If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Seems like an awful lot of prangs
A page at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat says
"by mid 2003, Martin Baker ejector seats had saved 7000 lives". Is that figure maybe a little high? ronh -- "People do not make decisions on facts, rather, how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article z,
BackToNormal wrote: A page at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat says "by mid 2003, Martin Baker ejector seats had saved 7000 lives". Is that figure maybe a little high? A bit low, according to Martin-Baker's own site: 7023 lives saved to date, 51 this year. http://www.martin-baker.com/ Delving a bit deeper, the rate of increase was: 1946: First live ejection 1965: 1000 lives saved by M-B seats 1969: 2000 lives saved " 1971: 3000 lives saved " 1976: 4000 lives saved " 1983: 5000 lives saved " 1990: 6000 lives saved " 2003: 7000 lives saved " figures taken from: http://www.martin-baker.com/milestones.htm so it's heavily weighted towards the period 1965-1971, by which time most fast jets had bang-seats, there was still a lot of low-level stuff going on with earlier and probably slightly tricky jets, and the US - using jets equipped with MB seats - were fighting a war against an opposition who were capable of shooting back with some degree of effect - this would all tend to push seat usage up. Interesting that the highest altitude an MB seat's been used from (57000') was as long ago as 1958 - and was somewhat naturally from a Canberra. Wonder if that was one of the Olympus-engined specials? -- Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/ "Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
To add to this thread
Martin-Baker have had well over the 7000 successful ejections quoted. Many ejectees have never bothered to claim their "Ties and Pins" from the company so don't appear in the official figures. Several air forces were not as good as others at keeping records and so even more were not recorded. Many successful ejections became unsuccessful once the seat left the aircraft - in the Vietnam conflict many ejected and were seen on the ground and became MIAs. You could also add to that the many live test ejections by test ejectees using the M-B seats, plus you could take it even further as the Chinese have basically copied the later Mk-10 M-B seat and there is a Romanian company producing copies of the Mk-10 (to my knowledge without license) An excellent book that gives a record of the first 6500 ejections is Sir James Martin by Sarah Sharman isbn 1-85260-551-0 pub Patrick Stephens Ltd 1966 (the writer happens to be Sir James Martin's great niece) - well worth getting. Regards Mike Bennett Project:Get Out and Walk (always looking for contact with ejectees, their colleagues or familieS) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote: In article z, BackToNormal wrote: A page at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat says "by mid 2003, Martin Baker ejector seats had saved 7000 lives". Is that figure maybe a little high? A bit low, according to Martin-Baker's own site: 7023 lives saved to date, 51 this year. http://www.martin-baker.com/ Delving a bit deeper, the rate of increase was: 1946: First live ejection 1965: 1000 lives saved by M-B seats 1969: 2000 lives saved " 1971: 3000 lives saved " 1976: 4000 lives saved " 1983: 5000 lives saved " 1990: 6000 lives saved " 2003: 7000 lives saved " figures taken from: http://www.martin-baker.com/milestones.htm so it's heavily weighted towards the period 1965-1971, by which time most fast jets had bang-seats, there was still a lot of low-level stuff going on with earlier and probably slightly tricky jets, and the US - using jets equipped with MB seats - were fighting a war against an opposition who were capable of shooting back with some degree of effect - this would all tend to push seat usage up. Interesting that the highest altitude an MB seat's been used from (57000') was as long ago as 1958 - and was somewhat naturally from a Canberra. Wonder if that was one of the Olympus-engined specials? Just a question, dealing from my usual ignorance: If you are that high, wouldn't it ( usually ) be better to wait a while until the outside air became warmer and more breathable? Several things come to mind, such as fire or violent gyrations, that might speed up the decision process, but I'm curious what other more knowledgeable folks think about the concept.. Bob McKellar, who had no such option in a 172 -- Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/ "Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bob McKellar wrote: Bob McKellar, who had no such option in a 172 Well, you do, but it would probably be easier to call it an ejection aircraft at that point... (Image of a small plane firing downwards, while the pilot keeps going in a straight line) -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
There's another class of ejectee's:
I remember a report from a fatal F-4 accident which stated basically that "the ejection was successful, however the pilot impacted with a tree." "MBenShar" wrote To add to this thread Martin-Baker have had well over the 7000 successful ejections quoted. Many ejectees have never bothered to claim their "Ties and Pins" from the company so don't appear in the official figures. Several air forces were not as good as others at keeping records and so even more were not recorded. Many successful ejections became unsuccessful once the seat left the aircraft - in the Vietnam conflict many ejected and were seen on the ground and became MIAs. You could also add to that the many live test ejections by test ejectees using the M-B seats, plus you could take it even further as the Chinese have basically copied the later Mk-10 M-B seat and there is a Romanian company producing copies of the Mk-10 (to my knowledge without license) An excellent book that gives a record of the first 6500 ejections is Sir James Martin by Sarah Sharman isbn 1-85260-551-0 pub Patrick Stephens Ltd 1966 (the writer happens to be Sir James Martin's great niece) - well worth getting. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I agree that a few of the "successful ejections" did end in tragedy with the
pilot or crew member impacting objects. I presume they mean that the seat worked as advertised to get the pilot out but once out other circumstances came into play. There was the sad case when a two seat Jaguar sliced through a civil aircraft that was flying in a restricted area. The wing came away. Both crew ejected "successfully" - one survived - the other came out of the aircraft as the wingless aircraft rolled and he ejected at about 200ft straight downwards and didn't survive. Mike Bennett Project: Get Out and Walk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , Bob McKellar wrote: Bob McKellar, who had no such option in a 172 Well, you do, but it would probably be easier to call it an ejection aircraft at that point... Actually there are parachute systems that will attach to a small aircraft like a 172 and float it gently to earth. Not sure what the weight penalty is. (Image of a small plane firing downwards, while the pilot keeps going in a straight line) -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Leadfoot" wrote:
"Chad Irby" wrote: Well, you do, but it would probably be easier to call it an ejection aircraft at that point... Actually there are parachute systems that will attach to a small aircraft like a 172 and float it gently to earth. Not sure what the weight penalty is. Well, yeah, but that's not as much fun... (Image of a small plane firing downwards, while the pilot keeps going in a straight line) Almost certainly from Acme Industries. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|