Help with drag coefficient calculated from ballistic coefficient

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on developing credible bullet physics for a sniper video game, focusing on calculating drag coefficients (Cd) from ballistic coefficients (BC). The user seeks a standardized formula to derive Cd values, noting that existing resources often lack scientific clarity. It is suggested to adjust Cd based on published bullet velocities at various ranges to improve trajectory accuracy, acknowledging that Cd varies with Mach number. A lookup table for Cd is recommended to enhance precision without significant effort. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between Cd and BC for realistic bullet behavior in the game.
programador
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I want to make a video game about snipers and I would like it to have proper bullet physics, not something very accurate, but with "credible" bullet physics. So I need to implement a simple trajectory solver.

I thought of taking into account just the gravity and turbulent air drag. The equations for the air drag according to Wikipedia are:
F = 1/2*ρ*v²*Cd*A, where Cd is the drag coefficient (0.47 for a sphere), so given a Cd value (or function of the velocity) I can already estimate the trajectory.
On the internet, these Cd values for bullets are not available, one can find just the "ballistic coefficients" --BC-- of some bullets if we search a bit. The thing is that I need a standardized formula to obtain the Cd values to determine the actual trajectories, most websites explain these concepts in a non "scientific way" and rather suggest to use some free tools to get the bullet drops. On wikipedia I find the formulas to be very ambiguous for what seem to be several BC definitions (BC-physics, BC-projectile and BC-smallarms).

What I understand so far is that the drag coefficient varies with the Mach number (in this case v/340 in the SI units) and bullet manufacturers give a BC value using the G-model as the reference (how? what is the formula linking both things). I was lucky enough to find the G1 drag coefficient table that is mentioned everywhere but not shown. What I need now is how to use this table, the given BCs values and of course the mass and velocities to estimate a bullet's trajectory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you search exterior ballistics? The Hornady hit has a good discussion, and the Wikipedia hit has a nice chart of drag vs Mach number.

Since you only want "good enough to be credible", you could use published information for bullet velocity at various ranges to find a drag coefficient. Use the air drag equation you listed, and adjust the Cd until the calculated velocity matches the published velocity at the various ranges. Then solve for bullet drop. The errors from assuming constant Cd will be relatively small, so the results should be good enough to be credible. You will need to find a separate Cd for each bullet at its muzzle velocity.
 
jrmichler said:
Did you search exterior ballistics? The Hornady hit has a good discussion, and the Wikipedia hit has a nice chart of drag vs Mach number.

Since you only want "good enough to be credible", you could use published information for bullet velocity at various ranges to find a drag coefficient. Use the air drag equation you listed, and adjust the Cd until the calculated velocity matches the published velocity at the various ranges. Then solve for bullet drop. The errors from assuming constant Cd will be relatively small, so the results should be good enough to be credible. You will need to find a separate Cd for each bullet at its muzzle velocity.
That's what I have been doing, using a constant Cd, but as you can see from the figure you are referring, the Cd varies dramatically as a function of the Mach number in the range shown. So approximating the trajectory with a constant value doesn't seem right, specially with high velocity rifle projectiles.
Okay, I said "credible", but I think it takes almost zero additional effort to use a lookup table for the Cd parameter to improve the accuracy.
I have the feeling that it might be like this Cd(M) = G1(M)/BC, where G1 is the table I linked or the figure you referred, from
wikipedia said:
The deceleration due to drag that a projectile with mass m, velocity v, and diameter d will experience is proportional to 1/BC, 1/m, and .
(it doesn't give an actual formula, just a wordy explanation of the term OMG)
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top