Soviet Stirling

Thanks Alex.

Probably the same photographer, moved a little closer for your shot. The book published the first shot I suppose because it had the whole airframe in view.

DS

(PS Alex please check your pm)

Photo’s of Russian Stirling

hello Doc,

well as promised here is the photo from the old Airfix Mag 1966 with the one posted earlier for comparison, simular pose but definitely diferent .

Alex

Hello Doc,

Glad to say that I found the right copy easier than I had expected to.

Airfix Mag February 1966, page 174.

AND although it shows LK615 it is a different photo.

Caption that acompanies the pic says

” It caused quite a stir when this Stirling (right) landed at RAF Teheran in 1945, wrote D.E.Maynard. We may add that this photograph of a Russian Stirling also caused quite a stir when it reached us. It appears it was LK615 a Mk III. Mr Maynard recalls that, the day after arrival it flew across to the Russian airfield on the other side of the city. On the day set aside for the hand-over some damage in the Radio gear was found and consequently the Russians would not accept it. The Stirling was flown to Habbaniya for repair before transfere. It would be fascinating to know what the Russians did with a Stirling”

Well I think the answer to the last sentence is still awaited.

I will scan and later on try to add it in this post or in a new one.
All the best
Alex

Alex

That is very interesting – just goes to show that the ‘only known photo’ does not mean ‘the only photo’ (“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” or something similar – Einstein I think).

I look forward to seeing the scan, thank’s very much

DS

Albemarle – opinion of Senior Guards Lieutenant Lisikova:

The British crown had given us an aircraft, an Albemarle, that had to be ferried back.

The Albemarle was a twin-engine transport and bomber manufactured by Armstrong Whitworth. It was propelled by two 14-cylinder two-row radial engines of approximately 1,500 hp each. The Royal Air Forced used it exclusively as a glider tug and special transport. Approximately 10 were delivered to the USSR.

But this was not an airplane—it was a disaster. When they were ferrying them to the USSR, one aircraft blew up 500 kilometers from the English coast, and Kulikov’s aircraft exploded 200 kilometers from Murmansk.

Didn’t they give us 24 of these?

Well, as a matter of fact, we later refused them. The aircraft was a piece of garbage, but it had outstanding engines. They mounted these engines on motor boats, you understand. On ships, on small ships, the kind that laid mines. They needed good engines.

This quotation can be found in the following Interview with her – now that’s my kind of woman!

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/lisikova/index.htm

SOG

… It would be fascinating to know what the Russians did with a Stirling …

Well I think the answer to the last sentence is still awaited.

The article in Aeroplane Monthly addresses this – but it’s not in my hands as I type this. IIRC 😉 it was said to have been used briefly as a transport aircraft (along with at least one abandoned Lanc specials also discussed in the article). As to it’s fate … who knows? Scrapped most likely.

Soviet Stirling

Hello Doc,

Glad to say that I found the right copy easier than I had expected to.

Airfix Mag February 1966, page 174.

AND although it shows LK615 it is a different photo.

Caption that acompanies the pic says

” It caused quite a stir when this Stirling (right) landed at RAF Teheran in 1945, wrote D.E.Maynard. We may add that this photograph of a Russian Stirling also caused quite a stir when it reached us. It appears it was LK615 a Mk III. Mr Maynard recalls that, the day after arrival it flew across to the Russian airfield on the other side of the city. On the day set aside for the hand-over some damage in the Radio gear was found and consequently the Russians would not accept it. The Stirling was flown to Habbaniya for repair before transfere. It would be fascinating to know what the Russians did with a Stirling”

Well I think the answer to the last sentence is still awaited.

I will scan and later on try to add it in this post or in a new one.
All the best
Alex

Hi

Do you have a reference for that Airfix magazine? The only one in my collection is not that old, and has no pictures of the Russian Stirling.

An article in the Jan 07 Aeroplane on the ‘Russian’ Stirling and Lancasters showed this photo, and suggested that it was the only known picture of a Stirling in Russian markings. Therefore the picture in the Airfix magazine was probably also this one.

DS

Russian Sterling photo

Hi,
I do not know if the photo of the Russian Sterling shown in an earlier reply is the same photo of a Sterling in Russian markings that was to be seen in an Airfix magazine way back in the mid sixties early seventies.
Can anyone confirm if it is indeed the same aircraft/photo.
Thanks
Alex

Steve P…..

Have you checked out this month’s (January 2007) issue of Aeroplane Monthly??

It has a 4-page article on this very subject by Vladimir Kotelnikov – including a couple of photos plus some colour artwork.

It also includes Soviet Lancaster….

Cheers Ken, I’ll chase it up.

Best wishes
Steve P

Steve P…..

Have you checked out this month’s (January 2007) issue of Aeroplane Monthly??

It has a 4-page article on this very subject by Vladimir Kotelnikov – including a couple of photos plus some colour artwork.

It also includes Soviet Lancaster….

Their website is at :- http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/current/ – but it hasn’t been updated yet with the current issue (with P-40 on the front) 😮

Ken

I like the model of the Soviet Lancaster, but why was the nose so different, had the originals been so damaged that the nose from the contemporary Russian 4 engined bomber was grafted on.

It is explained in the text accompanying the article……….

“Six damaged Lancasters were left behind – one Mk III and five Mk I’s, of which four were inspected by the Soviets with a view to restoration and the two with the least damage were taken to KEGOSTROV where they were repaired and modified in the workshops of the Air Force of the White Sea Flotilla under the direction of chief engineer KIR’YANOV.

All the armament was removed and the rear gun turret faired over with sheet Duralumin. The damaged nose section was replaced with a new transparent nose. The standard bomber finish of Dark Earth, Dark Green and Night was retained but the identification markings were overpainted in ‘Russian green’ and red stars with black outlines were applied in six positions, both machines being refurbished identically. “

Ken

the massive undercarriage being more suitable for Arctic Circle landings on snow, ice or permafrost.

Massive doesn’t equate to good – and appearances are deceptive. Spindly and weak is probably better.

So even if nothing else ever actually comes of the myth that the Stirling may still be somewhere in Russia, if the Russians has done any reverse engineering on these types that Cranswick details, there would quite possibly still be technical drawings that may no longer exist in the west. The Soviets have been known for filing away almost everything, so hopefully drawings have survived. I will await anything further on a Stirling or even Halifax being rolled out of a hangar there very patiently with a hint of scepticism.

Soviet Stirling

I hate those replies that go …. ” as far as I remember” or ” off the top of my head” but its my turn now! Some years ago I consulted a PRO file of correspondence from the British Mission(?) in Moscow. The RAF liaison officer was being harrassed by the Russians to organise examples of the “latest RAF types” for them to evaluate. After a lot of hedging the supply of virtually obsolescent types was arranged – certainly the Stirling, a Merlin-engined Halifax, a Mosquito (B.IV I think) and a Typhoon (previously mentioned in these columns); the latter arrived after the war in Europe was over!

If I can find my original notes I will post something more accurate.

They could very well have requested it in, say 1942, and only got it in ’45.

For instance – The Russians ‘acquired’ a Walrus in abandoned by the RN in Murmansk after one of the Arctic Convoys. They requested a replacement engine, which was delivered via India and the middle east (& lost) and in 1946 – 47 they were ‘sold’ (at nominal value) the thoroughly obsolete and probably destroyed aircraft to keep the bureaucrats in the UK happy. :rolleyes:

And there was little chance that the RAF could spare a Lancaster or Halifax that still had any usefull operational time left. Whereas the poor old Stirling, well they could n’t – as it turned out – even give them away.

DS

Why would the Russians want to evaluate a bomber that was obsolete, apart from use as a glider tug, in 1945.

They could very well have requested it in, say 1942, and only got it in ’45.

For instance – The Russians ‘acquired’ a Walrus in abandoned by the RN in Murmansk after one of the Arctic Convoys. They requested a replacement engine, which was delivered via India and the middle east (& lost) and in 1946 – 47 they were ‘sold’ (at nominal value) the thoroughly obsolete and probably destroyed aircraft to keep the bureaucrats in the UK happy. :rolleyes:

Why would the Russians want to evaluate a bomber that was obsolete, apart from use as a glider tug, in 1945. Would it have something to do with the massive undercarriage being more suitable for Arctic Circle landings on snow, ice or permafrost.

I like the model of the Soviet Lancaster, but why was the nose so different, had the originals been so damaged that the nose from the contemporary Russian 4 engined bomber was grafted on.

Firs shouldn’t be too difficult to trap, they move pretty slowly . . .
(682al’s post #20)

You clearly haven’t seen Birnam Wood coming toward Dunsinane.

nice photoshop work….

Firs shouldn’t be too difficult to trap, they move pretty slowly . . .
(682al’s post #20)

Not sure about that. Remember that the trappers are in a Albemarle…

Best wishes
Steve P