# The Best Biplane Fighter of WW2



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Right, time to reincarnate an old topic...

What do you guys think the best biplane fighter was?

I say Fiat CR.42 Falco...

Discuss


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 5, 2005)

Fiat CR 42, definitely

Kiwimac


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 5, 2005)

Gladiator- Faith, Hope and Charity kept the Italian bombers at Malta a hard time, modern bombers being shot down by obsolescent biplanes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

Gladiator..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

CR.42!!!

And Mossieman, as good as the SM.79's were I hardly class them as modern


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

well they were better than the gladiator...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

How can you say that? SM.79 = Torpedo Bomber; Gladiator = Fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

you know what i mean, more modern...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Only just 

Heres some info on the Falco:



> The birth of the last fighter biplane in service in World War 2 took place during the trial for a new monoplane fighter for the Regia Aeronautica (the so-called "Series 0" aircraft). Waiting for the evaluation and testing of the various monoplanes, the Chief of Staff of the R.A., Gen. Valle, ordered the production of the CR.42 which he identified as a transition fighter with radial engine, conceived to ease the conversion on the new interceptors. This led to the building of the first prototype in early 1938 and on 5/23/38 it flew for the first time. Naturally, with the experience gained by the designer Celestino Rosatelli with excellent biplanes like the CR.30 and the CR.32, also his CR.42 had excellent flying characteristics, so that even before waiting for the results of the official military tests, a first series of 200 CR.42s had been already ordered, a higher number than the Macchi C.200 or the Fiat G.50, but this could be attributed also to the various teething troubles experienced by the new monoplanes. The paradoxical result was that, whereas both the C.200 and the G.50 were out of production by mid-1942, the CR.42 was still in production in 1944, while Germany's new jet fighter Me 262 was already operational!
> 
> Engined by the trusty 840 hp Fiat A.74 RC.38, the CR.42 was in service with 53° Stormo by 5/39 and before the entrance of Italy in the war, 300 aircraft had been already delivered to the Regia Aeronautica, constituting about 40% of the strength of the whole R.A. Top speed was 272 mph at 15,000ft, with a service ceiling of 32,970 ft and a range of 481 miles. The CR.42 was armed with 2 12.7mm machine guns. Meanwhile, the plane was also subject to several foreign orders: Hungary (50 examples) Belgium (40 examples) and Sweden (72 examples). Hungary was the first to buy the Italian biplane for its Magyar Királyi Légierö and placed orders for 52 aircraft during the summer of 1938, and equipped four Squadrons (1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 of 1st Fighter Regiment) within the late spring of 1940. CR.42s of the Hungarian A.F. flew numerous sorties during the assault on Yugoslavia launched on 4/6/41 in concert by German and Hungarian and, when a special Air Force Brigade was formed less than two months later to accompany the Hungarian Fast Corps that was to participate in the assault on the Soviet Union to be launched on 6/22/41, the principal fighter element was provided by the 12 CR.42s of the 1/3 Squadron. By 12/41, after five months of continuous operations in which the 1/3 Squadron alone had flown some 300 sorties, destroying 17 Soviet aircraft in combat for the loss of two CR. 42s, the serviceability of the Air Force Brigade was deteriorating rapidly and it was therefore recalled to Hungary , the CR.42s being relegated to training role.
> 
> ...



www.comandosupremo.com


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2005)

Ze Glad...... 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## trackend (Feb 7, 2005)

I'll go with the Fiat CR but only for WW2 if you mean any period I still like the SE5A


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 7, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Gladiator- Faith, Hope and Charity kept the Italian bombers at Malta a hard time, modern bombers being shot down by obsolescent biplanes



*myth*

There was no Sea Gladiators named _Faith, Hope_ and _Charity_ as this was the appelations given to them by a reporter in a Maltese newspaper some months afterwards. Even the one on display as _Faith_ shows no evidence of ever being flown. The plaque says N5520 which was lost on June 26. _Faith_ is said to be N5519 by some sources but this was lost on June 24.

When #80 and #112 went to Greece with their Glads, they were opposed by the 363*, 364* and 365* in Greece and the 150 Gruppo in Albania with CD42s. Nether a/c dominated the other.


----------



## Grampa (Feb 7, 2005)

In Sweden we had both the CR 42 and the Gladiator in service during before and under the wartime and I remember that there was one former Gladiator-pilot who had a comment of the Gladiator's. He says that the only useful a Gladiator could do was to shot down a CR 42.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2005)

Im adding a poll to this and moving it to the poll section...should make for hot debate


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2005)

well would you look at that, i voted in a poll...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2005)

Only cos there was a British plane in it


----------



## digitaleagle (Feb 7, 2005)

my god, ther's only one possible answer THE BEST BIPLANE is the I-15.
Even german Bf-109 pilots in spain looked like this    when another I-15 escaped their cannon because of their tight turning


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

Tight rolling, you mean. The I-15 wasn't an amazing tight turner, but the roll was amazing as most Bi-planes have good roll rates. The I-15s fell easy prey to 109s.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2005)

unlike I-16s..............

and playing PF at CC's place, i was in that gladiator that isn't a gladiator it was produced by annother country or summit, i was shot down (well i ejected) by a CR.42 which then went on to shoot down a ace Bf-109


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2005)

If I'm flying the I-16s, the 109s don't stand a chance. My first two kills were 109E4s on AEP. And it just went up and up from there, until I got injured and after a short stint in a P-40 was injured again and put in a La-5. 

Here's some nice pictures of the Cr.42:


----------



## Archangel (Feb 16, 2005)

well,.. if i fly a bf109 against a biplane, i use my speed to get away, turn aroun, and shot. this u do over and over again, thill you blow of one of the wings.
anyway, u cant do a standard dogfight against a biplane, just cuz a biplane can fly very slow and can turn tighter as a 109 (at least, thats what i know, if its wrong plz correct me  ). so then u would shurely lose in a 109.


----------



## toffigd (Feb 16, 2005)

I say the best was CR.42.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Good man 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2005)

no, the galdiator!!!

and it's winning in the poll...............


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

The gladiator was a great biplane !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

The CR.42 however, was better 8)


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Yeah in some ways, but it isnt as pretty ! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

How can you say that?! Look at it, Beautiful


----------



## toffigd (Feb 16, 2005)

The CR.42 was aerodinamically perfect amongst other biplanes.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

Yeah, and my pictures of it were better. COLOUR, well one was.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Yeah well that was the only one I had on my computer 

But toffi is making sense


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

Yeah but who cares. My pictures were better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

That can be changed 8)





Nice shot of the cockpit





CR.42 at Hendon





Nice shot of CR.42 and ground crew


You see I could go on, but it would just be showing off


----------



## slopes-2 (Feb 23, 2005)

its the Gladiator for me, how can you say the CR.42 was aerodinamically perfect amongst other biplanes. when it had an open cockpit!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2005)

Wheel fairings, proper engine cowling, smoother lines...it just looks more modern 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 24, 2005)

A biplane that looks modern


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2005)

I said *more* modern


----------



## GT (Mar 2, 2005)

A Swedish Cr 42.


----------



## redcoat (Mar 2, 2005)

There were approximately 45 biplane aces* in WW2.

21 Italian, 13 British, and 11 Soviet. 

Can anyone name the the highest scoring biplane ace  

* 5 or more kills

ps, Here's a photo of my favourite


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2005)

my god that's beautiful.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

Nothing like as Pretty as the Fiat 8)









> *21 Italian*, 13 British, and 11 Soviet.



Speaks volumes really...


----------



## redcoat (Mar 2, 2005)

> > *21 Italian*, 13 British, and 11 Soviet.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaks volumes really...


Yes.
That the poor Italian pilots had to put up with out-dated aircraft longer than the British and Soviets did


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

Yep. Although in Fairness they were extremely manoeverable which gave them some form of advantage. The MC.200 and G.50 were two of the tighest turning monoplanes of the war, and the performance wasnt terribly shabby on the Saetta.


----------



## redcoat (Mar 2, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yep. Although in Fairness they were extremely manoeverable which gave them some form of advantage. The MC.200 and G.50 were two of the tighest turning monoplanes of the war, and the performance wasnt terribly shabby on the Saetta.


You will get no argument from me on that. 
It was in engine design that Italian aviation suffered.
When later in the war, the Italians fitted high powered German designed inline engines in some of their aircraft, they were some of the best Axis fighter aircraft of WW2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

You will also get no argument from me. That I agree with completely.


----------



## fare (Mar 10, 2005)

¿ best fighter Grumman F3F3 ?


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 12, 2005)

Nope,

Probably best all round was the FW-190

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

bi-plane??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Havent you heard of the infamous Fw-190 Bilplanes?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

can't say i have.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Me neither.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2005)

But I can sure as heck design one!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

this i gotta see...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 15, 2005)

No you havent, I cant be bothered...


----------



## redcoat (Mar 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> this i gotta see...........


Here it is then, the infamous Fw 190 biplane


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 15, 2005)

That one belongs in the ugly planes thread, it almost beats the Stipa for sheer stupidity


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 15, 2005)

Oh, I dunno. The mistel was an interesting concept.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 15, 2005)

But suicidal for the pilots


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 16, 2005)

Not really, they could guide it; it wasn't a simply forward flying rocket - they could launch earlier than a regular rocket and fix flight problems with the joystick control...


Plus, after that, the Fw-190/Bf-109 would actually be faster, since it had less armor, only fuselage guns, and lower on gas after the journey...


Great for high-tailing your ass out of there.

Fast.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 16, 2005)

Yes but while you're attached it would be too easy to get bounced, you're flying a giant bomb!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

If you do, just drop the thing and run!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 16, 2005)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this!


Through a loophole, I present to you THE best biplane fighter of World War Two.


_Below: The Hurricane had its
origins in the Hawker Fury
biplane. One Hurricane was
given a jettisonable top wing
to extend its range for
delivery flights._






*EDIT*~I forgot, source is my copy of _FIGHTER THE WORLD'S FINEST COMBAT AIRCRAFT - 1914 TO THE PRESENT DAY_, by Jim Winchester; a Parragon Publishing Book.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 16, 2005)

That's cheating! 

(like I care.  )


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 16, 2005)

Must be the best then


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

The CR.42 would annilhate its ass...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

no it wouldn't, and that top wing was only to carry fuel on ferry flights..........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 17, 2005)

Exactly, after the fuel was spent, the wing and its spars were released...


Other than that, there were few other additions in equipment.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 17, 2005)

I confess, I don't know much about this type of Hurricane. Wouldn't the act of releasing the wing in flight be highly dangerous?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 17, 2005)

In itself, the airflow would probably push it back low enough to chop off the tail...


I'm guessing a) there were charges to blow it off, b) it was performed in a dive so it fell safely, or c) both.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 18, 2005)

I would think the lift generated by the wing would pull it up enough to clear the tail. It also would not be 'blown' at a high speed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no it wouldn't, and that top wing was only to carry fuel on ferry flights..........



Would with me flying it 

Bit vulnerable aint it? Couple of hits on the wing and kaboom...


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

That's why it was only used on ferry flights or at least that was the idea


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

yes it was never deigned to go into combat with the second wing attatched............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Then how can you call it the best Biplane FIGHTER if it was never actually designed to fight?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

I never did..........


----------



## ROSE (Mar 26, 2005)

I WOULD DEFINETLY HAVE TO SAY THE GLADIATOR .


----------



## toffigd (Mar 26, 2005)

no - too weak armament - only 7,7mm


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 28, 2005)

I would have to say the Polikarpov I-153 is the best biplane fighter. During WW2 Goering actually made an order to Luftwaffe Pilots to stay away as the Germans were losing too many aircraft to this biplane fighter. In Russia it was very fast and powerful. I am surprised you are considering the Gladiator and the CR-42 which didn't really last that long. In mainline service the Gladiator was gone by WW2, and the Italians really didn't have too much better than the CR-42 to replace it with.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 29, 2005)

It hink the problem is that comparitively, not much is known about Russian aircraft compared to say, the RAF or 8th AF aircraft


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

> and the Italians really didn't have too much better than the CR-42 to replace it with.


 Except the Fiat G.50 and Macchi MC.200...  The CR.42 was a great biplane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> I would have to say the Polikarpov I-153 is the best biplane fighter. During WW2 Goering actually made an order to Luftwaffe Pilots to stay away as the Germans were losing too many aircraft to this biplane fighter. In Russia it was very fast and powerful. I am surprised you are considering the Gladiator and the CR-42 which didn't really last that long. In mainline service the Gladiator was gone by WW2, and the Italians really didn't have too much better than the CR-42 to replace it with.



you obviously haven't met my patriotic side


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

To say that means he hasnt met you at all, as your patriotic side is your *only* side


----------



## Bushranger (May 9, 2005)

CR 42 gets my vote

Mainly because of the better engine than the Gladiator, the better armament, and the manouverability



> The famous test-pilot Captain Eric M. Brown, RN, had an opportunity to fly the captured CR.42 MM5701, which was captured after a forced-landing in the later stages of Battle of Britain. He reported that the aircraft was an aerobatic gem. It was remarkably fast for a biplane with a top speed of 270 mph at 12,400 ft and a marginal stability, the hallmark of a good fighter. The CR.42 was a superb biplane that gave an outstanding performance for its type, but as a fighter it was under-gunned. Though highly manoeuvrable, like all aircraft with a lot of fabric covering it was very vulnerable to enemy fire.



On the Gladiator:


> Burges saw nine bombers turning in a wide circle south of the island, obviously preparing to head back to Sicily. Cutting across the circle, he and one of the other pilots (probably Squadron Leader A. C. Martin) gave chase, and he was able to fire most of his ammunition at one bomber without apparent result. These were some of 34o Stormo BT S.79s which had hit Hal Far, and the crews reported that the Gladiators fired from long range. One S.79 piloted by Capitano Rosario Di Blasi from 52o Gruppo was hit in the fuselage.
> Five hours later a lone S.79 was sent out by the 34o Stormo to reconnoitre the result of the raid. Again Gladiators were scrambled. This time two went up to intercept. Flying Officer John Waters in N5520 got within range and opened fire. He believed that he had shot down the Italian machine, but in fact it was merely driven away, making for Sicily without being able to complete its mission.
> At 19.25 the eight and final raid came in and the Gladiators were scrambled. Flying Officer ’Timber’ Woods first attacked two different S.79s without apparent result before being attacked by an escorting MC.200 from 79a Squadriglia flown by Tenente Giuseppe Pesola who blasted off 125 rounds at him without result. Woods immediately went into a steep left-hand turn. He circled with the enemy fighter for three minutes before he got it in his sight. He got in a good burst with full deflection. The Italian fighter went down in a step dive with black smoke pouring from his tail. He couldn’t follow it but he taught it went into the sea. Woods was subsequently credited with an unconfirmed victory as the first victory for the defenders of Malta. In fact Pesola’s aircraft hadn’t even been seriously damaged. Evasive action and the black exhaust smoke from the hastily opened throttle had obviously misled Woods.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

That's kind of bias. Refering to the lack of armament on the Gladiator while in the previous quote it clearly states the Cr.42 lacks decent offensive armament for a fighter. 

Then, this is best Bi-Plane and lets face it...they were all poor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 9, 2005)

Well, the Gladiator had 4 x .303 and the CR.42 had 2x 12.7mm. PErhaps the Gladiator has a slight edge there but then again 12.7mm's are gonna do more damage than 7.62mm's, so I dont know. I still maintain the CR.42 was better though.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

They both lacked effective armament. There's really no point in comparing because both armaments were unlikely to bring down an aircraft without lucky hits or perfect aim.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Then, this is best Bi-Plane and lets face it...they were all poor.



I think what's being shown here is the obsolescence of these aircraft during WW2 when compared to other contemporary fighters of the day. All these bi planes were highly maneuverable "delightful to fly" etc. but what good is that maneuverability when a 109 or a Spitfire could just accelerate away and come back and blast you out of the sky while you're performing those slick little aerobatic maneuvers?

These aircraft were conceived with conservative WW1 thinking, the twilight of the day when you could get away with performing slick aerobatics during aerial combat in limited numbers. And don't forget the light armament, that was considered heavy a decade earlier.


----------



## Bushranger (May 10, 2005)

You have a point concerning the weak armament on the Cr 42 plan_d, but also read what it says concerning the Gladiator. It says a couple of times about how the Glads poured shots into the bombers/fighters without effect. I've read reports on the Cr 42's of the CAI in combat with Hurri's. A couple of Hurricanes were forced away by bullet holes in the fuel tanks, controls etc. The Falco's still lost the engagement, but that's to be expected.

How abou the best biplane bomber? I'm thinkin Swordfish


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

Both the Cr.42 and Glad's armament were weak, not nearly powerful enough for a modern engagment. The Falco's strikes to the Hurri's fuel tanks would be lucky but there's more chance of actually making a strike against a vital area if you're throwing more lead hot, which the Glad did.


----------



## Bushranger (May 10, 2005)

True, but what's the point of hitting the vital spot only to have no effect, with a weak weapon like the .303?


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

Two .50s is hardly a strong armament. The only reason the .50 is such a great air to air weapon is because it fires a lot with some force. Even then, you need at least six to really make it effective. 

I don't really thing one could call the other's armament poor, as both have poor armament. None, really, any better than the other.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

yes and the .303 isn't exactly as weak as you're making out.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Much weaker than a 12.7mm though. The .303 is far from the best air to air weapon of the war.

Best Biplane bomber you say? Well counting ground attack I say Henschel Hs-123


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

Of course it's not but the .50 cal in small numbers is hardly effective either.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

True, but the same amount of .50's as .303's is going to do more damage.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

Only an idiot would state otherwise but the Glad had four .303s the Cr.42 had two .50s.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 10, 2005)

Stringbag best biplane bomber- if only for it's acheivements against the Bismarck and at Taranto


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Yes. Like you said, theyre both underarmed.

Why has it taken me so long to draw the same conclusion?


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

Well, there's two options CC. 

1) Because you're an idiot. 
2) Because you're stubborn and don't like admitting that an Italian plane is under-armed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Ill go with option 1


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

yes the stringbag is easily the best bi-plane bomber of the war.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

Although I could admit, the Stringbag was the best Bi-plane bomber of WW2, 

Does anyone have a problem with that title "The best bi-plane bomber of WW2?" I mean, its like having a thread, "Best Tugboat of the Amercian Civil War" or "Best Barrage Balloon of the Korean war." To me it just don't sound right!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

It does sound rather funny  How about "Best biplane of the war that wasnt a fighter." That better? 

Still going Hs-123... 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> It does sound rather funny  How about "Best biplane of the war that wasnt a fighter." That better?
> 
> Still going Hs-123... 8)



I think that's a bit more politically correct


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 10, 2005)




----------



## Bushranger (May 11, 2005)

I'm going for the Russian Po-2/U-2VS. That or the Stringbag. Po-2 was the most manufactered plane ever I think, with about 40,000 made. 

I still go for the Cr 42 for fighter


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

Random Hs-123 stats.



> Type: Single-seat dive bomber and close-support
> Origin: Henschel Flugzeugwerke AG
> Models: A-1
> First Flight: Spring 1935
> ...










http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs123.html
Damn fine plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

it's stats really are nothing specail, especailly when compared to those of the stringbag..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

It BLITZES the Swordfish in all but payload


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

Yea, but looks what the Stingbag pulled off for being SBD!  Oh wait, that's another plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

> It BLITZES the Swordfish in all but payload



but isn't payload kinda important for a bomber?? sorry- "non-fighter"??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > It BLITZES the Swordfish in all but payload
> 
> 
> 
> but isn't payload kinda important for a bomber?? sorry- "non-fighter"??



Especially if its a TORPEDO


----------



## mosquitoman (May 11, 2005)

Don't forget depth-charges, AP rockets, Leigh Lights etc... The Stringbags that operated off escort carriers did minor miracles closing the Mid-Atlantic Gap


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

they carried RADARs as well...........

stringbag's got the -123 well beaten on range too, equally important for a "non-fighter"


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Its a Close Support aircraft, as was the Fw-189. They both did fine at it so range isnt necessary.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

ah, now you've started using catagories, we're simply classing all non-fighters as "non- fighters", so range should be quite important, and what you just said is like saying "the defiant was a turret fighter and so it's perfectly acceptable that it had no forward facing armourment and so was decimated in front on attacks..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Meh. Im not classing it as a "non-fighter", that was a joke.


----------



## trackend (May 17, 2005)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the Stringbag proved it was the best biplane of WW2 by a mile U-boat sinkings 14. ASW assisted sinkings 15 . 830 Squadron from Hal Far May-Nov 1940 110,000 tons sunk 130,000 tons damaged and in combined ops with other squadrons by 1942 a further 400,000 tons sunk. Bomba 22-23 Aug 1 Destroyer,2 Italian subs and 1 depot ship sunk by three Eagle based Swordfish (only time three torpedoes sank 4 ships in the Med) + Taranto + Bismark + Artic convoy ASW + Escort carrier service, ect,ect 
They also where one of the few carrier based planes to be able to take off unassisted while the carrier was moored although very hairy it was later made a requirement to have at least 8 knots over the deck.
Even many of the more modern mono planes that flew in WW2 never obtained a record close to that of the Stringbag.
Im still trying to get exact (as near a possible) Figures on total number of kills but the FAA museum archives have a 1 year waiting list. but I shall get there in the end.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2005)

The only possible contender to the Swordfish dare I say it, would be the Walrus.
It did a valuable non glamorous job well, from the start to practically the end of the war. I guarantee for sure, that any pilot from any nation picked up by one, would vote for it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

I would go with the Hs-123 or the Swordfish. For historical purposes alone I would go with the Swordfish though. She took part in some of the most important battles of the war.


----------



## redcoat (May 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > > It BLITZES the Swordfish in all but payload
> ...


One of the major uses of the Swordfish which never gets mentioned was as a night bomber in the N.African desert campaign.
It was successful in this role, due in large measure to the highly skilled RN navigators. The featureless desert required the same type of navigational skill as flying over vast spaces of water.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

They also did a good part against the German shipping trying to get supplies to North Africa.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

They certainly did. Out of every four supply ships sent to Rommel in N.Africa, only one got through!


----------



## redcoat (May 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> They certainly did. Out of every four supply ships sent to Rommel in N.Africa, only one got through!


Not quite, the loss rate of the Axis convoy run to N.Africa was approximately 15%


----------



## mosquitoman (May 17, 2005)

So 17 out of every 20 got through, that's still an important tonnage but it can't all be attributed to Stringbags, there were Beus on Malta and RN subs were based there aswell


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

I've been informed by World at War that it was one out of every four got through. Sounds more believable to me because Rommel wouldn't have been so desperate for supplies if it was a mere 15% kill rate for the Royal Navy.


----------



## trackend (May 18, 2005)

I just got back from the Fleet air arm museum in Yeoville and so far as best as I can find out for the Med the gross tonnage of supply shipping 
sunk by Swordfish operating mainly out of Malta and North Africa is around 600,000 tons there was some where in the region of 200,000-300,000 tons damaged these are merchant vessels only and does'nt include naval (and as you say Mossie) Beaus or other aircraft that also took a big chunk out of Rommels supply line as well


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2005)

you guys should read "the ship busters" lots of great stories about torp. attacks and the stringbag truely is amazing...........


----------



## elmilitaro (May 19, 2005)

One of the best plane during WW2 was probably the or were the; Gloster Gladiator, for the defence of Yalta, The Fairey Swordfish, for patrol bombing and anti-shipping activities, the Fiat CR. 42 Falco, for The Italian's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2005)

the role of the gladiators in the defence of malta has been hugely over exaggerated..........


----------



## elmilitaro (May 19, 2005)

Well if it wasn't for them who would have defended Yalta then.


----------



## trackend (May 19, 2005)

In the begining the four Sea Gladiators that arrived (as you say Elmo) where all that was on the Island although navel aircraft where at work out at sea. Your right Lanc it was a bit later when the hurries arrived the the real difference was felt.
Also the Fulmars of 806 flight from the crippled Illustrious that ended up on Malta working alongside the Hurricanes had a fair share of success as well .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

redcoat said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > They certainly did. Out of every four supply ships sent to Rommel in N.Africa, only one got through!
> ...



And where do you get this from? Every thing that I have read and watched has stated 1 out of 4 got though and that is basically what did Rommel in. I have read books about Rommel and met with his son Manfred (his son was mayor of the city where I lived) and they have all confirmed this.


----------



## trackend (May 19, 2005)

I sure you're right Adler I have just finished a book by Dave Wragg and he says the same the Desert campaign was always about supplys even for the allies, thats why it went too an fro several times over such a large distance in the end only the allies could keep resupplying and the Afrika Corp ran out of Fuel, food,ammo, spares. In fact just about everything.
Rommel had to withdraw or loose his army.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Yes supplies were a problem for the British also. The thing is the British controlled Tobruk and with the port city and control of the Med they were able to bring more supplies in then the Afrika Korps were able to do. That is what defeated Rommel.


----------



## redcoat (May 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> redcoat said:
> 
> 
> > plan_D said:
> ...


Check out this web-site on the Italian Merchant Marine in WW2
http://www.regiamarina.net/merchant/intro_us.htm#Introduction

It shows that only 10% of material was lost, due to enemy action against the N.African convoys in total.

Rommels major problem in truth was his habit of outrunning his supply lines.

The myth of the 1 out of 4 comes from the times when Rommel over extended his supply lines, and started to run out of fuel, so in an effort to rectify the situation instead of the fuel supplies travelling across the well defended 'narrows' between Sicily and N.Africa, and then along the coast road by truck they would sail direct to Tobruk, which left them very exposed to the RN and RAF, and their losses were well over 30%


ps, While an average of 15% losses in shipping doesn't sound a lot, you have to remember that the loss rate for the Arctic convoys, which had the highest loss rate of any Allied convoy route, was only approximately 5%


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2005)

elm said:


> Well if it wasn't for them who would have defended Yalta then.



i'll assume you mean Malta

the galdiators defended the island as just the three of tehm for a small number of weeks, if not dyas, they were relived by 4 hurricanes (although the gladiators were still used), the gladiators fought off few raids, and their role was hugely exaggerated as a moral booster when all was not going to plan, although i'm not trying to take anything away from the feat of the few pilots..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

redcoat said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > redcoat said:
> ...



Yes he did out run his supply lines pretty much the whole time, however if you look at the big picture, he needed to take Tobruk. With Tobruk, Malta, and help from the Italians he could have gotten his supply lines in closer and quicker. The problem without Tobruk is the fact that the ships had to bring his supplies far behind the lines and it would take longer to get them up to the front.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

Rommel didn't out-run his supplies that often. When he did, he would stop. The Royal Navy were stopping his supplies even reaching North Africa. 

In the latter half of 1942 Rommel had two supply points, Tripoli and Tobruk. The British forces only had Alexandria but they were on the defensive and closer to their point of supply. 

Also, the theory of desert warfare was always open to the idea of their being an open flank. El Alamein didn't have one, a perfect place to stop for a defence.


----------



## trackend (May 22, 2005)

The problem for Rommel was indeed compounded by supplies and Montgomery new it he could afford losses in tanks ect Rommel could not. 
by the time of operation Crusader November 1941 the Axis force was approximately 118,000 men to the allies 113,000, tanks 680 with 500 in reserve against Rommels 390 and around 1000 planes as opposed to 320 Axis machines this was mainly due to the ability of the allies to bring in supplies and the inability of Rommel to get sufficient.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Yes and each time he outran his supply lines he would stop as you said and then the British would couter strike and drive him back, and then Rommel would rebuild and go on the offensive again and push them all the way back until El Allamein as Plan_D said.


----------



## trackend (May 23, 2005)

The other thing that some times is over looked regarding the middle east campaign in general is that because the Italians suffered heavy losses on land, sea, and to a slightly lesser extent in the air the German high command had to divert a signifcant amount of men and machines that would have been earmarked for operation Barbarossa to plug the shortfall this in turn may have had an important reduction in the initial success or indeed the final outcome of the campaign in Russia. One other thought Rommel may have had a commanding role on the Eastern front.


----------



## plan_D (May 23, 2005)

350,000 German Troops were diverted to Africa which would have certainly been sent to the Eastern Front. The Arika Korps were never sent to take Eygpt though, they were merely to save Italy, the left flank of Europe and tie down as many British forces as possible. 

North Africa could have never happened if Britain had sorted out it's priorities in 1940 and kept up the offensive on Tripoli instead of diverting forces to Greece.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 24, 2005)

Polikarpov I-153 as it is said that the Luftwaffe were forbidden to engage this bi-plane and it certainly shows how good a biplane is when the Luftwaffe with their planes like the Bf-109 and the Bf-110 were forbidden to engage it.


----------



## trackend (May 24, 2005)

That sound a bit odd Heal I find it hard to think that a German fighter pilot would see an enemy plane and head for the hills rather than engage it could you explain a bit more for me please. thanks


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2005)

Yes, I also find that unbelievable. The Bf-109 was a superior plane to the I-153, the Bf-109 would certainly have several advantages over the I-153. 

Are you sure the comment was made, '...don't try and turn with this plane...'? Not, '...avoid it...'.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

I always thought it was the I-16 they were told to be wary of.


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2005)

I doubt they were told to be weary of the 'Rat' - as they had already encountered it and slaughtered it in the Spanish Civil War. 

The only 'Rat' they should have been weary of was the one I flew over Leningrad in 1941...

...I haven't played on that campaign in ages. The tight VVS still haven't given me anything better than a La-5. Not even a La-5FN!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

I get bored with campaigns and keep starting new ones. I have about 6 or 7 on the go at about the 5th or 6th sortie  Just lastnight I started another new one for the VVS in a P-63


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2005)

I've gone too far with this one to give it up. I'm on 93 kills! I like the La-5 it's fast and the two ShVAK 20mm I love. 

Playing that game makes me think 2*20mm is enough for armament. And the game is supposed to be realistic...but you can't really say "Well, I've play on Il-2FB + AEP, and on that game it quite clearly shows that..." blah...blah..blah...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

The only campaign ive stuck through to the End was in a 190D-9, 52 kills after 28 sorties.

I think ill carry on with my USMC campaign with the P-39 tonight...The trouble is that every sortie is the same - Patrol out to Midway, encounter 8-10 Zeros, pick oneor 2 off then fly home  I want a Corsair!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 24, 2005)

they why didn't you do a corsair campain??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Because Its more fun working your way up through the rubbish planes...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Yes, I also find that unbelievable. The Bf-109 was a superior plane to the I-153, the Bf-109 would certainly have several advantages over the I-153.
> 
> Are you sure the comment was made, '...don't try and turn with this plane...'? Not, '...avoid it...'.



Yeah I find this hard to believe also. From what I have read I have found that the I-153 although she was fast at 280mph (for a biplane that is) she was rather unstable and unless you were an experienced pilot you would not have stood a chance against a Bf-109 or even a 110. Early 109's such as teh B, C, and D versions flew against early 153's such as the I-15bis and such and clearly showed the 109 was superior. 

The 153 was quite maneavuerable and with an experienced pilot I would be weary of it in a Bf-109 but would not hesitate to engage it.


----------



## evangilder (May 24, 2005)

One of the few Americans that flew the I-16 said that if you could fly the I-16, you could fly anything. That was back in 2000 or 2001, when they first brought the I-16 to Midland for the main CAF show.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

They still got I-16's flying?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

There are a couple that fly the airshow circuit.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Wow cool. Never knew that.


----------



## evangilder (May 24, 2005)

Yep, at Midland that year they flew the I-16 and a 153 together! I have only seen video of it, I wasn't there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

Check out this link on flying the Mosca or Rata (Depending on your ideological preference).

http://www.ksql.com/myriad/warbirds_poly.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Cool! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Yeah good stuff!


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

I wouldn't choose the I-153. If it was such a good plane why did they covert it to a monoplane e.g the I-16.
I also wouldn't chose the CR.42 because it only saw service because the italian airforce wasn't much.
That's why I chose the gladiator because of its defence of Malta proving that although a biplane it must of been quite good to serve in the more modern RAF.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2005)

The I 153 is the clear winner. Its faster, climbs better and has more powerful weapons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

I dont really know anymore what I would chose its a toss up between the Gladiator and the I-153. Either way I would not want a Bi-Plane.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

The gladiator rocks!!!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

Bi-planes are great, just not as fighters!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

I agree. I would want to fly a Stearman.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 8, 2005)

I'd love to fly a CR.32 - It looks mean!


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 8, 2005)

Back on the 'non-fighter biplane', what about the Fi 167 dive/torpedo bomber?
Was designed with the same principles of the Storch (apparently could fly even slower), with another wing and a DB601 engine.
The project was killed when they stopped the Graf Zeppelin

Length: 11,40 m 
Span: 13,50 m 
Height: 4,80 m 
Empty weight: 2800 kg 
Max weight: 4850 kg 
Crew: 2 
Weapons 
MG 17 (7,92 mm): 1 (forward fuselage) 
MG 15 (7,92 mm): 2 (rear cockpit) 
Disposable payload: 1 SD-1000 bomb (1000 kg) or 1 SC-500 (500 kg) bomb or
1 SC-250 bomb (250 kg) and 4 SC-50 (50) kg bombs or
1 LT F5b torpedo (765 kg) 
Engines 
Engines: 1 
Type: Daimler Benz DB 601B inverted V-piston engine 
Engine performance: 1100 hp (820 kw) 
Performance 
Max. Speed: 325 kph 
Max. Range: 1500 km (932 miles) 
Max. Altitude: 8200 m (26905 ft)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

Good website where you got that from. I use it also quite a bit.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2005)

ah but if we're going back to non-fighters the stringbag can be the only winner........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

Good point this is about fighters... not torpedo bombers or what not.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 10, 2005)

unless a non-fighter bi-plane thread's started..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

Yes and then I think I would go for the swordfish also, but only because of historical reasons.


----------



## fare (Oct 27, 2005)

I´am sorry. My english is very poor.

The Polikarpov I-16 is denominated "Mosca" by democratics and republican airmen in SCW

The name "Rata" is despective name used by fascists.


----------



## fare (Oct 27, 2005)

In WW2 flying in Chinese Air Force the biplane fighter Canadian, Car Foundry Gregor FDB-1, only one aircraft, but is posible the best biplane fighter in the war.

I´am sorry my very poor english.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2005)

don't worry, your English is better than some of the english people in this forum 

do you have any more information on the FDB-1?

i hope you enjoy your stay on the site........


----------



## book1182 (Oct 28, 2005)

I'm going with the CR-42 since it came from a long line of bi-plane. I think the Gladiator was the bi-plane that made the biggest difference though. It fought from the ice in Norway all the way down to the Med. Ocean at Malta. The Gladiator was always the plane that had it's back against the wall when and where it fought and still gave a good account for itself.


----------



## fare (Oct 28, 2005)

Information about FDB-1

Gregor (CCF) FDB-1
(Canada)
The FDB-1 was one of the last biplane fighters developed, first flown in December 1938. It was also one of the cleanest and most beautiful biplane fighters, with an all-round vision, closed cockpit, retractable landing gear, and a gulled upper wing. But it was also clearly an obsolete concept. One built. 
Type: FDB-1
Country: Canada
Function: fighter
Year: 1938 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 750hp P&W R-1535-SB4-G
Wing Span: 8.53m Length: 6.60m Height: 2.86m Wing Area: 18.02m2
Empty Weight: 1306km/h Max.Weight: 
Speed: 440km/h (275m/h) (maximum speed about 470km/h)
Ceiling: 
Range: 835km
Armament: 2*mh12.7mm (0.50")





More pictures in:
www.aviation.technomuses.ca/les_collections/ phototheque/dig_img.cfm?

The FDB-1 prototype flying in Chinese Air Forces during WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Cool thanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

Nice, it is a pretty plane! 8)


----------



## Udet (Nov 3, 2005)

Can not believe some of the things I´ve read here.

In fact, a fistful of fine soviet pilots managed to shoot down Bf 109s during the first months of the war.

Dare you to tell how many Bf 109s fell to the guns of the ancient Chaikas and Ishaks...not too many; someone here said "they were losing too many planes to biplanes", non-sense.

Also dare you to mention how many of those brilliant soviet pilots were alive when 1942 started.

Right, and as Flyboy commented, a brilliant pilot flying some of the old Polikarpovs could play some lovely acrobatics to escape from a pursuing Bf 109...at least a temporary escape.

Still they would find themselves outclimbed, outdived, outpowered and outgunned by the modern German interceptors.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

Udet said:


> Right, and as Flyboy commented, a brilliant pilot flying some of the old Polikarpovs could play some lovely acrobatics to escape from a pursuing Bf 109...at least a temporary escape.



Yep - you could only do so many loops and rolls!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2005)

And only a couple of ramming attacks before you broke up


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> And only a couple of ramming attacks before you broke up


Damn Russians, they have no patience!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2005)

LOL 

I do believe that most people realize that even though the old Russian fighters did achieve some limited success they were outclassed and fighting a loosing battle at the beginning of the war.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

I would say the Polikarpov I-153. I have heard a story that says that Goring actually issued a decree forbidding the Luftwaffe pilots from tackling this plane as they lost too many pilots to it. Has anyone else heard that story? If it is true it shows just how good the plane and its pilots are when monoplane fighters are forbidden to engage it for fear of losses.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

I have not heard anything about that. I do not know if it is true or not, but I find it hard to believe.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

That's not true. The Kondor Legion already knew all about the I-15 series fighters from the Spanish Civil War and enjoyed a massive advantage over them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Pretty much what I knew also.


----------



## Iskandar Taib (Nov 9, 2005)

elmilitaro said:


> Well if it wasn't for them who would have defended Yalta then.



Yalta? Some Russians, maybe?


----------



## fare (Nov 23, 2005)

¿ The Best Biplane Fighter of WW2 ?


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 23, 2005)

Good choice!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2005)

I dont consider that a biplane and they were basically drop tanks. Its a monoplane with drop tanks shaped like wings


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

you can't argue about the fact it has two wings though


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2005)

Until theyre jettisoned it does, and when entering dogfights I doubt the pilot would keep them attached. Thus, in my opinion, it is not a true biplane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2005)

mmmmm, there must be a specail designation for stuff like this!


----------



## Parmigiano (Dec 2, 2005)

I believe this is the ultimate site about WWII biplanes !

http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/

It is really worth to navigate it, there is an incredible documentation work for all the pilots who flew biplanes.
It is also funny to compare the claims of all sides with the documents of the 'other side'

bon voyage


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 2, 2005)

nice site i've bookmarked that one!


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> nice site i've bookmarked that one!


Me too, good site Parm!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

Yeap good site, thanks.


----------



## Currell (Oct 13, 2006)

The Avia 534 should be mentioned as a contender, although the CR 42 still would have the edge. 

It was strange that the Italians continued to develop the biplane at so late a date. It would be like Ford Motor Co. building the Pinto in 2006...the ultimate Pinto, no doubt, but why?

From the late 30s era, you also would have to take a look at the Grumman F3F. True, it did not participate in WW2. However, the Al Williams Gulfhawk version had a top speed of 290 mph (no armor or armament, of course).


----------



## namvet68 (Jul 22, 2008)

I agree the best one is the CR-42 flown by the Italian Air Force.


----------



## Bigxiko (Jul 22, 2008)

i'll go with the gladiator


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 22, 2008)

Might wat to look at this thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-late-biplane-fighter-13592.html


----------



## Lancaster630 (Jul 29, 2008)

mosquitoman said:


> Gladiator- Faith, Hope and Charity kept the Italian bombers at Malta a hard time, modern bombers being shot down by obsolescent biplanes



This too is my reason, in a strange way I owe my existance as it is to those three little biplanes, my late grandfather was a young lad on the Island and used to watch the dogfights from the roof of his house, so had those little guys not been there my existance would be very different if it happend at all, theres food for thought.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

I-153. An absolute bitch to handle, but if you knew how to handle her you could turn on a dime and at ground level, she was nearly as fast as a 109!


----------



## jbaldas (Feb 23, 2009)

My father was in the Italian A.F. up to 1940, and then became a civilian test pilot. He repeated many times his appreciation of the CR-42, so I'll have to proxy his vote.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2009)

I-153 gets my vote.


----------



## imalko (Mar 15, 2009)

Currell said:


> The Avia 534 should be mentioned as a contender, although the CR 42 still would have the edge.



I agree that the best biplane fighter of WW2 would have to be CR 42 and Avia Bk 534 was probably second best.


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 15, 2009)

I-153 had a lower wing loading, better climb rate, and better power to weight ratio than the Cr.42. Speed was slower by about 15kph. Going on the power to weight ratio and the wing loading, it probably turned a circle tighter than the Cr.42 did. Guns were pretty equivalent. 2 12.7mm vs 4 7.62mm. In my mind, it's close, but the Polikarpov has it.


----------



## Clare (Mar 15, 2009)

at the risk of being either deluged with information or told to b*#x/ off I'm trying to find out information on my grandfather who was a navy pilot during WW2 i believe he flew amongst others a Walrus plane from a carrier and have a couple of pictures but not sure what planes they are he died before I was born and apparently would talk rarely about his experiences can any one help?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2009)

Clare said:


> at the risk of being either deluged with information or told to b*#x/ off...


You might be deluged with information but I can't see anyone on here telling you to 'b*#x/ off' 


Do you have any means of getting your pics up?


----------



## Clare (Mar 15, 2009)

scanner?


----------



## Clare (Mar 15, 2009)

ok now it's scanned how to I put it on here !!


----------



## Clare (Mar 15, 2009)

thanks Colin I managed to put it on the photo albums


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 15, 2009)

The I-153 is the fastest either level and climb and had lowest power load 
Gladiator had lowest wing load 
Cr 42 had longest range and best weaponry in the 4 12.7 variants (if we excluded the eight I-153 with 2-20)


----------



## imalko (Mar 15, 2009)

Did you know that Avia Bk 534 achieved the last biplane fighter kill in WW2 and indeed in history of aerial warfare? It was in autum of 1944 during Slovak national uprising, when one of the insurgents Bk 534 shoot down a hungarian Ju 52. I dont remember exact date and pilot name but I can find out if someone is interested.

Sorry, just a little detour off the topic. CR-42 remains my favourite.8)


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 16, 2009)

Hard to tell....between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Mar 18, 2009)

I-153 gets my vote. I love that airplane, and it is also considered to be the best biplane to be built, however I also think that Gloster Gladiator is also a very reliable and agile biplane fighter. 

To sum it up, these two are my personal favorites.

Greetings to Tomo Pauk and Imalko.

Cheers


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

Greetings to you too, Milos.


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 7, 2009)

Hard to say. Lot of affection for the Gladiator but my vote would go for the CR42. Much longer use even in nightfighting role... Crazy !


----------



## renrich (Jul 7, 2009)

There were some Beech Staggerwings used in the PI. Can't remember the AAF designation. They were not used as fighters but wonder how they would stack up against other bi planes?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 7, 2009)

maybe too slow for this


----------



## renrich (Jul 8, 2009)

I found my reference which had Staggerwings in it. The RN used them and called them Traveller I. The AAF called them YC43s or UC 43s. They had a V max of 195 mph at 5000 feet.


----------



## ashiphire (Feb 24, 2010)

I 153 for sure, even though it is needed a experienced pilot (which the Russians did not have), it could out maneuver both the gladiator and fiat


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2010)

ashiphire said:


> I 153 for sure, even though it is needed a experienced pilot (which the Russians did not have), it could out maneuver both the gladiator and fiat



Define "Experienced Pilot."


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 26, 2010)

Fiat, except for the terrible Italian 12.7mms.


----------

