<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 08/28/2010 12:26 AM, Ido Dekkers wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinh1KpaOvTyyMt1Z22tpVydTsTSw4NTbajnbd72@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
> A-10 or the F-15, we don't have fancy rocket seats to
save us. In fact<br>
> since about 2008 we don't even carry parachutes
anymore. I'm just not<br>
I didn't know you guys ever did. You wouldn't think it
would be too hard<br>
to put an ACES II or similar in a 707 - there's plenty of
room in there.<br>
Then again, they're not comfortable at all and you can't
have fancy<br>
cushions in there unless you enjoy being a parapalegic after
the seat<br>
cracks your spine after compressing the seat pad.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
i think it's more complicated then that, <br>
i don't' think ejecting 3? 4? people from the same pit is that
easy ?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
*shrugs* They get 8 out of the B-52. Some go up, some go down.
Nobody sideways, though. ;)<br>
<br>
Anywho, the real reason is most likely just a cost/benefit analysis.
The tanker was never intended to be in harms way (though it often
goes there, unafraid and unaware ;) so it had no "need" for a system
such as that. Same reason we don't have any sort of countermeasures
- though from what I've seen it looks like the new tanker will have
some SAM/MANPAD protection.<br>
<br>
Anyway, honestly ejection seats on something like a tanker don't
really make sense. Heck the reason they pulled the 'chutes is they
had only been used once - and in that case just the boom jumped, the
rest of the crew stayed in and managed to land the plane. Or so I'm
told, anyway - it's a bit of tanker legend. So there wasn't a real
need for them, and they had a lot of associated costs, training,
inspections, etc. So that all makes sense to me. Keeping a geriatric
airplane as the backbone of the tanker fleet, however.... maybe not
so much! lol<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
</body>
</html>