When Pilots Eject
When Pilots Eject
Sunday 27/1/02 - Channel 5 20.00 - 21.00
Documentary charting the history of the ejection seat.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: spekesoftly ]</p>
Documentary charting the history of the ejection seat.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: spekesoftly ]</p>
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a very good programme, some awe inspiring pictures of what some pilots have had to do in the past, to enable a tad more safety for todays mil flyers, I especially like the nonchalant way the Russian pilot in France reached into his pocket, took out and lit up a cigarette, I think he could be the coolest man on the planet! 
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: Vfrpilotpb ]</p>
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: Vfrpilotpb ]</p>
"Trust Me"
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Egham, UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry -I wasn't impressed. Techy bits interesting, but as usual they dwealt too long on the 'specatacular' situations the 'planes got into before ejection, and the guy who hid in the bushes, that went on far too long. He survived, that was what was important. Too much on the slow mo and freeze frame -and then when they said at the end that next week's documentary is on film of police car chases, I screamed!!
It was more in the vain of 'Ejector Seat Escapes from Hell'.
If you want to see an interseting documentary on ejector seats, buy DD Videos 'Meteor' video and watch the bit on the Marin-Baker Meteor.
DOC
It was more in the vain of 'Ejector Seat Escapes from Hell'.
If you want to see an interseting documentary on ejector seats, buy DD Videos 'Meteor' video and watch the bit on the Marin-Baker Meteor.
DOC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There can't be that much archive film of an actual ejection, and I think they did well with what they had. The experimentation film I had not seen before, and I was in total awe of the guy who pushed his body to the limit while taking part in tests that helped create the first successful ejector seat. His last test involved accelerating from 0-632 mph and stopping within 40 feet; and he ended up with haemorrhaging eyeballs. - did I hear 80G?
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: newswatcher ]</p>
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: newswatcher ]</p>
You've seen the film, now read the book . .I seem to recall Doddy Hay wrote an account of his experiences with Martin Baker..."Man in the Hot Seat"?. .Certainly impressed me when I read it decades ago.
. .I seem to recall Doddy Hay wrote an account of his experiences with Martin Baker..."Man in the Hot Seat"?. .Certainly impressed me when I read it decades ago.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Doddy's book is a great read. I met him about 6 years ago, he was living in Methil, Scotland where I worked at the time. He was a truly fascinating guy. He had about 3000 parachute jumps to his name. He described his first "zero zero" test ejection as being weird - normally he looked down to see the ground rushing up; here the ground was rushing away from him. I seem to recall Doddy was a bit sore about the fact he spent much of his time testing an ejection system for the "backroom boys" in the Vulcan, half crippled himself in the process - only for the system to be cancelled on cost grounds.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Weald, UK
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched most of it last night, there was one incident that I had to pause the tape on though. A aircraft was taking off from a carrier, pitched up after it crossed the bows and hit the water. Seconds later, a plume shot up, a parachute opened and deposited the pilot back on the deck! Efficient or what?
The question is - what was the aircraft type? From the canopy (glasshouse tandem) and the general height of the aircraft, it looked like a old Fouga Magister, but the tail didn't seem to be a Vee/Butterfly. I thought that there might be a star on the tail fin, that and the general look to the 'back end' made me wonder if it was Russian. Any ideas will be gratefully received - I think it was just at the end of Part 2.
The reason for the crash? The airbrake behind the canopy was open, unlike the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer crashes which just seemed to pitch up and stall.
The question is - what was the aircraft type? From the canopy (glasshouse tandem) and the general height of the aircraft, it looked like a old Fouga Magister, but the tail didn't seem to be a Vee/Butterfly. I thought that there might be a star on the tail fin, that and the general look to the 'back end' made me wonder if it was Russian. Any ideas will be gratefully received - I think it was just at the end of Part 2.
The reason for the crash? The airbrake behind the canopy was open, unlike the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer crashes which just seemed to pitch up and stall.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newswatcher: I believe the guy you are referring to was a U.S. Marine flight surgeon who retired after a long career with everything more or less intact. there was a segment on one of those discovery/history/speedvision chanels that had lots about him. Advantage of the research and development folks is thereis lots of footage of their action, must be a goldmine to even the laziest film producer.
Question off topic: Why does the History Channel turn into the Hitler Channel (name for it at our house) so often?
Question off topic: Why does the History Channel turn into the Hitler Channel (name for it at our house) so often?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A biog. of the gentleman on the sled can be found here: <a href="http://www.stapp.org/stapp.html" target="_blank">http://www.stapp.org/stapp.html</a> and here: <a href="http://www.zianet.com/space/stapp.html" target="_blank">http://www.zianet.com/space/stapp.html</a>
. .The carrier-borne type that deposited its pilot back on deck was, I think, a Yak-38 (NATO name Forger), a STOVL design specifically made for the Russian Navy.
The Buccaneer accident resembled that of the (ground-borne) USN F-4 in that both seemed to have a severe case of jammed upward elevator trim. By contrast, the Sea Vixen just sailed off the end and immediately pancaked in the water so I took that to be a "cold" catapult shot.
Further comments welcomed.
. .The carrier-borne type that deposited its pilot back on deck was, I think, a Yak-38 (NATO name Forger), a STOVL design specifically made for the Russian Navy.
The Buccaneer accident resembled that of the (ground-borne) USN F-4 in that both seemed to have a severe case of jammed upward elevator trim. By contrast, the Sea Vixen just sailed off the end and immediately pancaked in the water so I took that to be a "cold" catapult shot.
Further comments welcomed.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vpp
I did'nt see the programme but I think that the incident you refer to was not in France, but at Fairford a few years back. If I remember correctly he had a midair with his colleague and sustained an injury in the 'post-flight debrief'
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: rightbank ]</p>
I did'nt see the programme but I think that the incident you refer to was not in France, but at Fairford a few years back. If I remember correctly he had a midair with his colleague and sustained an injury in the 'post-flight debrief'
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: rightbank ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
got a black and white video here of a US carrier shot, grumman tracker taking off. Carrier happens to pitch down into wave at right time, the seas were huge, tracker completely disappears into top of wave and actually comes out the other side. If I knew how I'd put it on here for you, amazing!
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While working as a techrep on the Atlas missile I had the pleasure of working with an Air Force Captain by the name of Jim Ure. After a while I thought there was enough of a relationship and I asked him about a limp and the fact that his right arm was always in the same position. He told me the following story. He was flying an F-80 over Korea when he had his flight controls seriously damaged making his aircraft roll quite rapidly. He was close to the ground so he elected not to eject because if he were upside down he might be shot into the ground. He popped his canopy and released his restraints. He held onto the inside structure and when he was right side up he let go and the “CENTRIFUGAL FORCE “ * ejected him but not fast enough to clear the vertical fin. On the way down he tried pulling the D ring but nothing happened. His hand was on it but his arm was no longer mechanically connected to his hand. He eventually pulled the D ring with his left hand. He looked down and saw blood running out of his flight suit. He was losing a lot of blood from a seriously damaged leg, which he eventually lost. His comment to himself was ‘Ure you really F****d up this time. He was rescued by friendlies and eventually married his nurse. He is now living in Southern California.
*You may have noticed CENTRIFUGAL FORCE in caps. Those of you that participated or read the thread on centrifugal Vs centripetal force will understand.
*You may have noticed CENTRIFUGAL FORCE in caps. Those of you that participated or read the thread on centrifugal Vs centripetal force will understand.
Didn't see the programme (forgot!), but a couple of observations:
1. Buccaneer. Launced 'blown', the configuration would probably be something like 30-20-20 if memory is correct (not that I ever flew the jet off a carrier). That means 30 deg of mainplane flap, 20 deg of aileron droop and 20 deg upward deflexion of the tailplane flap (to cater for the trim change in that configuration). Hence it would certainly look as though the aircraft had a 'stuck tail trim to someone unfamiliar with the Bucc (which used variable incidence datum tailplane trimming). However, if the ac lost thrust after launch, it would lose all the blow and suddenly find itself some 30 kts below the unblown stalling speed!
2. Vixen. When I was at London University QMC, one of the statics problems we used to have to analyse was the so-called 'Sea Vixen throttle' problem. It seems that there was little friction in the throttle linkage, which had mass at the top and was hinged at the bottom. Hence on a 'hands-off' launch, the throttles would close themselves automatically under acceleration - with the predictable result! I also remember reading that a test pilot turned up on one of HM's war canoes and announced that 'they' (the squadron pilots) weren't doing things properly on launch - and he would show them how it should be done! There then followed the usual mayhem of the cat launch, followed by the usual silence and Martin-Baker let down. Only then was Something Done......
1. Buccaneer. Launced 'blown', the configuration would probably be something like 30-20-20 if memory is correct (not that I ever flew the jet off a carrier). That means 30 deg of mainplane flap, 20 deg of aileron droop and 20 deg upward deflexion of the tailplane flap (to cater for the trim change in that configuration). Hence it would certainly look as though the aircraft had a 'stuck tail trim to someone unfamiliar with the Bucc (which used variable incidence datum tailplane trimming). However, if the ac lost thrust after launch, it would lose all the blow and suddenly find itself some 30 kts below the unblown stalling speed!
2. Vixen. When I was at London University QMC, one of the statics problems we used to have to analyse was the so-called 'Sea Vixen throttle' problem. It seems that there was little friction in the throttle linkage, which had mass at the top and was hinged at the bottom. Hence on a 'hands-off' launch, the throttles would close themselves automatically under acceleration - with the predictable result! I also remember reading that a test pilot turned up on one of HM's war canoes and announced that 'they' (the squadron pilots) weren't doing things properly on launch - and he would show them how it should be done! There then followed the usual mayhem of the cat launch, followed by the usual silence and Martin-Baker let down. Only then was Something Done......
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more comments having watched the film again.
The Sea Vixen indeed has barely enough momentum to get clear of the end of the deck so it's entirely possible that it had throttle problems as opposed to a dud cat. shot.
The Buccaneer has all control surfaces apparently set as described by Beagle and it gets a good shot but it then pitches up at once almost to the vertical and climbs a little before gravity overtakes it less than half a mile from the ship.
I'm sure the Russian was the STOVL Yak-38 but so far I can only find references to single seaters. It definitely has 2 POB and makes an apparently unassisted takeoff from a standing start using most of the length of the carrier's deck. At all times its tail is down and the nosewheel off the deck. It goes straight off the end (no ski-jump) without making any attempt to fly and two chutes result.
I understand the forward opening structure behind the cockpit is not an airbrake but an air intake for the (two) separate lift engines it utilises and it would appear that perhaps these or its single main engine failed it on this occasion.
On the topic of Martin-Baker not getting a fair crack of the whip I can accept that this wasn't meant to be a film about M-B but all the producers had to do to keep the record straight was to tell how many lives have been saved by M-B seats and how many by others. QED.
The Sea Vixen indeed has barely enough momentum to get clear of the end of the deck so it's entirely possible that it had throttle problems as opposed to a dud cat. shot.
The Buccaneer has all control surfaces apparently set as described by Beagle and it gets a good shot but it then pitches up at once almost to the vertical and climbs a little before gravity overtakes it less than half a mile from the ship.
I'm sure the Russian was the STOVL Yak-38 but so far I can only find references to single seaters. It definitely has 2 POB and makes an apparently unassisted takeoff from a standing start using most of the length of the carrier's deck. At all times its tail is down and the nosewheel off the deck. It goes straight off the end (no ski-jump) without making any attempt to fly and two chutes result.
I understand the forward opening structure behind the cockpit is not an airbrake but an air intake for the (two) separate lift engines it utilises and it would appear that perhaps these or its single main engine failed it on this occasion.
On the topic of Martin-Baker not getting a fair crack of the whip I can accept that this wasn't meant to be a film about M-B but all the producers had to do to keep the record straight was to tell how many lives have been saved by M-B seats and how many by others. QED.
Yak 38 Forger B was the 2-seat version of the basic Yak 38 Forger A - and what you describe was definitely an auxiliary air door for the forward lift motors. But the really amazing Yak V/STOL design was the Yak 141 Freestyle. Never have so many car alarms gone off at once as they did when it flew at Farnborough a few years ago!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Yak-38B:
<a href="http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/38/Yak-38U_a.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/38/Yak-38U_a.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.ejectionseat.com/k-36tm1.html" target="_blank">http://www.ejectionseat.com/k-36tm1.html</a>
"The K-36LV (seat) is a modified version of the L which was designed specifically for VTOL/VSTOL aircraft like the Yak-38. The LV version has an automatic ejection feature which is initiated if there is an aircraft failure which will cause departure from controlled flight during the vertical or near vertical phases of the flight regime. The K-36LV features include a reinforced headrest specially designed to break through the canopy in case of aircraft failure during vertical takeoff or landing".
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: ORAC ]</p>
<a href="http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/38/Yak-38U_a.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/38/Yak-38U_a.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.ejectionseat.com/k-36tm1.html" target="_blank">http://www.ejectionseat.com/k-36tm1.html</a>
"The K-36LV (seat) is a modified version of the L which was designed specifically for VTOL/VSTOL aircraft like the Yak-38. The LV version has an automatic ejection feature which is initiated if there is an aircraft failure which will cause departure from controlled flight during the vertical or near vertical phases of the flight regime. The K-36LV features include a reinforced headrest specially designed to break through the canopy in case of aircraft failure during vertical takeoff or landing".
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: ORAC ]</p>
