Does the canopy in the British fighters have any effect on the aerodynamics of the plane? I haven't really noticed a significant difference, but it's hard to be sure.

Another thing I can't be sure of, but suspect, is that the canopy offers the pilot some more protection in the damage model. Sometimes I forget to close it when making a run on a bomber formation, and it seems I get wounded easier. Anyone know if this is the case?

I know that visibility is greatly improved with it open, but never noticed any performance gains/losses, also the canopy is only Perspex with a light ali framing, it will not offer much in the way of protection, only the center windscreen flat surface is in anyway armoured as far as I know.

Craig

With the canopy open you can stick your head outside the airframe, which is probably quite difficult to do in real life because of the strong airflow. I guess this is also when you are more likely to get a bullet in the head.

I believe the disrupted airflow from a open canopy will result in more drag and less speed, but the differene will be indiscernible from regular errors in flight like slipping or yawing.
The protection however is given, depending on the angle even perspex can deflect a bullet.

Thanks for the replies. Visibility is the main reason I keep it open most of the time. It also helps to be able to stick my head out and have a good look at the exhaust flame from time to time, which is hard to see properly through the perspex and with the more limited head movement.

I imagine that at low trajectory angles and long distance even the perspex would afford light resistance to a bullet, but.. one wouldn't want to test the theory, I have seen damage to it such as to remove any doubt that were it real the pilot would be perforated.

If you keep it open you lose some speed and also some protection against the elements like rain or oil projections. It offers also a protection against the cold air. And at certain speed it is impractical to fly with an open canopy otherwise wy no F16 with a open canopy? But I do not know if all this is reproduced in the game.

Probably because the F-16's canopy opens upwards, like a hinge, not back, like a slide. Even at low speeds this would cause damage.

They need to model some additional drag, or instability for when the canopy is open or off. Also, the sound should be unbearable. As it stands now, almost everyone online seems to be flying without a canopy. I'm not a fan of this considering it's a simulation, but at this point, I'm in the "if you can't beat them, then join them" camp.

Don't get too carried away with the losses of open canopy/missing canopy - depending on design, a closed canopy can have higher drag than a well optimised low windshield that deflects the air to meet the fuselage streamlines aft of the pit.

Many transitional pilots opted for no canopy if their airframe allowed it because the performance differences were marginal, and the SA improvement was more significant (plus easier to get out if aircraft disabled). (I-16/I-153, G50)

A significant reason for not offering an open option in modern airframes is the much higher velocity available to jets, with correspondingly higher Q, and the typical fitting of pressurisation to aid high altitude operations (O2 at ambient pressures is less effective than O2 at a reduced pressure altitude).

There is thus a design default in the F16 good to know. Or maybe it is because it is presurized and a very fast aircraft? But I am so "stupido"!

The design of the F-16 canopy is, by no means, a default in it's design. And the airplane is not pressurized. Don't know of any fighter that is. Common sense would say that if an airplanes canopy is hinged at it's rear area, and opens from the front, you can't open it in flight because air would rush into the the cockpit, and rip the thing right off of the airframe.
I've owned two airplanes with different canopy configurations. My first was a 1946 ERCOUPE. You could open the canopy in flight. This did, however upset the airflow over the airplane and did tend to give you a slightly bumpy ride. It also sucked anything not tied down, including all of your maps, right out of the airplane.
My most recent was a homebuilt Sonex. Bubble style canopy , hinged on the right side. Like the F-16 you can not open it in flight. I almost lost it during an engine test. I was trying to hold onto it, partially opened, while we were running it up, after some engine work, so I could listen to it and hear what my mechanic was telling me. I caught the damn thing just in time. It would have been ripped of of the plane, and cost me a fortune.

The F-16 does have a pressurized cockpit. Those zoom climbs it does would really hurt the pilots' ears otherwise... - As well as other inconveniences.

Well...I stand corrected on that. My buddy works on the F-16 program, so who better to call. I just got off the phone with him, and yeah, the F-16 cockpit is pressurised. I assumed the pilots need oxygen because they aren't. They need it due to sudden depressurisation and because oxygen is needed during high-g manuevers.
Learned two things in this post today. The F-16, and some other fighters' cockpits, are pressurised... and also to shut up until I've checked my facts!

I open the canopy to light my cig on the exhaust flames. Ouch!

The difference is something like 15kph in a Hurri (perhaps more) - I believe one of FPS_Oklor's interviews ("Lend-Lease Interviews") has some data on that (it might have actually been closer to 30kph)