Originally posted by Moon Puppy
The B52 lower stations has Ejection Seats that fire downward. This of course was designed when the buff was primarily a high level bomber and cruised at 70k ft. Now that they fly at tree top level it is not a very atractive egress system.

Since when fly the B-52 so low???

Originally posted by JIMC5499
A small Cessna still needs a couple of hundred feet to make an emergency landing. A helicopter only needs a small clearing in which to land.

Apparantly my C150 is a helicopter... I've come to a full stop in about 75 feet on a paved strip, on a calm day.

Anyway, autorotation does work very effectively, so I think the ejection seat is rather a waste. Of course, since this helicopter has the counter-rotating roters, with no tail-roter, it's autorotation abilities coukd be diminished and hence the need for an ejection seat. Does anyone have any idea about the possibility of that?

Also, If one of the explosive bolts didn't fire, being turned into pepperonni would be the least of your problems I would think. The weight difference (or lack of, really) of the one roter spinning would more than likely tear the engine out and cause a lot more problems for the pilot.

[edit on 3/19/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

MAN! When did they take the Tail Guns off the BUFF!

Originally posted by Moon Puppy
MAN! When did they take the Tail Guns off the BUFF!

Why keep them on it? those old planes cant out-do aynthing anymore, hence why they fly in much safer areas. They have a big RCS, so if some country wanted to take one out, the guns in the back would not make them think twice.

Also.....The B-52 doesn't fly at 70,000 feet.

Why keep them on? Because their were kewl! Also the tail gunner was the only enlisted crewman on the buff. Now there's no way for the lower ranks to fly on them. Selfish reasons I know.

My bad on the 70k, 50k is where the were at. When you're that high, what's another 20k?

Autorotation doesn't work very well below a specific altitude.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea? Once again, most bases are being covered.

Most attack choppers fly close to the ground, right? Autorotaion is diminished at lower altitudes, so all you really rely on is the shock absorbers in your seats.

What if there isn't a clearing? What if you're going down over water, or a dense forest? What are you going to do then? Ejecting would definitely save lives.

I don't see why people are making fun of an extra safety precaution. If anything, it'll increase pilots' chance of survival in practically all conditions, no matter what the crash landing site is. Sure there may be an accident with not all the rotors being jettisonned, but accidents can and do happen. Has it happened so far?

Anybody familiar with Murphy's Law? The one that says "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.". Lets look at this logically. First, in the event something goes wrong with the helicopter you have the ejection seats.
Now for the ejection seats to work you need to be able to jettison the rotor blades. Don't forget a system to get rid of the canopy or airscreen depending on the type of aircraft. In order for this to be feasable all of these systems need to be tied together. Take a modern fighter aircraft, the pilot pulls the ejection handle and the canopy is jettisoned and the seat fires. The seat then seperates from the pilot and opens the parachute. In a "normal ejection" (there's an oxymoron for you) all of this takes place in about 4 seconds. I'll allow that the seats are proven technology and that the pilot will seperate from the seat and his chute will open within acceptable reliability. This still leaves three seperate systems that have to function perfectly in order to let the seat do its job. It has been mentioned that helicopters operate primarily at low altitudes where the chances for an autorotation are not too good. Ejections don't work too well at low altitude either. The point I am trying to make is that to add the capability for a helicopter to have an ejection seat could create more problems than it solves. I think that the effort and technology would be better spent on making the aircraft more crash worthy. If NASCAR can crash a car into a wall at 200mph and have the driver walk away. I think a way can be found to let a helicopter smack into the ground at the same speed and the crew walk away. Put the same type of protection into the crew compartment of the helo as a race driver has and a crash becomes alot more survivable.

Not all crashes may happen in a safe landing zone, though. At least if there's a backup plan to escape, it's well worth it.

There's a video of a Harrier hovering then crashing into the water at a beach where the pilot ejected somewhere. It mightn't've been as effective as if he was higher, but at least he escaped a possible firey death.

I say we beef up front line attack choppers to survive a crash with the ground, and in the case where it's needed have a contingency escape plan if the chances for survival are low over certain terrain.

The KA-50 and Mi28 most be fly under mountan, and fly at low altitude is unreal, under helicopter is evrytime trees.
The time of the abandoning 2 s.
The cockpit is armored to hold the 12.7mm 2.00mm bulit.
I will more like if except armored helicopte I will can use the ejection seats.
Next Mill fight helicopter (Like (maby)Mi 31) will have ejection seat.
On the helicopter unreal used the safety encounter with earth , It's not oval of the NASCar ...


[edit on 23-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]

Originally posted by Fenix F 308
Blah , Blah , Blah gyes
You will never sayd that Russian is the best .

I hearby go on record saying that as far as I know russian ejection seats..namely the K-36 are way more advanced than the latest american/european counter parts..

Google for ejection K-36.. haven't done it myself but i guess you should get something..
Its got lots of stuff abody restraints which prevents limbs from flailing, a screen which comes up on ejection that protects the pilot from frontal wind shear, stabilizing arms that prevent the ejection seat from ever turning upside down irrespective of the ejection sceanrio, over 150 programs hardcoded int othe seat which choose the best ejectio nmethod depending on data gathered from flight recordrs prior to ejection.. etc.. etc..

Contrary to posts I have seen on ATS saying how American Technology is greatly advanced to that of Russian, I felt the need to show this...

Anyone who believes this is foolish. I have several Russian co-workers (physicist, chemists, and engineers). At the very least, the are neck and neck with the US in just about everything.

that page is beyond comprehension..its all in russian..

The US tested this tech a long time ago in the cobra I believe. They decided not to go with it after testing. I dont want to imagine what happens to a pilot if those explosive bolts on the Rotars dont go off when you eject.

[edit on 29-3-2005 by ShadowXIX]

This whol explosive can not be worced at ejection seat's too.
I don't heard the Pilot who say Go out this trash from My aircraft I Will ejection out from this Like My GFather at WW2.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The US tested this tech a long time ago in the cobra I believe. They decided not to go with it after testing. I dont want to imagine what happens to a pilot if those explosive bolts on the Rotars dont go off when you eject.

[edit on 29-3-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Can think the came way about the rockets not firing..or firing unequally..
Anything can go wrong in a normal jet ejection..the heli explosive bolts is just another inclusion to that list..
Can't cancel ejection seats for helis because fo the rotors only..

O O O
K 36DM ,second series
Catapult armchair ensures the rescuing of pilot in entire operating range of heights and flight speeds, including the state of motions of aircraft on the airfield. Safe ejection is guaranteed in the level flight with indicated speeds of from 0 to 1400 km/h (Mach number from 0 to 2.5) at the heights from 0 to 25 km, with the maneuvering with the overload from -2 to +4, at the angle of attacks to?30?, slip angles to?20? and bank angles to180?, during the rotation of aircraft relative to longitudinal axis, and also under conditions of takeoff and path with the speed not less than 75 km/h. Minimum height of ejection with the dive of aircraft it is 85 m, from the position of inverted flight - 55 m (for the speed of aircraft 400 km/h in both cases). Maximum overload with the escape of aircraft composes 18 g.

Armchair K 36DM is equipped with two-level combined shooting mechanism KSMU-36, the mechanism of input of a parachute, pendant saving system Psu-36 parachute with 28 strops, a parachute having the area of a dome 60 M2, system of stabilization with two stabilizing parachutes, parachute automatic devices and semiautomatic devices KPA-4M, PPK-1M-T and PPK-Y-T. The impulse of draft of the powder rocket engine makes 630 kg

(Ejection is accomplished by a pilot by the extraction of the upward dual control handle of ejection system, after which automatically they operate in the required sequence of the system of the emergency discharge of the hinged part of the lamp, the firing head of catapult armchair and mechanism of deployment of emergency parachute. The protection of pilot from the appearing with the ejection overloads and the action of velocity head of air is ensured by high-altitude equipment of pilot, by his forced fixation in the armchair, and with the ejection at the high speeds - by deflector of the system for additional protection from air flow. - You Right at this aspect , Iam Wrong . You good !


K-36RB ejection seat for BURAN.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I really do apologize to anyone who may be offended by this, but when I saw the title of this thread I thought someone was making a Polish joke.

Ya know, the Polish Military has helicopters with ejection seats as well as submarines with sliding screen doors?

Yeah? Wehave a theory that the Irish military is equipped in the same fashion . Perhaps there is an Irish-Polish entente that has as yet remained secret.