What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Canopy choice and new fighters

Cooperd0g

Member
It seems like a common theme of referencing old fighters comes up quite a bit in the discussion of canopy choice. I though I would share some perspective relative to new fighters.

F/A-18: It has a tip up canopy, but it tips up backwards so it is more like the slider on the RV with the canopy bow in your field of view. And you can taxi with the canopy up, but you cannot MOVE the canopy while the aircraft is in motion, it must either be up or down. The glare shield does allow you to fly it as a convertible if the canopy is jettisoned airborne. It will be very windy, but you can do it. That canopy bow does make it so you have to bob and weave your head to look for targets on the ground and other aircraft. Make no mistake, it hinders visibility. Though you get used to the canopy bow and can determine roll in angles by how may bolts up the canopy bow a ground target is, or how many angles off the tail of an adversary you are buy how far from the canopy bow he is.

web.jpg


web.jpg


F-16: It also has a tip up canopy that goes backwards, but there is no canopy bow support as the entire canopy goes up. So it is more like the RV tip up in that regard. Man visibility is incredible! But you lose the sight references from the Hornet. Then again, if you grew up without a canopy bow you don't have those sight references to begin with. I must admit, I got very used to the visibility in this bad boy. I had to steal a picture from the net of an open canopy shot of the Thunderbirds as I didn't have any pictures of my own.

web.jpg


web.jpg


Now let's look at the F-35: This sucker tips forward just like the RV canopy. I'll be honest, the tip forward looks a little weird, especially on a fighter since I'm not used to seeing it. But what is worse is that it still has a canopy bow! So the entire canopy tips forward, but you retain the visibility restricting canopy bow! Who came up with that? So it is like the worst of both worlds.

web.jpg


web.jpg


Anyway, I figured it was time to references some more modern fighters rather than just the ones from WWII in the canopy controversy. Slider is like the Hornet and Tip Up is like the Viper. While I agree that the slider does look better, I'm not sure the canopy bow can be used to your advantage the way it can in the Hornet. I'm not flying an RV yet so I'll have to check them out before I buy one to see which I like best.
 
Last edited:
Good study!

I spent a lot of time last year trying to figure a way to do something "different" with the RV-3 canopy. the slider option makes ingess and egress difficult (it doesn't really slide back far enough), and has the roll bar. the Tip-over...well, do you know of any really sexy fighters with a tip-over?! I thought about the various styles in vogue today, including tip-forward and tip back, but couldn't come up with the the structure to support either of them. Thought about a scissor-action up (up, then back, or up, then forward)....and in the end, decided that it was all fairly silly.

Decided to go stock tip-over - no roll bar, bubble canopy, and in the air, no one knows that it tips over to the side....

Paul
 
The ability of pushing that slider back.............after landing on a hot stuffy day, is priceless! That's all I'll say... :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A/ slider
 
I like the "cool factor" of being able to slide the canopy back for ground manoeuvering, but now that i've flown the tip-up I won't go back. Working on the plane is easier, ingress/egress is easier. I didn't understand why someone would have a tip-up at all until I owned one.

As for the F-35 canopy: I note the string of what looks like detcord (or equivalent) running around the back of the canopy bow and along the railing. I suspect someone decided that a continuous bubble was better for manufacturing, and someone else thought that it would be a good idea to be able to blow the canopy and yet retain enough of a windscreen that you could still fly it. The bow was necessary to support the remaining piece of the bubble. At least, that's the best guess I can come up with.

For what it's worth, I think the slider looks better on the nosewheel aircraft, and the tip-up better on the tailwheels... Not sure why, something about how they sit when open on the ground just makes those combinations look "right" to me.
 
I like the "cool factor" of being able to slide the canopy back for ground manoeuvering, but now that i've flown the tip-up I won't go back. Working on the plane is easier, ingress/egress is easier. I didn't understand why someone would have a tip-up at all until I owned one.

As for the F-35 canopy: I note the string of what looks like detcord (or equivalent) running around the back of the canopy bow and along the railing. I suspect someone decided that a continuous bubble was better for manufacturing, and someone else thought that it would be a good idea to be able to blow the canopy and yet retain enough of a windscreen that you could still fly it. The bow was necessary to support the remaining piece of the bubble. At least, that's the best guess I can come up with.

For what it's worth, I think the slider looks better on the nosewheel aircraft, and the tip-up better on the tailwheels... Not sure why, something about how they sit when open on the ground just makes those combinations look "right" to me.

I doubt it is det cord. Det cord is usually in a zig zag pattern on the very top a-la the T-45 and the AV-8B. That tube is mostly likely a gas tube to provide pressure to the canopy seal and/or jettison system. The Hornet/Rhino has something similar as does the Viper and none of them have det cord. Jets with det cord typically don't have jettison-able canopies. I'm betting that the F-35 can jettison the canopy. Another point of fact here is that the Hornet/Rhino seat will just go through the canopy if it fails to jettison during the ejection sequence. The Viper will not. If the canopy doesn't go, the ejection sequence comes to a half. You then have to attempt manual jettison or "open" it in flight to get it to come off. And you better get your hand back quick because the ejection sequence starts back up automatically. I'm also guessing that the F-35 seat will go through the canopy if need be based on the spiky top of the seat.

I need to sit in both, but I think the visibility of the tip up will win for me.
 
The ability of pushing that slider back.............after landing on a hot stuffy day, is priceless! That's all I'll say... :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A/ slider
With a small add-on, I can tip the canopy open enough to get my elbow out and planty of air in. :D
 
The ability of pushing that slider back.............after landing on a hot stuffy day, is priceless! That's all I'll say...
This is true, and for the 0.05% of the time you spend in your airplane in this condition, the slider has the advantage. In the other 99.95%, the tip-up wins in every category.

To the OP- you really need to sit in, and fly, both types. You shouldn't have any trouble tracking down an example of each.
 
Consider this snippet from Raymer's "Aircraft Design..":

xm1ggn.jpg


That elbow-on-the-sill cool factor stuff kinda evaporates when you get passed.....;)
 
Stratosphere, Here We Come!

WillyEyeBall;541867I can't think of any fighter more sexy than a F 104 with the tip over canopy: [url said:
http://www.google.com/search?q=f+104&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=jyDNTa-uIoiCtgeq9YzsDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=1028&bih=628[/url]
and wish mine tipped too, sometimes.
Bill McLean
RV-4 Slider

Thanks for reminding me of that! I feel much better about the RV-3 tip-over now - great heritage. :D

Guess I need to start looking for a rocket motor for "Junior's" tail to turn it into an "N" model....:cool:
 
F35 Canopy

I doubt it is det cord. Det cord is usually in a zig zag pattern on the very top a-la the T-45 and the AV-8B. That tube is mostly likely a gas tube to provide pressure to the canopy seal and/or jettison system.

Guess again, the canopy does not jettison. The seat goes thru the opening made by that "det cord", or whatever you want to call it. Question, where did you come up with that photo of the F35 indoors?
 
T-6 Texan II JPATS

Thanks for reminding me of that! I feel much better about the RV-3 tip-over now - great heritage. :D

Guess I need to start looking for a rocket motor for "Junior's" tail to turn it into an "N" model....:cool:


Paul,

While it's not a fighter, the T-6 Texan II has a tip over canopy design. I'd fly it in a heartbeat! Bunch of my friends have plenty of time flying NFOs in P-cola around in these things. What a blast!
 
Last edited:
Guess again, the canopy does not jettison. The seat goes thru the opening made by that "det cord", or whatever you want to call it. Question, where did you come up with that photo of the F35 indoors?

I think I found the pictures on CodeOne.com or something like that. I'm not that familiar with the jet so it is surprising to hear that the canopy doesn't jettison. That tubing still doesn't look like det cord though.
 
canopy design - thickness etc.

...sounds like we have some F35 experts here.....so is it possible ( unlike the F16) that the 'one-piece' tip up actually has a thicker windscreen for bird strike etc., or heat, HUD requirements?, and the rest of the canopy aft of the bow is a different thickness or material?
just curious...
 
This is true, and for the 0.05% of the time you spend in your airplane in this condition, the slider has the advantage. In the other 99.95%, the tip-up wins in every category.

To the OP- you really need to sit in, and fly, both types. You shouldn't have any trouble tracking down an example of each.

Concur with Jeff...gotta try both. So when you come out to check on baggage areas for dog-carrying capacities (from that other thread), you can sit in a copy of each...and if the wind is down, probably won't take much arm-twisiting to go flying! ;)

The tipper might win on dog-entry procedures too. For dogs (or people), its just a different feel...ducking below the canopy or swinging in. Both work great, and again, its a small percentage of the flying envelope.

I have a slider and like it, but flew a tipper 9 yesterday. The vis is awesome, that's for sure. Might be tougher to see the bogey behind you...but then again, that would never happen, now would it! :D I'll just use my canopy bow to tell how many degrees angle off of your tail I am! ;)

Consider this snippet from Raymer's "Aircraft Design..":

xm1ggn.jpg


That elbow-on-the-sill cool factor stuff kinda evaporates when you get passed.....;)

Ouch! ;) Good thing many/most of the F1s have a slider, or I'd never be in the race with them!

Truth hurts tho, don't it! :)

Cheers,
Bob
 
I think I found the pictures on CodeOne.com or something like that. I'm not that familiar with the jet so it is surprising to hear that the canopy doesn't jettison. That tubing still doesn't look like det cord though.

But it is, no jettisonable canopy!
 
Sight reference

[snip]F-16: It also has a tip up canopy that goes backwards, but there is no canopy bow support as the entire canopy goes up. So it is more like the RV tip up in that regard. Man visibility is incredible! But you lose the sight references from the Hornet.[snip]

That problem, if it really is a problem, can be solved very easily so that you get the best of both worlds. Go with the F-16 / RV tip up style canopy, and paint or tape a thin line on it, if you find that useful as a sight reference. This really is the best of both worlds in that you can have your sight reference, but unlike a structural canopy bow, you can make the line very thin so that it doesn't obstruct your field of view.
 
Another great airplane with a flop-over canopy was the Bf-109. The Germans really seemed to like that design- is it a coincidence that so many F-104s ended up in Germany?
Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-487-3066-04%2C_Flugzeug_Messerschmitt_Me_109.jpg

Paul, feel any better now?
 
If you guys are really interested in modern fighter design, you need to read "Boyd."

A must read for serious pilots.

http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-...6883/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305359103&sr=8-1

He pretty much reinvigorated the "bubble" canopy in modern fighter design. Notice the transition going from the success of the P-51 and F-86 in the engaged arena, to the F-4 and F-8 with severely limited designs. Then the renaissance of fighter design in the mid 70's with what became the F-18, F-16 and F-15. It's all in the book...
 
Last edited:
As for the F-35 canopy: I note the string of what looks like detcord (or equivalent) running around the back of the canopy bow and along the railing. I suspect someone decided that a continuous bubble was better for manufacturing, and someone else thought that it would be a good idea to be able to blow the canopy and yet retain enough of a windscreen that you could still fly it. The bow was necessary to support the remaining piece of the bubble. At least, that's the best guess I can come up with.

Mike is correct, the canopy does not jettison the 'det cord' is just that - to blow the bubble off to clear the way for the seat. Canopy design has a lot to do with the design requirements, you would not be surprised to learn those for the F-35 were quite different from the F-16! Also think about the mission of the F-35, and then think about why the canopy is the shape it is. There was a lot of thought put into the whole canopy shape, and the hinge position. I don't think there is much read across from 600+kt aircraft to RVs, mission and flight envelopes are very different. I've flown both RV canopy styles - there's not much in it. My current ride is a tipper, the one I'm building is a slider.

Pete
 
I asked some test pilot friends and, sure enough, the F-35 canopy does not jettison. The primary reason is due to the B variant where the canopy jettison time prior to seat ejection is too much of a delay should the engine fail in a hover. The bow up front is to help prevent the bird strike issues found in the 16.

penguin - Seriously? I don't think anyone is really trying to compare designs of a gen 5 fighter versus an RV. The point of this thread was that people seem to frequently reference old fighters when the topic of tip up versus slider is discussed. I don't think any of them reference the old fighters for design philosophy either - just aesthetics. I think that is what is happening here too with reference to modern fighters.
 
Back
Top