Comfort levels?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wherever I'm needed
Age: 39
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comfort levels?
Just wondering, how comfortable is a modern jast jet, i've never even got close to flying one but i understand your strapped in tight (for ejection seat etc) and i for one like to move my legs quite a bit when i'm flying. Is it a real pain when you get an itchy back?
Also is there a more comfortable jet, ie is the ultra modern typhoon more comfortable with a massage setting and heated seats compared to an old workhorse which is like sitting on two bits of sheet metal for hours?
Also is there a more comfortable jet, ie is the ultra modern typhoon more comfortable with a massage setting and heated seats compared to an old workhorse which is like sitting on two bits of sheet metal for hours?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that this is not a wah...
Wingisland, I've been flying on ejection seats for a few years, and although they are not that great, they aren't that uncomfortable either. There isn't really any padding, since it would compress and the seat would schwack your arse when it fired, so you get the occasional numb-bum after a couple of hours. You sit quite upright in most jets too. The straps aren't super-tight like you'd imagine. It's the lapstrap which holds you too the seat, mostly, so that needs to be tight, but the shoulder straps only need to be firm. I've always told pax that they need to be like a medium rucksack, no tighter. The shoulder straps have a ratchet you can release which makes them like a car seatbelt on an inertia reel, which helps too. The rest of the stuff you don't really notice - the leg restraints and arm restraints are easy to get used to. Even the g-pants are alright too. The imersion suit, on the other hand!
You can't move your legs all over, but certainally in the tornado it is easy to get loads of room. The foot rests go a long way forward and the cockpit is quite spacey. Sadly the hawk wasn't so roomy and my fat arse seemed to get cramped in the most uncomfortable places! An itchy back is fine, but try itching your gentlemans area through the many layers of kit!
Hope this helps.
Blunty.
If this is a wah, then sorry. I bit...
Wingisland, I've been flying on ejection seats for a few years, and although they are not that great, they aren't that uncomfortable either. There isn't really any padding, since it would compress and the seat would schwack your arse when it fired, so you get the occasional numb-bum after a couple of hours. You sit quite upright in most jets too. The straps aren't super-tight like you'd imagine. It's the lapstrap which holds you too the seat, mostly, so that needs to be tight, but the shoulder straps only need to be firm. I've always told pax that they need to be like a medium rucksack, no tighter. The shoulder straps have a ratchet you can release which makes them like a car seatbelt on an inertia reel, which helps too. The rest of the stuff you don't really notice - the leg restraints and arm restraints are easy to get used to. Even the g-pants are alright too. The imersion suit, on the other hand!
You can't move your legs all over, but certainally in the tornado it is easy to get loads of room. The foot rests go a long way forward and the cockpit is quite spacey. Sadly the hawk wasn't so roomy and my fat arse seemed to get cramped in the most uncomfortable places! An itchy back is fine, but try itching your gentlemans area through the many layers of kit!
Hope this helps.
Blunty.
If this is a wah, then sorry. I bit...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I think this is a genuine question but wonder why you want to know? Thinking of nipping to Halfords for a comfy chair?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too had the earlier Martin Baker Chair in my office for quite some time, the Office also saw a lot of time <100' .....Secretarial services were poor though., and lunch hour was not spent with the company of blunties, come to think of it I was generally quite lonely!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BluntM8, very interesting post, I always got the impression that pilots were strapped in properly tight...
I'd like to ask something, but first I'll have to go off topic a little bit so you can understand what I'm on about, so sorry if it's boring.....In 1996, the Formula 1 team, Williams, lowered their drivers much lower into their cars, by so much that when the F1 cars were going flat out on the straights, slowing down & pulling high G's through the corners, the drivers arses were something like, only 2 inches from the ground. Makes their eyes water when they hit a few bumps on the track so I've heard. Lowering the drivers seats made the car handle better, better centre of gravity etc etc. But what was maybe more important, it was/is more comfortable for the driver(s), reducing cramp and in most cases getting rid of cramp all together, thus greatly improving the drivers performance over long distances on difficult circuits such as the ones at Monoco, Brazil, Spa......
So, my point is, when F1 drivers are in their cars, they're not really "Sitting" in them, but are more "Laying" in them, with his legs slightly raised up. Only his shoulders & head are upright for obvious reasons. It's hard, almost impossible to tell just by looking at them, but if you look at a blue-print of an F1 car with an driver in it, you'll be able to see....So! Would having the same, or a similar seating arrangement in a fighter, not neccersarily in an Harrier, Tornado Typhoon etc, but rather in manned future fighters be a better solution for the pilot to be "laying down" like an F1 driver rather than in an "up-right" position? Would it be more comfortable for him in such an environment? But also, what if he needs to eject while in that "Laying down" position?...
F1 drivers pull 4 to 5 G's in corners when they're pushing it & seem to take them with no problem. Maybe it's the way they're seated?...
Sorry if it's a pointless silly question...Or questions shall I say..
Many thanks,
regards.
I'd like to ask something, but first I'll have to go off topic a little bit so you can understand what I'm on about, so sorry if it's boring.....In 1996, the Formula 1 team, Williams, lowered their drivers much lower into their cars, by so much that when the F1 cars were going flat out on the straights, slowing down & pulling high G's through the corners, the drivers arses were something like, only 2 inches from the ground. Makes their eyes water when they hit a few bumps on the track so I've heard. Lowering the drivers seats made the car handle better, better centre of gravity etc etc. But what was maybe more important, it was/is more comfortable for the driver(s), reducing cramp and in most cases getting rid of cramp all together, thus greatly improving the drivers performance over long distances on difficult circuits such as the ones at Monoco, Brazil, Spa......
So, my point is, when F1 drivers are in their cars, they're not really "Sitting" in them, but are more "Laying" in them, with his legs slightly raised up. Only his shoulders & head are upright for obvious reasons. It's hard, almost impossible to tell just by looking at them, but if you look at a blue-print of an F1 car with an driver in it, you'll be able to see....So! Would having the same, or a similar seating arrangement in a fighter, not neccersarily in an Harrier, Tornado Typhoon etc, but rather in manned future fighters be a better solution for the pilot to be "laying down" like an F1 driver rather than in an "up-right" position? Would it be more comfortable for him in such an environment? But also, what if he needs to eject while in that "Laying down" position?...
F1 drivers pull 4 to 5 G's in corners when they're pushing it & seem to take them with no problem. Maybe it's the way they're seated?...
Sorry if it's a pointless silly question...Or questions shall I say..
Many thanks,
regards.
Tiffy,
F1 drivers experience lateral G when going round corners. Pilots experience it in the vertical axis as it's generated by pulling "up;" a very very different sensation and not really comparable.
F1 drivers experience lateral G when going round corners. Pilots experience it in the vertical axis as it's generated by pulling "up;" a very very different sensation and not really comparable.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with TiffyFGR4, after many years of sitting on Blah jet and Tonks seats I have found that the more vertical a seat is the more uncomfortable it is -twin stickers are a case in point. If you also look at the seat layout of the F16 the pilot is sitting semi-prone this is primarily for anti g reasons (I think its reclined about 35 degrees. From my vast experience ( ie once) I found the seat incredably comfortable
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,565
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Somewhat off thread (slow 4 engine piston rather than fast jet) , but I recall that the leather armchairs in the Shackleton weren't too bad, unless you had the "B" seat which gave you "TACO's Bum" due to the screen being offset because of the wing spars. (You got either a cricked back or a third bottock caused by sitting half over the metal rim that held the seat cushion). Mind you, the "A" seat was not stressed, and so you had to vacate it for landing and wedge yourself between the wing spars (no straps!). The most uncomfortable were the Shackleton passenger seats for take off and landing. They consisted of a portable harness that strapped you to the bare floor in the galley - not too comfortable when you pulled 1.5g, but we were tough!
Last edited by Wensleydale; 20th Nov 2008 at 06:48. Reason: a quick grammar check!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiffy,
To provide a bit of depth to the above answers: The issue with pulling G is that the effect on the body is much like whirling a bucket of water around. The centripetal force causes the fluid to move towards the lower half of the body. In the case of aircrew, this means that the effect of pulling G is to force the blood towards your feet.
As the G increases, two effects occur. Firstly, the blood is forced to the feet more, which causes a significant drop in blood pressure at the brain, and secondly, the heart moves down in the chest cavity, meaning it has to pump the blood a little further to keep it in the head.
The best protection against this is to perform an anti-G straining manouvre (agsm). The agsm involves tensing the muscles of the lower body to squeeze the blood back up, whilst holding your breath to keep the lungs inflated and hopefully the heart in the right place. You breathe in short grunts and it isn't very nice. Imagine the feeling of trying to crap a football...
The G pants help by squeezing on the lower limbs, which has two effects. Firstly it helps squish the blood back up, and secondly it goves something to strain against.
The reason seats are reclined in some jets is to put the body on an oblique angle to the G force. This reduces the distance vertically between heart and brain, and also means the blood can't rush so far down the body. In fact, in the 50s some trials were done with a prone pilot in a Meteor to test this to it's fullest.
However, the need to look out remains, and the need to provide a sensible ejection posture. Hence, the sitting position remains dominant. An upright seat provides a better posture for lookout, hence remains popular in aircraft, especially those designed for CAS.
Hope this helps.
Blunty
To provide a bit of depth to the above answers: The issue with pulling G is that the effect on the body is much like whirling a bucket of water around. The centripetal force causes the fluid to move towards the lower half of the body. In the case of aircrew, this means that the effect of pulling G is to force the blood towards your feet.
As the G increases, two effects occur. Firstly, the blood is forced to the feet more, which causes a significant drop in blood pressure at the brain, and secondly, the heart moves down in the chest cavity, meaning it has to pump the blood a little further to keep it in the head.
The best protection against this is to perform an anti-G straining manouvre (agsm). The agsm involves tensing the muscles of the lower body to squeeze the blood back up, whilst holding your breath to keep the lungs inflated and hopefully the heart in the right place. You breathe in short grunts and it isn't very nice. Imagine the feeling of trying to crap a football...
The G pants help by squeezing on the lower limbs, which has two effects. Firstly it helps squish the blood back up, and secondly it goves something to strain against.
The reason seats are reclined in some jets is to put the body on an oblique angle to the G force. This reduces the distance vertically between heart and brain, and also means the blood can't rush so far down the body. In fact, in the 50s some trials were done with a prone pilot in a Meteor to test this to it's fullest.
However, the need to look out remains, and the need to provide a sensible ejection posture. Hence, the sitting position remains dominant. An upright seat provides a better posture for lookout, hence remains popular in aircraft, especially those designed for CAS.
Hope this helps.
Blunty
In the future, apparently you will all be standing up on the job:
(The designers of this entirely fictional spacecraft were complimented by the aerospace community on their attention to practicality)
-P
(The designers of this entirely fictional spacecraft were complimented by the aerospace community on their attention to practicality)
-P
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wherever I'm needed
Age: 39
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really is a genuine question, the closest i've ever come to sitting in a fast jet was at an air show many moons ago and the dials and sticky out bits interested me more compared to how comfortable i was! Unfortunatly due to medical (eyesite) reasons i will never get the chance for a trip in a fast jet so have to use the good people of PPRuNe to answer my musing
I've only recently moved onto an aircraft which has sheepskin covers (fancy I know!) and it was just one of the many random thoughts which popped into my head during an especially long boring airway sector! Another thought which pops up on the same thread is how many creature comforts do you get, I appreciate that a fast jet is a utilitarian machine of war, but surely designers still put a jack for you ipod
!
I've only recently moved onto an aircraft which has sheepskin covers (fancy I know!) and it was just one of the many random thoughts which popped into my head during an especially long boring airway sector! Another thought which pops up on the same thread is how many creature comforts do you get, I appreciate that a fast jet is a utilitarian machine of war, but surely designers still put a jack for you ipod
!
Creature comforts
They even give you an air transportable ablutions device for when nature calls.
Really practical they are too!
Mind you, you should see what the female aviators get!
BV
Really practical they are too!
Mind you, you should see what the female aviators get!
BV
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To provide a bit of depth to the above answers: The issue with pulling G is that the effect on the body is much like whirling a bucket of water around. The centripetal force causes the fluid to move towards the lower half of the body. In the case of aircrew, this means that the effect of pulling G is to force the blood towards your feet.
Does this mean that the effect of pulling G do not apply to non-aircrew who happen to be along for the ride?
Does this mean that the effect of pulling G do not apply to non-aircrew who happen to be along for the ride?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wishing to spoil your tales of daring do in the mighty Viper but the seat was and is reclined only because otherwise it wouldn't fit in a very shallow forward fuselage.
If you actually put your head back at any time other than for ejection you can see the square root of sod all, the HUD and entire cockpit disappears behind your mask. Because of that you spend the whole time hunched forward and any coincidental reduction in heart/brain seperation due to the 30 degree recline, which wouldn't be much anyway but my maths isn't good enough to prove it, is effectively removed.
Mind you you're right, it is pretty comfortable. The sheepskin seatpan cover in particular!
If you actually put your head back at any time other than for ejection you can see the square root of sod all, the HUD and entire cockpit disappears behind your mask. Because of that you spend the whole time hunched forward and any coincidental reduction in heart/brain seperation due to the 30 degree recline, which wouldn't be much anyway but my maths isn't good enough to prove it, is effectively removed.
Mind you you're right, it is pretty comfortable. The sheepskin seatpan cover in particular!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''They even give you an air transportable ablutions device for when nature calls.
Really practical they are too!
Mind you, you should see what the female aviators get!
BV
''
Just googled, oh my.....
Really practical they are too!
Mind you, you should see what the female aviators get!
BV
''Just googled, oh my.....