Timeline for Why are fighter pilots seated and not reclined?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2021 at 17:23 | comment | added | quiet flyer | (Ctd) It's unclear whether you are saying that the reclining seat position in this case (whatever aircraft we are talking about) helps or hinders w/ clearance with the sun shield during ejection. (I'm pretty sure you were speaking of an aircraft flown on this planet, hence "sun" should be singular.) ;) | |
| Jun 10, 2021 at 17:21 | comment | added | quiet flyer | (Ctd) Re "Also ejection out of the jet.. which can be career ending... your knees have to clear that dash on the way out... so they had to make sure the seat gets you clear of the suns-shield /dash and the vertical tall as you are fired toward it... " -- this sentence is pretty much incomprehensible if you don't tell us which plane you are talking about. Anyway it appears you are talking about some aircraft in which these design goals were able to be met despite a reclining seat position-- so how it's not clear how this part of the answer is relevant to the question. | |
| Jun 10, 2021 at 17:16 | comment | added | quiet flyer | This answer is very hard to understand. Re "The Recline was to get the seat in the jet... that is the primary reason." Which "jet" are you speaking of? Please specify. If the F-16, are you asserting that the reclining seat was chosen more to minimize the cross-section than to increase pilot's G-loading tolerance? What is your evidence for this? Re"On long ferry missions not much pressure is on your sit bones and back." Are you saying this is true because of the reclined seat, or just that it's true in general and thus there's no reason to adopt a reclined seat to help w/ these issues? | |
| S Jun 8, 2017 at 12:37 | history | suggested | tuxayo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed typo "you knees" → "your knees" (see http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/90014/347396 for the explantion of the nbsp)
|
| Jun 8, 2017 at 11:59 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 8, 2017 at 12:37 | |||||
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:35 | comment | added | 007 | yeah.... the good old days of the single role fighter are gone... if you compare the the A-7 Corsair II to the F-16 you can really see how early block F16 air to ground mode is almost a direct software copy of the A7. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 19:50 | comment | added | Trevor_G | True..it also doesn't help that the requirements change a lot from inception to delivery.... "OH.. didn't we mention we we need this interceptor to do ground support too...!" | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 19:34 | comment | added | Trevor_G | Yup..always the way,,, | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 19:34 | comment | added | 007 | Cockpit design back during the Fighter Mafia days was a brutal process... Engineers want one thing, the Military leadership wanted something else... Stuff like in cockpit fuel shut off and breakers can be placed in places that make no sense... so a lot of factors go into it.. also when you are being shot at you don't want any buttons or switches in areas that will degrade the jet or it's system... that's why some stuff is places in odd spots... | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 19:28 | comment | added | 007 | Ahh ok.. Well the B1 has a ejection pod... the Su-27 series as well as the MiG 29 series as well as the F-35 have auto eject systems on the jets. In the Case of the 27-35 the Ekron determines when the jet is not viable and pushes the pilot out.. the F35 uses a similar system but it is because the eject angle is critical due to the the way the cockpit opens | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 19:18 | comment | added | Trevor_G | Yes I realize the classic ejection method would not work..but if you are going to redesign the entire cockpit that would all be part and parcel of it. See my latest comment on the main question. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 19:09 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 6, 2017 at 19:19 | |||||
| Jun 6, 2017 at 19:08 | history | answered | 007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |