Comfort?
Chief Tardis Technician
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western Australia S31.715 E115.737
Age: 71
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
62Kilos is very nearly too light to use a Martin Baker seat, (designed for a person of around 90Kilos) the power of the seat would cause back injuries.
The two over head loops for ejection went, as the user tended to lean forward when using them instead of sitting back and pulling. Again this is very bad for the back.
The two over head loops for ejection went, as the user tended to lean forward when using them instead of sitting back and pulling. Again this is very bad for the back.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Fouga Magister was quite literally a pain in the arse!! Your parachute 'was' your cusion. No ejection seat here I'm afraid ! The canopy was very close to your head also, I know one tall guy who had trouble fitting under the canopy (don't know how he got past the flight safety end of things?) and the control column came fairly close to the nads during control checks, thankfully not in flight.
I vary between 95-100kg depending on how lazy I've been and I'm 5'9",
And I've broad shoulders. On doing my medical to fly in a Hawk the doctor told me I was the perfect shape to be a fighter pilot!!!!
So a bit of 'Obeisity' (??) may be a good thing!!!
BW
I vary between 95-100kg depending on how lazy I've been and I'm 5'9",
And I've broad shoulders. On doing my medical to fly in a Hawk the doctor told me I was the perfect shape to be a fighter pilot!!!!
So a bit of 'Obeisity' (??) may be a good thing!!!
BW
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The seat pan handle is now the choice of champions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flown a '21, but not in combat. I'm not that old. Or bold.
In response to someone else; I'm male and already have my medical degree so I don't need anyone check out my genitalia, thanks
I think you'll find that the definitive physiological studies on the reclined-seat-helps-deal-with-g argument have yet to be done.
In response to someone else; I'm male and already have my medical degree so I don't need anyone check out my genitalia, thanks
I think you'll find that the definitive physiological studies on the reclined-seat-helps-deal-with-g argument have yet to be done.
Hjane, the F-16 wasn't designed that way on a whim.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss Fonda may have a point This is the first relevant hit on Google for "reclined seat g force studies" http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get...fier=ADA259532 "Abstract : The present study investigated human cognitive performance under high G in an upright seat and two reclined seats (PALE and Tilt-back). Subjects were required to perform a perceptual/motor and a classification task both separately and concurrently. Data were gathered prior to G-onset, during varying levels of acceleration, and post-G. Results indicated that neither of the reclined seats were superior to the upright seat at high G levels. Perceptual/motor data revealed that the PALE seat has an advantage in post-G recovery, while the upright seat maintains better performance during acceleration for this measure. These results indicate that the physiological benefits of reclination do not easily translate into cognitive performance increments. Before a definitive study can evaluate the contributions reclination may make to pilot performance under severe levels of G-force, engineering issues surrounding the mechanization of reclined seating needs to be resolved" Its a 1991 report so theres probably newer research around, just not immediately available online
Oh dear! Its gone from ladies with balls to some unreadable scientific report! Could only happen on Prune!
More idle banter please! I thought all fast jet seats were fine! Just glad I got to sit on one for a few years before having to sit in an armchair surrounded by civilians!
And when required to work it did just what it said on the box.........saved my bones
More idle banter please! I thought all fast jet seats were fine! Just glad I got to sit on one for a few years before having to sit in an armchair surrounded by civilians!
And when required to work it did just what it said on the box.........saved my bones
Last edited by newt; 20th May 2011 at 22:03.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could probably find a more readable "scientific" report on ladies with balls if thats what you prefer.
In the meantime, here are some more ladies with balls Chests banged over topless haka - World - smh.com.au
In the meantime, here are some more ladies with balls Chests banged over topless haka - World - smh.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think you'll find Bangkok has plenty of Ladies With Balls. I'm headed there next weekend. Should I take pictures?
The original post-WWII Russian studies into g indicated a short, stocky physiology was most resistant to g, therefore Russian combat pilot selection was/is, to some extent, based on you being small. Rather in the same manner that their tank crews have to be around 1.6 m or less (not for g protection, but to reduce the overall size of the tank) they designed some of their cockpits around small framed individuals.
I understand what you're saying about comfortable cockpits for the average tubby-out-of-shape western pilots, and I do recall the Americans being very critical of the cockpit ergonomics of the '21's they 'acquired' and tested, but the simple fact is that if you're small and fit the '21 cockpit works just fine.
The main issue with the analogue '21's was the amount of stuff in your face. It's very old-school and forward visibility was sometimes compromised. The Israelis offer various solutions to this issue in a very cost-effective manner.
The original post-WWII Russian studies into g indicated a short, stocky physiology was most resistant to g, therefore Russian combat pilot selection was/is, to some extent, based on you being small. Rather in the same manner that their tank crews have to be around 1.6 m or less (not for g protection, but to reduce the overall size of the tank) they designed some of their cockpits around small framed individuals.
I understand what you're saying about comfortable cockpits for the average tubby-out-of-shape western pilots, and I do recall the Americans being very critical of the cockpit ergonomics of the '21's they 'acquired' and tested, but the simple fact is that if you're small and fit the '21 cockpit works just fine.
The main issue with the analogue '21's was the amount of stuff in your face. It's very old-school and forward visibility was sometimes compromised. The Israelis offer various solutions to this issue in a very cost-effective manner.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of comments on the ACES II as fitted in the F16 (which I Flew for 3 years)
The seat is very comfortable, and typically, you don't lie back in combat, rather you sit up at whatever is comfortable for you. On long transits, you can rest back, but personally, I didn't much.
The Old G, reclined seat argument: My understanding, is that in the F16, although there is a theoretical G onset advantage, the real reason for the incline, was the very shallow cockpit depth, which was the only way to get the chair in!! If you look closely at a pic, you'll see what I mean.
Oh, and just for the record, even leaning back, you can still view the HUD / Displays, although looking backwards is tricky! My god given monumental appendages never seemed to get in the way!!!
Advo
The seat is very comfortable, and typically, you don't lie back in combat, rather you sit up at whatever is comfortable for you. On long transits, you can rest back, but personally, I didn't much.
The Old G, reclined seat argument: My understanding, is that in the F16, although there is a theoretical G onset advantage, the real reason for the incline, was the very shallow cockpit depth, which was the only way to get the chair in!! If you look closely at a pic, you'll see what I mean.
Oh, and just for the record, even leaning back, you can still view the HUD / Displays, although looking backwards is tricky! My god given monumental appendages never seemed to get in the way!!!
Advo
Last edited by advocatusDIABOLI; 22nd May 2011 at 05:42.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats a load of balls
As for "The original post-WWII Russian studies into g indicated a short, stocky physiology was most resistant to g" - sounds like the Russians would have been better off getting their women to fly.
As for "The original post-WWII Russian studies into g indicated a short, stocky physiology was most resistant to g" - sounds like the Russians would have been better off getting their women to fly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I do seem to recall a study somewhere which suggested that women were more 'g' tolerant than men.
And I think you've been hanging around with the wrong type of Russian woman if you think they're 'short and stocky'. Try the beach at Vung Tau
And I think you've been hanging around with the wrong type of Russian woman if you think they're 'short and stocky'. Try the beach at Vung Tau
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to work with a Scots guy who used to get his words muddled - he was always going on about why there were no women jet fighter pilots -
"Weeman cannae fly jets coz th' g forces plays havoc wi' their mormons..."
"Weeman cannae fly jets coz th' g forces plays havoc wi' their mormons..."