Complicated Canopies

[Rhodri]

I never understood why some aircraft were built with suck complicated canopies.  The P-39 and P-38 spring instantly to mind, here, as also the cab-door Typhoon.  It is perhaps a modest whif, as such things go, but I'd like to modify both P-38  and -39 to accept a Spitfire-type canopy.

Does anyone know a) if this was actually done in real world;
                          b) and if actually done not, why not?

I've always been fascinated with the P-39, and I think it has some real whif possibilities - turboprop, longer fuselage, naval version, etc.  Has anyone else done any of this?

[philp]

Some of the issues could be sliding canopies would have trouble on both of these birds.

The P-39 has that large supercharger scope right behind the canopy and the P-38 kind of disappears behind the canopy.

I also wondered if the fuselage widths might be too tight on these but looking at pics don't think that would be an issue.

[kerick]

The car door style was terrible if the pilot had to bail out. Move the scoop to the side and try a sliding canopy. Or something hinged to the side.

[PR19_Kit]

When did upright opening hinged canopies (modern jets like F-16 etc...) start being used. Or a forward sliding type maybe?

AFAIK forward sliding canopies are mostly used on sailplanes, but there are some GA types that use them too. Upward hinging canopies seemed to gain in popularity after the T-33 used one, before that most jets had rearward sliders like the Hunter, F-86 etc. but there were some anomalies like the sideways opening F-104.

[jcf]

The single P-63D had a bubble canopy, as to the P-39 part of it was that the main frame was also roll-over structure.



The P-38 was designed, in 1937-38, before blown single piece canopies were common, by the time they were common
there was no practical reason to replace it with a single piece. Especially as it woud have required structural redesign
and disruption as it was incorporated on the line.

[Rhodri]

I'm working on an idea to swap the places of the cockpit and engine but otherwise leave the nose alone.

[Librarian]

On top of which, in 1/48, the canopies have terrible fit problems on Hasegawa and Eduard (Monogram/Revell I have not experienced). My build was lazy as I wanted to shift the airscoop and fit a bubble canopy . Then I fell in love again with the more-framed canopy...but if you look at that photo in the link you can see the appalling step left behing when the fuselage meets the rear canopy. In better times I'd have started again..... .

[zenrat]

If the car door was hinged suicide style (i.e. hinges at the back) then surely getting out in an emergency wouldn't be an issue as the slipstream would snap the door open.
Being a contrary cuss (you may have noticed that about me) I may convert a Hurricane to car door.  Possibly gull wing...

[PR19_Kit]

If the car door was hinged suicide style (i.e. hinges at the back) then surely getting out in an emergency wouldn't be an issue as the slipstream would snap the door open.

I'd probably snap it clean off at any sensible flying speed. Instant emergency exit.....

[NARSES2]

There was a navalised P-39, the Airabonita although it had a tail wheel undercarriage.

RS do a kit of it in a What If boxing and I've built it. It's a nice one as we

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/RSMI92100

[perttime]

A one-piece bubble canopy is clearly superior ... except it took a while for people to learn how to make one - and how to make one properly. It is not so hard, now, to get a bubble but getting one that doesn't distort the view takes some effort. Some of the late Seafire models had "round" windshields but visibility through them wasn't as good as through straight panels.

... I've lived in houses where the straight window panels weren't quite that straight after all ... 

[Dizzyfugu]

This here once was a P-39...

1:72 Bell P-76A 'Airaconda', BuNo. 43-04308 of the 344th Fighter Squadron (343rd Fighter Group); Adak Airfield, Aleutian Islands (Alaska), early 1944 (Whif/Kitbashing) by dizzyfugu, on Flickr