PDA

View Full Version : cheap and simple ejection system



raaaid
03-28-2010, 02:45 PM
all right you push the button and the cannopy gets shot out and afterwards a system...

puts the elevator into maximum negative g

BillSwagger
03-28-2010, 02:49 PM
what if you only have a few hundred feet to bail?

berg417448
03-28-2010, 02:52 PM
Or what if you are already on the ground?

raaaid
03-28-2010, 02:53 PM
youll go straight for a while sustentated by speed which causes some air sustentation

and you can always pitch up a little before pressing the buttom

TinyTim
03-28-2010, 03:04 PM
Fighter pilots in WW2 were often instructed they should unfasten all belts, open canopy and then kick the control column forward with a foot. Negative g should "eject" them from the plane.

raaaid
03-28-2010, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
Or what if you are already on the ground?

oh is it such a good idea this is its only con?

raaaid
03-28-2010, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Fighter pilots in WW2 were often instructed they should unfasten all belts, open canopy and then kick the control column forward with a foot. Negative g should "eject" them from the plane.

thats exactly whre i got the idea from, the same make simpler

TheGrunch
03-28-2010, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
oh is it such a good idea this is its only con?
Not at all. Pilots are more expensive than ejector seats.

raaaid
03-28-2010, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
oh is it such a good idea this is its only con?
Not at all. Pilots are more expensive than ejector seats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly on this way you save pilots life in a cheap way, i dont see your point would it be better a death pilot cause he couldnt eject for example for too much speed?

edit:

i think theres been extensive testing on bailing out at high speeds, and it was considered imposible

even the game models this

come on wwii has to be a fairy tale why would nobody think of this such a good idea that nobody here will admitt as such which makes me wonder the real face of people here

TheGrunch
03-28-2010, 03:24 PM
Your idea doesn't save pilots that are forced to bail at low altitudes due to for example engine failure on takeoff or accidents on aircraft carriers, or simply taking hits at low level, i.e. for pilots in attack aircraft. This has been pointed out to you. In that sense, ejector seats are less expensive than your idea. Where are the majority of pilot losses likely to be nowadays? Low-level attack, training accidents or equipment failure.

raaaid
03-28-2010, 03:27 PM
ABSTRACTS "1A Hasty Exit," Aircraft (Toronto), 13: No. 6, 12-15, June 1951, ABSTRACT: Above 155 mph the pilot needs help in bailing out because of thedanger of being struck by some part of the plane. Above 400 rrph wind resist-ance makes getting out of the cockpit a considerable feat of physical strength.Accelerative forces may make it impossible for the pilot to lift himself fromhis seat

http://209.85.229.132/search?q...&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:YFDBTe50zCcJ:handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD615442+%22high+speed+bail+out%22+wwii+imposible&cd=2&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es)

The WW II pilot was surrounded with stuff not much different from what the Germans had ... The high speed bail-out fatality rate was alarming." .... designers and some insisted that it would be impossible to achieve a practical system. ...


not to mention this system is better than the actual

<span class="ev_code_RED">you may pull 50 g with this method while with the explosive method you are limited to ten g </span>
this a clue into almost everithyng being staged

raaaid
03-28-2010, 03:29 PM
Your idea doesn't save pilots that are forced to bail at low altitudes

i already adressed this:

pitch a litle up before pressing the button

hint parabolic shooting

TheGrunch
03-28-2010, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
pitch a litle up before pressing the button
Yeah, try doing that in every situation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif What if the elevator is damaged or entirely missing? What if you experience an engine failure during a carrier takeoff? What if you're only at tree-top level? Pitching up won't save you in those situations.

raaaid
03-28-2010, 03:56 PM
still is better than nothing as they had in wwii

why wouldnt they use this system in wwii?

i dont think im smarter than those engineers

maybe wwii is a fairy story and things are not what they seem?

VF-17_Jolly
03-28-2010, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
1/still is better than nothing as they had in wwii

2/why wouldnt they use this system in wwii?

3/i dont think im smarter than those engineers

4/maybe wwii is a fairy story and things are not what they seem?


1/ which is why the ejection seat was developed

2/ because it's a stupid idea

3/ yes you do and you don't listen to anyone

4/ your just odd

WTE_Galway
03-28-2010, 04:33 PM
Try this instead ...

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/assets/parachute%20plane.jpg

Choctaw111
03-28-2010, 04:59 PM
I have seen many films where a simple "down elevator" would have killed the pilots, not saved them.
The pilot needs to be thrown clear of the plane, especially at low altitudes.

BillSwagger
03-28-2010, 05:03 PM
oh, for WW2, it might've been a decent idea.

When you mentioned ejection seats i thought you were speaking of jet fighters.


Bill

stalkervision
03-28-2010, 05:47 PM
I like the early f-104 system that shots you into the ground myself.

AndyJWest
03-28-2010, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I like the early f-104 system that shots you into the ground myself.
I suppose it saves on funeral expenses...

stalkervision
03-28-2010, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I like the early f-104 system that shots you into the ground myself.
I suppose it saves on funeral expenses... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Smithsonain Magazine has some real nice stories on that seat.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.airspacemag.com/mil...tom-Riding-Club.html (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The-Unhappy-Bottom-Riding-Club.html)

Sooocool
03-28-2010, 06:23 PM
How about the NOAH System;

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/noah-e.html

Scroll down and click on the video.

M_Gunz
03-29-2010, 12:35 AM
I'd hate like hell for such a 'system' to trigger when I didn't want it to.
Or to find out I have some clothing or other item jammed or stuck or caught
and not be thrown clear and be unable to use the stick because some stupid
mechanism is holding it forward.
OTOH clearing yourself and using your foot to push the stick seems better.

MikkOwl
03-29-2010, 10:04 AM
A creative idea. I think it has more merit than the other posters has given it. There are reasons that are against it, and reasons in favor.

____________

Against:

- Depending on speed, aircraft position, current loadout weights, positon relative to the ground, and damage to controls or aiframe, could make the bail out in such a manner deadly (pilot struck by own vertical stabilizer for example, or striking another aircraft or even the ground). This one is probably a smaller risk than the others.

- The biggest danger: The pilot is normally restrained by harnesses, oxygen masks and radio cables. If pilot is attached by anything there would be trouble.

- When technical failiure is the reason for the bail out and it is most likely flying slow, it would be less dangerous to be able to jump out on and slide down the wing (not 100% here, saw Soviet comprehensive training film for bailing out).

- The conrol column/stick moving forward could injure or even trap the pilot.

- Mechanical reliability & increased cost of system pulling stick forward. Malfunctions to the stick puller could cause deadly accidents.

___________

In favor:

+ Wounded/disabled/blinded pilots would have a higher chance of bailing successfully.

+ Faster than conventional bailing.

__________

Summary:

Complicated and risky system. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. It would in most cases only have a marginal effect on bail out speed due to the things keeping the pilot attached to the aircraft needing to be detached first.

With certain improvements: Best for high altitude. To really make a difference the harnesses, oxygen mask and cabling need to be detached automatically and reliably. The control column should preferably not be physically moved, instead making aircraft pitch down through using the trim tabs or some other mechanism.

A system that unrestrained the pilot instantly and reliably would be a bigger improvement to bail out success than this proposed system.

VF-17_Jolly
03-29-2010, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I like the early f-104 system that shots you into the ground myself.

Don't forget the B-52 (obviously not a fighter) that fired the crew up and down

I found this on the ejection site

http://www.ejectionsite.com/b-52.htm

http://www.ejectionsite.com/


also a good advert for ejection seats

Most Miraculous Ejection:

This one goes to an Israeli pilot flying an A4 Skyhawk at low level approx. 350 kts. The pilot reports he was flying straight and level, then he was lying on his back on the valley floor with a massive headache.

Israeli analysis of his damaged helmet and the debris of the aircraft detected traces of bird blood and a single feather as well as fragments of HUD glass in his face.
Apparently he was the victim of a bird strike directly to the front wind screen. The bird continued thru the canopy, demolished the HUD and smashed the visor on the pilots helmet, knocking him unconcious.

How did he eject? Answer: enough of the birds corpse deflected upward off his helmet to strike the upper ejection handles and fire the seat!!!

stalkervision
03-29-2010, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I like the early f-104 system that shots you into the ground myself.

Don't forget the B-52 (obviously not a fighter) that fired the crew up and down

I found this on the ejection site

http://www.ejectionsite.com/b-52.htm

http://www.ejectionsite.com/


also a good advert for ejection seats

Most Miraculous Ejection:

This one goes to an Israeli pilot flying an A4 Skyhawk at low level approx. 350 kts. The pilot reports he was flying straight and level, then he was lying on his back on the valley floor with a massive headache.

Israeli analysis of his damaged helmet and the debris of the aircraft detected traces of bird blood and a single feather as well as fragments of HUD glass in his face.
Apparently he was the victim of a bird strike directly to the front wind screen. The bird continued thru the canopy, demolished the HUD and smashed the visor on the pilots helmet, knocking him unconcious.

How did he eject? Answer: enough of the birds corpse deflected upward off his helmet to strike the upper ejection handles and fire the seat!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Jolly for the excellent link! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

M2morris
03-29-2010, 05:23 PM
F-14 Test Pilots eject at 100 feet due to hydraulic fluid loss and what appears to be an elevator stuck in the down position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY3tsYoLopQ

raaaid
03-29-2010, 07:24 PM
what about if you eject the whole cockpit with this system?

the weight doesnt matter

Zeus-cat
03-29-2010, 07:28 PM
When I was in the USAF the office I worked for did research on ejection systems. The problem with high speed ejections is that the pilot's arms and legs get blown back from the high speed winds. When the limbs are forced back it is possible that arteries can be severed and the pilot will bleed to death from internal injuries.

The USAF was developing ways to keep the pilot's limbs from being whipped back violently during the ejection.

Skoshi Tiger
03-30-2010, 04:21 AM
CLive Cadwell (DSO, DFC and Bar, Polish cross of Valour) had this to say of the P-40, "The Tomahawk did however, have one serious fault. The cockpit when jettisoned from the near closed or well forward position, swung inwards through the cockpit striking the pilot a heavy blow on the face or head. My own experience with this...from which I was very lucky indeed to recover in time brought this to light with consequent appropriate warning to the pilots"

Just remember to duck!!!!!

Cheers!

Outlaw---
03-30-2010, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
what about if you eject the whole cockpit with this system?

the weight doesnt matter

The F-111 ejects the cockpit. The statement, "weight doesn't matter", proves that your thinking process is completely flawed. Weight is EVERYTHING in aircraft design.



Originally posted by raaaid:
still is better than nothing as they had in wwii
why wouldnt they use this system in wwii?


Because its range of uses is very small as has already been explained. You don't sacrifice mission purpose and design around one small set of criteria.



Originally posted by raaaid:

i dont think im smarter than those engineers
maybe wwii is a fairy story and things are not what they seem?


What a ridiculous set of conclusions, however, they are par for the course.



Originally posted by MikkOwl:
The control column should preferably not be physically moved, instead making aircraft pitch down through using the trim tabs or some other mechanism.


In most WW-II era aircraft and most fighters of every nation, the stick WILL MOVE with changes in the trim tabs.



--Outlaw.

raaaid
03-30-2010, 12:48 PM
In most WW-II era aircraft and most fighters of every nation, the stick WILL MOVE with changes in the trim tabs.

hey outlaw now as i see you as friends do you rememebrour the disccussion on controlling the elevator just with the trimtabs as a servo

plz man dont dissapoint me and attack me cheap ly

Outlaw---
03-30-2010, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In most WW-II era aircraft and most fighters of every nation, the stick WILL MOVE with changes in the trim tabs.

hey outlaw now as i see you as friends do you rememebrour the disccussion on controlling the elevator just with the trimtabs as a servo

plz man dont dissapoint me and attack me cheap ly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I remember, however, your idea was NOT to control the elevator with just the trim tabs. It was to control the trim tabs with the stick and the elevator with the trim wheel.

--Outlaw.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 03:46 PM
As a metaphor: when Raaaid goes to play cards, he first removes the ones he doesn't like.
That's why he comes off as someone who is not playing with a full deck.

Waldo.Pepper
03-31-2010, 02:44 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/boing/interestingbloke.jpg

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 03:54 AM
Future Darwin Award material right there. Not saying it will or won't be funny, but....

WTE_Galway
03-31-2010, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In most WW-II era aircraft and most fighters of every nation, the stick WILL MOVE with changes in the trim tabs.

hey outlaw now as i see you as friends do you rememebrour the disccussion on controlling the elevator just with the trimtabs as a servo

plz man dont dissapoint me and attack me cheap ly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


On every aircraft I ever flew in real life the stick moved when you changed trim.

In fact its how you trim in real life, hold the stick in the new position and wind on trim until it stays in the new spot all by itself.

As far as I know its only in PC flight sims that trim does NOT move the stick. Its one of the big discrepancies between computer joysticks and real aircraft. Trimming is far far easier in a real aircraft.

AndyJWest
03-31-2010, 06:01 AM
If astronut Brian Walker accelerates at 10 g for 24 ft, how fast will he be going when he leaves his crossbow? I could probably look up the formula, but frankly, I can't be bothered. About the only thing in this that makes any sense is this: "He'll plummet back to Earth...". Definitely.

I think Raaaid's astronaut-whirler might be safer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Are those pulse jets on the side of his contraption?

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 07:01 AM
IF he is accelerated at 10 Gs for the whole 24 ft, I get:

S = S0 + V0 * T + 1/2 A * T^2
S = 24 ft
S0 = 0 ft
V0 = 0 ft/sec
A = 322 ft/sec^2

24 ft = 161 ft/sec^2 * (T sec^2)^2
T^2 sec^2 = sec^2 * 24 / 161
T = .3861 sec

V = V0 + A * T
V = 322 ft/sec^2 * .3861 sec
V = 124.3 ft/sec

60 mph is 88 ft/sec, V = 84.75 mph

WTE_Galway
03-31-2010, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IF he is accelerated at 10 Gs for the whole 24 ft, I get:

S = S0 + V0 * T + 1/2 A * T^2
S = 24 ft
S0 = 0 ft
V0 = 0 ft/sec
A = 322 ft/sec^2

24 ft = 161 ft/sec^2 * (T sec^2)^2
T^2 sec^2 = sec^2 * 24 / 161
T = .3861 sec

V = V0 + A * T
V = 322 ft/sec^2 * .3861 sec
V = 124.3 ft/sec

60 mph is 88 ft/sec, V = 84.75 mph


lol .. probably below stall speed for that contraption he has built http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

some one should send him some JATO packs

raaaid
03-31-2010, 04:55 PM
i think the human body can stand like 60 g for brief periods of time

BillSwagger
03-31-2010, 05:09 PM
i heard or read a number as high as that with minor traffic accidents with major collisions getting up to triple digits. Its more a measurement of the impact but i guess its still measured as Gs.

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 05:23 PM
A small fraction of a second, 25Gs also for a fraction of a second.

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IF he is accelerated at 10 Gs for the whole 24 ft, I get:

S = S0 + V0 * T + 1/2 A * T^2
S = 24 ft
S0 = 0 ft
V0 = 0 ft/sec
A = 322 ft/sec^2

24 ft = 161 ft/sec^2 * (T sec^2)^2
T^2 sec^2 = sec^2 * 24 / 161
T = .3861 sec

V = V0 + A * T
V = 322 ft/sec^2 * .3861 sec
V = 124.3 ft/sec

60 mph is 88 ft/sec, V = 84.75 mph


lol .. probably below stall speed for that contraption he has built http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

some one should send him some JATO packs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It looked to me like that rig was made to point up, maybe straight up, and he does have jets and rockets
though LOL the rockets (hydrogen peroxide fueled, Me-163 used that) are supposed to be substitutes for
parachutes.
IMO his nickname should be "Deathwish".

Zeus-cat
03-31-2010, 06:05 PM
You guys are oversimplifying the physics. The number of G's the huuman body can tolerate is important, but an ejection delivers the energy to one of the most vulnerable parts of the body, the spine. The human spine can only withstand so much force before crippling injuries occur and it is far less than 60 G's.

When I was in the military I worked in the same building as people doing research on baboons. They would do all sorts of simulated ejections on baboons and then examine their spines to see what kind of damage was done.

It also depends on how the energy is transmitted to the spine or other parts of the body. High frequency energy is far more damaging than low frequency energy. Think of it like this; would you rather get hit in the face by someone wearing a boxing glove, using their bare fist, or a hammer. Let's say the amount of energy they impart to your jaw is the same, which one is going to hurt more?

M_Gunz
04-01-2010, 05:00 AM
Accelerate the skull quickly and hard enough and the brain, normally cushioned by fluid, smacks into
the skull and you get a concussion same as when the head is hit or strikes anything hard. It's not
g-loc, it's worse.