this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
424 points (98.6% liked)

HistoryPorn

4818 readers
216 users here now

If you would like to become a mod in this community, kindly PM the mod.

Relive the Past in Jaw-Dropping Detail!

HistoryPorn is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.
  9. No genocide or atrocity denialism.

Pictures of old artifacts and museum pieces should go to History Artifacts

Illustrations and paintings should go to History Drawings

Related Communities:

Military Porn

Forgotten Weapons

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Another angle:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 35 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Possible. Though a B-25 is smaller and much slower than a 737.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Speed matters more than mass when calculating kinetic energy. A 767 is much, much faster than a B-25.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago

While you're right, the MTOW of a B-26 is around 17 tons, the 767 is 150-200 tons.

So there is a factor of around 10 between them, so if the 767 flies 3 times as fast - which it doesn't, the B-26 cruises at more than 0.35 Mach at close to sea level, and the 767 is not supersonic - that means that the factor from the speed can't be more than about 3 squared, so 9.

So the factors from the weight and the speed are roughly equal IMO.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Speed matters more than mass when calculating kinetic energy.

Are you sure about that? An air rifle shooting supersonic aluminum pellets has considerably less kinetic energy than a .22 LR bullet, because of the weight of the bullet. Some air rifles actually shoot their projectile faster than a .22, but they have like 10x less energy upon impact.

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm no mathlete but looking up the formula for kinetic energy it's K.E. = 1/2 m v^2 so I'm pretty sure velocity is going to have exponentially greater effect on kinetic energy than mass.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I guess it's because of the huge difference in weight that we see such a difference in kinetic energy from pellet guns, even though velocity has an exponential impact on the energy. A standard pellet weighs under 14 grains, and a .22 LR bullet weighs 40 grains. Thanks for sharing the formula though. I didn't realize how huge of a contribution velocity makes for kinetic energy, and I'll definitely look for a faster rifle whenever I upgrade my air rifle.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago

A 767-200, like the one that hit the tower in 2001, carries roughly 3 Fully loaded B-25s worth of FUEL alone.

[–] espentan@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

Not to mention compared to a 767.