Math Question.

[Spike88]

The following question has been bugging me.


If there is a car at sea level, and an airplane at 30,000ft above sea level keeping a constant altitude and a constant speed of 200mph. Racing from one point to another, who would get there first? I'm thinking the car, because it has less space to travel than the plane.

[Raptor1]

Does the plane need to go to a point 30,000 feet above the car or does it have to get to the point on the ground the car is at?

[UnderseaLcpl]

If you're implying that the curvature of the earth would make the car's travel shorter, and that the plane follows the same curvature, and there are no other factors, the car would indeed arrive first.
Just like two runners moving at equal speeds around a track but the first is in lane one and the second is in lane 8.
Is that what you meant?


I'm curious as to how this question would be bugging you. :hmmm:

[Spike88]

Does the plane need to go to a point 30,000 feet above the car or does it have to get to the point on the ground the car is at?
I meant if the point went straight up from where it was on the ground.

@Underseacpl: It was begging me because the two people I asked in my house hold both told me different answers. The question stemmed after playing FSX, I was wondering why airplanes did not from their take off to their landing destination in a straight heading line. And then I was wondering if a plane would get to its destination faster if it were to fly lower to the ground.

[UnderseaLcpl]

It was bugging me because the two people I asked in my house hold both told me different answers. The question stemmed after playing FSX, I was wondering why airplanes did not from their take off to their landing destination in a straight heading line. And then I was wondering if a plane would get to its destination faster if it were to fly lower to the ground.

It sounds to me like you might be talking about a great circle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Since the Earth is curved, the shortest distance from point A to B is not neccesarily a straight heading, but one that circumscribes the curvature as much as possible.
If your car and plane were to go from one point to another, and the plane used a great circle route, the plane would get there faster, because it would be travelling less distance.
If the plane were to try to fly along the same heading as the car the whole time, whilst maintaining altitude, it would arrive later, because it would be going farther.
If they both used a great circle route, the plane would arrive last (still has farther to travel, because it is describing a wider arc)

Whether or not flying lower to the ground would make it go faster depends on a lot of factors, IRL.
If there were no air resistance or anything, and propulsion nuances were not factored in the plane would still arrive first if it used a great circle route. If it followed the car's heading it would still arrive last, but it would not lose by as much as if it had been at 30k feet.

Does that make sense?

[A Very Super Market]

Of course, the Great Circle and the situation you describe are not the same. The Great circle in much more complicated, while your scenario can be explained easily using a race track metaphor.

[Etienne]

It sounds to me like you might be talking about a great circle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Since the Earth is curved, the shortest distance from point A to B is not neccesarily a straight heading, but one that circumscribes the curvature as much as possible.

Great circles in a nut shell: Take a piece of string, stretch it between two points on a globe. That's a great circle - the shortest route between the two points.

The thing is, most of the maps we use are Mercator projections - maps where things are stretched out as the lattitude increase, so that angles stay constant - If you draw a line on a Mercator map and it meets meridian 0 at 30 degrees, it will cross meridian 15 at 30 degrees. Parallels and meridians also meet at a convenient right angle. (Mercator maps are also the reason many people are confused as to the relative size of Greenland and Africa.)

Anyway, if you draw a straight line between the same two points you used earlier on a Mercator chart, you get a straight line - What we call a rhumb line. Obviously. Now, if you take the coordinates of the line every five miles, then plot that on the globe, you'll get a line that curves toward the equator.

If you do the same, but copying the line you traced on the globe with the string to the chart, you'll get a line that arches away from the equator.

The great circle is shorter (Since the Earth, SHIV nonwithstanding, isn't actually flat), but it takes you closer to the poles and it's a pain in the rear... And for it to really make a difference, you have to have about 600 nautical miles to go. Otherwise, you're saving pennies.

...yeah, my explanation isn't that great. But in my defense, I had to do 45 hours of spherical trig in nautical school, which is essentially "Great Circle 101" - It's surprisingly easy to explain when you have a blackboard...

[GoldenRivet]

all of that aside...

assuming a "standard atmosphere", a jet airliner at 30,000 feet, indicating an airspeed of 200mph would have an approximate "true airspeed" of 323 mph.

assuming the aircraft had selected an altitude of favorable winds, the "ground speed" could be as much as 100 mph faster than either of the above figures, and would be the actual speed of the aircraft over the ground.

however, jet airliners routinely operate at Mach.70 (give or take) even if indicating 200 miles per hour, the ground speed of the jet would be considerably faster... in fact more in tune with a 400-500 mph ground speed.

long story short... in a real life scenario.

the car would have to follow "road miles" at 200 miles per hour, having to slow down for various corners etc

the jet would have to follow air miles at 200 mph.

assuming the trip was to go from LAX to JFK and each respective vehicle had to use navigable routes...

the aircraft would have to travel approximately 2200 air miles

the car would have to travel approximately 2900 road miles

under ideal conditions the jet would make the trip in approximately 6 hours

under ideal conditions, with team drivers, and considering a ten minute fuel stop every 300 miles the car would make the trip in a shade under a day

[GoldenRivet]

The following question has been bugging me.


If there is a car at sea level, and an airplane at 30,000ft above sea level keeping a constant altitude and a constant speed of 200mph. Racing from one point to another, who would get there first? I'm thinking the car, because it has less space to travel than the plane.

in a universe where there was no air pressure, no wind, and no planetary rotation.

this would be the case.

see my above post however.

i defy anyone to hop in their car and drive "straight" from LAX to New York :haha:

quite a few signifigant obstacles in between the two.

[sunvalleyslim]

Just like I asked my first grade teacher......What's the frigging difference.................:har::haha::haha:

[Tchocky]

Doing ATC entrance exams at the minute, I'm swimming in problems like these.

No more, not on Sunday :)

[Digital_Trucker]

Back up a minute, is the planes speed measured as air speed or ground speed?

[CaptainHaplo]

Assuming that regardless of the measurement of speed - if both vehicles have the same RATE of speed (however it is measured) and no obstacles or stops in the way - then yes - the plane takes longer because it has farther to travel.

The reason for this is simple math. If you were to follow the curve of the earth at ground level - from point A to point B - it would measure a certain distance. If you measure that same point A at 30k - to point Bat 30k - maintaining the altitude (accounting for the curvature of the earth) then the distance would be slightly larger.

Draw a circle or "pie crust" and cut it into quarters. If you measure the length of one curved section - it will measure a certain length. Then extend lines PAST the "crust" say 2 inches, mark those points and draw a curve with the same properties as the original - and measure. Its longer. The farther from "ground level" you go - the wider your "circle" becomes - meaning more distance to travel.

Now this again only applies if both vehicles can travel along the curve unimpeded, without stops, and at the same RATE of "real" speed.

Once you start factoring Air vs Ground speed, stops, air density, windage, etc etc then it starts making your head hurt and its just easier to say the plane wins. If it didn't - why would we use them? Of course - planes are simply capable of much greater speeds than cars....

[Digital_Trucker]

My point was that, if the planes speed is measured in ground speed and the car is allowed to travel in a straight line with the same frictional constraints as the plane, then they would be covering ground at exactly the same speed (definition of ground speed) and would, therefore, arrive at the same time.

The real problem is that the question is unanswerable in its current form because it doesn't give us enough of the factors needed to reach a conclusion.

[Spoon 11th]

i defy anyone to hop in their car and drive "straight" from LAX to New York :haha:

quite a few signifigant obstacles in between the two.
Not if one builds a tunnel.

[Spoon 11th]

My point was that, if the planes speed is measured in ground speed and the car is allowed to travel in a straight line with the same frictional constraints as the plane, then they would be covering ground at exactly the same speed (definition of ground speed) and would, therefore, arrive at the same time.
No. They would be covering ground at exactly the same speed, but the plane has longer distance to travel, so it will arrive later.

[GoldenRivet]

like i said... this question only applies to a world where there is no atmosphere, no wind, and no global rotation.

you might as well ask "if Mrs. Buttersworth and the Land O Lakes lady sprang to life got into a judo fight on my breakfast table... who would win?"

well such a question is pointless because the circumstances are impossible.

i cant begin to count the number of times i have had these "car vs plane" races in real life... and the plane won every time because it has the most science working for it.

under the right conditions i can be indicating 40 mph in an airplane... but be covering ground at well over 100 mph.

thats just the way it works.

i have always despised the comparison of cars to planes in races...

no practical car capable of carrying 200+ passengers is going to travel from point a to point b at 7/10ths the speed of sound anywhere.

no practical car capable of carrying 200+ passengers is going to have the non-stop range endurance of 10+ hours at max speed.

No practical car capable of carrying 200+ passengers is ever going to be able to travel straight from point A to point B without the need for a very expensive road or tunnel that directly connects the two points.

an airplane however..

CAN carry 200+ passengers at 7/10ths the speed of sound/

CAN carry 200+ passengers with a non stop endurance of 10+ hours

CAN travel in any direction between ANY point A and ANY point B without needing a tunnel or a road being built directly between point A and point B.

you might as well be comparing a motorcycle to a submarine.

the scope of their operations are completely different.

[UnderseaLcpl]

you might as well ask "if Mrs. Buttersworth and the Land O Lakes lady sprang to life got into a judo fight on my breakfast table... who would win?"


I've got 50 bucks on Mrs. Butterworth. :DL



In any case, isn't it amazing how quickly we can make a complicated issue out of a very elementary question?

[Fincuan]

We make it complicated because we start bringing in factors that aren't part of the original question. Just see a few threads on the "Plane on the treadmill" and you see other examples on this :)

How I read it: They both travel AT THE SAME, aka equal speed. Whichever units one chooses to use that means they both cover the same distance in the same amount of time. You could as well ask which one arrives first: Car travelling at 200mph over a distance of 20 km, or car travelling at 200mph over a distance of 25km. Same situation, except the car is substituted with a plane in the op and the distances are unknown, x and y. We only know the other is longer since the plane travels at 30,000 feet, but we don't know how much.

This is the situation in the original question, and turns on the road, tunnels, whether it means airpseed or groundspeed for the plane, etc, are non-factors here. They aren't part of the original problem.

[GoldenRivet]

and the original problem is not possible thus the question is something i might expect from a kindergartener

[Etienne]

and the original problem is not possible thus the question is something i might expect from a kindergartener

...Or a college physics teacher.

The ones I had, anyway...

[GoldenRivet]

@ Etienne - i suppose :doh:

i maintain that the question has absolutely no bearing or basis in physical reality.

one must "cut out" or omit way to much science and physics for the question to even make sense...

are you sure those were physics professors... if they are asking these sorts of nonsensical questions they were probably teaching philosophy.

so i have a question below which makes as much sense.

if you have a submarine 1500 feet below the ocean surface moving at 3 knots and you have a motorcycle doing a wheelie across the ocean at 3 knots... and they both travel in a straight line between Southampton and cape horn... which one will get there first?

the airplane / car question makes just as much sense.

[Etienne]

Those questions are usually used as an abstract to illustrate another phenomenon.

In exemple, to answer your question, the submarine would get there first, as it is closer to the center of the Earth, smaller radius, smaller circumference, etc. Wether it's racing against an helicopter, a motorcycle, a container ship or Stephen Colbert in a pedal boat has no importance on the problem.

I'm trying to think of an example from my schooling, but I can't think of any off the top of my head, except for "Why would you want to do that" static physics problem, and "Let's assume this, this, this, that, that other thing and all the other back up have failled" navigation problems.

A lot of science demonstration push aside the more complex stuff to concentrate on whatever's the point of the exercise. The classical "Excluding atmospheric fiction" line from pretty much any physics problem come to mind.

...y'all know what I mean.

[GoldenRivet]

perhaps i think too logically.

several turns must be made to enter port.

at some point, the sub must surface to dock.

the motorcycle would long ago have sunk to the bottom.

etc etc

same as with the cars vs. plane

maybe this is what is wrong with the educational system... over simplification.