Warbird Information Exchange

On another thread PinecastleAAF, asked a good question of whether a particular aircraft would be operated with, or without an ejection seat.

I know there are jet warbirds out there operating with a live ejection seat, and many are operating without. What types are operating which way, and what are the deciding factors for individual operators?

_________________
Curtis Block

I've seen too many airplanes destroyed by the term "Static Restoration."

The Class C explosives used on egress systems had to be changed out at different intervals. With the advent of more modern seats, I don't doubt that most or all of these devices are no longer carried in inventories and thus, would be hard or impossible to locate today.
Just my opinion & I'm going on experiences from the 60's.

I know when the late Jimmy Rossi operated his 2 Mig-17's he did not want a hot seat due to the violence of the ejection plus the fact that the horizontal stab. was high enough to just realease the canopy and go off the back of the wing... When he got the F-86 it did have a hot seat and I know Dale Snodgrass flies with the seat hot as do most Sabres flying today...

I think the consideration is also how the plane is operated. The CWAM L-29s and L-39s seats are cold mainly because the airplanes are operated in such a way that anything short of the wings coming off would end in an emergency landing, not a bailout. If they did have to bail out, the canopies can still be released non-explosively and a normal bailout performed with little risk of hitting the tail plane on either aircraft. It's safer to belly in the airplane than ride a seat in most cases (even if the seats were live). The explosives needed for the seats are available (in quantity from what I've found), but the concern at the museum is the risk of accidental activation. The pilots would rather bail out than risk someone accidentally setting it off when looking at the plane. The MiG-21 and MiG-23 will probably have live seats though because of the high performance nature of the aircraft and the fact that so many items on the emergency checklist (40+ on the MiG-21) end in the word Eject.

Just curious, what are the ejection seat capabilities on the L-29 and L-39?

I haven't heard of anybody deadsticking an L-39. How safe would that be? What is the stall speed of an L-39?



I don't see how this would be a consideration. You could either: 1) keep the canopy closed when showing the aircraft, or 2) ensure that a qualified museum person is there to supervise anybody looking inside of the cockpit and thoroughly brief visitors on the ejection seat and handles. Do the handles not have safety pins inserted in them to prevent accidental activation of the ejection seats? Air Force and Navy planes have civilians sit in active ejection seats all the time at airshows and Base Open Houses. They've done this successfully for years without any accidental ejections.

Yea, that's understandable. I would want to die too, instead of getting banged up by an ejection.

That statement makes no sense.

some of the early seat were powered by nothing more than a cannon shell, and the ejection could be quiet violent, resulting in compressed or broken backs.
at one time the T-33s I was taking care were required to have cold seats and bolted on tip or drop tanks. The prob is, if you do not get a even feed from the tips, it is possiable to have enough fuel on one side that you cannot hold up the wing on landing, the only way to land is to punch off the tips. Dave Zuchell was killed when one of the drop tank seperated during a belly landing and the plane cart wheeled. He could not punch off the tanks thanks to the FAA.
I looked at it this way, if you are a pilot, you have no rights to try and save yourself, but if you are on death row, you had more of a right to try and save yourself.

Oh and the T-33s, yes the seats and tanks were cold and bolted when the FAA looked at the planes, but as soon as they were out of the hangar, everything became operational. I would rather face questioning and problems from the FAA, than tell some that thier loved died because they could not get out of a plane, or jettison fuel tanks.

Yes, I realize that, but my point is this. Which is better - to live with a compressed spine and/or flailing injuries caused by the ejection, or die. It's a simple matter of the lesser of two evils. Most ejection seat injuries can be prevented by having a proper ejection seat posture prior to pulling the handles. One must practice the posture constantly and be ready to use it on a moment's notice. A manual bailout will do you ZERO good if you have uncontrollable flight near the ground.



Yes, I agree completely. Don't even get me started on the supremely assonine policies of the FAA when it comes to ejection seats. The FAA doesn't care about the safety of the pilots at all. I would have done the same thing. Ejection seats were built by the aircraft manufacturers for a reason - to save the pilots' lives!

Yea, that's understandable. I would want to die too, instead of getting banged up by an ejection.

That statement makes no sense.[/quote]

When Jimmy went to Poland to acquire his Migs he was told by several pilots who flew them that you DO NOT want to eject because their statement was "IF YOU LIVE THRU IT you will probably Never walk again" as they had witnessed this first hand from fellow pilots that did eject...

Thanks for that statement. Now, it sheds more light on why he chose that. Still, I would at least want to have the option. There are certain situations where an ejection would still be desirable over certain death from an uncontrollable airplane. I at least understand his rationale for it.

The L-39 has 0/60 seats, meaning good for ground level if you are doing 60 kts. I am not however aware of a succesful civilian ejection from an L-39, though there have been a few attempts. All were "too late" I believe. I know of one guy in the UK who ejected after over-running the runway (he was being checked out in the aircraft at the time) and didn't survive. The instructor only had minor injuries once the plane came to a rest.

The L-39 stalls dirty at around 90 kts. Personally, based on my experience with them, I would feel safer deadsticking one than I would deadsticking a Pitts. If you were at altitude and had to get out, you would probably be better off jettisoning the canopy, getting unhooked, and rolling inverted.

Some situations though, mainly a fire just after take-off, I'd glady risk it with the ejection seat.

It happened at Duxford a few years ago.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-OTAF.pdf

The reasons that I hear most often from owners of T-33s, L-39s and the like for operating them with deactivated seats are

1) Cost, availability and required servicing intervals for the seat pyros,

and

2) The inability to give casual rides to friends and acquaintances in aircraft with 'hot' seats without them going through ejection training first.

Thanks for the info. I would love to see some statistics on civilian ejection seat usage and attempts of successful vs. unsuccessful. Does anybody keep such a database? A lot of pilots think that an ejection seat is a panacea or cure-all for any undesirable situation in an airplane, but this is not true. An ejection seat is only good within the parameters it was designed for. The decision to eject is made on the ground, not in the air. This means you must know at all times, whether you are in the envelope or not. I'll bet that a lot of those unsuccessful attempts were attempted outside of the seat envelope.

somewhere in the south west...the passenger ejected and the pilot stayed with the aircraft. I think both survived but not the plane.
I am over an inch shorter due to an eject....nope its not fun.

_________________
EVERYTHING that CAN fly should be ALLOWED to FLY!
IWO JIMA'S best narative..."GOD ISN'T HERE"
http://www.amazon.com/God-Isnt-Here-Ame ... 0976154706


P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.

S: Took hammer away from midget.

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about that one. Thanks for the link.



I don't understand this mentality. If you have enough money to operate a jet and the huge costs associated with it, why would you compromise the safety of your aircraft? Sure, it's cheaper but why risk it? That would be like overhauling your own engine, when you don't have an A&P license, just to save money. These airplanes were not designed to be flown with cold seats.

As far as the inability to give rides. What kind of training is required by the FAA to satisfy this? Would it be as simple as a quick 10 to 15 minute brief in the cockpit, or does the FAA mandate some kind of "authorized" training in a cold seat or mock up?