Wimpies & Stirlings
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 60
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17000-19000 feet....
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 hangar 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.
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 hangar 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.
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 hangar designs: RAF hangar dimensions - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
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 hangar 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.
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 hangar designs: RAF hangar dimensions - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
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 hangar 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.
Last edited by Load Toad; 12th Sep 2010 at 23:13.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This might interest (from today).
BBC News - Building a bomber plane in just a day
<<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.>>
BBC News - Building a bomber plane in just a day
<<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.>>
