Supersonic Ejection

Punching out at mach speed should kill the pilot. Just sayin...

There was a story of F-15 pilot that survived, but it seriously F***** him up.

Punching out at mach speed should kill the pilot. Just sayin...

There was a story of F-15 pilot that survived, but it seriously F***** him up.

Yeah, it's normally, what, less than 300 KIAS for safe punch outs?

As I read somewhere, there's not that many times it's really happened (planes are not usually supersonic, and pilots try ride the aircraft to sub-sonic speeds if they can), but when they have to, it's not instant death.

2 crew of a surveillance version of the SR-71 ejected at M 3.25, both survived the ejection (one drowned after landing in the ocean).

Add in that you know the F-15 pilot above survived,

George Franklin Smith ejected from an F-100 at M 1.1 in 1955 and survived,

Jon “Jughead” Counsell ejected from a supersonic F-15 in 1996,

So a couple of minutes searching turned up 5 Western pilots that have survived supersonic ejection (plus a guy who did it from a rocket sled at > M1 at ground level as part of testing, so 6 really), then take into account that the Russians have always built better ejection seats than the West anyway & presumably that means there will be some Russian survivors.

Doesn't seem to lead to a conclusive "Punching out at mach speed should kill the pilot..."

what, do you think the sound barrier is a wall that smacks the pilot lmfao

Oh I think they're right that it's a pretty brutal experience that can kill you, but it's not quite a miracle if you survive.

Even sub-sonic, you can end up in hospital.

There's an account by a Lightning pilot who ejected at M 0.98 & ended up with his leg broken sideways at the knee and his arm broken sideways at the elbow

The SJU-17 is a 0-600 knot and at an altitude 0-50,000 ft ejection seat. I worked on these for seven years. Well mostly I worked the SJU-5 which was the predecessor to the NACES but I did work on a few of those as well at 125. It’s not the seat that can’t function. But the human body can only take so much. But it is survivable, you just won’t be having a good day if you do.

 

.......then take into account that the Russians have always built better ejection seats than the West anyway & presumably that means there will be some Russian survivors.

Really!!!!

I'd like to know where you pulled this info out from?

Well over 7000 lives saved by MB seats to date!

You would also have to account for air density / eject speed for the survivability of the ejection.

At the SR-71 heights you can free fall at Mach 1.25.

Skydiver hit Mach 1.25

.

what, do you think the sound barrier is a wall that smacks the pilot lmfao

Depending on altitude and air density.. yes.. suddenly hitting the wind will destroy you. I am active skydiver and have jumped from DC-9, 200 knot exit speed is pretty brutal. From zero to.. bam.... Per the other guy talking about the skydiver that hit mach.. he was MUCH higher than the SR-71 could fly. It is worth noting that in the skydiver manual prior to him doing that jump the effects of supersonic flight were unknown on the human body. It makes sense that when going faster than the speed of sound you are past the shock wave so it will not affect. However in the case of ejecting at high speed... you would not come out of it in good health.

Everyone knows that ejecting is a traumatic experience, and the faster you're flying the more violent the slipstream will be.

I hardly think that at Mach .99 you'll survive, and Mach 1.0 you're a dead man. And once you've punched out, it is endex anyway, so what difference does it make whether you'd be injured or not?

"Always" is a tricky time frame to defend so it should be avoided.

 

Similarly, "overall best" qualification is tricky to defend so it should be avoided.

 

7000 saved lives is not strong argument in this discussion.

 

It's safe to say that during some time period, K-36D seat has some better qualities than US/UK counterpart. That is supported by test program report.

Point me to the report?

Point me to the report?

I think its this one: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA321294&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Google it.

You quoted it so why should i google it....anyway I did and the report dates from 1993-1996. Seats have moved on since then so as far as I'm concerned the point is mute.

Everything has moved on since yesterday. Does that make everything prior to today moot? @@

I never quoted anything.

 

What word in "during some time period" you do not understand?

 

And, there is newer report.

Mate, you stated that there was a report, not me!

US Airforce Research Laboratory

AFRL/HEPA:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.628.3177&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Russian seat's performance envelope is higher and faster than the then current ACES II.

Bit hard to see on that graph, but the K-36 also performs better inverted - the ACES II is rated for 140' inverted ejection, and the K-36 for 100'

The US & Russian Govts did joint testing of the k-36, and (as they did for the VTOL system they bought from Yak for the F-35) the US bought the rights to some features from Zvezda, so the advantage probably isn't so clear now.

Edit - as the k-36 is the seat in the Su-27, Su-25 and MiG-29, we could probably put the 'supersonic ejection = death' baby to bed now.

Everyone knows that ejecting is a traumatic experience, and the faster you're flying the more violent the slipstream will be.

 

I hardly think that at Mach .99 you'll survive, and Mach 1.0 you're a dead man. And once you've punched out, it is endex anyway, so what difference does it make whether you'd be injured or not?

You must’ve entirely missed all the examples of people ejecting at + Mach speeds and surviving.

You must’ve entirely missed all the examples of people ejecting at + Mach speeds and surviving.

If the sim does not support the pilot being an active player/participant after ejection, then it is not relevant (to the sim) whether you could survive or not.

This is the story of Brian Udell who punched out at more than 760kts...

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/us-air-force-pilot-ejected-flying-supersonic-speed-survived

I've met him. His bravery is surpassed only by his humbleness.

This is the story of Brian Udell who punched out at more than 760kts...

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/us-air-force-pilot-ejected-flying-supersonic-speed-survived

 

 

I've met him. His bravery is surpassed only by his humbleness.

I think that's the guy referred to in the original post...

You must’ve entirely missed all the examples of people ejecting at + Mach speeds and surviving.

I think that's the point he was making :)

As Chiclidfan says though, unless you can re-enter an aircraft without exiting the sim, it only really matters for your log-book & your personal satisfaction at not having died (riding the silk down)...

in the SR-71 example. I think the guy who died ejected. and the guy who survived didn't eject. and survived the total disintegration of the aircraft without a scratch.

to find himself in freefall.

There seem to be 2 occasions where SR-71s crashed after engine unstarts in a bank.

In one both pilots survived ejection, one drowned on landing in water, the other survived.

In the other the nose was ripped off the aircraft and both pilots were thrown out rather than ejecting.

One's neck broke, the other landed safely.

https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/17/sr-71-mid-air-disintegration/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsp0kGrwXW4&t=5s

that I assume describes the 2nd crash with an interview with the pilot.

yes its a documentary :)

has interviews with a few guys who survived mach ejection.

If the sim does not support the pilot being an active player/participant after ejection, then it is not relevant (to the sim) whether you could survive or not.

Ok...however that was not the point...

OK, how would you feel if pilots die if they exceed the design limits of the seat ?

So:

NATO pilots die at greater than 600 KEAS &/or Greater than 50,000 feet

WARSAW pilots die at greater than 755 KEAS &/or Greater than 80,000 feet

That would be like 0.5% of all ejections.

Is it worth coding that ?

?

(Figures from the US Govt study posted above)