All we have is fallible sense data, anyone can be wrong, let's not get too arrogant here. I did a physics minor at uni (though I don't know much about engineering - changed subjects after a year), so I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that what they think is pretty out there. But to each their own. I'd prefer that a few people end up with what I see as absurd views than we all just remain dogmatically committed to the consensus.
Just to re-visit this bit there are pix of say a 5lb bird having hit a wing and caused X amount of penetration, and now, consider that the wing hits a 200 lb pole, and has to overcome the inertia of said pole. how much damage could one expect to see? the calculations could be done, and indeed if there was something like "mythbusters" but with a much more scientific rather than theatrical focus, a test using one of the decommissioned aircraft out in the desert could be done to see exactly what that sort of force would do to an aircraft wing. but alas ... nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care .... ( RIP George )
Because you leave out the most important fact. Those where not regular light poles. They are specially mandated light poles that surround all FAA controlled airports
I'm going to echo a request for documentation supporting this statement. If it's a fact, that should be easy to do.
The point I was trying to make is in the mass of the object encountered, a 5 lb bird vs a 200 lb light pole, the inertia of the pole would be much more and so a moving wing hitting a stationary pole would do a lot more damage than a bird. do you get it now?
before the "airliner" hit it, the pole was stationary the wing would have to exert force to cause the pole to then become not stationary. or did you have something else in mind?
Because you leave out the most important fact. Those where not regular light poles. They are specially mandated light poles that surround all FAA controlled airports - - - Updated - - - They also seems strangely ignorant of where the Pentagon is. I probably expect to much to think they might do some research or something
Do you think that because the light poles were on special break-away bases that they somehow then became mass-less? What special conditions prevail so as to nullify the mass of the pole?
Nonsense response Is it your contention that poles specifically designed not to destroy aircraft wings, should still destroy aircraft wings on impact?
Who ever said they were specially designed to not destroy aircraft wings? anyhow, any safety system of any sort can not be 100% effective, given a wing allegedly traveling 800 f/s, I can expect a lot more damage that if the wing were traveling much closer to landing speed for any given aircraft.
and to your judgement of the subject, it makes no difference if the aircraft hitting the pole happened to be traveling 800 f/s or 300 f/s .... what? forces are equal and opposite, therefore the inertia of the pole and the speed of the aircraft are relevant to this discussion.
Step 1 E=MC2 Step 2 Conservation of energy Step 3 pole absorbs energy from wing, then reacts by being knocked down thus releasing the energy.
I'll go with equal and opposite actions that is wing hits pole, and pole hits wing equally therefore the force required to overcome the inertia ( and do so in the short amount of time because of the speed of the aircraft ) of said pole, would also be imposed upon the wing. at low speeds the forces would be small enough to not totally destroy a wing, however at higher speeds the damage would be much greater. You figure it out KE = 0.5MV^2
Years ago I was going to work during a rainstorm,I was going about 45 and hydroplaned,and went off the road onto the shoulder,taking out a road marker sign. All I had was a small dent on the hood of my truck from the breakaway pole.
