Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the hell kinda plane is THAT? I've never seen anything like that.
A fair number of jet fighters were designed without bubble-type canopies. The F4D Skyray, F-8, F-5, F-102, F-106, Tu-128, MiG-23, MiG-25, Mirage III, Draken and Viggen come to mind. Some of these were designed as pure intercepters, but the F-8 certainly wasn't...
No, the F-8 was the last of the Gunfighters for 15 years, was the Fleet Air Superiority beast and probably did not have the bubble canopy because of the variable incidence wing behind the canopy - it and the other birds were designed before advanced computational models and computers made sophisticated designs cheaper to model and faster - to explore better canopy designs, for example.
Aircraft designers know that performance numbers impress the people who ultimately pay for the planes (politicians) more than less quantifiable qualities such as a pilot's ability to maintain situational awareness. And as Flyboy J mentions, trendy theories and doctrine also play a big role in the design of combat aircraft. Who needs to see what's behind you if automated BVR missile engagements are the way of the future?
Airframe designers, until you get to the Kelly Johnson level are obsessed with Performance and weight. Politicians are impressed by where the airframe is being built.
Politicians have had more than one single digit salute waved in their direction. The Navy, particularly with the F-111 and the VFAX (USN F-16) that politicians Mandated, unsuccessfully.. Evidently the Euro Fighter, F-22, F35 ignored the wisdom of 'who needs to see what's behind you".
Pre-WWII air doctrine was dominated by the bomber prophets, and WWI type dogfighting was largely seen as passe. With fighter designers concentrating on sheer performance, (with bomber interception as the primary role) they regarded streamlining as more important than rearward vision. Until the dogfights began...
This is certainly true for the USAAF bomber mafia - proponents of 'unescorted strategic daylight bombing'
The slight protection offered by the fuselage behind the pilot may have been of some use when rifle-calibre armament was the norm, but against .50 cal and cannon fire, most pilots would probably prefer to see the enemy coming, rather than be announced by shells rattling thru the 'razorback'. The Malcom hood is no substitute for a true bubble canopy. Even the post-war Spits had them. And since even fighters spend most of their time at cruise speed, being able to see a 'slower' enemy diving in on your six is worth a few MPH.
It is unlikely that current doctrines to provide bubble canopies to sub Mach 3 fighters is stimulated by concerns even for speed 'loss'. The high speed canopy configs have a lot more to do with best shock wave characteristics and stagnation heat dissapation (SR-71 comes to mind along with X-15).
At the end of the day, it seems like Lednicer's potential flow models show results that are counter intuitive - namely that drag is reduced with the bubble canopy of the 51D from the 51B, that flow reattached nicely with the Spit Malcolm Hood versus the 51B Birdcage canopy despite a less effective windshield angle.
The 51D was slower and climbed slower than the 51B because of the extra 10% Gross Weight as the critical factor (in my opinion), despite having better flow results with bubble canopy...the 51H had 300 more Hp than the P-51B and at max High Blower w/water injection and was 40+ mph faster (factory tests) at 100 pounds more weight (empty)..
without water injection the 51H 1650-9 was same performance as the 51B 1650-3 and still faster than the P-51B - implying that with same weight, and same general Hp that the 51H was slightly cleaner than the 51B.
BTW - I am still looking for the NAA original flight tests in 1945 which had a full set of tests with and w/o water injection - so this is a 'no proof' statement
I've always wondered how many '109 pilots died because of that crappy canopy. If they could make something like the Me 262, you'd think that, at the very least, the Galland hood could have been introduced by '42.
If you will notice, almost all post WW2 US fighters have bubble canopies whereas most Soviet fighters (after Mig 15,17) had a kind of razorback type design. There must be some drag factor working there. From my tiny experience flying an L39, one is strapped in so tight you can't turn around and look behind very far anyway. I have a friend who was an IP in Huns at the Fighter Weapons School(2000 hours in Huns) whom I asked about that. He said it was difficult to see much of the rear 180 degrees and he knew one hot pilot who in ACM disconnected most of his harness so he could utilise the bubble canopy.
I meant that the turtleback/razorback configurations of the high performance jets would imply that it was advantageous from a drag stand point, otherwise it would make no sense not to use a bubble canopy.
More likely for the M 2.5 and above performers heat was a bigger factor.
I never disagreed with the visability advantage the bubble canopy gave.
I also agree that the razorback itsself would add next to no protection, but armor (particularly head armor) can be added more effectively w/out trying to maintain rear view. But in some cases (like the many models of the P-39) head armor was omitted to allow the rear view, this would leave the pilot vulnerable though.
Another option was to fit a slab of bulet proof glass behind the pilot which would give both advantages. (this was done on many Soviet P-39's, as head armor allowed almot no rear visibility for that a/c, some Bf 109's wih Galland hood used that too iirc)
Moot point in one sense. US armor plating was maybe able to stop 7.92 rifle bullet as most were 1/4 to 3/8" steel.
There are compromise canopy designs as well, other than the Malcolm hood (which really isn't better than a clearview un-bulged canopy hood). Replacing some of the rear fusalage decking with plexiglass can be almost as effective as a bubble canopy. The P-36 is the first major example I can think of, with scallopped rear fusalage sides, same as used on the P-40. The P-40N utilized a frameless hood and plexiglass decking extending to the top of the fuselage.
The Finnish Myrsky used a similar design, as did the Galland hood (albeit less extreme).
I also agree that adied pylons or gun pods will have a greater (and more predictable) effect on drag than changes in canopy design.
But then there's cases like with the P-80 where the Lockheed tip-tanks actually reduce drag and increase wing efficiency and roll rate. (acting as primative winglets, resulting in a reduction of vortex at the wingtips)
But that's kind of counterintuitive, like the case with the P-51's canopy.
I've always wondered how many '109 pilots died because of that crappy canopy. If they could make something like the Me 262, you'd think that, at the very least, the Galland hood could have been introduced by '42.