4 ms·
I imagine that ejecting at certain phases of these two attempts would not be survivable. "The pilot then tried two “touch and go” landings, where the plane bri
by chasil 1y ago
I imagine that ejecting at certain phases of these two attempts would not be survivable.
"The pilot then tried two “touch and go” landings, where the plane briefly lands, to try to straighten out the jammed nose gear, the report said."
- nacnud 1y agoAccording to the ejection seat manufacturer [1] there is no minimum height or speed at which the ejection seat can be used, so as long as the aircraft is roughly level then the ejection should be survivable. [1] https://martin-baker.com/ejection-seats/us16e/ https://martin-baker.com/ejection-seats/us16e/
- dfox 1y agoThe actual report mentions that this was a concern for actually landing the plane (as opposed to touch and go), because there was real possibility that the plane would end up in attitude that can hardly be described as "roughly level".
- jefftk 1y agoI would expect if the aircraft were level at 50 ft above the ground, flying inverted, an ejection would not be survivable.
- palata 1y agoI assume it's what they meant with "as long as the aircraft is roughly level"...
- the__alchemist 1y agoThe main times a "0/0" ejection would be expected to be unsurvivable are going really fast (e.g. breaking the mach), and with some combo of high sink rate and high bank.