Methusala Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I knew I'd be corrected....just knew it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I have trouble with the bullet heading straight down being fire from a Lancaster Tail gun. The lancaster had Browning M1919 machine guns in .303 Calibre (actualy .311 or 7.7mm but thats another story). The velocity is anything between around 2500 and 2800 FPS.Depending on the bullet weight.Even with the a/c flying forward. The sheer speed of the projectile would negate forward velocity of the A/c. It may have a effect, but it wouldnt be to the point of it falling out the end of the barrel I wouldnt think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I have trouble with the bullet heading straight down being fire from a Lancaster Tail gun.The lancaster had Browning M1919 machine guns in .303 Calibre (actualy .311 or 7.7mm but thats another story). The velocity is anything between around 2500 and 2800 FPS.Depending on the bullet weight.Even with the a/c flying forward. The sheer speed of the projectile would negate forward velocity of the A/c. It may have a effect, but it wouldnt be to the point of it falling out the end of the barrel I wouldnt think. Hi Dazza I was talking about if the Lancaster was traveling at the same speed as the departing bullet. Now consider that if the Lancaster was traveling FASTER than the departing bullet the bullet would in fact be travelling backwards over the ground, so if the Lancaster slowed down he would shoot himself down with a bullet up his arsenal. Tail gunner Alan. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I have trouble with the bullet heading straight down being fire from a Lancaster Tail gun.The lancaster had Browning M1919 machine guns in .303 Calibre (actualy .311 or 7.7mm but thats another story). The velocity is anything between around 2500 and 2800 FPS.Depending on the bullet weight.Even with the a/c flying forward. The sheer speed of the projectile would negate forward velocity of the A/c. It may have a effect, but it wouldnt be to the point of it falling out the end of the barrel I wouldnt think. The bullet will still leave the gun barrel at its stated muzzle velocity say 2500 FPS and it will continue at a decaying speed until it runs out of puff due to friction & gravity. If the Lancaster was able to fly forwards at 2500 FPS then the bullet would fall to earth directly below the muzzle of the gun. If, however there was a Bf109 up the Lancs tail he would also be doing about 2500 FPS forward and the bullet would smash through him at 2500 FPS or an appropriately decayed speed. It's the same sort of situation of flying into a headwind. If you have a 90 knot headwind and your TAS is 90 knots you aint going nowhere. Going the other way though your'e honking over the ground at 180 knots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Hi Dazza I was talking about if the Lancaster was traveling at the same speed as the departing bullet.Now consider that if the Lancaster was traveling FASTER than the departing bullet the bullet would in fact be travelling backwards over the ground, so if the Lancaster slowed down he would shoot himself down with a bullet up his arsenal. Tail gunner Alan. Are that makes sense now.Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 The bullet will still leave the gun barrel at its stated muzzle velocity say 2500 FPS and it will continue at a decaying speed until it runs out of puff due to friction & gravity. If the Lancaster was able to fly forwards at 2500 FPS then the bullet would fall to earth directly below the muzzle of the gun. If, however there was a Bf109 up the Lancs tail he would also be doing about 2500 FPS forward and the bullet would smash through him at 2500 FPS or an appropriately decayed speed.It's the same sort of situation of flying into a headwind. If you have a 90 knot headwind and your TAS is 90 knots you aint going nowhere. Going the other way though your'e honking over the ground at 180 knots. Thanks Kev, I miss understood a post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sloper Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Now lets get this right. Einsteins theory of relativerty say nothing can travel faster than light, there for the photons from the headlights will not travel any faster so you wont see them. The photons from the rear lights would aslo not be seen because they would be traverling at the speed of light. However a experiment has been done recently that had particals traverling faster than light, if his is correct Einstein is wrong. The experament is now being repeated at a number of Labs around the world. It is a known fact that a Brock Commodore does travel faster than light especially if its POLERISED. Who needs a Flux capacitor. regards Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadInTheClouds Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Now lets get this right.Einsteins theory of relativerty say nothing can travel faster than light, there for the photons from the headlights will not travel any faster so you wont see them. The photons from the rear lights would aslo not be seen because they would be traverling at the speed of light. What? Care to explain that a bit more? Special relativity also refers to the speed of light being a constant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfox1 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 l think all you people are sick to much time on your hands get out get in the air and relax unwind to close to chrismas to start thinking now. THAT MEANS YOU PUD... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Now, I spoke to a bloke once who worked on Mosquitos (by De Havilland of course!) They had an aeroplane that came back from gun trials with damage to the engine nacelles. It seems that when they fired their canons at low level off the Sydney coast the shells hit the waves and ricocheted upwards, losing velocity and the high speed plane caught up with them! No, this guy was not a b**s**t artist. Not much on topic actually but a damn interesting segue. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pudestcon Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 l think all you people are sick to much time on your hands get out get in the air and relax unwind to close to chrismas to start thinking now.THAT MEANS YOU PUD... I hear and obey Obi Wan Pud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Hey guys, I just realized our hi wings have got big balls... On them I mean... On the wings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Have you guys ever heard of a USAF F111 shooting itself in 1968 ? Apparently its true.I heard the rumours when in the RAAF.I just Googled it.There is abit of info there.(No he wasnt going the speed of light,lol) We took the cannons off the F111 a long time ago.Before my RAAF career.Not because we where worried that they would shoot themselves.Took them off because, if a F111 needed to use there guns, they where WAY to close to the enemy.They would have been shot down, if against a fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merc Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Have you guys ever heard of a USAF F111 shooting itself in 1968 ? Apparently its true.I heard the rumours when in the RAAF.I just Googled it.There is abit of info there.(No he wasnt going the speed of light,lol)We took the cannons off the F111 a long time ago.Before my RAAF career.Not because we where worried that they would shoot themselves.Took them off because, if a F111 needed to use there guns, they where WAY to close to the enemy.They would have been shot down, if against a fighter. dazza you may be thinking of the RAAF mirage A3-70 from 3 squadron . on 30 oct 1968 it was shot down by a ricochet from its own 30mm cannon. i was on crash crew that day so went to the crash site, amazing , the whole aircraft buried in a creator of ash with cannon shells exploding every so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 dazza you may be thinking of the RAAF mirage A3-70 from 3 squadron . on 30 oct 1968 it was shot down by a ricochet from its own 30mm cannon. i was on crash crew that day so went to the crash site, amazing , the whole aircraft buried in a creator of ash with cannon shells exploding every so often. Hi Merc, I remember that one as well.I mean the story was told to me. This F111 one apparently, according to the web site.Was on a range in America, they fired there cannon. Went into a dive and caught the projectiles after they had lost their velocity and where more or less falling towards the ground and flew into the back of them.I will try and find it again.Sounds pretty far fetched though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I google "F111 shot itself in 1968" It came up with a website- F16.net. Apparently a guy on the site, was there at the time.New Mexico bombing range.The aircraft dove down after firing the cannon.The windsreen took a projectile.Ouch.They where ok though, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petetheprinta Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 "No massive object (objects that have mass, which is all matter) can move at the speed of light. Massive objects can be accelerated closer and closer to the speed of light, but can never actually achieve light speed. Therefore there is no answer to the question. The logic of our understanding of light (Einstein's Special or Specialized Theory of Relativity) simply does not allow for massive things to travel at light speed. It's like asking someone what would happen if 1 + 1 actually equaled 3 - it's completely contradictory to the basic logic upon which the current understanding is based, and so the question just cannot be answered in terms of the current understanding".... Live long and prosper 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 No massive object (objects that have mass, which is all matter) can move at the speed of light. Massive objects can be accelerated closer and closer to the speed of light, but can never actually achieve light speed. Therefore there is no answer to the question. The logic of our understanding of light (Einstein's Special or Specialized Theory of Relativity) simply does not allow for massive things to travel at light speed. It's like asking someone what would happen if 1 + 1 actually equaled 3 - it's completely contradictory to the basic logic upon which the current understanding is based, and so the question just cannot be answered in terms of the current understanding.... Live long and prosper Oh oh... Now we're introducing logic... Oh oh... See what you've done Pud?... Do you see what you've done?... Do you?... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 If a car travelled at the speed of light would the headlights work? Pud Doesn`t matter!...... I`d only drive in the day time. Frank. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 What if the car is travelling at the speed of light on a treadmill moving at the speed of light in the opposite direction? Then would the headlights work, and would the car be visible, also would the car be moving or stationary? The image of the car would be travelling forward and the image of the treadmill backwards so if you were viewing it from the side you would not be able to see what was moving or stationary because you would be, as I am right now, left completely in the dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 If a car travelled at the speed of light with it's headlights on. I would guess that they would just get hotter and hotter as the loght would not escpe. The driver of course could accelerate and watch himself in the rear view mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Longden Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Wow..... According to Einsteins theory an object approached the speed of light, it would also need an infinite amount of energy to keep it there, so engine power is an issue. Its a by product of E=MC2 But, things are now dependant on the relative position of the observer. If, say for example he was at the speed of light minus 100Kmh, there would be a beam of light coming out of the headlamps, but the speed of the photons would be 100Kmh. As so far its unproven to be able to exceed the speed of light... latest research from the Hadron Collider not withstanding. With the gunshots, if the shooter fired in his direction of travel, the bullet would leave the gun at its normal velocity plus the velocity of the car... or jet... in relation to an observer on the ground. If the shooter fired rearwards in relation to his direction of travel, the bullet would still leave the gun at its normal velocity in relation to the gun operator. If the jet was flying at the speed of the bullet, then the bullet would still leave the gun at its normal velocity, and the pilot would see the bullet shoot away. But to an external observer on the ground the bullet would have no velocity at all, and would hang in the air, until it ran out of kinetic energy and gravity took over. But to a chasing fighter aircraft, the bullet would still be lethal, as he is travelling at the same speed as the plane that fired it, therefore sharing the same relativistic space. In the last case, it would be entirely possible to be hit by your own bullet, if you were travelling faster than it, and also in a downward path. Confused? So am I, but we did this in 'Igh Skool Physics 30 years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Seeing as this tread has drifted somewhat..................years ago I read that the faster you go, the smaller you get!!! So, at the speed of light, everything is so small you'd need more than headlight is see anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Wow..... According to Einsteins theory an object approached the speed of light, it would also need an infinite amount of energy to keep it there, so engine power is an issue. Its a by product of E=MC2 Confused? So am I, but we did this in 'Igh Skool Physics 30 years ago. Doesn't apply today .......something called ' climate change . Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryon Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Doesn't apply today .......something called ' climate change . Alan. Don't talk to me about climate change! I am still waiting for summer to start............... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now