The bomber they said handled like a fighter, and which could turn on the inside of a Ju 88, but was overshadowed by the Halifax and the Lancaster because of it's poor altitude compared to the latter two and a bomb bay which excluded the use of the heaviest bombs. Could something have been done to rectify it's shortcomings? A re-designed wing perhaps? And why was it impossible to re-design the bomb bay?
According the James Goulding and Phili Moyes in their book RAF Bomber Command and its aircraft 1941 - 1945, a Super Stirling was proposed (B8.41 spec) with 4 Centaurus and a wingspan of 136 feet - it had a bomb bay able to accomadate 24,000lb (including up to 6 x 4,000lb bombs) with another 6 x 1,000lb bombs in wing cells. Performance was no better than the original Stirling and the RAF didn't want to loose existing Stirling production due to a switch to the Super Stirling.
Stirling wings Hello Skua, Greetings from a Norwegian-American; would love to finally see Norway some day. FYI I read that the Stirling's wings were relatively short because they were the same wings as already used on the great Short Sunderland, in order to facilitate production earlier. At least it resulted in the 4-engine Stirling being produced so early! With short wings, it was doomed to low ceiling, I guess...esp with that large bombload as it could carry. I remember an unusual photo of a Stirling escorted by Hurricanes - it was close enough that there was no question that they were Hurricanes. Wish I still had the book so I could scan it and put it here.
Not what I've heard. The Stirling's wings were short due to an Air Ministry requirement that the new type fit in existing hangars, which required a wingspan of less than 100ft. Have a look at these: http://www.raf.mod.uk/ptc/images/n3654stirling3vw.gif http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/w ... under.html The wings look reasonably similar in general shape (In the same kind of way that a Mustang and Bf109's wings look reasonably similar), but the Stirling had a significantly shorter wingspan (Over 12 feet less, although some of that could be down to the Sunderland's fuselage), and there are significant differences that indicate to me at least that they are not the same wing (the angle of the leading edge and shape of the wing tips and roots are most apparent).
O.K. thanks Simonr1978, I was relying on memory, plus maybe some old assumption of doing this for commonality.
If i interpretit various sources on the net i conclude that it's a combination of your points...the first design S.29 did have the Sunderland wings but at that point the wings became to big for the hangars (100ft...altough i found that the doors of the largest Hangars could be opened 125 ft....!) So Short revised the wing reduced span and greater chord, the resulting decrease in aspect ratio inevitably reducing high-altitude capability. http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/w ... rling.html http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Short_Stirling
Exactly so - the 100 foot limit was not directly connected with hangar size (that is a very popular myth), but was imposed at one time because of a concern that the new bombers would become too big and expensive. Anyway, the wingspan wasn't the Stirling's major problem. After all, the Lancaster's wingspan was only 102 feet, not enough of a difference to matter... Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
How would the Stirling have fared as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft - the cells that made up the bomb bay would presumably have not mattered much for depth charges?
