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:
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.
We sometimes have to remove parts that have never been removed before. We have to have engineers to approve it. They can't write a procedure for it, they just have to ask us how to do it. And we will just try stuff. Until we get it, they watch us and then write a repair procedure. We know how much we can bend things until they break and we know how to use bottle jacks and portable hydro power in various ways that the engineers can't figure out.
How is that relevant to analyzing structural failure modes of impact? Answer, it isn't.
I am not in any way suggesting your experience doesn't give you a whole lot more knowledge in how to build an aircraft wing. (Some of) my experience on the other hand is in design and testing the materials these things are made out of. When it comes to creating reasonable models, the material properties, their size, shape, layout, connection strength, etc. are all the important bits of information you need to know. How to dismantle it, or repair it after the fact is irrelevant.
You seem to believe that an aircraft wing can tear through high strength steel (which as I said, is reported as 6 to 15ish times stronger per volume). I suggest that as a good first approximation, you would need a single piece wall thickness of about 6 to 15 times greater than the steel (60 to 150mm) to even have a chance of winning the collision war. That's just basic materials science. While the structure is not irrelevant, and relative variance in the specific properties matter, in this case, the structure isn't specifically designed to withstand frontal impacts with high strength steel beams, nor are the materials orders of magnitude different in their relative properties. This means that both design and the variance in relative properties are secondary to the basic strength. What matters most then, in such a case, is the material thickness.
Do aircraft wings have single beam thicknesses running horizontally (relative to impact) that are 60 to 150mm of solid aircraft grade aluminum?
It is for these reasons that the paper I cited looked at exactly the materials thicknesses for their "first approximation" analysis. The problem is, they modeled the wing as if it were a single box with the combined thicknesses of all the plates of aluminum making up the wing equaling a 100mm thick aluminum bar. That is ludicrous beyond sanity, yet somehow it got published. Indeed, it was the first thing to come up in a search as "proof."