More TOP GUN crap/ejection seats.
Chris McMartin
Well, I haven't seen the movie in a couple of months, but I seem to recall
that the reason Goose's seat doesn't punch through the canopy is that he
hits the canopy frame, not the glass. Also, Maverick's seat doesn't hit the
canopy because his seat fires later than Goose's, presumably a safety
precaution to ensure that the front seater doesn't hit the back seater if
they both were to eject at the same time. Another safety precaution in many
multiplace aircraft is that each seat fires at a different angle, i.e.
not straight up. In the F-14, one seat fires slightly to the right and one
slightly to the left. In the B-1B, the aircraft commander (left seat) is
ejected to the left and the pilot (right seat) is ejected to the right.
This not only prevents the crew members from hitting each other upon
ejection, it also keeps them from hitting the horizontal stabilizer.
Also, as far as I know, A-10 ejection seats don't punch through the glass
either. I've seen ejection footage and the canopy was blown off and well
clear of the aircraft before the seat fired.
* You heard it first from Chris McMartin. My opinions are just that. *
* mcmartindc95%cs...@cadetmail.usafa.af.mil aka Bjardkur on whip.isca.uiowa *
* "The very first time I saw your face, I thought of a song and quickly *
* changed the tune. / The very first time I touched your skin, I thought *
* of a story and rushed to reach the end too soon." --The Cure, "Primary" *
Dan B Sullivan
: In the F-14, one seat fires slightly to the right and one
: slightly to the left. In the B-1B, the aircraft commander (left seat) is
: ejected to the left and the pilot (right seat) is ejected to the right.
: This not only prevents the crew members from hitting each other upon
: ejection, it also keeps them from hitting the horizontal stabilizer.
If the airplane is inverted and in a substantial sink, with the ACESII
seat, how does each seat know which way to go?
: Also, as far as I know, A-10 ejection seats don't punch through the glass
: either. I've seen ejection footage and the canopy was blown off and well
: clear of the aircraft before the seat fired.
All canopies are supposed to be pierced by the canopy piercer, which in
most cases is the seat itself. Most aircraft that I am familiar with are
equipped with some device which breaks the canopy in the event of a canopy
opening failure (a real possibility). The F8U actually had a rail which
fired up through the canopy (if it failed) upon which the seat rode. In
the OV-10 Bronco, the seat goes through a frangible canopy lid.
As far as movies go, the story about the F-16 electical problem and the
lawsuit (HBO last year) showed a Falcon impact the ground at over 500
knots (if I remember correctly), and the damn nose stuck in the ground
and the airplane stopped cold, and erupted in flames. I think they took
the yard dart criticism too literally.
And let's not forget the USAF technical assistance with those IRON EAGLE
duds.
They're just movies after all.
Albion H. Bowers
In a previous article, MCMARTINDC95%CS...@cadetmail.usafa.af.mil (Chris McMartin) says:
>Well, I haven't seen the movie in a couple of months, but I seem to recall
>that the reason Goose's seat doesn't punch through the canopy is that he
>hits the canopy frame, not the glass. Also, Maverick's seat doesn't hit the
>canopy because his seat fires later than Goose's, presumably a safety
>precaution to ensure that the front seater doesn't hit the back seater if
>they both were to eject at the same time. Another safety precaution in many
>multiplace aircraft is that each seat fires at a different angle, i.e.
>not straight up. In the F-14, one seat fires slightly to the right and one
>slightly to the left. In the B-1B, the aircraft commander (left seat) is
>ejected to the left and the pilot (right seat) is ejected to the right.
>This not only prevents the crew members from hitting each other upon
>ejection, it also keeps them from hitting the horizontal stabilizer.
First, all ACESII seats are as identical as possible. there is no `cant'
difference fron to rear on any US aircraft (assuming the same seat is
used). The time delay is to prevent burns from the front seater on the
backseater. Hitting each other is not a consideration. Hitting tha canopy
is.
>Also, as far as I know, A-10 ejection seats don't punch through the glass
>either. I've seen ejection footage and the canopy was blown off and well
>clear of the aircraft before the seat fired.
Despite this, canopy pyros fail on occassion, just as seats do. That's the
reason for every seat having a canopy cutter. Some aircraft, like the BAE
Hawk, use special shaped charges in the canopy to cut the canopy rather
than eject the canopy.
--
Al Bowers DOD #900 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
work: bow...@tifosi.dfrf.nasa.gov personal: ak...@yfn.ysu.edu
"...tactics always degrade strategy..." -Frank Bethwaite
Chris Eagle
>
>First, all ACESII seats are as identical as possible. there is no `cant'
>difference fron to rear on any US aircraft (assuming the same seat is
>used). The time delay is to prevent burns from the front seater on the
>backseater. Hitting each other is not a consideration. Hitting tha canopy
>is.
>
The F-14 does not use the ACESII ejection seat. It uses the Martin
Baker GRU-7. The A-6 does in fact have an outward cant to each seat,
and it specifically to prevent the crewmembers from interfering with
one another. There was until recently, no command eject in the A-6
and it was possible for both crewmembers to eject at the same time.
I would not be surprised if the F-14 also had a cant, though I do
not know for sure.
Chris Eagle
Naval Postgraduate School
Martin Baker Test Pilot
Maarten van den Hemel
[discussion about ejection seats deleted]
>Chris Eagle
>Naval Postgraduate School
>Martin Baker Test Pilot
>^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this the same company that produced the (sadly) unsuccesfull MB-3, MB-4 and
MB-5 piston fighters during WW2? I've always wondered about that.
Maarten van den Hemel
Dean Adams
ea...@cs.nps.navy.mil (Chris Eagle) says...
>The F-14 does not use the ACESII ejection seat. It uses the Martin
>Baker GRU-7. The A-6 does in fact have an outward cant to each seat,
>and it specifically to prevent the crewmembers from interfering with
>one another. There was until recently, no command eject in the A-6
>and it was possible for both crewmembers to eject at the same time.
>I would not be surprised if the F-14 also had a cant, though I do
>not know for sure.
I didn't think that it did... but here is the info I dug up:
The aircraft is equipped with an automatically sequenced command
escape system incorporating two Martin-Baker GRU-7A ejection seats.
Both seats are identical in operation and differ only in rocket
nozzle diameter to provide a divergent ejection trajectory.
Each crewmember is ejected in a preset time sequence. Ejection
trajectories are canted laterally to provide additional separation
of the seats. The RIO is ejected first to the right, and the pilot
to the left, 0.4 seconds later. Total time for ejection is 0.9 sec.
R Buckingham
> Chris Eagle
> Naval Postgraduate School
> Martin Baker Test Pilot
hope you don't mind Chris, but how about some Ejector Seat facts rather than
rumours/funny stories, it would be nice to hear from someone who knows
probably a considerable lot more than we do.
cheers,
Bugsie.
" I'd Rather be Flying! " _|_
Richard Buckingham ____/___\____
cs...@scs.leeds.ac.uk ___________[=0=]___________
-- A 'Dog is for life, o/ o \o
not just for weekends.
Carl Pettypiece 92
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Is this the same company that produced the (sadly) unsuccesfull MB-3, MB-4 and
>MB-5 piston fighters during WW2? I've always wondered about that.
>
>Maarten van den Hemel
Yup, one and the same. I guess they gave up trying to build fighters and
took on the respectable task of researching and producing high-quality
bang-seats.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pet...@csd.uwo.ca) Disclaimer: Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario opinions!
Andrew Madison
: We had a letter from this guy :
:
: > Chris Eagle
: > Naval Postgraduate School
: > Martin Baker Test Pilot
:
: hope you don't mind Chris, but how about some Ejector Seat facts rather than
: rumours/funny stories, it would be nice to hear from someone who knows
: probably a considerable lot more than we do.
AND
Maarten van den Hemel <M.VanD...@ET.TuDelft.NL> wrote:
: >
: >[discussion about ejection seats deleted]
: >>Martin Baker Test Pilot
: >>^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >
: >is this the same company that produced the (sadly) unsuccesful MB-3, MB-4 and
: >MB-5 piston fighters during WW2? I've always wondered about that.
: >
:
: Yup, one and the same. I guess they gave up trying to build fighters and
: took on the respectable task of researching and producing high-quality
: bang-seats.
I was going to keep my mouth shut, but since others want to know as well...
I saw Chris' title, and my imagination got away from me. Does most of
Mr. Eagle's log book consist of entries that say? :
05/xx/94 PIC, 5 seconds, Prototype seat Charlie
If so, my hats off to you. Taking off in an airplane that's never left
the ground before takes plenty of guts, BUT, to test a prototype that
consists of little more than explosives and rocket fuel at very high speeds,
now that's courage.
--
A.J. Madison PHONE: (508) 490-6972
Stratus Computer Inc.
55 Fairbanks Boulevard INTERNET: a...@sw.stratus.com
Marlboro, MA 01752 OR: Andrew_...@Vos.Stratus.com
Matt Melchert
[snip]
>
> Despite this, canopy pyros fail on occassion, just as seats do. That's the
> reason for every seat having a canopy cutter. Some aircraft, like the BAE
> Hawk, use special shaped charges in the canopy to cut the canopy rather
> than eject the canopy.
> --
Is **that** what those squiggly lines in the canopy are?! I thought they
were maybe defogging wires like in a car.
Matt
chun-keet song
>Matt
Nope....those squiggly lines are antennas , probably for the radios.
Song.
Kevin Au
chun-keet song <cks...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>Is **that** what those squiggly lines in the canopy are?! I thought they
>>were maybe defogging wires like in a car.
>
>>Matt
>
>Nope....those squiggly lines are antennas , probably for the radios.
>
Nope....those squiggly lines are cord charges , for the ejection seats.
Mary Shafer
Al> Despite this, canopy pyros fail on occassion, just as seats do.
Al> That's the reason for every seat having a canopy cutter. Some
Al> aircraft, like the BAE Hawk, use special shaped charges in the
Al> canopy to cut the canopy rather than eject the canopy.
Perhaps you should have written "every _modern_ seat" since the F-4
Phantom seat will not fire unless the canopy had jettisoned. At
one-timer school, they showed my the canopy chopper, which looked
rather like an extremely large oyster knife, and explained that I'd
have to cut through the canopy and bail out, not eject, if the canopy
didn't jettison. The pilot who gave me my F-4 ride said that that had
worked for only one person, an Israeli AF pilot that we both know.
It's probably before your time (mid-70s) but Mike Love was killed when
he couldn't eject from his burning F-4. The plane caught fire on
takeoff (at about 0730) and he came around in a right-hand pattern.
His pitter jumped out, suffering a broken leg, just northeast of
Dryden. Then Mike brought it around and crashed into the lakebed.
Subsequent investigation discovered that the little blade switch that
sensed canopy jettison had been stuck down with RTV during
maintenance. We got to see the whole thing, from when he turned right
to come around until he disappeared behind a building, followed
immediately by the fireball, as we were just a bit late that morning.
--
Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR
SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
sha...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot
Chris Eagle
>
>
>I was going to keep my mouth shut, but since others want to know as well...
>I saw Chris' title, and my imagination got away from me. Does most of
>Mr. Eagle's log book consist of entries that say? :
>
>05/xx/94 PIC, 5 seconds, Prototype seat Charlie
>
Actually, we use "Martin Baker Test Pilot" as a slang
meaning ejection survivor. I'm not sure what users of
other seats might call themselves.
Chris
Chris Eagle
>
> hope you don't mind Chris, but how about some Ejector Seat facts rather than
> rumours/funny stories, it would be nice to hear from someone who knows
> probably a considerable lot more than we do.
>
I'd be glad to relate ejection stories or ejection seat details,
I am inclined to do this through e-mail unless there is widespread
interest in this sort of stuff. My knowledge is limited to
subsonic (mostly A-6/EA-6) related ejections, and my seat knowledge
is strictly GRU-7
Chris
Dean Adams
In article <2qrvnd$2...@agate.berkeley.edu> k...@haas.berkeley.edu (Kevin Au) writes:
>In article <2qrn07$j...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>>Is **that** what those squiggly lines in the canopy are?! I thought they
>>>were maybe defogging wires like in a car.
>>
>
>Nope....those squiggly lines are cord charges , for the ejection seats.
Yea, right next to the pilot's HEAD is not exactly the
best place to be radiating a lot of high power RF...
Urban Fredriksson
> It's called MDC, it's designed to detonate when the ejector seat is fired.
>obviously it's better to lose the canopy first if possible, but when there is
>no time, and the canopy is not manually jettisoned by the pilot, the cord is
>activated and it shatters the canopy.
Some canopies aren't made to be jettisoned at all. On Saab 105s
for example, you can't get it to separate cleanly, so you always
have to eject through it (no MDCs).
The Gripen canopy also has MDCs, but not in squiggly lines, but
one straight line in the middle from front to back, and one going
all around the canopy next to the frame.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
This week: 2000 days since I first read Usenet news
R Buckingham
It's called MDC, it's designed to detonate when the ejector seat is fired.
obviously it's better to lose the canopy first if possible, but when there is
no time, and the canopy is not manually jettisoned by the pilot, the cord is
activated and it shatters the canopy. There are cases where the crew have been
slightly burnt by this cord as it liquifies when it detonates, but I don't
think this is a major problem at all. MDC is fitted to most British aircaft
including the Harrier, Hawk, Tucano and Tornado. Modern ejector seats don't
have a problem banging through the canopy with this.
Rich Buckingham.
Joshua Simer
: I'd be glad to relate ejection stories or ejection seat details,
: I am inclined to do this through e-mail unless there is widespread
: interest in this sort of stuff. My knowledge is limited to
: subsonic (mostly A-6/EA-6) related ejections, and my seat knowledge
: is strictly GRU-7
: Chris
I think there's widespread interest in it. Just look at how many
postings this thread is attracting.....
I sure know *I'm* interested.
--
**************************************************************************
\ _ / "All that is necessary for
\ /_\ / the impossible to become
____________\___/_._\___/____________ possible is for someone
\ \ / / to do it."
\__/\_/\__/ - Joshua M. Simer
Ten decades of aviation - 1903-1994 Wright flyer-Lockheed F-22A Lightning
**************************************************************************
schi...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
> difference fron to rear on any US aircraft (assuming the same seat is
> used). The time delay is to prevent burns from the front seater on the
> backseater. Hitting each other is not a consideration. Hitting tha canopy
> is.
Its a good thing that the instructors at AME-A1 school for the Navy
never found out that I though otherwise! Please don't make overly broad
statements. BTW at the time Martin - Baker seats were used.
>
>>Also, as far as I know, A-10 ejection seats don't punch through the glass
>>either. I've seen ejection footage and the canopy was blown off and well
>>clear of the aircraft before the seat fired.
>
> Despite this, canopy pyros fail on occassion, just as seats do. That's the
> reason for every seat having a canopy cutter. Some aircraft, like the BAE
> Hawk, use special shaped charges in the canopy to cut the canopy rather
> than eject the canopy.
> --
> Al Bowers DOD #900 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
> work: bow...@tifosi.dfrf.nasa.gov personal: ak...@yfn.ysu.edu
> "...tactics always degrade strategy..." -Frank Bethwaite
Actually, that is why there is an ejection initiator block that is
removed by lanyard when the canopy blows. BTW, I don't know everything, this
just happens to be the area in which I was trained.
Richard A. De Castro
>Chris
We call them "Happy and Satisfied users of the ACES-II line
of Products"
BTW, I'm also a test pilot for the Martin Baker Back-Breaker.
--
============================================================================
deca...@netcom.com Warning: I am a trained professional. No, Really!
Rick N6RCX EMT-A ATP Do Not try this yourself - it could get ugly......
Richard A. De Castro - California, but not for ever. Home wanted.
===========================================================================
Richard A. De Castro
>In article <2qma9t$5...@news.ysu.edu>, ak...@yfn.ysu.edu (Albion H. Bowers) writes:
>>
>> First, all ACESII seats are as identical as possible. there is no `cant'
>> difference fron to rear on any US aircraft (assuming the same seat is
>> used). The time delay is to prevent burns from the front seater on the
>> backseater. Hitting each other is not a consideration. Hitting tha canopy
>> is.
The ACES-II seats in the B2B have different rockes and directional controls,
so that a 0/0 ejection will pop each seat out in a different direction.
>>
>>>Also, as far as I know, A-10 ejection seats don't punch through the glass
>>>either. I've seen ejection footage and the canopy was blown off and well
>>>clear of the aircraft before the seat fired.
>>
>> Despite this, canopy pyros fail on occassion, just as seats do. That's the
>> reason for every seat having a canopy cutter. Some aircraft, like the BAE
>> Hawk, use special shaped charges in the canopy to cut the canopy rather
>> than eject the canopy.
>> --
>> Al Bowers DOD #900 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
>> work: bow...@tifosi.dfrf.nasa.gov personal: ak...@yfn.ysu.edu
>> "...tactics always degrade strategy..." -Frank Bethwaite
> Actually, that is why there is an ejection initiator block that is
>removed by lanyard when the canopy blows. BTW, I don't know everything, this
>just happens to be the area in which I was trained.
David S. Geldmacher
Yer both right, believe it or not. I always thought _all_
squiggly canopy lines were explosive cords, but I was
skimming through the Aerofax Minigraph on the F-101B/F
and found that there was an antenna (VHF, I think) embedded
in the back-seater's canopy.
- David
Stefano Cascarini
: Chris Eagle (ea...@cs.nps.navy.mil) wrote:
: : I'd be glad to relate ejection stories or ejection seat details,
: I think there's widespread interest in it. Just look at how many
: postings this thread is attracting.....
: I sure know *I'm* interested.
For those really interested in ejection seats it may be worth tracking
down an autobiography I read several years ago. It was (from memory) -
The Man In The Hot Seat - Denys Hays (The edition I read was published
in the UK in the 60/70's. No idea
if it was ever published in the US.)
(Again from memory) this relates the testing of the early Martin-Baker
ejection seats. Episodes that stick in my memory include the author
describing the results of a test where the interval between the initial
charge and the rocket motor ignition were too great - not very pleasant;
and his training of himself to smile when in pain so that he could
convince Martin-Baker that he didn't have spinal damage, so that
they would allow him to continue testing.
May make interesting reading comparing the British 'Right Stuff' to the
American variety as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stef Cascarini, BNR Meriline, Ottawa, Canada (No email please)
'A poor witticism; but I won't cross it out. When I wrote it down, I
thought it would seem very pointed: now when I see that I was simply
trying to be clever and cynical, I shall leave it in on purpose.'
(not BNR's opinion) - The Underground Man
Julian Cosson
Yep sure is , like you said a pitty they weren't accepted into service.
Julian Cosson
Julian Cosson
Yes Martin Baker aircraft were made by the ejection seat company, which is still called Martin Baker Aircraft Company (Corp. ?). I would like to know a bit about the various aircraft made by this company as the only one I have ever seen a photo of is the MB-5, an impressive looking plane.
JC