Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com! news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnewse!cbnewsd!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Message-ID: <1991Feb19.033034.19060@cbnews.att.com> Date: 19 Feb 91 03:30:34 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 64 Approved: military@att.att.com From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Path: turing!n01qu >From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Alex Poole) Subject: Re: Ejection seats Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Message-ID: <1991Feb18.105910.2424@newcastle.ac.uk> Sender: news@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Mon, 18 Feb 1991 10:59:10 GMT References: <1991Feb12.014459.9718@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb13.031100.25568@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb18.054827.12104@cbnews.att.com> geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) 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) The escape capsule is supposed to be very dodgy to use (eg when inverted could be a prob... although ejection seats *can* be v. dangerous at low levels... there was an incident a few years back when a pilot practising for a military display had an emergancy, initiated ejection, then couldn't prevent himself from rolling inverted; he left the s/c rather fast, 50 ft above the runway and heading down... there wasn't supposed to be much of him left...) > In the film _Flight Of the Intruder_, the pilot and B/N ejected > through the closed canopy. Considering the sliding design of > the A-6's canopy, I thought that it was jettisoned early in the > ejection sequence. Was this supposed to depict a malfunction of > the canopy-jettison mechanism, or do the crewmembers actually > eject through the plexiglass? I haven't heard of closed-canopy ejection, and as a pilot, I don't fancy it much!!! If you think about it, the seat has enough power to blast you 500 ft clear of the cockpit... enough to shorten your spine by 2 inches and put you in hospital for 3 weeks (avg); we don't nned a perspex barrier as well!! > Does anybody know why the A-3 isn't fitted with ejection seats, > but instead uses an escape-slide system? No, sounds silly to me; its supposed to be far less reliable than the seats > As an aside, I'd long wondered what the purpose was of the zigzag- > ging wires commonly seen along the top of some fighter canopies. > I figured that they were antennas of some kind, but it turns out > that they're actually small explosive charges that would break the > canopy during an ejection. These seem to be more common on Britsh > planes than on American fighters. The zig-zag lines are a minature detonation cord (MDC), a line of explosive detonated silumtaneously from both ends (so a break in the cord won't be fatal). This is just a back-up to the canopy jetison method, and both happen automatically. I haven't seen it on US aircraft, but then I don't often get a chance to see them up close. By the way, if the system was fitted to F-14's, Goose wouldn't have died!! His problem was hitting the canopy after it was jetissoned... isn't the F-14 zero-zero ejection?? if not, wht not??? Answers on a postcard, please... Alex ----- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy.