How far away must the plane be for the antiaircraft gun to hit it?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the horizontal distance required for an antiaircraft gun to hit a plane flying toward it. The gun fires shells at a specific angle and speed, while the plane has its own speed and altitude. The discussion centers around the projectile motion of the shell and the motion of the plane.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to account for both the shell's trajectory and the plane's motion. There are attempts to set up equations for horizontal and vertical motion, with some participants exploring the implications of the plane's speed on the calculations.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on setting up the equations and checking calculations, while others express uncertainty about the correct approach. There is acknowledgment of a mistake regarding the plane's altitude, which has led to confusion in the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly identifying the height of the plane, which was initially misquoted. The problem involves multiple solutions due to the nature of projectile motion, and there is an ongoing exploration of how to incorporate the plane's movement into the calculations.

pingpong240
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Here's the question:
An antiaircraft gun fires shells at 200 m/s at a 60° angle. An enemy plane flies directly toward the gun at 300 m/s, 495 m off the ground. How far away (horizontally) must the plane be when the gun fires for the shell to hit the plane?

First off, I know I get two solutions here. I believe it's because of the trajectory of the shell as it hits the plane on the way up or on the way down.
Knowns
v_ix = 200cos(60) = 100
v_iy = 200sin(60)
a_x = 0
a_y = -9.81
y=485 m
Unknowns
x
v_fy
v_fx
t
Equations
y_f = y_i + v_iy * t + .5at^2
x_f = x_i + v_ix * t + .5at2

I'm not sure if I really have to take into account the -300 m/s of the plane, but here's what I've tried so far:
I used the above equation for the y direction to get
485 = 200sin(60)t -4.9t^2
0 = -4.9t^2 + 200sin(60)t-485
I used the quadratic equation to get two times, 3.066 s and 32.2819 s. I tried fitting these into the x direction equation above, but no luck. I may have done something wrong up to this point, but I think that where I go next is where my problems are occurring. I ended up getting 306.61 for the first distance and 3228 for the second, obviously nothing there. Please help me with the rest of the problem!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lets call the horizontal distance, that the plane has to be away, x.

Consider the plane moving left to right, the distance at impact from the gunner will be: x1

x1=x-t*(300m/s)

Meanwhile the shell must have traversed horizontally in the opposite direction,
x1=cos(60)*(200m/s)*t. setting the two eqns equal,
x-t(300)=100(t) so x=400(t)

we also need as you discussed,
a time where the altitude is 485. assuming your work is right we get
x=400*(3.07) =1228.

That help?
 
Last edited:
Ok so I should factor in the motion of the plane. I tried using that as an answer but it isn't coming out right either. I think my work is right up to this point...Well, if anyone else has any suggestions, please feel free to help out. Shouldn't I consider the plane moving right to left, as if it was moving back to the origin? I have kind of approached this problem that way from the start, as I have designated the gunner at the origin.
 
Last edited:
the answer I gave you checks out, what answer are you entering?

distance plane flies: 3.07*300m/s=921m
distance shell flies 3.07*100=307m, sum of two is 921+307=1228
shell is at 485 m at 3.07s. plane is at 485m (constant)
 
I'm entering that answer, 1228. I tried entering it more exact, but that doesn't work either. Everything before that seems right doesn't it? Hmm nevermind I think I might have it...I just noticed a very stupid mistake, the vertical distance is 495, not 485.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that was the problem. My mistake, you were doing everything right, I'm sorry for making it confusing in the first post with differing quantities for the height. Thank you very much for your help, I understand how to do these types of problems now.
 
no sweat, I should have caught that myself.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K