Ejection seat chutes

[oldfart 0]

Last couple of movies I've seen that had pilots ejecting, the chutes used were squares.How long have the riggers been packing ram air canopies in ejection seats and what aircrafts are they being used in?Is this now standard?

[indyz 1]

Quote

Last couple of movies I've seen that had pilots ejecting, the chutes used were squares.How long have the riggers been packing ram air canopies in ejection seats and what aircrafts are they being used in?Is this now standard?

I saw recent video of a real ejection that was most definitely done with a round. I think squares are all Hollywood.

[riggerrob 558]

The U.S.Navy tested and rejected the concept of square parachutes in ejection seats during the early 1990s. The decision was primarily political.

[oldfart 0]

Quote

The U.S.Navy tested and rejected the concept of square parachutes in ejection seats during the early 1990s. The decision was primarily political.

Political how so?Could you elaborate?What about the rest of the military?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

ram air canopies in ejection seats

The older ejection seats still use round canopies. "Old" being military aircraft designed, oh, let's say more than 10 years ago. Which means most of them.

The exception is a few of the newer models, which have ram-airs, I understand. I think planes like the F-15 and/or F-16 use a ram-air chute. That system is called "ACES" for AirCrew Ejection System.

My brother flew FA-18's, and all he had was a 20' round chute.

What you see in movies has no relationship to real life, of course. They usually splice in a shot of a paracommander descent after the shot of a pilot ejecting - and paracommanders have never used in ejection seats. They are way too bulky. The movie "Bat 21" comes to mind, with Gene Hackman.

[jakee 1,254]

I thought that after ejecting there is a high risk of injury, like broken arms, unconsiousness, dislocated shoulders etc. Wouldn't a round parachute be safer than a ram air if you weren't able to reach the toggles or risers?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The exception is a few of the newer models, which have ram-airs, I understand. I think planes like the F-15 and/or F-16 use a ram-air chute. That system is called "ACES" for AirCrew Ejection System.

Not quite.

Was doing some reading on Martin-Baker's site (they make a good majority of the ejection seats used by the US military and others, as well as for the F-15 and the F-16, as well as the F-16 variants).

According to their site, they use the G.Q. Aeroconical parachute, which is a round.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

I thought that after ejecting there is a high risk of injury, like broken arms, unconsiousness, dislocated shoulders etc. Wouldn't a round parachute be safer than a ram air if you weren't able to reach the toggles or risers?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You clearly do not have many jumps on round parachutes.
(I have about 70 jumps on round parachutes and over 4,000 on squares.)
If I were banged up, I would much rather find myself hanging under a large square parachute (250 to 350 square feet). Even if you never touch the brakes, it will land considerably softer than most rounds. Furthermore, the forward glide angle of a square almost eliminates the need to PLF.

If it is any consolation, the US Navy crams tiny round parachutes into F-18 ejection seats. I remember watching video of a pilot ejecting from an F-18 during a failed attempt to land in a cross-wind. When you combined his vertical velocity with his horizontal velocity - calculating vectors, etc. - he impacted at something like 40 mph!
Ouch!
And the USNavy was surprised when he broke a hip!

Is there any wonder the Canadian Air Force retrofitted their CF-18s with a different parachute?

When USNavy pilots - in distress - try desperately to get "feet wet" before ejecting, it has little to do with risk of capture. They know that the USNavy did not give them a round parachute large enough for them to walk away from a landing on hard ground.

[airtwardo 6]

Check this out!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[chuteless 1]

Personally, I would rather land after ejection on a Round. If a square was to be headed downwind, they'll likely bury the pilot where he stops rolling.and especially if there happens to be a 30 mph wind on top of the normal flight speed of the square.

Bill Cole D-41

[riggerrob 558]

I landed 290 square foot Precision P-124A square parachutes, down-wind, hands-off several times during TSO testing of Rigging Innovations' Aviator pilot emergency parachute system.
None of those landings were as hard as the C-8, C-9 and T-10 round parachutes I jumped as a student.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The exception is a few of the newer models, which have ram-airs, I understand. I think planes like the F-15 and/or F-16 use a ram-air chute. That system is called "ACES" for AirCrew Ejection System.

Not quite.

Was doing some reading on Martin-Baker's site (they make a good majority of the ejection seats used by the US military and others, as well as for the F-15 and the F-16, as well as the F-16 variants).

According to their site, they use the G.Q. Aeroconical parachute, which is a round.

Okay, you appear to be correct. Attached are some images of what I was remembering, from my detailed research on ejection seats about 10 years ago. These are studies I dug up from China Lake, where such things are researched. It's amazing what you can get your hands on via the Freedom of Information Act.

I was thinking of AGES (not ACES). That stands for Aircrew Gliding Escape System, which proposes to put ram-air chutes in ejection seats. It's been studied since the early 1980's. I'm surprised that they haven't actually done it yet.

The ACES is a "smart" seat that controls deployment based upon things like air speed and altitude factors.

[smooth 0]

I posted a related link here


Don't know if it helps the type of chute issue but it's definitely more thatn I needed to know about ejection seats.

[riggerrob 558]

I was thinking of AGES (not ACES). That stands for Aircrew Gliding Escape System, which proposes to put ram-air chutes in ejection seats. It's been studied since the early 1980's. I'm surprised that they haven't actually done it yet.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There were two political problems with the Aircrew Gliding Escape System. The first was an irrational fear by administrators that test items would automatically turn downwind and aim for the only vertical item on the test range.
Come on folks, unguided turns by any parachute are RANDOM!

The second problem was a personality clash between Manley Butler and other China Lake staff. Mr. Butler may be a brilliant engineer, but he is not the most diplomatic.

I doubt if we will see ram-air parachutes installed in ejection seats until after a mid-1990s graduate of the US Air Force Academy gets promoted to a senior procurement position in the Pentagon. Usually it is easier to retire long-serving service members than to waste time trying to change their attitudes. Young pilots may not like the antiquated parachutes they are issued with, but it is a multi-million dollar process to re-certify an ejection seat with a new canopy.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

ram air canopies in ejection seats

The older ejection seats still use round canopies. "Old" being military aircraft designed, oh, let's say more than 10 years ago. Which means most of them.

The exception is a few of the newer models, which have ram-airs, I understand. I think planes like the F-15 and/or F-16 use a ram-air chute. That system is called "ACES" for AirCrew Ejection System.

My brother flew FA-18's, and all he had was a 20' round chute.

What you see in movies has no relationship to real life, of course. They usually splice in a shot of a paracommander descent after the shot of a pilot ejecting - and paracommanders have never used in ejection seats. They are way too bulky. The movie "Bat 21" comes to mind, with Gene Hackman.

All ejection seats use round canopies. The "ACES II" seat uses a variation of the 28' flat C-9. The F-18 seat uses a GQ-1000 that has an inflated diameter of about 17'. There is a test and evaluation program going on now to replace it with one of possibly 2 or 3 other chute. One is the modified C-9 developed by AERO, one is the ACES canopy developed by Irvin of Canada and one is the GQ 5000. I have been involved in most of the testing of the first two but have no idea what third one is like. Part of the problem with using a ramair canopy is getting to survive the high speed, 600 Kt., ejection speed. That would be over 400 kt. at line stretch.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skypuppy 1]

Irvin of Canada closed their plant in Fort Erie, Ontario
at least 5 years ago I think... I don't know where they're made now. 'Irvin' might make another interesting thread...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Irvin of Canada closed their plant in Fort Erie, Ontario
at least 5 years ago I think... I don't know where they're made now. 'Irvin' might make another interesting thread...

Two years ago AERO, the comany I worked for, was testing for them in So. Cal.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skypuppy 1]

Irvin maintained only a small presence in Trenton, Ontario, Canada to do ongoing maintenance on Cdn. Forces equipment but they do have extensive manufacturing/design capabilities in North Carolina and in the UK I believe... Closing the plant here put about 4-500 people out of work, but was the result of a change of ownership at the corporate level.... Their headquarters is located in the UK.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[mjosparky 3]

Sorry to hear so many people lost their job. They also have an R&D and manufacturing facility in So. Cal. They were bought by Airborne Systems, the parent company of Para-Flite. Irvin and Para-Flite were in competition on the ATPS program. They bought Irvin and that was settled.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ripcordkid 0]

para flite and the us navy were working as early as 1973 to deign a ram air canopy that would hold up to the forcesc involved in deploying at something like 200 knots.John Matsuo from i think either china lake or el centro was in charge of the project.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

para flite and the us navy were working as early as 1973 to deign a ram air canopy that would hold up to the forcesc involved in deploying at something like 200 knots.John Matsuo from i think either china lake or el centro was in charge of the project.

Who are you?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ripcordkid 0]

im someone who worked at paraflite early on and saw much of steve snyders and dick morgans work at the drop zone as a more than casual observer.

Quote

• Quote

[mccurley 0]

check this out!

Watch my video Fat Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWkEky8GoI

[darkwing 4]

ouch! When, where, etc? It probably isn't US, as that isn't a color pattern I've seen on American canopies. Is the a/c a MIG of some flavor? I vaguely recall seeing film footage of this biff. The canopy looks weird, but that is how rounds look at that point in the opening sequence.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[riggerrob 558]

That last photo was of a MIG 29 that they wrecked at the Paris airshow a few years back.
Despite the spectacular landing, the pilot survived.
Fortunately it helped them sell a lot of ejection seats.
Yes, that is what a half-inflated round canopy looks like.