Talk:Bubble canopy

I removed the list of aircraft that have bubble canopies because you can not make it an exhaustive list. Examples are better. --Patrick Berry 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Frameless versus Framed

The article seems to imply that the criteria for a bubble canopy is the fact that is has relatively few metal frame components in its construction, rather than the actual shape. The canopy of the P-38 Lightning, for example, is a bulging structure that provides all-around vision for the pilot, but has much framework to support the canopy glass. Would this thus qualify this plane as the first with a bubble canopy (or, at the least, disqualify the Miles machine if an even earlier example is presented?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Bubble Canopy?

Is it not time to rename this to "teardrop canopy", since that's what everyone in aviation always call it? The very few times "bubble canopy" is used is in not-so-very researched stories in non-aviation magazines or books. With the correct term no one would even have suggested that airplanes like P-38 would have it!--Towpilot 10:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's an official USAAF 1943 test report for the Hawker Tempest here referring to it as a 'bubble canopy' (Section 3 - 'Flight Characteristics' - Sub-section k - 'Vision'): U.S report on Tempest V Ian Dunster (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Miles M.20?

Why is this even mentioned? FW 190 was earlier aircraft than this (and was significant too, unlike..), and certainly has what is considered a "Bubble canopy", while not technically "bubble shaped". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Because if you look at the M.20 and compare its canopy to those on the Typhoon, Tempest, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Sabre, Thunderjet, Shooting Star et, al. you can see the family resemblance/similarity. The Focke Wulf 190 has a canopy that was flat sided and was not 'blown' or bulged til much later and even then that was not a true 'bubble' one. Ian Dunster (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just want to add that the criteria of the "bubble canopy" is (near)all around vision with few or no framings, not the "bubble" or "teardrop" shape in themselfs. For which FW 190's fits just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's YOUR criteria. I think that as a bubble is noticeably 'bulged' that ought to serve as a qualifying criterion and ought to at least give people such as yourself some sort of indication where the name 'bubble canopy' came-from. The M.20 is clearly the progenitor of the canopies found on most post-war fighters, and the bombers such as the Boeing B-47 and later versions of the North American Tornado, and what's more the histories of the aircraft that were modified with-them say-so, via the Typhoon. Who ever heard of a flat-sided bubble.

The Miles M.20 is the aircraft that had the first-such canopy and trying to claim otherwise is re-writing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.112 (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguably the Westland Whirlwind twin engine fighter of 1940 could also be describes as being fitted with an early form of bubble canopy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66Pariah (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Last time I looked a bubble doesn't have any frames. That's the point. It's unobstructed. The canopy on the M.20 and subsequent aircraft is of one piece and blown with air during moulding so it bulges outwards. hence the name sometimes used; a 'blown hood' or 'blown canopy'.

Purpose

"This is less of a concern in modern jet fighters as most aerial combats are settled with air to air missiles from long distances, and nearly all have some kind of radar to catch those sneaking up from behind."

Fighters rarely, if ever have radars that look behind them. The bulbous nose of modern jet fighters is a compromize to house the radome of their radar systems. Rear-warning systems are largely passive and work by detecting the radar or infrared emissions of other aircraft. An interceptor using passive sensors or information from another source such as an AWACS aircraft or a ground command station will be very hard for a pilot to detect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.174.94 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)