Want to continue receiving new aviation videos, weekly updates, and have Q&As with Mike? Learn more at: www.celebratin... NOTE: With our sincere apologies, Specialty Press suspended operations in September 2023.
I remember the Grumman F-14 instructor saying if you accidentally fire the hot ejection seat in the hangar you wouldn't have time to say "oh sh*t" as you hit the ceiling. That type of instruction certainly impressed me.
I recall a story of an abandoned MIg 15 in Mogadishu, were a Somali boy had gotten into the airplane and fired the seat. He was in the hanger when the seat fired. The story is on the ejection site.
I was an egress systems tech in the USAF from 1972 to 1978. My first duty station had me working on B52G’s. The B52 series all had downward firing ejection seats, the G model had two downward firing seats and four upward firing seats. But the most interesting egress systems i worked on were the Yankee aviation systems that were retrofitted to the A1 Skyraiders. It was not an ejection seat, it was an extraction system that pulled the aircrew out of the aircraft. The aircraft could be flown with the canopy open, this placed the front of the canopy frame in the way of the escape path,so the egress sequence started by using a form of Det cord to cut the frame and acrylic out of the canopy clearing the escape path. Then the extraction system fired a rocket out of the cockpit, this rocket had two ropes attached to the aircrews parachute harness. These ropes would then pull the aircrew out of the aircraft. There are a bunch of steps I have left out of the sequence because this is already too long of a post as it is.
There's a video here on youtube documenting how it worked (The Yankee Extraction System). It's pretty neat! Another "positive" is that since the rockets pull you out of the cockpit, you don't stand any risk of getting compressed vertebrae and other back injuries more commonly associated with "pusher-type" ejection seats.
I was in attendance at the PAS in 1989. The MiG29 pilot not only survived but was drinking that night at the Soviet chalet. Fine video, Mike. Nice to see the topic presented so well.
I was an ejection seat mechanic in the USMC. VMFA 142 back in the 90s. We had F/A-18Cs with the MB SJU-5s. The SJU-17 (NACES) were out by then, but the aircraft in our squadron were a bit older and had the earlier generation seat. I had a very high level of respect for the seats themselves and those that sat in them. Semper Fidelis!
Thankls for the comment and your service. I worked on the graphics for McDonnell Douglas's ACES II seats in Long Beach, while all MDC F-18 activity was in St. Louis. Semper Fi!
In Sweden, a version using compressed air was tested in 1941. A gunpowder ejection seat was then developed by Bofors and tested in 1943 for the Saab 21. The first test in the air was on a Saab 17 on 27 February 1944 and the first real use occurred by Lt. Bengt Johansson on 29 July 1946 after a mid-air collision between a Saab J21 and a J22. Saab continued to develop their own ejection seats for all their fighter jets up until JAS39 Gripen A for which a Martin Baker Mk10 design was chosen.
Great video as always. Thanks again! We had a friend of the family that spent 30 or 35 years in the air force. He retired as a Lt. Colonel. I vaguely remember a few ejection stories. He flew F106 Darts and several other aircraft. He did serve at Egland as well as Belle Chase among others. I always admired him greatly. After his military career he flew Gulfstream jets for a private company. What a dream job!
I’m a prior Aircrew Egress Systems craftsman. I worked the ACES II seat and ejection systems on the F-15C/D and F-22A at Langley AFB. Those were good times. Had a couple successful ejections during my time. Good video!
I believe the Tupolev TU-22 "Blinder" also had downward-ejecting seats. Thanks for the very interesting & informative video; I'm loving your content :)
Mike, outstanding piece, as usual. One niggling complaint. Like you, I'm an old member of the aviation media. I once worked for a museum that operated a number of vintage jets, and I got several rides in the CF-104D. I recall being told that, like virtually all two-seaters, the guy in back went out first. The reason being he would be roasted by the rockets from the front seat.
Thanks for the comment, and yes, normal ejection has the GIB go first for that very reason. In this painting of an actual incident, a CF-104D exploded from an engine fire during a NATO exercise in Germany in 1971, and his wingman witnessed the out-of-sequence ejection. Thankfully, the back-seater was protected by his separate canopy which hadn't fully jettisoned, and both pilots survived. Sometimes my accuracy gets me in trouble, but good catch and thanks for watching!
I was a plane Captain on A7E Corsair II aircraft in VA 86 Sidewinders deployed onboard Nimitz in the 80's. I was standing on the steps bent over the canopy rail putting the 3 safety pins in the Stencel SJU-8/ A ejection seat after my pilot had climbed down from the cockpit. I wasn't aware that the C02 bottles lanyard beads on my float coat had dropped down in the recess for the canopy latch on the sill. When I raised up it pulled the lanyard and fired both C02 cartridges. I heard the loud whoosh and immediately thought I had somehow fired the ejection seat. I let go off the canopy rail and fell backwards in a vain attempt to escape the rocket exhaust that was sure to melt my face off. I landed on the deck on my back which rang my bell and knocked the breath outta me. As I laid on the deck trying to catch my breath I felt a lot of pressure on my chest, it was then I realized that my Mae West completely inflated and that the whoosh I heard was the cartridges that I took as the ejection seat firing. No major injuries only a few bruises and feeling of utter stupidity. My Squadron Mates being the caring individuals they were laughed until tears rolled down their cheeks, and reminded every chance they got. And that is my ejection story. Lol 😏
As a current Egress System technician for the Air Force great video. I work on the Aces ii seat. Only comment is about those pitot tube sensors. They do measure the barometric speed and altitude however, that info (which is just the wind itself) is sent through a sequencer that determines the mode of ejection, 1, 2, or 3. From there ballistic gasses and electronic signals control different components, the STAPAC is an EED (electro explosive device) fired Gyroscopic stabilized system that controls the pitch and attitude of the seat to prevent tumbling. Its all a very interesting system. Great video though!!! Love the work keep it up!!!!!
The pitot tubes sense the DYNAMIC PRESSURE or equivalent airspeed of the seat. There is a separate sensor that measures the base pressure, and these two components are used to determine the mode.
The environmental sensor detects the relative velocity versus the altitude and determines the correct mode. The MASS sequencer does this in a different manner.
I can't believe that you did not include the footage of RCAF Captain Brian Bews blowing out of 188738 at Lethbridge when he experienced total failure of his right F404 in a "high-alpha" flight condition. It's certainly as dramatic as anything that has ever been captured live as with regards to live footage of modern escape systems in operation. You might want to edit this one into this excellent production?
Nice video. I worked egress for over 22 years in the USAF. Started in the '70s on F-4 Phantoms with Martin Baker seats. I was involved with the evolution of the F-15, which initially had escapac seats, then went to ACES II, I retrofitted the new seats in the older A and B models. I got to be stationed at Edwards AFB which allowed me to work on many unique aircraft and escape systems. I was there for the first B-1 crash, which had an escape module, and resulted in a fatality. Then the ACES B-1 was developed (not exactly like the fighter versions), which was the escape system for production bombers. Had many successful ejections and several failed ejections in my time, which were from out of the envelope ejections and not maintenance errors. But it was always a long wait for the accident boards to make that determination.
I was a Vulcan gunner in Germany 76-83. During training F4’s would strafe us, down to the deck. I often imagined what it would look like if I shot down an aircraft at such a low altitude and the pilot ejected.
I remember reading as a kid that early American seats used a 37mm cannon cartridge as the propelling charge. Given the sudden, brutal acceleration, back injuries were common. The shift to rockets made them much safer.
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Having been a few months since I watched this video, I can't remember if you discussed the 'extraction seat' developed for aircraft such as the Skyraider. In these, a rocket pulled the parachute pack out, then the pilot by his risers from a stricken aircraft rather than launching a heavy complicated seat.
Even today, ejection is a career-ender for many pilots. The rocket acceleration is more gentle - not by much - than a cartridge, but the stresses on the pilot's spinal column are considerable.
The cartridge is still there on modern seats, it's just weaker as it only needs to propel the seat far enough to ignite the rocket motors safely (if the rockets were ignited whilst the seat being inside the aircraft, the crewman would suffer serious burns.)@@MarsFKA
Thanks James, and yes, George's work on ejection seats and escape systems actually led to the breakthoughs in the Fairchild Safety Car ten years later. All those glorious factory photos were from his collection.
I worked on S3 Vikings. They had a bad rep for back seaters having to be very close in weight or the heavier crewman getting fried. My squadron (VS 28) was the first squadron to have a successful 4 seat ejection. We had two successful, in fact,
One Dark and Stormy night … I climbed into the cockpit to get a pilot his flash light that he dropped on the floor …. As I sat in the MB-7 I looked down I saw the ejection seat handle was not on safe and only the face curtain was pinned …. I froze for a bit and slowly raised the guard ….. it was the only time in my service that I had ever got in a seat that wasn’t completely pinned and safe …yikes … I still get the willies …
The Pilot was very embarrassed about it … he was the author of many usmc fighter doctrines and an excellent stick … such are dark and stormy nights at sea ..
One of the aircraft that my father flew during his naval career was the A-3D sky warrior. The nickname the crews gave it was "All Three Dead." If you had an under powered cat shot or failed to catch a wire and didn't have power to bolter you were going in the ocean and you were going to die. Cause the only way to get out was the escape patch on the bottom and protocol in the variant that my father flew was to take 1 of the radios and put it out the door 1st so it would knock the antennas off the belly and then a crewman could follow.
As a young avionics tech at Tyndall AFB, Fl. in the late 1970s, I was initially selected to be on the F-106 Hurricane Evac team, ad techs would fly in the backseat of the F-106B if a hurricane approached. I got to ride the ejection seat trainer, which was boosted up the rails by compressed air. Cool ride! But my ears flunked me in the altitude chamber, danggit. 😕
Our Squadron Flew F-4’s and had MB-7 Seats … it saved the life of our RIO but not the pilot the plane had struck the ramp and lost its landing gear…. Everything Functioned as advertised but the plane had probably rolled and despite search efforts no trace of our Pilot was ever found …. I was the plane Captain and I helped both aircrew get into the cockpit and start the aircraft …
Great series, Mike! I met a man who volunteered at a flight museum who had ejected twice from a straight wing F-84. He said that one more would have ended his flying career with the USAF and that he lost an inch of height due to spinal compression. A lot of life saving force there! Also, what's the story behind the CF-104 ejection painting? I know that Canada lost a lot of 104s while stationed in Germany. Looking forward to parts 2 & 3!
Thanks Adam, and my CF-104D image is a detail from a painting of one of the actual NATO accidents you refer to. (Tail section blew-off from a ruptured fuel line - both pilots survived.) Unable to show entire painting due to ownership rights for the original.
Thanks for the interesting video. It would be interesting to hear about the timing aspects of various ejection seats. Ward Carroll's channel has a video titled *"The Real Truth About Kara Hultgreen's F-14 Tomcat Mishap."* In that mishap the rio made it out but the pilot didn't. The combination of that video and your video got me wondering what sort of other time constraints exist in other aircraft. I assume a multi-seat aircraft presents extra problems which need to be considered when designing ejection seats. *I'll rephrase my question. Why wasn't this video two hours long?* Thanks for the fun 15 minutes. I enjoyed this video and your video about escape pods (which I watched first). I'm glad to have discovered this channel. I'm now subscribed.
Interesting question, and yes, the timing and ejection vectors do vary with multi-seat aircraft. Many have multiple options about who can fire the seats, which order, and the direction of travel. Crews in the B-1B, for example, have four ACES II seats that eject at slight outward angles from eachother to avoid collisions. And yes, a split second can mean the difference between survival or not. Thanks for watching!
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Yes, and I forgot that, regardless of the setting of the Command Eject switch, which is usually set to "Pilot," either crewman can go out when he wishes. Hence the French civilian punching himself out of a perfectly good Raphael a little while back.
What, if anything, can you say about the B-1 ACES II failure a few years ago when the crew desperately wanted to abandon the aircraft and what should have been the first seat out failed to leave the aircraft?
I worked for an aerospace company in the late 70's to mid 80's. They manufactured the rocket catapult that fired to get the Martin-Baker ejection seat away from the cockpit. A model of that seat that was produced in the early 1960's was also used by NASA for the ejection seats used in the Gemini Spacecraft. I'm not sure how but the ACES-II seat ended up being owned by Stencil Aerospace in the 1980's and my company that I worked for, Talley Defense Systems, made the Seat Back Rocket motors, or SBR's, for the ACES-II seat.
Classic ejection aboard the FDR was from an F-8A (F8U-1) vice F-8E as evidenced by the lack of the F-8E's large nose radome. Also. the problems with the F-106's early infamous (and deadly) Convair "B Seat" were noteworthy, until the seat was eventually replaced by a better/more reliable one. Interesting how the `04 seat evolved from the initial downward one, to the C-2 upward one, and finally to (for many NATO foreign customers) a Martin Baker seat. Enjoyed the video.
I have heard that when bailing out of a P-38 that the pilot would roll the plane before bailing out to clear the twin tail and elevator. Just wondering, if somebody is luckily enough to be a private owner a F-86 Saber would it still have a function ejection seat? Do pilots lose a 1/4 inch in height after a ejection and is the limit on how many times a pilot is allowed to have ejected? Ironic that a Thunderbird was used as a pull vehicle to test a ejection seat, a homage to the USAF Thunderbirds. Sorry for my long comments but your videos have a way of pulling the viewer into the story. Thanks for your time and work.
Jet Warbird pilots today are mixed about having 'live' ejection seats in their aircraft, as special maintenance is required. Bob Hoover ejected out of three different aircraft, but I've know fighter pilots who were injured during ejections, and were restricted to flying transports or other non-ejection seat aircraft afterward. Appreciate all your comments, thanks!
What about the trailblazing Bofors and SAAB from Sweden? If it's not Anglo-Saxon or German, it does not matter? ;) Jokes aside, thank you very much for your amazing documentary series. It's a true pleasure to watch/listen. Keep up the great work!
Wow! Fantastic history of the ejection seat👍! Only problem...my wife got a peek of this video and now she’s getting an ejection seat installed in my car for when we argue.
Back in 1965, every Swedish Air Force (SAF) pilot equipment tech I met was sure to tell me (with a wink) that the early Martin-Baker seats bore a conspicuously similar appearance to the Swedish Bofors seat that entered service on SAF's Saab J-21 in 1943. I'd heard the story often enough to be sure it was in their training syllabus, and still wonder if they'd been admonished to always relate it with a wink.
Interesting point Eric, thanks. At Douglas, we used the expression, "Must've been a windy day when the blueprints for the (insert airplane name) were blown into the windows of (insert company name).
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Funny, that a tongue-in-cheek observation like that would find traction in a facility that had no windows, much less any that could be opened. In engineering, some of us used to joke that the place was hermetically sealed to eliminate intrusion of ideas and practices "not invented here"..
Approximately how many ejections are made through the canopy instead of canopy jettison followed by ejection? I know the A-6 crew goes through the canopy but I don't know if any other plane does this. The sequence of events is phenomenal and such short periods of time. When you add in situations where there are two or more crew involved they have to "flare out" to avoid hitting each other. Incredible that it works for a single pilot. Another great series! Thanks!!!!!
"Approximately how many ejections are made through the canopy instead of canopy jettison followed by ejection?" Depends on the plane and its mission. The A-6 wasn't the only plane where the ejection seat was designed to punch through the canopy, btw. The F-35 and Harrier do this as well. The reason has to do with the US Marine Corps close air support mission. They fly lower and closer to the troops so a normal ejection sequence where you'd punch off the canopy first wouldn't work; the Harrier and F-35B fly too low for this and the pilot wouldn't be able to get out in time in many instances because the canopy separation prior to the ejection seat firing would take too long! They don't punch out through the canopy immediately. Instead, an explosive cord built into the canopy (you can see it as white "stencil" in the Harrier canopy and F-35) fires and shatters the portion of canopy above the seat (indicated by the stencil which is actually the cord). The explosive cord does this in milliseconds. THEN the ejection seat goes through the shattered canopy.
Reading further, the T-6 Texan II and the BAe Hawk trainer evidently have a cord destruct system for their canopies, too -- ie, their ejection seats blast through the canopy, too. More of the ejection systems seem to be designed now to have "breakers" -- literally spikes -- built into the seats to shatter the canopy in case it can't be blown off. Going THROUGH the canopy without an explosive cord system is THE LEAST desirable option even a canopy breaker system built into the seat!
@@AvengerII Thanks! A-6 tanker where there was a partial ejection sequence with the second seat guy stuck half in and half out of the plane showed how dangerous this could be. If his chute cords had not gotten entangled in the vertical stabilizer and held him back he might have impaled on the shattered canopy on landing.
Many thanks Chuck, and today's ejection sequence occurs literally in the blink of an eye. From initiation to full parachute is 1.8 seconds with the ACES II in Mode-1 today. As for ejecting through the canopy, all modern seats have 'canopy breakers' built into the seat tops. Northrop's original T-38 seat (1959) actually had a sharp stubby blade sticking straight-up on top of the seat headrest.
It was a thing in the early/mid 1950's. Rocket sled testing showed that there were serious concerns in regards to clearing a high mounted (T-tail) empenage when initiating the sequence at a high (1.5+) Mach number. Numerous aircraft (primarily US built) were fitted with this sort of escape system at the time. The reasoning was that these aircraft would be gaining altitude rapidly at launch and thus the escape system would be viable almost immediately. At this same point in time the F-100 Super Sabre was killing roughly 30 pilots per month (USAF + Allies operating it)...and it had an upward firing system. There was a huge learning curve in the period. If there was ever a true "widow maker"? It was the F-100...without a doubt. For that matter? Take a look at the crash rates for its predecessor, the F-86. Things that make the news today (as an OMFG, you have to see the video) were regarded as inconsequential back in that age.
As a layman, I've always been more curious about the landing, when ejected less than a hundred foot from the ground I wonder how effective the parachute is and how pilots have minimal injuries
Excellent question, and the rule in our Egress Training was that once the chute was open, you needed two full "swings" of a 28-ft. parachute canopy to make a "soft" landing without injury. The recent F-35B zero-zero ejection at Ft. Worth Texas (as seen on RU-vid) shows one-and-a-half swings of the chute before ground impact, but the pilot was OK. Thanks for watching!
I remember when I was a young man my dad would announce that they needed either me or my half brother Joe to sit in the ejection seat to test it out but of course they were only joking.
Great video. It would have been even better to go into the seat designs that correct for attitude, where it will turn the pilot rightside up if ejecting downward.
Hello and thank you in advance for any response. I once flew in a CF-101 Voodoo at Bagotville in 1982, just before the CF-101s were replaced by the CF-18s. The CF-101 model was without dual controls so not for flight training. I remember that during the short training it was mentioned that this type of seat was effective among other things only at an altitude of 100 feet and above and at least on a slight climb. If I remember correctly. After some research I believe the chair I was sitting on was a Weber or a Martin Baker? But probably a Weber who seems much less known. Could anyone tell me details about the seat I was sitting in? Also I believe that it was not a pyrotechnic rocket device that was underneath but rather dynamite? But I'm not sure if it was actually dynamite because of the possible sudden impact that could potentially cause injury? Or maybe it was a limited charge of dynamite? THANKS
Mike, in your Edwards research, did aircraft mfgrs generally handle their own ejection seats, or were general M&B (others) zero-zero used? Or, both? Also, have you any information on the XF-104 seat when Lockheed transferred from downward to upward? I was always surprised Kelly Johnson did downward seats after the SR-71 research, although he didn’t take it lightly. I swear, you’d have to be a Yeager or an Armstrong to ride an X-15 down to egress properly. I couldn’t imagine holding myself together. Which might explain a couple things…like, keep the stool sample.
Good question on ejection seat manufacturers, and the answer is "all the above." Certain companies designed seats specifically for their aircraft (Douglas, Lockheed, Convair, North American, and Republic), while other companies used seats built by Stencil and Weber. Navy aircraft almost exclusively used Martin-Baker escape systems because of their reliability and performance at low altitude and low airspeeds, the domain of aircraft carrier operations. Thanks for watching.
Being a tall guy as an enlisted USAF tech, when I would sit in an ejection seat, my knees would be under the instrument panel. Always figured if I had to eject, I would lose both legs!
@@foreverpinkf.7603 Surviving two severed arteries, without help for a few minutes AND without the use of both of your hands? Yeah, that will take some real survival mindset to say the least.
'A' pilot ? It was common when first introduced . It was the Dornier Do-335 'push-pull' engined heavy-fighter . Apparently , the procedure was complicated and had to be followed precisely . Otherwise , the pilot (plus trainee , or radar operator in the 2 seat version) would lose his hands if not his whole arms ! Ironically , the dorsal tail (upper) and rear-propeller were designed to be removed by explosive bolts to protect the ejected pilot , but it was the design of the seat , interior handles , and edges that were the most hazardous .
I almost feel like the cockpit should be an entire ejection capsule. Would widen the range of safe ejection speeds, and decrease the incidence of injuries and fatalities upon ejection.
3:00 ~ The man on the right, is Mr Martin. The man in the flight-suit, is Doddy Hey, his human test dummy. I read his autobiography (Man in the hot seat) when I was about 13 ~ 14. How many people have baled out of a jet at over the speed of sound? Now how many people have done it more than once? How would you react if you were asked to fly another test-fight, but the last one had resulted in a broke arm (humerus) and the one before had resulted in virtually an identical break. Today's mission, try for a 3rd time. This time, you will be wearing handcuffs. Would you bale out of a jet, at 600 mph, at about 130 ~ 150 feet above the ground, wearing handcuffs? Martin Baker ejection seats have saved a lot of lives, and those people owe their lives to Mr Martin and Doddy Hey. Rolls Royce are arguably the best engine company, but Martin Baker are without doubt, the makers of the best ejection seats in the world.
Excellent presentation. Interesting scenario in the final picture of the rear seat ejecting from a F104 with the front seat already gone. Wouldn't the rear seat go first so as not to get a face full of rocket blast when the front seat went first?
Thanks for the comment, and that scene was described to me by an F-4 pilot flying right next to the F-104 when its engine exploded due to a fuel system fire. For some reason, the pilot ejected first, then the GIB, who was protected by his canopy that hadn't jettisoned yet. Both survived.
I'm a former egress man. Stationed at Bitburg, Cannon afb, and Aviano. Almost got killed working an ejection seat when the mortar accidentally fired ...
The pitot tubes on ACES II seats do not sense pitch and altitude. Only airspeed. Altitude is determined by the static port on the Environmental Sensor. Pitch is not a factor taken into the equation by the E-Sensor.
Environmental Sensors are soon to be a thing of the past. The MASS is a good step in that direction. However, Martin Baker has been ahead of the game for over 20 years with their BTRU design, integrating G-limiters in conjunction with a Barostat. All mechanical, no possibility of electronic failure as experienced with the DRS. Ever wonder why they use MB thermal batteries in all current ACES2/ACES5 seats? That would be a good topic to discuss.
RU-vid has a video of an early German ejection seat leaving a Junkers Ju87 'Stuka' airframe. More dramatic than the Crusader ejection? Perhaps; there is a still photo taken by someone taking a high-quality image of a tractor ploughing a field that captured an English Electric Lightning fighter's pilot ejecting. Near an airfield, the Lightning has it's undercarriage down and is descending at relatively slow speed toward the camera in a slight right turn, the canopy is off, the seat is out, the drogue is out and the parachute is beginning to fill, the pilot still in his seat. Have heard that the ejection was successful, but it looks to be only slightly over 100 feet up at that moment.
Thanks, and yes, I've seen that amazing photo of the RAF Lightning heading straight down with the tractor driver turning around to see the pilot ejecting. That image was also used as a compelling ad for Martin-Baker!
Thanks for the question, and the total number of aircraft I've either flown, or flown in, is 241. Military types include the T-38, A-4, F-104, F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18, plus the B-52 and B-1B bombers. Amazingly, these flights were all assignments for the military services as an aviation artist.
What do you mean by vernier (probably spelled that wrong) rockets? Awesome technology and video but I’m trying to understand how the seat is able to control its attitude/position in flight. I’ve always been fascinated by ejection seat technology! I should’ve been an engineer instead of a pilot… lol
Good question, thanks, and that device actually turns the rocket nozzle to change the direction of the seat trajectory. In an inverted ejection, the seat will fire itself into the upright position to save the pilot. Thanks for watching!
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782. WRONG!!! The vernier rocket is part of the STAPAC gyroscope system that KEEPS THE SEAT in the SAME PITCH ANGLE as it is when it ejects!!! It does NOT change the attitude of the seat.
Good point, and yes, we focused on fighters in this video. The Aircraft Commander, Co-Pilot, and two crewpersons on the aft upper deck eject upward, while the two lower crew stations are equipped with seats that fire downward.
A minor criticism, if I may. This excellent presentation was a little too 'American biased.' It really downplayed the work that was done by Martin Baker in my opinion. The US Navy insist on them. I wonder why?
Appreciate the comment, but we do talk about and show Sir James Martin at 02:47 and the M-B test Meteor (in color) through 03:20, and then talk exclusively about the great Martin-Baker ejection seats used in U.S. Navy aircraft from 06:45 through 09:15. We are based in California, so yes, this channel covers U.S. aircraft. Thanks for watching!
Good question, and apologies for this belated answer. That time frame would be in the mid-1950s when a number of successful rocket-powered ejection seats were developed by both Martin-Baker and several U.S. manufacturers. Thanks for watching!
I had to qualify on the Martin-Baker GRU-7 to fly in the rear seat of a VF-11 Tomcat at Oceana, VA. Only 'flew' the simulator from the front cockpit. Awesome airplane!
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 I am not from the US, I born in Spain, I saw several of your paintings as a child but I don't recognize your name. So when I search for it I found your work... But there is no information about your military career. My surprise is how an Air force pilot needs to be certificated for a fighter plane of the Navy... Do you have a book talking about all the planes that you flew?
@@loodwich Thanks for your comment Juan, and for watching the channel. I was assigned to fly in the F-14 as an Air Force Artist, and had to qualify for Navy survival training and learn to operate the non-tactical systems of the airplane in order to fly in it. That story, and many others (a total of 241 aircraft types flown-in to date) are in my book "Painting Aviation's Legends" by Specialty Press. Book offer includes a 25% discount by entering "MIKE" in the Coupon Code: www.specialtypress.com/painting-aviation-s-legends-the-art-of-mike-machat-505.html?
The Yak-38 (VSTOL aircraft) had an automatic ejection system. The F-35B VSTOL was qualified for an automatic ejection, but I don’t think that it has been activated.
My father invented or designed the ejection seat along with the seat absorption system ,face shield, the steel points at the top of the seat to break the canopy
@@johnp139 early on there was no absorbtion for the g 's they were having some pilots having spinal injuries so he designed the seat absorbtion system to help with that problem
Exactly - or as an Air Force pilot told me during the cockpit briefing, "If you haven't pulled the handles by the third word, you'll be sitting there by yourself!" Thanks for the comment!
First of all when you are comparing TWO things, it is which is BETTER (comparative), not which is BEST (superlative). Perhaps you should have paid more attention in English class. Secondly, the K-36 is based on mechanical 50 year old technology that was developed for high speed escape (which it does well in), but it lacks in performance for low speed high sink rates where most ejections actually occur.
There's another Zvezda company that makes model kits. They became better known in the last 3 years for making the largest available Imperial Star Destroyer model kit (Star Wars) available on the mass-market. Originally, that model had to be imported from Russia but Revell/Germany picked up the license and a new release of the kit was done for the West. It's 1/2700 scale. The 1/5000 Star Destroyer kit from Bandai is more accurate in detail but the Zvezda kit is MUCH larger (greater bang or more styrene for the buck) and more popular for accuratizing. The only option (besides greater detailed accuracy) the Bandai kit has over the Zvezda kit are pre-drilled holes should you choose to light the Bandai kit!
@@lancerevell5979 It's possible. Grumman Corporation became diversified after its government contract work became shaky post-World War II. In addition to all its Cat fighters (Wildcat, Bearcat, Hellcat, Tiger, Panther, Tomcat), Grumman produced the Apollo Lunar Module, manufactured the wings for the space shuttle, and produced trucks. I saw delivery trucks manufactured by Grumman on occasion in the 1980s and 1990s for sure. They were clearly marked "Grumman." Since Grumman merged with Northrop in 1994, most of its New York manufacturing plants were shut down (1 or 2 were converted into studio space for motion pictures because they were that big!) but they were closing down plants even before then. Their last major plane manufacturing contract was the F-14 and it was far from their most successful manufacturing program.
Zvezda is the Soviet company that produced the K-36 seat variants and space suits, but I think that this is just a coincidence since Zvezda merely means “Star” in Russian.
We cover that escape system in Part 1 of this series which focuses on Ejection Seats themselves: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-269vUvPNoIA.html
Start from the real beginning. In 1916 Everard Calthrop, an early inventor of parachutes, patented an ejector seat using compressed air. and the work of Anastase Dragomir in the late 1920s.
One of the most impressive ejection video imho, the sukhoi su30, both pilots are ejected upwards regardless of the attitude of the plane : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fBafFYRfL2Q.html start at 1:30
I regret to say this otherwise interesting video is rather lopsided as it focuses a great deal on US projects and in so doing, does not give, by comparison, sufficient acknowledgement to the tremendous work by UK based Martin Baker (MB provide the only Qualified Ejection Seat that meets the US Government defined Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) across the pilot accommodation range). Since their first live ejection test in 1945, over 7,613 lives have been saved by MB’s ejection seats. Moreover, many US aircraft use them as well, noting the US16E seat is common to all F-35 aircraft variants. Not bad. I
Not sure if you watched this entire video, but I talk about and show Sir James Martin at 02:47 and the M-B test Meteor (in color) through 03:20, and talk exclusively about the Martin-Baker ejection seats used in U.S. Navy aircraft from 06:45 through 09:15.
So who saw the new on ground f-35 nose dive upon stol landing and the jet hits the ground and starts spinning around and the pilots like well shit guess I can’t get it under control and checks out with the jet spinning on the ground the seat blows him way way up and out away from the jet and blows the chute up and he floats right bank down to the ground within a few seconds lol
