|
Tails
of the Gun
smibsid
|
Thursday, July 05, 2012
Calming Words From The Pilot
11 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
You do NOT want those types of guns on an airplane. If you miss (or if it goes completely through part of a body), it'll pierce the side of the airplane and it'll depressurize.
Even if terrorists decided to wear body armor (which they never have yet), all it will do is save their life; they'll still go down and people will easily tie them up. -
7/5/12, 9:55 AM
-
fel said...
-
HUH?????????????????
-
7/5/12, 10:27 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
a small hole in an airplane at altitude will NOT suck people out, crash the plane , etc..
See Mythbuster episode on this. -
7/5/12, 10:37 AM
-
DougT said...
-
"Every other cop in this city is satisfied with a .38 or .357, whattya have to carry that cannon for?"
"`Cause I hit what I aim at, that's why. .357's a good weapon, but I've seen .38's careen off windshields. No good in a city like this." -
7/5/12, 11:22 AM
-
Kristophr said...
-
Someone has been watching too many bad movies.
A single bullet hole is going to take damned near forever to depressurize a large aircraft. -
7/5/12, 12:13 PM
-
Kristophr said...
-
And that Stew needs to be reprimanded for using a .22 revolver.
-
7/5/12, 12:15 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Naw, Kris, she sent it to Alan Harton, and had it reamed out to .22 mag...carries Hornady PD ammo in it... great for close in situations.
Bill Jordan was an early advocate of small .22 mags for for gals and belly guns.
RAK -
7/5/12, 1:27 PM
-
toadold said...
-
US Air Marshall's carry semi-autos in 357 Sig caliber which duplicates the .357 S&W Mag ballistics in the 125 grain bullet loading.
-
7/5/12, 4:43 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Long, long ago, when I was young and dinosaurs still roamed the earth, I worked on jumbo aircraft (DC-10, anyone?) Those things are DESIGNED to leak air...the turbo compressors are always pumping air in, and valves release air out. One--or six--bullet holes are NOT going to depressurize the plane. No worries, unless someone is carrying a 37mm cannon...then worry...
-
7/5/12, 10:14 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
OT Anon @ 10:14...
I was a passenger on both the DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011. I always thought the 10 to be a rather 'sloppy' plane and the 1011 to be nailed together a lot better. I watched the fuselage flex back and forth around the middle bulkhead{mess? closet? lavatory?} which stayed perfectly still in relation to the deck on the 10, never say anything of the like in the 1011. A casual observer could see that the fuselage was twisting as the wings loaded an un-loaded from side to side. I did NOT think that was a good feature, given that the metal would fatigue after so many cycles.
IOW, given a choice, the Lockheed was my preference.
Comment?
tomw -
7/6/12, 9:47 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
@tomw:
Actually, you are right. The engineers at Douglas had several "Ghoul Pools" running as to which catastrophes would hit the DC-10.
Overall, the L-1011 WAS a much better designed and built aircraft. If Rolls-Royce hadn't gone TU and delayed engine delivery--too bad Lockheed didn't have a backup--the L-1011 would have ruled the skies.
Douglas built what was in comparison a flying bucket of bolts, the result of starting two years late and trying to catch up.
Later, I went to work for a company that required me to fly a significant number of times each month. I made my own reservations, and I would always ask the reservations agent what the equipment was. When she proudly exclaimed "oh, sir, it's the DC-10!" I would say "nope, get me another aircraft." In response to the stunned silence, I would tell her "I used to build those things, and I won't set foot on one." -
7/7/12, 2:06 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)