I'll take your last sentence first. I don't believe I ever mentioned modeling it in the game.
Odd. In the context your use of the word "catastrophic" in describing damage to a pressurized compartment as a counterpoint to a post that asserted that pressurized compartment craft might reasonably have lower fatigue rates made it seem like you were commenting on game mechanics. My bad then.
I simply refuted the numerous inaccuracies you had and still have concerning the potential effects of decompression on people and aircraft.
I have made no errors. Try rereading what I wrote. No one here has said that decompression is a trivial thing. I just don't agree that it is all that catestrophic. For the B-29s it remains the case that all you have in support of your position is the possible loss of one crewman (from the 40th BG) in ambiguous circumstances. That's a pretty thin body of evidence about all that catastrophism.
We *were* talking abou B-29s. We may of course refer to other decompression incidents. They're bloody awfully rare, and the cirumstances that you can name don't indicate that many ships were brought down by it. There are the Comets, and there are lots of examples where people were killed but crew and aircraft kept going.
As to the Comets, the problem certainly *was* window size. As you noted window shape affects fatigue. In the Comets (the early ones) the windows were so large that losing one was tantamount to loss of a substantial portion of the effective structure of the aircraft. So, yeah, you don't see square windows any more. Nor do you see windows the size of the ones used on the Comet. By the way the Nimrod you will note does not have a whole bunch of oversized passenger windows whose loss might affect the integrity of the airframe.
And you are right. I am no expert on decompression but I am a damn sight more knowledgeable about it than someone who has only read about it in a book. Not only do I have extensive training in hypoxia and explosive/rapid decompression events, I have actual experience in real life ED. What are your qualifications concerning ED and its effects on people and aircraft? Please tell me it's something more than what you read in a 60 year old army report or saw on the Mythbusters.
What I've read in a book. But I do not agree that you have any more insight. Just more training in dealing with it. At some point you have to consider that people who have systematically studied the problem have opinions that need to be considered. That's why I take the word of the USAAF study of decompression effects over yours all day every day. Your claim that decompression might be a catastrophic problem for B-29s is not supported by the Army's medical studies, does not consider the redundancy in systems, the practics of flying the B-29s, nor to any degree the propensity for the phenomenon to occur in B-29s. Were this much of a problem you'd find it extensively discussed in histories, in Boeing technical papers, in after action reports, and in the memories of B-29 crews. Such a record is not there.
You choose to disregard the report of a B-29 crew that experienced an ED event which killed a crewmember. You also choose to ignore all the classic signs of ED as reported by that same crew. Signs such as "fog", a "swoosh" sound, forcible ejection of a crewmember and papers blowing around. The pilots state in several places the word "decompression."
No I don't ignore these things. I note that the hit was forward in the cabin and the lost observation blister was aft. I also note that no one in that crew suggested that the blister was lost to "explosive decompression." I also note that the B-29 had three separate compartments, which would mitigate against any catastrophic effect on the observation blister *aft* given that the hits were in the forward section. I note that the pilots said the forward cabin lost pressurization. Logically if this event could cause damage some 30 feet aft in a separate compartment, it would have cause substantial damage forward. Yet there was none. Finally, I note that in accordance with basic laws of fluid dynamics, pressure flows from areas of highest pressure to lowest. Since the hit was forward, the pressure in the aft section would not have forced parts of the aft section of the airplane outward, but instead would have caused circulation and greatest straing in the forward section (assuming that the three compartments were not isolated by shutting their doors).
Your analysis on this matter is just crud, really. You're so emotionally bound up in the argument that you've attributed conclusions to the crewmen that they never made, attributed cause where none is given and despite contrary evidence. I hope you're not working for the NTSB or the FAA.
You will also note that the crew indicates that they were hit a single 20mm shell in the cockpit and yet the right side blister and gunner were "sucked" (their words, not mine) out of the aircraft. Tell ya what. I'll quote the pilot and copilot's experience:
You do not need to. I already read it and provided the link for you. The crew does not say the observer was lost to explosive decompression. As I noted, your twisting of the crew's words is illogical and not supported by the laws of fluid dynamics. I think it is far more parsimonious to suspect that the blister was hit by a shell. That would certainly "suck" the observer out of the aircraft if he was not strapped in.
And I note, for the incident in question, that the aircraft was not "catastrophically" damaged. Heck, even the crewman would have survived (possibly) had he not been strafed while descending.
snip... "His blister must have blown, and he went out and took the sight with him, and he still had control of the turret."
Gee. Wonder how his blister could have blown out if the shell hit was in the forward cabin. In the real world, such a hit would reduce pressure on the interior face of the blister, causing it to (a) do nothing, or (b) if the external pressure was great enough push the blister and crewman INTO the cabin.
Bob Moss recalls the explosion in the plane and the events that followed: Fighters attacked us as we turned back over the Straits of Formosa heading toward China. A tremendous "swoosh" scattered papers and other items as the aircraft, at that instant, lost cabin pressure
.
Yep. All that "paper scattering" must have been really catastrophic. Might have inflicted some paper cuts.
The crew in the back reported the side blister was gone and so was Sgt. Hornyia. A shell had exploded over the co-pilot's position injuring Lt. Weinberg and Sgt. Klaver. Other damage to the plane involved the wiring in the bomb bay, the oxygen system, etc.
Interestingly, vis this discussion, the bomb bay was an unpressurized compartment. Under no circumstances could ANY kind of decompression have affected the bomb bay. So the evidence seems consistent with other hits on the aircraft (which would in turn be consistent with being shot at).
They mention just one 20mm cannon shell that caused an ED event, killed one crewman and forced them into an emergency landing at a fighter base. Cables, wiring, O2 system and a side blister all damaged or destroyed by a single 20mm shell that magically traveled throughout the aircraft and through several pressurized compartments causing all this damage because you say ED can't cause structural damage on a B-29. Are we back to the JFK magic bullet theory again?
Again, because you have a habit of putting conclusions in others' mouths, you have asserted that the crew claims that "one shell hit" did all that damage. The text does not make that claim. Moreover, the damage described is completely inconsistent with a single shell hit.
Tell ya what. I'll even go a little further and provide some details on 1500 or so people killed due to decompression effects during flight. I found these after a brief search. Some you've already mentioned like the Aloha bird but of course failed to state that someone died from being sucked out.
It wasn't germane. No one said that a person not strapped in could never be sucked out of a pressurized aircraft. Merely that the event was not catastrophic (to the aircraft in question). Vis modeling the B-29 in a game, "ED" would not be a phenomenon worthy of including in the model.
Your opinions don't count for crap when based on something you know nothing about. I don't really care if you find my opinion obnoxious or not. At least it's based on training and experience.
[:D][:D] Sure, herr Mac. Whatever you say. [;)]
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
