Sad Tale of a IO-360 A3B6D. Be careful folks!

[Pinecone]

5 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Three point harness is better than four, reason is you submarine a four point, 5 point is best. The diagonal belt on a three point helps stop you from sliding out under the lap belt.

There are 4 pt that deal with that.

I have Schroth harnesses in my M3 for track use.  They are "4 point" in that they have dual shoulder straps, but an X yoke.  The straps come together, then separate to the anchor points.

But one of the two straps has a section that is designed to allow your torso to rotate a bit to prevent submarining.

One thing to think about, every military aircraft I flew had a 4 point harness.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Pinecone said:

There are 4 pt that deal with that.

One thing to think about, every military aircraft I flew had a 4 point harness.

 

That’s because they don’t want to squeeze the junk.

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, Pinecone said:

There are 4 pt that deal with that.

I have Schroth harnesses in my M3 for track use.  They are "4 point" in that they have dual shoulder straps, but an X yoke.  The straps come together, then separate to the anchor points.

But one of the two straps has a section that is designed to allow your torso to rotate a bit to prevent submarining.

One thing to think about, every military aircraft I flew had a 4 point harness.

 

I had the Schroth ASM 4-pts in two different track cars.   One of the shoulder belts is designed to yield under tension so that one shoulder moves forward and keeps you from submarining the same way a 3-pt belt works.  They have to be worn correctly, though, with the lap belt *very* tight so that it stays on your pelvis and doesn't move up into your soft middle bits, and the shoulder belts not so tight that they pull the lap belt up.

A 5-pt doesn't restrain you from submarining with the 5-th (or sixth) straps, instead those straps are there to keep the lap belt low on your pelvis, and that restrains you.   Single seat/open wheel cars where you're much more reclined need the 6-pts so that they go into tension and pull the lap belt down and rotate your pelvis up immediately on a forward impact.

I spent way too much time learning race safety engineering when I started racing, but that was back in the era when they were just starting to really get serious and scientific about race safety (middle 90s, early 2000s), and everything was evolving pretty quickly.   It was an interesting time for all that.

I did learn at the time that some of the better research that had been done on belt/strap material was done by the Army for helicopter restraints.   They were worried about material degradation since their aircraft are generally stored outdoors with sun exposure.   Some of the SFI standards came from that and it apparently influenced FIA standards at the time as well for materials and longevity.

GA aircraft belts that are stored outside and get sun exposure should be inspected carefully periodically, especially for belts over ten years old or so.  

Anyway, it's just a topic that I spent a lot of time on over the years.   I got a back injury once after a crash where the belts didn't work properly due to a suboptimal lap belt tensioner design.   I found out afterwards that the problem had been previously identified by a California race shop, but they weren't able to get the manufacturer to acknowledge the problem.   I stopped using that manufacturer's stuff after that.   

It's worth taking this stuff seriously.

[M20F]

If you have a strong forearm you can just brace yourself on the dash.  

[Pinecone]

What did you race?

I ran Spec Racer Ford in the 2000s.    I need to get the car upgraded to Gen 3 specs.

SCCA requires belts to be changed every 5 years.

[EricJ]

15 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

What did you race?

I ran Spec Racer Ford in the 2000s.    I need to get the car upgraded to Gen 3 specs.

SCCA requires belts to be changed every 5 years.

Fendered cars, usually sedans.   Performance Touring and Time Trials with NASA.    I just sold my BMW E36 which means I am without a dedicated race/track car for the first time in about 25 years.   

[201Steve]

Well since we are talking about dual mags falling off again, I’ll point out that a particular engine shop in MO doesn’t agree with Si 1508c so, there’s that. Make sure your dual mag is torqued to spec!! Make sure your mechanic agrees with the spec! 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, 201Steve said:

Well since we are talking about dual mags falling off again, I’ll point out that a particular engine shop in MO doesn’t agree with Si 1508c so, there’s that. Make sure your dual mag is torqued to spec!! Make sure your mechanic agrees with the spec! 

Why doubt factory improvements to the product when there’s a cheaper way!

[Pinecone]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

Fendered cars, usually sedans.   Performance Touring and Time Trials with NASA.    I just sold my BMW E36 which means I am without a dedicated race/track car for the first time in about 25 years.   

If you are into BMWs you will like my play car.

1995 BMW M3 LTW.

[A64Pilot]

19 hours ago, Pinecone said:

 

One thing to think about, every military aircraft I flew had a 4 point harness.

 

Must have been old aircraft then. I’ve only flown Army, but everything since the Huey has 5 point.

If your four point crossed on your chest, thats sort of a dual three point, it’s the diagonal that helps prevent subbing the lap belt, of course with a 5 point your not going to sub that.

5 point can be very comfortable done right they aren’t tight there unless you slide your butt forward, and the 5th point can contain the latch so each belt can be individually snapped in as opposed to trying to slide everything over one.

Not that I think a 5 point is correct for a GA airplane, I don’t.

‘What we need in my opinion is an inertia reel for the shoulder harness

[Pinecone]

Nope.  T-37 and T-38 had a normal belt over each shoulder.  Attached to buckle in lap belt in center of lap.

The A-10 connected to the parachute harness.  You shoulder belts were also the parachute risers.  Lap belt was a single lap belt.

In the AT-38B and A-10A, we had an additional connection to the survival kit, but that only connected you to it.

[A64Pilot]

Most Fixed wing Military aircraft aren’t designed to crash, you may think that BS, but all your EP’s end with eject, so very little crashworthiness is built into the airframe etc. The big boys who don’t have seats I assume may be crashworthy, but I don’t know.

Besides those aircraft in your list are I believe what we used to call Legacy aircraft, AKA old.

For that reason a fixed wing helmet does very poorly in a crash, because it’s not designed for that, The reason Army helicopter helmets look sort of like Space Ball helmets is the crash protection and to a great extent weight, Helicopters don’t pull sustain high G maneuvers. Because you don’t eject from an Army helicopter, you ride it in, So Army helicopters are very crash worthy, fuel systems break away and don’t spill fuel and the seats and structure around the crew are designed to absorb impact etc, where fixed wing aircraft aren’t. Because your supposed to be hanging in a chute watching the crash as an observer.

So your helmet is to provide communication, a place to anchor the mask and very limited protection for an ejection, but it’s not crashworthy. I spent a lot of time trying to educate Ag pilots on that, but they kept buying fixed wing helmets anyway.

[Pinecone]

That's because fixed wing helmets look cooler.

And I have personally stress tested a fixed wing helmet and it did a fine job of protecting my head.

And the newer ones have a more shock absorbing liner.

As for legacy, the A-10 is same vintage (within a year) of the F-16 and F/A-18, and only the F-22 and F=-35 are newer.

And about the same intro date as the M20J.

 

 

[A64Pilot]

50 yrs, is old. I know about the same as a J, but 50 yrs is old especially for a first line Military aircraft.

AH-64 and UH-60 are probably approaching that and honestly should be replaced, not because they are bad, but because with the advances that have been made, replacements would be better.

Truth is however that we think the other side isn’t producing new designs, so we quit advancing. My opinion is the day of the manned fighter ended two decades ago, but for the ego’s associated. Helicopters aren’t there yet, but will be.

But that’s another subject.

The thing is though if you have an ejection seat, you don’t design the aircraft for crash survivability, because doing so increases cost and weight and degrades performance. So you design the pilots gear to protect during an ejection event, not to be crash survivable

[Fly Boomer]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

You shoulder belts were also the parachute risers.

Clever design.

[carusoam]

Holy cow…

I’m glad we are all on the same team….  

There is a lot of fresh aircraft crash video all around YouTube lately… mostly from the other team…

 

One today started with a Manpad launch aimed at a KA52 alligator… small explosion ensued… two blades visibly separated from the aircraft…. As the aircraft continued on its original direction, sort of…. Two aviators under canopy were seen as the wreckage continued towards the ground…

It must be interesting ejecting out of a helicopter with blades rotating above your head….

 

Go YouTube…!

Best regards,

-a-

[Pinecone]

On 10/14/2022 at 3:22 PM, Fly Boomer said:

Clever design.

Yes.  And the chute stays in the seat, so less stuff to carry to/from the aircraft.  You just put on the harness.

[Pinecone]

On 10/14/2022 at 10:44 PM, carusoam said:

Holy cow…

I’m glad we are all on the same team….  

There is a lot of fresh aircraft crash video all around YouTube lately… mostly from the other team…

 

One today started with a Manpad launch aimed at a KA52 alligator… small explosion ensued… two blades visibly separated from the aircraft…. As the aircraft continued on its original direction, sort of…. Two aviators under canopy were seen as the wreckage continued towards the ground…

It must be interesting ejecting out of a helicopter with blades rotating above your head….

 

Go YouTube…!

Best regards,

-a-

The Russian helicopters do have ejection seats.

They have explosive disconnects on the blades, so they depart, then you eject.  Like the canopy on a fixed wing, except in most cases you can safely eject through the canopy.  Not so safe with blades still attached.

[A64Pilot]

7 hours ago, Pinecone said:

The Russian helicopters do have ejection seats.

They have explosive disconnects on the blades, so they depart, then you eject.  Like the canopy on a fixed wing, except in most cases you can safely eject through the canopy.  Not so safe with blades still attached.

One Russian helicopter had seats, now that was 25 years ago so maybe it’s changed, actually I believe the seats were an unfounded rumor, or perhaps got cut late in development, but they never made it, or didn’t back then, ALL my insider data ended in 02, actually before as after about the mid 90’s we didn’t consider Russia a likely adversary.

Back then the Mi-28 was considered a crude primitive copy of the Apache, that just didn’t quite work as well.

 Mi-28, Nato code name Havoc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-28

The original single seat KA-50 was designed with one mission, to shoot down US Apache’s, knowing that we used to train for air to air, but the KA-50 didn’t pan out to be near what they hoped, in heavy maneuvering the two sets of rotors could make contact so they were more widely separated which greatly influenced maneuverability and I believe it’s air to air role changed.

I believe in reality this aircraft in its single seat air to air version may have had the ejection seat, at least on paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

Both aircraft are in reality way behind the AH-64, especially the newer E model, which is an honestly true pure digital machine, with near Sci-Fi capabilities of data acquisition etc.

My personal belief is that ejection seats are just way too heavy for helicopters and don’t provide the level of safety they do in a fixed wing, when your less than 50 feet off the ground and something bad happens, it’s likely you have hit the ground before your brain processes what’s happened, if you walk away it’s all luck and aircraft survivability, survivability is also heavy, put a seat weight on top, of that and it’s just too heavy. So you take out the survivability weight to pay for the seat and as often as helicopters take ground fire etc. I don’t think they can, too many would be lost.

One of our biggest concerns was us hovering in a firing position to have a bad guy stand up in his fox hole 50 ft away and hose us down with his AK. There just really isn’t much of a defense for that.

[A64Pilot]

The fixed winged guys don’t like it at all, but unless they can engage from beyond visual range, if the helicopter has air to air weapons, odds are the helicopter will shoot down the fixed wing aircraft, even front line ones like the F-16 and F-15. So you don’t go hunting helicopters with fixed wing fighters.

The odds are much better or worse than you would think, in fact the helicopter is more effective shooting down high performance fixed wing aircraft if they get down in altitude than other high performance fixed wing aircraft are.

A high performance fixed wing fighter getting down in altitude is sort of like rummaging around in the bushes looking for a rattle snake, odds are you won’t find the snake until after you have been bitten.

[Pinecone]

35 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

The fixed winged guys don’t like it at all, but unless they can engage from beyond visual range, if the helicopter has air to air weapons, odds are the helicopter will shoot down the fixed wing aircraft, even front line ones like the F-16 and F-15. So you don’t go hunting helicopters with fixed wing fighters.

The odds are much better or worse than you would think, in fact the helicopter is more effective shooting down high performance fixed wing aircraft if they get down in altitude than other high performance fixed wing aircraft are.

A high performance fixed wing fighter getting down in altitude is sort of like rummaging around in the bushes looking for a rattle snake, odds are you won’t find the snake until after you have been bitten.

I flew the A-10.  Back in the day when 500 feet was high altitude for us.

 

[A64Pilot]

25 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

I flew the A-10.  Back in the day when 500 feet was high altitude for us.

 

I’ve worked with the A-10 extensively, particularly a test and development squadron out of Nellis.

Before the war we practiced working JAAT’s with them coming in low, us passing them a laser target spot in the bump and covering their break, some A-10’s had a pave penny pod it seems (maybe all?)

During the first Gulf war due to losses the A-10’s were restricted to above 10,000 ft if memory serves and weren’t allowed North of 20 miles of the Southern border. In daylight the wide open desert just didn’t allow them much cover.

After the war in working with that squadron from Nellis their new night technique was to set up a wagon wheel above 10,000 ft, drop flares to illuminate the battle field and drop bombs, it wasn’t tenable for us as the flares also illuminated us, which took our night advantage away. Before we never worked jointly at night.

However one joint mission that I think would have worked very well was downed pilot rescue with us and an A-10 covering the downed pilot. I could stand way off and observe everything and pass target locations and a spot to an A-10 before he started his run in, and cover his break by suppressing with our 30MM. We worked that with A-10’s out of Osan and I think in Korea it would have worked well.

As you know the Airforce doesn’t like the airplane, the mission actually, in the early 80’s it was supposed to be transferred to the Army, and later the Airforce wanted to retire it and replace it with an A-16, which was just an F-16 with a camo paint job and an FM radio, which was a joke for ground support, two passes and he was out of fuel. But it seems like every few years there is this kill the A-10 movement that sweeps through the the AF.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

But it seems like every few years there is this kill the A-10 movement that sweeps through the the AF.

Every few years for the last three decades. However, there is no legitimate replacement available.  I’d bet that the A10 will still be in service in 2050.

[Pinecone]

The even bigger joke is that the F-35 can do CAS.

The USAF says it can.  But the ugly secret is that what the USAF did was redefine CAS.  To the AF, and no one else, CAS is getting personnel and equipment to the battle area.  Nope, that is not CAS.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

The even bigger joke is that the F-35 can do CAS.

The USAF says it can.  But the ugly secret is that what the USAF did was redefine CAS.  To the AF, and no one else, CAS is getting personnel and equipment to the battle area.  Nope, that is not CAS.

An issue is loiter time, the A-10 engines were very high bypass turbofans used on one of the Gulfstream jets, no afterburner of course, but very efficient, this gave several advantages as they were very high bypass the exhaust was very cool and harder for the old IR missiles to lock onto, and they used a fraction of the fuel compared to a fighter engine, a fighter engine can be decently fuel efficient until it gets down low into thick air, then it’s a real fuel hog, what that means is the A-10 had loiter time, he could hang out for quite awhile until needed, the A-16, maybe 15 minutes. Bad guys figure that out real quick and wait until they leave, the A-10 had enough loiter time it could maybe be relieved on station, meaning one was always available.

That may sound like a small thing, but it’s actually HUGE.

Way back when the Army was moving into CAS like the Marines, and the AF didn’t like it, so there was an meeting or understanding or whatever that killed the Cheyanne and had the Army dearm it’s OV-1’s, and give up it’s fixed wing lift capability, IE the Cariboo, what the Army got was the Chinook.

Once they were disarmed, we called them Mochickens instead of Mohawks, one before they were disarmed shot down a Mig-17.  

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/ov-1-vs-mig-17-story-mohawk-became-mig-killer/