What Happens When You Eject Out Of A Jet At 800 MPH

[PMedMoe]

Article Link

In a training exercise gone wrong back in 1989, Capt. Brian Udell had to eject at from his F-15 travelling at supersonic speeds. The force of the air on his body was so strong that it nearly killed him. Here is Udell explaining what happened.

The wind tore his helmet off, broke every blood vessel in his head and face, dislocated his left elbow so that it was pointed backwards and snapped both of his legs in half.

Video at link

Wow. 

 

[matthew1786]

Someone always has to learn the hard way before the rest of us can have it (at least) a little easier.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Someone always has to learn the hard way before the rest of us can have it (at least) a little easier.

How's that? Our seats are not safer at 800 mph today.

 

[matthew1786]

How's that? Our seats are not safer at 800 mph today.

If that is true, than the engineers and scientists developing these air-crafts (since 1989) need to seriously consider high-speed ejections a little more seriously. I am not precisely in tune with the aeronautical engineering industry, but for the most part operator/passenger safety is almost always one of the main design priorities.

I could only hope that after something like this happened, someone somewhere sat down and thought about how the high-speed ejection systems can be improved.

 

[aesop081]

someone somewhere sat down and thought about how the high-speed ejection systems can be improved.

Well, in the 1950s, engineers tried encapsulated ejection seats (for the B-58 Hustler IIRC) :

Then the F-111 had a ejectable crew compartment:

I am not precisely in tune with the aeronautical engineering industry,

Supersonicmax is a fighter pilot..........

 

[Nfld Sapper]

You come back shorter than when you left......


;D

 

[matthew1786]

I always try to keep my mind open, and I always take the advice of those with experience. That includes the way I conduct myself on this forum.

Supersonicmax is a fighter pilot..........

All the more respect to him, and in this case, I would even expect some sort of support from him. I was simply stating that civilian engineers working for private companies that design these crafts should be doing a better job to keep our men and women safe. When a case presents itself where the operator suffered from severe injuries or even died, it is the responsibility of the engineering team (as sworn to do so in their oath) to do everything in their power to make sure that something like that never happens again, and more. As I mentioned already, regardless of the specific industry, system design in general should always revolve around operator/passenger safety. There are safety standards that must be met and if these standards prove to be insufficient, they must be raised.

Which then led me to say...

"Someone always has to learn the hard way before the rest of us can have it (at least) a little easier."

...under the false assumption that someone has actually and already improved Mach-speed ejection systems. I apologize for the assumption, as Supersonicmax (someone with a respectable amount of experience) clearly stated that the seats are in fact not any safer. So sorry for that.  :-[ As a student of engineering I can only hope that one day our pilots can safely eject regardless of the circumstances that they find themselves in without having to worry about whether or not doing so will pose a threat to their well being.

Unfortunately, in the world we live in, things don't improve unless they fail first. I.e. something bad always has to happen. The old saying "if it ain't broken don't fix it" undermines how engineers should be thinking: "if it ain't broken, how can we make it even better?" Then of course, the big bad budget comes around and laughs at that very idea. :2c:

 

[aesop081]

system design in general should always revolve around operator/passenger safety.

I would like to think that it should revolve around being mission effective. No sense having the safest aircraft in the world if it can't do any of it's jobs.

 

[MJP]

There are safety standards that must be met and if these standards prove to be insufficient, they must be raised.

In engineering much like many other professions one usually doesn't plan/design equipment for .1% of all instances.  To do so is an inordinate waste of resources and a level of risk adversity that just isn't achievable. 

 

[aesop081]

All aircraft designs are a compromise.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, in the 1950s, engineers tried encapsulated ejection seats (for the B-58 Hustler IIRC) :

Then the F-111 had a ejectable crew compartment:

Supersonicmax is a fighter pilot..........

That Hustler "egg" looks interesting.  Was the passenger supposed to draw his knees up to his chest?  Or were the legs just considered surplus to requirement?

 

[aesop081]

That Hustler "egg" looks interesting.  Was the passenger supposed to draw his knees up to his chest?  Or were the legs just considered surplus to requirement?

IIRC, the seat had leg straps around the ankle area to pull the legs in when ejection was initiated.

 

[matthew1786]

I would like to think that it should revolve around being mission effective. No sense having the safest aircraft in the world if it can't do any of it's jobs.

Very true. I think we can agree on that the proper balance between the two should be achieved. If a certain improvement can be made without compromising that balance, then it is our job to at least try to implement said improvement.

In engineering much like many other professions one usually doesn't plan/design equipment for .1% of all instances.  To do so is an inordinate waste of resources and a level of risk adversity that just isn't achievable. 

Although you are right, try telling that to the captain in the video who lost his navigator. It is never easy to sign off on something that you know will fail if certain variables are met... especially knowing that if you had more time and money the 0.1% will essentially be lowered to 0%.

 

[aesop081]

knowing that if you had more time and money the 0.1% will essentially be lowered to 0%.

You will never eliminate all risk. Never.

 

[aesop081]

then it is our job to at least try to implement said improvement.

As i demonstrated in picture above, solutions have been explored at various times. I am not an engineer but there must be a reason such things are not in widespread use.

 

[jollyjacktar]

And here's me thinking the answer to the thread was you're walking home.  :facepalm:

 

[matthew1786]

You will never eliminate all risk. Never.

Thanks, and I agree with that. It is our duty to always try and minimize the risk. 

As i demonstrated in picture above, solutions have been explored at various times. I am not engineers but there must be a reason such things are not in widespread use.

Also true!

 

[aesop081]

The XB-70 Valkyrie also had encapsulated ejection seats for its crew. The Original B-1A had an ejectable crew compartment.

 

[jollyjacktar]

There must be a serious drawback to encapsulating the crew from a performance/engineering/cost standpoint or it would be standard today.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Thanks, and I agree with that. It is our duty to always try and minimize the risk. 

Also true!

Not always to the compromise of mission success.

How many supersonic ejections happened in the last 40 years?  I bet it's less than 1% of all ejections. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that the risk is acceptable.

I sit in one of those seats everyday and I don't feel anymore in danger.  I spend less than 1% of my airborne time above 630KEAS (the speed at which the Mk10, the Hornet's seat, is rated).