[simpits-tech] Whats happenin?

[Brian Sikkema]

  On 08/28/2010 12:26 AM, Ido Dekkers wrote:
>
>     > A-10 or the F-15, we don't have fancy rocket seats to save us.
>     In fact
>     > since about 2008 we don't even carry parachutes anymore. I'm
>     just not
>     I didn't know you guys ever did.  You wouldn't think it would be
>     too hard
>     to put an ACES II or similar in a 707 - there's plenty of room in
>     there.
>     Then again, they're not comfortable at all and you can't have fancy
>     cushions in there unless you enjoy being a parapalegic after the seat
>     cracks your spine after compressing the seat pad.
>
> i think it's more complicated then that,
> i don't' think ejecting 3? 4? people from the same pit is that easy ?
*shrugs* They get 8 out of the B-52. Some go up, some go down. Nobody 
sideways, though. ;)

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.

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

Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.simpits.org/pipermail/simpits-tech/attachments/20100827/7b2f0d98/attachment.html