testing new airliners
Thread Starter
testing new airliners
Just saw an interview on TV with an airbus ( I think it was a 340/600) test pilot who basically said that they wear parachutes, helmets etc on testing flights and then pointed to a large red(covered) handle "which could blow(something) off to escape if needed"
I know that the test Concord had an escape hatch at each end of a/c and that it was a totally manual system (ie blow off hatch and slide down hole), but I just wondered if this was "normal" for initial flights in airliners?
Has any civvy a/c been fitted with ejection seats during testing?
I know that the test Concord had an escape hatch at each end of a/c and that it was a totally manual system (ie blow off hatch and slide down hole), but I just wondered if this was "normal" for initial flights in airliners?
Has any civvy a/c been fitted with ejection seats during testing?
Pretty much universal, also the case for helicopters - a 4 (5?) man test crew got out of an EH101 out of Yeovil a few years ago after a tailrotor failure.
Lighter light aircraft are increasingly using ballistic parachutes in preference for early and high risk test flying, but personal parachutes and a pre-planned exit route is still the norm in my experience.
Again, helmets are common for initial and high risk / oscillatory mode testing.
I've never yet heard of an ejection seat being fitted to a civil aircraft for FT - the costs associated with fitting the seat, modifying the structure around it, providing a jettisonable canopy, etc. are invariably too great to justify it.
G
Lighter light aircraft are increasingly using ballistic parachutes in preference for early and high risk test flying, but personal parachutes and a pre-planned exit route is still the norm in my experience.
Again, helmets are common for initial and high risk / oscillatory mode testing.
I've never yet heard of an ejection seat being fitted to a civil aircraft for FT - the costs associated with fitting the seat, modifying the structure around it, providing a jettisonable canopy, etc. are invariably too great to justify it.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 18th Jun 2003 at 23:05.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our (Bombardier) aircraft all AFAIK have an escape system of some kind - usually by a modified baggage hatch and sometimes a floor hatch in the larger aircraft. The LJs have blow out cabin doors IIRC. Helmets and chutes are common for a lot of initial testing; helmets alone for the field perf stuff where a chute ain't much use to anyone.
Also most of our test aircraft have big red "cut here" marks on the fuselage to aid crash/rescue teams. "Uncle Roger" made light of those marks when the prototype CRJ900 went to farnborough with them marked on; not perhaps an ideal subject for humour.
Also most of our test aircraft have big red "cut here" marks on the fuselage to aid crash/rescue teams. "Uncle Roger" made light of those marks when the prototype CRJ900 went to farnborough with them marked on; not perhaps an ideal subject for humour.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The larger Bombardier aircraft have a modified Avionics Bay hatch which is hydraulically activated and acts as a blast door to allow the crew to exit the aircraft. The VHF2 antenna is also removed so it doesn't slice & dice. Internally there are spring-loaded escape chute covers and a fireman's pole/rope combination. The rope also leads back to the aft Baggage Bay door which is also hydraulically activated to move straight back about 3 feet from the hatch (mind your toes). The cabin overflow valves are modified so as to allow depressurisation to ambient above the usual restrictor altitude of around 14,000 feet.
The ordinary overwing & cockpit escape hatches & main door all work as normal but the Service Door is fixed - the forward water ballast blocks it. All test aircraft (except F&R birds) have Irvin spin chutes fitted.
The LJ aircraft have blow-off sections opposite the main door with built-in escape chutes. Again the overwing exits are as production.
For high risk testing, minimum crew is carried & they all wear helmets & chutes with pre-set barometric release.
Bang seats were only ever used on the CL-84 tiltwing.
The ordinary overwing & cockpit escape hatches & main door all work as normal but the Service Door is fixed - the forward water ballast blocks it. All test aircraft (except F&R birds) have Irvin spin chutes fitted.
The LJ aircraft have blow-off sections opposite the main door with built-in escape chutes. Again the overwing exits are as production.
For high risk testing, minimum crew is carried & they all wear helmets & chutes with pre-set barometric release.
Bang seats were only ever used on the CL-84 tiltwing.
Last edited by ICT_SLB; 22nd Jun 2003 at 13:31.
The BAe146 used the cabin service doors as the escape route. The standard door structure and locking mechanisms were retained minus the door hinges. Door jettison was aided by a pneumatic ram. To escape the crew dumped cabin pressure via a large butterfly valve in a cabin window, proceeded to the rear service door (in preference to the forward door – in front of the engines), turned the door locks to open, then blew the door clear with a lanyard attached to the door ram-air supply. Egress was completed with a static line parachute drop; bone domes were always worn on high-risk flights.
The 125-800 (900) 1000 developments did consider ejection seats, but this option would have been very complex particularly as there were difficulties with cutting through the top cockpit fuselage skin before the seat could fire. Space-shuttle type pogo sticks via the main cabin door (downward hinged – to go below the wing) were also considered. The compromise solution was a static line parachute drop through a very small fuselage hole directly into the wheel-well; this required the landing gear to be down!
Alf
The 125-800 (900) 1000 developments did consider ejection seats, but this option would have been very complex particularly as there were difficulties with cutting through the top cockpit fuselage skin before the seat could fire. Space-shuttle type pogo sticks via the main cabin door (downward hinged – to go below the wing) were also considered. The compromise solution was a static line parachute drop through a very small fuselage hole directly into the wheel-well; this required the landing gear to be down!
Alf
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Notre Dame IN USA
Age: 82
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked at Sikorsky Aircraft many years ago. We had to self-insure our test pilots, as no company would take the risk. Helicopters in those days glided like bricks. For all I know, they might still, unless there is some feathering mechanism to give them a survivable landing.
