Guy Alcala wrote in message .. .
Peter Stickney wrote:

As for the Stirling, well, actually, fir all its bulk, it doesn't seem
that heavy.They really should have taken the fuselage out of hte box
before they bolted the wings on, though.

The empty weight (46,000 lb. IIRR) has always seemed far higher than
was the case with the Lanc or Halifax, and the MTOW (70klb. IIRR) not
that much more. It is possible that this is a mistake and isactually the
OWE rather than the empty weight losted for the others. Still, its range
with a comparable bombload is significantly less than either, and while
the wing design undoubtedly plays some part I expect the main factor
is the restricted useful load. Shorts' structural methods seem to stem
from the flying boats, and appear a bit out of date.

From the Stirling file by Michael Bowyer

Early Stirling I, Hercules II engines, the first production aircraft N3635 came
in at 41,160 pounds tare when under trials, max take off weight 64,000
pounds initially.

Stirling III, Hercules VI/XVI tare weight 44,856 pounds, max flying weight
70,000 pounds.

The tare weights appear 2 to 3 tons more than the Lancaster and Halifax.

The books notes the advantages of the "strongly built" airframe as well
as the penalties.

Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736. The Stirling
wingspan was 99 feet 1 inch versus the B-17 103 feet 9 inches, it was
also the thickest wing, able to carry bombs in cells within the inner wing.
three cells on each side capable of carrying 500 pound bombs at least.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.