[kaezai]

Hello there!
I am an entry level flat-earther, and have a few questions. I could not find these answers through the search function, so if you have seen a similar post feel free to just link me to it instead of answering here.

1. Given the disk model of the Earth, why do we not just fly through the arctic circle on flights from the US to Eastern Europe or Northern Asia? It would be faster and cheaper.
2. What would happen if you were to attempt to fly past the edge?
3. Has anyone ever attempted to fly a straight shot across the arctic to prove that the flight is shorter?

Thank you!

[Tom Bishop]

I am under the belief that many of the flights are based more on practicality rather than ideal paths.

Why would you set up a flight route across the potentially dangerous barren Arctic when it makes more sense to stay near more of the habitable zone containing airports, islands with airstrips, and also make money picking up and dropping off passengers on the way?

I also believe that there are many factors to consider other than geography, such as jet streams and trade winds. Some flights also make unscheduled stops for a variety of reasons. We had some news articles somewhere of people on supposedly non-stop flights complaining that the plane stopped for fuel.

In addition, there were some articles describing that planes can and do travel at supersonic ground speeds on a regular basis. And other articles saying that the given flight times are overly padded with a large amount of extra time to ensure on-time arrival. I'll see if I can dig those up.

In regards to the edge, I would say that is unknown what would happen, or where that might be. The subject of air travel is a topic of interest and discussion, but ultimately unknown what the variables are or what can be trusted, which I believe is holding up development of the FE world models like the bi-polar model.

When you ask me about air travel and its applicability to the shape of the Earth, you may as well ask me about busses in China, who might be traveling at different speeds for different reasons, on non-ideal paths for different reasons, and may not be accurate in the times or stops for various, not necessarily nefarious, reasons. That's a business enterprise based on money and practicality, not a reliable scientific instrument to determine the dimensions of the cities.

If someone suggested to you that you should know the dimensions of Shanghai based on such questionable data you would probably find absurdity in that assertion.

[JSS]

In addition, there were some articles describing that planes can and do travel at supersonic ground speeds on a regular basis. And other articles saying that the given flight times are overly padded with a large amount of extra time to ensure on-time arrival. I'll see if I can dig those up.

The phrase "Supersonic ground speed" is somewhat misleading as nothing is actually breaking the sound barrier.

Commercial airliners tend to fly at about 550mph, and with a good tailwind can get to 700-800mph which is a good boost, but not near enough to explain the flight time discrepancies with any of the FE maps. It's faster but it's not even double which would still be far too slow.

The other problem is the jet stream isn't random, it blows east to west so while it might shorten the distance in one direction, it makes the other longer. Any help explaining one direction just makes it worse in the other.

[Tom Bishop]

There are giant wind systems which blow in both Eastward and Westward directions, in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

That page also contains the links to articles mentioned earlier, and some of the issues and questions from looking into the flights. If we are trying to determine the layout of the earth from scratch it is difficult to use this data when there are many unknowns. When I looked into it I found it to be a guessing game when trying to decipher these different variables.

[robinofloxley]

I am under the belief that many of the flights are based more on practicality rather than ideal paths.

Why would you set up a flight route across the potentially dangerous barren Arctic when it makes more sense to stay near more of the habitable zone containing airports, islands with airstrips, and also make money picking up and dropping off passengers on the way?

Here's a scenario for you. You're in a twin engined jet at cruise altitude, you get a sudden depressurisation, so the masks drop and the plane descends to 10,000 feet or less and you're over mountains with zero visibility outside. Then you get a catastrophic engine failure, a fire breaks out in the baggage hold, the GPS packs up and the satellite based radio stops working. The nearest airport is 5 1/2 hours flying time away. What's the likely outcome?

A perfectly safe landing.

Why? Because you're flying in an ETOPS-330 certified jet (330 minutes equals 5 1/2 hours flying time) over accurately mapped terrain, which means the fire suppression system in the hold will keep a fire at bay until you land, the plane flies just fine on one engine, it's equipped with an inertial navigation system, as backup for the GPS, so you know where you are and you have long range HF radios in case the satellite comms breaks down. All you need now is a semi-competent crew.

Why would cost sensitive airlines then get their aircraft to zig-zag around keeping close to nearby airports along their routes, when they can take a perfectly safe direct route. Your passengers are more likely to die on their way to the airport.

And as for stopping off to pick up passengers, aircraft are at their least cost efficient climbing and descending, taxiing along the ground, sitting at gates and loading and unloading passengers. Passengers nearly always seem to prefer faster direct flights. That's what's killing off the A380 and B747 with the old hub-and-spoke model. The modern economical twin jets allow economical point to point direct flights and when given the choice, passengers vote with their feet and wallets.

[ShadySquid]

Why would you set up a flight route across the potentially dangerous barren Arctic when it makes more sense to stay near more of the habitable zone containing airports, islands with airstrips, and also make money picking up and dropping off passengers on the way?

Based on this argument, it would make sense that most airlines would want to fly over one of the main continents while doing their flights.  Large landmasses would have more airports, are easier to land on and get rescued from, and have considerably more passengers wanting to go places than the various island nations of the Pacific.  Let's take a look at a flight from Argentina to Australia.  If we assume that the earth is flat, according to your theory, this flight path would want to travel north, through the USA and Canada, and then take a slight detour to fly down the coast of east asia, then follow the Indonesian islands down to Australia.  This route would be close to a straight line between the two countries, and would pass by many major cities, like Chicago, Tokyo, or Hong Kong. 

So then, I ask you, why don't they take that route?

The flight from Buenos Aires to Sydney flies straight across the south pacific, a route that, by the flat earth model, is almost twice as long, and passes by no islands with airports other than New Zeland.  So then why do they use it?  According to the flat earth model, it's much longer and passes by almost no major population centers or airports that could be used for emergency landing.  So why do they not use the route that goes through the Americas?  I will be intrigued to read your answer.

To me, it seems like the only logical explanation for this is that the route in use is in fact, shorter than the one through the Americas.

[stack]

In regards to he edge, I would say that is unknown what would happen, or where that might be. The subject of air travel is a topic of interest and discussion, but ultimately unknown what the variables are or what can be trusted, which I believe is holding up development of the FE world models like the bi-polar model.

I regards to the Bi-Polar map as opposed to what I would consider the more common Uni-Polar AE map is that it's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Aside from all the figure-eighting backwards traveling sun and Equinox issues, from a flight perspective, it's just as unwieldy.

You get in a big jam if you want to fly from, let's say, San Francisco to Hong Kong. How on a Bi-Polar FE map do I do that? What's my route? I can't go West all the way or I will have to 'Pad-man' to the other side of the map.
I just don't see how the Bi-polar map solves anything for FE other than it recognizes Antartica as a thing, not a ring.

[TomInAustin]

I am under the belief that many of the flights are based more on practicality rather than ideal paths.

Agree.   The longest flight I ever took was from Austin Tx (AUS) to London Heathrow (LHR).  I did not pay much attention to the outbound route as I slept most of it.  The return, however, did not fly the great circle route as in the first pic, but a much longer northerly route that went over Iceland and Greenland and came in over Hudson Bay and west of Lake Superior estimated in pic 2.

The aircraft was a 787.