# BUBBLE CANOPIES - 'Pre-Historic' Beginnings...



## xylstra (Jun 4, 2019)

*The Bubble Canopy* - *Pre-Historic'* *Beginnings .....*
I'm hoping I can find a walking encyclopaedia of information on the early origins (pre-1920, say) of the 'Bubble' canopy (and, not necessarily just aircraft, e.g. automobiles, motorcycle sidecars, dirigibles, etc). I was intrigued by the obscure mention of WW1 experiments with aircraft bubble Canopies contained in the "History" paragraph in this Wikipvisually reference: https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Bubble_canopy sadly, there are no attributions as to the source of information. Can anyone provide more information on these WW1 aircraft experiments, e.g. names of books, magazine articles, newspaper clippings, patents (especially), pictures, etc?
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the SE5 first production series although it appeared with what may more accurately described as a transparent, wrap-around wind-deflector as opposed to an overhead, transparent canopy, or hood. I'm also well aware of the German experiments with 'stealth' aircraft with transparent fueselage and wing coverings but still, they had open cockpits.
So, I look forward to all interesting replies. Thanks.


----------



## MiTasol (Jun 4, 2019)

A great question

The earliest I can think of with the *concept *is the Ki-43 but I am sure many will respond with much earlier examples


----------



## xylstra (Jun 5, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> A great question
> 
> The earliest I can think of with the *concept *is the Ki-43 but I am sure many will respond with much earlier examples


Hi MiTasol, Thanks for that but I'm afraid that's well after midnight for the time-scale I'm interested in. WW1 (or before), WW2 is well-trodden territory. Early days, we'll see what else might turn up. Cheers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 5, 2019)

We have to keep in mind that from WWI through the inter-war period, the vast majority of of aircraft cockpits were open, with little more than a windscreen to provide protection to the pilot, from the elements. Even at the start of WWII, aircraft like the the TB-3, Hs123, I-16, He112, Gladiator and such, were open cockpits.

It was typically racing aircraft in the late 20's and early 30's that employed a canopy which was not for the pilot's benefit, but rather for the sake of aerodynamics.

This is where you should be looking in your search.


----------



## xylstra (Jun 5, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> We have to keep in mind that from WWI through the inter-war period, the vast majority of of aircraft cockpits were open, with little more than a windscreen to provide protection to the pilot, from the elements. Even at the start of WWII, aircraft like the the TB-3, Hs123, I-16, He112, Gladiator and such, were open cockpits.
> 
> It was typically racing aircraft in the late 20's and early 30's that employed a canopy which was not for the pilot's benefit, but rather for the sake of aerodynamics.
> 
> This is where you should be looking in your search.



Hi GrauGeist, You need to look at the Wikivisual link. Already know most post-WW1 history on the subject. Only interested in pre-1920 bubble-canopy experiments. Have a look at the attachment re-streamlining - 1910!! The search goes on.......
Cheers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 5, 2019)

Ok, first of all...you're using "wiki visually"...that is perhaps the worst source for research I can think of.

Secondly, you're showing me a photo of a bicyclist with a "streamlined" contraption. Seriously...I just told you to look for the speed record aircraft as a source for canopy development.

There were modern military aircraft that fought in the Spanish Civil war with open cockpits. If you think that you're going to find a "bubble canopy" in a military aircraft before the late 1930's, you'll be coming up empty-handed.

Look to the air-speed record aircraft instead. This is where you will find a wealth of canopy development and again, as I said earlier, it was not for pilot comfort but instead for improved aerodynamics.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 5, 2019)

xylstra said:


> The search goes on.......



Have a look at the RAF S.E.4 of 1914. At one point it was fitted with a moulded celluloid cockpit - but pilots distrusted it and removed it.

Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.4 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 5, 2019)

The ultimate "bubble" canopy....


----------



## The Basket (Jun 5, 2019)

Bubble canopy as in one piece or like the Zero with multiple frames?

The Overstrand had a very good canopy for visibility.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 5, 2019)

Dayton Wright RB-1 fully enclosed but hardly a "bubble" 1920





Curtiss-Cox Texas Wildcat 1920




At least the pilot could look up.

quick look at the pre WW II race planes shows very few (including these) had fully enclosed cockpits until the early 30s. 1932-34 seems to the transition era.
It doesn't appear that any Schneider Trophy racer used a fully enclosed cockpit let alone a bubble 




Many racers had truly horrible vision from the cockpit. 
But the canopies showed much more emphasis on reduced drag than vision




Canopy of the Caudron 460 replica, original won the 1936 Thompson race.

The 1916 this plane existed for a very short period of time.




but hardly a bubble canopy. However the actual technology to build a WW II style bubble may not have existed. 

They managed to collapse or have ripped off an number of more conventional canopies.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EDFN (Jun 7, 2019)

I think the point was the development of suitable materials. These had to be
- light;
- of good optical quality;
- scratch resistant (!);
- ductile;
- fairly cheap. 
The answer was Perspex, but the development of blown canopies obviously took it´s time until the late 1930-ies. Even racers like the De Havilland DH.88 Comet, T.K.4 or the Percival Mew Gull still had framed canopies with Perspex parts that were bent onedimensinally (not spherical). Even early Spitfires still had straight thru main canopies.


----------



## thunderbird (Jun 7, 2019)

Only peripherally related. Something I found many years ago. Oddly enough, perspex was developed by a German company in the mid-thirties. The German company had offices overseas, I know for sure in New York, and probably London as well, where the technology propagated. The Germans, despite developing the material, didn’t use it to make bubble canopies like the allies did.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## xylstra (Jun 11, 2019)

Graeme said:


> Have a look at the RAF S.E.4 of 1914. At one point it was fitted with a moulded celluloid cockpit - but pilots distrusted it and removed it.
> 
> Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.4 - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


Thanks Graeme, good man! That's what I'm looking for! The initial SE.4 as first issued to frontline pilots (as I understood it) had a transparent wind-deflector surround so maybe the fully-enclosed hood illustrated was a another experimental prototype they tried and discarded. I don't have much proficiency with the patent database but perhaps someone reading this who does may be able to do a search from this early 'pre-historic' period. It may fill-in a lot of otherwise 'missing' technical history. Thanks again.


----------



## xylstra (Jun 11, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Dayton Wright RB-1 fully enclosed but hardly a "bubble" 1920
> View attachment 540663
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks "Shortround6", That last photo was most useful to my research. As you've read, I've one or two naysayers (no doubt they're now choking down a large piece of humble pie!) but I've learnt from long experience in researching these obscure technical subjects to never underestimate just how early these ideas emerged. Thanks again.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 11, 2019)

This.....................is useful for bubble canopy reasearch? Wow!!!!!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 21, 2020)

It's later than the target period, but the Curtiss XP-31 Swift is apparently the first enclosed canopy figher/pursuit plane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 21, 2020)

Only 3 or 4 SE 4 's or 4a's were made. I don't think any made over the channel to France.
The early SE-5's had a sort of canopy that surrounded the front of the cockpit, but was open at the rear.
Pilots didn't like it either, so it wasn't installed thereafter.


----------



## xylstra (Jan 24, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> It's later than the target period, but the Curtiss XP-31 Swift is apparently the first enclosed canopy figher/pursuit plane.
> 
> View attachment 567364


Great photo! But sorry to disappoint: the S.E.5 is still the first. The combat issue version had an open-top wrap-around 'wind-deflector' but prior to this they test-flew a prototype with a fully-enclosed hood. Seen a drawing but would still like to see a photo. Cheers, Xylstra.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 29, 2020)

Going through the Windsock book and this book....




​So far, no drawing or photo


----------



## xylstra (Jan 29, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Going through the Windsock book and this book....
> 
> View attachment 568108
> ​So far, no drawing or photo


Thanks Fubar, it's not uncommon (and sadly frustrating) that many publications that present as authoritative aren't nearly as well researched as perhaps they should be. I had previously seen photographs of the final open-top version some time ago but only the drawing of the prior closed-top canopy. Who knows, maybe someone will pull a rabbit out of the hat! Cheers, Xylstra.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 29, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> The early SE-5's had a sort of canopy that surrounded the front of the cockpit, but was open at the rear. Pilots didn't like it either, so it wasn't installed thereafter.



This was known as the 'Greenhouse' and distorted pilots' view through it and 56 Sqn, the first unit to use the SE.5 had the greenhouse removed and its aircraft fitted with flat plate windscreens robbed from Avro trainers. In the SE.5a, the first prototype of which was the third prototype SE.5 A4563, had a lowered seat and faired headrest and the 'Avro' style windscreen.

It should also be mentioned that the SE.4 never flew with its moulded celluloid canopy as no pilot wanted to fly it with it fitted!


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 29, 2020)

xylstra said:


> Thanks Fubar, it's not uncommon (and sadly frustrating) that many publications that present as authoritative aren't nearly as well researched as perhaps they should be. I had previously seen photographs of the final open-top version some time ago but only the drawing of the prior closed-top canopy.



Hm, this is interesting Xylstra, I've not heard this before and would like to know more. I have found a brief mention of the prototype's windshieds by Jack Bruce in The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps Military Wing (Putnam, 1992), in which he states, "A very large windscreen was fitted and was designed to protect the pilot when he had to deal with a jammed Vickers gun." Later in the same chapter he states that, "[The first production SE.5] resembled the modified A4652, having a windscreen that was, if anything, more voluminous than that of the prototype."

Addenda: I have seen a side view of the prototype with its windshied and it was just that, a triangular shaped shield ahead of the pilot and not fully enclosed, so this is probably what Bruce is referring to.

Is there any possibility of posting a copy of said drawing?


----------



## Graeme (Jan 29, 2020)

I can only find a poor photo of the large wrap-around windscreen fitted to A4561...







(Classic WWI Aircraft Profiles - 2002)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 29, 2020)

From the above book...


----------



## xylstra (Feb 4, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Hm, this is interesting Xylstra, I've not heard this before and would like to know more. I have found a brief mention of the prototype's windshieds by Jack Bruce in The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps Military Wing (Putnam, 1992), in which he states, "A very large windscreen was fitted and was designed to protect the pilot when he had to deal with a jammed Vickers gun." Later in the same chapter he states that, "[The first production SE.5] resembled the modified A4652, having a windscreen that was, if anything, more voluminous than that of the prototype."
> 
> Addenda: I have seen a side view of the prototype with its windshied and it was just that, a triangular shaped shield ahead of the pilot and not fully enclosed, so this is probably what Bruce is referring to.
> 
> Is there any possibility of posting a copy of said drawing?


No problem! Just use your fore-finger to flick back one page and "there she be!" Cheers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 6, 2020)

xylstra said:


> But sorry to disappoint: the S.E.5 is still the first. The combat issue version had an open-top wrap-around 'wind-deflector' but prior to this they test-flew a prototype with a fully-enclosed hood. Seen a drawing but would still like to see a photo. Cheers, Xylstra.



This is what specifically I'm referring to. The fully enclosed hood of the SE.5. Where did you see the drawing and can you post it?


----------



## xylstra (Feb 6, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> This is what specifically I'm referring to. The fully enclosed hood of the SE.5. Where did you see the drawing and can you post it?


Hi, Did you not understand my message? You are currently on page 2. Extend your forefinger and tap on page 1. The drawing is already there. Cheers.


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 7, 2020)

The drawing says SE.4. Looking for the SE.5 drawing you mentioned


----------



## xylstra (Feb 7, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> The drawing says SE.4. Looking for the SE.5 drawing you mentioned


Probably should have been clearer, other aircraft types i.e. S.E.4 were commandeered as 'test-mules' to investigate ideas used on other models (S.E.5.). In war-time you use whatever is to hand so as not to divert limited manpower/materials away from primary production. Cheers, Xylstra.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 8, 2020)

The S.E.4 first flew July 1914, crashed in August of that year, There isn't a single visible design feather in common with the S.E. 5, other than both are single bay biplanes.
The S.E.4a, was built next, and first flew June of 1915, had almost no commonality with the S.E.4, other than both being rotary powered single bay biplanes.
And about the only visible design element shared between the S.E.4a and the S.E.5 was both are single bay biplanes, and the S.E.4a's vertical tail looks somewhat similar to the S.E.5.

The S.E.5 first flight was Sept 1916.
If the S.E.4's of either model was used in the development of the S.E.5, maybe it was in the area of what not to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 8, 2020)

xylstra said:


> Hi, Did you not understand my message? You are currently on page 2. Extend your forefinger and tap on page 1. The drawing is already there. Cheers.



No, frankly, I didn't, because there is no drawing of the SE.5 on the previous page, as Geo pointed out. The SE.4 and SE.5 are two very different aircraft and as I mentioned in a previous post, the SE.4 never flew with the blown canopy. As for your claim about a photograph of it fitted, there is one, albeit a replica fitted, in Paul Hare's book The Royal Aircraft Factory (Putnam, 1990) on page 277 (go look it up - I'm not gonna post it here). In fact your whole premise has been misleading regarding the SE.5's hood - mention of the SE.4's hood is well known and can even be found on wikipedia, despite your claim that authors regularly miss it.

"The pilot sat in a cockpit under the trailing edge of the upper wing; unusually for the time, a transparent canopy made out of celluloid to fit the cockpit was made, but pilots refused to fly with it fitted and the canopy was never used."

From here: Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.4 - Wikipedia

As for this,



xylstra said:


> other aircraft types i.e. S.E.4 were commandeered as 'test-mules' to investigate ideas used on other models (S.E.5.). In war-time you use whatever is to hand so as not to divert limited manpower/materials away from primary production.



Do you have any evidence that the hood on SE.4 was intended as a research feature for the SE.5? Or is this another unsubstantiated statement you are leading us to believe?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## xylstra (Feb 9, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> No, frankly, I didn't, because there is no drawing of the SE.5 on the previous page, as Geo pointed out. The SE.4 and SE.5 are two very different aircraft and as I mentioned in a previous post, the SE.4 never flew with the blown canopy. As for your claim about a photograph of it fitted, there is one, albeit a replica fitted, in Paul Hare's book The Royal Aircraft Factory (Putnam, 1990) on page 277 (go look it up - I'm not gonna post it here). In fact your whole premise has been misleading regarding the SE.5's hood - mention of the SE.4's hood is well known and can even be found on wikipedia, despite your claim that authors regularly miss it.
> 
> "The pilot sat in a cockpit under the trailing edge of the upper wing; unusually for the time, a transparent canopy made out of celluloid to fit the cockpit was made, but pilots refused to fly with it fitted and the canopy was never used."
> 
> ...


I think you guys are becoming too pedantic on this subject. I don't hink you appreciate how ad-hoc many of these ideas were, fab'd up on a designers whim. i.e. there are no design committees, nor scientists running around wearing white-coats. This is why conducting historical research from this period is so difficult, simply because much was never recoreded, hence, intelligent speculation is sometimes all you're left with. Moreover, multiple authors DO regularly miss development variants.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 10, 2020)

xylstra said:


> Moreover, multiple authors DO regularly miss development variants.



Nah, you're jumping to conclusions without any credible evidence. There's a difference between authors missing things and connections that simply don't exist. If you have evidence that the SE.4 canopy was intended for the SE.5, produce it, don't just make it up.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Feb 10, 2020)

SE.5 ...










the pic source: the net.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 10, 2020)

The SE.4 was a very advanced aircraft for it's time, ailerons that lowered as flaps at low speeds, and rose higher to reduce drag at high speeds, had flexible mesh over the control hinge gaps, with every attention to details that had to do with maximum speed exclusively . When it had the double rotary Gnome engine it was the fastest aircraft in the world at the time, I believe. The full bubble canopy was just more of a attempt to help smooth airflow over it, but it distorted vision so much no pilot would fly the SE.4 with it installed.

135 mph in 1914 about a month before WW1 started, and about a year and a half before the specifications to which the SE.5 was built to fulfill were even put forth.

I'm sure the Royal Aircraft Factory learned something from the SE.4, and the later SE.4A, but maybe more in the area of what NOT to do.
Like for instance, don't try to get any pilot to fly a aircraft meant to be a fighting scout with a full cockpit enclosure .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 10, 2020)

Wurger said:


> SE.5a ...



I hate to say it, Wojtek, but those are SE.5s, not SE.5as. The principal difference between the two were reduced span wings and a headrest aft of the cockpit. Otherywise, the two are almost identical; the hood is a giveaway as no SE.5as had it apart from the first prototype, which was built as an SE.5. That's probably the easiest way to tell them apart, that is until you see a picture of an SE.5 with a headrest and no hood as per Ball's modifications!




SE.5a-2


----------



## Wurger (Feb 10, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I hate to say it, Wojtek, but those are SE.5s, not SE.5as.



Oh.. just a typo. I had to hit the "a" key by force of habit and even haven't noticed that . . Edited.. THX for the correction.

Here two shots more ...










the pic source: the Internet.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 10, 2020)

Man, your ability to find images on the net is impressive.


----------



## Wurger (Feb 10, 2020)

Thank you for your kind words. 

Judging by these four images the entire A'89** series of the SE.5 could have had the cockpit canopy fitted.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 10, 2020)

Wurger said:


> Thank you for your kind words.



My pleasure, Wojtek. You bring it, every time.


----------



## Wurger (Feb 11, 2020)




----------



## xylstra (Feb 11, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Nah, you're jumping to conclusions without any credible evidence. There's a difference between authors missing things and connections that simply don't exist. If you have evidence that the SE.4 canopy was intended for the SE.5, produce it, don't just make it up.


I can only infer from your reply that you must be just an armchair academic (correct me if I'm wrong). I am an engineer who invents and develops things. As much as it galls you to believe it, my description *IS* how things get done. There are many practical members with hands-on technical backgrounds on these forums who know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you? Do you seriously believe that there is no development lineage between the bubble-canopy design progression occurring within the Royal Aircraft Factory irrespective of the specific type (unless you're sitting on an unpublished notebook from somewhere) of aircraft? The use of unrelated, re-puposed test-mules is routine within the avaiation (and other) industries in order to test and evaluate new ideas for inclusion in other, final production types. Further examples of this include the development of ejection seats, navigation and radio systems, variouis types of weapons all of which find their way into aircraft vastly different from that in which they were originally developed. My position and my earlier statements won't change and I most certainly am not on trial so I'm afraid you'll just have to choke it down. Unless you produce your 'un-discovered' notebook, then for me that's where this particular exchange ends.


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 11, 2020)

xylstra said:


> I can only infer from your reply that you must be just an armchair academic (correct me if I'm wrong). I am an engineer who invents and develops things. As much as it galls you to believe it, my description *IS* how things get done. There are many practical members with hands-on technical backgrounds on these forums who know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you? Do you seriously believe that there is no development lineage between the bubble-canopy design progression occurring within the Royal Aircraft Factory irrespective of the specific type (unless you're sitting on an unpublished notebook from somewhere) of aircraft? The use of unrelated, re-puposed test-mules is routine within the avaiation (and other) industries in order to test and evaluate new ideas for inclusion in other, final production types. Further examples of this include the development of ejection seats, navigation and radio systems, variouis types of weapons all of which find their way into aircraft vastly different from that in which they were originally developed. My position and my earlier statements won't change and I most certainly am not on trial so I'm afraid you'll just have to choke it down. Unless you produce your 'un-discovered' notebook, then for me that's where this particular exchange ends.



Umm, yeah, nah.. you might want to calm down. You obviously don't know who you're arguing with...


The canopy was fitted to the SE-4 - yes
It was obviously deemed a failure, given that pilots refused to fly it.
Why would it have been tried with the SE-5?


And, yes, I've got extensive background in aviation, both enigneering and flying.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

