Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

SimonR

Airfix 1/72 Short Stirling

Recommended Posts

Wow, you’ve made a fantastic job of an old kit. Very nicely done.  :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks great, very nice paint finish. Some of the vintage Airfix kits weren't bad at all and still worth building today although others - probably best forgotten :giles:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alpha Delta 210 said:

Excellent result. I always wanted this kit as a boy, but somehow it never made it into my gluey fingers!

Seem to remember it did come into my gluey fingers, followed by gluey fingerprints on the model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent work all round Simon,these old kit's Should Be built and great to see one built so well,I've got this one earmarked for the Airfix GB

later this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, didn't expect this old kit to get quite so much positive feedback - thanks all, much appreciated!! 

 

FYI Chris, I used bronze for the rings on the engines, not sure if thats 100% correct though!

 

Cheers

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SimonR said:

Blimey, didn't expect this old kit to get quite so much positive feedback - thanks all, much appreciated!! 

 

FYI Chris, I used bronze for the rings on the engines, not sure if thats 100% correct though!

 

Cheers

Simon

 

Historically, no, bronze would be inappropriate. A heat-stained steel would be a better choice. But, considering that Airfix doesn't even give you a colour callout for that and in the past, on other kits, they have called out for bronze, you've done well. I think your build looks really good. Bravo on a job well done on an old kit.

 

 

Chris

Edited by dogsbody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely to see these old kits being turned out to such a high standard. The finish on it is exceptional.

 

Cheers

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely Stirling. You have done a cracking job there.  Got one in the stash to build.  Thank you for sharing. 

All the best 

Chris 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely job on a very old kit. I remember building one years ago (far too long ago!) and this brings back happy memories.

 

Well done and thanks for sharing

 

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad built this kit and hung it up in my room when I was a kid.  I've always loved the Sterling and you've done a wonderful job with the kit! The weathering and paint are very believable... good job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again thanks for the kind words guys!

 

Seems like lots of us built this when we were kids, I first made it circa 1980ish but think I made a better fist of it second time round lol

 

Cheers

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent effort, great finish on this Airfix classic B)B)

It is only a relatively recent decision by Airfix to not include the tractor and bomb trolleys (the new 'red box' A07002 from 2013), every Airfix Stirling I've built had the tractor and trolleys. I bought one for a friends son in 1998 (A07002 1992 boxing) and it had the tractor and trolleys too.

May have to get in and start repairing my Stirling survivor from 1979, maybe a small dio as well with just the tractors and trolleys too :idea::idea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant effort on a kit that would not likely be in today's "fall together" category.

Although I build Airfix's old Lanc and B-17G kits, somehow the Stirling eluded me as a boy (not surprising given my pocket money budget constraints of the time).

I had suspected that the Airfix Stirling might still be a solid replica, even in the face of the Italeri releases, and you have proven me right.

:clap2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive work. I’ve always felt the Stirling has been a bit of an oddity, so big wirh that (relative) short wingspan. I understand the reason for that, was that it was supposed to fit inside a hangar standard. It think I’ve read it was a match to handle, demanding higher handling speeds than normal

Edited by Nils

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stirling was very advanced for its day. It had a large element of electronic activation of the flying controls (an early form of Fly By Wire) . For its size, it was very manoeuverable - partly aided by the short wingspan. Indeed, the wings, tailplane and tailfin were closely related to the units used on the C and G Class flying boats and the Sunderland.

 

Not only was the Stirling designed to fit in existing RAF hangers, it was also designed to be able to fly in and out of the smaller pre-war airfields - with a full bomb load. That is why it ended up with such a stalky and complicated undercarriage as the wing needed to be at a high angle of incidence in order to be able to generate the required lift at fairly low forward speeds.

 

The other big limitation of the Stirling was that its bomb bays were not capable of the much larger bombs that were developed after the aircraft had been designed

 

The Lancaster and Halifax which emerged slightly later were not restricted by these limiting  Air Ministry requirements so proved to be more adaptable aircraft..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Eric, interesting to read :) I can see the likeness to the Sunderlands, from above.

It was clearly the most majestic looking of all british bombers, more masculine somehow on that high raised, complicated undercarriage.

I've got it on my maybe list to do sometime..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eric Mc said:

The Stirling was very advanced for its day. It had a large element of electronic activation of the flying controls (an early form of Fly By Wire) . For its size, it was very manoeuverable - partly aided by the short wingspan. Indeed, the wings, tailplane and tailfin were closely related to the units used on the C and G Class flying boats and the Sunderland.

 

Not only was the Stirling designed to fit in existing RAF hangers, it was also designed to be able to fly in and out of the smaller pre-war airfields - with a full bomb load. That is why it ended up with such a stalky and complicated undercarriage as the wing needed to be at a high angle of incidence in order to be able to generate the required lift at fairly low forward speeds.

 

The other big limitation of the Stirling was that its bomb bays were not capable of the much larger bombs that were developed after the aircraft had been designed

 

The Lancaster and Halifax which emerged slightly later were not restricted by these limiting  Air Ministry requirements so proved to be more adaptable aircraft..

But for the Stirling was the size of the Fuselage itself, I believe that aircrew survival rate in downed Stirlings was the best of the heavies due to space to move in.  Certainly having been in the BBMF Lanc I really would not have fancied being in that during Ops.

 

Allegedly 75Sqn at RAF Mepal had some real issues with the crews when switching over to the Lancs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PLC1966 said:

But for the Stirling was the size of the Fuselage itself,

 Not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

The Stirling certainly was more capacious inside as far as the crew was concerned. The Lancaster put more emphais on bomb carrying capacity over crew comfort (or survivability).

 

Although it has to be remembered that the Lancaster itself evolved out of a failure, the Manchester, and that its large capacity bomb bay was as much to do with the Manchester's requirement to carry torpedoes, something the Stirling nor the Halifax had been tasked to do.#

The Manchester was also stressed for catapult launch which meant the airframe was strong - and that was carried over into the Lancaster. In some ways the Lancaster became the  most efficient of the heavies through a series of coincidents.

Edited by Eric Mc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eric Mc said:

The Stirling was very advanced for its day. It had a large element of electronic activation of the flying controls (an early form of Fly By Wire) . For its size, it was very manoeuverable - partly aided by the short wingspan. Indeed, the wings, tailplane and tailfin were closely related to the units used on the C and G Class flying boats and the Sunderland.

 

Not only was the Stirling designed to fit in existing RAF hangers, it was also designed to be able to fly in and out of the smaller pre-war airfields - with a full bomb load. That is why it ended up with such a stalky and complicated undercarriage as the wing needed to be at a high angle of incidence in order to be able to generate the required lift at fairly low forward speeds.

 

The other big limitation of the Stirling was that its bomb bays were not capable of the much larger bombs that were developed after the aircraft had been designed

 

The Lancaster and Halifax which emerged slightly later were not restricted by these limiting  Air Ministry requirements so proved to be more adaptable aircraft..

Not strictly true, whilst the flaps and undercarriage were electrically actuated, the flying controls (Rudder, Ailerons and Elevators) were conventional cable operated. Early Stirling engine controls were hydraulically actuated through Exactor units but these were replaced on later aircraft reverting to conventional cables and pulleys

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 12jaguar said:

Not strictly true, 

 But partially true.

 

It was certainly a very electronic aeroplane compared to its contemporaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eric Mc said:

 Not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

The Stirling certainly was more capacious inside as far as the crew was concerned.

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

Capacious.  What a great word that is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic work & a real blast of pure nostalgia.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PLC1966 said:

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

Capacious.  What a great word that is. 

I think an airman could actually stand up in a Stirling - something they couldn't really do in a Lancaster - except under the cockpit canopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Eric Mc said:

I think an airman could actually stand up in a Stirling - something they couldn't really do in a Lancaster - except under the cockpit canopy.

Did the climbing over the main wing spar thing in the BBMF Lanc, the thought of doing that in Flying Clothing was not a happy one.  Climbing into the rear turret was no better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...