Another Historic Aircraft down

[User33236]

The DM think landing a jet at 130 knots with no undercarriage isn't liable to damage it...

Surely any marks will just polish out?!

 

[gaijintendo]

That didn't look like a fun exit for the pilot. Or maybe amazing fun, depending on whether they still had a functioning spine at the end of it.

 

[DaveReading]

That didn't look like a fun exit for the pilot. Or maybe amazing fun, depending on whether they still had a functioning spine at the end of it.

He didn't eject, if that's what you're thinking.

 

[User33236]

He didn't eject, if that's what you're thinking.

Just read the report, seems the pilot just blew the canopy. I guess that was a precaution in case he himself had to eject from the plane at a later point.

 

[gaijintendo]

Just read the report, seems the pilot just blew the canopy. I guess that was a precaution in case he himself had to eject from the plane at a later point.

I wonder how easily you can switch between the controls and the ejection system whilst you are decelerating without wheels. That's just tremendously brave or confident.

I would have blown myself along with my canopy, so to speak.

 

[Drago]

A lot of these ex military jets have the ejector seats disabled. You're not likely to get shot down, so its not needed, and parts and qualified personnel are almost impossible to find for 65 year old pyrotechnic systems.

 

[DaveReading]

A lot of these ex military jets have the ejector seats disabled. You're not likely to get shot down, so its not needed, and parts and qualified personnel are almost impossible to find for 65 year old pyrotechnic systems.

There are no hard and fast rules in the UK regarding ejector seats for former military jets, each is decided on a case-by-case basis by the CAA.

In practice, it tends to be related to the performance of the aircraft. Relatively slow aircraft like the Jet Provost tend to fly with the seats disabled. Fast jets, on the other hand, usually have functioning ejector seats. Having said that, the survival rate for civvy pilots ejecting from warbirds isn't that good.

The Sea Vixen's ejector seat was live (as was the Shoreham Hunter's).

 

[Milkfloat]

I would have blown myself along with my canopy, so to speak.

He probably did - into his flight suit.

 

[Drago]

The Vixen and Vampire had a rep for chopping pilots in half on the tail plane when they bailed out.

 

[S-Express]

You're not likely to get shot down, so its not needed

Not following your logic here. There are many other reasons why it might be a good idea to eject from an aircraft

and parts and qualified personnel are almost impossible to find for 65 year old pyrotechnic systems.

That's not the case at all. Martin Baker and other businesses still provide spares/support for these older seats. The Mk4 seat is still current anyway.

.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Wonder how many spare canopies are knocking around?

 

[Drago]

Not following your logic here. There are many other reasons why it might be a good idea to eject from an aircraft
.

Civil airliners punt along at similar mach numbers to these subsonic jets and survive quite merrily without them.

They're present on combat aircraft because of the risk of being shot down. There are other benefits, but that's the big one by a wide margin. If any other reason were paramount then civilian and non combat military aircraft would have them.

 

[S-Express]

Civil airliners punt along at similar mach numbers to these subsonic jets and survive quite merrily without them.

Not sure what point you are making here. Aircraft speed is a relatively minor consideration in this context. Can you imagine the cost of B747 with 400 ejector seats fitted, not to mention the plethora of other issues that would present?

They're present on combat aircraft because of the risk of being shot down.

Not sure where you are getting your information from. They are present on combat aircraft as a swift and 'safe' means of escape from an aircraft that needs to be vacated in an emergency. The reason for the emergency (ie combat damage, engine failure, structural failure, system failure, or other) is entirely irrelevant. Do some research on how many pilots have ejected from aircraft over the last 12 months or so, and establish how many of those ejections were as a result of combat damage.

If any other reason were paramount then civilian and non combat military aircraft would have them.

This is both bizarre and laughable in equal measure.

 

[gaijintendo]

Can you imagine the cost of B747 with 400 ejector seats fitted, not to mention the plethora of other issues that would present

I can imagine, and as for issues, I imagined an irritating child ejected over Senegal.

 

[DaveReading]

Civil airliners punt along at similar mach numbers to these subsonic jets and survive quite merrily without them.

Yes, but when an engine fails on a jet airliner, it carries on flying - just a tad slower ...

They're present on combat aircraft because of the risk of being shot down. There are other benefits, but that's the big one by a wide margin.

Outside of wartime, by far the majority of ejections result from engine failures or from hitting something (a bird, another aircraft, etc).