MHB Challenging Applied maths question projectiles

AI Thread Summary
An aircraft flies at a constant height and velocity, and a bullet is fired from a gun at an angle of elevation to hit the aircraft. The bullet's initial velocity is defined in relation to the angle and the aircraft's speed. The discussion focuses on deriving the equations of motion for both the bullet and the aircraft to demonstrate that the bullet will intersect with the aircraft's path. Participants emphasize the importance of showing work and engaging in problem-solving rather than simply providing answers. The conversation encourages collaboration and guidance to help participants reach a solution.
lukesean
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
An aircraft flies at a constant height H and constant velocity V. When the aircraft has flown directly over a gun on the ground a shot is fired from the gun which points at the aircraft at an angle of elevation Ѳ. If the initial velocity of the bullet is KVsecѲ [k >1], and Ѳ =tan inverse[ 1/V√gh/(k-1) ], show that the bullet hits the aircraft directly.

Please if anyone can answer me this question you can send it to me in an email <email addy removed by admin> if you make it on a paper please send me the pics. I appreciate it a lot.

If you have any questions regarding the probelem please feel free to contact me.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello and welcome to MHB. :D

We aren't a "problem solving" service...our main goal here is to help people solve problems by looking at what they have done and offering guidance to help them get unstuck, so that they are actively engaged in the process of coming to a solution. Response are posted in the thread started by the OP rather than sent by email, so I have removed your email address from public view.

So, if you can show us what you have tried, we can offer assistance aimed at helping you proceed.
 
Hi Mark

I guess your from Florida.

Thanks for replying. I started the probelem by first applying the equation s=ut+1/2at2 equation vertically from the projected point. Next i found the time but from then onwards i got stuck with trying to process how to show that the bullet hits the aircraft directly
 
I would begin by obtaining the parametric equations of motion for the projectile (where we ignore the forces of drag):

Along the horizontal component of motion, there are no forces acting on the projectile, so we may state:

$$\frac{dv_x}{dt}=0$$ where $$v_{x_0}=v_0\cos(\theta)$$

Integrating with respect to $t$, we find:

$$v_x(t)=v_0\cos(\theta)$$

Integrating again, where the origin of our $xy$-axes is at the muzzle, we find:

$$x(t)=v_0\cos(\theta)t$$

Along the vertical component of motion the force of gravity is acting, in a downward direction, so we have:

$$\frac{dv_y}{dt}=-g$$ where $$v_{y_0}=v_0\sin(\theta)$$

Integrating with respect to $t$, we find:

$$v_y(t)=-gt+v_0\sin(\theta)$$

Integrating again, we get:

$$y(t)=-\frac{g}{2}t^2+v_0\sin(\theta)t$$

Can you state the equations of motion for the airplane, assuming the airplane is moving in a positive direction?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top