Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: cognos!geovision!pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Ejection seats
Message-ID: <1991Feb7.013110.775@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 7 Feb 91 01:31:10 GMT
References: <1991Feb4.052511.15316@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb5.040420.4127@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cognos!geovision!pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin)

bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au writes:
>	Most modern, high-speed aircraft now have ejector seats which force
>their way through the canopy.  This is necessary because at supersonic speeds
>there is little time to wait for a canopy to be ejected clear from the aircraft
>and then have the seat eject a second later.  It was deemed faster to simply
>either destroy the canopy or to break through it.

American aircraft tend to use the all clear bubble canopies, which in turn
leads to having the canopy blown off first, before ejection.  This is fine
for the clear blue sky ejection, but leads to possibly fatal delays in
low altitude flight.  It also leads to the possibility of a "Top Gun" 
style accident, where a plane in a flat spin doesn't leave the canopy
behind, and the ejecting person slams into it.

Evidently, both the spin and the fatal ejection shown in "Top Gun" are 
known problems with the F-14.

Personally, I'd prefer ejection seats with canopy cutters.  (Then again,
I'd probably prefer the "Escape Capsule" proposed for the F-111)

-- 
Paul Tomblin, Department of Redundancy Department.       ! My employer does 
The Romanian Orphans Support Group needs your help,      ! not stand by my
Ask me for details.                                      ! opinions.... 
pt@geovision.gvc.com or {cognos,uunet}!geovision!pt      ! Me neither.