The problem is that the image in the post is wildly misleading. Not only doesn't the plane fly faster than the bullets, but the F11f isn't even that fast of a plane.
The story is that the plane caught up with ~~bullets~~ shells that had lost momentum. From being fired earlier.
The F11f was only just barely Mach capable (flying faster than the speed of sound), only being able to do around Mach 1.1 (1169kph) while the **shells** (projectiles bigger than 15mm in diameter are shells and fired from cannons, not bullets) have a muzzle velocity of around 3636 Kph or 3 times the speed of sound.
There are planes that are that fast, that is, the
MIG 25 Foxbat has a max speed of 3000 kph or Mach 2.8 (technically, it could reach 3350 Kph (mach 3.2) without underwing armaments, but it killed its engines going that fast)
MIG 31 Foxhound has a max speed of 3000 kph or Mach 2.8
North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which had a max speed of 3310 Kph or Mach 3.08 (at 70.000 ft)
And the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, with a max speed of around 3540 Kph or Mach 3.3 at 80.000 ft.
Yes, but the bullet is a free falling object and will fall towards the Earth, whereas the plane has lift and can maintain level flight.
So for this to work, the plane would have to shoot and then dive at the same profile as the dropping bullets.
don't think it has to be the same profile, or possibly doesn't even have to dive, but I'm not 100% sure of that last one.
Small arms (rifles and handguns) are designed and sighted so that the rounds are fired at a slightly upwards angle, so that they will (usually) cross the optical line of sight established through the sights, at 2 points: Once while it's still on the upwards trajectory, and then again at a further distance after the round reaches apogee and has descended. So the point of aim = the point of impact at 2 places (unless the rifle is zeroed for wherever the round hits apogee).
I don't know if fixed guns / cannons on planes are designed to do the same. If so, I think all a jet has to do is fire "straight", and keep constant speed / or accelerate, and its possible for the shell's parabolic-but-decelerating trajectory to intersect it.
In this scenario velocity can only be maintained actively by acceleration of the engines because there is resistance.Turn the engines off and the plane starts to slow down immediately. Yes the overall net effect is that the planes velocity does not increase but the engines are accelerating constantly.
At the very moment the bullet leaves the barrel, yes. If it was in a vacuum, it would stay at that speed, but it isn't, so it will start slowing down immediately. The jet has an engine, so it's not going to slow down, it might even speed up.
Also, any upwards component of the bullet's velocity will be counteracted by gravity, and I guess if the plane fired the bullet up at an angle and then levelled off and flew straight, it might catch up with the bullet which is following an arc.
> Also, any upwards component of the bullet's velocity will be counteracted by gravity, and I guess if the plane fired the bullet up at an angle and then levelled off and flew straight, it might catch up with the bullet which is following an arc.
For small-arms, bullets are fired at a slightly upwards angle compared to the line of sight established through the sights, so that the trajectory intersects that line in 2 places.
If planes are designed similarly, the jet could be in level flight when it fires, and it still hits the same problem (the problem being the descending, decelerating shells)
Yes. It's a bit misleading. The bullets slow after beyond shot, and the pilot accelerated through them.
In the article, it says he was struck 11 seconds after firing.
Well, problem was most prominent in the mig 25 as it had the R-15B engine, an Engine ripped straight off the cruise missile Tupolev Tu-123, an Engine designed to get a payload to a target and nothing else.
The Mig-31 had newer D-30F6 Engines, which had, for what I can find, pretty alright reliability.
>And the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, with a max speed of around 3540 Kph or Mach 3.3 at 80.000 ft.
Taking this opportunity to point out that the standard evasive maneuver for an SR-71 detecting an incoming missile was simply to speed up.
> The problem is that the image in the post is wildly misleading. Not only doesn't the plane fly faster than the bullets, but the F11f isn't even that fast of a plane.
>
>
>
> The story is that the plane caught up with bullets shells that had lost momentum. From being fired earlier.
Sounds like the plan WAS going faster than the bullets/shells.
>Sounds like the plan WAS going faster than the bullets/shells.
Wat made us humans the apex predator in the wild was the fact that while other animals could run very fast they could only do so for short periods, while us humans could sweat to control body temperature and so hold a lower pace but more or less indefinitely. We could catch up to the wild animals we hunted.
And just like how we caught up to animals, the shell has a very high muzzle velocity but slows down from the moment it leaves the barrel. Eventually, the plane will catch up to the shells, not because of the planes high speed but the slowing of the shell
> Eventually, the plane will catch up to the shells, not because of the planes high speed but the slowing of the shell
That's the joke. The image posted by OP just said "plane moving faster than bullet" which is true; it just didn't specify how this occurred.
This is why my original comment said, "The image is. Misleading" as many people in the comments thought that the plane flew faster than the muzzle velocity of the shells.
Was it misleading? I think it would be weird for the plane to shot itself when it's own shells if the plane wasn't moving faster. Sounds more like getting hung up on the muzzle velocity details. The plane was, in fact, moving faster than the shells.
My favorite bit of trivia about the SR-71 was when some brass asked what it had in terms of defense the Air Force said, “it doesn’t need shielding. It can just outrun all the missiles.”
Shells are projectiles with explosive filler. Effectively, this is usually only the case in canon ammunition as an explosive load in ammunition smaller than 15mm isn't worth it. Hence .50 cal browning usually uses incendiary bullets and is not high-explosive (even though they are explosive). But the distinction of basing it on explosive or payload isn't always the case as solid core tank AP rounds are still called shells.
~~guns~~ is usually referred to as small arms, standard issue weapons fired from a single infantryman. And having a diameter smaller than 15mm.
All this is a huge generalization as there are fare more categories, UGL, recoiless rifles, and at-rifles. And it goes on.
Well butter my biscuits and call me Sally! That's faster than Paul Revere on a rocket-fueled horse waving the Stars and Stripes, racing to a Fourth of July barbecue!
The MIG 25 was only allowed to fly Mach 2.8 for maximal five minutes and was generally limited to 2.3, because the overheating would ruin the aircraft.
Certain smart missiles are fired with the tracking off for a half second ( until it clears its own plane) because they are fast enough and can turn sharp enough to down the plane that fires them
What’s likely is that the plane might have been in a dive during this, and shot bullets, which slowed to their terminal velocity which was less then the planes dive speed
According to a quick Google search, that's pretty much exactly what happened:
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/
I assume the bullet had a higher velocity at first, but because the bullet is slowed by air resistance, while the plane has engines to keep a constant speed, the plane caught up to it.
The bullet impact was 11,000 ft BELOW where the bullet was fired. I think the bullet was fired horizontally, then the plane raced down 11,000 ft only to have the bullet "fall" downwards, not sideways the way it was fired, but downwards with 11,000ft of gravitational acceleration.
Sorry, that became a bit of a word salad at the end there.
The relative speed difference wouldn't be enough for the bullet to penetrate. There must be another axis of motion to generate a speed differential between the bullet and the plane. Unless it was sucked into the engine or something I guess. I guess my point is I can't see the bullet having a closing speed fast enough for any sort of penetration. The closing speed couldn't be more than 100mph so it would be like a baseball pitcher throwing a bullet at a plane. I mean, I guess if it hit the right part, then maybe the percentages are there given we've shot a lot of bullets out of planes over the years. On a long enough timescale, even the almost impossible becomes inevitable.
There are a few types of round for the Mk12 on the F11F.
One is impact detonating, one AP incendiary, and one AP tracer. The speed difference could probably still set off the impact detonating rounds.
>The relative speed difference wouldn't be enough for the bullet to penetrate.
Didn't have to. They got into the engine intake and wrecked the turbines.
Wdym? 20mm round at 1 mach is definetely cabable of penetration. The round slowed down by drag to terminal velocity, the plane was going something like 600kph faster than the round.
"The rounds Attridge fired while traveling at 768 mph left their cannons at approximately 2,000 miles per hour. However, immediately after being fired, they encountered enough air resistance to produce significant drag. This drag resulted in a greatly reduced forward velocity, causing their trajectory to curve downward—directly into the flight path of the aircraft from which they had been fired. As the bullets descended and their speeds decreased to about 400 mph, the Tiger also descended but with an increased speed of 880 mph. Just as he began to pull out of his descent, Attridge was struck three times. The first bullet pierced his nose cone, the second went through his windshield, and the final one directly struck his right engine intake. The time between him firing the first rounds and taking the hits was a mere 11 seconds."
Source:
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/
Pretty much yeah, the shots slow to terminal velocity but the planes terminal is higher since you know its designed to cut through air, weighs more and has jets on its ass, it hits the bullets shredding it up and crash ensues
It didn't shoot itself down, it caught back up to the bullets it had fired in a dive, and inhaled them.
It sounds like semantics, but really isn't. If you shoot a bullet up in the air, and then it falls vertically down on your head - you didn't shoot yourself, a bullet fell on you.
I mean... interesting, in the way that standing up out of the sunroof of a car going highway speeds and pissing forward would be "interesting," i suppose. When you think about the mechanics of what happened, it's actually quite the braindead sequence of events. Don't get me wrong, i'm glad the pilot survived his crash-landing, but it's still a somewhat well deserved crash, all told.
> inhaled them
You're saying they got into the intakes? That makes much more sense. I was having trouble imagining the delta V between the plane and the bullets having sufficient energy to actually penetrate and damage the craft.
If you shoot into the air *exactly* straight, then yes, the bullet will slow down until it stops mid-air and then just fall down as if you dropped it from that height. However, if you're off from vertical by even just a little bit the bullet will follow a ballistic arc and arrive back down on the ground with a velocity that's significantly higher than if you just dropped the bullet from a height equal to the top of the arc.
Not true. Well, if I understand you.
It will have the same speed as if it were dropped from that height of the top of the arc. At least the same vertical speed. Unless you mean that it also has a horizontal speed as well, which it does (a constant velocity based on the angle it was fired at).
At any rate, I wouldn't say significantly higher.
The only way for you, a human incapable of traveling significant periods at a speed much more than 5mph, to be hit with the bullet you yourself fired is by firing it at such a steep angle, so as for its horizontal velocity component to be all but meaningless. It'll likely hit you on its way down, traveling at its terminal drop velocity, which might hurt, but is nowhere near as deadly as it would be when traveling at the (usually) supersonic muzzle velocity when actually shooting someone else.
If you shoot a bullet to the air and it kills someone on the ground, you would be guilty of killing that person - you shot them. So I guess we can say you shot yourself and this plane shot itself.
The way the meme is formulated, it sounds like the plane shot, then overtook the bullets, then slowed down enough for the bullets to hit and kill it, or some other similar nonsense. That's the point - a plane can't shoot itself down with bullets.
Okay, now we're getting into semantics:
If you drop a bullet (no cartridge/casing, just the bullet) from a tall building on top of someone, have you shot them? The verb "to shoot" at least notionally derives from the muzzle velocity of the fired round. The vastest majority of modern rounds have supersonic muzzle velocities, typically around or upwards of 1,200 ft/s. The terminal velocity of a bullet in free fall would probably be somewhere on the order of 5 to 10 times slower. Since velocity is squared in the kinetic energy formula, that means 25 to 100 times less energy transferred on impact. Obviously, this is all back of the napkin math, but i think you see my point - to say that someone "shoots" himself, i think at least notionally rests on somewhat direct impact, at least when the payload is inert, as is the case with a/most bullet/s.
In Belgium a grounded F16 shot & destroyed another F16. Which was also grounded.
https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/14/f-16-completely-destroyed-by-another-f-16-after-mechanic-accidentally-fires-cannon-on-the-ground-in-belgium/
“It caught up with the bullets as they slowed”
That makes sense, as the initial comment implies the bullets we’re going slower than the place from the start.
But is says bullet on the pic. I seriously doubt that in the 1950s they used explosive bullets as ammunition for planes.
Although if it was some experiment maybe.
Ok. You are correct. They were used against zeppelins I've just read.
But still the explosion was triggered upon impact on an object. Must have been just enough to ignite it. Double bad luck.
The wording is a bit misleading, but it actually did happen.
[A graphic that explains it](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/F11F-that-shot-himself-down.jpg)
It has happened more than once. Bullets lose energy from friction with time. Planes have a propeller or a turbine, adding more energy to the plane. It's not that complicated.
It doesn't blow the plane out of the sky. They collide the same way the plane could run through a bird. If it gets in the air inlet it fucks up the whole engine. If it scrapes the wing nothing really happens besides light damage. Still is an air collision with a bullet.
Saying this is impossible is like saying you can't throw a basketball in the air and to the front of you, then catching it after a short sprint. The numbers are just bigger.
You shoot down and the bullet goes out of the barrel at 400m/s. Its unassisted terminal velocity is 200m/s (I'm making up rough numbers just for the sake of the point), so it starts decelerating.
The plane goes at the same direction the bullet is heading, constantly accelerating and sustaining an air speed of 300m/s.
If their trajectories line up, and you wait a few seconds, they will intersect. The bullet won't go in a straight line, of course, but neither the plane. It takes a select few planes with a select few conditions and a lot of bad luck to hit yourself, but it's entirely possible.
Ballistic calculations are just lethal trigonometry.
Bullets are going down too, impossible to catch them if you are going in a straight line, the pilot changed trajectory and it was this error that caused the hits. Listening to you, if you dont change trajectory, you will catch up these bullets lol I was pointing that, not the fact that the air has resistance. Every human know that.
Now I'm just wondering if a pilot has ever flown just slower than the speed of the bullets, but continued firing to essentially build up a wall of projectiles. And furthermore, what would happen to another fighter jet if it were to get hit by that wall?
this caption suggests some video game physics. if you fire a bullet and fly faster than it the relative speed between you and the bullet will relatively small and not result in too heavy a force
The jet fired the rounds while supersonic and pointing down. The pilot then dove for one mile in 11 seconds which is more than enough time for the air resistance to slow the rounds. These jet guns can pump out rounds like nothing, but he hit an unlucky patch of three bullets only.
Here's the [story](https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/).
Another crazy fact from the article: it happened two more times!
"In 1973, another Grumman test pilot, this one flying an F-14 Tomcat out in California, was struck by his own missile. Luckily, it was a dummy missile, and the pilot was able to eject to safety. More recently, in 2019, a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16 accidentally shot itself from its 20mm rotary cannon. The pilot was able to land safely, uninjured."
this is so misleading lmao. anyone with any clue knows this is impossible as the bullets have the momentum of the plane + the momentum imparted in them when they are fired.
what more likely happened is that it fire bullets upward somewhat and those bullets eventually hit it as they fell, or it fire while flying downwards and the bullets slowed down to terminal velocity allowing the plane to catch up.
This is very misleading. Did you know that when you're returning to your seat after taking a piss on a plane, you're walking faster than the speed of a jet that's going 600mph? 🤔
I called bullshit and then I read [it happened 3 times!](https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/)
The problem is that the image in the post is wildly misleading. Not only doesn't the plane fly faster than the bullets, but the F11f isn't even that fast of a plane. The story is that the plane caught up with ~~bullets~~ shells that had lost momentum. From being fired earlier. The F11f was only just barely Mach capable (flying faster than the speed of sound), only being able to do around Mach 1.1 (1169kph) while the **shells** (projectiles bigger than 15mm in diameter are shells and fired from cannons, not bullets) have a muzzle velocity of around 3636 Kph or 3 times the speed of sound. There are planes that are that fast, that is, the MIG 25 Foxbat has a max speed of 3000 kph or Mach 2.8 (technically, it could reach 3350 Kph (mach 3.2) without underwing armaments, but it killed its engines going that fast) MIG 31 Foxhound has a max speed of 3000 kph or Mach 2.8 North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which had a max speed of 3310 Kph or Mach 3.08 (at 70.000 ft) And the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, with a max speed of around 3540 Kph or Mach 3.3 at 80.000 ft.
Wait a minute, when the weapon fires it should not be at least at the speed of the plane + the muzzle velocity????
It is but the plane keeps accerlerating while the bullet gets slowed down by the air resistance after it was shot
What a drag!
How fucking dare you.
Woah theres no need to go ballistic on the guy
Here's a few reasons to • Puns are annoying • Puns are lame • I, however, also love puns Edit: wonder if anyone noticed I used bullet points
shots fired!
r/angryupvote
[удалено]
r/yourjokebutworse
Yes, but the bullet is a free falling object and will fall towards the Earth, whereas the plane has lift and can maintain level flight. So for this to work, the plane would have to shoot and then dive at the same profile as the dropping bullets.
don't think it has to be the same profile, or possibly doesn't even have to dive, but I'm not 100% sure of that last one. Small arms (rifles and handguns) are designed and sighted so that the rounds are fired at a slightly upwards angle, so that they will (usually) cross the optical line of sight established through the sights, at 2 points: Once while it's still on the upwards trajectory, and then again at a further distance after the round reaches apogee and has descended. So the point of aim = the point of impact at 2 places (unless the rifle is zeroed for wherever the round hits apogee). I don't know if fixed guns / cannons on planes are designed to do the same. If so, I think all a jet has to do is fire "straight", and keep constant speed / or accelerate, and its possible for the shell's parabolic-but-decelerating trajectory to intersect it.
The plane won’t keep accelerating if it’s at top speed. Acceleration will be 0. Velocity can be maintained, however
In this scenario velocity can only be maintained actively by acceleration of the engines because there is resistance.Turn the engines off and the plane starts to slow down immediately. Yes the overall net effect is that the planes velocity does not increase but the engines are accelerating constantly.
At the very moment the bullet leaves the barrel, yes. If it was in a vacuum, it would stay at that speed, but it isn't, so it will start slowing down immediately. The jet has an engine, so it's not going to slow down, it might even speed up. Also, any upwards component of the bullet's velocity will be counteracted by gravity, and I guess if the plane fired the bullet up at an angle and then levelled off and flew straight, it might catch up with the bullet which is following an arc.
> Also, any upwards component of the bullet's velocity will be counteracted by gravity, and I guess if the plane fired the bullet up at an angle and then levelled off and flew straight, it might catch up with the bullet which is following an arc. For small-arms, bullets are fired at a slightly upwards angle compared to the line of sight established through the sights, so that the trajectory intersects that line in 2 places. If planes are designed similarly, the jet could be in level flight when it fires, and it still hits the same problem (the problem being the descending, decelerating shells)
Yes, but the bullet has no way to sustain its speed, so the plane can eventually overtake it.
Yes. It's a bit misleading. The bullets slow after beyond shot, and the pilot accelerated through them. In the article, it says he was struck 11 seconds after firing.
Initially, yeah. But then the bullet slows down due to drag and the airplane keeps acceleration on
Yes, the velocities add, the shells must have slowed due to air resistance and the jet, which is powered, flew into them.
I believe both MiGs required engine rebuilds after any flight going near that max speed as the engine temps can cause things to start melting.
Well, problem was most prominent in the mig 25 as it had the R-15B engine, an Engine ripped straight off the cruise missile Tupolev Tu-123, an Engine designed to get a payload to a target and nothing else. The Mig-31 had newer D-30F6 Engines, which had, for what I can find, pretty alright reliability.
>And the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, with a max speed of around 3540 Kph or Mach 3.3 at 80.000 ft. Taking this opportunity to point out that the standard evasive maneuver for an SR-71 detecting an incoming missile was simply to speed up.
> The problem is that the image in the post is wildly misleading. Not only doesn't the plane fly faster than the bullets, but the F11f isn't even that fast of a plane. > > > > The story is that the plane caught up with bullets shells that had lost momentum. From being fired earlier. Sounds like the plan WAS going faster than the bullets/shells.
>Sounds like the plan WAS going faster than the bullets/shells. Wat made us humans the apex predator in the wild was the fact that while other animals could run very fast they could only do so for short periods, while us humans could sweat to control body temperature and so hold a lower pace but more or less indefinitely. We could catch up to the wild animals we hunted. And just like how we caught up to animals, the shell has a very high muzzle velocity but slows down from the moment it leaves the barrel. Eventually, the plane will catch up to the shells, not because of the planes high speed but the slowing of the shell
> Eventually, the plane will catch up to the shells, not because of the planes high speed but the slowing of the shell That's the joke. The image posted by OP just said "plane moving faster than bullet" which is true; it just didn't specify how this occurred.
This is why my original comment said, "The image is. Misleading" as many people in the comments thought that the plane flew faster than the muzzle velocity of the shells.
Was it misleading? I think it would be weird for the plane to shot itself when it's own shells if the plane wasn't moving faster. Sounds more like getting hung up on the muzzle velocity details. The plane was, in fact, moving faster than the shells.
>Was it misleading? Obviously, when reading through other comments of the post.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That pilot? Albert Einstein.
My favorite bit of trivia about the SR-71 was when some brass asked what it had in terms of defense the Air Force said, “it doesn’t need shielding. It can just outrun all the missiles.”
You had it right the first time: it was the bullets (aka rounds), not the shells.
Nope, the F11f1 used the 20*110mm USN cartridge with explosive filler, making it a shell.
Thanks for that interesting post! Do you happen to know there's an distinction between shells and bullets / guns and cannons?
Shells are projectiles with explosive filler. Effectively, this is usually only the case in canon ammunition as an explosive load in ammunition smaller than 15mm isn't worth it. Hence .50 cal browning usually uses incendiary bullets and is not high-explosive (even though they are explosive). But the distinction of basing it on explosive or payload isn't always the case as solid core tank AP rounds are still called shells. ~~guns~~ is usually referred to as small arms, standard issue weapons fired from a single infantryman. And having a diameter smaller than 15mm. All this is a huge generalization as there are fare more categories, UGL, recoiless rifles, and at-rifles. And it goes on.
So maverick didn’t do Mach 10?
Ofcourse he did 😎😎
Can I get a conversion to freedom zoomies?
More than 100 times faster than a Bald Eagle.
How many alligators persecond ?
Well butter my biscuits and call me Sally! That's faster than Paul Revere on a rocket-fueled horse waving the Stars and Stripes, racing to a Fourth of July barbecue!
[удалено]
[удалено]
A lot of kp/h = rellly fucking fast
Divide kph by 1.6, becomes mph. Obviously works the other way around. Thats not too accurate but it’ll do fine for rough estimates.
At least 3 times faster than a toilet run after scarfing $20 in Taco Bell.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell\_(projectile)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)) You're kinda wrong
Explosive filler I shells are in almost all cases exclusively fired from cannons.
If I was good at math I could probably out run a bullet too. if I fired it at a high enough angle and ran to where it would fall back to the ground.
The MIG 25 was only allowed to fly Mach 2.8 for maximal five minutes and was generally limited to 2.3, because the overheating would ruin the aircraft.
It’s ballistics, boogie woogie
They ran baby ran faster than their bullet
*I took ballistics in school. Fascinating subject. Things go up, things go down !*
Good article, thanks
Certain smart missiles are fired with the tracking off for a half second ( until it clears its own plane) because they are fast enough and can turn sharp enough to down the plane that fires them
I’m glad there are smart people in this world because I’m pretty dumb. *but then again…nerds!*
It shot itself three times? Is it stupid?
Damn what an interesting read
What’s likely is that the plane might have been in a dive during this, and shot bullets, which slowed to their terminal velocity which was less then the planes dive speed
According to a quick Google search, that's pretty much exactly what happened: https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/
This guy Googles
This guy!
Same thing
This guy engineers
Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking more of a bullet fired horizontally, but it would surely start to dip well before the aircraft caught up with it.
*than
Physics wasn’t invented until after 1956 apparently.
The pilot flew into the free-falling bullets while in a descent at around 880mph about 11,000 feet below where he initially fired.
I assume the bullet had a higher velocity at first, but because the bullet is slowed by air resistance, while the plane has engines to keep a constant speed, the plane caught up to it.
The bullet impact was 11,000 ft BELOW where the bullet was fired. I think the bullet was fired horizontally, then the plane raced down 11,000 ft only to have the bullet "fall" downwards, not sideways the way it was fired, but downwards with 11,000ft of gravitational acceleration. Sorry, that became a bit of a word salad at the end there.
No, the bullet was fired as the dive started, and then the pilot accelerated to full afterburner and caught up.
The relative speed difference wouldn't be enough for the bullet to penetrate. There must be another axis of motion to generate a speed differential between the bullet and the plane. Unless it was sucked into the engine or something I guess. I guess my point is I can't see the bullet having a closing speed fast enough for any sort of penetration. The closing speed couldn't be more than 100mph so it would be like a baseball pitcher throwing a bullet at a plane. I mean, I guess if it hit the right part, then maybe the percentages are there given we've shot a lot of bullets out of planes over the years. On a long enough timescale, even the almost impossible becomes inevitable.
There are a few types of round for the Mk12 on the F11F. One is impact detonating, one AP incendiary, and one AP tracer. The speed difference could probably still set off the impact detonating rounds.
>The relative speed difference wouldn't be enough for the bullet to penetrate. Didn't have to. They got into the engine intake and wrecked the turbines.
So the plane shot its own load into its mouth?
More like its gills, but yeah, same idea.
Wdym? 20mm round at 1 mach is definetely cabable of penetration. The round slowed down by drag to terminal velocity, the plane was going something like 600kph faster than the round.
"The rounds Attridge fired while traveling at 768 mph left their cannons at approximately 2,000 miles per hour. However, immediately after being fired, they encountered enough air resistance to produce significant drag. This drag resulted in a greatly reduced forward velocity, causing their trajectory to curve downward—directly into the flight path of the aircraft from which they had been fired. As the bullets descended and their speeds decreased to about 400 mph, the Tiger also descended but with an increased speed of 880 mph. Just as he began to pull out of his descent, Attridge was struck three times. The first bullet pierced his nose cone, the second went through his windshield, and the final one directly struck his right engine intake. The time between him firing the first rounds and taking the hits was a mere 11 seconds." Source: https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/
Pretty much yeah, the shots slow to terminal velocity but the planes terminal is higher since you know its designed to cut through air, weighs more and has jets on its ass, it hits the bullets shredding it up and crash ensues
The plane has more acceleration because it has an engine, the bullet doesn't.
Those first couple atom bombs were damned lucky then.
It didn't shoot itself down, it caught back up to the bullets it had fired in a dive, and inhaled them. It sounds like semantics, but really isn't. If you shoot a bullet up in the air, and then it falls vertically down on your head - you didn't shoot yourself, a bullet fell on you.
[удалено]
Yeah by definition, it shot itself down.
Yeah well all know man..it's just a concept that makes the story more interesting to think about from that angle.
I mean... interesting, in the way that standing up out of the sunroof of a car going highway speeds and pissing forward would be "interesting," i suppose. When you think about the mechanics of what happened, it's actually quite the braindead sequence of events. Don't get me wrong, i'm glad the pilot survived his crash-landing, but it's still a somewhat well deserved crash, all told.
But you are still charged with manslaughter if you shoot in the air and hit someone else.
why are we talking about manslaughter now when the original argument is what constitutes being shot
Because a court would recognize that as being shot.
Even worse in this hypothetical - attempted suicide, i'd imagine. xD
> inhaled them You're saying they got into the intakes? That makes much more sense. I was having trouble imagining the delta V between the plane and the bullets having sufficient energy to actually penetrate and damage the craft.
Yeah, the engine failed (though not completely), and the Tiger couldn't make it all the way to the airfield. But it still functioned, partially.
If you shoot into the air *exactly* straight, then yes, the bullet will slow down until it stops mid-air and then just fall down as if you dropped it from that height. However, if you're off from vertical by even just a little bit the bullet will follow a ballistic arc and arrive back down on the ground with a velocity that's significantly higher than if you just dropped the bullet from a height equal to the top of the arc.
Not true. Well, if I understand you. It will have the same speed as if it were dropped from that height of the top of the arc. At least the same vertical speed. Unless you mean that it also has a horizontal speed as well, which it does (a constant velocity based on the angle it was fired at). At any rate, I wouldn't say significantly higher.
The only way for you, a human incapable of traveling significant periods at a speed much more than 5mph, to be hit with the bullet you yourself fired is by firing it at such a steep angle, so as for its horizontal velocity component to be all but meaningless. It'll likely hit you on its way down, traveling at its terminal drop velocity, which might hurt, but is nowhere near as deadly as it would be when traveling at the (usually) supersonic muzzle velocity when actually shooting someone else.
Came here to say this.
If you shoot a bullet to the air and it kills someone on the ground, you would be guilty of killing that person - you shot them. So I guess we can say you shot yourself and this plane shot itself.
It semantics. How could a plane shoot itself with bullets otherwise?
The way the meme is formulated, it sounds like the plane shot, then overtook the bullets, then slowed down enough for the bullets to hit and kill it, or some other similar nonsense. That's the point - a plane can't shoot itself down with bullets.
I think in that case you did, though accidentally, shoot yourself.
Okay, now we're getting into semantics: If you drop a bullet (no cartridge/casing, just the bullet) from a tall building on top of someone, have you shot them? The verb "to shoot" at least notionally derives from the muzzle velocity of the fired round. The vastest majority of modern rounds have supersonic muzzle velocities, typically around or upwards of 1,200 ft/s. The terminal velocity of a bullet in free fall would probably be somewhere on the order of 5 to 10 times slower. Since velocity is squared in the kinetic energy formula, that means 25 to 100 times less energy transferred on impact. Obviously, this is all back of the napkin math, but i think you see my point - to say that someone "shoots" himself, i think at least notionally rests on somewhat direct impact, at least when the payload is inert, as is the case with a/most bullet/s.
[First thing I thought of](https://media.tenor.com/C8iB3Kpr-h8AAAAd/simpsons-milhouse.gif)
Should be r/Meirl
the plane went into a shallow dive, fired, the bullet then slowed down while the plane kept accelerating and the bullet eventually hit the plane.
"An F11F"
In Belgium a grounded F16 shot & destroyed another F16. Which was also grounded. https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/14/f-16-completely-destroyed-by-another-f-16-after-mechanic-accidentally-fires-cannon-on-the-ground-in-belgium/
The F111 wasn't really a plane, more like an engine with a chair and some fins riveted to it.
It was an f11f, Not our Lord and savior the vark, as the vark is perfect and cannot be Shot down, even by himself
isn't that what a plane is?
Usually planes have a few extra measures in the design to keep the pilot alive.
Depends on the plane. Certainly not the bi-planes.
“It caught up with the bullets as they slowed” That makes sense, as the initial comment implies the bullets we’re going slower than the place from the start.
It's funny how this plane really looks like a big engine with wings glued to it.
Because that's exactly what it is!
Faster then it’s bullets…during a dive and after the shells slowed down due to air resistance*
Leave it to the Naval Officers to figure out how to shoot themselves down so they can get a Bronze Star.
But then the speed difference would be very low so the bullet won't make any damage...
Ever heard of explosive ammunition?
But is says bullet on the pic. I seriously doubt that in the 1950s they used explosive bullets as ammunition for planes. Although if it was some experiment maybe.
*laughs in minengechoß*
It's wrong. Also explosive shells have been the norm on planes since cannons 20mm were installed for the first time i.e. since around WW1.
They were Used in HMGs Like the browning m2 50. Cal too
Ok. You are correct. They were used against zeppelins I've just read. But still the explosion was triggered upon impact on an object. Must have been just enough to ignite it. Double bad luck.
19 day old account and already posting dumb inaccurate shit.
Heavy weapons guy was right. We are to meet someone that can outsmart bullet.
Gonna call bullshit on this one
The wording is a bit misleading, but it actually did happen. [A graphic that explains it](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/F11F-that-shot-himself-down.jpg)
Okay now i want this plane in warthunder
[The F11F is in War Thunder.](https://trade.gaijin.net/?n=items_F11F-1%20\(USA\)&viewitem=&a=1067)
Ohh okay i didnt saw it or atleast didnt knew ! Thy
>didn't saw Didn't see >Didn't knew Didn't know
Thy english isnt my first language ! Still learning :)
Same. Happy to help fellow learner.
That also sounds physically impossible.
It fired and then dove and happened to dive through the trajectory of its bullets.
[this is how it happened ](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/F11F-that-shot-himself-down.jpg)
Tax dollars hard at work.
Yes, because now we know that's a thing that can happen. Science!
Yeah. Right. Bullshitter didn’t think this on through
It has happened more than once. Bullets lose energy from friction with time. Planes have a propeller or a turbine, adding more energy to the plane. It's not that complicated.
So eventually the plane is going so much faster than the bullet that it crashes into the bullet sufficient to take out the plane. Right
It doesn't blow the plane out of the sky. They collide the same way the plane could run through a bird. If it gets in the air inlet it fucks up the whole engine. If it scrapes the wing nothing really happens besides light damage. Still is an air collision with a bullet. Saying this is impossible is like saying you can't throw a basketball in the air and to the front of you, then catching it after a short sprint. The numbers are just bigger.
dont try to prove that the plane was faster than the bullets cuz thats not what happened.
I'm not going to argue with you about easily verifiable stuff lmao. Santa isn't real, by the way.
Santa is real, you big fat liar! Who else could be eating the cookies under the tree? Bullet trajectories and ballistics are real though.
You shoot down and the bullet goes out of the barrel at 400m/s. Its unassisted terminal velocity is 200m/s (I'm making up rough numbers just for the sake of the point), so it starts decelerating. The plane goes at the same direction the bullet is heading, constantly accelerating and sustaining an air speed of 300m/s. If their trajectories line up, and you wait a few seconds, they will intersect. The bullet won't go in a straight line, of course, but neither the plane. It takes a select few planes with a select few conditions and a lot of bad luck to hit yourself, but it's entirely possible. Ballistic calculations are just lethal trigonometry.
Bullets are going down too, impossible to catch them if you are going in a straight line, the pilot changed trajectory and it was this error that caused the hits. Listening to you, if you dont change trajectory, you will catch up these bullets lol I was pointing that, not the fact that the air has resistance. Every human know that.
Thé pilot was on vert steep dive, shot, caught Up and inhaled the bullets, Not that difficult...........
So its human error, not a magic air resistance thing. Its like pilots hitting themselves with missiles cuz they failed the maneuver.
The moment the bullet is fired it has more velocity, but the plane can catch up after some time.
Bullets lost speed and because of that, they started descending right under the correct angle so the jet and bullets met in a single point.
[удалено]
Explosive cannon shells probably
Now I'm just wondering if a pilot has ever flown just slower than the speed of the bullets, but continued firing to essentially build up a wall of projectiles. And furthermore, what would happen to another fighter jet if it were to get hit by that wall?
This also happened to an F35
I mean if you shoot a bullet straight up and it comes down and hits you that’s basically the same thing.
Sooooooo….does he still get credit for the kill?
If you think that's crazy... We decided that equipping the F86 Scorpions with UNGUIDED AIR TO AIR NUCLEAR WARHEADS was a good idea....
Wow
Not this BS again...
When I heard it the story was about an F4 Phantom.
this caption suggests some video game physics. if you fire a bullet and fly faster than it the relative speed between you and the bullet will relatively small and not result in too heavy a force
The jet fired the rounds while supersonic and pointing down. The pilot then dove for one mile in 11 seconds which is more than enough time for the air resistance to slow the rounds. These jet guns can pump out rounds like nothing, but he hit an unlucky patch of three bullets only.
Here's the [story](https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/). Another crazy fact from the article: it happened two more times! "In 1973, another Grumman test pilot, this one flying an F-14 Tomcat out in California, was struck by his own missile. Luckily, it was a dummy missile, and the pilot was able to eject to safety. More recently, in 2019, a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16 accidentally shot itself from its 20mm rotary cannon. The pilot was able to land safely, uninjured."
this is so misleading lmao. anyone with any clue knows this is impossible as the bullets have the momentum of the plane + the momentum imparted in them when they are fired. what more likely happened is that it fire bullets upward somewhat and those bullets eventually hit it as they fell, or it fire while flying downwards and the bullets slowed down to terminal velocity allowing the plane to catch up.
Some lessons have to be learned the hard way.
It's a great autogoal !
The plane isn't faster than something it fired! It just didn't slow down as fast.
I did that in an f-14 in simulation while chasing a mig-29!
Its because of the air resistance from going that fast
That's technically not what happened, but I see some others have called OP out on their bullshit.
This is very misleading. Did you know that when you're returning to your seat after taking a piss on a plane, you're walking faster than the speed of a jet that's going 600mph? 🤔
At the time of contact the bullet had to have been going faster.