The Best Biplane Fighter of WW2

cheddar cheese · Apr 29, 2005

and the Italians really didn't have too much better than the CR-42 to replace it with.

Except the Fiat G.50 and Macchi MC.200... The CR.42 was a great biplane.

the lancaster kicks ass · Apr 29, 2005

HealzDevo said:
I would have to say the Polikarpov I-153 is the best biplane fighter. During WW2 Goering actually made an order to Luftwaffe Pilots to stay away as the Germans were losing too many aircraft to this biplane fighter. In Russia it was very fast and powerful. I am surprised you are considering the Gladiator and the CR-42 which didn't really last that long. In mainline service the Gladiator was gone by WW2, and the Italians really didn't have too much better than the CR-42 to replace it with.

you obviously haven't met my patriotic side

cheddar cheese · Apr 29, 2005

To say that means he hasnt met you at all, as your patriotic side is your only side

Bushranger · May 9, 2005

CR 42 gets my vote

Mainly because of the better engine than the Gladiator, the better armament, and the manouverability

The famous test-pilot Captain Eric M. Brown, RN, had an opportunity to fly the captured CR.42 MM5701, which was captured after a forced-landing in the later stages of Battle of Britain. He reported that the aircraft was an aerobatic gem. It was remarkably fast for a biplane with a top speed of 270 mph at 12,400 ft and a marginal stability, the hallmark of a good fighter. The CR.42 was a superb biplane that gave an outstanding performance for its type, but as a fighter it was under-gunned. Though highly manoeuvrable, like all aircraft with a lot of fabric covering it was very vulnerable to enemy fire.

On the Gladiator:

Burges saw nine bombers turning in a wide circle south of the island, obviously preparing to head back to Sicily. Cutting across the circle, he and one of the other pilots (probably Squadron Leader A. C. Martin) gave chase, and he was able to fire most of his ammunition at one bomber without apparent result. These were some of 34o Stormo BT S.79s which had hit Hal Far, and the crews reported that the Gladiators fired from long range. One S.79 piloted by Capitano Rosario Di Blasi from 52o Gruppo was hit in the fuselage.
Five hours later a lone S.79 was sent out by the 34o Stormo to reconnoitre the result of the raid. Again Gladiators were scrambled. This time two went up to intercept. Flying Officer John Waters in N5520 got within range and opened fire. He believed that he had shot down the Italian machine, but in fact it was merely driven away, making for Sicily without being able to complete its mission.
At 19.25 the eight and final raid came in and the Gladiators were scrambled. Flying Officer 'Timber' Woods first attacked two different S.79s without apparent result before being attacked by an escorting MC.200 from 79a Squadriglia flown by Tenente Giuseppe Pesola who blasted off 125 rounds at him without result. Woods immediately went into a steep left-hand turn. He circled with the enemy fighter for three minutes before he got it in his sight. He got in a good burst with full deflection. The Italian fighter went down in a step dive with black smoke pouring from his tail. He couldn't follow it but he taught it went into the sea. Woods was subsequently credited with an unconfirmed victory as the first victory for the defenders of Malta. In fact Pesola's aircraft hadn't even been seriously damaged. Evasive action and the black exhaust smoke from the hastily opened throttle had obviously misled Woods.

plan_D · May 9, 2005

That's kind of bias. Refering to the lack of armament on the Gladiator while in the previous quote it clearly states the Cr.42 lacks decent offensive armament for a fighter.

Then, this is best Bi-Plane and lets face it...they were all poor.

cheddar cheese · May 9, 2005

Well, the Gladiator had 4 x .303 and the CR.42 had 2x 12.7mm. PErhaps the Gladiator has a slight edge there but then again 12.7mm's are gonna do more damage than 7.62mm's, so I dont know. I still maintain the CR.42 was better though.

plan_D · May 9, 2005

They both lacked effective armament. There's really no point in comparing because both armaments were unlikely to bring down an aircraft without lucky hits or perfect aim.

FLYBOYJ · May 9, 2005

plan_D said:
Then, this is best Bi-Plane and lets face it...they were all poor.

I think what's being shown here is the obsolescence of these aircraft during WW2 when compared to other contemporary fighters of the day. All these bi planes were highly maneuverable "delightful to fly" etc. but what good is that maneuverability when a 109 or a Spitfire could just accelerate away and come back and blast you out of the sky while you're performing those slick little aerobatic maneuvers?

These aircraft were conceived with conservative WW1 thinking, the twilight of the day when you could get away with performing slick aerobatics during aerial combat in limited numbers. And don't forget the light armament, that was considered heavy a decade earlier.

Bushranger · May 10, 2005

You have a point concerning the weak armament on the Cr 42 plan_d, but also read what it says concerning the Gladiator. It says a couple of times about how the Glads poured shots into the bombers/fighters without effect. I've read reports on the Cr 42's of the CAI in combat with Hurri's. A couple of Hurricanes were forced away by bullet holes in the fuel tanks, controls etc. The Falco's still lost the engagement, but that's to be expected.

How abou the best biplane bomber? I'm thinkin Swordfish

plan_D · May 10, 2005

Both the Cr.42 and Glad's armament were weak, not nearly powerful enough for a modern engagment. The Falco's strikes to the Hurri's fuel tanks would be lucky but there's more chance of actually making a strike against a vital area if you're throwing more lead hot, which the Glad did.

Bushranger · May 10, 2005

True, but what's the point of hitting the vital spot only to have no effect, with a weak weapon like the .303?

plan_D · May 10, 2005

Two .50s is hardly a strong armament. The only reason the .50 is such a great air to air weapon is because it fires a lot with some force. Even then, you need at least six to really make it effective.

I don't really thing one could call the other's armament poor, as both have poor armament. None, really, any better than the other.

the lancaster kicks ass · May 10, 2005

yes and the .303 isn't exactly as weak as you're making out.............

cheddar cheese · May 10, 2005

Much weaker than a 12.7mm though. The .303 is far from the best air to air weapon of the war.

Best Biplane bomber you say? Well counting ground attack I say Henschel Hs-123

plan_D · May 10, 2005

Of course it's not but the .50 cal in small numbers is hardly effective either.

cheddar cheese · May 10, 2005

True, but the same amount of .50's as .303's is going to do more damage.

plan_D · May 10, 2005

Only an idiot would state otherwise but the Glad had four .303s the Cr.42 had two .50s.

mosquitoman · May 10, 2005

Stringbag best biplane bomber- if only for it's acheivements against the Bismarck and at Taranto

cheddar cheese · May 10, 2005

Yes. Like you said, theyre both underarmed.

Why has it taken me so long to draw the same conclusion?

plan_D · May 10, 2005

Well, there's two options CC.

1) Because you're an idiot.
2) Because you're stubborn and don't like admitting that an Italian plane is under-armed.

The Best Biplane Fighter of WW2

Best Biplane Fighter of WW2?

Fiat CR.42 Falco

Gloster Gladiator

Polikarpov I-153

Major General

Major General

Major General

Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Major General

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Master Sergeant

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads