Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 1)

[D-Angle]

AstonZagato said:

Eric Mc said:

Why would they eject at mach 2 for a movie?

I doubt very much they were even flying at Mach 1.

What would you film it from at Mach 2?

Classified, comrade.

[Eric Mc]

There are very few instances of anyone EVER ejecting at Mach 2. Surely the wall of air you hit would kill you outright or at least cause you severe damage.

[eharding]

I know a bloke who was flying a two-seat Sukhoi (granted, one with a propellor on the front) on its way to a display, got to the display location a few minutes early, and decided to fly a few warm-up figures a couple of miles away - it turns out that if you negative flick an SU-29 hard enough, there can be *just* enough flex in the canopy frame for the whole thing to come away from the locating pins and depart the aircraft. Cue one very grumpy, cold and windblown transit home, and lots of people not seeing the aerobatic display they were expecting.

The canopy fell into a corn field, it turned out, and wasn't found until six months later when the farmer was harvesting the crop.

[Ayahuasca]

Eric Mc said:

Why would they eject at mach 2 for a movie?

I doubt very much they were even flying at Mach 1.

Internet says an ejection seat accelerates at 12g, so from velocity = acceleration x time and distance = average velocity x time, the distance the seat travelled upwards (say 5 metres) would have taken 0.29 seconds. In that time the plane flew forwards about 3 metres, so its forward speed was, er, 37km /hour. Which tells you there is something badly wrong with my maths skills.



Edit to add:

Doh! My cunning calculations ignore the fact that the seat continues to move forward after it has left the aircraft.... back to pencil chewing.

Edited by Ayahuasca on Tuesday 28th July 19:57

[Mr Dave]

Eric Mc said:

There are very few instances of anyone EVER ejecting at Mach 2. Surely the wall of air you hit would kill you outright or at least cause you severe damage.

Eric, is it the Mig 21 that has the seat where the canopy is hinged to the top of the seat, so that when you eject the canopy shields you from the airflow outside?

The Seahawk, A7, Buccaneer and Forger and im sure others all have ejection seats that work underwater. Thats something I really wouldnt like to try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz8fOZxIdVg

[Ayahuasca]

F104 starfigher ejected downwards !

[Munter]

AstonZagato said:

Eric Mc said:

Why would they eject at mach 2 for a movie?

I doubt very much they were even flying at Mach 1.

What would you film it from at Mach 2?

Well. You could film it from. And this is a shocker. But you could film it from an identical plane...

Doesn't it ruin the airframe when they eject?

[Ayahuasca]

Ayahuasca said:

Eric Mc said:

Why would they eject at mach 2 for a movie?

I doubt very much they were even flying at Mach 1.

Internet says an ejection seat accelerates at 12g, so from velocity = acceleration x time and distance = average velocity x time, the distance the seat travelled upwards (say 5 metres) would have taken 0.29 seconds. In that time the plane flew forwards about 3 metres, so its forward speed was, er, 37km /hour. Which tells you there is something badly wrong with my maths skills.



Edit to add:

Doh! My cunning calculations ignore the fact that the seat continues to move forward after it has left the aircraft.... back to pencil chewing.

Edited by Ayahuasca on Tuesday 28th July 19:57

OK, here we go... assuming that the smoke from the ejection has very little inertia and would stay in pretty much the same place, the smoke seems to start just about where the fins are, so I reckon the aircraft moved around 8.4 metres, making its forward speed around 104km/hr. This is below the Sukhoi 35's stalling speed. However, because the elevators are deflected fully downwards, I would say that it is not flying level but probably is at the top of a parabolic movement, or doing one of its crazy Ivan stopping things. Either way mach 2 or even 1 it is not.

Feel free to better my calculations (whish I still remembered how to do calculus..)

[Ayahuasca]

Ultimate car for the Starfighter fan:

[dr_gn]

Ayahuasca said:

Ayahuasca said:

Eric Mc said:

Why would they eject at mach 2 for a movie?

I doubt very much they were even flying at Mach 1.

Internet says an ejection seat accelerates at 12g, so from velocity = acceleration x time and distance = average velocity x time, the distance the seat travelled upwards (say 5 metres) would have taken 0.29 seconds. In that time the plane flew forwards about 3 metres, so its forward speed was, er, 37km /hour. Which tells you there is something badly wrong with my maths skills.



Edit to add:

Doh! My cunning calculations ignore the fact that the seat continues to move forward after it has left the aircraft.... back to pencil chewing.

Edited by Ayahuasca on Tuesday 28th July 19:57

OK, here we go... assuming that the smoke from the ejection has very little inertia and would stay in pretty much the same place, the smoke seems to start just about where the fins are, so I reckon the aircraft moved around 8.4 metres, making its forward speed around 104km/hr. This is below the Sukhoi 35's stalling speed. However, because the elevators are deflected fully downwards, I would say that it is not flying level but probably is at the top of a parabolic movement, or doing one of its crazy Ivan stopping things. Either way mach 2 or even 1 it is not.

Feel free to better my calculations (whish I still remembered how to do calculus..)

The pilot admitted it was a low speed ejection, but claims he did fly without the canopy at Mach 2.

[Bernie-the-bolt]

Ayahuasca said:

However, because the elevators are deflected fully downwards, I would say that it is not flying level but probably is at the top of a parabolic movement, or doing one of its crazy Ivan stopping things. Either way mach 2 or even 1 it is not.

I noticed the elevators and whilst I didn't think of a parabolic, it's going slowly given their angle of attack.

[sneijder]

Pepsi Concorde :



Hadn't seen it before, more here :

http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/pepsi.ht...

[Bernie-the-bolt]

R

[sneijder]

Cripes, that's the first time I've been pulled up by the RP Polizei.

I thought I was well up on this thread too.

[Bernie-the-bolt]

Charmless man said:

Not as cool as a couple of those low flying shots and not exactly a great photo.

However, is Pepsi cooler than Coca Cola?



I apologies to the old hands who have seen it all before, I must've been under a rock as I've never seen it and I found the accompanying story interesting..

http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/pepsi.ht...

Sir, I give you...

R E P O S T

Well done for effort though

[dr_gn]

Bernie-the-bolt said:

Ayahuasca said:

However, because the elevators are deflected fully downwards, I would say that it is not flying level but probably is at the top of a parabolic movement, or doing one of its crazy Ivan stopping things. Either way mach 2 or even 1 it is not.

I noticed the elevators and whilst I didn't think of a parabolic, it's going slowly given their angle of attack.

Oh look, the whole thing's faked - it was a ground ejection. What a surprise.



Couldn't figure out how the elevators would possibly be in that position in that situation - or why the seat drogues aren't pointing straight back.

Cheers,

Edited by dr_gn on Tuesday 28th July 21:38

[odyssey2200]

Fakes on a Plane!!

[Stuart]

Ayahuasca said:

F104 starfigher ejected downwards !

Did it? Blimey, I've even more respect for anyone who flew one of those things now.

[Ayahuasca]

dr_gn said:

Bernie-the-bolt said:

Ayahuasca said:

However, because the elevators are deflected fully downwards, I would say that it is not flying level but probably is at the top of a parabolic movement, or doing one of its crazy Ivan stopping things. Either way mach 2 or even 1 it is not.

I noticed the elevators and whilst I didn't think of a parabolic, it's going slowly given their angle of attack.

Oh look, the whole thing's faked - it was a ground ejection. What a surprise.



Couldn't figure out how the elevators would possibly be in that position in that situation - or why the seat drogues aren't pointing straight back.

Cheers,

Edited by dr_gn on Tuesday 28th July 21:38

Sneaky Russians! I thought there was something wrong with the maths.

[Eric Mc]

Stuart said:

Ayahuasca said:

F104 starfigher ejected downwards !

Did it? Blimey, I've even more respect for anyone who flew one of those things now.

Only the early ones (F-104A to C). The F-104G and S variants (which made up the bulk of production) had normal upward firing seats.