I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive decompression.

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on
board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.

Not entirely.
There are many parts of an airliner that can be damaged by bullets. Not
least of these are the passengers and crew. There are also many critical
services that the armed police may not know. Will they be trained in the
location of all critical areas of the aircraft?
BALPA (British Airline Pilots Association) has reservations about armed
police. The captain of the aircraft is legally responsible for its safety.
Flying when he knows there is a gun aboard may not be the safest thing to
do.
Being in UK, I didn't see the program you mention. Shame that as it sounds
interesting. I would question the tests though. in order to ensure that
there was NO danger of explosive decompression, the test needs to be carried
out on all air craft and the bullets fired into a number of places in the
fuselage. There is also a need to test rapid firing weapons.
I don't know the type of gun they used. Was is representative of a powerful
handgun?
I guess a lot of the pilots reservations arise from our different attitude
towards guns.

John

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try
to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a
handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner and
pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through
the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive
decompression.

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on
board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.

They should have taken the plane to 50,000ft and tried that where the
outside pressure is lower. Might have gotten different results.
What do you think?

Bernd

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive decompression.

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.

I watched that very enlightening program. Even when an entire window
was blown out, it wasn't all that big of a deal. The crash test dummy
sitting next to the window sorta got sucked into it, tho. It would
have been a harrowing experience for an actual passenger.

Only by setting off an explosive charge on the side of the pressurized
plane was there a whole lot of damage done. It was rather
spectacular.

Orrin


..

Wouldn't matter very much. The interior of airliners is maintained at
about 8,000' (about 11 PSIA). At 50,000' the atmospherici pressure is
about 3 PSIA depending on the temperature so 8 to 9 PSI is about the
maximum difference.

Bernd wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try

to prove

or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a

handgun

is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner and

pumped

the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through

the

fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive

decompression.

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on

board

look every bit as much the idiots they sound.


They should have taken the plane to 50,000ft and tried that where the
outside pressure is lower. Might have gotten different results.
What do you think?

Bernd



--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"John Manders" wrote in message
...
I guess a lot of the pilots reservations arise from our different attitude
towards guns.

John

Read as "Ignorance" about guns. Not to worry, we're all ignorant, just
about different things.

Orrin Iseminger wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.
snip
I watched that very enlightening program. Even when an entire window
was blown out, it wasn't all that big of a deal. The crash test dummy
sitting next to the window sorta got sucked into it, tho. It would
have been a harrowing experience for an actual passenger.


I did some sums a while back, for a post to rec.aviation.homebuilt,
which seemed to indicate this, based on back-of the envelope sums.

Glad I got it right.

Losing a window will decompress the cabin in around 30 seconds.
In the window seat, you get a wind of around 140MPH.
The person next to them only around 50, and across the isle, it's
little more than a light breeze.

If you could pop open a door, then that might have more significant
effects on nearby objects.

I wonder about one guy with a gun, one guy with a hacksaw to enlarge the
hole.

"Harold Burton" wrote in message ...
"John Manders" wrote in message
...
I guess a lot of the pilots reservations arise from our different attitude
towards guns.

John

Read as "Ignorance" about guns. Not to worry, we're all ignorant, just
about different things.

No, "Attitude" is definitely the right word

Greetings and Salutations...

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:29:58 -0000, "John Manders"
wrote:

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on
board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.

Not entirely.
There are many parts of an airliner that can be damaged by bullets. Not
least of these are the passengers and crew. There are also many critical
services that the armed police may not know. Will they be trained in the
location of all critical areas of the aircraft?

This is a point. If, for example, a stray bullet were to
sever some important control circuits, that would be a Bad Thing.
However, it is my understanding that the air marshal's weapons
are loaded with ammunition that is designed NOT to penetrate
anything much harder than cloth and flesh. While I am sure
that any hijacker would probably NOT have such consideration,
the idea is to ensure that they don't have a chance to fire.
Also...I suspect that the vital control circuits are
a fairly small percentage of the total volume of the plane,
especially on one big enough to be interesting, so the likelyhood
of damage from a non-aimed bullet drops quite a bit.

BALPA (British Airline Pilots Association) has reservations about armed
police. The captain of the aircraft is legally responsible for its safety.
Flying when he knows there is a gun aboard may not be the safest thing to
do.
Haw! That is certainly understandable...after all, at least
to this American, it seems like British society as a WHOLE has a few
reservations about armed police.
Shucks, if all the bad guys in the world would surrender when
an un-armed cop yells at them to stop, NONE of us would need to have
armed cops.

Being in UK, I didn't see the program you mention. Shame that as it sounds
interesting. I would question the tests though. in order to ensure that
there was NO danger of explosive decompression, the test needs to be carried
out on all air craft and the bullets fired into a number of places in the
fuselage. There is also a need to test rapid firing weapons.

It is quite an interesting show, and, does a pretty good job
of attacking the myths in a scientific and rational manner. As for
the RANGE of tests...You make a decent point. However, this one test
was to examine the myth (perpetuated by a number of films) that a
single shot to a window on a high-flying plane will cause catastrophic
failure. As one might expect, though, the fact that the windows are
multiple layers of break resistant material kept that from happening.
Automatic weapons are a danger, true enough. However, in
terms of explosive decompression, they are probably not a seriously
increased risk. As for increased chances of damaging control
circuts...it is my understanding that many of the critical circuits
are routed through the belly of the plane. In most cases, any weapons
fire is going to be horizontal - aimed at attackers, or, up through
the roof of the plane (as most folks tend to push UP when trying
to get a weapon deflected).


I don't know the type of gun they used. Was is representative of a powerful
handgun?

Hum...I don't know that...Alas, I did not see the episode, and
just off the bat, I can't find a discussion of the weapon used.
However, if I was doing the test, I would use a .44 magnum, or .357
magnum, with liquid-filled bullets, with the view of trying to get
as much punch and splatter as possible...Since the MythBusters are
red-haired too, I suspect they have the same enthusiasm for power
and would agree.
The bottom line seems to me to be the question of what makes
an airline flight safer. From my point of view, the problem with
the planes on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons on
board, but, that there were too few. But then, I think that
in conjunction with this, alcohol should be banned on flights...
which is a whole OTHER Off Topic thread. Since it is not possible,
without rather draconian measures, to ensure that NO weapons can
ever get on board an airliner, I feel that it is only fair and
right that the passengers have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So...I think that anyone that has a valid Concealed Carry permit
should be allowed to carry on the plane on domestic flights.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner wrote:



I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive decompression.

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.



Not in the least. The captain of an aircraft or ship is the one in charge and
what he says goes. My preference would be to ban landing rights to any
aircraft which had an armed individual on board on the basis that there was an
implication of inadequate airport security. Remember that the 9/11 flights
were internal US flights. had they been british internal or international
flights, it is highly unlikely that the weapons would have got on board.

Having one or two armed guys on a plane is a **** poor way of stopping half a
dozen armed guys taking it over.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Consider the explosive decompression that will occur when, because there was
no armed pilot to stop the terrorist's entry into the cabin, an F16 lets fly
with and air-to-air missle.

I guess that's an acceptable altrenative to a stray bullet for a British
pilot.

Steve M


"John Manders" wrote in message
...
Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on
board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.

Not entirely.
There are many parts of an airliner that can be damaged by bullets. Not
least of these are the passengers and crew. There are also many critical
services that the armed police may not know. Will they be trained in the
location of all critical areas of the aircraft?



I guess a lot of the pilots reservations arise from our different attitude
towards guns.

John

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:



I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive decompression.

Was their derelect moving through the air at upwards of 300 knots when
the skin was punctured?

Just recall what used to happen with the British Comet -- the first
commercial airliner -- just from developing fatigue stress cracks at
the corners of the windows. Those gaps were much smaller than a bullet
hole.

Al Moore

Yeah, with that logic we should get rid of all the lifejackets on the plane
too. If you can't be 100% sure that a plane won't end up in the drink on a
overwater flight, that must be an implication of inadequate design or
maintainence of aircraft.
:^)


Tony



"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner wrote:



I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try
to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a
handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner
and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to
fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through
the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive
decompression.

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on
board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.



Not in the least. The captain of an aircraft or ship is the one in charge
and
what he says goes. My preference would be to ban landing rights to any
aircraft which had an armed individual on board on the basis that there
was an
implication of inadequate airport security. Remember that the 9/11 flights
were internal US flights. had they been british internal or international
flights, it is highly unlikely that the weapons would have got on board.

Having one or two armed guys on a plane is a **** poor way of stopping
half a
dozen armed guys taking it over.

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:25:41 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Orrin Iseminger wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.
snip
I watched that very enlightening program. Even when an entire window
was blown out, it wasn't all that big of a deal. The crash test dummy
sitting next to the window sorta got sucked into it, tho. It would
have been a harrowing experience for an actual passenger.


I did some sums a while back, for a post to rec.aviation.homebuilt,
which seemed to indicate this, based on back-of the envelope sums.

Glad I got it right.

Losing a window will decompress the cabin in around 30 seconds.
In the window seat, you get a wind of around 140MPH.
The person next to them only around 50, and across the isle, it's
little more than a light breeze.

Recall Bernoulli's principle, however. Even though the static pressure
differential between the interior and the exterior is only about 6 or
7 psi, the air on the outside is moving past the orifice very fast.
Between that suction and the drag on things which are changing shape,
damage spreads rapidly.

Al Moore

Glazer safety slugs don't penetrate or damage the kinds of things
we're worried about on a commercial aircraft. They won't sever a
cable, hose, or line. When used against a real and present danger,
and at the distances involved, secondary damage to the aircraft just
isn't an issue. Remember, the terrorists were cutting throats with a
box knife, it wasn't a firefight against a group armed with AK47s.
Paul

The SMART thing to do is to issue every passenger willing to accept
the items, a 4 inch knife and a 4-10 single shot pistol filled with
ratshot. Try to take over a
plane with 100 people taking pot shots at you with ratshot!

Brownnsharp

yes, but different from a bullet hole.

Take a piece of paper and try to pull it apart evenly, its difficult. Punch
a hole in the middle, its still difficult. Start a tear at the edge, it rips
easily.

Tony
"Alan Moore" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:



I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try
to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a
handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner
and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to
fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through
the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive
decompression.

Was their derelect moving through the air at upwards of 300 knots when
the skin was punctured?

Just recall what used to happen with the British Comet -- the first
commercial airliner -- just from developing fatigue stress cracks at
the corners of the windows. Those gaps were much smaller than a bullet
hole.

Al Moore

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:30:06 GMT, "Bernd" wrote:


They should have taken the plane to 50,000ft and tried that where the
outside pressure is lower. Might have gotten different results.
What do you think?

Bernd

They pressurized the plane to 8 psi, the same pressure differential
that would have existed at normal flying altitude.

Orrin

Mark Rand wrote:

Not in the least. The captain of an aircraft or ship is the one in charge and
what he says goes. My preference would be to ban landing rights to any
aircraft which had an armed individual on board on the basis that there was an
implication of inadequate airport security. Remember that the 9/11 flights
were internal US flights. had they been british internal or international
flights, it is highly unlikely that the weapons would have got on board.

That's an odd statement - the knives that most folks expect were used
(box cutters, mostly) were nothing like the standard pocketknife that I
carried quite frequently through security at Heathrow & Gatwick only a
couple of years previous to 9/11. Security at all the airports I used
in England (Manchester, Heathrow and Gatwick) never batted an eye when
they saw it.

9/11 didn't happen because the US was being lax in security, it happened
because of the existing instructions to the aircrew to cooperate with
hijackers - you see, no one had ever had a hijacker turn a plane into a
guided missile. I don't think it can happen the same way again, neither
the passengers or crew are going to as complacent.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:34:17 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:25:41 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Orrin Iseminger wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.
snip
I watched that very enlightening program. Even when an entire window
was blown out, it wasn't all that big of a deal. The crash test dummy
sitting next to the window sorta got sucked into it, tho. It would
have been a harrowing experience for an actual passenger.


I did some sums a while back, for a post to rec.aviation.homebuilt,
which seemed to indicate this, based on back-of the envelope sums.

Glad I got it right.

Losing a window will decompress the cabin in around 30 seconds.
In the window seat, you get a wind of around 140MPH.
The person next to them only around 50, and across the isle, it's
little more than a light breeze.

Recall Bernoulli's principle, however. Even though the static pressure
differential between the interior and the exterior is only about 6 or
7 psi, the air on the outside is moving past the orifice very fast.
Between that suction and the drag on things which are changing shape,
damage spreads rapidly.

Al Moore

Hummmm so how do you explain Aloha Airlines 737 loosing 20 odd feet of
its roof at Angels 24 and still making it back to land safely?

http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/night.../accidents.asp

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:41:25 GMT, "Tony"
wrote:

yes, but different from a bullet hole.

Take a piece of paper and try to pull it apart evenly, its difficult. Punch
a hole in the middle, its still difficult. Start a tear at the edge, it rips
easily.

Tony

One only has to look at all the myriad combat aircraft that has been
machine gunned or rocketed to **** and still makes it home.

Gunner


"Alan Moore" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:



I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try
to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a
handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner
and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to
fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through
the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive
decompression.

Was their derelect moving through the air at upwards of 300 knots when
the skin was punctured?

Just recall what used to happen with the British Comet -- the first
commercial airliner -- just from developing fatigue stress cracks at
the corners of the windows. Those gaps were much smaller than a bullet
hole.

Al Moore




"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

Gunner wrote:




Hummmm so how do you explain Aloha Airlines 737 loosing 20 odd feet of
its roof at Angels 24 and still making it back to land safely?

http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/night.../accidents.asp



Your point?

Just because there is decompression doesn't mean the
aircraft will auger.

Also, the aircraft was at 24,000 feet. Go up another 10,000
to 16,000 feet and I'm sure the result would have been
different.


--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart.
(S. Clemens, A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure
ends the suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:44:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:34:17 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:25:41 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Losing a window will decompress the cabin in around 30 seconds.
In the window seat, you get a wind of around 140MPH.
The person next to them only around 50, and across the isle, it's
little more than a light breeze.

Recall Bernoulli's principle, however. Even though the static pressure
differential between the interior and the exterior is only about 6 or
7 psi, the air on the outside is moving past the orifice very fast.
Between that suction and the drag on things which are changing shape,
damage spreads rapidly.

Hummmm so how do you explain Aloha Airlines 737 loosing 20 odd feet of
its roof at Angels 24 and still making it back to land safely?

http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/night.../accidents.asp

Explained by the last Mythbusters test - First, they proved where a
simple bullet into the skin, or into the window, or a passenger window
blowing out (with Detcord?) wouldn't necessarily cause a catastrophe.
(And in the process, the plywood patches they put over the cockpit
windshield holes blew out twice...)

For the Coup de Grace shot (where Adam and Jamie were bound and
determined to make something spectacular happen for the cameras) they
fixed the holes and their Pyro guy put a small conical shaped charge
against the skin of the plane, right at a structural stringer junction
point near where the foot of the passenger (or a carry-on stowed under
the window seat) would be. He said something like 100 grams, and
inferred it was rather small as demolition charges go...

And when they pressurized the fuselage to 8 PSI again and set the
charge off, a big chunk of the sidewall and roof of the plane unzipped
in a big gaping hole, just like Aloha Airlines did.

Remember, Aloha Airlines was a massive structural failure of the
skin and ribs from undetected (or ignored) stress fractures in the
aluminum, not a simple window blowing out. Same thing with the BOAC
Comet crashes - the windows were fine, it was the square window frames
cracked at the corner of the windows, and the skin failed.

-- Bruce --

6e70 wrote:

Glazer safety slugs don't penetrate or damage the kinds of things
we're worried about on a commercial aircraft. They won't sever a
cable, hose, or line. When used against a real and present danger,
and at the distances involved, secondary damage to the aircraft just
isn't an issue. Remember, the terrorists were cutting throats with a
box knife, it wasn't a firefight against a group armed with AK47s.
Paul

Point taken, but to crash someplace because of bullet holes could hardly
be worse then flying into the north or south tower regardless. Or perhaps
forget guns and just issue the air marshals with ac self destruct
switches.

Most of the structural members in an airliner body is in the lower third.

I vaguely recall that most of the explosive decompression crashes have
originated in the cargo compartment as a result of a cargo door failure
or or bomb in the luggage a la Lockerbie. When the cargo compartment
decompresses the passenger cabin floor collapses and all longitudinal
strength is lost.

The Mythbusters and Hawaiian Airlines failures were in the passenger
compartment and the shell was lost upwards. It is possible that
someone lighting off his shoe would not result in a crash but if it
happened in the middle of the Atlantic, the next few hours would be less
than pleasant.

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:


Explained by the last Mythbusters test - First, they proved where a
simple bullet into the skin, or into the window, or a passenger window
blowing out (with Detcord?) wouldn't necessarily cause a catastrophe.
(And in the process, the plywood patches they put over the cockpit
windshield holes blew out twice...)

For the Coup de Grace shot (where Adam and Jamie were bound and
determined to make something spectacular happen for the cameras) they
fixed the holes and their Pyro guy put a small conical shaped charge
against the skin of the plane, right at a structural stringer junction
point near where the foot of the passenger (or a carry-on stowed under
the window seat) would be. He said something like 100 grams, and
inferred it was rather small as demolition charges go...

And when they pressurized the fuselage to 8 PSI again and set the
charge off, a big chunk of the sidewall and roof of the plane unzipped
in a big gaping hole, just like Aloha Airlines did.

Remember, Aloha Airlines was a massive structural failure of the
skin and ribs from undetected (or ignored) stress fractures in the
aluminum, not a simple window blowing out. Same thing with the BOAC
Comet crashes - the windows were fine, it was the square window frames
cracked at the corner of the windows, and the skin failed.

-- Bruce --

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:31:13 GMT, Alan Moore
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:



I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive decompression.

Was their derelect moving through the air at upwards of 300 knots when
the skin was punctured?

Just recall what used to happen with the British Comet -- the first
commercial airliner -- just from developing fatigue stress cracks at
the corners of the windows. Those gaps were much smaller than a bullet
hole.

Speaking of Americans, Brits, and airplanes:

Those Clever Americans!

The FAA has a device for testing the strength of windshields
on airplanes. They point this thing at the windshield of the
aircraft and shoot a dead chicken at about the speed the air-
craft normally flies at it. If the windshield doesn't break,
it's likely to survive a real collision with a bird during
flight.

The British had recently built a new locomotive that could
pull a train faster than any before it. They were not sure
that its windshield was strong enough so they borrowed the
testing device from the FAA, reset it to approximate the
maximum speed of the locomotive, loaded in the dead chicken,
and fired. The bird went through the windshield, broke the
engineer's chair, and made a major dent in the back wall of
the engine cab.

They were quite surprised with this result, so they asked the
FAA to check the test to see if everything was done correctly.
The FAA checked everything and suggested that they might want
to repeat the test using a thawed chicken.


----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================

Russ Kepler writes:

That's an odd statement - the knives that most folks expect were used
(box cutters, mostly) were nothing like the standard pocketknife that I
carried quite frequently through security at Heathrow & Gatwick only a
couple of years previous to 9/11.

My son and I took a 4-inch gravity knife onto a flight at Boston Logan a
few weeks before 9/11. The security crew looked at it, but passed it
through. This was all within the regulations at the time.

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Russ Kepler writes:

That's an odd statement - the knives that most folks expect were used
(box cutters, mostly) were nothing like the standard pocketknife that I
carried quite frequently through security at Heathrow & Gatwick only a
couple of years previous to 9/11.

My son and I took a 4-inch gravity knife onto a flight at Boston Logan a
few weeks before 9/11. The security crew looked at it, but passed it
through. This was all within the regulations at the time.

How about this then, yesterday, Jan 15 04:

"A Sudanese man armed with bullets was being questioned
by anti-terrorist police last night after being arrested
at Heathrow airport hours after walking undetected through
American security in Washington DC.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...p?story=481367

It would appear as if "don't do what we do, but do as we say..."

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:22:06 GMT, Mark
wrote:



Gunner wrote:




Hummmm so how do you explain Aloha Airlines 737 loosing 20 odd feet of
its roof at Angels 24 and still making it back to land safely?

http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/night.../accidents.asp



Your point?

Just because there is decompression doesn't mean the
aircraft will auger.

Also, the aircraft was at 24,000 feet. Go up another 10,000
to 16,000 feet and I'm sure the result would have been
different.

Really? How so?

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:18:25 +1300, Tom wrote:

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Russ Kepler writes:

That's an odd statement - the knives that most folks expect were used
(box cutters, mostly) were nothing like the standard pocketknife that I
carried quite frequently through security at Heathrow & Gatwick only a
couple of years previous to 9/11.

My son and I took a 4-inch gravity knife onto a flight at Boston Logan a
few weeks before 9/11. The security crew looked at it, but passed it
through. This was all within the regulations at the time.

How about this then, yesterday, Jan 15 04:

"A Sudanese man armed with bullets was being questioned
by anti-terrorist police last night after being arrested
at Heathrow airport hours after walking undetected through
American security in Washington DC.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...p?story=481367

Huh?

Gunner

It would appear as if "don't do what we do, but do as we say..."



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

Mark wrote:


Gunner wrote:




Hummmm so how do you explain Aloha Airlines 737 loosing 20 odd feet of
its roof at Angels 24 and still making it back to land safely?

http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/night.../accidents.asp



Your point?

Just because there is decompression doesn't mean the aircraft will auger.

Also, the aircraft was at 24,000 feet. Go up another 10,000 to 16,000
feet and I'm sure the result would have been different.

Not really. There is only about 2 PSI difference between 24,000' and
45,000'.

The pressure drop as you go higher is not even. From sea level to
10,000' the pressure drops 1/3. From 10,000 to 20,000' it drops another
1/4. From 20,000 to 30,000 it drops 1/6 and from 30,000 to 50,000 it
only drops another 1/6.

Also as the density goes down the Bernulli effect goes down with it.
The actual dynamic pressure differential and wind resistance that do the
damage are probably higher at 24,000' given the same air speed.

As long as the aircraft can maintain enough structural integrity and the
control surfaces are still operating there is no direct reason that the
plane could not continue to fly. Of course, those passengers whose
emergency oxygen masks went with the roof would probably die of hypoxia
before the pilot could get low enough for them to breath.

For a pretty good table on the atmospheric pressure gradient see:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm#us

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:51:08 GMT, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:31:13 GMT, Alan Moore
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:



I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive decompression.

Was their derelect moving through the air at upwards of 300 knots when
the skin was punctured?

Just recall what used to happen with the British Comet -- the first
commercial airliner -- just from developing fatigue stress cracks at
the corners of the windows. Those gaps were much smaller than a bullet
hole.

Speaking of Americans, Brits, and airplanes:

Those Clever Americans!

The FAA has a device for testing the strength of windshields
on airplanes. They point this thing at the windshield of the
aircraft and shoot a dead chicken at about the speed the air-
craft normally flies at it. If the windshield doesn't break,
it's likely to survive a real collision with a bird during
flight.

The British had recently built a new locomotive that could
pull a train faster than any before it. They were not sure
that its windshield was strong enough so they borrowed the
testing device from the FAA, reset it to approximate the
maximum speed of the locomotive, loaded in the dead chicken,
and fired. The bird went through the windshield, broke the
engineer's chair, and made a major dent in the back wall of
the engine cab.

They were quite surprised with this result, so they asked the
FAA to check the test to see if everything was done correctly.
The FAA checked everything and suggested that they might want
to repeat the test using a thawed chicken.

More on the famous chicken. It is not entirely true
http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.htm
geoff

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:51:08 GMT, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Speaking of Americans, Brits, and airplanes:

Those Clever Americans!

The FAA has a device for testing the strength of windshields
on airplanes. They point this thing at the windshield of the
aircraft and shoot a dead chicken at about the speed the air-
craft normally flies at it. If the windshield doesn't break,
it's likely to survive a real collision with a bird during
flight.

The British had recently built a new locomotive that could
pull a train faster than any before it. They were not sure
that its windshield was strong enough so they borrowed the
testing device from the FAA, reset it to approximate the
maximum speed of the locomotive, loaded in the dead chicken,
and fired. The bird went through the windshield, broke the
engineer's chair, and made a major dent in the back wall of
the engine cab.

They were quite surprised with this result, so they asked the
FAA to check the test to see if everything was done correctly.
The FAA checked everything and suggested that they might want
to repeat the test using a thawed chicken.



I suppose it might depend where the train was expected to operate!
Actually, given the predilections of the youth of today, the drivers would
probably be far happier if the test involved a house brick rather than a
chicken since that's what the little sods tend to drop off bridges at the
trains.



Mark Rand
RTDM

Glenn Ashmore wrote:

Mark wrote:


Gunner wrote:




Hummmm so how do you explain Aloha Airlines 737 loosing 20 odd feet of
its roof at Angels 24 and still making it back to land safely?

http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/night.../accidents.asp



Your point?

Just because there is decompression doesn't mean the aircraft will auger.

Also, the aircraft was at 24,000 feet. Go up another 10,000 to 16,000
feet and I'm sure the result would have been different.

Not really. There is only about 2 PSI difference between 24,000' and
45,000'.

The pressure drop as you go higher is not even. From sea level to
10,000' the pressure drops 1/3. From 10,000 to 20,000' it drops another
1/4. From 20,000 to 30,000 it drops 1/6 and from 30,000 to 50,000 it
only drops another 1/6.

Also as the density goes down the Bernulli effect goes down with it.
The actual dynamic pressure differential and wind resistance that do the
damage are probably higher at 24,000' given the same air speed.

As long as the aircraft can maintain enough structural integrity and the
control surfaces are still operating there is no direct reason that the
plane could not continue to fly. Of course, those passengers whose
emergency oxygen masks went with the roof would probably die of hypoxia
before the pilot could get low enough for them to breath.

For a pretty good table on the atmospheric pressure gradient see:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm#us

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com


The control mechanism on the DC-10 runs under the cabin floor.
When a poorly closed cargo door failed in flight, the cabin pressure
deformed the floor enough to jam the flight controls.

Aircraft, even million pound jets, are terribly fragile things.


Richard Lamb
http://home.flash.net/~lamb01

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:18:25 +1300, Tom wrote:

"A Sudanese man armed with bullets was being questioned
by anti-terrorist police last night after being arrested
at Heathrow airport hours after walking undetected through
American security in Washington DC.


"Armed with bullets"!!!?????

What kind of idiots are writing this crap?

Steve M

Steve Mulhollan wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:18:25 +1300, Tom wrote:

"A Sudanese man armed with bullets was being questioned
by anti-terrorist police last night after being arrested
at Heathrow airport hours after walking undetected through
American security in Washington DC.


"Armed with bullets"!!!?????

What kind of idiots are writing this crap?

Makes as much sense as "armed with nail-clippers", or
"waiting for the toilet in a terroristic manner".

Greetings and Salutations....

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:36:54 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Steve Mulhollan wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:18:25 +1300, Tom wrote:

"A Sudanese man armed with bullets was being questioned
by anti-terrorist police last night after being arrested
at Heathrow airport hours after walking undetected through
American security in Washington DC.


"Armed with bullets"!!!?????

What kind of idiots are writing this crap?

Makes as much sense as "armed with nail-clippers", or
"waiting for the toilet in a terroristic manner".

Yea...I was amused by that too...and since then,
I have been speculating exactly WHERE those bullets would
be loaded and fired. A number of the pictures in my
head are probably not suitable for family consumption...
but I found them amusing.
As a side issue, somewhat related to the general
goofiness, Dubya showed up here in KNoxville the other
day. The main result was that traffic was a nightmare
in downtown for much of the day. It was kind of amusing
to me, though, to hear one of the protestors say that
OURS was one of the nicer "First Amendment Zones" that
he had been confined to recently. It was within
sight of the convention center where Dubya was speaking,
although there WAS a long row of large buses parked along
that side of the building...so it was almost impossible
to actually SEE the protestors from the building.
I am old enough to remember when the "First
Amendment Zone" was pretty much any place inside the
boarders of the US.
I can't say that I think that the country is
improved by isolating our leaders from even the IDEA
that there might be dissent.
Regards
Dave Mundt

OK, so we fit all the passengers with explosive neck collars that detonate
upon entry to the cock pit. (:

Dave Mandate wrote:

Greetings and Salutations....

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:36:54 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Steve Mulhollan wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:18:25 +1300, Tom wrote:

"A Sudanese man armed with bullets was being questioned
by anti-terrorist police last night after being arrested
at Heathrow airport hours after walking undetected through
American security in Washington DC.


"Armed with bullets"!!!?????

What kind of idiots are writing this crap?

Makes as much sense as "armed with nail-clippers", or
"waiting for the toilet in a terroristic manner".

Yea...I was amused by that too...and since then,
I have been speculating exactly WHERE those bullets would
be loaded and fired. A number of the pictures in my
head are probably not suitable for family consumption...
but I found them amusing.
As a side issue, somewhat related to the general
goofiness, Dubya showed up here in KNoxville the other
day. The main result was that traffic was a nightmare
in downtown for much of the day. It was kind of amusing
to me, though, to hear one of the protestors say that
OURS was one of the nicer "First Amendment Zones" that
he had been confined to recently. It was within
sight of the convention center where Dubya was speaking,
although there WAS a long row of large buses parked along
that side of the building...so it was almost impossible
to actually SEE the protestors from the building.
I am old enough to remember when the "First
Amendment Zone" was pretty much any place inside the
boarders of the US.
I can't say that I think that the country is
improved by isolating our leaders from even the IDEA
that there might be dissent.
Regards
Dave Mundt

In article , Dave Mundt says...

I am old enough to remember when the "First
Amendment Zone" was pretty much any place inside the
boarders of the US.

I think this is about the single most important idea
I've read here today. Heck, this *month* even.

I can't say that I think that the country is
improved by isolating our leaders from even the IDEA
that there might be dissent.

This comes a close second. Thank you.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

The way I figure it - the guns were in his whole goods shipping over there.
The bullets are not allowed in whole goods so he took them himself.
Been there - drove mine :-)

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder