# Fiat CR.42 vs Gloster Gladiator



## Colin1 (Sep 4, 2009)

Fiat CR.42 *:Name:* Gloster Gladiator

27.13ft (8.27m) *:Length:* 27.43ft (8.36m)
31.82ft (9.7m) *:Width:* 32.25ft (9.83m)
11.78ft (3.59m) *:Height:* 10.33ft (3.15m)
1 *:Crew:* 1

267mph (430km/h) *:Maximum speed:* 257mph (407km/h)
482 miles (775Kms) *:Maximum range:* 428 miles (689Kms)
2,340ft/min (713m/min) *:Rate of climb:* 2,220ft (677m/min)
33,465ft (10,200m) *:Service ceiling:* 33,500ft (10,211m)

3,929lbs (1,782Kgs) *:Empty weight:* 3,450lbs (1,565Kgs)
5,066lbs (2,298Kgs) *:Max take-off weight:* 4,864lbs (2,206Kgs)

1 x Fiat A.74 R1C 14-cyl radial @ 840hp *owerplant:* 1 x Bristol Mercury IX 9-cyl radial @ 840hp

2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mg with underwing 2 x 12.7mm mg or 440lbs bombs *:Armament:* 2 x 7.7mm Browning mg prop-sync'd with underwing 2 x 7.7mm mg

21lb/sq ft (102Kg/sq m) *:Wing loading:* 15lb/sq ft (73Kg/sq m)
0.17hp/lb (0.270kW/kg) *ower to weight:* 0.63hp/lb (1.04kW/kg)


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 4, 2009)

Well, I will say the Fiat for a number of reasons:

Armament: X 4 12.7 mm vs the Gladiators 4 7.7mm machine guns 

Top speed: The Cr.42 was significantly faster and the Gladiator and would outmaneuver the Gladiator in the vertical. But in a prolonged turning fight the Gladiator may out turn the Cr. 42 

The Cr.42 seems to have a pretty good combat record against monoplanes fighters. The Gladiator didn't. 

Reading a book it said the Cr.42 was made of less flamable materials which is better for obvious reasons. 

Just a few thoughts........based on a quick bit of reading, the info provided and reading on wiki....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 4, 2009)

I like the CR.42 for the same reason as above, with the addition of the seemingly cleaner lines.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 4, 2009)

Before I vote
how does the CR.42 weighing in heavier than the Gladiator, climb faster with the same rated horsepower?


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 4, 2009)

Another interesting thread would be the Pzl. 24 vs the I-15 vs the Cr. 42


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 4, 2009)

I was trying to figure that out as well Colin, plus the Gladiator has an enclosed cockpit.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 4, 2009)

power to weight of Gladiator is wrong please recalculete it, 
C.R. 42 max speed it's 274 mph (with engine a 2520rpm, the 840 hp output it's a 2400 rpm), common weaponry it's 2 -12.7 the underwing guns was "optional" for fighter bomber version (guns or bombs).
i've read, now i don't remember where, that C.R. 42 outturned Gladiator ( i know that w.l. it's highest but i so reading and i believe was in english)


----------



## parsifal (Sep 4, 2009)

what are the combat records of Gladiator versus CR42.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 5, 2009)

here Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiator in Commonwealth squadron service you can see from british point of view.
for Malta there are data for both side, Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42, there are 1 C.R. 42 shoot down from Gladiators and 1 Gladiator shoot down from C.R. 42s. 
Maybe interesting find some belgian report they have both in service


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 6, 2009)

Love both machines!


----------



## snafud1 (Sep 6, 2009)

I like the CR42. Cleaner lines and was very maneuverable for it's weight. Not saying I don't like the Gladiater though.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 6, 2009)

When I first read this poll I figured I would have gone with the Gladiator. But after reading about both I have to go with the Fiat.

Interestingly to me, apparently they put a 1,010hp DB 601A engine in one at the speed jumped up to 323mph, but no production.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 7, 2009)

Dunno about that DB601...just imagine if they crammed a BMW 801 in the front of that Fiat!

That rascal would come out the gate smokin'!


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2009)

Hello
RN personel at Yeovilton made during WWII some unofficial dogfight testing CR 42 vs Gladiator. Oppinion of onlookers was that CR 42 won.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 7, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Dunno about that DB601...just imagine if they crammed a BMW 801 in the front of that Fiat!
> 
> That rascal would come out the gate smokin'!



A CR.42 on Steroids you mean?


----------



## Civettone (Sep 22, 2009)

I've read that the DB 601 build never happened. The max speed figure was theoretical. 


Kris


----------



## Juha (Sep 23, 2009)

Hello Cris
one was built. There is a photo on it in Air Enthusiast 20.

Juha


----------



## RAF_Loke (Sep 25, 2009)

It all comes down to the skills of the pilot.


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 26, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Before I vote
> how does the CR.42 weighing in heavier than the Gladiator, climb faster with the same rated horsepower?



Hello Colin

J have asked to myself the same question.

In theory, the Gladiator having the same power to weight ratio *but* lower wing loading should be the best climber.

But there might be some explanation:

- The Falco had a constant-speed propeller giving better output at low speeds.
- The Falco being a sesquiplane (the under wing had 50% or less aera than the top one) had better aerodynamical efficiency than a pure biplane like the Gladiator.
- Some mistake in rate of climbing values: there are obviously _mean_ and not_ instant_ ones. It's better to compare planes by curves and not numbers. Since Falco maintained power at higher altitude, the _mean_ value is better for that one



From belgian site:
Site du 350ieme Squadron

the Fiat was considered as the best biplane, even if it was bought for desesperate reasons, not by choice: other modenr planes being unavalable for import.

It suffered from technical troubles but was popular with its pilots.

Difficult to found testimonys ower days about belgians CR-42 vs Gladiator in simulated fights. Moroever by late 39/ early 40 both were considered as obsolete equaly by gen Coppens and the bulk of fighter pilots. That explains maybe the lack of interest for such an experiment

Regards


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 26, 2009)

Great info VG.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 27, 2009)

Which was the German equivalent to the CR.42 and the Gladiator, did they have any?


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 27, 2009)

They had the Fieseler Fi 167, Hs 123, Hs 126 and I don't know what others and how they matched up to the Cr.42 Falco or Gladiator. 

I know Germany had some Falcos


----------



## Juha (Sep 27, 2009)

The last biplane fighter used by LW was IIRC Arado Ar 68, some were still in use in Sept 39 as night fighters IIRC.

Juha


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 27, 2009)

Ar 68 was one ugly looking beast.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 27, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Which was the German equivalent to the CR.42 and the Gladiator, did they have any?



i think we can reply with Bf 109, the Gladiator it's only a few months oldest of 109 (seeing the operational date)


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 27, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> i think we can reply with Bf 109, the Gladiator it's only a few months oldest of 109 (seeing the operational date)


Didn't Henschel have a biplane contemporary of the Gladiator?


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 27, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Didn't Henschel have a biplane contemporary of the Gladiator?



Yes he did, but the Hs 123 was never used as a fighter, only for ground support missions AFAIK.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2009)

I can't find it anymore. I recall seeing the CR 42DB picture so now I remember it was built. But I distinctly remember that maximum speed was theoretical and never achieved. But as I can't come up with where I read it ... just disregard (for now)  






Kris


----------



## dragonandhistail (Oct 19, 2009)

Does anyone have the record of the Gladiator vs. the CR42? I would think the quality and aggressiveness of British pilots would win out hands down?


----------



## Marcel (Oct 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Didn't Henschel have a biplane contemporary of the Gladiator?



I think you mean the Heinkel He51


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 19, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> Does anyone have the record of the Gladiator vs. the CR42? I would think the quality and aggressiveness of British pilots would win out hands down?



from hakans page, see my old topic in thread 1st page , raf claims around 1:6 (1 gladiator for 6 42) saaf claims 1:1.5
actually loss over malta 1 gladiator from 42 and a 42 from gladiator


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2009)

Unless he ment the Henschel Hs 123 but that was a dive bomber/close support plane.

Henschel Hs 123


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 19, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Unless he meant the Henschel Hs123 but that was a dive bomber/close support plane


He did
but is it realistic to exclude it from comparison on the basis of applied role? I don't believe combat aircraft of the Henschel's period were generally specialised enough to be excluded from comparison with one another. For example, comparing the Hs123 (dive bomber/close support) with the Gladiator (fighter) - two unsupercharged, 800 to 900hp-engined biplanes, seems far more feasible than any comparison in the mid- to late-war eg the Ju87 (dive bomber/close support) with the P-51 (fighter), where your argument would be more persuasive.


----------



## Juha (Oct 19, 2009)

Hello Colin
both Mercury VIII and BMW 132 had single speed single stage supercharger and IMHO in late 30s one put more weight on manoeuvrabilityand rate of climb when designing a fighter and more weight on sturdiness when designing a dive bomber.

Juha


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 19, 2009)

Juha said:


> both Mercury VIII and BMW 132 had single-speed single-stage supercharger and IMHO in late 30s one put more weight on manoeuvrability and rate of climb when designing a fighter and more weight on sturdiness when designing a dive bomber


My mistake
I did just do some background and whereas the two types compare favourably in a general sense, the Henschel suffers for max speed being some 40mph slower and service ceiling, that being some 3,500ft lower than the Gladiator.
It does however, climb faster and with underslung 2 x MG FF complementing its 2 x 7.92mm mgs, outguns the RAF fighter.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2009)

but those werent standard of course.


Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> He did
> but is it realistic to exclude it from comparison on the basis of applied role? I don't believe combat aircraft of the Henschel's period were generally specialised enough to be excluded from comparison with one another. For example, comparing the Hs123 (dive bomber/close support) with the Gladiator (fighter) - two unsupercharged, 800 to 900hp-engined biplanes, seems far more feasible than any comparison in the mid- to late-war eg the Ju87 (dive bomber/close support) with the P-51 (fighter), where your argument would be more persuasive.



Well, try slinging a 550lb bomb under a Gladiator and then performing a steep dving attack. Part of the design criteria even if rarely, if ever, used in service. or try slinging an over 400lb bomb container under each wing of the Gladiator. Henschel first flew in 1935. How new does an aircraft have to be in order for it to be "specialised"?

As for speed, I wonder just how Fast the Gladiator was at 4,000ft instead of 14,000ft? 
A little diffence in the Altitude the engines were set up for?


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 20, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, try slinging a 550lb bomb under a Gladiator and then performing a steep dving attack. Part of the design criteria even if rarely, if ever, used in service. or try slinging an over 400lb bomb container under each wing of the Gladiator. Henschel first flew in 1935. How new does an aircraft have to be in order for it to be "specialised"?
> 
> As for speed, I wonder just how Fast the Gladiator was at 4,000ft instead of 14,000ft?
> A little diffence in the Altitude the engines were set up for?


The Gladiator would probably fold up. I think you're taking my point a little to the extreme; designs of the mid-30s were generally biplane with a powerplant somewhere in the 600-900hp bracket. The constraints of airframe design and powerplant output really limited how differently aircraft, even where 'designed for role' would look and perform. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that there was a world of difference between the Gladiator and the Hs123.

The question of how new does an aircraft have to be in order for it to be specialised isn't clear cut. The Hs123 was clearly specialised for dive-bombing. Even WWI types quickly starting defining themselves into fighters and bombers. At the point in aircraft design where the Hs123 and Gladiator were prevalent designs, I don't think the two types, for single-engined, single-seater biplanes were sufficiently different to be called apples and oranges. As stipulated earlier, this was down to powerplant and airframe design limitations of the time.

Step forward to the mid- to late-war and the two examples I cited of the Ju87 and the P-51 are of the same two roles, that of dive bomber and fighter. The advances in airframe design and powerplant have further evolved the aircraft along the divergent paths started by the Hs123 and Gladiator, only now the difference is beginning to count; whereas a combat encounter between the former is feasible, the same between the latter pair is something of a foregone conclusion.

If you're suggesting that low altitude slowed the Gladiator down to the Hs123's ballpark, doesn't that rather make my point?


----------



## VG-33 (Oct 30, 2009)

I will quote the Gladiator,

Not a rationnal choice. The single pilot's testimony i have found from a belgian pilot (Jenz or Jentz ?) was in favor of the british plane.

It should be noted that belgian pilots were not accustomised enough with their italian bi-planes, because of their late deliveries, and the english technical support being much better.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 31, 2009)

Yes that's completely true VG. Good point!



Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 31, 2009)

The C.R. 42 ordered in ealry december delivery started in march near completeded at invasion, the 42s fightning almost until 3 june
The gladiator (in service since '37) fightning only until 11 may. in other words no more gladiator were in flying conditon (shood down, destroyed on groud, damaged ..)


----------



## Civettone (Nov 4, 2009)

It is surprising to see that in this poll the CR.42 is considered to be a bit better while in the other poll the Gladiator is preferred over the CR.42 


Kris


----------



## Civettone (Nov 16, 2009)

Perhaps these links have already been provided:

Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42
Hkans Aviation page - Known claims with the Fiat CR.42 Falco over Malta 1940-42
Hkans Aviation page - Known claims with the Gloster Gladiator over Malta 1940-41
These last two are the claims over Malta. In the footnotes the claims are compared to actual data.

Kris


----------

