My great uncle was a rear gunner in one and died over the ruhr in 1943. They were used as cannon fodder to make up numbers in the "1000 plane raids" long after they should of been taken out of service. He flew 30 missions as a gunner, then retrained as a pilot officer. He came from Southwark, just south of the Thames in London. I think his motivation for this monumental achievement was the high number of close family members lost in the Blitz of London. RIP Freddie Somers. XxX
My late uncle flew a Stirling III in WW2, he described the decision to shorten the wingspan by 14 feet from the original design (using the wing from the Sunderland flying boat) as disastrous, as it limited the aircraft's maximum operating altitude to less than 12,000 feet, which meant on raids over Germany the Stirlings had to fly through the Alps rather than over them. In addition this left the Stirlings easy prey for searchlights, anti-aircraft guns, and highly manoeuverable night fighters like the dreaded Focke-Wulf FW190, the 'Butcher Bird' as my uncle called it, and he said they were 'sitting ducks'. The Stirling had the highest crew fatality rate of any RAF aircraft.
Kudos for not perpetuating the myth that the wingspan was limited to fit inside hangars, for which I blame Airfix’s instructions. A Gp Capt Oxland, head of OR, suggested it in order to keep down size and hence cost. Relevant hangar door widths exceeded 100 ft substantially and the spec required all servicing at flying units (MUs had even larger hangars) to be outside.
There is a project that I have read of putting one together again. They recently recovered part of a fuselage from Holland that was being used as a hen-house. Fingers crossed.
Such brave and honorable men flew in these machines! I should know, my father was a tail gunner in a B-17! All these men on both sides of the pond fought fascism for us! We shouldn't have to fight it again, but we will! The Sons and Daughters of those brave men!
My dad did some of his training in Stirlings, which by then were tired and clapped out. According to the HCU ORB's there was at least 2 crashes while he was there, resulting in the crews losing their lives. Apparently the Stirling was more maneuverable than the Lanc and Halifax and could easliy hold their own in fighter affiliation training.
I'm sure I've read somewhere that 'spirited' pilots even performed loops and barrel rolls in the Stirling (not loaded with bombs) and I also heard the story about it outurning the Me110 in combat. But even though it was no longer a front line aircraft, it still did amazing work as a glider tug (2 Airspeed Horsas per Stirling?) and dropping vital supplies to partisans and SOE agents.
Such Brave Honorable Men that climbed into those early flying war machines! I should know, my father was a tail Gunner and a B-17! I'll fight fascism just as he fought fascism! These brave men fought fascism for us, we shouldn't have to fight it again!
Not only that, the Lancaster and Halifax crews were glad when the Stirlings were on the same target as the fighters would feed off the Stirling due to its lower altitude. Then there was the saying the Lancaster bombed the Halifax and the Both, bombed the Stirling.
I’ve loved this aircraft ever since I had the Airfix kit (great parts:cost ratio but I blame it for perpetrating the myth of the hangar door wingspan restriction). However, it was Lancaster’s ugly sister and the bastard child of an over-ambitious specification, the original Shorts proposal’s being considered well behind the other 5 submissions even before Air Ministry’s changes, becoming Hobson’s Choice when all its competitors fell out for wider considerations. It was made worse by make-do modifications such as the tall undercarriage, a cheap and quick fix to get a shorter take off run.
I feel sorry for Shorts, who were forced to design it with a wingspan of less than 100 feet, so it would fit inside pre-war hangars. It's interesting to reflect on how very different the performance of this type would have been without that absurd restriction.
Shorts designed it with the Sunderland’s 114 ft wingspan. The Air Ministry, intending it as a reserve after ordering the Supermarine 317, forced a redesign that included the shorter wingspan and different engines. The hangar width story is a myth, the narrowest’s being 112 ft, and servicing was done outside. Shorts later 1941 proposal for a Super Stirling had a wingspan of 135 ft; the Air Ministry ordered prototypes for testing but Arthur Harris’s opposition led to cancellation.
@@Dalesmanable 6 feet either side of a wing when pushing or towing the aircraft back into a hanger is not much to play with. The larger an aircraft is, and the more people are required to communicate as the aircraft is manoeuvred the harder this becomes in avoiding "hangar rash". If the hangar width is a "myth" it's been a very long-lasting one, from sources who were contemporary with events.
@ You’re talking to the wrong person. I’ve spent years responsible for the safety of moving aircraft with far lower clearances than that even without tractor/wheel markings on the ground that make it a doddle for even a novice.
@@Dalesmanable Very carefully I imagine. That does not however invalidate the reasons the Stirling's wingspan was limited. I too have a experience of manoeuvring aircraft into hangars whose width was less than the wingspan. We used to put gliders up onto dollies in which their sole wheel would fit, and then push them sideways into the hangar. Not easy at all, especially when there were other gliders already inside. It required good teamwork, rules for how to go about it, and great care. The longer the wingspan the more tricky it became.
I was always told by my Dad and Grandfather both ex RAF it was bought in as a propaganda thing 4 engined heavy bomber etc etc. & using Sunderland wings limited it’s ceiling only any good as a glider tug!!!! Was used as the terrible Manchester kept falling out the sky, wonder whatever happened to that plane?
Not a lot..apart from brave pilots. Bomber Harris hated it. It couldnt fly fast enough, it couldnt fly far enough, it couldnt fly high enough, plus it couldnt carry enough. Harris just wanted more Lancasters.
My great uncle was a rear gunner in one and died over the ruhr in 1943. They were used as cannon fodder to make up numbers in the "1000 plane raids" long after they should of been taken out of service.
He flew 30 missions as a gunner, then retrained as a pilot officer.
He came from Southwark, just south of the Thames in London. I think his motivation for this monumental achievement was the high number of close family members lost in the Blitz of London. RIP Freddie Somers. XxX
My late uncle flew a Stirling III in WW2, he described the decision to shorten the wingspan by 14 feet from the original design (using the wing from the Sunderland flying boat) as disastrous, as it limited the aircraft's maximum operating altitude to less than 12,000 feet, which meant on raids over Germany the Stirlings had to fly through the Alps rather than over them. In addition this left the Stirlings easy prey for searchlights, anti-aircraft guns, and highly manoeuverable night fighters like the dreaded Focke-Wulf FW190, the 'Butcher Bird' as my uncle called it, and he said they were 'sitting ducks'. The Stirling had the highest crew fatality rate of any RAF aircraft.
Kudos for not perpetuating the myth that the wingspan was limited to fit inside hangars, for which I blame Airfix’s instructions. A Gp Capt Oxland, head of OR, suggested it in order to keep down size and hence cost. Relevant hangar door widths exceeded 100 ft substantially and the spec required all servicing at flying units (MUs had even larger hangars) to be outside.
No surviving example, now that is really sad. Thanks for the short story on this not so well know aircraft that did its part in the war.
There is a project that I have read of putting one together again.
They recently recovered part of a fuselage from Holland that was being used as a hen-house.
Fingers crossed.
Excellent photos and article.
Thank you.
Also used for SOE operations and Maquis arms drops. 😊
My dad used to make Stirlings during the war at Rochester Kent.
Such brave and honorable men flew in these machines! I should know, my father was a tail gunner in a B-17! All these men on both sides of the pond fought fascism for us! We shouldn't have to fight it again, but we will! The Sons and Daughters of those brave men!
My dad did some of his training in Stirlings, which by then were tired and clapped out.
According to the HCU ORB's there was at least 2 crashes while he was there, resulting in the crews losing their lives.
Apparently the Stirling was more maneuverable than the Lanc and Halifax and could easliy hold their own in fighter affiliation training.
I'm sure I've read somewhere that 'spirited' pilots even performed loops and barrel rolls in the Stirling (not loaded with bombs) and I also heard the story about it outurning the Me110 in combat.
But even though it was no longer a front line aircraft, it still did amazing work as a glider tug (2 Airspeed Horsas per Stirling?) and dropping vital supplies to partisans and SOE agents.
Very interesting many thanks
Such Brave Honorable Men that climbed into those early flying war machines! I should know, my father was a tail Gunner and a B-17! I'll fight fascism just as he fought fascism! These brave men fought fascism for us, we shouldn't have to fight it again!
Not only that, the Lancaster and Halifax crews were glad when the Stirlings were on the same target as the fighters would feed off the Stirling due to its lower altitude. Then there was the saying the Lancaster bombed the Halifax and the Both, bombed the Stirling.
Thanks for this.
Some of those have their tail wheels extended. Presumably at some point, they must have decided to fix them down permanently
Was not the Sterling also the only four engined bomber in WW2 as designed from scratch. The Lancaster was originally designed as a two engined bomber.
I’ve loved this aircraft ever since I had the Airfix kit (great parts:cost ratio but I blame it for perpetrating the myth of the hangar door wingspan restriction). However, it was Lancaster’s ugly sister and the bastard child of an over-ambitious specification, the original Shorts proposal’s being considered well behind the other 5 submissions even before Air Ministry’s changes, becoming Hobson’s Choice when all its competitors fell out for wider considerations. It was made worse by make-do modifications such as the tall undercarriage, a cheap and quick fix to get a shorter take off run.
I think used by the SOE out of Lincolnshire
Cambridgeshire mainly from RAF Tempsford
@@johnlathwell7667 That's the place. My father was a rear gunner. He flew out of there.
Ah! the much reported short wingspan which was bigger than the Halifax l but nobody goes on about that
Fake news halibag the troublesome child had same lanc nearly
I feel sorry for Shorts, who were forced to design it with a wingspan of less than 100 feet, so it would fit inside pre-war hangars. It's interesting to reflect on how very different the performance of this type would have been without that absurd restriction.
Shorts designed it with the Sunderland’s 114 ft wingspan. The Air Ministry, intending it as a reserve after ordering the Supermarine 317, forced a redesign that included the shorter wingspan and different engines. The hangar width story is a myth, the narrowest’s being 112 ft, and servicing was done outside. Shorts later 1941 proposal for a Super Stirling had a wingspan of 135 ft; the Air Ministry ordered prototypes for testing but Arthur Harris’s opposition led to cancellation.
@@Dalesmanable 6 feet either side of a wing when pushing or towing the aircraft back into a hanger is not much to play with. The larger an aircraft is, and the more people are required to communicate as the aircraft is manoeuvred the harder this becomes in avoiding "hangar rash". If the hangar width is a "myth" it's been a very long-lasting one, from sources who were contemporary with events.
@ You’re talking to the wrong person. I’ve spent years responsible for the safety of moving aircraft with far lower clearances than that even without tractor/wheel markings on the ground that make it a doddle for even a novice.
@@Fidd88-mc4sz And how do you think they safely got Lancasters and Halifaxes into hangars - they had wingspans greater than 100 ft?
@@Dalesmanable Very carefully I imagine. That does not however invalidate the reasons the Stirling's wingspan was limited. I too have a experience of manoeuvring aircraft into hangars whose width was less than the wingspan. We used to put gliders up onto dollies in which their sole wheel would fit, and then push them sideways into the hangar. Not easy at all, especially when there were other gliders already inside. It required good teamwork, rules for how to go about it, and great care. The longer the wingspan the more tricky it became.
My favourite heavy bomber. M
In it's day the biggest plane in the world
I was always told by my Dad and Grandfather both ex RAF it was bought in as a propaganda thing 4 engined heavy bomber etc etc. & using Sunderland wings limited it’s ceiling only any good as a glider tug!!!! Was used as the terrible Manchester kept falling out the sky, wonder whatever happened to that plane?
What makes the Stirling Great? Absolutely nothing !
Not a lot..apart from brave pilots. Bomber Harris hated it. It couldnt fly fast enough, it couldnt fly far enough, it couldnt fly high enough, plus it couldnt carry enough. Harris just wanted more Lancasters.