[ RadSafe ] Unidentified Helicopters Nearly Fired UponOverNuclear Power ...

[Jaro]

BTW again with the fighter jet... its like performing a crash test between a
Volkswagen beetle and a Hummer and saying both have the same impact......
<><><><><><>


I believe this would be an appropriate statement if the maximum penetration
of concrete in the Sandia test had been more than two inches.
But it was not.
Furthermore, the impacting vehicle was a twin-engine F-4 Phantom fighter
jet, impacting at 770 kph (480mph).
The plane is smaller than an airliner, but is much more solid, since its
designed to withstand high G-forces during combat maneuvers.
An airliner, by contrast, is similar in structure to an aluminum pop can.
The dense parts are the engine shafts and landing gear.
Since the reactor building is round (i.e. convex) and small relative to the
airliner wing span, a suicide pilot would need to hit it off-center, such
that one of the engines on the wing impacts perpendicularly, rather than
bouncing off at a low incidence angle to the wall.
Even then, the Sandia test shows that penetration is not more than a couple
of inches at most.
If an airliner were to impact with its fuselage centerline exactly matching
the building centerline, then the engines would impact on the wall at an
angle of about 70° -- ie. 20° off perpendicular (and assuming a perfectly
in-plane horizontal approach at an altitude of only a few metres). As
another Radsafe subscriber noted a few years ago, "if the shaft of the
engine does not strike the surface perpendicularly, the shaft will rotate
and slam broadside into the containment. The force instead of being over the
cross sectional area of the end of the shaft is then dispersed over the
entire cross sectional are of the long side of the shaft. The resultant
penetration is <5% of that for a normally incident crash."

BTW, normal runway approach speed with MLW - maximum landing weight - is
about 165mph (265kph), according to Jane's All the World's Aircraft.

Its very unlikely that a perfectly perpendicular impact could be achieved on
a cylindrical structure, unless you put the plane on a rail track, like the
F-4 Phantom, with an 8m offset from the center line of the building....

Finally, as our illustration shows,  the RB wall is not the only thick
concrete structure between the reactor calandria and the airplane.

Of course if your aim is to draw attention from far more vulnerable targets
that can actually result in thousands of casualties, then I suppose you
deserve some sort of (questionable) credit for misleading the public in
general -- and terrorists in particular (and I don't mean this in a
derogatory sense !).
Personally, I don't think I could stomach doing such a thing, no matter how
well intended.

Jaro
Montréal, Québec
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




Jaro wrote:
Tell this to the people who died in the Penatgon on 911......



.....you mean that building with walls full of holes (for windows) and a
flat (i.e. non-convex) surface ?

In our presentation to the Quebec parliamentary commission on energy last
Tuesday, we included a couple of relevant slides with graphics illustrating
some of the issues discussed in this thread -- they are near the end, on
pages 34 & 35 of the pdf document (1.35 MB) posted at
http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/CNS-Quebec_ppt_8_mars_2005.pdf

Jaro Franta, P.Eng.
Tel.: (514) 875-3444
Montréal, Québec
frantaj at aecl.ca
web master, CNS Québec branch:
http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/quebec.html

<><><><><><><><><><><>

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005





"Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who
in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005