BUBBLE CANOPIES - 'Pre-Historic' Beginnings...

[Wurger]

 

[xylstra]

Nah, you're jumping to conclusions without any credible evidence. There's a difference between authors missing things and connections that simply don't exist. If you have evidence that the SE.4 canopy was intended for the SE.5, produce it, don't just make it up.

I can only infer from your reply that you must be just an armchair academic (correct me if I'm wrong). I am an engineer who invents and develops things. As much as it galls you to believe it, my description IS how things get done. There are many practical members with hands-on technical backgrounds on these forums who know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you? Do you seriously believe that there is no development lineage between the bubble-canopy design progression occurring within the Royal Aircraft Factory irrespective of the specific type (unless you're sitting on an unpublished notebook from somewhere) of aircraft? The use of unrelated, re-puposed test-mules is routine within the avaiation (and other) industries in order to test and evaluate new ideas for inclusion in other, final production types. Further examples of this include the development of ejection seats, navigation and radio systems, variouis types of weapons all of which find their way into aircraft vastly different from that in which they were originally developed. My position and my earlier statements won't change and I most certainly am not on trial so I'm afraid you'll just have to choke it down. Unless you produce your 'un-discovered' notebook, then for me that's where this particular exchange ends.

 

[gumbyk]

I can only infer from your reply that you must be just an armchair academic (correct me if I'm wrong). I am an engineer who invents and develops things. As much as it galls you to believe it, my description IS how things get done. There are many practical members with hands-on technical backgrounds on these forums who know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you? Do you seriously believe that there is no development lineage between the bubble-canopy design progression occurring within the Royal Aircraft Factory irrespective of the specific type (unless you're sitting on an unpublished notebook from somewhere) of aircraft? The use of unrelated, re-puposed test-mules is routine within the avaiation (and other) industries in order to test and evaluate new ideas for inclusion in other, final production types. Further examples of this include the development of ejection seats, navigation and radio systems, variouis types of weapons all of which find their way into aircraft vastly different from that in which they were originally developed. My position and my earlier statements won't change and I most certainly am not on trial so I'm afraid you'll just have to choke it down. Unless you produce your 'un-discovered' notebook, then for me that's where this particular exchange ends.

Umm, yeah, nah.. you might want to calm down. You obviously don't know who you're arguing with...


The canopy was fitted to the SE-4 - yes
It was obviously deemed a failure, given that pilots refused to fly it.
Why would it have been tried with the SE-5?


And, yes, I've got extensive background in aviation, both enigneering and flying.