unfortunate accidents occurred. The hydraulic throttles had a habit of losing pressure and falling back with catastrophic results on takeoff when every hp was needed. The Co pilot would have to keep pushing on the throttles to stop this happening. Read an account of a Stirling pilot and he thought it was a "good bird" and that the problems could have been ironed out but that the other heavies were arriving in such numbers the ministry just decided to give up on the Stirling.
That is interesting and quite unfortunate about the ground crews and props. I didn't know about that. The hydraulic throttles seem to be quite troublesome (and it can't be blamed on the Air ministry). In combat it could also be an issue. For example if a fighter started to approach and you needed power, there would be a delay.
Being the first of it's type; a four engined heavy, the Stirling was a victim of circumstances, thus the poorer performance compawith the Halifax & Lancaster. But it served throughout the war in variius guises which is saying a lot for it's ability to be adaptable.
Great video, factual and well presented. We must never forget what the men and women of Bomber Command did, without them the outcome of the war would have been very different.
Amazing nobody ever thought of an extended wing section, for greater span and therefore altitude. When you see how the Manchester was turned into the Lancaster, it appears possible.
You do have to wonder what could have been achieved. Short did suggest to the Air Ministry a version with a extended wingspan but it was never taken up by the Air Ministry
@@AntiqueAirshow amazing, its like the albacore fiasco instead of just modernizing the already in full production Swordfish, a proven design! Im starting to wonder if the air ministry had German agents working inside to screw up the war effort with bad aircraft! Skua, roc, barracuda, albacore, botha, lerwick, etc etc
Never noticed what a great looking aircraft it was. The tiny fin seems to indicate a stable design too. Way bigger than our other bombers - and a wasted opportunity by the pen-pushers.
Ah yes the Stirling bomber; while it had thicker wings to give it better turning rates (a matter of life and death against night fighters) the divided bomb bay section and narrow wingspan were its shortcomings. It's not surprising that the Stirling couldn't carry that big whacker that is the 'Cookie'.
The grave problem with the Stirling is that once fully loaded it couldn't exceed 14 000ft. That was much too low and made that aircraft a very easy target for Radar Predicted Flak, more so than Night Fighters. Regarding the insufficient span, I heard both that it was for her to fit inside the standard RAF hangars, and also that Shorts wanted to build a wing identical to the Sunderland. Go figure. Whatever the reason, it was a needless disaster.
It was a real issue. The more I read the more it seems the RAF hangars requirement was a myth and there seems to be some other reason for the limitation. I've also read they originally designed the aircraft to have the Sunderland wing, but it was too long and they had to modify it below 100ft.
I read in a book written by an ex pilot some years ago, that the short wingspan was necessary to get the plane into the standard hanger doors, until hangers were made with wider doors. The plane suffered from a lack of lift to fly as high as a Lancaster, or B17. Pilots had to "Bump" it by diving and sharply pull the stick back repeatedly to get it up to cruising height. It was reputed to be a strong plane with under powered engines.
The hangars doors is an interesting one as that's what is commonly accepted, however it is now disputed whether that was the real reason. That is interesting, for its limitations it performed relatively well.
The hanger doors is myth, nothing to do with the size of wings, down to the spec when it was built. there were hangers with 150ft doors in ww11. Most of maintenance was done airside anyway. The tall undercarriage was to get move lift under the wings. The Stirling was a good strong aircraft, limited in its roll as a front line bomber, compared to the Lancaster and later Halifax. Did Stirling work (pardon the pun) as a glider tug, and supply drops to the resistance
@@christownsend686 I agree that ministry order specs hampered design on a number of aircraft. I worked in a 1940 hanger at West Malling in Kent, it still had the Battle of Britain cannon shell holes through the doors, and you could not fit a Lancaster through the doors, we had one there in 1991, we got the Saab340's in nicely.
My uncle was very badly burned in a Sterling crash while at an training establishment in Norfolk. The aircraft crashed on take off, swinging into the watch office. The office crew jumped to safety as the 2 port engines went into the building, the aircraft broke its back in 2 places and the entire fuselage back to the wing roots was burnt away, as were the crew. My uncle died from his injuries. I believe the aerodrome was Shepherds Grove or similar. Photos of the crash are on the Internet.
A good friend of mine flew all three bomber types, and even did SOE trips to Norway in Stirling's, a Brave man injured as his Halifax was shot up over germany the crew elected to stay with the aircraft , and it cartwheeled down the runway killing all of them, my friend was the sole survivor, such brave and dedicated men we owe them a great deal. As for the wing span i do recall reading about this way back in 1968 , some fool in the air ministry decided the wings had to be shortened due as you mentioned it wouldn't fit into the hangers. , which led to those ungainly looking U/C legs and lack of altitude my friend would tell me, thank goodness Stirling's are with us tonight as the Germans would go for them first.. ( he flew from 1939 till 1945) There was talk of a bigger and better Stirling with high altitude performance along with enhance range and bomb load, BUT production of other types would have stopped due production change over and the UK couldn't afford to do that . Thank you for this video its one of the best I've seen on this aircraft.
That is very interesting and unfortunate. They were brave men, fighting for our freedom. RIP, Lest we forget. Many of the issues of the Stirling were due to the requirements of the air ministry. The wings alone caused quite a few. Interesting to see that what crews of the other heavies thought of it, albeit it is a little sad. I've read about the bigger Stirlings as well. With Lancasters and Halifaxs coming in enough quantity there probably wasn't a need for them anyway. Thank you 👍✈️
Great video 👍🙂 Brilliant thumbnail of presumably an exhausted looking Stirling crew. The Stirling always struck me as a very ungainly looking bird? The rear gunner must have felt an awful long way, from the rest of the crew. The Stirling has a special place in my Grandad's family, as his younger brother was a mid upper gunner, during WW2 His first and only operational flight, in a Stirling was during the first 1000 bomber raid, over Cologne in 1942. His plane never came back and all the crew were lost. Ironically my wife was born in Cologne and her own German Grandmother, who recently passed away, clearly remembered that initial raid by the RAF and the subsequent distruction of Cologne's central districts.
Thank you 👍✈️ It is one of my favourite pictures of the Stirling. Notonly does it show a good angle of the Stirling, it also shows just how big it was compared to its crew. The crew also humanize the picture, allowing us to remember the brave crew that had to fly in them. It is in many ways quite a touching picture. That is very interesting and fascinating connection. RIP, Lest we forget
I know this is not proof but I had heard about the 100’ wingspan myth years ago from an old TV show I had watched as a kid (over 60 now) and the interview had been with a Short aircraft engineer in the 60s. He had stated that it was indeed the old hangar specs that had had the Air Ministry put those requirements in place as the Stirling was the first of the newer big bombers. Unfortunately I don’t recall the show but from what I recall it was a first-hand source I saw. I am open to being corrected but that is my recollection from an interview I saw.
That is very interesting. You are right it is a first hand source, so you would think there is some creditability in it. Would be great to know where it was and to have a watch. I think this debate around the Stirling will always be one that lingers
@@AntiqueAirshow I wish I could remember. I’ve always remembered it since it was such a great example of what happens when bureaucrats meddle. If I ever find anything, I’ll link it here.
Group Captain Leonard Cheshire realised in 1942 that almost none of his Halifax bombers returned from operations with one or two engines shut down. The Halifax I and IIs were re-investigated and shockingly in tests consistently went out of control with asymmetric power which was found to be due to the vertical stabiliser and rudder design and this could only be corrected much later with the introduction of the greatly modified Halifax III. Sterlings had very good handling so this would have made them a safer aircraft in combat perhaps offsetting the lower maximum ceiling.
Unfortunately the low ceiling was a death sentence for the Stirling. By 1943 the flak was just too heavy for Stirlings to fly as low as they did. The Lancasters and Halifaxes had moved to higher altitudes, so the Stirlings were all alone taking the flak. Even with its significant problems, the Halifax II and Vs had (marginally) lower loss rates, and importantly they had higher serviceability rates (There were a lot of issues with the reliability of the Stirling apparently).
@@madisntit6547 Yeah I used that source in a video I did on RAF bombers when talking about survival rates for each type. I believe those survival rate was from 1943 specifically. I have seen some references to a post-war report that looks at survival rates by aircraft type throughout the war. I'd love to get my hands on that report if i can find it, especially since there were efforts to improve the Lancaster's survival rate after it was discovered that only 11% of crews got out and I'm curious how effective it was. If you do the math with the 17% survival rate and the Stirling's 1943 loss rate, you get something like a 70% death rate for Stirling crews. Factor in the percent that survived and were POW, Stirling Crews had something like a 15% chance of completing a 30 mission tour, which was pretty abysmal. Lancasters and Halifaxes had lower death rates (both below 60%). Lancaster crews had a 1 in 3 chance of completing their 30 mission tour, and while Halifax crews were only slightly more likely to complete a 30 mission tour than a Stirling crew, their higher survival rate meant their death rate was lower at least.
@@madisntit6547 Yeah, unfortunately the Mark II and Mark V Halifaxes were not very good aircraft, which as it turned out was probably preventable had Handley Page not botched certain parts of the design. A big issue is Handley page ignored Rolls Royce's suggestions for how to install the Merlins on the wing of the Halifax, which caused major issues with drag and harmonics/vibration. Then there was that odd V shapped rudder which would put the bomber into an unrecoverable spin... I have a couple of operational research reports on the Halifax. I['ll check to see what I have uploaded and I can send you a link if you want to read them. They're the reports that the "History" of the RAF Operational Research section mentions. Its pretty illuminating stuff.
0:50 The "myth" seems logical, while the alternative claim, "don't let big aircraft get too big", is somewhat absurd. If you keep the wings short (possibly to save materials), then you need to obtain the necessary lift by other means, which include wing thickness, chord and engine power. This will all increase fuel consumption, and the savings are gone. While hangar size may not be in the original specifications (why would it?), it's the obvious explanation. You can't have bombers standing outside all the time, especially during repair and maintenance - and the 1930's weren't exactly the best of times for spending money on both a lot of new, four-engined bombers and completely new hangars for them.
It does seem to be most logical, but as other users have pointed doubt in the comments, hangars during this period were already bigger than 100ft. It really is quite a mystery why they would of limited it so much
I can see why it was withdrawn from Bomber Command - but Coastal Command was very short of long range four engine aircraft, and would not need high altitude performance. Why wasn’t it used there ?
Yes it did have some limitations as a bomber. It would of probably worked quite well in coastal command, so it is interesting that it wasn't used or considered. However it did find good use in other roles with the RAF such as the glider tug
My Father Flt Lt RAF Roy Ellis-Brown DFC flew Stirlings with 7th Sqd Oakington 7 and I think it was 216 Sqd, An American had 58 missions with the RAF, Transferred to Army Air Corp. in 43 Flew B-24's and Mosquito' s in Photo Recon.
Thank you! I'm surprised so little has been published about this workhorse. It was a better airplane than it looked. Someone in Air Ministry must have had it in for Shorts as a bomber builder.
It wasn't really better than it looked, at least not against its competition. High losses, low performance, and for anything past the Ruhr valley a pretty small bomb load (since it needed to carry extra fuel tanks in the bomb bay for long range targets). It was adequate up until the end of 1942, but after that it was definitely the worst heavy bomber in terms of all performance metrics for Bomber Command.
There does seem to be a lack of work on it, especially considering that it early on in the war was an important tool for Britain's fight back. It was popular with pilots, but as mentioned already was limited by its ceiling. However, I would contend that its role as a glider tug was also a very important role it fulfilled.👍✈️
My dad did his 4 engined heavy conversion in the Stirling at RAF Winthorpe but never mentioned it. According to the 1661 orbs there were quite a few casualties as these Stirlings were 'clapped out'
@@AntiqueAirshow He went onto Lancasters with 61 Squadron at Skellingthorpe. He'd started on Avro Ansons then Wellingtons, Stirlings, Lancaster Finishing School and finally ops. He didn't talk about the war much but always loved the Lancaster.
The Victoria Cross being analogous to our Medal of Honor (I'm a Yank), it's probably more appropriate to say they "were awarded" vice "won." I'm a retired Sailor and am happy to never have "won" the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Silver Star, Navy Cross, or Medal of Honor. Usually involves getting wounded or KIA.
Thanks for the video. Excellent summary. Great looking aircraft but sadly always at a disadvantage due to its low service ceiling. A combination of that low wingspan (and thus low wing area - a factor which also adversely affected take-off) and Bristol Hercules engines that didn't perform well at higher levels. Why was this so important? It meant that aircraft were far more vulnerable to flak.
I think they're snart to view, even though they remind of sky-barges..... Found a round and crystallised aly from the Merryton Low site, Staffs/Derbyshire border. It's RCAF crew are, but one, in Buxton Cemetery.
I remember an ex- Shorts engineer telling me that during the war at Rochester they sent one guy up inside a wing to hold the dolly when riveting. After they'd finished the outside guy moved onto another job and the inside man thought he'd have a sleep. He wasn't known of again until they came to scrap the aircraft in 1946. There was his remains inside the wing. What a terrible way to died.
In a lighter note, I remember an incident with a Portuguese Air Force C212 Aviocar, in the eighties. The aircraft had gone through comprehensive maintenance and it's floor had been removed. In the end of a very hard working day, the aircraft was fully reassembled and an inventory of all the tools used was made. One wrench was missing. All specialists looked everywhere, ended up disassembling the floor once again and searched for hours. Nothing. The wrench had vanished. Close to midnight, dispaired and exhausted, the Sergeant Crew Chief gave up and declared the aircraft inhibited. He grabbed the thick maintenance manual and, sure enough, inside it marking a page, was the wrench... 😀
@dhouse It was one of those stories but remember it was wartime. People were pulling 18 hour days and he fell asleep. Then the wing was whisked off to the next area and would he have been heard over the noise of the plant and engines.
One other point: you don’t ‘win’ a Victoria Cross. You are awarded it or you earn it. There are a couple of examples from WWI where there was a unit VC awarded and a raffle was held to see who would have the honour of wearing it. This happened after the infamous Zeebrugge raid in 1918. That is the only way you can ‘win’ a VC.
Yes that is very true. I didn't know about whole units winning the VC, very interesting. Thanks for the pick up and I'll make sure that future videos are correct 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow Your videos are basically very good. The Stirling is, indeed, the forgotten bomber but really there isn't an awful lot said about the Halifax. I've always thought that the Stirling deserved more attention because, despite its foibles, it was a real step up in capability over the Hampden, the Whitley and the Wellington and a quantum leap over the Blenheim.
@@thethirdman225 Thanks. I'm always learning and looking for ways to improve, so I appreciate being picked up on small things. agree. The Lancaster seems to take a lot of the "limelight". The Stirling effectively allowed the RAF to take the fight to Germany. That in itself was significant. I also think its role as a glider tug was pretty important
"It's murder, plain murder to send my young men out to die in an aircraft like that!" Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, to the Ministry of Aircraft Production while commander in chief of Bomber Command. Quoted in "Bomber Command" by Max Hastings. Chapter Chapter 10.
Despite what manufacturers say, I assert the Air Ministry weren't blinkered as they got exactly the aircraft they needed not what the manufacturer thought they needed. The secondary role this aircraft performed in 1944 onwards freed up the 'stars' of the war effort for their intended duty. It was a very useful rugged enduring design as it was, despite its latent potential. During war perhaps sometimes you just need to do as your told. If the Air Ministry needed Shorts to upgrade its potential then I'm sure they would've asked. It wasn't hampered at all - it was intentionally kept to requirement and its adaptability shows at least on this occasion the Air Ministry was correct in its adherence to the requirement. They were probably thinking if it was better, then it would be subbed off to other duties, creating a vacuum of aircraft with the attendant surfeit of demand for resources.
A couple of points: First of all, the Grand Slam was almost an irrelevance to Bomber Command, in much the same way that Upkeep was, though they dropped more of them. The bomb the Stirling had trouble with was the 4,000 lb ‘Cookie’, which was in much more widespread use and from memory, could only be carried by the Lancaster. The bomb racks were simply not wide enough to accommodate the ‘Cookie’ because the bomb bay longerons got in the way. Secondly, the so-called ‘Munich Crisis’ was in 1938, not 1939.
Thanks for the points and feedback. The bomb bay was a real issue for the Stirling. It would have been better to mention the Cookie and not the grand slam. The Munich Crisis date was a bad error on my part. I sometimes with so many dates it can be easy to get confused what happened when. Still I should have checked it better. Thanks for the pick up 👍✈️
Thanks Great video. The air ministry, seems to be a common theme with so many failures and blunders, you do need to wonder about the reasoning behind their decisions. Cheers
The Lancaster had a wingspan of 102ft, so in principle 100ft with a decent bomb load and range wasn't impossible. However, the Stirling also needed to be able to transport troops as an Empire dual use aircraft (the concept was there would be stocks of bombs around, and the Stirling would fly out to a hot spot with troops, then become a bomber). The transport requirement and the size required for that was the real issue.
Thanks 👍✈️ More I read about aircraft from this time period, the more I become intrigued by the reasoning behind decisions from the Air Ministry. They definitely made a few interesting decisions during the lead up to the Second World War. Don't get me wrong they did some things great, but other thinking perhaps not so much. I mean take the Bristol Beaufighter, which was pursued as a private venture by Bristol as they were the ones that realized the RAF's urgent need for a long-range heavy fighter. The Stirling is another example of limiting an aircraft due to its requirements. During the late part of the 30s they were in many ways quite behind the modern thinking of those in Germany. The start of Guy Gibson's book Enemy Coast Ahead highlights the fact that the RAF were quite under prepared for war. Anyhow just my thoughts on it. They were better than the somewhat of a shambles my countries air force (RAAF) was at the beginning of WW2. 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow given the much heavier bomb loads and better defensive turrets, I'd have put the RAF ahead of the Luftwaffe at the end of 1930s except in the areas of tactical cooperation with ground troops and electronic navigation aids.
@@AntiqueAirshow also, the Luftwaffe wasn't necessarily that well organised, if just had experience in Spain. But then you had the likes of Galland rejecting the need for radio (fighters, not bombers, though).
@@AntiqueAirshow areas where the RAF was streets ahead include radar, control, development and production. During the Battle of Britain, available fighter numbers INCREASED for the RAF. The RAF's presumption that it could bomb unescorted in daylight was wrong, but the Luftwaffe also moved to night bombing. The RAF had presumed, as had most of the Allies, that war would not come at all until 1940, and not seriously before 1941. You can see this in French procurement from the USA, for example, or the time in which it was expected that B.12 and P.13/36 to come on stream (4 to 5 years).
I’ve read some of the comments and am frankly astounded. I’d read that being put on a Stirling squadron was akin to committing suicide, as they were so bloody slow - the Kraut Night-fighters snapped them up. Am I wrong ??
Thanks for a very interesting video. I always thought the Sterling was an absolute disaster, it sounds like a very capable aircraft badly let down by the Ministry know alls. Nothing changes eh!
The Stirling is the older model kit that I still own, from Airfix Series 5, in 1/72 scale and assembled in 1977. Its plastic was pitch black, hard and somewhat brittle, not very pleasant to work with. It came completed with a full load of bombs and a bomb cart, and a very hard to assemble landing gear. By then it was already a poor quality model, but to my knowledge there never was any other...
Interesting that this aircraft, compared to the Halifax and Lancaster, had a co-pilot and that the navigator doubled as a bomb aimer. I can imagine the poor old navigator dropping the bombs and hurrying back to navigate
Yeah, it is interesting, and I was somewhat surprised when I learnt it had a co pilot. It's also interesting that most British bombers only had one pilot, while most American bombers had two.
My Dad was a pilot of a 214 Sqdn Stirling and it was his front gunner who was actually the bomb aimer. The navigator had to remain at his table ready to give the directions away from the target site as soon as the bombs were dropped to ensure they got away safely from congested airspace. The glare from the searchlights, exploding flak ( and unfortunately other aircraft at times) plus the fires below would have affected the navigator's vision and their navigation table was usually curtained off. I don't know if this was standard procedure or just in my Dad's crew. It does sound reasonable when you think about it as the front gunner is already in the required position and the space for 2 would be extremely tight.
@@iantonkin1143 That is quite interesting and fascinating. It also makes a lot of sense. I would be inclined to think that a few crews would have operated this way. Thanks for sharing.
That could have been a possibility. They did look at redesigning the wing after take off and landing runs were found to be too long, however it would have taken too long. The easy solution was to increase the length of the undercarriage.
That would be the same blinkered Air Ministry that was was wanting fighters armed with at least 6 and preferably 8 machine guns before the first fighter entered service with 4 machine guns AND supported the development of RDF? The Air Ministry limited the wing span to stop aircraft from becoming too large for a single pilot to control.
The Air Ministry's thinking was certainly correct and on point many times. In the case of the Stirling though, I would say that it was restrictive, and many problems associated with the Stirling was due to their limitations. Not limitations on the design so to say.
@@philhawley1219 the new RAF hangars from the 1930s expansion had 130 ft doors. The Stirling was specified for outside storage anyway. The hangar thing is a complete myth.
@@philhawley1219 the Type C hangar which dates from the same period (introduced in 1934) had doors that could open to 120ft. Plus for the Specifications for the Stirling (B12/36) and later P13/36 are 2 years called for most maintenance to be carried out out of doors. These specifications were issued 2 years after the Tupe C building programme started.
Instead of designing the Stirling with shorter wings to fit into existing hangers why didn't they make ten feet of the wing foldable like a carrier based plane?
Hi, ex-Short Brothers engineer here! I trained in the Belfast factory, starting in 1980 and I can well remember listening to the old sweats who had worked on the Stirling during WW2. They spoke with pride, but were sad at how the Stirling had been hampered by the Air Ministry.
That is very interesting. A lot of its issues stemmed to the requirements set out by the Air Ministry. Thanks for sharing 👍✈️
The Stirling like the Sunderland was designed and initially built at Rochester in Kent. Production was moved to Belfast due to Kents frontline position and Naval Dockyards being prime German Bomber targets.
I read that the Stirling wasn't too good, but that's because it exactly matched the specification drawn up by the Air Ministry. Has anyone ever asked the RAF what they'd like?
Air ministry disregarded lift formula made sterlings wings too short ,irony it's name of company, curious Bristol radials wasn't used.
Sounds a bit like that other Belfast pride -you know the one that got deleted by a giant scotch on the rocks🤣
My great uncle ( Pilot Officer Gordon Joshua Dennison RCAF) my grandfather’s brother, went MIA in a Stirling from 199 Squadron RAF on the night of 15/16 September 1944 over the North Sea. To this day it is classified but the thought is they were dropping agents into Holland. Lest we forget…
That is very interesting and fascinating. They were brave men, fighting for freedom. RIP, Lest we forget
That is very probable, although you don't mention the year. As the Bomber Command noticed that the Stirling was hopelessly unsuitable for bombing missions and more and more Lancasters and Mosquitoes became available, the Stirling, and to a lesser extent the Halifax started flying missions in which their limitations weren't important. Dropping agents while flying low was one of them, towing gliders was another.
After all, the Typhoon was created as an air superiority fighter. It didn't take long until it was found that she was a poor high altitude fighter but an excellent ground attack aircraft. Eventually they came up with the Tempest, which excelled at high altitude.
Respect!
@@duartesimoes508 sorry 1944
Светлая , Вечная память пилотам Второй мировой войны,которые сражалис против фашизма.
Dad was a Lancaster pilot. The Stirling was always one of my favorite Airfix kits and looked great alongside the other heavies I built as a child.
That is interesting. They were brave young men.
Nice that would have been good fun
Thanks for a video on the RAFs forgotten third heavy bomber. The Stirling carried the fight to the enemy before the more well know Halifax and Lancaster, she and her brave crews need to be remembered!👍
Very true and well written. The Stirling was an important aspect of Bomber Command 👍✈️
#4 was the Warwick, which was much less successful as a heavy!
Always been a favorite of mine..nice aircraft,,
@@AntiqueAirshow Think of the Vulcan, the Victor and (ahem cough splutter) the Valiant.
Similar trio here.
@@raypurchase801 Yes that is very true. I hadn't thought of it like that before
I just love the look of this aircraft. The short wings and tall landing gear. It is so ungainly it is beautiful.
Yes I very much agree 👍✈️
You could walk safely under any running propeller of a Stirling unless you were a giant, but _not_ under the propellers of a Lancaster, and that caused several fatal accidents.
My father was shot down over Germany in a short Sterling. Though it never had the glamour associated with the Lancaster, he claimed it was a very strong and reliable plane. They had to carry out cork screw manoeuvres to evade an enemy fighter on one occasion and it was more than up to the task.
They were brave men. It seems the Stirling was popular with pilots. Not many bombers could evade nightfighters like the Stirling could. Lest we forget
Stirling.
Not forgotten in this neck of the woods - my grandfather worked 12 hour shifts, 7-day weeks at the Austin Motor Company at Longbridge building them (he was a toolmaker, like many in my family).
The Stirling became a glider tug once the Lanc was produced in enough numbers to take most of the bombing load and was involved in airborne ops from D-Day to Market Garden. It was also used to airdrop supplies to the various resistances across occupied Europe.
That is fascinating. Would of been interesting things to work on.
Why many might say glider tug is a secondary role, it was still a very important role and thus the Stirling still remained an important asset for the RAF
What an excellent topic. The much beloved but largely forgotten Short Sterling. The information about the awkward stance of this craft, with very large tyres and long landing struts now makes some sense. All of its deficits would however have been better addressed by extending the wing's in the first place, I believe.
I agree as well. It would of fixed a lot of the problems associated to the Stirling. Still as you've said it was popular with its crews 👍✈️
My old man use to know a old guy who was a tail gunner on the Sterling and he use the say you could do aerobatics in the Stirling and it could almost dogfight in it. He held them in very high regard.
That is very fascinating. It would be a great if there was video of one doing aerobatics. They were brave men that fought and flew in them. Lest we forget.
Proud to say that my Dad was a pilot of the Stirling G for George which is shown at the 25 second mark. It was taken in a series of photos in April 1942 at the 1651 Heavy Conversion Unit based at the time at Waterbeach. Prior to this Dad had piloted Wellington's at 115 Sqdn.
On completion of Conversion training , Dad was posted to 214 Sqdn when they changed their aircraft to Stirlings and was amongst the first in that Sqdn to fly Stirlings operationally. After taking part in the first 2 1000 Bomber Raids, he was shot down on a mine laying op over the Friesian Islands crashing on the island of Memmert. The whole crew fortunately survived which was quite unusual. It was Dad's 17th op. He spent the rest of the war in a number of POW camps .
He rarely spoke of his experiences but when he did, he spoke very highly of the Stirling and its manoeuvrability and robustness.
Dad was Royal Australian Air Force joining in 1940 and after training and receiving his wings, was sent to England and attached to an RAF Sqdn ( as above 115 on Wellington aircraft ... again thought favourably of).
Many he knew in the early 1940s who flew on ops ( never missions .... that was American terminology) did not survive.
Lest we forget.
That is very interesting and fascinating to read. They were brave men. Lest we forget
Your dad was one of many heroes from that period, thanks to their bravery and skill they brought the Nazis to their knees. I knew a veteran who sadly passed away a few years ago who was a Tail End Charlie, not in Stirlings but in Lancasters, he flew out of RAF Waddington with 44 Rhodesia Squadron and 463/467 RAAF Squadrons in the war.
God bless the commonwealth. I was taught never to forget and I tried to pass that on to my own kids.
Only "forgotten" by those who probably didn't know what a Halifax was either. For those of more tender years, it's the fascination with types particulalry the Lancaster and Spitfire that causes this (and many, many other types) to be "Over-shadowed". A thing cannot be forgotten if it was never taught. Thanks for the video.
That is true. I find that even in shows and doco's it is always the Lancaster that is mentioned. I was even watching one of those Antique Roadtrips tv shows the other day and they had a segment about the Hampden under restoration at the RAF museum. They managed to ensure that the Lancaster wasn't mentioned once, but quite a few times with pictures accompanying it.
My father Albert Bishop Lancashire flew as radio op/ navigator in the war. It was his favorite plane. He flew in several different types of plane and survived 90 trips. Died in 2003 in France. His pilot was called Vernon "Stinky" Miller a Canadian whos name Vernon I inherited as my middle name.
You’re lucky it wasn’t “Stinky” 😋
That is very interesting and surviving 90 trips is quite remarkable. They were brave crews, lest we forget
@@sergentcolon1 Would have been apt.
Excellent video. Sad that there is not a single surviving aircraft.
Thanks. It is considering how many where built and how important it was to the war effort. At least the hard work done by the Stirling Aircraft Project should result in the front fuselage of one.
So disrespectful when the authorities don't preserve any examples as memorials to crew.
No doubt. But by then, what mattered was to collect all the raw material and win the war.
I agree. I know there are bits and pieces of fuselage but shame there isn't a complete example.
@@historyinbitesizedchunks5857 Ahh, but there will be. There a thing called The Stirling Project and the main man is one of the technicians who's working on Just Jane at East Kirkby. There's an article to be found, they're starting with the bomb bay. It'll be a replica but an authentic one. Might take 25 years but it's a great.
Not forgotten mate, 🇬🇧, less well known
Very much agree 👍✈️
A massive aircraft. The huge chord of the wings tried to compensate for the short span but that just made it more draggy. It is not forgotten at all!
The wing design ultimately wasn't ideal at all. Its more overshadowed by the Halifax and Lancaster if anything. A very important aircraft
I’ve been looking into the Stirling for some years after I discovered I had an uncle that flew in it (149 Squadron). Didn't know that the plane was developed into a cargo carrier.
Thanks for the video.
That would be quite an interesting night. The crews who flew them where brave men. Lest we forget.
My father was groundcrew on 149 Squadron, stationed with them at Mildenhall, Lakenheath and Methwold. He was a big fan of the Stirling. OJ-Q was his responsibility. Always called it Queenie
Absolutely every WW2 bomber was developed into a cargo carrier.
@@garybrader8447The Stirling was designed to carry cargo and personnel: one reason why it had such a long fuselage.
My favourite of the RAF 4 engine bombers. I love how high up it stands on the ground and that long fuselage. Ugly is beautiful. Nicely presented video, thank you.
Nice, its silhouette is certainly distinctive and unique. Thanks 👍✈️
I’ve liked this ever since I built the huge Airfix model of this as a kid.
Nice, that would of been a good model to build 👍✈️
...Series five! 😀 I was twelve when I assembled mine. Needless to say, I had a pretty hard time.
My father built that Airfix kit when I was a kid. It was beyone my abilities but he did do a good job of it.
@@duartesimoes508 I think I was about the same age.The kit had a tractor with it too.
@@larry4789 yes, with a bomb cart...
Thanks for making this video about an aeroplane pretty much ignored by most RUclips WW2 documentary producers who seem to prefer to make endless videos about Lancasters and Spitfires instead. Huge respect to the brave airmen who flew this machine in bomber streams where they stood out as the 'low hanging fruit' for German night fighters and flack gunners.
Thanks. The Stirling was contributed significantly to the Allied war effort and was an important aircraft. Agree, very well said. Lest we forget.
I built the Airfix 1/72 kit when I was a boy. It was moulded in black and had a bomb cart.
I remember looking at that model a few times but never got around to making it, I think maybe it was the complicated looking undercarriage that put me off. I did make the Halifax and Lancaster.
Nice that's cool. There seems to be a few people on here who have built it. I might try and track down one and have a go myself.
Thank you very much for spreading the word about our project!! This video is incredibly informative and gives a great overview of the aircraft!! We have just started recording the project progress with our own videos and a lot of interest is thanks to this great video!!!
Thank you for the comment and positive words about the video. It is a real shame that there is no Short Stirling on display. It was such an important aircraft that often gets overlook. The work the project is doing is amazing and in my eyes critical. There ought to be some type of Stirling on display.
Hence, it's great to know that my video is helping to drive more traffic to your channel, and hopefully helping to spread the word about the project.
All the best with Stirling, I'll be following the progress of it closely. I hope that one day I have the opportunity to view the completed model. 👍✈️
For what its worth. I always thought the short Sterling was a beautiful airplane. It's a shame it's not more respected.
Agree👍✈️
Hi my uncle FS Leslie Hyder , was co-pilot on the mentioned mission with Ron Middleton, He was awarded the DFM, only passed away a few years back.
That is very interesting and fascinating. Their actions on that night are quite tremendous. Brave men. Lest we forget
The two crewmen who stayed to try and help the badly-injured Middleton, and who lost their lives doing so, deserved some official 'recognition' but never, a.f.i.k., never got any.
I always liked the Stirling design. It figures slightly in Len Deighton's legendary 1971 novel "Bomber," wherein Stirlings were mentioned as flying lower and thus bearing the brunt of lower caliber flak.
Hah ... I was going to reference that in "Bomber" ... during mission briefing there's a slight cheer amongst the Lancaster pilots when they find out that Stirlings will be accompanying them for pretty much that reason. Morbid humour.
@@kaboulscabal4816 In the book, the brother of the Lancaster pilot was himself piloting a Stirling and survived the Altgarten raid unlike several of the main characters higher up in Lancasters.
@@sergeipohkerova7211 IIRC ... It was the brother of squadron commander Munro who flew a Stirling, not a brother of P.O. Lambert's. The squadron commander himself survived the mission but was killed in a motorcycle crash afterwards.
That is interesting. I haven't heard of the novel, but will definitely track it down and have a read 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow interesting book - I found my sympathies switching from the RAF bomber crew, then the Luftwaffe night fighter crews, then to the people being bombed.
1:40 The Grand Slam was a one-off and required major modifications to the few Lancasters that were rated to carry it. By the time the Grand Slam was operational in 1945, the Stirling had been withdrawn from bombing ops.
My father flew in the Stirling and Halfax bombers during the war. They bombed Cologne and Hamburg amongst others I believe. However my father spoke very little about his wartime service. He volunteered which wasn't necessary as he was in a reserved occupation being a Met police constable.
That is very interesting. They were brave crews. Lest we forget
Very few spoke of their wartime service. My dad didn't either. The only way I knew he was in the Army Air Force... was what my mom referred to as his "war buddies". And, that he too volunteered... and it took him four tries to get in, because he was already 34 years old. He nickname... "pappy" of course. He was old enough to be most of the guys father. The old vets would talk among themselves... but not much to others. After a couple rounds of cards... the three or four men "war buddies" would sit around the kitchen table and talk... and the wives and us kids would be in the living room watching TV. It was something they had to do, and they were proud to do it... but most of it was something they would rather forget and get on with their lives afterwards. I think a lot of the talks between them, was a way of reducing the PTSD... that wasn't even known about back then. After my dad passed, I talked my mom into selling the big two story house, and getting a smaller one story. In the back of the master bedroom closet... was an old wood cigar box. Inside... were all the medals from my dad. Damn I wish I would have been able to find out how he was awarded them. But.................... I will never know.
@@donf3877 My father was 30 or 31 years old when he joined up so (like your dad) was a lot older than the rest of his crew. Not that you'd notice from the one photo I have as even the youngsters looked old. As a young arrogant boy I asked my father how it felt to have killed so many people. He replied that he never knowingly killed anyone. Can't argue with that. When he was demobbed he went back into the police.
Depending on what the medals are, your dad would have citations for them which will be in military records. I know my dad helped the family of one of his old mates (who was in the army) to obtain the citation for his military medal. They were very proud indeed when they found out what he had done, but never spoken of.
My Australian Dad with English crew flew Stirling Mk 4’s, towing troop gliders in Operation Varsity and dropping supplies to the Resistance. 2:06
They were brave men, fighting for freedom. Lest we forget
It would be cool to have a restored Sterling in flight condition for special commemorative events.
Vintage aircraft just have a way to bring out the emotions of times gone by.
I agree it would be nice, but unfortunately I can't see this happening. At the very least it would be nice to have a Stirling on display somewhere
I remember building an Airfix model of this aircraft 45 years ago
Me too.The kit came with a tractor too.
Awesome that would of been a good model to build 👍✈️
My uncle who was a Stirling pilot from Australia is still laying at the bottom of the sea off Zealand after being shot down by a night fighter after coming back from a raid.
They were brave men. RIP, Lest we forget
Brilliant, my favourite bomber. M.
👍✈️
Learnt about RAF Short Sterling bomber from Airfix catalogue back in the late 1970s ... Such a purposeful & rustic looking bomber indeed! 🙏 Thank You So Much for this deserving tribute to RAF Pioneering Bomber : Short Sterling during the early years of WWII ... 🌷🌿🌏💜🕊🇬🇧
👍✈️
My grandad was a manager at shorts in Belfast bless him 🙏🇬🇧
Other documentary Sterling pilot had to land at American B17 base. US air man showed him with pride the B17, so he took the guy to the Stirling and said "that's a bomber!"
That is very interesting
My Australian Dad with English crew flew Stirling Mk 4’s, towing troop gliders in Operation Varsity and dropping supplies to the Resistance.
I read that shorts wanted to use the larger Sunderland wing but that would have exceeded the 70,000 lb all up weight limit. One benefit of the short span was that it could turn tighter than some fighters
I've read that as well except they couldn't because it would exceed 100ft. Indeed it was an advantage. Pilots had some barrel role maneuver they could do to evade fighters if necessary
I’ve heard that too but I’m not sure it’s true.
@@thethirdman225 During my research details around the development of the Stirling seem to be a little vague.
Certainly not an elegant bomber like the Lancaster was, but as far as bomb load goes, it was an improvement over the Whitleys, Wellingtons, and Hampdens of the early war years.
Definitely, very much agree 👍✈️
Thanks for this, it realy deserves a litle love.. I have for many years wondered why, when it became obvious it did´t make it as a bomber, it wasn´t chanced to serve as a marine patrol aircraft. The bombbay could have been used for both extra fueltanks, and debtcharches, and with an onboard surface radar it might have helped close the midatlantic airgab earlier, until the b24 came online. Just a thourght.. ;o)
It is sadly often overlooked by the Halifax and Lancaster. That is quite interesting, and you are right could of possibly worked well. It was able to carry H2S radar so I presume putting ASV radar in wouldn't have been a massive issue.
By the time that might have been considered, the USA was offering the RAF Liberators for the role as the RAF got those fairly early when the Stirling was still very much a front line bomber (which it was until 1943). It made more sense to concentrate on Lancaster and Halifax for night bombing, get the Liberator in for patrol, and use the Stirlings drop paratroopers (the hole for the ventral turret was handy and apparently safer than jumping out the side of a C-47) or tow gliders as a secondary role. The Warwick did get use as an ASV, so aircraft did get reassigned, but the Warwick would have been a poor paradrop plane, but the Stirling had a large fuselage due to being designed to be able to carry troops from the outset.
@@wbertie2604 the dropping of paratroopers would be a nice video. I had heard that paras dropping out that hole lost a lot of teeth against the rear edge, but that may have been another aircraft.
I've often wondered that too, bearing in mind that both Halifaxes and Lancasters were used in that role (the former much more often than the latter). It was the one application in which high altitude capability was irrelevant, but I think it was probably the fact that it had a much shorter range which could only have been overcome with extra tankage which would have reduced the payload considerably.
@@petesheppard1709 that was the famous ‘Whitley Kiss’
My father flew this aircraft with 199 squadron. it was while captain of a Stirling he won the DFC after an engagement with a night fighter that all the crew managed to survive. he was called the "The lucky Aussie" as no one was killed or hurt on any mission he flew in this aircraft. There were many
That is very interesting. He does seem to be quite lucky. They were brave men, going up and never knowing if they would come back. Lest we forget
Watching this in today's situation ( don't mention the war ) sorta freaks one out as to the length and breadth of this conflict .
Well done sir ...
Kool - thanks for this great vid!
Thank you 👍✈️
The restricted wing caused so many issues.
Previously the Whitley had its wing set at an angle to increase lift aid takeoff.
But this resulted in a nose down attitude in flight which was aerodynamically less than ideal.
Shorts lenthened the undercarriage to achieve the same angle on the wing.
In service the ground crews got used to walking upright beneath the props high above them.
When the other four engined bombers came on line they were lower and some unfortunate accidents occurred.
The hydraulic throttles had a habit of losing pressure and falling back with catastrophic results on takeoff when every hp was needed.
The Co pilot would have to keep pushing on the throttles to stop this happening.
Read an account of a Stirling pilot and he thought it was a "good bird" and that the problems could have been ironed out but that the other heavies were arriving in such numbers the ministry just decided to give up on the Stirling.
That is interesting and quite unfortunate about the ground crews and props. I didn't know about that.
The hydraulic throttles seem to be quite troublesome (and it can't be blamed on the Air ministry). In combat it could also be an issue. For example if a fighter started to approach and you needed power, there would be a delay.
Truly a forgotten aircraft
indeed it is
Great channel . Great video . Stirling effort allround .
Thank you 👍✈️
I had a Short Stirling model before i got a Lancaster as at the time the Stirling looked more cool.
Nice. It definitely has a striking look about it
Being the first of it's type; a four engined heavy, the Stirling was a victim of circumstances, thus the poorer performance compawith the Halifax & Lancaster. But it served throughout the war in variius guises which is saying a lot for it's ability to be adaptable.
I agree. The Halifax and Lancaster were both later and more modern designs. The Stirling proved to be quite a capable aircraft
Such a shame none of these leviathan’s still exist, definitely an unsung hero. Look forward to the new build front section 👍😍!!!!!!
I agree, but its great that one day we will hopefully have the front section of one. It is great work the project is doing 👍✈️
You will see Stirlings in the film from 1942, "One of Our Aircraft is Missing," a WW2 classic!
Great video, factual and well presented. We must never forget what the men and women of Bomber Command did, without them the outcome of the war would have been very different.
Thank you.
Very much agree. They were brave crews, fighting for our freedom. RIP, lest we forget
Amazing nobody ever thought of an extended wing section, for greater span and therefore altitude. When you see how the Manchester was turned into the Lancaster, it appears possible.
You do have to wonder what could have been achieved. Short did suggest to the Air Ministry a version with a extended wingspan but it was never taken up by the Air Ministry
@@AntiqueAirshow amazing, its like the albacore fiasco instead of just modernizing the already in full production Swordfish, a proven design! Im starting to wonder if the air ministry had German agents working inside to screw up the war effort with bad aircraft! Skua, roc, barracuda, albacore, botha, lerwick, etc etc
My late Father flew missions on Stirlings at the start of his service before he moved onto Wellington 's and Beaufighters.
That is interesting. The crews were brave men. Lest we forget
My Father was a 'Tail-end Charlie'. ...a member of a non-existent group of heroes!
Never noticed what a great looking aircraft it was. The tiny fin seems to indicate a stable design too.
Way bigger than our other bombers - and a wasted opportunity by the pen-pushers.
Stirling was rubbish. Bomber Harris even had bad opinion of halifax compared to Lancaster
It's low ceiling was fatal for a/c
Storing halifax had bomb cells x6 in wing ????
@@Eric-kn4yn Only had low ceiling because of the reduced wing length.
It is definitely a unique looking aircraft. Agree, its main limitation were due to the requirements of the Air Ministry
Ah yes the Stirling bomber; while it had thicker wings to give it better turning rates (a matter of life and death against night fighters) the divided bomb bay section and narrow wingspan were its shortcomings. It's not surprising that the Stirling couldn't carry that big whacker that is the 'Cookie'.
Indeed. Its designs had some big limitations
The grave problem with the Stirling is that once fully loaded it couldn't exceed 14 000ft. That was much too low and made that aircraft a very easy target for Radar Predicted Flak, more so than Night Fighters.
Regarding the insufficient span, I heard both that it was for her to fit inside the standard RAF hangars, and also that Shorts wanted to build a wing identical to the Sunderland. Go figure. Whatever the reason, it was a needless disaster.
It was a real issue. The more I read the more it seems the RAF hangars requirement was a myth and there seems to be some other reason for the limitation. I've also read they originally designed the aircraft to have the Sunderland wing, but it was too long and they had to modify it below 100ft.
Very late getting to watch this one , but it was well worth the wait . Thanks for the video , catch you next episode.
Thanks you 👍✈️
I read in a book written by an ex pilot some years ago, that the short wingspan was necessary to get the plane into the standard hanger doors, until hangers were made with wider doors. The plane suffered from a lack of lift to fly as high as a Lancaster, or B17. Pilots had to "Bump" it by diving and sharply pull the stick back repeatedly to get it up to cruising height. It was reputed to be a strong plane with under powered engines.
The hangars doors is an interesting one as that's what is commonly accepted, however it is now disputed whether that was the real reason.
That is interesting, for its limitations it performed relatively well.
The hanger doors is myth, nothing to do with the size of wings, down to the spec when it was built. there were hangers with 150ft doors in ww11. Most of maintenance was done airside anyway. The tall undercarriage was to get move lift under the wings. The Stirling was a good strong aircraft, limited in its roll as a front line bomber, compared to the Lancaster and later Halifax. Did Stirling work (pardon the pun) as a glider tug, and supply drops to the resistance
@@christownsend686 I agree that ministry order specs hampered design on a number of aircraft. I worked in a 1940 hanger at West Malling in Kent, it still had the Battle of Britain cannon shell holes through the doors, and you could not fit a Lancaster through the doors, we had one there in 1991, we got the Saab340's in nicely.
My uncle was very badly burned in a Sterling crash while at an training establishment in Norfolk. The aircraft crashed on take off, swinging into the watch office. The office crew jumped to safety as the 2 port engines went into the building, the aircraft broke its back in 2 places and the entire fuselage back to the wing roots was burnt away, as were the crew. My uncle died from his injuries. I believe the aerodrome was Shepherds Grove or similar. Photos of the crash are on the Internet.
That is very sad, I'm sorry to hear. Many crews were lost in accidents before even making it to the frontlines. RIP, Lest we forget
Always liked the Stirling it is the forgotten bomber such a shame 😔🇬🇧
Definitely doesn't get the attention it deserved. I would also argue that its role as a glider tug was also quite important.
Good work.
Thanks 👍✈️
EXCELLENT VIDEO......Thanks very much 👍
Shoe🇺🇸
Thank you 👍✈️
A good friend of mine flew all three bomber types, and even did SOE trips to Norway in Stirling's, a Brave man injured as his Halifax was shot up over germany the crew elected to stay with the aircraft , and it cartwheeled down the runway killing all of them, my friend was the sole survivor, such brave and dedicated men we owe them a great deal.
As for the wing span i do recall reading about this way back in 1968 , some fool in the air ministry decided the wings had to be shortened due as you mentioned it wouldn't fit into the hangers. , which led to those ungainly looking U/C legs and lack of altitude my friend would tell me, thank goodness Stirling's are with us tonight as the Germans would go for them first.. ( he flew from 1939 till 1945)
There was talk of a bigger and better Stirling with high altitude performance along with enhance range and bomb load, BUT production of other types would have stopped due production change over and the UK couldn't afford to do that .
Thank you for this video its one of the best I've seen on this aircraft.
That is very interesting and unfortunate. They were brave men, fighting for our freedom. RIP, Lest we forget.
Many of the issues of the Stirling were due to the requirements of the air ministry. The wings alone caused quite a few. Interesting to see that what crews of the other heavies thought of it, albeit it is a little sad.
I've read about the bigger Stirlings as well. With Lancasters and Halifaxs coming in enough quantity there probably wasn't a need for them anyway.
Thank you 👍✈️
Great video 👍🙂
Brilliant thumbnail of presumably an exhausted looking Stirling crew.
The Stirling always struck me as a very ungainly looking bird?
The rear gunner must have felt an awful long way, from the rest of the crew.
The Stirling has a special place in my Grandad's family, as his younger brother was a mid upper gunner, during WW2
His first and only operational flight, in a Stirling was during the first 1000 bomber raid, over Cologne in 1942.
His plane never came back and all the crew were lost.
Ironically my wife was born in Cologne and her own German Grandmother, who recently passed away, clearly remembered that initial raid by the RAF and the subsequent distruction of Cologne's central districts.
Thank you 👍✈️
It is one of my favourite pictures of the Stirling. Notonly does it show a good angle of the Stirling, it also shows just how big it was compared to its crew. The crew also humanize the picture, allowing us to remember the brave crew that had to fly in them. It is in many ways quite a touching picture.
That is very interesting and fascinating connection. RIP, Lest we forget
The rear gunner in the Stirling is _almost_ as far away from the rest of the crew as Putin is seated at the table away from his cronies...
My first 4 engine airfix
Awesome👍✈️
I know this is not proof but I had heard about the 100’ wingspan myth years ago from an old TV show I had watched as a kid (over 60 now) and the interview had been with a Short aircraft engineer in the 60s. He had stated that it was indeed the old hangar specs that had had the Air Ministry put those requirements in place as the Stirling was the first of the newer big bombers. Unfortunately I don’t recall the show but from what I recall it was a first-hand source I saw. I am open to being corrected but that is my recollection from an interview I saw.
That is very interesting. You are right it is a first hand source, so you would think there is some creditability in it. Would be great to know where it was and to have a watch. I think this debate around the Stirling will always be one that lingers
@@AntiqueAirshow I wish I could remember. I’ve always remembered it since it was such a great example of what happens when bureaucrats meddle. If I ever find anything, I’ll link it here.
@@Pantherlvr44 Thanks that would be great and much appreciated (no stress if you can) 👍✈
I was always interested in aircraft.
I was around 10 when i first heard about a plane.
Then for about one year i was looking for long stirling🤣🤣
Hahahahahahaha
Good Work/Info.
Thank you 👍✈️
Good video dude. Very interesting.
Thank you 👍✈️
Group Captain Leonard Cheshire realised in 1942 that almost none of his Halifax bombers returned from operations with one or two engines shut down. The Halifax I and IIs were re-investigated and shockingly in tests consistently went out of control with asymmetric power which was found to be due to the vertical stabiliser and rudder design and this could only be corrected much later with the introduction of the greatly modified Halifax III. Sterlings had very good handling so this would have made them a safer aircraft in combat perhaps offsetting the lower maximum ceiling.
Unfortunately the low ceiling was a death sentence for the Stirling. By 1943 the flak was just too heavy for Stirlings to fly as low as they did. The Lancasters and Halifaxes had moved to higher altitudes, so the Stirlings were all alone taking the flak. Even with its significant problems, the Halifax II and Vs had (marginally) lower loss rates, and importantly they had higher serviceability rates (There were a lot of issues with the reliability of the Stirling apparently).
@@madisntit6547 Yeah I used that source in a video I did on RAF bombers when talking about survival rates for each type. I believe those survival rate was from 1943 specifically. I have seen some references to a post-war report that looks at survival rates by aircraft type throughout the war. I'd love to get my hands on that report if i can find it, especially since there were efforts to improve the Lancaster's survival rate after it was discovered that only 11% of crews got out and I'm curious how effective it was.
If you do the math with the 17% survival rate and the Stirling's 1943 loss rate, you get something like a 70% death rate for Stirling crews. Factor in the percent that survived and were POW, Stirling Crews had something like a 15% chance of completing a 30 mission tour, which was pretty abysmal.
Lancasters and Halifaxes had lower death rates (both below 60%). Lancaster crews had a 1 in 3 chance of completing their 30 mission tour, and while Halifax crews were only slightly more likely to complete a 30 mission tour than a Stirling crew, their higher survival rate meant their death rate was lower at least.
@@madisntit6547 Yeah, unfortunately the Mark II and Mark V Halifaxes were not very good aircraft, which as it turned out was probably preventable had Handley Page not botched certain parts of the design. A big issue is Handley page ignored Rolls Royce's suggestions for how to install the Merlins on the wing of the Halifax, which caused major issues with drag and harmonics/vibration. Then there was that odd V shapped rudder which would put the bomber into an unrecoverable spin...
I have a couple of operational research reports on the Halifax. I['ll check to see what I have uploaded and I can send you a link if you want to read them. They're the reports that the "History" of the RAF Operational Research section mentions. Its pretty illuminating stuff.
Excellent video
Thank you 👍✈️
My uncle piloted one of these,he was shot down and together with his crew perished..They are buried in a village cemetary in Framce
They were brave men, fighting for freedom. RIP, Lest we forget.
0:50 The "myth" seems logical, while the alternative claim, "don't let big aircraft get too big", is somewhat absurd. If you keep the wings short (possibly to save materials), then you need to obtain the necessary lift by other means, which include wing thickness, chord and engine power. This will all increase fuel consumption, and the savings are gone.
While hangar size may not be in the original specifications (why would it?), it's the obvious explanation.
You can't have bombers standing outside all the time, especially during repair and maintenance - and the 1930's weren't exactly the best of times for spending money on both a lot of new, four-engined bombers and completely new hangars for them.
It does seem to be most logical, but as other users have pointed doubt in the comments, hangars during this period were already bigger than 100ft. It really is quite a mystery why they would of limited it so much
I can see why it was withdrawn from Bomber Command - but Coastal Command was very short of long range four engine aircraft, and would not need high altitude performance. Why wasn’t it used there ?
Yes it did have some limitations as a bomber. It would of probably worked quite well in coastal command, so it is interesting that it wasn't used or considered. However it did find good use in other roles with the RAF such as the glider tug
My Father Flt Lt RAF Roy Ellis-Brown DFC flew Stirlings with 7th Sqd Oakington 7 and I think it was 216 Sqd, An American had 58 missions with the RAF, Transferred to Army Air Corp. in 43 Flew B-24's and Mosquito' s in Photo Recon.
That is very interesting and quite fascinating. They were brave men. Lest we forget
Thank you! I'm surprised so little has been published about this workhorse. It was a better airplane than it looked. Someone in Air Ministry must have had it in for Shorts as a bomber builder.
It wasn't really better than it looked, at least not against its competition. High losses, low performance, and for anything past the Ruhr valley a pretty small bomb load (since it needed to carry extra fuel tanks in the bomb bay for long range targets). It was adequate up until the end of 1942, but after that it was definitely the worst heavy bomber in terms of all performance metrics for Bomber Command.
There does seem to be a lack of work on it, especially considering that it early on in the war was an important tool for Britain's fight back. It was popular with pilots, but as mentioned already was limited by its ceiling. However, I would contend that its role as a glider tug was also a very important role it fulfilled.👍✈️
Agree
My uncle bob was killed over Holland in 43 rear gunner on stirlings bomber command hero’s all
They were brave men. RIP, Lest we forget
My dad did his 4 engined heavy conversion in the Stirling at RAF Winthorpe but never mentioned it.
According to the 1661 orbs there were quite a few casualties as these Stirlings were 'clapped out'
That is interesting. If you don't mind me asking what did he fly after his conversion?
@@AntiqueAirshow He went onto Lancasters with 61 Squadron at Skellingthorpe.
He'd started on Avro Ansons then Wellingtons, Stirlings, Lancaster Finishing School and finally ops.
He didn't talk about the war much but always loved the Lancaster.
Wow what a enouroumous aircraft.
Indeed, it is a very big aircraft
The Victoria Cross being analogous to our Medal of Honor (I'm a Yank), it's probably more appropriate to say they "were awarded" vice "won." I'm a retired Sailor and am happy to never have "won" the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Silver Star, Navy Cross, or Medal of Honor. Usually involves getting wounded or KIA.
I agree and is something I'll aim to correct for future videos. Thanks for the pick up 👍✈️
Thanks for the video. Excellent summary.
Great looking aircraft but sadly always at a disadvantage due to its low service ceiling. A combination of that low wingspan (and thus low wing area - a factor which also adversely affected take-off) and Bristol Hercules engines that didn't perform well at higher levels. Why was this so important? It meant that aircraft were far more vulnerable to flak.
Thank you 👍✈️ As the war progressed, the low ceiling of the Stirling became increasingly problematic. Made it quite vulnerable
I think they're snart to view, even though they remind of sky-barges.....
Found a round and crystallised aly from the Merryton Low site, Staffs/Derbyshire border.
It's RCAF crew are, but one, in Buxton Cemetery.
I remember an ex- Shorts engineer telling me that during the war at Rochester they sent one guy up inside a wing to hold the dolly when riveting. After they'd finished the outside guy moved onto another job and the inside man thought he'd have a sleep. He wasn't known of again until they came to scrap the aircraft in 1946. There was his remains inside the wing. What a terrible way to died.
that is a very interesting read. a tragic thing to have happened
In a lighter note, I remember an incident with a Portuguese Air Force C212 Aviocar, in the eighties. The aircraft had gone through comprehensive maintenance and it's floor had been removed. In the end of a very hard working day, the aircraft was fully reassembled and an inventory of all the tools used was made.
One wrench was missing.
All specialists looked everywhere, ended up disassembling the floor once again and searched for hours. Nothing. The wrench had vanished. Close to midnight, dispaired and exhausted, the Sergeant Crew Chief gave up and declared the aircraft inhibited. He grabbed the thick maintenance manual and, sure enough, inside it marking a page, was the wrench... 😀
@dhouse It was one of those stories but remember it was wartime. People were pulling 18 hour days and he fell asleep. Then the wing was whisked off to the next area and would he have been heard over the noise of the plant and engines.
Are you sure? M.
My father got clobbered by a lost wrench in his recce Mosquito. He had words as the CO when he returned to base!@@duartesimoes508
One other point: you don’t ‘win’ a Victoria Cross. You are awarded it or you earn it. There are a couple of examples from WWI where there was a unit VC awarded and a raffle was held to see who would have the honour of wearing it. This happened after the infamous Zeebrugge raid in 1918. That is the only way you can ‘win’ a VC.
Yes that is very true. I didn't know about whole units winning the VC, very interesting. Thanks for the pick up and I'll make sure that future videos are correct 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow Your videos are basically very good.
The Stirling is, indeed, the forgotten bomber but really there isn't an awful lot said about the Halifax. I've always thought that the Stirling deserved more attention because, despite its foibles, it was a real step up in capability over the Hampden, the Whitley and the Wellington and a quantum leap over the Blenheim.
@@thethirdman225 Thanks. I'm always learning and looking for ways to improve, so I appreciate being picked up on small things.
agree. The Lancaster seems to take a lot of the "limelight". The Stirling effectively allowed the RAF to take the fight to Germany. That in itself was significant. I also think its role as a glider tug was pretty important
Semantics of language, of course you win a VC, just as legitimate as awarded.🙄
@@Jabber-ig3iw So a VC is a matter of luck and not of merit then?🙄
It's unfortunate they didn't preserve at least one example for the IWM. Just sad.
Totally agree. It played quite an important role and built in significant numbers, yet not one was preserved.
"It's murder, plain murder to send my young men out to die in an aircraft like that!"
Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, to the Ministry of Aircraft Production while commander in chief of Bomber Command. Quoted in "Bomber Command" by Max Hastings. Chapter Chapter 10.
He was talking about the Stirling, to be clear.
That is very interesting. Yet the Stirling seems to have been popualr with crews.
Excellent video, what could have been with proper long wings.
Thank you 👍✈️ indeed it is a big what if
Despite what manufacturers say, I assert the Air Ministry weren't blinkered as they got exactly the aircraft they needed not what the manufacturer thought they needed.
The secondary role this aircraft performed in 1944 onwards freed up the 'stars' of the war effort for their intended duty.
It was a very useful rugged enduring design as it was, despite its latent potential. During war perhaps sometimes you just need to do as your told. If the Air Ministry needed Shorts to upgrade its potential then I'm sure they would've asked. It wasn't hampered at all - it was intentionally kept to requirement and its adaptability shows at least on this occasion the Air Ministry was correct in its adherence to the requirement.
They were probably thinking if it was better, then it would be subbed off to other duties, creating a vacuum of aircraft with the attendant surfeit of demand for resources.
There is an excellent book, “A Thousand Shall Fall” about the experiences of a Sterling crew. They thought v highly of their aircraft
That sounds a very interesting book. I'll have to check it out 👍✈️
British engineering at its finest!
Interesting to see the twin tailwheels . . .
A couple of points:
First of all, the Grand Slam was almost an irrelevance to Bomber Command, in much the same way that Upkeep was, though they dropped more of them. The bomb the Stirling had trouble with was the 4,000 lb ‘Cookie’, which was in much more widespread use and from memory, could only be carried by the Lancaster. The bomb racks were simply not wide enough to accommodate the ‘Cookie’ because the bomb bay longerons got in the way.
Secondly, the so-called ‘Munich Crisis’ was in 1938, not 1939.
Thanks for the points and feedback. The bomb bay was a real issue for the Stirling. It would have been better to mention the Cookie and not the grand slam.
The Munich Crisis date was a bad error on my part. I sometimes with so many dates it can be easy to get confused what happened when. Still I should have checked it better. Thanks for the pick up 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow I hope I didn't come over as being a smart arse. It wasn't my intention. Keep up the good work.
@@thethirdman225 No not at all. I appreciate the feedback I'm given as it helps me improve and make better videos. Thanks 👍✈
Thanks Great video.
The air ministry, seems to be a common theme with so many failures and blunders, you do need to wonder about the reasoning behind their decisions.
Cheers
The Lancaster had a wingspan of 102ft, so in principle 100ft with a decent bomb load and range wasn't impossible. However, the Stirling also needed to be able to transport troops as an Empire dual use aircraft (the concept was there would be stocks of bombs around, and the Stirling would fly out to a hot spot with troops, then become a bomber). The transport requirement and the size required for that was the real issue.
Thanks 👍✈️
More I read about aircraft from this time period, the more I become intrigued by the reasoning behind decisions from the Air Ministry. They definitely made a few interesting decisions during the lead up to the Second World War. Don't get me wrong they did some things great, but other thinking perhaps not so much. I mean take the Bristol Beaufighter, which was pursued as a private venture by Bristol as they were the ones that realized the RAF's urgent need for a long-range heavy fighter. The Stirling is another example of limiting an aircraft due to its requirements. During the late part of the 30s they were in many ways quite behind the modern thinking of those in Germany. The start of Guy Gibson's book Enemy Coast Ahead highlights the fact that the RAF were quite under prepared for war. Anyhow just my thoughts on it. They were better than the somewhat of a shambles my countries air force (RAAF) was at the beginning of WW2. 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow given the much heavier bomb loads and better defensive turrets, I'd have put the RAF ahead of the Luftwaffe at the end of 1930s except in the areas of tactical cooperation with ground troops and electronic navigation aids.
@@AntiqueAirshow also, the Luftwaffe wasn't necessarily that well organised, if just had experience in Spain. But then you had the likes of Galland rejecting the need for radio (fighters, not bombers, though).
@@AntiqueAirshow areas where the RAF was streets ahead include radar, control, development and production. During the Battle of Britain, available fighter numbers INCREASED for the RAF. The RAF's presumption that it could bomb unescorted in daylight was wrong, but the Luftwaffe also moved to night bombing. The RAF had presumed, as had most of the Allies, that war would not come at all until 1940, and not seriously before 1941. You can see this in French procurement from the USA, for example, or the time in which it was expected that B.12 and P.13/36 to come on stream (4 to 5 years).
I’ve read some of the comments and am frankly astounded. I’d read that being put on a Stirling squadron was akin to committing suicide, as they were so bloody slow - the Kraut Night-fighters snapped them up. Am I wrong ??
Thanks for a very interesting video. I always thought the Sterling was an absolute disaster, it sounds like a very capable aircraft badly let down by the Ministry know alls. Nothing changes eh!
Thanks. As a bomber it was perhaps not the greatest, but a lot of that came back to the requirements put on it👍✈️
The Stirling is the older model kit that I still own, from Airfix Series 5, in 1/72 scale and assembled in 1977. Its plastic was pitch black, hard and somewhat brittle, not very pleasant to work with. It came completed with a full load of bombs and a bomb cart, and a very hard to assemble landing gear. By then it was already a poor quality model, but to my knowledge there never was any other...
Nice that's cool. Sounds like quite a difficult build 👍✈️
I thought it was quite a nice build back in 1973
Interesting that this aircraft, compared to the Halifax and Lancaster, had a co-pilot and that the navigator doubled as a bomb aimer. I can imagine the poor old navigator dropping the bombs and hurrying back to navigate
Yeah, it is interesting, and I was somewhat surprised when I learnt it had a co pilot. It's also interesting that most British bombers only had one pilot, while most American bombers had two.
My Dad was a pilot of a 214 Sqdn Stirling and it was his front gunner who was actually the bomb aimer. The navigator had to remain at his table ready to give the directions away from the target site as soon as the bombs were dropped to ensure they got away safely from congested airspace. The glare from the searchlights, exploding flak ( and unfortunately other aircraft at times) plus the fires below would have affected the navigator's vision and their navigation table was usually curtained off. I don't know if this was standard procedure or just in my Dad's crew.
It does sound reasonable when you think about it as the front gunner is already in the required position and the space for 2 would be extremely tight.
@@iantonkin1143 That is quite interesting and fascinating. It also makes a lot of sense. I would be inclined to think that a few crews would have operated this way. Thanks for sharing.
Airfoil could have been improved to reach altitude as flight characteristics were good.
That could have been a possibility. They did look at redesigning the wing after take off and landing runs were found to be too long, however it would have taken too long. The easy solution was to increase the length of the undercarriage.
That would be the same blinkered Air Ministry that was was wanting fighters armed with at least 6 and preferably 8 machine guns before the first fighter entered service with 4 machine guns AND supported the development of RDF? The Air Ministry limited the wing span to stop aircraft from becoming too large for a single pilot to control.
The Air Ministry's thinking was certainly correct and on point many times. In the case of the Stirling though, I would say that it was restrictive, and many problems associated with the Stirling was due to their limitations. Not limitations on the design so to say.
Over 100 feet wingspan would be too wide to go into the hangars of the pre war era.
The Stirling had a pilot and co-pilot as designed, although often the second seat was empty.
@@philhawley1219 the new RAF hangars from the 1930s expansion had 130 ft doors. The Stirling was specified for outside storage anyway. The hangar thing is a complete myth.
@@philhawley1219 the Type C hangar which dates from the same period (introduced in 1934) had doors that could open to 120ft. Plus for the Specifications for the Stirling (B12/36) and later P13/36 are 2 years called for most maintenance to be carried out out of doors. These specifications were issued 2 years after the Tupe C building programme started.
if this was the short stirling, i would hate to see the tall stirling.
hahaha very true.
Instead of designing the Stirling with shorter wings to fit into existing hangers why didn't they make ten feet of the wing foldable like a carrier based plane?
Besides the vac 1/48 kit wish there was a 3D option!🤔
Jman
That would be good. Maybe in the not so distance future, something will come out 👍✈️