Talk:Short Stirling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

Felt article was borderline Start to B, but thought I'd leave rating to someone more expert. Winstonwolfe 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another excellent contribution, Maury! I've done a little proofreading and, as I've done with several of the other British aircraft entries (which are mostly your work, I gather) anglicised the language here and there.

I should discuss my reasoning here. Anyone who disagrees, please sing out! For a British aircraft, particularly one of the pre-TV era when languages were more distinct, I don't think it is appropriate to use US aeronautic terms like "plane", "gas", "ship" or "airplane". I've been going through the entries on aircraft like the Hurricane and the Beaufighter, changing these to reflect the language of the people who built and flew them: to, for example, "aircraft", "aviation spirit" or "fuel" or "petrol", and "aeroplane". I don't think that this treatment would be appropriate to the entries on US aircraft. In an entry on, for example, the Mustang, the transatlantic terms "aircraft" and "fuel" are both OK, but "petrol" would not be appropriate; both "ship" and "airplane" are suitable (which they would not be to the Spitfire). My feeling is that the slang "plane" should be avoided in either case. Tannin

---

According to other sources, it was meant to carry 24 troops, not 100 (hard to imagine how to accomodate them in such plane). Statement The massive 14,000 lb (6,340 kg) bombload put it in a class of its own, double that of any other bomber. In fact it was larger than the Avro Lancaster and Handley-Page Halifax which would eventually replace it, but both of these were originally designed to have twin engines is not correct, because Lancaster had the same bombload, not mentioning special variants carrying almost 10-ton Grand Slam. Besides, Lancaster had greater bomb bay.Pibwl 20:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• But it is correct, it was the design of the bomb bay that hampered the Stirling's maximum bomb load. And the lancaster was originally designed as the twin-engined Manchester, and if you read up about the Halifax you will see that it too was meant to take two Rolls Royce Vultures.Dirk P Broer 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made appropriate changes. Stirlings were not withdrawn by March 1943 from bomber duty, because from May 1943 there flew more Stirlings on bomb raids at once, than ever. Pibwl ←« 12:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Virtually references I have seen to this aircraft relate the Air Ministry requirement for a wingspan of less than 100 ft, as well as a requirement that all large components should be transportable within the standard UK rail gauge. The link the the Stirling website at the bottom of the page also reiterates the Air Ministry requirement. Could someone possibly say why it is wrong? Kitbag 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascinating source

In my search for images of and information about the Stirling I came across the site "www.luftarchiv.de", which has a section on WWII aircraft which crash-landed behind the German lines and were repaired and used by the Luftwaffe. The text states that these aircaft were often used in training units, presumably to assess performance, develop air-combat tactics etc.

The site contains many wonderful (and startling) images of e.g. Spitfires, Mosquitos and even Stirlings bearing Luftwaffe insignia! To navigate to this section:

• click on this link to get to www.luftarchiv.de
• select "English" at the top right
• click on "Captured Planes" in the panel on the left (the first Stirling appears)
• click on "England" for a gallery of captured British aircraft. This includes 3 Stirlings (one in colour) and a coloured drawing of the Stirling in Luftwaffe insignia.

Unfortunately the English is restricted largely to the site navigation; the text is (still?) in German. In the introduction it remarks that there was a good supply of spares for the operational aircraft; the colour picture of a Stirling shows that three engines have been removed - perhaps as spares, perhaps for repair.

It also states that there was a strict standing order for all Allied fighter pilots to destroy on the ground any Allied aircraft which were seen to have made a forced landing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TraceyR (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

If you can get it you might find this book interesting then:

Luftwaffe Test Pilot : Flying Captured Allied Aircraft of World War 2 by Hans-Werner Lerche - ISBN 0531037118

as if I remember correctly it includes his experience of flying the captured Stirling. Ian Dunster 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)