The F-35’s Martin-Baker Ejection Seat

Design and construction
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post17 Jun 2015, 19:15

How it Works: The F-35’s Martin-Baker Ejection Seat

Image

Long'ish article about the ejection seat at the link.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/how-it- ... 10046950=1
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jun 2015, 19:24

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Jul 2015, 11:51

I wonder what the recommendation is for 'underwater ejection' for the F-35s?

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5453
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post24 Jul 2015, 13:39

spazsinbad wrote:I wonder what the recommendation is for 'underwater ejection' for the F-35s?



Or an F-16 for that matter. Slamming into the canopy would not be fun. :|
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1353
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post24 Jul 2015, 13:59

Keep in mind the F-35 canopy shatters during ejection, so it'll be less slamming into the canopy and more slamming into a deluge / ceiling of water.
Offline

smitty14

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2014, 14:50

Unread post24 Jul 2015, 17:19

Inverted underwater ejection sounds horrifying.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Sep 2015, 18:17

Safer Ejection Seats
Sep 2015 Keith Button

"Ejecting from a warplane has always been hazardous, but many pilots face more danger than ever. That’s because their ejection seats weren’t designed to accommodate modern helmets and displays. Keith Button looks at ideas for solving the problem...."

Source: AEROSPACE AMERICA/SEPTEMBER 2015
Attachments
Safer Ejection Seats AEROSPACE AMERICA SEP 2015 pp2 PRN.pdf
(239.71 KiB) Downloaded 1248 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Sep 2015, 03:29

75 Years Ago - who'da thunk. Testing An Aircraft Ejection Seat (1940)

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Sep 2015, 16:40

From the 'basement dweller' thread today via 'sferrin': viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&p=303396&hilit=document#p303396
Public Affairs Guidance F-35A
14 Sep 2015 USAF PR

Q11: I hear that there is a new weight restriction for the pilots who fly the F-35, and some pilots are now grounded. Is that true?
A11: On 27 August 2015, the U.S. Services restricted F-35 pilots weighing less than 136 pounds from operating the aircraft due to an increased risk of injury that could occur in a low speed ejection. This is an ejection seat issue and is not related to the differences between the Gen II and Gen III helmets. The weight restriction currently affects at least one F-35 pilot. All F-35s use the same Martin Baker US16E ejection seat system. The safety of our pilots is paramount and the F-35 Joint Program Office, Lockheed Martin, and Martin Baker continue to work this issue with the US Services and International Partners to reach a solution as quickly as possible.

Source: http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-35- ... idance.pdf (150Kb)

Graphic from 19 Nov 2010 http://www.lockheedmartinuk.co.uk/data/ ... Arev16.pdf (2.5Mb)

QUOTE BELOW FROM THE PDF IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THIS POST.
Safer ejection seats
Sep 2015 Keith Button

"...According to Air Force figures, from 1995 to 2014, there were 203 ejections using ACES 2, 93 percent of which occurred at speeds of 518 miles per hour or less, which is considered the safe envelope for ACES 2 ejections. Of the 189 ejections within the envelope, 12 percent resulted in fatalities or other injuries from windblast, ejection shock, parachute landing, hitting the ground or objects during ejection and from burns or hypothermia.

Nevetheless, the March Pentagon report concluded that the helmet-mounted cueing system and night-vision goggles don’t significantly increase the risk of injury during ejection, so long as the aircrew members follow proper ejection procedures detailed in their flight manuals.

They should remove night vision goggles before ejection and properly wear their helmet at all times. The Navy, according to the report, restricts air crew members who weigh 136 pound or less from wearing certain helmet-mounted devices because of the increased risk of injury...."

Source: AEROSPACE AMERICA/SEPTEMBER 2015 [available above: download/file.php?id=21586 ]
Attachments
F-35pilotWeightRangeEjectionSeat.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Sep 2015, 17:29

A repeat but worth repeatin'.
Bang Seat Battle
16 Sep 2010 Bill Sweetman

“...The JSF ejection system design is challenging in several ways. The seat has to deliver high performance because a STOVL landing problem could mean ejecting at low altitude from a descending aircraft that is also yawed or pitched out of level flight.

The JSF is also the first fighter designed to accommodate 95 percent of the potential US pilot population, with body weights from 103 to 245 pounds. Together, these two requirements mean that the lightest pilots experience most acceleration....

...an airbag system stowed in the headrest, which deploys to either side of the pilot's head, preventing lateral movement, and then controls the slam-back by deflating at a fixed rate....”

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Oct 2015, 16:08

Exclusive: F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots
01 Oct 2015 Lara Seligman and Aaron Mehta

WASHINGTON — Concerns about increased risk of injury to F-35 pilots during low-speed ejections have prompted the US military services to temporarily restrict pilots who weigh less than 136 pounds from flying the aircraft, Defense News has learned.

During August tests of the ejection seat, built by Martin-Baker, testers discovered an increased risk of neck injury when a lightweight pilot is flying at slower speeds. Until the problem is fixed, the services decided to restrict pilots weighing under 136 pounds from operating the plane, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, F-35 integration office director, told Defense News in a Tuesday interview.

“The bottom line is, they have to get into the realm where the seat allows that weight of a pilot less than 136 pounds [to] safely eject out of the airplane,” Harrigian said. “They found some areas that particularly at slower speeds they were concerned about, so that drove the restriction that we have right now.”

At least one F-35 pilot is affected by the weight restriction, according to Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova, who added that the rule was announced Aug. 27. The issue does not affect the first and only female F-35 pilot, Lt. Col. Christina Mau, 33rd Operations Group deputy commander, he noted.

The ejection seat issue is not related to the new Generation 3 helmet, built by Rockwell Collins and delivered to the JPO in August, DellaVedova said.

In August, testers discovered that when a lighter pilot is flying the aircraft, the ejection seat slightly over-rotates, Col. Todd Canterbury, who was commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing until June, told Defense News on Wednesday. The team is concerned that when the parachute opens, a lightweight pilot may not be in the optimal body position to eject out of the plane, he said.

“It’s that light pilot and the center of gravity of the seat,” said Canterbury, who flew F-35 software versions 1B, 2A, 3i and 2B. “It all has to do with getting that center of gravity kind of located within the window, we call it, for safe seat-man separation.”


Canterbury stressed that the weight restriction is an interim fix, and the JPO is working closely with aircraft builder Lockheed Martin and Martin-Baker on a permanent solution.

Pilot safety is the services’ top priority, officials stressed.

“Safety is our No. 1 concern and we want to make sure that we give the warfighter the safest ejection seat capable out there,” Canterbury, now the chief of the F-35 Integration Office Operations Division, said on Tuesday. “As we discover things, we can weigh the risk of what’s acceptable and what’s not, and right now, until we fully understand the implication of the seat, safety is our No. 1 priority.”

The JPO, Martin-Baker and Lockheed Martin are working “seven days a week, 24 hours a day” to lift the restriction, DellaVedova said. Like most modern fighter jets, the F-35's ejection seat is meant to accommodate pilots who weigh 103 pounds to 245 pounds.

“That’s our plan, that’s the requirement, and that’s what were working with the program office on,” Harrigian said.

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /73102528/





Attachments
AutoEjectMartinBakerF-35BseatUS16E.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post01 Oct 2015, 17:55

Why not simply add a counterweight near the headrest to shift the COG higher?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Oct 2015, 18:01

:devil: :mrgreen: Yeah a bit of depleted uranium bobweight around the brain box cogs will do wonders for their IQ also. :mrgreen: :devil:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post01 Oct 2015, 20:04

Would that qualify as an armored cockpit?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post01 Oct 2015, 20:05

SpudmanWP wrote:Why not simply add a counterweight near the headrest to shift the COG higher?


Another perfectly good reason why "WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE FIGHTER PILOTS". they are too small. If you don't think so, ask a Marine! :poke: :D
Next

Return to F-35 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests