Ejector seat handles
Owen Smith (Co-op)
pilots head but the sight of these has decreased in favor of between the legs
or side mounted handles. Why?
OWEN SMITH
Courtne934
much less when using the lower handle because it keeps the arms closer to
the body; reducing the chance of a flail injury. I would guess that they
eventually dropped the upper handle on the later seats. In some inverted
departures, however, aircrew have had a hard time getting to the lower
handle while pinned against the canopy. I'm sure they'll be a lot of sea
stories on this one.
Regards,
Peter C.
MITCHKRON
the upper handle, with the loops, contain a face curtain that covers the
pilot's face and protects it from the airstream. When I was under going
jet training at NAS Pensacola, we were told to decide for ourselves which
one we prefered to use. The lower handle appeared to be a better choice
for immediate use, eg, a bad catapult shot or engine failure down low.
The upper handle appeared better suited for a more controlled ejection.
Morgan Smith
Although you only saw the handles above the head most ejection
seats have also had handles between the legs, you just can't see them.
In the F-14A and B, we have both handles. The top one would be used
under a controlled ejection situation wherein you had time to think and
the movement to the top handle helps in putting your body and head in the
proper ejection position for minimal back injury. The problem is that it
generally takes more time and had not been used much. Thus for
simplicity sake, seats are starting to do away with the top handle.
Luckily I have never had to test their functionality.
'Elvis'
Owen Smith (Co-op) (osmith) wrote:
: One used to always see ejector seat handles in the form of loops above the
Gunner (USN Ret)
> One used to always see ejector seat handles in the form of loops above the
> pilots head but the sight of these has decreased in favor of between the legs
> or side mounted handles. Why?
>
> OWEN SMITH
Well, for one thing it gets your arms down and out of the way, maybe keeps
you from loosing your elbows on the way out. Probably easier to get to the
handles in an hurry, too. Just a guess....never had to eject from a PBR :)
--
Important Notice to Readers: The Entire Physical Universe, Including This
Message, May One Day Collapse Back into an Infinitesimally Small Space.
Should Another Universe Subsequently Re-emerge, the Existence of This
Message in That Universe Cannot be Guaranteed.
Simon Lam
: offer the lower 'between the legs handles' to remove the possibility of
: last minute indecision!
How far does one have to pull until the seat fires?
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
John Weiss
Simon Lam <aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
> : Martin-Baker seats offered both high and low handles. I'm told they
> now only
> : offer the lower 'between the legs handles' to remove the possibility of
> : last minute indecision!
>
> How far does one have to pull until the seat fires?
> --
> Simon Lam
>
About 2 inches.
--
John Weiss
Bare Bones BBS, Seattle, WA
206-368-7672
Albert Sykes
: Neither the 18 nor the 16 have the face curtain, to the best of my
: knowledge. Also, 15s don't have it either, but the 14 does, I think,
: at least on early models. The shape of the headrest is pretty
: distinctive if there's a face curtain, so it's pretty easy to tell.
: You only have to reach up and pull down, not reach completely behind
: your head and pull forward and down.
: I suspect that visibility was also a big factor in doing away with
: face curtains. Why put a big lovely bubble canopy on a plane and then
: block the up-and-back view with it, after all.
: Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
My guess for no face curtain handles is that the newer wimpy jets (F-15
16-18) aren't Mach 2+ like the F-4 or F-14.
Tallyho !
Alpha Kilo
Mary Shafer
: Neither the 18 nor the 16 have the face curtain, to the best of my
: knowledge. Also, 15s don't have it either, but the 14 does, I think,
: at least on early models.
AK> My guess for no face curtain handles is that the newer wimpy jets (F-15
AK> 16-18) aren't Mach 2+ like the F-4 or F-14.
The F-15 can go Mach 2.4 or so, so you need a new guess. I worked on
the F-15 during the original acceptance testing and I was in the
control room when we cleared the envelope out past Mach 2. Also,
Dryden acquired an F-15 to carry the Flight Test Fixture when we
retired the F-104s and the primary requirement was Mach 2+ capability.
While I may love the F-4, I'm also exceedingly fond of the F-15.
You're right about the 16 and 18, though. I think the F-18 is a titch
faster than the F-16, but not enough to get excited about.
--
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
Alexei Gretchikhine
> The F-15 can go Mach 2.4 or so, so you need a new guess. I worked on
Isn't its Mach number limited by the acryllic canopy? From whst I have
heard this limits F-15 to M<2.0
_____________________ _________________________________________
Alexei GRETCHIKHINE agr...@opie.bgsu.edu
Avekcen~ LPEhNXNH http://ernie.bgsu.edu/~agretch
Russian Aviation Page http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAP.html
"Sed quando submoventa erit ignorantia"
_____________________ _________________________________________
Jim Herring
If one of your arms (or hands) is injured and not usable can you eject by
pulling on only one handle?
Jim
Mary Shafer
A> On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Mary Shafer wrote:
> The F-15 can go Mach 2.4 or so, so you need a new guess. I worked on
A> Isn't its Mach number limited by the acryllic canopy? From whst I
A> have heard this limits F-15 to M<2.0
I pulled the number off the flight envelope set out in the Dash 1.
The Air Force tells its pilots they can go 2.4 in the F-15 (in certain
configurations, possibly clean), so I'm sure they can do it. If there
were a limit, the Dash 1 would have it, as it does for certain stores.
Ron Lowe
<b...@si1.dod.gov.au> writes
>> Previous query snipped <<
>
>>and the canopy had two squiggly lines where the canopy had been
>>grooved or inlaid with metal wire or something to assist the canopy
>>breakage (look for these lines on an F-4 as well?).
>> Brendan's other bit snipped <<
Those 2 squiggly lines are Minature Detonating Cord (MDC). It is a
shaped charge secured to the inside of the canopy with a strong
adhesive. When ejection is initiated the first inch or so of seat movement
fires the charge which punches a hole through the canopy large enough
to give the seat, (and occupant), a clear path.
I think MDC is fitted to most modern a/c. I can't speak for American a/c
but UK a/c, (Tornado, Hawk, Harrier) all have MDC.
To return to the point of the upper handle.
Mary Shafer is quite correct in that the upper handle, (and the headbox
containing the drogue chute), did obscure vision.
The RAF found that on early seats a tall Pilot / Nav would have extreme
difficulty in locating the upper handle if he was very tall. On one a/c,
(Javelin), there was a limit based on height when sitting.
The lower handle is easier to operate.
I think those 3 reasons hastened the demise of the upper handle.
--
Ron Lowe (ar...@we118can.demon.co.uk)
"Flight Safety is no accident".
Gary Madore
On the seats I'm familiar with, only the right handle initiates ejection.
The left is for symmetry/safety (keeps your arms out of the way).
BTW, some seats only have one handle: a "D-ring" between your thighs.
Cheers!
Gary Madore
Andy D
wrote:
>The Mirage III Fighter had such a setup - it was a 'through the canopy' seat
>ie. the canopy didn't jettison, the seat just fired through the perspex. The
>seat had metal canopy breakers high-up on the back-rail and the canopy had two
>squiggly lines where the canopy had been grooved or inlaid with metal wire or
>something to assist the canopy breakage (look for these lines on an F-4 as
>well?).
I thought those 'lines' were actually a small explosive charge
embedded into the perspex? I understand that this blows when the
pilot ejects.
--
an...@troas.demon.co.uk
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Mary Shafer
J> Can you eject if you have only one arm functioning?
Sure--in fact one-handed ejections aren't that uncommon. If the
aircraft is not stable, the pilot may have to be holding onto the
stick to keep the plane in a good attitude for ejecting.
How to do this is described in the Dash 1 and the NATOPS manual.
J> If one of your arms (or hands) is injured and not usable can you
J> eject by pulling on only one handle?
It's never necessary to pull more than one handle; the question is
really whether two hands are necessary or if one will surfice. The
answer is, of course, that one hand will work quite nicely.
Actually, it's more common to have an arm injured during the ejection,
a flail injury due to the arm moving when the seat comes out of the
plane into the moving air.
If you have an unusable arm, you have to do some things differently,
like releasing the seat pan before landing and releasing the parachute
after landing. Again, the Dash 1 and NATOPS manuals detail the best
way to do these.
If you have both arms injured, you just don't worry about it.
(I've thought about this a lot since I'm flying VISTA this week. I
think that I'm very likely to get a flail injury since I don't have
much upper-body strength. I've been studying the one-handed bits
pretty carefully.)
J.D. Baldwin
>I've seen this story in a movie, but I've always thought that ejection
>seats were a "one-out all-out" affair with the rear seat firing
>slightly before the forward seat regardless of who initiated the
>ejection. Can anyone name an aircraft where a navigator/WSO ejection
>doesn't also punch out the pilot?
A-6:
Pilot and B/N's seats are separate, no way whatsoever to fire one
from the other (yes, crewmen have died because of this stupid
flaw).
F-14/TA-4/T-2/F-18 (2-seat variants):
Front seat *always* fires rear seat. Rear seat may or may not
fire front seat, depending on position of command eject handle.
S-3 (two front seats, two rear seats):
Rear seats fire only themselves, never anyone else (not even the
other rear seat). Each front seat has a *separate* command eject
handle whose position determines whether that seat will fire all
others or only itself.
EA-6B:
Not sure, but I think this is just like the S-3.
Sound complicated? That's why individual squadrons have SOP's
established dictating when the handle(s) is (are) in what position(s).
That way, everyone is clear at all times what the command-eject
situation is, depending on the phase of flight, so no one has to
keep track mentally of where the handles are.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kev Bovis
> Can anyone name an aircraft where a navigator/WSO ejection doesn't
> also punch out the pilot?
>
>Brendan Searle
>b...@si1.dod.gov.au
>=======================
>
British F4 and Buccaneer
1989 (?) RAF Phantom left the runway on takeoff at Lyneham and headed
off towards a row of C-130's the Nav didn't think that the Pilot would
get it off the ground, so he decided to eject and leave the Pilot to get
on with it. Despite the distraction of one of Martin-Baker's finest
going off 3 feet behind him, he managed to get the a/c airborne do a
circuit and land.
Also in the early 80's I had a look at a Buccaneer that was in for
repair after the Nav had left the a/c. The rear cockpit was a mess and
gave the Electricians hours of fun replacing all the looms.
Hence the RAF description of back-seaters as self-propelled ballast.
--
Kev Bovis
Kevin Barry
> (I've thought about this a lot since I'm flying VISTA this week. I
> think that I'm very likely to get a flail injury since I don't have
> much upper-body strength. I've been studying the one-handed bits
> pretty carefully.)
Mary,
Could you clue me in on what 'flying VISTA' is ?? Whatever it is, good
luck and I hope you don't have to eject ...
Kevin Barry
keb...@gramercy.ios.com
Alexei Gretchikhine
> Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Mary Shafer wrote:
> >> The F-15 can go Mach 2.4 or so, so you need a new guess. I worked on
>
> >Isn't its Mach number limited by the acryllic canopy? From whst I have
> >heard this limits F-15 to M<2.0
>
> Not true.
>
I would like to desagree. According to my sources F-15 is limited to M 1.78
Owen Smith
>
> In article <Do39D...@si1.dod.gov.au>, Brendan Searle
> <b...@si1.dod.gov.au> writes
> >
> >>and the canopy had two squiggly lines where the canopy had been
> >>grooved or inlaid with metal wire or something to assist the canopy
> >>breakage (look for these lines on an F-4 as well?).
>
>
> Those 2 squiggly lines are Minature Detonating Cord (MDC). It is a
> shaped charge secured to the inside of the canopy with a strong
> adhesive. When ejection is initiated the first inch or so of seat movement
> fires the charge which punches a hole through the canopy large enough
> to give the seat, (and occupant), a clear path.
> I think MDC is fitted to most modern a/c. I can't speak for American a/c
> but UK a/c, (Tornado, Hawk, Harrier) all have MDC.
> To return to the point of the upper handle.
> Mary Shafer is quite correct in that the upper handle, (and the headbox
> containing the drogue chute), did obscure vision.
> The RAF found that on early seats a tall Pilot / Nav would have extreme
> difficulty in locating the upper handle if he was very tall. On one a/c,
> (Javelin), there was a limit based on height when sitting.
> The lower handle is easier to operate.
> I think those 3 reasons hastened the demise of the upper handle.
> --
> Ron Lowe (ar...@we118can.demon.co.uk)
> "Flight Safety is no accident".
during an ejection, and sliding canopies (Harrier) have the charges in
the canopy to facilitate shattering the canopy perspex.
Owen Smith.
Mary Shafer
K> Mary Shafer wrote:
> (I've thought about this a lot since I'm flying VISTA this week. I
> think that I'm very likely to get a flail injury since I don't have
> much upper-body strength. I've been studying the one-handed bits
> pretty carefully.)
K> Could you clue me in on what 'flying VISTA' is ?? Whatever it is,
K> good luck and I hope you don't have to eject ...
The VISTA is the Variable-stability In-flight Simulation Training
Aircraft, a heavily modified F-16D with a snappy little tunnel running
down the spine, stuffed full of computers and other electronic bits.
It belongs to the USAF and is maintained and operated by Calspan,
who's been doing in-flight simulation and handling qualities research,
among other things, forever. In my opinion, there's no one better at
this than Calspan, although they may well have their equals. Dryden
has been doing handling qualities work with them since the '50s and we
had them build our in-flight simulator, the GPAS, or General Purpose
Airborne Simulator, which was a modified Jetstar. (That was the first
airplane I ever worked on, in the summer after my freshman year at
college, as a summer hire at Dryden.)
This plane is used for training (mostly at the two US military Test
Pilot Schools) and handling qualities research. It's the replacement
for the NT-33 that was the real workhorse of HQ research for years.
Like the NT-33 and the other variable-stability aircraft I know of,
the evaluation or student pilot is in the front seat and the safety
pilot sits in the back seat. The safety pilot controls the variable
stability system, setting up the various aircraft configurations and
control systems. There are a lot of safety trips to give the safety
pilot control and he can also just take the plane away if the
evaluation pilot is in trouble with a bad configuration.
It also had heavy-duty landing gear, since offset touch-and-goes are a
very commonly used handling qualities task and if they're assessing a
bad configuration, the sink rate can be quite high at touchdown.
Although the safety pilot will usually take control, sometimes the
landing kind of falls apart right at the end with a bad configuration.
The Air Force has been making demonstration flights available to
various potential customers, which Dryden is. I arranged for us to
get three flights, for our Chief Pilot (Rogers), our other HQ pilot
(Fast Eddie), and the HQ engineer who manages all our in-flight
simulation programs (me).
We were all supposed to fly in August, but Rogers had a real schedule
conflict and I had an inner-ear infection, so only Fast Eddie got his
flight. Now my turn has come around, as we only had enough money for
the flights, but no money to go to Calspan in Buffalo (where the plane
lives) or to pay to ferry it out here just for us, so we can only fly
when the plane is already at Edwards for the USAF Test Pilot School.
I've flown the NT-33, as well as the two variable-stability Learjets
that Calspan owns. I've also ridden in a TF-104G and an F-4E. I seem
to average one flight per fighter-ish airplane every five years or so,
which seems to me to be pretty good for a regular person like me.
It's hard to imagine anyone less like a rated pilot, after all. (See
my home page for elucidation.)
I'll report all to r.a.m, I promise, and add it to my Web site.
Takeoff is 1000 Friday.
Mary Shafer
C> sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>(I've thought about this a lot since I'm flying VISTA this week. I
>think that I'm very likely to get a flail injury since I don't have
>much upper-body strength. I've been studying the one-handed bits
>pretty carefully.) --
C> Hey Mary...I hope you are having a great time flying VISTA.......Wish
C> I could have 2nd seated on it before we delivered it for
C> MATV......Lots of wild flying on that engine....
That MATV was a pretty slick project. The funny part about the VISTA
getting vectored thrust is that they're not using the same engine,
etc, as the MATV did. (I don't remember what the MATV had or what
the VISTA is getting, though.)
Rick Zwiebel
When stowed in the normal (vertical) position, the RIO ejects
separately if he initiates ejection. The position of the valve was
an item to be decided upon prior to flight.
Once experienced, we Navy RIO's always flew with it in the Command
(horizontal) position, so if we deemed it necessary to leave, the
front seat was going momentarily thereafter. Sometimes a pilot might
object, but most like me insisted that we also have command.
Not an object of discussion in the front seat. If he pulled the
plug, we RIO's always went 3/4 second ahead of him. It was a nice
option for pilots with student RIO's, and non-RIO's in the back seat,
but once crewed together in a squadron, I for one insisted that any
pilot trust my judgement too.
Zwib@msn
craig t. cantwell
a bunch snipped here....
>The Mirage III Fighter had such a setup - it was a 'through the canopy' seat
>ie. the canopy didn't jettison, the seat just fired through the perspex. The
>seat had metal canopy breakers high-up on the back-rail and the canopy had two
>squiggly lines where the canopy had been grooved or inlaid with metal wire or
>something to assist the canopy breakage (look for these lines on an F-4 as
>well?).
The "lines" you see are actually a piece of detonation cord imbedded
in between the layers of the canopy. When the seat is activated, a
brief, but intense, electrical charge is applied to the det cord and
it fires, causing the canopy to split and become easier to break
through.
more snipped here....
but I've always thought that ejection seats were a
>"one-out all-out" affair with the rear seat firing slightly before the
>forward seat
>regardless of who initiated the ejection. Can anyone name an aircraft where
>a
>navigator/WSO ejection doesn't also punch out the pilot?
Actually, all sircraft with multiple ejection seats have the option
for one seat to activate all others onboard the aircraft. It is known
as Command Eject. One seat is the designated "Command" seat, and if
the system is activated, when the "Command" seat is initiated, it also
starts a sequence to fire all the other seats. I belive that the only
aircraft that does not have this capability ( Western nations) is the
B-52. Some of the BUFF guys here in the group could answer that
question though..
Craig
craig t. cantwell
>(I've thought about this a lot since I'm flying VISTA this week. I
>think that I'm very likely to get a flail injury since I don't have
>much upper-body strength. I've been studying the one-handed bits
>pretty carefully.)
>--
Hey Mary...I hope you are having a great time flying VISTA.......Wish
I could have 2nd seated on it before we delivered it for
MATV......Lots of wild flying on that engine....
Craig
Stephen M. Ryan
***
: Actually, all sircraft with multiple ejection seats have the option
: for one seat to activate all others onboard the aircraft. It is known
: as Command Eject. One seat is the designated "Command" seat, and if
: the system is activated, when the "Command" seat is initiated, it also
: starts a sequence to fire all the other seats. I belive that the only
: aircraft that does not have this capability ( Western nations) is the
: B-52. Some of the BUFF guys here in the group could answer that
: question though..
You're right--all the seats on the BUFF are completely independent. This
makes for the possibility of collision between pilot/gunner and
copilot/EWO if they happen to eject at the wrong instant. Bailout order
is supposed to be nav, gunner, ewo, radar nav, copilot, pilot (if I
remember correctly) but in bad situation nobody will be waiting for the
formalities. The B-52 seat is a Weber-type seat (no rocket-just a big
charge) similar to the one used on the F-102, but was improved in the
early 70s for faster response time and better man-seat separation. From
the time trigger is pulled until the chute is open is approx. 3 seconds.
The charge is about 17 instantaneous Gs, because it doesn't have the
relatively gentle acceleration of the rocket-fired seats. Parameters for
upper seats--90 knots airspeed (for hatch separation) and 0 feet
altitude. Lower (downward firing) seats--90 knots, 250 feet altitude.
All parameters assume level flight, not diving or descending.
Steve Ryan
Lane Smith
>> >Isn't its Mach number limited by the acryllic canopy? From whst I have
>> >heard this limits F-15 to M<2.0
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>I would like to desagree. According to my sources F-15 is limited to M 1.78
I fly the F-15. There is no such limit.
Anthony DeBoer
>Actually, it's more common to have an arm injured during the ejection,
>a flail injury due to the arm moving when the seat comes out of the
>plane into the moving air.
Would it help at all if the tail end of the handle was anchored under the
seat, such that after initiating eject you're still holding onto
something solid? That might still leave your elbows to flap around, and
might under extreme conditions even endanger fingers, but it might be an
idea. One supposes they must have thought of it and there's a reason for
not doing it that way (in addition to not wanting to be holding onto the
seat when it separates and your chute opens).
--
Anthony DeBoer http://www.onramp.ca/~adb/
a...@herboid.reptiles.org (here)
a...@geac.com (work) #include "std.disclaimer"
Jason Passmore
> My guess for no face curtain handles is that the newer wimpy jets (F-15
> 16-18) aren't Mach 2+ like the F-4 or F-14.
Can't speak for the -18, but the F-15 doesn't go Mach 2+? Maybe you
should do a little research first.
--
Jason Passmore
Mountain Home AFB
Jim Herring
I'll save Al the trouble. The nearest reference I have is from Aviation
Week's Source Book. Page 32-33.
F-15A/B/C/D/E M2.5 class
F/A-18A/B/C/D M1.7+
I'll admit that technical specs don't always equate to operational specs.
Heck, that's what a lot of the discussion in this group are about.
If your experience is that the F-15 doesn't go M2+, that may be do to
flight retrictions and not on airframe or powerplant abilities.
Jim
Jason Passmore
> I've always thought that ejection seats were a
> "one-out all-out" affair with the rear seat firing slightly before the
> forward seat
> regardless of who initiated the ejection. Can anyone name an aircraft where
> a
> navigator/WSO ejection doesn't also punch out the pilot?
>
In F-15 B,D,E models the rear seat has a control to select if both go or
just the front seat. This was in the B and D models so the instructor in
the rear seat could eject the less experienced student in training and try
to land the jet himself.
Bob Peetz
: Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: : Neither the 18 nor the 16 have the face curtain, to the best of my
: : knowledge. Also, 15s don't have it either, but the 14 does, I think,
The F-15, F-16, and the B-1 all use the same ejection seat, an ACES II.
Can't remember if the F-18 does. The F-14 uses a good old Martin-Baker.
: My guess for no face curtain handles is that the newer wimpy jets (F-15
: 16-18) aren't Mach 2+ like the F-4 or F-14.
Actually it is because the face curtain handles are difficult, if not
impossible, to reach under a G-load.
--
Visit Sea`N'Air at:
http://www.telepath.com/people/seanair
vip...@azstarnet.com
>
> Albert Sykes wrote:
>
> > 16-18) aren't Mach 2+ like the F-4 or F-14.
Not sure about the 18 or 15, but the F-16 is just barely mach 2 capable.
As for ejecting at mach 2, face curtain or not, you will most likely die
from the wind blast. Even a Mach 1 ejection will involve serious
injuries. The best way out is to slow down before you get out.
Brian Varine
> Week's Source Book. Page 32-33.
>
> F-15A/B/C/D/E M2.5 class
> F/A-18A/B/C/D M1.7+
>
> I'll admit that technical specs don't always equate to operational specs.
> Heck, that's what a lot of the discussion in this group are about.
>
> If your experience is that the F-15 doesn't go M2+, that may be do to
> flight retrictions and not on airframe or powerplant abilities.
Can the F-15E do M2+? I would think all that added stuff would really
slow it down. Sure you can take the LANTIRN off but wouldn't the FAST
packs increase drag?
Also, can LANTIRN planes exceed M1? I had heard some time ago that they
were restricted to under Mach 1 until something got fixed.
Albert Sykes
releases the D-handle, whether you've still got a hold on it or not.
Tallyho !
Alpha (fading memory) Kilo
Lane Smith
>In F-15 B,D,E models the rear seat has a control to select if both go or
>just the front seat. This was in the B and D models so the instructor in
>the rear seat could eject the less experienced student in training and try
>to land the jet himself.
>--
>Jason Passmore
>Mountain Home AFB
Not a chance. There is a "solo" position on the handle. That
position is for use when there is no one occupying the back seat.
Having the switch in "solo" means the front seat ejection sequence
starts immediately upon raising the handles. If it is not in 'solo',
then the front seat sequence is delayed a short period to allow the
rear seat to go first.
That is the only purpose for the 'solo' position. The rear seater
cannot eject the front seater without ejecting himself as well.
By the way, the other positions (besides 'solo') on the switch allow
the back seater to eject both cockpits or to eject just the rear
cockpit.
Mary Shafer
D> Yes! To the best of my knowledge, every US fighter jet aircraft
D> (currently flying) has at least two ways (handles) to eject
D> oneself... Any of them are as effective :-) as any other.....for
D> instance, in the hornet... just pull the d-ring between your
D> knees...with any hand... and you're going for a "mr. toad's wild
D> ride". :-) -d
The F-16 ACES II seat has only one handle to pull, in front of the
seat, in the center. You can pull it with either one hand or two. I
think that it takes around 40 lb of pull. This seat will not eject if
the canopy doesn't separate, by the way.
The F-15 ACES II seat has two handles, one on each front corner of the
seat. Either one takes about 45 lb pull. This seat won't fire if the
canopy doesn't separate.
In both of the above cases, I've sat in an actual seat and I've read
the Dash 1.
The F-18 (MJU-3, MJU-7, and NACES equipped) also has a single handle,
in the center front of the seat. This seat has leg restraints, by the
way. This seat has canopy breakers, so it can eject without having
the canopy separate. I've seen the seats and I just checked in the
NATOPS manual.
I don't know about the F-14, F-111, or F-117.
The F-4E had a central handle and a face curtin. The seat would not
eject if the canopy didn't separate. I've flown in this one and gone
to one-timer egress training for it.
So, two out of the three that we fly here at Dryden have only one
handle. The oldest aircraft has two.
I'd think they were worried about a center stick and a center handle
in the F-15, except for all the F-4 experience. I've never heard of
any sort of stick/ejection handle interference in the F-4. And they
put them into the F-18, after all. So it must have been some other
reason, I guess.
Gary Madore
aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca says...
>If the canopy doesn't fire off during the ejection sequence, is the
>canopy weak enough to be broken by the pilot's helmet (without breaking
>his neck)? (If an aircraft type is needed to answer this question, how
>about the F-14? The A-6?)
The seat is designed so that your headrest punches through the canopy if
necessary, not your melon.
Urban Fredriksson
>Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> wrote:
>>I would like to desagree. According to my sources F-15 is limited to M 1.78
>I fly the F-15. There is no such limit.
What is the limit? And what factor puts the limit there?
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se
Ferrets; Aviation; Railways; Rune stones: http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/
Docendo discimus
Doug Brindle
where a navigator/WSO ejection doesn't also punch out the pilot?
The driver and nfo in the A-6 cannot punch each other out.
Not a good thing........
Marc de Vries
>b...@telepath.com (Bob Peetz) wrote:
>>Simon Lam (aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
>
>>All modern day aircraft are designed for the canopy to be jettisoned as
>>part of the ejection sequence. If for any reason the canopy fails to exit
>>the aircraft, then the seats are designed to break through the canopy
>>when they hit them.
>
>I thought that on most British jets, like the Tornado and the Harrier, the
>canopy is destroyed by a small explosive charge first (the lines you see
>attached to the canopy, above the pilots head) and not thrown off.
>And isn't it standard for the F-16 to shoot through the canopy, and not
>first to try to throw it off?
>
>Anthony.
>
Correct. Although in the case of the F16 the canopy isn't chattered by those
"lines" in the top of the canopy but by charges in the "bottom". Where the
cockpit it connected to the rest of the plane. Sorry for this weird sentence
but I couldn't think of a better translation.
Typically all canopies that must be able to withstand a bird strike are too
thick for a ejection seat to break through. You either have to jettison
the canopy first (with takes a bit longer and prob is troublesome in negative
G situations) or explode the canopy first and then shoot through it.
Marc
Marc
Anthony de Vries
vip...@azstarnet.com
> Correct. Although in the case of the F16 the canopy isn't chattered by those
> "lines" in the top of the canopy but by charges in the "bottom". Where the
> cockpit it connected to the rest of the plane.
The explosive charges at the bottom of the canopy are to jettison it, not
shatter it. You cannot eject out of an F-16 without the canopy departing
the aircraft.
vip...@azstarnet.com
> first to try to throw it off?
>
> Anthony.
The ACES II in the F-16 will not fire if the canopy doesn't seperate
first. There is a cable attached to the canopy that actually fires the
rocket motor in the seat. The D-ring just starts the sequence.
Therefore if your canpy doesn't leave the jet, you don't.
pat...@mail.atcon.com
In a dual F-18 the front seat fires both seats unless a collar is
installed on the rear seat selector. If the collar is not
installed the rear seat selector is in one of two postions. The rear
seat can go by itself or take the front seat with him. The front
seat has no control, only the rear seat. By installing the collar
so the rear seat does not fire it cuts 0.4 seconds off the departure
time for the front seat. This is install if there is no
backseater.
Patrick Usherwood
Martin Sagara
: All modern day aircraft are designed for the canopy to be jettisoned as
: part of the ejection sequence. If for any reason the canopy fails to exit
: the aircraft, then the seats are designed to break through the canopy
I believe that the nominal ejection mode for the A-6 is through
the canopy. This has something to do with the questionable
reliability of the canopy separating in an emergency (or so I
was told by an A-6 driver). I also recall reading a post on
r.a.m. a few months ago stating that the Martin-Baker seats in
the F-4 COULD NOT break the canopy and successful canopy jettison
was required in order to use the seats. My $0.02 ;^)
Martin Sagara "Never before have so many,
Research Associate understood so little,
Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum about so much"
Hangar No. 1, Old Lowry AFB
Denver, Colorado USA James Burke speaking about
(303) 360-5360 technology in "Connections"
http://www.abwam.com/air&space
msa...@rmii.com
Stephen M. Ryan
The B-52 requires the hatch to leave before the seat will fire--obviously
no one will punch through an aluminum escape hatch (or at least be able
to tell about it).
The BUFF seat uses a two-step "rotate handle, pull trigger" process,
except for the downward seats, which have a D-ring.
I assume the B-1B also requires the hatch to leave before the seat fires.
Steve Ryan
Bob Peetz
: Pardon my ignorance, but what's a face curtain?
On seats with a face curtain, usually at the top of the headrest are two
handles. A pilot reaches up and grabs these handles and pulls downward
when he has to ejsect. The ejection sequence is then started. Also
attatched to these handles is a piece of heavy cloth. As the handles are
pulled down the cloth; known as a face curtain; cover the pilot's face.
It gives him protection from the wind blast.
: If the canopy doesn't fire off during the ejection sequence, is the
: canopy weak enough to be broken by the pilot's helmet (without breaking
: his neck)? (If an aircraft type is needed to answer this question, how
: about the F-14? The A-6?)
All modern day aircraft are designed for the canopy to be jettisoned as
part of the ejection sequence. If for any reason the canopy fails to exit
the aircraft, then the seats are designed to break through the canopy
when they hit them. The pilots helmet doesn't do it. On the Martin Baker
seats an actual canopy piercer is mounted on top of the seat. Since the
ACES II is at a slight angle, the canopy piercing is done by the frame of
the seat.
: Another question: Does the Intruder also use a Martin-Baker seat?
Yep
: Yet another question: What's better? Aces II or M-B seats?
For reliability they are both about equal. The ACES is a real high tech
piece of equipment. The M-B's are an elegant piece of English design that
work real well. They are both a good piece of equipment to have your butt
strapped to.
student
Hmm I really thought it chattered to canopy from the bottom. Maybe I'm mistaken
and it is done this way with another plane.
Marc
Owen Smith
>
> Bob Peetz (b...@telepath.com) wrote:
> : All modern day aircraft are designed for the canopy to be jettisoned as
> : part of the ejection sequence. If for any reason the canopy fails to exit
> : the aircraft, then the seats are designed to break through the canopy
> : when they hit them. The pilots helmet doesn't do it. On the Martin Baker
>
> the canopy. This has something to do with the questionable
> reliability of the canopy separating in an emergency (or so I
> was told by an A-6 driver). I also recall reading a post on
> r.a.m. a few months ago stating that the Martin-Baker seats in
> the F-4 COULD NOT break the canopy and successful canopy jettison
> was required in order to use the seats. My $0.02 ;^)
>
> Martin Sagara "Never before have so many,
> Research Associate understood so little,
> Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum about so much"
> Hangar No. 1, Old Lowry AFB
> Denver, Colorado USA James Burke speaking about
> (303) 360-5360 technology in "Connections"
> http://www.abwam.com/air&space
> msa...@rmii.com
The Harrier canopy is not ejected, there is an explosive cord which
shatters the canopy before the seat fires. I don't know of any aircraft
that has a sliding canopy that is jettisoned during an ejection.
Owen Smith
Lane Smith
>The F-15 ACES II seat has two handles, one on each front corner of the
>seat. Either one takes about 45 lb pull. This seat won't fire if the
>canopy doesn't separate.
The ACES II in the F-15 will fire if the canopy does not separate.
The canopy breaker will (hopefully) clear your way through the canopy.
The ejection seat section in chapter one of the -1 covers the system.
Mary Shafer
B> All modern day aircraft are designed for the canopy to be
B> jettisoned as part of the ejection sequence. If for any reason the
B> canopy fails to exit the aircraft, then the seats are designed to
B> break through the canopy when they hit them. The pilots helmet
B> doesn't do it. On the Martin Baker seats an actual canopy piercer
B> is mounted on top of the seat. Since the ACES II is at a slight
B> angle, the canopy piercing is done by the frame of the seat.
Not true at all. The F-16 and F-15 ACES II seats will not fire until
the canopy is gone. If it doesn't jettison automatically when the
seat handle(s) is pulled, then the next step is to pull the emergency
jettison handle (if this works, the seat ejects _immediately_, making
an arm injury likely in the F-16). If that doesn't work, then unlatch
the canopy switch guard/latch and put the canopy switch into the up
position.
The same was true of the F-4, by the way. I saw a man die because
someone had stuck down the blade switch that tells the seat that the
canopy has been jettisoned, so his seat never fired. His backseater
got out OK (broken leg) but he didn't, even though his seat could have
gone.
All seats are at a slight angle--try sitting in something with a
vertical back and you'll see why. I'd say the F-15 ACES II seat is
about ten degrees from the vertical, as is the F-18 (Martin-Baker?
Not ACES II, at any rate) seat. The F-16 ACES II seat is, of course,
about thirty degrees from the vertical. Last week I sat in two
different F-16s (one D, one XL), one F-15 training seat, and one F-18
training seat.
(Normally I don't know this much about ejection seats and canopies,
but Life Support made me learn. It should wear off in a few weeks,
though I do have enough manuals that I can actually look it up. I've
got to look the SR-71 up, I know.)
craig t. cantwell
>Marc
The F-16 uses a set of pyro charges to raise the canopy and frame into
the airstream for an ejection. The charges are strong enough to raise
the canopy about 25 feet at zero-zero conditions. BTW, the airflow
over the radome in normal flight is strong enough that as little as
1/2 mismatch in the canopy frame and fuselage can cause loss of the
canopy.
Craig
Bob Peetz
: I thought that on most British jets, like the Tornado and the Harrier, the
: canopy is destroyed by a small explosive charge first (the lines you see
: attached to the canopy, above the pilots head) and not thrown off.
Various methods are used to get that hard piece of transparent material
out of the way, the A-1 SPAD used the same type of explosive on the
canopy, but the ejection was a rocket attached to a rope which yanked the
pilot out of the plane.
: And isn't it standard for the F-16 to shoot through the canopy, and not
: first to try to throw it off?
Nope, there are two small rockets that are located in the forward corner
on each side where the canopy meets the rails. Somebody else mentioned
that they didn't think the seat would go unless the canopy goes. I know
there is some cables connected to the seat and canopy that don't allow
the ejection sequence to continue until the canopy is jettisoned, but I
can't remember if there is an override. If there is a problem and the
pilot has time, he can always unlock and open the canopy and let the
windstream take it off.
Bob Peetz
: Can anyone name an aircraft
: where a navigator/WSO ejection doesn't also punch out the pilot?
In the F-4, there is a lever that can be rotated so only the GIB goes.
--
Mary Shafer
L> sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>The F-15 ACES II seat has two handles, one on each front corner of
>the seat. Either one takes about 45 lb pull. This seat won't fire
>if the canopy doesn't separate.
L> The ACES II in the F-15 will fire if the canopy does not separate.
L> The canopy breaker will (hopefully) clear your way through the
L> canopy. The ejection seat section in chapter one of the -1 covers
L> the system.
You're right, my mistake. I was coming down the taxiway today and an
F-15 came off a ramp, crossed in front of me, and went toward the
runway. I could definitely see the cutters on both the front and back
seats. (I wonder what the crew thought of my looking so intently;
they both waved, probably saying "Who is that woman and why is she
looking at us like that?" to each other.)
I checked the -1, too, and my rather ancient copy refers to some seat
TOs, but I can't tell if they provided a backup ejection mode or the
canopy cutters or both.
This makes the ACES II seat look a little inconsistant, with cutters
on the F-15 but not on the F-16.
BRETT ZEITZ
Hello again, Simon!
Thought I'd jump in here when I can answer one of your questions...
SL->Pardon my ignorance, but what's a face curtain?
On seats that have handles overhead (The F-14 DID), when you pull those
handles, you pull down and out from your head, and then your hands end
up about midchest, tight against your chest. When fully pulled, there
is a "curtain" of material that goes from the handles (now on your
chest) to the top of the seat, covering your entire face....hence the
name. It was designed to help ward off the effects of a high speed
ejection on the face. Obviously, if you were under any high positive
"g", you wouldn't be able to reach these handles, so there were lower
handles, too.
SL->If the canopy doesn't fire off during the ejection sequence, is the
SL->canopy weak enough to be broken by the pilot's helmet (without breaking
SL->his neck)? (If an aircraft type is needed to answer this question, how
SL->about the F-14? The A-6?)
In the A-6 you ALWAYS go through the canopy, and that seat was designed
to go through it first. I was initially disqualified from flying the
A-6 because my sitting height was too tall, and I might have had my head
break the canopy instead of the seat. The F-14's canopy MUST come off
for the seat to fire. There was a lanyard on the canpoy that had to be
fully extended to continue the ejection sequence to fire the seats. You
could jettison the canopy without ejecting, but not the other way
around.
-Brett
---
* SLMR 2.1a #0001 * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!
Lane Smith
>they both waved, probably saying "Who is that woman and why is she
>looking at us like that?" to each other.)
Fighter pilots are used to adoration and attention, particularly
from females.
Test pilots and engineers...dunno about them.
>I checked the -1, too, and my rather ancient copy refers to some seat
>TOs, but I can't tell if they provided a backup ejection mode or the
>canopy cutters or both.
It must be an older one -- the jets have all been converted for
several years. The TOs probably refer to both; the update provides
for a backup ejection mode which includes through-the-canopy
capability.
>This makes the ACES II seat look a little inconsistant, with cutters
>on the F-15 but not on the F-16.
There are probably a lot of reasons why (canopy thickness, canopy
material, you name it), but like many updates, the F-15 has it because
someone died due to the lack of it.
Mary Shafer
SL> : The F-16 ACES II seat has only one handle to pull, in front of
SL> the : seat, in the center. You can pull it with either one hand
SL> or two. I : think that it takes around 40 lb of pull. This seat
SL> will not eject if : the canopy doesn't separate, by the way.
SL> So if the canopy doesn't fire, do you plan to just sit there and
SL> shout "SHEEEEEEYT!!!!" or climb out? 8) Seriously, how does one
SL> get out if the canopy pyros don't fire?
Well, you say that as you're trying the backup measures, which are
1. Unlatch the canopy and put the switch in the up position, hoping
the airflow will take the canopy away when it's up about an inch.
2. Pull the canopy jettison handle straight up while pushing one or
the other of the buttons on the end.
3. Unlatch the canopy and turn the emergency canopy opening crank,
hoping that the airflow will take the canopy away when it's up about
an inch. This is probably not a workable action in the two-seaters.
In any case, the ejection sequence will begin immediately after the
canopy goes, so you need to snatch your hand right back if you've done
any of these things, all latches, switches, and handles being on the
left sidewall of the cockpit. Unless you're in the front seat of a
two-seater so that you have a little delay while the backseater goes,
you're probably going to injure your left hand or arm.
SL> BTW, doesn't the 15 also have an ACES II?
Yes. It has canopy cutters and will go right through an unjettisoned
canopy, though.
Chanler Childs
>Doug Brindle (hor...@indy.net) wrote:
>: Can anyone name an aircraft
>: where a navigator/WSO ejection doesn't also punch out the pilot?
>In the F-4, there is a lever that can be rotated so only the GIB goes.
Can someone tell me why that would exist? Why would only one person
want to eject? Other than the possibility of only one person being
home, but shouldn't they be in the front seat?
I thought some fighters could go through the canopy in case of flat
spins, where the canopy stays in close proximity to the ac, like Top
Gun. (no, I'm not using that as a reference, but as an example)
Still like the Flight of the Intruder line, "If you even say as much as
Huh, you'll be talking to yourself becuase I'll be gone."
--
____________________________________________________________________________
|
|Chanler Childs "There is an old Vulcan proverb,
|cch...@iastate.edu Only Nixon could go to China."
|___________________________________________________________________________
Bob Peetz
: I believe that the nominal ejection mode for the A-6 is through
: the canopy. This has something to do with the questionable
: reliability of the canopy separating in an emergency (or so I
: was told by an A-6 driver).
Is this a test? I haven't worked on the A-6 since the late 60's. I
vaguely remember some kind of canopy-go-bye-bye system but I have slept
too many times since then to remember the details.
: I also recall reading a post on
: r.a.m. a few months ago stating that the Martin-Baker seats in
: the F-4 COULD NOT break the canopy and successful canopy jettison
: was required in order to use the seats. My $0.02 ;^)
My F-4 days where a while back too, but I definitely remember the "canopy
piercing" device on top of the seat. My $0.02 on it would be that when
the F-4's Martin-Baker seat was all cartridge fired, that there was no
problem punching the seat through the canopy. After they put the rocket
mods in, it would not surprise me that there wasn't enough oomph to do so.
: http://www.abwam.com/air&space
Will check it out.
Simon Lam
: seat, in the center. You can pull it with either one hand or two. I
: think that it takes around 40 lb of pull. This seat will not eject if
: the canopy doesn't separate, by the way.
So if the canopy doesn't fire, do you plan to just sit there and shout
"SHEEEEEEYT!!!!" or climb out? 8) Seriously, how does one get out if the
canopy pyros don't fire?
BTW, doesn't the 15 also have an ACES II?
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Stephen M. Ryan
: : The F-16 ACES II seat has only one handle to pull, in front of the
: : seat, in the center. You can pull it with either one hand or two. I
: : think that it takes around 40 lb of pull. This seat will not eject if
: : the canopy doesn't separate, by the way.
: So if the canopy doesn't fire, do you plan to just sit there and shout
: "SHEEEEEEYT!!!!" or climb out? 8) Seriously, how does one get out if the
: canopy pyros don't fire?
: BTW, doesn't the 15 also have an ACES II?
The pilot would have to try to open the canopy and hope the airstream
takes it away and allows the seat to fire.
AFAIK, manual bailout is not an option with ACES II because the chute is
packed into a compartment in the seat, up by the headrest, I think. The
pilot attaches his harness (looks like a parachute harness without the
chute on the back) to the parachute risers that hang out of the seat. In
older, non-ACES seats the pilot wears the chute itself, and so can get out
of the seat while wearing the chute. This is why, for example, in the
B-52, if the hatch doesn't go, which means your seat won't fire, you're
supposed to release yourself from the seat harness and try to jump out the
hole left by the navigator's seat.
The F-15 has ACES II, but has a canopy penetrator as a backup.
Steve Ryan
Ed Rasimus
>>In the F-4, there is a lever that can be rotated so only the GIB goes.
>
>Can someone tell me why that would exist? Why would only one person
>want to eject? Other than the possibility of only one person being
>home, but shouldn't they be in the front seat?
>
Initially the F-4 seat provided for command ejection from the front
seat--if the AC ejects, the WSO goes first and then the nose-gunner.
The back seater could eject independently, but would not effect the
front seat.
After some combat incidents, a rotating handle was installed on the
left upper canopy bow of the rear cockpit called the Command Selector
Valve. When stowed, the ejection remained as originally designed. If
rotated, however, the back seater then gained command ejection
authority and could initiate a dual sequenced ejection.
As an AC, I told my back-seaters they could leave the aircraft
whenever they liked, but I would prefer to make my own choice and make
sure I was in proper position before ejection. They were only to touch
that handle at my direct and very specific direction.
Other pilots briefed that the handle was to be rotated for all
takeoffs and landings. Still others flew with their spines and future
mobility totally in the hands of the GIB for the entire flight.
Ryan A. Carter
<snip>
> I also recall reading a post on
> r.a.m. a few months ago stating that the Martin-Baker seats in
> the F-4 COULD NOT break the canopy and successful canopy jettison
> was required in order to use the seats. My $0.02 ;^)
> It seems like I read here a while back that F-4 drivers would
sometimes weld a survival-type knife on the top of the seat to
assist in breaking the canopy in case it didn't jettison before the
seat fired. Now that I think about this, I may have just had a wild
dream that gave me that idea :). If you've heard of this, please
elaborate directly at raca...@fs.cei.net. (I don't get around
these parts too often).
RAC
Frank Bigham
>Doug Brindle (hor...@indy.net) wrote:
>: Can anyone name an aircraft
>: where a navigator/WSO ejection doesn't also punch out the pilot?
>
>
The A-6 did not have command ejection. Each crew member had to eject
himself. Also the A-6 did not jettison the canopy as part of the
sequence. The seats went through it. There were a pair of raised knobs
on top of the seat to break the canopy, we called them the
"headknockers." The seat was designed so the person's head did not come
above the top of the seat. The canopy had a manual jettison capability.
I never saw on go, but my maintenance chief said it would throw the
canopy about 100 feet behind the plane when it went with the jet sitting
still. The preferred method was through the canopy since if the canopy
did not go, the canopy bow would be in the path of the seat.
In contrast the EA-6B does have command ejection. If the pilot ejects
the rest of the crew is ejected first. It is quite a long time from
pilot initation to ejection, a couple of seconds if I remember correctly.
A real long time if you are crashing.
If I remember correctly the F-14 has a couple of safety pins attached to
the canopy such that if the canopy doesn't go the seats don't go.
The T-2C used by the Navy as their primary jet trainer had a command
ejection. It had 2 options; the GIB (usually the IP) could eject you
both while preventing the front seater to eject, or eject individually.
--
+====================================================================+
+ Frank Bigham | /=\ /=\| /| | /== /==|-\ +
+ 5600 Sand Lake Rd. MP 65 | ( )( |< |==|(== (== | ) +
+ Orlando, FL 32819 |=== \=/ \=/| \| | \== \==|_/ +
+ |\ /| /\ |-\=+=---|\ | +
+ | \/ |/__\|_/ | | | \| +
+ | || || \ | ---| | +
+ franklin...@ccmail.orl.mmc.com +
+====================================================================+
David Hyde
> The driver and nfo in the A-6 cannot punch each other out.
> Not a good thing........
A-6's (such as they are) have been or are being refitted with command eject
mods.
As for the option for the GIB (GOR) to leave w/o the pilot:
"You stay here, I'm going for help." :)
Dave 'better late than never' Hyde
na...@windvane.umd.edu
David Hyde
> Fighter pilots are used to adoration and attention, particularly
> from females.
> Test pilots and engineers...dunno about them.
Sort of. Fighter pilots expect adoration and attention from
engineers, but seldom receive it. :)
Dave 'Bet somebody beats me to it' Hyde
na...@windvane.umd.edu
BRETT ZEITZ
GM->>If the canopy doesn't fire off during the ejection sequence, is the
GM->>canopy weak enough to be broken by the pilot's helmet (without breaking
GM->>his neck)? (If an aircraft type is needed to answer this question, how
GM->>about the F-14? The A-6?)
GM->The seat is designed so that your headrest punches through the canopy if
GM->necessary, not your melon.
The A-6, yes. The F-14, no. If the canopy doesn't go, the seats won't
fire. The canopy's on a lanyard, and the lanyard must pull out to
continue the sequencing of the seats.
Brett
---
* SLMR 2.1a #0001 * We all live in a yellow subroutine.
craig t. cantwell
>b...@telepath.com (Bob Peetz) wrote:
>>Simon Lam (aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
>>All modern day aircraft are designed for the canopy to be jettisoned as
>>part of the ejection sequence. If for any reason the canopy fails to exit
>>the aircraft, then the seats are designed to break through the canopy
>>when they hit them.
>I thought that on most British jets, like the Tornado and the Harrier, the
>canopy is destroyed by a small explosive charge first (the lines you see
>attached to the canopy, above the pilots head) and not thrown off.
>And isn't it standard for the F-16 to shoot through the canopy, and not
>first to try to throw it off?
>Anthony.
That would be nice Anthony, except the flight crew will definately
balk at having their faces used to smash through the canopy. If you
will note, the seat in the F-16 reclines at approximately 30 degrees.
That is why there is no canopy breaker system on the -16.
Craig
Chris Schuyler
because historical data indicated it was rarely used. Its expensive
to put dual systems on the seat and it is one more thing to maintain.
The A-6 Intruder contains the M-B SJU-5 (I think).
Some seats have a "canopy breaker" above the headbox. But if your
head goes thru the canopy first, send flowers.
Peter Vucic
power over the skys.
The fact is, people saying that the F15 can't do 2+++ are
giving me the shits.
Let me say two words for all to spontaneously bleeeeed
"Streak Eagle".
Hight to altitude records, by the number. Need I continue?
Did I hear you say, what of the F4 and F14, well they can't
do it misterrrr!
So lets not dispute the F15 ability for machage.
C U
--
When the Bomb drops we
all drink from the Toilet.
Martin Herker
>This makes the ACES II seat look a little inconsistant, with
>cutters on the F-15 but not on the F-16.
--
>Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
Joining this discussion in the middle. Just a thought - with the seat
in the F-16 reclined 30 degrees could the pilot be leading with his head
and not the seat when ejected through the canopy? Putting a canopy
cutter up there would block vision and impair flight safety.
I've seen seats with a swing up canopy cutter (Escapac I-C2 in the
A-7D). But even stowed, they block lateral vision.
just my .02
MAH
Martin Herker
science instructor
North Tama High School
Traer, IA, USA 50675
Mary Shafer
N> Lane Smith (st...@fwb.gulf.net) wrote:
> Fighter pilots are used to adoration and attention, particularly
> from females.
> Test pilots and engineers...dunno about them.
N> Sort of. Fighter pilots expect adoration and attention from
N> engineers, but seldom receive it. :)
Sarcasm, argumentation, nitpicking, and backseat flying are, however,
readily offered.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
Mary Shafer
M> --------snip
>This makes the ACES II seat look a little inconsistant, with
>cutters on the F-15 but not on the F-16.
M> --
M> Joining this discussion in the middle. Just a thought - with the
M> seat in the F-16 reclined 30 degrees could the pilot be leading
M> with his head and not the seat when ejected through the canopy?
M> Putting a canopy cutter up there would block vision and impair
M> flight safety.
The seat goes up the rails at the same thirty-degree angle that the
seat is at, so the top of the seat would reach the canopy before the
crew's head if the seat would actually fire.
I never found the seat back to block any of my view, even when I was
twisting around looking for traffic.
An interesting problem that I had with the F-16 seat was its height
adjustment. It raises and lowers at the same angle, so if you want to
be higher, you're also further back and vice versa. I'm short
(5'3-1/2") so I wanted to raise the seat. However, because I'm short,
I have short arms, so if I got myself way up there, I couldn't reach
the center stick, I had to strain for the side stick, and I couldn't
easily get to all the buttons I had to push to engage the
variable-stability system. I fiddled around with it for a while and
finally came up with a compromise, though. The visibility in the
plane is so good that sitting a little lower isn't a lot worse, unlike
some of the backseats I've flown in.
David Hyde
> N> Sort of. Fighter pilots expect adoration and attention from
> N> engineers, but seldom receive it. :)
> Sarcasm, argumentation, nitpicking, and backseat flying are, however,
> readily offered.
and frequently, loudly, and skillfully, I might add.
Dave Hyde
na...@windvane.umd.edu
Bob Peetz
: An interesting problem that I had with the F-16 seat was its height
<SNIP>
: I have short arms, so if I got myself way up there, I couldn't reach
: the center stick, I had to strain for the side stick, and I couldn't
Center Stick????
Jason Passmore
> Joining this discussion in the middle. Just a thought - with the seat
> in the F-16 reclined 30 degrees could the pilot be leading with his head
> and not the seat when ejected through the canopy?
No. Even though the seat is reclined, the guide rail the seat follows upon ejection,
is also inclined. So when a pilot ejects, they eject out at the same angle as the seat
versus a 90 degree angle to the jet.
--
Jason Passmore
Mountain Home AFB
Kirk D. Ransom
>Martin Sagara (msa...@rainbow.rmii.com) wrote:
>: I believe that the nominal ejection mode for the A-6 is through
>: the canopy. This has something to do with the questionable
>: reliability of the canopy separating in an emergency (or so I
>: was told by an A-6 driver).
>
>Is this a test? I haven't worked on the A-6 since the late 60's. I
>vaguely remember some kind of canopy-go-bye-bye system but I have slept
>
>piercing" device on top of the seat. My $0.02 on it would be that when
>the F-4's Martin-Baker seat was all cartridge fired, that there was no
>problem punching the seat through the canopy. After they put the rocket
>mods in, it would not surprise me that there wasn't enough oomph to do so.
>
>
In my F-4 days (1964- 1973) the seat did not punch through the seat. There
was no 'canopy breaker' on the seat.
And the first F-4's did not have a rocket pack on the bottom of the seat. The
three charges in the seat catapult were equal to 10 guage shot gun charges. As
the first one fired and extended the first 21" section of the catapult telescope, the
the seat would accelerate through the seat cusion and slam against the pilots butt
with such force that almost all ejections resulted in a spinal compression and 90
days DNIF. After the rocket was installed the charges were changed to equal 12
guage shotgun charges. This eliminated the spinal compressions. Oh, yes, the
cusion was reduced from about an inch to less then half an inch. On high flights
your butt went num in 3 hours.
There was an "interlock block" on the seat that was connected to the canopy by
an 8" cable. The interlock block" was a "safety" - there was no way the seat
could fire until it was removed and it could only be removed by the canopy leaving
the aircraft.. (or unless a back seater left a camera loose on the console and it
moved around durning negative g's so that it was lodged on top of the seat. Then
during normal canopy opening on the ramp it could cause the cable between the canopy
and the block to pull tight on the opening of the canopy and pull the block. That
fires the seat "firing pin" and the back seater is supprised to see the "...airfield
dispearing below him")
On ejection initation, the canopy was unlocked by a charge, which also caused
filed pistions on the canopy rails to extend pins about three inches to lift the
canopy into the slip stream. The slip stream would then rip the canopy off the
air plane.
Kirk Ransom
2,200 hrs in the RF-4C
It was a blast
Rob Hooper
Several questions on this thread of ejection seats.
Do all current fighter aircraft have zero-zero seats installed?
Weren't there some seats that enabled an ejection even in inverted flight (assuming
you had some altitude!) and pull you clear and then up? Didn't the Douglas
Skyraider have such a system?
To change the flavor a bit, I was at an air museum and they had a B-58 Hustler
Ejection Pod on display. Novel concept but did it actually work well? I know 58's
didn't last long in the flying inventory but it was an awesome looking bird to a 10
year old kid! But outside the F-111, was that only escape pod for high-mach
aircraft. The pod was supposed to mimimize airblast injuries at high mach. Anyone
out in netland ever fly the 58 and train on the escape pod care to comment on its
effectiveness vs the more conventional ejection seats?
BTW, I had the opportunity once to watch ejection seat training at the former
Williams AFB in AZ on the F-4 type seats. I managed to get get one photo that
showed the pilots face clear enough such that they looked like "Droopy". I couldn't
imagine being jerked out of a confined space like a cockpit and not suffer some
injuries although the alternative was usually much worse! ;-)
Regards, Rob Hooper, CSP
Site Ergonomist/Safety Consultant Hewlett-Packard Co.
Site Risk Management 1000 NE Circle Blvd.
Corvallis, OR 97330
My employer does not necessarily agree with my opionions.
Mary Shafer
B> Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: An interesting problem that I had with the F-16 seat was its height
<SNIP>
: I have short arms, so if I got myself way up there, I couldn't reach
: the center stick, I had to strain for the side stick, and I couldn't
B> Center Stick????
VISTA has two programmable variable feel sticks in the front, or
evaluation, seat, one on the side and one in the center. They've
pulled the UFC to get the center stick in.
It's an NF-16D rather than an F-16D; it's had a lot of changes made
from the normal F-16. No one would ever let me fly in the front seat
of a regular F-16, since I'm not a pilot but an engineer.
Bob Keeter
>>This makes the ACES II seat look a little inconsistant, with
>>cutters on the F-15 but not on the F-16.
>
>M> --
>
>M> Joining this discussion in the middle. Just a thought - with the
>M> seat in the F-16 reclined 30 degrees could the pilot be leading
>M> with his head and not the seat when ejected through the canopy?
>M> Putting a canopy cutter up there would block vision and impair
>M> flight safety.
>
I think that I can shed some light on the missing canopy
cutters on F-16 seats. One of the very first test programs
I was involved in was the birdstrike testing for F-16 canopies.
The bubble is made out of a lexan polycarbonate, some are
monolythic, some are acrylic/polycarbonate laminate. That
is some _Damn_ tough plastic. At one time, the company was
offering lifetime coverage for institutional windows. If ever
a vandal managed to throw a brick through the window, they'd
replace it! Used it in schools, prisons, etc.
Bottom line, Lexan _rarely_ shatters unlike the streched
acrylic in F-15s, so the seat would have to tear its way
out. Bit tough if you're riding the seat. I do not know of
anyone who has successfully ejected _through_ an F-16 canopy.
Anybody out there with more current info on F-16 canopies?
Regards
bk
PS The "Rooster Booster" at Tullahoma has still sort of turned
me off from chicken noodle soup!
Jerome Dawson
>
>It seems like I read here a while back that F-4 drivers would
>sometimes weld a survival-type knife on the top of the seat to
>assist in breaking the canopy in case it didn't jettison before the
>seat fired. Now that I think about this, I may have just had a wild
>dream that gave me that idea :). If you've heard of this, please
>elaborate directly at raca...@fs.cei.net. (I don't get around
>these parts too often).
*******
If I remember from my Nav training at Mather AFB 15 years ago or so, the
T-37 had such a device on the mounted overhead on the canopy frame
between the two seats. Manual operation only.
(Oh, wouldn't that have been fun! First I'll break out my side of the
canopy, then I'll hand it to you and eject. Yeah, right.) I do recall
later seeing a drawing showing a canopy breaker atop each seat. Were they
there all the time?
It reminds me of a story I once read that was attributed to Mike Collins
[Apollo 11 and Smithsonian Museum of Flight fame]: He recalled doing
flight test on a fighter that had some new-fangled ejection seat. The
ejection sequence was a bit complicated and a multi-step process.
Fortunately, as pointed out by one of the manufacturers tech reps, a
placard with the step by step instructions was mounted in plain view of
the pilot.
There was just one small problem --- Step One: Jettison Canopy. Where was
the placard mounted? Ah, you guessed it -- on the canopy rail!
Cheers!
Jerome
flex
> If I remember from my Nav training at Mather AFB 15 years ago or so, the
> T-37 had such a device on the mounted overhead on the canopy frame
> between the two seats. Manual operation only.
>
> (Oh, wouldn't that have been fun! First I'll break out my side of the
> canopy, then I'll hand it to you and eject. Yeah, right.)
The canopy breaker tool you are referring to is for emergency ground
egress, not ejection. If the canopy is stuck in the closed position
after a hard landing, runway departure, etc., the tool can be used as a
last resort to get out of the airplane.
flex
>
> Bob Keeter wrote:
> Several questions on this thread of ejection seats.
>
> Do all current fighter aircraft have zero-zero seats installed?
>
> Weren't there some seats that enabled an ejection even in inverted flight (assuming
> you had some altitude!) and pull you clear and then up? Didn't the Douglas
> Skyraider have such a system?
As far as I know all newer (F-15,F-16,F-18) fighter aircraft have
zero-zero seats. The inverted ejection is a different story. You can
eject inverted from an F-16 with minimal altitude (500 feet or so). This
is assuming you have enough forward airspeed to inflate the chute (250
knots?). The faster you are going, the lower you can safely eject, to a
point. The seat WILL NOT turn upright and shoot you into the sky. It
remains moving in the direction it was facing at the time of ejection.
Lane Smith
>Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>Dave Hyde
>na...@windvane.umd.edu
..and easily fixed with a slight twist of the intercom volume knob...
Craig C.
>sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>Regards
>bk
When I left Lockheed about 15 months ago, we were still using the
Lexan canopies. If you look at the geometry of trying to eject through
the canopy, I belive that you will find that the seat will also have
to break through the canopy structure itself. I don't think anyone has
ever designed a seat to break through an aluminum and steel structure
yet....( And have the occupant survive!)
A testimonial to the strength of the canopy plastics.... When Joe Bill
attempted to get out of his stricken a/c, the canopy hit the ground
several hundred feet/yards (don't know which for sure) from the impact
point. According to the guys that picked up the wreckage, a good
cleaning and a little paint touch-up and the canopy looked to be
useable again. Of course, it wasn't used, but it is a tough piece of
plastic.
Craig
Bob Keeter
>Several questions on this thread of ejection seats.
>
>Do all current fighter aircraft have zero-zero seats installed?
>
Not all, but most of the newer ones go for a zero-zero.
>
>Weren't there some seats that enabled an ejection even in inverted flight (assuming
>you had some altitude!) and pull you clear and then up? Didn't the Douglas
>Skyraider have such a system?
>
Navy in particular has been working on this with varying levels of success for years.
>
>To change the flavor a bit, I was at an air museum and they had a B-58 Hustler
>Ejection Pod on display. Novel concept but did it actually work well? I know 58's
>didn't last long in the flying inventory but it was an awesome looking bird to a 10
>year old kid! But outside the F-111, was that only escape pod for high-mach
>aircraft. The pod was supposed to mimimize airblast injuries at high mach. Anyone
>out in netland ever fly the 58 and train on the escape pod care to comment on its
>effectiveness vs the more conventional ejection seats?
>
B-58s are impressive A/C even if you're not 10 yrs old! Other high speed escape
systems included the "once tested" B-70 capsule and believe it or not the early
Mig-21 system! I have read that the Mig's canopy would pivot around the top of
the seat and provide the pilot with a clear full body, blast shield until it was
time to separate from the seat. Supposedly, that was sometimes sort of dicey!
>
>BTW, I had the opportunity once to watch ejection seat training at the former
>Williams AFB in AZ on the F-4 type seats. I managed to get get one photo that
>showed the pilots face clear enough such that they looked like "Droopy". I couldn't
>imagine being jerked out of a confined space like a cockpit and not suffer some
>injuries although the alternative was usually much worse! ;-)
>
One does NOT fly ejection seats for fun. If it is definitely a matter of choosing
between getting shot out of the front end of an aircraft or riding it into the
dirt (I'd choose the former!)
bk
Rick DeNatale
Sagara) wrote:
>Bob Peetz (b...@telepath.com) wrote:
>: All modern day aircraft are designed for the canopy to be jettisoned as
>: part of the ejection sequence. If for any reason the canopy fails to exit
>: the aircraft, then the seats are designed to break through the canopy
>: when they hit them.
>I believe that the nominal ejection mode for the A-6 is through
>the canopy.
Some aircraft (the AV-8 Harrier comes immediately to mind) have an
explosive cord attached to the canopy to shatter it prior to ejection.
--
Rick DeNatale
Still looking for a cool signature ;-)
Jerome Dawson
>
>The canopy breaker tool you are referring to is for emergency ground
>egress, not ejection. If the canopy is stuck in the closed position
>after a hard landing, runway departure, etc., the tool can be used as a
>last resort to get out of the airplane.
*******
Ah, that sounds familiar. Do you recall if there was a canopy breaker on
the seat? I've looked in some of my old UNT books (packrat that I am) but
no joy.
And isn't the T-37 the last plane in the inventory with a single-motion
seat? I always got a little pucker everytime I pulled the seat pin before
takeoff.
Cheers!
Jerome
Mike
> >>M> seat in the F-16 reclined 30 degrees could the pilot be leading
> >>M> with his head and not the seat when ejected through the canopy?
> >>M> Putting a canopy cutter up there would block vision and impair
> >>M> flight safety.
I agree, the F-16 has the best visibility of any fighter in the world and
putting canopy cutters on top of the seat would impair rearward vision.
In the rare event you get caught defensive in a viper it's great to see
out the back. Also with cutters on the top of the seat you could not
raise the seat up to "design eye". The F-16 is designed to have every
pilot's eyes in the same spot. The standard is the head a fist width
below the canopy. Not much room for cutters.
Mary Shafer
L> na...@windvane.umd.edu (David Hyde) wrote:
>Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>> N> Sort of. Fighter pilots expect adoration and attention from N>
>> engineers, but seldom receive it. :)
>> Sarcasm, argumentation, nitpicking, and backseat flying are,
>> however, readily offered.
>and frequently, loudly, and skillfully, I might add.
L> ..and easily fixed with a slight twist of the intercom volume
L> knob...
At Dryden, just as at Pax and AFFTC, we have an entire control room
full of engineers for missions, and only shutting down both UHF and
VHF will mute us. Even then, there's always the post-flight
debrief....
Clifford R Krieger
: In my F-4 days (1964- 1973) the seat did not punch through the seat. There
: was no 'canopy breaker' on the seat.
Showing my age...
In the Fall of 1966 an F-4C crashed on Take-Off at Da Nang (carrying CBU-2
no less) and slid off the runway (belonged to the 390th TFS, then the Blue
Boars). The back seater was able to open his canopy and crawl out, but
the front seater was trapped, in the fire. The crash had wedged the
canopy shut. He did have the standard F-4 Canopy Breaking Tool (a short
sort of knife). Only when the canopy started to melt was he able to break
it open. He was med-evac'd.
: On ejection initation, the canopy was unlocked by a charge, which also
caused : filed pistions on the canopy rails to extend pins about three
inches to : lift the canopy into the slip stream. The slip stream would
then : rip the canopy off the air plane.
Regarding the pistons mentioned by Kirk Ransom. They were not always
there. For a long time there was nothing. Then, about 1966 or so an
RF-4C went down off the coast of Viet-nam. The back seater punched out,
but the front seater went down with the aircraft. The reason given was
that it was a high speed ejection and when the back seater went the loss
of the rear canopy created such a vacuum that the air charge for opening
the front canopy into the slip-stream was not strong enough to overcome
the downward pressure and the vacuum. Thus the little pistons, which only
go up a very small way, but break the seal.
A friend of mine experienced the same problem flying out of RAF
Bentwaters. They experienced a flight control malfunction at high
altitude and were heading straight in. The back seater went first. The
WSO was so badly injured from the high speed he was medically retired. My
friend, in the front seat tried several times and then appealed to higher
authority and found himself in the harness under the parachute. With his
injuries from a high speed ejection he took several years to get back on
flying status (as I recall, both arms and both legs were broken). I am
told they dug down into the English country-side 30 feet before finding
part of the airplane--the tail hook. Probably just embelishment on the
story.
Some times it is the little details which can get you in trouble. Until
we got the little pistons, and after we broke the code, the "recommended"
solution in a high speed ejection was (1) front canopy, (2) back seater,
(3) front seater. In such cases command select would need to be "back
seat only".
Regards -- Cliff Krieger
Jason Passmore
> In the Fall of 1966 an F-4C crashed on Take-Off at Da Nang (carrying CBU-2
> no less) and slid off the runway (belonged to the 390th TFS, then the Blue
> Boars).
Now the 390th Fighter Squadron "Wild Boars" (Still blue tails though) flyin' F-15C's out
of MHAFB.
Andy Dingley
>they had a B-58 Hustler Ejection Pod on display.
I've always been fascinated by anything B58. What a beautiful aircraft
- what a kludge hanging beneath !
> Novel concept but did it actually work well?
I can't say for certain, but there was at least one Broken Arrow
incident involving a B58 (Greensboro NC ?). An aircraft taxying in
winter lost control on ice and went off the taxiway. Two crew climbed
out and were burned, but survived. One ejected and was killed.
I guess the compromise between allowing high speed ejection and
zero-zero operation hadn't worked out in the guy's favour.