Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered? (3 Viewers)

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 The outdated biplanes based on the escort carriers are not a topic here, too.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The outdated biplanes based on the escort are not a topic here, too.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 The outdated biplanes based on the escort carriers are not a topic here, too.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