"Airliner would have survived xmas day bomb" |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | ||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You guys appear to be engaged in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. None of this matters. The test was a publicity stunt. There was no practical reason to perform it, other than to produce a video product to titillate techies, garner ratings and to sell copies and/or advertising time. Preventing terrorist bombs from getting aboard aircraft is the issue. Understanding with precision the yield of the required bomb aids only future homicidal terroists. |
||
John Allard
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You also know containment is very relevant, precisely why you agreed that Vulcan's open door premise was valid. Because the reduction in pressure would decrease the likelihood of a skin rupture.
First you agree that Vulcan is right, and the open door premise reduces the chance of a skin rupture, due to a reduction in containment. So containment is relevant. And now you tell us that the size of the aircraft, the degree of containment, the volume of air within the vessel available for a shock wave to dissipate is irrelevant. We can't have it both ways.
And besides - the width of the aircraft is quite small. So there isn't much air between the explosive and the wall.
So it's the effect of the shock front that's relevant now then is it? In which case the fact that the door is open, is irrelevant. And Vulcan wrong. Actually, only a small percentage of the blast in your ''close to the wall'' example would be relevant. Precisely why ''shaped charges'' are designed to focus more of the energy toward a structure.
As I said before...
And that includes a large volume within an airliner.
By the way...
If this degenerates into another meenigless argumant that benefits no one, I will delete all posts and allow the debate to continue, minus the pointless arguments. Just a warning. |
||
Rich
Just Flight Staff Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Planet Earth Points: 8543 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Did you know that the Titanic’s excess deck chairs were stored in the superfluous 4th chimney stack?
|
||
Slopey
Moderator in Command AirHauler Developer Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Points: 8280 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I did not know that.
|
||
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call. |
||
Rich
Just Flight Staff Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Planet Earth Points: 8543 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
In that case it goes to show that this post was both meaningful and beneficial |
||
Slopey
Moderator in Command AirHauler Developer Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Points: 8280 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
My life has been enriched. I am off to entertain my colleagues with my new found knowledge.
|
||
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call. |
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Meaningful and beneficial, interesting, of interest, to those that took part... apart from the last four posts.
|
||
Slopey
Moderator in Command AirHauler Developer Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Points: 8280 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Whoops! Gotta get the post count up somehow!
Anyway, back on topic.... Did they publish any documentation about the test in the public domain, or is it purely that video? These guys love to write stuff up, so if it's pukka there's likely a report on it somewhere? |
||
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call. |
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The claim...
Think it's clear in this thread now, despite the Mickey taking directed at Vulcan, that it certainly wasn't ''replicated'' to a high degree. Seems he's an explosives adviser, don't now what his doctorate's in.
Done for...
It was for a documentary on the BBC, so I'm thinking hardly a top notch, simulated to perfection experiment.
My apologies to Vulcan for taking the Mickey.
And full marks to John for showing us the light.
Watching it on iPlayer now.
|
||
Slopey
Moderator in Command AirHauler Developer Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Points: 8280 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Ahh, if it's a documentary team with an "expert" then that's a million miles different from the NTSB.
|
||
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call. |
||
Odai
Chief Pilot Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: NW England Points: 3731 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You know very well that possibilities are useless, there are an infinite number of "possibilities". How can you even begin to attempt a physics problem (which is what this is) without using the maths to determine what is going to happen?
Unless you have some bizarre new way to do physics that is completely unheard of and inaccessible to the rest of us? Guessing doesn't count.
No...? What is relevant is that the fuselage of an aircraft flying at 10,000 metres is already going to be under a hell of a lot more strain (pressure inside much bigger than outside) than that of an aircraft sitting on the tarmac.
And, like I said, a real bomber isn't going to be sitting on his own, partitioned from the rest of the cabin in a container of his own. So who cares?
There's little you can say to argue about the actual problem of what exactly would happen if a bomb went off in a pressurised airliner, versus what happened in the video - without the maths. If this is going to descend into the realms of guesswork then I'm no longer interested. |
||
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Odai, enough is enough.
Read your comment again. Your comment that the volume within which an explosion occurs is irrelevant. No need for convoluted arguments or cherry picking another's comments out of context. Or impressions of an annelid with an over active slime gland.
I think most are aware of the role that volume plays in an explosion, and how a shock front dissipates with distance and volume.
I will delete any more posts that side track this thread.
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Okay, after watching it on iPlayer [as Ras said earlier] later in the program, they explain that the aircrafts altitude was low enough so that the absence of a door was not a factor. The pressure differential was not relevant.
|
||
Slopey
Moderator in Command AirHauler Developer Joined: 11 Jun 2008 Points: 8280 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
What height were they at when he tried to set it off by the way?
|
||
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call. |
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
10,000 and descending Slopey.
Pressurized to 8000 aren't they 747's?
They said the small difference wasn't enough to affect the outcome of the explosion.
Basically, the investigators decided it was a small explosive in a large space, with minimal pressure differential, so whether the doors were shut or not irrelevant.
They had pressure sensors throughout the aircraft to detect how far the shock wave traveled inside the aircraft.
So, sorry Vulcan, no apologies to you after all. The experts did know what they were doing.
|
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Very nicely put!! Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
At 10,000 ft with a cabin altitude of 8,000 ft the cabin diff. pressure will be around 1.5 to 2.0 psi.
At max cruise altitude (41,000 ft) differential pressure is 8 psi. To give you an idea - 0.3 psi is sufficient to stop you from opening the cockpit window or the cabin door. Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
Odai
Chief Pilot Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: NW England Points: 3731 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Are you actually aware of what Jihad is?
|
||
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
|
||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That second line is a little rude, isn't it, Odai? I think I have a rudimentary understanding of what Jihad is. In very general terms, I believe it to be religiously sanctioned violence conducted by members of the Islamic faith against those they believe to be enemies of their religion, their prophet and their God. I'm sure there are many nuances and details that I am unaware of, but that definition is sufficient for a non-Muslim to understand the gist of it as it applies to us, I think. When a Muslim studies under the same Yemeni Imam who corresponded with, encouraged and praised our recent Fort Hood terroist/murderer, then boards an aircraft armed with a bomb and attempts to follow the orders he was given to detonate it over US soil, that's close enough for me. I doubt he did it because Northwest Airlines refused him an upgrade to 1st class, wouldn't give him any more peanuts during the flight or anything like that. He's a Jihadist. Do you believe the despicable little terrorist is not a Jihadist? |
||
John Allard
|
||
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |