A page at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat says

"by mid 2003, Martin Baker ejector seats had saved 7000 lives".

Is that figure maybe a little high?

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

In article >,
BackToNormal > wrote:
>A page at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat says
>
>"by mid 2003, Martin Baker ejector seats had saved 7000 lives".
>
>Is that figure maybe a little high?

A bit low, according to Martin-Baker's own site:

7023 lives saved to date, 51 this year.

http://www.martin-baker.com/

Delving a bit deeper, the rate of increase was:

1946: First live ejection
1965: 1000 lives saved by M-B seats
1969: 2000 lives saved "
1971: 3000 lives saved "
1976: 4000 lives saved "
1983: 5000 lives saved "
1990: 6000 lives saved "
2003: 7000 lives saved "

figures taken from:
http://www.martin-baker.com/milestones.htm

so it's heavily weighted towards the period 1965-1971, by
which time most fast jets had bang-seats, there was still
a lot of low-level stuff going on with earlier and probably
slightly tricky jets, and the US - using jets equipped
with MB seats - were fighting a war against an opposition
who were capable of shooting back with some degree of
effect - this would all tend to push seat usage up.

Interesting that the highest altitude an MB seat's been
used from (57000') was as long ago as 1958 - and was
somewhat naturally from a Canberra. Wonder if that was
one of the Olympus-engined specials?

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

To add to this thread
Martin-Baker have had well over the 7000 successful ejections quoted. Many
ejectees have never bothered to claim their "Ties and Pins" from the company so
don't appear in the official figures. Several air forces were not as good as
others at keeping records and so even more were not recorded. Many successful
ejections became unsuccessful once the seat left the aircraft - in the Vietnam
conflict many ejected and were seen on the ground and became MIAs.
You could also add to that the many live test ejections by test ejectees using
the M-B seats, plus you could take it even further as the Chinese have
basically copied the later Mk-10 M-B seat and there is a Romanian company
producing copies of the Mk-10 (to my knowledge without license)
An excellent book that gives a record of the first 6500 ejections is Sir James
Martin by Sarah Sharman isbn 1-85260-551-0 pub Patrick Stephens Ltd 1966 (the
writer happens to be Sir James Martin's great niece) - well worth getting.

Regards
Mike Bennett
Project:Get Out and Walk
(always looking for contact with ejectees, their colleagues or familieS)

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

> In article >,
> BackToNormal > wrote:
> >A page at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat says
> >
> >"by mid 2003, Martin Baker ejector seats had saved 7000 lives".
> >
> >Is that figure maybe a little high?
>
> A bit low, according to Martin-Baker's own site:
>
> 7023 lives saved to date, 51 this year.
>
> http://www.martin-baker.com/
>
> Delving a bit deeper, the rate of increase was:
>
> 1946: First live ejection
> 1965: 1000 lives saved by M-B seats
> 1969: 2000 lives saved "
> 1971: 3000 lives saved "
> 1976: 4000 lives saved "
> 1983: 5000 lives saved "
> 1990: 6000 lives saved "
> 2003: 7000 lives saved "
>
> figures taken from:
> http://www.martin-baker.com/milestones.htm
>
> so it's heavily weighted towards the period 1965-1971, by
> which time most fast jets had bang-seats, there was still
> a lot of low-level stuff going on with earlier and probably
> slightly tricky jets, and the US - using jets equipped
> with MB seats - were fighting a war against an opposition
> who were capable of shooting back with some degree of
> effect - this would all tend to push seat usage up.
>
> Interesting that the highest altitude an MB seat's been
> used from (57000') was as long ago as 1958 - and was
> somewhat naturally from a Canberra. Wonder if that was
> one of the Olympus-engined specials?

Just a question, dealing from my usual ignorance: If you are that
high, wouldn't it ( usually ) be better to wait a while until the
outside air became warmer and more breathable? Several things come
to mind, such as fire or violent gyrations, that might speed up the
decision process, but I'm curious what other more knowledgeable
folks think about the concept..

Bob McKellar, who had no such option in a 172



>
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
> "Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

In article >,
Bob McKellar > wrote:

> Bob McKellar, who had no such option in a 172

Well, you do, but it would probably be easier to call it an ejection
aircraft at that point...

(Image of a small plane firing downwards, while the pilot keeps going in
a straight line)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

There's another class of ejectee's:

I remember a report from a fatal F-4 accident which stated basically
that "the ejection was successful, however the pilot impacted with a tree."


"MBenShar" > wrote
> To add to this thread
> Martin-Baker have had well over the 7000 successful ejections quoted. Many
> ejectees have never bothered to claim their "Ties and Pins" from the company so
> don't appear in the official figures. Several air forces were not as good as
> others at keeping records and so even more were not recorded. Many successful
> ejections became unsuccessful once the seat left the aircraft - in the Vietnam
> conflict many ejected and were seen on the ground and became MIAs.
> You could also add to that the many live test ejections by test ejectees using
> the M-B seats, plus you could take it even further as the Chinese have
> basically copied the later Mk-10 M-B seat and there is a Romanian company
> producing copies of the Mk-10 (to my knowledge without license)
> An excellent book that gives a record of the first 6500 ejections is Sir James
> Martin by Sarah Sharman isbn 1-85260-551-0 pub Patrick Stephens Ltd 1966 (the
> writer happens to be Sir James Martin's great niece) - well worth getting.

I agree that a few of the "successful ejections" did end in tragedy with the
pilot or crew member impacting objects. I presume they mean that the seat
worked as advertised to get the pilot out but once out other circumstances came
into play. There was the sad case when a two seat Jaguar sliced through a civil
aircraft that was flying in a restricted area. The wing came away. Both crew
ejected "successfully" - one survived - the other came out of the aircraft as
the wingless aircraft rolled and he ejected at about 200ft straight downwards
and didn't survive.

Mike Bennett
Project: Get Out and Walk

(MBenShar) wrote:

>An excellent book that gives a record of the first 6500 ejections is Sir James
>Martin by Sarah Sharman isbn 1-85260-551-0 pub Patrick Stephens Ltd 1966 (the
>writer happens to be Sir James Martin's great niece) - well worth getting.
>
>Regards
>Mike Bennett

....the book you mean of course?...
--

-Gord.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> Bob McKellar > wrote:
>
> > Bob McKellar, who had no such option in a 172
>
> Well, you do, but it would probably be easier to call it an ejection
> aircraft at that point...

Actually there are parachute systems that will attach to a small aircraft
like a 172 and float it gently to earth. Not sure what the weight penalty
is.

>
> (Image of a small plane firing downwards, while the pilot keeps going in
> a straight line)
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Leadfoot" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > Well, you do, but it would probably be easier to call it an ejection
> > aircraft at that point...
>
> Actually there are parachute systems that will attach to a small aircraft
> like a 172 and float it gently to earth. Not sure what the weight penalty
> is.

Well, yeah, but that's not as much fun...

> > (Image of a small plane firing downwards, while the pilot keeps going in
> > a straight line)

Almost certainly from Acme Industries.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >, MBenShar
> writes
>I agree that a few of the "successful ejections" did end in tragedy with the
>pilot or crew member impacting objects. I presume they mean that the seat
>worked as advertised to get the pilot out but once out other circumstances came
>into play. There was the sad case when a two seat Jaguar sliced through a civil
>aircraft that was flying in a restricted area. The wing came away. Both crew
>ejected "successfully" - one survived - the other came out of the aircraft as
>the wingless aircraft rolled and he ejected at about 200ft straight downwards
>and didn't survive.
>
ISTR that happened at least once with a Harrier. Yawing and rolling
while hovering in a crosswind, or something like that?

>Mike Bennett
>Project: Get Out and Walk

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

>Many
>ejectees have never bothered to claim their "Ties and Pins" from the company so
>don't appear in the official figures.

There's a story from the Falklands war about the Argentine pilot shot
down and captured by the British. His first question was where should
he apply for his tie.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Chad Irby > wrote:

>"Leadfoot" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>> > Well, you do, but it would probably be easier to call it an ejection
>> > aircraft at that point...
>>
>> Actually there are parachute systems that will attach to a small aircraft
>> like a 172 and float it gently to earth. Not sure what the weight penalty
>> is.
>
>Well, yeah, but that's not as much fun...
>
>> > (Image of a small plane firing downwards, while the pilot keeps going in
>> > a straight line)
>
>Almost certainly from Acme Industries.

....and I'll bet that the guy who sold it had a wolfish grin?...
--

-Gord.

"BackToNormal" > wrote in message
p.nnz...
> A page at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat says
>
> "by mid 2003, Martin Baker ejector seats had saved 7000 lives".
>
> Is that figure maybe a little high?
>
> ronh
>
> --
> "People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
> how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > BackToNormal > wrote:
> > >A page at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat says
> > >
> > >"by mid 2003, Martin Baker ejector seats had saved 7000 lives".
> > >
> > >Is that figure maybe a little high?
> >
> > A bit low, according to Martin-Baker's own site:
> >
> > 7023 lives saved to date, 51 this year.
> >
> > http://www.martin-baker.com/
> >
> > Delving a bit deeper, the rate of increase was:
> >
> > 1946: First live ejection
> > 1965: 1000 lives saved by M-B seats
> > 1969: 2000 lives saved "
> > 1971: 3000 lives saved "
> > 1976: 4000 lives saved "
> > 1983: 5000 lives saved "
> > 1990: 6000 lives saved "
> > 2003: 7000 lives saved "
> >
> > figures taken from:
> > http://www.martin-baker.com/milestones.htm
> >
> > so it's heavily weighted towards the period 1965-1971, by
> > which time most fast jets had bang-seats, there was still
> > a lot of low-level stuff going on with earlier and probably
> > slightly tricky jets, and the US - using jets equipped
> > with MB seats - were fighting a war against an opposition
> > who were capable of shooting back with some degree of
> > effect - this would all tend to push seat usage up.
> >
> > Interesting that the highest altitude an MB seat's been
> > used from (57000') was as long ago as 1958 - and was
> > somewhat naturally from a Canberra. Wonder if that was
> > one of the Olympus-engined specials?
>
> Just a question, dealing from my usual ignorance: If you are that
> high, wouldn't it ( usually ) be better to wait a while until the
> outside air became warmer and more breathable? Several things come
> to mind, such as fire or violent gyrations, that might speed up the
> decision process, but I'm curious what other more knowledgeable
> folks think about the concept..
>

If, for whatever reason, the crew need to leave the ac at high altitude then
the crew need to be protected as much as possible from the effects of the
low oxygen/cold environment. The seat supplies supplemental oxygen, but
because the pilot needs to get down to thicker/warmer air as rapidly as
possible, the main chute doesn't open right away. Instead, a smaller chute
called a drogue deploys to stabilize the seat so it doesn't tumble and to
slow the pilot's horizontal velocity. In a near free-fall, he plummets
(still in his seat) until he hits an altitude of, typically, 15-10k feet at
which point he separates from his seat and his main parachute automatically
deploys. If I recall correctly, the time taken to freefall from 55k to 15k
is about 2 mins.

>If, for whatever reason, the crew need to leave the ac at high altitude then
>the crew need to be protected as much as possible from the effects of the
>low oxygen/cold environment. The seat supplies supplemental oxygen, but
>because the pilot needs to get down to thicker/warmer air as rapidly as
>possible, the main chute doesn't open right away. Instead, a smaller chute
>called a drogue deploys to stabilize the seat so it doesn't tumble and to
>slow the pilot's horizontal velocity. In a near free-fall, he plummets
>(still in his seat) until he hits an altitude of, typically, 15-10k feet at
>which point he separates from his seat and his main parachute automatically
>deploys. If I recall correctly, the time taken to freefall from 55k to 15k
>is about 2 mins.
>
>
>
Just hope that you are not flying over an 11,000 ft mountain :-)

Al Minyard

If operating over very high terrain (Afghanistan?) then the baro-time
release unit can be adjusted to give a higher seat separation altitude.

This baro-time release unit is responsible for doing a check of seat
altitude post ejection and, if above the set altitude, it will delay
pilot-seat separation until the set altitude is reached. If ejection occurs
below the set altitude then pilot-seat separation occurs almost instantly.
The pilot still retains the facility to initiate seat separation early by
use of a lever on the seat (MB seats).


"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> >If, for whatever reason, the crew need to leave the ac at high altitude
then
> >the crew need to be protected as much as possible from the effects of the
> >low oxygen/cold environment. The seat supplies supplemental oxygen, but
> >because the pilot needs to get down to thicker/warmer air as rapidly as
> >possible, the main chute doesn't open right away. Instead, a smaller
chute
> >called a drogue deploys to stabilize the seat so it doesn't tumble and to
> >slow the pilot's horizontal velocity. In a near free-fall, he plummets
> >(still in his seat) until he hits an altitude of, typically, 15-10k feet
at
> >which point he separates from his seat and his main parachute
automatically
> >deploys. If I recall correctly, the time taken to freefall from 55k to
15k
> >is about 2 mins.
> >
> >
> >
> Just hope that you are not flying over an 11,000 ft mountain :-)
>
> Al Minyard