# Fighter planes: why aren't frameless canopies more common? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 5, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighter-planes-why-arent-frameless-canopies-more-common/773930 "2016-12-05T15:29:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighter-planes-why-arent-frameless-canopies-more-common/773930/21 "2017-07-20T14:39:05Z")
On the subject of F-16 canopies, the ones not good enough (for whatever reason) to be installed on a fighter plane could find their way to a hydroplane. In the mid 1980s, boat builder Ron Jones Sr. was trying to find a way to make hydroplane racing safer. He managed to get two rejected F-16 canopies from the manufacturer for [$1500 each](http://www.lesliefield.com/other_history/ron_jones_and_the_f.htm). The strength of the shape and the lack of framework were exactly what he was looking for. Hydroplanes went from looking like [this](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/ff/0d/a7ff0d305727b9646e0d3b7f79144a87--fast-boats-speed-boats.jpg), to looking like [this](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2a/e7/bb/2ae7bb96bf436ef1290f6b5d568c0b57--fast-boats-power-boats.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![JHBoom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/13edae/32.png) [@JHBoom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JHBoom)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2017, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighter-planes-why-arent-frameless-canopies-more-common/773930/22 "2017-07-23T00:25:18Z")
Link to a [F-16.net](http://F-16.net) post [showing just how thick the F-22’s canopy is](http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article1815.html)… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighter-planes-why-arent-frameless-canopies-more-common/773930.md?page=1)