Military Review

Ejection seat: the story of appearance

77
It may seem surprising to you, but the very idea of ​​bailout a pilot from an airplane appeared at the very dawn aviation along with the first Wright brothers design aircraft. At the same time, the simplest construction produced then worked, but it was almost impossible to use it on biplanes, so for a long time the pilots left the car, falling out of the cockpit. However, now special ejection seats are used for this, which from the moment of their mass appearance were able to save the lives of thousands of pilots. The ejected seat is the last chance for the pilot or other members of the crew of the aircraft (and now helicopters: Ka-50, Ka-52) to save his life in the event of an emergency on board.


At the same time, far from all aircraft are equipped with similar means of salvation. Most of them are military and sports cars. The first ejection seat in a helicopter was installed on the domestic Ka-50 "Black Shark". In the future, they began to appear on other aircraft, up to the spacecraft. In order to maximize the ability of the pilot to survive after an aircraft crash or even fall to the ground, they began to produce such ejection seats that ensure the survival of the pilot and protect him throughout the entire range of altitudes and speeds of flight.

Modern ejection systems provide emissions in several ways:
1) According to the type of chair K-36DM, when the ejection is carried out using a jet engine.
2) According to the type of catapult chair KM-1М, when the ejection is carried out by the actuation of a powder charge.
3) When compressed air is used to eject a seat with a pilot, as on Su-26 airplanes.

Usually, after the ejection, the modern seat detaches itself and the pilot lands on a parachute. At the same time, the development of entire ejection capsules or cabs, which are able to independently land with the help of parachutes, is underway, and the crew does not leave the ejection module.
Ejection seat: the story of appearance

Here are just two illustrative examples from the recent past, when the ejection seats saved the pilots life. 12 June 1999, on the opening day of the 43 Paris Air Show, the newest Russian fighter Su-30MK rose to the sky to demonstrate to the thousands of viewers the machine’s super-maneuverability through the use of a controlled thrust vector.

However, the flight program could not be completed until the end: the pilot Vyacheslav Averyanov misjudged the flight altitude when the vehicle left the flat spin and later started taking the vehicle out of the dive. The fighter didn’t have literally a meter of height and the machine hit the ground with its tail end, damaging the left engine. On the right-hand engine, the already burning fighter was able to gain altitude in 50 meters, after which the pilot and his navigator Vladimir Shendrik ejected.

Making bailouts from small heights is a very difficult situation. It is considered successful if the pilot simply stays alive after that. Therefore, with great surprise, the specialists looked at the Russian pilots who had landed, who were independently walking along the field of the airfield. This made such a strong impression on the general director of the Paris Air Show, Edmond Marshege, that during his speech at a press conference on the occasion of the plane crash, he said: "I don’t know any other means that could save the crew in these conditions."
The Russian pilots were rescued by the domestic ejection seat K-36DM, created by SPE Zvezda. It would be difficult to come up with a better advertisement.

The second time this chair proved its high performance in 2009, when, in preparation for the Max-2009 air show, two fighters collided in the air - Su-27 and Sparky Su-27UB from the Russian Knights aerobatic team. All the fighter pilots managed to eject, two of them survived, although they received very serious injuries. The third pilot, the commander of the aerobatic team, Igor Tkachenko, was killed, his parachute burned out.

History creating ejection seats

Until 30-ies of the last century, the speed of all aircraft was low and did not create a special problem for the pilot, he simply threw back the cockpit canopy, unfastened from the tethered system, rolled over the side of the cockpit and jumped. But by the beginning of the Second World War, combat aircraft had overcome the invisible barrier: with a flight speed of more than 360 km / h, the pilot pressed air pressure to the aircraft with enormous force - almost 300 kgf. But at that moment it was necessary to push off as much as possible in order not to hit the wing or the keel, and the pilot could already be wounded, and the plane itself was badly damaged. The simplest solution is to unfasten oneself and then move the handle forward so that the plane “pecks” and threw the pilot out of the cockpit under the effect of overload - it did not always work, only at low speeds.

The first special ejection seats were produced in Germany. In 1939, the experimental Heinkel 176 rocket-powered aircraft was equipped with a drop nose, and soon the catapults became serial. They were put on a turbojet He 280 and screw He 219. In this case, the night fighter He 219 became the world's first serial combat vehicle, which received ejection seats. 13 January 1943 of the year German pilot Helmut Schenk made the world's first real bailout - the aerodynamic surfaces of his fighter iced over and the plane became uncontrollable. By the end of World War II, German pilots had already counted more than 60 real bailouts.

The ejection seats of those years are attributed to the first-generation seats, although this classification is arbitrary. They solved only one problem - to throw the pilot out of the cockpit. This was achieved through the use of pneumatics, although there were also pyrotechnic and mechanical (spring-loaded levers) solutions. Taking off from the plane, the pilot had to unfasten the seat belts, push the seat away from him and open the parachute - that is still extreme ...

The post-war period

The second generation of ejection seats appeared after the end of the war in the 1950-s. In them, the process of leaving the aircraft was already partially automated: it was enough to turn the lever so that the pyrotechnic firing mechanism would throw the seat with the pilot out of the aircraft, the parachute cascade (stabilizing parachute, then the braking one and the main one) would also be introduced. The use of the simplest bar-time automatics made it possible to provide only a height lock (at a high flight altitude the parachute did not open immediately) and in time. At the same time, the time delay was constant and could provide the best result for the pilot to save only at the maximum flight speed.

Since only one firing mechanism (which was limited by the cabin's dimensions and the pilot's physiological capabilities for portable loads) could not throw the pilot to the required height, for example, while the aircraft was parked, in the 60 of the last century, the ejection seats began to be equipped with the 2. - a solid rocket motor, which began to work after the armchair left the pilot’s cabin.

The ejection seats equipped with such engines are usually referred to the 3 generation. They are equipped with more advanced automation, while not necessarily electric. For example, on the first models of this generation, created in the USSR, Zvezda Scientific and Production Enterprise, the KPA parachute assault rifle was connected to the aircraft using 2's pneumatic tubes and thus tuned to the altitude and speed of flight. Since then, technology has made a huge step forward, but all modern mass-produced ejection seats belong to the 3 generation — the American Stencil S4S and McDonnell Douglas ACES II, the British Martin Baker Mk 14 and the famous Russian K-36DM.

At the same time, it is worth noting that quite a lot of companies were initially represented in this market, but over time only American Stencil and McDonnell Douglas, as well as the British Martin Baker, remained in the West. In the USSR, and then in Russia, the ejection seats, like other flight gear, starting from the 1960-s, are being manufactured by the Zvezda Scientific and Production Enterprise. The unification of the seats had a positive effect on the budget of those who exploit military equipment (especially if there are more than one type of aircraft in service, but several at once).

Russian ejection seat K-36DM

Russian ejection seat K-36DM is the best of its kind, it is a very complex system that has no analogues in the world. What is the uniqueness of the Russian approach to the rescue of pilots? Today, the late chief designer of Zvezda Scientific and Production Enterprise Guy Severin answered this question in the following way: “The cost of training a professional, well-trained military pilot is about 10 million dollars, which is up to half the cost of some machines. Therefore, from the very beginning, we thought about not only saving the pilot at any cost, as they do in the West, but also saving him without injuries, so that in the future he will be back in operation. After ejection, with the help of Russian seats, 97% of pilots continue to lift planes into the sky. ”

In the Russian chair everything is done in order to minimize the possibility of pilot injury. In order to minimize the risk of spinal injury, it is necessary to force the pilot to take the correct position. That is why the K-36DM mechanism attracts the pilot's shoulders to the back of the chair. The shoulders' shoulders are on all ejection seats (such belts are used even in modern cars), however, the K-36 also has a lap belt. Another degree of fixation of the chair are lateral hand guards, which provide lateral support for the pilot and additional protection.

Another dangerous factor is the air flow, which meets the pilot after he leaves the cockpit. On all the protruding parts of the body of the pilot there are enormous overloads, for example, the air flow can easily break legs. That is why all modern ejection seats are equipped with special hinges that fix the lower legs, while the Russian chair is also equipped with a leg lift system - the chair immediately “groups” the pilot (in this position reduces the risk of injury). Also, the K-36 seat has a retractable deflector that protects the pilot’s head and chest from the oncoming air flow during ejection at very high flight speeds (up to 3 Mach). All these protective mechanisms are activated without the participation of the pilot, and the cooking time takes only 0,2 seconds.

In addition, the Russian chair K-36 is equipped with special roll correction engines, which are located behind the headrest and are able to give it a vertical position. The vertical position allows maximum use of the momentum of the rocket engine, as well as gain altitude. In addition, this position allows the pilot to withstand heavy loads when braking (in the direction of "chest-back").

Information sources:
—Http: //www.popmech.ru/article/287-posledniy-shans-pilota
—Http: //mgsupgs.livejournal.com/856049.html
—Http: //www.prostokreslo.ru/blog/kreslo-pilota-i-mehanizm-katapultirovanija
—Http: //ru.wikipedia.org
Author:
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dazdranagon
    Dazdranagon 25 October 2013 08: 55
    +6
    Once I met a man on a train, he was driving home from a business trip (he seems to live in Ryazan), he was in America (to Moscow by plane, then a train) on the maintenance of our ejected seats. Says the Americans from our chairs are written in boiling water ... hi
  2. Baron Wrangell
    Baron Wrangell 25 October 2013 09: 02
    +8
    I don’t know the truth, no! I heard that our only seat in the world can save the pilot when ejecting from the ground?
    although the ejection in France shocked me! well done designers!
    1. Dazdranagon
      Dazdranagon 25 October 2013 09: 12
      +9
      Yes. The only ones in the world. bully
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 25 October 2013 14: 49
        +6
        No. ejection seats of class 0-0 exist in the world. (the same seat "Martin Baker" installed on Harriers) But here is a seat capable of saving a pilot from an inverted flight 50 meters from the ground and also from under the water ... yes ... we are "ahead of the rest"
  3. 505506
    505506 25 October 2013 09: 02
    14
    Very interesting article, informative! Seldom there are articles with such a narrow review of one side, usually the entire plane is described fluently. In this case, the language is available. Thanks to the author!
  4. MilaPhone
    MilaPhone 25 October 2013 10: 02
    +4
    The ejectible capsule on the B-58 Hustler bomber and the yoga bear soared in it at an altitude of 35.000 feet.
  5. UVB
    UVB 25 October 2013 10: 14
    12
    Guy Severin is a GENIUS! And his field of activity is not limited to ejection seats. Remember at least the soft airlock of the Voskhod-2 spacecraft and much more. I would very much like a separate article on Severin. And a question to the experts: what is the minimum height of the ejection height on the K-36DM from an inverted aircraft (with the cockpit to the ground)? The article is a big plus!
  6. Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 25 October 2013 10: 19
    +1
    Well done designers. The article is good, written in an accessible language
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. UVB
    UVB 25 October 2013 10: 27
    +5
    The accident of the Su-30MK at the Paris air show:
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 25 October 2013 12: 47
      +3
      In my opinion, the coolest demonstration of the capabilities of our catapult was during the ejection of Kvochur from a vertically falling MiG-29. 2 seconds before the fighter collides with the ground.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xkYAxs86A
      1. Tommygun
        Tommygun 25 October 2013 13: 01
        +2
        Kvochur came to our institute when I studied at the 1 course, and described in detail that case.
      2. UVB
        UVB 25 October 2013 18: 32
        +1
        It seems to me that it’s not entirely right to argue which accident is cooler. Both of them clearly demonstrated the capabilities of Soviet technology. But the case with the Su-30 is generally unique. He also demonstrated the survivability of the aircraft, although it crashed. What would happen to the F-15 or any other aircraft after a similar collision with the ground? No seat would help the pilots survive.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 25 October 2013 21: 26
          0
          Quote: UVB
          It seems to me that it’s not entirely right to argue which accident is cooler.

          So, it’s not about the accident, but about the fact that the ejection seat saved pilots from a hovering plane in one case and from a vertically falling one, and even from the ground itself, which in my opinion is much more complicated.
          In the comments of this incident, even among Western journalists there was an opinion that we specially crashed the plane in order to demonstrate the rescue system. So to speak, a promotion.
          1. old man54
            old man54 27 October 2013 13: 11
            +2
            Quote: Bad_gr
            In the comments of this incident, even among Western journalists there was an opinion that we specially crashed the plane in order to demonstrate the rescue system. So to speak, a promotion.

            morons !!! This once again confirms a similar dictum that Western people are hopelessly and terminally ill already, mind, they are simply already inadequate, in a world order. fool
  9. Prometey
    Prometey 25 October 2013 10: 28
    +1
    At school, I also watched a Soviet film about our designer, who in the 50s was developing an ejection chair. Now I don’t remember the plot well. But he was told that it was impossible to create a jet ejection seat that would not injure the pilot. The inventor stubbornly stood his ground. At first I tested on a chair bags of straw that burned down. As a result, he achieved his goal and created a jet catapult. To know now what kind of film and who he was about.
  10. I am
    I am 25 October 2013 10: 37
    +4
    There is an old Soviet book "The Wrath of Hephaestus", just about the testing of such chairs. There are many interesting details described.
  11. UVB
    UVB 25 October 2013 10: 38
    +1
    And who knows what were the consequences for the pilots after the accident SU-30MK? In terms of organizational conclusions, and did they continue to fly? It's a pity, of course, an airplane, but the article correctly noted that you can’t imagine the best advertisement for domestic rescue equipment!
  12. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 10: 50
    0
    Quote: Baron Wrangell
    I don’t know the truth, no! I heard that our only seat in the world can save the pilot when ejecting from the ground?

    All 3rd generation armchairs can do this. This was first implemented by Martin-Baker back in the 60s
  13. Tommygun
    Tommygun 25 October 2013 11: 39
    +2
    There is a museum in Tomilino on the territory of NPP Zvezda.
    I don’t know whether it is open or not (I visited from the military department).
    It presents the history of Zvezda's products, which is not limited to ejection seats. This is the air refueling system, spacesuits, anti-overload suits, various equipment for pilots and astronauts ...
    By the way, the article did not examine an interesting point about what happens to the lantern when leaving the plane. He either shoots back, or undermines the pyrotechnic cord in the glazing, or simply breaks through with special horns in the headrest.
  14. igor67
    igor67 25 October 2013 12: 39
    +1
    Technician F15-16 told us that before the pilot had problems during the bailout, the pilot could recapture his legs well, now when bailing out the belts automatically press the legs to the seat so that they would not hang out and not get injured
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 25 October 2013 12: 51
      +2
      Quote: igor67
      there were problems during the bailout
      Hi Igor! The main thing is not to be written off, because the Air Force is the main striking force (and the BBC, but that's not the point, lol ). Okay, I know where you live, so let it continue. Peace and good luck, everyone and everything! drinks )))
      1. igor67
        igor67 25 October 2013 13: 10
        +2
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        Quote: igor67
        there were problems during the bailout
        Hi Igor! The main thing is not to be written off, because the Air Force is the main striking force (and the BBC, but that's not the point, lol ). Okay, I know where you live, so let it continue. Peace and good luck, everyone and everything! drinks )))

        Thank. But according to my observations there will be no peace here, it is an eternal feeder for arms corporations. We had those studies at work, work related to a height of more than 2 meters, under those conditions we are obliged to wear belts and fasten our belts, the former technician of the aircraft conducted technical training, just nothing more.
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 25 October 2013 13: 41
          +1
          Quote: igor67
          eternal corporate feeder
          nothing to add, war for resources soldier
          Quote: igor67
          We had those studies at work, work related to a height of more than 2 meters
          And I watch the Israeli military rattling arms, Tel Aviv hawks fledge wassat , lano, we, too, are not bastards, well done!
          1. igor67
            igor67 25 October 2013 14: 00
            +2
            [quote = Stormbreaker] [quote = igor67] eternal feeder for corporations [/ quote] nothing to add, the war for resources soldier
            [quote = igor67] We had those studies at work, work related to a height of more than 2 meters [/ quote] And I look, the Israeli military is rattling with arms, Tel Aviv hawks are fledging wassat , lano, we, too, are not bastards, well done!
            I repaired the first vehicle in 24, and also saw a combat approach from the sky to the bottom with a "stone". And 243 meters above the ground I was taxiing up drinks
            1. Thunderbolt
              Thunderbolt 25 October 2013 14: 10
              +2
              Quote: igor67
              I repaired the first vehicle in 24, and also saw a combat approach from the sky to the bottom with a "stone". And 243 meters above the ground I was taxiing up
              I knew that you liked it. And Mi-24 took me out of the hospitable Caucasus bully thanks to these blades that we are ready for life)))
              Quote: igor67
              I saw a military approach, from the sky to the bottom
              I don’t remember dawn, but I understood --- here, here it comes up (words from the song of V. Vysotsky)
              1. igor67
                igor67 25 October 2013 14: 21
                +2
                Quote: Thunderbolt
                Quote: igor67
                I repaired the first vehicle in 24, and also saw a combat approach from the sky to the bottom with a "stone". And 243 meters above the ground I was taxiing up
                I knew that you liked it. And Mi-24 took me out of the hospitable Caucasus bully thanks to these blades that we are ready for life)))
                Quote: igor67
                I saw a military approach, from the sky to the bottom
                I don’t remember dawn, but I understood --- here, here it comes up (words from the song of V. Vysotsky)

                This was found on an Internet photograph, on it in a blue jumpsuit test pilot V. Kolesnik, a colonel, fought in Afghanistan, a wonderful man, a performer of the same author’s song, how many military awards he had, a modest man communicated with us workers on an equal footing, here he is I got up on cars, since I put the delegation from the military atache on take-off, with my military approach
                1. Thunderbolt
                  Thunderbolt 25 October 2013 16: 19
                  +2
                  I [quote = igor67] according to my observations, And I’m Alyosha, they call me that in honor of the Bulgarian monument, so that they know, aah, they named him, coincided with the saint, so everyone is happy. And Berlin is my grandfather did not take, went missing in the defensive battles of D. Vasyushino, Oryol Region, time: defensive battles 12.02.1943/XNUMX/XNUMX No one zaet, where and what
                  1. kotvov
                    kotvov 25 October 2013 20: 01
                    +2
                    Alexey, I’m looking for a grandfather, I was killed at 43. I searched the military archives, nothing. And then I just hammered into the search engine the name and gave me where and when he was buried. Try good luck.
                    1. igor67
                      igor67 26 October 2013 12: 23
                      +1
                      Quote: kotvov
                      Alexey, I’m looking for a grandfather, I was killed at 43. I searched the military archives, nothing. And then I just hammered into the search engine the name and gave me where and when he was buried. Try good luck.

                      Mine also went missing near Stalingrad, my father wrote to the main archive of the Moscow region, the answer went missing, I'll try as you are in the search engine, now
  15. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 14: 37
    -3
    Quote: Bad_gr
    In my opinion, the coolest demonstration of the capabilities of our catapult was during the ejection of Kvochur from a vertically falling MiG-29. 2 seconds before the fighter collides with the ground.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xkYAxs86A

    hmm, rather anti-advertising. According to experts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP8M2DzSLqs) the plane explosion saved the pilot from heavy trams, which helped to open the parachute (the parachute itself did not have time to open, despite the fact that the ejection was from a height of> 80m). It turns out that the chair could not provide a safe ejection from a standard situation for it.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 14: 51
      +3
      You are wrong. That bailout is a very illustrative example of the "forced deployment of the parachute canopy." And the explosion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 25 October 2013 17: 43
      +2
      Quote: lx
      It turns out that the chair could not provide a safe bailout from the standard situation for him.
      Can you give a similar case where a pilot at an altitude of 250 meters catapults from a vertically falling plane (approaching the ground at least 80 km / h) and the rescue system works better?
  16. Axel
    Axel 25 October 2013 14: 54
    +1
    I don’t know if it was true or not, I studied at KIVVS, so at one of the lectures on the subject of SD (airplane and engine), the teacher told such a bike, in which I do not remember in one regiment, and it doesn’t matter, an emergency the technician of the plane catapulted directly from the ground (then K 36D seats were installed for the first time), and it was like that, either forgot to insert the checks or pulled it out (the fuses check the catapult activation lever), the catapult lever caught on the RUS (aircraft control crustacean), the technician started the RUS engine and went into neutral position as a result erya catapulted, the techie got off with a fright and a broken leg, they wanted to punish, but in the end the Air Force Commander awarded him with a watch. Most likely this is an army bike which many in aviation.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 16: 13
      +3
      There were such cases - but in this case, "it will not be possible to get rid of with a broken leg. First of all, because the aircraft technician does not wear a parachute harness and does not fasten to the seat. That is, the catapult will throw him out of the cockpit ... but back (from a height of about 100 meters) will fall on the concrete road of that one, without a parachute. We had a similar case at our "neighbors". The ensign eventually died. But it is worth emphasizing that the chair itself cannot work. There was a double carelessness - a technician of the plane did not put the checks in place after the departure ... And an excessively curious ensign from OBATO climbed into the cockpit without permission and began to twist and twitch whatever he hit.
    2. aviator65
      aviator65 27 October 2013 15: 55
      0
      To catch on the handle of the chair handle ... However! On the K-36 they are very short. Another thing on the KM-1, there are longer loops. Although, that on the MiG-23, that on the MiG-25 RUS are also far from joysticks. So, if the technician got hooked, it was more likely a boot when he got out of the cab. In general, there were dofiga cases of spontaneous bailouts from parking lots and even inside hangars.
  17. Taoist
    Taoist 25 October 2013 15: 03
    +2
    The article is not bad, but replete with "scientific and pop mistakes", namely:

    >Modern ejection systems provide emissions in several ways:
    1) According to the type of chair K-36DM, when the ejection is carried out using a jet engine.
    2) According to the type of catapult chair KM-1М, when the ejection is carried out by the actuation of a powder charge.
    3) When compressed air is used to eject a seat with a pilot, as on Su-26 airplanes.


    First: Ejection seats are not classified like that.
    Second: The K-36 chair has a multi-stage ejection system - and the solid propellant rocket engine is just one of the steps, moreover, it is not used in all modes. The direct bailout and separation of the seat from the aircraft is provided not by solid propellant rocket engines but by TSM (telescopic firing mechanism)
    Third: Almost all seats (with the exception of mechanical catapults) are powered by a powder charge. (Including QA 1m and K-36 and further down the list ...)
    Fourth - pneumatic and spring catapults are mechanical and actually are not applicable now - because provide separation of the seat and pilot only at low speeds and high altitudes. At the same time, they are characterized by low weight return.

    And the description of the operation of the K 36 chair in general, judging by the pictures, was taken from the press and almost completely does not correspond to reality. The cyclogram of the dental chair systems is given incorrectly and the systems themselves are not fully displayed. If anyone is interested, I can tell you in detail how and in what cases the automatics of the K-36 VM chairs that were installed on my "product" work
  18. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 15: 06
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP8M2DzSLqs

    Quote: Taoist
    You are wrong. That bailout is a very illustrative example of the "forced deployment of the parachute canopy." And the explosion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    If anyone is mistaken, then not me - I refer to the video in which they comment on this. What I see is that after the ejection from the cockpit, the pilot falls down even faster than the plane, and the dome does not open almost to the ground. And this is very different from the case in 99, where the bailout occurred at about the same height and the parachutes opened at a sufficient height. True, the su did not dive and thus the pilots did not initially have such acceleration to the ground, although the angle of ejection is about the same.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 16: 20
      +5
      Well, "video commentators" are another source. As for the picture ... the "intelligent software system" is installed in the K-36 chairs - roll and pitch angle sensors and accelerometers give the corresponding data - according to these data, the program machine changes the cyclogram of the seat units actuation. In the case of ejection with negative angles, the chair first stabilizes the position and then activates the forced dome deployment scheme. The dome (in contrast to previous systems) is located in the headrest of the chair - when it is shot, it opens. But if the chair is directed at this moment by the headrest to the ground, then it is clear that the opening will not occur ... that is why the chair did not immediately open the dome, but first stabilized at the corner. In the case when the chair has the correct angle but the height is low, it immediately activates the main dome.
  19. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 15: 14
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    No. ejection seats of class 0-0 exist in the world. (the same seat "Martin Baker" installed on Harriers) But here is a seat capable of saving a pilot from an inverted flight 50 meters from the ground and also from under the water ... yes ... we are "ahead of the rest"

    Here you are already mistaken. All modern chairs have such features (Foreign since the 70s).
    the minimum height of the American is 20m, Martin-Baker is 60m (http://scilib-avia.narod.ru/Eject/eject.htm). FOR K-36DM 55m. http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/russia/soukhoi/su/27/escape.htm
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 16: 32
      +4
      You operate with "open data" - as practice shows, these figures can be very different from reality. The statistics of real bailouts give a slightly different picture. This is what was according to my "ideas"
      So, by the 6 of May 1978, the Armed Forces of England and the USA had delivered 215 “Harriers” of the first generation, and the Navy of the USSR - 45 Yak-38. Of these, 46 “Harriers” and 6 Yak-38 were lost. 19 English and American pilots died. Of the 27 bailouts, only 19 were successful (of the 9 bailouts in vertical modes, only two were successful). In our case, all four bailouts were successful, and not a single pilot died.
      Only at the U.S. ILC (which supplied about half of all serial Harriers) from the moment it was adopted by the 1970 until the end of the 2002 (during the 31 year of operation), in accidents and catastrophes (excluding combat losses) at the Harriers »All modifications killed 45 combat pilots and lost 143 aircraft. 1975 combat pilots died on Yaks from 1991 to 16 (11 years of operation). Many of the Harrier pilots could have survived if there had been an automatic ejection system on these planes, like on Yaks. Only from April 1975 to July 1985 in emergency situations 38% of pilots were saved on Yak-80, and only 50% on English and American Harriers


      However, it is quite possible that something has changed here over the past quarter century ... Although, again, the statistics of successful bailouts do not confirm this.
  20. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 16: 45
    -1
    Quote: Taoist
    Well, "video commentators" are another source. As for the picture ... the "intelligent software system" is installed in the K-36 chairs - roll and pitch angle sensors and accelerometers give the corresponding data - according to these data, the program machine changes the cyclogram of the seat units actuation. In the case of ejection with negative angles, the chair first stabilizes the position and then activates the forced dome deployment scheme. The dome (in contrast to previous systems) is located in the headrest of the chair - when it is shot, it opens. But if the chair is directed at this moment by the headrest to the ground, then it is clear that the opening will not occur ... that is why the chair did not immediately open the dome, but first stabilized at the corner. In the case when the chair has the correct angle but the height is low, it immediately activates the main dome.

    The fact of the matter is that the video clearly shows that after the pilot seat was ejected from the cockpit, instead of stabilizing and giving acceleration up, to have time for the parachute to open, it made somersault (stabilization did not happen) and began to fall. But in the case of SU, everything happened as it should. As for the impact assessment of the explosion, it is quite widespread and is present not only in this video
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 17: 21
      +3
      not a single chair is capable of "accelerating upward" in such a situation. Unfortunately, what we see we do not always understand. Since I taught this type of catapult and taught it to work (I am an aircraft technician by basic education) and in practice I saw it more than once, then I personally see here that the rescue system worked absolutely normally.
  21. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 17: 01
    -2
    Quote: Taoist
    You operate with "open data" - as practice shows, these figures can be very different from reality. The statistics of real bailouts give a slightly different picture. This is what was according to my "ideas"
    So, by the 6 of May 1978, the Armed Forces of England and the USA had delivered 215 “Harriers” of the first generation, and the Navy of the USSR - 45 Yak-38. Of these, 46 “Harriers” and 6 Yak-38 were lost. 19 English and American pilots died. Of the 27 bailouts, only 19 were successful (of the 9 bailouts in vertical modes, only two were successful). In our case, all four bailouts were successful, and not a single pilot died.
    Only at the U.S. ILC (which supplied about half of all serial Harriers) from the moment it was adopted by the 1970 until the end of the 2002 (during the 31 year of operation), in accidents and catastrophes (excluding combat losses) at the Harriers »All modifications killed 45 combat pilots and lost 143 aircraft. 1975 combat pilots died on Yaks from 1991 to 16 (11 years of operation). Many of the Harrier pilots could have survived if there had been an automatic ejection system on these planes, like on Yaks. Only from April 1975 to July 1985 in emergency situations 38% of pilots were saved on Yak-80, and only 50% on English and American Harriers


    However, it is quite possible that something has changed here over the past quarter century ... Although, again, the statistics of successful bailouts do not confirm this.

    The degree of "openness" of your and my data is the same. Only your data
    1. Indirect. So, such statistics, without taking into account many associated factors, clearly can neither confirm nor refute these claimed characteristics.
    2. Incomplete. You provide data only for yaks and harriers (that is, it is only MK12).
    3. The given data contradict themselves. 43 killed pilots with 143 accidents = ~ 69% saved, not 50%
    4. Generally not confirmed by anything. Since you do not provide links.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 17: 17
      +3
      It is difficult for me to give links - in our time, textbooks and technical characteristics were not posted on the Internet. I operate with the knowledge, including the practical one that I received. But this is my specialty and we were taught well. In particular, I just well understand how the declared performance characteristics can differ from the real ones. For Martin Bakers, the data were also from closed textbooks. That is why I emphasized the fact that "it is possible that something has changed over the past quarter of a century." I also did not come across data on successful ejection from an inverted flight for Western products. So bring those and I agree with you.
  22. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 17: 43
    -2
    Quote: Taoist
    not a single chair is capable of "accelerating upward" in such a situation. Unfortunately, what we see we do not always understand. Since I taught this type of catapult and taught it to work (I am an aircraft technician by basic education) and in practice I saw it more than once, then I personally see here that the rescue system worked absolutely normally.

    So you want to say that the chair stabilized after the ejection from the cockpit?
    PS Did the pilots on the Yak-38 really wear a "parachute harness"?
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 20: 00
      +2
      Pilots put on the parachute suspension system on K-36 seats in advance, and with the seat tethered system and the parachute proper, the pilot connects the locks after landing (incidentally, the technician's duty is to help them fasten them)
  23. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 17: 47
    -2
    Quote: Taoist
    It is difficult for me to give links - in our time, textbooks and technical characteristics were not posted on the Internet. I operate with the knowledge, including the practical one that I received. But this is my specialty and we were taught well. In particular, I just well understand how the declared performance characteristics can differ from the real ones. For Martin Bakers, the data were also from closed textbooks. That is why I emphasized the fact that "it is possible that something has changed over the past quarter of a century." I also did not come across data on successful ejection from an inverted flight for Western products. So bring those and I agree with you.

    That is, you now all from the head typed from memory?
    You can give at least the title and authors of the textbook.
    As for practical knowledge - how many bailouts occurred directly during your service? What is characteristic, you also do not provide data on bailouts from inverted positions on the Yak-38.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 19: 46
      +2
      The Yak had an automatic ejection system - it did not allow ejection from an inverted position. During my service, we had three ejection operations in the regiment. One on a twin in level flight and one just from the "transitional" mode - automatic. The landing cadet rocked the car and spat it out. I have already shown this photo somewhere - after the ejection, the plane managed to land almost intact but without a pilot. In any case, then the Americans themselves admitted that their systems were not capable of anything like that.
  24. UVB
    UVB 25 October 2013 18: 22
    +1
    Who has not seen, I highly recommend watching. And if there are those who did not know about Severin, I promise, this will be a real discovery!
  25. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 18: 41
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: lx
    It turns out that the chair could not provide a safe bailout from the standard situation for him.
    Can you give a similar case where a pilot at an altitude of 250 meters catapults from a vertically falling plane (approaching the ground at least 80 km / h) and the rescue system works better?

    And where did you get 250 km / h? According to a rough estimate, the speed was ~ 40 m / s - this is ~ 144 km / h.
    In principle, there is a similar episode of cf-18 began to fall to one side and moved into a vertical peak. Initially, the plane went lower and therefore the pilot, although he catapulted at about the same height (it seems even lower by the eye - metro 60), did this at the stall stage, but not at the peak.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOvabFrdQes

    In principle, there is the American standard MIL-S-9479 on cat. armchairs containing requirements for those with which am. aircraft
    http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-S/download.php?spec=MIL-S-9479B


    ..042369.pdf
    picture with a tablet from it. Actually, the requirements for min. altitude at various positions and speeds (by the way, I wonder if we have data on a similar standard with us). In reality, of course, everything can be more complicated. I must say that, for example, the declared char-ki. Stencil s4s
    better than these requirements. In particular, this chair has a controlled thrust vector (to the question "no chair" is capable of accelerating upwards "in such a situation")
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 25 October 2013 18: 44
      0
      [img] http://forum.dwg.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=108664.jpeg [/ img]
      ...........................................
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2013 19: 54
      +1
      K-36 VMs also have a controllable vector available. But this same vector can be used in a limited set of angles and in the presence of a reserve of height (since it also takes time to commission the solid propellant rocket engine) I emphasize once again the simple fact that I am not trying to prove to you that Russia is the birthplace of elephants. I’m trying to explain to you that not all TTX in the table and in reality match. And certainly there is no doubt that the K-36 series seats were at the level of the best world models and surpassed them in some specific aspects. In any case, systems like our SC-EM in the West have not been created. And without it, reliable pilot rescue in vertical and transient modes is impossible. (wrong reaction rate in humans)
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 25 October 2013 21: 09
      +2
      Quote: lx
      And where did you get 250 km / h? According to a rough estimate, the speed was ~ 40 m / s - this is ~ 144 km / h.
      The minimum speed at which the MiG-29 lands 235 km / h. But this is near the ground, where the screen effect helps, and at a distance from it, the speed should be higher, in the region of 250 km / h. After which the plane landed on the wing and moved into a vertical fall. And if you take into account that the second engine worked to its fullest, and there was no time (and sense) to dump the pilot’s gas, then the plane at the moment of collision with the ground had a much greater speed than at the beginning of the events. That is, more than 250 km / h.
      But if you dance from the sounded figures "80 meters" and "2 seconds", then the numbers are those that you named.
      I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

      By the way, you write:
      Quote: lx
      What I see is that after the ejection from the cockpit, the pilot falls down even faster than the plane, and the dome does not open almost to the ground.

      as well as
      Quote: lx
      an explosion of an airplane that helped to open the parachute saved the pilot from heavy trams

      Do not explain in more detail how the pilot flying in front of the plane was saved by the explosion of the plane that fell before the pilot?

      Comparison of the MiG-29 accident (with Kvochur) and the accident with the F-18 is not correct, because after the ejection, although away from the plane, the seat from the F-18 moved parallel to the ground, and not directly to the ground. Flying parallel to the earth at an altitude of 60 meters is not at all the same where the earth itself is 80 meters away and time is less than 2 seconds.
      1. lx
        lx 25 October 2013 22: 28
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Quote: lx
        And where did you get 250 km / h? According to a rough estimate, the speed was ~ 40 m / s - this is ~ 144 km / h.
        The minimum speed at which the MiG-29 lands 235 km / h.
        But if you dance from the sounded figures "80 meters" and "2 seconds", then the numbers are those that you named.
        I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

        Hello, the speed of approach here does not matter at all. Mountains the plane’s speed went practically to 0, the plane banked and went into free fall, then read g from the height. Sailing for simplicity can be neglected.
        Quote: Bad_gr

        By the way, you write:
        Quote: lx
        ... after the ejection from the cockpit, the pilot falls down even faster than the plane, and the dome does not open almost to the ground.
        an explosion of an airplane that helped to open the parachute saved the pilot from heavy trams

        Do not explain in more detail how the pilot flying in front of the plane was saved by the explosion of the plane that fell before the pilot?

        Pilot throws horizontally.

        it is further clearly seen that the taxiway accelerates it down.

        further, that’s why the pilot is already overtaking the plane here (RD has already stopped working)

        an undisclosed dome still slows down the pilot (which one, but additional windage)

        for the next 30-40 meters the state of the dome has changed little

        another 5 meters and almost opened


        In general, I do not insist on the version of the opening of the dome from the explosion, although I believe that the direct braking effect on the pilot of the blast wave could also have been significant. I just want to say that the absence of serious problems for the pilot is more the result of an accident than the successful operation of the ejection system. No, the seat is excellent, but as they have already said in reality, it often happens that everything does not work as intended, and it’s not a fact that this seat should be saved exactly at this position / speed of the aircraft (again, the analogue of the American plate is interesting our SK).
        And this example, in contrast to the case of SU on the same LeBurger, is not a good one.
      2. lx
        lx 25 October 2013 22: 30
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr

        Comparison of the MiG-29 accident (with Kvochur) and the accident with the F-18 is not correct, because after the ejection, although away from the plane, the seat from the F-18 moved parallel to the ground, and not directly to the ground. Flying parallel to the earth at an altitude of 60 meters is not at all the same where the earth itself is 80 meters away and time is less than 2 seconds.

        In both cases, the seat with the pilot was thrown parallel to the ground (for a moment, for sure - see the first picture) Vert. the speed of the aircraft was different - yes. Actually, I made a reservation, it’s just the closest case to the original one, according to which there is a video. Sorry, I didn’t succeed in ruining any of the adversaries on the same exact path in the video.
  26. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 18: 59
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241

    [/ Center]

    By the way, this is the same CF-18 that I wrote about. This photo clearly shows that although the pilot was thrown to the side, the jet thrust of the seat pulls it up even before the parachute opens.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 25 October 2013 19: 01
      +1
      ........................................
      1. zub46
        zub46 25 October 2013 23: 57
        -1
        The last photo shows the Czechoslovak Zet-266 "Trainer" (twin) aircraft. From the front cockpit, an emergency exit from the aircraft is practiced by the stall method - i.e. got up on the seat, tore the ring and pulled it out of the cockpit with a counter-current dome - like a spiz .. or. This is not a bailout. But the attraction is still very dangerous - the tail is behind, plus the overload is not very childish. Judging by the brand of the car and the pilot's rescue parachute (dome with cover), these are the 60s of the last century. Some kind of bar or board is visible behind the front cockpit. Keel protection? The plane was slow-moving, but an excellent acrobatic pilot. These devices in old Soviet films often played the role of the German Ju-87 "Stuck" dive bombers. The distant resemblance is primarily due to the non-retractable landing gear and the shape of the keel.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 26 October 2013 00: 04
          +2

          name = Su-29_06.jpg [/ img] [/ center]
          Actually, this is the Su-29LL for testing SAPS SKS-94. During testing and testing of SKS systems, more than 100 ejections from airplane cabins (on the Su-29, RD-2500, from a car) were made in the entire range of altitudes and speeds, partially through glazing of the OChF cabin, including two bailouts of testers from the Su-29LL.
          All modifications of SCS passed State tests - certified. SCS systems are installed on the Yak-52M, Su-31M, Su-26M3 aircraft.
          1. bask
            bask 26 October 2013 00: 07
            0
            Good night, Sasha.
            Not when I did not see the ejection seats, on propeller airplanes.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 26 October 2013 00: 29
              +1
              Hi Andryush, well, this is an extreme run-time, all the more in the full sense of the catapult chair you can’t call it. Emergency exit system SKS-94
              sks-94
              The ultralight ejection system is designed for low-speed light aircraft, including trainers, aerobatics, patrol, agricultural and other light aircraft related to general aviation. In SCS rescue systems, a fundamentally new highly effective method of emergency escape has been implemented, which has no analogues in world practice. When the pilot pulls out the handle of the bailout, the heading container is shot with a parachute laid in it. The headrest breaks the glass of the cabin lantern and, moving away from the aircraft, introduces a parachute in 0,2 s into the air stream. At the same time, a firing mechanism is triggered, which pulls the pilot out of the cockpit for the suspension system and tells him the speed, ensuring the safety of his trajectory relative to the aircraft. The pilot's seat remains in the cockpit. The loads to which the pilot is subjected when using the SKS-94 system do not exceed the permissible limits for any person allowed to parachute jumps.
              This system has smaller dimensions than systems using ejection seats and can be used at a speed of Vi = 60-400 km / h and altitudes of 7-4000 m.
              The chair has a step adjustment for height. The installation weight in the complete set does not exceed 28,5 kg.
              The assigned service life is 20 years, the frequency of regulations is 2 years.

              The system has modifications: SKS-94M, SKS-94M-1, SKS-94M2. These modifications have the same application characteristics as the base SKS-94 and differ in the following:
              SKS-94M Does not have height adjustment. System weight up to 22 kg. The frequency of regulations has been increased to 5 years.
              SKS-94M-1 It is an embodiment of SKS-94M and has a backrest deflected by 100 mm in the upper part. System weight up to 25 kg.
              SKS-94M2 It has stepless height adjustment. System weight up to 27 kg. The designated service life is increased to 30 years.

              The emergency exit system SKS-94 has the following main elements:
              telescopic firing mechanism;
              seat;
              combined harness-suspension system with five-point (four-point) fixation of the belt and shoulders of the pilot;
              a parachute container (headband) with a parachute entry mechanism;
              lap belt pull mechanism;
              a device for separating waist and shoulder belts from a chair during bailout;
              bailout control mechanism.


              The direction of movement of the tubes of the firing mechanism makes an angle of 15030 'to the right or left with the plane of symmetry of the aircraft and allows you to separate the trajectories of the pilots when ejecting pilots from twin aircraft.
              The parachute container is equipped with punches for breaking the glazing of the aircraft lantern during ejection.
              For tight fixation of the pelvic girdle of the pilot, a mechanism for pulling waist belts is provided. The belt pull handle is located on the left side of the cup; the belts are unfastened with the same handle.
              The shoulder pull is carried out manually using buckles on a tethered system.
              The ejection handle (drive) in the form of a rope ring in an elastic protective sheath is mounted on the front wall of the seat cup. To prevent unauthorized use of the chair, the ground fuse for the ejection drive is locked with a key.
        2. Alex 241
          Alex 241 26 October 2013 00: 21
          0
          ZLIN Z-326 in "German" camouflage
          Here Zlin in the role of Messer, I think the film does not need to be called.
    2. Alex 241
      Alex 241 25 October 2013 19: 21
      +1
      Catastrophe F 18 bailout
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 25 October 2013 19: 24
        +1
        ...............................................
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 25 October 2013 19: 28
          0
          ..............................................
  27. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 20: 00
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    On Yak there was an automatic ejection system - it did not allow ejection from an inverted position.

    So. That is, in principle, there is not a single case of bailout according to your data and your "statistics" cannot say anything on this issue? Q.E.D. Let me remind you that we discussed "a chair capable of saving a pilot from an inverted flight 50 meters from the ground." I must probably add that the SAK is an additional system that does not affect the characteristics of the seat itself, and it was only the Yak-38 that was equipped with it from our aircraft and was it intended primarily for hover and transition modes?
    Quote: Taoist

    In any case, then the Americans themselves recognized that their systems are not capable of anything like that.

    It is you with what amers communicated and "what like" meant?
  28. PistonizaToR
    PistonizaToR 25 October 2013 20: 09
    +1
    We had the first 0 to 0 ejection in Chernyakhovsk on the first production Su-24s in the early 70s. On the old 36x ejection grips broke forward and on launch the navigator's handle (short) from the position ON YOURSELF (anti-flutter weights in stabilizer socks and without pressure of the hydraulic system, they toe down) went forward into neutral, the crew woke up next to the launched unharmed aircraft. Arriving Severin presented the then new ZSH-5.A in the units operating the Su-24 to this day, they install "eggs" under the stabilizers after shutdown ...
  29. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 20: 11
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    The K-36 VM also has a controllable vector available. But this same vector can be used in a limited set of angles and in the presence of a margin of heights (since it takes time to commission the solid propellant rocket motor too)

    By the way, in the case of MIG it is clear that the solid propellant rocket engine managed to start quite quickly and it was he who gave the pilot acceleration down and turned the chair upside down.
    Quote: Taoist

    I emphasize once again that simple fact that I am not trying to prove to you that Russia is the birthplace of elephants.

    I apologize, but that is what you tried to prove to me.
    Quote: Taoist

    I’m trying to explain to you that not all TTX in the table and in reality match.

    Of course, but this is a common phrase - it is true of everything.
    Quote: Taoist

    And certainly there is no doubt that the K-36 series seats were at the level of the best world models

    I completely agree and apparently the Americans have found that this chair also meets their requirements.
    Quote: Taoist

    and on some specific points they were superior.

    It may well be, as well as what may have been inferior to others, but I am afraid that you have no factual material on foreign seats, except for "open data".
    Quote: Taoist

    In any case, systems like our SC-EM in the West have not been created. And without it, reliable pilot rescue in vertical and transient modes is impossible. (wrong reaction rate in humans)

    It may well be, but only this is not a subsystem of the chair itself.
  30. PistonizaToR
    PistonizaToR 25 October 2013 20: 21
    +1
    The Yak-38x pilots are partly indebted to the unique automatic ejection system to this day in vertical take-off and landing modes, which shot the pilot without his intervention.
  31. PistonizaToR
    PistonizaToR 25 October 2013 20: 55
    +2
    By the way, the author of the story touched less than slightly. It is important that Severin’s seat became universal only for aircraft from the 3rd generation. Before that, each design bureau had its own seat (Tupolev’s CT chair, Mikoyan’s CM chair, Sukhoi’s CS chair, and so on) ), moreover, they didn’t differ in specific data, then they broke their legs, or something else, then for unification they ordered Severin to create a SAPS, safe and suitable, with which he coped with honor. Besides all his rescue and life support systems for his space equipment, the UPAZ system for refueling in the air and much more e.Veliky man, a great generation ...
  32. lx
    lx 25 October 2013 22: 15
    -1
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: lx
    And where did you get 250 km / h? According to a rough estimate, the speed was ~ 40 m / s - this is ~ 144 km / h.
    The minimum speed at which the MiG-29 lands 235 km / h.
    But if you dance from the sounded figures "80 meters" and "2 seconds", then the numbers are those that you named.
    I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    Hello, the speed of approach here does not matter at all. Mountains the plane’s speed went practically to 0, the plane banked and went into free fall, then read g from the height. Sailing for simplicity can be neglected.
    Quote: Bad_gr


    Do not explain in more detail how the pilot flying in front of the plane was saved by the explosion of the plane that fell before the pilot?

    Throws the pilot horizontally:

    it is further clearly seen that the taxiway accelerates it down.

    then this is why the pilot is already overtaking the plane (taxiway has already stopped working)

    Further, the undisclosed dome adds all the same, slows down the pilot (which one, but additional windage)

    then for the next 30-40 meters the state of the dome has changed little

    then another 5 meters and almost revealed


    In fact, I do not insist on the version of the opening of the dome from the explosion (there may be various options). I just want to say that the absence of serious problems for the pilot is more the result of an accident than the successful operation of the ejection system. No, the seat is beautiful, but as they have already said in reality, it often happens that everything does not work as intended, and it’s not a fact that this seat should be saved exactly at this position / speed of the aircraft (again, the analogue of the American plate is interesting our SK). And this example, unlike the case with the SU at the same LeBurger, is not a good one.
  33. The comment was deleted.
  34. ded10041948
    ded10041948 26 October 2013 09: 41
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    No. ejection seats of class 0-0 exist in the world. (the same seat "Martin Baker" installed on Harriers) But here is a seat capable of saving a pilot from an inverted flight 50 meters from the ground and also from under the water ... yes ... we are "ahead of the rest"

    "from under the water" - how's that?
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 26 October 2013 16: 54
      +2
      There were two cases with Yak38 mi. The bailout took place after the car fell from a depth as far as I know about 6 meters. The K-36 VM had a trigger program for such cases. In this case, the seat with the help of TCM led the pilot out of the cockpit through the glazing and separated it from the seat without entering the parachute system - and the VMSK (spasplekt) provided the ascent even when the pilot lost consciousness. In both cases, the pilots remained alive and, as far as I know, they did not even receive serious injuries.
      1. cobalt
        cobalt 26 October 2013 20: 42
        +1
        Here is a unique video on this accident
  35. Technologist
    Technologist 27 October 2013 11: 15
    0
    The author is well done, thanks.
  36. zub46
    zub46 27 October 2013 21: 58
    +1
    Alex 241: I take my words back - in the photos you give, I clearly see that this is not the Czechoslovak Z-266, but the Soviet machine. In profile, she in a fuzzy picture, according to which I wrote a comment, exclusively resembles the old Z-266 and Z-166 (single), which at one time was full in flying clubs. Thanks for the correction and information.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 27 October 2013 22: 01
      0
      Sergei welcome, that's okay, we are here for this and are here to share knowledge. hi
  37. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 3 March 2015 13: 18
    0
    thank . it was interesting!