Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Question about the accidental discharge on that flight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rally
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 10

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Rally

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Posts
707
How high was the flight when they had that AD? Did the aircraft lose pressure? Interesting case study for all those arguements that people are going to be flying towards the hole.
 
How high was the flight when they had that AD? Did the aircraft lose pressure? Interesting case study for all those arguements that people are going to be flying towards the hole.

I have heard the airplane was between 8,000 and 10,000'.

The aircraft did not lose pressure either, and I actually have seen a few articles that mention what you say about it debunking the myth. Or maybe it was posts on here! :D
 
I don't think it would have been much problem. In the KC135, we still have the old sextant porthole in the ceiling of the cabin - it has a valve about a 1/2" diameter (about the same as a bullet) that opens to the outside air. It used to get routinely used for navigation, but now it is mostly used for vacuuming by bored crews by connecting a long hose. I also heard of one crew using that method to empty a full lav. Not a good idea.....

:erm:
 
Thats what I thought was trying to tell this to some guys on a gun website. (glocktalk.com) Good website.....But something that small I'd think the outflow valve would compensate especially at that low altitude.
 
Yes but this was a REAL airplane not one with plywood boards over the front windows (and foam) and a huffer running the packs.

:-)
 
Got to Mythbusters web site. They did this one.

When they did it, did it maintain the SAME pressurazation (sp) (I'm tired) I think more what they were testing was if it was going to be explosive and suck someone. What I am saying is, one bullet hole wouldn't the outflow valve compensate?
 
The hole would have to be over half the size of the out flow valve in order to lose pressure. If the out flow valve is 12in, the hole would have to be over 6 inches. It would spike if less then 6, but would maintain pressure.

Read up on this stuff, it is eye opening when you dig into aircraft systems and design.
 
So how big are most outflow valves?

Say a MU-2, a metroliner, a 421, a b757 etc?
 
The 737's is about one square foot when full open. A bullet hole in the fuselage will only make the outlet valve open that much less. Not a big deal (to the pressurization system).
 
After reading the subject of this string, I thought it was another "sleeping passener" story . . . glad to see it was about guns, not sex. Whew!
 
Stuff you don't hear on CNN MSNBC, FOXNEWS etc.

Thats kinda what I thought.
 
Differential pressure is differential pressure.

But once again they were looking for somebody to be sucked out of a window. Understandable in the Aloha case because 1/8 of the aircraft was missing. Totally different thing. I wonder how that aircraft even flew and stayed together.
 
Speaking of aloha somebody once told me that the FO set the cabin pressure incorrectly. I never really believed that, I always understood it as being a corrosion problem that lead to the massive cracks and destruction.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom