« Guess which Iraq reconstruction project is on time and on budget? | Main | The V-22 Vs. the Needs of Troops Now »

Apr 20, 2006


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why is this man not smiling?:

» A new way to exit an F-22 (w/ pics) from
Take one stuck pilot, one large saw, and a few firefighters and you get a new way to open a stuck canopy, and rack up a $180k bill. [Read More]

» F-22 press secretary resigns. from *shrug*
At least if the F-22 program had a press secretary they would have been fired by now. From a pilot getting stuck in a F-22 to increasing chatter about it's poor stealth and maneuverability, I've seen no shortage of bad [Read More]

» Air Force from Air Force
For the latest news Air Force mandates virtual out processing: Air Force selects 28 Airmen for medical trainingScholarships and program information ... [Read More]

» Usaf from Usaf
Rassmussen and his P 36AWorld War II in Europe History from the USAF MuseumLodging Air Force Inns: Marketing: Mortuary Affairs: Public Affai... [Read More]



I know one of the fire fighters involved and pictured. This is a real extraction. This is not a mock up or drill. Someone said the painted lines show its a mock up. THATS TAPE TO PLAN THE CUTS. He said they could either blow the canopy with the ejection system or cut him out. The canopy would have been trashed after falling to the ground so it was decided that cutting him out was much safer. In these rescue situations saftey come in a big time first place.


"we owe a lot to our men and women in the air force, they do us a great service
God Bless America and all the good it stands for"

And all the children and non combatants they bomb.

Patriot fool.


I can prove this is a Hoax. If it were real, and knowing the us Government, they wouldn't cut the canopy open, they would have cut, disassembled and destroyed the multi million dollar plane, and saved the canopy..

Sedu Short hair style

we owe a lot to our men and women in the air force, they do us a great service
God Bless America and all the good it stands for

Thai Radio

US airplanes are hardly good at flying. Better to buy some European jets: they're cheaper and better ;-p

Michael Manning

The government is spending so much on this 'faulty' equipment. Do you have any pictures I can post on my website. It is dedicated to goodfellow air force base.



I doubt this will satisfy people, but I will say it anyway. I am a maintainer on the F-22A. The day this happened we all knew about it. It is all real. Every picture, every person is real. I have read most of the comments posted and I would like to reply to a few.
1. The ejection symbol is in all the pictures, it is just very faint in the one of the right side.
2. The paint of the airplane varies all over the place. This is one thing I even do not understand. Why can I go to Home Depot and get a million gallons that are exactly the same color, but the AF can't mix up a batch of grey that looks alike?
3. You can eject on the ground and be perfectly safe. The canopy has a rocket motor on the front that should shoot it back and to the right. If the canopy gets stuck the seat will cut through, but the damage of all that is more then the damage of just cutting the thing open.
4. This plane is the baddest thing in the sky. But I am biased. I don't read news articles, or magazine reports. Like I said, I am a maintainer, I work on these on a daily basis. I am friends with the pilots. They say there is nothing better. They kill everything they see. It is an unfair fight. Don't belive everything you read, talk to people that are actually there to get a real story.

I am happy to give further input and answer most any questions you have.


Dating , [URL=http://www.russian-princess.net/]Princess[/URL]


Dating , [URL=http://www.russian-princess.net/]Princess[/URL]


Ыўсютќ [URL=http://anketa.vipsexu.info/chyvstvo.lubvi.html]Ыўсютќ[/URL]


ƒевушки [URL=http://love.vipsexu.info/xxx.devyshki.html]ƒевушки[/URL]


Just wondering.....did you get your pics from the leftovers department at Universal or from a USSR Army-Navy Store?

Next time, do your readers a small favor. Get the facts and your pics correct and have a factual base for them.Otherwise, this will look worse than any comic produced by Stan Lee and would be just as rooten in reality Even Mad Magazine would not stoop this low.

Switchbox 206

What a crock of left-wing bullshit. This isn't a real "event" and as others have stated it's a mock-up. A quick inspection of the images shows that the canopy frame has "painted on" panel lines.

Besides being an URBAN MYTH propogator this Pogoblog is just a front for "Demcoracy in Action" with ties tow "MoveOn.org" an organization known to have ties with communitsts and anarchists in the USA.

Of course, most of the lefties can be easily suckered into thinking anything is an F-22 Raptor.


It really is a mock-up. Show this to any Air Force puke and they'l tear it apart. The ass-end of the "jet" is still in the hangar, given the proximity of the hangar wall in the photo. It's not even an F-22 mock-up - look closely, and compare the dimensions of a real F-22. Also notice the homemade trim around the bottom of the canopy, which if you look closely you'll notice is also used on the in-take (which is too close to the canopy in relation to the real dimensions of an F-22). Not only is it written on with a sharpy marker, I presume to craft it's shape for fitting around the canopy, this loosely fitted crap around the bottom of the canopy would blow off in flight. Finally, the structure's in the backgound (over the fire-fighter's shoulders prove that these photos were not taken on the the Langley flightline.


Its a DRILL guys, on a MOCK UP.
Fuck - look at the cockpit - doesn't it look a bit absent of stuff??

Gary P. Norton


Fixing the F-22A
The U.S. Air Force has discovered structural flaws in its most expensive fighter jet that could cost roughly $1 billion to test for and fix, service officials said.


And why not replace the jet fighters, i mean lets face it, i can forsee a time where there will be loads of major air battles.... The Al Qaeda air force mainly consists of a load of paper planes soaked in petrol!


Alright, all stories aside. Which is more likely to happen and get released to the press. Photos of a drill that firefighters do at Goodfellow AFB San Angelo Texas, or the canopy of a highly classified jet getting broken, and the Air Force actually admiting to a mistake and letting press take photos of the screwed up jet?

You guys dont' know the first thing about AF PR and what a drill is.

God you some of you "oversight" people make us real military members sick. You call yourself patriots when all you do is hack at your country's military and leadership. If you can do a better job, run for office.


I contacted my brother who was on the program, he has since retired and went to work fon the X35. He said this really happened and it was not a drill. HTH, and ends the mindless speculations.


eric palmer

Canopys failing to open isn't uncommon on various jets. Get over it.

Gary P. Norton


I was much surprised to read

Homeland Security "Gag" Orders for Guards


POGO letter to Senator John McCain opposing sales of F-22 fighter jets to foreign governments, March 27, 2006

in light of the photos in this piece.

As a point of reference,

"the overly broad definition of 'sensitive but unclassified' information"

would not include pictures of the inside of the cockpit, but not a view of the pilot from the outside.

Points to Andreas, that Ed Offutt article lacks any merit. My suspicion the work was based on press releases.



the only problem with that is where that canopy might land, if it came back down on the airplane, that could be a huge bill...


Some folks should check their facts before opening mouths and or writing. Grumman did the Digital Flight Controls on the F-111, but the aircraft was built in Fort Worth Texas by General Dynamics - Fort Worth Not Grumman. The Australian Air Force love the aircraft and the only reason the USAF got rid of it was they were force to choose....new fighter "F-15E" or keep 20 year old aircraft.


I meant if an F22 can destroy a wall of F15's....
And all modern ejection seats have canopy cutters on top of the seat, but still would be a bad option.
I think this is a mockup/training scenario...


You gotta be kidding me, are some of you guys really that dense?
1) modern day ejection seats are Zero/Zero seats, which means that are designed for zero altitude and zero aispeed, but this is a lousy option for cost and safety.... cutting was the best thing.
2) are you sure this wasn't a training series in a mock up?
3) the f22 is the greatest fighter jet to fly, those of you that think the SU's are better are plain ignorant on facts, but whatever, I am not about to go into specifics.... suffice it to say that if a single F22 can repeatedly destroy an 8 ship wall of F22's with their radars ablazin (that is not classified and happens repeatedly), then it currently owns the skies, and we haven't even started to talk about is prowess...
4) oh whatever that is enough for you guys....


to be precise... GRumman was the contractor who actually built the Prototypes for the F-111


Grumman was also contractor for the F-11, they did the Swing Wing and other stuff on that jet, so it could be possible that Grumman was responsible for a failure on the F111 , resulting inthis pilot ejecting, i'm not confirming it was so ,i'm just saying it was an option

further more, the ejection pod was not used in prototypes, which again seems like it could have been possible that a test pilot did eject during testing and did end up payed for damages by GRumman(or more specifically Grumman's insurer )

um dumb question i guess, but why would grumman buy him a house when the F111 was made by general dynamics. and how exactly did he get hurt when the F111 had a an ejection pod rather than seats. the whole nose came off and was parachuted down. i would think that if you ejected from an F111 on the ground you would send the nose section scooting along the ground. just a couple of questions. im sure there are simple answers.

Posted by: superflea | Apr 26, 2006 7:05:48 AM


FIRST: I know a gentleman that ejected from an F-111 that had an aborted takeoff. Now most of his back injuries happened because the cushion didn't inflate properly, but the 'chute could have done a lot better job of slowing him down. He owns a nice house in Texas now courtesy of Grumman.

um dumb question i guess, but why would grumman buy him a house when the F111 was made by general dynamics. and how exactly did he get hurt when the F111 had a an ejection pod rather than seats. the whole nose came off and was parachuted down. i would think that if you ejected from an F111 on the ground you would send the nose section scooting along the ground. just a couple of questions. im sure there are simple answers.

Real Issue

Why is it that you tough guys love to keep going on an on about rivets and canopies, even are the pictures real or not, but very few of you have got outraged about taking funds for NVG for our troops in Iraq and pouring more money into the V-22? Is it because men need a picture to get excited?

Those are not rivits folks, They are #20 torx screws (if you are talking about the panel right below the aft end of the canopy) We DO use rivits, not many but they are in there. The Panel that is refeerd to as missing in the cockpit is not missing the panel is blank because it is called a blankout panel, its like that so that they will have room for other stuff once it is developed, its like having a blank out in your cars dash for the seat heater that is not installed on your car.
Lst but not least, the canopy is made of a bunch of diffrent panels and it is a hand formed canopy, which means that the bottom egde is supposed to be wavey due to the way its molded to that perticular jet.


It's amazing how many of you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Are you really gonna sit there and argue about the kind of cutting tool used!? How sad. Also, ejecting from the ground is not an option. EVER.

I got this in my email today [the pps]. There are a few pictures that were in the pps that aren't included above...

I don't know what the deal is with that jet, it looks fake. The pilot is real [compare the two pics of him], but the screens and panels in the cockpit are different. plus, what's with the different.. layers surrounding the canopy [the black lines]? Also, if you look at the pictures of the paint scrapes, it looks like rubber filler between the panels.

And as far as those who are saying that it's not stealthy or worth it, let me assure you it is. I should know. I am one of the data processors at Echo Range on China Lake. Google it if you need to. This jet is worth it.

Also, i'll give you two valid reasons for needing this jet. North Korea. China. Not today or tomorrow, but this isn't being built for today or tomorrow. It's being built for years from now.

QUOTE: "If you pay attention to the photos, you will notice that the plexiglas liner for the cockpit of a real F-22 is of monolithic construction, and the one in these photos are composed of many segments."

What are you talking about? The canopy in the photos is made of many segments b/c it was cut up into many segments by a saw of some sort. The white lines in the first two photos are tape marking where to cut the "monolithic" canopy up.

Regarding rivets, this pic from GlobalSecurity.org shows the rivets in the fuselage around the cockpit: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-22-400206.jpg


All big toys show up with minor problems... That is why ships go thru a "shakedown" and that is why they spent more time on the phone trying anything that the designers and engineers could do before they cut the canopy. It will probably be chased down to a minor glitch in a junction box.

But I love American Ingenuity... In the space race when we found out that our pens would not write in space we spent 1-million to make a pen that would write in space.... Russians... They used pencils... ;-)

Bob Owens

Sorry to ruin a good story folks, but woodrow appears to be quite right on this one.

While a pilot was indeed cut out of a F-22 in Virginia, the "plane" in this photo appears to be a mockup. If you pay attention to the photos, you will notice that the plexiglas liner for the cockpit of a real F-22 is of monolithic construction, and the one in these photos are composed of many segments.

I also don't recall seeing any pictures of F-22s being built with rivets, which seem common in all of these photos.

The clincher for me was the
"not quite right" cockpit that seems to be missing two panels of swithes the to the bottom right of the rightmost MFD when comparied to other cockpit photos I Googled up.

I could be wrong, but I think that your probably conflating a real print story with images from a drill.


I dont know why this thread points to the Ed Offutt article. That is the most ignorant, uninformed piece of garbage I have read in a LONG while.


The saw being used appears to be a "Cutters Edge," which is used heavily in the fire service. It is a chainsaw, usually with a special 'bullet chain,' to help it cut better. The reason for the odd look to the blade is the depth guide on the blade, to ensure it does not penetrate farther into whatever is being cut than the operator wants it to (great for cutting holes in roofs on houses, and not going through the roof trusses).
No clue why another saw might not have worked (circular saw), other than the blade possibly binding up due to the canopy melting from the heat.


Why didn't they use the fabled 'chicken gun' and blast him out. You must use the frozen chicken of course. Much quicker than a sawzall. and a lot more fun.


If the canopy would not open then it obviously had a design flaw. Why are we, the taxpayer, being billed for the manufacturers mistake?


And by the way the Ejection label is in the first pic. Yes it is also the other side of the jet but its there, very faint but its there.


Yes, it would have been cheaper to have the pilot ERECT, rather than eject.


Whether this was a real event or not, the pilot in the photo is obviously a real peson and the tool being used is not a chainsaw. It looks like a reciprocating saw, which is more likely to be used for cutting a whole in something than a chainsaw. But a saw is a saw and using the wrong terminology does not make the whole thing wrong; but indicating that it is not a real pilot does raise questions when it is obviously a real person. Why would the military use a civilizan volunteer for a military drill?

Nick at POGO

Don, Woodrow,

The Washington Post called the Air Force and Lockheed and both confirmed that the event happened (see for yourself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/23/AR2006042300797.html). Secondly, the ejection seat emblem is on photos 3 and 4, but not on photo 2 because photo 2 is of another side of the aircraft.



Calling BS on this one. Where is the Ejection Emblem that is on photos 3 & 4 but not on photo 2.


I agree with the crying man. It is clearly not a chain saw. You lose crediblity when you exagerate. Stick to the facts that you know. Otherwise you turn into a yapping little dog which not pays attention to.


QUOTE: I can tell you that this was real. I can also tell woodrow that he/she does NOT know the details of this event. What details are there that make you think otherwise?? All photos of the canopy are of a Raptor canopy. Photo of the cockpit is of a Raptor cockpit.


I can tell you why, but you'll call me a liar and dismiss it. I can see it already.

Anyways, let the bashing begin:

I'm an Air Force firefighter and I've done this drill before, and have my own pictures of me and the team by the mock-up to prove it. Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas, the Joint Services Fire Training School. It's a mock up. Not a real person inside. It's a rescue drill.


Look, you all seem to have a slight clue about how pilots eject. Some valid but i still have not heard anyone talk about what happens when an F-22 ejects. First a build the thing and do flight testing. We would NEVER eject on the ground, hell most pilots will not even eject if there is an engine fire. There also are no "explosive bolts" on our canopy we have a Rocket and a thruster on the canopy that launch the canopy Aft and to the right....Than the seat comes out, there is nothing on this seat that will break through the canopy (but other types of jets do), it is a one step secuence taking only about 2 seconds, the seat lifts out of the plane using a seat catapolt. Yes it was alot easier and cost effective to cut the pilot out, The only thing you really lose is the Glass. The rocket and thruster i talked about earlier, would still be good. The structure of the canopy would still be good. And by the way the oil on the screens will just wipe off. If you blew the conopy, everything in there would be destroyed, there would be burns marks everywhere from the rockets and catapolts. Also who ever said that every pic in there was not an F-22, Google it. They are all of the -22. We do have a secondary way to open the caonopy in the nose wheel well but the actual problem was in the canopy actuator and so the secondary way did not work either. This is the first time that this has happened in the 20 something years that this plane has been in development. Look up the phrase isolated incedent. Sh^t happens.

You make me want to cry!

My first thought is, don't you people have anything better to do? But then here I am making a comment.

Here's the diff. between a "K12" circular saw and chainsaw. The chain brake. If the chainsaw gets away from you, you can stop it. With a K12 - at least the ones I worked with in the fire service, it's mightly hard to get that wheel stopped when things go bad.

And I just "HAVE" to comment on the whole ejection theory...
FIRST: I know a gentleman that ejected from an F-111 that had an aborted takeoff. Now most of his back injuries happened because the cushion didn't inflate properly, but the 'chute could have done a lot better job of slowing him down. He owns a nice house in Texas now courtesy of Grumman.

SECOND: Again, speaking as an ex fire captain and training officer. The plane is on the ground. The Pilot is in now immediate danger. You can control all of the events by cutting the canopy - or you can have the pilot yank on the handle and set off EXPLOSIVE bolts and ROCKET MOTORS to get him out.
Does this really make sense to the "Armchair Generals" out there?

OK, that's my $.02, but then I was in the business of helping people and saving lives, not trying to see if we can splatter them all over the tarmac.

Oh yeah, the plane cost millions and millions, how much does a pilot cost??

Nick at POGO


I don't know why the Flight International story is dated wrong, but I am sure this event occurred in April 2006. The overview slide in the PowerPoint presentation we have says the following:

"On 10 April 06 at approximately 0815 aircraft 03-041 had a Red Ball for a canopy unlock indication. Attempts to clear the problems by cycling the canopy failed. The final cycling of the canopy resulted in it being in the down and locked position. The canopy would not cycle up from this position trapping the pilot in the cockpit. The aircraft subsequently ground aborted."

The Flight International story also quotes from the same slide.



Why is the article dated Feb 02, 2002 at the Flight Global URL? Are these old photos of a prototype or is this a real story from 2006?

>Did you see Flight International has now run the story:
>let's see where elese it appears now"


Did you see Flight International has now run the story:


let's see where elese it appears now

Nick at POGO

Thanks Check.

Today's Washington Post did a brief write-up on this blog entry. The Air Force and Lockheed confirmed the event happened--

An Air Force spokesman said the canopy problem was a first for the base's 25 F-22A's, planes originally designed to provide air supremacy in a war with the Soviet Union over Europe.

"Something like this is an anomaly . . . part of the growing pains" of a new weapons system, the spokesman told our colleague Charles Babcock. A Lockheed spokesman said a fix has been found and is being implemented.


QUOTE "Just like to inform everyone that, while the first two pictures are of an F-22, the ones of them cutting and a destroyed cockpit are not an F-22.

How do I know this? I've seen one and just look at the details.

Posted by: woodrow | Apr 23, 2006 8:26:59 PM"

I can tell you that this was real. I can also tell woodrow that he/she does NOT know the details of this event. What details are there that make you think otherwise?? All photos of the canopy are of a Raptor canopy. Photo of the cockpit is of a Raptor cockpit.



Ill have to reinforce a point. If he did eject... would it get him up into the air high enough and give the parchute enough time to deploy and decelerate his decent??? if no, then either way the janitor will be cleaning up some type of splatter.

Im no expert in planes but the Eurofighter Typhoon is looking shiney.

in reference to russian planes. they are real good... i mean remember what happend in urkraine a couple of years back with the MIG's??? ... if all else fails (missles and stuff) pull the ejector and let the bastard drop on spectators opening a meat processing plant of unwanted limbs... but seriously if they had the right funding and maintainance they would own some serious piece of ass.. :)

What a stupid assumption that the pilot could just 'eject', what if the mechanism that jammed the canopy shut did exactly the same during the ejection sequence.

It does not take much thinking to work out the appaling injurys the pilot would receive when the seat tried to fire through the canopy......me thnks it would be fatal.

Also the 'fake' canopy theory is interesting........why put a real person in a baking hot cockpit for five hours? and all that FOD damage to the expensive interior?

Come on guys......engage brains!.


Looks like a "fake" canopy and a fire crew test run to me, if you look at the actual canopy bottom section it looks like a mock-up with hand painted join's also the grey on the canopy and the grey of the jet arent the same. Who knows.....the USAF wont tell, they got better things to do.


ahh, K.....

Some ppl are really getting on my tits...

First the eject option. NO stupid Idea...someone said the right thing, what about if the seat or canopy landed back onto another/the plane ?

Pilots spines do NOT get shortened or damaged by ejecting and the old 2/3 only thing is a load of crap. The pilot SHOULD be able to walk away and fly within hours after...

Ejecting IS a one step process, pull the handle and your out, canopy is jettisoned and seat goes, no input required by pilot...

after explosive bolts are detonated, a small rocket is used to push the canopy up and out of the way, then the seat catapault is fired and moves up the rails, then the rockets in the seat go...If the planes on the ground or at low speed it still jettisons the canopy, NOT go thru the canopy...althought the seat does have canopy breakers incase.

While reading these comments I was laughing at how so many people actually 'Know' how stuff works but they all seem to know differant details that contradict...its funny, dont talk and let people think your stupid rather than go saying something stupid and confirming it!


If the ground crew pull the emergency canopy release, all traces of the original problem may be erased.

Cutting out the canopy is an excellent idea. But it took 5 hours?


My utter layman's question is this: If the pilot is stuck in a burning plane and the aircraft is lying on its side, for example, how do the rescue folks plan to get him out. The pilot certainly can eject sideways? Silly question?


Just like to inform everyone that, while the first two pictures are of an F-22, the ones of them cutting and a destroyed cockpit are not an F-22.

How do I know this? I've seen one and just look at the details.


Lets clear up a few things...

1. The Ejection seat in the F-22 is capable of Zero/Zero ejections. That is zero feet and zero speed.

2. The ejection sequence is fully automated, not a two step process. The canopy is ejected via explosive bolts while in flight. At low speed, or with weight on wheels it is not.

3. The seat has a canopy breaker. This will shatter the canopy during the first stage of the ejection process. However, the seat and pilot are then boosted via a small rocket through the canopy. This is painfull and can be fatal.

4. When the rocket fires, the cockpit will essentially be destroyed. EVERYTHING will need to be pulled, checked, and replaced. The airframe will have to be checked for airworthyness. Lots of other stuff will need to be done to ready this aircraft for flight. Way more expensive than a canopy.

5. You Russian guys who believe that the F-22 is not stealthy, not maneuverable, and not hands down 5000% better than any other fighter in the world are making me laugh uncontrollably.

Have a Bandit day!


Ejecting sounds like a good idea, but remember what goes up must come down... that 185K canopy might land on a 385 Million Dollar birdie...


This reminds me of the episode of "Emergency!" (70s TV show) where the firemen had to yank Kareem Abdul-Jabaar out of his convertible while he had a broken leg. Of course the ambulance would fit him but only if he were turned backwards!

Or was it the episode with the girl sticking her toe in the bathtub faucet?

Seriously, a Rotozip-type unit would have been much better. Why there was oil splatter with the rescue gear I do not know. Does Plexiglas emit sparks that I don't know about?

I wouldn't trash the F-22 program just for this issue. The F-80 Shooting Star needed the operator to carry a sawn-off baseball bat to egress with in an emergency. I would however do some in-service quality testing before more Raptors are made.


Buy russian.There are better & cheaper...


Why not buy some J-10 instead......
fool-22 is not so good.


Dassault Rafale is the real ATF winner...


because of the stresses of ejection, the human body usually cannot withstand more then 2 or 3 ejections. After which ur spine would have taken so much damage u wont be able to walk right


You armchair pilots and generals really crack me up! Especially you "Russian Mafia" guys, LOL!!!!!


Guys wouldnt it have been better if the guy just pulled his eject button atleast he would have had a practice session,looking at the extraction process ,that would have been a cheaper option,all those guys wasting time and money.


Correct me if I am wrong, but the ejection sequence would involved blowing the canopy, and then ejecting. Its not an all-in-one step.

Jon H

I'm sure this will be remedied by a $1 billion (before overrun) canopy research program.


Actually using the explosive bolts to jettison the canopy would have caused significantly more damage to the aircraft. Its not an emergency situation so no need to do that. As an aside, the photo's would not be classified as they show nothing of significance.


ejecting would have been way more expensive and WAY more dangerous

Now, I'm no expert in stuck pilot extraction technologies, but woudn't a circular saw make a whole lot more sense for this kind of task? Y'know, less oil splatter and all that... Or could they not find it in their budget to buy an extension cord that would reach outside of the hangar?


Well 200Mio$ and you get that POS!!!
Buy some Su-33/35 insted!

The first two pictures don't look like they belong with the rest. Is this really an accurate portrayal?

What's so sensitive Gary? Be vague since you don't want to tip off al Qaeda.

Gary P. Norton

Does anyone else understand that these pictures are probably classified? And not because they show a stuck canopy.


I'm sure Lockheed Martin will replace it. After all its still under warranty I bet.

Bruce Webb

Uh folks. If the canopy is locked can you count on the ejection seat actually working? An ejection seat essentially is a cannon shell that blasts you through a canopy that has been opened by explosive bolts. If you don't know for a fact that those bolts will actually work to open the canopy then you are ejecting yourself at high speed into that same canopy. Second will an ejection seat actually eject you sufficiently far off the ground to allow your parachute to deploy?

"Then, again, the F-22 pilot could have simply pulled the ejector seat cord. Much faster, and no oil splatter" No indeed instead we would have had a choice of blood splatter inside the cockpit or on the runway.


Good thing the fine folks at Lockheed Martin and the F-22A System Program Office had an inventive and immediate solution to the problem. I wouldn't wan't to spend a leave stuck in the office. DO NOT TRY EJECTING unless you have a Walmart-size bottle of Tylenol.


I'm not familiar with these things but if the canopy doesn't open, I'd probably think twice before ejecting.


I had a friend who had an old Nissan pick-up truck, but wanted a snazzy Jaguar convertible.

Same solution.

Then, again, the F-22 pilot could have simply pulled the ejector seat cord. Much faster, and no oil splatter. - Mark


Good peace of shit that F-22 :D :D


Would it have been any cheaper if they had him eject??
Or would that have been premature...


Buy russian.There are better & cheaper...

Someone (a street named after a Northeastern state perhaps) sounds defensive.

Connecticut Ave Buddy

Good point; we should scrap the whole program because one time a canopy didn't function properly and it had to be removed with a reciprocating saw. There are plenty of valid arguments for why we might not need the F/A-22-- don't try and create more using trivial garbage like this; it only hurts you in the long run.

The comments to this entry are closed.