Ian Warren
Charter Member
I have the pilots notes here ... looking at the engineers panel , one would think you on a submarine or a steam train of the 1930s .
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Short Stirling in FSX
- Thread starter Ian Warren
- Start date
I have the pilots notes here ... looking at the engineers panel , one would think you on a submarine or a steam train of the 1930s .
wombat666
Administrator
One off those iconic WWII Photo's A No.75 Squadron Stirling in early 1943 ... home from another successful sortie
:salute:
The boys are smiling because the have just been informed of the squadrons pending re-equipment with the Lancaster ......
Pips
Charter Member
Wow! I didn't know a Stirling was available for FSX. Going to download it if I can find it. Love that aeroplane! 
Sadly in history the Stirling (S.29) is much maligned. The design did have many shortcomings, but they were a direct result of Air Ministry short sightedness and overregulation in drawing up the specs.
For example the limitation to 100ft wingspan (which so affected flight performance and limited the Stirling in operations to 12,000ft - a suicide height over Germany) was an Air Ministry stipulation - not the myth that it was the existing hanger size (which was actually 112ft). The limitation was aimed to force the designer to keep overall weight down. That same limitation was also applied to Handley Page Halifax and the Avro Manchester designs (both twin-engine designs at this stage - 1937).
Another Air Ministry restriction that affected Short's design was the stipulation that on take-off the aircraft needed to lift off from a 500ft runway and be able to clear 50ft trees at the end - something even small light aircraft would struggle with! Naturally the Stirling failed abysmally in this aspect. To improve the take-off run Short looked at increasing the angle of the wing to create greater lift on the take-off roll. Two options were open to Short. Do what Armstrong Whitworth did with the Whitley, which was to modify the angle of he wing itself, or simply increase the height of the landing gear and so increase the wing angle on take-off. The second option was implemented, giving the Stirling it's characteristic long-legged look. That decision led to many landing and take-off accidents.
One of the advantages of the thick wing of the Stirling was that it gave great grip in the air, granting the Stirling surprising manoeuvrability. In fact the Stirling could out-turn both the Halifax and the Lancaster; and some pilots claimed it could also out-turn the Messerschmitt Me 110 and the Junkers Ju 88 night fighters.
The disadvantage's of the short, thick wing were low operational height; and some vicious flying characteristics during takeoff and landings. Those bad characteristic were uncontrolled swings on take-off, and on flare-out for landing a tendency to suddenly stall out and drop like a stone onto the runway (both with disastrous results for the crews). With proper training and manipulation of throttles the first was overcome, as was the crucial monitoring of engine power and speed for the second. But throughout it's life the Stirling was always regarded as a handful for both take-off and landing, the same as it was regarded as a joy to fly once airborne.
In 1941, Short proposed a new variant, the S.36 which was nicknamed "The Super Stirling" in a company publication. This Stirling would feature a wing span of 135 ft 9 in and four Bristol Centaurus radials and a maximum takeoff weight of 104,000 lb (the Lancaster max take-off weight was 72,000 lb). The performance estimates included a 300 mph speed and a 4,000 mile range with a weapons load of 10,000 lb over 2,300 miles or 23,500 lb over 1,000 miles. The defensive armament of the S.36 was to be ten 0.50 calibre machine guns, in three turrets. It was initially accepted for testing under Specification B.8/41 (written to cover it) and two prototypes were ordered but Arthur Harris, as commander of Bomber Command, felt that production would be too slow and would be better used to give the existing design improved Hercules engines, for a higher ceiling (which is reality proved only marginal). Shorts were told in May 1942 that the Air Ministry would not be continuing the project and in August Shorts decided to terminate work.
The one aspect of the Stirling design that I haven't been able to determine is why the fuselage was so long. Anyone know??
Sadly in history the Stirling (S.29) is much maligned. The design did have many shortcomings, but they were a direct result of Air Ministry short sightedness and overregulation in drawing up the specs.
For example the limitation to 100ft wingspan (which so affected flight performance and limited the Stirling in operations to 12,000ft - a suicide height over Germany) was an Air Ministry stipulation - not the myth that it was the existing hanger size (which was actually 112ft). The limitation was aimed to force the designer to keep overall weight down. That same limitation was also applied to Handley Page Halifax and the Avro Manchester designs (both twin-engine designs at this stage - 1937).
Another Air Ministry restriction that affected Short's design was the stipulation that on take-off the aircraft needed to lift off from a 500ft runway and be able to clear 50ft trees at the end - something even small light aircraft would struggle with! Naturally the Stirling failed abysmally in this aspect. To improve the take-off run Short looked at increasing the angle of the wing to create greater lift on the take-off roll. Two options were open to Short. Do what Armstrong Whitworth did with the Whitley, which was to modify the angle of he wing itself, or simply increase the height of the landing gear and so increase the wing angle on take-off. The second option was implemented, giving the Stirling it's characteristic long-legged look. That decision led to many landing and take-off accidents.
One of the advantages of the thick wing of the Stirling was that it gave great grip in the air, granting the Stirling surprising manoeuvrability. In fact the Stirling could out-turn both the Halifax and the Lancaster; and some pilots claimed it could also out-turn the Messerschmitt Me 110 and the Junkers Ju 88 night fighters.
The disadvantage's of the short, thick wing were low operational height; and some vicious flying characteristics during takeoff and landings. Those bad characteristic were uncontrolled swings on take-off, and on flare-out for landing a tendency to suddenly stall out and drop like a stone onto the runway (both with disastrous results for the crews). With proper training and manipulation of throttles the first was overcome, as was the crucial monitoring of engine power and speed for the second. But throughout it's life the Stirling was always regarded as a handful for both take-off and landing, the same as it was regarded as a joy to fly once airborne.
In 1941, Short proposed a new variant, the S.36 which was nicknamed "The Super Stirling" in a company publication. This Stirling would feature a wing span of 135 ft 9 in and four Bristol Centaurus radials and a maximum takeoff weight of 104,000 lb (the Lancaster max take-off weight was 72,000 lb). The performance estimates included a 300 mph speed and a 4,000 mile range with a weapons load of 10,000 lb over 2,300 miles or 23,500 lb over 1,000 miles. The defensive armament of the S.36 was to be ten 0.50 calibre machine guns, in three turrets. It was initially accepted for testing under Specification B.8/41 (written to cover it) and two prototypes were ordered but Arthur Harris, as commander of Bomber Command, felt that production would be too slow and would be better used to give the existing design improved Hercules engines, for a higher ceiling (which is reality proved only marginal). Shorts were told in May 1942 that the Air Ministry would not be continuing the project and in August Shorts decided to terminate work.
The one aspect of the Stirling design that I haven't been able to determine is why the fuselage was so long. Anyone know??
Ian Warren
Charter Member
The boys are smiling because the have just been informed of the squadrons pending re-equipment with the Lancaster ......
I think you could be right , its one of those WWII photo's I simply had to adjust and modify
Ian Warren
Charter Member
I do have a clipping here, the name changed from a Super Stirling to another when the program was cancelled , fuse length again was lack off foresight with bomb load/bay length and no depth but was more for the required spec's from the air ministry to carry the alotted load .. another was directional stability, or so mentioned.Wow! I didn't know a Stirling was available for FSX. Going to download it if I can find it. Love that aeroplane!
The one aspect of the Stirling design that I haven't been able to determine is why the fuselage was so long. Anyone know??
Ian Warren
Charter Member
Pips, It is a unique aircraft in it own right , I've been working on a painting , needed something different .. stall at the mo other more important works to do.
wombat666
Administrator
Unfortunately Bomber Command were stuck with a rather poor selection of aircraft when war was declared.
The best of them would have to be the Wellington, the thought of operating over hostile territory in a Whitley, Hampden, Halifax, Manchester or Stirling would be (for me anyway) an unhappy one.
Most of these were the result of Air Ministry's short sighted (or just bloody stupid) specifications, Bomber Command crews must been very pleased that Roy Chadwick had the insight to rework the Manchester into the mighty Lancaster.
While not an admirer of 'Bomber' Harris this time he made the right call, the investment in time and resources to bring a 'Super Stirling' into operational service would have been wasteful.
I do admire his determination in attempting to have a campaign medal awarded to the courageous men who flew the operations over occupied Europe, even if it was 50 years before it came to be.
Ian Warren
Charter Member
I think that could said for both sides , just fortunate a far sighted German General was killed pre WWII and Mr Hitler chose on his lack of insight to stick with medium bombers, You have to admit ... the box art for the 'Airfix' dose make it more than what it was, but it was the beginning of the biggies.
Pips,
How did you get on with tracking down the Stirling, which is the best skin and what are the must have's.
I am heading
over to flightsim.com as suggested but could do with knowing this as it might save me some detective work.
My goal is to fly a Stirling and get screen prints of what appears to be a real aircraft.
BOBC
How did you get on with tracking down the Stirling, which is the best skin and what are the must have's.
I am heading
over to flightsim.com as suggested but could do with knowing this as it might save me some detective work.My goal is to fly a Stirling and get screen prints of what appears to be a real aircraft.
BOBC
Ian Warren
Charter Member
For your interest Bob , from the pilots notes , check out the engineers station, you would really believe your on a steam train rather an aircraft.
Ian Warren
Charter Member
Looking at that I thought the engineering was charge for the ups and downs and the steering 
, Wonder if Short Bros made Submarines ! 
, Wonder if Short Bros made Submarines ! 
Paul Anderson
Charter Member
..........Looking at that I thought the engineering was charge for the ups and downs and the steering
Ian, followed your suggestion, joined Flightsim.com, searched on Mike Delizee, couldnt find a single instance of MikeDelizee . Ted didnt comment on him despite me mentioning this, I would need that Mike Delizee skin.
Ted says:-
My models are all for FS2004, I believe that some do work in FSX with and without various tweaks. I do not have any version of CFS and so cannot comment in that area.
The folder you have extracted is the temporary folder referred to. When you run the STIRLING.exe file an Installation wizard will run and show information about the model and give you the option of where to install the model in the Flight Simulator9\'Aircraft' section.
Can anyone enlighten me on how I get Ted Cooks model into ETO 1.5 ?
I have zip file S29_v5.zip and it holds a Stirling.exe, so I need to know where to install it to, as when I run that exe, obviously it wont be where he says it points to for FS2004 !
Can FS2004 by the way be modded to wartime appearance scenery airfields etc, its graphics appear superior to CFS3.
BOBC
Ted says:-
My models are all for FS2004, I believe that some do work in FSX with and without various tweaks. I do not have any version of CFS and so cannot comment in that area.
The folder you have extracted is the temporary folder referred to. When you run the STIRLING.exe file an Installation wizard will run and show information about the model and give you the option of where to install the model in the Flight Simulator9\'Aircraft' section.
Can anyone enlighten me on how I get Ted Cooks model into ETO 1.5 ?
I have zip file S29_v5.zip and it holds a Stirling.exe, so I need to know where to install it to, as when I run that exe, obviously it wont be where he says it points to for FS2004 !
Can FS2004 by the way be modded to wartime appearance scenery airfields etc, its graphics appear superior to CFS3.
BOBC
Ian Warren
Charter Member
Here we go Bob , page 7 with Mikes name in the search engine
<tbody>
</tbody>
| <center>S2004 (ACOF) - FS2004 Warbirds</center><center>FS2004 Short Stirling LS-P </center><center>[SIZE=-1][ Download | View ][/SIZE]</center> Name: stirlls-p.zip Size: 2,351,069 Date: 03-17-2012 Downloads: 541 [SIZE=-1] 
FS2004 Short Stirling LS-P. N6047 was one of two Stirlings lost on the operation being shot down by Fw. Reinhard Kollack of 1./NJG1 at 21.44 hrs, crashing south of Mariembourg, 12/13 October 1941. Textures only for the Edward Cook Short Stirling (S29_V5.ZIP). Repaint by Mike Delizee. [/SIZE] | |
<tbody>
</tbody>