![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Smitty Two wrote: 1. I didn't stipulate a vacuum. My engine and wing don't work very well without air. I said, to simplify calculations, ignore the effects of friction on the projectile. We are flying above the earth. You said discounting air friction. This is key to the problem. No air friction would be the physical equivalent of being in a vacuum. If there were no air friction, the projectile would continue ahead with a forward speed of 1500 mph - its own 500 mph from its spent propellant charge, and the 1000 mph imparted to it from the airframe. Air friction, however, acts on the projectile from the moment it departs the muzzle, and acts to slow the projectile in a continuous manner. The aircraft continues to maintain its 1000 mph since it has a propulsive device that is assumed to continue to operate. Air friction (along with gravity) are the forces that conspire to ALLOW the aircraft to overtake its projectile and contribute to shooting itself down. So... are we or are we not including air friction? If we are, I am not going to hazard a guess.. my math gland atrophied long ago after I passed calculus. If we are not, then the problem is unsolvable in level flight on earth. Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article t,
Dave S wrote: Smitty Two wrote: 1. I didn't stipulate a vacuum. My engine and wing don't work very well without air. I said, to simplify calculations, ignore the effects of friction on the projectile. We are flying above the earth. You said discounting air friction. This is key to the problem. No air friction would be the physical equivalent of being in a vacuum. If there were no air friction, the projectile would continue ahead with a forward speed of 1500 mph - its own 500 mph from its spent propellant charge, and the 1000 mph imparted to it from the airframe. Air friction, however, acts on the projectile from the moment it departs the muzzle, and acts to slow the projectile in a continuous manner. The aircraft continues to maintain its 1000 mph since it has a propulsive device that is assumed to continue to operate. Air friction (along with gravity) are the forces that conspire to ALLOW the aircraft to overtake its projectile and contribute to shooting itself down. So... are we or are we not including air friction? If we are, I am not going to hazard a guess.. my math gland atrophied long ago after I passed calculus. If we are not, then the problem is unsolvable in level flight on earth. Dave It's a hypothetical question, of course. I think I stated it fairly clearly. Bill has already answered it correctly, with a second from Alex. My calculus skills have also eroded over the years, which is one reason I wanted to discount friction. But, I'd be curious to learn what the real world answer would be, including friction, which of course is dependent on a whole host of factors. (Of course, by the time the plane caught up with the bullet in the real world, the friction would likely have reduced its speed to something *relatively* harmless.) Now, for some practical math, I hope one of these WW1 guys around here can help me not shoot the prop off my RV when I put the .50 on the front. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Smitty Two wrote: In article t, Dave S wrote: Smitty Two wrote: 1. I didn't stipulate a vacuum. My engine and wing don't work very well without air. I said, to simplify calculations, ignore the effects of friction on the projectile. We are flying above the earth. You said discounting air friction. This is key to the problem. No air friction would be the physical equivalent of being in a vacuum. If there were no air friction, the projectile would continue ahead with a forward speed of 1500 mph - its own 500 mph from its spent propellant charge, and the 1000 mph imparted to it from the airframe. ... So... are we or are we not including air friction? If we are, I am not going to hazard a guess.. my math gland atrophied long ago after I passed calculus. If we are not, then the problem is unsolvable in level flight on earth. Neglecting airfriction, the trajectory relative to the aircraft, of the bullets fired from that aricraft will be the same as the trajectory of bullets fired from a fixed position, relative to that fixed position. As OP noted, the gunner hits his own aircraft by firing staight up. No Calculus required to reach that conclusion. It's a hypothetical question, of course. I think I stated it fairly clearly. Bill has already answered it correctly, with a second from Alex. My calculus skills have also eroded over the years, which is one reason I wanted to discount friction. But, I'd be curious to learn what the real world answer would be, including friction, which of course is dependent on a whole host of factors. (Of course, by the time the plane caught up with the bullet in the real world, the friction would likely have reduced its speed to something *relatively* harmless.) That all depends on the relative velocity. If he fires upward and forward and then does a low yo-yo to intercept I expect the bullets could come down hard enough to hurt. -- FF |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(snip)
... my math gland atrophied long ago after I passed calculus. (snip) That calculus was *nasty* stuff ... and matrix algebra was *worse* I haven't recovered either, after 35+ years! Peter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Dohm wrote:
(snip) ... my math gland atrophied long ago after I passed calculus. (snip) That calculus was *nasty* stuff ... and matrix algebra was *worse* I haven't recovered either, after 35+ years! Peter Geeze, a buncha light weights. The calculus series and linear algebra you guys took were rough? Differential equations? Hah! Take a course in imaginary variables. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
They really *are* shooting at the helicopters... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 42 | September 8th 05 05:12 AM |
Helicopter Physics info online anywhere?? | [email protected] | Rotorcraft | 4 | April 24th 04 04:18 PM |
Accurate plane performace? | R | Simulators | 27 | December 19th 03 04:54 AM |
FA: 1944 The Physics of Aviation (Flight Theory) | Oldbooks78 | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 28th 03 10:47 PM |
Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109? | alf blume | Military Aviation | 26 | July 20th 03 07:51 AM |