ONE question SERIOUS Question

Quote from: hoppy on September 29, 2012, 11:52:25 AM

Are you aware of a website showing how a pilot should fly in this manner. My wife may believe FE if there is an easy explanation , one that tells pilots to keep the plane level and go straight.

Its page one of every book on how to fly.

Chapter one, page one. Straight and level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_mechanics#Straight_and_level_flight_of_aircraft
http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/Straight%20and%20Level%20Flight.html
http://www.dynamicflight.com/flight_maneuvers/straight_level/
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Straight-and-level_flight

I find it interesting that none of those definitions of "straight and level" say anything about flying in a straight line.  They talk about following a heading and balancing lift and gravity to maintain altitude, but that isn't necessarily the same thing as flying in a straight line.  Wouldn't you agree, Thork?

Please describe to me how you can fly in anything other than a straight line, if you fly straight and level? I'd be very interested to hear your explanation of such a feat. I'd also like to see any mention of correction for rounding the earth, if you would be so kind as to furnish me with a quote.

It receives no attention on TFES because the likes of Markjo will bury it in stupid questions. It receives no attention in general because most people don't really care what shape the earth is. Its not their biggest worry.

You called if before hand.

Quote from: Thork on September 29, 2012, 11:16:17 AM

It receives no attention on TFES because the likes of Markjo will bury it in stupid questions. It receives no attention in general because most people don't really care what shape the earth is. Its not their biggest worry.

You called if before hand.

He can't leave "Another win for FE!" as the last post. He takes it personally. He'll want at least 3 pages of tedious back and forth to ensure no one ever reads about how an aircraft doesn't correct for earth's curve. He wants all our victories buried. Otherwise they haunt his dreams.

I'd also like to see any mention of correction for rounding the earth, if you would be so kind as to furnish me with a quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_mechanics#Straight_and_level_flight_of_aircraft

In straight and level flight, lift is approximately equal to weight. In addition, if the aircraft is not accelerating, thrust is approximately equal to drag

If lift and weight are balanced, then the aircraft is maintaining altitude through neutral buoyancy.  No correction for the shape of the earth would be required, much like a ball floating in a jet of air.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bernoulli Effect: The Floating Ball

He wants all our victories buried.

Not at all.  I just want you to earn your "victories" fair and square.

Rather than me use my aerospace engineering degree to tie you in knots over Bernoulli, how about I leave this thread for you and the noobs? You know how I feel about your participation of the upper fora. I'm not interested in flat earth discussion with you. Its a boring experience from my end. If that means the thread dies here, so be it.

In my mind the is a smoking gun. FE victory. How could flight manuals not mention to pilots to not to fly level, as the ground would be moving away from you if you did fly level. Markjo, I think you need to re-evaluate your position.

You know how I feel about your participation of the upper fora. I'm not interested in flat earth discussion with you.

Yes, I know that you would rather berate some clueless noob rather than debate with someone who might actually have a clue.  FE victory indeed. 

In my mind the is a smoking gun. FE victory. How could flight manuals not mention to pilots to not to fly level, as the ground would be moving away from you if you did fly level.

What does maintaining altitude by balancing lift and weight have to do with the shape of the earth?

Quote from: Thork on September 29, 2012, 01:33:46 PM

You know how I feel about your participation of the upper fora. I'm not interested in flat earth discussion with you.

Yes, I know that you would rather berate some clueless noob rather than debate with someone who might actually have a clue.

You think a lot of yourself. Sadly you don't think anything of our visitors and ensure yours is always the last point in case they should make a bad one.

FE victory indeed. 

Its got nothing to do with victory. Have you ever considered what it is like debating with you?
You rarely post more than one or two sentences. So its 5 mins work for 10 secs reward each time I post.
You have absolutely no sense of humour. This makes your posts dry and tedious.
You absolutely have no idea when to leave a thread. You will go on and on and on for 50 pages if someone will respond. So its up to me when I choose to when to terminate such an unrewarding discussion. And I choose the very first post you make. Sometimes I might let you away with one just to keep the topic flowing, but after that, were back to me explaining to you again how you are killing the fora by driving all the FErs away.

Will it ever go in? Seems not. So I guess I'll just keep avoiding you until you are demodded and thrown into purgatory. That would be a win for FE.

You aren't a rude or unpleasant person. I wish I didn't have to be that way with you, but you don't pick up on subtle. You don't seem to have any other interests. Sports, politics, sex, cars. I'll discuss almost anything with you ... but I'm absolutuely fed up of discussing earth's shape with you. Don't make me remind you again next week.

Gee, and I thought that we were discussing aerodynamics.  BTW, I didn't say anywhere in this thread that the earth is round.  I was only pointing out how flying straight and level is a perfectly valid concept concept in a RE context based on the definitions that you provided.

Gee, and I thought that we were discussing aerodynamics.  BTW, I didn't say anywhere in this thread that the earth is round.  I was only pointing out how flying straight and level is a perfectly valid concept concept in a RE context based on the definitions that you provided.

I would think the flight manuals would mention to beginning pilots that they should fly an arc  to maintain a constant altitude above a round earth. The manuals only say straight and level, straight is straight, an arc is not.

I would think the flight manuals would mention to beginning pilots that they should fly an arc  to maintain a constant altitude above a round earth. The manuals only say straight and level, straight is straight, an arc is not.

Did you actually look to see how Thork's sources defined "straight and level"?  Level is defined as maintaining a constant altitude and straight is defined as maintaining a specified heading.   Nowhere in those definitions are geometrically straight lines specified.

Think about it this way: if someone tells you to drive straight down a road for 10 miles, are you going to drive in a geometrically straight line for 10 miles or are you going to follow any curves in the road along the way?

I am really glad a mod has partaken in derailing this thread. Can we get back to the OP instead of discussing lines, now?

Quote from: hoppy on September 29, 2012, 05:44:03 PM

I would think the flight manuals would mention to beginning pilots that they should fly an arc  to maintain a constant altitude above a round earth. The manuals only say straight and level, straight is straight, an arc is not.

Did you actually look to see how Thork's sources defined "straight and level"?  Level is defined as maintaining a constant altitude and straight is defined as maintaining a specified heading.   Nowhere in those definitions are geometrically straight lines specified.

Think about it this way: if someone tells you to drive straight down a road for 10 miles, are you going to drive in a geometrically straight line for 10 miles or are you going to follow any curves in the road along the way?

I always drive in a geometrically straight line.

#YOLO

I am really glad a mod has partaken in derailing this thread. Can we get back to the OP instead of discussing lines, now?

The OP is about flying in a straight line so it's not off topic to discuss what flying straight and level really means.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 29, 2012, 06:44:53 PM

I am really glad a mod has partaken in derailing this thread. Can we get back to the OP instead of discussing lines, now?

The OP is about flying in a straight line so it's not off topic to discuss what flying straight and level really means.

How would flying level be relevant when it comes to the Earth being round or flat in the scenario? It isn't.

Quote from: markjo on September 29, 2012, 07:08:35 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 29, 2012, 06:44:53 PM

I am really glad a mod has partaken in derailing this thread. Can we get back to the OP instead of discussing lines, now?

The OP is about flying in a straight line so it's not off topic to discuss what flying straight and level really means.

How would flying level be relevant when it comes to the Earth being round or flat in the scenario? It isn't.

That's my point. 

As a world class pilot. I have flown in a straight line. LA to egypt to Guam To LA again. Going one direction one line. If the earth was flat why did i not vanish off into space. You are all truly ignorant and need to go clean your bathrooms with bleach and ammonia immediately.

Kinda makes a big triangle.  If you told us what places you flew over or plotted the course, that would help.

Voliva deduced as much.

"60,000 feet over 300 miles."  wow....how would somebody not notice that.



edited to get picture to fit screen

 

In my mind the is a smoking gun. FE victory. How could flight manuals not mention to pilots to not to fly level, as the ground would be moving away from you if you did fly level. Markjo, I think you need to re-evaluate your position.

Not really.

If one remained level as they flew, they'd be following the curvature, thus maintaining a constant altitude.

If one started flying "straight" regarding elevation, then one would start gaining altitude, and no longer be flying level.

They're following the Earth's curvature simply by following the altimeter.

What are pilots supposed to do, ignore the instruments and say, "Gosh, my altimeter says I'm remaining at XXXX feet, but the earth curves, so I better descend even more"?

Quote from: flatearthnahfgt on September 19, 2012, 11:28:36 PM

As a world class pilot. I have flown in a straight line. LA to egypt to Guam To LA again. Going one direction one line. If the earth was flat why did i not vanish off into space. You are all truly ignorant and need to go clean your bathrooms with bleach and ammonia immediately.

Kinda makes a big triangle.  If you told us what places you flew over or plotted the course, that would help.

Quote from: Thork on September 29, 2012, 10:58:27 AM

Voliva deduced as much.

"60,000 feet over 300 miles."  wow....how would somebody not notice that.



 

Quote from: hoppy on September 29, 2012, 01:48:49 PM

In my mind the is a smoking gun. FE victory. How could flight manuals not mention to pilots to not to fly level, as the ground would be moving away from you if you did fly level. Markjo, I think you need to re-evaluate your position.

Not really.

If one remained level as they flew, they'd be following the curvature, thus maintaining a constant altitude.

If one started flying "straight" regarding elevation, then one would start gaining altitude, and no longer be flying level.

They're following the Earth's curvature simply by following the altimeter.

What are pilots supposed to do, ignore the instruments and say, "Gosh, my altimeter says I'm remaining at XXXX feet, but the earth curves, so I better descend even more"?

I think straight and level speaks for it self. The manuals make no mention whatsoever of the earth's surface rounding down as you fly. If a student pilot took these manuals at their word"straight and level", they would fly away from the earth. I think these manuals would remind the students that the arc of the earth must be accounted for, if it was there.

The above example of Voliva at 300MPH the drop is 60,000' which is about 11 miles, not an insignificant distance to account for every hour.

The above example of Voliva at 300MPH the drop is 60,000' which is about 11 miles, not an insignificant distance to account for every hour.

This could be easily compensated for by the trim tabs that pilots use in order to maintain "straight and level" hands free flight.

A pilot judges a straight flight relative to compass North. Minute adjustments are made along the way to maintain their course relative to North to make sure they are on a "straight" path. Note that the results of a "straight" flight per the pilot's compass, relative to the ground geography, will be the same under a FE or RE model.

We're just going round in circles here people.

I think straight and level speaks for it self.

Indeed.  Straight (heading) and level (altitude)

The manuals make no mention whatsoever of the earth's surface rounding down as you fly.

It really shouldn't have to.  The altimeter, along with visual clues such as keeping aligned with the horizon(as mentioned in at least one of the links) will keep a pilot following the curve (which is gradual enough that it's barely noticeable)

If a student pilot took these manuals at their word"straight and level", they would fly away from the earth.

Sure, if their reading comprehension is non-existent, and they're an idiot that can't tell by the altimeter and visual clues that they're gaining altitude.

I think these manuals would remind the students that the arc of the earth must be accounted for, if it was there.

It is accounted for, by maintaining altitude and level flight.

The above example of Voliva at 300MPH the drop is 60,000' which is about 11 miles, not an insignificant distance to account for every hour.

It's easy to account for it every hour as one's altitude remains the same the whole time.

Perhaps you should contact the publishers with your concerns.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 30, 2012, 01:30:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 29, 2012, 07:08:35 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 29, 2012, 06:44:53 PM

I am really glad a mod has partaken in derailing this thread. Can we get back to the OP instead of discussing lines, now?

The OP is about flying in a straight line so it's not off topic to discuss what flying straight and level really means.

How would flying level be relevant when it comes to the Earth being round or flat in the scenario? It isn't.

That's my point.

Excellent. Now can we get back to this post I made on the first page?

LA is ~34N, Egypt is ~30N, and Guam is ~13.5N

Do tell me how you managed to fly in a straight line between these place while also making a round trip. Even if the Earth was round, you'd end up in South America, not LA

Not only is it not possible to make a round trip going in a straight line on either RE or FE, but it isn't possible to make even a one way trip.

So I decided to use Google Earth to determine if such a heading from LA to Egypt to Guam was possible. So I plotted it out and made a startling discovery!



Such a path WAS possible! They all line up perfectly! This means that if he conitnued in the same arc, he would end up back in LA! Then I zoomed in on the area in Egypt and noticed something else...



Mother of god. His path goes nearby an abandoned landing strip. The OP is a drug smuggler.

Then I zoomed out and saw something even more devastating.



I had accidentally started in French Polynesia, and Guam was not even close.

To do this in even a relatively straight line is not possible, and the OP is not a criminal.

If lift and weight are balanced, then the aircraft is maintaining altitude through neutral buoyancy.  No correction for the shape of the earth would be required, much like a ball floating in a jet of air.

This is precisely correct.  Though I'm not sure how many people here study basic physics so I'm not sure how far you'll get.

Regardless, it's the same principal that satelite orbits operate on.  Balace the centripetal accelleration with the planets gravity well and viola!  The saterlite orbits the earth, it doesn't drop, it doesn't float away (generally speaking...eventually it slows down and it's orbit decays as the regions of space close to the earth have a touch of atmosphere tainting them thus there is a slight bit of drag on the satelite).

Without the principal of orbit and centipetal accelleration, it would take far too much energy to keep satelites suspended in position near the earth.

Rather than me use my aerospace engineering degree

I'm having a hard time with that.  Basic aerospace engineering requires understanding of orbits, gravity, etc.  In fact these things are taught in basic physics courses which are a prerequisite for most engineering degrees in general.  Even Civil engineers need to account of the curvature of the earth's surface when taking significant measurements. 

The simple truth of the matter is if you have an object moving fast enough in a strait line it will in fact leave earth because it will trivialize gravity.

But going back to look at things from even a civil engineer's perspective.  You can measure how high up you are in a building based on how far you can see before the horizon cuts off your view...because the surface of the planet curves away.  Being higher up lets you see further (assuming a clear day with insufficient fog etc. to obscure view).  This is only a possible phenominon with a curved surface model (aka round planet). 

To word it another way, if you built a rocket that was to hit a target sufficiently away from the launch position and didn't account for a round planet (ICBMs etc.) you would never hit your intended target.

Once again...I'm having a hard time with your degree claim...to me, you'd know and understand too much about physics alone to be likely to buy into a flat planet model.

But going back to look at things from even a civil engineer's perspective.  You can measure how high up you are in a building based on how far you can see before the horizon cuts off your view...because the surface of the planet curves away. 

You can use the horizon in this way even though it isn't the planet which curves away at the horizon. The higher up you are the greater the extent of the ground's light which reaches you.

Certainly,

But then how would it explain that it is only curving light w/r to the horizon and not everything else?

Additionally, it would have to curve soundwaves, radiowaves, physical projectiles, etc. etc. in a uniform manner for this feat to be possible...which is improbable in the extreme.

This leaves you with two options...either the light bending theory of FE'rs is amazingly diverse and fuctions differently depending on what you are looking at...and also influences all forms of measurement methods including physical movement in an amazingly uniform manner...

Or the earth is round: which explains all above said behavior concisely and rationally.

This leaves you with two options...either the light bending theory of FE'rs is amazingly diverse and fuctions differently depending on what you are looking at...and also influences all forms of measurement methods including physical movement in an amazingly uniform manner...

The principle of bending light is consistent and elegant.

Sure,

Let's pretend that it just simply always works for light period.

Explain how do you compensate for physical trajectory, sonic, radio/micro wave trajectory?