Ejection Seat for RV'S

[txaviator]

Originally Posted by Paul Tuttle

We're workin on it.

[/url][/IMG]

Now THAT rocking chair is pure genius! You deserve some type of award, for creating that! (now I'm on Craigs List looking for 'ejection seats', LOL)

[donaziza]

Used to read about navy fighter pilots upon getting in their ejection seats, would attach their "rocket jet fittings". But I never knew what they were. Can anyone explain?

[ronschreck]

Originally Posted by David Paule

One of the '50s fighters, the F-104, had stirrups. The pilot would put them on and clip in the ends of some cables. Upon ejection, the seat would pull the pilot's feet towards the seat before leaving the plane.

Kind of a wild ride!



Dave

We used stirrups in the F-105 as well. They were metal rings that attached to straps around the top of your boot. Very macho!

[1flyer]

Originally Posted by donaziza

Used to read about navy fighter pilots upon getting in their ejection seats, would attach their "rocket jet fittings". But I never knew what they were. Can anyone explain?

Short answer. Depending on the aircraft and the type of ejection seat, devices (gaters, stirrups, straps) are used to hold or pull the pilot's legs and feet rearward toward the seat assembly during an ejection sequence. Helps them clear the cockpit structure on the way up and helps keep them from flailing about as the seat stabilizes once clear of the aircraft. When it's time for the seat and pilot to separate the sequencer releases the leg restraints along with the harness and the pilot falls free.

The reference to the "rocket jet fittings" may mean the rocker motor used in the seat to move the pilot/seat away from the aircraft once clear of the cockpit.

[Andy Hill]

It is difficult to think "when" one might use one in an RV?

Early ejection seats [pre-rocket] e.g. MB Mk4 in Jet Provost/Hunter, has a "zero/90" capability i.e. you needed 90KIAS to have a zero altitude / RoD capability.

The video I will guess shows an aircraft at ~100KIAS? You can see how it is the KE of the "pilot" that is used to deploy the chute, and yet the pilot is probably some 100'+ below the aircraft before the descent is arrested?

So as a wild guess, I reckon this seat would have a 200'/100KIAS (zero RoD) minimum capability, and as you reduce IAS, the altitude requirement would increase markedly. So good for flight testing at altitude, not good for EFATO.

As an ex-mil pilot trained on ejection seats, and now in the civilian world but still flying some ex-mil aircraft with live seats, there is a culture change to just "abandoning the aircraft" to land elsewhere. There is also an increased experience in ex-mil jets (USA as well?) of failure to eject when appropriate - e.g. not trained from the outset to "pull the handle and worry about the consequences later"

In the RV world, I have a nasty feeling the by the time you realised you needed to use the seat, you could well be out of limits?

Just some random ramblings...

[Bob Redman]

My memory says the leg restraints in the Vampire were called 'bowyangs' - MB Mk1 ejection seat.

I have noticed a different attitude to flying now that i am funding the habit, rather than the tax payer - it is harder to stick to priorities:

first - my passenger & me.
second - the airframe.
third - engine or anything else.

Regards

[David Paule]

One thing worth thinking about, Andy referred to a couple of examples, is the speed-altitude environment in which ejection seats work. I remember that some not only had a zero speed, zero altitude capability, they had a rate of descent capability as well. Kind of hard to imagine a successful escape at zero speed, some rate of descent, and zero altitude- but some systems could do it.

One feature that was used sometimes was a pyro-deployed chute. Haven't seen them in a civilian parachute. This not only got the chute out of the pack, it opened it up very rapidly.

I knew two pilots who ejected from a T-33 without injury. They were about 7,500 AGL, I think, in a spin, and had previously blown off their canopy. Another pilot ejected from an A-7 below 10k AGL, also in a spin, and had severe back issues afterwards. Ejecting can be dangerous. That all happened in the same week - that weekend, I drove down to the Lake Elsinor for a practice static line jump. Those were the only three guys I knew personally who'd ejected, and one was injured. Something to think about.

Dave

[mv031161]

Originally Posted by Andy Hill

It is difficult to think "when" one might use one in an RV?

Early ejection seats [pre-rocket] e.g. MB Mk4 in Jet Provost/Hunter, has a "zero/90" capability i.e. you needed 90KIAS to have a zero altitude / RoD capability.

The video I will guess shows an aircraft at ~100KIAS? You can see how it is the KE of the "pilot" that is used to deploy the chute, and yet the pilot is probably some 100'+ below the aircraft before the descent is arrested?

So as a wild guess, I reckon this seat would have a 200'/100KIAS (zero RoD) minimum capability, and as you reduce IAS, the altitude requirement would increase markedly. So good for flight testing at altitude, not good for EFATO.

As an ex-mil pilot trained on ejection seats, and now in the civilian world but still flying some ex-mil aircraft with live seats, there is a culture change to just "abandoning the aircraft" to land elsewhere. There is also an increased experience in ex-mil jets (USA as well?) of failure to eject when appropriate - e.g. not trained from the outset to "pull the handle and worry about the consequences later"

In the RV world, I have a nasty feeling the by the time you realised you needed to use the seat, you could well be out of limits?

Just some random ramblings...

IMHO it is cheaper to buy a BRS system! BTW...have you all seen the Cirrus video
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v...r&notif_t=like

[Andy Hill]

Of course, you still have to ensure that you can get rid of the canopy....

Not often that I disagree with you Paul, but might on this one

Mil Jets aim to get rid of the canopy (or shatter it), but the "system" does work if canopy does not go - just you and seat get pushed through it

Given the lightweight nature of RV canopies, would be a non-issue IMHO. This does assume of course one would only sit an on ejection seat with correct "headwear".

[HeliCooper]

I was out as soon as I saw "Russian".