How Does Energy Transfer Differ Between Two Airplane Crash Scenarios?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the differences in energy transfer between two hypothetical airplane crash scenarios: one where a plane is dropped from a height and another where a plane dives into the ground from the same height while in motion. Participants examine the implications of gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy, and the effects of aerodynamic drag.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a thought experiment involving dropping a commercial airliner from 40,000 feet and questions whether there is an 'energy deficit' in the second scenario where the plane dives into the ground.
  • Another participant mentions aerodynamic drag, suggesting that a plane without engines would not reach 600 mph due to this factor.
  • A different participant argues that the gravitational potential energy is the same in both scenarios, attributing the difference in kinetic energy and time of flight in the second case to the energy provided by jet fuel.
  • One participant presents a simplified analogy using a ball dropped in a vacuum, explaining how initial kinetic energy affects the final velocity upon impact, suggesting that the final speed is not simply doubled.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how energy is transferred and the role of aerodynamic drag, with no consensus reached on whether the energy 'books balance' in both crash scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the influence of aerodynamic drag and the role of jet fuel in the scenarios, but the discussion remains open regarding the implications of these factors on energy transfer.

tasp77
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Thought experiment (hopefully we don't need to crash a plane to figure this out);

Let's say we lift a commercial airliner up to 40,000 feet with a large balloon and then drop the airplane. It will hit the ground sometime later somewhere short of the speed of sound (600 mph or so, depending on it's orientation on the way down, I posit it will nose dive perpendicularly for maximum velocity).

Now let's take another plane, this one flying at 600 mph at 40,000 feet, and suddenly, the pilot shoves the stick forward, and dives the plane straight into the ground.

In the second case, the plane doesn't accelerate to 1200 mph on the way down as we might have thought at first take. The plane will reach the ground much faster in the second case and gravity has less time to further accelerate the plane. So it will hit the ground somewhat faster than in the first case, but will not be traveling twice as fast at the moment of impact.

Is there an 'energy deficit' in the second case? The plane has moved through Earth's gravity field the same distance, but in a faster time. Is there additional energy manifested in the system somewhere that I have not noted? Like the wreckage will be warmer in the second case?

Do the 'books balance' energy wise in both crashes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aerodynamic drag.

...because of it, a plane with no engines won't go anywhere close to 600mph.
 
If you consider the potential energy if the situation you will see the gravitational contribution must be the same. You would explain the higher kinetic energy and shorter time of flight in the second case as being powered by the jet fuel.
 
Forget about the planes and think about dropping a ball in a vacuum, so there is no air resistance.

In the first case, you drop the ball from height h and the velocity when it hits the ground is v = \sqrt{2 g h}

In the second case, you drop the ball from height h with an intial downwards velocity of \sqrt{2 g h}. The initial kinetic energy of the ball is (1/2)mv^2 = mgh.

When it hits the ground its KE has increased to 2mgh.

So its final velocity will be given by (1/2)mv^2 = 2mgh or v = 2\sqrt{gh}. In other words it will hit the ground about 1.414 times faster, not twice as fast.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
16K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
9
Views
3K