Author Topic: Martin Baker (Read 766 times)

Furball · « **on:** July 14, 2004, 05:07:45 PM »

was reading about the gripen, and found this: -

Quote

The escape system consists of a Martin-Baker 10LS seat, affording safe ejections

up to speeds of 1150 km/h at low altitude and Mach 1.8 at high altitude
up to an altitude of 16 km
at zero altitude and zero speed
down to an altitude of 100 m during inverted flight
down to an altitude of 700 m during a vertical dive
during G loads between +6G and -3G

is that true? that is very impressive!

SunTracker · « **Reply #1 on:** July 14, 2004, 05:26:11 PM »

Still not good enough to save a bad carrier landing.

Nilsen · « **Reply #2 on:** July 14, 2004, 05:43:46 PM »

100 meters....inverted? that cant be true can it?

rpm · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2004, 06:11:07 PM »

Gunslinger? Aren't you a MB guy?

I believe the seat's rocket has guidance control and can upright while safely clearing the a/c and reaching a minimum alt for chute deployment.

Nilsen · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2004, 06:12:59 PM »

must be rpm. but i would not test it even if they gave me a million.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2004, 06:21:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
Gunslinger? Aren't you a MB guy?

I believe the seat's rocket has guidance control and can upright while safely clearing the a/c and reaching a minimum alt for chute deployment.

nope I'm an Goodyear guy.....(actually goodyear makes the ACESII under contract of lockheed martin)

I'm not sure about an inverted ejection at 100M I guess that's close to 300Ft so that's really pushing the envelope for most seats.

I've basically only seen MB seats never actually had much training on them but they do have a high survivablity rate.

On the ACESII there is a veriner rocket attached to a gass powered gyroscope. That helps stabalize the pitch of the seat but nothing else. (see bleow)

Quote

Still not good enough to save a bad carrier landing.

I'm not sure what laws a physics you are useing but that is plenty good enough to save a bad carrier landing.

The reason the US Navy uses the MB seat over the ACESII is because of its proven ability to eject while under water....I guess that's kind of important to the Navy...go figure

The ACESII operates on an envelope consiting of 3 modes

Mode 1: Low altitude low speed consisting of Ground egress up to Ft15,000
Mode 2: High altitude low speed consiting of 15,000ft and up to 250kts IAS
Mode 3: High Speed High Alt....above 15K and 250 to 500knts IAS (IRC)

An F15 pilot actually "survived" an ejection at speeds greater than 800kts, he was pretty beat up. His back seater didnt make it though.

An ACESII seat at zero zero

MB seat

If you look at the last two I beleive it has a two rocket stabalization system. That must be what rolls it over upside down?

By far the best Ejections seats come from the Russians....guess they've had alot of practical application experience though.

rpm · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2004, 06:31:15 PM »

I knew I had seen some amazing video on ejection systems. Even at low alt inverted. The Russian system uses a telescoping pole to ensure clearing the tail at high speed. I'd hate for that to jam.

1Duke1 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2004, 07:44:04 PM »

The new seat being used by the Navy is the NACES...in the F-14D's, T-45's, and would assume the newer F-18's.....whats the difference between the ACESII and the NACES??

Gunslinger · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2004, 08:06:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1Duke1
The new seat being used by the Navy is the NACES...in the F-14D's, T-45's, and would assume the newer F-18's.....whats the difference between the ACESII and the NACES??

completly different monster from what I can see. The NACES is still made by MB but is kinda like the ACESII.

NACES

ACESII

Here's a good link for NACES Info
http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/eject_naces.html

It looks like MB is starting to use some of the things the ACES has used for years (not saying its catching up cause the old one worked fine) The move switches from alot of balistically and mechanically fired components to electrically fired carts and components.

1Duke1 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2004, 09:21:15 PM »

I got too fly in both MB seats...the GRU-7 and the NACES. Really like the NACES...lil more comfy, 2 pins to pull and plug as compared to 5.

One of the big differences I can see right off is the ACES seat doesn't have the canopy breaker bar at the top. The NACES is made to break through the canopy (see the pointy things at the top). Also don't see any leg restraints on the ACES (could be the pic).

Gunslinger · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2004, 09:40:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1Duke1
I got too fly in both MB seats...the GRU-7 and the NACES. Really like the NACES...lil more comfy, 2 pins to pull and plug as compared to 5.

One of the big differences I can see right off is the ACES seat doesn't have the canopy breaker bar at the top. The NACES is made to break through the canopy (see the pointy things at the top). Also don't see any leg restraints on the ACES (could be the pic).

The F15 and A10 varient both have canopy breakers.

With the F16 it is imposible for the seat to go untill the canopy has cleared.

Only 2 pins to safe it unless you are removing the ACESII.

Funny story: On the old F4 MB seat there was actually a step in the TO to tapp the drouge gun (fires a 2lb slugg attached to the drouge extraction chute) with a hammer when removing the seat to ensure it will not fire during removal.

The F4 seat has killed over 68 egress troops during its lifetime.