I worked on these at Sacramento Air Logistics Center (SMALC) from the late 1980s till they were retired by the USAF. That was a sad day for me, I had never experienced one tapping at the sound barrier except for that one day. When the Gulf war was finished I watched as 111’s from Lakenheath, Cannon AFB, Luke AFB and locally were wrapped in foil and placed on flatbed trucks and sent down to Davis-Monthan, “The Bone-Yard”. Some of those planes still had wet sealant and wet paint on them. Thank God for the Aussies which flew them for several more years.
They used to do a Dump and Burn EVERY YEAR for "River Fire" in my home town of Brisbane Queensland, Australia...everyone held out for the RAF F-111 Fly over...although, they used to set off every car alarm for miles lol... ruclips.net/video/D2Vq3EyRI9w/видео.html
In 1977 I watched one up close and real life as a Engineer at Eglin AFB in the 3214th Armament Development and Test Squadron. One of our F-111's came in for a landing with trapped fuel in the aft tanks, tried to land it, no go, pulled up in max climb in full AB , right at mid runway, amazing to watch the pod come off at about 1000 feet. Everything worked perfectly, saw it land about 100 yards in front of me, pilots get out and stand there and light cigarettes and watch the jet burn as it had fallen straight down on the runway. Worked F-111E, F, and EF-111A in the Air Force in England.
My pa and uncle were part of this program. So proud of them and their contribution to defense of United States and American people. They were the ejection dummies.
Madison County Sound Labs oh yeah. Can’t say it often enough. So thx 😽..like that emoji. Nope, I’m not an female cat, so please don't develop some erotically feelings for me. Apropos..has anybody seen Jeff Quitney?
I highly recommand the Fighter Pilot Podcast Episode 111. Where former F-111 pilots talk about their knowledge and experiences about the plane. Especially the ejection module.
Our pleasure! Love our channel? Help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
I remember playing on one of these modules. It was over 30 years ago. It was dumped outside RAF Woodbridge (I think!) I still have pictures of it. I had a piece of it for years, lost now !
Those are cherished now. To think one was laying in the woods in England. Cool Vark story. Thanks. I saw you little buggers running around kicking the ball and never touching it. I thought that was pretty cool to.
I worked for Grumman on Long Island in 1981 ,and the first program that I was working on was the EF111 A . I knew about the crew escape module from one of my coworkers who was in the Air Force and was a crew chief on the F111A. He told about how this system worked, but not as detailed as this video. Thank you for the video.
there was a report that was made in the late 60,s about the escape system that the chute failed to properly deploy and it landed upside down and tumbled into a ravine and killed the crew when they had to eject from the jet after both engines malfunctioned while on a training mission .
I worked on the EF111A’s and one of the fire extinguisher bottles was in the nose wheel well right beside the discharge nozzle of the capsule rocket motor. Every so many hours we would have to change out the extinguisher explosive squib and your face would be right at the discharge of the rocket motor nozzle. Needless to say it was a little unnerving when you would ground the squib wiring to discharge any static electricity before connecting a new squib that was the equivalent to a 10 ga. Shot gun shell of explosive.😅
In this U.S. Air Force training film (TF-6164b) from 1968, viewers learn about the ejection, recovery, and landing of the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark Crew Module Escape System, an “escape crew capsule system
The module was designed for the early models, when the Air Force added the long nose and cathode Ray tube displays for the terrain following systems it overloaded the module.we had several failures in the F111d at Clovis NM. Pilots lost faith in it.
It was nice to see this film again. The narrator left out the part about proper body positioning during ejection though. If you were not in the proper position and not ready for ejection then you may of and probably did cause injury to your back. And if you were over water the capsule could and turn upside down due to the air bags on the bottom. I don’t have personal experience thank God👍
Thanks for sharing this interesting and informative film, but, what did they do if they had a cockpit fire, ejection would be pointless, you would just take the problem with you. Thumbs up 👍
CaseinNitrat JR sorry for not replying sooner. So they can select whether to eject the whole capsule or just the seats individually?, wow, that is scary stuff, it’s a very complicated system to eject a whole capsule under all flight envelopes, but to then have a ejection seat as a separate system seems to be over complicating crew egress systems, three systems ( 2 seats and the module) means three times as much to go wrong. Even when the F-111 was first introduced into service ejection seats were perfectly adequate in doing what they needed to, getting the crew out of harms way and back to terra firma in one piece, maybe not in the USA, I don’t know, but Martin Baker seats were in use in many aircraft and countries. It seems just to complex and unnecessary to have such system, at least if you eject behind enemy lines using a conventional seat it is easily hidden depending on where it landed, but the parachute itself can easily be buried or camouflaged, but a module of the F-111s size would be impossible to even cover up. I think somebody must have made the ultimate presentation to get this system approved and bought by the USA military bosses.
Dj Phantom you're right. These capsules did not have ejection seats. But would be awesome with ;)). I joked an bit;[ ]. Sry. I guess these capsules have their right for existence. 1000 mp/h not an comfortable environment to bail out.
One of the funniest aircraft accident/incident reports I read was from an FB-111 crew as they descended into a pine forest. The report included measurements in approximate centimetres, from a crew members legs and groin, of a tree trunk that split off and penetrated the floor of the capsule. I always wondered if it was fake, or if the floor of the capsule in front of the seats was actually thin enough for a 4 inch diameter section of trunk to pop up through between a crew member's legs. I had wrench benders tell me it was possible, but the ones that said it were known for "exaggeration."
Here's the issue: Tens of thousands of films similar to this one have been lost forever -- destroyed -- and many others are at risk. Our company preserves these precious bits of history one film at a time. How do we afford to do that? By selling them as stock footage to documentary filmmakers and broadcasters. If we did not have a counter, we could not afford to post films like these online, and no films would be preserved. It's that simple. So we ask you to bear with the watermark and timecodes. In the past we tried many different systems including placing our timer at the bottom corner of our videos. What happened? Unscrupulous RUclips users downloaded our vids, blew them up so the timer was not visible, and re-posted them as their own content! We had to use content control to have the videos removed and shut down these channels. It's hard enough work preserving these films and posting them, without having to spend precious time dealing with policing thievery -- and not what we devoted ourselves to do. Love our channel and want to support what we do? You can help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
Exactly Benny Löfgren 😉 Would be really expensive an 787 flight with only around 20 passengers. Sad that safety is an question of money. Everyone should have their own escape capsule 😆.
Snxppy Please replace your "physically" with "economically". You’ve seen the escape system from the convair B 58 and North American XB 70? Btw..Did we both had an beer together? Friend? If not... cheers 🍻 friend.
@@caseinnitratjr6861 ...Imagine the lawsuits, imagine the risks, imagine the waivers, imagine the increase in ticket costs, imagine the increase in weight, the decrease in efficiency, Imagine the restrictions. Sorry sir, you're not tall enough, sorry child, you're too short. Sorry you have previous spinal issues. Sorry, we don't fly people over 60 or who have serious heart issues. You want to increase weight and expense for what is already a safe industry by strapping what would likely be a self-sealing, pressurized, escape capsule, with several rockets parachutes attached to it for the incredibly unlikely event that a plane is going to crash (with adequate warning and altitude)? This idea isn't just stupid. It's monumentally retarded. Everything is economics and aviation is a tombstone industry. You're going to need a lot of people die in situations that would likely be dual engine-outs before you find anyone serious even suggesting this. Even then you'd be better off spending the money/effort on better engines. The most common crashes are CFIT nowadays. You're not going to benefit from "escape capsules" if the pilots fly you into a mountain. Imagine one of these rockets going off on the ground? You've just lost 10s of millions in a lawsuit. Imagine a stray current activating one. These types of systems broke people's backs in the f-111. The clamshell system in the Valkyrie is not something you'd want to use and was a serious weight problem. There's a reason they were abandoned, surely you would know this if you'd looked into their usage. The last time they were used they killed one and seriously injured the another. They were also only considerations due to the speed of the planes. The only thing this type of system should have been in that it wasn't, was the space shuttle. Also, 787s don't just have 20 seats. They have >250. Have fun convincing anyone to buy a plane with so many risks involved and constant inspection of every seat. Even a simple ejection seats on airplanes would be retarded. As would parachutes. They'd NEVER be used.
If they worked a little harder they could have made another airplane eject out of the F-111 such that the pilots could fight on! That would be both awesome and funny if it could be done several times. Start with a C-5 sized aircraft and each time it is shot down a smaller aircraft ejects and re-enters the dogfight. 😁
I am guessing a system like this is now use on the B-1 and B-2 I figure the A-6 was a standard ejection. Must have keep the engineers busy designing it.
@@richardthorne8772 There was an ejection from an F111 here in Cambridgeshire UK a few years back. Nobody suffered injury, there was just the usual smoking hole in the ground!
I think they're 'splitting hairs' with the singular and plural use of the term 'module'. By way of example, a 'Crew escape Module' would indicate the entire crew in a single module (F-111). 'Crew escape modules' would suggest 1 module per crew member (B-58). But being a child of the 60's ... I could be trippin' here ;-)
They could have a Module in the 60s but couldn't do one for the space shuttle. No to mutch money Ney a capcell would not need A lot of heat shield at 120.000ft that's where the Colombia brok up. Capcel like b58 would have worked.b1 tipe capcel would of been better. And would have worked. May be weight Leave 2 people on the ground.
Even something like what was in the B58 bomber would have saved the colmbua astronauts. The shuttle broke up 112000 ft. Fewer astronauts for the room but it would have worked.
In fact, the control column becomes a bilge pump, so it can stay afloat for quite awhile. SAR would most likely pick them up before the capsule sinks, though during a shooting war, that isn't a guarantee.
The initial F-111 test pilots took one look at this ejection monstrosity and said 'the first poor bastards who have to use that are dead'. Sadly, they were right.
These capsule systems do NOT work reliably. Escape capsule systems are heavier and more complicated than a regular ejection seat. The more complexity you introduce into a system, the more things can go wrong with it. Regardless of whatever escape system they've devised, people have been killed or injured badly with every ejection mechanism implemented. In theory, a capsule system sounds nice but it introduces more bulk and the reliability of these systems in practice have NOT justified using them. They were used on the first 3 B-1s ever built but designed out of the fourth B-1A and NEVER used in the B-1B's, 100 of which were built. That should tell you something! The F-111 crews were reluctant to use the escape system they had because they knew the contractor had not tested the capsule under all flight regimes. There were F-111 crew members killed by the capsule system. It's possible some F-111 crew members who were killed may have survived using more conventional ejection seats. Allegedly, the crew capsule system was a requirement of the US Navy when it was involved in the TFX/F-111 program. They wanted a system to higher chance of crew survival in a naval environment. It really just made the F-111 that much heavier and I don't think the actual ejection experience justified designing the escape capsule into the airframe. Because they tried to make the F-111 airframe as common as possible between the Navy and Air Force (the same messy arrangement with the F-35, btw), the Air Force was stuck with design features (extra strong tailhook and the crew capsule) which made no sense for a land-based tactical plane. They probably could have shaved 3000-5000 lbs out of the airframe (empty weight!) removing the naval features but that would have required spending additional money to redesign the stupid plane!!!! They had ejection seats in the A-6 Intruder which also had side-by-side seating like the F-111 and they got the crew out safely. The major difference between the A-6 and F-111 was that the F-111 was capable of supersonic speeds. People have survived ejections up to at least Mach 3 and altitudes of up to 70,000 ft -- both records were achieved in an SR-71 at the same time in the late 1960s. The SR-71 did NOT have an escape capsule system OR clamshell ejectors like the XB-70/B-58. Lockheed figured they were putting Blackbird crews at enough risk with new materials and higher performance in the SR-71 and kept the escape system as simple as they could! NASA looked at using an escape capsule for the space shuttle but it would have complicated the shuttle and made it heavier and more expensive to build. For their test flights, both Shuttle Columbia and Enterprise used SR-71 ejections seats. When Columbia was declared operational, they removed the ejection seats. No shuttles besides the first two ever had ejection seats installed. Ejection seats or escape capsules would probably not have saved the crews of either the Columbia or Challenger. There are specific conditions under which you can use escape systems and I believe both shuttles were out of those "safe escape" zones -- for Columbia, I'm 100% sure of that. They had ejection seats installed for the Gemini capsules to get out in case of a failure of the Titan II launch rocket but the Ground Controllers never liked the seats. They believed the ejections seats might operate outside the survivable zone -- the launch rocket would accelerate too quickly past the survivable performance limits of the ejection seats, the crew might be roasted by the rocket motors OR collide with the vehicle, or the Gemini crew could possibly pass through the rocket exhaust and be poisoned. One of the dangers of rocket launches are the exhaust fumes. They're highly toxic and that's the reason why launch-watching public is isolated miles from the launch pad. That separation allows time and distance for the exhaust fumes to dissipate and their toxicity to drop well below the lethal limits (PPM) the government recognizes.
@@AvengerII You mention the altitude and airspeed records set by aircrews ejecting from the SR-71, with more traditional ejection seats. I believe they wore more substantial, astronaut style, flight suits, enhancing survivability under those conditions.
@@terrysaunders2026 Yes. Those were basically astronaut suits. Supposedly, they did share some tech between what Lockheed developed for the spy planes (SR-71 mainly) and what NASA used later. The Lockheed SR suits look a lot like what was used for the Space Shuttle program for take off and re-entry. The suits used by the U-2 back in the day (1950s and 1960s) used to be more like the pressure the Mercury astronauts used, the "foily-looking" silver pressure suits. The U-2 suits were later upgraded to a higher standard and everybody wears the orange-type suits the SR and Space Shuttle crews wore. They use similar astronaut suits in the record-breaking altitude and time-to-climb tests. A normal flight suit is not going to protect some going above 40,000 ft if cabin pressurization fails! Most decently-powered fighter jets can fly far higher than acknowledged in their published specs BUT their environmental control systems are only rated up to specific altitudes. F-16s, for instance, can fly above 70,000 ft in a power climb but their ECS is rated to only 54,000 ft-56,000 ft. If you want go higher with a greater degree of safety, the plane has to be modified and the pilot will be wearing basically a spacesuit. I'm pretty sure the test pilots who set the records in the F-15 Streak Eagle in the mid-1970s did wear SR-style pressure suits. That F-15 easily flew above 100,000 ft at least once.
All other aircraft have plain ejection seats which have a successful track record. The video of the ejection not going properly are early tests and seats have since been perfected. This is justification for spending money to develop a crew ejection module.
If you would like to watch a video of an F111 pilot/crew that actually ejected here is a good video: ruclips.net/video/S8vfzPswpyA/видео.html Quite a good story teller as well. Seems a bit more violent than the instructor in the video states. 👍🤠
Here's the issue: Tens of thousands of films similar to this one have been lost forever -- destroyed -- and many others are at risk. Our company preserves these precious bits of history one film at a time. How do we afford to do that? By selling them as stock footage to documentary filmmakers and broadcasters. If we did not have a counter, we could not afford to post films like these online, and no films would be preserved. It's that simple. So we ask you to bear with the watermark and timecodes. In the past we tried many different systems including placing our timer at the bottom corner of our videos. What happened? Unscrupulous RUclips users downloaded our vids, blew them up so the timer was not visible, and re-posted them as their own content! We had to use content control to have the videos removed and shut down these channels. It's hard enough work preserving these films and posting them, without having to spend precious time dealing with policing thievery -- and not what we devoted ourselves to do. Love our channel and want to support what we do? You can help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
I worked on these at Sacramento Air Logistics Center (SMALC) from the late 1980s till they were retired by the USAF. That was a sad day for me, I had never experienced one tapping at the sound barrier except for that one day. When the Gulf war was finished I watched as 111’s from Lakenheath, Cannon AFB, Luke AFB and locally were wrapped in foil and placed on flatbed trucks and sent down to Davis-Monthan, “The Bone-Yard”. Some of those planes still had wet sealant and wet paint on them. Thank God for the Aussies which flew them for several more years.
Their maintenance was crazy expensive
@@tiadanama1998I have yet to meet another mechanic that actually admit to working on the landing gear
Yes we did...and loved them!
They used to do a Dump and Burn EVERY YEAR for "River Fire" in my home town of Brisbane Queensland, Australia...everyone held out for the RAF F-111 Fly over...although, they used to set off every car alarm for miles lol... ruclips.net/video/D2Vq3EyRI9w/видео.html
In 1977 I watched one up close and real life as a Engineer at Eglin AFB in the 3214th Armament Development and Test Squadron.
One of our F-111's came in for a landing with trapped fuel in the aft tanks, tried to land it, no go, pulled up in max climb in full AB , right at mid runway, amazing to watch the pod come off at about 1000 feet.
Everything worked perfectly, saw it land about 100 yards in front of me, pilots get out and stand there and light cigarettes and watch the jet burn as it had fallen straight down on the runway.
Worked F-111E, F, and EF-111A in the Air Force in England.
My pa and uncle were part of this program. So proud of them and their contribution to defense of United States and American people. They were the ejection dummies.
Thank you for what you do in bringing us these priceless films showing rare situations and events in history.
You are greatly appreciated!!😀👍
Madison County Sound Labs oh yeah.
Can’t say it often enough. So thx 😽..like that emoji.
Nope, I’m not an female cat, so please don't develop some erotically feelings for me.
Apropos..has anybody seen Jeff Quitney?
@@caseinnitratjr6861 He's on vimeo
@Jean Bigboute thx
I highly recommand the Fighter Pilot Podcast Episode 111. Where former F-111 pilots talk about their knowledge and experiences about the plane. Especially the ejection module.
I always learn something new from watching your informative videos. Thank you for your efforts in providing this information.
Our pleasure! Love our channel? Help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
I remember playing on one of these modules. It was over 30 years ago. It was dumped outside RAF Woodbridge (I think!) I still have pictures of it. I had a piece of it for years, lost now !
Those are cherished now. To think one was laying in the woods in England. Cool Vark story. Thanks. I saw you little buggers running around kicking the ball and never touching it. I thought that was pretty cool to.
@@bad71hd Hi definitely from an F111. I still have the pictures. USAF operated F111 from UK bases. I'll dig out the pics 🙂
@@markdavis2475 I don't suppose you uploaded those pictures?
@@ek8710 Hi. Funny enough, I actually found them the other day. I can scan them, what's the best way to share them?
@@markdavis2475 you can upload them to imgur and send links to them. The site doesn't require an account and it's anonymous.
Lovely plane, brilliant, *careful* design, superb vid. Thanks.
We have had 2 RAAF F-111C crashes here in NZ and the crew lived to talk about it✈️👍🇳🇿
I worked for Grumman on Long Island in 1981 ,and the first program that I was working on was the EF111 A . I knew about the crew escape module from one of my coworkers who was in the Air Force and was a crew chief on the F111A. He told about how this system worked, but not as detailed as this video. Thank you for the video.
Great video--one of the most informative and well produced I've seen! Thanks for sharing it with us!
there was a report that was made in the late 60,s about the escape system that the chute failed to properly deploy and it landed upside down and tumbled into a ravine and killed the crew when they had to eject from the jet after both engines malfunctioned while on a training mission .
Thank you! WE appreciate you!
This was really cool.
Would be super, but expensive, to create more of those systems for planes! Would save a lot of lives!
Here's a weird piece of trivia. The sound of an F-111 flyby was included on the Voyager space probe Golden Record. Why this was done is a mystery.
Product placement?
Point of pride for aerospace engineering?
fantastic model there
I worked on the EF111A’s and one of the fire extinguisher bottles was in the nose wheel well right beside the discharge nozzle of the capsule rocket motor. Every so many hours we would have to change out the extinguisher explosive squib and your face would be right at the discharge of the rocket motor nozzle. Needless to say it was a little unnerving when you would ground the squib wiring to discharge any static electricity before connecting a new squib that was the equivalent to a 10 ga. Shot gun shell of explosive.😅
In this U.S. Air Force training film (TF-6164b) from 1968, viewers learn about the ejection, recovery, and landing of the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark Crew Module Escape System, an “escape crew capsule system
I know why you have the counter,just wish it could be lower on the video.
The module was designed for the early models, when the Air Force added the long nose and cathode Ray tube displays for the terrain following systems it overloaded the module.we had several failures in the F111d at Clovis NM. Pilots lost faith in it.
The Ardvark should be renamed for a living President. Bad press but a wonderful airplane. The Russians had nightmares over that airplane.
Hey, would you mind not bucking rivets for 5 minutes so we can get this shot?
I really like that scale model used towards the end of the presentation, I wonder if it still exists.
Same here. I dont usually drool over stuff like that, but that was an awesome piece! Maybe do a diy?
It was nice to see this film again. The narrator left out the part about proper body positioning during ejection though. If you were not in the proper position and not ready for ejection then you may of and probably did cause injury to your back. And if you were over water the capsule could and turn upside down due to the air bags on the bottom. I don’t have personal experience thank God👍
Thanks for sharing this interesting and informative film, but, what did they do if they had a cockpit fire, ejection would be pointless, you would just take the problem with you. Thumbs up 👍
Hi Dj Phantom
You’re right.
I guess you have then, to escape the escape capsule via ejection seat:[s].
CaseinNitrat JR sorry for not replying sooner. So they can select whether to eject the whole capsule or just the seats individually?, wow, that is scary stuff, it’s a very complicated system to eject a whole capsule under all flight envelopes, but to then have a ejection seat as a separate system seems to be over complicating crew egress systems, three systems ( 2 seats and the module) means three times as much to go wrong. Even when the F-111 was first introduced into service ejection seats were perfectly adequate in doing what they needed to, getting the crew out of harms way and back to terra firma in one piece, maybe not in the USA, I don’t know, but Martin Baker seats were in use in many aircraft and countries. It seems just to complex and unnecessary to have such system, at least if you eject behind enemy lines using a conventional seat it is easily hidden depending on where it landed, but the parachute itself can easily be buried or camouflaged, but a module of the F-111s size would be impossible to even cover up. I think somebody must have made the ultimate presentation to get this system approved and bought by the USA military bosses.
Dj Phantom you're right. These capsules did not have ejection seats. But would be awesome with ;)). I joked an bit;[ ]. Sry.
I guess these capsules have their right for existence. 1000 mp/h not an comfortable environment to bail out.
Automatic fire extinguishers.
They'd knock it out
One of the funniest aircraft accident/incident reports I read was from an FB-111 crew as they descended into a pine forest. The report included measurements in approximate centimetres, from a crew members legs and groin, of a tree trunk that split off and penetrated the floor of the capsule. I always wondered if it was fake, or if the floor of the capsule in front of the seats was actually thin enough for a 4 inch diameter section of trunk to pop up through between a crew member's legs. I had wrench benders tell me it was possible, but the ones that said it were known for "exaggeration."
Sea-story rule #1, Never let facts get in the way of a good story ... :-)
Impressive footage of the timecode - Please put it lower in the frame so you can actually see the footage.
Here's the issue: Tens of thousands of films similar to this one have been lost forever -- destroyed -- and many others are at risk. Our company preserves these precious bits of history one film at a time. How do we afford to do that? By selling them as stock footage to documentary filmmakers and broadcasters. If we did not have a counter, we could not afford to post films like these online, and no films would be preserved. It's that simple. So we ask you to bear with the watermark and timecodes.
In the past we tried many different systems including placing our timer at the bottom corner of our videos. What happened? Unscrupulous RUclips users downloaded our vids, blew them up so the timer was not visible, and re-posted them as their own content! We had to use content control to have the videos removed and shut down these channels. It's hard enough work preserving these films and posting them, without having to spend precious time dealing with policing thievery -- and not what we devoted ourselves to do.
Love our channel and want to support what we do? You can help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
Perfect flight safety. Invented a long time ago. Still not used 🤷♂️.
Damn money.
Imagine a 787 equipped with it :[ ]
Imagine how insanely heavy and expensive it would become. 😊
Exactly Benny Löfgren 😉
Would be really expensive an 787 flight with only around 20 passengers.
Sad that safety is an question of money. Everyone should have their own escape capsule 😆.
That is physically impossible my friend..
Snxppy Please replace your "physically" with "economically".
You’ve seen the escape system from the convair B 58 and North American XB 70?
Btw..Did we both had an beer together? Friend? If not... cheers 🍻 friend.
@@caseinnitratjr6861 ...Imagine the lawsuits, imagine the risks, imagine the waivers, imagine the increase in ticket costs, imagine the increase in weight, the decrease in efficiency, Imagine the restrictions. Sorry sir, you're not tall enough, sorry child, you're too short. Sorry you have previous spinal issues. Sorry, we don't fly people over 60 or who have serious heart issues.
You want to increase weight and expense for what is already a safe industry by strapping what would likely be a self-sealing, pressurized, escape capsule, with several rockets parachutes attached to it for the incredibly unlikely event that a plane is going to crash (with adequate warning and altitude)?
This idea isn't just stupid. It's monumentally retarded. Everything is economics and aviation is a tombstone industry. You're going to need a lot of people die in situations that would likely be dual engine-outs before you find anyone serious even suggesting this. Even then you'd be better off spending the money/effort on better engines. The most common crashes are CFIT nowadays. You're not going to benefit from "escape capsules" if the pilots fly you into a mountain.
Imagine one of these rockets going off on the ground? You've just lost 10s of millions in a lawsuit. Imagine a stray current activating one.
These types of systems broke people's backs in the f-111. The clamshell system in the Valkyrie is not something you'd want to use and was a serious weight problem. There's a reason they were abandoned, surely you would know this if you'd looked into their usage. The last time they were used they killed one and seriously injured the another. They were also only considerations due to the speed of the planes. The only thing this type of system should have been in that it wasn't, was the space shuttle.
Also, 787s don't just have 20 seats. They have >250. Have fun convincing anyone to buy a plane with so many risks involved and constant inspection of every seat. Even a simple ejection seats on airplanes would be retarded. As would parachutes. They'd NEVER be used.
The one problem with this is if the attenuation bags don't inflate landing is terrible and causes vertebra damage
They would hit the ground so hard that most crews suffered back injuries.
If they worked a little harder they could have made another airplane eject out of the F-111 such that the pilots could fight on! That would be both awesome and funny if it could be done several times. Start with a C-5 sized aircraft and each time it is shot down a smaller aircraft ejects and re-enters the dogfight. 😁
Worked all F-111 models as Avionics at depot McClellan AFB ca for many years. Anyone else there?
Didn't realize the whole damn aircraft was that complicated.
It had teething issues early but it was a technological trailblazer. One of the sexiest airplanes ever IMO.
I am guessing a system like this is now use on the B-1 and B-2 I figure the A-6 was a standard ejection. Must have keep the engineers busy designing it.
Same type of system on the B1B I believe
Actually it was for the first three of the four B-1As with the fourth B-1A and all B-1Bs fitted with the ACES II ejection-seat.
What if aircrew is unconscious or disabled?
Then they die.
Red uniforms have that certain something extra!
Ejecto seato cuz
I know from experience that landing in that capsule does NOT feel like jumping onto a pillow.
I really wonder where that model is today ??? I collect large scale models and I can guarantee it would sell for over $2000.
Was this contraption ever tried in a real-world situation? Did it work?
Yes, in Vietnam and it worked
Search Jeff Guinn on RUclips. He was a former Aardvark pilot. He has excellent interviews about the F111.
F111 crew of RAAF punched out over the Hauraki gulf in New Zealand after mid air fire ,landing in the water both air crew survived
@@richardthorne8772 There was an ejection from an F111 here in Cambridgeshire UK a few years back. Nobody suffered injury, there was just the usual smoking hole in the ground!
Certainly not for Barten or Byland Sept 11, 1968
The first module escape system? Didn’t the B58 Hustler have a crew escape module? That would have been the first, just sayin’.......
I think they're 'splitting hairs' with the singular and plural use of the term 'module'. By way of example, a 'Crew escape Module' would indicate the entire crew in a single module (F-111). 'Crew escape modules' would suggest 1 module per crew member (B-58). But being a child of the 60's ... I could be trippin' here ;-)
The Hustler had ejection seats that closed completely around each member of the aircrew.
This ( oh baby 60 ' talk ) , ALSO can work underwster , , this could be a , simulated ? THEME PARK WHIZ!!! please !😂😂😂😂❤
They could have a Module in the 60s but couldn't do one for the space shuttle. No to mutch money
Ney a capcell would not need A lot of heat shield at 120.000ft that's where the Colombia brok up. Capcel like b58 would have worked.b1 tipe capcel would of been better. And would have worked. May be weight Leave 2 people on the ground.
Excellent point
Even something like what was in the B58 bomber would have saved the colmbua astronauts. The shuttle broke up 112000 ft. Fewer astronauts for the room but it would have worked.
I thought I knew alot about the F111 BUT MAYBE NOT
I wonder if it can float on water if landing in the sea.
Yes it does, for a limited period of time, but it does
In fact, the control column becomes a bilge pump, so it can stay afloat for quite awhile. SAR would most likely pick them up before the capsule sinks, though during a shooting war, that isn't a guarantee.
Kind of makes me feel like ejecting.
The initial F-111 test pilots took one look at this ejection monstrosity and said 'the first poor bastards who have to use that are dead'. Sadly, they were right.
Arsenal is US-Won?
Why not use these instead of ejection seats? Seems a lot safer at supersonic speeds.
Back in the day, the F111 operated in very unique flight envelopes and a capsule was the only way to ensure safe ejection.
These capsule systems do NOT work reliably.
Escape capsule systems are heavier and more complicated than a regular ejection seat. The more complexity you introduce into a system, the more things can go wrong with it.
Regardless of whatever escape system they've devised, people have been killed or injured badly with every ejection mechanism implemented.
In theory, a capsule system sounds nice but it introduces more bulk and the reliability of these systems in practice have NOT justified using them. They were used on the first 3 B-1s ever built but designed out of the fourth B-1A and NEVER used in the B-1B's, 100 of which were built. That should tell you something!
The F-111 crews were reluctant to use the escape system they had because they knew the contractor had not tested the capsule under all flight regimes. There were F-111 crew members killed by the capsule system. It's possible some F-111 crew members who were killed may have survived using more conventional ejection seats.
Allegedly, the crew capsule system was a requirement of the US Navy when it was involved in the TFX/F-111 program. They wanted a system to higher chance of crew survival in a naval environment. It really just made the F-111 that much heavier and I don't think the actual ejection experience justified designing the escape capsule into the airframe. Because they tried to make the F-111 airframe as common as possible between the Navy and Air Force (the same messy arrangement with the F-35, btw), the Air Force was stuck with design features (extra strong tailhook and the crew capsule) which made no sense for a land-based tactical plane. They probably could have shaved 3000-5000 lbs out of the airframe (empty weight!) removing the naval features but that would have required spending additional money to redesign the stupid plane!!!!
They had ejection seats in the A-6 Intruder which also had side-by-side seating like the F-111 and they got the crew out safely. The major difference between the A-6 and F-111 was that the F-111 was capable of supersonic speeds. People have survived ejections up to at least Mach 3 and altitudes of up to 70,000 ft -- both records were achieved in an SR-71 at the same time in the late 1960s. The SR-71 did NOT have an escape capsule system OR clamshell ejectors like the XB-70/B-58. Lockheed figured they were putting Blackbird crews at enough risk with new materials and higher performance in the SR-71 and kept the escape system as simple as they could!
NASA looked at using an escape capsule for the space shuttle but it would have complicated the shuttle and made it heavier and more expensive to build. For their test flights, both Shuttle Columbia and Enterprise used SR-71 ejections seats. When Columbia was declared operational, they removed the ejection seats. No shuttles besides the first two ever had ejection seats installed.
Ejection seats or escape capsules would probably not have saved the crews of either the Columbia or Challenger. There are specific conditions under which you can use escape systems and I believe both shuttles were out of those "safe escape" zones -- for Columbia, I'm 100% sure of that.
They had ejection seats installed for the Gemini capsules to get out in case of a failure of the Titan II launch rocket but the Ground Controllers never liked the seats. They believed the ejections seats might operate outside the survivable zone -- the launch rocket would accelerate too quickly past the survivable performance limits of the ejection seats, the crew might be roasted by the rocket motors OR collide with the vehicle, or the Gemini crew could possibly pass through the rocket exhaust and be poisoned. One of the dangers of rocket launches are the exhaust fumes. They're highly toxic and that's the reason why launch-watching public is isolated miles from the launch pad. That separation allows time and distance for the exhaust fumes to dissipate and their toxicity to drop well below the lethal limits (PPM) the government recognizes.
@@AvengerII thank you
@@AvengerII You mention the altitude and airspeed records set by aircrews ejecting from the SR-71, with more traditional ejection seats. I believe they wore more substantial, astronaut style, flight suits, enhancing survivability under those conditions.
@@terrysaunders2026 Yes. Those were basically astronaut suits. Supposedly, they did share some tech between what Lockheed developed for the spy planes (SR-71 mainly) and what NASA used later.
The Lockheed SR suits look a lot like what was used for the Space Shuttle program for take off and re-entry. The suits used by the U-2 back in the day (1950s and 1960s) used to be more like the pressure the Mercury astronauts used, the "foily-looking" silver pressure suits. The U-2 suits were later upgraded to a higher standard and everybody wears the orange-type suits the SR and Space Shuttle crews wore.
They use similar astronaut suits in the record-breaking altitude and time-to-climb tests. A normal flight suit is not going to protect some going above 40,000 ft if cabin pressurization fails! Most decently-powered fighter jets can fly far higher than acknowledged in their published specs BUT their environmental control systems are only rated up to specific altitudes. F-16s, for instance, can fly above 70,000 ft in a power climb but their ECS is rated to only 54,000 ft-56,000 ft. If you want go higher with a greater degree of safety, the plane has to be modified and the pilot will be wearing basically a spacesuit. I'm pretty sure the test pilots who set the records in the F-15 Streak Eagle in the mid-1970s did wear SR-style pressure suits. That F-15 easily flew above 100,000 ft at least once.
All other aircraft have plain ejection seats which have a successful track record. The video of the ejection not going properly are early tests and seats have since been perfected. This is justification for spending money to develop a crew ejection module.
Has anybody ever survived intact, ejecting from the F-111?
Yes, My ROTC Instructor did unharmed, Rick McKee
Yes
The guy narrating this clearly never ejected from an aircraft because interviews with F-111 crews who have done it tell a different story.
has a ejection seat or system ever malfunctioned and ejected a pilot/crew without them commanding it?
I dont know about the f111 but yes it has happened on other planes
I don't appreciate how they call the crewmen dummies.
Well they are testing the safety features, doesn't sound healthy.
If you would like to watch a video of an F111 pilot/crew that actually ejected here is a good video: ruclips.net/video/S8vfzPswpyA/видео.html Quite a good story teller as well. Seems a bit more violent than the instructor in the video states. 👍🤠
They should have put a system like that on the space shuttles...
Silly time clock makes it unwatchable and it’s not your product or copyright
Here's the issue: Tens of thousands of films similar to this one have been lost forever -- destroyed -- and many others are at risk. Our company preserves these precious bits of history one film at a time. How do we afford to do that? By selling them as stock footage to documentary filmmakers and broadcasters. If we did not have a counter, we could not afford to post films like these online, and no films would be preserved. It's that simple. So we ask you to bear with the watermark and timecodes.
In the past we tried many different systems including placing our timer at the bottom corner of our videos. What happened? Unscrupulous RUclips users downloaded our vids, blew them up so the timer was not visible, and re-posted them as their own content! We had to use content control to have the videos removed and shut down these channels. It's hard enough work preserving these films and posting them, without having to spend precious time dealing with policing thievery -- and not what we devoted ourselves to do.
Love our channel and want to support what we do? You can help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
This film was pretty degraded huh? You did a lot of work getting it to look good again huh?
See ruclips.net/video/F7O5lL8gPw0/видео.html
MAGA