 | B.8/41 "Super Stirling"| Aviation Discuss B.8/41 "Super Stirling" in the World War II - Aviation forums; I was reading in the library that there was a proposal by Short Brothers to create a vastly improved Stirling ... |
|
02-16-2005, 10:41 AM
|
#1 | | Forum Politruk
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,406
Country:  | B.8/41 "Super Stirling"
I was reading in the library that there was a proposal by Short Brothers to create a vastly improved Stirling bomber to replace the one already in service, with the flaws inherent in the original concept ironed out.
It was to be powered by 4 Bristol Centaurus radials, and have a longer wingspan (135 ft 9 inches), much larger bomb bay designed to carry a catholic range of different stores, and four punchy 20mm cannon in both dorsal and ventral turrets on top of the original tail, upper, and nose positions.
It was estimated that such an aircraft would have a range of 4000 miles, a top speed of 300 Mph, weapons load of 10000 lb and a service ceiling of 29000 feet.
The Air Ministry rejected the project, as it would have meant diverting production from the existing Stirling lines, which were providing 'Sterling' service as glider tugs and mine layers. In addition, the Lancaster had already filled the role for which the Super Stirling was intended.
Does anyone know anymore about this? | 
|  | |
02-16-2005, 11:16 AM
|
#2 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:  | Nope sorry mate, but it sounds damn interesting!  Weapons load of 10,000lbs? COuldnt the normal Stirling carry 14,000lbs though? Quote: |
I was reading in the library
| Well duh  
__________________  with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 11:40 AM
|
#3 | | Forum Politruk
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,406
Country: | Well duh nothing sunshine! That's what was quoted both in the book I read and on several sites I looked up. The extra armaments would have gobbled up a lot of weight. | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 11:45 AM
|
#4 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | But you say a larger bomb bay?
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 11:49 AM
|
#5 | | Forum Politruk
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,406
Country: | Yeah, so it wasn't restricted in what it could carry unlike the original Stirling. | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 11:53 AM
|
#6 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | Ah right, so it would be 10,000lbs of big bombs, rather that 14,000lbs of smaller bombs?
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 12:00 PM
|
#7 | | Forum Politruk
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,406
Country: | Yes, or a mixture of the two. | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 12:11 PM
|
#8 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:  | the largest bomb the stirling could carry was the 2,000lb bomb due to the fact that the bomb bay was split into 3 sections...............
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 12:15 PM
|
#9 | | Forum Politruk
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,406
Country: | So ditching that would allow a 'Cookie' and some other goodies to be carried on the Super Stirling for example. | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 12:18 PM
|
#10 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | Yes, in theory............
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 12:19 PM
|
#11 | | Forum Politruk
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 2,406
Country: | Sadly that's all the Super Stirling ever was. I can't see why that wouldn't have been possible though. | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 03:51 PM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 584
| Yeah, that's a shame they didn't follow through on that...I often feel that Bomber Command aircraft needed heavier armament....The book I'm currently reading was by a local chap, and he was on Stirlings first, and spoke very highly of them, and although he ended-up on Lancasters, felt that they performed really well on the missions they did at that time of the War...I was quite surprised at their capacity, I know they didn't have quite the attributes of it's partners-in-bombing, the Halifax and Lancaster, but it's refreshing to read they did a great job nonetheless, as I've heard some disparaging remarks made about them.....Be interesting if more comes to light, hmmm?...... | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 03:56 PM
|
#13 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | Yep, the Stirling is my favourite of the 3 British Heavies. It was the first too, which is probably the reason for its problems.
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
02-16-2005, 04:13 PM
|
#14 | | Hairy one of Old Judea
Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Deepest Darkest NZ
Posts: 1,143
Country:  | Quite like the halifax myself.
Kiwimac
__________________  | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 AM. | | |
