FB removed this meme citing misinformation. I've been warned, again lol
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (74)
sorted by:
A wing is just a bunch of little boxes with ribbing in a hatch pattern. Those boxes are made out of strong aluminum, however, the steel that the building is made out of is "high strength steel," not "mild steel." From the paper I linked above:
They don't say specifically how strong the steel is, though they might in their actual analytical paper, which I didn't find (I didn't look that hard). It is "high strength steel," which is anywhere from about 6 to 15 times stronger than the strongest aluminum per volume. On the airplane, it doesn't matter how many boxes there are to give it structure. Once one crumples, the rest behind will follow, just like a martial artist breaking blocks. The separation between the blocks makes it easy after the first. The test then will be for any one individual box.
It's not "mild steel," it's not "rebar," its high strength tempered steel in a box column designed to hold up the, at the time, tallest skyscraper in the world.
So the relevant question is, how thick are each of the individual cross beams in the wing v. the thickness of the box column holding up a skyscraper?
The weight of the fuel, the number of boxes in the wing, all that other stuff is far less important because of the dynamics of impact and the narrow focus of the actual impact site. Fuel for example, will just move out of the way. It's not going to do shit.
Have you ever tried to punch through 10mm of hardened steel in a box design? Those bolts are even thicker. The failure mode will not be the bolts. You have to actually break the whole box. The lips that make it into an "H" on each side that are part of the attachment points actually make it even stronger in the direction of impact. You have to basically crumple both sides as well as both faces. Try to do it with aluminum. Just try. See how thick you have to make the aluminum. It will have to be 6 to 15 times thicker to even hold it's own, which is why the model created by the government proofers did exactly that, modeling the wing as if it were just one box with the collective thickness of all the wing boxes, which is ludicrous.
So have you ever actually touched the wing of a large aircraft, or changed out any structural components?
I've worked with aircraft grade aluminum and high strength steel (cut, drilled, welded, etc.). Do I need to work on actual airplanes to understand physics or engineering? (I have degrees in both.)
You didn't actually address a single point I made.
Yes you do actual have to not only touch it, but to go inside them as well. I didn't address your points cause it reads like someone who has read everything than can about the moon arguing about the surface with an astronaut who has actually walked on it.
I'm getting ready to goto work, I'll try and look at your points later.
When analyzing failure modes for an object, the best test is an actual test of the actual objects. It doesn't matter if you are the designer, the builder, the mechanic, etc. What matters is if you are the tester. In this case of trying to understand a failure mode without an actual test, being a designer, builder, or mechanic is irrelevant unless those people have actual experience that is similar to the test in question. Like, if you, as a mechanic, have fixed airplane wings after they have run into 10mm thick high strength steel beam boxes, then your mechanic experience is relevant. If not, it doesn't mean dick all.
In such a case, without any relevant experience, what you want is someone who has experience in analyzing failure modes of similar structures. I have that. I'm not saying "you should listen to me instead," what I am saying is dismissing that experience because I'm not an aircraft mechanic is idiotic. And that is exactly what you are doing.
You both are just disagreeing from different engineering perspectives, and I think that discussion is both valid and incredibly interesting to read.
You have a good point that someone who works on them routinely would have more narrow experience with them, but Sly is also right that experience in the same materials is still relevant.
Either way, I just hope you both remain honest and genuine about your disagreement because that's more honesty than we ever get about the subject matter itself.