Interesting escape concepts.

KSA-100 SAVER (Stowable Aircrew Vehicle Escape Rotorseat) (world's first jet-powered autogyro) (1971)
Kaman KSA-100 (1971)- Stowable Aircrew Vehicle Escape Rotorseat (SAVER), a jet-powered gyroplane ejection seat to allow a pilot to fly himself back to safety (one built)

 
Soviet engineer A. G. Arutyunyan developed some escape pod concepts during the late 1940s for his degree project.

Here are three images from his original work:
  • Combined bailout rescue capsule
  • The cinematics of the combined rescue capsule
  • Experimental aircraft with catapult installation in the form of capsules combined rescue pilot
The jet aircraft in the third image kind of rings a bell. Was it really hypothetical, or an existing project?
Jet was also a part of his degree project and was based on F-104 in his own words but with ramjets on wingtips and three rocket engines in fuselage for takeoff and intercept phase to increase speed. It was not late 1940s but 1959 actually so inspiration sources in Western media are obvious.
 
Can anyone share some information about F-102 escape system?
Thanks
The F-102's Weber ejection seat was designed for a pilot weighing 180 lbs or less and the seat-man combination was supposed to be under 500 lbs. The seat was initiated by pulling either of the ejection handles from one of the sides of the seat pan once the pilot was in the correct position for ejection. With a quarter pound charge the seat would be fired up the rails and then a rocket motor of 5,000 lb thrust on the seat would ignite and give it a 16g acceleration. Pilots would have to kick themselves free of the seat in the earlier model of the seat. Weber then installed a man-seat separater strap that would reeled tight underneath the pilot and push them out of the seat.
 

Attachments

  • f-102a_06.jpg
    f-102a_06.jpg
    164.8 KB · Views: 156
Can anyone share some information about F-102 escape system?
Thanks
The F-102's Weber ejection seat was designed for a pilot weighing 180 lbs or less and the seat-man combination was supposed to be under 500 lbs. The seat was initiated by pulling either of the ejection handles from one of the sides of the seat pan once the pilot was in the correct position for ejection. With a quarter pound charge the seat would be fired up the rails and then a rocket motor of 5,000 lb thrust on the seat would ignite and give it a 16g acceleration. Pilots would have to kick themselves free of the seat in the earlier model of the seat. Weber then installed a man-seat separater strap that would reeled tight underneath the pilot and push them out of the seat.
Thank you,Sir!
Two funny thing-
1 canopy jettison handle is on seat,not in cabin
2 nothing to hold pilot's foot/leg when bail out
 
The canopy was jettisoned through the same initiator (i.e. pulling the handle to fire the seat or raising the lever for canopy jettison activated the canopy initiator). The initiator operated the canopy thruster, which unlatched the canopy locks, and operated the actuator to open the canopy. A lanyard would stretch tight between the canopy and seat arming system once the canopy had been jettisoned.

The F-106 used an interim F-102 seat and then switched to the 'bobsled' rotational "B" seat, which included leg straps with a reel and restraint system. The original Weber seat used on the F-102 had thigh guards on the seat pan to help prevent flail.
 
The canopy was jettisoned through the same initiator (i.e. pulling the handle to fire the seat or raising the lever for canopy jettison activated the canopy initiator). The initiator operated the canopy thruster, which unlatched the canopy locks, and operated the actuator to open the canopy. A lanyard would stretch tight between the canopy and seat arming system once the canopy had been jettisoned.

The F-106 used an interim F-102 seat and then switched to the 'bobsled' rotational "B" seat, which included leg straps with a reel and restraint system. The original Weber seat used on the F-102 had thigh guards on the seat pan to help prevent flail.
1 perfect information!
2
The F-106 used an interim F-102 seat and then switched to the 'bobsled' rotational "B" seat…
do you have more detail about the rotational"B" seat?
Thanks
 
The canopy was jettisoned through the same initiator (i.e. pulling the handle to fire the seat or raising the lever for canopy jettison activated the canopy initiator). The initiator operated the canopy thruster, which unlatched the canopy locks, and operated the actuator to open the canopy. A lanyard would stretch tight between the canopy and seat arming system once the canopy had been jettisoned.

The F-106 used an interim F-102 seat and then switched to the 'bobsled' rotational "B" seat, which included leg straps with a reel and restraint system. The original Weber seat used on the F-102 had thigh guards on the seat pan to help prevent flail.
1 perfect information!
2
The F-106 used an interim F-102 seat and then switched to the 'bobsled' rotational "B" seat…
do you have more detail about the rotational"B" seat?
Thanks
 

Attachments

  • Convair Supersonic Rotational B-seat .jpg
    Convair Supersonic Rotational B-seat .jpg
    833.1 KB · Views: 93
John Nichol's latest book has the story of the development of ejection seat and escape methods including drawings of:

Martin-Baker Pre-Mk I Ejection Seat
Stanley Aviation Company Escape Capsule
General Dynamics F-111 Cockpit Capsule
Stanley Aviation Corporation Yankee Extraction System
Bell Aerosystems Rogallo Wing
Fairchild Stratos Corporation Escape System (AERCAB mini-glider concept)
Kaman Aerospace Corporation Gyrocopter
Martin-Baker Mk 10 Ejection Seat
Ejection Seat Personal Survival Pack

As well as descriptions of seat development worldwide (including downward ejections) the book has several interesting photographs throughout.

The books main subject matter concerns the individual escape stories of aviators. However, I found it to be a good overview of escape development since the 1940's.

Source:
"Eject! Eject!" by John Nichol (Simon & Schuster) ISBN 978-1-3985-0940-5
 
Grumman Supersonic Ejection Seat with inflatable stabilizing cone.
 

Attachments

  • Grumman Ejection Seat.png
    Grumman Ejection Seat.png
    697.9 KB · Views: 54
  • Fwd Ejection Seat.png
    Fwd Ejection Seat.png
    529.6 KB · Views: 55
  • Grumman Rear Ejection Seat.png
    Grumman Rear Ejection Seat.png
    513.9 KB · Views: 49
  • Grumman SS Ejection Seat.png
    Grumman SS Ejection Seat.png
    656.2 KB · Views: 60
  • Grumman Supersonic Ejection Seat Concept.png
    Grumman Supersonic Ejection Seat Concept.png
    783.7 KB · Views: 81
From Air Force magazine 1948,

a normal one.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    856.4 KB · Views: 63
From Naval Aviation News 1952.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    1,020 KB · Views: 38
  • 2.png
    2.png
    991.6 KB · Views: 51
Instantaneous 40 g's is equivalent to a 30 mile per hour car crash while wearing a seat belt. Its survivable.
During the 1950s, US Navy testing proved that a properly restrained pilot could survive a 40G deceleration.
“Survive” versus “walk away from.”

US Navy tests included a variety of 4-point, 5-point, 6-point seat-belts and maybe even some torso harnesses.

Picture striking the fan-tail of an aircraft carrier.
 
Last edited:
From Air University Review of Michigan 1967/68.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 36
  • 2.png
    2.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 39
Avionics might get in the way of this---but a way I might put a combat robot down is to have a lot of crush space in the nose of a craft surrounding a piston in a reservoir to push the bot up and out of the way of the wreckage and then land on spring like legs.
 
Avionics might get in the way of this---but a way I might put a combat robot down is to have a lot of crush space in the nose of a craft surrounding a piston in a reservoir to push the bot up and out of the way of the wreckage and then land on spring like legs.
Makes me wonder what the R2D2 ejection concept was, if any :D.
 
Well, d'uh, given they didn't have proper space-suits, either...
 
I'm assuming none, but the manual drop out the bottom is a possibility. Not like the Star Wars pilots had any escape systems, so why would slaves/droids have an escape system?
It depends upon the cost or relative scarcity of pilots versus droids.
If pilots are plentiful, who cares if they survive.
OTOH if droids are expensive and/or scarce, then you do everything possible (e.g. ejection systems) to preserve your few remaining droids.
 
Last edited:
Circa 2000, Jim Woolley (retired US Navy parachute test jumper) casually mentioned that he had been contracted to find a solution to too-fast descent rates of F-111 cockpit escape capsules. The cockpits had gained weight as additional instruments, avionics, etc. we’re added over the years. Woolley’s solution was to cut a “smile” in the parachute canopy. This “smile” gave the parachute a bit of forward velocity and decreased the descent rate.
Remember that cutting holes in axi-symmetric parachutes is nothing new. Blank gores like Ferry Slots and Garry Gores date back to the 1930s. Pioneering exhibition jumpers cut holes in their round parachutes to provide a bit of forward speed and steer-ability. They left radial and lateral seams and reinforcing tapes intact and only removed thin fabric to create blow-holes or steering slots. Precision landing competitors experimented with a wide variety for f blank gores, lateral slots, L-slots, 7-TU, etc. Typical man-carrying/skydiving “Cheapos” might fly forward at 5 mph. sufficient to avoid narrow obstacles like fencelines, but useless in avoiding large obstacles like forests.
I started skydiving back during the 1970s when military-surplus parachutes were the norm for students. Civilian riggers modified inexpensive (hence the nickname “Cheapo”) military-surplus parachutes for sporting purposes.
 
This is kind of relevant: STS Launch Pad escape system. Years ago I remember walking on the gantry and seeing yellow feet print leading from the gantry access arm to the crew escape basket. There used to be a bunker if I remember and an armored vehicle that would come out and retrieve them in the event of an accident. A Red Team waited as close as one could during the launch and then would go get them if necessary. Here's a video of their retiring them.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TGMWdtQYkbc
 

Attachments

  • Young Crippen in Basket.jpg
    Young Crippen in Basket.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 24
Last edited:
Space Shuttle Escape System Tests

 

Attachments

  • Shuttle Ejection Seat.jpg
    Shuttle Ejection Seat.jpg
    82.1 KB · Views: 21
This is kind of relevant: STS Launch Pad escape system. Years ago I remember walking on the gantry and seeing yellow feet print leading from the gantry access arm to the crew escape basket. There used to be a bunker if I remember and an armored vehicle that would come out and retrieve them in the event of an accident. A Red Team waited as close as one could during the launch and then would go get them if necessary. Here's a video of their retiring them.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TGMWdtQYkbc
You have not been zipline-ing until you ride the Shuttle zipline!
 
Grumman supersonic ejection seat w. airbag research ca.????
That airbag inflated a rear cone that streamlines the seat and stabilizes/reduces tumbling.
I doubt if that airbag does anything to reduce landing impact.
 
Back
Top Bottom