PDA

View Full Version : Amazing ejection pictures.


con-pilot
24th Nov 2007, 04:41
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c246/con-pilot/WsqueLfYfK1i.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c246/con-pilot/EqQFKmgRMGFV.jpg

First one is really amazing. :eek:

av8boy
24th Nov 2007, 06:09
...and the second one seems not well thought-out... :eek:


Sort of like jumping off the front of a train onto the tracks methinks...

ThreadBaron
24th Nov 2007, 09:25
Now why would I read what I read in the thread title and expect to find such pictures here!:eek::\:suspect:

SLFguy
24th Nov 2007, 10:10
Know **** all about photography but....
How is it that an a/c moving at xxxxxx kph is in focus but peeps moving at only x kph are blurred?


Edit to add: Actually thinking about it the first one HAS to be a load of bollox...

bnt
24th Nov 2007, 10:31
How is it that an a/c moving at xxxxxx kph is in focus but peeps moving at only x kph are blurred?
That's what happens if you're moving the camera to track the plane - it's a technique used in sports photography too.
This looks like it's from the Sknyliv (Lvov) Airshow Disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sknyliv_airshow_disaster) in 2002. I watched a bit of the different angle (http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1168317542/Horrific_Air_Show_Disaster_in_Ukraine) video, and the angle seems to match the crash.

I'm amazed anyone was running at all: the time between "uh-oh" and 84 deaths was about one (1) second. :(

BombayDuck
24th Nov 2007, 10:49
Su-30, yes. Both pilots survived, and were convicted of some criminal charges. Cause I think was starting the loop at too low an altitude and bottoming out below surface... This is the fancy vectored thrust job.

Horrible crash.

SLFguy
24th Nov 2007, 11:56
Hands up... apologies to OP..

Just astonished it's not a much more publicised pic.

Thx all for other explainations.

unstable load
24th Nov 2007, 12:41
How is it that an a/c moving at xxxxxx kph is in focus but peeps moving at only x kph are blurred?


I think you will also find that a rocket powered ejection seat has considerably MORE xxxxx's than you attribute to it.:ok:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
24th Nov 2007, 14:16
He was lucky he both didn't latch the cockpit properly AND forgot to attach his seat belt. If he hadn't done both thos things, he wouldn't have got thrown safely out of the inpacting airframe. :eek:






The second one looks like something off Thunderbirds. Is there a hand, just offscreen holding the rest of the model?

forget
24th Nov 2007, 15:32
Here's the SU27 http://media.putfile.com/SU-27-crash

......... and if Seldomfitforpurpose jumps in here, ........ I've got a loooong memory.

Rossian
24th Nov 2007, 15:37
Isn't the second photo of the bombardier being ejected from a B47? I seem to remember from a long ago visit to a B47 at Fairford that the bombardier had to sqeeze down a v. narrow passage to one side of the pilots' seats and slightly below them and would have had a hard job getting further back to any other exit hatch. As a slight aside wasn't downward ejection considered (implemented?) for the B52? There were lots of radical, not to say off the wall, ideas around in the aviation of the 1950s.
The Ancient Mariner

ORAC
24th Nov 2007, 15:53
The TU-22 had 3 downward firing seats, minimum safe ejection altitude was 2000m/6500ft. :ooh:

http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/miscellaneous/ejectionseats/tu/tu-22_seats_00.jpg

http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/miscellaneous/ejectionseats/tu/tu-22_seats_03.jpg

Gingerbread Man
24th Nov 2007, 16:01
By comparison, how much altitude would you need to just fall out on your seat and deploy a 'chute? It seems odd to power you along with gravity.

Here's a favourite of mine - no one hurt here fortunately. Incorrect pressure setting leads to a low loop entry and one totalled Thunderbird.

http://www.wap.org/journal/security2/ejectsm.jpg

Ginger ;)

Sam-MAN
24th Nov 2007, 16:08
I think ejections look awesome (although they are never used in a good circumstance...)

They should fit ejection seats to 737's :}

Rob Courtney
24th Nov 2007, 17:25
If I remember rightly, didnt the F104 Starfighter originally come with a downward firing seat, the thinking was that if you ejected in the normal way you had a damm good chance of hitting the tail on the way out. It was only after they had killed a couple of dozen pilots that this type of thinking was abandoned. The early F104 was very prone to flame outs on approach and so you couldnt eject cos you were too low.

the B52 indeed has two downward firing seats for the two navs who sit downstairs, of course when they made it a low level platform they had to re think and so you could safe the seats and get out from a hatch on the side (I think)

con-pilot
24th Nov 2007, 17:56
Right after I posted these pictures last night I went straight to bed. Then I couldn't go to sleep thinking about the two pictures.

In regard to the second picture of the B-47 there is so much wrong aerodynamically it has to be fake. Such as, why have the nose cone hinged and not totally blown off and out of the way? The bottom of the seat has no propellant devices and there are no ejection seat rails extending from the opening. The B-47 had the navigator seat ejecting downward, how would having the ejection seat going forward help? What happened to the navigator panel that was in front of the navigator, where did it go? I am not totally convinced that the picture is fake, but.............

Now, as for the SU-27 it very well could be real. I have watched the accident videos many times and the crew ejected at the very last second. In fact you cannot see the crew ejecting on any of the videos. I was rather surprised when I heard the the crew survied. However, why has this picture not had more exposure?

So, who knows?

Sallyann1234
24th Nov 2007, 18:09
In regard to the second picture of the B-47 there is so much wrong aerodynamically it has to be fake. Such as, why have the nose cone hinged and not totally blown off and out of the way?
The nose cone would need an enormous propellant to force it open against the air pressure acting directly against it. Assuming for a moment that it was possible, the cone could not possibly be retained in the position shown by a hinge. Wind pressure inside the cone would force it back and rip it off.
If the picture is genuine then perhaps the cone is free but frozen in motion before it blew back and smashed into the canopy?

Edit:
There's nothing to show any propellant pushing the guy forwards, or perhaps more importantly downwards, out of the path of the aircraft. How many mSec will it take for the a/c to catch up with him?

Radar66
24th Nov 2007, 18:26
f I remember rightly, didnt the F104 Starfighter originally come with a downward firing seat, the thinking was that if you ejected in the normal way you had a damm good chance of hitting the tail on the way out. It was only after they had killed a couple of dozen pilots that this type of thinking was abandoned. The early F104 was very prone to flame outs on approach and so you couldnt eject cos you were too low.I have it on pretty good authority that this thread will answer that particular thing.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203620&highlight=downward+ejection

The thread covers lots of Starfighter stuff, but the particular thing on the ejection seats (for those who don't want to read it all) was

Just to settle the downward ejection seat topic first, the initial F104As were fitted with downward-firing ejector seats because it was thought that at high speeds the seat would probably be unable to clear the tall fin and tailplane. Hmmmm – nice thinking Bloggs! I wonder where most accidents happen historically? Is it perhaps during take-offs and landings and at low level? Just imagine: “ Bugga – here I am on short finals and the bleedin’ donk’s just lost loadsa power. Oh well – no snags – I’ll just pull up with all my excess energy, roll upside down and eject through the bottom of the aircraft. No worries.” Common sense very soon prevailed and the more conventional form of exiting through the roof was installed. Some 20-odd pilots were killed in the early stages as a direct result of the downward firing seat.

The early J79 engines also caused some rather exciting problems, not least of which was the tendency of the afterburner nozzles to remain stuck in the fully-open (burners lit) position, when the burner was deselected. As I’m sure you can imagine, with the nozzles stuck open and the burners not lit, you would get more thrust out of the back by farting than you were getting from the engine. This caused a distinct tendency for pilots to leave the aircraft to its own devices while they tried to steer the parachute towards a pub car park.

Capot
24th Nov 2007, 18:49
Now where's that (genuine) picture of a Lighting pointing vertically downwards, about 100 ft away from ground impact in a field, pilot ejecting, just behind a tractor in the same field with the driver looking round at it...,,anyone got it?

Edit: Just did a Google on it, which I should have done before posting...top response was a pprune forum about the same pic started by the immaculate Tony Draper

JackHowe
24th Nov 2007, 19:02
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c246/con-pilot/EqQFKmgRMGFV.jpg
It's clear from the lack of orientating features that the above image is either reproduced 90degrees of rotation clockwise (and the ejection would be simply powered by gravitational attraction) or the aircraft engines would be reversed and the ejection effected by reverse reaction.

Ani fule kno that.

con-pilot
24th Nov 2007, 20:17
This picture is one reason I believe that the SU-27 photograph is real.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c246/con-pilot/_38161379_300ukraine4.jpg

As you can see the left wing has made contact with the ground and the canopy is still on the aircraft. The ejection sequence has not started at this point.

blue up
24th Nov 2007, 20:22
Silly boys.

Isn't it obvious that the plane is in fact a Dyson-modified version of the B47? The V47 used a 5 ton vacuum cleaner module to recover downed crewmembers. Saves on the cost of parachute silk. Didn't you see the memo?

forget
24th Nov 2007, 20:43
Good stuff! :ok:

http://www.ejectionsite.com/stanley/

Sallyann1234
24th Nov 2007, 22:38
OK, you've had long enough to guess.
It's actually a primitive form of air-to-air missile. The operator is fired towards an opposing aircraft, attaches a limpet mine to it with a rubber sucker, then pulls his parachute cord to land.

blue up
25th Nov 2007, 08:21
Forget.

I see that on the site you linked us to that it mentions testing ejection seats using Monkeys, Humans and Bears. BEARS???
How would you persuade one to get strapped in? Maybe they were used because they more closely resembled Navigators (Y'know. Smell, weight, shape and table manners etc):E

Rob Courtney
25th Nov 2007, 11:31
Cheers Radar your link makes interesting reading. I based my original post on a book written by Roland Beaumont called testing early jets, and his experiences when testing the F104. It makes damm good reading as he did most of the testing for English Electric on equipment such as the Lightning and Camberra but also did some exchange work in the states on the centuary series fighters.

Bravo73
25th Nov 2007, 12:28
Now where's that (genuine) picture of a Lighting pointing vertically downwards, about 100 ft away from ground impact in a field, pilot ejecting, just behind a tractor in the same field with the driver looking round at it...,,anyone got it?

http://www.hangout.no/foto/0112lightning_skydive.jpg


http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113616



:ok:

Bern Oulli
25th Nov 2007, 12:40
And if I remember correctly, that was at (or very close to) Hatfield, round about the time I should have been playing rugger on the school playing fields. Had I not bunked off (as usual) I would possibly have witnessed this as the playing fields looked down on the airfield from afar. The picture also appeared in the Hertfordshire Advertiser, or whatever the local rag was called then.

forget
25th Nov 2007, 12:51
I'd always seen this as a genuine photograph. Now I'm not so sure!

Swing it around and look at the relative positions of seat/pilot and aircraft. I don't think it makes sense. I believe both engines were still operating at approach power and yet the pilot still manages to get ahead of the aircraft.
:confused::confused:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/0112lightning_skydive.jpg

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
25th Nov 2007, 13:55
Hmmmmm. Look vaguely familiar:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/onan_the_clumsy/lowlightning2.jpg

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
25th Nov 2007, 13:57
The TU-22 had 3 downward firing seats, minimum safe ejection altitude was 2000m/6500ft ...and a requirement for GEAR UP to be selected :ouch:

Gingerbread Man
26th Nov 2007, 19:36
Good grief! Somewhat naively, I wasn't expecting the footage of the Su-30 (?) crash to then start wandering around ground-zero. I can't really compute the fact that those poor souls were living, breathing people just moments previously. Awful tragedy :(

Ginger

Germstone
26th Nov 2007, 19:51
The lightning ejectee flew a very nice display routine at Blackpool in a HS748 upon his retirement.

air pig
26th Nov 2007, 23:45
Forget and Bravo 73, the Lightning pilot was George Aird, who ejected due to a tailplane failure. It is a genuine photo

Used to fly the BAe mosquito.

Brilliant guy, ex air cadet with 7F squadron in Liverpool.:ok::ok:

VH-WTF
27th Nov 2007, 05:54
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1378739.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A6DF7195F32AA8AA049930FDCFC4 C15FBB

Loose rivets
27th Nov 2007, 06:17
We were talking about instrument lag at airyplane school. 1962 ish. One guy told of a Lightning coming down backwards -- with its canopy misted and alt some 10,000 behind reality.

"It went down behind a hanger, and there was a teriffic bang. We thought 'Poor chap.' A second later the airplane rose vertically standing on its thrust. An area of concrete was lifted by the pressure."

I'm fairly sure that he was a Lightning pilot, but as to the validity of the story, well, perhaps someone will know the answer.

Wiley
27th Nov 2007, 08:41
The early J79 engines also caused some rather exciting problems, not least of which was the tendency of the afterburner nozzles to remain stuck in the fully-open (burners lit) position, when the burner was deselected. As I’m sure you can imagine, with the nozzles stuck open and the burners not lit, you would get more thrust out of the back by farting than you were getting from the engine. This caused a distinct tendency for pilots to leave the aircraft to its own devices while they tried to steer the parachute towards a pub car park.Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was the situation described by Tom Wolfe in 'The Right Stuff', where two test pilots brought the bird home, more or less 'dead sticking' it onto the dry salt bed at very high speed and breaking the back of the 2 seater F104 on touchdown.

One ejected on touchdown, the other elected to ride it in.
Had the one who ejected stayed, he'd have been killed by the nosegear, which came up into the very recently vacated cockpit.

It was found later that the seat rails of the back seater's ejection seat had been buckled by the impact and had he tried to eject, he would almost certainly have been killed as his seat would not have separated.

The author's conclusion: both men possessed 'the right stuff' in making the right split second choice - although some would say both were just incredibly lucky.

Does anyone have a copy of the pic of the Lightning pilot ejecting at very low level with the farmer in his tractor looking on in the foreground? Early 60s, I think. That is a classic pic. Ahhh.. I see it's been posted already!

ScottyDoo
27th Nov 2007, 09:13
Unfortunately, not everyone has ejection seats... artillery got him.



http://gunsagogo.org/0009/0124.jpg

henry crun
27th Nov 2007, 09:26
Those chaps on the ground look remarkably composed, considering what is about to happen in their midst.

FatFrank
27th Nov 2007, 14:17
This pic was supposed to be taken in Veitnam, at Tacon Combat base (most people know it as Khesahn ). It features in the museum in Hanoi and Siagon (Ho Chi Minh).

The larger (full) photo shows the gun, I think I have it somewhere and will try and post it.

No survivors.

Loose rivets
28th Nov 2007, 20:25
Those chaps on the ground look remarkably composed, considering what is about to happen in their midst.


No hurry, they can look de-composed later. :\