shooting yourself down - more physics?

Flyingmonk wrote:

.22 shooting CB caps.

.22 short gallery. I may have the last box of that stuff in the world.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote:

..

What kind of gun do *you* have with a muzzle velocity of only 733 fps ?

...Ken

A light 45, old 38 S&W, 38 rimfire, 45-70....


Back when my eyesight was better I could look over the left
shoulder of a right-handed shooter so that his body blocked
most of the muzzle flash and see the bullets traveling
downrange thanks to the foreshortening effect. This was
with Auto Ordinance's version of the 1911-A at a well-lit
indoor range.

Haven't tried that lately.

--

FF

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