Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Who needs the CAPS system when you could have this

EGTK Oxford

I should have known about that when I was married. I just knew the Russians – where improvisation is an art – would come up with a totally pragmatic solution for that

Install it RHS only, and then you get to keep the aircraft.

They must do an “extra propellant” version for decadent westerners.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Their previous version was still simpler and much lighter. It was based on parachute extraction – that is, the parachute (deployed first) would pull the seat out of the aircraft using aerodynamic forces only.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

In-flight escape from light aircraft is difficult, slow and risky, and as a result most do not routinely carry parachutes, relying instead on the pilot making a successful forced landing. The reason the ejection seat – standard fit in military strike aircraft and fighters – is not used in general aviation is the unit’s complexity, high price and weight.

Both conclusions are highly dubious — if not plain wrong.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 10 Feb 08:22
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The problem ist that it will only work if you can eject the canopy. No chance to install that in a plane with doors …

Maybe it’s useful for flying over Russia – you can always be shot down there and CAPS won’t help you.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

The Russians do seem to like their pneumatic powered systems, and many of their planes already have the on board compressor. I can think of a local incident in which it might have been helpful: the elevator stuck on an unlimited aerobatic plane a couple of years ago and while the guy was able to get out eventually it was too late for his parachute to be effective. I think the plane was in a stable upright spin on the way down.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 10 Feb 17:34
7 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top