Origin of Bubble Canopies
Michael Thompson
about masking the canopy (there are a _lot_ of panes to mask!). Anyway, we
got started talking about bubble canopies - the P-40 has windows behind the
pilot that aren't actually _windows_ rather they are there to allow better
over-the-shoulder vision past the fuselage.
Any ideas or documentation on what was the first A/C to use a bubble canopy
a'la the P-51? Even the P-38 had a pieced-together canopy (separate top, roll
down sides). Based on military fighters, it would have been early 1940s.
Speculation could be the technology used with glass couldn't yet handle a clear
piece shaped that way. We also thought about the fact that segmenting a canopy
into panes could allow the use of thicker (read bullet-proof) glass...
Hmmm....
What flew first - the D model of the P-51 or the (whatever) model of the P-47
which had the bubble vrs. razorback configuration?
Of course, could have been other than US - although it seems _all_ German
canopies were paned.
SITYS Dittos! - Mike
/********************* No IBM Opinions Here! *****************************\
* Michael E. Thompson (Mich...@vnet.ibm.com) T/L 793-0526 (512)823-0526 *
* IBM OS/2 Software Support Center (Database), Austin, TX *
* Ex-AX1 Sub Hunter P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew *
* PP-ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race nut *
*******************************************************************************
* And now we know what it's like to live in a Kakistocracy! *
\*****************************************************************************/
Keith Comeford
fighter (Hurricane perhaps?) and clipped on to the P51 as a field
modification. Thus I expect the Brits have the right to claim this as their
invention.
As to why, the bubble jobs were made of plexiglas (aka perspex) in its
"bulletproof" form. Bulletproof glass is usually sandwiwiched (with
various things in the sandwich) and so might be rather hard to form
into the bubble shape. Plexiglas is from the late '30s early '40s
and so before that it just wasn't possible...
Thanks,
Keith Comeford
These Opinions are my own (Digital could probably care less about WW2
warbirds :-) )
Albion H. Bowers
In a previous article, Mich...@vnet.IBM.COM (Michael Thompson) says:
>A friend of mine is doing a scale model of a P-40 - last night he was moaning
>about masking the canopy (there are a _lot_ of panes to mask!). Anyway, we
>got started talking about bubble canopies - the P-40 has windows behind the
>pilot that aren't actually _windows_ rather they are there to allow better
>over-the-shoulder vision past the fuselage.
>Any ideas or documentation on what was the first A/C to use a bubble canopy
>a'la the P-51? Even the P-38 had a pieced-together canopy (separate top, roll
>down sides). Based on military fighters, it would have been early 1940s.
>Speculation could be the technology used with glass couldn't yet handle a clear
>piece shaped that way. We also thought about the fact that segmenting a canopy
>into panes could allow the use of thicker (read bullet-proof) glass...
>Hmmm....
>What flew first - the D model of the P-51 or the (whatever) model of the P-47
>which had the bubble vrs. razorback configuration?
>Of course, could have been other than US - although it seems _all_ German
>canopies were paned.
Fully blown `bubble' canopies were first seen on the aircraft of about
1943-1944. The P-51D Mustang had one, as did the late model P-47s. Also
about the same time were the FG-1D models of the Corsair with fully blown
bubble canopies. The FW-190 _always_ had a `bubble' canopy (circa 1939 for
the prototype). But it should be noted that blown canopies existed prior
to that. For instance the Malcolm Hood of early Spitfires, and adaptations
to B and C model P-51s. Also the Germans did have simlar devices on late
model Bf-109 Gs (G-8s and later). The -109 hoods like this are sometimes
called "Galland Hoods" but I have never heard Adolf Galland refer to them
in any of his books. They are usually called Erbe Hanle canopies (sp?).
And of course, the Me-262 had a fully bubble.
--
Al Bowers DOD #900 NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility
work: bow...@tifosi.dfrf.nasa.gov personal: ak...@yfn.ysu.edu
"...tactics always degrade strategy..." -Frank Bethwaite
Robert J. Granvin
|> A friend of mine is doing a scale model of a P-40 - last night he was moaning
|> about masking the canopy (there are a _lot_ of panes to mask!). Anyway, we
|> got started talking about bubble canopies - the P-40 has windows behind the
|> pilot that aren't actually _windows_ rather they are there to allow better
|> over-the-shoulder vision past the fuselage.
One of the other advantages of the razorback design is that it allowed for
the introduction of a rollbar (Essentially) directly behind the pilot.
This made a nose-over more survivable.
If you look at a P-51A/B/C, you'll notice a very hefy and solid framework
directly behind the pilot anchoring to the top of razorback spine. This
isn't entirely structural, but provided very good odds that the aircraft
would rest on this point rather than on the pilots head (now part way
down his chest).
That was one of the sacrifices made for a clear 360 degree view... Feeling
being that one would prefer to have better odds getting _back_ to base,
rather than the slight advantage in case of a nose-over.
--
\\ Robert J. Granvin User Services Specialist
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota r...@stat.umn.edu
Albion H. Bowers
In a previous article, come...@hitu.zko.dec.com (Keith Comeford) says:
>Well, the P-51 bubble canopy was originally stolen from a British
>fighter (Hurricane perhaps?) and clipped on to the P51 as a field
>modification. Thus I expect the Brits have the right to claim this as their
>invention.
I believe the Malcolm Hood was first used on Spit's, not on Hurri's.
>As to why, the bubble jobs were made of plexiglas (aka perspex) in its
>"bulletproof" form. Bulletproof glass is usually sandwiwiched (with
>various things in the sandwich) and so might be rather hard to form
>into the bubble shape. Plexiglas is from the late '30s early '40s
>and so before that it just wasn't possible...
I believe this is wrong. the only bullet proof part of the glazing was the
wind screen directly infront of the pilot. None of the other glazing was
meant to survive projectiles. It was felt that the possibility of a
snapshot into the cockpit was remote enough a possibility, that the glazing
was never made bulletproof. Even on today's designs, this is the case.
It must really be something to get a 20mm shot in the face and survive
(even if you can't see out the front afterwards)! As I recall, this was
where the idea for artificial corneas and lenses in the eyes came from.
Medical types found that pilots with plexi in their eyes tended not to
reject the foreign material.
Andrew John Davies
From The American Physical Society
What's New for Nov 24, 1993:
"4. APS PROPOSES TO STUDY PATRIOT MISSILE PERFORMANCE IN GULF WAR.
Claims of near-perfect success were used to justify billions for
Theater Missile Defense. But when MIT physicist Ted Postol went
public with evidence of near-zero success, the Pentagon accused
him of revealing secret information. Last Sunday, the APS Council
voted unanimously to study the issue if a government sponsor will
ensure access to classified information and Pentagon cooperation.
On the same day, Israeli officials called the Patriot "a joke.""
Comments/additions anyone? What did Postol say exactly?
Andrew Davies
hor...@hulaw1.harvard.edu
> a'la the P-51? Even the P-38 had a pieced-together canopy (separate top, roll
> down sides). Based on military fighters, it would have been early 1940s.
Some sources say that the P-51 bubble was an idea borrowed from the Hawker
Tornado-Typhoon series, although the early models of these did not have
full bubble canopies but rather framed bubbles with car-type doors like the
P-39.
Most of the problems with forming compound curves in non-structural clear
plastics were worked out in the 1930s and you can see a lot of bubble-like
structures on prewar bombers (turrets, bombardier's stations, observation
blisters etc.). However, a pure bubble (more or less complete hemisphere,
no frames) was more difficult to achieve without unacceptable optical
distortion and didn't appear regularly until '43 or so.
The Japanese were probably the first to embrace the CONCEPT of an all-round
bubble for fighters. Pilot view was highly valued in Japanese fighter
design philosophy and a number of their late-'30s fighters had framed
bubbles, even before the Zero.
August <hor...@hulaw1.harvard.edu>
Pat
Postol showed conclusively that in 25/38 inbound missiles, the
patriot conclusively missed it's target. He also showed that
in the remaining 13 shots 11 warheads continued on in flight.
Postol just proved, what many people suspected that the Patriot performance
record was like many other things more PR then reality.
The Israeli's decided that the damage from patriots exceeded the
damage caused by long shot scuds.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually
fearing that you will make one -- Elbert Hubbard.
Bert Hilberink
>
>Fully blown `bubble' canopies were first seen on the aircraft of about
>1943-1944. The P-51D Mustang had one, as did the late model P-47s. Also
>about the same time were the FG-1D models of the Corsair with fully blown
>bubble canopies. The FW-190 _always_ had a `bubble' canopy (circa 1939 for
>the prototype). But it should be noted that blown canopies existed prior
>to that. For instance the Malcolm Hood of early Spitfires, and adaptations
>to B and C model P-51s. Also the Germans did have simlar devices on late
>model Bf-109 Gs (G-8s and later).
Actually the hoods you refer to were fitted on late model Bf 109G's and
109K's: roughly speaking "a few" G-5's, "quite a few" G-6's, "a few" G-8's,
"most" G-14's and "all" G-10's and K-4's.
>The -109 hoods like this are sometimes
>called "Galland Hoods" but I have never heard Adolf Galland refer to them
>in any of his books. They are usually called Erbe Hanle canopies (sp?).
The name "Galland Hood" is purely an invention. The hoods were called
"Erla Haubes" (Haube = Hood). Some references mention the term "Galland
Panzer" for the armour plating mated with bullet resistant glass behind
the pilot's back.
>And of course, the Me-262 had a fully bubble.
Regards,
Bert Hilberink.
H.C.J.H...@research.ptt.nl
Rupert Williams
Europeans ocasionally have been known to invent things too ;-)
Rups
raymond fairfield
> Rups
Take a look at the drawings or photos of the Miles M20 circa 1940. Can't
think of any earlier off-hand but wouldn't bet on it.
Ray Fairfield
Charlie Stone 4915162
How about the Westland Whirlwind, circa 1938. (A really pretty twin)
Charlie Stone
Steve Heiser
>
>Postol showed conclusively that in 25/38 inbound missiles, the
>patriot conclusively missed it's target. He also showed that
>in the remaining 13 shots 11 warheads continued on in flight.
What we have here is another example of media propaganda supported by a
crack-pot with no real physical evidence and ignoring large bodies of
concrete evidence. This story was picked up by the news wires (always hot to
provide the readers with some sensational story of a government cover-up so
that they can sell more advertising) almost as quickly as it was dropped when
Postol was completely discredited. Many papers even went so far as to
advertise their own expanded coverage of the Postol "whistle-blowing" in their
weekend editions with full page ads. However, when the weekend came, there
was no story published (the Boston Globe was one such paper).
>Postol just proved, what many people suspected that the Patriot performance
>record was like many other things more PR then reality.
Postol's pathetic excuse for proof was based on some video tape that he
probably pirated off of CNN. Any video technician can tell you that the speed
of video tape (about 30 frames per second) is not nearly fast enough to
give you a detailed trajectory of a bullet, let alone a body moving through
the air at about eight times the speed of a bullet. Postol, who touted himself
as an expert, also seemed to lack a fundamental knowledge of how the Patriot
is supposed to work. The Patriot was not designed as a hit-to-kill system,
it was designed to explode close enough to an in-coming target to disable it
and keep it from performing its intended task. Postol's reproduced video
stills show the Patriot "clearly missing its target and then exploding" the
next still shows the Scud breaking up "probably due to improper manufacturing"
a fraction of a second later. Postol's "supplementary evidence" was based
on the fact that no engineers were sent to crash sites to confirm Patriot
missile damage. So in a nut shell his whole agrument was that the Patriot
didn't work because we can't see it on the video, and because we didn't check
the damage on the ground as much as we should have. Using that argument, we
could say that the Declaration of Independence was never relly signed because
there was no video and the document was never dusted for prints. What Postol
conveniently overlooked was reams of empirical evidence and isolated
eye-witness accounts. In addition, the media never reported a Raytheon test,
that all of the major news services were invited to, made shortly after Postol
went public. In the test, several Congressmen were brought to a test range
and asked to witness with their own eyes how well the system worked. And,
just to be sure they wouldn't be accused of faking the test, Raytheon had
the Congressmen themselves determine the speed, direction, and trajectory
of the in-coming threat. Incidentally, Raytheon used a high-speed camera,
about 1,000 fps to record the test, and still couldn't get much information
from the film.
>The Israeli's decided that the damage from patriots exceeded the
>damage caused by long shot scuds.
Two points here:
1st How much damage do you suppose would have been done if the Scuds had
not been intercepted.
2nd nothing would have fallen out of the sky if the Iraqis had not fired the
Scuds.
--
Stephen P. Heiser DISCLAIMER: My employer takes
INDIVIDUAL, Inc. no responsibility for my
ste...@individual.com statements. (Honestly, who
would?)
James R Ebright
>In article <2d3okg$a...@access.digex.net> p...@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>>
>>Postol showed conclusively that in 25/38 inbound missiles, the
>>patriot conclusively missed it's target. He also showed that
>>in the remaining 13 shots 11 warheads continued on in flight.
>
>What we have here is another example of media propaganda supported by a
>crack-pot with no real physical evidence and ignoring large bodies of
>concrete evidence.
Both of the above statements probably go to far.
Remember, the Patriot was designed to destroy an aircraft by putting
so many holes in the airframe that it could no longer fly. It was
not designed to destroy small warheads in ballistic missles. It usually
was able to intercept the missle. When it did, it sometimes destroyed
the warhead, but not usually. Usually it diverted the warhead from it's
normal ballistic path. Sometimes it did not even do that.
How often it did the above is subject to conjecture. The CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC
tapes Postol examined are often not conclusive. But the do show all of
the described behaviors to some extent.
...
>
>>The Israeli's decided that the damage from patriots exceeded the
>>damage caused by long shot scuds.
Probably true, to the extent that 1) warheads were not prevented from
exploding on impact and 2) the amount of debris falling from the sky was
greater as the debris now included Patriots too.
However, the impacts were more often than otherwise not where the Scud
was orginally headed. How big this 'more often than otherwise' is is the
real bone of contention.
Of course, Scuds, especially the Iraqi modified Scuds,
are very inaccurate to begin with. So maybe the Israelis decided the
circular error was so large to begin with that adding Patriot induced
deviations wasn't worth the effort.
You might not make the same assessment with a more accurate missle.
Remember, the Scud is an area bombardment missle not a target bombardment
missle. For it to be militarilly effective, large quantities of them
need to be launched. The USAF, not Patriot missles, assured this did
not happen.
The Scud was an effective terror wepon, much like the V2 in WWII. But had the
Gulf War lasted longer, folks in Rayadh and TelAviv, like Londoners in WWII,
would have learned to cope and ignore them as much as possible.
--
A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: jr...@osu.edu
((0 0))_______ "Education ought to foster the wish for truth,
\ / the \ not the conviction that some particular creed
(--)\ OSU | is the truth." -- Bertrand Russell
Kuang-Chung Chao
>In article <CH9Iw...@ora.com> ste...@individual.com (Steve Heiser) writes:
>>In article <2d3okg$a...@access.digex.net> p...@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>>>
>>>Postol showed conclusively that in 25/38 inbound missiles, the
>>>patriot conclusively missed it's target. He also showed that
>>>in the remaining 13 shots 11 warheads continued on in flight.
>>
>>What we have here is another example of media propaganda supported by a
>>crack-pot with no real physical evidence and ignoring large bodies of
>>concrete evidence.
>
>Both of the above statements probably go to far.
>
>Remember, the Patriot was designed to destroy an aircraft by putting
>so many holes in the airframe that it could no longer fly. It was
>not designed to destroy small warheads in ballistic missles. It usually
>was able to intercept the missle. When it did, it sometimes destroyed
>the warhead, but not usually. Usually it diverted the warhead from it's
>normal ballistic path. Sometimes it did not even do that.
>
>How often it did the above is subject to conjecture. The CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC
>tapes Postol examined are often not conclusive. But the do show all of
>the described behaviors to some extent.
>...
>
>exploding on impact and 2) the amount of debris falling from the sky was
>greater as the debris now included Patriots too.
>
>However, the impacts were more often than otherwise not where the Scud
>was orginally headed. How big this 'more often than otherwise' is is the
>real bone of contention.
>
The Patriot PAC-2 is design as a self-defense missile for the Patriot battery.
The Warsaw pact tactic at the time was to use battlefield ballistical missile
to destroy Patriot then following by Su-24, Mig-29 etc. So the purpose of
PAC-2 is to shoot down the missile to protect itself. If the incoming Frogfoot
fall down on something else that's not its business. So yes PAC-2 works, works
for what it was designed for. But it didn't work for what Bush promise Israelis
it would do. Postol was trying to prove the PAC-2 can not protect Tel Aviv or
Jerusalam. Maybe he did it, but so what. It didn't suppose to work the way
Postol thinks.
But what interested me more is what Bush and the prime minister of Israel did
before they deploy them. With possible chemical warhead threat to a city, PAC-2
means nothing. I think Israelis knew that, but what made them take it, or
they and US knew long ago Iraq don't have chemical warhead on Scud. They just
put on PAC-2 as show-biz.
Just some of my own speculation.
K.C.
Michael Thompson
see these mentioned examples of bubbles used as early as 1938!
In <1993Nov29.0...@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au> Charlie Stone 4915162 writes:
>In article <fairfiel.754530528@helios> fair...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (raymond fairfield) writes:
>>Rupert Williams <RWIL...@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>>
>>>First bubble canopy??! I believe it was on a Spitfire. Yep, the
>>>Europeans ocasionally have been known to invent things too ;-)
>>
>>> Rups
Rups, I don't think there is any dispute that things have been invented in
other than the US (I like the Brit's angled deck aircraft carrier) :-) .
I guess I worded poorly my original question - I didn't mean to include as
a bubble canopy the various "Malcom Hood" adaptations (The first Spit to have
a true "bubble" canopy was the Mk. X, I believe, which trailed the '51s and
'47s into service).
The FW-190 is even a close miss, in our definition :^)
>>
>>Take a look at the drawings or photos of the Miles M20 circa 1940. Can't
>>think of any earlier off-hand but wouldn't bet on it.
>>Ray Fairfield
>>
>
>How about the Westland Whirlwind, circa 1938. (A really pretty twin)
>
>Charlie Stone
>
It seems I have some book work ahead of me ;-)
Thanks, all!
Michael Thompson
I don't think there's any dispute that many things were developed outside the
US - the Brits did the angled-deck aircraft carrier, for instance.
The Spit Mk. X (I think it was?) was a little behind the '51D and '47D as far
as an actual full bubble canopy goes, I think.
My original question was perhaps poorly (or incompletely) worded - the Malcom
hood would not fall into my description of a "bubble" canopy.
George George
|>
|> I believe this is wrong. the only bullet proof part of the glazing was the
|> wind screen directly infront of the pilot. None of the other glazing was
|> meant to survive projectiles. It was felt that the possibility of a
|> snapshot into the cockpit was remote enough a possibility, that the glazing
|> was never made bulletproof. Even on today's designs, this is the case.
|>
The front part was stronger than the rest of the glazing, but they
were really guarding against bird strikes and other foriegn objects
hitting the windshield; this piece was not really bulletproof.
|> It must really be something to get a 20mm shot in the face and survive
|> (even if you can't see out the front afterwards)! As I recall, this was
|> where the idea for artificial corneas and lenses in the eyes came from.
|> Medical types found that pilots with plexi in their eyes tended not to
|> reject the foreign material.
Read Sakai's book "Samurai!" for a good description on what it's like
to get shot in the face. He describes a solo attack on what he thought
were 10 Hellcats. He approached from below & behind. When they saw him
they quite unexpectedly tightened their formation. Then he noticed they
were TBM Avenger torpedo-bombers, each with a belly-mounted rear-facing
machine-gunner. All ten were pointing at him. Ooops...
MR KR COMAN
>From: hor...@hulaw1.harvard.edu
>Subject: Re: Origin of Bubble Canopies
>Date: 25 Nov 93 10:29:46 EST
>The Japanese were probably the first to embrace the CONCEPT of an all-round
>bubble for fighters. Pilot view was highly valued in Japanese fighter
>design philosophy and a number of their late-'30s fighters had framed
>bubbles, even before the Zero.
Agreed. I seem to recall that there was more than a little
resistance amongst pilots in the mid-late 1930's to fully enclosed cockpits
on the grounds that they seriously limited vision. The previous open
cockpits of the old biplane a/c were presumably highly regarded in this
respect. It therefore seems possible that a designer of a "modern" fighter
would try to develop a canopy that retained as many of the desired and
familiar clear-vision/open cockpit attributes.
In WW1, for instance, the SE5 fighter when 1st introduced featured
a quite large (for the era) windscreen and side-screens. Squadron pilots
immediately had them removed entirely or replaced with a very much smaller
"aero" screen. One reason given was to improve visibility. But perhaps
tradition and what you're used to also plays a strong part!
Cheers,
Keith Coman
Charles K. Scott
gge...@is.morgan.com (George George) writes:
> Read Sakai's book "Samurai!" for a good description on what it's like
> to get shot in the face. He describes a solo attack on what he thought
> were 10 Hellcats. He approached from below & behind. When they saw him
> they quite unexpectedly tightened their formation. Then he noticed they
> were TBM Avenger torpedo-bombers, each with a belly-mounted rear-facing
> machine-gunner. All ten were pointing at him. Ooops...
Several minor points. 1. Hellcats hadn't flown in combat in August
1942 so Sakai wouldn't have known about them. 2. Sakai wrote the book
through an interpreter and it appears that the American author, Martin
Caidin, may have mistaken what Sakai said when he described the
aircraft he was attacking. Sakai knew that he was attacking bombers,
and stated so to the interpreter, but he called them "carrier bombers"
(in Japanese kanbaku). Mr. Caidin put the spin about them being TBF's,
he has been known to embellish stories so as to make them more
exciting, I've heard it said that he was "not one to let the facts get
in the way of a good yarn".. Sakai may not have realised that the
gunners could draw a bead on him from the angle he was approaching
(underneath and behind) He had not in his combat career ever faced this
type of aircraft before so it's performance characteristics and
defensive fire pattern were unknown to him at that time. 3. 4.
Regardless of what the book "Samurai" stated, there were no TBF's in
the air at the time of this combat.
The aircraft Sakai attacked were SBD Dauntless's and that days' combat
reports show that one flight was approached by a lone Zero which
attacked them from below and behind. The gunners combined fire knocked
it down and it fell smoking towards towards the sound below. It is
likely that the Zero described in this combat report was that of
Sakai's.
This will all be summerised in the new book due out this month called
"The First Team at Guadalcanal" by John Lundstrom and, if it's anything
like his last book, should be outstandingly researched and marvelously
readable.
Corky Scott
Albion H. Bowers
In a previous article, ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) says:
>In article <1993Nov25.1...@hulaw1.harvard.edu> hor...@hulaw1.harvard.edu writes:
>>From: hor...@hulaw1.harvard.edu
>>Subject: Re: Origin of Bubble Canopies
>>Date: 25 Nov 93 10:29:46 EST
>>The Japanese were probably the first to embrace the CONCEPT of an all-round
>>bubble for fighters. Pilot view was highly valued in Japanese fighter
>>design philosophy and a number of their late-'30s fighters had framed
>>bubbles, even before the Zero.
> Agreed. I seem to recall that there was more than a little
>resistance amongst pilots in the mid-late 1930's to fully enclosed cockpits
>on the grounds that they seriously limited vision. The previous open
>cockpits of the old biplane a/c were presumably highly regarded in this
>respect. It therefore seems possible that a designer of a "modern" fighter
>would try to develop a canopy that retained as many of the desired and
>familiar clear-vision/open cockpit attributes.
I noted that the LEX of the F/A-18 presents some serious limitations to
visability downwards. I spent a lot of time rolling up on a wing to keep
opponents in sight at type conversion training. I was pretty appalled at
how much visability was lost. It requires at least 60 degrees of bank in
`jinks' simpy to clear that part of the airspace. When you figure how
often you have to do this with hostiles about, it gets pretty significant,
even with a fully blown bubble...
--
Al Bowers DOD #900 NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility
work: bow...@tifosi.dfrf.nasa.gov personal: ak...@yfn.ysu.edu
"...know yourself and know your enemy, and you need not fear the result..."
-Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", circa 515 B.C.
Ronald James Wanttaja
MR KR COMAN <ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za> wrote:
>
> Agreed. I seem to recall that there was more than a little
>resistance amongst pilots in the mid-late 1930's to fully enclosed cockpits
>on the grounds that they seriously limited vision.
>a quite large (for the era) windscreen and side-screens. Squadron pilots
>immediately had them removed entirely or replaced with a very much smaller
>"aero" screen. One reason given was to improve visibility. But perhaps
>tradition and what you're used to also plays a strong part!
Then again, maybe not. I fly an open-cockpit airplane, with a
three-pane windscreen made of modern good-optical-characteristics
plastics.
When I'm looking for traffic, I tend to look around the edge of the
windscreen rather than through it. There's absolutely *no* question
visibility is better. If my life depended upon detection of hostile
aircraft before they saw me, I'd chuck most of that windshield in a
flash. I have no doubt an SE-5 jockey with 1918 glass windshield
covered with castor oil would make the same decision. After all, one of
the reason they wore scarves was to clean the oil off the goggles....
However, sometimes a windshild does give you better visibility. A
poorly-designed cockpit can cause the wind to "flutter" around the
pilot's head... this can shake his goggles and make it harder to see
(The goggles are generally pressed against the skin around the eyes).
If the screen stops the flutter, the pilot can see better.
|
_|_
/(_)\
-------:==^==:-------
[[| o |]]
-----------------__________\_____/__________-----------------
_ / \ _
T T/_______\T T Ron Wanttaja
| | | | want...@halcyon.com
""" """
Charles K. Scott
ba...@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:
> Agreed. I seem to recall that there was more than a little
> resistance amongst pilots in the mid-late 1930's to fully enclosed cockpits
> on the grounds that they seriously limited vision. The previous open
> cockpits of the old biplane a/c were presumably highly regarded in this
> respect. It therefore seems possible that a designer of a "modern" fighter
> would try to develop a canopy that retained as many of the desired and
> familiar clear-vision/open cockpit attributes.
> In WW1, for instance, the SE5 fighter when 1st introduced featured
> a quite large (for the era) windscreen and side-screens. Squadron pilots
> immediately had them removed entirely or replaced with a very much smaller
> "aero" screen. One reason given was to improve visibility. But perhaps
> tradition and what you're used to also plays a strong part!
I've had some air time in a friends WACO UPF-7 and can confirm that
visibility from a biplane is limited. I'm especially alarmed at how
much of the runway is masked by the wings and engine on final; you
literally don't see the runway or 10 to 15 feet on either side of it.
In the air, the ground is something you see only at an extreme forward
and oblique angle. It isn't quite so bad from the rear seat because
you are aft of the bottom wing, but visibility is still very limited
forward and accounts for the extreme slip angles you often see biplanes
assume while on final; they kick it sideways to see.
When the Navy was developing the F4F Wildcat, they accepted the F3F
which was a biplane at the same time. They were hedging their bets
because a monoplane carrier fighter was an unknown at that time. But
the pilots quickly realised that visibility from the F3F was possibly
the worst of any fighter to that date and they quickly grew to like the
Wildcat. Almost everything forward on the F3F was completely masked
making carrier landings extremely difficult.
Corky Scott
Jason Lane
: A friend of mine is doing a scale model of a P-40 - last night he was moaning
: SITYS Dittos! - Mike
If I remember right, the P-47D came out first, making it the 1st AMERICAN
aircraft with the bubble canopy.
But the award for first bubble canopy used on a fighter (in production and
in combat--prototypes don't count) goes to Focke-Wulf for sticking one on the
Fw-190, which had them on the prototypes, too.
I think the Fw-190 came out in 1941, prototype construction occuring in
1940, so it would beat out the P-47D by two, maybe one year at the least.
Also, this isn't the only German aircraft with a bubble canopy. The first
combat jet fighter, the Messershcmitt Me-262, had one put on also. I know
there are more, but my mind is still in bed sleeping.
-Jason
k_f...@unhh.unh.edu
>> Read Sakai's book "Samurai!" for a good description on what it's like
>> to get shot in the face. He describes a solo attack on what he thought
>
2. Sakai wrote the book
>through an interpreter and it appears that the American author, Martin
>Caidin, may have mistaken what Sakai said when he described the
>aircraft he was attacking. (deletions)
>
>This will all be summerised in the new book due out this month called
>"The First Team at Guadalcanal" by John Lundstrom and, if it's anything
>like his last book, should be outstandingly researched and marvelously
>readable.
>
>Corky Scott
Yes and again yes! Read Martin Caidin if you must, but please realize that
you are reading entertainment, not history.
As for the Lundstrom book -- sad to say, it has been afflicted with the
usual publisher delays and you are not likely to find it under your
Christmas tree. But you will find it worth waiting for, and in it you
will learn things about the Japanese Navy Zero pilots than Martin Caidin
never dreamed of.
Regards - Dan Ford
Akopov Mikhail
>In <93331.1851...@ESOC.BITNET> Rupert Williams <RWIL...@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>>First bubble canopy??! I believe it was on a Spitfire. Yep, the
>>Europeans ocasionally have been known to invent things too ;-)
>>
>> Rups
>>
>as an actual full bubble canopy goes, I think.
The Yak-1 fighters were all produced with the bubble canopies since the
January,1943. The prototype with such profile was tested at July,1942.
>SITYS Dittos! - Mike
Vale! -Mike
JON...@delphi.com
Akopov Mikhail
Well, I am sure in that information. I found it in Shavrov's "the history
of a/c designing in USSR, 1938-1950". Shavrov was the good designer itself
and he used the 'first hand' information in his book. Some places with the
'second hand' information are specially noticed there.
BTW, he wrote there, that some time earlier some Yaks were redesigned in
front regiments from sloping roof to bubble canopy and named as Yak-1b.
Michael Akopov.