Airbus 380 is unsafe

[Brah]

...said the guy who just hit a milestone BD to rival that

I love airplanes. I'd like to bring the Wright brothers forward in time to see what their first flights have brought... unbelievably sophisticated machines.

That's because SE was there with the Wright Brothers on that maiden flight at Kitty Hawk.

[x9200]

The probability of that happening is way lower than having substandard breast implant exploding during take off (due to change in atmospheric pressure)

Can you quote a reliable source for this? Frankly speaking I think it is a rubbish.

[the lynx]

The probability of that happening is way lower than having substandard breast implant exploding during take off (due to change in atmospheric pressure)

Can you quote a reliable source for this? Frankly speaking I think it is a rubbish.

Of course it is not substantiated. This is for laughs. Although theoretically it may be possible. I'm still looking for any source to back this one up. Have you seen the video already?

[nutnut]

The weird thing is, I am not scared to get on a plane, scared to be on a plane or scared to think about planes, I understand that the likelihood of crashing is very very slim and I am a rational human being with a statistical brain.

I just can't help feel a little angsty when I take off and land! I still love it and if I am in Business I tend to take my preflight Champers to ensure it's not so bad

[x9200]

The probability of that happening is way lower than having substandard breast implant exploding during take off (due to change in atmospheric pressure)

Can you quote a reliable source for this? Frankly speaking I think it is a rubbish.

Of course it is not substantiated. This is for laughs. Although theoretically it may be possible. I'm still looking for any source to back this one up. Have you seen the video already?

Yep, I watched it.
Atm pressure at sea level is 100kPa. Typical cabin pressure at 33-35k feet is >70kPa. What's the max volume of such implant? I guess less than 1l. Now make an absurd assumption it is filled with air (what will never be the case) and you will end up with 40% implant expansion. Maybe it can rupture under such condition but never explode and thinking about more realistic scenario it is very unlikely you will find any air / other gases pockets even in some substandard implants. Liquids do not expand significantly under such condition so there is no really any reason why it should even rupture, not because of the pressure change at least.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Yeah, but it's good for grins!

[Splatted]

Does it need to crash to been deemed unsafe as a grouse by a pilot. It might be a difficult plane in certain circumstances and might not have crashed solely due to the expertise of the pilots. If it's a difficult plane it could be inherently unsafe but still accident free.

In the case of the space shuttle, an onboard computer is what keeps the whole thing stable in flight.

Even the engineers that designed the thing, describe it as a flying brick.

[nakatago]

And the Mythbusters did the experiment to back up the theory.

The probability of that happening is way lower than having substandard breast implant exploding during take off (due to change in atmospheric pressure)

Can you quote a reliable source for this? Frankly speaking I think it is a rubbish.

Of course it is not substantiated. This is for laughs. Although theoretically it may be possible. I'm still looking for any source to back this one up. Have you seen the video already?

Yep, I watched it.
Atm pressure at sea level is 100kPa. Typical cabin pressure at 33-35k feet is >70kPa. What's the max volume of such implant? I guess less than 1l. Now make an absurd assumption it is filled with air (what will never be the case) and you will end up with 40% implant expansion. Maybe it can rupture under such condition but never explode and thinking about more realistic scenario it is very unlikely you will find any air / other gases pockets even in some substandard implants. Liquids do not expand significantly under such condition so there is no really any reason why it should even rupture, not because of the pressure change at least.

[the lynx]

And the Mythbusters did the experiment to back up the theory.

The probability of that happening is way lower than having substandard breast implant exploding during take off (due to change in atmospheric pressure)

Can you quote a reliable source for this? Frankly speaking I think it is a rubbish.

Of course it is not substantiated. This is for laughs. Although theoretically it may be possible. I'm still looking for any source to back this one up. Have you seen the video already?

Yep, I watched it.
Atm pressure at sea level is 100kPa. Typical cabin pressure at 33-35k feet is >70kPa. What's the max volume of such implant? I guess less than 1l. Now make an absurd assumption it is filled with air (what will never be the case) and you will end up with 40% implant expansion. Maybe it can rupture under such condition but never explode and thinking about more realistic scenario it is very unlikely you will find any air / other gases pockets even in some substandard implants. Liquids do not expand significantly under such condition so there is no really any reason why it should even rupture, not because of the pressure change at least.

Which theory? I'm curious to know.

[Strong Eagle]

Does it need to crash to been deemed unsafe as a grouse by a pilot. It might be a difficult plane in certain circumstances and might not have crashed solely due to the expertise of the pilots. If it's a difficult plane it could be inherently unsafe but still accident free.

In the case of the space shuttle, an onboard computer is what keeps the whole thing stable in flight.

Even the engineers that designed the thing, describe it as a flying brick.

Almost all high performance aircraft, a jet fighter for example, are computer controlled. The reason for this is the trade off between stability and maneuverability.

If you design an airplane so that it has a tendency to dampen out steering inputs and return to a steady state of flight, then it is much harder to make this airplane design react quickly to inputs. Jet airliners are such an example.

On the other hand, jet fighters are designed such that any steering input is amplified to the point that it is impossible for a human being to control the aircraft. A computer is required to make literally thousands of tiny changes per second to keep the aircraft "on the edge" and flying.

The shuttle, because of the design necessary for high speed reentry, also exhibits instabilities, again controlled by a flight computer.

[Strong Eagle]

And the Mythbusters did the experiment to back up the theory.

The probability of that happening is way lower than having substandard breast implant exploding during take off (due to change in atmospheric pressure)

Can you quote a reliable source for this? Frankly speaking I think it is a rubbish.

Of course it is not substantiated. This is for laughs. Although theoretically it may be possible. I'm still looking for any source to back this one up. Have you seen the video already?

Yep, I watched it.
Atm pressure at sea level is 100kPa. Typical cabin pressure at 33-35k feet is >70kPa. What's the max volume of such implant? I guess less than 1l. Now make an absurd assumption it is filled with air (what will never be the case) and you will end up with 40% implant expansion. Maybe it can rupture under such condition but never explode and thinking about more realistic scenario it is very unlikely you will find any air / other gases pockets even in some substandard implants. Liquids do not expand significantly under such condition so there is no really any reason why it should even rupture, not because of the pressure change at least.

Which theory? I'm curious to know.

I believe Nat is pulling your leg. In any event, liquid or gel filled implants are incompressible and not not subject to volume change. If they were filled with a gas then,

Gas theory: PV = nrT or

(P1*V1)/T1 = (P2*V2)/T2

Which basically enables you to compute the new state of a gas based upon changes in pressure, volume, or temperature. If you cut the pressure in half, the volume of gas will double.

[nakatago]

I believe Nat is pulling your leg. In any event, liquid or gel filled implants are incompressible and not not subject to volume change. If they were filled with a gas then,

Gas theory: PV = nrT or

(P1*V1)/T1 = (P2*V2)/T2

Which basically enables you to compute the new state of a gas based upon changes in pressure, volume, or temperature. If you cut the pressure in half, the volume of gas will double.

I was referring to the explanation by x9200 actually.

Moreover, since you brought up gas laws and building up on what x9200 said, and also for the benefit of the recently well-endowed females reading:

Trapped gas in implants would indeed expand but the gels/liquids and the sac itself also exert pressure on these gases. There is a finite number of gas molecules in a confined (and trapped) air bubble in an implant and hence, would only exert so much pressure against the implant walls if you remove/lessen the pressure exerted on it from outside by the atmosphere.

Also, bewbies.

[the lynx]

Ah never blend with physics (hence me in biology) but those explanations do make sense! Thanks guys.

For more laughs, that assurance won't encourage me to get boob job anyway.

[Mi Amigo]

Blimey, the ideal gas law and mammary glands - one never knows quite what one is going to encounter when checking this forum. But this discussion has given me a flashback to a rather attractive lady who taught us physics (sadly only briefly) at my high school. Happy days.

[nutnut]

Physics and Boobs!

Gotta love it!