Posted on 04/24/2006 9:45:15 AM PDT by jveritas
How does that compare with the Libya tubes, are they then same size excluding the mount at the bottom?
a standard 2x4 is actually 1.5 inches by 3.5 inches(I checked)
16 times 3.5 equals 56 inches.
However if the crates were built in Libya with local supplies I don't have a clue what size the "2x4" is
Thanks Ernest, but I am already on eyespysomethings ping list so you can take me off your list so I don't get duplicates.
"OK, someone who has familiarity with armaments please comment on this: the aluminum tubes had an outer diameter of 81 mm, not an inner diameter of 81 mm. When armaments are being discussed in terms of their dimension (for example 105 mm tank ammunition or 122 mm artillery rocket launcher), wouldn't the meaningful dimension of the tube/barrel from which that round was launched be the inner diameter, and not the outer diameter? So, if the Iraqi intent was to use the tubes for such purposes, why isn't it described as a "74 mm rocket program"? Was the 81-mm program designation invented by the ISG, or was it used by the Iraqis?"
I don't know about the inside diameter vs the outside diameter as far as armaments standards. I am wondering about rockets vs missiles. I used to work at an airplane factory that also built drone missiles. These missiles used about the same thickness of sheet metal that we used for small airplanes. We used 1/16th inch thickness for the outer skins of most planes. If my calculations are correct, and I believe they are, this material is about double that. It is over 1/8th inch thick. Would rockets require that additional thickness?
I have used metal a little less thick than that when building much larger jets for Boeing (737 next generation).
The 9/11 Report left many things open. No report has been conclusive. These documents continue to back up the Bush Admin, and the intelligence agencies of the member Nations of the UN Security Council that agreed.
"What if the 81mm also refers to the inner diameter of the tube that is used to launch the rocket?"
Good question, but the document indicates that the 81mm is outside diameter with an inside diameter of 74mm with a thickness of 3.3 milimeters or a little over 1/8th inch. I haven't converted the inside and outside diameters to inches yet. Let me know if you want me to.
I still think they are similiar in size and the ratio of length to width for whatever that is worth.
Perhaps there are some other specifications that may also point out additional similiarities like the copper or brass mounting flange on the bottom end of the Libya tubes. They appear to be bolted on in the picture and the tube appears to be capped on the top, with some sort of spring or wire connecting the two maybe a heating element.
I hate that pic. Dang you to heck.
"It is my understanding (but I can not quote a source off the top of my head) that no other components were found by the ISG to have been part of a procurement designed to produce either 81mm rockets, or tubes to launch rockets, and that therefore it is nothing more than idle speculation to claim that the tubes were intended for use in rocket or artillery launch applications..."
In case anyone is wondering, I have some approximations on converting mm to inches.
They are:
81mm = 3 3/16 inch
3.3mm = Just under 1/8th inch
74 mm = 2 7/8 inch
900mm = 35 inches
This is a very rough estimation, but should still be a little useful.
Hammering it away, bit by bit?
"NB ALL TUBES ARE SUBJECTED TO CHEMICAL COATNG IONADIZATION PROCESS TO PREVENT AND SUSTAIN SCRATCHES AND CORROSIONS.
Why would you worry about these details if the aluminum was to be used for rockets?"
I can answer that one. If scratches or, even small dents occur, the fuel efficiency is greatly reduced. In other words, the rocket will not fly near as far on the same amount of fuel as a rocket that has zero scratches, dents, dings, or corrosion (corrosion brings about the same result as scratches, dings and dents).
redneck version: a stack of Billy beer cans glued end to end.
Don't worry, the media will see that it doesn't!
Bookmark
Doesn't it suppose that the rocket would be launched from inside the tube?
If the solid rocket fuel is installed in the tube, it would be better if the fuel was bonded to the inner walls instead of being able to slide in and out because the inside was slick and free of any scratches.
I just was struck by a thought, are these Anodized or Ionized aluminum tubes?
This document doesn't say whether that is , outside or inside , or perhaps even both sides....
The key word might be IONIZATION
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.