1. #31
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since the pilots head is roughly in the centre of the curve, it has rather little effect on the pilots vision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That is the concept but having that concept translate into reality is a different story.

    However we have the comments about the Spitfire canopy and one of the premier canopy manufacturers of today.

    I think the guys that make canopies are the experts. Considering the number of crappy canopies I have seen too, my opinion agrees with theirs but that is just experience talking.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Canopies as you describe are almost always post processing heat treated (tempering almost) and/or polished as the thermal cycling, handling and tool just about always introduce imperfections. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    http://www.eng-tips.com/viewth...fm?qid=213295&page=3

    All the best,

    Crumpp
    Share this post

  2. #32
    JtD's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,899
    From my experience, if you don't look through curved glass at a shallow angle, most defects are about unvisible. But then my life never depended on spotting enemy fighter 10 km away.
    Share this post

  3. #33
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
    I think it's a shame the Czechs didn't have enough Daimler Benz engines, Bf-109G-10s with that canopy would have been sex with wings! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    True, and it would have been a kick *** machine unlike this malformed cripple. With higher octane fuel, there wouldnt have been a need for MW-50 so you could have either thrown out its tank completely OR used it as a built in extra regular fuel tank!

    Or if there hadn't been DB605 at LEAST try to put a Jumo213 in it, will ya? As far as I know the 211 and 213 were very similar in size and mostly differed in weight and, of course, in power output. Having 2000+hp instead of a mere 1340 would have made quite a difference!

    Btw, I've also read that the Soviets had immense problems with their blown canopies. They usually had distortions and a yellow taint, in many cases they not only negated the advantage of having a bubble canopy in the first place but also became so useless that many pilots flew with them stuck open.

    An example of this can be read IIRC in Pokryshkins memoirs where he describes flying his MiG-3 with the canopy pulled back and stuck in that position.
    Share this post

  4. #34
    I'm thinking the Jumo 213 would have been too big? Although you said its of a similar size to the 211...

    As for opening russian cockpits, that sounds like a good modding idea!
    Share this post

  5. #35
    There is already a new slot MiG-3ud with stuck open canopy as well as a small mod that opens the canopy on the Pokryshkin ace plane
    Share this post

  6. #36
    Xiolablu3's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    8,764
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
    Its funny that everybody complaines about the 109's canopy except the chaps that flew them.

    With the canopy so close to ones head it was quite easy to look around the frame.

    The avia 109 (s-199) was a complete failure as an aircraft losing all of the 109's docile handeling quality's. The lack of DB 605's and 601 engines means that all the czeck aeroframes were re engined with jumo bomber engines. The resulting aircraft was nick named the Mule by Czeck pilots cause thats how she flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    +1 to everything - but especially this part ...

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its funny that everybody complains about the 109's canopy except the chaps that flew them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    They did, mate...

    'The first thing, you get in a cockpit you think you are sitting in saloon when you come out from the 109. You know the 109 is way tight and you have the cannon between your legs and there isn't very much left and visibility to the back is poor'

    'A fighter pilot needs good vision, and we didnt have it..'

    'Gunther Rall'.


    Like everything, if these guys didnt know any better they thought the 109 canopy was 'normal'. However German pilots who had flown types like the P51 and Typhoon would realise just how bad the vision was, especially out the back of the 109.

    Rall had test flown all these bubble top Allied types so he knew that the 109 vision was not very good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hi Xiolablu 3,

    Paul Day (Spitfire pilot) said that the glass quality of Spit canopy was "very poor and distortive" and that this resulted in poorer range of visibility.

    Min 7:14 in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...CExk&feature=related

    I wonder if this is true and if it was the same with other "bubble" canopies? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hi mate, he is being critical and comparing it to modern Jets.

    If you listen to him talk abdout the 109 canopy he is even more scathing and says its 'terrible'.

    At one point he says 'the 109 is 100% worse than looking behind in a Spitfire.'
    Share this post

  7. #37
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
    I think it's a shame the Czechs didn't have enough Daimler Benz engines, Bf-109G-10s with that canopy would have been sex with wings! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Btw, I've also read that the Soviets had immense problems with their blown canopies. They usually had distortions and a yellow taint, in many cases they not only negated the advantage of having a bubble canopy in the first place but also became so useless that many pilots flew with them stuck open.

    An example of this can be read IIRC in Pokryshkins memoirs where he describes flying his MiG-3 with the canopy pulled back and stuck in that position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Wasn't this one of the reasons why Russian pilots loved the Airacobra so much (glass quality)?
    The only reference i know to this problem is:

    "Even before staining, the cockpit transparency was barely fit for the job. Made of a nitro-cellulose compound, it gave a poor visibility when new, and soon yellowed with exposure to sunlight. Consequently, many pilots flew with their canopies open"

    in George Mellinger's "LaGG and Lavoshkin Aces of WW2", P8.

    In this part he's only speaking about early LaGG3...Do you have references for other Russian made AC having this same problem, did this problem persist throughout the war, or was it resolved by using other materials?

    I'm curious about such details because these are, in my point of view, extremely important for what does a good fighter. Such details do generally not figure in the performance statistics of the aircraft and because of that rarely modelled in sims, when they should on the contrary.

    This is a bit like the dessicant devices on the right corner of the 109 windshield, i always wondered why it wasn't modelled on our sim 109 when the vast majority of 109 pics i saw had them

    Anyone knows about this particular question? That would be very nice!

    As someone once said on this forum "if it was like that, we want it like that"
    Share this post

  8. #38
    The 109 canopy though limited in view was actually a very fine design in many ways. in poor weather flying it excelled compared to the spit's.
    Share this post

  9. #39
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
    Its funny that everybody complaines about the 109's canopy except the chaps that flew them.

    With the canopy so close to ones head it was quite easy to look around the frame.

    The avia 109 (s-199) was a complete failure as an aircraft losing all of the 109's docile handeling quality's. The lack of DB 605's and 601 engines means that all the czeck aeroframes were re engined with jumo bomber engines. The resulting aircraft was nick named the Mule by Czeck pilots cause thats how she flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    +1 to everything - but especially this part ...

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its funny that everybody complains about the 109's canopy except the chaps that flew them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    They did, mate...

    'The first thing, you get in a cockpit you think you are sitting in saloon when you come out from the 109. You know the 109 is way tight and you have the cannon between your legs and there isn't very much left and visibility to the back is poor'

    'A fighter pilot needs good vision, and we didnt have it..'

    'Gunther Rall'.


    Like everything, if these guys didnt know any better they thought the 109 canopy was 'normal'. However German pilots who had flown types like the P51 and Typhoon would realise just how bad the vision was, especially out the back of the 109.

    Rall had test flown all these bubble top Allied types so he knew that the 109 vision was not very good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hi Xiolablu 3,

    Paul Day (Spitfire pilot) said that the glass quality of Spit canopy was "very poor and distortive" and that this resulted in poorer range of visibility.

    Min 7:14 in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...CExk&feature=related

    I wonder if this is true and if it was the same with other "bubble" canopies? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hi mate, he is being critical and comparing it to modern Jets.

    If you listen to him talk abdout the 109 canopy he is even more scathing and says its 'terrible'.

    At one point he says 'the 109 is 100% worse than looking behind in a Spitfire.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Thanks for your answer!

    Absolutely, i'm well aware that Day is comparing the Spitfire canopy with modern jets ones!

    I do not disagree on the well know fact that the 109 canopy frames were much more obstrusive comparing to other planes, this was not my intention at all.

    What i found very interesting is the fact that bubble canopies (not only on Spitfire BTW) at that times were not as efficient as those modern jets have today. The fact that round glass compound are distortive and thus limiting visibility range is very interesting and was unknown to me.

    The optical advantage is on the side of the straight glass canopy. This could explain why some engineers chose it.

    I'm not either saying that the Supermarine, North American or Lavoshkin engineers did a mistake. All these guys build fantastic aircrafts because their work was based on science. They had to make rational decision (when there is a tendency to confuse rational/scientific decision with cultural/national decision, the idea behind that is the racism to believe that the other country is not able to think properly, and that his has the monopoly of understanding the world): bubble canopy had advantages and drawbacks, for eventually there is not something like the perfect aircraft.

    My general opinion is that British, American, German, Russian, Japanese, etc, those who build aircraft did very well, and that this should not be a surprise for their work is based on science and rational decisions that are much more speaking than actual cultural differences when it comes to the building of a fighter plane.
    Bubble canopy or straight glass canopy are both rational choices with advantages and drawbacks.

    In fact i think they made a rational choice, that's all.
    Share this post

  10. #40
    horseback's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,056
    Regarding the quality, or lack thereof, in early Soviet fighters' canopies, it was because they used a very thick cellophane instead of the plexiglass that the Westerners were using. While initially clear and light in weight, it got very yellow very quickly and apparently accumulated scratches quickly.

    Later Russian aircraft used plexiglass and got better results. AFAIK, they did not have blown teardrop type canopies on the aircraft which had all-around vision cockpits. They used gently curved (bent rather than 'blown') plexiglass sections with a sliding center section and a stationary rear section.

    The big teardrop canopies used first on the Typhoon were brand new technology in the early 1940s. Consider what a big step forward the 'blown' canopy of the early Marks of the Spitfire was in 1940. The one-piece sliding 'bubbletop' was the next logical step, but it was hardly an easy one.

    Plastics technology as we understand the term today was in its infancy; the material used had to be softer and more easily scratched than would be acceptable today. Getting the shape right and maintaining the necessary strength was the first priority, and then they worried about whether they had avoided a certain minimal level of distortion.

    cheers

    horseback
    Share this post

Page 4 of 4 ◄◄  First ... 234