OK OK..... my apologies to all for being abrasive.
gt40, I may have overreacted to your endorsement of what may well be just a fine optical tool. And my F-Class comment was directed at the guy who's wondering what ballistics has to do witrh F-Class. (or that's how I took it)
To all who wonder exactly how bullets impact when shooting uphill/downhill please take the time to borrow or buy a real book on ballistics, don't trust me. Then if you're mathematically inclined you can actually run the numbers.... if you're mathematically inclined AND mechanically inclined you can run and understand the numbers...... and if you're just a reader then may I suggest you get'cher hands on a copy of Robert L McCoys book 'Modern Exterior Ballistics' and flip to page 50 (after looking in wonder at the hundreds of pages covered with formulae) and read this ....."and we observe that for flat-fire, the trajectory will always intersect the target above center, and the projectile will strike equally high for either uphill or downhill firing."
The proofs for all this don't lend themselves well to casual explanation but in the same way that we can "trust" a doctor to rummage about in our innards we sometimes have to trust that when hundreds of years worth of published experts are in agreement they achieve a certain aura of validity. And when nothing has occurred "recently" to CHANGE the model (Galileo Galilei established the mathematical proofs in the early 1600's) And when these projections are further validated by ALL testing.....
And lastly to buffalobob, "start with a flawed assumption and you'll get flawed results." I've got no problem with your illustration, I love it when people understand their subject matter well enough to rip out a drawing on a napkin which neatly and clearly illustrates their point......... but for it to work the illustration must be based on accurate information. Misuse of data doesn't count. Your formula is simply WRONG....as well as incomplete. Horizontal motion is completely isolated from vertical motion, the two are independent of each other and act separately. If you ignore this and attempt to zero out your drawing by showing the vectors maybe it'll help you see it? I dunno.... but adding/subtracting gravity to "Vy" just isn't right... I do understand that you mean Vy to be the "upward" or "downward" acceleration component of the trajectory that's "added in" by the velocity of the bullet but unfortunately you seem to be mixing geometry with physics here. Whatever it is, your contention is simply wrong. The two motions are independent of each other.
I built a test for this in junior high using a blowgun mounted on a gimbal and a target which dropped when the projectile broke an electrical circuit at the muzzle. We had high ceilings in the old school....... got some serious elevated shots in the classroom.
You are right about one thing though, plugging numbers into your liddle drawing does yield "results" which validate your claim!
And most first yr students would be able to plug those numbers in......
al
gt40, I may have overreacted to your endorsement of what may well be just a fine optical tool. And my F-Class comment was directed at the guy who's wondering what ballistics has to do witrh F-Class. (or that's how I took it)
To all who wonder exactly how bullets impact when shooting uphill/downhill please take the time to borrow or buy a real book on ballistics, don't trust me. Then if you're mathematically inclined you can actually run the numbers.... if you're mathematically inclined AND mechanically inclined you can run and understand the numbers...... and if you're just a reader then may I suggest you get'cher hands on a copy of Robert L McCoys book 'Modern Exterior Ballistics' and flip to page 50 (after looking in wonder at the hundreds of pages covered with formulae) and read this ....."and we observe that for flat-fire, the trajectory will always intersect the target above center, and the projectile will strike equally high for either uphill or downhill firing."
The proofs for all this don't lend themselves well to casual explanation but in the same way that we can "trust" a doctor to rummage about in our innards we sometimes have to trust that when hundreds of years worth of published experts are in agreement they achieve a certain aura of validity. And when nothing has occurred "recently" to CHANGE the model (Galileo Galilei established the mathematical proofs in the early 1600's) And when these projections are further validated by ALL testing.....
And lastly to buffalobob, "start with a flawed assumption and you'll get flawed results." I've got no problem with your illustration, I love it when people understand their subject matter well enough to rip out a drawing on a napkin which neatly and clearly illustrates their point......... but for it to work the illustration must be based on accurate information. Misuse of data doesn't count. Your formula is simply WRONG....as well as incomplete. Horizontal motion is completely isolated from vertical motion, the two are independent of each other and act separately. If you ignore this and attempt to zero out your drawing by showing the vectors maybe it'll help you see it? I dunno.... but adding/subtracting gravity to "Vy" just isn't right... I do understand that you mean Vy to be the "upward" or "downward" acceleration component of the trajectory that's "added in" by the velocity of the bullet but unfortunately you seem to be mixing geometry with physics here. Whatever it is, your contention is simply wrong. The two motions are independent of each other.
I built a test for this in junior high using a blowgun mounted on a gimbal and a target which dropped when the projectile broke an electrical circuit at the muzzle. We had high ceilings in the old school....... got some serious elevated shots in the classroom.
You are right about one thing though, plugging numbers into your liddle drawing does yield "results" which validate your claim!
And most first yr students would be able to plug those numbers in......
al
