What puzzled me is not the engine but the cockpit.It looks higher than usual–especially the back seat. Some modification version?

I think the most likely explanation is that in this photograph the rear fuselage decking is very light in tone and has thus been “lost” against the almost equally lightly toned sky background , thus giving what appears to be that odd raised shape.

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. 🙂

One can usually recognise an American Embassy from the air.
It’s the one with the chanting mob out front…….
and a queue out the side going half way round the block of those applying for green cards.

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.

Glyn.
How did you manage to see a film over thirty years before you were born?
Perhaps you are a very rare type of Imagery Interpreter?

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.

Perhaps this “still” fom another source puts the cap on the first sequence being from an Il-28.
Incidentally there was at least one Il-28 with a mid-fuselage ejection mounting – I wonder about the second sequence.
Finally look at the sequence on the same “You Tube” selection “Underwater ejection” of a couple of guys getting out of a two -seat “Forger” that had gone over the bows of a carrier. They even seem to land on the deck.

The first sequence is out of the modified rear gunner position from what looks like an Il-28 flying test rig.
The second sequence shows a different ejection platform with the seat going out from possibly the second crew position of a tandem two seater ( a bit like one of the Martin Baker Meteors ). I suggest that the second “seat guide rail” is likely to be the aircraft’s fin.