Stirling V Lancaster. Which was better designed?

p.s. I’ve never liked this which plane was better malarky. They were all built to wartime pressures and specifications… It is the aircrew/groundcrew we should really remember. I just get a bit fed up of giving the Lancaster/Spitfire almost mythical status. So hats off to all those of you building the lesser known types.

The question was not about remembering or forgetting. Surely a reasoned debate about the merits of one design over another does not detract from the courage and commitment of those who made them, maintained them and flew them. I find the comments from all sides quite instructive.

Paul:

It is the aircrew/groundcrew we should really remember.

Agreed. But can we add tool setters & jig makers to the list?
The courage of aircrew, the commitment of ground crew, those who implemented & made the technology.

Because they insisted on the span being no more than 99feet to fit through the unmodified doors of the existing hangars…

That’s a well worn myth and I’m amazed that it still comes up.
Recent discussion, http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=122758
Hangar clear spans of the era were 120 ft and 150 ft for a A and C & D types respectively.

Paul, I kind of agree with your comments, it can be all too easy to run these retrospective comparisons and ‘what was betters’, indeed it’s now easy to overlook that the Stirling was the only four engined bomber design from the outset to get put into production, both the Halifax and the Lancaster emerging from twin engineed specifications.
However good debate and information can come forth from discusions like this on forums.

I personally think that the Stirling could have been an ‘almost great’ bomber, had a full width and length bomb bay been used along with the the longer 112 foot span (or even the 135′ Super Stirling span) it would have brought an unrivelled capability to Bomber Command some two years before the Lancaster.
It’s interesting that the two types had the same cruising and maximun speeds which suggests the power of the Stirling was fine but the shorter span (comparative to weight & fuselage size) was a limiting factor in operational ceiling.

As it was it was a remarkable machine of the uncertain Expansion era, especially when you consider that it was designed to replace the likes of the biplane Heyford, however as with many other types procurred at the time it quickly became absolete as huge advances were being made in aerial warfare.

Talking of the angle of incidence problem, didn’t the Whitley suffer from this as well which gave it it’s nose down stance in flight?

Halelujah!
Give that man a beer!

Cees

Also interested if anyone knows how the Radial engined Lanc performed against the Merlin?

I heard it performed quite well but the ceiling/range was reduced.

I was always told that it was down to engine positioning….. The Manchester/Lancaster had underslung engines which was a better design for inline water cooled engines so the lanc worked better with Merlins than the Hercules. The converse being true for the Halifax whose designers wanted radials all along and had the engines mounted along the wing chord. Hence the fact that the Halibag performance was transformed when they changed from Merlins to the Hercules, (why was the Hercules installation tried on the Halifax in 1942 but not put into production till late 1943 – hence the confusion over Mk numbers). – I also never understood why they didn’t try a more beefy radial like the Centaurus in the Stirling or Hali. That would have given a fair bit more grunt.

p.s. I’ve never liked this which plane was better malarky. They were all built to wartime pressures and specifications… It is the aircrew/groundcrew we should really remember. I just get a bit fed up of giving the Lancaster/Spitfire almost mythical status. So hats off to all those of you building the lesser known types.

Because they insisted on the span being no more than 99feet to fit through the unmodified doors of the existing hangars…

My understanding was that the limit was more about aircraft weight than it was about fitting in hangars (as the hangars of the era could accomodate a 120 ft span) – just to put a reasonable cap on the aircraft size. Given that the Lancaster and Halifax were both essentially the same span, both at one time or another flew with the same engines as Stirlings, and managed to achieve much better ceilings, just saying “silly Air Ministry” doesn’t explain it!

One reason for the poor ceiling of the Stirling can be laid at the door of the Air Ministry. Because they insisted on the span being no more than 99feet to fit through the unmodified doors of the existing hangars the Stirling was limited to an altitude which put it firmly within reach of all calibres of Anti Aircraft guns. At least the Lancaster was able to get above the light flak and most of the time medium too. Another weakness of the Stiling was its delicate undercarriage. I know, how can anything that looks like part of a suspension bridge be delicate? But given the weight it had to support added to a badly controlled crosswind take off or landing it just wasn’t man enough for the job.

The Centaurus was looked at as an alternative to the Vulture, but for whatever reason wasn’t pursued. Given that the Manchester was designed for a 2000 hp engine, the Merlin wasn’t going to be a direct substitute (if that’s what you’re suggesting). The changes weren’t that significant – the ribs in the wings were the same, just at a greater spacing. So basically it involved machining longer spars, and adding pickups for the engine mounts.

I wonder if anyone knows why they didn’t put Merlins on the Manchester. An easier way to rectify the Manchester’s deficiencies?
Also interested if anyone knows how the Radial engined Lanc performed against the Merlin?

BTW, while off topic has anyone seen the proposed Airfix Radial engined Lanc and Bomber RAF Supply set? Looks rather nice 🙂

Yes, the flight engineers section could be mistaken for a ships engine room David :).

… having seen how they are built, I consider the Stirling to be a much better designed vessel for the high seas! 😀

Once the wings were ‘clipped’ all the problems started – there was not enough lift and the engines were not powerful enough….hence the increased wing angle and the heightend undercarriage.

If you look at the profiles of the 3 4-engined heavies, the Lanc and the Halifax appear with to be “all wing” compared to their fuselage length, whereas the Stirling’s fuselage is relatively much longer than her wingspan. Even single engined fighters had a greater relative lift area to fuselage length.

As far as powerplants, there was never a hope of getting Merlins onto the Stirling, they were all going into fighters at that time. The Wright Cyclone-powered Mark II would have had rod and chain throttle controls, but as we knoe, this model never went into production.

daniel

Lanc’ poor..?

I’ve always wondered that as well…seems an easy way to achieve the same result.

I think re; the u/c, it was all about the angle of attack required to land the thing slow enough. You can’t land tons of heavy-bomber on a tailwheel…! The fuselage was absurdly long – probably due to the long, but shallow bombay.
On the whole, this is a debate about semantics. The Stirling wasn’t even remotely in the same league as the Lanc’, and, as other have pointed-out, the Manchester was only scuppered by hopelessly unreliable, underperforming engines.
What really let all of these a/c down was the antideluvian mindset of the planners. The Mosquito showed that it was a far more efficient platform for delivering ordnace, – measured by all parameters. Not least of which, putting all those Merlins into Mosquitos would have saved hundred, probably thousands of lives. Ain’t hindsight a wonderful thing……:diablo:

Avros also had the chance to fix a number of other problems with the Manchester, most notably with its hydraulic systems, before they had the opportunity to taint the reputation of the Lancaster.

Profile images compared of the Handley Page Halifax, the Short Stirling, and the Avro Lancaster bombers – all Mk1.

Bomber Profile Comparison

There was an interesting comment for the Manchester…

I was one of the six original pilots to have flown with the first Manchester squadron. That was a disaster. The aircraft itself, the airframe, had many shortcomings in equipment in the beginning, but as we found out Avro were excellent in doing modifications and re-equipping the aeroplane. The engines never were and never did become reliable. They did not give enough power for the aeroplane, so we ended up with two extremely unreliable 1,750 hp engines having to haul a 50,000-pound aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Manchester

The changing of the two failed RR Vulture “24X” engines for four of the very successful Merlins and an additonal 10ft onto the wing span, really made this aircraft.

The wing is set quite high up on the fuselage so a shorter leg might not allow the tail to lower sufficiently to achieve ‘take off’ angle !

rgds baz

I’ve always wondered that as well…seems an easy way to achieve the same result.

Was it to allow the tail to ‘lower’ sufficiently at take off speed and thus achieve the correct angle of attack to give the required take off ‘lift’ ?
The wing is set quite high up on the fuselage so a shorter leg might not allow the tail to lower sufficiently to achieve ‘take off’ angle !

rgds baz

I have never understood the wing incidence issue with the Stirling.

As it was originally designed/built the wing was set at the optimum angle for the cruise situation, offering the least drag as the fuselage remained horizontal and in line with the airflow.
It was the long takeoff run that was seen as a problem, but why.
For take-off the aircraft would accelerate until the elevators became effective, then the tail could be raised until the fuselage was horizontal.
Once flying speed had been reached rotation took place following backward control movement, the tail would lower slightly, incidence would increase, lift would increase and the aircraft would leave the ground.
Surely this would happen regardless of whether the aircraft had the original height undercarriage or the modified taller undercarriage.
Am I missing something here?

Richard

The Stirling should be taught in aircraft design classes as an example of how not to do things. There was nothing wrong with the wing, which can be compared closely with that of the B-17, but the fuselage was terrible. The design team then found themselves “firefighting”, introducing changes directed at symptoms rather than causes. Most noticably the undercarriage, which only added weight and increased the problems. The shallow bombbay restricted the wartime choice of weapons – this being also true of the Wellington and Halifax, but notably not true of the Manchester. The detail design turned out to be grossly overweight. Shorts themselves was in a shambles: production was so sluggish that the company had to be taken over in the middle of the war. In its favour is that it handled well, once airborne.

Compare it with Mitchell’s design to the same specification.

On the other hand, the only significant failing with the Manchester was the engine choice: which can be fairly described as the fault of a specification calling for more power than the engine industry could provide. There was nothing about the airframe that caused its lack of success. The success of the Lancaster was very much built on the strong points of the Manchester, most of the airframe being the same. Plus a couple of years key progress in detail aerodynamics, notably the low position of the engines and the cooling system.

In its orginal form the Stirling was a ground lover. Following tests at Martlesham Heath, it was recommended that 3 degrees of wing incidence be added to the original 3.5 degrees (which is optimal for low drag cruise).
Rather than redesign and re-tool, Shorts decided to lengthen the landing gear legs.

Hardly what I’d call a “good design”. I wonder how many casualties occurred from falling off the house painter ladders needed to reach the thing?

The Stirling had some admirable qualities, but like most wartime aircraft, the urgency of war usually led to “good enough” design compromises.