Has everyone seen the news story Chris Fogg, the Critical Care Nurse that was sucked half out of the plane he was flying in due to explosive decompression? Seems that the window he was sitting near simply had a catastrophic failure, shattered, and caused the decompression.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the same result could happen from firing a bullet at a window.

The big difference is that this was a small plane with large windows (they appear to be 2-3 times bigger than airline windows).

So the myth as seen in the movies (almost always a jumbo jet) certainly stays busted, but it at least seems plausible that firing a bullet at one of those large windows on a small plane could shatter the window, thereby causing explosive decompression.

Firing a bullet through a pressurized fuselage has been tested and busted

I don't think they tested this myth properly. They need to have the plane in an environment that is equivalent to 30,00 feet atomospheric pressure wise and have the plane pressurized to 1 atmosphere. This would give a greater low pressure area on the outside and thus cause considerable damage when creating a hole in the fusilage. They did the opposite and only pressurized the inside of the plane to offset the atomospheric pressure of 30,000 feet.

Actually the test they did would show more movement of object then a test at 30,000 feet. The density of the air they created would give more force to objects then the air in a real airplane.

Remember airplane windows are not made of glass. The do not shatter. All a bullet does is punch a nice little hole through the window. Nothing more.

theTroll

I think it also could be plausable because what if the smaller plane was not pressurized? Would the outcome be different if the mythbuster's plane was not pressurized?

[quote]I think it also could be plausable because what if the smaller plane was not pressurized? Would the outcome be different if the mythbuster's plane was not pressurized?[/quote]

if the plane is not pressurized you cannot have decompression of any kind.

the pressure inside of a unpressurized plane will be equal to that of outside of the plane.

if a small planes window suddenly shattered while traveling at say... 400 MPH I think you would get sucked out by the air rushing past the plane, not a "decompression". Think of sticking your hand out your car window at like 100. Now think of that about 8 x worse.

also, (and i need to correct myself here too) when a pressurized plane or space craft experiences explosive decompression you get blown out (from the inside), not sucked out.

What kind of smaller plane? Piper Cubs, Cessnas and the like are limited to flying at a max altitude of about 10,000 feet because most of them do not have pressurization systems like the Boeings do.

The issue is this; when they have tested this myth and the structures that they build kept failing. As seen, one of the cushions of the cockpit seats was ripped out and thrown a 100 yards (I think), and the plane was not fully pressurized. So the Myth partially works... if the plane was standing still on the ground and pumped up like a balloon.

There is a factor that is not being taken into consideration; A pressurized plane in flight is traveling in excessive speed. 300 mph for a propeller plane, over 600 mph for a jet.

Once anything causes a hole on the side of the plane, and the plane manages to survive the damage (as most do not, and you end up with a bloody mess to deal with), there is a continual suction being created as the plane's body and the hole on that body is being rubbed by the air outside. This creates a vacuuming effect and further damage, and thus a greater explosive decompression that lasts for many minutes, not just seconds as they had done.

People have been sucked out of their seats, and in most cases destruction of the aircraft:
A DC-10
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/thy948/photo.shtml

A Boeing 737
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aloha243/photo.shtml

A Boeing 747
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/pa103/photo.shtml
(though it was a bomb, it was tested that the device {no stronger an a large cherry bomb in a radio} did minor damage to the plane, that minor damage exponentially grow into a major decompression explosion due to the pressurized cabin and the buffeting/vacuuming effect of traveling 600 mph in air)

Other incidents include, A windshield being blown out and the co-pilot and 2 other crews holding on to the captain while he was 1/2 sucked out of the window. The flight engineer landed the plane.

A baby being sucked out when a terrorist blow up a small bomb, creating a small hole on the side of the craft.

To prove a vacuuming effect, take a clear glass drinking bottle and fill it with smoke, like cigarette smoke. Then place the bottle to your lips and blow across the opening like would blow the bottle to get a whistle note out of it. Done correctly (and if you have enough breath), all the smoke will be blown out of the bottle. Now multiply that effect to the size of a jumbo jet...

> I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say
> that the same result could happen from firing a
> bullet at a window.

Another point is that windows in commercial airliners are far smaller than the window that Fogg was partially blown out of.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-jul0107-freak_accident.32f8dd86.html

they didnt test the myth properly.the plane needed to be equal to at LEAST 30,00 ftwhere the atsmshere changes . a nurse was recenlty sucjed out of a jet plane at 30,000. they explosive decompression on their test was nothing equal to wat it would be like if you where 30,000 ft. above. Plasible?Busted?confirmed?you pick.tell them to re-test the myth!!!!!!

-Bookworm919

There is very little vacuuming effect, look up boundary layer.

theTroll

[quote] and thus a greater explosive decompression that lasts for many minutes, not just seconds as they had done.[/quote]

You don't know what you are talking about.

An explosive decompression lasts 0.1 seconds or less. If it takes longer it is either just decompression or rapid decompression.

Decompresion lasting many minutes is just decompression.

Explosive decompression or passenger ejection are possible. But you are not going to do it with a bullet.

1. "Expls0sive decompression" implies that the plane expl0des. IOW, think of a balloon.

2. The pressure built up inside the plane by the normal pressurization method is what pushes objects out of a pressurized cabin, not a vacuum.

alright now i havnt read all of these replys but my problem is that the mythbusters havent used all the variables. they've compressed the inside cabin and used air flow outside the cabin. i beleave that they need to compress the cabin, compress the outside of the cabin to normal conditions, have wind, and shoot the gun.

>Firing a bullet through a pressurized fuselage has been tested and busted<

Hey master_sergeant, didn't I say in my original post that the myth is still busted? Next time read the post before you start stating the obvious.

If you had seen the episode you would also know they shot at a window as well.

The size of the window isn't going to change much. Even in the air nurse episode there was no explosive decompression.

How does an airplane that's not a high performance fighter jet reach 20,000 feet just after takeoff? How does a broken window unfasten a seatbelt? That nurse story looks fishy to me.

Same thing with the pilot story. How could a pilot (with 4-point seat belts) get sucked out of the windshield? That's a high pressure area!

Sorry, but structural failures that dump people out of a hole in the side of an airplane aren't expl0sive decompression. None of the DC-10 crashes or the Pan Am 103 crash were caused by gunfire. As for the Aloha incident, any expl0sive decompression was dissipated when the roof came off. Only two people were lost. They were not wearing seat belts. Their departure was hardly exl0sive. Several passengers held onto them before the slipstream overpowered them.

Sorry, but Buster doesn't take orders from straw men.

When the guys tested this myth they did the best they could to represent the static pressure difference between the cabin and exterior of an aircraft flying at altitude.

However, I'm not sure whether it was down to budget constraints, the fact that they couldn't be bothered or a woeful and unforgiveable technical oversight, but they neglected the most significant factor; the one that would cause the greatest explosive effect and most spectacular results. As well as the relatively minor difference in static pressure, an aircraft flying at approximately 500mph would be affected by a gigantic difference in dynamic pressure if the integrity of the structure was breached. Now that would do some damage!

How about doing it again guys?

While it may seam like a lot, it really isn't that much, only a couple PSI. The effect will be even lower at 35,000 feet.