THE REPLY IS HERE!
I WAS WRONG! sort of.
Well you guys got me, something was wrong with my formula about the dynamic curve so in a atmosphereless space they would land directly under the bomber, but with air resistance, they would not (duh)
Here is the Reply I got.
>From: Harold Brochmann <hbrochmann@saltspring.com>
>To: Jason Seiler <jinx_311@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Ballistics of falling bombs...a question
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:16:35 -0700
>
>on 19/02/01 23:07, Jason Seiler at jinx_311@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > my question is this:
> >
> > If a WW2 bomber traveling around 220mph drops a bomb weighing around 500
> > pounds from an altitude of around 22,000 feet will the bomb land directly
> > below the bomber that dropped it, or will it land behind it?
> > ALSO, would the lack of ANY drag or air resistance at all enable it to land
> > DIRECTLY under the bomber? reason?
>
>Situation 1:
There is no air resistance. This is always the situation
>imagined when this sort of question is posed in physics/math classes.
It's
>entirely imaginary of course. For starters how could the plane be flying up
>there if there was no air? Anyhow - There are two motions to consider... the
>forward motion of the bomb which at the beginning is the same as that of the
>plane and then the downward motion due to gravity. In actual fact these are
>independent of eachother. The downward speed increases. The effect of the
>constant force of gravity is to cause downward *acceleration*. After every
>second the bomb falls 32 feet per second faster than it did at the end of
>the previous second. At the end of 1 sec. 32 ft/sec; after 2 sec 64 ft/sec
>and so on. Speed after x seconds is 32 ft/sec times x.
>The forward speed is not affected. It continues at a constant rate.
>
Therefore when the bomb hits the ground it is exactly under the plane.>
>
Situation 2: The real one. There is air resistance. The bom falls downwards
>faster and faster; but it
does not speed up as much as in situation 1. The
>
bomb continues forwards.... but its forwards motion is being slowed down.
>
When it hits the ground it is behind the plane.>
>So - you want imaginary or real situation?
CHEERS SMARTGUYS YA GOT ME. but they still shouldent land directly under the bomber in AH.
Thanks for all the stimulating and fun argument, i wish all threads could be as fun as this one was.
in case any of yall missed this...
on WWII bomber bomb dispersion, my mother cracked up on the nice straight lines comment, she says "yes very straight on film from way up there, covering 2 city blocks long and a block wide down here"from someone who was actually on the ground where the bombs were hitting mind you.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-20-2001).]
