Most Beautiful Aircraft

That's an excellent question and, tbh, I have no idea.

However, I would assume that the ejection was certainly less forceful than an upwards exit due to the danger of limbs flailing (even allowing for leg and arm restraints). Two of the B-52's 4 x WSOs still use (and early F-104s also had) downward bang seats.

Regards,
MM
The B-47's third crew member, located in the nose, also had downward ejection.
 
Question about the downward ejection seats. Would they operate with the same spine-crushing force as an upward operating seat or would it be more like a harsh shove to get them clear of the aircraft and then let gravity do the rest?.
My understanding is that the 'big bang' seat is to give you zero/zero capability; so since this clearly isn't an option you would just need enough to clear the aircraft. Plus that much blood to brain in a hurry [Wiki says it's 12-14 G] might have negative consequences like a stroke or embolism.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
P1010317.jpg


who mentioned Concorde? I was at Brooklands the other week.

P1010308.jpg
 
I always thought WWII German aircraft looked vicious, French wierd, Italian interesting, American showy, Russian rough and British understated.
Not forgetting Japanese aircraft that all looked very similar to each other.

The B36 and it's sheer size & massively complex interior was mentioned earlier reminded me of this interesting picture.
DH-4B_to_B36_Peacemaker.jpg
 
Another aircraft with lift entry and downward ejection was the Douglas X-3 that looked fast but wasn't. The only image I could find showing the entry method is of this model.

X-3-1200_480.jpg
 
That's an excellent question and, tbh, I have no idea.

However, I would assume that the ejection was certainly less forceful than an upwards exit due to the danger of limbs flailing (even allowing for leg and arm restraints). Two of the B-52's 4 x WSOs still use (and early F-104s also had) downward bang seats.

Regards,
MM
The human physiology also reacts pretty badly to high instances of negative G; damage to retinal linings, cerebral fluid leaks, even organ displacement in severe cases. I'd imagine - but I'm no SME - that downward firing bang seats would be a lot less forceful than upwards firing ones, with that being one of the considerations.

Current bang seats operate a phased, carefully sequenced series of charges, subjecting the body to forces in the +10-12g range; it isn't uncommon for ejectees to be back at work 2 or 3 days later. The early ejection seats were a simple explosive charge to get you clear of the aircraft, accepting that they'd cause you some pretty severe spinal trauma in the process; I recall reading from somewhere that Gloster Meteor ejection seats put a +25g force through the body. Needless to say, spinal compression and other back / neck injuries were fairly common as a result.

I'm not entirely sure that I'd fancy the downward ejection sequence though, regardless of how 'gentle' it was..................
 
The human physiology also reacts pretty badly to high instances of negative G; damage to retinal linings, cerebral fluid leaks, even organ displacement in severe cases. I'd imagine...
I knew a co-pilot once whose landings routinely had similar effects!

...but I'm no SME - that downward firing bang seats would be a lot less forceful than upwards firing ones, with that being one of the considerations.

Current bang seats operate a phased, carefully sequenced series of charges, subjecting the body to forces in the +10-12g range; it isn't uncommon for ejectees to be back at work 2 or 3 days later. The early ejection seats were a simple explosive charge to get you clear of the aircraft, accepting that they'd cause you some pretty severe spinal trauma in the process; I recall reading from somewhere that Gloster Meteor ejection seats put a +25g force through the body. Needless to say, spinal compression and other back / neck injuries were fairly common as a result.

I'm not entirely sure that I'd fancy the downward ejection sequence though, regardless of how 'gentle' it was..................
The Irish Air Corps have just PM'd me and offered to resolve the issue with some of their aircrew.

Apparently, if we can provide a LIFEX GR4 with command eject selected 'DOWN and OFF', they'll fly a sortie where the nav first ejects upwards. Then the pilot will roll inverted and eject to see what the difference is between upwards and downwards ejection seats! :)

Regards,
MM
 
Their was one of the spick jobs I thought really shapely, especially once it got the Benz engine Fiat G55 Falco
Yes, once the Eyeties got access to Kraut inline engines they made some tidy fighters. I think the Macchi C.205 was the best,



but that's only a personal choice.

Some of their bombers left something to be desired....

 
once the Eyeties got access to Kraut inline engines they made some tidy fighters. I think the Macchi C.205 was the best,
Luftwaffe trials suggested it was considerably superior to the bf109G-6 and that it was the best Axis fighter then available. They even considered producing it for themselves. However, I suspect they'd have insisted on a 'normal' throttle rather than the Italian 'inverted throttle' design where pulling back increased power!!!! That design accounted for several German pilots!

Meanwhile, the late, great 'Winkle' Brown stated this of the Veltro:

One of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi MC. 205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of Italian styling and German engineering. I believe it was powered by a Daimler Benz DB 605. It was really a delight to fly, and up to anything on the Allied programme. But again, it came just before the Italians capitulated so it was never used extensively. And we did tests on it and were most impressed. The cockpit was smallish but not as bad as the Bf 109.”​

Regards,
MM
 
Yes, once the Eyeties got access to Kraut inline engines they made some tidy fighters. I think the Macchi C.205 was the best,



but that's only a personal choice.

Some of their bombers left something to be desired....

No arguments there! The Italians could certainly design some elegant fighters. But their bombers weren't that nice.
There were two aircraft that I have always liked, the SM 79 and the Fiat CR42. Always fancied building a model of them two in 32nd scale
 
Some years ago when I was young, slim(mer) and agile, I had the opportunity to get in both Spitfire and Bf109 cockpits. Whilst the Spit was reasonably comfortable, if cosy, I had to be helped out of the 109 because my arms were stuck by my sides.

Just for a laugh the bloke who was showing the aircraft tried to close the side hinged 109 cockpit. My head was at 45° to my shoulders by the time the cockpit was fully down. I'm just over 5'10" and even allowing that there was probably another 1.5" downward adjustment on the seat, I would have found it extremely tight in full flying kit.

The Spit's sliding and bulged cockpit was ok.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
Some years ago when I was young, slim(mer) and agile, I had the opportunity to get in both Spitfire and Bf109 cockpits. Whilst the Spit was reasonably comfortable, if cosy, I had to be helped out of the 109 because my arms were stuck by my sides.

Just for a laugh the bloke who was showing the aircraft tried to close the side hinged 109 cockpit. My head was at 45° to my shoulders by the time the cockpit was fully down. I'm just over 5'10" and even allowing that there was probably another 1.5" downward adjustment on the seat, I would have found it extremely tight in full flying kit.

The Spit's sliding and bulged cockpit was ok.
that was one of the reasons the Spitifire and Hurricane had an advantage over the 109 ISTR reading somewhere (I think it might have been len deighton's book re the BoB for some reason) - pilots couldn't physically move the control stick laterally to it's full stops as the cockpit walls stopped it? he blamed it (and the narrow undercart) on the germans wish to have it easily transportable by road and rail. MM, you probably know more?
 
Some years ago when I was young, slim(mer) and agile, I had the opportunity to get in both Spitfire and Bf109 cockpits. Whilst the Spit was reasonably comfortable, if cosy, I had to be helped out of the 109 because my arms were stuck by my sides.

Just for a laugh the bloke who was showing the aircraft tried to close the side hinged 109 cockpit. My head was at 45° to my shoulders by the time the cockpit was fully down. I'm just over 5'10" and even allowing that there was probably another 1.5" downward adjustment on the seat, I would have found it extremely tight in full flying kit.

The Spit's sliding and bulged cockpit was ok.
Agree I’m 6’ and black six was extremely claustrophobic for me, and the blind spots caused by the canopy frames were horrific in a fighter.
Mk 9:spitfire was in comparison snug but comfy ( and I got to start it !!).
 
Agree I’m 6’ and black six was extremely claustrophobic for me, and the blind spots caused by the canopy frames were horrific in a fighter.
Mk 9:spitfire was in comparison snug but comfy ( and I got to start it !!).
Where's the damn Envy button? I've stood close to Merlin engined Spitfires and a Mustang and it's a wonderful noise, but I've never sat in either, (I doubt I'd ever have fit even at fighting fit weight).

That Macchi looks very suitable for the thread. Just how many aircraft did "Winkle" get to test?
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top