Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Pardon me if I am incorrect, but were they also still using the system where the seat itself had rails that would smash the pilot/chair through the canopy for ejection? Not terribly familiar with the Navy planes of that era.
With regards to the accusations that John McCain was responsible for the fire? Clearly an attempt to take advantage of the fact that a now-famous person was present to concoct a ridiculous story. I've heard or read similar ridiculous stories about how JFK was responsible for the sinking of PT-109, or that George H.W. Bush was the one who ate a fellow airman, and not desperate Japanese resorting to cannibalism.
My father told me stories about how airmen with "connections" or famous names were routinely subject to ridiculous gossip or accusations for all of no good reason, and I guess I'm seeing that right now.
The A-6 ejection seat punched through the canopy. For the rest of the airplanes of that era, the canopy was jettisoned first, then the seat fired. In the F-14 (later era, but similar set-up), it was about 1.0 seconds between canopy jettison and RIO seat initiation. 0.4 seconds later, the pilot seat fired. The seats now, except for the AV-8B, all have canopy jettison. The Harrier has det cord in the canopy. Pull the handle, and the canopy is blown up as the seat fires. One of many reasons to be scared of flying that death trap...
I remember the rocket motor having something like a 4,800# thrust for 0.25 seconds. For your average 200# guy, that is quite a kick in the pants. I don't know what the seat weighs, but assume it's about 200# and you get a 12G instant compression. Even guys who were perfectly positioned for ejection (we trained on that, too, in a seat simulator that fired you up at 5 G) would get hurt sometimes.
Normal envelope for the seat was 0-350 Knots, though the seat was supposed to function up to 600 knots. Injury above 350 was certain because, as your arms and legs hit that wind, they would be pulled back, and dislocated or broken. The book used to say something like: "above 350, injury likely, above 450, injury certain." I know of two F-14 crews that attempted ejection at nearly 600 knots. They did not survive.
Biometrics matter in all seats. We were carefully measured to ensure that we would fit in the seat. Butt to top of head. Butt to knee length. Those kind of things. In the A-4, for example, if your seated length (butt to knee) was too long in that tight little cockpit, an ejection would remove your lower legs via the instrument panel. A couple of fibias won't slow down a two ton ejection seat rocket motor if your knees were caught under the panel. Similarly, if you sat too high (butt to top of head), you couldn't fly the A-6. Your head would not break the canopy during ejection, and your neck would get crushed until the seat itself broke the canopy. Not good, usually fatal. A friend of mine ended up flying the F-14 for that reason. He had been selected for the A-6, but his biometrics (he was tall) wouldn't allow it. The F-14 was a Cadillac - able to accommodate a wide range of body types, including my XO, a former USNA and Detroit Lions football player of about 6'4". John Stufflebeem. Great guy.
The seat on the F-14 was better than zero-zero, by the way. It could handle up to 1500 foot per minute decent rate at 0 feet and still get the crew clear - very important in a soft cat, or broken arresting cable scenario, where the airplane is just above the ocean, and descending rapidly. In those cases, the seat has to stop the downward travel, then accelerate up to sufficient height to open the parachute. In several cases of F-14 crews ejecting after a soft cat (not enough speed to fly), the seat worked brilliantly and got them in a fully deployed 'chute above the flight deck, even though ejection was initiated below the flight deck. It helped if you were skinny. Seats of that era (and Vietnam era) were a single power charge - you got hit with that 4800 pound rocket motor and up you go. Max weight for the seat to perform to specifications was 235#, I think. We had some guys pushing that number. The skinny 165# pilots and RIOs had a lot of extra margin for altitude and sink rate - but they were also going to get a much harder ride up the rails as F=MA and their little "M" was going to result in a lot more "A".