QUESTION: Killer F-106 Ejection Seat?
Jonathan Perkins
I was recently reading Col. Jack Broughton's book, _Thud Ridge_, in
which he talks about some of his fighter experience prior to Vietnam. In one
section, he lauds the F-106 in general, but decries the fact that he and
others were unable to get changes made to its "killer ejection seat".
Unfortunately, he does not go into the matter in any further detail, so I
was left wondering what the problems with the seat were. Anyone know?
Cheers...
--
----------
Jon Perkins--Ottawa, Canada
jper...@ccs.carleton.ca
Ed Rasimus
>
> I was recently reading Col. Jack Broughton's book, _Thud Ridge_, in
>which he talks about some of his fighter experience prior to Vietnam. In one
>section, he lauds the F-106 in general, but decries the fact that he and
>others were unable to get changes made to its "killer ejection seat".
>Unfortunately, he does not go into the matter in any further detail, so I
>was left wondering what the problems with the seat were. Anyone know?
The early F-106 designers were trying to deal with the problems of
ejection in an aircraft that was designed to spend a lot of time
supersonic. How to get a man out of a supersonic airplane without
breaking every bone in his body.
The seat that Broughton refers to was called the "B" seat. The
ejection required a series of sequenced initiators to all work
flawlessly. When the trigger was pulled the canopy would jettison
(remember the early 106 "wedge" canopy with the steel beam down the
middle?), then the pilots legs would be pulled in by a harness, the
shoulder harness would reel in to lock the pilot upright, the arms
would be tucked in and the seat would start up the rail--not to eject,
but to move out into the airstream where the seat would rotate to lay
back on the spine of the aircraft. Then two long stabilizer rods would
be deployed from the sides of the seat (about twelve feet long).
Finally, the rocket would fire with the pilot in reclining position,
separating from the aircraft and decelerating through the mach.
The problem was that if any initiator failed to fire, the sequence
then halted. I recall a film made of a test firing in which the
sequence ended with the seat laying flat on the top of the back of the
airplane. Naturally, the pilots who were required to go to work each
day in that kind of a chair didn't think too much of it.
Fortunately a more conventional ejection seat was retro-fitted.
Although it didn't allow for supersonic ejection, it did operate
reliably within it's design envelope.
Geoff Miller
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) writes:
> remember the early 106 "wedge" canopy with the steel beam down the
> middle?
Was the F-106 ever fitted with any other kind? I've never seen
any photographs of F-106s with anything other than that wedge
canopy that was carried over from the F-102.
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
David Tanner
>
>thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) writes:
>
>> remember the early 106 "wedge" canopy with the steel beam down the
>> middle?
>
>
>Was the F-106 ever fitted with any other kind? I've never seen
>any photographs of F-106s with anything other than that wedge
>canopy that was carried over from the F-102.
>
that gave much improved visibility. And, evidently, better safety
as well.
I don't remember whether the 2-seat B model was also changed.
--
David Tanner
ufta...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
JLSokolsky
>that gave much improved visibility. And, evidently, better safety
>as well.
>I don't remember whether the 2-seat B model was also changed.
It was.
John "Squeaks" Sokolsky
MICOMA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>While the F-14 is newer than the F-104, it's not much newer and I
>don't think that LRUs were part of its design.
You've got to be kidding, right? The difference is I believe, a design
from the mid-50s to one from the late-60s.
You're right however concerning the maintenance difference between the
Tomcat and Hornet - and Starfighter for that matter. But what is the
mission of your Hornets? Is it the ability to drop ordnance with
pin-point accuracy in less then ideal weather?
Ease of maintenance is only one factor for a combat craft. The main
consideration is the ability to get the job done.
Mike
CJ Smut Martin
>In article <SHAFER.96...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
>sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>
>>While the F-14 is newer than the F-104, it's not much newer and I
>>don't think that LRUs were part of its design.
>
>You've got to be kidding, right? The difference is I believe, a design
>from the mid-50s to one from the late-60s.
Either way, neither was designed for ese of maintenance. I think that was her
point.
>You're right however concerning the maintenance difference between the
>Tomcat and Hornet - and Starfighter for that matter. But what is the
>mission of your Hornets? Is it the ability to drop ordnance with
>pin-point accuracy in less then ideal weather?
>
>Ease of maintenance is only one factor for a combat craft. The main
>consideration is the ability to get the job done.
Which can't happen if the jet is broke.
You cannot retrofit maintainability. It must be designed into the airframe.
If you think that maintainability isn't important, than you clearly have no
concept of what it takes to get just one tactical combat jet into combat. Doing
it from a carrier makes thing even more interesting.
Ask any pilot or RIO of a fleet Tomcat squadron about his maintenance troops.
The *good* ones know the real score. Tomcat maintanance is a stone cold, cast
iron b*tch.
BTW. A-6s are/were worse.
CJ
----------
CJ Martin, ex-AT2 USN | Callsign Smut on WarBirds
Former Tomcat Tweaker | XO, <Flying Pigs> squadron
Ex-Starfighter (VF-33) | "Oink! Oink! To War!"
Visit Smuts WB page at http://atc.ameritel.net/lusers/smut/index.html
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Ease of maintenance is only one factor for a combat craft. The main
> consideration is the ability to get the job done.
...which you can't do if your aircraft is ground-aborting or non-
mission capable. Being able to keep the airframes fully serviceable
during high-tempo flight operations matters a great deal.
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul F Austin
>From: mic...@aol.com (MICOMA)
>Subject: Re: Maintainence Requirements (Was: Tomcats to Replace Hornets on Carrier)
>Date: 10 Jan 1996 05:32:33 -0500
>In article <SHAFER.96...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
>sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>While the F-14 is newer than the F-104, it's not much newer and I
>>don't think that LRUs were part of its design.
>You've got to be kidding, right? The difference is I believe, a design
>from the mid-50s to one from the late-60s.
>You're right however concerning the maintenance difference between the
>Tomcat and Hornet - and Starfighter for that matter. But what is the
>mission of your Hornets? Is it the ability to drop ordnance with
>pin-point accuracy in less then ideal weather?
>Ease of maintenance is only one factor for a combat craft. The main
>consideration is the ability to get the job done.
It's only one factor but an important one. Joshua Epstein wrote a book
(Measuring Military Power, Brookings Institute) on the subject. You can dial
up your Air Force so that all the airplanes are FMC for the first day of the
war but as hours and sortees accumulate, the effective size of your force
depends on MTBF, repair time and availability of spares.
If, like the Russians, you design your force with engines that have a mean
time between overhaul of 200hr instead 2000hr, you'll start dead-lining
airplanes after only days of intense operations unless you've got the mother
of all engine stockpiles.
An aircraft carrier because of the small size of the air wing is even more
sensitive to maintenance down time than an Air Force wing. I must say that the
F14D's electronics are as LRU'ed and low-MTBF'ed as the Hornet's. But there
aren't many of them around.
Courtne934
first day of the war but as hours and sortees accumulate, the effective
size of your force
depends on MTBF, repair time and availability of spares."
James Fallows, in his excellent book called National Defence, makes
similar assumptions. I analogy that always stick in my mind from the book
gies something like this: 'The AF always gets Congress to authorize these
technically advanced airplanes by saying: If we were going to war would
you rather see our pilots in an F-15 or a MiG-21. As Fallows says, the
more apt question, based on relative costs, is if there is an engagement
between 2 F-15's and 10 Mig-21's, would you rather be the Eagle pilot or
one of 10 MiG pilots."
Before the ripostes start coming in, I don't advocate this view. BVR
capability and active missiles proved themsleves in the Gulf War. Still
one of the biggest considerations is flight time and training. Ten
well-flown MiG-21's would be a challenge for 2 F-15's. Ten MiG-21's flown
to normal Third World standards would be a bunch of Air Medals and some
DFC's.
Regards,
Peter C.
hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu
> similar assumptions. I analogy that always stick in my mind from the book
> gies something like this: 'The AF always gets Congress to authorize these
> technically advanced airplanes by saying: If we were going to war would
> you rather see our pilots in an F-15 or a MiG-21. As Fallows says, the
> more apt question, based on relative costs, is if there is an engagement
> between 2 F-15's and 10 Mig-21's, would you rather be the Eagle pilot or
> one of 10 MiG pilots."
fellow 9 MiG pilots?
What are we loaded with?
>
> Before the ripostes start coming in, I don't advocate this view. BVR
> capability and active missiles proved themsleves in the Gulf War. Still
> one of the biggest considerations is flight time and training. Ten
> well-flown MiG-21's would be a challenge for 2 F-15's. Ten MiG-21's flown
> to normal Third World standards would be a bunch of Air Medals and some
> DFC's.
--
"No weapon in the arsenals of the world is as powerful as the will and
courage of a free people."
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be
prepared, so we may always be free."
"History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price
of aggression is cheap."
"All the way into the hangar."
- Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
God bless him, and God Bless AMERICA!
Mary Shafer
PA> In article <4d04k1$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mic...@aol.com "MICOMA" writes:
> Ease of maintenance is only one factor for a combat craft. The main
> consideration is the ability to get the job done.
PA> ...which you can't do if your aircraft is ground-aborting or non-
PA> mission capable. Being able to keep the airframes fully
PA> serviceable during high-tempo flight operations matters a great
PA> deal.
Maintainence is the single most important key to a high sortie rate.
From this, it's pretty obvious that logistics is the most important
piece of planning when you go to war.
Why do you think the Coalition spent so many months getting stuff in
place before they launched the offensive? Most of that wasn't weapons
or troops that they were bring in, but parts and shops and so on.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Buzz Nau
>thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) writes:
>> remember the early 106 "wedge" canopy with the steel beam down the
>> middle?
>Was the F-106 ever fitted with any other kind? I've never seen
>any photographs of F-106s with anything other than that wedge
>canopy that was carried over from the F-102.
Clear canopies were installed in 1972.
Buzz
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
>geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
========================================================
Evan "Buzz" Nau
University of Michigan - Medical School Administration
buz...@umich.edu / http://www-personal.umich.edu/~buzznau/
========================================================
MICOMA
Martin) writes:
>In article <4d04k1$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mic...@aol.com (MICOMA)
wrote:
>>In article <SHAFER.96...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
>>sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>
>>>While the F-14 is newer than the F-104, it's not much newer and I
>>>don't think that LRUs were part of its design.
>>
>>You've got to be kidding, right? The difference is I believe, a design
>>from the mid-50s to one from the late-60s.
>
>Either way, neither was designed for ese of maintenance. I think that was
her
>
>point.
I'm curious, with the difference in years between the F-104 and F-14
designs (and the difference in mission for each bird), do you believe that
improvements in now to maintain the Tomcat were not used? Besides, I was
commenting mainly on the aspect of the number of years between the two
designs. IMHO, the Tomcat was much newer then the Starfighter.
>>You're right however concerning the maintenance difference between the
>>Tomcat and Hornet - and Starfighter for that matter. But what is the
>>mission of your Hornets? Is it the ability to drop ordnance with
>>pin-point accuracy in less then ideal weather?
>>
>>Ease of maintenance is only one factor for a combat craft. The main
>>consideration is the ability to get the job done.
>
>Which can't happen if the jet is broke.
>
>You cannot retrofit maintainability. It must be designed into the
airframe.
When an aircraft is designed, then whatever level of maintenance is needed
to keep them flying - for combat, must be supported. If a jet is broke,
you fix it, and get on with the mission (assuming that the bird can still
perform that mission as advertised - which was the org. point to this
subject). You learn from each generation of design how to improve on
maintenance, and other aspects. A bird can be the greatest
maintenance-free thing since "whatever", but if it isn't able to, for
example, put ordnance on target as advertised, something besides
maintenance must be done to fix how the mission is to be conducted (which
can be any number of items) - or change the rules of the mission.
>If you think that maintainability isn't important, than you clearly have
no
>concept of what it takes to get just one tactical combat jet into combat.
>Doing
>it from a carrier makes thing even more interesting.
If you notice I said "only one factor". What makes you think that I don't
think maintenance isn't important?
>Ask any pilot or RIO of a fleet Tomcat squadron about his maintenance
troops.
>
>The *good* ones know the real score. Tomcat maintenance is a stone cold,
cast
>
>iron b*tch.
Hats off to every and anyone who keeps the Turkey going - as we are
looking at a bird who's design is reaching the 30-year mark.
>BTW. A-6s are/were worse.
So?
>CJ
Mike
MICOMA
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <4d04k1$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mic...@aol.com "MICOMA"
writes:
>> Ease of maintenance is only one factor for a combat craft. The main
>> consideration is the ability to get the job done.
>> Mike
>
>...which you can't do if your aircraft is ground-aborting or non-
>mission capable. Being able to keep the airframes fully serviceable
>during high-tempo flight operations matters a great deal.
Noticed I said "one factor". And given that you keep the bird flying (at
whatever level of maintenance needed), the aspect of the bird being able
to do the job being asked of it is damn important.
Mike
CJ Smut Martin
>I'm curious, with the difference in years between the F-104 and F-14
>designs (and the difference in mission for each bird), do you believe that
>improvements in now to maintain the Tomcat were not used? Besides, I was
>commenting mainly on the aspect of the number of years between the two
>designs. IMHO, the Tomcat was much newer then the Starfighter.
Certainly the 'cat is a newer design, but even so, human factors and ease of
maintenance concerns were not as well understood then as they are now. The
F-14 is head and shoulders easier to work on than the F-4 was. However, when
compared to more modern designs such as the F-16 and F/A-18, the Tomcat fares
poorly.
On of the puzzling thing to me is that rather than get better, maintainability
actually suffered in the F-14D upgrade. Given a choice, I'd much rather deploy
with old Block 110 F-14As (built in the early 80's); from an avionics tech's
POV, they were the easiest of the Tomcats to work on.
>When an aircraft is designed, then whatever level of maintenance is needed
>to keep them flying - for combat, must be supported. If a jet is broke,
>you fix it, and get on with the mission (assuming that the bird can still
>perform that mission as advertised - which was the org. point to this
>subject). You learn from each generation of design how to improve on
>maintenance, and other aspects. A bird can be the greatest
>maintenance-free thing since "whatever", but if it isn't able to, for
>example, put ordnance on target as advertised, something besides
>maintenance must be done to fix how the mission is to be conducted (which
>can be any number of items) - or change the rules of the mission.
Agreed, but realize that when money gets tight, the first thing to get hit is
training and logistics. Both directly impact aircraft avalability down the
road, and both require 'spool up' time to get back on track following a
funding interuption. Also, both have a role in aircraft maintainability.
CJ
MICOMA
writes:
>Agreed, but realize that when money gets tight, the first thing to get
hit is
>training and logistics.
How sadly true.
Mike
Mary Shafer
built to very much the same standards. By my way of counting, they
are both third-generation fighters.
The generations are roughly pushrods and bellcranks for the first,
hydraulics for the second, analog flight control systems providing
fairly minimal augmentation for the third, and fly-by-wire/advanced
flight control systems with extensive augmentation for the fourth.
This seems to be a fairly well-accepted definition, by the way; Flight
International and AvWeek both seem to use it. It works for both high
performance and transport aircraft, of course.
We didn't make a lot of changes moving from one aircraft to another in
those years, you know. We did learn enough from the F-105 to improve
the F-4 hydraulic system, for example, but the changes were very
incremental. We didn't really care about maintainability or
reliability for example--we were fighting, or had just finished
fighting, shooting wars and all we wanted to do was get the weapons
near the delivery point. We had a draft that drove people to enlist
in the USAF and USN, where they could stay well away from the gunfire
and maintain the aircraft. As I recall, there was great competition
for those slots and both services couldn't take everyone who wanted to
enlist.
I'd say offhand that the F-15 was the bellwether of the fourth
generation. We even had to write a new version of MilSpec 8785 (the
Handling Qualities spec) for it, because it was obvious that the old
version, tailored for aircraft with minimal augmentation, wasn't good
enough. The F-16 and F-18 were probably the first "real"
fourth-generation aircraft from the get-go as we didn't dial in on it
for the Eagle right away.
We ended up abandoning MilSpec 8785 for MilPrime 1797, by the way.
They've just issued the first revision, 1797B, and I can point out my
contributions to anyone silly enough to ask.
MICOMA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>While F-104s and F-4s <F-14?> were somewhat separated temporally, they
were
>built to very much the same standards. By my way of counting, they
>are both third-generation fighters.
That's fine, but what you've said here isn't the same, at least to my
IMHO, as the earlier "not much newer" phrase. Especially when it involves
the difference in years - not generations.
Using the term "third-generation" puts another light on it for me.
Appreciate it.
Mike
MICOMA
>While F-104s and F-4s were
Just to be clear, did you mean to type F-14, or are you referring to the
F-4 Phantom?
Mike
Mary Shafer
M> In article <SHAFER.96J...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
M> sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>While F-104s and F-4s were
M> Just to be clear, did you mean to type F-14, or are you referring
M> to the F-4 Phantom?
I meant to type F-14, but I'll broaden my statement and say that
"While F-104s, F-4s, and F-14s were...." How's that?
I gave a paper on in-flight simulation here at an AIAA conference a
few years back and one of my friends from NASA Langley came up
afterward and told me it was the best paper he'd seen at the
conference, but I _had_ to stop calling the F-104 the F-4. I'd hadn't
even heard myself do so.
Paul F Austin
>From: sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
>Subject: Re: Maintainence Requirements (Was: Tomcats to Replace Hornets on Carrier)
>While F-104s and F-4s were somewhat separated temporally, they were
>built to very much the same standards. By my way of counting, they
>are both third-generation fighters.
>The generations are roughly pushrods and bellcranks for the first,
>hydraulics for the second, analog flight control systems providing
>fairly minimal augmentation for the third, and fly-by-wire/advanced
>flight control systems with extensive augmentation for the fourth.
>This seems to be a fairly well-accepted definition, by the way; Flight
>International and AvWeek both seem to use it. It works for both high
>performance and transport aircraft, of course.
>We didn't make a lot of changes moving from one aircraft to another in
>those years, you know. We did learn enough from the F-105 to improve
>the F-4 hydraulic system, for example, but the changes were very
>incremental. We didn't really care about maintainability or
>reliability for example--we were fighting, or had just finished
>fighting, shooting wars and all we wanted to do was get the weapons
>near the delivery point. We had a draft that drove people to enlist
>in the USAF and USN, where they could stay well away from the gunfire
>and maintain the aircraft. As I recall, there was great competition
>for those slots and both services couldn't take everyone who wanted to
>enlist.
Mary;
You're right about the maintainability aspects of aircraft design. The design
factors which drive MTTR weren't really addressed until the F15/16/18
generation.
MTBF on the other hand has been worked hard even within the same aircraft
type. At good example is the A-6. The A-6A's MMH/Flight Hours was sooo bad
that one of the goals of the A-6E was a major improvement through increased
MTBF on mission avionics.
In general, avionics and engines have improved in MTBF steadily for the last
forty years so that a late model e.g. F14A may be significantly more reliable
than an early model. Airframe systems (hydraulics, cabling, cooling systems)
require a _major_ change in design to get significant improvements.
BTW it's not really fair to compare an F104 to an F14 in terms of maintenance
requirements. The F104 has almost no avionics while a 'cat is stuffed to the
skin.