The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: LBtheWise on June 01, 2010, 12:57:29 PM
-
2 relatively equal distances (Tokyo to Toronto) and (Santiago to Sydney) takes about 13.5 hours to fly by plane according to many airline agencies (whom navigate following RET). if you don't believe that's how long it takes for planes to fly to these locations, look it up yourself or get on a plane yourself....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_is_flight_from_Sydney_to_Santiago (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_is_flight_from_Sydney_to_Santiago) - Sydney to Santiago 13 hours (via Auckland)
http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/Sydney-to-Santiago.php (http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/Sydney-to-Santiago.php) - Sydney to Santiago 14 hours 43 minutes (according to HappyZebra)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_is_the_flight_from_Toronto_to_Tokyo (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_is_the_flight_from_Toronto_to_Tokyo) - Toronto to Japan 13 hours 25 minutes (according to wiki.answers)
http://www.farecompare.com/flights/Toronto-YTO/Tokyo-TYO/market.html (http://www.farecompare.com/flights/Toronto-YTO/Tokyo-TYO/market.html) - Toronto to Japan 12 hours, 45 minutes (on Air Canada)
Or using the below link for estimated times...
http://www.travelmath.com/flight-time/from/Santiago,+Chile/to/Sydney,+Australia (http://www.travelmath.com/flight-time/from/Santiago,+Chile/to/Sydney,+Australia)
Actual flight path from Toronto to Tokyo - 5574m
Actual Flight Path from Santiago to Sydney - 6135m
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=YYZ-NRT%0D%0ASYD-SCL&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE= (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=YYZ-NRT%0D%0ASYD-SCL&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=)
(http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac70/LBtheWise/roundearth.png)
For those of you that believe in FET, explain to me how the below image verifies what current flight times already represent...
A flight from Toronto to Japan, or Santiago to Sydney takes about 14 hours. However, looking at the FET map, the distance from Sydney to Santiago is nearly 3 times greater than the distance from Toronto to Japan. WTF?
(http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac70/LBtheWise/earthflat.png)
-
we've brought this up many times.
their answers are:
1. the airliners are in on the conspiracy
2. GPS and navigation systems are a lie
3. the space of the earth bends
-
Don't forget Pongo's response to this. Birds are pushing the planes south of the equator.
See below!
Because they navigate earth every single day with a Round Earth model, and it works. It's indisputable. We would either hear about the mistakes or you have to at least concede that the Flat Earth model requires that most pilots and air traffic controllers be in on the conspiracy.
Birds like to fly in the wake of fast-moving vessels, often close enough to nudge the vessel itself. The collective force of a lot of birds all nudging the vessel causes it to move faster.
This is one account for why travel times appear distorted. No need to bring pilots and air traffic controllers into the fold.
-
They're just going to say that map isn't correct, but not offer one that does match up with real world flight times. Anyway, it seems like the FEH (Flat Earth Hypothesis) has been refuted many times, as there are a bunch of things that just don't work or make sense if the Earth was flat, but do if it's round.
-
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War. Pilots were regularly flying between United Kingdom and the United States of America and they noticed that it was quicker to fly to the UK, reporting tailwinds of over 100 miles per hour. These winds blew in narrow ribbons and were named 'jet streams'.
Jet streams are narrow fast flowing "rivers" of air. They are formed by temperature differences in the upper atmosphere, between the cold polar air and the warm tropical air. This abrupt change in temperature causes a large pressure difference, which forces the air to move.
In our latitude the jet stream is generally found at around 35,000 feet and is called the Polar Front Jet Stream. The polar jet stream, as its name implies, separates the cold polar air to the north and the warm sub-tropical air to the south.
With the temperature contrast of these air masses greatest in the winter time, the jet stream is stronger at this time of the year, reaching 300 miles per hour (but have been measured at over 400 miles an hour in southwest Scotland). Jet streams are typically thousands of miles long, hundreds of miles wide and a few miles deep.
With these kinds of speeds you see why aeroplanes are so keen to use them, saving both time and fuel, and therefore money. However, to navigate in a jet stream is not as easy as you might think. Entering and leaving a jet stream can be a turbulent time for any aircraft no matter how big it is.
The strong winds along the jet stream generally blow from west to east due to the rotation of the earth. That is why, especially in winter time, flights from the USA often land early in this country as they are blown along by these very strong winds. (Incidentally it is also the reason for some "bumpy" rides with clear air turbulence). Planes never land early going the other way.
Jet streams move north and south too, following the boundary between warmer and colder air. These boundaries are also where weather fronts generally develop, so when a front passes overhead, bringing wind and rain, it is quite likely that a jet stream is passing undetected too.
The wind direction in the jet stream can change from the normal west to east to almost north to south. This is one of the methods that the Earth uses to transport excess heat from the equatorial regions towards the poles, and in turn bring cold polar air southwards. It also helps to steer our Atlantic weather depressions from their normal eastward movement. At times it can even block their movements altogether. Jet streams can strengthen up or even die out so.
Jet streams do play a more fundamental role in our weather.
Many years ago meteorologists thought that the rain bearing depressions that invade us from the Atlantic, formed at the sea level and "grew" up through the atmosphere. It now seems more likely that they start to form around the jet streams and percolate downwards.
The winds in the jet stream do not necessarily blow at a constant speed or in a straight line. Within this fast moving air there are accelerations and decelerations as the air speeds up, slows down or in fact changes direction. It is at these points in the atmosphere that high and low pressures starts to form, and either moves quickly in the wind flow, or develops into a bigger depression or anticyclone. These positive or negative acceleration points are very important to the weather forecaster and these occur at the entrance and exits of the jet stream.
Meteorologists used to spend a long time looking for them on the high level weather maps. Now this task is performed by a computer. By looking at a simple diagram of a jet stream it is possible to pick out the areas below which a depression or anticyclone is most likely to form.
This is the fundamental way that forecasters use jet streams to try to predict whether and where a rain-bearing depression will form, and if it forms whether it will develop into a full blown storm which may cause structural damage as it rushes in from the Atlantic, or whether it will just be a little blip in the fine weather that rushes along at 60 miles per hour.
Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth
-
Too bad there weren't any 400+ mph jetstreams measured over the area in question, or your hypothesis might've made sense. Well no not really because those flights that occur with those times occur in both directions, and the possible jetstreams would only help in one direction.
-
LBtheWise, the map from the offical FAQ is incorrect; it is a map based on a northern circumpolar distribution of the continents.
Here is the correct map:
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061224004927/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)
More details here, about distances:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.0
Also, the flight from Santiago to Sydney lasts about 16-18 HOURS.
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1
-
Spanner34.5 or somebody should put his jet stream response in the FE Wiki. :)
-
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War. Pilots were regularly flying between United Kingdom and the United States of America and they noticed that it was quicker to fly to the UK, reporting tailwinds of over 100 miles per hour. These winds blew in narrow ribbons and were named 'jet streams'.
Jet streams are narrow fast flowing "rivers" of air. They are formed by temperature differences in the upper atmosphere, between the cold polar air and the warm tropical air. This abrupt change in temperature causes a large pressure difference, which forces the air to move.
In our latitude the jet stream is generally found at around 35,000 feet and is called the Polar Front Jet Stream. The polar jet stream, as its name implies, separates the cold polar air to the north and the warm sub-tropical air to the south.
With the temperature contrast of these air masses greatest in the winter time, the jet stream is stronger at this time of the year, reaching 300 miles per hour (but have been measured at over 400 miles an hour in southwest Scotland). Jet streams are typically thousands of miles long, hundreds of miles wide and a few miles deep.
With these kinds of speeds you see why aeroplanes are so keen to use them, saving both time and fuel, and therefore money. However, to navigate in a jet stream is not as easy as you might think. Entering and leaving a jet stream can be a turbulent time for any aircraft no matter how big it is.
The strong winds along the jet stream generally blow from west to east due to the rotation of the earth. That is why, especially in winter time, flights from the USA often land early in this country as they are blown along by these very strong winds. (Incidentally it is also the reason for some "bumpy" rides with clear air turbulence). Planes never land early going the other way.
Jet streams move north and south too, following the boundary between warmer and colder air. These boundaries are also where weather fronts generally develop, so when a front passes overhead, bringing wind and rain, it is quite likely that a jet stream is passing undetected too.
The wind direction in the jet stream can change from the normal west to east to almost north to south. This is one of the methods that the Earth uses to transport excess heat from the equatorial regions towards the poles, and in turn bring cold polar air southwards. It also helps to steer our Atlantic weather depressions from their normal eastward movement. At times it can even block their movements altogether. Jet streams can strengthen up or even die out so.
Jet streams do play a more fundamental role in our weather.
Many years ago meteorologists thought that the rain bearing depressions that invade us from the Atlantic, formed at the sea level and "grew" up through the atmosphere. It now seems more likely that they start to form around the jet streams and percolate downwards.
The winds in the jet stream do not necessarily blow at a constant speed or in a straight line. Within this fast moving air there are accelerations and decelerations as the air speeds up, slows down or in fact changes direction. It is at these points in the atmosphere that high and low pressures starts to form, and either moves quickly in the wind flow, or develops into a bigger depression or anticyclone. These positive or negative acceleration points are very important to the weather forecaster and these occur at the entrance and exits of the jet stream.
Meteorologists used to spend a long time looking for them on the high level weather maps. Now this task is performed by a computer. By looking at a simple diagram of a jet stream it is possible to pick out the areas below which a depression or anticyclone is most likely to form.
This is the fundamental way that forecasters use jet streams to try to predict whether and where a rain-bearing depression will form, and if it forms whether it will develop into a full blown storm which may cause structural damage as it rushes in from the Atlantic, or whether it will just be a little blip in the fine weather that rushes along at 60 miles per hour.
Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth
Surely the jetstreams are valid in both models? Ergo, they cancel each other out in comparing flight times?
-
LBtheWise, the map from the offical FAQ is incorrect; it is a map based on a northern circumpolar distribution of the continents.
Here is the correct map:
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061224004927/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)
More details here, about distances:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.0
Also, the flight from Santiago to Sydney lasts about 16-18 HOURS.
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1
Lol Levee. irregardless if the map in the faq is the same as the one you just posted. You're 'updated map' does not help with your argument, Sydney to Santiago is still like 2 to 3 times the distance from Toronto to Tokyo. Actually, the flight distance would more like be 5 to 6 times the distance if the plane did not fly over any land on it's way to Sydney.
Plane's travelling from Sydney to Santiago fly over the South Pacific ocean without flying over much land. In the 'correct flat earth map', a direct flight from Sydney to Santiago flies over entire South American, over South Africa, and over all of Australia. The only way a plane can convince it's passengers that it is infact flying over only the Southern Pacific ocean is to fly all the way around South America, and all the way around Australia, flying over water only.. this would make the flight distance and times MUCH longer, which does not make sense according to already established flight times...
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War....
Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth
So you're telling me that jet streams exist only in the southern parts of the world? Jet streams exist in all parts of the world and therefore flight times from Toronto to Tokyo would also be decreased from these jet streams.... So you're jet stream ramble still does'nt make sence.
we've brought this up many times.
their answers are:
1. the airliners are in on the conspiracy
2. GPS and navigation systems are a lie
3. the space of the earth bends
1. Lol, my friend's-girlfriends-father works for an Airliner. I believe he is even a pilot; and he is not aware of any conspiracy, I can tell you that he is no Secret government FBI agent keeping secrets from the rest of the world. How many people are employed at these airlines that must have to keep this huge conspiracy secret. I'm sure if even one person admitted that there is a huge conspiracy, then these people will become famous for revealing such a thing, yet, everyone in the world has not even said a peep. Wow!
2. GPS and navigation systems lie?? i use one every time I drive somewhere new... It seems to get me to the destination i need every time! and even saves me money by finding the fastest route.... hmmmmm
3. not really sure what this means..
have they been able to back up these claims with believeable evidence or explanation??
-
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War....
Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth
So you're telling me that jet streams exist only in the southern parts of the world? Jet streams exist in all parts of the world and therefore flight times from Toronto to Tokyo would also be decreased from these jet streams.... So you're jet stream ramble still does'nt make sence.
The southern hemiplane has greater cold/heat divergence. This would account for the greater speed of the rimward jet stream.
-
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War....
Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth
So you're telling me that jet streams exist only in the southern parts of the world? Jet streams exist in all parts of the world and therefore flight times from Toronto to Tokyo would also be decreased from these jet streams.... So you're jet stream ramble still does'nt make sence.
The southern hemiplane has greater cold/heat divergence. This would account for the greater speed of the rimward jet stream.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Could you please show some evidence to support this?
-
How did you come to this conclusion?
Could you please show some evidence to support this?
Perusal of PIREPS. You can plough through a bunch yourself rather relying on me.
-
Impact on passenger aircraft
Effect of wind shear on aircraft trajectory. Note how merely correcting for the initial gust front can have dire consequences.
Strong outflow from thunderstorms causes rapid changes in the three-dimensional wind velocity just above ground level. Initially, this outflow causes a headwind that increases airspeed, which normally causes a pilot to reduce engine power if they are unaware of the wind shear. As the aircraft passes into the region of the downdraft, the localized headwind diminishes, reducing the aircraft's airspeed and increasing its sink rate. Then, when the aircraft passes through the other side of the downdraft, the headwind becomes a tailwind, reducing airspeed further, leaving the aircraft in a low-power, low-speed descent. This can lead to an accident if the aircraft is too low to effect a recovery before ground contact. As the result of the accidents in the 1970s and 1980s, in 1988 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration mandated that all commercial aircraft have on-board wind shear detection systems by 1993. Between 1964 and 1985, wind shear directly caused or contributed to 26 major civil transport aircraft accidents in the U.S. that led to 620 deaths and 200 injuries. Since 1995, the number of major civil aircraft accidents caused by wind shear has dropped to approximately one every ten years, due to the mandated on-board detection as well as the addition of Doppler weather radar units on the ground. (NEXRAD)[21]
I'd hate to see how a commercial airliner manages to travel outside of a jet stream traveling over twice the speed of sound to a normal landing speed.
-
There is no possible way planes could ride a 400 mph tailwind. Their structural integrity isn't great enough. A plane would get ripped apart entering a deathtrap like a 400mph 'river of air'.
Which brings the FE'ers back to the drawing board.
-
How did you come to this conclusion?
Could you please show some evidence to support this?
Perusal of PIREPS. You can plough through a bunch yourself rather relying on me.
Got a link? Anything useful at all, other than your word?
Oh, and also, 500mph cruising speed, and 400mph tail wind is easily enough to rip the wings off a 737 and vibrate the whole thing apart.
-
PIREPS are available at your local airport.
Your 500mph 'cruising speed' would still be the airspeed regardless of the speed of the air.
-
Any jetliner can cruise at 500-600mph, yes. A jetliner cannot travel at Mach speed. Only military planes can travel faster than about 600mph.
speeds reported by airliners both in the northern Hemisphere are the same as planes that fly in the southern hemisphere, about 500 - 600mph.
This does not explain how travel times are pretty much the same when travelling to and from the locations i mentioned above..
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War....
Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth
So you're telling me that jet streams exist only in the southern parts of the world? Jet streams exist in all parts of the world and therefore flight times from Toronto to Tokyo would also be decreased from these jet streams.... So you're jet stream ramble still does'nt make sence.
The southern hemiplane has greater cold/heat divergence. This would account for the greater speed of the rimward jet stream.
the southern 'hemi-plane' is pretty much the same as the northern one. View the recorded temperatures here.
http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/map-current-sea-temperature-around-nz-and-australia (http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/map-current-sea-temperature-around-nz-and-australia)
How, then, are there greater cold/heat divergences in the southern hemisphere??
I'm not really sure where your getting your data... Usually data is collected from "RECORDED" values and are not usually pulled out of random sections of thin air...
-
I couldn't agree more. You should, therefore, make your recorded data available to us. If you could also include place, dates and time, it would be helpful. I've not been that far to the rimward myself and envy you your trip; John Davis has and I shall ask if he recorded temperatures.
-
I couldn't agree more. You should, therefore, make your recorded data available to us. If you could also include place, dates and time, it would be helpful. I've not been that far to the rimward myself and envy you your trip; John Davis has and I shall ask if he recorded temperatures.
Values are recorded every day on the hour by several weather networks. For example,
http://www.worldweather.org/ (http://www.worldweather.org/)
Knock yourself out.
-
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.
-
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.
Go to a website and look up your local weather. Tell me how accurate it is.. i'm sure it's within 1 degree maximum of your current location....
you don't think weather networks are lieing to you about the weather... stating that its below freezing although your in your swimming trucks at the beach sweating you balls off... do you?
I really don't see how you are contributing to this discussion...
-
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.
...
I really don't see how you are contributing to this discussion...
Flat Earth Theorists are usually present on the Flat Earth Society forums and active in discussions. This arrangement actually manages to foster discussions. I really believe that your preferred one-sided arrangement would be a hindrance.
-
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.
...
I really don't see how you are contributing to this discussion...
Flat Earth Theorists are usually present on the Flat Earth Society forums and active in discussions. This arrangement actually manages to foster discussions. I really believe that your preferred one-sided arrangement would be a hindrance.
I'll explain myself a little clearer for you.
Your comments are not helpful in discussing theories of Flat Earth or Round Earth discussion. Therefore, you are not contributing positively toward any conclusive results.
You are stating that Meteorologists lie about temperatures around the world. I'm sure that anyone, FE theorists or RE theorists would tell you otherwise.
-
You are stating that Meteorologists lie about temperatures around the world.
Please point out where she made that claim.
-
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.
The discussion was about how the temperatures around the world are spread as i previously posted. Mrs. Peach said she doesnt think these temperatures are accurate. Instuments used to measure temperatures are precise and meterologists relay that data to people. By stating that these temperatures are so far off to what has been recorded suggest that meterologists are lieing about temperatures...
Please stop asking me to repeat what people say and just stick with what has been asked in my initial post. I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation
-
Mrs. Peach said she doesnt think these temperatures are accurate.
I haven't seen her say this anywhere. Please direct me to the relevant post.
-
Mrs. Peach said she doesnt think these temperatures are accurate.
I haven't seen her say this anywhere. Please direct me to the relevant post.
the top of this page
-
the top of this page
All I see is her saying that she doesn't want to assume they are accurate. That's very different from claiming they are not.
-
Mrs. Peach said she doesnt think these temperatures are accurate.I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.
...
I really don't see how you are contributing to this discussion...
Flat Earth Theorists are usually present on the Flat Earth Society forums and active in discussions. This arrangement actually manages to foster discussions. I really believe that your preferred one-sided arrangement would be a hindrance.
I'll explain myself a little clearer for you.
Your comments are not helpful in discussing theories of Flat Earth or Round Earth discussion. Therefore, you are not contributing positively toward any conclusive results.
You are stating that Meteorologists lie about temperatures around the world. I'm sure that anyone, FE theorists or RE theorists would tell you otherwise.
Ah, it's that I'm not contributing a positive reply. Why have a discussion at all if dissent is not welcome?
Besides, you misquoted me. I said I did not like making the assumption that recorded temperatures are correct and would be especially so at the rim as I have no way at present to corroborate them.
-
the top of this page
All I see is her saying that she doesn't want to assume they are accurate. That's very different from claiming they are not.
fair enough..
But why would anyone not want to assume that temperatures given by weather netowrks are not accurate to even 10% accuracy when you can easily verify them with somthing as simple as a 1 dollar thermometer yourself.
Please let's avoid gonig off topic. I would like to hear an explanation for my initial question
-
Ah, it's that I'm not contributing a positive reply. Why have a discussion at all if dissent is not welcome?
Tsk, tsk. Are you being a rabble rouser again, Peachy?
-
Once again, because you FE'ers must've conveniently missed my post:
Planes couldn't handle this '400-500mph jet stream'. They'd get ripped apart.
-
Planes couldn't handle this '400-500mph jet stream'. They'd get ripped apart.
I'm not sure if you understand how air speed works. If a plane is flying along at an air speed of 600mph and runs into a 500mph headwind, that doesn't mean that its airspeed becomes 100mph. The plane's ground speed may become 100 mph, but its air speed will stay 600 mph. The only time that the plane might run into trouble is when it hits the wind shear entering or leaving the 500 mph jet stream, depending on how sudden the transition is.
-
Planes couldn't handle this '400-500mph jet stream'. They'd get ripped apart.
I'm not sure if you understand how air speed works. If a plane is flying along at an air speed of 600mph and runs into a 500mph headwind, that doesn't mean that its airspeed becomes 100mph. The plane's ground speed may become 100 mph, but its air speed will stay 600 mph. The only time that the plane might run into trouble is when it hits the wind shear entering or leaving the 500 mph jet stream, depending on how sudden the transition is.
I meant the transition (I mentioned it when I asked the first time). Visualizing a jumbo jet entering a 500mph stream of air isn't pretty.
-
There are "ramps" of accelerating air on and off the jet streams, comparable to those on freeways. The aircraft use these to access the moving air.
-
There are "ramps" of accelerating air on and off the jet streams, comparable to those on freeways. The aircraft use these to access the moving air.
Have you seen or measured these "ramps" yourself? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
-
There are "ramps" of accelerating air on and off the jet streams, comparable to those on freeways. The aircraft use these to access the moving air.
Have you seen or measured these "ramps" yourself? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
I doubt it. I'd wager he just made it up in order to troll some more.
-
Entering and leaving the jet streams would be entirely possible, transport sand bomber planes fromm ww2 discovered an used them to advantage. Turbulence would be experienced, that would be the only problem.
The following are events involving in flight turbulence where at least one jet airliner passenger was killed. Excluded are events involving only jet airliners designed or built in the states of the former Soviet Union.
10 May 1980; Indian Airlines 737-200; near Rampur Hat, India: The aircraft experienced severe en route turbulence. Two of the 132 passengers were killed.
7 October 1981; NLM CityHopper F28-4000; Moerdijk, Netherlands: Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft entered an area of severe thunderstorm activity. The aircraft apparently had a catastrophic in flight structural failure due to severe turbulence because it was seen to emerge from the clouds with one of its wings broken away. All four crew members and 13 passengers were killed.
16 August 1982; China Airlines 747; near Hong Kong: The aircraft encountered severe in flight turbulence. Two of the 292 passengers were killed.
3 October 1990; Eastern DC9-31; Florida, USA: The aircraft clear air turbulence at 31,000 feet (9450 m). One injured passenger died three weeks later.
5 September 1996; Air France 747-400; near Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Severe turbulence associated with a weather front seriously injured three of the 206 passengers. One of the three passengers later died of injuries caused by an in flight entertainment screen.
28 December 1997; United Airlines 747-100; over Pacific Ocean near Japan: The aircraft encountered severe turbulence during cruise about two hours after departing Japan. One of the 346 passengers was killed. None of the 23 crew members were killed but three sustained serious injuries.
-
What is the point of all those turbulence records?
Anyway, those jet streams are irrelevant because they don't go both ways, which means that going one way might be shorter, but the other way isn't.
-
What is the point of all those turbulence records?
Anyway, those jet streams are irrelevant because they don't go both ways, which means that going one way might be shorter, but the other way isn't.
Some of them were possibly aircraft entering or leaving the jet streams
-
What is the point of all those turbulence records?
Anyway, those jet streams are irrelevant because they don't go both ways, which means that going one way might be shorter, but the other way isn't.
Some of them were possibly aircraft entering or leaving the jet streams
And one of them KILLED TWO PASSENGERS! I'd say that would make it a rather unappealing thing to do on every flight south of the equator.
-
There are "ramps" of accelerating air on and off the jet streams, comparable to those on freeways. The aircraft use these to access the moving air.
Have you seen or measured these "ramps" yourself? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
No.
Anyway, those jet streams are irrelevant because they don't go both ways, which means that going one way might be shorter, but the other way isn't.
The streams are two-way in a double decker arrangement; they go one way at some altitude, and the other way above that.
-
The streams are two-way in a double decker arrangement; they go one way at some altitude, and the other way above that.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
-
The streams are two-way in a double decker arrangement; they go one way at some altitude, and the other way above that.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Even so, That still doesnt explain why flight times are longer in the southern hemisphere than in the Northern one. Pilots can still use these jetstreams to get from Tokyo to Toronto. The whole Jet-stream ramble doesn't explain what I have asked in my first post.
-
Planes couldn't handle this '400-500mph jet stream'. They'd get ripped apart.
I'm not sure if you understand how air speed works. If a plane is flying along at an air speed of 600mph and runs into a 500mph headwind, that doesn't mean that its airspeed becomes 100mph. The plane's ground speed may become 100 mph, but its air speed will stay 600 mph. The only time that the plane might run into trouble is when it hits the wind shear entering or leaving the 500 mph jet stream, depending on how sudden the transition is.
I don't think you understand how this works. If an aircraft travelling at 400mph enters one of these "streams" travelling in the same heading, at 400mph, the craft's speed will exceed the speed of sound.
Your average run of the mill 737 will not cope with these sort of stresses, and will break up.
And seeing as this doesn't appear to happen hundreds of times everyday (pretty sure we'd hear about it on the news) then it's fairly safe to say these "streams" don't exist.
And Steve, seriously, unless you have something useful to add to the conversation, post less.
When you can back up any of your claims with any sort of evidence, or even supply some reasonable logic that may suggest there is any truth in the nonsense you are spouting, let us know.
-
Even so, That still doesnt explain why flight times are longer in the southern hemisphere than in the Northern one. Pilots can still use these jetstreams to get from Tokyo to Toronto. The whole Jet-stream ramble doesn't explain what I have asked in my first post.
The jet streams only exist in the south; they go around the rim.
-
Even so, That still doesnt explain why flight times are longer in the southern hemisphere than in the Northern one. Pilots can still use these jetstreams to get from Tokyo to Toronto. The whole Jet-stream ramble doesn't explain what I have asked in my first post.
The jet streams only exist in the south; they go around the rim.
http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag192.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
lurk moar
-
Entering and leaving the jet streams would be entirely possible, transport sand bomber planes fromm ww2 discovered an used them to advantage. Turbulence would be experienced, that would be the only problem.
The following are events involving in flight turbulence where at least one jet airliner passenger was killed. Excluded are events involving only jet airliners designed or built in the states of the former Soviet Union.
10 May 1980; Indian Airlines 737-200; near Rampur Hat, India: The aircraft experienced severe en route turbulence. Two of the 132 passengers were killed.
7 October 1981; NLM CityHopper F28-4000; Moerdijk, Netherlands: Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft entered an area of severe thunderstorm activity. The aircraft apparently had a catastrophic in flight structural failure due to severe turbulence because it was seen to emerge from the clouds with one of its wings broken away. All four crew members and 13 passengers were killed.
16 August 1982; China Airlines 747; near Hong Kong: The aircraft encountered severe in flight turbulence. Two of the 292 passengers were killed.
3 October 1990; Eastern DC9-31; Florida, USA: The aircraft clear air turbulence at 31,000 feet (9450 m). One injured passenger died three weeks later.
5 September 1996; Air France 747-400; near Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Severe turbulence associated with a weather front seriously injured three of the 206 passengers. One of the three passengers later died of injuries caused by an in flight entertainment screen.
28 December 1997; United Airlines 747-100; over Pacific Ocean near Japan: The aircraft encountered severe turbulence during cruise about two hours after departing Japan. One of the 346 passengers was killed. None of the 23 crew members were killed but three sustained serious injuries.
Totally irrelevant. I'm pretty confident none of them experience turbulence from 500mph winds.
Good try, though.
-
Even so, That still doesnt explain why flight times are longer in the southern hemisphere than in the Northern one. Pilots can still use these jetstreams to get from Tokyo to Toronto. The whole Jet-stream ramble doesn't explain what I have asked in my first post.
The jet streams only exist in the south; they go around the rim.
http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag192.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
lurk moar
Beat me to it.
-
Without any sort of evidence for these conveniently configured jetstreams, they are much less likely to be true than the accepted RE explanations for flight times.
-
Even so, That still doesnt explain why flight times are longer in the southern hemisphere than in the Northern one. Pilots can still use these jetstreams to get from Tokyo to Toronto. The whole Jet-stream ramble doesn't explain what I have asked in my first post.
The jet streams only exist in the south; they go around the rim.
http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag192.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
lurk moar
I was referring specifically to the high-speed jet streams in FET, not the pathetic breeze you REers like to spout about.
-
Even so, That still doesnt explain why flight times are longer in the southern hemisphere than in the Northern one. Pilots can still use these jetstreams to get from Tokyo to Toronto. The whole Jet-stream ramble doesn't explain what I have asked in my first post.
The jet streams only exist in the south; they go around the rim.
http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag192.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
lurk moar
I was referring specifically to the high-speed jet streams in FET, not the pathetic breeze you REers like to spout about.
I'm sure you have some sort of evidence of these air currents?
See we RE'ers are talking about the real jet streams, while you FE'ers are making stuff up.
-
Even so, That still doesnt explain why flight times are longer in the southern hemisphere than in the Northern one. Pilots can still use these jetstreams to get from Tokyo to Toronto. The whole Jet-stream ramble doesn't explain what I have asked in my first post.
The jet streams only exist in the south; they go around the rim.
http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag192.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
lurk moar
I was referring specifically to the high-speed jet streams in FET, not the pathetic breeze you REers like to spout about.
God dam. Please, before posting, do as you tell so many others 'lurk moar'
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
Please go to this website and compare the speed's of the recorded jet streams from both the north and south hemisphere of the earth. I'm sure you will notice that the wind speeds from both the north and south vary minimally.
I'll make your life easier
Southern Hemisphere
(http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_sohem_00.gif)
Northern Hemisphere
(http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_norhem_00.gif)
The first clue should be the legend at the bottom of these images....
-
I'm sure you have some sort of evidence of these air currents?
Compare flight times in the south with those in the north. The lack of significant discrepancy speaks for itself.
LBtheWise: Those are some very pretty diagrams you have. Do you have any information as to how that data was collected, by whom, and a peer assessment of its validity and reliability?
-
I'm sure you have some sort of evidence of these air currents?
Compare flight times in the south with those in the north. The lack of significant discrepancy speaks for itself.
It sure does, it shows that the Earth is a sphere.
-
I'm sure you have some sort of evidence of these air currents?
Compare flight times in the south with those in the north. The lack of significant discrepancy speaks for itself.
LBtheWise: Those are some very pretty diagrams you have. Do you have any information as to how that data was collected, by whom, and a peer assessment of its validity and reliability?
You will find all the information you are asking from the website. Please review it... If you would like other websites that were collected from other organizations I will oblidge you.
Images provided the California Regional Weather Server, sponsored by the Meteorology program of the Department of Geosciences at San Francisco State University. The California Regional Weather Server provides more detail, including a general description of jet stream analysis and forecast maps.
-
Compare flight times in the south with those in the north. The lack of significant discrepancy speaks for itself.
Correlation does not imply causation.
-
Compare flight times in the south with those in the north. The lack of significant discrepancy speaks for itself.
Correlation does not imply causation.
It also does not imply that either aspect is true.
Example: There is a giant manbearpig in my room right now, and he caused the gaping wounds all over my body.
-
Have you noticed that each time this subject is revisited, the FE theorists reach a different explanation?
Depending on the "flight times in the South" thread, sometimes all the airplane pilots are in the Conspiracy or they are duped into flying at specific heights by the Conspiracy without knowing about the jet streams they are entering, or are plain stupid and do not notice jet streams with many times the energy of an F5 tornado.
What is constant is we, the South Americans, Africans and Australians always have to be stupid as door knobs in every single explanation about flight times. We have to get insulted by the likes of Parsifal and Tom Bishop, who have not done the very first navigation experiment suggested in this forum, but apparently know more about our weather than all of our pilots, navigators, meteorologists and scientists together.
Please stop insulting the whole population of two and a half continents until you have done at least a few real experiments by yourselves.
-
Have you noticed that each time this subject is revisited, the FE theorists reach a different explanation?
Depending on the "flight times in the South" thread, sometimes all the airplane pilots are in the Conspiracy or they are duped into flying at specific heights by the Conspiracy without knowing about the jet streams they are entering, or are plain stupid and do not notice jet streams with many times the energy of an F5 tornado.
What is constant is we, the South Americans, Africans and Australians always have to be stupid as door knobs in every single explanation about flight times. We have to get insulted by the likes of Parsifal and Tom Bishop, who have not done the very first navigation experiment suggested in this forum, but apparently know more about our weather than all of our pilots, navigators, meteorologists and scientists together.
Please stop insulting the whole population of two and a half continents until you have done at least a few real experiments by yourselves.
Touché
-
bump for today.
-
Planes couldn't handle this '400-500mph jet stream'. They'd get ripped apart.
I'm not sure if you understand how air speed works. If a plane is flying along at an air speed of 600mph and runs into a 500mph headwind, that doesn't mean that its airspeed becomes 100mph. The plane's ground speed may become 100 mph, but its air speed will stay 600 mph. The only time that the plane might run into trouble is when it hits the wind shear entering or leaving the 500 mph jet stream, depending on how sudden the transition is.
I don't think you understand how this works. If an aircraft travelling at 400mph enters one of these "streams" travelling in the same heading, at 400mph, the craft's speed will exceed the speed of sound.
Your average run of the mill 737 will not cope with these sort of stresses, and will break up.
...
By your reasoning, all round earthers should add the 67000 miles per hour speed for the supposed speed of the earth around the sun. That should give the aeronautics engineers fits.
-
By your reasoning, all round earthers should add the 67000 miles per hour speed for the supposed speed of the earth around the sun. That should give the aeronautics engineers fits.
Only if you're trying to another part of the solar system other than the moon.
-
WAT?
I was trying to explain why air speed is measured relative to the air. What are you attempting?
-
WAT?
I was trying to explain why air speed is measured relative to the air.
Then perhaps you should have, rather than making a poor analogy.
-
Are you implying that the supposed global earth and its atmosphere are not traveling at this speed?
I often make poor analogies; thanks for your input.
-
Are you implying that the supposed global earth and its atmosphere are not traveling at this speed?
I often make poor analogies; thanks for your input.
The global earth and its atmosphere are indeed traveling at this speed around the sun, however that is irrelevant to airplanes traveling within the atmosphere. The rotational speed of the earth is more likely to be an issue than its orbital speed.
-
Yes, Markjo. That was my point after all. Air speed is a relative measurement.
-
So aside from the "birds are pushing the planes" and the "super high velocity jet streams", Are there any real explanations for flight times south of the equator?
-
So aside from the "birds are pushing the planes" and the "super high velocity jet streams", Are there any real explanations for flight times south of the equator?
I think it's more likely that birds are pulling the planes. The airline companies have realised they can save fuel by tethering birds to the aircraft while in mid-flight and allowing the pilots to switch off the engines.
-
So aside from the "birds are pushing the planes" and the "super high velocity jet streams", Are there any real explanations for flight times south of the equator?
I think it's more likely that birds are pulling the planes. The airline companies have realised they can save fuel by tethering birds to the aircraft while in mid-flight and allowing the pilots to switch off the engines.
Please specify which species of bird is doing this.
-
Either African or European swallows is my guess.
-
Please specify which species of bird is doing this.
I wouldn't know, never having worked for an airline company. It's probably a variety of different species all working together.
-
Either African or European swallows is my guess.
While I enjoy Monty Python as much as the next person, please do not derail the thread.
Assuming your are being serious, given the size of these birds, there would have to be hundreds of them, someone would have noticed by now.
-
Please specify which species of bird is doing this.
I wouldn't know, never having worked for an airline company. It's probably a variety of different species all working together.
Please name at least one species of bird that can fly at least 600 kph while wearing a harness and tether.
-
Assuming your are being serious, given the size of these birds, there would have to be hundreds of them, someone would have noticed by now.
I should imagine the pilots have. The passengers tend to look out to the side, rather than the front.
-
Please specify which species of bird is doing this.
I wouldn't know, never having worked for an airline company. It's probably a variety of different species all working together.
Give this a read and get back to me as to which species it could be. seeing as the highest flying bird, the fastest flying bird, and the bird capable of the longest daily flight are three different species that don't even live in the same regions, I'd say the bird theory is dead. Try another one.
-
Assuming your are being serious, given the size of these birds, there would have to be hundreds of them, someone would have noticed by now.
I should imagine the pilots have. The passengers tend to look out to the side, rather than the front.
True, but unless they are hitching up these birds in mid-flight, the people in the airports would see this happening.
-
Give this a read and get back to me as to which species it could be. seeing as the highest flying bird, the fastest flying bird, and the bird capable of the longest daily flight are three different species that don't even live in the same regions, I'd say the bird theory is dead. Try another one.
It's probably some as yet undiscovered species known only to the Conspiracy, or else a genetically engineered bird specifically for this purpose.
True, but unless they are hitching up these birds in mid-flight, the people in the airports would see this happening.
See:
I think it's more likely that birds are pulling the planes. The airline companies have realised they can save fuel by tethering birds to the aircraft while in mid-flight and allowing the pilots to switch off the engines.
-
Give this a read and get back to me as to which species it could be. seeing as the highest flying bird, the fastest flying bird, and the bird capable of the longest daily flight are three different species that don't even live in the same regions, I'd say the bird theory is dead. Try another one.
It's probably some as yet undiscovered species known only to the Conspiracy, or else a genetically engineered bird specifically for this purpose.
True, but unless they are hitching up these birds in mid-flight, the people in the airports would see this happening.
See:
I think it's more likely that birds are pulling the planes. The airline companies have realised they can save fuel by tethering birds to the aircraft while in mid-flight and allowing the pilots to switch off the engines.
Dude, this isn't even good trolling. It's really sad they way you take something someone else (Pongo) made up, and try to keep running with it.
Why don't you try coming up with your own suggestion to explain flight times south of the equator?
-
Dude, this isn't even good trolling. It's really sad they way you take something someone else (Pongo) made up, and try to keep running with it.
Why don't you try coming up with your own suggestion to explain flight times south of the equator?
I'm sorry, but what? Because someone else came up with an idea, I'm not allowed to support it?
-
Dude, this isn't even good trolling. It's really sad they way you take something someone else (Pongo) made up, and try to keep running with it.
Why don't you try coming up with your own suggestion to explain flight times south of the equator?
I'm sorry, but what? Because someone else came up with an idea, I'm not allowed to support it?
OK, so you have nothing but other people's ideas? Was just suggesting you think for yourself. The whole "birds pushing/pulling planes" idea is rubbish and you know it.
-
OK, so you have nothing but other people's ideas? Was just suggesting you think for yourself. The whole "birds pushing/pulling planes" idea is rubbish and you know it.
I am thinking for myself, and I have decided that this hypothesis is most likely to be true.
-
What motivation do the birds have for pulling the planes?
And you seem to be hypothesizing here, that is definitely anti-zetetic. Your conclusions are therefore not acceptable on this site.
-
What motivation do the birds have for pulling the planes?
They are simply flying along their natural flight paths.
-
As Pongo likes to point out, birds would not take on any unnecessary burden (in this case pulling a very heavy aircraft) without some sort of motivation.
-
So, so far, there's no explanation for the phenomena described by the OP?
-
As Pongo likes to point out, birds would not take on any unnecessary burden (in this case pulling a very heavy aircraft) without some sort of motivation.
It is possible that a bird bath is suspended from a rod attached to the roof of the aeroplane, which the birds then fly towards.
-
So, so far, there's no explanation for the phenomena described by the OP?
You must have missed Spanner34.5's post. It's somewhere on the first page.
-
Please do not feed the trolls.
Does anyone really think Parsifal believes this bird idiocy? Or anyone, for that matter, except, maybe, Fred Flintstone?
-
Does anyone really think Parsifal believes this bird idiocy? Or anyone, for that matter, except, maybe, Fred Flintstone?
My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.
-
uhmm... is it me or has nobody noticed these great new inventions called the speedometer and odometer? If you ever fly on a marginally good international flight, the plane will give information on the speed and distance traveled. and if you don't trust it, you should take your own device on board. Parsifal argument is absurd, we should assume that there has to be a mechanism for increasing the speed (bird nudging and/or magically fast and positioned), for which there not only is an absence of evidence for, but evidence against, whereas he refuses to admit a mechanism for shortening the distance (aka if the earth was not flat). that type of logic rivals troll threads. btw I've already shown that the flat map doesn't work, because it inaccurately predicts the area of Colorado by over 50%
-
Does anyone really think Parsifal believes this bird idiocy? Or anyone, for that matter, except, maybe, Fred Flintstone?
My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.
Then why would you argue for something that you don't believe?
-
I think it's more likely that birds are pulling the planes. The airline companies have realised they can save fuel by tethering birds to the aircraft while in mid-flight and allowing the pilots to switch off the engines.
This is a very innovative hypothesis. I would imagine that the species in questions would have to be a mutant-hybrid between a humming bird -- to capitalize on its superior maneuverability -- and a larger bird so that it can make a meaningful impact on the travel times.
If they breed a strong enough 'nesting desire' in the bird, then they do not even have to tether the birds to the plane. They just attach very appealing nest components and the birds will latch onto the plane themselves. All that is left after that is the relatively simple problem of steering the birds.
-
Hmmm...there is no evidence for the birds; has anyone seen birds attached to airplanes? Lol...no?...then I claim that a magical bunny is just as likely to be helping planes go faster.
-
Hmmm...there is no evidence for the birds; has anyone seen birds attached to airplanes? Lol...no?...then I claim that a magical bunny is just as likely to be helping planes go faster.
Irrelevant. Rabbits cannot fly and no studies have ever been produced, at least none that I could find, prove rabbits to be magical.
-
I feel like this whole bird thing is one of the stupidest things you FE'ers have ever come up with. You'd be doing yourselves a favor if you just dropped the concept.
-
Hmmm...there is no evidence for the birds; has anyone seen birds attached to airplanes? Lol...no?...then I claim that a magical bunny is just as likely to be helping planes go faster.
Irrelevant. Rabbits cannot fly and no studies have ever been produced, at least none that I could find, prove rabbits to be magical.
Birds cannot pull planes. and no studies have ever been produced, at least none that I could find, prove birds to be magical.
-
So, so far, there's no explanation for the phenomena described by the OP?
You must have missed Spanner34.5's post. It's somewhere on the first page.
First of all: no evidence, proof, or documentation, or records of these 400mph jet-streams.
Second of all: planes would be ripped apart upon exiting/entering these 400mph jet-streams.
-
uhmm... is it me or has nobody noticed these great new inventions called the speedometer and odometer? If you ever fly on a marginally good international flight, the plane will give information on the speed and distance traveled. and if you don't trust it, you should take your own device on board.
This is a very interesting suggestion. How would "your own device" work? What is there that a passenger on an aircraft can do to measure its ground speed?
-
uhmm... is it me or has nobody noticed these great new inventions called the speedometer and odometer? If you ever fly on a marginally good international flight, the plane will give information on the speed and distance traveled. and if you don't trust it, you should take your own device on board.
This is a very interesting suggestion. How would "your own device" work? What is there that a passenger on an aircraft can do to measure its ground speed?
Are you suggesting that all pilots are part of the Conspiracy and are therefore lying about the distances/speed achieved by the plane? That'd be ridiculous.
-
uhmm... is it me or has nobody noticed these great new inventions called the speedometer and odometer? If you ever fly on a marginally good international flight, the plane will give information on the speed and distance traveled. and if you don't trust it, you should take your own device on board.
This is a very interesting suggestion. How would "your own device" work? What is there that a passenger on an aircraft can do to measure its ground speed?
I would suggest looking up GPS.
-
uhmm... is it me or has nobody noticed these great new inventions called the speedometer and odometer? If you ever fly on a marginally good international flight, the plane will give information on the speed and distance traveled. and if you don't trust it, you should take your own device on board.
This is a very interesting suggestion. How would "your own device" work? What is there that a passenger on an aircraft can do to measure its ground speed?
I would suggest looking up GPS.
they believe GPS lies and is a big sham.
-
Are you suggesting that all pilots are part of the Conspiracy and are therefore lying about the distances/speed achieved by the plane? That'd be ridiculous.
What part of my post gave you that idea?
-
uhmm... is it me or has nobody noticed these great new inventions called the speedometer and odometer? If you ever fly on a marginally good international flight, the plane will give information on the speed and distance traveled. and if you don't trust it, you should take your own device on board.
This is a very interesting suggestion. How would "your own device" work? What is there that a passenger on an aircraft can do to measure its ground speed?
I would suggest looking up GPS.
they believe GPS lies and is a big sham.
I know, but it will still spit out a ground speed.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
That's great. A GPS unit can be brought on.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
"an E6B flight computer is often used to calculate groundspeed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_speed
-
I've brought a GPS on a plane several times. My ground speed usually measures somewhere between 500-550 mph at cruising altitudes, but we topped out at 610 mph on one trip.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
That's great. A GPS unit can be brought on.
Would not do me a great deal of good, I don't know how to use one. As they may be interfered with, by the conspiracy, I have no desire to learn.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
"an E6B flight computer is often used to calculate groundspeed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_speed
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
"an E6B flight computer is often used to calculate groundspeed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_speed
Nope, I haven't got one of those either.
EDIT
Sorry I do have an equivalent However these are used at the pre-flight planning stage.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
That's great. A GPS unit can be brought on.
Would not do me a great deal of good, I don't know how to use one. As they may be interfered with, by the conspiracy, I have no desire to learn.
build ur own
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
That's great. A GPS unit can be brought on.
Would not do me a great deal of good, I don't know how to use one. As they may be interfered with, by the conspiracy, I have no desire to learn.
build ur own
Why, I can navigate perfectly well without one.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
"an E6B flight computer is often used to calculate groundspeed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_speed
The E6B is simply a slide rule. It does not directly measure anything.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
That's great. A GPS unit can be brought on.
Would not do me a great deal of good, I don't know how to use one. As they may be interfered with, by the conspiracy, I have no desire to learn.
Just out of curiosity, are you instrument rated?
-
Are you suggesting that all pilots are part of the Conspiracy and are therefore lying about the distances/speed achieved by the plane? That'd be ridiculous.
What part of my post gave you that idea?
I guess that was a leap, but such wind-speed devices do exist... it's called an anemometer. Obviously, no passenger could just stick one on the plane, meaning one could only take data from the anemometers used by the pilots. And since if you read the data given from pilots, you would find they're normal (to RET); no headwinds, speeds over 800mph, etc. You seemed to imply (IMO) that, because passengers couldn't take measurements themselves, pilots would lie about airspeed to cover up for the fact that fligth times just don't work on a flat Earth.
-
I guess that was a leap, but such wind-speed devices do exist... it's called an anemometer. Obviously, no passenger could just stick one on the plane, meaning one could only take data from the anemometers used by the pilots. And since if you read the data given from pilots, you would find they're normal (to RET); no headwinds, speeds over 800mph, etc. You seemed to imply (IMO) that, because passengers couldn't take measurements themselves, pilots would lie about airspeed to cover up for the fact that fligth times just don't work on a flat Earth.
An anemometer would measure air speed, not ground speed.
-
I guess that was a leap, but such wind-speed devices do exist... it's called an anemometer. Obviously, no passenger could just stick one on the plane, meaning one could only take data from the anemometers used by the pilots. And since if you read the data given from pilots, you would find they're normal (to RET); no headwinds, speeds over 800mph, etc. You seemed to imply (IMO) that, because passengers couldn't take measurements themselves, pilots would lie about airspeed to cover up for the fact that fligth times just don't work on a flat Earth.
An anemometer would measure air speed, not ground speed.
But it would detect anomalies, such as 400mph jets of air.
-
But it would detect anomalies, such as 400mph jets of air.
Not necessarily.
-
You're really telling me a simple device such as an anemometer couldn't pick up 400mph streams of air? Seriously?
-
You're really telling me a simple device such as an anemometer couldn't pick up 400mph streams of air? Seriously?
Not in the circumstances you're describing. All the anemometer would measure is the craft's air speed.
-
You're really telling me a simple device such as an anemometer couldn't pick up 400mph streams of air? Seriously?
Not in the circumstances you're describing. All the anemometer would measure is the craft's air speed.
...what!? What makes you think an anemometer couldn't detect a 400mph jet stream?
-
...what!? What makes you think an anemometer couldn't detect a 400mph jet stream?
The fact that it would be attached to the aircraft, so if the aircraft is moving with the jet stream, it wouldn't pick up on it.
-
It would certainly detect a 400mph current upon entering/exiting the jet stream.
-
It would certainly detect a 400mph current upon entering/exiting the jet stream.
Only if there is a discrete boundary between the jet stream and the stationary air outside it.
-
I guess that was a leap, but such wind-speed devices do exist... it's called an anemometer. Obviously, no passenger could just stick one on the plane, meaning one could only take data from the anemometers used by the pilots. And since if you read the data given from pilots, you would find they're normal (to RET); no headwinds, speeds over 800mph, etc. You seemed to imply (IMO) that, because passengers couldn't take measurements themselves, pilots would lie about airspeed to cover up for the fact that fligth times just don't work on a flat Earth.
An anemometer would measure air speed, not ground speed.
But in conjunction with the radio beacons it gives a very good idea of the ground speed. By navigating from beacon to beacon, the pilots make known trip legs on known time lapses, so they have precise data to find out whether airspeed was the usual 50 nm or less, or if they were on a 400 nm super jet stream.
And now more than ever, they use GPS as a second navigational system, which gives them direct and very accurate ground speed readings.
You always end up in the same situation: pilots have to be in the Conspiracy or every "FE model" is unbelievably wrong.
-
But in conjunction with the radio beacons it gives a very good idea of the ground speed. By navigating from beacon to beacon, the pilots make known trip legs on known time lapses, so they have precise data to find out whether airspeed was the usual 50 nm or less, or if they were on a 400 nm super jet stream.
And now more than ever, they use GPS as a second navigational system, which gives them direct and very accurate ground speed readings.
You always end up in the same situation: pilots have to be in the Conspiracy or every "FE model" is unbelievably wrong.
I wasn't aware airspeed could be measured in nanometres.
-
It would certainly detect a 400mph current upon entering/exiting the jet stream.
Only if there is a discrete boundary between the jet stream and the stationary air outside it.
Which is pretty much the definition of a jet stream.
-
Which is pretty much the definition of a jet stream.
I find it hard to believe that a stream of nitrogen molecules can move at 179 m s-1 past stationary nitrogen molecules without creating some kind of turbulence.
-
Which is pretty much the definition of a jet stream.
I find it hard to believe that a stream of nitrogen molecules can move at 179 m s-1 past stationary nitrogen molecules without creating some kind of turbulence.
Yet you seem to ready enough to believe that airliners can pass through this turbulence without the passengers noticing.
-
Yet you seem to ready enough to believe that airliners can pass through this turbulence without the passengers noticing.
I have been on many flights, and noticed turbulence on most of them.
-
Yet you seem to ready enough to believe that airliners can pass through this turbulence without the passengers noticing.
I have been on many flights, and noticed turbulence on most of them.
Trollsifal. Always showing your true colors. A pedant of the highest degree, at least you are consistent in your lunacy.
-
Are you suggesting that all pilots are part of the Conspiracy and are therefore lying about the distances/speed achieved by the plane? That'd be ridiculous.
What part of my post gave you that idea?
This part:
So aside from the "birds are pushing the planes" and the "super high velocity jet streams", Are there any real explanations for flight times south of the equator?
I think it's more likely that birds are pulling the planes. The airline companies have realised they can save fuel by tethering birds to the aircraft while in mid-flight and allowing the pilots to switch off the engines.
The pilots would have to be in on something in order to switch off their engines in mid-air.
Also:
Assuming your are being serious, given the size of these birds, there would have to be hundreds of them, someone would have noticed by now.
I should imagine the pilots have. The passengers tend to look out to the side, rather than the front.
And then there is the idea that the jetstreams you also claim to believe in (until pressed for evidence) traveling in different directions at different altitudes. Wouldnt the pilots notice this? Even if the equipment on the plane is manipulated, should the pilot not have some idea of how much time it takes the plane to reach its supposed altitude? Unless the streams are right on top of each other,close enough so the time difference isn't big enough to note, in which case you would have to pass through one to get to the other and the speed difference would shred the plane. Unless I'm wrong, which I admit I could be, I'm no scientist after all. If this is the case can you provide evidence that I am with verifiable or peer reviewed evidence?
I would really love to believe that you actually think these absurd notions are true. It would do my heart good to know that, even if I were to suffer extensive brain damage, there will always be someone stupider than me in the world.
-
I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.
There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.
Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.
That's great. A GPS unit can be brought on.
Would not do me a great deal of good, I don't know how to use one. As they may be interfered with, by the conspiracy, I have no desire to learn.
Just out of curiosity, are you instrument rated?
UK IMC.
-
Give it up, Parsifal. You know there's no explanation for flight times, unless you'd like to try something other than magic birds or 400mph jet streams.