| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> > Yeah, but LA to Boston is only 5 hours...he was flying east.
>
> Last I checked, it's faster to fly west than east, since you'd be flying into
> the planetary rotation instead of overtaking it.
Does this apply to driving, as well? If so, I may have found a new excuse for
being late to work.
But a more serious question: How big a factor *is* planetary rotation vis a vis
commercial jet travel? I would have thought that, because flights heading east
or west both start at velocity=zero relative to the Earth's rotation, the
rotation wouldn't be that big a deal. Is it correspondingly harder to
decelerate for landing when traveling west?
Still, I've never really thought about this before, so I'm easily able to accept
that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Dave!
FUT OT.Geek
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
|
| (...) I think the issue is the jet stream. It moves eastward somewhat faster than the ground, so going east you have a tailwind, and going west you have a headwind. Unfortunately for you, the mountains in PA aren't high enough for this to make you (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
|
| (...) Last I checked, it's faster to fly west than east, since you'd be flying into the planetary rotation instead of overtaking it. Also, you can't judge the size of a country very accurately by board-to-debark times, since many airlines pad those (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
