Bullets from a Jet Fighter Mach 3.2

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter OSHP295
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jet Mach
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physics of bullets fired from a jet fighter flying at high speeds, specifically Mach 3.2. Participants explore the implications of bullet speed relative to the aircraft's speed, the effects of atmospheric friction, and historical anecdotes regarding the firing of guns from such aircraft. The conversation touches on theoretical and practical aspects of aerodynamics and ballistics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a bullet fired from an aircraft at Mach 3 would have its speed augmented by the aircraft's velocity, leading to a combined speed upon firing.
  • Others argue that the friction encountered by a bullet traveling at such high speeds could potentially damage the gun barrel or affect the bullet's trajectory.
  • A few participants express skepticism about the feasibility of firing a gun from a YF-12, suggesting that such stories may be folklore or urban legends.
  • Some contributions mention historical instances where pilots may have inadvertently flown into their own bullets, though the credibility of these anecdotes is questioned.
  • Concerns are raised about the aerodynamic effects of firing a cannon at high speeds, including the generation of shock waves and the potential for bullets to be overtaken by the aircraft.
  • There is a discussion about the dynamics of bullets in flight, including their trajectory and the effects of drag and gravity on their descent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the feasibility or implications of firing bullets from a jet at high speeds. Some agree on certain technical aspects, while others challenge the validity of specific claims and anecdotes.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on anecdotal evidence, unresolved questions about the effects of high-speed firing on bullet dynamics, and the lack of definitive sources regarding historical claims.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in aerodynamics, ballistics, military aviation history, and the physics of high-speed flight may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
The F-86 fired 50 cal. guns in flight but only flew at about 550 mph. Keep in mind that to push the shock wave cones on the engines of an SR-71 it takes 14-16 tons of pressure. Also, at Mach 3+, forward surface temps will be as high as 450 degrees. The SR-71 was never designed to fire a gun at speed as the mind set at the time was missles only.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I was just wondering what happens at the exact moment the bullet exits the gun barrel and hits air that is moving Mach3 faster than the air inside the barrel? Could this be like hitting a wall, causing the bullet to just disintegrate a few inches out of the muzzle?

Also, regarding the impossibility of hitting one's own ammo; when a bullet leaves the barrel at a muzzle velocity of about Mach1.5, and then encounters a headwind of Mach3+, couldn't it be shoved back into the gun? That might be where the concern about "exploding inside the magazine" originated.
 
  • #33
No, it certainly wouldn't be like hitting a wall, it's not even like splashing into a pool. There is no surface interface and the transition is relatively smooth. Nor could the bullet be shoved back into the gun. Remember, whatever pressure the bullet is going to feel in front of it, it feels vastly more behind it, so there is no chance of it disintegrating and deceleration is much smaller than the acceleration was. Even if the bullet decelerated at 10 g's (which would be an awful lot), it would still take more than 10 seconds for it to get back down to the speed of the plane.
 
  • #34
russ_watters said:
No, it certainly wouldn't be like hitting a wall, it's not even like splashing into a pool. There is no surface interface and the transition is relatively smooth. Nor could the bullet be shoved back into the gun. Remember, whatever pressure the bullet is going to feel in front of it, it feels vastly more behind it,
Not true. Once out of the barrel, the bullet feels no pressure behind it. It is coasting, and only feels the pressure in front of it.
...and deceleration is much smaller than the acceleration was. Even if the bullet decelerated at 10 g's (which would be an awful lot), it would still take more than 10 seconds for it to get back down to the speed of the plane.
Yeah, now you say it, that's a sure thing. I don't know what typicall accelerarion is for a bullet, but even 1,000g for 1/10th of a second would make your numbers accurate, and the chance of "blow-back" essentially zero.

But I also wonder; wha would be the aerodynamic effects of putting a hoolow metal tube (a gun barrel) on the front of an aircraft going Mach3+ with the open end facing forward? Any effect, or would the turbulent buffer zone form an envelope that prevetns direct interaction between the tube and the on-rushing headwind? Probably the latter, yes? BTW; did the Blackbird use Petot tubes?
 
  • #35
LURCH said:
But I also wonder; wha would be the aerodynamic effects of putting a hoolow metal tube (a gun barrel) on the front of an aircraft going Mach3+ with the open end facing forward? Any effect, or would the turbulent buffer zone form an envelope that prevetns direct interaction between the tube and the on-rushing headwind? Probably the latter, yes? BTW; did the Blackbird use Petot tubes?

It would melt.

The pitot tube is on the nose.


pitot%20tube.jpg



In fact, the tires were made with aluminum powder and filled with nitrogen or they would heat up and explode inside the wheel wells in supersonic flight.

right%20mains%20again.jpg
 
  • #36
LURCH said:
Not true. Once out of the barrel, the bullet feels no pressure behind it. It is coasting, and only feels the pressure in front of it.
You misunderstand. I mean that before it leaves the gun, it will feel vastly more pressure behind it than it feels in front of it after leaving the gun. The point being that the acceleration will be much smaller and the possibility of deformation is much smaller.

Running some quick numbers, I'd say the peak acceleration of a rifle bullet would have to be on the order of 10,000 g's in order to make it up to, say, 2,000 fpm in the span of a 3' rifle barrel. A rifle bullet is essentially explosively accelerated while an airplane is using conventional engines (so the force of drag can't be quite so spectacular as people were initially thinking here).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Chinese Hypersonic Aircraft - Mach 6.56!?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Flight Mechanics - Maximum Cruise Altitude
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Could we stop a tornado this way?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Calculating the Average Net Force of a 22g Bullet Fired from a Rifle
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Solving the F16 Jet Fighter Turning Circle Puzzle
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Ramjet artillery shell of a big size
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
Mechanics: Calculating the minimum height for a bullet to launch from to hit a target
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Does a Melon Jump Backward When Hit by a Bullet?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate Wing-in-ground-effect aircraft question
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
Why is the U-2 nicknamed the Dragon Lady?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K