The world's most accurate map

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 11:39:47 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 08:01:35 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 24, 2017, 11:42:36 PM

They are talking about speed of 0,7 mach to 0,9 mach.

0,7mach= 858 kmh.
0,9mach= 1102 kmh.

Do you see the lie?

Speeds should be 858 kmh to 1102 kmh but until this time, there is no any type of aircraft running over 0,68 mach. So the earth is...?

"smaller than their showed"

Or you're taking averages of the entire trip and forgetting that they travel much slower during takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing as has been mentioned multiple times before but you don't like to take criticism.

If you are a sprinter, you can tell me your speed is 36 kilometers per hour when you race, which is meaningful. but if you are running 10 kilometers and you tell me that your speed is 36 kilometers, you are a liar. I also put this out. I do not mean you, I speak in general.

I am writing the facts, not the dreams. your dreams are Paris but your facts are Addis Ababa.

You misunderstand.  YOU claimed the speeds of 0.7 to 0.9 mach are a lie.  But that represent their cruising speed.  You don't see that in your work because of the significant amount of time spent at lower speed due to takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing.  It has nothing to do with sprinting.  They CAN maintain those speeds the entire time and the longer flights show the average approaching those speed.

If you must use a running analogy, what you have is not the speed of the run but the average speed of the walking warmup before the run, the run, and the walking cooldown after the run.

I don't care what the claiming of cruise speeds are. I'm considering the reality. Thanks for your comment but I don't want to listen anymore lies.

I've said no lies.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 09:49:37 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 11:39:47 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 08:01:35 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 24, 2017, 11:42:36 PM

They are talking about speed of 0,7 mach to 0,9 mach.

0,7mach= 858 kmh.
0,9mach= 1102 kmh.

Do you see the lie?

Speeds should be 858 kmh to 1102 kmh but until this time, there is no any type of aircraft running over 0,68 mach. So the earth is...?

"smaller than their showed"

Or you're taking averages of the entire trip and forgetting that they travel much slower during takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing as has been mentioned multiple times before but you don't like to take criticism.

If you are a sprinter, you can tell me your speed is 36 kilometers per hour when you race, which is meaningful. but if you are running 10 kilometers and you tell me that your speed is 36 kilometers, you are a liar. I also put this out. I do not mean you, I speak in general.

I am writing the facts, not the dreams. your dreams are Paris but your facts are Addis Ababa.

You misunderstand.  YOU claimed the speeds of 0.7 to 0.9 mach are a lie.  But that represent their cruising speed.  You don't see that in your work because of the significant amount of time spent at lower speed due to takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing.  It has nothing to do with sprinting.  They CAN maintain those speeds the entire time and the longer flights show the average approaching those speed.

If you must use a running analogy, what you have is not the speed of the run but the average speed of the walking warmup before the run, the run, and the walking cooldown after the run.

I don't care what the claiming of cruise speeds are. I'm considering the reality. Thanks for your comment but I don't want to listen anymore lies.

I've said no lies.

I did not called you as a liar but you are repeating the  lies of aircraft companies.

Quote from: frenat on December 26, 2017, 07:05:44 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 09:49:37 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 11:39:47 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 08:01:35 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 24, 2017, 11:42:36 PM

They are talking about speed of 0,7 mach to 0,9 mach.

0,7mach= 858 kmh.
0,9mach= 1102 kmh.

Do you see the lie?

Speeds should be 858 kmh to 1102 kmh but until this time, there is no any type of aircraft running over 0,68 mach. So the earth is...?

"smaller than their showed"

Or you're taking averages of the entire trip and forgetting that they travel much slower during takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing as has been mentioned multiple times before but you don't like to take criticism.

If you are a sprinter, you can tell me your speed is 36 kilometers per hour when you race, which is meaningful. but if you are running 10 kilometers and you tell me that your speed is 36 kilometers, you are a liar. I also put this out. I do not mean you, I speak in general.

I am writing the facts, not the dreams. your dreams are Paris but your facts are Addis Ababa.

You misunderstand.  YOU claimed the speeds of 0.7 to 0.9 mach are a lie.  But that represent their cruising speed.  You don't see that in your work because of the significant amount of time spent at lower speed due to takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing.  It has nothing to do with sprinting.  They CAN maintain those speeds the entire time and the longer flights show the average approaching those speed.

If you must use a running analogy, what you have is not the speed of the run but the average speed of the walking warmup before the run, the run, and the walking cooldown after the run.

I don't care what the claiming of cruise speeds are. I'm considering the reality. Thanks for your comment but I don't want to listen anymore lies.

I've said no lies.

I did not called you as a liar but you are repeating the  lies of aircraft companies.

which you haven't proven.

I have tracked many of these aircraft on RADAR when I was in the Air Force.  Their cruising speeds are correct.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 26, 2017, 12:48:55 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 26, 2017, 07:05:44 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 09:49:37 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 11:39:47 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 08:01:35 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 24, 2017, 11:42:36 PM

They are talking about speed of 0,7 mach to 0,9 mach.

0,7mach= 858 kmh.
0,9mach= 1102 kmh.

Do you see the lie?

Speeds should be 858 kmh to 1102 kmh but until this time, there is no any type of aircraft running over 0,68 mach. So the earth is...?

"smaller than their showed"

Or you're taking averages of the entire trip and forgetting that they travel much slower during takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing as has been mentioned multiple times before but you don't like to take criticism.

If you are a sprinter, you can tell me your speed is 36 kilometers per hour when you race, which is meaningful. but if you are running 10 kilometers and you tell me that your speed is 36 kilometers, you are a liar. I also put this out. I do not mean you, I speak in general.

I am writing the facts, not the dreams. your dreams are Paris but your facts are Addis Ababa.

You misunderstand.  YOU claimed the speeds of 0.7 to 0.9 mach are a lie.  But that represent their cruising speed.  You don't see that in your work because of the significant amount of time spent at lower speed due to takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing.  It has nothing to do with sprinting.  They CAN maintain those speeds the entire time and the longer flights show the average approaching those speed.

If you must use a running analogy, what you have is not the speed of the run but the average speed of the walking warmup before the run, the run, and the walking cooldown after the run.

I don't care what the claiming of cruise speeds are. I'm considering the reality. Thanks for your comment but I don't want to listen anymore lies.

I've said no lies.

I did not called you as a liar but you are repeating the  lies of aircraft companies.

which you haven't proven.

I have tracked many of these aircraft on RADAR when I was in the Air Force.  Their cruising speeds are correct.

If I momentarily agree the cruise speeds of aircrafts are true, but they mean nothing if they don't act to flight times. waste of times of landing, take off and overcrowding in airports can be considered, but when we consider the distances more than 500 kms, these waste of times  does not affect much the end result and the average time and speed is reliable.

On the other hand, we have not enough time to consider all of these effects. I have not enough time to consider all the effects but if a volunteer make all of these calculations, I'll glad for it. Do you see any volunteer is working on this issue hard? I don't see anyone willing to work hard in this issue, do you see?

I think we are trying to verify whether or not Mussolini made the trains run on time.

talk here if you have any idea about corrections to the speeds which the marked as red and question. Its now or never.

After a few waiting I'll continue with correctances by may way, declare them and start next stages.

I found a source claims aircraft "cruise" speeds as follow:

Cruise speeds by mach:

Boeing 747-400 0.86
Boeing 787 0.85
Boeing 777 0.84
Boeing 767 0.80
Boeing 757 0.80
Boeing 737 -800 0.78
Boeing 737 - 300/400/500 0.74

Airbus 380 0.85
Airbus 340 -300/600 0.82
Airbus 330 0.82
Airbus 320 0.78
Airbus 310 0.78

http://www.askcaptainlim.com/flying-the-plane-flying-90/645-what-are-the-cruising-speeds-of-the-various-airliners.html

We'll use these parameters as a control data and correct the suspicious ones.

Was it hard? No it was not. But there is a lot of worklesses here are talking more than their researches.

Quote from: frenat on December 26, 2017, 12:54:06 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 26, 2017, 12:48:55 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 26, 2017, 07:05:44 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 09:49:37 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 11:39:47 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 08:01:35 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 24, 2017, 11:42:36 PM

They are talking about speed of 0,7 mach to 0,9 mach.

0,7mach= 858 kmh.
0,9mach= 1102 kmh.

Do you see the lie?

Speeds should be 858 kmh to 1102 kmh but until this time, there is no any type of aircraft running over 0,68 mach. So the earth is...?

"smaller than their showed"

Or you're taking averages of the entire trip and forgetting that they travel much slower during takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing as has been mentioned multiple times before but you don't like to take criticism.

If you are a sprinter, you can tell me your speed is 36 kilometers per hour when you race, which is meaningful. but if you are running 10 kilometers and you tell me that your speed is 36 kilometers, you are a liar. I also put this out. I do not mean you, I speak in general.

I am writing the facts, not the dreams. your dreams are Paris but your facts are Addis Ababa.

You misunderstand.  YOU claimed the speeds of 0.7 to 0.9 mach are a lie.  But that represent their cruising speed.  You don't see that in your work because of the significant amount of time spent at lower speed due to takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing.  It has nothing to do with sprinting.  They CAN maintain those speeds the entire time and the longer flights show the average approaching those speed.

If you must use a running analogy, what you have is not the speed of the run but the average speed of the walking warmup before the run, the run, and the walking cooldown after the run.

I don't care what the claiming of cruise speeds are. I'm considering the reality. Thanks for your comment but I don't want to listen anymore lies.

I've said no lies.

I did not called you as a liar but you are repeating the  lies of aircraft companies.

which you haven't proven.

I have tracked many of these aircraft on RADAR when I was in the Air Force.  Their cruising speeds are correct.

If I momentarily agree the cruise speeds of aircrafts are true, but they mean nothing if they don't act to flight times. waste of times of landing, take off and overcrowding in airports can be considered, but when we consider the distances more than 500 kms, these waste of times  does not affect much the end result and the average time and speed is reliable.

They still affect it, but they affect it less.

On the other hand, we have not enough time to consider all of these effects. I have not enough time to consider all the effects but if a volunteer make all of these calculations, I'll glad for it. Do you see any volunteer is working on this issue hard? I don't see anyone willing to work hard in this issue, do you see?

Not necessary.  You're using the reported distance and flight times to get the average speed.  That means you're accepting the distance so why not just use that and avoid the calculations?

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 27, 2017, 02:47:45 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 26, 2017, 12:54:06 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 26, 2017, 12:48:55 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 26, 2017, 07:05:44 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 09:49:37 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 11:39:47 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 08:01:35 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 24, 2017, 11:42:36 PM

They are talking about speed of 0,7 mach to 0,9 mach.

0,7mach= 858 kmh.
0,9mach= 1102 kmh.

Do you see the lie?

Speeds should be 858 kmh to 1102 kmh but until this time, there is no any type of aircraft running over 0,68 mach. So the earth is...?

"smaller than their showed"

Or you're taking averages of the entire trip and forgetting that they travel much slower during takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing as has been mentioned multiple times before but you don't like to take criticism.

If you are a sprinter, you can tell me your speed is 36 kilometers per hour when you race, which is meaningful. but if you are running 10 kilometers and you tell me that your speed is 36 kilometers, you are a liar. I also put this out. I do not mean you, I speak in general.

I am writing the facts, not the dreams. your dreams are Paris but your facts are Addis Ababa.

You misunderstand.  YOU claimed the speeds of 0.7 to 0.9 mach are a lie.  But that represent their cruising speed.  You don't see that in your work because of the significant amount of time spent at lower speed due to takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing.  It has nothing to do with sprinting.  They CAN maintain those speeds the entire time and the longer flights show the average approaching those speed.

If you must use a running analogy, what you have is not the speed of the run but the average speed of the walking warmup before the run, the run, and the walking cooldown after the run.

I don't care what the claiming of cruise speeds are. I'm considering the reality. Thanks for your comment but I don't want to listen anymore lies.

I've said no lies.

I did not called you as a liar but you are repeating the  lies of aircraft companies.

which you haven't proven.

I have tracked many of these aircraft on RADAR when I was in the Air Force.  Their cruising speeds are correct.

If I momentarily agree the cruise speeds of aircrafts are true, but they mean nothing if they don't act to flight times. waste of times of landing, take off and overcrowding in airports can be considered, but when we consider the distances more than 500 kms, these waste of times  does not affect much the end result and the average time and speed is reliable.

They still affect it, but they affect it less.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 27, 2017, 02:47:45 AM

On the other hand, we have not enough time to consider all of these effects. I have not enough time to consider all the effects but if a volunteer make all of these calculations, I'll glad for it. Do you see any volunteer is working on this issue hard? I don't see anyone willing to work hard in this issue, do you see?

Not necessary.  You're using the reported distance and flight times to get the average speed.  That means you're accepting the distance so why not just use that and avoid the calculations?

either you do not understand or you do not want to understand.

declared speeds are invalid. in this we agree. But declared flight times can't be wrong, at least they can't be much wrong. Because passangers generally don't pay attention to their flight speeds but almost all of them know the flight time. The people can be lied about speed. but it can not be lied about time, because everybody has a clock on his sleeve or on his mobile.

I think we all agree the times are correct, because as you say, there are too many passengers traveling with time on their mind for the airlines to fake the times.  If thousands of people were getting to their destination hours early or late, we surely would have heard about it.  The issue is the distances you are using in your speed calculations.  You think some of the distances are wrong, perhaps all the distances; you hope to derive correct distances by using the reported times and your calculated speeds.  The problem we see, and want you to explain, is this: how can you calculate accurate speeds by using inaccurate distances in the numerator of your fraction?

I think we all agree the times are correct, because as you say, there are too many passengers traveling with time on their mind for the airlines to fake the times.  If thousands of people were getting to their destination hours early or late, we surely would have heard about it.  The issue is the distances you are using in your speed calculations.  You think some of the distances are wrong, perhaps all the distances; you hope to derive correct distances by using the reported times and your calculated speeds.  The problem we see, and want you to explain, is this: how can you calculate accurate speeds by using inaccurate distances in the numerator of your fraction?

I don'T want to no more discuss about the speeds.

Code   Aircraft Type / Average speed (km/h) /Color (red means insecure, question mark means suspicious)
A306   Airbus A300F4-600 722 kms Corrected as 722kmh.
A318   Airbus A318 557 kmh  corrected as 627 kmh
A319   Airbus A319 652 kmhcorrected as 627 kmh
A320   Airbus A320 663 kmhcorrected as 627 kmh
A321   Airbus A321 599 kmh  corrected as 627 kmh

PS: First post over the letter limit.

We calculated the average speeds of aircrafts as follow:

ALL TYPES:
A306   Airbus A300F4-600 722 kms Corrected as 722kmh.
A318   Airbus A318 557 kmh  corrected as 627 kmh
A319   Airbus A319 652 kmhcorrected as 627 kmh
A320   Airbus A320 663 kmhcorrected as 627 kmh
A321   Airbus A321 599 kmh  corrected as 627 kmh
A330   Airbus A330 706 kmh corrected as 687 kmh
A332   Airbus A330-200 779 kmhcorrected as 687 kmh
A333   Airbus A330-300 575 kmh corrected as 687 kmh
A343   Airbus A340-300 767 kmhcorrected as 759 kmh
A346   Airbus A340-600 751 kmh corrected as 759 kmh
A359   Airbus A350-900 810 kmh corrected as 810 kmh
A388   Airbus A380-800 815 kmh Corrected as 815 kmh

B712   Boeing 717-200 579 kmh corrected as 574 kmh
B733   Boeing 737-300 611 kmhcorrected as 574 kmh
B734   Boeing 737-400 572 kmhcorrected as 574 kmh
B735   Boeing 737-500  533 kmh    corrected as 574 kmh
B737   Boeing 737-700 584 kmh corrected as 615 kmh
B738   Boeing 737-800 736kmh corrected as 677 kmh
B739   Boeing 737-900 680 kmh corrected as 677 kmh
B744 Boeing 747-400    807kmh Corrected as 807 kmh
B748   Boeing 747-8 765 kmh  Corrected as 811 kmh
B752   Boeing 757-200 688 kmh corrected as 707 kmh
B763   Boeing 767-300 726 kmh  corrected as 707 kmh
B764   Boeing 767-400 780 kmh  corrected as 757 kmh
B772   Boeing 777-200 733 kmh  corrected as 757 kmh
B773   Boeing 777-300 794 kmh  Corrected as 789 kmh
B77L   Boeing 777-200LR/F 835 kmh  Corrected as 811 kmh
B77W    Boeing 777-300ER 783 kmh  Corrected as 789 kmh
B788/B789   Boeing 787-9 833 kmh  Corrected as 811 kmh

Quote from: frenat on December 27, 2017, 06:26:49 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 27, 2017, 02:47:45 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 26, 2017, 12:54:06 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 26, 2017, 12:48:55 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 26, 2017, 07:05:44 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 09:49:37 PM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 05:04:28 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 25, 2017, 11:39:47 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 25, 2017, 08:01:35 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 24, 2017, 11:42:36 PM

They are talking about speed of 0,7 mach to 0,9 mach.

0,7mach= 858 kmh.
0,9mach= 1102 kmh.

Do you see the lie?

Speeds should be 858 kmh to 1102 kmh but until this time, there is no any type of aircraft running over 0,68 mach. So the earth is...?

"smaller than their showed"

Or you're taking averages of the entire trip and forgetting that they travel much slower during takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing as has been mentioned multiple times before but you don't like to take criticism.

If you are a sprinter, you can tell me your speed is 36 kilometers per hour when you race, which is meaningful. but if you are running 10 kilometers and you tell me that your speed is 36 kilometers, you are a liar. I also put this out. I do not mean you, I speak in general.

I am writing the facts, not the dreams. your dreams are Paris but your facts are Addis Ababa.

You misunderstand.  YOU claimed the speeds of 0.7 to 0.9 mach are a lie.  But that represent their cruising speed.  You don't see that in your work because of the significant amount of time spent at lower speed due to takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing.  It has nothing to do with sprinting.  They CAN maintain those speeds the entire time and the longer flights show the average approaching those speed.

If you must use a running analogy, what you have is not the speed of the run but the average speed of the walking warmup before the run, the run, and the walking cooldown after the run.

I don't care what the claiming of cruise speeds are. I'm considering the reality. Thanks for your comment but I don't want to listen anymore lies.

I've said no lies.

I did not called you as a liar but you are repeating the  lies of aircraft companies.

which you haven't proven.

I have tracked many of these aircraft on RADAR when I was in the Air Force.  Their cruising speeds are correct.

If I momentarily agree the cruise speeds of aircrafts are true, but they mean nothing if they don't act to flight times. waste of times of landing, take off and overcrowding in airports can be considered, but when we consider the distances more than 500 kms, these waste of times  does not affect much the end result and the average time and speed is reliable.

They still affect it, but they affect it less.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 27, 2017, 02:47:45 AM

On the other hand, we have not enough time to consider all of these effects. I have not enough time to consider all the effects but if a volunteer make all of these calculations, I'll glad for it. Do you see any volunteer is working on this issue hard? I don't see anyone willing to work hard in this issue, do you see?

Not necessary.  You're using the reported distance and flight times to get the average speed.  That means you're accepting the distance so why not just use that and avoid the calculations?

either you do not understand or you do not want to understand.

declared speeds are invalid. in this we agree.

What part of my posts indicated I agreed with that?

But declared flight times can't be wrong, at least they can't be much wrong. Because passangers generally don't pay attention to their flight speeds but almost all of them know the flight time. The people can be lied about speed. but it can not be lied about time, because everybody has a clock on his sleeve or on his mobile.

And as many people have mentioned, the flight times include takeoff, ascent, descent, and landing, which will be at a lower speed affecting the average.  There are also holding patterns and possible taxi times.  All of which you're glossing over.

...

Requered datas are already used. No more discussings are needed.

If there is an argument, you can show it by calculating the whole of the data. this is an calculation environment, not a discussion environment. the objection must be made concrete again. but after this, I will not consider objections. there is a serious reason for this.

Quote from: frenat on December 28, 2017, 05:04:07 AM

...

Requered datas are already used. No more discussings are needed.

If there is an argument, you can show it by calculating the whole of the data. this is an calculation environment, not a discussion environment. the objection must be made concrete again. but after this, I will not consider objections. there is a serious reason for this.

In other words, you've already decided you are right and won't listen to valid criticisms.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 28, 2017, 05:06:14 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 28, 2017, 05:04:07 AM

...

Requered datas are already used. No more discussings are needed.

If there is an argument, you can show it by calculating the whole of the data. this is an calculation environment, not a discussion environment. the objection must be made concrete again. but after this, I will not consider objections. there is a serious reason for this.

In other words, you've already decided you are right and won't listen to valid criticisms.

No not so. In other words, you and others have only aim to slow down the working. None of you put forward a working data in this working. You all just chew the rag, but this is the last thing that we need.

Quote from: frenat on December 28, 2017, 05:11:45 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 28, 2017, 05:06:14 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 28, 2017, 05:04:07 AM

...

Requered datas are already used. No more discussings are needed.

If there is an argument, you can show it by calculating the whole of the data. this is an calculation environment, not a discussion environment. the objection must be made concrete again. but after this, I will not consider objections. there is a serious reason for this.

In other words, you've already decided you are right and won't listen to valid criticisms.

No not so. In other words, you and others have only aim to slow down the working. None of you put forward a working data in this working. You all just chew the rag, but this is the last thing that we need.

No not so.  People have been trying to help you with information that is important regarding the flight times but you have just dismissed them all without comment.  If you think they aim to slow down the working then you are not paying attention.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 28, 2017, 05:16:36 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 28, 2017, 05:11:45 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 28, 2017, 05:06:14 AM

Quote from: frenat on December 28, 2017, 05:04:07 AM

...

Requered datas are already used. No more discussings are needed.

If there is an argument, you can show it by calculating the whole of the data. this is an calculation environment, not a discussion environment. the objection must be made concrete again. but after this, I will not consider objections. there is a serious reason for this.

In other words, you've already decided you are right and won't listen to valid criticisms.

No not so. In other words, you and others have only aim to slow down the working. None of you put forward a working data in this working. You all just chew the rag, but this is the last thing that we need.

No not so.  People have been trying to help you with information that is important regarding the flight times but you have just dismissed them all without comment.  If you think they aim to slow down the working then you are not paying attention.

I took it considered by compared the result with cruise speeds. The others don't requered to be got.

None of you try to help me.

You all just trying to say me what shall I do. I already know what shall I do. I don't need such as proposals. If you want to help, my door is opened for you.

giving you information about how flights work and how they don't spend the entire flight at top speed is help whether you agree or not. 

An example of calculating a distance from two airports:

Example airports:

Sydney to Beijing:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=YSSY&destination=ZBAA

Opposite:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=ZBAA&destination=YSSY

We need to see same types in two links:

There is 3 types of aircraft in this route:

A333, A332 and B77W.

A332:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA107/history/20171228/0243Z/YSSY/ZBAA

11:06
11:46
11:55
11:29
11:44

Average: 11:36

Opposite: https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA108/history/20171228/1545Z/ZBAA/YSSY

11:05
11:41
11:12
11:22
11:53
11:10
11:02

Average: 11:20

Average of times: 11:28

Average distance: 11:28x687kmh = 7878kms.

For this aircraft, average mistake is much.

A333

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA107/history/20171229/0235Z/YSSY/ZBAA

10:58
11:29
11:53
11:27
11:39

Average: 11:29

Opposite: https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA108/history/20171227/1605Z/ZBAA/YSSY

11:41
11:01
10:51
11:35
11:05

Average: 11:14

Average of times: 11:21

Average distance: 11:21 x 687kmh= 7786 kms

B77W:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CCA174/history/20171229/0940Z/YSSY/ZBAA

10:15
10:34
11:00
10:54
10:28
11:21
10:35
10:49
10:39
10:21
10:18
10:36
10:52

Average: 10:40

Opposite: https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CCA173/history/20171228/1745Z/ZBAA/YSSY

10:45
10:30
10:21
10:19
10:39
10:12
10:19
10:35
10:24
10:24
10:38
10:17
11:06
10:29

Average: 10:29

Average of times: 10:35

Average distance: 10:35x 789kmh= 8350 kms.

Our calculations:

7878 kms.
7786 kms.
8350 kms.

CALCULATED REAL DISTANCE: 7974kms.

Average mistakes on aircrafts:

Mistake of A332: 7878 / 7974-% = 1%
Mistake of A333: 7786 / 7974 -%= 2%
Mistake of B77W: 8350 / 7974-%= 5%

Google claims: 8975kms.

Google map mistakes: 8975/ 7974-%= 13%

I hope now everyone understand how our system is working good and how is round map is nothing but a bullshit!

It is perfectly working! Even between towards Sydney and Beijing! Wow!

so what is the distance to be used between Sydney and Beijing for this map?
How about listing all verified distances between cities to be used for this map as and when they are veriied?

I think we are trying to verify whether or not Mussolini made the trains run on time.

How about Hitler and the Autobahns ?

Is it just me or is anyone else having any trouble making any sense of brotherhood ?

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 27, 2017, 04:31:02 AM

I think we are trying to verify whether or not Mussolini made the trains run on time.

How about Hitler and the Autobahns ?

Is it just me or is anyone else having any trouble making any sense of brotherhood ?

If you cannot make sense of the thread, there's no reason for you to continue spamming it.

I have said before, I applaud BOTD's efforts.
At least he's trying to make a map.

Most FEs just use there smart phones
Get from point A to B using technology based on a globe.

They say it ain't right but they continue to use it.
Most REs I'm sure have asked this before, where is your freaking map?

First we'll calculate the outside points and central places.

Hereunder firstly we'll calculate the distances between following cities. If there is no direct fly, use another per.

Priority regions are: (city/airport)

Sydney (YSSY)
Johannesburg Or Tambo (FAOR)
Chile Santiago (SCEL)
New York  (ZNY)
Beijing (ZBAA)
London (LHR)
Doha (OTHH)

You may calculate the distances as the example as follow, and publish in this topic. If you don't do anything like everytime, I already can do it by myself. I wish you success

Referrence Example:

An example of calculating a distance from two airports:

Example airports:

Sydney to Beijing:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=YSSY&destination=ZBAA

Opposite:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=ZBAA&destination=YSSY

We need to see same types in two links:

There is 3 types of aircraft in this route:

A333, A332 and B77W.

A332:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA107/history/20171228/0243Z/YSSY/ZBAA

11:06
11:46
11:55
11:29
11:44

Average: 11:36

Opposite: https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA108/history/20171228/1545Z/ZBAA/YSSY

11:05
11:41
11:12
11:22
11:53
11:10
11:02

Average: 11:20

Average of times: 11:28

Average distance: 11:28x687kmh = 7878kms.

For this aircraft, average mistake is much.

A333

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA107/history/20171229/0235Z/YSSY/ZBAA

10:58
11:29
11:53
11:27
11:39

Average: 11:29

Opposite: https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA108/history/20171227/1605Z/ZBAA/YSSY

11:41
11:01
10:51
11:35
11:05

Average: 11:14

Average of times: 11:21

Average distance: 11:21 x 687kmh= 7786 kms

B77W:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CCA174/history/20171229/0940Z/YSSY/ZBAA

10:15
10:34
11:00
10:54
10:28
11:21
10:35
10:49
10:39
10:21
10:18
10:36
10:52

Average: 10:40

Opposite: https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CCA173/history/20171228/1745Z/ZBAA/YSSY

10:45
10:30
10:21
10:19
10:39
10:12
10:19
10:35
10:24
10:24
10:38
10:17
11:06
10:29

Average: 10:29

Average of times: 10:35

Average distance: 10:35x 789kmh= 8350 kms.

Our calculations:

7878 kms.
7786 kms.
8350 kms.

CALCULATED REAL DISTANCE: 7974kms.

Average mistakes on aircrafts:

Mistake of A332: 7878 / 7974-% = 1%
Mistake of A333: 7786 / 7974 -%= 2%
Mistake of B77W: 8350 / 7974-%= 5%

Google claims: 8975kms.

Google map mistakes: 8975/ 7974-%= 13%

I hope now everyone understand how our system is working good and how is round map is nothing but a bullshit!

You may finish your working like this: As a result, distance of between Sydney to Beijing is 7974kms.

We could not determined the corners as SCEL, YSSY and FAOR, because there is insuffficient flights between these cities. Meanwhile there is no flight between Santiago to Johannesburg. Meanwhile these cities are not reliable ones that haven't reliable flights to other cities.

So method is changed. we will move from the center to the outside.

We'll start with most crowded airports as follow:

Number of Place/ City name/ (rank in world most crowded airports)

1- Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta (1)
2- Dubai (3)
3- Los Angeles (4)
4- Chicago (6)
5- London (7)
6- Paris (10)
7- Dallas Fort Worth (11)
8- Amsterdam (12)
9- Frankfurt (13)
10- Istanbul (14)
11- New York (16)
12- Denver (18)

Good luck.

As a first try, we arrived that shape:



Pre calculated distances:

Los Angeles - Atlanta: 3.073kms. +-7%
Los Angeles - Chicago : 2.769kms. +-3%
Atlanta - Chicago: 1.221 kms. +-7%

Dallas- Los Angeles: 2.168kms. +-12%
Dallas- Atlanta: 1369 kms. +-6%
Dallas -  Chicago: 1.583kms. +-8%


Distances on the map:

Los Angeles - Atlanta: 3.074 kms
Los Angeles - Chicago :  2.769 kms
Atlanta - Chicago: 1.222 kms

Dallas- Los Angeles: 2.028 kms
Dallas- Atlanta: 1.230 kms
Dallas -  Chicago: 1.723 kms

Distances map/calculated/Average mistake

3.073/3.074 = 0%
2.769/2.769 = 0%
1.221/1.222 =0%
2.168/2.028 = 7%
1369/1230 = 11%
1583/1723= 9%