Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:57 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 208
No matter what, if it was me in that vehicle I would want the option.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaWoLoP4hI0
Its a test so yes there are failures and successes.


At 1:28 or so a real life ground run ejection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvvrkfi3fws

At 1:16 an on the ground ejection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swpUZ6D6rdw


Yeah I'm ignorant, but at least I have an open mind.
Maybe all those know nothing pilots in this video should have just rode it in, according to some here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 878
Of potential interest, the Bureau of Land Management final Environmental Assessment (EA), while full of usual legalese for endangered species consultations, has a few interesting tidbits on the track (page 14), the pit area and the plan. An EA is required for certain actions on federal lands.

Page 14, Course Description
The proposed race course would be approximately 15.6 miles long and 0.25 miles wide, or 2,487.1 acres. The length would allow for 5 miles of acceleration, 1 mile timed section, and 5 miles of deceleration. The remaining 2 miles on each end would provide a margin of safety...

Page 15, some pictures of how the vehicle impacted the soil (tire tracks)

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-off ... _FINAL.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 208
F104 seat at ground level. At around 20:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jprrRRq4rc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 11:31 am
Posts: 601
Location: A pool in Palm Springs
http://martin-baker.com/products/new-se ... retrofits/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 208
Joe Scheil wrote:
http://martin-baker.com/products/new-seat-installations-retrofits/

Looks like they could have come up with some ideas. And since the car/ plane ran into the end of the track and was up right
and she had time to say what was happening, then the seat would have done just fine despite the nay sayers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 208
double post


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:20 am
Posts: 676
Location: Belgium
Sorry for the out-of-scope comment : it looks like servicing an MB ejection seat for a 104 became more difficult: the Norwegian one is grounded until a solution was found for its cartridges. So I don't think considering all constrains to successfully use an ejection seat at ground level on a land speed record attempt, and considering the late driver was not at all a flying-pilot, a ejection seat was not an option.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 208
Iclo wrote:
Sorry for the out-of-scope comment : it looks like servicing an MB ejection seat for a 104 became more difficult: the Norwegian one is grounded until a solution was found for its cartridges. So I don't think considering all constrains to successfully use an ejection seat at ground level on a land speed record attempt, and considering the late driver was not at all a flying-pilot, a ejection seat was not an option.

Yeah so dying in a crash was the best option? Smart
The seat didn't have to be some old fashioned F104 seat that manufacture could have come up with something I'm sure.
And its not like that vehicle was over mach when the problem happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:19 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 4079
Location: Eastern Washington
As I understand it there is more to installing a seat in an airframe than just buying one on Amazon.
I doubt if MB...or anyone else...would sell the team a seat for use in an airframe it wasn't rated for.

MB (or anyone else) wouldn't take the potential liability, since if someone tried to eject and it wasn't successful, some ambulance chaser would be filing suit before the wreckage cooled.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:01 am
Posts: 3
Those advocating for a ground level, high speed ejection seat really don't understand the complexities of them. It's not a magic carpet ride to the ground, it's a last ditch, dangerous, violent event with a high probability of failure and even under the best of circumstances with a seat designed for the aircraft/ejection envelope often leaves the occupant injured. The F-104 used by the NAE team, 60763/SN 56-6672, appeared to have the Lockheed C-2 ejection seat still installed. This was a 120 kt/zero altitude seat, but with it's age would have been extremely difficult-if not impossible-to maintain, the rocket motors usually have a designated life span, probably would have been impossible to find, and most likely extremely unreliable. I'm sure these were the reasons NAE elected not to make the seat "hot".

Could a 0-0 seat been fitted to NAE? Way beyond my engineering limits, but remember, NAE was always cash-limited and retrofitting a MB Mk Q7(A) seat to the older airframe was probably beyond their financial capabilities, IF they could have even acquired one. Then there was modifying the older airframe for the newer seat, etc...

Adding a roll/crash cage capable of handing a zero altitude 500+ mph mishap might have been possible, but is purely speculation best left to better engineering minds. It was a risk taken by the NAE team, and one that I'm sure will haunt them the rest of their lives.

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wu763.htm
http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm


Legitimate record or not, a person died, violently, in the NAE mishap. Godspeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:44 pm
Posts: 49
I did find it odd that they did not add any kind of safety cage inside the cockpit. Cant say i'd want to travel at high speed on the ground in a tin can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:31 pm
Posts: 890
Location: Caribou, Maine
p51buff wrote

Quote:
Adding a roll/crash cage capable of handing a zero altitude 500+ mph mishap might have been possible, but is purely speculation best left to better engineering minds. It was a risk taken by the NAE team, and one that I'm sure will haunt them the rest of their lives.


From what I understand, such a roll cage would not have protected Combs. An extra-heavy fire suit probably would not have protected her either. These things also add weight that can detract from the speed-mission of the vehicle. And an F-104 does not have all the room of a NASCAR Chevy. The NAE driver and team knew the risks; in my opinion there is nothing here to "haunt them."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:04 am 
Online
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:18 pm
Posts: 1567
Location: Meriden,Ct.
https://www.powernationtv.com/post/land ... o-guinness

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:20 am
Posts: 676
Location: Belgium
exhaustgases wrote:
Yeah so dying in a crash was the best option? Smart

The way you argument is sorry to have to say that ... weird. All the explanation and facts demonstrate that having an ejection seat would have not reduced the global risk for the driver.

Finding solution to mitigate all the risks involving by a specific situation is done by
- Finding all the predicable risks,
- Evaluating for each of them the probability to see it occuring.
- Finding a set of solution to reduce the impact of the risk
- Prioritaries the actions / solution to be implemented based on the probabilies, technical possibilities and finance / ressources available.
After that you run again all the process, to insure that the solutions selected to be implemented is not increasing others risks in a way seeing the global risk increasing.

It's of course very easy to come after the accident, witch a specific situation having occured and saying that all the security decision would have done for reduce this risk without consideration for the others risks.

If this poor girl would have been killed in this car at zero speed by a cartridge explosion in a fire or killed in an ejection attempt where the crash would have be survivable staying inside the car, I guess you will have a different argumentation now.

After an accident, the way the investiguation is conducted is mainly checking that with the availables information BEFORE the accident, an other way of management and decision could have make a better outcome. Including the way the pilot, driver, etc was trained.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:13 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10623
Iclo wrote:
The way you argument is sorry to have to say that ... weird. All the explanation and facts demonstrate that having an ejection seat would have not reduced the global risk for the driver.

Finding solution to mitigate all the risks involving by a specific situation is done by
- Finding all the predicable risks,
- Evaluating for each of them the probability to see it occuring.
- Finding a set of solution to reduce the impact of the risk
- Prioritaries the actions / solution to be implemented based on the probabilies, technical possibilities and finance / ressources available.
After that you run again all the process, to insure that the solutions selected to be implemented is not increasing others risks in a way seeing the global risk increasing.

It's of course very easy to come after the accident, witch a specific situation having occured and saying that all the security decision would have done for reduce this risk without consideration for the others risks.

If this poor girl would have been killed in this car at zero speed by a cartridge explosion in a fire or killed in an ejection attempt where the crash would have be survivable staying inside the car, I guess you will have a different argumentation now.

After an accident, the way the investiguation is conducted is mainly checking that with the availables information BEFORE the accident, an other way of management and decision could have make a better outcome. Including the way the pilot, driver, etc was trained.


Very good points Iclo.

This is the way the US Military deals with safety risks:

https://www.system-safety.org/Documents ... D-882E.pdf

It is an entire profession! What risks had the team identified and what mitigation strategies were put into place? Look at Table III on page 12 of the MIL-STD. Could a roll cage have reduced a "High" risk to a "Medium" risk? Were the affects of likely failures considered? Did they mitigate risks to prevent future occurrences of the failures they had previously experienced?

People in the hobbies often just "go for it" and hope they will be "lucky" and not crash, so they fail to mitigate many risks. That is the advantage of sanctioning bodies, they maintain a minimum safety standard irrespective of participant cost and the rules are usually written in blood. The minimum may still not be enough though.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group