Halifax v Stirling question

From my reading, I have not found any reference to the Stirling ever being considered for CC duties. Range and ordinance carriage would not have been an issue. The main problems the Stirling encountered in its Bomber Command role was its ceiling limitation (along with bomb load to some extent), due to its impaired wing size. At low level, the Stirling was actually a highly manoeuverable plane, given its size. Hence its role in SOE ops. It was highly versatile – glider towing being a forte as, (unlike other aircraft) it did not ‘stretch’ after having towed a glider!

I suspect that the reason it was overlooked for CC duties was more that it was simply unavailable. Having not exactly ‘excelled’ in BC service, it was being produced for paratroop drops/glider towing (Mk IV) and transport (Mark V) in relatively small numbers compared to the number of Lancs and Halifax’s rolling off the lines. Moreover, there was no Canadian production line – the Mark II was planned, with Wright Cyclone R-2600-ASB engines – but perfomance was no better than the Mk I, so the order was cancelled.

Now, had they gone ahead with the Super Stirling……

🙁

DS

I haven’t got any photos, I’m afraid, but I knew a chap who I’m sure told me he’d towed Hotspurs with Hurricanes (I know he never flew Spitfires) Unfortunately he died 6 years ago, and I don’t have any further details of it.

The Stirling had a role after Bomber Command – Airborne forces. Glider tug and parachute aircraft, the same as the role as Halifax but the Stirling could carry more internal stores / parachutists than the Halibag so was used more on para ops.
By the way anyone got any photos of Mk 1, Mk V, or Mk 9 Spits towing Hotspur gliders.

Was range a factor? The Coastal Command Halifaxes were able to carry a bombload in the in the wings and an extra fuel tank in the fuselage bomb bay, allowing an endurence of up to 16 hours (although in practice, flights were limited to 13 hours to allow a safety margin).

I must make a correction on my engine statement. On checking my reference, it was the Met. squadrons that were experiencing problems with the Rolls-Royce Merlins, not Coastal Command Halifaxes on anti-shipping patrols. Sorry!

Stirlings were used extensively for mining so I doubt if the carriage of ordinance was a problem. Wasn’t it just the case that the Stirling was a dog of an aircraft with a poor record while in Bomber Command?

I would have thought that whoever was responsible for grabbing aircraft for Coastal Command service would have picked the best that was available. The Halifax, with it’s better performance and lesser complexity, was more capable than the Stirling.

I haven’t heard about the CC Halifax Merlin problems before. Is this why they stuck four-bladed props on them?

What width was the ordnance carried in the Coastal Command role? Would it fit in the Stirlings infamous narrow split bomb bays?

Flood

Yeah – that’s what I wondered.
Hoping some Cracker-Stackers may help out here.

What width was the ordnance carried in the Coastal Command role? Would it fit in the Stirlings infamous narrow split bomb bays?

Flood

I, too, have long wondered about this very subject. If it was a question of range, the wing bomb cells could have been removed and replaced with fuel tanks, or fuel tanks could have been carried in the fuselage and bombs in the wing cells.
The Stirling could have easily carried search radar in either the under-fuselage area, a la H2S, or in underwing blisters like those fitted to late-model Sunderlands.
I have read that there were problems with the Rolls-Royce engines fitted to most of the Coastal Command Halifaxes, in that the engines did not well tolerate the long hours at the lower, warmer altitudes flown on search patrols. The Hercules, being air-cooled were better suited to this type of operation.