Traveling faster than a bullet.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Acceleration of a falling bullet

Just for the sake of argument, a bullet fired horizontally from a rifle, say 6ft off of the ground, will impact the ground in less than a second.

Falling objects obey the '32ft. per sec' rule of acceleration so 6ft. will be only a fraction of the whole 32ft and, regardless of forward velocity, the drop is the same.
Of course in the example I recited just to demonstrate a principal, 3 seconds was just picked at random, and the height of the rifle above the ground under the train was intentionally not specified, as I saw nothing to be gained by going into the higher mathematics of the situation and I would have had to dust off the old sliderule. In fact, if it took our bullet the 3 seconds in my example to reach the ground then the rifle would have been very nearly 150 feet off the ground. A big train. :)

Acceleration is of course not expressed in units of feet per second. The unit of feet per second expresses a measure of velocity, not acceleration. Acceleration is expressed in units of feet per second per second, or feet per second squared. The acceleration of a dropped object due to gravity alone, once again ignoring extraneous, but real, factors such as friction, is 32 feet per second per second, close enough for government work.

This does not mean that our bullet dropped in a vacuum will fall 32 feet every second for however many seconds it is falling. It means that its velocity will increase by 32 feet per second for however many seconds it is falling. As it falls down through our vacuum its velocity gets faster and faster the farther it falls, increasing at the rate of 32 feet per second each second it is falling.

Of course the same thing applies to the downward vector of the velocity of a projectile fired from a weapon, be it the 230 grain FMJ from my beloved M1911 or the 1500 pound armor piercing projectiles from the 14 inch guns on the USS TEXAS, parked just down the road a bit from where I sit -- the same vintage as my never-let-me-down M1911 -- both veterans of WWI. (To hopefully avoid at least one element of incoming, remember that friction and other forces at work are ignored).

Looking at our train again, having a downward velocity of nil feet per second at the moment the rifle is fired, if our bullet hits the ground one second later, accelerating at the rate of 32 ft./sec./sec., the rifle would have been about 16.4 feet above the ground, not 32 feet, again, close enough for government work. The downward vector of its velocity at the moment it strikes the ground would be 32 feet per second. I reckon 16.4 feet is still a rather high elevation for our shooter on the train. Perhaps he was in the cupola of the caboose.;)

Should someone be tempted to ask, "what does all this have to do with shooting?", I would respond that it has a great deal to do with shooting -- it determines whether you will hit what you are aiming at. This is the basis of the science of ballistics and those trajectory tables most of us have used, particularly the long gunners in the crowd. Of course precision requires cranking in factors ignored in the above examples such as friction, bullet shape, rotation, location on the earth's surface, the motion of the earth, and such, but it all starts with 32 ft./sec./sec.
 
didn't the F-86 Saber pilots originally have problems flying into their own bullets when that plane first came out.
Nope.

Think of it like this.

You are inside a train car, moving at a steady 50mph. You throw a ball at someone else in the train car. It approaches him at 50mph. To the ground outside, it looks like that ball is going 100mph. But to you guys inside the train car, it looks like it's going 50mph.

Or, in aeronautical terms, it's kind of like airspeed vs. ground speed. Muzzle velocity would be airspeed, with the speed of the platform being the wind speed.

Same goes for projectiles launched from moving platforms.
 
Even the term “stationary observer” can be very misleading, as there is in theory no such thing as a stationary observer on our little earth. The earth is moving around the sun, the sun is moving in the galaxy, which is moving in space, etc. Some would say there is nothing at all which is stationary. Even if there were, the question then becomes, “stationary with respect to what?”

Further reading: Albert Einstein, General and Specific Theories of Relativity, c. 1908.
 
Sounds like a great experiment for the next shuttle flight.
How long is the shuttle's cargo bay? Would it be able to accommodate, say, a drop-in modular three-lane, 25-yard pistol range complete with automated target hangers?
 
didn't the F-86 Saber pilots originally have problems flying into their own bullets when that plane first came out.
Actually, yes. In an F11F. The problem was not that the airplane outran its own bullets in a straight line, but that the pilot did not fully grasp the concept behind a ballistic arc. He fired off a burst of 20mm rounds and then, through maneuver and speed, managed to end up in front of them before they hit the ground. He didn't just fly into the back of them.

The pilot's name was Attridge if you're curious enough to look it up.

There's another story of an F14 shooting itself down with a faulty air-to-air missile, but I haven't the foggiest idea if it's true.
 
Faster than a speeding propeller

Actually, yes. In an F11F. The problem was not that the airplane outran its own bullets in a straight line, but that the pilot did not fully grasp the concept behind a ballistic arc. He fired off a burst of 20mm rounds and then, through maneuver and speed, managed to end up in front of them before they hit the ground. He didn't just fly into the back of them.
I guess you could say that aerial warfare at least made a bit of progress since WWI, during which on occasion airmen in this new mode of combat would shoot off their own propellers prior to the development of some effective countermeasures.:)
 
RecoilRob, you may be interested to know of some of the advancements being made in supersonic combustion. I was briefly involved in the development of the second SCRAMJET prototype at Marshall Space Flight Center a few years ago (the first one exploded due to a faulty Pegasus missile that was used to get it up to speed before its engines could fire).

It was pretty cool. I don't remember the name of it though. Heck, I don't even remember if I'm supposed to remember the name of it :uhoh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top