Does a Bomb Dropped from a Plane Explode Directly Below It?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xiphoid
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A bomb dropped from a plane flying horizontally will indeed explode directly below the plane due to its initial horizontal speed matching that of the aircraft. This holds true as long as air resistance is negligible, allowing the bomb to maintain its horizontal velocity until impact. If the plane is not flying horizontally, the bomb's trajectory will differ, potentially causing it to land away from the plane's position. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding projectile motion in this context. Overall, the physics of the situation confirms that the bomb's horizontal speed remains constant until it reaches the ground.
xiphoid
Messages
57
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A bomb is dropped from a plane flying horizontally with uniform speed. Show that the bomb will explode vertically below the plane.

Is the statement true if the plane flies with uniform speed but not horizontally?


Homework Equations


Equations of projectile perhaps


The Attempt at a Solution


Clearly, if I imagine a bomb being thrown from the front of the airplane, then I would think that this statement is relevant, don't have any idea about the consequences when the bomb will be dropped from the wings to which it is usually being attached...

Theory wise, ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess you can safely assume both plane and bomb to be points.
 
Then what about the theory part, I can only imagine those situations- to convert them into paper is somewhat difficult
 
I'm not sure what "theory" you are talking about. The main physics point here is that, initially, the bomb has the same horizontal speed as the plane (or its wings!) and, neglecting air resistance, maintains that horizontal speed until it hites the ground.
 
Got it.
HallsofIvy said:
I'm not sure what "theory" you are talking about. The main physics point here is that, initially, the bomb has the same horizontal speed as the plane (or its wings!) and, neglecting air resistance, maintains that horizontal speed until it hites the ground.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top