As you seem intent on resurrecting this dead horse, are you going to try and defend it this time?
I'll even be nice and not look at my previous post to refute this one again (but just focusing on your "concorde argument"
That is exactly the problem which i pointed out in my CONCORDE argument (forward momentum would be equal to the sideways momentum).
The forward momentum being equal to the sideways momentum is irrelevant.
Momentum alone doesn't change what people feel.
So, if the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA) we should expected such outcome : Even before leaving the ground concorde would cancel out more than 50 % of it's initial inertia (momentum). What does that mean? It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able (while concorde is restoring it's initial angular momentum (which he had before taking off)) to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left).
As I assume I have explained repeatedly, what you need to do is compare what you would expect for a rotating Earth vs a stationary Earth.
And the big question is how is the plane turning?
Is it using the air? If so, it will turn with its motion relative to air being important. Notice that this doesn't care if Earth is rotating or not, it will be the same.
Alternatively, it can just spin and keep its momentum the same.
Then again, it doesn't matter if Earth is rotating or not, you would get the same result.
Either the plane uses the air to turn, such that its momentum relative to the air is in the forwards direction, so regardless of if Earth is rotating or stationary, if the air is stationary relative to Earth the plane will just appear to turn;
or the plane spins, and keeps the momentum it initially had, which means Earth will appear to fly past.
To get a different result between a rotating and stationary Earth you need pure magic.
If the air behaved like a water, which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of partially lost INITIAL INERTIA of concorde, *passengers would be subdued (in the very moment the pilot of concorde abruptly turns an airplane to the right or to the left) to an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry concorde in a direction of earth's rotation.*
And again, in this hypothetical the same will happen regardless of if Earth is rotating or not.
If Earth is rotating, then as the plane does this never before seen turn, it will experience a force acting against its motion in the air, which will be pushing it in the direction Earth is rotating (as it took off against that rotation), but lets just say pushing it to the east so we can focus on an Earth centred frame.
If instead Earth was stationary, then you still have the same issue of passengers inside the plane have their momentum keep them moving in the initial direction, while the abrupt change in the plane's momentum results in it acting like it has a massive force apply to the east, as the air will be pushing the plane to the east.
This gives the same result.
But we can even go one step crazier. Lets say the plane takes off to the east on a rotating Earth, and then performs the same magical turn? Well guess what? The air is still going to resist the relative motion, which now will be felt as a force to the west to remove its eastwards momentum.
The force depends upon the motion relative to air, not if Earth is rotating or not.
But not even water acts like that.
Instead, you have the fluid apply a force to the object moving relative to it, which will not result in an instantaneous drop in the relative velocity to 0.
Try to imagine how would such 90 degrees turn look like on a river which would flow at 50 mile per hour (1/3 of boat's speed).
This is not the same due to the water relative to Earth.
This means you need to consider the motion of the boat relative to the water and relative to Earth.
It also means it isn't the same as your plane example unless you want to appeal to doing a 90 degree turn relative to the moon or something like that; and even then it will be based upon the relative motion and not be able to tell which is moviing.
At about 13 min. in the video engine fails, and the boat turns 180 degrees in a second. Try to compare this situation (that happened on the slow streaming river = 5 miles per hour), with a hypothetical situation in which the speed of river's flow would be 10 times greater, and then tell me that there would be no difference.
You sure love exaggerating. It took far more than a second.
But the important part is the boat's velocity relative to the water. It doesn't matter if the water is stationary, or moving quite quickly (with the air moving with it).
If the air and the water were moving quite rapidly in the direction of travel of the boat, and the boat was moving even faster, then you would get the same result.
So I will tell you, there will be no difference. If you wish to assert there will be you will need more than just your assertion.
Trying providing a force diagram showing what causes the effect.