Could the Biplane fighter have been improved any further

[Markus]

One word: Drag!

It increases with the square of the speed, so a biplane would always be slower than a monoplane with the same kind of engine. The second wing would add lift, so if you need a fast climbing interceptor with a moderate speed in level flight a bi-plane might be useful.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I wonder if wings configured like an X-Wing from Star Wars would work.

 

[gumbyk]

VB,
That configuration would have some problems with the interference between the two wings (when in the 'X' configuration)

If you could somehow overcome this (maybe with a variable stagger distance) it would be possible, I guess. But I would think it would suffer the same issues as all variable-geometry aircraft - the weight/complexity problems would outweigh any performance benefits.

 

[syscom3]

What about a carrier based bi-plane used solely for ASW work? Speed and maneuverability means little. Carrying a large fuel supply, radar and depth charges would make it heavy, thus a biplane with high lift wings might be a useful design.

 

[fastmongrel]

What about a carrier based bi-plane used solely for ASW work? Speed and maneuverability means little. Carrying a large fuel supply, radar and depth charges would make it heavy, thus a biplane with high lift wings might be a useful design.

There was one it was called the Fairy Swordfish

 

[syscom3]

There was one it was called the Fairy Swordfish

It was primarily a torpedo bomber. Not a design from the start dedicated ASW aircraft.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I actually could see a need for something like that.

 

[gumbyk]

Apparently they were pretty effective.

They were so slow that the fighters had a hard time getting on target

 

[Markus]

Apparently they were pretty effective.

They were so slow that the fighters had a hard time getting on target

Operation Cerberus ??? The Stringbag did not do that well there, didn´t she?

 

[gumbyk]

Just rumours and innuendo that I had heard, no firm evidence there.

 

[fastmongrel]

The attack by Swordfish on the 3 German ships was never going to go well. Only 6 aircraft some with inexperienced crews were sent. They lost there fighter escort, were under constant attack by Luftwaffe fighters and attacking 3 ships with excellent modern anti aircraft systems yet still the attack was pressed home even though the crews must have known it was a suicidal mission. One Stringbag is believed to have scored a hit on Gniesanu but the fish was a dud. I have read one source that says the torpedo worked but hit the main armour belt and did no damage.

This is the citation that was published with the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross to the squadron leader

The KING is pleased to approve the grant of the VICTORIA CROSS, for valour and resolution in action against the Enemy, to:

The late Lieutenant-Commander (A) Eugene Esmonde, D.S.O., Royal Navy.

On the morning of Thursday, 12th February, 1942, Lieutenant-Commander Esmonde, in command of a Squadron of the Fleet Air Arm, was told that the German Battle-Cruisers SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU and the Cruiser PRINZ EUGEN, strongly escorted by some thirty surface craft, were entering the Straits of Dover, and that his Squadron must attack before they reached the sand-banks North East of Calais.

Lieutenant-Commander Esmonde knew well that his enterprise was desperate. Soon after noon he and his squadron of six Swordfish set course for the Enemy, and after ten minutes flight were attacked by a strong force of Enemy fighters. Touch was lost with his fighter escort; and in the action which followed all his aircraft were damaged. He flew on, cool and resolute, serenely challenging hopeless odds, to encounter the deadly fire of the Battle-Cruisers and their Escort, which shattered the port wing of his aircraft. Undismayed, he led his Squadron on, straight through this inferno of fire, in steady flight towards their target. Almost at once he was shot down; but his Squadron went on to launch a gallant attack, in which at least one torpedo is believed to have struck the German Battle-Cruisers, and from which not one of the six aircraft returned.

His high courage and splendid resolution will live in the traditions of the Royal Navy, and remain for many generations a fine and stirring memory.

 

[timshatz]

Always wondered if anybody survived from the 6 aircraft. Know they were all shot down, but....

Also, did fighters get them all or were some lost to AAA. Anybody know?

 

[gumbyk]

I stand corrected....

 

[cherry blossom]

As the sensible comments have paused, may I ask if the SAAB Viggen counts

 

[fastmongrel]

Always wondered if anybody survived from the 6 aircraft. Know they were all shot down, but....

Also, did fighters get them all or were some lost to AAA. Anybody know?

5 crew survived out of 18. 4 Were pilots probably because the only protection on a Swordfish was the Bristol Pegasus radial engine. The air gunner and navigator were horibly exposed and had only the steel tube frame and light metal sheet and canvas cladding.

I have done a bit of reading on the action. The fighter cover and AA seem to have shared the planes it seems that the fighters badly damaged most if not all the Swordfish claiming half aircraft with the with AA finishing the job. The Swordfish was actually a very tough aircraft to down. The Pegasus radial was well known to be able to keep running with 1 or even 2 cylinders missing and the tubular frame could also maintain strength with parts missing.

I doubt if any contemporary torpedo aircraft could have done any better. Torpedo attacks against fighter defence and modern AA were a death ride because of the need to fly slow and straight and level during the run.

 

[timshatz]

Thanks for the post Fast. Agree with you that Torpedo Pilots of all nations were virtual suiciders in any kind of determined resistance. Especially if the Fighters hadn't been neutralized.

Once those guys spread out to make their drops (or drop in small groups), they are horrible exposed and slow. It doesn't take #1 graduate of AAA school to make hits on them.

Rough job.

 

[vikingBerserker]

While reading Soviet Air Power in World War 2 by Yefim Gordon I came across this little guy.

It's the Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1 that was equipped with a lower wing that folded into the fuselage and the upper wing when the landing gear was folded in.

Outlined to show where it folded into.

I could see the potential to expanding this. The STOL performance of a biplane with the speed of a monoplane.

Pics from Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1 - experimental fighter

 

[bobbysocks]

VB that is pretty interesting. did they give any performance reviews..or did it even fly or was it just a proposed prototype?

 

[Milosh]

Can't find my book with the IS in it but there also was an IS-4 with a 1400hp AM-37 engine. There is a nice cut-away drawing.

IS-4, Nikitin-Shevchenko

Nikitin's test pilot, Vladimir Vasiloyevich Schyevchyenko investigated the practicality of a bi-plane fighter with a folding lower wing which retracted into the upper wing. The intention being to combine the short field length and climb capabilities of the bi-plane with the speed of the monoplane fighter. Assisted by Nikitin in his investigation, Schyevchyenko built a scale model at MAT in 1939. Later in 1939 OKB-30 were tasked with the design and manufacture of the full-scale IS, which was completed by 6 November 1940.

The fuselage forward of the cockpit, wing spar booms and the combined lower inner wing and undercarriage assemblies were built up from welded 30KhGSA steel tubing, whist the rest of the airframe was constructed from D16 duralumin throughout except for fabric covering on the control surfaces.

The pneumatically actuated inwards retracting undercarriage was housed inside the inner lower-wing which folded at approx ½ span to lie in recesses in the sides of the fuselage. The outer halves of the lower wings remained horizontal as the wings retracted and were housed in recesses in the under-surfaces of the upper wings. Retraction of the wings was carried out by a single vertically mounted pneumatic actuator in the fuselage which unlocked the bracing struts either side and pulled the wing upwards as the bracing strut was pulled upwards.

Control of the undercarriage retraction and wing folding was accomplished with a single three position lever in the cockpit. With 'Chassis Down' selected the wing and undercarriage were extended, selecting 'Chassis Up/Wing Down' retracted the undercarriage into the inner lower wing, and selecting 'Wing Up' retracted the wing, selection of wing position could be made at any time to enable the pilot to choose the best configuration for the situation the aircraft was in.

Flight tests were successful but the performance of the monoplane configuration was inferior to the contemporary monoplane fighters such as the MiG-3 and Yak-1 . A second machine was built fitted with a more powerful engine but flight tests were interrupted by the German invasion in 1941. Even more powerful version were designed with AM-120 or AM-37 engines, however the invasion forced abandonment of the concept.

 

[vikingBerserker]

VB that is pretty interesting. did they give any performance reviews..or did it even fly or was it just a proposed prototype?

According to the book, the IS-1 (900 hp M-63 radial) IS-2 (1,000 hp M88 Radial) both flew. The IS-3 IS-4 were canceled due to the invasion. Page 419 of the book:

"The IS-1 was one of the lightest fighters, having a take-off weight of only 2,300 kg (5,079 lb) and a empty weight of 1,400 kg (3,086 lb). It had an open cockpit; to improve control the rudder and elevator were fitted with trim tabs. During tests the IS-1 showed a maximum speed of 453 km/h (281 mph), a service ceiling of 8,300 m (27,250 ft) and a range of 600 km (372 miles). Climb time to 5,000 m (16,000 ft) was 8.2 minutes. The lower wing and undercarriage extension/retraction system operated faultlessly during testing."