On Heather's Workbench - Strike Hard, Strike Sure: RAF Bomber Command 1940

[Keeff]

Beautifully executed Heather! 👌

 

 

Keith 😁 

[Hamden]

 

What an absolutely stunning Hampden Heather, great workmanship together with outstanding paintwork and attention to detail.

Looking forward to seeing the magic work on the Stirling now!

 

      Stay safe           Roger

[Heather Kay]

I want this mega thread to be an education as well as entertainment. Before I get stuck into the big Stirling project, I thought it might be instructive to look at how the RAF ended up with such a motley collection of designs in 1940.

 

A warning that the following is text-heavy and contains no modelling whatsoever, so feel free to skip it if you want.

 

The Bomber Will Always Get Through, or Bombers good, Fighters bad.

 

Virtually from its foundation, and throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Royal Air Force followed the doctrine that to be an effective defence force meant having more and better bombers than any prospective enemy. The Air Defence of Great Britain (ADGB) was built on this guiding principle from its earliest days. The strategic bombing force was the jewel in the RAF’s crown, with fighters coming very much second best. A country didn’t need silly little peashooters to prevent an enemy attacking it; it just need more bombers to deter the enemy in the first place. This principle, of being able to hit back just as hard if not harder, remains to this day – only with nuclear warheads instead of aeroplanes.

 

To help understand how the RAF found itself equipped with such a motley collection of aircraft in 1940, we need to step back a decade or two. Bearing in mind the obsession with bombers, a quick overview of the way the Air Ministry was thinking during the 1930s won’t come amiss.

 

Odd though it seems now, France was always the most clearly defined opponent. France had retained a pretty strong military presence following the cessation of hostilities in 1918. France was about the only continental power that could potentially threaten the UK’s mainland from the air. Should France attack, the short distances required to counterattack meant the RAF’s bomber force didn’t need large aircraft with long ranges. Lack of funding also meant the emphasis remained on relatively small two-man light bombers, with orders placed among a variety of small manufacturers to keep them alive. Aircraft not very different from those from the Great War were the order of the day.

 

That all changed with the rise of Hitler in 1933. Germany openly pulled out of disarmament treaties and presented a new challenge to the RAF. Nothing the air force had on strength was capable of flying as far as the industrial centres of Germany. The best bomber available was the Handley Page Heyford, an ungainly twin-engined biplane with a stately top speed on 140mph, a flight radius of less than 500 miles, and a bomb load of less than 2000lbs – and despite having entered service in 1933 it was already obsolete. The race was on to find better planes. Around this time, too, various conferences were taking place in Geneva, with the intention of setting limits on new designs.

 

The Air Ministry began desperately chasing an almost entirely fictitious figure, that of how many bombers Germany was able to build, and how quickly. The attempts to retain or even beat parity with Luftwaffe bomber numbers would obsess the Ministry for the rest of the decade, and require ever more precious money from the Treasury. Various schemes were put forward to boost front line bomber strength to match that of the Luftwaffe. From 1934, the stated aim was to reach a total of 41 bomber squadrons by the end of March 1939, but this set of goal posts continued to move until war eventually broke out. With a lack of new designs on the horizon, the various expansion schemes tended to fall back on quantity over quality. Many obsolete light bombers were ordered just to make up the numbers quickly.

 

Specifications

 

Eventually, sense began to prevail. Specifications, thrashed out by committee, began to be drawn up to encourage manufacturers to tender for new bomber designs. This is a whole new rabbit hole to tumble down, but let’s see if I can outline things so you can see how the RAF ended up where it did in 1940.

 

Each specification name usually followed a pattern. A leading letter was usually present to identify the aircraft purpose. The codes used included B for "heavy bomber", eg B.12/36, P for "medium bomber", P.13/36, F for "fighter", F.10/35, and A for "army co-operation", A.39/34. The second part was a number identifying it in sequence and then after the slash, the year it was formulated, so in the example given above, B.12/36 signifies a specification for a heavy bomber, the twelfth specification of all types issued in 1936. Specifications were not always issued in sequence. (Thanks Wikipedia!)

 

The first specification of interest is G.4/31, issued in 1931 for a general purpose design to replace the Fairey Gordon, Westland Wapiti, and Vickers Vildebeest and Vincent. Vickers were eventually issued with G.22/35 to build what became known as the Wellesley, which had been a private venture by the company based on the biplane design to the original specification. A lot of this sort of thing happened, so don’t worry about it!

 

Limited by the Geneva conventions on overall weight, though nothing had been finally agreed on, Specification B.9/32 was for a twin-engined medium day bomber of no more than 3 tons all up weight. This would lead to the Handley Page Hampden and the Vickers Crecy (later renamed Wellington). P.27/32 was for a single-engined medium day bomber along the same lines as B.9/32. This would eventually lead to the Fairey Battle.

 

A replacement for the Hawker Hart day bomber saw Specification P.4/34, and would result in the Hawker Henley and a Fairey design that would become the Fulmar. The Henley didn’t end up as a bomber, though, becoming a target tug instead.

 

Adherence to the Geneva conventions was dropped in mid-1934, after it was obvious no country would agree to limits after Germany decided to leave the meetings. B.3/34 was issued for a heavy bomber land plane to replace the Handley Page Heyford and Vickers Virginia. Vickers, Fairey, Handley Page and Armstrong Whitworth were approached. In the end, HP produced the Harrow and AW the Whitley. Vickers had been developing a variant on their design to B.9/32, but dropped out. The Ministry was still rather wary of the geodetic construction technique.

 

B.3/34 was revised, in the light of new developments in aircraft design around the world. B.3/34 Specification 3, which would soon be revised again to become B.1/35, was for a heavy twin-engined bomber. Vickers took this one on, developing a larger version of the Wellington with more powerful engines. The Warwick, sadly, took rather too long in the development phase, and was too late to be a useful bomber.

 

Now things get interesting. P.13/36 was issued, calling for a twin-engine medium bomber for “worldwide” use, meaning it would be capable of operating in a wide variety of environments. It was also expected to be able to carry two torpedoes in its bomb bay. This flexibility in the design of the bay meant both the Halifax and Manchester-cum-Lancaster were much more adaptable to new ordnance designs than the Stirling could ever be. Specifying Bristol Hercules radials or Rolls-Royce Vulture engines, Avro and Handley Page came up with the Manchester and HP.56. Handley Page were a bit more aware of the development issues with the Vulture, and proposed to the Ministry that they change their design to use four Rolls-Royce Merlins or Bristol Hercules engines instead. This became the HP.57 Halifax. Avro stuck with the Vulture, eventually adopting the same path as Handley Page and creating the Lancaster, but that’s another story.

 

While the preferred heavy twins approach was boiling away, the Ministry hedged their bets again by issuing B.12/36. This was for a four-engined heavy bomber, capable of cruising at 250mph over 1500 miles with at least a 4000lb bomb load. Three manufacturers came up with designs to this specification. Armstrong Whitworth’s design wasn’t chosen. Vickers Supermarine’s design team, headed up by Reginald Mitchell, came up with the Type 316. Short Brothers designed the Stirling. Supermarine’s design had reached the stage of building two prototypes, but delays caused by the company concentrating on building their single-seat fighter meant progress had been slow. In September 1940, the factory in Southampton was bombed, and both prototypes were destroyed. The only B.12/36 design to see operations was the Stirling.

 

B.9/38 was issued to see how practical a low-cost twin-engined medium bomber might be, using cheaper and more readily available materials. This specification led to a new specification, B.18/38, which was the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle.

 

Finally, B.1/39 was called the “Standard Bomber Project”. This was a long term scheme to ultimately replace the designs in production from P.13/36 and B.12/36. With war looming, this scheme was abandoned in favour of increasing production of existing designs.

 

If this sort of detail is of interest, I recommend you seek out a copy of “RAF Bomber Command and its aircraft 1936-1940” by James Goulding and Philip Moyes (ISBN 0-7110-0627-X). There’s lots of interesting stuff in there, including the what-ifs of the B.1/39 specification. Yet another rabbit hole!

 

More plastic bothering soon, I promise.

 

[Heather Kay]

With some domestic activities out of the way, and with it being a spare public holiday, let’s make some progress with the Stirling.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, that’s Stirling, city in Scotland spelled with an "i", not sterling, form of semi-worthless currency popular in the UK.

 

I dug the booth out and played maracas with some Halfords cans for a bit. The aim was to get a light coating of grey primer on the shiny, brittle black plastic of this kit so I could get a better chance of seeing how the land lies.

 

As befits a kit first moulded in 1966, all the control surfaces are movable. A fair bit of flash, and some mild damage where parts have been snapped off the runners over the years. A reminder, this boxing dates from 1975, and the plastic lived most of its life loose in the box. Amazingly, the only part I can’t immediately locate is the tractor driver! There may be other small parts missing, but nothing critical - yet.

 

 

Not entirely taken by the deep crevasses for the flaps. I may fill those and rescribe. While I’m about it, I think I will lose those rivets and scribe some key panel lines here and there. There’s some sink holes to deal with, too. The wing halves are not warped, so that’s a win.

 

 

The fuselage halves show some flash. Getting a smooth seam will be a trial, which is another reason to remove the rivets. Again, scribing some panel lines should be possible. The mid-upper "blister" must go. I’m pretty sure some of the windows will need to be filled for the really early version of the plane I’m hoping to recreate.

 

Bomb bay open or closed? Hmm, I’ll think on that. The minimal cockpit interior should be enhanced by the Eduard PE set. The machine guns, adequate for their time, rely on the homunculus crew member to hold them in place. I’m still pondering the replacements for the nose and tail turrets.

 

 

Close up, lots of ejector pins. The tail wheels might need a little fettling. I wonder if that’s covered in the PE sets? I’ll find out when I get them.

 

The crew won’t even make it into the spares box, I’m afraid. I'm not quite sure what the pilot figures are supposed to be doing. What manoeuvre requires a boot full of right rudder while making a karate chop with the left hand? 
 

 

The tub contains undercarriage and sundry small parts. Above, the period Herculeses and cowlingses and propellerses. Some of the intake details might be used, but I’ve set of donor parts from an Airfix Lancaster MkII which I hope I can engineer to fit. That’ll improve the looks immensely. Oh, of course, there's the David Brown again. Still looking for a home, if you’re interested.

 

Okay, next I need to compare and contrast large parts against photos and drawings, and decide what surgery is required to make an early MkI airframe. I don’t expect this project to roar into life. I think it’ll be a job I’ll peck away at over a period of time. I might well decide to dive into one of the Wellingtons as a distraction.

 

Onwards!

[Samuraiwarrior]

Hi Heather,

Upwards and Onwards for sure.

I've got a comfy chair and a drink to hand to watch this one progress in your usual informative and entertaining style.

Kevin

[Killingholme]

It's great to see these "languishing in a charity shop" kits actually get built. Doubly so to the standards you reach. Looking forward to following along.

 

Will

[Martian]

Heather, we have decided that that Hampden is drop dead gorgeous!

 

Decisive of Mars 👽

[Heather Kay]

1 hour ago, Martian said:

we have decided that that Hampden is drop dead gorgeous!

I genuflect before His Most Betentacled Benificence.

 

 

I spent a happy hour or so this afternoon poring over photos and comparing them to the plastic. It seems Airfix chose to make a sort of hybrid Stirling, at least for the fuselage. As I mentioned some pages back, the kit builds into a MkI or MkIII, chief differences being choice of mid-upper turret and the intakes and exhausts for the engines. The MkI version is probably based on a Series 3. I’m after an early Series 1.

 

Aside from having to dispose of the mid-upper turret, I needed to check fuselage windows. Something nagged at me. Happily, the ones around the nose are about right. It’s the ones further back that are the problem. For the early builds, well, there ain’t enough of 'em. This is a problem, because there’s only enough glazing in the kit for the 'oles provided.

 

Said 'oles are also the wrong shape. They are moulded as rectangles with rounded ends, where they should be proper ovals. I have an option to modify the shape, since I’m going to have to find alternate glazing anyway and need to make more apertures. I shall cogitate further on this matter.

[perdu]

13 hours ago, Heather Kay said:

I’m going to have to find alternate glazing anyway and need to make more apertures. I shall cogitate further on this matter.

Maybe make 'oles, as required then fill said 'oles with clear UV setting resin for windows.

 

Possibly over a shiny surface like the outer layer of a piece of sellotape to impart a shine, setting with UV torch

 

Finishing with a swift polish with a 12000 grit sanding pad

 

Windows, I love 'em but...

[Heather Kay]

12 minutes ago, perdu said:

fill said 'oles with clear UV setting resin for windows.

Great minds, as they say. It’s a technique I’ve not tried yet, so I’ll plan some experiments.

 

Now, I’ve got some supergloop that’s UV setting and seems to dry clear. Would that do, or do I need to get some proper gloop for the job?

[perdu]

Well I don't know about random supergloopy stuff, I went to the prime great river and bought a bottle of Limino UV setting varnish, £12 ish...

 

not varnish, CLEAR resin

 

[Heather Kay]

I finally ordered the PE upgrade sets. I had intended to get the "full Monty" set. Nearly two-thirds of it was about superdetailing the bomb bay and wing bomb cells and most likely would not even fit the Airfix parts. It also included a masking set which again probably wouldn’t fit the Airfix - or Falcon - parts. Instead I opted for just the cockpit upgrade set, and we shall see what fits and what doesn’t in due course.

 

The real airframe was flush-riveted. My decision to lose all the Airfix pimples was a good call. Whether I bother running a riveting wheel over things remains to be seen. While I await deliveries, and get on with paying work (ha!), I’ll dip into reference material on and off.

[CedB]

I'm definitely in for this.

 

Mine fell off the ceiling after a water leak and I've yet to decide how to replace it.

[Heather Kay]

Having had a half-decent work day I had a little play before the evening meal preparations began.

 

 

I wanted to get a feel for the size of this beast. It’s definitely not going to fit in my display cabinet!
 

Allowing for mild scale discrepancies in my plan reproduction, the kit parts are well within a tolerance I’m happy to accept. The fuselage does look longer than the plan, but that’s parallax coming into play. Trust me, it’s about a millimetre too long in the plastic. The wings are more or less the right shape and size, the only bugaboo being the Gouge flaps are horrifically wrong in shape. As I expected to fill and mark anew that’s not a problem. 

 

Fitting new engines and cowlings might prove an interesting exercise. Oh, and the landing lights need correcting. Early planes appear to have had lights that swung down from a stowed position under the leading edge of the wing. A lot of little bits and bobs to think about. A comprehensive snag list will need to be arranged, I think.

[AdrianMF]

7 minutes ago, Heather Kay said:

not going to fit in my display cabinet!

You might want to get your ceiling stress tested if you're going for the Ced option 🤔

 

Adrian

[Heather Kay]

Just now, AdrianMF said:

You might want to get your ceiling stress tested if you're going for the Ced option 🤔

I wouldn’t joke. I know how badly built this house was! It’s a worry just installing a ceiling light. 

 

I suspect official portrait photography will be followed by immediate interment in a storage box.

[RAF4EVER]

8 hours ago, CedB said:

I'm definitely in for this.

 

Mine fell off the ceiling after a water leak and I've yet to decide how to replace it.

The Stirling, or the water leak?

 

I'll get my coat.🥼

Edited May 10 by RAF4EVER
spelling

[Kitsticker]

Hi Heather,

 

Another brilliant thread, fascinating history - I always wondered why we had such a hotch potch of questionable designs (but could never be bothered to find out for myself) - and the builds so far are great, and will continue to be so, I'm sure

 

Did nobody else get the Nigel Molesworth reference at the beginning (as any fule no)....?  It can't only be the two of us who know him?

 

All the best

 

Geoff

[Heather Kay]

Another reason for the grey primer is it makes this job easier.

 

 

Close inspection of the carcass reveals that various panels are marked by solid raised lines. By going over them (roughly) with a fine marker pen they stand out. It's now easier to decide how many to bother running a scriber along. The control surfaces might be overdoing things, but the fuselage and wings will look okay with some fine scribed lines. Once I’ve successfully made my mark, I’ll go over the whole thing to remove the rivets, hopefully leaving just a ghost of them behind.

 

I expect Sunday will get a bit messy.

[Gondor44]

On 5/8/2023 at 3:06 PM, Heather Kay said:

With some domestic activities out of the way, and with it being a spare public holiday, let’s make some progress with the Stirling.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, that’s Stirling, town in Scotland spelled with an "i", not sterling, form of semi-worthless currency popular in the UK.

 

 

To be precise, Stirling is a City and has been since 2002 as part of the late Queens Silver Jubilee. It has also been the capital of Scotland.

 

Gondor, resident of Stirling since 1992

[AdrianMF]

Hopefully Sunday will be full of dead-straight worms of plastic from dead-straight scribing!

 

I've seen it said that a coat of primer makes plastic easier to scribe. I'd be interested in your opinion on that.

 

And won't at least the rudders and elevators be fabric with ribs?

 

Regards,

Adrian

[Heather Kay]

17 minutes ago, AdrianMF said:

And won't at least the rudders and elevators be fabric with ribs?

Good question. I’ve spent a pleasant few minutes reviewing as many images as I can find that clearly show control surfaces - including one that surfaced on the interweb last week showing the unfortunate aftermath of a flak shell exploding next to the rear turret. The rudder skin appears to be metal, judging by the way it’s been deformed by blast and shrapnel.

 

I'll be interested in other opinions, of course. Did the Sunderland and G Class boats have fabric coverings on control surfaces, I wonder.

 

 

[AdrianMF]

Hi Heather,

 

I think I may have thrown up a red herring - the rudder and elevators look to be covered in metal. Also, this site has some super detail pictures including constructional drawings that seem to suggest metal covering.

 

Back to Eurovision...

 

[edit]

 

...although the first cutaway on this page clearly states fabric covering for both rudder and elevator...

 

...and this page  seems to show fabric on the rudder (no silver edge to holes)...

...so I think I'm back to fabric. Someone must have the Haynes Manual...
 

 

Sorry,

Adrian

[Heather Kay]

7 hours ago, AdrianMF said:

Back to Eurovision...

 I’ve been avoiding that. I'm afraid it just leaves me cold, but I accept a lot more folk than me enjoy the escapism and kitsch overload. Anyway…

 

I think you’re right. Fabric control surfaces, but not the saggy stuff kit manufacturers usually show. I shall leave the moulded riblets and not scribe those parts.

 

 

[cngaero]

There is a wealth of information to be had browsing the Stirling Aircraft Project page on Facebook, with lots of detailed images of rebuilt portions of the cockpit and various crew stations.