What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Ejection Seat for RV'S

Very interesting - I doubt it gives you zero-zero capability, but I could see applications where it might add some safety margin. Of course, you still have to ensure that you can get rid of the canopy....
 
All I can think of is OUCH!

Hmm.

Cool idea... but I think the ergonomics of our RVs would have to be altered a bit so that our legs wouldn't remain on board after activation......
 
Of course, you still have to ensure that you can get rid of the canopy....

Or perhaps change your preferred type of helmet:

190px-Bismarck_pickelhaube.jpg
 
I can see it being useful for the passenger seat if you see they're about to be sick in your aurplane.
 
I wouldn't buy it

In mid eighties I got two ejections out of NKTL like this. It kicks you up pretty hard. They claimed 25G in 0.5 seconds or so...


post-67452-0-64417100-1350751296_thumb.jpg
 
....I think the ergonomics of our RVs would have to be altered a bit so that our legs wouldn't remain on board after activation......

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!

26825_1248714129.jpg


Dave
 
F-104 Ejection Seat

And the original ejection seats for the F-104 were downward ejection seats! To clear the T tail until they got some upward ejection seats with more power.
 
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?
 
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!

26825_1248714129.jpg


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!
 
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.
 
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" :eek:

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...
 
BOWYANGS

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
 
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
 
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" :eek:

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?...b.518203288190066&type=2&theater&notif_t=like
 
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 :eek:

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

Actually, don't turn down a Russian ejection seat. The are as good as they get. The early versions of the MiG-29 seat had a wider and faster ejection envelope than our best seats. We saw it in action in the Paris airshow bird strike. I've seen them tested at the Holloman AFB rocket sled...impressive. I'd strap my butt to one without a second thought.

Regarding Andy's comment about the canopy: I agree. However, several early seats featured a knife-like breaker tool on top of the seat to pierce the canopy, which then shattered as the seat and man accelerated through. Given the video (my one and only data point), I'm not sure this seat develops enough acceleration to bust through and still have enough residual energy to lift me over the tail.

Ultimately I agree with 31161: A BRS might be the better option.
 
I was out as soon as I saw "Russian".


We are not in the soviet world of propaganda anymore....Russian Ejection Seats are very advanced in military operations. No one is claiming best or worse over western systems but they do have a very reliable system shown over and over several times.

in light aircraft. they have been playing with it since the original Aerobatic SU-26, SU29 and SU-31

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_WBK6mtkWw
 
Don't hit your head on the canopy on the way out

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 :eek:

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".

All I know is that when Goose hit the canopy in Topgun, (you know, when the F-14 was in a flat spin heading out to sea) it didn't work out well for him. I say lose the canopy first and then punch out.
 
A friend of mine is the lead design engineer for some of the deployable devices on the Orion spacecraft. I asked him about a sensor-controlled extendable roll bar for my RV-3B, and his response was "no problem." And there wasn't - except where to mount it, how to test it, and other real-world development questions. So I didn't go ahead with it.

The reason I'm mentioning it here, is that its original location would have had it punching through the canopy as it extended. It would have been a dandy canopy-breaker.

Dave
 
Last edited:
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 :eek:

Not entirely true. Most modern Martin Bakers and some ACES seats include a canopy interdictor block. Think of it as one of many of the seat's "safeties". As the canopy jettisons, a pigtail cable attached to the canopy must pull the interdictor block in the top of the seat, which then allows the seat sequencing to commence. If the canopy doesn't pull the block, the seat won't fire. This prevents the seat from firing the pilot's skull through the plexi.

Stated differently: The canopy MUST get out of the way for the seat to fire.

Again, this isn't universal, but many (most?) modern seats feature this canopy separation requirement.
 
Hi Sid

The only seat I was aware of requiring the Canopy to go was the 2 seat Lightning - and in fact failure of that led to the fatality in South Africa. But my experience is limited to UK Jet Provost / Hawk / Harrier I & II and Hunter.

But my experience is more UK based by definition, and somewhat dated.

I suspect in the context of this thread, the weak canopies and low cost / complexity requirement would not require this. However, as said above, the loss in energy in breaking the canopy might be significant?
 
Hi Andy.
The Martin Baker seat in the F-4 and the Aces II have interdicter-style connections. Not sure about the very latest seats.

Of interest, Harriers have explosive chord laced onto the top of the plexi: It blows at ejection, shattering the plexi one heartbeat before the seat blows through.
 
Of interest, Harriers have explosive chord laced onto the top of the plexi: It blows at ejection, shattering the plexi one heartbeat before the seat blows through.
Well familiar with the MDC - same as Hawk & JP Mk5. Doesn't always work though :(
 
Hmm... On the tip-up canopy, the difficulty i've always foreseen is in getting the rear of the canopy high enough to clear the roll bar... I think by that angle there will be enough clearance that the aerodynamic forces will push the hinges back out of their slots. Maybe if the ejection seat had a post that hooked on the rear of the canopy and pushed the rear of the canopy up... Then when you eject you'd have a nice big plexi windshield in front of you to protect you from the elements. If you and your passenger eject at the same time you could huddle behind it until the airplane falls away and your chutes open... Or there could be a single chute for both seats...

Okay, back to reality... :)
 
one I know of

The Viper has two cables attached to the canopy. One has to be pulled for the seat to go. The Hawg and the Eagle sequence the canopy off first but if it doesn't go it will fire the seat right through it. There are canopy breakers on the top of the seat. If you look close you will see them on the Hawg and Eagle seats but not on a Viper seat.
 
BRS, kind of...

The F-111's entire cockpit was ejected if the handles were pulled. No flail injuries at high Mach, no parachutes or harnesses to wear, and no poopie suits when flying over water. It floated and actually had a bilge pump that could be engaged to the control stick to pump water over board. There was room for emergency food and water! Being early 60's technology, there was no gyro stabilization. One consequence is that crew members weight couldn't differ by more than some forgotten amount or the capsule wouldn't eject upwards, but would roll to the fat guy side!

The first edition of the B-1 had the same system. Production models weren't supersonic and reverted to individual seats.

Capsule Pros: Comfy cockpit environment, only one guy has to pull the handles and it saves both guys. Most importantly: you can get your story straight on the way down!

Capsule Cons:Landing impact is taken on your back (since you're seated) rather than on your legs. I have a friend who punched from a Vark in England in 1987; he lost 1 1/2 inches in height when the capsule impacted the ground at the wrong angle due to system malfunctions - he was able to return to flying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8l79lSjVMg
 
All I know is that when Goose hit the canopy in Topgun, (you know, when the F-14 was in a flat spin heading out to sea) it didn't work out well for him. I say lose the canopy first and then punch out.

Amazingly enough that was one of the few true points in the movie. If the F14 went into a flat spin the RIO needed to manually jettison the canopy before initiating ejection. If not and a normal ejection was performed the RIO's seat could hit the canopy. There was not enough forward airflow in a flat spin to take the canopy clear of the aircraft fast enough in a normal ejection sequence. The pilot would be incapacitated by the Eyeball out G so it was up to the RIO to remember to get the canopy clear first.
George
 
Have you seen one of the video's where someone takes an airbag unit from a vehicle and places it under a seat for an unsuspecting victim? It might hurt like ****, but probably a lot cheaper. :D
 
Ejection seats

Ok, after one takes their knees off via the instrument panel now what? If an ejection seat is needed you've got other problems!
 
What about the canopy?

If the canopy is already open why not just jump? A canopy jettison system linked to the ejection event isn't a trivial. This only addresses half the issue.
 
Yeah....I'd rather not add something else that can kill me easily, just sitting on the ground. Unless your head is on the wrong place, a ground BRS deployment wouldn't exactly kill you. Just your wallet.

Looks like this under 100' or so (or sitting on the ground) would just catpult you in a nice arc to a splat. Assuming you were strapped in...even worse if you were doing mx leaning over the seat or something.

I think I'd rather stick to strong planes and chutes when required. Cool in concept though.
 
rv-14 canopy

the system in the RV-14 which releases the tip-up canopy at the front and lets it roll away backwards seems like a great way to open up your escape route...
 
They tested in on bears first. Don't recall all the details but I think only a couple sustained any injuries.
 
Back
Top