First off, the route is not important, the distance is.

The data I have is the flight time of a commercial airliner on a trip from Hawaii to Australia, and the maximum possible speed of that airliner.

In order for the plane to make the trips it does on a world that looks like map #2, it would have to:

a) fly over 2000 MPH

b) the world would have to be about 1/4 the diameter listed in the FAQ.

Actually, the route is important, because a) winds can effect speeds, and b) if you're measuring things 'as the crow flies' with a ruler, you may not be accurately calculating the distance travelled on a RE map.

Basic algebra for Wilmore. Speed = distance/time

If we know any two of these, we can find the third. If we know the speed, we can try out different distances and get different lengths of time passed. If we know the distance and time we can work out the speed of travel. Presuming the map is at least roughly to scale, that's all he's done. If you honestly have trouble with this then I'd be surprised if you made it through junior high.

Yes, and up until now we had no idea what figures he was using for distance. I don't have trouble with algebra, I'm just not psychic.

You want my calculations? Here they are:

I measured the diameter of map #2 on my screen to be 16 cm. I measured the distance from Hawaii to Australia to be a bit under 15 cm, again on that same map on my screen. The diameter of the earth from the FAQ is 24900 miles.

To get the distance from Hawaii to Australia in miles:

16cm/24900 miles = 15cm/x miles, so x = (15/16)*24900 miles = 23344 miles.

To get the time it would take a jet flying at 568 m/hr:

23344 m / (568 m/hr) = 41.10 hours

Simple enough, now point out where I am wrong.

First of all, the figure given in the FAQ refers exclusively to map 1. I'm pretty sure the diameter in the second model is smaller, though it has never been worked out. Secondly, your 'ruler routes' are not the routes that would actually be taken.

Finally, you need to understand something, which is that only empirical data matters. The thing is, I don't even think Hawaii and Australia are as depicted on that map. I find it hard to believe that Australia is so wildly distorted, or that Hawaii could be so far away from Japan. However, I'm not going to make any positive claims about it without empirical data. I don't have that, so I keep my mouth shut about it.

That map is essentially used as a rough guide to communicate the concept of a FE with Antarctica as a distinct continent rather than the rim continent, and as it's just a projection based of RE maps, undoubtedly contains many errors. But people can't just go around claiming to have proven this or that based on theoretical planes and boats. We need real data, not MS paint scribbles.