Yes, using similar triangles and elementary circle geometry is the fastest way.
Absolutely whenever you can use similar triangles, use similar triangles!
I have been working on the different line, much delayed by mistakes. But it may be useful for the OP and others to realize for other cases, if he looks at his calculation it was not actually unnecessary to calculate all the x1, x2, y1, y2. It can be done just with equation coefficients and discriminants.
We are looking at the intersections between
y = x/1.1 + 30 , and x2 + y2 = 25.
Equating two expressions for y2 gives us the quadratic
x2((1 + 1/1.12) + x (2×30/1.1) +302 - 252 = 0
I rewrite to make the leading coefficient 1
x2 + (2×30×1.1/2.21) x + 52×11×1.12/2.21 = 0
I think this is the same as the OP got. (Numbers were factorised as much as possible in the hope that might simplify - but it doesn't.)
Now of greatest interest to us is not x1, x2 individually, but the difference or distance (x1 - x2) or more still its square (x1 - x2)2.
Recall writing a quadratic
x2 + b x + c = (x - x1)(x - x2) = x2 - (x1 + x2)x + x1x2
The squared length we need
(x1 - x2)2 = (x1 -x2)2 - 4x1x2
= b2 - 4c
= (2×30×1.1/2.21)2 - 4×52×11×1.12/2.21 = 289.61 (corresponding to close to 17 miles)
For the square of the vertical length between the two points of interest we can similarly eliminate x terms between
x2 + y2 = 25, and x = 1.1y - 33
And proceed similarly to before. But actually we don't strictly need to workout the discriminant again, things are related.
In fact from the circle equation
(y12 - y22) = (x12 - x22)
And from that we can get for example
(y1 - y2 = (x1 - x2)(x1 + x2)/(y1 + y2)
The numerator terms we already have, and we can get the denominator from the y coefficient of the quadratic in y not sayy Josephet written but this time is
-(2×1.1×3372.21)