Mythbusters and explosive decompression

"Bill Denton" wrote in message If a bullet penetrated the skin of an
aircraft, the plane could not have been more than a couple of thousand feet
high, and it would not be pressurized.

It would likely be pressurized, just not at maximum differential.

D.

John Harlow 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.

Some years ago an airliner landed here in Richmond after having been shot by
someone on the ground. It was a completely coincidental thing where someone
shot into the sky and just happened to hit an airliner. The news report
showed the bullet hole; other than that the plane was fine.

May or may not be relevant, depending on the following
two questions:

1. Did the bullet penetrate into any pressurized part
of the aircraft ?
2. What height (and speed) was it flying at when it was hit ?

CV

CV wrote:

John Harlow 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.


Some years ago an airliner landed here in Richmond after having been
shot by
someone on the ground. It was a completely coincidental thing where
someone
shot into the sky and just happened to hit an airliner. The news report
showed the bullet hole; other than that the plane was fine.


May or may not be relevant, depending on the following
two questions:

1. Did the bullet penetrate into any pressurized part
of the aircraft ?
2. What height (and speed) was it flying at when it was hit ?

hmmm, just thought of a third factor: The hole left by a bullet
entering the airframe may be aerodynamically very different
from one that went from the inside out.
CV

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.

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)

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

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:55:34 -0500, Jack wrote:

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

You are correct, the Marshals are not using 9mm.

-Jack Davis
B737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----