Mythbusters Explosive Decompression Experiment

"R.Hubbell" wrote in message
...
|
|
| There are simply too many factors that mythbusters didn't replicate
| to convince me that it's safe to fire 9mm rounds through a fuselage
| of an aircraft traveling mach .76 at 35,000 ft. where it's -35 degrees.
|

No, it is much safer to pander to unreasoning fear of firearms and instead
allow terrorists to gain control of airplanes. I doubt that any test would
convince you otherwise.

| There's something else that comes to mind as well. I was reading a report
| on the HA (Hawai'i Airlines) accident and they talked about the concussive
| force that caused the large hole to open up.

So what? How many people on that flight died?

C.J.

You wrote with multi syllable words. You need to go back and rewrite
in all one syllable ones so those at the end of the food chain will
understand G

Big John
Pilot ROCAF


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:46:31 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"R.Hubbell" wrote in message |
|
| They did a reasonable job of recreating the environment but we all know
| how hostile things are at 35,000 and 600 mph and -35 degrees, where air is
| less dense.
|
|
| So the question is would any of us be willing to head up to 35,000, crank
her
| up to mach .76 and get out the Glock and let loose a few rounds??
|
| Also suppose the bullet hits some wiring or hydraulics or fuel line, etc.

The air pressure in an airliner is less than one atmosphere, no matter what.
At 35,000 feet you are talking half an atmosphere. Compare that to the tires
in your car. The airliner produces all of 8 lbs psi, less than a third of
the inflation of an automobile tire. All of this other stuff, 600 mph or
slight variations of air pressure along the fuselage, etc., is minuscule.

Mythbusters gave the hyperventilating pants wetters a bit of a reality
check -- and all they can talk about are minor factors that will not change
the results in any significant way. I don't care if you empty the entire
magazine into a window, you are not going to suck people out of the
airplane, the airplane is not going to go into some kind of dive, people are
not going to fly all over the interior of the airplane, the seats are not
going to be ripped from the floor, or any other Hollywood bull**** like
that.

"C J Campbell" wrote:

Once they managed to induce an explosive decompression using the shaped
charge, the damage was incredible. The whole top of the fuselage was ripped
off and big chunks of the wall where the explosion was were missing. It
looked like those photos of the Hawaiian Airlines incident, only much worse.
I think it might have been possible to continue to fly the aircraft, but it
would have been very difficult, depending on how much damage the debris did
to wings, tail, engines and control surfaces.

Of course, to do that kind of damage a terrorist would have to somehow get a
shaped charge the size of a basketball onto the airplane, place it properly
up against the wall of the fuselage, and detonate it, all without being
noticed.

I don't think you can draw that wide a conclusion from the test that
they did. The Lockerbie bombing was a pretty effective demonstration
of damage that can be done from a small amount of explosive. I think
they worked out it was about 300 grams - what is that, 11 ounces?

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

Once they managed to induce an explosive decompression using the shaped
charge, the damage was incredible. The whole top of the fuselage was
ripped
off and big chunks of the wall where the explosion was were missing. It
looked like those photos of the Hawaiian Airlines incident, only much
worse.
I think it might have been possible to continue to fly the aircraft, but
it
would have been very difficult, depending on how much damage the debris
did
to wings, tail, engines and control surfaces.

Of course, to do that kind of damage a terrorist would have to somehow
get a
shaped charge the size of a basketball onto the airplane, place it
properly
up against the wall of the fuselage, and detonate it, all without being
noticed.

I don't think you can draw that wide a conclusion from the test that
they did. The Lockerbie bombing was a pretty effective demonstration
of damage that can be done from a small amount of explosive. I think
they worked out it was about 300 grams - what is that, 11 ounces?

What type of explosive? A pound of C-4 will (IB) destroy an armored car or
do serious damage to a tank.

Remember, they were given the explosive by Libya (IIRC), so it was not some
mild store variety.

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" wrote:
|
| Once they managed to induce an explosive decompression using the shaped
| charge, the damage was incredible. The whole top of the fuselage was
ripped
| off and big chunks of the wall where the explosion was were missing. It
| looked like those photos of the Hawaiian Airlines incident, only much
worse.
| I think it might have been possible to continue to fly the aircraft, but
it
| would have been very difficult, depending on how much damage the debris
did
| to wings, tail, engines and control surfaces.
|
| Of course, to do that kind of damage a terrorist would have to somehow
get a
| shaped charge the size of a basketball onto the airplane, place it
properly
| up against the wall of the fuselage, and detonate it, all without being
| noticed.
|
| I don't think you can draw that wide a conclusion from the test that
| they did. The Lockerbie bombing was a pretty effective demonstration
| of damage that can be done from a small amount of explosive. I think
| they worked out it was about 300 grams - what is that, 11 ounces?

Actually, wasn't the Mythbusters' shaped charge only 120 grams? However, it
was spread out into a big cone the size of a basketball in order to obtain
maximum effect.