User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:35:51 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much does the average pilot weigh with G-suit, helmet, survival gear, etc... I'll venture a guess that no men would be affected at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. How much does the average pilot weigh with G-suit, helmet, survival gear, etc... I'll venture a guess that no men would be affected at all. Maybe the extremely 2-3 percent, for male, but chances are, higher for Female. Believe it or not  , there is a Mil Spec of standard Male and Female size, and weight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:37:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much does the average pilot weigh with G-suit, helmet, survival gear, etc... I'll venture a guess that no men would be affected at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. How much does the average pilot weigh with G-suit, helmet, survival gear, etc... I'll venture a guess that no men would be affected at all. Ejection pilot weights are generally given as nude weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:41:46 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: USAF uses ACES. Navy has always liked Martin Baker. F-18s (legacy and superbug) use Martin Bakers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seriously... You would think that an ejection seat would be the easiest challenge of the whole damn program. I mean didn't they pretty much perfect them 30 years ago. USAF uses ACES. Navy has always liked Martin Baker. F-18s (legacy and superbug) use Martin Bakers.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:44:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much does the average pilot weigh with G-suit, helmet, survival gear, etc... I'll venture a guess that no men would be affected at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. How much does the average pilot weigh with G-suit, helmet, survival gear, etc... I'll venture a guess that no men would be affected at all. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/10/01/exclusive-f-35-ejection-seat-fears-ground-lightweight-pilots/73102528/ At least one F-35 pilot is affected by the weight restriction, according to Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova, who added that the rule was announced Aug. 27. The issue does not affect the first and only female F-35 pilot, Lt. Col. Christina Mau, 33rd Operations Group deputy commander, he noted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:45:11 PM EDT
[#5]
The military cares about dead pilots? Who knew? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:47:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. How much does the average pilot weigh with G-suit, helmet, survival gear, etc... I'll venture a guess that no men would be affected at all. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/10/01/exclusive-f-35-ejection-seat-fears-ground-lightweight-pilots/73102528/ At least one F-35 pilot is affected by the weight restriction, according to Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova, who added that the rule was announced Aug. 27. The issue does not affect the first and only female F-35 pilot, Lt. Col. Christina Mau, 33rd Operations Group deputy commander, he noted. LOL. We're not going to single anyone out, so we'll word the press release in a way that singles someone out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:47:32 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:51:48 PM EDT
[#8]
Since it only kills pilots under 200 pounds, wouldn't it be cheaper/faster to just fatten up the pilots?
Hey you! Sit your skinny ass back down and have another triple decker bacon, bacon, bacon and cheese burger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:54:12 PM EDT
[#9]
USAF Acknowledges Expanded Risk of Neck Damage to F-35 Pilots
in a news release issued Oct. 16, the Air Force confirmed a Defense News report that pilots under 136 pounds are currently barred from flying the fifth-generation aircraft, expected to be the backbone of American airpower for decades to come. It also acknowledged an "elevated level of risk" for pilots between 136 and 165 pounds. We Have No Idea? The Joint Program Office blamed the phenomenon on the jet's ejection seat, Martin-Baker's US16E. But interviews conducted by Defense News in recent weeks indicate the added weight and bulk of the new F-35 helmet complicates the problem. It is still unclear whether the blame rests squarely with the helmet, or the seat, or somewhere in between. 
The tests this summer that revealed the problem used mannequins equipped with the new Gen III helmet, a spokesman for the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation confirmed to Defense News in a recent email. Testers found the ejection snapped the necks of lighter-weight test mannequins, according to a source with knowledge of the program. 
The F-35’s Helmet Mounted Display Systems . http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/10/14/f-35s-heavier-helmet-complicates-ejection-risks/73922710/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:54:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen.  Everybody wins! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:00:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since it only kills pilots under 200 pounds, wouldn't it be cheaper/faster to just fatten up the pilots? Hey you! Sit your skinny ass back down and have another triple decker bacon, bacon, bacon and cheese burger. I eagerly await the O3's AAR from McDonald's. If he's not a member here, he sure as hell needs to be. It would be one of the more epic Arfcom threads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:33:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not the case for Mk16's, which is whats in the F-35 and USAF MB equipped aircraft. I currently work both MB and ACES II and will take a MB any day over a ACES II. Simpler to work and maintain in every aspect. I cannot speak about the earlier Mk series or Navy NACES series of seats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
SNIP Egress shops are simpler maintaining ACES instead of MBs. Not the case for Mk16's, which is whats in the F-35 and USAF MB equipped aircraft. I currently work both MB and ACES II and will take a MB any day over a ACES II. Simpler to work and maintain in every aspect. I cannot speak about the earlier Mk series or Navy NACES series of seats. On average, how many time changes do you do on the MK16 per year vs the ACES II? Part commonality with other airframes is also in the ACES favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:41:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: USAF Acknowledges Expanded Risk of Neck Damage to F-35 Pilots But interviews conducted by Defense News in recent weeks indicate the added weight and bulk of the new F-35 helmet complicates the problem. It is still unclear whether the blame rests squarely with the helmet, or the seat, or somewhere in between. sounds like a sneaky way of blaming the pilot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:47:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
sounds like a sneaky way of blaming the pilot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: USAF Acknowledges Expanded Risk of Neck Damage to F-35 Pilots But interviews conducted by Defense News in recent weeks indicate the added weight and bulk of the new F-35 helmet complicates the problem. It is still unclear whether the blame rests squarely with the helmet, or the seat, or somewhere in between. sounds like a sneaky way of blaming the pilot. R2 flight-suit insert. Ops ck good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:48:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Add any required weight directly to the seat like they do to thoroughbred racing saddles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:49:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Martin Baker seats have and continue to suck. Unfortunately Martin Baker seats are popular with the USN and foreign customers, so they are installed on the JSF. Also the JSF has the stupid ejection process where you go through the canopy instead of blowing it off. Thanks Lockmart engineer drone #8563 who wanted the hinge point to be on the forward point of the canopy. Actually I believe its in the forward point because of the jacked up USMC variant. They couldn't hinge it at the rear because that's where the lifting fan is installed, and since there was to be interoperability between versions to the MAX all F-35 variants suffer as a result. I thought the reason for having to go through the canopy was due to the VTOL capability on the B model - if the aircraft is not moving forward with enough velocity (hovering to land) the canopy won't be blown out of the way of the ejecting pilot. Same with the Harrier. Is this not correct? -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:50:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Add any required weight directly to the seat like they do to thoroughbred racing saddles. No shit. That seems like a no brainer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:55:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
R2 flight-suit insert. Ops ck good. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: USAF Acknowledges Expanded Risk of Neck Damage to F-35 Pilots But interviews conducted by Defense News in recent weeks indicate the added weight and bulk of the new F-35 helmet complicates the problem. It is still unclear whether the blame rests squarely with the helmet, or the seat, or somewhere in between. sounds like a sneaky way of blaming the pilot. R2 flight-suit insert. Ops ck good. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:58:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No shit. That seems like a no brainer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Add any required weight directly to the seat like they do to thoroughbred racing saddles. No shit. That seems like a no brainer. Doesn't cost enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:58:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would think most if not all engineering and design problems related to ejection seats would have been worked out years ago. What makes the 35 so unique? the weight of the new helmet. hence the reason it is the root cause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:59:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Unrelated ejection testing videos.
In the first test, the chute inflating after ground impact provided some comical relief. In the second test, welcome to the world of 20+ Gs. 
Yeah, and screw this. Mr. 1950s Narrator Voice makes it sound all swell and keen, but I think I'll pass on this whole crash, eject, drown thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 3:09:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F35 pilots have had to meet a 136 lb. minimum weight since last August because of this issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. F35 pilots have had to meet a 136 lb. minimum weight since last August because of this issue. This is what happens when you let women and manlets fly planes. Like someone mentioned above, why cant you just add weight to the seat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 3:29:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh come on. I suppose it should be fixed, but is it a realistic reason to delay the aircraft? If we got our asses kicked in WWIII we might see a thousand ejections, but in reality it's likely to be much, much less than that over the service life of the F-35, so each pilot is running more like a one in a million risk of injury in this way. How much military equipment presents more than a one in a million risk of injury to the operator? Practically all of it? Quote HistoryQuoted: At the root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. The issue is most pronounced with lighter pilots, with those weighing under 136 pounds now barred from flying the aircraft for safety concerns related to the F-35's Martin-Baker ejection seat, Defense News reports. (snip) Reuters reported in October, however, that the risk from the ejection seats to even lighter pilots was still exceptionally small. Pilots weighing under 136 pounds had a one-in-50,000 chance of hurting their neck, while pilots weighing 146 to 165 pounds had a one-in-200,000 chance. Oh come on. I suppose it should be fixed, but is it a realistic reason to delay the aircraft? If we got our asses kicked in WWIII we might see a thousand ejections, but in reality it's likely to be much, much less than that over the service life of the F-35, so each pilot is running more like a one in a million risk of injury in this way. How much military equipment presents more than a one in a million risk of injury to the operator? Practically all of it?  LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 4:07:49 PM EDT
[#24]
I find it humorous the lengths we go to reduce the risk to a pilot by miniscule amounts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 4:13:59 PM EDT
[#25]
I watched a special on 60 minutes last year on this....the entire program is beyond the point of no return, is billions upon billions of dollars over budget, and has an oversight committee working 24 hours a day/7 days per week. They keep saying it's a game changer and that no other strike/attack jet in the world can compete with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 4:14:55 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the pilot is too light, make them add weight to the seat... grab a plate from the gym when you gotta fly Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. If the pilot is too light, make them add weight to the seat... grab a plate from the gym when you gotta fly Ejection sequence: Handles pulled, initiator charge fires which triggers: 1 - Canopy breaker fires 2 - Shoulder harness, seat belt and leg restraint retraction charge fires 3 - Ejection seat rocket motor fires 4 - Seat launches It isn't simply the weight. It's where on the body the weight is. I gather the whiplash problem comes when the restraint retraction charge fires and the shoulder harness retracts to pull the pilot into proper position to eject. I know that on the F-4's Martin Baker seats the shoulder harness retraction could hurt pilots and that seat is slower than the new seats that the F-35 uses. With a lighter pilot who does not carry their body weight in the chest like most men are built, then the shoulder harness retraction could be brutally fast, causing the whiplash problems being seen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 4:15:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On average, how many time changes do you do on the MK16 per year vs the ACES II? Part commonality with other airframes is also in the ACES favor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SNIP Egress shops are simpler maintaining ACES instead of MBs. Not the case for Mk16's, which is whats in the F-35 and USAF MB equipped aircraft. I currently work both MB and ACES II and will take a MB any day over a ACES II. Simpler to work and maintain in every aspect. I cannot speak about the earlier Mk series or Navy NACES series of seats. On average, how many time changes do you do on the MK16 per year vs the ACES II? Part commonality with other airframes is also in the ACES favor. depends on service/shelf life of components and aircraft/seat phase inspections and service life extensions but maybe 1-2 aircraft a month of MB (we have a really small fleet) even less of ACES II (even smaller fleet). As for parts commonality, ACES II has the advantage just because of the sheer numbers of aircraft equipped with them in the USAF inventory (A-10, F-15, F-16, B-1 , B-2, F-22) but even then an F-16 seat is not the same as an F-15 or A-10 or any other ACES II, So not all parts are are usable on other ACES II seats. There is parts commonality with Mk16's but just like the ACES II an T-38 Mk16 isn't the same as a T-6 Mk16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 4:27:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why the 200-lb. pilot criteria? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The helmet weight is the root cause, not the seat. On a sidenote I wonder why ejection seats have not progressed to the point of having a g-meter and throttle-able rockets. I imagine it is for ease of function / less things to go wrong. Why the 200-lb. pilot criteria? Because rocket science! No, really. Acceleration is determined by mass and thrust. The thrust in this case is a fixed constant (the ejection seat solid rocket motor) and the variable is the mass, as determined by the size of your pilot. Lighter pilot, greater acceleration. Too high of an acceleration causes injury to pilot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 4:42:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, and I'm sure it has to do with mobility. They need their heads on a swivel, like all birds of prey. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Do fighter pilot helmets use anything like a HANS device? Serious question. I'm ignorant of fighter technology. No, and I'm sure it has to do with mobility. They need their heads on a swivel, like all birds of prey. So put a retractalock system on it. Straps attach to the helmet, it freely moves until ejection is initiated then it pulls the helmet back and locks while going through ejection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 4:44:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. So weight them like jockeys. Add weights to the seats per the pilot so every ejection weight is identical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 5:11:03 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't cost enough. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Add any required weight directly to the seat like they do to thoroughbred racing saddles. No shit. That seems like a no brainer. Doesn't cost enough. QFT |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 5:23:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So put a retractalock system on it. Straps attach to the helmet, it freely moves until ejection is initiated then it pulls the helmet back and locks while going through ejection. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do fighter pilot helmets use anything like a HANS device? Serious question. I'm ignorant of fighter technology. No, and I'm sure it has to do with mobility. They need their heads on a swivel, like all birds of prey. So put a retractalock system on it. Straps attach to the helmet, it freely moves until ejection is initiated then it pulls the helmet back and locks while going through ejection. You'd then have to come up with a way to release it prior/during man/seat separation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 5:34:09 PM EDT
[#33]
Have other ejection seats been tested for <136lb pilots wearing something like JHMCS?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 5:41:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the weight of the new helmet. hence the reason it is the root cause. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would think most if not all engineering and design problems related to ejection seats would have been worked out years ago. What makes the 35 so unique? the weight of the new helmet. hence the reason it is the root cause. F-35 HMS Gen III: 4.6lb JHMCS II: 4.3lb |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 5:42:57 PM EDT
[#35]
No they perfected them 51 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 5:47:53 PM EDT
[#36]
I mean, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but isn't there a risk of serious bodily injury or death in pretty much any ejection from any aircraft? But the risk is still better than the inevitable results of riding that aircraft into the smoking hole in the ground or big splash in the ocean?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 6:01:24 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why do you think they suck? They have a proven track record. MB's are also installed on USAF aircraft, T-38's , T-6's and the A-29 we gave to Afghanistan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Martin Baker seats have and continue to suck. Unfortunately Martin Baker seats are popular with the USN and foreign customers, so they are installed on the JSF. Also the JSF has the stupid ejection process where you go through the canopy instead of blowing it off. Thanks Lockmart engineer drone #8563 who wanted the hinge point to be on the forward point of the canopy. Actually I believe its in the forward point because of the jacked up USMC variant. They couldn't hinge it at the rear because that's where the lifting fan is installed, and since there was to be interoperability between versions to the MAX all F-35 variants suffer as a result. why do you think they suck? They have a proven track record. MB's are also installed on USAF aircraft, T-38's , T-6's and the A-29 we gave to Afghanistan. The old "Martin Baker widow maker" phrase isn't by mistake. I worked F-4s and U-2s, both of which have MB seats. They don't have such a stellar track record in those airframes.  A friend of mine was killed by one, with all 7 safety devices and pins installed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 6:14:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Fake article.
Ejection assumes some degree of functionality in the aircraft to even be sitting in it in the 1st place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 6:15:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but isn't there a risk of serious bodily injury or death in pretty much any ejection from any aircraft? But the risk is still better than the inevitable results of riding that aircraft into the smoking hole in the ground or big splash in the ocean? Correct, rolling the dice on a bad ejection is better than not ejecting. However, the aircraft has to meet the egress spec; it's a contractual matter, but also a commitment owed to the pilots. I don't know if the reliability metric is 1E-6 or not, but it's obviously not 2E-5 or 5E-6 per the corrective actions being taken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:37:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ejection sequence: Handles pulled, initiator charge fires which triggers: 1 - Canopy breaker fires 2 - Shoulder harness, seat belt and leg restraint retraction charge fires 3 - Ejection seat rocket motor fires 4 - Seat launches It isn't simply the weight. It's where on the body the weight is. I gather the whiplash problem comes when the restraint retraction charge fires and the shoulder harness retracts to pull the pilot into proper position to eject. I know that on the F-4's Martin Baker seats the shoulder harness retraction could hurt pilots and that seat is slower than the new seats that the F-35 uses. With a lighter pilot who does not carry their body weight in the chest like most men are built, then the shoulder harness retraction could be brutally fast, causing the whiplash problems being seen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. If the pilot is too light, make them add weight to the seat... grab a plate from the gym when you gotta fly Ejection sequence: Handles pulled, initiator charge fires which triggers: 1 - Canopy breaker fires 2 - Shoulder harness, seat belt and leg restraint retraction charge fires 3 - Ejection seat rocket motor fires 4 - Seat launches It isn't simply the weight. It's where on the body the weight is. I gather the whiplash problem comes when the restraint retraction charge fires and the shoulder harness retracts to pull the pilot into proper position to eject. I know that on the F-4's Martin Baker seats the shoulder harness retraction could hurt pilots and that seat is slower than the new seats that the F-35 uses. With a lighter pilot who does not carry their body weight in the chest like most men are built, then the shoulder harness retraction could be brutally fast, causing the whiplash problems being seen. That didn't make sense, why would your head fly backwards? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:16:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Use modular stackable ballast weights on the seat to bring the pilot+ballast total to 250lbs. This will reduce peak acceleration on the pilot and make it consistent for all pilots. Bam, some Depleted Uranium ballast and I just solved a billion dollar problem. Fuck you, pay me. Seriously, why isn't this the solution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:18:31 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously... You would think that an ejection seat would be the easiest challenge of the whole damn program. I mean didn't they pretty much perfect them 30 years ago. No they didnt. Which is why no pilot ever wants to eject. Its always dangerous, tho less so then crashing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 12:25:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That didn't make sense, why would your head fly backwards? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. If the pilot is too light, make them add weight to the seat... grab a plate from the gym when you gotta fly Ejection sequence: Handles pulled, initiator charge fires which triggers: 1 - Canopy breaker fires 2 - Shoulder harness, seat belt and leg restraint retraction charge fires 3 - Ejection seat rocket motor fires 4 - Seat launches It isn't simply the weight. It's where on the body the weight is. I gather the whiplash problem comes when the restraint retraction charge fires and the shoulder harness retracts to pull the pilot into proper position to eject. I know that on the F-4's Martin Baker seats the shoulder harness retraction could hurt pilots and that seat is slower than the new seats that the F-35 uses. With a lighter pilot who does not carry their body weight in the chest like most men are built, then the shoulder harness retraction could be brutally fast, causing the whiplash problems being seen. That didn't make sense, why would your head fly backwards? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:36:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whiplash happens when the head moves around fast. It's not just a description of the head moving a particular direction fast. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[quot]Quoted: Quoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. [/qute] Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. If the pilot is too light, make them add weight to the seat... grab a plate from the gym when you gotta fly Ejection sequence: Handles pulled, initiator charge fires which triggers: 1 - Canopy breaker fires 2 - Shoulder harness, seat belt and leg restraint retraction charge fires 3 - Ejection seat rocket motor fires 4 - Seat launches It isn't simply the weight. It's where on the body the weight is. I gather the whiplash problem comes when the restraint retraction charge fires and the shoulder harness retracts to pull the pilot into proper position to eject. I know that on the F-4's Martin Baker seats the shoulder harness retraction could hurt pilots and that seat is slower than the new seats that the F-35 uses. With a lighter pilot who does not carry their body weight in the chest like most men are built, then the shoulder harness retraction could be brutally fast, causing the whiplash problems being seen. That didn't make sense, why would your head fly backwards? At some point your chin is going to hit your chest |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
