OT- Funny sh*t

[Crusty]

What you believe a total stranger over your own judgement, without going back to take a look...Bull

[Force_Feedback]

Maybe he had a strange uncle, that made him wear skirts... :p

 

Those comments about ejecting form the jet are really funny, my best guess they did the thing that way (cutting the canopy instead of jettisoning it) was because the firemen could use some training.

I've seen a video of a F-18, making an emergency landing, and the pilot ejected at a slow speed (under 20 kts), the canopy barely missed the plane, and was spinning like crazy. The F-18 has rockets near the front, at about 1/4 of the length of the canopy frame, even then it spun violently. Now, the F-22 canopy has the rocket motors in the very front of the frame (like in the F-16), so jettisoning the thing while stationary would ruin the whole back side of the ugly duckling, and even since scratches are expensive, that's why they didn't jettison the canopy.

 

But some people on that page think that the pilot should have ejected, that it would cost less. Well, let's see, a jettisoned canopy is very likely to cause some dents on the spine, the ejection seat is very likely to cause some compression injuries on the pilot's spine. Not to mention the whole cockpit being ruined, all the software wiped and an unpleasant landing on hard concrete for the pilot.

 

That pic of the pilot looking through the canopy is soo funny, the look on his face, LOL.

[Weta43]

You getting your knickers in a twist there Crusty? Not used to people agreeing with you?

 

If it was something I believed stongly about, or even gave a toss about - then I'd go back & have a look,

 

but :

 

A/ I think you're probably right (Your idea that it was a ladder showing through fits better with my memory of the picture than my guess at it being a mesh - re-read my post above , & with my understanding of the facts - a mesh that size would be the wrong size to interact with what I think are millimeter wavelength radars anyway.)

 

B/ I realy don't care.

 

C/ even if I did have to look - I wouldn't let on now :-)

[Cobra360]

F-16 canopy jettison test.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cobra360]

 

 

 

 

:crazy:

[Weta43]

Looks like a reciprocating saw would be the way to go if you're not in a hurry.

[Force_Feedback]

Wow, thanks for the pics, I love canopy jettisoning almst as much as ejections. This is a big contrast to the Mig-29/su-27, where the locks go, and then an internal low-temperature gas generating cartridge fires through 4 or 6 ducts (6 on the two-seaters), while the opening mechanism (that extremely thick cylinder in the back of the canopy) works in an overload mode, producing maximum pressure to help with the canopy extraction. But even then, flight manuals recommend canopy jettisoning and ejection at no less than 75 km/h for adequate canopy clearance.

I'd die for a Russian canopy jettison test/more ejection footage. :)

[TucksonSonny]

What is next?

The weapon bay doors locks and one of the 120’s goes active.:pilotfly: :helpsmilie:

:megalol:

[Force_Feedback]

Just lets hope they won't make a two seater, will make cutting even longer. You see why the JSF is so much better, in that baby you can blow the detcord, it won't make pretty cuts, but it will remove the canopy in less than 5 hours.

 

I imagine a smart bomb developing feelings towards the mother airplane, and not release from the payload bay, now that would make front page news :matrix:

 

I guess the Airforce should start cutting corners, but not in this way, trapping the poor, n00b-looking pilot inside :P

[RvETito]

I imagine a smart bomb developing feelings towards the mother airplane, and not release from the payload bay, now that would make front page news :matrix:

 

I don't know about front page but it will make a huge KABOOOOOM for sure.

 

Anyway, I'm not surprised of this malfunction. Sometimes, the new technology can cause such rediculous situations. I'm sure now LM will come up with an ASB to check all the canopies. What amazes me is the price- over 182 000$?!?! Wow...

[anivanov]

why we don't have sucha effects in LO when ejecting?

[Force_Feedback]

why we don't have sucha effects in LO when ejecting?

 

Because LO is, and will be utter crap, in respect to the ejection sequence, though it did improve in 1.1.

For some better ejection physics in 3d look here: http://ejectionseat.com.ne.kr/emain.htm

 

The K-36 is still porked, but I made slight modifications for it and it's believable now (not implemented in the sim yet) Also, check out the various scenarios included.

[ARM505]

From F4, to LO, and even the WWII sims such as IL2, bailing out/ejection has always been modelled very badly (or worse). IL2 has the 'fall through the plane' trick, F4 and LO have the 'instant open and stop' canopy etc etc. Thats apart from the dismal seat systems modelling etc etc. I've whined, but hey! It's a pity, since I tend to do so much of it! (Ejecting that is, not whining! )

 

Nice link FF, interesting.

[ARM505]

Now that I run that ejection sim, it's great! Thanks FF, brilliant watching the different seats go off, and nice to see it looking realistic for a change!

[Force_Feedback]

Yeah, too bad the dude didn't have time to do some more realistic parachute moddeling, because MB seats have cone shaped chutes, while the K-36 chute consists of 4 or 6 independant segments which make the whole chute. (This is why the chute on the K-36 can handle openings at 350kts)

And last time I checked the K-36 series 2 (what's in the older Su-27/mig-29/Su-22/Su-24) weighed around 120-100 kg and not 200. Suwahn confused it with 200lbs :P

 

I especially like the F-111 capsule, it's soo big, and it performs very bad a low level and high speed.