Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?

[tomo pauk]

... as combat aircraft -the trainers, light recon or the liaison roles are of no concern here. The outdated biplanes based on the escort carriers are not a topic here, too.

Possibly for the role of a ship-borne fighter, something along the CR.42DB - seems like the Italians managed it to be as fast as the Hurricane II or the 1st Zeros. Advantage might've been that the compact size of a biplane can allow it to fit through the elevators and into the hangars more easily?
Of course, a bespoke fighter would've been still a better thing, featuring the enclosed cockpit and retractable U/C, less bracing & vires etc.

A biplane dive-bomber in the similar vein?

 

[Admiral Beez]

The outdated biplanes based on the escort are not a topic here, too.

I don't understand your guidelines or even the syntax here. What is "the escort"?

 

[Shortround6]

A biplane dive-bomber in the similar vein?

Look at some of the tail enders to these lines.

950hp engine (same engine as the early Brewster Buffaloes) Top speed 234mph (clean?)
Could hold a 1000lb bomb. How far it could carry one is subject to question
50 transferred to France. Few got there, British wound up with 5 so juggle the deliveries and not stick a batch on Martinique.
What would the British even do with 3 dozen?
And was anybody going to make a better biplane dive bomber? even with a 1100hp engine? You already have retracting landing gear and a cowl with adjustable cooling flaps.

 

[swampyankee]

... as combat aircraft -the trainers, light recon or the liaison roles are of no concern here. The outdated biplanes based on the escort carriers are not a topic here, too.

Possibly for the role of a ship-borne fighter, something along the CR.42DB - seems like the Italians managed it to be as fast as the Hurricane II or the 1st Zeros. Advantage might've been that the compact size of a biplane can allow it to fit through the elevators and into the hangars more easily?
Of course, a bespoke fighter would've been still a better thing, featuring the enclosed cockpit and retractable U/C, less bracing & vires etc.

A biplane dive-bomber in the similar vein?

Where could they have mattered? Taranto and the hunt for Bismarck.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Swordies were biplanes flown off'n aircraft carriers which managed results.

They weren't fighters, but they were put to great use all the same.

 

[SaparotRob]

Is crop dusting an option?

 

[Howard Gibson]

... as combat aircraft -the trainers, light recon or the liaison roles are of no concern here. The outdated biplanes based on the escort carriers are not a topic here, too.

Possibly for the role of a ship-borne fighter, something along the CR.42DB - seems like the Italians managed it to be as fast as the Hurricane II or the 1st Zeros. Advantage might've been that the compact size of a biplane can allow it to fit through the elevators and into the hangars more easily?
Of course, a bespoke fighter would've been still a better thing, featuring the enclosed cockpit and retractable U/C, less bracing & vires etc.

A biplane dive-bomber in the similar vein?

People facing manoeuverable aircraft like biplanes all learned to use hit and run tactics. The Italian biplanes worked fine against Gloster Gladiators. The Soviet Polikarpov I-153s may have been a bit less suicidal than the I-16s. Biplanes do all sorts of nifty stuff until you get into combat with a correctly flown monoplane.

 

[ThomasP]

As mentioned by Shortround6, the SBC Helldiver.
Maybe an aerodynamically cleaned up SBC-4 (wheel-well covers, etc) with the 1200/1000 BHP engine. Stress it for underwing DTs. Vmax without DTs of 245-250 mph, and strike radius with 1000/500 lb bomb of 200/250 miles. With DTs maybe another 100 miles strike radius.

As mentioned by tomo pauk, the CR.42DB.
Prototype only, so hard to say exactly what a production airframe would do but 320 mph TAS at 17,000 ft is reasonable, with a ROC of 3000 ft/min. Range about the same as the Spitfire. Only 2x 12.7mm SAFAT. Good point defense interceptor and CAP.

Neither of these airframes would be anything to laugh at.

 

[tomo pauk]

950hp engine (same engine as the early Brewster Buffaloes) Top speed 234mph (clean?)
Could hold a 1000lb bomb. How far it could carry one is subject to question
50 transferred to France. Few got there, British wound up with 5 so juggle the deliveries and not stick a batch on Martinique.
What would the British even do with 3 dozen?
And was anybody going to make a better biplane dive bomber? even with a 1100hp engine? You already have retracting landing gear and a cowl with adjustable cooling flaps.

I've told that stating engine power without also stating the altitude can be throwing people off the mark
The -34 engine was good for 750 HP at 15000 ft. The Ju 87B with 930 HP there was good for 240 mph (380 km/h).
A SBC-lookalike with 1100 HP at 15000 ft (preferably in a V12 or in a 14 cyl radial) will do more than okay as a carrier-borne dive bomber. It should be also less demanding on the size of hangars and elevators than the Japanese dive bombers or the SBD.

Where could they have mattered? Taranto and the hunt for Bismarck.

Beyond that.

People facing manoeuverable aircraft like biplanes all learned to use hit and run tactics. The Italian biplanes worked fine against Gloster Gladiators. The Soviet Polikarpov I-153s may have been a bit less suicidal than the I-16s. Biplanes do all sorts of nifty stuff until you get into combat with a correctly flown monoplane.

Note that this is about the biplanes getting the major upgrade in power, and a bit of drag reduction (retractable U/C, enclosed cockpit) = a substantial increase in speed.
Yes, monoplanes are even better in that regard, but biplanes are less boring

 

[Shortround6]

I've told that stating engine power without also stating the altitude can be throwing people off the mark
The -34 engine was good for 750 HP at 15000 ft.

You are correct.
the 950hp is at take off. However the 750hp is normal power, not military, normal power is max continuous. It is at rpm below take-off or "military" power.
-34 engine was also 1114lbs and had no reduction gear for the prop. Also was supposed to run on 92 octane fuel.
SBC-4 was also supposed to have a 317sq ft wing area and weigh 7080lbs. one .30 cal machine gun and no armor of fuel tank protection.

As far as the Italians go, yes the CR.42 got to 323mph but the same engine (?) in a MC 200 got you 370mph, where do you want to use your limited supply of V-12 engines?

 

[ThomasP]

The -3 could only carry 1x .30 cal in the nose, but IIRC while the SBC-4 could still only carry 1x gun in the nose, it could be either 1x .30 cal or 1x .50 cal.

 

[tomo pauk]

As far as the Italians go, yes the CR.42 got to 323mph but the same engine (?) in a MC 200 got you 370mph, where do you want to use your limited supply of V-12 engines?

Thread is not just about the Italians. I've used the CR.42DB as an example, or as a ballpark.
Let's see the Germans. A CR.42DB equivalent, but with Jumo 211 in the nose can give them very fast dive bomber already for 1939. Have the cooling system be like what the Ju 87B had, and hang the bomb behind it so it is not fully exposed to the slipstream. Enclosed cockpit.
(don't go for the huge wing area like what the Fi.167 had)

Or the British: Sea Gladiator Mk.II with a Merlin III in the nose. Add another pair of MGs. Can be stowed in the carriers where the Sea Hurricane will not fit, and can catch the stuff the Fulmar can't.

 

[special ed]

I still like the Avia B.534 Series IV. The Germans considered it for the Graf Zeppelin long enough to test it with a tail hook on land arrests.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Note that this is about the biplanes getting the major upgrade in power, and a bit of drag reduction (retractable U/C, enclosed cockpit) = a substantial increase in speed.
Yes, monoplanes are even better in that regard, but biplanes are less boring

The DB601 series engines powered aircraft up to 390mph. Prior to the Mark IXs, Spitfires were doing 370mph. The biplane has to be fast enough that hit and run and fast diving tactics won't work on them. That just wasn't happening.

The whole point of a biplane is that the two wings and their struts and wires form a truss. Structurally, trusses are way more efficient that cantilever beams. On an aircraft that is to fly at 120mph, that lightweight structure may provide more load carrying, and STOL performance. At 300+mph, the structure must withstand pressure drag, making it just as solid as the cantilever wings. There goes your weight advantage. The biplane's higher drag is of course, not affected.

 

[tomo pauk]

The whole point of a biplane is that the two wings and their struts and wires form a truss. Structurally, trusses are way more efficient that cantilever beams. On an aircraft that is to fly at 120mph, that lightweight structure may provide more load carrying, and STOL performance. At 300+mph, the structure must withstand pressure drag, making it just as solid as the cantilever wings. There goes your weight advantage. The biplane's higher drag is of course, not affected.

Wing thickness to chord ratio on the wing of the SBC was just 12% at the root, ie. beats the Spitfire, the king of thin wing aircraft. Hurricane and Oscar were at 19 and 18%, respectively.
(I don't know the t-t-c ratio of the fighter biplanes, hopefully Aeroweanie can help )

I'm not chasing the weight advantage on the biplanes.

 

[Howard Gibson]

This comes from a book called Flying -- The Why and Wherefore, published by the Aero sometime around 1909. Supporting a wing at the end massively increases the strength and stiffness. You can take advantage of this by making a thinner wing, as shown here. In 1909, there were no problems with streamlining at 300mph. In 1940, there were.

 

[tomo pauk]

This comes from a book called Flying -- The Why and Wherefore, published by the Aero sometime around 1909. Supporting a wing at the end massively increases the strength and stiffness. You can take advantage of this by making a thinner wing, as shown here. In 1909, there were no problems with streamlining at 300mph. In 1940, there were.

Thank you for the excerpt.
The aircraft of the 1940s will hopefully be using more modern wing profiles than what is shown there

 

[nuuumannn]

I guess it depends on the theatre and who your potential enemy will be. There were a lot of biplanes in frontline roles still in service beyond the outbreak of the war. The Italians, Luftwaffe, RAF, Soviets, and US Navy still had numbers of biplanes in frontline roles a year after the war began. As mentioned previously, against a well organised enemy using monoplane fighters, biplanes proved woefully inadequate as fighters. The Hs 123 should be mentioned as a close support aircraft, which took part in the invasions of Western Europe and Poland, but the type was regarded as possessing insufficient capability over Britain in the Summer of 1940. It did see service during Barbarossa and the Balkans invasion, however. In many air forces around the world, biplanes still had roles beyond the outbreak of war; the RAAF still had Hawker Demons on the frontline into 1940 and beyond until the first Wirraways and P-40s entered service, and the RNZAF's most modern fighter in 1939 was two Gloster Grebes, although it had a number of Vickers Vildebeests and Vincents as its primary patrol bombers, for example.

 

[MIflyer]

I suppose that biplanes could have been used instead of spotter planes such as the Piper L-4. They probably could have carried more equipment and ordnance than the light aircraft assigned to the role, but aside from hanging rockets on them like Bazooka Charlie, it is not obvious they would have been more effective. The Taylorcraft L-2, Aeronca L-3, and Piper L-4 were all high wing light aircraft that offered a superior view of the ground, but bipes usually are not that good for that kind of observation. I suppose a PT-17 would make an acceptable observation plane, but at much higher acquisition cost than an L-4, as well as being more challenging to fly. The L-4's cost less than the crates used to ship them overseas.

But my high school physics teacher said that in Korea he thought it would have been good idea to do a reverse Bedcheck Charlie on the Norks using Stearman bipes, "I don't know how much damage we would have done but I can tell you that nobody in that country would have gotten much sleep at night."

 

[Nick Beale]

Biplanes very much did matter in a number of roles: the Hs 123 in the daylight ground attack role; the Gladiator and Cr.42 as fighters; the CR.42, Ar 66 and Go 146 with the Luftwaffe's Nachtschlachtgruppen … Håkan Gustavsson has a whole website devoted to this subject: surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/