Short Stirling pics 2 [1/8] - ME846Crew_1661HCU_heeley.jpg (1/1)

*

In article , Stormin' Norman says...

On 4 Jul 2018 05:56:18 -0700, Miloch
wrote:

From your post:

"There were several incidents in which heavily damaged aircraft, such
as one Stirling which suffered a head-on collision with a
Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter over Hamburg, were able to continue
flying and safely return to base."


An impressive aircraft.


FWIW, the only entry way in that I see is the door in front of the tail...then I
guess it's a crawl or hunched walk up to the cockpit...and since it's a tail
dragger, the cockpit seats must be at least 17 or 18 feet up...considerably
higher than a B-17.




*

In article , Stormin' Norman says...

On 4 Jul 2018 17:42:46 -0700, Miloch
wrote:

In article , Stormin' Norman says...

On 4 Jul 2018 05:56:18 -0700, Miloch
wrote:

From your post:

"There were several incidents in which heavily damaged aircraft, such
as one Stirling which suffered a head-on collision with a
Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter over Hamburg, were able to continue
flying and safely return to base."


An impressive aircraft.


FWIW, the only entry way in that I see is the door in front of the tail...then I
guess it's a crawl or hunched walk up to the cockpit...and since it's a tail
dragger, the cockpit seats must be at least 17 or 18 feet up...considerably
higher than a B-17.



I believe you are correct about the entry door, although there were
several escape hatches for the pilots and crew. I wonder what the
engineering rationalization was for making these aircraft so high at
the nose?

With few exceptions, I've found British aircraft design to be ruthlessly
functional with less attention paid to grace or beauty...at least to my eye.
Both the B-17 and Stirling were initially designed in the 30s but the Boeing
design seems to show more attention to streamlining.

Of course, Britain was more on a war footing than America with fewer resources
and less time available.

....just my two cents worth.


*




I happened across a video which shows the crew entering and walking
around in the fuselage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC-vhYHbhgE

In article ,
Miloch wrote:

In article , Stormin' Norman
says...

On 4 Jul 2018 17:42:46 -0700, Miloch
wrote:

In article , Stormin' Norman
says...

On 4 Jul 2018 05:56:18 -0700, Miloch
wrote:

From your post:

"There were several incidents in which heavily damaged aircraft, such
as one Stirling which suffered a head-on collision with a
Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter over Hamburg, were able to continue
flying and safely return to base."


An impressive aircraft.


FWIW, the only entry way in that I see is the door in front of the
tail...then I
guess it's a crawl or hunched walk up to the cockpit...and since it's a
tail
dragger, the cockpit seats must be at least 17 or 18 feet up...considerably
higher than a B-17.



I believe you are correct about the entry door, although there were
several escape hatches for the pilots and crew. I wonder what the
engineering rationalization was for making these aircraft so high at
the nose?

With few exceptions, I've found British aircraft design to be ruthlessly
functional with less attention paid to grace or beauty...at least to my eye.
Both the B-17 and Stirling were initially designed in the 30s but the Boeing
design seems to show more attention to streamlining.

Of course, Britain was more on a war footing than America with fewer
resources
and less time available.

...just my two cents worth.


*




I happened across a video which shows the crew entering and walking
around in the fuselage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC-vhYHbhgE



The Short Stirling was the worst of the RAF four engined bomber for a
very simple reason it was the only one built strictly to the
specification of a wingspan limited to 100 feet so that it could be
stowed in a hangar. The Lancaster (the four engined derivative of the
twin engined Manchester) was able to carry large bombs while the bomb
bay of the Halifax was optimised for the small bombs used in the
thirties.