Can We Fly Faster Than a Train?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of relative motion between aircraft and trains, particularly in the context of Earth's rotation and atmospheric dynamics. Participants explore how speed is measured relative to the Earth's surface and the implications for flight efficiency at different altitudes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a plane flying over a moving train at the train's speed can outrun it, raising concerns about the relative speeds involved.
  • Another participant clarifies that the plane's speed is measured relative to the Earth's surface, suggesting that an observer not rotating with the Earth would perceive different speeds depending on the direction of travel.
  • A participant discusses the implications of Earth's rotation on flight, questioning how a plane can reach a destination at a speed less than the rotational speed of the Earth.
  • One participant asserts that the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the surface, meaning a plane's speed is relative to the Earth's surface rather than an external point in space.
  • Another participant introduces the topic of sub-orbital flights, asking about the physics that allow aircraft to travel greater distances at higher altitudes.
  • A response indicates that higher altitudes result in thinner atmosphere and less drag, allowing for more efficient travel, but notes that sub-orbital flights would require different propulsion methods due to the lack of air at those heights.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of Earth's rotation and the nature of relative speed in flight. There is no consensus on the initial question regarding outrunning a train, and the discussion on sub-orbital flight introduces additional complexity without resolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on various assumptions about atmospheric dynamics and relative motion, which may not be fully articulated or agreed upon. The discussion includes unresolved questions about the practical implications of flight speeds and propulsion methods at high altitudes.

abushaheer
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
if we fly over a moving train at the speed of train can we out run it?? it not, how come we fly at 255m/s when Earth is rotating at 460m/s and we reach from paris to america
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The plane is moving at 255 m/s relative to the surface of the Earth. An observer not rotating with the Earth would see the plane as flying at 715 m/s if it is traveling east or 205 m/s if it is traveling west.
 
Dear drakkith,

earth rotation as i understand, means India will move relative to atomosphere from point a to point b at 1656km/hr. in the same atmosphere a plane start from India at 920km/hr west ward. how it reachs let's say africa when plane is at half the speed of earth.
 
India or anywhere else is NOT moving relative to the atmosphere.
The Earth's atmosphere rotates along with the Earth's surface, at the same speed, more or or less.
Small local differences are what we call 'wind'.

A plane in the atmosphere is therefore also rotating along with the the rotation of the planet,
and in addition to that the plane also has a given air speed and direction.

A plane flying at 1000kph either east or west or in any direction will travel 1000km in one hour RELATIVE TO THE EARTH'S SURFACE.
We don't calculate the speed of the plane relatively to some fixed point in space outside of the Earth because that has no practical value whatever.
 
On a somewhat related topic - what exactly are the physics that allow an aircraft to cover large distances in shorter times the higher they go (proposed sub orbital flights)

Is it because at those heights they are escaping some of the atmosphere? Or is it the higher one gets the greater his (or her) speed relative to the surface below is?
 
Your first guess is correct.
The atmosphere at a typical cruising altitude for a jet is very much thinner than it is at sea level.
The aircraft therefore experiences much less 'drag' (air friction basically) and so it is effectively able to travel further with a given amount of fuel.

A 'sub-orbital' flight would probably still encounter a small amount of very thin air, but yes it would in principal be even more fuel efficient.
However such an aircraft could not use regular turbine engines where there is so little air, it would need to use rockets or some kind of ramjet, which I imagine would be less efficient in use of fuel than a turbine
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • · Replies 126 ·
5
Replies
126
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
46K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K