[Tron]

I'm thinking the mechanism that propels these air and space craft are high powered winds near the atmospheres edge or shell. 

The one thing Airbus CX845 and the ISS have in common is that within a dome they both travel near the edge.  The ISS taking a higher and more narrow circular path and the airliner a lower and wider one.

Winds are produced by changes in air pressure and temperature and you may get alot of that near the edge of space per se.  But these are just "guesses" into something that I need to look into and don't fully understand yet.

[DuncanDoenitz]

The ISS has an identical drag coefficient to that of a Sainsburys carrier bag.  It can only achieve 17,000 mph because it operates in a vacuum.  Current airliners are limited by aerodynamics and size/power ratio to subsonic airspeeds. 

Amongst all your research and speculation about south centred discs, domes, hypersonic winds and a Boeing/Airbus/NASA/Commercial-pilot conspiracy, have you seriously considered the freakish possibility that the Earth is actually just a sphere, and that CX845 (and countless others) simply fly over the top? 

Instead of just thinking-up stuff, PLEASE spend a day watching FR24, particularly the relationship of indicated speeds/time/distance.  Come back to us when you have some evidence of speeds significantly in excess of 600 mph. 

[Kangaroony]

I'm thinking the mechanism that propels these air and space craft are high powered winds near the atmospheres edge or shell.

There are no "high powered" winds in space;  it's effectively a vacuum.  Satellites and the ISS are not
propulsed in the sense you mean.  Relative to the CoG of the planet, their velocity is close to constant. 

One thing Airbus CX845 and the ISS have in common is that within a dome they both travel near the edge.  The ISS taking a higher and more narrow circular path and the airliner a lower and wider one.

Nope.  The service ceiling of the Airbus A350-1000 is 13,000m.  The ISS orbital altitude is 418,000m.

[ichoosereality]

Further 1000 mph winds would rip even a commercial airliner to pieces let alone something as fragile (once the solar panels are unfolded) as the ISS.
And a tail wind of 1000mph would mean no air was flowing front to back over the wings of the plane so no lift and it would fall.

[Tron]

My only theory right now is that the planes can reach these high speeds because the air is thin enough to negate drag.  But it's enough air to feed the engines, maintain lift and because jets or similarly rockets use newtows third law of conservation of momentum they sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium.

Planes from New York to Hong Kong that travel near the north pole fly eastern routes over Alaska and western routes over Greenland which rules out the strong wind theory. 
.

[stack]

My only theory right now is that the planes can reach these high speeds because the air is thin enough to negate drag.  But it's enough air to feed the engines, maintain lift and because jets or similarly rockets use newtows third law of conservation of momentum they sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium.

So your theory is contrary to reported max speeds capable by the aviation industry and aeronautic engineers that design these crafts and of course pilots, FAA, ATC and everyone associated with the airline industry? So all of these people are lying?

Planes from New York to Hong Kong that travel near the north pole fly eastern routes over Alaska and western routes over Greenland which rules out the strong wind theory.

So why would they fly those routes if they could use your theory elsewhere and travel at least twice as fast?

[DuncanDoenitz]

My only theory right now is that the planes can reach these high speeds because the air is thin enough to negate drag.  But it's enough air to feed the engines, maintain lift and because jets or similarly rockets use newtows third law of conservation of momentum they sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium.

Planes from New York to Hong Kong that travel near the north pole fly eastern routes over Alaska and western routes over Greenland which rules out the strong wind theory. 
.

MetaTron, you really need to study and get your head around conventional physics, rather than just thinking up stuff. 

Aerodynamic Drag is a function of Drag Coefficient, Surface Area, Velocity-squared and Air Density. 

Aerodynamic Lift is a function of Lift Coefficient, Surface Area, Velocity-squared and Air Density. 

Do you see the similarity?  Lift and drag are equally dependant upon air density.  Reduced air-density ("thinner air") reduces drag but reduces lift in equal measure.  You can't lose the drag and keep the lift.  Its physics. 

And how exactly do they  "...sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium"? 

And this is seriously your only theory?  You don't want to give any more thought to the sphere-thing? 

[Tron]

It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.

And it's Newton's 3rd law of action and reaction I was referring to.  NASA explain that it's like a person standing on a skateboard and by pushing a bowling ball outwards with his hands can generate movement. 

[stack]

Have you ever been on a passenger plane before? If so, what was your longest flight?

[DuncanDoenitz]

It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.

And it's Newton's 3rd law of action and reaction I was referring to.  NASA explain that it's like a person standing on a skateboard and by pushing a bowling ball outwards with his hands can generate movement.

I don't think you're really following this. 

The plane takes off, climbs, and then cruises through average-joe atmosphere at an airspeed of (let's say) 600mph.  It enters your hypothesised super-jetstream which has a speed of (let's say) 17000mph; its ground speed is now 17600mph but its airspeed (the one that affects aerodynamics) is still only 600mph, so there is no change to lift or drag. 

And NASA is describing a jet, or rocket, engine.  The "bowling ball" is the exhaust gas. 

A rocket engine burns its self-contained fuel/oxidiser and accelerates the exhaust gas to phenomenal speeds (perhaps more like skateboard guy firing a baseball with a grenade launcher).  Airliners do not have rocket engines. 

A jet engine gathers atmospheric air and uses a compression/combustion process to accelerate it to lower speeds than a rocket, but in comparatively huge quantities (hence a bowling ball in our comparison) to achieve the same thing.  It needs to gather sufficient air, which is why airliner engines have such a huge frontal diameter, but they can still only operate in air which has sufficient density. 

[ichoosereality]

It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.

The stall speed (the minimum speed of air moving front to back over the wing) of a commercial plane is something like 150mph.  If there is a 1000mph+ tail wind that means there is no front to back flow over the wings at all and the plane will drop like a stone.

Your attempts to explain the data in terms of your model clearly are not working.   If you are applying critical thinking, i.e. going where ever the data leads, doesn't that say that your model is wrong?

[Tron]

Guys, there's a big misunderstanding.  I'm trying to make the point that I no longer believe that Jet Streams are responsible for the very fast plane speeds we see near the Polar Regions on a Flat Earth.  Rather, it's the thin air that allows these planes to travel so fast.

Below is a simple example to help answer some of your questions:  At the top, plane one is flying through 10 cookies in about 10 seconds.   And plane two is also flying through 10 cookies in 10 seconds!  The only difference is that plane 2 needs to fly faster!  That means that lift and air pressure and drag are presumably the same for both planes.



To propel Plane 2 to such great speeds, you need to assume their jet engines are producing enough thrust in these conditions until the aircraft reaches its structural limit.  I don't know the ins and outs of Jet Engines, but so far, they seem similar to Rocket's and in some cases produce more thrust (Scram jets anyway).  The Boeing 747 has a power to rate ratio greater than an SR-71 - One of the fastest Jet Planes to ever fly. 



https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust

[stack]

The Boeing 747 has a power to rate ratio greater than an SR-71 - One of the fastest Jet Planes to ever fly. 

According to the FAA & Boeing, the 747 (200-400, all models) is limited to VMO/MMO 375/0.92 above 35,000'.

VMO: “Maximum operating speed”. It denotes the maximum speed permitted for the aircraft.
MMO: A percentage of Mach limited by the change to the aircraft’s handling characteristics - The effective speed limit (“barber pole” on the airspeed indicator) at higher altitudes.

How does this fit into your theory? Are they lying?

[DuncanDoenitz]

Guys, there's a big misunderstanding.  I'm trying to make the point that I no longer believe that Jet Streams are responsible for the very fast plane speeds we see near the Polar Regions on a Flat Earth.  Rather, it's the thin air that allows these planes to travel so fast.

Below is a simple example to help answer some of your questions:  At the top, plane one is flying through 10 cookies in about 10 seconds.   And plane two is also flying through 10 cookies in 10 seconds!  The only difference is that plane 2 needs to fly faster!  That means that lift and air pressure and drag are presumably the same for both planes.



To propel Plane 2 to such great speeds, you need to assume their jet engines are producing enough thrust in these conditions until the aircraft reaches its structural limit.  I don't know the ins and outs of Jet Engines, but so far, they seem similar to Rocket's and in some cases produce more thrust (Scram jets anyway).  The Boeing 747 has a power to rate ratio greater than an SR-71 - One of the fastest Jet Planes to ever fly. 



https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust

(Sigh).  This doesn't get any easier. 

That chart isn't the thrust-to-weight ratios of the aeroplanes, its just the thrust to weight ratios of the engines.  The engines of a 747 don't go anywhere without the rest of the 747 attached to them.  All 400 tons of 747.  I'll let you re-do the maths if you think it has any merit.   

And I see what you're trying to say with the cookies, but we already discussed this.  Go back a couple of posts, and where I wrote "air density", read that as "cookie density".  Does that make any sense? 

[Tron]

Duncin one of the first things you say in your earlier post was that my hypothetical plane travels a few hundreds miles an hour before hitting a 17,000mph jet stream at which point it goes 17,600mph.

That is opposite of what Ive been trying to say in my last three posts and the reason I made the Cookie chart to begin with!  Again, there's no wind near the poles (that I'm referring to anyway)!  I'm only speaking of aero and engine capacity. 

And thank you for correcting me on the second chart.  I'd just say that once you get a 747 going having a million pounds of thrust will still get you places fast.   

And stack, calling everybody a liar when you confront something you don't understand is not useful.  I plan on looking more into the instruments aviators use to calculate speed etc, but for now I'm going to bed and I wish you guys a happy New year.

[ichoosereality]

DISCLAIMER:. I advocate a South Pole centered Flat Earth that spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by a dome shaped atmosphere that tilts towards a small solar system at about 30deg, and magnets are what holds everything together.

What you are doing is the opposite of critical thinking.  You have a model that for some reason you want to match reality so you are trying to fit observations into it.  But it doesn't work.  If instead you simply ask what do our observations tell us about the earth, the answer is unmistakably that it is a sphere.  What leads you to "advocate" something else?

[DuncanDoenitz]

Duncin one of the first things you say in your earlier post was that my hypothetical plane travels a few hundreds miles an hour before hitting a 17,000mph jet stream at which point it goes 17,600mph.

That is opposite of what Ive been trying to say in my last three posts and the reason I made the Cookie chart to begin with!  Again, there's no wind near the poles (that I'm referring to anyway)!  I'm only speaking of aero and engine capacity. 

And thank you for correcting me on the second chart.  I'd just say that once you get a 747 going having a million pounds of thrust will still get you places fast.   

And stack, calling everybody a liar when you confront something you don't understand is not useful.  I plan on looking more into the instruments aviators use to calculate speed etc, but for now I'm going to bed and I wish you guys a happy New year.

And a Happy New Year to you too.

It's not a million pounds of thust.  It's  million Newtons.  Please read your chart.  And 200 million pounds, Newtons or mega-watts can only push the plane through cookies as fast as Boeing, Airbus, Stack and others have already told you, the aircraft has a structural limit. 

[DuncanDoenitz]

And, by the way, what research brought you to the conclusion that there are now no 17000 mph winds around the Arctic?  A few posts back you seemed convinced. 

[Tron]

And, by the way, what research brought you to the conclusion that there are now no 17000 mph winds around the Arctic?  A few posts back you seemed convinced.

When I noticed on Flight Radar that Cathay Pacific flew flights both East AND West on there way from JFK to Hong Kong it suggests there's no one directional wind preventing travel in a certain direction.  And both flight routes travel along 88n latitude so there's no room for two streams of air.

Generally winds play a bigger factor as you head south into thicker atmospheres.

[Tron]

It's not a million pounds of thust.  It's  million Newtons.  Please read your chart.  And 200 million pounds, Newtons or mega-watts can only push the plane through cookies as fast as Boeing, Airbus, Stack and others have already told you, the aircraft has a structural limit.

You need to look at my cookie chart again.  In 10 seconds both airplanes encounter 10 molecules of air.  In other words they both experienced the same amount of air resistance in the same amount of time except plane 2 travels much faster.  So if the structural limit is ten cookies of air molecules every 10 seconds then in both scenarios it's possible for the planes to be flying at different speeds and within the limits of the aircraft.