Wouldn't the P-63 had looked better with a bubble canopy? ..

[Mark Allen M]

... I think so. Wonder why Bell didn't delve into this idea more seriously.

Below is the XP-63A 42-78015



and what's been stated as a P-63A which was fitted with a bubble canopy in England. (looks nice with the bubble canopy, from what I can see of it)


Looks like the air intake was certainly an issue.



Link below shows the P-63D with a funky bubble canopy.

http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p63.html

[AG pilot]

The P-63A bubble looks much improved to me!

[Ruberneck]

The P-63D model was a very nice looking plane Only built one. It was destroyed in a fatal crash. The bubble canopy was intended for P-63E-5 production. These were cancelled by the end of the war. This info is from birch Matthews book Cobra!

Last edited by Ruberneck on Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

[fiftycal]

all the strength is in the roll over, these things twisted sometimes (P-39Q-21 4 bladed prop), like that it was probably dangerous without complete redesign

[Mark Allen M]

Pretty sure they did, P-63D model. Only built one or two.

Not much for photos out there ... yet!


Only one P-63D was built with a bubble canopy. It was the fastest version of the P-63

"Despite being heavier, the P-63D was the fastest version of the P-63 reaching 437 mph at 30,000 feet.6 The wing was lengthened by 10 inches and it was powered by an Allison V-1710-109 engine producing 1,425 hp. A major change was the removal of the automobile-type doors and the installation of a bubble canopy. The performance of the P-63D put it on par with the P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt, but it was destroyed during diving tests."

[Dan K]

Mark,

If your original question had been about pilot preference, the answer would be in favor of the bubble canopy. I can't imagine anyone preferring the means of extricating oneself from a dead 'cobra (pull the door hinge pins and wait for the aerodynamic forces to pull the doors off...no thank you, sir) over popping the canopy, rolling over, and dropping out.

But your question was about looks, and for me there is something truly iconic about airplanes with car doors that grabs me favorably every time:

[maxum96]

Mark,

If your original question had been about pilot preference, the answer would be in favor of the bubble canopy. I can't imagine anyone preferring the means of extricating oneself from a dead 'cobra (pull the door hinge pins and wait for the aerodynamic forces to pull the doors off...no thank you, sir) over popping the canopy, rolling over, and dropping out.

Chuck Yeager talked about bailing out of a P-39 in his book. I don't recall him complaining about difficulty in exiting the aircraft. I don't think you'd have to wait for the door to come off by aerodynamic force once you pulled the pins. I think it would probably be instantaneous. But otherwise, I do have to say I agree with you.

Last edited by maxum96 on Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Mark Allen M]

Doesn't look too terribly difficult to get out that door. Then again I'm used to Cessna doors. Never had a problem opening one up in flight way back in the student pilot days practicing my emergency procedures if my engine conked out. Of course that was just cracking the door open a bit.

[Dan K]

Chuck Yeager talked about bailing out of a P-39 in his book. I don't recall him complaining about difficulty in exiting the aircraft. I don't think you'd have to wait for the door to come off by aerodynamic force once you pulled the pins. I think it would probably be instantaneous. But otherwise, I do have to say I agree with you.

No, I can't speak from personal experience on the P-39/-63 door issues.

And with all proper respect due to retired-Gen. Yeager, I don't believe he ever flew the P-39 in an actual combat situation.

To my recollection, the only P-39/-400 combat vet I've ever met was retired-Major Norb Ruff. You can listen to his comments concerning some of his Airacobra combat experiences (including the doors) at the link below. Norb's part of the interview begins at about 13:45. I found his comments about the doors at around the 31:00 mark especially interesting.

http://eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1351254642

Major Ruff labeled the doors a problem in combat. From the comfort of my armchair, I echoed his claim.

[dirtysidedown430]

Got to love them Studabaker door handles

[maxum96]

Chuck Yeager talked about bailing out of a P-39 in his book. I don't recall him complaining about difficulty in exiting the aircraft. I don't think you'd have to wait for the door to come off by aerodynamic force once you pulled the pins. I think it would probably be instantaneous. But otherwise, I do have to say I agree with you.

No, I can't speak from personal experience on the P-39/-63 door issues.

And with all proper respect due to retired-Gen. Yeager, I don't believe he ever flew the P-39 in an actual combat situation.

True it wasn't a combat accident for Yeager, but it did occur while he was doing a simulated attack on a formation of B-24's in the States.

On October, 23, 1943, during a high speed exercise, his P-39's engine blew up, the plane burst into flames, and Yeager had to bail out. He survived, but was hospitalized with a fractured spine.

[Duggy009]

It was standard procedure to eject the door on P-39's when making an emergency landing.
Proves the fact that exiting these aircraft with side doors was problematic!
2LT David Straub of the 68th Ftr Sq, 347th FG steps out of P-39K serial 42-4388 after a recalcitrant nose landing gear failed to extend, forcing his belly landing at Nandi Airfield, Fiji on 23 November 1943.



Regards Duggy

[shrike]

Yeah, but when everything was working right, taxiing by with the window rolled down and your elbow hanging out has got to be the most fighterpilot look possible

[mike furline]

[Mark Allen M]