Adelaide's MkVc and a Question

Thanks for the replies, just something I have been wondering about for a while.
I think I like the look of the high backed aircraft more though but as they are older I guess they are rarer.

On the contrary, low-back Spits seem to be rarer these days – not to mention at least two to my knowledge have been rebuilt to fly with a high-back fuselage: Spitfire XVIs TE184 and TE392.

Canopy anyone?

, but Westland did all the work on converting existing marks like the XIV and XVI to bubbletop configuration,

XN923,

I would be very interested to know more of Westlands involvement here. Can you point me at a reference source please.

The term “bubble” canopy can have different meanings to different people in Spitfire terms.

When the ‘high back fuselage’ canopies went from straight sided to bulged sided they were referred to as ‘bubble canopies’.

With the introduction of the cut down ‘low back fuselages’ on Marks IX, XIV and XVI and continued for complete production of Marks XVIII, 22 and 24, they were referred to a ‘teardrop canopies’.

Mark

Thanks for the replies, just something I have been wondering about for a while.
I think I like the look of the high backed aircraft more though but as they are older I guess they are rarer.

I remember reading somewhere that the razor-backed P47s were apparently faster than the bubble canopied ones; guess thats with the same engine. Were the P51B/Cs faster than P51Ds with the same engine?

Flood

I’d never heard that before – wonder if it applies to Spits? (Although the MkXVI was apparently faster than the IX, I think.)

really don’t know if it provides an aerodynamic advantage or disadvantage. Aerodynamics 101 suggests that anything sticking into the airflow should be tapered away as much as possible to allow the air to ‘close up’ around the obstruction therefore losing as little energy as possible. In reality I suspect it’s more complicated than this.

I remember reading somewhere that the razor-backed P47s were apparently faster than the bubble canopied ones; guess thats with the same engine. Were the P51B/Cs faster than P51Ds with the same engine?

Flood

IIRC, as far back as 1940, Jeffrey Quill was requesting something done about the Spitfire’s fuselage so as to allow fighter pilots better vision to the rear after he spent a short spell with 65 Squadron. It wasn’t followed up until 1943 with a Supermarine-modified Spitfire MkVIII

Better vision – remember that the biplane fighters that aircraft like the Spitfire superseded had great all round vision, and for many pilots the enclosed cockpits of the higher performance fighters were initially received with some resistance.

The change to bubble type canopies would have been sooner but unframed perspex canopy construction was in its infancy. The original bulged canopy on the highback Spitfires was quite groundbreaking in the late 30s.

The pressure of war forced the technology to develop very fast so by war’s end most fighters were being produced in low back bubble hood configurations.

There was also some speed increases but this was due as much to better engine performance as reduction in drag.

Anecdotally mind, as far as I am aware, the move to ‘bubble top’ canopies was all about visibility. After a while, designers started to take notice of pilots who had always said that for dogfights, you need excellent all-round vision.

Not sure quite what sparked the move with the Spitfire, but Westland did all the work on converting existing marks like the XIV and XVI to bubbletop configuration, and the tests were obviously so successful that most later mark Spits were designed and built this way. I really don’t know if it provides an aerodynamic advantage or disadvantage. Aerodynamics 101 suggests that anything sticking into the airflow should be tapered away as much as possible to allow the air to ‘close up’ around the obstruction therefore losing as little energy as possible. In reality I suspect it’s more complicated than this.