ALbyDAL From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 22 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2492 times:
I've always wondered how well an aircraft door actually seals off the cabin. I know that with most doors opening inwards, the pressurization of the plane actually makes the seal stronger. I was in an exit row of an AA MD-80 yesterday and noticed that when I pulled back on the rubber trim around the exit door a little bit I could hear a noticeable hissing sound. The trim then snapped back in place very quickly when I let go of it, as if there was very strong suction behind it. Stuff like this makes me wonder!
ALbyDAL From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2439 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 1): Quoting ALbyDAL (Thread starter):
when I pulled back on the rubber trim around the exit door a little bit
As mentioned... it was part of the trim on the interior panel, NOT the actual door seal. Roughly akin to me fidgeting with a window shade.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2411 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 1): People who screw with aircraft doors while in flight make me wounder. Lucky nobody saw you.
There is very little you can do to a typical airliner door at cruise altitude which would be dangerous to the aircraft. Otherwise they'd secure it somehow.
As for door seals, they are not perfect. You will get leakage of heat and air. Still, they are a good compromise of weight/complexity vs tightness. Think of it this way: even if a whole window popped out, the pressurization system could easily compensate. So a slightly leaking door seal is no biggie.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Onetogo From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2401 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4): Think of it this way: even if a whole window popped out, the pressurization system could easily compensate.
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4): Think of it this way: even if a whole window popped out, the pressurization system could easily compensate. So a slightly leaking door seal is no biggie.
Not exactly. A door seal leaking, yes, but a missing window is too big of "leak:" the aircraft would rapidly depressurize. Besides condensation elimination, why do you think there is a plastic shield in front of the window?
N8076U From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2364 times:
The noise or whistling that may occur from any leak in a cabin door is normally more of an issue than the small amount of air that leaks past, as the aircraft's pressurization system can more than compensate for that.
Keep in mind that the outflow valve(s) are always open to some degree, creating a controlled leak, so as to exhaust stale air and make room for fresh air. Air even goes down the sink drains, as they are open to to outside, through the drain masts.
Bjones From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 123 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2345 times:
A hole the size of a window would most definately result in a rapid decompression, at least on the aircraft size I am most familiar with (narrowbody jets). Perhaps in something the size of a 747 it would result in a slower decompression but I tend to think not much slower. The incidents I have heard of where a rapid D occurred have in most cases been the result of fairly small (significantly less than 1 sq ft) holes.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2343 times:
I guess I stand corrected. But isn't the point of the pressurization system to keep the plane pressurized enough to reach a safe altitude in a reasonable time in case it springs a leak?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2314 times:
On the L-1011 a 5 square inch leak in the passenger or cargo door seals (cumulative over all the doors) would lead to an additional 68 pound fuel burn per hour, or $11,750 per year, in 1977 dollars. Door seals are very important.
Bjones From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 123 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2306 times:
No a pressurization system is to provide a safe and comfortable environment for humans at an altitude that is efficient for the aircraft and above most weather that would affect the flight. The oxygen masks are what are there to keep the passengers and crew safe and alive long enough to descend to a safe altitude for breathing without supplemental oxygen.
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11): I guess I stand corrected. But isn't the point of the pressurization system to keep the plane pressurized enough to reach a safe altitude in a reasonable time in case it springs a leak?
The pressurization system is a means of comfort to sustain life on board the aircraft, without any masks or suits. But should the system fail, that is why oxygen masks are provided above each seat, and usually, the pilots have about 12 minutes (depending on the aircraft) to bring it down to a safer altitude.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9213 posts, RR: 42 Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2132 times:
Quoting Bjones (Reply 10): A hole the size of a window would most definately result in a rapid decompression
Of course, but...
Quoting Bjones (Reply 13): No a pressurization system is to provide a safe and comfortable environment for humans at an altitude that is efficient for the aircraft and above most weather that would affect the flight. The oxygen masks are what are there to keep the passengers and crew safe and alive long enough to descend to a safe altitude for breathing without supplemental oxygen.
Quoting Bjones (Reply 10): Perhaps in something the size of a 747 it would result in a slower decompression but I tend to think not much slower
I was under the impression that airliners had to be certified to "manage" a pressure loss caused by a window blowing out (possibly two) long enough for the crew and passengers to don their masks. Not at normal pressure levels, obviously, but also not at zero pressure differential. Otherwise, why would Concorde's windows have been so much smaller?
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2113 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 16): Otherwise, why would Concorde's windows have been so much smaller?
Concordes windows were indeed smaller so as to allow the pressurisation system to handle multiple blowouts and maintain a 'breathable' (not necesarily a comfortable) level while the aircraft descended from operational altitude, without requiring deployment of masks.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 22 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9213 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
