Bf109 - why no bubble canopy ?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

We seem to think those pilots sat in those aircraft with no rear visibility and did nothing.
It probably didn't take them long to think of S turning to check their tail, plus they always tried to operate in at least pairs.
Most pilots are quite capable of seeing the faults in their aircraft, and thinking of ways around those shortcomings.
 
We seem to think those pilots sat in those aircraft with no rear visibility and did nothing.
It probably didn't take them long to think of S turning to check their tail, plus they always tried to operate in at least pairs.
Most pilots are quite capable of seeing the faults in their aircraft, and thinking of ways around those shortcomings.
 

While this may be true it sounds like S turning would be more work, use more fuel, and might be troublesome when doing things like attacking a bomber.

Anything that made it easier would have to help. If large numbers of planes when down where the attacker was never seen this alone might not have been enough.
 
Last edited:
If you read accounts from most fighter pilots, they made it a point to do very little flight in combat areas in which they were not turning, banking, anything but fly a predictable course.
Some even flew out of trim, in a skid, or slip. Just to make themselves a harder target.
Survival in a combat enviroment is always about doing things that may seem troublesome, when you're not getting shot at.

And just because you have a bubble canopy doesn't mean you don't have to s turn in a combat area. A bubble canopy only enables you to see behind and above, you still can't see behind and below, without s-turning.
 
Last edited:
When it came to gun/cannon/aimed projectile dogfighting, fooling the enemy if only of a split second was a skill self taught after many engagements.

If making the enemy thought your going in a slightly different vector, track and angle and or speed, it could get him to miss-target you, and in such close quarter aerial fights, every advantage and slight of stick (ne hand,) gives you another chance - to what is/was of death, life, wounding, etc, if only to live 1 second longer.
 
Can't completely trust my memory, but I think Hartmann said in one interview that he regularly attacked from below and behind.
This goes a long way to negate the extra visibility gained from bubble canopies etc.
 
vinnye said:
Can't completely trust my memory, but I think Hartmann said in one interview that he regularly attacked from below and behind.
This goes a long way to negate the extra visibility gained from bubble canopies etc.
Click to expand...

I thought the visibility was more of an asset for the defensive than it was the offensive. Makes it easier to see who is behind you.
 
While on the subject of Hartmann, it should be noted he shot down all his victims with a Bf109, and never lost a wingman.
Though he did get shot down himself, many times, it was usually from flying through his victim's debris.

When you think of all the exposure he had to getting shot down, he and his wingmen evidently though of some way around the lack of rearward vision..
 

He might have, but what about all those others that did get shot down not seeing who was shooting at them.
 

It also should be noted that the only alternate single engine fighter available to him was the Fw190.
 
I'm sure all of us have read many accounts where the victim was flying around in the sky like he thought he was the only aircraft for miles.
Better rearward vision will help nothing if you're not using it.
That's why so many pictures of WW2, and WW1 pilots show them with silk scarves. Without those scarves their necks would be raw from their jacket collar, from their constant neck movement.
The smart ones knew they needed all round vision, everywhere, not just behind and above, and did what they had to do to get it, or they had short flying careers.
 

I thought the whole point of a bubble canopy was to looking around a lot but have an unobstructed view when doing all of this head turning, it does not stop you from doing S turns as well.
 
i read an account where the mustang pilot was chasing a couple 109s. he said you could see them kicking rudder into a mild slips. they did that so they could see behind them. they would slip quickly from one side then the other. you arent going to want to make big turns if there is a decent chance someone closing in on you from a distance you or else you will be setting yourself up as the target for a great deflection shot when they cut inside you.
 
It seems that bubble canopies were introduced for a reason.

Therefore...it was because somebody thought it was a jolly good idea to see behind you.

The mirror issue was a quote from none other than Gunther Rall who said he had a mirror in his 109 in the beginning but if he saw someone in the mirror then it was too late as he was about to be shot down! He did mention the poor vision in the 109 hence the mirror.
 
A bubble canopy only fixed one part of the vision problem, big areas of the sky is still blanked out by the fuselage, wings, and horizontal stabilizer of a low wing fighter.
You still have to manuver around to clear those areas.

Flying with you "head up, and locked " is still the main factor in mid air collisions, in civilian aviation.
 
Last edited:

Of course it is not going to solve all vision problems. The pilot also still has to do his job. Maybe I am misunderstanding but your posts made it seem to me that the you think the bubble canopy was a waste? Would you want them to get rid of the bubble canopy?
 
Any means of ensuring better vision gave an advantage. Even a small advantage could be important. The story of the Malcolm Hood and it's rapid adoption or copying by other air forces and manufacturers (Vought) is a good example.
You can have the best 360 degree vision in the world, but it is pointless if you don't use it.
Cheers
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why was it?
Replies
19
Views
671
SaparotRob
S
Canopy aerodynamics
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
Snautzer01
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
8K
Denniss
D
A
Why no heavier RAF machine gun calibres?
13 14 15
Replies
295
Views
15K
Reluctant Poster
R
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
895
Jabberwocky
J
Menu
Log in
Register