Check it out.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/index.html?pn=3

Nice link - thanks Bazza!

Thanks to Bazza from me as well. That's a fine display of Australian airmanship and skill. It looks like the damage was kept to the greatest possible minimum. It'll take a bit of work, but that Vark, and others, will fly again soon...even WITH the well-known Australian reputation for being sticklers for the smallest of details in aviation safety. Hats off to the crew, they saved a few million bucks by not testing their crew module's landing bag's shock absorption capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by IguanaKing:Hats off to the crew, they saved a few million bucks by not testing their crew module's landing bag's shock absorption capabilities.

Probably because they knew the capabilities sucked, the thing will go to 45G for 0.1 second WITH the bag, and god forbid landing sideways. However, at high altitudes and high speeds, this thing is the best there is next to a teleportation system.
Lol, they should install light low performance ejection seats in the module to spare the crew from the horrors of landing, or at least give them parachutes.
A water landing is the only feasable option with that capsule, landing on grass, or dry Australian soil would be bad for the crew and good for the hospital personnel employment rates.
But I still like the capsule, too bad there isn't any video footage of the B-1A module tests, that would be so awesome, seeing a thing the size of a camper fly off. The B-1A's module got sacked because of the high forces during landing, after a live "proof of concept" at low level where the pilot lost his life due to the hard impact.

But how would they reliably deal with the rocket blast hazards in a side-by-side configuration? Know how the L-39 deals with that hazard? A 4" thick piece of plexiglass just forward of the aft crew member's panel.

The A-6, Su-24, and the Su-34 have the same "problem" But, as far as I know, there have been no complaints from Su-24 ejectees (and the seats in there go with a .5 sec. seperation)

Thats because both seats launch at the exact same time. This way no one gets burned. I know this is fact in the A-6 at least.

quote:

Originally posted by helk61:
Thats because both seats launch at the exact same time. This way no one gets burned. I know this is fact in the A-6 at least.

It is not a fact in the A-6, nor in the Su-24 and Su-34, they get launched one by one, with the interval for the su-34 being 0.2 seconds. This to ensure enough seperation to prevent parachute entanglement. Judging by a test video, the su-34 has some way of protecting the WSO from getting burned by the pilot's seat, the pilot's seat rail is slightly angled towards the WSO (roughly 5 degrees in his direction). So that when the pilot ejects first, the WSO won't get the rocket burns in his face.

The only modern side-by side config planes that have simultaneous ejections are the S-3B, in which the crew is ejected in two pairs, and the Tu-160, in which all four crewmembers are ejected at once, of differing trajectories. Oh, and the F-111B-

The A-6 has no simultaneous ejection, and the seats are not sequenced. The EA-6 however has a sequence, but all four crewmembers leave one by one. Here is the EA-6 sequence:
0 sec: left rear
0.4 sec: right rear
0.8 sec: right front
1.2 sec: front left (pilot)