# Could the Biplane fighter have been improved any further



## fastmongrel (May 30, 2010)

We all know that the Biplane fighter was history after the late 30s with the advent of metal, retractable undercarriage monoplanes like the 109 and Spitfire. 

If we pretend that the monoplane fighter was for some reason a disaster and never got into production and all the major airforces carried on with the development of the Biplane. What sort of performance could have been expected from an ultimate Biplane fighter using the same engines and technology as were available in real life.

Comparing an advanced Biplane fighter with all the latest aerodynamic refinements a metal monocoque fuselage, metal wings with a minimum of struts and wires (the Henschel Hs 123 seemed to have few or possibly no wires and only 2 large struts between the wings and 2 small ones from the fuselage to the upper wing), a bubble hood, retractable undercarriage and a Merlin 1,500hp V12 to the P51D Mustang. How much slower is the Biplane going to be, I imagine aerobatic performance might be better with the bigger wings and possibly climb might be quite good but where is this imaginary plane really going to struggle.

I like the idea of the Battle of Britain fought by advanced Biplanes from Bristol and Gloster on one side and Arado and Fiesler on the other


----------



## Colin1 (May 30, 2010)

The advantages:
- shorter airstrips 
- better turnfighter
- probably more chance of bringing an injured bird down more safely
- better lift characteristics eg carrier ops
- improved high-altitude performance

The disadvantages:
- the fastest monoplanes at war's end were in the 450 - 500mph bracket, I seriously doubt the fastest biplanes would be anywhere near that even if the secondary wing was purely a lift device ie no armament, fuel etc
- I'm not sure where this secondary wing would be positioned wrt the cockpit but I'm guessing the pilot's battlespace visibility is going to be significantly compromised
- I'm guessing shorter range although I daresay this might only be noticeable at escort distances


----------



## timshatz (May 30, 2010)

To what end? What are you going to get from a biplane that you couldn't get with a monoplane? Manuverability is overated when compared to speed. At least to a point. And that point is way beyond the viabilty of a biplane.

Yes, it could've been improved. But it wouldn't have mattered. It's like saying the musket could've been improved by making it an automatic, changing this and that, ect. But it's still not as good as the same design as a rifle.


----------



## The Basket (May 30, 2010)

An interesting question.

Thing is...the Ultimate Biplane was never built...

So the question is yes it could have been improved.

But why bother. 

The Antanov An-2 rules though!


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 30, 2010)

I always wondered if a delta winged or truly swept back biplane would have offered anything special.


----------



## Colin1 (May 31, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I always wondered if a delta winged or truly swept back biplane would have offered anything special.


TWO much heavier wing sections instead of one for even less gain

Not really related to your question but here's a stab at rediscovering the advantages of biplane lift from 1943:

*Below:* In-flight views of the Hillson FH.40 'slip-wing' Hurricane. Using an old Hurricane I (originally L1884 which was sent out to Canada, re-registered as 321 and returned to the UK) this scheme was intended as a means of providing extra lift for take-off from small airfields. The top wing was then jettisoned in flight. The scheme was abandoned in 1943.


----------



## Colin1 (May 31, 2010)

*Below:* The Hillson FH.40 Hurricane slip-wing aircraft


----------



## Knegel (May 31, 2010)

Hi,

i guess the latest and best Bi-Plane fighter was the I-153, though it had a real draggy engine it was otherwise rather modern(retakeable gear, no wires, only a few struts, a rather good pilot view for a Bi-plane.


The main problem of Bi-Planes was turbulences between the wings at higher speed, reducing the effectivity of the wings. To overcome this the distance between the wings had to be very big, but this result in several problems to mount the wings in a aerodynamical good way.


An advantage would be that with same aspectratio and wing area, the wing span would be reduced by about 1/3, this could have a good impact to the roll ratio. 
On the other hand its then rather difficult to create 4 alerons to take advantage of this.

A disadvantage would be that the lower wings are way smaler and so not as stable as big wings, as such it would be difficult to mount guns and bombs there, without to increase the wingspan to twice the size of a mono wing plane.

Heavy wingloaded Bi-Planes could have been interesting as carrier fighters or interceptors with nose mounted guns. The smal wing span would have been an advantage and the possibly better roll agility as well.

Still i think Bi-planes got into a dead end when the speeds got higher than 400km/h and specialy when the wings should carry load.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 31, 2010)

timshatz said:


> To what end? What are you going to get from a biplane that you couldn't get with a monoplane? Manuverability is overated when compared to speed. At least to a point. And that point is way beyond the viabilty of a biplane.
> 
> Yes, it could've been improved. But it wouldn't have mattered. It's like saying the musket could've been improved by making it an automatic, changing this and that, ect. But it's still not as good as the same design as a rifle.



I didnt say the Biplane should have been updated I am posing a what if. In some paralell world the monoplane has been a failure or never got developed because of say a Washington treaty of the air. 

I want to consider how the Biplane could have been developed if it had been the only fighter available.


----------



## Knegel (May 31, 2010)

hmmm, but thats a very strange "what if", cause thats like starting a "what if cannons and .50cal guns would have been a failsure" discussion, where all planes only would carry max .30cal´s.

The step from the Bi-plane to the mono wing plane was same logical like the step from the smal MG´s to the big weapons. To go around this would be like not not creating an engine powered plane when you already have a good working glider.

In our world, with our physical law, at speeds above lets say 400km/h the discrepancy between Bi-Plane and Mono-Wing plane turn to be so extreme in favour to the latter, its realy not good possible, neighter sencefull to discuss such things. 

Bi-Planes, with their natural slow speed, only was usefull, as long as the speed differences between the planes and the acceleration and max velocity was so extreme smal/slow and additonally no plating was used, that running away nearly never was an option, cause the range of even the early MG´s was good enough to shoot you down. At this time turn performence and climb performence was all and everything. But already at the end of WWII it got clear that planes like the SpadXIII(heavy) and FokkerDIII(monowing) had real advantages. 

Later, at a time when one hard manouver fast had a seperation of many hundret meters as result, turning wasnt that important anymore. 
In Japan much to late they got aware of this and even in England they took a while to realise the advantage of pure speed plus team fight over turn performence. 

And if you meet a faster plane, you want to have a fast plane as well and then, at one point, you cant get around a mono wing plane, specialy when the wing also shal carry the undercarriage and/or guns. Same like you cant get around bigger guns when you face a B17. 

If you look to the history, the fast mono wing bombers was the cause for the need of faster fighters. But for the bombers its the same, you want to get as fast as possible to the target and back, so at one point you had to use a mono wing plane.


----------



## timshatz (May 31, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> I didnt say the Biplane should have been updated I am posing a what if. In some paralell world the monoplane has been a failure or never got developed because of say a Washington treaty of the air.
> 
> I want to consider how the Biplane could have been developed if it had been the only fighter available.



Ok, let's go with the premiss that monoplanes are banned. Two things would most likely happen.

1. The power increase would continue and the amount of frontal area that a biplane produces with regards to wing length would decrease. As Knegal notes, speed increase leads to a shorter wing but further apart. Probably a lot less, if any, wire support (ska, I-153). A very good point. 

What you are essentially heading for is the same relative frontage facing the incoming wind as with a monoplane. I doubt you would get it, but the general design would probably head that way. Think of an F4f Wildcat with a shorter length wing but two of them. 

2. Some countries (probably most)) are going to realize they're whipping a dead horse and start to cheat. The Western Countries will probably try developing monoplanes and calling it testing/research. The Nazis will just lie and say they are not doing what they are doing. The Japanese will say it's all unfair and drop out of the treaty then start building them. Which is pretty much what everyone did in the Washington treaty.

But having put that much work into biplanes, kind of an un-natural extension of their existance, they would doubtless be more of them during WW2. Probably some liason/scouting/support work with some lite ground attack thrown in. 

But, by the time of the war, the Monoplane would've been far ahead of them (assuming this treaty, like the Washing treaty, collapses). So much so that the biplane would've been relagated to a supporting role, much like the BB did during WW2. Suffice to say, by the 1940s, the time of the Battleship and the Biplane had passed.


----------



## gumbyk (May 31, 2010)

> 1. The power increase would continue and the amount of frontal area that a biplane produces with regards to wing length would decrease. As Knegal notes, speed increase leads to a shorter wing but further apart. Probably a lot less, if any, wire support (ska, I-153). A very good point.



Why would they be further apart? IMO, the stagger of the wings would increase, with one wing being further forward so that the pressure envelopes of the two wings didn't overlap. You'd probably have ended up with a lay-out similar to this:


----------



## vinnye (May 31, 2010)

Gumbyk, I like that design - very interesting!
I wonder what would happen with swept or delata wings in that arrangement?
Especially if the front one was smaller and had variable pitch - like the Euro fighter etc?


----------



## gumbyk (May 31, 2010)

The problem you would have with delta wings is that they wouldn't be able to over-lap them, and, due to the area of the delta, it would make for a longer aircraft.

Swept wings would solve that problem, and the way the wings are set up, with the forward wing being set a a slightly lower angle than the rear wing, would solve the stall characteristic problems of swept wings.
An aircraft with this arrangement, with swept wings would definitely be interesting, however, it would also be less efficient than an aircraft with a single main wing.


----------



## Waynos (May 31, 2010)

This thread reminded of this picture. How might the biplane have evolved into the jet age?


----------



## Hardrada55 (May 31, 2010)

Polikarpov I-195 was a project for an alleged 367mph biplane






The Russian Polikarpov I-190 of 1940 could do 300 mph. 











The Italian CR 42B could do 323mph. 






In 1937 the French experimented with the Bleriot Spad 710 biplane with a butterfly tail, retractable undercarriage, enclosed cockpit, engine mounted 20mm cannon. It was supposed to fly 280 mph.






Though interesting and impressive in their own rights, I don't think any of the above biplanes were good enough to challenge any contemporary monoplanes though. Anyone remember seeing cover art on an old Analog sci-fi magazine of a jet powered biplane?


----------



## gumbyk (May 31, 2010)

Waynos,
that may have worked at low speed, but I think that, like the Hurricane, the top wing was dsicarded prior to higher-speed flight. 
Just from eye-balling it, there doesn't appear to be much stagger on those wings.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 1, 2010)

I cannot say what the theory behind this photoshop was, so that is possible, or it might just be a jet biplane 

There was actually a jet biplane built and flown, the PZL M-15 of 1978.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 1, 2010)

gumbyk said:


> Why would they be further apart? IMO, the stagger of the wings would increase, with one wing being further forward so that the pressure envelopes of the two wings didn't overlap. You'd probably have ended up with a lay-out similar to this:



Gumb, wouldn't the flow of air coming over the front, lower wing, disrupt the airflow over the back, higher wing. It looks like you'd be flying in your own wash with the second wing.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 1, 2010)

The wash from the wings tends to flow downward, there's no noticeable affect on the rear wing. There's actually about 18 inches of height difference from memory.


----------



## Markus (Jun 1, 2010)

One word: Drag! 

It increases with the square of the speed, so a biplane would always be slower than a monoplane with the same kind of engine. The second wing would add lift, so if you need a fast climbing interceptor with a moderate speed in level flight a bi-plane might be useful.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 1, 2010)

I wonder if wings configured like an X-Wing from Star Wars would work.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 1, 2010)

VB,
That configuration would have some problems with the interference between the two wings (when in the 'X' configuration)

If you could somehow overcome this (maybe with a variable stagger distance) it would be possible, I guess. But I would think it would suffer the same issues as all variable-geometry aircraft - the weight/complexity problems would outweigh any performance benefits.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2010)

What about a carrier based bi-plane used solely for ASW work? Speed and maneuverability means little. Carrying a large fuel supply, radar and depth charges would make it heavy, thus a biplane with high lift wings might be a useful design.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 2, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> What about a carrier based bi-plane used solely for ASW work? Speed and maneuverability means little. Carrying a large fuel supply, radar and depth charges would make it heavy, thus a biplane with high lift wings might be a useful design.



There was one it was called the Fairy Swordfish


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> There was one it was called the Fairy Swordfish




It was primarily a torpedo bomber. Not a design from the start dedicated ASW aircraft.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 2, 2010)

I actually could see a need for something like that.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 2, 2010)

Apparently they were pretty effective.

They were so slow that the fighters had a hard time getting on target


----------



## Markus (Jun 2, 2010)

gumbyk said:


> Apparently they were pretty effective.
> 
> They were so slow that the fighters had a hard time getting on target



Operation Cerberus ??? The Stringbag did not do that well there, didn´t she?


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 2, 2010)

Just rumours and innuendo that I had heard, no firm evidence there.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 3, 2010)

The attack by Swordfish on the 3 German ships was never going to go well. Only 6 aircraft some with inexperienced crews were sent. They lost there fighter escort, were under constant attack by Luftwaffe fighters and attacking 3 ships with excellent modern anti aircraft systems yet still the attack was pressed home even though the crews must have known it was a suicidal mission. One Stringbag is believed to have scored a hit on Gniesanu but the fish was a dud. I have read one source that says the torpedo worked but hit the main armour belt and did no damage.

This is the citation that was published with the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross to the squadron leader

_The KING is pleased to approve the grant of the VICTORIA CROSS, for valour and resolution in action against the Enemy, to:

The late Lieutenant-Commander (A) Eugene Esmonde, D.S.O., Royal Navy.

On the morning of Thursday, 12th February, 1942, Lieutenant-Commander Esmonde, in command of a Squadron of the Fleet Air Arm, was told that the German Battle-Cruisers SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU and the Cruiser PRINZ EUGEN, strongly escorted by some thirty surface craft, were entering the Straits of Dover, and that his Squadron must attack before they reached the sand-banks North East of Calais.

Lieutenant-Commander Esmonde knew well that his enterprise was desperate. Soon after noon he and his squadron of six Swordfish set course for the Enemy, and after ten minutes flight were attacked by a strong force of Enemy fighters. Touch was lost with his fighter escort; and in the action which followed all his aircraft were damaged. He flew on, cool and resolute, serenely challenging hopeless odds, to encounter the deadly fire of the Battle-Cruisers and their Escort, which shattered the port wing of his aircraft. Undismayed, he led his Squadron on, straight through this inferno of fire, in steady flight towards their target. Almost at once he was shot down; but his Squadron went on to launch a gallant attack, in which at least one torpedo is believed to have struck the German Battle-Cruisers, and from which not one of the six aircraft returned.

His high courage and splendid resolution will live in the traditions of the Royal Navy, and remain for many generations a fine and stirring memory._


----------



## timshatz (Jun 3, 2010)

Always wondered if anybody survived from the 6 aircraft. Know they were all shot down, but....

Also, did fighters get them all or were some lost to AAA. Anybody know?


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 3, 2010)

I stand corrected....


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 4, 2010)

As the sensible comments have paused, may I ask if the SAAB Viggen counts


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 4, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Always wondered if anybody survived from the 6 aircraft. Know they were all shot down, but....
> 
> Also, did fighters get them all or were some lost to AAA. Anybody know?



5 crew survived out of 18. 4 Were pilots probably because the only protection on a Swordfish was the Bristol Pegasus radial engine. The air gunner and navigator were horibly exposed and had only the steel tube frame and light metal sheet and canvas cladding. 

I have done a bit of reading on the action. The fighter cover and AA seem to have shared the planes it seems that the fighters badly damaged most if not all the Swordfish claiming half aircraft with the with AA finishing the job. The Swordfish was actually a very tough aircraft to down. The Pegasus radial was well known to be able to keep running with 1 or even 2 cylinders missing and the tubular frame could also maintain strength with parts missing. 

I doubt if any contemporary torpedo aircraft could have done any better. Torpedo attacks against fighter defence and modern AA were a death ride because of the need to fly slow and straight and level during the run.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 4, 2010)

Thanks for the post Fast. Agree with you that Torpedo Pilots of all nations were virtual suiciders in any kind of determined resistance. Especially if the Fighters hadn't been neutralized. 

Once those guys spread out to make their drops (or drop in small groups), they are horrible exposed and slow. It doesn't take #1 graduate of AAA school to make hits on them. 

Rough job.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 21, 2010)

While reading _Soviet Air Power in World War 2_ by Yefim Gordon I came across this little guy.







It's the Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1 that was equipped with a lower wing that folded into the fuselage and the upper wing when the landing gear was folded in.





Outlined to show where it folded into.

I could see the potential to expanding this. The STOL performance of a biplane with the speed of a monoplane.

Pics from Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1 - experimental fighter


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 21, 2010)

VB that is pretty interesting. did they give any performance reviews..or did it even fly or was it just a proposed prototype?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 21, 2010)

Can't find my book with the IS in it but there also was an IS-4 with a 1400hp AM-37 engine. There is a nice cut-away drawing.

IS-4, Nikitin-Shevchenko

_Nikitin's test pilot, Vladimir Vasiloyevich Schyevchyenko investigated the practicality of a bi-plane fighter with a folding lower wing which retracted into the upper wing. The intention being to combine the short field length and climb capabilities of the bi-plane with the speed of the monoplane fighter. Assisted by Nikitin in his investigation, Schyevchyenko built a scale model at MAT in 1939. Later in 1939 OKB-30 were tasked with the design and manufacture of the full-scale IS, which was completed by 6 November 1940.

The fuselage forward of the cockpit, wing spar booms and the combined lower inner wing and undercarriage assemblies were built up from welded 30KhGSA steel tubing, whist the rest of the airframe was constructed from D16 duralumin throughout except for fabric covering on the control surfaces.

The pneumatically actuated inwards retracting undercarriage was housed inside the inner lower-wing which folded at approx ½ span to lie in recesses in the sides of the fuselage. The outer halves of the lower wings remained horizontal as the wings retracted and were housed in recesses in the under-surfaces of the upper wings. Retraction of the wings was carried out by a single vertically mounted pneumatic actuator in the fuselage which unlocked the bracing struts either side and pulled the wing upwards as the bracing strut was pulled upwards.

Control of the undercarriage retraction and wing folding was accomplished with a single three position lever in the cockpit. With 'Chassis Down' selected the wing and undercarriage were extended, selecting 'Chassis Up/Wing Down' retracted the undercarriage into the inner lower wing, and selecting 'Wing Up' retracted the wing, selection of wing position could be made at any time to enable the pilot to choose the best configuration for the situation the aircraft was in.

Flight tests were successful but the performance of the monoplane configuration was inferior to the contemporary monoplane fighters such as the MiG-3 and Yak-1 . A second machine was built fitted with a more powerful engine but flight tests were interrupted by the German invasion in 1941. Even more powerful version were designed with AM-120 or AM-37 engines, however the invasion forced abandonment of the concept._


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 21, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> VB that is pretty interesting. did they give any performance reviews..or did it even fly or was it just a proposed prototype?



According to the book, the IS-1 (900 hp M-63 radial) IS-2 (1,000 hp M88 Radial) both flew. The IS-3 IS-4 were canceled due to the invasion. Page 419 of the book:

"The IS-1 was one of the lightest fighters, having a take-off weight of only 2,300 kg (5,079 lb) and a empty weight of 1,400 kg (3,086 lb). It had an open cockpit; to improve control the rudder and elevator were fitted with trim tabs. During tests the IS-1 showed a maximum speed of 453 km/h (281 mph), a service ceiling of 8,300 m (27,250 ft) and a range of 600 km (372 miles). Climb time to 5,000 m (16,000 ft) was 8.2 minutes. The lower wing and undercarriage extension/retraction system operated faultlessly during testing."


----------



## norab (Nov 21, 2010)

What if you had negative stagger on the upper wing with it set back say 6 feet with swept back wings and the lower forward wings were swept forward ? wouldn't that significantly reduce interference between them?












The Beck Mahoney sorceress did over 200 MPH on a measured course with only a 135 HP engine


----------

