Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does Grumman E2C Hawkeye 2000 Have Ejection Seats?  
User currently offlineVio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1422 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9936 times:

Hi,

Does the Grumman E2C Hawkeye 2000 have ejection seats?

Please look at this picture here

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tamas Martenyi

. What are the two windows on top of the cockpit? Escape hatches, or "ejection" hatches?

Thanks

Vio

[Edited 2009-12-18 14:57:11]


Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9933 times:

Escape hatches.

There have never been ejection seats on "Hummers."

The three "moles" would eject where? Into the dome?



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineVio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1422 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9933 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 1):
The three "moles" would eject where? Into the dome?

Oh yeah, I forgot that there were guys in the back minding the electronics. I was just thinking of the two boys up front. How silly of me.

Thanks AAR90



Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6381 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9927 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 1):
Escape hatches.

Wow, not so sure I would like to escape right in front of two rather large eight bladed props...  Wow!

I guess the assumption is a crash somehow stopped the props  Wink



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineFlybaurLAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9915 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 1):
Escape hatches.

They can also be used to watch dancing on the aircraft....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEkYqL9n7vo



Boilerup! Go Purdue!
User currently offlineGAIsweetGAI From Norway, joined Jul 2006, 933 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9913 times:

On a remotely related note - is the E2C based on a civilian model of A/C, or was it designed solely to meet military specifications?


"There is an art, or rather a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
User currently offlineFlybaurLAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9881 times:



Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 5):
On a remotely related note - is the E2C based on a civilian model of A/C, or was it designed solely to meet military specifications?

As far as I know, they were designed to replace the E-1 in the 50s. I highly doubt they were based on a civilian model, as they need to be so beefed up to handle carrier operations. I think it was purely a military design. I'm sure someone has more info on this than I do, though.



Boilerup! Go Purdue!
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2321 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 9852 times:



Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 5):
On a remotely related note - is the E2C based on a civilian model of A/C, or was it designed solely to meet military specifications?

It was strictly a military design, out of the Grumman Iron Works. Their original design was the S-2 Tracker (originally designated the S2F, hence the "Stoof" nickname) which entered USN service in the mid-1950s as an anti-submarine aircraft. The S-2 was morphed into the E-1 Tracer airborne early warning aircraft in the late 1950s, with a large radome mounted above the fuselage (earning it the "Stoof with a roof" nickname). In 1964, the first E-2 was introduced, and was the first purpose-built AEW aircraft in the Navy, rather than being a modification of a different design, as the E-1 was.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineHp14v From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 9852 times:

Back in the 1960s I was a Bombardier/Navigator flying in the A-3D Skywarrior. It was the US Navy's largest carrier based jet aircraft. Like the E-2 the A-3 didn't have ejection seats.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pict...e/Navy_Photos/VAH-10_A3_On_Cat.jpg


User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2321 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9842 times:



Quoting Hp14v (Reply 8):
Back in the 1960s I was a Bombardier/Navigator flying in the A-3D Skywarrior. It was the US Navy's largest carrier based jet aircraft. Like the E-2 the A-3 didn't have ejection seats.

Very cool! And yet, the B-66, which grew out of the A-3 for the Air Force, ended up with ejection seats due to it's low level mission.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineHp14v From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 9803 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 9):
Very cool! And yet, the B-66, which grew out of the A-3 for the Air Force, ended up with ejection seats due to it's low level mission.

Yes Douglas Aircraft Co started building the B-66 shortly after the A-3 went into production. However, I don't think the ejection seat addition was mission related. The Air Force established the policy of putting ejection seats in all their jet aircraft. For bombers I believe it started with the B-47.

It wasn't flying low-level that made me uncomfortable, it was not having access to an ejection seat during carrier takeoffs and landings that troubled me.

Here is the story of my next-door neighbor.
http://www.a3skywarrior.com/whaletales/142633.html

In the late 1950s and early '60s the A-3 was the primary carrier based nuclear delivery system. The need for ejection seat was recognized at the time; however, Douglas couldn't produce the A-3 with ejection seat and keep its' landing weight low enough not to exceed arresting cable limitations.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 9795 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 7):
Their original design was the S-2 Tracker....The S-2 was morphed into the E-1 Tracer airborne early warning aircraft in the late 1950s....In 1964, the first E-2 was introduced, and was the first purpose-built AEW aircraft in the Navy, rather than being a modification of a different design, as the E-1 was.

Nice summary; however, be cautious about using the term "their original design" as the E-2A was a design all its own owing nothing to any previous design. Both the weapon system and airframe were unique with the airframe being designed around the weapon system (primarily the radar). While the weapon system has received continuous upgrades throughout its life, the basic airframe has remained pretty much the same.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 9793 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3):
Wow, not so sure I would like to escape right in front of two rather large eight bladed props...

I guess the assumption is a crash somehow stopped the props

They will disintegrate rather quickly. While there are very few incidents from which to draw reliable conclusions, the known instances indicate that the prop blades will not be a problem IF you survive the impact enough to attempt an egress.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2321 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 9780 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 11):
be cautious about using the term "their original design" as the E-2A was a design all its own owing nothing to any previous design

You're right, and I didn't mean to imply that. The E-1 grew out of the S-2, but yes, the E-2 was a fresh design, sorry I wasn't clearer about that.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9600 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 1):
The three "moles" would eject where? Into the dome?

That just means you need a bigger rocket motor on those seats, right?  duck 

At least in theoretical terms, downward firing seats are a possibility, as is jettisoning the radar dome (six well placed charges and a two second delay ought to do the trick).


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9572 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 14):
That just means you need a bigger rocket motor on those seats, right?

Nice.  bouncy  Sadly, the pilot side of the community remains filled mostly with "draftees." Guys who were in the "jet" pipeline only to be yanked over to the Hawkeye to fill vacant slots. Very very few pilots volunteer (willingly that is) to be E-2 drivers. So many "jet-jocks" in waiting that we couldn't even get 'em to give up the (ejection seat) torso-harness in favor of the much more comfortable and practical single-point release system --at least in my days.

Quote:
At least in theoretical terms, downward firing seats are a possibility, as is jettisoning the radar dome (six well placed charges and a two second delay ought to do the trick).

I know Grumman looked at those options (and quite a few more) but the plane remains overweight and underpowered (with constantly increasing weights).



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6381 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 9562 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 15):
Very very few pilots volunteer (willingly that is) to be E-2 drivers.

I hear you can finish your tour of duty on just one flight Big grin



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineHp14v From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9546 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 14):
At least in theoretical terms, downward firing seats are a possibility, as is jettisoning the radar dome (six well placed charges and a two second delay ought to do the trick).

Downward firing seats on a carrier based aircraft? Where do you think an E-2C accident is most likely to occur? What do you think is the minimum altitude required for a successful downward ejection.

Way back in the 1960s the minimum speed/alt requirement for an ejection system was 100kts or 100 feet. As seats improved it was changed to 0 kts and 0 feet.

As mentioned before, I have flown in carrier based jet planes without ejection seats. I have also flown in jets with seats. http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pict...vy_Photos/VA-196_Officers_1969.jpg My log book lists one more takeoff then landings.

I am very fond of the idea of having an ejection system; however, there is one thing worse then not having one. It is having a badly designed system that will kill you if activated where it is most often needed.


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9493 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Hp14v (Reply 17):
Downward firing seats on a carrier based aircraft? Where do you think an E-2C accident is most likely to occur? What do you think is the minimum altitude required for a successful downward ejection.

I didn't think it was necessary to elaborate on the obvious disadvantages to a downward firing ejection seat (don't work near the ground), although they have been implemented on occasion. While they wouldn't help much with landing/takeoff accidents, there are other accidents, and then there is always that unplanned encounter with a bad guy that slow combat aircraft need to worry about...

As to where E-2 accidents are most likely to occur... Of the 12 E-2 losses in 64-96 (that's all my list covers), a quick look shows that only three or four (the description on one is somewhat ambiguous) occurred near the ground (water, flight deck, whatever). While two of those concluded with successful ditchings or bailouts (IOW no crew losses), it's pretty clear that even downward firing ejection seats would have saved most of the 38 lives lost in those 12 accidents.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9435 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 18):
Of the 12 E-2 losses in 64-96 (that's all my list covers), a quick look shows that only three or four (the description on one is somewhat ambiguous) occurred near the ground (water, flight deck, whatever). While two of those concluded with successful ditchings or bailouts (IOW no crew losses), it's pretty clear that even downward firing ejection seats would have saved most of the 38 lives lost in those 12 accidents.

Owing to the nature of the mission, it is not unexpected that the public dissimination of mishap information is somewhat vague; however, how do you come to the conclusion any ejection seat would have "saved most of" the lives lost?

AAR90
ex-E2 ASO
ex-E2 PacFlt Eval
ex-E2 PacFlt Model Manager



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 19):
Owing to the nature of the mission, it is not unexpected that the public dissimination of mishap information is somewhat vague; however, how do you come to the conclusion any ejection seat would have "saved most of" the lives lost?

The causes of the twelve losses were: pilot disorientation (twice), running out of fuel (twice), other pilot error (two), mechanical failure (two elevator failures), fire (four). In several case bailouts were attempted, only in one was it fully successful, and in a couple none could escape because of G forces. A few of the other cases resulting in attempted ditchings, only one of which resulted in no fatalities. In the 10 accidents with fatalities, I think seven or eight had none.

All of the guys who died in these accidents died when their aircraft hit the ground (one of the fires resulted in burning hydraulic fluid spraying around the cabin, so fatal burns in that case are not impossible, although that crew is described as dying on impact).

While ejection is far from safe, getting the crew out of a failing aircraft would certainly improve their chances of surviving. And with at least eight of those, even downward firing ejection seats would have done the job since the aircraft developed problems at altitude.


User currently offlineHp14v From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9385 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 20):
While ejection is far from safe, getting the crew out of a failing aircraft would certainly improve their chances of surviving. And with at least eight of those, even downward firing ejection seats would have done the job since the aircraft developed problems at altitude.

I guess a person response to various escape system designs is based on their person experiences. From my Vietnam background comes experiences such as, carrier deck fires (Forestall and Enterprise), failed cat shots, broken arresting gear wires, etc.

Granted I did respond with a knee jerk reaction; however, it may have been due to the fact that I would not have survived my A-6 Intruder ejection if the Intruder had been equipped with a downward ejection system.

Respectfully,
Wayne


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9353 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 20):
The causes of the twelve losses were: pilot disorientation (twice), running out of fuel (twice), other pilot error (two), mechanical failure (two elevator failures), fire (four).

I would love to know where you are getting your info from. This does not correspond very well to the causal factors I am aware of from reading the actual MIR's.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9351 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 20):
In the 10 accidents with fatalities, I think seven or eight had none.

*arrgh*

"In the 10 accidents with fatalities, I think seven or eight had no survivors."

Quoting Hp14v (Reply 21):
I guess a person response to various escape system designs is based on their person experiences. From my Vietnam background comes experiences such as, carrier deck fires (Forestall and Enterprise), failed cat shots, broken arresting gear wires, etc.

It's certainly human, and we all certainly have that bias. Unfortunately our personal experiences and fears are often misleading because they are *so* real to us, and so much more compelling than a cold and dispassionate bunch of statistics. Just try convincing a parent that fingerprinting and chipping their kid is silly when they're going to let the same kid drive unsupervised at 16 and play football... In a slightly more related vein, ground troops often seriously underestimate the casualty rates amongst aircrew - which are often *higher* (sometimes much higher - see WWII) than on the ground, because they *see* their buddies shot up, but no one sees the guys in a smoking crater 100 miles behind enemy lines.


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 22):
I would love to know where you are getting your info from. This does not correspond very well to the causal factors I am aware of from reading the actual MIR's.

I'm referencing a list in "AWACS and Hawkeyes: The Complete History of Airborne Early Warning Aircraft," by Armistead. Armistead is ex-Navy (LCDR) and appears to have a considerable background with the Hawkeye.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 25, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9315 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 24):
I'm referencing a list in "AWACS and Hawkeyes: The Complete History of Airborne Early Warning Aircraft," by Armistead. Armistead is ex-Navy (LCDR) and appears to have a considerable background with the Hawkeye.

Yes he is experienced and no, I was not impressed when I scanned the book while window-shopping quite a few years ago. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but his depiction of the history of the community was basically accurate, but pretty vague. Whenever he delved into details about something I knew intimately [i.e. development of CAEWWS] he was completely off the mark. West coast E-2 operations are virtually ignored.

Being a safety professional for 8+ years, I tried scanning the mishap chapter, but quickly threw the book down as he obviously had NOT read the actual mishap investigation reports or JAG investigations and his personal bias was readily apparent [AFAIK, he has no formal aircraft mishap investigation training or experience]. The list, while good, was not useful beyond knowing specific dates.

If you want to go into details, send me an IM and we can discuss via private email.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Does Grumman E2C Hawkeye 2000 Have Ejection Seats?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Many Airlines Have Blue Seats.Why? posted Mon Feb 24 2003 23:09:05 by MASB747
Does A Cfii Have To Be IFR Current To Give An IPC? posted Mon Nov 30 2009 15:56:36 by FLY2HMO
Why Does A380 Have Only One Vert Stablizer? posted Mon Jan 12 2009 21:03:18 by BOACVC10
Does The New Build A300 And B767 Have Real EFIS? posted Thu Dec 11 2008 12:24:53 by LH4116
Why Does B6's E190 Have Dual Huds? posted Tue Oct 28 2008 13:27:58 by Luv2cattlecall
What Does It Mean To Have An Inop APU? posted Wed Mar 12 2008 08:19:20 by Cory6188
Does VT-ALD (77L) Have Aux Fuel Tanks? posted Tue Jan 22 2008 16:01:28 by WestWing
How Often Does An Airliner Have Tech Problems? posted Sun Sep 23 2007 17:56:51 by LY777
A340NG - Why Does It Have 4 Engines? posted Thu Apr 19 2007 21:18:44 by CygnusChicago
Does Anybody Have Cutaway Drawing Of RR-Conway? posted Fri Dec 29 2006 19:57:36 by Blackbird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format