Technically blowing up an airliner is harder than it sounds. But its always a race and because we will forever be on the defensive it’s a challenge for us to prevent the next idea for how to destroy stuff. Who knows maybe terrorists will start using Snakes on a Plane! But in all seriousness, planes fly at high altitudes in order to take advantage of less wind resistance from there being less air particles up there, it helps to save on gas and fly faster. When flying at these high altitudes with less air around the outside of the airplane the inside needs to be kept at a reasonable pressure so the passengers don’t pass out due to oxygen asphyxiation. This pressure is of around 3-5,000 feet, so there are some heavy duty forces on an airframe when it is keeping an internal pressure of that while the outside pressure is that of around 30-45,000 feet. Now what happens with a bullet shot is that it breeches this cylinder of air and all the air rushes out of the aircraft trying to equalize, and then at that point you have those oxygen masks rush out of the ceiling. But the thing is you’re only going to have a hole. Like wise if you shoot out a window. You’re only going to have a hole. If you use a small explosive then you can create some damage. You may have some structural failure as the area of the cylinder is weakened around that point. But you still will not have catastrophic decompression. If you have a shaped charge or like a brick of C4 then you will have catastrophic decompression, the airframe can not hold itself together and use of control surfaces will fail. In some rare cases the plane can still survive. You may have seen the photos of the Hawaiian airlines 737 from the mid 80s where the roof broke off and it somehow landed, this was caused by a structural failure due to bad maintenance by the airline.
For practicality sake blowing up an airliner isn’t all that effective, and instead crashing it into something is. These explosives these terrorists had may have been used for blowing up the airplane but in my opinion I would think it would be more for destroying the new cockpit doors or as more of a scare tactic in order to gain control of the aircraft and go after something else. But fortunately for us and the rest of the world we’ll never know. And now we just have to sit and wait till the next attempted attack will happen. I just hope it won’t be here.
yeah but i'm just wondering why the nice, flamible fuel isn't better protected. the aforemntioned cigarette pack-sized bomb just punctured and ignighted the jet fuel. something about that seems wrong to me. i assume its just because airplanes weren't designed with such things in mind at first but nowadays you can't be too careful. i'm thinking better protection for the fuselage is in order. i don't want to be flying somewhere and have to worry about some douche bag with an agenda blowing me up over the atlantic.
Well the nice flamable fuel is fairly well protected. Most of it is stored in the wings away from the fusalage but there is some that is stored underneath the passengers. JP-5 and Jet A which are the primary Jet fuelas used by commercial airliners are pretty stable and take quite a bit to get them lit up. And yes you are right about design planning. Most of these aircraft were designed in the 60s and 70s and cigarette bombs were not the problem. But from probabbility stand point your car is more likely to blow up from some manufacturing error rather than an airplane with a cigarette bomb. And yeah better protection for the fusalage would be good but there is the business and technical problems associated with that. If you take down your fleet of aircraft to be retrofitted you'll lose all your money and employees. From a technical standpoint adding all that weight of kevlar or something for reinforcement negates the lift created by the wings and all you have is a really big car that makes alot of noise. And just for a comparison the weight of decorative (or just a standard) paint scheme on an aircraft can add as much as a half a ton.
yeah i figured weight would be an issue. but planes are big. some planes are huge. so a slightly heavier fusalage would just mean a slightly bigger plane which would mean slightly more passengers which would mean slightly more money for the airlines. you wouldn't have to ground the fleet either. just decommission the planes after a while and rebuild them. like when you put a "sell by" date on something. just be like "all planes built before 1960 will be grounded until they can be retrofitted." and then repeat that a little at a time until you catch up and everything is redone. perhaps i just don't know enough about the efforts required in airplaine building but it doesn't seem that hard with proper planning.
you got a point there about just make the planes bigger, which seems to be the current trend in aircraft production with the Airbus A380 (the double decker) and the concept for the Blended Wing Body aircraft (still only conceptual). The next problem associated with that is weight limits on runways. Land an ultra heavy plane and you destroy your runway from crack and fatigue. Potholes are bad enough at 25mph. Do that around 150 on a tricyle arrangement on something that is designed for flight not driving and everyone has a bad day.
The FAA does do that "sell by date" but thats just primarily for older aircraft that suffer from stress on the structure and are possibly in danger of destruction from the air pressure and forces in flight. And yeah retrofitting an entire airplane structure is an unbelieveabley huge undertaking just for one airplane.
Once a new alloy is developed or the new newer fibersteels, carbonfibers, and other lighter/stonger structural supports are developed then the next generation of commercial airliners will probabbly have the fusalages lined with it. But until then if you see a cigarette bomb or some guy trying to take over your plane suck up your fear get some people together and kick his ass before they can do something.
For practicality sake blowing up an airliner isn’t all that effective, and instead crashing it into something is. These explosives these terrorists had may have been used for blowing up the airplane but in my opinion I would think it would be more for destroying the new cockpit doors or as more of a scare tactic in order to gain control of the aircraft and go after something else. But fortunately for us and the rest of the world we’ll never know. And now we just have to sit and wait till the next attempted attack will happen. I just hope it won’t be here.
Reply
Reply
Reply
you wouldn't have to ground the fleet either. just decommission the planes after a while and rebuild them. like when you put a "sell by" date on something. just be like "all planes built before 1960 will be grounded until they can be retrofitted." and then repeat that a little at a time until you catch up and everything is redone. perhaps i just don't know enough about the efforts required in airplaine building but it doesn't seem that hard with proper planning.
Reply
The FAA does do that "sell by date" but thats just primarily for older aircraft that suffer from stress on the structure and are possibly in danger of destruction from the air pressure and forces in flight. And yeah retrofitting an entire airplane structure is an unbelieveabley huge undertaking just for one airplane.
Once a new alloy is developed or the new newer fibersteels, carbonfibers, and other lighter/stonger structural supports are developed then the next generation of commercial airliners will probabbly have the fusalages lined with it. But until then if you see a cigarette bomb or some guy trying to take over your plane suck up your fear get some people together and kick his ass before they can do something.
Reply
thanks.
Reply
Leave a comment