Warbird Information Exchange

Looking at the P-63 thread, I'm reminded of a question that has been on my mind. Why didn't Bell and Lockheed replace the <seemingly> clunky canopies and doors on their fighters with bubble canopies?

Both manufacturer's aircraft have doors and canopy frames with multiple structural members chopping them up. It seems that would have been a huge impediment to visibility in addition to being much harder (i.e. time consuming) to manufacture.

in the case of the P-63, the canopy frame was part of the aircrafts structure. Both the P-38, P-39, P-63 had fairly good visability all ready and I am not sure a full bubble canopy would improve it enough to warrent a major redesign.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

Bell, of course, tried the bubble canopy concept with the sole P-63D, 43-11718.

http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/air/us/bell/04424.jpg

Performance was quite good at 437 mph at altitude, but not good enough to warrant replacing the P-51.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

In the case of the P-39 (and I assume the P-63) there's a hefty rollover structure/bukhead behind the pilot that separates the forward and aft sections of the canopy. I've read that the structure is also intended to keep the engine out of the cockpit in the event of a crash. The "car doors" have always been a bit baffling to me though..I've heard that in the event of a bailout it puts the pilot right in the path of the horizontal stab.

I'm just a model builder though..I'm sure others here have much more detailed info.

SN

P-40Q too..

_________________
..defeat is never an option!