I have an un-explainable admiration for Italian fighters, as I have NO Italian blood or relatives. But for me , the CR.42 is one of my top favorites. I love how it looks ! I have built a model in 1/76 of the Fiat CR.42 Falco, and have plans to eventually build my own "Italian Air Force" to include at least one of every Italian plane of WW II, As many as possible in 1/76, but if any Italian aircraft models are only available in scales other than 1/76, I will include them in my collection so I have one of every Italian plane of WW II. Then I will look for any model kits of Italian WW I aircraft, Italian a/c just look so cool to me !
I love the Italian fighter designs, they generally had serious flaws often related to armaments more than anything else, but they were beautiful planes.
You are right. The problem seem to be how the overall design did not favor the placement of heavy guns like the 50 cal or 20 mm cannons in the wings of the MACCHI 202 or the Fiats. Thus they had to be mounted in the cowling where their rate of fire was slowed. It was only later with the Centauro and others that this problem was corrected.
@@guaporeturns9472 Atleast in Finnish use (Fiat g 50) the big armament issues didn't come from the power of the guns but rather their tendency to jam. More guns = higher possibility that atleast one or two work
I think Sweden was the only nation to have both Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s. It would be interesting to hear which one the Swedish Air Force felt was the best. As they were the only ones who used both.
Hey there! Sorry for the long period between videos. I have a lot on my plate at the moment. I'll keep supporting the "Battle of Kuban" series, alternating with "Regular" videos. I hope you enjoy this one!
For me it would be a joint first with the Gloster Gladiator and the Fiat CR.42. Definitely the pinnacle of the biplane. Interestingly the Gladiator was the not only the last biplane to see frontline service for the British Royal Air Force but it was the last propeller driven aircraft designed by Gloster to see service. Its next aircraft to see service with the RAF was its first jet, Gloster Meteor. Talk about jumping a step.
True enough, given that "Pat" Pattle scored over half his 28 official victories in the Gladiator and more once he was sent to Greece, where he was re-equipped with a Hurricane after a few weeks, until his death over Piraeus Harbour near Athens.
Pilot skill is another factor, I have Dust Clouds In The Middle East which has first person narrative from the Hurricane pilots that one had to be careful against a skilled Italian pilot, cheers
I once dated a beautiful Italian girl named Catsia Rosatelli. She had biplanes for extra lift, a wide undercarriage for bumpy landings, and good handling characteristics. I miss her.
Great video!! As an Italian i saw in person in a museum all the Major fighters that the R.A. had, and i found your video to be very accurate and clear, i hope that One day u could bring the Re.2005, my fav fighter.
I've read the Osprey's book about Gloster Gladiator vs CR42. Apparently the British biplane was slightly slower but more agile and better armed with 4 machine guns. The victory ratio was 1.2 in favour of the Gladiator.
There were many other biplane fighters in action in WWII. Belgian Fairey Firefly biplane fighters were used against Luftwaffe during the German invasion of Belgium. During the invasion of Yugoslavia an Italian CR 42 downed a Yugoslav Hawker Fury biplane fighter. However, South African Air Force Fury biplanes had some succes against the Italian forces in East Africa in 1941 and destroyed two Caproni bombers as well as strafing many airfields, destroying fighters and bombers on the ground. Curtiss Model 68 Hawk III (Goshawk) biplane fighters of the Thai Airforce were used against the French in the Franco-Thai War and the Japanese invaders in December 1941. One of the most noteworthy biplane fighter victories in WWII was the air battle over Oslo where six Norwegian Gladiators shot down a Junkers 52 three-engine transport presumably filled with airborne troops, a Heinkel 111 two-engine bomber and three Messerschmitt 110 two-engine fighters for the loss of a single Gladiator.
Italian aircraft aren't given enough credit. They made some visually stunning designs. These machines are very interesting but there is very little information compared to other countries planes.
Great video. I especially liked the in depth comparison of the four contenders for best biplane. If I had the money I would still go for the Gladiator as a fun plane to fly and wow everyone at air shows. I would add a heater as I like a bit of comfort.
Great video! It's only just struck me that I can't recall ever reading an account of a Gladiator vs Falco combat... I always wondered if they'd ever met in the air!
Squadron Leader Pat Pattle of 80 Sqn RAF shot down 10 CR 42s in 1941 flying the Gladiator, and obviously other pilots of his squadron also shot down CR 42s see details of 33 and 80 Squadrons RAF 1940-1941. RAF Hurricanes and Gladiators had domination of the skies over the Middle East the Italian Air Force including the CR 42 were no match for the RAF. It wasn’t until the Luftwaffe arrived with their Bf 109s that the RAF lost air superiority. Dennis
best byplane has to be the fairy swordfish.what a combat plane the stringbag,well past its sell by date,yet the damage it done the bismark,taranto.great show and info.
One small note regarding the Italian 12.7mm machine gum. For Aviation use it was loaded with Frangible bullets, an unwise choice as they shattered on impact with any metal, and often failed to do real damage to engines. They could be and were lethal to unprotected pilots, but the advent of even minimal pilot armour tended to lessen that. The Italian 7.7mm guns did more damage, despite a lower velocity and lower weight of fire.
Very interesting. Thank you. I would give it to the Gladiator. My favorite biplane fighters of the war were the I-190, but only one was completed (I think). And the I-195 - which even the prototype was not completed. ☮
I read an article account by an RAF Hurricane pilot who flew against the CR42 in North Africa. I remember he said that the CR42 was a very manoeuvrable fighter, often expertly flown. But " if you gave it a squirt with 8 Browning's, it just fell out of the sky"
I'm biased here,but I think that Polikarpov's I-153 takes the cake as an all around great fighter biplane,most versatile of all of those listed (except for naval version of Gladiator for carrier operations,but Soviets didn't built any carriers for to need naval version of I-153).4 SHKAS 7,62 MGs are no joke,with about 600 rounds per gun.Is just slightly slower than Cr.42 in top speed,can carry up to 4x100 kg bombs (4x50 was most common load,but still was much better than none for Gladiator and at best 100 kg for cr.42 and B-534).Can carry 8 rs-82 mm rockets.Turns greatly due to it's quite forward wings.Flat spin could be a problem, but it's low stall speed meant that rarely would someone make such an error in piloting.Low production variant for high altitude interception had closed cockpit (quite weird looking, I might add),and P variant had 2x20 mm cannons for if SHKAS feels anemic. I'm open for counterargument,though.
Out of these four, I personaly prefer the I-153, both because of its looks and its performance: In WarThunder(yes i know, the grind is shit and its not as good of a sim as DCS or IL2 are, but it "works") Air Sim battles I use it as a small ground attacker because it got 4x 50kg bombs. Its small and agile so if there is a fighter near by, i can defend myself. And the four ŠKAS MGs arent half bad, tho i prefer the P version with two 20mms. Its speed also isnt bad and the handling is pretty nice except when you use rudder too much or try to aim at stationary target. Btw, very nice video. Would be great if you did a vid on all four of the "best WW2 biplanes", but considering the Battle of Kuban series and the fact that not all of your viewers are interested in biplanes, i doubt you will make them. Still, nice work mate, keep going. But if you need to, take your time. Cheers.
Hey Martin, I will eventually cover the other three biplanes. I think biplanes can be interesting, though I agree they attract less attention. But I'm going with the flow and doing what I like, and so, I will eventually come around and do a video on the other three. Thank you! 👍
@@AllthingsWW2 Glad to hear that. Tho i have one question. Wasnt there an I-16 video on your channel like half a year ago? Or do i miss-remember? As I recall watching it but I cant find it in your videos.
Yes it was the best but don't let the Gloster Gladiator fans hear you lol yes the "I just Like it" factor is a tough one for me as I like the Gladiator is just got all the right lines but at the same time there's something very sweet about the Avia design its got a really nice shape. I bet a Henschel 123 would be a seriously tough opponent for these fighters especially the light machine-gun armed planes. A lot of armour around the pilot and engine on that plane.
For best biplane of WWII, I'd have to go with the Gladiator, just because of their role in the defence of Malta. Sometime, the technical abilities of an aircraft are less important than being just what is needed, and in the right place!
In the air battle over Oslo six Norwegian Gladiators shot down a Junkers 52 three-engine transport probably filled with airborne troops, a Heinkel 111 two-engine bomber and three Messerschmitt 110 two-engine fighters for the loss of a single Gladiator.
Read up on Pat Patle South African ace,41 official kills but Squadron records lost in retreat from Greece,most historians have his total as 60,but he got his first 15 kills in a Gloster Gladiator.Ace of Aces by ECR Baker is a good book about him.
As I researched it, the conclusion by the Italian Air ministry that the Bi-plane still had a role to play, was based on the success of the CR-32 in Spain. In addition the Air battles over Ethiopia, North Africa, and Greece showed that the Gladiator had a slight edge over the CR-42.
@@EneTheGene I am not really sure. The assessment was done by military pilots who were flying captured planes for evaluation. It could be that the Gladiators were slightly more maneuverable, and on the whole were a bit more heavily armed with the two extra guns being mounted in pods under the lower wings.
Gladiators has a slight by the fact that the gun they carry, the .303 machine gun, is slightly lighter than the CR.42's Breda However, it should be noted that overall, CR.42 has a better performance record than the Gladiator due to a huge number of CR.42 flown by the Italian which contribute to higher kill counts and more promising pilots emerge from those victories.
@@Heylanda-fb9xb Interesting. Also I know that the Gladiator carried more weapons than the CR-42. I cited the evaluation conclusion from the Osprey monograph Gladiator Vs CR-42 Falco
Well done great video how about a video on reconnaissance aircraft Of the early war period Some beautiful aircraft or a potez25 Video a plane never talked about But many were made and served in so many wars Take care 👍 Ps you forgot about the Japanese ki10 🤕
I did, in fact, forget about the Sino-Japanese war, and so I left out the Ki-10 and the Hawk III. I don't think either of the two would have taken the top spot, but they would probably make the video more complete. Thank you for your suggestion.
Assuming every biplane was obsolete by 1935, I would go with the plane which more closely fulfils the requirements. For example, having an enclosed cockpit does not automatically be the best choice as some nation preferred an open one. Other nations, like Great Britain preferred a closed cockpit due to usual bad weather conditions, but in Africa and the mediterranen, an open cockpit was to be preferred on a biplane because of low maximum ceiling and speed. Another thing that we cannot easily judge is the "Feeling" of the plane, which is different from sustained max rate of turn or just the ability to get high fast. A smaller lower wing on a biplane is less destabilizing for the air flow on the upper main wing (a typical issue for biplanes) It also allows for a much sturdier wing construction that both give torsional resistance to the upper wing and makes the whole cabling more rigid at high speeds. Control harmonisation is also extremely important on a plane for reducing fatigue for the pilot and it also can be very important into reducing the "stiffness", and with that the manoeuvrability, of the plane after a dive, or reducing the overall drag and loss of energy after an abrupt manoeuvre. Finally engine is also a big factor, not just about power, but also about "taming" and capability of both the carburettor and the oil system to keep working smoothly in every flight condition. Which one was the best biplane? I don't know as I haven flown any.
CR42 and Me262 both produced during the same time for combat service in the same general theater of the same war by the same side. And some are amazed at Mosin Nagants and AK74s serving side by side in Ukraine.
Mosins have definitely been around. So have AKs but the Mosin and 7.62x54r are truly over 100 yr old ideas that are still at least a bit relevant today.
One area you omitted, structural strength, the Falco was probably the most robust of all these designs, it coud be dived wihout fear of structural failure!
hi, the winner according to your table is Avia B-534 if you take all versions in account. Since the last version of Avia introduced shortly before war was Avia Bk-534, it had full instrument setup so it is a tie for the first place with Gladiator in equipment, and in armament it is clear winner and all others are lower, since Bk-534 had 2x7,92mm machine guns+ 1x20mm Oerlikon cannon.
I remember reading that later biplanes would stagger the upper and lower wings to achieve better lift. It's surprising to see that such a late biplane design didn't incorporate such a feature!
So you just contradicted yourself.. the question is about the aircraft , not the pilot. That said Italian and British had aces in the N. African campaign.
The Gladiator according to your review. 3 Gloster Gladiators ;Faith, Hope, and Charity also successfully defended Malta in the initial stages of WW2 from the Italian airforce though vastly outnumbered. 👍🏻🏴
Although a great story it’s a bit of a myth. Worth looking up. But there were never only three GGs - I think there were only five at one point but only three were ever operational at a time. They didn’t register any kills until joined by hurricanes.
I´d also give bonus points for enclosed cockpits, but that would sound like an obvious bias. Also, the B-534 was ready to be equipped with a propeller shaft mounted 20mm autocannon, and was also considered for the role of a naval fighter for the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier. On the other hand, it had probably the worst cockpit visibility and thus situational awareness. But if it had as much time to be upgraded as the other 3, Im sure it would surpass them (as it was basically a modern monoplane fighter only with an additional upper wing).
War is tragic. However, the technology created centered around war, is absolutely amazing. War actually advances technology quicker than any other way.
Would it have been viable doctrine for the Italian air forces to field combined units of both biplanes and monoplanes? If the biplanes were viable in a close dogfight, but thwarted when approached from range, having monoplanes handy to intercept other fighters trying to boom and zoom on the biplanes could be useful and viable for Italy at the time. Obviously it's better to have 1 fighter that can do both functions, but just going with what the Italians were working with - buying time until more fighter production is up and running.
Se consideri che, a parte il primissimo impiego come caccia nelle fasi iniziali della guerra, il Fiat CR 42 fu poi usato prevalentemente come aereo di attacco al suolo e di supporto aereo ravvicinato (close air support) delle forze terrestri, andrebbe confrontato anche con il tedesco Henschel HS 123, altro iconico biplano della seconda guerra mondiale, anch’esso utilizzato fino alla fine della guerra. Alla fine tutte le maggiori aviazioni avevano in servizio biplani in prima linea, almeno all’inizio della guerra
As for the last, least important category here, i think the CR-42, with its stout, powerful look is the best looking among these machines. Dunno, it's got an intimidating, "mean business" appearance.
And finally, after some constructive criticism, I can also help you with that sea level speed of the Avia B-534 IV. If speed near the ground will be a sufficient substitute, the numbers for the first B-534 prototype are published. Which gave Avia victory over its competitors. *: Speed near the ground 326.2 km/h. Maximum speed 363 km/h at 4000 m. Now you can easily derive the numbers for version IV. I already did it for you. Speed near the ground was 341.5 km/h for the IV. version. With exactly the same equipment as for a maximum speed of 380 km/h at a standard altitude of 4000 m, (using Military Power mode as the maximum allowed in peacetime...). I really wonder what the equipment was like, and if it included bomb racks already installed or not. For now, it remains a mystery of Avia, at least for me. I also want to note, that the Avia B-534 never reached its full potential. Improvements to its propulsion system stalled in Phase 1 during mobilization in September 1938. (Was set WEP mode! ** Results remained secret..., probably shredded just before occupation in March 1939?) Where the CR.42 has a 3-blade constant speed propeller, the I-153 has a 2-blade with 2 positions or an improved fully adjustable version, the standard Gladiator MK.II only has a fixed 3-blade. Avia has 2-blade adjustable on the ground only. But with a modern 3-bladed constant speed propeller, the Avia B-534 would become a real biplane demon!.. :-) And the CR.42 would have a really tough competitor, vying for the position of 2nd best biplane fighter of WW2. (No. 1 was clearly the I-153, and even a fully modernized B-534 could not compete with the speed and raw firepower of the I-153.) If Czechoslovakia had managed to avoid the Munich Agreement and somehow survive... That's another story, for another discussion. A few mistakes are nothing I won't forgive you easily, when I know you do it from the heart. And I like your presentation style. I wish you many more beautiful videos like this one, keep up the good work! * That, and a dirty but effective method ... which ensures that no other competitor has the option of getting the 12Ydrs engine supplied (even directly from Hispano-Suiza company in France). Because with the same engine either of them could easily beat the B-534. Czechoslovakia clearly missed the opportunity to have better equipment. And it's sad to even think about it... Source, AVIA B-534, (C) ing. VRANÝ Jiří, Prague: MBI 1994, ISBN 80-901263-6-7 ** Curych 1937, Kareš Marcel, Rajlich Jiří, Prague: Mladá fronta 2017, ISBN 978-80-204-4674-9
There was a CR42 with a DB601 engine, but its performances were worse than the MC202 and than the Re2001, so the project aborted. Anyway, the CR42 DB was the fastest biplane of that era (about 540 km/h if I remember well)
There was an experimental CR42 fitted with the German DB605 engine that recorded a top speed of 341 miles per hour. If that had been produced in numbers then that would undoubtedly be the best biplane fighter of the war, but it wasn't to be.
@@vipertwenty249 I'm sure it was the DB601. You can find some photos also on Google. At the end of the evalutation, that solution was refused because the CR42 DB performances were worse than the MC202 and the Re2001 with the same engine.
I think the best armament goes to the CR.42. Those 12.7mm are vastly superior to 7.7s. Pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks made 7.7mm guns incredible ineffective while 12.7mm bullets remained relevant till the end of the war, being able to penetrate more armor and cause fuel leaks or fires. Of course, if a plane has neither, more 7.7s guns are generally better. See early Spitfires or Hurricanes :D
Although 12,7 mm generally pack a better punch than 7,7 mm MGs,it must be mentioned that Italian SAFAT 12,7 mm guns were quite weak in rate of fire and ammunition quality compared to those of other nations.Soviet SHKAS 7,7 mm guns were literally Soviet answer to MG-34,even faster firing,so 4 of those could more than make up for weaker caliber of 7,7 mm gun. Not to mention occasional I-153P with 2 SHVAK 20 mm guns.
@@kaletovhangar Like I said, pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks render 7.7mm rounds very ineffective. Since then the only remaining target that is most likely to get hit is the engine and oil cooler. While 12.7mm rounds can still penetrate the armor and wound or kill the pilot, where as smaller rounds would have no effect. So while RoF is very important to increase the efficiency of the caliber it doesn’t matter when the rounds have almost no effect on the aircraft. So the other aircrafts have better firepower against unarmored planes but the CR.42 guns were better against modern planes that had pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks. That’s why the IL-2 proved such a difficult aircraft to shoot down for Bf 109s that only had two MG 17 and one MG 151/20.
@@kimjanek646 Yes,I know that.Just wanted to point out that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better here.Also,among the contenders here,only I-153 had any sort of armor,and you can still damage control surfaces of the aircraft with 7,7 mm.
Yes, that was probably the hardest category to judge. Armament is always hard, since there is a large variety of factors, and to keep the videos short, I normally avoid going into a lot of detail. The main problem with the CR.42's armament was that the 12.7s were synchronized to fire through the propeller and had a very low rate of fire. In the period that the Falco saw more action, few carried two heavy MGs. So I found that it would be unfair to give it an edge here when the most common loadout was a 7.7 and a 12.7. I agree that the heavy machine gun and the 20 mm cannon were probably the weapons of the conflict (from an aeronautical perspective).
The question to which plane is the best is the one that you would choose to have if you were a commander, if given the choice of the four I would go with the CR.42 based off range as most other stats are very close , I think having a quarter inch armour plate to protect the pilot outweights the radio option though. Plus the .5 inch anti material gun would be more practical for its role as a non front line fighter in an anti bomber/ground attack/recon role that bi-planes were relegated too.
Yes, and they were also used against France and during the Battle of Britain. I only focused on the main aspects of its operational history. But now that you mentioned it, it would be cool to do a video on the Italian invasion of Greece.
Hi! Very nice video as usual. Thank you very much for doing such comparison of aircraft’s as nice bonus. You made some mistakes in your spreadsheets. But because it is Avia B-534 involved, I feel need to help you improve your data, little bit. 1. You wrote data for Gladiator Mk.I instead of MK.II MK.II has takeoff weight 2206 kg, max speed at sea level 346 km/h, max speed 414 km/h at 4420 m, can reach 3000 m in 4.5 min, has ceiling 10200 m, and range of 714 km. (The size of its wings was exactly 30,01 m2, it´s not important diference) 2. You used incorrect size of wings for CR.42, it has 22,4 m2. (And 22,1 m2 was for CR.32). 3. Same for Avia B-534, it has size of wings 23,56 m2, not less. 4. Using simply hp, for the value of motor power, can lead to incorrect belief that your engines numbers are in imperial hp, aka hp(I). But all numbers you wrote about engine power, including Gladiators MK II Mercury VIII A, are in fact in unit horse, aka PS, aka metric horse power hp(M). It will be OK if you just fix spreadsheet using hp(M) unit, instead hp. (But it will be also nice, if you add two other columns for kW, and actual imperial hp(I), or rather simply hp, to make it clear for all folk around.) Because you probably already know, I summarize more info for others. Easiest conversion its 1 kW = 1,359622 hp(M), aka PS etc. = 1,341022 hp(I), aka hp. Or reverse conversion: 1 hp(I) = 0,7457 kW = 1,01387 hp(M), and 1 hp(M) = 0,7355 kW. (I apologize for my English, as you can see, I´m not a native speaker.)
Hi Michal, I've read everything you wrote and thank you for all the trouble. About the hp, it's hard to find room on the screen for such a large amount of information and keep it at a size that could be read on a cell phone. Your suggestion is, of course, the correct way to do it, and I will try to add it in the future. I am used to the SI system of units, and so I should use kW instead of hp, but I find that concerning engine power, Watt is a unit that would be seen in an engineering book and not in a simple conversation. Thank you for the corrections and suggestions. I hope you enjoyed the video. 👍
For me the CR-42 as it actually flew combat missions in WW2 with some success such as in North Africa . It was the best biplane fighter ever produced . Not to say this was a good idea but the Italian pilots prefer'ed this type of plane as they always operated in warm climates and had little knowledge modern air planes both from Germany and England thus did not understand what modern 350 MPH fighters were all about .
Discussing what was the best biplane fighter of WW2 is roughly the same as discussing what was the best musket of WW1... but I would go with either the Falco or the I-153 😉 BTW, you are Portuguese, right? Um abraço!
Not sure how many kills Pat Pattle scored flying the Gladys, I think it was quite high, also the last biplane flying for the British was the Swordfish.
I have a feeling that if you enter these simulated turning radii, you will get on a thin ice. Turning radius 156 m, which you expect from the standard Avia B-534 IV. version makes no sense. Since it has an area load of only 84.04 kg / m2, only slightly more than 79.83 kg / m2 I-153. It is far from 102.46 kg / m2 CR.42, yet somehow you expect its turning radius to be 21 m larger than r = 135 m for I-153, but only 14 m shorter than r = 170 m for CR.42. Only if your r = 128 m applies to the Gladiator MK I, then the r = 156 m you expect from Avia is close to a direct derivation from the Gladiator MK I load comparison of 69.41 kg / m2 and Avia B-534 IV 84.04 kg / m2. It shows the result r = 155 m. But then CR.42 will have r = 189 m! Do you see the problems you face here? The radius of 170 m you expect from CR.42 is close to a direct derivation from the I-153 load comparison, and Fiat CR.42 shows the result r = 173 m. A direct derivation from the comparison of loads I-153 and Avia B-534 IV shows the result only r = 142 m, and definitely makes more sense. Also, if your r = 128 m applies to the Gladiator MK II with an area load of 73.51 kg / m2, then a direct derivation for the Avia shows the result r = 146 m. However, if you compare the two observed radii and then derive the turning radii for the remaining aircraft, you will get completely different and interesting results: Compared to the confirmed turning radii of 128 m for the Gladiator MK I with a surface load of 69.51 kg / m2 & t. r = 135 m for I-153 with 79.83 kg / m2, Avia B-534 IV can be derived. the version with 84.04 kg / m2 shows the result t. r = only 138 m. Compared to the confirmed turning radii of 128 m for the Gladiator MK II with an area load of 73.51 kg / m2 & t. R = 135 m for the I-153 with 79.83 kg / m2, the Avia B-534 IV can be derived. the version with 84.04 kg / m2 shows the result t. r = only 140 m. Compared to the confirmed turning radius of 135 m for I-153 with 79.83 kg / m2 and the expected r = 170 m for Fiat CR.42 with 102.46 kg / m2, the Avia B-534 IV can be derived. the version with 84.04 kg / m2 shows the result t. r = only 141,5 m. My point is, that the Avia clearly had a turning radius very close to I-153 and it must be something around R = 140 m. Probably not less than 138 m and also not more than 142 m.
Hi once again, Michal. I do understand what you mean. The ideal would be to always have the observed value, but those are seldom available. I will consider what you wrote here in future videos bringing comparisons. Thank you!
![[ENGSUB] UNPRODUCTIVE DAY ใช้ชีวิต (เปื่อยๆ) ด้วยกัน 1 วัน! | OUROAD CLOSEFRiEND SS2 EP.9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pyYKZ3kra9w/mqdefault.jpg)
![King Of The Skies In The Spanish Civil War | Fiat Cr.32 [Aircraft Overview #90]](/img/n.gif)
I have an un-explainable admiration for Italian fighters, as I have NO Italian blood or relatives. But for me , the CR.42 is one of my top favorites. I love how it looks ! I have built a model in 1/76 of the Fiat CR.42 Falco, and have plans to eventually build my own "Italian Air Force" to include at least one of every Italian plane of WW II, As many as possible in 1/76, but if any Italian aircraft models are only available in scales other than 1/76, I will include them in my collection so I have one of every Italian plane of WW II. Then I will look for any model kits of Italian WW I aircraft, Italian a/c just look so cool to me !
I love the Italian fighter designs, they generally had serious flaws often related to armaments more than anything else, but they were beautiful planes.
Would think 2 .50 would be better than 4 .303 but I didn’t fight in these planes so I can’t really talk
You are right. The problem seem to be how the overall design did not favor the placement of heavy guns like the 50 cal or 20 mm cannons in the wings of the MACCHI 202 or the Fiats. Thus they had to be mounted in the cowling where their rate of fire was slowed. It was only later with the Centauro and others that this problem was corrected.
@@guaporeturns9472 Atleast in Finnish use (Fiat g 50) the big armament issues didn't come from the power of the guns but rather their tendency to jam.
More guns = higher possibility that atleast one or two work
@@coleparker At least Italian planes of the period were beautiful , regardless of armament.🙂
@@guaporeturns9472 I love the Italian planes. The G-55 Centauro was one of the best, and even the Luftwaffe wanted them.
I think Sweden was the only nation to have both Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s. It would be interesting to hear which one the Swedish Air Force felt was the best. As they were the only ones who used both.
Yes that would be an excellent discussion to have with with them.
belgium too
the falco's performed a lot better against the germans
@@roelantverhoeven371 cool. How many did they have?
@@guaporeturns9472 only a squadrons worth. roughly 30-40 including spare parts. would be merely 20 at best if spares arent available
@@teodor9975 Is there any in depth literature on this squadron and their battles?
Hey there! Sorry for the long period between videos. I have a lot on my plate at the moment. I'll keep supporting the "Battle of Kuban" series, alternating with "Regular" videos. I hope you enjoy this one!
For me it would be a joint first with the Gloster Gladiator and the Fiat CR.42. Definitely the pinnacle of the biplane.
Interestingly the Gladiator was the not only the last biplane to see frontline service for the British Royal Air Force but it was the last propeller driven aircraft designed by Gloster to see service. Its next aircraft to see service with the RAF was its first jet, Gloster Meteor. Talk about jumping a step.
True enough, given that "Pat" Pattle scored over half his 28 official victories in the Gladiator and more once he was sent to Greece, where he was re-equipped with a Hurricane after a few weeks, until his death over Piraeus Harbour near Athens.
I wonder how the pudgy F3f would have fared against these other biplanes? I love these final developments of the biplane.
Pilot skill is another factor, I have Dust Clouds In The Middle East which has first person narrative from the Hurricane pilots that one had to be careful against a skilled Italian pilot, cheers
I once dated a beautiful Italian girl named Catsia Rosatelli. She had biplanes for extra lift, a wide undercarriage for bumpy landings, and good handling characteristics. I miss her.
I fell in love with an Italian night pilot. Never knew there could be such a warm heart behind two huge search lights.
I bet you do
Rosatelli is the sur name of chef project of cr 42...sorry for my bad english...as italian and i like Airplanes wwii
The avia b-534 is probably my favorite biplane of all time I hope it gets a video of its own!!
It certainly deserves a video, I will eventually do it.
I have a couple of AVIA watches, I wonder if there is any connection...? 🤔
CR42 saw combat in the Battle of Britain. Didn't fare well, but it was there.
One landed on a beach, I think its at Duxford
@@benwilson6145 It's at RAF museum Hendon.
Years ago I knew a SAAF pilot who flew Gladiators in 40/41, I remember him saying that their "kites" had the advantage over the "eyties in their 42's"
Cr-42. Gotta love it.
A very neat little aircraft.
Great video!! As an Italian i saw in person in a museum all the Major fighters that the R.A. had, and i found your video to be very accurate and clear, i hope that One day u could bring the Re.2005, my fav fighter.
I will keep covering Italian aircraft, so I will eventually get to the Re.2005. Thank you!
I've read the Osprey's book about Gloster Gladiator vs CR42. Apparently the British biplane was slightly slower but more agile and better armed with 4 machine guns. The victory ratio was 1.2 in favour of the Gladiator.
I don't know if it was the Best, but it was one of the best looking Biplanes ever made for sure.
Great video I really like the coverage of lesser-known world war 2 airplanes
Thank you!
Excellent video! These aircraft were so close in capability that I suppose that it would come down to, as usual, the skill of the pilot.
Yeah .. who saw who first.. who was in what position when contact was made and so on
10:47 - the Soviet ShkAS mg on the I-153 had a far superior rate of fire compared to others, so it definitely had the best armament.
Yes 1650 RPM when synchronized. Compared to 1150 RPM for the British .303.
There were many other biplane fighters in action in WWII. Belgian Fairey Firefly biplane fighters were used against Luftwaffe during the German invasion of Belgium. During the invasion of Yugoslavia an Italian CR 42 downed a Yugoslav Hawker Fury biplane fighter. However, South African Air Force Fury biplanes had some succes against the Italian forces in East Africa in 1941 and destroyed two Caproni bombers as well as strafing many airfields, destroying fighters and bombers on the ground. Curtiss Model 68 Hawk III (Goshawk) biplane fighters of the Thai Airforce were used against the French in the Franco-Thai War and the Japanese invaders in December 1941. One of the most noteworthy biplane fighter victories in WWII was the air battle over Oslo where six Norwegian Gladiators shot down a Junkers 52 three-engine transport presumably filled with airborne troops, a Heinkel 111 two-engine bomber and three Messerschmitt 110 two-engine fighters for the loss of a single Gladiator.
I'm pleasantly surprised at professionalism & open discussion of various plusses & minuses. I subscribed.
Thank you and welcome!
先日、ICMの１/３２ Fiat Cr.42をモーターライズで製作したばかしなんで興味深く拝見しました。やっぱ、地中海方面の戦闘でライバルはグラディエーターですね。
Italian aircraft aren't given enough credit. They made some visually stunning designs. These machines are very interesting but there is very little information compared to other countries planes.
Favorite biplane fighter is a toss up between the Hawker Nimrod and I-15.
Great video. I especially liked the in depth comparison of the four contenders for best biplane. If I had the money I would still go for the Gladiator as a fun plane to fly and wow everyone at air shows. I would add a heater as I like a bit of comfort.
Nice video of the Italian falcon. Like to see similar videos of other biplanes like the gladiator or I 153.
I will eventually do them. Thank you!
Great video! It's only just struck me that I can't recall ever reading an account of a Gladiator vs Falco combat... I always wondered if they'd ever met in the air!
Squadron Leader Pat Pattle of 80 Sqn RAF shot down 10 CR 42s in 1941 flying the Gladiator, and obviously other pilots of his squadron also shot down CR 42s see details of 33 and 80 Squadrons RAF 1940-1941. RAF Hurricanes and Gladiators had domination of the skies over the Middle East the Italian Air Force including the CR 42 were no match for the RAF. It wasn’t until the Luftwaffe arrived with their Bf 109s that the RAF lost air superiority.
Dennis
Oh indeed they met over Malta.
Excellent presentation. Well done most informative and interesting.
Thank you!
best byplane has to be the fairy swordfish.what a combat plane the stringbag,well past its sell by date,yet the damage it done the bismark,taranto.great show and info.
One small note regarding the Italian 12.7mm machine gum. For Aviation use it was loaded with Frangible bullets, an unwise choice as they shattered on impact with any metal, and often failed to do real damage to engines. They could be and were lethal to unprotected pilots, but the advent of even minimal pilot armour tended to lessen that. The Italian 7.7mm guns did more damage, despite a lower velocity and lower weight of fire.
THIS ! is a REALLY good quality, informative video...thank you.
Thank you!
There was an attempt to put a DB 601 on the 42. Looks pretty cool
Very interesting.
Thank you.
I would give it to the Gladiator.
My favorite biplane fighters of the war were the I-190, but only one was completed (I think).
And the I-195 - which even the prototype was not completed.
☮
I read an article account by an RAF Hurricane pilot who flew against the CR42 in North Africa.
I remember he said that the CR42 was a very manoeuvrable fighter, often expertly flown. But " if you gave it a squirt with 8 Browning's, it just fell out of the sky"
I'm biased here,but I think that Polikarpov's I-153 takes the cake as an all around great fighter biplane,most versatile of all of those listed (except for naval version of Gladiator for carrier operations,but Soviets didn't built any carriers for to need naval version of I-153).4 SHKAS 7,62 MGs are no joke,with about 600 rounds per gun.Is just slightly slower than Cr.42 in top speed,can carry up to 4x100 kg bombs (4x50 was most common load,but still was much better than none for Gladiator and at best 100 kg for cr.42 and B-534).Can carry 8 rs-82 mm rockets.Turns greatly due to it's quite forward wings.Flat spin could be a problem, but it's low stall speed meant that rarely would someone make such an error in piloting.Low production variant for high altitude interception had closed cockpit (quite weird looking, I might add),and P variant had 2x20 mm cannons for if SHKAS feels anemic.
I'm open for counterargument,though.
Yes it was a great one for sure. All the planes mentioned were great though.. I love the last of biplane warplanes.. so cool.
good video. and kudos for your pretty good pronunciation of Italian words and names!
I think it would be nice to know more about the Fokker G.I, maybe you can make an video about it?
Out of these four, I personaly prefer the I-153, both because of its looks and its performance:
In WarThunder(yes i know, the grind is shit and its not as good of a sim as DCS or IL2 are, but it "works") Air Sim battles I use it as a small ground attacker because it got 4x 50kg bombs. Its small and agile so if there is a fighter near by, i can defend myself. And the four ŠKAS MGs arent half bad, tho i prefer the P version with two 20mms. Its speed also isnt bad and the handling is pretty nice except when you use rudder too much or try to aim at stationary target.
Btw, very nice video. Would be great if you did a vid on all four of the "best WW2 biplanes", but considering the Battle of Kuban series and the fact that not all of your viewers are interested in biplanes, i doubt you will make them.
Still, nice work mate, keep going. But if you need to, take your time. Cheers.
Also,there was low production run of high altitude interceptor variant of I-153,with closed cockpit and other features needed for operating it.
Hey Martin, I will eventually cover the other three biplanes. I think biplanes can be interesting, though I agree they attract less attention. But I'm going with the flow and doing what I like, and so, I will eventually come around and do a video on the other three. Thank you! 👍
@@AllthingsWW2 Glad to hear that.
Tho i have one question. Wasnt there an I-16 video on your channel like half a year ago? Or do i miss-remember? As I recall watching it but I cant find it in your videos.
No, I haven't covered the I-16 yet. The only video I took down from my channel was the one on the Ju 87 due to an issue with the audio.
Honorable mention of the Barrel Fighter!!
It was actually superior to the AAC's land-based P26 monoplane!
A great examination of the CR-42 thanks.
Yes it was the best but don't let the Gloster Gladiator fans hear you
lol yes the "I just Like it" factor is a tough one for me as I like the Gladiator is just got all the right lines but at the same time there's something very sweet about the Avia design its got a really nice shape.
I bet a Henschel 123 would be a seriously tough opponent for these fighters especially the light machine-gun armed planes. A lot of armour around the pilot and engine on that plane.
For best biplane of WWII, I'd have to go with the Gladiator, just because of their role in the defence of Malta. Sometime, the technical abilities of an aircraft are less important than being just what is needed, and in the right place!
80% is just showin up :)
In the air battle over Oslo six Norwegian Gladiators shot down a Junkers 52 three-engine transport probably filled with airborne troops, a Heinkel 111 two-engine bomber and three Messerschmitt 110 two-engine fighters for the loss of a single Gladiator.
Read up on Pat Patle South African ace,41 official kills but Squadron records lost in retreat from Greece,most historians have his total as 60,but he got his first 15 kills in a Gloster Gladiator.Ace of Aces by ECR Baker is a good book about him.
Excellent analysis. Very well presented and argued. Now I need to find a good model kit. Thank you
Didn't they test a version with a Daimler 601 that did something like 530 kph, wouldn't that been a surprise for allied pilots.
A biplane of theses designs doing that speed - scary.
Most of the only dogfights between biplanes in WW2 were between Italian biplanes and Gloster Gladiators. A comparison would be interesting.
A very well put together video thank you
Thank you!
Отличные видео, товарищ))
Interesting. We should all remember that WW2 was fought with what you had on hand. A fact often forgotten? Such is the military!
There is a CR42 and a Gladiator in the flying hanger at Duxford at the moment. They should both be flying by the summer of 2023 I believe.
Shame the video ended with an example going down in flames, most unfortunate. Keep up the good work though!
As I researched it, the conclusion by the Italian Air ministry that the Bi-plane still had a role to play, was based on the success of the CR-32 in Spain. In addition the Air battles over Ethiopia, North Africa, and Greece showed that the Gladiator had a slight edge over the CR-42.
Why did it have a slight edge?
@@EneTheGene I am not really sure. The assessment was done by military pilots who were flying captured planes for evaluation. It could be that the Gladiators were slightly more maneuverable, and on the whole were a bit more heavily armed with the two extra guns being mounted in pods under the lower wings.
Gladiators has a slight by the fact that the gun they carry, the .303 machine gun, is slightly lighter than the CR.42's Breda
However, it should be noted that overall, CR.42 has a better performance record than the Gladiator due to a huge number of CR.42 flown by the Italian which contribute to higher kill counts and more promising pilots emerge from those victories.
@@Heylanda-fb9xb Interesting. Also I know that the Gladiator carried more weapons than the CR-42. I cited the evaluation conclusion from the Osprey monograph Gladiator Vs CR-42 Falco
i built about 50 , years ago, the Airfax 1/72nd styrene kit, Cr-42 in that camouflage, good-looking aircraft.
Well done great video how about a video on reconnaissance aircraft
Of the early war period
Some beautiful aircraft or a potez25
Video a plane never talked about
But many were made and served in so many wars
Take care 👍
Ps you forgot about the Japanese ki10 🤕
I did, in fact, forget about the Sino-Japanese war, and so I left out the Ki-10 and the Hawk III. I don't think either of the two would have taken the top spot, but they would probably make the video more complete. Thank you for your suggestion.
My great uncle was an RAF pilot in the battle of El Alamein with the 250 squadron and flew a kitty hawk like you showed in the video
Assuming every biplane was obsolete by 1935, I would go with the plane which more closely fulfils the requirements. For example, having an enclosed cockpit does not automatically be the best choice as some nation preferred an open one. Other nations, like Great Britain preferred a closed cockpit due to usual bad weather conditions, but in Africa and the mediterranen, an open cockpit was to be preferred on a biplane because of low maximum ceiling and speed.
Another thing that we cannot easily judge is the "Feeling" of the plane, which is different from sustained max rate of turn or just the ability to get high fast. A smaller lower wing on a biplane is less destabilizing for the air flow on the upper main wing (a typical issue for biplanes) It also allows for a much sturdier wing construction that both give torsional resistance to the upper wing and makes the whole cabling more rigid at high speeds.
Control harmonisation is also extremely important on a plane for reducing fatigue for the pilot and it also can be very important into reducing the "stiffness", and with that the manoeuvrability, of the plane after a dive, or reducing the overall drag and loss of energy after an abrupt manoeuvre.
Finally engine is also a big factor, not just about power, but also about "taming" and capability of both the carburettor and the oil system to keep working smoothly in every flight condition.
Which one was the best biplane? I don't know as I haven flown any.
I prefer the Polikarpov I-153. But this is still a good plane.
CR42 and Me262 both produced during the same time for combat service in the same general theater of the same war by the same side.
And some are amazed at Mosin Nagants and AK74s serving side by side in Ukraine.
Mosins have definitely been around. So have AKs but the Mosin and 7.62x54r are truly over 100 yr old ideas that are still at least a bit relevant today.
One area you omitted, structural strength, the Falco was probably the most robust of all these designs, it coud be dived wihout fear of structural failure!
hi, the winner according to your table is Avia B-534 if you take all versions in account.
Since the last version of Avia introduced shortly before war was Avia Bk-534, it had full instrument setup so it is a tie for the first place with Gladiator in equipment, and in armament it is clear winner and all others are lower, since Bk-534 had 2x7,92mm machine guns+ 1x20mm Oerlikon cannon.
Nice videos as always. Keep it up.
Thank you!
Very Educational! great comparisons. nice charts. Thanks!
Thank you!
Personally, I'd have gone for the Avia B-534 ,granted less combat proven and maybe just my bias but a truly beautiful WW2 biplane fighter.
I remember reading that later biplanes would stagger the upper and lower wings to achieve better lift. It's surprising to see that such a late biplane design didn't incorporate such a feature!
Gladiator. The pilot with the better training and experience would probably be the deciding factor in 1v1 combat.
So you just contradicted yourself.. the question is about the aircraft , not the pilot. That said Italian and British had aces in the N. African campaign.
The Gladiator according to your review. 3
Gloster Gladiators ;Faith, Hope, and Charity also successfully defended Malta in the initial stages of WW2 from the Italian airforce though vastly outnumbered. 👍🏻🏴
Although a great story it’s a bit of a myth. Worth looking up. But there were never only three GGs - I think there were only five at one point but only three were ever operational at a time. They didn’t register any kills until joined by hurricanes.
I´d also give bonus points for enclosed cockpits, but that would sound like an obvious bias. Also, the B-534 was ready to be equipped with a propeller shaft mounted 20mm autocannon, and was also considered for the role of a naval fighter for the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier.
On the other hand, it had probably the worst cockpit visibility and thus situational awareness. But if it had as much time to be upgraded as the other 3, Im sure it would surpass them (as it was basically a modern monoplane fighter only with an additional upper wing).
Such a beautiful bird.
War is tragic. However, the technology created centered around war, is absolutely amazing. War actually advances technology quicker than any other way.
Nice video - but I think you forgot one important factor regarding byplanes: all around visibility - in that category, I'd put the Chaika first
Yes, you are correct. I have to write a note somewhere for future videos. I keep forgetting that important category. Thank you.
A biplane that I love is the Hawker Fury, but probably it had not participated in the WW2.
Not in the running but since it was a biplane.
I'll bring up the role of the Fairy Swordfish in sinking the German battleship Bismarck..
Would it have been viable doctrine for the Italian air forces to field combined units of both biplanes and monoplanes? If the biplanes were viable in a close dogfight, but thwarted when approached from range, having monoplanes handy to intercept other fighters trying to boom and zoom on the biplanes could be useful and viable for Italy at the time.
Obviously it's better to have 1 fighter that can do both functions, but just going with what the Italians were working with - buying time until more fighter production is up and running.
Imagine a Merlin powered Gladiator!! (I have, and made a model of it)
G'day,
A Merlin powered Gladiator would be a Hawker Fury with it's Kestrel swapped out.
Even a re-engined Fairey Fox..., with it's rear Cockpit faired
I vote for Italia!
..and a german engine? ;-P
Se consideri che, a parte il primissimo impiego come caccia nelle fasi iniziali della guerra, il Fiat CR 42 fu poi usato prevalentemente come aereo di attacco al suolo e di supporto aereo ravvicinato (close air support) delle forze terrestri, andrebbe confrontato anche con il tedesco Henschel HS 123, altro iconico biplano della seconda guerra mondiale, anch’esso utilizzato fino alla fine della guerra.
Alla fine tutte le maggiori aviazioni avevano in servizio biplani in prima linea, almeno all’inizio della guerra
As for the last, least important category here, i think the CR-42, with its stout, powerful look is the best looking among these machines. Dunno, it's got an intimidating, "mean business" appearance.
And finally, after some constructive criticism, I can also help you with that sea level speed of the Avia B-534 IV.
If speed near the ground will be a sufficient substitute, the numbers for the first B-534 prototype are published. Which gave Avia victory over its competitors. *:
Speed near the ground 326.2 km/h.
Maximum speed 363 km/h at 4000 m.
Now you can easily derive the numbers for version IV. I already did it for you.
Speed near the ground was 341.5 km/h for the IV. version. With exactly the same equipment as for a maximum speed of 380 km/h at a standard altitude of 4000 m, (using Military Power mode as the maximum allowed in peacetime...). I really wonder what the equipment was like, and if it included bomb racks already installed or not. For now, it remains a mystery of Avia, at least for me.
I also want to note, that the Avia B-534 never reached its full potential. Improvements to its propulsion system stalled in Phase 1 during mobilization in September 1938. (Was set WEP mode! ** Results remained secret..., probably shredded just before occupation in March 1939?)
Where the CR.42 has a 3-blade constant speed propeller, the I-153 has a 2-blade with 2 positions or an improved fully adjustable version, the standard Gladiator MK.II only has a fixed 3-blade. Avia has 2-blade adjustable on the ground only.
But with a modern 3-bladed constant speed propeller, the Avia B-534 would become a real biplane demon!.. :-) And the CR.42 would have a really tough competitor, vying for the position of 2nd best biplane fighter of WW2. (No. 1 was clearly the I-153, and even a fully modernized B-534 could not compete with the speed and raw firepower of the I-153.) If Czechoslovakia had managed to avoid the Munich Agreement and somehow survive... That's another story, for another discussion.
A few mistakes are nothing I won't forgive you easily, when I know you do it from the heart. And I like your presentation style. I wish you many more beautiful videos like this one, keep up the good work!
* That, and a dirty but effective method ... which ensures that no other competitor has the option of getting the 12Ydrs engine supplied (even directly from Hispano-Suiza company in France). Because with the same engine either of them could easily beat the B-534. Czechoslovakia clearly missed the opportunity to have better equipment. And it's sad to even think about it...
Source, AVIA B-534, (C) ing. VRANÝ Jiří, Prague: MBI 1994, ISBN 80-901263-6-7
** Curych 1937, Kareš Marcel, Rajlich Jiří, Prague: Mladá fronta 2017, ISBN 978-80-204-4674-9
Thank you very much for writing these. I really mean it. I read everything you wrote and can only promise I will try and do better! Cheers!
It's a pity that the CR.42 was not matched with a Daimler Benz DB601, like some of the Macchi aircraft were - that would have been a sight!
There was a CR42 with a DB601 engine, but its performances were worse than the MC202 and than the Re2001, so the project aborted. Anyway, the CR42 DB was the fastest biplane of that era (about 540 km/h if I remember well)
Found it. Thanks.
I do think that camouflage is damn cool
There was an experimental CR42 fitted with the German DB605 engine that recorded a top speed of 341 miles per hour. If that had been produced in numbers then that would undoubtedly be the best biplane fighter of the war, but it wasn't to be.
would have been a beast among biplanes, but by then still too slow.
@@charlesfaure1189 True.
@@vipertwenty249the experimental CR42 was fitted with a DB601, not with a DB605.
@@ferdinandocelotto You sure it was the 601? I always thought it was the 605.
@@vipertwenty249 I'm sure it was the DB601. You can find some photos also on Google. At the end of the evalutation, that solution was refused because the CR42 DB performances were worse than the MC202 and the Re2001 with the same engine.
I think the best armament goes to the CR.42. Those 12.7mm are vastly superior to 7.7s.
Pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks made 7.7mm guns incredible ineffective while 12.7mm bullets remained relevant till the end of the war, being able to penetrate more armor and cause fuel leaks or fires.
Of course, if a plane has neither, more 7.7s guns are generally better. See early Spitfires or Hurricanes :D
Although 12,7 mm generally pack a better punch than 7,7 mm MGs,it must be mentioned that Italian SAFAT 12,7 mm guns were quite weak in rate of fire and ammunition quality compared to those of other nations.Soviet SHKAS 7,7 mm guns were literally Soviet answer to MG-34,even faster firing,so 4 of those could more than make up for weaker caliber of 7,7 mm gun.
Not to mention occasional I-153P with 2 SHVAK 20 mm guns.
@@kaletovhangar Like I said, pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks render 7.7mm rounds very ineffective.
Since then the only remaining target that is most likely to get hit is the engine and oil cooler.
While 12.7mm rounds can still penetrate the armor and wound or kill the pilot, where as smaller rounds would have no effect.
So while RoF is very important to increase the efficiency of the caliber it doesn’t matter when the rounds have almost no effect on the aircraft.
So the other aircrafts have better firepower against unarmored planes but the CR.42 guns were better against modern planes that had pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks.
That’s why the IL-2 proved such a difficult aircraft to shoot down for Bf 109s that only had two MG 17 and one MG 151/20.
@@kimjanek646 Yes,I know that.Just wanted to point out that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better here.Also,among the contenders here,only I-153 had any sort of armor,and you can still damage control surfaces of the aircraft with 7,7 mm.
Yes, that was probably the hardest category to judge. Armament is always hard, since there is a large variety of factors, and to keep the videos short, I normally avoid going into a lot of detail. The main problem with the CR.42's armament was that the 12.7s were synchronized to fire through the propeller and had a very low rate of fire. In the period that the Falco saw more action, few carried two heavy MGs. So I found that it would be unfair to give it an edge here when the most common loadout was a 7.7 and a 12.7.
I agree that the heavy machine gun and the 20 mm cannon were probably the weapons of the conflict (from an aeronautical perspective).
will you do the Australian Boomerang next please? the first and last time we tried to do a fighter. maybe the wirraway?
Hey Matt, the Wirraway will be covered very soon! Thank you for the suggestion.
Overall I would go with the Italian fighter. Japanese monooplanes did not have radios, armor or self sealing fuel tanks.
@AllthingsWW2 >>> Which was the best biplane fighter?
Aesthetically speaking: *_YES._* 😊
Served very well in East Africa along side the cr32. Unfortunately the British had the gladiator and also later hurricanes
The question to which plane is the best is the one that you would choose to have if you were a commander, if given the choice of the four I would go with the CR.42 based off range as most other stats are very close , I think having a quarter inch armour plate to protect the pilot outweights the radio option though.
Plus the .5 inch anti material gun would be more practical for its role as a non front line fighter in an anti bomber/ground attack/recon role that bi-planes were relegated too.
But where - on earth - are You stationed!? ..makes a difference too.
Fiat CR-42, THE Beauty
You forgot about invasion of Greece. I’m nearly sure some of them where used in that conflict
Yes, and they were also used against France and during the Battle of Britain. I only focused on the main aspects of its operational history. But now that you mentioned it, it would be cool to do a video on the Italian invasion of Greece.
@@AllthingsWW2 sounds great. First laminar flow plane vs one of the best of biplanes sounds interesting.
Hi! Very nice video as usual. Thank you very much for doing such comparison of aircraft’s as nice bonus.
You made some mistakes in your spreadsheets. But because it is Avia B-534 involved, I feel need to help you improve your data, little bit.
1. You wrote data for Gladiator Mk.I instead of MK.II
MK.II has takeoff weight 2206 kg, max speed at sea level 346 km/h, max speed 414 km/h at 4420 m, can reach 3000 m in 4.5 min, has ceiling 10200 m, and range of 714 km. (The size of its wings was exactly 30,01 m2, it´s not important diference)
2. You used incorrect size of wings for CR.42, it has 22,4 m2. (And 22,1 m2 was for CR.32).
3. Same for Avia B-534, it has size of wings 23,56 m2, not less.
4. Using simply hp, for the value of motor power, can lead to incorrect belief that your engines numbers are in imperial hp, aka hp(I). But all numbers you wrote about engine power, including Gladiators MK II Mercury VIII A, are in fact in unit horse, aka PS, aka metric horse power hp(M).
It will be OK if you just fix spreadsheet using hp(M) unit, instead hp.
(But it will be also nice, if you add two other columns for kW, and actual imperial hp(I), or rather simply hp, to make it clear for all folk around.)
Because you probably already know, I summarize more info for others.
Easiest conversion its 1 kW = 1,359622 hp(M), aka PS etc. = 1,341022 hp(I), aka hp.
Or reverse conversion: 1 hp(I) = 0,7457 kW = 1,01387 hp(M), and 1 hp(M) = 0,7355 kW.
(I apologize for my English, as you can see, I´m not a native speaker.)
Hi Michal, I've read everything you wrote and thank you for all the trouble. About the hp, it's hard to find room on the screen for such a large amount of information and keep it at a size that could be read on a cell phone. Your suggestion is, of course, the correct way to do it, and I will try to add it in the future. I am used to the SI system of units, and so I should use kW instead of hp, but I find that concerning engine power, Watt is a unit that would be seen in an engineering book and not in a simple conversation.
Thank you for the corrections and suggestions. I hope you enjoyed the video. 👍
@@AllthingsWW2
Thank you for the answer. Yes, I like the video. 👍 But that's not all I want to say. 🙂
Hi, I almost NEVER subscribe...idk? why....but YOUR video is SO GOOD that I DONT want to rely on yt occasionally giving me one...thank you again
Thank you and welcome! 👍
For me the CR-42 as it actually flew combat missions in WW2 with some success such as in North Africa . It was the best biplane fighter ever produced . Not to say this was a good idea but the Italian pilots prefer'ed this type of plane as they always operated in warm climates and had little knowledge modern air planes both from Germany and England thus did not understand what modern 350 MPH fighters were all about .
Discussing what was the best biplane fighter of WW2 is roughly the same as discussing what was the best musket of WW1... but I would go with either the Falco or the I-153 😉
BTW, you are Portuguese, right?
Um abraço!
Sou sim. Abraço!
The best Biplane for WWII would be a Hybrid of
the I-153
with the Gladiators Equipment
a Italian Camouflage
enacting the Czech Attack Plan
Not sure how many kills Pat Pattle scored flying the Gladys, I think it was quite high, also the last biplane flying for the British was the Swordfish.
15 I think
Speaking only in war thunder, but the I 153 is so good that it can handle monoplane, and one variant have 2 20mms.
This does make one wonder what a modern Pitts Aerobics special would do if armed and put into the World War II conflict?!? 🤔
Too light for armament and ammo, much less fuel, self-sealing tanks, pilot armor.
@@charlesfaure1189 I would counter with "Lucas Physics" and Plot Armor!!!! 🤠👍
It’s a beautiful airplane and a great design, but this distinction is kind of like The Best Rumanian Artillery Piece of WWII.
To think Mussolini took Italia into war in 1940, knowing that the CR-42 was his main fighter aircraft.
I have a feeling that if you enter these simulated turning radii, you will get on a thin ice.
Turning radius 156 m, which you expect from the standard Avia B-534 IV. version makes no sense. Since it has an area load of only 84.04 kg / m2, only slightly more than 79.83 kg / m2 I-153. It is far from 102.46 kg / m2 CR.42, yet somehow you expect its turning radius to be 21 m larger than r = 135 m for I-153, but only 14 m shorter than r = 170 m for CR.42.
Only if your r = 128 m applies to the Gladiator MK I, then the r = 156 m you expect from Avia is close to a direct derivation from the Gladiator MK I load comparison of 69.41 kg / m2 and Avia B-534 IV 84.04 kg / m2. It shows the result r = 155 m. But then CR.42 will have r = 189 m!
Do you see the problems you face here?
The radius of 170 m you expect from CR.42 is close to a direct derivation from the I-153 load comparison, and Fiat CR.42 shows the result r = 173 m.
A direct derivation from the comparison of loads I-153 and Avia B-534 IV shows the result only r = 142 m, and definitely makes more sense.
Also, if your r = 128 m applies to the Gladiator MK II with an area load of 73.51 kg / m2, then a direct derivation for the Avia shows the result r = 146 m.
However, if you compare the two observed radii and then derive the turning radii for the remaining aircraft, you will get completely different and interesting results:
Compared to the confirmed turning radii of 128 m for the Gladiator MK I with a surface load of 69.51 kg / m2 & t. r = 135 m for I-153 with 79.83 kg / m2, Avia B-534 IV can be derived. the version with 84.04 kg / m2 shows the result t. r = only 138 m.
Compared to the confirmed turning radii of 128 m for the Gladiator MK II with an area load of 73.51 kg / m2 & t. R = 135 m for the I-153 with 79.83 kg / m2, the Avia B-534 IV can be derived. the version with 84.04 kg / m2 shows the result t. r = only 140 m.
Compared to the confirmed turning radius of 135 m for I-153 with 79.83 kg / m2 and the expected r = 170 m for Fiat CR.42 with 102.46 kg / m2, the Avia B-534 IV can be derived. the version with 84.04 kg / m2 shows the result t. r = only 141,5 m.
My point is, that the Avia clearly had a turning radius very close to I-153 and it must be something around R = 140 m. Probably not less than 138 m and also not more than 142 m.
Hi once again, Michal. I do understand what you mean. The ideal would be to always have the observed value, but those are seldom available. I will consider what you wrote here in future videos bringing comparisons. Thank you!
Supercharged, constant speed propeller on biplane, WOW