projectile motion – the effect of launch angle

Frances Dykes

St Ritas College
IA2
Research Question
Does increasing the launch angle of a projectile from 30 to 60 in 5-degree increments
affect the horizontal displacement while maintaining launch velocity and release height?

Rationale
This experiment will investigate how the launch angle of a projectile impacts the horizontal
displacement with controlled variables of launch velocity, release height, environment, and
the projectile. A projectile is an object that only has the force of gravity acting upon it, due
to the small distance travelled by the projectile and the small radius, in this experiment air
resistance was negligible. Therefore, the horizontal component remained constant (Motion
Characteristics of a Projectile, n.d.). The launch angle of a projectile determines the
maximum height the projectile will reach after being launched. The maximum launch angle a
projectile may have is 45 degrees due to the parabolic shape of a projectiles path.
Horizontal and vertical components are used to determine velocity and displacement of a
projectile (Horizontal and Vertical Velocity of a Projectile, n.d.). The force of gravity upon a
projectile is always constant (9.8m/s) and directed vertically downwards which causes the
projectile to maintain a parabolic path. As air resistance is ignored, there are no forces
acting upon the projectile horizontally. To calculate the range of the projectile object, time
was needed. The equation to determine the proportional relationship is shown below:
1 2
S y =U y t + g t
2

S y =0

1 2
0=u sin θ t+ g t
2

Factorise t , null factor law

2u sin θ
t=
g

The values of 2u and g are constant as they impact the relationship at the same rate,
therefore they aren’t included in the relationship shown below:
S x ∝ cos θ sin θ
The horizontal displacement is proportional to the launch angle as cos θ sin θ represents a
sine or cosine curve which can be restricted to form a parabola. From the information
above, it can be hypothesised that the horizontal displacement of the projectile will increase
as the launch angle increases until 45 degrees, then the displacement will begin to decrease
as the launch angle continues to increase. The original experiment was done to investigate
the relationship between the launch angle of a projectile, its motion, and the range of the
projectile. The full original experiment can be found in Appendix B (Pearson Physics
Queensland 12 | Box of Books, n.d.). The independent variable in the original experiment
was the launch angle and the dependent variable was the horizontal displacement. The
original experiment was modified to increase the accuracy of the experiment by extending
the datapoints collected which allowed the trendline to be extended and therefore
investigate the reliability and validity of the experiment more thoroughly.

Modifications to Experiment
Type of Modification Modification
Extension Additional degrees going
from 30 to 60 (30, 35,
40, 45, 50, 55, 60)
Refinement Equipment was changed to
be more modern.
Refinement Additional trials (5 per
launch angle)
Refinement A photogate time-of-flight
accessory was used instead
of carbon paper for the
Justification
To increase accuracy of
trendline (reflected in R2
value). Allows for the
relationship to be more
deeply investigated.
Increases repeatability and
therefore reliability of the
experiment by decreasing
percentage uncertainty.
To increase validity of
experiment by decreasing
the chances of a systematic
error.
Reduces error. Improve
averages of each launch
angle therefore making
trend more accurate.
Increases reliability and
therefore validity of the
experiment by allowing a
more accurate conclusion to
be reached about the
research question.
To increase the accuracy of
the velocity and time
measured by using
 projectile to land on. programmed equipment.

Management of Risks
A risk assessment was conducted for this investigation, and it was determined that this
experiment had a low level of risk. There were no ethical or environmental risks identified. A
full risk assessment document is detailed in Appendix A (RiskAssess - Risk Assessments for
Australian Schools, n.d.). All safety precautions identified in the risk assessment were
adhered to.

Results
Table 1: Raw Results for velocity (m/s)
Velocity (m/s)
Launch
Angle Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Average
(0.5)
20 3.23 3.24 3.24 3.25 3.16 3.224
25 3.23 3.22 3.22 3.2 3.21 3.216
30 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.16 3.152
35 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13
40 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
45 3.09 3.09 3.08 3.09 3.09 3.088
50 3.07 3.06 3.06 3.07 3.06 3.064
55 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.05 3.05 3.056
60 3.01 3.02 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.018
65 3.02 3.02 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.026
70 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.02 3.03 3.028

Table 2: Raw results of time (s) for launch angles 30 to 60
Time (s)
Launch Angle Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Average
 20 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
25 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
30 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
35 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
40 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
45 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
50 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
55 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
60 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
70 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.68 0.67 0.66
Qualitative: The ball did not always travel directly straight from the launcher and sometimes
deviated from the path.

Table 3: Processed data for experimental range

Average Horizontal Horizontal
Vertical Average Experimenta
Velocity Velocity Launch Velocity
Velocity (m/s) Time (s) l Range (m)
(m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
3.22 0.34 0.94 3.03 0.29 0.88
3.22 0.42 0.91 2.91 0.34 1.09
3.15 0.50 0.87 2.73 0.39 1.23
3.13 0.57 0.82 2.56 0.43 1.35
3.10 0.64 0.77 2.37 0.49 1.52
3.09 0.71 0.71 2.18 0.52 1.61
3.06 0.77 0.64 1.97 0.59 1.53
3.06 0.82 0.57 1.75 0.59 1.39
3.02 0.87 0.50 1.51 0.62 1.20
3.03 0.91 0.42 1.28 0.65 1.13
3.03 0.94 0.34 1.04 0.66 0.86

Table 4: Processed Data

Absolute Uncertaint
Theoretical Percentage Percentage
uncertainty y of
Range (m) Uncertainty Error (%)
of velocity equipment
0.63 0.045 1.40 39.4 3.00E-06
0.75 0.015 0.47 45.6
0.85 0.005 0.16 44.8
 0.92 0.000 0.00 46.1
0.97 0.000 0.00 57.3
0.98 0.005 0.16 63.8
0.97 0.005 0.16 58.8
0.92 0.005 0.16 50.7
0.85 0.010 0.33 41.3
0.75 0.005 0.17 51.1
0.63 0.005 0.17 36.3

Sample Calculations
Data Formula Calculation

3.03+3.03+3.03+3.02+3.03
Average Velocity Σ velocity per trial
5
(m/s) 5
¿ 3.028 m/s

Vertical Velocity sin 20

sin θ
Component (m/s) ¿ 0.34 m/ s

Horizontal Velocity cos 20

cos θ
Component (m/s) ¿ 0.94 m/ s

Horizontal Launch 0.94 × 3.224

cos θ × velocity
Velocity (m/s) ¿ 3.03 m/s

Horizontal 0.29 ×3.03

Displacement/ time ×horizontal launch velocity ¿ 0.8787 m
Range (m)

3.25−3.16
Absolute range
2
Uncertainty 2
0.045

Percentage |uncertainty| 0.045

×100 × 100
Uncertainty (%) velocity 3.224
1.40 %
measured−true 0.88−0.63
×100 ×100
true 0.63
Percentage Error (%)
39.68 %

Uncertainty of 0.000006
Equipment 2
 Smallest increment ¿ 0.000003
2

−b −0.0964
2a 2×−0.0011
Turning Point
¿ 43.8 °

Experimental Data
1.80
1.60
1.40 f(x) = − 0.00106933402373194 x² + 0.096389016565602 x − 0.651229476668289
Range measured (m)

R² = 0.959169814591942
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Launch Angle (°)

Figure 1: Experimental values measuring range in comparison to change in launch angle

Analysis of Evidence
The parabolic relationship shown on graph 1 between the dependent and independent
variables supports the hypothesis that as launch angle increases to 45 (x-axis), the
horizontal displacement also increases, and as the launch angle continues to increase from
45 to 70, the horizontal displacement decreases. As seen from 20 the horizontal
displacement of the projectile was 0.88m, which increased to 1.61m for a 45 launch angle
and then decreased again to 0.86m for a 70 launch angle. The mathematical relationship
S x ∝ cos θ sin θ demonstrates that the horizontal displacement is affected by launch angle as
all other variables are constant. The turning point calculated was 43.8, meaning that the
longest horizontal displacement was calculated at a launch angle of 43.8, this could be due
to a human error of not setting the launcher to exactly 45. Theoretical values show the
turning point to be 43.75, thus producing a 0.11% error for the experimental turning point
value. The trendline in Graph 1 has characteristics similar to those of a parabola, it is
concave-down, it has a vertex (maximum point), and it has an axis of symmetry.

f(x) = 0
R² = 0 Experimental and theoretical data
1.8
1.6
1.4 f(x) = − 0.00106933402373194 x² + 0.096389016565602 x − 0.651229476668289
R² = 0.959169814591942
Range measured (m)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Launch Angle (°)

Figure 2: Relationship between theoretical and experimental data

To determine whether the data followed the expected relationship, Graph 2 plots both
theoretical and experimental data, as shown, the experimental data mirrors the theoretical
data, only on a stronger curve, with higher values recorded. This could be due to several
systematic and human errors that occurred during the experiment. Wind resistance was
ignored in this experiment, however, as it did not occur within a vacuum, a small percentage
uncertainty should be considered. The R2 value for experimental data was 0.9592, this is
further supported by the data plotted on the graph, as shown, most data points aren’t on or
near the trendline, therefore decreasing the validity and accuracy of the data. A limitation in
the methodology could be due to the systematic error of Spark Vue and the connected time-
of-flight accessory, causing the experimental data to record velocity values much higher
than theoretical data. This is also supported by an average percentage error of 47.6% across
all trials for velocity, representing the large gap between theoretical and experimental. The
evidence shown in Graphs 1 & 2 support the relationship that as launch angle changes,
horizontal displacement will change too. The primary cause of the experimental R 2 value not
being 1 were many systematic and random errors, which contributed to a large percentage
error across all trials. The highest percentage error at 63.8% was for a launch angle of 45,
this may be reflected in the data point not being on or near the trendline. The error bars on
figure 1 are minimal and therefore don’t affect the validity of the experiment.

Evaluation
The percentage uncertainty was between 0 and 0.466, with an anomaly of 1.395 for a
launch angle of 20. Considering the technology that was used and each trial was conducted
consecutively with nothing changed, this is an acceptable percentage uncertainty. As the
20 launch angle trials were conducted first, there may be some random errors that were
then modified for the rest of the experiment including setting the launch angle, and
systematic errors using the technology. The percentage error reflects the validity based on
comparison to theoretical values, however since the trendlines are both parabolic, with the
experimental having a higher velocity, there was a major unknown systematic error which
contributed to getting a higher experimental velocity than the theoretical. This is mostly
reflected in the 45 trials where the percentage error was 63.8% compared to theoretical
values. Horizontal displacement values for experimental data 45 was 1.61m compared to
0.98m for theoretical range. A possible reason for this was a breakdown in the technology
used to measure velocity and time causing there to be a disruption in the measurments.
There was air resistance during the experiment however, as there is no way of measuring it,
it didn’t impact the values calculated in the experiment. Below is a table specifying the
reliability and validity of the experiment, limitations and improvements or extensions to the
experiment that may increase accuracy.

Limitation Reliability Evidence Improvement

or Validity
Above the angle of Reliability Repeatability of the Equipment (systematic
45 the projectile experiment decreases error) couldn’t be
launcher couldn’t be therefore decreasing solved with the
secured using a reliability. Velocities may equipment available.
screw therefore it have a larger percent
had to be held at uncertainty therefore
angles 50, 55, 60, making the R2 value
65, and 70 decrease due to the
trendline.
The ball sometimes Validity Velocities may be measured
landed on the edges incorrectly therefore
of the time-of-flight making the final trendline
accessory outside of and range inaccurate and
the lines so this may further from theoretical
have impacted the data. This is reflected in the
measurement. high percentage errors of
36.3% for 70 to 63.8% for
45.
Air resistance was Validity Air resistance didn’t impact
not considered in calculations of experimental
theoretical data as the trendline was
calculations. above theoretical data
therefore there was less air
resistance in experimental
data and as the experiment
was taken indoors there
was less chance of wind
impacting the results.
Launch velocities Reliability Impacted the repeatability
were not kept and of the experiment as when
constant. Validity range was calculated launch
velocities for each launch
angle were different
therefore impacting the
range for each launch angle.
Launcher was not Reliability Impacting the ability for the
angled on a straight ball to land in the centre of
path the time-of-flight accessory
therefore decreasing the
repeatability of the
experiment.
Disqualify any trials
that didn’t land in the
centre of the time-of-
flight accessory.
As this experiment
could not be
conducted in a vacuum
the only other solution
is to account for a
certain percent of air
resistance in
calculations of
processed data.
Systematic error, error
of not using screw to
secure launcher.
Make sure the
launcher is parallel to
the time-of-flight
accessory for most
accurate calculations.
May impact initial and
final velocity.

Extensions to methodology:
Extension:
Increasing number of degrees
Effect that launch angle has on velocity
instead of horizontal displacement
Justification
Give more datapoints on the excel
worksheet, therefore increasing the
accuracy of the trendline.
Extends the experiment by investigating the
effect that a different variable has on
horizontal displacement using projectile
 motion.

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the relationship between launch angle
and horizontal displacement with controlled variables of time and launch velocity. The
results from this experiment can be considered valid to a certain extent. The parabolic trend
in the experimental data is mirrored by a parabolic trend in theoretical data, and a trendline
with 96% accuracy meaning most datapoints lay on or near the trendline. There was a
strong correlation between the launch angle and the horizontal displacement (figure 1). The
R2 value is 0.9592 and the experimental data mirrors the theoretical in the characteristics of
a parabola therefore supporting the expected relationship. The launch angle does affect
horizontal velocity while maintaining a constant launch velocity and release height.

Reference List
Projectiles launched at an angle review (article) | Khan Academy. (n.d.). Khan Academy. Retrieved
March 07, 2024 from https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics/two-dimensional-
motion-2/projectiles-launched-at-an-angle-2/a/projectiles-launched-at-angles

Motion Characteristics of a Projectile. (n.d.). Retrieved March 21, 2024 from

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-
Trajectory

Pearson Physics Queensland 12 | Box of Books. (n.d.). Box of Books. Retrieved March 21, 2024 from
https://stritas-college.boxofbooks.io/book/CB88BDB3-FCF2-429E-8C2FEB9D87CB9735/webreader3
Appendix A: Risk Assessment
Appendix B: Original Experiment