S1Ep12 Explosive decompression of a plane
Posted by Prize_Fan_1019@reddit | mythbusters | View on Reddit | 12 comments
Am I the only one that thinks that this should have been plausible rather than busted? When they tested the myth of being sucked out of a plane in the event that a complete window blows out, buster was partially sucked thru the window. In the tests they carried out there was no outside air resistance as would be found in the real world when an airplane is 33000ft up, going X mph. From the results of their tests, buster would have been in the air stream and subject to a venturi effect thus pulling him from the plane.
Practical-Guest-2190@reddit
Morons in this thread dont understand venturi effect.
JezmundBeserker@reddit
Hmmm. I seem to remember a pressurized plane recently, specifically a 737, losing its door plug above 20,000 ft. Did you notice how the plane landed just fine, no one was sucked out, no papers flying everywhere, the only thing that would have happened would have been for a quick second, all of the moisture in the air inside the cabin would have condensed and gone out the hole in the cabin. That's a fog up event because it's that cold outside at 20,000ft as well as the difference in atmospheric pressure from the 11 atmospheres inside the cabin (it simulates us at 8000 ft high) to the 4-5atms outside isn't strong enough to do any damage such as an explosive decompression, but it's merely a physics experiment that you can do with a pressure vessel. Literally all moisture just vaporizes. That's it. It's not like people have 1500 papers on all of their seatback tables and suddenly you see 30,000 sheets of loose leaf paper or printer paper flying around and then suddenly some random guy from the front get sucked out, the roof starts to crack and then before you know it, your plane ride just became two planes except one section is missing you know, those engine things. You would literally need to go from the inside pressure of 11 atmospheres to 0 to 1 atmospheres for something catastrophic to happen.
loo_-@reddit
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/airplane-makes-emergency-landing-at-philadelphia-international-airport/52411/
JezmundBeserker@reddit
Yes I remember this exact one with the female pilot ATC conversation. The entire window was a blowout after the engine piece flew into it and given it was at cruising altitude of 32,000 ft, the force through the window from the higher atm cabin pressure to the substantially lower outer pressure would most likely have caused this flight to have a different and more grave outcome for all. Immediately she was pulled out until an equilibrium could be maintained (high -> low pr.) I hate to say it but she was literally a bottle cap as the pilot already had started the quick descent to at least 12,000 ft.
I would assume that the pilot would have done this due to the engine failure alarms coming on multiple screens.
Now compare the size of a window to the size of the door plug and the fact that there was a 12,000 ft altitude differential. Way different circumstances all together. The failed engine made it a hell of a lot harder of a success with the unfortunate luck of the sacrifice of one to save the many. So if this woman was in the bathroom at the time, that small of a hole at 32,000 ft would have done substantial structural damage especially where it was located. However just remember that a air Hawaiian jet lost an entire top front of the passenger section while cruising. They all survived that one. So maybe in that one situation where she gets up to go to the bathroom, the plane actually breaks up because well, Boeing. (and physics [she was literally the cork].)
Ok_Cartographer_7219@reddit
A Pilot was also once partially sucked out of the windshield, was only saved by heroic efforts of the flight crew
https://www.businessinsider.com/british-airways-pilot-sucked-out-plane-mid-flight-survived-2024-1
JezmundBeserker@reddit
Oh and by the way, MythBusters did this early in their seasons. With pressure sealed large passenger aircraft salvaged from the "boneyard".
They tested everything from 10,000 ft to 30,000 ft with incidents including separate rounds of fire from three different guns (9mm, 40mm, 45acp I think, not a gun guy here but I don't hate them), then they started with small to medium and eventually larger explosions using either det-cord, tnt or c4.
snrub742@reddit
You might want to go watch the blueprint again. The myth was about a bullet hole causing explosive decompression
No_Nobody_32@reddit
You don't get *sucked* out - you'd get *BLOWN* out (higher pressure differential inside v outside
Malakai0013@reddit
Aircraft aren't perfectly sealed compression chambers. They have a valve that fluctuates. I've seen aircraft get up to 9psid with a quarter sized hole in the skin of the plane. They don't just hold pressure, they're constantly building pressure, much of which escapes through various miniscule gaps or the aforementioned valve.
Also, Buster wasn't almost sucked out during the myth. The myth was for a bullet hole causing an explosion of decompression, which the pressure valve would prevent. Buster was nearly sucked during the "let's ramp up the conditions to see if we can replicate the myth because the myth failed."
madmart20@reddit
The Mythbusters process was generally as follows:
Recreate the circumstances - that is, engineer a scenario that matched the circumstances described in the myth as closely as possible and attempt to obtain an outcome as described in the original myth.
Replicate the results - if #1 proved to be impossible or required such a specific confluence of circumstances as to be essentially so, in the process busting the myth, then it became a matter of finding out exactly what was needed to create an outcome like the one described.
As has already been stated, Adam and Jamie were able to demonstrate that just shooting a hole in the fuselage would not lead to catastrophic explosive decompression; the hole is too small, and the cabin pressurisation system would increase the bleed air flow from the first stage compressors to compensate, i.e. they recreated the circumstances of the myth and were unable to get the result that the myth claimed would happen.
It took significant damage to the fuselage by way of explosives (and it is in itself revealing how many myths needed copious amounts of explosives to produce the stated outcome - to quote the Hyneman, "When in doubt, C4") to result in an explosive decompression, so the question would be which is more damaging, the decompression or the blast itself (most likely the blast, IMO).
Ragnarsworld@reddit
The myth was whether or not a bullet hole would cause explosive decompression. It didn't. Therefore busted.
Blowing out the entire window was not the myth; it was them ramping it up to get a result.
(as an aside, airplanes maintain pressure with an outflow valve that automatically opens and closes to regulate air pressure. depending on the plane model, the outflow valve may be almost the size of a window. cabin pressurization systems can more than keep up with a bullet hole)
OhNoTheDawnPatrol@reddit
Funny how explosive decompression only seems to happen when you have... an explosion.