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