Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:11:05 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Recordings > From Frank Westlake > So sometime after 0740 GCT (1740 local?) the Mooseby has ... That was an odd typo. My apologies. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric Just yankin' your chain Frank. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:12:57 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 1965 Collopy letter Something I may have mentioned in an earlier post was about material that may still exist in the old D.C.A. archives (if in fact they were kept). In 1965 I was living with an uncle and aunt. The uncle was a projectionist for Department of Civil Aviation and I spent a lot of time at: "D.C.A. Henty House Little Collins St. Melbourne 11-1-65 " I imagine there was a certain amount of official correspondence between Collopy in New Guinea and his head office in Melbourne. Unfortunately although my uncle was still alive and in his 90's when I last heard, I had a falling out with him some 30 years ago. I suspect there are records in the Australian system relating to happenings in Lae, but I don't know if I have the financial resources to track them down. In the mean time I'll try to find out whether correspondence from that period was archived and is available somewhere. As I worked for the commonwealth government from 1970 prior to entering the Air Force, I believe there is just such a chance. Australia had an amazing safety record under D.C.A. and the anecdote about a piece of antenna fascinates me. Floyd Kilts' "bones" were just anecdotal, but look where that led. It is possible there are some official reports buried in a box... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:17:46 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: 1965 Collopy letter True, Collopy wrote the letter 28 years after the incident, but it was written prior to the publication of Fred Goerner's book. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, but the letter contains no implication that Noonan had a "problem" with alcohol. It does, however, seem to fulfill some fondly expressed hopes that Fred was a scotch drinker. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:25:25 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Moorsby/Moorby Att: Bob Brandenburg - Sorry Bob, it was MOORBY, and - besides other documentation - there's a photo of the ship with the name in view, in Donahue's BRITISH CONNECTION. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Cam is right. The 1937 Berne list has her as MOORBY, call sign GYSR. She's shown as having A1 (CW) and A2 (MCW), but not A3 (voice) capability. I still like Moose Berry. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:26:03 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Brines To Randy J. - Or Brines could have heard it at an even more likely spot - Anthony's Coast Guard Monitoring Station in the Aloha Tower. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:28:04 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Takeoff film Some years ago Joe Gervais tracked down Sid Marshall in Australia, who shot the original footage. Joe said the film was in very bad shape, patched together with Scotch tape, and broke more than once when run through the projector. I don't recall if the 99's actually got the original, but - as you say - it turned up missing after being borrowed by someone. The home splicing job likely accounts for the out-of-sequence scenes. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric What scenes do you think are out of sequence? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:31:10 EDT From: Dustymiss Subject: More from U of W Here's the latest from U of W. August 30, 2000 Dear Ms. McLaughlin: Thank you for your inquiry about Amelia Earhart's Plan B in the Gene Vidal Papers (6013) at the American Heritage Center. Dan Davis has left the AHC for Utah State University, so your e-mail message was forwarded to me. There is no reference to Plan B in the inventory of the Vidal Collection. I pulled 3 boxes of correspondence and memos (boxes 19, 19A, and 20; about .75 cubic feet of correspondence altogether), because I felt that any investigative and background information would have been filed after her disappearance. Regrettably, the correspondence files proved to be of no value. There is no mention of Earhart's flight plan prior to her trip. Even more surprisingly, there is no correspondence from February 1937 until January 1940. The correspondence from 1940 until Vidal's death in 1969 may contain a reference to Plan B or Amelia Earhart's disappearance, but it is not possible for me to review it all due to a current staff shortage and other commitments. However, there are two alternatives for you. One is to contact UWIN, the University of Wyoming Information Network, at the University of Wyoming Library, 766-2510. UWIN offers research assistance at the rate of $50/hour. My other suggestion is to contract the services of a graduate history student by calling Dr. William Moore at 766-5101, budmoore@uwyo.edu. As to Doris Rich's research at the AHC, I am not permitted to release any information about her work. I did find in Box 19 five telegrams sent to Richard Widmer, Miss Tinney, and Charles E. Rosendahl, and will send complementary copies to you. Best wishes in your research. Sincerely, Carl Hallberg Assistant Archivist, Reference American Heritage Center University of Wyoming PO Box 3924 Laramie, WY 82071-3924 Phone: (307)-766-2563 Fax: (307)-766-5511 hallberg@uwyo.edu *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Dusty. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:50:58 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Fiji Consul There may have been no chain of command to break. A private citizen acting as a consul mainly processing visas and passport matters doesn't oversee the same kinds of diplomatic responsibilities that an ambassador would. It could have been quite normal for protocols to have been in place for them to contact the US embassy in Australia directly for inter-government diplomatic matters. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder if there was a U.S. embassy in Australia at that time. Australia was not yet an independent nation but still a British Commonwealth. Vaskess refers to the U.S. Consul, not ambassador or embassy, in Sydney. ************************************************************************** From Phil Tanner Is it possible that a US consul in Fiji at that time would not have been a fully fledged diplomat, but a prominent national living locally and acting as honorary consul, as is the case with some countries' overseas representation in some locations even today? If so, Sir Harry would have been taking it outside the diplomatic chain of command by dealing with an honorary consul. And maybe the dignity of his post dictated (to Vaskess at least) that ambassadors deal with ambassadors? LTM, Phil 2276 ************************************************************************* From Ric Sir Harry was not an ambassador. As High Commissioner he was almost a Head of State, but I agree, he would probably want to deal with the highest ranking U.S. government official in the region. Again, the reference is to the U.S. Consul in Sydney. On October 26th Vaskess again suggested to Sir Harry that a "carefully worded" letter be sent to the "U.S. Consul-General in Sydney." Whether Mr. Abbot was signing visas in Suva or not, it doesn't seem very likely that His Excellency would bring him in on this. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:00:51 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Radio details >Mike said: > >> Sidetone is transmitted audio, generated within the transmitter's speech >> stages (or a tone oscillator in a CW transmitter) and fed directly into the >> receiver headphone circuit. It is for the purpose of monitoring your >> transmission.... to let you know (after a fashion) that it's working. But >> it does not tell every thing you need to know, obviously. Yes, I said that. It is true. Now for the next issue: >This raises another question: IF we are talking about a real sidetone, (as >far as I know, a real sidetone is for CW only!?!?!?) then, we are talking >about a transmitter with "true CW capability", then, aren't we? NO. The term "sidetone" refers to BOTH the voice fed into the receiver headset circuit AND a tone fed into the same circuit for monitoring CW transmissions. And we are NOT to infer from this that AE's rig was designed with CW in mind. It was added on as an afterthought-modification, and not too well carried out, even by Bell Labs/Western Electric who designed the rig, built it and later did the mods. AE's xmtr DID NOT have a tone oscillator to generate any sidetone for CW monitoring... in most rigs of the day, when the xmtr was switched over to CW, the speech amp was made to oscillate at 800-1000 Hz and this oscillator was keyed along with the RF stages. NOT done, in AE's rig. >I thought last year the conclusion of a VERY long thread was that the only >way for AE to send Morse was tapping the PTT switch on the mike... NO NO NO. The transmitter did indeed have a keying circuit, with a special keying relay, operated by a telegraph key. What in effect happened, was that the push-to-talk line was closed -- using a toggle switch -- to put the rig on the air on CW, then the keying relay was used to actually key the RF stages on and off... and the relay "followed" the key. To receive, the switch closing the push-to-talk circuit had to be OPENED. This meant the xmtr could not be "break-in keyed." Standard practice in a/c xmtrs since way, way back was to use break-in keying, so the operator in the plane could hear the sytaion he was working "between the dots." Apparently W.E.Co. felt too much redesign of the 13C xmtr would be required to achieve break-in keying, so they did it the quick and dirty way... very easy, too, to confuse a non-tech operator. This rig could NOT be properly "keyed" on CW simply by using the mic button, without seriously damaging the radio due to transients, etc generated by making-and-breaking some whopping current-carrying circuits never intended to be so handled. Doing so would produce a very sloppy, rotten-sounding signal... hmmm, that's consistent with at least one description of a post-loss transmission, too. >> Again: This is NOT a method of getting the rec and xmtr on the same >> frequency. Absolutely not. >> >> The principle, on voice, is: if the speaker can hear his/her own voice >> in the headphones, they will not shout. Simple, effective automatic gain >> control. Same principle used in your telephone at home. >> >> I have seen nothing to indicate that there was ANY method of >> "whistle-thru" or "spotting" incorporated in AE's radio setup. As strange >> and/or ludicrous >Sure sounds quite strange to me! It is many years since I've handled my >"Command Sets", but I would have thought that there was a way to hear the >transmitter in the receiver, possibly with a special position on some >"Mode" switch... NO. There was NONE in the old Command Set. That's a fact. I know that rig very, very well indeed. I assure you I am right on this one. >Again: I don't have the diagrams... Sure wish there was a way I could buy >them, either tru faxing, or an electronic file or... > >> as it may sound, the method of tuning the receiver to the transmitter >> was. "look at the dial." (This was the norm, even in military a/c radios of >> the period.) Very dangerous practice, because often those old dials could >> be "off" and you had to know the fudge factors. And respect them! This >> could be hard for a non-tech (even anti-tech) person to deal with (a la AE). >> >> LTM (who always likes to hear herself talk) and >> 73 >> Mike E. >*************************************************************************** >> From Ric >> >> Sounds like I should just stop posting the stuff from Janet Whitney entirely. >> > >Sounds fine to me: will save a huge amount of bandwith, on my slow Internet >connection... > >Cheers. >Christian D. Aw, c'mon.... I agree with Vern on this one. Let Janet post away. She's making me think some more. And that's good. And she may come up with some angle we haven't thought of yet. And that's possible. LTM (who has been known, sometimes, to put mouth in motion w/o brain in gear, but don't you DARE question her on it) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:02:10 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Brines There ain't no way in Hades that rig AE had could have been transmitting continuously for 2 hours! Remember we are NOT talking about modern solid state low current drain gear. We are talking about an electronic equivalent to the Dinosaur. This thing drew around 60 AMPS (!!!) from a 12-volt battery, in key-down transmit mode. This is not new information. That radio would suck the life out of the batteries in no time if the key was held down... unless the tubes melted in fervent heat before the batteries died. LTM (whose hot flashes are legendary) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:05:46 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: 1965 Collopy letter Collopy quotes Noonan in the letter (posted by Don Jordan) as saying that both he and Earhart were not good "w/t operators". I'd assume it's some sort of reference to radio, but I've never heard the term. What do the letters stand for? Ah, so Fred WAS a scotch drinker after all. My fond suspicions are confirmed. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall "w/t" is one of those quaint Britishisms and stands for "wireless telegraph." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:06:53 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Recordings I'm beginning to wonder whether Brines used the AP radio facilities in Honolulu to listen for AE signals. Since landlines for also used, I wonder if they also had a radiotelegraph office as well, which could be tuned to various frequencies. That seems to make more sense of the situation IF IF Associated Press had radio facilities. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:10:21 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Electra's Belly Antenna ><the "A" and "N" quadrant system.>> And Ric said: >I'm not aware of any such consensus. So, what would you say the belly antenna on that Electra, Junior is? ************************************************************************** From Ric My apologies. I didn't read carefully enough. I thought you were referring to the belly antenna on NR16020. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:25:02 EDT From: Vern Subject: Random Radio Ramblings Thoughts prompted by various recent postings relative to radios and antennas. I think it is well to keep in mind that a lot of people tinkered with AE's radio equipment. Some may have done things in pretty unconventional fashion -- Joe Gurr, for example. *** THESE ARE ONLY MY OWN OPINIONS BASED ON MY OWN CURRENT UNDERSTANDING *** QUESTION: Was the belly antenna the receiving antenna? Very possibly. The lead in enters the plane in the vicinity of the receiver location under the copilots seat. Of course, the RDF loop coupling unit was also in the cockpit somewhere. The belly antenna may well have been the RDF sense antenna -- or, it may have been both. (See later comments on RDF-1) A little of Janet's "State of Radio in 1937" speculation... Whether or not it was true (it probably was), there was the perception on the part of many airplane and radio people that T/R relays in transmitters were a frequent source of trouble. It was believed that the relay contacts frequently "welded" due static electric discharges. Past postings suggest that it was not uncommon to use a dedicated receiving antenna, such as a belly wire, while an antenna on top, or a trailing wire, was used for transmitting. It is my understanding that this was practical with relatively low-power transmitters and vacuum tube receivers. Vacuum tubes were much more tolerant of RF voltages from the transmitter than are present day solid-state circuits. Conclusion: The belly antenna may well have been the receiving antenna. It may also have been the sense antenna for the RDF. The topside "V" antenna may have been use for transmitting only -- no need for wiring from the receiver to the transmitter T/R relay terminal. QUESTION: What about the the two antenna terminals (HF and LF) on the Western Electric receiver that are switched depending on the frequency band selected? If you have no "designated" LF antenna -- like if you've done away with the trailing wire antenna, as had AE -- then you connect the two antenna terminals together and to whatever you use for a receiving antenna, via the T/R relay in the transmitter, or not. Now this antenna is functional on all bands. QUESTION: Was the Bendix coupler unit necessary whatever receiver was used with the Bendix RDF loop? Yes, a coupling unit of some sort was pretty much necessary. It was necessary to transform the balanced, high-impedance, of the loop to the unbalanced, low-impedance, input of the receiver. Some amplification was also desirable due to the inefficiency of the small diameter loop compared to a more conventional, relatively long, wire antenna. This would also be the place to introduce the signal from a sense antenna -- if such was used. QUESTION: Was there a problem getting operating power to the RDF loop coupling unit if it was used with the Western Electric receiver rather than a Bendix receiver? No. The schematic diagrams of the WE-20 series receivers clearly show a terminal strip where all power and control functions are available. This is used to make the required electrical connections to the remote control unit installed where the pilot and copilot can reach it. This same terminal strip could be used to provide operating voltages to the Bendix RDF coupling unit. QUESTION: Is a sense antenna necessary for operation of the Bendix RDF loop and coupler unit? No. The sense antenna serves to resolve the 180 degree ambiguity problem of the loop. There are other ways (non-electronic) to resolve this ambiguity. If one chose not to use a sense antenna, he would simply ground the sense antenna terminal of the coupling unit. Or leave it unconnected. It probably wouldn't make much difference inside a metal airplane. Now the loop exhibits the typical two-null response of a simple loop antenna -- the figure "8" sort of response. This avoids some problems in getting everything properly adjusted so the bearing obtained is a correct bearing. (Phasing and amplitude of the two signals must be right.) The simple loop is subject to fewer problems once it has been calibrated (bearing-wise) for the particular aircraft and the particular installation. QUESTION: Was the Bendix RDF loop coupling unit on AE's plane similar to the RDF-1 for which we have a schematic diagram and description? There is little doubt that it was similar but, if we assume it was the unit described in the Aero-Digest article, there were certainly differences. This does appear to be the unit seen in some of the photos of AE with the loop in her hands. To my knowledge, we do not have a schematic of the Bendix unit, nor do we have photos good enough to do much educated guessing about it. The RDF-1 is described as being designed to simplify the switiching between the various functions available. AE may not have had benefit of this more simplified switching. We simply do not know what all she had to do to change over from normal communication receiving (which wasn't working) and RDFing. Whatever she did, she did hear the Itaska signal on 7500 kc. She reported that she could not get a null. Might she have been able to get a null on that frequency? Did she just not try hard enough? AE seemed to have the idea that a radio bearing could be determined rather quickly. In her repeated requests for the Itaska to take a bearing on her, she was never on long enough for a bearing to be taken. I can imagine her giving her loop a rapid turn one way then the other and concluding that she couldn't get a null. QUESTION: Could AE have expected to get a null on 7500 kc? Frequencies above the AM broadcast band (up to about 1500 kc in that time) were not generably considered usable for RDFing. Since she did hear the Itaska, apparently via the loop, would the loop have exhibited its normal directional characteristics? Should she have been able to get a null? There is one instance, that I know of, when a person familiar with radio and DF loops of that time was asked that question. It's purely anecdote and a rather off-hand response. When asked whether a loop such as AE had would give a null at 7500 kc, his response was: "Sure it would." One thing that has long bothered me is the matter of the automatic gain control switch on the receiver and its remote control unit. Did she get that turned off before trying to get a null? If the Itaska signal was strong, she would not have got a null with the automatic gain control functioning. (It's labeled AVC on the receiver for "automatic volume control." AGC is the modern, more generic term.) I wonder if that might be the genesis of AE's idea that she couldn't get a null when too close to the transmitting location -- such as at Lae? Maybe nobody had ever got through to her that she needed to turn off the AVC switch. QUESTION: Was there a second receiver specifically for RDF, presumably Bendix? Possible of course. Where was it located? AE had said that the receiver was under the copilot's seat, the transmitter was in the cabin, and that they had a Bendix RDF. She didn't say where that was. It was pretty obvious where it was. It was on the roof. Anyone could see that. Does the fact that she didn't say where the RDF receiver was located mean it didn't exist? If there was a second receiver there must have been a second remote control unit somewhere in the cockpit. Even if it was pretuned to 7500 kc, she had to have means to turn it on, adjust volume, and she had to have a jack to plug her earphones into. Hopefully she would be sure the AGC was turned off! *************************************************************************** From Ric Very nice summary and I agree with most of it (which is why I think it's very nice). I will point out that Amelia DOES say where the Bendix direction finder is. She lists it as being on the instrument panel among her "navigation instruments" such as "compasses, directional gyros, the Bendix direction finder, and various radio equipment." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:32:04 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Fiji Consul From the US Embassy website at Canberra, Australia (http://www.usis-australia.gov/embassy/history.html) "United States consular representation was gradually expanded but official diplomatic relations, which had previously been conducted through the Government of the United Kingdom, were not established until January 1940. At that time, the Right Honorable R.G. Casey became Australia's Minister to Washington and Mr. Clarence E. Gauss was appointed United States Minister to Australia. In July 1946, the rank of representatives exchanged by the two countries was raised to that of Ambassador. The American Embassy was the first embassy to be established in Canberra." This implies that the consul in Sydney was part of an "expanded" diplomatic consul at the time, but not an embassy (which came to Canberra a decade later). I still suspect that the diplomatic liason Sir Harry was discussing was beyond the scope of the US consul in Fiji (which probably dealt mostly with routine visas and passport matters), and more appropriate for the professional diplomats in Sydney. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric So, technically, the Top Yank in Sydney in October of 1940 was the U.S. Minister but that had only been since January and it wouldn't be surprising if the Secretary of the High Commission up in Fiji still used the old term "Consul-General". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:58:44 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Story of the "Map Case"? I have a vague (but perhaps not altogether unreliable) recollection of hearing of an aluminum box found on Niku I or Niku II. I've read all of the Forum and looked at all the web pages (I think) and haven't come across any story of how this was ruled out of consideration as coming from the Electra. Did TIGHAR find such a box? If so, how was it disqualified? Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric You're referring to the famous (infamous?) Navigator's Bookcase. That all went down back in the days before the (communications) Revolution, so it's not on the website. Gather 'round the campfire and I'll tell you the tale, in which are many lessons. The story begins on the first day ashore at Niku on the first expedition in 1989. Among the junk that littered the remains of the abandoned village was an aluminum box, beat up and partially cut apart. Not the sort of thing you'd look at and immediately recognize as part of an airplane, but it was aluminum and that was good. But we weren't looking for bits and pieces. For all we knew the whole enchilada was parked somewhere in the bushes just waiting for us to hack our way to it, so hack we did. For three weeks we explored and searched and tried to at least get a general feel for every part of the island. The only place we came across anything that might resemble airplane parts was in the village, and those few pieces - included the cut-apart box - had been carefully noted but left in place until we decided what was worth collecting. When it came time to leave we took a hard look at our disappointing assortment of scrap metal and decided to collect about a dozen artifacts which looked at least vaguely promising. Among them was the box. We liked the fact that it had very regularly spaced rivets and had traces of something that looked like it might be zinc-chromate paint or wash (both indicators of aviation use). Most of all we liked that it had a number stamped into it - 28F4023. If that was a part number we should be able to find out for sure what the thing was. When we got home we went to work researching the number and quickly discovered that what we had was an interior "furnishings" (that's what the "F" means) for a Consolidated Model 28 flying boat, known to the U.S. Navy as the "PBY." The particular fixture we had was "Box - Navigator's book and paper storage." The next step was to find a photograph of such a beast installed in a PBY and see if it looked like what we had. The National Archives had photos and, sure enough, there was our box - except not quite. Our artifact had some straps and fasteners that weren't in the photos and, although we couldn't be sure from the pictures, it looked like the mounting holes were wrong. Might we have a PBY bookcase that was actually used in some other airplane? We needed to find an actual bookcase in its original installation aboard an actual, unrestored PBY. Good luck. After an exhaustive search we found an early PBY-5A that had been wrecked in a tornado out behind the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. Sho' nuff. The box was right there on the bulkhead and sho' nuff, the mounting holes were entirely different from what saw on our box. Despite the part number, it appeared that this Navigator's Bookcase had never been in a PBY. So what kind of airplane HAD it been in and how did it get to that island? Could it have come from the airplane that we think ended up on that island? The one that we know was specially outfitted for a navigator who would be using the same books that case was designed to hold? Okay, first question. Is the design of the box old enough to have been available in 1937? Yes, the PBY-1 went into service the previous year. Next question, would the Earhart organization have any access to such a bookcase? Yes, we know that they borrowed a bubble octant from the Navy at North Island, San Diego and there was a PBY squadron based there. In fact, the Consolidated factory was in San Diego. How about the greenish paint? Is there anything about it that would disqualify it being that old? To get that question answered we enlisted the help of the FBI lab in Washington, DC. Their answer - there's nothing about this box that would preclude it being aboard Earhart's aircraft. Cool! But is there any indication that such a box WAS aboard? A photo of Earhart and Noonan standing before the open cabin door in Darwin, Australia shows a shadowy object on the cabin floor that COULD be the bookcase. It's the right size, the right shape, but it just isn't clear enough to be sure. We built a full-scale model of an intact case and photographed it on the floor of a Lockheed 10, duplicating the angle of the Darwin photo. Yup, looks right. We built a scaled-down model of the interior of the cabin and put a scaled down bookcase under the scaled-down navigator's table. Yup, fits. We tried to always be careful not to claim that anything was proven, because of course, it wasn't. It was a tantalizing clue, that's all, but the press loved it and we got lots of good coverage, not all of it accurate (surprise, surprise). Our critics howled and that generated more press and so it went. Meanwhile, the answer came from an unexpected direction. We were still trying to identify some of the other aluminum hunks we had collected on the island. One badly bent and corroded gusset-like structure had a part number still partially discernible - 32B108??? Looks like the same Consolidated pattern. Model 32 was the B-24, Liberator, PB4Y-1 series. "B" meant a fuselage structural component. We never did find a solid match for the rest of the number, but in looking through the parts catalog for the B-24D/PB4Y-1 I started to come across "28F" part numbers. PBY parts in a Liberator? Yup. Mostly interior furnishings. (We're in a hurry. This thing we designed for a PBY will work fine for now in a B-24. Why take the time to design a whole new part?) Oh my God, I wonder if.... sure enough, there it is, 28F4023 "Box - Navigator's book and paper storage." Quick to the National Archives. Find a photo. Yes, there it is in all its glory, exactly like the one we found on the island, fasteners and mounting holes and all. Two years of research but we found the answer. It wasn't the answer we would have preferred but even a disappointing answer is far better than no answer at all. How did a B-24 part get to the island? Most likely from Canton. At least one and possibly more B-24s were wrecked there during the war and others may have been modified (eventually Consolidated came out with a bookcase especially for the Model 32 with a "32F" part number). After the war lots of settlers from the PISS worked for the airlines on Canton. Plenty of opportunity to bring home useful stuff. So that's the story of the map case. Lessons: Things are not always what they seem (duh). You can build a pretty respectable castle out of thin air. The press will misquote you and people will hold you accountable. Don't worry about it. If you keep hammering you'll find the answer, but not necessarily the one you expected or the one you wanted. No matter. The real answer is always the right answer. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:00:31 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Moorsby/Moorby For Cam Warren: Oops!! Thanks, Cam. I was relying on the majority spelling in the message transcripts on the research CD. All messages had the call sign right. But the ship's name is spelled "Moorby" and "Moorsby", the latter occurring most frequently, so I chose that variant. Bad decision. I just rechecked, and there's a message from Moorby to commercial radio station KHK in Honolulu. It's spelled "Moorsby" in the transcript header, but the literal text of the message from the ship's master to KHK begins with "Moorby . . . ". The ship's master knew how to spell his ship's name, and I should have caught that. Bob Brandenburg ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:01:37 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Fiji Consul Ric wrote, >So, technically, the Top Yank in Sydney in October of 1940 was the U.S. >Minister but that had only been since January and it wouldn't be surprising >if the Secretary of the High Commission up in Fiji still used the old term >"Consul-General". Not surprising at all. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:02:48 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Brines Oh my, certainly, Mike E. is correct. There is no way that the radio transmitter in the Electra could have transmitted a continuous carrier for two hours. Some time ago this was discussed on the forum and I remember doing some calculations, and coming up with 1.5 hours as the maximum ideal (based on the 85 amp hour battery and a transmitter drawing 50 amps). Factoring in mushy tubes and other problems that could easily be whittled down to not much more than an hour. And, as Mike implies, the transmitter probably wouldn't have lasted that long sending a continuous signal. I hope no one has gotten the impression that there is any consensus or serious consideration that the transmission Brines referred to was possibly from Earhart and Noonan. Obviously, given what we definitely know about their equipment, it couldn't have been. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:04:07 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Random Radio Ramblings Vern wrote, >The belly antenna may well have been the receiving antenna. It >may also have been the sense antenna for the RDF. The topside "V" antenna >may have been use for transmitting only -- no need for wiring from the >receiver to the transmitter T/R relay terminal. Which fits the facts and the theory. With the evidence we have, showing damage to the belly antenna, if it was both the receiving antenna and the sense for RDF, they were in serious trouble as they approached Howland and apparently unaware of it. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:08:48 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Electra's Belly Antenna I believe that AE's radio test that she avoided in Oakland was to use this A/N quadrant system. This was the standard way of homing in on an airfield using radios, at least in the US. Her plane was also used in the US, so wouldn't it be logical for her to keep that antenna in place for use? Just curious... ************************************************************************** From Ric As Cam is fond of saying, my expertise in radio is on a par with AE's, but on the face of it I can't think why the belly antenna as described by Vern could not be used to recieve "The Range" (A/N quadrant system). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:53:02 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Story of the "Map Case"? After two years of research I'm sure you also tried to find out if Noonan could have had a navigator's bookcase that had been intended for a Liberator. Did the Liberator not go into service until after July '37? Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric First flight of the Model 32 (XB-24) was December 29, 1939. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:01:45 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: Recordings In my previous two postings of 8/28 I tried to establish the authorship of the indented material of the Brines' letter as Brines himself. Absent verification the indented material has no author and its content is subject to question, the source being unknown--been there-done that. I will assume that the author is now established as Brines, the letter is contemporary with the event, and its content has some merit if it can be accurately interpreted. The first paragraph of the second page of the letter, as noted on this forum, discusses "reports". "Except the screwy reports of amateur operators who persistently heard voices" when we were trying to sleep. I bounced out of bed half a dozen times each night, sleepily trying to check up on some new report that had Amelia * * * *." Note that Brines carefully or at least deliberatly couches this in the form or "reports" and "check[ing] sic up" on those new reports. This language is different than that found in the second paragraph. "The first time came early in the story when that British freighter, the Moorby, reported overhearing a 'conversation' which consisted of a series of unholy 'squeals' that might have meant something to somebody, but not to me, after hearing them. 'Scoop' Culver, covering the 'Tiser from coastguard hdqts, reported the messages originated somewhere "between Howland and the Solomon Islands," which meant somewhere below Pearl Harbor" This appears much more direct and clearly tells me, and Richard, that he (Brines) heard the "squeals". He does not hear a "report", he does not refer to something that someone else heard--he directly states that he couldn't understand the squeals "after hearing them". He notes that "Scoop" was at coastguard hdgts, not him and he certainly wasn't on the Moorby. I agree with another member of the forum that doubts, even if the Moorby had recording equipment, that it docked in Honolulu, although it may have. Lloyd's records may recount its voyage through the Pacific and it might be useful to know where Moorby was during early July, 1937 and if it, in fact, docked at Honolulu. If he didn't hear it at Coastguard Headquarters and he didn't hear it on the Moorby, he heard an amatuer or a recording, which brings me to the issue. Several postings on the forum seem to indicate that this medium was not available, or not practical, to be on shipboard, or possibly at the Coastguard Headquarters to record this type of conversation. After several nights of straining my brain I recalled a passage from one of the volumes of my WWII collection that discussed recording by the US Navy, at sea, early in the War. Stanley Johnston was aboard USS Lexington from early April, 1942 until she was sunk at Coral Sea on May 8th, 1942. In his book "Queen of the Flattops, E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc, 1942 he makes three references to recording equipment aboard the "Lex". I have placed them in inverse order as I located them and refreshed my recollection. " It was just at this point I suffered a great personal disappointment. I found my way through the smoke to Commander Seligman's cabin to recover the recordings. In all we had made a dozen or more records. The first of these from the squadron commanders on that wonderful attack on the Ryukaku. Then there were several that I had made during the attack on the Lexington. In addition to getting the stuff as it was happening, and getting onto the wax the sound of the Jap bombs, plane engines, the torpedo explosions and the sounds of our own guns, I had gone down when the attack was over and amplified everything with 15 minutes more of my own explanation." Johnston, pp 252-253. About this time a great deal began to happen. Thinking back later I realize a thousand and one impressions were registering that I wasn't even conscious of at the time. Chiefly I was busy for the next few minutes getting my microphone and telephone circuits straightened out." Johnston, p. 219 "Commander Mort Seligman, the Lex's executive officer, brought with him to sea practically all his worldly goods except his house. With his civilian clothing, his golf clubs, fishing tackle, etc., he also had on board a superb combination recording and play-back machine. We often discussed the value of interviews with pilots, air commanders and air crewmen recorded on discs as a permanent record. Taken immediately after the men return from action while their impressions are still vivid and clear, such recordings would be of great value to supplement their written reports which often are laconic, stereotyped, and brief. We had been so enthused over the idea that the commander arranged for me to assist as questioner in his cabin on the night of the 7th. He invited, for the experiment, all the commanders of the air squadrons that took part in the day's attack on the Jap carrier, later identified as the Ryukaku. Those who were present that evening after the air conferences were over and plans for the 8th had been laid, were: Group Commander Bill Ault, Lieut. Commanders Ramsey, Brett, Hamilton and Dixon. My part was to see they were properly introduced for the recording (with Commander Seligman acting as the recording engineer) and to ask a question now and then to get them talking. We wanted everything they could remember about what each man saw and did in the fight. All of them were skilled observers, reporting about jobs in which each was an expert. What they had to say was precise and to the point. It was without frills of any sort and just about the most dramatic thing I ever heard. From their flying grandstands above, these five men were eyewitnesses to everything that took place and was interwoven into the battle itself. As each man finished his own statment he made a summary accounting for his squadron and then added his conclusions concerning tactics. They also gave their evaluation of enemy movements and defensive action, described and sumed up the strength and weaknesses of enemy pilots, planes, anti-aircraft guns, and vessels. I believe that had these recordings been preserved and sent on to Washington as Commander Seligman hoped and intended, they would have been of the greatest value to the Navy's staff, personnel and procurement sections. They would, in my opinion at least, have been of truly material benefit as supplemnental to the paper reports that already go in on every phase of any action. We played the four discs, each one of about 20 minutes' playing time, back for ourselves that night. So good were they that Seligman and I decided to attempt to make a recording the next day of any fighting that might take place around us. We were anticipating an air assault on the Lex and Carrier II almost as soon as it was light, so there was real point to the preparations we then made. Earlier experiments along the same line had been unsatisfactory because the recording microphone had picked up too much noise from the ship itself. The rattle and slam of gunfire on the Lexinton's flight deck alone had been enough to jam the mike and create a noise level over which it was impossible to talk. So we taped the microphone so, that by cupping my hands over it and holding it close to my lips we could exclude almost any other sound and yet get a clear recording of the voice itself. We extended the microphone line from the Commnader's cabin up to the signal bridge--my battle station--and had about 40 feet of loose line there to enable me to move freely around the bridge and see everything that might happen. One of the orderlies was shown how to operate the recording machine. We rigged an intercommunications telephone between the bridge and his cabin so that he could be given directions when to start and stop the turntable." Johnston, pp 193-195 Yes, I know this does not take recording back to July, 1937, but much has been posted over the past two weeks claiming no such equipment existed, or couldn't or didn't exist until after the war, it wasn't practical, affordable, capable of re-play, wouldn't work on shipboard, etc. Whatever equipment this was, it was either affordable on a Lieut. Commanders pay (really cheap in 1941/42) or was furnished by the Navy, (I suspect the latter), was "hearable" in Washington (substantiating my opinion that this was Navy property since Seligman expected to provide the Navy in Washington with the disks and expected them to hear what was recorded on them), was at least semi-portable, worked at sea, was adaptable and versatle, capable of remote recording, was done on a "wax" disk, each about 20 minutes in length, could be immediately played back, and with all due respect to Navy orderlies must have been somewhat easy to operate. Seligman and Johnston also acted as "sound engineers" aparently without training and were clever enough to shield or mask the microphone under severe noise conditions. Johnston notes that the recordings were so good they decided to attempt a combat recording. Although I doubt that Moorby had such equipment in 1937, it is entirely possible that Coast Guard Headquarters or some amatuer might have had an earlier, less portable version for the very purpose of recording important radio messages. Targets up--shoot away. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:10:17 EDT From: Mike Everette, The Radio Historian Subject: W/T >From Ric > >As I recall "w/t" is one of those quaint Britishisms and stands for >"wireless telegraph." You are absolutely correct. W/T = Wireless Telegraph, Wireless Telegraphy. Another is R/T, which means Radio Telephone, aka voice radio. Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric And so I checked my Sutton harness, hit the boost, grabbed the R/T, and said, "Hello Red One. Red Three calling. I say, old boy, don't look now but you seem to have a Hun on your tail. I'll be right there." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:20:26 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: recordings (referring to Mike Muenich's long posting about recordings made aboard ships) Ric, my business partner (electronics R & D company) spent a good deal of his life as a recording engineer and believes that the 20 minute disc technology mentioned here was a 3 mil 33 1/3 RPM system. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:21:30 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Fiji Consul Ric: Quite right to point out that the secretary of the British high commission in Fiji in 1940 was not an ambassador. I was thinking in post-colonial terms - independent countries in the Commonwealth these days have high commissioners in one another's capitals, who are the exact equivalent of ambassadors to non-Commonwealth nations. LTM Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:25:07 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Fred, Hungover, Drunk or Sober? William WG wrote: >Plainly put, Fred Noonan looks sober in that clip. It contains no proof that >Fred was drunk on that flight, and provides reasonable evidence of the >contrary. Patrick G. wrote: >The point is that a given amount of alcohol does not always >produce a given result. I stand by my conviction that the Lae takeoff film >conclusively refutes the "Fred was drunk" theory, regardless of his >consumption the night before. There are really three issues here. 1. Did Fred get drunk the night before the flight and was he, therefore, hungover the next morning? 2. Was Fred drunk the morning the flight left? 3. Did Fred drink (or get drunk) during the flight? Obviously the film cannot answer No. 3. It can, however, provide clues related to Nos. 1 and 2. I agree in part with William.....the film can provide "reasonable evidence" of Fred's condition. I disagree with Patick. ..I do not believe the film provides "conclusive proof" of Fred's condition whether it be either drunk or hungover. Conclusive is a very strong word. I have played a numer of different sports with some very talented athletes who had drinking problems. Prior to a game, these guys would down an amount of alcohol relative to their body weight, that would place them in the legally drunk category. They would then proceed to perform feats of athletism during the game that would make a sober person dizzy. I can only imagine how they might have performed sober. The drinking after the games would continue on into the evening. These guys would then show up the next day for the continuation of the tournament in what had to be a severly hungover mode and still outperform your average athlete. Amateur sports are not the only instance of this. A number of well-known professsional athletes played their whole careers either drunk, hungover or both. The spectators had no clue as to their state (e.g. Mickey Mantle, Tommy Kramer, John Daly etc. etc.). How someone walks or for that matter dances or their general appearance does not offer "conclusive proof" as to their blood alcohol level or as to whether or not they are hungover. When you are severely drunk...yes....even a seasoned drinker will show signs. But there is a lot of room below that level when you cannot determine their state by obseving their actions. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:34:09 EDT From: Ric Subject: AE Returns From Saipan (again) This just in. Apparently there's a new second edition of this old conspiracy classic. ************************************************************************** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AMELIA EARHART RETURNS FROM SAIPAN ISBN: 0967764920 Title: Amelia Earhart Returns from Saipan Author: Joe Davidson, DVM Edition: Second Format: trade paperback About the Book: Amelia Earhart Returns from Saipan A faint "SOS" was the last sound heard from Amelia Earhart's ill-fated flight around the world in 1937. From that day forward, there has been great speculation about her mysterious disappearance. Thirty years after the event, a group of determined men from several walks of life dedicated themselves to learning the truth about Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan. The investigators made two trips to Saipan, lived through two typhoons, experienced endless hardships and adventures, and kept their 'never-say-die' attitude until they found convincing evidence that Amelia and Fred were captured and executed by the Japanese prior to World War II. This group of dedicated researchers faced many strange situations, and met many fascinating people in the course of their search. They kept the faith and solved a mystery that has puzzled mankind for decades. About the Author: Joe Davidson Joe Davidson, DVM, began writing in Texas Interscholastic League competition while attending a rural grade school. His love for writing continued through high school, college and graduate school, and into professional life. Conducting a busy veterinary practice from 1946 to 1958 left Dr. Davidson little time to write more than notes. His first book, Horseman's Veterinary Advisor was published in 1967. This was followed in 1968 by All Horse Races are Fixed. Davidson has traveled widely and is a dedicated student of history. These interests were integral in motivating him to write this historic adventure. The cover image may be copied from the following web location: http://www.unlimitedpublishing.com/images/covers/0967764920.jpg Joe Davidson 306 Rivercove Dr Garland Tx 75044 972 495-2792 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:35:37 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: recordings Mike Muenich wrote, >Although I doubt that Moorby had such equipment in 1937, it is entirely >possible that Coast Guard Headquarters or some amatuer might have had an >earlier, less portable version for the very purpose of recording important >radio messages. Targets up--shoot away. Interesting. I've never heard a story like that before. I would be delighted if some post loss transmission recordings turned up. Mike cites evidence of disc recorders on US Navy ships during wartime in 1942. This doesn't really correspond to what a merchant ship may have had onboard, or what an amateur operator might have been using, in peacetime 5 years earlier (1937). Finally, I've mentioned that it is certainly possible that recordings of post-loss transmissions were made in 1937. Unfortunately, we see no reference to any recordings in any of the documentation (and no discs or spools of wire have physically appeared yet). My remarks about the state of the technology in 1937, along with the expense and impracticality, were intended as explanations as to why it's reasonable that we've seen no evidence of any recordings. These remarks were never, never intended as proof that no recordings were made. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:36:57 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fiji Consul << Whether Mr. Abbot was signing visas in Suva or not, it doesn't seem very likely that His Excellency would bring him in on this. >> Well, except that Sir Ian says they were friendly, and he, Sir Ian, can't imagine Abbott NOT knowing about it. Another good reason to get a look at Sir Harry's papers at Oxford. As for the State Department, yeah, Ric, I know who your man in Washington is. LTM TK ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:41:13 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Story of the "Map Case"? Ric, Thanks so much for the story of the map case. Now I understand some references on the web site that refer to finding B-24 parts on the island. I read the news accounts about the discovery of the case but never heard anything about how it was discredited. Now I know "the rest of the story." ;o) Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Mysteries get more press than disappointing explanations, and so we end up with Bermuda Triangles, UFOs, and Loch Ness Monsters. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:49:13 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: 1965 Collopy letter >From Ric > >Yes, but the letter contains no implication that Noonan had a "probelm" with >alcohol. It does, however, seem to fulfill some fondly expressed hopes that >Fred was a scotch drinker. "probelm", Ric? One snort too many? And I thought this forum was moderated by a sober man. See, folks, this proves it, Ric Gillespie is a LUSH! Tom ************************************************************************** From Ric How does the old saying go? "I don't have a drinking problem. I drink - I get drunk - I fall down - No problem." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:53:54 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Radio details For Mike E. >NO NO NO. The transmitter did indeed have a keying circuit, with a special >keying relay, operated by a telegraph key. What in effect happened, was >that the push-to-talk line was closed -- using a toggle switch -- to put the >rig on the air on CW, then the keying relay was used to actually key the RF >stages on and off... and the relay "followed" the key. I thought the last time we were down this road you were unable to see a way for the marginal sketch of a telegraph key and DPDT switch (probably center off) and a connector to mate with J12 to work. I couldn't find a way for it to work either. I suspected that what we were looking at was incomplete -- very preliminary thinking about how to implement CW capability. And there is that connection marked "T" (To Trans). I never figured out where that was to go. Anyway, I gather you have now found new information, or figured out something, that indicates AE's transmitter may have had CW capability. That makes that post-loss message a lot more believable. I never for a moment believed that keying with the mic button idea, for several reasons. In addition to those you mention, I think it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to do. And I doubt it would have been readable at all. One could get out an SOS but that's about all. The comment about the quality of the keying didn't describe anything as awful as that would have been! ************************************************************************** From Ric Let me jump in here with just a couple of points: - There is good evidence that Earhart left her telegraph key behind in Miami. - I don't know of any credible post-loss message that contain keyed information. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:54:50 EDT From: Vern Subject: Belly Antennas I really think the belly antenna seen in that photo of the Electra, Junior served the same purpose as the belly antenna on AE's Electra. The one on the Electra, Junior has just been shortened so it wouldn't get snagged in the weeds on unpaved runways and get yanked off. So, now we know! LTM (Who is glad that's finally all cleared up!) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:56:03 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Brines >There is no way that the radio transmitter in the Electra could have >transmitted a continuous carrier for two hours. Not unless the the engine with the generator was running. Could the transmitter have held out? Hard to say. Some of that old gear was pretty durable. Of course, the ambient temperature on Niku didn't help. Would it make any sense for people such as Amelia and Fred to tie down the mic button and let it transmit a carrier for however long it would? Maybe someone would home in on it. What did they have to loose? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:57:37 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Radio details > This rig could NOT be properly "keyed" on CW simply by using the mic button, > without seriously damaging the radio due to transients, etc generated by > making-and-breaking some whopping current-carrying circuits never intended > to be so handled. Doing so would produce a very sloppy, rotten-sounding > signal... hmmm, that's consistent with at least one description of a > post-loss transmission, too. THAT exactly is what I was thinking about, Mike. Can't remember the time or reference, etc... I remember a looong thread months ago about a post-loss transmission which sounded like an atrociously chirped CW signal sent real slow on a mike key... So AE did have the capability to send clean Morse with a proper Morse Telegraph key.... -but didin't use it!?!?!? She just didn't bring a key along? This Tighar stuff is sooo complicated.... 'Wish I could spare the time to dig through many months or Forum postings; I just can't remember having read anything about that radio being CW-capable before.... Regards. Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:59:10 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fred, Hungover, Drunk or Sober? Spading says: >These guys would then show up the >next day for the continuation of the tournament in what had to be a severly >hungover mode and still outperform your average athlete. Which raises the question of whether even if Fred WERE drunk or hungover he could have outperformed your average navigator. Lots of variables there, and we can't really know the answer, any more than we can know whether he drank himself under his bookcase once they were aloft. But the bottom line is that whatever his condition he got them pretty close to Howland. LTM (who outperforms your average mother ...) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 10:00:35 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Earhart's WE Transmitter I have seen the power requirements for present (solid state) ham transceivers. They consume about 20 amps for 100 watts output at 13.8 volts DC. So, wouldn't Earhart's transmitter have consumed about 12 amps for 50 watts output at 12 volts DC? If Earhart's transmitter consumed 60 amps at 12 volts DC, that would have been 720 watts. Were dynamotor power supplies that inefficient? Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 10:47:20 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Story of the "Map Case"? Ric wrote, >Mysteries get more press than disappointing explanations, and so we end up >with Bermuda Triangles, UFOs, and Loch Ness Monsters. And crop circles, Ric. Don't forget the crop circles (the discoveries of the individuals and methods behind these hoaxes have been consistantly under-publicized). william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric You... you mean... they're not....real? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:20:25 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: FN & AE I generally agree with Kenton Spading. A recap might be productive today: I am convinced that they unknowingly blew out some vital component of their radio gear on takeoff from Lae, failed to make useful voice or bearing contact with Howland, and got really close but couldn't see the tiny island because of cloud shadows. Hypothesis: Not finding Howland, they probably attempted to fly the LOP to Gardner as an alternate. Based on what TIGHAR has developed in its research over the years, they reached Gardner, an uninhabited and remote island, landing on the reef near the then-recognizable wreck of the SS Norwich City. Perhaps a few transmissions were made from the radio of the grounded Electra before it was swamped and severely broken up by waves. The debris was close enough to the remains of the Norwich City that it wasn't recognizable or notable. There is evidence, but not proof, that at least Earhart may have survived the wreck, and might have persisted on the island for some time, even finding stores left years earlier by the Norwich rescue party, before ultimately succumbing to exposure or some mishap. There is even a tragically tantalizing, remote possibility that only three months later, in October 1937 during a colonial recon visit, Eric Bevington passed within metres of her (possibly still alive), as he briskly walked around the island with several Gilbertese, encountering unexpected difficulties himself and concentrating on his own survival. Three years later, in September 1940, Gerald Gallagher sent the following telegram from Gardner to the British Resident Commissioner on Ocean Island: "Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that (a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman, (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10, (c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542- - sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt..." LTM, who knows the rest william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, that's pretty much the current TIGHAR hypothesis. Now all we need is proof. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:26:20 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: trailing wire I just looked at the Lae take-off film again. I seem to recall about reading about the trailing belly antenna somewhere, but for the life of me, I can't remember where. It was said to be approximately 50' long and was deployed by a hand crank once the aircraft was airborne. This being the case, then the antenna must have been attached to something inside the fuselage and not the pitot tube. Thus, no bent pitot tube (at least not caused by the antanna) and the puff of smoke you see in the film is prop wash or a mound of soft dirt that one of the balloon tires ran over. Just a thought. *************************************************************************** From Ric The Electra was delivered with a trailing wire that deployed from the extreme end of the tail. Not sure if that one was hand-cranked or not. That installation was replaced in early 1937 with another trailing wire that deployed electrically from a mast under the cabin. The mast was wiped out in the Luke Field wreck and the trailing wire was apparently not reinstalled when the aircraft was repaired. There was no trailing wire antenna on the airplane at the time of the final takeoff. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:27:20 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Harry Manning I wondered what became of Harry Manning, after he went "back to sea." He became Commodore Manning of the United States Lines and was Captain of the SS United States when it set the transatlantic speed record on its first transatlantic voyage in 1952. There is a Web site: www.ssunitedstatesdoc.com w ith the history of that voyage. Several groups are trying to preserve and restore the SS United States, which is docked in Philadelphia. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:32:30 EDT From: Ken Feder Subject: Crop Circles Back in 1994, Jim Schnabel wrote a terrific book, Round in Circles, about the crop circle phenomenon. Best part; after the two guys (Doug and Dave) who started the whole thing fessed up, the crop circle believers said, well, maybe those guys did some of the circles, but "experts" could tell the difference between the man-made fakes and the real thing. The BBC then secretly had Doug and Dave make a circle and they filmed the procedure. Sure enough, the next day, the true believers were out in force, and asserted that the newest circle (Doug and Dave's) was definitely the real deal. They had lots of scientific-sounding reasons why the newest circle could not have been made by human agengy. That's when the BBC brought out the tapes. I'm not sure the circle fans have ever fully recovered Ken Feder *************************************************************************** From Dave Porter Regarding crop circles, aliens, loch ness monsters, etc. There's a panel of the old, sadly extinct Far Side cartoon strip that depicted a view of the earth, surrounded by circus clowns. The caption read: "The Bozone Layer--protecting the rest of the universe from earth's harmful effects." Along that same line, but in slightly more serious mode for anyone interested, there is a delightful science fiction short story called "Danger--Human" by Gordon Dickson; and the idea presented by CS Lewis, in his space trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength) that the reason other intelligent species don't visit earth is because we're too messed up. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************************************************** From Ric Proof of that theory can be found in "Amelia Earhart Lives!" by Joe Klaas (McGraw-Hill, 1970). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:10:52 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Gilberts/ Amelia's first choice Ric and DustyMiss, I have been in correspondence with Carl Halberg at the Univ. of Wyoming and received the same reply re his search of Box 19 of the Vidal collection with negative results concerning Vidal's comments AE intended to fly back to the Gilberts if she missed Howland. Halberg said that his inquiry (which probably includes his reply to Dustymiss,see her posting) was not exhaustive because of the .75 cubic feet.So we are still not absolutely positive of Rich's research. Her cite may be wrong, so I suggest Dustymiss contact her. Loomis, Lovell, and Rich all mention this "plan" to return to the Gilberts.Now noneother than Fred Goerner in his book published in 1966 uses this quote from AE who talked with Vidal and Miller (page328):" ' If we dont pick up Howland,I'll try to fly back into the Gilberts and find a nice stretch of beach...' " Goerner quotes AE but doesn't cite a source. Now that plan seems to be coming from the horse's mouth. So to date, subject to further review, I'm certain Vidal must have said something to that effect; since he was such a long time friend and associate of AE why would he make up such a statement and attribute it to Amelia? I'll keep you posted. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric You bring up two of the mostly commonly raised arguments for the credibility of anecdotes. - He must have said it because so many people say he said it. - Why would he lie? The presence of the alleged anecdote in multiple Earhart books is, of course, meaningless. Without a verifiable source it's just one more piece of recycled Earhart folklore (the trailing wire was left in Miami, Noonan was fired from Pan Am for alcolholism, there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard the airplane, etc. etc.). All it takes is one person who is perceived as being credible saying that Vidal said it. Intentional fabrication is rarely the start of groundless rumors. People can "remember" and relate with total conviction the most God-awful nonsense. Vidal may or may not have claimed to have heard Amelia describe a "Plan B." So far nobody has produced a verfiable source to indicate that he ever told that story. If he did, it may or may not have been true. The credibility of his recollection would depend upon how soon he wrote it down after he heard it. For example, if somebody came up with a Gene Vidal Diary and on page 234 was an entry for April 5, 1937 that went, "AE phoned last night. Noonan wrecked his car and almost wrecked his new wife yesterday. Rumor has it that he had been drinking. AE is worried about his reliability as a navigator. Says that if he can't find Howland she'll just turn back and find a nice beach in the Gilberts." That would be pretty good. But, if weeks or months, or even years, after the disappearance Vidal makes a comment to somebody either verbaly or in a letter that "AE once told me that (yadayadayada)" that's real shaky. Either way, I think it's largely meaningless. There has never been even an allegation that Noonan thought that such a plan would be a good idea (in fact, it's a supremely dumb idea) and the last tramsmission we have from Amelia specifically states that they're doing something else that does make perfect sense. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:13:12 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Earhart's WE Transmitter Janet asks: < From William Webster-Garman > (c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542- - > sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Considering all of TIGHAR's evidence, it seems that Gallagher's description of the sextant box could prove to be the best source of a "smoking gun" that would positively link Earhart with Gardner Island. I am aware that a significant amount of investigation has been done in an attempt to do that, but we seem to be somewhat stagnant right now so it may be worthwhile to try again. Someone stenciled a number on the box. Someone else, or perhaps the same person, wrote in a second number. Both numbers were probably viewed by additional people who were aware of the ownership of the box. There would very likely have been an even larger number of people who were familiar with the numbering scheme used on the box. It is possible that none of the aforementioned people are still alive, but I think the chances are better that someone is. I imagine TIGHAR has a lot more participants now (how many forum subscriptions are there?), perhaps we can enlist them in some old-fashioned gumshoe work. If everyone would check every local antique store, yacht club, navigation equipment outlet, etc., that they have easy access to, maybe we can find someone with a lead that you investigators can work with. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Subscribers come and subscribers go but the forum total has hovered right around 650 for about a year now. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:23:12 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: FN & AE > From William Webster-Garman > > (c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542- - > sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. What do those numbers mean? Michael Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric We wish we knew. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:39:12 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: post-flight messages Were the post-flight messages heard after news of AE and FN were reported down/lost or were the messages heard prior to a news release? If the messages were heard prior to any news release, then the messages have a good chance of being the "Real McCoy". *************************************************************************** From Ric Good thought, but there was really no opportunity for that to happen. Because there were reporters aboard the Itasca and the ship was in radio contact with the West Coast, news of Earhart's failure to arrive on schedule reached the major wire services virtually in real time. Radio programs quickly broadcast the news all over the country. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:03:06 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Radio details For Vern: Not sure I ever said I was "unable to see a way" for this to work... tell the truth I do not remember exactly what I said... but the circuit diagram clearly shows a number of things. In short, this radio was modified to include CW capability... however, it was done in very rudimentary fashion. The switch in the "key unit" does a couple of things. One, and most importantly: it grounds the push-to-talk circuit (PTT) to energize the antenna relay and the dynamotor starter relay. The dynamotor must be running continuously in CW mode. You can't "key" a dynamotor. It draws humongous current and making/breaking a circuit of this magnitude will quickly burn up the starter relay. Also the voltage output is dependent upon the speed of rotation. Fluctuation in voltage from a machine constantly speeding up/slowing down is intolerable for CW. It takes a hefty dynamotor like this one almost 1 second to reach full speed. The antenna relay and dynamotor relay in the rig were wired in parallel in the original design. They were energized when the PTT was grounded, by the mic button. As modified, the rig did not change in this regard. Therefore it was necessary to (a) throw the antenna relay over to "transmit" and (b) start the dynamotor, to put out a signal in either AM or CW mode. On CW (as modified), once these 2 relays were energized, the rig emitted no signal until the key was depressed. When this happened, an added "keying relay" was energized. This relay grounded an added "grid blocking" circuit, removing a cutoff bias from the tubes which allowed the oscillator and amplifier stages to function. To receive in CW mode -- and THIS IS IMPORTANT -- that toggle switch on the key unit had to be opened. And the positions were labled "CW" and "PHONE." So it had to be thrown to "PHONE" to receive CW... see the possibility for confusion on the part of a technical ignoramus? If AE left the key behind in Miami, there would be no problem with using the transmitter... on voice, that is. No need for the switch, etc if all you are going to use is voice. Just disconnect the cable connector and take the thing out of the cockpit or wherever. (Rather stupid...) For Janet Whitney et al: Dynamotor power supplies are about 35% (thirty-five percent) efficient. Maybe 50% under ideal conditions (seldom realized). That is, for every 100 watts the thing draws from the battery, it produces about 35 watts of usable power (simplified explanation obviously). This transmitter had some heavy-current tube filaments which were on all the time when power was applied (switched on). On standby the filament current drain was about 11 amps (same on transmit). The total transmit current drain was approximately 65 amps, including tube filaments, relays, and dynamotor. The dynamotor drew about 53 amps from the battery. For all that (648 watts) it had a rated output of 1050 volts at 300 milliamperes (about 315 watts), but not all the available current output was required... these things are typically overrated by about 25% but this does not affect the input current drain all that much. (Let me tell you a tale -- a true one. When I was in high school, back in the late 70s, one of my ham friends had a '67 VW Bug in which he'd installed an old tube type, dynamotor-powered ex police radio (he was a poor guy, like myself) operated on 2 meter FM. It was rated at about 25 watts output. He could be going down the road at night with lights, defroster and wipers running... and key the radio... and the car would stop dead! The current drain would kill the engine!) Given the tubes used in the transmitter, it had to operate at around 100 watts (or more) input to pump out 50 watts. Those old WE-282As were not real efficient and required lots of "drive," that is, power from the preceding stages. Note to Janet... It is simply not valid to try and compare current drain of this radio with the current requirements for a modern solid state rig. As I said last week... we are talking about the electronic equivalent to the Dinosaur. For someone else (William I think... forgive me): this rig did not have a really high-power audio modulator stage. It was screen grid modulated. The audio stage consisted of one WE-205D triode tube (about 15 watts max), driven directly from a carbon-button microphone. Screen modulation does not require much power but it also produces mediocre results. For someone else (I forget who posted this): If that radio lasted 15 minutes, key down, it'd be doing great. The discharge RATE for the batteries would be quite high, enough to kill them quickly. Does anyone seriously believe that AE may have landed with enough fuel to run an engine (and charge batteries) for 2 HOURS? I think not.... If she made a water landing one of the first things to be submerged would have been the batteries and more than likely the cockpit would fill quickly with water, drowning the receiver and more electrical gear. For Ric: I recall at least one alleged "post loss transmission" which was characterized as "extremely poor keying behind carrier." We went round-and-round over what, exactly, this may have meant. LTM (whose modulation levels were always pretty high) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric You're thinking of the fabled "281 Message" heard by Navy Wailupe in Honolulu. Bob Brandenburg's computer modeling of the propagation has pretty much eliminated any realistic possibility that anybody that far away heard anything from that airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:13:11 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Still on the Clancy trail I realize it's a long shot, but has anyone tried to contact Tom Clancy, the author? Tom Robison *************************************************************************** From Ric Clancy is a very common Irish name. (There are 15 Clancys in the Wilmington telephone book and Wilmington is not a particulalry Irish city.) I think a more focused approach is in order. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:19:12 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Belly antennas >>From Vern MY QUESTION correct, that suggests that any of the antennas on the electra could have been used with the Radio Range system, and also for general communication...and possibly as the "sense" antenna for RDF as well.>> ...that seems truly possible, except that the belly antenna would provide a very poor transmit antenna (too close to the airframe all along its run) at MF/ HF frequencies, and use of it for such purpose would be nonsensical and violate communications wisdom. --Hue Miller who by the way, found & looked at his Berne List of Aviation Stations 1937, and did not see AE's call letters, nor was the Lae station listed ( the latter maybe too small?? ) (and maybe her call letters "would have been" published in the 1938 edition - << BUT.... >>) *************************************************************************** From Ric The Radio Range was a passive receive-only system. I think Vern is suggesting that the belly antenna was used for all receive functions and that transmit functions were served by the trailing wire(s) and later the dorsal vee. Odd that KHAQQ doesn't appear in the 1937 list. The airplane was delivered with a radio in July 1936. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:35:41 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Radio details >From Ric > >Let me jump in here with just a couple of points: >- There is good evidence that Earhart left her telegraph key behind in Miami. >- I don't know of any credible post-loss message that contain keyed >information. The "story" about Earhart leaving her telegraph key behind in Miami is just that isn't it? Anecdote. Moreover, in view of all the radio gear that was in and out of that plane and all the people who tinkered with it at various times, how confident can we be that there was only one telegraph key around at the time they left Miami? The "281 NORTH..." message received by Navy Radio Wallop (Hawaii) on the night of July 4, 1937 was described as, "keyed transmission, extremely poor keying behind carrier." I take that to be a reference to modulated CW (MCW) -- a continuous carrier signal with an audio frequency tone being keyed. If we can now say (Mike E's recent post) that Earhart's transmitter had CW and MCW capability and if we admit the possibility of a telegraph key on the plane, then that message becomes somewhat more credible. Incidently, I do not believe the above quoted characterization of the signal even comes close to what keying with the microphone push-to-talk button would have sounded like. *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll have to go back and check the sources but I think that the bit about the key being left behind was mentioned in a fairly contemporaneous letter. As for the "281 Message", Bob Brandenburg's computer modeling of the aircraft's system and propagation environement on that day concluded: "The SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) for a CW signal from NR16020 on Gardner Island to Wailupe during that period was far below the threshold for either detection or usability, and the hypothesis is rejected. The signal heard at Wailupe could not have originated at Gardner Island." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:52:18 EDT From: Vern Subject: Those sextant box numbers. Quoting, in part, from Frank's posting of 9-4-00, relative to the Nikumaroro sextant box numbers and the possibility that someone, somewhere may have seen such a numbering system on something else. >I imagine TIGHAR has a lot more participants now (how many forum >subscriptions are there?), perhaps we can enlist them in some old-fashioned >gumshoe work. If everyone would check every local antique store, yacht >club, navigation equipment outlet, etc., that they have easy access to, >maybe we can find someone with a lead that you investigators can work with. > >Frank Westlake I have a one-page flyer already made up to mail out to any person or organization that might have come across that kind of numbering system. It asks, in effect, have you seen ANY kind of navigational instrument with this sort of number on the box? It has a "clip-art" picture of a guy in a desert island sort of setting peering about with a telescope and says: KEEP A SHARP EYE OUT For instrument cases with numbers stencilled or handwritten on them. You might have the key to... etc., etc. At the bottom is the TIGHAR logo and all the addressing information to contact TIGHAR. There's also an invitation to check the web site. I only got a few sent to specially sellected places and with a cover letter giving my own postal address and e-mail address. Negative so far. If anyone would like to do some mailing to places they think of as possibilities, I'll be glad to send a few of these flyers. Of course, more copies could be made from one of them. We could maintain a list of where flyers had been sent and post the updated list to the forum whenever updating information was received from anyone. We're getting down to the point that all we can do is keep scratching around! *************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, we do have one example of a sextant box with numbers written on the outside, one of which - 3547 - happens to be rather similar to the 3500 on the Gardner box. That box is in the National Museum of Naval Aviation and once belonged to Fred Noonan. Vern, I really appreciate your efforts in this line of research but I have to ask, pretty please, that you (or anyone else) not send out anything that has the TIGHAR logo on it unless it has first been okayed by me or Pat. Your flyer sounds fine but the point is that if we don't maintain supervision of that trademark we won't be able to stop somebody who does misuse it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:54:31 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Earhart's Radios >From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > US Navy aircraft of the day which carried a radio operator (anything larger > than a single seat fighter) also carried a frequency standard to set the > receivers to the correct spot. My comment which follows, is not quite relevant to the AE discussion, but i have to point out that the above is simply not accurate. SBD, TBM, SB2C, SO2C ?? >They did not rely on "netting" the receiver >to the transmitter... for one thing, the xmtr could drift, and the standard >was also used to check it. Not stictly correct. Some Navy receivers were *quite* broad tuning ( RU, ARB ) for this very reason. The transmitter had more accurate calibration, e.g. transmitters GF, GO, GP, ATC, ATD, ART-13, than the receiver. They were tuned in on the flight deck/ field, they did drift, but receivers were broad enuff, usually, to deal with that. If you changed frequencies in flight, you referred to the look-up table on the transmitter, tuned it, then set the receiver to the same frequency. True, most setups i am aware of did not allow true "netting", you could not power the receiver and transmitter at the same time. BTW, the Navy/ Army ART-13 incorporates a CFI standard. > Not sure exactly what type designation the freq standards --Navy type "LM". BTW, couple anecdotes indicate Army and Navy ops, as a lark, when nearing airfield, have been known to connect the frequency standard (calibrating equipment, BC-221 or LM ) to the ship's antenna, and key that, using that equipment's fractional wattage power to contact the field! Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:57:51 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Earhart's WE Transmitter >From Janet Whitney > >So, wouldn't Earhart's transmitter have consumed about 12 amps for 50 watts >output at 12 volts DC? If Earhart's transmitter consumed 60 amps at 12 >volts DC, that would have been 720 watts. Were dynamotor power supplies >that inefficient? Was that 50w input or output? I think input power, the most common rating for commercial equipment altho not the most helpful, as power to the antenna was maybe 2/3 - 3/4 of the input power. Lacking a WE catalog listing their specs, and i haven't looked at the 1930s texts i dug out over the vacation, we *could* if we needed work backwards to determine the transmitter's 12DC draw: "Power of transmitter, rated input" + (1/2 of above, for modulation audio power added to carrier, x 2 since class B is "about" 50% efficient ) sum of above x 1/0.65 to account for dynamotor infficiency total power divided by 12 to get DC amperes + filament current for transmitter tubes (from "Tube Manual") +filament current for receiver and RDF tubes ( " " ) + residual current to spin receiver dynamotor under no-receive condition ( unless single dynamotor was used, unlikely?) That's maximum DC load current, under transmit condition. Janet's guesstimate is more intuitive than the above reckoning, but you can see her guesstimate is not unreasonable. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:59:18 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio details >>From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: AE's xmtr DID NOT have a tone oscillator to generate any sidetone for CW monitoring... in most rigs of the day, when the xmtr was switched over to CW, the speech amp was made to oscillate at 800-1000 Hz and this oscillator was keyed along with the RF stages. NOT done, in AE's rig.>> --I'm sorry, i do not think the above is quite true. As far as "most". I would say, "some". I base this on my reading and having inspected schematics for quite a number of equipments. I get the impression that Real Men were not expected to need telegraph sidetone. "You" supplied the sidetone- mentally. Hams were usually the ones to demand sidetone for monitoring one's sending. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:06:26 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Did AE Leave the Key Behind? After I made my posting last night I took another look at the WE-13C transmitter schematic... something I said last night wasn't quite right. I stated that it would have been no problem for AE to leave the telegraph key behind if all she wanted was voice transmission; just unplug it and remove it from the cockpit. Well... that's not right. Indeed, it is not possible. The "key" in this setup was more than just a morse key. It was part of a subassembly, a control unit. The unit contained the key and a switch. The switch, a double-pole double throw type, had two positions, labeled "CW" and "PHONE." Like I said last night, throwing the switch to "CW" closed the push-to-talk line (like the mic switch would do on voice) and made the rig READY to transmit. The "keying" was through an added relay. This relay actually followed the operator's key. To RECEIVE on CW, it was necessary to throw the switch on the controller containing the key BACK to "PHONE." Potentially confusing. I had forgotten one more important function of that switching circuit, last night. That switch, when thrown to "PHONE," also closed the CW keying relay circuit. The keying relay, therefore, was energized continuously when the rig was switched to "PHONE." That way, the radio was ready to transmit on voice. It was NOT "keyed" on voice until the mic switch grounded the PTT circuit, energizing the dynamotor starter (and therefore applying high voltage) and antenna relays. The CW keying relay had to be closed to enable the tubes to function, by grounding the blocking-bias that kept them from drawing current (as well as applying screen grid voltage to the multiplier and final amplifier stages). To summarize: Since the transmitter operated in Push to Talk fashion (PTT) on voice, the CW keying relay had to be closed on voice. It did not operate with the PTT circuit. The 'CW-PHONE" switch closed this relay on voice. The key closed it on CW, AFTER the "CW-PHONE" switch was thrown to CW mode. The switch had to be returned to "PHONE" to RECEIVE ON CW, in order to de-energize the antenna relay and dynamotor. The transmitter DID NOT operate in "break-in" style on CW (the equivalent to push-to-talk operation on voice). But here is a thought, and an important one: If TWO ANTENNAS were used (one transmit, one receive) it would not have been necessary to have the antenna relay de-energized in order to receive; so returning the switch to "PHONE" would not have been a requirement. The bottom line: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE FOR AE TO USE THIS RADIO AT ALL, EVEN ON VOICE, WITHOUT THE TELEGRAPH KEY UNIT CONNECTED TO THE TRANSMITTER. The switch in the key unit had to be in the circuit.... UNLESS, and we may never be able to completely resolve this... some sort of modifications were made to the radio in Miami, to bypass this switch. All it would have taken, was a "dummy" connector plugged into the transmitter where the key unit was connected... if Pin 4 of this connector was jumpered to ground, that would complete the keying relay circuit. Of course, an internal mod to the transmitter's wiring could have accomplished the same thing. How hard is the evidence that she left the key behind? Anecdotal? It may be worth the paper it is printed on. We have been through this before... wonder if there are any scraps of paper anywhere detailing the work done on that radio in Miami? Did Pan Am techs do it? Anybody search the Pan Am files that closely? (Chances are none to slim, right? Probably the document retention schedule was not that long and any such paper was tossed out with other routine stuff....) A lingering question from earlier postings by others: Would it have been possible to "key" this radio on CW, using the mic button? Yes. BUT... It would have produced a very ragged, awful signal. The keying speed would be very slow. And the radio would have been damaged quickly because of heavy current circuits being made and broken, which were never intended to be so operated. LTM (who sometimes gives out mixed signals) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Advantages to separate transmit and receive antennas huh? The plot thickens. Okay, let's dig for the key-left-behind source. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:14:31 EDT From: Ric Subject: Off-topic lament Reproduced below is a copy of an email we recently received via the website. It is, sadly, typical of the inquiries we receive from college students. The queries from 4th graders are usually more literate. ************************************************************************* I have grown close to attention on Amelia Earhart disapperance. I want to know one thing for once for all. How do you really know where she was actually at? I mean could she have flown on a different plane or flown in a different direction but headed to her destination? I don't know why I am talking about this cause I am 20 years old who don't know a whole lot about her whereabouts but I could say I would've found her 60 years ago cause I would've gone underwater and all the islands looking for her plane. Her shoe could have been washed up on the shore from the Pacific Ocean. Anyways, if I was the look for her, the first thing I would do is try to get a whole lot of scuba divers and boats and start tracking through the waters. Her plane may have went past the island. An island that is only about three miles or so, a plane could've have gone way past the island and crashing into the water. What I am going to do is research and research. Amelia could be anywhere near or far away from Howland. I wish I could help but I ain't no archologist. I was just trying to see if you know what is really going on and if you found any new information about Amelia Earhart and her airplane. If there is no airplane on the island, then it is not on the island and I would be out looking in the ocean no matter how deep or how dangerous it is. I hope you could give me some new information and maybe I could do some research. Thanks for reading this e-mail and hope you have a good day. Sincerely, (a student at a mid-western university) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:15:43 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: FN & AE > >From Michael Holt What do those numbers mean?>> The Sextant Box Mystery (Earhart Project Research Bulletin 1/13/99) http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/12_Sextantbox/12_Sextantbox.html Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:34:39 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Off-topic lament I think he inhaled. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:04:43 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re; Off-topic lament Are you sure that was from a college student? As I've said before, that's why we pay YOU the big bucks.:-) LTM, who had a big buck once Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric I withheld the name of the university to avoid embarrassing any possible alumni on the forum. ************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag Geez Ric.......that submission from Goober there was a college student? I'd rather read the ones from the alien obduction groups. They are more entertaining. Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Michael Holt This must be a joke. Michael Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric I wish. Like I said, this is just one example. To say that this letter is typical might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's certainly not unusual. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:15:59 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Those sextant box numbers. > From Vern > I have a one-page flyer already made up to mail out... If I can get my printer working I'll print a notice with the picture of the Pensacola sextant box and send it to Southern California yacht clubs with a request that it remain on their bulletin board. Some of these locations were probably already checked by TIGHAR members, but it's been a while and club membership changes. I suppose some should also go to 'old-pilot' hang-outs, but I don't know where those might be. Ric- I don't intend to make any mention TIGHAR or Earhart but I do intend to use your name and phone number as the point of contact for all responses, if that's OK with you. Is there any problem with me reproducing ? Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric Go ahead and use the photo. It's also no problem, as far as I'm concerned, with mentioning TIGHAR and/or Earhart. It's the use of the logo or any implication that you're speaking as the organization, rather than as a member of the organization, that we have to be picky about. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:16:53 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Sextant Box Flyers If you work something out with Vern on the sextant box flyers I'd like to have a few. One party I know is a retired Naval navigator/instructor who repairs & overhaul sextants in his retirement, & I'd like to run this by him and whoever else. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:21:44 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Sextant box markings > The Sextant Box Mystery (Earhart Project Research Bulletin 1/13/99) > http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/12_Sextantbox/12_Sextantbox.html The part about dovetailed boxes caught my attention. I have sitting before me right now the box for USAAF aircraft sextant Type No. A-8A. To box is painted olive drab, and it is most certainly dovetailed. Did I understand that the dovetailing was supposed to be unusual? (The serial number is AF43-4104, built by Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., Rochester.) The part I don't understand is the stenciling and then the other number -- is it handwritten? -- I would have expected at that time to have found a metal plaque on the box. Michael Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric From what I've seen, dovetailed corners are quite common in sextant boxes. All we know about the numbers is what Gallagher said. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:29:06 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Off-topic lament Hope you and all the rest of the Tighars had a nice holiday weekend. I think Janet just forgot to use spellcheck before she sent this out.... ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric Aw c'mon, Janet has never been that bad. Look guys, the author of that masterpiece just requested to be signed up to the forum so we'll knock off further bashings unless and until he posts something - and then we'll be gentle - okay? Let's remember, he didn't build the educational system that failed him. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:16:39 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: JOE GURR AND THE KEY Was it in one of Joe's letters to Fred G. [or some other writer] who had written, '..did AE leave the key behind? She sure did. I have it here. Do you want it?' .. If Joe, he may have been referring to her departure from BUR to MIA. Which even if true, would not be proof that she did not have one on dept. from MIA, RC ************************************************************************* From Ric Good memory. The exchange went like this: Goerner: It has been alleged that AE left the CW key in Miami and that neither she or Noonan could send CW. Did the Earhart plane have a CW capability either through CW key or through depressing the voice phone, and what do you remember about the CW capabilities of Earhart and Noonan? Gurr: Equipment had CW capability. Key, was taken off after Capt. Manning left, as [neither] Amelia nor Noonan knew enough code. I still have the key if you want it? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:19:34 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Gilberts/ Amelia's first choice I'll continue to work with Halberg at the Univ of Wyoming re Rich's cite. Dustymiss and I must be doing the same so Dustymiss if you wish email me and we can coordinate our research there. (brightaway@aol.com). Ric, where in the world would Fred Goerner find in the early 60's Vidal's "Gilbert Islands alternative" attributed to Vidal while Goerner was researching his book. Would the Goerner collection be a potential source ? LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Possibly, but from what I've heard from our own researchers the Goerner collection HUGE and not well cataloged. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:20:56 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Sextant boxes I did a fair amount of looking when we went through the sextant box discussion (was that last year? - time flies) and nearly all the boxes I saw (and I never did find another Ludolph box to compare) had either "dove tail" joints (those are the ones where the pins are cut on an angle), or "box" joints (those are the ones where the pins are cut at 90 degrees). Some of the really cheap ones just had butt joints with "decorative metal trim" to reinforce them - those were almost universally the "decorator" sextants - new copies. Vintage instruments were in quality boxes. ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:19:03 EDT From: Ric Subject: Sextant box Just to make sure we're not making erroneous linguistic assumptions, is there any chance that the British mean something different than Americans do when they say "stencilling?" We're talking about painting over a cut-out template - right? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:45:45 EDT From: Ric Subject: 1965 Collopy letter Coming back, for a moment, to the 1965 letter from Jim Collopy to Joe Gervais as transcribed on Don Jordan's website at http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/collopyletter.html I puzzled over Collopy's quote of Noonan referring to Earhart as "the ball bearing bag in front of the great gas tank." A forum subscriber sent me a private email saying that the term "ball bearing butt" was a World War II vintage expression, usually referencing a woman's posterior in a complimentary fashion. What might today be called "tight buns" (like a couple of ball bearings). "Bag", of course, is an old pejorative term for a female, but "ball bearing bag" seems like a rather mixed metaphor. If the "ball bearing" expression was not in common usage before WWII (and I do not know that that is the case), then Collopy's alleged quote is less than credible. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:48:21 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Joe Gurr and the Key I am afraid I know the answer, but I will ask. If Joe Gurr had the key, does anyone know where it went or who might have it now? ************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I've heard. Gurr died about three years ago. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:50:32 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Earhart's WE Transmitter Janet asked: <> No. You have to heat up the filaments in the tubes, which is power lost as heat output. This is the reason your grandmother ( or maybe great grandmother's radio)was as big as a home entertainment center. Dan Postellon Tighar # 2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:04:25 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Gilberts Ric wrote: "The presence of the alleged anecdote in multiple Earhart books is, of course, meaningless. Without a verifiable source it's just one more piece of recycled Earhart folklore (the trailing wire was left in Miami, Noonan was fired from Pan Am for alcolholism, there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard the airplane, etc. etc.). All it takes is one person who is perceived as being credible saying that Vidal said it." I agree completely that anecdotal evidence can become self-perpetuating, but in this case Rich has provided a specific source for the "Plan B" quote. Hopefully Dustymiss can follow up with her directly. Interesting that three full years of correspondence are missing from the Vidal papers. Almost turns one into a "conspiracy theorist...." Ric continued: "Either way, I think it's largely meaningless. There has never been even an allegation that Noonan thought that such a plan would be a good idea (in fact, it's a supremely dumb idea) and the last transmission we have from Amelia specifically states that they're doing something else that does make perfect sense." The comment assumes that what Noonan thought made any difference to Earhart after 8:43 a.m. on July 2, 1937. We know that, for a time, they were flying "north and south" on the 157/337 LOP. We don't know how long they flew on it, where they were on the line when they started, how many miles they covered in each direction, or what they did after they figured out it wasn't getting them anywhere. The Niku Hypothesis assumes that AE coolly and logically continued on a 157-degree heading to the nearest landfall. It's certainly possible. It's equally possible (and to my mind more in keeping with AE's barnstorming character) that, FN having failed to do the one thing he was brought along to do, she simply tuned him out and trusted to the instinct that had served her so well in the past. She would have had a net tailwind effect on a flight back to the Gilberts; maybe that gave her some hope that, with careful fuel management, she could just barely make it. Not saying that's what happened, but I think it renders the search for documentation of an alleged "Plan B" far from meaningless. BTW, my assumption that Fred was along primarily, if not exclusively, for the Lae-Howland-Hawaii run flows from AE's alleged plan -- reported by the Longs and others -- to ditch him in Australia on the first attempt. In other words, once FN got her safely across the Pacific, AE figured she could handle the rest of the navigation herself. The change in directions, unfortunately for Fred, shifted the dangerous island-hopping phase from the beginning to the end of the flight. If AE did consider FN essentially as baggage for the first three-quarters of the Second Attempt, then the seeds of a rather unpleasant cockpit atmosphere may have been sown early on. Of course it's all speculation, but let's not forget those two complaints of "personnel" (or "personal") unfitness" lodged by AE during the flight. The point is that TIGHAR's hypothesis makes perfect sense >if< AE was still listening to Fred's presumed advice, >if< her judgment was unimpaired by fatigue and perhaps frustration; >if< she had no contrary backup plan, and >if< she never deviated from the 157-degree heading. The presence of so many "if's" leaves other possibilities worth investigating, "if" not by this organization! (I'm accepting donations....) All of which is a long way of saying, keep diggin', Ron and Dusty! LTM (who sympathizes with her fellow scotch drinker), Pat Gaston ************************************************************************** From Ric <> Yes, and we already know that it is not where she said she found it. At this point it's still anecdote. Some factual nitpicking: <> Book after book has quoted AE's "last words" as "We are running north and south." probably because that's how Thompson reported the transmission in his July 19, 1937 report "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight." Bellarts original log, however, tells a somewhat different story. After Earhart had said that she was "on the line 157 337" and that she woud repeat the message on 6210, she came back unexpectedly on 3105 and said something that the operator (Galten) logged as "(?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON N ES S LINE". The best translation of this entry might be "I'm not sure I heard this right but I think she said, 'We are running on north and south line'". The truth is, we don't know what she said. <...AE's alleged plan -- reported by the Longs and others -- to ditch him in Australia on the first attempt.>> The original plan was for Fred to leave the flight at Howland because it was U.S. territory and he hadn't had time to get a visa for Australia. Manning was to leave the flight in Australia and AE would continue alone. Between March and July there was plenty of time to get Fred to Australia to meet AE there for the Pacific legs if that had seemed desirable but there is no indication that that was ever contemplated. Earhart's notes from the World Flight certainly give no hint of tension between her and Noonan. Far from considering him baggage, she is often highly complimentary of his skills - for example - forced to turn back in a monsoon rainstorm off the coast of Burma - "By uncanny powers, Fred Noonan managed to navigate us back to the airport, without being able to see anything but the waves beneath our plane." <<...let's not forget those two complaints of "personnel" (or "personal") unfitness" lodged by AE during the flight.>> I'm aware of only one instance - the "personnel unfitness" mentioned in the telegram from Lae. TIGHAR's hypothesis requires only that the people involved did what the avialable evidence suggests that they did. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:16:00 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Sextant box I have searched through the current archives and cannont find the basic facts about the sextant box. I seem to recall that the box was kept in the office of an official of Kiribati; ?Vaskees? We do not have the box, but we have a record of the box found on Niku and possible a sextant as well, depending on how your read Gallagher's notes. The box, and sextant?, where shipped by Gallagher to his bosses. ?Vaskees? secretary reported seeing the box in ?Vaskees? office where it was kept for some time, supposedly on ?Vaskees? desk. Are the location of any of ?Vaskees? personal effects from office known--I know they don't have a presidential library--only the US can afford those follies, but is there some sort of repository for effects when people leave office? How long was ?Vaskees? in office and who was his successor? Is there an archive of photos, ceremonial or otherwise, taken while ?Vaskees? was in office--official, news, or personal photos, if sufficient in number and from enough angles might allow you to reconstruct much of his office, especially his desk. "painted over with black enamel" seems to tell me that Gallagher had the sextant in his hand. Other posts talk about an inverting eyepiece, found later, being "thown away" which further leads me to believe someone found hardware, not just a box. Was the box shipped with the bones? If Gallagher found the sextant in the box, as carefull as he was with this matter, how did the eyepiece get separted from the sextant? If the box wound up on ?Vaskees? desk, what happened to the sextant?; why would they be separated? It seems rather odd to me that a variety of items which generated a fair amount of correspondence, a lot of work by Gallagher and a lot of secrecy by the British Government, a least PISS, were handled so ineptly on receipt. A sextant box, possibly a sextant, the bones, and the kanawa box all seem to go different ways. Didn't someone have to receipt for all these items on arrival and subsequently account for their distribution. Why would the bones be examined and not the sextant box and sextant if they could help identify the bones? All questions and no answers, but I am trying to start a thought process that might brainstorm some new ideas. *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think you'd have nearly so many questions if you would read the available material more carefully. Why do you have a question about the name of the Secretary of the High Commission? Why do you think he's an official of Kiribati? Why do you think that Gallagher found a sextant when he says specifically that he did not? Etc., etc., etc. The answers to most of your questions can be found in: "The Bones Chronology" http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html and "The Fiji Bone Search" http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/14_Fijibones/14_Fijibones.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:19:27 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: F-16 Amazing! With all it's modern day search equipment, the US Navy still hasn't found the F-16 which crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, off the NJ shore last week, even though there are videos of the plane going down with the pilot parachuting free of the craft before it hit & eyewitnesses pinpointing the spot where it fell into the water. Got to wonder about those guys who say they have electronic 'images' of the AE/FN Electra on the Pacific Ocean floor, which is at least a thousand feet deeper than the Atlantic shelf (probably less than 100' deep) where the F-16 rests. Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric What they claim to have are sonar returns of an object that they suspect is not geological and is roughly the right size to be the Electra. The water in that part of the Pacific is about 16,000 feet deep. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:12:16 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Post Loss Messages Ric and Rick Seapin, Re: Seapin's posting of the possibility that post loss broadcasts were the "Real McCoy" Goldstein and Dillion in their book,page 235, report that a radio Nauru operator picked up and recognized AE's voice three times after the last Itasca reception-0901,0913 and 0924 Howland time. Nauru informed San Francisco and this message was forwarded to Itasca. The authors believed these broadcasts were probably authentic as at of that time "...it was not widely realized that the Electra was in distress or had crashed...". (They cite Saffords unpublished book Flight into Yesterday) As I recall you said that Tighar exhaustively researched those times and believed Saffords times were dead wrong-that the times were after 6:00 pm Howland time. Thus the post loss broadcasts,if any, came well after the world knew the Electra was down. I'm guessing but Itasca probably radioed Coast Guard Headquaters around 0912,when he ordered the landing party back,that he suspected she missed Howland. Tighar probably has the message that first notifed Headquarters of the status. LTM Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric The first message from Itasca to Coast Guard headquarters that things were not going as planned was sent at 10:15 local time when Thompson said: EARHART CONTACT 0742 REPORTED ONE HALF HOUR FUEL AND NO LAND FALL POSITION DOUBTFUL CONTACT 0646 REPORTED APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED MILES FROM ITASCA BUT NO RELATIVE BEARING PERIOD 0843 REPORTED LINE OF POSITION 157 DASH 337 BUT NO REFERENCE POINT PRESUME HOWLAND PERIOD ESTIMATE 1200 FOR MAXIMUM TIME ALOFT AND IF NONARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTH WEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLY AREA PERIOD SEASMOOTH [SIC] VISIBILITY NINE CEILING UNLIMITED PERIOD UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED TIME Thompson, in fact, left Howland to begin his search at 10:40 but he didn't notify his superiors that Itasca had left its station. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:21:46 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Sextant Boxes I have about 14 sextants in my collection, all are aviation type. My A-10 series are all in what appears to be handcrafted finished wood boxes(I haven't a clue as to the wood type) . 1 A-10A is in a painted wood box-the ugly green military paint but no stenciled letters/words. My A-7(identical to Noonan's A-5 of Pan Am flights) is in a painted wood box also of the ugly military green paint w/no stencils. My Navy Mark 5/Bendix 5150 is in a huge "bakelite" case black in color and weighs 2-3 times as much as the instrument it protects. None are stenciled in any way. All have a metal plate showing that they once were in the Army Air Corps. The marine sextants I have seen are in finished wooden cases for the most part-mahogany I've been told. Ludolph was german made instrument, no longer in production I think. I've been told that it was a high quality device like the Cassens & Plaths of present, worthy to be used only by professional navigators. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:27:20 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Radio details Some of this is a bit off topic, but I feel my credibility is being questioned or even challenged by certain individuals. I must state some facts, and my position and qualifications which led to the conclusions I made. I am working from an actual schematic of the radios, and from specifications published. Read the diagram, Hue... AE's transmitter did NOT have any kind of "side tone oscillator" for CW monitoring. Like I said, in most rigs the speech amp stage was made to oscillate, or a separate tube was employed as an oscillator (ala the ARC-5/SCR-274N) operating at around 1000 Hz; and the oscillator was disabled on voice. Most Hams of the era did not use sidetone oscillators to monitor their CW transmissions. They either listened directly in their receivers, or employed a secondary, completely shielded "monitor" which was actually a one-tube (maybe 2) regenerative receiver with no antenna, strictly used to pick up a tiny bit of transmitted energy... tiny, so as not to "overload" the monitor receiver and give a false indication of rotten quality. Indeed, a "side tone oscillator" of the sort used in a/c radios would have been very strange to the average Ham, and foreign to amateur radio practice of the era. Yeah, a lot of "real men" disdained side tone, thinking their CW sending was perfect... HA! In the days before "electronic keyers" and keyboard-generated "perfect" CW, a lot of real trashy sending was heard... the "banana boat fist" for instance. And Lord help the guy who tried to send with a "bug" (mechanical semi-automatic key) without monitoring him/herself! (Been there, done that, heard it, couldn't read it either) Those, aircraft rigs which did not use a tone oscillator for the MCW tone were usually radios which operated on high frequency AC power (like 400 or 800 Hz AC, 800 being common in Naval a/c and 400 in Army, for a long time, till about midwar... don't ask me why the dif)and these rigs (such as the GO-9 transmitter) were found in large a/c like PBYs. In these cases, a small amount of 400 or 800 cycle voltage was fed to the suppressor grids of the final-amplifier tubes, which produced the modulation for A2 (tone modulated telegraphy) emission. AE's rig did not do this. AE's rig worked from 12 volt DC power. AE's rig did NOT have "MCW" capability (that is, A2 emission, tone modulated telegraphy). It only transmitted A1 (unmodulated, on-off keyed telegraphy) and A3 (amplitude modulated voice). And I beg to differ sharply regarding the use of the CFI (freq standard) aboard Navy a/c. I have seen plenty of pix of these freq meters in Naval a/c, including SBD/SB2C/TBF/TBD/OS2U etc etc, plus PBYs. The procedure for using the CFI was to loosely couple the output of the transmitter's variable-freq oscillator to the CFI input. The GO series/GP series/TBW series had a binding post on the front marked "CFI" for that purpose. I have the manuals for all these equipments, which detail how to use the xmtrs with the CFI (LM freq meter) and I have done it this way, using a TBW... plus a GF-series. (By the way, the GP and GO transmitters, as well as the TBW ground xmtr, were built by Westinghouse and are extremely similar in terms of circuitry/ operation). You are correct in that the ART-13/ATC xmtr had an internal crystal calibrator (been there, done it with that rig too). The whole crystal calibration procedure is different too. You are somewhat correct that under wartime radio silence conditions, the freqs were set on the flight/hangar deck... but it was done infrequently because even radiation from the CFI units was feared detectable by enemy receivers or d/f. This is one reason the air attack at Midway experienced so much trouble... the freqs were not reliably/recently set, and as a result some of the tunable receivers got "moved" off freq. The squadrons could not intercommunicate when they neared the target. This was a BIG reason the Navy adopted crystal-controlled VHF radios late in the war (AN/ARC-1, ARC-3 for instance) and phased out HF as fast as it could. OK, this is off topic... but my point is, I am working from a diagram, and a set of published specs, plus a considerable experience in "evaluating" this old gear (which has always fascinated me... and it's like touching history to mess with it). I DO INDEED know what I am talking about. Did I say this... the power OUTPUT of AE's rig was 50 watts to the antenna. The power input to the final amplifier, a pair of WE-282A tubes, was a little over 100 watts. The multiplier stage, which drove the final amp, used one WE-282A and was operated at almost 50 watts input (those old tubes needed lots of drive). The crystal oscillator, a WE-205D triode, operated at about 15-20 watts input (Holy high crystal currents, Batman...!). This radio was not an efficient device.... I am not saying I am always right. That would be foolish. I make errors occasionally but when I do, I try to correct them. LTM (who was not infallible either) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric Our faith in Mike's expertise is amply demonstrated by the fact that we asked him to write the description of Earhart's radio system fo the 8th edition. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:36:19 EDT From: Ric Subject: Sextant box flyers After chiding Vern for sending out something that included the TIGHAR logo without clearance from TIGHAR Central he gently reminded me that, ages ago, he and I had discussed all this and I had approved the flyer in question. My apologies to Vern. Just another attack of CRS (Can't Remember S___). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:49:12 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: antenna functions My $.02 on the separate antennas question: Only advantage i see to separate antennas: In high-speed breakin telegraphy (conversational style communication via telegraph without my-turn, your-turn) the separate antennas obviate the use of an antenna relay, which has trouble following high telegraph keying speeds used by pro's. Clearly, this consideration does not apply here. Shorten distance of antenna leadin in airplane. This is usually a serious consideration in transmit - i've not seen that it's a worry in receiving, except maybe that it would be more prone to noise pickup. I would think it would be preferable to use only the better, and less vulnerable dorsal antenna, but that would be seen in a typical installation with the receiver back with the transmitter, not stuffed under the pilot seat. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Make that co-pilot's seat. There seems to be another, and in Amelia's case rather compelling, reason for the antennas to function separately. As Mike Everette has pointed out: <> It seems like anything that would have simplified the use of the radios might be seen as highly desirable. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:51:05 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Belly antennas > From Ric > > The Radio Range was a passive receive-only system. I think Vern is > suggesting that the belly antenna was used for all receive functions and that > transmit functions were served by the trailing wire(s) and later the dorsal > vee. --I concur with Vern's thinking. As for the "WHY", i am still puzzling, but i am thinking "maybe they just hadn't gotten around to it yet", the next evolution where the dorsal would replace the lower antenna also for receive, would perform both functions. > Odd that KHAQQ doesn't appear in the 1937 list. The airplane was delivered > with a radio in July 1936. That's what i thought. Now that i've recovered those lists, when i have some more time i'd like to look again for the Lae station listing. It may be that it's listed in some less obvious way, like under British Empire. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:53:46 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Off-topic lament Ric said: >Let's remember, he didn't build the educational system that failed him. You can bet that he IS one of the hundreds of kids who are clueless about writing. BUT it's not entirely the fault of the educational system. Societal expectations don't put much emphasis on grammar and etiquette. Teachers often fight a loosing battle. If kids are sloppy, it's because we, as parents, mentors and relatives, have allowed them to become that way, and not just about their written expression. Instead of admiring the problem we can all be part of the solution by doing whatever we can to inspire kids to care about learning. That's why TIGHAR's been involved in the educational piece. As adults, researchers and professionals we can help kids reach that higher plane. All it takes is a little time. Blue skies, Barbara Norris TIGHAR's Development Director for Education ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:55:21 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Stencilling Ric asked: << We're talking about painting over a cut-out template - right?>> A Brit writes: Yes, exactly the same meaning. LTM, Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:02:02 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: 1965 Collopy letter While I hesitate to contribute my linguistic experience to this one... 1) I read "ball-bearing bag" as a corruption of the old (before my time) locker room expression "ball-bearing a**", which very crudely expresses a narrow but strong compliment pertaining to a certain aspect someone's physical appearance. 2) I interpret the word "bag" in the phrase "ball-bearing bag", to be equivalent to a very impolite term that begins with the letter "b" and rhymes with "witch". Forum readers are invited to put these two parts together and derive the intended meaning for themselves. I am not familiar enough with the entymology of the slang application of "ball bearing" to say for certain if it predates WWII, but it probably does. However, based as it is on a 28 year old recollection of a whiskey propelled conversation, I would agree that the remark is not especially credible. Even if FN did say it, the remarks of two presumably good-natured, inebriated fellows talking about a female celebrity with whom they've had contact don't necessarily have much importance or relevance to the truth, even to them. The subsequent remark attributed to Noonan, "She can fly, I can navigate, but we both are bum W/T operators" has more credibility, not because it appears in the letter, but because it matches what we already know from more reliable first-hand sources. william 2243 ************************************************************************* From Michael Holt Richard E. Gillespie wrote: > If the "ball bearing" expression was not in common usage before WWII (and I > do not know that that is the case), then Collopy's alleged quote is less than > credible. It might be that Collopy translated another expression to a format he knew. FN might have said that sort of thing, but not those words. I don't recall ever reading anything about the relationship between FN and AE. Was he an employee, or did they have any mutual respect? I still find it odd that a sailor, a navigator and a watch officer would not have known any Morse. Did he never use signal lamps on shipboard? Michael Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric I dunno. ************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Hi Ric, I sort of interpreted it to imply the movement of a woman's hips as she walks - but what do I know... I have heard my Harley called a "ball bearing jackass" if that helps......... ltm jon ************************************************************************* From Don Jordan The quote from the letter is "Ball bearing bag in front of the great gas tank! Not "Ball bearing butt". The same person Ric is referring to, contacted me with the same comments. Only he said the phrase was common in the 30's and 40's and did not single out W.W. II as when it was first used. As I stated before, the letter is on 14 inch paper and my scanner will only scan 12 inches at a time, but I would be happy to send a .jpeg to anyone who wishes to see the actual part of the letter containing that phrase. I can be reached at: djordan@cyberlynk.com or by a link on my web site. http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:03:00 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Sextant box Re. Mike's questions about Vaskess: we have an anecdotal account (I think a pretty good one, but still anecdotal, from Foua Tofinga) of the box being on a credenza in Vaskess' office sometime late in WWII -- maybe even as late as 1947. Vaskess retired in Fiji and lived there until his death; his house, unfortunately, was demolished some years ago. We've asked about papers, and looked in the obvious places like the Fiji National Archives, but no luck. He was not married, and had no children, so there's no obvious trail to follow. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:11:25 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Longs'Sonar "Pings" If the Longs are so sure they have something not "geological" in 16,000 ft. of the pacific that is the Electra why have they not brought in Broadway Bob(Ballard)? Or have they consulted him already and he spaced them off. Just curious. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric The Longs don't have anything. It's his former partner, now competitor, Timmer and company that said in January that they would be going back in the spring to check out the target. I have no idea whether they did or not. I would be very surprised if Ballard got involved in a search like this. He knows how hard it is to find things that aren't really lost, just not specifically located. The Electra is truly lost, as in, nobody really knows for sure where it (or whatever is left of it) is within probably several million square miles. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:19:38 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Sextant Flyer Hey Vern; Since Ric has blessed the sextant flyer can I get a few? Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:20:51 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: sextant box I am curious whether there are any British commercial mariners on the Forum who may have served on British-flagged vessels, who may recall whether their vessels carried an "official" company sextant, in a box marked with the name of the company/vessel. My point is simply that the sextant box in question appears to have had very few identifying marks, and the one we know it did have (the stenciled number) is not something particularly fancy or sophisticated. Even if we are unable to identify exactly where the box came from or who owned it, if we can identify it as probably NOT coming from the Norwich City that is an advance in our research, as the vessel is one of the primary suspects. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:21:49 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: sextant box For Tom King - Is there a copy of Vaskess' will filed somewhere -? william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:33:43 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Vaskess will Good question. I'll ask Kris Tague, who worked on archival research after I left Fiji last year, but I doubt if we've got it. Now that things are calming down a bit in Fiji, perhaps we can start tracking things like this again. LTM (whose will is up to date, but says nothing about boxes) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:34:26 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Sextant box The idea that contemporaneous photos might show the box on the desk of certain WHPC's officers is intriguing, and might be worthwhile pursing at some point. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:36:09 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Need help from creative minds As some of you know, several of us (Randy Jacobson, Karen Burns, Kenton Spading and me, to be precise) are working on a book about The Quest. Almost finished, actually. It will not be an official TIGHAR product (no logo), though TIGHAR is cooperating in its development and will receive all royalties; hopefully its appearance WITHOUT TIGHAR imprimature will help dillute the impression that the whole thing is just Ric's schtick. I said we were almost finished. However, we're stuck on a title. Actually we've got the title: "Amelia Earhart's Shoe;" it's the subtitle we're arguing over. The publisher, pointing out that (to my personal amazement) the Longs "Mystery Solved" got into Amazon.com's top 200 list, wants something along the lines of "How Science is Solving a Great Mystery," which curdles my stomach. I proposed something a bit more modest and tongue-in cheek: "Science and Serendipity in Another Search for America's First Lady of the Air." The publisher, and Karen Burns, say this is too obscure. Several other trial balloons have floated and been shot down. So, how about some ideas? She or he who comes up with the winning subtitle gets a hardback copy autographed by all authors. LTM (who's plumb out of ideas) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:37:08 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Sextant box For Tom: Is there a library in Fiji that might have received his stuff? Or in the alternative, was Vaskess affiliated with any particular university or college (or possibly some professional organization) that his things may have been sent to? Just a thought. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:47:38 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit This is Chris Kennedy, in Houston, Texas. This afternoon I was walking through the lobby of a bank building when a large model of a WWII bomber lying on desert sands caught my eye. Of course, nothing I was doing was as important as dropping everything and making a direct line for it. The exhibit was sponsored by The Lone Star Flight Museum in Galveston, and concerns the famous bomber "Lady Be Good". This bomber was the subject of a number of postings awhile back, and some of you may remember that it served as the inspiration for a very creepy, excellent supernatural movie "Sole Survivor" a number of years ago. For those people within range of the Chase Tower, in downtown Houston, you need to see this. The display includes a terrific, detailed model of the plane in the desert, and is surrounded by information on the crew and what happened. Detailed maps are also set out, as well as diary entries from the crew, and a map which shows the crash site in relation to where the various crew member bodies were found. You can see people dropping off one by one, during the failed overland expedition back to civilization. The whole story---missed base, failure of communications, vanished plane, etc.---is in its own way reminiscent of Earhart/Noonan. Anyway, the exhibit says that the site of the crash was visited until 1970, when the Libyan Government sealed it off. The site itself looks to be several hundred miles to the southwest of Siwa Oasis, in Egypt, which is associated with Alexander the Great and very near the border. In 1994, the Lady was moved to Tobruk, to the site of a proposed International Warfare Museum. So, if this is correct, the remains of the Lady Be Good are now in Torbruk, which answers the question someone raised as to whatever became of the plane itself. This, of course, makes the idea of actually seeing the plane a possibility, if one can get by Ghadaffi. You know, I can't speak too highly of the The Lone Star Flight Museum and the quality of their work. This is one of those unsung operations where everyone is friendly and not officious, the exhibits are immaculate, and people have always helped me when I've had questions. Furthermore, you can touch things and they actually fly their planes regularly. I surf in Galveston, and many late afternoons their B-17 and other planes buzz the surf front and have even dipped their wings over the surfers. It's all quite exciting, and its nice too see these planes being energetically flown rather than entombed as aerial trailer queens. Visit them if you're ever in the neighborhood. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Would you call a chariot preserved, as found, in the British Museum an entombed trailer queen? Would history be better served if it was "completely restored" (in other words, completely rebuilt using modern materials) and used in another remake of Ben Hur? Organizations like the Lone Star Flight Museum, Planes of Fame, the Confederate Air Force, etc. are not museums in the traditional sense but rather are living history displays. They serve an important educational/entertainment/nostalgic function but their activities should not be confused with historic preservation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:14:19 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Thompson's message. Referring to Capt. Thompson's message to USCG HQ: Thompson is quoted in his first message of concern about AE's failure to arrive at Howland Island, "Earhart contact 0742 reported one half hour fuel and no land fall." Within the same message Thompson states, "Estimate 1200 for maximum time aloft." Did Thompson conclude that AE would suffer fuel exhaustion at 0812 hrs or at approximately 1200 hrs? Why the apparent discrepancy? Or, am I missing something? LTM, (who suffers total exhaustion when her gas is gone) Roger Kelley ************************************************************************** From Ric It's apparent from the various reports that those aboard the Itasca expected Earhart to have fuel enough to remain aloft until local noon (12:00). It's not clear where that information came from but that's actually a real good estimate based upon the airplane's capabilities. But then the whole radio drama plays out and it becomes apparent that Earhart is close but can't hear the Itasca and everybody gets very rattled and she says something about gas is running low but Tommy O'Hare who is keeping the other log says he thinks she said she has only a half hour left but Thompson says they'll stand by at Howland until noon but what if she's down out there somewhere trying to stay afloat and here they all sit at Howland Island so he changes his mind and orders everybody on the island (except Cipriani) back aboard on the double and off they go searching to the north and west at 10:40 except he doesn't happen to mention that to headquarters. And you wonder if YOU'RE missing something. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:45:30 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Fred's car wrecks In Last Flight Amelia reported two auto accidents involving Noonan. One was just before the Oakland takeoff and the second soon after their return to California, "he survived another highway smash-up." As I recall one of the wrecks, the one involving his new bride who was seriously injured, occurred in Fresno,Ca.sometime in March 1937. One writer mentioned that no citations were given but that Noonan smelled of alcohol. Has Tighar or anyone on the forum been able to check out these records in California to see if they were alcohol related? Or are these records lost to time. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric It seems that these records are lost to time, and have been since long before Fred Goerner claimed to have seen them. In his book, Goerner alleged that the citation Fred received for the accident in April had "driver had been drinking" handwritten on it as a notation. When we ( I think it was either Jerry Hamilton or Ron Dawson) tried to check those records we learned that they are routinely disposed of after something like five years. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:49:47 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: ball bearings The term "ball bearing bag" most likely refers to the "bag" (female) that was sitting in the front seat as being rather masculine, bossy etc... An example is "she'll do well at that, she's got balls" or "she's got balls, you have to give her that". A lot of men feel threatened by a female that considers herself to be in charge. She's got balls is still a fairly common expression down here for a woman prepared to "give it a go", unfortunately it's also still often used in a derogatory sense by some people. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I can certainly see AE being described as "ballsy" but I've never heard that reference used in the context of ball bearings. I'm not at all sure that the two terms are related. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:24:48 EDT From: Vern Subject: Telegraph keys This telegraph key thing continues to be illusive. Going through Joe Gurr's correspondence with Fred Goerner -- still again -- It appears to me that the telegraph key he speaks of removing, and still had in his possession, was removed in Burbank. I presume that's the key assembly we see installed on the wall of the copilot's position in that photograph. When Manning left, there was no longer any use for the key. Joe Gurr also speaks of a key mounted on the navigator's table, and that "voice communication could also be had from the cockpit." No key in the cockpit? This has to be when there was a navigator's table in the cabin. Was this the key he removed? Was it the same key assembly seen in the photo of the copilot position? Goerner's notes indicate that Joe Gurr was unaware of the key that was said to have been left in Miami and sent to Tinus?? (I can't be sure of Goerner's handwriting) I think this was a Western Electric/Bell Telephone person. It all makes you wonder just how many telegraph keys may have been floating around and whether there may have still been one on the plane. Might it have been there, just in case...? They could at least pound out an SOS and hope someone could get a bearing on it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:30:01 EDT From: Chuck Jackson Subject: Gurr's key I am afraid I know the answer, but I will ask. If Joe Gurr had the key, does anyone know where it went or who might have it now? A simple inquiry to his family just might yield the key! ************************************************************************** From Ric I have a hunch as to who might possibly have it. I'll make some inquiries. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:08:47 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Fuel reserves One point here that I believe we discussed in the fuel consumption thread last year, but I'll pop it in here for those who missed that discussion and may be wondering how, after saying she had only half an hour of fuel left, Amelia could still be flying and not screaming out that she was running on fumes an hour later.... > EARHART CONTACT 0742 REPORTED ONE HALF HOUR FUEL AND NO LAND FALL >0843 REPORTED LINE OF POSITION 157 DASH 337 BUT NO REFERENCE POINT There was a lot of speculation that Earhart ran out of fuel early and crashed. Exhaustive fuel calculations by myself and others using recommended fuel consumption figures, and estimated worst case fuel consumption figures suggested that earhart could have somewhere up to 250 gallons of reserve fuel on arrival at Howland. The most likely bet is that she had considerably less than that however. The quotes from Itasca's log would tend to bear out the existence of reserve fuel (something ALL pilots allow when planning a long flight - especially when weather conditions or landing conditions are uncertain at the other end). At 0742 AE reported "one half hour fuel". Why then was she still flying at 0842 - an hour later? The "one half hour fuel" was to the end of the calculated fuel required for the trip. Somewhere around 0815 (or earlier or later, depending on her fuel management) she started using her reserve. At this point she had at best, 4 to 5 hours flying time, and at worst, no-one can know, but probably in excess of two hours. If she used the figures Lockheed suggested she should have had around 26 hours flying time available to her on her 1100 gallons, based on: 3 hours @ 58gph = 175 gallons 3 hours @ 49gph = 150 gallons 3 hours @ 43gph = 130 gallons sub total = 455 gallons. Take that from 1100 gallons balance = 645 gallons Divided by 38gph = 17 hours (full throttle, 10,000ft) Plus our first 9 hours = 26 hours total time. Something that has bothered me for ages though. There were 654 imperial gallons (785 US gallons) loaded into the tanks at Lae. Lae was about 7.7 hours from Darwin in the Electra (1012 miles). That means that if Earhart fueled up at Darwin, she was averaging 130knots (150 miles per hour) and using around 100 gallons per hour on that trip! Did she in fact fuel up in Darwin? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know what forum you were on last year but Kelly Johnson's numbers applied directly to the 1,100 U.S. gallon load go like this: 1 hour at 100 gph (100 gals) 3 hours at 60 gph (180 gals) 3 hours at 51 gph (153 gals) 3 hours at 43 gph (129 gals) 14.1 hours at 38 gph (538 gals) Total time 24.1 hours. A 20 percent reserve (4.8 hours in this case) was standard for long distance flights, so when Earhart said "gas is running low" at 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight she was just beginning to burn into her reserve. She almost certainly never said that she had only a half hour of gas left. That quote ap pears only in the log being kept by Radioman 3rd class Thomas O'Hare whose job was to handle the ship's non-Earhart radio traffic. He also stuck overheard transmissions from Earhart into his log but, not surprisingly, his entries are less complete and often differ slightly from what the primary Earhart log recorded. Earhart was making references to things she wanted Itasca to do "on the half hour" and O'Hare probably just got it mixed up. Earhart did refuel at Darwin with 365 (presumably Imperial) gallons of 87 octane. We have a copy of the receipt. However, we have no way of knowing how much total fuel was aboard when she left Darwin except to say that is seems safe to assume that it was nothing like the humongous load she carried for the Lae/Howland leg. We have no way of knowing what her fuel consumption was like on the Darwin/Lae leg. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:10:55 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: The Key I had forgotten the Gurr connection with the telegraph key. It's been a while since I last read over his letter to Goerner. Joe Gurr could have very easily made the necessary mods to the radio to jumper the switch function and therefore keep the radio in "Phone" mode. But! Here is a reason why he would NOT have done so, and one that raises credibility issues. Gurr was trying to "help" AE (yeah, right)preserve her transmitting capability on 500 KHz, by reconfiguring the dorsal antenna to serve on 500 instead of using the much more efficient trailing wire. AE apparently wanted the trailing wire removed, and radio operation simplified, after Harry Manning bolted from the second flight attempt... Manning was to have been the radio operator, and one of his jobs would be to manually reel out and in the trailing wire (as well as to throw the antenna selector switch, located in the aft section). So, AE knew (we believe) that she needed to preserve the 500 KHz capability. In those days, 500, or "600-meters" (wave length) was the only emergency universally guarded by ships.... and she would be over water quite a bit. NOBODY used voice on 500! It was then, and continued so until the mid 90s when the regulation requiring ships to guard it was phased out, a CW frequency only. Even Joe Gurr would have known this. He would have come on very strong to AE, I think, about this and the necessity for keeping her CW key. No one monitoring 500 would have been listening for/expecting a voice signal on 500. HOWEVER, was AE so strongheaded that she disdained all Gurr's (and others) expert advice? Could have been. Very likely. ("I don't care...") If Joe Gurr had that key I for one would like to know what happened to it. What happened to Gurr's estate? Did he have heirs? Or was the contents of his house trashed, like I saw happen to the stuff of a recently deceased old time Ham in Durham, NC last month? Wonder if that key has ever turned up at a Hamfest someplace? Wonder if the person who has it now is aware of its origin and significance (and value)? I think, when I go to Hamfests from now on, I'm gonna look even closer at the telegraph keys et al on the flea market tables. And this one will be unusual to say the least. (I collect keys, when I can afford them, which is not often any more.) This key would be second only in value to the key from the Titanic... and, that one has been photographed by a robot submersible fairly recently. LTM (who tended to get keyed up) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric In "Amelia My Courageous Sister" Carol Osborne reproduces the text of a 1962 letter from W.C. Tinus, Vice President of Bell Telephone Laboratories: I was the radio engineer who was responsible for the design and installation of her radio communications equipment [at the Newark Airport, New Jersey in February, 1937] and since there is apparently still some doubt as to what her equipment consisted of, perhaps I can clear up one or two points ... I had been a radio operator aboard ship in my younger days and knew the importance of being able to communicate at 500 kc over the oceans. I persuaded Miss Earhart and Mr. Putnam on this point and modified a standard three-channel Western Electric equipment of the type then being used by the airlines to provide one channel at 500 kc and the other two at around 3000 and 6000 kc ... A simple modification also enabled transmission to be made on CW or MCW, as well as voice, and a telegraph key was provided which could be plugged in, in addition to a microphone for voice communication. It was my thought that many ships throughout the world had 500 kc radio compasses and could probably better obtain bearings if the key were held down for an extended period while radiating modulated CW (MCW). I was less successful in persuading Miss Earhart of the importance of having a qualified radio operator in her crew. I had only a short period one afternoon at Newark Airport to show her and captain Manning (of the United States Lines Sea Rescue fame) how to operate the equipment. ... I did not see her equipment during the period between the first and second starts, but had no reason at the time to believe it had been changed. Several months after her disappearance we received a small package from Pan American Airways at Miami containing her telegraph key, cord and plug, which she had left in their hangar there. Without these items she could have communicated on 500 kc by voice and could have sent out a suitable signal for direction finding by simply holding the microphone button down for a time. The remainder of her equipment peculiar to the low frequency 500 kc channel probably weighted five or ten pounds, but apparently she did not leave it in Miami or it, too, would have been returned to us. He ended: ... She was equipped for 500 kc communication originally and she did leave one item, her telegraph key, behind when she departed from Miami. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:12:32 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Lae Berne listing Hue Miller wrote: <> You might also consider checking listings under Australia for that lae station... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:14:51 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: off topic lament > Societal expectations don't put much emphasis on grammar and etiquette. > Teachers often fight a "loosing" battle. If kids are sloppy, it's because we, I hope that's a typo.. lol Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:15:51 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Sextant box For Jon Watson -- Yes, there are libraries in Fiji, and quite substantial archives. Kris Tague has spent a good deal of time in them, but reports nothing re. Vaskess. However, there are plenty more shelves and files to search; we've really only scratched the surface. There's also the University of the South Pacific, where we've spent a good deal of time in the library but never searched for Vaskess papers because until recently we didn't know he was anybody we ought to be pursuing. None of the libraries or archives is accessible from a distance; we've really got to get somebody back there to look some more. And of course, there are lots of things to look for besides the sextant box. Those pesky bones, for example. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:30:48 EDT From: Janice Brown Subject: Re: Need help from creative minds My suggestions for your subtitle: 1) "Solving the Puzzle through Discovery" 2) "Secrets Revealed with Science" PS: Your publisher's suggestion may make you wince, but I bet he/she knows how to sell books :) Janice Brown *************************************************************************** From Frank Westlake I haven't read any discussion of your book so I may have the wrong context. How about: "Amelia Earhart's Shoe: The Sole Evidence of the Sole Survivor?" Oops, how'd that get in there. Try this one: "Amelia Earhart's Shoe: The Mystery Unfolds." It hints at new information and still more to come. For something more intellectual: "Amelia Earhart's Shoe: A Methodical Examination of the Facts." Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Dave 1611 Tom, How about "Island Getaways" , or Where's my other shoe? LTM(Who likes to read) Dave 1611 *************************************************************************** From S Saddoris Imprints in Science for a Lost Sole. Any help, Tom? SSaddoris *************************************************************************** From richard Lund to Tom King not sure how good they will sound but how about--"the last steps of a legend"or"footprints on nikumororo" that's about the limits of my creativity right now.best of luck and I can't wait for the finished copy(any time frame on a release date) LTM(who loves a good book by the fireplace) Richard Lund *************************************************************************** From Harry Poole Consider: 1) The Clue in the Sand. or 2) The lost English Oxford LTM, Harry Poole *************************************************************************** From Richard Johnson Here are a few thoughts to get things going on the book title. Amelia Earharts' Shoe: Evidence of The End " " " The Final Solution " " " Proof in the Pacific " " " How overwhelming evidence suggests her fate! " " " Death in the Pacific " " " Case Closed " " " Clear and convincing evidence of her fate! Good Luck and LTM Richard Johnson *************************************************************************** From Rick Seapin Forumites??????? The title should be: "Earhart, a study in foresical search techniques". I want 10% of the royalties and a guest spot on Leno. *************************************************************************** From Kerry Tiller Tom, How about one of these for your book's subtitle?: IS THE MYSTRY SOLVED? A Scientific Quest for the Truth A Decade of Search and Research Actually, I will be surprised if wordmeister Dennis McGee doesn't come up with the winning subtitle. Oh, and here's a tongue in cheek one for you: Yet Another Book that Claims to Know What Happened to Amelia Earhart LTM (Who taught me not to judge a book by its subtitle nor truth by its content.) Kerry Tiller #2350 ************************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf I find nothing wrong with AE's shoe, on the contrary. Since the book is not published by TIGHAR, may I suggest the authors go at least as far as Long who titled "The mystery solved" ?. What about "How AE's shoe was found on Niku". Herman ************************************************************************** From Jerry Ellis For Tom King, Tom, why does "How Science is Solving a Great Mystery," bother you? It seems that on short notice most of what I formulated sounds about the same. For example: "A Scientific Study of the Earhart Disappearance" (Your editor might think most readers would be turned off with the word scientific in there.) "Critical Thinking and the Earhart Mystery" (Critical thinking is currently a buzz word in the educational system and your editor may like the word mystery.) And along the same buzz word lines- "Using Scientific Reasoning to Solve the Earhart Mystery" I hope these are helpful. Maybe you can use notions from several of us to arrive at one you like. Good luck, and more later if I can think of any. jerry ellis #2113 *************************************************************************** From Ron Feder How about: And Other Clues That Mark the Trail to Discovery Ron M Feder *************************************************************************** From Skeet Gifford Amelia Earhart's Shoe, A Preponderance of Evidence ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:33:12 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: antenna functions Well, then... With no access to the schematics I can only ask the questions: ---If things were mod'ed this way, could it also be possible that the Rx could be made to receive, just for a moment, in order to listen to the Crystal-controlled Tx. To set the Rx exactly to the freq desired??? If the Tx antenna relay was taken out of the loop of control of the Rx, had the Rx been made fully independent? ---Mike E. had mentionned that a standard WE radio was specially modified for AE...So we do have *some* documents for mods made to AE's gear??? Cheerio. Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:45:33 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit If you can't get to Tobruk, next best thing would be the Air Force Museum in Dayton. They have a pretty nice display on the *Lady Be Good*, including an engine taken from the plane after it was found, and some personal effects of the crew. And regarding Ric's treatise on ball-bearings and other things related to Amelia's posterior, never let it be said that we here on this forum don't get to the bottom of things. TomR *************************************************************************** From Hue Miller It's very interesting reading about the Lady Be Good story. I well remember reading as a youngster the Life magazine edition that presented this discovery when new, the splendid photos as only that magazine could do. I'm quite happy to hear that it's going into a museum, otherwise the already heavy souvenir plundering would only continue. In the age of worldwide culture, rogue states have to change or collapse, and i'm Libya will be on the tourist agendas again before too long. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Joe In Dayton Ohio at the Wright-Patterson AFB Museum is an exhibit to the " Lady Be Good" bomber...her motors, her landing gears, the interior stuff from the plane like gauges, radios, and gear of the men, thermos bottles..etc right next to an exhibit to Glenn Miller, with a lot of his AAF stuff... Joe W3HNK *************************************************************************** From Tom King Ric says of the Lone Star Flight Museum, et al: "their activities should not be confused with historic preservation." Not to be picky, but Section 301(8) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470w(8) for the lawyers) defines "historic preservation" as including: "identification, evaluation, recordation, documentation, curation, acquisition, protection, management, rehabilitiation, restoration, stabilization, maintenance, research, conservation, and education and training regarding the foregoing activities or any combination of the foregoing activities." That casts a pretty broad net, or embraces a multitude of sins. I'd say that restoring and flying old airplanes IS a form of historic preservation, but whether it's GOOD historic preservation, or WISE, or RESPONSIBLE, is another matter. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric ..and, of course, the world should accept the definition offered in a United States government regulation. *************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Well, in this case, I don't feel a grand and tugging philosophical question and am just glad someone put together a damned good exhibit and cares enough to keep the planes together and flying....I call it "thank you". --Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:46:28 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: Sextan box flyers >From Ric > >After chiding Vern for sending out something that included the TIGHAR logo >without clearance from TIGHAR Central he gently reminded me that, ages ago, >he and I had discussed all this and I had approved the flyer in question. My >apologies to Vern. Just another attack of CRS (Can't Remember S___). Don't feel badly, Ric. Had I not just recently come across that file folder... And I made the things! I got only a few sent out. Too many things keep happening! I wonder if I can find that list? I suppose some duplication would do no real harm. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:50:35 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio details > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > I am working from an actual schematic of the radios, and from specifications > published. That's fine. I own most of the navy's HF aircraft radios from 1935 - 1945, and have their manuals, as well as examples of military communications from various usages and countries. I am telling you, sidetone was the exception. > Read the diagram, Hue... > > AE's transmitter did NOT have any kind of "side tone oscillator" for CW > monitoring. ) operating at around 1000 Hz; and the oscillator was disabled > on voice. Did i say this? I believe what i was asking, if there was a "whistle through" for tuning up the receiver, or tune postion of the transmitter. A pretty straightforward question. > Most Hams of the era did not use sidetone oscillators to monitor their CW > transmissions. They either listened directly in their receivers, or > employed a secondary, completely shielded "monitor" which was actually a > one-tube (maybe 2) regenerative receiver with no antenna, strictly used to > pick up a tiny bit of transmitted energy... tiny, so as not to "overload" > the monitor receiver and give a false indication of rotten quality My point is - hams were more concerned with hearing their own sending. The poor military man was expected to be able to send without it. It IS possible to send very good sounding morse without any external feedback except what you feel and hear from the key. > ah, a lot of "real men" disdained side tone, thinking their CW sending was > perfect... HA! In the days before "electronic keyers" and > keyboard-generated "perfect" CW, a lot of real trashy sending was heard... > the "banana boat fist" for instance. Remember, there was not any strong onus, outside the military, to conform strictly to High English style of sending. For example, the "Lake Erie Swing" comes to mind. No one felt any disdain for having their sending having a "regional accent", quite the contrary. Re rotten signals, it's always been a black mark to have a rotten sounding transmit note, due to technical shortcomings. > Those, aircraft rigs which did not use a tone oscillator for the MCW tone > were usually radios which operated on high frequency AC power (like 400 or > 800 Hz AC, 800 being common in Naval a/c and 400 in Army, for a long time, > till about midwar... You take me to task for questioning your crediblity, then you allude to Army WW2 transmit equipment which operated on 400 Hz ( WHICH?), and don't address lack of sidetone on CW A1 mode in such equipment as BC-307, BC-375, ATB, (Bendix) TA-2, TA-6.... You also allude to photos of 2-seat scoutplanes and torpedo bombers carrying frequency meters. Hmmm. > don't ask me why the dif)and these rigs (such as the > GO-9 transmitter) were found in large a/c like PBYs. When you compare the 800-Hz power transformer and filter capacitors to 60 Hz ones, or the dynamotor required to generate that much power, the weight savings is favorable. As far as i know only 2 Navy transmitters were AC-powered. > In these cases, a small > amount of 400 or 800 cycle voltage was fed to the suppressor grids of the > final-amplifier tubes, which produced the modulation for A2 (tone modulated > telegraphy) emission. I thot we started this out by talking about pure CW mode, A1 ? > And I beg to differ sharply regarding the use of the CFI (freq standard) > aboard Navy a/c. I have seen plenty of pix of these freq meters in Naval > a/c, including SBD/SB2C/TBF/TBD/OS2U etc etc, plus PBYs. You have seen pix of a CFI in an OS2U?? SB2C ? I call you on this. Please tell me the source of the photo of OS2U or SB2C with freq meter onboard, or SBD ? I have talked to gunner/operators who flew on SBDs, TBFs, SB2C. What about the Squadron Signal pub on the TBD, which pretty well lays out the electronics complement for that plane? > I have the manuals for all these equipments, which detail how to use the > xmtrs with the CFI (LM freq meter) and I have done it this way, using a > TBW... plus a GF-series. (By the way, the GP and GO transmitters, as well > as the TBW ground xmtr, were built by Westinghouse and are extremely similar > in terms of circuitry/ operation). I agree, having owned and just disposed of these heavy beasts. > You are somewhat correct that under wartime radio silence conditions, the > freqs were set on the flight/hangar deck... but it was done infrequently > because even radiation from the CFI units was feared detectable by enemy > receivers or d/f. You can explain, off net if you wish, just how a CFI, with less power than a toy walkie talkie, and an antenna of several inches of wire, posed a danger of enemy DF. Is this an analog of that old (and incorrect) legend, about U-boats DFing on Allies ship receivers? > From Ric > > Our faith in Mike's expertise is amply demonstrated by the fact that we asked > him to write the description of Earhart's radio system fo the 8th edition. Maybe part of my mission on earth is to question Faith. Look, i've no interest in even trying to be anyone's resident expert. However, i do believe in approaching the truth by discussion and debate. I apologize for this digression too far into arcana here, i won't pursue this. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric If you guys decide to continue your discussion about this I'd like to suggest that you do it off-forum. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:53:11 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: antenna functions Lemme see if i get this, working without a schematic wiring diagram. We don't wish to pulse the dynamotor, so we flip the switch to CW. This 1) starts the dynamotor 2) the transmitter has an antenna changeover relay, so that is energized, connecting antenna to transmit circuit. 3) this switching however also interrupts high voltage supply to the transmitter power tube. (let's forget the voice modulation tubes of transmitter for now) Also (4) the receiver high voltage is interupted, and (5) the key reconnects (likely thru another relay) the high voltage to the transmitter tube when the key is pressed, and radio frequency current appears at the antenna connection. When you're done with the message, your transmitter dyno is running, the receiver is not listening, and you cannot talk, even if the modulation tubes have HV on them, unless you press the key at the same time. So, you throw switch back to phone, dynamotor (also, just for general arcana interest, called sometimes in old US literature, "motor-generator", and in the British Empire, "rotary transformer" ) winds down, receiver comes up, and is reconnected to the antenna. The press-to-talk is once again in control of the operation. Let's say 2 different antennas are used instead. How different is this basic routine then? Were does this supposed switching advantage come in? What am i missing? The alternative to the way i've dissected it, seems to me, has power to the receiver at all times. How common was that, in contemporary practice? It also requires, as someone pointed out, a closing switch on the key or telegraph control box, or as i point out, a telegraph key with a shorting lever on it, AND a microphone with a locking button. And so on in impracticability. So again, how is some advantage realized? The main show in switching from CW to VOICE is not the antenna relay, but the power switching. Oh, let me see, also, are you saying you can receive when the key is up (unpressed) ? You agree break-in keying is not used. I hope you are not saying receiver volume is adjusted up when you want to receive, and turned down when you transmit. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:55:17 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: antenna functions Ric, my note just previous to the present is too wordy. Please can it. (From Ric: Ooops. Too late.) Let me cut to the chase: The "simplicity advantage" theory seems to say that manually switching from CW to VOICE could be avoided. Forget the antenna relay. That is a small sideshow. You need to start the dynamotor. If the dynamotor is alread running (in voice mode), you need to throw a switch to open the carrier signal. How in any scenario envisioned by the "simplicity theory", is a manual control of the transmitter avoided? Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:56:24 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Fred's car wrecks > From Ric > > In his book, Goerner alleged that the citation Fred received for the > accident in April had "driver had been drinking" handwritten on it as a notation. That seems odd for such an early date. I have no idea how concerned people were about drinking and driving before the mid 70's when I started to drive (and drink), but I do know that I had several citations for moving violations that had no comment on the drinking I had done. My impression of those earlier years is that driving after drinking was something you just had to do if you wanted to get somewhere, and that drinking was more readily accepted as an excuse rather than as evidence. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:57:28 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: help from creative minds I suggest: The Sole of the Matter - for the well-heeled! LTM & Blue Skies! Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:58:10 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fred's car wrecks As long as this subject's come up, maybe Jerry and Ron can clarify which of them did get the info, and who they got it from -- Fresno police or California Highway Patrol or both? We ought to document that. LTM (who's never yet had a drunk driving accident) TKing ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:02:11 EDT From: Christy Pilkey Subject: Re: Need help from creative minds Amelia Earhart's Shoe: If the Shoe Fits... christy pilkey ************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Yeah, like I was going to pass on this one! 1. Amelia's shoe, Fred's sextant box, and Occum's Razor 2. The Sands of Nikumaroro 3. More Questions and Fewer Answers Abound in Yet Another Search for America's Heroine. 4. Amelia's Legacy: Wouldda, Couldda, Shouldda 5. "Love to mother . . . " 6. Beating the odds beating the scuvula (spelling?) 7. Why she should have stayed on the ground . . . 8. We're getting close. You got a problem with that? 9. It's all Fred's fault 10. "You can leave your heart in San Francisco, but don't leave your key in Miami." ************************************************************************** From Ric I kinda like number 8. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:18:04 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Need help from creative minds How about, "Amelia Earhart's Shoe; One Size Fits All" Seriously, I like "Amelia Earhart's Shoe; Science & Mystery on a Remote Pacific Island" william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:50:43 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Book Titles My kudos to all the contributors for the AE book title contest. Reading these is worth the price of TIGHAR membership alone! So what's first prize for the winner Ric? Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric Don't look at me. Not my book, man. The book is an independent project by Tom King with help from several TIGHAR members all of whom have generously decided to donate the proceeds to TIGHAR. The book is about TIGHAR but it's not by TIGHAR and does not speak for TIGHAR. This gives the authors the freedom to call it the way they see it and it gives TIGHAR plausible deniability if we don't necessarilly agree with everything about the way they call it. Seems fair. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:51:35 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: creative minds How about "A Pacific Odyssey"--defined as "a long series of wanderings or adventures, especially when filled with notable experiences, hardships, etc." Websters Unabridged, electronic ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:53:38 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Need help from creative minds As The Man once said, is this a great forum, or what? Thanks, all. LOTS to work with there. Shoe enough. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:30:08 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Need help from creative minds subtitle sugggestions: Can forensic science fit the Shoe to Amelia? Science matches the Nikumaroro shoe to Amelia Amelia and the Catspaw connection Scientific Prince fits shoe to Earhart for Island Ball Scientists link shoe to Amelia Earhart on deserted island Amelia's shoe survives on Pacific Island Hey Tom,whatever happened to the suggestion that the entire Catspaw shoe research be placed as document of the week so we mortals can evaluate. What worries me most is the visiting American women on Niku in the late 50's (I can't recall but was accompaning one of the British guys) LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Posting of the shoe research is my department. Just haven't gotten to it yet. We've never heard of any American women visiting Niku in the late 1950s. There is one passing reference in Laxton's article about an incident which supposedly occurred prior to his 1949 visit involving an American woman. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:38:39 EDT From: Paul Chattey Subject: Re: help from creative minds So far nobody's had fun with: The Secret of Amelia Earhart's Other Shoe (Published by the Ministry of Silly Walks, of course.) How about, Earhart: Caught in Time Amelia: Intent and Enigma Bringing Amelia Home Paul ************************************************************************* From John Dipi FIND THE LOST LOCKHEED 10 ************************************************************************** From Richard Lund thought of anthor title/subtitle listing for you. AMELIA EARHART'S SHOE AND THE CASTAWAYS OF GARDNER ISLE. That will be my last suggestion as i figure you'll get millions from other forumites LTM Richard Lund *************************************************************************** From Michael Holt A title, huh? "Amelia Earhart's Shoe:" Let's see ... "... Footprints in the sky" Let me think about this a bit longer. The suggestions so far have been fantastic. LTM (who has extra titles, just in case, like any mother) Michael Holt *************************************************************************** From Dave Porter For Tom King: How about "How I learned to find things by looking where they reasonably ought to be" as your subtitle? LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************************** From Jim McClure Tom, On the book title, the phrase "Love to Mother..." is very compelling for someone who is less familiar with the search for Amelia. How about turning the title around, i.e., "Love To Mother...." A Scientific Search for Amelia Earhart The book could open with the story of where the phrase "Love to Mother..." came from. It might be a good "hook" to draw someone in... Jim McClure *************************************************************************** From Terry Ann Linley Well, to press I like Ron Feder's response the best (": and Other Clues that Mark the Trail to Discovery")...but here's my personal contribution: Amelia Earhart's Shoe: the Heart and Sole of Forensic Investigation Thanks for the challenge, Tom! Terry Ann Linley ************************************************************************** From Andrew McKenna Tom K I got to thinking about how all this got started with the two gentlemen (who's names escape me) walked into Ric's office and suggest following the navigational principles might suggest a solution on Niku. In addition, I thought you could play off TIGHAR's educational program. I came up with: Amelia Earhart's Shoe How her Line of Position Leads to a Voyage of Discovery criptic enough to be intriguing, yet connecting her last known position with your (our) scientific work in the Pacific, and the educational / scientific approach we are trying to adhere to, and also doesn't claim to have solved or proven anything. LTM Andrew McKenna 1045CE ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:48:46 EDT From: Robert Klauss Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit Let's not forget "King Nine Will Not Return", one of the best Twilight Zone episodes, which was also inspired by the finding of the "Lady Be Good". It starred Bob Cummings (noted pilot and flight instructor), and a carefully disassembled B-25, which was later put back together, and I believe still flies. Robert *************************************************************************** From Wes Smith Instead of risking an image of arrogance by pointing out the differences between aircraft preservation and "living history displays", why not offer some insight into recovery of the Lady Be Good? After all, it is an historic aircraft, was lost, is a great story of personal sacrifice by its crew and we apparently know where it is. As opposed of course to the Electra . . . or is TIGHAR really just about AE? ************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR is not just about AE, but this forum is. We indulge ourselves with an occasional excursion off-topic, and we can often find relevance in some pretty obscure stuff. In this case, it might be worth asking whether the Lady Be Good might better have been left in situ. Does removal of an historic property from the context that made it historic destroy its integrity? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:51:33 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Fred's car wrecks < From Tom King As long as this subject's come up, maybe Jerry and Ron can clarify which of them did get the info, and who they got it from -- Fresno police or California Highway Patrol or both? We ought to document that.>> That would be Jerry. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:59:50 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Various 1. Re Noonan: Thanks for the correction; I didn't have the book in front of me -- thought the original plan was to leave >both< Fred and Harry in Australia. In any event, the point is still that AE initially figured she could make it from Australia back to the US without the help of either one. So why the change in plans? We'll probably never know for certain. Maybe the Hawaii crash sapped AE's confidence a bit, leading her finally to acknowledge it might be a good idea to have some help in the cabin. Maybe it was just cheaper to take Fred with her than buy him a steamer ticket to Australia, as AE/GP by most accounts were strapped for cash following the costly post-crash repairs. 2. Re problems of a personal nature: The second reference came in a telephone call between AE and GP, which was overheard by a witness. Again, I don't have the source materials in front of me here at the office, but believe the conversation is reported by both the Longs and Butler, among others. There is some uncertainty over whether AE said "personal problems" (possibly referring to herself) or "personnel problems" (i.e., Fred). 3. Re Collopy: My theory, with apologies to our female readers, is that what Collopy heard was "ball-busting bag." He may not have understood the expression because it was an Americanism, so mentally converted it into something that made sense to him. Or he may just be guilty of excessive delicacy. If "ball-bearing butt" was a complimentary expression, it would make no sense for Fred to express his admiration of AE's gluteal area while calling her a "bag" in the same breath. I have a call in to my dad (age 91) to see if the phrase "ball-busting" was in use prior to World War II. Now if they can just drag him away from the slot machines ... 4. "Amelia Earhart's Shoe: Following [or Tracing] the Footsteps of Aviation's Greatest Mystery" Kindly autograph the book to my daughter, Amelia Gaston. (Yes, I know it's not aviation's greatest mystery, but you want the thing to sell, don't you, Tom?) LTM, Patrick Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric I think you're thinking of Gore Vidal's claim that he was there in New York (as an 11 year old kid) when his father Gene and GP got a phone call from AE in Lae and she made that complaint. Trouble is, GP was in San Francisco when AE was in Lae and there was no telephone service from Lae to the U.S. What, I wonder, WOULD be "aviation's greatest mystery?" I guess you'd have to decide how to define "greatest." Most widely known? Most historically significant? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:03:09 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: Fred's car wrecks A preview from the 8th Edition Noonan section: A week later on Sunday in Fresno, about 200 miles north of L.A. while probably on their way back from visiting Bea's relatives in Modesto, Fred Noonan crossed into the on-coming lane of traffic and collided with another car. His wife sustained "extensive" cuts on her knee and others to her scalp. The family in the other car was treated for minor bruises. Fred was cited for "driving in the wrong lane." (Oakland Tribune, April 5, 1937) This accident happened on April 4 according to the paper. Neither the Oakland Tribune or the local Fresno paper, which also reported the accident, mentions alcohol. I believe Don Jordan was the one who tried to follow up on the ticket itself. I don't know of a second accident. If someone gives me a geographic area and time frame for one I'll track it down. blue skies, -jerry ************************************************************************** From Ric It may be worth noting that April 4th was Fred's birthday and that he and Bea were newlyweds. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:03:55 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Ball-bearing, etc. Following up on my pvs post, my father does not recall hearing the expression "ball-busting" (in reference to an intimidating or otherwise unpleasant woman) prior to World War II. However, he didn't remember "ball-bearing butt" either. He rarely uses profanity and probably didn't hang around with those who did. LTM (still trying to get her bearings), Patrick Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:04:55 EDT From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: Lady Be Good Your readers might be interested. I was there. In late November 1942 my group (B-24s) - 93rd Bomb group was ordered to North Africa (Oran) and then to an area about 25 miles south of Tobruk. It was a piece of scraped desert called Gabut LF 139 with no radio, no lights and no runways. From that base we bombed (with 12 to 18, B-24s) targets in Italy and North Africa. Many of our raids were at dusk so that the trip back home to LF139 was at night. As there were no radio aids, precision navigation was a must. My procedure returning home was to aim for the north coast of Lybia about 40 miles west of Tobruk. I used the offset technique to be sure i knew which side of Tobruk I was on. When we crossed the coast line, I would then give a heading for Tobruk (Tobruk was a dead city with no lights). At Tobruk, turn to 180 for about 12 minutes until we saw the flare. Oil lamps lit the approach end of the field. The key was to know when you crossed the coast line. We would turn out all airplane lights and watch for small coast line breakers. The water and the desert looked very much alike at night. If you missed the coast line, it would be almost impossible to tell if you were over water or land. Of course, this is what happened to Lady be Good. They didn't realize they had crossed the coast and were still looking for it until they crashed. They probaby thought they were ditching. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:06:17 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Fred's car wrecks I believe it was I who got that information for you. I still have a contact within the PD and court system who is searching the old records when he gets a chance. It's been a long time since I got that information and I don't remember exactly what was said, but I seem to recall they said it was routine to destroy all old records of citations after about 20 years. If my contact turned up something TIGHAR will be the first to know! Don J. *************************************************************************** From Ric My apologies. I had forgotten that you got that information. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:07:16 EDT From: Nick Murray Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit This is my first post to the forum, and I just wanted to respond to Chris Kennedy's comments for the "Lady Be Good" exhibit at the Lone Star Flight Museum. I live in Webster (just SE of Houston), and I have visited the museum several times. I agree with Chris that the exhibit on the plane and it's story is very well done, and worth seeing if you are in the area. Also, although most of the planes that are there are flown, there are some static aircraft, and some unusual types (they have a Fairey Firefly that will be restored in the future). If you want to know more about the museum, their web address is www.lsfm.org. --Nick Murray 2356CE ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:16:14 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Fuel Reserves Didn't the Electra's fuel consumption data provided by Lockheed depend upon the Eclipse fuel meter, Cambridge Gas Analyzer, and possibly other instruments (cylinder head temp.) being fully functional? Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric As I understand it, the instruments Earhart needed to follow Kelly Johnson's basic formula were a functioning altimeter: an accurate manifold pressure guage and tachometer for each engine; and an operating Cambidge Exhaust Gas Analyzer with which to set the mixture. The fuel meter was a useful monitoring tool but was not required. I know of no indication that any of those instruments was not functioning. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:19:50 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: ball bearings > From Ric > > I can certainly see AE being described as "ballsy" but I've never heard that > reference used in the context of ball bearings. I'm not at all sure that the > two terms are related. Geez some people are slow! The reference to "ball bearing bag" is unlikely to relate to a "bag that is used to hold ball bearings" as Ric seems to think. It is more likely to have related to the "bag" (as in female) bearing "balls" (as in male appendages). Nothing to do with ball bearings or the bags they come in... Which would still tend to suggest someone thought she had what would these days be seen as "masculine attitude". A similar suggestion is "ball bearing rat trap" which may sound as if it is referring to some wonder of modern engineering, but does in fact refer to a TOMCAT ! (Same balls and no bearings) th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I never suggested that there was any reference to a bag to hold ball bearings. I regret starting what has become one of dumbest threads we've ever had on this forum (and that's quite record). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:27:09 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Telegraph keys > It all makes you wonder just how many telegraph keys may have been floating > around and whether there may have still been one on the plane. Might it > have been there, just in case...? They could at least pound out an SOS and > hope someone could get a bearing on it. This is an interesting question. Even fred and Amelia would know ... _ _ _ ... Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric The absence of any credible SOS message might be the best argument that they had no practical CW capability. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:28:24 EDT From: Vern Subject: The 281 Message Ric said... >You're thinking of the fabled "281 Message" heard by Navy Wailupe in >Honolulu. Bob Brandenburg's computer modeling of the propagation has pretty >much eliminated any realistic possibility that anybody that far away heard >anything from that airplane. I do not intend to sell short Bob's computer modeling, nor do I necessarily believe the 281 Message to be the real thing. I have a couple of other reasons to be skeptical of that message but... I don't think we should write it off as something that could not possibly have been real. We should not forget that 1937 was a peak in the 11-year cycle of solar activity. It may have been a pretty freak kind of skip that made reception possible at a great distance. Such things do happen. It may have even been a multiple bounce. Would that be more likely over the ocean? I don't know. The message was heard in Hawaii at night. That suggests that, if it was skipping in from some considerable distance, it was almost sure to be "Sporadic-E" skip. The reception was certainly sporadic! This is skip caused by dense patches of ionization that occur at about the same height as the E-layer and is most prevalent in the equitorial regions where it is substantially continuous (Ref. ARRL Handbook) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:39:00 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Lae Berne listing > From Ross Devitt > You might also consider checking listings under Australia for that lae > station... Okay, i'll re-find that book and try again. BTW, my previous look in the ITU Aeronautical Stations & Aircraft Stations May 1937 was unsuccessful by my mistake. I just looked in this book again ( God bless William Zinn and other noble packrats who save such stuff when it falls into the useless, obsolete category) and it shows: ( / shows separate fields in the entry, [ ] hold explanation of item in previous field ). No, this won't contribute to the search, but i thot it moderately interesting and not as offtopic as some of the bilge i've posted. About copying it, i sorta have reservations about pressing my books in copiers, but if anyone thinks a copy of the page might make reasonable filler for some CD or other collection of AE facts, i will think about trying it. KHAQQ / R-16020 / 500,3105,6210 [ kc/s ] / 0.05 [ kw ] / USA CV [ "Station open exclusively to the correspondence of a private enterprise" ] / Itinerant / Lockheed Electra / Amelia Earhart, 50 West 45th Street, New York, N.Y. ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting that the registration number is shown as R16020. The "N" was approved on September 21, 1936 but the "N" did not appear on the airplane until about January 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:42:56 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit Ric asks: Does removal of an historic property from the context that made it historic destroy its integrity? To which I say, as usual, "it depends." We obviously remove artifacts from their archeological contexts all the time, and don't hold that it destroys their integrity. "Integrity," after all, is rather in the mind of the observer, and depends on what's important to them. Removing an airplane from the place where it crashed certainly does pretty bad things to its integrity from the point of view of in situ interpretation, feeling, etc., but it may be necessary in some cases for purposes of physical protection and/or research. I just don't think it's cut and dried. And since Ric chided me yesterday for suggesting that the U.S. Congress had anything useful to say about what "historic preservation" is, let me just say that (1) Congress, of course, didn't write the National Historic Preservation act; preservationists did, and the definition therein (actually written by Loretta Neumann, a long-time DC preservationist) was one that was pretty broadly agreed upon by "the community;" and (2) I didn't mean to imply that Congress' definition was better than Ric's, only that there's not widespread agreement on a particular, narrow definition. That said, I should probably acknowledge that the definition of "preservation" in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is pretty close to what I assume Ric's to be -- it amounts to in-place maintenance. Of course, Interior also helped draft the broader statutory definition, but hey, a foolish consistency is the bugbear of small minds. LTM (who thinks bugbears are cuddly) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:44:34 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: aviation's greatest mystery Ric asked: <> Aviation's greatest mystery is how the commercial airlines determine ticket prices. Is there really a federal law that makes it illegal for any two people on a flight to pay the same price? Dan Postellon #2263 LTM (Who would rather take the train) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:55:37 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Collopy Letter Ross Devitt wrote, >Geez some people are slow! Ric wrote, >I regret starting what has become one of dumbest threads... The colloquialism attributed to FN in the 1965 Collopy letter is somewhat obscure but it's no mystery. However, the attribution itself has very limited credibility. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:03:15 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: registration numbers >Interesting that the registration number is shown as R16020. The "N" was >approved on September 21, 1936 but the "N" did not appear on the airplane >until about January 1937. I know that the "R" stands for "Restricted" (use); What does the "N" stand for, and why did its use need to be "approved"? Forgive me if this is ground that has already been covered (or if it appears on the web-site -- I couldn't find it). David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric "N" is the designator for U.S. registered aircraft that are approved for international flight. Lockheed 10E Special c/n 1055 was X16020 when being test flown by Lockheed. When delivered to AE on July 24, 1936 it carried the registration number NR16020, but that was premature and the "N" was soon removed. The airplane carried the number R16020 throughout the summer and fall of 1936 until the numbers were repainted when major modifications were done in early 1937 in preparation for the World Flight. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:06:33 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fuel reserves > From Ric > > I don't know what forum you were on last year but Kelly Johnson's numbers > applied directly to the 1,100 U.S. gallon load go like this: The only Kely Johnson numbers I have access to are the ones on TIGHAR's site. I found nothing at all on 100gph at http://www.toghar.org/Projects/Documents/Kelly_Johnson.html I did however find the figures I quoted in my post! starting with "WE RECOMMEND FOLLOWING POWER AND CAMBRIDGE SETTINGS ON FLIGHT STOP THREE HOURS EIGHTEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY EIGHT INCHES FOUR THOUSAND FEET AT CAMBRIDGE SETTING ZERO SEVEN THREE AND FIFTY EIGHT GALLONS HOUR STOP" Followed by: "REVISED FLIGHT DATA FOR EIGHT THOUSAND FEET AT BEGINNING OF FLIGHT AS FOLLOWS STOP CLIMB AT TWO THOUSAND FIFTY RPM TWENTY EIGHT AND ONE HALF INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN EIGHT TO EIGHT THOUSAND FEET STOP FIRST THREE HOURS AT NINETEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY EIGHT INCHES AND ZERO SEVEN THREE AT SIXTY GALLONS HOUR STOP" Not one mention of 100gph anywhere! Obviously you have documents I haven't seen, but that's no excuse for your sarcasm. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric No need to get your fur ruffled Wombat. We're both wrong. The Johnson telegrams are admittedly awkward to decipher and I'm afraid you haven't accurately sorted them out. Even so, you are correct that the telegrams do not make specific reference to 100 gallons per hour. That number comes from a 1988 article in Lockheed Horizons, an internal company publication, by editor Roy A. Blay. You'll note that Johnson's telegram does not provide a fuel consumption figure for the recommended initial climb to 8,000 feet at 2050 RPM, 28.5 inches, and 078 on the Cambridge Analyzer. That's a critical period because the airplane is going to be burning fuel like mad. Apparently it was Blay, or somebody Blay consulted at the company (possibly Kelly himself), who decided that a power setting that high would burn 100 gph. Looking at the published specs for the standard 10E, fuel consumption at 75 percent "cruising" power and 2000 RPM would burn 71 gph so 100 gph for the higher setting seems in the ballpark. Blay also seems to assume that it will take the airplane an hour to climb to 8,000 feet. That's only 133 ft/min but that might not be unreasonable under the circumstances. Blay's representation of Johnson's figures for the rest of the formula agree entirely with Kelly's telegrams. 3 hours 1900 rpm 28 in. Cambridge 073 60 gph 3 hours 1800 rpm 26.5 in. Cambridge 072 51 gph 3 hours 1700 RPM 25 in. Cambridge 072 43 gph AFTER 9 HOURS 1600 RPM 24 in. OR FULL THROTTLE at 10,000 ft. Cambridge 072 38 gph Perhaps Birch Matthews, Skeet Gifford and others can help us determine a key question: How much fuel can that beast be expected to have burned by the time it reached 8,000 feet? To know that we'd have to know: What will it burn at balls-to-the-wall full power? How long will they have to keep those Wasps humming at full power before they can come back to Johnson' recommended climb power? What will it burn at climb power? How long will they have to stay at climb power to reach 8,000 feet? We're not going to get anything approaching accurate numbers because we just don't know some key variables but we should be able to get a general idea. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:13:48 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit Well, you brought home what you hope is Amelia's shoe and a piece of her plane. What's done is done. I say historic aircraft should be recovered if possible and placed in the best museum conditions available. By the way, is in situ the same as intact? I enjoy the forum but it sure can get breezy . ************************************************************************** From Ric "In situ" means "in place" i.e undisturbed. I'm not suggesting that everything should be left where it is. After all, this is The International Group for Historic Aircraft RECOVERY, but I think there are situations where society is better served by preservation in place, even though the artifacts will almost certainly continue to deteriorate. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:25:06 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: "Ball bearing bag" Why would Fred use such a term in describing Amelia? I can only speculate that there was some animosity between them. Even though they probably respected each others ability, I wonder if this uneasy working partnership had something to do with missing Howland Island? ************************************************************************** From Ric Let's keep in mind that Collopy's Noonan quote as related in a 1965 letter is purely anecdotal. The Lae radio operator, Harry Balfour, later claimed that Amelia invited him to come along to work the radios. Photographer Albert Bresnick later claimed that Amelia hinted to him that she was pregnant. San Francisco ham Walter McMennamy later claimed that the Navy had forced him to keep quite about Amelia's secret mission. Sometimes it seems like everybody who ever had the slightest connection with the flight later comes up with some juicy inside information. Human nature. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:27:13 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Need help from creative minds I was referring to the reported American gal that Paxton mentioned in passing. I guess that was in 1949. Maybe she was the South Pacific Catspaw Representative !! Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric No doubt. (The name was Laxton.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:30:14 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Need help from creative minds Paxton Laxton, they all sound the same. *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, who cares. Women, woman. Late '50s, 1949. Paxton, Laxton. Mili, Niku. Whatever. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 08:48:42 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: aviation's greatest mystery I think airplanes should be metered like taxis. Everybody just divvy up when you get on the ground. That way if the plane crashes, you don't have to pay. You can also tip the pilot for a smooth (or on time) landing, you could tip a flight attendant for good service (or stiff him or her for bad service), you get the idea. LTM Kerry Tiller #2350 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 09:06:17 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Electra Instruements Re Janet Whitney's inquiry re functional instruments and your reply that there was no indication that any of those instruments were malfunctioning. On 15 June, some 15 days before the fatal flight, AE reported serious problems with two instruments that if they occurred again may account for excessive fuel consumption enroute to Lae. In Last Flight Amelia reported that her manual mixture-control lever jammed and she could not regulate the fuel consumption to the right engine,"...which gulped gasoline unconscionably." She was afraid she would run out of fuel on the Assaba to Karachi hop of 1,920 hours. Later that night in a telephone conversation (recorded) with GP she reported that there has been " a little trouble with the fuel flow-meter and the analyzer..." She hoped that they could be fixed. Of course she wouldn't leave Karachi unless she thought the problems were resolved, but are these instruements tricky,sensitive little devils that are difficult to fix and prone to malfunctioning. Any repair docs,etc or statements from other sources that these problems were fixed. She doesn't mention any further problems enroute to Lae nor does she broadcast any malflunctions to Itasca that I'm aware of. But you and forum experts on these instruments might be able to speculate on the fixability by Karachi mechanics of these instruments. LTM Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric What you're suggesting was the initial Data Quality premise - thay you could establish a Mean Time Between Failures for critical instruments and then determine if instrument failure was a factor in the disappearance. I don't buy it. Sure, the airplane had maintenance problems on its flight around the world and some instruments proved more bothersome than others. On the other hand, Earhart had good mainentance facilities available at Karachi and Bandoeng and it's quite apparent that she insisted that things be fixed and working right before continuing her trip. We don't have nearly enough information on the failure rates of the instruments in question to make any kind of judgement about what might have failed when. We do know that the airplane was thoroughly inspected at Lae by mechanics who regulary maintained other Electras and we have a list of maintenacnce items and minor repairs that were accomplished (see the Chater Report). I'll say it again - there was no indication that any of those instruments were malfunctioning. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 09:33:27 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Climb Performance In partial response to your question concerning fuel consumption during climb, I checked my files to remember what I calculated. I haven't reviewed this stuff for almost a year so please keep that in mind. Items 1 and 2 were based on the Pratt & Whitney Wasp (S3H1) operating manual power setting recommendations. I cannot remember the basis for the number 3 power setting at the moment. Memory tells me the climb power setting came from Kelly Johnson's recommendations. In any event, I calculated the following two engine fuel flow rates: 1. Engine start & warm up 41 gph at 30 inches Hg, 1,000 rpm 2. Takeoff & stabilize 109 gph at 34.5 inches Hg, 2,200 rpm 3. Low level departure 94 gph at 32.5 inches Hg, 2,000 rpm 4. Climb to 7,000 feet 78 gph at 28.5 inches Hg, 2,050 rpm I also calculated time-to-climb in increments of 2,000 feet, as well as power required and available. These calculations need to be checked again as to assumptions and process. Some refinement is in order to take into account fuel weight burn off, for instance. Hopefully I can get back into this effort in the near future. I have also recently received considerable Lae temperature history data from Michael Real in Australia. Using an adiabatic lapse rate, I can reasonably estimate altitude temperatures instead of relying on a standard atmosphere. Best I can do for now, Ric. Hope this helps in the interim. Best regards, Birch Matthews ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Birch. Those number certainly appear to be in the range of what one might expect given the other information we have. I'll stick my neck out and arbitrarily assign durations to each of those stages and see what we come up with for total fuel burned at the moment they leveled at 7,000 feet. 1. Engine start & warm up/taxi - 20 minutes at 41 gph - 14 gallons 2. Takeoff & stabilize - 5 minutes at 109 gph - 9 gallons 3. Low level departure - 20 minutes at 94 gph - 31 gallons 4. Climb to 7,000 feet - 35 minutes (200 ft/min) at 78 gph - 45 gallons Total time since takeoff - 60 minutes Total gallons burned - 99 Note: I did not back into those numbers. I just went through the execerise based upon my own experience flying overgross airplanes. I was shocked (shocked!) to see how close I came to Roy Blay's 1 hour at 100 gph. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 09:59:44 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit <> --I believe the thinking on that question need not be too complex. <> --Does keeping a copy of the Declaration of Independence behind UV-blocking glass and in a controlled gas environment destroy its integrity? Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Not at all the same thing. The historical significance of the Declaration as a physical document is not dependent upon its setting. The Lady Be Good, on the other hand, is noteworthy only because it crashed in the desert and remained undiscovered for so many years. Lots and lots of airplanes crashed in the desert and lots and lots of aircrew died of thirst. Each is a tragic story, whether known or not. What makes Lady Be Good special is that the story was revealed so long after the fact. Lying in the sand she's a monument. Sitting in a museum she's a wrecked B-24. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:07:17 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Receiving Receiving Facts While still studying the ITU Aeronautical Stations 1937 book ( "Berne List" ) i noticed that hardly any ground stations, only a very very few out of hundreds, actually listed 3105, 6210 among their transmit frequencies. I am surmising that you call in on 3105, or 6210, and tune your receiver to the ground station's frequency. That means you tune your receiver to around where the station should be, then tune around a little bit til it comes in. That means no "whistle through" or "netting" control or some such control in the transmitter is included. That includes AE's plane. You have to "find" the other station. That also eliminates the theory that someone at Lae set up AE's receiver to only hear Lae. I coincidently also found a Bendix booklet, undated but somewhere 1940-47, on "receiver calibration methods" and clearly "calibration" only means getting the receiver to tune accurately to what the tuning dial setting is. The other reader or readers who suggested this referred only to marking the dial to show where Lae came in, are probably right on. I mean by this, it was standard procedure to have the receiver on a different frequency than your transmitter, so it would not be unusual or any kind of modification to have the receiver set to Lae's frequency while transmitting on 3105. This also makes me aware how difficult it was to use radios in those days. You set the transmitter frequency, maybe having to reel out the correct length of antenna wire, you call, you tune to where the response is expected, and you try. No result? You call again, or you change frequencies, and maybe tune around on the receiver again on a different frequency. Nowadays if you're flying from Honolulu to SF, you set your radio's thumbwheels to 5,7,7,4 and turn the volume up a wee bit. One call and you have an answer. Those days you tuned around, and called, and tuned, and called, and on.....No wonder AE was not an enthusiast. Also, i note from a Bendix catalog 1947, that at this date the RA-1 was listed as $1590, a truly whopping sum of money then. By this time it was a little dated, there being better tubes out, but Bendix apparently did not want to update it, only to milk it for what they could still. HF was already on its way out for non-longdistance by then. The loop antenna adaptor thing never really caught on, and Bendix never followed up the RDF model, for the commercial market, altho they did produce some of the similar Navy equipment type in use thruout WW2. By the latter part of WW2, Bendix and a couple other makers were instead making money from selling ADF receivers, in which the direction indicating process was automatic. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:08:12 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Creative minds Go for something that is a GRABBER... but at the same time, something that describes the theme. Don't clutter it with long blahblah. It sounds like a title for a term paper, or in an academic journal. How many "real" people read academic journals? We have had a number of good ideas.... Think "movie titles." What works there will draw a reading audience too. May I suggest, "If the shoe fits...?" 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:09:22 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit Ric wrote: << I think there are situations where society is better served by preservation in place, even though the artifacts will almost certainly continue to deteriorate.>> I agree 100%. Whether Lady Be Good was such a situation is something I can't address, but there's no question in my mind that such situations exist. TK ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:17:27 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Electra Instruments/ Problems with In Last Flight AE reported that her manual mixture -control lever jammed and the right engine "gulped gasoline unconscionably" while enroute from Assab to Karachi. She said she was afraid she would run out of fuel in the 1,920 mile hop. She added in her conversation with GP that night that there has been a "little trouble with the fuel flow-meter and analyzer..." (p.104-105) This occurred 15 Jun some 15 days before the fatal flight. She hoped that the mechanics in Karachi could fix them. She wouldn't have left Lae unless she felt they were "fixed". But are these analyzers and flow-meters tricky little instruments that have a habit of malfunctioning; any docs supporting the repair work at Karachi? Could be a factor in her later gas consumption,but never broadcast to Itasca. A non-pilot question: did the Electra have fuel g as in a car? How did they measure gas remaining? ltm, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric The Electra had fuel quantity gauges but no pilot relies on gauges for fuel quantity. Gauges fail. Arithmetic don't. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:20:14 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Be on Lookout! The upcoming edition of Naval History will have my response to the article about the search for AE, the conspiracy of Howland Island Radio Logs, etc. that appeared in the last edition. Oh Boy! I've finally received my 15 minutes of fame! Since moving, I don't get magazines on time, and would appreciate knowing when it actually appears. ************************************************************************* From Ric That would be the issue with your picture on the cover, right? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:24:56 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fuel reserves > How long will they have to stay at climb power to reach 8,000 feet? > > We're not going to get anything approaching accurate numbers because we > just don't know some key variables but we should be able to get a general idea. This poses a bit of a problem because at 10.00am Earhart was at sea level. At 2.18pm she was at 7000ft At 3.10pm she was at 10,000ft At 5.18pm she was at 8000ft How the heck do you work out fuel consumption for a flying yoyo..? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Those are enroute changes in altitude and not part of this question. Four hours after take off she seems to have been at 7,000 ft so perhaps we can make the assumption that, for reasons of wind or weather, her initial climb was to 7,000 rather than 8,000. No big deal. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:45:30 EDT From: Vern Subject: RDF according to Gurr This is a re-hash of old information for many of us. It includes some remarks relative to the receiver and its antenna that may be of some significance to some more recent discussions. I guess we have to remember that what Joe Gurr had to say in his communications with Fred Goerner was all relative to the way the radio equipment was when he last knew of it in Burbank. Gurr describes his first encounter with the radio equipment on the Electra. He says they had just flown in from New York with the radio receiver not working and he had somehow been suggested as the person who could fix it. Amelia and Putnam were frantic that radio equipment installed by so prestigious an outfit as Bell Labs. had failed. It seems to me that would be the Western Electric receiver. It took a while for him to find the receiver under the co-pilot's seat. The antenna lead was laying there not connected. When Gurr connected the lead, the receiver came to life. In the eyes of Amelia and Palmer, he had performed a miracle. He points out that people with radio experience were not easy to find in those days. Of course, Gurr talks some about improvising to give Ameiia some 500 kc transmitting capability without using a trailing-wire antenna. Nobody used voice on 500 kc. It was regarded as strictly CW. Then he talks about that "fine multi-frequency receiver that arrived in a box marked: U.S. Navy." The receiver covered frequencies up to 20 megaherttz and "could be useful in radio communication and even in direction finding. While the direction finding loop was designed for the lower frequencies, I found that I could get a fairly good null on AM broadcast stations up to 1500 kc. I figured it would probably be useful even at 3105 kc if the signal was strong enough." >>>>Did this replace the WE receiver, and what was it?? Gurr says he never knew >>>>a model number and that it was installed by Lockheed with some suggestions >>>>from him. Gurr says he tried to catch Amelia long enough to get her checked out on the use of the radio equipment, especially the direction finder, but had little success. Harry Manning had the operation down quite well and they would have time to work with it enroute. "Harry and I covered such things as ambiquity of bearings and flying triangular courses in order to obtain a proper signal source direction." This suggests that there was no thought of a "sensing antenna" to resolve the ambiguity. On a trial flight out to about 400 miles, Gurr operated the radio equipment while other checks of the aircraft were being done, Radio performance was not good at that distance but got better as they got closer on the way back. "I was able to take bearings on broadcast stations using the belly antenna, and then switching over to the loop." Note that he says "switching over" not "switching in." I think he used the belly antenna only to get a station tuned in with that more efficient antenna, then "switched over" to the loop to take a bearing -- an ambiguous bearing except that he knew the station was up ahead, not behind. To me, this suggests that the belly antenna was the receiving antenna and the "V" on top was the transmitting antenna. The T/R relay in the transmitter was not involved and the transmitter could have been heard by the receiver -- if it was not totally "blocked" by the strong signal. *************************************************************************** From Ric Good work Vern, and a strong argument for an antenna set up that matches the antenna loss at Lae with the problems encountered at Howland. It is very difficult for me to believe that Gurr's account of Earhart receiving a multi-frequency receiver in a box marked "U.S. Navy" is accurate. To accept that we'd have to accept that: - it transpired without supporting paperwork that has survived (We have the messages documenting the Navy's loan of a bubble octant which arrived, probably in a box marked "U.S. Navy" at about the same time Gurr says the receiver arrived.) - its presence aboard the airplane went unmentioned by the press or by Earhart herself even when specifically describing the radios in the airplane. It looks, to me, increasingly like Earhart removed the Hooven Radio Compass, which entailed a separate receiver and a sense antenna, and replaced it with the new Bendix loop and coupler which used the existing WE20B receiver and did not employ a sense antenna. The belly antenna was the receiving antenna. When it was lost on takeoff at Lae, Earhart lost her ability to receive until the one brief moment when she "switched over" to the loop and heard the "A"s on 7500. She then switched back to the missing belly antenna and again heard nothing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:54:27 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: Re: lop The belief that Amelia said she was flying north and south has been greatly disputed.you believe she was incorrectly quoted or the radio operator changed the wording to his interpretation of what he thought she said..(I think she said flying north to south,my humble theory).Is it possible that she was misquoted on her line of position or the Itasca's logs were changed somehow?this would really throw a monkey wrench into the works wouldn't it?Not trying to do that just trying to confirm a suspicion I had on the subject.anyway to prove this is what she indeed said,or has it already been proven and I'm just missing something? also do you know where I could download the logs from?the more I read on Amelia's disappearance the more intrigued I've become. thanks ric LTM Richard Lund *************************************************************************** From Ric The Itasca radio logs will be part of the 8th Edition which will be available soon via the TIGHAR website. I think we have to accept what is recorded in the Itasca's radio log as being probably accurate unless we have a specific reason for questioning an entry (as in the erasure and platen misalignment in the word "circling"). In the case of the "running on north and south line" quote, it's fair to question its accuracy because the operator himself questioned it with a question mark. The "157 337" quote, on the other hand, is part of a normal log entry and also happens to be exactly the LOP they should be on. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:00:32 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Takeoff & Climb Performance I don't mean to be a fly in the ointment, but something that has been on my mind is how this way over-gross airplane got off the ground as well as it did-limped if you will, and then was able to get a decent rate of climb without exceeding normal climb power settings, causing overheating problems, detonation, etc, given the temps present in Lae. Given my limited experience in the Twin Beech with it's similar R-985 engine(100 HP less) it makes me curious if they could have possibly used some octane enhancers during the fueling at Lae in anticipation of this. This airframe & engines were pushed to the limit and maybe a little beyond at Lae. I've talked about this problem with several pilots who ferry light aircraft across the pacific who encounter similar problems with being 40-50% over gross while attempting takeoff from a tropic island stopover(like Pago Pago for example). The Pratts under strain of providing the power to get this significantly over gross airframe off the ground and then climb somewhat in a tropical enviornment without overheating the engines, detonation, cooking the oil, makes me wonder if it was even a slight possibility. Did they have that type of product available & could it have been used? In any case these parameters would certainly effect the fuel burn. I'm not trying complicate your fine work Birch-I've just experienced this sort of problem in the past and wonder if it could have some bearing on the fuel burn mystery. Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric Other than being sure they had enough of the fancy new 100 octane gas, rather than the usual 87 octane, there's no mention of any special considerations. I'd be surprised if there were additives available back then. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:01:45 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Flying Protocol For Kerry Tiller; How much will you tip me for a greased landing Kerry? Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:17:29 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Lae Take-off film I am trying to satisfy my own curiosity about the Lae film and its provenience while at the same time keeping the idea of historic preservation of historic aviaton--related records alive. Cam Warren wrote: >Some years ago Joe Gervais tracked down Sid Marshall in >Australia, who shot the original footage. Joe said the film was >in very bad shape, patched together with Scotch tape, and broke >more than once when run through the projector. I don't recall >if the 99's actually got the original, but - as you say - it >turned up missing after being borrowed by someone. Refresh my memory. I have always assumed that you were working from a second generation copy but I have a feeling that is not the case. Where did TIGHAR get its copy? Did you copy it from an old film or did someone give you a VHS tape that you copied etc. etc.. I seem to recall that you did not get your copy from the 99's. So, did the 99's have some rolls of old film or a tape (I am asking the wall....I don't expect you to know what the 99's had/have). It does not mean anything to the present search for Earhart, however the original film should be located and preserved as the historical document that it is. Finding and preserving the original is worthwhile in the larger scheme of historical preservation/research. It could be a nice little project for an energetic TIGHAR to get the original into the hands of a preservationist. Do we start with the 99's or the Marshall family or doesn't anyone know? LTM Kenton Spading *************************************************************************** From Ric You must have missed my August 31st posting on this subject. In reply to similar questions from Andrew McKenna I wrote: <> Our copy of the film is a broadcast-quality Beta SP video dub taken from the original video copy EAA made of the film. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:21:38 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Electra Instruments/ Problems with > From Ric > > The Electra had fuel quantity gauges but no pilot relys in gauges for fuel > quantity. gauges fail. Arithmetic don't. I think you have too much experience flying to recognize that statement as being too subtle for a non pilot. With the little experience I have (three flight lessons, not completed due to time and money) I can only remember checking the gauge as a matter of form prior to each flight. During the flight, the fuel remaining is always calculated in a manner similar to what they've been doing in this forum. ************************************************************************** From Ric I also have sufficient experience as a pilot to be able to consistently misspell simple words like "gauge." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:35:56 EDT From: Ty Sundstrom Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit In Ric's opinion it would be a "Wrecked B-24",...... in mine it's still a monument. But I did recover and return to airworthy status, a Ryan M-1 from a remote California valley, where it had rested for 48 years. It now lives in the Museum of Flight in Seattle where thousands of people can see it. Hard to imagine few if any people would be driving to a remote California valley to see a crashed 1926 airplane that looked all the world like a rusty windmill frame laying in the dirt. Maybe the area should been declared a national monument, then people who actually wanted to see the crashed and rusty airplane hulk could part five miles away and walk into the site so as not to disturb the original ambience and integrity of the archeological site. But still that might be too much and they should only be shown pictures taken from a radio controlled glider with a side looking solar powered video camera. Ty N. Sundstrom *************************************************************************** From Ric As Tom King reminds us, it's not cut and dried. Recovering and rebuilding the Ryan may have been the best management decision for that particular property. By removing it and rebuilding it you were deciding that it was more important for large numbers of people to be able to see a recreation of what a Ryan M-1 looked like than it is for a vastly smaller number of people to see an obscure and not particularly significant wreck in the boonies. Sounds reasonable. Aircraft wrecks that are truly noteworthy because of the story attached to them and survive in recognizable form in their original location are extremely rare. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:39:25 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: antenna functions What Hue is saying is basically correct; but what it really points to is the reason for two antennas (transmit and receive). To use this particular radio on CW with one antenna, switched between the transmitter and receiver by means of a changeover relay in the xmtr (as is the usual practice), one would have to throw that switch on the key/control unit from "CW" back to "PHONE." This would de-energize the antenna relay, along with opening the DC power input to the dynamotor when the start relay opens. These two relays are wired in parallel in the original design. The CW modifications did not alter this circuit. Such an arrangement precludes working "break-in" in CW mode. It also obviously complicates the operation of the radio. If TWO antennas are used, however, the changeover relay does not have to be used at all. The transmitter could be left switched to CW mode. The dynamotor would run continuously (a requirement), even on standby/receive. The transmitter would go on the air at the touch of the key. By this method (two antennas) break-in would be possible... IF the receiver can be "unmuted" so it runs all the time. (that is, the means by which it is disabled on transmit -- generally by opening the high-voltage supply circuit to the tubes in some manner) I have not yet seen evidence that a means to unmute the receiver while transmitting was incorporated into AE's rig... but that does not mean it was not there. To be certain, we of course need diagrams of the actual wiring in this particular a/c. There could be a lot of things in the wiring which do not show up in the mfr's manuals but would be in the records of the A&P shop that did the work. Would the transmitter's output power damage the receiver? No. First off, it's not enough to bother a tube circuit in the first place (much hardier than solid state stuff, unless the xmtr output was tied directly to the receiver (and I hasten to add, this is NOT a factor in this case!). Second, a lot of hams used the two-antenna method to work break-in CW, especially on message-traffic nets (before the Internet killed this practice pretty much) or for working DX. It works quite well. The only requirement is that the receiver "recover" fast enough from the high-energy shot of signal. This is primarily a function of the AVC circuit (automatic volume control). Without a Model 20 receiver to test, it'll be difficult to determine how fast it actually would recover. However, the radio does incorporate a gas-discharge tube in the signal-input circuit, as protection against static discharge from the antenna as well as signal overload. That'd help some. The bottom line: If they were going to work any halfway serious CW with this rig, two antennas would make a lot of sense. My assumption that they were using one antenna for comm has been based somewhat upon the fact that the same antenna was used for HF and 500 KHz, after Joe Gurr got done with his modifications... this would imply that the antenna had to be switched via the t/r changeover relay... also upon the reasoning that the LF antenna input for the receiver may have been connected to the loop/loop amplifier as well (if there was only one receiver, of which I still find myself skeptical). By the way: no information available to me so far indicates that this rig had ANY capability to generate a sidetone on CW. Nor would it transmit MCW (modulated CW, tone modulated telegraphy, A2 emission). This is in spite of the statements of the WE engineer. It is not there! No tone oscillator of any kind. My statement is based upon the diagram of the WE-13CB transmitter. This diagram is dated 1939, I know... but I am pretty well convinced that this production version of the radio (wonder how many were actually built? Hmmm...) was prototyped by the mods to AE's rig. It stands to reason that the production version would be IMPROVED over the prototype. Sidetone and MCW capability would be considered essential improvements. Hue, if you want a copy of the diagrams for the transmitter control circuit as designed and as modified for CW, contact me at and let me know your mail address (I do not have a scanner). 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:39:00 EDT From: Dave Subject: Re: Be on Lookout! For Randy, Your reply was in the October issue of Navel History. LTM(who likes Navel History) Dave 1611 *************************************************************************** From Ric Error or erudition? Only his spellchecker knows for sure. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:40:29 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Log accuracy Ric wrote: > I think we have to accept what is recorded in the Itasca's radio log as being > probably accurate unless we have a specific reason for questioning an entry > (as in the erasure and platen misalignment in the word "circling"). In the > case of the "running on north and south line" quote, it's fair to question > its accuracy because the operator himself questioned it with a question mark. > The "157 337" quote, on the other hand, is part of a normal log entry and > also happens to be exactly the LOP they should be on. I agree with Ric. I would add that we shouldn't try to read too much literal meaning into the Itasca's log entries of voice communications. The Itasca's operators (all of whom except Bellarts were junior petty officers with relatively little operational experience) were accustomed to communicating principally via Morse code, which is slow and rhythmic compared to voice. Even at 30 words per minute, a high rate for CW, an experienced operator can keep up with the flow and maintain an accurate log. But conversational voice speed is on the order of 100 words per minute, and it was undoubtedly very difficult for the Itasca's operators, with little experience on voice circuits, to keep accurate literal logs of Earhart's voice transmissions. It would have been difficult even under ideal conditions, and paraphrasing what they heard was their only hope of keeping up. I think that much of what we see in the logs reflects paraphrasing under pressure, and we shouldn't try to read more than general meaning into such entries. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:10:09 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit Ric wrote : > Aircraft wrecks that are truly noteworthy because of the story attached to > them and survive in recognizable form in their original location are extremely > rare. One good example -although not exactly preserved in its original location- is the only surviving WW II Britsh Handley Page Halifax I four engine heavy bomber exhibited at the R.A.F. Museum at Hendon (London) as it was recovered from the bottom of a Norwegian lake where it belly landed on ice in 1943 and later sank trough it. The only other surviving Halifax is a Halifax V (with radial engines) on exhibit at Eggleton airfield (east of Leeds, UK) but this one is extensively renovated, repaired and partly even rebuilt (the two vertical fins have been remanufactured) using parts of a Handley Page Hastings transport. Unfortunately it has been equipped with propellers from a Rolls Royce Merlin engine (which turns to the right) on its four Bristol Hercules radials (which turned to the left !). By the way, the Germans too are planning to zxhibit an original airplane recovered from the sea bottom. They salvaged the only known Focke Wulf FW-200 Kondor to be in existence. It has been recovered from the bottom of a Norwegian fjord and is under restoration at Lufthansa's in Hamburg. It eventually to be exhibited in Berlin. *************************************************************************** From Ric The Halifax at Hendon is an interesting example of trying to exhibit the artifact in context and yet protect it in a museum environment. Hendon also has a Hurricane wreck similarly interpreted. The Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton has an exhibit which displays wreckage from a Blackburn Skua in a simulated underwater setting. The National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola does the same thing with an SBD and an F-4-F wreck. Aircraft that survive largely intact at their original crash sites usually do so only because they are too inaccessible to recover. Lady Be Good was in this category until recently. A P-38 in the Aleutians that was actually on the National Register of Historic Places is now also in the "until recently" column. There was a pristine B-29 in Greenland until it got burned up in a farcical recovery attempt. The are still five P-38s and two B-17s under the Greenland icecap. The wreckage of the Mitsubishi "Betty" in which Admiral Yamamoto was killed is still in the Bougainville jungle where it came down, although many parts have been looted and nature is well-along in taking care of the rest. There is still a wonderfully intact B-17E holding court in the Agaimambo Swamp on the north coast of Papua New Guinea. Probably the best preserved (by nature), most intact, and yet most accessible wreck was, until recently, the Douglas B-23 Dragon in Idaho's Payette National Forest, but therein lies a tale that is not yet quite ready to be told. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:11:29 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Electra Instruments/ Problems with Let me explain to non pilots on the forum that fuel gauges are reputably unreliable. Therefore the amount of fuel needed is always calculated before each flight. When I learned flying instructors used to insist that one would first check the fuel gauges in the cockpit, then do your walk around the airplane doing the pre-flight check which included opening the fuel tank lids in the wings and measure the quantity visually or using a stick (sometimes putting your finger in it would tell) and make sure that the amount in the tanks corresponded with what the gauges showed. If you were unlucky enough to fly a high wing airplane (like a Cessna) you would have to climb on it (that's why Cessna provided steps). The amount of fuel needed is calculated before each flight, according to the take-off weight (some airplanes won't fly with four passengers AND full tanks). As a pilot you are supposed to know what your airplane's fuel consumption is and the amount you'll need to get to your destination. If you are fully loaded you may have to make a fuel stop. If you prefer full tanks you may have to leave a passenger behind. It's always a trade off. But NEVER, NEVER, NEVER rely on the gauges ! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:12:47 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit > From Ty Sundstrom > > In Ric's opinion it... Ric isn't alone with this opinion. > Hard to imagine few if any people would be driving to a remote > California valley to see a crashed 1926 airplane that looked all the world > like a rusty windmill frame laying in the dirt. And I find it hard to imagine why anyone would go to a museum to see someone's opinion of how something used to be when they can go out to a remote California valley and see the real thing. I have spent a great amount of my spare time wandering the remote areas and looking at ruins, but I wouldn't spend a minute at any of these sites if some one had "recreated" or "preserved" it. As Tom and Ric have been hinting, there are many factors to consider in determining whether something should be left in situ as is, preserved, or removed and preserved. This is a decision that I believe should be made 'for each item,' after considering all factors. It should not be a reactive or purely emotional decision. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:14:37 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The 281 Message > From Vern > > We should not forget that 1937 was a peak in the 11-year cycle of solar > activity. It may have been a pretty freak kind of skip that made reception > possible at a great distance. Such things do happen. It may have even been > a multiple bounce. Would that be more likely over the ocean? I don't know. > > The message was heard in Hawaii at night. That suggests that, if it was > skipping in from some considerable distance, it was almost sure to be > "Sporadic-E" skip. > The reception was certainly sporadic! This is skip caused by dense patches > of ionization that occur at about the same height as the E-layer and is most > prevalent in the equitorial regions where it is substantially continuous > (Ref. ARRL Handbook) Although 1937 was indeed a peak in the solar cycle, it is instructive to consider the day-to-day variability in the sunspot number (SSN) during that year. The overall average SSN for 1937 was 145.1. The maximum, 223, occurred on 12 July, and the minimum, 14, occurred on 1 December. The month with the lowest average, 74.4, was November, and the month with the highest average, 145.1, was July. The SSN on 5 July was 91, which is significantly lower than the annual or monthly averages would suggest. The optimum propagation path from Gardner to Wailupe at the time of the "281" message was via the F2 layer, with a single hop, i.e., no surface bounces involved. It's worth noting that sunspot number is not the only determinant of signal strength at the receiver. Path loss depends, among other things, upon the takeoff angle at the transmitter, the vertical angle above horizontal at which the energy radiated along the path leaves the transmitter antenna. In the case of a signal from Gardner Island at the time of the "281" message, the take off angle was 1 degree, which means relatively high absorption loss during refraction in the ionosphere. The takeoff angle also determines the antenna gain in the direction of the receiver, which for Earhart's antenna was extremely low. Antenna radiation efficiency, which was quite low in Earhart's antenna, determines how much of the total power input to the antenna is converted to radiated energy. The product of antenna gain, antenna input power, and radiation efficiency determines how much power is radiated in the direction of the receiver. In Earhart's case, this was an extremely small value. You can read the details in the 8th edition. The bottom line is that the signal strength, and thus the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), at Wailupe for a signal from Gardner Island was so far below the detection threshold that there is no plausible hypothesis that would explain the "281" message having originated at Gardner Island. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:16:27 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: RDF & Gurr > From Vern > "I was able to take bearings on broadcast stations using the belly antenna, > and then switching over to the loop." Note that he says "switching over" > not "switching in." I think he used the belly antenna only to get a station > tuned in with that more efficient antenna, then "switched over" to the loop > to take a bearing -- an ambiguous bearing except that he knew the station > was up ahead, not behind. [*** 100% in agreement... > To me, this suggests that the belly antenna was the receiving antenna and > the "V" on top was the transmitting antenna. The T/R relay in the > transmitter was not involved and the transmitter could have been heard by > the receiver -- if it was not totally "blocked" by the strong signal. Vern: Doesn't it also suggest that the belly ant. was connected to the LF term. on the recvr., thus being used exactly as intended, i.e. for bands 1 & 2 up to 1500kc, but not for HF communications? If the belly ant. was used for both LF & HF, the two ant. input terms. on the recvr. would have to be connected together. No need for a t/r relay & the recvr. would certainly get one hell'uva signal when one transmitted. I suggest that Gurr was using the ant. & equip. just as you described, except that the top ant. was for HF xmit. & recv. , and the belly ant. was for LF reception only; all of which was the normal usage. RC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:17:54 EDT From: Renaud Subject: Book title I know, i am late, but if the " competition" is still open i would propose: Amelia Earhart: The Nikumaroro alternative Amelia Earhart: The "turning South" solution Amelia Earhart: Steps to destiny Keep on the good work, Tom, and all others who contribute. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:22:04 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit So, are you saying that since the Libyan government has removed the remains of Lady Be Good from the sand, monumental status has gone as well? I think what is left is worthy of monument, memorial, etc. Look at the story and its continuing popularity. A crewman is still missing but we spend millions chasing jungle sites in VietNam. LBG is still an open chapter and is far from trivial history. Its discovery had deep ramifications for preservation techniques used by the USAF and its personal story is triumphal, yet tragic. TIGHAR ought to go get whats left and RECOVER it! ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm gonna need a LOT more money to lead that mission. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:25:32 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: 13 C and 13 CB Transmitter Schematics It appears from the 13 C and 13 CB transmitter schematics, and published explanations about the circuits, that several modifications could be made to these WE transmitters. Maybe the best information could be obtained if there is a search made for transmitter, receiver, and antenna modifications that were made at the Pan Am maintenance facility, in Miami. Unless I see something significant to the contrary, I believe that Earhart was in touch with Lae via 2-way radio comms on 6210 KC for several hours after departing. *************************************************************************** From Ric ... and why would you think that? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:13:12 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Takeoff & Climb Performance For Doug Brutlag: I am inclined to agree with Ric that there were no octane enhancers available to Amelia at Lae. Tetraethyl lead (TEL) was, of course, a basic fuel additive used to inhibit detonation (knock). Beyond adding TEL, in those days octane ratings were achieved through blending a straight run (distillation) gasoline with iso octane, for example. A lot depended upon the refining method and the source of the crude oil. Some fields yielded product with more beneficial aromatic content than others. California crudes were much better as a basis for aviation gasoline than say Pennsylvania crudes. It is historically worth noting that many chemical compounds tended to inhibit detonation. C.F. Taylor in his book "The Internal Combustion Engine," lists 45 compounds. None, I should point out, were close to the effectiveness of TEL. Were any of these compounds available at Lae? I very strongly doubt it. Your comments regarding takeoff with a massive overload are well taken. I followed the recent Lae takeoff film comments on the Forum with considerable interest. I developed an estimated weight statement (assuming 1,100 gallons of fuel) of 15,200 pounds. At that gross weight, the calculated takeoff distance is 2,900 feet. Yet apparently the takeoff film indicates a considerably shorter run possibly suggesting: 1) a considerably lower gross weight; or 2) the takeoff may not have been the last flight. Because my baseline gross weight estimate cannot be entirely accurate, I looked at gross weights of 14,500 pounds and 15,300 pounds and again calculated takeoff distance. This was merely a sensitivity analysis without considering how the weight might have been added or taken away. This produced takeoff runs of 2,550 feet and 2,990 feet, respectively. (The calculations take into account a ground effect factor by the way.) The methodology I used is presented in "Flight," by John D. Anderson, Jr., McGraw-Hill, 2000, pp. 421-426, although any aerodynamic text should cover this performance subject. Put any reasonable tolerance on my numbers you wish, but to me there remains a puzzling inconsistency between the film representation, eye witness comments about Amelia's takeoff roll, and calculated takeoff estimates. The major weight variable is fuel and if the takeoff roll was significantly less than 3,000 feet, there may not have been 1,100 gallons on board. I know this has been debated long ago, and only bring it up to illustrate what I perceive to be a significant discrepancy with respect to available information and analysis. This is a long winded way of saying I completely share Mr. Brutlag's thoughts about the very real problems associated with Amelia's Lae takeoff. I wish we all had the answers. *************************************************************************** From Ric Within the next day or so we should have a new Research Bulletin up on the website that includes several aerial photos of the airfield at Lae and 16 photos (some never before published) taken at Lae during Earhart's and Noonan's stay. Once you have a good feel for the lay-out at Lae I think you'll agree with me that both the film and the still photo, without question, show the July 2nd take off. As I've said before, I see no inconsistency in the eyewitness accounts versus the film. If there is an inconsistency between the film and the calculations, I would look at the calculations. In a nutshell, the airplane has to be lighter than your calculations say it is. There are only two ways to reduce the weight of an airplane - make the load lighter or make the airplane itself lighter. The sources describing the fuel load seem very credible and are very specific. There were 1,100 U.S. gallons of gas aboard (give or take an insignificant amount). The factor we really don't have a handle on is the empty weight of the airplane. Your 2,550 foot takeoff run at a gross weight of 14,500 pounds exactly matches Chater's estimate of what actually happened and also agrees with what is shown in the film. An 1,100 gallon fuel load (at standard temperature) would weigh 6, 600 pounds. Sixty gallons of "Stanavo 120" oil would be another- what? - 720 pounds? ( I'm guessing. l've forgotten what oil weighs.) Allow another 360 pounds for two people and we're left with an empty weight for the airplane of 6,820 pounds. The advertised empty weight of the airline version Model 10E (including Western Electric radios and trailing wire) was 7,100 pounds. Is it unreasonable to think that Earhart's stripped-down 10E Special, minus airline seats and accoutrements, might come in about 300 pounds or so under that? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:23:05 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: TIGHAR's mission Ric wrote: "Aircraft wrecks that are truly noteworthy because of the story attached to them and survive in recognizable form in their original location are extremely rare." My posting has virtually nothing to do with the disappearance of AE and FN in 1937. Therefore, it is "off topic". However, the over all mission of TIGHAR and the activities of TIGHAR members, only serves to accentuate Ric's statement. I would go one step further and add to Ric's statement, "Aircraft remains and crash locations should be rediscovered, documented and protected for future generations." Last spring, TIGHAR members became aware of a 5,000 acre ranch in Southern California, which was donated to the California State Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority for the purpose of preserving the Ranch's unique wilderness environment which stands in the path of urban sprawl. It is MRCA's intention to document all aspects of the Ranch's history prior to allowing controlled public access. MRCA's documentation of the donated land will involve: GEOLOGIC HISTORY. (The terrain is immediately subject to activities of the San Andreas fault and various earthquake faults.) WILDLIFE HISTORY: Presently the Ranch is home to a large heard of deer, a few Antelope, wild sheep, Golden eagles, various species of hawks, mountain lions, coyotes and many, many more creatures in the food chain. Previously, within the last 100 years, in addition to the wildlife mentioned, large numbers of Antelope, brown bears, grisly bears and wolf packs were present. NATIVE AMERICAN HISTORY: Numerous signs point to frequent Native American activity prior to and after the arrival of Western Europeans (200 + years ago). Discovery of village/camp sites and religious sites is anticipated. HISTORY of EUROPEAN INFLUENCE: Activities of settlers and current day development. AVIATION HISTORY: Rediscovery and documentation of aviation related incidents ( crashes and resulting SAR operations) and the rediscovery and proper documentation of the crash sites. Hopefully within the next year or so, MRCA will open the Ranch to the public with appropriate foot trails and historical sites properly protected, (complete with displays and monuments in place). When the donation of land and the activities of MRCA were brought to the attention of TIGHAR, Ric Gillespie, Executive Director of TIGHAR, coordinated the offering of TIGHAR's resources to MRCA with the intent of assisting MRCA rediscover the Aviation History of it's future parkland. As of September 10, 2000, TIGHAR members have established that at least six and possibly as many as eight aircraft crashed on subject parkland property during the past 60 years. To date, three crash sites have been rediscovered. Two of those sites have been fully documented and the third partially documented. The remaining known sites are in the process of research and rediscovery. Rediscovery and complete documentation of all sites, including excavation if justified, is anticipated prior to June, 2001. TIGHAR members have been instrumental in guiding MRCA towards the goal of one central memorial to those who perished in the various crashes and an outdoor information center directing the visitor's attention to the historic incidents involving aviation history which took place on the parkland. It is anticipated that the various crash sites and their related debris fields, will remain confidential and public access strictly controlled. Ric is to be commended for his insight, leadership and devotion to that portion of TIGHAR's mission when he recognizes that "Aircraft wrecks that are truly noteworthy because of the story attached to them and survive in recognizable form in their original location are extremely rare." I only add that such crash sites must be documented and protected whenever possible. LTM, (who loves searching for her families past) Roger Kelley, #2112CE *************************************************************************** From Ric See? I'll post anything if it's flattering enough. Actually Roger deserves the credit for launching this project. All I've done is agree with him that it's a good idea and accept his offer to make the Ritter Ranch Project an official TIGHAR project. Any TIGHARs or soon-to-be TIGHARs who would like to work with Roger on this project should contact him at Roger_that@thevine.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:46:39 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Lady Be Good exhibit >Not at all the same thing. >Lying in the sand she's a monument. Sitting in a museum she's a wrecked B-24. Is she any less of a monument, no matter where she is situated? What good is a monument so remotely located that none (or so very few as to be none) can ever visit her? At least, move her to a spot in the American desert and lay out the distances to the various points of interest where she can truly be a "monument". There she could be preserved almost "in situ" and yet many people could visit the site without having to jump thru hoops or worry about the vagaries of unstable foreign regimes. Physical monuments will all eventually be wiped out due to the forces of time and nature. Despite man's best efforts. We have only attempted to maintain things within the past century and examples of some of the best architecture in the world have been reduced to mere ruins, bespeaking only a ghost of their original magnificence after only one to two thousand years. LTM, (love to monuments?) Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 ************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, we could set it up right next to London Bridge that got moved to Las Vegas. Next year we're going to move Machu Pichu here to Wilmington, Delaware - way too inconvenient to make people go all the way to Peru. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:50:20 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: antenna functions > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > > What Hue is saying is basically correct; but what it really points to is the > reason for two antennas (transmit and receive). > > To use this particular radio on CW with one antenna, switched between the > transmitter and receiver by means of a changeover relay in the xmtr (as is > the usual practice), one would have to throw that switch on the key/control > unit from "CW" back to "PHONE." This would de-energize the antenna relay, > along with opening the DC power input to the dynamotor when the start relay > opens. These two relays are wired in parallel in the original design. The > CW modifications did not alter this circuit. > Such an arrangement precludes working "break-in" in CW mode. It also > obviously complicates the operation of the radio. --All i would add is: "not necessarily". You need, obviously, one manual switch, to switch the trans dyno on. The key can operate the ant. relay and it can operate the receiver HV make-break no problem. What i am saying is just to point out that in fact, some antenna relays are fast moving enuff to follow telegraph keying and not just voice "over to you now" rates. I know, i have used several military sets that do just this, altho you would complain about how loud the relays clacked, and also this limits keying speeds to around 20 words/minute, and tends to wear out the relays faster, is hard on them if used a lot. > If TWO antennas are used, however, the changeover relay does not have to be > used at all. The transmitter could be left switched to CW mode. The > dynamotor would run continuously (a requirement), even on standby/receive. > The transmitter would go on the air at the touch of the key. --To summarize, i say it is NOT necessary to have 2 antennas to do breakin. It IS a good thing if you can do breakin this way and it IS necessary for any highspeed, continuous heavy usage station. > By this method (two antennas) break-in would be possible... IF the receiver > can be "unmuted" so it runs all the time. (that is, the means by which it > is disabled on transmit -- generally by opening the high-voltage supply > circuit to the tubes in some manner) You add another relay to be operated by the key, but of course i have no idea if this was done in this case... > I have not yet seen evidence that a means to unmute the receiver while > transmitting was incorporated into AE's rig... but that does not mean it was > not there. To be certain, we of course need diagrams of the actual wiring > in this particular a/c. There could be a lot of things in the wiring which > do not show up in the mfr's manuals but would be in the records of the A&P > shop that did the work. > The only requirement is that the receiver "recover" fast enough from the > high-energy shot of signal. This is primarily a function of the AVC circuit > (automatic volume control). Isn't the AVC disabled under BFO-on condition, i.e. while receiving telegraph? (For the rest of you, sorry about the arcana... ) > Without a Model 20 receiver to test, it'll be > difficult to determine how fast it actually would recover. However, the > radio does incorporate a gas-discharge tube in the signal-input circuit, as > protection against static discharge from the antenna as well as signal > overload. That'd help some --My feeling about this: in such a station, an airplane, the operator wouldn't be pounding that much morse that the breakin would have to be optimized. ( re: recovery time. ) My take on this, is that unless the receiver was seriously screwed, it would work alright. I "sorta" base this on experience, same as you no doubt have. I'm glad you pointed out the gas protection bulb in the WE receiver, otherwise the WE receiver antenna connection would have to have been disconnected from any antenna when the trans. was operating - which would have been another complication. > The bottom line: If they were going to work any halfway serious CW with > this rig, two antennas would make a lot of sense. > > My assumption that they were using one antenna for comm has been based > somewhat upon the fact that the same antenna was used for HF and 500 KHz, > after Joe Gurr got done with his modifications... this would imply that the > antenna had to be switched via the t/r changeover relay... --??? i don't follow. I don't see how this, mentioning the 500 kHz, is any different from a receive standpoint. A difference of a few tens of feet in the receive antenna on 500 kHz is not going to make any difference. Or do i misunderstand the statement? > also upon the > reasoning that the LF antenna input for the receiver may have been connected > to the loop/loop amplifier as well (if there was only one receiver, of which > I still find myself skeptical). > > By the way: no information available to me so far indicates that this rig > had ANY capability to generate a sidetone on CW. Nor would it transmit MCW > (modulated CW, tone modulated telegraphy, A2 emission). This is in spite of > the statements of the WE engineer. It is not there! > No tone oscillator of any kind. --No surprise to me on either account. This makes sense. Her radios were intended primarily as voice radios. Morse was kind of a fallback mode. (I think). BTW, i was just reading a Bendix manual tonite, and it sez "MCW is to be used only in emergency situation". (Not apropos of anything here, i just thought that was interesting.) > My statement is based upon the diagram of the WE-13CB transmitter. This > diagram is dated 1939, I know... but I am pretty well convinced that this > production version of the radio (wonder how many were actually built? > Hmmm...) was prototyped by the mods to AE's rig. It stands to reason that > the production version would be IMPROVED over the prototype. > Sidetone and MCW capability would be considered essential improvements. --Pure speculation on my part, but i would guess neither was added. I still don't think CW feedback by means of a tone to the operator was very common in CW transmitters of the era. I looked in a Bendix service manual, and i note the TA2 series and TA12 do not have it. As for MCW, i believe its usage was so rare as to limit its being seen as advantageous to add to an upgrade of her transmitter. Navy comm texts from the era advise that MCW is kind of a bastard (sorry, my term) mode used to establish communications, for calling type thing.... not for regular communications...not as fast as communicating by voice, and not as effective (distance) as pure CW (sorry, again for the arcana....but it's semi-appropriate. However, to summarize, i think we can conclude that it's very likely the belly antenna was used for receive, and the top antenna for transmit: 1) it eliminated using the antenna relay, which would be subject to wear, and limited the sending speed, and provided for "breakin" send/receive changeover. 2) it simplifed the wiring thru the ship, since the top antenna ran right to the transmitter, the bottom antenna connected right to the front floor mounted receiver, eliminating long internal antenna wiring runs. 3) not a strong reason, but a reason still ? inherited from the original trail antenna + belly antenna, 2 antenna setup. ( where the belly antenna allowed receiving instructions even when the trail antenna had been reeled in for landing. ) Of course we cannot say 100%. But i like this process. I'm hoping by crunching the facts we have about the DF and receive fiasco, we can come up with some likely conlusions about that situation too. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:51:17 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: antenna functions Subject: some corrections and additions to my previous note > By this method (two antennas) break-in would be possible... IF the receiver > can be "unmuted" so it runs all the time. --I assume this is a typo. The receiver HV has to be interrupted during transmit, breakin or not, right? The keying relay can do this task also. >> My assumption that they were using one antenna for comm has been based >> somewhat upon the fact that the same antenna was used for HF and 500 KHz, >> after Joe Gurr got done with his modifications... this would imply that the >> antenna had to be switched via the t/r changeover relay... --I misread the above before my first reply. Yes, it would seem only natural that both functions would be performed by the same antenna > also upon the > reasoning that the LF antenna input for the receiver may have been connected > to the loop/loop amplifier as well (if there was only one receiver, of which > I still find myself skeptical). --I agree with the first part, if a loop was used, that would be where it was hooked up. With only the WE receiver, that's the ONLY way DFing could be accomplished on the LF and BCB, i believe. BTW, the RA-1 receiver, on the contrary, allows operator to select ANY antenna (loop, fixed ship's, trailing) on ANY band. > By the way: no information available to me so far indicates that this rig > had ANY capability to generate a sidetone on CW. Nor would it transmit MCW > My statement is based upon the diagram of the WE-13CB transmitter. This > diagram is dated 1939, I know... but I am pretty well convinced that this > production version of the radio (wonder how many were actually built? > Hmmm...) was prototyped by the mods to AE's rig. It stands to reason that > the production version would be IMPROVED over the prototype. > Sidetone and MCW capability would be considered essential improvements. I misread the above paragraph also first time thru. I understand now: if the equipment didn't have these features in 1939, it didn't have them in 1937. BTW, i was just tonite reading a Lear manual that advised, to get the attention of an airlines ground station, under marginal conditions, you could switch to MCW and key the microphone button, sending the ground station's call letters + "K" -- meaning "ground station, go ahead". Then the ground station would be more likely to hear your signal. They would only answer in voice. This was dated 1940. The manual actually talks about a loop conversion unit, apparently with tuning ( like the RDF ), but unfortunately that portion of the manual is not present. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:52:19 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: metered flights Doug Brutlag said: For Kerry Tiller; How much will you tip me for a greased landing Kerry? After about 19 hours of flying time, with both engines turning, about $50; with no engines turning about $100; with only one turning -- name your price! LTM, who is happy to walk away Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:20:13 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Wrecks Ric said: Aircraft wrecks that are truly noteworthy because of the story attached to them and survive in recognizable form in their original location are extremely rare. Like Yamamoto's "Betty," rotting away in the jungle on New Guinea? I've seen photos (often in "Air 'Comics' magazine") of a forward section of a "Betty" that is claimed to be Yamamoto's plane that was shot down in back in 1943. Assuming the photos and the aircraft are authentic, what would TIGHAR's position be? Certainly this is an historic aircraft, or at least the aircraft in which an historic individual died. Does someone drag it out and put it one display or leave to molder and rot in a fetid and vaporous jungle? Is this the next TIGHAR project? LTM, who believes all jungles are fetid and vaporous Dennis O. McGee #0149ec ************************************************************************** From Ric As it turns out, the fact that "the Yamamoto Betty" was left relatively undisturbed enabled researchers to settle a key question about just who it was who shot down the admiral. It's a fascinating story that deserves more space than we can give it here, but let it suffice to say that recovering the wreck would have destroyed crucial evidence. The longer I'm associated with historical research the more I come to view museums the way I have come to view zoos - as unfortunate but occasionally necessary compromises. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:23:57 EDT From: Joan Flowers Subject: Book title This is my first submission to the Forum and I have a few suggestions for the book title. Getting back to Tom King's original request for suggestions and noting what the publishers want, I would submit: "Amelia Earhart's Shoe, A Scientific Approach to Solving a Mystery." "Amelia Earhart's Shoe, Searching for Answers with Modern Science." "Amelia Earhart's Shoe, Scientists Solving the Mystery, Step by Step." I've been silently observing the forum for some time now and enjoy it immensely. Joan Flowers (who was introduced to the Forum by Dr. Karen Burns) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:41:17 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Lady Be Good >From Frank Westlake > >And I find it hard to imagine why anyone would go to a museum to see >someone's opinion of how something used to be when they can go out to >a remote California valley and see the real thing. I have spent a great >amount of my spare time wandering the remote areas and looking at ruins, >but I wouldn't spend a minute at any of these sites if some one had >"recreated" or "preserved" it. However, many sites are continually damaged by malicious acts and theft even in areas that are "managed" by our Parks, Dept. of Interior, and other entities. So how do we take care of these sites except to literally put them in a museum. The Lady Be Good is a prime example. Despite the remoteness, many parts of the aircraft were removed by those who did visit her and were only interested in their own self centered desires. LTM, With all the drought, wishing you GRAY Skies, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Why don't people spray their names on Stonehenge or chip off a piece to take home? Because the security guards stop them? No. I could have signed my name a dozen times or whacked off several chunks while I was there. I didn't because I've been taught to respect historic places. Education is the only real protection that we can afford to historic sites. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:42:34 EDT From: Dave Subject: Re: Be on Lookout! Sorry that should be "Naval." LTM (Who is another fine example of public schools) Dave 1611 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:01:53 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: "Bent" Pitot Tubes I was able to look at articles published in the Journal of the American Aviation Historical Society (Summer 1977 and Summer 1978) with photos of Model 10 Electras in general and Earhart's Electra in particular. The pitot tubes don't APPEAR to be perpindicular to the skin of the fuselage, rather they APPEAR to be bent backwards. As for Earhart being in 2-way contact with Lae on 6210 KC, that is what at least one eyewitness account states. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric We're not going on appearances. Take any photo of a Lockheed 10 and extend the line of the horizontal portion of the pitot tube(s) as we did in the Research Bulletin and you'll find that the line runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane. Now do the same with the Lae takeoff photo, as we did. There's nothing subtle about it. It's not a judgement call. That pitot tube is bent backward. There is no contemporaneous account that clearly describes two-way communication. There is a sentence in the Chater report that can be construed to imply that there was one direct response from Earhart to a transmission from Lae. In describing the broken transmission heard at 2:18, Chater says, "The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it." Apparently Earhart did broadcast her position twice. Whether the second time was in response to Lae's request or not is a matter of speculation. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:04:35 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Climb Performance Refresh my memory - was the 100 octane figured into the 1100 gallons? My recollection is that she had 45 gallons aboard for extra power on takeoff. ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the 100 octane was included in the 1100 gallons. It's right there in the Chater report at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:10:31 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Fuel reserves Several months ago, I compared C-47/DC-3 cruise data (using comparable power-to-weight ratios and similar wing loading) with the L-10E numbers that have been published. The purpose was to (1) apply a test of reasonableness, and (2) attempt to validate a personal theory that Air Nautical Miles per (Unit) of Fuel would have improved during the late stages of the flight, regardless of AE's technique. The numbers for the first hour of flight didn't match very well UNTIL I noticed a note in the C-47 manual that required the addition of 270 pounds of fuel for warm-up and takeoff. When the 270 pounds was added to the climb fuel, the fuel consumption curves for the first hour of flight paralleled rather nicely. One hundred gallons per hour passes the test of reasonableness. Validation of my theory concerning fuel consumption during the later stages of the flight didn't produce the results I expected. This was partially due to the fact that the C-47 has a low-RPM limit of 1700. As you probably know, low RPM is important in order to take advantage of lower internal friction losses in the engine. Rate of Climb for the C-47 at 3,000 Density Altitude (comparable P/W ratio) are: Normal Climb Power: 750 feet per minute 75% Rated Power: 450 feet per minute At 10,000 Density Altitude: Normal Climb Power: 500 feet per minute 75% Rated Power: 350 feet per minute *************************************************************************** From Ric As a mattter of fact, Skeet's exercise indicates that Kelly Johnson's numbers are on the conservative side (which is what Kelly himself indicated to Earhart when he said, "Gallons per hour should run (a) little under figures given." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:13:00 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Machu Pichu, DE Ric wrote: <> GREAT IDEA, RIC! Wow, and we could move the great pyramids here, too, because I hate trying to scuba dive to see the darn things. In fact, lets move all of the seven wonders here to the good old USA and turn them into a theme park. We could have roller coaster rides around them, gondola rides, train rides, airplane tours, etc. Let's get some venture capitalists to help us buy them, move them here and open them up. We can put up hotels, motels and gift shops and get RICH! Most of the people in the world who can and will pay for such things are right here in the USA and they can spend more money in the gift shops instead of airlines. Also, it would be safer than overseas flights (bombs and hi-jackings, etc). Plus the food would be safe. Wow, this is such a stupendous idea. Have your people contact my people and work out the details over lunch. LTM - Love That Money! Yours, Dave Bush #2200 (the scary thing is somebody will probably try it!) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:42:16 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Takeoff Performance Published empty weight data for a standard 10E is 7,100 pounds as you indicate. Lockheed removed 566 pounds in the form of seats, lavatory, radio (Putnam would supply the radio) etc., bringing the empty weight down to 6,534 pounds. What you are neglecting in your empty weight assessment is the amount of weight Lockheed added to the airframe primarily in the form of extra wing and fuselage tanks. This brought the empty weight back up to 7,023 pounds. (I am using Lockheed numbers for Amelia's airplane, not my own.) Additional items were added by Lockheed in the form of a Sperry gryro, extra battery, radio, deicing equipment, structural tie down points, and fuel system plumbing amounting to 521 pounds, again Lockheed numbers. This brought the weight up to 7,544 pounds. Prior to licensing in June 1936, approximately 50 pounds were removed in the form of one 47 gallon fuel tank and the false flooring. Call the empty weight 7,500 pounds at that point in time. Sixty gallons of oil at 7.5 pounds per gallon is 450 pounds. Add 1,100 gallons of fuel at 6 pounds per gallon (standard temperature) or 6,600 pounds. Using your crew weight of 360 pounds, minimum gross takeoff weight is 14,910 pounds. I say minimum because this does not include any work station for Noonan, a DF installation and lower antenna installation. I estimate 45 pounds additional weight bringing the gross to 14,955 pounds. (There would also have been some weight pickup due to aircraft usage which I have not tried to estimate, but the military did make such an allowance.) In any event, I believe the airplane weighed very close to 15,000 pounds when it took off from Lae if indeed it carried 1,100 gallons of fuel. At that gross weight, the calculated takeoff distance is in excess of 2,800 feet. You state that: "If there is an inconsistency between the film and the calculations, I would look at the calculations." I have quoted the source of the method I used. I respectfully suggest that you, or someone you choose, perform these calculations and show me where I am in error. *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't question your methodology or your arithmetic. I think the key is in the empty weight. I have not seen the Lockheed documents you mention detailing the weight changes. Sounds like the last point at which you have a documented empty weight for the machine was when it was delivered in the summer of 1936 at ballpark 7,500 pounds. At that time it had the same transmitter and receiver and belly antenna it had when it disappeared. It also had a trailing wire antenna (length/weight?) that was removed and replaced by the Bendix loop and the dorsal vee for what I would guess would be a small net loss in weight (not the 45 pound increase you suggest). The big bugaboo in all this has to be the repairs that were done after the Luke Field wreck. That whole airplane was pretty much taken apart and put back together with the benefit of the experience of the aborted first World Flight attempt. By that time everyone knew from bitter experience that weight was a major concern. That's when the trailing wire went away along with the port side belly antenna and photos also suggest that Mannings elaborate navigator's station was either eliminated or vastly trimmed. Sure would be nice to have an empty weight for the airplane on, say, May 19, 1937 when the airplane was inspected and signed off after the repairs were completed. Finally, I wonder how much headwind you factored into the takeoff? There wasn't much. Maybe five knots, looking at the smoke - but we're down to talking a few pounds and few feet - and a little breeze on the nose can be significant. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:43:54 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Wrecks Ric wrote: << The longer I'm associated with historical research the more I come to view museums the way I have come to view zoos - as unfortunate but occasionally necessary compromises. >> Precisely. It's a general rule in historic preservation that if something can practically be preserved in place, it should be -- because moving it risks loss of important information, because the thing is usually best interpreted in place, and because in some cases the place itself is the thing that's really got historical or cultural value. Of course, there are lots and lots of circumstances under which it's NOT practical to preserve something in place, and honorable people can disagree (sometimes violently) over whether it IS practical in a given case. LTM (who's practical, and honorable too) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:46:52 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Lady Be Good OK, the LBG topic brought some of the people who love to be sarcastic and have a few laughs at the expense of others. They should remember their scouting experience and have respect for others. If TIGHAR or any other group someday finds the Electra is it safe to assume that some or all of it will be recovered and placed in a museum so that people can come from wherever to see it? I'll bet the USAF Museum would be very pleased to get the remains of LBG, but given the ongoing politics, I doubt a US government agency would ever be successful. TIGHAR tho might. How much could it possibly cost? Ship to Rics house and put it together in a diorama that reflects its condition when found? Just kidding about your house Ric. ************************************************************************** From Ric I kinda like the idea. The cats would love the sand. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:28:04 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Electra Instrument MTBF Data Has anyone determined whether MTBF (mean time betwen failure) data for the Cambridge analyzer, Eclipse fuel meter, and other engine performance instruments still exist, perhaps in the archives of airlines that flew Model 10 Electras (like NorthWest Airlines)? Or, engine manufacturers like Pratt & Whitney? Also, what became of the Cambridge Instrument Company, Inc.? According to the description of the Cambridge exhaust gas analyzer in "Aircraft Engine Maintenance for the Engine Mechanic" (Pitman Publishing Co., 1939) the exhaust gas analyzer was configured for one fuel octane rating. I don't have any information about how the exhause gas analyzer would work if the fuel supply were switched from 100 to 87 octane during flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:07:32 EDT From: Ric Subject: Lae Gallery up A new Research Bulletin "A Lae Gallery" is now up on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html We've also done a major overhaul of the website and now have the ability to accept memberships on line. Check out our new membership campaign "2001 TIGHARs" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:18:57 EDT From: Ric Subject: Please welcome Mr. Gallagher The only thing nicer than finding someone you've been looking for a long time is having them find you first. It is my pleasure and honor to introduce our newest forum subscriber. Better yet, I'll let him introduce himself: ************************************** Hi my name is Gerry Gallagher and I live in Scotland. I have for some time been researching a family member that I had heard about as a child. My Grandfather used to tell my Mother who passed on to me the story of a relative who was in the Colonial service in the South Pacific. I am named after him altough spelled Gerard instead of Gerald. My grandfather was James Bernard Gallagher. Our roots stem from Ireland although our branch has lived in Scotland for may years. I came across a few bits and pieces on Gerald Bernard Gallagher on Gardner Island that leads me to you. I would be most interested in any information that you can provide and vice-versa any that I can help with. Sincerely Yours, Gerard J. (Gerry) Gallagher ******************************************************** I immediately replied to Gerry's email and asked for his phone number which he promptly supplied and I immediately rang him up. Gerry is a 45 year-old maritime attorney who lived in the States for several years. I'll be sending him the information we already have on "Irish" and he'll be asking his mother (who has lived in Oregon since 1963) whether she knows anything about what happened to Gerald's personal effects, including the photo album. I warned Gerry that by subscribing to the Earhart Forum he had stumbled into instant celebrity and he is braced for your questions, but please bear in mind that, at this point, we may know more about "Irish" than he does. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:29:22 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Takeoff Performance The theoretical takeoff performance is predicated on zero wind velocity. I agree that an actual empty weight measurement after the rebuild would be awfully nice to have at hand. It apparently does not exist, and this does not surprise me in the least. A good weight and balance engineer would have maintained a log documenting changes made at the time, so it would not have been necessary to do an actual weighing. In any event, I was unable to locate this type of document at the time I had access to the Lockheed archives. You are correct with respect to my weight data. It pertains to the summer of 1936. This is a good building block, however, upon which to estimate gross weight at a later date. It certainly is much better than trying to estimate weight numbers using published data for the Standard 10E, for instance. I believe I have weight data in one of my textbooks that will suffice to approximate the weight of the trailing wire antenna. Will look that up and take it into account. Lockheed data did not estimate any weight for the navigator's station, trailing antenna or a DF system. So whatever it was, it was additive. Estimate whatever number seems comfortable. My number of 45 pounds may be high, but we also know it was not zero. I do not share your concern or uncertainty over what was done during the post-accident repairs. Weight was always a serious concern to Lockheed, even before the purchase documents were signed by the Putnams. There is documentation confirming this point. To the best of my understanding, the Hawaii accident was not specifically due to the gross weight situation. Therefore, it seems safe to assume there was little or no weight addition due to structural modifications unless you have documentation to demonstrate otherwise. Nor can I think of any logical reason weight would have appreciably diminished (other than the long antenna). Any significant weight reduction (or addition) after the accident would have to have been done judiciously or the center of gravity about the mean aerodynamic chord could have gone out of the allowable tolerance. Removal of the trailing antenna at Burbank as you note, or in Miami as some have written, seems to me more a matter of Amelia's disregard or disdain for radio communications. Regardless, there is no doubt that removing this equipment saved a bit of weight. This needs to be in the weight accounting estimate. I agree that a weight and balance determination after the rebuild would be very helpful. I'm not sure I can construct a balance diagram, but it may be worth attempting. One variable in fuel consumption involves the aircraft angle of attack at any given point in time. In other words, could Amelia trim the aircraft to minimize drag at all points during the flight? If not, fuel consumption would have been higher than we might estimate. Just one more variable to ponder. Anyone on the Forum that might be willing to help be do a rigorous weight and balance estimate? ************************************************************************** From Ric If the film shows the July 2nd takeoff (and, as you know, I think it does), then the wind was not zero. I can't look at the smoke in the film and provide a judgement of the wind other than to say "Eh, maybe 5 knots." but that could be a big 5 knots when we're looking at tolerances this tight.Takeoff Performance ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:32:44 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Profiling . . . Janet Whitney said: "Has anyone determined whether MTBF (mean time between failure) data for the Cambridge analyzer, Eclipse fuel meter, and other engine performance instruments still exist . . . .ad nauseam" You know, I really think Janet is just showing off, in a passive-aggressive way. What her questions tell me is that she is not really looking for answers, she is really trying to tell us is "This is the way I'd do it -- dummy!." And rather than sharing any insights she may have gleaned from her inquiries, she husbands them like weapons to be used to injure those she fears -- fears grounded in her own feelings of inadequacy and insufficiency. Essentially, "Janet" is incapable of providing meaningful dialogue because it would require her to interact -- i.e. give some and take some. This condition stems from a "fear of intimacy", not sexually, but emotionally. Her knowledge is the only part of her "self" that she values, and to share it with others, in her mind, would diminish herself. It would be like giving away part of her very being. She is playing a zero-sum game emotionally, where in any interchange of ideas or feelings one side gains only when the other side looses. This condition is characterized by a large but "hidden" ego, secretiveness, a inability to establish true relationships, and a stoic attitude. It is a sad and lonely condition OK, now that we've taken care of "Janet," who's next? Ric? LTM, who husbands nothing Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay doctor, pick on somebody your own size. I'm next. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:13:15 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Antenna Arguments Assuming the Electra is somewhere in the Pacific waiting to be recovered, how much (if anything) would be left of the antennas to be recovered with the plane? If, as it is widely assumed, Earhart made a belly landing *somewhere* in the Pacific, wouldn't the belly antenna - if it was still attached to the plane - have been ripped off the plane during the ditching? So, if the Electra is recovered someday, the absence of the belly antenna may not prove anything. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************* From Ric If Elgen Long and Dana Timmer and Tom Crouch et al ad nauseum are correct and the Electra is lying in state like Lenin on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean then: A. There is virtually no chance it will be found in the forseeable future except by blind dumb luck, and B. I would agree with you that any ditching would wipe out the belly antenna. If TIGHAR's hypothesis is correct, the airplane is now in itty bitty pieces and no belly antenna would be likley to be found among them regardless of what happened at Lae. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation under any rational scenario that the controversy about the loss of the belly antenna will ever be resolved by direct physical evidence. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:15:18 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: MTBF Thoughts For Janet Whitney: The Cambridge Fuel Analyzer was used both by the military and commercial air lines around the time Amelia Earhart had one in her Electra 10E. Thus a search of Air Corps and/or air line records might uncover MTBF data. Finding these data may be as illusive as agreeing on a gross weight for Amelia's Lae takeoff . . . I can think of no reason the Cambridge Analyzer would not adequately function with either 87 or 100 octane fuel. There may be a bit more tetraethyl lead in 100 octane, but this would result in only trace element variations in the exhaust gases considering that TEL was added in cubic centimeter quantities to the gallon. The products of complete gasoline combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor. Where the mixture ratio is such that combustion is less than efficient (most of the time for various reasons) the combustion products will also include unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. In fact, one measure of combustion efficiency is the ratio of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide in the exhaust. The basis of the Cambridge instrument was a Wheatstone bridge and the thermal conductivity of the combustion gas. Different gaseous mixtures will have different conductivities. Thus the exhaust gas composition can be directly related to the input mixture ratio. If you are looking for possible failure modes, I would suggest the heated bridge wire spirals (most likely platinum) may have been the weak link (no pun intended) of this instrument. Shock, vibration and thermal degradation of the wire are likely culprits. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:26:25 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: Lae Gallery up The Lae Gallery photos are fantastic. I have never seen these before. I noticed that Fred appears to be wearing the same clothes which can be seen on the Lae take-off film. Four days in the same clothing, in that heat? I now know why they missed Howland, Amelia had her nose and eyes closed. *************************************************************************** From Ric Fred's outfit never changes throughout the entire World Flight. Let's hope he had several shirts and pairs of pants that just look the same. *************************************************************************** From William Webster-Garman I enjoyed looking at the Lae Gallery (research bulletin). Concerning AE's blucher oxford flying shoes, now that I've seen a good picture of them taken at Lae, I'm reasonably certain these are the same shoes that can be glimpsed in the take off film. There are a few frames in the film where her shoes can be glimpsed, and they seem to be exactly the same shape and texture in the film as in the Lae Gallery photo showing AE emerging from the cockpit upon arrival (the issue has some importance of course because the shoe parts found on Gardner are consistant with blucher oxfords bearing a replacement heel, which we know is exactly what she owned and had with her on the world flight). william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Well, wow. Great pictures. A lot of thought obviously has gone into your analysis, and I am inclined to agree with the logic in determining their sequence. Hard to tell if the object in the man's hand is a camera or not, but it is certainly the right size. In the photo at the hangar of AE standing in the cockpit hatch, and Fred on the wing, if you look closely at the right edge of the picture, just to the right of the man's head (yeah, right there partially hidden by his ear) it looks to me like the edge of the side door standing open. Ref the Lae photos, didn't one of the Tighars have a picture up a while back? Seems to me it was circa 1935, but I'm not sure right off the top of my head. Pretty good overall view, with hangars and airplanes clearly visible. Maybe he can make it available again. LTM jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Now that you mention it, I have some vague recollection of such a photo. In theory, pictures shouldn't be hard to come by. Lae was an important center for gold mining operations and entire rigs were airlifted piece by piece into the back country. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:27:38 EDT From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit >And I find it hard to imagine why anyone would go to a museum to see >someone's opinion of how something used to be when they can go out to a >remote California valley and see the real thing. Rattlesnakes, one of many reasons why. LTM, who remembers George Burns' remark about Gracie Allen: "She liked nature best when she could see it out the window." Amanda Dunham who has sunburn issues as well ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:33:09 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: "Lady Be Good" Exhibit Quick correction to Herman De Wulf :- >The only other surviving Halifax is a Halifax V (with radial engines) on >exhibit at Eggleton airfield (east of Leeds, UK) but this one is extensively >renovated, repaired and partly even rebuilt (the two vertical fins have been >remanufactured) The airfield is ELVINGTON - north east of Leeds, near York in fact. Disused RAF field with Museum. LTM (who actually lives in Leeds) Simon #2120 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:34:25 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit > From Dave Bush > Is she any less of a monument, no matter where she is situated? Yes. The Lady Be Good is not just a wrecked aircraft, and the monument is not just the Lady Be Good. From one perspective, the Lady Be Good may be a monument of the sacrifices people made during a war, and the desert around her a monument to her crews struggle for survival. I can go to the crash site with the aircraft there and think about the struggles of that crew. I can look at the aircraft and around at the desert and try to imagine what they did and what they thought. THAT is the memorial. If you put that hunk of metal in a museum then most of the memorial is lost; all you will have, as someone said, is a wrecked B-24. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:56:34 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Takeoff & Climb Performance > Your comments regarding takeoff with a massive overload are well taken. I > followed the recent Lae takeoff film comments on the Forum with considerable > interest. I developed an estimated weight statement (assuming 1,100 gallons > of fuel) of 15,200 pounds. At that gross weight, the calculated takeoff > distance is 2,900 feet. Yet apparently the takeoff film indicates a > considerably shorter run possibly suggesting: 1) a considerably lower gross > weight; or 2) the takeoff may not have been the last flight. The report made at the time says "At 10:00am the machine was taken off, the actual take-off being satisfactory for a heavily loaded machine - the run taken was approximately 850 yards" Which is about 2550 feet, which is in fact shorter. Airfields are notorious for "upslope" and "downslope", either one can make a considerable difference to take-off distance. I also suspect that the slight breeze indicated by the smoke in the take-off film could be enough to shorten the calculated ground. We are looking at a perceived difference of about 1/4 mile I believe? Personal experience has shown that the smallest breeze or (as I found recently when flying into a mining town airstrip) a very small slope on the runway can make a considerable difference. I gather we don't know, but I imagine the airstrip at Lae, if it had a slope at all, sloped towards the sea and away from the ranges. I am currently involved in a small way in production of work involving flying in Papua (New Guinea) and will see if I can find out. In the mean time there is an overhead shot of the Lae airstrip (Jan 1943) at http://www.senet.com.au/~mhyde/new_guinea_airfields.htm By this time it was probably a lot different from Earhart's day. As a result of this work I have read detailed "pilot information" regarding weather conditions and their effect on flying in the Lae coastal area in the May-October season. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric That's a better photo of Lae than the one we have because it shows the place before it bombed. The Guinea Airways facility is still standing down near the departure end of Runway 15 and we may even be able to identify the trees in the background of the takeoff film. If so, we can get a fairly accurate measurment of the actual takeoff run. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:17:06 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 13 C and 13 CB Transmitter Schematics > From Janet Whitney > Unless I see something significant to the contrary, I believe that Earhart > was in touch with Lae via 2-way radio comms on 6210 KC for several hours > after departing. *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > ... and why would you think that? Probably for the same reasons I suggested it last year, and which I'll repeat here: "The Lae Operator heard the following on 6210 KC -"HEIGHT 7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS" and some remark concerning "LAE" then "EVERYTHING OKAY". The plane was called and asked to repeat position but we still could not get it." Notice Lae "still could not get it". They did not report "but there was no reply". This, as I suggested last year would seem to indicate that Earhart answered the request, but it was intelligible. Later in the same report this did happen as was reported accordingly: "Miss Earhart had arranged to change to 3104 KC wave length at dusk, but signals were very strong and the plane was then called and asked not to change to 3104 KC yet as her signals were getting stronger and we should have no trouble holding signals for a long time to come. We received no reply to this call although the Operator listened for three hours after that on an 8-valve super-heterodyne Short Wave Receiver and both wave lengths were searched." The whole tone of this section of the report suggests that 2-way communications were had at around 500 miles out. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric As I mentioned in a posting on this subject yesterday, all we know from the above is that Earhart broadcast her position twice at 2:18. Whether the second time was in response to Lae's request is not known. What seems odd to me is that Chater says that a new weather report had been received at Lae just a little too late for Earhart to get it before she left. He then says that "Arrangements had been made between the plane and Lae station to call at 18 minutes past each hour and arrangements made to pass any late weather information." That would seem to indicate that Amelia was going to call Lae at 18 minutes past each hour (which is what she did) but it's not clear what the arrangments for passing any late weather information were. In her other arrangements AE always listened for messages on the hour and half hour. If she was running true to form, AE didn't even had her headphones on when she made her 18 minutes after the hour reports. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:26:11 EDT From: Vern Subject: That "Navy" receiver (I have some questions following all this.) A box marked, "U.S. Navy" may not imply a direct transfer from the Navy With a letter dated, March 20, 1988, Fred Goener sent a copy of a photo of a Bendix RA-1B Aircraft Receiver to Joe Gurr and asked if that was the receiver he installed aboard Amelia's plane. The photocopy was from Donohue's book, "The Earhart Disappearance -- The British Connection." The response to that question seems to be in Gurr's letter dated, March 29, 1988. He makes reference to the Donohue book and says, "I did not personally install the receiver. Lockheed did, with a certain amount of advisory help from me." It does seem odd that Gurr would not know what receiver that was -- if it was the Bendix RA-1B. The photo shows a prominent name-plate on both the receiver and the Remote Control. The latter was certainly in sight. Perhaps the most interesting thing that can be made out on my rather poor copy is the Antenna terminal arrangement at the top left corner of the receiver panel. There are three terminals: "A", "DF" and "G". This suggests that the "Coupling Unit" was needed by this receiver to transform the balanced Loop configuration to unbalanced, ground referenced, antenna input to the receiver. The "DF" antenna terminal may be a high-impedance input to some point in the 1st RF stage other than the low-impedance primary coil windings probably used by the "A" antenna terminal. I also have a copy of the same photo from TIGHAR (Lombardo Report) from which I can make out that the knob right next to the antenna terminals is Marked, "ANTENNA SWITCH". I can make out switch positions "DF" and "TA" (Terminal A?) but can't make out the third position. Oddly, there seems to be no such switch on the Remote Control. The antenna switching may be handled by the "Coupling Unit" installed where it can be reached. Thus an antenna switch is not needed on the Remote Control. Such switching to an "A" or "DF" receiver connection is not seen in the RDF-1 circuitry we've been studying but that is not the same "Coupling Unit", it's just a similar unit. QUESTIONS Did Amelia specifically say it was a Western Electric receiver under the co-pilot's seat? I'm too lazy to search for the quote! Do we have a schematic diagram of the Bendix RA-1B receiver? Anyone, Does Donohue cite a source for the caption under the photo of the Bendix receiver in his book? The photo is on page 154 in the book. The caption says, "... supplied by U.S. government to the Earhart and Dr. Richard Archbold expeditions..." This might, or might not, support Gurr's story of the "Navy" receiver. *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, in Karachi Amelia specifically mentioned the Western Electric receiver under the copilot's seat. Donohue credits the photo of the Bendix RA-1B receiver, dynamotor, and remote to "Vernon Moore, Bendix Project Engineer." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:30:41 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: antenna functions On this antenna thing, could one of the radio experts please clear up something that has bothered me for a while? Frequencies in the 6200 and 3100 KC ranges could share the same antenna, as what would be a 1/2 wave antenna for one would be a 1/4 wave antenna for the other. 500KC would need a much longer antenna (assuming something like 1/2 wavelength), hence the only practical solution - trailing wire. I have read about the next one so many times, but I can't find it at the moment for confirmation. Her other frequency? If it was 7500KC, it should require an antenna just a little shorter than the 3100/6200 antenna, but sufficiently shorter that the same one would not be able to be tuned well enough for communications. Correct or Incorrect? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart's transmitter could trhansmit on only three frequencies - 3105, 6210 and 500 kcs. She could not transmit on 7500. Gurr lengthened the dorsal vee when the trailing wire was removed in an attempt to give her at least some 500 kc capability but all he did was diminish her ability on 3105 and 6210. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:36:04 EDT From: PK Clark Subject: Re: Please welcome Mr. Gallagher Jeez, just when I think I've plowed through all the emails for one day I find you have added a second shift! Good news though. PK ************************************************************************** From Roger Kelley This has got to be a "Grand Slam Home Run" !!! !! Maybe we'll find AE's log book in the trunk! Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Kerry Tiller Welcome indeed, Mr. Gallagher. I suspect your presence here will fill the forum's bandwidth with renewed enthusiasm. I hope this turns into a lasting and mutually beneficial relationship. I will defer asking questions to the longstanding researchers. I just wanted to express my excitement at yourself and TIGHAR's meeting. Isn't the internet great? Welcome again, Kerry Tiller #2350 ************************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Ric, you are a personification of that old expression my poker-playing buddies use so often: "I'd rather be lucky than good." Or as (insert name of wealthy tycoon here) is alleged to have replied when asked to what he/she owes her great success answered, "Luck and hard work; and the harder I work the luckier I get." Indeed TIGHAR is lucky to have stumbled into the path of one of Gallagher's descendants. Though our newest TIGHAR member may not have an abundance of physical evidence to bring to the table, his knowledge of the Gallagher family and its circle of friends and acquaintances may provide additional clues. LTM, who believes there are too few Irish in the world Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:07:01 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Janet's Questions Why are a box of records at the University of Wyoming, Noonan's traffic tickets, the 1940's plumbing system on Gardner Island., etc., ALWAYS more important to TIGHAR than finding the people at Pan Am who may have installed / changed / repaired Earhart's communications equipment in Miami, the MTBF of the Cambridge gas analyzer, the problems that other Lockheed Model 10's encountered with P & W engines during severe service, the radio propagation for 3105 KC on July 1-5, 1937, photos of the Electra's instruments, radios, and antennas taken during the last flight, etc.? Janet Whitney ************************************************************************* From Ric Because: - A box of records that might contain contemporaneous correspondence could produce real evidence. - A traffic ticket with a reference to alcohol abuse would be real evidence. - The plumbing system on Gardner is not important to the investigation but we were curious about a term we didn't understand. - I have no idea how to go about finding people who worked for Pan Am in Miami in 1937 and may have worked on Earhart's plane. If any are still alive and if we did find them, what we would get from them would be anecdotal and meaningless without paperwork to back it up. So far, the Pan Am archives at the University of Miami have not produced any documents on that subject and don't seem likely to. - I don't understand how establishing an MTBF for the Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer or studying problems other people had with P&W engines would help us determine what happened to Earhart. We already know that instruments and engines can and sometimes do fail. We also know that there is no evidence that Earharts instruments or engines failed except the photographic evidence we have found in the Lae photos. - We HAVE studied the radio propagation for 3105 and other frequencies for July 1-5, 1937. - We HAVE done extensive studies of photos of the Electra's instruments, radios, and antennas taken during the last flight. In short, we try to focus our limited resources on avenues of research that will produce real evidence rather than just more speculation. Sometimes people like to chase pet subjectsand there's no harm in that as long as it doesn't detract from the main focus of the investigation which is to figure out what really happened and why. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:19:14 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit >From Ric > >Yeah, we could set it up right next to London Bridge that got moved to Las >Vegas. Next year we're going to move Machu Pichu here to Wilmington, >Delaware - way too inconvenient to make people go all the way to Peru. I've been waiting for years for the Taj Mahal to be moved to Disney World. Ric, I think I understand your basic point of view, but should all relics be allowed to dissolve where they are, thus forever lost to future generations? Would you not rather tour Edison's Menlo Park complex as it stands in Greenfield Village, rather than view the empty lot in New Jersey where it used to be? Tom *************************************************************************** From Ric I'd rather view it in its original location, but that was not a realistic preservation option and it's removal to Greenfield Village was a reasonable compromise because the point of Edison's lab is to see the room and the furniture and the tools he used. When an historic site can not be removed from its original location without destroying its integrity then the choice is whether to destroy it now by moving it or let nature destroy it eventually. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:21:09 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Janet I'm a college senior. Very happy childhood. Love my parents. Never abused by anyone. Not a cheerleader. Have a boyfriend (sort of.). Biotech Engineering major. Thinking (hard) of applying to medical school. I like kids and cats. Also, Ann Pellegreno and Amelia. I like Ann better. It took LOTS of guts to fly around the world through the Third World during the middle of the Vietnam War, with an old plane and almost no money. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:28:58 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Takeoff & Climb Performance In reguard to Ric's comments: Could a 10E stripped of it's interior furnishings come in 300 lbs. less than a reported empty weight of 7100 lbs? I vote yes. My AT-7(military Twin Beech)with it's 5 place interior,astro dome,& lighting came in at an empty weight of about 6000 lbs. give or take a couple hundred. A model D-18 which is the identical airframe to the AT-7 converted to a freighter, comes in about 400-500 lbs lighter. We have to factor in the weight of the auxillary fuel system, radios, survival gear, food, water, ect. The material I've read suggests that the aux tanking was not your typical ferry pilot set-up using 55 gallon drums, bladders, electric bendix pump hot-wired to the battery bus, but rather off the shelf or perhaps custom fuel tanks built to fit in the belly of a 10E. Does any of the surviving documentation include info or any clues as to the specs & weights of these items? I hate to keep bringing up the Twin Beech comparisons but they had similarities. I brought up the subject of octane enhancers as it was possible to draw more badly needed horses out of the Pratts in this scenario. Water/meth injection(ADI) was not yet developed or available. Not to ask a stupid question Birch but did your analysis include a factor for the turf runway gradient? This would be a further degradation of takeoff performance compared to a hard surface runway as you well know, but can you compute a correction factor for it as I would speculate one would not find a chart in the manual. Was there much of slope either way? Birch, you certainly know your petro chemicals & I won't dispute your performance numbers. Both you & Ric make some valid points on this subject. In spite of it all I still cannot get in my mind how in fornication AE got this overloaded hog off that turf runway in the high density altitude without having mastered or being an "ace" if you will in a Lockheed 10E. In my opinion she did not & was not. Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric You mean you don't believe she made the takeoff? That's a pretty hard position to support. AE may have been no whiz at radio (to say the least), but by the time she got to Lae she had lots of time-in-type flying that particular machine into and out of all sorts of weird places with heavy fuel loads. The takeoff from Lae was an extreme case but she was rather obviously able to handle it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:29:50 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Metered Flights For Dennis McGee & KerryTiller; I'll have the Purser hold out my hat as you disembark. Large bills are fine. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:27:08 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Please welcome Mr. Gallagher And welcome Gerry! This is very exciting and interesting. I hope your mom can help shed some light on "the quest"! Ric, do you suppose we'd better be polite to him? At least for a day or so - until he finds out about us... ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Shhh...later, later. *************************************************************************** From Bill Carter Ric - This is an amazing (and perhaps promising) development. If there comes a time when you need a TIGHAR representative to visit Oregon, it's not far from Boise. I'd be happy to help. -Bill ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bill. *************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag Welcome indeed Mr. Gallagher! When does he get his free T-shirt Ric? Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric As a fellow Scot, Gerry knows the wisdom of that old saying (translated from the Gaelic) "There's no such thing as a free T-shirt." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:30:53 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: RDF & Gurr & & & > From Bob Sherman > *** Vern: Doesn't it also suggest that the belly ant. was connected to > the LF term. on the recvr., thus being used exactly as intended, i.e. for > bands 1 & 2 up to 1500kc, but not for HF communications? --But then where was the loop connected? There is no use for a straight wire antenna on the LF bands for her, except maybe 500 kHz, but even that can be received without a wire antenna - using the loop. > If the belly ant. was used for both LF & HF, the two ant. input terms. on the > recvr. would have to be connected together. --Aha, but the flaw here ( IF you accept the Single Receiver Theory ) is: WHERE do you connect the loop output: you cannot connect the loop and a wire antenna together and expect the loop to work. > I suggest that Gurr was using the ant. & equip. just as you described, > except that the top ant. was for HF xmit. & recv. , and the belly ant. > was for LF reception only; all of which was the normal usage. --Actually, if you substitute "sense reception" for "LF reception only" in the above sentence, then that's kinda what someone today might expect to see. However, outside 500 kHz, there's no real use for undirectional receiving on those 2 bands, except maybe for entertainment. Now please someone with a schematic tell me definitely whether the WE receiver selected the antenna by the band in use. ( I'm still looking around here for a textbook that may have the schematic...) IF this is the case....consider this: Assuming the loop adaptor type "RDF" was on board, AND IN FACT tuned to 8 MHz ( as apparently AE did believe, but the Longs do not), WHERE do you connect it on the WE receiver? If you connect its output to LF term, it does not give any signals to the receiver above 1500 kHz. If you connect it to the HF ant terminal, it does not give signals to the receiver except on the top band. If you wire LF and HF terminals together, loop reception is spoiled on all frequencies. In other words, with the "Single Receiver Theory" scenario, i do not see how the RDF could be expected to work on both HF and LF, without some additional added complications of switching, extra control box, which probably would have been nixed anyway, even if someone had thought of this. Also, please grind these facts: At Lae, AE reported the Lae signals were "too strong" to null. If she had gone 5 - 10 miles, this would not be true. I suggest something else was wrong with the equipment setup. At Lae, she did not comment or report on being able to sense the direction of the station. ( Refresher: type RDF gives both LOP or bearing information, then direction along that LOP. Both pieces of information should be able to be gotten independently, altho the correct RDF procedure was bearing, then direction ). Either the direction feature (requiring sense antenna ) was not installed, or she gave up when no null could be achieved, and never tried the next step. ( Kinda sounds like this is what happened, but impossible to know. ) When trying the RDF when looking for the Itasca, she reports only not being able to get a null. I would think (yes, that's dangerous to make assumptions, but....) that in such critical straits, she would switch to direction and at least try to get that information. She did not report this. Either the direction feature was not installed, or she forgot - declined under stress and confusion, to try it, or tried it and could not get direction either - due perhaps to turbulent shortwave propagation conditions - and did not for some reason chose to report that along with the "no null" report. Also, consider this: If as the Longs state, the model RDF set carried only tuned to 1500 and not 8000 kHz, she could not have heard the Itasca (or Lae earlier ) on it, null or no null. The RDF has a tuned input circuit, and when in untuned, incorrectly tuned or trying to pick up a signal the RDF is NOT PEAKED up on, there will be for all practical purposes, NO OUTPUT. This is independent of 1 receiver or 2 receiver scenarios. Something i am thinking of doing it sketching out all the possible equipment configurations, 1 receiver 2 receiver, belly ant, etc. etc., all the permutations, and see if any one fits with the facts we have, of the way they seemed to operated together. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:32:29 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Wrecks Years back i saw in some aviation mag an article about air wrecks of the Pacific area. One photo showed a real bent up USAAF radio receiver BC-348 lying on the ground on the real steep mountainous jungle slope. The frequency dial looked pretty screwed up, bent and probably jammed forever. The nameplate on the set had apparently been pried off for a souvenir by one of the searchers. I was thinking to myself, man would i love to have that receiver, i bet i could make it play, even if the tuning would only turn a half inch each way from the original 1944 setting. I'm sure it's still setting there, rotting further away. Also some of the younger island nations prohibit hauling any thing away now, even tho that means it mostly all melts away. I am a packrat, but i also like to think that some thing that has identity, intregrity, deserves to retain that identity, even if that new lease on existence is still limited. Call it latter day animism, maybe. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:33:27 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Profiling Gees, Dennis, good job of stake driving (as in; through the heart). Aside from wanting to slap Janet up side the head I kind of thought her exposure to the forum might help the girl grow up, but you make her condition sound terminal. LTM (who believes there is hope for everyone) Kerry Tiller #2350 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:34:25 EDT From: Renaud DUDON Subject: Wrecks and graves Tom King wrote:" It's a general rule in historic preservation that if something can practically be preserved in place, it should be -- because moving it risks loss of important information, because the thing is usually best interpreted in place, and because in some cases the place itself is the thing that's really got historical or cultural value" That is absolutely right. But also we need to keep in mind that, often, such historical wrecks are last "resting in peace" place for unfortunate human beings. That why, above all considerations, we should respect it as... graves ( so, not removing it ). Regarding education, I agree with Ric, that is the only "shield" against bad behaviors. However, that is pure rethoric against all the bucks that could be made with exhibits... LTM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:35:51 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Book title Suggested title/subtitle: Amelia Earhart's Shoe: Following Clues Toward Proof Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:41:43 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit Indeed, then everything in all the museums are nothing but the forlon remains of a lost day, with no meaning except as a reference point. How shallow can we become or how self-serving? To gaze at the wreck of LBG, the Electra or the Spruce Goose and imagine what was and what could have been. Or just look at junk . . . ************************************************************************** From Ric "Round the decay of that collosal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away." Ozymandias, Shelley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:50:29 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Lady Be Good Frank said: <> Frank: I agree in principal, but the crash so is so remote as to be inaccessible for the vast majority of people. It is, in some respects, nearly as remote as Niku, with a far less friendly government. By the way, the plane is no longer in the desert, but was moved to protect it from vandals and thieves. Ric said the key to protection "in situ" is education, but unfortunately education doesn't work for some people - otherwise we wouldn't have crime, murder, etc. So I believe that in some cases, the world is better to have the "monument" situated where it can be seen AND appreciated by more people. Also, to leave a site truly "in situ" would mean leaving the bones of the people and animals exactly as they were (ie - Little Big Horn and the Custer Incursion) rather than erecting a monument and interpretive center. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:58:16 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Lae Gallery up I looked last night, and I captured a print of the photo - it was 1932. Not much of the runway, but a good view of the hangar area. If you want I'll email it to you tonight. If the side door is open, that could explain how Fred got out first - even though he might have been riding up front, I don't believe access to the cabin from the cockpit was blocked, was it? - it was just inconvenient. Or am I wrong about that? (Wouldn't be the first time) (Today). Again - good job with the pix. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, please. Send it along. Access between the cockpit and the cabin was awkward but not difficult. Fred could have gone back and exited through the cabin door but it's ahrd to understand why he would have then climbed up on the wing. The cockpit hatch could be easily opened from the inside. The cabin door could have been opened by somebody beside the plane. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:00:36 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Antenna Arguments Ric wrote, >Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation under any rational scenario >that the controversy about the loss of the belly antenna will ever be >resolved by direct physical evidence. However, the photographic evidence we have now is very compelling, and may one day be the source of a widely accepted proof that the Electra lost its belly antenna on takeoff from Lae. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric Which raises the question of whether it is possible to "prove" something with a only photograph? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:02:55 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: The point of the project Since there have been many differing opinions expressed regarding the ultimate disposition of historically notable aircraft, we should try to keep in mind that the single most important aspect of the search for AE/FN's Electra (at least in my opinion) is to finally & definitively determine the answers to at least two of the 60+ year old questions which have occupied the minds of AE/FN searchers, ever since the last (documented) message was broadcast from the Electra to Itaska... 1- Exactly why did they fail to make their landfall at Howland &... 2- which way did they turn on their broadcasted LOP ? Until the aircraft is located, or the remains of the crew found, we can never know for certain the 'final' answer to those two basic questions which presently, continue to be the ongoing subject of considerable conjecture, speculation & supposition! Even if the remains of the aircraft & crew are found &/or recovered, the exact answers to these questions may never be fully or satisfactorilly explained unless, along with the remains, some further means of documenting such answers (diaries, journal pages, log notes or the original charts which FN actually utilized on this journey) is found, & thus the conjecture, speculation & suppositon will continue. All of which would probably make the recovered Electra a prized museum piece, an icon to perpetuate the AE mystery, which has all the trappings of mythological proportions, for people really do love unexplained mysteries, as once the mystery is resolved, the Electra becomes, simply, another aircraft from the 'olden times', taking up additional museum space, unless or until a 'hotter' prospect comes on the scene. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:05:54 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Takeoff & Climb Performance To Ric & Birch: I just got done reading your postings that preceeded mine. Birch:can you factor in a 5 or perhaps even a 10 kt. headwind component and see what reduction in takeoff ground run may result? Ric: is there a page in the 10E manual performance section that may give a clue as to headwind factor vs. takeoff ground run? Kelly Johnson surely left something to work with. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric Regrettably, I don't have a 10E manual with a performance section and I've never heard of anyone else having one either. The survivng manuals seem to be for the 10A. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:07:05 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit Well, since my innocent posting started all this, according to the exhibit part of the problem with leaving the Lady Be Good on-site was that man, and not nature, was destroying it. To say that "education" is the key to solving this problem is not an answer. The reason is that "education" is one of those words, like "appropriate", that are used when people don't have a specific suggestion or reply. Furthermore, it's often the case that the most "educated" and degreed people are the ones who destroy things the most. Perhaps it is unfortunate that items such as the Lady Be Good, like the great altar of Zeus at Pergamon in Turkey, had to be removed from their historical settings to save them. Yet, because they were, they still exist and can perhaps can be returned some day when practical safeguards can protect them from man's pillage. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:14:09 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Lae Takeoff I don't question she made the takeoff Ric. I've always questioned her proficiency in the 10E though. Just seeing the numbers coming out of the Lae takeoff scenario the odds were very much in favor of Chuck Yeager or anyone else becoming toast. I've flown a Twin Beech in & out of our 2200 ft. grass runway where I live with known wind factors with 2 pilots & minimum fuel load. The other pilot with me was an experienced Twin Beech pilot checking me out who had 1200 hours in type and knew the machine inside and out-literally..he's also and A&P & IA. Doesn't make me the authority on this by no means, but we knew what we could fly, carry, where to abort, where & how to crash, and when we could feather a prop & go for it along with the numbers to make it fly. I have yet to see enough of this basic aviation technique(s) out of AE's history to consider her any more than a notch or two above "amateur". At best I would consider her an "experienced amateur". When she went into the Electra, to my knowledge she had no previous multiengine experience. I believe she did get some training in the lockheed prior to the first world flight attempt but not near enough in my opinion to be safe or competent. Both of us have seen enough pileups to know that an aircraft is a poor classroom and on the job training is not something left to be done solo. The fact that she made it as far as she did could be used to contradict this statement and I'm not too stubborn to consider it. In any case she had a bull by the horns trying to fly the 10E. Anyone would have. She was definetly not a professional-not even close. I would put her somewhere between amateur & professional. I would put her light-years ahead of Linda Finch though-definely amateur-RANK AMATEUR at that. I think her judgement was also lacking as the world flight attempt was without a doubt biting off way more than she could chew. I think Fred's knowledge and experience was used in making some judgement calls which is why I support TIGHAR's Gardner Island hypothisis. Ok, enough of the pontification: * She made the Lae takeoff * It was ballsy and had little or no margin for error * I can't see her being that proficient in the 10E and knowing what she was doing during the Lae takeoff, even after her time getting the airplane 80% around the world, but that's my opinion and I'll leave that for the next argument. * It's the squirts that not enough documentation exhists to verify the loads, equipment, fuel, empty weight, gross weight, etc. of the airplane to clear the mystery. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:17:07 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: The Big Tree Ric; I just viewed the Lae Gallery. Can you locate the tree in the lst photo to one standing in the present? Could be the piece to the takeoff performance puzzel long sought. For that matter, has any of the expeditions gone to Lae yet? Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric I can't imagine that a tree standing beside the turf runway at Lae 63 years ago would still be there today. I've been to New Guinea but not to Lae. I don't want to go back. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:18:50 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Wrecks > From Hue Miller > I was thinking to myself, man would i love to have that receiver... There is a major outdoor organization (Sierra Club?) that pushes the slogan "Leave only footprints, take only memories" in an effort to preserve our national forests, parks, monuments, and wilderness areas. I think we can apply the same slogan to historical monuments. Aircraft wreckage in a remote area invites scavenging because it appears to be unclaimed and nothing more than junk that should be cleaned up. But if the site were marked indicating that it is a historical monument (as with Ric's example of Stonehenge) then I don't think scavenging will be a problem. In the US we have National Monuments and National Historic Sites that are so marked. If scavenging is still a problem at these sites it must at least be significantly reduced by the markers and the official status of the site. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:25:33 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit > From Wes Smith > Indeed, then everything in all the museums are nothing but the forlon > remains of a lost day, with no meaning except as a reference point. You are generalizing. Each historical item/event should be evaluated individually as to whether it is better left alone or relocated. > To gaze at the wreck of LBG ... It should probably be left where it was. > ... Electra ... If there is anything left but parts then it should probably remain where it is. If only parts remain, they should probably be moved to a museum. > ... or the Spruce Goose... Not the same thing. The historical event was the making and the flight of the Spruce Goose. The historical value of the Spruce Goose is not tied to the event by location. The Spruce Goose did not crash and remain unlocated for a long time. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:58:54 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Lae Gallery Thanks for the expanded number of Lae photos on the website! Question: ...Anyway of determining ID of the 'tall' man or the guy in the tropical helmet, who appear in several of the pictures? Their close proximity to AE/FN would seem to lend some credence to their being some sort of 'official'. How about the folks in the 'group' photo? Observation: ...Photo of an almost 'exhilarant' AE, climbing out of the cockpit hatch, seems to contradict the stories that at this stage of the flight she appeared...'haggard' & in ill health... Another question: ...Wonder whether FN did any smoking (sneaking a quick one) during the flight, as he always seems to have a cigarette in his hand during the Photo-ops. On second thought, I can't believe even a chain smoker would consider a 'smoke', sitting next to fuel tanks containing 1100 gallons of high octane gasoline! These are remarkable, historic photos, wonder what happened to the remainder f the shots taken on those roles of film? However, unless you could ID the photographers in each case, tracking such photos down would be an impossible task, 60+ years after the fact! Incidentally, as you've already observed, that last, belly antenna mast appears to be extremely close to the ground, in the taxiing photos, so much that it would not seem to take much of a 'bounce' on taxiing a much more, heavily loaded Electra, over uneven ground, to cause contact that could have 'snapped' that post, resulting in an antenna 'drag' ultimately causing separation from the forward pitot tube as the plane gained speed on take-off. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:01:04 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: the big tree Is there still an airport at Lae? Is there anyone there with whom a conversation by telephone could be arranged or have the area photographed? ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes, it's a big commercial airport as shown in the color photos. I don't see what purpose would be served by having more current photos. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:03:44 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Antenna Arguments > Ric wrote, > > Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation under any rational scenario > that the controversy about the loss of the belly antenna will ever be > resolved by direct physical evidence. Well, "resolved by direct physical evidence" collected from the floor of the ocean or from Niku. I can imagine a scenario in which someone finds a box in someone's barn containing the remains of the antenna collected from the Lae runway. If the box also contained credible documents certifying that the contents of the box came from the runway shortly after the fatal takeoff, that would constitute good "physical" and human evidence that the antenna was lost. Then william 2243 said: > However, the photographic evidence we have now is very compelling, and may > one day be the source of a widely accepted proof that the Electra lost its > belly antenna on takeoff from Lae. And Ric replied: > Which raises the question of whether it is possible to "prove" something > with only a photograph? For me, the case has five legs to stand on (may be out of order): 1. photograph(s) showing dorsal antenna on taxiway 2. movie frames showing puff of dust as if a wire was trailing the airplane 3. photograph showing dorsal antenna missing on takeoff and bent pitot tubes 4. anecdote (second- or third-hand) of antenna wire found on runway 5. evidence that AE never heard the Itasca except on 7500 (coupled with plausible argument that she never heard Lae, either) In my personal and fallible judgment, the hypothesis that the antenna was lost on takeoff is defensible. I do not think these five points can ever be pressed hard enough to force a determined skeptic to accept the hypothesis. If there is one photograph that "proves" the hypothesis, it has not yet come to light. It would have to have sufficient resolution to show all of the broken apparatus and any remnants of the wire, plus it would have to have the proper human testimony accompanying it to "prove" (for those willing to accept the testimony) that the photograph is authentic. As a general rule, in my view of reality, a photograph is no better (or worse) than the testimony of the photographer or collecter of the picture. I take some photos to be conclusive (e.g., the magnificent photo-finish cameras used at race tracks). Others, though of acceptable provenance, leave questions open (what does the Zapruder film "prove" about the location and number of gunmen and the number and timing of shots fired?). Bottom line, answering Ric's question directly: it all depends. And, though I often forget to say so, Love to Mother. Marty 2359 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:07:32 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Bendix RDF Antenna Switching According to the schematics shown in "Aircraft Radio & Electrical Equipment" by Howard K. Morgan (Pitman Publishing Co., 1939) the radio receiver was switched from a wire antenna to the DF loop by energizing a 12 volt relay in the Bendix DF system's antenna switching unit. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:09:03 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Antenna Arguments >Ric wrote: > > Which raises the question of whether it is possible to "prove" something with > a only photograph? > Tom Peterson [current Director of the Arizona Historical Society; at the time of the quote, Curator of Collections on the Society's museum staff] once told me: "You can't argue with a photograph" (assuming it has established provenience). LTM (who loves photographs) Kerry Tiller #2350 *************************************************************************** From Ric ...and yet we do it all the time. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:10:17 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Takeoff Distance For Doug Brutlag: The answer to your question is yes, I should be able to factor in headwind velocity in calculating takeoff distance. Velocity is a component of the dynamic pressure q, and it is in the denominator of the takeoff distance equation. I will try and do this in the near future. I believe you or someone on the Forum inquired about the variation in rolling friction or resistance of landing gear tires as a function of different takeoff surfaces. NACA report number 450 by Walter S. Diehl entitled "The Calculation of Takeoff Run" contains this type of data. This 1922 report can probably be downloaded from the NASA/NACA web site. NACA Report No. 583 investigated "The Rolling Friction of Several Airplane Wheels and Tires and the Effect of Rolling Friction On Takeoff." The author is J.W. Wetmore, and may be downloaded also. "Technical Aerodynamics" by Karl D. Wood, McGraw-Hill, 1947 presents similar data. I would like to ask you some detail questions about your Twin Beech fuel system if you don't mind. You can reach me at wetwings@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:19:29 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Lae Takeoff Doug, Earhart had owned and flown the 10-E for quite a number of hours in a variety of flights in the almost year before she left on her last flight. Kelly Johnson in his autobiography says she was a "very good pilot". Paul Mantz put her down as a pilot after she was lost, but this was after he had been let go as techneical advisor and replaced by Kelly Johnson. Mantz was macho and probably a bit miffed and even jealous after that. He was widely known, widely respected as a pilot, and probably widely quoted, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he was being honest or correct in his statements regarding Earhart's abilities with the 10-E. Ron Reuther ************************************************************************** From Ric To quantify the issue, at the time the Electra came out of repairs on May 19, 1937 it had 181 hours and 17 minutes of total "flight time" as shown in the Bureau of Air Commerce Aircraft Inspection Report. Earhart was probably pilot in command for most of that time. The World Flight as far as Lae has been estimated by Elgen Long to have entailed another 161 hours of flying, all of which was done by Earhart. Even a conservative estimate would give AE something over 300 hours time in type at the time of the Lae takeoff. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:20:41 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: MTBF Thoughts > From Birch Matthews > If you are looking for possible failure modes, I would suggest the heated > bridge wire spirals (most likely platinum) may have been the weak link (no > pun intended) of this instrument. Shock, vibration and thermal degradation of > the wire are likely culprits. Would those components have been in the "crtridge" unit replaced at Lae? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:24:20 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Janet I have a couple of questions of the person signing as "Janet Whitney." 1. If there IS such a person why don't you give us a bio so we know better who you are and what your credentials are? 2. Why do you persist in asking such poorly thought out questions? 3. Why don't you bone up on this subject, at least in a minimal way, before leaping blindly into your question mode? 4. Why would you, as a champion of excellence in methodology and logic, use the word "ALWAYS?" 5. Why do you think you are above ever responding when you are challenged which is every time? Can you not handle that? Alan #2329 (..and immediatley afterward.) Janet, I asked for a bio BEFORE I came across your note. It is nice information making you sound a bit more human than your other posts. It is not a bio, of course, nor does it give an inkling to the source of the information which makes up the basis of your questions. I mean, biotech engineering, not being abused and liking cats is a far stretch from Bendix radios. Also, I am curious how flying through the "third world" is connected with the VietNam war. If Pellegreno's flight took her through VietNam I am not aware of it. I will have to reread the Pellegreno story as I must admit to not paying much attention at the time. I have never quite understood the significance. As to liking either woman, I'm neutral on that as I didn't know them. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:35:39 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: Electra take off performance at Lae. I have been a subscriber to the forum for a few months now and find it fascinating.I am not a member of TIGHAR [yet] but would like to comment from time to time if I may. There has been some discussion recently on the forum about the final take off of AE from Lae.I have not seen the important factor of runway slope mentioned.In the aerial photos of the Lae runway in the latest bulletin there appears to me to be a noticeable downhill slope towards the sea.I do not have a landing chart for Lae but I am sure that someone in the forum will have.If am right then the Electra would have a boost to its take off performance equivalent to several knots of breeze right on the nose. LTM Raymond Brown. *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. Anybody got a current Jep for Lae? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:38:47 EDT From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: Janet I agree that flying around the world in any light aircraft was a challenge to any flyer in the middle of the Vietnam War. Flying around the world in any light aircraft still is (although modern avionics make it a lot safer). What exactly is Janet Whitney's point ? *************************************************************************** From Ric I took it that she admires Ann Pellegreno more than Amelia. Frankly I think both trips (and Finch's) were pointless stunts. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:40:12 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit The fact is that archeologists and, generally speaking, people with an interest in aviation history like TIGHAR, tend to look at things from a different angle than those without that interest. To the latter aircraft wrecks are an inconvenience. In densely populated regions like Western Europe there were thousands of aircraft wrecks at the end of WW II. They were removed and sent to the scrapyard. Farmers on whose land they crashed or belly landed would simple dig a big hole in the ground and bury them to get rid of them. Conserving such aircraft wrecks for posterity was the last of priorities to the people on whose land the war had been fought. Suppose someone had found Amelia Earhart's Lockheed 10E Electra somewhere in densely populated Western Europe in 1945, chances are that the aircraft would have been dug under to give way to new crops without any authority being aware of that. Even today there is at least one location I know of in Belgium where a farmer who worked the land in 1945, dug a hole behind his farm to get rid of a Focke Wulf FW-190D shot down during the Luftwaffe "Bodenplatte" operation on January 1, 1945. That was when the Luftwaffe attacked the Allied airfield B61 at St.-Denys Western near Ghent, Belgium. The airplane is known to be still there but a supermarket has since been built over the site... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:51:32 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Lae takeoff Ric wrote, >Even a conservative estimate would give AE >something over 300 hours time in type at the time of the Lae takeoff. Although AE was no Chuck Yeager, she and FN did get the finicky Electra three quarters of the way around the globe on an equatorial flight path before they disappeared near Howland. By the way, Don Neumann mentioned, >Observation: ...Photo of an almost 'exhilarant' AE, climbing out of the >cockpit hatch, seems to contradict the stories that at this stage of the >flight she appeared...'haggard' & in ill health... I noticed that photo too-- she looks great. However, my first impression was that she was pushing hard and doing a good acting job for the cameras and the crowd: People accustomed to media attention often become excellent actors, and I would also point out that in the subsequent photos she doesn't necessarily look very well rested or happy. For all of the things we can deduce from photos, gauging the state of mind of a camera-wise celebrity probably isn't one of them. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:20:57 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Lady Be Good Chris Kennedy said: > To say that "education" is the key to solving this problem is not an answer. > I'd argue that education is the key to pretty much any problem, but see what > I mean by "education." I apparently don't mean what you do. > The reason is that "education" is one of those words, like > "appropriate", that are used when people don't have a specific > suggestion or reply. Perhaps, but it can also be used because it covers a huge amount of ground. > Furthermore, it's often the case that the most "educated" and degreed > people are the ones who destroy things the most. Getting a diploma or a degree doesn't mean one is educated, just that he or she managed to get through a course of learning with a percentage of accuracy that yields that recognition. Education, at it's root, is learning how to be a person in harmony with others, their and your desires, and the even the world itself. It is in this sense that I (and I think Ric) meant that education is the problem and many other problems. > Perhaps it is unfortunate that items such as the Lady Be Good, like > the great altar of Zeus at Pergamon in Turkey, had to be removed > from their historical settings to save them. Yet, because they were, > they still exist and can perhaps can be returned some day when > practical safeguards can protect them from man's pillage. The point I'm driving at, is that educated people don't pillage. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:03:50 EDT From: Jim Van Hare Subject: Re: Janet C'mon folks --- Why is everybody so down on Janet Whitney? She should have the same privilege as anyone else to post her messages, as long as she is making a serious attempt to add to the ongoing discussion. I don't recall any of her messages being critical of others, and I think she is seriously asking questions and trying to contribute information, which to me suggests a real interest in the project. The forum members have always tended to be somewhat forgiving of new contributors who have not had the opportunity of following the discussions over a long period of time. And yet in Janet Whitney's case we get an in depth psychoanalysis based solely on her message postings, as well as a surprisingly large number of snide comments, and there are even questions concerning whether she actually exists as a real person. Is this kind of reaction warranted? It's one thing to critically discuss her statements and accept or reject them with reasoned logic, but what I'm reading in posted messages from other forum contributors borders on personal attacks against her. I think we need to step back and look at ourselves here. Jim Van Hare *************************************************************************** From Ric When Janet first appeared on the forum under the Data Quality banner we treated her no differently than any other new contributor to thses discussions. However, her arrogant tone soon alienated many subscribers. Dennis McGee's psychoanalysis, as it turns out, was meant in jest but does illustrate the feeling of many forum subscribers that Janet was not making a good faith effort to participate in our investigation. Lately, however, Janet seems to have mellowed a bit and, while I still don't agree with many of her opinions, I welcome her participation in our discussions. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:13:19 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Fact-Finding Trip to Lae? If TIGHAR has interviewed people who lived on Gardner Island, has poked around various places for bones, etc., why not go Lae and try to interview the people and the descendants of the people who were on the scene between the time Earhart and Noonan arrived at Lae and time they departed Lae for Howland? Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric 1. Money 2. Inquiries into what happened at Lae are secondary to our primary objective which is to test our hypthesis that the flight ended at Gardner Island. 3. Money 4. New Guinea at that time was a territory under Australian administration. Most of the people who were in a position to have contact with Earhart, Noonan and the plane were Australians. The few we know about who are still alive are in Australia, not the independent nation of Papua New Guinea. 5. Money ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:18:46 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Takeoff Distance > I believe you or someone on the Forum inquired about the variation in rolling > friction or resistance of landing gear tires as a function of different > takeoff surfaces. This is another one of those questions that has an obvious answer for those of us who fly, and a not so obvious one for people who don't. This is strictly for the non-pilots who may be wondering about all this talk of take off rolls. Prior to any take-off in smaller (this includes the Electra) aircraft, it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that all factors affecting the aircraft during the take-off roll are taken into account. Among things already discussed on the forum are the effect of temperature and humidity (with relation to engine performance) and the weight of the aircraft. To simplify the question on friction or resistance of landing gear on different surfaces, those people who have ridden a bicycle can probably remember the difference between riding on asphalt (easy to pedal) riding on grass (harder to pedal), riding on wet grass (even harder) and riding your bicycle in soft dirt or sand (nearly impossible). When you try to take off in an airplane, the surface of the runway has the same effect on the wheels as it would on your bicycle. There are calculations we, as pilots, have to make when planning our take-off for Hard Surface, Short Dry Grass, Long Dry Grass, Short Wet Grass and Long Wet Grass. Each of these can make a considerable difference to the take-off roll and not taking them into account (or guessing them) has been the cause of many a wrecked aircraft or close call. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Ross is right in a technical sense. In everyday practice, experienced general aviation pilots do not perform complex calculations prior to every takeoff. Kick the tires, light the fires, 60/40 she'll fly, let's go for it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:27:59 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Lae Takeoff > all of which was done by Earhart. Even a conservative estimate would give AE > something over 300 hours time in type at the time of the Lae takeoff. Considering there were a lot of "boys" handling much heavier aircraft under worse conditions with less than that figure as their total flying time a few years later, Earhart had "considerable experience". Apart from one "major" accident and some minor scrapes, I wonder why people put Amelia's actual flying ability down. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Those boys wrecked far more airplanes in accidents than were lost in combat. Learning curves and the laws of physics are not waived in time of war. Earhart's flying career is an interesting case study in poor judgement, average to mediocre ability, and good luck. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:30:00 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Runway slope at Lae Hmmm I seem to recall posting on that very subject... on 12th September I suggested: "Personal experience has shown that the smallest breeze or (as I found recently when flying into a mining town airstrip) a very small slope on the runway can make a considerable difference. "I gather we don't know, but I imagine the airstrip at Lae, if it had a slope at all, sloped towards the sea and away from the ranges." Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric So let's find out if the runway had/has a slope. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:32:29 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Runway slope at Lae At the UC San Diego library is a detailed map of downtown Lae, and the airport. From it, I was able to tell the location of the end of the runway down to the meter! It is a very large-scale map. Unfortunately, I did not xerox it. I vaguely remember contour lines on it for topography. That should do the trick, at least what the airport is today. Beats me why UCSD library has the map.... *************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent! Okay, who do we have in San Diego? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:41:29 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Lae Gallery It still concerns me that in your sequencing of photos that the cockpit hatch is open, then closed, then open again... ************************************************************************** From Ric My sequencing could be off. After all, I wasn't there and I'm guessing based upon the various visual clues. Heck, if I HAD been there I still wouldn't be able to remember the exact order in which things were done ( I can't remember the exact order in which I did things yesterday). Any way you sequence those photos the cockpit hatch gets opened, then closed, then opened again. There were probably repeated comings and goings and opening and closing of doors and hatches associated with their arrival. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:44:22 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Cambridge Analyzer Thoughts For Ross DeVitt and Janet: In response to Ross Devitt's question concerning the "cartridge" unit replaced at Lae, I reviewed an undated (1930s era) five page instruction manual for the Cambridge instrument system written by someone at Lockheed, possibly Kelly Johnson. I also again read Chapter 11 (entitled Cambridge Aero Mixture Indicator, pp. 76-93) in the book "Pilot's and Mechanics Aircraft Instrument Manual," by G.C. DeBaud, The Ronald Press Co., New York, 1942. In both instances the assembly containing the Wheatstone bridge is referred to as the "analysis cell." This cell could be removed and replaced as you might expect. A careful reading and study of the diagrams in both references suggests there is no other subassembly one could logically refer to as a "cartridge." So I think it is safe to say the cartridge and the analysis cell are one and the same. While on the subject of the Cambridge analyzer, another consideration may be of interest to Forum members. The DeBaud book cited previously states that the instrument is accurate "to a maximum of 0.068 fuel-air mixture ratio," meaning 0.068 pounds of fuel per pound of air. (In terms of the reciprocal air-to-fuel ratio, this number becomes 1 / 0.068 = 14.7 pounds of air per pound of fuel.) An independent 1941 experimental study of thermal conductivity analyzers (the basis of the Cambridge instrument) found "that every instrument practically ceased to function when the air-fuel ratio became leaner than 14 to 1." This work was done by J.L. Dilworth of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State College (now University). His work was presented in a paper to the Annual Meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers on January 6, 1941. It was subsequently published in the S.A.E. Journal (Transactions), Vol. 48, No. 6, June 1941, pp. 235-239. Kelly Johnson's recommended fuel management scenario (see his telegrams) included Cambridge settings of 0.072 and 0.070, equivalent to air-fuel ratios of 13.9 and 14.3, respectively. Based upon the experimental data published by Dilworth, Amelia Earhart's fuel analyzer was right on the ragged edge of accuracy if not over the edge at these settings. The Penn State data were published, of course, long after Kelly made his recommendations to Miss Earhart. The bottom line based upon this Penn State work is that the Electra 10E engines were probably being fed a richer mixture than the analyzer indicated during the later stages of the flight to Howland. So Janet, we don't have MTBF data for the Cambridge unit, and I suspect the chance of running across such information is quite remote. I personally agree with you that it would be very interesting to have and with enough research might even be acquired. Corporations unfortunately tend to pay little attention to their histories and often destroy old records because of storage costs. The military might be a better possibility in this regard. Locating the right archive is a problem. Unfortunately, this type of travel and research is not within my retirement income budget. However, the Penn State data published in the S.A.E. Journal may provide a basis for refining my fuel consumption estimates for the later stages of Amelia's flight. Investigating the Cambridge analyzer may still pay a dividend, though not as you perceived. Had you not questioned MTBF I might not have looked a little deeper into the performance of this instrument. The two benefits of Ric's Earhart Forum which I have come to appreciate are: It not only informs, but makes you think. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:45:32 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit > From Frank Westlake > Yes. The Lady Be Good is not just a wrecked aircraft, and the monument is > not just the Lady Be Good. ...... I can go to the crash > site with the aircraft there and think about the struggles of that crew. I > can look at the aircraft and around at the desert and try to imagine what > they did and what they thought. THAT is the memorial. If you put that hunk > of metal in a museum then most of the memorial is lost; all you will have, > as someone said, is a wrecked B-24. And, of course, no inappropriate, out of context cover or shelter. Just a fence. I feel the same way about the Sphinx, and Pyramids and temples: that way they remain unsullied, and future generations down the line can always refer to photos, when the originals are reduced to just humps on the surface. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:50:19 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: That "Navy" receiver <> My RA-1 manual is god knows where, but meanwhile i just referred to "Bendix Aviation Equipment Service Guide" ( 1943 ). For all versions of the RA-1, i note: 1. Antenna input is via transformer in ALL modes. That means relatively low input impedance, which may not mean much here, except that it is well suited to the loop unit's output impedance. 2. The 3-position antenna switch selects the antenna used. There are 3 postions but only 2 antenna posts. You use a loop DF antenna and for communications either a fixed or trailing wire. 3. 'T A' (trailing antenna ) position inserts an additional capacitance in series to counteract this longer antenna's higher capacitance. This tends to retain tuned circuit alignment ( "tuned up performance" ). 4. The 'D F' position selects the loop antenna and shorts the communications ( wire ) antenna to ground. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:01:31 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: That "Navy" receiver Ric sez: >Donohue credits the photo of the Bendix RA-1B receiver, dynamotor, and remote >to "Vernon Moore, Bendix Project Engineer." Yes, that's the source of the photo. What about that business of the "supplied by U.S. government to the Earhart and Dr. Richard Archbold expeditions..." Is a source cited for that statement? If so, it might lead to something to support or shoot down Gurr's story of the "Navy receiver." *************************************************************************** From Ric One of the many maddening things about Donohue's book is that he makes no distinction between information that is truly documented and information that is true simply because he has decided that it is true. His statement about an RA-1 being supplied to Earhart is just one of many examples. Another is his caption on the Lambrecht photo "Amateur aerial photograph taken with Kodak 616 camera of Gardner Island, Phoenix Group, from Earhart Electra on 2 July 1937" Pure organic fertilizer. The source he gives for the photo is "USN Office of Naval Intelligence Report." We have a copy of that report and it provides no information about the photo other than the caption "Gardner Island, 1937." A print of the same photo in the New Zealand National Archive has "Gardner Island, USN, pilot, 9 July 1937" handwritten on the reverse. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:02:52 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Photographs as Evidence I, too, used to accept photographs as solitary evidence of fact. However, in view of the work I have been doing recently in a digital lab there is no way on earth I would now accept a photograph alone without supporting evidence from a secondary source. Everyday, I remove people from photographs, put other people in, change the background, change the color, age the photograph, if you can think of a way to alter a photograph I can do it. And some of the things people want done are pretty bizarre, at least to me, such as adding people that are deceased into photographs of weddings, family reunions, and other such gatherings. I can produce a photograph that if you laid it side by side with a photograph taken in 1937, the only way you could tell them apart would be by dating the paper it was printed on. Historically speaking, "WHEW!". LTM, MSTILL #2332CE ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:06:19 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Photos as evidence We experience concerns with establishing the veracity of photographs on a regular basis. Photos submitted to the court as evidence are only valuable when supported by testimony that confirms they are what they purport to be. As anyone who watched _Forrest_Gump_ knows, with modern computer technology, photographs can be altered - virtually seamlessly. However - and this is one area where I have been particularly impressed with Tighar - the laboratory analysis of the photos and films that have been submitted to Photek (did I spell that right?) seem to have been appropriately authenticated, sufficiently for me to accept them as true anyway. They certainly have no reason to make up the information they report (and every professional reason not to). In summary: no contemporary witness or other evidence, but (and a big "but") testimony from professionals who have placed their reputation on the line. It works for me, particularly when coupled with all the other facts that are known. I don't need to find a coil of wire in a barn someplace... ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:31:09 EDT From: Kent Vanderwaal Subject: Re: angled pitot tube question I'm new to the forum, I've been reading the TIGHAR web site for the good part of the year but I've tired of waiting for the forum highlights to show up and decided to jump into the fray. First, kudos to the entire crew, the research and web site are great reads and very fascinating. It really brings the past to light. My question is this: The captured frame from the takeoff film footage on the page http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Research/Bulletins/26_Antenna2/26_Antenna2.html shows what looks like a pitot tube angled back from it's original position. This captured frame is taken from the film before the plane reaches that "Y" shaped tree and after the puff of dust. Compare with the photo from page http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Research/Bulletins/20_LostAntenna/20_LostAntenna.html that shows the plane as it just about reachs the "Y" shaped tree. It appears that there is a visible pitot tube that is in the original position. The photo analsys of this shot only discusses the belly antenna, did they look at the pitot tube? Is it just the other, unbent pitot tube that we're seeing? My dad had a tail dragger years ago (Taylorcraft) and it's easy to imagine a heavy, taxiing, bouncing taildragger on a bumpy, rough strip bellying out in a dip. Thanks Kent Vanderwaal ************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome to the fray. That's the same photo you're seeing in both bulletins. The second one is just a blowup. It's not a frame captured from the film but a separate photo taken with a still camera. Captured frames from the film don't provide nearly enough resolution to see this kind of detail. Here's how it all went down. When I first saw the takeoff film I noticed the puff of dust and thought it looked very odd. Dust or water kicked up by the prop, or by a wheel? I looked at newsreel film of the Electra taking off from other runways, including a puddle-dotted runway at Oakland. Not at all like the event in the Lae film. What could it be? I then remembered the story about wire being found on the runway and wondered if what we were seeing might be associated with a loss of the belly antenna. Jeff Glickman at Photek agreed to look at the film, frame by frame, with forensic imaging software. His conclusion was that the antenna was there in the taxiing sequence but was not there in the takeoff sequence - now you see it, now you don't. Based on Jeff's conclusions I developed the hypothesis that the aft antenna mast had suffered a ground strike, probably during the turn around at the far end of the runway, and that the puff was the dragged mast snagging in the dirt and ripping the wire free. That was all in 1995. Just last year we got our hands on the still photo taken during the takeoff run and asked Jeff to look at it to see if he could confirm his earlier findings. We published his response in the first Lost Antenna bulletin. Jeff never looked at the pitot tube because I never noticed that it looked funny until just a month or so ago when somebody on the forum requested that we put up a higher resolution copy of the photo. The neat thing about the bent pitot is that you don't need to be a forensic imaging guru to see that it's bent. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:39:23 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Takeoff Distance Those interested in a quick approximate answer can estimate as follows: Five knots = 9.4 feet per second. The headwind will act on the airplane for a period equal to the time elapsed in the normal (no wind) takeoff roll, and will retard its progress (shorten the takeoff roll) by 9.4 feet for each second. Normal takeoff speed was about 65 mph - let's estimate about 100 mph @ 15,000 pounds. Average (air)speed (= ground speed with zero wind) throughout the roll would be (say) 50 to 60 mph. At 60 mph average, the 2900 foot no wind roll (as calculated by Birch) would take 33 seconds (2900/5280=.5492x60=32.95). At 50 mph average, the roll would take about 39.6 seconds. Multiplying the time by 9.4 gives the approximate reduction in distance. At 60 mph average, it would be about 310 feet; at a 50 mph average, about 372 feet. Call it 350 feet, plus or minus 20%, to allow for other factors and the rather sloppy math. ************************************************************************** From Ric And 2900 feet minus 350 feet is - wait for it - 2550 feet which matches Eric Chater's 850 yards and appears to be consistent with what is shown in the film. Your weight calculations are looking pretty good Birch. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:45:49 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Takeoff Distance My quick calculation was a little too quick. Five knots is 8.4 fps, not 9.4. This makes the distance reduction 277 feet at 60 mph average, and about 333 at 50 mph. Make it 300 feet, plus or minus. My apologies. ************************************************************************ From Ric "Measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe." - Capt. Skeet Gifford Whadya wanna bet we find that a slight downslope to the runway gives us the other 50 feet? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:49:07 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Lady Be Good Bill Leary wrote: <> You certainly have a laudable goal, here, but pending its realization it appears you need to do something practical (now) to prevent the artifact from being parted-out in the night. I've told you what I would do to stop this, what do you suggest? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Rottweilers? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:04:09 EDT From: Ric Subject: U.S. consul in Fiji Picking up a previous thread - Tom King has recently gotten a response from the State Department to his inquiry about the "Mr. Abbott" who was supposedly the American Consul in Fii at the time of the bones affair in 1940/41. Dear Mr. King: Winthrop Abbott (born April 27, 1891) was U.S. Consul at Suva, Fiji Islands, from 1941 to 1943, after the post had been re-established. Biographical information may be found about him in the 1950 Biographic Register. His last Foreign Service assignment was as Consul General at Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1949. This office has no information about his activities after his retirement on April 30, 1950. A Commercial Agency had been established at Suva in 1896. It was upgraded to a Consulate in 1906, but was closed April 16, 1910. It was reopened in 1928, closed again in 1922, reopened March 18, 1941, and closed again December 31, 1948. It was re-established October 8, 1958, and upgraded to an Embassy November 1, 1971. Evan M. Duncan Office of the Historian Bureau of Public Affairs Department of State *************************************************************************** The dates are interesting. There was no American Consul in Fiji when the bones were first discovered and the possibility of informing the Americans was first discussed in October 1940. The consulate was opened just four days before the bones arrived in Suva on March 22, 1941. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:08:04 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: pronunciation of Gallagher Greetings Mr. Gallagher I hope you will find us as intriguing and interesting as we find you and your ancestor. One question for you. I think we have all developed our own mental version of your namesake, Gerald. Part of my mental image that bothers me is that I am not sure just how to properly pronounce the name "Gallagher". I would bet that if you polled the Forum, several pronunciations would turn up. The forum is a great way to pass information around, but sound and pronunciations are not well transmitted via E-mail. I have heard Ric's version which he pronounces in a nice Irish brogue as if there were no second "G", but I suspect most of us have Americanized it in our minds with two hard "G's". I'd like to hear from you how you and your family pronounce your surname. It will help fill in my mental picture of your ancestor Gerald. Welcome to the Forum, and TIGHAR's AE project. Andrew McKenna 1045CE ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:12:57 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit You can go to the LBG crash site, but you'll need a lot of money, a lot of determination, a passport welcomed by the Libyans and once you get there a lot of imagination since the wreckage has already been relocated by the Libyan government. Why do people shoot from the hip without getting the facts straight in their minds first? I guess that's how we learn. Nonetheless, recovering LBG is, I think, a worthy pursuit for someone or some organization. Once done, a visit to the remains will surely evoke the spirit of its story and one can memorialize all one has the capacity to do. ************************************************************************** From Ric I must confess to some puzzlement over this talk of recovering the Lady Be Good. I thought the Libyans did that. As for the crash site, now that the wreckage is gone and unless someone has had the foresight to take precise GPS coordinates, it's now lost forever. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:14:04 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Fact-Finding Trip to Lae? > From Janet Whitney > ... why not go Lae and try to interview the people and the > descendants of the people who were on the scene between > the time Earhart and Noonan arrived at Lae and time they > departed Lae for Howland? Perhaps this statement shows us where Janet's misunderstanding is. Janet, TIGHAR is not engaged in an endeavor to research every detail of the world flight attempt and to discover if it was a causal factor in the flight's failure. The reason for that failure is secondary, I presume, to determining where the flight ended. As Ric advises us in his message welcoming us to the forum, "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." Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:22:27 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae > From Ric > > Excellent! Okay, who do we have in San Diego? OK, OK. I can take a hint!!! I'm in San Diego, but I won't attempt getting onto the UCSD campus except as a last resort. Randy's last visit there must have been quite a while ago. The parking situation there now is completely hopeless unless one is on faculty or is enrolled as a student. I just spoke with my local map dealer, and he will research sources for a topo map of Lae. When one is located, I'll buy it and donate it to TIGHAR. THAT's how bad the parking is at UCSD. LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric That's pretty bad. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:24:04 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit > From Hue Miller > And, of course, no inappropriate, out of context cover or shelter. Just > a fence. I feel the same way about the Sphinx, and Pyramids and temples: > that way they remain unsullied, and future generations down the line can > always refer to photos, when the originals are reduced to just humps on the > surface. We can't save everything, and eventually the things we do save will have to be given up to make room for other things. I think that, during the time that historical items are available to be viewed, they should remain in their original context. The original context provides a much better memorial of, or tribute to, whatever the event may have been. With today's technology we can produce some very educational archaeological documentary films that will provide much better long-term educational benefit than would a wrecked B-24 in a museum. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:25:16 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: AE's flying experience You also have to realize that AE had a lot of experience with long distance flights involving extremely loaded aircraft. While each aircraft behaves differently, one does learn a lot flying each aircraft. Experience in short field take offs in one type does lend experience for dealing with the next type and so on with each type of take off and landing. Different conditions have their own characteristics (ie landing on wet runways increases landing distance whether its in a J-3 Cub or a DC-3). LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:28:52 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Lady Be Good Ric wrote: << Rottweilers?>> Cute nonanswer that speaks volumes. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Volume 1: It's a real problem for which I don't have a good answer. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:39:54 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Lady Be Good > From Chris Kennedy > > Bill Leary wrote: >> The point I'm driving at, is that educated people don't pillage. > > You certainly have a laudable goal, here, but pending its realization > it appears you need to do something practical (now) to prevent the > artifact from being parted-out in the night. Of course. As with many things, there are immediate needs and long term ones. It seems to be that we (humans, not us TIGHAR's specifically) have a really hard time investing in the far future. Things being what they are, and will be for some time (forever?) compromises must be made between ideals and reality. > I've told you what I would do to stop this, what do you suggest? In generalities (specific cases can vary) there is a need to either recover the artifact, or restrict access to it. Or, I suppose, accept that it's going to be vandalized/salvaged/parted out. Partially, I guess, it depends on how easy it is to savage the artefact. Inaccessablity isn't sufficient. We have a similar debate to this one from time to time in the Titanic news group (alt.history.ocean-lineres.titanic). There's no clear general answer. As to the Lady Be Good specifically, I think the only real answer was recovery, though I'm sorry to see that it had to be done. I've read up on this, as it appears you have too. The thing was being taken to bits. I just hope that they did a serious archeological site mapping before they moved it. It's location and how it got there was part of it's story. BUT... if there had been some workable way to protect it in situ, I'd have preferred that. > From Ric > > Rottweilers? Pit bulls. Cheaper to maintain, and harder to stop. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:40:50 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Lady Be Good > From Chris Kennedy > ... you need to do something practical (now) to prevent the > artifact from being parted-out in the night. I've told you what > I would do to stop this, what do you suggest? Mark it as being something greater than junk. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:11:40 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Lae Takeoff Since this is September 2000 I'd like to add to Ric's comment that in September 1940 -which is remembered in England this year- young lads straight from regular flying training are known to have joined the Battle of Britain with as little 10 to 20 hours total time on the Spitfires they flew. Which was considerably less than the type time AE had in the Lockheed 10A. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:12:25 EDT From: Subject: Re: Photographs as Evidence From Herman De Wulf To Margot Still Do you mean it wasn't Lenin who decided who was allowed later to be seen near him in the pictures taken during and after the 1917 revolution ? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:13:54 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Takeoff Distance Also, take-off distance is published in the Pilot's Notes and pilots should be familiar with their aircraft's take-off performance. General aviation pilots tend to rely more on rule of thumbs than airliner pilots who calculate everything (or have it calculated for them). As a rule, taking off from grass one should add 15% to the published take-off roll on a surfaced runway. However, conditions can vary from one airfield to another and according to the season. Over here, after days of rain it is wise to add 25 % to the published figure. And in winter many grass fields are simply closed because they have become soggy. Airplanes are known to have crashed because they simply couldn't build up speed for that reason. Anyway, the second rule of thumb here is that all flying 1. has to be done from an official airfield (no backyard flying is allowed here) and 2. leagally a general aviation airfield or airstrip has to be 600 meters (2,000 ft) to get an operator'slicense. And that is enough for the average single engine general aviation a/c. In the Thirties, when most airports had grass runways anyway, their were 1,000 meters (3,000 ft) available, which was enough for aircraft like the DC-2/3 or Lockheed 10 generation. Herman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:14:52 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Photographs as Evidence Margot Still wrote, >I can produce a photograph that if you laid it side >by side with a photograph taken in 1937, the only way you could tell them >apart would be by dating the paper it was printed on. I challenge Margot to do that. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:17:22 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Welcome Mr. Gallagher Serendipity strikes again/hard work pays off/grow not weary in well doing for in due season you shall reap... Pick your platitude, this seems a marvelous development. Welcome Gerry, Many of us here have come to admire your famous (to us) namesake far more than we do Amelia. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:18:18 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: U.S. consul in Fiji > From Ric > The dates are interesting. For another reason too: > It was reopened in 1928, closed again in 1922... I wonder if should be "...reopened in 1922, closed again in 1928..." I don't suppose it really matters though. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:46:25 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: pronunciation of Gallagher Thank you for your kind email and welcome. It is very much appreciated. Gallagher pronunciation ... silent secong g ... or GALLA - HER. I note that Americans usually pronounce it GALLA - GER but Gerald would have been adamant that his name was GALLA - HER. Yes, indeed I am intrigued in regards to the Earhart twist to the story of Gerald's time at his post in the Phoenix Island Group. I am sure he would be equally intrigued that so many are interested in him 59 years after his untimely death. I look forward to working along with TIGHAR closely to research and hopefully prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bones that Gerald Bernard Gallagher (galla - her) found on Gardner Island (Niku) are indeed those of Amelia Earhart. Please, (All TIGHAR Members) give me some time to brush up on the Amelia Earhart saga, facts and scenario of events. My quest to research and find a family member that was, until now, simply a word of mouth family story of a long lost relative who worked in the South Pacific has now taken on an aura of unbelievable intrigue! Has anyone come across any information relating to a Sir Hugh Clifford? I have some family references that associate him (Sir Hugh) with Gerald's father Dr. Gerald Hugh Gallagher. Sir Hugh Clifford later become the Governor of Malaysia/Singapore. Gerald's Father would have served under Sir Harry Clifford in Togoland (Western Africa) trying to tie up how Gerald git involved with the Colonial Service ... perhaps influenced by Sir Hugh Clifford? Anyway thank you for the email. I promise to keep a back seat as I fully understand that your initial quest is Amelia Earhart and my goals are related to a branch of the family tree ... but it is fabulous that the two have through time become entwined. Thanks Again .... Gerry Gallagher. *************************************************************************** From Ric Gerald's paperwork in the WPHC files indicates that his father, Gerald Hugh, was a physician in the "West African Medical Service" which agrees with your information that he served under Sir Harry Clifford. Sir Hugh Clifford is not a name we've come across. The series of events that resulted in Gerald joining the Colonial Service has long intrigued and puzzled us. In the context of a debate over whether Gerald might properly be termed a "martyr" I recently wrote a posting to the forum in which I made some observations and engaged in some speculation that you should see. I've reproduced that posting below: ------------------- It's very apparent from the official record that Gallagher quite literally, and one could argue, almost deliberately worked himself to death. He often didn't take advantage of the medical care that was available to him and he demonstrated a wanton disregard for his own health and safety. His final decline when he returned to Gardner was precipitated by his disregard for Macpherson's instructions in "swallowing some purgative tablets which he was in the habit of using and which I had refused to let him have." I think Gallagher was a "martyr" in the same sense that religious martyrs actually seek to achieve some kind of redemption by sacrificing themselves for a cause. Gerald Gallagher was a Roman Catholic - very unusual in the Colonial Service. He was the elder son and namesake of a prominent physician in government service. He distinguished himself at the best schools (Stonyhurst and Cambridge) before beginning medical school at illustrious St. Bart's, but he only lasted one semester there before suddenly going to Ireland for a year to "study argiculture." He then applies for a posting in the Colonial Service and when he gets to the Pacific he throws himself into his work with a passion. The PISS becomes his crusade. He sounds to me like an overachiever who burned out, failed to follow in his father's footsteps, is ridden with guilt, and martyrs himself to achieve redemption. He is Kipling's "White Man's Burden" taken to its ultimate extreme. -------------------- It would be very interesting to know whether the family can support or refute these speculations about why Gerald made such an abrupt change in his career course. Why did he drop out of medical school? His year in Ireland was spent at the farm of "Mr. G. Butler, Maiden Hall, Bennetts Bridge, Co. Kilkenny." Friend of the family perhaps? A letter from an older woman friend in Malvern, Ruby Margetts, suggests that Gerald might have ridden to hounds for a time. Did he pick up that pastime in Ireland? Might it have been in Ireland that he learned to fly? Questions, questions,.... LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:16:22 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae Parking at UCSD is bad, but there are visitor parking facilities, with a modest $5 fee or so. The real problem is once in the general area, getting to where you want to go! There is bus service to UCSD, or one can easily walk from the VA hospital. When I was there visiting Scripps Insitution of Oceanography, I got a VIP parking pass, allowing me to park in faculty spots. Cool, huh? BTW, my notes say that the map was made by the National Mapping Bureau, PO Box 5665, Boruku, PNG, 1983. Perhaps your local library can get it from UCSD via interlibrary loan. Sorry, but I didn't write down the UCSD filing number. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:17:59 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: U.S. consul in Fiji Ric wrote: <> So this is why Vaskess suggested that the Consul General in Sydney be contacted, rather than Abbott, who was not yet on station. Sir Ian (Mungo) Thomson's point, though, was that he recalled Sir Harry Luke and Abbott being great friends, and thought that surely they would have discussed the bones find. Maybe so, maybe not, but I'll see if I can get more information from the State Department. I'm REALLY impressed with their performance; it's not often you see such a responsive Federal agency. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:22:25 EDT From: Janet Powell Subject: Re: Please welcome Mr. Gallagher. Welcome Gerry... I too..., stumbled across the work of TIGHAR, whilst researching my family history. I too..., 'surfed the net', and found an 'outside interest' in Gardner Island, (In particular the story relating to the SS Norwich City.) I too..., got involved with TIGHAR as a result, - and I'm sure that Ric & Co will not blush too much, when I say: I've found them not only to be determined in their efforts to uncover the truth, but they've also shown considerable respect for the memory of others. I've found them extremely helpful in my quest, and most appreciative of my contributions. And I'm delighted to be a member. Happy Searching Gerry... Love To Mother, :) Janet Powell #2225 ************************************************************************** From Ric For those who may not know, Janet Powell is the great niece of Daniel Hamer, master of S.S. Norwich City. It is through Janet's efforts that we discovered that when the Norwich City survivors were rescued a cache of provisions was left on the island for the use of any future unfortunate castaways. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:24:21 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Lady Be Good Maybe I should say something about the question of how to keep stuff from being ripped off/vandalized, etc; Paul Chattey, Tim Smith, and some of the other archaeo-TIGHARs may want to do so too. The question of whether something can or should be preserved in place comes up all the time in the field that Paul, Tim and I practice in, which rather unhelpfully calls itself "cultural resource management." If you're the Forest Service and you have an Indian rock art site, or an old mine, or a prehistoric burial mound, or a wrecked airplane, what do you do to preserve it, or how do you decide NOT to preserve it? Bottom line is that it's a case-by-case decision, involving balancing lots of factors more or less unique to each situation, and talking it over with everybody who's interested (We have very detailed guvvermint procedures for doing this), but here are some examples: * Planting poisonous, prickly, or otherwise discouraging stuff around the thing; * Piling a whole bunch of dirt or rocks over the top of it. * Closing off and obliterating roads and trails that take people there. * Fencing, gating, signing (likely to backfire). * Volunteer site stewards who check up on the place periodically. * In military training areas, designating the place as a minefield or nuclear hazard zone, and taking points off if someone wanders onto it. * Giving up and recovering it via archeological research. * Education -- which really DOES often work, and work best. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:26:29 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Takeoff Distance > From Ric > > Ross is right in a technical sense. In everyday practice, experienced > general aviation pilots do not perform complex calculations prior to every > takeoff. Kick the tires, light the fires, 60/40 she'll fly, let's go for it. Maybe we people in Australia are just fussy about knowing we'll get: 1. off the ground 2. back on the ground 3. do it all without breaking ourselves or the airplane... But Ric is right to a point, the bigger the aeroplane, the less likely these checks are made for destinations you are familiar with in many cases. In Australia however, we do tend to take pre-flight calculations pretty seriously, especially if we are, for example, taking a Cessna 206 with a load of tyres (tires over there?) and heavy metal parts into a short gravel strip in the middle of nowhere on a hot day! Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:27:48 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Machu Picchu, DE The bad (even by Fox standards) animated series "Futurama" had an episode where the cast traveled to the "tourist planet" where, right there on the beach, were the pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, the Easter Island statues, Stonehenge, and Mount Rushmore. The Simpsons episode where Charles Lindbergh knocks off AE because his wife is jealous of her is much better. Love to mother, who always said that too much TV would rot my mind. Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:29:14 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae Just finished a phone call from a friend who hasn't flown out of Lae since 1975. He suggested from memory that any slope that is there is probably no more than 1/2 a degree. While that doesn't sound a lot considering some of the airfields in Niugini (as it is now known) run down the sides of mountains, if it is in fact that much of a slope, that means a downhill run of 5 feet in 600. (Please correct me if my math is wrong, but I seem to recall 1 degree being something to do with 1 in 60). I would venture that 1/2 degree is "excessive" and am awaiting reference to actual documents relating to this. Imagine, even 1/4 degree over the 850 yards take of roll would mean the Electra was some 20 feet lower when it left the ground, which is quite a nice down hill roll and would have made the heavy laden take-off a lot easier. More as it comes to hand. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:30:42 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Cambridge Analyzer Thoughts >> So Janet, we don't have MTBF data for the Cambridge unit, and I suspect the chance of running across such information is quite remote. I personally agree with you that it would be very interesting to have and with enough research might even be acquired.<< One of the reasons I asked about the cartridge was that I seem to recall the right hand one was replaced at Lae as a part of the service. If it was the "active" part of the analyzer, perhaps the MTBF becomes a little less relevant (due to the main sensor device being replaced as a consumable). Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:34:33 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Please welcome Mr. Gallagher Excuse me if I am a little slow, but what is the relationship? Are we saying that Irish was a brother of Gerard's grandfather? LTM Christian D *************************************************************************** From Ric No. Irish had only one brother, Terrence, who was killed during the war. Gerry is not sure exactly how he is related to Gerald but he should be able to sort that out soon. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:46:42 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit > From Ric > As for the crash site, now that the wreckage is gone and unless someone has > had the foresight to take precise GPS coordinates, it's now lost forever. The Rodriguez book on the LBG sez it may rain there once in 7 or more years. If need be, i'm sure marks on the surface will indicate the LBG's landing path for many years yet. When the oil explorers found the LBG, Italian vehicle ruts from WW2 were still very apparent. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:53:12 EDT From: John Buontempo Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae OK, here is the current info on Lae (Papua New Guinea). The following info is according to the 1999-2000 AC-U-KWIK. ICAO ID: AYNZ IATA ID: LAE Location: S06 34.2 E146 43.6 Rwy Length: 7992' (Now) Rwy Width: 98' (Now) Elevation above Sea Level: 230' Time Zone: UTC+10 Fuel Available: AVGAS and JET For what it's worth -- 2 instrument approaches -- VOR/DME. I think the runway heading is 15/33. I am still trying to find the runway slope. Feel sure that it may have changed somewhat during/after extension of rwy. Will continue to research slope and get back to post a correction! Hope this helps somewhat. John B. *************************************************************************** From Ric 15/33 is correct. I can read the runway number on the approach photo. Sounds like they've really extended the runway since the photos we have were taken but I'm more than a little surprised to see a field elevation of 230 feet. I have to assume that the Huon Gulf is at sea level and that embankment at the end of the runway might be 23 feet but it sure ain't 230 feet. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:11:47 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Treatment of Janet W. Jim Van Hare wrote: >It's one thing to critically discuss her statements and accept or reject them with >reasoned logic, but what I'm reading in posted messages from other forum >contributors borders on personal attacks against her. I think we need to step >back and look at ourselves here. I agree with Jim VH. If you cannot say something nice about someone do not say anything at all. The attacks on Janet are getting old and tired and no longer (and never did) have a meaningful place on this forum. Janet, in the end, is standing above it all while those that attacked her (either in jest or otherwise) look silly. LTM Kenton S. *************************************************************************** From Ric As moderator, the responsibility to keep ad hominem attacks off the forum is ultimately mine. I'll try to do a better job. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:29:39 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Lae Takeoff & Brave Young Lads For Herman De Wulf; What you say may be true about the brave souls who defended Britain from the Nazi assault in 1940. But it's also true the majority didn't come back-a great many didn't survive the 1st sortie. It's being argued that AE had somewhere around 300 hours in the Electra when she disappeared. For some aviators, 300 hours multiengine time can make them a decent multimotor pilot. For others, they aren't any safer at 300 hours than they were at the beginning. Proficiency is one aspect..Judgement is quite another. Years ago, when I was a full time flight instructor I did my best to give students the best training I could to the best of my ability to teach. The one thing I couldn't teach was judgement. You either have it or you don't. I still tried to impart a sense of the word by example and lecturing future pilots to be conservative and always leave yourself a way out or plan B or C. I never go into a flight, even a local "once around the patch" without knowing in my mind what I'm going to do normal & also the abnormal should it arise. Plan A is your destination, plan B is your alternate or diversion, and usually plan C is the Abort. I stand by my opinion questioning her proficiency in the Electra knowing it is a demanding aircraft to fly, and I'm just not convinced she knew what she was doing in that thing. Her judgement I don't think anyone will disagree, was just plain not there. If she had any, it was diluted by the glory, George Palmer Putnam, and the news cameras. While the worldflight attempt at that time was dangerous for any aviator on the planet to have tried , I cannot believe she was ever really up to the enormous quest she put herself into. Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric In a former life, part of my job was to be an aviation insurance underwriter - that is, I had to determine what pilot was insurable in what airplane and at what price. In most fields of insurance such criteria are set by actuarial tables but in aviation the "law of large numbers" is not reliable because the numbers just aren't large enough. Aviation underwriting is, therefore, a judgement call and many underwriters are, themselves, pilots who call upon their own experience in deciding what is reasonable and what is not. Total time and time in type are by no means the only factors considered. Age, ratings, accident record, and what kind of flying the person has been doing (mostly local? cross-country? instrument?) are major factors. On a difficult call I always asked myself, "Would I let this person take my kids for a ride in this airplane?" Bottom line: I would not have put Amelia in that beast for love nor money. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:30:44 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Takeoff Performance My hat's off to ya Wombat. I'll fly with you anytime. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:32:24 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Please welcome Mr. Gallagher Greetings Janet, It is an amazing world were the lives and times of so many isolated incidents come together and create history! I would be interested to know where the S.S. Norwich City was built. There is a good chance that, like many ships of that era, it may have been built on the Clyde in Scotland. I am only a few miles away from the Maritime Museums in Glasgow and Irvine. If indeed it was built here then deck plans, scale models, and other paperwork relating to it's construction may be available .... just a hunch. I am sure you would have details on where it was built. Fully agree with you on TIGHAR, Ric and Tom ... Very learned and helpful organization and individuals! Thanks for your kind email! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:39:57 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Photographs as Evidence Herman, I would be happy to accept your challenge except I am going into the hospital for surgery and will be out of work for about a month. I am not slithering away from the opportunity to prove my point, I simply won't have access to the equipment I need for quite some time. Hold that thought though. I'll be back. LTM, MSTILL #2332CE ************************************************************************** From Ric Your challenger is William, not Herman, but I'm sure we all wish you well with your surgery. Hurry back. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:43:40 EDT From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Photographs as Evidence My apologies William. I meant to say "William". My fingers just typed "Herman". That's what better living through chemistry will do for you. (I just had my medication changed yesterday.) LTM, MSTILL #2332CE ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:53:18 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit > From Wes Smith > You can go to the LBG crash site, but you'll need a lot of money, > a lot of ... imagination since the wreckage has already been relocated > by the Libyan government. It was my understanding that we were using the Lady Be Good figuratively for the purpose of discussing how historical sites should be managed, not that we were discussing what should be done specifically with the Lady Be Good. In that context, it doesn't matter if the Lady Be Good never even existed. However, an historical site doesn't need to be easily accessible (i.e., the Titanic), unless accessibility is the only reason for preservation. > Why do people shoot from the hip without getting the > facts straight in their minds first? I guess that's how we learn. I'll refrain from reducing this to a brawl. > Nonetheless, recovering LBG is, I think, a worthy pursuit... It may very well be, but I think we should always start with the premise that historical sites should remain undisturbed, except for the purpose of an investigation or research. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:59:56 EDT From: Janet whitney Subject: Pratt & Whitney 75th Anniversary Web Pages Several Earhart items can be found on Pratt & Whitney's 75th Anniversary Web pages. The address is: http://www.pratt-whitney.com/features/75th_anniversary/piston_era/index.html Janet Whitney ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Janet. The 1935 article by AE at http://www.prattwhitney.com/features/75th_anniversary/piston_era/articles.earhart.html is especially interesting in that she describes using her radio on the Mexico City/Newark flight in the Vega with no problems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:25:21 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: preflight calculations >From Ric > >Ross is right in a technical sense. In everyday practice, experienced >general aviation pilots do not perform complex calculations prior to every >takeoff. Kick the tires, light the fires, 60/40 she'll fly, let's go for it. I think the 60/40 is a bit exaggerated. But if I have been flying a type of plane for some time, and know by experience that I am several hundred pounds below gross, am familiar with the airport and the flight conditions that I will be in, I don't make the calculations because I know from past experience that I am in the envelope - if I don't have the experience to draw on, I do the calculations. Sometimes I do the calculations just as an exercise to keep me fresh. Unfortunately, some people don't do the calculations when they should. We had a recent crash at Hobby Field here in Houston with a twin that was 1) overloaded and 2) the pilot failed to remove the control lock prior to take off. The post crash inspection showed that the control lock was bent due to the forces put on it by the pilot who tried to get it out of the stall and that the pilot died PRIOR to impact from a heart attack. The other 5 people on board died in the crash and ensuing fire. The aircraft might carry 6 adults with minimal fuel and no baggage, but they topped the tanks and carried all kinds of baggage. They were departing from a major airport with concrete runways being used by jets, so they had plenty of room and apparently got airborne, but the control lock must have stymied attempts to get the nose down and prevent the stall that followed at about 300 feet off the ground. Its always a shame when a pilot makes a mistake, but to take 5 other innocent victims with you is a disgrace. Maybe he died of embarrassment - at least he should have. However, with a heart attack, it may indicate a state of poor health that decreased his judgement too much, leading to the errors that followed. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:37:23 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Takeoff Distance > From Oscar Boswell > Make it 300 feet, plus or minus. My apologies. > ************************************************************************ > From Ric > Whadya wanna bet we find that a slight downslope to the runway gives us the > other 50 feet? I don't think it would take much of a slope. Using the reference cited below, and throwing in 80.66ft/s for take-off speed (55mph), 2550ft for actual roll, 2500ft for necessary roll, I get an angle of 0.46 degrees as being the necessary downslope. But I am only using the formula without a complete understanding of the engineering involved, so someone please check it. A LOW COST METHOD FOR GENERATING TAKEOFF GROUND ROLL CHARTS FROM FLIGHT TEST DATA by Maj Russell E. Erb, Department of Aeronautics, United States Air Force Academy In this work he cites Herrington's method for runway slope correction (Herrington, Russel M., Major, USAF, et al, Flight Test Engineering Handbook, AF Technical Report 6273, AFFTC, Edwards AFB, California, 1966). L=S/(1+(2gs*sin(a))/(v^2)) L=takeoff distance corrected to level runway S=measured takeoff distance on sloped runway g=acceleration of gravity a=runway slope angle (not percent slope), measured from horizontal (+ for uphill, - for downhill) V=liftoff ground speed Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:44:52 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: AE's Proficiency in the 10E Before we get too carried away with AE's lack of proficiency as a multi-engine pilot in a demanding airplane, let's remember that we have zero proof that that lack of proficiency caused her loss. (And we should at least give passing attention to Kelly Johnson's remark that "she was a good pilot when I knew her.") The most poignant thing to me is reading her attempts to tell others what she wanted in the way of radio assistance. She knew how to write, and to express herself, but when faced with a cable form she lost that ability: "Report by voice not code especially while flying ..." she sent. What was her recipient supposed to make of that? "We cannot send or understand Morse code" was what she should have said. It's even one word(and 56 cents?) shorter. *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting point. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:49:18 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit Who wants to brawl? I'm interested in enlightened discourse relative to the recovery of historic aircraft. Isn't that the purpose of TIGHAR? Is the LBG akin to AE in that respect? If we left historic sites undisturbed, how could we recover anything for research and/or posterity? Mr. Westlake would have us replace the contents of King Tut's tomb no doubt. I eagerly await the discovery and recovery of the Electra and even of AE and Noonan. They and their craft deserve a museum/monument for all to see and admire. Whoever puts it together deserves gratitude and yes reward. Profit is not a dirty deed or motive. Even our beloved USAF Museum which doesn't charge admission makes a proper and healthy override from ancillary activities. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:51:15 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Pratt & Whitney 75th Anniversary Web Page Refresh my memory - she flew this flight in the Vega, right? It's interesting that she spoke well of the Lear radio (Lear-O-Scope) which was used for DF - homing in on AM stations (do I remember this right?). I have speculated why it was never installed in the Electra (you recall that there was a spot clearly marked for it on the panel template), except that perhaps there was a shortage of AM radio stations over the areas she would have been flying (particularly into Howland). The bottom line is, she certainly seems to have had some ability to use such equipment, and with reasonable success. ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, this flight was made in the same Vega she flew from Hawaii to Califonia. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:55:09 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Pratt & Whitney 75th Anniversary Web Pages To Janet, Are you related to the second half of Pratt and Whitney and thus your knowledge of the engines,etc. ************************************************************************** From Ric You know Ron, if I was Janet I'd probably make you regret that you started asking about the significance of surnames. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:12:28 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit Wes Smith says: >I eagerly await the discovery and recovery of the Electra and even of AE and >Noonan. Well, let's think about that. Assuming that what we find are lots of little pieces of airplane, the most sensible thing to do is probably to put them someplace where people can see them -- i.e. in a museum. But if we find a big hunk of wreckage that can be interpreted in place, it might very well be best to leave it there. Best for Kiribati, among others, as a tourist destination. Or suppose we find the bones of AE and FN. What's the best thing to do with them? Or suppose the Seven Site turns out to be their camp. Do we excavate it all and bring it home (assuming the Kiribati authorities allow it), or do we leave it where it is and help develop a plan for in-place interpretation? If we bring everything home, what opportunities does Kiribati miss for in-place interpretation? If we leave it there, what danger is there of vandalism? The fact is that if we find AE, FN, and/or the Electra, we and Kiribati are going to have to face those kinds of decisions, and they're not cut and dried; there are a bunch of factors to be weighed. Presumably the same could be said for the LBG. TKing *************************************************************************** From Ric Although these kinds of question are definitely in the realm of poultry enumeration, they need to be thought about and discussed. I agree with Toms' comments about the recovery - or not - of aircraft wreckage. As with the Lady Be Good, the historical significance does not reside in the aircraft itself but in what happened to it and to its crew. Recovery of at least some components would probably be necessary if only for positive identification. If all that's left is a scattering a small pieces that could be easily carried off (once you know where to look), it would probably be unrealistic and irresponsible not to recover them to a protected environment. Human remains are a different issue. Once positively identified, I would think that the ultimate disposition of human remains would be up to the next of kin. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:39:44 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: U.S. consul in Fiji > From Tom King > Thomson's point, though, was that he recalled Sir Harry Luke and Abbott > being great friends, and thought that surely they would have discussed the bones > find. Perhaps Abbott was resident in Suva for some time prior to the consulate being re-opened? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:42:02 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae > From Ric > > 15/33 is correct. I can read the runway number on the approach photo. > Sounds like they've really extended the runway since the photos we have were > taken but I'm more than a little surprised to see a field elevation of 230 > feet. I have to assume that the Huon Gulf is at sea level and that > embankment at the end of the runway might be 23 feet but it sure ain't 230 > feet. There are TWO airfields associated with Lae. One on the water's edge, the one we are interested in, and one "of about 8000 foot" built in "the 50's by the Royal Australian Air Force". (Information passed to me yesterday by phone). The long one was built as a "strategic strip" at Nadzab, and was intended to supplant Lae proper as the commercial strip. Apparently that never happened. Nadzab would be the one quoted as: > ICAO ID: AYNZ IATA ID: LAE > Location: S06 34.2 E146 43.6 > Rwy Length: 7992' (Now) Rwy Width: 98' (Now) > Elevation above Sea Level: 230' > Time Zone: UTC+10 > Fuel Available: AVGAS and JET > > For what it's worth -- 2 instrument approaches -- VOR/DME. The story with "our" strip is that there's a "big hill at one end and the sea at the other". I am awaiting more details from two sources (one who flies out of there regularly) but no reply yet. I have been assured that whatever slope there is, however small, does run down to the sea. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Ah, that makes sense. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:43:10 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Lady Be Good exhibit > From Wes Smith > If we left historic sites undisturbed, how could we recover > anything for research and/or posterity? Perhaps you sent that before reading my statement: " ... I think we should always start with the premise that historical sites should remain undisturbed, except for the purpose of an investigation or research." which was in the message you are replying to above, and: "Each historical item/event should be evaluated individually as to whether it is better left alone or relocated." which would cover any 'posterical' necessities. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:04:44 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Lae Takeoff & Brave Young Lads Two things: > Bottom line: I would not have put Amelia in that beast for love nor money. > LTM, > Ric I think that's a little unfair as a judgement, since none of us actually remember flying with her. and > What you say may be true about the brave souls who defended Britain > from the Nazi assault in 1940. But it's also true the majority didn't > come back-a great many didn't survive the 1st sortie. A lot of that was not due to bad flying - the weather conditions were often appalling, and people on the ground and in the air were shooting big guns at them. The same applies to many poor German lads who flew to protect their homeland. While we may not like the Nazis and what they did, for a huge number of Germans it was all about "answering the call" regardless of their personal feelings. (Remember Vietnam). Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I never flew for the Vaterland in Vietnam so I don't have to deal with that one, but I should clarify my remarks about underwriting Earhart's flying. My point was that, as a trained and experienced aviation underwriter, I would not have insured Earhart in the Lockheed 10E (period. Forget the World Flight) regardless of premium. No, I have never flown with her but neither have I flown with most of the thousands of pilots I have approved or disapproved in various aircraft. Her total time was probably okay (ballpark 2,000 hours?) and all of it was tailwheel time. At the time she started flying the Electra she had (as far as we know) minimal to zero experience with adjustable propellers, retractable landing gear, and more than one engine. By the time she was ready for the second World Flight attempt she probably had around 150 hours in type, but she had wrecked the airplane in a pilot-error accident. She had BAD RISK written all over her. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:08:55 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae Re the Lae runway, I found an interesting color picture at: http://www.upcpng.org/slides/Lae/9.htm This seems to show the final portion of the runway with the sea in the background. The perspective is deceiving as regards the water and land. But I do agree that 23 feet seems to be a much more reasonable estimate of it's location above sea level. LTM, Bill Conover *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bill. Kind of a wierd picture. Apparently the place fell into disuse for several years. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:45:01 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Anyone Attending the Olympics? If most of the Caucasians in and around Lae were from Australia in 1937, perhaps they or their descendants can be looked up in Australian telephone directories. I'm not a direct descendant of Amos Whitney (co-founder of Pratt & Whitney). Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric It would help if we knew their names. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:08:12 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: AE's Proficiency in the 10E Oscar Boswell cited that Amelia wrote, > "Report by voice not code especially while flying ..." > But probably meant... > "We cannot send or understand Morse code" Ego. A book-selling, celebrity "aviatrix" attempting a nominally dangerous equatorial circumnavigation of the globe in 1937 in a sophisticated (for the time) aircraft was probably not anxious to state plainly that she didn't know Morse code. This would be like an astronaut admitting that he couldn't solve a simple algebra problem. She and Noonan must have both been at least a little apprehensive about their weakness with code, and perhaps over-confident about their ability to navigate without it in an emergency. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps, but she and Noonan were certainly not bashful about telling the folks at Lae that they were morsely challenged. AE was a romantic and her communication style reflected her view of the world. It made for some nice images but sometimes got in the way of actually getting her message across. How many people, for example, understood her reference when she began a press release sent from Lae with "Denmark's a prison"? You won't even find that in Bartlett's. Amelia, who never completed any course in higher education, pulled the quote out of her head and assumed that everyone would know what she meant. On the off chance that some forum subscribers don't have it memorized, here's the complete exchange from Act II, Scene II. Hamlet: "...What's the news?" Rosencranz: "None, my Lord, but that the world's grown honest." Hamlet: "Then is doomsday near. But your news is not true. Let me question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?" Guildenstern: "Prison, my Lord?" Hamlet: "Denmark's a prison." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:20:42 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Lae Gallery At one time, I place a photo up on my Web site showing an Electra over Howland Island. It was brought to my attention that I did not mention Copyright ownership. Now I see the Lae Gallery, with a collection of photos, I suspect some of which TIGHAR did not acquire on their own. And, I don't see any Copyright ownership stated. Could you please state where you got these photos and who owns the copyrights! I may like to use some of them on my Web site as well! Don J. *************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps the text of the Research Bulletin didn't download for you or maybe you just forgot to read it, but in each case where we knew who had taken the picture we credited it in the text. We didn't use any photo that was copyright restricted. That's a rather different situation than you lifting a recently published photo from National Geographic without crediting it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:24:16 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Brave young lads << Since this is September 2000 I'd like to add to Ric's comment that in September 1940 -which is remembered in England this year- young lads straight from regular flying training are known to have joined the Battle of Britain with as little 10 to 20 hours total time on the Spitfires they flew. Which was considerably less than the type time AE had in the Lockheed 10A.>> Herman, I might add that one of those young lads in September of 1941, flying Spitfires and defending the Channel was a nineteen year old boy named John Gillespie McGee, Jr. He died in a mid air with another Spitfire on my Dad's birthday, December 11, 1941. His chute tangled and failed to open. Most of you may also recognize he was the author of "High Flight." Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric For Dennis McGee Think we should tell them? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:25:22 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Cambridge Analyzer For Ross DeVitt: Nothing in the material I have on the Cambridge system indicates that the "cartridge" or analysis cell was something that had to be replaced every so many hours of engine operation. Maintenance prescribed cleaning various parts, checking connections, stiction in the meter and so forth. In general, it seemed to prescribe fixing it if it wasn't working. The more I think about it, I wonder if MTBF was really a concept that engineers and technicians were aware of back in 1937. There certainly is no hint of it in the reference material I have on the Cambridge unit. Was this a sophistication that developed as a result of, or during World War II? Perhaps someone on the Forum can enlighten me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:38:52 EDT From: Jen Subject: Book reviews I'm new to the list but, I have read several books of Amelia Earhart. One of them was: "the search for Amelia Earhart" by, Fred Goerner. A book written obviously about AE her disappearance. If someone has read this book I would love to get someone's thoughts on it. Also if you could direct me to other AE books, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Jen ************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome Jen. You'll find a whole list of Earhart books and films along with brief reviews on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/film.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:26:32 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fact-Finding Trip to Lae? << The few we know about who are still alive are in Australia, not the independent nation of Papua New Guinea. >> Ric, my daughter lives in Sydney. Is there anyone she could contact who might help us? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I know of, I'm afraid. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:28:27 EDT From: Peter Boor Subject: Lady Be Good All this worrying about what happens to LBG, from my point of view, is meaningless, with respect to the real educational value that discovering her provided. When she was discovered, she provided a real life lesson for navigators, as anyone who knows her story should realize. Look at her navigational logs (in Dayton, where I saw them), and wonder why the crew continued to fly on their inbound heading to their field from their last known position for at least an hour after their projected ETA, and continued to look ahead for their destination (land). Then, thinking that their field was still ahead of them, they bailed out with over-water gear. Totally unreasonable, to still believe that their field was ahead of them. Work it out: the distance from the last fix to the destination, and add an hour. They couldn't fly that slow. And there were other ships in the same group that flew landfalls to negate the effects of the anticipated German jammer. And there was always Polaris, for latitude. As a former navigator, I always felt that the LBG lesson of unreasonableness should be a required part of any navigator's training. As I re-live that mission, my hair stands on end. Like you, I don't see AE and FN tooling about looking for someplace that they couldn't see (or find), with reasonable judgement. PMB #856C. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:30:32 EDT From: Nick Murray Subject: Re: Takeoff Distance Frank Westlake said: >I don't think it would take much of a slope. Using the reference cited >below, and throwing in 80.66ft/s for take-off speed (55mph), 2550ft for >actual roll, 2500ft for necessary roll, I get an angle of 0.46 degrees as >being the necessary downslope. But I am only using the formula without a >complete understanding of the engineering involved, so someone please check >it. I checked Frank's math, and I came up with an angle of 0.046 degrees, not 0.46. Solving the equation for the angle "a" results in: a = arcsin (V^2 * (S/L - 1)/2 * g * S) where L=takeoff distance corrected to level runway S=measured takeoff distance on sloped runway g=acceleration of gravity a=runway slope angle (not percent slope), measured from horizontal (+ for uphill, - for downhill) V=liftoff ground speed I am not a trained pilot, but a 0.046 degree downslope is about 2 feet over a 2500 feet distance. I am sure any downslope helps, but would a 2 foot drop really add that much to the performance during a takeoff? I also read through the paper that Frank references for this formula, and there are also corrections for wind, weight and air density. The paper also mentions that these formulae are for fixed pitch propellers, and additional corrections are required for constant speed propellers (engine RPM and brake horsepower). I would be cautious in taking part of the equation(s), and not using all of them together, as was obviously intended. Nick Murray #2356CE ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:05:12 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: Re: radio, etc. I am not a member of Tighar, but I've been a recipient of information through this forum for approx. 6 months. I first became interested in Amelia's disappearance while working throughout Micronesia 1970-72, during which time I read Fred Goerner's book and visited the so-called Amelia Earhart Jail in Saipan. Having heard of an Amelia Earhart Monument located on Oahu, I determined to visit the site when I was in Hawaii last June-July. It's located at one of the parking areas at the foot of Diamond Head along the Diamond Head Road. It's not really a monument; rather, a plaque set into a large boulder. The inscription reads: "Amelia Earhart -- first person to fly alone from Hawaii to North America January 11, 1935." Fascinated by this feat, I re-read Mary S. Lovell's book The Sound of Wings to see what she had to say about it. It seems that, previously, 10 pilots had lost their lives attempting such a flight, which covered a distance of over 2,500 miles (Hawaii to LA), almost the same distance, all over water, as that between Lae and Howland. If Amelia knew of those previous tragedies, her achievement is even more noteworthy. Interestingly, Amelia's flight was "the first in which a civilian airplane carried a two-way radio-telephone." The aforegoing does not, of course, offer any solution to her disappearance, but it does beg the question: If her 1935 radio equipment performed admirably -- and she was apparently satisfied with it -- why go for something new and shiny just because it's the latest on the market? In other words, if it wasn't broken, why fix it by obtaining new equipment with which she was unfamiliar for her circumnavigation of the globe, a much more hazardous flight? In fact, her 1935 radio-telephone was heard clearly enough in the United States for a hookup "throughout the night" for direct broadcasts to commercial radio stations informing the public that she was on her way. On another subject, I have been somewhat dismayed at the blatant denigration in the 2000 forum of Amelia's competence as a pilot in the 1930s, and I wonder how many armchair "researchers" would have had the guts to attempt what she did at that time in such flimsy aircraft.Such denigration does nothing to advance this forum; in fact, it detracts from its real purpose. Whether she was a good pilot or a bad one is irrelevant at this point in time. The fact is that she attempted a round-the-world flight, and that's all that need be said. Good or bad, she went! This brings me to the "off-topics" which taint this forum and must annoy the more serious recipients of your messages, who have to wade through dozens of e-mails, only to learn that they convey nothing meaningful. Many contributions seem to be written by wannabe comedians. While a certain amount of levity may have its place, the subject of learning more about Amelia's disappearance, and in fact finding out exactly where she went down, should be a matter of serious research. Anything else is a distraction to one's purpose. Finally, I am appalled by the attacks on Janet Whitney, who, apparently, is a serious researcher intent upon learning more about the Amelia Earhart saga. The fact that she is nonplussed by her attackers speaks volumes for her maturity, though she is only a university student. I wish her all the luck in the world, and suggest that those who have ganged up on her should back off and act their age. Let's make this forum a positive venue for advancement, otherwise such attacks could discourage the very person or persons who might yet come up with the answer. Bob Sarnia. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for your posting and for your views Bob. Earhart's use of radio on her Honolulu/Oakland and Mexico City/Newark flights seems to have been primarily to receive weather reports and make press announcements. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:06:29 EDT From: Bob Sarnia Subject: correction to "radio. etc." For "nonplussed" please read "unfazed." Sorry about that! Bob Sarnia ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:12:13 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: EGT gauge Concerning EGT gauge in the Electra So, it appears that if relying on the EGT gauge for fuel leaning the fuel consumption could have been higher than previously thought. However : 1. In the K. Johnson's recommandations of power settings, RPM etc. what is said (if anything) about leaning? 2. How was leaning taken into account in the calculation (or measurement) of fuel flow in the recommandations? In other words, what did AE had to do to obtain the recommanded fuel flows. Was she supposed to lean following EGT, and on which criteriae? 3. In the 10E how where the levers marked? In stages as in the C-47 for exemple (full rich, auto rich etc...), or there wasn't any marking and she was supposed to lean following EGT? 4. Anyway there was also a fuel flow gauge that would have allowed the computation of fuel flow against the theoreticall FF and compute the remaining possible flying time, and indicating the necessity of further leaning if she wanted to conserve her reserve. So, in other words, was was the real importance to have a very precise EGT gauge, to obtain the fuel flows given in the Johnson's recommandations, as there is no evidence that AE was doing anything else than following these recommandations ? Edgard *************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart did not have an EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) gauge. The Cambridge Exhaust Gas analyzer was a more elaborate device. You can read Kelly Johnson's recommendations for yourself at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Kelly_Johnson.html As far as I know the mixture levers for the 10E had no special features such as the C-47's "auto lean" position. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:21:39 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Earhart's ability Regarding the many comments that still are being expressed concerning AE's experience &/or lack of same, in piloting the Electra 10E, I've always found it curious that some of the worst commercial airline crashes that I read about, often involve pilots with lengthy flying time to their credit & impeccable resumes as to their ability to exercise sound judgement in critical situations. Admittedly, not being a pilot or navigator, makes me reluctant to express any opinion about the technical abilities of either AE or FN. However, having spent over two years reviewing the information that has been developed by Forum members & other sources about AE/FN & their final flight, I can recall no _evidence_ offered to support the claims that lack of piloting/navigational _skills_ were _demonstrated_ by either AE/FN at any stage of the flight, including what little information we have about the last leg of that flight from Lae to Howland. Ah, but the question of _always_ exercising good sound judgement in critical situations? That is a very fair & different question & almost always involves a very critical examination of _all_ the _facts_ involved in analyzing the immediate situation at hand & in this particular case (AE/FN last flight) a post mortem being offered over 60 years after such facts occurred. Noting the fact that even the most experienced of well trained lawyers would hire another lawyer of at least equal training, ability & reputation to defend them in any serious legal action brought against themselves, seems to emphasize the point that even the best trained & experienced persons can often be prone to exercising poor judgement in crucial situations, where their human emotions & self judgement are key factors in making sound decisions & where the 'human' factor(s) often seem to over ride whatever determinations their own training & long experience would seem to otherwise dictate in deciding the outcome in any given situation. I recall reading somewhere the story of the last mission flown by Tommy McGuire, one of the most experienced & decorated, top 'aces' of the Pacific theatre (who also flew a Lockheed P-38) in WWII. According to the writer of this article, his untimely death was not due to enemy fire but rather the fact that he totally disregarded the three basic rules that his experience in flying P-38 Lightnings had taught him, (never attempt to engage an enemy at a low altitude, while at low speed or with wing tanks still in place) when his wingman was suddenly 'jumped' by a 'zero' shortly after takeoff. While attempting to 'rescue' his wingman, McGuire's plane stalled & crashed into the jungle immediately beneath his wings. (Might also add to the list, the captain of the Titanic, who was one of the most experienced & respected ship masters of his era!) And last, but not least, some of the 'dumbest' decisions I've ever made were in situations where I'd had the most experience & the most training! Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric So was Amelia Earhart a world-class pilot who became a victim of circumstances beyond her control, or was her demise the inevitable end of a career in which she consistently pushed for accomplishments that exceeded her abilities? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:26:59 EDT From: John Buontempo Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae Unless there is a typo in the AC-U-KWIK it said that the field elevation was 230'. I've got a call into Jeppesen but they have not returned my call. I'll recheck it and get back to the forum. Also, I talked to an A&P here at work this morning, and I asked him about the pitot tubes being bent. He is an avionics guru and said that if the pitot tube was bent as has been suggested, it would definitely affect the instruments -- particularly the ram-air for the airspeed indicator resulting in a low airspeed indication. This could have been the case with AE - she was getting a low airspeed indication and therefore thought that she needed more throttle to keep the speed up -- more fuel burned (speculation!!). The A&P has over 34 years experience on everything from DC-3 to B737. BTW, he also mentioned that if any skin patches had been made anywhere near the pitot tube(s) attachment point(s) on the fuselage, the air flow would possibly be disturbed to the point that incorrect readings could result. Standing by for attack, John B. ************************************************************************** From Ric As you've probably seen by now, from an earlier posting, there are two airfields at Lae. Earhaert's fuel management program was not based upon indicated airspeed so the bent pitots would not necessarily have had any effect on her range ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:27:53 EDT From: John B. Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae Thanks to th' WOMBAT. The only listing I found WAS for the 8000' strip. I am still researching for more info. I guess it DOES HELP to PAY ATTENTION to someone who knows!!! LOL - again thanks WOMBAT. Please disregard my previous post about the field elevation post. John B. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:34:47 EDT From: Leah Avraham Subject: Next of kin Are the next of kin for AE and FN assisting in the search for AE and FN? If so, have they discussed what they'd prefer done with the remains? *************************************************************************** From Ric So far we have been unable to find any living relative of Fred Noonan. Several relatives of Amelia Earhart - by blood and by marriage - are TIGHAR members. Exactly who is her legal next of kin is not at all clear to me. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:35:50 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae It's probably not worth much, but when we were talking about the bent pitot in the takeoff picture, I noticed that the photo seemed to be on an angle. Not knowing exactly what the attitude of the airplane was, of course, probably renders this worthless, but there seems to be about a five degree difference between the axis of the airplane, and the "horizon line" in the picture. In other words, with the picture rotated so that the plane is level, the ground slopes away to the left (sea-end) about five degrees. I know there could be all sorts of other factors also (coverging treeline, irregular runway boundary, etc). ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:36:28 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: U.S. consul in Fiji << Perhaps Abbott was resident in Suva for some time prior to the consulate being re-opened? >> Could be. The State Dept's now given me the references for the pertinent files at the National Archives; just need the time to go dig through them. LTM (who's a little pressed right now) Tom KIng ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:37:52 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: AE's experience Ric said: Her total time was probably okay (ballpark 2,000 hours?) and all of it was tailwheel time. Did pilots in those days even have flight logs like we do today? Are there any surviving documents spelling out AE's ratings, when earned, PIC time etc.? LTM, who often runs out of time Dennis O. McGee #1049EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. I've never seen anything that purports to be Earhart's log. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:39:13 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Anyone Attending the Olympics? I don't mean to seem dense, and I've happily avoided this whole thread, but I'm really puzzled. What useful information might be obtained by talking to the descendants of people -- Caucasion or otherwise -- who were at the airport the day Amelia and Fred left Lae? LTM (who's feeling a bit flummoxed today) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:00:29 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Uncle John <> Well, bro, they finally caught us. I guess it is time to 'fess up. Yes, Ric and I are brothers. John Gillespie McGee (nee Magee) was our uncle, kind of. It gets real complicated; I was born in Canada and Ric was born in North Dakota, which is a lot like Canada except warmer. Anyway, the author of "High Flight" was my father's brother and when dad died (a tractor rolled over on him) mom married Ric's father, himself a widower with four children, and Ric was born 13 months later. It was a hectic childhood, as you can imagine; Ric was the brains and I was the jester. Our mutual interest in aviation lead Ric to design a "glider" that we launched off the roof of the garage. Ric, being smarter than me, convinced me to be the pilot. I broke an arm and two ribs. I believe that was the beginning of Ric's early career as an aviation underwriter and helped him to develop a short formula for underwriting: "If the guy is as dumb as my brother I won't write the policy." Any ways, the full story of our lives is coming out in paperback next month (Putnam Press, no less!). The title is: "Aviation haz bean berry, berry good to me!" LTM, who cautions not to believe everything you read! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:02:12 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Cambridge Analyzer william wondered: >The more I think about it, I wonder if MTBF was really a concept that >engineers and technicians were aware of back in 1937. There certainly is no >hint of it in the reference material I have on the Cambridge unit. Was this a >sophistication that developed as a result of, or during World War II? > >Perhaps someone on the Forum can enlighten me. Yes, I believe that it was. circa 1942 Raytheon began a program of burn in and testing of proximity fuses after many of them did not work in the field. The idea that somthing that was only going to function for a few seconds but would be tested for several hours to reduce the number of field failures was regarded with some skepticism at the time. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:14:37 EDT From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Lady Be Good The navigational horror that brought LBG to her demise would have resulted in a court-martial no doubt for the hapless DP Hays. More poignant and meaningful to me is the story of the crews determination and discipline in surving another 7-8 days and traveling over 80 miles in the desert (or more) with little water and no food. Their diaries are heart-breaking and inspiring. These very young aviators fought as hard for their lives and their country in the sand as they ever might have in the air. Their is no worry about LBG or her crew. But like AE, theirs is yet another moving story from the "Greatest Generation" of women and men and should, I believe, be remembered. Recovery of LBG would be an obvious gesture. By the way, ever consider what AE might have done for the war effort? Would she have been the first USAAF General? Interesting speculation wouldn't you agree? ************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting speculation indeed, but first USAAF General? Surely you jest. War Bond tours? Almost certainly. WAF ferry pilot? Probably not. Too old (45 in 1942) and probably couldn't pass the checkride. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:15:50 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Takeoff Distance > From Nick Murray > I checked Frank's math, and I came up with an angle of 0.046 degrees, not > 0.46. Thanks. I may have had the same answer but lost a zero when typing it. One of my concerns was that I assumed that the angle should be in degrees and not radians. I also have no idea if this formula is applicable to the type of aircraft and runway conditions we are interested in. If nothing else, it may show us that it doesn't take much of an angle to make a noticeable difference. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:56:23 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Donohue book question Did I read your post correctly? Donohue claims, via his caption, that the Lambrecht Photo was taken FROM THE ELECTRA on July 2, 1937? Does he say that AE and FN landed there after snapping the photo? Does he have an explanation for how the film was recovered? I'm not familiar with the Donohue book (?) but it sounds like a leading contender as the mother of all AE conspiracy theories. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 who, for in situ preservation is thinking of really, really, REALLY big clear acrylic domes ;-) *************************************************************************** From Ric You read the post correctly. Donohue says the Electra overflew Gardner and then landed at Hull where a British secret agent met them and the crew was eventually picked up and taken to Samoa. Earhart returned to the States. Noonan died in Samoa from problems associated with his drinking problem. Books like this are worse than useless. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:23:36 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Earhart's ability > From Ric > > So [A] was Amelia Earhart a world-class pilot who became a victim of > circumstances beyond her control, or [B] was her demise the inevitable end of > a career in which she consistently pushed for accomplishments that > exceeded her abilities? If this is a poll, here is my answer. Credentials first: I only fly radio-controlled airplanes. I have never done any training in full-scale aircraft, though I have read about flying on and off since the 1960s. So (for those who know Gilbert and Sullivan), I'm basically a "terrified amateur." Judgment: I reject both option A and option B. I'd like to invoke the Peter Principle: she rose to the level of her incompetence. As an amateur, I'm impressed by the flying that she learned to do and by the records she set. It seems to me that she may have been too successful for her own good. She does not seem to have taken time to learn her equipment, to practice Morse code, to double-check that the Coast Guard understood all her plans, or to find out why she could not get a bearing on the Lae station during her test flight (when, presumably, all antennas were intact and in working condition). My view (for the time being) is that it is her poor radio skills that killed her and Fred. What I don't like about Ric's statement of [B] is that (apart from wrecking the plane on the first world-flight attempt) most of her career was conducted within the envelope of her abilities. I admire her willingness to take risks and learn from experience. I also grieve her bad judgment about her radio equipment. If it wasn't a poll, then you can disregard what I just said. ;o) Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric In defense of Option B I'll point out that, unlike other famous fliers of the Golden Age, Earhart did not rise to fame because of her flying accomplishments but because she was selected to ride along as the first woman transatlantic passenger. She got that job because she was attractive, bore a striking resemblance to Charles Lindbergh, had a perfect name (Air Heart) and, very much by the way, had a pilot's license. The public's impassioned response to her safe arrival, and George Putnam's masterful exploitation of her popularity, presented her with opportunities she never would have had otherwise. If Charles Lindbergh was The Beatles, Amelia Earhart was The Monkees - a manufactured celebrity. To her credit, she was determined to earn the praise that was heaped upon her, but her career was plagued with accidents (at least 8 prior to the final one) and blunders that were either blamed on weather or imagined mechanical failures, or spun into successes. Her most famous accomplishment, and certainly her most noteworthy flight, was her 1932 solo Atlantic crossing - the first successful crossing in the five years since Lindbergh's NY/Paris feat. That it was a genuinely courageous thing to try is beyond question, but the popular perception that she duplicated Lindbergh's feat is fiction. Lindbergh flew from New York to Paris - 3,700 miles Earhart flew from Newfoundland to Ireland - 1,700 miles (less than half the distance) Lindbergh reached his intended destination. Earhart intending to fly to Paris, strayed far off course and landed in northern Ireland. I do not mean to minimize the bravery it took to make the flight. Earhart was immensely brave. There is no question about that. But bravery alone isn't enough. The old saying could have been written for Amelia - "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there ain't no old bold pilots." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:40:21 EDT From: William Webster-Garmn Subject: Re: AE's Proficiency in the 10E Ric cited AE, >"Denmark's a prison." Ah yes. Elizabethan code. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:32:20 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Earhart's ability Ric wrote > So was Amelia Earhart a world-class pilot who became a victim of circumstances > beyond her control, or was her demise the inevitable end of a career in which > she consistently pushed for accomplishments that exceeded her abilities? I think she was a victim of circumstances and yes she had pushed her luck too far. She may not have been the best of pilots but from what I have read so far on flying in the Thirties, it looks like she was just an average pilot. If she was inexperienced with 300 hours on the Lockheed 10, what about that English girl who flew from Britain to Australia in the Thirites with a mere 100 hours in her book? Yes, AE got herself into trouble because she overestimated her capabilities. Wasn't that the way everybody flew in those days ? Yes, her demise was the result of pushing for accomplishments that exceeded her abilites. Reading Charles Lindbergh's autobiography again I think he was just plain lucky. Few would have survived icing up over the ocean and falling asleep like he did. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:34:37 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Lady Be Good Having read the story of LBG and referring navigation error to our research into the AE/FN 1937 flight, I think we should bear in mind that the human mind can play tricks to the best people. It is hard to understand today why the crew of LBG continued the flight so far beyond their ETA as they did. It is clear the navigator must have had his sums wrong. Yet they were military flyers and therefore professionals. Couldn't AE/FN have had their sums wrong likewise ? Any pilot who claims he has never been lost in his flying career is a liar. We have all one day wondered why the landscape down below didn't correspond with what our map said it should look like. Fortunately we were not flying over an ocean nor over a desert and we have all found out what our position was, either by looking more closely at the map again, looking at the compas again and looking what time it was. Or simply by asking for a QDM or by using the airplane's VORs. However, back in the Thirties and the Forties this sort of equipment was not available (I think perhaps the QDM was in use over England in 1940). As for historical navigation errors, illustrating how the best pilots can misjudge their position, how about that German pilot who landed his brand new Focke- Wulf FW-190A at the R.A.F. base at Manston, in Kent (UK) in 1941, having mistaken the water of the Thames estuary for the Channel ? Having been taken prisoner by surprised British soldiers he said he had been sure he was landing on a Luftwaffe airbase in France. More recently there were two Northwest pilots who in 1995 (or was it 1996 ?) landed their DC-10 and 250 passengers at Brussels airport in Belgium in the belief they were landing at Frankfurt. I heard them on the radio declaring an emergency and explaining they had "a major electronics breakdown". In reality their preset VOR frequencies couldn't capture the Frankfurt beacons which were still 300 miles away. Brussels ATC told them not to worry, they had them on radar and talked them safely to the ground in Brussels. The funny thing was that passengers and cabin crew wondered why they were landing at Brussels as they could see from the map shown on the tv screens, a cabin update to make life pleasant for passengers but technology not yet available to the guys up front who flew the airplane ! It may look silly. But that's how the human brain sometimes plays tricks to people, including pilots. And didn't Columbus believe he had reached the East Indies in 1492 ? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:38:46 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Earhart's ability - no old bold pilots Ric wrote: > The old saying could have been written for Amelia - "There are > old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there ain't no old bold pilots." Lindbergh, readers of Anne Morrow Lindbergh's books LISTEN THE WIND and NORTH TO THE ORIENT will remember, weighed the emergency equipment in their Lockheed Sirius down to the last ounce (literally) and made detailed lists of it. He listed a package of 17 fishhooks, weighing "one ounce". But he carried no sinkers, because these could be "improvised" from nuts and bolts. And yet he allowed 47 POUNDS for a battery-powered emergency radio in a shockproof alluminum case, in addition to the plane's regular radio equipment (with which AML maintained CW contact with ground stations sometimes as far as 4000 miles away). He was a pilot who by his own standards took no risks whatever - other than the risks inherent in the flight itself. Having decided to make a flight, he did what he could do to manage the risks and insure a successful outcome. He understood the importance of radio, even though the Sirius flights were nowhere near as dependent on radio as AE's flight to Howland. ************************************************************************** From Ric If one were prone to be sensitive about such things, one could get truly incensed when Earhart is mentioned in the same breath as Earhart and Doolittle as "aviation pioneers." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:40:31 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: AE's experience << Did pilots in those days even have flight logs like we do today?>> You bet they did. And ALPA's [air line pilots assn.]membership application contained Dave Behnke's [founder & pres.] admonition Not to inflate their flight time .. a not unheard of practice. A.E.'s log was probably in the plane along with the aircraft log. RC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:44:53 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Earhart's ability > From Ric > > ... She got that job because she was attractive ... Well, photogenic. The camera loved her. She knew how to strike a pose. >... bore a striking resemblance to Charles Lindbergh, had a > perfect name (Air Heart) ... That subliminical stuff does work! > ... If Charles > Lindbergh was The Beatles, Amelia Earhart was The Monkees - a > manufactured celebrity. Ouch! That hurts! I'm working on forgetting that you said that. > ... her career was plagued with accidents (at least 8 prior to the > final one) Nothing like the facts to spoil beautiful theories. > ... her 1932 > solo Atlantic crossing - the first successful crossing in the five years > since Lindbergh's NY/Paris feat. I presume you mean "successful SOLO crossing," since she had already been hauled across as photogenic luggage. It's surprising that she was the second successful soloist. > ... Lindbergh flew from New York to > Paris - 3,700 miles > Earhart flew from Newfoundland to Ireland - 1,700 miles (less than half > the distance) > Lindbergh reached his intended destination. > Earhart intending to fly to Paris, strayed far off course and landed in > northern Ireland. More dull, unromantic (persuasive) facts. I will try to use them to take the luster off of St. Amelia's halo. :o( Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric It breaks my heart to be the bearer of such tidings. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:57:01 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: off topic, a Y2k bug I found a Y2K. bug in windows.... Yes, I know...Its a little late, now, but somebody remind me after the first of the year to check and see if the error compounds, changes or corrects itself. It is a specific error in a very specific piece of software. In Windows 3. Version whatever, Window 95, 95A, and (apparently all ) versions of 95B. (I checked a 95C, it didn't do it, but that was on the corporate network, so a patch may have been installed online) I suspect windows 98, and later versions don't have it. Problem is with the display of the date function in FILE MANAGER (file attributes, show all) it should display (for example) today's date as 9/15/00 instead it shows as 9/15/:0 It doesn't seem to effect any other day/date functions in any other software, MS or otherwise. Bill ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:44:16 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Earhart's accidents Further to the comments about Earhart's abilities as a pilot. Many other pilots of her day had a similar record of accidents. Check out the records of Jimmy Doolittle, Eddie Rickenbacker, and Lindburgh (3 bailouts! plus other incidents, for starters. Ron Reuther ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Doolittle, Rickenbacker, Lindbergh and others had accidents but all accidents are not created equal. Doolittle was a test pilot and racing pilot on the ragged edge of technology. Rickenbacker was a fighter pilot in a combat environment. Lindbergh's accident history was really very good and none of his bailouts was the result of him loosing control of the airplane (two weather-related precautionary abandonments and one midair collision). Amelia's mishaps, by contrast, were almost exclusively pilot-error landing and takeoff accidents. August 31, 1928 - Avro Avian Pittsburgh, PA Landing accident. No injuries, substantial damage to the aircraft. September 30, 1928 - Avro Avian Tintic, UT Forced off-airport landing . No injuries, minor damage to the aircraft. August 19, 1929 - Lockheed Vega 1 Yuma AZ Landing accident . No injuries, minor damage to the aircraft. September 30, 1930 - Lockheed Vega 5 Norfolk, VA. Landing accident. Minor injuries, severe damage to aircraft.. June 1931 - Pitcairn PCA-2 Abilene, TX Takeoff accident . No injuries, totalled aircraft, letter of reprimand from Department of Commerce. July 1931 -Pitcairn PCA-2 ( replacement aircraft) Camden, NJ Landing accident . No injuries, minor damage. September 1931 - Pitcairn PCA-2 Detroit , MI Landing accident . No injuries, totalled aircraft. March 20, 1937 - Lockheed 10E Special Honolulu, HI Takeoff accident. No injuries, extensive damage. May 21, 1937 - Lockheed 10E Special Tucson, AZ Engine fire on ground. No injuries, minor damage. Having crashed her way to an adequate level of competence in the Vega, she had five accident-free years (1932-1936) during which time she was flying the single-engined Lockheed exclusively. When she up-graded to the Electra the same pattern began all over again. The facts speak for themselves. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:01:28 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Earhart's ability > From Herman De Wulf > ... She may not have been the best of pilots but from what I have > read so far on flying in the Thirties, it looks like she was just > an average pilot. ... Does anyone know of a web site that lists all of the people killed in the early days of aviation? I have the impression that it would be a substantial list. Is there a room dedicated to the pioneers at the National Air and Space Museum? I haven't been there since 1987 or 1988, and my memory is playing tricks on me. Perhaps I just thought there should be such a room. At Old Rhinebeck this weekend, I saw a brief bio of a woman pilot who flew and died prior to Earheart. She was giving a ride to a friend. Something happened. The plane bobbled and threw him out. Then she fell out, too. I guess this was before seat belts were widely used. At any rate, Earhart's mishaps, accidents, and death may not look so bad when situated in the context of her own day. I'm not arguing that she belongs at the top of the pilots' list; I'm agreeing with Herman that she may have qualified for "average" status. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall one special room at Air & Space dedicated to pioneers. It would have to be a big room. There were hundreds. There were also dozens of woman pilots trying to make a name for themselves in the '20s and '30s but only one of them was married to George Putnam. The thing to remember is that airplanes and flying have always been very, very expensive - especially so in the depths of the Great Depression. Other pilots, male or female, didn't get a chance to build up the portfolio of wrecks that Amelia did because bashing up airplanes tends to reduce a pilot's employment opportunities. Earhart, on the other hand, did not get paid to fly. Her income came from talking and writing about flying, so as long as she continued to get speaking gigs, magazine articles, book royalties, and product endorsements she could afford to continue to fly - which gave her more to talk and write about. Many of her contemporaries hated her guts because they saw her as a phoney, but she was simply playing by different rules than they were. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:02:26 EDT From: Leah Subject: Re: Book Reviews May I suggest purchasing books on or about Amelia Earhart on Ebay and they are not expensive. They can be found under COLLECTABLES, then type Amelia Earhart in the search box. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:04:39 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Lady Be Good >From Herman De Wulf > >Having read the story of LBG and referring navigation error to our research >into >the AE/FN 1937 flight, I think we should bear in mind that the human mind can >play tricks to the best people. It is hard to understand today why the crew of >LBG continued the flight so far beyond their ETA as they did. It is clear the >navigator must have had his sums wrong. The latest History Channel program about the Lady Be Good offers up the tantalizing speculation that the navigator was prone to airsickness, and may have been suffering vertigo on the return flight. There are apparently no log entries or any evidence of readings taken by the navigator after they turned off the target. (recall that all the logs were found intact in 1959). The talking head experts who testified in that History Channel program (which has aired several times this summer) pretty much agree that the aircraft had no functioning navigator on the return trip. Watch the History Channel listings for the series "Military Blunders". The program will likely be on again in a few weeks. Tom ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:06:18 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Anyone Attending the Olympics? Tom King asked: <> Well, there was an anecdote about antenna wire being left on a runway.... How many anecdotal sources = verification? (yes, I do know).. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:08:12 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: EGT gauge >> Earhart did not have an EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) gauge. The Cambridge Exhaust Gas analyzer was a more elaborate device.<< Something no-one has mentioned yet (I think). If you spend enough time in the cockpit of a particular airplane, you tend to get a "feel" for the best settings for throttle and mixture etc. and use the instruments to fine tune. Two contradictories here though. If you become complacent and don't check (scan) often enough you may not notice a problem occur. If you rely solely on instrument readings you may have problems if an instrument fails. It is possible that whatever happened, earhart was comfortable enough after so many miles of flight to keep her engines running close to recommended performance settings with or without accurate engine gauges. Even at my experience level I can tell what approximate rpm my engine is doing when changing attitude, whichever plane I'm flying. With a twin you soon feel if one is running differently from the other and adjust mixture/prop/throttle, depending on the sound and vibes. Sort of like knowing what speed gives you the best average fuel consumption in a car you've had for years, or when to change gears under load. Truckies (truckers?) do it all the time without being glued to the tachometer. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:20:00 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: radio, etc. Subjectivity and even some facts: <> Well, the long distance capablities of aircraft had to be proven. This probably didn't have to be proven by hero flights over a hostile dangerous territory, facing odds that were clearly not that good. If someone needs to give up their life for an entry in the record books, fine, but it seems to me a pretty dumb, and unworthy reason to surrender this incarnation. If they succeed, or fail, fine, that's what they bargained for, but i don't feel i necessarily owe them any more respect than if they'd spent their energies building something longlasting. <> I'm not sure what the above quite refers to, the Bendix receiver or the RDF direction finder, or both. The WE receiver had some vulnerablity to picking up spurious, ghost signals (hmmm....probably bad terminology.....the actual term is "images" ) 192 kHz away from the tuned channel You could say it's questionable if there was anything on those image frequencies, but since the problem was addressed by Bendix, as well as home radios and car radios which had also experienced that problem, you could maybe assume there had been problems. Not necessarily on 3105, 6210, however. The Bendix loop thing offered true direction pointing, something the simpler WE product could not. The one advantage i see with the WE receiver is the quartz crystal control of the HF frequencies. If you didn't have someone along who could spend time turning the dial back and forth, you might worry about missing a call directed to you. From looking at the schematic of the WE20BA, i gather you gave up the tunable feature on the band that the crystal was installed in. It still seems to be a really good feature to me, for AE's kind of flying. ( BTW, you still had to crank the dial when changing frequencies, but you simply turned the dial for approximately loudest background noise, and you were right on frequency, no drift, and if there was a call for you strong enuff for you to pick up, you heard it. I think that would enhance one's feeling of security. ) <<1935 radio-telephone was heard clearly enough in the United States for a hookup "throughout the night" for direct broadcasts to commercial radio stations informing the public that she was on her way.>> That would be the end of the story if broadcasting were the only use for her radio. <> What you call "guts" perhaps might be viewed in other light by other observers. <> I'm not the boss here. But it always amuses me when on some email group i subscribe to, someone calls us back to business. I tend to think there's some room for digression and denigration. <> "Don't just sit there, do something!" <> Sorry, I don't think it's quite *that* serious that we resolve this particular question. Actually, there are a number of *more serious* issues. This is a volitional interest group, with a little room for occasional silliness, i hope, & not some sunday school run by Savonarola or Cotton Mather. <> I agree that it kinda went too far, as things always do in human interactions. However, you would kinda have to expect some strong negative reactions if you posted a message to the group that approximately said ( remember?) : "You need to do such and such, and then get back to me" BTW, & back to business, anyone, how did the 20C differ from the 20BA ? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:25:55 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Earhart's ability > So was Amelia Earhart a world-class pilot who became a victim of > circumstances beyond her control, or was her demise the inevitable end of a > career in which she consistently pushed for accomplishments that exceeded >her abilities? Along with the countless aviators and other adventurers male and female that did or did not "make it". In Australia alone, Hinkler, Kingsford-Smith, Lancaster. All adventurers, various experience, eventually the luck runs out. earhart seems to have had at least the same quality of experience that a lot of her contemporaries and predecessors had. back then it was all a "big adventure" and "frontiers to conquer" before it was too late. I have to admit that I was planning to fly an ultralight around Australia (with a total of 10 hours flight time) back in the 70's. Previously I did ride a small motorcycle around for a bet and nearly died in the attempt, but I made it. Some of us are just "plane crazy". Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric The real pioneers - Lindbergh, Doolittle, even Howard Hughes - died in bed. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:33:16 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: AE's log? > Good question. I've never seen anything that purports to be Earhart's log. Pilots of the time usually had their log on board, so we need to find the Electra. Some incredible stories of hardship have been scribbled by dying survivors in their log books as thirst slowly took them. One of the reasons I was interested that the sextant box was empty.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting thought. The expressed opinion was that the sextant box had been used most recently as a general container and yet it was apparently empty when found. Why? What had been carried in it? And where did it go? Keeping a journal would have been very much in character for AE. Are we speculating too wildly to think that the sextant box was where she carried her journal and that, knowing she was dying, she buried it? Sorry. A guy can dream can't he? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:35:19 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: Donohue book question Did Donohue write his book with a straight-face? *************************************************************************** From Ric Oh yes, and there are those who, to this day, consider him to be a fine and competent Earhart researcher. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:46:02 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Amelia's proficiency as a pilot There is no doubt, at least in my opinion, that Amelia was at best a mediocre pilot. However, she managed to do some fantastic things when aviation was still in it's infancy. Yes, she was lucky, she was groomed by Putnam and maybe her ego got in the way. But she also got some bad raps, was it her fault that she crashed in Hawaii? I understand that Mantz, the day before the crash, made a rather hard landing and may have cause some strut damage to the Electra. ************************************************************************** From Ric I want to make it clear that I'm not on an Amelia-bashing campaign here, but after 60 some odd years of folklore and veneration I do think it's way past time for a more realistic assessment of Earhart's place in history. Yes, the wreck in Hawaii was her fault. The hard landing story is total bunk. The Army Air Corps did an exhaustive investigation of the accident and published a 65 page report that detailed everything that happened from the preparations for her arrival from Oakland until she sailed home. There was no pre-loss strut damage. There was no blown tire that caused the groundloop (as AE tried to claim). She just plain lost control of the airplane. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:49:26 EDT From: Janet Powell Subject: Re: S.S. Norwich City Her keel was laid in 1911, in West Hartlepool.... - and here's where I stand aside and allow the experts to proceed! The credit for much of my 'technical knowledge', largely belongs to Ric & Co...... (I too, await the 8th edition, with excited anticipation!!!) However, - wouldn't want to seem to 'hijack the forum', with an 'off topic' discussion, so I'll bow out gracefully at this point! Having said that, if ever I was considered a 'Cuckoo in TIGHAR's Nest', - I'd take it as a great compliment. :-) LTM Janet Powell #2225 *************************************************************************** From Ric Awwww shucks Janet. You can hijack the forum for a while any time you want. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:13:13 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: AE's log Am I incorrect ... didn't Gerald respond to an inquiry about the sextant from Suva by saying "No sextant was found. Only part of an inverted eyepiece which was thrown away by the person who found it" ... ??? ************************************************************************** From Ric That's correct. We've speculated that an inverting eyepiece, if it including a magnifying lens, might be useful for starting a fire. Was it really thrown away by the finder or was it kept as a souvenir? How did Irish find out about it? Was the inverting eyepiece found in the sextant box? That's not clear. If so, it would seem to suggest that Irish was not present when the box was found. Lots of questions. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:14:08 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Earhart's accidents > From Ric > ... Amelia's mishaps, by contrast, were almost exclusively > pilot-error landing and takeoff accidents. ... Now I understand why Lindbergh is said to have said: "Earhart made a good landing--once." Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:16:09 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: WE 20 B and 20 BA Receivers The difference was that the 20 BA would have one or two crystals installed for crystal control of the 1500-4000 KC band, or the 4000 - 10000 KC band, or both. The conversion directions appear with schematic and switch diagram in H.K. Morgan's 1939 book: "Aircraft Radio an Electrical Equipment." Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:09:08 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Earhart's accidents >> From Ric > >> ... Amelia's mishaps, by contrast, were almost exclusively >> pilot-error landing and takeoff accidents. ... I know a CFII, ATP who has done research on aviation accidents sorted by gender. Her work was in the 1980s. The results of her findings were that women had higher incidences of takeoff and landing accidents. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:10:03 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: WE 20 B and 20 BA Receivers > From Janet Whitney > > The difference was that the 20 BA would have one or two crystals installed > for crystal control of the 1500-4000 KC band, or the 4000 - 10000 KC band, or > both. Janet, that's good information, readily available, but now please reread my question. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:12:34 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Earhart's ability Ric wrote; >>The real pioneers - Lindbergh, Doolittle, even Howard Hughes - died in bed.<< Yeah, but Hughes' bed was ON an airplane at the time... ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************ From Ric The ulitmate aviator's triumph? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:14:06 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Uncle John Had we but known - allow me to extend belated condolences to Dennis... This does clear up one thing, though, up to now I had always thought that Ric was an X-type produced by Lockheed.... ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric ...because I could only be a product of the Skunk Works? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:27:05 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: AE's log Some "investigative role play" ... we use this in Maritime law quite often when investigating missing vessels, cargo, crew, et al. I am sure Tom King uses same in archeological theory. And yes, you probably used it in aircraft insurance underwriting for that matter. SITUATION: I am on a deserted Island. I have an inverted eyepiece (let's assume magnified) that I use to start my fires. There is plenty of wood on the Island but I need to start my fire and am not trained in survival tecniques. What do I use to start my fire ... paper, coconut husk, twigs, cloth,etc. Not much paper on a deserted Island and using coconut husk or other "local" material would be "alien" to the person stranded . If some paper were available ... say unused pages of a log book or even used pages of the log book based on the desperation of extended time on the Island and the decision that fuel (paper) to light the fire was more important than the log book itself ... would it not be reasonable to assume that it may have been used to start the fires? QUERY: This begs the question then. Was the campfire area dug up (inside the ring of stones) on TIGHAR's expeditions to Niku in the hopes of finding preserved (under charcoal and sand) remnants of paper, clothing or even better the outer cover material (hard bookcover) of say ...a logbook or a leather case that may have at one point carried the sextant (in it's box) and the log book ... used in starting of fire? SUGGESTION: It is NOT improbable that remnants can still be there. Fire does not always burn completely through objects. Many clues in investigating arson for example turn up many remaining bits of paper, cardboard, clothing, etc. that have survived even the worst of intense heat. I ,for one, have been involved in an investigation of a fire on board a cargo vessel were, (within a coal bunker decimated by intense prolonged fire) we found remnants of rags and a book of matches that led to a a piracy and arson at sea verdict. Granted, time, winds, and other factors limit the possibilities and it comes down to, (in this scenario), the luck that some bits and pieces were preserved under charcoaled cocunut husks and sand. OK, this is pure speculation, but it is possible ... and the proof will be in the findings ... so: 1.What, if anything, was found within the fire area? 2. Do we have any luck on our side? Roll play finished ... now over to Ric for the facts! Regards Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric I think this is an interesting and potentially productive approach to this type of question. Allow me to clarify the situation. The campfire we found was very near (less than a meter) from where the shoe parts were found but this site is not where we (now) think the bones were found. The shoes/ campfire were found at the "Aukaraime Site" on the southern shore of the lagoon. We think that Irish made his discoveries at the "7 site" on the north shore. A partially-burned paper can lable excavated from the campfire at the Aukaraime Site has a fragment from a European bar code which dates it, and the fire, to not earlier than the 1970s. We have not (yet) found the fire Irish alluded to. We'll be looking for any sign of it when we search the "7 site" next year. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:28:09 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: off topic, a Y2k bug For Bill Zorn, re Win File Manager date problems, File Manager (not to be confused with Windows Explorer), while included in some older versions of Win9x, was provided only as a transitional accommodation for ex-Win 3.1 users 4-5 years ago. File Manager, an obsolete program, doesn't support long file names in Win9x, for example, along with other crucial functions, and is definitely not recommended for use in Win95 or 98. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:45:48 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: AE's log Gerry Gallagher wrote, >didn't Gerald respond... "No sextant was >found. Only part of an inverted eyepiece which was thrown >away by the person who found it" I've long thought it very possible that other artifacts, including items from the skeleton site and the wreck of the Electra itself if it was there, may have been retained as either souvenirs or useful items and never mentioned to Irish. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. The Benedictine bottle, as a matter of fact, may be another example. Koata took it with him to Tarawa and Irish didn't find out about it until after he was gone. An incident that occurred recently in Tarawa may provide some insight into Gilbertese attitudes toward such situations. A construction crew widening a road knocked down an old palm tree and up with the roots came a skeleton. A couple of young men who had been watching the construction ran over, retrieved the bones, and notified the local authorities who came and collected the remains. The boys/men showed the authorities, but did not give them, a set of dog tags they had found with the remains that identified the body as that of a particular USMC soldier who had been declared MIA in the invasion of 1943. When American forensic scientists arrived from Hawaii to collect the remains they sought out the young men and confiscated the dog tags. Local sentiment was very strong that it was unfair for the boys to have been deprived of their trophy. Whether this incident tells us anything about what may have happened 60 years ago is open to debate. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:58:09 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Earhart's accidents Again, check out Doolittle's, Rickenbacker's, and Lindbergh's full flight incident/accident histories. Doolittle had a number of inicidents/accidents during routine flight operations, in addition to any that may have occured while testing or racing. You might make the case that because of his experience he should have had fewer. Rickenbacker had quite a few after he was out of military service after WW1. Lindbergh, had a number, at least earlier in his career. 3 of Earhart's incidents/accidents were in an autogiro, which was a little tricky to fly, and different from a conventional airplane. Ron *************************************************************************** From Ric AE's experience with the autogiro is an excellent illustration of what I'm talking about. The machine was not in the least bit experimental. The Pitcairn PCA-2 was in standard production and the Beech Nut Company agreed to sponsor AE in a coast-to-coast flight (the first in an autogiro by a woman) thereby setting a new (albeit meaningless) record. Earhart took on the stunt with inadequate preparation and, before she was through, had managed to wipe out two autogiros, miraculously avoid killing a bunch of bystanders in Texas, and gotten herself a letter of reprimand by the Bureau of Air Commerce. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:59:47 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae Randy Jacobson wrote: > It is bad, but there are visitor parking facilities, with a modest $5 fee or > so. That's not the problem. I'd gladly pay twice that if I could be sure of finding a place to park. > The real problem is once in the general area, getting to where you want > to go! Much of the space in the parking lots in the northwest part of campus are closed permanently due to construction of yet another college on the UCSD campus. While there is a free shuttle service from the parking lots to various points on campus, including the library, the constraint is that one must first find a place to park in a served lot. > There is bus service to UCSD, or one can easily walk from the VA > hospital. Riding the alleged mass transit system in this town is an exercise in futility. Most bus routes operate on a one-hour schedule, and the prospects for reducing the intervals are nil. The spineless invertebrates on the city council have seen fit to invest city funds in higher priority projects like subsidizing the San Diego Chargers to the tune of about $10 million per year, and spending around $1 BILLION over 30 years to give the San Diego Padres a new ballpark. As for walking from the VA hospital, I think "easily" is a relative term. If I can't drive to within a couple of hundred yards of a destination, then I don't need to go there. Walking takes too long. > When I was there visiting Scripps Insitution of Oceanography, I > got a VIP parking pass, allowing me to park in faculty spots. Cool, huh? Do you think Scripps would give me a VIP pass? > BTW, my notes say that the map was made by the National Mapping Bureau, PO > Box 5665, Boruku, PNG, 1983. Perhaps your local library can get it from > UCSD via interlibrary loan. Sorry, but I didn't write down the UCSD filing > number. It sounds like one I've located. The current Papua New Guinea topo maps are made by the Land and Survey Department. I've ordered the one for the area containing Lae and environs. It covers an area roughly 30 miles square and is at 1:100,000 scale. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:26:13 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Bashing I'm not accusing you of Amelia bashing. I think everyone on the Forum would agree that she had her short comings. Amelia was not the pilot most people in the world think her to be. However, I would be very interested in knowing why you personally picked Amelia to study and spend such a majority of your time on her disappearance. Why not the poor devils who were lost somewhere over the Bermuda Triangle in 1945? Just a question. ************************************************************************** From Ric Fair question. I'll give you four answers. 1. The Earhart disappearance is a genuine mystery. The Flight 19 mystery, like the rest of the Bermuda Triangle nonsense, is purely an invention of the media. 2. TIGHAR's mission is to promote responsible aviation archaeology and historic preservation. The Earhart Project is an excellent vehicle for employing, refining, and teaching the principles and practices of the scientific method of inquiry, critical thinking, logic, historical research, field techniques, etc., etc. 3. The Earhart disappearance may not be the most historically significant aviation mystery but it is certainly the most popular one. To accomplish our mission takes money and people have to care about something before they'll contribute money. In short, we're looking for Amelia because the public clearly wants the mystery of her disappearance to be solved and will contribute money toward a responsible, professional, reasonable effort to do so. 4. The true story of the Earhart disappearance has proven to be a far more fascinating tale than any of the speculations - from the prosaic to the bizarre - that have grown up around it. Noble purpose and pragmatism aside, this has turned out to be whole lot of fun. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:43:14 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Earhart's abilities The ongoing thread concerning AE's piloting skills (or lack thereof) seems to communicate the impression that she was therefore unqualified to undertake the 'round-the-world' flight & such effort should have been aborted, especially after her disastrous, 'ground loop' takeoff, incident on the initial effort to launch such a flight. While such opinions, from people far better qualified than I to make such judgement, seem justifiable enough, the _factual_ information developed during the second attempt, fails to support the contention that AE was an 'accident' on it's way to happen. On the contrary, all of the public reports (including anecdotal accounts by third persons) seem to confirm that each landing & takeoff undertaken by AE during the flight (including some undertaken on the subcontinent during monsoon conditions as well as the last takeoff from Lae, with a heavily fuel laden aircraft, from a relatively short, primitive airfield) were performed successfully & without incident. Additionally, the TIGHAR hypothesis, seems to conclude that AE, short on (or out of) fuel also completed a successful, wheels down landing, on a remote, narrow, hazardous reef flat, to bring the flight to an abrupt & unfortunate ending on Gardner Island, after AE/FN had failed their landfall at Howland. Considering the correspondence of Capt. Johnson of the Schooner'Yankee', concerning the claims that residents of Tabituea 'heard' an aircraft flying in the vicinity of their island, during the night, it would seem that the piloting/navigational skills of AE/FN had their aircraft pretty much 'on course' for Howland as they passed through the Gilbert Islands. (Naturally, such information (received 2nd hand) must be classified as anecdotal, as is much of the 'evidence' gathered during the long history of the AE/FN flight/disappearance investigation.) Not withstanding the many criticisms of the AE/Putnam lifestyles & personalities, nor allowances that AE's experience/ training (or lack thereof) &/or temperment should have disqualified her from ever attempting such a demanding & hazardous undertaking, the _fact_ remains that she did it & apart from the seemingly tragic way in which the flight ended, there appears to be no credible _evidence_, from information developed through TIGHAR & others, that AE's alleged lack of actual, basic piloting skills in any way contributed to the unfortunate outcome of the flight. Now if we want to discuss the question of exercising 'sound ' judgement (quite apart from the question of exercising actual, basic technical/mechanical piloting skill) that is another & in my opinion quite a different story! My own favorite criticism of the overall planning & preparation for this flight, was the decision to reverse course & fly East, allegedly to avoid severe South Atlantic storms on the last leg of the journey, even though the flight would have had two continents as a possible landfall... if course deviations were necessary to avoid such storms. (Which would certainly have proved no more hazardous than the severe monsoon weather the flight actually did encounter flying across the subcontinent). It seems to me at least, placing the longest, overwater leg of the flight (mostly at night) at the very end of the journey, with their landfall objective only a tiny strip of sea-level sand, was the most serious blunder committed by AE & associates. Considering at that point of the flight, both aircraft & crew had to be considerably air weary, tired & feeling the pressures of the long confinement, engine noise & fuel fumes... making any kind of tedious/meticulous calculations, involving life threatening decisions that could determine success or failure at that stage of the flight... seems highly unrealistic & the result of a gross failure to consider the serious consequences that could (& did) result, by those responsible for signing-off on such plan (even if heavy reliance was placed upon radio communications & DF system... which could & did fail to provide the help AE/FN needed at the most critical stage of the flight). Naturally, AE's sign-off on that plan had to be at the top of the list! Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting observations. While Earhart's "stick and rudder" flying skills seem to have been up to the challenge of the World Flight I guess I see her demise to be the result of the same kind of arrogance, impetuousness and immaturity that had always dogged her career. She didn't think the rules applied to her and ultimatley she found out that they did. Was the decision to reverse the direction of the World Flight the key screw up? Interesting theory. I'm sure the call was not made lightly because it meant a tremendous disruption in the carefully-laid plans. I've never been convinced that we know the "real" reason for the change. AE often used weather as a smoke-screen for other problems. When, I wonder, was the decision made? When is the first public mention that they would go the other way 'round? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:47:43 EDT From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: Amelia's proficiency as a pilot I'd agree that AE may not have been a good pilot but I would also remind that in losing control of her airplane she was in the best of company. Only a couple of years ago DASA (which succeeded to the Messerschmitt company) had one WW II Me-109 painstakingly rebuilt and flown it successfully at air shows in Germany (including the Hanover air show) by its test pilot until the latter successfully crashed it (I believe it was at Manching, in Bavaria) when he lost control at take off. The airplane ran away with him because the very experienced pilot couldn't cope with the torque of the engine at full power during take off. And another experienced professional pilot lost control of a de Havilland DH-89 twin engine biplane at an air show in England around the same time when one of the engines lost power during take-off, turning the vintage aircraft into a total loss. I would also like to add that all pilots who ever flew them agree that airplanes of Thirties technology (like the Me-109, the Spitfire (but also the L10) could be dangerous on the ground because of the torque their powerful engines produced, coupled to the narrow landing gear. Applying full power too rapidly could and can send an airplane in a 90 degree turn across the airfield. Hundreds of supposedly well trained Luftwaffe pilots got killed that way in the Me-109 during WW II. Nosing over was another accident frequently happening, even to famous aircraft like the DC-3 in professinal hands. The taildraggers of the Thirties simply were a handful and were not as safe (both on the ground and at stalling speed) as today's sophisticated nosewheel airplanes. AE crashed the Lockheed 10 at Hawai apparently because she took off with assymetric power settings to compensate for a cross wind. This, clearly is not according to the book. It wasn't in 1937 and it isn't in 2000. Yet I know many an experienced pilot who uses the trick (which is still not in the book) to land a nosewheel twin turboprop in strong crosswind today. LTM (from Herman who lost control at take off once but fortunately can still tell you about it). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:50:50 EDT From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: Earhart's accidents Marty wrote: <> Wasn't he the man who also said that "any landing you can walk away from is a good landing" ? LTM from Herman (who never bent an airplane- despite once having lost control at take off) *************************************************************************** From Ric No. Lindbergh didn't invent that saying I'd be surprised if he even agreed with it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:51:13 EDT From: Subject: IRP: Dr. Hoodless From Gerry gallagher Investigative Roll Play (IRP) re: Dr. D.W. Hoodless, Principal of the Central Medical School, Suva, Fiji. SITUATION: The bones found on Niku were boxed in a "coffin", actually small box in order to transport to Dr. Hoodless as per the instructions of W.P.H.C. The box is made of "kanawa" wood from a tree found relatively near where the bones were found. This wood and the size of the coffin can be used as identicators due to the unique wood and unusual size of the "coffin". The bones leave the protected custody of Gerald on 27 December 1940 when he turns them over to the Master R.C.S. "Nimanoa" and they begin their travels to Suva for delivery to the High Commission Office. There are two packages in the consignment. Gerald refers to the first ("the larger of these packages") as the coffin ("kanawa" wood box), A smaller package which Gerald indicates contains all the other pieces of evidence (shoe remnant, sextant box). The bottle (Benedictine with embossed lettering) for some reason was sent or otherwise taken to Tarawa by Koata (Native Magistrate, Gardner). It is apparant that Gerald knows nothing of this bottle never mind it being taken off Gardner. However, on 23 September, 1940 Gerald telegrams Tarawa to "obtain from Koata a certain bottle". Either Gerald has been advised of this bottle by someone on the Island or somehow has learned about the bottle. Either way the bottle is handed over by Koata as per telegram to Gerald on 30 September, 1940 from Tarawa. Various telegrams are sent back and forth asking more and more detail in regards to the find of bones etc. Secrecy is ordered on all who know of the "find". Eventually, after delay due to Dr. Lindsay Isaac on Tarawa the bones reach Suva on 25 March 1941. On 31 March P.D. MacDonald sends the "coffin" with the bones to Dr. D.W. Hoodless. Sometime thereafter the bones are with Hoodless and he conducts an alaysis of the bones. On April 12, 1941 Dr. Hoodless is instructed to "retain the remains until further notice". The sextant box is sent to Commander G.B. Nasmyth to analyse. The other "contents" of the the box (2nd ... "smaller" box sent by Gerald) is in the possession or at least "left on the office" of Henry Vaskess. The sextant box is retrieved by Sir Harry Luke from Nasmyth and Luke lets a Mr. Gatty see it, anyway sextant box is returned by Luke to Vaskess on 8 August, 1941 (presumably Vaskess returns it to the box with the "other contents" that are in his office). QUERY: If we take the above to be true then we know that on the 8th August, 1941 the BONES and COFFIN are in the custody of Dr. D.W. Hoodless. The contents of the second, "smaller" package containing the EMPTY SEXTANT BOX and the "OTHER CONTENTS" are with Henry Vaskess. The Benedictine bottle's whereabouts is unknown. It could be in Tarawa or it may be with the "other contents" having been sent on with the bones from Tarawa. ( However, we do not know for sure). The above now begs the question: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BONES, COFFIN AND CONTENTS OF THE SECOND PACKAGE? SUGGESTION: At some point a decision must have been made to dispose of the bones and the other items. It is my suggestion that at some point the bones are consigned for a burial, either with the contents of the "smaller box", or without these items. It is my feeling that a "dignified burial" would have been suggested by one of the authorities involved ... this is in line with British mentality and their belief that everyone is entitled to a "dignified burial", Thus, it is my suggestion that the local cemetery in Suva be checked for graves that hold UNKNOWN, remains. It is possibility that a segment of the cemetery was sectioned off for British or Colonial use. The next question is what time period. I suggest some significant events at W.P.H.C. may have brought up the question of the bones. Dr. MacPherson (involved with the bones) dies on 10th July, 1943. Gerald's personal effects are ordered to be returned on 7 August, 1945 .These (MacPherson death ,1943 and Gerald's personal effects, 1945) are two good timeframe indicators. "The Players" in the "bone- find scenario" disperse as time goes on. Significant events can be looked at which could have "RAISED" the question of the bones again and again. It is my suggestion that the question of "dignified burial" would have been at least considered by someone ... Probably Dr. D.W. Hoodless. If an "UKNOWN REMAINS" grave is to be researched then the timeframe is initially 1941-1950. Hoodless had the bones in 1941. MacPherson dies in Fiji in 1943. Gerald's personal effects are not ordered sent home until 1945. A plaque to be put on the memorial on Gardner is debated up until 1949. For at least 8 years after Gerald's death indicators pop up. Another earlier (1941) indicator is Vaskess himself. He is to be replaced .... by Gerald .... as an URGENT move in September 1941. Gerald dies on Gardner and the move is not made. Ironically, if Gerald had lived and taken over Vaskess' position, he would have inherited the responibility for the bones or at least the other items in Vaskess' office. I am sure that Gerald was of the "dignified burial" frame of mind as he madea point in a telegram to add a personal note ... "should any relatives betraced it may prove of sentimental interest for them to know that the coffin in which the remains are contained is made from a local wood known as "kanawa" and the tree was, until a year ago, growing on the edge of the lagoon, not very far from the spot where the deceased was found" Vaskess is known to be in Suva at least up to May 1942. At some point he will be prompted to dispose of the " bones related" contents of the second parcel sent from Gerald. These items are in his office, or otherwise in his custody ... in 1941. Another possible indicator ... Sir Harry Luke leaves Suva on 20th July 1942 ... did he clean up old matters yet unattended to? All are date indicators that COULD have prompted someone to deal with the bones by the "dignified burial" theory. Barring all these ... at some point Dr. Hoodless has to make a decision on the bones. It is hard for me to believe that he does not subscribe to the "dignified burial" mentality and arranges for the appropriate internment of the bones. Now, what if a grave and or graves is found. Chances are the original coffin (the "kanawa" wood box) would have been used to hold the bones while in Dr. Hoodless' custody. It is further easy to assume it was used as the "coffin" if a burial was performed. It is also possible that the contents of the second "small package" (sextant box etc) and even that the Benedictine bottle are buried with it ... of course that would be a best case scenario. Lets's assume a burial was performed, we find a grave, and none of the other items found are buried with the bones. Chances are that the "kanawa" wood box was used and this in itself is a "unique" and convincing piece of evidence. We also know that the bones consist of 13 bones again a "unique" and convincing piece of evidence. Based upon the aforementioned scenario of events and what we know to be fact then it is POSSIBLE that these bones lie in a grave in Suva Fiji in one of the following: 1. 13 bones 2. 13 bones in a "kanawa" wood box coffin 3. 13 bones accompanied with the items found near the bones on Gardner Island. 4. 13 bones in a "kanawa" wood coffin accompanied with the items found near the bones on Gardner Island. 5. 13 bones in a "kanawa" wood coffin accompanied with items found near the bones on Gardner Island including the Benedictine bottle. Footnote: Regarding "dignified burial" mentality. No more time, effort, and expense is put into identifying, burying and maintaining the graves of war dead around the world than that of the COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES & MEMORIAL COMMISSION which maintains WWI and WWII graves. Investigative Roll Play over ... Now over to the forum jury for a verdict! Regards, Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************** From Ric First a couple of picky factual corrections: <> Gerald writes his letter on December 27 but Nimanoa doesn't show up until January 28. See Bones Timeline at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bonestimeline.html <> No. The job Gerald has been tagged for is Secretary to the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony headquartered on Ocean Island, not Vaskess' job as Secretary of the WPHC. Gerald was far too junioir to be considered for such a grand position but the proposed transfer was, nonetheless, a high compliment. Gerald, of course, was panicked at the thought of leaving his beloved Phoenix settlements. I think we should remember that Gerald's reverence for the bones (special kanawa wood box and romantic proximity of the tree to the death site) was expressed at a time when he believed the remains might be Earhart's. By the time both Isaac and Hoodless had dismissed them as male Gerald, in his note to the file of July 3, 1941, had apparently changed his mind and decided that they were the bones of "some unfortunate native castaway." Although not specifically stated, this seems to also be the general conclusion of his superiors and one senses a bit of an atmosphere of embarrassment that everyone got all excited about something that turned out to be nothing of any significance. In that context, the attractive and unusual kanawa wood box in which the bones were transported might well have been seen as being of more interest and value than the bones themselves. In any event, the bones are last known to be in storage at the Central Medical School where, we must presume, other bones were in residence. When the time came to dispose of them, as it apparently did, it's hard to know just how that may have been handled. Some possibilities: 1. A diginifed burial, as you suggest. 2. Undignified burial in a mass grave with other unwanted bones. 3. Incineration. 4. Somebody, remembering the speculation that once surrounded the bones, may have kept them as a curiousity. From a practical perspective, I suspect that it could be very tricky to get permission to exhume burials in Fiji, even if listed as, say, "Unknown Remains - September 1941". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:06:36 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Random Radio Ramblings > From Vern > Past postings suggest that it was not uncommon to use a dedicated receiving > antenna, such as a belly wire, while an antenna on top, or a trailing wire, > was used for transmitting. It is my understanding that this was practical > with relatively low-power transmitters and vacuum tube receivers. Vacuum > tubes were much more tolerant of RF voltages from the transmitter than are > present day solid-state circuits. Right, the WE receiver also has a neon tube in the front end to discharge too-high voltages, either static or signals, coming from the antenna. > Conclusion: The belly antenna may well have been the receiving antenna. It > may also have been the sense antenna for the RDF. The topside "V" antenna > may have been use for transmitting only -- no need for wiring from the > receiver to the transmitter T/R relay terminal. --That's the way i see (guess) it, it was inherited from the trailing-antenna days of her plane, and still offered the advantage of avoiding longish inside antenna lead-in runs. > QUESTION: What about the the two antenna terminals (HF and LF) on the > Western Electric receiver that are switched depending on the frequency band > selected? > > If you have no "designated" LF antenna -- like if you've done away with the > trailing wire antenna, as had AE -- then you connect the two antenna > terminals together and to whatever you use for a receiving antenna, via the > T/R relay in the transmitter, or not. Now this antenna is functional on all > bands. > > QUESTION: Was the Bendix coupler unit necessary whatever receiver was used > with the Bendix RDF loop? > > Yes, a coupling unit of some sort was pretty much necessary. It was > necessary to transform the balanced, high-impedance, of the loop to the > unbalanced, low-impedance, input of the receiver. Some amplification was > also desirable due to the inefficiency of the small diameter loop compared > to a more conventional, relatively long, wire antenna. I don't think "coupler" is the best term for the Bendix RDF unit. "Coupler" better applies to the WE product, which performed this function between the WE untuned (no tuning, also limited "upper end" of frequency usability). The Bendix thing was more a tuning unit/ amplifier; "Adaptor" better suits its description, as it contained part of the tuning circuit, the rest being the loop itself; also it held the 2-tube (equivalent) pre-amp. Also, small point, Bendix sez the amplifier was to make up for losses between the adaptor and the receiver proper in the coaxial connecting cable. > QUESTION: Is a sense antenna necessary for operation of the Bendix RDF loop > and coupler unit? > > No. The sense antenna serves to resolve the 180 degree ambiguity problem of > the loop. There are other ways (non-electronic) to resolve this ambiguity. > If one chose not to use a sense antenna, he would simply ground the sense > antenna terminal of the coupling unit. Or leave it unconnected. --Makes *no* difference in the "B" (bearing, i.e. null, position of the RDF's function switch. Only comes into play in the "D" (direction position). I think if you left off the antenna, and tried to "D", you'd get the same response as in the "B" position (if infact the bearing, null thing was working.) > probably wouldn't make much difference inside a metal airplane. Now the > loop exhibits the typical two-null response of a simple loop antenna -- the > figure "8" sort of response. This avoids some problems in getting > everything properly adjusted so the bearing obtained is a correct bearing. > (Phasing and amplitude of the two signals must be right.) The simple loop > is subject to fewer problems once it has been calibrated (bearing-wise) for > the particular aircraft and the particular installation. > > QUESTION: Was the Bendix RDF loop coupling unit on AE's plane similar to > the RDF-1 for which we have a schematic diagram and description? > > There is little doubt that it was similar but, if we assume it was the unit > described in the Aero-Digest article, there were certainly differences. > This does appear to be the unit seen in some of the photos of AE with the > loop in her hands. To my knowledge, we do not have a schematic of the > Bendix unit, nor do we have photos good enough to do much educated guessing > about it. > > The RDF-1 is described as being designed to simplify the switiching between > the various functions available. AE may not have had benefit of this more > simplified switching. We simply do not know what all she had to do to > change over from normal communication receiving (which wasn't working) and > RDFing. ??? the RDF unit has positions for R, B, D. In "R" it uses the wire antenna, amplifies it with modest amplification, and sends the signals along to the receiver. With the RDF installed, i don't see any need for additional receive antenna switching.... I suggest the circuit was quite similar to the RDF-2, for which we do have the schematic. No reason to suppose the circuits were substantially different. The chief area of uncertainty, and the killer, is the actual tuning range of the unit installed for AE. > Whatever she did, she did hear the Itaska signal on 7500 kc. She reported > that she could not get a null. Might she have been able to get a null on > that frequency? Did she just not try hard enough? AE seemed to have the > idea that a radio bearing could be determined rather quickly. Well, it's not magic, nor brain surgery. If you can get a clean null, one turn around of the loop antenna will see it. As i see it, if she could not find a null in short order: shortwave propagation was unsettled, via skywave, especially in those hours, or the RDF was somehow hooked up wrong . And i'm momentarily stumped as to what the "wrong" configuration might be like. > In her repeated requests for the Itaska to take a bearing on her, she was never > on long enough for a bearing to be taken. I can imagine her giving her loop a > rapid turn one way then the other and concluding that she couldn't get a null. Under those conditions i don't think she would have made one "rapid" sweep and given up. One "deliberate" turn around and you know if you're gonna get a null, on LF. On HF, via skywave, depending on conditions and distance, you can get a mushy not real distinct null one minute, no null the next, no null at all ever, or maybe even, less likely, a real null. As i see it. > QUESTION: Could AE have expected to get a null on 7500 kc? > > Frequencies above the AM broadcast band (up to about 1500 kc in that time) > were not generably considered usable for RDFing. Since she did hear the > Itaska, apparently via the loop, would the loop have exhibited its normal > directional characteristics? Should she have been able to get a null? > > There is one instance, that I know of, when a person familiar with radio and > DF loops of that time was asked that question. It's purely anecdote and a > rather off-hand response. When asked whether a loop such as AE had would > give a null at 7500 kc, his response was: "Sure it would." --And i'd say, "Sure it maybe would". Depends. > One thing that has long bothered me is the matter of the automatic gain > control switch on the receiver and its remote control unit. Did she get > that turned off before trying to get a null? If the Itaska signal was > strong, she would not have got a null with the automatic gain control > functioning. (It's labeled AVC on the receiver for "automatic volume > control." AGC is the modern, more generic term.) I think you should rest your mind regarding the AVC. It doesn't work like some computer controlled effect. I do not believe it being on, would totally mask the null. Your concern, IMO, considers the AVC feature too effective. > I wonder if that might be the genesis of AE's idea that she couldn't get a > null when too close to the transmitting location -- such as at Lae? Maybe > nobody had ever got through to her that she needed to turn off the AVC switch. However, she apparently had successfully used the thing in the past, right? My opinion (only) is that at Lae, she would have had to stay right over the Lae station antenna for this effect to have spoiled the experiment. ( IF i could get organized, i would hook up my DU unit to my RA-1 and try to replicate the condition, leaving AVC on... project # 1001-B ) *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > Very nice summary and I agree with most of it (which is why I think it's very > nice). > > I will point out that Amelia DOES say where the Bendix direction finder is. > She lists it as being on the instrument panel among her "navigation > instruments" such as "compasses, directional gyros, the Bendix direction > finder, and various radio equipment." This puzzles me. how do you mount such an instrument on the instrument panel? Look at the photo (Longs' book). This photo shows the mounting plate with its fasteners, atop the unit, for attaching to a superior surface. ( opposite of deployment of Navy models of the RDF ) Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric There is an Al Bresnick photo, taken shortly after the Bendix loop appears on the airplane, that shows AE standing on the wing beside the open cockpit hatch. Bresnick was standing, possibly kneeling, just in front of the port engine and shooting up at a steep angle. A rectangular object can be seen that appears to be the size and shape of the Bendix adaptor installed on the eyebrow panel in about the same location as the much larger box that appears in Long's photo. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:08:25 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Bendix RDF Antenna Switching > From Janet Whitney > According to the schematics shown in "Aircraft Radio & Electrical > Equipment" by Howard K. Morgan (Pitman Publishing Co., 1939) the radio receiver was > switched from a wire antenna to the DF loop by energizing a 12 volt relay > in the Bendix DF system's antenna switching unit. I'm interested in quality of data, so i ask, where in this book do you find reference to, or schematic of, the RDF unit in question? Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:09:41 EDT From: Vern Subject: Gerald Gallagher For Gerry Gallagher Welcome, Gerry, to this bunch of seekers of the undiscoverable -- almost! When you talk with relatives about Gerald Gallagher of Nikumaroro, perhaps you could also ask about the Clancy side of Gerald's family. We would very much like to locate living relatives of his mother, Edith Annie Clancy. She appears to have had sisters, one of whom lived at "Clanmere" on Graham Road in Malvern where Gerald's effects were delivered after the war. She may also have had one or two brothers. Cheers! Vern Klein, Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:27:50 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Runway slope at Lae I'm sure you've seen the Australian Civil Aviation Branch "Notice to Airmen - No. 20/1935" for Lae, New Guinea. Height above sea level is given as "25 ft. approx." and Dimensions: "NW - SE. 1000 yards by about 120 yards wide." Under Remarks: "Normal winds - northwest during mornings and south-east during afternoons." NO mention is made of slope, so presumably it was considered negligible, even for the heavily laden Junkers freight planes. A slight slope toward the sea seems a reasonable assumption, as does a relatively smooth runway surface. By the way, (as I recall) contemporary information (Sinclair, et al) referred to only a SINGLE Lockheed 10 owned by Guinea Airways - as executive transport. No fleet in 1937. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric According to the accounting of Model 10s provided by Larkins and Emmert in the summer 1978 issue of the AAHS Journal: Lockheed 10A c/n 1060 was delivered to Guinea Airways on June 5, 1936 and registered VH-UXH. The airplane ultimately ended up as ZK-ALH with Union Airways in New Zealand and was reported broken up for scrap in March 1951. Lockheed 10A c/n 1105 was delivered to Guinea Airways on June 23, 1937 and registered VH-UXI. It crashed 20 miles south of Darwin on December 18, 1939. Lockheed 10A c/n 1108 was delivered to Guinea Airways on July 31, 1937 and registered VH-AAU. It eventually became ZK-ALI flying for Union Airways in New Zealand and was also broken up in 1951. The question arises as to what was meant by "delivered." If that is the date that money changes hands and the airplane is turned over to the customer, then it seems unlikely that there was more than one Guinea Airways Electra in Lae when AE was there, although technically the airline owned two at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:33:53 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Pratt & Whitney 75th Anniversary Web Page Lear radio/DF - It's of some interest to note that Moya Lear (Mrs. Bill), a highly respected member of Reno society, doesn't have a very high opinion of Amelia as a pilot. (Nor do/did several of AE's contemporaries). Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:34:40 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: AE's experience Pilot logs - Well, I had one circa '37-'38, as a student pilot, but probably tossed it when I hadn't accumulated enough hours (fortunately!) to attempt a solo. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:38:38 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: How much? Did Putnam and Earhart ever come up with an estimated cost for doing the ill-planned trip, from the cost of the 10E ($30,000?) to the gas, landing fees, etc.? Considering that they seemed to always be operating on the ragged edges of poverty and prosperity, it would seem they would need at least a ball park figure. Also, if the Putnams planned to cash in on AE's fame it'd be helpful to know how much they expected to make. Or was this degree of planning too unimportant to them? LTM, who plans too much Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:41:27 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Uncle John Ric asked: >> ...because I could only be a product of the Skunk Works?<< Ouch! Touche' Ric, No, that never entered my mind... ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Ric I 'spect it has entered others. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:43:55 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: AE's log I think Gerry has an interesting point - depending on how far down the fire was excavated, it has been my experience (limited though it may be) that fire pits are generally reused. I wonder now if the '70's fire was laid on top of a prior fire. How deep did the exporation go ? ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Tom did the digging but my recollection from looking over his shoulder is that it seemed to be a discreet layer with no indication of multiple fires. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:48:46 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: accidents Greg said: The results of her findings were that women had higher incidences of takeoff and landing accidents. If that is true it would not be much of a surprise. Landings and take-offs are done at low speeds where brute force is a prized additive to help corral a heavy, wayward airplane, which is an area where women can come up short. Once in the air when "touch" and finesse and smoothness is called for, women often excel. My ex- and I learned to fly at the same time and our instructor (young male) had a stated preference for going up with her and not me. I was too herky-jerkey, flung the airplane around, made gross (really GROSS!) course corrections, and landed like I was a putting it down on the USS Wasp --BANG! The ex- was a lot smoother, more gentle and was often greased it on. (At least that's why I ASSUMED he liked flying with her. Hmmmm.) LTM, who avoids greasers Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Upper body strength may be a factor in pulling a combat-loaded B-17 off the runway but if you're horsing on a Cessna Skyhawk that little wheel called the "elevator trim" needs attention. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:58:15 EDT From: CG Subject: Distance to Gardner New poster, avid reader, low time pilot. Now with that out of the way, I was wondering about how far it is from Howland to Gardner. Since the radio reception was "signal strength 5" when she was running on the apparent line of position, how could she get all the way to Gardner? CG ************************************************************************** From Ric It's about 350 nm from Howland down to Gardner. Assuming that Earhart and Noonan were already far enough SE of Howland to not be able to see it, but close enough to still be heard at Strength 5, at 2013 GMT when last heard from, they would need about two and a half hours of fuel (call it 100 gallons) to get there at 130 kts. If they were following Kelly Johnson's recommendations they should have had about 150 gallons (almost four hours) of fuel remaining at 2013. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:14:28 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: possible souvenirs William wrote: <> Or perhaps collected and sent on with the sextant box and shoe remnant. I would expect that when Gerald found out about the bottle being taken off the Island he most likely would have gathered together the others and inquired as to any other "souvenirs". Granted, he may not have had any luck in that ... but possible. He also does not refer to any other finds in future telegrams. HOWEVER, in looking at the wording in regards to the last communications regarding the items that are received in Suva, Fiji a note to Vaskees refers to the sextent box and the other items received ... "The empty sextant box has been packed as a parcel and sent to Commander Nasmyth together with 14.2 (original letter). The contents of the box have been parcelled and placed in your office". ... The wording seems to me that there MAY be several items (contents) instead of a shoe remnant which would be a single remaining item. Impossible to determine what, if anything MORE than what Gerald details in communications is in that "CONTENTS" parcel in Vaskees' office on June 9, 1941. I have addressed some of this in another Investigative Role Play (IRP) regarding Dr. Hoodless which has been sent to Ric and addresses some questions on the items found with the bones. Regards Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric We do have a pretty good accounting of the items that were found and sent to Suva apparently in the sexant box . On June 9th the box was emptied and sent to Commander Nasmyth for his comments. The contents of the box were "parcelled" and, on July 1, given to Dr. Steenson, the Senior Medical Officer of the Gilberet & Ellice islands Colony (who happened to be in town) for inspe ction and comment. Heis note to the file said: "I have examined the contents of the parcel mentioned. Apart from stating that they appear to be parts of shoes worn by a male person and a female person, I have nothing further to say. Those corks on brass chains would appear to have belonged to a small cask." This would indicate that there were multiple shoe parts plus the previously unmentioned "corks on brass chains." His opinion that there are parts of a man's AND a woman's shoe is very interesting and if he's right about the origin of the corks it could be an indication that the castaway had found the Norwich City cache which might logically have included small casks of drinking water. No mention of the Benedictine bottle. In fact, a careful review of the correspondence reveals that nobody in Suva seems to know about the bottle. All reference to it stops when Wernham confirms that he has collected it from Koata. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:16:17 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Earhart's abilities > From Don Neumann > On the contrary, all of the public reports (including anecdotal accounts > by third persons) seem to confirm that each landing & takeoff undertaken > by AE during the flight (including some undertaken on the subcontinent > during monsoon conditions as well as the last takeoff from Lae, with a > heavily fuel laden aircraft, from a relatively short, primitive airfield) were > performed successfully & without incident. I see the point you are making, but I don't believe the take-off from Lae was without incident. And the fact remains that the next planned landing was not successful. Successes taken alone are not a measure of competence, nor are failures taken alone a measure of incompetence. Looking at Earhart's record of successes and failures prior to the world flight attempt, I would not have chosen her to make that flight. Since I'm not a pilot I won't comment on her competence. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:17:04 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless Actually, with something along the lines of Gerry's hypothesis in mind, Kris Tague has tried to track down information on unidentified burials in cemeteries in Suva, particularly those in which the Medical School disposed of leftover cadavers. To the best of my knowledge she hasn't come onto anything suggestive (Kris, please elaborate if you want to), but it's another thread that would be good to pursue in Fiji. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:20:19 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless Re: Ric's comments Thanks for the factual corrections. Very much appreciated. I see now that Gerald notes in the Dec.27 telegram "eventual delivery to the High Commission". I see also that Gerald's notification of pending promotion is indeed to Ocean Island. Knowing first hand the British mentality, I cannot subscribe to a mass grave or incineration disposal of the bones theory however, This, " IN MY HUMBLE OPINION", is not in line with a procedural regime like the British, Colonial or Commonwealth services. There are bones in local cemeteries all over the world marked "Unknown" and given individual burial rights. It was, and is the policy of the British to bury their dead and other dead "where they fell". It would be interesting to see if MacPherson is buried in Fiji. I would expect he is. The possibility of souvenirs is possible but surely only by someone who knew first hand about the AE connection and/or heard about it soon thereafter. I would hope that nobody would take bones as a morbid souvenir ??? Anyway, IRP's bring out very interesting questions and suppositions. I still believe that the chances of those bones being buried in a "diginified burial" are much higher than the other alternatives. but then again, I may be wrong! I agree with you wholeheartedly on 2 points posed: 1. Gerald was not happy at all with his pending promotion and he made a point of saying so to Dr. MacPherson. Gerald, I believe, was entirely dedicated to the natives and their well-being and was beginning to have questions about the High Commission's commitment to the natives. 2. Exuming bones in Fiji or anywhere for that matter is extremely hard. However it can, has, and will in the future, be done through proper channels. Whether that will ever happen in this case depends entirely on finding a possible grave and evidence sourinding that find. What remains to be seen however, goes back to the original suggestion made. Did these bones receive the "dignified burial" in a grave in Suva probable between 1941 and 1950? Or where they disposed of in some other way? With or without the "kanawa" wood coffin. Much investigation still to be done !!! All the best! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:22:31 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Gerald Gallagher re: Clancy side of family Yes indeed I will gladly send on information. I have already told Ric that any and all information that I come up with will be sent on. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:27:21 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Random Radio Ramblings > From Hue Miller > ... --However, she apparently had successfully used the thing in the past, > right? ... Ric, you didn't answer this question. There is nothing that I remember on the TIGHAR website which answers it affirmatively. The DF equipment seems to have been installed just for the world flight. I don't remember anyone ever saying that any other leg of the journey required its use. Did AE ever show in the air that she knew how to run the DF equipment on board for the fatal flight? Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric She talks about playing with it for the first time on the Oakland/Hawaii leg of the first attempt. I'm aware of no occasion during the second attempt where she is known to have used the thing successfully. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:30:57 EDT From: Max Standridge Subject: Wishful thinking versus semi-nightmare Ric wrote: <> Could there also be a sad, semi-nightmare scenario here, in which, totally depressed, Amelia decided to put her small log or journal into a bottle and send a message out to sea? --Max Standridge *************************************************************************** From Ric That would present something of a problem for someone at the Seven Site. If you throw something into the ocean there it just washes back onto the beach (been there, done that) and throwing it into the lagoon doesn't accomplish much. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:40:26 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: possible souvenirs Does it state if the items are retained by Steenson or returned to the custody of Vaskess? Any indication of the items leaving Suva? Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric Everything we know is right there in the Bones Chronology (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) Because Steenson writes a note in the file itself rather than writng a letter, I suspect that he looked at the stuff right there in Vaskess' office. I see no indication that it ever left Suva. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:45:40 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless Let's not forget another possible thread for the disposal of these bones. A thread that I believe Tom King is working on.... Where the bones turned over to American officials. I believe research into Winthrop Abbott is under way. So many threads you could weave a blanket! Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************* From Ric That would surprise me. Having concluded that the bones belonged to an "unfortunate native castaway" that died on an island that was pointedy a Crown possession, I can see no reason for involving the Yanks who had been making unwelcome overtures about who really owned the Phoenix Islandsl. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:47:19 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless Along my line of conjecture ... did Kris Tague or anyone else come across a grave for Dr. MacPherson in Fiji? Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I heard about (and I think I would have). Tom? Kris? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:04:03 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: AE's log Ric writes: << Tom did the digging but my recollection from looking over his shoulder is that it seemed to be a discreet layer with no indication of multiple fires.>> We excavated to about 40 cm, but the ash and charcoal (very limited amounts) were confined to the top 5 cm or so. Stuff like this doesn't generally preserve very well in a Niku-like environment, though we did find substantial charcoal and ash deposits in the village, at the sites of long-used cookhouses. I'm afraid the potential for preservation of a short-term fire"pit" or anything in it not made of stone, ceramic, glass, or metal is pretty marginal. LTM (who says you don't need much of a fire to stay warm on Niku) TKing ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:37:45 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Excavation of fire Were any of the stones removed and explored under them? The chances on something being retained there for a long period of time should be enhanced by being protected by a stone covering it ??? Regards, Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************** From Ric Strictly speaking, there are no "stones" on Niku but there are coral slabs that can serve the same purpose that you're describing. There were none in evidence at the fire location that Tom excavated, but I should say again that we don't think that's the right part of the island anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:39:40 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless No grave for MacPherson, but then, we didn't look. It's doubtless there. ************************************************************************* From Ric Some corner of a Fijiian field that is forever Scotland? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:41:30 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Earhart's experience There is a saying that I'm fond of - Does she have 10 years experience or 1 years experience 10 times? Someone with only 100 hours vs 500 may be the better pilot if they have spent the whole 100 hours learning new material and reinforcing the material they have learned and it is all recent. On the other hand, 500 hours may be a lot of time in the air with no new learning and no reinforcing of material already learned, just more time. Another saying I like: "It isn't practice that makes perfect, PERFECT practice makes perfect!" LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:42:51 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Lady Be Good >>From Herman De Wulf Having read the story of LBG and referring navigation error to our research into the AE/FN 1937 flight, I think we should bear in mind that the human mind can play tricks to the best people. It is hard to understand today why the crew of LBG continued the flight so far beyond their ETA as they did. It is clear the navigator must have had his sums wrong. Yet they were military flyers and therefore professionals. >> Professionals - NO, this was the navigator's first combat mission. Given the training available in those war years, he was given a quick, down and dirty form of training and he was not an experienced navigator nor should he be classified as a professional given the level of training that those men received in those days. It is really surprising that they didn't lose more of them this way. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:42:14 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless <> Ahh, well put Ric, you can take the man out of Scotland but you cannot take Scotland out of the man! Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric "From the lone shieling of the misty island Mountains divide us, and a waste of seas. Still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland And we, in dreams, behold the Hebrides." Sorry. We now return to our regularly scheduled forum. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:37:17 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless Perhaps our good friend Foua Tofinga could see about a locating a possible gravesite for MacPherson in Fiji..? LTM (who loved getting her hands dirty), Barb Norris *************************************************************************** From Ric I see no harm in asking Tofinga if he happens to know if and where Macpherson was buried in Fiji, but I would be hesitiant to ask him to engage in a lot of research on the subject. After all, while it would be nice to know, it's hard to see how it has any bearing at all upon our investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:47:36 EDT From: Bill Conover Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless >From Gerry Gallagher > > It was, and is the policy of the British > to bury their dead and other dead "where they fell". It would > be interesting to see if MacPherson is buried in Fiji. I would > expect he is. That's an interesting comment Gerry and from what I know and have read of British custom, quite factual. I wonder if Dr.MacPherson, who accompanied Gerald back from Fiji on the S.S.Niti, had the bones with him? Perhaps the reason for his making the trip was to provide for a dignified burial of the remains "where they fell" -- especially after their having been "identified". The tragic death of Gerald would have been the paramount issue and the bones likely forgotten in the wake of such an event. So perhaps there is an element of truth in the Kilts anecdote when he says "The natives are superstitious as the devil and the next night after the young fellow died they threw the gunnysack full of bones overboard, scared of the spirits. And that was that." Not hard to imagine that happening in light of Geralds death. Well, it is of course all speculation, but it does make one think. And that really is what the forum is all about. To educate and teach the process of rational thought and scientific inquiry. With so many learned members, it is a pleasure to read it. LTM, Bill Conover *************************************************************************** From Ric The most compelling argument against the bones being taken back to Gardner for "dignified burial" is that there is no mention of it in the official file. If burying people "where they fell" is a British tradition, meticulous record keeping is a British obsession. Vaskess was, by all accounts, a classically thorough administrator and the file on the bones carefully notes everything that happens from the first notification in September 1940 until August 1941 when everyone apparently gives up trying to find out anything more. The Viti departed in July and there is no mention in the file about the bones being sent back for burial. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:49:18 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless >> and value than the bones themselves. In any event, the bones are last known to be in storage at the Central Medical School where, we must presume, other bones were in residence. When the time came to dispose of them, as it apparently did, it's hard to know just how that may have been handled.>> I wonder whether the CMS had a specific procedure for disposal of such things around that period? Also, the Kanawa wood box had already been designated and used as a "coffin". It is entirely possible - though not probable - that there was a little reluctance attached to the idea of using it for anything else. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:57:05 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: possible souvenirs >>...man's AND a woman's shoe is very interesting and if he's right about the origin of the corks it could be an indication that the castaway had found the Norwich City cache which might logically have included small casks of drinking water. No mention of the Benedictine bottle.<< Did you ever find the location of the survivor's cache. There seem to be some very good clues in the (N.Z. expedition?) photographs. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric We have not specifically searched for the N.S. survivors' camp although we could probably pin down the general area within a few hundred yards based upon the Capt. Hamer's description. Whether anything would now survive at the site and whether it would be worth the time and manpower it would take to look for it is another question. I see that kind of archaeological investigation as secondary to the primary task of finding a "smoking gun" artifact that proves that Earhart and Noonan died on Nikumaroro. Once we have that we can begin to fill out the rest of the story. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:10:06 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Earhart's abilities The first public mention of the west to east world flight was when AE landed in Miami. I've also wondered about the reason for the change...going east to west means having a tail-wind nearly the entire distance, certainly a benefit for fuel consumption and time in the air.... ************************************************************************** From Ric Checking the message database, as late as April 28, 1937 Earhart is clearly still planning to go east to west. Putnam first informs the authorities that the direction has been reversed on May 14, 1937 - only five days before the airplane comes out of the repair shop and only six days before the unpublicized beginning of the Second Wolrd flight attempt. This is truly a last minute switcheroo. Really makes you wonder.... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:11:46 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: How much? (Re how much did the World flight cost and how much did they hope to make rom it?) In all of my researches, I've not found out this kind of information from the private papers of GPP or AE... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:17:14 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless > From Gerry Gallagher > It was, and is the policy of the British to bury their dead and > other dead "where they fell". It would be interesting to see if > MacPherson is buried in Fiji. I would expect he is. Would it have been consistent with this policy to send the bones back to Gardner Is. with intent to bury them "where they fell?" If so, I'd like to again combine fact with anecdote and point out that the last official record of the bones and other artifacts was made prior to Gerald departing Suva, and anecdote has it that the locals tossed the bones into the sea after Gerald died: "The natives are superstitious as the devil and the next night after the young fellow died they threw the gunnysack full of bones overboard, scared of the spirits. And that was that" [Floyd Kilts]. If there is some truth in Kilt's account then it is also possible that the shoe parts found by TIGHAR in 1991 may have been the very same shoe parts found by Gallagher in 1937, and the bones may be scattered all along the southern sea shore. Do bones float? Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric No. Bones don't float and it seems highly unlikely that they were returned for burial because there is no mention of such in the official file. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:18:55 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Distance from Howland With a radio signal strength of "5", how close to Howland did A.E. get before her signal strength deteriorated as she proceeded south on the LOP? Curiosity has got me guessing. At an altitude of 1,000 ft, about 20 miles? LTM (who is 5x 5 and still alive) Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:21:22 EDT From: Bill Zorn Subject: and at the end of the movie....... Ric said ....."If you throw something into the ocean there it just washes back onto the beach" And pan camera to a windwept sky, roll credits. ************************************************************************** From Ric ..with gracefully circling Frigate birds - don't forget the Frigate birds. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:23:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: accidents Muriel told me she spent a lot of time helping her sister (Amelia) patch and dope fabric on AE's plane(s). But I would imagine that was pretty normal for most pilots in those early days. The pilots were not all that good or experienced and their machines sometimes unreliable, poorly maintained, if at all, or not all that air worthy in the first place. If AE had a lot of incidents she was probably in good company. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric Incidents yes, but not many pilots could afford to repeated wreck aircraft. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:28:55 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Random Radio Ramblings > --I think you should rest your mind regarding the AVC. It doesn't > work like some computer controlled effect. I do not believe it > being on, would totally mask the null. Your concern, IMO, considers > the AVC feature too effective. > >> I wonder if that might be the genesis of AE's idea that she couldn't get a >> null when too close to the transmitting location -- such as at Lae? Maybe >> nobody had ever got through to her that she needed to turn off the AVC switch. > > However, she apparently had successfully used the thing in the past, > right? My opinion (only) is that at Lae, she would have had to stay right > over the Lae station antenna for this effect to have spoiled the experiment. --Here i am going to add some equivocations and howevers to my comment above in reply to Vern's question. I thot about this today, remembering things i'd read in the past, and i tried a few minutes of a little experiment when i arrived home. I recalled that if the signal is really strong, then AVC or not, you're going to have a real hard time getting a good null. There are some people who like to try for real distant AM broadcast stations, i mean like overseas, even on the same channel as a local. To really null the local, you have to go to pains to have a carefully built loop (balance adjusted), and you may need to tilt it in the vertical plane as well as rotate it. Also (this is not very mathematical or precise), i am thinking, how much is a "null" ? It really doesn't mean zero, it means a minimum, and if your signal is above some strong level, how can you detect some certain level less, especially if the situation is complicated by the Automatic Volume Control circuit working? I recall also, that for weak signals, AVC hardly works at all, and so on up, the stronger the signal, the more the AVC effect cuts in. My little experiment wasn't very precisely controlled, but i did notice that in some cases of real strong signals, the only way i could detect a "minimum" of sorts, was to listen for slight increase in background noise. A person not clued to this, in a noisey environment, couldn't be expected to do painstaking close listening. I also did notice that for one or more really strong signals, i was not able to get any null at all. That jibed with what i'd read. To revise my previous note: i'm thinking that if AE during the Lae test had only flown 2, 3, 4, miles (or so, yes, very crude guess) she maybe experienced the same thing. AVC or even maybe not, i'm thinking. Why would she do such a brief test? Maybe to save money on the amount of fuel she was buying? To conserve the fuel supply? In the endgame situation, i rule out the strong signal ruining the null, scenario. To do that, she would have to be just too close to miss seeing the ship. I'd still say she was just too far still, for any reliable non-skywave homing signal to predominate. Or, we still can't rule out maybe some problem with the DF hookup or functioning. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:30:14 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless >>From a practical perspective, I suspect that it could be very tricky to get permission to exhume burials in Fiji, even if listed as, say, "Unknown Remains - September 1941".<< It would be impossible - considered a crackpot fishing expedition - unless you find something definitive on the island. That will really get some attention and help, even to looking at an exhumation. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:31:02 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Bones This one is directed to Tom King: Regarding the last expedition. I recall when Ric and crew went to Niku, Tom and crew journeyed to Fiji in search of "Them Bones". I seem to remember that the Fiji crew was met with a little hostility, and honest help from the island authorities was near to non-existent. That being the case, is there something else you could have done or can do in the future to enhance your search for the bones? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:35:46 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Dorsal V as sense? Anyone want to comment on the likelihood of the upper, dorsal, transmit antenna also serving as the 'sense' antenna, and connected from the transmitter to the RDF unit up front high? Is this too long, impractical length inside run? I am tending to think Long is right about the RDF's frequency range being only up to 1500 kHz or so. If that is correct, we would need to explain how the RDF could pick up *anything* on shortwaves ( e.g. 6210, 7500 ) using the loop (which is a tuned circuit.) IF the sense antenna was connected, you could still receive on the RDF unit, at HF (SW), by switching to "D" - the loop would be inactive, the wire, sense antenna would be doing all the pickup. However, i note Longs's book actually has no support for the frequency range they cite. Since (apparently) the AE unit has 5 bands (reall tuff, and maybe impossible to tell from the photo), you can't, i don't think, automatically compare it to the RDF-2 (6 bands) as they do. The announcement of the civilian unit in the av magazine - is there a photo, & any specs? Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric One photo, no specs, just some very general comments. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:41:35 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Macpherson's grave I didn't mean to impose on anyone especially not Foua Tofinga as MacPherson grave is only a side issue. I have a contact in Suva who I have spoken to and he will be looking into MacPherson for me at his convenience. He will also attempt to look around graves in the general are that may be unmarked or unknown. I will report back to Ric with these findings if any. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:43:02 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless I agree with the comments regarding the "kanawa" wood coffin. It was made of unique wood and Gerald was quite proud of it as a coffin for the unknown remains. He talks with passion about the box ... however, I do not think it would have turned out to be a "designer work of art" that someone would want to dump it's contents and retain! Thus, I believe it housed the bones during the trip to Suva, and being that it was convenient and that Vaskees was told to retain them until further notice, I can only believe that he returned the bones to the "kanawa" box after he examined them and it was in that box they were stored. I also go on to suggest that if the bones were buried they most likely were buried in that "kanawa" coffin. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:44:22 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless I agree with Ric. Unlikely that the bones would have been taken back. It would not have been in line with policy. The "bury were they fell" policy wouldn't relate to a body,(or bones in this matter) that was removed and taken elsewhere for any given reason. The remains would most likely have been intered at the official British cemetery near were the remains were taken. The fact that the bones were odrered returned to Suva eliminates the chance that the bones would be returned and buried on Gardner. But liely to be buried at the cemetery in Suva ... if buried at all! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:09:43 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Switcheroo Ric wrote: >This is truly a last minute switcheroo. Really makes you wonder.... Switching direction may not be as mysterious as you may think!. Think about it for a minute! You pick up your freshly rebuilt airplane, after it suffered a major accident with sudden engine stoppage, and the first leg of your planned flight is over some 2,400 miles of open water. And, the next leg is even further! When I put the new engine in my boat, I stayed pretty close to home port for a while, and only went upstream for the first ten hours. After each trip out, I would removed the cover and inspect the engine. Maybe she just didn't trust the Electra yet and wanted some time on home soil to work the "bugs" out. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric Good point Don. I think you're on to something, but there's more to it than that. It is a fact that Earhart kept the first legs of the second attempt (Oakland to Burbank to Tucson to New Orleans to Miami) secret so as to be able to have a good "shakedown cruise" before any public announcement that she was off on another World Flight. The alternative would be to make test flights around California before heading out over the Pacific, but that would have delayed her departure by a week or more. Was time a big factor? Apparently. Earhart was reportedly a royal pain in the butt around the Lockheed shop, pushing to get the repairs completed as quickly as possible. Why the rush? This is speculation but I suspect it was all about getting the planned book "World Flight" out in time for the Christmas market (Oct., Nov., Dec.). GP and AE were always driven by marketing considerations. They were already running late because of the accident. The pressure was on, but they didn't want to strike out over the Pacific with an untested airplane. Reversing the direction allowed them to get started immediately but gave them a good chance to work out any bugs over home territory, just as Don says. Of course, they couldn't tell the public that they had reversed the course for such crass commercial reasons so they cooked up a story about the weather (an old Earhart/Putnam standby) and for 63 years everybody has bought it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:11:04 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: possible souvenirs > From Ric > > We have not specifically searched for the N.S. survivors' camp ... It seems to be a matter of fact that the natives on Niku scavenged widely and thoroughly for usable materials (e.g., the inverting eyepiece, scraps of aluminum used for cooking and decoration, airplane cables and aluminum used to hook a big fish, parts of another crashed airplane, the story of the GI's dog tags, etc.). If so, it seems unlikely to me that they would have missed the chance of rifling the cache left from the shipwreck. Of course, strange things do happen. Maybe Amelia and Fred found the supplies but the settlers did not. But I wouldn't bet time or money on it, given other more interesting sites to search (ocean, reef, lagoon, 7-site). Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:12:54 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Exhumation Legally I believe it would have to involve AE's relatives petitioning to the Courts in Fiji based upon evidence raised and the grave pinpointed. I doubt that TIGHAR would be given permission. However, the family may be allowed. You would have to be very sure, with strong supportive evidence that the grave site at least had a very good chance of containing the bones of AE to get a judge to rule. You then have to pray that that site unearths the 13 bones and/or "kanawa" coffin ... because if you are wrong, it is a one time chance ... you will never get another order from the court ! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:17:48 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless >From Ric: > No. Bones don't float and it seems highly unlikely that they were returned > for burial because there is no mention of such in the official file. From what I can see the official file has no entries at all after August 19, 1941. In fact, the last mention of the bones is Gallagher's own statement made to the file on July 3, 1941, and this statement appears to be intended as a final closing on the matter of the bones. If Gallagher viewed the matter as closed, he may have retrieved the bones from Hoodless and made his closing statement to the file (July 3, 1941) while he was Acting Assistant Secretary of the W.P.H.C. (June 20-July 19, 1941) and intended to telegram his actions after burying the bones on Gardner. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric I disagree. I don't think Irish had the authority to get the bones from Hoodless without clearance from either Vaskess or Sir Harry Luke himself. In any event, the file was active at the time the Viti sailed and it seems inconceivable that the bones could have gone aboard without some kind of notation to the file. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:27:10 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Distance from Howland Roger Kelley asked: > With a radio signal strength of "5", how close to Howland did A.E. get > before her signal strength deteriorated as she proceeded south on the > LOP? We don't know how close she got to Howland. But based on radio signal strength analysis, we can say that she was not more than 80 nautical miles away at the closest point of approach (CPA). Altitude was not a factor in her signal strength because the propagation path near CPA was via near-vertical-incidence skywave. In order for altitude to be a factor, the propagation would have to be via the geometric direct path. But Earhart's antenna was such a poor radiator at low vertical angles that the direct path field strength was virtually nil. LTM, Bob Brandenburg, #2286 ************************************************************************** From Ric It may be possible to narrow it down more than that. Assuming that she's on or near the LOP southeast of Howland, it's obvious that she never saw Baker Island which is pretty much on the LOP 40 nm southeast of Howland, so her closest approach to Howland must not bring her close enough (10 nm?) to see Baker. That puts her between 50 and 80 nm out. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:28:35 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: "Range Antennas" from Morgan (1939) Here is what Howard K. Morgan had to say about "range antennas" in his 1939 book, "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment:" "Another common location of [range] antennas is under the nose of the plane and parallel to the fuselage, either as an inverted T or L antenna. These antennas are not as subject to icing but their pickup and cone of silence qualities are inferior to the others [whip and V antennas]. The cone of silence will usually lead the [ A & N Morse Code beacon] station by five degrees or so and the cone is not as distinct and sharp. The antenna is a fairly good all purpose antenna however." According to Morgan, range antennas it was not good practice to connect range antennas to the double vertical fins of aircraft like the Electra. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:10:26 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Switcheroo This is an interesting idea----one way to test it out would be to critique the validity of the Earhart/Putnam rationale that the "weather" was the reason the flight direction was changed. Didn't we do this on the Forum earlier? If we did, does anyone recall what was determined? --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall that we've ever really dug into this (have we?). Randy, you know from meteorology - what do you think? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:23:56 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: N.S. cache site Ric said: >>I see that kind of archaeological investigation as secondary to the primary task of finding a "smoking gun" artifact that proves that Earhart and Noonan died on Nikumaroro. Once we have that we can begin to fill out the rest ofthe story. Yes, but, Ric, if they found the cache, is it not likely that they used that area as a base of operations since they would not likely have been able to move everything? Thus, isn't it likely that some artifacts of AE/FN might not logically be found at the cache site? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps, and if we knew right where the cache site had been if would be worth a careful look, but we don't. We don't even know if any sign of it still survives to find. The area that would need to be searched is now pretty much solid scaevola and looking for signs of the cache site would take a tremendous committment of assets that I think are better expended in areas where we have a slightly less speculative hope of finding our "smoking gun," ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:26:28 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Macpherson's grave <<...it's hard to see how it has any bearing at all upon our investigation.>> Ric: What is the possibility that some of the artifacts were interred with him? Perhaps as a memorial or perhaps because they were identified with him by others not familiar with their origin? LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric I'd say the chances of that are about as close to zero as you can get. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:31:28 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: bones Refresh my memory. Didn't the records indicate that the bones were sent to the Medical School? Where was the Medical School located? Didn't you and some others visit an archive in England that contained most of the physical records of the Medical School? And wasn't the Medical School closed and out of business? If so, when did it close? That might be the time frame to search for the burial of the bones. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ************************************************************************** From Ric I can best refresh your memory by referring you to Tom King's report on the Fiji Bone Search whihc can be found at: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/14_Fijibones/14_Fijibones.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:09:28 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Macpherson's grave My reason for inquiring about MacPherson was that I believe that at some point an event may have prompted the "dignified burial" of the bones. MacPherson died in 1943 and it COULD have prompted somebody to remember the bones and subsequently arrange for their "dignified burial". I doubt seriously if the bones or the artifacts would have been buried with MacPherson but may be next to, or near him in a cemetery... ONLY if his death prompted the burial at or about the same time. MacPherson was born in Oban in Scotland and I have checked there for a possible grave to no result. Thus my strong belief that he is buried in Suva. Incidentally Ric, as you most probably know, Oban is the gateway to the highlands. David Werham (travelled to Pacific with Gerald and Bevington) was from Glasgow and I am researching him as well here. Scotland is playing a bigger and bigger part in this!!! Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************* From Ric "Land of my childhood, I'm dreamin' o' thee As the steamer leaves Oban and passes Tyree..." Pat reminds me that, according to Eric Bevington's memoir "The Things We Do For England - If Only England Knew" (page 96): "Jock MacPherson was a native of Oban who spoke only Gaelic until he was sixteen: he had originally served at sea in the Merchant Marine before he turned to the medical profession." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:11:37 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Switcheroo Quoting Ric, "Of course, they couldn't tell the public that they had reversed the course for such crass commercial reasons so they cooked up a story about the weather (an old Earhart/Putnam standby) and for 63 years everybody has bought it." Another thought in support of this theory, is that Amelia may have needed some re qualifying time in the Electra. Most likely, she hadn't flown one since the accident. So, she may have decided to fly it across the U.S. Maybe get in a little practice. . . since the last time she flew one. . . she lost it. She might have been just a bit scared. If all went well, then in Florida she would announce the start of the World Flight and continue on. Make sense to me! I bet they had some anxious moments when the engine caught fire!!! Can you imagine if that would have happened on Howland? Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:33:10 EDT From: Ric Subject: Relationships We've worked out Gerry Gallagher's relationship to Gerald Gallagher of Nikumaroro. Irish is Gerry's first cousin, twice removed. Here's how it works. Gerry's grandfather and Irish were first cousins (i.e. their fathers were brothers). Gerry's "first cousin" relationship to Irish is separated or "removed" by two generations (his father's and his own), hence Irish is his first cousin twice removed. (Thanks to Pat who sorted this out. I can never keep that stuff straight.) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:35:24 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Expedition plans Finding the survivors' cache could be directly relevant if AE & FN (if they were on Gardner) found it. In that case they may have left some evidence behind of their having been there. It seems to me that it would be worth exploring. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Patrick Robinson Ric wrote: "We have not specifically searched for the N.S. survivors' camp although we could probably pin down the general area within a few hundred yards based upon the Capt. Hamer's description. Whether anything would now survive at the site and whether it would be worth the time and manpower it would take to look for it is another question. I see that kind of archaeological investigation as secondary to the primary task of finding a "smoking gun" artifact that proves that Earhart and Noonan died on Nikumaroro. Once we have that we can begin to fill out the rest of the story." If the camp is located couldn't the smoking gun be found there ? Any type of DNA material, hair, blood (especially if FN was wounded upon landing) or even up to and including fingerprints ? How will the expedition preserve that kind of material ? LTM (who always leaves fingerprints) Pat 2239 *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay boys and girls, it's time to play "Who Wants To Be The Expedition Leader?". Here's your problem for today. You have a team of 12 TIGHARs and 10 eight-hour work days to spend on the island (after you deduct 1 day for set up, 1 day for break down and 1 day for R&R), so you have a total of 960 manhours to expend. The total cost of the expedition is $300,000 so each manhour represents $312.50 that had to be raised from the faithful. Of course, you'll almost certainly lose hours to weather, equipment breakdowns, and injuries which will further increase the investment in every hour of search work on the island, but we won't worry about that right now. Where are you going to spend your 960 manhours so as to stand the best chance of achieving your objective (i.e. the discovery of a "smoking gun")? Here are ten options that come to mind: 1. Search the ledge off the west end of the reef for heavy airplane parts (engines, gear legs, main beam) that may have been pulled over the edge when surf broke up the airplane (if that's what happened). Estimated investment: 4 divers, 2 days - 64 mh - $20,000 2. Search the lagoon floor between the mouth of the main passage and the Taraia Peninsula for airplane debris washed through the passage. Estimated investment: 4 divers, 6 days - 192 mh - $60,000 3. Search the "Seven Site" for bones and/or artifacts. Estimated investment: 4 bushwhackers, 10 days - 320 mh - $100,000 4. Excavate one and possibly two graves on Nutiran shoreline. Estimated investment: 4 graverobbers, 6 days - 192 mh - $60,000 5. Search the Taraia Peninsula shoreline for aircraft debris. Estimated investment: 4 bushwhackers, 4 days - 128 mh - $40,000 6. Excavate the site of the carpenter's shop (probably where Emily's father Temou Samuela built the kanawa wood coffin and where TIGHAR found the radio cables in 1996). Estimated investment: 2 grubbers, 2 days - 32 mh - $10,000 7. Expand the previous (1991 and 1997) searches at the Aukeraime site where the shoe parts were found in 1991. Estimated investment: 4 bushwhackers, 4 days - 128 mh - $40,000 8. Search Kanawa Point. Estimated investment: 4 bushwhackers, 4 days - 128 mh - $40,000 9. Search for and, if found, excavate the Norwich City survivors' camp/cache. Estimated investment: 4 bushwhackers, 4 days - 128 mh - $40,000 10. Search the Norwich City debris field for possible airplane parts. Estimated investment: 2 reefwalkers, 1 day - 16 mh - $5,000 Of course, that all totals 1328 manhours and you only have 960, so you can't do everything. What would you do? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:40:16 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Earhart/Putnam finances Dennis McGee makes an interesting observation about how the Putnams were able to fund this flight, both the initial, aborted attempt from Hawaii & the second effort from Florida? Considering the time frame (the nation was still recovering from the stock market crash & the depths of a worldwide depression) during the pre-flight preparations & the actual flight itself, has it ever been established just what the financial condition of the Putnams was during this time period? Can't recall ever reading about any details concerning determinations of dollar costs of planning/preparation for the flight, before & after the Hawaii debacle, however common sense would seem to dictate, considering the depressed nature of the national economy at that stage, such costs must have been, comparatively speaking, enormous! While some of the overseas labor performed on the craft enroute, was probably at 'bargain basement' prices, yet the cost of purchasing & shipping parts/materials around the world, (even in that era) to provide for adequate service & maintenance at each stop along the way, not including cost of fuel & oil, would have been quite substantial. When you add to this the cost of repairing/replacing parts damaged at the time of the Hawaii crash, including the overtime costs incurred by Lockheed to have the craft airworthy in two months time, it would seem that the Putnams mounted a staggering, overall debt to finance the flight, in terms of the overall economic conditions prevalent in 1936-37. Seem to recall an AE quote that they were...'mortgaging their future'... to finance, what she had declared would be, her last attempt at record breaking flights. I wonder whether anyone has ever tried to trace a ...'paper trail'... of the indebtedness the Putnams incurred as a result of this failed flight? (Putnam did posthumously publish AE's... 'Last Flight'..., but I doubt that the revenue obtained from such effort came anywhere close to meeting the repayment of the Putnam's incurred debts.) There have always been suggestions that the US government picked up part of the tab (not including the costs connected with the runway construction on Howland & the three 'standby' vessels on station to provide radio/DF or assistance in case she had to 'ditch' before she reached or after she left Howland), either because of the conspiracy theorist's version, that AE/FN were on a 'spy' mission, or the more practical consideration, that the Roosevelt Administration wanted to clearly establish US control over Howland & Baker Islands in the event of looming, subsequent hostilities arising in the Pacific & used the AE/FN flight to 'legitimize' such efforts. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric Mary Lovell addressed some of these questions in her book "The Sound of Wings" but does not provide real details. Interesting question. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:45:18 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: possible souvenirs Ric wrote: >>I see that kind of archaeological investigation as secondary to the primary task of finding a "smoking gun" artifact that proves that Earhart and Noonan died on Nikumaroro. Once we have that we can begin to fill out the rest of the story.<< It really only becomes relevant if the castaway was Earhart or Noonan and if they found the cache. One could imagine them using the cache area as a sort of "base camp", which could mean things salvaged from the Electra might have been left there. However I can't imagine tha N.C. survivor's cache not being discovered during some 20+ years of occupation, especially if there were kids exploring the island at that end. If there were any odds and ends salvaged, they would have found their way into the village. The biggest argument I still see against a "safe" landing on the reef is the lack of the obvious. Emergency gear (flare gun etc.) and clothing, thermos flasks (of which we know there were several) things that would make even a hopefully short stay of a day or two more comfortable. (Lets face it, if general consensus says AE couldn't guarantee a safe take off on a paved runway, how in hell would she land on a reef flat in one piece!) Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric We, of course, have no idea how much stuff might have been brought ashore, how long one or both of them may have survived on the island, and what may have been taken from the bone discovery site without Gallagher's knowledge. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:50:17 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Switcheroo It has long been my opinion that a lot of the timing revolved around Earhart's flight ending at the same field she took off from on the 4th of July. Why she would pick this particular date however..... Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, if the first World Flight attempt had gone according to plan, they would have been home long before Independence Day. My opinion is that the 4th of July was a "target of opportunity" that Putnam wanted to hit when it became obvious that Earhart's completion of the flight might come at about that time. I don't think it was a driving force in deciding which way to fly around the world. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:53:22 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Switcheroo There is substantial credence to weather affecting the direction of the world flights, due to the monsoonal season over central Africa, that rises up in late June/July. This was confirmed to me by a seasoned meteorologist. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:03:03 EDT From: Patrick Robinson Subject: Bones "The Viti departed in July and there is no mention in the file about the bones being sent back for burial." Would the British provided a "dignified burial" for an unidentified islander that the bones were supposed to be ? LTM (who wonders if there is a double standard) Pat 2239 ************************************************************************** From Ric It's hard to know from the file just what the conclusion of the higher-ups ultimately was. Isaac said the bones were those of an elderly Polynesian male. Hoodless said they were those of a short, stocky European or mixed race male. Gallagher's note to the file speaks of an "unfortunate native" castaway. One thing does seem to be consistent - nobody is of the opinion that the poor devil was one of "our own." Nobody was missing (except Amelia Earhart and they felt that they had already ruled out that possibility) so whoever this was, he was of little consequence. Was there a double standard? Does a Bluefooted Boobie poop in the ocean? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:06:15 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Switcheroo Don Jordan's suggestion that the reversal of direction for the world flight was due to the need to conduct a 'shakedown' flight for the newly repaired Electra, sounds very reasonable & as mentioned by Ric, would also have saved time in initiating the world flight, as they'd have to fly East anyway if they reversed direction . Perhaps another reason was that AE had no desire to re-visit (so soon) the site of her near disastrous & embarrassing take-off performance from Hawaii, thus soothing a somewhat bruised ego in the bargain. Does seem though that they were more concerned with thinking of immediate, short term, gains by reversing the direction of the flight, as opposed to more careful consideration of the long range effects such a change would have upon aircraft & crew at the other end of the flight. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric As Randy has now pointed out, it may be that there were also some legitimate weather concerns having to do with the monsoon season in central Africa. It could be that we have a complex array of considerations coming together to argue for a course reversal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:07:39 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones For Rick Seapin. << That being the case, is there something else you could have done or can do in the future to enhance your search for the bones? >> Sure; there are things we undoubtedly should have done differently, and LOTS more we could do -- not only because some key people in Fiji weren't wild about our search last time and didn't facilitate access, but simply because there are lots and lots of leads to follow up in Fiji, and we couldn't follow them all during a one-month stay. It would be very much worthwhile to devote a lot more time to work in Fiji. TK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:59:09 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Bone search >>From Tom King ...there are things we undoubtedly should have done differently, and LOTS more we could do -- not only because some key people in Fiji weren't wild about our search last time and didn't facilitate access...>TK Ric: This may be clutching at straws, but could some of the lack of enthusiasm have been due to people concerned about losing artifacts that they might have in their possession? You mentioned the dogtags from a WWII Marine - seems to me that other, larger artifacts (ie - kanawa wood box, sextant, etc) might all be highly prized possessions that someone might not want to part with! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Sure. That's always a possibility but it's also impossible to know about unless somebody comes forward. We tried offering a reward - no response. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:21:18 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: World Flight/ reversal of fortune I don't buy the weather business nor the overland shakedown cruise factors that purportedly changed Amelia's mind and her decision to fly east. The west winds were a major factor in heading that way and she could always fly around Oakland for a week to check out the plane. So was there a more critical factor. Brink and others think so. On page 42 of World Flight Amelia says she consulted with a lot of meterologists (unnamed) and based on projected rain, fog, and temperatures, decided to reverse course. She adds a few more weather reasons about the weather around the equator,and the nicety of a 3000 mile shakedown cruise to Miami. Brink in Lost Star debunks these reasons and throws in some food for thought about this decision. He states that right after the Honolulu crackup, Bernard Baruch was dispatched to Hollywood direct from the White House [Roosevelt] and talked to Amelia about "volunteering for an intelligence mission that would be assisted and underwritten by the military." Brinks cites his 1980 interview with Margo de Carrie who said she was present during three of those meetings. And he said the "shadowy" William T. Miller came to the Putnam house and helped plan the second attempt. The seasonal change explanation offered by Amelia, says Brink, was baloney because "in fact,little seasonal change of any sort occurs in weather along the equator, and no change at all in the wind direction. Ric I think you asked for forum meterologist to comment on this aspect of the Amelias rationale to go east to west. And of course, he offers the most likely real reason; if one is to take secret photos over the Marshalls of suspected Japanese installations, one does not want to land at Lae with the possiblity of being discovered and the secret cameras identified, but rather land at Howland where the film could be secretly retrieved and cameras removed. Obviously, Brink suspects the government sometime after the first attempt in Mar 37 found that rather than just a stunt or flying for the fun of it, the flight could have a strategic importance to US. Intelligence. Question, did fresh information about Japanese activity in the Marshalls develop after the Mar 37 incident. I still have an open mind about Amelia's role because of Carol Harris' recollections and the fact that the Navy files at Crane have not yet been declassifed. And for good measure to support the secret mission, he cites an interview with Lockheed airframe technician Robert T. Elliott. Elliott said he was directed to cut two 16-18 inch diameter holes to be used for the cameras, which were mounted in the lower aft fuselage bay and electrically oprated. (p.109) Does Tighar know anything about Elliott? Also Walter McMenamy,says Brink who interviewed him in 1980, claimed that FBI agents swore him and Karl Pierson to secrecy about the flight " and the radio signals were received up on the {Beacon} hill. According to Brink, McMenamy said he was released from his secrecy pledge in 1979 by the U.S. Attorney General. note: I think Pierson and McMenamy claim they heard many post loss messages from Amelia including position,etc. Now there we have it. The real story for the reversal??? LTM, Ron Bright (who knows you should never put a question mark after a declarative sentence ) *************************************************************************** From Ric I have this sinking feeling that you're actually serious. Brink makes all kinds of outrageous allegations that are simply and demonstrably not true. The nonsense about Bernard Baruch will serve as an example: He reproduces a photograph which he says shows Amelia in front of the Electra with Bernard Baruch. What he doesn't say is that the photograph is from the January 1937 issue of National Aeronautics magazine and originally carried the caption, "Herbert Sharlock, vice president in charge of public relations of the Bendix Aviation Corporation, is shown with Amelia Earhart as she makes a stop in South Bend to visit with Vincent Bendix." If you want to discuss conspiracy theories you'll have to do it someplace else. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:24:58 EDT From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Expedition plans Actually, it's my impression from the leads we have as to where the survivors' camp/cache was, that we probably went through the area during the 1999 expedition. You may recall, Ric, that a group of us (including you) searched through a fairly large area inland from the deepest penetration of the scaevola hack lines (this was the area of the large trees which looks a lot like the area of the camp in the New Zealander's pictures) with this in mind. During that traverse we were on the lookout for evidence of the camp, but found nothing. So, while this wasn't a major search, I think we can be sure that anything which might be there is going to take lots of effort to locate. Frankly, all of Nutiran struck me as a pretty hostile spot, and if I were a castaway on Niku there would have to be a very good reason for me to stay any time in that area. This lessens further the possibility of Earhart relics being located there if, in fact, she discovered and used the spot. Indeed, as we walked back through the village to board the launch to the Nai'a, I can remember us all saying how downright bucolic it seemed to be away from Nutiran. Therefore, my vote would be that a search for the survivor's camp is probably of the lowest priority. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric I remember it well - too well - and I completely agree with your assessment. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:46:34 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Switcheroo I would be surprised if AE and GP didn't notice the convenience of delaying the announcement of the world flight until she had successfully completed the first segment (across the US), even if the weather or seasonal timing were more important factors in making the switch. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:58:13 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Bones Ric wrote: > It's hard to know from the file just what the conclusion of the > higher-ups ultimately was. Isaac said the bones were those of an elderly Polynesian > male. Hoodless said they were those of a short, stocky European or mixed > race male. Gallagher's note to the file speaks of an "unfortunate > native" castaway. Judging from the tone of Gallagher's correspondence to Isaac and his comment in the file, I don't think he placed much faith in Hoodless's findings. Gallagher was obviously familiar with Earhart's disappearance and may even have been familiar with the LOP considerations. He had held in his hands part of a shoe that was obviously not native to the area, had held a sextant box that was obviously not Polynesian, and had viewed bones that, with his medical training, appeared to be those of a female. Gallagher, being new to the service, probably could not afford to make waves. Hoodless, a senior medical professional, was upset, and Gallagher needed to sooth the situation. When I first read Gallagher's telegram to Isaac, the struck comments appeared to me to be an attempt to get the box and bones returned to him. With his status it probably wouldn't have been proper to ask for the bones so that he could study them further on his own, so he was hoping his senior would volunteer them along with the box. Before he sent the telegram he may have had second thoughts about it and struck the applicable lines. So my speculation is that Gallagher still believed that the bones may have been Earhart's but he couldn't tell his seniors that he thought they were wrong. And he either wanted to ensure the bones were given a fitting burial or he wanted to ensure that they were preserved for some future investigation. IF he did still believe that the bones may have been Earharts, and IF he was concerned about telling his seniors his beliefs, then one solution would have been to take the bones back to Gardner when he had the opportunity, bury them, and afterwards report that he had buried the "unfortunate native castaway" where he had been found. His note to the file is also indicative of these thoughts. He identifies the castaway as a "native," because that's what he's expected to believe, who for some reason had precious possessions consisting of a sextant box and other "curious" articles that were important enough for this "native" to lug around. And he's noting that the "native" was unable to locate water even with a "small grove of coconut trees" nearby. It appears that he may have been carefully wording his objections into the file. It's a lot of wild speculation but I think it's probable enough to keep available for comparison with any new evidence. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric If you'll re-read the correspondence you'll find that Gallagher did not base his gender-identification of the castaway upon the bones but upon the shoe sole. Obviously, Gallagher knew that Earhart had disappeared somewhere in the region but he would have had to have been really steeped in the mystery to have any inkling of the whole LOP/Gardner coincidence. I agree that his notes to the file may be more political correctness than genuine opinion but to suggest that he, in effect, stole the bones to bury them on Gardner is really out there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:06:51 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances You can bet that Putnam put the arm on anybody he could reach, and by flaunting his White House connections, that would be a lot of people. Certainly all the overseas support was "comped", much by Standard Oil, and - one suspects - Vince Bendix came up with a bundle. You can be sure there was little, or no, paper trail, unless you could access IRS records. And, despite assurances to the contrary by Roosevelt, the good old US taxpayers took a hit. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric According to Mary Lovell (page 255), Floyd Olum - Jackie Cochrane's husband - put up $10,000 and Vince Bendix kicked in $20,000 to help finance the second attempt. Any suggestion that the flight received outright financial help from the United States government is groundless speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:11:25 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Expedition plans I'll play. Searching the lagoon floor (2), the seven site (3), and the Norwich City debris field (10), based on the current hypothesis, seem to leverage the most promise for results (total 400 man-hours). More searches of the Aukeraime site (7), where the shoe parts were found in 1991, are indicated because where artifacts have been found in the past, more artifacts are likely to turn up in the future (total 128 man-hours). Of less promise but still important: Although deeper water searches off Pacific islands are notoriously difficult and a little dangerous, searching the ledge off the west end of the reef for heavy airplane parts (1) is an interesting idea given the current hypothesis: The beam or an engine could have slid into the area after being pounded by surf (total 64 man-hours). Search the Taraia Peninsula shoreline (5), justified by Pulekai Songivalu's recollection of having seen aircraft debris in the area (total 128 man-hours). While what he remembers may be garbled by time and the odd characteristics of human memory, he apparently does remember something about airplane wreckage and the Taraia shoreline. Excavate one and possibly two graves on Nutiran shoreline (4), because this grave appears to be anomalous in the context of the island settlement (total 192 man-hours). Finally, excavate the site of the carpenter's shop (6), because it is a likely location for artifacts and it is known that the settlers scavenged for useful raw materials on the island (total 32 man-hours). This results in a total man-hour budget of 944, spread among 12 expedition members. If accurately estimated, there's an already too-thin cushion of 45 minutes per worker for lost or unexpectedly diverted time. Summary of excluded tasks: Expending limited resources on a search of Kanawa Point (8), at the expense of any of the above, seems too speculative and unsubstantiated by comparison. Searching for the Norwich City survivors' cache (9), which was likely scavenged, scattered and eroded into oblivion long ago, is more likely to reveal too many Norwich City related artifacts: The history of the Norwich City wreck aftermath is already substantiated. Any possible AE material found at the cache site would be hard to conclusively separate from the noise of that event, especially without positive proof that the Electra actually landed on Gardner. Finally, if AE and/or FN did visit the cache site, they were more likely to remove items than deposit them. LTM william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:13:13 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances I was told by now deceased veteran career PAA Captain and early navy pilot James Fleming, that he was told by a PAA senior station manger that Eleanor Roosevelt paid for the repairs to the Electra after the Luke Field groundloop. Ron ************************************************************************** From Ric And did he happen to mention how he came by such information? If the First Lady was personally helping her friend Amelia she was apparently keeping it very quiet, but if somebody leaked the word sufficiently for it to get to a PAA station manager who had no qualms about telling you, doesn't it seem a bit odd that the word didn't get out otherwise? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:44:29 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Bones Interesting point about "political correctness" of the telegram and trying to read between the l ines. I agree that Gerald was trying a take the "politically correct" approach in his telegram. However I believe he was trying to smooth over a situation wherein he had gotten off on the wrong foot (through no fault of his own) with Isaac who thought Gerald was trying to go over his head. The notes Gerald made and never sent sound to me like he was trying to smooth the situation with Isaac , as he would have to work with him directly in the future! NOTE: the feedback that I have gotten on Gerald is that he was a VERY quiet person who never spoke unless spoken to. I spoke briefly to Eric Bevington along those lines and he said " you never heard a bad or untrue word from Gerald, if he were in a room you wouldn't know it unless you saw him, he only spoke if spoken too" Thus, taking that into account. the deletion of the extra "politically correct" additions to the telegram sound like Gerald. The addition of those words were "out of charcter" and he realized it ...The outcome was a rather sparsely worded return to Isaac. However, take the fact that in an earlier telegram Gerald actually mentions AE and he thinks the bones are hers. He must have had a very strong feeling that the chances of these being Earhart's bones was good. If he was not a man of many words and not one to speak up and offer opinions without being asked, ... then this statement that "he thought these may be AE's bones" says to me that he had a pretty good hunch to go out on the line like that! Bevington also said that " he knew about Earhart but did not receive much in the way of information on her and stated if I didn't know much about the news Gerald certainly wouldn't as he was working on the Islands non stop to prepare them for the natives that I was out choosing to send for re-sesettlement". He said, " he was on Gardner a month after AE went missinig and never gave her a thought" Thus, I believe even though they knew about her I don't think they were privy to even basic information or news reports circulating about her, other than that she was missing! Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************** From Ric Gerald, Bevington, and Wernham leave England for the Pacific on July 17, 1937 - the day before the Earhart search is called off. I agree with your assessment of Gerald's situation. I think he was really excited when he sent the initial telegrams to Wernham (to get the bottle away from Koata) and to the Resident Commissioner (informing him of the discovery) on September 23rd. When the RC informed the brass in Fiji and Gerald started getting inquiries and instructions direct from the bleedin' Secretary of the WPHC he must have felt very much in the spotlight. He carries out his search, and has the special box made, and writes his transmittal letter with the touching reference to the tree that stood nearby, and ships the bones and artifacts off to Fiji, only to have Isaac hijack them in Tarawa (without knowing anything about the Earhart suspicions) and tell him that they're just the bones of some decrepit old Polynesian. Now there's a big flap about getting Isaac (who has also quarantined the whole port of Tarawa) to turn loose of the bones. Now Gerald is probably wishing he had never heard of Amelia Flippin' Earhart. Isaac already thinks he's an idiot and the bones are going to arrive in Fiji and some doctor is going to confirm Isaac's opinion and Gerald is going to look like a fool in front of Sir Harry for causing everyone so much trouble for nothing. By the time he gets to Fiji himself and reviews the file he's doing damage control for his career regardless of his personal opinion about who the castaway may have been. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:40:57 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: WE 20 B and 20 BA Receivers Janet Whitney wrote: >The difference was that the 20 BA would have one or two crystals installed >for crystal control of the 1500-4000 KC band, or the 4000 - 10000 KC band, >or both. > >The conversion directions appear with schematic and switch diagram in H.K. >Morgan's 1939 book: "Aircraft Radio an Electrical Equipment." The Model 20B and 20BA differed in the TUNING RANGE. The 20B tuned 550-1500 JHz on Band 2. The 20BA covered 485-150 KHz on Band 2. The matter of crystal control does not differentiate between these models. I am aware that the diagam in Morgan shows the crystal control mods, but this does not mean the crystal-controlled version is the 20BA. I have no way to definitely prove the issue but I seriously doubt that AE's receiver had the crystal control mods. If it did, however, it would have made communications more reliable in a sense. In another sense the extra switchology involved would have added to the potential for "cockpit trouble." LTM (who seldom switches without a reason) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:52:04 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Bones Ric wrote: >> ...but to suggest that he, in effect, stole the bones to bury them on Gardner is really out there.<< Just a clarification on my suggestion, then I'll leave this alone. I did NOT suggest that Gallagher stole the bones, I didn't suggest any details at all on how he may have obtained them. Any number of things could have happened while he was on that island, including a conversation with Isaac in which he was GIVEN the bones. Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure you have a handle on just who was where and when. Isaac was on Tarawa. He had the bones in his possession from Feb. 3 to March 11, 1941. Gallagher was on Niku that whole time and then went to Fiji in June. There was no time when Isaac could have given Gallagher the bones. By the time Gallagher got to Fiji the bones had already been entrusted to the Central Medical School. For Gallagher to have taken them back to Gardner and no notat ion to that effect appear in the file he literally would have had to steal them. ************************************************************************** From Tom King I don't think it's at all far-fetched to think that Gallagher still thought the bones to be Earhart's even after Hoodless' analysis, but I can't see why such a suspicion would cause him to take the bones back to Niku for burial -- even if doing so didn't involve essentially stealing them. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:05:55 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances > and Vince Bendix kicked in $20,000 to help finance the second > attempt. If Bendix put up this much cash, i'd say that was one more reason to support the RA-1 being there: you don't diss such a generous contributor, by turning back his gift. As i wrote before, $1590 was the selling price in 1947. Even with wartime inflation, the thing had to sell for some big bucks back in '37. Hue ************************************************************************** From Ric Bendix was one of the original Purdue contributors when the airplane was ordered with Western Electric radios, but in the spring of 1936 Bendix was not yet in the aviation radio business. In October of '36 the Hooven Radio Compass was installed in the airplane at about the same time that Hooven was bought out by Bendix and the new Bendix Avaition Radio Corp. was formed. Later, in early March, the Hooven/Bendix rig was replaced with the new Bendix loop and adaptor. According to Hooven, who was upset by the change, this was a conscious decision by Earhart to sacrifice capability and ease of operation for the sake of saving weight. My point is that Bendix did put his products aboard the airplane on at least two occasions but there is still zero evidence for, and considerable evidence against, one of those products being an RA-1 receiver. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:11:31 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: How much? It's useful to remember that the world flight had little scientific value and was in essence a commercial enterprise: "Celebrity female flyer circles the globe", and two things rather elegantly and simultaneously result, content for a mass-market book, and the publicity to make it a bestseller. After the flight, the book would have been promoted relentlessly across the US with well-arranged personal appearances and magazine and radio interviews by AE. Noonan's motivation would have been similar. The publicity he got from navigating a successful Earhart world flight would have enabled him to establish and attract students to his proposed navigation school. Putnam may have been able to haggle down FN's fee a bit, whatever it was, by pointing this out to him. The development costs of privately funded promotional stunts are seldom revealed to the public. I suspect that GP believed that if money was discussed openly, depression-era Americans might have gotten the awkward impression that Earhart's exploits were made possible more by dollars and marketing interests than by skill and courage. This is not to imply that Amelia had crass motives, but she was certainly aware of the promotional whirlwind that artificially supported her passion for long-distance flights and she willingly, expertly played her role in it. Ultimately, it may have distracted her one time too many. A more technically focused pilot may have pondered more carefully the possibility and consequences of a low slung belly mast antenna, stretched taut beneath a heavily loaded tail-dragger, snagging on the rough grass runway at Lae. A less celebrity-conscious pilot might have chosen to actually test her 2-way voice communication and bearing capability soon after she was airborne, instead of simply broadcasting with it. Instead, the next morning as she and Noonan approached Howland, they gradually learned that they had no DF and no voice contact, confronted with a vast hazy pacific dappled by hundreds of cloud shadows, Noonan's 337/157 line of position with its course to Gardner their only reliable point of reference. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:13:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: accidents "Incidents yes, but not many pilots could afford to repeatedly wreck aircraft." All of them married to GP could. I don't think I could point to much in the way of specifics but I never had the impression AE was a good pilot, even excluding the last flight and the wreck at Honolulu. I can see why you said you would have had difficulty insuring her. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:42:38 EDT From: Vern Subject: Archbold & Gillespie Still curious about that Dr. Richard Archbold who, according to James Donohue, also had one of those "Navy Receivers" supplied by the U.S. government and who also overflew Japanese Mandated islands in 1938 (Obviously another spy!), I did a little prowling and found..... Under the auspices of the American Museum of Natural History, Archbold financed and led scientific expeditions to unexplored regions of the world, mapping them and using aircraft for the first time to supply field staff. Because of the impending Second World War, he agreed to find for the Australians a westward air route to Great Britain across the Indian Ocean and Africa. Leaving San Diego for New Guinea in the summer of 1938 and arriving in New York during the 1939 World's Fair, he became the first man to circumnavigate the earth at its widest point and received a hero's welcome. And, The Gillespie Connection.... EXTRACT FROM 'THE SURNAMES OF SCOTLAND' ARCHIBALD. A surname derived from the personal name Archibald. in OE Arcebald, Arcenbald, or Ercenbald and doubtfully explained as meaning 'right bold' or 'holy prince'. Archebaldus filius Swani de Forgrunde is mentioned in reign of William the Lion. Erchnbaldus, Abbot of dunfermelyne mentioned c. 1180, appears again in the same record as Arkebaldus and Arkenbaldus. Thomas, the brother of Erkenbaldus, witnessed the gift of the church of Kilmaurs to the Abbey of Kelso before 1189, and Arkembaldus de Duffus was witness to an agreement between the bishop of Moray and John buseth concerning the churches of Coneway and Dulbatelauch between 1203 - 34. Robert Archebalde had a charter of the Hospital of Roxburgh in 1390 from Robert III and John Archibald was a witness in St. Andrews in 1545. The OF form of the personal name is found in Archambaud (earl of Dougles), 1405. Harrison's explanation of the use of Archibald for Gaelic Gillespie is probably correct. "Archibald was adopted by the Scots as a Lowland equivalent of Gillespie because the - bald was mistakenly supposed to mean 'hairless','shaven','servant' and therefore to be equivalet to Gael. gille 'servant','shaven one','monk'. Harchbald (earl of Argyll) 1493, Archombaldus 1233, Arkanbaldus 1228, Enkerbaldus a. 1189. ************************************************************************** From Ric As long as you're exposing my secret familial connections to the Earhart mystery, let me confess a couple more. In 1215 a formidable character by the name of Gillcattan Mor MacGillespick (literally "Big Cat Man, son of Gillespie") emigrated from Connacht in western Ireland to Lochaber in the western highlands of Scotland. One of his three sons became known as "the Parson" and his progeny were called "Sons of the parson" or, in Gaelic, "Mac a Pherson". I'm almost certainly related to Dr. "Jock" MacPherson of the Western Pacific High Commission. Want more? I recently learned that, on my mother's side, I'm rather closely related to the whaling Coffins of Nantucket Island. In 1825, Gardner Island was named by Capt. Joshua Coffin of the Nantucket whaler "Ganges" in honor of the ship's owner (and Joshua's father in law) Gideon Gardner who was also a U.S. Congressman. It's all very cosmic. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:47:30 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: switcheroos and graves Okay,usually I post questions from confusion,looking for answers or wild speculation,looking for clarification.guess this is a bit of both ric said: "Vince Bendix kicked in $20,000 to help finance the second attempt." just a thought on a discussion from earlier posts on the forum as to why A.E. switched from the radio she used in her Vega to the new bendix,which she didn't know as well.If Bendix put up $20,000,one of the conditions might have been A.E. would have to use the bendix system.It could have been a perfect advertisement for bendix corp. could the change in flight plans be made for the same reasons,some contributors may have wanted the second flight to proceed in the opposite direction.Why?perhaps the work up of the rebuilt Electra(lockheed may have asked for this) or for some kind of advertisement.First over the U.S.A. or some sort of advertisement along that line.could prove successful if the flight was successful.Were their any other female pilots thinking of a world flight at the same time?If there was maybe this might have been a factor. If Gallagher was convinced the bones and objects were indeed A.E. could he have shipped the objects back to Gardner with him.the bones would be left in Fiji,but the objects might have been given back to him.He might had them sent to him to research their origins himself.If this is the case(speculation here)then would they be part of his personal effects shipped home or could they have been buried with him,perhaps as a tribute.He did perform the search for the artifacts and it was discussed he might have actually did the search by himself,considering the natives fear of the dead's spirits.it might have also been the natives way of helping those spirits rest on the Island were they died.I'm making this assumption based on the fact Gallagher returned to Gardner with the objects and no official documents exist stating this. Willing to bet that I'm stretching it pretty far here but thought i'd throw it out for debate.Hopefully some good may come out of it all. LTM Richard Lund *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you're stretching pretty far. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:52:52 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Bones > From Frank Westlake > Any number of things could have happened while he was on that island, > including a conversation with Isaac in which he was GIVEN the bones. > > From Ric > I'm not sure you have a handle on just who was where and when. No, of course not. Nor do I have a handle on which island is where. My point was in the first half of that sentence, not the latter half. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric We always start from the assumption that anything could have happened and then we start collecting facts that constrain what reasonably may have happened. If we don't narrow things down that way we never get anywhere. Based upon the facts we've collected it does not seem reasonable that Gallagher took the bones back to Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:57:04 EDT From: Ted Ostrowski Subject: 12 Days of the Expedition As I read your list of possible sites to tackle for the next expedition, a tune kept going through my head: On the first day of the expedition my true believers said to me, "Search the ledge off the west end of the reef." On the second day of the expedition my true believers said to me, "Excavate those two graves and search the the ledge off the west end of the reef." You can continue this by the campfire back on Niku. No song writer I, Ted *************************************************************************** From Ric It doesn't exactly "scan" but the sentiment is right. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:50:08 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: AE & Advertising > From Richard Lund > > Okay,usually I post questions from confusion,looking for answers or wild > speculation,looking for clarification.guess this is a bit of both > ric said: > "Vince Bendix kicked in $20,000 to help finance the second attempt." > just a thought on a discussion from earlier posts on the forum as to why > A.E. switched from the radio she used in her Vega to the new bendix,which she > didn't know as well.If Bendix put up $20,000,one of the conditions might have > been A.E. would have to use the bendix system.It could have been a perfect > advertisement for bendix corp. What advertising was related to the flight? Was there any that appeared before the flight, promoting equipment used by AE? The flight was public knowledge, so advertising the hardware used would have been expected. If there was no marketing effort, the premise dies that gifts were made contingent on advertising. What AE-linked advertising was done prior to the flight? LTM (who buys only brand names) Michael Holt *************************************************************************** From Ric I've seen two ads that featured AE and the Electra. One had a photo of Earhart standing by the tail of the airplane with a big can of Horlicks Malted Milk Balls sitting on the horizontal stabilizer and text atesting to the energy-sustaining qualities of that fine product. (No, it did not say "Flying around the world takes balls.") The other ad was for LUX Airplane Fire System and appeared in Aero Digest magazine (August 1937 I think). It featured AE's face and a photo of a LUX C02 cylinder and the headline "This little cylinder SAVED MY Round-the-World PLANE, says Amelia Earhart". The text describes the ground fire in Tucson. I've seen no other ads or product endorsements relating to the Electra or the World Flight. (There was, however, a Lockheed ad featuring a Guinea Airways' Electra with the headline "They give the tough jobs to Lockheed!".) I've never seen Earhart's name commercially connected with Bendix or any other radio company. I have seen photos of AE and GP posing with Sperry executives around a bench-mounted GyroPilot and the posed photos taken by Al Bresnick at the time the Bendix loop and adaptor were installed on the Electra certainly could have been used for promotional purposes. There is also a photo of Earhart and Manning posing by the tail of the Electra with an individual that Cam Warren says is a Bendix rep by the name of Remmlein. Sitting on the horizontal tail is a Bendix RA-1 receiver. Cam says the photo was taken in New York while Earhart and Manning were there in February 1937 to announce the World Flight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:22:09 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Bones > From Ric > Based upon the facts we've collected it does not seem reasonable that > Gallagher took the bones back to Niku. Agreed. But as Richard Lund suggests, the Floyd Kilts anecdote may still be indicative of some truth if only a box of artifacts were returned to Gardner. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:24:05 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: AE & Advertising <> If that ad did, indeed, appear in August of 1937, it must have been chilling. I know that, before the days of modern computer printing technology, magazines went to press well before their posted dates. I recall that the December 3, 1963 issue of Look Magazine had a sub-headline in the upper right-hand corner that read: "JFK Could Lose". All issues that were sent to subscribers had the headline, while the issues that reached the newsstand had a sticker covering it up. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure it was August but it was definitely well after the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:29:10 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Bones > From Ric > ... Based upon the facts we've collected it does not seem reasonable that > Gallagher took the bones back to Niku. Nor all of the artifacts, neither. Somewhere on the web site I believe it says that the sextant box was displayed on some British official's desk long after Gerald's death. Marty ************************************************************************** From Ric Foua Tofinga told us that he recalled a wooden box on Vaskess' credenza where he kept various curios. When we showed him a photo of the Pensacola sextant box he said it looked similar to what he remembered. Interesting and perhps believable, but not exactly hard evidence. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:30:14 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: course reversal << Reversing the direction allowed them to get started immediately but gave them a good chance to work out any bugs over home territory, just as Don says. >> Also, with Pan Am facilities in Miami and San Juan, they could be very confident that any problems could be fixed quickly and done right. A McKenna 1045CE ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:39:58 EDT From: Mark Subject: No Subject Get the fantastic writer and NUMA afficionado Clive Cussler involved. I am sure that if you convince him of the facts, he would support an expedition to Niku. Heck, he would get all kinds of sonar equipment to search miles around the island for plane parts! Mark *************************************************************************** From Ric No thanks. Searching miles around the island for plane parts is not presently in the plan and Clive already has his hands full with his Confederate submarine. As to whether or not he's a fantastic writer... I'm not sure that's particularly relevant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:41:57 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: AE & Advertising Ric wrote: << I've seen no other ads or product endorsements relating to the Electra or the World Flight.>> Would you put out an ad that says "Our radio direction finding equipment was used on the flight that was lost and it can help you, too!" LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:05:05 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: N.C. survivors' camp << Whether anything would now survive at the site and whether it would be worth the time and manpower it would take to look for it is another question. I see that kind of archaeological investigation as secondary to the primary task of finding a "smoking gun" artifact that proves that Earhart and Noonan died on Nikumaroro. Once we have that we can begin to fill out the rest of the story. >> Ric Thinking out loud, and throwing in some role playing, just imagine you successfully land your Electra (more or less - at least enough to run the engine with the generator) on a deserted island reef flat next to a grounded ship. As the tide rises, or certainly after the first high tide, you realize that it might be smart to get any and everything off the airplane that is salvageable and might be of any potential future use. So you drag all that stuff up on the beach during the next low tide. With not much else to do but wait, you snoop along the shoreline and locate a survivors camp associated with the ship (that rowboat sticking out of the bush was a dead giveaway). Seizing the opportunity, ( ain't much else to do anyway) you make a base camp out of this survivors camp by moving all that stuff you salvaged out of the airplane into your new HQ thinking that rescue was imminent and that all your goodies will be rescued with yourself and your airplane. After a few days your Electra is reduced to scrap in the surf. Some guys fly overhead, but don't stop to say hello. You were on the Thunderbox at the time and couldn't get a signal fire going fast enough. A couple of weeks later you come to the conclusion that this rescue is going to take longer than you thought. The cache of goods from the survivors camp is running out, so you start exploring farther and farther away, leaving most of the stuff you salvaged at base camp, taking only what you need for the day. Things like a box to carry goodies in, a bottle for water, your shoes..... Eventually, you establish another camp on the far end of the island where you think life is better because you can catch turtles (beats coconut milk day and night), and the view to both the sea and the lagoon brings hope of a spotting that rescue vessel. You know that if you need one of the goodies back at base camp you can get it. You left a message in a bottle with directions to Camp 2 for anyone who stops by to be able to find you. When they finally rescue you, you 'll be sure to send them round to retrieve all that stuff. The postal covers alone will be worth millions. Months (years?) go by, and eventually you croak from illness, infection, or despair. The crabs rattle their claws in anticipation....... Flash to NIKU 2001 Seems to me that if the NC survivors camp was the first place AE and FN located themselves after landing and "moving" to the island, then it is the most likely place they initially stored anything they salvaged off the Electra. If it were me, I'd have salvaged any and everything that was not bolted down, and then I would have tried to unbolt everything else I could. That would probably include a lot of stuff that they would have not really needed and ultimately scrapped or left behind if they moved camps (no further need for that heavy fire extinguisher, navigational charts, Electra operating handbook, 10,000 postal covers, or even a sextant, etc.), if they needed it they could always go back and get it. There may be parts of the Electra, or some other AE smoking gun evidence at the NC survivors camp that had been salvaged and then discarded once they realized rescue was not imminent. Might be worth more effort than we are currently planning. Just imagine finding an a pouch with the Maintenance logs for NR16020, that message in a bottle, or a bunch of those postal covers..... talk about smoking guns. LTM (who prefers not to carry all her stuff around when exploring far from base camp) Andrew McKenna 1045 CE ************************************************************************** From Ric The best evidence that no great stockpile of Earhart-related salvage was left at the Norwich City survivor's camp is the fact that the New Zealand survey party found and photographed the site in late1938/early 1939. What is interesting about the photo is that the site is obviously trashed and there is no mention in the New Zealand report of a cache of provisions being present. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:19:56 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Choice of crew. William Webster-Garman made a very astute observation. "A less celebrity-conscious pilot might have chosen to actually test her 2-way voice communication and bearing capability soon after she was airborne." I've been pondering another decision A.E. made prior to her flight. I'm quite sure it's controversial, however... A.E.'s choice of F.N. was without doubt most appropriate considering his expertise as a navigator. However, was F.N. the most appropriate choice for the mission at hand? Answer: No. Did A.E.'s ego blind her to qualified aviators who were equal to F.N. in their ability to navigate? Answer: Yes. I now ponder the following, "Did F.N.'s lack of aviation expertise contribute to a lack of overall crew proficiency?" Answer: Most likely. "If A.E. had appointed a qualified aviator with navigation expertise, would damage to their communication equipment have been discovered shortly after take off from Lae and provoke a decision to abort?" Answer: Yes. "Had the flight from Lae to Howland been aborted upon discovery of malfunctioning communication / navigation equipment, the equipment repaired and the flight resumed, would the possibility of A.E.'s success been greatly enhanced?" Answer: YES! LTM, Roger Kelley *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that Amelia would not, under any circumstances, have taken along an aviatior who was anything like her equal in fame, but I can't fault her for that. After all, the only point of the World Flight was to perpetuate and enhance the fame of Amelia Earhart. To share the fame any more than absolutely necessary made no sense at all. If she wanted to find a navigator with more aviation experience than Fred Noonan I can't imagine where she would look. He was already a minor celebrity in his own right for his pioneering work on the China Clipper survey flights to the Orient. She had hired Fred in the first place because she discovered that her man-for-all-seasons Harry Manning (sea captain and navigator, radio expert, licensed pilot) couldn't do celestial navigation from an airplane to save his life (to coin an expression). In retrospect, what she really needed was a dedicated radio operator but she couldn't afford the weight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:27:14 EDT From: Paul Chattey Subject: Re: N.C. survivors' camp Is the (singular?) photo of the cache on the TIGHAR site? No doubt you've looked at it extremely carefully for, as Inspector Clouseau used to say, "clu-es." Can I see, too? Huh? Can I? Can I? Paul *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, there is just one photo. It does not show a cache. It shows a cleared area under some trees with what appear to be some cans and small drums (casks?) scattered around. The caption says simply "Remains of wreck survivor's camp." It is not presently on the website. It's probably time to look at it more closely. I'll try to put together a Research Bulletin soon. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:45:07 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: expedition plans Obviously, those of you who are familiar with Niku are in the best position to decide on the allocation of man-hours. That said, I have a couple of questions, which will undoubtedly illustrate my ignorance of working conditions a tropical, salt water environment. 1. If you're allocating resources for the lagoon search, does it make sense (you've already decided to haul SCUBA gear to Niku) to do the reef edge search as well? Or, would doing both, which would place divers in the water for 8 of the 10 available work days, put too much of a strain on both personnel and equipment? 2. Is an 8 hour workday all that is practical in that environment? Would increased fatigue, dehydration, injuries, etc. brought on by say, 10 hour days be not worth the increase in available man-hours? Or, are your days really in the 10 hour range already when you count the time involved getting to and from the N'aia? How many daylight hours will you have per day on Niku at the planned time of the expedition? LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 (who has never been to the tropics, but has, as a non-acclimatized yankee, put in some pretty long days in southern Georgia (USA) in summertime) *************************************************************************** From Ric Good questions. Yes, we plan to search both the reef edge and the lagoon floor. Should be no problem to have the divers in the water for 8 days. That close to the equator you get roughly 12 hours of daylight every day. Sun comes up at 6 and goes down at 6 - give or take. We're generally ashore for 10 of those hours but you lose at least an hour on either end just getting to and from the work site. If you're whacking scaevola you can't put in anything like a real 8 hour work day (and live to tell the tale.) Frequent breaks and close attention to water intake are essential. The biggest hazard we face is the temptation to push yourself too hard. The consequences are incapacitation from heat stroke or, worse, injury from fatique and carelessness. Grave excavation is another fun activity. Tangles of roots and big hunks of coral make for miserable digging. Our greatest concern is that someone will get hurt or sick enough to have to be evacuated, in which case we have to use the ship as an ambulance and that aborts the entire expedition. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:48:04 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bones Ric wrote: >> Foua Tofinga told us that he recalled a wooden box on Vaskess' credenza where he kept various curios.<< I really think you need to go and have a chat with Vaskess.... Sounds like he could clear up some issues.. Th' WOMBAT ***************************************************************************Fro m Ric Heck, if we're going to commune with the dead why not go directly to Amelia? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:50:10 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Calling in Clive From what I've read, Cussler might also find Amelia alive and well and racing around Niku in some erotic vintage car.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Now, now.....we may well come up with that scenario ourselves. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:54:14 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: N.C. survivors' camp > From Ric > > The best evidence that no great stockpile of Earhart-related salvage was left > at the Norwich City survivor's camp is the fact that the New Zealand survey > party found and photographed the site in late1938/early 1939. What is > interesting about the photo is that the site is obviously trashed and there > is no mention in the New Zealand report of a cache of provisions being > present. Which could also mean the castaway found the N.C. camp, removed useful articles over a period of time (including casks of drinking water which would have been extremely precious) to a more comfortable camp with a view, and out of the prevailing winds. It looks, from the photos, as if the weather at the N.C. end of the island can get pretty nasty. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, something or someone trashed it. The N.C. boys were there during a particulary nasty period and they set up their camp far enough inland so as to be out of the weather, so that doesn't seem to be a likely cause of the trashing. Ya gotta wonder. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:12:13 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: AE & Advertising Wasn't Earhart going to make a ton of money on the 5000 autographed first day covers (stamps) commemorating the World Flight.According to Don Wade who has several from the first attempt, AE actually signed the 5000 covers which were to be mailed from various world spots enroute. Don't know how Putnam calculated their worth. LTM, Ron Bright (ex-philatelist or fatalist,whichever) *************************************************************************** From Ric There were 8,000 and she wasn't going to mail them. The idea was to have them postmarked at certain destinations during the World Flight. According to Elgen Long (page 110 in his book) the "Second Takeoff" stamp covers for the World Flight were expected to generate $5,000. Elegen, by the way, has quite bit of information in his book about how much things cost and where the money came from. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:19:24 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Fred Noonan's accident. I just thought I'd bring you all up to date on the Noonan research I've been doing. I don't think it will make a bit of difference, and most may not be interested, but I'll tell you anyway. This particular bit of research has to do with the Noonan auto accident in April of 1937, in Fresno, California Most people know by now, that Fred was cited for driving in the wrong lane, and in later years, Fred Goerner said the Officer made a notation on the ticket that referenced a drinking driver. I've been trying to verify that statement. . . without luck! Today, I spent three more hours in the library, looking at microfilm for that time period. The accident was on April 4th, 1937. Fred's accident appeared in the local paper, The Fresno Bee, on April 5th, 1937. (Copies available) I was told, by court personal, that citations were routinely destroyed after twenty years. It is therefore most likely that Fred Goerner made that statement based on something other that actually seeing it printed on the original citation. That much I think we've all concluded! Today, as I looked over the microfilm, I noticed something I had not noticed before. It was an article in the Fresno Bee that talked about the increase in highway deaths in the state. It said the increase was mostly due to excessive speed and drunk drivers! It went on to talk about what law enforcement was going to do about it. In a nut shell, it said there would be a crack down of violators. To back up there words, I found an article in the same paper, dated March 5th 1937, which said: "Fresnan To Face Madera Trail As Drunk Driver" It seems a Mr. E. S. Burney was arrested for drunk driving on the Golden State Highway on the Wednesday before. The same stretch of Golden State Highway where Fred Noonan had his accident. I also noted that there were many references to drunk drivers being arrested in Fresno during that time period. All articles appear in the paper within three days of the event. So I checked the paper for the next three weeks after April 5th. There was no further mention of Fred Noonan at all! Based on that, I would have to assume that alcohol did not play a part in the accident. If Fred was drunk. . . the officers would have arrested him. Mary Bea couldn't drive. . . she was hurt! They certainly would not have allowed him to continue on his way. . . to maybe have another accident down the road somewhere. Also, if Fred was drunk, it surely would have appeared in the paper within the following few days. Which it did not! So. . . I'm not going to waist any more time looking for an alcohol connection to the April 4th accident. I have driven that stretch of road many times. It is a four lane highway with two lanes going in each direction. It also has a large median strip running down the middle. I don't know if it was that way in 1937, but it was as early as 1955 when I first traveled on it. It's possible Fred just didn't realize it was one way. We've all done that at least once! Don J. *************************************************************************** From Ric Good work Don. I think those are very reasonable conclusions. It's always important to understand the context in which events occur. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:20:34 EDT From: Jim Van Hare Subject: Expedition plans I dunno, Ric --- Maybe multiply the estimated man hours for each activity by 0.723 and do it all, but with only roughly 3/4 of the estimated time actually spent on each search project? Was it DesCartes who said, "I jest, therefore I am."? Jim Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:54:40 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones > We always start from the assumption that anything could have happened and > then we start collecting facts that constrain what reasonably may have > happened. If we don't narrow things down that way we never get anywhere. > Based upon the facts we've collected it does not seem reasonable that > Gallagher took the bones back to Niku. I agree, but one thing this exchange has reminded me of is the fact that Isaac/Verrier is a very puzzling figure in the whole bones saga, and it would be worthwhile to find out more about him. He was on Tarawa when he had the bones in hand, and when he must have expressed something, somehow, that led Gallagher to think he wanted the box. However, Steenson was the actual Senior Medical Officer on Tarawa, so it seems likely that Isaac was there only in an acting capacity. We know he wound up in Fiji, under his new name, and became a fairly important figure in local journalism and politics. We don't know (at least I don't) whether his time in Fiji overlapped with Gallagher's, or whether he had the opportunity to have anything further to do with the bones or box (or, of course, whether he wanted to). Another thread it would be useful to tie up. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric No mystery. We have the information. Isaac was not in Fiji at any time when the bones and artifacts were being examined and, in fact, did not return to Fiji until almost a year after the bones became a dead issue (ouch). Steenson's service record (WPHC files) indicates that he assumed the post of Senior Medical Officer for the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony on July 1, 1940 but was absent on extended leave from October 2, 1940 until May 22, 1941 at which time he is shown as "Absent on duty in Suva" until July 2, 1941 when he leaves for the G.E.& I.C. aboard the Nimanoa. (His note to the Bone File is dated July 1, 1941.) He resumed duty as Senior Medical Officer upon arrival in Funafuti on July 8th. Isaac's service record (WPHC files) indicates that he served in Fiji from 1938 to 1940 but became a Medical Officer assigned to the G.E.& I.C. on September 1, 1940. He assumed those duties in Funafuti on September 20, 1940. On October 22, 1940 he was made Acting Senior Medical Officer (because Steenson was on leave) and served in that capacity until July 7, 1941 when Steenson returned. He then resumed his post as a Medical Officer for the G.E.& I.C. and didn't leave the colony until March 25, 1942 (five days after his name was offically changed to Verrier) when he went on vacation in Fiji. On June 1, 1942 he was "Seconded to Fiji" and thus left the WPHC. Whatever he did next is not, therefore, recorded in the file. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:57:16 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones Frank wrote: > Agreed. But as Richard Lund suggests, the Floyd Kilts anecdote may still be > indicative of some truth if only a box of artifacts were returned to > Gardner. True, but what does the anecdote (I presume you mean the bones into the sea) reflect? So much of the Kilts story has been bourne out by the facts that we have to give some credence to the bones into the sea part, but I agree with Ric that it's very unlikely the Southeast End bones went back to Niku to get thrown into the sea. The fact that Emily Sikuli describes the Nutiran reef bones as being FOUND IN the sea may mean something; I continue to suspect that these anecdotes reflect a compression of a couple (or more) bones discoveries into one. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:05:47 EDT From: Leah Subject: Stayin' alive I don't mean to interpose a stupid question, BUT, do you sense that AE and FN lived for awhile after landing/crashing, and if they did, could they have foraged out anything from the 'selva' or whatever to eat? Does the lagoon have fresh or salt h2o? Leah. ************************************************************************* From Ric If the bones found by Gallagher were Earhart's then she certainly did live for some time, possibly a considerable time, as a castaway on the island. Noonan's fate is more speculative. Food would not be a problem. Lots of easily caught birds, fish, crabs, and even rats (although the latter are best sauteed in butter with a little garlic which is hard to come by on Niku). Water would be the big issue. The lagoon is salt water and there are no fresh water springs. Digging a well is probably beyond the capacity of a castaway and yields only marginally drinkable water anyway. The collection of rainwater is really the only source of fresh water and that, of course, depends upon how often it rains (which can be not very often). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:13:54 EDT From: Jonathan Einarsen Subject: Re: Choice of crew Was Manning really that bad? The Long's book implies that EA and GP were unfair in their appraisal of his abilities, particularly after the "test" off the California coast. Now, this forum has taught me to take anything from that book with a bucket-o-salt, which is why I bother to ask. - Jonathan Einarsen ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure what Elgen based his statement on. All we can say with any certainty is that Earhart, Putnam, and Mantz (and possibly Kelly Johnson) thought he was bad enough that they went out and recruited Noonan just days before they were scheduled to leave. Putting another body aboard the airplane for the long overwater flights was a very steep price to pay. Whether or not Harry was really that bad is an imponderable. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:17:31 EDT From: Jonathan Einarsen Subject: Fiji Politics What is the current situation in Fiji and how may it affect the upcoming expedition? - Jonathan Einarsen *************************************************************************** From Ric The political situation in Fiji seems to have stabilized and, barring unforseen developments, we see no reason to think that it will have any impact upon next year's expedition. The current plan calls for us to meet and leave the ship in American Samoa, so the team won't be going to Fiji anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:23:23 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Gasoline at Lae Can anyone tell me which oil company provided the drums of 87 octane gasoline stored at Lae for Amelia use? *********************************************************************** From Ric Chater says that the tanks were filled by "the Vacuum Oil Co.'s representatives." The fuel receipt we have from Darwin says that the plane was fueled with "Stanavo 87" when it was there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:26:15 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: WE 20 B and 20 BA Receivers > From Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194: > > Janet Whitney wrote: >> The difference was that the 20 BA would have one or two crystals installed >> for crystal control of the 1500-4000 KC band, or the 4000 - 10000 KC band, >> or both. > > The Model 20B and 20BA differed in the TUNING RANGE. The 20B tuned 550-1500 > JHz on Band 2. The 20BA covered 485-150 KHz on Band 2. > > The matter of crystal control does not differentiate between these models. > > I am aware that the diagam in Morgan shows the crystal control mods, but > this does not mean the crystal-controlled version is the 20BA. --Page 209, Morgan book: "NOTES THE NO. 20BA RADIO RECEIVER SHALL BE MADE BY MODIFYING THE STANDARD NO.20B RADIO RECEIVER WHICH IS NOT WIRED FOR CRYSTAL CONTROL, AS SHOWN....." (schematic insert shows how to wire 1 or 2 quartz crystals to the bandswitch) Okay, can this be clearer? I see no problem with what Janet reported. > I have no way to definitely prove the issue but I seriously doubt that AE's > receiver had the crystal control mods. The quartz-control option gives up tunable control of the receiver on the quartzed band. If her receiver was quartzed on BAND 4 ( 4-10 MHz), she could not have received Lae tower on HF, with the WE receiver, that is. Her DF test with Lae was on the 48 meters band, yes? So it would seem, yes, you can, in the Single Receiver Theory scenario, state that her receiver was not quartz controlled. There would be less point probably, to having a lower band (3) quartzed than a higher band, (4) so it would (seem) to follow, in the Single Receiver scenario, that there was NO crystal controlled receiving modification. > If it did, however, it would have > made communications more reliable in a sense. Yes, in that spot, with enuff other stuff to do, under pressure, i would have certainly have preferred it. However, as you can see, for an "itinerant" aircraft, this would not do, as there were *many* different air frequencies in use, and if you couldn't tune them, tuff. > In another sense the extra > switchology involved would have added to the potential for "cockpit > trouble." --No, pilot never sees or deals with crystal . It's just when you switch, say, to band 4, the receiver will only pick up XYZ frequency. There's NO additional switching, that i can see.* ( The schematic in Moore is a real fun one to look at - lots of parallel straight lines separated by 1/16 inch. Kinda like one of those optical illusion drawings - "just try to have your eyeballs follow this thing...") *With the receiver quartz - modified, you still have to turn the dial, but just for loudest background noise - which is *really* easy compared to trying to pick out some now-there, now-gone weak radio signal. Is Moore's book wrong about the tuning range thing? I would hope not. Conversion to cover the 500 kHz frequency just requires placing probably 3 extra mica capacitors, the size of small postage stamps, in the receiver. Since unlike with crystals, these do not require any socket and extra mechanical work, this is easier than the quartz operation, and basically anyone can do it. Only drawback is, i would think, it screws up your dial readout on one band, unless you paste a new paper scale over the old scale (just on that one band.) Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:30:54 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: AE & Advertising Wouldn't it be a good idea of putting these ads with the pictures you mentioned on the website ? Just for fun, they will not help to solve the AE mystery of course but since people seem to be interested in her Electra and its radio equipment etc. They might well be interested in also seeing the ads now under discussion. ************************************************************************** From Ric Time and bandwidth. We're working along at putting as much material as possible up on the website but we don't want it to get cluttered and we want to keep it easy to navigate. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:36:29 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Other Electras in Lae Does anyone know how the other Lockheed Electra or Electras that were in Lae when Earhart arrrived got there? Were they shipped to Austrialia by cargo vessel and assembled there, then flown to Lae? Or were they flown to Lae from California? Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric I trust that you saw my recent posting with delivery dates for the Electras purchased by Guinea Airways. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that those dates reflect the date that the airplane was turned over to the customer at or near Burbank (Earhart's airplane was actually "delivered" to her in Las Vegas). In any event, you can be sure that airplanes sold to overseas buyers where shipped by sea. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:46:41 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Rescue expectations Andrew's scenario does again raise a very elementary question: ...'Seizing the opportunity, ( ain't much else to do anyway) you make a base camp out of this survivors camp by moving all that stuff you salvaged out of the airplane into your new HQ... thinking that rescue was imminent ... and that all your goodies will be rescued with yourself and your airplane.'... Upon what factual basis could AE have believed that...'rescue was imminent'...? They have landed on an uninhabited island, with their fuel exhausted (in a scattered, mostly uninhabited Pacific island chain, not located on any known, regularly travelled sea lane) , over 350 miles SE of their original landfall (Howland), the only 'rescue' vessel _they_ know about (Itaska) has no knowledge about their plan 'B', never acknowledged hearing all of their previous broadcasts, nor were they ever able to establish any reliable, extended, _two-way_ radio contact with the Itaska, to inform said 'rescue' ship of their safe arrival at their alternate landfall. Additionally, they have little (if anything) in the way of 'survival' equipment, food or water (if any) on board & they are facing what surely appeared to be a very hot, dry & inhospitable, if not forbidding, environment, for the foreseeable future. Hardly a formula for any long term survival.... Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric On the other hand.... Hearing "A"s on loop antenna in direct response to her request gave them reason to suspect that Itasca had heard them ("A"s on 7500 was the agreed upon response for Itasca). She had told them what she was doing (running on the LOP) as best she could. They certainly had every reason to expect that a search would be launched and IF they were able to pick up the KGMB broadcasts (they certainly knew the frequency) they would have known that some pretty impressive assetts were being marshalled (the PBY, the battleship Colorado, etc.). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:50:32 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: N.C. survivors' camp Any chance of getting the NZ party's photos up on the website? Maybe a document of the week? I have to think that there's a fair amount of logic in Andrew's arguement, and believe it might be worth a look see. If the site was trashed, the survey party might have been reluctant to take the time to dig through very carefully - they had other fish to fry anyway, and probably thought it was all just old NC stuff. Refresh my memory - was this prior to the village being started? ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric The first PISS work party (10 men) arrived while the NZ survey was underway. I'll get the "wreck survivor's camp" photo up as a document as soon as I can. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:15:38 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Manning Ric wrote: "[Earhart] had hired Fred in the first place because she discovered that her man-for-all-seasons Harry Manning (sea captain and navigator, radio expert, licensed pilot) couldn't do celestial navigation from an airplane to save his life (to coin an expression). In retrospect, what she really needed was a dedicated radio operator but she couldn't afford the weight." Can't disagree with your last sentence, but what's your source for the claim that Earhart dumped Manning because he couldn't navigate? The Longs do tell of >GP's< frustration with Manning when, on an Electra shakedown cruise, he had them over southern Kansas instead of their correct position over northern Oklahoma. GP reportedly complained that Manning couldn't even tell what state they were in. However, Long maintains that Manning was only off by ten miles or so (southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma being quite close), which was within the acceptable margin of error for that particular flight. If this is the source of the "Harry couldn't navigate" legend, then AE may have lost the services of the one guy she really needed because George threw an unjustified hissy fit. I bring this up because there also is anecdotal evidence that Manning's bailout was voluntary -- he simply got cold feet after the Luke Field crash. The business about "scheduling conflicts" was a lot more diplomatic than saying, "I wouldn't fly with that woman again for all the tea in China." Based upon her careful preparations for the First Attempt, it's evident that Earhart realized the importance of reliable communications and DF ability on the trans-Pacific legs. She was also pretty confident of her own navigational abilities (viz. the original plan to unload Fred at Howland). So it's somewhat remarkable that, for the Second Attempt, she would choose a crack navigator with no CW/DF skills over a crack radioman with some navigation skills -- unless she >had< no choice. This leads me to place some credence in the theory that Harry dumped AE, not the other way around. Sure would be interesting to read Harry's take on the World Flight. Would he have said, "It's all my fault," or "I told you so"? Do we know of any memoirs? Do we even know where to look? LTM (who lives in NORTHERN Kansas), Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric Note that I never said that Manning was dumped because he couldn't navigate. I said that Noonan was brought aboard because Manning couldn't do aerial celestial navigation. Manning was a sailor and his experience with celestial navigation was all from a slow moving ship at sea level. Celestial from a fast moving airplane at altitude is a specialized skill. The July 17, 1937 issue of TIME magazine carried an article about Earhart's disappearance that was fairly critical of Amelia and the whole World Flight stunt. Here's an excerpt: "Several fact made it clear that much more than simple bad luck was involved (in Earhart's disappearance). Before the hop-off, when capable Navigator Noonan inspected what he supposed was an ultra-modern "flyng laboratory," he was dismayed to find that there was nothing with which to take celestial bearings except an ordinary ship's sextant. He remedied that by borrowing a modern bubble octant designed specifically for airplane navigation." That a Pioneer Bubble Octant was borrowed from the U.S. Navy immediately after Noonan came on the scene is well documented. The instrument was technically on loan to Manning because he held a commission in the Naval Reserve. There seems to be little doubt that Manning quit the day of the Luke Field crash. The note signing the octant over to Fred is dated March 20, 1937. Several authors have quoted manning as later saying that he left because Amelia scared him and he was fed up with Putnam. I see no reason to doubt that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:22:03 EDT From: Jonathan Einarsen Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless Would it be even remotely possible that Emily's father would have marked the coffin for either artistic or spiritual reasons with a signature or symbol of any type? Anything that might help to identify it as THE box if found. Do we know any details of how it may have been fastened or crafted that might associate it with the craftsman besides rough dimensions, kawana or, of course, content? Jonathan Einarsen ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course anything is remotely possible, but there is no mention anywhere of any markings on the box. The fact that it was large enough to contain the bones means that it was very large for a kanawa wood box. Kanawa was (and is) a valuable and decorative hardwood. Typical kanawa wood boxes and decorative items are quite small. It's a safe bet that there are very few kanawa wood boxes kicking around Fiji that are big enough to contain two adult human femurs (thigh bones). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:27:57 EDT From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Choice of crew Fred Goerner verbally to me and in correspondence to others (I think you have seen the correspondence Ric) stated that Manning told him that he would not fly again with Earhart, because of the Luke Field groundloop, which he felt Earhart had mishandled. It has also been recorded that Manning's leave from Captaincy of his ship was up and that he had to return to work. I believe everyone would be well advised to recognize the considerable value and good information contained in the Longs' book. Ron Reuther *************************************************************************** From Ric There is, indeed, a great deal of information in the Long's book. Some of it is well-documented and properly cited (although the system used is maddeningly awkward). The trouble is that the good information is freely intermingled with pure speculation and, in some cases, outright nonsense. The real challenge is to find the babies in the bathwater. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:42:00 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Radio signals I found the following in a Los Angeles Times newspaper dated, July 3, 1937. Repeated radio calls of "SOS-KHAQQ" flashed across the Pacific last night, indicating that AE/FN were still afloat at 1:00am today. Signals were picked up by Los Angeles radio amateurs Walter McMenamy of 749 Burnside ave. and Carl Pierson of 1171 Montecito Dr. McMenamy caught the letters "Lat" but was unable to hear the figures that followed. Amateur listener Guy H. Dennis of 1195 Crenshaw Blve. said he could hear the Itasca repeatedly calling "KHAQQ" up to 11:30 pm. Miss Earhart's plane carried a portable hand-cranked generator which would supply power to the radio as long as she was afloat. British steamship "Achilles" several hundred miles west of her supposed position (300 NW of Howland?) joined the hunt. The Navy minesweeper "Swan" also joined in the search from a position halfway between here and Howland. Lt. W. W. Harvey, took off from Pearl with a crew of eight. He is expected to arrive in the area of Howland Is. in thirteen hours. So what about this hand-cranked generator Ric, real or fiction? ************************************************************************* From Ric Fiction. There is no indication that a hand-cranked generator was aboard. "Achilles" of course, was a British warship (light cruiser) and did not "join the hunt." McMenamy, by the way, later claimed that Navy personnel visited him and threatened him. He claimed knowledge of an elaborate conspiracy involving Earhart intentionaly landing on a secret coral runway (her tires were solid rubber!). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:50:22 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Bones, bones, who's got dem bones? A bit out of my field, but something I have yet to see mentioned as a possibility for what happened to the bones: If they went to the med school, and if the skeleton was incomplete/unidentified, what might prevent the med school staff from incorporating the odd bones into the supply of stuff for lab instruction? That is, scatter them amongst all the other things there? Scary thought... Yet this means they could have been there a LONG time... but how'd anyone ever sort the stuff out to find THE bones? LTM (who couldn't always keep it tohgether either) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric That's one of the first things we checked out. Bottom line: it's unlikely that a cruddy, damaged partial skeleton got mixed in with the carefully prepared and maintained skeleton's used for teaching purposes. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:52:55 EDT From: Mike E. Subject: Re: AE & Advertising Hey Ric... when or if you put the ads on the web site don't forget the one that ran AFTER AE was lost... think it was in Southern Flight or Aero Digest... I sent you a copy... 73 ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, that's the LUX fire system ad that ran in Aero Digest. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:54:46 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Gasoline at Lae Att'n: Birch Matthews Gasoline at Lae, as was the case throughout the world flight, was supplied by Standard Oil Co., which included such companies as SOCONY (Standard Oil of New York) - VACUUM and STANAVO. According to the resident agent at Lae, Robert Iredale, the octane rating supplied (shipped from California) was 80. For some time there was much excitement when somebody noted a telegram to Putnam (?) was signed "VACUUM". It was thought to be some sort of deep secret code-name, but merely a message from a company rep. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:37:19 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances Ric says - >>My point is that Bendix did put his products aboard the airplane on at least two occasions but there is still zero evidence for, and considerable evidence against, one of those products being an RA-1 receiver.<< To the best of my knowledge, and I've been investigating this subject for quite some time, there is NO evidence proving the absence of an RA-1 receiver, or was that just a hyperbolic statement? You've already admitted you can't prove a negative. To the contrary we have the evidence of a couple of photos, a) Earhart, Manning and Bendix engineer Cyril Remmlein examining an RA-1 in Mew York, with a caption indicating Earhart was to take delivery of such equipment; b) the Ralph Sias picture of the Electra cockpit, showing a Bendix receiver remote control, taken at Miami. Now c) a note scribbled by AE when en route across the Asian sub-continent, listing five frequency bands that Bendix Project Engineer indicated as corresponding to the RA-1 (and certainly NOT the WE set). This comes from the Purdue collection, via Elgen Long. Further d) are the statements of Moore, Capt. Al Grey, and the radioman at Darwin who replaced a fuse in Earhart's "DF receiver" (NOT the "communications receiver"). Admittedly, this is not lawyer-proof evidence, but it walks like a duck. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric If you have a hypothesis it's up to you to test it and determine whether or not it is true. It is not up to someone else to test it or prove it or disprove it. If, however, you claim to have tested your hypothesis and found it to be true, and you expect your conclusion to be accepted, you must present your evidence for review and successfully defend challenges to its credibilty. Your hypothesis is that there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard Earhart's Electra at the time of her disappearance. If I understand you correctly, you have tested this hypothesis and believe it to be true, although you admit that the evidence is, at this time, inconclusive. (I am in much the same position with respect to the Nikumaroro hypothesis.) The evidence you offer to support your opinion is: <> You have sent me a copy of this photo and it does show Earhart and Manning with another man and a radio that matches other photos I've seen of a Bendix RA-1. There is nothing in the photo to indicate where it was taken. You have not disclosed where the photo was published and I've seen no caption indicating anything. Manning is dressed in a dark suit and tie. Earhart is dressed light colored slacks, plaid shirt, scarf, and leather jacket. The other man, whom you say is Cyril Remmlein (I'm not saying he isn't. Just that you have not shown that he is.) is dressed in a dark suit and tie. He does seem to be the same man who appears with Earhart in the photos taken at Burbank in early March with the Bendix loop and adaptor. On that occasion, Earhart is wearing a dark, solid-colored shirt. My point is that you have not provided proof that the photo shows what you say it shows. <> Again, there is nothing in the photo which establishes where or when it was taken, or even for sure that the aircraft is Earhart's. The box that you say is a Bendix receiver remote control does not look at all like the photo of the remote for the RA-1 receiver shown in a March 1937 article in Aero Digest. My point is that you have not provided proof that the photo shows what you say it shows. <> I haven't seen the note so I can't comment on it. <> Moore's and Grey's opinions are not evidence and if Earhart was using the WE receiver for DFing then it was her "DF receiver." Evidence against her having a Bendix RA-1 or any seconf receiver aboard the airplane includes: a) Earhart's press releases during the world flight which were extensive and descriptive and in which she seems to have missed no opportunity to plug her sponsors with frequent references to her Wasp motors, and her Sperry Gyro Pilot, etc. Nowhere is there any mention of a Bendix receiver. b) An interview she gave in Karachi during the World Flight, and included in "Last Flight" in which she describes her instruments and radio gear in detail and says that the "Bendix direction finder" is on the instrument panel and the Western Electric transmitter is in the cabin and the Western Electric receiver is under the copilot's seat. c) Fredrick Hooven, in his 1982 paper "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" stated that Earhart removed his Radio Compass, which used a separate receiver, and replaced it with an "older, lighter-weight model of much less capability." He said that the weight savings amounted to 30 pounds. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:50:42 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: expedition plans Ric wrote: >>If you're whacking scaevola you can't put in anything like a real 8 hour work day (and live to tell the tale.)<< This is going to sound like a really stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway. Do you take a small light chainsaw plus a fairly heavy duty brushcutter with a saw blade for the scaevola? I know scaevola is not lantana, or wait-a-while but there are some similarities. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Not a stupid question. We took three lightweight chainsaws along in 1991 but they tended to overheat and sieze. We haven't tried brush cutters but they would probably work. You can cut a lot of scaevola with power tools but you still have to move the stuff out of the way and dragging big clumps of cut brush across the ground is not something you want to do when you're trying to examine the surface for things like buttons. The biggest drawback to power tools is the potential for injury. Our greatest fear is a massive laceration involving arterial bleeding. When we're on the island we're usually an hour from the boat and the boat is 24 hours from the closest place we could meet a medevac flight (Kanton). In other words, one slip up with a chain saw or brush cutter would probably mean a dead TIGHAR. Bush knives/machetes are still dangerous but with proper precautions have less potential for really horrific injury. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:53:02 EDT From: Warren Subject: Re: Rescue expectations Cant help but wonder, how much time did they spend with the radio, which takes away from spending time getting goodies off the aircraft, not to mention the plane being on a reef and dealing with the tides. Perhaps they didn't totally give up the working with the radio until the plane was swamped? Which would really limit what they would have gotten onshore. Regards. Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. The apparent absence of tell-tale salvaged material from the airplane argues for just such a scenario. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:01:20 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Anecdotal accounts An interesting current BBC article on the difficulties of eyewitness (anecdotal) accounts is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_937000/937389.stm william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:22:38 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Anecdotal accounts > From William Webster-Garman > An interesting current BBC article on the difficulties of eyewitness > (anecdotal) accounts... And the Floyd Kilts story was remembered by someone who may have received it second hand, then translated to a second language by an interpreter who may not have been competent in one of the two languages, then remembered for 14 years by Floyd Kilts before being recorded by a newspaper journalist. There's a lot of room for error there. But anecdotal accounts are often based on truths. I am always suspicious of any anecdote and I examine them for whatever truth they may be based on. I am getting the impression from your message and Ric's resistance that you think I believe my speculations to be true. I do not. They are nothing more than speculations made in an attempt to search for whatever truths may be backing the Floyd Kilts story. As I said in a previous message on the topic, "It's a lot of wild speculation but I think it's probable enough to keep available for comparison with any new evidence." Frank Westlake *************************************************************************** From Ric There's nothing wrong with speculation per se. The amazing thing about the Kilts anecdote is how much of it has turned out to be true. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:24:04 EDT From: Tom MM Subject: Manning & Misc What little I've seen on Manning seems to indicate that he was a steady, capable guy with no obvious vices. Maybe a better move would have been to hire Noonan to train and equip Manning for aerial nav tasks. On the other hand, of the three, Manning appears the least in need of a stunt like the Earhart flight to secure his future. Regarding marine sextants in aerial use: If (the big if) you have a clear, unbroken horizon, the mirror system of a marine sextant stabilizes the relationship between the horizon and the celestial object regardless of the motion of the ship or plane. This should be far more accurate than trying to follow a bubble, even with an averaging system in use. There are also bubble artificial horizons available for marine sextants which can be quickly mounted in place the telescope or sight tube. I do not know when this accessory generally became available. I hope I'm not mixing up history, but I seem to recall that Chichester used a marine sextant (without bubble) to set up the sun LOP for a small and remote island during his solo flight across the Tasman Sea in 1931 (?). Whew, that's even worse than dialing a cellphone while driving. Tom MM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:27:12 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances Two things stand out, Ric, in Cam's hypothesis, and your response, regarding the photo of the Bendix receiver remote control and the matter of whether AE had a second receiver (and as you know, I am of the school that feels she did... at least for now): First matter: If this is a pre-production version of the RA-1, it is entirely possible that the control head in the cockpit photo is indeed mechanically different fron something that came out later. The "box" may have been redesigned or repackaged, and therefore had a different appearance from the one in the aircraft pictured (AE's or no, we still must resolve this...). I am basing this observation on the example of what I have seen in photos of early models of the Army Air Corps BC-224/BC-348 receivers (and I am well familiar with the set, I own a 348) which were standard in large a/c such as B-17s. The first ones used had a rather different appearance from the later models (and had different freq band coverage as well). But they were all BC-224s or BC-348s, just a different mod letter (BC-348J, BC-348R etc). (And lest we forget, the B-17s up thru the D series were a much different a/c, appearance-wise, from the Big-Assed Birds that saw combat with the 8thAF. But they were all B-17s, right?) Second matter: Don't be so sure that the statements about the Bendix being on the instrument panel mean it was ALL there. AE may have been referring to either the INDICATOR ALONE (the needle) or the control head. The RA-1 was a big receiver and would have been remotely mounted/controlled. I offer this observation from my own experience... Police officers(the folks I work with) often refer to the control head alone, which is what they see as it is mounted up front in their cars, as "the radio." Often they don't have a clue that there's more to it than this. (I refer to trunk-mounted radios, in the case of my current experience the Motorola Syntor X9000 series, rather than front-mount rigs with everything up front with the driver, such as most hams would be using...). Think on this... LYM (who usually takes what she sees at face value) and 73 Mike E. ************************************************************************** From Ric Was the RA-1 remote in Earhart's Electra an earlier version than the one in the magazine article? Always possible, but if Cam is correct, the installation was done at the same time the loop and adaptor were installed - first week of March, 1937. The article showing the different remote appeard in the March 1937 issue of Aero Digest and most magazines have a two to three month lead time. In other words, the "standard" RA-1 remote was certainly in production well before the alleged installation in NR16020. As to whether Earhart only referred to the receiver by it's remote, that certainly wasn't the case with the two Western Electric units. Both had remotes in the cockpit but AE described the transmiter and receiver as being in the cabin and under the seat. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:25:55 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: AE Photos in Associated Press Archives I have been told by a fellow Earhart researcher (not someone who has posted on the TIGHAR) site, that there are several AP photos of Earhart in the cockpit of the Electra (with mnay instruments visible , a photo of her adjusting a radio in the cabin, and several of AE and Noonan being greeted by officials at stops during her 2nd around-the-world flight. Anyone ever see these photos? They are in the AP archives. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we have several photos of Earhart in the cockpit at various times and many photos taken at various stops during the World Flight. Many are from the Purdue collection. I'm not aware of an "AP archive" that is available to the public. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:44:27 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances Ric wrote: >> c) Fredrick Hooven, in his 1982 paper "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" stated that Earhart removed his Radio Compass, which used a separate receiver, and replaced it with an "older, lighter-weight model of much less capability." He said that the weight savings amounted to 30 pounds.<< By "older model", what does he mean here, back to the WE loop + coupler, or on to the Bendix RDF thing, which couldn't be described as less capable? Was Hooven's company pretty short lived? I mean, i've looked at a whole lotta manuals and articles, and the TIGHAR posts are the first place i encountered this name. Reminds me somehow of an odd little note in an ONI manual on Japanese aircraft equipment, where it sez the DF was "copied directly from a Lockheed model", when i've never seen or known that Lockheed had anything to do with manufacturing such equipment. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric There never was a WE loop and coupler on Earhart's Electra. Fred Hooven as an inventor a considerable stature. "Who's Who In America 1984-1985 Vol. 1" lists Frederick J. Hooven's career as follows: born Dayton, OH Mr. 5, 1905 Graduated M.I. T. 1927 jr. engr. Gen. Motors research 1927-28 engr. Dayton Rubber Mfg. Co. 1929-30 civilian aero. engr, USAAC, Dayton 1930-31 American Loth Corp. 1932 chief engr. Radio Products Co. 1933-34 v.p., chief engr. Radio Products Div. of Bendix Aviation 1935-37 consultant product devel., Dayton, 1938-1956 (etc, etc, etc.....) Hooven died in 1985. He held 37 U.S. patents, 6 of them for radio direction finders and radio compasses. He developed his first radio compass as an individual in 1934 while he was employed at Radio Products (which manufactured vacuum tube testing equipment). Bendix bought Radio Products in 1935, apparently primarily to bring Hooven and his invention aboard. The patent for the Hooven Radio Direction Finder (licensed to Bendix) was granted to Hooven in 1936. Five protoypes were produced. According to Hooven, in a 1966 letter to Fred Goerner, "Vincent Bendix had retained Harry Bruno as his personal public relations counsel and he distributed these prototypes where he thought they were most likely to get his name into the papers." One was used by Dick Merrill and Harry Richman on their September 1936 transatlantic flight in the Vultee "Lady Peace." Another was installed on an Army Air Corps Martin B-10 for military tests. Another went to American Airlines for testing on one of their first DC-3s. Earhart got the fourth one which was installed aboard R16020 in October 1936. (I'm not sure where the fifth one went.) Hooven was never sure just who was responsible for Earhart switching her DF equipment just before the World Flight. There were several divisions within Bendix Aircraft Radio and there was apparently a lot of internecine competition. In the 1966 letter to Goerner, Hooven accused Laurance A. Hyland, v.p. of Bendix's Radio Research Company of Washington, D.C. of being the culprit, but later he talked to Hyland and he denied any role in the change. My suspicion is that there was yet another Bendix division in New York or New Jersey and that Amelia got the grand tour while she was in the area to announce the World Flight in February, 1937. She was shown the new RA-1 receiver (hence the photo showing her and Manning admiring one) and the new MN-5 loop and adaptor/coupler. Hooven is adamant in his 1966 letter to Goerner that the DF Earhart opted for instead of his Radio Compass was the "old, simple null-type" with no sense antenna. It's important to remember in all this that no switch to Bendix equipment was involved in this decision. Hooven's unit was a Bendix product and was already state-of-the-art. What Earhart did was swap one Bendix DF for another. Why? She already the most advanced, simple to use DF available. The only apparent motivation is just what Hooven alleges - weight. Replacing Hooven's rig with an RA-1 would save little or no weight and actually increase complexity. The only thing that makes sense (to me) is that by going to the Bendix MN-5 loop and adaptor she could eliminate an entire receiver and save a significant amount of weight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:48:53 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Rescue expectations Ric wrote: >> I agree. The apparent absence of tell-tale salvaged material from the airplane argues for just such a scenario.<< Just curious- what could they have gotten ashore, salvaged, aside from the obvious carry-on personal items, without some handtools? Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric Not much. The fuselage tanks might make good cisterns and they would fit through the cabin door (that's how they got in) but they'd need a wrench or at least a hand axe to get them free of the straps that secured them to the floor. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:16:50 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances > < at Darwin who replaced a fuse in Earhart's "DF receiver" (NOT > the "communications receiver"). >> > Moore's and Grey's opinions are not evidence and if Earhart was > using the WE receiver for DFing then it was her "DF receiver." Ric, this is really a weak spot in your argument. It reminds me of the "It depends how you define 'is' " defense. Certainly while she was DFing it became her DF receiver, but on the ground, what tech is ever going to refer to it as her "DF receiver" ? To appropriate another expression, "Gimme a break". Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Here's your break. Quoted below, in it's entirety, is the statement of Mr. A.R. Collins, Aircraft Inspector and Officer-in-Charge of the aerodrome at Darwin as quoted in an enclosure to a letter to the American Consul in Sydney dated August 3, 1937: " I have to acknowledge your memorandum reference the enquiry from the American Consulate, Sydney, in regard to the wireless communication of Miss Earhart, while at Darwin during the recent round-the-world flight which it is deeply regretted ended in disaster. When Miss Earhart arrived at Darwin it was necessary to ask why there had been no radio communication with the Government Direction Finding Wireless Station under my control. (Miss Earhart had been advided of the facilities and the Station's wave length prior to departure from Koepang). Miss Earhart regretted that the D/F receiver installed in her aircraft was not functioning therefore an inspection of this receiver was carried out and a ground test arranged between the aircraft and the D/F wireless station. It was discovered that the fuse for the D/F generator had blown and upon renewal in Miss Earhart's presence the ground test was completed. Miss Earhart was advised to inspect fuse in event of further trouble. During the journey from Darwin to Lae the following morning communications was established with Darwin for a distance of 200 miles from this station, radio telephone being used by Miss Earhart. No inspection of Miss Earhart's transmission gear was carried out, this apparently being in order, therefore Segeant rose cannot hazard an opinion apart from the faulty fuse wihich affected only the D/F receiver." Now, in light of those comments, please explain to me how there can be two separate receivers aboard that airplane. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:17:44 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fred Noonan's accident. Don, one question: have you found out whether the Calif. Highway Patrol, which (or whose predecessor) I presume would have responsible for Fred's citation, has records that extend back that far that could be consulted? TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:27:07 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless Ric wrote: > The fact that it was large enough to contain the > bones means that it was very large for a kanawa wood box. Wouldn't have to be TOO large -- long enough to contain long bones (say 2-2.5 feet) and wide/deep enough for a cranium (say 1 foot). Of course, it could have been bigger, but I'd guess maybe 2x2x3 to allow room for all the bones plus some packing material. Only a guess, though. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric And that's a BIG kanawa wood box. I've seen about a dozen that were brought back as souvenirs by servicemen. The largest I've seen is maybe 4 inches by 3 inches by 2 inches. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:28:16 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones, bones, who's got dem bones? > That's one of the first things we checked out. Bottom line: it's unlikely > that a cruddy, damaged partial skeleton got mixed in with the carefully > prepared and maintained skeleton's used for teaching purposes. But to be on the safe side, Kar Burns inspected and measured all the bones currently in the Medical School's collection, and there were none that matched Hoodless' measurements. TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:36:29 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: expedition plans > From Ric > > Not a stupid question. We took three lightweight chainsaws along in 1991 but > they tended to overheat and sieze. We haven't tried brush cutters but they > would probably work.- - - > Bush knives/machetes are > still dangerous but with proper precautions have less potential for really > horrific injury. Using a petrol powered brushcutter is a bit of a "black art" and certainly not for first timers. The normal balde requires one to get momentum up as the tool is swung in an arc at ground level. I tend to use a saw blade attachment on an FS80 brushcutter to greater advantage in heavy undergrowth. There is less "swinging" of the brushcutter involved (less chance of hooking someone with the thing) and you take the scrub off at ground level, which is hard to do with a chainsaw of any kind. It would still be one hell of a job, but a lot less backbreaking than chainsaws and much safer. I've had a good look at the scaevola picture from the web site, and I don't envy the team. Having said that I believe Bougainvillea clearing would be similar (except that scaevola probably doesn't attack you with 2" poisonous spikes) and suspect that a powerful brushcutter with the saw blade would make life easier. You'd need the members usint the tool to familiarise themselves with it prior to the trip because there is a knack for working the thing in the tropics. The blades are protected part way by a guard also, so there is less likelihood of injury, but you still have to take care. I don't know what brushcutters are available in the US, but I use an old "Stihl" with a shaft about 1" diameter. This allows me to cut at ground level, and overhead when necessary, and the strength of the shaft lets me hook some of the scrub back and to one side. I can't speak for any brand other than Stihl, but I can say my old FS80 functions adequately all day in normal temperatures (90 degrees plus) without seizing. (which is more than I can say for my body) Before someone points out that I would not be working in 90 degrees, it is a beautiful early spring day here, and the temperature is a "pleasant" 80 degrees! Summer is a long way off yet. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Stihl has sponsored our work both in the Pacific and in Maine, so I'm well familiar with their products. We used Stihl brushcutters extensively in Maine but only in areas slated for metal detecting for buried objects and not where we anticipated that there might be anything of interest on the surface of the ground. Brushcutter blades can really chew up the surface and fling things about. They can also be extremely dangerous to bystanders if the operator makes a mistake and the blade "kicks." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:43:32 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: bones and shoes Okay I was stretching that thought of the objects being buried with Gallagher so thin it was invisible.Call it wishful thinking.The reason I keep thinking that they were brought back to Gardner is because of the shoes.If I read the bones chronology correctly Gallagher and party discovered the bones and the shoes in sept. 1940.correct?If TIGHAR discovered a shoe in their 1991 expedition was this the same shoe?Or did the other shoe drop(sorry couldn't pass that one up)?If it was the same shoe discovered in 1940 then the Floyd Kilts anecdote bears a little more truth.Big difference between a gunny sack and a wood box though.If it is her second shoe then of course it means the other shoe likely resides lost in Fiji.of course there is the reports form Steenson(I believe) that the shoe parts are both male and female shoes.this kind of makes me wonder who's shoes were found in 1940,Amelia's Or Fred's.Or has this report been ruled out? Questions for our British friends-- How important is burying the dead where they fall .would it be important enough to ship the bones back or would an appropriate funeral(performed by a religious figure) in Fiji be acceptable? If it was very important then Gallagher might have received permission from the medical school there to return the bones for burial after they were done examining them.Is there any documents from the school stating this?I to can not see him stealing the bones as it would be total out of character from my reading of the man(Tom Kings bio).One cannot rule out the fact the bones were returned to his care without documentation somewhere along the lines either.many deals have been done by a simple handshake and a mans(or woman's)word .when Gallagher was on Fiji he may have gotten verbal permission to return the bones for burial. One other reason I think the bones might have been returned is the discussion earlier in the forum regarding the British lack of interest in informing the Americans their suspicions the bones may have been that of Amelia. Okay that's my reasoning,somewhere along the way I'll bet my train of thought switched it's track without a signal though. LTM(who knows she still has much to learn but is willing to learn it) Richard Lund *************************************************************************** From Ric The shoe parts Gallagher found were sent to Fiji with the bones so it would be hard for that to be the same shoe parts we found, wouldn't it? Gallagher found what, in Steenson's opinion, was part of a woman's shoe and part of a man's shoe. We found a heel and fragmented sole that seem to be from a woman's shoe, and another, different, heel that might be from a man's shoe. It is tempting to conclude that there were two pair of shoes and Gallagher found one shoe from each pair and we found the mates. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:46:39 EDT From: Leah Subject: Re: Other Electras in Lae Reading this, thinking.....and airplanes were a hot item in 1937. Maybe someone stole the Electra. The Japanese would have loved it...could have copied it/used it for Pearl Harbor. The Germans would have made use of it too. *************************************************************************** From Ric The Japanese were interested enough in the Electra to buy one long before Earhart's flight. By the time Earhart disappeared her airplane was far from cutting-edge technology. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:50:10 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances; radio/DF A rebuttal to your critique: As far as Bendix equipment is concerned, I have good reason to believe it WAS NOT supplied by the Navy, but came out the factory back door. If you can accept that, it explains Earhart's apparent reticence to discuss the presence of the classified RDF-1 and in a like vein, the RA-1. And Vince B., a shrewd operator if there ever was one, likely wanted to keep the details of the supplied equipment quiet pending the successful completion of the flight. (In short, he was gambling on a good result.) The post-war letter from Bendix Radio president Larry Hyland in which he denied that any Bendix equipment was aboard the Electra sort of underscores that intent. You keep attempting to discredit my repeated references to Remmlein, the Bendix rep, and to Vernon Moore, the Bendix Project Engineer (designer of the RA-1), and yet a little research by you would confirm their positions (and credentials). "Moore's and Grey's opinions are not evidence" is an unworthy statement for you to make, as you have lauded some mighty flimsy "evidence" to support your Nikumaroro scenario. Surely you know Capt. Grey had worked with Noonan, and was certainly in a position to render expert opinion on radio/DF operations. As for Earhart press releases, reread my opening paragraph above. I'm well aware of Hooven's statements, and hold that gentleman in especially high regard, but the fact he said his Radio Compass was removed from the Electra to save weight is irrelevant to what was later installed, since (promised) wizard performance of the HF/DF and RA-1 would have been a strong enticement to add a few pounds. And I've often quoted Earhart's LAST FLIGHT to support the presence of a Bendix DF, and to establish that the Western Electric receiver was NOT removed. Aside from the possibility of a cloak of secrecy regarding much of the Bendix gear, it's possible AE mentally included the RA-1 with the DF in her "inventory". The Remmlein, Manning, Earhart and RA-1 photo is in the Goerner collection, and I can't see how the clothing worn by the participants proves anything. I am currently attempting to verify the picture's provenance (checking the wire services, et al), but the caption material I've previously quoted (which indicates she was taking delivery of the equipment) seems plausible, and dovetails with other evidence. The Sias picture WAS taken in Miami, and he WAS an employee of Pan Am. Elgen Long tracked down the Sias photos, and has shown them all to me. I'm convinced of their legitimacy. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but I'd suggest you pay some attention to the remarks of "Mike, the Radio Historian". Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let your rebuttal stand on its own merits. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:58:56 EDT From: Warren Lambing Subject: Gruesome Find Over the course of time I have seen critics of the possibility of the bones found on Niku. being AE bones, ask the question why didn't the New Zealand Survey team stumble over the bones while mapping the Island. There are of course several possible answers to that. One she hadn't died yet, the other they just didn't come across them, the latter possibility is perhaps shown more probable by this, sad but true to life situation. Recently in a rural area of western New York, a logger stumble over the remains of a person on the surface of the ground he was about to log. Eventually these remains were identified as being the remains of girl who was 19 years old and disappear on December 27, 1978, her remains were undiscovered for almost 22 years. For those who think this must be a very remote area, it's not, although there is an explanation as to why she was not found for 22 years, it appears to be a populated area, at least as populated as rural communities get. This is a sad story, but certainly gives weight to how the bones found on Niku could have been missed for so many years. The following are URL's to newspaper articles concerning this case, the first ones explains when she disappear and the type of area she was found http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory.cfm?newsid=886885&BRD=1206&PAG=461 the next article goes briefly into the scientific process of analyzing the remains and give an idea of what TIGHAR would like to be able to do. http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory.cfm?newsid=892272&title=Sharp%20eyes%2C% 20mind%20lead%20to%20forensic%20identification&BRD=1206&PAG=461&CATNAME=Top% 20Stories&CATEGORYID=410 Regards Warren Lambing *************************************************************************** From Ric The NZ survey, according to their own report, did no work in the bush anywhere but at the western end (Nutiran). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:00:17 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Manning & Misc. Although it appears Fred Noonan carried a marine sextant in addition to his Pioneer Octant, the marine sextant is not really suitable for aerial navigation, unless it had the "bubble" artificial horizon attachment installed. I can't find an exact date when they came about but bubble octants/sextants were developments of marine sextants that were adapted for use by air navigators, so I think it is safe to assume FN had one for his "preventer". The problem with using a marine sextant in an aircraft is that it employs the sea horizon as a reference line which is no value when flying over land, over clouds, haze, or at high altitudes when sea & sky blend into each other and do not form a clear-cut horizon line. Even when the sea horizon is visible from high altitudes, the altimeter does not indicate the altitude of the airplane with sufficient accuracy & reliability to determine the height of eye(dip) correction accurately(HO 249 altitude corrections did not exist then as well). An exception would be at low altitudes(less than 1000 ft.). A collegue of mine tried one once on a pacific trip ferrying a YS-11 turboprop on a Japan-Hawaii flight and was doing good to get 40-50 miles accuracy when results were compared to the Omega they were using. For Tom MM: You are correct that Chichester used a marine sextant(unmodified) on his oceanic flight across the Tasman sea. As I recall he did not get really good fixes but mearly used sunlines to gauge his speed & latitude progression to compliment his DR. It was quite the challenge holding the stick in his legs while trying to get a steady shot & check the time hack. He was busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:08:00 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: expectations of rescue Ric wrote: >...'On the other hand.... >Hearing "A"s on loop antenna in direct response to her request gave them >reason to suspect that Itasca had heard them ("A"s on 7500 was the >agreed upon response for Itasca). She had told them what she was doing >(running on the LOP) as best she could. They certainly had every reason >to expect that a search would be launched and IF they were able to pick >up the KGMB broadcasts (they certainly knew the frequency) they would >have known that some pretty impressive assets were being marshalled (the >PBY, the battleship Colorado, etc.). Since Lt. Lambrecht claimed not to have seen any sign of an intact Electra on Gardner Island, one week following the time it was presumed down & since the consensus of Forum postings seemed to confirm it was not likely that AE/FN would have been able to remove & use the plane's radio if it was removed from it's power source or if such power source was submerged in water... did the KGMB broadcasts during that one week time frame convey any specific information that the USS Colorado would be searching for AE/FN in the Phoenix Islands chain? If not, would it not seem unlikely that AE/FN would have had any hope that any potential rescuers would be looking for them in the Phoenix chain, since there is no record that they ever communicated their intention of seeking an alternate landfall there in any of the messages that were received by Itaska? Even the messages supposedly 'received' _after_ they were presumed down, failed to provide any mention of the Phoenix group, & even the reference to ...'running on the LOP'..., received by Itaska, failed to clearly state in which direction they would continue to follow the LOP at the time such message was broadcast. We can of course make the presumption that somehow they were aware that the US Navy/Coast Guard was mounting an all-out search for them, including in such search the Phoenix chain, which then raises yet another question... if they did know such a search was imminent, why were they caught unawares by the Lambrecht flyby, unless of course they were already dead or so badly incapacitated by injury or thirst, they were physically unable to do anything other than try to stay in the shade, out of the equitorial sun & heat. (Naturally such suppositions again gets into the realm of the...'woulda, coulda, shouda' version of what really happened & as we know, that always seems to lead us into even greater suppositions & speculations, generating far more heat than illumination!) Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know anything about what the content of the news stories broadcast on KGMB but if they were anything like the newspaper accounts all over the U.S. they full of details about search. IF AE and FN cold receive and understand commercial broadcasts it seems like they "shoulda" had lots of information. The absence of any information about lat/long or island names in any of the alleged post-loss messages suggests that IF the messages were genuine AE and FN might not have known where they were. Like you say - speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:11:35 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: What survival gear did they carry? I don't recall that being discussed. Was it assumed that the flight was so well-monitored that any problems would be solved in a day or so? ************************************************************************** From Ric We don't know what was carried or why except that Earhart said that they had cut the load down to bare essentials for weight considerations. The takeoff weight calculations that have appeared on this forum make it pretty clear that such concern was justified. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:12:39 EDT From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless <> If THE Box was marked with anything it more than likely would have been inlaid with bits of aluminum. When Foua Tofinga shared his box with us last summer, it was decorated with inlaid metal flowers and names. He explained that the decorations were typical. Tofinga's box was presented to him by his father on his wedding day which celebrated a religious/spirtual significance. Our understanding from Emily was that when her father constructed THE box it was done in an urgent manner. My guess would be that there would've been little time for decoration. Blue skies, Barbara Norris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:15:54 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: AE Photos in Associated Press Archives AP does have an archive, but you have to be a member of the AP to access it. I emailed them my information while I was researching Brines, but have heard nothing from them as yet. From her description, I think the photos Janet refers to are the ones most of us have seen. The one where she's tuning the radio, for example, being an earlier one. One or two of the later ones, taken by Bresnik ("photographer to the stars" wasn't it?) do show a pretty good view of the front office, but none of the ones I've seen have been clear enough to read the instrument faces well. One does show something on the eyebrow panel (behind AE's head, and behind the maplight), but it's not clear enough to confirm if it's the same object as in the Sias photograph. One thing though, I suspect that the plane in Sias' photo is AE's Electra, because the layout of the panels (upper and lower) is entirely consistent with the later photos of her cockpit made by Bresnik. With the stages of modification that she went through, I am convinced that there is zero probability that any other Electra in the world had the panel set up that way. I do suspect that the Sperry Pilot was pretty standard equipment, though, as I have a copy of another electra panel photo that has the Sperry mounted in the same manner as AE's. Also, on the panel template which you sent me, I don't think it identifies the Sperry as "customer to supply" the way it did with one or two others (Hoven readout, and maybe - I think - the Cambridge Analyzer). LTM, jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric It would be great to get a photo of the panel of the other 10E Special. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:16:52 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: AE Photos in Associated Press Archives Oops - ref my last post, I wrote "Hooven", and should have written "Lear-o-scope" I'll try not to let it happen any more... ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:18:30 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Fred Noonan's accident. Tom King wrote: >>Don, one question: have you found out whether the Calif. Highway Patrol, which (or whose predecessor) I presume would have responsible for Fred's citation, has records that extend back that far that could be consulted?<< When I spoke with the Sheriff's department last week, they stated that the city would have jurisdiction over the accident because it was actually within the city limits. I just sent a message to Jerry Hamilton this morning stating that after I made that forum post, I check with the county archives so see if there was any record of a law suit against Fred file in court. The records books were not complete, but 1937 was represented and I found no reference to a suit. I will however, continue to check with the California Highway Patrol offices to see what they have. I think I already checked with them some time ago, but I forgot their response. Might take a while though. Don ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:27:30 EDT From: Leah Subject: How to cut scaevola What is the matter with a good sharp axe....easily kept sharp with a wetstone which is light, portable, and easily transported. The scaveola probably for the most is soft, porous wood and easily hacked. It probably isn't hardwood. ************************************************************************** From Ric Scaevola, on the lush green ends, is easily cut - but it doesn't do you any good to cut it there. Farther down the stem the wood gets tougher and tougher until, at the base (where you need to cut it) it's very, very hard. Hit it with an axe and the axe will just bounce off because the stem will just give and bounce back. The best way to cut scaevola is with a good sharp bush knife or machete. You grab the stem in one hand and bend it so as to stress it, then you whack it with the knife at an angle just at the point of maximum stress (being careful not to cut off your own hand). The down side of this technique is that it creates a cut stem that closely resembles a Vietnamese "pungi" stake. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:32:18 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: bones and shoes Richard Lund asks about the British view on bones being returned. The policy of bury were they fall is not taken literally in all cases. If a serviceman for example dies in the line of duty and there are no circumstances that may require the removal of his body/remains to another location then he is essentially buried were he fell. If for some reason his remains are removed from the area (such as in the Gardner - Suva situation of hundreds of miles) the chances are very slim that they would be sent back. It is unlikely then in the Gardner-Suva scenario that the bones return to Garner Officially for burial. I further cannot see Gerald Unofficially taking the bones back to Gardner. Last, I believe that no matter what ... if these bones were moved anywhere outside Suva OFFICIALLY there would exist a string of correspondence and/or documentation. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:11:59 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: How to cut scaevola This topic is certainly out of my line of expertise. However, I have found long handled lopping shears to be very handy and dependable cutting through most types of vegetation ... even hard stocked vegetation as you describe. Just an observation that may or may not be of interest. Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************** From Ric I suspect they would work okay. Whether they'd be as fast as a bush knife is another question. There's also the question of fatigue. After a while (in my experience) lopping shears tend to get you in the shoulders. ************************************************************************** From Janet Whitney My father does not like to use a chainsaw. He has several pruning saws for trimming trees. They cut through green hardwood quite well. He also uses a large 2-person saw for cutting firewood into three foot chunks. He and my brother can cut hardwood very quickly. But the saw blades must be kept sharp. JanetWhitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:42:58 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Vidal Collection/ Reference to AE returning to the Gilberts In previous posting we have discussed that several authors,(Loomis, Lovell, and Rich, among them) have cited or referenced Eugene Vidal's statement or belief that if Amelia couldn't find Howland, she would reverse course and head back to familiar territory, the Gilbert Islands (some 500 miles west). Notwithstanding the fuel and range controversy, I have attempted to substantiate that reference. Only Doris Rich provided a specific reference, the Vidal Collection 6013, Box 19,page 97, at the American Heritage Center, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie,Wy. After a month of emailing with Mr. Carl Hallberg, Assistant Archivist,Reference, at the Center, and his enthusiastic response and efforts, he wrote the following summarizing his research: In box 19 of the Eugene Vidal Papers (6013) I have read the correspondence from 1936 to February 26,1937 (the next letter is datged 1940;there is no correspondence from Mar 37 to Jan 39) but found no reference to Amelia Earhart's contingency plan[the return to the Gilberts]. He went on to add that Rich's citation of box 19 was "more confusing than illuminating" as the letters in Box 19 are not numbered. The contents of box 19 are letters and one file folder of US Army aviation adm. charts. Hallberg said he then counted in the first file 97 pages and then 97 letters. None dealt with Amelia. There was a letter, he said, from Amelia dated June 16,1936 [probably well before contingency plans were prepared] but it has been listed as missing for several years. So we have a curious count: 97 pages and 97 letters. The number "97" corresponds to Rich's cite but does not reflect any document dealing with the "I shall return to the Gilberts" by Amelia to Vidal. Interesting. In further efforts to clarify this mystery, Dustymiss corresponded recently wsith Doris Rich and Rich wrote back and "swears" up and down that her reference to Vidal's plan B is correct; box 19,page 97. She also wrote that she "destroyed" all her research after she finished the book (1989). Rich concluded that if the paper isn't there it's because someone has taken it,or it has been lost or misfiled; and she says checked every footnote before going to print., In my opinion, most researchers would not destroy notes and documents of their book. She says there is a page 97, well there is a page 97 but no reference to the Gilberts. I have asked Dustymiss to ask Rich, apparently a friend of Dustymiss, what type of document page 97 was,a letter, a memo, a newsclipping,etc. Did Rich herself go to Laramie and sight the refernce or was it from correspondence or an assistant researcher for Rich. Does she recall who assisted her at the American Heritage Center. My conclusion so far. What with other authors indicating research at the American Heritage Center and indicating such a plan was extant, I believe that somewhere in the files that Gilbert Island course may well be there but lacking more specific cite, it will be impossible to verify without a personal check at Laramie. Hallberg says the Vidal Collection consists of 40 boxes (some 20 cubic feet) of records. He will provide me with a lengthy list to the collection. But as of now, the Doris Rich reference could not be confirmed. Lovell and Loomis did not provide specific cites,only the "Vidal Collection." I followed up with Hallberg asking him if there were any records maintained by the Center regarding access. He said that a file is maintained on every individual who requests boxes to research or information about collections and each box that they reference is noted.Unfortunately that file is mainained for seven years then destroyed.Since these books are over seven years old, no dice here. Absent additional information from Rich from Dustymiss, the Case of the Missing Reference is closed. Any volunteers for a project at Laramie? LTM, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a lot of hard work for little reward Ron, but you've certainly defined the problem. At the very least it now seems that Rich's citation is in error. I agree that the only way to determine whether or not the document exists would be a massive piece-by-piece search in Laramie. Personally, I don't think it's that important. I will quibble with your characterization of a decision to reverse course for the Gilberts as heading "back to familiar territory." If she was on course she passed over one island of the Gilberts - Tabituea - in the wee hours of the morning of July 2nd. Even if the weather was cloudless it would be questionable whether or not she could see anything of it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:43:42 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: AE Photos in Associated Press Archives If AP stands for Associated Press the pictures should be available to any newspaper or publisher willing to pay for them. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:25:09 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Second receiver debate You quote Collins' letter to "prove" there was only one receiver aboard the Electra. Apparently you see what you want to see. But, using the same letter, I see a line that says ". . . . the faulty fuse which affected ONLY the D/F receiver." (emphasis mine). Yes, the same letter refers to "no radio communication" prior to AE's arrival in Darwin. So? If AE knew her DF receiver was inoperative, she had good reason to NOT call the Darwin DF station. There's no existing record she called ANY destination station prior to her arrival. Then, "During the journey from Darwin to Lae, . . . . commun- ications was (sic) established . . . . for a distance of 200 miles from this station, radio telephone being used by Miss Earhart." (RADIO TELEPHONE for communications, NOT Morse for DFing.) So what? Further, the letter constantly refers to the "D/F receiver" and "the D/F generator", NOT "communications receiver" nor "Western Electric receiver". If you can't even consider the possibility that there can be "two separate receivers aboard the airplane" then maybe you're in the wrong line of work. (Please, no cheering from the gallery!) Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric I realize that you've cherished this hypothesis for a long time, but Collins' letter really does seem to disprove the existence of a second receiver. Earhart gets to Darwin and they ask her why there had been no communication from her prior to arrival. She didn't say, "I didn't try." She said, "My D/F receiver isn't working." upon which the technician checks her "D/F receiver" and finds that indeed it is not working. Nobody asks, " Why didn't you use your other receiver?" or "Why were you trying to use your D/F receiver for communications?" They fix the fuse in the "D/F receiver" and now she has communications. Duh. There is simply no other reasonable way to read it. There is only one receiver and she is using it for both D/F and communications. They're probably referring to it as the D/F receiver because they're a D/F station. >> I see a line that says ". . . . the faulty fuse which affected ONLY the D/F receiver."<< He also says, "No inspection of Miss Earhart's transmission gear was carried out, this apparently being in order,..." >>There's no existing record she called ANY destination station prior to her arrival.<< Not so. Chater letter, page one - On June 28th we received the following messages from Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd. and Vacuum 0il Company Pty. Ltd.: "Amalgamated Wireless - FOLLOWING FROM DARWIN BEGINS EARHART WILL SEND AND RECEIVE ON 36 METRES AT 18 AND 48 MINUTES PAST EACH HOUR STOP EXPECTS LEAVE DARWIN FOR LAE ABOUT 6.30 YOUR TIME INFORM LAE ENDS" and "Vacuum Oil - 'EARHART ANTICIPATES DEPART 0600 29TH FOR YOURS RECEIVING AND TRANSMITTING THIRTYSIX POINT SIX METRES D BAR F LOOP' ". On arrival Miss Earhart pointed out that whereas these radios advised us of a wave length of 36 metres, in reality her wave length was 49 metres which explained why we failed to pick up any messages from her. " This clearly indicate that Earhart did attempt to call Lae prior to arrival. What seems odd is Vacuum Oil's reference to the "D BAR F LOOP" when giving Earhart's receiving and transmitting frequency. Maybe they're just informing Lae that she has a DF loop. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:03:01 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: How to cut scaevola Anyone who has worked in their backyard under a blistering sun can appreciate what you Nikunites have done on your past expeditions. I understand there is a lot of terrain to search and limited time to complete the task. Thus, enter the labor saving device. It slices, it dices, it's a digger, it's a hauler. I'm speaking of a mini-tractor. Years ago, my parents rented one to clear their land. It made short work of heavy brush, rocks, and stumps. Small enough to fit in the back of a pick-up truck and can be lifted by four strong men. Once you established a highway through the thick growth, then you can use your smaller tools to cut pathways. What do you think? *************************************************************************** From Ric We've considered using ATVs and other small motorized vehicles for transportation and work on the island. The problem is that anything you take ashore has to go over the side of the ship into a small zodiac-style launch to be carried to the beach where it then has to be unloaded by people standing on rough, slippery coral in knee deep water (at low tide) or hoisted up onto the reef-flat from the launch in the channel at high tide. Once you got it ashore you'd have to drive it across to the lagoon shore and again load it into another launch for transport a couple of miles down the lagoon to the 7 site where it would have to be horsed out of the launch and onto the shore. The lagoon shallows so gradually that you usually have to get out of the launch 20 or 30 feet from shore. All this loading and unloading and carrying around a heavy vehicle is not just cumbersome but, in that environment, extremely dangerous. That's why we've always rejected the idea. There's also the point that we're doing archaeology, not land clearing. We want to reveal what is there without disturbing the surface any more than necessary. Tractors tend to be a bit disruptive. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:13:03 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Scaevola Never seen the stuff and hope not to, but it appears that a quick a fairly easy method of clearing this underbrush is a neccessity for a sucessfull expedition(s). A number of posts on how to remove have suggested a number of different pieces of equipment. I will add three to the list. First is a Power Pruner, mfg. unknown, distributed by Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Model PPT-2400 "is the choice for tree services and professional landscapers. Its telescoping shaft has an easy adjustment knob which allows you to extend it to 11 feet for reaching . . . . overhead (or reaching ahead horizontally). In addition, it can be used for clearing brush, sawing firewood, sculpting, thinning and rounding out logging truck loads." Model PPSR-2433 is a Short Reach Pruner (depends on whether you can easily approach work or need to reach out 8+ feet) "is ideal for heavy-use professionals. the 33" shaft provides excellent reach and balance, especially for limbing felled trees." Should handle material to 4-6" with ease. Both units are air cooled two-cycle gasoline engines, centrifugal clutch, with 10" or 12" cutting bars. They appear to be designed exactly for the type of work you propose. The second is a hydraulic cutter, I think up to two or three inche capacity, which runs off the hydraulic system of a lift truck. You would require a separate power source; a small gasoline engine with a hydraulic pump. I see them used by Davy and other major utility line clearing companies. Would be "safer" than the cutter above, but might be more cumbersome with secondary power source. I haven't found any literature yet but will look if you want. The third is Carona Ratchet-Action Loppers, also distributed by Forestry Suppliers, Inc. A ten position ratched assembly multiplies personal strength allowing you to cut progressively through hardwoods (i.e. Oak, Hickory, etc.) Cutting capacity to 2". Corona also offers a 3" shear, but without the ratchet assembly. Would probably work well on softer wood, but I wouldn't tackle Oak or Hickory with it. Will furnish catalog material by FAX if you want. *************************************************************************** From Ric Please. Fax number is (302) 994-7945. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:29:02 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Chainsaws, Machetes, Bush Axes, etc. The people who prune and harvest trees with chainsaws and harvest crops like sugar cane with machetes in the U.S. generally wear Kevlar arm and leg guards and/or helmets with Lexan face shields. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric Ah yes, the safety gear issue. We could do a whole separate forum on the philosophy and practicality of safety gear. Let's just say that TIGHAR has run something over 3 dozen aviation archaelogical expeditions, many of them in some pretty hostile environments, and we've never had a serious injury. Statistically, I think we're probably outside the "luck" box so we must be doing something right. I don't encumber people with a lot of armor nor do I micromanage their behavior. The key to injury prevention, in my experience, is attitude. If you go at the job with professional mind-set you stand the best chance of not having an accident. If you go at the job with a careless, cavalier, or macho mind-set it doesn't matter how much armor you wear - you're going to get hurt. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:40:02 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Newsletter Wanted to complement you on the newsletter. The TRACKS are nice in that they're rather attractive, and get conversations going when people see them. However, I'd really prefer more frequency to more gloss. Good decision. - Bill #2229 ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Bill. I'll explain for those who are not yet TIGHAR members. This month we abandoned our efforts to put out a glossy quarterly magazine (which just wasn't happening due to time and funding constraints) and started a new program of monthly newsletters featuring Research Bulletins from the website in printed form. We'll also be excerpting some of the postings from the forum. We're hoping that this will be a way to better service our non on-line members while giving our on-line members hard copy of some of the best material from the website. Once a year we'll put out a glossy summary in a TIGHAR Journal along the lines of the triple -issue of TIGHAR Tracks we sent out last March. This change comes as a result of some very good conversations around the campfire in Idaho last summer. Feedback is always appreciated. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:41:38 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: IRP: Dr. Hoodless Ric wrote: >> And that's a BIG kanawa wood box. I've seen about a dozen that were brought back as souvenirs by servicemen. The largest I've seen is maybe 4 inches by 3 inches by 2 inches.<< Sure, it's big by souvenier box standards, but Foua Tofinga has a kanawa wood box that was a wedding present, adzed out of a solid chunk of wood and about 14x10x10 inches (inlaid with aluminum, but not from Niku). I imagine the Niku box was made from planks rather than a solid piece; it would have to have been bigger than Tofinga's box. But not the size of a real coffin, by any means. LTM (who stays out of coffins) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:44:22 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: An experiment with 1940s RDF equipment I proposed a little experiment to Jay Coward, who owns a working setup up, of US Navy loop-adaptor unit type DU and aircraft receiver type ARB. I reckoned these were a not unreasonable analog to AE's equipment, in that (1) the DU loop is a development straight from the Bendix RDF, as used by AE, differing mainly in the tuning range, which is only LF and BC - but otherwise the loop size and overall gain are approximate, and (2) the receiver ARB is not an unreasonable analog to the WE20 (i think best to skip tech features unless requested). I asked Jay to try DFing some real strong stations, to try to get some feel for if a really strong station would prevent successful DFing. This, to try to get a better feel for AE's unsuccessful Lae experience, whether it was equipment, or operator failure. Herewith: > So far I've been able to get good nulls when useing the DU loop in the loop > only switch position.I have a telescopic whip mounted to the setup so I can > have the radio running without having to throw a wire up in a tree but it is > too close to the loop to get a good "sense" of the direction of a > station.The "big guns" KGO,KCBS,KNBR are all north of me about 50-60 > miles.The local station in Santa Cruz is KSCO at (I think 5KW) also has a > decent null and they are about 15 miles away. > Now if you put the rx on AVC you don't get a null worth beans.You have to > be on MVC with the gain at the minimum useable setting.The nulls are then > very sharp.Now that's fine in the comfort of my radio room but in a twin > engined plane I can see having the gain all the way up and even possibly > having the radio on AVC just to hear something.Maybe that's why AE was > unable to get a radio bearing. The last part of the above i thought was a pretty fair insight. I included the rest of his note, the following, for general interest. Of course, regarding the last paragraph, the sad truth is quite otherwise. > BTW at Moffet field there is a small museum that has an ARB and a Bendix > RDF loop on display.It is phisically very similar to the DU but there were > some differences.Actually it resembled the DW in that it used a single glass > enveloped dual triode? > > >If contractors > were contributing equipment for evaluation and PR I would think it would > follow that Earhart and Noonan would have been well trained in its use. > I wonder if the truth will ever be known. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:46:25 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: rescue expectations >>what could they have gotten ashore, salvaged, aside from the obvious carry-on personal items, without some handtools?<< The most obvious things aside from charts, sextant, log etc. were the four approximately 1 quart thermos flasks (probably empty but still sensible to take ashore) two suitcases and some flares etc. According to the Luke field inventory there was a reasonable amount of food aboard on the first attempt. One would think there was a little left also. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:49:48 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Earhart/Putnam finances Ric wrote: >>The only thing that makes sense (to me) is that by going to the Bendix MN-5 loop and adaptor she could eliminate an entire receiver and save a significant amount of weight.<< Like the weight of 5 US gallons of fuel? I'd rather have a more efficient RDF Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:51:02 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: expedition plans > Brushcutter blades can really chew up the surface and fling > things about. They can also be extremely dangerous to bystanders if the > operator makes a mistake and the blade "kicks." That is the reason I suggested throwing away the standard brush blade in favour of a saw (toothed) blade. Much safer in thick brush and heaps more versatile. Rather than swinging the blade all you do is slide it up to the tree and let the blade do the work. I've never had a situation even cutting dead wood where the tool kicked back. And I regularly clear 1/4 acre of thick cover in a day on my own block. (Including shoulder high guinea grass, vines, saplings and the odd 2 metre snake). Of course raking the stuff back to burn takes about a week. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:01:03 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Re: how to cut scaevola I 'spect that if you could recruit a few Gurkha troops for the expedition, their kukri knives would make short work of the scaevola. Seriously, there are generally available (if you get the right sort of catalogs) machete/bush knife sized kukri type (forward swept cutting edge)knives of very high quality that might be just the ticket for equipping the expedition. The manufacturers in question, two that I'm familiar with, might be amenable to underwriting some of the expedition if you gave them advertising rights for "the official bush knife of the Earhart search expedition" complete with before and after pictures of "conquered" scaevola. Is there any scaevola-comparable vegetation near TIGHAR HQ that such items could be suitability tested on? LTM, who loves me in spite of my collection of sharp objects. Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************************** From Ric Thank God, no. I've found that the selection of edged weapons is a highly individualistic thing and it's best to encourage each team member to find something that works for him/her. John Clauss swings the most chewed-up looking knife you can imagine but he goes through scaevola like he was on a walk in the park. Veryl Fenlason prefers a Fijiian cane knife. I have a Chinese-made bush knife that I bought for about two dollars in Port Moresby in 1986 and I wouldn't part with it for the world. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:06:10 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Off-Topic: Another famous relative of Ric and Dennis? Just finished reading The Rape of Nanking. Incredible book; well documented. Just don't try to read it on your lunch break--you'll lose your appetite. Short version: between December 1937 and March 1938 the Imperial Japanese Army murdered somewhere between 200,000 and 450,000 Chinese civilians in Nanking. Several foreign nationals set up an International Safety Zone which sheltered something like 300,000 Chinese civilians from the Japanese soldiers. The leader of the Safety Zone was (ironically) Nanking's Nazi Party head, German national John Rabe, who was promptly arrested and interrogated by the gestapo upon his return to Germany, for daring to speak out against the atrocities of an ally. One of the Safety Zone leaders was an American national, an episcopal missionary who had his own movie camera. He shot several reels of film of Japanese atrocities and personally smuggled them out of Japanese held territory. His name was John Gillespie Magee. Anybody you guys know? LTM (love those missionaries) Dave Porter, 2288 ************************************************************************** From Ric Of course you know that Dennis and I were joking about being related to the John Gillespie Magee who wrote "High Flight" but I wonder if you have stumbled upon his actual father. Wasn't he a "Jr."? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:00:12 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Chainsaws, Machetes, Bush Axes, etc. Being a regular wearer of kevlar body armor here in the (generally) mild Colorado climates, I can emphatically state that it would be nigh on to impossible to tolerate such garb in the tropics ... unless you really dig dehydration and a major rash... ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:12:31 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: how to cut scaevola Careful, careful careful ... re: Gurkha knives. Gurkhas are required by their beliefs that if their knife is drawn it MUST draw blood before it is sheathed. True story ... during Korean War Gurkha regiments served alongside US regiments and the "yanks" were fascinated with the knives and always asking to see them. The Gurkhas, being friendly to their commrades in arms obliged and drew the knives for them to see ... over and over again. An order was subsequently given to the US troops not to request the Gurkhas to show their knives as so many Gurghka troops were suffering from cuts on their forearms. They would draw blood by a small cut on their forearm thus fulfilling the requirement of their belief to "draw blood" before sheathing the weapon. Can you imagine the consequences of a disgruntled Gurkha having to draw blood on Niku ... not an inviting thought! Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric Note to self: Self, no disgruntled Gurkhas on team. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:14:08 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: 3105 Kilocycles Experiment One of my friends was given a Grundig Satellit 800 shortwave receiver for her birthday last month. She has it here at school. There is nothing but static during the daytime on 3000-4000 kc. This includes the 75 Meter ham band. We used a 70 foot outdoor antenna. I bought the shortwave magazine Monitoring Times. It appears there no one is even broadcasting on the so-called '"tropical" shortwave bands during the daytime. Right now the ionospheric conditions are very close to what the iononospheric conditions were in July, 1937. Another thought. Can someone take a ham transceiver up in an airplane and determine how far "ground wave" transmissions can be heard on 75 Meters during the daytime with 50 watts into a wire antenna on the plane? JanetWhitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:16:25 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Kanawa Box >>> And that's a BIG kanawa wood box. I've seen about a dozen that were brought back as souvenirs by servicemen. The largest I've seen is maybe 4 inches by 3 inches by 2 inches.<< Most wood craftsmen use "seasoned" wood which is usually dried for a year before being formed. Green wood makes a box that will warp and misform over time. Was the tree perhaps already dead, and therefore "seasoned"? LTM, #2200 Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric No doubt about it. Gallagher says specifically that the tree "until a year ago" stood on the shore of the lagoon near etc., etc. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:48:42 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Earhart search I just received, from Ebay, a New York Times newspaper. It is dated, July 6, 1937. Interesting verbiage follows: Itasca sees flares 281 miles north of Howland...later determined to be meteors. AP states messages sent to Earhart from Honolulu had resulted in supposed replies. Putnam believes they are in the Phoenix islands, southeast of Howland. Operators at the Wailupe Naval Station heard, "281 north Howland...call KHAQQ...beyond north...don't hold with us much longer...above water...shut off." Putnam believes plane landed on a reef and fuel to run the starboard engine was running low. Pan Am radio men estimate Earhart might be in the vicinity of Gardner and McKean islands. Three long dashes were heard (meaning they were on land rather than water) by Paul Mantz, who was in Los Angeles. Admiral Byrd surmised that they must have come down on a reef or island because she was apparently was using her engines to operate the radio. It appears from this article that the authorities had a pretty good idea where the plane went down, Gardner Island. Why wasn't a more detailed search done of Gardner or McKean if it was thought she landed on a reef and was able to run her starboard engine for three days? *************************************************************************** From Ric Spooky, isn't it? Why wasn't a better search made? So USS Colorado is tasked with conducting the search of the Phoenix Group. Early on the decision is made to make it an aerial search using the ship's three catapult-launched floatplanes. On the way down to the Phoenix they decide to check out Winslow Reef but after repeated attempts they can't find it. The Colorado's captain is on his last cruise before getting a promotion and shore job in Hawaii. He is now very suspicious of the available charts and is not about to risk putting his battlewagon aground on some reef so he stands well off the islands and lets the planes do all the searching. The pilots have almost no information about the islands they are searching. McKean and Gardner are the first islands searched. No plane is seen and signs of recent habitation are not seen as meaningful. There is considerable pressure to move on and search the other islands, not only because Earhart and Noonan have now been missing for a full week, but because the 196 ROTC cadets and 4 college VIPs aboard for their annual (hijacked) training cruise are already long overdue back on the West Coast. Besides, the aircraft carrier Lexington and three destroyers were enroute to take over the search. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:05:34 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Off topic...John Gillespie Magee Ric wrote: "John Gillespie Magee who wrote "High Flight" but I wonder if you have stumbled upon his actual father. Wasn't he a "Jr."? According to Iris Chang, in her book The Rape of Nanking, John Gillespie Magee was described as, "an Episcopalian minister who served as chairman of the International Red Cross Committee of Nanking during the massacre." She makes no mention of "Jr." Chang also states , "David Magee, son of the Reverend John Magee..." was active in the cause of Nanking as late as 1990 in San Diego. Does any of this fit into Ric's family ties? LTM, Roger Kelley ************************************************************************** From Ric The author of High Flight was indeed John Gillespie Magee Jr. If he was 19 in 1941 he could, in theory, be the son of the John Gillespie Magee who was at Nanking. It's not exactly an everyday name. There is some indication that my (5 greats) grandfather James Gillespy (sic) was an Anglican Dean in northern Ireland circa 1750. However, of his two sons John and James who emigrated to the United States in 1794, John (the elder and my 4 greats grandfather) became a Presbyterian (gasp!) while younger brother James became a founding member of St. Pauls Episcopal Church in Burnt Hills, N.Y. in 1804. So, if I am related to the Episcopalian Priest John Gillespie Magee it would likely be through James' line . Interesting stuff (to me) but totally off topic. Wish I had time to chase these connections. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:54:49 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: September 27th Just a reminder that September 27 is the anniversary of the death of "IRISH". I hope all at TIGHAR join me and spare a moment on the 27th September to remember a galant, sincere, hard working and very devout individual ... GERALD BERNARD GALLAGHER! Gerry Gallagher ************************************************************************** From Ric Indeed. With any luck, by this time next year (which will be the 60th anniversary of his death) we will have replaced the plaque on his tomb. "In affectionate Memory of GERALD BERNARD GALLAGHER, M.A. Officer in Charge of the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme who died on Gardner Island, where he would have wished to die, on the 27th September, 1941, aged 29 years. His selfless devotion to duty and unsparing work on behalf of the natives of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands were an inspiration to all who knew him, and to his labours is largely due the successful colonization of the PHOENIX ISLANDS. R.I.P. Erected by his friends and brother officers." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:58:52 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Second receiver debate Ric wrote: > What seems odd is Vacuum Oil's reference to the "D BAR F LOOP" when giving > Earhart's receiving and transmitting frequency. Maybe they're just informing > Lae that she has a DF loop. What is odd about: > "Vacuum Oil - > 'EARHART ANTICIPATES DEPART 0600 29TH FOR YOURS RECEIVING AND TRANSMITTING > THIRTYSIX POINT SIX METRES D - F LOOP' ". ?? It says she will be receiving AND transmitting on her D-F loop. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric And you don't find that odd? Her D/F loop is for DFing. She may be able to hear voice over it but she certainly shouldn't be able to transmit over it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:04:31 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Kanawa Box > Was the tree perhaps already dead, and therefore "seasoned"? > Dave Bush > >*************************************************************************** > From Ric > > No doubt about it. Gallagher says specifically that the tree "until a year > ago" stood on the shore of the lagoon near etc., etc. They must have had a reasonable stock of the stuff. I seem to recall Gallagher offering to have a small table made.. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric All of the furniture in the Rest House was made from kanawa. Apparently there was a lot of kanawa cutting done in the early years of the colony. It is my suspicion that it was kanawa harvesting that brought the work party to the 7 Site in the first place and it was during those operations that the skull was found. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:20:45 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Kanawa cutting Ric wrote: >No doubt about it. Gallagher says specifically that the tree "until a year >ago" stood on the shore of the lagoon near etc., etc. Then, if the tree had been discovered and cut down a year before - and the skeleton had been found under the tree, then a year had passed since the finding of the bones and artifacts. That would leave plenty of time for locals to have scavenged items and turned them into other items or added them to the family's trove of treasures. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric The skeleton was not found under the kanawa tree. It was found under a "ren" tree. However, your basic point may be valid. Gallagher's letter referencing "until a year ago" was written in December 1940, indicating that the tree was cut down circa December 1939. The skull seems to have been found by a work party circa April 1940. Logically, a kanawa tree right on the lagoon shore might be among the first to be harvested and the tree-cutting operation proceed inland from there. Various objects (such as a Benedictine bottle and an inverting eyepiece) might theoretically be found and collected by the workers and no one think anything about it until eventually, in April, somebody comes upon a skull. Uh oh. Now it's a big deal. The skull gets buried and suddenly nobody is real eager to do a lot more kanawa cutting in that neighborhood. Irish shows up in September and hears about the skull and some (but by no means all) of the other stuff that was found earlier. Makes sense to me. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:22:35 EDT From: Richard Lund Subject: re;bones and shoes For Gerry and Ric Well Gerry, thanks for the information regarding the British view on 'burial where they fall." It helps clear up alot of my confusion.As does Ric's feelings both shoes were probably found.Also i'll take your word that there could be no unofficial way for the bones to be removed from Figi. I concede the fact the bones and objects are likely still in Figi.,sorry for any trouble my theory may have caused you. Ltm Richard ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:35:59 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: how to cut scaevola Where I live you get arrested for possessing a machete or any of the knives you describe. Even selling them is illegal. How did you guys get away with that ? And how were you ever allowed on board an airplane with all that illegal equipment ? *************************************************************************** From Ric Oh man...talk about a way to launch an off-topic thread. Let's just say that we have no restrictions on knife size and as long as it's carried in checked luggage rather than carry-on you can take your sword anywhere. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:41:47 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Chainsaws, Machetes, Bush Axes, etc Chain saws and equipment like that are no more dangerous to the guys who operate them than rifles or machine guns are. Any (former) soldier (like me) can tell you. Chain saws and the like are dangerous to onlookers who get too close. TIGHAR must have developed watertight safety procedures in the past and I'm sure that is the reason why TIGHAR expeditions have been succesful. It takes common sense to use that sort of equipment. Without that the equipment can be dangeous. I used chain sauws and other bush clearing equipment in my life. I remember the one golden rule : never wield a working chain saw with people around. It also reminds me of my army days (actually it was the air force) : rifles and machine guns and the like were not and are not dangerous to the guys who operate them but they will be to those who get in the way. I served 18 month in the forces (as an weapons instructor by the way) and we used to warn the guys "never to walk in front of a any gun". And there was severe punishment in store for anyone pointing a gun, even mocksingly, at a comrade (on the other hand, if you fired at the enemey and scored a hit you got a medal). Chainsaws and other bush clearing equipment are like guns. Never use them when people are on the wrong side. And make sure to hold them with BOTH your hands. ************************************************************************** From Ric >>rifles and machine guns and the like were not and are not dangerous to the guys who operate them but they will be to those who get in the way.<< No argument. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:43:54 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Chainsaws, Machetes, Bush Axes, etc. Ric wrote: >If you go at the job with a professional mind-set you stand the >best chance of not having an accident. If you go at the job with a careless, >cavalier, or macho mind-set it doesn't matter how much armor you wear - >you're going to get hurt. Kind of reminds you of our heroine, what? Tom ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:46:32 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: The search Spooky? A Vincent Price movie to say the least. Here you have America's little darling, Lady Lindy with very powerful friends in the White House. Her husband, a big time publisher with powerful friends in Hollywood, and awesome connections in the business world. Then, someone in the Navy drops the ball, and drops it bad. A mad scramble follows, heads will be chopped-off. . I'm beginning to think there might have been a cover up concerning the Itasca's log to save some butts. *************************************************************************** From Ric I wouldn't describe it that way. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:10:09 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Disgruntled Ghurkas Mother thinks that even a gruntled Ghurka might be risky. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:18:05 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Survey crew, etc. Warren Lambing wrote: "Over the course of time I have seen critics of the possibility of the bones found on Niku being AE bones, ask the question why didn't the New Zealand Survey team stumble over the bones while mapping the Island ..." It doesn't bother me that the NZ survey crew didn't find the bones. It does bother me that they didn't find >anything< -- at least, nothing worthy of note -- in two months on the island. While "official" exploration may have been restricted to the area around their campsite, it is difficult to believe that these able-bodied young men wouldn't have gone vagabonding, (to use one of AE's favorite words) in their off-duty hours. What ever became of the efforts to track down any surviving members of the crew? The interesting bit here is that, per the timetable in "Paradise Lost" (http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/yr3.html#1), the initial bone discovery could well have taken place >while< the survey crew was still on the island! I must have read that chronology three or four times ... never hit me until now. Who knows what the kiwis' personal lettrers or memoirs might reveal? Ron, great work on the Vidal files. If you didn't strike pay dirt, you at least have demonstrated beyond peradventure that whatever Rich saw, she didn't see it in "Box 19" (unless it's the missing 1936 letter). Only 39 boxes to go. Anybody have the time for a week's Vidalliance in Laramie? LTM Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric So far, attempts to track down living members of the NZ survey team have succeeded only in finding Henderson, the chief engineeer who was medevaced out upon arrival. I wrote "Paradise Lost" in 1996 before we had the Tarawa and WPHC files. We now know that the first bone, the skull, was found in April 1940. We do have some personal correspondence from the NZ survey. No mention of vagabonding or other discoveries. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:21:30 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 3105 Kilocycles Experiment >From Janet Whitney > There is nothing but static > during the daytime on 3000-4000 kc. This includes the 75 Meter ham band. --I'm not quite sure i get the point of the above, but..... try mornings, especially weekend mornings. Unless you are in the middle of the Gobi desert, you should be hearing something in the 3800-4000 range, in local and semi-local stations. If you hear nothing, maybe the receiver should be returned....daylight does not mean you can not usefully use these frequencies any more than it does so for the 'AM broadcast band'. > I bought the shortwave magazine Monitoring > Times. It appears there no one is even broadcasting on the so-called > '"tropical" shortwave bands during the daytime. Right now the ionospheric > conditions are very close to what the iononospheric conditions were in July, > 1937. --The MT list is a small subset of broadcasting stations. If you are curious you should sneak a peak at World Radio TV Handbook, or one of the listener's club bulletins. The 'tropical' broadcast bands ( grouped around 2400, 3300, 3800 and 4800 ) are much less used today, with most countries moving to FM band for local stations, but there are still broadcast stations in Africa, South America, China, and the Pacific Islands - incl. Papua NG - using these frequencies, and during the whole broadcast day. Your only chance to hear them is in darkness path hours. WIth a 70 ft. example, you will certainly be able to hear Chinese, Indonesian, Papua NewGuinea and maybe South American stations here - tho not a whole many. --I thot of an example of 49 meter propagation. (comparable to 6210). About 5 years ago i used to listen to a new-rock station in Alberta, Canada, on the broadcast band, at nite, from western Washington state. The station had inherited an existing SW transmitter and license, probably dating to the 1930s for rural coverage, in the same 6-MHz band. The same programming was sent out over the SW frequency, altho apparently no one but the station engineers knew the SW existed. Since the 'AM broadcast band' is dead to longdistance during the day, i would listen to their 6-MHz frequency during the daylite hours, then it would be buried as darkness came on, by larger international stations, and i would go to the 1060 AM frequency. The point of this little anecdote is that the SW was still at the 1930s power level, something like 500 or 1000 watts, no more, and i could hear them all day at maybe 1000 miles out. This might shed a little light (penlite scale) on (optimum) transmission range of aviation ground stations in olden days, and interference problems also. > Another thought. Can someone take a ham transceiver up in an airplane and > determine how far "ground wave" transmissions can be heard on 75 Meters > during the daytime with 50 watts into a wire antenna on the plane? --Strictly speaking, i don't think this would be "ground wave" for a plane flying at way above tree level. Possibly an easier approach, if one wants to get an idea of operational range, would be to ask someone who flew WW2 planes less than Patrol Bomber size. Those ships mostly communicated using frequencies in the 3 - 9 MHz range, from what i've seen largely grouped in the 4 - 7 MHz range. BTW, i am now thinking it's most likely AE's unsuccess with the DF attempts at Lae and Howland were --operator error. The thing obviously received at HF ( regardless of Long's error in saying not). Lae should have been ideal conditions for the test. And you'd think if something was amiss, the inspecting technician, who tested out her equipment also, would have caught it. I don't understand why the tech (apparently) didn't look into the failure of the Lae DF try. Maybe he just thought, "I'm only an employee here, not the star, and i'm not calling the shots." Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:24:27 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: the Search Rick Seapin said: ...'I just received, from Ebay, a New York Times newspaper. It is dated, July 6, 1937. Interesting verbiage follows: Itasca sees flares _281 miles north of Howland_ ...later determined to be meteors.... /Operators at the Wailupe Naval Station heard, "_281 north Howland_ ...call KHAQQ...beyond north...don't hold with us much longer...above water...shut off'... Would it have been possible for the Wailupe operators to have confused a radio report from Itaska about the 'flares' with what said operators believed was a message from the Electra, given the similar reference to... 281 MILES NORTH OF HOWLAND...? Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric The phrases heard by Wailupe do not match anything said by Itasca about the "flares." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:30:43 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: Disgruntled Gurkhas The only problem is how do you tell a disgruntled Gurkha? The Sanskrit (ancient and sacred language of the Hindus in India) literal translation for GURKHA is "protector of the Cow". So as far as I am aware there are no cows on Niku and that all but eliminates the need for a Gurkha regiment to accompany the expedition gruntled or disgruntled. Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:32:13 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Associated Press Archive, Photos Ric wrote: >I'm not aware of an "AP archive" that is available to the public. I looked into this during the search for a photo of the belly of the Electra. There is an AP photo archive. If I recall correctly, the outfit that manages it is called something like WorldWide Photos (?). I have the POC info somewhere if someone wants me to look it up. I called them and they were willing to send me copies of photos (for a price of course). In the end I believe Russ Matthews visited the archive and looked at their photos....at least I know he was going to check it out. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:40:39 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: September 27 Gerry, may I add my belated welcome to the Forum. The tomb is, of course, concrete. The rectangular plaque was oriented (to borrow the computer term) in the "landscape" view with mounting holes 1/2 inch in diameter spaced 31 3/4 inches by 16 3/4 inches on center. While I would not presume to speak for Gerry or Ric, the replacement plaque should also include an inscription such as: "Respectfully re-dedicated September, 2001, by Gerard J. Gallagher, Scotland Richard E. Gillespie, Wilmington, Delaware Members of The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery" ************************************************************************** From Ric The call is obviously Gerry's but personally, I'd be honored to be included under the existing category: "Erected by his friends and brother officers" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:42:12 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Noonan's accident Per Jerry Hamilton's suggestion, I tried one more time to get information on Fred's April 4th, 1937 accident. I just pasted the messages below for all to read. > Hello, > > I'm doing research for a project and would like know if the CHP > has it's records archived as far back as 1937. I need information on > an auto accident in Fresno, California on April 4th, 1937. > > Can you help? > > Don Jordan ************* Public Affairs wrote: > Dear Sir: > > We do not retain information for that length of time. Your best avenue > would be to go to your local library and see if they have any newspaper > stories on it. > > Thank you for your inquiry. > > Office of Public Affairs >*************** >Thank you, > > It would help if you could tell me how long the CHP normally keeps >these types of records, and the manner in which they are disposed. > >Don Jordan ************** >Dear Mr. Jordan: > >The CHP retain collision reports for 4 years and current. Unless the case >is still being adjudicated, they are then destroyed at Area level. > >CHP Public Affairs ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:50:06 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Laramie reseach << Absent additional information from Rich from Dustymiss, the Case of the Missing Reference is closed. Any volunteers for a project at Laramie?>> I'm in Colorado and could find an excuse to use my pilot's license and fly up there and take a look. What kind of project do you have in mind? Skeet, you want to join me? Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric The project would involve digging through 39 boxes of archival material on Eugene Vidal for a misfiled or mis-cited letter or note documenting the illusive "Plan B". We may need to get FAA approval for McKenna and Gifford to be in the same airplane. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:53:13 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: cutting scaevola http://www.forestry-suppliers.com/ These guys have a lot of good stuff. My favorite is the cowboy hardhat. amck ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:56:10 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: 3105 kilocycles There is nothing on 3000 - 4000 during daytime hours. After 6 PM we do begin to hear some ham stations. They are using 500 watts or more and are located within about 200 miles. At night, we hear ham stations within about a 500 mile radius. We can't hear anyone who is using 100 watts very well, even at night. Jane's Satellit 800 is a brand new double-conversion superhet. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************** From Ric Could you explain what you hope to prove or learn from all this? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:32:30 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: September 27 Thank you for your kind welcome Skeet. In regards to the plaque... I personally would rather see the plaque replaced exactly as it was. May I suggest another smaller plaque be added as a 60th Annivesary plaque which I would be more than happy to add my name to along with whatever TIGHAR may wish to inscribe. I am willing to pay for both plaques in memory of "IRISH" and the ultimate price that he paid in his commitment to his quest. It is fitting that he lies on Gardner (Niku), the Island that he oviously loved. With friends such as he has within TIGHAR "IRISH", ... though buried alone on a deserted Island ... will never be forgotten. I for one, will NEVER forget him and I am proud that I am related to such a heroic individual as GERALD BERNARD GALLAGHER! Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds good to me. Let's keep the 60th Anniversary plaque small and simple. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:38:00 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: souvenirs Since it seems likely that some artifacts may have been added to "family" treasures, then in all likelihood, these "treasures" are still in the possession of the finder's descendents. Could a trace be done of all the original colonists and their descendents to see if any surviving artifacts are still available. I know they would probably not want to give them up, so you might offer a reward along with anonymity. You could get a third party that would document the items and give out the reward, but the item would be retained by the current holder. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric With very few exceptions, we don't even know who the original colonists were. None of the former residents of Nikumaroro who now live in the Solomons admitted to having any souvenirs from the island when they were visited by a TIGHAR rresearcher in 1995. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:39:10 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Flares The 281 message heard at Wailupe was what was used to send the Itasca, Swan, and Moorsby to that area, and while searching, they saw the flares. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:40:39 EDT From: Brian Subject: Re: Welcome to Gerry Gallagher Be-lated "Welcome to the forum". There are no adequate words to summ up my feelings for "Irish" and his committment to the service of human beings except...He is my hero. "Chaucito" Brian ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:20:02 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Associated Press Archive, Photos > From Kenton Spading > ... If I recall correctly, the outfit that manages it is > called something like WorldWide Photos (?). AP Wide World Photos: http://www.apwideworld.com/ Looks like any research with them would cost money. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:21:21 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: September 27 Thanks for the kind welcome Brian. To share a few items with you relating to Gerald from his colleagues, friends and superiors at the time of his death in 1941 I quote the following: Eric Bevington (fellow Officer) in his book wrote about Gerald " ... one of the most Christ-like men I have ever known." (page 91) and "To be near Gerald was to be nearer to Deity." (page 93). Harry Maude in a letter to Sir Harry Luke: Regarding Gerlad's death (14 October, 1941) " ... he was by far the best man we had!" Sir Harry Luke Responding to Maude (18th October 1941) "The loss of poor Gallagher is a real tragedy and a heavy blow to the W.P." Sir Harry Like again to Gerald's Mother Edith (20 October 1941) "I myself feel his loss most deeply, not only officially but personally ..." Thus, I think it is fair to say tha Gerald was held in the highest of regards by all who knew him! I commend you Brian on your choice of a Hero a choice that we share in common. Thanks Again, Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:22:58 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Laramie reseach The only other source for the Eugene Vidal quote is the Fred Goerner material at the Nimitz Musuem. Any one close enough to check or is there just chaos in the cataloging of that huge collection. (Fred G. referred to Vidal's Gilbert Is scenario in his 1966 book,p.328) Re Vidal Collection at Univ. of Wyoming. The missing letter of Jun 36 would not have been page 97 in that Box 19. By the way there are only 20 boxes and thus only 19 to go!!! Dick Strippel recalls seeing the Vidal reference also in the New York Times c.July 1937 and I'm researching that as you read. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:12:23 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: September 27 Ric's suggestion to be included in "...(Gallagher's) friends and brother officers" is appropriately modest and in other circumstances, totally fitting. It is, after all, a memorial to Irish, not those of us on the Forum. Allow me to rationalize this potential lapse of propriety. Put your time machine on Fast-forward. If some future generation were to conduct research on Nikumaroro, would not the names of principals who conducted previous research be an invaluable resource? As you say, it's Gerry's call. ************************************************************************** From Ric Gerry's suggestion for a seperate commemorative plaque should serve that purpose but there should also be some notation (perhaps on the back of the replacement plaque) that makes it clear that this is a replacement. My name will already be on the neon sign down at the landing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:17:24 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Public access to AP photos This is a note I received from Russ Matthews a few years ago. As you can see the archive is open to the public. >Kent- > > Don't sweat the contact info. I called AP today and made arrangements to > study the [photo] collection on Monday morning. I spoke with a woman named Joanna > who is going to be helping me and will look for the Herald Tribune photo. > I'll let you know if anything happens. *************************************************************************** From Ric That's what happens with a project this huge. We've been there and done that and I didn't even remember it. (Incidentally, it was indeed Russ Matthews who started using Love To Mother as a sign-off. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:21:58 EDT From: Raymond Brown Subject: "281 North Howland" Could you clarify for me please,the status of the 281 North Howland message ? I understand from a recent posting that Bob Brandenburg's research has shown that the message as heard at Wailupe radio station could not have originated at Gardner Is. Does this mean that there are now NO credible "post loss" messages? If so, what does this do to the TIGHAR hypothesis ? LTM Raymond Brown *************************************************************************** From Ric Bob's work does seem to disqualify the 281 message but a few other messages, especially the unintellible voice heard by Nauru radio on 6210, are credible possibilities. TIGHAR's hypothesis in no way relies upon post-loss radio messages being sent. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:32:23 EDT From: Ed Hamilton Subject: Re: September 27 To Gerry, If we all could leave this world being compared in that manner, what a better world it would be indeed! He was truly a special person and it was probably because he was so that he cared enough to take the care that he did regarding repose of the remains. Best regards, Ed Hamilton ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:38:24 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Files Ric: How is the research going into the files that you copied in Jolly old England? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 *************************************************************************** From Ric Uh, Dave, we've been talking about the information in those files on the forum for over a year now. The "Bones Chronology" and the "Bones Timeline" are compiled from those sources and were mounted on the TIGHAR website on April 17 of this year. You'll find them at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:10:20 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: September 27 Maybe I missed something in one of the TRACKS issues, or on the Forum, but what happened to Gerald's original plaque ? LTM Simon #2120 *************************************************************************** From Ric We don't know. All we know is that it's gone now. Just holes where the bolts holding it in place once were. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:11:03 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: September 27 To: Ed Hamilton Thanks Ed and I agree with you 100%. They say that inspiration is the fuel of accomplishment. Gerald is still doing his work today ... inspiring others through his memory. There is no doubt that with such inspiration TIGHAR will achieve their goal and in the process the story will become Gerald's lasting legacy! Gerry Gallagher ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:32:14 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Associated Press Archive, Photos It's WideWorld Photos, and they are primarily geared up to sell photos for reprint use (i.e., magazines, newspapers, TV). The photo showing AE atop the Electra, printed in the Roessler & Gomez book was NOT an AP one. Gomez assured me it was taken in the hangar at the old Miami Airport, but Ron Reuther is pretty sure it was at Oakland. And contrary to Ric's data, there were a PAIR of underbelly antennas, which makes OAK more likely. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric There are clearly two underbelly antennas on the airplane in the photo in the Roessler & Gomez book. R & G claim it was taken in Miami. Ron Reuther thinks it was taken in Oakland. There's no way to tell from the picture exactly where it was taken, but the when is easier. The airplane had two belly antennas from the time the Hooven Radio Compass was installed (October 1936) until the Luke Field wreck on March 20, 1937 when both belly antennas were wiped out. Photos taken at Burbank on May 20, the day after the airplane came out repair, show (as do all subsequent photos) a single belly antenna on the starboard side. The photo in question also clearly shows the Bendix loop over the cockpit which was installed around March 1st. It would, therefore, seem fairly safe to date the photo during the time of intense pre-World Flight publicity between March 1st and March 20th. For what it's worth, Amelia is dressed just the way she is in a photo of the airplane taken in the hangar at Burbank with Mantz and Putnam as they're weighing items to be taken on the flight to Hawaii. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:40:58 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Kanawa cutting It seems like they must have needed an awful lot of kanawa wood to have gone clear to the SE end to get it. Presumably they'd clear closer-in areas first, notably Kanawa Point. I wonder if they were using it for house posts; we've never checked to see what any of the remaining posts are made of, and I've wondered at times. Seems like Buka would be too soft. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, if we can believe Gallagher (and I know of no reason not to) and we're right about the 7 Site being where the bones were found (and I think it's by far our best guess), then somebody went clear to the SE to cut kanawa in December of 1939. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:13:19 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Disgruntled Gurkhas Well, it might be pretty disgruntling for a Gurkha to get to Niku and find no cows to protect. I guess we've milked this for all it's worth. LTM's milk TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:14:14 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan's accident So most likely Goerner, in the grand tradition of Earhart research, was told by somebody that the ticket had referred to drinking, and took it to be truth. In any event, unless somebody grabbed the thing as a souvenier, it looks like it's long gone. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:22:58 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: September 27 I imagine there are several of us who'd like to contribute to the second plaque at least, not to horn in on Gerry's right to reproduce the original. Let's compose something fitting and figure out a discrete place to mount the second plaque -- probably not on the tomb itself, but nearby. I'll pledge $50 to start with. TK ************************************************************************* From Ric We'll gratefully accept pledges toward the cost of the second commemorative plaque. (Tom's is actually the second). I should also mention that the family of Capt. Daniel Hamer of the S.S. Norwich City is funding the production of a plaque commemorating the 11 men who died and the 24 who survived that disaster. It's an island of many ghosts. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:24:12 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: souvenirs We've tried without any luck thus far to locate Koata's son, last reported on Banaba in the 1950s. A gentleman from Nikumaroro Village in the Solomons, living in Ohio, sent me an email via the Kiribati web site, saying there were people named Koata and Iokina back in the village, but he was en route there at the time and I haven't heard from him since. I'd be surprised if souveniers picked up by colonists were still in their families today; souvenier collection and intergenerational retention is just not something I've seen or heard of island people doing very often, if at all. A utilitarian item, sure, or something with long-term ancestral, spiritual significance, but not just an interesting thing picked up in the bush. Possible, of course, but another real, real long shot. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:24:57 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Files Of course, what's posted thus far on the website is only a tip (or several tips) of a big iceberg. There's lots of stuff in the WPHC files, though no obvious smoking guns. Just as an example, Randy Jacobson and I are working on a paper concerning the contributions of the WPHC and various individuals in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony to the original 1937 search, which relies heavily on documents from the files. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:26:30 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Second receiver debate > > 'EARHART ANTICIPATES DEPART 0600 29TH FOR YOURS RECEIVING AND TRANSMITTING THIRTYSIX POINT SIX METRES D - F LOOP' ".<< Landline telegraph messages were priced by the word and I assume privately owned air radio facilities, like shore stations for the ship traffic, charged by word also. Unessential words and punctuation were omitted and the shared context filled in the blanks. If i were on the receiving end, however, i would assume the DF loop was for additional LF/BC capability either thru the same receiver or thru a separate receiver (sorry). Without further explanation, you would not assume the DF loop tuned to 36 meters also - that would be a *real* rarity. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:28:15 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Second receiver debate Ric asked: >> And you don't find that odd? Her D/F loop is for DFing. She may be able to hear voice over it but she certainly shouldn't be able to transmit over it.<< Not in light of the report from darwin that said she had no "communication" (not just reception) because her D/F receiver wasn't working. I thought it was a kind of "hand in hand" anomaly... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:32:44 EDT From: Vern Subject: Replacement Plaque >From Ric > >... there should also be some notation (perhaps on the back of the >replacement plaque) that makes it clear that this is a replacement. I too had thought it might be well to indicate that the plaque was a replacement. If it was on the front, it might help discourage theives -- just a copy, not the original and hence of little value. It might help some. *************************************************************************** From Ric I wish I thought that it would be a deterent. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:37:04 EDT From: Rick Seapin Subject: Heavy equipment In 1968 a channel was cut through the flat reef allowing easy access to the island. If the ship you charter has a hoist, then heavy equipment should be a breeze to unload onto a larger craft than a Zodiac. Thus allowing you to bring this equipment onto the island with little difficulty. I have never been to Niku so is this still a problem? ************************************************************************* From Ric The date we have for the channel cutting is 1963. The channel is only about 30 feet wide. We've found that the best type of launch to use is a type of hard-bottomed inflatable known as a "Naiad" (after the manufacturer). Just getting people and hand-carried gear ashore can be an adventure. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:38:00 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Associated Press Archive, Photos Spading wrote: << In the end I believe Russ Matthews visited the archive and looked at their photos....at least I know he was going to check it out. >> I did indeed visit the Worldwide Photos NY office as part of our belly research. I was concentrating on looking for shots that would reveal detail of the underside of the aircraft --specifically an AP photo of Earhart beneath the aircraft that was published in May of 1937 (we only had microfilm photocopies). As I recall, there were only one or two folders with pretty standard stuff for the most part -- no real surprises and no belly photos either. I can't swear there's nothing that would interest us now, just nothing that struck me as relevant at the time --and I've seen a lot of this stuff. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:38:39 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: 281 message >From Randy Jacobson: > >...'The 281 message heard at Wailupe was what was used to send the >Itasca, Swan, and Moorsby to that area, and while searching, they saw >the flares.'... Thanks for supplying the correct timeline Randy. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:42:24 EDT From: Tom King Subject: The plaque Ric's note that there needs to be something on the back of the new Gallagher plaque to distinguish it from the old one leads, I think, to answering the question of how to commemorate Gerry's and TIGHAR's involvement in the new one: inscribe whatever it is we decide to inscribe (This plaque is a reproduction of the original, placed by Gerard Gallagher and The International....etc. etc.) on the BACK of the new plaque, where it'll be there for posterity but not visible to the visitor. One other point: last time we discussed this, before the '99 expedition (when we found time too short to make the plaque up before we sailed), we discussed how to affix the plaque to the tomb. As I recall, we decided that a good epoxy was the way to go, instead of trying to bolt it. I think this should still be the approach; it'll be solider, not require drilling, be easier to do, and also make it very clear to anyone who might actually study the tomb that the plaque is not a 1941 original. LTM, who is cautious about confusing future archeologists TKing *************************************************************************** From Ric A good epoxy might also make it harder to steal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:45:08 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: 281 message << From Ric Bob's work does seem to disqualify the 281 message but a few other messages,>> yeah, but wasn't there some odd coincidence regarding the 281 message? Something like the equator being 281 nm North of Niku? I cannot remember, but it seems like there was something like that we discussed about 5 years ago. Has it been that long? wow? LTM Andrew McKenna 1045CE *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, if you translate the latitude of the 7 site (or the Aukeraime site) to nautical miles from the equator you get exactly 281. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:46:35 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: 3000-4000 KC If hams are having to use 500, 800, 1200 watts on single sideband using efficient antennas and triple conversion receivers with DSP to hear each other out to 200 miles in the early evening, what can you hear with a 1930's vintage radio receiver when someone is transmitting with 50 watts on AM during the daytime? Most of today's ham transceivers are AM capable at 40 watts or so output. If there were any propagation at all during the daytime on 75 meters, we would have heard something...including hams on AM with 40 watts using their transceivers without linear amplifiers. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:49:04 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: the Nikumaroro Cafe Ric sez..."my name will be on the neon sign at the landing" The *Casablanca* line "everybody comes to Ric's" comes to mind... LTM, who thinks Bogey and Noonan could've been pals Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:51:47 EDT From: Ron Subject: Re: Associated Press Archive, Photos I believe the hangar you refer to in your last sentence, with Mantz and Putnam weighing items to be taken on the flight to Hawaii is hangar #3 at Oakland, not Burbank. Ron *************************************************************************** From Ric That makes sense. The final preparations for the first attempt were made at Oakland. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:54:30 EDT From: Ric Subject: Something New We have just received what appears to be a real-time transcription of what were believed at the time to be post-loss radio transmissions from Amelia Earhart. A 15 year old girl - whom we'll call "Betty" for now - was living in St. Petersburg, Florida in the summer of 1937. One afternoon in July - the exact date is not known - at about 3 p.m. Betty was sitting on the floor in front of her family's radio console. She liked to listen to music and kept a notebook in which she jotted the words to her favorite songs, made notes of current movies and drew pencil sketches of glamorous people. She also liked to listen to the "short wave." Her father had erected a long wire antenna -- perhaps 60 feet in length -- across the back yard from the house to a utility pole on the streetcorner. Betty could routinely pick up stations all over the world. This particular afternoon she was "cruising" across the dial in search of anything interesting when she came upon a woman's voice, speaking in English and obviously quite upset. Betty listened for a while and was startled to hear the woman say, "This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart." Betty was always "crazy about airplanes" and was well aware of Earhart's World Flight. Today, at 78, she can't recall whether or not, on this particular day, she already knew that Earhart was missing but it was clear to her that Amelia was in trouble so Betty opened her notebook and started to make notes about what she was hearing. The words came too fast for her to get everything and often she would only write a word or two of what had been said. The signal faded in and out and was sometimes distorted, but Betty tried her best to get down at least some of what was being said. Betty heard not only only Amelia's calls for help but also her comments to a man who was with her. Betty had the impression that the man had sustained a head injury and was delirious. She gathered that they had crashed on land but that there was also great concern about rising water. The man would alternately struggle with Amelia and try to get the microphone away from her or panic and try to get out of the airplane. The transmissions continued to come in, off and on, for about three hours until 6:15 p.m. At 5:15 her father came home from work and Betty excitedly told him to come listen. After a few minutes her father ran next door to see if his neighbor could also hear it on his radio, but perhaps because his neighbor did not have a long antenna, nothing was heard on the neighbor's set. Later that evening Betty's father reported the event to the local Coast Guard station but he was told that the government had ships in the area and everything was under control. Betty kept her notebook and, over the years, occasionally tried to get someone to pay attention to her claims of having heard Amelia Earhart. A letter to Fred Goerner brought only a "not interested" response. She had given up thinking that anyone would ever believe her but a friend who had seen TIGHAR's website sent me a very tentative message on her behalf. I was immediately struck by the prospect of an alleged contemporaneous document containing a real-time transcription of what had been heard. The only other example of something like that in the entire Earhart saga is Bellarts' original Itasca radio log. I interviewed Betty by telephone and she agreed to send the notebook to TIGHAR. We have it here now. Betty's memory seems very sharp and she is helping us all she can but she is not seeking publicity and her health is not good so we have decided to keep the particulars of her identity confidential for the moment. Also, the content of her notes is so dramatic and, as Betty put it "pitiful" that we want to do some basic verification before we make it public. What makes the notes of the alleged Earhart transmissions especially interesting is that they occur in a context - the other notations in the notebook about current movies and songs - that should support the purported chronology. I'm making the forum aware of this new development now in the hope that we can get some basic verification research out of the way before we start to consider the credibility of the content. Assuming that the notebook itself checks out as genuine, we're looking at three possibilities: 1. The Earhart notes are a hoax perpetrated by a 15 year old girl. 2. The notes represent a hoax perpetrated by someone else and innocently believed by Betty. 3. The notes are the real thing. I'll shortly put up a posting with a list of films and songs in the order that they appear in the notebook. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:30:24 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Epoxy and Cement I've never epoxied anything to a tomb, so count this as sheer amateur speculation. I have done some work with epoxy, balsa wood, and various kinds of plywood. Seems to me that the quality of the attachment depends very much on the surface characteristics of the monument. I've had several incidents with my models in which the epoxy held up fine but caused the layer of wood underneath to split. How good is the surface where the plaque is supposed to go? Why not use a combination of bolts and lag shields matching the existing holes as well as some epoxy for good measure? Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm waaay outside my paygrade on this question. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:45:28 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Noonan's accident Tom - C'mon, that slap at Goerner is unlike you! Fred did a thorough and commendable job of Earhart research, continuing to the day of his death. His book, written in 1965, before the Freedom of Information Act, was handicapped by too many closed doors. And as you know, Fred revised many of his tentative opinions in later years, a fact conveniently ignored by many of his critics. (Most of whom are light-weight, Johnny-come-latelies, who never did 1/1000th of the work Goerner did). And a thump with a kanawa stick to you! Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:01:54 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Something New What a find!!!!! (If its not a hoax). The main reason that I don't believe it to be a hoax is the mention of the man with the head injury and the rising water. They fit with what WE know (or suspect) about the reef landing, but would not be too likely for anyone (especially a 15 year old) to dream up. ************************************************************************* From Ric Well, a Noonan head injury has never been part of our hypothesis but it is true that only one person's remains were found by Gallagher and that person was more likely Earhart than Noonan (which might argue for Noonan dying before Earhart). *************************************************************************** From Cam Warren Remarkable, if true, but how come nobody else in the world heard this long broadcast? If you have a transcript of the infamous "March of Time" program (I've never been able to find a copy) it might be interesting to compare with Betty's notes. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Well, maybe others did hear it or heard parts of it. We'll have to take a hard second look at the other alleged post-loss messages. I would LOVE to get my hands on a transcript of the March Of Time program. Barring that, I'd like to hear from anybody who heard it or heard ANY March Of Time broadcast. What was the show's format? How long was each episode? Etc., etc. ************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Whuff - takes one's breath away. First Gerry, now Betty. We'll wait with baited breath for all the news! ltm jon ************************************************************************** From Rick Seapin Interesting story. I know the Forum has numerous radio experts so can someone please tell me how these post flight messages were picked-up in Hawaii, Los Angeles, Florida, and not by stations closer to the scene. ************************************************************************** From Ric We don't know that any of the alleged post-loss messages were genuine and the question you raise is the most perplexing one. ************************************************************************* From Mike Muenich WOW! While checking the collateral material for verification of authenticity, you might have your radio guru, who recently completed the post-loss signal analysis, to verify ability of equipment, time of message attenna capiblity etc. ************************************************************************** From Ric Already underway. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:42:45 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Noonan's accident Refresh my memory. Have the local area court records been reviewed in an effort to pursue Noonan's traffic ticket? If this was a CHP summons, the likelyhood is it was filed into a county or state court someplace nearby. The records are probably gone, but maybe not. If nothing else, there may be a docket archived somewhere. Might be worth a look. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Don Jordan can probably answer that for you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:45:32 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Goerner and a B-24 Just a side note about Fred Goerner. It seems Fred was interested in more than just the Earhart mystery. While doing research for my story about the Huntington Lake B-24, which disappeared in 1943, I came across some newspaper articles that said Fred Goerner was one of the first people on site at the location where another B-24 had crashed. The HL B-24 was on a search mission for the second one, which was found in Hester Lake in 1960. Fred visited the site of the Hester Lake B-24 in August of 1960. The article said Fred represented the San Mateo Times and KCBS Radio. He was a young man then and could easily make the trip up to the 11,200 foot high lake in the Sierra Mountains. (And you think getting to the B-23 was tough!). Even today, unless you have a high altitude helicopter, you can't get up there without hiking the last ten miles on the John Muir Trail at 11,500 feet high! How about it Ric. . . how about making this one the next TIGHAR Archaeological project? Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric That sounds like a toughy. Do you know much of the airplane is left? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:51:38 EDT From: Paul Chattey Subject: Re: Epoxy and Cement So, two plaques: a duplicate and a new one. If I read previous postings right, text on the back will indicate that the duplicate is a copy. Surely I'm misinformed and mistaken? Put the disclaimer along the edge where someone who--presumably can read English--will see it and maybe not choose to pry off what they could consider an original plaque. Or incorporate the design of the original into a larger new one and so indicate. Please tell me to go back and re-read the postings on the web site, in the boiler room, on the wing, out in the street. Paul *************************************************************************** From Ric The location of the disclaimer depends upon it's purpose. If the primary purpose is to not confuse archaeologists of the 24th century then an inscription on the reverse is fine, but if it is also to serve as a deterent to theft it should somewhere on the front. If we're really concerned about deterring theft we might also consider putti ng the disclaimer in English and Tungaru (the language of Kiribati) and maybe also Tuvaluan or Tokelau. Starts to sound pretty cumbersome. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:55:02 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Stonemasons? Marty said: "Why not use a combination of bolts and lag shields matching the existing holes as well as some epoxy for good measure?" If my experiences are any measure, it wouldn't work. I tried to lag and glue shutters onto the brick front of my house and ended up with a big glob of dried epoxy on the end of the lag bolt -- covered with brick dust. The problem is that the dust from drilling the lag bolt hole stayed in the hole. Even after I got it out, the brick was so soft that the epoxy reacts to it like it was power and essentially beads up, and there was no adhesion between the epoxy and brick surface. I suspect that the tomb on Niku, exposed to years of sun and weather, may also be decomposing, or whatever it is called when concrete/stone falls apart. A thorough inspection would be necessary before committing to putting on the new plaque. Any local stonemason may be able to provide some hints. LTM, who has not been stoned in a long time Dennis O. McGee ************************************************************************** From Ric The cement of the tomb is actually in surprisingly good shape. Consulting a stone mason or a company that produces memorials for cemeteries sounds like good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:00:44 EDT From: Chuck Jackson Subject: LTM (Incidentally, it was indeed Russ Matthews who started using Love To Mother as a sign-off. How about dropping the LTM!? While truly meaningful to a few TIGHARS, it no longer serves a useful purpose, and does waste bandwidth, time, and paper. It must truly be confusing to new TIGHARS! And, Ric, PLEASE DON'T tell us AGAIN how it originated! ************************************************************************** From Ric If people don't ask, I don't tell - and it's on the website as the very first FAQ anyway. Personally, I like it. It's a constant reminder to be vigilant of our objectivity. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:20:48 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: March Of Time > From Ric > > ... I would LOVE to > get my hands on a transcript of the March Of Time program. Barring that, > I'd like to hear from anybody who heard it or heard ANY March Of Time > broadcast. What was the show's format? How long was each episode? Etc., > etc. Two March of Time tapes are advertised at http://www.nfbnet.org/bbsfiles/CATALOGS/OLDRADIO.TXT by rstaley@netcom.com I tried telephoning him. Phone rang, no answer. One 60 minute tape is said to contain two programs: 020. The March of Time; 7 8 37; "Features Story on Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." 7 15 37; "Second Story on Earhart Disappearance." I'll try sending him some e-mail. I presume that these are the programs that interest you. Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric YeeHa! You presume correctly. *************************************************************************** From Marty Moleski The e-mail address and phone number I gave you in the first message are apparently not working. I spoke with Ron's wife, Sue, and she gave me a new number to call after 9 PM EDT: (818) 832-6358. I'll call him tonight and try to order a copy of the two programs. Marty ----------------------------------------------------------------- I had a long and fascinating conversation with Ron Staley this evening. He was a founding father of the UCLA Radio Archives and worked to preserve Jack Benny's programs. His copy of the March of Time shows was not adequate for reproduction, so he has removed it from his catalogue. He has a friend who has discs from which he may be able to make a fresh copy, but he can't guarantee when he might be able to do so. Tune in Tomorrow by Mary Jane Higley tells how the March of Time was produced. Orson Welles got his start on the show, sometimes imitating babies. The newsreel version of March of Time was based on authentic footage and voices, but the radio program was a docu- drama with musical cues to indicate who was speaking. Ron seems to have had a lifelong interest in aviation--he showed quite a command of details of famous events in aviation history, including the flight of Charles Nungesser and Francois Coli in the White Bird. Ron knew Fred Goerner and is still in touch with his widow; he also knew "Wrong-Way" Corrigan. Goerner's taped radio interviews have been sold by Mrs. Goerner to a collector. Ron's wife, Sue, just did a piece on Northwest Orient's loss of a troop plane in Alaska during World War II. Parts of the plane have been found and the area has been set aside as a permanent memorial to the servicemen. When he was producing a magazine about classic radio, Ron did an excerpt from the March of Time on the Earhardt search. The dramatization of the search on the show caused many people to think that they were hearing the actual broadcasts from KHAQQ and the search vessels. He may be able to send me a copy of those excerpts, which should help to test whether Betty was just listening to the March of Time broadcast or whether she heard something quite different from the dramatization. Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the excerpts would be a good start and we'll very much want to eventually get whatever can be got of the full original broadcasts. Great work, Marty! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:22:53 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Off-topic 1937 Record Flight Yesterday and this morning I looked in my local newspaper for anything on Earhart or Noonan but, to my surprise, I found nothing from March to August. I did find something else though that might interest one of you aviation historians. Apparently, in July of '37, a Soviet aircraft flew over the Pole from Moscow and landed here in Hemet, California. I'll transcribe the first few paragraph's and some highlights of the article below. If someone is interested in the articles I can send you the copy I made from microfilm. I found two articles and was able to copy one and a half before the machine broke. ------------------------------------------ The Hemet News Friday, July 16, 1937 SOVIET FLYERS LAND HERE [No by-line] Earl Smith's cow pasture, three miles northwest of Hemet, was the terminus at 6:20 Wednesday morning for the longest non-stop airplane flight in aviation's history. Russia's huge red-winged monoplane NO 25-1, commanded by Mikhail Gromoff, 38-year-old Soviet air hero, and carrying Andrei Yumasheff as navigator and Serge Danilin as co-pilot, had come from Moscow by way of the North Pole. The fliers circled the Hemet-San Jacinto Valley for 15 minutes before attempting a landing in the rough and treacherous pasture. They had been in the air 62 hours and 17 minutes. The fliers put the plane down here after deciding against attempting a landing at March Field, army aviation base, 25 miles distant. They had flown over San Diego before daylight but were prevented by fog from landing there. Although gasoline was running in a small stream from a leak in one of the wing tanks the fliers did not indicate that their landing was a forced one. ... The plane used 24,975 gallons of fuel on its flight. Distance covered by the flight was unofficially estimated at 6262 miles. ... Radio communication O.K. with Russian stations until we reached Canada. Then faded out. They explained they did not attempt a March Field landing because they had removed the air brakes from the plane before the take-off. They felt the March Field landing runway was too smooth and hard for a landing without brakes. They declared that they had deliberately planned a soft-ground landing. ------------------------------------------ Frank Westlake (Eagerly awaiting Betty's journal) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:52:56 EDT From: Mike Muenich Subject: Re: Something New It appears you are moving to authenticate as much as possible before publishing. You might want to consider a document examiner who authenticates old manuscripts or documents. He can compare handwritting, (any other contemporaneous documents by author?--old letters, diaries, schoolwork, etc.--also current sample(s) of handwritting--there is I am told--a certain amount of natural progression in changes over the years), type of paper, apparent ageing of paper etc. *************************************************************************** From Ric Exactly. What we're trying to avoid is a firestorm of speculation abore are actually two levels of authentication that must be considered: 1. Is the physical artifact - the notebook - what it is represented to be (i.e. a document dating from 1937. 2. Is the content of the notations what it is purported to be (i.e. the words of Amelia Earhart. For the first, we'll need some expert help. For the second, in terms of expertise (in all humility) we (this forum) are as good as it gets. *************************************************************************** From Rick Seapin I seem to recall that the Japanese were asked to help in the search for Amelia, and they had ships in the area during the time of her disappearance. Was there any mention then or later on about post flight messages from the Japanese? *************************************************************************** From Ric As far as we know, there were no Japanese ships in the area at the time of Earhart's disappearance. Japanese help was requested and granted but it was weeks before anything was done. No post-loss messages were reported by the Japanese. *************************************************************************** From Jerry Hamilton I sincerely hope the notes taken of purported AE radio transmissions are genuine. However, before everyone gets too excited I would like to relay a similar story. One I have briefly mentioned to Ric. I was contacted by a person who was 15 at the time of the flight. This person spent time at Oakland airport with both AE and FN (or so the story goes). They also had access to the family short wave and avidly listened for AE transmissions during the flight. They reported hearing all the radio calls from the Lae flight. Up to and including the final ones when the plane had been ditched and the Japanese were coming to pick them up. This included reports of conversations between AE and FN. The person I talked to was articulate and knew a lot of specific detail about the flight. They were also extremely sincere in their belief of what they had seen and heard. This person also had pictures, notes, and charts. However, for a number of reasons, I judge the story as bogus. My caution is that hearing a story that fits the TIGHAR current hypothesis is exciting, but also means extra care needs to be taken in evaluating it or putting faith in it. It may turn out similar to the engine story, possible, but who knows for sure. Or, it may never be possible to truly judge its validity until the mystery is ultimately solved - if then. LTM (who cautions to be careful what stories you pick up)& blue skies, -jerry *************************************************************************** From William Webster-Garman It was most likely a radio dramatization (obviously, we hope not). The on-mic struggle with a delirious Noonan sounds a bit too sensationalistic to me, and typical of what a creative script writer would have resorted to in an "it's happening now" radio drama format. Also, any oral history that accompanies the notebook must be taken as anecdote and especially prone to inaccuracy and innocent embellishment after so many decades. Before getting too excited, taking a look at network radio schedules for July and even later months in 1937 would be a really good idea. With some research, it may be possible to date the notebook entries within a week or two by examining the song title entries immediately preceding and following (if applicable) the Earhart notes. I can probably help with documentation of that. If Betty noted the names and content of radio programs too, we might be able to narrow things down to within a day or two. If it was a radio program, its portrayal of Noonan could have even contributed something to the early Noonan-bashing we're all familiar with. All that said, the references to rising water and a Noonan injury are certainly very interesting. I hope this is evidence of an actual Earhart post loss radio transmission, but I doubt it. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ron Bright Does "Betty" have Goerner's " not interested " response letter in her possession. *************************************************************************** From Ric The approach to Goerner was actually made by a friend on her behalf. He is also the one who originally contacted me. He is presently searching through his old papers to see if he has copies of any of the correspondence. *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt Ric wrote: > I'll shortly put up a posting with a list of films and songs in the order > that they appear in the notebook. Carbon dating of the notebook may also help.... Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Contrary to popular impression, carbon dating is of little use in a case like this unless we're interested in pinning down the date plus or minus 75 years or so. *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt > From Ric > > Well, a Noonan head injury has never been part of our hypothesis ... The possibility of one of the aviators receiving a head injury when landing on the reef was mentioned in posting(s) to the forum last year, although it never did become a part of the hypothesis. There was also separate unrelated discussion and rejection of a disoriented Earhart with a head injury in the Honolulu prang. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ron Bright I know you have launched into an investigation but a few suggestions if these are not on the front burner. Do we have a forum member in St, Petersburg? If so.... a. Checking the St Petersburg paper archives for the first week of Jul 37 regarding other reports of Earhart post loss messages either the type she received or reports of the many other post loss messages received elsewhere with similiar phrasing,content,etc.. b.Would the ST.Petersburg Coast Guard station have a log entry for her father's report as the Coast Guard was a principal in the investigation. c.Goerner's letter of "no interest" should be held by "Betty". Hard to believe,.but an amateur radio operator in Rock Springs, Wyoming, heard Amelia on 5 July, he says, on a commercial radio on 16900 kc (?). If you can hear it in Wyoming, why not Florida. The BBC offered an interpretation of the "281" signal as a 2 degrees, 8 minutes position, which would have put her about 200 miles from Howland. LTM, Ron Bright ( who keeps his radio tuned to 3210 ) ************************************************************************** From Ric We'll definitely want to check the St. Pete papers and Coast Guard station. Betty has some Earhart clippings she has kept over the years and is sending them to me. It will be interesting to see what information she had. *************************************************************************** From Judy I know that this isn't part of your 'hypothesis', but an elderly lady on Saipan remembers the woman flyer, and the man flyer with a bandaged, injured head, and limping being brought to Saipan for imprisonment by the Japanese......'Witness to the Execution' by TC Brennan. trying hard not to be disruptive.....Judy in Corpus Christi. *************************************************************************** From Ric Don't worry. You're not. What makes Betty's story worth considering is not the fact that elements of it appear to fit the TIGHAR hypothesis but that there appears to be a contemporaneous written document to back it up. This is a first. We would be just as interested if it described Earhart's capture by the Japanese. *************************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf This is interesting stuff indeed ! If true it seems to indicate that TIGHAR's theory was right from the beginning. And so was Putnam's who was the first to suggest in 1937 the search for AE and FN should be extended to the Phoenix group of islands to the South. However, allow me to be the devil's advocate for a while for the good of TIGHAR. Wasn't it Orson Welles who made half the US believe Martians had landed and broadcast a fantastic live report from the scene ? Any radio man will still tell you this was "great radio" by any standard. But it was as fake as anything could be fake. I've known others copying Orson Welles since and making up things on radio (one got fired for it in Belgium about 10 years ago). There may possibly have been another Orson at another radio station "making good radio" on the Earhart theme in 1937. I hope I'm wrong. But having been a journalist for the last 40 years, I've seen people fall too often in all kinds of traps (including myself) and I'd like to warn TIGHAR for this one. Again, Ric, I hope I'm wrong. But it sounds too good to be true. It reminds me of all those war veterans who saw AE in Japan and elsewhere... LTM from Herman (who hates to be the devil's advocate) *************************************************************************** From Ric We're all Devil's Advocates Herman. We're not holding this up as genuine. We're looking at it as a possibility to see what we can learn about it. *************************************************************************** From Brian I don't want to try to pull a Janet Whitney on you b-u-t...what are the odds of 1937 "middle class table radio tube set" pulling in reception from AE in Florida???? Chaucito Brian *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know. On the surface it looks highly unlikely but neither can we say it was impossible. That's why we're researching it. *************************************************************************** From Dave Porter First, a living relative of "Irish" and now "Betty." It's been quite a September eh? I presume that someone is pouring over the volumes of alleged post-loss messages to see if any exist that could be a match to Betty's transcripts? BTW, nice TRACKS newsletter. I've got a funny feeling about what the two main topics for the next issue will be. Then again, there's still a few days of September left; who knows what else you're gonna turn up. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:30:21 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Epoxy and Cement Even if the tomb is concrete, then Epoxy ( the correct type) will work. You'll just have to consult an engineer or someone like DuPont to ascertain the correct formulation for whatever the surface is. Oddly enough, another high strength adhesive that makes it very difficult to remove something the size of a plaque is Dow Corning Silastic. Before someone tells me it is soft, go stick something flat to something else with the stuff and then try to prise it up a week or two later. There may be issues with Epoxy being a non flexible adhesive if the tomb is in direct sunlight with differential expansion and contraction. I seem to recall there was not a lot of shade around the flagpole area in a photo I saw. If we have some engineers on forum (Janet is an Engineering major) we may get some information that confirms or contradicts this line of thought. Just a thought.. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric Asking DuPont should be no problem. We're right here in Wilmington, Delaware - home of DuPont. (Welcome to Delaware - The nation's only privately owned and operated state). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:33:48 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: Propagation on low HF This matter of radio propagation is a bit off the subject, but some things need to be clarified. I think the following real-world examples may be useful in doing this. I believe Janet is overstating the poor quality of signal propagation on the low HF band (3000-4000 KHz). During the day it is not good, but the band is hardly useless. My very considerable experience on the 75-meter ham band tells me that the most I can really expect during high-daylight, especially in summer months, is about 150/200 (maybe) miles ground wave only. I can work Morehead City NC from Raleigh NC, using 100 watts output (more or less) SSB into a realtively low grade antenna -- about 60 feet long, asymmetrical (15 feet straight up, 25 feet horizontal to a tree branch, 20 feet at right angle to the horizontal part and sloping down to a point 4 ft off the ground). True, the signals are not strong, but communication is not too bad. At night using this same antenna and power level, I have worked Cyprus, Israel and Egypt on about 3790 KHz, SSB. The Coastal Carolina Emergency Net meets nightly on 3907 KHz at 7 pm local time. In winter, this is of course darkness. In summer it's daylight. We have members all over NC/SC and up and down the coast from New Jersey to Florida. Most run anywhere from 100 to 200 watts output, SSB mode, into simple half-wave dipole or inverted Vee antennas. We have no trouble hearing everyone unless there is interference (QRM) on the same freq or an adjacent one; or unless there is atmospheric noise (QRN) from thunderboomers, or solar noise (the T-storms are a real problem in summer/fall). This includes mobile stations running 100 watts or so into short antennas on vehicles, a real disadvantage... but we hear 'em all the time. The signals are much greater as the sun goes down, and the solar noise dies away, of course. My point is that signals on 75 are very usable. I am very sure that the level of atmospheric noise, world-wide, is higher than it was in the 1930s. Some of the greatest QRN-makers around are : (1) TV receivers which radiate harmonics of their sweep-oscillator freqs (2) fluorescent lights (3) computers of ALL kinds (not just home PCs but cash registers, stoplight controllers, onboard vehicle controls etc etc ad infinitum) whose CPUs emit trash, and whose switching-type power supplies generate all sorts of dirty harmonics... and this stuff radiates over LOOOOOOOONNNNNG paths (even hundreds/thousands of miles), because it uses power lines as antennas. Communication on these freqs was, if anything, probably a little bit easier/more reliable in the 30s... in spite of the AM transmitters being used. The following experience of mine is somewhat off topic but is shared in the hope that it may prove illustrative of something or other... About 5 years or so ago I worked an aeronautical mobile station, a ham operator aboard a USAF a/c en route from Warner Robins GA to somewhere in Jersey. This was on about 3880 KHz, during the middle of an afternoon. The a/c station was running an AM transmitter (wonder why he was not on SSB? Dunno) with an estimated 100 watts output. I first contacted him when he was over Greenville, SC. As the a/c got closer, the signals got stronger and stronger. When he passed within 50 miles of me, he was really pounding in. As the distance between us increased, the signals of course got gradually weaker, but it took a long time... I stayed in contact until the a/c was over Chesapeake Bay. By then the signals were getting weaker, and I was hearing phase distortion/fading which indicated a multipath reception -- ground wave, plus a reflected signal coming down from the ionosphere (aka "Skip"). LTM (who skips around a lot) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:05:37 EDT From: Janet Whitney Subject: Did 1930's Radio's Have 10 / 11 Meter Capability? The "stories" we keep hearing about people all over the USA "hearing" Earhart in 1937 are very much like the QSOs hams and CBers are having today on 10 and 11 Meters (26000 to 30000 kilocycles) at low power (5-25 watts). Radio Shack and others (Uniden) have sold low power 10 Meter transceivers for at least 10 years, with which hams and CBers routinely talk half way around the world. But 1937 and 2000 propagation did not and does not favor QSOs half way around the world on 3105 and 6210 kilocycles. Nor were many radio receivers inn 1937 capable of reception above 20000 kilocycles. Certainly Earhart's weren't. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric It's very clear from both 1937 written sources and later anecdotal sources, that quite a number of people thought they heard post-loss signals from Amelia Earhart. At least one, and probably more, were hoaxes. Others were probably misunderstandings. If any of them were genuine, then something unusual or anomalous was going on that resulting in inteligible messages being heard at great distances from a very low power transmitter when closer stations were only getting carrier wave or unintelligible voice. The question we must ask is NOT, "Were such anomalies beyond the realm of possibility?" Clearly the answer to that is, "No." We must ask, "Is there anything about the alleged messages that allows us to determine whether or not any of them were genuine?" LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:06:28 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: Record-Breaking Flight of July 1937 > From Frank Westlake > ... The plane used 24,975 gallons of fuel on its flight. I expect that figure to draw some eyebrows, but that's how the article reads. The second article states that they had 2500 gallons. Frank Westlake ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:26:37 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Itasca Log Do you have any weather data (surface temperature and barometer, winds, temperature and pressure aloft) from the Itasca log on the morning Amelia Earhart was due to arrive at Howland? ************************************************************************** From Ric The ship's deck log recorded hourly observations of: Wind direction Wind force Barometer Air temp. (dry bulb) Air temp. (wet bulb) Water temp. at surface Cloud cover Type of clouds Moving from... Amount of cloud Visibility Sea condition Swells from.... At 8 a. m. (the time of Earhart's apparent closest approach), the recorded conditions are as follows: Wind direction - East Wind force - 1 (defined as "light air" 8 mph) Barometer - 29.87 Air temp. (dry bulb) - 84 degrees F Air temp. (wet bulb) - 81 degress F Water temp. at surface - 83 degrees F Cloud cover - BC (defined as blue sky with detached clouds) Type of clouds - CU (defined as cumulus) Moving from... East Amount of cloud - 3 (not defined. 3/10ths ?) Visibility - 9 (the maximum. Defined as "prominent objects visible above 20 miles) Sea condition - 1 (defined as "moderate swell, calm or slight sea") Swells from.... East Southeast There was no significant change in conditions throughout the morning. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:27:33 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Epoxy and Cement JB Weld is great for this type of stuff: harder than steel: can drill it when hardened. We use it all the time in restoring old cars to repair welds and holes in steel. Also works against concrete, ceramics, fixing toilets, etc. It is a wonder epoxy! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:29:31 EDT From: John Clauss Subject: Epoxy and Cement A good quality epoxy designed to bond to concrete would affix the plaque so well that it couldn't be removed without taking a chunk of the tomb with it. The key to using epoxy is to have clean, abraded surfaces and a moderate amount of clamping force. Should be a straight forward process. Count me in for $50 on the plaque. LTM John ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:30:46 EDT From: Vern Subject: ...Can't get a null. Quoting/editing from Hue Miller & Jay Coward >> Now if you put the receiver on AVC you don't get a null worth beans. You have to be on MVC with the gain at the minimum useable setting. The nulls are then very sharp. << I keep telling you, Amelia, you gotta switch the AVC off if you expect to get a null on a moderatly strong signal, what with the noise and all! A strong signal says you're near the Itasca but if you can't see the ship or the island that isn't much help, is it? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:43:19 EDT From: Phil Tanner Subject: Post-loss message issue My gut feeling on reading about "Betty's" notebook is that it will eventually prove to be Option 2, a hoax perpetrated by somone else and innocently believed. A couple of thoughts: 1. If she happens to have kept Goerner's "not interested" reply, this would be of great help in confirming that it isn't an elaborate hoax recently constructed. I stress I don't think it is. 2. Does the scenario she has Earhart describing coincide with other apparent post-loss messages heard and proven or admitted to be hoaxes? LTM Phil 2276 ************************************************************************** From Ric As far as I know, there is only one post-loss message that the Coast Guard investigated and felt sure was a hoax. A day or so after the 281 message was described in the press, an Oakland man reported hearing what was rather obviously an elaboration on that same message. The Coast Guard investigated him and found that he had a questionable reputation. Other hoaxes we know about include a guy who later tried to extort money from Putnam using a scarf that had once belonged to Amelia as proof that he knew where she was. More recently, a letter in a bottle was alleged to be a message from Noonan, but it was a very transparentl and crude hoax. The scenario Betty describes is a rather chilling fit to two other undocumented anecdotal reports of post-loss messages heard on short wave sets and reported directly to TIGHAR in recent years by the (now) old ladies who heard them. I'll post a comparison soon. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:46:46 EDT From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Re: 281 message To show you how little I know about the subject ! Given a trained navigator as FN and an octant is it possible to measure something and compute this distance when you are on the island ? ************************************************************************** From Ric With an almanac you don't even need an instrument to determine your approximate latitude (i.e. distnace from the equator). Just note the time of the sun's highest point - local noon. With a sextant or octant a navigator can nail it very precisely. Longitude is a different and much more difficult problem and requires a very accurate chronometer. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:58:26 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: souvenirs and timing While searching for 'personal items' that may have been appropriated by those occupying (at various times) Gardner/Nikumaroro Island as souvenirs, perhaps the most unusual item that would seem most likely to have attracted the attention of any 'searchers', would have been the Javanese sheath knife...'a lovely hand-wrought thing bought at a metal worker's little shop'... by AE in Batavia & which she...'plotted to wear at her belt over the Pacific'... , as a gift for her friend & ..'favorite Geographer'... John Oliver LaGorce of the National Geographic Society. Additionally, if 'Betty' in St. Petersburg, FLA heard AE broadcasting at 3 pm, what time would that have been on Gardner Island? (Forgive me for not checking the time frames myself, but that activity (for me anyway) falls in the same catagory as trying to set the timing program on my VCR, which I always manage to screw-up!) Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric Betty's notes span a time period from roughly 3 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. which would be 2000GMT to 2315GMT which, if you use Itasca's local time, makes it between 8:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. in the Central Pacific. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:05:13 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Re: Something New Ric said: " I was immediately struck by the prospect of an alleged contemporaneous document containing a real-time transcription of what had been heard. The only other example of something like that in the entire Earhart saga is Bellarts' original Itasca radio log." From my inexperienced point of view, i didn't catched it. Do you mean that betty's log was very similar to the Itasca radio log until, and beyond, the last "official" AE message ? If true this could be a major asset ! Does the authenticity of the log you received could be verified ? dating paper, ink, others paramaters ). LTM. RENAUD DUDON *************************************************************************** From Ric There is very little similarity in content between Betty's notes and the Itasca log. That was not my point. The significance of Betty's notes is that, if they actually date from 1937, they and the Itasca log are the only cases in which we have notes made in real time by people who believed they were listening to Amelia Earhart. It may be possible to date the notebook to the mid-1930s by analyzing the physical materials but those techniques will not date it to a particular day. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:25:57 EDT From: John Pratt Subject: Tides and Stroms I want to address two items. Tides I note the interest in tides, especially related to the hypothesis that AE and FN landed on the coral flats on the west side of the island. I can see three, maybe four questions to be answered with tide information. A. The water depth on the flats at the expected arrival time. B. Correlation between credible transmissions and low tide. C. Correlation of the Navy visit and high tide. The first three can be addressed with a simple tide table. The fourth requires a different type of tide information, a "Tide Chart". Much rarer, this would be a flow map for the limited area. Usually these are available only for areas of considerable economic importance (such as New York Harbor). D. Perhaps even breakup rate and dispersal direction for the wreckage. This is recognized in the curent FAQ entry and the implication that enough people ask to justify FAQ production isn't lost on me: "Is it possible to know what the tide was like at Nikumaroro when Earhart may have arrived there? No, it isn't. There are no tide tables available for Nikumaroro now, let alone 1937, so the information would have to be extrapolated from Samoa (700 NM away) or Kanton (200 NM away). Unfortunately, such extrapolations are not reliable. Add to that the distance in time, and the fact that it only takes a small error to add up to six hours over 62 years, and it would be quite possible to be exactly opposite the reality. Even on the 1999 expedition, extrapolation from current tide tables available for Samoa turned out to be off by a factor of approximately 50%--a three hour error." So I tried the people who do tide predictions: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/tp4days.html They have an excellent FAQ, http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/faq2.html#20, providing enough background for even me. Basically, they offer tide tables for any date, even 1937, for anyplace they have the "Harmonic Constants" used to calculate the Tide Tables. So it doesn't hurt to ask: > I have an active fantasy life, so let me share some ideas: > I. Existing NOS data allows calculation of a tide table for that place and > time. > II. A future expedition could make tide observations which establish the > relationship to well-known locations in the region. From this a tide table > for the earlier date could be calculated. > III. A future expedition installs a solar-powered tide monitor, leading to > establishment of a sufficient set of harmonic constants for historical > predictions of sixty years ago. > > Is there any reality in any of these fantasies? Answers: I. NOS does not have tidal data for Gardner Island. Therefore calculations cannot be generated for the specific location. For the immediate: We cannot provide information specific to "Gardner Island", but we do have information for "Canton Island" in the Phoenix Island chain. Attached you will find tide predictions for Canton Island during July 1937. II - III. Assuming observational data does become available at some point in the future; this could be relatively short term data to allow the establishment of a secondary station, or harmonic constituents. This would allow predictions to be generated for the location. We can generate predictions for past dates. >What would this observational data consist of? >What sample size is necessary? >Is there a sampling frequency or methodology requirement? The water level gauges we use record observations on a 6-minute interval. There would have to be continuous data taken for at least 1 month. With a 29 day data set, we can generate a basic set of harmonic constituents. However, with that short a data set we cannot directly calculate some of the constituents, they have to be calculated from the few which are observed. Data sets of at least 6 months allow more constituents to be directly derived, and a year provides all but the very long term constituents. Generally, the longer the data set, the more accurate the constituents. For more infromation on the exact requirements for data, please contact Steve Lyles (Stephen.Lyles@noaa.gov) > 1. Your web site gave a very clear explanation of the effects of possible > local variations. Many of those sources (such as bay-locations and runoff) > do not seem to apply here. Are there any outstanding reliability issues > that apply to the edge of an isolated desert island? There are other effects on tides which may effect islands, most of these are concerned with the effects of continental shelves, restricted passages, etc. In general, these have a significantly smaller effect than the situations of stations located inside bays or up rivers. > 2. IF data were obtained to allow calculations > AND subsequent (modern) observations were obtained and compared with > those calculations (sample size for valid test unspecified) > AND the the calculations and observations were considered to agree (test > unspecified) > THEN Could the calculations be considered validated and applied to the > historical situation? (in other words is a solution expected to be stable > over sixty years given minimal environmental change?) With a set of constituents, reguardless of when the data is obtained, we can generate predictions for virtually any date. Tidal constituents don't change all that much over time. Most of the changes would be due to evnironmental changes such as shoaling or errosion, and artificial changes such as jetties, dredging, etc. > 3. IF data were obtained to allow calculations > AND subsequent (modern) observations were obtained and compared with > those calculations > AND the the calculations and observations were considered to NOT agree > THEN Could the calculations be adjusted to match the observations and > tested for validation as above? (in other words, would deviations be of a > "systematic nature" or is the variation a "statistical" process?) Part of our process to generate constituents is to use the derived constituents to generate predictions for the same time period as the data. The two are then compared to verify the accuracy of the predictions and any adjustments are made at that time. > Canton Island is roughly 200 NM away. > Do you have a correction formula to convert from Canton to Gardner? > Do you have any way to estimate the accuracy of such a conversion? > Can 3. above be applied to increase accuracy? No, we cannot convert from Canton to Gardner. That would require data at Gardner. If we had that information we could calculate it directly. Much of this was confirmatory, but I see a possible way forward. It's an instrumentation problem, a "Long Term Monitor (LTM?) project (unless NOS would loan a portable data acquisition station). A month of data might be possible.......................... Storm(s) One of the Tide Charts mentioned above is almost certainly out of the question, but I see two cases in the record where there are storms in early July, 1937. Could the storm surge waves be more important than ordinary tides for aircraft breakup and dispersion? It seems likely. Could the wind direction (and implied flow of water) provide a direction for that dispersion? It would be nice to investigate. So I see two mention of storms: As early as 1138 on July 2 Itasca had suggested that the Navy send a patrol plane to assist in the search, but it was 1923 before a plane headed south under the command of Lt. W. W. "Sid" Harvey. He and his seven man crew would spend the next twenty-four hours and three minutes aloft only to land where they had started D forced to turn back barely three hundred miles from Howland by "extremely bad weather." http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Answering_Wave.html Another report of the same incident: At 0700, the Patrol Plane reported her position at Latitude 6°-35' North, Longitude 172°-00' West, that the weather was extremely bad and that it was necessary for her to return to Pearl Harbor. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html And one I can't find my way back to, a mention of Colorado experiencing heavy weather and seasick NROTC cadets on approach to the general search area. Assuming that the PBY and Colorado experienceed the same storm, it must have been relatively large, a significant regional weather feature. Its intervention before the Colorado aerial search suggests that it could have inflicted enough damage on the Electra to prevent observation in the search on July 9. Is there a record from the Itasca or the Swan logs? One would expect that those logs could provid wind speed and direction and sea state. Would they also mention the direction of local wave action? LTM John Pratt (Number not yet received) ************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. Good observations and good follow up. We've long wondered about the swells generated by that disturbance. Bob Brandenburg recently made the following observation: "The swell factor is interesting because even without wind, swells from great distances can impact the reef. The ships' weather logs show that Colorado and Swan were both in the general neighborhood of Gardner for several days before the 9th of July (Colorado getting within about 60 miles, and Swan about 250 miles northeast). Both ships reported "moderate" and "heavy" swells with no sea (wind waves) from the east and northeast on the several days preceding the 9th. Itasca, operating within roughly a 250-mile radius of Howland from 2 through 8 July also reported "moderate" and "heavy" swells from the east and northeast. So we have evidence of a generalized easterly swell system extending at least from Howland to Gardner. Swells rolling up on the reef during high tide would be a major threat to the aircraft. Waves generated by local winds added to the mix of forces. I've worked out the statistical distribution of wind speeds and the resultant generated wave heights, and there were periods of impressive waves (higher then 5 to 6 feet) coming ashore. Combined with swells and high tide, they created a lethal mix of forces pounding on the aircraft." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:00:33 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Noonan's accident & B-24 I'll put two answers in one message here. >From Jon Watson > >Refresh my memory. Have the local area court records been reviewed in an >effort to pursue Noonan's traffic ticket? If this was a CHP summons, the >likelyhood is it was filed into a county or state court someplace nearby. >The records are probably gone, but maybe not. If nothing else, there may >be a docket archived somewhere. Might be worth a look. Yes, I did check the county archives, with negative results. I was looking for any possible law suits filed against Fred, but found none for the years 1937. As I stated last week, I have a contact in the county who was helping me, but they also found nothing. My aircraft wreck research projects give me plenty opportunity to look at the microfilm for Fresno County. Anytime I am looking at film from 1937, I read the whole page hoping to find some little hidden notation about Fred, or Amelia. I will keep an eye open!! >From Ric ( in reference to the Hester Lake B-24) >That sounds like a toughy. Do you know much of the airplane is left? Yes, most of it is! According to reports, the crew was removed when Fred Goerner was up there in 1960. The article didn't say, but I suspect they were taken up there by helicopter. Fred brought back part of the instrument panel and I can't imagine him carrying that all that distance on foot. This airplane disappeared on December 5th, 1943, and was not found until 1960. A very touching side note. . . The lake's original name was La Conte Lake, but Mr. Hester, father of the co-pilot, spent the rest of his life looking for the crash site and his sons body. He died in 1959, and his son's body was found and removed in 1960. They then renamed the lake for him. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:05:47 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: B-24 crash site Don Jordan said: >>Even today, unless you have a high altitude helicopter, you can't get up there without hiking the last ten miles on the John Muir Trail at 11,500 feet high! How about it Ric. . . how about making this one the next TIGHAR Archaeological project?<< I think that is a great idea, but where do I find a Sherpa guide and bearer? Do they accept VISA nowadays? LTM, who is only a social climber Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric It's really not suitable as a training exopedition because we'd have to be so restrictive about who could come along. Whether it's worth an archaeological survey in its own right is a different question. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:08:13 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Russian fliers Frank said: "They had been in the air 62 hours and 17 minutes. . . Distance covered by the flight was unofficially estimated at 6262 miles." Talk about a torturous flight . . .100.5 mph for 62 hours! Whew! LTM, who butt ain't THAT tough Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric When I was kid I used to ferry Cessna 150s (over land, not water) to build time. I know exactly how they felt. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:09:28 EDT From: Paul Chattey Subject: Re: Epoxy and Cement Well, it sounds cumbersome to have a 4-language inscription, but if it's done is smaller font it shouldn't be intrusive and the overall effect, I think, would be reverental. Kind of like the new text is in hushed tones (AS OPPOSED TO THE ORIGINAL). And, if we're being kind to future archaeologists, they'd probably like to see the plaque in place rather than do the unthinkable and pry it off. Besides, what reason would they have to pry it off? Paul ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:12:54 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Something new Astounding. I'm sure you already have thought of this, too, but if "Betty" is indeed in frail health you need to get her on videotape NOW. I would do it like a court deposition, complete with a backup stenographic transcript (I'm sure you could find a CSR who would be willing to donate his or her services to the cause). This could be history in the making. Like everyone else, I'm puzzled why this long transmission was heard in St. Petersburg, Fla., and nowhere else -- but skip can do strange things. As you pointed out, maybe others (including McMenamy?) heard bits and pieces of the message but only "Betty" got the whole thing. Another puzzler is why Earhart gets talkative only >>after<< they're down. Why nothing, zip, nada, between 8:43 a.m. and touchdown? I await the contents of "Betty's" notes with baited breath. Finally something new to chew on! (With all due respect to Hue Miller and Mike E., this sure beats an extended debate over Western Electric radio schematics.) LTM Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric I do plan to interview Betty on videotape as soon as we're sure there's nothing obvious in the document that would indicate that it's a hoax. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:16:33 EDT From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Re: Plaque " ... inscribe whatever it is we decide to inscribe (This plaque is a reproduction of the original, placed by Gerard Gallagher and The International....etc. etc.) on the BACK of the new plaque, where it'll be there for posterity but not visible to the visitor." Uh, Tom, an inscription on the >>back<< of the plaque isn't going to provide much in the way of theft deterrent. How about a line or two across the bottom (maybe in subsantially smaller but still readable type) saying something like: "This Reproduction of the Original Commemorative Plaque Was Placed by The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, July 2001. Beware the Curse of Nei Manganibuka." LTM Pat Gaston *************************************************************************** From Ric This is actually the second suggestion I've received that recommends the invocation of a curse. I trust that everyone understands that we'd never do that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:18:16 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re; LTM Chuck Jackson wrote: "How about dropping the LTM!?" Dropping LTM? Nope !! LTM is unique to all TIGHAR correspondence and adds a little spice to sometimes otherwise very dry technical information. LTM, who hates to be dropped by those she loves...ouch ! :- ( Roger Kelley, 2112CE ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:20:35 EDT From: Tom Roberts Subject: Re: Takeoff Distance I'm a little late with this, but it still may be of interest. A few months ago, Oscar Boswell posted a very impressive (at least to me) assessment of the Lockheed's performance based on similarity with other comparable aircraft. However his "back of the envelope" calculation of the effect of a five-knot headwind on takeoff distance (~300 foot reduction) left me doubting, as usual. So I tried something a little more rigorous, using Excel and Newton (F = m x a). First, I iterated on net thrust (constant engine thrust minus a constant friction force) and drag coefficient (secondary effect) until the 15,000 pound aircraft reached 100 mph over a distance of 2900 feet in still air. This takeoff run took approximately 38.8 seconds. Then I included the effect of a 5 knot (5.75 mph, 8.43 ft/sec) headwind. The aircraft reached 100 mph (airspeed) in 36.6 seconds over a distance of 2582 feet. The difference of 318 feet is in very close agreement with Oscar's numbers. LTM (Who never doubted Oscar was right) Tom Roberts, #1956CE *************************************************************************** From Ric It's never too late for good numbers. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:22:28 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: 3000-4000 KC Janet wrote: >> If there were any propagation at all during the daytime on 75 meters, we would have heard something...including hams on AM with 40 watts using their transceivers without linear amplifiers.<< Actually, they could hear quite a bit. Most of the "Newer" technology improves resolution of a signal, not signal strength. You can hear a lot when there are few, lower powered stations broadcasting than when there are many strong ones. It is like listing to a single person whispering, compared to trying to hear someone talking next to you in a stadium full of screaming fans. If you are interested in the technology, go to and get reprints of the Hugo Gernsback radio catalogs, or the regenerative receiver wiring diagrams. Yes, he is the same Gernsback as the Gernsback awards for science fiction. Daniel Postellon Tighar # ? LTM (Who always kept her finger on her cat's whisker!" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:27:11 EDT From: Michael Holt Subject: Re: Something New Betty's notebook tale is great, but -- as has been suggested -- why could it not be a local production? Was that not the era of live and local dramatic productions? Is there any reason to feel that station(s) did NOT create such programming? If it's possible to get some idea of the frequency Betty was monitoring, would it not be worthwhile to figure out what station(s) might have created a dramatization of the crash? This kind of stuff makes me suspicious. If Betty's notebook can survive a TIGHAR attack, it's gotta be real. LTM (who knows that Kato wasn't Filipino until December 8, 1941) Mike Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric The best argument against what Betty heard being a local production is that she heard it very sporadically on short wave over a period of more than three hours. Betty's neighbor could not pick up the signal but did not have the lare antenna array that Betty's father had erected. If it was not the real thing it seems more likley that it was a fairly elaborate hoax perpetrated by someone at a considerable distance. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:28:15 EDT From: Ted Ostrowski Subject: "I only have one word to say to you - plastics." I read about the plaque and your concerns about theft. Fourteen years ago my class placed a large plastic plaque outdoors to dedicate a time capsule. It has faired the weather very well despite my lack of allowing for expansion and contraction. I know New England is not your tropics, but I'm sure plastic would hold up just as well as metal. I would think that something made from metal would be more tempting and useful for a scavenger than plastic. I'm sure an engraver can make a plastic plaque appear very elegant. Just a thought. A "The Graduate" aficionado, Ted ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:31:07 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: LTM Chuck Jackson asked, >How about dropping the LTM!? Naw. LTM william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:32:55 EDT From: Mike E. the Radio Historian Subject: The notebook This brings to mind the Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" broadcast on Halloween in 1938. Mass panic... it sounded "real" to people then; but to us nowdays who are more sophisticated, used to massive media coverage, when we listen to recordings of the broadcast it sounds hokey or quaint. Before someone suggests that somewhere in the annals of network history there may be a record of any such dramatization of AE's predicament, please recall that there were different networks in those days... records may be hard to come by. Also, be assured that many local stations produced their own dramatic shows in the 30s... not all programming came from a network. Whether this is real (we hope... dream??) or a hoax or a misinterpretation may be most difficult to prove. Something that lends a modicum of credence: if "Betty" was into radio, airplanes et al, remember that a lot of a/c communications could be heard in those days on the average home "all wave" receiver, and many home sets had SW since FM was still in the future. People were crazy about radio then, like they are over computers today. Short wave radio was hi-tech in the 30s. 6210 KHz is very close to the 49-meter SW broadcast band (actually at that time it was in the midst of it). It would be logical for someone to be tuning the 6-MHz band and quite possibly stumble onto something. This would be a longshot... a real "long haul" halfway around the world on 49 meters... but by some fluke it could be remotely possible. I have myself heard some strange things I'd have considered impossible. Never say NEVER regarding HF propagation... but I sincerely doubt it could ever happen on 3105. LTM (who hears EVERYTHING) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:36:11 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: 'Betty' in St.'Pete" Think you've got a phony here, in all of her recorded radio transmissions AE _never_ used her name, only her call sign. How was 'Betty' able to ...'get the impression' ... that the 'man' had a head injury or ...'gathered'... that they had crashed on land & were threatened by water, when, having trouble keeping up with the speaking speed of the person broadcasting (she was only jotting down a word or two, here & there) on an ordinary shortwave set, from a distant, unclear radio signal that was ...'fading in & out"..& was 'distorted'? Perhaps you should question her first about just how many AE books she's read over the past 63 years (some of her revelations sound very much like stuff I've read in some of those books), as I suspect you have here some very old recollections of a woman, who once was a 15 year old with a very active imagination, who may have simply appropriated for her own journal some of the subsequent details of the search for AE, including any newspaper accounts of the many radio messages allegedly heard by numerous operators during the time frame after the plane was presumed down & missing. Even if you can't track down any corroberating witnesses or family members, at this late date, maybe newspaper articles appearing in the local St. Pete press of that era, might provide some clue as to just how much information was reported in the 'local' newspapers about the radio messages allegedly received after the plane was presumed down. Should be interesting what the other Forum members have to say about your latest 'find' & especially those from the ...'other net'..., many of whom insist that not only were the post-landing messages valid, but that they somehow pinpointed the location of the landing in the Marshalls or Saipan! Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric This kind of rush to judgement is exactly why we're not releasing the full transcript until some real work has been done. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:39:25 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Equipment on Niku <> Why don't we fly equipment in like the Coasties did. There is a PBY for sale in Trade-A-Plane............ Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric I know you're being facetious, but I'll point out anyway that having cumbersome equipment aboard a PBY in the lagoon presents the same or worse problem of having it in a launch. There's no safe way to get it ashore. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:43:07 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Carbon dating the notebook I really do hope you realize that 'carbon dating' was a joke... Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric The only thing tougher than figuring out whether or not an alleged post-loss message was a hoax is trying to figure whether or not about half the postings to this forum are meant as a joke. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:46:48 EDT From: Judy Subject: Re: Something New When will u post Betty's notes for us to read? And Chaucito, recently it was stated on this site that the radio/transmission????? waves do not follow a horizontal path but go up into the ionosphere (or wherever) then bounce down to earth and they can hit/land anywhere, so apparently a 15 year old girl could conceivably receive AE transmissions just as someone may have in Wyoming. Right Ric? Run that one around to us again Ric. Judy ************************************************************************** From Ric It is conceivable but not probable that Betty could have heard Earhart. I'll post a transcript and actual images of the notes on the TIGHAR website as soon as we're prepared to answer the torrent of questions that will inevitably ensue. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:48:05 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: The notebook >From Brian > >I don't want to try to pull a Janet Whitney on you b-u-t...what are the >odds of 1937 "middle class table radio tube set" pulling in reception >from AE in Florida???? Some of those old tubes sets had incredible sensitivity and selectivity, especially with a long wire antenna as "Betty" described. Given the right atmospheric conditions and antenna orientation, I don't doubt for a minute that "Betty" could have heard AE. But did she? Aye, there's the rub... Tom ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:49:40 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: LTM > From Ric > > If people don't ask, I don't tell - and it's on the website as the very first FAQ anyway. > > Personally, I like it. It's a constant reminder to be vigilant of our objectivity. I have a note on my wall that says "Don't ever take down a fence until you know why it was put up," attributed to Robert Frost. I have it there as a reminder not to "fix" or "clean up" something (I'm a computer programmer, among other things) until I understand why it was put there originally. I know this policy backwards and forwards, and preach it whenever anyone will listen. But I still keep that reminder up there. It's constant reinforcement, especially at the instant I lean back in frustration trying to figure out why my predicesor did a certain thing a certain way. LTM serves the same purpose, and should be kept for the same reason. Besides, what people come up to go with it is sometimes very amusing or insightful. LTM (who believes in reminders) - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:51:13 EDT From: Vern Subject: Re: 281 message >Yes, if you translate the latitude of the 7 site (or the Aukeraime site) to >nautical miles from the equator you get exactly 281. I've wondered about what kind of errors may have been make in copying that very poor signal transmitted by a very inept hand on the key. Like... why so precise? Why not round it off to 280? There's only one dit or dah difference between a 0 and a 1. If the first dah of what was intended to be a 0 was a bit too short, it would be copied as a 1. I've tried to guess what kind of errors may have resulted from the combination of poor keying and a poor signal -- trying to make something else out of what was copied. I'd like to change that "north" to a "south" but have not been able to do it. Now here's one really off the wall. Did Amelia have a problem with north and south? If she was on the key, and under stress, did that sort of problem turn up? She turned north instead of south at least once before. I thinks she is quoted as having said, "How did we get north?" Was there possibly a real problem here? Sort of a dysplexia? It isn't much of a case but "south" would make so much more sense! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:54:56 EDT From: Christian D Subject: Re: epoxy and cement I don't think epoxy is much of a deterrent: just play the flame of a small propane torch over the plaque for 5-10 minutes, and the plaque will come off, undamaged. Also if the plaque receives any sun, the elevated temperature will age the epoxy rather fast. Any fastenings with the heads exposed on the front of the plaque can be drilled out. Seems to me the best deterrent is to have 2 bosses cast on the back of the plaque, have 2 rebars screwed into them, and sticking out the back a foot or so. Then dig a big hole out of the tomb masonry (say a couple cubic feet), and refill it with LOTS of re-mesh when cementing the plaque in there, with its 2 anchors in the middle of a ratsnest of steel mesh. The would be thief is left with 2 options: do major damage to the plaque if trying to pry it out; or do a lot of HARD work, chiseling, going under the plaque. Cheers. Christian D *************************************************************************** From Ric Or we could just use spray paint on the tomb itself. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:56:21 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 281 message >>Longitude is a different and much more difficult problem and requires a very accurate chronometer. >> Knowing the latitude should have been enough since the latitude line would not have gone through very many islands in the general area. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric Yeah, like zero. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:12:01 EDT From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Epoxy & cement Perhaps DuPont might consider being a sponsor and official glue supplier for the Niku IV expedition. Any possibilities Ric? Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric All we can do is ask. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:13:33 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: ...Can't get a null. Vern wrote: >> I keep telling you, Amelia, you gotta switch the AVC off if you expect to get a null on a moderatly strong signal, what with the noise and all!<< That is the common thread, isn't it, to the failures of the DF at Lae and Howland? Probably easy enuff to forget, since she had little reason otherwise to use that control switch. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:15:47 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Post-loss receptions One complication to the post-loss receptions is the low tuning dial accuracy of radio receivers in use by hobbyists- or actually just about anyone - in 1937. IF you had once heard a station for sure on 3105 or 6210, and you marked your dial or noted the position, you could maybe reset the dial to within 5 kHz or a couple kHz at best, if you decided you needed to monitor on those frequencies again. If you hadn't noted the calibration ahead of time, you might be within +/- 10 kHz or even 20 kHz. With a lot of background noise, weak voice coming in & out of the noise, guesswork or imagination enters the picture. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric So a one-time event makes more sense than if somebody claimed that they heard signals on different occasions? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:21:13 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Something new > From Patrick Gaston > > Like everyone else, I'm puzzled why this long transmission was heard in St. > Petersburg, Fla., and nowhere else -- but skip can do strange things. --I'd suggest that's because the hoaxer was in So. Florida. Do people have strange purposes? The round the world flight of that Rutan composite-materials plane, a few years back, thoughtful folk learned the frequencies used and jammed them. People jam emergency calls from sailboats all the time. At the start of WW2, at least one fool transmitted signals pretending to come from German secret agents. (These all reported in QST ham radio magazine.) Some people have to harass joggers. Sanity is statiscal, and not everyone is even toward the middle of the bell curve. Hue Miller (BTW, schematics don't lie. They just don't tell the whole truth.) *************************************************************************** From Ric It's interesting to me to see how many people - even with minimal information and without ever seeing the content of the alleged transmissions - have already established a position on this question. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:26:12 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Something New >> The best argument against what Betty heard being a local production is that she heard it very sporadically on short wave over a period of more than three hours. Betty's neighbor could not pick up the signal but did not have the antenna array that Betty's father had erected. If it was not the real thing it seems more likley that it was a fairly elaborate hoax perpetrated by someone at a considerable distance.<< My comment here does not perfectly fit the above description but i'll mention this anyway. There's kind of a minor tradition of ham radio hoaxes, from several anecdotes, where one ham will use a very low power transmitter, or even a piece of test equipment to generate a low level signal, and then use a "rare" call sign, just to pull the chain of other ham(s). Also, it seems to me that even if Betty's neighbor did not have the antenna to make the grade, she could have at least detected the carrier signal, with voice too weak to make out, just by switching on the CW switch, which creates a whistle from the carrier, even a very weak one. What i am saying is that if her neighbor "could not pick it up" at all, versus "could pick it up also but not make it out", i would be suspicious. I do not believe the difference between the 2 antennas would support a total receive/ no receive difference for the received carrier signal. Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Betty stayed with her own set and kept taking notes. It was her father who ran next door and he is now long dead, so we can only go by what Betty says and she recalls no indication from her father that the neighbor could get anything at all. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:29:45 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: The notebook Occasional long range communication is not a completely predictable event. There are weather and solar related effects which create low loss paths and with enough listeners even with radios of only moderate performance there could be occasional events of clear reception. Anybody who has spent a few dozen hours working a communication receiver can attest to the occasional unexpectedly good paths that naturally occurr. Greg *************************************************************************** From Ric We seem to have a consensus that if the notes are to be disqualified as genuine transmissions from Earhart it will have to be done based upon evidence other than propagation properties. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:31:20 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Epoxy and Cement I second Randy's endorsment of J-B weld. I've used it to repair a broken skeg on my wife's windsurfer, and in numerous other repair applications. Amazing stuff. Bob Brandenburg ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:39:13 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: 281 message > From Vern > I've wondered about what kind of errors may have been make in copying that > very poor signal transmitted by a very inept hand on the key. --I had not thought that any post loss message had been in CW. With her level of training and practice, and with no "sidetone" to let her know how the telegraph characters she formed, actually sounded, and under high stress and tiredness, i would expect the sending to be at a quite slow rate and noteworthily ragged, i.e. with a lot of mistakes. I would think she would have to think about, consciously have to remember how to form each character, limiting the speed to maybe 5 words / minute. I would think one of the receiving stations would have reported such ragged, broken sending. Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric The only alleged post-loss message sent in code was the 281 message received by Wailupe. Their comment - "Extremely poor keying behind carrier. Frag- mentary phrases but copied by 3 operators." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:45:43 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: epoxy and cement I believe the main objective is to do NO DAMAGE at all to the original monument. If someone steals this plaque ... then so be it ... I will buy another and make sure it is replaced! But by no means PLEASE do any physical alterrations to the monument itself! The monument has existed for almost 60 years and from what Ric tells me, is in fairlly good condition. I would like to see it stay that way. If epoxy, cement or whatever is used, fine. If someone wants to remove that plaque ... there is little we can do about that. Sure, make it secure but by no means should the structure itself be compromised. Remember, this is a final resting place before it is anything else and must be treated with the dignity that it deserves. Penetrating bars and digging out chunks of cement from the tomb is just not acceptable! Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric Fear not Gerry. We're in complete agreement. The forum gets carried away at times (lots of times) but they mean well. There really is no way we can prevent the theft of a plaque if someone is determined to do that, but as you say, plaques are replaceable. What we want to avoid is any damage to the tomb itself. I'd say just replace the bolts. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:48:06 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Post-loss receptions > From Ric > > So a one-time event makes more sense than if somebody claimed that they heard > signals on different occasions? No, all i am suggesting, and i really don't know the content of the various post-loss receptions, that people would have been easily tuned to some other frequency than 3105 or 6210, they could have been hearing some other kind of weak, fadey signals going on, and then their own imagination kicked in. If they heard a signal and it was in fact nearby but not exactly 3105, for example, 3106, you would know for sure it was a hoax, as AE's transmitter was crystal controlled and would not vary more than some few tens of Hz. (I see that her transmitter had a heating element next to each crystal ( "crystal oven" ) to regulate the crystal temperature and keep the frequency solid. Actually, unnecessary overkill in the world of AM equipment....) However.....most listeners then didn't have any way to check the tuned station's frequency that accurately....so we cannot prove or disprove anything by this.... Hue Miller *************************************************************************** From Ric That's right. Betty has no idea what frequency she was listening on. She was just tuning along the dial and stopped when she heard something interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:54:40 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Something New If Betty is still around, one key question i would ask her is what kind of radio she was using. If she didn't exactly recall, i would at least try to find out if a "wooden", home type, or a "black wrinkle finish metal box". If it turned out to be a home radio, i would discount her account from the outset, on technical grounds. (Will spare readers on this point....) If you already know what type of receiver, just delete this note and we'll pretend i didn't write it. It would also be interesting, but maybe not recoverable, to find out what type or class of receiver her neighbor used. I wonder if Betty and her neighbor often stayed up late to listen to foreign broadcast stations, were they hard-core "dx-ers" (long distance listening addicts) ? Hue Miller ************************************************************************** From Ric Betty has sent us a negative of a photo of the radio she heard this on. I'm having the neg printed and should have the print on Monday and we'll then be able to ID the set. As soon as we have that information I'll post it. Betty was not a hardcore "dxer" and she didn't stay up late at night to do anything. She was young girl who spent a lot of time playing outdoors (she was apparently a bit of a tomboy) and practiced the violin 2 hours each morning and evening. She's often listen to the short wave for a little while after school and more in the summer just because it was fun to hear the foreign stations. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:55:59 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 281 message > From Ric > > The only alleged post-loss message sent in code was the 281 message > received by Wailupe. Their comment - "Extremely poor keying behind carrier. > Fragmentary phrases but copied by 3 operators." Wow. That has the ring of truth to it. That would have been an *extremely* sophisticated hoax, if a hoax. Now what does this mean, "poor keying behind carrier" ? Mike? Does that mean MCW, keyed audio tone over carrier, or ???? Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:57:20 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 281 message > From Ric > > The only alleged post-loss message sent in code was the 281 message > received by Wailupe. Their comment - "Extremely poor keying behind carrier. > Fragmentary phrases but copied by 3 operators." When the story is finally ready to be wrapped up, if it ever is, it might be interesting to do a recreation of this signal. I think we could do a pretty realistic one, with for example heavy atmospheric noise mixed in, on top a weak signal, even a little dynamotor ripple in the signal. This might (at least i think so) make an interesting addition to some research compilation CD. I think there's a site out there somewhere, i visited it once, that had samples of spark-transmitter sounds from the early 1900s, maybe even a simulation of the Titanic's SOS. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:58:32 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Itasca Log Weather Data Thanks for taking the time to check the Itasca log for the weather data. Much appreciated. It helped me construct an estimated atmosphere to use in place of a standard atmosphere for the purpose of calculating lift coefficients and fuel consumption rates. Best regards, Birch Matthews *************************************************************************** From Ric My pleasure. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:09:08 EDT From: Ric Subject: Films and songs in Betty's notebook Below are listed the films and songs referenced in Betty's notebook in the order in which they appear. Determining the release date for each could help establish when the notebook was in use. page 23 Black Legion - Humphrey Bogart God's Country and the Woman - Beverly Roberts Elephant Boy - Sabu Swing High, Swing Low - Carol Lombard & Fred MacMurray The Great O'Malley - Pat O'Brian Maytime - Jeannette McDonald A Day At The Races - Maureen O'Sullivan A Woman of Glamour - Kent Taylor page 29 It Looks Like Rain (on Cherry Blossom Lane) (lyrics written down) page 31 (numbers may refer to Hit Parade ranking?) 9. Love Bug Will Bite You 2. Carelessly 7. Where are you 6. Sweet Laylone 5. There's a lull in my life 3. Never in a million years (Then written below) Merru-go-round broke down Never in a Million Years A sail boat in the Moonlight page 33 The Love Bug'll Bite You (lyrics written down) page 34 Where Are You (lyrics written down) page 35 Carelessly (lyrics written down) Just a Quiet Eve page 36 There's a Lull In My Life (lyrics written down) page 37 A Sail Boat In The Moonlight (lyrics written down) page 38 They Can't take That Away From Me (lyrics written down) page 41 It Looks Like Rain In Cherry (lyrics written down) page 43 Where Are You? (lyrics written down) page 44 Johnny One Note page 46 All God's Children's Got Rythum (sic) (lyrics written down) page 47 Merry-go-round Broke Down (lyrics written down) page 48 You Can't Run Away From Love Tonite (lyrics written down) LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:10:25 EDT From: Joe Subject: Re: Post-loss receptions Kinda reminds me when in October 1972 in Miramar Puerto Rico, I watched with hundreds of others in a condo development a Ufo for over 1 hour hovering and shooting out lights underneath its craft. It was silent, and just sat there and hovered! It would move a few hundred feet in another direction and sit and continue blinking its lights...then move back to original location, then to my right etc etc...back & forth with all these people oohing and ahhing...I later told my friends the experience up in the states and all I got was: 'You were drunk"...."I dont believe you" and etc so I just stop talking about it! Lets wait til the facts are known before claiming its baloney! Joe W3HNK ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:14:17 EDT From: Gerry Gallagher Subject: Re: epoxy and cement Perhaps a combination. Bolts and expoxy/JB/Cement/other is the answer. I will ask Eric Bevington if he recalls ever actually seeing the plaque. Did it have an outline, designs, holes in the four corners or were the holes corner extensions of the plaque. A couple of other things come to mind. Perhaps the plaque was not stolen ... is there a chance that the bolts caused corrosion and cracking in the plaque whereby it may have fallen and could still be on sight at the base of the monument covered by sand? A suggestion on the Forum was made to use plastic to replace the plaque. I would like to make sure we stay with the original plaque as much as possible, down to what it was made of. The plaque was added to the tomb by the "Fellow Officers and Friends" of Gerald. There was even debate amongst them as to the size and what it should be made of. "They" decided ... and as such it is our duty to respect "their" wishes as we are replacing "their" tribute to a fallen friend and colleague. Thus, I believe the only debate to be addressed is the epoxy/cement/jb/other to affix the plaque and if bolts will be used as per original design of the plaque. Gerry Gallagher *************************************************************************** From Ric The ground surrounding the tomb is hard coral rubble, not sand, and there is a mature coconut palm at the immediate head of the tomb just where the plaque would have fallen, so it seems unlikley that it just fell off. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:35:23 EDT From: Ric Subject: Daylight time in St. Pete? We need to establish whether St. Petersburg, Florida was on Daylight Savings Time in July 1937. Can anybody help? Ric