Warbird Information Exchange

But at least you are still alive, that is the whole point of this discussion!

Quote "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.[/quote]"

There was one at the Willow Grove show:

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/forums/index ... topic=1986

Pete

I hadn't heard of that one before. Thanks for the link. It sounds like the Navy crew didn't do a very good job of either sealing off the entry or supervising the people around the aircraft. From the article it says, "Two young boys, roughly my age at the time, had made their own entry into the Viking through the crew entry hatch. " That was a preventable accident, unfortunately.

Are there any other such incidents? Still, you have to admit, in all the years of the military allowing people into, onto and through their aircraft with live ejection seats, there are hardly any incidents at all! An L-29/-39, T-33, F-86, etc, will be a lot easier to supervise people around it than a large crew airplane like the Viking.

According to the Airshow Buzz website the seat that fired was in an S-3. Looks like an unauthorized entry by the kids. The S-3 has the same seats as the A-4. Escapac 1G3s. The only real safety on the seat is the mechanism in the middle of the headrest, commonly called the headknocker. Pull the pin, raise the lever and the seat is hot.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

There is a pretty thorough list of succesful and not-succesful ejections for L-39s and other types, including civilian incidents, here:

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/0000 ... _Types.htm

Thanks for that list. This is a neat picture from that link:

Here's the thing - we want people to be able to see the L-29s and L-39s inside and out. If you have the seats live and the canopies closed and locked, they can't really see inside nor can they get their pictures taken in them. As well, the Navy and Air Force don't have to contend with insurance companies as they're self insured. Our museum would have a massive liability on our hands if we allowed non-trained personnel to sit inside one of our airplanes with a live seat (safetied or not) without proper training. Since none of our operations in the aircraft are in any way really stressing the aircraft nor are they heavily handled at low level or are in any situation where a bang seat would give any real advantage over simply bailing out.

As these aircraft were designed to be simple, reliable, and rugged, the aircraft are very much more capable of deadstick landings than many of their contemporaries. They glide quite well (~7:1 if I remember correctly), the landing gear has a pneumatic blow down emergency system and if the blow down doesn't lock it, the gear will lock fairly easily with a good tug on final (done right, you'll have enough excess speed to pull from your glide/dive to lock the gear and then be at the right speed for landing), and the gear is designed for unimproved field operations, so anything short of a recently plowed field or a bunch of boulders will probably be fine to land on normally. In addition, if you do choose to leave the gear up, there's nothing protruding beneath the aircraft (unless you're carrying stores or tanks under the wings) that won't shear off on impact with minimal damage to the plane and you'll just skid along to a stop, kinda like with a Cessna single.

Remember, these aircraft were built as trainers. As such, they took a lot of time designing them to be able to take the mistakes of trainees, even if that included putting them into a field after doing something really stupid. The more and more I'm around these aircraft, the more evidence I find that they really did take a lot of time thinking about the survivability of these planes and not just having the ejection seat as the first and only resort in case of a problem.

I can understand that. The liability alone can kill a museum. Look at what insurance did to the Air Zoo. That notwithstanding however, there is a situation where you need an ejection seat the worst - low altitude, low airspeed. All it takes is having a compressor stall, firelight, or hitting a large flock of birds on initial takeoff. You really have no options at that point in a low level situation on initial takeoff at slow airspeed and low altitude. How many airports have a clear zone that extends off the departure and approach ends for many thousands of feet to allow a ditching? Texas has quite a few, but other states are not so lucky.

Anyways, I see your point, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I think the safety of the pilots should trump someone having the ability to see an airplane up close. Besides this, you could have another corroded, static, non-flyer to give tours in. I've seen flyable Eastern block aircraft for sale as low as $25,000. Surely, a static one would sell for much, much less.

Yes, but how do you get that static one to airshows around the state (and region)?

Also, ask yourself this - How is taking a bird or having a compressor stall andy worse than taking a bird or having a cylinder blow on a piston fighter at the same time? They don't have ejection seats either and are many times much harder to get out of (non-jettisonable canopies) than the L-Jets, so why not put bang seats in every Mustang and Corsair? Simply because it's not necessarily safer to do so.

Safety is not just about giving the pilots the tools to get out of a situation, but also training them how to get out and the decision process that needs to go with it. Putting an ejection seat in the plane won't necessarily make the plane more safe than without them just as putting airbags in your car doesn't necessarily make your car more safe (we've all seen or heard of people hurt by airbags when they were improperly deployed). It usually is the case, but in some situations, those safety appliances can be dangerous, even deadly, and that's the risk you have to evaluate - is there more risk in having them installed than not? In the CWAM's case, the decision made by the pilots was that it was more hassle and risk to have live seats in the L-Jets than to the potential safety enhancement.

I've heard similar reasons from operators Mike. My primary consideration on the seats is the track record of the system. Based on that, I opted to leave my seats cold and canopy hot. From the inside the aircraft, my T-33's canopy jettison is only operational from the front seat for the backseater inexperience issue--the vast majority of my back seat riders don't have the training and a 5 or 10 minute safety briefing may or may not sink in. The other issue for T-Birds and perhaps other early jets (A-4s? RickH?) is they were designed in an era where the average male body height was considerably shorter. Anyone much over 5'10" ejecting from the front of a T-33 is likely going to get their kneecaps chopped off by the windscreen, instrument panel and a broad shouldered pilot's arms/shoulders crushed on the canopy rail. At USAF pilot training, we had a couple of full days devoted to just egress/ejection training, ejection simulator "rides" where we were relentlessly drilled especially on body position, plus more egress training on the flight line from our instructor pilots. It's a system that demands in-depth training not just on the nuts and bolts but on the decisionmaking process and the need to make the decision early in a bad situation. I give an safety/egress briefing to all my backseaters, then make them demonstrate disconnecting the quirky harness and the location of the parachute D-ring, bailout oxygen bottle trigger etc. A lot of variables go into how you fare in an ejection and a reliable system is a good thing if one has the training, executes sound egress procedures and the system works as advertised-- especially in those situations where a manual bail-out isn't an option like an engine failure just after takeoff, a midair that compromises flight controls or whatever.

The issue of spinal compression from ejection was a real problem, especially on the Martin Baker seats found on the F4 Phantoms. They had a great track record for getting pilots out of the aircraft, but many pilots experienced severe injuries to their spine.
The seat had a main cartridge located at the top of the catapult, fired mechanically. As the seat traveled up the rails, heat from the gasses ignited two more cartridges in succession to give added thrust.
In the late 60's, a mod was developed to replace the original cartridges with "low yield" ones giving lessor energy. To compensate for this, an added rocket pack on the bottom of the seat bucket would be fired by a cable and lanyard.
As to the T-33 type, they had pretty unsophisticated seats. Raise the right armrest and the canopy unlocked and jettisoned with help from a long thruster similar to a catapult. Squeeze the exposed trigger and you fire the seat. As it came up the rails, a telescoping tube mounted on the floor by the right rear of the seat reached the end of its travel & fired the lap-belt initiator which separated the link on the lab belt and also retracted the inertia reel separating the pilot from the seat.

Paul, the TA-4 has the last upgrade variation of the ESCAPAC by Douglas. It is a straight rocket type seat. It is much simpler than the Martin Baker MK H7 carried by the F-4.

The F-4 carries hot seats simply because there are bold faced procedures that give you only one option,...EJECT.

The A-4 has some options the F-4 doesn't, such as manual flight control reversion. Having said that, it is a swept wing high performance jet and that, in itself, takes away some options aerodynamically that a straight wing jet , like the T-33, L-29, L-39, Provost, or Strikemaster doesn't do.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

O.K. that's a valid point. Obviously that would be sacrificed.



A few points:

1) You can't compare piston fighters to jet fighters/trainers. First of all piston engined airplanes weren't designed to have ejection seats. They're not part of the original aircraft design. You have to work with what you are given.

2) The vast majority of piston-driven warbirds fly slower than the vast majority of jet warbirds (there are exceptions, though). The number one most important thing (other than landing surface) in surviving a deadstick landing or ditching off the runway environment is speed - pure and simple. Whether an airplane can dissipate the kinetic energy before it disintegrates is key. On average, because a typical prop-driven warbird is slower and can usually fly slower (has slower stall speed), it has more advantage to survival in off-airport landings.

3) Most typical prop-driven warbirds were designed to sustain battle damage and get the pilot back home. Because of this, most of those warbirds are built extremely tough. Remember there were no ejection seats in widespread operational use during W.W. II. The designers had to build the aircraft tough to not only withstand enemy bullets and shrapnel, but also to survive ditchings. With the advent of jets, the design philosophy changed and one of the most important criteria was to build an aircraft to be light and manueverable. This was necessary due to the limited amount of thrust available in early jet engines. More modern jets don't have to be as concerned about weight as the early jet designers, though. Since ejection seats were now standard on single or tandem seating jets, the designers didn't have to worry so much about surviving a ditching. The ejection seat would get the pilot out of the aircraft instead of having to deadstick it in.

4) Prop-driven warbirds have huge thick, tough wings. Compare that against a very thin, high critical Mach number jet wing. Which do you think would dissipate energy better in an off-airport ditching - the thin one or the thick one built for toughness?

5) Prop-driven warbirds also have a big huge propeller and engine mass up front. Jets do not. The big prop and engine mass will tend to protect the pilot more and act as sort of a shield and buffer against things which will hit it. The prop also has more of a tendancy to dissipate energy because the prop will usually be the first thing to strike the ground in an off-airport ditching. Surely, you've seen pictures of ditchings where the prop blades are bent back upon impact with the ground. That prop will help dissipate some of that kinetic energy talked about earlier. Jet's have nothing in front except a long skinny, flimsey (comparatively speaking) nose in front. Which do you think will protect the pilot more? An analogy comes to mind. If you are driving on the highway, would you rather drive a '75 Cadillac with a big block V-8 or a Yugo? Which one will protect you more in the event of a crash? The same thing applies to a prop-driven warbird vs. a jet in an off-airport ditching.



It would be safer to do so, IF there was a practical way to do it. Because ejection seats are not part of the original manufacturers specification, it would be a nightmare to attempt to do so. From an engineering, practical, economic and FAA approved standpoint, it would be near impossible. That's why nobody has done it. Some thing that IS exciting though, is the parachute extraction system that has been proposed to use on warbirds. It would use a similar system that the Skyraider had. It basically uses a drogue chute to extract the pilot from the cockpit and pull him out without requiring the pilot to get out of the seat. Whether this proposal comes to fruition is another matter.



I agree 100%. If you look at that link that DB2 put up with all of the fatal ejections involved in the L-39, it is kind of misleading. I know for a fact that many of those fatalities happened because the pilots either ejected out of the seat envelope, or were shining their ass doing low level things in the jet that either exceeded their aircraft or pilot abilities. Training is absolutely essential when it comes to ejection seats. If you don't take the time to learn about your own capabillities, your aircraft's and your seat's, then you might as well stay home. As I've mentioned earlier, an ejection seat is not a cure all and not a "get-out-of-jail free card". An uneducated pilot using an ejection seat could be worse than an uneducated pilot not using one at all. Training is definitely key here.

Anyone who would operate the F-4 or any other fighter type airplane without ejection seats, which had hydraulically operated flight controls with no backup, would be stupid to attempt to fly. It would be suicide.

To have hot seats in the F-4 is a no-brainer.

Warbird 1...good discussion.

There is one difference between hitting the ground in a jet and in a piston warbird...in a jet, the fire will be behind you; in a single-engine piston, the fire will be in front of you. Having a big hot engine full of fuel and oil collapse back towards you is not a fun experience.