While not exactly a full bubble canopy it sure was way better then what was available at the time.

Molding plexiglass was not that hard to do by mid 1940's.
More pics:

another question you have to ask yourself is "were these bubble canopies pressure tested and capable for very high altitudes?

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
another question you have to ask yourself is "were these bubble canopies pressure tested and capable for very high altitudes?

The crappy canopy of the Ta 152H, the same as on all late model Fw190s, certainly was.

quote:

Originally posted by luftluuver:

The crappy canopy of the Ta 152H, the same as on all late model Fw190s, certainly was.

Those still had a split down the middle.

Mustangs were very colourfull. This proves that the German paint industry was well behind the allied one.

Ever wonder why there's more colour photos from the allied side??

Now you know. It's because the germans only had black and white.

The Mustang won teh war. I rest my case.

quote:

Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Those still had a split down the middle.

Keep trying Gibbage. It had nothing to do with the Germans inability to form the plexi.

I wonder why Gibbage advocates draggy teardrop-designs when a simple, flush design offered almost the same visibility...

quote:

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I wonder why Gibbage advocates draggy teardrop-designs when a simple, flush design offered almost the same visibility...

Your joking, right? How many modern day fighters have flush designs instead of tear-drop canopies?



Something like ALL modern day fighters have bubble canopies, so there must be some benefit too it. Your only lying too yourself if you think otherwise.

The difference between now and then is, today we're not in a strive for topspeed.
Also, high-performance jet engines deliver a lot of excess-power that'll easily cope with the drag added by the bubble-canopy.

Back then however, when engineers tried to get every little HP out of an engine in order to improve topspeed by a handfull of mph, a flush design with almost as good visibility was certainly a better trade-off, than a draggy design in the first place.
It's a matter of design-optimizing.

It's not that the bubbletops didn't bring a couple of aerodynamic problems - at least for the Mustangs...

The two most aerodynamic aircraft of WWII had bubble canopies. P-51, and the P-80. The problem the bubble gave the P-51 was lack of body aft of the cockpit. P-47 also had this problem. Both aircraft were fixed by a larger rudder or fillet. Not a big deal.

The bubble-canopy cost quite a few mph on the Mustang and on the Jug.

Ever thought about that?

Of course not - doesn't fit your agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The bubble-canopy cost quite a few mph on the Mustang and on the Jug.

Ever thought about that?

Of course not - doesn't fit your agenda.

Do you have proof of this? Of course not. Your just assuming.

My point is this. YOUR saying that #1, "flush design offered almost the same visibility", and #2, teardrop was "draggy". So your saying there was 0 benifit to having a bubble type canopy. The problem I have is that IF THERE WAS NO BENIFITS, AND ONLY DRAWBACKS, WHY ARE THEY ON ALL MODERN FIGHTERS?

Its simple. One or both of your assumptions are false. Modern fighters are so refined, they wouldn't go with a design that had no benefits in some way. Also, at Mk 1.5-2.2, even with a very strong engine, aerodynamics are VERY VERY important. The faster you go, the more important they are. Yet, we have Mk 2.5+ fighters with bubble canopy's like the F-15.

Bubble canopies greatly enhance the pilots vision and situational awareness. Its both stupid and ignorant to think otherwise.

As for your "draggy" BS, the P-51D had a top speed of 437MPH at 25K with 1695HP. P-51B did 430MPH at 25K with 1620HP. If your statement was true, and the P-51D did in fact loose a few MPH, then it would, or be even. But no. It got faster, with only 75 more HP, even though it got two extra guns and gained about 300lb.

So. Whats your excuse now?

LoL, I don't HAVE to excuse myself dude.
I'm studying aeronautical engineering, in fact, I don't need to b1tch around with you - I KNOW better .

I'm putting up FACTS - ask Lufti or some other guy with a big library on allied fighters. I guess he can give you book, chapter, page and line if neccessary to prove what I wrote.

There's no need in playing the lil boy just b/c your fishing-line has been cut.

You've been proven wrong and your agenda has been blown.

The spree's over, face it.

That's a flush design, btw

quote:

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:


That's a flush design, btw

Its a 1 peace bubble. Flush is more like a 109 in that the area aft of the cockpit is just as high as the apex of the canopy. As you can see, the F-22 truly is a bubble.



But its still funny that you COMPLETELY dodged the FACT that the P-51D with its bubble canopy is faster then the B.

It's flush

"But its still funny that you COMPLETELY dodged the FACT that the P-51D with its bubble canopy is faster then the B."

No its not. P-51b 441 MPh at 25k. P-51d 437 MPh!

quote:

Originally posted by Freiwillige:

No its not. P-51b 441 MPh at 25k. P-51d 437 MPh!

Whats your source?

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_10.html

P-51b gets 440MPH at 30K, not 25K.

Then again, the P-51B and D have different engines, that get different HP at different alt. If you want to compare apples to apples, lets take the P-51C and P-51D. They both have the -7 engine and have the same hp/alt curve.

At 25K, the P-51C gets 439MPH. 2MPH above the P-51D with the same engine and HP. You may say "Hay, that proves my point about the canopy!!" but lets see the differences between the two aircraft.

The P-51C has 4 .50 cal's. P-51D has 6. That means the P-51 has two extra gun ports in the wing, plus ammo chutes under the wing. Adding drag. Also, the P-51D has an increased wing rood chord, and about 300lb extra weight. Even after all that, its ONLY .4% SLOWER then the P-51C with the SAME engine and "less draggy" canopy? So, just how much of that .4% do you think is contributed to the canopy, and not the other changes? Even at the most, its still totally negligible.

HEY LOOK, MY E-PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS.


Seriously you two, people don't care. Take this to PMs *rolls eyes*.