Can you tell me if this model is correct or not? [assuming drag is linearly proportional to the velocity] Considering y-axis vertical and x-axis horizontal,with y positive upwards:

1) $F_y=-mg-kv_y=ma_y$ and 2) $F_x=-kv_x=ma_x$. Then considering only 1) we find the equation for the velocity ($t=0$,$v=o$ and $y=h$ are the initial conditions): \begin{equation} \frac{dy}{dt}+\frac{k}{m}y=-gt+\frac{k}{m}h \end{equation} then we can integrate again (initial conditions ,$t=0$ and $y=h$ again): \begin{equation} y=-g\frac{m}{k}t+g\frac{m^2}{k^2}h-g\frac{m^2}{k^2}e^{-\frac{k}{m}t} \end{equation} Is this correct as long as we don't open the parachute? and when we open the parachute and considering it takes a time $\tau$ to open and the drag coefficient increases linearly (i.e. $k(t)=k+k_p\frac{t}{\tau}$ ) what happens?


As regards modelling the interval during which the parachute deploys using a simple model for the drag coefficient as you (and Floris) suggest:


In my coordinate system the equation of motion becomes:


This becomes difficult to intergrate. By setting $a=k_p/\tau$, Wolfram alpha provides the following solution.

Bearing in mind this still needs to be integrated to obtain displacement, that becomes unworkable.

I would suggest another way to model the chute deployment, see diagram below:

k values.

Split the expected deployment time into a number of intervals (5 shown), each with its average $k_i$ value. To each value $k_i$ and time interval can then be applied the derivation in the previous answer. Adding all obtained $y_i$ gives an approximated total displacement during deployment. This is of course a popular method of numerical integration.


Using the same axis and sign convention Floris used in the answer to your other parachute model question:





Integrate between $t=0,v=0$ and $t,v(t)$:



Note that for $t \to \inf$, $v \to \frac{mg}{k}$, the terminal velocity.

Now $dy=v(t)dt$, so:

$$y(t)=\int_0^t v(t)dt$$

$$y(t)=\frac{mg}{k} \int_0^t dt \big(1-e^{-\frac{kt}{m}}\big)$$


Here $y(t)$ is the distance travelled from the drop point. To convert back to your definition of $y$ as height above the ground:


I could be wrong of course but I do not see how you arrive at the following DE (even using your convention) and how an initial condition pops up in the DE, prior to integration:


If you want to go 'straight to $y$', your DE should be:





Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.