That makes sense… but why have the two separate canopies, rather than one that reaches all the way across? I’d think the aerodynamic impact would be minimal, while it’d allow much easier communication between the two pilots.
My guess would be that the pilots were already separated enough by distance, that the issue was moot. I do wonder however how the pilots were seated. Did they have to lean out to get the full effect of seeing around the nose, or were the seats tilted?
I suspect that visibility (particularly during landing) is the reason.
The oddness of designs like this is probably what made a droop-snoot nose look like a more rational alternative.
Sure is sleek though, isn’t it? Looks like its doing around Mach 4 standing still.
Since the same feature is found in at least one NASA original SCAT configuration, I’d bet it had some purpose (or was it “let’s do it just to make historians talk about it wondering ?”)
[…] to be in error in describing it as SCAT-15, which was a substnatially different geometry). See HERE for Convairs view of an SST based on the SCAT-16 […]
Probably an effort at seeing around a long nose.
That makes sense… but why have the two separate canopies, rather than one that reaches all the way across? I’d think the aerodynamic impact would be minimal, while it’d allow much easier communication between the two pilots.
My guess would be that the pilots were already separated enough by distance, that the issue was moot. I do wonder however how the pilots were seated. Did they have to lean out to get the full effect of seeing around the nose, or were the seats tilted?
I suspect that visibility (particularly during landing) is the reason.
The oddness of designs like this is probably what made a droop-snoot nose look like a more rational alternative.
Sure is sleek though, isn’t it? Looks like its doing around Mach 4 standing still.
Since the same feature is found in at least one NASA original SCAT configuration, I’d bet it had some purpose (or was it “let’s do it just to make historians talk about it wondering ?”)
[…] to be in error in describing it as SCAT-15, which was a substnatially different geometry). See HERE for Convairs view of an SST based on the SCAT-16 […]