Author Topic: They think we're fools? (Read 2309 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #60 on:** February 10, 2006, 07:14:24 PM »

I heard about the mythbusters show. They did a poor simulation, IMO. The pressure differential between the cabin and atmosphere would pale in comparison to the vacuum created by rushing air past a small hole at 500mph.

SirLoin · « **Reply #61 on:** February 10, 2006, 07:17:52 PM »

TY Beetle

Toad · « **Reply #62 on:** February 10, 2006, 10:49:37 PM »

It's funny. Every year in the sim I practiced the explosive decompression procedure. Usually the simulation was of a cabin window blowing out.

The procedure was to descend as rapidly as possible to 10K (because the pax don't require oxygen at 10k).

Somehow somebody forgot to tell us we'd all instantly die and get sucked out into the atmosphere if a window blew out. We know that's true now because Hollywood has showed us all exactly how it would happen so many times.

You do realize the cabin already has a big hole in right? Bigger than a cabin window? It's called the outflow valve and it modulates in flight to maintain the selected pressure.

Wonder how come everyone and everything doesn't get sucked out the outflow valve.

Mini D · « **Reply #63 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:02:28 PM »

Because there's a valve?

I don't recall seeing anything where everyone would be sucked through a small hole, but there is definately such a thing as explosive decompression. Anyone that's worked with any kind of sub-atmospheric chamber knows this.

Would everyone be sucked out? Nope. Could worse damage occur because of the forces of differential pressure combined with a venturi vacuum effect? Yes.

Mythbusters concluded the violent effect was a myth because they pressurized an airplane that was sitting on the ground and then punched a small hole in it. I still think this test was flawed since it left out a large number of factors that could also contribute to more violent reactions. That's not saying they would or would not occur, but mythbusters simply could not duplicate them.

Chairboy · « **Reply #64 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:04:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I heard about the mythbusters show. They did a poor simulation, IMO. The pressure differential between the cabin and atmosphere would pale in comparison to the vacuum created by rushing air past a small hole at 500mph.

You need to reexaming your figures. A vacuum is a vacuum is a vacuum. They simulated it with an 8 psi differential. Vacuum is a 14psi differential from one standard atmosphere, so there's not that much of a difference.

Mini D · « **Reply #65 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:05:16 PM »

BTW... that's not implying that a bullet hole would provide anything near enough of an area for anyone to be sucked out... or even for there to be more structural damage. I do believe that very idea is silly.

NattyIced · « **Reply #66 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:05:36 PM »

All in the know, did the following happen according to this story?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

This one we've all seen photos of :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Flight_243

One results in rows being sucked out, one doesn't.

Mini D · « **Reply #67 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:06:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
You need to reexaming your figures. A vacuum is a vacuum is a vacuum. They simulated it with an 8 psi differential. Vacuum is a 14psi differential from one standard atmosphere, so there's not that much of a difference.

You don't work with high vacuum... do you? Say in the <1 mtorr range?

Mini D · « **Reply #68 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:24:24 PM »

One other thing about vacuum... it doesn't pull anything out of a chamber other than air and anything the air might be carrying. The initial rush of air would have force, but that force would reside quite quickly. That is, unless, it was enough vacuum to start pulling things out of your body.

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:56:12 PM »

you don't really have to worry about decompression if they just arm the pilots with combat knives they just stab the terrorist and besides I thought they reinforced the cockpit doors of all aircraft since 9-11

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #70 on:** February 11, 2006, 12:06:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NattyIced
All in the know, did the following happen according to this story?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

This one we've all seen photos of :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Flight_243

One results in rows being sucked out, one doesn't.

NEITHER of those is even REMOTELY similar to a bullet hole, or multiple bullet holes, in the fuselage.

The first was an improperly latched CARGO DOOR. When you can get my 44 Magnum to open a hole in the side of a Boeing airliner the size of a cargo door, let me know, because I'm going to go hunt Bradley APC's and Abrahms M1 tanks with my Dan Wesson 44 Magnum. I'll put it to you like this, I shoot the hottest loads any revolver would take, and they'll make a hole about 0.430" in diameter when shot into the skin of an airliner. MAYBE about 0.600" IF it hits a brace or a gusset. And we're talking a 180 grain jacketed hollow cavity 0.430" diameter bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1800 FPS . Even the 300 grain bullets, hard cast lead or jacketed, at a velocity of 1350 FPS, which will penetrate 3/16" steel, will only make holes less than 0.600" in diameter when shot through the skin of an airliner.

The second incident you cite was a major stress crack failure in the structure of the cabin. Meaning the framework fatigued until a large crack formed. Again, FAR more damage than ANY handgun could do, even the new S&W 500, or a 500 Linebaugh Maximum. Handgun bullets punch neat little holes in aluminum skin, even when passing through two layers.

You simply cannot create explosive decompression with anything you can fire out of a handgun, and most rifles won't do it either. I don't know if any handgun, rifle, or shotgun could cause explosive decompression.

beet1e · « **Reply #71 on:** February 11, 2006, 04:22:51 AM »

Many years ago, I read of an in flight fatality which occurred somewhere over the desert area of Arizona. One of the aircraft's engines malfunctioned in such a way that a piece of metal from the engine was thrown off and made impact with one of the windows, which broke instantly. The passenger seated next to the window was sucked out, even though he'd been wearing his seatbelt. AFAIK, his body was never found.

SirLoin · « **Reply #72 on:** February 11, 2006, 06:31:03 AM »

I believe the outflow valve closes at 8,000ft and maintains that pressure all the way up...and upon touchdown there is a squat switch that opens the outflow valve to ensure pressure equalization on landing.

beet1e · « **Reply #73 on:** February 11, 2006, 08:13:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
The procedure was to descend as rapidly as possible to 10K (because the pax don't require oxygen at 10k).

Is that value true for smokers as well as nonsmokers?

lazs2 · « **Reply #74 on:** February 11, 2006, 09:51:20 AM »

mt... if I were a lefty I wouldn't want people to talk about lefties either.... much better that they be allowed to do their work in secret. If people know about it then well.... they just wouldn't understand.

Airlines want my bussines then they can start treating me like I am the one paying them. Till then.... I live on a huge continent.

lazs