Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Which was the German equivalent to the CR.42 and the Gladiator, did they have any?
Fiat CR.42 vs Gloster Gladiator
- Thread starter Colin1
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
B-17engineer
Colonel
They had the Fieseler Fi 167, Hs 123, Hs 126 and I don't know what others and how they matched up to the Cr.42 Falco or Gladiator.
I know Germany had some Falcos
I know Germany had some Falcos
B-17engineer
Colonel
Ar 68 was one ugly looking beast.
i think we can reply with Bf 109, the Gladiator it's only a few months oldest of 109 (seeing the operational date)
- Thread starter
- #26
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Didn't Henschel have a biplane contemporary of the Gladiator?
Yes he did, but the Hs 123 was never used as a fighter, only for ground support missions AFAIK.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I can't find it anymore. I recall seeing the CR 42DB picture so now I remember it was built. But I distinctly remember that maximum speed was theoretical and never achieved. But as I can't come up with where I read it ... just disregard (for now) 
Kris
Kris
dragonandhistail
Airman
Does anyone have the record of the Gladiator vs. the CR42? I would think the quality and aggressiveness of British pilots would win out hands down?
from hakans page, see my old topic in thread 1st page , raf claims around 1:6 (1 gladiator for 6 42) saaf claims 1:1.5
actually loss over malta 1 gladiator from 42 and a 42 from gladiator
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
- Thread starter
- #33
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
He did
but is it realistic to exclude it from comparison on the basis of applied role? I don't believe combat aircraft of the Henschel's period were generally specialised enough to be excluded from comparison with one another. For example, comparing the Hs123 (dive bomber/close support) with the Gladiator (fighter) - two unsupercharged, 800 to 900hp-engined biplanes, seems far more feasible than any comparison in the mid- to late-war eg the Ju87 (dive bomber/close support) with the P-51 (fighter), where your argument would be more persuasive.
Hello Colin
both Mercury VIII and BMW 132 had single speed single stage supercharger and IMHO in late 30s one put more weight on manoeuvrabilityand rate of climb when designing a fighter and more weight on sturdiness when designing a dive bomber.
Juha
both Mercury VIII and BMW 132 had single speed single stage supercharger and IMHO in late 30s one put more weight on manoeuvrabilityand rate of climb when designing a fighter and more weight on sturdiness when designing a dive bomber.
Juha
- Thread starter
- #35
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
My mistake
I did just do some background and whereas the two types compare favourably in a general sense, the Henschel suffers for max speed being some 40mph slower and service ceiling, that being some 3,500ft lower than the Gladiator.
It does however, climb faster and with underslung 2 x MG FF complementing its 2 x 7.92mm mgs, outguns the RAF fighter.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
but those werent standard of course.
Kris
Kris
Shortround6
Major General
Well, try slinging a 550lb bomb under a Gladiator and then performing a steep dving attack. Part of the design criteria even if rarely, if ever, used in service. or try slinging an over 400lb bomb container under each wing of the Gladiator. Henschel first flew in 1935. How new does an aircraft have to be in order for it to be "specialised"?
As for speed, I wonder just how Fast the Gladiator was at 4,000ft instead of 14,000ft?
A little diffence in the Altitude the engines were set up for?
- Thread starter
- #38
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The Gladiator would probably fold up. I think you're taking my point a little to the extreme; designs of the mid-30s were generally biplane with a powerplant somewhere in the 600-900hp bracket. The constraints of airframe design and powerplant output really limited how differently aircraft, even where 'designed for role' would look and perform. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that there was a world of difference between the Gladiator and the Hs123.
The question of how new does an aircraft have to be in order for it to be specialised isn't clear cut. The Hs123 was clearly specialised for dive-bombing. Even WWI types quickly starting defining themselves into fighters and bombers. At the point in aircraft design where the Hs123 and Gladiator were prevalent designs, I don't think the two types, for single-engined, single-seater biplanes were sufficiently different to be called apples and oranges. As stipulated earlier, this was down to powerplant and airframe design limitations of the time.
Step forward to the mid- to late-war and the two examples I cited of the Ju87 and the P-51 are of the same two roles, that of dive bomber and fighter. The advances in airframe design and powerplant have further evolved the aircraft along the divergent paths started by the Hs123 and Gladiator, only now the difference is beginning to count; whereas a combat encounter between the former is feasible, the same between the latter pair is something of a foregone conclusion.
If you're suggesting that low altitude slowed the Gladiator down to the Hs123's ballpark, doesn't that rather make my point?
I will quote the Gladiator,
Not a rationnal choice. The single pilot's testimony i have found from a belgian pilot (Jenz or Jentz ?) was in favor of the british plane.
It should be noted that belgian pilots were not accustomised enough with their italian bi-planes, because of their late deliveries, and the english technical support being much better.
Not a rationnal choice. The single pilot's testimony i have found from a belgian pilot (Jenz or Jentz ?) was in favor of the british plane.
It should be noted that belgian pilots were not accustomised enough with their italian bi-planes, because of their late deliveries, and the english technical support being much better.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Yes that's completely true VG. Good point!
Kris
Kris
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Poll