Air rifle and air pistol target shooting are included in major intentional and national sports competitions and are also highly popular sport pastimes. Published scientific studies of pellet drag are very rare, in contrast to a large number of scientific studies published on aerodynamic drag of sports balls and other sports projectiles. Measurements are presented of the drag coefficients for 31 air rifle pellets of mainly 4.5 mm (0.177 in) calibre having a wide range of geometries. The drag coefficient measurements were made with a low-turbulence open wind tunnel at flow velocity of 200 m/s (Mach and Reynolds numbers 0.57 and 56,000 for 4.5 mm pellets). The detailed geometry of some pellets was altered systematically in order to improve understanding of how pellet geometry affects drag coefficient. The drag coefficient for the 31 pellets varied widely from 0.36 to 0.78, and it was influenced substantially by the curvature of the flow separating from the pellet head rim. Large curvatures delayed flow re-attachment onto the pellet tail, thereby lowering pellet base pressure and increasing the value of drag coefficient. Pellets with hemi-spherical or ogive-shaped noses generally had lower values of drag coefficient than pellets with other nose shapes. The presence of the pellet tail was beneficial by providing a surface onto which the flow detaching from the pellet rim could re-attach. However, for minimisation of drag coefficient, the pellet tail had to be of a certain optimum length which depended on the shape of the pellet nose. Small differences in pellet geometry had significant influence on the value of drag coefficient. Increase in air velocity from 120 to 200 m/s had small influence on the value of drag coefficient for three common sports pellets having flat, conical and dome-shaped noses.
House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. Third report, session 2010-2011. vol. 1. London: UK House of Commons.
2.
LadommatosN.Influence of air rifle pellet geometry on aerodynamic drag. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology2019. DOI: 1754337119831107.
3.
CoeC. The effect of some variations in launch-vehicle nose shape on steady and fluctuating pressures at transonic speeds. Report No. TM X-646, NASA, Ames Research Centre, 1962.
4.
CoreyK.Airgun pellet performance using computational fluid dynamics. MSc Thesis, College of Engineering, USA, 1994.
5.
RafeieMTeymourtashA.Aerodynamic and dynamic analyses of three common 4.5 mm-caliber pellets in a transonic flow. Scient Iran B2016; 23: 1767–1776.
6.
SalimipourSTeymourtashAMamourianM.Investigation and comparison of performance of some air gun projectiles with nose shape modifications. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology2019; 233: 3–15.
7.
AokiKMutoKOkanagaH, et al. Aerodynamic characteristic and flow pattern on dimples structure of a sphere. In: 10th international conference on fluid control, measurement, and visualisation, FLUCOME 2009, Moscow, Russia, 17–21 August 2009, pp. 1–10.
8.
AlamFChowdhuryHMoriaH, et al. A comparative study of football aerodynamics. In: 8th conference of the international sports engineering association (ISEA), Vienna, Austria, 12–16 July 2010, pp. 2443–2448.
9.
HongSAsaiT.Effect of area band shape of soccer ball on its flight characteristics. Sci Rep2014; 4: 5068–5061.
10.
AlawaysL.Aerodynamics of the curve-ball: an investigation of the effects of angular velocity on baseball trajectories. PhD thesis. University of California - Davis, USA, 1998.
11.
MehtaRAlamFSubicA.Review of tennis ball aerodynamics. Sports Technol2008; 1: 7–16.
12.
OuKCastonguayPJamesonA. Computational sports aerodynamics of a moving sphere: simulating a ping pong ball in free flight. In: 29th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 27–30 June 2011, AIAA 2011-3668.
13.
KonishiYOkuizumiHOhnoT. PIV measurement of a flying table tennis ball. In: 11th conference of the international sports engineering association, ISEA 2016, Delft, Netherlands, 11–14 June 2016.
14.
MehtaR.Aerodynamics of sports balls. Annu Rev Fluid Mech1985; 17: 151–189.
PottsJCrowtherJ. FrisbeeAerodynamics. In: 20th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, St. Louis, MI, USA, 24–26 June 2002, AIAA 2002 3150.
17.
ESDU. Subsonic base drag of cylindrical bodies with conical boat-tails. ESDU, Item 76033, UK, 1976.
18.
ViswanathP.Flow management techniques for base and afterbody drag reduction. Prog Aerosp Sci1996; 32: 79–129.
19.
MairW.Reduction of base drag by boat-tailed afterbodies in low speed flow. Aeronaut Quart1969; 20: 307–320.
20.
McCoyR. Aerodynamic and flight dynamic characteristics of the new family of 5.56 mm NATO ammunition. BRL memorandum BRL-MR-3476, USA, October 1985.
21.
McCoyR. The aerodynamic characteristics of 7.62mm match bullets. BRL memorandum BRL-MR-3733, USA, December 1988.
22.
McCoyR. Aerodynamic characteristics of calibre 0.22 long rifle match ammunition. BRL memorandum BRL-MR-3877, USA, November 1990.
23.
BearmanPMorelT.Effect of free stream turbulence on the flow around bluff bodies. Prog Aerosp Sci1983; 20: 97–123.
24.
BabinskiH.How do wings work?Phys Educ2003; 38: 497–503.
25.
KittaSHasegawaSMurakamiM, et al. Aerodynamic properties of a shuttlecock with spin at high Reynolds number. In: 5th Asia-Pacific congress on sports technology (APCST), Melbourne, Australia, 28–31 August 2011.
26.
BuckholzR.Measurements of unsteady periodic forces generated by the blowfly flying in a wind tunnel. J. Exp Biol1981; 90: 63–173.
27.
AchenbachE.Experiments on the flow past spheres at very high Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Mech1972; 54: 565–575.
28.
LajosT.Drag reduction by the production of a separation bubble on the front of a bluff body. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn1986; 22: 331–338.
29.
SonKChoiJJeonW.Effect of free-stream turbulence on the flow over a sphere. Phys Fluids2010; 22: 1–7.
30.
NeveR.The importance of turbulence macroscale in determining the drag coefficient of spheres. Int J Heat Fluid Flow1986; 7: 28–36.
31.
RouseHMcNownJ.Cavitation and pressure distribution: head forms at zero angle of yaw. Iowa City, IA: State University of Iowa, 1948.
32.
BarlowJRaeAPopeW.Low speed wind tunnel testing. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
33.
NormanAMcKeonB. Effect of sting size on the wake of a sphere at subcritical Reynolds numbers. In: 38th fluid dynamics conference, Seattle, USA, 23–26 June 2008, AIAA 2008-4183.
34.
HoernerS. Tests of spheres with reference to Reynolds number, turbulence, and surface roughness. NACA Technical Memorandum No. 777, Langley, VA, USA, 1935.
35.
BaileyAHiattJ. Free-flight measurements of sphere drag at subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic speeds for continuum and near free molecular flow conditions. Report for Office of Aerospace Research, Tech. Rep. AEDC-TR-70-291, USA, 1971.
36.
HoernerSF. Fluid-dynamic drag: practical information on aerodynamic drag and hydrodynamic resistance. Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Brick Town, New Jersey, USA, 1965.
37.
WalterAD.Fabrication and testing of longitudinal wind tunnel balances for micro air vehicle applications. MSc Thesis. RIT, USA, 2004.
38.
CrazeD. On the near wake behind a circular disc. In: 6th Australian hydraulics and fluid mechanics conference, Adelaide, Australia, 5–9 December 1977.
39.
HumphriesWVincentJ.Near wake properties of axisymmetric bluff body flows. Appl Sci Res1976; 32: 649–669.
40.
NorrisJMcGeeR. Effects of bluntness on the subsonic drag of an elliptical forebody. Technical Note TN D-3388, NASA, Washington D.C., April 1966.
41.
ZanacicALongK. Drag and wake characteristics of three dimensional bluff bodies with varying radii of curvature. In: 27th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 22–25 June 2009, AIAA 2009-3612. Reston, VA: AIAA.
42.
HiguchiHSawadaHKatoH.Sting-free measurements on a magnetically supported right circular cylinder aligned with the free stream. J Fluid Mech2008; 596: 49–72.
43.
AlamMWangLWongC, et al. Separation bubble characteristics on an axial flow over a cylinder with different noses. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2018; 72: 337–350.
44.
OtaT.An axisymmetric separated and reattached flow on a longitudinal blunt circular cylinder. Trans ASME E, J Appl Mech1975; 42: 311–315.
45.
SunQAlamMWongC, et al. Features of flow around the leading edge of a circular cylinder. In: HEFAT2014, 10th international conference on heat transfer, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 14–26 July 2014.
46.
OwenRV. Aerodynamic characteristics of spherically blunted cones at Mach numbers from 0.5 to 5.0. Technical note TN D-3088, NASA, December 1965.
47.
PolhamusE. Effect of nose shape on subsonic aerodynamic characteristics of a body of revolution having a fineness ratio of 10.94. Report No. RM L57F25, 12 August 1957. Washington: NASA.
48.
KruminsMV. A review of sphere drag coefficients applicable to atmospheric density sensing. Report No. NOLTR 72-34, 1972. Silver Spring, MD: Naval Ordnance Laboratory.
49.
FuJK.Computations of aerodynamic drag for spinning transonic projectiles using implicit TVD scheme. Eng Comput1995; 12: 529–544.
50.
KimDChoiH.Laminar flow past a sphere rotating in the streamwise direction. J Fluid Mech2002; 461: 365–386.
51.
SchlichtingH.Boundary-layer theory (translated by J Kestin). 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979.
52.
Lorite-DiezMJimenez-GonzelezJI.Description of the transitional wake behind a strongly streamwise rotating sphere. J. Fluid Mech2020; 896.
