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."

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. 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."

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. The problem is, they modeled the wing as if it were a single box with the combined thicknesses of all the boxes 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."

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. The problem is, they modeled it as if it were a single box with the combined thicknesses of all the boxes. That is ludicrous beyond sanity, yet somehow it got published. Indeed, it was the first thing to come up in a search as "proof."

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 ductility and other 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. The problem is, they modeled it as if it were a single box with the combined thicknesses of all the boxes. That is ludicrous beyond sanity, yet somehow it got published. Indeed, it was the first thing to come up in a search as "proof."

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 ductility and other 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?

It is for these reasons that the paper I cited looked at exactly the materials thicknesses. The problem is, they modeled it as if it were a single box with the combined thicknesses of all the boxes. That is ludicrous beyond sanity, yet somehow it got published. Indeed, it was the first thing to come up in a search as "proof."