PDA

View Full Version : Comfort?


Flyer517
19th May 2011, 11:16
Hi All

Strange question I know, but for those who have flown them, are single seater military jets as uncomfortable as they appear to be for the pilot? I sat in a Mirage IIIO and Macchi 326 cockpit today and got to thinking how they differed from the civil aircraft I fly. Lots of sharp edges, bare metal, little padding, etc. I would think that a long time sitting in one of these, say on a ferry flight, would be a killer.

Thanks.

Flyer

Bob Viking
19th May 2011, 13:15
They're not the best. Unfortunately the cushions can't be too thick due to the fact the compression on ejection would snap your femurs.
The jets I have flown have had pretty pokey little cockpits (although not as bad as the Mig 21 I once sat in).
The Tornado by comparison seemed immense. The F15 cockpit was bigger than my living room!
BV:sad:

Lightning Mate
19th May 2011, 15:09
Bob Viking profile:


Used to be the RAF's Anglo-French air supremacy fighter-bomber!

You an ex-Jag mate then? :E

airborne_artist
19th May 2011, 15:45
Not just pointy jets that are tough on the body. The Gazelle isn't that great, either. At the tender age of 19 I had to have painkillers for back pain brought on by the seat design of the whistling chicken-leg.

foldingwings
19th May 2011, 16:26
At least in the Bucc or Tornado they had someone to moan to about it (and, boy, did they bloody moan!)

Foldie:)

Neptunus Rex
19th May 2011, 17:01
I always found them very comfortable - comfortable in the knowledge that if ever Faeces became Trumps, Martin-Baker's patent let-down system would be there to save the day.

Geehovah
19th May 2011, 17:08
No, the AR5 was a wonderful addition to the mix. The torso hrness was great but having a rubber bag on your head was so much more fun!!!!

If I was to choose an office suite, I guess I'd probably not go for the Phantom. That said, where else can you have so much fun..........................................(I know; waiting for the comments)

Talk Reaction
19th May 2011, 18:27
.... you had no idea cushions could be so dangerous eh...... :}

Wander00
19th May 2011, 18:59
Anyone remember the glass fibre trial seat pan in the Gnat - could always tell who had been flying on it (in the front in one aircaraft, in the back in another) as one of the leg starps gave you sciatica!

Flyer517
19th May 2011, 22:33
Thanks for the answers chaps.

So are you attached to and sitting on a chute, or is the chute attached to the seat and the crew to the seat? Never sat on an ejection seat so not sure of the mechanics of it all.

Cheers

Flyer

Lima Juliet
19th May 2011, 23:01
The parachute is in the head-box of most modern EJ seats. The seat cushion normally covers the Personal Survival Pack or PSP that contains a single seat dinghy and some other goodies. The PSP is what you sit on.

LJ

Wholigan
19th May 2011, 23:03
Try this:

Martin Baker - Mk. 10 (http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/products/Ejection-Seats/Mk--10.aspx)

Flyer517
19th May 2011, 23:12
Thanks again. That link was great as well. I notice that in the schematic there doesn't seem to be loops above the head to pull. Or are they just left out of that drawing?

Flyer

iRaven
19th May 2011, 23:44
Flyer

Most modern bang seats have done away with the face-screen and upper handles - too many choices make for a late ejection! The seat pan handle is now the choice of champions.

Any reason why you're asking?

iRaven

Flyer517
19th May 2011, 23:51
Thanks iRaven. Just curious really. Been to a few museums recently and it raised a few questions in my head.

Actually the comment you make about there being too many options seems a little counterintuitive from a layman's perspective. Wouldn't you want as many options as possible in those circumstances? Particularly if the aircraft is wildly out of control and the Gs are loading up. Never know where you could get your hands to I would have thought (not that I am knowledgeable on the subject).

Cheers

Flyer

sharpend
20th May 2011, 05:16
Single seaters uncomfortable?

Well you try flying Coltishall - Las Vegas inflight refuelling, slow spead with a tanker and no loo on board! That's not too comfortable. :uhoh:

Or forget to have a pee just before a high G sortie! Still, normally the inflating G suit would take care of that! :O

hanoijane
20th May 2011, 05:34
The jets I have flown have had pretty pokey little cockpits (although not as bad as the Mig 21 I once sat in)

I'm 1.72 m and 62 kg, and I fit in the '21 very nicely. You must be obese. Obese people should not be in the military. Ever.

Besides, a military jet is a military jet, not your bedroom. I've ridden in a number of recent American products and have felt horribly exposed. Semi-reclined seating? How can you fly and fight when your genitalia are almost obscuring the HUD?

Flying balls-first into the wild blue yonder is not my idea of fun...

sharpend
20th May 2011, 07:35
Hello Hanoijane,

So you have 'sat' in a Mig 21. Wow!

But have you flown one? Better still, have you flown one in combat? The whole reason for reclining a combat pilot is to enhance his G threshold.

Possible the weak link in any air superiority fight is the man who drives it. Increase his G threshold and the fighter can be made to turn better.

Many years ago a fighter was designed with the pilot actually lying on his stomach. Perhaps that was not a brilliant idea, but it did enhance his G tolerence :)

Sadly for us pilots, future combat aircraft will be pilotless. :*

Bob Viking
20th May 2011, 07:38
What an interesting little character you appear to be!
With the name Jane you should be very worried about your genitalia obscuring anything. I'd have a Doctor check that out if I were you.
BV
PS. Lightning Mate. Busted.:ok:

barnstormer1968
20th May 2011, 09:32
HanoiJane

Bearing in mind your very low weight (different cultures as you say, I know), can I ask if you are male or female. I'm not trying to be rude, but my children weigh more than that, and are very slim.

I suppose if you were 20 or 30cm taller, and weighed 30kg more, as some of the other pilots here will, then you may have found the '21 a bit more cramped.
It was designed with Europeans in mind, so I do understand some of the posters views here.

Avtrician
20th May 2011, 10:20
62Kilos is very nearly too light to use a Martin Baker seat, (designed for a person of around 90Kilos) the power of the seat would cause back injuries.

The two over head loops for ejection went, as the user tended to lean forward when using them instead of sitting back and pulling. Again this is very bad for the back.

Bubblewindow
20th May 2011, 10:34
The Fouga Magister was quite literally a pain in the arse!! Your parachute 'was' your cusion. No ejection seat here I'm afraid ! The canopy was very close to your head also, I know one tall guy who had trouble fitting under the canopy (don't know how he got past the flight safety end of things?) and the control column came fairly close to the nads during control checks, thankfully not in flight.
I vary between 95-100kg depending on how lazy I've been and I'm 5'9",
And I've broad shoulders. On doing my medical to fly in a Hawk the doctor told me I was the perfect shape to be a fighter pilot!!!!
So a bit of 'Obeisity' (??) may be a good thing!!!

BW

Lightning Mate
20th May 2011, 10:52
62Kilos is very nearly too light to use a Martin Baker seat

When I used one I was about 70 kilos and a very smooth ride it was as well. :ok:

goudie
20th May 2011, 10:59
The seat pan handle is now the choice of champions.
Due to the fact that, the first thing a man does, when confronted with danger is to clutch at his balls.

Bob Viking
20th May 2011, 11:32
I wonder if a similar impulse would apply to ladies in such a situation?!
BV:E

Lightning Mate
20th May 2011, 11:35
I didn't think ladies had balls! :E

Bob Viking
20th May 2011, 11:40
Apparently Hanoijane has.
That's right LM you keep setting them up and I'll keep knocking them out of the park!
BV:ok:

hanoijane
20th May 2011, 13:37
Flown a '21, but not in combat. I'm not that old. Or bold.

In response to someone else; I'm male and already have my medical degree so I don't need anyone check out my genitalia, thanks :)

I think you'll find that the definitive physiological studies on the reclined-seat-helps-deal-with-g argument have yet to be done.

Lonewolf_50
20th May 2011, 13:46
Hjane, the F-16 wasn't designed that way on a whim.

hanoijane
20th May 2011, 13:51
True. I think I'd call it 'bad science.'

jamesdevice
20th May 2011, 16:47
Miss Fonda may have a point This is the first relevant hit on Google for "reclined seat g force studies" http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA259532 "Abstract : The present study investigated human cognitive performance under high G in an upright seat and two reclined seats (PALE and Tilt-back). Subjects were required to perform a perceptual/motor and a classification task both separately and concurrently. Data were gathered prior to G-onset, during varying levels of acceleration, and post-G. Results indicated that neither of the reclined seats were superior to the upright seat at high G levels. Perceptual/motor data revealed that the PALE seat has an advantage in post-G recovery, while the upright seat maintains better performance during acceleration for this measure. These results indicate that the physiological benefits of reclination do not easily translate into cognitive performance increments. Before a definitive study can evaluate the contributions reclination may make to pilot performance under severe levels of G-force, engineering issues surrounding the mechanization of reclined seating needs to be resolved" Its a 1991 report so theres probably newer research around, just not immediately available online

BEagle
20th May 2011, 18:03
And there was I thinking that Hanoijane "She love you long time"....

Westerners 'too beaucoup' for the Mig-21, perhaps?

newt
20th May 2011, 18:04
Oh dear! Its gone from ladies with balls to some unreadable scientific report! Could only happen on Prune!

More idle banter please! I thought all fast jet seats were fine! Just glad I got to sit on one for a few years before having to sit in an armchair surrounded by civilians!

And when required to work it did just what it said on the box.........saved my bones:ok:

jamesdevice
20th May 2011, 20:07
I could probably find a more readable "scientific" report on ladies with balls if thats what you prefer.
In the meantime, here are some more ladies with balls Chests banged over topless haka - World - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/chests-banged-over-topless-haka/2007/01/08/1168104912833.html)

hanoijane
21st May 2011, 00:39
I think you'll find Bangkok has plenty of Ladies With Balls. I'm headed there next weekend. Should I take pictures?

The original post-WWII Russian studies into g indicated a short, stocky physiology was most resistant to g, therefore Russian combat pilot selection was/is, to some extent, based on you being small. Rather in the same manner that their tank crews have to be around 1.6 m or less (not for g protection, but to reduce the overall size of the tank) they designed some of their cockpits around small framed individuals.

I understand what you're saying about comfortable cockpits for the average tubby-out-of-shape western pilots, and I do recall the Americans being very critical of the cockpit ergonomics of the '21's they 'acquired' and tested, but the simple fact is that if you're small and fit the '21 cockpit works just fine.

The main issue with the analogue '21's was the amount of stuff in your face. It's very old-school and forward visibility was sometimes compromised. The Israelis offer various solutions to this issue in a very cost-effective manner.

advocatusDIABOLI
22nd May 2011, 05:14
Just a couple of comments on the ACES II as fitted in the F16 (which I Flew for 3 years)

The seat is very comfortable, and typically, you don't lie back in combat, rather you sit up at whatever is comfortable for you. On long transits, you can rest back, but personally, I didn't much.

The Old G, reclined seat argument: My understanding, is that in the F16, although there is a theoretical G onset advantage, the real reason for the incline, was the very shallow cockpit depth, which was the only way to get the chair in!! If you look closely at a pic, you'll see what I mean.

Oh, and just for the record, even leaning back, you can still view the HUD / Displays, although looking backwards is tricky! My god given monumental appendages never seemed to get in the way!!!

Advo

hanoijane
22nd May 2011, 06:10
I knew it. We little people have proportionally larger genitalia. That's why we have to fly sitting upright.

jamesdevice
22nd May 2011, 07:59
thats a load of balls

As for "The original post-WWII Russian studies into g indicated a short, stocky physiology was most resistant to g" - sounds like the Russians would have been better off getting their women to fly.

hanoijane
22nd May 2011, 09:24
I do seem to recall a study somewhere which suggested that women were more 'g' tolerant than men.

And I think you've been hanging around with the wrong type of Russian woman if you think they're 'short and stocky'. Try the beach at Vung Tau :)

Trogger
22nd May 2011, 14:09
Used to work with a Scots guy who used to get his words muddled - he was always going on about why there were no women jet fighter pilots -

"Weeman cannae fly jets coz th' g forces plays havoc wi' their mormons..."

MadsDad
22nd May 2011, 15:48
I do seem to recall a study somewhere which suggested that women were more 'g' tolerant than men.

I also remember reading a study which suggested that shorter people were more G tolerant than taller* and women were, on average, shorter than men. It would also tie in with the 'short and stocky = better G tolerance' theory.

* Apparently it's all to do with the distance the heart has to pump the blood to the brain - the shorter you are the less the distance between the two so the more blood supply your brain gets. Allegedly.

jamesdevice
22nd May 2011, 15:51
Women have smaller brains, so they'll need less blood supply anyway.
But on that basis you'd be better off training a chimp to fly

FlapJackMuncher
22nd May 2011, 16:57
Oh no.
Not another picture of suspenders.

Tack-a-tack-a-tack-a

BEagle
22nd May 2011, 19:10
Women have smaller brains, so they'll need less blood supply anyway.


YouTube - ‪Women: Know Your Limits! Harry Enfield - BBC comedy‬‏



.