I wonder... did they just pressurize it with a low volume pressure
source or with a high volume pressure source. I remember being told that
some of the larger jetliners have enough bleed air capacity to maintain
cabin pressure with an entire window blown out. Not bad for the people
far away from the breach, but really sucks for those (literally) near
the breach.

IF this is true, then pressurizing the airliner on the ground with a low
volume source (only able to maintain the differential over the normal
leakage of the pressure vessel) then the airframe depressurizes. A high
volume source would be able to maintain cabin pressure despite the
breach of a bullet hole.

In any event, I will readily agree that the hollywood versions of
decompressions are exactly that.. hollywood.

So.. am I misinformed? or perhaps this might be pertinent/

Dave

Casey Wilson wrote:
Hi all,
I don't know if it was a rerun and has been thoroughly done over here,
but last nights episode of The Mythbusters 'busted' the explosive
decompression myth surrounding bullet holes in aircraft.
The guys sealed up a junked out cabin, pressurized it, then fired 9mm
bullets through first the skin and then a window. Nothing exciting happened.
Pretty interesting stuff.
They ended the episode by blowing a large hole in the fuselage. I was
out of the room when they set the charge so I don't know the size, shape,
etc. I did a bang up job of opening a hole.
My conviction of the miniscule damage to be caused by a sky marshall or
pilot popping off a few caps at a terrorists has been reinforced. The
diameter difference between a 9mm (.38") and a .44 Mag wouldn't make any
difference. Let's give the good guys the bigger cannon.