PDA

View Full Version : Modded up Biplanes



HotelBushranger
03-31-2005, 06:47 AM
I know that in general monoplanes generate more lift, thrust etc.,

But what if say a WW2 era biplane like a Gladiator was fitted with a 4 blade prop, and a more powerful engine? Would the engine most likely jump out of its fitting due to the structural weakness of the biplanes construction? Or what?

Have your say

actionhank1786
03-31-2005, 07:40 AM
Well if they made sure that the engine was mounted well, i'm sure it wouldn't jump out.
As to how the flight characteristics would be, i have no idea...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F19_Olli72
03-31-2005, 08:54 AM
Actually its not a new idea, a one off prototype Fiat CR 42 was built with a DB601 engine. Supposedly it could reach 520 km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stiglr
03-31-2005, 09:15 AM
I would imagine that engineers were discovering that the biplane era was nearing the end of its evolution, and so the solution wasn't to keep trying to dress it up.

Metal skins were coming into vogue, as well as monoplanes, which eliminated HUGE visual obstructions... so, while an interim idea might have been to slap a big new engine into these planes, I'm sure the writing was already on the wall that monos were the way to go. Thus, not much more effort was put into creating 'super biplanes'.

The same thing happened at the beginning of the jet age. The new problem became how to overcome the mach barrier (with wing fences, swept wings, etc.) instead of how to design an even better Mustang, Yak or (Bear/Hell)cat.

WOLFMondo
03-31-2005, 09:31 AM
The Hurricane was a good example of a bi-plane meets monoplane design. Look at Hawkers 30's biplane designs and see how structurally similar they are to the Hurricane as far as the fuselage goes.

It would be pretty funny to see a Gladiator with a 1 ton 2200HP Bristol Centaurus strapped on the front with a 5 blade prop. I think even just starting it up would make the plane roll over.

Blackdog5555
03-31-2005, 09:37 AM
The main problem with biplanes is drag. plain and simple. Speed is better than lift. structural weakness is there too. other probles with putting a huge engine in a small- light short winged frame too. (Torgue spins)

Hendley
03-31-2005, 09:52 AM
Blackdog beat me to it... Too much drag, that's why biplanes didn't work. Two wings = twice the lift, but twice the drag... (roughly speaking, of course).

Stiq's irrelevant musings about visual obstructions and metal skins (hint: biplanes can be covered in metal, too) had nought to do with it.

ElAurens
03-31-2005, 10:52 AM
The Grumman F4F Wildcat was origianlly intended as a biplane replacement for the F3F, but the writing was on the wall about the superiority of monoplane fighters.

I still find the last generation biplanes to be very beautiful machines. The F3F in particular.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h44000/h44277.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Krt_Bong
03-31-2005, 11:12 AM
The SE-5 had a four bladed prop, albeit a wooden one and it still was not the greatest as a dogfighter even the later version with the Woosley Viper engines and there are other Biplane designs that had more than two bladed propellers (some of the russian designs still fly today) but as was stated its the drag that holds it back they have the ability (and thrust) to get larger payloads up but still none were able to go much faster

jarink
03-31-2005, 12:04 PM
It's not a biplane, but my favorite "new-tech/old-tech" Frankenstien is the Piper Enforcer. P-51 airframe with a turboprop engine designed in 1967 for counter-insurgency ops.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p51-25.jpg

HotelBushranger
04-01-2005, 12:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think even just starting it up would make the plane roll over. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Would be funny to see anyway

STENKA_69.GIAP
04-01-2005, 03:48 AM
A Biplane can be quite powerfull and fast

Look at the Saab Viggen

http://web.telia.com/~u13206896/images/saab_viggen.jpg

I'd bet on this one against any 109

Skarphol
04-01-2005, 06:20 AM
I read somwhere that from the start of WWI to to the thirties, fighter biplanes remained fairly similar in size and weight, their engines power more than doubled, but their speed increased only by about 30%. I cannot remember where I have this from, so I'm really not a good source of information.

Skarphol

HotelBushranger
04-01-2005, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I cannot remember where I have this from, so I'm really not a good source of information. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif You did your best anyway, that's what counts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif