Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:04:37 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Asbestos & tarpaper

Back down to earth from unrealistic Radiola conversions!

>Okay.  I'll buy roofing.  It was near the roll of tarpaper but quite a ways
>from the tank (which the Coasties said had a tarp rigged up overhead on poles
>to direct water into it, and the poles are still there).

How about that tarpaper, with the gritty coating?  Sounds like roofing again but
might be used for sidewalls or most anything you wanted to protect from elements.
Is there evidence of that stuff at the village site?  Or does it come from the
Loran station?  I wonder if anyone knows whether such stuff was used at the Loran
station.  Of course, it could migrate from there to the village but probably not
in quantity.  And here we have a whole roll of it - american, british, australian?
******************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll reiterate that it seems very unlikely that any of the materials at the "7" site
are from the Loran station except the rifle shell casing.  The site already looked
old when the Coasties found it in 1944.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:06:04 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: battery powered Radiola 80

William Webster-Garman wrote:

>Yes. This continues to puzzle me. Not only did the Radiola 80 require 110
>volts 60 Hz alternating current (batteries are direct current and typically
>far lower in voltage), but judging from the schematic, the heating elements
>in those tubes sucked lots of amperes. Finally, I'm still having trouble
>imagining how it could have been operated off of a battery.

This has little to do with much of anything (quite off-topic) and I'm not seriously
suggesting that Gallagher did any such thing...

It's not that difficult to "convert" a 110 VAC radio for battery operation. You just
disconnect all that power supply stuff and connect appropriate battery power to the
actual radio receiver part of the circuit, thereby giving it the kind of DC voltages
it wanted in the first place.  The nasty part is the high current pulled by the indirectly
heated cathodes in a set designed for AC operation.  Filament type tubes used in battery
powered sets don't pull nearly so much current.  Even the battery powered sets tended to
use big, old lead-acid storage batteries for filament voltage.

In years past - many years past - I've done conversions both ways. Desperate situations
may require desperate measures!  I often wonder at some of the weird things I did in
previous lives!

And I may do it again.  Some day I may refurbish my old Radiola-20 and rig up an AC
power supply for it - a "battery eliminator."  I don't think you can get those 45
volt and/or 90 volt batteries no more.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:09:49 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Prymak

The language speaks for itself.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:11:57 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

Handily enough (thanks to Ric's and Kenton's assiduous dig through the WPHC archives)
we have a receipt from Morris, Hedstrom, Ltd. for the parts they supplied (from Australia)
in repairing Gallagher's wireless.  It was the Radiola (#80#[obscured]/16163) that got
repaired, and the parts used were:

1 Vibrator transformer
1 Vibrator cord
1 250,000 ohme 1 W Resistor
1 Megohme 1 W Resistor
1 .02 Condensery
1 .02 4.5 Bias Batteries (The plural is used, though only one is indicated in what appears
to be the "quantity" column)

As for the batteries -- the benefits of hindsight; there were a few radio parts lying on
shelves in the still-standing building as of 1989, and there were doubtless pieces lying
around the site, but at the time we didn't see them as having any importance, so we didn't
collect them, and nobody thought (at least I didn't) to have our expedition radio expert,
Bart Whitehouse, look at them in situ and document what they were.  Ditto the batteries;
we have a sketch and photos of the one the divers recovered off the bottom of Tatiman
Passage (and returned), but no details, and nothing on the batteries at the radio shack
-- except that they appeared to be identical with the one that came out of the drink.

LTM (who ALWAYS regrets observations not made, but protests that one can't record EVERYTHING)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:17:47 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Fuel Management, Engines, Finch

I did some celestial nav activities with Linda Finch in 1996 at the Oshkosh air show and
sold her an A-10 model sextant.  They wanted to showboat with it-not learn or use it.

The engines on her Electra were essentially the same to my knowledge-P & W 1340's.  They
were built new from a collection new unused parts.  At the show though one of the mechanics
mentioned that the fuel burn was much higher than it should have been and was causing some
concern.  I suspect the break-in was not accomplished and that they solved the problem
later.  I seem to recall that avgas in those days had a higher octane and alot of lead
content compared to what is on the market now. They are now trying to get on the market
on unleaded avgas that still retains protective octane requirements.  The engines would
have required much preventative maintenance along the way to retain peak performance so
as to get the burn figures calculated by Kelly Johnson-plug changes, valve adjustments,
carb settings, oil & filter, etc.  I never have run across anything that mentioned
maintenance but I know it had to be done or she would never had made it as far as she did.
Radial engines will generaly give reliable & faithful performance, but for every hour run
them, you have to turn a wrench on them 2 or 3 times that.    Finch never did land at
Howland as the runways were unusable.  She stopped at Tarawa I believe, overflew Howland,
and then went on to either Christmas island or Canton, I forget where.  She also had the
advantage of multiple GPS, and Albatross chase plane, and a REAL  pilot and babysitter
keeping her out of trouble.  Ahh, I'll shut up.

Doug B. #2335
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:32:15 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Electra range calculations - the easy way

I see hundreds of hours are being spent on various calculations of the
Electra's range based on every conceivable variable. But I have the answer.

   When Amelia picked up her new Electra, Lookheed Aircraft had posted the
Manufactuer's Invoice on the rear cabin window. The invoice not only showed
the MSRP but the various options and standard features, but also the EPA
estimates of city flying and high altitude flying with the expected
mileage.Just find this MSRP STICKER  and the whole problem is solved!!!

George Putnam wanted the option of the GPS but Fred Noonan said it wouldn't
be necessary. Amelia did select the moonroof.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:24:20 EST
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Re: Throttle Back

Remember that the airspeed vs fuel burned chart produces a inverted
bell shaped curve.  Go slower than optimum and you burn more fuel and go
faster and you burn more fuel.  If Amelia slowed up so as not to arrive in
Honolulu before sunrise but stayed on the relatively flat bottom of the curve
she might burn more fuel but not a lot more.  The RPM may have remained
constant with a frozen prop but the manifold pressure could be reduced until
drag required more power.  If she was flying on the high side of the bottom
of the curve (where you would normally be flying) then she could throttle
back to same distance on the back side, use about the same power but be
flying considerably slower.  if she came back to the very bottom of the curve
she would be flying slower and using the least amount of fuel.  Al this
depend upon what she really meant in describing her actions.
Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:47:27 EST
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: scientific method boring?

> Eventually we'll find something simple enough for everyone to understand.
>  LTM,
>  Ric

-----Heck, its not that the evidence is difficult to understand, its just that
no piece of evidence is conclusive.   Any amount of inconclusive
evidence does not a smoking-gun make.   LTM, HAG 2201.
******************************************************************************
From Ric

And that is why the people who can't understand the significance of the
evidence without a smoking gun will have to wait until the those who can
follow the trail find one.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:56:11 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Bare spots

Ric:  I was just reviewing the photo of the island that is on the website and
noticed that there are 3 very noticeable bare spots in the photos.  One is to
the right of the Norwich City, almost in the midst of the jungle, the second
is to the left and is also, almost in the center of the jungle, while the
third is very large and along the lagoon side to the left of the NC.  Have
these been explored?  Are they accessible?  I would think, given really bad
weather, someone might move into such an area, if it were accessible.  Do any
other photos show the more detail of these spots?

LTM, who doesn't like to see spots before her eyes.
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
#2200
******************************************************************************
From Ric

We have complete photographic coverage of all these areas at several points
in time.  We don;t have great detail but it's pretty good.  We've "explored"
all those areas.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:01:37 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: asbestos

Fibro roofing (in Australia) was "rolled" with corrugations in the sheets.
Obviously there is nothing to say flat sheets could not be used, but the
corrugations provided a waterproof overlap between sheets.  The nails were
put through the "hills" and the water flowed down the "valleys" of the
corrugations.

It seems odd to me that the Colonial Administration would send out Heavy
Asbestos sheets when they could pack lots more of the popular "corrugated
Iron" which was used for both walls and roofing.

The most common early buildings of this time in Australia and New Zealand
had either all corrugated iron, or if they were "Posh" houses, corrugated
iron roofing and fibre sheeting walls.

RossD

************************************************************************
From Ric

We've certainly seen plenty of "corrugated iron" on other developed parts of
the island.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:03:50 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      C119G figures

> From Skeet Gifford
>
> Recent discussion has referenced the L-10 cruise fuel consumption of 38 gph
> vs. the "loiter" or (assumed) maximum endurance fuel flow of 20 gph. In this
> case, Maximum Endurance was 47 percent of Long Range Cruise.
>
> The nearest example for which I have BOTH max. endurance and LRC data is the
> C-119G. Comparing a mid-gross weight LRC to a relatively light gross weight
> max. endurance yields a fuel flow reduction of 45 percent.
>
> 20 gph passes the test of reasonableness.

Would you be kind enough to give us the altitude, fuel consumption and airspeed
figures (indicated and true) for the C119G  maximum endurance and LRC to which
you refer? Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:06:54 EDT
From:         Rodd Devitt
Subject:      Ross to Renaud

From Ross Devitt

I have been flying since 1970.  I do NOT have a lot of skill.  I started
when I was 16yo and gradually built up hours as a hobby, in between sailing,
and horseriding, and motoring.  There were times when I did not fly for 7
years, then only flew for 2 hours a year.

I have flown to a lot of places, and in quite a number of aircraft types,
but there are many more experienced pilots on the forum.

The reason I post some of these things is because I am actually studying
some of this stuff.  And to me, flying is simply "fun".  There are times
when it gets way too technical here.

However I do have technical training in some of these fields.  other times I
just bring something up because someone else will jump on my ideas and point
out my mistakes.  I get to learn a lot from that, and correct my mistakes.

> I have only a few questions: was the fuel burned by Finch the same that the
> fuel spent by Earhart ? ( I mean octane, and other parameters ). Also were
> the engines ( P&W R1340 ) the same ? Is there any other factor that could
> vary the fuel consumption between both flight spaced by 60 years ?

There are so many differences between Linda Finch's flight and Earhart's
flight that any comparison of fuel consumption must be guessing.

I was trying to point out the speeds and distances.  The speeds of the two
flights would be much more likely to be close, than the fuel consumption.
No matter how powerful the engines are, there is a point at which the
aircraft just won't go much better.  (Sort of).

My earlier post about the little Gazelle was to indicate that drag has an
effect on the aircraft, and we can almost double our air time and distance
by flying at a speed that minimises drag (wind friction on the aircraft).
In real life, even in Earhart's circumstances you probably wouldn't even try
it.

RossD   (who spent 27 of those 30 years getting to solo - well, I had to
start again...).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:19:28 EDT
From:         John Clauss
Subject:      Asbestos/Loran Station

>Okay, but if that's the case it means that the transite is not part of the
>activity that brought the other "building material" (screen, tar paper,
>tank, poles) to the site in the Gallagher era - unless we're incorrect in
>assuming that this site is the "house built for Gallagher" referred to by Laxton.

OK,    Then let's consider the possibility that the screen and tar paper
might have also have come from the loran station.  There is screen at
scattered sites around the loran station.  As I recall, it is dark green or
some of the framing that is associated with it is dark green.  I do not
recall seeing tar paper.  These types of materials might, more logically,
have originated in the Coast Guard facility as opposed to the pre war
Gardner settlement.

Look at the picture of The Government House and think about the debris
around its ruins .  About the only western style building material that is
apparent in the picture or remains at the site is corrugated metal sheet.
I wonder if screening would even be of much use in the early settlement.
Bugs don't really seem to be a problem.

Something tells me that the transite, screen and tar paper might well have
come from the loran station.  This suggests that there was post war
activity at the '7' site and that it was more convenient to use materials
that were close by rather than bring them all the way from the other end of
the island.  It  doesn't rule out the location as "the house built for
Gallagher", but does suggest there was ongoing activity in this area.

LTM

John Clauss

************************************************************************
From Ric

This seems to me like an unnecessary complication of the scenario.  We know
that the tank was there pre-Loran station because the Coasties found it soon
after they arrived.  We also know that the tank came from the village.  So -
big heavy stuff was brought there from the village prior to the arrival of
the Coast Guard.  Maybe the site was developed, abandoned, and developed
again later but I don't see any particular evidence to support that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:24:35 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Help in LA

    I am researching the Noonan/Pallette connection and the
Earhart/Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel connection, but have stalled for lack
of a contact in the Los Angeles area.

    I could sure use some help from a local in the area!  If anybody
wants to help, they can contact me through my Web site or by E-mail.
The  Web address is http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/

    I have forgotten and don't want to look it up, but can somebody tell
me when and where the other Noonan auto crash was?  I'm on the trail of
the Fresno crash, but there was another one in the San Francisco Bay
area which should be research also.

Don J.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Fred's car accident in April 1937 was in Fresno.  That's the only one I'm
aware of.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:25:42 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

>From William Webster-Garman
>
>For Tom King,
>
>The radio replacement parts that Gallagher cannibalized from his Radiola and
>later requested replacements for were more than likely vacuum tubes (which
>'burn out'). Are there any identifying terms?
>
>william 2243

In a properly designed piece of equipment using tubes the lifetimes of
low power receiving devices is comparable with other parts most notably
the capacitors which tended to yield some of their dielectric. If the unit
had seen overvoltage problems (maybe an experimental generator) then
the likelyhood of "burn out" of tubes is a consequence of improper use.
No hypothesis here just want to clarify the inherent quality of tubes.

Greg
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:29:48 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

David Evans Katz wrote:

>My only question is whether they had sufficient fuel to reach Gardner.

It appears that the Electra, as configured and fueled that day, had 24 hours
or more endurance, which would have been sufficient for landfall at Gardner.
We know Noonan was an excellent navigator, and that he had the expertise and
the opportunity to fly the LOP when they couldn't spot Howland.

> there is no hard evidence that they crashed (or ditched) into the sea, there
> is also no proof that they landed at Gardner.

There is more evidence that they landed at Gardner than that they crashed at
sea, including the documented history of the woman's skeleton parts, the
anecdotes of aircraft wreckage and the skeletons of male and female
"european" castaways, and the fact the Gerald Gallagher (the resident
British officer there) believed that Earhart might have been on Gardner.

> Everything I have seen on the
> TIGHAR site is as speculative as any theory advanced by those who believe
> that AE & FN crashed or ditched into the sea.

I disagree with that. Much of Tighar's current theory is backed by evidence,
and it has significantly evolved over time as new evidence has emerged. I've
watched this process happen.

> What I believe to be reasonable is that they flew south on the LOP toward Gardner, a
> destination they may have reached by the skin of their teeth if their fuel
> consumption was optimal.

There is evidence that they had sufficient fuel to reach Gardner. We just
don't know at this time how close they came to running out of fuel, but I
think it's realistic to assume that they were probably deeply into their
reserve fuel.

> While the Longs' assumptions have some flaws that you have so
> very well described, I think that the truth lies somewhere in between
> -- that is, somewhere in between Howland/Baker and McKean/Gardner.

I suspect that if they did ditch, it was south of Howland, not north.

There is a lot of compelling evidence that they may have reached Gardner.
Pursuing that evidence with the objective of finding proof sounds reasonable
to me.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:34:35 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: airspeed

Ric wrote:

>If she has a particular power setting to use at a particular
>altitude she doesn't have any choice about her airspeed.  It'll be whatever
>it is.  My understanding is that Johnson's figures were designed to yield 150
>mph (TAS) at each setting because that's the speed at which the Electra
>airframe slips through the air most efficiently.

Ric, Don't you mean 150 mph IAS?

Greg

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Nope, I mean TAS.  IAS is a largely meaningless figure that will very greatly
with altitude, barometric pressure and temperature.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:55:53 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Null hypothesis?

The process is usually referred to as being the Devil's Advocate,
isn't it?

I would think the only way to prove a null hypothesis is: a) prove
it was impossible to happen (Ric's suggestion), or b) prove something else
did happen, which may include part of a).

In any event, only a) would qualify as a "null hypothesis because if
b) occurred then it would not be a "null," it would simply be a different
hypothesis being proved correct.  Null, by definition, states nothing
occurred and you can't prove nothing occurred, you can only prove it was
impossible to occur.

A "null hypothesis" is an oxymoron, i.e., a contradictory
definition.  Null means "nothing" but a hypothesis is not nothing, it is
something.  It represents a belief -- spoken, written or otherwise -- of
certain circumstances.  Giving voice to those beliefs constitutes
"something," thereby negating the ability to call it "nothing," i.e. null.

I think what Randy has is simply just another good-old-fashioned,
common, run-of-the-mill, vanilla, everyday, white bread opposing hypothesis.

LTM, who thinks Randy's Mustang is way cool!
Dennis O. McGee #1049

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you're over-thinking this.  The term "null hypothesis" (although
perhaps oxymoronic if taken literally, just like "military intelligence" or
"government assistance") is, in fact, merely a term used to describe a useful
reversing of a hypothesis for the purpose of perspective.  In our case the
null hypothesis is that you could select any Pacific atoll at random and, if
you looked at it closely enough, you would find just as much evidence that
Earhart and Noonan had landed there.

The term Devil's Advocate (Advocatus Diaboli) is actually a religious term
from the beatification and canonization process in the Roman Catholic faith.
In assessing whether a person is worthy of sainthood a church officer is
appointed to seek out all the evidence against the candidate.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:02:18 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

>My understanding is that Johnson's figures were designed to yield 150
>mph (TAS) at each setting because that's the speed at which the Electra
>airframe slips through the air most efficiently.

The key phrase here (and I think you are right) is "slips through the
air most efficiently". Well, the airframe doesn't respond to anything
according to groundspeed, the airframe only performs according to the
physical properties of the gases that it is in. Therefore IAS not TAS.

Greg
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Nobody is talking about groundspeed.  TAS (true airspeed) is IAS (indicated
airspeed) corrected for pressure and temperature.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:06:59 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

In all this speculation, one thing I haven't seen anybody speculate about is
this: I presume that the farther south along the LOP they were when they
arrived at it, the less likely it is that they'd run out of fuel before
arriving at Nikumaroro, all else being equal.  If that simpleminded
assumption is currect, then does anybody want to speculate about factors, if
any, that might have caused them to be substantially off course to the south
without knowing it?

LTM (who's often off course)
Tom King
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The only factor I can think of is wind and it really doesn't matter which way
it was blowing as long as it wasn't a direct headwind or tailwind.
Under-correct and you'll be off course to one side of the track, over-correct
and you'll be off course to the other side.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:08:06 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

For William Webster-Garman:  Did my post of yesterday, with the complete list
of parts supplied to Gallagher in replacement for those he cannibalized, not
come through?  Here it is again...

LTM (who needs for people to repeat themselves from time to time)
Tom King

Subj:   Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman
Date:   3/30/00 9:14:41 AM Eastern Standard Time
From:   TFKing106

Vern --

Handily enough (thanks to Ric's and Kenton's assiduous dig through the WPHC
archives) we have a receipt from Morris, Hedstrom, Ltd. for the parts they
supplied (from Australia) in repairing Gallagher's wireless.  It was the
Radiola (#80#[obscured]/16163) that got repaired, and the parts used were:

1 Vibrator transformer
1 Vibrator cord
1 250,000 ohme 1 W Resistor
1 Megohme 1 W Resistor
1 .02 Condensery
1 .02 4.5 Bias Batteries (The plural is used, though only one is indicated in
what appears to be the "quantity" column)

As for the batteries -- the benefits of hindsight; there were a few radio
parts lying on shelves in the still-standing building as of 1989, and there
were doubtless pieces lying around the site, but at the time we didn't see
them as having any importance, so we didn't collect them, and nobody thought
(at least I didn't) to have our expedition radio expert, Bart Whitehouse,
look at them in situ and document what they were.  Ditto the batteries; we
have a sketch and photos of the one the divers recovered off the bottom of
Tatiman Passage (and returned), but no details, and nothing on the batteries
at the radio shack -- except that they appeared to be identical with the one
that came out of the drink.

LTM (who ALWAYS regrets observations not made, but protests that one can't
record EVERYTHING)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:17:42 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

>From Alan Caldwell
>
> Guys, you are confusing me which is not hard to do. I'll ask again -- wasn't
> AE supposed to be flying 150mph (130kph) INDICATED airspeed? If so and she
> reduced to 120mph ias that has to be a 20% reduction in airspeed. Which
> numbers do I have wrong?
>
> I don't know where 155 or 144 or 4% or 6% numbers came from. I don't know how
> anyone knows what her TAS was without knowing her altitude and OAT.

The 144 comes from the rule of thumb that True airspeed is 2% higher than
indicated airspeed for each 1,000 feet of altitude. You are certainly correct that
the precise calculation requires OAT and (pressure) altitude . (We know the
altitude because AE gives it as 10,000 feet. Ten times 2 = 20%, and 120% of 120 =
144.)  The calculated TAS of 144 is 6 mph below the base speed of 150. Six is 4%
of 150, so 144 represents a 4% reduction from 150. Under Johnson's plan, airspeed
was not held constant, but increased during the period between power reductions;
155 is an assumed midpoint reflecting that increase; it is 11 mph higher than 144;
11 is 7% of 155, so 144 represents a 7% reduction from 155. And 6% is a typo for
7%.(Sorry!)
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Good point Oscar, and one that I had not fully appreciated.  Under Johnson's
plan of holding a given power setting for three hours at a stretch, the
airspeed would slowly build as the aircraft became lighter, then at the end
of the segment the power would be pulled back and the speed would drop back
only to start slowly building again as more weight was burned off.  If 150
mph TAS was the target speed for the BEGINNING of each segment maybe we need
to rethink the aircraft's probable AVERAGE airspeed for the entire segment.
That airplane may have been "faster" than we've been thinking and, thus, able
to deal with a greater headwind component and still arrive in the Howland
area when it did.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:19:56 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Prymak's sour grapes

As alluded to in my original posting, Bill Prymak's comments are exactly
what I would expect from someone who would logically be put out of business
if the Niku theory is eventually proven correct.  Of course, since logic has
absolutely nothing to do with how conspiracy buffs operate, one of them
might claim that the Japanese dismantled NR16020, and pulled some of AE's
teeth, scattering some of both at Gardner to cover up their atrocities at
Siapan.

This is a fine example of the "don't bother me with facts, I know what I
believe" school of thought, and there's another word that shares the first
four letters of idiom which describes it precisely.

LTM, Dave, 2288

PS  if anyone is heading out to this summer's Dragon Dig a little early, and
passing through Atlanta, I'll have a short layover there on July 2nd while
returning home from my annual gig for Uncle Sam.  I'd love to say hi to
anyone who might be in the neighborhood.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:41:51 EDT
From:         Renaud Dudon
Subject:      Sea bottom search

I was reading the story of the discovery of RMS Titanic by Dr Ballard and
COMEX team ( wich is actually a french team ) in 1985-86. I was surprised by
the difficulties they encountered. They knew quite precisely the position of
the shipwreck ( it was noted in the CQD telegrams sent by the ship ).
Furthermore, the target was big ( almost 46.000 tons of steel ). In spite of
these points they took two expeditions of 2 or 3 weeks each ! Before them,
lots of adventurers and scientists try to locate the boat with heavy and very
sophisticated sonars... No hits...


That is to say that it must be really a challenge to found a little plane
such as Earhart's in deep waters, especially when you don't know where to
search for it !


    For these reasons the credibility of such a search, like the one which
was conducted last fall, is not very high. Meanwhile, they said that they
found something down a slope...


For me, the main purpose of such an expedition is mostly " advertising".


LTM

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Relatively small objects can be found in deep water IF the search area can be
tightly constrained with hard data (such as radar returns from falling
objects).  As you point out, what makes the deep water search for NR16020 so
impractical is that the search area can not be constrained except by rank,
and some (including me) would say fanciful, speculation.

I don't agree that the Timmer search, or Long's hoped-for search, are
motivated by a desire to "advertise."  I'm quite sure than neither Williamson
and Assoc. (who are working with Timmer) nor Nauticos (who are working with
Long) want to be associated with a failed search.  I think that that all of
these people really believe that the search area has been rationally and
logically constrained.  Everybody is using Elgen Long's numbers which have
apparently been "validated" by independent "experts."  I can only imagine
that these "experts" have accepted Elgen's assumptions about fuel
evaporation, headwinds, and power changes.  That's why I'd like to see the
studies.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:46:11 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Sextant vs. Octant

About this sextant box...  I was under the impression that Noonan used an
octant (as opposed to a sextant) for his celestial navigation, and that he
had borrowed the octant that he used on the flight from the United States
Navy.  I have been told that a sextant is not used in aeronautical celestial
navigation.  Does anyone know if this is true?

David Evans Katz
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It is true that Noonan used a bubble octant as his primary instrument.  It is
also true that Noonan carried a conventional nautical sextant as a
"preventer" (as he called it, using an old nautical term) or what we might
call a "back up."
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:54:59 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: airspeed

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> I think you should consider that AE instead used a constant indicated air
> speed OR a constant TAS (with help from FN). To do otherwise would have made
> FN's navigation a nightmare. Tell me how to compute track, winds, and
> position if the airspeed is not held constant?

The hourly change in airspeed is no big deal. As a guess, perhaps 3 or 4  mph
early in the flight, dropping to 1 or 2 mph later.  It's not significant and is
easy to allow for - it doesn't vary randomly, it's a steady increase.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:25:12 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

> 1 Vibrator transformer
> 1 Vibrator cord
> 1 250,000 ohme 1 W Resistor
> 1 Megohme 1 W Resistor
> 1 .02 Condensery
> 1 .02 4.5 Bias Batteries (The plural is used, though only one
> is indicated in what appears to be the "quantity" column)

Good. With these items associated with the Radiola 80, it appears very
likely that he was using it on battery power (vibrator transformers convert
battery power DC to a reasonable facsimile of AC).


william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:24:04 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Lancaster in the Kookaburra disappeared without a trace.  His aircraft has
been found about 60 yrs later).  Charles Kingsfor Smith disappeared over
water without a trace.  Not long ago wreckage (landing gear parts I think)
were found on a beach and positively identified.  I think they were found
where he shouldn't have been.  But whatever, the piece(s) have helped throw
light on one of avaition's greatest mysteries.  It also means that the rest
of the Lady Southern Cross is probably down there somewhere - waiting to be
found.

The point is, Earhart is another of those mysteries - certainly one of the
greatest.  Perhaps TIGHAR will unearth some small part that can be
identified as part of the Electra.  Perhaps not.  The thrill of the hunt is
in the chase or even better, stalking the prey.  The kill is often an anti
climax.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:17:39 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Electra specs

So that means at 150mph she was getting around 19gph per engine (38gph).
And those figures were at "full throttle".  That's why the posting on the
Gazelle figures.  With light tanks, there just may be a low drag speed (just
above glide speed, as you know - for most aircraft), that would make a huge
difference to her range and endurance on the fuel left.
(If she had any).

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

No, not "full throttle."  24 inches of manifold pressure and 1600 RPM.  I'm
not sure what "full throttle" would yield for that airplane at 10,000 feet
but it would be more than that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:22:31 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: airspeed

Do you have the glide speed for Earhart's Electra?  Failing that the landing
approach speed?

rd

**************************************************************************
From Ric

The Lockheed specs say only:

Landing Speed at Sea Level (wing flaps down) ... 65 mph
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:32:28 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      radio tube question

This is way over my head, so I hope it doesn't sound too stupid.  Here
goes... one of you yesterday said that changing old style radio tubes was
commonplace in those days, and similar to changing a lightbulb.  One of
TIGHAR's artifacts is said to resemble an unusual lightbulb base.  Could the
lightbulb base artifact be a part of a radio tube?

LTM, who has changed lots of light bulbs, but don't know nuthin 'bout no
radio tubes.

Dave Porter, 2288
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Good question.  Seems awfully big to be a radio tube - about 7/8 inch across
the base - but what do I know?  We'll get some photos up on the website soon.
 If it turned out to be a radio tube that would be very interesting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:41:10 EDT
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Prymak

> From William Webster-Garman
>
> The language speaks for itself.
>
> william 2243

No excuse for the language, perhaps. But it was obviously sent by
mistake and was intended for private consumption only. A
gentleman would have recognized the mis-sent message as such,
and would not have published it on the forum as a way to deride
someone who did not agree with him.

Cam Warren
*************************************************************************
From Ric

On the contrary.  The message was sent specifically TO the forum address and
all the other addressees were listed as CCs.  How do you do that by mistake?
I was merely allowing Mr. Prymak to speak for himself, which he did most
eloquently.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:45:02 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

Re: Tom King's post...

>As for the batteries -- the benefits of hindsight; there were a few radio
>parts lying on shelves in the still-standing building as of 1989, and there
>were doubtless pieces lying around the site, but at the time we didn't see
>them as having any importance, so we didn't collect them...

Thanks Tom!  I don't think the radio stuff did, or does, have any importance
for the Earhart search.  Just interesting to folks into old radio junk.

As for the replacement parts, the interesting items are the vibrator
transformer and cord.  These suggest the existance of a device to produce
high-voltage from a low-voltage DC source, such as a battery of some kind.

>supplied (from Australia) in repairing Gallagher's wireless.  It was the
>Radiola (#80#[obscured]/16163) that got repaired, and the parts used were....

If it was the Radiola that got repaired, the vibrator supply must have been
used to operate the Radiola from batteries.  Maybe it supplied 110 VAC to
the radio. That sounds like a very big "inverter" as it would be called -
battery power in, 110 VAC out.  I don't know that I even believe the
vibrator to do that job!  Maybe a motor/alternator rig... I have one of
those things sitting in my basement.

The other alternative seems to be the sort of thing I suggested, less than
seriously, in my earlier post about disconnecting the original power supply
and connecting batteries instead.  In this case, it's a "B" battery
eliminator. The request for "4.5 Bias Batteries" seems to fit that sort of
scenario.  These are what were called "C" batteries providing grid bias to
the valves (tubes) and they lasted a long time.

That adds up to:  Run the heaters of the tubes, and the vibrator HV supply
on big batteries, and continue to use "C" batteries for bias.  Keeping the
"C" batteries simplifies things just a little.

Neither of these seem very attractive approaches.  Maybe it's some
indication of how far Gallagher was willing to go to try to make that
Radiola work!  And maybe it's about the point where he elected to get the
"Ultima" designed to run on batteries, if that was the case, and that had a
couple of short-wave bands.

To specify simply a "vibrator cord" seems odd.  It's as though all this  was
common practice and anyone would know just what a "vibrator cord" was.
Needing both a vibrator transformer and a cord seems to suggest that the
thing, whatever it was, went up in smoke!  So, what about the vibrator
itself? That's the thing that most frequently failed in such devices.

Very puzzling...  LTM (Who asked, "So, what's new?")
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:47:11 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Bare spots

Just to be sure, Dave, I just looked at the photo again and I THINK the first
two spots you're talking about are basically where the '99 crew did its work,
while the one on the lagoon side is a huge mudflat full of crabs that we
explored in '89, figuring that it would have been a good place to land (but
it wasn't; you can sink up to your tush in it).

LTM (who doesn't like to sink that far)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:06:54 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Asbestos & tarpaper

Well, but our Coastie informants don't describe asbestos and tarpaper; it
could have gotten there during the CG period or later as the product of
somebody's attempt to improve the site for some reason.

But it's interesting to think about the fact that IF this was the House Built
for Gallagher, and IF it was built for the purpose we speculate, then it was
certainly built in late 1940-early 1941, when Gallagher says they had really
bad weather...

LTM (who would like to have a good roof over her head in the rain)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:16:15 EDT
From:         Michael Lowrey
Subject:      Trail width

With regard to the possible trails in the 1938 photograph, what is the
resolution of the picture? Or to put it another way, if there really
were a trail created by a castaway or two, how wide would it have to be
to show up in the photograph? Five feet? 15 feet? The reason I ask is
that, in my experience, we humans tend to create rather narrow paths,
especially over rough or overgrown terrain. It is easier, after all, to
walk in our own tracks time after time rather than create a wider path.
If the resolution weren't particularly good, I would find it hard to
believe that any possible (broad) trails could be the result of one or
two people. (Please excuse this question if it makes little sense, I'm
the guy that always didn't score well on the spatial relationship tests
back in junior high.)

Michael Lowrey
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It's a good question.  Fortunately, the fact that the "7" is a natural
feature that is still pretty much unchanged; and having walked the ground
myself; and having had the experience of watching trails emerge on very
similar terrain on that same island over the course of several days of
traffic; I can say that the width of the "trails" in the 1938 photo seems
entirely consistent with what one or two people might create over a period of
several weeks if not months.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:40:08 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Asbestos/Loran Station

Ric says in response to John re. the Seven Site:

Maybe the site was developed, abandoned, and developed
again later but I don't see any particular evidence to support that.

Well, except the fact that there's stuff there that Dick Evans and Bill
Moffit don't mention.  I don't think we need to "unnecessarily complicate the
scenario," but we ought to keep possibilities in mind.

LTM (who's always alert to possibilities)
Tom King

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Remember that the "7" site is not one pile of stuff (see the diagram in the
current TIGHAR Tracks page 49).  The building materials we're talking about
are a good 15 to 20 meters away from the tank and bird bones scene that Evans
and Moffit described.  They're also a lot harder to find.  The tank is white
and sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb even in dense scaevola once you
get anywhere close to it.  We found the other stuff by conducting a fairly
detailed (but not meticulous) search.  It's very easy for me to beleive that
Evans and Moffit found the tank site but never saw the building materials.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:51:34 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Null hypothesis?

If you look at Henderson Island, which has a website even though it is
uninhabited, you can find a report of unidentified, human, probably European
skeletons that were later lost.  No airplane aluminum or Plexiglas were
found.  An amazing amount of stuff can wash up on remote islands, running
heavily to plastic toys, fish nets, and whiskey bottles, but you would not
find it inland unless someone was there to pick it up and move it.  I wonder
if the Benedictine bottle is a red herring?  I think that the timing of
finds and photographs strongly suggests that AE and FN made it to
Nikumaroro, but that the proof is not in.  If only we could re-locate the
bones..         Dan Postellon TIGHAR 2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:55:14 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      20 gph vs 38 gph

When AE reported on her approach to Hawaii she was burning 20 gph
(vs the "normal" 38 gph) is there any pilot on the forum who would doubt she
was referring to per-engine burn rates?
    Even though I'm a low-time pilot, I can not envision a scenario
where a pilot could half the cruise fuel-consumption-rate and still stay
airborne for very long.
    A Cessna 172, which in no way even approximates a Lockheed 10E, has
a normal cruise of about 110 knots at 2,400 rpm burning about 8 gph at 1,000
feet.  (These numbers are approximate, as I don't have the POH handy).  By
halving the fuel consumption to 4 gph (1,200 rpm?) you might get down to 55
knots -- and be nibbling at the edges of a stall -- but you won't stay at
1,000 feet, you're coming down whether you like it or not.  To maintain
1,000 feet at ANY airspeed you would have to add power, thus increasing
considerably your fuel consumption.  The only way this airplane will burn 4
gph and not descend is during a high speed taxi.
    As an experiment the forum pilots should take up their favorite
airplane next weekend and run the following experiment:  Pick any weight and
altitude you desire, set the aircraft at trimmed cruise, record your fuel
consumption rate, airspeed (IAS or TAS, whatever), and altitude.  Now,
reduce the fuel consumption by 48 percent and make no (none, zero, zilch,
nada, tepotah!) other changes and maintain this reduced-fuel-consumption
status for five minutes.  Record what happens and report the results to the
forum on Monday -- assuming you started with enough sufficient altitude.
     We can play with charts, graphs, theories etc. all day, but let's
apply some basic real-world practices here.  You don't need a Lockheed 10E
to estimate "beyond a reasonable doubt" what would happen if you reduced its
cruise fuel-consumption-rate by 48 percent.  It is my belief that ANY
aircraft in trimmed and stable flight will descend if its fuel consumption
rate is reduced by 48 percent and no other changes are made.  Can anyone
disprove my belief?

LTM, who ain't being a turtle today!
Dennis O. McGee #1049
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:10:31 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      AE movie update

According to today's Detroit News, Julianne Moore has beaten out Cate
Blanchett to play the lead in I Was Amelia Earhart.  The other news is that
Mel Gibson is on the short list (no pun intended) to play Fred.

Considering for a moment the sheer number of bad movies that have been made
of good books, d'ya think there's a ghost of a chance of the reverse being
true in this case?  (I aint holding my breath)

LTM, Dave, 2288
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Saints preserve us!  This is looking ominous.  Fred Noonan stood 6 feet and a
quarter inch.  Mel Gibson is - what? - maybe 4 feet?  On the other hand, Mel
played William Wallace in "Braveheart" and Will was supposedly close to 7
feet tall.

To answer your question, no.  It may be possible to make a silk purse from a
sow's ear, but about all you can make from horse manure is fertilizer.

The only up side to a major, big budget, theatrical release motion picture based on
"I Was Amelia Earhart" is that it will popularize the notion that the flight
made it to an island and that AE and FN survived for a time.  First there was
"Flight for Freedom" which was a myth about AE being on a spy mission.  Then
there was the Diane Keaton made for TV movie which was a myth that had her
run out of gas at sea.  Then there was the Statrek Voyager episode that was a
myth about her being abducted by aliens.  Now we'll have a myth about her
landing on an island.   It was probably inevitable.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:16:46 EDT
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: Sextant vs. Octant

Uh Oh!!!   Refresh my memory.  I just happened to see the Long book at the
library and a picture of Manning using an octant.
Did Gallagher know the difference between an octant and a sextant or was
there a general use of a term?  Should we be chasing an Octant number
instead of a sextant number?  Or have we already covered this and I'm off
topic

Clyde Miller

*************************************************************************

From Ric

You're not off topic.  You're behind topic.  Noonan used a bubble octant but
carried a conventional marine sextant as a "preventer."  Gallagher said the
box had once contsained an "old fashioned" nautical sextant.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:22:16 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Sea bottom search

Ric asked:

<< If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?>>

In answer to your question - not a leg to stand on...

ltm
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:06:52 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

>From Ric
>
>Nobody is talking about groundspeed.  TAS (true airspeed) is IAS (indicated
>airspeed) corrected for pressure and temperature.

The reason it gets "corrected" is to establish the basis for the magnitude
and vector of the aircraft which when vector summed with winds will yield
ground speed and direction.

Greg
***************************************************************************
From Ric

For Johnson to construct tables that would yield a continuous indicated
airspeed of 150 mph as the airplane climbed would require increases, not
decreases, in power and fuel consumption.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:20:52 EDT
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Re: radio tube question

I have worked with many old radio tubes of that period.  I would say that a
7/8 inch diameter base was just about right for many of those tubes.  Many
were larger.  What type of material did the part appear to be made from?

LTM
Harry  #2300

*************************************************************************
From Ric

The base of the object seems to be made of a lightweight non-ferrous metal.
The thing is far too complex to try to describe here but, for that very
reason, I suspect that once we get some good photos of it up for everyone to
see, someone will know immediately what it is.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:21:45 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

Thanks, Vern.  Very interesting.  Your post got me started wondering why
Gallagher would have been so dedicated to operating his wireless if all he
could do was listen, but then it occurred to me - duh - that there were
things like the Battle of Britain going on.

LTM (who would have been listening, too)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:22:57 EDT
From:         Christine J.
Subject:      Radio Tube Question

I know nothing about radios, but I decided to take a look at an old set
of 1951's British encyclopedia's that to my husbands chagrin I refuse to
throw out, now perhaps they are going to come in handy once again. I
looked up to see if I could find out what an "ultimate" was but no luck,
but I did read a bit that likens the "thermionic valve"...... I imagine
here in Canada and the States that will be......... "thermionic tube" as
looking like an incandescent electric bulb.

Also as a footnote the British Post Office from 1870 and still when
these books were printed in 1951, controlled all the wireless (radio),
telegraph, and telephone systems. So I would presume that is where if
indeed Gallagher held any form of radio license, a copy would be held in
their archives.

Regards
Christine J
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:23:59 EDT
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

Just for fun, I note that I have a vibrator for shavers made by ATR in
St. Paul.  12VDC in, 115 VAC-60Hz out at 15 watts and intended to run off
the lighter outlet in cars.  It is about 2.75" x 2.75" x 4.0" and I got it
used back in the middle 70's.

    jerry ellis #2113
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:25:23 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

> From Tom King
>
> For William Webster-Garman:  Did my post of yesterday, with the complete list
> of parts supplied to Gallagher in replacement for those he cannibalized, not
> come through?  Here it is again...

Yes, the complete list did come through, and the contents seem to indicate
that if those parts were associated with Gallagher's Radiola 80, he was
operating it on battery power.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:27:52 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Asbestos/Loran Station

Fair enough.  Incidentally, in comparing the Hoodless report and Gallagher's
17th October telegram, I see that Hoodless mentions two bones Gallagher
doesn't -- a rib and the right scaphoid bone.  I wonder if these were found
during the "thorough search," or whether G. just neglected to mention them.

LTM
Tom
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Irish doesn't strike me as a neglectful sort of chap.  What do a scaphoid
bone be?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:31:09 EDT
From:         Ross Schlichting
Subject:      Re: radio tube question

Good point Dave. Actually, 7/8" is right in the ballpark for a power or
rectifier tube.

LTM

Ross Schlichting

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmmm.   For what it's worth, this thing didn't screw in.  It has two wee
pins on either side of the base so it looks like a push-and-turn sort of
installation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:33:12 EDT
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: C119G figures

>From Oscar Boswell
>
>Would you be kind enough to give us the altitude, fuel consumption and
>airspeed figures (indicated and true) for the C119G  maximum endurance and
>LRC to which you refer? Thanks.

Happy to oblige. Actually, I should have posted the numbers in the original
posting.

The C-119G is the oldest comparable airplane for which I have Long Range
Cruise AND Maximum Endurance numbers. I have a C-47 manual, but it omits the
Max Endurance data. In order to approximate the applicability of Johnson's
L-10 numbers, I chose an LRC weight a pinch in the high side of mid-point and
factored a 30 knot headwind(adds 4 knots and 80 lbs/hr). I did this because
the C-119 was a whole lot more stable with a little extra speed. The maximum
endurance (Maximum Lift/Drag) number is for a weight near the end of the
flight. The numbers are for a C-119G, normal configuration, 5,000 density
altitude. For reference:

Operating Empty Weight    45,000
Wing Fuel (lbs)           15,540
Aux Fuel (lbs)            12,144
Max Takeoff Gross Weight  72,500 (subject to mission requirements)

(VIEW WITH NON-PROPORTIONAL FONT FOR COLUMNS)
                           LRC    L/D MAX
Gross Weight (lbs)      65,000     48,000
Total Fuel Flow (lb/hr)  1,180        650
True Air Speed (knots)     161        108

Skeet
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:37:46 EDT
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Null hypothesis?

This null hypothesis thing is getting a bit tangled and may lead to
unnecessary confusion, so let me try to clarify.

The term "null hypothesis" has nothing to do with proving that something did
not happen.

The term is from mathematical statistics and is used to denote a particular
statistical hypothesis, typically specifying the population from which a
random sample is assumed to have been drawn, and which is to be NULLified, i.e.
rejected, if the evidence from the random sample is unfavorable to the
hypothesis.

As a simple example, consider a factory making a batch of widgets which are
required to meet certain specifications.  The factory takes a random sample to
find out if the batch is acceptable.  The NULL hypothesis is that the widgets
meet specifications.  The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that the widgets do not meet
specifications.  The widgets in the sample are tested in accordance with a
predefined statistical procedure, and if fewer than a specified number of widgets
are defective, then the null hypothesis is accepted.  Otherwise, the null
hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis, i.e. that the widgets do
not meet specifications, is accepted.

Semantic confusion about the word NULL can be avoided by thinking about this in
terms of  THE HYPOTHESIS TO BE TESTED and the ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS.  In the
TIGHAR context, the hypothesis to be tested (the TIGHAR hypothesis) is that
Earhart landed on Gardner Island.  The alternative hypothesis is that she
didn't.  Even though the TIGHAR methodology is not statistical, the hypothesis
terms can be used in an evidentiary context just as well.  Either Earhart got to
Gardner or she didn't.

When Randy says he has been unable to prove the NULL hypothesis,  I understand
him to mean he has been unable to prove the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis, i.e.  he has
been unable to find evidence that would enable him to reject (NULLify) the TIGHAR
hypothesis.

Hope this helps.

LTM  (who hates it when explanations nullify clarity)

Bob Brandenburg,  #2286
***************************************************************************
From Ric

See?  If we bash about long enough, sooner or later somebody who actually
KNOWS steps in and straightens us out.  Thanks Bob.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:42:29 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

> Tom King
> ... does anybody want to speculate about factors, if any, that might
> have caused them to be substantially off course to the south
> without knowing it?

I'm still not comfortable with a magnetic variation of 9° 29' E for
Howland Island in 1937, as reported to Alan Caldwell by Larry Newitt of
the Canadian government. Where did they get that -- from an old chart, a
measurement made in the central Pacific, or did they calculate it using
today's standards? If the magnetic variation was incorrect for that area
it will not have been as much of a problem for shipping as it would have
been for aircraft, and there wasn't a whole lot of air traffic in that
area back then. A shipboard navigator can take a lot more fixes per mile
than an airborne navigator, so an error in course because of a
miscalculated variation can be corrected more often and is less likely
to be reported as a problem. Especially if it is a slight error.

It's probably been reported here already but when was Noonan likely to
have taken his last fix before expected landfall? I realize that my
calculation of 14°35'E for variation is probably incorrect but this
would have given them a course 5 degrees south what their course should
have been, and if the variation was anywhere between 9° 29'E and 14°35'E
they still would've been south.

I don't have the knowledge or resources to do it but I think we should
verify 9° 29'E using a current .

Frank Westlake

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Frank has a point.  If it turned out that the 1937 map was wrong that would
be very interesting.  Anybody got a geomagnetic model of the geomagnetic
variation in 1937 handy?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:46:40 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

I've stated a number of times on the forum that I thought Noonan would
advance the LOP so that it would intersect the entire Phoenix Island Group,
which would maximize his chances of sighting any of the islands, accountinf
for various navigational errors.  With winds coming from the east, they would
normally be set (if not corrected) to the west, and hence see McKean and
Gardner first.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

It would take a pretty wiggly LOP to intersect the entire Phoenix Group.
He's still gotta shoot for one or two islands at best.  Just doesn't make any
sense to me (but you knew that).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:48:17 EDT
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: 20 gph vs 38 gph

>From Dennis McGee
>
>When AE reported on her approach to Hawaii she was burning 20 gph
>(vs the "normal" 38 gph) is there any pilot on the forum who would doubt she
>was referring to per-engine burn rates?

To Dennis and the rest of the Forum:

Remember that the 38 gallons per hour number was most probably for a
mid-point gross weight. Frankly, we don't know what the fuel flow was in
normal LRC near the end of the flight. On the other hand, the 20 gph number
WAS reported when the gross weight was substantially reduced.

For the SAME gross weight, here are more C-119 numbers.
                           LRC    L/D MAX
Gross Weight (lbs)      65,000     65,000
Total Fuel Flow (lb/hr)  1,180        930
True Air Speed (knots)     161        125

Only a 21 percent reduction for Max L/D here.

For airplanes where fuel comprises a large portion of the total weight of the
aircraft (fuel was almost 53 percent of the total weight of Earhart's L-10E),
performance varies widely with burn off.

Skeet
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:56:52 EDT
From:         Jim Myers
Subject:      Dennis McGee's Comment

I've been following this thread for some time and I agree with Dennis.   I'm
still working on this flying business but his pragmatic answer makes sense.

The POH in the C-172 fuel consumption figures are based on altitude,
temperature and % power (RPM setting in this case).   In my experience,
depending on year and engine, they will do about 110kts  (indicated) with
about 2300-2400 RPM at lower altitudes...below 3000'.   POH says fuel
consumption is about 6-6.5 gph to 7-7.5 gph depending on conditions.  But the
gph numbers are for a "new" engine.  Taking into account  a "used" engine and
a "dirty" airplane, you better figure on at least 8 gph minimum under nearly
all conditions for safe flight planning.   You'll probably get a tiny bit
better but no matter...its better to have gas in the tank than at the
airport.

If you pull back the power an additional 50% (from the assumed 65% -2300-
2400 rpm best cruise), you're at  1150-1200 rpm.  The engine is probably not
making more than 20% power at that rpm.  That's just not enough to maintain
altitude.   You'll find yourself going in two directions....forward and DOWN!
  As a student  you learn that steady state flying, not descending, climbing,
or turning, the following forces are at equilibrium.....gravity = lift and
thrust = drag.  Its physics....gravity and drag in this case overcoming lift
and thrust to drag you down.

The best analogy in pulling the power back to 1200 rpm is a simulated serious
partial engine failure...right away you establish your best glide, about
75-85kts,  trading height for distance.   If you are at 1000 feet, best start
your precautionary/emergency landing check list right away...no forget that
...no time.... just look for a parking spot ....preferably something flat, no
holes, trees, poles, cows, etc.. ..straight ahead, 1800' long and into the
wind would be so sweet.  No doubt about it you are going DOWN and you're
going to need everything going for you when you start at 1000'.  As you flair
out just above that "primo" landing site AND  now realize its been carpet
bombed, full of fence posts, wire, junk cars and cow pies don't forget to do
the following.. dump in the rest of the flaps (if you haven't already), push
the nose over (keep the airspeed nailed at 55kts for soft/short field
approach), pull the mixture off, shut off the fuel, throttle off, kill the
ignition,!
 turn off the master and open the doors and upon touch down keeping the nose
wheel off the ground as long as possible.

How much power can you take off?   Not a whole lot in my experience....2000
rpm will get a nice SLOW flight.  Maybe 85-90 kts, a bit nose high. but OK.
Boring....you're going nowhere ...fast.   Anything less than 2000 and you are
setup for partial power cruise descent.  You can hold altitude with 10*
flaps, 1700-2000 rpm and 75-80 kts.  Any less rpm and you have a slow
descent.

Lets look at this from a different perspective....what would you really be
saving if you cut the fuel consumption by 50%...??   I'll put the laws of
physics on hold for this example and keep the math easy.... using C-172 as an
example,  you reduced from best cruise power (assumed 60%) to 30% and you
maintain level flight.  Your fuel consumption goes from 8 gph to 4gph and
your indicated airspeed goes from 110 to 55kts. (Everything is cut in half,
right??)   What changes....??  The time it take you to get there goes up by a
factor of 2.   If your trip was 110 nm at 110 kts airspeed it would take,
assuming no winds, 1 hour and you use 8 gallons of gas.   If you slow to
55kts it will take 2 hours for the same trip  110/55= 2 X 4 gph = 8 gallons
used for 110 nm.   Where's the savings???   I've run the engine and the pilot
an extra hour and used the same amount of gas anyway.   Flying at just above
stall speed for two hours would not be my idea of a fun trip.

Just my thoughts....

Regards,

Jim Myers
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:59:23 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Electra specs

>From Ric
>
> No, not "full throttle."  24 inches of manifold pressure and 1600 RPM. I'm
> not sure what "full throttle" would yield for that airplane at 10,000 feet
> but it would be more than that.

Sorry, I was quoting from TIGHAR website..  "AFTER NINE HOURS FLY AT SIXTEEN
HUNDRED RPM TWENTY FOUR INCHES OR "FULL THROTTLE" TEN THOUSAND FEET AT
ZERO SEVEN TWO AT THIRTY EIGHT GALLONS PER HOUR STOP"

RossD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Ooops!  You're right.  I'm wrong.  My turn to be sorry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:08:01 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: radio tube question

7/8" across at the base was NOT unusual for a radio valve in those days.  I
grew up using the things.  It wasn't until the advent of valves like the
"6N6" that we got used to the smaller valves.

I am on the trail of a Radiola 80 at the moment, but the person concerned is
not sure if it has been "reduced to components".

For most of what you always wanted to know about radio valves (Tubes) check:
http://w1.844.telia.com/~u84405432/index.htm

and particularly: http://w1.844.telia.com/~u84405433/ilhiphi.htm

I did my early training on Valve radios, and repaired and built a number of
short wave and broadcast band sets in my early teens.  When I got out of the
RAAF in 1975 I was still repairing Valve radios, and almost all of the
Televisions around were Valve sets.

Another point.  The radio parts on Niku may ba a lot newer than you think.
Valve radios were in use well into the 1960's.  Niku was settled still at
that time.

rd
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:11:41 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: radio tube question

Oops..

I forgot.  The pages referred to in my last posting show that by 1925,
valves were being produced that only needed a little over one and a half
volts dc  at 0.15amp for "heater" and from 2 to 10 volts for the "plate".
Thus reducing the battery drain considerably.

Whoever has the schematic for the Radiola might find the valve types in
those pages and work out an E=IR for them.  (or P=EI or however you want to
transpose it).

rd
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:13:44 EDT
From:         Renaud Dudon
Subject:      Fuel consumption

Thanks for yours precisions. Finch may have took benefit from the higher
reliability that procure higher octane fuel. But, in another way, it is quite
difficult to estimate what would be the difference in terms of fuel
consumption between the two flights ( AE's and Finch's ).
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:17:29 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

The AC power for the Radiola was PROBABLY 240VAC not
110VAC.  Much of the equipment was sourced in Australia and New Zealand,
where that is the AC voltage.

rd
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:20:28 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: AE movie update

>From Ric

>>Saints preserve us!  This is looking ominous.  Fred Noonan stood 6 feet and
a quarter inch.  Mel Gibson is - what? - maybe 4 feet?  On the other hand,
Mel played William Wallace in "Braveheart" and Will was supposedly close to 7
feet tall.<<

Poor Old Mel G.
Full Name: Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson
Birthday: Jan. 3, 1956
Birthplace: Peekskill, NY
Height: 5' 10"
Weight: About 150 Lb.

Looks like he WAS maybe 4' 22".  lol

Of course if they decide to do some "on location" shoots, there may be the
chance of an extended visit to Niku..  Perhaps an expedition can be funded
in exchange for genuine footage..  (Please Don't take me seriously this
time..  I really shouldn't have to explain my jokes....)

rd
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:56:12 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Re: evidence

For William Webster-Garman

We have no idea how deep into her reserve she was.  We only know that she
reported that she was "low on gas" an hour before her last transmission.  I
think that we should take her at her word.  At 19:13 being "low on gas" does
not make me optimistic that she believed she had as much as 5 hours left at
that point.

With respect to "hard evidence that they were on Gardner", I submit that
TIGHAR has no such hard evidence.  "Anecdotes" of aircraft wreckage does not
qualify as evidence in any reasonable forum.  The qualify as hearsay.
Actual Aircraft wreckage qualifies as evidence.

Moreover, reports of skeletons are not hard evidence that Earhart and Noonan
were there.  Those reports are also hearsay and the skeletons themselves
(until they are found) are hard evidence merely that two humans (perhaps of
European extraction) died there.  They could have been two of the
unfortunates from the old shipwreck or they could have been two other
castaways (or they could have been Earhart & Noonan).  In any event, this is
hard evidence that two people died there, nothing more.  The "fact" that
Gerald Gallagher believed that Earhart might have been on Gardner is not
quite the case.  He wondered whether the remains might belong to Earhart and
Noonan; there is no evidence of which I am aware that he actually believed
that the remains belonged to E&N.  This too, fails the test of hard
evidence.  Think of it this way:  If someone unearthed (and subsequently
lost) the bones of two other unidentified "Europeans" on McKean, such bones
would have the same weight (as evidence) as those found on Gardner.

"Evidence" such as this appears to me to be as speculative and as fanciful
as any other so-called evidence presented by other groups.  I would classify
TIGHAR's "evidence" as falling into the realm of interesting clues that may
lead one to conclude that E&N possibly made it to Gardner.  It is equally
possible that they didn't.

David Evans Katz
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I suspect that most of the experienced pilots on the forum would agree that
if you're 19 hours out and over the middle of the Pacific Ocean in a 150 mph
airplane and you can't find your destination and you only have 5 hours of gas
left you are most definitely "low on gas."

Contemporaneous written accounts by a first-hand source are by no stretch of
the imagination "hearsay."

We also have a problem in semantics.  William says we have "hard evidence"
but David objects and says that all we have are "interesting clues."  Let's
see if we can sort this out.
Webster's New World Dictionary defines "evidence" as:
1.  the condition of being evident
2.  something that makes another thing evident; indication; sign
3.  something that tends to prove; ground for belief

"Clue" is defined as:
"something that leads out of a maze, perplexity, etc. or helps to solve a
problem."

I would submit that for all practical purposes the terms are interchangable.

The term "hard evidence" is not defined but, I would suggest, is usually
taken to mean evidence of a physical nature (as in documents, photographs,
and artifacts) which is regarded as credible.  David seems to be confusing
"evidence" with "proof."

TIGHAR certainly does have hard evidence (ground for belief) that the
Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Nikumaroro.  We do not yet have proof that
that happened. By contrast, I am aware of no similar body of hard evidence to
support a alternative hypothesis.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:58:45 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Re: Null Hypothesis

For Dennis McGee

"Rejecting the Null Hypothesis" is a process used in statistical analysis
which is used to test the  validity of a given statistical hypothesis.  One
begins by formulating the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis,
where the null hypothesis is the hypothesized parameter value compared with
a sample result, and the alternative hypothesis is "not the null
hypothesis".  It (the null hypothesis) is rejected only if the sample result
is unlikely to have occurred given the correctness of the alternative
hypothesis.  That is, the alternative hypothesis is accepted only if the
null hypothesis is rejected.  To take a classic example from statistics, an
auditor wishes to test the assumption that the mean value of a group of
values is $X.  He takes a statistically valid sample of values and computes
their mean value.  He rejects value $X (the null hypothesis) only if value
$X is contradicted by the sample mean.

The concept of "rejecting the null hypothesis" has no meaningful application
to the process of determining where AE & FN may have concluded their
ill-fated flight.  There are no sample arithmetic values from which one can
draw a statistically valid sample in order to create an alternative
hypothesis (the opposite of a null hypothesis).

David Evans Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:01:23 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

  Jerry Ellis wrote:

<<Just for fun, I note that I have a vibrator for shavers made by ATR in
St. Paul.  12VDC in, 115 VAC-60Hz out at 15 watts and intended to run off
the lighter outlet in cars.  It is about 2.75" x 2.75" x 4.0" and I got it
used back in the middle 70's.>>

In 1981 my business partner toured ATR owned by Mr. Charlie Nutter. At the
time he toured it, the facilities looked like something out of the 1940s.
Charlie has been around for years doing transistorized versions of the
same thing, a smart guy. The technology didn't really go away it just
doesn't require the vibrators anymore. Now it is all done with transistor
switches. The concept of using magnetics to transform impedances in
power conversion works just as well going down in voltage as going up,
as evidenced by the millions of computer power supplies in use every day.

Greg
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:10:47 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

>From Ric
>
>For Johnson to construct tables that would yield a continuous indicated
>airspeed of 150 mph as the airplane climbed would require increases, not
>decreases, in power and fuel consumption.

OK, no arguement over this. If I understand your point then, the desire
was to hold 150 mph groundspeed (equiv 0 wind) and do so by modifying the
IAS. A bit of an esoteric control loop function. IAS is then the dependent
variable.

Greg
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I suppose you could describe true airspeed as groundspeed in zero wind, but
that's pretty much irrelevant.  The idea is to develop a power management
profile that will move the machine through the air at the most efficent speed
(150 mph in this case) most economically. The indicating airspeed will modify
itself as the airplane climbs into thinner air and colder temperatures.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:15:11 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Asbestos/Loran Station

The scaphoid do be a part of the foot, so maybe it walked...

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Somebody just told me that there is a scaphoid bone in da hand too (at the
base of the index finger near the thumb).  Is that right?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:19:34 EDT
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Sea bottom search

> I was reading the story of the discovery of RMS Titanic by Dr Ballard and
> COMEX team ( wich is actually a french team ) in 1985-86. I was surprised by
> the difficulties they encountered. They knew quite precisely the position of
> the shipwreck ( it was noted in the CQD telegrams sent by the ship ).

They had a precise, but incorrect, location.  She was actually found about
22 km. east and 4 km. south of her reported position.  The lifeboats were
found about 8 km south west of the sinking position.  In the book you
mention, look for the diagram "Argo Search - Phase II" in chapter 6
"Discovery."

The relevancy to AE, in my opinion, is that the Titanic's position was far
better known than the Electra's.  Even if we assume she ditched, the range
of possible locations is huge.

> Furthermore, the target was big ( almost 46.000 tons of steel ). In spite of
> these points they took two expeditions of 2 or 3 weeks each ! Before them,
> lots of adventurers and scientists try to locate the boat with heavy and very
> sophisticated sonars... No hits...

Quite.  Catch the special on the recover of the Friendship 7.  They had an
EXACT position where that sank.  They did find it fairly promptly, but again
consider the comparision.

> That is to say that it must be really a challenge to found a little plane
> such as Earhart's in deep waters, especially when you don't know where to
> search for it !

I agree.  I'm amazed they're trying, actually.

> For these reasons the credibility of such a search, like the one which
> was conducted last fall, is not very high. Meanwhile, they said that they
> found something down a slope...
>
> For me, the main purpose of such an expedition is mostly " advertising".

Perhaps.  However, I think they really believe.  From their point of view,
ours that the plane made it to landfall seems pretty, uh, amazing as well.
You've no doubt heard the rumors that TIGHAR is just an excuse to let Ric
and company wander around "exotic" places on someone elses dime.  The fact
that some of these "exotic" places are quick and/or slow death doesn't seem
to enter their minds.

    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:22:50 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Sea bottom search

>If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?

Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Do I get a gold star for the day?

Tom #2179
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, but you still can't go the boy's room.  You just went.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:38:23 EDT
From:         Michael Lowrey
Subject:      Re: Null hypothesis?

There is an important methodological mistake in Bob Brandenburg's widget
example. In statistical hypothesis testing, only by being able to reject
the null and accept the alternative hypothesis are you making a powerful
statement. How you define the null and alternative is critical.

Bob's example was:

> As a simple example, consider a factory making a batch of widgets which are
> required to meet certain specifications.  The factory takes a random sample to
> find out if the batch is acceptable.  The NULL hypothesis is that the widgets
> meet specifications.  The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that the widgets do not
> meet specifications.  The widgets in the sample are tested in accordance with a
> predefined statistical procedure, and if fewer than a specified number of
> widgets are defective, then the null hypothesis is accepted.  Otherwise, the null
> hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis, i.e. that the widgets
> do not meet specifications, is accepted.

In other words, we are to assume the widgets are good to go (the null
hypothesis) unless we have strong proof that they aren't (the
alternative hypothesis). ("Strong proof" in statistics typically means
95 percent confident.) In this approach, you'd use the widgets unless
you were at least 95 percent confident that they were defective.
However, just because you can't reject the null/accept the alternative
doesn't mean the null is true. That is a proposition that you haven't
tested. In this case just because you aren't 95 percent confident the
parts are bad doesn't mean the parts are within specifications.

A far better approach is to assume (null hypothesis) the widgets are
defective with an alternative that they aren't defective/are within
specifications. You would reject the null only if you were at least 95
percent confident that the widgets weren't defective.

Michael Lowrey

**************************************************************************

From Ric

Which reminds me of another concept I've often thought about with relation to
this investigation - the concept of probability.  What are "the chances" that
a given island that "happens" to be on the LOP described by Earhart will
"happen", three years later,  to yield the bones of a castaway which "happen"
to be most likley those of a woman of Earhart's stature and ethnic background
and that a search of the same island will "happen" to produce the remains of
a shoe which appears to match Earhart's and aircraft-related artifacts whihc
"happen' to be consistewnt with the Lockheed Modle 10....etc, etc.  In other
words, is there a mathematical way to quantify this heap of coincidence?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:42:48 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: radio tube question

In Asia there are lots of household light bulbs and sockets that do not screw
in place.  They use push and turn pins.  The base dia is 7/8" across.  I can
send you one if you like.  They differ from push/twist auto lamps which use
two contacts and  must be oriented, one pin is higher.  On these the pins are
directly opposite each other and can be installed either way.

Goodluck
Bob Lee

**************************************************************************
From Ric

This sounds like a mystery.  We need to get some photos up on the website.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:45:46 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Scaphoid bone

> Irish doesn't strike me as a neglectful sort of chap.  What do a scaphoid
> bone be?

From rather painful experience I can tell you a scaphoid bone be in the
collection of bones in the wrist area....

rd
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:46:34 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: C119G figures

Which said figures coincide nicely with my post on the Gazelle's max
endurance figures.

The point being that no matter what aeroplane or weight there is a point
where you can cut the fuel consumption "drastically" if you need to eke out
some more distance / air time.

rd
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:47:51 EDT
From:         Sheila Emanuel
Subject:      Re: Help in LA

> From Don Jordan
>
>     I am researching the Noonan/Pallette connection and the
> Earhart/Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel connection, but have stalled for lack
> of a contact in the Los Angeles area.
>
>     I could sure use some help from a local in the area!  If anybody
> wants to help, they can contact me through my Web site or by E-mail.
> The  Web address is http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/

I live in the Hollywood area -- not far from the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel,
actually.  Maybe I could help.  Email me if you haven't found anybody yet
and we can discuss what kind of assistance you need.

Sheila Emanuel
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:50:42 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Evidence

The rule of thumb is that when aircraft are lost, they usually are found later
at a location where they shouldn't have been. In many cases that is why they
were lost in the first place : they hit high ground, even a mountain, or ran
out of gas.
That's why I wish the Timmer guys good luck... Wherever they are looking, I'm

sure they're looking at the wrong place. Titanic was different in that here at
least there was a known position.

There is no watertight proof of AE landing at Gardner but it sounds credible
(it's way off Howland) and the Phoenix group of islands would have been a
logical alternate should they have failed to find Howland. I feel the artifacts
found by successive Tighar expeditions are sufficient indications to back the
theory.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:51:40 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: radio tube question

This is interesting ! When I was a kid my father owned one of those huge wooden
radio sets full of tubes inside. I remember it was an HMV, which was rather
popular in the Thirties, at least in Europe..  I don't know much about tubes but
I do remember the ones in the HMV set had different sizes and shapes. Some were
silver, some were glass. I'm looking forward to the picture on the site.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:54:26 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

I obtained a geomagnetic map appropriate for 1937.  Variations occur very
slowly, due to changes in the flow field in the Earth's magnetic core.
Geomagnetic maps are published once a decade, with the change in variation
over the past 10 years (it's kinda hard to predict the variations in the
future).  By comparing the variations in 1930 and 1940, one can interpolate
the variations for 1937.  Alternatively, some academic universities publish
the magnetic variations on a yearly basis, based upon updated measurements.
There is no practical way that the variation around Howland changed by 5
degrees in a 10 year period: the most it changes around the equator area is
about 1 degree every 10 years.  My data were obtained from the Carnegie
Institute of Magnetism, located here in DC, and is considered the best source
of magnetic data in the US, if not the world.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:56:04 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

What I intended to state was that Noonan was choose to advance the LOP so
that it would intersect the heart or geographic center of the Phoenix Group:
have 1/2 of the islands on one side and the other half on the other side to
maximize his chances of sighting the islands.  No need to "wiggle" the LOP at
all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:58:30 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Null hypothesis

Thanks Bob for the excellent explanation -- even I understood it.
Congrats on your teaching abilities.  I have null more to say on this topic.

LTM, who's resting now
Dennis O. McGee #0149
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:10:21 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      scaphoid bone

The scaphoid is also called the navicular.  Both words mean boat-shaped.
This refers either to a bone in the wrist or the ankle.  Both are little
lumpy things that a non-expert might identify as a bone, but not have any
idea where it came from. I could easily see Gallagher adding it to the bones
he found, thinking that it was a fragment of some other bone. Women with
osteoporosis often break the navicular in their wrist if they fall, and
stick out their hand to catch themselves.
 LTM (whose naviculars were
intact)      Dan Postellon M.D.   TIGHAR2263

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh okay  ... the navicular bone.  Gotcha.  All too well known to any horseman.

Could Gallagher have identified one if he saw one?  Given that his dad was a
physician and Irish himself had had a year of medical school at St. Bart's in
London, and given the identifications he did describe - I would suspect that
the guy knew his bones.  The fact that he didn't mention the rib or the
scaphoid in his original notification may, as Tom King suspected, be evidence
(a clue, ok?) that a subsequent search was conducted.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:18:09 EDT
From:         Christine J
Subject:      Saints Preserve Ric

I can't resist the movie thing again...........now what Ross D said you
may just get some publicity if a movie does come to pass!!!!!??? No
matter how stunned, the source. Look at the Titanic, the character that
Leonardo di Caprio played in the last epic, someone who perished on that
ship, had the same name, as his character, his grave in the cemetery he
is buried in Halifax, NS for a long time after the movie, was a
shrine,weeping young women etc. great what the general population will
discover, and do. Sorry to be off topic. (No Joke Intended)

Regards
Christine J

************************************************************************

From Ric

So you're saying that we should be prepared for cruise ship visits to Niku.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:22:13 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      scaphoid

Actually, yes, I believe there's a scaphoid bone in the hand, too, but
Hoodless specifies that the one he looked at was from a foot.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Ahh.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:29:49 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

>I suppose you could describe true airspeed as groundspeed in zero wind, but
>that's pretty much irrelevant.  The idea is to develop a power management
>profile that will move the machine through the air at the most efficent speed
>(150 mph in this case) most economically. The indicating airspeed will modify
>itself as the airplane climbs into thinner air and colder temperatures.

I understand your point and I have no quarrel with what you are saying. Now
the next question, is there any math behind the idea? I mean it sounds like
an interesting strategy but where is the proof that it is a superior solution
to the fuel management issue?  Has the approach withstood the test of time?
Does anybody do anything like this today? It sounds to me like it is more of
an experiment than a rigorous approach. If it truly saves fuel then I
would expect it to be used.

Greg
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I trust that our Ancient Eagles on the Forum will correct me if I'm wrong,
but it's my understanding that the kind of power management profile that
Johnson developed for AE is sort of a Sesame Street version of the long
range cruise tables that can be found in operating manual of any relatively
sophisticated aircraft.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:33:29 EDT
From:         Christine J
Subject:      Luke Field Inventory

Upon reading this inventory I realize that the plane was returned for
repairs, but it also doesn't discredit the fact that the inventory was
put back on the plane for the next flight.

On sheet three it reads item # 66 1 waterproof bag containing:
2 flying suits, 1 raincoat, 1 pair gloves, and 1 pair shoes.

Could this not be a clue as to discrepancies of placement of shoes, or
finding a shoe not necessarily where a body was believed to have lain?

Regards
Christine J

***************************************************************************
From Ric

I beg to differ. The Luke Field Inventory is useful only as a list of some of
what was on the airplane for the first attempt to fly to Holwand Island.  We
also have some information about what AE probably had with her as clothing
for that flight from interviews she gave.  We have no solid information about
what she had with her on the second world flight attempt other than what we
can see in the many photos taken of her during the trip.  Those photos show
that she had at least two pair of shoes with her - a pair of blucher oxfords
she flew in and a pair of two-toned shoes she seems to have worn for
sight-seeing.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:44:06 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: 20 gph vs 38 gph

We actually know(or can calculate) quite a bit about the Electra's weight and
performance at the time.

The 38 gph figure was for an initial gross weight of about 10,000 pounds under
Johnson's figures(14,000 takeoff reduced by 9 hours consumption of 462 gallons,
or about 4,000).That is only about 500 pounds below the normal maximum gross
weight of the airplane. At the time of the "20 gph" log entry, gross weight would
have been about 9,000 pounds.(Assuming consumption after the first 9 hours of 40
gph = 240 pounds per hour = 1200 to 1400 pounds reduction, but adding 282 pounds
for the additional 47 gallons of fuel carried over Johnson's 900 gallon
allowance.)

Look also at Johnson's fuel consumption figures: 60, 51, 43 and ultimately 38
gph. Using a specific fuel consumption figure of 0.48 pounds per horsepower per
hour, we get total horsepower (both engines combined) of roughly 750, 650, 537
and 475 for the four settings.These are not mysterious figures - they correspond
roughly to 70, 60, 50 and 45 % of maximum horsepower(and they correspond even
more closely if one uses a specific fuel consumption between 0.45 and 0.48).
Forty-five per cent was for many years accepted as the "normal" LRC setting in
many airplanes.

Normal LRC is not the most efficient speed, which is a unique angle of attack
called "L over D speed." ( V L/D - the "L/D" should be in subscript.) Peter
Garrison goes into V L/D in detail in Chapter 6 of his book "Long-Distance
Flying." If I understand correctly, V L/D is a unique INDICATED airspeed, which
remains constant at all altitudes (assuming - though Garrison doesn't say so
explicity - that weight is constant). Fuel consumption increases with altitude in
lockstep with the increase in TRUE airspeed as the constant indicated airspeed is
flown at higher altitudes.

Garrison says that in a normally clean lightplane(not so very different from the
Electra in its range of airspeeds), V L/D is slightly above best rate of climb
speed, and he gives figures for reductions in efficiency caused by flying above V
L/D. Let's assume that the best rate of climb in the Electra was 90 indicated (a
low estimate, I think) at 10,000 pounds.This is equivalent to a true airspeed
(standard conditions) of about 107 at 10,000 feet. Let's postulate that V L/D
gave a true airspeed of 110 mph at 10,000 pounds and 10,000 feet in the Electra,
and work our calculations from there.

Garrison says that a 40% increase in true airspeed over the true airspeed
produced by flying at V L/D typically results in a 20% reduction in fuel
efficiency. We know that 45% power (38 gph) gives 150 true(or thereabouts) at
10,000 feet and 10,000 pounds, which equals 4 miles per gallon(still air). That
setting represents a bit less than a 40% increase in TAS (36.36%) and
(presumably) a bit less than a 20% reduction in effiency. Be conservative and use
the 20% figure. If 150 true is 80% as efficient as 110 true, and if 150 produces
4 mpg, 110 true produces 5 mpg (4 divided by 0.80 = 5). If 110 true yields 5 gph,
fuel consumption is 22 gph, at a V L/D assumed to be about 92.5 mph indicated.

If you assume V L/D of the Electra was 10 mph higher than that, yielding a true
of 120, Johnson's 150 mph cruise is only 25 % higher than V L/D. Garrison says
that a 20 % increase above V L/D results in an 8% reduction in efficiency, and a
30% increase results in a 15% reduction. Interpolating for a 25% increase, we can
use 12 1/2%. We know that 150 mph true yields an efficiency of 4mpg (still air)
and is 87.5% as efficient as 120. Therefore, a V L/D of about 102, yielding a
true of 120 at 10,000 produces about 4.5 mpg(still air)( 4 divided by 0.875 =
4.5), at a fuel consumption of something over 26 gph(120 divided by 4.5 =
26.6666).

Going one final step further, assume that V L/D produces 130 true at 10,000 (V
L/D = 111/112 indicated). Johnson's 150 mph cruise is only 15% over V L/D.
Garrison says 10% over V L/D produces a 3% decrease in efficiency, and 20%
produces an 8% decrease. Interpolating for 15% gives about a 6% reduction in
efficiency. If 150 produces 4 mpg, then 130 produces about 4.25 mpg ( 4 divided
by 0.94 = 4.2253), and 4.25 gph at 130 equals a fuel consumption of about
30.5gph.

All of the foregoing deals with speeds at about 10,000 pounds (slightly below
normal gross weight). What can we say about the effect on TAS of further weight
reductions caused by additional fuel being consumed? I believe there was a rule
of thumb that flying an efficient high performance retractable single at heavy
weight (25% over gross) produced about a 2 mph change per hundred pounds, with a
smaller effect at weights below normal gross.(I can't give a source for this rule
of thumb.) Assuming the Electra weighs about 3 times what the single does, we can
guess that the change would be perhaps 1 mph per 300 pounds variation in weight.

If the Electra were at 9000 when AE made the 20gph entry, we might expect its
airspeed to be 3 mph higher at the same power setting than it would be at 10,000
pounds. This is not a big deal - and it's not a big deal even if our assumptions
are off by a factor of 2 or 3.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, I'm out of my paygrade.  I'd be happy to hear comments but I wonder if
it's time that we started asking people who want to sling these numbers
around to say a little bit about their education and experience in this field
- not to pooh-pooh anybody's numbers but it is useful to know who's talking.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:47:18 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      20 gph vs 38 gph

    I am not in much of a position to challenge Skeet's numbers
regarding fuel consumption of C-119s or C-47s, or aviation in general,  BUT
. . .

    Developing hypotheses involves experimentation as much as it
involves analysis and research.  We have no Lockheed 10E to experiment with
and the data we do have is limited.  So, let's try something else.

    My proposal yesterday was to conduct a simple experiment.  And I
challenge all of the pilots on the forum to try it.  For those who missed
it, here it is again:
    "As an experiment the forum pilots should take up their favorite
airplane next weekend and run the following experiment:  Pick any weight and
altitude you desire, set the aircraft at trimmed cruise, record your fuel
consumption rate, airspeed (IAS or TAS, whatever), and altitude.  Now,
reduce the fuel consumption by 48 percent and make no (none, zero, zilch,
nada, tepotah!) other changes and maintain this reduced-fuel-consumption
status for five minutes.  Record what happens and report the results to the
forum on Monday."

    My belief is that all of the respondents will report essentially the
same result.  That being the case, it DOESN'T prove that AE's 10E would have
those results, but it does add to the body of evidence that there is a
strong probability the 10E would suffer the same results.
    I believe we are at times being "too scientific" and ignore the
obvious to "prove" a point, when in fact there is not enough data to "prove"
things one way or the other.  In this instance it is my belief that: a) AE
made an error -- or an incomplete statement -- in reporting her fuel
consumption, or b) AE discovered a way to defeat the laws of gravity as they
apply to aviation science.  Personally, I like a) best.

    I gleefully await the results of the experiment by the valiant
pilots of TIGHAR, and may gravity be forever suspended (no pun intended).

    P.S.  TIGHAR is a non-profit organization so I suspect that any
fuel, oil and rental charges (Oh, God! I hope not!) could be considered as a
donation to TIGHAR to further its educational purposes.  How sayeth thee on
that issue, master Gillespie?

LTM, who's running late today
Dennis O. McGee #0149
 *************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm no tax attorney (thank God) but I seriously doubt that what you suggest
would fly (pun intended) if examined by the IRS.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:43:12 EDT
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Null hypothesis?

Sigh!!!

The purpose of my posting was to provide a very simple explanation for the lay
readers on the forum, within the context of Randy Jacobson's observations, and not
to trigger a debate about lot acceptance sampling methodology.  The point was
- - - and is - - - that the concept of "null hypothesis" has nothing to do with
proving that Earhart did not get to Gardner Island.

For Ric:

Classical probability methods could be used to quantify the heap of coincidence,
if that we knew the probability of occurrence for each event. But finding those
probabilities would be virtually impossible.

For example (pause while I don my battle helmet and flak jacket), consider the
probability of an island yielding the bones of a castaway which "happen" to be
most likley those of a woman of Earhart's stature and ethnic background. This is
a compound probability, being a function of (at least) the probability that such
bones would be on a given island and, given that such bones are on an island, the
probability that activity requisite for discovery of the bones would occur at the
location of the bones.  As another example, consider the discovery of the shoe
remains.  This is another compound probability case.  First there is the question
of the probability that such shoe fragments would be on a given island.  Then
there is the question of the probability that they would be found,  As I recall,
the remains were found by someone (you?) who stopped to rest by a tree and
happened to notice a shoe fragment.   At a minimum, we would need to know the
probability of the discoverer stopping at that particular tree to rest and, while
resting, looking at the particular spot where the fragment was.

There is a branch of mathematics called "fuzzy logic" which might offer some
leverage, but I think the chances of success would be dicey (pun intended) at
best.

Fuzzy logic attempts to provide a decision framework in cases where the inputs are
imprecise - - - as is typically the case in ordinary human decisions.  For example
(here I go again), a driver approaching an intersection estimates the likelihood
of getting through the intersection before the traffic signal turns red, and acts
accordingly.  The driver does not know: the exact distance remaining to go, or
his/her exact speed, or exactly how much time remains before the signal changes,
or the precise mass and acceleration/deceleration characteristics of his/her
vehicle.  The go/no-go decision is based on an intuitive application of fuzzy
logic.

It might be worth considering a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of using
fuzzy logic to dig into the coincidence heap.   I'm no an expert in the field, but
I would be willing to give it a shot if there aren't any fuzzy logic experts on
the forum willing to do so.

LTM, who thinks fuzzy logic is an oxymoron.

Bob   #2286

*************************************************************************

From Ric

Sounds like the overwhelming intuitive feel that many of us have that the
hypothesis is correct might be an example of "fuzzy logic" at work, but I'm
not sure we'd want to publicize it as such.  Let's leave well enough alone.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:45:08 EDT
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: 20 gph vs 38 gph

>  It is my belief that ANY
>  aircraft in trimmed and stable flight will descend if its fuel consumption
>  rate is reduced by 48 percent and no other changes are made.  Can anyone
>  disprove my belief?
>  LTM, who ain't being a turtle today!
>  Dennis O. McGee #1049

-----Well, it all depends on the aircraft's "pounds per horsepower".
The Lockheed L10E has a surprising low pounds per hp(dry weight)
of  only 5.8(7,000 pounds divided by 1,200hp), so that at the end of
a flight(little fuel weight), it may well have been able to maintain
altitude at 50% power, if not 50% fuel flow.
     Compare the L10E to a Cessna 172 which has "lbs per hp" of
10.3(1,800lbs div. by 175hp) which at full power isn't much different
to the L10E at 50% power.
     It is interesting to note that the unarmed DH98 Mosquito in WW2
routinely flew to target on one of its two 1,900hp Merlins with 4,000 lbs.
of bombs!  Its dry "lbs per hp" was about 4.0.
     The most extreme example I know of is the single seat and no
bomb bay version of the Mosquito called the Hornet.  Its "lbs per hp"
works out to 3.1(13,000lbs div by 4200hp).   BTW, this Hornet in
standard production form had a level flight top speed of 475mph.
                            LTM, HAG 2201.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:47:32 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: evidence

> From David Evans Katz
>
> We have no idea how deep into her reserve she was.  We only know that
> she reported that she was "low on gas" an hour before her last
> transmission.  I think that we should take her at her word.  At 19:13
> being "low on gas" does not make me optimistic that she believed she
> had as much as 5 hours left at that point.

I don't think we should take her at her word. Through years of
experience (not flying) I've learned to not consider my reserve fuel
while I still have my primary destination in mind, and in all
communications I report my fuel status with respect to my primary
supply. I don't start thinking about my reserve until I have to start
thinking about an alternate destination. I do this because I don't want
others who may try to make decisions for me to consider my reserve --
it's MY emergency supply, not theirs -- and because I don't want to
inadvertently consider my reserve as something usable outside of an
emergency. How about some of you experienced pilots -- would you report
"low on gas" before you've touched your reserve? I would. I'm not
suggesting that this is how Earhart did things, I am only suggesting
that we can't assume she had started burning her reserve because of what
she reported.

> From Ric
>
> I suspect that most of the experienced pilots on the forum would agree
> that if you're 19 hours out and over the middle of the Pacific Ocean
> in a 150 mph airplane and you can't find your destination and you only
> have 5 hours of gas left you are most definitely "low on gas."

Oh, I should've read the whole message before I began replying. Since I
went to the trouble of typing it (not an easy task for me) I might as
well post it.

Frank Westlake

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm glad you did.  It's an interesting point.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:50:30 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Null hypothesis?

To paraphrase the old bumper sticker, "Coincidence Happens" - I can confirm
that through my years as an investigator.  HOWEVER...

Maybe this is a candidate for Chaos- or Game-Theory???

I'd bet there's a Tighar out there who knows!

ltm
jon 2266
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Must be Hell to go through a career as a professional investigator with a
name like "Watson."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:56:45 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Tax deductions

Ric said:  "I'm no tax attorney (thank God) but I seriously doubt
that what you suggest would fly (pun intended) if examined by the IRS."

    *Wink!* *Wink!*  Gotcha, big guy.  I WILL NOT DO THIS -- *WINK!* --
TO TAKE A TAX DEDUCTION.  (Just in case the IRS is listening in -- *wink*)

LTM, who needs to see a doctor about her eye spasms
Dennis O. McGee #0149
***************************************************************************
From Ric

In all seriousness, however, members who participate in TIGHAR activities are
often entitled to more tax deductions than they realize.  Phone calls, travel
expenses, meals, etc. are often legitimate deductions if you're performing
research as a volunteer for a recognized nonprofit organization.  What would
make Dennis' original suggestion questionable is the casual
you-can-try-this-at-home nature of the experiment.  When in doubt, consult a
tax professional.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:03:11 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Electricity

OK, I'm confused (my subordinates attribute it to senility). It seems
Gallagher was running his radios on batteries. Fair enough. It also seems
like the mysterious socket you found is a bayonet lug light bulb. I know
someone will correct me if I'm out of the box here, but I've never seen a
vacuum tube with only two pins. I vote for light bulb. Now for my confusion.
Where do we get electricity for lights? Was there some source for
electricity on Niku during the later inhabitation? Was the LORAN station
battery powered? Did the coasties have lights? (If they did I suspect the
bulbs would have been American screw type). Was the village wired in later
years? (I mean for electricity). Sorry if this is old ground. It may seem
irrelevant to the AE/FN search, but I'm thinking in terms of artifact
provenience.

LTM (who's not senile)
Kerry . _ . _ .     _ . _

*************************************************************************
From Ric

The Coast Guard had at least one big honking deisel generator.  They had
lights, power for the LORAN transmitter, and a big walk-in refrigerator.

I don't know if the village had a generator in later years but I sort of
doubt it.  Fuel would be the big problem.  Seems like their minimal
electrical needs could best be served by batteries.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:19:01 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: scaphoid bone

By my top-of-the-head accounting, we have the following things that Gallagher
doesn't include in his report prior to Vaskess' direction to make a "thorough
search," but that either he mentions or Steenson does subsequently:

* Rib
* Scaphoid bone of foot
* Inverting eyepiece
* Little corks on chains
* Shoe of a male person

Sure looks to me like they did SOME kind of search after being directed to,
despite the crummy weather at the time.

LTM
Tom
**************************************************************************
From Ric

And by that logic (which I think is other than fuzzy) he did not conduct the
Second Search alone.  He said the inverting eyepiece was "thrown away by the
finder" who, you can bet, was not himself.  We may, in fact, have some
evidence ( aka "a clue") as to how many people were involved in the Second
Search.

IF the "7" site is the bone discovery site and
IF the tank was put there to provide water for the Second Searchers
THEN the six or seven coconut shell halves found in the bottom of the tank
may be an indication of the number of people present.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:28:23 EDT
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Gallons per Hour

Numerous messages have recently been posted on the Forum attempting to assess
fuel consumption for the Earhart Lockheed 10E by comparing data available for
C-119s, C-47s, contemporary light singles and so forth. Although interesting,
such comparisons or analogies are indirect at best.

Why not calculate fuel consumption and/or aerodynamic characteristics
directly? Most texts on internal combustion engines and aerodynamics,
regardless of vintage, illustrate how this is done. There is really nothing
mysterious about the methodology. There is sufficient data to do this
intelligently and accurately to a reasonable tolerance. I submit the accuracy
of the final results will be better than analogies to  dissimilar aircraft.

As an aside, a few Forum contributors expressed concern about octane ratings
of contemporary fuels versus that used by Amelia Earhart with respect to
possibly experimentally assessing Amelia's fuel consumption. Octane numbers
relate to the resistance of fuels to detonation, not the fuel chemical energy
content. Therefore it is not relevant.

Some worry about the gross weight at takeoff. We do not have the exact
figure, but once again, there is enough information to make a reasonable
estimate. Aircraft performance calculations can also be used to confirm a
gross weight estimate. This is done by determining takeoff distance for a
range of gross weight values. The turf field length at Lae was 3,000 feet of
which Amelia reportedly used almost every foot.

Hopefully the above comments are useful to the discussion. I offer them
because from my perspective, engineering techniques should be part of the
"scientific" approach Ric so often mentions. He also requested information on
the background of persons commenting on this topic (and others?). A
reasonable request. I am a retired aerospace engineer (29 years) with a
degree in mechanical engineering.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I can't fault Birch's suggestion.  The one comment I can make is that
Earhart's takeoff distance - according to Chater and confirmed by the film of
the event - seems to have been in the neighborhood of 850 yards (2,550 feet)
into perhaps a 3 to 5 knot wind.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:29:28 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Null Hypothesis

For David Evans Katz:

Hypothesis: David Evans Katz is living.  Null Hypothesis: David Evans Katz
never existed.  There is only one David Evans Katz, so we must reject both
hypotheses since there is not sufficient sampling?  Sorry, but I can't buy
it.  The Null hypothesis came out of statistical theory, but can also be
applied to singular events.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:36:41 EDT
From:         Renaud Dudon
Subject:      Airspeed

I got the characteristics of the lockheed 12A "Electra junior"( Shorter hull
than the L10 ) in one of my magazines. The stall speed was 103 kmh (62.3 mph)
with full flaps. The engines were P&W R985 with superchargers... was
NR16020 fitted with superchargers ?


LTM

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Forgive me for butting in here, but the Model 12 was an entirely different
airplane than the Model 10 although it wouldn't surprise me if the stall
speeds were similar.

Neither the R-985s of the Model 12 nor the R-1340s of the Model 10E were
"supercharged" in the sense that we usually think of but they were equipped
with a "blower" which, I gather, augmented the atmospherically available
manifold pressure.  Perhaps one of our Engine People could elaborate.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:37:29 EDT
From:         Renaud Dudon
Subject:      20 gph vs 38 gph

Very interesting ! But, AE may have a double needle fuel flow gauge... So she
may be referring to the two needles that both indicated 20 gph... Huh... I
know it is quite doubtful... But who know ?

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:42:12 EDT
From:         Renaud Dudon
Subject:      Clue, proof, evidence

At first glance, differences between clue, proof and evidence is quite
obvious. A clue is the element that lead to one hypothesis ( "indice" in
french, or index in latin ). The proof ("preuve" in french, probatio in latin)
is the material element with what you could verify the hypothesis. The
evidence appear to be the appearance of truth ( a guy holding a smoking gun
over a bloody corpse ). For this last, in french, we say "Évidence". The
latin root of the word is from video (i see).

So, the clue may be one of the "unplugged" elements of a proof. Proof is the
material confirmation of alleged truth. And, of course, evidence is a proof
by itself.

That was for the theory, but actually the frontier between vary a lot and is
not tight. Sometimes a clue is a partial proof and a sufficent amount of
proofs could build an evidence.

That is just a question of words...

Also a proof could be negative : " there is nothing that demonstrate that A
is the truth, but there is nothing either to prove that it is impossible ".
Moreover, there is what lawyers call the diabolica probatio : the proof that,
by itself, cannot be obtained. That is, for example, the oral testimony from
a dead witness...

LTM

***************************************************************************
From Ric

It would seem from what you say that the word "evidence" in French has a very
different meaning than it does in English where it is virtually synonymous
with "clue."

Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, further postings on this subject should be
in Latin.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:43:32 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

I've missed a beat on the magnetic variation business.  Frank talks about a
"magnetic variation of 9° 29' E for Howland Island in 1937, as reported to
Alan Caldwell by Larry Newitt of the Canadian government."  Randy says the
variation couldn't have changed that much between then and now.  But is the
question whether the variation really WAS what Newitt is said to have said
(Who IS Newitt, by the way, and Caldwell; this is part of what I've missed),
or whether that was what people THOUGHT it was, and if the latter, could that
have caused Noonan to mis-navigate, and if so, how?  I'm probably missing
something really obvious, but if so, would appreciate being enlightened.

LTM

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:55:29 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: scaphoid bone

Re Gallagher's not mentioning the rib  or scaphoid bone might be due to the
need for terseness in radio telegraphy, rather than ommision of data.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Gallagher didn't have to pay by the word.  Many of his telegrams are, in
fact, rather wordy.  His accounting of what bones and artifacts were found
was in response to this telegram he received on October 15, 1940:

"Confidential.

Please telegraph to me particulars of finding of skeleton in Gardner Island,
including where found and state reason for believing it to be that of a woman
and whether this belief based on anatomical characteristics.  State dental
condition and whether any evidence of dental work on jaw, length of skeleton
from vertex of skull to arch of foot, approximate age and condition of bones
and whether any hair found in the vicinity of skeleton.

What have you done with skeleton?  It should be carefully cared for and
placed in a suitable coffin and kept in secure custody pending further
instructions.

Keep matter strictly secret for the present.

Secretary,
Western Pacific High Commission"

This was the number two man in the entire Western Pacific High Commission
issuing instructions and making inquiries of a very junior officer.  This was
a BIG DEAL.  I think we can be very sure that no availalbe information was
omitted from Galllagher's response.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:17:05 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

I'm sorry for being overwhelmed by aircraft data.  My understanding of
AE's reduction of power as she neared Oahu was not due to a need to conserve
fuel, but to arrive after daybreak.  Her trip had taken less time than
anticipated, and she couldn't well land at night, so she had to slow down
somehow.

What is the concensus of her cutting fuel to 20gph?  Was this for the entire
plane or just for one engine?  I can understand the latter, as her fuel
management sorta went to hell in a handbasket when the props froze in place
due to lack of grease; she cut power back to 40gph (total) but was still able
to fly at reasonable speeds and altitude.  Am I reading things correctly?
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I feel your pain (and share your confusion).  I don't think we have a
consensus on whether the 20 gph refers to one engine or both.  There have
been some good arguments both ways.  Ultimately, I don't think it much matters.
You are correct.  Her power reduction was not motivated by a need or desire
to conserve fuel.  They were fat on fuel and the success of the flight was
assured.  She merely wanted to slow her progress so as to not arrive before
daylight.

There is no indication that she faced a similar need to loiter on the
Lae/Howland flight.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:22:39 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Dennis McGee's Comment

> If you pull back the power an additional 50% (from the assumed 65% -2300-
> 2400 rpm best cruise), you're at  1150-1200 rpm.  The engine is probably not
> making more than 20% power at that rpm.  That's just not enough to maintain
> altitude.   You'll find yourself going in two directions....forward and DOWN!

Not necessarily correct, although I agree you will find yourself going
forward AND down at those settings.

Different aircraft - different performance, which was the point of my
posting the Gazelle figures.  The Gazelle is a two seat VLA General Aviation
Training Aircraft.  With its light All Up Weight and High Drag, it should be
lousy to fly at low speed / power.

Extract from the performance chart:

Cruise Speed  75kts at 5000Rpm and 302 Nautical Miles in 3hrs 46mins
(13.7Litres p/h)
Best Endurance  51kts at 4000RPM and 466 Nautical Miles in 8hrs 37mins (6
Litres p/h)

Extract from thre pilot's handling notes - ENDURANCE / RANGE page 11.

For best endurance flying it is recommended to cruise at 4000RPM which gives
an Indicated Airspeed of 51 Kts.  (i.e. 54 Kts TAS at 3500 ft DA).  Fuel
Flow at this setting is 6 litres per hour.

This power setting should also be used for holding if required or slowing
down in the circuit to facilitate separation.

If, due to carburettor ice or some other malfunction, the power output from
the engine is reduced, the aircraft can still fly safely at a power setting
as low as 3950 RPM.  (approx 50 knots IAS), however an immediate landing is
advised as the aricraft may be slowly descending.

The marked reduction in fuel flow that occurs at 4000 RPM, is due to the
fact that 50 Knots Indicated, is the air speed for the best Lift/Drag of the
ratio Gazelle.  (Best L/D Ratio = 9.7 to 1)

It may then follow, that this speed (50 KIAS) is the best glide speed and
the best angle of climb speed as well.  However, the Gazelle Test Pilots
recommend that 55 KIAS be used for glides and initial climb, to give
adequate control if an emergency should occur such as a sudden gust that
could cause a stall or a nose down requirement in an emergency.

It then goes on to discuss flight planning.....

So, the difference between gliding and flying is 1 knot!.  And that takes
4000RPM from a cruise setting of 5000RPM.  Max RPM is 5400 by the way!

RPM reduction = 20%
Airspeed reduction = 30%
Fuel consumption decreases by  50%
Range increases by 50%

There is a set of figures like this for every aircraft ever made.  Being
heavier than the Gazelle, and with less drag, the best L/D for the Cessna,
and for the Electra willbe higher.

The fuel consumption and range won't improve as much.

The point is, we can find these figures for Cessnas, and Pipers, I can look
them up for the Baron, but they are goig to be different from the Electra.
Someone posted figures yesterday for a heavy aircraft like the DC3.  The
figures above adjusted for that aircraft might mean something close.

In the mean time, "Pulling back the power by 50% of cruise almosr certainly
WILL send you down..."

And fuel consumption actually INCREASES below cruise until you get to just
over glide speed.  Think about it.  At glide, you are still travelling
fairly quickly, about 65% of your cruise speed in the Gazelle, a Cessna, a
Piper or many other aircraft.  Add just enough RPM to maintain altitude.
The engine is hardly working.

If you tow a caravan (I believe trailer is the term in the US) regularly on
holidays you'll see what I mean.  Truckies know also!.  Add weight to the
rig - a little more fuel burn.  Add a high load and get drag from wind - a
lot more fuel burn even at the same settings.

Slow down though by 10 mph, and your gas bill is a lot better.  That's why
the US reduced speed limits years ago during the fuel crisis.

RossD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Look guys, this is getting way off topic.  I know that there's nothing a
private pilot would rather do than "hangar fly" about how airplanes work but
I'm gonna have to ask you to do it around the Coke machine and not here.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:26:41 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: evidence

Yes, I'd say there has been a semantics problem in this thread. Evidence is
not proof. There is lots of evidence that AE and FN landed on Gardner,
survived for an indeterminate time there, and then succumbed to exposure.

There is no proof that this happened. The evidence we have is not sufficient
to demonstrate a proof.

There is no proof available for any other reasonable scenario. Some of us,
reviewing the entire body of evidence available at this time, believe that
there is a greater probability that the AE flight ended at Gardner than
anywhere else. Because of this heightened probability, it seems reasonable
to look for more evidence relating to Gardner.

Because we as human beings have a natural tendency to see what we want to
see (there's probably a survival benefit in this characteristic), we must
counteract our human nature with another human trait: Objectivity. The most
useful tool for objectivity that we have right now is called the "scientific
method".

For the amusement of forum readers, I have retrieved from the cabinet and am
now looking at a volume of the 1780 Stahel edition of Francis Bacon's Latin
translation of his "De Augmentis" (Advancement of Learning). The work it
contains was essentially 175 years old when it was printed 220 years ago.

It was Bacon who influenced the adoption of empiricism into modern thought,
the idea that experience (not authority or tradition or language) is the
source of knowledge. His method was basically to infer from the wider group
to which a body of datum, or evidence, belongs, and use later experience to
correct errors.

This is the basis of the modern technique of hypothesis, with subsequent
proof by rigorous observation.

Tighar has an hypothesis, which it continually seeks to develop and
ultimately prove by continued observation. This observation includes
expeditions to Niku, extensive reviews of original documents, the
examination of artifacts from Gardner and from the era, and even conducting
interviews for the purpose of acquiring anecdotes, which can sometimes
provide information about where to look (or observe) for more evidence.

To conclude, it is my understanding that Tighar is not trying to convince
anyone of any proof, although some Tighar members' enthusiasm for the
process of investigation, which in itself can be rewarding, may sometimes
confuse people. Tighar is pursuing a valid hypothesis, developed through and
supported by empirical evidence, in an observational search for empirical
proof.

william 2243

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you William.  You have once again said it better than I can.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:46:24 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: evidence

>From Ric
>
>I suspect that most of the experienced pilots on the forum would agree that
>if you're 19 hours out and over the middle of the Pacific Ocean in a 150
>mph airplane and you can't find your destination and you only have 5 hours of
>gas left you are most definitely "low on gas."

I think many pilots found that statement sensible.  "Low On Fuel" is
relative.  If you are 50 miles from your destination at 100 mph, and there
is heavy fog.  You have 1.5 hours fuel, and the nearest alternate airport is
100 miles away, you are LOW on fuel, even if you arrive with 1/2 hr in the
tanks.  But what if there is fog there also and you have to turn back?

In Australia it is "mandatory" to have a "fixed" 45 minutes reserve fuel on
every flight.  One is supposed to reach the destination with that 45 minutes
intact, or if a landing is impossible, the "alternate" destination with
reserve intact.

Many companies also require that their pilots include a 15% to 20%
"variable" reserve equal to that percentage of the planned fuel consumption
to the original destination.  This is "variable" as it may mean an extra 10
minutes on a 1 hour flight or an extra 5 minutes on a half hour flight - up
to an extra 20 minutes on a 3 hour flight.  This is in ADDITION to the 45
minutes reserve required by law!

A 15% reserve for Earhart on a planned 20 hr flight would be about 3 hours.
We don't know whether they had a fixed reserve, but in the Johnson figures
around 900 gallons was estimated for a similar distance.  Taken from 1100
gallons that would give about 20% reserve.  Ok, there was 200 miles
difference.

Johnson said"  900 Gallons fuel "ample" for "forty percent excess range" to
Honolulu".

That was for specific weather conditions possibly even a tail wind.  It
suggests though that 900 Gallons would allow 2000 miles PLUS 40%.  that's
2800 miles on less that AE departed Lae with!

Even with headwinds she should have made it.  900 gallons minus 40% = 540
gallons.  If she burned 40 gph, it would take 13.5 hours to burn that over
2050 nautical miles at 150 kts.

It would be very interesting to have access to Linda Finch's fuel bills.
She did the 2049 mile trip in...  wait for it...  13hrs 40mins.

I would really like to know how long it took Earhart to fly from Oakland to
Honolulu!

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

The flight took 15 hours and 47 minutes.

The desired cruise speed was 150 mph, not 150 kts.

The standard reserve for long-distance flights in 1937 was 20%.  I quote from
the U.S. Army report (page 7) filed by Lt. Daniel Cooper, Army Air Corps, who
was aboard Itasca:

"Gasoline supply was estimated to last 24 hours with a possibility of lasting
30 hours.  Judging from her last message at 0843 that she ran outt of gas
shortly thereafter as there were no more messages, her gasoline supply lasted
approximately 21 hours -- taking into account 1000 take off at Lae and
allowing 2 hours zone time difference between Lae and Howland.  Judging that
her estimated time of arrival at Howland to be 0735 and the end of her gas
supply at 0900 gives a gasoline safety factor of only 1 hour 25 minutes or
approximately 7%.  Note that 20% reserve is usually required.  running her
engines at a higher R.P.M. than ordinary or poor mixture control would
account for increased gasoline consumption."

Here's a question for you.  Dan Cooper - Elgen Long.  The same person?  Have
you ever seen them together in a photograph?  Makes you wonder.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:47:14 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

Correct me if my memory is wrong, but  the "transformer windings" do all the
voltage conversion both up and down.  The vibrator just swithces the output
at the high voltage end so + and - "alternate" on the terminals thus giving
us "alternating current".

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:06:20 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: 20 gph vs 38 gph

> From Ric
>
> Okay, I'm out of my paygrade.  I'd be happy to hear comments but I wonder if
> it's time that we started asking people who want to sling these numbers
> around to say a little bit about their education and experience in this field
> - not to pooh-pooh anybody's numbers but it is useful to know who's talking.

Since you appended this to my posting, I will reply - but I am disappointed by
the question, because the point should not be "who is talking?," but "what has
been said?".

I cheerfully confess that I only know what I read in "the papers". I have been
reading a lot of  "papers" about flying in general (and AE in particular) for 40
years. My BA has nothing to do with the subject, and neither, of course, does my
JD. And as for my (inactive) license(land single engine instrument airplane) -
both you and Elgin Long probably have better credentials.

No numbers were "slung" - a lot of people don't care much for numbers, but the
beauty of them is they work, no matter who states them. And there's no arithmetic
in the posting that's beyond 7th grade level (c.1957).

The foundation of the discussion of V L/D was (as pointed out) Peter Garrison's
book. Garrison gives the numbers for changes of efficiency for increases above V
L/D. I can't attest to the correctness of Garrison's numbers. But - assuming
Garrison's numbers on that subject are correct - and that they can be related
roughly to the Electra - the numbers in my posting are roughly correct, but I
can't explain that better(with any conciseness) except by reference to the posting
- "res ipsa loquitor", as we say.

The point is this: the discussion started with a statement that AE was indicating
120 @ 10,000 feet on "less than 20 gph". I take the consensus of the forum now to
be that she would have been burning 40 gph, or 20 per engine. Some people dissent
from this view - and they express that dissent by saying that since we don't know
"X" and we don't know "Y" the answer could be "A" or "B" or "C" or "anything at
all." That's not so.The range of possible(plausible) answers is limited by what we
do know.

And we know a lot. We know the approximate takeoff weight of the Electra on the
Honolulu flight because AE said it was 14,000 pounds (and that is confirmed by the
takeoff run of 1897 feet, which is consistent with Johnson's letter to AE that the
plane would take off in 2,000 feet at 14,000 pounds, that letter being quoted in
the book "Kelly"). Since we know the fuel management plan, we can deduct the
weight of the fuel burned to calculate the weight of the plane with reasonable
accuracy during any hour of the flight. We know the base speed. We know how to
calculate fuel consumption based upon horsepower produced, so we can reverse the
process and calculate horsepower from fuel consumption. Etc., etc., etc.

I questioned the remark about 20 gph and 120 indicated at 10,000, because it was
clearly(to me) outside the plausible range.When discussion continued, I pulled and
reread Garrison's very entertaining book, and put his comments (and my math) on
the forum.. "You multiplied 2 x3 and got 7" would be a valid comment. "Who are you
to say so?" is proper comment only to an ipse dixit - which it clearly was not.
(If I had put one more "say", "roughly", "approximately" or "if I understand
correctly" it would have collapsed entirely.)

I find I learn things even from postings by people who obviously don't know what
they are talking about. And one of the things I like about the forum is being to
evaluate the comment without knowing the background of the person who made it. The
posting should stand on its own legs - either it makes sense or it doesn't.

 (Thanks for the information on the 10E.)

LTM (who disliked the ad hominem and said "always show your work")
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I certainly meant no slight when I suggested that some knowledge of a
person's background in the subject might be useful when reading highly
technical postings and I would be the first to agree that credentials do not
automatically accord credibility.  I've also learned to distrust numbers that
are based upon assumptions.

My own credentials are certainly minimal.  A BA in history, a respectable but
not an enormous amount of experience driving airplanes around, a 12 year
career in aviation underwritng and accident investigation, and another 12
years immersed in the Earhart disappearance.

Elgen Long, a retired airline pilot with something like 40,000 hours and a
record-setting circumnavigation of the globe, has been studying the same
subject for over 25 years.  His book is full of numbers, and it's idiotic.

Anyone's work must stand on its own merits.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:07:50 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: 20 gph vs 38 gph

>run the following experiment:  Pick any weight and
>altitude you desire, set the aircraft at trimmed cruise, record your fuel
>consumption rate, airspeed (IAS or TAS, whatever), and altitude.  Now,
>reduce the fuel consumption by 48 percent and make no (none, zero, zilch,
>nada, tepotah!) other changes and maintain this reduced-fuel-consumption
>status for five minutes.  Record what happens and report the results to the
>forum on Monday."

The problem withthis test is that one usually cannot record fuel flow.  At
best we can get an estimate.  In the air, most light aircraft have one or
more fuel gauges.  These are notoriously innacurate and are never used
except to give a "rough idea" which is the fullest tank.

Almost no pilots take fuel gauges seriously until they are indicating under
1/4 tank.  Then you make sure there is somewhere long and flat under you..

A few light aircraft have a digital fuel flow meter, but I have seen
variable inaccuracies in these because of incorrect calibration.

However, for flight planning porpoises, the aircraft flight manual will give
you the fuel consumption at various settings.  If they are considered
accurate for flight planning, where lives depend on them, we should be able
to accept their validity.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:10:58 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Null hypothesis?

> From Ric
>
> Which reminds me of another concept I've often thought about with relation to
> this investigation - the concept of probability.  What are "the chances" that
> a given island that "happens" to be on the LOP described by Earhart wil...

Mathematical probability theory does apply directly to this topic, and is
utilized widely, from physics to genetics, quantum mechanics, manufacturing,
social policies and insurance. It is related to mathematical analysis, which
emerges from calculus.

There are several different types of probability problems. Compound and
conditional probability apply directly to complex historical events.

Compound probability is the probability of all events of a certain group
occurring together and conditional probability is the probability of an
event when it is known that some other event has happened.

In essence, by calculating the probability of multiple "coincidences"
occurring simultaneously, one can mathematically infer a "probability" that
they are not coincidences, but related. We do this intuitively all the time
but the math exists to do it rationally.

It is exactly the apparently improbable convergence of so many coincidences
surrounding the Earhart-Noonan disappearance and the evidence on Gardner
that suggests a probable/possible correlation between them. It would be
interesting to calculate the actual probabilities, although the many
variables and subsequent limitations on accuracy, inherent in many
real-world historical events, would have to be clearly predefined in a
disclaimer.

william 2243

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I suspect that the disclaimer would have be so sweeping as to render the
estimate meaningless.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:12:58 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

More figures, this time supposedly extracted from a "Real aeroplane" POH
(Cessna 172 ) instead of the Gazelle.

Alt 4000ft
RPM 2550
% of BHP 76
KIAS 117
Fuel gph  8.5

RPM 2500
% of BHP  73
KIAS  114
Fuel gph   8.1

RPM 2400
% of BHP  65
KIAS  108
Fuel gph   7.3

RPM 2300
% of BHP  59
KIAS  102
Fuel gph   6.6

RPM 2200
% of BHP  54
KIAS  96
Fuel gph   6.1

RPM 2100
% of BHP  48
KIAS  89
Fuel gph   5.7

Reducing power from cruise power, 76% of available HP to 48% means reducing
engine RPM by 16%

This 37% power reduction yields a reduction in fuel usage of 33% for a speed
reduction of 23%.

The above can be supported by manufacturer figures.  That below I'm still
finding for the Cessna....

This is still well above the best glide in the aircraft (65 KIAS), where
adding just enough power to maintain altitude might produce around a 50%
reduction in fuel use for about a 42% reduction in airspeed.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:14:00 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: radio tube question

<< Seems awfully big to be a radio tube - about 7/8 inch across
 the base - >>

Ric, at one time, as a kid, I built TV, radio and radar for Bendix Aviation.
7/8" isn't even close to some of the larger tubes we used. Many were the size
of a little finger but many were much larger.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:15:10 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      20 gph vs 38 gph - Corrections on gross weight

On rereading my earlier posting,  I notice an error in the gross weight
calculations. I mistakenly reduced 14,000  TO weight by 4,000 for 462
gallons of fuel (which of course weigh about 2772 pounds). The 4,000
pound number is the approximate TOTAL reduction in 15 hours flight,
which would give a gross (at the time of the 20 gph entry) of about
10,000. This also means that Johnson's assumed gross weight at the time
of the power reduction  to 38 gph would be 11,000 plus. The normal gross
weight of the plane was 10,500. None of these numbers  indicates an
especially light weight supportive of a 20 gph figure.

LTM (who also said "double check your work")
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:56:40 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: evidence

    Time for me to get chewed on again!  All this talk about evidence relating to
AE or FN being  on Gardner Island is interesting in itself, but in my opinion,
none of it can be related in any way to AE, FN or the Electra.

    I will admit, however that it is possible the flight ended there.  It could
have also ended in the ocean or on the Marshall Islands, but the items collected
on Niku by TIGHAR could have come from too many other places.

    I tend to agree with David Katz and would like to add a little comment of my
own about the bones in particular.  I really don't understand what all the fuss
is over the bones.  The biggest problem I have with the bone story is the age of
the bones when found.  I believe four different, somewhat qualified people,
including Gallagher himself said the bones appear to be over four years old when
found in 1940.  Do the math!!!  One Doctor said they were probable more than
twenty years old.  The only people who disagree with that figure, are the four
TIGHAR members who recalculated the numbers from a note book some sixty years
after they were found and lost.

    Also, the location on the island where they were found just doesn't make
sense.  If the Electra landed on the north end of the island, why would the
Castaways, or who ever it was go all the way to the other end of the island to
die and not take anything with them.  No survival gear, no canteens, no clothes,
no nothing to suggest he, or she. . .  coulda been a she was anything other than
what the examination reveal.  An elderly Polynesian male who had been dead for
maybe  twenty years or more.

    How about the sheet metal aircraft skin.  After extensive  examination, it
was decided that it was not a fit to any known location on all the Lockheed
Electras that could be found and examined.  Last year, one forum member found a
match on the B-18 Bolo which was known to be patrolling the area and based on
Kanton Island during the war.

    Next is the Navigator's book case.  It turned out to be a known B-24 part.

    Now for the shoe parts.  Supposedly only two and a half years old when found
by Gallagher, yet they were reduced to nothing but small pieces.  I suspect it
was laying there for far more than two and a half years to end up in that
condition.

    The thing is, the Electra could have had enough range left to make it to
Gardner Island.  The theory of a south turn and flying down the 157/337 LOP is
somewhat logical.  In my opinion, it would make just as much sense to turn south
for Gardner as it would be to turn back to the Gilberts.  The decision to go
south instead of west would be greatly influenced by the remaining fuel, and that
is something we don't know about.  Only Fred and Amelia knew that.

   Since TIGHAR is small and just one of many research groups, you have to
understand that TIGHAR doesn't know it all and not all information is shared
between groups.  The answer to this mystery may already be known, but because so
many different people have a small piece of the puzzle and are not willing to
share, the mystery may never be solved.

    I think the possibility, or probability of a Niku landing can not be
determined by the items collected on the island so far.  They are just too
weak!

Don J.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I will not chew on you.  I will merely respond to your criticisms.

<<All this talk about evidence relating to AE or FN being  on Gardner Island
is interesting in itself, but in my opinion, none of it can be related in any
way to AE, FN or the Electra.>>

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

<<It (the flight) could have also ended in the ocean or on the Marshall
Islands, but the items collected on Niku by TIGHAR could have come from too
many other places.>>

In the absence of conclusive proof that the airplane ended up somewhere else,
I agree that it is possible that it went into the ocean, but of the many
assessments we've seen of the flight's capabilities I've never seen one that
reasonably purports to give the aircraft enough endurance to make it to
anywhere in the Marshall Islands.  We take some of the items collected on
Niku to be evidence that the flight ended there because we can't find any
other documented way they could have gotten there.  Perhaps you can.

<<I believe four different, somewhat qualified people, including Gallagher
himself said the bones appear to be over four years old when found in 1940.
Do the math!!!  One Doctor said they were probable more than twenty years
old.  The only people who disagree with that figure, are the four TIGHAR
members who recalculated the numbers from a note book some sixty years after
they were found and lost.>>

I think you're referring to the two forensic anthropologists, Dr. Karen Burns
and Dr. Richard Jantz, who looked at the description of the bones which was
written by Dr. Hoodless and concluded that the bones were so damaged that no
one, even today, would be able to accurately assess their age just by looking
at them.  Dr. Burns is a TIGHAR member.  Dr. Jantz is not.  Both are highly
respected in their field.  There is no indication that either of the the
doctors who looked at the bones in 1941 had any training or experience in
assessing the age of skeletal remains.

<<If the Electra landed on the north end of the island, why would the
Castaways, or who ever it was go all the way to the other end of the island to
die and not take anything with them. >>

The hypothesis is that the aircraft was landed at the west end of the island.
 There is no doubt that there was at least one castaway and it is impossible
to say what that person had with them when they went to the southeast portion
of the island, certainly not to die but to live.  All we know is what was
left to find by the time Gallagher got involved.

<<Last year, one forum member found a match on the B-18 Bolo which was known
to be patrolling the area and based on Kanton Island during the war.>>

Baloney.  A place on a B-18 was suggested but not matched.  You yourself made
a big production out of getting a template of the airtifact to match against
the B-18 and came up with nothing.

<<Next is the Navigator's book case.  It turned out to be a known B-24 part.>>

Yes.  We gathered data (the bookcase), developed a hypothesis (that it might
have been from the Electra), tested the hypothesis (by carefully examining
the data and trying to find a match for the artifact), and found that the
hypothesis was incorrect (the bookcase matches a part from a B-24).  What's
your point?  That the system works?  I agree entirely.

<< Now for the shoe parts.  Supposedly only two and a half years old when found
by Gallagher, yet they were reduced to nothing but small pieces.  I suspect it
was laying there for far more than two and a half years to end up in that
condition.>>

We've found the remains of other shoes on the island (up in the village) that
were at the very least 26 years old when we found them in 1989 (the island
was abandoed in 1963) and they were still relatively intact.  Unless you want
to postulate that the "stoutish walking shoe or sandal" found by Gallagher
was several hundred years old, it seems quite clear that something other than
the mere passage of time tore up the shoe.  Given Gallagher's own speculation
that the body was subject to degradation through animal activity, it seems
more likely that the condition of the shoes had a similar cause.

<< In my opinion, it would make just as much sense to turn south for Gardner
as it would be to turn back to the Gilberts.>>

You have repeatedly and persistently shown an apparent inability to
understand the navigational situation surrounding such a decision.  I despair
of being able to change that and I won't try again here.

<<Since TIGHAR is small and just one of many research groups, you have to
understand that TIGHAR doesn't know it all and not all information is shared
between groups.>>

I am the first to admit that TIGHAR is small but if there are other groups
who are also doing research on this subject according to accepted academic
standards I am not aware of them.  I also enthusiastically agree that TIGHAR
does not know it all and I am aware that there are individuals who have
information that they believe is important and therefore do not disclose to
others who have an interest in the mystery.  It's a treasure-hunter mindset
for which I have no respect.  I have no regard for those people or the
secrets they keep.

In replying to your criticisms it has not been my intention to "chew on" you,
nor do I expect my replies to sway your opinion.  I know that the Forum can
be an intimidating environment (as any arena for serious academic inquiry
should be) and I know that there are probably subscribers out there who share
some of your misgivings about TIGHAR's investigation but may not feel
comfortable in expressing them.  I hope my replies to the points you raised
are of interest to those folks.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:58:20 EDT
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman/vibrator

It would seem that if Gallagher requested a vibrator then that would be
one piece of evidence that he had an AC receiver (at least) that he wanted
to run off of a battery or batteries.  Apparently DC operated receivers were
available back in the year I was born since AE had one in the Electra that
used batteries.  Can anyone think of another reason for using AC current?
If not, then we must suspect that his receiver operated on AC.  We still
wouldn't know for sure but the evidence would suggest it.  If we could
determine that one version of  the "Ultimate" (or whatever he had) operated
on AC then that would represent even better evidence that he had a receiver
that operated on AC and evidence that the vibrator was used to run his AC
receiver.  We wouldn't know for sure but the evidence would point to that
conclusion.

Ok guys and gals, poke holes in this if you will.  I don't claim to be
an expert on the philosophy of reasoning but this is my attempt to apply the
scientific method as chemists use it to this different situation.

LTM

jerry ellis #2113
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:00:51 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Evidence/ What is it?

Katz writes that Tighar's evidence (so far) is nothing more than "speculative
and as fanciful" as other "so-called " evidence of other researchers. He
classifies Tighar's evidence as "interesting clues" that AE possibly made it
to Niku.

TIGHAR makes a valid point that the word "evidence" is not the same as
"proof". Clues,evidence signs,etc., are all synonymous.

The word "evidence",itself ,however, takes on a "scientific" connotation and
thus is a misleading.
The term needs a qualifiying adjective to be more accurate. In any discipline
"evidence" ranges from very "weak" to "strong" to "hard" to "compelling" to
"certain" to "absolute",to "conclusive",etc.

If we found Amelia's fingerprints on the benedictine bottle, that would be
evidence "beyond  a reasonable doubt"  she handled it. (Not drink any but
touched it or maybe she threw it out as she flew over).

Comparing theories, TIGHAR has a measurable advantage over the other
theories:physical evidence. Tighar,for instance,has found  a document
reflecting the skeletal measurements of remains found in 1940 on Niku that
may be from a white,female,5'5"-5'8" and could find no documented history of
a white female's presence 1937-1940 other than Amelia; a Catspaw replacement
heel from the mid-30's,size 8-9,that may be linked to AE's blucher style
oxford shoe she wore;and eyewitness reports of aircraft wreckage near the
north reef. Certainly of probative value,but not "proof".

Except for the eyewitness report,these are "hard",i.e.,physical pieces of
evidence. At this point,absent additional information, they lack the higher
standard of proof  necessary to warrant a certain conclusion,here, that
Amelia landed at NIKU. The evidence can be challenged, subjected to cross
examination, analysis and so forth,and perhaps discredited. But today those
pieces provide  relevant and competent evidence that AE "may have" ended up
at NIKU.

No one saw AE go into the ocean. No one heard her say she was ditching. No
one found any debris,wreckage,(life rafts,etc) in the ocean during the
extensive search by the Navy. The "ran out of gas theorists", such as
Long,Strippel and Roessler, rely on the same Electra performance data that
Tighar has access to; they arrive at a different conclusion based on their
interpretations of the data. All of the fuel consumption figures,gas aboard,
and so forth are mathematical bits and pieces of evidence. As often in a
court room, "experts" disagree. But these guys do not have  physical evidence
in hand.

Thus evidence and its credibility lies in the eye of the beholder. I thought
that the "hard"evidence against Simpson, gloves,blood,DNA,witnesses,cut
finger,etc., was compelling and "beyond a reasonable doubt" but twelve people
in LA thought it was not credible, perhaps fanciful,(maybe even planted) and
found him innocent of the double murder.So much for "evidence".

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:06:13 EDT
From:         Bill Moffet
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

What are we getting at here?  Do we have any inkling that some of AE's radio
gear made its way into the Gardner radio shack? Mike E. does a lot better at
explaining this than I, but for what it's worth automobile radios in the US
for many years (before the advent of transistors) were powered by the same 6-
or 12-volt lead-acid batteries that ran the car's starter, lights, etc. The
radio's low voltage needs came direct from the battery.  High voltages came
from a vibrator power supply, usually inside the car radio, which had a
step-up transformer combined with a vibrating interrupter which made and
reversed rapidly the 6 or 12-volt DC current from the battery and furnished
it to the transformer primary.  This induced an alternating high voltage in
the secondary which was in turn changed to DC either by a vacuum tube
rectifier or an additional pair of synchronized vibrator contacts, furnishing
the high voltage required by the tubes.  These vibrator power supplies often
gave years of trouble-free service.  Bear in mind we're talking receivers
which require far less current than transmitters.  If Gallagher's Radiola was
designed for power-line operation it may have required more power than a
"normal" vibrator supply could furnish.  In any event, it doesn't appear that
he had his own transmitter.

LTM

Bill Moffet  #2156

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that any of Earhart's radio gear was
used by Gallagher.  This whole thread started with Tom King pointing out that
Gallagher had personal radios and wondering if maybe he had transmit/receive
capbility independent of the government network whihc might explain some of
the apparent gaps in his correspondence.  It now looks like he was not a HAM
and did not have a personal transmitter.  The great concern and debate over
how his radios were powered frankly baffles me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:07:50 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Gallagher's Wireless

If Gallagher requested a vibrator transformer, it probably means the
original got "french-fried," most likely due to tropical humidity invading
its innards.  The "vibrator cord" was most likely a cable from the vibrator
power supply to the radio (carrying high voltage) and could have also been
invested with moisture, causing a short... and frying the transformer.

Since Irish asked for components like resistors and capacitors, he had to
know enough about radio to know what they were, their function in the
circuit, and how to replace them... considerably more knowledge than the
average "radio user" who was probably a tube-jerker only.

Military radios of the WW2 era were coated with a varnish called "MFP" or
Moisture and Fungus Proofing.  This helped keep down failures induced by
tropical conditions but did not altogether prevent them.

The Radiola was probably NOT "MFP'ed."

Something I should have remembered... due to WW2, most ham radio activity in
the British Empire was suspended "for the duration" as the Mother Country,
and Australia/New Zealand/Canada etc were belligerents.  US ham activity was
not shut down until 7 December 1941, and resumed over a period beginning in
October 1945.

Tube bases:  I have hardly ever seen one that screwed in... such would be
VERY old, probably pre-WW1.

Tube bases are typically black bakelite or phenolic, with metal pins
protruding from the bottom.  Some large tubes fitted into a socket which
required the tube to twist 1/4 turn to lock it into place, therefore the
'side pins' might well be present.  Such sockets were prevalent in receivers
of older design (a la the Radiola, perhaps) and in transmitters.

73

Mike E. the Radio Historian
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:13:44 EDT
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: Probability/Evidence/Proof

I'm glad you brought up the topic of probability, I've been intending to
say something about that myself.  Going back to the big picture, if AE & FN
experienced a catastrophic event, i.e., mechanical failure, etc., which they
had no control over, then there is a high probability that they crashed into
the sea, (low probability that they crashed on land) simply based upon the
ratio of water surface to land surface.  To that extent the "crashed at sea"
hypothesis is strong.  However, this was not an "unmanned" plane at the
mercy of chance.  Aboard were two intelligent, experienced folks with
apparently good piloting skills with lots of data upon which to maximize
their flight range, excellent navigational skills and strong survival
instincts.  That would suggest that they had some control over their fate
and that in turn would mean that the probability of their crashing (landing)
on land is much higher than that due to a catastrophic event over which they
had no control.  They could have been on course for land and still have run
out of fuel and crashed into the sea.  But if you point your plane for land
then the probability of landing on land is much higher than if you point
your ship in some arbitrary direction.

In my field of chemistry, it is sometimes difficult to completely prove
a hypothesis.  Given a hypothesis, one can usually design experiments to
perform that when properly conducted will yield results that when properly
interpreted will provide evidence either in favor of or against the
hypothesis.  Even when the result(s) supports the hypothesis, it probably
won't prove it.  So we conduct several different types of experiments and if
the results from all of them support the hypothesis then we begin to believe
that it probably is a reasonable representation of what is going on.  As
long as no other evidence appears (as a result of our practicing chemistry)
that is inconsistent with the original notion, then we accept it as a valid
working model and go on our merry way.   So in summary, while we cannot
always prove a hypothesis, we simply keep collecting different evidence in
favor of the hypothesis until we feel that further work would not be a good
use of time and resources.  However, if something else comes along with
overwhelming evidence that contradicts our working model then we are duty
bound to keep an open mind, reconsider our position, and adopt another model
(answer).  One difficulty we humans have is correctly applying knowledge in
one situation to another similar but related one.  That is what I am trying
to do as I follow this exciting AE/FN story.

I am not as intimately acquainted with this story as Ric and many
others, but as I recall and understand the records based upon radio logs of
AE's radio transmissions, they were flying along the LOP which, as pointed
out by the two clever folks 15 or so years ago, would take them very close
to one or more islands, Gardner included.  It seems to me that the Itasca
radio logs are evidence of that fact, which increases the probability that
they made landfall.  The records indicating the amount of fuel onboard at
takeoff  is evidence, although the amount of fuel remaining near Howland is
open to at least some interpretation and has a margin of error due to
unknown facts.  The S level of their radio signal to the Itasca is evidence
that they were reasonably close to Howland, but that too has a fairly large
margin of error.

So what kind of experiment could we do to evaluate the TIGHAR
hypothesis?  We might try to reproduce the flight towards Howland and
looking for land, or flying along the same LOP and looking for land.  But
the number of variables related to tides, weather, visibility, wind velocity
and direction, cloud cover, air temperature, uncertainty about the
experimental aircraft matching AE's, fuel quality, actual air/fuel ratio AE
was using, prop pitch, and on  and on, would provide results with a
sickening uncertainty as to their value.  We could try to land on Gardner at
an unacceptable risk to the crew, or we could leave two folks there to see
how they could survive.  Well, all these experiments seem to possess enough
distasteful features that they don't seem feasible and their results would
seem to be of questionable value.  So doing experiments as we do in
chemistry does not seem to be a viable approach.  Can you think of some
useful experiments?

However, I agree with David Katz that there is no "hard evidence," no
smoking gun if you will, that AE made it to Gardner.  It appears that David
cuts to the core and states correctly what the evidence means, for the most
part.   But I would disagree that documents (with no reason to believe that
they are not authentic) related to the bones are hearsay and not evidence.
Again, much of what David says about evidence and what it means I believe to
be true.  But as Ric points out, there are a number of pieces of evidence
that support the hypothesis that AE did make it to Gardner, so that the
probability of all these things happening accidentally is growing smaller
with each new piece of evidence.   Just as with the chemistry experience I
mentioned above, eventually there _may_ be enough evidence of this nature
that "most people" will agree that AE landed on Gardner.

On the other hand, what is the evidence for the hypotheses that she
crashed into the sea or that she was captured by the Japanese?   Clearly if
she unexpectedly ran out of fuel, there is a high probability that she
crashed into the sea.   Still, investigation of the current TIGHAR
hypothesis seems fruitful enough to maintain an active search for more hard
evidence which would actually prove the that AE landed on Gardner.  So I
don't agree with David that the evidence for landing on Gardner is such that
it is "equally possible that they didn't."

Ok guys and gals, point out the errors in my thinking.

LTM(who knows that you can avoid making mistakes only if you do nothing)

jerry ellis #2113
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:23:00 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      scaphoid

I looked it up again in two medical dictionaries. Scaphoid is a word with a
Greek root, and navicular is a word with a Latin root.  The bone in the
wrist can be called the navicular or the scaphoid, but in the U.S., I've
usually seen it called the navicular.  I often read hand X-rays to assess
skeletal maturity.  The standard U.S, work on the subject (Greulich and
Pyle) refers to the wrist bone as the scaphoid.  I think that the ankle
scaphoid can also be called the navicular, but that is irrelevant to the
discussion. As they both had fine British educations, I would expect that
both Hoodless and Gallagher would understand what the words meant from their
classical roots.  It is hard to say if Gallagher would have identified the
bone.  In a burial, with the rest of the bones properly oriented, it
wouldn't be too difficult.  As an isolated specimen, without the other foot
bones, it would still look like a lump.  For those who missed previous
postings, navicular means shaped like a ship (like in navy, navigator, etc.)
LTM (who wasn't shaped like a ship)  Dan Postellon TIGHAR 2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:23:46 EDT
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

If I remember my physics correctly, transformers can only work on AC so
the DC must be first be converted by the vibrator to AC then the transformer
could increase the voltage to one related to the ratio of turns on each of
the windings.

jerry ellis #2113
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:26:27 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

>From Ross Devitt
>
>Correct me if my memory is wrong, but  the "transformer windings" do all the
>voltage conversion both up and down.  The vibrator just swithces the output
>at the high voltage end so + and - "alternate" on the terminals thus giving
>us "alternating current".

The original vibrator was a method to switch the primary (input) winding
and thus cause alternating current to flow in the transformer. A second
set of contacts commutated the secondary as what is referred to today as
a synchronous rectifier. ie it did not require diodes (rectifier tubes)
to produce the secondary DC. The ATR unit that was mentioned here did not
include any provisions for rectification since the concept was to produce
a simulated 60 Hz power signal for use in another piece of equipment.
Using the ATR unit for example if the primary is 12 volts (vehicle bus)
and the secondary is 110 VAC then unit switches on the low voltage side.
There are many permutations of these concepts.

Greg
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:29:40 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

Ric, isn't it likely that her comments about 20 GPH are because any flow
work whether on a gauge or out of a manual (aircraft or engine) forces
one to deal with flow one engine at a time.

Greg

**************************************************************************
From Ric

True enough, but the only number that means anything is total gallons per
hour for the airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:30:59 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: scaphoid bone

Ric says...

IF the tank was put there to provide water for the Second Searchers
THEN the six or seven coconut shell halves found in the bottom of the tank
may be an indication of the number of people present.

True, and if it seems like coconut shells wouldn't last so long, I found lots
of such shells, pretty clearly cut for use as drinking utensils, in an
archeological site in Chuuk that had been buried under an airport runway
since about 1941.  Of course, those were relatively anaerobic conditions, but
I suspect that a coconut shell in a relatively open but protected surface
location might last a long time, too.  Another bit of experimental data we
don't have.  Of course, if we assume that coconut shells could last 60 years
on the surface of Niku, we'd have to assume that a sextant box would last
quite awhile, too, which would eliminate one argument for the bones not
having lain around as long as Isaac thought they had.

LTM (who's not in her cups)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:32:49 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia's Low on Fuel Report

TIGHAR' S longtime nemesis Roessler and Gomez say this about Amelia's 1912
radio report of "running low on fuel":

              "In our combined 67 years of aviation experience, we have never
known a pilot to report 'low on fuel' with more than 30 minutes of fuel
remaining..." (italics mine)

Well I'll have to introduce them to TIGHAR1 and posthumously to AE.

For forum members who would like to see a unmercifull attack on TIGHAR"S
hypothesis,see the above authors in "AE,Case Closed?" who spent ten pages on
the "Gardner Island Fantasy". I believe Ric said be cautious about any book
that puts a question mark in the title

LTM,
Ron Bright (who nows fills at 1/2 tank level)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:34:01 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

Just a small point, the "most efficient speed (150 mph in this case)" is not
one IAS. 150 mph TAS is a range of IASs. And here is my original point, the
airframe doesn't respond to anything according to groundspeed, the airframe
only performs according to the physical properties of the gases that it is
in. Therefore IAS not TAS.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Apr 2000 20:55:18 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Re: evidence

By hard evidence, I mean specific, verifiable evidence.

You stated:  "Contemporaneous written accounts by a first-hand source are by
no stretch of the imagination "hearsay."

I beg to differ.  Irrespective of when Gallagher wrote or what he wrote, it
is still hearsay.  Evidence produced by a third party whom you cannot
examine is indeed hearsay.  What you have is direct evidence that Mr.
Gallagher found bones, nothing more.  Moreover, he found bones that neither
he nor anyone else were then able to identify and which are unavailable
today for forensic examination.  Accepting that bones were found, those
bones could have belonged to absolutely anyone (possibly -- only possibly of
European extraction) who had the misfortune to die on that island prior to
Mr. Gallagher's arrival.  For all you or anyone else knows, the bones could
belong to Judge Crater as easily as they belong to either Fred Noonan or
Amelia Earhart.  That Noonan and Earhart were lost within 500 miles of
Gardner sometime prior to Gallagher's arrival is coincidental at best.  Any
number of people could share those qualifications.  Such a coincidence falls
far short of any standard of evidence of which I have ever heard.

With respect to your Webster definition of "evidence", I believe that this
forum is dedicated to seeking the third definition, i.e., "something that
tends to prove" in other words, "proof".  You once expressed a hope that I
not be offended by one of your responses.  I am, sir, offended by your tone
of condescension.  I am not "confusing evidence with proof".  Evidence is
part and parcel of proof as Mr. Webster so conveniently describes.  You
state that TIGHAR has "grounds for belief".  That is most assuredly true.
What TIGHAR lacks is evidence.

You go to great lengths to dismiss any ideas contrary to your own as
"fanciful" when, indeed, every single shred of "evidence" you have so
diligently uncovered (including contemporaneous written tales of human
remains, rubber shoe parts and bits of aluminum) can only be connected with
Miss Earhart by fallacious logic and fanciful leaps of faith.  The aluminum
bits are as valid today as was the generator dredged up by Fred Goerner in
Saipan Harbor then (the generator was, of course, subsequently invalidated
as being of Japanese origin).  As for the "Emily" interview, that has as
much credibility as any of the interviews conducted by Mr. Goerner on Saipan
(whose "evidence" would lead one to conclude merely that a male and female
European were present on Saipan before the War).  I am not dismissing
Emily's remembrances; rather, I am giving them the same weight as I would
any other hearsay evidence (she did not directly witness anything -- she has
related only what she has been told by others).

You have repeatedly accused others of using "fanciful" assumptions and
logic, when your are guilty of that precise offense.  You begin with the
assumption that Earhart and Noonan reached Gardner.  Bones are found.  You
draw the conclusion that they belong to Earhart and Noonan.  Based on what
evidence?  That it's possible that the bones may be European in origin?  One
might ask, "To what other two people might they have belonged?"  There are
at least eight unaccounted-for bodies from the ship-wreck, are there not?
Were no other parties ever lost at sea in the South Pacific within 500 miles
of Gardner?  A Cat's Paw rubber heel is found.  It is only known that it was
of a type produced in the 1930's and that Miss Earhart may possibly have had
similar brand heels.  Such heels were very common from the 1930's through
the 1970's; I would be astonished if Miss Earhart did NOT have Cat's Paw
rubber heels.  Literally millions of people had such heels prior to and
after1937, including millions of GI's who served in the South Pacific during
the War.  (By the way, when I was younger, I had very narrow feet.  Mr.
Madnick, the shoemaker in my town, routinely used ladies' rubber  Cat's Paw
heels on my shoes because the men's size did not fit as well.)

You state that you are unaware of any "hard evidence" that supports a theory
in conflict with your own.  How can you be aware of any such thing when you
dismiss all contrary theories as being "fanciful".  As I have stated, I am
not necessarily a proponent of Mr. Long; however, his "evidence" is based on
assumptions that are at least as valid as your own.  Both of your
assumptions may be wrong, but his are no more (or less) fanciful than yours.
In effect, neither are supportable with any reasonable degree of certainty
without relying on further assumptions.  I repeat: this statement applies to
both TIGHAR and Mr. Long.  That you both have chosen and stated your
assumptions does not render them invalid, merely not proven and not
supportable by evidence.

It was my understanding that the purpose of this forum is to foster
intelligent discussion of possible scenarios relating to the outcome of the
World Flight.  I should think that you, as its sponsor and most outspoken
vocal proponent of the "scientific method" of inquiry, would refrain from
the outright dismissal of opinions contrary to your own and the use of
condescension in the tone of your replies.  It is unbecoming and it leads
one to question the seriousness of your inquiry.  I tell the people who work
for me that there are no stupid questions; there is, however, stupid
behavior and it is typically evidenced by those who fail to ask a question
that should be asked or by those who cavalierly dismiss the questioner
because he doesn't like the question.

David Evans Katz
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I have no wish to fight with you or offend you, sir, but I fear that you are
accustomed to a great deal more respect than you are likely to receive here.
I'm sorry that you found my tone condescending.  My intention was merely to
correct what I saw as misunderstandings of terminology that were leading you
to have a false impression of our work.

I tried to point out that you were confusing evidence with proof and cited
dictionary definitons to illustrate my point.  You respond by claiming that
the phrase "tends to prove" means the same as "proof."  Nobody here is going
to buy that - not because I tell them not to believe you, but because it is
obviously not true.  The subscribers to the Forum know where to find the verb
"tend" in the dictionary as well as I do.

I disagreed with your characterization of Gallagher's written account of the
discovery of bones as "hearsay."   You insist that, "Evidence produced by a
third party whom you cannot examine is indeed hearsay."  Once again, you're
championing an untenable position.  Webster's defines "hearsay evidence" as:
"Evidence based on something the witness has heard someone else say, and
hence, depending on the veracity and competence of someone other than the
witness."

Or, if you prefer Black's Law Dictionary:

"Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from
the mere repetition of what he has heard others say.  That which does not
derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but from the veracity
and competency of other persons."

If Gallagher relates a story told to him by someone, that's hearsay.  When
Gallagher describes his own discoveries it is (and I'll say it again) by no
stretch of the imagination hearsay.

My point is not to pretend to instruct you in the English language, which
would indeed be condescending, but to document the reasons (evidence) to
support my allegation that your use of these terms does not conform to
standard English usage.  Words do not mean what you decide they mean, at
least not if you expect to be taken seriously here.

You persist in clinging to your personal definition of "evidence" (synomymous
with "proof") and then castigate me for claiming to have it.  You chastise me
for characterizing Long's interpretations of historical sources as "fanciful"
and accuse me of beng guilty of equally "fanciful" interpretations, but the
examples you cite demonstrate an appalling lack of familiarity with our work.
It would also seem that the several erudite condemnations of Long's
calculations by other forum subscribers that were posted in response to your
original inquiry escaped  your notice.

Your assumption about the purpose of this Forum is contrary to the standard
message you received when you recently signed on.  Let me refresh your memory:
"Our purpose here is to promote an intelligent and productive discussion of
the Earhart disappearance.  Specifically, we want to further our
investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably
the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island (now known as Nikumaroro) in the
Phoenix Group.  We will not discuss conspiracy theories on this forum, nor
will we debate whether the airplane crashed at sea near Howland.  We feel
that we have already established a strong probability that the flight arrived
in the vicinity of Howland Island pretty much on schedule and, as of the last
officially received radio transmission, had adequate remaining fuel to reach
Gardner Island.  The question is, did it?"

Nonetheless, had you been a subscriber for more than a few weeks you would
know that, far from "dismissing" other theories, this Forum has intensely
debated the merits of alternative answers to the Earhart riddle.  Not
surprisingly, those who can not abide our methodology have stomped off mad
or, in rare cases, have had to be forcibly silenced, but that has happened
only when it has become abundantly apparent that they had no evidence to
offer but were merely wasting bandwidth with unsubstantiated opinion.

Finally, let me say that it is a mistake to suppose that when you challenge
the consensus of this Forum you are challenging me.  The chief virtue of
this Forum is that it is a free and open mechanism for peer review.  Nonsense
can not long survive here, whether perpetrated by me or by you or by anyone
else.  If I'm doing my job, only reason rules.  The Forum is like the jungle
- its beauty is in its mercilessness.  No one here works for me and no one
here works for you.    If you labor under any illusion that I am not taken to
task as much as anyone else here, just stick around.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:30:39 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Preponderance of Evidence quiz

Here are the long-awaited responses to Dennis McGee's Preponderance of
Evidence exercise.

Nobody (including me) had read the other answers before writing their own.

To refresh everyone's memory, here is the problem:

***************
    The following 10 facts are all 100 percent true and were collected
from sifting through thousands of pages of classified and unclassified
material.

    1.  Dr. Jose Gonzales lives in Miami, Florida.
    2.  Mr. Evilguy rules Badland and is rumored to have a heart
problem.
    3.   Heartgood, Nodie, Pumpmuch, and Havefun are all patented heart
drugs available only in the United States.
    4.  Mr. Evilguy presides over a youth rally on June 15 looking very
pale and weak.
    5.  Dr. Gonzales, a world-famous cardiologist, vacations in Mexico
from July 14-August 1.
    6.  Large quantities of Heartgood, Nodie, Pumpmuch, and Havefun have
been shipped in early July to a Mexican company with known connections in
Badland.
    7.  Mr. Evilguy is not seen in public from July 10-October 15.
    8.      Dr. Gonzales appears at a popular social event in Miami on
Aug. 5 and the newspapers society editor notes he not very tanned for having
spent two weeks in Mexico.  The doctor jokes he made the mistake of drinking
the water and spent most his vacation in bed.
    9.  Dr. Gonzales' parents and other family members live in Badland.
    10.  Mr. Evilguy is seen hale and hearty at a sporting event on
October 20.

    What type of report would you write using this data?
************************

Here are the responses:

From William Webster-Garman

This is an exercise in the diminishing probability of multiple coincidence
(the least likely scenario involves the highest number of coincidences).

There is no proof of anything here, but these are the indications in order
of declining probability:

It is very unlikely that a physician with Dr Gonzales' credentials would be
foolish enough to drink tap water in Mexico. It is almost certain that he
lied to the society editor and did not spend his vacation in bed.

It is probable, but not certain, that Gonzales used his vacation trip to
Mexico as a cover either to travel secretly to Badland (where his parents
and other relatives live) or, less likely, to make lengthy contacts with
Badland citizens who were in Mexico.

It is less probable than the above, but still likely, that Gonzales has been
providing assistance to the Badland government, presumably relating somehow
to his specialty in cardiology and coinciding with Evilguy's rumoured heart
problems during the summer.

Gonzales' motives could be economic, political, or family related. He could
be a Badland sympathist, an economic opportunist, or an extortion victim
whose family is being held hostage by the Badland government.

Less likely, but possible: Gonzales may have only visited his parents in
Badland, and the heart drugs and Evilguy's apparent illness are coincidences
unrelated to Gonzales' suntanless trip.

Improbable, but plausible: Gonzales has no clandestine involvement with
Badland, and did not visit Badland. His story about being poisoned by the
local water was fabricated in order to hide something unrelated to Badland
and Evilguy.

Further investigations focusing on Gonzales, and possible violations of the
well-known trade embargo (illicit trans-shipment of US pharmaceuticals via
Mexico to Badland by persons unknown), are strongly indicated as a result of
this "evidence".

I must say that taken altogether, regardless of Gonzales' involvement, this
is more evidence that all those rumours about Evilguy's bad ticker may be
true after all. <grin>

william 2243

**********************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

My response:
I studied the clues, and could find no correlation between Jose Gonzales'
activites and those of Evil Goodguy.  Pure coincidence and/or circumstances
make it appear that there is a connection.

*************************************
From Jerry Ellis

Just for fun:  I suppose the most obvious answer is that  Evilguy went
to Mexico to see Gonzales for treatment (or Gonzales went to Badland on a
side trip) and one (or more) of the drugs was recommended and used
successfully by Evilguy.  But there is probably some tricky solution to this
situation that only certain folks can see right off.

jerry ellis #2113

*************************************************************************
From Bill Moffett

OK, I'll play. Just because the 10 facts are listed together is no guarantee
they're related.  Dr. Gonzales went to Mexico, caught "Montezuma's revenge".
Besides, his dermatologist probably told him to stay out of the sun!  It's
likely that Ruler Evilguy has his own doctor(s) who secured a supply of the
heart medicines for him, with or without consultation with Dr. G., and
improved Mr. E's appearance, if not his health, between July 11 and Oct. 15.
Much more "intelligence" is necessary to connect Dr. G. & Mr. E.  I don't see
that any crime was committed unless it was illegal to export the medicines.

LTM

Bill Moffet  #2156

*****************************************
From Ric

There is insufficient evidence here to connect Dr. Gonzales with any of the
events transpiring in Badland.  There is also insufficient evidence to
suspect Dr. Gonzales of anything except perhaps poor judgement in his choice
of beverages while visiting Mexico.

***************************************

Okay Dennis.  How'd we do?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:34:53 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Coincidence

>From Jon Watson
>To paraphrase the old bumper sticker, "Coincidence Happens" - I can confirm
>that through my years as an investigator.  HOWEVER...
>Maybe this is a candidate for Chaos- or Game-Theory???
>I'd bet there's a Tighar out there who knows!

Want to talk "coincidence".  I am the manager for a garage door company in a
major metropolitan area.  We handle 20 to 30 jobs per day, plus lots of other
phone calls for phone quotes, etc.  If I get a phone request by someone, say
by the name of Gillespie, it is not unusual for me to have up to 3 people by
the same name call in the same week, and often in the same one or two day
period.  These people are rarely related, don't live in the same part of the
city, and don't know each other.  I can't begin to understand it, its
absolutely WIERD!  I know that if I get three Gillespies (or Millers,
Johnsons, etc.) that I probably won't see those same names again for several
months, except for names like Smith that are soooo common that I am still
surprised that I don't have 2 per day, and in fact seem to see that name somewhat
less than I would expect, but again they call in groups of 2 to 4 quite
frequently.  Go figure (no, wait, I take that back - else we will be here
discussing those figures for three more weeks - HELP!).

LTM,
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:38:10 EDT
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: airspeed

>Ric, Don't you mean 150 mph IAS?
>
>Greg
>**************************************************************************
>From Ric
>
>Nope, I mean TAS.  IAS is a largely meaningless figure that will very greatly
>with altitude, barometric pressure and temperature.

Well, no - actually,  I agree with Greg.

IAS is a "pressure speed" which yields a "representation" of the
flows/pressures  around the aircraft.

Keep the same IAS  (say 150mph IAS) - whatever the altitude/temp/pressure
and corresponding TAS, the L10E is
aerodynamically oblivious, - it "slips through the air most efficiently" in
exactly the same manner
(I assume here identical weights and loadings).

Thus, if the L10E is at   150mph IAS/150mph TAS    at sea level, or 150mph
IAS/(say)180mph TAS
at 10000 feet - it behaves aerodynamically the same.

LTM  (whatever her IAS may be)
Simon Ellwood    #2120

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I see your point and am now totally confused.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:48:53 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

> From Tom King
>
> I've missed a beat on the magnetic variation business.

Ric said "The charts prepared for Earhart's first world flight attempt
by Clarence Williams show that he used a variation of 9  degrees
East...." I used a 1986 chart of Howland Island (looks like DMA) and
calculated that the variation would've been 14°35'E. Alan Caldwell
reminded us that he was advised, in response to his query, by the
Canadian government that the variation was 9°29'E. I didn't understand
how the extrapolated variation could be so far from the reported
variation. Randy Jacobson said variation is calculated every ten years
and that you should never project more than ten years. Since technology
in 1937 was nothing like it is today I still didn't trust any variation
calculated from 1937 data and suggested that we use a current
geomagnetic model to see what it would've been. Randy Jacobson says
there is no way that variation could have varied as much as I thought
and he seems to think that 9°29'E is probably accurate.

It appears that I have been barking up a tree that has already been cut
down. I just checked NOAA's geomagnetic model for 0° 48'N 176°38'W,
1937-07-02, 10000' AGL, and a value of 9° 29.3' is returned
<http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/seg/gmag/fldsnth1.pl>. According to
this model the variation varied one degree between 170E and 175W at the
equator.

I'm dropping variation as a possible factor, but does anyone know
anything about magnetic storms? According to a NASA Java applet
<http://www.spaceweather.com/java/sunspot.html> July 1937 was a solar
maximum. Was there a magnetic storm July 02, 1937? Does anyone know how
to find out? I might be able to research this more later but I really
need to get back to my homework for now.

Frank Westlake
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:54:36 EDT
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Re: Airspeed & Engines

The engines powering the Electra Jr and Electra did indeed have
superchargers. The pressure ratio developed by these devices was relatively
low, something around 1.3:1. This resulted in a rated altitude of only 5,000
feet, meaning that the engine could develop sea level manifold pressure up to
that altitude. Above that altitude, horsepower would decrease approximately
as the change in air density ratio at increasingly higher altitudes.

These single-stage, single speed superchargers served two other purposes. The
heat of compression caused by supercharging helped complete vaporization of
the atomized fuel. Some of the fuel was evaporated in the carburetor, but not
necessarily all of it. In addition, the supercharging process promoted
uniform mixing of the fuel and air charge delivered to the various cylinders.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Birch.  Question:  Could a pilot use "full throttle" (aka "balls to
the wall") on takeoff at sea level or was the supercharger effective enough
to generate more manifold pressure than the engine could handle?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:58:20 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Octants, Sextants,Fuel grades,surperchargers, oh my

For the all the AE sleuths I submit the following:

Octants VS Sextants:
 The first double refracting instruments for celestial navigation
observations were called octants because their arcs were one/eighth of a
circle which is 45 degrees. However they are built with double
reflecting mirrors and could actually measure 90 degrees of arc.

The sextant is named as such because it's arc was one/sixth or 60
degrees, but could measure 120 degrees.  I just got back from a north
atlantic crossing and tried out a model A-7 sextant(similar to FN's A-5)
.  I had a problem with its light being inop and consequently could not
take a night observation without destroying my night vision by having to
turn up a cockpit light to get the observation reading.  Had better luck
on the return flight.   Got 3 good fixes using the sun and bearings from
beacons.  First was 20 miles off-it was shot from the corner of the
window-not a good spot but all I could get at the time.  The next was 5
miles , and the 3rd 1 mile.  I wish I could brag but since this was the
first time I used the A-7 my honesty will call it luck.  The A-7 works
very good-more than good enough to fly a 337/157 sun LOP not including
FN's known skill at the art & science of celestial navigation.

Fuel grades:  Birch Matthews wrote that fuel grade, octane specifically
is not relevant to fuel consumption.  I beg to differ.  It is true that
octane refers to the resistance to detonation in the combustion process,
but it is also true if you get a lower grade or a bad batch of gas that
does not meassure up to what the engine was designed for you will be
unable to get the rated horsepower from the engine due to the detonation
problem.  Case in point:  Curtiss-Wright and Pratt & Whitney at the end
of the piston era came out with the R-3350 Turbo-compound & R-4360
engines respectively.  The Curtiss R-3350 was an 18 cylinder engine that
was orginally designed to produce 2500-2700 hp.  They then
"turbocompounded" it by adding power recovery turbines that channeled
exhaust gases from the cylinders to turn turbine wheels that transfered
the inertia energy generated to the crankshaft by means of a fluid
coupling.  It raised horsepower output to 3250-3400 hp for thesame
engine.  It also meant pulling as much out of the engine as possible by
means of fuel injection, supercharging, water injection, and raising
combustion temperatures & pressures to the upper end of the envelope.  P
& W simply made a massive engine of 28 cylinders, injected,
turbosupercharged, water injected, and also pushing combustion
temperatures & pressures to the limit.  To make these engines crank out
horsepower as advertised, 145 octane fuel was formulated and devised.
Their are  a few aircraft still flying today pwered by these engines but
145 octane is long gone.  They use conventional 100 octane fuel but it
limits their payloads because of limited manifold pressure, and
BMEP(brake mean effective power) that you can draw from the engine due
to temps & pressures that will generate the detonation problem.  When I
mentioned octane the first time, I was comparing AE's fuel in 1937 to
Finch's fuel used in 1997.  The earlier fuels were heavily leaded and
100 octane meant 100-130 octane vs 100 octane in the common 100 LL sold
today.  If you can't draw rated horsepower due inadaquate/inferior fuel,
you will not get computed range/ economy.  Don't mean to start an
argument-just clarify what I said earlier.  Ever got a bad batch of gas
in your car?  What was the end result?

To Renaud:
The R-1340's in AE's Electra were supercharged.  I think it is simply a
"blower" as on the R-985 that raises the manifold pressures.  Some are
able to shift gear ratios and be used to keep rated horsepower at high
altitudes.  These wern't that fancy.

Roessler & Gomez & "Mystery Solved".  Pardon me but I read the book and
was not impressed with their 67 years experience.  I won't go into
details but to me they do not appear to know much about navigation or
show alot of pilot sense.  Mostly mechanics, not much aviators in them.
They seem to know how to market a book though.

Doug B. #2335
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:16:43 EDT
From:         Renaud Dudon
Subject:      Evidence ?

You're right, in french "Évidence" ( thing that is obvious ) has a very
different meaning than "indice" ( clue ).

However, according to my Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionnary, in english
the word evidence is " Anything that gives reason for believing something,
that makes clear or proves something". So, it could be either a clue or a
proof. More, this definition is really wide and also include facts that are
obvious, that could be clearly seen ( "Anything that(...) makes clear(...) ").


    Nevertheless, the differences are often very thin.


LTM

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, let's bring out the big guns and see what Black's Law Dictionary says
about evidence.  There are two offerings.

"Any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial of
an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses,
records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc. for the purpose of
inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their contention."

"Testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the
senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact."

"Clue" is defined as:
"Suggestion or piece of evidence which may or may not lead to solution of
crime or puzzle."

Seems to be an interesting contradiction here.  The definitions of "evidence"
appear to imply that it must be offered to prove something while a "clue",
which is described as "evidence" may or may not lead to a solution.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:33:58 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman/vibrator

We know the Radiola-80 ran on AC as manufactured. It was
intended to plug into house current. The presence of the vibrator would
indicate that Gallagher ran it on batteries, converting the DC (battery)
current to AC so that he could "plug in" the radio without modifying it. The
radio's transformer would then reconvert the AC to DC to run the RF
circuitry. The alternative would be to modify the radios "innards" to
by-pass the radio's AC power supply circuitry. This would perhaps be more
efficient but would require expertise Gallagher may not have had.

LTM

Kerry  _ . _
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:35:45 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Electricity

Vacuum tubes (valves) came in many shapes and forms.  Some (if you look at
the web page in my posting some days ago) had a screw connection one end and
a bayomet on the other.

I don't think any Radiola or even the Ultimate from that era would have
anything other than the "pin" type though.  Bayonet fittings were used for
other things than lights and radios though.  In the early days of extension
leads, one sometimes saw a bayonet plug and socket extension.

As for lights.  Kerosene (parrafin i think in the US) was and still is a
popular night time lighting fuel.  I used kero lights on my yacht for many
years.  It was a lot cheaper than trying to charge the batteries.  One litre
(liter?  quart? in US)  would run all the hurricane lamps for weeks.   (Damn
there go 40 Islanders and their bicycle!).  "Early to bed and early to rise"
was the way life worked.  No television, no library or newsagency for books.
(Probably none for Gallagher either - just what came on the mail boat).
Pretty much the only person using a night light would be gallagher anyway.

One person who possibly has recorded this somewhere is Harry Maude.  If not,
he'd probably tell you..

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:46:33 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

The magnetic variation for Howland as predicted by Clarance Williams was
quite accurate, based upon later hindcasts and analyses.  Thus, magnetic
variation was not a cause for any misnavigation by accounting for magnetic
course (other than perhaps a mis-calibrated magnetic compass).
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:48:09 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: scaphoid bone

And with a little imagination, due to the weird shape and angle of the
Island you could call that at least "near" the southeast corner.  I mean
there "isn't" realy a northeast corner at all, is there?

I found something which digs a head sized hole in my earlier reasoning.  I
suggested (strongly) the "house/tank" site was possibly a camp for Gallagher
and the workers whilst they worked across the lagoon near the "shoe" site.
Obviously, the workers (even Islanders - and that's not meant to be racist)
would need access to fair quantities of water in the heat of the day.

RossD  (I still think Ric walks very, very slowly....)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:50:17 EDT
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

> From Ric
>
>The great concern and debate over
> how his radios were powered frankly baffles me.

I was following this thread in terms of on site investigation. Knowing what
kind of stuff Gallagher had might help identify artifacts and date
habitation sites.
LTM

Kerry
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Problem is that there have been an awful lot of people on that island, many
of them with radios, since Galllagher's time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:54:38 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Gallons per Hour

Forgive me, but "it is not relevant" is a bit harsh.  I put both feet in my
mouth regularly, but I try to back my "statements" up where I can with tests
or documents.

> As an aside, a few Forum contributors expressed concern about octane ratings
> of contemporary fuels versus that used by Amelia Earhart with respect to
> possibly experimentally assessing Amelia's fuel consumption. Octane numbers
> relate to the resistance of fuels to detonation, not the fuel chemical energy
> content. Therefore it is not relevant.

I had the sneaking suspicion Birch was a pilot.  He always sounds like an
engineer, and that is confirmed in his latest post.  I find his facts and
figures among the most helpful on the forum, as anybody who flies knows it
is the engineers that got them there in the first place.

However, any pilot will tell you one of the important requirements of an
aero engine is to be able to lean the mixture for optimum performance.  On a
low octane fuel detonation can occur close to the optimum settings, damaging
the piston crown, cylinder head, even the crank/con rod assy in severe
cases.  You can even extend fuel range by leaning further than normal in an
emergency.

We are taught about it, earhart would know it.  Noonan would know it.
Lockheed advised it.  They gave figures to produce 38gph, and suggested
those figures should run better than that.  They also advised that Earhart
could lean the mixture further for better endurance.  This suggests she was
not already flying at best endurance figures.

The low octane fuel suggests that she ran low compression ratios.  I don't
know the compression ratios for the P&Ws on the Finch machine, but if they
were made for current fuel they may have been higher.  In which case the HP
output for given RPM would be higher in the new machine.  Check with your
local drag racer.   Both machines could be leaned further anyway before
detonation with a High Octane fuel.  (Which Finch had and Earhart didn't).

However, looking at Finch's flight times & distances for each stage of her
trip, it would appear that she didn't try too hard to conserve fuel.  I'd
still like to know exactly how much she used on the Honolulu - Oakland trip.
It is the closest leg she did to one documented by AE, albeit in the
opposite direction.

It is also the closest in length to the Lae Howland leg.  If we knew exactly
what Finch used on that trip, it would give us more sensible "speculation"
on fuel usage.

> range of gross weight values. The turf field length at Lae was 3,000 feet of
> which Amelia reportedly used almost every foot.

How many grass strips had she taken off from in the Electra.  You only have
to go from regular use of a tarmac surface to a wet grass strip (find me a
dry day in Lae?) to know what I mean.  I'd need every inch to make sure I
got over the drag on the wheels.  And I'm talking relatively short grass.

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I would be very surprised if most of the fields Earhart used on her 1937
world flight were not unpaved.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:55:24 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

Transformers can be AC or DC type.  For an example of a DC type, everyone has
one in their car: it is called the "coil", and converts 12V DC into something
greater than 2 kilovolts DC for the spark plugs.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:04:09 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Fuel Management

>I don't think we have a
> consensus on whether the 20 gph refers to one engine or both.  There have
> been some good arguments both ways.  Ultimately, I don't think it much
> matters.

I think the whole point of this thread is that she probably didn't "ditch"
near Howland.  If she arrived near Howland with about 4hrs fuel, and used a
bit of that beetling around looking for her friends it becomes important.

On the outside chance (really outside as I also think it was per engine)
that she could drop to 20gph, that would have to be just above best L/D and
we've seen figures from a number of aeroplanes that show you can close to
double your range at that speed.

Noonan as navigator would have all those figures, and taken them into
account when working out a plan of action.  I know Ric flies, I know others
on the forum do.  Despite my inexperience, I do have hours in my log on a
number of singles and a fast twin.  I know this makes sense to us.

To the poor devils who read this that don't fly, they probably wonder why
the techie stuff.

Once again, until we know the best L/D (glide speed should be listed) for
the Electra, and the fuel consumption needed to keep it airborne at that
speed, we are still guessing.  Even if we do know, it only becomes an
"educated" guess.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:13:25 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Dennis McGee's Comment

>From Ric
>Look guys, this is getting way off topic.  I know that there's nothing a
>private pilot would rather do than "hangar fly" about how airplanes work but
>I'm gonna have to ask you to do it around the Coke machine and not here.

This has nothing to do with hangar flying.  It has to do with whether
Earhart and Noonan ditched near Howland, or might have made it with even
less fuel that we have allowed - to Gardner.  If it can be sensibly shown
that she COULD reduce her fuel consumption even sacrificing speed, the
figures that suggest she didn't have enough fuel to reach gardner suddenly
have a whole different meaning.

rd

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Then let me put it this way.  I'm not going to post any more treatises on the
performance of light aircraft, no matter how enthusiastic, unless I can see a
direct relevance to the disappearance of NR16020.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:16:20 EDT
From:         Paul Chattey
Subject:      Light bulb-ery

In our effort to be logical, find truth, and employ the scientific method,
it's easy for folks like me to get sidetracked by the aura of efficiency and
elegance of method.  So, I love the side tracks and suspect that
"wildcarding", to coin a phrase Mother would never have used, is useful,
too.  Like either as useful as blindly poking hands into holes to see what
is inside (or what bites), or as useful as an insightful flash, an "ah-ha!".

This is no ah-ha, sorry, but I wonder if we shouldn't ask what use a native
might have made of a light bulb, OK, a light bulb base?  Or the glass part,
after throwing away the base?  In South America and Asia, whatever you throw
away is immediately recycled by someone and often you can buy the
newly-finished product in the market.  Supermarket plastic bags, in Peru,
are cut into strips, stretched, and crocheted into watch caps.
Uncomfortably hot watch caps but still caps.  In Bolivia, the upper half of
the glass portion of light bulbs are cut off and glued onto masks.  They're
painted to look like bulging eyes.  (Bulbing eyes?)  We all know what
imaginative things can happen to tin cans, bottle caps, and plastic bottles.
So, does the tells-all Forum know if island handicrafts include things or
parts of things made from light bulbs?  Were these items too rare to appear
in 1940s handicrafts?

Conversely, what other use would our District Officer have made of a light
bulb?  (Filled it with water to make a magnifying glass?  I dunno.) Having
an English father, I'll admit that some of his cousins used to make
necklaces from apple seeds.  I've had English house mates that made useful
things that I'd have thrown away if they hadn't stopped me in horror.

Think I'll go wander down this side track for a while, yell if you hear a
train coming, OK?

Paul

***************************************************************************
From Ric

OK.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:17:42 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Magnetic storms

I did a little research regarding magnetic storms. I didn't learn
anything but I did find some data:

Linked from <http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/aastar.html>:
----------------------------------------------------------------
[No heading information]
19370630  7  7 11  7  5  8 22  7 09.2
19370701 22 15 15 11 42 15 30 11 20.1
19370702 11 11  7  8  5 22 29 18 13.8
19370703  5 11 19 11  2  5  5  5 07.8
<ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/GEOMAGNETIC_DATA/AASTAR/aaindex>

CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF AA*MAX:
 ---------------------------------------
   START DAY    END DAY   START UT  AA*
 ---------------------------------------
  1937/05/04   1937/05/05   1800      82
  1937/08/01   1937/08/02   1800      63
<ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/GEOMAGNETIC_DATA/AASTAR/aastar.lst>
----------------------------------------------------------------


Linked from <http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/apstar.html>:
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF AP*MAX:
 ---------------------------------------
   START DAY    END DAY   START UT  AP*
 ---------------------------------------
  1937/06/05   1937/06/06   1800      49
  1937/08/01   1937/08/02   2100      48
<ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/GEOMAGNETIC_DATA/APSTAR/apstar.lst>
----------------------------------------------------------------

Superficially it looks like July 02 was between geomagnetic
disturbances, but since I don't know how to interpret the data I could
be completely wrong. There is also the data in the first chart that
seems to show some sort of activity on July 01 and 02. Hopefully someone
else will know someone who is studying this sort of thing.

Frank Westlake
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:43:09 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      June Knox-Mawer

Today I got a copy of an Earhart novel (I stress it's a novel) whose author
may be someone we should be in touch with.  Her name's June Knox-Mawer and
she is (or was, when the novel was published in 1995) a BBC broadcaster
living in London (and part-time in Wales), well known as a presenter on
"Woman's Hour."  Perhaps some of our British brethren could see if they can
locate her.

The book's called "The Shadow of Wings," and it was published by Weidenfeld
and Nicholson, London, 1995.  It's based in part on Knox-Mawer's 12 years
residence in Fiji.  I haven't read it yet, but just to give you some idea of
why I think the author might be someone TIGHAR should know, here are some
quotes:

From the introductory "Author's Note:"

"(T)he idea (that Earhart might not have crashed and sunk) continued to
fascinate me.  My own researches indicated the outlying Phoenix group as the
most likely area for a forced landing....  In particular, Nikumaroro Island
(then called Gardner) somehow fixed itself in my mind as the place where she
might finally have been washed ashore.

You can imagine my feelings when, in March 1992, press and radio carried
reports of the discovery of certain artefacts on Nikumaroro which could be
linked to Earhart's survival..."  She goes on to report fairly accurately on
the shoe, Artifact 2-2-V-1, etc. etc., and gets Ric's name right if TIGHAR's
slightly wrong.  She also reports interviewing Eric Bevington and getting the
"bivouac" story, describing the thing Eric and Harry Maude saw as "a rough
shelter of branches."  This interview apparently took place AFTER Bevington's
interview with Ric and Pat, so it's not exactly independent confirmation of
anything.

And then for flavor -- er, flavour -- how about the following imagined
situation, written from Earhart's point of view, from Chapter 1:

"I press down the key and speak into the microphone, trying to sound calm.

'KHAQQ calling Itasca.  We must be on you but cannot see you.  Gas is running
low.  Been unable to reach you by radio.  We are flying at altitude one
thousand feet.'

I hold my breath and wait.  but no voice breaks through, not even the
faintest tap of a Morse Code signal.  I turn and shake my head at Fred but he
is back at the side lookout, crouched over his charts.  This may be all we
have now.  The radio system has failed us and it is partly my fault.  It was
my idea to leave the drift antenna behind...  The truth is I never took too
much trouble getting into all the technical details of transmitter
frequencies and so on.  Even my Morse is limited.  Fred's too..."

And a bit later...

"'Fly north,' is all he says as he climbs past me.  For some reason my own
instinct refuses this,  in a moment of panic and revolt, I turn south...."

And after the LOP message...

"Only static fills the cabin.  Now there is a new enemy, the sun itself.  The
angle of its rise throws a dazzle across the water that blinds me.  All I can
do is keep going.  I always said I would turn back to the Gilberts if there
was trouble, but now they're too far behind us.  I reach for the map but
Fred's reading my thoughts, right there behind me.

'We'll try for one of the Phoenix Islands.  And this time do as I say, for
Christ's sake!'"

She has them crashing just short of an island, with Fred killed on impact.
Then there's a time jump thirty years into the future; I'll read on.  But it
seems like Ms. Knox-Mawer is someone we should be in touch with, so....

And there's another name that might be worth pursuing, too.  From the
Acknowledgements:

"By strange coincidence, a letter out of the blue from the late Katherine
Tottenham in 1986 also served to set me on the Earhart track."

So who was Katherine Tottenham?

LTM (who's looking forward to curling up with what MAY be a good book)
Tom King
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We'll look forward to your review.  Heck, we inspired a bad book.  Maybe we
inspired a good one too.

I've never heard of Kate Totterman.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:44:22 EDT
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      VIBRATOR

Ross Devitt asked:

>Correct me if my memory is wrong, but  the "transformer windings"
>do all thevoltage conversion both up and down.  The vibrator just
>switches the output at the high voltage end so + and - "alternate"
>on the terminals thus giving us "alternating current".

If you don't get a more eloquent reply .. The vibrator interupts the
current on the INput side so as to get the 'transformer action' that
accounts for the name of the device with the windings.  RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:53:02 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Null hypothesis

Mr. Jacobson,

in re: "Hypothesis: David Evans Katz is living.  Null Hypothesis: David
Evans Katz never existed.  There is only one David Evans Katz, so we must
reject both
hypotheses since there is not sufficient sampling?  Sorry, but I can't buy
it.  The Null hypothesis came out of statistical theory, but can also be
applied to singular events."

The concept of rejecting a null hypothesis is part of an exercise in
statistical analysis, nothing more.  It only applies to analyses in which
one can find statistically valid samples, not to examples such as you pose.
It cannot be applied to singular events.  Your own example is the proof of
that, whether you "buy it" or not.  Please refer to any basic text on
statistics.

David Evans Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:11:22 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Katz to Ellis

TO:  Jerry Ellis

Your points are very well thought out and very well presented.  My concern
with the bones has to do with Mr. Gillespie's dismissal of the original
doctor's analysis and (contemporaneous) report on the bones which indicates
that they belonged to a Polynesian male.  Mr. Gillespie implies that the
doctor had no training to evaluate such bones.  How does he know what
capabilities the doctor had?  I would submit that the British doctor (as a
bona fide physician) on the scene examining the actual bones would likely be
more qualified to reach a conclusion about the bones than any physician
(however qualified) 60 years after the fact relying on a written description
of the bones rather than examining the actual bones.  Even so, the recent
analysis only postulates that the bones MAY belong to a European female, not
that they DO.

With respect to air and sea disasters, such as Titanic, Earhart, Nungesser,
Andrea Doria, etc., they are often the result of the confluence of many
events that the participants would have (prior to the disaster) considered
highly improbable as individual events.  For example, if only ONE of the
variables that led to the Titanic disaster did not occur (speed, Californian
wireless operator awake, calmness of the sea making it difficult to see
whitecaps against the iceberg, ignoring ice warnings, etc.), all aboard may
have been saved, or the collision may not have occurred at all.  That all of
these events, improbable by themselves, DID happen, demonstrates that many
highly improbable individual events can (and often do) coincide to create a
disaster.

I would postulate that most disasters are the result of the confluence of
many highly improbable factors.  Think of it this way:  a well-planned World
Flight conducted by a celebrated flyer and one of the world's best
navigators has a high probability of success.  Certainly Earhart and Noonan
thought so, or they would not have undertaken it.  It was considered
IMPROBABLE that it would end in disaster, yet it did.  Therefore THE HIGHLY
IMPROBABLE HAPPENED.  Instead of searching for solutions in the realm of the
probable, one should search in the realm of the IMPROBABLE.  TIGHAR
postulates that it is probable that she had plenty of fuel.  Hell, if she
had plenty of fuel, she PROBABLY would have made it to Howland.  Look for
the answer in the IMPROBABLE -- she ran out of fuel despite her
well-thought-out plan due to the confluence of other improbable events
(higher than expected headwinds, failure of her ability to receive
transmissions from Itasca, etc.)

David Evans Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:23:42 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Electra Salvage

When you return to Nikumarroro next year, what's the possibility if the
the Electra disintigrated by surf action and it sat where Emily S. says
it sat, I would think you might find the engines underwater or perhaps
buried somwhat.  An R-1340 is a massive hunk of metal and I do not
believe it could corrode or fall apart that easy even after all these
years.  If you brought a metal detector it would picked up in a New York
minute.  What do you think-any possibility?

Doug B. #2335
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I had the basic info from the initial Emily interview via SatPhone while I
was still on the island last July.  I've personally walked that whole section
of the reef flat and, trust me, there's nothing there now - which is hardly
surprising.  Sections of the Norwich City weighing many tons have been driven
across that flat for hundreds of yards.  An aircraft engine is like a peanut
by comparison.  There is also no chance that anything has sunk into the reef
flat.  It's rock-hard coral.  Nor does the coral on the reef flat grow over
things.  The Norwich City debris is proof enough of that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:36:34 EDT
From:         George Kastner
Subject:      Re: Coincidence

In his book ''The Roots of Coincidence'' Arthur Koestler addresses exactly
this issue and argues that science spends too much time investigating the
Law of Causality and not enough with what he calls the Law of Seriality.
George Kastner

0862C
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:47:32 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Plexiglass Artifact

     I recall from the webpage that the plexiglass artifact may
correspond to a Lockheed Electra part referenced by a part number that
also gives certain dimensions of the complete part.  Is this part number
from some sort of "parts catalog" published by Lockheed, and, if so, is
a picture/sketch of the complete part included in the catalog?

Thanks,

--Chris Kennedy
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The material, thickness and curvature of Artifact 2-3-V-2 match Lockheed Part
Number 40552, the cabin windows for the Model 10.  The Model 10 Parts Catalog
has very few illustrations of anything, however, we do have a copy of the
engineering drawing for the part which is actually much more useful.

I'll also say that we have, as yet, found no similar match with the windows
of any other aircraft type despite a considerable (but hardly comprehensive)
search.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:50:02 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Supercharging & Overboost

If the R-1340 is "blown' the same as an R-985 you very much can
overboost,  most apparent on takeoff when one pushes the manifold
pressures to the upper limit.  I am rather amazed looking at the film of
AE taking off from Lae that she made it as heavy as the Electra was.
Makes me wonder if AE twicked the motors up a little past limit for
extra horsepower and the pucker factor.  If I were in the back of the
Electra as FN was my butt-cheeks would be tighter than a Coasties'
hauser knot on that one.

Doug B. #2335
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Fred rode up front.  The film shows him climbing in.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:53:45 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Magnetic Variation

All this talk about magnetic variation has got my PC all fired up
again.  First, Ido not think there is much change in variation to cause
a real navigation difficulty.  Second, if FN was the navigator I believe
he was, he could have checked compass vs magnetic vs true headings using
information yielded by his celestial computation/observations.
Utilizing a known true bearing from a celestial object one can get a
good idea the difference between true vs mag and the variance thereof by
pointing the aircraft in the direction of the object noting the
difference between the true bearing & compass heading.  You then factor
your previously known compass deviation(from a compass check on the
ground or in the air-another story) and voila! you have variation.  To
do it with real accuracy though one needs an astro compass installed.  I
don't think they had one.  I believe FN being the wizz-bang that he was,
wouldn't neccesarily need it.

Doug B. #2335
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:59:55 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      KATZ v TIGHAR

Ric,TIGHAR board members, and forum,

In my opinion, Katz' remarks on his posting of April 5, rose to a personal
attack on the Board and Ric Gillespie.Katz' s characterization of TIGHAR's
actions as "stupid behavior" because TIGHAR was one of those "who cavalierly
dismiss the questioner(Katz) because he doesn't like the question". Far from
accurate.It certainly impugns GILLESPIE'S character,reputation for fairness
and objectivity.

Katz has the right to comment on the credibility,weight, and value of the
evidence as presented in good faith by TIGHAR. He misrepresents much of
TIGHAR'S evidence,but those who have followed the TIGHAR TRACKS,postings, and
other publication have all the information necessary to refute those
accusations of so-called unwarranted "assumptions" by TIGHAR. Of all of
Katz's allegations,two deserve mention.

    (1) TIGHAR to my knowledge as never "assumed" AE reached Niku. TIGHAR has
proposed a hypothesis she reached Niku based on navigation options and
announced course,LOP,radio signals,,just as the Navy did in 1937 and AE's
husband. Other evidence has surfaced that may or may not verify that
hypothesis. A hypothesis  used by TIGHAR suggests or connotes a provisional
theory in this case,.and not the less used definition of a "guess". However
if this causes a semantic word debate, so what if TIGHAR "assumed" she landed
there.Lots of folks  did,even searched Gardner Island a few days later, with
the assumption she may have crashed there.

    (2) TIGHAR to my knowledge has never drawn the "conclusion" that the
skeletal remains belong to AE or FN. Never. He has posted two forensic
anthropologist's opinion, based on the Hoodless measurements , that the bones
are "likely" from a female, likely from a European, and stood about 5' 5' to
5' 8". Age couldn't be determined. Those criteria met AE but nobody repeat
nobody ever concluded that they were AE's. Katz makes an outrageous claim
that the bones" could belong to Judge Crater as easily as they belong to
either Fred Noonan or Amelia Earhart." They don't belong to "absolutely
anyone". If Katz read the Burns and Jantz report, he would see that they were
able to narrow the identity to sex,height and probable European origin.
NOONAN was a male, and stood over 6 feet.

    TIGHAR,as far as I'm concerned, reserves the right to dismiss certain
theories,contrary to his own, if they the lack any credible,relevant, merit.
Every scientist rejects so-called evidence after careful evaluation if it is
contrary to observable ,empirical data. Note the Frye rule in the US court
system for criteria in accepting and rejecting so-called "evidence" of
various scientific theories. We are inundated with "junk science" and if
TIGHAR wants to disregard theories as junk, that his perogative.Just look at
the junk theories in the AE case; but maybe some researchers are still trying
to identify the Japanese pilots that shot her down, look for the Electra on
Japan, or in New Jersey selling tupperware.

If Katz's critcism ,some of which are worth discussing and evaluating, were
made in a scholarly, respectful manner, namely to "foster intelligent
discussions" without using a confrontational approach to TIGHAR, his opinions
would be worth looking at. Such is not case.

Although I hate to admit it, KATZ was half right concerning Gallagher's
written report  which he labeled hearsay. Indeed it is. Even if the written
report was a sworn affidavit, it was an "out of court statement" and hearsay
if one wishes to use judicial standards of admissibility.Even if he
personally discovered the bones (which I don't think he did)and wrote the
report it's "hearsay". The reasons are numerous but both common law and
Federal Rules of Evidence clearly consider that type of document hearsay. But
all is not lost. What Katz failed to mention is the many exeptions to the
hearsay rule if the declarant (in this case Gallagher) is "unavilable". There
are many legal reasons declarants or authors of a document may be
unavailable, self-incrimination, out of the jurisdiciton, now
incompetent,etc, but in this case Gallagher is deceased and hence we have a
wonderful remedy in the judicial system. The exceptions here to the hearsay
rule when the declarant is unavailable embraces certain transcripts,written
records,etc. Gallagher's report would come into evidence as "business
records" exception or as an "offical investigative report" exception.Unlikely
a judge would not admit it.(see "Evidence" 2nd edition,by Paul F.
Rothstein,p.208-291)

However I find the arguement mute.We are now applying a judical criteria to
the evidence here and as I said in earlier postings, each discipline has it
own rules. Here we are accepting an offical report on it face value and  for
what it's worth in the AE mystery. We are not involved in admitting evidence
in a court of law.

Anyway I find it offensive to read Katz's cheap shots at TIGHAR in that
posting. Even the most reputable of authors and researchers, Prof Donald
Goldstein and Katherine Dillion in their book "Amelia",who believe she went
down somewhere near Howland, wish the TIGHAR team the "best of luck" in the
search for evidence on NIKU. Hopefully they say TIGHARS will find
incontrovertible evidence to solve that mystery.And that is the reason most
of us are following the TIGHAR trails through this morass of data, and jungle
is to either find evidence to support the hypothesis or disregard it.

LTM,
Ronald Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:49:46 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Re: evidence

Mr. Gillespie:

You claim that you have no wish to instruct me in the use of the English
language, yet you persist in doing so.  I have an excellent command of the
language, thank you very much.  I am also familiar with Black's, Webster,
and the rules of evidence.  With all due respect (something that should be
afforded to all members of the forum), this has been a discussion of what
should and should not be considered as evidence.  I regard what you have
gathered so far as not meeting any reasonable test of evidence, and my
reasons for believing this are neither fanciful nor are they based on poor
definitions.  It is based on what TIGHAR has versus what a reasonable person
would accept as evidence.  There is no verifiable provenance for anything
that has been found.  That is, there is no verifiable connection between the
clues you have found and AE.  For something to be accepted as evidence, it
must be able to connected (with a reasonable degree of certainty) to the
principals (AE & FN).

You have kindly repeated for me the following:

"Our purpose here is to promote an intelligent and productive discussion of
the Earhart disappearance.  Specifically, we want to further our
investigation of TIGHAR's hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan, and probably
the airplane, ended up on Gardner Island (now known as Nikumaroro) in the
Phoenix Group.

I consider my comments to fall within the definition of intelligent and
productive discussion of the Earhart disappearance.  As detectives seeking
clues to the disappearance, it is appropriate for TIGHAR to seek out clues,
which it has so far admirably done, and then try to make a verifiable
connection between those clues and the principals.  It is such a connection
that transforms clues into evidence.  So far, this has not been achieved.
Perhaps, some day, it will.

With respect to other members' analysis of fuel consumption, they have not,
as you suggest, escaped my notice.  I have been following the responses
closely, and I find that everyone who has presented an analysis (some of
them very detailed and well thought-out) qualifies such analysis with
certain assumptions combined with first-hand reports from Johnson & Chater.
Of course, one MUST make assumptions absent complete first-hand information.
Mr. Long has done the same thing and reached different conclusions.  My only
criticism of your remarks about this is that you have repeatedly dismissed
Long's assumptions as "fanciful".  While Mr. Long's conclusions are
certainly open to criticism (as are TIGHAR's), his assumptions are not
fanciful.  Moreover, a careful reading of Mr. Long's book shows that he does
not rely on an evaporation theory (as stated by some of the members) as a
basis for his assumption, rather he assumes a situation of heat expansion
that results in fewer gallons;  his consumption figures are based on the
weight of the fuel not the volume.  I don't know if he is correct, either in
his assumptions or his conclusions, but I find his analysis at least as
supportable as the TIGHAR theory, only because the TIGHAR hypothesis is ALSO
not supported by any hard evidence.

Based upon what I have read of the TIGHAR clues, I would conclude that
Amelia Earhart MAY have reached Gardner, nothing more.  Do I believe it?  As
I stated earlier, I believe that it is one of only two reasonable
possibilities:  (1) she landed at Gardner, (2) she crashed (or ditched) into
the sea.  For anyone to prove the second possibility, they must produce the
aircraft or its remains from the bottom of the sea -- a daunting task,
indeed.  TIGHAR is exploring the former possibility; it can only succeed by
producing credible verifiable evidence (that is, connecting the clues with
AE), also a difficult task.  So far, several very enticing clues have been
uncovered by TIGHAR.  This is encouraging.  What is not very encouraging is
the tendency to ascribe greater credibility to the TIGHAR clues than they
yet warrant.

David Evans Katz
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Perhaps you would find the TIGHAR clues more credible if you had more
familiarity with them.  So far your characterizations of TIGHAR's eviden ---
sorry ---- clues have been factually inaccurate and your suppositions about
what research we have and have not done have been largely false.  Let's knock
off the bluster and posturing and talk specifics.

I have called Long's interpretations and assumptions fanciful.  Allow me to
be specific:

1.  Long does not merely claim that Earhart ran out of gas and crashed at
sea.  He claims to know PRECISELY when that happened down to a tolerance of a
few MOMENTS after 20:13 GCT.   I submit that predicting the instant of engine
failure from fuel exhaustion for a modern aircraft with state-of-the-art fuel
metering and measurement technology and full information about the progress
of the flight is difficult if not impossible.  Doing it for a flight that
happened almost 63 years ago and about which we know relatively little can
only be described as fanciful.  If it is not fanciful, please explain why.

TIGHAR makes no such claim of precision.  We simply see no evidence that an
airplane that should have been able to fly for 24 hours or more didn't remain
aloft for at least 23 hours or so.  If that is fanciful, please explain why.

2.  To get the airplane to run out of gas at the required time, Long makes
several assumptions:
- He assumes that the tanks were not topped prior to takeoff to replace any
fuel lost to expansion and venting.
- He assumes that Earhart's reported phrase "speed 140 knots" is an indicated
airspeed even though her airspeed indicator was calibrated in miles per hour
and reporting an indicated airspeed would make no sense  (as opposed to a
groundspeed provided by the navigator and typically reported in knots).
- He uses the assumed indicated airspeed of 140 knots to support his further
assumption that Earhart departed from Johnson's recommended power management
profile by increasing her throttle settings and therfore her fuel consumption
in order to overcome a headwind, despite the fact that Johnson specifically
advised leaning the mixture further, rather than increasing power, to deal
with unexpectedly strong headwinds.
-  To provide the headwind that Earhart supposedly (and suicidally) increases
power to overcome, Long invents a 26.5 mph headwind for the entire flight
which, contrary to his claim in the book, is not documented in any of the
available meterorological reports.
-  Even within his fantasy world of headwinds and high power settings, his
convoluted calculations don't hold up to scrutiny.  His case for fuel
exhaustion a few moments after 20:13 relies upon his categorical
pronouncement that "If the maximum range remains constant, it is a
mathematical certainty that an 8.5 percent increase in ground speed will
result in an 8.5 percent increase in fuel consumption."  The statement is
perfectly circular and meaningless.

There is probably a better word to describe this house of cards but fanciful
is perhaps the kindest.

If you can cite similar examples of how TIGHAR's investigation relies upon
fanciful assumptions I'd be happy to hear them, but try to get your facts
straight.  For example, I'd be delighted to learn the results of your
research into the number of people - islanders and Europeans - who went
missing in the Central Pacific in the years preceding the discovery of a
castaway's bones on Nikumaroro.  We apparently missed you while we were doing
that research in Suva, Washington, and London.

I'd also be happy to compare notes about the careers and schooling of doctors
Isaac and Hoodless (who examined the bones) and consider your criticisms of
the Fordisc II database developed by Dr. Richard Jantz for the forensic
anthroplogical evalution of human remains.

This Forum always welcomes intelligent and informed debate concerning the
clues we've found so far.  Perhaps you'd like to participate in such a
discussion.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:54:53 EDT
From:         Christine Joudrey
Subject:      Evidence

Evidence is the fullfillment of a condition of fact, the said evidence
has to be sufficient to support the finding, the findings are gathered
through documentation, compilation, and presentation, this gathering is
known as a clue.............A clue makes the evidence.

Christine Joudrey
B.A. LL. B
Barrister and Solictor

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Now we seem to be getting somewhere.  If I understand you correctly, a clue
becomes evidence only after the case has been judged proven.  There can be
many false clues but, by definition, there can be no such thing as false
evidence.  Yes?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:35:32 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: airspeed

>I see your point and am now totally confused.

Aw, cmon Ric. This isn't that hard. The gas physics changes with altitude,
temperature, and some other things which we choose to ignore for a while.
This IAS number is not "a largely meaningless figure" but rather it is a
value which indicates the same deficiencies related to gas physics as the
airframe sees at low airspeeds. (Ignore speed of sound related complications.)
The only reason that TAS has any meaning is to facilitate the calculation
of groundspeed. OK, so Johnson used it to construct a "Sesame Street"
method which might make some sense but Johnson didn't invent TAS to do this
he just offered it as a method. As for your comment that it "slips through
the air most efficiently" there is a lot more to know about this before this
idea can be proved.

Greg
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I have no problem with the concept that the airframe experiences the same
conditions that effect the reading on the airpseed indicator.  Generally
speaking, the higher you go, the thinner and colder the air gets. (duh)   I
also know that drag increases as the square of speed and that, for every
airframe there is a speed at which it passes through the air with the best
ratio of distance covered (assuming no wind) to energy expended.

For the sake of argument, let's say that speed for a Lockheed 10 is 150 mph.
If we're at sea level we're pushing our way through thick air but we also
have lots of air available to pack into our carburetor and mix with the fuel,
so we can get our desired 150 mph "on the clock" at a relatively low power
setting.  Up high, at 10,000 feet, the air is much thinner so we have to be
moving forward much faster to get that same amount of air rushing over our
wings but there is also much less air for our engines to breath so we have to
open up our carburetor inlets (in other words, advance our throttles) to gulp
more air.  The lighter we get as we burn off fuel, the less power it takes to
keep the airplane moving through the air around it at what it "feels" as 150
mph, so we can keep backing off our power and get better and better fuel
economy (up to a point).

Bottom line:  The idea is to keep that sucker moving through the air at what
it thinks is 150 mph.

So, it looks like I was wrong (again) and Earhart's 150 mph may have been an
indicated airspeed which would mean that her true airspeed would be quite a
bit higher for the time she was at altitude, which means ..... everybody has
been using the wrong cruise speed in analysing the flight.  Aaaargh!

Say it ain't so.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:37:07 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      tax deductions

This is totally off topic, but, I think, enjoyable.

A friend of mine who is a self employed CPA once deducted the mileage from
going to church on sunday, because he happened to see one of his clients
there, and casually asked, "hey, how's business?"

LTM, who says "What a country!"

Dave, 2288

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm glad he's not my CPA.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:39:43 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

>From Randy jacobson
>
>Transformers can be AC or DC type.  For an example of a DC type, everyone has
>one in their car: it is called the "coil", and converts 12V DC into something
>greater than 2 kilovolts DC for the spark plugs.

NO! NO! NO!

A transformer is a transformer and an inductor is an inductor. They
are two different animals. A transformer is at least two inductors
which are mutually coupled.

Transformation requires AC.

Yes, inductors can be used in a series path and they will pass DC.

Greg
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:42:22 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Test results

    OK, class (*tap, tap*), we have the result in from our recent
"Preponderance of Evidence" quiz.  Can anyone spell "Perry Mason?"
    Yes, little Ric Gillespie?
    "Ah, is he related to Peri Gilprin on Fraiser?"
    " . . . ."
    Billy Webster?
    "It is very unlikely that a man with Mr. Mason's credentials would
. . ."
    Sit down, Billy . . ..  Randy Jacobson, you had your hand up.
    "Don't know. Don't care."
    Thank you, Randy.  Young Mr. Ellis, do you have a comment?
    "I think you guys are trying to trick me, right?"
    No, Jerry, it is not a trick, it's a treat.  Really.  Billy Moffett,
do you have something to add.
    "Just gimme the answer, OK?"
    Well, I'm just as  pleased as punch to let everyone know they did
very well on the quiz.  Some were more succinct -- Ric, can you give us the
definition of succinct?  Use Blacks Law Dictionary if you like.
    Well, back to the quiz.  Everybody got the correct answer, though
some earlier than others and some with greater clarity than others.  Little
Ric Gillespie gets a gold star for conciseness, while Randy gets two gold
stars, one for brevity and one for terseness.
    I am so proud of all of you!  Give yourselves a big hug and a round
of applause.  You are such smart boys!
    Fade to black.

    The quiz was based on a real-life intelligence effort and when I
took it along with a couple dozen other guys back in 1962 it was extremely
stimulating.  Too stimulating apparently, because about 20 of us had the
good doctor indicted, convicted, and doing 20-to-life at Joliet before the
first coffee break.
    The intent then -- as now -- was to demonstrate how easy it is to
reach false conclusions -- a little intelligence can be a bad thing.  Being
able to sort the wheat from the chaff is at the heart of any investigation,
regretfully as a 18-year-old I failed the test.  A little time and a lot of
experience does wonders for any investigative effort, which is why everyone
did so well on this quiz.
    I sincerely appreciate the effort that each of the Forum members
contributes to make this forum a success.  The give-and-take, the pissy (and
occasionally prissy!) comments, the intellectual storms, and off-topic
wanderings all contribute to a fascinating journey.  I'm glad you let me
aboard.

    OK, recess is over boys, back to your desks.
    Randy!  Put down that T-square!
    Billy Moffet I'm going to tell your mother  . .. .

LTM, who is retiring to the faculty lounge for tea
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:55:15 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      A joint forum

I must have been asleep when they passed the memo changing this to
the Joint Amelia Earhart-American Bar Association Forum.  With all of the
lawyers showing up here I wonder if Shakespeare wasn't right when he said,
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." :-)

LTM, who dreads litigation
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh, I dunno, some of our lawyers on the forum actually seem to have some
education in addition to legal training.  The great Definitions Debate has
certainly shown that Judge Learned Hand was right when he said, "The study of
law sharpens the mind by narrowing it."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:56:45 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Evidence ?

My dear french wife confirms that the french word "indice" relates more
closely to the English word "evidence", and the french word "evidence"
relates more closely to the English word "proof".

A french-English dictionary also confirms this distinct difference between
the usage of this word in the two languages, defining the English word
"evidence" as a 'prediction', 'sign' or 'mark'. There does appear to be a
further nuance, however, which depends upon whether the article "the" is
used before the word "evidence" in English.

I must add, when I continued to pedantically press her on this issue,
asking, "so what am I saying precisely when I say, "j'ai l'evidence que c'
est vrai" ? (I have the evidence that it's true), she replied, "It means
you're talking like a chicken" <big grins, laughter>. QED.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:02:39 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: somewhere in between

There were several magnetic storms that fateful day, as it was part of the
sun spot maximum in that cycle.  We have magnetic storms right now: does
anyone really notice them?  They last seconds to minutes, and are unlikely to
cause navigational errors (except, perhaps in the Bermuda Triangle where the
Aliens like to hang out :-))

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Magnetic storms.  I wish I had thought of this earlier.  What a great excuse
for all kinds of things.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:16:33 EDT
From:         Jerry Ellis
Subject:      Re: Ellis to Katz

To David Katz,

Thanks for your response.  I will attempt to address some of your
points.

> Your points are very well thought out and very well presented.

Thank you. I appreciate your analytical view of things.  What is your training?

> My concern
> with the bones has to do with Mr. Gillespie's dismissal of the original
> doctor's analysis and (contemporaneous) report on the bones which indicates
> that they belonged to a Polynesian male.  Mr. Gillespie implies that the
> doctor had no training to evaluate such bones.  How does he know what
> capabilities the doctor had?

Good point.  I presume that Ric assumed the doctor was more like our
current GP's and not a forensic expert.  It wouldn't seem probable that they
would send a forensic expert to serve as a GP to islanders.  Maybe somewhere
in the vast TIGHAR files is a document related to the doctor's
training/qualifications.

If I were in the doctor's shoes, perhaps a little underqualified in that
area of expertise and had to render an opinion, saying that the bones
belonged to a Polynesian male would seem to be the safest (most probably
correct) answer.  On the other hand, had he been in that area very long he
may have had some experience with those types of skeletons.  Or would he
have, doctors usually don't deal with dead folks.

>  I would submit that the British doctor (as a
> bona fide physician) on the scene examining the actual bones would likely be
> more qualified to reach a conclusion about the bones

I'm a little inclined to agree but maybe and maybe not.  I don't feel
qualified to comment on that point because I don't know that much about
medical training.

> than any physician
> (however qualified) 60 years after the fact relying on a written description
> of the bones rather than examining the actual bones.

What were the accepted bone measurements in those days? How were they
done?  Is there a good correlation between what the practice was then and
what it is now?  I don't know.  I guess that is why we have to rely upon the
opinion of those working in the field.

However, I frequently read in the National Geographic that those guys
and gals rountinely look at bones that are thousands of years old and can
make a pretty good determination about the person that once used them.  If
the British doctor was qualified to take the measurements, then the
measurements must be a pretty good piece of evidence from which the current
experts can do their analysis, making their determination even more secure.

>  Even so, the recent
> analysis only postulates that the bones MAY belong to a European female, not
> that they DO.

True.  Research in any field progresses with time and maybe now there
are more known descerning and characteristic differences to help with that
type of forensic analysis.  And this takes us to some points made, as I
recall, by Ron Brightway.  Evidence has a whole spectrum of quality from
weak to conclusive.  As I recall the recent examination of the bones'
measurements gave a 60% chance that they were from an European female.  That
qualifies the evidence as maybe good but certainly not conclusive or even
convincing.  But it is a piece of evidence.

> With respect to air and sea disasters, such as Titanic, Earhart, Nungesser,
> Andrea Doria, etc., they are often the result of the confluence of many
> events that the participants would have (prior to the disaster) considered
> highly improbable as individual events.  For example, if only ONE of the
> variables that led to the Titanic disaster did not occur (speed, Californian
> wireless operator awake, calmness of the sea making it difficult to see
> whitecaps against the iceberg, ignoring ice warnings, etc.), all aboard may
> have been saved, or the collision may not have occurred at all.  That all of
> these events, improbable by themselves, DID happen, demonstrates that many
> highly improbable individual events can (and often do) coincide to create a
> disaster.
>
> I would postulate that most disasters are the result of the confluence of
> many highly improbable factors.

A very interesting point and well taken.

>  Think of it this way:  a well-planned World
> Flight conducted by a celebrated flyer and one of the world's best
> navigators has a high probability of success.  Certainly Earhart and Noonan
> thought so, or they would not have undertaken it.  It was considered
> IMPROBABLE that it would end in disaster, yet it did.  Therefore THE HIGHLY
> IMPROBABLE HAPPENED.  Instead of searching for solutions in the realm of the
> probable, one should search in the realm of the IMPROBABLE.

As I mentioned in my earlier posting, applying an idea in a new setting
is generally difficult so help me along here.  How can we use this novel
idea just described, searching in the realm of the improbable, and apply it
to help evaluate the TIGHAR hypothesis?  I too will think about it.

> TIGHAR
> postulates that it is probable that she had plenty of fuel.  Hell, if she
> had plenty of fuel, she PROBABLY would have made it to Howland.

Are you suggesting that she ran out of fuel before she reached Howland
or that if she had plenty of fuel she would have had enouth to have circled
around until she found Howland?

> Look for
> the answer in the IMPROBABLE -- she ran out of fuel despite her
> well-thought-out plan due to the confluence of other improbable events
> (higher than expected headwinds, failure of her ability to receive
> transmissions from Itasca, etc.)

So with that last statement are you saying you believe or are convinced
she ran out of fuel and crashed at sea?

I havn't followed all those fuel/range calculations closely enough to
comment on the variations that could have occurred with different unknown
wind velocities and directions.  Presumably Fred would have been taking
readings all along to correct for any gross errors in their flight
plan/heading.  Over the period of several hours would he have had enough
ground speed information to compare with the aircraft's air speed/fuel use
to determine if they had a headwind?  Ric?

Aside:

It would seem obvious that that particular leg of the trip had the
greatest probability of failure.  That is, leaving a large land mass and
flying such a long leg in an attempt to find a very small land mass, i.e., a
tiny dot in the center of such a huge ocean, is cutting it pretty thin.

jerry ellis  #2113

***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll confine my comments to the specific question I was asked.

<<Over the period of several hours would he (Noonan) have had enough
ground speed information to compare with the aircraft's air speed/fuel use
to determine if they had a headwind?>>

If he was able to monitor their progress during the daylight ours by
observing landmarks (mountains, shorelines, island groupos) and make
celestial observations during the hours of darkness, he would certainly be
able to determine groundspeed and drift and, therefore, wind direction and
speed.  The fact they the flight appears to have arrived in the vicinity of
its destination pretty much on schedule argues strongly for the lack of any
circumstance (overcast conditions, for example) whihc would restrict Noonan's
ability to do his job.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:20:04 EDT
From:         Renaud Dudon
Subject:      Evidence

Thank you for your definition of evidence and "clue" which was very
interesting. For me, it stenghten the point of view that evidence could be a
proof and also a clue " piece of evidence".

As far i am concerned, i guess that there are no proof, clue or evidence,
there are only facts. Facts need to be reported with enough reliability, it
may suffer from deformation, especially if it is "hearsay". The problem is
that people tends to use it as a proof ( demonstrate a theory ), as a clue (
insight leading to the theory ), or as an evidence ( smoking gun ? ). It
depend on what you want to show. In this case, some facts are better suitable
as proof, clue,evidence, than others. Moreover, we could see that the
meanings of words are lacking of accuracy. From the definition you gave me,
evidence could be either a clue or a proof.

That is why i was "seduced" by the behavior of TIGHAR. Not because TIGHAR has
offered irrefutable proof or evidence, but because TIGHAR was always cautious
and  had never closed the debate. No one could say if TIGHAR hypothesis is
more likely than another. Related facts are a hazardous material. But, the
TIGHAR hypothesis have the advantage of it own existence. That is why i am
believing in.

Incidentally, I totally agree with Ron who said "However I find the arguement
mute. We are now applying a judical criteria to
the evidence here and as I said in earlier postings, each discipline has it
own rules. Here we are accepting an offical report on it face value and  for
what it's worth in the AE mystery. We are not involved in admitting evidence
in a court of law." Well... I am in lawying studies for 7 years, and i know
that even semantic may vary a lot from a juridical matter to another. That is
obviously true when you try to compare the use that is made of the word
"proof" by french judges and by judges in "common law" countries.

We don't need to fight about the real meaning of words. Just let me say that
if TIGHAR hypothesis was "as fanciful as others" ( as Mr Katz seemed to say )
it wouldn't have last for 15 years, and would have disappeared from itself...

LTM

**************************************************************************

From Ric

I wish longevity was a measure of credibility, but the Japanese capture
theory has still not entirely disappeared from itself.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:23:20 EDT
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman

I must be missing something.  Several people seem to think that there can be
a DC type of transformer.  The latest is from Randy jacobson:

>Transformers can be AC or DC type.  For an example of a DC type, everyone has
>one in their car: it is called the "coil", and converts 12V DC into something
>greater than 2 kilovolts DC for the spark plugs.

I don't believe any radio expert or engineer would describe a transformer as
a DC type device, nor do I believe any of them would call the use of a coil
as the use of a transformer.  To saying so just muddies the waters.

There are several ways of "converting" the DC voltage applied to a coil to a
high voltage, including the making and breaking of DC voltage to a coil via
a distributor or transistor circuit.  This intermittent contact, coupled
with the magnetic flux produced through the coil, does produce a counter-emf
force resulting in a spark of momentary electricity that can ignite (via the
spark plug) the gasoline.

However, to call this a DC transformer is perhaps misleading to those on the
forum who are not enginners.

LTM (who trusts Enginners)
Harry
#2300
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:44:51 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Plexiglass Artifact

Weren't all cabin windows removed and replaced with fuel ports?  The windows
in the back were specially installed for Fred, weren't they?

An honest question Ric. . . !

Don J.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

I have never doubted that all of your questions are honest.

The airline version of the Model 10 had five windows down each side of the
fuselage - one for each of the ten passengers.  Earhart's 10E Special, as
originally built, had only the two aft-most of these windows installed.  One
directly ahead of the cabin door on the port side and one directly across on
the starboard side.  These windows differed from the standard airline windows
in that each one was divided in two by a fuselage stringer that split the
window into a top half and a bottom half.  This was probably done to avoid
cutting the stringer, thus retaining more strength for the fuselage.

The airplane retained that window configuration until sometime in January
1937 when, as part of preparations for the world flight, the stringer was cut
and two standard airline-version cabin windows were installed - probably to
provide an unobstructed window for the use of the pelorus that could be
mounted on a bracket installed in the cabin at the base of each window.  In
addition to these window replacements, two large special windows were
installed.  One in the cabin door and the other in the lavatory on the
starboard side.  The starboard side window has often been erroneously
described as a removable hatch.  It was skinned over prior to the second
world flight attempt.  The window in the cabin door was retained.

The above sequence of events is documented in the many photo of the airplane
taken throughout its brief career.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:50:13 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Katz to Ellis

Let's be clear about the bones business.  The doctor who examined the bones
(we don't know how much, or by what method) and decided they were Polynesian
-- Dr. Isaac, later Verrier -- was by definition the product of 1930s medical
training.  We have no idea what if anything he knew about forensic osteology,
but since the field was, at best, in its infancy, it couldn't have been very
much.  He was not "on the scene," but in Tarawa; he examined the bones when
they arrived there.  His analysis was subsequently contradicted by the
analysis of Dr. Hoodless when the bones arrived in Fiji; Hoodless -- also, of
course, the product of 1930s medical training, and also not a forensic
osteologist -- said they were most likely the bones of a European or
mixed-race male.  We know basically what Hoodless did because we have his
notes.  Our two forensic osteologists replicated his analysis as closely as
possible -- i.e., they took his measurements and ran analyses of them --
using modern methods based on the huge database and very substantial
experience that's been developed by the forensic osteological community over
the last sixty years, and their analysis suggested that the closest match is
to a female of northern European origin.  Certainly it's possible that Isaac
or Hoodless were right, and without doubt they had more to look at in
developing their conclusions, but on balance, until we have something better
to work with, I think the modern analysis is superior.

LTM
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:59:04 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Katz to Bright and Forum

I have just read Mr. Bright's response to my postings on the Forum.  If my
response to Mr. Gillespie offended either Mr. Gillespie or anyone else, I
apologize.  It happens that I took offense to some of Mr. Gillespie's
remarks as being condescending.  He apologized to me and I accepted his
apology.  If you read my posting carefully, I did not refer to TIGHAR's
actions (or even Mr. Gillespie's) as being stupid behavior.  I was
commenting on the pitfalls of dismissing the questioner because one doesn't
particularly like the question.  If you or anyone inferred otherwise or took
offense, again, I apologize.

I agree with Mr. Bright that TIGHAR (and I) have every right to accept or
dismiss theories presented here.  In fact, I haven't dismissed any of
TIGHAR's theories.  Rather, I have disputed TIGHAR's labeling as evidence
what I would consider mere clues.  I believe that they (and all clues,
suggestions, theories and purported evidence) must be questioned rigorously.
I believe that such questioning is part and parcel of the scientific method
so vigorously supported by TIGHAR.

Mr. Gillespie has advised me and others on this Forum to expect that members
will aggressively challenge theories presented here.  I expected nothing
less.  Why then, when I raise questions concerning the value of the TIGHAR
clues as evidence, does Mr. Bright find it necessary to attack me
personally?  He accuses me of "misrepresenting much of TIGHAR's evidence" ,
when, in fact I have never done any such thing.  I have, however, expressed
serious reservations about characterizing some admittedly very tantalizing
clues as evidence (that is, something directly connected with AE & FN).
Moreover, I have endeavored to make my comments in a respectful manner at
all times.  In fact, my objection to Mr. Gillespie was that my comments were
not being treated with respect.  He responded graciously, but suggested,
that "I fear that you are accustomed to a great deal more respect than you
are likely to receive here."  O.K., but here I am being castigated by Mr.
Bright for failing to show a "respectful manner".  On the one hand, I have
Mr. Gillespie suggesting that I have been too thin-skinned (which, I
confess, I was -- and for which I am sorry), yet, on the other hand, when I
have the temerity to challenge some of TIGHAR's assumptions and evidence,
Mr. Bright accuses me of being disrespectful.

In fact, many of the comments I have made have been in reaction to what I
consider a disrespectful attitude by some members of the Forum, specifically
-- dismissing Long's assumptions as "fanciful".  I object to that word
because it is condescending, except, perhaps in reference to some of the
wilder conspiracy theories. In Mr. Long's case, he conducted serious
research and made what I consider to be a possible case.  His assumptions
and resulting conclusions may prove to be false, but I would hardly describe
them as fanciful.  I have used that term in the context of some TIGHAR
assumptions to illustrate the point that, just as some of Mr. Long's
assumptions and conclusions require a stretch of the imagination, so do some
of TIGHAR's.

With respect to the bones...  My comment about Judge Crater was not an
"outrageous CLAIM" as Mr. Bright suggests.  It was, however, an outrageous
STATEMENT, and was meant to be.  I have, indeed, read the Burns and Jantz
report posted on TIGHAR.  They were NOT able to "narrow the identity to sex,
height and probable European origin" as Mr. Bright suggests.  If one reads
the report carefully, it says:

"The skull is more likely European than Polynesian, ALTHOUGH IT CANNOT BE
EXCLUDED FROM ANY POPULATION." [emphasis mine]  Burns and Jantz are not
drawing a conclusion here; they are QUALIFYING their response, as they
should in light of the fact that they do not have the actual bones to
analyze.

"Assuming the skull represents a person of European ancestry, the FORDISC
analysis indicates that the individual represented was most likely female.
Unfortunately the level of certainty is very low..."  Note the premise of
the assumption here.  They are stating that the person was "most likely
female" ONLY if their previous assumption (i.e., that the skull is European
rather than Polynesian) proves to be correct.  They go on to say that THE
LEVEL OF CERTAINTY IS VERY LOW (and they quantify their level of
probability, which I have not repeated here).

TIGHAR then editorializes (the word "editorialize" is not intended to be
pejorative, merely a note that the following is TIGHAR's summary of the
Burns/Jantz findings):

"Based on the information now in hand, Jantz and Burns both CONCLUDED
[emphasis mine] that the remains found on Nikumaroro in 1939-40 represented
an individual who was:  (1) More likely female than male; (2) More likely
white than Polynesian or other Pacific Islander; (3) Most likely between
5'5" and 5'9" in height"

Wait a minute... After having read Burns' and Jantz's statement, I would not
have taken them for CONCLUSIONS that the individual was "more likely male
than female" or "more likely white than Polynesian or other Pacific
Islander".  Burns and Jantz have specifically stated that the skull "cannot
be excluded from any population" and they opine that it is female ONLY IF
one ASSUMES European ancestry.

TIGHAR carefully went on to say: "It is, of course, impossible to know
whether the bones inspected by Dr. Hoodless in 1941 were in fact those of a
white female, and if anything even less possible to be sure that they were
those of Amelia Earhart. Only the rediscovery of the bones themselves, or
the recovery of more bones from the same skeleton on the island, can bring
certainty."  Admirable!  But it is said only after making the assertion that
"Jantz and Burns both concluded" something that they did not, in fact,
conclude.

As I stated in my introductory posting to this Forum, I have studied the
Earhart disappearance for thirty-four years.  Admittedly, I have not applied
the considerable rigor that TIGHAR has to the case, but I am very well read
on the subject, and, contrary to what Mr. Bright or others may think, I have
carefully scoured the entire TIGHAR web-site.  As you can see from my above
discussion of the Burns/Jantz information, I have read the words with a
great deal of care and without drawing conclusions from a report that is
clearly intended NOT to imply any conclusions of fact.  Mr. Bright accuses
me of taking "cheap shots".  It is hardly a "cheap shot" to analyze
carefully the material presented here.  Without question, I have
misinterpreted some of the information posted (Mr. Gillespie kindly pointed
out my error of the half-hour with reference to AE's remaining fuel supply.
He was right -- I should have relied on the first-hand information of the
quoted transmissions rather than second- or third-hand interpretations of
what was said).  Obviously, I am not the only person to have done so.

Mr. Gillespie has suggested that I have relied on a "personal definition" of
evidence.  I think that others on this Forum have agreed that I am not using
a "personal definition".  I am endeavoring to apply a criterion of certain
connection to the principals as an acceptable standard of evidence as
opposed to tantalizing clues that may, someday, be substantiated as bona
fide evidence but as yet are not.  Mr. Bright finds the argument about what
is and what isn't evidence "mute" (I think he means "moot").  The above
discussion of the Burns/Jantz report shows that the argument is certainly
not moot in the context of this Forum when some of its members may give more
credence to such reports than the reporters would have them give.

With respect to my questions about fuel consumption, time aloft, etc., they
were legitimate questions that sparked a lively response with some highly
valuable analysis by individuals who are (apparently) highly qualified in
their field.  Is this not what the Forum is intended to do?  It is just this
type of analysis by Forum members that may either give credence to Long's
assumption or legitimately refute them.  (Despite all of the analysis, they
are all still based on assumptions that cannot be verified;  nonetheless,
they lend a significant amount of credence to the possibility that AE may
have had enough fuel to get close to Gardner.)

I have read Goldstein and Dillon's book.  It is excellent, and like them, I
wish the TIGHAR team the best of luck in the search for evidence on
Nikumororo.  I fear that such luck may elude the TIGHAR team if interprets
highly qualified opinions as conclusions.

Thank you for permitting me to present both my apology and my case.  As
always, the Forum has proven itself to be a valuable source for the open
(and lively) exchange of opinion and theory on the Earhart mystery.  May it
continue to do so until the mystery is, at long last, solved!

David Evans Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:01:45 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: airspeed

> From Ric to Simon
>
> I see your point and am now totally confused.

Put simply..

It doesn't matter what altitude you fly, if your instruments show you are
doing150kts, your aeroplane thinks you are doing 150kts.  However because
the airspeed is measured coming in through a fixed size "hole" and the air
is less dense at 10,000ft you need to actually be travelling a lot faster to
get the little needle to turn around the dial at that altitude.

Imagine squirting honey through a syringe (sea level air) and water through
it (10,000ft air).  If you have a gauge connected to the plunger you'll get
the idea.  To make the gauge on the plunger read identically, you'll have to
push the water plunger a lot faster in the same amount of time.  That's like
the less dense air flowing into the airspeed indicator at altitude.

So the airspeed shows at 150kts (just like at sea level) but you are doing a
lot more to get that indication.  The aeroplane still thinks it is moving
through sea level air, just as it does with a head or tail wind.

Flying 150kts IAS with 10kt headwind, TAS = 140kts (plus variation for air
density at altitude).  Flying 150kts IAS with 10kt tailwind TAS = 160kts
(plus variation).

As I've said before, and people keep forgetting.  The pilot needs only
Indicated Airspeed.  The Navigator converts it to True Airspeed then by
fixes, to Ground Speed.  The only exception to this is when the pilot IS the
navigator, and this did not apply to Earhart.

Incidentally, I didn't see this point brought up in the "celestial choir"
discussions last year when we were trying to work out fuel usage.  I think
we all worked out figures based on 150mph.  If AE was doing 150mph TAS at
10,000ft, she may have been throttled leaned back considerably.   On the
other hand, if she was doing 150mph IAS she may have been travelling VERY
quickly, and headwinds may have been a minor factor.

RossD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I basically agree.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:07:02 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Katz to Ellis

>TIGHAR
>postulates that it is probable that she had plenty of fuel.  Hell, if she
>had plenty of fuel, she PROBABLY would have made it to Howland.  Look for
>the answer in the IMPROBABLE -- she ran out of fuel despite her
>well-thought-out plan due to the confluence of other improbable events
>(higher than expected headwinds, failure of her ability to receive
>transmissions from Itasca, etc.)

The strength of some of the transmissions recieved on Itasca would SUGGEST
she was Very, Very close for a considerable time.  It would also SUGGEST
that she "probably did" make it to Howland (area).  However, she possibly
ran out of fuel in the vicinity, on the way to the Phoenix goup, or on the
way to the Gilbert group.

I believe it still says "In God We Trust" on US currency?  Why?  Has anybody
proved He exists yet?  Where is the hard evidence?  The smoking gun?  In
both cases...

No-one knows yet!

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:08:53 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: KATZ v TIGHAR

On the other hand, I find it enlightening that Ric actually posts this stuff
rather than censoring it.  I'd submit that posting these views for
discussion AND defence shows that at least TIGHAR as an organisation is
willing to let someone air opinions, speculations, guesses.

The forum members are then free to interpret what they read.  If some people
"know" something, they can add to the discussion.  Many of my postings turn
out to be useless.  Some have been beneficial.  Ric rarely seems to dismiss
postings even when they are at variance with his views.  His occasional
blunt comment certainly doesn't hurt most of us.

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I must be slipping.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:10:12 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Dennis McGee's Comment

>From Ric
>
>Then let me put it this way.  I'm not going to post any more treatises on the
>performance of light aircraft, no matter how enthusiastic, unless I can see a
>direct relevance to the disappearance of NR16020.

Whilst I disagree with this, I agree Ric has to draw the line somewhere.
For anyone who is interested in following up aircraft performance OFF Forum,
my reference (part of my current study in the subject) is:

Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators.  Issued by The Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations. - Aviation Training Division.  (NAVWEPS 00-80T-80)
Mine is the 1965 revision, because many of the aircraft still in service
used similar powerplants to the Electra, and the relevant pages are 158 -
176.  They deal largely with variations in aircraft range, speed and
endurance.  Those pages are mostly piston engine and later pages look at
turbine and jets and compressibility of air, which are irrelevant to the
Earhart mystery.

Don't buy it, you should be able to borrow it these days from your library.

Anyone who Does want to buy it can get the US publisher's details (then)
from ross@devitt.com  and follow it up from there.

In particular look at page 161, it is directly relevant to the discussions
this last week or four on fuel management, range etc.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:12:30 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      evidence, clues, semantics, etc.

First off, kudos to Ron Bright for gently reminding all of us that we're
searching a deserted island for a missing flier, not presenting evidence to
a judge and jury in a courtroom.  Dr. King, is archaeological peer review as
different from a courtroom proceeding as I imagine it to be?

I think that the trouble we're having over words like "evidence," "clue,"
"proof," etc. is that english is a horribly imprecise language, drawn as it
is from several other languages, and then spiced up all on its own over the
years, particularly by us Americans.  For "proof" look at any hot political
issue--both sides often use the same words, but mean entirely different
things by them.

Who in the heck is Judge Crater?

hey, that reminds me--anyone heard the one about the airline passenger,
looking out the window when the pilot announces over the PA that they're
passing over Meteor Crater?  The guy looks at it, and exclaims, "wow,
another coupla hundred yards and that thing would've hit the freeway!"

LTM, who says "so, I can clearly not choose the glass in front of me."

Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:35:28 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Long's claims

Please direct me to the reference in Mr. Long's book in which he claims to
know precisely when AE ditched.  It may be there, but I haven't found it.
On pages 30-31, after AE's last transmission, he switches to subjunctive
language (she "would have" done this or that) to indicate speculation.
Throughout the book, he refers to the fact that he is speculating and that
there is no certainty.  Rather, he endeavors to quantify probabilities,
which is the heart of probability analysis.  It seems to me that others,
including TIGHAR, are endeavoring to do the same thing.  It is only the tone
of the condemnation that I object to.

If you read my prior postings, you will have noted that I, too, called into
question Mr. Long's assumption of constant headwinds.  This drew some
excellent analysis from other members of the forum which discussed the
effect of headwinds on flight duration and range, all of which focuses
attention on refining assumptions such as those made by Long.  Based on such
postings, I have often stated here that it is possible that AE reached
Gardner.  I am simply not yet convinced that is probable.  What is wrong
with that?


With respect to how some of TIGHAR's reports are interpreted, please refer
to my posting of yesterday, which discusses the Burns/Jantz report on the
bones.

David Evans Katz
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Try page 234.  "The inescapable conclusion is that shortly after 0843 IST,
Earhart was forced to ditch the plane somewhere within 100 miles of Howland
Island."

There is nothing wrong with not being convinced.  My objection is to your
equating our work with Long's.  We may both be wrong but I see no comparison
in the merits of the two cases.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:57:31 EDT
From:         Charlie Wood
Subject:      Threads

Time for a request. This is Dr. Gillespie's forum, he is the moderator.
I wish he would drag it kicking and screaming back to the professed
topic.

My suggestions to do this (please note the verb):

1) End Null Hypothesis discussions.

2) End discussions on Doctors visiting Mexico.

3) End discussions on how transformers and vibrator-power supplies
function.

4) End expostulating that tubes (valves) were generally about 7/8 inch
in dia. (not true in 1937 or 1940).

5) Terminate diatribes against other member's diatribes.

6) No longer allow pot shots at Long's assumptions and book. It's
conceivable that Long erred in his assumptions, as all of us do at one
time or another, but that doesn't call for ridiculing him or his book.
His scientific approach may have been flawed, but he's a (was) pilot,
not a scientist.

7) There has been much mention of Finch's flight. Haven't heard a thing,
though, about Pellegreno's similar flight in 1967 using an Electra 10A,
which, according to her book, is on display in an annex at Ottawa Int'l.
airport (30-year-old information). Since fuel consumption under an
assumed set of conditions is such a big factor has anyone considered
"de-mothballing" Pellegreno's plane and running some fuel consumption
tests with it? Or is it just too dissimilar to Earhart's 10E? Contact
her on fuel consumption info during her flight? Where is Finch's plane?

8) Isn't fuel consumption mathematically predictable knowing enough
parameters of an engine and some flight characteristics of the aircraft
(drag)? Four-cycle gas engines have been around for a lot of decades
now. Is fuel consumption such a black art?

9) End conjecture on what AE meant by "running low on fuel." My
definition of that is to follow the IFR rules in the U.S: Enough to get
you to your destination, plus to an alternate [easily-found] AIRPORT,
plus 45 minutes. I would consider starting out with anything less than
that over such unforgiving "terrain" as the Pacific as "low on fuel"
and, charitably, injudicious. But that was AE. And that's probably why
so many loved her.

Unquestionably, and reasonably, each of the discussions above are of
interest to one or more forum members. Is there a way to funnel those
that don't seem to be on topic (like this one!) into e-mail chats or a
separate list-server for forum members who want to follow those threads,
to avoid  running up 2400 line forum digests? Love 2400 lines if on
topic.

OK, ladies and gentlemen, I have my flak jacket on.

Thank you very much.

Charles Wood
**************************************************************************
From Ric

First a correction.   I am not among the many TIGHARs entitled to the
sobriquet "Dr."  "Commandante" will do just fine.

I agree that it's time to kill some threads. Let's put the following to bed:

- Null Hypothesis
- definitions of evidence
- all electrical devices unless pertaining directly to artifacts
- diatribes lacking factual content
-  conjecture about Earhart's "gas is running low" statement


To answer your questions:

-  being just a pilot doesn't excuse Elgen Long from writing bad history
-  Pellegrino's 10A used different engines than Earhart's 10E.  A comparison
would be meaningless.
-  Finch's plane is someplace around Dallas i think.
-  fuel consumption is indeed a black art.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:59:24 EDT
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Fuel Grades

For Doug Brutlag

I fear you misunderstood or I inadequately explained my statement concerning
fuel octane grades. I wrote on April 4, 2000, that "octane numbers relate to
the resistance of fuels to detonation, not the chemical energy content.
Therefore it is not relevant."
I did not, as you indicate in your posting of April 6, write that "octane
specifically is not relevant to fuel consumption."

When I stated "Therefore it is not relevant" I was referring to concerns
expressed on the Forum with respect to using contemporary Performance Number
fuels in any contemplated test program, compared to what Amelia actually used
in 1937. If 550 horsepower Wasp engines are used in a proposed experiment
with the same supercharger pressure ratio, and the same engine compression
ratio, the octane number or performance number will not matter when measuring
fuel consumption. It could be 87 octane, 100 octane, PN 130. Nothing has
changed except the fuels are progressively more resistant to detonation. The
objective of any contemplated test program is to duplicate power settings
thought to have been used by Amelia -- not to overboost the engine.

The chemical content of the fuel then and now is still about 19,000
Btu/gallon. Within narrow experimental limits, fuel consumption results can
be expected to duplicate what Amelia may have achieved (or Kelly Johnson did
achieve, for that matter).

To argue that a bad batch of gasoline, or a less than specified octane rating
is relevant to fuel economy in context with the Earhart flight is a mistake.
These are not the conditions that occurred nor would they be what a planned
test would attempt to duplicate.

Hope this clarifies what I previously posted.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:00:32 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Katz to Ellis

Thank you for a very thoughtful response.  (Please note that my  "Hell, she
would have made it to Howland" comment was not meant to be a serious
suggestion.  I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea.)

It is indeed true that present day science is able to accomplish wonderful
things.  My speculation about the Burns/Jantz report is based upon their own
reservations about their results of their analysis.  Perhaps they felt that
they could not be more certain without access to the original bones.

David Evans Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:03:49 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Evidence/ What is it?

Permit me to take a crack at defining "evidence" in this  controversy
particularily as it relates to the AE mystery.

The reconstruction of the past,our job here, is available through just three
sources:examples (1)people (Emily Sukuli),(2) physical evidence (Catspaw
heel) and(3) records (Galllagher's report).

People or eyewitnesses evidence, is fraught with dangers,ie. perception,
bias, memory, etc. Emily saw something, but what was it?

Physical evidence is really any object of a material nature. A body of
scientific analysis has developed (forensic exam) to aid in identifying and
describing the evidence. In our case can evidence,the Catspaw heel, be
"linked" to AE.

Records are of course,letters,documents, reports,etc that may help in
reconstructing the past. Gallagher's report certainly well documents the
discovery of skeletal remains on the Island. And Hoodless' report gives
measurements to the bones.Can they be linked to AE?

Evidence thus consists of a number of facts which point to a conclusion. The
number of facts,which are accompanied by doubt or questions of significance,
dictate the level of evidentiary value.

And finally when a number of facts are accumulated and perhaps fit a criteria
for the researchers purpose (legally we'd say "probable cause")proof becomes
possible depending on the purpose,and requirements of the discipline. As I
posted earlier, each discipline has developed its own criteria for evaluation
of evidence and acceptance or rejection as "proof".In the legal system, that
criteria for "admissibility" is quite rigorously controlled by the "rules of
evidence". That criteria need not be the standard for archeological research
as in the case of AE.

I think we are getting ourselves overly sensitive to what evidence is at this
point in our investigation. We are not yet concerned about "relevant
evidence", that is evidence having " a tendency to make the existence of any
fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable
or less probable than it would be without the evidence".(Rothstein) Wheww!!!

Lets take one example. Could we admit into a court proceeding ,say an
inquest,evidence of AE's death on Nikuin 1937 by presenting to the court the
Catspaw heel found by Tigharin 1991. We certainly can tesify that it was
found by a Tighar member and properly preserved by Tighar in thier evidence
locker. Would it be relevant? If admitted , it wouldn't carry much weight as
to its connection to AE.

Where are the lawyers or barristers in the forum? The full story ( discovery
documents in the legal world) relating to the heel is at Tighar's
headquarters and the Biltrite records.

In the end, I personally find that all of these "clues" or "evidence" is
certainly of probative value,not yet proof,  and worth continued in-depth
investigation. I'd love to do it.

Remember the credibility and value of evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
In this case the TIGHAR FORUM (JURORS).

ltm,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:06:22 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: evidence

Would these statements be correct?

- The bones are evidence that a human, probably female, was on Gardner
Island.

- The shoe parts are evidence that a blucher oxford, probably for a
female, was on Gardner Island.

- That evidence, combined with other evidence, provides a clue that AE
may have been on Gardner Island.

Frank Westlake
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:09:31 EDT
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: evidence

Im not a paid member, but your society still sends me all the latest letters
etc about your quest to locate Amelia.  And I understand there are always
going to be people who will denounce you and your findings, thats just
human....but how long do we have to read letters from someone who
not only gives you a hard time but makes such outlandish
remarks?  Whenever I see anymore letters dictated by someone named Katz I
simply click the DELETE key!
Joe W3HNK

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Your choice. That's why God made delete keys.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 18:49:12 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Katz to Bright and Forum

>From David Evans Katz
>
>I have just read Mr. Bright's response to my postings on the Forum.

I won't go into detail of this overlong posting.  What we are talking about
here is almost a laboratory in size.  Gardner or Nikumaroro is not the
central US.  It is extremely small and very remote.  While it was inhabited
for sometime, it has never been heavily visited, quite the reverse.
Therefore, a "body of evidence" can and should be studied in the light of
such knowledge.  We wouldn't give the same credence to the same artifacts
that were found in Niku had they been found in a major metropolitan landfill
or any urban area.  But the remoteness of Gardner/Niku and the dearth of
travel (especially for the early documented "evidence" from Gallagher, et al)
should stand out like a sore thumb and shout SOMETHING UNUSUAL IS GOING ON
HERE!!!!!!  Travel to that part of the world at that time in history is so
rare and well documented that these items should hold more weight.  It is
like a fingerprint - viewed at a distance among thousands of fingerprints, it
doesn't stand out - but take one sole fingerprint up close and what do you
have - a very pertinent and exact piece of evidence.  What makes a
fingerprint unique?  The individual swirls and marks, which individually
might not seem like much, but put them together and you have a very unique
item.  Here too, we have a part of a swirl here (dado), a mark there
(plexiglass), a loop here (bones), another loop there (a report of recent
habitation), another swirl here (radio report that they are running on a LOP
- which incidentally would take them to Gardner/Niku)..... Well, I hope you
get my drift.  This isn't a part of the world where these things would be
that common - in fact they would be considered down right improbable if not
impossible to have occurred there at that time except...  Fill in the blank.
The L'Oiseau Blanc must have landed there, right?  Maybe it is the remains of
Byrd's Polar flight?  Perhaps it is part of the missing flight from Florida
that everyone thought ended up in the Bermuda Triangle?  Well, yes, these are
extremely impossible and I am not trying to be snotty, just pointing out that
TIGHAR has done their homework.  Aircraft that are known to have gone missing
in this area have been checked - and don't fit.  People known to have gone
missing in this area have been checked - and don't fit.  So, what more proof
do you need?  No, this isn't absolutely, positively conclusive beyond a
shadow of a doubt, but its the next best thing.  That is why TIGHAR continues
to follow this avenue in their search...there is nothing out there that is as
compelling as the Niku hypothesis.  Given enough time, money and resources
and they could (not necessarily will) find the "smoking gun".  Provided
congress doesn't outlaw both smoking and guns in the same day.

LTM - who lights up a good cigar on a rare occasion
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 18:50:05 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: evidence, clues, semantics, etc.

Dave Porter asks:  Dr. King, is archaeological peer review as
different from a courtroom proceeding as I imagine it to be?

Yes, it's much, much less rigorous, and characterized by a lot of backbiting,
sloppy logic, and defense of pet theories.

LTM (whose logic is impeccable, of course)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 18:55:47 EDT
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Black Art

Contrary to what you may believe, determining fuel consumption is really not
a "black art." If you had your tongue in your cheek when you wrote that line,
please disregard this message.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

My tongue was only partially in my cheek.  For an engineer sitting at a
computer, fuel consumption is hard science.  For a single pilot in IFR
conditions who has just missed his third approach and is wondering if he has
enough fuel to make his alternate, it's the blackest of arts.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 18:56:51 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Test results

Hahaha!  Dennis: you have a great sense of wit about you.  I enjoyed laughing
out loud.  Thanks.  I'll go back to my T-square and slide rule now.  Have a
good tea.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 18:59:42 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: June Knox-Mawer

I searched the BBC site and left a message informing them of TIGHAR's search for
June Knox Mawer. If the comply and if she isstill with the BBC, she should either
contact the forum or might contact me. In which case I'll direct her to Ric or to
the forum.

Hope it works.
LTM (who loves looking for missing persons)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 19:03:28 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: evidence

A couple of things still bother me from early range vs speed postings:

>- He assumes that the tanks were not topped prior to takeoff to replace any
>fuel lost to expansion and venting.

I still cannot picture ANY pilot or ground crew not checking the fuel tanks
the morning of departure.  By this time any expansion loss would be evident
on dipping the tanks, and I am not willing to believe that the tanks were
not visually checked for content.  I know that is arbitrary, but as a pilot
I don't see any circumstance which woud allow taking off for a long trip
without first checking the fuel, and draining water.  After earhart took
off, the air up there was cooler, so there would be no expansion during
flight.

> -  To provide the headwind that Earhart supposedly (and suicidally) increases
> power to overcome, Long invents a 26.5 mph headwind for the entire flight

Earhart was specifically instructed on her first crossing to "reduce" fuel
flow if she encountered problem head winds.  That means she was operating
above "best specific range" figures.  Normal possibility of headwinds (If
you don't know for sure you allow for some at least) would have been taken
into account during flight planning.

Elgin Long can prove Earhart didn't make it to Howland.
I can prove she did. "JUST AS ACCURATELY" with a 26.5mph headwind all the
way!

At 130mph Indicated, Earhart was doing 113 Knots.  That would make Lae to
Howland in just under 19 and three quarter hours.  At SEA LEVEL with no
headwind.  As an aeroplane get higher, it travels faster than the airspeed
indicator shows.  (We've seen the explanation before)

At 10,000ft the temperature outside was about 8deg C or 45deg F.  Barometric
pressure was around 1000 to 1020 hpa at sea level, say 1019 to be safe
because that's what it is here outside cyclone season.  (average up in that
area I think - I'll have to check because I've lost my data.  It will be
pretty close).

Her "Pressure Altitude" was about 10200ft.  (allowing for errors and
unknowns).

130mph is 113kts.
Indicated Air Speed = 130 mph (113kts)
Pressure Altitude = 10,200ft
Outside Air temperature = 10deg C
True Airspeed = 153mph (133kts)
Take off a 26.5mph headwind
153mph - 26.5mph = 126.5mph (110kts)
2224 nautical miles divided by 110kts = 20.2hrs.  (3-4hrs reserve)

140mph is 121kts.
Indicated Air Speed = 140 mph (121kts)
Pressure Altitude = 10,200ft
Outside Air temperature = 10deg C
True Airspeed = 165mph (143kts)
Take off a 26.5 mph headwind
165mph - 26.5mph = 138.5mph (121kts)
2224 nautical miles divided by 121kts = 18.4hrs.  (Wow!  5-6hrs reserve)

150mph is 130kts.
Indicated Air Speed = 150 mph (130kts)
Pressure Altitude = 10,200ft
Outside Air temperature = 10deg C
True Airspeed = 175mph (152kts)
Take off a 26.5mph headwind
175mph - 26.5mph = 148.5mph (129kts)
2224 nautical miles divided by 129 kts = 17.25hrs.  (Enought to fly to
Gardner and back!)

All this with a constant 26.5 headwind All The Way.

BUT !!!

For 130mph, a pressure altitude difference of 3000ft either way gives about
5mph difference either way.

For 130mph, an outside air temp difference of 10degC either way gives an
airspeed difference of 2.5mph either way.  so the worst likely variation on
these figures is about 7mph or about 6kts.  6kts over the distance from Lae
to Howland makes about 3.7hrs difference to the flight time.

HOWEVER, there is no way the pressure altitude varied 3000ft, but it is
possible the outside temperature was out by around 10 degrees cooler.
(2.4kts difference - about 2hrs slower).

The point of this is that no matter how much we "know" about the aircraft's
performance, none of us can "calculate" what happened

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 19:47:46 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Long's claims

Re. Ric's comment:  We may both be wrong but I see no comparison
in the merits of the two cases.

Not only in the merits but in the methods.  The Longs' method of blending
fact, deduction, hypothesis, and speculation is one of the strangest kinds of
"analysis" I've ever seen.  It's virtually impossible for the reader to tease
apart what's more or less documented fact from what's guessed at or
essentially made up.

Tom King

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Which brings me to a question I've been meaning to raise on the Forum.  The
current (May) issue of Air & Space Smithsonian magazine (the publication of
the National Air & Space Museum) includes a predictably glowing and
breathless review of Long's book by Dorothy Cochrane, a curator in the
museum's aeronautics section and a long-time fan of Elgen Long and his
crashed-at-sea theory.  The chairman of the aeronautics section is, of
course, my old friend and nemesis Tom Crouch.  I don't know if the mag is
available on-line but you can find it on good newstands.

Ms. Cochrane dismisses TIGHAR's work in one clause of one sentence:
"After 60-plus years of theories including espionage, Japanese execution, an
errant shoe on an island, or life on a Phillipine rubber plantation or as a
New Jersey housewife, the general public may be forgiven if it shouts, 'Show
me the money!.'  Or in this case, 'airplane.' "

It would be wrong, she says, to put this book in that category.  "Elgin (sic)
and Marie Long have developed a reasonable hypothesis that could lead to the
discovery of the long-lost aviator's aircraft."  Ms. Cochrane does allow as
how "The books analysis of Noonan's navigation and his recommendations for
finding the island may be a bit too detailed, but the authors make their
point."  In other words, Dorothy couldn't follow it but with all those
numbers it must be right.

She concludes with, "Once the Electra is found, we will be able to
concentrate on Amelia Earhart's true legacy, her lasting contributions to
aviation and women.  Not to mention her courage."

Okay, the question is do we let this drivel go unchallenged or do we write
letters to the editor?  We're probably not going to change anybody's mind but
silence might be seen as acquiescence.  If we at least let the magazine's
readership know that not everyone was impressed with Long's book it might
prompt some people to familarize themselves with TIGHAR's work.  Frankly, I'm
somewhat hesistant to just write a letter myself.  In all humility, I'm too
well known and the reaction would likely be, "Of course HE'D say that."  But
if several Forum subscribers, TIGHAR members and otherwise, and especially
those with solid aeronautical credentials, wanted to offer their viewpoints
I'd be surprised if the editor did not feel compelled to publish at least
some of them.

By some strange coincidence I just happen to have the email address for the
magazine's editor George Larson.  It's airspacedt@AOL.com

I'm sure he'd love to hear from anyone who might care to drop him a line.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Apr 2000 19:55:26 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: evidence

Ric, this is getting silly.  If there's anything interesting at all about Mr.
Katz's point of view, it's as an indicator of what a reasonably intelligent
lay person is likely to think when confronted with our data, without spending
a whole lot of intellectual energy considering them.  That's useful, because
it helps us understand how to explain our reasoning, but I don't think it's
worth spending further time on, particularly yours.  He's not closed-minded
about the Niku hypothesis; he just wants to argue.  I'd suggest thanking him
and letting him go argue with somebody else.

LTM (who thinks we all have better ways to spend our time)
Tom King

***************************************************************************

From Ric

You're probably right.  You know me.  If I had been born three hundred years
ago I'd have probably been a professional duelist.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:03:50 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: airspeed

>so we have to
>open up our carburetor inlets (in other words, advance our throttles) to gulp
>more air.

But because the air is "thinner" when we open up the carburetors, we can
lean the engine to mix less fuel with the thinner air.  So the altitude
apparently doesn't do a lot to the actual fuel consumption for the given
indicated airspeed, and we are flying faster through the thinner air.

In the Piper Warrior we increase the engine RPM by 50 for each 1000ft,
leaning the mixture as we go.

Now.  For once I can't get to the airport and grab actual figures (until
this afternoon), but I'm sure when Kelly/Johnson advised earhart they took
all that into consideration.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:09:11 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: evidence

>Whenever I see anymore letters dictated by someone named Katz I
>simply click the DELETE key!
>Joe W3HNK

And I on the other hand read them, because everyone is entitled to an
opinion, or an observation - even if I don't agree with it!

RossD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Indeed, everyone is entitled to an opinion or an observation, even if you
don't agree with it, but if someone has demonstrated to you that their
opinions and observations are without value it's up to you to decide whether
you want to waste your time listening to them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:23:03 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: evidence

<< It is based on what TIGHAR has versus what a reasonable person
 would accept as evidence.  There is no verifiable provenance for anything
 that has been found.  That is, there is no verifiable connection between the
 clues you have found and AE.  For something to be accepted as evidence, it
 must be able to connected (with a reasonable degree of certainty) to the
 principals (AE & FN) >>

David, unless I am misunderstanding you, your use of the word evidence is
considerably different from common usage in the legal world. For example,
during the early hours of the O.J. case investigators swarmed over the crime
scene collecting evidence -- a glove, drops of blood, a partial shoe print, a
partially melted Ben and Jerry's cup of ice cream and so on. Although they
were collecting evidence not one piece of it was connected to anyone at the
time yet it was still evidence. You might want to call that clues but you
would be mostly alone in doing so. Some use the words interchangeably but it
is incorrect to say an item cannot be called evidence unless it is,
"connected [with a reasonable degree of certainty] to the
principals (AE & FN)."  If I could say, and absolutely and unquestionably,
the piece of Plexiglas came from AE's airplane that would now take on the
qualities of PROOF. As it is the Plexiglas is only evidence. Having collected
numerous pieces of evidence it now requires diligent work to make the
connection to AE and/or her plane.

Much evidence is collected at crime scenes that eventually proves to be of no
connection. Hopefully some of it will be viable but ALL of it is evidence.

Your use of the word turns it into proof and if we had THAT we could all go
home.

As to the Long's book, I think Ric was overly kind in his use of fanciful to
describe Long's work. Elgin Long is an intelligent and experience person and
I would ascribe no motives to him less than ethical and honest but it is
clear to ANY one who has read the available and known history of the last
flight that his theory is based on incorrect data and omitted data. I would
defy you or anyone else to support Elgin's conclusion or provide acceptable
support for much of the data he elected to use in order to arrive at his
conclusion.

Neither I nor anyone else knows where AE went or ended up. No one. Only a
methodical scientific analysis or blind luck will resolve the problem.
Speculation and fancy will not.

Posts such as yours are good in that they keep everyone on their toes and
cause a reiteration of known information as some of us forget and tend to
wander off the trail at times.

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

But there are limits.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:25:09 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: airspeed

<< So, it looks like I was wrong (again) and Earhart's 150 mph may have been
an indicated airspeed which would mean that her true airspeed would be quite a
 bit higher for the time she was at altitude, which means ..... everybody has
 been using the wrong cruise speed in analysing the flight.  Aaaargh! >>

Not everyone. <G>

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We eagerly await your analysis.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:47:54 EDT
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Long's claims

Ric wrote:

>breathless review of Long's book by Dorothy Cochrane, a curator in the
>museum's aeronautics section and a long-time fan of Elgen Long

Is this Dorothy Cochrane any relation to famed aviatrix Jackie Cochrane?

Tom #2179
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Not that I know of, but she may have a dog named Toto.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:58:01 EDT
From:         Jockroy
Subject:      People in Glass Houses

Re the attack on Prymak:

  I seem to recall countless  childish , vituperative attacks  on comments
and grammatical errors  made by various contributors , within the Forum and
outside it over the past year , especially when they conflict with those of
Tighar. Is this the appropriate  environment in which sound , honest
scientific investigation is to be conducted and to progress ,  and can it be
taken seriously by anyone who visits the Forum?

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Did somebody attack Bill Prymak?

Why are these kind of postings almost always submitted people who don't have
the courage to sign their name?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:49:59 EDT
From:         JT
Subject:      Long vs. TIGHAR

Let's call them Mr. Long & Mr. TIGHAR as I was a seventh grade science
teacher for years.  Ric, Tom, TIGHAR, et al, remind me of the good
teachers I had & that I tried to emulate.  The kind that encouraged open
discussion & discovery.  Mr. Long, however, reminds me of the
"administrative type, reporting facts for a text outdated as soon as
it's adopted & reporting his theories & work which he created to make
himself look busy & important as fact or close to it.

I maintain that everyone has an opinion but you need to consider the
source.  Mr. Long reminds me of my own seventh grade science teacher,
Mr. Cox, who dismissed me & facts reported in the news & scientific
community at the time, insisting his facts were indeed, by the book,
rendering mine unimportant even though I had delved into the subject
deeper & more recent than he.  TIGHAR's crew & their attitude are alive
& well in Mr. Sanderford's classes of my youth & in my teaching style.
I was never always right.  I accepted the students' & what they reported
as long as they could back it up.

Openmindedness(?) & open-ended investigation encourages research &
discovery while the other bogs us down.  Too bad the money men behind
Long's venture don't realize their folly...

LTM (who can see the fanciful musings of Mr. Long for what they are,
even without her reading glasses...)

-JT
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:35:46 EDT
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Wasp Supercharger

In response to my posting of 04/06/00 concerning superchargers, you asked:

"Could a pilot use 'full throttle' on takeoff at sea level or was the
supercharger effective enough to generate more manifold pressure than the
engine could handle?"

My apologies for not responding more rapidly to your question. I have in
front of me Pratt & Whitney power curve No. 2888, dated 05/02/35, reissued
12/16/35. This is for the direct drive Wasp S3H1 rated at 550 hp at 5,000
feet, 80 octane fuel. The blower gear ratio is 10:1, and the compression
ratio is 6.0:1.

Sea level (rpm) curves on the left-hand side of the chart are clearly marked
with a maximum allowable manifold pressure of 34.5 in-Hg at 2,200 rpm for
takeoff. Also shown is the full throttle limit for each rpm curve (line) and
these extend beyond the 34.5 inches. At 2,200 rpm, full throttle manifold
pressure is 38 in-Hg.

In answer to your question then, and as you may have suspected, the
supercharger could deliver more manifold pressure than Pratt & Whitney
specified. Again reading from the chart, full throttle (38 in-Hg, 2,200 rpm)
would produce 650 horsepower.

The question you asked is quite interesting and made me think about the
situation:

1. Did Amelia overboost the engine on takeoff from Lae (heavy gross weight on
a warm day using a damp turf strip 3,000 feet in length)?

2. Would 100 octane gasoline be adequate to prevent detonation for this 10
percent increase in manifold pressure?

3. IF she boosted manifold pressure beyond the limit set by P&W, did any
engine material properties (particularly aluminum) degrade as a result?

Upon first consideration, one can state with certainty that if Amelia ran the
engines at higher manifold pressure than allowed by Pratt & Whitney, there
were no immediate problems with the engines. She was obviously airborne for
at least 20.23 hours. If she leaned the mixture ratio setting toward the end
of that elapsed time while at 1,000 feet (ambient temperature 75 - 85 degrees
F) cylinder head temperatures almost certainly went up.

Pratt & Whitney document PWA 01. 100, "The Aircraft Engine and Its
Operation," dated December 1952, p. 19, states that: "If the indicated
cylinder head temperatures are allowed to exceed the usual limits of 450-500
degrees F, the material will be seriously weakened."

Thus a hypothesis could be constructed wherein structural failure occurred in
one or both engines shortly after her last radio transmission. I am not
promoting this scenario, only thinking out loud. It bothers me that there
were no more radio messages received from Amelia in spite of the probability
that fuel remained in the tanks. Could her radio transmitter have failed? Of
course, but then the possibility of post-landing/crash radio transmissions is
even more remote if one is inclined to believe these were real in the first
place.

There is no need to post this on the forum if you don't want to. I was
primarily trying to answer your question about overboosting manifold pressure
on the Wasp.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Birch.  Good new information.  I'm happy to post this (even though I
fully appreciate that there are those who will leap upon the idea of a
stress-induced engine failure).

It would take a lot of self-discipline to not firewall the throttles when
faced with such a dicey take off, but there would also be a lot of motivation
to not overboost your engines at the beginning of a crossing of the entire
Pacific Ocean.  If we're going to make assumptions I think we have to assume
that Earhart acted rationally unless faced with direct evidence that she did
not.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:40:03 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: evidence, clues, semantics, etc.

Dave Bush writes:

<< I think that the trouble we're having over words like "evidence," "clue,"
 "proof," etc. is that english is a horribly imprecise language, drawn as it
 is from several other languages, and then spiced up all on its own over the
 years, particularly by us Americans. >>

You're most certainly correct, Dave. It doesn't much matter what Webster says
or Black says or what the word means in French or any other language. What
matters is how we use the words. Sometimes incorrectly it is true and nearly
always imprecisely but I think from the context it is obvious how the words
were used. The use of the word evidence was perfectly correct. Evidence does
NOT require any degree of proof or connection. It may be good evidence or
useless evidence or even evidence of some unknown fact yet to be determined.
We could also call the evidence clues although the word is mostly used in
detective stories. Some evidence is also proof. The question is of what? For
example the shoe parts are evidence there was a shoe at one time. We cannot
prove who the shoe belonged to as yet but the parts are still evidence. If
I'm not mistaken the piece of plexiglas is evidence of an aircraft window. It
is still evidence even though we don't know for certain what airplane it came
from or even how it got where it was found.

Blood found on O.J.'s sock "found" on his bedroom rug was evidence but the
fact that there was preservative also found in the blood sample showed it
came from a vial of blood drawn by a male nurse and handed to Detective Van
Atter. We went from GOOD evidence to BAD evidence.

The items found on Niku ARE evidence. If someone wants to call them clues
that's fine. We all know what the quality of the evidence is. We know none of
it proves AE ended up on Niku. The evidence DOES lead one in that direction.
Continued analysis may show one of those items to be a smoking gun. Maybe
not. I suspect more evidence will be found on the next trip. Perhaps
something closer aligned with "proof."

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:46:09 EDT
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Winds

Ref discussion about winds - we often debate the impact of a headwind on the
flight and we know one was forecast, but never a tailwind. Is is
inconceivable that they wound up with a tailwind for some or all the
journey, regardless of the forecast? Thinking here  that long-range
meteorology 60 years ago was just as much an unrefined science as
aeronautics, search and rescue etc. Are winds in the central Pacific
invariably from the east?

************************************************************************
From Ric

As far as I know, the Central Pacific is no different from anyplace else.
There are prevailing winds but that's not to say that the wind can't blow
from any direction.

Been thinkin' 'bout the famous "SPEED 140 KNOTS" quote.  If she was at 10,000
and INDICATING 150 mph, she could have a slight headwind and STILL be making
140 knots over the ground.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:41:32 EDT
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Black Art

Sorry Birch, but I must agree with Ric. The term =93Black Art=94 refers to the
diligence, technical knowledge and judgment the pilot applies to the
constantly-changing, and sometimes conflicting, requirements of the cruise
scenario. Achieving maximum range from an airplane is not a job for a lazy
airman.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:46:50 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Octane,Performance, Fuel Economy

For Birch Matthews,

I understand what you are conveying about the relevance of octane to
performance/economy relationship.  I should be more specific.  When this
was showing up on the forum there was mention of using of using Finch's
numbers vs AE + Kelly J's power management profile.  One could not use
the comparison I believe because besides the fact that Finch did not fly
the same route & profiles, I believe there is a difference in the fuels
available in 1937 vs what is on the market today.  The difference is
octane.  AE had to ship gasoline to her destinations and it was likely
the 100/130 octane heavily leaded fuel in use at the time designed for
the engines of their time.  Sometime in the 1960's or 70's  they started
replacing 100/130 with 100LL or "low lead".  Some of the older engines
had a problem with this fuel as they needed the high lead content to
protect their valves when they used the normal economy leaning technique
recommended by the manufacturer, causing early top overhauls.  This
problem can be aleviated by changing the leaning profile to a slightly
richer fuel/air mixture.  But then you won't get the fuel economy as
previously promised.  The R-1340 was designed to use the older heavy
lead content fuel of previous.  All things being equal, Finch's Electra
would not get the fuel burn figures computed by Kelly J. without having
a possible detonation problem.  The DC-6 I flew years ago had the same
limitation.  I think there is a lead additive available & approved to
raise the lead content of 100LL for certain older engines which would
provide a possible equalization factor if wanted to fly an actual
profile using Kelly J's figures in.    Without the same fuel I have to
believe there would be a discrepancy.

I have no argument about the energy release in the combustion of fuel.
My thoughts were in relation to trying to fly the numbers in an Electra
today to verify Kelly J's computations.  I doubt Finch would let you try
that in her airplane without you paying a totally obscene price.
Probably make you buy the airplane.  I'll take the blame for the
comunuications gap.

Doug B. #2335
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Earhart used 80-87 octane for all but heavy load take offs.  It's not clear
whether she shipped any 100 octane ahead or just got it where she could get
it, but the latter is suggested by the fact that it was unavailable at Lae.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:49:28 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      FINCH'S FLIGHT

Has anyone read the book "Amelia Earhart-World Flight/1937/World Flight
1997-Linda Finch" by Paul Duffy,published by Pratt and Whitney,Hartford. Is
it worth $108 a copy? And does it have any relevant information re fuel
consumption,navigation,etc to AE's flight? (Same engine,speed,time of flight
from Lae to Howland,etc)

Ron Bright

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Good Gawd.  I can't imagine that anyone who paid that for it would admit it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:23:30 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: FINCH'S FLIGHT

Not even an autographed copy!! No I didn't buy it but I know some of the
forum members have lots of bucks and maybe one of them had read it. Maybe you
get a date with Linda if you buy the book.

Ron Bright
*************************************************************************
From Ric

That's an incentive?  (Please list the names and gross annual incomes of the
forum members who have lots of bucks.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:24:59 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      $108 Bucks For Finch's Book?

I agree with you Ric-$108 bucks?  Another hose job. Not even good
outhouse material.

Doug B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:34:13 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Octane-one last time

80/87 fuel Ric?  I went back to the engine section of my AT-7.  The
R-985 is designed to use 91/96 grade fuel.  I assumed that AE would go
the next higher octane if not available.  I just discovered a
footnote:"Grade 80/87 fuel may be used if no higher grade available;
however it is recommended that full rich mixture be used with all power
settings."  Since the R-985 & R-1340 all identical in all respects other
than displacement.  I assumed that AE would use the standard rule of
using next higher octane(100/130) if 91/96 not available.  Just now saw
the 80/87 footnote.  Could possibly change a few things Ric?

Doug B. #2335
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Ya gotta think context.  1937 was not 1944 (or whenever your Beech went into
service).  80/87 octane was what there was.  100 octane was very new and not
commonly available.  Johnson's figures certainly contemplate the use of 80/87
octane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:39:22 EDT
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: evidence

Mr Katz attempted to attach to the word "evidence" a meaning that is not in
general usage. Communication requires a general consensus on usage, and
Webster's dictionary is a well-regarded reference for establishing word
usage. I don't think it is reasonable for Mr Katz to attempt to impose on
the forum his own non-standard definitions of words.

One must have evidence in order to have proof, but the presence of evidence
does not establish proof. (Recall the old example from Logic 101: "All grass
is green, but all that is green is not grass.")

william 2243

*************************************************************************
From Ric

My psychic powers of precognition tell me that we're about to hear that we
have once more savagely turned upon someone and dismissed their views just
because they don't agree with our fanciful hypothesis.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:41:30 EDT
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Elgin Long's Wind

Elgin Long says that AE run into a 26.5 knot headwind the entire
Lae-Howland leg which made her run out of gas?

That part of the world is known as the intertropical convergence
zone..It is where the trade winds come together(converge).  Sailors have
for years called this part of the world "the doldrums" because the wind
activity is very light or just plain nill.  The problem being that as
the trade winds reach this area they crap out as they are displaced by
air warmed from the ocean below rising.

This kind of wind for a 2600 mile leg that is entirely in this ITC
zone-I don't think so!  Now about that term"fanciful".....

Doug B. #2335
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:44:51 EDT
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Elgen, not Elgin

If we're going to take the guy's name in vain we may as well spell it right.
ELGIN is a town in Scotland (and is pronounced with a hard G).  Mr. Long's
first name, for whatever reason, is spelled ELGEN and is pronounced with a
soft G.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:56:23 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Light-bulb base

We've certainly been flogging a lot of dead mules recently.  That may be
because we can't find much else to flog -- well... perhaps each other.  One
of those mules just might deserve a little more attention:  The strange
light-bulb base.

It appears to me that it is, indeed, a light-bulb base, not a radio-tube
base.  Now that it has come to light that it's what is called a "bayonet
base" with a couple of pins (I think there are two) to engage "J" slots in a
socket - and made of brass. as I recall - it seems pretty certain that it is
from a light bulb.

This kind of base is designed to withstand vibration, as exists in a car,
boat, or an airplane.  Screw-base bulbs tend to work loose.  That's not to
say bayonet bases are not found in other applications such as pilot lights
in radios, etc., back in the vacuum tube days.  Most here may not remember
when bulbs with such bases were "standard" in all automobile lights even
including headlamps.

The lamp base in question seems large for any such lamp I can think of
offhand.  May one possible place for it be in the landing lights of an
airplane of 1930s vintage?   Do we have information on the various lights oo
the Electra?
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We'd have to look at existing Electras (but fortunately there are plenty.
Let me get some photos of the artifact up on the website before we get too
excited.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:01:50 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Elgin Long's Wind

Actually, the Intertropic Convergence Zone for June and July resides about
3-6 degrees North latitude, well north of AE's flight path.  She would expect
persistent easterly winds (blowing to the west).  Long's 26.5 knot headwind
comes from a single AE message in which she states a wind speed but not
direction, and that was early in the flight.  Winds do indeed die down during
the nighttime.  What Long did was extrapolate a single point wind measurement
for the entire flight; we do know that the winds at Howland early died down
to about 8 knots by 5 AM local time at the surface.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:04:44 EDT
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Black Art Clarification

To Skeet Gifford

Your definition of "Black Art" is quite acceptable to me in context with what
a pilot faces in the cockpit in a given situation. I cannot argue this as I
am not a pilot, just a rapidly aging ex-paratrooper who was usually more than
happy to exit a still-flying C-119 or C-46 over Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
(That alone may cause many Forum readers to question my capacity for logical
thought, especially pilots.)

Once again, I may not have adequately expressed what I was trying to say. Let
me try again. I take issue with labeling fuel rate measurement and fuel
consumption rate calculation as black art. The former is accomplished in
straightforward engineering methods while the latter can be described
mathematically and the equations solved. In fact, many weeks ago on the
Forum, I outlined in narrative form how to go about this task.

Therefore, I do not take issue with Mr. Gifford's description of "black art"
in any way. Conversely, I see no conflict with what he stated and what I
intended. I might also suggest that the next time any Forum pilot scans the
operating manual for the aircraft he is about to fly, know that some engineer
(you might prefer that person was not an old paratrooper with too many hard
landings) ran fuel consumption tests and supplemented his data through
calculation.  I hope this is not too frightening a thought.

Ric, if you feel there has been too much on this subject I certainly won't be
offended if you don't post it. Perhaps you would let interested parties
contact me if they wish to discuss it further. Thanks.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Seems like everyone is in agreement.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:12:32 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Elgen Long's Wind

I have left one airport in the Houston area with the winds from the south and
flown to one only thirty miles away and landed in the opposite direction due
to a 180 degree change in wind direction - so you can't guarantee what the
winds were over such a long course.

LTM,
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
#2200
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:15:10 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: evidence

>From Alan Caldwell
>
>Dave Bush writes:
>
>>I think that the trouble we're having over words like "evidence," "clue,"
>>"proof," etc. is that english is a horribly imprecise language, drawn as it
>>is from several other languages, and then spiced up all on its own over the
>>years, particularly by us Americans.

Alan - You must have David Katz mixed up with Dave Bush...I don't quote
dictionaries...they stand on their own merits.  I do know how to read them,
but don't have access to legal dictionaries or books.  I can read and sign my
own name, however. (ha ha)

Yours,
Dave Bush
#2200
************************************************************************
From Ric

That was my fault, not Alan's.  sorry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:24:24 EDT
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Octane, Performance, Fuel Economy

For Doug Brutlag,

I appreciate your thoughts and comments in your posting of 04/08/00.

You are quite correct in that the aviation fuels of today differ from what
Amelia Earhart used in 1937. As Ric noted, she used 80-87 octane aviation
gasoline, 100 octane for takeoff. As you know, the antidetonant additive in
those days was tetraeythl lead. The amount added was typically 3 cc to 6 cc
per gallon.

The lead additive, while dramatically improving detonation resistance, also
had some disadvantages when first applied. To counteract lead deposits in the
cylinders and on the valves, ethylene dibromide and ethylene dichloride
compounds were added to the "ethyl fluid."

I don't know what Linda Finch used in her Electra, but imagine you are
correct in assuming it was 100/130 or 100LL, the latter perhaps with an
additive. I am not aware of the most recent fuel formulas or antiknock
additives. I do know that the T6/SNJs competing at Reno use a maximum power
setting on their R-1340s, and I have not heard of any detonation problems
with the exception of one year. In this instance it was traced to a bad batch
of fuel. This caused problems as you might expect and was the source of many
(justified) complaints.

Enriching the mixture has a tendency to cool it and helps reduce the
possibility of detonation. Reno Unlimiteds routinely use this technique. The
mixture ratio employed depends upon the amount of ADI (water/alcohol mixture)
injected and whether or not an aftercooler is used. Its a weight/complexity
tradeoff. Eliminating the aftercooler reduces empty weight, but you must
carry more ADI - heavier gross takeoff weight. Of course the ADI is a
consumable so at some point in the race you are a bit lighter than the guy
lugging the aftercooler around.

What does all of this pontification have to do with Amelia Earhart's flight?
Well, I still believe measuring fuel flow rates in an R-1340 today using a
contemporary fuel might provide relevant information. We are not concerned
with high manifold pressure power settings; rather, just the opposite. So I
don't see where detonation is a problem at fuel/air mixture ratios down to
about 0.072 (13.9 pounds of air per pound of fuel). I freely admit that below
that ratio there could be a problem. My uncertainty is due to lack of a
mixture ratio versus combustion temperature curve or any experimental data.

Incidentally, one does not need to duplicate Amelia's apparent flight
duration or profile. Merely flying different power settings at possibly two
or three altitudes long enough to obtain accurate data should suffice as long
as the test program is well thought out. What is "long enough?" Perhaps 10
minutes after stabilization at a given test condition as a guess. Most
intriguing is what fuel economy could be obtained at mixture ratio = 0.070,
2,400 rpm, 24 inches. Kelly Johnson did not measure this condition, only
recommended it as an alternative in case of unexpected headwind.

Reviewing Linda Finch's records would be interesting to me as well. Don't
know if that is possible. As for buying her airplane, I am sorry to say I
couldn't afford to fill it up!

Once again Ric, if this is too boring feel free not to post it on the Forum.
If you do not, perhaps you would be kind enough to pass it along to Mr.
Brutlag.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

It's interesting information, and a recreation would be fun, but we wouldn't
prove anything about Earhart's flight.  Even Elgen Long concedes that if
Earhart had followed Johnson's recommendations she would have had more
endurance than he claims she got.  The only way he can make her run out of
fuel when he wants her too is to have her depart from those recommendations.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:37:39 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Long vs. TIGHAR

Let me try and explain. In the past serious authors reported facts and
explained why things happened the way they did or why things went wrong,
based on known or proven facts. Like explaining that the Titanic foundered
because she was damaged under the waterline by hitting an iceberg. It was a
scientific approach.

Today there is a new trend in a new world which has become a market place
for the printing industry. If an author wants to make a buck he will not
simply tell the story using well known and proven facts. He will convince
the market his story is better  because he has knowledge of new and hitherto
unknown facts. Even if he has to invent them. There is no way selling the
Titanic again without a new theory, regardless of historic or scientific
facts. That new approach may not make sense in the eyes of educated people
but it does wonders for selling a book to an  uneducated public. Like
suggesting that Titanic steel plates were made of  lesser quality than its
sister ship's and therefore became brittle in cold Arctic waters...  Forgive
my over-simplification. But what we se happening around AE/FN is exactly the
same scenario. We all know that AE's Electra disappeared in 1937. We all
know AE and FN failed to find Howland. TIGHAR has reason to believe they
made it to Gardner island and this forum is still discussing various aspects
of this development to see if the theory holds water and proof can be found.
Yet wasn't there recently a new book on the old subject that suddenly
claimed "the mystery solved" ? It was solved only in the mind of one author
who developed a theory that fitted his scenario. It explains all provided
you want to believe him. Most of us at this forum will disagree with his
theory and his conclusions.

But haven't we all bought the book ?

Some who are better placed than I am to judge call that "good marketing".

LTM (who read the book and put Long's opinion on the shelf, next to the thin
skinned Titanic)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I've known Elgen Long for about 12 years.  I can't say that we're friends,
but we've spoken many times and I've been to his home and seen his collection
of material on the Earhart disappearance.  I believe he is completely sincere
in his adherence to his theory and I do not think that his book was a
marketing ploy.  The title, however, was.  As I understand it, the "Mystery
Solved" title was not his idea and he is much embarrassed by it.  Those who
have never had the pleasure of negotiating a book contract may be surprised
to learn it is not uncommon for the publisher to reserve the right to
determine what title goes on the finished book.  That decision seems to often
be based soley on what the publisher thinks will sell.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:46:37 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Age of bones

Tom King wrote in part:

> The doctor who examined the bones  and decided they were Polynesian was
> by definition the product of 1930s medical training. ...He was not "on
> the scene," but in Tarawa; he examined the bones when they arrived there. His
> analysis was subsequently contradicted by the analysis of Dr. Hoodless when the
> bones arrived in Fiji; Hoodless -- also, of course, the product of 1930s
> medical training, and also not a forensic osteologist -- said they were most
> likely the bones of a European or mixed-race male. .  Our two forensic
> osteologists replicated his analysis as closely as possible  and their analysis
> suggested that the closest match is to a female of northern European origin.
> Certainly it's possible that Isaac or Hoodless were right, and without doubt
> they had more to look at in developing their conclusions, but on balance, until
> we have something better to work with, I think the modern analysis is
> superior."

What amazes me is that when we talk about the bones, we always forget the one
thing that all who saw them agree on.  It is never discussed. That is the
suspected age of the bones when found in 1940.  It doesn't matter if the bones
were found with a leather flying jacket on. . . if they were older than two and a
half years when found . . . they can not be related to the Earhart mystery.

It doesn't take any medical training to somewhat accurately guess the age of
bones.  Ask any cattle rancher who stumbles across that long lost steer back in
the high country somewhere.  My limited experience with such things, is that the
first six months after death, it is pretty easy.  Even after a couple of years,
there is still some skin in various places.  Especially in the skull.  It takes
about three years before there is nothing left but plain bone.  The Coconut Crab
might be a formidable creature, but they can't hold a candle to a hungry
Coyote.

I don't mean to be gross here, but as far as I can remember , none of theoriginal examiners said anything about any "matter" (skin or brain material)
still inside the skull.  I think there was some mention of a ligament attachment
point, or something like that.

Perhaps one of our more experienced forensic scientist can comment on how
long it would take, under normal circumstances to remove all traces of flesh from
bone laying out in the open.

Who was it?  Dr. Burns, I think, who helped examine some bones found from a
suicide victim on Tarawa a couple of years ago.  Maybe she could tell us exactly
what was left of the skull after some six months in the open.

I know we have to continue the bone search and discussion, and I know that
the modern methods can't determine bone age in 1940.  But I also think that is
an important clue in trying to analyze the bone story.  The one thing they all
agreed on should not be dismissed as not important.

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

<<It doesn't take any medical training to somewhat accurately guess the age of
bones. >>

Well, you learn something every day.

Somebody else tell him.  I don't have the strength.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:47:35 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: evidence

I am in the delete key camp.  Suggest you stop wasting your valuable time
reading, let alone responding to the Katz diatribes.  Keep up the good work.

Regards
Bob Lee
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:01:01 EDT
From:         Christine J.
Subject:      Evidence

Yes Ric,  by definition that is right, but society being society........
many false clues can be provided, hence false evidence,  and it is up to
the individuals requiring evidence to make sure to the best of their
ability that no falsehoods are documented, and presented,  which in
essence you are trying to do. Some individuals will go out of their way
to  put out false clues, so that a situation will go in their own
favour, so it is essential to have proof of the fact, beforehand.  In
the case of your work here I think false is a poor choice of a word,
perhaps misleading would be more suitable.

This discussion about definitions could go on and on, and the use of
words someone will always pick up on, you know what you have, you know
what you are trying to prove, you know what you need to complete your
puzzle,  stick to your method and you should get your evidence.

Christine Joudrey
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:23:57 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Age of bones

Well, I take it Don's talking not about the age of the individual represented
by the bones but the time the bones have been lying around.  Actually the
degree of skeletalization, and the condition of the bones, are highly
variable based on a number of factors -- what's around to gnaw on them,
exposure, climate, etc. etc. etc.  That's based on my own experience
exhumaing maybe a thousand bodies here, there, and the other place, plus a
ghoulish childhood career collecting animal bones on the farms and forests of
northern California, plus such of the pertinent literature as I've reviewed.

Kar Burns may want to comment further, but the skeleton she examined (and I
did, too) was on Fiji.  Its owner had died about four months before it was
found in the jungle, an environment not unlike Niku.  It was completely
skeletonized, and the bones were somewhat scattered; some were missing
altogether.  Some had been gnawed, probably by dogs or pigs.  If I had found
it on the ground without associated artifacts, I don't think I could have
confidently guessed at how long it had been there, other than to say that it
probably wasn't hundreds of years old.

Another recent example is from Saipan, where we have a detailed report of the
investigation of a site (inhabited by coconut crabs) where two murder victims
were disposed of.  Again about 3-4 months had passed since they'd gone
missing, and the bodies were completely skeletonized, but in this case the
bones had not been scattered.

My conclusion -- understanding that we know nothing about Gallagher's or
Isaac's qualifications for judging how long bones had been on the ground --
is that I wouldn't put much faith in their guestimates.  In addition, we have
the sextant box.  Is it plausible that a wooden box would have lain around
for very long in Niku's environment and still be in good enough shape to (a)
retain discernible markings, (b) be a suitable container for the artifacts
sent to Fiji, and and (c) be something Vaskess would want to keep on display
in his office (assuming we accept Foua Tofinga's account of seeing it there)?
 Maybe, but on balance -- assuming we accept the sextant box as associated
with the bones -- I think the condition of the sextant box argues for the
bones not having been on the ground too long.

LTM
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:40:26 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      New titles?

Ric said:  First a correction.   I am not among the many TIGHARs
entitled to the sobriquet "Dr."  "Commandante" will do just fine.

Hm-m--m.  I would have suggested "IL Duce" or "Der Fuhrer."

Or how about a couple of entries from the North Korea School of
Honorific Titles?  Let's start with Enlightened and Visionary Master of the
People.  Nahhh, that's a bit TOO socialistic. OK, how about Unembittered and
Tranquil Light of the Ages?  A little better but still it has a ring of
being a tad "New Age-y."

One last shot, OK?

I got it, I got it!

Sea of Life and Font of True Knowledge and Supreme Wisdom.  Kind of
catchy, huh?  That would look nice on your Samsonite on your next venture to
Niku!

LTM, who hopes the North Koreans have a sense of humor,
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll pass on the fascist titles, and the North Korean honorifics are kind of
a mouthful. It's probably best to stick with the title the team traditionally
uses to address me during expeditions - usually rendered as a lusty shout -
"Godammit Gillespie!"
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:44:37 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Black Art Clarification

<< (That alone may cause many Forum readers to question my capacity for
logical thought, especially pilots.)>>

Birch, I have the utmost respect for paratroopers but as you know we pilots
have a slightly different criteria for jumping out of airplanes. They must be
a raging inferno and missing one wing.

Alan
#2329

***************************************************************************
From Ric

We had a saying in the 1st Cavalry (Airmobile).  The first part of it went,
"Only two things fall out of the sky...."
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:48:30 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Octane, Performance, Fuel Economy

Ric wrote:

<< The only way he can make her run out of fuel when he wants her too is to
have her depart from those recommendations. >>

Ric, that little sentence is one that we all need to cut out and paste on our
computers in front of us. I could not count how many times I've seen a
comment (sometimes mine) that only had validity if there was a departure from
known facts. I remember some time ago you posted a brief recap as a nice
reminder to help prevent some our little side trips. It was a big help to me
even as long as I have been following AE's mysterious trail. It's the little
facts that get us in trouble. Perhaps they are easier to ignore.

What escapes some, I believe, is that it is obvious the Longs put the cart
before the horse. They made a decision as to what they believed happened and
THEN set about to support it. That NEVER works. There is a ton of evidence
that has been sorted through and much has been qualified to some extent or
another. It is certainly reasonable to play down certain information if it
does not meet a reasonable test but it never can be disregarded until it can
be PROVEN to be false information. The smoke the Itasca was supposedly laying
down is a good example of our attempt to qualify that information. At first
blush it seemed to be a fact that the ship was indeed laying an obvious smoke
trail that the Electra should have seen. Since it wasn't seen then the
Electra could not have been in the vicinity. Well, now we can see the fallacy
of that reasoning. This same careful approach is being done on all the
evidence -- the bones, plexiglas, fuel consumption, etc. Nothing is being
ignored. Nothing taken for granted. Our problem is we tend to forget little
tiny facts that oftimes lead us astray. I don't know whether the Longs
"forgot" little facts or just decided some didn't fit. Their conclusion might
even be right but they have no, nada, zilch support for their theory. If
someone can support their idea tell me how.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:49:39 EDT
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Katz to Devitt

To: Ross Devitt

Thank you, Mr. Devitt, for your kind words.  I am sorry that Mr. Gillespie
feels that my opinions and observations are without value.

David Evans Katz
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:16:04 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Earhart Radio Equipment/ Insight into mystery!

A long time Earhart researcher tells me that "Al Gray's" writings on AE's
radio equipment would provide a "better insight into the mystery".

Who is Al Gray? Has he published any material? And if you are aware of his
publications, did it provide any clue into where she ended up? I have never
heard of the name. Anyone? My source declined to provide any additonal help.
So I'm stuck.

LTM,
Ron Bright ("clueless" in Bremerton)

**************************************************************************
From Ric

The reference is to Captain Almon A. Gray, USNR (ret.) and now (I believe)
deceased.  His article "Amelia Didn't Know Radio" appeared in the December
1993 issue of Naval History magazine.  Captain Gray certainly did know radio.
 What he didn't know were the facts of the case and he makes a lot of
suppositions based upon bad information. For example, he maintains that
Earhart had two-way communication with Lae for the first seven hours of the
flight.  It's quite clear that she did not.  He also accepts and states as
fact Elgen Long's contention that there was an experimental version of the
Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard the airplane.  The presence of such a radio has
most definitely NOT been established.  He also selects two of the five DF
bearings taken by Pan Am to make a case for the flight ending up in the
southern Marshall Islands.

Bottom line:  Gray's article applies excellent expertise in radio to a
mythical scenario and reaches conclusions of predictable value.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:26:05 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

There's a saying that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day;
if you teach a man to fish, he can feed himself for a lifetime. Perhaps some
similar motto is appropriate for this forum.

I was delighted to see you quote Learned Hand. Hand it was (I think) who
said that he felt sometimes that he had spent his whole life "shoveling smoke."
That's how people who must deal with law sometimes feel about it. There's a
lot of smoke in connection with AE, too, but - you should be happy to note -
there's not much in the area of airplane performance. It's pretty simple
stuff, numbers and seventh grade arithmetic, and you don't even need a
calculator, much less a computer. (As a matter of principle, I did all
the numbers in this with pen and paper.)

That being said, there's an obvious problem with talking about performance.
You asked, for example, what the 150 mph "base speed" (as I think AE called
it) was. Was it an average speed at each power setting, the highest speed,
the lowest speed, indicated or true, etc.?

The obvious way to answer that is to find out what Kelly Johnson said! He must
have told AE. But if what he said is available, I haven't seen it.

Can we answer the question with the data we have in some other way?

I think we can, but doing so raises the ugly head of the aircraft performance
monster (and the fear that many people seem to have of him). And it puts the
person who trys to formulate an answer in a quandry: how much do you say, and
how do you say it ? If you give a categorical answer, everyone asks (quite
rightly, I suppose) "who are you to say so". If you show a sketch of your work,
people roll their eyes and say "I don't understand." If you take it very slowly,
some people still don't understand, and others feel that they are being
condescended to. Well, life's hard.

Categorical answer: I think Johnson expected that the power settings he
provided AE would maintain a minimum true airspeed of 150 mph true at the specified
altitudes, and that the air- speed would gradually increase during each segment,
until it was reduced by the next scheduled power reduction. More specifically,
I believe he planned the final reduction (38 gph) to take place near the point
at which aircraft weight would be around 11,000 pounds (500 over normal
gross) and the 38 gph setting would produce 150 - 152 mph at 10,000 feet. The
rest of this paper shows the major part of the work to produce that limited
conclusion, and formulate one or two rules of thumb that might have some
relevance in calculating or evaluating other performance of
the 10E - if anyone feels a need to do so.

The discussion of aircraft performance is important for two reasons:

1) the 24 hour anticipated endurance is the sine qua non of the mystery
   (if the anticipated endurance had been 20+30 no one would have
   any real question about what happened), and

(2) the fact that many members of the forum have surprisingly little knowledge
    about aircraft performance leads them to fall again and again into the same
    mistakes, and generates a great deal of discussion about things that are
    relatively clear, if one takes the time to think about them, and is willing
    to do a little reading and a bit of calculation.

I have already expressed my own opinion that we know enough about the 10E's
performance to say that Gardiner is possible. Why discuss performance further?
Because the subject always comes up - and if we talk about a subject, we owe it to
ourselves and others to be as accurate as possible.

It disheartens me to see you confuse yourself about the "indicated" and "true" airspeed
question, and to refer to fuel consumption as a "black art." And I cringe when you
seem uncertain about 20gph.There are well-known rules(and rules of thumb) about
all of these things, and people who wish to discuss the subject owe it to themselves
to attempt to understand those rules.

For example,  true airspeed (by rule of thumb) is 2% per 1000 feet higher than
indicated airspeed - this rule of thumb works quite well; it converts 120
indicated at 10,000 to 144; the calculated result (standard conditions) is 142 (on my
E-6B, which seems to be harder to read than it used to be). "Standard conditions"
means a barometric pressure of 29.92 inches, and a temperature of 59F(15C) at sea
level, which gives an OAT at 10,000 of -5C(the "adibiatic lapse rate" being 2 degrees
centigrade per 1000 feet). "Standard conditions" is an important statement, because
performance changes (to one degree or another) when conditons vary  from standard,
Anything I say is meant to be at standard condtions and 10,000 feet, unless the
contrary is stated.

Fuel consumption calculation is not very difficult to understand. Average modern
efficient engines are assumed to burn 0.45 pounds of fuel per hour for each horse-
power produced, with normal leaning techniques. (The range of consumption is
actually from something like 0.40 to 0.50.) A gallon of aviation fuel weighs 6
pounds. Cruise settings are usually stated as a percentage of rated power. If, for
example, the airplane has a rated horsepower of 200, and is flown at a setting that
yields 60% of power, it is producing 120 horsepower. In an hour it burns 0.45
pound of fuel for each of the 120 horsepower. Since 0.45 x 120 = 54, it burns
54 pounds of fuel in an hour. Since fuel weighs 6 pounds per gallon, and since
54 divided by 6 = 9, in one hour it burns nine gallons of gas. (Shorthand: the
airplane burns 7 1/2 gph for each 100 horsepower being produced.)

Since we can calculate fuel consumption when we know the horsepower being used,
we can reverse the equation and calculate the horsepower being produced by a
known fuel consumption. Take the previous example: if we know the airplane is
burning 9 gallons of gas, we (1) multiply 9 by 6 to get 54 (the pounds of fuel being
used per hour). We know that each horsepower requires o.45 pounds, so we divide
54 by o.45. We find(as we used to say) that o.45 "goes into" 54 120 times, so we
know that 120 horsepower is being generated. (Shorthand: for each 7 1/2 gph, the
engine is producing 100 hp - if it burns 15 gph, it is producing 200 hp.)

All simple enough, and yet I venture to say that 99% of the aircraft performance
arguments on the forum are based upon either misunderstandings or misapplications
of these and similar rules. Some of it is understandable (it's easy enough to do the
calculations with nice round numbers, easily divisible by 6, but tougher with more
complicated figures) but most of the confusion should be avoidable IF WE
RESOLVE TO BE CLEAR AND ACCURATE IN DISCUSSING THE MATTER WHEN IT COMES UP.

The "rules" mentioned above apply to the Electra, just as well as they do to any
modern airplane - but the fuel consumption rule applies with the caveat that we
should give a moment's thought to what the Electra 's actual "specific fuel consumption"
was. We don't have to speculate. Lockheed gave the answer in the specifications:
o.52 lbs. per horsepower hour (when using 412 hp per engine) and o.48 at the lower
setting of 350 hp. A bit less efficient than the modern engines. The methodology still
works, but we use o.48 instead of o.45, and we find that the 10E burns 8 gallons
per hour for each 100 horsepower being produced.

Since we know the approximate efficiency of the Electra's engines, we can calculate
the horsepower being used at the 38gph setting. Using o.48 lbs/hp/hour, we calculate
as follows: 38 (gallons)  x 6(pounds)= 228 pounds per hour. Divide 228 by o.48 =
475 horsepower. Just as a matter of curiosity, what percentage of total horsepower
is that? Divide 475 by 1100 to find that 475 is roughly 43.2% of the rated horsepower.
Call the setting "about 44% of power". (No mystery there: "During World War II,
when the principles of long-distance flying were just being developed, the engineers'
figures seemed to indicate that 45 percent power would work the best." Louise Sacchi,
"Ocean Flying", p.39 (1979).

What about Johnson's other settings? Using a "specific fuel consumption factor" (to
give it its proper name) of o.48, the calculations (which I shall omit,with your
permission) give 750(375 per engine)horsepower at 60gph(68% power); they give 650
(325 per) horsepower at 51gph(59% power);and they give 537(268 per) at 43 gph (49%).

The progression of Johnson's settings is roughly 68-59-49-44% of rated power.

But Johnson's telegrams don't tell us the speed! Can we find out anything more about
that? I believe we can. Lockheed's specifications give us speeds at three horsepower
settings (for a variety of altitudes). None of these settings exactly matches any of
Johnson's, but they still give infomation. The factory gives speeds at 450hp(per engine),
412hp per engine, and 350hp per engine. These settings correspond to 82.2% (450),
75%(412) and 63.6%(350)of rated horsepower. The only one of these settings in
Johnson's performance range is 350, so let's concentrate on it (though the others may
have some significance later).

What does Lockheed tell us about the 350hp(63.6%) setting? Fuel consumption is
given as 56gph and this fits neatly between the 51gph Johnson setting(59%) and
the 60gph setting (68%), right where it should be. Lockheed gives the following
speeds for 63.6% power: 181(mph) at sea level; 188 at 5,000 and 196 at 10,000.
(Figures are given for 13,500, but I omit them as outside the scope of this discussion.)

Note that the (true) airspeed increases with altitude, when power remains constant.
(This is no surprise, of course, we expect it to do that.)  Notice the progression is
relatively constant (7 mph in the first 5,000 feet, and 8 mph in the second). This is
at a normal, mid-range cruise speed. The increase averages 1.5 mph per 1,000 feet of
altitude. This is approximately o.8% of the mid-point (5000 foot) air speed of 188.

We might take a leap of faith, and formulate a rule of thumb for this airplane that a
change in altitude (in the normal operating range) will produce something like an o.8%
change in speed per 1000 foot change in altitude, if everything else remains equal.

 Let's test that rule against the figures Lockheed gives for speed at maximum continuous
power(450 hp). The 5000 foot speed is 204. Using o.8% per 1000, we would expect
a 4% reduction at sea level(5 x o.8=4). Four per cent of 204 is 8.16mph, and 204 minus
8.16 gives  195.84mph. Lockheed says the SL(sea level) speed is 195. Close enough.
Calculate an estimate for 10,000 feet. The 5000 foot speed is 204; 4% of that is 8.16;
adding 8.16 to 204 gives 212mph(rounded). Lockheed's number is 215 - not quite as close.
But look, Lockheed gives this figure for 10,500 instead of 10,000. Using our o.8% rule of
thumb means we multiply the 5000 foot altitude speed (204) by 4.4% to compensate for the
5500 increase in altitude (5.5 x o.8 = 4.4), which gives 8.976mph. We don't pretend to be
that exact and we call it 9. Adding 204 and 9 gives us a 213mph estimate for 10,500;
Lockheed's number is 215 mph. (Our estimate is within one per cent; Lockheed says its
numbers are + or - 3%.) We're not precise, but the purpose of the "rule" is not
(meaningless) precision, but speed and ease of calculation(and thinking).

Let's make a small digression before we test our newly formulated rule of thumb again.
This is a self test for anyone who reads this far. Let's assume that we have an
airplane (call it a HYPO-1) which under a certain set of conditions flys 140 at 50%
of power and 150 at 60% of power. With no changes in altitude or conditions, how 
fast will that airplane fly at 55% of power? The answers (with grades) are:

1- "something between 140 and 150" - that's right - Grade: C+

2- "145" - you get a B - we can't be that precise (and see #3)

3- "it's hard to say exactly; somewhere above 145; probably around 146 or 147" - A
        (the why is discussed below)

4- any answer above 150 or below 140 gets an F; if after reflection
         you don't understand why, perhaps a trip to flight school is appropriate.

Why is number 3 the best answer? It's how airplanes work. In the normal spectrum of cruise
speeds (say from 45% to 75%) a reduction in power is accompanied by a reduction in speed
that is less (in percentage) than the reduction in power. If you reduce power from 75%
to 50%, you have made a one-third (33.33%) reduction in power(anyone who thinks
this is a 25% reduction should think again), but airspeed does not decrease by
one-third, it decreases by some smaller percentage. (I have a Bonanza chart handy,
for example: going from 75% to 50% at 6000 feet reduces TAS from 202mph to 170, a
decrease of 32, or about 15.8% - purely as an example.) Pilots know this intuitively
after a while. In the HYPO-1, when you make the reduction from 60% to 55%, you have
reduced power to the midpoint between 50% and 60% the airspeed will be decreased by a
smaller factor and so is most likely to be above the midpoint airspeed of 145. This is
why reducing power produces "greater efficiency". If true airspeed and fuel consumption
varied by the same percentage, efficiency would remain the same - you wouldn't
go any farther at 50% than at 75%, it would just take you longer to fly
the same maximum range.

The point of this digression? Numbers relating to aircraft performance do not jump
around at random. They progress along curves that can be perceived and drawn based upon
reasonable assumptions of the performance of the airplane. The more numbers we know,
the easier it is to calculate other numbers defining the performance of the plane.

Back to Lockheed's speed numbers for the 10E. Lockheed gives the speed of the plane
412hp per engine at 5000 as 197mph. Using our o.8% factor per 1000 feet of
change, we reduce this speed by 4% to calculate sea level speed. Four per cent of 197
is 8 (I know it's 7.88, but 8 is quite close enough, thank you); subtracting 8 from
197 gives 189 - exactly Lockheed's number. Lockheed doesn't give a 412hp speed at 10,000,
but quotes 205mph at 9600 feet. We increase the 5000 foot speed (197) by 3.68%
(4.6 x o.8%) to calculate the speedincrease at 9600. That gives us 7.2496mph (we call
it 7+). Adding 7+ to 197 gives us 204+  instead of Lockheed's 205.

Why should we bother to develop a "rule of thumb" to give us an imprecise calculation
of data that appear in the specifications? Quite obviously, we shouldn't. We develop
the rule not to recalculate the data we know, but in anticipation that the "rule" may
someday help us calculate data we don't know from data we do know - either directly or
through intermediate steps. (It is also fun. And - one hopes - it helps us to learn that
the limited numbers we have can be subjected to disciplined and principled manipulation
to yield more information than we might at first think.) In any case, we now have a Rule
of Thumb: " TAS in the 10E changes with increases or decreases in altitude from 5000 at a
rate of approximately o.8% per 1,000 feet (at constant horsepower)." We can put the Rule
aside until the need to use it arises.WE  KNOW SOMETHING WE DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE THIS
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE EFFECT OF ALTITUDE CHANGE,and if someone tells us (for example) that
going from 5000 feet to 10000 feet(at constant horsepower) increased airspeed from 150 to
175, we will suspect that statement, because it indicates a 16 2/3% increase, when our Rule
leads us to expect only a 4% change.

I am a firm believer that nothing beats the POH (or other detailed data) on the 10E. I
made that point in off-the-forum correspondance with you in which(you may remember) I
offered to underwrite a modest portion of the copying cost of such data if it could be
found. I said (as I recall) "10 minutes with the POH is worth 6 months of speculation."

But if we can't get the POH we must make do with what we have, and what we can develop
by analogy from other airplanes. Where can I turn?

I want to turn for a moment at least to a typical high-performance retractable single.
Why? Because the performance curves of the 10E look a lot like those of a Cessna 210.
(I flew a 210 for years; if I had flown a Lance, the curves might remind me of a Lance.
Without meaning to overstate the case, an airplane is an airplane, and those with similar
performance curves are - well - similar.) The match is not exact, by any means, but I think
it's close enough to teach us another thing or two about the 10E. I still have the POH on
the 210M, and I also have a copy of Larry Ball's book "Those Incomparable Bonanzas" (1971),
which does not contain a POH but does have (page 201) a cruise data chart (in mph! You don't
even have to convert from knots) for the Bonanza. The numbers from the cruise charts for the
210 and the Bonanza bracket some of the numbers we have for the 10E in ways that might be
informative.

Before going into that, I should address the question of whether the performance of a
"light" aircraft has anything in common with that of a 10E. It's not a question to be
answered before you examine the data, but remember that Lockheed's specifications show
the wing loading of the 10E as 22.91lbs per square foot, and the power loading as
11.67lbs/hp. The figures for the 210M are wing loading 21.7lbs and power loading
12.7lbs/hp (Jane's 1975-1976). (Bonanza figures: wing loading 18.8; power 11.96).
(Don't worry, we're going to ignore wing and power loadings from now on.)

Let's look at 75% cruise in the three airplanes(@5000 feet):

C-210: 194 mph          10E: 197 mph          V35: 200 mph
         And 64% (10E at 63.6%) at 5000:

C-210: 184 mph          10E: 188 mph          V35: 190 mph
         And 64% (10E at 63.6%) at 10000:

C-210: 191 mph          10E: 196 mph          V35: 198 mph

That's as far as we can go in the cruise comparision from documented numbers. (I
deliberately omitted 75% @10,000 because neither the C-210 nor the V35 can produce
75% of rated horsepower at 10,000. The 10E can because of suupercharging.)

Let's go back to the 10E, at the point in the fllight in which Johnson specified a
reduction to 38 gph (about 43.2% power). Johnson expected the 10E to depart for Hawaii
with 900 gallons of gas, and he instructed that the change take place after 9 hours,
with fuel burns of 3 x 60, 3 x 51 and 3 x 43, for a total of 462 plus the extra fuel
burned in the initial climb. Let's estimate that 500 gallons (3000 pounds) total would
have been burned by the time of the power reduction to 38 gph. Takeoff weight with 900
gallons would have been about 14,000 pounds or a bit under (save that discussion for
another day). That means that at the time of the reduction to 38 gph, Johnson expected
the plane to be at no more than 11,000 pounds (and perhaps as low as its normal gross
of 10,500).

What cruise speed can we expect at normal gross and 43.2% of power at 10,000 feet?

C-210: 155 (at 44%)           10E:  ?           V35: 163 (at 45%)

The charts I have for the C-210 and the V35 don't go any lower, but I suppose that
anyone who reads this far would be will to make another(small) leap of faith, and
adjust the numbers to reflect approximate cruise at "43.2%" to something like:

C-210: 154                          10E:   ?          V35: 160 or 161

Well, I suppose that's it. Since we don't have a chart on the 10E, we have to assume that
its cruise at 43.2%(and normal gross) may have been 138, or 193 or maybe 406, right?

Or perhaps if you go back and look at the bracketing of the 10E numbers by those of the
C-210 and the V35 at other power settings you are willing to assume (as I confess I do)
that the 10E's cruise numbers at 43.2% are likely to fit between those of the C-210 and
the V35. Likely, I said.

Pursuing the question a step further, what number do we get from the foregoing ? Is 157
the answer? Good as any. (Remember, as they say, this is not rocket science.)

Is a 43.2% (38 gph) cruise of 157 at normal gross weight (@10,000 feet) a surprise to
anyone? Isn't that "about" what we would have expected?

Let's think about that number for a minute or two more. Notice that we have calculated
(or should I say estimated) it for normal gross weight of 10,500 pounds, but we have
speculated (not without foundation, I hope) that Johnson called for  that power to be
employed about 11,000 gross weight (or a bit over 2 hours before fuel burn would reduce
gross weight to normal gross of 10,500).

Does that mean that Johnson specified a reduction to 38 gph at about the time when the
weight of the airplane(11,000 pounds) would permit it to hold a true airspeed of 150 (or
slightly above) at that setting? Doesn't that seem likely too? The difference between 150
(or 151 or 152) at 11,000 pounds and "157" at 10,500 pounds  represents the increase in
airspeed caused by decreasing weight due to fuel burn. (I say "150 or 151 or 152" not only
to show that I take all of this with the proper grain of salt, but also to point out that
Johnson was dealing in round numbers when he dealt with AE - and quite properly so. Think
of the unnecessary complexity of telling someone to fly at setting "X" for 2 hours and 47
minutes, and setting "Y" for 3 hours and 2 minutes and setting "Z" for 3 hours and 14
minutes (or whatever) - "obviously" you should say "3 hours each at X, Y and Z".)

(Not to overburden this with parenthetical remarks, but I put quotes around the word
obviously in the last paragraph because the people who wrote the long-range cruise charts
for the C-47 didn't understand this - and neither did the man who calculated the heading
changes for AE! But those are other stories.)

Back to our calculated 157 mph cruise at normal gross weight (10500 pounds) and 10000 feet,
at 43.2% power and 38 gph. What speeds would that same horsepower have given at 5000 feet
or at 1000 feet ? Remember the Rule of Thumb we formulated for the 10E: "TAS increases or
decreases with increases or decreases in altitude from 5000 feet at a rate of approximately
o.8% per 1,000 feet (at constant horsepower)."  How do we calculate the reduction in airspeed
when the 10E drops to 5000, but maintains the same horsepower? Since I am lazy, I would
normally multiply o.8% by 5 (= 4),  take 4% of 157 (= 6.28), round the result (to 6) and
subtract 6 from 157 to get 151. And in truth, that probably gets us close enough for the
kind of work we're doing now. But if I did it that way I would be making an important
error in procedure,hich does no harm in this example, but can cause problems. (A similar
error in procedure is, I think, at the heart of Mr. Elgen Long's mathematical problems -
of which, perhaps, we will say more on another occasion.)

What was my error in mathematical procedure ? I assumed that because something increases
4% in going from 5000 to 10000, it decreases 4% in going from 10000 to 5000. It doesn't.
It's easier to demonstrate this than to talk about it. If the speed at 5000 is 100, the
same horse-power will produce 104 (4% more) at 10000. But if you reduce the 104 figure by
4% to recalculate speed at 5000 you get 99.84 ! (4% of 104 = 4.16; and 104 - 4.16 = 99.84).
Strictly speaking the reduction from 10000 to 5000 under our rule of thumb is not 4%, but
about 3.846 % (4 divided by 104 = o.03846), which works out (do it for practice) to 6.05822
mph. So 6 mph is the approximate reduction, giving a speed of 151 at  5000 feet.

If 151 is the speed at 5000 and 38 gph, what is the speed at 1000 feet? Reduce 151 by 3.2%
(4 x o.8% = 4.832) (round to 5) (151 - 5 = 146). It's 146.

We can say with some confidence that at 43.2% we expect about 157 @ 10,000 feet, 151 @5,000
feet, and 146 @ 1,000 feet, at normal gross weight of 10,500 pounds. (We should add "+ or -
3%" ) One final point, remember that these speeds are for constant horsepower NOT FOR THE
SAME POWER SETTING. A setting of "1800 rpm and 22 inches" for example will produce different
percentages of rated power at different altitudes.

(Should we peek at the C-210 handbook to see what it tells us about 5,000 feet ? We need to
interpolate, because the charts are for 4,000 and 6,000 feet. The 4,000 foot number is 128
knots at 43%; the 6,000 foot chart shows 132 knots at 44%. Interpolate for 43.2% at 5,000
and you get approximately 130 knots, which converts to 150 mph. Fancy that!)

What about the speeds at the 43 gph, 51 gph and 60 gph Johnson settings. By going to the
C-210 and V35 charts, we can bracket the speed of the 10E at those fuel consumptions (equal
roughly to 49, 59 and 68% of power) and obtain the approximate 10E cruise at normal gross at
those consumptions. Once we have that figure, if we assume that Johnson used each of the
settings because that setting produced an approximate inital speed of 150 in the overgross
condition, we can subtract 150 from the anticipated normal cruise at each setting, which
gives us the reduction in speed caused by the overload. If you do all the numbers, you can
develop a curve showing the effect of excess weight on speed. Some day (maybe) when I'm
feeling energetic, I plan to do that, but I promise not to tell you about it.

I've been reading the forum for a couple of months. I had promised myself faithfully not
to get involved in anything like this, not because I don't enjoy it, but because I simply
can't afford the kind of time it takes. In retrospect, that was an excellent resolution,
and one I will try to abide by in the future. (To think, all I did was suggest that 20 gph
was per engine ! It was, you know, and I think I can show that to you, but I have to tend
to business.)

I can't close without another brief reference to 20 gph. I see that one member observes that
"AE may have had a dual needle fuel flow indicator, though that seems unlikely"!  When's the
last time you saw a piston twin without separate indication of fuel flow for each engine (and
most often by means of two needles superimposed on a single 3 inch face) ? None of the
pictures of AE's panel is clear enough to judge. They might, I suppose have had a single
(combined flow) indicator (something could have been rigged up because, I understand, both
engines fed from the same tank under the arrangement they had) but hardly at the expense of
individual flow indication - which is, after all, engine information that is useful (fuel
pressure).

The 20 gph discussion taught me one thing - we all have to watch our prejudices. You saw
the episode as being another example of AE covering her mistakes - because you think she
often did that. I saw it as another example of her casual attitude toward the technical
details. I know that if I were on a final shakedown flight with Paul Mantz trying to teach
me how to operate that airplane, I would be looking at the panel, and not at the sunrise.
I don't doubt for a moment that AE knew the indication was for both engines, and since she
was making notes for herself, there was no reason for her to enter that fact - she would
remember. What concerns me is the casual "under 20" rather than "about 19 3/4" or whatever.
Perhaps that's unfair - maybe she was just taking a break !

Final word: formatting. My postings look horrible, and I don't know why! They don't look
that way on my screen. Obviously my editing technique is improper or something. Sorry
about that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:14:13 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Off-topic slams at parachutists

>From Ric
>We had a saying in the 1st Cavalry (Airmobile).  The first part of it went,
>"Only two things fall out of the sky...."

As both a pilot and a graduate of Ft. Benning, I have only this to say.  I
sat in the officer's club the night before my first jump and watched the
pilots downing alcohol at a prodigious rate.  I didn't feel that it was a
good idea to trust to their landings the next day and took the "safe" way
down.

LTM - who prefers flying to sky-diving,
Blue skies,
Dave Bush
#2200
***************************************************************************
From Ric

No argument there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:20:44 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Re: Katz to Devitt

David Evans Katz wrote: "Thank you, Mr. Devitt, for your kind words.  I am
sorry that Mr. Gillespie feels that my opinions and observations are without
value."

In my opinion Mr. Gillespie and TIGHAR respects and honors all opinions and
observations.  Declining respect and refusal to honor usually has its roots
in the method, attitude and conceit in which the opinions are rendered.  All
respect is lost when the whining starts in place of an objective response.

LTM,
Roger Kelley, #2112
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Helpful hint to new subscribers:
If you throw a few handfuls of sand on the floor around your computer you'll
be less likely to slip on the blood.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:37:27 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Age of bones

I'm sure someone will think this is crazy, but Niku IIII could leave some
"artifacts" for Niku V, VI, VII etc. to check.

Something along the lines of various wooden items (like a sextant box)
painted and unpainted with "markings" to check for long term legibility and
deterioration legibility.  A Benedictine bottle on its side (to test
evaporation) and a couple of leather shoes (would they have to be real
leather Blucher Oxfords with Catspaw heels?).

Have some articles left under a "Ren" tree, others in different
environments, sun shade etc., and roped off with TIGHAR "crime scene" tape.

Of course if TIGHAR accidentally left one of the crew on the island with no
food, a pair of blucher oxfords, a sextant box etc. and a diary.......

Part of this post is serious, and some is not.  I am happy to explain what
is supposed to be humour (as usual).

RossD

p.s.

Actually, some bones would be sensible to leave - but not necessarily
Human - just some of similar composition and size laid out in a particular
pattern and with meat on them.  You'd have to carry them all the way frozen
of course.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

During Niku III we set out a leg of lamb (minus the meat) to see what the
crabs would make of it, but the weather went sour and washed away our
experiment.  We've left wooden objects on the island (archaeological screens)
not so much as experiments but thinking they would hold up okay and be usable
when we came back in two years. Wrong.

In 1991 I inadvertently left a pair of leather work gloves on the ground at
the Aukeraime site.  When I found them in 1997 the palms and undersides of
the fingers, which had been facing downward, were completely gone.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:39:30 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Octane, Performance, Fuel Economy and other things..

With regard to being able to see the smoke  (and the Island).  The weather
in the National Geographic pic of Finch over Howland is pretty average for
weather over the water here in winter.

I'm waiting for end of June / early July to take some photos of visibility
on various winter days (our best weather inthe tropics).  The pictures will
be taken of some Islands about the size of Gardner, grouped a similar
distance apart to the ones EA and FN would be hoping to see on either side
if they flew from Howland to Gardner area.  AND of an Island around the size
of Howland.  Unfortunately, none of ours are as hard to see as Howland (too
high) but my efforts so far show that even in summer (our rainy season) it
could be hard to find).  In certain light conditions only a few miles makes
all the difference.  We have a couple of islands out of site of land off
here (That will be fun - old Warrior and no airstrip).

I suppose if I was to get all realistic, we also have a couple of coral cays
which would approximate Howland and Baker.  I'd have to hire the Beaver
early in the morning for that and I'd be flying into the early morning
sun...., (no way I'm going out to the Barrier reef in a single land
plane....)

Hmmm  on second thoughts....  why not make it interesting.....

The reason for not using the islands way offshore is that I want accurate
chart distances to say the island was invisible at x miles and visible at y
miles.  The ones out of sight of land will rely on photos only.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:12:28 EDT
From:         Greg
Subject:      Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

An outstanding contribution from Oscar Boswell. Thank you.

When I happened into the forum some months ago I assumed that these
concepts were well embraced by those in the group. My mistake. The
search for evidence needs to include the common knowledge of the art
and science. I have always believed that it would be worthwhile here to
put together a spreadsheet of the flight using the known performance
of the 10E. The spreadsheet would be broken into half hour or hour
segments and the pieces in effect joined by the numbers which they
produce. This is a piecemeal method of doing integration (calculus)
which everybody can see and discuss without any serious mathematics.
The finer the time period the better the integration but the limits
of knowledge here suggest not to push it below 15 minute segments
and that only at the beginning of the flight.

Is this of interest to anyone else?

Greg

*************************************************************************
From Mark Prange

Perhaps the main points of the Boswell posting should be given headings or
Roman numerals, so that when part of it is referred to it will be easy to
scroll right to the section under discussion.

Mark Prange
**************************************************************************
From Oscar Boswell

Ric,

Despite recent evidence to the contrary, I really do know that the
adiabatic lapse rate does not refer to the 2 degree C decrease in
temperature per 1000 feet. Call it a mental lapse. Oscar

*************************************************************************

From Ric

Let me be the first to admit that Oscar's Explanation gives me flashbacks to
Mr. Squires' algebra class.  I can see him now, short, looking like the
wrestling coach he really was, standing over me with that exasperated look on
his face, his neck bulging above his too-tight collar and one inch wide 1962
necktie.

"Mr. Gillespie, there is NOTHING difficult about this......" and about 10
seconds into his clarification my eyes would glaze over and there would be
this slight ringing in my ears and the next thing I knew the bell would ring
and the ordeal would be over until the next day.

All this is by way of saying that I completely understand if postings like
Oscar's make some, perhaps most, forum subscribers feel stupid.  Finding
myself insufficiently educated to make an intelligent assessment of his
treatise I have to fall back on other forum subscribers who are better
equipped.  Fortunately we have several.  I'm confident that if a consensus
can be reached among our august Aeronautics Academy (AA) the rest of us dolts
can feel pretty confident that Oscar is as right as he says he is.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:28:12 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Katz to Devitt

> To: Ross Devitt
>
> Thank you, Mr. Devitt, for your kind words.  I am sorry that Mr. Gillespie
> feels that my opinions and observations are without value.
>
> David Evans Katz

I don't believe he thinks that at all.  I do think that the way you put them
sometimes "gets his back up".  I have to check myself often for saying
something and then realising that I said it without thinking.  (Like the 90
miles per hour canoes on the lagoon post).

The walking times I have checked and rechecked even to the extent of using
loose coral rubble etc.  I can prove Ric must have little short legs to take
the time he did to walk from one end of Niku to the other.  On the other
hand the canoe thing will have to wait, because this forum is not the place
to discuss the theory of hull speed, and we have proven here that canoes
under the right circumstances can be faster than walking.  So once I get my
hands on one - out I'll go..  with a stopwatch again...

In the mean time,  sometimes people (myself included) may think your posts
are a bit too "assertive".  I believe you post and expect people to strip
those posts apart and compare arguments, and that is why I read them.  It's
NOT "The Gospel According To Ric"  nor according to Katz, Devitt or anyone
else.

As I said before, Ric has been pretty good about posting your stuff, and
mine, and others that are controversial.  He'll comment pretty caustically
sometimes - that's Ric.  Most of the time he's got a reason.  A number of
times when he's chastised me, I've provided supporting "evidence??" and he's
looked at it and apologised.  He also tries pretty hard to stop open warfare
developing.  Occasionally I find a post of mine left off the forum for
various reasons.  That's the moderator's role.

I guess you've got to be there, reading this stuff from all over, sometimes
something that's been "done to death" in early forums, and you haven't seen
it, sometiimes someone's "personal hobby horse"  (I'm guilty of that).

A lot of us take this too seriously, and others find it an interesting
diversion.  All of us learn something here (sometimes about tolerance and
debate).  Some of us look at everything through one narrow view.  I look at
every post from the point of view of a "pilot" who lives in "the tropics"
and forget that the relevant  tropics are around 600 miles or so North of
me, therefore a bit different.  Someone else looks at everything from the
strict viewpoint of an "engineer".

I'm an agnostic in the Earhart Forum.  I'd like to think she landed on Niku,
and if PROOF turns up, I'll be happy.  I have worked the figures back and
forth even with a headwind all the way and can't make her run out of fuel
any time before arrival at Howland, and consistently "hours" after.  The
Longs worked the same figures and got a different answer.  I worked them as
a pilot and navigator of a light twin aircraft (not a passenger jet) would
for that flight.  Long also worked them as a pilot, with much more
experience than I.  He seems to have been trying to find a way the could run
out of fuel to prove his theory.  I used the same figures to prove I would
have made it.

But I don't believe my answers are right, just possible.  Longs could also
be possible.  Unfortunately, the Fuel, Distance, Range, Endurance issue may
be central to whether AE had a chance to become a skeleton.  And the sextant
box found with the bones makes the idea of the identity interesting.

So there is my logic for reading your posts, Ric's answers, and the posts of
everyone else on the forum.  None of us have "PROOF" of our ideas.

Expect to be jumped on occasionally, keep an open mind about the whole
thing, don't get too upset if others don't share your enthusiasm for the
"down in the drink" argument, and enjoy the "read", expect some posts not to
make it, and expect some people to press "delete".

And thanks Ric, for your patience...

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:49:15 EDT
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Dem bones

From Ric:

>>It doesn't take any medical training to somewhat accurately guess the age
>>of bones.
>
>Well, you learn something every day.
>
>Somebody else tell him.  I don't have the strength.

Well, I think you're focusing on one comment at the expense of Don's message
as a whole.  A cattle rancher could, indeed, make an educated guess as to
the age of livestock remains found in his pasture, based upon experience
alone.  But he would be taking into account local weather conditions and the
habits of local scavengers, along with such other information as, "Let's
see, when's the last time I saw ol' Bossy at the stock tank?"  The problem
here is that we're dealing with an entirely different ecosystem and an
entirely different population of scavengers.  Nevertheless, there's still a
fairly straightforward (if unpleasant) way to test the deterioration rates
of mammalian carcasses in the Niku environment, and I hope that such an
experiment is planned for the next expedition.  The age of the bones is
important.

Regards,

Pat Gaston

**************************************************************************
From Ric

We don't have the bones so we can't assess their age even if we had the
results of a controlled experiment on Niku.  The real question is how
competent Gallagher, Isaac and Hoodless were to assess the age of the bones.
Gallagher had arrived in the Pacific in 1937.  While he had some medical
school there is no reason to think that his training as a Cadet Officer in
the Colonial Service had included assessing the age of human remains.  Isaac
had only been in the Pacific since 1938 and in Tarawa since September of 1940
(the same month Gallagher found the bones).  It seems safe to assume that his
duties as medical officer for the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony dealt
primarily with the living or, in some cases, the recently deceased.  Hoodless
had been in the Pacific longer but his duties were chielfy adminstrative and
his medical credentials minimal.

One thing that Kenton Spading and I noticed while plowing through the stacks
of WPHC files in London was how unique the whole bone discovery issue was.
This was the only case of human remains turning up, or anything remotely
similar.  There is absolutely no indication that Gallagher, Isaac or Hoodless
had EVER before come in contact with, let alone had to assess the age of,
human remains discovered in a tropical environment.  These guys were guessing
with virtually no experience or training upon which to base their guess.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:58:10 EDT
From:         Richard Johnson
Subject:      Concerning AE:

The recent discussions on the forum have been quite entertaining. I
think Mr. Katz would do well to ponder the words of Mark Twain.  " It
ain't what we know that hurts us, it's that we know so much that ain't
true.

Richard Johnson
LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:34:53 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Skeletal remains/ Gallagher's description of

Ric and Tom King,

Since we moved back to a discussion of the difficulties of determining age of
the bones (not age of the victim at this point) several other questions seem
appropriate.

British cadet officer Gerald B. Gallagher first reports to his boss the
discovery of a skull "which is quite possibly that of Amelia Earhart". A
second report relates his discovery of additional bones,shoe parts, and a
sextant box apparently in the proximity of the original skull, but is not
very clear on the location. Then on Oct 17,1937 he reports the bone
description in response to a request for further details. He describes:

      " a skull,lower jaw,one thoracic vertabra,half pelvis,part
scapula,humerus,radius,two femurs,tibia and fibula"

Now I like most lay persons don't know the difference between a fibula and a
tibula. Thus how in the world did Gallagher have the medical knowledge to
identify the batch of "wretched relics" with correct nomenclature. (Don't
tell me he had Gray's anatomy book!). Why I ask is could there have been
another doctor at Niku during this time frame or are you satisified that
Gallagher had sufficent medical training,etc to properly id those bones.  If
there was someone else there  on Niku with that kind of medical training,
there may be some hope of another source.

So Gallagher finds this skull,suspects it is Amelia's right off, and then
doesn't make any comment on the condition of the teeth/dental remains! Even
after a detailed description of the bones, he makes no further description of
the skull. Odd.


Even worse is Dr. Hoodless' examination. He makes detailed measurements of
the bones,skull,etc and makes his conclusion of race,sex and height. But here
is a doctor faced with an extraordinary discovery that may be Amelia, and he
doesn't make a single reference to the dental condition (fillings,missing
teeth,etc) which is the most critical  source of  identification and age of a
 victim. Although Tighar points out other areas he failed to describe, the
egregious omission of dental condition is inexplainable. An amalgam filling
in the upper left bicuspid that matched Amelia's,now that is "evidence".(If
she had one) Dr. Hoodless had a once in a lifetime to solve one of aviation's
greatest mysteries.

Have Amelia's dental records ever been found and available for comparison?
Also have any medical records of Amelia ever surfaced that might indicate a
fracture,say in one of the bones examined by Dr.,Hoodless, that should have
been obvious? I understand she was in a number of airplane crashes so it is
conceivable she may have had some injury or perhaps in childhood. Just a
thought.

According to Tighar's report, Dr Isaac released the "wretched relics" on Feb
14,1941 and the Western Pacific High Commission received them on April
28th,1941. Of note is that Dr. Hoodless examined the bones about three weeks
earlier on 4 April 1941.Maybe just careless government accounting or Maybe
Dr. Isaac mailed the bones direct to Drd. Hoodless. Probably doesn't mean
anything but...

The lack of Dr. Hoodless's comments on these vital areas may well be  related
to his training or lack thereof.

LTM,
Ron Bright #2342
**************************************************************************
From Ric

My apologies.  You and the rest of the forum need better access to more
primary source information.  Very soon (this afternoon I hope) we'll put up
on the website as a new Document of the Week a complete reproduction of all
of the WPHC correspondence and notes to the file relating to the bones found
on Gardner.  We'll also include a brief rundown on all the people mentioned
in the official paperwork and a chronology of events.  This should clear up a
lot of the confusion.  But for now:

-  The skull was found and buried several months before Gallagher arrived on
Gardner in early September 1940.  He didn't dig it up until much later
(possibly November or even December) but he did search the area where it had
been found. By the time he sends his first telegram on Sept. 23, he has
already found the other bones, lower jaw (which has only five teeth), and
most of the artifacts.

- Gallagher was the son of a prominent physician and had attended St.
Bartholomew Medical College in London from January to June 1935 before
dropping out.  It's hardly surprising that he could call things by their
right names.  It is also not at all unlikely that he even had a copy of
Gray's Anatomy with him on Gardner.

-You'll see that teeth and dental records were discussed.  By the time the
skull and lower jaw got to Fiji there were only four teeth (but we don't know
which four), apparently all in the lower jaw but none showing signs of dental
work.

- A date error in the TIGHAR report has caused confusion about the bones'
odyssey.

On December 27, 1940 Gallagher writes a transmital letter to accompnay the
bones and artifacts to Fiji.

On January 28, 1941 the bones leave Gardner aboard Nimanoa on January 28,
1941.

Om February 3, 1941 Nimanoa arrives Tarawa and Isaac kidnaps the bones.

On March 11, 1941 Nimanoa leaves Tarawa enroute to Fiji with bones.

On March 22, 1941 Nimanoa arrives Fiji.

On March 25, 1941 Gallagher's transmital letter is logged in and the
Secretary (Vaskess) gives the file to MacDonald for action.

On March 31, 1941 Hoodless receives the bones from MacDonald.

On April 4, 1941 Hoodless examines the bones and writes his report.

As for Earhart's dental records, we've never been able to find any.  There
was a dentist in Miami who, as I recall, claimed to have done some work for
her before she left on the world flight but he wanted a whole bunch of money
for the information he had.  We don't do that.  I know of no instance where
Earhart suffered a broken bone.  Her crashes, although fairly numerous, were
also quite mild.  The only time I recall her being hurt at all was a cut on
the head when she flipped her Vega while landing in Norfolk, Virginia in 1930.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:49:44 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

I found Oscar Boswell's posting interesting and very readable.  My
conclusions out of it are:

1. AE probably used the Indicated Air Speed-o-meter (the only speed indicator
available to her) at 150 mph, which at altitude meant she was really had a
true air speed of 155 mph or so.  If that is true, then my calculations of
average winds during the entire flight must be reduced from 16 knots down to
about 13 knots, further suggesting that the Longs' 26 mph wind speed is even
a worse assumption that previously thought.

2. The 20 gph figure that AE cited at the end of the Oakland Honolulu leg
means per engine.  This makes sense considering one of her engines had a prop
pitch problem, making that engine less fuel efficient.  What AE might have
meant here was that she was finally able to reach Johnson's recommended fuel
consuption figures.  BTW, the 20 gph figure was written on the back of the
map used by AE, now at the Purdue University Special Collections Library.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't suppose you recall exactly how that notation was written.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:27:37 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

O.K., I do not pretend to know anything about flight dynamics or fuel
consumption, but is there any disagreement about the conclusion that utilizing
the Johnson figures the Electra could stay aloft for at least 24 hours, perhaps
more?  Also, is there any disagreement that, so long as Earhart stuck to the
Johnson fuel management plan and her planned route, got within 100 miles of
Howland (north or south) then flew south along the LOP she could have made
Gardner? What I am suggesting here is that I have yet to see any work on the
Forum as to other variables, such as wind speed, on the duration of the flight,
and that such work badly needs to be done.

Let me ask these basic questions to the technical people, and I will make
myself the fall guy for lots of other forum participants who might be wondering
the same things but are afraid to ask:

1.  As I appreciate it, the goal of the Johnson fuel management program was to
give Earhart power settings that would result in  maintaining maximum time
aloft.  True or False?

2.  "Maximum time aloft" is purely a time calculation.  True or False?

3.  At the same power setting,  I presume the Electra would fly less of a
distance if it were flying into a headwind rather than into still air?
Conversely, I would presume it would fly farther at the same power setting if
there's a tail wind rather than just still air? True or False?

4.  If the answers to the above questions are all TRUE, then where am I wrong
when I conclude that the fuel managment program tells us nothing about how far,
as opposed to how long,  the Electra actually could fly under real world
conditions?

5.  Of course, Earhart didn't presumably set out for a known destination along a
known route before calculating that she had enough fuel to get there. So, what
was she relying on to give her comfort that she could get there?  Is this the
Johnson fuel managment program?  If so, then there must be an assumption built in
there concerning winds for it to be of any value in computing range of the
Electra.  True or False?

6.  If the answer to #5 is TRUE, what is that assumption?  How does it change
if
you compute variables such as head winds/course deviations (I suggest we start
with Elgen Long's variables----I have yet to see an ACTUAL calculation which
shows that his variables don't support his theory, as opposed to stated
conclusions that they don't). Perhaps this has already been done and I have just
missed it (the Monte Carlo analysis), but while Oscar's work might tell you how
the fuel consumption of the Electra varies, isn't this sort of meaningless to the
ultimate conclusion unless you  also have some ideas of the effect of winds upon
the Electra's range at these various power settings?

--Chris Kennedy
**************************************************************************
From Ric

>What I am suggesting here is that I have yet to see any work on the
>Forum as to other variables, such as wind speed, on the duration of the flight,
>and that such work badly needs to be done.>>

There has been oodles of estimation, speculation and debate about what winds
may or may not have been present.

>1.  As I appreciate it, the goal of the Johnson fuel management program was to
>give Earhart power settings that would result in  maintaining maximum time
>aloft.  True or False?

False.  If all you want to do is stay up in the air you can loaf along at
very low speed and power and burn very little fuel, but you won't get
anywhere.  Johnson's goal was to give Earhart an easy-to-follow, step-by-step
procedure for setting her power which would result in a good (but not the
absolute best, which would be lots more complicated) ratio of air miles
covered per unit of fuel consumed.  That's very different from maximum time
aloft.

>2.  "Maximum time aloft" is purely a time calculation.  True or False?

True, but irrelevant (see above).

>3.  At the same power setting,  I presume the Electra would fly less of a
>distance if it were flying into a headwind rather than into still air?
>Conversely, I would presume it would fly farther at the same power setting if
>there's a tail wind rather than just still air? True or False?

True.

>4.  If the answers to the above questions are all TRUE, then where am I wrong
>when I conclude that the fuel managment program tells us nothing about how far,
>as opposed to how long,  the Electra actually could fly under real world
>conditions?

See above.

>5.  Of course, Earhart didn't presumably set out for a known destination along a
>known route before calculating that she had enough fuel to get there. So, what
>was she relying on to give her comfort that she could get there?  Is this the
>Johnson fuel managment program?  If so, then there must be an assumption built in
>there concerning winds for it to be of any value in computing range of the
>Electra.  True or False?>>

True.

>6.  If the answer to #5 is TRUE, what is that assumption?  How does it change if
>you compute variables such as head winds/course deviations (I suggest we start
>with Elgen Long's variables----I have yet to see an ACTUAL calculation which
>shows that his variables don't support his theory, as opposed to stated
>conclusions that they don't). Perhaps this has already been done and I have just
>missed it (the Monte Carlo analysis), but while Oscar's work might tell you how
>the fuel consumption of the Electra varies, isn't this sort of meaningless to the
>ultimate conclusion unless you  also have some ideas of the effect of winds upon
>the Electra's range at these various power settings?

The assumption is that you don't try to make the flight if the headwind is
too strong. (duh)  Long invents a very strong headwind and makes the
assumption that Earhart quite literally committed suicide by continuing the
flight anyway.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:48:20 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

> I'm confident that if a consensus
> can be reached among our august Aeronautics Academy (AA) the rest of us dolts
> can feel pretty confident that Oscar is as right as he says he is.

Right about what? <G>

Alan, trying to decide whether to try to understand it or just say, "sounds
good to me."
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:50:34 EDT
From:         Jim
Subject:      light-bulb base

> From Ric
>
> We'd have to look at existing Electras (but fortunately there are plenty.
> Let me get some photos of the artifact up on the website before we get too
> excited.

I have just joined the group and this is the first post I got so I don't
know the past threads.  I am fairly familiar with lamps and other
electrical/electronic components from the 30s through modern times.

I will wait to see the photos, but let me mention - there are a lot of lamps
and bases that appear identical except for size, so try to but some sort of
scale in the photo if you can.  Thanks.

Jim

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Will do.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:52:21 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      can we get a few more Daves on the forum

It was Dave Porter, not Dave Katz, that was mistaken for Dave Bush.

LTM, who gave us our names

Dave Porter, 2288

***************************************************************************
From Ric

...and then there was SactoDave.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:53:56 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Age of bones

Great, so you see what I am getting at.  The shoe question for a start, and
the sextant box.  next time, the leg of lamb ( and a few ribs and spine)
with the meat ON.  And a painted box plus an unpainted one - you get the
drift.  Obviously it has crossed your mind after what you've seen happen to
your stuff.  But it needs to be done scientifically, with the right sort of
objects and sizes..

I'd love to see the mutton bone (it would have had to be uncooked) after
this time.  Of course if it was cooked it tells us nothing.

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Uncooked.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:15:50 EDT
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Light-bulb base

Don't get carried away.  There are lots of instances of large size, high
wattage lamps with bayonet bases.  Many floodlights use them.  So to the
bulbs used in some types of obstruction lighting (buoys, radio towers etc.)
Vern is right... any application in a vibration-prone environment might use
such a bulb.  A screw-base will work loose and the bulb goes out; then
someone has to take a boat to the buoy and change it (that must be fun...!)
or climb the tower and hang on with one hand (and a safety belt) while
changing it.  (NOT fun AT ALL.)

73

Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:19:39 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Age of bones

Actually, I'd been wondering about those screens we left in '97; what shape
WERE they in when you saw them again in '99?

TK
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Bad, but I didn't personally lay eyes on them.  As I recall it was John
Clauss and a couple of others who went back to the "castle" to check on that
stuff.  John?  Can you elaborate?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:37:07 EDT
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: evidence, clues, semantics, etc.

All this discussion of semantics, definition and usage.  Sometimes I think
we get too serious about ourselves - after all, this is the society that has
adopted in common usage the term "goes" for "said" (as in:  Then he goes, "I
fell down the well").  The fact is, we all know what we really mean, whether
it's a "clue" or a piece of "evidence" or merely "indicative" or ... enough
already...

The post about man/press and potential damage to the engines was very
interesting, and enlightening.  I agree, the temptation would be great to
just pour on the coal, but I'm inclined to agree that the overriding factor
would be to set for optimum performance (does excess manifold pressure
retard the power curve as well as degrade the engines?)  Holding them to the
factory settings, with the load she was carrying, could certainly contribute
to the long takeoff run.

ltm,
jon  2266
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm thinkin' like, whoa!, so the lady is sittin' there at the end of the
runway and you KNOW that by now she has the feel of this bird and she's not
ABOUT to try a takeoff that she thinks can only be made if she abuses the
engines.  Lightening the airplane by discarding everything not absolutely
needed has been a big part of her preparations. She has already delayed her
departure rather than take unecessary chances.   Gotta believe that if she
felt that she had to wait for more wind to effectively lengthen the runway,
she would have waited. Contrary to folklore, she did NOT take every inch of
the runway to get that pig off the ground.  It was a tight takeoff but not an
oh-shi_ takeoff. (There's a difference.  Ask me how I know.)  So I'm, like,
no way she's gonna overboost those puppies.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:23:34 EDT
From:         Sandy Cates
Subject:      Teeth

Could the absense of work also be a clue ?? If the four teeth had no
work done and Amelia had or had not any work done on those same four teeth
wouldn't that help give a little more light as to the skulls owner... Thanks
 Sandy Cates

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Is a tooth that has not been worked on more likely to stay anchored in the
skull than one that has been filled or drilled?  I dunno.   I count 16 teeth
in my upper jaw and 16 in my lower jaw (I've had my wisdom teeth out).  I've
personally put a half dozen dentist's kids through college and you could
still knock out all of my teeth but four and quite easily be left with four
that don't have fillings or crowns. (I'd prefer that we not test this
hypothesis.)  With only four teeth remaining in the skull I don't think we
can make any meaningful judgement one way or the other.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:29:09 EDT
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Skeletal remains/ Gallagher's description of

Ron Bright brings up a very good point.  Wish I'd thought of it myself.

He was referring to the age of the bones as determined by the dental work. I
have another question for Dr. king.  The skull found on Gardner had only a few
teeth still intact, so in your estimation, how long would it take for the teeth to
become loose and fall out of a skull that was laying around and exposed to the
elements?

Also, in reference to the suicide victim on Fiji,  did you say the individual
had been deceased for some  six months?  How did you determine the date of death
and what was the condition of the teeth?  Where there any missing?

Don J.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Not to interject, but I recently asked Kar Burns the same question about how
long it would take for teeth to fall out.  She said that the short rooted
teeth in the front of the mouth tend to fall out quite quickly, especially if
the skull is disturbed.  The deep rooted molars tend to stick around longer.
It is, of course, impossible to put specific time limits on any of this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:34:49 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

I think we would all do well to try and understand and agree with what Oscar is
talking about before we defer to it,  as at some point we will have to explain it
to others---"Oscar says so" doesn't cut it.

--Chris Kennedy

**************************************************************************
From Ric

That is exactly Oscar's point.  He says that it's a simple matter of
arithmetic and he then goes through the arithmetic.  If his arithmetic is
right no one has to defer to anyone.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:25:38 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Thanks, Ric.  Before I got this I read Randy's posting in which he uses Oscar's
information to reduce windspeed from 16 knots to 13 knots.  I am wondering if he
could tell us how he computed 16 knots to begin with, and how he used Oscar's
figures to reduce the windspeed to 13 knots?  Sorry to be so dense, but re-reading
Oscar's information again I don't see how it tells you anything about windspeed to
begin with, nor do I see how Randy could have used it to re-compute windspeed
actually faced by Earhart on the flight.  The most I have been able to figure is
that if Earhart used the Johnson figures on the flight, she and Noonan may have
been able to compute where they should have been along the flight route at various
times.  This information, when compared with actual position,  would seem to have
given Earhart a good indication of how her fuel consumption was going,  the
relative (if not absolute) strength of winds aloft, and available reserves when
she was in the vicinity of Howland.....presumably this would be checked at various
times,  and, if necessary, Earhart could adjust the flight parameters accordingly,
turn back if winds grew too strong (at least up to a point)  or gamble that
conditions would improve.  In theory, if she stayed on course and you assume calm
winds, she could have reached Gardner after turning south along the LOP.  That
seems to be the only statement which can be reliably supported as it is based on
the Johnson fuel management plan which is in turn based upon the actual test
performance of the Electra.  I don't see how Randy computed 16 knots to begin
with, nor how he recomputed a 13 knot windspeed faced by the Electra on the flight
based on Oscar's numbers, nor do I see how Oscar's numbers can be used to compute
how differing windspeeds effect the range of the Electra at given power settings.
At some point all this needs to be explained, and not just stated as fact.  I
guess that's the crux of my problem, and I'll drop the inquiry after this
posting.

--Chris
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It's really not complicated.  (I know, I know, I sound like Oscar.)

I think Randy has his adjustment to his headwind calculation backward.

- We know that it took Earhart about 19 hours to get from Lae to wherever she
was when she said, "We must be on you..".

- We know it is about 2,550 statute miles from Lae to Howland and we assume
that when Earhart says "We must be on you.." she really is on the LOP
somewhere fairly close to Howland.

- It therefore seems that she must have made an average speed of about 134
mph.

- If we assume that the airplane's speed through the air is 150 mph then it
must be true that a headwind averaging 16 mph was encountered (thus slowing
her actual progress down to 134 mph).

- If, however, the airplane's speed through the air was more like 155 mph,
then the apparent average headwind was more like 21 mph.  This is actually
closer to Long's postulated 26.5 mph headwind.

The big question is not so much how much headwind was there, but what Earhart
did about it.  Long claims that her "speed 140 knots" message early in the
flight means that she boosted her power (and her fuel consumption) so that
she was making an airspeed of 161 mph (140 kts).  Subtract his 26.5 mph
headwind  and you get 134.5 mph average speed between Lae and "We must be on
you..." but you use up the gas he needs to have her use so that she can run
out at 20:13.

We claim that the "speed 140 knots" is more likely a ground speed provided by
Noonan and that there is no reason to think that she departed from Johnson's
power management recommendations.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:36:15 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Age of bones

The problem with carrying out experiments in skeletal decomposition, wood
decomposition, etc. etc. on Niku is that we're never there long enough to do
a really fair test, and if we leave things from one expedition to the next
there's no telling how long it'll be before we get results, and no way to
control what happens in the meantime.  What would be ideal would be an
environment LIKE Niku's where we could put stuff down under controlled
circumstances and then monitor what's happening periodically.  Anybody got a
tropical island?

LTM (who'd love to be on a tropical island, with or without a leg of lamb)
Tom King

**************************************************************************
From Ric

That's your cue Ross.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:39:37 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Teeth

Having dental work done on a tooth would not, in my experience, change the
likelihood of it falling post-mortem.  As Dr. Burns says, the shape of the
root is a more important factor.  Some, especially molars, stay put quite
well until the maxilla or mandible bones begin to deteriorate (don't ask
about having my wisdom teeth out!).

As for the question about the likelihood of the 4 teeth having had no dental
work if AE had four teeth without dental work - possibly but we would need
the teeth and AE's dental records.  My experience in looking at
archaeologically recovered skulls from before and after European contact is
that people's teeth go to heck as soon as they begin trading for sugar and
white flour.  I wonder if Tom King has observed the same thing in Pacific
populations.  In recent times if you look at people's teeth (who have access
to regular dental care), its hard to find 4 molars that don't have fillings
or crowns.

LTM (who brushes regularly after every meal)
Tim Smith
1142C & an archaeologist who has seen his share of skulls

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I can't speak for the islanders of 60 years ago but I can tell you that the
Gilbertese of today have terrible problems with their teeth.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:41:56 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

What are the assumptions about windspeed made in the arithmetic?  Maybe you
should just have Oscar explain this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:43:20 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

> From Randy Jacobson
>
> I found Oscar Boswell's posting interesting and very readable.  My
> conclusions out of it are:
>
> 1. AE probably used the Indicated Air Speed-o-meter (the only speed indicator
> available to her) at 150 mph, which at altitude meant she was really had a
> true air speed of 155 mph or so.

A true airspeed of 155 or so is a reasonable assumption, but the indicated
airspeed would have been about 130 @10,000 to yield 155 true.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:33:29 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Thanks, again, Ric.  So, I take it from the last two paragraphs of your response
that there is a one-to-one correspondence between wind and air speed.  That is,
that for each one knot of headwind you lose one knot of ground speed.
Correct?

--Chris
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Correct.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:46:34 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Yeah, what he said.

Ric, you're right: the headwind average must increase, not decrease with
increased speed at elevation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:45:15 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

The note on the front stated: "daylight comes at last.  The stars fade.  We
are throttled down to 120 indicated air speed.  So not to arrive in darkness.
 We are burning less than 20 gals of gas at 10000 ft.  We have turned in on
Makapu.  Keep with 10 degrees to starboard bow is the order".  The back
stated "gal 18".  From article XA2.5a of the Purdue Library Collection.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

I suspect you mean "tuned in on Makapu."  Very interesting.  It would seem
that we can take the "gal 18" to be the specific number for "less than 20."
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:50:11 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Ahh, then I presume that AE knew that True Air Speed increased with
elevation, and to keep to a 150 mph true air speed, she would then allow the
indicated air speed-o-meter to fall back according to the appropriate level.
This might explain the 140 figure (mph vs. knots) of speed reported that Long
uses.  If so, we are back to where we started from for assuming a 150 mph
still air speed, regardless of elevation.  Good!  If true, then average head
wind component remains about 16 knots.

**************************************************************************

From Ric

I'm not sure I follow you about the "speed 140 knots" report.  What do you
think it meant?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:57:41 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia Earhart/ Found?

Ric and most likely Tom King,

This idea will probably blow away the entire forum. But sometimes a
brainstorm may produce results. Since we are into some esoteric analysis of
evidence,clues etc,lets take another look at the Dr Hoodless measurements.

Looks like some pretty detailed data under the skull
measurements,i.e.,orbital width,height, index, lenght, and a "cephalic
index". Greek to me..

My question then is to Dr. King. Is there sufficient measurement data of
Gallaher's skull,including the lower jaw, and the four teeth, all of which
were reexamined by and analysed by Drs Burns and Janatz, to reconstruct a
skull, at least pretty well based on those measurements.

If so, we could apply current forensic anthropological techniques to
reconstruct the tissue and face of that skull to a reasonable likeness of the
person. Add AE's known hair style, compare to AE' s well known features and
maybe ,just maybe, we have a pretty close match. This is done all the time
with unknown skulls in the world of forensic pathology so that an idea of
what the person looked like may be distributed to law enforcement for
identification of missing persons.

If there is enough data there to reconsstruct, what an article that would
make for the Discover Archaeolgoy Magazine that Tom King writes for. Maybe
they would underwrite the reconstuction as legit scientific research.Nice
cover for the magazine.

So if that skull ends up looking like Amelia I get a free subscription to the
forum.If it ends up looking like a Tom King, ask him where his relatives were
on the night of 2 July 1937!.

Anyone interested in learning about skeletal age,remains etc, should contact
Dr. Donald Reay, King Co.,(Seattle) Medical Examiner. He is considered to be
one of the top experts in the field of skull id. He got a lot of work with
many of the remains dug up by the Green River Task Force with some 47 victims.

LTM,
Ron Bright ( who keeps his dental records in a safe deposit box!)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Like everybody else, you already have a free subscription to the forum.  I'm
sure Tom King will want to elaborate but I can tell you that the measurements
provided by Hoodless are very cursory.  To do the kind of reconstruction
you're taking about you pretty much need an actual skull.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:03:47 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Skeletal remains/ Gallagher's description of

I'll naturally defer to Kar, but then, I agree with her, too.  The molars
tend to stay, the shorter, single-rooted teeth tend to fall out.  But it's
HIGHLY variable, based on all kinds of factors -- how loose the teeth were to
begin with, the environment, what's bashing the bones around (if anything),
and so forth.

As for the guy in Fiji, again I'll defer to Kar, since she did the analysis
and wrote up the report, but establishing the time of death wasn't too hard;
he'd left a suicide note at a local hotel and hiked off into the hills, never
to be seen alive again.  The hotel called the police after a few days when he
hadn't come back to pay his rent.  Nice-looking, big strapping guy from
California; Kar said he had strong smile muscles, and photos at the hotel
confirmed it.  He'd gone up to a high point with a very nice view of the
sunrise over the ocean, and done whatever he did.  Cause of death wasn't
readily ascertainable; I'd suppose something chemical.  As I recall, his
teeth were pretty much all in his head, but I don't have the report so I
can't say for sure; Kar could.

LTM (who keeps her teeth about her)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:08:19 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Teeth

Tooth problems are real common throughout Oceania today, probably in
substantial part because of things like imported sugar (I'm sure there are
studies, but I'm not up on them).  Observations are complicated in some
places by the pre-contact (and post-contact, and contemporary) chewing of
betalnut, which does bad things to teeth all by itself, but that wouldn't be
an issue in Kiribati or Tuvalu.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:12:35 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Skeletal remains/ Gallagher's description of

>:      " a skull,lower jaw,one thoracic vertabra,half pelvis,part
>scapula,humerus,radius,two femurs,tibia and fibula"

Something that has bothered me for ages, and I couldn't put my finger on it
until I saw this extract.  With pilot related stuff I can make sense, but
not being an MD this one is beyond me....  (Hmmm  said the forum - so is a
lot of the pilot stuff.  ok, ok...)

Isn't there a noticeable difference in bone structure between a female and
male pelvis - even if it was only "half" a pelvis..  ??

Any medico's out there care to enlighten me??

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:19:15 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

>The assumption is that you don't try to make the flight if the headwind is
>too strong. (duh)  Long invents a very strong headwind and makes the
>assumption that Earhart quite literally committed suicide by continuing the
>flight anyway.

And I posted pilot's computations - again - (then Oscar explained them)
using the known figures plus some estimates and Long's headwind proving just
as "certainly" that Earhart made it to Howland with fuel to spare.  Based on
the figures I had available, and used I would definitely made the flight if
the headwind was constant at 26.6mph!

They were well out of cyclone season, so should have flown through various
"high" and "low" pressure systems along the 2224 nautical miles.  I know I
can't realistically say there is "no way" AE & FN flew into a headwind all
the way, but I think it's time for a basic "Meteorology" discussion if the
forum is going to discuss Long's headwinds.  In the meantime - "There's No
Way she had a headwind the whole trip."  <DUCKS FOR COVER>

Before you do that, grab a newspaper, and look at the weather patterns
across the USA.  If you can, grab the weather patterns for the equator
between Lae and Honolulu.   NOW, find the high and low pressure systems.  AE
would have to be constantly flying along one edge of a HUGE pressure system
to have constant headwinds.  But the speed of the winds is dependent on the
depth of the pressure system.

I know how it woeks, but I've said enough.  Someone in "forum land) who has
Meteorology qualifications might like to tell us in simple terms just why
Amelia didn't have a constant 26.5mph headwind, and why she almost certainly
even had a tailwind part of the way.  If we can't find a met guy, a few of
our regular transport pilots might like to help..  if they can remember how
to do a flight plan  -  maybe we need second officers ???    (Damn, another
joke I'll have to explain slowly...)

RossD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't think we need to burn any more bandwidth on this question.  Is there
anyone out there on the forum who still thinks that Long's calculations are
anything but pure speculation based upon highly questionable assumptions?
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:32:01 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Light-bulb base

>any application in a vibration-prone environment might use
> such a bulb.  A screw-base will work loose and the bulb goes out; then
> someone has to take a boat to the buoy and change it (that must be
>fun...!) or climb the tower and hang on with one hand (and a safety belt) while
> changing it.  (NOT fun AT ALL.)

Vibration Prone on Niku might be an earthquake.......   A cyclone would
induce swaying palms... (Just "funnin ya").

Good point, although it doesn't need a vibration prone environment to use
bayonet fittings.  I don't know what bases electric light bulbs use in the
US but they would not have been screw in bases on Gardner.  Almost
universally bayonet base for electric light then and now in the colonies.
Of course that presupposes a generating plant (back to our bicycle?), and as
I've suggested before I rather think the British in 1939/40 would burn
candles (most likely) and use kerosene (parrafin) lamps (very common) before
they would use electric power for lighting.

And if anyone bothered to check the vacuum tubes site I posted you would
have seen pictures of radio valves with bayonet fittings - as well as the
dates they were used..  AND the battery power drawn.  Which was quite low in
some cases even in 1925!

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:33:34 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

>We claim that the "speed 140 knots" is more likely a ground speed provided
>by Noonan and that there is no reason to think that she departed from Johnson's
>power management recommendations.

And wouldn't we all like to see the "meta data" for the Lae - Nauru stretch.
A 10(mph) tailwind would punch her along at a nice 140(knot) groundspeed.
(160 miles per).  Not much of a stretch of the imagination there...

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:38:20 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Age of bones

Tom King wrote:

>Anybody got a tropical island?

Ric wrote:

> That's your cue Ross.

Actually that's not as far fetched as it sounds.

I do have similar temperatures, but we have more rainfall, and different
crabs.  (You've just got to see my crabs....)

And I have 74 tropical islands here with only about 10 or so inhabited - all
close by.

My yacht is rotting on dry land now, but I'm sure I can borrow one.  The
catch is the rain.  I have no idea what the annual rainfall and rainy days
vs dry days is on Niku.  The closest I can get to that is Darwin (Aust) and
it is similar to my home ground).

I'm actually quite interested in doing this, but it will drag on over a
couple of years as an on-going thing.  As for the sextant box - I have found
one, but I'm not suicidal.  (It still has a 1940-ish  nautical sextant -
black - enamel - in it!)  Oh, and it has numbers painted on it.....

RossD

**********************************************************************

From Ric

Tell us more about your sextant and box.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:44:57 EDT
From:         Ross Devittt
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

We have one advantage over Fred Noonan.  Just as he was taking off, the
weather forecast came in, along with an actual en route observation which
confirms its possible accuracy.  (Remember this was prefaced with "accurate
forecast difficult".)

"Conditions appear generally average over the route (This is good).  No
Major Storm (Also Good).  Apparently partly cloudy with dangerous local rain
squalls about 300 miles East of LAE (If FRED had this info he could have
used the weather pattern to "find" a tailwind).  Scattered heavy showers
remainder of route (Pretty much what I have here outside today - hot and
raining)."

NOW the good bits...

"Wind: East South East about 25 knots to Ontario (where the heck is that?)
then East to East North East about 20kt to Howland."

QNH: 29.898
TEMP: 83
WIND:    Easterly "lots" of Clouds at "all levels" coming from Easterly Direction.
NAURU Observation:    Wind East.  14mph @ 2000ft,    12mph@4000ft, 24mph@7500ft.

OK,  Let's do an actual flight plan from Lae to Howland.

What Fred didn't have was the weather forecast which arrived just after he
left:

QNH: 29.898 (inches - I'll have to convert it)
Temp: 83  (that's easy, 28C)
Distance:    2224 Nautical Miles (somewhere around 2570 statute miles?)
Indicated Altitude: 10,000ft
QNH:    1019hpa  (don't ask me inches but this is a year round average)
      (+6 over ISA x 30)= Pressure Height:    10180ft
Sea Level Temperature: 28C
     (15C- 2 deg per thousand feet) = Corrected ISA Temp for 10,000ft:    -5C
     (25C - 2 deg per thousand feet) = OAT at 10,000ft:    +5C
     (Difference between corrected ISA & OAT(+10)x120(feet per degree)=1200+10180) =
                         Density Height: 11380
IAS:    150mph  (130knots)  from flight computer
TAS:    180mph  (156knots) ditto

If fred was flight planning today, this is pretty much what he would be
looking at ASSUMING he flight planned a TAS of 150mph.

**************************************************************************

From Ric

The reference to Ontario is probably not the Canadian province or the lake on
whose shores I failed to grow up.  USS Ontario was the ship positioned half
way beteen Lae and Howland (just south of Nauru) which was supposed to
provide weather information and broadcast the letter "N" on Earhart's
request.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:51:00 EDT
From:         Frank
Subject:      Earhart TV Program

Earlier this evening I viewed a program on Earhat's last flight.  It was
broadcaast on WYBE, channel 35, Philadelphia PA from 8 to 9 pm.  I
missed the title of the program, but it had a 2000 copyright.  It was a
production of South Carolina ETV.  The producer was a David Kennard.
The program concluded that Amelia ran out of gas and crashed at sea.  No
mention of TIGHAR or its theory.  The program showed footage from
Finch's 1997 flight and shots of Amelia's flying the Electra.  The
program also repllayed some of the Amelia's last transmissions with the
Coast Guard ship.  Two officials from the Smithsonian were on quoted (a
Mr. Couch and a woman whose name I forget already).  The program also
relied on a retired US Army navigator who flew in the Pacific during the
40s and went to the same navigation school as Noonan.  He seemed to feel
that Amelia failed to follow Noonan's advice to turn right along the
plotted line.  He concludes that she turned left, after circling a
period of time, ran out of fuel, and crashed in the Pacific.  The
program mentioned Noona having a reputation of having a drinking
problem.

Is this a new program or is this something you have discussed before?

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds like a new program with the same old mythology.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:57:20 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      deadreckoning the Pacific

Anyone who wants to read what it must have been for Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan
to fly across the vast emptiness of the Pacific relying on dead
reckoning and an occasional celestial observation, should try
www.centercomp.com. That is a site dedicated to DC-3 Heritage. When
you get to the home page, scroll all the way down  to CONTENTS, there click
STORIES and scroll them down (you can skip story no 14 about DC-3
production in Europe by a one  Herman De Wulf) but scroll
still further, all the way down to the "Chuck Miller Collection" of
stories until you reach : " Dead Reckoning in the Soup over the Pacific" (I
think this must be story no 30 if you count them) The title reveals the ordeal
of the crew out over the ocean with only dead reckoning as their
means of navigation!

The story is about one memorable flight by a C-47 crew to Midway, not
unlike AE's  :  13 hours across the vast emptiness of the Pacific in poor
weather, the crew having only dead reckoning available for navigation
because all the rest was U/S. They did have a reliable new compass and the
navigator had a sextant. But drift measuring equipment and Loran were U/S and
ADF didn't work at  that distance. Thus their means of  navigation
were down to the bare minimum that was available to AE/FN in 1937. The
interesting thing is that the captain instructed the navigator to calculate
their DR course at a point 50 NM off Midway "so that if we reach the
LOP, at least we know which way to turn to find the island". The following
is interesting to us. When the LOP was reached, the aircraft was also able
to pick up the Midway NDB with its ADF, something AE/FN couldn't do).

It is interesting to note that at that time their destination was 15° off
the nose of the C-47 and therefore they were not exactly where the navigator
had calculated they would have been with all the winds and that.

Fortunately for the C-47 crew they had reliable ADF at that point and could
set course for their destination.

However, AE/FN did not have that equipment available and, given
comparable DR reliability, one can estimate how far off Howland the Electra
was when AE reached the LOP and FN told her to turn and head for where he
thought Howland was. Without the help from ADF and without a QDM
provided by Itasca or Howland, it is little wonder they missed the tiny dot
in the ocean that Howland was.

Suffice to read the herbove mentioned site about what the crew of he C-47
thought about the size of Midway !

Using the DR procedure as did the C-47 crew, assuming AE/FN had about the
same degree of accurateness, one can make a rough estimate of by how much
they missed Howland, their voice radio communication being useless
to home them in. It may shed light on what happened when AE turned and flew
the 157/337 line, as mentioned.

If they too were the at a position where Howland was 15° off the nose of
the Electra when reaching their LOP by DR, there was no chance for them to
see Howland or even any smoke from Itasca. And on top of that they
were using a map that misplaced Howland by some 6 miles (right ?). Does
anyone on the Forum have an area map of Howland and the Phoenix Islands?
Using that C-47 crew experience it would be interesting to see where
AE/FN would end up having reached their LOP and Howland then 15° off the
nose of the Elecrtraa while flying the 337 ° course. I wonder where they would
have ended up. Does that bring us to Gardner. Anyone has a map ?

LTM (who used LOP quite a few times but never over open sea)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:59:06 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

> From Chris Kennedy
>
> What are the assumptions about windspeed made in the arithmetic?  Maybe you
> should just have Oscar explain this.

Ric,  There are no assumptions about windspeed whatever in my arithmetic. We
are talking about performance through the air. The effect of wind on that
performance (to give performance over the ground) is a separate subject.
Oscar

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Of course, but he wanted to hear it from you.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:03:28 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart/ Found?

I'm thinking that even from a "cursory" measurments maybe some kind of
reasonable extrapolation could be made to reconstruct a skull,then go on with
the clay sculputered face. I've seen it done,but I don't know how much of the
skull is absolutely necessary. It would be an interesting research project.
Can't you just see Tom King putting on the final touches of Earhart..It may
break new ground.
Ron
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The whole point of the paper prepared by Drs. Burns, Jantz and King was to
say what reasonably could be said based upon the Hoodless measurments.  We
try very hard not to push our conclusions beyond what the data support.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:05:05 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart/ Found?

Yeah, Ron, the simple answer to your question is, no; there aren't enough
measurements to do the kind of reconstruction you propose.  Sorry.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:06:18 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Skeletal remains/ Gallagher's description of

Regarding the question about the pelvis:  Yes, it is composed of 2 halves,
left and right, which are mirror images of each other.  Male and female
pelves differ in certain shapes and angles relating to the birth canal.  The
pelvis measurements are one of several indicators of sex but is probably the
most reliable.  Even so, there is some overlap between males and females.  An
anthropologist would look at all the available indicators before making an
attribution of sex.

LTM (who is not very comfortable talking about this)

Tim Smith
1142C
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:14:01 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: Light -bulb base

For what it's worth, the stock list for the Gardner Co-Op Store for the year
1939 includes "torches" (what we in the colonies call "flashlights") and
"torch bulbs" but, curiously, no batteries.  No other bulbs or "valves" of
any kind are listed.

My suspicion right along has been that the bulb base we found at the "7" site
is a burned out flashlight bulb.

We've taken some photos of the thing and should have it up on the website
soon.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:16:37 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Skeletal remains/ Gallagher's description of

Yes, generally speaking there's a pretty noticeable difference -- several
differences, actually.  But nothing's absolute; you get male pelvi that look
female, and vice versa.  Kar Burns tells a story about taking the bones of a
known female into a room full of osteologists and asking them to judge the
sex; they all judged wrong, because she (the dead lady, not Kar as far as I
know) had real male-looking bones.  Like most variables, sex indicators
describe a sort of bell curve; way out on the edges it's real obvious, but
there's a big area in the middle where reasonable people can disagree, and
there's lots of room for error.

We also don't know how much of a pelvis they were looking at.  Apparently it
was one inominate --that is, one of the wing-shaped parts that make up the
hips.  These have some pretty good sex indicators on them, notably the
sciatic notch (narrower in males than in females, generally), but we don't
know what shape this particular inominate was in.  Nor do we know what
Earhart's sciatic notch looked like; it might have been narrower than average
for a female.  Unfortunately, Hoodless doesn't give us any data on the
inominate.

LTM (whose sciatic notch is broad, as it were)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:17:58 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Ross' Experiment

Let's pursue Ross' idea of an experiment.  Can you give us some more info
about your island, Ross?  What are the flora and fauna like, what's the
rainfall, etc.?

As for the sextant box, I don't think we'd need a sextant box per se.  I'm
looking right now at an old-fashioned wood letter tray ("In," "Out,"
"Ignore")that's varnished and has dovetailed corners, and that holds my mouse
pad.  I should think that for purposes of seeing what happens to a treated
wooden box, something like my tray would work fine.

LTM (who could part with the tray)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:46:50 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart/ Found?

Let's wait until we find the skull. Also isn't it odd that of all the things
that should have been photographed, Gallagher or Hoodless,et al, didn't
photograph the skeletal remains. But that I guess is part of the whole
problem.

LTM,
Ron Bright

**************************************************************************
From Ric

You raise an interesting point.  Today it would, of course, be routine to
photograph everything but there is no reference at all to photography in any
of the WPHC paperwork.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:48:42 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Thanks, Oscar, I appreciate your reply.  The only plane I have ever piloted was a
Cox control line model "Stukka (sp?)",which I crashed into a neighbor's house
when I tried to release the bomb.  Hence, my questions after reading your posting
since so much has been made of windspeeds by Elgen Long.   Sometime I would also
like to hear your analysis of the effect of windspeed on your Electra performance
figures, as I suspect the topic may come up again.

Thanks,

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:54:10 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Skeleton,skulls and bones

It is my good fortune to have as a friend one of the foremost international
experts in forensic anthropology/pathology. He resides in Canada. After a
review of Dr, Hoodless measurements he concurs with Drs Burns and Jantz
analysis. Concerning ageing of skeletal remains, he also agrees with Dr. King
that it is a very difficult problem. He writes that to a "large extent the
methods of ageing in the first 5-10 years are in part based on the associated
burial artifacts,soil and botanical features,etc". He asks if the Hoodless
exam addressed the presence or absence of the periosteum (fibrous connective
tissue covering the bones except for where the ligaments are attached). That
can be very helpful

He notes that if the bones are ever found, the test for strontium 90 would be
quite useful. AE would not have stronium 90, where as we all do as a result
of atomic testing.

If you have any reason for his help, he offered to do some research in the UK
this May as he will be in London. But maybe you have that all under
control,and don't want anyone else going over the same stuff.

LTM,
Ron Bright
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Always nice to have concurring opinions.  We're quite sure we already have
what there is in terms of bone measurments.

Hoodless does not mention periosteum except to say the the ends of the bones
have been badly damaged, in other words, chewed up.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:55:31 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

> From Randy Jacobson
>
> The note on the front stated: "daylight comes at last.  The stars fade.  We
> are throttled down to 120 indicated air speed.  So not to arrive in darkness.
>  We are burning less than 20 gals of gas at 10000 ft.  We have turned in on
> Makapu.  Keep with 10 degrees to starboard bow is the order".  The back
> stated "gal 18".  From article XA2.5a of the Purdue Library Collection.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> I suspect you mean "tuned in on Makapu."  Very interesting.  It would seem
> that we can take the "gal 18" to be the specific number for "less than 20."

What a wonderful piece of information! Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:06:19 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

> From Randy jacobson
>
> Ahh, then I presume that AE knew that True Air Speed increased with
> elevation, and to keep to a 150 mph true air speed, she would then allow the
> indicated air speed-o-meter to fall back according to the appropriate level.
> This might explain the 140 figure (mph vs. knots) of speed reported that Long
> uses.  If so, we are back to where we started from for assuming a 150 mph
> still air speed, regardless of elevation.  Good!  If true, then average head
> wind component remains about 16 knots.
>
> **************************************************************************
>
> From Ric
>
> I'm not sure I follow you about the "speed 140 knots" report.  What do you
> think it meant?

He thinks the person who heard it added the "knots" to AE's "speed 140"

***************************************************************************
From Ric

That's certainly possible but its one of those things that's virtually
impossible to prove.  People do hear and transcribe things incorrectly.  We
have several examples in the Itasca radio log(s):

- the known "drifting/circling" problem
- "in half hour" should almost certainly be "on half hour"
- O'Hare's "gas running low...only half hour left" is almost certainly an error

Some of the lat/long position report information in the Chater report (Chater
quoting Balfour quoting Earhart) is clearly screwed up.  Was "knots" added to
the speed report? Maybe.  But why would Earhart report airpseed rather than
groundspeed?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:17:15 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Age of bones

I mentioned in an earlier post during the "Celestial Choir" days (Before the
AA) that someone had walked in with an original Naval sextant, still in its
box which had seen the war aboard one of HMA warships (one of two such
devices as I remember).  It was still in its (green painted - I think) box
and the sextant was brass, painted black.  At least the bits not painted
seemed brass.  It was stamped with the "Broad Arrow", as most of our service
issue equipment is.  I didn't take a lot more notice, because at the time we
were talking about a particular brand of sextant / octant on the forum.
Can't find my original posting either, but someone on the forum will have
it.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:21:12 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Ok, so we might suspect the Nauru obs came from the Ontario at about Half
way....

Before anyone says I can't ADD / SUBTRACT  -

I sent a corrected "flight plan post, but it must have gone astray.  I
originally guessed a temp of around 25C and QNH of 1019,  then remembered
the Chater report and corrected it for the weather report and corrected it.

I posted a correction with a note for Ric, but he must have missed it.
There's not a lot of difference, but AE does get there faster / sooner...

RossD

If you've got the correction Ric, it makes more sense..

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's the corrected posting.

You have to be a pilot of light aircraft to understand most of this stuff.
In simple terms, the Airspeed Indicator sits in front of the pilot like the
speedometer in a car.  It is the ONLY instrument the pilot is interested in
as far as speed goes.  Other instruments monitor fuel usage, temperatures
etc, but the thing we ALL fly on is the Airspeed Indicator as long as we are
in level flight.  Just like we ALL should drive a car using the speedometer.
(I assume none of us has ever received a speeding fine (citation??,
infringement??).

Meanwhile, those damned numbers again.  I still can't see how Long could
possibly get Earhart to run out of fuel.  Oscar and others who know - and
remember I do a real life flight plan at least twice a week - feel free to
pull this apart, or explain it.  Remember though that the temperatures and
barometric pressures I use are for the tropics where I live.  Hence the 28C
(83F) temperature and the high OAT.  These are real life figures.  (Anyone
remember my parachutist?)

TIGHAR Aeronautical Academy.??

OK..  Let's make Fred and Amelia swim.......

We have one advantage over Fred Noonan.  Just as he was taking off, the
weather forecast came in, along with an actual en route observation which
confirms its possible accuracy.  (Remember this was prefaced with "accurate
forecast difficult".)

"Conditions appear generally average over the route (This is good).  No
Major Storm (Also Good).  Apparently partly cloudy with dangerous local rain
squalls about 300 miles East of LAE (If FRED had this info he could have
used the weather pattern to "find" a tailwind).  Scattered heavy showers
remainder of route (Pretty much what I have here outside today - hot and
raining)."

NOW the good bits...

"Wind: East South East about 25 knots (THAT is about 29mph)  to Ontario
(where the heck is that?)
then East to East North East about 20kt (23mph) to Howland."  -  This might
be where Long gets his continuous average headwinds from ?  - it would be an
average of around 29mph for the trip.

IAS of 150mph - 26mph = 124mph Ground Speed into 2550 miles = 20 hours - Sea
Level (4 hrs reserve)
But Wait, There's More.  As we've seen lately, aeroplanes don't run along
the ground, and for various reasons they actually go faster than the speedo
says when they are up high....

Given the following from the Chater report and TIGHAR web page:

QNH (Barometric pressure): 29.898    (Pretty Close to 1013 - ISA, and I find
this difficult to believe)
TEMP at sea level: 83    (28C - about average here at that time of year)
WIND:    Easterly "lots" of Clouds at "all levels" coming from Easterly
Direction.  (ok, ties in with 1013hpa)
NAURU (half way along track) Observation:    Wind East.  14mph @ 2000ft,
12mph@4000ft,
24mph@7500ft. (Hmm 25-30mph @ 10,000ft is not unlikely)

OK,  Let's pretend we're going flying today and do an actual flight plan
from Lae to Howland, with the information we have on hand.

****************

Distance:    2224 Nautical Miles (somewhere around 2570 statute miles?)

Indicated Altitude: 10,000ft
QNH:    1013hpa
Therefore Pressure Height also = 10000ft
Sea Level Temperature: 28C
(15C- 2 deg per thousand feet) = Corrected ISA Temp for 10,000ft:    -5C
(28C - 2 deg per thousand feet) = OAT at 10,000ft:    +8C
(Difference between corrected ISA & OAT(+13)x120(feet per degree)=1560
+10000) =  Density Height: 11560
IAS:    150mph  (130knots)  from flight computer
TAS:    182mph  (158knots) ditto

If fred was flight planning today, this is pretty much what he would be
looking at ASSUMING he flight planned based on a TAS of 150mph.

***********  BREAK TIME  ********

If you were driving a car you could leave it here...

Distance = 2224nm  TAS=158kts Estimated Time In air= 14hrs in nil Wind.
or work it back...in statute.. for Non Pilots (the majority of the forum)

Speed (182mph) x Time (14 hrs) = Distance (2548 Statute Miles)

Unfortunately aircraft are affected by wind..

******************

From here No-One, not I, not Oscar, not Long, (dare I say it, not even Ric)
can know what Fred used to calculate his figures.

However a continuous 30mph headwind would drop the TAS to about 150mph.
2550 miles divided by 150mph means it will now take about 17 hours to reach
Howland

Ok, we still can't make Earhart swim, but it sort of vindicates the
Kelly/Johnson "900 Gallons should be enough" from Oakland to Honolulu -
about the same distance!

Let's really slow this aeroplane down..  we have 24 hours fuel?  rough
estimate to dry tanks.

To run out of fuel by Howland earhart has to be only moving about 95mph over
the ground.  It's not impossible, but 182-95 = 87, and that's one hell of a
headwind.

*******************

RossD  (Nice figures, but I still can't PROVE them..)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:23:01 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Pelvises

So if it was the "top" half, ID would be tricky, but if it was the "bottom"
half or even a side, it would be more definitive ??

BTW Half a pelvis still seems very strange to me...

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

We're talking left and right halves, not top and bottom.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:24:50 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Light -bulb base

A flashlight bulb with a 7/8" "base" ????

rd

************************************************************************
From Ric

I know.  Sounds awfully big.  But I have no idea what a "torch" looked like
in 1940.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:27:22 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Ross' Experiment

Ok, if this is a serious idea, I'm happy to get it moving.  Having seen one
recently, I know the size of a service issue sextant box.  I should also be
able to get another look at it (if I can remember who had it) and see the
type of timber.  I'd guess that in 1939 when this was issued it was slightly
older than that, so I should be close.  This box was painted.  The one
Gallagher found would surely be painted outside, or varnished outside.  I
guess I could make up 3 boxes the right size (no I'm NOT going to dovetail
the things!)

As far as "My Island" goes, I have a heap to choose from, the problem being
my yacht is now far beyone repair.  Some have coarse sand beaches, some have
dense vegetation, some have beaches of coral rubble - literally big bits of
coral.  Most are within 20 miles or so of the mainland, but many are well
away from the "Whitsundays" tourist route.

I sailed the Islands as Barman/Deckhand on a cruise boat (If the lady from
Montana who I helped out of the wrong side of the dinghy is reading this -
they still laugh about it)  and many years before and after sailing in
various yachts including my own.

It will be easy enough to pick an island that few people visit, but there
are two problems.

1.  convincing the National Park Rangers to let me leave 3 boxes and a dead
animal (well 3 boxes anyway) for long enough to determine what happens.  As
the boxes will be in the shade of a Pandanus palm (we don't have Ren trees)
Come to think of it - we do have Pisonia on some islands - They might be ok
with it.

2.    Aussies are scavengers.  Some stray yachtie finding 3 nice wooden
boxes on a deserted Island and reading the note inside asking them to leave
the boxes there?  I don't think so...

But I'm willing to give it a go.  I'll ask someone from the QNPWS what the
procedure is for leaving 3 boxes around 12" by 8" on an Island as an
experiment, so they don't pick them up in their cleanup patrols.  I'll also
tell them why.  They'll think I'm crazy, but I might find one of the Rangers
I've worked with on search and rescue before...

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:31:58 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Teeth

We seem to be focusing on teeth naturally staying in the jaw or falling out.
Teeth were used as jewelry on occasion in bracelets and necklaces. don't you
think it is possible the missing teeth might not have voluntarily left the
jaw?

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I am not aware of teeth being used in that fashion in the Central Pacific and
I feel quite confident in saying that the Gilbertese laborers who found and
buried the skull did not knock out any teeth as souvenirs.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:53:41 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Turned or tuned?

<<I suspect you mean "tuned in on Makapu."  >>

My notes say turned in on Makapu (my interpretation is that they were further
offshore or off course and Makapu is a prominent landmark on Oahu.)

**************************************************************************
From Ric

But Makapu is also where the Pan Am DF station was.  In "Last Flight" she
says:

"At one point when we were a couple of hundred miles from Hawaii, Fred told
me to drop down through the clouds a steer a certain course.
'Keep the Makapu beacon ten degrees on the starboard bow,' he ordered.
What he meant was that I should tune my Bendix radio direction finder to
indicate the location of the beacon, and then head the plane as he directed."

In the next paragraph she quotes from her notes and says "We have tuned in on
Makapu.  Keep it ten degres to starboard bow is the order."
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:55:55 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

The 140 knot report: wasn't that one of the early Chater messages that stated
that AE was making 140 knots?  I suspect she might have said mph as per her
speedometer.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

We call it an airspeed indicator in the trade.  That's what Oscar thought you
meant.  I commented in my reply to his post.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:56:48 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Winds

The tropical equatorial region's meteorology is one of the most simplest and
consistent in the world: strong easterlies (winds blowing to the west).  The
exception is the intertropical convergence zone (in June/July time frame
about 5 degrees north), where winds are from variable directions.  At the
surface, winds are calm, and that is where the doldrums arise.  Within 60
nautical miles north or south of this zone, you are back into the consistent
easterlies.  Winds typically 10-18 knots, with occasional higher speeds.  If
anyone is interested, consult the companion to the Sailing Directions, put
out by the US Hydrographic Office of the US Navy.  In it, they show the
climatology of the region in great detail.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:08:33 EDT
From:         John Clauss
Subject:      Re: Age of bones/screens

Tom King asked:

>Actually, I'd been wondering about those screens we left in '97; what shape
>WERE they in when you saw them again in '99?

Ric said:

>Bad, but I didn't personally lay eyes on them.  As I recall it was John
>Clauss and a couple of others who went back to the "castle" to check on
>that stuff.  John?  Can you elaborate?>>

I don't recall their exact condition other than to say they were badly
deteriorated.   My impression is that one of them might have been usable.
Just didn't look at them that closely.

John
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:09:30 EDT
From:         Dustymiss
Subject:      Re: Earhart TV Program

It is the newest one as far as I know - It is the same program JHam spoke
about last month when it aired for the first time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:13:44 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Light-bulb base

I'm advised that bayonet-base lamps were common in Europe until WWII and a
bit after.  Evidently they were common over much of the world in all applications.
They're by no means uncommon today -- just not in household lighting in the
US.

Determination - and elimination - of possible sources will depend strongly
on the dimensions of the base.  Ric, got your micrometer handy?  Isn't it
rather large for a flashligh bulb?

Somewhere I've got a GE lamp book with drawings and dimensions of the
multitude of "standard" American lamp bases.  The old ones should be
included.  And there should be other sources of this information.

The thing that is just a little intriguing about the lamp base is the remote
possibility that it might be a good match for some aircraft lamps used in
the 1930s and particularly the Electra -- and NOT a match for lamps that
might have come from other sources such as the Coast Guard (Loran era),
Norwich City, etc., nor the torches of the Gallagher era.

IF that should be the case, we would have one more inconclusive bit of evidence.
How many inconclusive pieces of evidence to you have to have before.....

Well... I guess it's like Zeno's proposed race between Achilles and the
tortoise!
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:14:50 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Amelia Earhart/ Found?

>From Ric, (Re: The bones, etc.)
>
>You raise an interesting point.  Today it would, of course, be routine to
>photograph everything but there is no reference at all to photography in any
>of the WPHC paperwork.

Of course there were the photographs and packet of negatives that were
returned to England with Gallagher's personal stuff.  Who knows?  Maybe
Gallagher did take  photographs -- then the whole matter was hushed up and
dropped.

We're still on the Clancy trail but no hot leads to follow at present.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:17:30 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Light-bulb base

>From Ric
>
>For what it's worth, the stock list for the Gardner Co-Op Store for the year
>1939 includes "torches" (what we in the colonies call "flashlights") and
>"torch bulbs" but, curiously, no batteries.

Do you suppose they were using those hand-powered torches?  You squeeze the
handle and the little generator runs for a bit, then you squeeze again.  I
was surprised to see those things in use in Europe in the mid-1940s.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Never heard of such a thing, but it would be very handy in a place where you
never knew when you were going to be resupplied.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:23:08 EDT
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: Light-bulb base

What was that line again about the number of TIGHAR people involved in
changing a light bulb ?

LTM (who loves crowds involved changing light bulbs)

**************************************************************************
From Ric

It might go something like:
How many TIGHARs does it take to identify a light bulb?

Only one, but he or she had better have proof.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:25:00 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: June Knox-Mawer

I took up Tom King's challenge and tried to locate June Knox-Mawer in England.
The BBC office in Brussels (remember I live in Belgium) were very helpful,
providing me with the telephone number of the "Woman's Hour" BBC radio program
Tom mentioned. A girl there told me June Knox-Mawer never worked for them as far
as she could remember. But  one of her older colleagues remembered she worked
for  Radio 4 ten years ago and if I could hold on for a minute... I did. And here
is June's telephone number : 44-19978860081. I tried the number several times at
different times of the day but there is no reply. She may be on holiday. In which
case we have to keep trying. Or the telephone number may be old...

Anyway, here is one trail to begin with.

Surfing the net I plunged into some literary stuff and discovered June Knox-Mawer
was born on 10 May 1930. If that information is correct, she should be 70. Which,
with having lived in Fiji,  is the right age to remember anything about Amelia Earhart.
LTM (who always loves following trails that lead somewhere)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Good work Herman.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:30:30 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

> From Ric
> Some of the lat/long position report information in the Chater report
> (Chater quoting Balfour quoting Earhart) is clearly screwed up.
> Was "knots" added to the speed report? Maybe.  But why would Earhart
> report airpseed rather than groundspeed?

I can make up several reasons why she would've reported airspeed instead
of ground speed, but the evidence we have indicates that she would've
reported ground speed in knots.

1. Noonan has a history of reporting ground speed, not airspeed. In his
memo on the navigation of the Clipper flight to Hawaii in 1935 he
states:

 "Although such errors are made under all conditions,,(sic) it is
 believed a reduction of paper work during flight would tend to
 reduce such errors. Such reduction of paper work could be obtained
 by shortening the position reports to a statement of latitude,
 longitude, track desired, and ground speed, and leaving the
 compilation of the log data (excepting cloud formations) to be
 completed on the ground after each flight."

2. I think all the navigators in this forum agreed that Noonan would
more likely have calculated ground speed in knots, not mph.

3. Noonan has a history of passing notes containing position reports to
Earhart. I don't have the source for this handy but it is mentioned
somewhere in the forum highlights.

4. Earhart's reports were for the media. With ground speed the media
could forecast her progress, air speed would not be useful.

Ric:
Is this the only leg of the world flight that she made these position
reports, or is this the only leg of which such reports have survived? If
we can find reports from previous legs it would very likely put this
question of GS vs AS to rest. Or has it already been laid to rest and I
am again barking up a fallen tree.


Frank Westlake

*************************************************************************
From Ric

As far as I know, no position reports were received by anybody during any
previous leg of the world flight.

I agree with you that a strong case can be made for Noonan (via Earhart)
reporting a groundspeed in knots and any reason for Earhart reporting
airspeed would be pure invention.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:33:55 EDT
From:         Frank Westlake
Subject:      Re: Winds

> From Randy Jacobson
>
> The exception is the intertropical convergence zone (in June/July
> time frame about 5 degrees north), where winds are from variable
> directions.  At the surface, winds are calm, and that is where the
> doldrums arise.

How about winds aloft? I haven't spent a lot of time flying but I know
that in the San Diego area the winds at 10-12,000 feet are frequently
180° out from the surface winds, and usually much greater in magnitude.

Frank Westlake
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:41:59 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Age of bones/screens

Actually, I remember, as this was my first trip to the island.  The wood to
which the screens were attached had gotten very dark in color (dark brown).
Some of the darkness may have been caused by rains dampening the wood (squalls
were moving through the area, and soon thereafter we all got drenched by one).
The screen mesh was well rusted, but intact.  Overall, I remember that the
screens seemed useable, and I think I remember John even commenting on that
fact.

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Good.  I had forgotten that you were with John that day. Those "very dark"
screens were light blue and pink when we left them there in '97.  Sounds like
the wood itself held up okay but the elements were hell on the finish (hardly
surprising).  The fact that numbers were still legible on the sextant box
would seem to indicate that it had not been there very long.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:44:49 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Age of bones/screens

As a follow-up to this, I also remember that there were some knee pads that were
left behind as well, also something else which was made of rubber.  The knee pads
actually were in fairly good shape and could have been used, but the rubber object
was badly deteriorated.

--Chris Kennedy

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Rubber object... hmmmm.  What would that be?   Oh yeah, we can't talk about
that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:11:40 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Age of bones/screens

For Forumites who may be puzzled by the Gillespie/Clauss/King correspondence
about screens -- In 1997, beating a hasty retreat from the island in the face
of Cyclone Hina, we abandoned a couple of wood-sided shaker screens in
something we called "the castle" -- actually a stone-walled structure
probably used as a pigpen -- on Ritiati between Sam's Site and the
Manybarrels Site, two of the sites in the colonial village we gave special
attention to that year.  With the recent discussion of how long the sextant
box would have lasted on the bones discovery site, the condition of those
wood frames after three years weathering became of interest.  To judge from
John's observation, they were considerably the worse for wear.  Which in turn
sort of suggests that the sextant box couldn't have lain around for TOO long.
 Of course, the sextant box was doubtless of a better quality wood, was
probably painted or varnished, and was in a different kind of
microenvironment.

Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:12:17 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Ross' Experiment

This is great, Ross.  Let's discuss how you'll do it, what you'll put out,
and so forth.  I can supply a varnished, dovetailed box if you want to wait
till I can ship it.

LTM (who's not dovetailed)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:14:11 EDT
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: June Knox-Mawer

Herman, Ric -- Let's coordinate who'll talk to Ms. Knox-Mawer.  I've about
finished her book and could give you a precis, Herman, if you'd like to
continue this quest, together with an outline of some of our special
interests.  I'll be on the road for the next three weeks or so and will have
a hard time calling people -- though calling England from California might
not be that hard.  Let me know.

Tom
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You guys may want to coordinate off forum.  I'll send you each others' email
addresses.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:37:20 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

> I agree with you that a strong case can be made for Noonan (via Earhart)
> reporting a groundspeed in knots and any reason for Earhart reporting
> airspeed would be pure invention.

Ric: I think Noonan gave AE groundspeed in mph (147) on the South Atlantic
flight. She was indicating 140 (about 155 true) at slightly under 6000 feet.
The "140 knot" transmission is a weak reed to hang much on. Oscar


**************************************************************************
From Ric

I've just re-read the section in Last Flight about the South Atlantic
crossing and checked it against copies of Earhart's original notes (on file
at Purdue).  She gives an accounting of their progress and does note the
groundspeed as "147 mph."
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:39:37 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Ric: I respectfully suggest that the basic problem with Mr. Devitt's analysis is
the assumption that the 10 E will fly Johnson's settings with a true airspeed of
182 mph at 10,000. It is quite true that an IAS of 150 at 10,000 = about 180. The
fallacy is in thinking that one can maintain this IAS on the same fuel
consumption at 10,000 as can can at SL.. One can't. In the 10E you can maintain a
true airspeed at 10,000 about 8% higher than the sea level true airspeed on the
same amount of power and fuel consumption. If you can do 150 mph (IAS and true)
at sea level, you might get 162 true at 10,000 (which would be about 135
indicated). At the same horsepower IAS would decrease from 150 at SL to 135 at
10,000, while true airspeed inreased from 150 to 162 (in standard conditions, IAS
at sea level is the same as True airspeed). In addition,  Johnson's settings (at 38gph)
probably won't maintain 150 IAS at sea level - at normal gross 143 would be more like it.
(Also - to comment on another posting - WIND HAS NO EFFECT ON TRUE AIRSPEED).
Oscar
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:40:17 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: winds

Winds will change some with altitude, but will still predominantly from the
east.  The Howland records for the previous year, all at elevation via
weather balloons, testify to this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:43:52 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

>As far as I know, no position reports were received by anybody during any
>previous leg of the world flight.

Ah, but of course we do have reports from her flight from Oakland to
Honolulu.  Picky, picky, picky.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I know they were made, but I'm not aware of a transcript of a radioed
position report from the Oakland/Honlulu flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:58:27 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Plexiglass Artifact

Do any of the remaining Model 10's retain their original cabin windows or
have any original cabin windows been salvaged from Model 10's.  Do we know
the manufacturer of the windows?  Since there were a limited number of Model
10's, is it possible that all of the cabin windows were a single
manufacturing run which might allow for spectrographic analysis?  Is there
any way of dating the plexiglass?

**************************************************************************
From Ric

The particulars of the window specs changed many times over the years that
the Model 10 was in production.  The windows on the first aircraft were
actually Pyralin (a cellous-based product), then the specs got changed to
plate glass, and eventually Plexiglas.  The specified thickness of the Plexi
also changed over the years.  One of the most interesting things about these
changes in the specs is that it was January 1937, just at the time that
Earhart's windows were being replaced as part of the mods done for the World
Flight, that the specs were changed to 1/8 inch Plexi (like the artifact).

We double-checked the curvature of the artifact against a window borrowed
from c/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum but that airplane was built for
the Navy and it's windows are now tinted green and quite a bit thicker.  The
curvature, however, is dictated by the shape of the fuselage and that never
changes.

It's virtually impossible to know whether the windows in any existing Model
10 are original.  None of the aircraft has complete maintenance logs.
According to the inventor (Rohm & Haas) the formula for Plexiglas (polymethyl
methacrylate or PMMA) has not really changed from then to now.  There is no
way to chemically date the stuff.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:59:06 EDT
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Male/Female Pelvis

Is it not also true that the sciatic notch widens in women with birth of
children and can also aid in the determination of sex?

MStill 2332
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:17:10 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Screening

Regarding the screening found near the water container, what size is the
mesh?  While I suspect that it was used for separating skin from bugs (what
kind are there that would require screening?), it might also have been used
as part of the bone search to separate bones from other smaller grained stuff
like sand.  This is a technique we've used many times to look for fossils in
the field where the concentration is pretty low and removing the fine grained
stuff improves the quality of the matrix remaining.  It would seem possible
that Gallagher was digging up the hole (where the skull had been buried??)
and trying to sift it through a screen to speed up his search for additional
bones, teeth, etc?

Just a thought.

A McKenna  1045C

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Good thought but the screening is really teensy, on the order of 2mm.
Absolutely useless as a medium for sifting anything but the finest beach
sand. The surface at the "7" site is coarse coral rubble.

On the other hand, at least these days, there are no mosquitoes or other
annoying flying insects on Gardner that would make you think that screening
was necessary.  There are some flies and hornets but you rarely see them.  No
gnats or other swarming critters.  The only time I've ever seen a significant
number of flies around was when we did our abortive leg-of-lamb experiment.
Makes you wonder.  Was there a fly problem at the "7" site?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:18:41 EDT
From:         Jim Gyer
Subject:      Re: Light-bulb base

I don't quite see how it would have gotten there, but no one (that I saw)
has mentioned flashbulbs for photography.  I used hundreds in the 60s and
70s that had about a 5/8 inch bayonet base and I know older ones were bigger
because of the slower films and lenses.  The really big ones of the 60s used
the same screw base as a modern American light bulb.  Was there any WW2
activity there that might have involved photographers?

Jim Gyer

**************************************************************************

From Ric

Hmmmm.....not that we know of.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:21:23 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

>- O'Hare's "gas running low...only half hour left" is almost certainly an
>error

Which could (under certain conditions) have actually been 'only half "our"
(reserve) fuel left'.  It's not impossible someone didn't hear the word
"reserve".  It's also possible she said "our" and mean't she had used half
her reserve.  The possibilities are almost endless.  I have never been game
to suggest the above for obvious reasons, but just so you know...  That's
what I think - and I don't think it warrants debate, because it's the worst
kind of speculation.

I believe by that report they were half way into their reserve and had to
start getting serious.

However "I could be wrong".... (as usual)    But it fits the sensible fuel
consumption figures.  Another thing that bothers me, is that AE would have
had a 20kt tail wind IF she headed back to the Gilberts, whereas she had a
reasonable headwind, but less distance to fly to Gardner.  If they were
North of Howland, maybe the Gilberts were a better choice.  I still believe
they were blown south of Howland by the earlier winds, and opted for the
Phoenix.

Once again - The possibilities  etc......

RossD

***************************************************************************
From Ric

And once again, the main reason NOT to turn back for the Gilberts is
navigational, not distance-related.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:23:45 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Pelvises

I meant that finding "half a pelvis" sounds strange.  It's a pretty rugged
bone... (bone group?)..

RossD

***************************************************************************
From Ric

That's one reason I like dogs rather than crabs as the medium for bone
dispersal.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:26:00 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Light -bulb base

Did you actually visit the "vacuum tube" site I sent you?
I've seen lots of 7/8" valve (pin) bases, but I can't recall seeing bayonet
ones.  That site actually shows drawings of vacuum tubes with bayonet bases
though.

And I still think they used candles and kerosene (parrafin) lamps (not
pressure ones - the ones we call Hurricane Lamps with a wick, not a mantle).
Any sign of those in your visits?  You won't see candles, but you might find
bits of the lamps that haven't rusted.  And the glasses break regularly and
are quite distinctive IF you are looking for them.

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, I did visit the site.  No, I don't recall seeing any Hurricane Lamp
bases on the island.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:27:29 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Turned or tuned?

"Keep it ten degrees to starboard bow is the order."

This pretty much puts a question mark over the "did AE ignore the
Kelly/Johnston figures" debate.  I usually post as if Fred was flying the
plane for a reason.  The Navigator on a long distance flight is the one who
makes the decisions about where to go, the pilot just has the responsibility
of following directions and instructions and "getting you there"..

Broad flat statement, but it's fairly true.  (Ask a WWII Navigator who
really was in charge of the plane..  lol).

RossD  (With his tongue firmly in his cheek..  again)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:28:57 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Winds

> At the
> surface, winds are calm, and that is where the doldrums arise.  Within 60
> nautical miles north or south of this zone, you are back into the consistent
> easterlies.  Winds typically 10-18 knots, with occasional higher speeds. If
> anyone is interested, consult the companion to the Sailing Directions, put
> out by the US Hydrographic Office of the US Navy.  In it, they show the
> climatology of the region in great detail.

Which is why I thought a constant 26mph headwind at the equator "all the
way" might be questioned, though by no means impossible.  I am 20deg South
and we are starting to move into our "flying training season".  Long calm
warm days ideal for student pilots!  Gentle breezes mostly from the
southeast, and almost no real storms until about October.

However the weather received at Lae did say headwinds all the way.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:30:19 EDT
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Longitude by Dava Sobel (Off Topic)

Those who have read "Longitude..." will have noted that, delightful as her
book is, it's short on pictures of Harrison's "clocks."  The pictures can be
seen at The National Maritime Museum-Greenwich web site.  Picture Library -
Longitude Gallery.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/cmr/long-index.html

It's well worth clicking some of the pictures for the full-screen version.
Check the picture of John Harrison and note the size of the clock in the
background!

For those who intended to read the book but haven't got to it, the gist of
the story, with pictures, can be had by clicking on "The Logitude Problem"
on the above cited web page and follow the "next>>" links through the whole
story..

For non-navigators, it's a pretty good description of the nature of the
longitude problem.  How good did the clock have to be to claim the prize?
It could not gain or lose more than three seconds in twenty-four hours!

LTM (Who hopes not to hear a lot of statistical argument!)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:35:39 EDT
From:         Kar Burns
Subject:      sex determination and facial reconstruction

Subject: Re: Skeletal remains/ Gallagher's description of

To Ross Devitt:

Yes,  there is a noticeable difference in bone structure between a female
and a male pelvis -- even if it is only "half" a pelvis. The "half pelvis"
is called an "innominate," and it is the most consistent bone from which to
differentiate the adult male and female. With innominate alone, sexual
identification in a known population can be better than 9 in 10.

Subject: Facial reconstruction

To Ron Bright:

Nice idea, but the skull measurements left by Dr. Hoodless are insufficient
for facial reconstruction. Ric is right, a whole skull is needed. But even
with the whole skull, facial reconstruction is useful only for tentative
identification, not positive identification or even probable identification.

For the most part, facial reconstructions look very little like the missing
person. They are useful, however, in bringing publicity to a case of an
unidentified individual. Publicity can result in locating "leads" to
tentative identifications. In this case, we already have a tentative
identification. Now we need more information.

LTM, may her identification never be questioned.

Kar Burns
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting.  That's a rather different picture of facial reconstruction than
is painted by the various TV shows about crime investigation.  (surprise,
surprise)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:48:39 EDT
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Male/Female Pelvis

I think Dr. King is out of town now, so I'll take a crack at the question.
To my knowledge, the angle and shape of the sciatic notch are genetically
determined and do not change with childbirth.  The pelvis (and most of the
other bones) are pretty much the size and shape they will be by the time a
woman reaches childbearing age.

However, the pubis (the part of the pelvis that runs forward from the hip
socket to the naughty bits) does change with childbirth.  The left and right
halves of the pubis pull apart as the baby goes through the birth canal.
This leaves a small lip or wrinkle on the area where the bones articulate.  I
haven't done this personally, but Dr. Burns could look at a pelvis and tell
you roughly how many children the owner had.

Could it be possible to be much more off-topic?

Tim Smith 1142C
**************************************************************************
From Ric

This is probably a good place to announce that Archaeologist Extraordinaire
Tim Smith will be helping me teach the Aviation Archaeology and Historic
Preservation Course/Expedition this summer in Idaho (Tom King being otherwise
obligated).

I'm sure we'll be able to get Tim to demonstrate the procedure described
above but we'll need a volunteer from among the female registrants.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:41:22 EDT
From:         Mike Muenich
Subject:      Artifacts

Is there a complete listing of all artifacts found to date somewhere on the
Website or otherwise?  If such a listing exists, is it broken down by
catagory as to what has been examined in detail, for example the shoe
sole/heel as opposed to items that have just been found and those items that
someone thinks is relevant, such as the aluminum "skin" panel, as opposed to
unknown relevance, but collected.  The recent discussions about the small
light bulb seem to fit in the latter catagory since I was unaware of the
light bulbs existence until recently when the discussion started.  Given the
wide variety of knowledge that exhibits itself on the forum, other people
examining the list might find other items to evaluate which may make a
connection not previously realized.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The short answer is no.  We do not have a complete accounting of artifacts up
on the website.  That would be nice to have but at the moment we just don't
have the resources (time/money) to put it together.  Back before Niku III
(1997) we were very conservative in our collection policy.  The village
search in '97, however, produced well over 100 artifacts ( I can't even
remember without looking it up), most of which are almost certainly junk.

For now at least, we can't throw everythng out in front of everybody and ask
if anything looks interesting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:44:27 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Ross' Experiment

Assuming the box was varnished...    The only sextant box from 1940 I've
held in my hands was painted.  I've seen them varnished.  I'm looking at a
couple of boxes I made here to keep my rifles (before they were banned and
handed back).  I can remember how to dovetail, but I wonder if that is
necessary.  I imagine the thing here is,

(A)  In what condition is a box of the correct size after various periods of
exposure to tropical weather (we are on 20deg South, so it's not entirely
accurate as an experiment).  As we don't know, we'd need a painted box, and
a varnished box (as I can't see a reference to which was found), and
possibly one unprotected  (out of curiosity.  Its possible the Galagher box
was oldish and worn before landing on the Island.)  If we settle on a size,
I could probably make them up cheaper than freighting one, but you are
certainly welcome to send one, Tom.

(B)    Can we still read markings stencilled on the boxes.  Stencilled
usually means painted through a "cutout template" and indicates either
ownership by a company, military service or the manufacturer's info.
Perhaps, as we don't know, we'd have to assume black enamel paint of a
composition common around the time.  I seem to remember most enamels in
those days contained lead, which would pose a problem.

(C) I have to pick an Island we can get to regularly to photograph the
results, and of a type that is consistent with the terrain and exposure of
Niku.  It also has to be out of the normal tourist traffic flow.  I can
think of several and will do an aerial photo shoot in the next 2 weeks.  (I
desperately need to go for a fly).  If I take the Gazelle, it will be more
expensive, as it is a slower aeroplane, but I can fly with the doors open,
and get photos of likely islands for this.  The forum can pick one.  I'll
contribute the air time, and the trips to and from the island for photo
purposes to check on the condition of the boxes.  (Wish my yacht was still
seaworthy  ).

(D)   We need to decide which side of the Island the bones were found.  I
still believe the prevailing wind at Niku "should" be from the East to the
South most of the year.  Which suggests the Western side, of any Island we
pick, and about 100ft up from the high tide mark.  Perhaps we'll have to
leave a test on the other side?

Hmmm  not much to it really  (yeah Ross....)   But not impossible.  Biggest
problem would be itinerant yachties stealing out boxes, and the QNPWS
rangers "cleaning up".  They are not being too receptive at the moment.
Considering I want to leave "rubbish" on their island for up to 5 years, I
can understand that.

Back to Tom....
RossD    (I'm not going to lie under a Ren tree unless I have a FULL
Benedictine bottle...)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:00:45 EDT
From:         Ric
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Randy Jacobson reminded me that he had compiled the radio transmissions
received from NR16020 during the Oakland/Honolulu flight for the 8th Edition.
 Here they are:

0842 GMT: "KHAQQ position intercepted at 0842 GMT 31oN, 139o49'W, All's
well."  Reported by USCG Hawaii at 0850 GMT.

1058 GMT: "At 0028, KHAQQ on phone, reports all's well, no position."
Reported by USCG Hawaii at 1105 GMT.

1100 GMT: "Intercepted position at 1100 GMT 29o15'N, 147o38'W."  Reported by
USCG Hawaii at 1125 GMT.

1200 GMT: "Intercepted position at 1200 GMT: 27o42'N, 149o40'W".  Reported by
USCG Hawaii at 1245 GMT.

1300 GMT: "Following intercepted from plane: speed approximately 155 land
mph, approximate time of arrival 0800 PST".  Reported by USCG Hawaii at 1305
GMT.

1410 GMT: "Intercepted position at 1410 GMT: 25oN, 143oW."  Later corrected
to 153oW.  Reported by USCG Hawaii at 1455 GMT.

1545 GMT: "Following intercepted at 0515 quote Will arrive 1620 GMT".
Reported by USCG Hawaii at 1555 GMT.

1615 GMT: "Earhart plane off Diamond Head at 0545 Honolulu time."  Reported
by USCG Hawaii at 1617 GMT.

1630 GMT: "Earhart plane arrive Honolulu at 0600".  Reported by USCG Hawaii
at 1632 GMT.

Note that the only speed report is the somewhat cryptic "speed approximately
155 land mph" at 1300.  I take this to be a ground speed.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:12:11 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Oscar's Explanation

>I don't doubt for a moment that AE knew the indication
>was for both engines, and since she was making notes for herself, there
>was no reason for her to enter that fact - she would remember.
>What concerns me is the casual "under 20" rather than "about 19
>3/4" or whatever. Perhaps that's unfair - maybe she was just
>taking a break !

Gauges in airplanes are "notoriously" inaccurate today, and in the past.
Vibration, calibration problems etc all take their toll.  I think the "under
20" is quite normal for a pilot.  I would never state categorically what my
fuel flow was either from a gauge or my calculations...

RossD

***************************************************************************
From Ric

As you might note from a recent posting, she apparently did get specific in a
notation on the back of the chart.  "Under 20" apparently means 18.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:16:11 EDT
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Noonan Project

I was very excited about the possibilities. Last Sunday we had the
opportunity to research the records of Captain P.V.H. Weems. Forum members
may recall that Fred Noonan corresponded with him about navigation matters.
Weems was probably the foremost American expert on celestial air
navigation, published some of the earliest books on the subject, and had
his own successful navigation school. He taught (and was good friends with)
Lindbergh, among others, and was brought out of retirement to teach
celestial navigation to the first astronauts. His grandson currently has
all his grandfather's records in about fifty file boxes.

With the enthusiastic help of Dennis McGee, we went through all the files
looking for more Noonan correspondence. Unfortunately, none was found. We
did get a couple of additional leads which will, hopefully, prove more
fruitfull. We also learned some things about the Weems school of
navigation, including the fact that Gatty was a key associate and
instructor, and we found some correspondance between Weems and PanAm which
indicates how he felt about Noonan's skills.

Weems asked PAA for permission to use Noonan's letter about the Hawaii
flight navigation in the second edition of his book. In one letter he says,
"I think it would serve beautifully as a technical description of the
navigator's flight work and also would help to clear the air as to his
personal ability as a navigator. I believe the publication of his letter
would be in the nature of a testimonial to his ability as a navigator." And
in another letter he said, "...to me it seems to be a very excellent
compliment to Noonan to have this letter published, because a great many
people in public life believe that Noonan caused the failure of the Earhart
expedition through lack of knowledge of navigation, which in my opinion is
far from the facts." PAA eventually suggested he not use it, but left it up
to his judgement. Weems ultimately included it in his book.

There are a couple of file boxes I hope to get back to someday for a more
thorough search. While there may be no extensive Noonan correspondance, we
know there must at least be a copy of Weems' original letter to Fred which
caused his published reply. The search goes on.

Blue skies, -jerry
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Rumors about his navigational ability - but not his drinking.  Once more it
seems that the entire drinking problem folktale is utterly without foundation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:19:50 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Learning to think about the performance of the 10E

Oscar Boswell wrote:

>Ric: I respectfully suggest that the basic problem with Mr. Devitt's analysis
>is ...

Thanks for the insight.  It wasn't meant to be an analysis really.  I tried
to show the non aviators in the forum the "simple math" Noonan would have
used to work out the flight plan for the trip if he had the weather info
that arrived a Lae as he took off.  Hoping to turn it from something that
sounded technical into something that could be followed easily by using your
previous explanation plus how simple is the actual math that's really used.

Another "black art" to those who think aircraft are difficult to master...

As you and I know, when we are leaving for somewhere, we all flight plan
using the TAS of the airplane.  The ONLY figure we seem to know for the
Electra is 150mph.  So I used that.  If we knew the TAS of the Electra at
10,000 at the relevant power settings, we could do this.  But mind my
disclaimer at the end of that post.

Apparently at light weights the Electra will actually fly at 65mph (57kts)
which may be an indication of the accuracy of the figures I have !!
(Actually it would be interesting to know what the normal take-off speed of
a normally loaded Electra is ????)

I wanted to show that we can "PROVE" the Electra made it to Howland with
reserve fuel (if we want to play with figures) against a 26mph headwind just
as easily as we can "PROVE" it fell into the water somewhere before Howland.

The only relevant performance figures I have to work off are the Finch
f