Mythbusters and explosive decompression

Dave,

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.


AFAIK, this is a certificatino requirement and the reason why the
Concorde's windows are so small. But I've been wrong before.

One aspect not mentioned yet: It kind of depends, too, what a bullet hits
on the way out. There are some cables and pressure lines that are better
left intact. But I agree that the depressuriation is a myth, mostly. No
fat bad guys are going to be sucked out of any window, James Bond
notwithstanding.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Luke Scharf" wrote in message
news cause the skins to tear.

Yes, but they're built with the expectation that they'll be shot at. I'd
probably put a thicker skin on an airplane that was designed for civilian
use. I've heard stories about midair collisions where the wing of a
jet fighter literally sliced the wing of another aircraft off (with
minimal damage to the wing).


I suspect that the skin of a preasurized airliner is thicker than the skin
on the tail of a A-10.

Mike
MU-2

Subject: Mythbusters and explosive decompression
From: Luke Scharf

One factor that they neglected to account for is that many airliners fly
at speeds approaching Mach 0.85. I'd have to see a section of aluminum

skin with a bullet-hole in it staying intact in a transonic wind-tunnel
that was running about that speed before I put much stock in their
results.

Luke you must not of seen many combat acft return home with holes big enough to
park a V W in. Mac USAF retired

From: "Earl Grieda"

Also, if the test was done on the ground then of course nothing would
happen. It needs to done in a wind tunnel that is depressurized to simulate
30K feet.

Gads are we thinking here??? 8.5 PSID(or whatever) is the same at any
altitude----Mac

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:37:56 GMT, "Casey Wilson"
wrote:

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.

What's the point in having the bigger cannon? Do the advantages,
whatever they may be, outweigh the disadvantages of heavier weight,
larger size and less of an ammo load? In addition, if it's being used
because of superior penetrating power, in case of hijackers using body
armor, what if there's no body armor? How many bodies can a teflon
coated steel jacketed bullet pass through before it stops in the last
body?

I'd think that frangible bullets would be the better option to
minimize collateral damage and take the risk that the hijacker might
be wearing body armor. Or perhaps bring both loads? In which case
the 9mm automatic makes more sense as the clip can be quickly changed
to match the situation.

Corky Scott

PS, frangible bullets wouldn't penetrate the skin of the airliner
either.

wrote:

...the 9mm automatic makes more sense as the clip can be quickly changed
to match the situation.

If I read you correctly, you feel that you are now prepared to counter
the decisions of law enforcement, weapons, and ballistics experts, as
well as aeronautical engineers? You may want to familiarize yourself
with the design and operation of the typical semi-automatic pistol
before you say any more.

There is nothing about the choice of calibers, whether 9mm, .40, or .45
that affects the ability to change magazines rapidly. The operation of
the pistol is virtually identical in what ever calibers it may be
offered. Cartridge size and the practical limits of grip size determine
the number of rounds which may be carried, but unless one is an advocate
of the "spray and pray" method, shot placement and terminal effects are
far more important than the number of rounds available.


Jack

"Jack" wrote in message If I read you correctly, you feel that you are
now prepared to counter
the decisions of law enforcement, weapons, and ballistics experts, as
well as aeronautical engineers? You may want to familiarize yourself
with the design and operation of the typical semi-automatic pistol
before you say any more.

Perhaps you didn't read Corky's post as I read it. His thrust is that
caliber and barrel length do not need to be the largest available. He is
correct except for the frangible bullets unless he means hollow points.

D.

Capt.Doug wrote:

Perhaps you didn't read Corky's post as I read it. His thrust is that
caliber and barrel length do not need to be the largest available. He is
correct except for the frangible bullets unless he means hollow points.

I'd agree that 's advocacy of the .44 Magnum is truly
phony nonsense, and is in fact one of the few alternatives to which the
9mm could be considered a superior choice.

It is my understanding that the "Air Marshals" do not use the 9mm. Do
you have other information?


Jack

I'd think that frangible bullets would be the better option to
minimize collateral damage and take the risk that the hijacker might
be wearing body armor.

This was pretty thoroughly hashed over on the newsgroups some months
ago. As it happens, I just recently posted one of the better responses
on my website:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/airliner.htm

To me, it pretty much demolished the notion of "explosive
decompression." The author also goes into the subject of bullets used
by sky marshals.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From:

What's the point in having the bigger cannon?

Shock. The point is to "shoot to stop", not "shoot to kill" (even though
the
best way to "stop" someone is with a hollow point to the forehead). The
energy - momentum debate has been going on as long as firearms have
existed. I tend to be a proponent of the big, heavy, soft, slow, lump of
lead
approach to defense. The idea is to "stop" someone from doing what they're
doing, RIGHT NOW!! If someone is about to push a button and detonate a
bomb, it's more important to interupt the action than to kill. Stab
someone in
the heart and they will die, in 10 - 15 seconds. Hit them in the chest
with a
baseball bat and they will stop what they are doing, immediately

Initially, I was being facetious when I said "...let them (marshals
and pilots) have the bigger cannon. In thinking about it, and reading
Nomen's comments above, the cannon makes a lot of sense. When I went through
classes for my concealed weapons permit, Shoot To Stop was the dictum. If in
the process of being stopped, the attacker died, oh well.
The 'big, heavy, soft, slow lump of lead' is the better choice over
high velocity. Any bullet that does not expend its entire energy within or
on) the target is a waste. I carry my .45 loaded with standard load jacketed
hollow-points for just that reason.
The bullet is expected to mushroom to almost 3/4 inches and dissipate
all of its energy within the body cavity. In the event the attacker is
wearing body armor, a hit in the sternum is expected to at least break one
or more ribs and perhaps even send the heart into fibrillation. My training
has been to get off two rounds to the 'center of mass' (meaning the chest)
in less than two seconds, then look for another target.
Some advocate two in the chest and one in the face. That's not how I was
trained and not what I've been taught in the several refresher courses. The
instructors have unanimously stated that even with body armor, an attacker
will not ignore two heavy lumps of lead in the chest.
Remember the Hollywood Shootout at the California bank a few years ago?
I've read more than one report saying that the reason the perpetrators there
were able to shrug off multiple hits on their armor was because the cops
were using 9mm.