![]() I think bird strikes will be more of a concern as pointed out by GarryB. I think it is best illustrated by the AV8B Harrier compared to the single seater Mig29 Bubble and blister refers more to the bulging of canopy, you can have either with a two piece layout. ![]() Dont forget about the small framed piece at the rear. Shamayel: The F16's canopy is actually a two piece piece layout. Now in the case of the F-35, I don't know what happened to it, it defys all current strike craft philosophies when it comes to canopies and windshields. You'll also notice that the glass is not really that thick compared to it's contempory strike craft, again it's all to do with visuals, what you can't see you can't shoot.īubble canopies do induce a seperate drag factor upon them, but if you know areodynamics then you'd know that the most areodynamic shape is a teardrop and thus we have the F-16's canopy. In the case of the F-117, the whole idea there was to maintain the a/c's stealth capabilities whilest still giving a good forward and side view, aft is not a concern as most of it's missions are flown at night thus it' is hard to see and radar is not supposed to be able to pick it up. Trainers also have a very big requirement for vision but they also expect things to go wrong with them so thickness is not a contributing factor, look at the case of the BAE Hawks, they aren't thick but still strong and have the det cord running through the canopy. Mig 27 has a windshield that is about 5 inches thick and can withstand projectiles up to a 30mm calibure hitting itĪ fighter's canopy needs alround vision so although thickness is a factor, it is not the dominant one, vision is. 27th October 2003 at 13:18 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00Ĭanopy and windsheild design is so closly linked to the role of the plane, for GA and CAS missions, the windscreen must be able to withstand certain forces acting upon it, e.g. Some factors to consider are the relative position of the fuselage, the use of rear vision mirrors, requirements for reinforcing frames, practicality of full rearward vision, … What are the advantages and drawbacks of each layout in terms of field of vision, aerodynamic drag, manufacturing cost/difficulty, glass strength and hinge mechanism? There are also variations in the degree of canopy bulge – bubble versus blister. Two piece – framed windscreen plus wrap around canopy( no direct 6 o’clock view) arrangement used the Mirage2000 and the Gripen.Two piece – a reverse of the above layout, with the framed piece actually behind the pilot seat, used only by the Viper. ![]() Two piece – framed windscreen plus full bubble canopy arrangement used by the A10, Harrier, Hornet, F2 ….One piece design used by the Raptor with 360 degree field of view.Some but not all of the layouts I’ve noticed, are the : I have a number of questions about fighter canopy/windscreen designs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |