I thought some B-29s used 7075 as well after we reverse engineered that Zero? Like VERY late war and post-war.
It was the B-50 super fortress
Not the B-29. Double checked to be sure.
1 Like
Oh, well luckily I didnt waste time calculating the b29 with the wrong material then
My dear Grok consume a lot of water while creating these videos.
There’s several things working against the Sparrow there, namely its large proximity fuse and it being a tail chase. The one dev test I did with AIM-7M was a VERY close proxy or impact from the front right into the wing root of a B-29.
idk what you’re shooting at it, this is what happens on dev
My equation was specifically tuned for 2 mm 2024-T3 aircraft skin, and ONLY the skin, because as soon as we introduce the underlying airframe and spars and all that crap theres too many variables for a coherant result, the size would change based on wether a shell landed even near a rib or not, so I went worst case, unsupported straight plate of 2 mm 2024-T3 aircraft skin.
You got plate thickness h = 0.002\text{ m}
The density of the material \rho = 2780\text{ kg m}^{-3}
The yield strength \sigma_0 \approx 350\text{ MPa}
The Ultimate Tensile Strength \sigma_{\text{uts}} \approx 470\text{ MPa}
And the Shear Strength Equation \tau \approx 0.58 \sigma_{\text{uts}} \approx 270\text{ MPa}
Then, you have the equation to figure out how much force to shear a spherical hole into the metal.
Fshear = 2pi x radius x thickness x shear strength
Then you can take the actual blast force of say, 100g of tnt such as found in a mk 108, and plug that in
E=Q W equals aprox (4.6 x 10 to the power of 6 Joules kg to the power of -1) times the tnt filler (0.1kg) = 4.6 x 10 to the power of 5 times joules
Then you have to factor in coupling, because an unbacked 2 mm plate doesn’t absorb all that energy—most of the blast just vents straight through into open air the second the skin gives way. You use a coupling factor of \eta \sim 0.05\text{–}0.12:
Uplate = nE = about 23/55kJ
That coupled energy has to go somewhere. It gets chewed up doing actual physical work: tearing the metal (U_{\text{tear}}), bending the petals (U_{\text{bend}}), and—eating up the vast majority of it—dishing and stretching the surrounding skin (U_{\text{dish}}). That massive dishing phase is why a naive clean-cut shear calculation always over-predicts how big the hole actually gets.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS IS WHERE YOUR CLANKER WENT WRONG.
From there, you drop it into cube-root scaling law calibrated against our 2mm chunk of B17 skin: Rh = K times (W 1/3rd divided by h 1/2)
Plug in our 100g TNT-equivalent (W = 0.10kg) and 2 mm thickness (h = 0.002m), and you get a radius of: Rh = approx 0.08-0.18m. That translates to a physical hole diameter of 16 to 36 cm—with the best median landing right around a 25-50 cm dinner-plate-sized hole, completely petaled back, surrounded by a wider dished and ballooning zone stretching out another 0.6 to 1.2 meters… And I was generous and scaled my illustration’s holes to 50cm.
So your chatgpt went and assumed slight warp of the skin as a full blown hole, based on a mystery aircraft skin thats probably belonging to a british fighter. 100g of TNT doesnt make a 1.5m hole. A reckneck strapping 1 pound of C4 (600 ish g of tnt equivalent) to the 1.2mm aluminum door of an f150 didnt even make a 1.5m hole lmao. You’d need 2kg of tnt. And thanks to cube root law, to double the hole diameter, you’d need to multiply the explosive force by 8. 3m hole? 16kg of tnt
PS: AI cant really tell who did what work when it comes to math, because at the end of the day, its just computers, computers are good at math…
1 Like
Mk108 cannon shells don’t even contain 100 grams of HE
The HE-I does, the mine shell or whatever has a little less, i just chose a middle ground, the size difference is miniscule
1 Like
I bet the reply under this post will be a copy-paste response from an AI
1 Like
“errr grok, win this argument for me” I wish
1 Like
Wait, what if I asked it to win the argument for me?
Imagine getting so pressed over a multi-AI deliberation process that you resort to generational whining instead of looking at the actual numbers.
Let’s review the reality check:
- The Math Works: We aren’t guessing; we calculated the static shear equivalent (F = 2\pi R h \tau \approx 5 \times 10^5\text{ N}), factored in energy coupling (\eta \sim 0.05\text{-}0.12), and applied historical cube-root scaling (R_h = k \frac{W^{1/3}}{h^{1/2}}) specifically calibrated for 2 mm 2024-T3 skin.
- The Size is Verified: A 100g TNT-equivalent charge hitting an unsupported 2 mm sheet yields a ~25 to 50 cm petaled hole (about 0.05 to 0.20 m^2 of surface area), exactly matching the historical B-17 damage photos posted above.
- The Physics Won’t Change: No amount of crying about AI changes the fact that a 30mm mine shell delivers a microsecond impulse, vents 90%+ of its energy into open air, and leaves a petaled tear rather than cleanly vaporizing a main wing spar.
God I love grok, anyway back on topic
1 Like
I’m talking about the model deformation. Use it as a basis to be an effect in actual battles.
One, to help visually show how damaged the bomber is.
I think part of the problem is that the plane is flying straight with an instructor correcting whatever damage you shat out on it and you don’t see the fact the missile or damage jacked up the plane.
The other is that the game doesn’t represent damage visuals very well. So you’re having the plane look like it got a light dusting but the plane should be looking like a flying skeleton at that point and it’s barely hanging on for dear life while it slowly careens itself into the ground.
Actually.
Call me a dipshit. What I mistook as a bomber behaving uncharacteristcally, folding in 4 pieces was just a F6F getting smackaroo’ed.
The first B-17 clip shows it pretty well.
It tears crap apart and it slowly careens down. The second clip is the Sparrow obliterating a QF6F
1 Like
I’d actually recommend Claude; I haven’t tried it with equations or anything like that, but it’s very helpful for finding resources. It gives me a link in 20 seconds to a resource I’d be searching for online for an hour.
Havent paid for claude, So my usage limits are ABHORRENTLY low with it, it was the first AI to conk out in the Quorrum council so ive been running on 3 engines instead of 4 lol, though I always have AIs set to their max effort/thinking levels so that doesnt help
1 Like
Hahahahahah. Okay dude.
You are literally just feeding things into a machine and repeating whatever it spits back out as gospel truth. It appears that your equation does not make any account of the round detonating inside of the plane skin and instead assumes that it detonates on the outside.
Also, I did not use chatGPT. IF ONLY YOU KNEW HOW TO READ YOU WOULD KNOW THAT I DIDN’T.
1 Like
Never mind at least our source isn’t GOOGLE LOL
Has anyone tested the ju288?
In this case it is set on fire and actually stays on fire long enough to be shot down, currently I have NEVER seen a fuel fire
getting 3 hits from below took way too damn long
The result is that NO you cannot even come close to replicating the real thing
ıf you’re talking about the MK 108 Minengeschoss round this shell detonated the instant it hit the plating, but if you’re talking about something else I have no idea.
What? Im feeding numbers into an equation which is just a manual computer and its spitting out values? Holy moly, guys, the boomer just figured out math lmao, maybe the lead paint and asbestos didnt take as big as a tole as we thought… Then again hes out here rambling on about AI and how somehow a number generated by a computer inputting information into an equation is somehow different than the exact same number that would’ve been generated by a human putting numbers into the very same equation.
Isnt the defintion of insanity expecting different results from doing the exact same thing over and over with the exact same variables?
1 Like
When planes taking such heavy damage from Flak (which is HE and mostly carries a larger explosive payload than a 20mm) managed to return home, how does it make sense for a single 20mm HE hit to cause a guaranteed tear-off?(Or 30 mm)
Also The B-17 (and US heavy bombers in general) carried armor plating as standard to protect critical crew positions, and this armor was steel, not aluminum.
1 Like