# the last biplane best fighter



## Vincenzo (Sep 1, 2009)

For your what's the last biplane best fighter? 
i try to explain: sure the best biplane fighters it's one of late '30s as gladiator, c.r. 42, i-153 but this are not the best fighter of their time many monoplane fighters were superior, so i look what's the best fighter that was a biplane.
I think the era of biplane was close with polikarpov I-16 so talking late '34 early '35. 
Rule only fighters actually operational in a air force


----------



## Tzaw1 (Sep 1, 2009)

SAAB J-37 Viggen


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 1, 2009)

Tzaw1 said:


> SAAB J-37 Viggen



good fighter sure in imho but a very bit out specifications


----------



## imalko (Sep 1, 2009)

Avia B.534 was still used in fighter role as late as 1944. Credited with last biplane kill in aviation history I believe...


----------



## Altea (Sep 2, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> For your what's the last biplane best fighter?
> i try to explain: sure the best biplane fighters it's one of late '30s as gladiator, c.r. 42, i-153 but this are not the best fighter of their time many monoplane fighters were superior, so i look what's the best fighter that was a biplane.
> I think the era of biplane was close with polikarpov I-16 so talking late '34 early '35.
> Rule only fighters actually operational in a air force



I think about the experimental Polikarpov I-190. The programm failed as the I-180 due to the M-88 reliability problems.

About serial, i would choose the I-153/M-63 at low heights. CR-42 at 6000m.

I dont think that Polikarpov I-16 was a better plane than the I-153. With a same M25V Polikarpov I-153 was (425 - 367) 58 km/h faster than the I-15bis. And only (450-425) 25 km/h *(5%)* slower thant the I-16 tip 10 fitted with the same engine. But it was 17s/11s (*50%!*) better turner for the same price!
Moroever I-153 has at opposite to the I-16 no handling or stability problems. It was impossibe to stall (statically) and as _"idiotproof"_ as a 1800kg/800hp fighter could be.
So if a good pilot became systematically an average one in a plane like the I-16, then an average pilot systematically a good one, in the I-15/I-15bis/I-153 family, just qualified as _'toys for kids"_ by test pilots.

It was one step beyond than CR-42 or Gladiator, those had only the I-15bis aerodynamics level.

Regards


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 2, 2009)

Altea if i'm not in wrong the I-153 (sure one of the best biplane fighter if not the best) was a late '38 fighter so need compare it, for example, with Hurricane maybe also with Spitfire so i don't think I-153 is best of this. the M-63 variant it's also more late, 1940 ?, so need compare with many other superior monoplane. C.R. 42 is a '39 fighter. 
Gladiator it's late 36 early '37 fighter just for a few month can be compared only with I-16 (Type 5 i think) so if you think that Gkadiator it best of I-16, Gladiator it's the choice, but if you think it's best the I-16 need choice a more old biplane


----------



## davparlr (Sep 2, 2009)

I think the Grumman F2F and F3F would certainly be contenders. I think the F3F would barely squeeze in the time frame.


----------



## Altea (Sep 2, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Altea if i'm not in wrong the I-153 (sure one of the best biplane fighter if not the best) was a late '38 fighter so need compare it, for example, with Hurricane maybe also with Spitfire so i don't think I-153 is best of this. the M-63 variant it's also more late, 1940 ?, so need compare with many other superior monoplane. C.R. 42 is a '39 fighter.
> Gladiator it's late 36 early '37 fighter just for a few month can be compared only with I-16 (Type 5 i think) so if you think that Gkadiator it best of I-16, Gladiator it's the choice, but if you think it's best the I-16 need choice a more old biplane



Ok i misunderstud.

We are comapring apples and oranges. A monoplane fighter was never better than a biplane one, or the opposite. A fighter plane was always a compromise between speed and manoeuvrability. A monoplane always had superior aerodynamical output, without parasitic interferences between the 2 plans. Biplane was better suited for high-g tight-turns dogfight manoeuvres, because it's "caisson" or "box" like working to stress wings. At equivalent wing aera and weight it was able to withstand much more structural efforts. See resistance of material formulas and quadratic moments chapter.

No ideal solution, all planes are compromises.








The big height of the biplane strut working stucture addict with braced wire tension geometry is better to withstand flexion efforts and to break-resistance.

Regards

PS: I think biplane aera came at end for historical, not technical reasons, with the appraisal of high-speed bombers like Tupolev SB-2, Do-17, He-70 or Blenheims. As an _interceptor_ a biplane was by evidence, worse.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 2, 2009)

F3F-1 it's delivered at squadron in march '36 this variant it's ~80 km/h slowest of I-16 (the F3F-2 was more late need compare it also with Hurricane) F2F it's of early '35 so has as challenger again I-16. the FF-1 was a mid june '33 fighter so not low wing monoplane maybe a challengers.
FF-1 with Nimrod, A2N they are the embarked fighters before of I-16. but with a category: last biplane fighter best embarked fighter we can add more and newest biplane, the first monoplane fighter embarked wad A5M in early '37, so in this restricted challeng with can add F3F-1 (obv. also the F2F) and A4N) . 
Nimrod speed ~310 km/h. wing load ~66 kg/mq. power load ~3.5 kg/hp
F3F-1 speed ~370 km/h. wing load ~~83 kg/mq. power load ~~3.1 kg/hp
A4N speed ~350 km/h. wing load ~77 kg/mq. power load ~2.4 kg/hp

(As knew also the french have a carrier but they used high wing monoplane fighter since the born for camparison data for Wibault 74, the french high wing fighter, speed ~225 km/h. wing load ~66 kg/mq. power load ~3.4 kg/mq)


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 2, 2009)

Altea said:


> Ok i misunderstud.
> 
> We are comapring apples and oranges. A monoplane fighter was never better than a biplane one, or the opposite. A fighter plane was always a compromise between speed and manoeuvrability. A monoplane always had superior aerodynamical output, without parasitic interferences between the 2 plans. Biplane was better suited for high-g tight-turns dogfight manoeuvres, because it's "caisson" or "box" like working to stress wings. At equivalent wing aera and weight it was able to withstand much more structural efforts. See resistance of material formulas and quadratic moments chapter.
> 
> ...



maybe a comparison apples and oranges but i think it's a possible comparison, as apples and oranges came in comparison when you go in market


----------



## Altea (Sep 2, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> F3F-1 it's delivered at squadron in march '36 this variant it's ~80 km/h slowest of I-16 (the F3F-2 was more late need compare it also with Hurricane) F2F it's of early '35 so has as challenger again I-16. the FF-1 was a mid june '33 fighter so not low wing monoplane maybe a challengers.
> FF-1 with Nimrod, A2N they are the embarked fighters before of I-16. but with a category: last biplane fighter best embarked fighter we can add more and newest biplane, the first monoplane fighter embarked wad A5M in early '37, so in this restricted challeng with can add F3F-1 (obv. also the F2F) and A4N) .
> Nimrod speed ~310 km/h. wing load ~66 kg/mq. power load ~3.5 kg/mq
> F3F-1 speed ~370 km/h. wing load ~~83 kg/mq. power load ~~3.1 kg/mq
> ...



To compare
Numbers for serial I-16 n° 123954, at 1432 kg with an all american Cyclone F-3 rated at 712 hp. Built in early 1935, state control trials achieved in april.

457 km/h wing load ~98kg/m², p.l.~2,0 kg/m² ( Better than a Bf 109K!) 
Astonishing acceleration and vertical boom-zoom manoeuvres. Rate of roll 360°/1-1,2s!!!
Time of turn 360° in less than 14s: equivalent to the captured Fiats CR-32. 
Even if a monoplane, not an easy plane to dogfight with a pilot at right level...


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 2, 2009)

Nice video of the F3F... watch how they start the engine.. very cool..

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os19XiWGDjs_

.


----------



## Altea (Sep 2, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> Nice video of the F3F... watch how they start the engine.. very cool..
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os19XiWGDjs_
> 
> .




Good link. If you want to watch about Polikarpov planes


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWE4i5Jr-nY_


----------



## PJay (Sep 2, 2009)

There was the proposed Bi-plane Hurricane. Doubt if that counts though LOL.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 4, 2009)

Biplane 1934
Letov	S-231 w.l. 82,33 p.l. 3,16 sp. 348
Avia	BH-33L w.l. 61,18 p.l. 2,69	sp. 298
Fokker	D.XVII w.l. 76,5 p.l. 2,64 sp. 355
Svenska Aero	Gryfalcon w.l. 67,43 p.l. 2,83 sp. 310
Heinkel	He 51 w.l. 69,85 p.l. 2,53 sp. 330
Arado	Ar 65 w.l. 64,33 p.l. 2,57 sp. 300
Fiat	C.R. 30 w.l. 70,19 p.l. 3,16 sp. 350
Polikarpov	I-15 w.l. 64,61 p.l. 2,95 sp. 350
Hawker	Fury w.l. 69,96 p.l. 2,56 sp. 360
Fairey	Firefly w.l. 67,73 p.l. 3,1 sp.360
Armstrong	A.W.16 w.l. 65,99 p.l. 3,04 sp. 322
Curtiss	Hawk w.l. 77,12 p.l. 2,68 sp. 335
Curtiss	Hawk w.l.66,62 p.l.2,49 sp. 330
Boeing	F4B w.l. 58,63 p.l. 2,06 sp.305
Grumman	FF w.l. 73,65 p.l. 3,03 sp.333
Kawasaki	Type 92 w.l.70,83 p.l.2,27 sp. 320


Monoplane (contemporary))
PZL	P.11 w.l.92,18 p.l.2,56 sp. 375
Morane SaulnierMS 225 w.l.91,86 p.l.3,16 sp.335
Dewoitine	D.27 w.l.80,8 p.l. 2,48 sp. 312
Nakajima	Type 91 w.l.76,5 p.l. 2,94 sp.300
Boeing	P-26 w.l.96,4 p.l. 2,35 sp.375
Consolidated	P-30 w.l.92,57 p.l.3,79 sp.385


sorry i late work on formatation, damn tables
first column wing load kg for meter square 2nd column power load kg for hp 3rd column speed in km/h
data from wikipedia (not only english) and some other page looking on google when i've doubt on wiki info


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 4, 2009)

The question is:

What was the last biplane fighter to be THE best fighter plane in the world.

Vince is trying to eliminate fighters like the Fiat CR.42 that were already obsolete when they first flew.

I submit the Hawker Fury.


----------



## Altea (Sep 12, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The question is:
> 
> What was the last biplane fighter to be THE best fighter plane in the world.
> 
> ...



Nice plane, good choice.

But there were already advanced monoplanes with high wing as PZL P-7, Dewoitine D 27, D-37 at that time, or low wing cantilever ones : Wibault 210, Bernard 20, HV-40, 74 or Grigorovich I-Z.

So i`m not sure that the Fury performed well against them

Regards


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm agree fury is a good choice. The RAF have it from '31.
some on notes
wibault 210 prototype was abbandoned too vibration was not a good aircraft and can't go a good fighter.
bernard 20 prototype abbandoned too hig landing speed, it's slowest of Fury have highets wing load and power load and was not a fighter only a prototype.
bernard hv-40 this flyngboat prototype was not indeed for fighter and go to first flying when fury go in service
bernard 72 this prototype flying when fury go in service and again it was not a fighter only a not armed prototype
grigorovich I-Z was slowest (near 100 km/h) highest low wing and power load with a strange and unsucessfull idea for weaponry and again prototype flying same time that fury go to squadrons, go to squadrons in '33
dewoitine 27 it's a true challenger, within the two i choice fury
dewoitine 37x go to squadrons only in '36
pzl p.7 go to squadrons in '33


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 12, 2009)

The PZL P.7 was slower than the Hawker Fury and not as well armed.


----------



## Altea (Sep 29, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> I'm agree fury is a good choice. The RAF have it from '31.
> some on notes
> wibault 210 prototype was abbandoned too vibration was not a good aircraft and can't go a good fighter.
> bernard 20 prototype abbandoned too hig landing speed, it's slowest of Fury have highets wing load and power load and was not a fighter only a prototype.
> ...



Ok, 
From historical point of view, you're certainly right. Technical, j'm less sure.

wibault 210: if you call vibration a buffeting, it's annoying. But there was a cure for that, moroever if it occured a speeds when dynamic pressure should have been destoyed virtually all biplane of it's time.
bernard 20: well 10-15 km/h more landing speed than others similar plane's of it's time makes no huge difference. By the way it was not faster landing speed than latter D-371, D-501, Loire 46 fighters.
All Bernard speedplanes had they fighter variants/ adaptations. "Bernard ets" was a kind of french "supermarine" firm always ahead in technicals and ideas but whatever he could have think or done being not integrated in the "establishement" (relationships, politics) he never had a "shadow of a chance" to see it's (he's) fighter planes commanded one day by officials.

Anyway, french army technical commission was composed from 19th centuty men with retrograde ideas (not ideas in fact, they haven't any, but prejudices...) considering the right solution was a high wing plane (pendular stability, in other cases the plane was considered as unstable) with the "hole in the wing" to allow some observation in the air. No comments...

About I-Z, i admit it's a partly wrong example since it's not a speed monoplane but a rugged wing monoplane made to carry and withstand APK 76,2mm canon fire. Nevertheless it reached 300 km/h (some sources quoted 310) at state trials in summer 1931. 

I don't have Kestrel power chart, but extrapolating it from one stage supercharched planes it should loose about 15 km/h for 1000m. So rouhgly it gives 270 km/h only at SL. The best I-Z speed was performed at SL, it had no supercharger. We don't know how fast could it have been in clean condition. In other hand, i'm not sure that carrying two Kourchevski 76 mm guns and it's heavy bullets, the Fury should have been as fast, and moroever i'm not sure that it was able ever to only carry them, even not fire...

The Fury might have been the superior figher of it's time. I'm not sure it could performed well against TB-1/TB-3 heavy bombers boxes, and their escort R-6 protection.

All is relative* (*Einstein)

Regards


----------



## Tzaw1 (Sep 29, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The PZL P.7 was slower than the Hawker Fury and not as well armed.


Mmmm..., difference in speed about 5 km/h. 
Armament - both with two Vickers E 

Faster was Fury Mk II, but it was from 1935 and could be compared with P.11c.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 29, 2009)

The parasssite fighter of TB-3 was I-4, -5, late I-Z and -16, not R-6 that was not a fighter I was for fighter in soviet designation pre design bureau name, the early I-4 and-5 were not so hard for Fury, the TB-3 it's sure hard to shoot down for Fury and for all other 2 mgs armed fighter.

Fury I and P.7 have near speed, Fury fastest ~10 km/h, but Fury go in service 2 years before. Fury II and P.1, there are many variant of P.11 oldest was not so fast ma c and later variant was fastest&earlier as o more of Fury II. 
Other Tsaw was in right the Fury II it's later variant (also '36 maybe) so sure it have many monoplane fast competitor.
now i think we can no later '33 for the late biplane best fighter


----------



## vanir (Sep 29, 2009)

PJay said:


> There was the proposed Bi-plane Hurricane. Doubt if that counts though LOL.



Hurricane was always a monoplane, original factory label was "Fury Monoplane" but here's an interesting thing you're probably referring to, some early MkI's were tested with a jettisonable top wing for use in ferry transportation, it was to cut fuel use and increase ferry range. I have a photo of a MkI being flown with the top wing in position, it's the weirdest looking thing, a Hurricane biplane, but this was the purpose of that modification. Hurricane was always a monoplane, the top wing would never have been used on a combat sortie.
The original design was basically a monoplane variant of the Fury with the new derated Merlin derivative of the R-motor (which itself became the Griffon), which was to be armed with four .303 Brownings in the wings (before an Armaments Ministry review on effective interceptor armament that decided eight guns was necessary, of which I've a copy of some excerpts, they thought the .50 was relatively untested and the Hispano moreso and probably unreliable, but did nearly go with two or four fifties and thought about two Hispanos...then decided eight .303 was just as good as either and a known measure for reliability).


----------



## Altea (Sep 29, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> The parasssite fighter of TB-3 was I-4, -5, late I-Z and -16, not R-6 that was not a fighter I was for fighter in soviet designation pre design bureau name, the early I-4 and-5 were not so hard for Fury, the TB-3 it's sure hard to shoot down for Fury and for all other 2 mgs armed fighter.
> 
> Fury I and P.7 have near speed, Fury fastest ~10 km/h, ...
> 
> now i think we can no later '33 for the late biplane best fighter



Hello Vincenzo,
I think we did not understanded each other.
The parasite fighter programm in USSR reminded AFAIK expeimental. The mass produced R-6 even if it had some multipurpose capabilities was primary intended to fulfill (for the TB-1, later TB-3) escort missions. Exactly as the Caudron R-11 Caudron R.11, R.12 - escort fighter, or the german Me-110 "Zerstorer" - destroyer by marine questionnable analogy, the havy bombers being the cruisers.

In 1931 I-4 (designed in 1925!) was considered as obsolete and not produced any more. But like I-5 it was an extremly nimble plane, and Fury was not so hard for it at high-G close in tight dogfights at low height. Speed is not not making everything, see Fokker Dr-1, Nie-17, Sopwith Camel success despite Albatros DV, SPAD or SE-5 availability.


But alltogether, let's go for the Fury in 1931, i like it's good-looking steamlined forms.

Regards


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 29, 2009)

sorry i don't know because when you write of escort of TB-3 i thinked a parassite fighter experiments. idk the R-6 twinengined plane, i look some and i don't think it's a good idea. near all old biplane (fighters) are good dogfigters.


----------

