Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Ejection seats Message-ID: <1991Feb13.031100.25568@cbnews.att.com> Date: 13 Feb 91 03:11:00 GMT References: <1991Feb12.014459.9718@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Lines: 29 Approved: military@att.att.com From: jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >From: Mary Shafer >Paul Tomblin wrote: > Personally, I'd prefer ejection seats with canopy cutters. (Then again, > I'd probably prefer the "Escape Capsule" proposed for the F-111) >No, you wouldn't. Even the Air Force claims that the capsule system >is inadequate and lead to too many injuries. We've been testing some >improved parachutes for the F-111 (dropping capsules from our B-52). >Based on what they've seen in the testing, our pilots recommend _not_ >flying in the F-111 (not that I've had any offers, mind you). It's worth pointing out that the B-1A was originally supposed to have a capsule, but problems led to the substitution of conventional ejection seats. I think the main problem was with the capsule's CG being in the wrong place. We've also tried encapsulating the individual seats in the XB-70, but that didn't work well either; when XB-70 #1 went down, the pilot got his elbow caught in the clamshell doors, and the capsule started rolling down a hill after it hit the ground. All in all, I'd rather have a seat. -------- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu