Supersonic ballistics is nonlinear right and not solvable exactly right?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the complexities of calculating the maximum distance of a 7.62x54 round due to nonlinear dynamics. The user employs Newton's second law (F=ma) and drag force equations, specifically Fdrag=(mass of bullet*density of air*v^2)/ballistic constant, highlighting the nonlinear nature of the equations. The varying angle of force also complicates the calculations, making exact solutions impractical. Techniques for approximating solutions include using tables of values or functions for the coefficient of drag based on empirical measurements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with drag force equations in ballistics
  • Knowledge of projectile motion and its components
  • Basic calculus for integrating motion equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research numerical methods for solving nonlinear differential equations
  • Explore ballistic coefficient calculations for various projectiles
  • Learn about computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for drag force modeling
  • Study empirical methods for measuring drag coefficients in external ballistics
USEFUL FOR

Ballistics engineers, physicists, and anyone involved in the study of projectile motion and external ballistics will benefit from this discussion.

pablo4429
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
So I thought I would try to figure out the maximum distance of our 7.62x54 round. obviously I used F=ma and for resistance I used Fdrag=(mass of bullet*density of air*v^2)/ballistic constant. the v^2 terms makes the equation nonlinear and not exactly solvable right? also, the angle at which the force is acting is continually varying, which also adds to the compexity , is this correct? can someone explain some techniques to solve this or what method is used to obtain approximations.

here are the equations i started with

mx''=mPx'^2 where P is a constant from properties of the air and bullet and

my''=mLy'^2-gm where L is the same constant as above, just using sin to get the vertical component of force
i did the standard integrating with respect to t and x after moving over the correct terms, twice to get x and y as functions of t, and the final equations I got were ridiculous.

any insight would be great all
thanks

p.s. sorry about the moronic title to the thread, I rewrote it then forgot to remove a word or two
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
15K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K