[Hornchurch]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

Second, the British decision to limit the wingspan of the "Short" Sterling so these planes could fit into the RAF's then undersized hangers. Result: chronically poor climb rates and sub par high altitude performance for an otherwise passable heavy bomber.

Hmmmmn, just been 'Googling' to see how climb rates compare............(Stirling, Halifax, Lancaster)


Generally, the Short Stirling comes out BEST on climb rates-performance, compared to the (favoured) other 'Two'


Quoted figures are for Mk.I Stirling, against Mk.III Halifax (same engines) & Mk.III Lancaster (two sources).........

which give the Stirling as BEST, Halifax just behind, & the Lancaster 'Lagging-behind' ! by (at least) 250 ft per minute !!!!

Short Stirling = 800 ft per min

H.P. Halifax = 750 ft per min

Lancaster = 580 - 600 ft per min

Yeah, the short wingspan DID make for lousy "Altitude" ceiling rates, which caused it to be pulled from Bomber Command earlier than her other two 'siblings', due to losses incurred as a result of such............

What also isn't mentioned much (in the Stirlings defence), is that it could ACTUALLY out-turn any Messerschmitt Me.110 ! (without Bomb-load, of course)......... it's been related numerous times + I've even read an account by a '110 pilot who said the same.
(suprisingly, after typing this, it even mentions that fact on 'Wikipedia' !!!!!!)

It's manouverability is legendary, & no doubt helped it to survive numerous attacks when relegated to (dangerous) Mine-laying operations from '43 onwards - though they were STILL used by 100 Group, on Bomber-Command Missions (radar-Jamming) right up till March '45 !!!!!!!!!!

Another 'Achilles-Heel' was it's VERY-LARGE & problematical undercarriage, which led to numerous 'losses' at O.T.U.'s

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by timbo

I would have to say the Me-163's unique landing experience would have to take it for me.

If you managed to survive the hair-raising take off + attack, and got back to base you then had a high chance of being incinerated by the violent explosion of the rocket resedues caused by the landing vibration.

Or Me 163 could be picked off while going low and slow by P-51 or P-47 that has been hanging arround the landing pattern. Unless it was one of the more experienced pilots that would make a faster straight in approach.

[Cruver Collecter]

If you want to talk about a RAF Bomber Command bomber that was a real dog, then how about the Manchester. Its Vulture power plants seemed only be good for one thing, over heating. It probably saw more losses due to engine failure that anything else. At least it had the decency to become the Lancaster.

[Epapazian]

[quote=Hornchurch;105056]Hmmmmn, just been 'Googling' to see how climb rates compare............(Stirling, Halifax, Lancaster)

Generally, the Short Stirling comes out BEST on climb rates-performance, compared to the (favoured) other 'Two'


Quoted figures are for Mk.I Stirling, against Mk.III Halifax (same engines) & Mk.III Lancaster (two sources).........

which give the Stirling as BEST, Halifax just behind, & the Lancaster 'Lagging-behind' ! by (at least) 250 ft per minute !!!!

Short Stirling = 800 ft per min

H.P. Halifax = 750 ft per min

Lancaster = 580 - 600 ft per min

Yeah, the short wingspan DID make for lousy "Altitude" ceiling rates, which caused it to be pulled from Bomber Command earlier than her other two 'siblings', due to losses incurred as a result of such............

What also isn't mentioned much (in the Stirlings defence), is that it could ACTUALLY out-turn any Messerschmitt Me.110 ! (without Bomb-load, of course)......... it's been related numerous times + I've even read an account by a '110 pilot who said the same.
(suprisingly, after typing this, it even mentions that fact on 'Wikipedia' !!!!!!)

It's manouverability is legendary, & no doubt helped it to survive numerous attacks when relegated to (dangerous) Mine-laying operations from '43 onwards - though they were STILL used by 100 Group, on Bomber-Command Missions (radar-Jamming) right up till March '45 !!!!!!!!!!

Another 'Achilles-Heel' was it's VERY-LARGE & problematical undercarriage, which led to numerous 'losses' at O.T.U.'s[/

OK. Let's say that you are right regarding the climb rate issue which is cited as a flaw in various books about WWII warplanes. We seem to agree on the Sterling's poor high altitude capabilities and you have added another weakness--its lousy undercarriage. So I'm still keeping it on my list of WWII design blunders.

[Hornchurch]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

If you want to talk about a RAF Bomber Command bomber that was a real dog, then how about the Manchester. Its Vulture power plants seemed only be good for one thing, over heating. It probably saw more losses due to engine failure that anything else. At least it had the decency to become the Lancaster.

Yeah, good point - well said (& good call)

That thing WAS rubbish........ what a way to kill good aircrew - like a one-way ticket to Germany, without the Flak, or fighters !

A good airframe, with 'cack' engines !!!!!!!!

Apparently the oscillation of the cams (@ certain RPM's) & oil pressure problems were the major factor in the R.R.Vulture's being SO BAD


YET (hard to believe) there was one A/C even WORSE still............


(the)....... Blackburn Botha !!!!!!!


THAT was even worse & worth 'Googling' to read just how bad & 'DESPISED' it was by everyone connected.......


(another contender, was the Saro Lerwick flying boat....... another king-sized 'Lemon'

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Hornchurch

Hmmmmn, just been 'Googling' to see how climb rates compare............(Stirling, Halifax, Lancaster)


Generally, the Short Stirling comes out BEST on climb rates-performance, compared to the (favoured) other 'Two'


Quoted figures are for Mk.I Stirling, against Mk.III Halifax (same engines) & Mk.III Lancaster (two sources).........

which give the Stirling as BEST, Halifax just behind, & the Lancaster 'Lagging-behind' ! by (at least) 250 ft per minute !!!!

Short Stirling = 800 ft per min

H.P. Halifax = 750 ft per min

Lancaster = 580 - 600 ft per min

Yeah, the short wingspan DID make for lousy "Altitude" ceiling rates, which caused it to be pulled from Bomber Command earlier than her other two 'siblings', due to losses incurred as a result of such............

What also isn't mentioned much (in the Stirlings defence), is that it could ACTUALLY out-turn any Messerschmitt Me.110 ! (without Bomb-load, of course)......... it's been related numerous times + I've even read an account by a '110 pilot who said the same.
(suprisingly, after typing this, it even mentions that fact on 'Wikipedia' !!!!!!)

It's manouverability is legendary, & no doubt helped it to survive numerous attacks when relegated to (dangerous) Mine-laying operations from '43 onwards - though they were STILL used by 100 Group, on Bomber-Command Missions (radar-Jamming) right up till March '45 !!!!!!!!!!

Another 'Achilles-Heel' was it's VERY-LARGE & problematical undercarriage, which led to numerous 'losses' at O.T.U.'s

So it looks like we are agreed that the Sterling had serious design flaws, except you have added its lousy undercarriage while disputing my bad climb rate---which I derived from several books on WWII aircraft. We both agree on the high altitude part so I'd call it a draw.

[Epapazian]

Seems that I gave the same reply--more or less- twice. Sorry about that. I had a computer "malfunction" when I tried to substitute one answer for the other.

[Hornchurch]

[quote=Epapazian;105072]

Originally Posted by Hornchurch

What also isn't mentioned much (in the Stirlings defence), is that it could ACTUALLY out-turn any Messerschmitt Me.110 ! (without Bomb-load, of course)......... it's been related numerous times + I've even read an account by a '110 pilot who said the same.
(suprisingly, after typing this, it even mentions that fact on 'Wikipedia' !!!!!!)

It's manouverability is legendary, & no doubt helped it to survive numerous attacks when relegated to (dangerous) Mine-laying operations from '43 onwards - though they were STILL used by 100 Group, on Bomber-Command Missions (radar-Jamming) right up till March '45 !!!!!!!!!!

Another 'Achilles-Heel' was it's VERY-LARGE & problematical undercarriage, which led to numerous 'losses' at O.T.U.'s[/

OK. Let's say that you are right regarding the climb rate issue which is cited as a flaw in various books about WWII warplanes. We seem to agree on the Sterling's poor high altitude capabilities and you have added another weakness--its lousy undercarriage. So I'm still keeping it on my list of WWII design blunders.

Well, your personal choice......... but, Aircrew generally loved them (altitude problems aside, It's No.1 'flaw')

AND.... MANY R.A.F aircrew OWE THEIR LIVES to the Strength, ruggedness & manouverabilty of that 'flawed' design


UNLIKE the Fairey Battle, He.177, Me.163, Manchester or Blackburn Botha, the Short Stirling could be relied upon to bring it's crews home, time & time again !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Plus, it made a much larger impact on the outcome of W.W.II history, than the five a/c above PUT TOGETHER !!!!!!!!!!!!


It's service in Bomber Command alone saw to that -

besides the multitude of enemy ships, sunk thru it's minelaying.......


And that's BEFORE you take into account it's Role in the D-Day landing's - Arnhem - & 'Varsity' (THE River-'Rhine' crossing)



(regardless of the '163's revolutionary performance, it killed more of it's own, than it did the 8th A.F. planes it attacked)


....................... they'll be 100 more 'worthy' contenders than the Stirling

[Cruver Collecter]

Thought of another RAF Bomber Command bomber that would fall under the category of being a real dog. The Handley Page Hereford would seem to be another dismal failure. Ended being re-engined to Hampden configuration.

[Epapazian]

Talking about the ME-163, which rates very high on my list as well, Messerschmitt's obstinate refusal to redesign the narrow landing gear of the famous BF-109 to make it wider and sturdier, was an even greater blunder. Some estimates hold that this alone caused something like 6000 BF-109 landing "accidents"--many of them fatal to the pilots..