Chopper with Ejector Seat

I always thought that chopper ejection seats shot out the side of the helicopter. ie the doors blew off then they got shot out the side (like in 2fast2furious)

I will say it again Murphy's law is plenty of reason in itself not to add ejection seats to helicopters. Helicopters have many many more moving pieces than jets, adding more just gives the demon murphy one more toe hold.

The Wearwolf is almost to the level of the Apatche standard. The latest versions have avionics supplied to Russia from the EU and new ejector seats from the UK.

The WW is not as fast as the AH64 but is far more manoverable. The twin counterrotating rotors give the WW the unique abillity to 'flat turn' (that is change direction without banking thus losing vital airspeed) The WW can turn and maitain much of its forward momentum. Although the WW can still auto rotate the twin blades vastly reducing the need to do so.

Armour is capable of stopping 30' cal and some 50' cal rounds and weapons are heavier and in greater capacity.

downside the WWx has much reduced range but can carry refulling pods.

Originally posted by Sugarlump
I will say it again Murphy's law is plenty of reason in itself not to add ejection seats to helicopters. Helicopters have many many more moving pieces than jets, adding more just gives the demon murphy one more toe hold.

then what bailout mechanism would you suggest.. esp since most of the future manned atmospheric aircraft will be heli-jet hybrids..

Originally posted by longbow
I think the ejection seat for helicopters is not practical as the others have already said. Besides you need the ejections seat mostly during the combat and todays helicopters are designed to fly very low, so I think aoutorotate is enough.

I agree! For a helicopter, Ejection seats would be extreemly dangerous. The rotar blades make upward ejection dangerous. and the fact that they fly Nap-of-the-Earth, rules out a downward fireing seat.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

in the us and most of europeian countries piolits are tought how to land a dammaged hellicopter so theres really no need for ejector seats unless theres a missle headed for you then you just jump out and hope you land on garbage...



[edit on 6-4-2005 by Echo4Mike]

The wearwolf ejector seats have a second time delay which detonates a series of explosive charges in sequence.

You pull the handle, and this detonated a number of charges in the rotor blade roots which blow offthe blades (woe betide any poor bugger standing/flying close to the stricken aircraft! )

Then the canopy is blown off and a split second later the seat(s) are jettisoned.

Interesting topic, too bad it's been dead for a few years.

Certain US military helicopters are designed to be crashworthy from their inception. They are designed to maintain a liveable space during a crash, and to absorb crash energy through special landing gear, crew seats and substructure. Autorotation is possible under certain conditions, but not always. The problem with ejection seats have been addressed in other posts here, demonstrating that the above method of protecting the crew is a better choice in more situations.

Originally posted by rustiswordz
The Wearwolf is almost to the level of the Apatche standard. The latest versions have avionics supplied to Russia from the EU and new ejector seats from the UK.

Really?


I would doubt they (the Russians) are using foreign ejector seats, their own are considered the best in the world (by the competition).

My own opinion on this would be the preference towards ejector seats. I'm a believer in getting as far away from anything big and heavy when your going to crash.


With the centrifugal forces on the rotor blades, getting rid of them at speed is relatively easy. Its also possible to build double (or even triple) redundancy into the system. Its not as if your relying on the explosive bolts to fire the blades clear of the airframe - just breaking the loadpath will ensure that. Thus, I don't believe jettisoning the blades to be a problem whatsoever.


Auto-gyration is not an option on the Hokum/Werewolf due to the contra rotating blades.


The Eurocopter Tiger uses the ejection system, the Mi-28 ejects the pilot sideways (probably not my preferred system) and the Ka's eject vertically. It seems that the opinion on ejection seats is split amongst the various makers of the machines... some prefer that compromises, others prefer a different compromise.

reply to post by kilcoo316


Your only looking at the small scale and attack choppers there. Chinook and company your still stuck in the falling piece of metal.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Your only looking at the small scale and attack choppers there. Chinook and company your still stuck in the falling piece of metal.

Then there is also the issue of ejecting the people being transported. If you've a dozen people in the back, you can't really expect the pilot to eject?


In that case its better to protect the pilot and let him save them as best he/she can.



Also, the operating environment of a transport chopper would normally be less hostile than an attack bird.

reply to post by Klepto


In truth Russians have so many primacy in various areas: They have the best ejection seat (Mach.2); speederst fighter (Mach.2,8); faster and longer air-to-air, surface-to-air and sea/undersea missiles (Mach.4 and range of 300km); first operationals and series productions VTOL fighters (Yak-36 & Yak-38); first supersonic VTOL fighter; first infrared-guided (heat-seeking) high boresight HMS/missile (4fth generation); first operational and existing 3Dimention TVC in fighters (Sukhoi & MiG), and so others things.
Nothing can be done against the truth if not by the truth.
Miguel Junior