Wimpies & Stirlings

[Moldiold2]

Having watched 'one of our aircraft is missing' prompts me to ask if there is a Wellington or Stirling still in flying condition?

[Pontius Navigator]

It would appear that there are no Wellingtons flying as only two are apparently in existence:

Iconic war plane the Vickers Wellington Bomber moved from the Royal Air Force museum near Colindale to begin five year restoration (From Times Series) (http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8252891.Iconic_war_bomber_moved_from_RAF_museum_to_begin_fiv e_year_restoration/)

And it would appear that no complete Stirling exists at all:

Wreckage of Short Stirling bomber LJ628 in the Dark Peak, Derbyshire, September 1988. | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8050359@N07/2668728384/)

and

STIRLING PROJECT NEWSLETTER NO (http://www.stirlingproject.co.uk/Newsy6b.html) the last newsletter is 08/09.

[millerscourt]

You need to read Newsletter No 10 which refers to a Stirling boxed in Russia on the Stirling Project website

[Two's in]

Read the Wellington link:

AN ICONIC second world war bomber, which featured in the 1955 film The Dam Busters, has been moved from its home at the Royal Air Force museum to undergo a five year restoration...

...The Vickers Wellington was designed by famous engineer and inventor Barnes Wallis in the mid-1930's.

Wallis is best known for his invention of the bouncing bomb, used to attack the dams of the Ruhr Valley during the Second World War. The attack was the subject of the iconic war film The Dam Busters, in which the Wellington had a starring role.

Nice bit of research there, Zoe...

[pasir]

"Starring role by the Wellington"


So far as aware the Dam Buster raid was an entirely Lancaster bomber
operation.

[Dr Jekyll]

Starring role in the film, not the raid.

[BEagle]

The Wellington certainly did appear in The Dam Busters (flown by Patrick Barr playing the part of Mutt Summers), although of course the Lancaster had the starring role.

Barnes Wallis is seen waiting to see someone at the Air Ministry to ask for the use of a Wellington for trials. "Would it help if I told you I designed it?" is the line immediately before the Wellington takes off.

Smart ar$es, don't be so quick to criticise!

[simflea404]

NIce one BEagle!

Although not used in the raid, Wellingtons were used as the aircraft in many of the trial bomb runs of the "bouncing bomb"...many were lost during this trial phase and without the recognition they deserve.

[pasir]

... Dr Jekyl - Sorry about misunderstanding that IMO was all down
to misuse of the term 'starring role' - but thanks for clarification - and a civilised reply.

...

[Al R]

THE STIRLING AIRCRAFT SOCIETY presents THE STIRLING PROJECT (http://stirlingaircraftsoc.raf38group.org/stirlingproject)

Interesting; thanks PN.

F-in-L flew Wimpy and Stirling. The Wimpy whistled apparantly, when you chucked the coal on and the Stirling took an age to gain sufficient height/speed to raise the gear (sometimes a few miles) but was frisky enough at altitude to scare most fighters in affil.

[SomeGuyOnTheDeck]

A minor point, but that should be 'Wimpys', not 'Wimpies'. They were named after J. Wellington Wimpy, a character in the Popeye cartoons: J. Wellington Wimpy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Wellington_Wimpy)

[Fareastdriver]

IIRC the final graveyard for Stirlings was Edsel, in Scotland, together with the Halifaxs.

[Union Jack]

A minor point, but that should be 'Wimpys', not 'Wimpies'

IIRC the final graveyard for Stirlings was Edsel

A minor point, but that should be "Edzell" (in case anyone goes Googling), not "Edsel" - which nearly created the final graveyard for Ford in Detroit!:ok:

Jack

[mmitch]

A Wellington was recovered from Loch Ness and restored at the Brooklands Museum.
‘R Robert’ has been left partually covered to show the geodetic construction. It was designed by Vickers under the leadership of Rex Pearson. In a interview I have seen on a DVD George Edwards told the story that his first job on joining Vickers was to design the tailplane.
mmitch.

[Samuel]

I knew a former Stirling pilot during my RNZAF Service. AVM Larry Siegert ( CAS Oct 76 - Oct 79) Was a Stirling Captain, aged 19 in 1944 and dropping supplies over Normandy when attackled by three German fighters, which he managed to avoid, shooting one down in the process. At his funeral a couple of years ago, another former RNZAF CAS/CDS and Lancaster pilot Sir Dick Bolt described Siegert as "the finest natural pilot he'd ever met". In the 1953 Air Race to NZ, the RNZAF entered one of its new Hastings C3s, flown by Siegert, who gained a AFC for a night landing [Ceylon?] in a tropical thunderstorm and on three engines. Siegert once told me the Stirling had a major design fault in that it was made to fit the standard RAF hangar of the time, hence the wingspan was less than ideal!

[pasir]

Sam - I beleive you are correct regarding the wing span of the Stirling -
as you say - cut shorter on account of the standard RAF hangars of the day - I beleive this then contributed to its poor ceiling performance which
from memory was around 17 - 19,000 ft. - having rather a brief spell of
operational service when the Halifax and Lancaster began to appear.

...

[Load Toad]

cut shorter on account of the standard RAF hangars of the day

That's not true is it?
I thought it was on account of packing cases and also being the same wing as another Shorts design. Also wasn't the specification for short(ish) take-off and the design also to transport troops & then support them. So it was a bit of mash up of requirements.

I heard a story about one fighting off 2 Me110 fighters - apparently the wing loading (?) meant it had good handling qualities...?

[Pontius Navigator]

I have been told that the standard RAF Hangars were indeed a design factor for many RAF aircraft including the Vulcan. Not sure about the Victor 2 that was 9 feet greater.

The hangars were extremely advanced buildings incorporating split power supplies and utilities, blast doors and blow out roofs. Trenchard, I was told, was keener to get the RAF Infrastructure right and in the right places too, knowing that new aircraft would be transient whereas the hangars would persist for a long time.

Shame Sir Basil Embrey didn't plan ahead when he concreted east Anglia.

[Samuel]

Was it true Load Toad? Absolutely!

The original Stirling ndesign had a greater wingspan as designed. The RAF rejected this proposal based on the wingspan, demanding it to be made shorter so that the aircraft would fit in RAF aircraft hangers that had standard door openings of 100 ft (30.48 m). This requirement would severely restrict the Stirlings operational altitude.

[Fareastdriver]

A minor point, but that should be "Edzell" (in case anyone goes Googling), not "Edsel" - which nearly created the final graveyard for Ford in Detroit!


Should have known that, I drive by it enough times.
The result was the same. Designed by a committee and not up to the job.
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee224/fareastdriver/7_-Ford-Edsel.jpg

[Tankertrashnav]

IIRC Len Deighton got the original idea for Bomber when he overheard someone saying that Lancaster crews briefing for a raid raised a cheer when they heard there would be a wave of Stirlings taking part, as at their lower max altitude they would attract the flak.

[Guzlin Adnams]

17000 feet was almost unheard of in a Stirling I'm afraid. Most of them flew between 12000 and 16000 feet. Sir Arthur H called them his old lags.
I got to meet several ex aircrew over the years, especially when we put a book together on RAF Chedburgh a few years ago. The short wingspan was mentioned on more than one occasion and was due to the hanger door restriction. It did however make the aircraft very manouverable at lower altitudes. It could also absorb more punishment than most other aircraft in service at the time as it had air cooled Bristol Hercules engines and was built like a, and I quote, brick 5h1thouse. The other main faults was the high complex undercarriage which was prone to fail under side loading during take off swings caused by the hydraulic exactor throttle controls which were slow to respond if not primed and that the bomb bay could not accommodate any munition larger than 2000 lb.
There are various large sections left including an entire port tail plane that we found in a wood in Suffolk back in the 90's.

[Load Toad]

The reason I'm asking is that Google searches are inconclusive.

There is the oft repeated line on many web sites akin to '...blah blah, the aircraft was hampered by having to have a 99ft wingspan to fit RAF hangars..'

And I've seen a comment that early marks of the Halifax had to have a sub 100ft wing span.

Yet the Lancaster and later Halifax marks had over 100ft wing spans.

So - when did RAF hangar doors change to over 100Ft?


Because some sources suggest the sub-100ft was not (only) due to hangar door constraints.


..but Supermarine did have a design to meet the requirement - that was supposed to fly to 30K ft. What sort of wing span was that supposed to have

Changing all the hangar designs has to be a fair job as well...?

And there seems to be a lot of hanger designs: RAF Hanger dimensions - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=101631)



The original specification for the bomber was: Air Ministry Specification B.12/36

But I can't find the full spec on-line and I can't find anything but hear-say about the wingspan being restricted because of hanger door dimensions.

There are also comments that the short wing span was an attempt to keep weight down on a design that was also supposed to operate from and be maintained at backwater airfields dotted 'round the empire.

So - if the specification was for all that why would the restricting factor on wingspan be '...because some hangers in the UK had 100ft only doors.'
And the Stirling was hardly the lowest sitting 'plane ever.

[Al R]

This might interest (from today).

BBC News - Building a bomber plane in just a day (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11107561)

<<In the midst of World War II, workers at a Welsh aircraft factory gave up their weekend off to build a Wellington bomber from scratch in just 24 hours. Why? To set a new world record.>>