[VIAGRAENLINOBARATOCAMPRAR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8547329.stm

Not very nice for the other passengers, but at least they would have been fairly safe.

[Zhgrlpil]

Blowing it up when the inside pressures are equalised already is one thing, but it's another to have that explosion go off at 30,000+ feet with a pressurised aircraft.

I'm not saying it would have downed the aircraft, but the structual damage would have been greater I'm sure.

[VIAGRAENLINOBARATOCAMPRAR]

Blowing it up when the inside pressures are equalised already is one thing, but it's another to have that explosion go off at 30,000+ feet with a pressurised aircraft.

I'm not saying it would have downed the aircraft, but the structual damage would have been greater I'm sure.

It doesn't say in the article, and I didn't see the documentary, but I would have thought they would have pressurised the test aircraft so that the difference between the inside and outside pressures was the same as in flight. The article does say they "replicated the conditions" on board the bomb plane, so I would assume that would mean they pressurised the test aircraft.

[Knongargoapex]

Blowing it up when the inside pressures are equalised already is one thing, but it's another to have that explosion go off at 30,000+ feet with a pressurised aircraft.

I'm not saying it would have downed the aircraft, but the structual damage would have been greater I'm sure.

The honeycomb hull of modern airplanes can take substantial damage before the structural integrity is compromised. A surprising amount of damage. Suffice it to say that the BS you see in films when a gunshot causes explosive decompression and part of the hull gets ripped away simply isn't going to happen.

[VIAGRAENLINOBARATOCAMPRAR]

Suffice it to say that the BS you see in films when a gunshot causes explosive decompression and part of the hull gets ripped away simply isn't going to happen.

Another myth they disproved on Mythbusters.

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

Blowing it up when the inside pressures are equalised already is one thing, but it's another to have that explosion go off at 30,000+ feet with a pressurised aircraft.

I'm not saying it would have downed the aircraft, but the structual damage would have been greater I'm sure.

damn you got to it in before I could

[VIAGRAENLINOBARATOCAMPRAR]

damn you got to it in before I could

Not surprising really, since he posted over three hours ago.

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

Not surprising really, since he posted over three hours ago.

shut up you....

[Slchtjgb]

... but his balls would not.

[Zhgrlpil]

The honeycomb hull of modern airplanes can take substantial damage before the structural integrity is compromised. A surprising amount of damage. Suffice it to say that the BS you see in films when a gunshot causes explosive decompression and part of the hull gets ripped away simply isn't going to happen.

A bullet is one thing, but did you see those windows? The closest to the blast all seperated from the shell and I'm sure would have been ripped from the aircraft in an instant.

Explosive decompression is real and a huge consideration in aircraft design.

Bungle, that video showed no evidence of pressure being part of the equation.

[Knongargoapex]

A bullet is one thing, but did you see those windows? The closest to the blast all seperated from the shell and I'm sure would have been ripped from the aircraft in an instant.

Explosive decompression is real and a huge consideration in aircraft design.

Bungle, that video showed no evidence of pressure being part of the equation.

At cruising altitude modern jetliners can certainly withstand blown windows. As a matter of fact, blown windows would help the aircraft survive, because the energy of the shockwave would be dissipated, as opposed to ripping open the fuselage.

Example:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008...e/2008_24.aspx
A portion of the fuselage came off, resulting in decompression of the cabin at 29'000 feet. No casualties.

That's a hell of a lot worse than blown windows.

[Zhgrlpil]

The point I'm making is that the damaged sustained in that blast would not be indicative of one at 30,000+ feet.

Those simple wobbles that caused the windows to come loose could infact turn into big creases or even shear off.

Could the plane still fly? Probably, afterall they are designed to suffer such catastrophic events, but to be sure would require another test done properly.

Would the plane sustain more damage than shown in this test? Of course.

[dfuzioniag]

I could have sworn that aircraft was leaving Detroit and not Amsterdam.

[VIAGRAENLINOBARATOCAMPRAR]

I can't believe they would have done the experiment without pressurising the aircraft; surely that would invalidate the entire thing?

I could have sworn that aircraft was leaving Detroit and not Amsterdam.

It was heading for Detroit.

[Slchtjgb]

I can't believe they would have done the experiment without pressurising the aircraft; surely that would invalidate the entire thing?

Yeah seeing as the experiment was performed by an explosives expert and an air accident investigator I'm willing to put my faith in them. Unless what is being suggested here is this is some vast conspiracy to make us all feel more safe in planes.

[Zhgrlpil]

I can't believe they would have done the experiment without pressurising the aircraft; surely that would invalidate the entire thing?

Take a look at the video again, the aircraft has sections missing, so in no way was it pressurised unless only those few row's where sealed off. Anyone catch the whole show?

And also another point, it's not just a case of pressurising the cabin. Aircraft are pressurised to the equivelant height 6000-8000 feet or so depending on height and make.

So what is the equivelant pressure ratio of say 6000 feet cabin and 30,000 outside, when at sea level?

Unless the experiment was undertaken in a hyperbaric chamber, I can't see them bothering to also add explosive decompression to the experiment.

[Zhgrlpil]

Yeah seeing as the experiment was performed by an explosives expert and an air accident investigator I'm willing to put my faith in them. Unless what is being suggested here is this is some vast conspiracy to make us all feel more safe in planes.

No I think the article is misleading.

Wasn't the bomb setoff while the aircraft was on approach to landing? If so then it may have only been 6000 feet above sea level, and no decompression would happen.

So then when asked to recreate the incident, the experts did just that, recreating a blast without pressure as a factor.

[MrsGoo]

Take a look at the video again, the aircraft has sections missing, so in no way was it pressurised unless only those few row's where sealed off. Anyone catch the whole show?

And also another point, it's not just a case of pressurising the cabin. Aircraft are pressurised to the equivelant height 6000-8000 feet or so depending on height and make.

So what is the equivelant pressure ratio of say 6000 feet cabin and 30,000 outside, when at sea level?

Unless the experiment was undertaken in a hyperbaric chamber, I can't see them bothering to also add explosive decompression to the experiment.

That's the whole damned point of the experiment!
What you could have queried was the affect the airflow, and resulting turbulence, may have had to the structure of the outer skin in the area damaged - although the designers do take that into account!
One advantage of the current hysteria about plane hi0jacking is that the pilot's door and bulkhead's are now re-inforced and kept closed, so they wouldn't be affected by the loss of breathing air and the rapid loss of consciousness that would occur - this can happen in seconds and sometimes to rapidly for an oxygen mask to be used.
What may be more of a concern is the potential damage to control electronics and hydraulics which has resulted in the loss of otherwise lightly damaged aircraft.

[Zhgrlpil]

I'm confused Gordo

Yes they added explosives, but where was the decompression of the cabin pressure?

[everlastinge]

I'm confused Gordo

Yes they added explosives, but where was the decompression of the cabin pressure?

For those confused in regards to the cabin pressure, they added this tidbit:
Some readers have questioned the validity of the experiment given that the plane was tested on the ground. The programme-makers gave this response:

At the time of the attempted detonation, Flight 253 was descending rapidly and its altitude has been estimated to be around 10,000ft.

At that height the difference in pressure inside and outside the plane would not have been great enough significantly to affect the explosion.

So the explosion team ruled that the decommissioned plane's lack of doors was not a factor in the test.

With this quantity of explosive, the peak pressure and impulse are over quickly and decay rapidly over distance. The doors were sufficiently far away that the overpressure would have dissipated before it reached them.