the last biplane best fighter

Discussion in 'Between the wars 1918-1939' started by Vincenzo, Sep 1, 2009.

  1. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    For your what's the last biplane best fighter?
    i try to explain: sure the best biplane fighters it's one of late '30s as gladiator, c.r. 42, i-153 but this are not the best fighter of their time many monoplane fighters were superior, so i look what's the best fighter that was a biplane.
    I think the era of biplane was close with polikarpov I-16 so talking late '34 early '35.
    Rule only fighters actually operational in a air force
     
  2. Tzaw1

    Tzaw1 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Warszawa
    Home Page:
    SAAB J-37 Viggen ;)
     
  3. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    good fighter sure in imho but a very bit out specifications
     
  4. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    Avia B.534 was still used in fighter role as late as 1944. Credited with last biplane kill in aviation history I believe...
     
  5. Altea

    Altea Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5 Altea, Sep 2, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2009
    I think about the experimental Polikarpov I-190. The programm failed as the I-180 due to the M-88 reliability problems.

    About serial, i would choose the I-153/M-63 at low heights. CR-42 at 6000m.

    I dont think that Polikarpov I-16 was a better plane than the I-153. With a same M25V Polikarpov I-153 was (425 - 367) 58 km/h faster than the I-15bis. And only (450-425) 25 km/h (5%) slower thant the I-16 tip 10 fitted with the same engine. But it was 17s/11s (50%!) better turner for the same price!
    Moroever I-153 has at opposite to the I-16 no handling or stability problems. It was impossibe to stall (statically) and as "idiotproof" as a 1800kg/800hp fighter could be.
    So if a good pilot became systematically an average one in a plane like the I-16, then an average pilot systematically a good one, in the I-15/I-15bis/I-153 family, just qualified as 'toys for kids" by test pilots.

    It was one step beyond than CR-42 or Gladiator, those had only the I-15bis aerodynamics level.

    Regards
     
  6. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    Altea if i'm not in wrong the I-153 (sure one of the best biplane fighter if not the best) was a late '38 fighter so need compare it, for example, with Hurricane maybe also with Spitfire so i don't think I-153 is best of this. the M-63 variant it's also more late, 1940 ?, so need compare with many other superior monoplane. C.R. 42 is a '39 fighter.
    Gladiator it's late 36 early '37 fighter just for a few month can be compared only with I-16 (Type 5 i think) so if you think that Gkadiator it best of I-16, Gladiator it's the choice, but if you think it's best the I-16 need choice a more old biplane
     
  7. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    I think the Grumman F2F and F3F would certainly be contenders. I think the F3F would barely squeeze in the time frame.
     
  8. Altea

    Altea Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8 Altea, Sep 2, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2009
    Ok i misunderstud.

    We are comapring apples and oranges. A monoplane fighter was never better than a biplane one, or the opposite. A fighter plane was always a compromise between speed and manoeuvrability. A monoplane always had superior aerodynamical output, without parasitic interferences between the 2 plans. Biplane was better suited for high-g tight-turns dogfight manoeuvres, because it's "caisson" or "box" like working to stress wings. At equivalent wing aera and weight it was able to withstand much more structural efforts. See resistance of material formulas and quadratic moments chapter.

    No ideal solution, all planes are compromises.


    [​IMG]

    The big height of the biplane strut working stucture addict with braced wire tension geometry is better to withstand flexion efforts and to break-resistance.

    Regards

    PS: I think biplane aera came at end for historical, not technical reasons, with the appraisal of high-speed bombers like Tupolev SB-2, Do-17, He-70 or Blenheims. As an interceptor a biplane was by evidence, worse.
     
  9. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    #9 Vincenzo, Sep 2, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2009
    F3F-1 it's delivered at squadron in march '36 this variant it's ~80 km/h slowest of I-16 (the F3F-2 was more late need compare it also with Hurricane) F2F it's of early '35 so has as challenger again I-16. the FF-1 was a mid june '33 fighter so not low wing monoplane maybe a challengers.
    FF-1 with Nimrod, A2N they are the embarked fighters before of I-16. but with a category: last biplane fighter best embarked fighter we can add more and newest biplane, the first monoplane fighter embarked wad A5M in early '37, so in this restricted challeng with can add F3F-1 (obv. also the F2F) and A4N) .
    Nimrod speed ~310 km/h. wing load ~66 kg/mq. power load ~3.5 kg/hp
    F3F-1 speed ~370 km/h. wing load ~~83 kg/mq. power load ~~3.1 kg/hp
    A4N speed ~350 km/h. wing load ~77 kg/mq. power load ~2.4 kg/hp

    (As knew also the french have a carrier but they used high wing monoplane fighter since the born for camparison data for Wibault 74, the french high wing fighter, speed ~225 km/h. wing load ~66 kg/mq. power load ~3.4 kg/mq)
     
  10. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    maybe a comparison apples and oranges but i think it's a possible comparison, as apples and oranges came in comparison when you go in market
     
  11. Altea

    Altea Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11 Altea, Sep 2, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
    To compare
    Numbers for serial I-16 n° 123954, at 1432 kg with an all american Cyclone F-3 rated at 712 hp. Built in early 1935, state control trials achieved in april.

    457 km/h wing load ~98kg/m², p.l.~2,0 kg/m²:shock: ( Better than a Bf 109K!)
    Astonishing acceleration and vertical boom-zoom manoeuvres. Rate of roll 360°/1-1,2s:shock::shock:!!!
    Time of turn 360° in less than 14s: equivalent to the captured Fiats CR-32.
    Even if a monoplane, not an easy plane to dogfight with a pilot at right level...
     
  12. comiso90

    comiso90 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,672
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Video and multi-media communications expert
    Location:
    FL
  13. Altea

    Altea Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. PJay

    PJay Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Occupation:
    logistics
    Location:
    London UK
    There was the proposed Bi-plane Hurricane. Doubt if that counts though LOL.
     
  15. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    #15 Vincenzo, Sep 4, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
    Biplane 1934
    Letov S-231 w.l. 82,33 p.l. 3,16 sp. 348
    Avia BH-33L w.l. 61,18 p.l. 2,69 sp. 298
    Fokker D.XVII w.l. 76,5 p.l. 2,64 sp. 355
    Svenska Aero Gryfalcon w.l. 67,43 p.l. 2,83 sp. 310
    Heinkel He 51 w.l. 69,85 p.l. 2,53 sp. 330
    Arado Ar 65 w.l. 64,33 p.l. 2,57 sp. 300
    Fiat C.R. 30 w.l. 70,19 p.l. 3,16 sp. 350
    Polikarpov I-15 w.l. 64,61 p.l. 2,95 sp. 350
    Hawker Fury w.l. 69,96 p.l. 2,56 sp. 360
    Fairey Firefly w.l. 67,73 p.l. 3,1 sp.360
    Armstrong A.W.16 w.l. 65,99 p.l. 3,04 sp. 322
    Curtiss Hawk w.l. 77,12 p.l. 2,68 sp. 335
    Curtiss Hawk w.l.66,62 p.l.2,49 sp. 330
    Boeing F4B w.l. 58,63 p.l. 2,06 sp.305
    Grumman FF w.l. 73,65 p.l. 3,03 sp.333
    Kawasaki Type 92 w.l.70,83 p.l.2,27 sp. 320


    Monoplane (contemporary))
    PZL P.11 w.l.92,18 p.l.2,56 sp. 375
    Morane SaulnierMS 225 w.l.91,86 p.l.3,16 sp.335
    Dewoitine D.27 w.l.80,8 p.l. 2,48 sp. 312
    Nakajima Type 91 w.l.76,5 p.l. 2,94 sp.300
    Boeing P-26 w.l.96,4 p.l. 2,35 sp.375
    Consolidated P-30 w.l.92,57 p.l.3,79 sp.385


    sorry i late work on formatation, damn tables
    first column wing load kg for meter square 2nd column power load kg for hp 3rd column speed in km/h
    data from wikipedia (not only english) and some other page looking on google when i've doubt on wiki info
     
  16. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The question is:

    What was the last biplane fighter to be THE best fighter plane in the world.

    Vince is trying to eliminate fighters like the Fiat CR.42 that were already obsolete when they first flew.

    I submit the Hawker Fury.
     
  17. Altea

    Altea Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice plane, good choice.

    But there were already advanced monoplanes with high wing as PZL P-7, Dewoitine D 27, D-37 at that time, or low wing cantilever ones : Wibault 210, Bernard 20, HV-40, 74 or Grigorovich I-Z.

    So i`m not sure that the Fury performed well against them

    Regards
     
  18. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    #18 Vincenzo, Sep 12, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
    I'm agree fury is a good choice. The RAF have it from '31.
    some on notes
    wibault 210 prototype was abbandoned too vibration was not a good aircraft and can't go a good fighter.
    bernard 20 prototype abbandoned too hig landing speed, it's slowest of Fury have highets wing load and power load and was not a fighter only a prototype.
    bernard hv-40 this flyngboat prototype was not indeed for fighter and go to first flying when fury go in service
    bernard 72 this prototype flying when fury go in service and again it was not a fighter only a not armed prototype
    grigorovich I-Z was slowest (near 100 km/h) highest low wing and power load with a strange and unsucessfull idea for weaponry and again prototype flying same time that fury go to squadrons, go to squadrons in '33
    dewoitine 27 it's a true challenger, within the two i choice fury
    dewoitine 37x go to squadrons only in '36
    pzl p.7 go to squadrons in '33
     
  19. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The PZL P.7 was slower than the Hawker Fury and not as well armed.
     
  20. Altea

    Altea Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20 Altea, Sep 29, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
    Ok,
    From historical point of view, you're certainly right. Technical, j'm less sure.

    wibault 210: if you call vibration a buffeting, it's annoying. But there was a cure for that, moroever if it occured a speeds when dynamic pressure should have been destoyed virtually all biplane of it's time.
    bernard 20: well 10-15 km/h more landing speed than others similar plane's of it's time makes no huge difference. By the way it was not faster landing speed than latter D-371, D-501, Loire 46 fighters.
    All Bernard speedplanes had they fighter variants/ adaptations. "Bernard ets" was a kind of french "supermarine" firm always ahead in technicals and ideas but whatever he could have think or done being not integrated in the "establishement" (relationships, politics) he never had a "shadow of a chance" to see it's (he's) fighter planes commanded one day by officials.

    Anyway, french army technical commission was composed from 19th centuty men with retrograde ideas (not ideas in fact, they haven't any, but prejudices...) considering the right solution was a high wing plane (pendular stability, in other cases the plane was considered as unstable) with the "hole in the wing" to allow some observation in the air. No comments...

    About I-Z, i admit it's a partly wrong example since it's not a speed monoplane but a rugged wing monoplane made to carry and withstand APK 76,2mm canon fire. Nevertheless it reached 300 km/h (some sources quoted 310) at state trials in summer 1931.

    I don't have Kestrel power chart, but extrapolating it from one stage supercharched planes it should loose about 15 km/h for 1000m. So rouhgly it gives 270 km/h only at SL. The best I-Z speed was performed at SL, it had no supercharger. We don't know how fast could it have been in clean condition. In other hand, i'm not sure that carrying two Kourchevski 76 mm guns and it's heavy bullets, the Fury should have been as fast, and moroever i'm not sure that it was able ever to only carry them, even not fire...

    The Fury might have been the superior figher of it's time. I'm not sure it could performed well against TB-1/TB-3 heavy bombers boxes, and their escort R-6 protection.

    All is relative* (*Einstein)

    Regards
     
Loading...

Share This Page