Fiat CR.42 vs Gloster Gladiator

[Colin1]

Fiat CR.42 :Name: Gloster Gladiator

27.13ft (8.27m) :Length: 27.43ft (8.36m)
31.82ft (9.7m) :Width: 32.25ft (9.83m)
11.78ft (3.59m) :Height: 10.33ft (3.15m)
1 :Crew: 1

267mph (430km/h) :Maximum speed: 257mph (407km/h)
482 miles (775Kms) :Maximum range: 428 miles (689Kms)
2,340ft/min (713m/min) :Rate of climb: 2,220ft (677m/min)
33,465ft (10,200m) :Service ceiling: 33,500ft (10,211m)

3,929lbs (1,782Kgs) :Empty weight: 3,450lbs (1,565Kgs)
5,066lbs (2,298Kgs) :Max take-off weight: 4,864lbs (2,206Kgs)

1 x Fiat A.74 R1C 14-cyl radial @ 840hp owerplant: 1 x Bristol Mercury IX 9-cyl radial @ 840hp

2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mg with underwing 2 x 12.7mm mg or 440lbs bombs :Armament: 2 x 7.7mm Browning mg prop-sync'd with underwing 2 x 7.7mm mg

21lb/sq ft (102Kg/sq m) :Wing loading: 15lb/sq ft (73Kg/sq m)
0.17hp/lb (0.270kW/kg) ower to weight: 0.63hp/lb (1.04kW/kg)

 

[B-17engineer]

Well, I will say the Fiat for a number of reasons:

Armament: X 4 12.7 mm vs the Gladiators 4 7.7mm machine guns

Top speed: The Cr.42 was significantly faster and the Gladiator and would outmaneuver the Gladiator in the vertical. But in a prolonged turning fight the Gladiator may out turn the Cr. 42

The Cr.42 seems to have a pretty good combat record against monoplanes fighters. The Gladiator didn't.

Reading a book it said the Cr.42 was made of less flamable materials which is better for obvious reasons.

Just a few thoughts........based on a quick bit of reading, the info provided and reading on wiki....

 

[Clay_Allison]

I like the CR.42 for the same reason as above, with the addition of the seemingly cleaner lines.

 

[Colin1]

Before I vote
how does the CR.42 weighing in heavier than the Gladiator, climb faster with the same rated horsepower?

 

[B-17engineer]

Another interesting thread would be the Pzl. 24 vs the I-15 vs the Cr. 42

 

[vikingBerserker]

I was trying to figure that out as well Colin, plus the Gladiator has an enclosed cockpit.

 

[Vincenzo]

power to weight of Gladiator is wrong please recalculete it,
C.R. 42 max speed it's 274 mph (with engine a 2520rpm, the 840 hp output it's a 2400 rpm), common weaponry it's 2 -12.7 the underwing guns was "optional" for fighter bomber version (guns or bombs).
i've read, now i don't remember where, that C.R. 42 outturned Gladiator ( i know that w.l. it's highest but i so reading and i believe was in english)

 

[parsifal]

what are the combat records of Gladiator versus CR42.

 

[Vincenzo]

here Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiator in Commonwealth squadron service you can see from british point of view.
for Malta there are data for both side, Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42, there are 1 C.R. 42 shoot down from Gladiators and 1 Gladiator shoot down from C.R. 42s.
Maybe interesting find some belgian report they have both in service

 

[Lucky13]

Love both machines!

 

[snafud1]

I like the CR42. Cleaner lines and was very maneuverable for it's weight. Not saying I don't like the Gladiater though.

 

[vikingBerserker]

When I first read this poll I figured I would have gone with the Gladiator. But after reading about both I have to go with the Fiat.

Interestingly to me, apparently they put a 1,010hp DB 601A engine in one at the speed jumped up to 323mph, but no production.

 

[GrauGeist]

Dunno about that DB601...just imagine if they crammed a BMW 801 in the front of that Fiat!

That rascal would come out the gate smokin'!

 

[Juha]

Hello
RN personel at Yeovilton made during WWII some unofficial dogfight testing CR 42 vs Gladiator. Oppinion of onlookers was that CR 42 won.

Juha

 

[Lucky13]

Dunno about that DB601...just imagine if they crammed a BMW 801 in the front of that Fiat!

That rascal would come out the gate smokin'!

A CR.42 on Steroids you mean?

 

[Civettone]

I've read that the DB 601 build never happened. The max speed figure was theoretical.


Kris

 

[Juha]

Hello Cris
one was built. There is a photo on it in Air Enthusiast 20.

Juha

 

[RAF_Loke]

It all comes down to the skills of the pilot.

 

[VG-33]

Before I vote
how does the CR.42 weighing in heavier than the Gladiator, climb faster with the same rated horsepower?

Hello Colin

J have asked to myself the same question.

In theory, the Gladiator having the same power to weight ratio but lower wing loading should be the best climber.

But there might be some explanation:

- The Falco had a constant-speed propeller giving better output at low speeds.
- The Falco being a sesquiplane (the under wing had 50% or less aera than the top one) had better aerodynamical efficiency than a pure biplane like the Gladiator.
- Some mistake in rate of climbing values: there are obviously mean and not instant ones. It's better to compare planes by curves and not numbers. Since Falco maintained power at higher altitude, the mean value is better for that one



From belgian site:
Site du 350ieme Squadron

the Fiat was considered as the best biplane, even if it was bought for desesperate reasons, not by choice: other modenr planes being unavalable for import.

It suffered from technical troubles but was popular with its pilots.

Difficult to found testimonys ower days about belgians CR-42 vs Gladiator in simulated fights. Moroever by late 39/ early 40 both were considered as obsolete equaly by gen Coppens and the bulk of fighter pilots. That explains maybe the lack of interest for such an experiment

Regards

 

[vikingBerserker]

Great info VG.