No.

Biplanes were the best way to take to the air in the early days because people had not wrapped their minds around the concept of a thick wing. All early aircraft used very thin airfoils, and a biplane produced a very lightweight and strong wing. Materials, by the way, had nothing to do with this, so the use of modern composite materials will not change the situation.

But a biplane does have advantages: If you

• want the fastest possible roll rate,
• a compact airframe,
• want to fly slowly,
• have little need for payload,

a biplane will be the right solution. However, as soon as the plane is used to earn revenue by transporting goods or people quickly and efficiently over long distances, the monoplane is by far the better solution.

Contraptions like the Blériot type 67 will never be built again (except maybe for entertainment).

Blériot type 67 bomber (picture source). Note the very thin wing airfoils.

On the other hand, for flying fun an EAA Biplane is hard to beat. And it is super easy to build.

EAA Biplane P2 (picture source). This design is possible with any aviation-rated materials.

No.

Biplanes were the best way to take to the air in the early days because people had not wrapped their minds around the concept of a thick wing. All early aircraft used very thin airfoils, and a biplane produced a very lightweight and strong wing. Materials, by the way, had nothing to do with this, so the use of modern composite materials will not change the situation.

But a biplane does have advantages: If you

• want the fastest possible roll rate,
• a compact airframe,
• want to fly slowly,
• have little need for payload,

a biplane will be the right solution. However, as soon as the plane is used to earn revenue by transporting goods or people quickly and efficiently over long distances, the monoplane is by far the better solution.

Contraptions like the Blériot type 67 will never be built again (except maybe for entertainment).

Blériot type 67 bomber (picture source). Note the very thin wing airfoils.

On the other hand, for flying fun an EAA Biplane is hard to beat. And it is super easy to build.

EAA Biplane P2 (picture source). This design is possible with any aviation-rated materials.

No.

Biplanes were the best way to take to the air in the early days because people had not wrapped their minds around the concept of a thick wing. All early aircraft used very thin airfoils, and a biplane produced a very lightweight and strong wing. Materials, by the way, had nothing to do with this, so the use of modern composite materials will not change the situation.

But a biplane does have advantages: If you

• want the fastest possible roll rate,
• a compact airframe,
• want to fly slowly,
• have little need for payload,

a biplane will be the right solution. However, as soon as the plane is used to earn revenue by transporting goods or people quickly and efficiently over long distances, the monoplane is by far the better solution.

No.

Biplanes were the best way to take to the air in the early days because people had not wrapped their minds around the concept of a thick wing. All early aircraft used very thin airfoils, and a biplane produced a very lightweight and strong wing. Materials, by the way, had nothing to do with this, so the use of modern composite materials will not change the situation.

But a biplane does have advantages: If you

• want the fastest possible roll rate,
• a compact airframe,
• want to fly slowly,
• have little need for payload,

a biplane will be the right solution. However, as soon as the plane is used to earn revenue by transporting goods or people quickly and efficiently over long distances, the monoplane is by far the better solution.

Contraptions like the Blériot type 67 will never be built again (except maybe for entertainment).

Blériot type 67 bomber (picture source). Note the very thin wing airfoils.

On the other hand, for flying fun an EAA Biplane is hard to beat. And it is super easy to build.

EAA Biplane P2 (picture source). This design is possible with any aviation-rated materials.