At a time when most Royal Air Force four-engine bombers were twin-engined designs, the Short Stirling was designed from the outset as a four-engined heavy bomber. As a result, it became the cornerstone of British heavy bomber groups from January 1941, predating all subsequent four-engine bombers.
The Short Stirling was born from an RAF requirement outlined in the mid-1930s calling for a heavy bomber that could conquer long-range missions and pack a powerful punch. With twice the power, the Stirling was quick to outshine several other types.
The bomber proved to be a fantastic warbird that was of excellent service to the RAF as the first of its kind. However, it should have been much more.
As author Murray Peden put it: (QUOTE) “But for its needless maiming at birth by the short-sighted planners who conjured up the Air Ministry specifications, the Stirling might well have out-performed even the great Lancaster…
—
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don’t hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.
source
it always amazes me that every subject that dark docs ect cover never seem to have relevant video, its either lazy or disrespectful to the subject matter or the viewer, find the relevant film for the subject or make documentaries about the film and video you do have.
The very first sentence is as follows "At a time when most Royal Air Force four engine bombers were twin engined designs—
Where would Dark Skies be without WW2?
At 5.20 Tricycle Undercarriage !!!!!!! ? Learn your subject
I always think of the Stirling and photos of that a/c taken at Woolfox Lodge. It is on a lonely stretch of the A1 in Rutland and now, there is an equally isolated small industrial estate. I used to be able to see the runway too. I recall in the mid-1950s seeing a picture in the Daily Telegraph of one being pulled out of a bog 'somewhere in England'; what a treasure that would be today!
The Stirling, just another British flying coffin.
Just to echo other comments, so much footage of Lancasters when talking about Stirlings is really off-putting, particularly when describing the features of a Stirling and showing a Lancaster.
most of the aircraft depicted are not Short Stirlings!
More controversial than the Me163?
And 6:03 that's a B-29, not an S.29!
Quite poor claudication between the images and commentary. For anyone coming to it with little knowledge this would he very far from helpful.
It was also the quote "tricycle undercarriage" is completely wrong.
Unfortunately this is definitely not one of your best. More attention to detail please. 🤔🙄👎
Your video clips seem to put in random aircraft at random times for no good reason. Why?
If you are going to concentrate on the Short Stirling, then please drop all the photos of the twin tail fin Avro Lancaster. I can understand that it pads the video out but that is all it does.
not up to the usual standards especially when introducing Meteors and Vampires into the footage and mentioning the tricycle undercarriage of the Stirling. Could do better.
I see more Lancasters here then Stirlings….
Way too much Lancaster, way too little Stirling. In fact there's almost no Stirling footage at all. Very odd.
There were so many goddamn different planes in this video I'm not sure which was the Stirling!
It's sad that not one Stirling survived to make it into a museum.
The Air Ministry, often had absurd ideas for aircraft. I heard once when they ordered some of the US P=38s, they wanted them with two right turning engines, instead of the one right and one left turning. Of course the idea did not work, and they had to be returned to the original design. But at the same time, they did get some amazing aircraft built during the war.
2 mains and a tail wheel is not tricycle gear. Tricycle is 2 mains and a nose. 2 mains and a tail wheel is conventional
I have spoken personally with many Stirling pilots, and agree that almost to a man, they enjoyed the maneuverability of the aircraft relative to its size, and placed great trust in its sturdiness. In addition to its obvious altitude limitations, important observations were made by at least one commenter below about the compartmentalized Stirling bomb bay which would have made further modifications impractical. I too, can't help but echo the comments of almost everyone ahead of me in the comments section. The unbelievably high percentage of shots of aircraft types other than Stirlings (note the spelling for those who refer to it as a "Sterling"), distracts greatly from the presentation. One spends their time concentrating on what type of airplane is in the shot (almost never Stirlings) rather than listening to the dialogue. Perhaps the next presentation on Stirlings could be made up exclusively of shots of B-52s, MiG Foxbats, 747s, Avro 504Ks, German Gothas, F-14s, and Hamilcar gliders. At least the last mentioned could be tangentially relevant as something the Stirling glider tugs pulled around from time to time. Everything else would be just as irrelevant. Having said that, kudos for one important thing you certainly got right. You mention "acclaimed author" Murray Peden, and are quite right to accent his prowess as a writer, Stirling pilot, and authoritative commentator on life in Bomber Command. I can say that definitively because he was my father! 🙂
Lots of lovely footage of many different types of RAF aircraft – Lancasters, Halifaxes, Wellingtons, an Avro Anson or two, an Airspeed Oxford, a post-war Avro Lincoln, Blenheims, the interior of a B-29, an He 111 cockpit, some P-38's, and even a Gloster Meteor, and a couple of B-17s. Some nice footage of a Sunderland III, but oddly, precious little footage of the magnificent Short Stirling itself. Maybe footage is short – it would be a pity if it were. I prefer the Stirling over the Lancaster and the Halifax any day. It's a genuine unsung hero of the war.
Padding out a video with irrelevant footage yet again, this is getting tiring.
Why use so much fotage of lancs and other bombers?
Very underrated Plane in my opinion
Another good video with a terrible click bait title
So much crap on this channel and wrong pictures of different or just plain wrong aircraft depicted, I've finally unsubscribed!
The footage of meteors seems particularly anachronistic. I had thought the wing span/hangar door thing was definitive, so interesting to hear this challenged.
Too much video of other aircraft ruined a great story.
The opening sentence confusing: at a time when four-engine bombers were two-engine designs. Huh? <10% footage actually relevant to the Sterling. Everything else from B18 Bolos to Meteors and Vampires 🤪
If only the aircraft developer had been named Long . . .
This channels selection of aircraft footage for it's videos of specific planes is like making a documentary about the Beatles and using a soundtrack featuring the 'Stones, The Yardbirds, and some Cream, along with some Beach Boys and The Doors. Entertaining for sure, but it does sort of undermine the credibility of the whole thing
The wing span was indeed made smaller to fit into existing hangers, i did research this question way back in 19968.
Much more could have been said about the many serious deficiencies of the Short Stirling, for example, its very awkwardly designed bomb bay which meant that bombs larger than a 2,000 pounder would not fit inside, the frequent and potentially lethal problems with the gargantuan main undercarriage system, and the dangerously low service ceiling (typically 14,000 feet) which compelled the aircraft to suffer medium calibre anti-aircraft fire that Halifaxes and Lancasters could overfly with impunity. Stirlings were taken out of the front line as soon as possible, and relegated to duties such as target tugs, supplying materiel and dropping paratroops. The RAF was glad to get rid of the Type, and there was no postwar enthusiasm for saving a single example, even the one that was exhibited next to St Pauls's Cathedral in London, although a few museums do have parts of the Type on display. Over the years there have been proposals to recover and restore substantially complete but quite corroded crash-landed examples from marshes and shallow lakes, but nothing has ever proven viable. The Short Sunderland was by contrast a fine aircraft.
Mr Dark Skies looses so much credibility when the footage contains so many aircraft that are not Sterlings. Does he actually know anything about the subject.
Ok, (Paraphase)"after the start of WWll, the American and the Russians developed bombers with 4 smaller engines"… Then immediately after that statement 'In 1936 blah blah blah…. The war didn't start 'til '39 wtf??? darkskies do you think your audience are idiots????
The most random video behind some interesting history!
Sometimes I'm thinking Dark is using the wrong footage of another vehicle, ship or aircraft etc. in his videos ON PURPOSE. Just to check the comments and find out if we are paying attention and if we can recognize the different types of vehicle, ship or aircraft etc. – and is getting some kind of "dark" satisfaction to notice that we do (or don't). I know he claims he doesn't always have the appropriate stock footage but sometimes it just ridiculous.
I am sorry but I will have to downvote this particular video. The amount of wrong footage is simply staggering. He must know he is doing this. Contempt for the viewer? Interest only in the YouTube algorithm, the amount of comments even though they are negative?
Oh, dear, so many problems with this video – not least the footage of a Lancaster whilst describing the look of a Stirling about half way through the film.😢
The video is definitely misleading and incorrect. I only saw 2 Short ( pun intended) videos and every other Allied aircraft. Even B-18's. The aircraft did not have tricycle landing gear.
talk about the stirling yet show a lancaster , what a joke
The Stirling was a beautiful ship
This particular video WILL most definitely appeal to fans of the inglorious "FAIREY BATTLE"
I saw MORE footage of the "FAIREY BATTLE" than the supposed subject matter…. "Short" something or other ????
On the plus side, he didn't "knock it" , as so many others unrighteously do….
Personally, I've LOVED & still do LOVE the "Short Stirling" since I built my 1st, around early 1971
Not a lot of people know this, but, Short Stirlings flew their last bombing raids in Jan'1948 – (& killed people too)
Nov' 1947, Dec'1947 & then finally , twice in Jan' 1948 – Ironic, as they were Ex-RAF converted Mk.IV's
( in other words, the "transport type" model – they had to be field converted, by their desperate owners ! )
Dark Skies does this with every one of their videos, I'm not sure if whoever writes the dialog is way more informative than the person creating the video portion.
terrible lazy editing, keeps showing the jet powered Gloster Meteor and the Avro Lancaster
"when most Royal Air Force four-engine bombers were twin-engined designs," puts this video off to a bad start.
Excellent information, but its a pitty the footage still typically doesn't match up with the subject. You sure do like to torment your viewers who are in the-know. On that, I am less inclined to give anymore "likes" here…just watch & move on. Cheers.