Talk:Bubble canopy

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Frameless versus Framed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bubble Canopy? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: I know the P-47 Thunderbolt (from model "D" onwards) had a bubble canopy. But was it designed by the Malcolm Company? Was it a Malcolm Hood?
The article had the following sentence...
It was also later fitted to the P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt amongst others.
There was a reference after the sentence that went into detail about the Mustang having the Malcolm Hood. There was NOTHING about the Thunderbolt. I therefore moved the reference from the end of the sentence to after the word Mustang. The article needs a reference to show that Thunderbolts had Malcolm Hoolds
Montalban (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: British Mustang III's had the normal hinged canopy removed and replaced in Britain by the sliding bulged canopy made by R. Malclom & Co, this was known as 'The Malcolm Hood', and some USAAF P-51B/C's were also so-modified. This was in turn replaced by a proper factory-designed bubble canopy in the Mustang IV or P-52D version, Republic also introducing this canopy in their later P-47's, but AFAIK there never was a 'Malcolm Hood' available for the Thunderbolt, it going straight from the original framed canopy design to the later bubble canopy. But I may be wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the P-47 Thunderbolt have the Malcolm Hood? 

message: I'm not sure these aircraft truly have bubble canopies, there's too much framing. Reach for the sky (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A6M and Ki-43 

message: I'm missing a section on the production of these shapes. This has to be far less straightforward than simple sheet glass, which I assume is the reason for these not appearing earlier and/or with all WW2 participants. -- MiG (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They were formed by blow moulding or vacuum forming a hot sheet of perspex into the required shape. They didn't appear earlier due to the forming of a large one-piece item requiring advances in moulding technology, and also because it took some time before the need for better rearwards vision became accepted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturing?