Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.

Yendor, an insect riding on a bullet wouldn't be able to see the rotation if the Earth.  If you were in a car going 50 miles per hour and you shoot a gun facing backwards then the bullet will be traveling 50 miles per hour slower then normal relative to the ground, and if you shoot it forwards then it will be going 50 miles per hour faster then normal relative to the ground.  Relative to the car though the bullet's speed is normal in both instances  Simelarly, shooting a gun east and west are the same as far as the bullet's speed goes.  It will hit a target to the east with the same speed as a target to the west.

You clearly don't understand the Coriolis effect, the effect is caused because the bullet travels on (more or less) a strait line, while you and the Earth are rotating slowly.  This causes the bullet to spear to curve up or down a tiny bit.  It isn't really curving, it just appears to be because you and the Earth are rotating.  If you want I could give you some videos that explain this concept really well.  I know that bullets don't really travel in a strait line, they drop due to gravity and are effected by the air.  The Coriolis effect does still noticeably effect the bullet so it needs to be accounted for even though it's not the only factor to account for.

Bullets and airplanes differ in two key ways in this case.

Firstly, airplanes don't generally account for the Coriolis effect because they do not need their trajectory to be precise as that of a bullet, planes have a large margin of error in their flight path while bullets need to be within an inch or so if their intended path.

Secondly, airplanes are controlled by a pilot, while a bullet cannot control it's self in flight.  When shooting a bullet you have to come up with it's trajectory and account for all forces acting on it before you fire because after you fire there is nothing you can do to change the bullet's trajectory.  Airplanes on the other hand can correct for whatever causes them to deviate from their flight path.  If an airplane starts slowly pitching down then the pilot simply pulls up and sets trim to compensate, it doesn't matter if this pitch is caused by the Coriolis effect, the shifting of weight on the plane, turbulence, or a mythical creature messing with the aerodynamics.  The plane can adapt to it's situation while a bullet can not.

Mikey, I try and not judge people, but in your case you are either a shrill or you don't have a lick of common sense. It appears your mind got up and left your body. All you posted is utter nonsense. You can't create a little window and say Coriolis effect fits inside of it, however, it don't fit outside this little window. It is simply one way or the other. If you say Coriolis effect is real and firing a bullet demonstrates it, you can't then come along and say an airplane doesn't. Do you think anyone in their right mind would believe the BS you spew out? Get real and find your brain along with common sense and make sure what you post makes sense before you post to me again.

Tell me funny guy, what is it about substituting a plane for the bullet that confuses you?

It doesn't confuse me.

In this discussion, they both can fly over the Earth at certain altitudes. They both can fly straight north, they both can fly at certain speeds and the both can hit a target straight away. If the fairyfly can see the Earth rotate under him while he rides on the bullet, why can't a pilot see the Earth rotate while he flies the plane? I'll await your answer.

Do you feel that one object that accelerates from 0mph to around 2,045mph within a tiny fraction of a second, doesn't have wings or flaps for lift or steering, and has a flight time of about a second...

to possess the same flight characteristics as an object that accelerates slowly to around 200mph, has wings and flaps for lift and steering, and has a flight time measured in minutes to hours?

I'll await your answer.

Quote from: Yendor on October 08, 2015, 09:36:45 AM

Tell me funny guy, what is it about substituting a plane for the bullet that confuses you?

It doesn't confuse me.

Quote

In this discussion, they both can fly over the Earth at certain altitudes. They both can fly straight north, they both can fly at certain speeds and the both can hit a target straight away. If the fairyfly can see the Earth rotate under him while he rides on the bullet, why can't a pilot see the Earth rotate while he flies the plane? I'll await your answer.

Do you feel that one object that accelerates from 0mph to around 2,045mph within a tiny fraction of a second, doesn't have wings or flaps for lift or steering, and has a flight time of about a second...

to possess the same flight characteristics as an object that accelerates slowly to around 200mph, has wings and flaps for lift and steering, and has a flight time measured in minutes to hours?

I'll await your answer.

If you think the flight characteristic between a bullet and an airplane has anything to do with the Earth rotating under them in flight, then you need to put out the, OUT TO LUNCH, sign
because your brain done left your body.

If you are of the belief that the Coriolis effect causes bullets to miss targets because the Earth rotates under the bullet in flight, then why can't you see the same thing happening when an airplane is in flight? If you can't picture this in your mind, then your only purpose here is to derail this thread.

Mikey, I try and not judge people, but in your case you are either a shrill or you don't have a lick of common sense. It appears your mind got up and left your body. All you posted is utter nonsense. You can't create a little window and say Coriolis effect fits inside of it, however, it don't fit outside this little window. It is simply one way or the other. If you say Coriolis effect is real and firing a bullet demonstrates it, you can't then come along and say an airplane doesn't. Do you think anyone in their right mind would believe the BS you spew out? Get real and find your brain along with common sense and make sure what you post makes sense before you post to me again.

I never said that the Coriolis effect doesn't apply to airplanes, it's just that airplane pilots don't have to account for it because they can make corrections in flight and they don't have to have millimeter accuracy.  It's effects are negligible in most circumstances and sniping is one of those few circumstances where a projectile needs to be so precise that you must account for the Coriolis effect to hit your target.  There are actually cases where airplane pilots do have to account for the Coriolis effect, and what we observe is entirely consistent with a round Earth. 

If you are of the belief that the Coriolis effect causes bullets to miss targets because the Earth rotates under the bullet in flight, then why can't you see the same thing happening when an airplane is in flight?

You are absolutely correct and incorrect...

Since the Coriolis Effect is physics, you are absolutely correct that it effects ALL objects (i.e. bullets, planes, ocean currents, hurricanes, etc.) to a lesser or greater degree on Earth. It either is or is not. EVERYWHERE, where there is a sideways component to movement, you have to LEAD the target to hit it. So you are absolutely correct.

But...

mikeman7918's quote:

Secondly, airplanes are controlled by a pilot,

IF the object is being controlled (not free flying like an uncontrolled bullet) by a pilot or computer to correct for flight path anomalies (e.g. Coriolis Effect, wind, etc.), then the plane's motion will not demonstrate the Coriolis Effect. A pilot flying circles around an airport, going up and down, does not demonstrate a Coriolis Effect. So you are absolutely incorrect.

To demonstrate a plane and the Coriolis Effect, the plane, unmanned with no computer control, would have to take off and land with nothing but its initial "push" - like a bullet. Of course, flying for minutes or hours - unlike seconds for a bullet, other factors like wind would override the Coriolis Effect observed.

Quote from: Yendor on October 08, 2015, 01:29:37 PM

Mikey, I try and not judge people, but in your case you are either a shrill or you don't have a lick of common sense. It appears your mind got up and left your body. All you posted is utter nonsense. You can't create a little window and say Coriolis effect fits inside of it, however, it don't fit outside this little window. It is simply one way or the other. If you say Coriolis effect is real and firing a bullet demonstrates it, you can't then come along and say an airplane doesn't. Do you think anyone in their right mind would believe the BS you spew out? Get real and find your brain along with common sense and make sure what you post makes sense before you post to me again.

I never said that the Coriolis effect doesn't apply to airplanes, it's just that airplane pilots don't have to account for it because they can make corrections in flight and they don't have to have millimeter accuracy.  It's effects are negligible in most circumstances and sniping is one of those few circumstances where a projectile needs to be so precise that you must account for the Coriolis effect to hit your target.  There are actually cases where airplane pilots do have to account for the Coriolis effect, and what we observe is entirely consistent with a round Earth.

Mikey, you are absolutely correct. Ignore Jadyyn's explanation. He is trying to have it both ways. That is what I thought you were trying to do earlier. Now I understand you know if it affects bullets it will certainly affect planes as well. Good for you.

Here is the bottom line. If the Coriolis effect is real then a plane can simply hover above the Earth and wait for the Earth to rotate to where we want to be and simply land. If you don't believe that can happen, then you have no other choice then to believe the Earth simply does not rotate and the Coriolis effect is just the wind blowing things around.

Mikey, you are absolutely correct. Ignore Jadyyn's explanation. He is trying to have it both ways. That is what I thought you were trying to do earlier. Now I understand you know if it affects bullets it will certainly affect planes as well. Good for you.

Here is the bottom line. If the Coriolis effect is real then a plane can simply hover above the Earth and wait for the Earth to rotate to where we want to be and simply land. If you don't believe that can happen, then you have no other choice then to believe the Earth simply does not rotate and the Coriolis effect is just the wind blowing things around.

You clearly don't understand what the Coriolis effect is.  It is all about relative motion on a rotating reference frame, it in no way suggests that a west bound plane should go faster then an east bound plane.

Imagine you are on a moving airplane and you need to use the bathroom.  The bathrooms are in the back of the plane and you want to get there in a hurry.  According to your logic you can just jump strait up and you will quickly fly backwards and land near the bathroom, but if you try this then that doesn't happen.  In reality what you have to do is start walking towards the back of the plane, which takes just as much energy as walking toward the front of the plane even though you are moving slower relative to the ground.

Same goes for the Earth, it's motion doesn't really change anything and the Coriolis effect has nothing to do with that.  When I get home I will post some videos which explain what the Coriolis effect actually is, but until then just know that you have it completely wrong.

Here is the bottom line. If the Coriolis effect is real then a plane can simply hover above the Earth and wait for the Earth to rotate to where we want to be and simply land. If you don't believe that can happen, then you have no other choice then to believe the Earth simply does not rotate and the Coriolis effect is just the wind blowing things around.

Simple.

If you are standing in a room and throw your "plane" straight up, it will come straight down right?

This is true WHATEVER speed the room is moving as long as it is constant - no acceleration (i.e. inside a room without windows, you can't tell whether you are standing still or moving at 100 mph). That is why throwing the "plane" in a car or plane moving at a constant speed, the "plane" comes right down where it started.

That is why you can't just hover a "plane" and expect the Earth to move under it.

This has nothing to do with the Coriolis Effect (i.e. LEADING)

I would appreciate it if both Mikey and Jdyyn would go to this website and read it especially the part that talks about a hypothetical airplane. After you read it, I would like someone explain why i'm wrong as to what i've bee saying. Guys, I understand how Coriolis is said to work, if it did work the way they tell us then what I'm telling you is correct. It is just that you don't want to believe it. This is just one of many sites that explains it correctly. Please take the time and read it. This doesn't come from me, it comes from a former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and is a Professor Emeritus of Geography at Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.)

http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect

This is the crux of the matter:
As a simple example, a hypothetical airplane leaves the North Pole on a 12-hour trip flying directly south toward Quito, Equador, located on the equator (80 degrees west longitude). During this 12-hour trip, the earth would rotate half way around and the plane would arrive in Sumartra, Indonesia (100 degrees east longitude). Clearly, from the ground, the plane's direction was due south, but the earth's rotation beneath the plane's flight path created the illusion of the plane flying southwestward—a deflection to the right (from the plane's origin at the Pole). No matter which direction air moves in the Northern Hemisphere, the earth's rotation causes it also to be deflected to the right for the same reason.

What you are describing is EXACTLY what I wrote here:

Coriolis Effect - easy to explain:

A) Stationary:

• If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
• If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
• If you or that target is not moving sideways
• Result - you hit the target exactly in 10 sec

B) Sideways motion

• If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
• If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
• If you or that target is moving sideways (there is an E-W velocity component to the bullet)
• Result - you miss the target
• You must LEAD the target to hit it - i.e. you must shoot where it WILL BE in 10 sec, not where it is now

On a sphere or disk, all the above are still true - the physics is the same.

The E-W velocity component is due to the spin.

On a stationary sphere or disk, you will hit the target. On a spinning sphere or disk, you will miss unless you lead.

On a STATIONARY Earth - he will hit the target. (A4) above.

• The plane will go south straight down 80 deg west longitude straight to Quito, Ecuador and "hit it" directly.
• NO sideways (E-W) velocity component.

On a SPINNING Earth - he will miss the target. (B4) above.

• He will end up in Sumatra, Indonesia (100 deg east longitude).
• Because there IS a sideways (E-W) velocity component.
  
  
• To end up in Quito, he would need to calculate the flight time (12 hours) then calculate where Quito WILL BE in 12 hours, then head there (LEAD the target) to land in Quito perfectly. The plane would head south ALL the time, while the sideways movement of the Earth would bring Quito under it at landing.
  

PLEASE look at my explanation above in the quote. It should make sense. This is the Coriolis Effect.

I explain Coriolis Effect as "target LEAD" because people naturally understand this in every day experiences (if you have a friend across the street jogging along the sidewalk and you want to meet them, do you run to where they are now or where they will be in say 20 sec? - i.e. LEAD them) The opposite, as described in your example, is counter-intuitive to most people, therefore hard to explain - hence the confusion.

If I jump in the air for 1s how much will the ground have moved under me if I am on the equator?

What you are describing is EXACTLY what I wrote here:

Quote

Coriolis Effect - easy to explain:

A) Stationary:

• If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
• If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
• If you or that target is not moving sideways
• Result - you hit the target exactly in 10 sec

B) Sideways motion

• If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
• If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
• If you or that target is moving sideways (there is an E-W velocity component to the bullet)
• Result - you miss the target
• You must LEAD the target to hit it - i.e. you must shoot where it WILL BE in 10 sec, not where it is now

On a sphere or disk, all the above are still true - the physics is the same.

The E-W velocity component is due to the spin.

On a stationary sphere or disk, you will hit the target. On a spinning sphere or disk, you will miss unless you lead.

On a STATIONARY Earth - he will hit the target. (A4) above.

• The plane will go south straight down 80 deg west longitude straight to Quito, Ecuador and "hit it" directly.
• NO sideways (E-W) velocity component.

On a SPINNING Earth - he will miss the target. (B4) above.

• He will end up in Sumatra, Indonesia (100 deg east longitude).
• Because there IS a sideways (E-W) velocity component.
  
  
• To end up in Quito, he would need to calculate the flight time (12 hours) then calculate where Quito WILL BE in 12 hours, then head there (LEAD the target) to land in Quito perfectly. The plane would head south ALL the time, while the sideways movement of the Earth would bring Quito under it at landing.
  

PLEASE look at my explanation above in the quote. It should make sense. This is the Coriolis Effect.

I explain Coriolis Effect as "target LEAD" because people naturally understand this in every day experiences (if you have a friend across the street jogging along the sidewalk and you want to meet them, do you run to where they are now or where they will be in say 20 sec? - i.e. LEAD them) The opposite, as described in your example, is counter-intuitive to most people, therefore hard to explain - hence the confusion.

From what you wrote you seem to understand this, then this means an airplane can leave the north pole with the intentions  of traveling to Sumatra, Indonesia, fly very slow heading straight towards Quito, Ecuador for twelve hours and land in Sumatra, Indonesia. Is that correct?

Not enough too be measured the human eye.The earth is far to large for that.However if you where to be shot out of a cannon(or jump out of a space ship thing Felix)then you would most likely end up  a bit or a lot more west of your original position.
( BTW Felix Baumgartner is awesome.)

Yes fly toward where Quito was 12 hours age(aka Sumatra)

Yes fly toward where Quito was 12 hours age(aka Sumatra)

Yea sorry my last response was kinda rushed. I meant to say that if you fly to where Quito was 12 hours ago,( which would be Sumatra by the time you reach it)then yes you would reach Sumatra.

From what you wrote you seem to understand this, then this means an airplane can leave the north pole with the intentions  of traveling to Sumatra, Indonesia, fly very slow heading straight towards Quito, Ecuador for twelve hours and land in Sumatra, Indonesia. Is that correct?

I would correct your statement slightly - "then this means an airplane can leave the north pole with the intentions of traveling to Sumatra, Indonesia, fly very slow initially heading straight towards Quito, Ecuador, travel due south for twelve hours and land in Sumatra, Indonesia."

Simply put, the plane would have to fly to where Sumatra WILL BE in 12 hrs and meet it there.

Initially, it should aim at Quito and keep flying due south. Quito will move "out of the way" due to the E-W spin (velocity component). Sumatra will move "into the way" due to the E-W spin (velocity component).

It should not be flying toward Quito throughout the whole trip.

If I jump in the air for 1s how much will the ground have moved under me if I am on the equator?

It wouldn't. No Coriolis Effect.

If you are standing in a room and jump up, you will come straight down right?

This is true WHATEVER speed the room is moving as long as it is constant - no acceleration (i.e. inside a room without windows, you can't tell whether you are standing still or moving at 100 mph). If you jump in a car or plane moving at a constant speed, you come right down where you started.

That is why you can't jump and expect the Earth to move under you.

This has nothing to do with the Coriolis Effect (i.e. LEADING)

If you think the flight characteristic between a bullet and an airplane has anything to do with the Earth rotating under them in flight, then you need to put out the, OUT TO LUNCH, sign
because your brain done left your body.

If you are of the belief that the Coriolis effect causes bullets to miss targets because the Earth rotates under the bullet in flight, then why can't you see the same thing happening when an airplane is in flight? If you can't picture this in your mind, then your only purpose here is to derail this thread.

How about you tell us which coriolis effect you are talking about.  The first video of the 1000 meter shots show how the surface either falls away or rises up to meet the bullet.  A different type of effect is firing a bullet from one of the poles and watching as it hits slightly left or right of the target.  Firing east or west along a latitude midway between the equator and pole would also see the bullet drift left or right, along with an elevation difference with the impact. 

If an airplane took off from a pole and headed directly toward the other pole, (and was not affected by air currents), then yes, it would end up east or west of whatever spot along the equator it was originally aimed at.  Taking off from the equator east or west, it would not experience the same effect as the bullet because the plane controls it's elevation and direction.  Trying to keep an exact straight-line trajectory to see if the surface drops away such as with the bullet, would itself require precise control over the airplane's flight. 

If a helicopter lifted off from a point along the arctic circle and simply hovered, (again impervious to wind current) then it will still keep moving along with it's take-off spot on the ground for a bit, after all it was moving the same speed as the ground when it lifted off, but then it should eventually start drifting south as it's launch site follows the surface rotation out from beneath it.

So depending on whether or not, or how much, an airplane is affected versus a bullet, depends on where and what direction it is fired or takes off.

Quote from: Yendor on October 09, 2015, 08:09:03 AM

If you think the flight characteristic between a bullet and an airplane has anything to do with the Earth rotating under them in flight, then you need to put out the, OUT TO LUNCH, sign
because your brain done left your body.

If you are of the belief that the Coriolis effect causes bullets to miss targets because the Earth rotates under the bullet in flight, then why can't you see the same thing happening when an airplane is in flight? If you can't picture this in your mind, then your only purpose here is to derail this thread.

How about you tell us which coriolis effect you are talking about.  The first video of the 1000 meter shots show how the surface either falls away or rises up to meet the bullet.  A different type of effect is firing a bullet from one of the poles and watching as it hits slightly left or right of the target.  Firing east or west along a latitude midway between the equator and pole would also see the bullet drift left or right, along with an elevation difference with the impact. 

If an airplane took off from a pole and headed directly toward the other pole, (and was not affected by air currents), then yes, it would end up east or west of whatever spot along the equator it was originally aimed at.  Taking off from the equator east or west, it would not experience the same effect as the bullet because the plane controls it's elevation and direction.  Trying to keep an exact straight-line trajectory to see if the surface drops away such as with the bullet, would itself require precise control over the airplane's flight. 

If a helicopter lifted off from a point along the arctic circle and simply hovered, (again impervious to wind current) then it will still keep moving along with it's take-off spot on the ground for a bit, after all it was moving the same speed as the ground when it lifted off, but then it should eventually start drifting south as it's launch site follows the surface rotation out from beneath it.

So depending on whether or not, or how much, an airplane is affected versus a bullet, depends on where and what direction it is fired or takes off.

'for a bit'. How long for and what would make it move south, how is the pilot controlling this?  The atmosphere is moving with the ground.  Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.

Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.

I did above. The Coriolis Effect does not apply to this.

inquisitive, for the Coriolis Effect to apply you need 4 components:

• A rotating object (e.g. spinning Earth, spinning merry-go-round, etc.)
• A point of origin - latitude matters (e.g. You)
• A target - direction and relative E/W or CW/CCW motion matters. (e.g. facing N and the Earth spinning W)
• A projectile (e.g. bullet, plane)

The easiest way to describe the Coriolis Effect then is ... where do you shoot (bullet) / fly (plane) to get to the target (i.e. how much LEAD do you need to "hit" it)? - no lead, no Coriolis Effects.

In your example, you only have 2 components (i.e. Earth and You) so the Coriolis Effect does not apply.

Thinking about it some more, if you are the point of origin, the projectile and the target, the Coriolis Effect can apply.

• You would have your initial E/W/CW/CCW velocity
• You would have to jump pretty high
• You would have to "float" there for a long time
• Then you would land somewhere noticeably different

If:

• The diameter of the Earth is 7918 mi (24,875 mi circumference)
• You are jumping from the equator (i.e. moving 1000 mph)
• You jump say 50 mi up instantly
• You are now in "orbit" (8018 mi dia, 25,189 mi circ)
• You need to "float" exactly 50 mi up for an 1 hr
• You don't slow down due to wind, friction, etc. (i.e. go 1000 mph all the time).
• Fall back to Earth instantly
• Result - you would land 13 mi away.

As you move toward the poles, or your height is lower, or your "float" time is less, the distance gets shorter. So jumping for 1 sec to a very small height (1 ft?) on the equator would move you approx 0.00087 inches - hard to measure. Your jump to 1 ft would not be instantaneous, so that measurement would even be smaller. Away from the equator, that distance gets even smaller. That 1 sec and 1 ft would have to be measured accurately and no other factors could influence it (e.g. wind).

'for a bit'. How long for and what would make it move south, how is the pilot controlling this?

Technically it would start moving south as soon as it lifted off, but it will be very slow at first before it becomes noticeable.  An object on the arctic circle would be following a left turn (facing east) as Earth rotated.  With nothing to make the helicopter follow this turn, it would continue straight (drifting south).  The pilot would have to maintain a hovering position and let it drift where it may.  Again this is assuming wind isn't affecting it.

 

The atmosphere is moving with the ground.  Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.

Simple, you're moving the same speed as the ground.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 10, 2015, 06:59:07 AM

'for a bit'. How long for and what would make it move south, how is the pilot controlling this?

Technically it would start moving south as soon as it lifted off, but it will be very slow at first before it becomes noticeable.  An object on the arctic circle would be following a left turn (facing east) as Earth rotated.  With nothing to make the helicopter follow this turn, it would continue straight (drifting south).  The pilot would have to maintain a hovering position and let it drift where it may.  Again this is assuming wind isn't affecting it.

 

Quote

The atmosphere is moving with the ground.  Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.

Simple, you're moving the same speed as the ground.

How does the pilot do this without maintaining the same position above the earth?

Only maintain elevation.  Does that make sense yet?

There has been a lot of discussion on this subject while I've been gone, That is good. It seems you all get the picture. Now I want to play another scenario for everyone to think about.

If an airplane takes off from Chicago, Illinois and it's destination is Albuquerque, New Mexico. Instead of heading directly towards Albuquerque, which is 1,126 miles away, the plane flies directly south towards Cherokee, Alabama for one hour at a speed of 500mph. After one hour of flight time, where Cherokee used to be would now be Albuquerque. Because the lateral distance between the two cities is 1000 miles and the Earth rotates W-E around 1000 mph the plane saved one hour of flight time. That is a big savings.

There has been a lot of discussion on this subject while I've been gone, That is good. It seems you all get the picture. Now I want to play another scenario for everyone to think about.

If an airplane takes off from Chicago, Illinois and it's destination is Albuquerque, New Mexico. Instead of heading directly towards Albuquerque, which is 1,126 miles away, the plane flies directly south towards Cherokee, Alabama for one hour at a speed of 500mph. After one hour of flight time, where Cherokee used to be would now be Albuquerque. Because the lateral distance between the two cities is 1000 miles and the Earth rotates W-E around 1000 mph the plane saved one hour of flight time. That is a big savings.

Your principle is good but the velocities are not - they change by latitude. (1000 mph is the approximate speed at the equator)

(Latitudes & Longitudes)(approx. velocity at that latitude)
(41.8369 N,   87.6847 W) (772 mph) Chicago
(34.7583 N,   87.9685 W) (852 mph) Cherokee
(35.1107 N, 106.6100 W) (848 mph) Albuquerque

It is complicated since Cherokee and Albuquerque are both moving...

So, if the plane flew from Chicago to Cherokee, AL approx 500 mi at 500 mph, Cherokee would have moved 80 mi (852-772) east by the time it got there. So flying to Albuquerque would still require the whole 1086 mi or so - from Cherokee.

I think you mean:
Flying from Chicago due south, initially aiming at Cherokee, AL but not flying toward it throughout the trip. In 1 hour, Cherokee would be 80 mi east.  The E-W velocity difference between Chicago and Albuquerque is only 76 mph (848-772). So unfortunately, Albuquerque would only be about 76 miles closer...

What might also be confusing is people using the N. Pole and equator in examples to simplify things.  N. Pole (90.0000 N)(0 mph) and equator (0.0000 N/S, 1000 mph). The velocity difference is 1000 mph (1000-0).

Only maintain elevation.  Does that make sense yet?

How when the navigation system and visual will keep tthe helicopter above the same place.  Please provide proof from results of a test.

Quote from: Yendor on October 10, 2015, 11:38:20 AM

There has been a lot of discussion on this subject while I've been gone, That is good. It seems you all get the picture. Now I want to play another scenario for everyone to think about.

If an airplane takes off from Chicago, Illinois and it's destination is Albuquerque, New Mexico. Instead of heading directly towards Albuquerque, which is 1,126 miles away, the plane flies directly south towards Cherokee, Alabama for one hour at a speed of 500mph. After one hour of flight time, where Cherokee used to be would now be Albuquerque. Because the lateral distance between the two cities is 1000 miles and the Earth rotates W-E around 1000 mph the plane saved one hour of flight time. That is a big savings.

Your principle is good but the velocities are not - they change by latitude. (1000 mph is the approximate speed at the equator)

(Latitudes & Longitudes)(approx. velocity at that latitude)
(41.8369 N,   87.6847 W) (772 mph) Chicago
(34.7583 N,   87.9685 W) (852 mph) Cherokee
(35.1107 N, 106.6100 W) (848 mph) Albuquerque

It is complicated since Cherokee and Albuquerque are both moving...

So, if the plane flew from Chicago to Cherokee, AL approx 500 mi at 500 mph, Cherokee would have moved 80 mi (852-772) east by the time it got there. So flying to Albuquerque would still require the whole 1086 mi or so - from Cherokee.

I think you mean:
Flying from Chicago due south, initially aiming at Cherokee, AL but not flying toward it throughout the trip. In 1 hour, Cherokee would be 80 mi east.  The E-W velocity difference between Chicago and Albuquerque is only 76 mph (848-772). So unfortunately, Albuquerque would only be about 76 miles closer...

What might also be confusing is people using the N. Pole and equator in examples to simplify things.  N. Pole (90.0000 N)(0 mph) and equator (0.0000 N/S, 1000 mph). The velocity difference is 1000 mph (1000-0).

What you think I meant to say is correct. I messed up. I wasn't thinking about the speed changes at different latitudes and I forgot about flying to  Albuquerque would be flying west towards the earth rotating east.

So, all of this we have been discussing you are convinced is real. That is, if a plane leaves Chicago and has a destination of Cherokee, the pilot would be fling south east instead of south in order to eventually arrive at Cherokee. What if you simply fly east or west. Wouldn't you have to allow for the <=1000 mph rotation and wouldn't that be hard to do if you were flying west in a plane that only went 500 mph?

I believe the Coriolis Effect is real - it is just leading targets that we observe and do all the time, just on a spinning object.

if a plane leaves Chicago and has a destination of Cherokee, the pilot would be fling south east instead of south in order to eventually arrive at Cherokee.

Yes... heading due south you would not hit Cherokee. You have to aim where Cherokee will be in 1 hr. It is along the exact same lines as:

I would appreciate it if both Mikey and Jdyyn would go to this website and read it especially the part that talks about a hypothetical airplane. After you read it, I would like someone explain why i'm wrong as to what i've bee saying. Guys, I understand how Coriolis is said to work, if it did work the way they tell us then what I'm telling you is correct. It is just that you don't want to believe it. This is just one of many sites that explains it correctly. Please take the time and read it. This doesn't come from me, it comes from a former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and is a Professor Emeritus of Geography at Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.)

http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect

This is the crux of the matter:
As a simple example, a hypothetical airplane leaves the North Pole on a 12-hour trip flying directly south toward Quito, Equador, located on the equator (80 degrees west longitude). During this 12-hour trip, the earth would rotate half way around and the plane would arrive in Sumartra, Indonesia (100 degrees east longitude). Clearly, from the ground, the plane's direction was due south, but the earth's rotation beneath the plane's flight path created the illusion of the plane flying southwestward—a deflection to the right (from the plane's origin at the Pole). No matter which direction air moves in the Northern Hemisphere, the earth's rotation causes it also to be deflected to the right for the same reason.

What if you simply fly east or west. Wouldn't you have to allow for the <=1000 mph rotation and wouldn't that be hard to do if you were flying west in a plane that only went 500 mph?

• The Earth rotating at 1000 mph at the equator and 772 mph at Chicago's latitude are relative to the N. Pole (0 mph). These are E-W velocity components.
• The 500 mph E-W velocity component of the plane is relative to the ground at that latitude.

(Latitude) Circumference @ Earth rotation speed - City - Plane at 500 mph (relative to the ground) going EAST or WEST

• (  0.0000 N) 24,875 mi @ 1000 mph = 24 hrs - Equator            - Plane 48 hrs.
  
• (41.8369 N) 18,528 mi @   772 mph = 24 hrs - Chicago, IL       - Plane 37 hrs.
  
• (61.2167 N) 11,977 mi @   499 mph = 24 hrs - Anchorage, AK  - Plane 24 hrs.