Shorts SA4 Sperrin pilot-only ejector seat
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shorts SA4 Sperrin pilot-only ejector seat
The prototypes of the Short Sperrin (a contender for the V-bomber post war requirement) were built for a crew of five, but only the pilot had an ejector seat.
Does anybody know what lay behind this rather extraordinary policy? Was it intended that production models had ejection facilities for all the crew? Or were the other crew just considered more expendable in those days?
Does anybody know what lay behind this rather extraordinary policy? Was it intended that production models had ejection facilities for all the crew? Or were the other crew just considered more expendable in those days?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Victor and Vulcan also had bang seats for "pilots" only. [Don't know about the Valliant].
"Doddy" Hayes did test firings for Martin-Baker..[if you can find his autobiography (can't remember the title) it's well worth a read] for the "V" Bomber crew escapes.
HMG said too expensive.....
watp,iktch
"Doddy" Hayes did test firings for Martin-Baker..[if you can find his autobiography (can't remember the title) it's well worth a read] for the "V" Bomber crew escapes.
HMG said too expensive.....
watp,iktch
The Valiant was the same, two pilots only. There was a proposition to installl ejector seats for the rear crew but the structural problems were too great.
The pressure cabin could only accept a hole in the roof large enough for ONE ejector seat so that if the rear crew had to leave it would be a case of the nav plotter (in a Valiant) going first and then the other two have to either motor their seats over or eject obliquely. There was also the risk of the front and rear seats colliding so there would have to be a sequencing process for the whole crew. It was far to difficult and expensive so the idea was dropped.
Historically, of the abandonments and fatalies involving V force aircraft on nearly every occasion the crew either survived or there was insufficient time for more than one or two to leave the aircraft irrespective of how many ejector seats were fitted. On at least three I remember the whole crew went in with the aircraft.
The pressure cabin could only accept a hole in the roof large enough for ONE ejector seat so that if the rear crew had to leave it would be a case of the nav plotter (in a Valiant) going first and then the other two have to either motor their seats over or eject obliquely. There was also the risk of the front and rear seats colliding so there would have to be a sequencing process for the whole crew. It was far to difficult and expensive so the idea was dropped.
Historically, of the abandonments and fatalies involving V force aircraft on nearly every occasion the crew either survived or there was insufficient time for more than one or two to leave the aircraft irrespective of how many ejector seats were fitted. On at least three I remember the whole crew went in with the aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks - I did not realise that the same policy applied to the Vulcan and Valiant too.
How did such a policy affect crew morale and cohesion? What were the SOPs on banging out? Was the pilot obliged to bang out by SOPs in certain situations, even though he could be condemning his crew?
It seems the antithesis of the tradition that the captain goes down with the ship. I can't imagine that any pilots would ever bang-out unless their crew had already bailed out - maybe that explains why the Vulcans went in with all crew on board?
How did such a policy affect crew morale and cohesion? What were the SOPs on banging out? Was the pilot obliged to bang out by SOPs in certain situations, even though he could be condemning his crew?
It seems the antithesis of the tradition that the captain goes down with the ship. I can't imagine that any pilots would ever bang-out unless their crew had already bailed out - maybe that explains why the Vulcans went in with all crew on board?
That was the way it was. The copilot had the best chance because he was the first one out, if only to give everybody an idea as to what had happened. The captain going down with the aircraft or waiting until the rest of the crew had gone? No chance. All the rear crew I knew were adamant that if time was the essence then out the pilots go even if they had to leave them behind.
Around 1963/4 new rear seats were fitted that rotated towards the door and an inflatable cushion would push the occupant out of the seat. At the same time the seat pan firing handle was added to the ejector seats.
Neither were much use on the Valiant low and slow. There was not enough height for parachute deployment and the canopy wouldn't jettison below 125 knots.
Life was cheap in those days. One of the reasons I was given, whether it was official or not I do not know, was that it was cheaper to recruit and train two new navigators and an AEO than it was to modify an aircraft.
I knew one co-pilot who was the only survivor of a Vulcan crash. He would talk about it in a matter-of-fact way and he showed no signs of remorse or regret.
Around 1963/4 new rear seats were fitted that rotated towards the door and an inflatable cushion would push the occupant out of the seat. At the same time the seat pan firing handle was added to the ejector seats.
Neither were much use on the Valiant low and slow. There was not enough height for parachute deployment and the canopy wouldn't jettison below 125 knots.
Life was cheap in those days. One of the reasons I was given, whether it was official or not I do not know, was that it was cheaper to recruit and train two new navigators and an AEO than it was to modify an aircraft.
I knew one co-pilot who was the only survivor of a Vulcan crash. He would talk about it in a matter-of-fact way and he showed no signs of remorse or regret.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did such a policy affect crew morale and cohesion?
Life was cheap in those days.
Such a policy wouldn't have had any effect on crew cohesion. That's jsut how it was. It probably wouldn't even have crossed their minds. I dispute that life was cheap either - for heaven's sake, we're only talking about 40 years ago, not the Middle Ages. Accidents were considerred inevitable, not something disastrous to ground a critically important fleet over. Suggestions like these indicate how ready we are to apply modern attitudes inappropriately to a previous time, and, hardly surprisingly, reach inappropriate conclusions. Victorians weren't "sexist" because women didn't have the vote, the concept of sexism did not exist, that was just how they did it back then.
The difference is that 40 years ago they weren't overwhelmed with the H & S preciousness and namby-pamby political "correctness" that so cripples and distorts modern thought, and stifles progress and business.
Imagine Doddy Hayes trying to do live tests on a bang seat today! The H & S Nazis would close Martin Baker down!
And did Mr Hayes sue MB for squillions over his wrecked back? Hell no, he went back to work and wrecked his back again, and again. Because that was his job, his responsibility.
Just like those back seaters without the benefit of his testing. Doing their jobs proudly (not very PC that, is it?), and not whining that it wasn't fair...
Grrr! Rant over!
Life was cheap in those days.
In earlier times than mine I was told that as we were paid at a daily rate he was not officialy dead until midnight so the victims bar book would be opened and the Air Ministry would pick up the bill.
As far as pilots and rear crew on the Victor was concerned it should not have been an issue. The original concept was that the entire pressure cabin was jettisionable and the crew would descend very much like the later F111.
IIRC a Victor at Wittering was lost on finals when one of the connectors at the rear pressure bulkhead came adrift and shut down the AC electrics. The aircraft froze at 1,500ft. and they were all out at 1,000.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 4th May 2008 at 07:07.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fareastdriver.
Cottesmore. Below from http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/A...ype/Victor.htm
I refer to the reason for the loss of Victor B1A XH613 on the 4th of June 1962.
The reason that all four engines lost power was because an electrical socket, part of the fuel control system, became detached from the back of the central sliding fuel panel. I think it was called the AT Panel.
It was a great surprise to all, that all four engine fuel controls were routed through the one socket. Even Radlett couldn't believe it. The socket of course should have been wire locked. I cannot remember now whether it had been, and the wire had broken, or if indeed it had been removed at some point and the wire not replaced and locked.
Hope the above helps to keep the info as accurate as possible.
At that time I was an aircraft electrician on 10 Squadron
David M T Ketley
in email 31st January 2008
IIRC a Victor at Wittering was lost on finals....
I refer to the reason for the loss of Victor B1A XH613 on the 4th of June 1962.
The reason that all four engines lost power was because an electrical socket, part of the fuel control system, became detached from the back of the central sliding fuel panel. I think it was called the AT Panel.
It was a great surprise to all, that all four engine fuel controls were routed through the one socket. Even Radlett couldn't believe it. The socket of course should have been wire locked. I cannot remember now whether it had been, and the wire had broken, or if indeed it had been removed at some point and the wire not replaced and locked.
Hope the above helps to keep the info as accurate as possible.
At that time I was an aircraft electrician on 10 Squadron
David M T Ketley
in email 31st January 2008
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many people burned to death or jumped anyway
, though at that point in aviation, recruitment may well have been the cheaper option, though my understanding is that it was a decision taken to prevent men jumping at the first signs of combat rather than a financial one.I did read one book where the author recounted watching someone climb back along the fuselage and hang on to the tail as the cockpit became engulfed in flames. What a sad, sad, unnecessary waste.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 85
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C H Barnes in his book Shorts Aircraft since 1900 published by Putnam stated the following in respect to the Short Sperrin:-
He also stated
The crew of five were to be concentrated in a single pressure cabin, since there was no defensive armament and navigation and bomb-aiming were to rely on an advanced version of H2S radar , although a supplementary visual-bombing station in the nose was also specified. Cabin pressure was to be 9 lb/sq in, equivalent to 8,000 ft altitude during cruise at 40,000 ft , reducing to 3.5 lb/sq in (25,000 ft equivalent altitude) over the target to minimise the effects of sudden decompression if attacked; the first pilot was to have an ejector seat, and the other crew members were to be able to bale out quickly before the pilot.
No live emergency escapes were ever attempted , although they had been simulated by volunteers in the R.A.E. blower tunnel and by comprehensive tests on correctly weighted dummies; at an early stage in the design an attempt had been made to provide explosive bolts to release the entire front fuselage as a safety capsule, but model tests showed that severe tumbling would occur in the delayed drop to 12,000 ft before parachutes could be deployed and there would have been a structural weight penalty of more than 1,000lb.
How did such a policy affect crew morale and cohesion?
As I recall we rear crew just accepted the situation and were aware that in any serious emergency under about 800 feet we weren't going to get out.
But - 45 years on [ and a tad older and wiser] I know that, essentially for cost reasons, our survival chances were significantly worse than the two pilots who both had ejection seats.This was inequitable of course, and should not have happened, or at least should not have continued, until the V Force folded.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone ever analysed how many V Force rear crew didn't make it because of lack of ejector seats. The infamous Heathrow arrival of XA897 was a starter. XM604 is an obvious one - but after that ??
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canberras too
As an air cadet on camp at RAF Geilenkirchen in something like 1966, I remember visiting 3 Sqn when their role was low level strike in Canberras. The navigator would have had to reach and clip on a chest parachute before opening the door and leaving the aircraft - they just accepted that this wasn't going to be a viable option at low level. Given the nature of the weapon they were carrying, there was suggestion that the pilot might have thought twice about ejecting during a 'real' mission. They also accepted that the real mission was likely to be one-way, with very little likelihood that they'd find a runway on their return
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Coast
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the pleasure to fly all three,at no time was there a problem with morale that I was aware of. The Wittering incident was remarkable given the height,but proved it could be done.57 Sqn. Honington 1970. 15000ft.in the climb lots of time.only the Captain and the AEO survived.
As a humerous aside. My AEO on 57,added a rider to the pre takeoff checks
" Seatpins out and stowed. Padlocks in.Keys kept at the back.!!!
Caused several visiting Co-Pilots,including the Staish to go crinkle chip
There was also the Valiant at Gaydon.mid sixties.couldnt lower U/C.burnt off fuel,bailed out three rear crew.Then did a wheels up
As a humerous aside. My AEO on 57,added a rider to the pre takeoff checks
" Seatpins out and stowed. Padlocks in.Keys kept at the back.!!!
Caused several visiting Co-Pilots,including the Staish to go crinkle chip
There was also the Valiant at Gaydon.mid sixties.couldnt lower U/C.burnt off fuel,bailed out three rear crew.Then did a wheels up
