You obviously have never experienced one. You need to do some research before making uninformed comments. Most aircraft are pressurized to approximately 5000 feet as was the plane I had mine on.
I've done the research. It's quoted above. During WW2 the tests indicated that explosive decompression was
unlikely to be a substantial problem. During WW2 the tests indicated that internal organ damage was not a
likely consequence. During WW2 the tests indicated that substantial structural damage was
NOT a consequence. And you need to be a little less obnoxius and read that which I wrote (which includes the link and the text of the medical research article of which you quoted one small part).
I did not say it wasn't dangerous. I said it wasn't "
catastrophic" which is the word you used. I also said it was not *likely* to cause substantial problems apart from the rare oddity that someone had something unusual happen. I was correct. Your original claim was I quote:
If the plane took battle damage to the cabin, there was often explosive decompression that could be catastrophic at altitude. Burst eardrums, ruptured intestines, loss of consciousness and more were all possibilities not too mention the ever present possibility of loss of structual integrity.
There was no documented instance in ANY test of "loss of structural integrity" causing "catastrophic" effects. If you meant a plane could be damaged you are correct. If you meant a plane would disintigrate a la "Goldfinger" it has been pointed out by others apart from myself that the claim is not supported by any data. I'm guessing that this could happen at higher altitudes and in faster aircraft, but it has been noted that even the Aloha airlines 737 was not destroyed. And that decompress was at airspeeds higher than any B-29 flew and at altitude greater than any B-29 flew.
If you meant that some crew members could sometimes suffer debilitating effects you'd be correct. The study that we both cited supports that claim. But "debilitating effects" <> "catastrophic" effects. The distinction is important. It would seem on face value that you were greatly exaggerating the effects. Or perhaps your life is full of petty "catastrophes."
If you would care to do a little research on your own, you'd find out that your nonlethal, noncatastrophic, non-plane-killing experience was typical. You'd also discover that the B-29 had separate pressurized compartments so that a depress of either the fore or aft section or the midsection tunnel did not affect the other compartments. Finally, you'd discover that depress did in fact occur on numerous occasions on B29s in combat and excepting the ONE incident that you mentioned (where substantial structural damage was inflicted by an exploding
shell) there are no accounts of crewmen actually being sucked out of an aircraft merely through explosive decompression caused by a small hole.
Here is the only account I've ever heard of a crewman possibly being sucked from a B29 in a depress incident. From
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:iW ... sion&hl=en
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. The crew in the back reported the side blister was gone and so was Sgt. Hornyia. A shell 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
So here you have a B-29 taking exploding shell hits that cause depress. The crewman's account notably does not say "and we lost Sgt. Horniya when depress caused him to be sucked from the plane." It says the side blister and its crewman were gone. German shell hits were known to tear ball turrets from B-17s in the ETO, so I don't think the loss of a crewman when his observation blister disappears is necessarily germane to our discussion. The B-29 was taking multiple exploding shell hits. Under these circumstances a person would have to beg the question to conclude that depress cause the loss of the crewman.
So now you can go ahead and say that explosive decompression wasn't dangerous.
Why would I make that claim? I never said or implied same. Only a really intellectually dishonest person or a classic chickenshit would claim that I did.
Here is some info for you to digest. I'm sure you can find more on the web. I'll even let you counter with the Mythbusters test just so I can rip that one apart too.
You might try to rip it apart as you did in your poorly researched, weak, and strawman attempt at a rebuttal above. And you'd fail. Again.
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?
