[RobCraggs]

Hi everyone, I'm a first timer here and have been enjoying honing up on a different look at where we might and might not be, and what our Earth might and might not look like. I've just come across a website that debunks FE theory by comparing the flight path from Sydney to Santiago. Not too sure if it's been addressed here before, but here's the web link: https://flatearth.ws/sydney-santiago
This is a situation where the global earth seems to fit better with the flight path, rather than as shown on a FE map. If this has been addressed, can someone please point me to where; greatly appreciated. Cheers!

[Gonzo]

To be fair I've never seen any flightpath that doesn't make sense on the globe, when one considers all the factors used in flight planning and route selection.

[PraiseGOD]

Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.

See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)

forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0

[stack]

Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.

See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)

forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0

It's unfortunate that the consumer demand and commercial viability/profit doesn't currently exist for airlines to have direct service between Perth/Beunos Aires & Auckland/Cape Town. Perhaps one day, when demand increases, they will.

In the meantime, there's a non-stop from Sydney to Johannesburg which doesn't seem to fit reality from a monopole perspective - Why is that?



As well, you can check out this list of longest flights currently in existence and see how well they line up on various maps:

[Gonzo]

Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.

See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)

forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0

You can currently book Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM, as well as Sydney to Jo'burg as stack says.

[stack]

Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:

[inquisitive]

Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.

See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)

forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0

This implies an accurate and agreed map and model of the earth that shows it is flat.  Where is it?  What about WGS83?

[Tom Bishop]

Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:

In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, it seems that these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.

Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.

On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:



On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:



I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, or always makes straight line paths in FE models, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.

The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model in both areas.

[stack]

Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:

In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.

Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.

On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:



On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:



I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.

The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model.

What does that video from Igan have to do with this? It seems to be about life origins or something.

In any case, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

Why would the flight on your monopole fly over the US, or, as you conjured, it went way out of the way? Why? What are the kilometers (miles) in your suspected non-straight line path on the monopole?

Here's your monopole straight-line path on a globe:



And you're not taking into account the obvious: The path and distance flown as reported.

[Tom Bishop]

Try going to a flight booking site and looking at the flights from Santiago, Chile (SCL) to Sydney Australia (SYD) which DO have stops. The stops they make are quite curious:

https://www.cheapoair.com/air/listing?&d1=SCL&r1=SYD&dt1=04/11/2022&d2=SYD&r2=SCL&dt2=04/16/2022&triptype=ROUNDTRIP&cl=ECONOMY&ad=1&se=0&ch=0&infs=0&infl=0

[Tom Bishop]

Why make stops in the USA when there are islands with international airports between South America and Australia?



https://www.travelonline.com/cook-islands/airports



This site says that this Cook Island airport can handle aircraft up to Boeing B789's and B747's:

https://dlca.logcluster.org/plugins/viewsource/viewpagesrc.action?pageId=15138862

"Rarotonga International Airport is capable of handling aircraft up to Boeing B789’s and B747’s."

It's a giant airport:



It is modern and one of the largest airports of Oceania:

https://airportsbase.org/Cook_Islands/all/Rarotonga/Rarotonga_International_Airport



The plane in your example which supposedly traveled across the South Pacific was a Boeing 787:



Boeing 787:

https://modernairliners.com/boeing-787-dreamliner/boeing-787-dreamliner-specs/
Seating - 242
Range - 13,620 km

Boeing 789/C-FRSA:

https://www.planemapper.com/aircrafts/C-FRSA
Seating - 290
Range - 14,140 km

And obviously if planes were a problem they would just use appropriate planes or upgrade the airport.

[stack]

Why make stops in the USA when there are islands with international airports between South America and Australia?



https://www.travelonline.com/cook-islands/airports



This site says that this Cook Island airport can handle aircraft up to Boeing B789's and B747's:

https://dlca.logcluster.org/plugins/viewsource/viewpagesrc.action?pageId=15138862

"Rarotonga International Airport is capable of handling aircraft up to Boeing B789’s and B747’s."

It's a giant airport:



It is modern and one of the largest airports of Oceania:

https://airportsbase.org/Cook_Islands/all/Rarotonga/Rarotonga_International_Airport



The plane in your example which supposedly traveled across the South Pacific was a Boeing 787:



Boeing 787:

https://modernairliners.com/boeing-787-dreamliner/boeing-787-dreamliner-specs/
Seating - 242
Range - 13,620 km

Boeing 789/C-FRSA:

https://www.planemapper.com/aircrafts/C-FRSA
Seating - 290
Range - 14140 km

And obviously if planes were a problem they would just use appropriate planes or upgrade the airport.

Irrelevant. We're talking about a direct flight. United (American company), may have their reasons: hubs, economics, passenger counts, etc. not to have a direct flight. Call them up and ask why they don't have a direct between Aukland and Santiago. Call up any airline and ask them why they don't have a direct flight between X and Y cities. I'm pretty sure the answer won't be, "Oh, because it doesn't make sense on the monopole flat earth model..."

Not to mention I don't think the Cook Islands are necessarily a hot destination for United. Looks like only two airlines even utilize the airport:



You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

[Tom Bishop]

United (American company), may have their reasons: hubs, economics, passenger counts, etc. not to have a direct flight.

Anywhere can be a hub though. This:



Makes more sense than this:




It is certainly possible that no one thought about using the South Pacific airports as a hub to service New Zealand, Australia and South America. But it's just another one of those coincidences that happens to coincide with an FE model.

[Tom Bishop]

You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.

https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519

[stack]

United (American company), may have their reasons: hubs, economics, passenger counts, etc. not to have a direct flight.

Anywhere can be a hub though. This:



Makes more sense than this:




It is certainly possible that no one thought about putting a hub in the South Pacific to service New Zealand, Australia and South America. But it's just another one of those coincidences that happens to coincide with FET.

What's coincidental about it? Airlines have hubs. By your argument why don't all airlines have hubs everywhere there is a suitable airport?

Here's United's hubs:



Why doesn't United have a hub in Miami? Seattle? Portland?

Hubs and Spokes
Most of the 12 major U.S. passenger airlines in operation as of 2001 use a hub-and-spoke network to route their plane traffic. The words "hub" and "spoke" create a pretty vivid image of how this system works. A hub is a central airport that flights are routed through, and spokes are the routes that planes take out of the hub airport. Most major airlines have multiple hubs. They claim that hubs allow them to offer more flights for passengers.

The purpose of the hub-and-spoke system is to save airlines money and give passengers better routes to destinations. Airplanes are an airline's most valuable commodity, and every flight has certain set costs. Each seat on the plane represents a portion of the total flight cost. For each seat that is filled by a passenger, an airline lowers its break-even price, which is the seat price at which an airline stops losing money and begins to show a profit on the flight.

As far as "coincidence" goes, if your non-direct flights comport with a monopole why do many others not? As well:
- Why are they not direct flights?
- Why did they stop at those airports along the way?
- Why isn't there a direct flight that follows your straight-line route on a monopole without stopping?
- Why does the radar tracking show a completely different route than what you made up?
- And why haven't you still answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?

[stack]

You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.

https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519

Because Jeran is an idiot and apparently doesn't know jack about airplanes or aviation:

Airspeed vs. Ground Speed

As mentioned above, true airspeed is simply the speed at which an aircraft is moving relative to the air it is flying in. As such, it’s also the speed at which the air is flowing around the aircraft’s wings.
Ground speed, on the other hand, is the aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. One thing that should be noted here is that it’s its horizontal rather than vertical speed – an aircraft climbing completely vertically would have a ground speed of zero.
In other words, while airspeed is what determines whether there is enough airflow around an aircraft to make it fly, ground speed is what determines how fast an aircraft will get to its destination.

[Tom Bishop]

You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.

https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519

Because Jeran is an idiot and apparently doesn't know jack about airplanes or aviation:

Airspeed vs. Ground Speed

As mentioned above, true airspeed is simply the speed at which an aircraft is moving relative to the air it is flying in. As such, it’s also the speed at which the air is flowing around the aircraft’s wings.
Ground speed, on the other hand, is the aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. One thing that should be noted here is that it’s its horizontal rather than vertical speed – an aircraft climbing completely vertically would have a ground speed of zero.
In other words, while airspeed is what determines whether there is enough airflow around an aircraft to make it fly, ground speed is what determines how fast an aircraft will get to its destination.

Actually it says from your link:

"While ground speed is the airplane’s speed relative to the surface of the Earth, airspeed – at least true airspeed – is its speed relative to the air it is flying in."

So the plane thought it was going much faster through the air than it thought it was traveling along the ground.

[Tom Bishop]

Here's United's hubs:



Why doesn't United have a hub in Miami? Seattle? Portland?

Yes, because airliners never, ever, make agreements with other airports or airlines to optimally route their flights.

[stack]

You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?

Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.

https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519

Because Jeran is an idiot and apparently doesn't know jack about airplanes or aviation:

Airspeed vs. Ground Speed

As mentioned above, true airspeed is simply the speed at which an aircraft is moving relative to the air it is flying in. As such, it’s also the speed at which the air is flowing around the aircraft’s wings.
Ground speed, on the other hand, is the aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. One thing that should be noted here is that it’s its horizontal rather than vertical speed – an aircraft climbing completely vertically would have a ground speed of zero.
In other words, while airspeed is what determines whether there is enough airflow around an aircraft to make it fly, ground speed is what determines how fast an aircraft will get to its destination.

Actually it says from your link:

"While ground speed is the airplane’s speed relative to the surface of the Earth, airspeed – at least true airspeed – is its speed relative to the air it is flying in."

So the plane thought it was going much faster through the air than it thought it was traveling along the ground.

Planes aren't sentient.

Do some reading. Obviously, Jeran didn't:

https://skybrary.aero/articles/ground-speed

[stack]

Here's United's hubs:



Why doesn't United have a hub in Miami? Seattle? Portland?

Yes, because airliners never, ever, make agreements with other airports or airlines to optimally route their flights.

You seemed to miss almost the entirety of my post:

As far as "coincidence" goes, if your non-direct flights comport with a monopole why do many others not? As well:
- Why are they not direct flights?
- Why did they stop at those airports along the way?
- Why isn't there a direct flight that follows your straight-line route on a monopole without stopping?
- Why does the radar tracking show a completely different route than what you made up?
- And why haven't you still answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?