B29 guns

[dirtdart]

I disagree.  You are making a bit of simplification.  If the bullet is in its ballistic trajectory meaning still in stable flight then yes.  However the bullet came through the roof sideways. So it was in free fall.  Drag would slow it to whatever speed is its terminal velocity.  If it were still in stable flight that would be different.  The bullet would not have been directly under the hole it would have been on the others side of the container. 

The parabolic path in the other thread is accurate to a point because it assumes the projectile is still in stable flight.  Once the bullet no longer has the energy...say fired at 60 degrees then it would fall nearly straight down. 

[Jayhawk]

I disagree.  You are making a bit of simplification.  If the bullet is in its ballistic trajectory meaning still in stable flight then yes.  However the bullet came through the roof sideways. So it was in free fall.  Drag would slow it to whatever speed is its terminal velocity.  If it were still in stable flight that would be different.  The bullet would not have been directly under the hole it would have been on the others side of the container. 

The parabolic path in the other thread is accurate to a point because it assumes the projectile is still in stable flight.  Once the bullet no longer has the energy...say fired at 60 degrees then it would fall nearly straight down. 

How do you know the bullet came through the roof sideways.

A bullet fired at 60 degrees would still follow a trajectory and not fall "strait down."

[dirtdart]

My kingdom for something more than a phone for now....

How do you know the bullet came through the roof sideways.

Beause it was flat on one side from splatting sideways on the roof.  Yes, it would have a trajectory but it would look closer to a sideways "L" than some nice parabolic curve.  

So back to the B29 discussion.  As another poster stated, even if the .50 bullet was motionless, the plane would still hit a 6-800 grain bullet at XXX MPH.  That could cause damage.  To turn damage "off" at a certain range seems silly unless there are programming challenges with maintaining bullet stream out to the point they strike the ground or reach a point of negligible energy/damage.  The .50 at 1500m still has heavy hitting power.  On aircraft aluminium this should still be significant.  

I don't want to get into what could be perceived as innuendo.  I have fired real M2s... a lot.  I have shot at things and had my guys shoot at things that are far away.  The Surface Danger Zone in our range safety regulation DA-PAM 385-63 shows the bullet having a maximum range to 6k.  This means that it has the energy if it maintains stable flight, to make 6k.  That is assuming that the angle on the barrel is correct to allow the bullet to reach its max ordinate and still make that range.  That angle is probably no more than 15-20 degrees (maybe less??) Anything over that angle and the trajectory begins to look more and more like a sideways "L".  That is all I am saying.

Edit:  So, I read the M2 .50 Cal Manual.  You would be amazed at what the standard ball will penetrate at 1,500m.  The cartoon on the wall here, is what I am describing.  In cases like #2 and #3 the bullet is tumbling before it hits the ground. 

[jolly22]

So it is a little much for he bullets to travel 2k FOR ACES HIGH?

[Jayhawk]

 

So it is a little much for he bullets to travel 2k FOR ACES HIGH?

The bullets don't travel forever, but I don't know how long before they disappear.  Do you have film of the indecent to see how far you actually were from the plane?

[jolly22]

The bullets don't travel forever, but I don't know how long before they disappear.  Do you have film of the indecent to see how far you actually were from the plane?

No, i got shot from he 2k out and pressed alt f4.....

[Jayhawk]

Where were you in relation to the 29?

[SlapShot]

unless there are programming challenges with maintaining bullet stream out to the point they strike the ground

I don't think that it's a programming challenge, but more in line with keeping track of a "collidable" object (bullet) for as long as it could possibly be a viable object that you can collide with. Keeping track of all collidable objects requires storage, etc ... so making a round disappear after what HT may consider not viable to keep track of could be the case.

[Belial]

My guess is that the 1.5k range is from where the round is fired. So if you see him at 2k while he is firing and you are flying at him at 400+mph the rounds might make it to you before they have traveled their 1.5k lifetime. Some Galilean relativity maybe.

boom roast it...QFT

[dirtdart]

I don't think that it's a programming challenge, but more in line with keeping track of a "collidable" object (bullet) for as long as it could possibly be a viable object that you can collide with. Keeping track of all collidable objects requires storage, etc ... so making a round disappear after what HT may consider not viable to keep track of could be the case.

That makes sense to me.  Thanks! 

[jolly22]

Where were you in relation to the 29?

High 6 almost over him.

[Jayhawk]

High 6 almost over him.

So you probably didn't have a visual on him, if he was under your nose.   I'm guessing you had drifted at least 1.5k from him which is plenty close to get hit at.

[Charge]

"A bullet fired at 60 degrees would still follow a trajectory and not fall "strait down.""

You know, I have given this some thought and I think I might know part of the answer: As the bullet is fired, the rotation it has, due to rifling, gives it a significant gyroscopic force which keeps the projectile pointed to what ever direction it was fired at. However, as the bullet decelerates the gyroscopic force still wants to point the tip of the projectile to the same direction it was pointing causing the bullet to drop more and more sideways (the aerodynamic shape probably can still alter the direction some but is it enough to overcome the gyroscopic effect i.e. to point the tip towards the angle of decent?). As the speed decelerates and the bullet also endures the effects of penetrating mach boundaries upon deceleration and falling sideways it is no wonder it stumbles at some point. So I'm a bit sceptic that a bullet that is fired upwards would come down tip first after it has decelerated significantly -unless it is able to stabilize itself after tumbling OR it's able to remain stable after losing its stabilizing force from gyroscopic force.

-C+

[dirtdart]

Charge it would not land tip first if fired straight up unless in the timing of the tumble it just happened to strike that way.  If anything think of where the bullets cg is.  Well aft similar to the lifting body experiments, without the benefit of a flat surface.  At least, that's what makes sense to me... lol. 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Charge it would not land tip first if fired straight up unless in the timing of the tumble it just happened to strike that way.  If anything think of where the bullets cg is.  Well aft similar to the lifting body experiments, without the benefit of a flat surface.  At least, that's what makes sense to me... lol. 

Was there anyone shooting in the air right next to your container? If not, the shot came from a flat trajectory further away. If yes, then it's theoretically possible that the shot landed at terminal velocity. The roofing must be extremely thin if a shot traveling at 200mph penetrates it, sideways.