Shuttle escape system

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 01:06:45 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

As for capsules or individual pods, their record isn't very good. The
B-58 pod was, for a Mach 2 ejection, a better proposition than a
typical seat, but it was still heavy, complicated, and unreliable.
The B-70 seat was a design-in, but it failed to perform during the one
real use it got. (The lose of the XB-70A-2 after teh midair) The
capsules didn't close correctly, and the one capsule that did exit the
airplane had its impact attenuation system fail, adding to teh
occupant's injuries. The F-111 capsule started out O.K., I guess, but
it was still a complicated beast, and as the inevitable wieght growth
hit the cockpit area, it became maginal in terms of escape (Not enout
acceleration from the rockets), and deceleration )The parachute was
too small for a good descent rate, and there wasn't enough room for a
bigger chute. The impact attenuating airbags also ended up beig
undersized as well as unreliable. The B-1's capsule was canned for
similar reasons.

Not really. They removed the supersonic capability from the B-1B, so
they didn't need the capsule. Since it was expensive to build and to
maintain, they reverted to conventional seats.

There was no real reason to think the B-1A capsule was inadequate, by
the way. The only one fired in anger was fired during the B-1B
testing, long after the decision to use conventional seats had been
made. While one of the attenuator airbags malfunctioned, the impact
would have been survivable, it's posited, if the crew had been using
all the restraints and wearing their helmets. That is, there were
other factors than just the capsule performance.

Incidentally, the F-111 seat was worse than just"marginal". It was
pretty much guaranteed to injure, if not kill, the occupants. The
problem was not enough deceleration from the parachutes, though.

Mary


Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

From Mary Shafer:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 01:06:45 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

As for capsules or individual pods, their record isn't very good. The
B-58 pod was, for a Mach 2 ejection, a better proposition than a
typical seat, but it was still heavy, complicated, and unreliable.
The B-70 seat was a design-in, but it failed to perform during the one
real use it got. (The lose of the XB-70A-2 after teh midair) The
capsules didn't close correctly, and the one capsule that did exit the
airplane had its impact attenuation system fail, adding to teh
occupant's injuries. The F-111 capsule started out O.K., I guess, but
it was still a complicated beast, and as the inevitable wieght growth
hit the cockpit area, it became maginal in terms of escape (Not enout
acceleration from the rockets), and deceleration )The parachute was
too small for a good descent rate, and there wasn't enough room for a
bigger chute. The impact attenuating airbags also ended up beig
undersized as well as unreliable. The B-1's capsule was canned for
similar reasons.

Not really. They removed the supersonic capability from the B-1B, so
they didn't need the capsule. Since it was expensive to build and to
maintain, they reverted to conventional seats.

The other reason being performance. I expect that the seats will get
you out of lots more jams than the module would.

There was no real reason to think the B-1A capsule was inadequate, by
the way. The only one fired in anger was fired during the B-1B
testing, long after the decision to use conventional seats had been
made. While one of the attenuator airbags malfunctioned, the impact
would have been survivable, it's posited, if the crew had been using
all the restraints and wearing their helmets. That is, there were
other factors than just the capsule performance.

Buckle Up - It's the Law.

(Should be a sign posted on the BAF)

Incidentally, the F-111 seat was worse than just"marginal". It was
pretty much guaranteed to injure, if not kill, the occupants. The
problem was not enough deceleration from the parachutes, though.

I would like to see if actual statistics support this. As I
understand it, there are plenty of F/FB-111 aircrew that walked away
from their capsules after ejecting within the envelope.

I also seem to remember the module being modified with a larger chute
to deal with the decel issue for those that did get hurt.


~ CT

From Greg Moo
"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
Incidentally, the F-111 seat was worse than just"marginal". It was
pretty much guaranteed to injure, if not kill, the occupants. The
problem was not enough deceleration from the parachutes, though.

Wasn't this due to it growing heavier while the chutes didn't grow larger?

I seem to remember something about tests for a 3-chute mod to the
F-111 escape module. Or something like that. The Aussies should know
about how this problem was addressed.


~ CT

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Incidentally, the F-111 seat was worse than just"marginal". It was
pretty much guaranteed to injure, if not kill, the occupants.

So, then, the purpose for the F-111 seat is to increase the chance of an
open casket funeral?
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

From Jeff Findley:
(Stuf4) writes:

If you spend a lot of time flying supersonic near the shrubbery (or if
you spend a significant amount of time flying hypersonic through the
exosphere) a crew escape module is an excellent solution.

That's the kicker isn't it? The dynamic pressure under these
conditions is far higher than flying at the same speeds at, say, the
altitude that the SR-71 flew supersonic.

Yes, it is the dynamic pressure that will mess up your body. And that
is what the modules are protecting you from.

The F-111 is an amazing aircraft. I'm glad that they're still flying
down under. http://www.wmwa.org/wbnews/auscelb.html

The -111 had amazing technology for its time, particularly the 'D'
model. I'm glad to see the Aussies still flying them, too, when they
do those torching flybys at the Olympics and stuff like that.


~ CT