Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(War is Boring)   And another thing wrong with the F-35, the ejection seat is sexist   ( warisboring.com) divider line
    More: Strange, United States Air Force, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Eagle, F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II, Fighter aircraft, General Dynamics F-111, F-15E Strike Eagle  
•       •       •

4277 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2017 at 9:20 AM (31 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2017-03-14 08:03:43 AM  
Some older planes -- Vietnam era? -- had the opposite problem. If large men ejected the legs might stay behind, or be so beat up you'd wish they stayed behind.
 
2017-03-14 08:43:50 AM  
Yeah, not sexist so much as weightist.

You go be skinny somewhere else, ladies.
 
2017-03-14 09:24:19 AM  
All ejection seats are sexist.

They'll crush your nuts, but only if you're a guy.
 
2017-03-14 09:26:44 AM  

ZAZ: Some older planes -- Vietnam era? -- had the opposite problem. If large men ejected the legs might stay behind, or be so beat up you'd wish they stayed behind.


Take too long to get out and the exhaust will cook your calves. In most cases, your boots will be on fire for a bit... take care of that.
 
2017-03-14 09:27:59 AM  
Couldn't a $10 weighted vest fix the issue? Or, since it's the military, a $1,000 weighted vest?
 
2017-03-14 09:38:16 AM  
Sounds like Tracer needs to bulk up a bit.
 
2017-03-14 09:44:48 AM  
Ejection seats are so heteronormative
 
2017-03-14 09:45:44 AM  
Not sexist.  Weightist.
 
2017-03-14 09:46:03 AM  
Oh weight, I thought the handles looked like a set of tits or something.
 
2017-03-14 09:46:14 AM  

ChrisDe: Couldn't a $10 weighted vest fix the issue? Or, since it's the military, a $1,000 weighted vest?


It would probably make the problem worse.  A little googling tells me that 13Gs are typical at ejection, so a 10lb vest would put 130lb of force on a person that by definition weighs less than 136lb.  Add some rolling or tumbling as you eject into a turbulent airstream, and I wouldn't want that around my neck.

Perhaps you could add the mass to the seat, but then you have to add structure to support that weight and space is already at a premium.  You would also potentially be adding balance and stability issues as well.

Since the limit is going to be lowered in April, there's clearly a fix, but it's probably not quite as simple as a vest.
 
2017-03-14 09:55:32 AM  

crumblecat: All ejection seats are sexist.

They'll crush your nuts, but only if you're a guy.


In fairness, if you're a man, so will women.
 
2017-03-14 09:57:20 AM  

dittybopper: crumblecat: All ejection seats are sexist.

They'll crush your nuts, but only if you're a guy.

In fairness, if you're a man, so will women.


Yeah but that costs extra. Unless you have a coupon.
 
2017-03-14 09:58:20 AM  

thedumbone: ChrisDe: Couldn't a $10 weighted vest fix the issue? Or, since it's the military, a $1,000 weighted vest?

It would probably make the problem worse.  A little googling tells me that 13Gs are typical at ejection, so a 10lb vest would put 130lb of force on a person that by definition weighs less than 136lb.  Add some rolling or tumbling as you eject into a turbulent airstream, and I wouldn't want that around my neck.

Perhaps you could add the mass to the seat, but then you have to add structure to support that weight and space is already at a premium.  You would also potentially be adding balance and stability issues as well.

Since the limit is going to be lowered in April, there's clearly a fix, but it's probably not quite as simple as a vest.


I don't know why the ACES II is good enough for the F-22 but not good enough for the F-35.

Well, I know why... but it's a dumb reason.
 
2017-03-14 09:58:23 AM  
Seems to me a weighted cushion for pilots who weight less would solve the problem.  And since height and weight are related for fit individuals, it would also elevate them a bit giving them better visibility.
 
2017-03-14 09:59:16 AM  

Kristoph57: dittybopper: crumblecat: All ejection seats are sexist.

They'll crush your nuts, but only if you're a guy.

In fairness, if you're a man, so will women.

Yeah but that costs extra. Unless you have a coupon.


Or a wedding ring.
 
2017-03-14 10:01:53 AM  

ChrisDe: Couldn't a $10 weighted vest fix the issue? Or, since it's the military, a $1,000 weighted vest?


It would be better to just affix ballast to the seat, not the pilot.
 
2017-03-14 10:02:11 AM  
Logically it seems like the problem here is the center of gravity is the seat/pilot combination and the weight/thrust combination causing too much acceleration for tiny people.  You can't tell me there's not SOMEWHERE they could put a weight that's not on the pilot's body that would still be in center of thrust.  Under their ass, both sides behind their back, under the seat somewhere.

We're just compensating for the fact that noone wants to design a better ejection seat with things like adjustable weight canisters for smaller pilots.  So instead we'll spend $500 million readjusting the airframe itself to get a good ejection profile with a lighter seat/pilot to 'save money' by using an off the shelf seat that doesn't have the features that are needed by today's military.
 
2017-03-14 10:07:09 AM  

oopsboom: Logically it seems like the problem here is the center of gravity is the seat/pilot combination and the weight/thrust combination causing too much acceleration for tiny people.  You can't tell me there's not SOMEWHERE they could put a weight that's not on the pilot's body that would still be in center of thrust.  Under their ass, both sides behind their back, under the seat somewhere.

We're just compensating for the fact that noone wants to design a better ejection seat with things like adjustable weight canisters for smaller pilots.  So instead we'll spend $500 million readjusting the airframe itself to get a good ejection profile with a lighter seat/pilot to 'save money' by using an off the shelf seat that doesn't have the features that are needed by today's military.


It's hard to scramble to launch a plane with a pilot-custom ejector profile. They can be made that way, but there's a reason rocket launches are prepped weeks in advance.
 
2017-03-14 10:09:11 AM  

ChrisDe: Couldn't a $10 weighted vest fix the issue? Or, since it's the military, a $1,000 weighted vest?


people flying for the navy want to kick you in the balls for putting them in a weighted ejection vest :)

actually people landing by parachute anywhere don't want to be 10 pounds heavier for any reason.  that's why all that shiat is hanging from a 10 foot rope so it hits the ground first.  if the weight is on you you break your legs when you land.  If your pilot weighs 100lb that vest literally increased their weight by 10%... that might actually kill them on landing.  If they don't land in a friendly area any leg/foot injury might kill them anyway from not being able to move to cover.
 
2017-03-14 10:10:50 AM  

This text is now purple: oopsboom: Logically it seems like the problem here is the center of gravity is the seat/pilot combination and the weight/thrust combination causing too much acceleration for tiny people.  You can't tell me there's not SOMEWHERE they could put a weight that's not on the pilot's body that would still be in center of thrust.  Under their ass, both sides behind their back, under the seat somewhere.

We're just compensating for the fact that noone wants to design a better ejection seat with things like adjustable weight canisters for smaller pilots.  So instead we'll spend $500 million readjusting the airframe itself to get a good ejection profile with a lighter seat/pilot to 'save money' by using an off the shelf seat that doesn't have the features that are needed by today's military.

It's hard to scramble to launch a plane with a pilot-custom ejector profile. They can be made that way, but there's a reason rocket launches are prepped weeks in advance.


people are assigned to 'alert' duty.  and we have default settings for a reason.
 
2017-03-14 10:20:33 AM  

oopsboom: and we have default settings for a reason.


And anybody who has used Windows 10 or Ubuntu can tell you how well the default settings work...
 
2017-03-14 10:27:43 AM  

skeevy420: oopsboom: and we have default settings for a reason.

And anybody who has used Windows 10 or Ubuntu can tell you how well the default settings work...


as well as things with 1 setting where that 1 setting kills people who are too light?
 
2017-03-14 10:29:53 AM  
FTFA:  "Martin-Baker's original specification for the US16E was 103 pounds, but the Air Force revised the number upward owing to problems with the seat's performance in specific areas of the F-35's flight envelope. There was a chance that a pilot weighing less than 136 pounds would break their neck on ejection. "

So they missed the spec by a 33lbs, isn't that an error of just over 24%?
 
2017-03-14 10:31:06 AM  

Farking Clown Shoes: Yeah, not sexist so much as weightist.

You go be skinny somewhere else, ladies.


I'm sure if there was an upper weight limit that excluded otherwise fit male pilots, the reengineering would have taken at least this long.
 
2017-03-14 10:32:10 AM  
Only the F-35 would try to reinvent the ejection seat and fail.
 
2017-03-14 10:33:10 AM  

ChrisDe: Couldn't a $10 weighted vest fix the issue? Or, since it's the military, a $1,000 weighted vest?


The problem is the massive helmet they have to wear.  It weighs enough to break your neck at 13 Gs.
 
2017-03-14 10:38:02 AM  

Thenixon: Farking Clown Shoes: Yeah, not sexist so much as weightist.

You go be skinny somewhere else, ladies.

I'm sure if there was an upper weight limit that excluded otherwise fit male pilots, the reengineering would have taken at least this long.


I believe there are caps on both height and weight for pilots.  There's no Jek Porkins flying today.
 
2017-03-14 10:38:08 AM  

oopsboom: skeevy420: oopsboom: and we have default settings for a reason.

And anybody who has used Windows 10 or Ubuntu can tell you how well the default settings work...

as well as things with 1 setting where that 1 setting kills people who are too light?


You're lighting a bomb under your ass in order to NASA yourself out of a crashing plane, directly into a possibly supersonic windstream at an indeterminate inclination.

Any result that is "not dead" is a win. If you're lucky, all of your spinal vertebrae will still be intact.
 
2017-03-14 10:57:24 AM  

oopsboom: Logically it seems like the problem here is the center of gravity is the seat/pilot combination and the weight/thrust combination causing too much acceleration for tiny people.  You can't tell me there's not SOMEWHERE they could put a weight that's not on the pilot's body that would still be in center of thrust.  Under their ass, both sides behind their back, under the seat somewhere.

We're just compensating for the fact that noone wants to design a better ejection seat with things like adjustable weight canisters for smaller pilots.  So instead we'll spend $500 million readjusting the airframe itself to get a good ejection profile with a lighter seat/pilot to 'save money' by using an off the shelf seat that doesn't have the features that are needed by today's military.


My step father is an electrical engineer working for an automotive supplier. One of the products he worked on were sensors to determine a passenger's weight and position to smartly deploy airbags to make them safer. If they can do that in a $25,000 car then they can do it in a $100 million airplane.
 
2017-03-14 11:04:25 AM  

Claude the Dog: Thenixon: Farking Clown Shoes: Yeah, not sexist so much as weightist.

You go be skinny somewhere else, ladies.

I'm sure if there was an upper weight limit that excluded otherwise fit male pilots, the reengineering would have taken at least this long.

I believe there are caps on both height and weight for pilots.  There's no Jek Porkins flying today.


CSB:  One of my friends had to give up on being an Air Force pilot because he was too tall.
 
2017-03-14 11:06:55 AM  

meanmutton: If they can do that in a $25,000 car then they can do it in a $100 million airplane.


You have to go out fast enough to clear the tail of the aircraft.  That's going to generate lots of G forces.  A 5 pound helmet pulling 13 Gs is an apparent 65 pounds of force on your neck.  That would be a strain even for Dale Earnhardt.
 
2017-03-14 11:08:10 AM  

meanmutton: My step father is an electrical engineer working for an automotive supplier. One of the products he worked on were sensors to determine a passenger's weight and position to smartly deploy airbags to make them safer. If they can do that in a $25,000 car then they can do it in a $100 million airplane.


It seems kind of silly to put air bags in a jet fighter.
 
2017-03-14 11:35:11 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: meanmutton: My step father is an electrical engineer working for an automotive supplier. One of the products he worked on were sensors to determine a passenger's weight and position to smartly deploy airbags to make them safer. If they can do that in a $25,000 car then they can do it in a $100 million airplane.

It seems kind of silly to put air bags in a jet fighter.


You realize that's the point of the article.
 
2017-03-14 11:37:40 AM  

Thenixon: Farking Clown Shoes: Yeah, not sexist so much as weightist.

You go be skinny somewhere else, ladies.

I'm sure if there was an upper weight limit that excluded otherwise fit male pilots, the reengineering would have taken at least this long.


Upper weight limit is 245.  If you're over 245 you're either a donut, a stick, or linebacker shoulders.  none of those things fit in a f-22.  topgun tom cruise club only lol.
 
2017-03-14 11:40:22 AM  

meanmutton: My step father is an electrical engineer working for an automotive supplier. One of the products he worked on were sensors to determine a passenger's weight and position to smartly deploy airbags to make them safer. If they can do that in a $25,000 car then they can do it in a $100 million airplane.


Economies of scale and durability spring to mind. How does that sensor do when exposed to high levels of RF radiation or whatnot? The supplier can make a million of those sensors for various car companies while there will only ever be about 4000 of these ejection seats... That's a big reason for the expense.
 
2017-03-14 11:41:01 AM  

oopsboom: Thenixon: Farking Clown Shoes: Yeah, not sexist so much as weightist.

You go be skinny somewhere else, ladies.

I'm sure if there was an upper weight limit that excluded otherwise fit male pilots, the reengineering would have taken at least this long.

Upper weight limit is 245.  If you're over 245 you're either a donut, a stick, or linebacker shoulders.  none of those things fit in a f-22.  topgun tom cruise club only lol.


So what you're saying is you need to be an
static.wonderfulunion.net
 
2017-03-14 11:42:44 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: meanmutton: If they can do that in a $25,000 car then they can do it in a $100 million airplane.

You have to go out fast enough to clear the tail of the aircraft.  That's going to generate lots of G forces.  A 5 pound helmet pulling 13 Gs is an apparent 65 pounds of force on your neck.  That would be a strain even for Dale Earnhardt.


All I wanted was to paste a pic of some one with a giant neck, but today fark accepts no image links from me.

Well giant neck Florida pedo man of the singer from cannibal corpse has no fear of your giant helmet when ejecting. Cause those guy got some giant ass necks.
 
2017-03-14 11:54:35 AM  

This text is now purple: oopsboom: skeevy420: oopsboom: and we have default settings for a reason.

And anybody who has used Windows 10 or Ubuntu can tell you how well the default settings work...

as well as things with 1 setting where that 1 setting kills people who are too light?

You're lighting a bomb under your ass in order to NASA yourself out of a crashing plane, directly into a possibly supersonic windstream at an indeterminate inclination.

Any result that is "not dead" is a win. If you're lucky, all of your spinal vertebrae will still be intact.


Exactly, these are designed to be ejected from inverted flight.  Imagine having to do that one -- Using the ejector seat while flying upside down and ejecting towards the ground.

What I don't understand is why there isn't a seat with a self-adjusting ballast/center of gravity weight system in the seats and why each pilot just doesn't have to sit in a setup seat, have a specialist adjust the weight system for that person, save those settings to an NFC device\USB Key\etc, and whenever a pilot gets into a plane, the system adjusts the seat to their custom settings and they fly away.  Cars already have similar systems for their seats, so there's already a basic framework to start with.
 
2017-03-14 11:55:57 AM  
(Insert women drivers joke)
 
2017-03-14 11:56:06 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-03-14 12:01:38 PM  
The real WTF is that we're still building combat jets that require pilots to be physically present in the cockpit when we've had remote operation technology for well over a decade.
 
2017-03-14 12:04:51 PM  

Thenixon: Farking Clown Shoes: Yeah, not sexist so much as weightist.

You go be skinny somewhere else, ladies.

I'm sure if there was an upper weight limit that excluded otherwise fit male pilots, the reengineering would have taken at least this long.


That reminds me, is there still such a thing as too tall to be a  pilot?  I had an uncle get told they AF would love to have him, just not as a pilot as he was too tall to fit.
 
2017-03-14 12:12:09 PM  

MrEricSir: The real WTF is that we're still building combat jets that require pilots to be physically present in the cockpit when we've had remote operation technology for well over a decade.


Not really.  Drones have slight lag, a narrow fov, a some details are easier for humans to make out physically versus over a screen.  These are all complaints that drone operators have.

Change the speeds to supersonic, in situations that require precision timing and movements and awareness, and you have the reasons why that isn't a good idea...this doesn't even consider the hacker or terminator scenarios...

The options are either manned or drone style with automated combat.  I don't think communications technology is advanced enough for the latencies needed for supersonic human controlled drone combat.
 
2017-03-14 01:01:23 PM  
skeevy420:
Change the speeds to supersonic, in situations that require precision timing and movements and awareness, and you have the reasons why that isn't a good idea...this doesn't even consider the hacker or terminator scenarios...

The options are either manned or drone style with automated combat.  I don't think communications technology is advanced enough for the latencies needed for supersonic human controlled drone combat.


This is also why self-driving trucks are a pipe dream, even at a mere 70 mph.
 
2017-03-14 01:20:42 PM  

skeevy420: MrEricSir: The real WTF is that we're still building combat jets that require pilots to be physically present in the cockpit when we've had remote operation technology for well over a decade.

Not really.  Drones have slight lag, a narrow fov, a some details are easier for humans to make out physically versus over a screen.  These are all complaints that drone operators have.

Change the speeds to supersonic, in situations that require precision timing and movements and awareness, and you have the reasons why that isn't a good idea..


I *actually* agree with you, but I'm going to throw in a snarky devil's-advocate "but":

Everything we're being told about how the F-35 is supposed to be used is about stand-off distance fighting.  F-35 apologists keep saying "if you're in a dogfight, you've already blown it".  If that's really true, then FoV and situational awareness should be less important than data input from integrated/networked radar, etc. and really could theoretically be done via drone-cockpit.***

*** Like I said though, I'm with you.  I think this whole "all air combat will be done at long range with missiles" thing is BS and that having a human with a big canopy and lots of situational awareness is still going to be "a thing" for a long time.
 
2017-03-14 01:49:35 PM  
Is it the extra weight that reduces th g-force or that a healthy person under that weight is not beefy enough to handle it?
 
2017-03-14 01:55:39 PM  

Herbie555: skeevy420: MrEricSir: The real WTF is that we're still building combat jets that require pilots to be physically present in the cockpit when we've had remote operation technology for well over a decade.

Not really.  Drones have slight lag, a narrow fov, a some details are easier for humans to make out physically versus over a screen.  These are all complaints that drone operators have.

Change the speeds to supersonic, in situations that require precision timing and movements and awareness, and you have the reasons why that isn't a good idea..

I *actually* agree with you, but I'm going to throw in a snarky devil's-advocate "but":

Everything we're being told about how the F-35 is supposed to be used is about stand-off distance fighting.  F-35 apologists keep saying "if you're in a dogfight, you've already blown it".  If that's really true, then FoV and situational awareness should be less important than data input from integrated/networked radar, etc. and really could theoretically be done via drone-cockpit.***

*** Like I said though, I'm with you.  I think this whole "all air combat will be done at long range with missiles" thing is BS and that having a human with a big canopy and lots of situational awareness is still going to be "a thing" for a long time.


All I'm going to say about dog fighting is electronic countermeasures.  Eventually we'll be so high tech that eye's on will be necessary because radar and signals will all be jammed....Gundam as an example?

One thing I've never seen discussed about all of this is the insane amount of video framerate that would be necessary for capturing everything going on at those speeds for a drone pilot to respond correctly, not to mention the bandwidth needed and monitors capable of supporting those framerates.

I'm talking 1000's of FPS of high resolution video recorded in realtime, transmitted with extremely minimal lag, to a monitor capable of rendering high resolutions at 1000's of FPS.  At extreme speeds, 30-60 FPS video isn't viable because your enemy can fly from A to B before the camera is able to pick it up.

Currently -- modern high speed digital cameras with 4 megapixel resolution recording at 1500 fps have been replacing the 35mm and 70mm high speed film cameras used on tracking mounts on test ranges that capture ballistic intercepts-- or a stationary platform tracking high speed objects uses a 2240x1680 resolution at 1500 frames per second.  If both the platform and the target are moving supersonic...well, the implication is obvious.
 
2017-03-14 02:10:54 PM  

skeevy420: All I'm going to say about dog fighting is electronic countermeasures.  Eventually we'll be so high tech that eye's on will be necessary because radar and signals will all be jammed....Gundam as an example?

One thing I've never seen discussed about all of this is the insane amount of video framerate that would be necessary for capturing everything going on at those speeds for a drone pilot to respond correctly, not to mention the bandwidth needed and monitors capable of supporting those framerates.

I'm talking 1000's of FPS of high resolution video recorded in realtime, transmitted with extremely minimal lag, to a monitor capable of rendering high resolutions at 1000's of FPS.  At extreme speeds ...


The computer required to process all that data would be insane... It might weigh upwards of 245 lbs and take up, like 4 cubic feet of space. Where would you put such a thing that large on an airplane?

/s
 
2017-03-14 03:28:35 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: You have to go out fast enough to clear the tail of the aircraft.


Ask F-104 pilots how that downward-firing ejection seat worked for them. Some of them survived.
 
2017-03-14 04:00:46 PM  

Thenixon: I'm sure if there was an upper weight limit that excluded otherwise fit male pilots, the reengineering would have taken at least this long.


The upper limit that excludes otherwise fit male pilots is 231lbs.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report