General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About
John P
Paper Skies
comments
Comments by "John P" (@johnp139) on "Paper Skies" channel.
Previous
1
Next
...
All
Or a necktie.
13
The seat was designed to meet the acceleration safe limits that were identified by the USAF. Unfortunately the heavy weight resulted in the low altitude and high sink rate requirements not being able to be satisfied, which was like 80% of all ejections. But Guy was cool and had great inspirations. Except for his comment that “this will never work, much too complicated” during our FCT program. Only we DID successfully collect data at Mach 2.5 at 56,000 feet using the system that was “much too complicated”!!! All of the Russian engineers were dumbfounded when they saw the data. See my report.
7
The engineer’s son tested the seat. Great motivation to make sure that the seat that you designed actually works well.
4
The ejection seat at the Paris Airshow actually didn’t perform nominally, with one of the stabilization booms not properly deploying.
4
@steel8231 No, the previous accepted standard was 5%. But we know what is achievable, so that is now the desired level.
3
Considering that his son would be used to test the seat, he probably had some more incentive to create a safe seat.
3
He said as directly involved throughout the entire Foreign Comparative Test programs.
2
@steel8231 The 1% is at an AIS of 2 or less. So even the 1% injury rate allowed for full recovery and escape and evade of the crewmember.
2
Although the K-36 was amazing at high speeds and high altitudes, it didn’t perform very well at low altitudes and high sink rates, where most ejections occur (especially with the Navy). Good to see that you are still doing well after retiring from Holloman AFB.
2
They had control over not just the seat, but also the Aircrew Flight Equipment, which was an integral part of safe escape.
2
EXACTLY!!! They were a 3rd world nation!!!
2
As well as early F-104’s and current B-52’s.
1
No, around 1% on modern ejection seats.
1
It’s excellent for high speed (dynamic pressure) and high altitude ejections, but not quite as good for low speed, low altitude and high sink rate ejections.
1
The catapult is contained.
1
Only the Harrier had Stencil ejection seats.
1
It’s not that difficult.
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 Wrong
1
It’s shown at 16:52, on the report that I wrote. But it’s all about trade-offs. When most ejections occur at low speed and low altitude, that is what you design for. The report is Distro A, cleared for public release, and you can find it on DTIC. We tested this seat at up to 725 KEAS, which is at supersonic speeds, and they met the injury limits.
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 One more thing. The Soviets modified the K-36 into what is known as the K-36RB (Revised Buran) for the Soviet “space shuttle”. This seat provided protection on the launch pad and throughout the assent profile, and through some of the descent profile. The seat was successfully tested in a Progress rocket at Mach 4.3 at an altitude around 70,000 feet. The only problems observed were some slight burning on the visor of the KKO-5 pressure suit system (which was probably copied from Gary Power’s pressure suit). Of course they didn’t provide us with any acceleration profile data, probably because they didn’t have any.
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 I literally told you to cross reference with my LinkedIn and Facebook accounts as well as Google Scholar that would show you all of the other relevant reports that I wrote, so how is that “trust me”??? I also provided you with a detailed description that probably no one else in the world could do.
1
What happened to my response?
1
I’ll try again since it never showed up. Let’s see if it works this time. I guess that I’ll have to copy it and try as many times as needed to actually get it to post. Of course then there will suddenly be like 10 posts of the same thing. Stupid YouTube App!!!!
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 Nothing to do with “trust me”! I LITERALLY told you to cross reference the name (second author even though I wrote it myself) on the report with that name (fairly unique) on Google Scholar with the same name on LinkedIn and Facebook. I also provided a very specific description of something that almost no one else in the world could provide. What’s your problem???
1
Now it suddenly shows up.
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 Then that was a poorly designed seat. My point is that a seat can be effectively designed for safe supersonic ejection, but there are many disadvantages in doing so.
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 WTF are you talking about with an “F-1 contestant”? Was someone on a game show?
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 Maybe be more specific in the first place, we were talking about aircraft (like the F-1 Mirage) not race cars. And contestants appear on game shows like the Price is Right, where professional motor sports drivers race F1 vehicles.We have recorded head accelerations over 100g in motor sports crashes, with minor or no injuries. This is due to two things: first the high acceleration is only for a very brief duration, therefore the total energy is quite low. Secondly, motor sports events typically require the drivers to utilize a system called a Head/Neck Restraint System (HANS), that basically immobilizes the driver’s head with respect to his torso. The five point restraint belts (which are like 2” wide) also provide excellent restraint to a seat that is custom fitted to the driver, that is secured to a steal roll cage that totally surrounds the driver. Any other questions?
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 So you think that a car can crash at 75 G and not an aircraft??? That makes no sense.
1
@naksachaisaejane1982 75 g is 75 g!!!! It doesn’t matter if it’s in an aircraft, a motorsports car, or a BICYCLE!!!
1
Yeah, I always thought that was a weird name when I met him in 1992 and beyond.
1
@rockmusicman21 Look at 16:52.
1
Actually not
1
Previous
1
Next
...
All