Flight Times???

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 02, 2010, 10:43:53 AM

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.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 02, 2010, 01:24:28 PM

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?

Quote from: Parsifal on June 02, 2010, 09:24:21 PM

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

Quote from: Tech on June 03, 2010, 02:50:10 AM

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.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 02, 2010, 09:24:21 PM

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? 

Quote from: Parsifal on June 03, 2010, 06:23:31 AM

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.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 02, 2010, 01:24:28 PM

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.

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 03, 2010, 06:30:15 AM

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.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 03, 2010, 06:52:47 AM

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 03, 2010, 06:30:15 AM

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.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 03, 2010, 06:52:47 AM

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 03, 2010, 06:30:15 AM

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.

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 03, 2010, 06:54:31 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on June 03, 2010, 06:52:47 AM

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 03, 2010, 06:30:15 AM

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.

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 03, 2010, 06:54:31 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on June 03, 2010, 06:52:47 AM

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 03, 2010, 06:30:15 AM

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


Northern Hemisphere


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?

Quote from: Sliver on June 03, 2010, 07:55:18 AM

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.

Quote from: Sliver on June 03, 2010, 07:55:18 AM

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.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 03, 2010, 07:56:32 AM

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.