highly evolved biplane fighter

EAF602Whizz

Following on from the most highly evolved Hawker Hurricane thread how about the most highly evolved biplane fighter type in a world war two timeframe?
Was the CR42, Avia B.534, Gladiator and I-153 as far as the type could go or could there have been a breed with powerful 1,000hp plus engines, retractable undercarriage, closed cockpits and heavy armament? How far could their performance be taken?
 

Just Leo

No need to limit it to 1000 hp.

Hyperbipe.png
 

Brother Stormhammer

That looks cool. Frankly, I would *love* to see that beast do an aerobatic routine.

Now for the bad news. The aerodynamic penalties that biplanes pay are going to be more than enough to make a late-war biplane fighter a non-starter. The drag from the second wing is going to reduce speed and increase fuel consumption. The lower top speed might not kill the idea, but it will make it unattractive. The negative impact on fuel consumption, though, is going to be a killer. The only time I've *ever* heard a combat pilot say he had too much gas was when the plane was on fire. :)

Another problem is that the upper wing will create a blind spot for the pilot. It's not a very big blind spot, if things are carefully designed, but air-to-air combat in that era was a game of inches and split seconds where *any* flaw was going to be exploited as hard as possible.

In short (too late for that, I know), while the biplane fighter might be cool looking, and might be maneuverable as all get-out, it's not going to be a contender against the very advanced monoplane fighters that were buzzing around the skies of World War II.
 

EAF602Whizz

Fair enough. How about early to mid WW2 then and only in certain theatres where second line equipment is regarded as the norm? What if the monoplane fighter idea hadn't caught on quite so well and biplanes were considered to be the definitive fighter form? How far might the concepts be taken then? For whatever reasons, monoplane fighters just aren't fashionable yet but other advances are coming onto the drawing boards.
A DB601 or Merlin powered biplane with retractable gear and a mixed cannon/machine gun armament is what I'm looking for. Perhaps a series of misfortunes befall high performance monoplane prototypes and they're thought of as comparatively unstable, unsafe, too much for the average pilot?
 

yulzari

If there is no opposition then the FE2b still has a role. There is no place for a biplane fighter in the war. Those that did their duty early on would have done better were they the period monoplanes.

The biplane lived on in the civilian crop duster role and the Hs123 showed us a possibility in extremely CAS as did the Bulgarian Hurricane (Avia B534) into 1945.

In 1939 really only the I-153, Gloster Gladiator, Avia 534, Arado Ar68 (?), Hs123 and Fiat CR42 were in production so they would have to be the bases for a possible extreme CAS biplane. The CR42 isn't going to get a bigger engine because the Italians don't have one that works. The Germans can use the Bramo 323 or BMW132, the Russians have the I 16 powerplants, the Gladiator could use the single row Pegasus in lieu of the 2 row Mercury.

You need an air cooled engine to survive light AA fire as liquid coolant is too vulnerable without armour. You don't need more speed than the pilot can use right down on the deck so 300kph will suffice but you do need power to accelerate and hold extreme direction changes.

For armament for the role the machine guns are just weight, HE armed cannon are tempting but where would you fit them? RPs are simple but inaccurate so stick to light bombs and lots of practice. Even a 110lb bomb in the side will ruin a PzIVs day.

Extreme CAS requires a control system with forward air observers and these have to be included in the plan. These biplanes are flying field artillery just as the Junker Ju87 was flying heavy artillery. You call for your air support at company or battalion level not brigade or divisional level. So they must have effective reliable radios and the same on the ground.

They need to be able to work out of muddy fields in all feasible weathers so spats and retractable undercarriages are out. Ground crews need mobile workshops and accomodation so that they can swiftly move airfield to keep right behind the front line. Modern 'pixellated' camouflage will make them all but invisible to enemy air cover and their operational height is such that it can be all over as the only time the enemy see them against the sky is when they are on top of them.
 

EAF602Whizz

Good post Yulzari, but in my scenario the monoplane is discredited somewhat and so the biplane fighter still rules the sky. I can see a biplane with an inline engine and a nose mounted 20mm firing through the boss with 4 rifle calibre guns in the fuselage and wings. In other words an Me109 biplane, sort of.
Fiat might use the German inline engine in a design of their own. Japanese pilots liked manouverable aircraft and the Russians were still keen on biplanes, even after the I-16 showed them what a monoplane could do. The RAF were also fairly conservative about it so with a POD in the late 20s, early 30s it might be possible to make the monoplane appear unsuitable for practical applications and the contracts go to the biplane fighter manufacturers. Monoplanes are usually racers and record attempt one offs.
In such an ATL would biplanes be considerably larger as they grew more powerful and better armed or would they remain quite small aircraft?
 
Peabody-Martini

Peabody-Martini

CAS mission is the most feasible use of a biplane into WW2 and beyond, the advantages of monoplane platforms are that obvious. Unless the air races during the interwar period are butterflied somehow that sort of development would be hard to stop. If pilots were willing to strap themselves into deathtraps like the Gee Bee Model R it will be very difficult to discredit more conventional designs once the technology is available.
 

EAF602Whizz

Very true. It would require a degree of obstinacy, a mountain of bad luck and a fixation with the manouverable fighter scout as opposed to the fast interceptor. If bombers remained slow and schneider trophy racers kept crashing etc.
Probably a bit of a stretch really. I should be grateful for the lovely biplanes we had.
 

wietze

would it have to be a full bi-plane? could be something like the An-2, so 2 full wings, and 2 small ones
 

KACKO

EAF602Whizz said:
Good post Yulzari, but in my scenario the monoplane is discredited somewhat and so the biplane fighter still rules the sky. I can see a biplane with an inline engine and a nose mounted 20mm firing through the boss with 4 rifle calibre guns in the fuselage and wings. In other words an Me109 biplane, sort of.
Fiat might use the German inline engine in a design of their own. Japanese pilots liked manouverable aircraft and the Russians were still keen on biplanes, even after the I-16 showed them what a monoplane could do. The RAF were also fairly conservative about it so with a POD in the late 20s, early 30s it might be possible to make the monoplane appear unsuitable for practical applications and the contracts go to the biplane fighter manufacturers. Monoplanes are usually racers and record attempt one offs.
In such an ATL would biplanes be considerably larger as they grew more powerful and better armed or would they remain quite small aircraft?
Click to expand...
Well, there was canon version of Avia B-534, but canon was often not used for various reasons. Czechoslovakia also tried to develop better Hispano Suiza engine with app. 1000 hp (for Avia B-35/135). Also, there was at least one prototype of extreme Avia B-534. ;) Streamlined a lot, but still with not retractable undercarriage -
Avia B-634
 

phx1138

Brother Stormhammer said:
That looks cool.
Click to expand...
Ditto.:cool:
Brother Stormhammer said:
Now for the bad news. The aerodynamic penalties that biplanes pay are going to be more than enough to make a late-war biplane fighter a non-starter. The drag from the second wing is going to reduce speed and increase fuel consumption.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the reduced lift/increased drag due to interference between the two...

I do find myself wondering, tho: if you take the Corsair's inverted gull wing & double it, can you get an "X-wing" without struts & minimize the harm? Reduce the chord of each & reduce the blind spots...

Or can you join the wingtips? I understand the "diamond wing" actually allows maneuvers the monoplane won't...

Petike said:
The Poles tried. :D
Click to expand...
And apparently it was a deathtrap.:eek::eek::eek:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top