Russian ejection video footage.

In fact nothing even like the K-36 seat is used in the Hokum , for very good reasons which are pretty self-evident I would have thought.

The seat cushions look identical. The mechanisms on the sides of both seats look identical. But no. I am sure even the ejection handles were completely redesigned because you say so. Obviously with two sets of rotor blades whizzing a few metres above the pilots head the ejection principles are different with a rocket behind the seat dragging the seat on a cable so any remaining rotor blade or rotor blade debris will catch the cable and drag the seat with it rather than impact the seat an its contents, but otherwise the changes were not fundamental. It still contains survival equipment, including a rifle and ammo.

You have made it patently obvious that you don’t bother to properly read other people’s posts before sounding off.

You are the one sounding off. I don’t remember criticising anything you said till you started criticising me. I might not have agreed with what you posted but I never suggested talking to teachers you haven’t seen for 2 decades.

This was what I was basing my comment on -It looks like about 10 degrees down elevator to me.

And without also having frames from 1 minute before and 1 minute after can you conclude that this defelection was because of the ejection or because of the flight speed required for this particular test?

No problem. Your opinions are your own business….

The print I’ve got is from before the days of Jpeg so I’m happy on that aspect.
Can’t do much about the shadows I’m afraid , they tend to be there on the underside of objects.
I used the chord line of the tail plane tip , which is not in shadow -then the trailing edge of the elevator. All Standard P.I. techniques.

[QUOTE=DamienB]
Incidentally I don’t see any elevator deflection on that Il-28 still.QUOTE]
This was what I was basing my comment on -It looks like about 10 degrees down elevator to me.

” the K-36 seat was used in aircraft ranging from the Ka-50 Hokum right through to the Buran space shuttle.“

Gary. In #25 You made the above statement which is wildly inaccurate-
In fact nothing even like the K-36 seat is used in the Hokum , for very good reasons which are pretty self-evident I would have thought.

You have made it patently obvious that you don’t bother to properly read other people’s posts before sounding off.
I’m just picking up on this one point above (unfortunately amongst many others) to illustrate that, sadly , you don’t even seem to read your own either.

Sadly, It just doesn’t go in with you to actually answer the point under discussion does it ? We are not talking about any “assumption” but referring to established Newtonian physics of action and reaction- (not leverage in this instance)

The point under discussion that I was replying to was the effect of the ejection on the pilots controls. No one mentioned Newton till you did.

Ejection seat rockets do not get primary acceleration by “pushing ” against airframes, Period.

So missile silos do not need venting? Cold launch systems for missiles are not needed because an ex pilot says rockets don’t push against the things they are in when they are fired…

The ejection sequence which we were discussing on this thread ,before you decided to jump in, is from the Il-28 rear fuselage as illustrated in #1 and #9 . It is not , if you actually bother to check what the rest of us were discussing at the time, mounted on the cg and not the one you insist on choosing , incorrectly, to hector us about.

Sorry… I forgot to ask your permission… but as no one else seemed to have asked for it I assumed this was an open forum where people could post ideas and thoughts. Still waiting for you to contribute what must be a wealth of knowledge…

As to your comment in #25 ” that the K-36 seat was used in aircraft ranging from the Ka-50 Hokum right through to the Buran space shuttle. “etc. etc. … well , you’re on your own planet there.

Of course. No Russian aircraft uses the K-36. It is used by no one. In fact it is probably fictional.

Quote from Zvezdas website:

The seat is mass-produced in 15 versions and installed in Su-17-ЗМ, Su-24, Su-25, Su-27, Su-37, MiG-29, MiG-31, MiG-AT, Tu-160, Yak-36, Yak-38, etc.

An integrated crew escape and life support system including the K-36DM ejection seat and ККО-5/ККО-15 protective gears, provides for crew safe escape throughout the equivalent air speed range of 0…1400 km/h, at an altitudes of 0…25 km and M<=3.

On the basis of the К-36 ejection seat, the crew emergency escape system for the “Buran” space shuttle including the K-36RB ejection seat and “Strizh” full-pressure suit, was developed and qualified (H<=30 km, M=3).

To counter the seat ejection charge such a deflection would have had to have been very be fast and of short duration. -Indeed following ejection the a/c c of g of course is moved quickly forwards -thus producing a rapid and opposite pitching input in this rear ejection configuration.

Or they could depict different flights at different flight speeds which require different trim settings.

The picture you post seems to show clearly the ejected seat above the centre of the aircraft…
Why bother with a centre fuselage position and then end up testing from behind the tail. Perhaps they put it near the cg to ensure any potential yawing problems could be avoided, but found that any yawing was acceptable enough to allow the use of the position behind the tail (where the ejection position has the advantage of being rolled to different angles of bank without having to roll the aircraft, and also the added advantage with live payloads of removing the risk of striking the tail during the ejection.)
The fact they subsequently use the behind the tail position in the An-12 suggests there is no yawing problem, or it is not actually a problem at all.
But lets keep BSing on about whether the problems are Newton Physics or it could possibly be Quantum Physics that is the problem…

A couple of points. I can see a lot of down elevator on the Il-28 – far more than would be expected of an aircraft in normal flight, in which a couple of degrees is usually a fair amount. Do compare the tip profile of the Il-28 tailplane in the #9 shot to the one below.To counter the seat ejection charge such a deflection would have had to have been very be fast and of short duration. -Indeed following ejection the a/c c of g of course is moved quickly forwards -thus producing a rapid and opposite pitching input in this rear ejection configuration.

The enclosed shot shows that the Il28LL – at least in this image,was, indeed no 10 – possibly 10 Blue.
The loads on the An-12 Red 43 was never raised as an issue or concern by me or ,with one exception, any of us.This is evident if the thread is actually read properly(esp #21 when the case was distanced from that of the Il-28 being then discussed.) Indeed that particular An-12 ( c/n 8345902) apparently undertook strenuous tasks of a different nature as well, including developing a Russian equivalent of the Fulton recovery system.The (detachable) barbette could be fitted at 30 deg increments and secured. Indeed, in addition, during inverted sequences the seat virtually fell out of the aircraft anyway I believe.
There are a range of K-36 variants developed by NPP Zveda in three basic families , some which have shown their capabilites in the west on several occasions and given us a lot of food for thought and development; especially following Anatoly Kvochur’s exit and survival from his Mig 29 at the ’89 Paris.
In contrast, for helicopter use such as the Ka-50 , there is the K-37 seat , which is a very different device and extracts the seat using a rocket on a cable, once the rotors have been jettisoned-;even by ejection standards, quite an exciting prospect.

You are assuming the only force a pilot can feel through his or her controls is something recoiling against the structure of the aircraft. A 5 ton pallet released from an An-12 generates no recoil yet the pilot would feel something through their controls as the weight leaves the aircraft… up or down.Make the lever long enough archemedies [I](sic) [/I] said and I can move the whole world…

Sadly, It just doesn’t go in with you to actually answer the point under discussion does it ? We are not talking about any “assumption” but referring to established Newtonian physics of action and reaction- (not leverage in this instance) .Ejection seat rockets do not get primary acceleration by “pushing ” against airframes, Period. This is despite your initial groundless insistence to the contrary which is based on misapprehensions which defy these laws .Try now rereading you own initial discourse on the subect on 4th November#15 -its hilarious.The seat is ejected by rocket force and the rocket force idownwards is countered by the upward movement of the pilot in their seat

The ejection sequence which we were discussing on this thread ,before you decided to jump in, is from the Il-28 rear fuselage as illustrated in #1 and #9 . It is not , if you actually bother to check what the rest of us were discussing at the time, mounted on the cg and not the one you insist on choosing , incorrectly, to hector us about.
On the plus side I see that at least you now seem to have absorbed that a correct term is “moment arm”, not your earlier amusing – and typically nonsensical, “momentum arm”.
As to your comment in #25 ” that the K-36 seat was used in aircraft ranging from the Ka-50 Hokum right through to the Buran space shuttle. “etc. etc. … well , you’re on your own planet there.

This statement is nonsense -period

You are assuming the only force a pilot can feel through his or her controls is something recoiling against the structure of the aircraft. A 5 ton pallet released from an An-12 generates no recoil yet the pilot would feel something through their controls as the weight leaves the aircraft… up or down.
Make the lever long enough archemedies said and I can move the whole world…

Garry B above . I mentioned that it was irrelevant what method of accelerating the seat and the pilot out of the aircraft as no matter what method used the acceleration rate would determine the force applied to the aircraft itself, whether that is by gun, rocket, or the pilot with the seat on his shoulder climbing a ladder…
This statement is nonsense -period

if he could please explain to you the basic laws of action/reaction and thus the fundamental difference between a rocket launcher and a gun regarding recoil. Then perhaps you might be factually equipped to address and discuss the particular case of ejection seats.

First of all I had a teacher, not a master. Secondly my science teachers were mostly women. Thirdly perhaps you should talk to your English master and re read what I have posted here. In my first post I mentioned any pitching movement the pilot felt would be small. I realise if English is not your first language that might be confusing so I will be pedantic and spell it out more clearly. I said:

…I’d say the pilot of the An-12 might have felt a little push, but hardly earth shattering stuff.

might means “may or may not have”.

A gun uses an expanding material to accelerate an object. A rocket uses an expanding material to accelerate an object. These materials might be originally solid (like gunpower or solid rocket fuel) or liquid ( like kerosene or LOX) or gas. A gun creates direct recoil by expelling the projectile and propulsive gas in one direction. A rocket on the other hand can be considered recoilless in most circumstances. The circumstances it can’t be considered recoilless include when fired from an enclosed place like a missile silo or cockpit where there is no way for the exhaust gasses to accelerate away in the opposite direction to the projectile.
In the case of the Il-28 this is all irrelevant as whether there is recoil or not the launch position is near the cg of the aircraft so during ejection the plane will just get temporarily heavier. In the case of the An-12 the long moment arm between the ejection position and the cg which should be somewhere near the main wing the sudden loss of up to 400kg might register through the control column, or it may not. (The K-36 ejection seat with all its equipment weighs 250-300kgs depending upon what equipment is fitted add the pilot and his gear to get up to 400kgs).

I doubt much useful data on inverted ejections at low level at various speeds would be much use without correctly weighted dummies and full ejection charges q.v.above

Shame you have so little time to educate us all. Not as great as the shame you had time to type out the answer above…

Garry B above . I mentioned that it was irrelevant what method of accelerating the seat and the pilot out of the aircraft as no matter what method used the acceleration rate would determine the force applied to the aircraft itself, whether that is by gun, rocket, or the pilot with the seat on his shoulder climbing a ladder…
Gary, I’m sure the amusement you are providing to so many people is unintentional. You might consider taking the above nonsensical statement of yours to your physics master and asking him (when he has stopped laughing) if he could please explain to you the basic laws of action/reaction and thus the fundamental difference between a rocket launcher and a gun regarding recoil. Then perhaps you might be factually equipped to address and discuss the particular case of ejection seats.

Unlike a simple ejection seat which is accelerated solely by an airframe mounted gun, a “rocket seat” additionally derives continued acceleration by its reaction against the mass x velocity of the rocket’s ejected gas stream –not by reacting in any way whatsoever against the mass of its launch platform, which is the airframe in this particular case. These are two fundamentally different physical situations at work and basic to understanding the dynamics of ejection systems.
Once (and if) you deign to have understood these facts and have retracted the particular piece of gobblegook of yours quoted above, you might like to reconsider the accuracy, relevance, logic and indeed coherence of some of your other ventings on this thread. e.g.I doubt much useful data on inverted ejections at low level at various speeds would be much use without correctly weighted dummies and full ejection charges q.v.above

I’m afraid you’ve completely lost me as, in addition to apparently dismissing the accepted Newtonian Law of action/reaction governing ejection gun basics regarding rocket seats, you now seem to be arguing with yourself.

To argue with oneself one would have to be contradicting oneself. The two quotes you posted are not contradictary.
The first follows your claim that the way an ejection seat works generates a huge amount of down force on the structure to push the seat out of the cockpit, suggesting that an aircraft (the An-12) which was designed for a gun position in the tail area and not an ejection seat and suggests that just like high altitude bombers like the B-52 and the Bear that went from high altitudes for which they were designed to low level attack profiles they ran into wing cracking problems because the aircraft were not designed for such use. In the same sense the An-12 wasn’t designed to handle large structural loads behind its tail area, particularly loads of differing angles as would be generated by the rotatable ejection seat structure. You would expect that in such a case that some ejection solution similar to that applied to the Il-28 where the ejection seat was positioned near the cg would make rather more sense… but then perhaps you are wrong and an ejection from behind the tail of an An-12 doesn’t throw the aircraft into uncontrolable pitch oscillations…. much the same way a small child couldn’t fling aircraft around by their nose mounted pitot tubes if they protrude too far ahead of the nose of the aircraft.
The second quote you mention simply states that the K-36 seat was used in aircraft ranging from the Ka-50 Hokum right through to the Buran space shuttle. They would have to do more than a few dozen tests to cover all the likely parameters.

Unfortunately, I really don’t currently have the time to spare to continue trying to explain some fundamentals to you regarding ejection systems on this thread -so perhaps somebody else would like to help you out on this matter.

Well there is some good news. Shame you couldn’t manage to read my previous post where I mentioned that it was irrelevant what method of accelerating the seat and the pilot out of the aircraft as no matter what method used the acceleration rate would determine the force applied to the aircraft itself, whether that is by gun, rocket, or the pilot with the seat on his shoulder climbing a ladder…

had they had the benefit of your perceived wisdom on the inappropriate use of reduced charges when developing U.P. profiles on a new ejection system.

Again… reading skills. I have not mentioned reduced charges… you did.

Garry B #20 Well if that is the case then how can they have used this aircraft so often… I mean the stresses on the fuselage from not only firing vertically up but also at various angles sideways and even downwards would have made it structurally unsound. The An-12 was never designed with such forces envisioned.
Garry B #23 Don’t know that all tests were done with human subjects but I doubt much useful data on inverted ejections at low level at various speeds would be much use without correctly weighted dummies and full ejection charges. Tests were done to simulate ejections at all sorts of bank angles at all sorts of altitudes and at all sorts of speeds up to the top speed of the An-12. That suggests lots of tests to me.

Sorry Garry B ,
I’m afraid you’ve completely lost me as, in addition to apparently dismissing the accepted Newtonian Law of action/reaction governing ejection gun basics regarding rocket seats, you now seem to be arguing with yourself.
Unfortunately, I really don’t currently have the time to spare to continue trying to explain some fundamentals to you regarding ejection systems on this thread -so perhaps somebody else would like to help you out on this matter.
Finally, from what you tell us, I am sure that Martin -Baker could have saved themselves a lot of money on obviously wasted test shots over the years; had they had the benefit of your perceived wisdom on the inappropriate use of reduced charges when developing U.P. profiles on a new ejection system. 🙂

It is quite possible that the An-12, which was probably investigating the capability of seats like the K-36 to rapidly correct from unusual ejection attitudes, did not require a full ejection charge for those trials.

Don’t know that all tests were done with human subjects but I doubt much useful data on inverted ejections at low level at various speeds would be much use without correctly weighted dummies and full ejection charges. Tests were done to simulate ejections at all sorts of bank angles at all sorts of altitudes and at all sorts of speeds up to the top speed of the An-12. That suggests lots of tests to me. The data they collected from the tests were used for developing and adapting ejection systems for all low level subsonic ejections from the Yak-38 and the various fighters used by the Russians/Soviets at the time (ie Su-25, Su-17, etc etc).
There certainly would be a push from the ejection and the moment arm would have effected the real force applied but remember at one end was the ejection force of the seat and pilot, at the other end is the weight of the rest of a rather substantial aircraft.

If I may correct what seems to be your fundamental misunderstanding on this basic issue

Whether the pilot is launched by gun, explosive charge, or rides a blob of raspberry jam out of the cockpit area is irrelevant. The Pilot and seat are propelled out of the extreme rear of an aircraft. Have seen plenty of ejections on video from much smaller aircraft and have not seen any aircraft violently pitch nose down as a result of the ejection. Sorry… would correct that… the only aircraft I have seen violently pitch down during an ejection was a two seat Yak VSTOL aircraft that was being lifted only by engine power. The exhaust gasses stalled the front mounted lift jet engines so the only think keeping the thing airborne were the rear mounted nozzles. With no lift from the wings or horizontal tail surfaces a noseward plunge was to be expected.

Il-28LL was a conversion from the standard light bomber Il-28 and used for testing the Vostok re-entry vehicle ejection seat from a position in the faired over bomb bay immediately ahead of the wing torsion box.

Bomb bays were generally put in the cg of the aircraft to reduce the problems of the cg moving when the bombs are released… so the force of the ejection would have little effect on pitching of the aircraft during testing.

Info. extracted from “ILYUSHIN Il-28” by Yefim Gordon and Dmitry Komissarov, published by Airlife.
Il-28LL was a conversion from the standard light bomber Il-28 and used for testing the Vostok re-entry vehicle ejection seat from a position in the faired over bomb bay immediately ahead of the wing torsion box. It protuded above the upper fuselage hence the need for a large teardrop fairing with flattened sides had to be installed aft of the pilot’s cockpit to protect the test pilot seating in the seat from the slipstream. The future Cosmonaut Gherman Titov tested this seat. Additionally, the tail gunner’s compartment was replaced by a large slab-sided fairing extending much further aft, from which another ejection seat could be fired both upward and downward (not at the same time!). Cine cameras were mounted above and below the wingtips in fairdrop fairings to capture the ejection sequence.
The authors call the aircraft 10 Blue in the book but as the film sequence shows along with photos in the book its number ONE !

Hi Garry. If you read my comments you will see that I was referring to the Il-28. It is quite possible that the An-12, which was probably investigating the capability of seats like the K-36 to rapidly correct from unusual ejection attitudes, did not require a full ejection charge for those trials.
One would presume heavy load dropping from an An12 is fairly similar to that of a Hercules and I can confirm that the pitch inputs involved during delivery are very large in the latter case, although taking place over several seconds.
By memory an ejection seat goes out at a little under 30g -this being the limit of the human spine. Multiply this by the mass of the seat plus occupant and you can get some idea of the thump being transmitted over a small fraction of a second into the airframe – a slightly different situation to that of dropping a load departing comparatively slowly backwards out of the fuselage which requires a more progressive aerodynamic response.
In the case of the Il-28 rig I cannot see a pilot “catching ” this rapid rise in input without a consequent degree of porpoising due to the moment arm involved. Hence my interest in the enormous amount of down elevator evident in the still despite, conceivably, a reduced charge being utilised. Although a sequenced charge is usually employed in the gun to spread the “g” rise time the only difference noticeable to the seat’s occupant is that instead of going “Bang!” it goes “Baaang!”
If I may correct what seems to be your fundamental misunderstanding on this basic issue; the rocket’s purpose is principally for dealing with the ejection profile after initial ejection and has little to do with the first consideration of getting the seat and its contents out of the aircraft as fast as possible. The initial acceleration requirements are simply way beyond those offered by any reasonably constructed and sized rocket system. This is literally an explosive job on a modern seat with the airframe taking the reaction in accordance with Newton and as correctly considered by Roger Smith. The presence of the extended ejection gun in the aircraft post-event bears obvious witness to this situation on many seat escape systems, both with and without rockets.

No Garry ( and Jonathan) , the seat is not normallly ejected primarily by “rocket force”. The rocket is there principally to sustain momentum and boost the seat’s trajectory after initial ejection, which is still usually achieved by using an ejection gun firing a sequence of charges over a fraction of a second.

Well if that is the case then how can they have used this aircraft so often… I mean the stresses on the fuselage from not only firing vertically up but also at various angles sideways and even downwards would have made it structurally unsound. The An-12 was never designed with such forces envisioned. And I would ask again how the ejection of a 100kg person (that doesn’t kill them of course) have more effect than dropping 20 tons out the rear doors, which are not that much further back.
I would suggest that while there is a long momentum arm to where the ejection seat it is, it is not that much longer than the momentum arm to the horizontal tail surfaces which in a slipstream of 3-400km/h probably generate 10 times the force of any ejection seat. If it was truely a problem I doubt they would have kept putting it there in the different aircraft they have been putting it in.

No Garry ( and Jonathan) , the seat is not normally ejected primarily by “rocket force”. The rocket is there principally to sustain momentum and boost the seat’s trajectory after initial ejection, which is still usually achieved by using an ejection gun firing a sequence of charges over a fraction of a second.
In addition, the Il-28 pilot would have had to contend with countering a much longer pitch moment arm on an ejection test than that of the case of the Meteor. The extreme downwards deflection of the elevator in the IL-28 sequence led me to consider the possibility of an automatic pitch compensation system. The stability of the aircraft during what seems to be an air-to air sequence I think lends some support to this idea.

The seat is ejected by rocket force and the rocket force downwards is countered by the upward movement of the pilot in their seat. Comparing the force to lift a pilot and his seat with the force needed to pitch an aircraft the size of a C-130 hercules up I’d say the pilot of the An-12 might have felt a little push, but hardly earth shattering stuff. I would expect dropping up to 20 tons out the back during a para drop would be more disconcerting and they do that quite a bit.

BTW nice pics Zhukov121… the other advantage of the setup is that you can pack all sorts of telemetry equipment into an AN-12 that you can’t fit into a two seat fighter. The only problems are top speed and top altitude… but you can use Mig-25s and Mig-31s for those tests.

Also, look at the vents in the bottom of the rig, and consider how man-portable rocket fires without knocking the firer on his back – the exhaust and the projectile have the same force and cancel each other out. As Garry says in this case no doubt the pilot would experience some change in pitch, but no more than say, the Martin-Baker Meteor pilot, who had/has to cope with the whole force of the ejection (unless that has some recoil-damping/vent system as well).