from biplanes to monoplanes

[Gallo Rojo]

maybe a stupid question but anyway:

can anyone explain to me why did biplanes become obsolete as war aircraft design?
I mean, I understand that there were improvements in engines power and then some other technical stuff (closed canopies, retractile landing-wheels, etc.), but all that could have been adapted to biplane fighters, couldn't it?
So which was the aerodynamical (or whatever) advantage that monoplane design had over biplane one?

thanks!

[Baldrick62]

G'Day Gallo,
To put it simply, you've got it. There is less aerodynamic drag on a monoplane design than a biplane, particulalry when you take interplane strust and bracing wires into account, and more efficient monoplane designs were able to generate equivalent lift to the earlier biplane designs. A triplane gave you the lift of a biplane with shorter wings so greater manoeuvrability, but even greater drag. While very manoeuvrable, the Fokker Dr.I is actually pretty slow when compared to contemporary biplanes.
BofB

[Gallo Rojo]

so basically monoplanes were faster (less drag, even forgetting better engines) and also later monoplane design had better lift (meaning stability? sustainability? sorry if I ask: what do you mean exactly by 'lift'? I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure what you mean here) than earlier biplane design.

were late (say WW2) monoplanes more maneuverable than early (WW1) biplanes? I mean, could they turn better? I mean comparing a very maneuverable WW2 monoplane (say a Japanese Zero) against a not so much WW1 biplane (say a Spad). I always thought biplanes were always more maneuverable than monoplanes, was I wrong? (I know that maneuverability is not *everything* in a fighter, and that faster fighters can take a more maneuverable one with the correct tactic, but I'm just wondering).

thanks again

[Baldrick62]

'Lift' relates to overall ability to remain in the air. As a gross generalisation, early monoplane designs, for reasons including lack of engine power and structural weakness, didn't fly as well as biplanes. Once better wing designs overcame structural weakness, speed became more of a factor. Biplanes, which generally have a short(er) wingspan, remain manoeuvrable (look at the Pitts Special aerobatic aircraft still in use today) but lost out on speed due to drag. It's difficult to make a direct comparison between a stressed metal skinned late WW2 monoplane and a fabric-covered, wooden framed WW1 design, as once again structural strength comes into it, particularly when looking at G-force tolerance.

[Gallo Rojo]

Thanks Baldrick!

[csadn]

Side note: Some "All-metal" acft. in WW2 actually had fabric-covered control surfaces, not only to save weight, but because the fabric kept vibration in check; some of the Unlimited-class acft. at the Reno Air Races continue to use fabric to this day (many moons ago, I knew the dope-and-fabric guy for #77 _Rare Bear_).

[john snelling]

The aspect of air warfare was changing. Biplanes were more maneuverable than monoplanes. Biplanes did produce more drag by having 2 wings and struts and wires between the wings which lowered the speed. Speed was key in WW2 it helped to have speed and maneuverability but speed was most important. Look at the P-40 vs the Japanese Nate. the Nate was grossly more maneuverable but the P-40 had speed which enabled it to hit and run. If a P-40 was in trouble it would dive using speed and put distance between it and the Japanese plane that would shed a wing in a high speed dive. I kept it very simple but I hope it helped.

[csadn]

This is also where the infamous "the bomber will always get through" quote came from: At the time of the remark, Bombers were becoming monoplanes with retractable gear; they couldn't maneuver, so speed was seen as the best defense. Fighters, OTOH, remained fixed-gear biplanes. Result: The Bombers were suddenly able to outpace the Fighters, which raised the spectre of waves of Bombers rampaging o'er the land unimpeded.

Then, of course, some genius realized *Fighters* could be retracable-gear monoplanes, too.... :)