Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:50:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Transmissions > The Coast Guard Captain may not have > understood the running on the 157 - 337 line.............. Good analysis, Dick. I don't see how it could be faulted. As to the good Captain understanding the 157-337 line comment we, of course, don't know but I would suggest he did since the 157-337 line not only runs SE in the air but also on the water and the ship used the same or similar navigation as did the airplane. As the ship's Captain he had to be knowledgeable of the ship but also how to navigate it. Speaking of navigation I have another question of our Marshall theorists. Since I won't allow them enough fuel to fly from Howland to Mili (which doesn't bother them) they conveniently move the airplane north of Howland. It also doesn't bother them that they have make Noonan such a stupid navigator that he was 400 miles off course. But for the sake of argument let's say he flew into a hurricane with horrendous winds out of the South or flew through a worm hole and ended up 400 miles north of Howland -- all so he could have enough fuel to make Mili and crash or be shot down or midair with a Japanese Admiral's son or whatever the stories were. Being so far north of Howland it would make sense then to turn north to Mili -- right? Hello Marshallites. Explain to me how he would have been soooo lost that he was 400 miles north of Howland, thought he was over Howland yet mysteriously knew he was so close to Mili that he turned north and flew there. Not one single Marshallite has ever or will offer a rational explanation of their theory. ALL they will do is fall back on a totally insupportable claim that someone thought they saw an airplane crash sometime and somewhere therefore magic occurred. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:54:12 EST From: Veryl Fenlason Subject: Re: Bones, Sextants, Dumps The dump I was referring to in the conversation with Kenton was the collection of stuff { distillers, barrels etc } that we found in 1989, in the area of WI-23 and WI-22 on your grid map. Tom King might remember the piece of stainless steel with the nail holes in it that he found in that area. It looked like most of the stuff was loran site leftovers. LTM Veryl Fenlason ************************************************************************* From Ric Yeah, that's the place I figured you meant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:50 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Devegetate? > From Alan > > Dennis, where have you been all this time? I wish I had thought of this. > We've been wasting our time digging in the sand when all we needed to do > was burn down all the Marshall, Phoenix and Gilbert Islands. > (I know you were jesting but it was too funny to pass up) Sorry Woody. Does Scaevola Burn? *************************************************************************** From Ric We've never tried to set it afire - nor will we. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:56:17 EST From: R.L."Doc" Holloway Subject: Re: Transmissions I also agree with wholeheartedly with Dick Pingrey. Doc, near Bland, MO ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:58:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: SE on the LOP << Perhaps, but the only LOP we know about for sure is the one AE specifically mentioned, and the only time Noonan could have gotten that LOP was at dawn. There is also the point that, once they have descended below the scattered cloud deck to look for Howland, getting further sun shots might have been very difficult if not impossible.>> Noonan could have also got that exact same LOP from a moon shot not all that much earlier. I posted the exact time and data of that possibility long ago -- lost into oblivion. As to taking another sun shot it could have been done easily by climbing only a little to get on top of the scattered cu depending on their tops. Too high and fuel might have been too big of a problem. The only reason for taking subsequent shots would have been to assure he was on his desired track and not having drifted off too far. With a drift meter that could have been unnecessary of course and he may not have felt he needed to do that. As far as navigating to Kanton instead that would have not been that difficult. The LOP he was on would have been little more accurate than one projected from that one to a point that would have gone through Kanton. I see no real rationale for going to Kanton, however. Just that it was bigger wouldn't necessarily offset the fact that it was a little further away. Plus, not exactly knowing where he was on the North/South axis would have made it foolish to alter course. Alan, calming down and not so testy after dealing with Ron, Daryll, and Don's posts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:15:08 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Nauticos plans > but if you > draw a 450 nautical mile circle around Howland that is lopsided a bit to the > west and northwest (to allow for the east southeasterly winds) you'll have a > pretty good idea of all the places where the flight could have ended up. Does Nauticos know this? That's 1,413.72 square miles. Two decimal places for RC, Ron, etc. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a 450 nm RADIUS from Howland. It's just under 160,000 square miles. I had a nice chat yesterday with Lynn Jourdan at Nauticos. (Lynn is the webmaster for their website. Her husband David is the CEO.) They are, as she said in the email to Chris, planning a three-month expedition for later this spring but they have not yet found enough investors to pay for the search nor have they selected or scheduled a ship. I don't know anything about finding people who want to invest in a treasure hunt but I do know a little bit about chartering and scheduling ships. If they don't have a boat laid on by now I don't understand how they can possibly hope to go out this spring even if the money materializes. Mike Kammerer tells me that he has moved his expedition departure up to sometime in March. To answer Alan's question: No. Lynn asked me why we thought that there was any possibility the airplane could have reached Nikumaroro. I explained it as gently as I could but it was apparent that Elgen Long's computations (and various expert verifications that his arithmetic is correct) have been accepted as gospel without questioning the myriad assumptions upon which they are based. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:25:57 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence I agree that the points you made make Josephine's story strongly suspect. Agent Joe Patton,ONI, went to Saipan in 1960 and interviewed Mrs Antonia Blanco, Josephine's mother. She recalled that Josephine came in one day in the summer of 37 all excited and told the story about seeing the white fliers,etc. If you can believe that Mrs Blanco was recalling Josephine's story correctly, it would add substance to the account. Matsumoto, the brother -in -law confirmed Josephine's story in 1960, also suspect. There are five others at the base that also "claimed" the saw an airplane come in with the white fliers, etc. Josephine did tell the story in 1946 to Sheft. The single photo lineup used by Briand is worthless. I accept that it a very suspect story and "anecdotal" in nature. In fact, a close exam of her various stories does casts great doubt, but yet there does seem to be a sighting. Personally I attribute it to a lookalike twin eng.(civ1lian) seaplane that arrived on a new Tokyo-Saipan airline being developed in 1937. Those aboard were mistakenly identified as Amelia and Fred. ( In one version (to her mother) the white woman was sittting on a bench "combing her hair") hardly something the Japanese capture scenario would fit.) Somebody landed there and I would like to find out who, as it started the whole new episode in the Earhart disappearance. My bet, it was not Amelia. For some, it is wholly acceptable and credible evidence; Goerner didn't regard it as such in 1960. LTM, R. Bright, Bremerton, WA **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that it would be interesting to try to trace the origins that story (similar to the debunking you did of the Love to Mother telegram), but the Japanese capture myth did not start in 1960, nor was Josephine's story the beginning of its revival. What year did Briand, Gervais and Ringer come up with their "list of witnesses"? Briand's book was published in 1960 so it seems like their shenanigans had to predate Goerner's entry into the fray. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:28:36 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Evidence At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if something is lost, and you want to find it badly enough, you start looking. Logical, easily determined places first. Like Winslow Reef. I'm not convinced that's where they are, but hey, it's a) a possibility, b) it's a FINITE location and easily checked and (if you draw a blank) easily dismissed. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if Winslow Reef is so damn easy to search why didn't you do it when you were there? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:36:03 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Transmissions Capt. Pingrey maybe "bang on" when he mentions AE flew SW (straight to Niku, of course), but he adds she may have revealed her intentions via . . . . > Later messages that were not picked > up by the Coast Guard True enough, but there WAS at least one ship in that quadrant listening on 3105, and that was the ACHILLES, at (approximately) 160°W and 10° S. They THOUGHT they heard a signal from the Electra, but NO course or coordinates were mentioned. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Make that SE, and I'm aware of no documented account that Achilles was listening on 3105 at that time or that they heard anything until 0700Z (1830 local), long after the plane had to be down.. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:46:45 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Noonan's navigation Does anyone know what kind of sextant Noonan was using? what kind of calculation method he used for calculating his line of position? *************************************************************************** From Ric We know that just prior to the first World Flight attempt, Harry Manning borrowed Pioneer Bubble Octant Ser No. 12-36 from the Navy and that Noonan signed a receipt for it when Harry baled after the Luke Field wreck. We do not know whether Noonan used that instrument on the second attempt or whether he returned it and used something else. Noonan's navigational practices are well known, in part because he wrote about them in Pan Am memos and a letter to the director of a navigiation school. We've also studied existing maps he actually used and annotated on transoceanic flights. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:48:02 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: OFF TOPIC: Fate of the PN9-1? Do any of you happen to know what ultimately became of the PN9-1? For those who don't know the story, the PN9-1 was a Boeing-built flying boat (a PB-1) that the U.S. Navy attempted to fly from California to Hawaii in 1925. The flight was forced down at sea and search efforts proved fruitless. Fortunately, the resourceful crew formed a make-shift sail with canvas from the plane's lower wing and completed their journey by sea. Some friends and I were discussing the story yesterday and wondered whether the aircraft (or one like it) had been preserved anywhere. Anyone who might shed some light on this question, or just wants to kick around a non-AE related aviation history thread, are invited to respond to me off-Forum. Thanks and Love to Mother (who thinks boats weren't meant to fly), Russ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:51:37 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Bones lecture Thought you might be interested in the attached website which provides a brief syllabus for a lecture by Dr. Albert, last spring, at the University of North Carolina, covering the Nikumaroro 'bones' discovery, uncovered by TIGHAR. Wonder how the professor responded to 'Question for review' numbers 4 & 5? ANT 211: Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology with Dr. Albert, Spring 2001 ANT 211 Forensic Anthropology Address:http://www.uncwil.edu/people/albertm/ant211spring01/historic/ae02.htm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:54:47 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: DRing from the unknown >You can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point. > >Ric Yet, isn't that what Alan said FN _was_ able to do (in Alan's 16 Oct 2001 posting) & that: 'Even without the second celestial body it would have been easy to navigate to any of the Phoenix Island Group.'? Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric At last we find something you and I can agree on. I don't understand how he thinks that is possible either. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:56:36 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Gilberts vs LOP >Perhaps flying at max range would get them back to the Gilberts but >that was not their goal. There goal was Howland. Landing any other place >was a disaster for the purpose of the around the world record. Even >Gardner was a disaster and to be avoided unless it was down to a choice >of ditching or landing in the Phoenix group. >Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C Again, I must admire your very logical reasoning & conclusions, however using that same logical train of thought, _if_ Gardner/Nikumaroro was also a 'disaster' (as far as terminating the R-T-W flight) & 'to be _avoided_ unless it was down to a choice of ditching or landing in the Phoenix Group', & if _perhaps_, 'flying at maximum range would get them back to the Gilberts', wouldn't returning to an island group that _was_ known to be inhabited & administered by a friendly government, be more preferrable than a very sparsely (if at all) populated island group, without any assurance that any of AE's radio transmissions had been received by Itasca, or anyone else, for that matter? Naturally, all of my observations are purely speculative, but of course so is everyone else's opinions & observations, since they are _all_ based upon looking at AE/FN's situation & circumstances from _our_ own perspectives, & while our views, observations & opinions, however statistically or factually they _seem_ to be based, from _our_ vantage point, they may have looked quite differently from the unique perspecives of AE/FN in 1937. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:02:36 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Evolution of the search >She still expects or at least hopes to find Howland on that heading >but if she doesn't she will have at least told anyone who might be able >to hear her what they are doing. >Dick Pingrey Her LOP message, which just _might_ have been intuitively translated by an experienced pilot, to mean that they were going to fly SE on that LOP , simply did _not_ register with Cmdr Thompson at all & according to Capt Friedell's report, even the _initial_ Navy decision to search SE of Howland was triggered by weather reports that showed stronger winds than normally expected in the region, might have carried the Electra further to the SE & out of sight of Howland, rather than any significance being given to AE's LOP message. In fact, in reading the report, it also claims that, prior to leaving Pearl Harbor, the Colorado was informed of radio signals (allegedly) from the Electra had been intercepted by amatuer radio operators in California, suggesting a location SE of Howland. ( by the 3rd & 4th of July they also received reports from Wyoming, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Australia & other points, of radio signals, including some voice reports had been received (allegedly) from the plane.) The very first search plan is reported to have been determined to have the Colorado sail East on the Equator, with her float planes flying a basically rectangularly configured course, of 60 miles, both to the North & South of the Equator. There is _no_ mention in that report of searching the Phoenix Islands _until_ a report was received from GPP 'stressing' the Phoenix Island Group, stating that headwinds aloft had been much stroner than expected for the flight, & further suggesting that a plane from Colorado investigate the Phoenix Island Area. The Commanding Officer, still convinced the SE quadrant from Howland was the _most_ likely location to search, irrespective of the various radio reports pointing in that direction, therefore he decided to hold to his _original_ decision, searching to the SE of Howland, with one _modification_, planes from the Colorado would _also_ search land areas of the Phoenix Islands, prior to the larger water areas, which would also be covered on the flights to & from the Phoenix Islands. At the end of the report, it is also confirmed that the Nav was aware that Commander of Coast Guard had checked with persons familiar with FN's navigational methods & was told that, 'If short of gas, he'd probably follow the LOP to the nearest land', which the Navy finally concluded, as an Air Navigator, FN would have followed the line towards the most probable land. Tragically, (_assuming_ AE/FN did reach Gardner/Nikumaroro Island) the Navy's apparent lack of confidence in GPP's & the Commander of Coast Guard's instructions, provided _only_ a brief flyby of all but _one_ of the Phoenix Islands. We can only speculate what the difference _might_ have been, had Lt. Lambrecht decided (intuitively) to land in the lagoon at Gardner/Nikumaroro, instead of Hull Island, or if AE's last transmission had ended: ' We are _now_ going to fly SE on the LOP seeking an alternate landfall' . Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric You were doing prety good until the last sentence. Would someone please remove the restraining bolt on Mr. Neumann so that he can get it through his head that running SE on the LOP does not constitute "seeking an alternate landfall"? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:04:33 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Take your pick ! For Hal : <> http://www.abacuspub.com/ Got to their retail store (bottom of page) then "Round the World". << Subject: Re: Autograph please...? From Randy Jacobson Let poor Daryll masticate in peace, will ya? Sheesh! >> Randy,...I don't have a computer...ergo....I don't have a video computer camera....ergo.....YOU CAN'T see me do that......WHATEVER you said.......!!!! << From Ric It was an experiment. He took "Bolinger Class Conspiracy" as a compliment. I just wondered how far we could go. It's not as if I accused him of being a sexagenarian. >> WELLLL......slam me to the floor and step on my nose ! Did you mean that as a degenerative comment about me ?? << Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence From Ron Bright For Alan Caldwell From Ric Excuse me for jumping in here but 34 year old Josephine Akiyama (maiden name Blanco)...>> AHHhh OOOooo !.......clear out your mailboxes.... Hey,...All you guys with fancy dancy Nav Computers. Let's try a little experiment that I don't know the answer to. Enter : Mili Atoll is 5.58 N and172.07 E (Woody) Do a heading from Mili 101° (recip of 281°) WHERE does that course line cross the LOP 157/337 from Howland? (Howland Island is at 0.80 degrees North and 176.63 degrees West, Alan #2329) Does your computer give a mileage to that "point at sea" from Howland? Now be honest with your answer because I can't cross check ya. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:06:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Search for an Earhart Flight Simulator > but a really good > simulation would be very labor intensive to construct and a less than very > good simulation would be worse than none at all. Ric and Hank, I know a little bit about this subject so let me briefly (I've never been brief) give you the current situation. Several years ago Abacus software marketed a computer program called "Around the World" which was only compatible with Flight Simulator 98. It included the scenery, adventure and aircraft files for an Electra. The scenery was not all that good and the Electra was not an acceptable model for AE's plane. Abacus decided not to update the program for Flight Simulator 2000. Lae airfield on the coast no longer exists in Flight Simulator and the new airport is about 20 miles inland. I have checked every Flight Sim Electra that has been created and none to date are acceptable. I am in contact with a couple of guys and probably the same ones who contacted Ric. They are slowly but without great interest trying to fashion a 10E for me. I am also having a scenery update fashioned to put the old Lae airport in my FS2002 program. Fuel usage is the critical factor of course as little else matters. I am also working on getting a few of the pertinent island scenery files built. Once all this is done I can have a lot of fun reflying AE's flight but as to what that will tell us the answer is little or nothing usable. Anything the simulation can tell us can already be computed with paper, pencil and a small calculator. That too tells us little or nothing we don't already know. I assure you we could do all this and put a few of our forumites who shall go nameless at the controls and it will not deter them in the slightest from their magical theories. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:16:25 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: SE on the LOP > From Ric > > They didn't DR from Lae to the LOP. They DRed from Lae to the general > vicinity of Howland with occasional checks during the night using celestial > observations. They got the LOP at dawn and advanced it (by DR) through > Howland but they had no way of knowing where they were on the LOP and when > they reached the advanced LOP and did not see Howland they had no way of > knowing whether they were north or south of where they wanted to be. You > can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point. I agree with you on the penultimate sentence. Which is exactly why I corrected myself to make it clear that I was talking about accurate navigation to the line 157 337 rather than to Howland.OK if you want to be precise they didn't rely on DR positions for the whole trip from Lae but I don't agree with you that they didn't DR to the LOP. If they got the LOP at dawn this was not a fix, only an LOP and so they couldnt correct their longitude and had to rely on the DRd longitude from the last fix. While its quite true that you can't DR to a specific point from an unknown point, that wasn't what I was saying. You can DR from one known LOP to a parallel LOP. You know the bearing of LOP1 (through Howland) so you fly at right angles to it for the appropriate flying time to LOP2, through Canton. You won't know where you are on LOP2 but you can search along it. Advancing the dawn sight to Howland is no different from advancing it to Canton except that the error in DR will be more significant for a long than a short distance. Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you can do that - but why on earth would you? You're already on an LOP that runs through three islands, and one of them is the one you really, really want. You can throw out another LOP through Canton but you have to fly about 400 miles to get to it only to have the same problem you have now - which way do I search on the line? Except by that time you have very little fuel left to do anything. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:17:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence II > the earth is about 40 nm. longer around the equator than the 'model' used I believe you RC. Now how much off does that make the figures? Does that mean it's in error by 1.851851852 (-0.3)? ------ x 10 Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:18:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence > I would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses and point > out why they are either mistaken or lying. Ron, "as an attorney" I would first ask (as I have many times) for an explanation as to how the plane could possibly get there in the first place. This makes as much sense as if the supposed crash occured in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The plane couldn't have crashed in Altoona no matter if 12 bishops told the story. Tell me how to get the plane to Mil. Don't just keep repeating that old hogwash. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:21:44 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: New Mileage to Mili Atoll > I cannot come up with any realistic scenario of how the fuel burn > could have been manipulated anywhere near what it would take to do an > about-face and reach the Gilberts Doug, lately I've been reading (not from you) that the fuel schedule from Johnson could have been altered at the expense of the engines and could have produced a larger reserve at Howland. Wouldn't that presuppose they somehow knew immediately after take off they couldn't make it and therefore had to change to a high powered fuel conservation schedule? Second question. (The questions are really directed at those who seem to know about this other fuel schedule}Tell me what that other fuel schedule, power setting is and how much difference would it make. I also want to know where this information comes from. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric Patience Alan. Oscar Boswell is working up some numbers. He told us where they come from in his recent posting. If you're gonna gadfly ya gotta read the postings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:22:35 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Transmissions To put my two cents in (or a little more than 1 cent with the Aussie dollar), I agree Dick totally and would only add that the direction on the LOP they took first would be the opposite one to the direction they felt that they drifted. This is similar to the idea of off-set navigation where you fly, for instance, to the right of your track and after a known period of time, hang a left and your target should be right in front of you. Regards David Kelly (Sydney) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:30:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Ric > > "We are on the line 157 337" is merely a statement of position. What makes > you think that the order in which she said the numbers revealed her > direction of travel? Nothing, except convention. Dick suggests "I think Amelia's "Flying on the line 337 - 153" statement was a clear message of her plan to follow that line to the southwest." I'm trying to suggest that nothing in the message tells us which direction they flew, but could have confused searchers. As a rule, if you say you are travelling on a line from L.A. to N.Y., someone in L.A. would usually assume you are NOT travelling towards them. I's a convention thing. Most people say the departure point first. The post had to do with Dick's numbers being the wrong way round, which just happened to make the direction sound S.E. Yes, on the line 157/337 is a statemement of position. Saying they were running on line though could have suggested to Cdr Black that they were running in the direction 1st number to last number. The convention thing again. Do you say you are "going up the road and coming back", or you are "going coming back and up the road"? Please don't get the idea I think they headed N.W. This is all about how the message could have confused searchers. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric I think you're on to something important but it's not what you think it is. I'll confess that "157-337" has bothered me from day one. It sounds backward. Most practioners of the English language read from left to right and top to bottom. (The words make more sense that way.) If I draw a slanted line on a map and lable the top left end 337 and the bottom right end 157 and ask a hundred people to describe the line using the numbers, I would wager that about ninetyfive of them would say 337-157. (The other five turned out to be Hebrew scholars.) However, if I round up another hundred people and show them the same line but I tell them "You're travelling southeastward along this line and you want to describe the line to someone on the radio." I'd wager that they would still say the line is 337 - 157. But apparently that is not what AE said and it's worth asking ourselves why. Now let's try another experiment. Let's get a hundred pilots and, one by one, we'll sit them down in a simulator with an old-fashioned drum type DG (Directional Gyro) in front of them. We tell them: "You're the pilot, I'm the navigator. We're going to fly a 337 - 157 degrees True line, first in one direction and then in the other direction. The DG is set to the magnetic compass and there's some wind to contend with, so the actual heading I'll ask you to fly will be different from the track we're after but I've worked it out so all you have to do is hold the heading I give you. Let's go to the northwest first. Fly heading 346 degrees. Okay, that's good. Now let's go the other way. Come around to 166 degrees and hold that heading. Good. Now, pick up the mic and tell the controller what we're doing." Under those circumstances, flying the line to the southeast rather than reading a line drawn on a chart, I'll betcha that a significant number of people would describe the line as 157 - 337 because they are focused on the 157 direction. Pilots on the forum know that runways are numbered according to their compass orientation. Thus, Runway 33 -15 runs 330 degrees one way and 150 degrees the other. It's Runway 33 - 15 (usualy shortened to 33) if you're going to use it in the 330 degree direction and it's Runway 15 - 33 if you're going to use it in the 150 degree direction. It was no different in 1937. In summary, I think a good argument can be made that Earhart's description of the line as "157 337" indicates that she was probably flying southeastward at 20:13. Fire away. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:35:00 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Ocean currents I have always contended that the only possible way for AE & FN to have arrived at Mili Atoll (or anywhere else in the Marshall Islands) is for them to have landed in the ocean (ditched or crashed) somewhere northwest of Howland (close enough for their last radio message to have been received at S5 strength) and then drifted there in a life raft. I believe that the prevailing ocean currents could have carried them in a northwesterly direction at a rate of 80 to 100 miles per day. I am not suggesting that that was what happened, merely pointing out that I do not believe that the Electra could have made it there under any conceivable fuel calculation. Therefore, if they made it to Mili, it was by other means. I have yet to determine how such a hypothesis could be tested. One cannot rely on unsubstantiated and vague testimony, irrespective of who provides it (so no accusations of prejudice against the Marshallese, please --- I would not rely on the type of testimony offered thus far on the Marshall Islands theory even if it had been offered by the Pope, the President and the Queen). The stories are just too vague and, more often than not, contradictory of each other. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't think the drift theory works very well either. I think you'll find0 that the Navy calculated the probable drift and that's what prompted the decision to send Itasca and Swan to the Gilberts. Randy? Northwesterly drift in the Howland area? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:35:37 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones, Sextants, Dumps It sounds like the place Veryl's referring to, as Ric thought, is the southern part of the village, which is loaded with piles of Loran Station leftovers. I don't see any of this as a "dump," per se, and since it's all post-Loran it's full of confusing aluminum and other stuff. What would be really good to find is a dump representing the early days of the village -- ca. 1938-1948. I haven't seen anything that looks like that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:36:07 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Devegetate? "Devegetation" as Woody proposes, with bush knives and muscle, and full approval of environmental, historic preservation, and local government authorities is one thing; torching the island is quite another. Nobody had better contemplate the latter in the Marshalls, the Phoenices, or anyplace else. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:40:19 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: This wouldn't be the good Father himself, would it? To Denise---Re Father Jim of the Columban Fathers.... NO- My dear- I am not the 'Father Jim' of the Columban Order... For those of you who dont know me-I am a 68 year old unreconstructed New Yorker -who has lived in SoCal for 35 years....Brooklyn Irish-married 36 years to the same patient long suffering woman..... I do have a connection with the Columban Fathers in that I did some volunteer work in my Brooklyn years-along with my mother and her group of 11 Irish Widows who did charity functions for the Good fathers....I did the driving and heavy lifting..... Sorry to disappoint you -Denise.... LTM from the LOL Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA *************************************************************************** From Ric The above must be read in Jim's wonderful unreconstructed Brooklyn accent. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:41:30 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones lecture for Don Neumann Thanks, Don. That's an interesting use of our data. A bit out of date, since of course we've been to Fiji and regrettably found no bones, but still, a nice use of our info. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:43:08 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 Alan Caldwell said: "Once all this is done I can have a lot of fun reflying AE's flight but as to what that will tell us the answer is little or nothing usable. Anything the simulation can tell us can already be computed with paper, pencil and a small calculator." Alan, you're on to something here but you need a couple of add-ons and more ambience. First, set up your computer in your garage between your car and your wife' s car. Remove the exhaust pipes from the exhaust manifolds on both cars. Set a five-gallon can of gas and a two gallon can of used motor oil underneath the computer desk with a small fan in front of them pointing at your legs. Lower your chair as far as it will go and place it on top of your power lawn mower. Here's the fun part: start the car engines, start the fan, start the lawn mower and sit in the chair, and fire up your Flt Sim 2002 Ver 1.1 and sit there for 20 hours without getting up. Are we having fun yet? Not only will your innovative and challenging FltSim 1.1 allow you the pleasure and excitement of recreating AE's flight, but including these simple add-ons will allow you to experience the noise, vibrations, heat, fumes, and discomfort our sterling heroine endured for those 20 long hours -- 23.5 if she made it to Niku. It doesn't get any better than that! Let me know how it works out; maybe we could do a joint venture. :-) LTM, who loves the smell of avgas in the morning Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:43:53 EST From: Hal Subject: Re: Search for an Earhart Flight Simulator To Alan Thanks for the update. You've confirmed my suspicions that a computer sim would add nothing to the total body of knowledge we now have...but it sure would be fun! I'd be very interested in any further developments in an Earhart sim. Hal ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:45:17 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Daryll's Experiment For Daryll I'd be happy to run your experiment as per your request. I will use not only the fancy-dancy computer but also a south pacific navigation chart as this will take both to accomplish. I'll try to have something for you by tomorrow(Saturday) as I need to take the chart to a big copier and run off some extras to scribble on. Your question is: Where does a course line measured via 101 degrees true from Mili Atoll intersect a 157/337 deg. LOP from Howland Island? Latitude/longitude of intersecting point desired- Is this correct? If so, I'll be back with an answer hopefully by tomorrow. Just one problem....I have no means to scan in the chart to display to the forum. No scanner & representation probably too big to do anyway. Daryll, if you would like a copy to see for yourself, send me your address & I'll be happy to oblige with your own copy. Off to navigate fellow forumites. Later, Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:46:15 EST From: Stuart, in Santiago, Chile Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence On the subject of witnesses: > >From Alan Caldwell > > > I would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses > > and point out why they are either mistaken or lying. They don't need to be either wrong or lying. They just need to be normal, average, everyday, unreliable witnesses, who sincerely believe they saw something which in reality they did not see in quite the way they remember it. Although I'm no expert on the subject of aviation accidents, I have a deep interest in the subject, and I've learned a lot about it over the years. One of the things that I have learned, is that eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. Investigators usually end up with about as many totally different accounts of a crash, as there are witnesses. And all reports take distant second place in the investigation. The reports are believed ONLY if the evidence corroborates, never the other way around. I don't recall how many aircraft crashes I've heard about, where witnesses swear blind that the plane "blew up" in the air, or was "streaming flame and smoke", or "falling apart in the sky". But when the investigators get there and do their objective job, they find that such was not the case. The aircraft did not blow up, burn, or fall apart until AFTER it hit the ground. Yet witnesses swear that it did. Not only do witness accounts not fit the facts, more often than not, they conflict directly with each other. Even witnesses who were standing together, watching the same event from the same point of view, can differ in their accounts of te facts. Especially non-expert witnesses. Those who don't really understand what they are seeing, who don't know the basics of how airplanes fly, or the physics behind Newton's laws, tend to interpret what they see in unusual ways (which is one of the reasons why we know have the wonderful appearance of "chemtrails" in the sky). Case in point: In the crash of Swissair SR-111 in 1998, one witness swears that he saw the aircraft come directly over his house at an altitude of about 60 feet(!), flying east to west, yet making very little sound. Yet, the radar track shows the aircraft flying about 5 miles away, north to south. Even though there was no mode C altitude reading for the closest point to the witnesses house, just forty seconds earlier the mode C return showed them at about 18,000 feet. So who do you believe? The witness or the data? Another witness saw flames coming from the wing, as it flew over her house. It really did fly over her house, but the wreckage showed no signs of flame in the location she indicated, even though there was an onboard fire. So once again, who to believe? But the point is that these witnesses are neither dishonest, nor lying, nor mistaken. They really did see something. They didn't understand it fully, so they interpreted it in a way that made sense to their own personal point of view. Distant events are perceived as being much closer. Details that weren't really there are clearly "remembered". Real details that should have been obvious, are not mentioned (an MD-11 flying just 60 feet above you is going to make more than just a little sound!). Etc. The witness ends up truly believing that their interpretation is the way it REALLY happened, not just their INTERPRETATION of the way it happened. I know that we are not talking about witnesses to a crash here, but the principle remains the same: witness reports are unreliable, and take second place. Unless there is hard evidence to support the story told by the witness, no matter how unimpeachably righteous and truthful the witness is, it is far more likely than not that he didn't REALLY see what he THINKS he saw. FWIW. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:49:01 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence I think it was the Josephine story to Briand that rekindled the Earhart fever in early 1960, but I can't find out how Josephine's story initially got to Briand. Maybe someone knows. After the Briand interview, Josephine's lawyer went to the San Mateo Times mid May 1960 and Linn Day, a reporter, published a copyrighted story on 27 May 60 of Josephine's version . I have tried to locate Linn Day who wrote it, but no luck yet. Goerner said that he then contacted and interviewed Josephine in first week of June 60 and learned that Briand had talked with her a few months earlier. Briand, said Goerner, told Josephine to keep her mouth shut, but her lawyer Penaluma told her to tell the story and she talked with "several news people" about it. About this time on June 5,1960, Goerner said he learned that Gervais and Dinger, Air force officers, were heading to Saipan from Okinawa to write the "final answer". I do not know for sure what prompted their research, but Klaas writes that Gervais had read Briand's "Daughter of the Sky" in April 1960 that included Josephine Blanco Aikyama's story. Probably based on his book and their own interest, they initiated their investigation at Guam and later Saipan beginning in late June 1960. Thus it seems that Josephine's story rejuvenated interest in Earhart. Little surfaced about AE from about 1946 to 1960. On 16 June Goerner left for his first trip to Saipan with Josephine's husband. Gervais was heading for Guam about this time. It is interesting to note that in the Linn Day interview on 27 May 60 Josephine reported that "... after about 15 minutes a beautiful black sedan came and they[the American pilots] got in with the soldiers. I never saw them again." She told Day she later learned through a Japanese soldier that she had been executed. Briand's interview reported that Josephine told him that the American woman and the man were taken away by Japanese soldiers to a clearing and "shots rang out" and the soldiers returned alone. In Briands version the "beautiful black sedan" disappears. Seems like some of those details should be consistant if told within a month or so. As I said Josephine's mother recollected that Josephine said the "American woman was sitting on a bench combing her hair". ( AE must have been concerned about her appearance after such a long flight!) I have written an extensive analysis of Josephine's story, motives, etc that I could furnish if anyone cares. It also serves up an alternative explanation of mistaken identity. But these analyses are of little interest to your Forum's primary focus. Ron Bright Bremerton WA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:46:43 EST From: Mike in Lakewood CA Subject: Status Ric, All these speculations on fuel, LOP, transmissions, Japanese, and Aliens are fine but as a change I would like to inquire about the research you have been able (or unable) to do since returning from Niku IIII. Is there any news on artifacts? Are they being looked at or simply in storage? I ask because for a few weeks after you came back, the forum was asking questions and making suggestions about alot of "new" things. You were answering questions and alot of "new" info was coming out. Now it seems every thread is a rehash of threads from when I started getting the forum a year ago. BTW, I am a lurker also but do participate when I can and I am looking for clues about the artifacts. I do not have an aviation background so I do have to struggle to understand some of the intense explanations given. But some of the endless debates on fuel and distance are insane. Unless FN had a distiller and was making fuel out of cloud vapor, they did not have the range to get close to howland and then to end up in these far off places. I brought out maps and rulers and followed along on the TIGHAR hypothesis and it makes sense. So my vote goes for Niku if she made land and the post loss messages are real. Or the splash and sink. I have read some of the other stuff out there and I just think the ideas they are following have no evidence only 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand stories to go on. TIGHAR has the best approach I have seen and I like the way things are done in this group. Ric, You are doing a great job and I wish I had your patience. That's it for now. thanks for your time. Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric A great deal of research is going on behind the scenes, as it were. We have a few answers and some interesting possibilites developing. We'll be putting out a summary of the progress so far in the next TIGHAR Tracks which I am writing now in my copious free time and which we hope to mail out to the TIGHAR membership in a week or so. Once it is in the hands of the members we'll mount much of the information on the website, but fair is fair. The people who make the work possible get to hear the results first. If you'd like to be in that category you'll find a printable membership form on the website at https://tighar.org/membernew.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:55:26 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Noonan's navigation That stuff sounds very interesting, is it on you web site somewhere or is there another place to get it? Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric It's not on the website yet but we'll get to it. If you can get your hands on a copy of the May 1938 issue of Popular Aviation you'll see the letter that Fred wrote to P.V.H Weems of the Weems navigation school. ************************************************************************* From Bob Brandenburg Noonan used H.O. 208 for sight reductions. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 20:00:18 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: Evolution of the search Has there been any more analysis of Betty's journal. I was wondering whether two types of analysis would be worthwhile? Each done by a separate work team. One would look at/study the notes that she transcribed relative to one another (e.g., do they reflect a scenario that fits the situation), the second would examine the notes relative to what AE & FN expected/hoped the people back in the world were doing (actions taken on their behalf). I feel that the secret of Niku still kurks in that journal. Also, (don't laugh too hard) but what about having one or two of the better-known psychics take a look at the journal and provide some insights. LTM Ed of PSL, FL *************************************************************************** From Ric We already know that the situation described in Betty's notebook fits the scenario suggested by the clues we've found about what may have happened at Niku. Psychics? If somebody can show me any valid scientific study that establishes that psychic ability exists I'll be happy to read it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:36:05 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Fuel Burn In a big recip engine, one can get the fuel burn down somewhat lower by reducing props down to the absolute gear-grinding cylinder pressure increasing, minimum RPM's, and then lean the mixtures past peak EGT to just above detonation-as you say at the expense of the engines, true enough. Would that presuppose that our duo knew they couldn't make landfall with safe reserves immediately after takeoff? On the immediately after takeoff, I kinda doubt it. I can't see being able to make that judgement call so soon. I would think they would need at least a few if not several hours into the flight to examine their progress before changing the fuel burn, and even then I'd personally be thinking real hard (several times) before doing that in such a critical flight scenario,but then that's just me. You and I both know they were pushing the envelope into the extremely critical risk territory with this leg. But apparently they accepted the risk as such. Sure would have been nice to be fly on the wall of Fred's flight planning room and see how he did the pre-flight planning for this leg. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric Been there, done that. My Dad taught me how to pull the props back to conserve fuel. Works great unless you overdo it and the pistons come through the cowling. It can also cause a bit of tension in the cockpit. It's why John Wayne slapped Bob Stack in The High and The Mighty (sure wish that classic was available on tape). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:37:05 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Evidence III > From Ric > > <> > Remind me never to live next door to a target. Poor choice of words. The 'perfect sphere' used for course and distance computations is more than accurate for all navigational purposes because the error it is small, and each new position 'erases' past inacuracies. The point is that precision beyond the accuracy of the original measurements is gilding the lily. As for targeting data, I suspect small adjustments are made, and the 'map' in the nose is like 'in range df'. RC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:41:05 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence I think you are 100% correct: the Electra didn't make it to Saipan. Crashed/ditched, broken wing, out of gas, etc., and I don't believe ala Devine that she made an inadvertent navigation error. But suppose AE/FN did go into the water and were captured say several hundred miles from Howland. We know by many accounts that the Koshu was searching in the area and according to the New York Times, Japanse officials reported that many of their fishing boats were in the area. The Japs who are well aware of the flight and with their DFs at Jaluit,etc, track her to final spashdown. Pick her up and take her to say Kwajalein, Jaluit, etc., then fly her back in a Japanese seaplane landing at Saipan late July 37. Who did those 5 witnesses see who saw the plane summer of 37 at the Harbor? [ Japanese Capture Theory 101] Now it is driving me crazy why we can't find out who those mystery people were at the Kobayashi Hotel, Garapan or wherever. Josephine saw somebody, but who? It is a collateral issue to the Niku, but I brought it up since many people regard that "eyewitness" evidence as good as the stuff found on Niku. Sometimes one has to prove the "other guy did it" to exonerate your client. The Marshallites vs. Tigharites in the Earhart Superbowl. I won't tell you the Las Vegas odds.... Ron Bright Bremerton WA ************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! Koshu and Japanese fishing boats near Howland? Who says? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:41:50 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 Dennis McGee1s description of how to simulate AE's experience during the World Flight is downright startling. It makes me wonder -- Just what the hell was Amelia Earhart thinking?! David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:52:14 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence For Stuart in Santiago Your analysis of eyewitnesses is right on. They saw something but what was it. Unfortunately in the US, juries love, respect and honor eyewitnesses testimony despite all of the problems you cite. Ask the guys that got convicted about eyewitnesses and later exonerated by DNA. We even allow experts in the Eyewitness Identification difficulties to testify in court, but seldom do they prevail. The Saipan witnesses saw someone, but who. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric It is not the case that there are a whole bunch of Saipan "witnesses" who describe the same event. Quite the contrary. The question is how many European couples (husband/wife, brother/sister, tourists, missionaries, whatever) were taken into custody by the Japanese in the prewar years? Years later, with enough leading questions by "Earhart researchers", they all become Amelia and Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:53:27 EST From: Hal Subject: Earhart Mystery Solved by Flight Sim > Here's the fun part: start the car engines, start the fan, start > the lawn mower and sit in the chair, and fire up your Flt Sim 2002 Ver 1.1 > and sit there for 20 hours without getting up. > Dennis O. McGee #0149EC Well there you go....mystery solved....Earhart died of carbon monoxide poisoning and carpal tunnel syndrome :-) Hal *************************************************************************** From Ric We could prove it if we found the bones. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:58:13 EST From: Stephen Miller Subject: Gallagher's sextant? New to the forum, though life long interest in the Earhart mystery. Been reading through the achives and noticed a interesting item in galegher's effects after his death, under the section titled : 32. Effects left at Gardner Island In custody of Aram Tamea: a sextant was listed. A sextant was a very valuble item in 1937-38 and why would he have one? I also seemed strange that a precision instrument such as sextant was listed as a loose item in the inventory. If this subject has been addressed already please accept my apology. Stephen Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric Having a sextant is not nearly as wierd as having a flying helmet, but Irish had one of them on Niku too. (And before anybody gets excited, he was a licensed pilot and AE almost certainly did not have a helmet with her.) Gallagher was a well-educated man of many interests from a well-to-do family. I don't see anything remarkable about him owning a sextant. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:15:30 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) Navigational convention at sea usually describes the lower number of a line passing through two compass directions, regardless of the direction one is traveling. Check American Practical Navigator, for example. It is not required, but it is the usual convention. I've never thought of the 157/337 description as anything other than a line through those two compass points, let alone a particular direction of travel. Suppose someone was on an island and made a similar dawn observation. Since they are not moving, what description of the LOP would they make? 157/337 in my mind. **************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh, but yours is not the mind of Amelia Earhart (aren't you glad?). However, if AE was referencing a note handed to her by master mariner Noonan, and the nautical conventions are as you describe, then 157/337 makes all the sense in the world. ************************************************************************** From RC OR: AE had a slip of paper in front of her [on her leg?] from Fred with an eta for his advanced lop; or something from Fred relative to the lop. When she made the radio call with the lop she referred to the paper & read off the numbers. The question may be: In what order did Fred note the numbers for her info. RC **************************************************************************** From Ric See Jacobson above. **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt So if we take out the pilots and leave in the Coast Guard, would they interpret the numbers the same way? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Apparently (see Jacobson above), being sailors, they would have seen nothing to interpret. Just the normal way of describing a line. ************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Sounds good to me. There are specific rules in celestial navigation as to how to plot LOPs which I will spare you. That 's how to PLOT them. How you call the LOP is something else. Trying to think back I suppose I would have read the directions left to right but if I was ON the LOP I would have named the direction I was flying first. Exactly your summary point. Alan *************************************************************************** From Ric It's an intersting question of context. If aviator/nonsailor AE came up with that way of describing the line, it may be an indication that she was flying SE at the time. If she was just parroting something Noonan gave her (which, frankly, seems more likely) no suppositions can be drawn about the direction of travel. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:16:27 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Ocean currents Drift speeds were on the order of 1 to 2 knots Westerly to west-northwest (270* to about 285*), not enough to carry them to the Marshalls. The further west they were from Howland, the more difficult it would be to reach the Marshalls. If they were far north of Howland, they would be quite dead by the time they did reach them, due to the longer distance of drift. By the time of the end of the carrier search, I calculated the carrier did cover all expected drifts of a ditching within reasonable distance of Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:21:25 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Key to Earhart Plane Position In an article to the LA Times, 6 July 37, Clarence Williams, AE's navigator, explained where he thought the Electra should be. In sum after assuming his course from Lae to Howland was followed, he believes her base course could have been 8 degrees to the right or 8 degrees to the left of Howland. He called that the "zone of probability" where she might have flown, which meant roughly a 16 degree "maximum divergence" from her base course. He attributed these estimates from expected winds in the area. AE and FN could have flown anywhere in this area and come down somewhere in this cone of "possibilites". But because of currents, the plane would be drifting westward from ten to forty miles per day. He thought up to 100 miles two and one half days after her splashdown. He then identifies the following islands where the plane could be: Hurd Island Byron Island Drummond Is Sydenham Is. I have a National Geo. map of the Phoenix, Gilberts, and Marshalls, but I can not find those islands. Tighar mapers can you so locate them? A photo accompies the article showing Williams charting out her possible position. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric 8 degrees from where? Lae? Lord a'mighty, that's about half of the Pacific. I've never heard of those islands either. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:22:03 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > you start looking. Logical, easily > determined places first. I agree, Cam. I think that is a good theory. I don't profess to know where the plane came down. Wish I knew. I do believe there are some places it couldn't get to -- besides Altoona, PA. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:33:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: DRing from the unknown > Yet, isn't that what Alan said FN _was_ able to do (in Alan's 16 Oct > 2001 posting) & that: 'Even without the second celestial body it would > have been easy to navigate to any of the Phoenix Island Group'. ? > Don, send me a copy of my 16 Oct posting. I have trouble remembering what I said right after hitting "Send Now." Obviously whatever I wrote was not clear at best. To set the record straignt, I can't DR to anyplace from an unknown point. No one can. There has to be a known starting point. Notice I said "DR." Can I NAVIGATE from an unknown point to some other place? Yes, of course, with a caveat. In the case of the Phoenix Island question IF I know I'm north of the Phoenix Islands I can do it. If I don't know that there is no way. I'm only talking about using ONE celestial body and one that gives me a generally north/south line as the sun did for Noonan at 157--337. How? Simply shooting sun lines and moving them east or west as necessary so their LOPs run through whatever island that is chosen. Just like he tried to find Howland in the first place. Let's say he decided to go to Kanton. He would shoot a sun shot and plot the LOP. He now knows his east/west position. He then continues east and shoots another one which gives him ground speed. He then projects his LOP so that it runs through Kanton, computes when he will reach that point and turns down the line. He will not know how far he is from Kanton but if he knew he was north he knows he will soon reach the island. This proceedure works whether he has yet to get to the place where the projected LOP will be plotted or if he has already pssed it. As you can see there are two "IFs. He has to know generally he is north of his desired targets and he has to use a celestial body that will give him generally north/south cuts as the sun did that morning. If they had chosen instead to fly west to the Gilberts a similar proceedure using the planet Saturn or Venus could have worked depending on their visibility and whether Noonan had the astromomical data. Again that would have been a single celestial body process and far more iffy given the probable fuel reserve and the geography of the islands as opposed to the layout of the Phoenix group and their nearness. I've navigated that way numerous times between the States and Europe or Africa. The sun would give me nice speed lines and our radar would tell me where we were north or south and how good the sun lines were. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric But since he DIDN'T know whether or not he was north of Howland it's academic, and if he DID know he was north of Howland he would have to be an idiot not to simply run down the line to Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:35:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gilberts vs LOP > if_ Gardner/Nikumaroro was > also a 'disaster' (as far as terminating the R-T-W flight) & 'to be > _avoided_ unless it was down to a choice of ditching or landing in the > Phoenix Group', & if _perhaps_, 'flying at maximum range would get them > back to the Gilberts', Here's the problem with that logic, Don. They were NOT trying to get to Howland OR Gardner. They were trying to get to OAKLAND. Howland was merely a refueling stop. To max out the engines just to have extra fuel would have run the risk of them ending up stuck on Howland waiting for engine changes. If they thought they needed to treat their engines that way because they weren't going to have enough fuel do you think they would have continued? A short strip was built on Howland for them so a short strip could have been built somewhere else so they didn't have such a long stretch to fly IF it was that critical and they knew it. You're right. I don't know but it seems doubtful to me they would purposefully run the risk of ruining their engines if it wasn't necessary. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:36:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Caldwell's FltSim 2002 Ver. 1.1 > Let me know how it works out; maybe we could do a joint venture. Thanks, Dennis but I've had 7 decades of realism. I pick and choose now. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:37:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence > From Stuart, in Santiago, Chile > > On the subject of witnesses: > > > >From Alan Caldwell > > > > > I would suggest you as an attorney closely review those witnesses > > > and point out why they are either mistaken or lying. > > > > > They don't need to be either wrong or lying. Stuart, that's misleading. I didn't post that. That's a copy of someone else's post I was replying to. You are correct about the reliability of witnesses, however. There are many law cases in which not only witnesses but even rape victims identified the wrong person. The latter shown by subsequent DNA evidence. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:38:49 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Which Direction First? For David Kelly, David, there is a compelling reason they went to the northwest first. They knew the only alternate places to land were in the Phoenix Islands. They had to turn to the northwest first so the condinuation of their southeast leg would take them to the Phoenix Islands if they did miss Howland. It won't work to do it the other way. Additionally, I think they were doing the best they could to use every correction to bring them smack on to Howland. That was the best way to get the directional finding radios to work at optimum. If that is true they would not consider themselves to be either north or south when they reached the advanced LOP. I suspect they passed very close to Howland on either the run to the north or as they flew south but being at 1000 feet above the water so limited their visability that they simply missed seeing the island. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:40:41 EST From: Kurt in Emerald Isle Subject: Navigation at sea or flying It is interesting that we keep coming back to the crux of the problem, which was, when they approached Howland, they took a sun shot and knew that they were on a line that passed approximately through Howland and thru the Gilberts. They had planned for and counted on getting a DF steer once within range of the Itasca. We all know how that went. It is also interesting that some of us were taught, both in navigating aircraft using DR, and in navigating boats using DR, that we could plan a slightly offset course and use time enroute, that would get us to the proper distance out but would insure that we were off to a particular side of the intended landing site, either left or right, depending on winds or currents. We were to do this to intentionally get in the vicinity and then, knowing ahead of time which side to turn to, we would turn the correct way and find our destination within a reasonable time. I wonder why they did not incorporate something like this in their planning? It seems quite obvious that they bet their lives on the DF steer and lost. Kurt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:47:57 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Return to the Gilberts To Don Neumann, Don, you miss the point that returning to the Gilberts prevents them from searching for Howland. If they don't see Howland when they first reach the line of position they have to abandon looking for Howland and immediately do a 180 to have enough gas to get back the Gilberts (Assuming they flew at max range power settings). We agree that it was a disaster to land any where other then Howland. Thus the plan must be to do all that is possible to find Howland with only the need to eventually find an alternate if Howland can't be found as an over riding requirement. Returning to the Gilberts takes them away from the LOP almost immediately but searching on the Line of position will allow the maximum time to search for Howland and still insure an alternate can be reached if Howland can't be found. The choice is obvious to most of us. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric I also take issue with the assumption that landing anywhere other than Howland would be a disaster. AE had a long history of getting lost and landing off-airport only to refuel and continue on her way. I can see her rolling to a stop on the dry reef at Gardener and thinking, "Now if we can just figure out where we are and what's wrong with the damn radio we can get Itasca to bring us enough fuel to let us takeoff and fly to Howland where we can top off and continue the trip." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:37:41 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: You can get there from here - fuel for the Gilberts Out of curiosity, following a recent posting regarding Kelly Johnson's telegrams, I went back to the website and re-read them. The third was a tad confusing to me - 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 Is he now recommending that AE make the entire climb to 8k ft at 2050 rpm regardless of how long it takes? Or does the next paragraph mean the first three hours of the flight? FIRST THREE HOURS AT NINETEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY EIGHT INCHES AND ZERO SEVEN THREE AT SIXTY GALLONS HOUR STOP If so, what does the first paragraph mean? NEXT THREE HOURS AT EIGHTEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN TWO AT FIFTY ONE GALLONS HOUR STOP AFTER SIX HOURS USE DATA GIVEN IN PREVIOUS LETTER OR WIRE STOP I must be missing something in this. By the way, do you perchance have a picture of a Cambridge Anaylyzer? I've looked everywhere, and have so far been unable to locate one. Also, my membership renewal is on the way. ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Jon. Here's how it looks to me. In the first telegram he doesn't address the initial climb and starts off recommending 3 hours at 4,000 feet carrying 1800 RPM and 28 inches of manifold pressure with a Cambridge setting of 073 which is supposed to yield 58 gph. Then, for the next three hours, he wants her to climb to 6,000 and back the props off to 1700 RPM and pull the power back to 26.5 inches with a Cambridge setting of 072 which will yield 49 gph. It's only after six hours into the flight that he has her at 8,000 feet leaving the props at 1700 RPM and pulling the power back further to 25 inches with the same 072 Cambridge setting for an estimated 43 gph. In the third telegram he appears to abandon this recommendation for a "stepped" six hour climb to 8,000 and instead recommend a continuous climb at a honkin' 2,050 RPM and 28.5 inches with a Cambridge setting of 078. He doesn't mention what the fuel consumption will be at these settings but it's probably on the order of 100 gph. The idea, apparently, is to get up to an efficient altitude as quickly as possible. Once there, he then recommends three hours at 1900 RPM and 28 inches with the Cambridge set at 073 for an expected 60 gph. The next three hours are 1800 RPM and 26.5 inches with the Cambridge at 072 for an expected 51 gph. Without a good idea of how long it would take to climb to 4,000 in the first instance and all the way up to 8,000 in the final recommendation, it's hard to say just what the total anticipated fuel burn would be in each case, but it does look like the final recommendations are easier on the engines (less time at high manifold pressures and relatively low RPM). The Lae takeoff was almost certainly followed by a relatively short (10 mnutes?) period of time flying in ground effect with everything to the wall before the airplane was able to climb at all and the power could be reduced. We have a photo of a Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer head that is in the cockpit of the Grumman F-3-F that was rebuilt at the San Diego Aerospace Museum. I think the airplane is now at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola. Information about just how the thing worked has been hard to find. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:40:47 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evolution of the search > Psychics? If somebody can show me any valid scientific study that > establishes that psychic ability exists I'll be happy to read it. Ric, I'll have you know I am a psychic. I can tell ahead of time whether you will post my notes or save me from myself. Is that proof enough? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you are a psychic. The technique is called "cold reading." Old carnival trick. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:44:15 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Don's Reasoning I think there is a point when we simply have to pull the plug on trying to explain the basis for our reasoning. The logic of our arguments isn't getting through the door of a closed mind. No matter how many times and how many different ways we state the reasons for flying along the Line of Position it isn't going to change Don's mind. Dick Pingrey ************************************************************************** From Ric While there is some value to new subscribers in our attempts to explain it (again) to Don, it is also true that no one else - even others in the Chorus of Carpers - has chimed in with "Say, Don has a good point there." I agree that its time to move on. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:52:55 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: No Time For Psychics Sorry Ed, but I think using psychics to do research is a bad idea. No, I'm not a sceptic. I am absolutely convinced that some people have extraordinary abilities. I have known probably a dozen people who were psychic and even lived with one for a while. Using a psychic for information is not a good idea because: 1. First of all psychics are human beings and are subject to all the failings and foilibles that the rest of us are. They have good days and bad days, How would you tell that you got your information on a "good" day ? 2. Confirmation, information gained from psychic sources is almost impossible to confirm. If a psychic told you that AE died at 11:45 am on July 14 from heat and exposure, they could be 100% right. How could you confirm it ? 3.Cost, Tighar expeditions operate under constraints of time and budget. How much of those precious resources would you be willing to spend on something that may yeild absolutely nothing in return ? No, let's confine our search to more conventional methods ! *************************************************************************** From Ric We have a procedure for accepting help from psychics. Step 1: The psychic comes Wilmington. Step 2: We all go over to Delaware Park racetrack (10 minutes away). Step 3: We put a $2 bet on the psychic's pick to win each of the first 8 races. Step 4: If we win in all eight races we put all the winnings on the psychic's pick for the 9th race. Step 5: Repeat as needed until we have the next expedition funded. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:54:13 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Evidence II <> It would add about 3 miles to the Lae- Howland leg and, at most, .6 miles Howland to Niku. Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:57:53 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Itasca's clock Does anybody know why Itasca kept time 11 1/2 hours behind GMT? I thought everyone set their clocks to a whole number of hours. Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric Half-hour time zones were standard Navy procedure for ships at sea. In for civilians at that time Hawaii was 10 1/2 hours. There are still several half-hour time zones (Newfoundland for example). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:00:54 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: SE on the LOP >You were doing pretty good until the last sentence. Would someone >please remove the restraining bolt on Mr. Neumann so that he can get it >through his head that running SE on the LOP does not constitute "seeking >an alternate landfall"?'... >Ric I know I'm awfully 'slow' on the pick-up, (certainly by your own exalted standards) however can you explain more sloooooowly, just how _you_ would describe the _reason_ for flying 300+ miles away from your _original_ landfall target & your only _known_ source of rescue, if _not_ to 'seek an alternate landfall', or are we simply playing a fun game of semantics ? In all good humor, <:-) Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric No Don, in all good humor, I no longer believe I can explan that to you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:04:22 EST From: Phil Tanner in Reading, UK Subject: Kanton New Zealand radio mentioned a possible new role for Kanton a few days ago. The US military has been using Johnston Atoll as a site for chemical arms disposal and the work is now complete or nearly so. The atoll will be turned into a national park and the airfield will no longer be maintained, at least to its current level. This means it will no longer be able to serve as an emergency runway for trans-Pacific twin-engined flights, which are apparently obliged to stay at all times within a certain mileage or flying time of a runway. Kanton was mentioned as a possible alternative, but it would presumably need work done itself by now. LTM, Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric Not much though. The runway was in great shape when we were there in '98 but room service at the hotel was a bit slow. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:06:10 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Daryll's Navigation Question Ok forumites here's what I came up with on the retreat to Mili Atoll question. Daryll asked, "where does a line 101 deg. true from Mili Atoll intersect the 337/157 deg LOP from Howland. Lat/ long of intersecting point and all mileages. Point of intersection occurs at N3' 27" W177' 44" (101 deg. line & 337/157 deg LOP) Mileage from intersection to Mili Atoll: 625 nautical miles/ 544 statute miles, initial true course 284 deg. (great circle) Mileage from Howland to intersection northwest: 172 nautical miles/ 150 statute miles I will break the course line from the intersection to Mili via waypoints you can follow or copy on a chart if you have one available. All waypoints will intersect lines of longitude to make it easy to plot. Waypoint 1: N3' 27" W177' 44" Waypoint 2: N3' 46" W 179' 00" Waypoint 3: N4' 02" W180' 00" (international date line) Waypoint 4: N4' 17" E179' 00" Waypoint 5: N4' 32" E178' 00" Waypoint 6: N4' 47" E177' 00" Waypoint 7: N5' 01" E176' 00" Waypoint 8: N5' 16" E175' 00" Waypoint 9: N5' 31" E174' 00" Waypoint 10: N5' 45" E173' 00" Waypoint 11: N5' 58" E 172' 07" SE corner of Mili Atoll Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric Was there a point to Daryll's question? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:23:05 EST From: Ric Subject: OFF TOPIC research needed We have a request for information about the TBF Avenger from which Lt.(j.g.) George H. W. Bush parachuted on Sept. 2, 1944 near the island of Chichijima-retto (27.06 degrees North/142.12 degrees East) from someone who might be interested in attempting to find and recover the aircraft. We'll probably need to get into the Navy archives for primary source particulars (after action report, etc.) but I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has information on the subject. Thanks, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 07:53:32 EST From: Daryll Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question At one time....Ric has said that of all the post loss messages the "281 message" seemed to be the most credible. No one could figure out what 281 meant, north of Howland 281 miles? What Doug has just done was run the recip of 281° from Mili. I will label this point "AE". This could possibly be the point AE&FN executed plan "B". This point also coincides with Rollin's oft presented "LOP off-set" to the left for a LOP land fall for Howland. It also shows why the Itasca sailed NW for the initial search. The mileage numbers seem to be in fuel range re "Mr. Boswell". Ric,.......I claim the "281 message" for our side ! Daryll **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me get this straight. You're saying that the phrase "281 north Howland call KHAQQ" was transmitted from Mili and somehow means "We flew 281 degrees from a point north of Howland." Brilliant deduction. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:03:42 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Was there a point to Daryll's question Ric asks "was there a point to Daryll's question?" Daryll, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think with this exercise you wanted to find out if it was feasible to divert to Mili from the point of the intersection of 101 deg. true line & 337/157 deg. LOP? It's 625 miles from the point to the SE corner of Mili. Unless she had some hidden fuel aboard or hellacious mystery tailwind I can't buy into it. I also cannot fathom being able to get the fuel burn down to such a value running R-1340's without driving yourself behind the efficiency curve or simply trashing the motors. It's just too far to go, not to mention not having an exact position fix to navigate from to even find Mili. Either way you slice it, it spells doom. Daryll, It was interesting running the scenario. I hope this answers your questions in full. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric See previous posting. You have confirmed Daryll's darkest suspicions. The "281 Message" obviously proves that they implemented a Plan B from "Point AE" on the LOP and flew 281 degrees to Mili. He doesn't mention why in God's name they would do such a thing or how they could have gotten all the way to Mili, but I'm sure he'll think of something. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:07:16 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Ocean currents If Randy Jacobson is correct about the drift, then I can conceive of no possible scenario that the dynamic duo could have reached the Marshalls. With respect to the reading of the LOP numbers, has anyone considered the possibility that Noonan or Earhart may have secretly been a Talmudic scholar, and therefore were accustomed to reading right to left? :-) David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, me. <> ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:10:14 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: You can get there from here - fuel for the Gilberts Thanks for the explanation - it makes sense now. I was looking at the altitude references in the telegram as the "target" altitude for each "leg" of his recommendations, not the "starting" altitude. There was some discussion of the Cambridge Analyzer on the forum (last year?) which I recently went back and read in the highlights. The explanation (as I recollect now may have been from Birch Matthews) described the sensing unit as a "wheatstone bridge". The discussion at the time had to do with AE's communication about having to replace the "cartridge" and it was decided that she was referring to the sensing unit. There was some discussion that at the mixtures being cited by Kelly Johnson, the unit would have been (I think the description was) "operating at the ragged edge of efficiency" (or some such). At any rate, in my ongoing quest to try to put together as accurate a picture as possible of what the front office looked like, could you email me a scan of the photo? If that's not possible, maybe you could mail me a photocopy. Thanks! ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll dig it out as soon as I get minute. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:20:29 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Return to the Gilberts > I can see her > rolling to a stop on the dry reef at Gardener and thinking, "Now if we can > just figure out where we are and what's wrong with the damn radio we can get > Itasca to bring us enough fuel to let us takeoff and fly to Howland where we > can top off and continue the trip.">> I agree. Does give one pause,though, to speculate about what available equipment resources might have been on the airplane that could have been pressed into service to replace the missing belly antenna...once they got out and saw what the problem was... ltm, jon **************************************************************************** From Ric If they have some spare antenna wire, I suppose they could run it from the treminal under the copliot's seat out to the left wing. (They only need to run the starboard engine to recharge the batteries.) Otherwise, the best plan is to just use the loop as the receiver. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:24:15 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Drummond Island is the old name for Tabitueua. ************************************************************************ From Ric Interesting. So Clarence Williams was using a map or maps that, at least in this case, favored the old European names for islands - such as Duke of York rather than Atafu. I wonder if AE and FN were using the same maps. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:28:37 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence <> The Koshu was near Truk Island doing oceanographic surveys on the day Earhart went down. She was instructed to go to the Marshalls on the 4th, arriving (estimated) on the 9th. ************************************************************************** From Ric So - no Koshu anywhere near Howland. Can anyone establish that there were Japanese fishing boats way down there? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:30:10 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Return to the Gilberts > I also take issue with the assumption that landing anywhere other than > Howland would be a disaster. AE had a long history of getting lost and > landing off-airport only to refuel and continue on her way. Thanks for posting that comment, Ric. Most everyone has viewed this flight as simply Lae to Howland even though they know that was only one part of the overall mission. Viewing the flight as going to Howland has clearly affected some folk's reasoning. They were only stopping for fuel and they certainly weren't going to ruin their chances of continuing on to Oakland by wrecking their engines or dumping the Electra into the drink if there was any other way out. The thought that even putting the plane down on a reef was not the end of the mission is a great comment for all to keep in mind. Had the plane landed at Niku AND been found it would have merely been a delay until fuel and necessary repairs got them on their way again. For those who want to nick at the idea and say they couldn't have got back off the ground with a new fuel load are missing the point. A little fuel would get them back up to Howland where a full load could be put on as originally planned. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:34:22 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence > . We know by many accounts that the Koshu was > searching in the area and according to the New York Times, Japanse > officials reported that many of their fishing boats were in the area. I know of no such evidence, Ron but I appreciate your good try at offering an explanation for AE in the Marshalls. This is one of the first rationales I've seen and that is all I've been asking for. Even if someone might poke holes in it the exercise makes you and all of us think and keeps old ideas from stagnating. As you can see each theory requires accepting some evidence and ignoring other evidence. Our job is to try and evaluate each piece of evidence and rank it so to speak. For example hearsay evidence is ranked according to several factors not excluding the character of the speaker. That is and will be a continuing evaluation as new information comes to light. What you see with your own eyes has a fairly high quality to it. What someone tells you they saw has less and what someone told someone who told someone is pretty low on the totem pole. Ric took exception as I did on your statement of ships in the vicinity of Howland but if you can show newspaper accounts or other documentation to that effect then your "evidence" gets a higher ranking. There may even be a way to get the Electra to the Marshalls but no one has come up with it. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric As you have by now seen from Randy's posting, the Koshu was never anywhere near Howland and we've seen no documentation on the "fishing boats" allegation. What evidence (other than anecdotal) do we have to ignore to accept the Niku hypothesis? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:35:56 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question > From Doug Brutlag > > Mileage from intersection to Mili Atoll: 625 nautical miles/ 544 statute > miles, initial true course 284 deg. (great circle) > Mileage from Howland to intersection northwest: 172 nautical miles/ 150 > statute miles. It seems as if the conversion from nautical miles to statute miles has been reversed. Which are the correct numbers? Dale ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:37:06 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Cambridge analyzer > From Ric > ... We have a photo of a Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer head that is in the > cockpit of the Grumman F-3-F that was rebuilt at the San Diego Aerospace > Museum. ... Information about just how the thing worked has > been hard to find. Birch Matthews found some interesting literature: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Highlights101_120/highlights105.html#17 Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:38:11 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence They (Saipan witnesses) saw AE or Irene Bolam, "lookalikes" !!!! This may help but my friend Joe Patton, the ONI guy who went to Saipan in Dec 60, after Goerner et al, found noone that could confirm a crash or AEs presence. In fact he found Jesus Salas ( I think) former inmate at Garapan who said no "white woman" was at the Garapan Jail in 1937on. But maybe Jesus was "covering up", the Capture Theorists would argue. I just talked to Joe, but he doesn't have any of his old notes re his investigation and doesn'nt recall much else other than what is in his ONI report. He was aware of Goerner's interviews and he did interview Mrs. Antonia Blanco, Josephines mama, but the story was much different. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:40:41 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) Speaking as a pilot I would say that the most obvious reason why AE said she was flying the 157-337 line is because she was heading SE, the gyroscopic compass set at 157 and probably or almost certainly compensating for drift. Since this was their LOP, she was flying SE along the 157? radial and to 337? was the reciprocal course. It stands to reason that she would therefore first say 157 rather than 337. I'm pretty sure that if she had been flying NW instead she would have set the gyroscopic compass at 337 and would have transmitted to be flying the 337-157 line. In short the situation at that time was SNAFU. To the non flying crowd this aviation English and is short for "Situation Normal And Fouled Up". Of course we'll be sure about the heading she flew when Tighar finds the Electra... Ric, if and when you do, look at the gyroscopic compass if it is still in one piece. However, these old mechanical things tend to survive crashes. I bet a bottle of champagne it is still showing 157. LTM Herman 2406 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll take that bet. The 157 337 LOP is True, not Magnetic. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:44:28 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics Re. Jim Pierson's point: <<2. Confirmation, information gained from psychic sources is almost impossible to confirm. If a psychic told you that AE died at 11:45 am on July 14 from heat and exposure, they could be 100% right. How could you confirm it?>> Actually, I've long wanted to find a way to subject a psychic's conclusions to archeological verification. It seems like a natural: psychic says "Amelia buried Fred right THERE," we dig, and he's either there or he's not. So if anyone wants to take the Niku grid map to a psychic..... *************************************************************************** From Ric Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away I did that with a "renowned" psychic while searching for l'Oiseau Blanc in the hills of coastal Maine. Probably the second stupidest thing I ever did (right behind my first marriage). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:47:03 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position << In an article to the LA Times, 6 July 37, Clarence Williams, AE's navigator, explained where he thought the Electra should be....> For Ron Bright Maybe I'm being painfully naive, but that LA Times article sounds very intriguing. Can you post a copy of it, or give directions (no LOP, please) as to how to find it? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:48:10 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: DRing from the unknown > But since he DIDN'T know whether or not he was north of Howland it's > academic, and if he DID know he was north of Howland he would have to be an > idiot not to simply run down the line to Howland. Once again I was unclear. Knowing whether he was north or south meant north or south of Kanton or whatever other island he was wanting to go to NOT north or south of Howland. Of course this is academic as I don't think he had intentions of doing anything other than heading down the LOP hoping to find Howland or Baker and as a last resort Gardner. The purpose of my nav posting was simply to show how one could get to Kanton or any place else IF the knew their relative north south position in regard to those islands. I can see now that in my attempt to clear this up I have befuddled all. Anyone versed in celestial navigation has a chance but the rest of should move on. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:26:01 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Island names > Sydenham Sydenham Is is at 0 degrees S 174 degrees E. I didn't look up the others. Nor did I plot out the distance from anywhere. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Bruce Yoho has tracked down Clarence Williams' islands: Hurd Island----is ARORAE Island Byron Island -----is NIKUNAU Drummond Island---- is TABITEUEA Sydenham Island --- is NONOUTI Reference is this URL--- http://www.wysiwyg.co.nz/kiribati/islands.html #GILBERT ISLANDS These are all in the Southern Gilberts and it's odd that he didn't also mention "Francis Island (BERU), "Clerk Island" (ONOTOA), or "Rotcher island" (TAMANA) which are all right there with the others. Williams' consistent Eurocentricity in the use of island names really has me thinking (again) about this Duke of York business and Betty's Notebook. How many time have we questioned the authenticity of the alleged post-loss radio signals by asking why Earhart was not saying, over and over again, the name of the island she was on? "We're on Gardner Island, Gardner, Gardner, Gardner!" and here we have Betty's Notebook with repeated references to "NY, NY, NY, (or something that sounded like New York" and sitting right there we have Duke of York (Atafu) which just happens to be on that same 157 337 LOP. We have also wondered if Betty had written "NY, NY" as shorthand for "New York City" when AE had actually been saying "Norwich City" in an attempt to convey the only unique thing she knew about the island she was on. Not bad as a theory, but the Duke of York theory is a lot cleaner. No need to interpret Betty's notation. Why AE thought they were on Duke of York is a bit of a mystery. Apparently she assumed that they had erred to the SE farther than they did and, just as apparently, Noonan had not been able to fix their position with celestial observations, but then, the Noonan described in Betty's Notebook was in no shape to observe anything. Of course, it could also be that a hoaxer was saying Duke of York and Betty heard it as New York, but it does appear to be an internal consistency in the transcription that Betty was not aware of. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:29:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Sydenham From Howland to Sydenham Is is 650 statue miles give or take 1.85.....to the minus point three to the...........oh never mind. Anyway I don't see that list of possible alternates as a consideration. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:45:38 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) LOP conventions aside, what about the syntax convention of ".. are running north and south". Does that suggest you are first running north, then turning and running south? ************************************************************************** From Ric The jumbled entry in Bellarts' log can be read "we are running on north and south line" or it can be read "we are running on line north and south" but it's clear from the strike-overs that it was inserted several minutes after it was heard by somebody other than the guy who was keeping the log at the time (Bill Galton). Later, when everyone sat down to get their story straight, it was decided that she must have said "we are running north and south" and so it has been represented for 65 years, but the truth is, nobody knows what she said. There was apparently some reference to "running on the line" and some reference to "north and south" or maybe it was "north to south" but it's way too fuzzy to draw any conclusions from syntax. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:47:43 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Clarence Williams thought she was on course to about 900 miles, then detecting winds, she changed either 8 degrees north or 8 degrees south of Howland. He thinks about 150miles north or 150 miles was the "cone of possiblity" for her slashdo Who knows where those Islands are?? *************************************************************************** From Ric See previous postings. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:49:22 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: Re: history Amelia's disappearance has been full of mystery since 1937. The same can be said for Hormel's SPAM which appeared that year. Dale *************************************************************************** From Ric And you think that's a COINCIDENCE? Tell him Daryll. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:51:25 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Ron Bright - All of those "islands", with the exception of Sydenham, are listed in Sailing Directions (enroute) for the Pacific Islands (4th Edition - 1992). Trouble is, they are capes or points. Some folks don't have to high an opinion of Williams anyway. Cam Warren ************************************************************************** From Ric Or of Sailing Directions if that's what they say. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:53:56 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Yet another play Just when I imagined that I had all possible AE scenarios neatly cataloged, up 'pops' another: Amelia Earhart Address:http://www.sdtheatrescene.com/Theatre%20Home%20Pages/6th%20@%20Penn%20 Folder/Amelia%20Earhart/amelia_earhart.htm Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:56:55 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Ocean currents Ric, There was an event during the war that bears on the discussion. An Olympic champion runner (Zamborini ?) from the LA area was a crew member (pilot?) on a B-24 which ditched west and north of Howland. Zamborini and some of the crew survived for quite awhile drifting on a raft and finally got to the Marshall Islands where they were imprisoned and tortured by the Japanese and later were transferred to Japan. Zamborini and some of the others survived the war. Zamborini became a minister after the war and revisited Japan forgiving his torturers, He was the featured Olympic torch bearer at one of the recent summer Olympics. ************************************************************************** From Ric The question, of course, is how far north and west of Howland did they go down? Go far enough north and west of Howland and you can wash ashore in Tokyo Bay. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:58:52 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gilberts vs LOP > I don't know but it seems doubtful to me they would > purposefully run the risk of ruining their engines if it wasn't necessary. > Alan Except that Kelly Johnson specifically says they can run leaner still if they want to if they run into stronger than expected headwinds etc. He's unlikely to have advised that if it could ruin the engines. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:00:41 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: You can get there from here - fuel for the Gilberts I think everyone is still missing something right under their noses as far as the fuel useage goes. In all the posts I've seen there are guesses at how long Earhart would have flown at full power and how much fuel she used to get to altitude. I frequently mention the odd 22 minutes at the start of the Clarence Williams flight plan, before everything reverts to hours (plus 11 then 10 minutes). To me it still smacks of initial climb. 500fpm for 22 minutes would be 11,000 feet. We know the Electra was unlikely to climb out fully loaded at that rate, but if it could drag itself up at around 350fpm it would just about make 8,000 feet in 22 minutes (55 miles). I can see no other obvious reason that that short period would appear right at the beginning. Especially as Clarence Williams had the estimated time planned "to the minute" (17hrs and 01 minute). and no course change until 3.5 hours later. My suggestion is that there was to be 22 minutes to: CLIMB AT TWO THOUSAND FIFTY RPM TWENTY EIGHT AND ONE HALF INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN EIGHT TO EIGHT THOUSAND FEET STOP followed by: FIRST THREE HOURS AT NINETEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY EIGHT INCHES AND ZERO SEVEN THREE AT SIXTY GALLONS HOUR STOP NEXT THREE HOURS AT EIGHTEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE INCHES AT ZERO SEVEN TWO AT FIFTY ONE GALLONS HOUR STOP AFTER SIX HOURS USE DATA GIVEN IN PREVIOUS LETTER OR WIRE STOP I can't see any other logic to the way the plan was mapped and the odd 22 minutes at the beginning as well as an odd amount of time at the end. Th' WOMBAT. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:07:08 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Sydenham is a part of Nonouti 0S 174E approx Byron ditto Nikunau 1S 176E appr Hurd ditto Arorae 2S 176E appr Drummond ditto Tabiteuea 1S 174 E appr These islands are in the general area of closest approach of the Gilberts to Howland. I think it is interesting that Williams uses the old european names for the islands rather than their native equivalents. It rather suggests that at least some maps of the time did not use the polynesian names and perhaps Atafu would have been similarly described by its european name of Duke of York. One of the early post loss messages gives a position of 1.36S 179E. This position is just empty ocean but it is on a line from Howland which runs just south of Arorae, one of the closest islands in the Gilberts to Howland. One can speculate that they might have splashed down at this position en route to Arorae. Taking another tack, one of the few Gilberts with a name that sounds remotely like New York is Puarik. This lies at 1.28S 175.04E, very close to where Williams predicted a possible landfall (also on Tabiteuea) and only a few miles from 1.36S 175E. It is well known that 9 is often confused with 5 in voice transmission and hence 1.36S 179E could refer in fact to 1.36S 175E. If Noonan had erred in estimating latitude by only 8 minutes, this would not be a big error in terms of a cut with sun shots. Of course it is possible there is some small reef, unmarked or unnamed on Noonan's charts, a few miles south of Puarik which is actually at 1.36S. I wonder, do we have an accurate time frame for the report of an aircraft over Tabiteuea? Could it be that the aircraft was actually flying east to west at that time and not, as has generally been assumed, west to east? Although night was mentioned in this context, which would seem to rule out an east to west crossing, has the time of the report actually been verified? Regards Angus ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't have a post-loss message that says anything about 1.36S 179E. What's your source? The Tabiteuea report is just a story that was told to the captain of the yacht Yankee when it visited the island in 1940. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:10:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Confusion It's nearly one am and I just realized I've done it again. Confused everyone. All this time Alan is saying FN couldn't reasonably navigate to the Gilberts. Ric has been saying he couldn't reasonably navigate to other Phoenix islands and I've agreed. THEN Alan says he CAN navigate to the Gilberts or Kanton or other Phoenix Islands. Wow! in the middle of the night it dawned on me I was inadvertantly giving the Gilbert folks hope, albeit false hope. Am I saying I can navigate to those islands but Fred couldn't? Not exactly. First of all let me make it clear. I couldn't get to the Gilberts or islands further away than Niku with what little fuel the Electra had. I would have needed much more as there would have needed to be some manuevering. What I was trying to say was that it is technically possible to navigate most anywhere in that area at that time given the resources at Fred's disposal. OR possibly at Fred's disposal. What he didn't have was fuel. He also may have not had celestial visibility. But most important of all - going to Kanton or the Gilberts was not the plan. The plan was to go to Howland and then on to Hawaii and on to the States. What Ric has been desperately trying to get across (that I've now confused) is that FN HAD to fly SE on the LOP. He had no choice. ONLY on that course was there a chance to find Howland or Baker and Howland was where he was going. No other course went there. He's trying to find Howland and some of you guys want him to head 270. Why? How would he find Howland heading west? No, he had to fly 157. Plus he had a bonus. If he missed Howland next came Baker and if he missed Baker next came Niku. IF he heads in ANY other direction next comes nothing. Most certainly next doesn't come Howland. Some of you are micro viewing this problem. Step back and look at the whole picture. They were flying back to the States. They were going to stop at Howland for gas. They were not going to the Marshalls or the Gilberts. They were on course south of Nauru and across Tabit...whatever in the Gilberts. (it's too late to look up the spelling) Get a map. Plot their course over those points. They are flying at 150 tas. That's mph. Apply the forecast winds. That will give you a heading. Then apply a wind shift. If I remember correctly there was a slight shift at some point from slightly north of east to slightly south of east. In the short distance remaining how far would that put them off course if Noonan is too stupid to catch the change? Not very far. Plot it out. Don't just fuss about it. The bottom line is he may have missed Howland north or south by a small amount. Maybe. Maybe he came pretty close. The important point is not where he was but where he thought he was. And we know that. We know where he thought he was. "We must be on you.." What does that tell you? It tells you he believed four things. 1. He was over or nearly over Howland 2. That means he thought he was about 400 miles from Niku if he needed it. 3. He also would have believed he was 500 miles from the nearest Gilbert island. 4. And he would have believed he was 868 miles from Mili Atoll. Now he searches around where he thinks Howland is for an hour and now it is decision time. He still believes he is close. There is no way he would head north. He might think about west to the Gilberts but his fuel is low. Going west gives him one shot at hitting an island. Going SE gives him another shot at Howland if he is actually a little north of where he thought he was or Baker and Niku as a last resort. Now tell me which of the choices you think is most reasonable? And yes, I know a fourth choice could have been to continue milling around until the gas ran out. Somehow I can't see why anyone would do that. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:11:20 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Devegetate? For Tom, Thank you. It's my belief that you do everything within the confines of local customs and law and be as non- invasive to the local populace as possible. That's why I usually do everything on Taroa alone. I will be taking my son, Joel with me the next time to run the laptop. He's half Hawaiian and 20 so I hope he doesn't fall in love. Ah, the vagaries of youth! Woody ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:12:09 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence For Ron , I can shed some light on Joe's involvement. He was the search Flight Commander in New Guinea when Nelson Rockefeller's son dissappeared in the early 60's. He looked up the surviving takeoff witnesses on a whim and it went on from there. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:14:32 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence Sorry, Alan. I guess I screwed up in cutting and pasting from the original message, and somehow attached your name to the original, instead of the reply. I did not mean to attribute to you something that you didn't say! Sorry about the confusion! Stuart ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:23:14 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics Anything new on the analysis of Betty's Journal? Psychics aside, I think there is info contianed in the notes as well as anlysis of them that will bear fruit. LTM Ed of PSL *************************************************************************** From Ric Betty's Notebook is what it is. We have already determined that, in theory at least, it coud be the real thing and that there is no obvious alternative explantion for it. As we proceed with other research we may come across information that brings us back to the notebook - such as the recent observation that Clarence Williams was apparently using maps that featured the European names of islands, whihc reinforces the possibility that Betty's "NY, NY..." was really "Duke of York, Duke of York...". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:32:09 EST From: DAVE BUSH Subject: Psychics I very much mistrust so-called "psychics". However, I do believe that some people at some times are able to sense things or are shown signs. Shortly after I was married, I had a dream in which my wife and a fraternity brother's wife were in hospital beds in the same room. A second fraternity brother's wife came in with a baby and gave it to the first fraternity brother's wife and said: "Its a boy!" She went out and came right back in with a second baby and gave it to my wife and said: "Its a boy!" There was a small space and she came back with a third baby and handed it to my wife and said: "Its a girl!" That was the exact birth order with the two boys about a month and a half apart and my daughter 3-1/2 years later. While my wife was in labor, the nurses kept telling me that because of the heart rate and other indicators that our first would be a girl, but I was adamant that the dream said a boy and it would be a boy. And a boy it was. At 21 he now stands 6'3" tall. I had the same experience with the second, the nurses saying the indicators said a boy, but again, I knew it would be a girl and of course I was right. The first fraternity brother later divorced with no more children by that marriage and the second fraternity brother and his wife divorced with no children. We have had no more children. I can give you many more precognitive events, but this was the most dramatic and one in which I told a number of people about the dream PRIOR to the actual events and thus have a number of witnesses including my wife and the fraternity brothers and their wives. LTM, Dave *************************************************************************** From Ric If you're like most people you have three or four or more dreams each night - at least a thousand per year. In the 3.5 years between the dream and the events you related to it you probaly had upwards of 4,000 dreams and one of them seemed to sort of come true - and you see that as proof of psychic ability. The illusion of paranormal events is a function of selective recall and a failure to understand how often wierd coincidences just naturally happen. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:37:09 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Let me check my copies of C. Williams' maps. My memory (sometimes bad) doesn't recall the names of the Gilbert Islands on those maps.... *************************************************************************** From Ric The strip map Williams prepared for the Howland/Lae leg (first attempt) doesn't have any of the Gilberts labeled nor does it even have the group labeled. Baker Island, just 40 miles southeast of Howland is not on the map at all, nor are any of the Phoenix Group. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:37:41 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question Woooopsss! Brain gas Dale. Good Catch. 625 nauticals = 719 statute miles 172 nauticals= 198 statute miles Thanks for catching the error. As you can see I usually do not work with statute except when driving my car. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:40:56 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: Island names I think things are getting a bit difficult to grasp. I can understand AE saw the wrecked ship from a distance and misread Norwich City for New York city when she sent her blind transpission. All this still stands to reason. I can understand that she believed mentioning the name of a wrecked ship would ring bells somewhere and make rescue parties head for the place where they were but of which they themselseves had no idea where it was. Now putting them 281 miles NW of Howland, which is in the middle of the ocean, is leading nowhere. Where exactly is TIGHAR standing now ? Herman (#2406) **************************************************************************** From Ric Sorry if I confused you. TIGHAR is standing right where we have always stood - on the sunny shores of Nikumaroro. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:42:40 EST From: Claude Stokes Subject: LOP/FUEL ad nauseum Why cant the actual fact of what happened to Amelia be far more simple than all the chatter?? If you stick with the known instead of the imaginary, it seems like it took AE about an hour to figure the Howland thing wasnt gonna happen. She looks at Fred and says "hey Fred,, were lost, were low on fuel , and the radio dont work". IF you want to go somewhere you must point the nose of the airplane at something. We know for a fact AE wanted to point the nose of the plane at 157 and or 337 or else why would she waste her breath telling everyone (there were no railroad tracks or check points to follow) When it comes to fuel,, Amelia had to know better than anyone on earth how much hours of endurance she could get from 1150 gallons. If your half way smart as a navigator in those waters dont it make sense that you allow your track to slip south of Howland as opposed to North? What the Hell is there to the north??? Then when the clock runs out (FN was a real bonafied clock freak according to the reports) you turn to 337 degrees and search for 30 minutes,,, see nothing,, turn around and go 157 for 1 hour,, see nothing,, look at the maps and see that "Ohh look Amelia,, here are some pieces of dirt south east of Howland and 157 seems to point directly at them" Could it be as simple as that?? The Stoker ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:47:23 EST From: DAVE BUSH Subject: Re: Psychics Yes, you are right about coincidence, however, this one was more than coincidence - at least to me. I told several people the very next day about the dream and the exact birth order was followed. That goes beyond chance or coincidence in my mind. I believe that I have related the story to you before about the car and the dead person. That when I was still several miles from the scene, I began to see the image of a car, its make, model and color and location. When I arrived there I had an overwhelming urge to force the trunk open. But being a pragmatic person and not wanting to go to jail for damaging someones car, I went home and called the police. They found a dead body in the trunk. That goes WAY beyond coincidence and was in REAL time, not dream state. I can't explain it, but it happened. I guess if you haven't experienced these things it is hard to explain. And yes, I have a lot of dreams that don't seem to come true (and some I wouldn't want to come true). But many premonitions seem to be just what they are and I can usually (not always) spot them. They seem different to me than the rest of my dreams. Again, I can't explain it and won't try - because if you haven't experienced it, you just can't understand it. LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:48:53 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Cambridge analyzer Yep, this is the post I was thinking of. Thanks, Marty, for digging it out. Birch seemed to have a lot of information. Do I recall correctly, Ric, that he passed away? ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, Birch died very unexpectedly about a year or so ago. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:55:40 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics Don't beat yourself up. A lot of us made _THAT_ mistake (you figure out which one of the two you cited I'm referring to). Nevertheless, I think the psychic idea is great, and when you get ready to do the proof test, let me know and I'll send you eight crisp new two dollar bills that you can take over to the track -- er test facility - and put down for me! ltm, jon 2266 *************************************************************************** Frrom Tom Byers Didn't Jacquie Cochran the famous aviatrix write that she dreamt that Earhart had landed intact on the open ocean and was awaiting rescue? Of course, the psychologists would attribute this free association to sub-conscious wishful thinking. Tom Byers **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, AE and Jaqueline both believed in psychic ability. There is also some indication that AE was into astrology and may have delayed her departure from Miami for a day or two for the sake of a more auspicious horoscope. Remember, despite her obvious writng ability, AE never completed any course of education beyond high school. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:03:15 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Daryll's Navigation Question 281 NW of Howland ? Where does this land us ? Surely not on Gardner Island ? LTM (who admits she is now completely lost) Herman (#2406) *************************************************************************** From Ric Herman, don't worry about it. Nobody is saying that the airplane ended up 281 NW of Howland. Daryll's reference was to the fragmentary post-loss message received by the Navy which included the phrase "281 north Howland call KHAQQ." We have speculated in the past that the "281 north" might refer to the equator which happens to be exactly 281 nautical miles north of the Seven site on Nikumaroro. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:05:05 EST From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position Ron Bright has indicated that Clarence Williams believed Amelia may have come from one of four islands; Hurd, Byron, Drummond and Sydenham Islands. If forumites would like to know where these islands are located: Hurd Island is located 2 degrees South, 176 East, just east of Onotoa and South of Nikunau. It has an peak height of 3 feet above water. Byron Island is also called Nikunau Island, and is located at 176 degrees East, 1 degree, 18 minutes South. It is near Hurd and also has a height of 3 feet. Drummond Island - As Randy Jacobson earlier indicated, is an old name for Tabituenua, which is located further West of Byron Island, and just South East of Nonouti Atoll. Sydenham Island is along the equator at 174 East, with no elevation. It is may also be called Aranuka, and is the furtherest North part of the Nonouti Atoll. With the approach that Daryll has indicated on his interpretation of the 281 message, the path to Mili would pass just between two reefs about 35 nm before you reach Mili. The name of these two reefs are Langa (also called Keats Bank) and Tokemule. I have collected many maps and reef locations from this area, since I believe she did land on land (or a reef), as the post crash messages support that. Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:51:15 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Psychics Give it up, Dave. Ric and I have had this kind of discussion before, and trying to convince him to consider the possible reality of psychic stuff is about like trying to sell the Nikumaroro hypothesis to -- well, supply your own name. Like one or two others, it's a subject on which he and I have just agreed to disagree. Not that I necessarily "believe" in the alleged phenomena; it's just that the only thing I'm sure of in life is that I don't really know enough to be sure of anything. *************************************************************************** From Ric Like Tom says, we've been around this barn before. I approach it the same way I do the Earhart Alien Abuction hypothesis - I'm will to consider the possibility but it has to meet the same standards as the rest of the stuff I believe. I can't take it on faith. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:56:14 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Herman De Wulf > > Speaking as a pilot I would say that the most obvious reason why AE said she > was flying the 157-337 line is because she was heading SE, the gyroscopic > compass set at 157 and probably or almost certainly compensating for drift. Are we sure that AE had a gyrocompass? I thought that her autopilot system used a non-azimuth-seeking directional gyro, that was manually set to the magnetic compass heading, and had a relatively high drift rate. Bob Brandenburg #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric We pilots are sometimes casual in our terminology. I'm quite sure that her Sperry Gyropilot used a Directional Gyro that was not slaved to the magnetic compass and had to be manually reset periodically. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:08:31 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > There was apparently some reference to "running on the > line" and some reference to "north and south" or maybe it was "north to > south" but it's way too fuzzy to draw any conclusions from syntax. It's worth noting that the radio operators on the Itasca had virtually no experience in logging verbatim voice radio messages. Their experience was in Morse code, which has a well defined and measured pace, and which, even at its maximum transmission rate, is much slower than conversational voice. At best, the operators could be expected to accurately capture isolated words, or even some phrases, but we need to be careful about relying on the the logs as verbatim transcripts of AE's transmissions. Bob Brandenburg #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric Good point Bob. Over the years the Itasca radio log - especially the "enhanced" version in Thompson's "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight" report - has become enshrined as Amelia's last words, with phrases like "we must be on you but cannot see you" and "running north and south" attaining almost liturgical status. And yet, time and time again, we've seen that a critical look casts real doubt upon the accuracy of several of the log entries. For example, she almost certainly did not say anything about "circling" or "overcast", and there's room for debate about whether she ever said she was "100 miles out." The Itasca log is not a court reporter's transcription of testimony but the hasty notations of inexperienced and increasingly rattled radio operators. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:18:46 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Ocean currents Included is an article about the B-24 bombadier Louis Zamperini that I referred to as having gone down west and north of Howland and drifting to the Marshall Islands during WWII. His is a geat story. I do think their drifting for 47 days from near Howland to the Marshalls bears on the discussion. Ron Reuther **************************************************************************** From Ric Ron, I didn't post all of the story because the formatting is so screwed up that it's very difficult to read and there is nothing in it that helps us determine whether he did, in fact, drift from somewhere near Howland to the Marshalls. I've fixed the formatting of the pertinent part of the article: "During the war in the Pacific, Lou was a bombardier on a B-24 Liberator when his plane crashed on a search-and-rescue mission south of Hawaii in 1943, killing 8 of his crewmates. Zamperini and another survivor drifted nearly 2,000 miles in the ocean, living in terror every day and night because of the sharks that constantly surrounded the raft. On the 47th day the two men were picked up by a Japanese patrol boat and imprisoned." If you have the cooridnates where the plane went down and where the patrol boat picked them up it could provide a useful model but otherwise I don't see how it bears on the discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:25:42 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence re: Koshu and Japanese fishing boats An AP release of 6 July,New York, reported that tthe Japanese officials said that the Koshu is searching in the vicinity of the Marshalls, for AE. Koshu logs show she was dispatched about 6 July went south into the American waters for a few days,got worried and ended up at Jaluit 13 July, leaving 19 July for Saipan. An AP release from Tokyo cites Japanese government officials claiming they radioed all its v essels in the south seas near Howland to join in the search. Radio operators were on the alert "attempting to pick up signals". "Scores of Japanese navy boats are converging on the Marshalls and other areas near Howland". I haven't seen any independent confimaton that Japanese boats were in the Howland area as seen by US Navy ships, etc. Who knows if it is a fact. Ron Bright Bremerton *************************************************************************** From Ric The "scores of Japanese navy boats" bit is known to be malarkey. I've seen the deck logs of most of the U.S. Navy ships involved in the search and have seen no reference to any Japanese vessel, naval or otherwise, being sighted by either the ships or the planes. To assume that there were Japanese vessels where they should not have been and which somehow eluded detection by a huge American search semms unwarranted. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:27:28 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence RE: Koshu and Japanese boats I just posted newspaper accounts from the AP in the Honolulu Star Bulletin and the AP office in Tokyo. Japanese government officials must have told the reporters, but who knows how accurate those "offvcial" releases were. No doubt the Japanese were charting AEs course and no doubt that the US asked for search help, and no doubt that the Koshu made a cursory search for a week in the Marshall Is areas. There is no evidence the Koshu got close to Howland. And for the Japanese fishing boats, your guess is as good as mine. For Alan C,.to clarify, I do not support the Mili, Jaluit, Saipan Japanese capture theory, and in fact have written extensively on those witnesses and other circumstances that have convinced me that it is highly unlikely she survived there. Starting with Aikyama. But that is my opinion based on the reports available. Joe Klaas recently has chastized me severely for ignoring his evidence, Akiyama's statements, other researchers, and a host of other Marshallese and Saipanese eyewitness accounts. My research has not included talking with any eyewitnesses and depended upon their stories to others.(never under any kind of oath or formal procedure). I have talked to several former Saipan residents who knew several of the witnesses and I have talked to Joe Patton who interviewed witnesses at Saipan in 1960, who found noone there that could confirm AE's presence. Yet Klaas and many of his friends insist that the Japanese capture theory is not a theory but a fact. Maybe it is, but for me, I ain't convinced. Ron Bright Bremerton ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:29:25 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Key to Earhart Plane Position For Tom King, Send me your fax and I send you the page with Clarences photo. Or if you want a nice fresh copy, call LA archives at 1-800 788 8804 ask for Renee Verrett, ask for that article of 6 July 37 and for $5.00 they will send it to you. They have about 100 articles on AE that I have ordered over time. If they need to use an artchivist going back that far it is $40 an hour. They will send you free a list of all larticles on AE since 1985. Somebody just posted that Drummond Is was the old name for Tabitieau. From his description of the westerly flow, no doubt he is talking of the Gilberts. But as Ric mentione he must be using a map used in her navigation plans that was used by Christopher Columbus. He also suspected she could get to the Solomon Is in a lifeboat. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:42:45 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Island names Now that those islands have been identified it is an intriguing aspect of the various names used as you point out. She must have been using maps that Clarence gave her. He beleived she would reach Hurd first, then Byron, by July 13, either Drummond or Sydenham. Interesting. Ron Bright Bremerton *************************************************************************** From Ric The strip maps that Clarence Williams made for her first World Flight attempt are at Purdue. They're hand-drawn and do not include many island names - none at all for the Gilberts. I don't know whether he also provided her with commercial maps but I can't imagine that Noonan would not have equipped himself with his own maps prior to the second attempt. For the "Duke of York (but it was really Gardner) Hypothesis" to hold up we're going to have to establish that there was a map that AE and Noonan could have reasonably had with them that showed Atafu as Duke of York. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:48:40 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Sydenham For Alan C. I think Clarence was estimating AE would get to the Gilberts drifting on a liferaft or the plane itself, not flying there for plan "B". Thus, I guess, if she went down say hundred miles west of Howland, she would be picked up by the current. And I don't see the Itasca searching there the first week. That is what Clarence thought. He does have a chart in front of him as he is calculating her direction!!! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:28:35 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Standing up for Lambrecht Don N. wrote: >We can only speculate what the difference _might_ have been, had Lt. >Lambrecht decided (intuitively) to land in the lagoon at >Gardner/Nikumaroro, instead of Hull Island. Someone has to stick up for Lambrecht. It is possible to ascertain many good reasons why Lambrecht and/or his Commander choose not to land at Gardner/Niku. You seem to imply here that Lambrecht should have been more intuitive. I get the feeling that you are puzzled as to why a landing party was not put ashore at Niku. In that context you are reading way...way...too much into Lambrecht's "signs of recent habitation" statement. I will not take up any more space here by posting (for the 3rd or 4th time) my long Forum thesis which contains many non-Earhart examples of what Lambrech may have observed. Anyone who is interested in the details (new comers etc.?) can email me off-Forum. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul, MN ****************************************************************************** From Ric Unless Lambrecht had seen someone waving to him from the shore (as he did on Hull, where he did land) it would not have done him any good to land in the lagoon at Gardner. As those who have seen the Aerial Tour video can attest, you can't just taxi your floatplane up to the beach, hop out, and go hollering around in the bushes. The water is too shallow near the shore. You'd just run aground way out in the lagoon and have to listen to your observer in the back seat say "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into." What he told his commanding officer back aboard Colorado about the "signs of recent habitation" we'll never know, but apparently no one considered them worth further investigation. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:02:11 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Island names Just to complicate things, the following comes up in a simple web search for "Duke and York and Island" Duke of York Islands, group of 13 coral islands, 23 sq mi (60 sq km), SW Pacific, in the [http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0807697.html] Bismarck Archipelago, part of Papua New Guinea. There are several coconut plantations. Duke of York Island is the largest of the group, which was formerly called Neu Lauenburg. He was a busy fellow, that Duke. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:13:23 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Ocean currents Ric, I'm gaining on the drift route of Lou Zambrini and his 2 crewmates. Apparently they went down near Palmyra Island and were picked up 47days later near Wotje in the Marshalls. Enroute they would have been north of Howland by perhaps a hundred miles or more. Ron Reuther *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know what map you're using, but if I draw a line from Palmyra (been there, nice place) to Wotje I don't come any closer than 400 nautical miles from Howland. If I move the line of drift down to Howland and speculate that the same winds and currents would apply, a raft would have ended up in Tarawa. Starting from 100 miles north of Howland would still put the raft in the Gilberts. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:17:03 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: A weird coincidence The problem with trying to solve a mystery is that it is relatively easy to find scenarios to fit the few bits of information one has. Some futher food for thought on "New York" is that it could have been a misinterpretation of Due North, (presumably of Howland) We have north mentioned in the 281 message of course. Reference "Marie" we could have either Meelie (it appears in a context where Noonan could have been remonstrating with Amelia or talking to her) or possibly M'ckean. Marie always occurs in the close context of NY. Could AE have been transmitting her interpretation of their position and Noonan disagreeing, believes them much further north, perhaps in the area of M'ckean? However, since M'ckean is further from the LOP than Gardner, its difficult to understand why he should have decided they must be at M'ckean in preference to Gardner. One has to wonder if Gardner was actually marked on their chart, since if your'e flying 157 it would be an obvious possible landfall and yet there's no mention of it in post lost messages. Perhaps a wrecked Noonan, starting to examine the Phoenix area chart out of idle curiosity, (having slept for most of the trip) decides a "hair of the dog" is in order and puts down his hip flask right over Gardner island. Being damp, the paper sticks to it and as he hurriedly returns it to his back pocket on Amelia's sudden approach, he tears off a small patch of paper, removing Gardner from the map forever......................... It was just one of those weird coincidences that naturally happen. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric You're kidding - right? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:37:17 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Mantz and Fuel Consumption A couple of posts ago I asked if Mantz had ever constructed a fuel consumption recommendation after the March 37 crash and in view of his significant role in planning the second attempt those figures may help. His recommendations may have been different from Johnson's and may have been used by Amelia. Ron Reuther pointed out table 6 in FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY...THE AMELIA EARHART ENIGMA,by Capt Safford, and edited and compiled by Cam Warren and Robert Payne. The table shows consumption data from 0-15 hours and up. l am unable to figure out what his table might show for 20.13 mins of flight in terms of gals used. I wonder if you or someone of our inhouse fuel experts could interpret that. The table presupposes that AE had it and secondly if she used it. LTM, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe Cam can tell us where that table came from. He has it labeled "Paul Mantz Data on Fuel Consumption (courtesy of Col. Polhemus)" from which I gather he got it from Bill Polhemus who was the navigator on Ann Pellegrino's 1967 recreation world flight. Does Polhemus say he got it from Mantz? And, if so, when did Mantz make it up? The table itself seems to give two differing sets of recommendations for the first 6 hours but it's very similar to Johnson's recommendations for the Oakland/Honolulu flight ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:40:24 EST From: Ken Feder Subject: Amelia Earhart in Arizona I thought you (and maybe the forum) might be interested in a brief note that appeared in the January 2002 issue of Arizona Highways, a slick little mag extolling the virtues of all things Arizonan. Titled Amelia Earhart Touches Down in McNeal, it provides a short discussion of the time Earhart had some engine trouble in her "French biplane" and landed just behind the post office in McNeal, AZ on September 12, 1928. No real details except for the fact that she paid local mechanics $10 to fix her engine. Ken Feder ************************************************************************** From Ric That French biplane would have been her Avro Avian, an English airplane with (apparently) a French-sounding name. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:42:02 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Confusion Caldwell and others make a good case for what Noonan would do when AE couldn't find Howland. BUT, they are overlooking one factor;. i.e., Fred wasn't flying the airplane. Amelia was (and don't you forget it). Obviously we don't know what went on in the cockpit, and never will. But I continue to believe (maybe I should qualify that by saying "have reason to suspect") that the Star Pilot had strong opinions of her own. If Fred hadn't got them to Howland in X minutes, Earhart would do it HER way, and fly (unwisely, but bravely) by the seat of her pants. That could have taken them anywhere of course, but the only alternate plan she described to ANYONE was to fly back to the Gilberts. If so, it's obvious she didn't have the fuel to make it. And most likely didn't make it anywhere else either, due to fuel exhaustion (most likely) or mechanical failure of one sort or another. And no, save your breath, I can't PROVE it. We'll just have to await a deep-sea recovery of the Electra, which may not be as far off as you think (wish?) Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:50:46 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island names > For the "Duke of York (but it was really Gardner) Hypothesis" to hold up > we're going to have to establish that there was a map that AE and Noonan > could have reasonably had with them that showed Atafu as Duke of York. The albeit slight possibility that Noonan used Clarence's maps would perhaps explain why no mention of Gardner. Was the island marked but unnamed, as with many of the other islands on his maps? Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric For waht it's worth, there's an Al Bresnick photo in the new version of Safford's "Flight Into Yesterday" edited by Cam Warren and Robert Payne that shows AE and Manning standing over a map of the world with Clarence Williams. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:55:01 EST From: Dustymiss Subject: Re: No Time For Psychics Just for the record; Amelia took various courses in chemistry and biology at Columbia University in or around 1920 or 21. She left Columbia to move to California in an attempt to help stabilize her parent's marriage. Jackie and Amelia experimented with what we now call "remote viewing" where they would try to psychicly "see" the location of airplanes that had crashed in and around the San Bernadino and Sierra mountains. According to a curator with whom I spoke at Purdue, Amelia often carried on long conversations about psychic phenomena with the female students in the dorm rooms where she stayed. It was Nilla Putnam (George Putnam's oldest son, David's wife) who had a dream a week and a half after Amelia left Miami that Amelia was pleading to her for help from under water, through a thick pane of glass. Jackie Cochran writes in her book "Stars At Noon" about how she psychically sensed that Amelia went down at sea, near where a Japanese fishing boat might be. She had the feeling that Amelia lived for about three days and then died. Albert Bresnik, the photographer that George Putnam hired to record her around the world flight, tells the story of a man coming to his photography studio to tell him that he was psychic and Amelia was about to die. He then called George and George told Bresnik that Amelia had gone missing. For what it's worth LTM and K - Dusty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:18:12 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Landing Disaster I will stick with my thought that landing any where other then Howland would be a disaster. She did land some where other then Howland and it was a disaster which cost her her life. That would be reason enough to stick with my opinion but lets look a bit further. Howland probably had the only prepared landing strip any where in the area (I don't know that for certain). If she managed to get to Gardner and and it happend to be when it was during low tide she was very lucky. The majority of the time the island probably doesn't have a suitable landing area. If she did land at Gardner at low tide why didn't she taxi up to the beach to keep the high tide and swells from carrying the airplane out into the surf? Very probably because she had some landing gear damage that would prevent her from a subsequent taxi or take off without major repairs to the airplane first being accomplished. Keep in mind she is flying a large twin and not a land any where piper Cub. In short she would have to be a very lucky person to avoid a disaster landing almost any where other then Howland. I don't think other islands within her range offered any better landing options then Gardner. Certainly none along the Line of Position. She didn't land at Howland and she suffered a disaster as a result. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric The operative consideration is what Amelia may have THOUGHT she could get away with - not the realities that she could not have been aware of. If there is any truth at all to her reported comment to Gene Vidal about returning to the Gilberts and landing on a beach it's an indication that she thought that landing on a beach might be possible (even if Noonan disabused her of the notion that returning to the Gilberts was a good idea). Landing on beaches for the heck of it was not uncommon as late as the 1950s (as I remember my Dad doing when I was a kid). No, her Lockheed 10 was not a land-anywhere Piper Cub, but neither was it a tiny-tired, tricycle gear modern twin. Landings on what we now call "unimproved" runways were commonplace back then - much more so than today - and her conventional gear airplane had big balloon tires for just that purpose. Of course, if she reached Gardner one look would tell her that a landing on the narrow, sloped beach was a poor option. The dry reef (if the tide was low) was much more attractive, but taxiing shoreward once a landing was made would have been impossible. The only areas smooth enough to land on are out near the breakers. The two thirds of the reef closest to the beach are deeply pitted and cratered. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:23:52 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: What's next? Ric, What's next in the vast scheme of things? Is another trip to Niku likely? Could you list what physical evidence looks promising to date? Are the artifacts being studied for their origin as we speak? Sounds to me that if nothing conclusive has been found another trip to Niku is in your future. Where will the next search most likely be? Chris #2511(who likes looking towards the future) *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, artifacts are all over the place being studied by various experts as we speak. As I've mentioned, we'll have a progress report in the new TIGHAR Tracks to be mailed soon. Will there be a Niku V? You betcha. We should be ready to announce the projected timing and anticipated objectives within a few weeks. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:31:31 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) A recent post got me to thinking about the radio messages, and the "circling" reference in particular. Seeing Bob's post prompts me to comment. When AE and FN got to where they thought Howland was - and it wasn't - I suspect that they had to take a few minutes to regroup, see what their options were, and finalize their plan. If I were doing it (okay, zero hours pilot in command, but capable of occasional rational thought) I would probably circle for a short time, waiting for Fred to come up with navigational recommendations, etc. So maybe they really were (briefly) circling. ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe, and maybe they did loops to stay in position until they decided what to do next. The point is, the Itasca log entry that purports to document that AE said they were circling turns out to document only that they didn't know what she said and "circling" was a guess to replace "drifting", which is what the operator typed first. And, as we've said before, the word that makes the most sense in context is "listening." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:33:28 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Ocean currents I wonder where their map case wound up..... ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric Noonan had a briefcase but his maps were rolled (we can see them in several photos). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:36:40 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence <> Oh I don't know, the US managed to loose a very large carrier force which re-surfaced within flying range of Hawaii..... ************************************************************************** From Ric If the Navy had been watching the seas around Hawaii as widely as they had searched for Amelia Earhart, things may have turned out differently. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:37:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Island names So, did your average map of the World in 1937 show Gardner, and/or Atafu, and if the latter, under what name? Apocryphal question, but more seriously, is there an archive of Williams' papers somewhere in which one might be able to find maps he might have used in discussing the flight with Earhart, whether he gave her any or not? ************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:44:27 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Island names (Duke of York) Confirming Tom King's info, see Sector 9, The Bismarck Archipelago, in the Fourth Edition of Sailing Directions for the Pacific Islands (1992), Page 289-90. [And that book is DMA Pub. 126, and should be in your library]. No wonder you haven't been able to find Amelia. She landed on the wrong island (although it was "low, densely wooded and partly cultivated") . (That Fred was such a tease!) Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric There's probably a Duke of York in some lake in England too, but the one that might just be where AE thought she was is the one we now call Atafu. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:46:37 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Mantz and Fuel Consumption The "Paul Mantz Data for Fuel Consumption" was included in Safford's papers, and as you've indicated, came from Col. Polhemus. Safford discusses it in Chapter 9 of our book FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY. On page 9, Safford says: "We can now interpret Table 6, correctly. The first 6 1/2 hours of the Oakland-Honolulu flight were spent in climb-out to cruising altitude (30 minutes) at full power with a fuel consumption at the rate of 96 gallons per hour, followed by cruising at a true airspeed of 150 miles per hour, and a total fuel consumption of 315 gallons at this speed. [Etc., Etc] . . . . This would give a total fuel consumption of 715 gallons for the flight, and a reserve of 232 gallons after landing. This is consistent with Paul Mantz' s estimate of 'more than four hours of fuel remaining'" Note that these calculations were based on the OAK-HON flight. But the bottom line, according to Safford, was Earhart's fuel consumption flying to Howland was "7% higher than than these figures". He figured AE "had to make a cruising speed of 150 mph for the first six or seven hours of flight to get beyond the dangerously high mountains of New Britain and Bouganville while it was still daylight." And then she was supposed to throttle back to "an indicated airspeed of 120 mph" but forgot, which seems possible.. Personally, I'm an electronics man (primarily) and leave the mechanical details and fuel consumption figures up to the experts in that area. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric Good idea. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:56:08 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > And, as we've said before, the word that > makes the most sense in context is "listening." A word that make more sense, and which could easily have been misheard as CIRCLING would be SEARCHING. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric She has just been talking about how "(we have) been unable to reach you by radio" and the next thing she says is "We are (fill in the blank) but cannot hear you. Go ahead on 7500 with a long count...." and you think the missing word is SEARCHING? This could be a question on a SAT. What's the missing word kids? Surely we must have an English major out there somewhere. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:36:20 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > This could be a question on a SAT. What's the missing word kids? Surely we > must have an English major out there somewhere. No need to be a wise ass. Searching makes as much sense in the context than circling, and more sense than drifting, which neither sounds like circling nor fits the context at all. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Exactly my point. Neither "drifting" nor "circling" nor "searching" fit the context. The word was "listening." Two syllables (lis'ning); short "i" sound followed by "ing". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:37:49 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Mantz and Fuel Consumption The direct course from Lae to Howland passes over New Britain, but over a 1000 foot saddle between two mountain peaks. A better navigational beacon during daylight (which it was at the time) could not have been planned any better. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:43:11 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Island names (Williams) for Tom King - There's some of the Williams charts at Purdue, and also the copyright material at the Library of Congress. Also, Safford cited the National Archives Map Room, for "charts and maps covering the areas of the Earhart flight". Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric The only Williams charts I saw at Purdue were the strip maps he drew for the first attempt, and they have very few island names at all. There is a National Geo map of the Pacific with some pencil markings (Enderbury in the Phoenx Group is underlined) but it's not clear when and for what purpose it was used. Atafu, on that map, is Atafu. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:45:17 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Preponderence of Evidence I must be confused. What "american waters" were within a days steaming radius of the Marshalls? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:48:14 EST From: Suzanne of Stockton, CA Subject: AE on Front Page of The Everett Daily Herald Of interest: AE on the front page of the The Everett Daily Herald, Everett, Wash July 3, 1937 http://www.heraldnet.com/100/index.cfm?image=3jul1937#historic Click on the picture of the newspaper and you can read the article. It's best to save the picture to your hard disk, then you can zoom in to read. (This can depend on your monitor size and screen resolution, of course!) Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:09:33 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: location of howland Didn't I read once that the position of Howland Island being used by Earhart was incorrect and was several miles away from its actual position? Would this have been enough to make them miss the island? What were the incorrect coordinates that they were using.? Have you posted the applicable pages from the almanac that they were using so we can figure out the time of sunrise? Gary LaPook ************************************************************************** From Ric That's another aspect of the Earhart mystery that is steeped in folklore. The maps drawn for AE by Clarence Williams prior to the first World flight attempt give a postition for Howland that is about 5 miles off and this has been held up by many as the "key to the mystery". It is not known whether the error was caught before the second attempt but it IS known that William Miller, the advisor from the Bureau of Air Commerce who worked closely with Earhart and her team, was well aware of the island's correct coordinates. We have not posted an almanac. To know exactly when sunrise came for the Electra you'd have to know where it was and at what altitude when the sun came up - and of course we can only guess at that. Sunrise on the surface at Howland came at 17:48 Z or 06:18 local. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:22:56 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Landing Disaster > The only areas smooth enough to land on are out > near the breakers. The two thirds of the reef closest to the beach are > deeply pitted and cratered. Would it have been possible to tell that from the air? Is the pitting and cratering that pronounced that flying over it would show it. Now that I think about it, was it that bad back in '37? - Bill *************************************************************************** From Ric The reef surface changes over time - geologic time. Aerial photos taken in 1938 show the same reef features we see today. As anyone who has seen the Aerial Tour video can tell you; even at high tide it's easy to distinguish features on the reef flat from the air. At low tide it's even easier. The pits and craters become tidal pools. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:45:49 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Daily Herald story Any idea when that picture of AE in the Everett Daily Herald was taken? Boy, she looks real stressed out -- tired, gaunt, and listless in spite of the smile. p.s. At first I thought it was Mick Jagger's brother, but nah, Mick doesn't have any brothers. LTM, a former rolled stone Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************************* From Ric Old photo. That's her Vega behind her (you can see the distinctive features of the R985). Probably taken in 1932 or 1935. My guess is that it was taken in Ireland after the 1932 Atlantic crossing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:48:28 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Will close examination of the video in the area where the anecdotal evidence describes the wreckage provise any touchdown indicators? Are there any spots on the video that show two points of different lighting/shading the same distance apart as the wheels of the electra? From an aerial view as in the satellite pix such a difference on the reef may be discernible. Any thoughts? LTM Ed of PSL #2415 *************************************************************************** From Ric No way. There aren't even any visible scars on the reef from the break up of the Norwich City. That reef is real tough. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:31:54 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Pits and Craters I find it hard to believe that it isn't possible to find a path way between the pits and craters on the inner reef flat to taxi the Electra to the beach area. You have been there and I haven't so I will take your word for it. I still feel strongly that to land any where other then Howland unless she was extreemly lucky would have been and, in fact, was a disaster for Earhart. She may not have looked at it that way from her past experiences but that is how it turned out. We agree to disagree on this point. Dick Pingrey in Selah 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric We certainly can agree that it turned out disastrously. As for finding a way to shore, I had a unique opportunity to test that hypothesis on this last trip. We had been working out on the reef edge, taking measurements and photos and so forth. I had walked up from the landing channel along the smooth part of the reef and had scrupulously avoided getting my shorts wet because I had found that wet shorts resulted in some really painful chafing. So when it was time to go from the reef edge back to the beach I was highly motivated to stay out of the water-filled pits and craters. I wandered back and forth for a good half hour trying to find some route that would keep my butt dry. All I needed was a winding path about one foot wide. Couldn't do it. (You'll be relieved to know, I'm sure, that my thighs have since healed.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:54:55 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Is the pitting why you selected that particular spot on the reef to simulate the Electra's landing approach on the Niku video? You came in right over the keel of the Norwich City and I was wondering if that would have been possible in 1937 when the wreck was still upright. Or is this a trick of the lens? Granted I was watching this on a 13" tv but it still seemed awfully low. And by the way, while you people have been nattering on about circling vs. searching vs. listening, I've managed to achieve something Amelia Earhart never did: I've just hit my fortieth birthday (head on, apparently). Aaaaack! LTM, who's also in full denial Amanda TIGHAR #2418, patron **************************************************************************** From Ric Congratulations - but I think there's a real good chance that AE made her fortieth birthday (July 24, 1937) although it wasn't much of a party. We selected the simulated landing spot we did based upon all the evidence (cl ues) that suggest that the landing happened right out there and because that is where the reef surface is smooth enough to permit a landing (as you will see in the Niku IIII video which will show the on-the-ground survey that was done at low tide). Yes, we probably came in too low over the shipwreck but there is more than enough "runway" there to make a higher approach - and there's probably a better chance that the actual approach was made from the other direction, towards the ship. The approach we made was expedient because of where the helicopter happened to be. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:56:20 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Back to the Gilberts Cam Warren says << but the only alternate plan she described to ANYONE was to fly back to the Gilberts. >> But if Mantz was accurate when he told Carrington that they planned the Phoenix Islands as an alternate, she could have just as likely headed off to the SE looking for land that was within her fuel reserve while Fred was telling her to press on to Kamchatka. Just because she was pig headed doesn't mean she was incapable of making a smart decision. Works both ways, the only difference is that there are some clues that she might have chosen the Phoenix solution. Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:57:14 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: AE on Front Page of The Everett Daily Herald Attention: Suzanne of Stockton Interesting front page. I saved the file to hard disk, trying "CFM" and also the "JPG" extension, but can't read it with Quick View Plus, which reads just about anything. Do you have some wizard software?? Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:00:18 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Ocean currents Sorry for not including the original reference - I was speaking of the mapcase from the ditched Liberator that has been the topic of some discussion recently, and the B-24 map case that was found on Niku. Again, apologies for the confusion. ltm jon *************************************************************************** From Ric Artifact 2-1 is not a mapcase, it's a bookcase, intended for the storage of publications a navigator needs. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:01:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: location of howland Ric, the more I've thought about the Howland misplotted issue the less I think it is important. Noonan had no exact navigational way of getting the Electra to either the correct coordinates or the incorrect ones. He had the ability to navigate to within maybe five or ten miles and then they needed a DF or just to look around for the island. Had the sky been clear instead of scattered CU that should have been sufficient but such was not the case. When they got to where Noonan thought the island should be he would have had no idea which set of coordinates he was closest to. They had the exact same problem in either case. I think it's a non issue. If you think about it and FN had a GPS AND the wrong coordinates he could not have been more lost. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:02:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Mantz and Fuel Consumption > flight to get beyond the dangerously high mountains of New Britain and > Bouganville while it was still daylight From her first known position reports it appears to me her first leg was angled just for that purpose -- missing the 8,000+ volcano to the north of her course. I don't see that airspeed was a factor. There was also a little neck of land that they apparently over flew which gave FN a good solid position before it got dark. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:03:55 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Island Names Tom King wrote: >So, did your average map of the World in 1937 show Gardner, and/or Atafu, and >if the latter, under what name? >Apocryphal question, but more seriously, is there an archive of Williams' >papers somewhere in which one might be able to find maps he might have used >in discussing the flight with Earhart, whether he gave her any or not? >************************************************************************** >From Ric: Good question. I agree that it is a good question. The discussion regarding various maps/charts using different geographical place names for the same islands in the Pacific is interesting. It is certainly worth pursuing which charts may or may not have been available to Earhart/Noonan in 1937. In particular it would be insightful, as has been pointed out, to know which charts her various advisors were using (e.g. Clarence etc.). Ric and I have been down this road before. We could not make sense of some of the clues in New Foundland regarding airplane parts found in the Avalon wilderness (possible White Bird artifacts). Geographic place names (names of lakes) and compass bearings, mentioned in an old letter, did not make sense when trying to piece together the puzzle using contemporay maps of the Avalon area. It began to fit together, however, when a map that pre-dated the letter in question, was uncovered that used different place names than the modern map. Clues that we currently have from alleged post-loss messages, radio logs etc...might begin to fit togeher given the applicable reference chart. I thought Randy Jacobson had some sort of an inventory of at least some of the charts available pre-1937? That might be a start. LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul MN ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:12:03 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Ric > > Exactly my point. Neither "drifting" nor "circling" nor "searching" fit > the context. The word was "listening." Two syllables (lis'ning); short > "i" sound followed by "ing". I think perhaps life would be easier if you reminded some of us of the "context", which as I understand it in this case was: We are but cannot hear you. We are circling but cannot hear you. We are drifting but cannot hear you. We are listening but cannot hear you. We are searching but cannot hear you. I suppose "listening" goes best with "cannot hear you", especially as we are pretty sure that Earhart was listening and events have shown that she appeared not to be able to hear Itasca. That isn't to say listening is the correct word, but it does seem to be the more logical in terms of phraseology. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, the context is Amelia is desperately trying to receive voice radio transmissions from Itasca. That is what she is talking about. Yes, "listening" is joined with "cannot hear you" by the conjunction "but." It's the ONLY way the sentence makes any sense. *************************************************************************** From Brandon I took the SAT's in March and June 2001, I never saw a quesion like that! -Brandon, KB3GPA **************************************************************************** From Ric The SATs aint what they used to be (and don't add an apostrophe to make the plural). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:24:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Pits and Craters >(You'll be relieved to know, I'm sure, that my thighs have since healed.) Many years of walking about on tropical reefs taught me that naked is good! However, where modesty is a virtue, try a lap lap (sarong, wrap etc.) as uniform on Niku V. Depending how you wear it you can cover as much or as little as you like, if you get the right type of cloth (ask your Nia'a friends) you can rinse them out in seawater. I'm not pulling your leg, Ric, it could be well worth looking into (the wrap part, not the naked part). European style clothes are not necessarily the best rig in the tropics. Th' (naked) WOMBAT.... *************************************************************************** From Ric My problem wasn't the shorts. I found that if my thighs got wet in seawater, when my legs dried it left a residue that chafed where my thighs rub against each other when i walk. Sweaty thighs don't chafe. It's the salt from the seawater that is the culprit. I found that the solution was to either not get wet (almost impossible) or rinse off well with fresh water (which you'd usually rather conserve for drinking). The issue of what the well dressed islander will wear is very much an individual thing. Everyone's costume evolves as they figure out what works for them. The result is a rather motley looking lot but they get the job done. So far we haven't had any nudists in the mix, which is probably a good thing given the ubiquitous video cameras. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:31:37 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Island clothing Just thought after my last posting re clothing in the tropics. No clothing was reported found with the castaway. Any time I was spending more than a day on an uninhabited tropical island, the first thing to go was the normal clothes. During the hot part of the day I usually kept out of the sun as much as possible. In the early morning to about 10am and after around 4pm I got around nude. I'm not a nudist by lifestyle. Many of our tropical islands have no fresh water. You use what you can carry. Clothes in the temperatures we had to work in (a bit over 100deg F mostly) tended to get very wet fast. Human sweat rots cotton and makes many other materials chafe. Washing them in salt water makes them as hard in places as the sweat does. Underclothing is the first to go, then trousers (or short pants). Shirts tend to be kept handy for shelter from the sun in the hot part of the day, but left mostly undone. I bet the castaway had the same problem. His/her clothing was probably bundled up with things like watches and pens and stuff at wherever her/his base camp was. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I've wondered about that too. Whoever the castaway was, there probably wasn't much clothing there to begin with and if they died wearing anything the decomposition process might make the items very attractive to the crabs. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:40:18 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: New Mileage to Mili Atoll We know what time AE left Lae. We know what time she called and said she should be see her destination. By working backwards, we should be able to come up with a reasonable assumption on how she managed her fuel i.e. the amount of power she would have used to travel a known distance in a known time. Of course this presupposes that she did travel the distance and was just off course due to drift. Regards David *************************************************************************** From Ric Seems pretty simple doesn't it? But if you need for the airplane to get to someplace it can't get to after it arrives near Howland you have to invent tailwinds that weren't there. On the other hand, if you need for the airplane to run out fuel about four hours before it should, you have to invent a whopping headwind and say that AE suicidally abandoned her fuel management plan. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:44:48 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Ocean currents > Artifact 2-1 is not a mapcase, it's a bookcase, intended for the storage of > publications a navigator needs. (cringing) Memory - the second thing to go --- I forget what's first. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:46:09 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Island Names The basic problem with contemporary maps is that we do not know which maps AE and FN had with them at the time of the flight. We do know of a number of map companies that they bought maps from, but they include British and American sources, primarily. Most were charts developed for ships, but there were some aeronautical maps. Most ocean charts are very poor for details about islands, as to cover a large area, small islands tend to become "points" on the map. The American maps of the Phoenix Islands date from 1848 surveys, and there was only a large-scale map of the central Pacific at the time, along with high resolution maps of each of the islands. It would be very difficult from the large-scale maps to determine which islands were inhabited, were capable of being landed on, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:08:27 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Longer Range Flight Plan When Ric asked me to prepare a flight plan from Lae to Howland with 1150 gallons and more fuel efficiency than Kelly Johnson's plan from California to Hawaii, I started to say "I've already done that in my posting. All we need do is factor in the extra 50 gallons, which will add perhaps 100 miles in range, while reducing the average speed." But I decided that that would not convince anyone who hadn't already figured it out. And in any case, it's the details that count. So I looked at the papers again, and, as usual, I've learned some things: (a) there is an obvious typo in one of KJ's telegrams; (b) a comparison of the recommended settings with the "Power Control Chart" ("Curve No. 2868" on page 11 of Report 465) with the measured fuel consumption figures in KJ's tests shows fuel consumption substantially less than we would have expected at the settings given; and (c) the South Atlantic "cross-check" of speed v. weight in my recent posting is in closer accord than I believed (the error being caused by shifting assumptions about gross weight). None of these things is a big deal, but I intend to mention them (and a few others) in the appropriate places. Because of the (real or imagined) tendentiousness of many postings, I want to say this: I am not a member of the Mili school, the Marshall school (or for that matter) the Phoenix school. I merely believe that the airplane could have been flown to the Howland area with fuel remaining to reach any of those other areas - whether it was flown in that manner or did reach one of those areas is another question. I write this simply because it bothers me to see something dismissed by assertions that "X" was "impossible" when I don't believe that it was. Any plan for flying an airplane is a compromise, and we can't decide which plan is "better" until we decide what we are trying to achieve. Take the Cessna 210M as an example. Flight planning on 480 pounds net fuel (leaving another 54 pounds for start, taxi, extra fuel in climb, etc.) the plane will fly for 5 hours at 170 knots, 6 hours at 160 knots, and 8 hours at 130 knots (these are "no sweat" figures, and can be easily and consistently achieved). If we want to fly 650 nautical miles non-stop, no wind, which plan is "better"? At 130 knots, the flight takes 5 hours and we arrive with a 3 hour reserve; at 160 knots, time en route is 4 hours 4 minutes and we have 1 hour 56 minutes reserve; at 170 knots, flight time is 3 hours 50 minutes and reserve is 1 hour 10 minutes. Any of the plans will get us there, but they leave us different reserves to deal with contingencies. (I overstate the differences by not calculating the reserve time at 130 knots for all plans.) Obviously the "best" plan (in terms of fuel cost) is 130 knots. The best in terms of time is 170 knots - flying at 130 knots costs us an hour or more of the time that we use an airplane to save. But the reserve at 170 knots (though legal) is perhaps less than some of us like to have. All things considered, 160 knots gives us good time (only 14 minutes more than 170) with much improved reserves - perhaps it is the "best" choice. Suppose another goal is landing with 2 hours fuel in reserve. The 160 knot setting won't quite give us that, unless we plan to reduce power to 130 knots at some stage. Simple arithmetic shows that 2 hours at 130 knots requires (2 x 60 pph =) 120 pounds. This means we can burn (480 - 120 =) 360 pounds in flight at 160 knots (at 80 pph) (equal to 4 1/2 hours) and still have 2 hours in reserve at 60 pph and 130 knots. If we make the reduction at 4 hours, the remaining 160 pounds will keep us aloft for another 2 hours 40 minutes. But we must have the discipline and presence of mind to go to the lower setting at the appropriate time, rather than letting the reserve be burned away at the higher setting. The flight of the Electra from Lae to Howland is the flight of the 210 writ large - with the added complexity of operation far above the normal gross weight of the plane. That overgross operation has two major implications: (1) early in the flight, speeds will be greatly reduced below those normally achieved at specific power settings, and (2) because a great weight of fuel will be consumed, the performance of the plane will change dramatically during the flight. Let's look at the flight plan first, and then discuss some of the conclusions. We assume that the plane departs Lae at a gross weight of 15,100 pounds (see discussion below) carrying 1150 gallons. This is the fuel management plan I propose: Hour 1 - Takeoff, departure, climb to 7,000 feet; speed 0-120 mph; STILL AIR distance covered in hour say 100 miles; fuel consumption say 110 gallons (95-100 gallons in flight + 10-15 gallons burned on ground before start of flying hour 1); weight at end of hour is 14,440 (speed factor .62). Hour 2 - Cruise 7,000 (drift climb to 8,000) at maximum cruise (72 gph); speed (200 normal) 124-130; distance covered (average speed) 127; weight 14,000 (speed factor .6495). Hour 3 - Cruise 8,000 at 60 gph; speed (196 normal) 127-132; distance (& av.speed) 130; weight 13,640 (s.f. .6754). Hour 4 - Cruise at 60 gph; speed 132-138; distance (av.speed) 135; weight 13,280 (.7030). Hour 5 - Cruise 8,000 at 51 gph; speed (190 normal) 134-138; distance (av.speed) 136; weight 12,974 (.7280). Hour 6 - Cruise at 51 gph; speed 138-143; distance (av. speed) 141; weight 12,668 (.7528). Hour 7 - Cruise at 51 gph; speed 143-149; distance (av.speed) 146; weight 12,363 (.7828). Hour 8 - Cruise at 43 gph; speed (180 normal) 141-145; distance (av. speed) 143; weight 12,104 (.8079). Hour 9 - Cruise at 43 gph; speed 145-150; distance (av.speed) 148; weight 11,846 (.8346). Hour 10 - Cruise 43 gph (drift climb to 10,000); speed 150-155; distance (av.speed)152; weight 11,588 (.8625). (In 10 hours, 1358 statute miles covered in still air - say 1350 at an average speed of 135 mph - on 584 gallons of fuel. Remaining fuel = 566 gallons.) Hour 11 - Cruise 1600 rpm/23 [sic] inches 0.72 Cambridge at 10,000 feet and 36 [sic] gph; speed (normal 170) 147-151; distance (av.speed) 149; weight 11,372 (.8872). (Note setting is 23 inches rather than 24 called for in KJ telegram. This is a 250 hp setting.) Hour 12 - Cruise 36 gph; speed 151-155; distance (av.speed) 153; weight 11,156 (.9131). Hour 13 - Cruise 36 gph; speed 155-160; distance (av.speed) 158; weight 10,940 (.9403). Hour 14 - Cruise 36 gph; speed 160-165; distance (av.speed) 163; weight 10,724 (.9688). Hour 15 - Cruise 36 gph; speed 165-170; distance (av.speed) 168; weight 10,508 (1.0000). (In hours 11 through 15, 791 miles covered in still air - say 790 at an average speed of 158 mph on 180 gallons of fuel. Total distance 2140 in 15 hours at an average speed of 142.66. Remaining fuel = 386 gallons. Speed continues to increase somewhat with decreasing weight, but no addition to range is made for that in following figures.) Hour 16 - Cruise at 1600 rpm/21.5 inches 0.72 Cambridge at 10,000 feet and 30 gph (200 hp per engine); speed 160 mph + ; distance 160 miles; weight 10,358. Hour 17 - ditto; weight 10,208. Hour 18 - ditto; weight 10,158. Hour 19 - ditto; weight 10,008. (Cruise descent - 20 minutes - to 1000 feet near end of hour.) (Remaining fuel 266 gallons. Still air distance in 19 hours is 2780 miles at average speed of 146 + mph.) Hour 20 - cruise at 1,000 feet at 1600 rpm/25 inches and 32 gph (200 hp per engine rich); speed and distance 150 mph; weight 9,848. Hour 21 - ditto until 20+40; initiate climb at 130 IAS 500 fpm and 60 gph to 10,000; average speed and distance 145 mph; weight 9,600. Total still air distance covered in 21 hours 3075 miles. Average TRUE airspeed 146.4 mph. Fuel remaining 198 gallons. Hour 22 - cruise at 10,000 feet 1600 rpm/20.5 inches and 26 gph; speed 155 plus; weight 9,444 (KJ's tests achieved 161 TAS at 10,000 at temperatures about 12 degrees above standard, at 1620 rpm and 20.6 inches, for a horsepower of 175 per engine. This is the lowest horsepower setting shown in the tests in Report 465.) Hours 23 to 28 - ditto - hours 22 to 28 total SEVEN hours at 155 plus = approximately 1085 miles still air. Fuel remaining 16 gallons. Weight 8508. Still air distance flown in 28 hours, including descent, low level flight and climb back to 10,000 = about 4,160. ALTERNATE PLAN: If we do not wish to go below the 200 hp per engine setting, after climb back to 10,000 fly again at 30 gph for SIX hours (22-27). Speed 160+; distance covered 960. Total distance in still air 4035 in 27 hours. Fuel remaining 18 gallons. Weight 8520. (Neither of these plans relies on the agressive leaning at lower power settings approved by KJ.) ACTUAL AIRCRAFT WEIGHT. In a recent posting, I estimated the takeoff weight of the plane at Lae at "15,000 pounds". I selected that weight for the wrong reasons - ie, because of off-the-forum discussions sometime back in which a consensus seemed to be reached around 15,000 pounds - because 15,000 is a nice round number - and because of a feeling that it was close enough for the kind of work we are doing now. In fact, my true takeoff estimate from Lae is 14,800 with 1100 gallons and after the removal of say 100 pounds of excess gear. In working backwards to estimate takeoff weight for the South Atlantic flight, my offhand use of 15,000 distorted the calculation of takeoff weight at Natal, which would be say 1100 pounds less than Lae (1200 pounds less fuel; 100 pounds more gear), or 13,700 net with 900 gallons. After burning 2000 pounds of fuel, weight 5 1/2 hours into the South Atlantic flight would have been 11,700. Using our procedure for calculating the effect on airspeed of weight (varying with the square root of the cube) we find that the true airspeed should be 85 % of the 10,500 pound true airspeed. Eighty-five per cent of 182 = 154.7 versus the reported 155. Close enough! STALL SPEED AND ITS EFFECT ON THE PLAN. The stall speed of the plane varies with the square root of the difference in weight. This means that at 14,400 pounds, stall speed will be 1.1711 times the 10,500 pound stall speed. (14,400/10,500 = 1.3714 and the square root of 1.3714 = 1.1711.) At 10,500 pounds, wheels and flaps up, power off, out of ground effect, the 10E stalls at 80.7 mph. Multiply that number by 1.1711 to calculate that the stall at 14,400 pounds is 94.5 mph INDICATED. Remember that stall speed is an INDICATED air speed, which remains constant with altitude. Since TRUE airspeed increases over Indicated AS by 2% per thousand feet, at 7000 feet the stall will occur at (1.14 x 94.5) 107.7 mph TRUE. At 60 gph and 7000 feet, the normal cruise speed at 10,500 pounds would be about 194 mph. Applying the speed factor (.62) for 14,400 pounds gives a true airspeed of only 120.3 mph - only 12.6 mph above stall speed. A bit too close for comfort! (Note-we could convert both stall and cruise to Indicated AS and work the problem, but we'd end up in the same place.) Since the normal maximum cruise at 7000 feet is about 200 mph, going to that setting gives us 124 mph, and a little more breathing room. MARGINAL EFFECT OF ADDED FUEL. Perhaps the easiest way to discuss the marginal effect of adding fuel is to consider a few of the changes that would result in the flight plan with a 900 gallon fuel load. Takeoff weight would be 1,500 pounds less, or 13,600. Reducing the estimate of fuel consumption to 100 gallons for ground and Hour 1 makes weight at the beginning of Hour 2 13,000 pounds rather than 14,440. Assume the climb is direct to 8,000 feet. Stall at 13,000 pounds is (1.1127 x 80.7) 89.8 IAS, which equals 104.2 mph true. (89.8 x 1.16 = 104.168.) The 60 gph setting is quite sufficient to give adequate flying speed, because the normal gross weight cruise of 196 at 8,000 gives 142 mph plus when multiplied by the 13,000 pound speed factor of .7259. There is a 38 mph spread between stall and cruise - much more comfortable - and the True airspeed at the beginning of Hour 2 is 18 mph higher than it would be with an 1150 gallon fuel load. Consider the end of Hour 10 with a 900 gallon load. Instead of the 11,588 weight shown on the 1150 gallon plan, the weight would be only 10,160 pounds (11,588 - 1500 + 72[weight of unburned extra 12 gallons in Hour 2]) - below normal gross. Speed would be in excess of the 180 mph normal cruise expected at the 43 gph power setting, rather than the 152 called for in the 1150 gallon plan - a gain of 28 mph. Without doing the math for the entire 10 hours, let's jump to the conclusion that in hours 2 through 10 there would be an average airspeed increase of say 25 mph, for an additional distance of say 225 miles. Adding 225 to the 1350 miles flown in the first 10 hours of the 1150 gallon plan gives 1575 miles in 10 hours at an average speed of 157.5 mph. What happens in hours 11 through 19 ? Since we are not considering any speed increases below normal gross weight, we assume simply that the plane achieves its normal gross weight cruise speed at the given power settings and altitudes. This means 170 mph in hours 11 through 15 (at 36 gph), for a total of 850 miles, and 160 mph in hours 16 through 19, for a total of 640 miles. The plane thus covers (1575 + 850 + 640) 3065 still air miles in 19 hours, at an average true airspeed of about 161.3 mph. There are 16 gallons of fuel remaining. Does this mean that range with 900 gallons is 1,000 miles less than it is with 1150 gallons? Not at all. The reason is that instead of flying at the same cruise settings as shown in the 1150 gallon plan, the plane carrying 900 gallons could fly at the lower settings earlier in the flight. (For example, we could go to 36 gph in Hour 8 with the same performance we obtained in Hour 11 of the 1150 gallon flight plan.) PENALTY FOR CARRYING EXTRA WEIGHT (FUEL) PERSISTS THROUGHOUT FLIGHT. This is just something to remember. If we add say 50 gallons extra fuel, we add 300 pounds extra weight. This 300 pound weight penalty reduces airspeed at any given power setting. The penalty doesn't disappear when the 50 gallons is burned, because the plane is still 300 pounds heavier in Hour 2 than it would have been than if the extra 50 gallons were not carried. The plane will continue to be 300 pounds heavier in each hour of the flight, and the 300 pound performance penalty will be extracted in each such hour. This penalty is about 4 mph at the beginning of Hour 2 and about 7 mph at the end of hour 15. (Since we have avoided making speed adjustments for weight below normal gross, it would be unfair - or at least unsystematic - for us to make them now, but in fact the speed penalty would continue until the very end of the flight, to some degree.) Let's say with some certainty that carrying 1150 gallons rather than 1100 will cost us something more than 100 miles of still air distance UP TO THE POINT AT WHICH 1100 GALLONS IS BURNED. At that point, of course, we have 50 gallons to recoup some of the loss. Fifty gallons gives us 1 + 20 at 38 gph (175 + mph; distance 240 miles) and 1 + 40 at 30 gph (160 + mph; distance 270 miles), so the net gain (after subtracting the 100 mile loss) is say 140 to 170 miles range for the extra fuel, IF WE DISREGARD THE STALL SPEED ISSUES MENTIONED ABOVE. If the extra 300 pounds forces us to a 72 gph setting in Hour 2, it costs us 12 gallons of the extra 50, which reduces our extra time at the end of the flight by 20 or 25 minutes (and perhaps 50 to 60 miles) giving us only 90 to 110 miles net extra range. (You can quibble and say that the burning of 12 extra gallons in Hour 2 removes 72 pounds of the weight penalty for the remainder of the flight, and thus reduces the speed penalty by a mile or so per hour. And you'd be correct. Anyone who wishes to do the numbers is welcome to the task.) IS OUR METHOD OF CALCULATING THE EFFECT OF WEIGHT ON SPEED CORRECT? I am not certain, but I am pretty sure that if it is incorrect, it errs on the conservative side - that is, it predicts speeds lower than actually obtained (and thus less range). Let's consider 3 theoretical methods of calculating the effect on speed. (A) SQUARE FOOT OF THE CUBE OF THE WEIGHT: The method we have used is based upon the square root of the cube of the weight ratio (the fraction 10500/actual weight), which produces a "speed factor" of (for example) .6495 at 14,000 pounds. As suggested in my recent posting, this method seems to conform well to the distances that were covered to "the Fix" and the "ship in sight." As pointed out in the "Actual Aircraft Weight" section of this posting, this method also corresponds well with the "South Alantic cross-check." (B) SQUARE ROOT OF THE WEIGHT: If instead of using the square root of the CUBE of the weight ratio, we simply use the square root of the weight ratio, we obtain a speed factor at 14,000 pounds of .866 (the square root of .75). But this approach produces implausibly high speeds early in the flight, as one can see by returning to the table. At the beginning of Hour 3, weight is 14,000 pounds, and the speed factor would be .866. Multiplying the normal 8000 foot 60 gph cruise of 196 by .866 gives nearly 170 mph (169.7). Similarly, at the beginning of Hour 10, using the "square root of the weight ratio" gives a speed factor of .9415 (based upon a weight of 11,846 pounds) and again predicts a speed of over 169 mph. Speeds in the 170 mph range early in the flight seem pretty difficult to square with the apparent distances flown during that time (best summarized by Roy Blay in LOCKHEED HORIZONS May 1988 issue). (C) DIRECT VARIATION WITH WEIGHT: Because this approach is so straightforward, most people should be able to do the calculations, given the information in our cruise chart. To illustrate this approach at 14,000 pounds: the speed factor will be 10500/14000, which equals 3/4, which equals .75. Speed at 14,000 pounds would be (.75 x196 =) 149 mph. Running all the numbers predicts that the plane would cover 1490 miles STILL AIR in the first 10 hours (average speed 149) and 810 miles in the next 5 hours (average speed 162) for an overall distance of 2300 miles in 15 hours (153.33 mph). Still air distance would be 4,320 over the 27 hour flight. There are two problems with these otherwise plausible numbers: (1) they don't seem to fit the distances the plane apparently achieved early in the flight (unless you assume an average headwind of over 30 mph) and they don't match the South Atlantic flight "cross-check." On the South Atlantic flight, with weight reduced to 11,700, the "direct approach" produces a speed factor of .8974. Multiplying that by the normal true airspeed for the altitude and power setting gives 163 mph +. Too much to be a good fit with AE's report of 155. All things considered, I will stick with the the square root of the CUBE of the weight ratio, until something better comes along. (Suggestions are welcome.) CENTER OF GRAVITY. We should give some thought for a moment to the fact that CENTER OF GRAVITY also affects speed. This is important because CG is, of course, shifting constantly with fuel burn. The farther aft it is (all else being equal) the slower the plane should be in overgross conditions. (Ann Pellegrino, WORLD FLIGHT page 80, reports that at heavy loads, her 10A would show a loss of 10 mph in airspeed when a crewmember moved aft of a certain point in the cabin.) This is one reason why any calculation of speed changes based upon weight can never be more than a good approximation - such an approach in effect assumes that CG remains constant with the weight change. (And this brings us in a roundabout way to a related topic. Last year I posted information on the cruise speeds of the 10A and 10E and remarked upon the peculiarity of the indication that at the same gross weight and the same horsepower, the 10A was faster than the 10E at high power settings, but slower than the 10E at low power settings, despite the 10E's greater drag. I admit that I don't know why, and that I lack any expertise in the area, but I am willing now to speculate for a moment that the variation may have something to do with the 10E's CG being farther forward [because of the larger engines] than that of the 10A at identical weights, thus reducing the "wetted area" of the fuselage at low power settings. Comments are welcome on this topic too.) POWER SETTINGS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION. I compared the power settings given in KJ's telegrams with the POWER CONTROL CHART (Curve No.2868)("PCC") given on page 11 of Lockheed Report 465. The first thing noted is that the MP and RPM settings given for 60 - 51 - 43 gph correspond very closely with the PCC settings for 400 - 350 - 300 hp. But the fuel consumption figures are below what we would have expected at those horsepower settings. At a "specific fuel consumption" ("sfc") of 0.48, we would have expected 64 - 56 - 48 gph, respectively. At an sfc of 0.46 (which means .46 pounds per horsepower per hour), we would have expected 61.33 - 53.66 - 46 gph. The KJ settings are given for Cambridge settings of 0.72 and above, which is normal maximum leaning in the P&W engines of the period. (The export POH on the Lockheed 10A indicates that the best fuel economy to be expected is normally 0.46 to 0.48.[it says .209 to .218 kg/hr] at cruising speeds using 230 to 300 hp. Pages 21 and 24. This manual shows the minimum Cambridge setting to be .72, with the smaller 450 hp engine.) The "38 gph" setting is interesting for an additional reason: the MP and RPM settings KJ gives for 38 gph do not correspond with the 250 hp setting on the PCC as we might have expected from the progression 400 - 350 -300. They are not far off, but the difference is apparent. Using the PCC, the RPM and MPP settings given for 38 gph indicate a power output of about 270-275 hp per engine. If the engines really were producing 270 hp at 38 gph, this is an sfc of 0.4222 - not impossible, but certainly very good for the period. Laying aside the question of sfc's, why was this particular setting selected rather than 23 inches and 1600 rpm, which falls much closer to the 250 hp line. Let me suggest that it was for the sake of simplicity. An RPM setting of 1600 is the lowest shown on the chart, the maximum MP that the 10E could be expected to pull in normal conditions at 10,000 feet and 1600 rpm is slightly less than 24 inches. (Thus the instruction to fly at 24 inches "or full throttle" - which means "pull whatever manifold pressure you can at 10,000, you won't be significantly off this setting or fuel consumption.") In making the 200 hp calculations for the flight plan, I used an sfc of .45 at 10,000 feet and a richer .48 at 1000 feet, again erring on the conservative side, rather than assuming a .42 or .43 sfc. A TYPO IN THE TELEGRAMS. KJ's first telegram of May 11, 1937 ("I am advising Marshall ...") contains a typo in line 4. It says that at 5000 feet 1900 rpm 29 inches gives 51.5 gallons. This should probably be 61.5, since the Power Control Chart shows this as a 400 + hp setting. This is good economy in that power range at slightly over 0.46 sfc. See also the next sentence of the telegram giving 52.4 gph for 1800 RPM 28 inches, which makes the typo pretty clear. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO THE KJ SETTINGS? If we're going to make the commparison, we need to compare apples to apples. That means that we should assume that 1150 gallons were carried in both flights; that 16 or 18 gallons remained as a bare reserve; that allowance is made for extra fuel consumption at 1000 feet and the climb back to 10,000; and that the fuel consumption in hours 1 and 2 was 10-20 gph higher to compensate for the extra fuel weight (as I assumed in my flight plan). Let's summarize what would happen under the KJ settings. Performance is identical in the first 10 hours. In hours 11 through 15, an additional 10 gallons total fuel is burned by flying at 38 gph rather than 36 gph, and the speed is perhaps 6 to 7 mph higher; this gives a total still air distance in 15 hours of about 2175, with 386 gallons remaining. In hours 16 through 19, flying at 38 rather than 30 results in 10 to 12 mph higher speed and an additional 32 gallons of fuel consumption. (Still air distance in 19 hours 2860; fuel remaining 224 gallons.) In hours 20 and 21, with enriched mixture, fuel consumption is about 40 gph plus additional 7 gallons burned in 20 minute climb at 60 gph, total 87 gallons burned, fuel remaining 137 gallons, distance flown about 310 miles, for a total still air distance of 3170 in 21 hours. Allowing say 17 gallons for our bare reserve, we have 120 gallons left to burn at 175 mph + at 10,000 feet and 38 gph, which works out to 3 hours 10 minutes. Total endurance 24 hours 10 minutes (NB - with 1150 gallons); still air distance 555 miles, for a grand total of 3725 verus 4035 to 4160 under the "longer range plan." But perhaps this is somewhat more than you wished to hear about the subject! Oscar ************************************************************************** From Ric No, no... I appreciate the detail. I'm just going to need a little time to digest it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:29:13 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: re Daryll's Nav Problem Last Saturday when Doug sent the nav problem results to me, I had a "Eureka" moment. Since then, I have had an internal dialog that is quite confusing. Is a solution to this mystery possible? Is a solution _wanted_? We profess a desire to find the truth in the AE mystery, but do we really? I have a conscious and I don't want to have someone's beliefs hang on my initiative. We know that Fred Goerner did an about face in his later life concerning Mili Atoll. I wonder if he had a similar dilemma ?.......enough philosophy. I want to be perfectly clear at the start, I favor the Mili Atoll scenario. For the past 35 years researchers have been trying to fill in the missing links between Lae & Mili. This is not to suggest that it hasn't been done before _by someone else_. I will agree to go into the TIGHAR "meat grinder" to see if sausage or dog food comes out. I do this for Amelia's and Fred's sake, not to attack someone's belief. I don't know how many Forum postings this will take. I will focus only on the time between the Gilberts and Mili Atoll. I will address some things that have been discarded before. Let it be clear that, I'm only after the truth and not out to convince anyone of my perspective. Most of us will be able to follow along with a diagram of Howland and Mili, in the proper relationship of course. I think Doug B. or someone with the proper navigational tools will only be able to give exactness to the nav problem. I think Mr. Boswell has demonstrated a good understanding of "below gross weight flight" regarding 10E performance. _If_....we start out on this we need a starting point. FIRST, look at the Dakar LOP approach after crossing the Atlantic. I don't think GPP wanted to go into the LOP technic in "Last Flight". Dakar is the precedence for the Howland nav plot. At Dakar, I see a 100 mile off-set to the left on the Dakar LOP. We all know AE turned left on the LOP and landed at St. Louis but Noonan had plotted the 100 mile off-set. 100 miles was also the last reporting point for AE when she turned inbound to Howland. Why 100 (nm) miles ? Celestial navigation has an accuracy of what ? 10-15 miles. 100 miles works out pretty well, math wise (BC). I might even have seen the 100 figure in one of Weem's articles. This off-set is one of the items that has been discarded before by the Forum. SECOND. We should study the sequence of events in "LOG JAM". I want to confirm the "decision point" (Itasca clock & Electra clock) between "Fuel" & "Reserve Fuel for plan "B" that I deduced. This is a check for myself so I won't say what I found. I also want to know the remaining flight time available using KJ numbers at that point. That's enough for now to consider. Daryll *************************************************************************** From Ric What makes you think there was a 100 mile offset to the left (north) on the South Atlantic crossing? The chart that was used on that flight, complete with course lines and notations, is in the Purdue collection. I don't care what it says in Last Flight. It never happened. This forum has discussed that entire incident in detail and the reality was very different from the tale AE told to the newspapers and was later published in the book. Daryll, as I've said before, I'm happy to post new information but I'm not going to post a long string of speculations based on folklore. So far you have not shown that you have a basic grasp of the facts of the case. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:32:55 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > The SATs aint what they used to be (and don't add an apostrophe to make > the plural). If you left the apostrophe out of ain't on purpose, then I commend you wholeheartedly. But if you got carried away by the thrill of catching apostrophe abuse, you deserve to die all alone and get eaten by junior hermit crabs. :o) Marty Self-Appointed Grammar Cop :o( *************************************************************************** From Ric I have to get my thrills where I can. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:34:36 EST From: Marjorie Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Ric > > The SATs aint what they used to be (and don't add an apostrophe to make the > plural). But my dictionary (American Heritage) requires an apostrophe in ain't. ************************************************************************* From Ric Over to you Marty. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:34:07 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: The Naked Truth I can understand the need to be comfortable as is possible in a tropical island scenario near the equator but really don't think full frontal nudity (borrowed from Monty Python genre) is the way to go--how about sunburns? The angle of the sun hitting your bod would be blitzkrieg-style devastating. Unless you've got different skin than I've got Wombat, your buns (and everything else) would be Kentucky-fried. I've allowed my 12 & 8 year old sons to see the Niku IV video. I hate to see Niku V have to marketed with a warning label. Doug Brutlag #2335 (who always wears his sun-block on his fair skin) ************************************************************************** From Ric It's no accident that Australia is the skin cancer capital of the world. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:37:31 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Japanese ship activity July 37 For those that suspect or claim that in July 37 there were many Japanese fishing boats, military support ships, aircraft carriers in and around the vicinity of Howland, The Gilberts, Ellice and Marshalls, J.A. Donahue writes that in the 250,000 square mile search by the US Navy only one "non-descript merchant tramp freighter" was seen. Donahue says it was so inconsequential it wasn't even identified by the Lexington force.[ Could that have been the Koshu south of the Marshalls?] Donahue doesnt cite a source, but I haven't seen any other specific Japanese boats identified in the research literature during the Navy search. It seems as if the Itasca, Lexington, Colorado, Swan, et al came across a Japanese boat they would have identified it. Were any Japanese ships sighted and identified by the ships or the Lexington aircraft? What does it mean. If Donahue is right, the chances AE was picked up by a slow, Japanese fishing boat within a couple of hundred miles of Howland seems unlikely. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric As conspiracy theorists go, Jim Donohue makes Daryll look like a Little Leaguer. If he couldn't find a nefarious "Jap" lurking around Howland, no one can. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:39:51 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > From Marjorie > >> From Ric >> >> The SATs aint what they used to be (and don't add an apostrophe to make >> the plural). > > But my dictionary (American Heritage) requires an apostrophe in ain't. > ************************************************************************* > From Ric > > Over to you Marty. I sent Ric a note about how much I admired him taking the apostrophe out of "SATs" and contemned him for dropping it from "ain't". I had hoped he would read it, get a laugh, maybe, and toss it in the bit bucket. My apologies to the Forum for contributing to thread drift. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Back to the original point: as a former English major and self-appointed grammar nag, I endorse Ric's argument that "listening" fits the context better than any other suggested corrections for the transmission. For me, the part of the transmission that is not in doubt is one of the most poignant parts of the story: "but can't hear you." What a world of difference it would have made if AE and FN could have had some problem-solving dialogue with the Itasca. I've just finished reading three books about manned space flight. Gene Kranz quotes a saying that appears to have circulated among pilots since World War II: Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect. Poor old Amelia and Fred: "but cannot hear you" was their death-sentence. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:40:38 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Andrew McKenna posts that Mantz was quoted by Carrington that the Phoenix was an alternative landing area. Could that have been when she was flying to the West from Honolulu to Howland on the first attempt. Vidal was citing AE's plan "b",the Gilberts, flying east. Andrew where is the cite in Carrington's book, I can't seem to find it. Ron Bright Bremerton ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:46:36 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Island Names I beleive that Clarence Williams charts and papers are now at the Radcliff College, Cambridge , Mass. It is always easier if someone can approach the archivist in person. Do any Tigharites live in or near Boston? I think it is apparent that Williams was using some older charts in view of the names he employed. (What was Gardner known as before Gardner?) Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric New York New York Island (just kidding). It was Kemins Island, but the U.S. Navy confirmed the Gardner name in 1840 and all of the 19th century maps we've seen show both names. By the turn of the 20th century it seems to have been firmly Gardner. Anybody want to dig around at Radcliffe? Could be interesting. As I recall they also have a large collection Amelia's letters. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:48:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Island clothing No need to assume nudist castaways. Clothing tends to disappear pretty quickly in a tropical island environment, at least when associated with dead bodies. Kar Burns and I examined the site where a guy had committed suicide in Fiji some 4 months before; the police had only just found his bones. They'd found very tattered portions of a backpack, but that was about it, though the guy had been clothed when he left the hotel where he was staying. A couple of years ago the police and the HPO's archeologists on Saipan examined a site where the victims of a double murder had been deposited, 3-4 months before; all that remained, oddly enough, were the remains of one of the victims' pantihose, UNDER the bones. **************************************************************************** From Ric And before somebody suggests it, no, I am NOT going to try pantihose to reduce chafing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:50:46 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Flight Plan Errata Let me be the first (I hope) to call to your attention the errors in gross weight shown in the Longer Range Flight Plan for hours 16 and following. The weights should (I think) be Hour 16 (10,328), 17 (10,148), 18 (9968), 19 (9788), 20 (9596), 21 (9388), 22(9232), and 28 (8296). In the Alternate Plan, the end weight should be 8308. Never do your flight plans late at night! Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Don't worry Oscar. Nobody beat you to the corrections. We're all still in information overload. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:00:31 EST From: Tod Swindell Subject: Is a solution wanted? > Is a solution to this mystery possible? Is a solution > _wanted_? > > We profess a desire to find the truth in the AE mystery, but do we > really? I have a conscious and I don't want to have someone's beliefs > hang on my initiative. > > We know that Fred Goerner did an about face in his later life concerning > Mili Atoll. I wonder if he had a similar dilemma ?.......enough > philosophy. What you ask is right on. A few years ago both Linda Finch and author, Susan Butler, said something along similar lines, Butler about the mystery "Let her rest in peace, it isn't important anymore," and Finch "Who cares about what we never knew? Earhart's been gone for sixty years, that's all that matters now." They between the lines acknowledged the true value of the mystery, but likened to its on-going investigation as un-important, if not absurd. The point that is being missed by nearly all, as pertains to the "mystery," is the diffussion of Earhart's reputation the mystery clearly spawned. Because it has long been characterized by "official silence," people have on their own invented all kinds of reasons that caused such silence to exist. "She was a spy on a secret mission" is the most common among them. Yet, if you think about that, who in their right minds, officially linked to the Executive Branch and/or Military Intelligence, where such a plan would have come from, would ever be willing to affirm such a notion as Earhart having been a spy? Nobody. Of that we can be certain. Earhart's last flight circumstances surely entailed more than we'll ever know, but the silence that spawned the diffussion of labeling her as a "spy," or "a double agent" or "a traitor" is where the government truly does remain at fault. For Earhart's legacy did not deserve having her life's reputation lined with such here-say and innuendo. Such is akin to tabloid press practices only. People who discovered some interesting information over the years painted that picture without realizing the damage they were causing to Earhart's legacy, to the only factually regarded person she ever was... a civilian. Those advanced "spy-like" scenarios diminished the quality of how her true heroic legacy should really be regarded today. Ric Gillespie obviously realized this many years ago. The beauty of TIGHAR in the media's eyes, and therefor the public's eyes, is that its whole foundation is one based on a latent invented scenario where an evolved-to-ignorance about Earhart American public, found its interest renewed by his whole new late 1980's suggested idea, one that was characterized by a romantic castaways story and complete political correctness. If the elements that characterized his Niku theory were not so outlandishly far fetched, less of the most astute researchers would refer to him as the idiot he made made himself out to be. He surely realized he would be shielded by the impenetrability of the mystery when he invented his all but baseless "Gilligan's Island" scenario, in fact, I'm certain he knew the government would only silently support such an idea as it clearly detracts from the true value of the controversy that joined Earhart and our government at the hip. And it worked, and he has earned fame and fortune in the process of advancing his "baseless" theory that tricked un Earhart educated folks into supporting him with money and accolades. The reason the Executive Branch needs to be a participant in straightening the Earhart mess out for us all, has to do with re-writing a correct epilogue history for Earhart so the "spying" and other defaming conjectures can be eliminated from her legacy for our posterity. Only official historical sanctum controls such an ability as that. Otherwise, Earhart's entire person will forever remain in the category of one as having been "suspect." As a whole, fortunately, the American public and media is too intelligent to allow consideration for Gillespie in that "correction" direction. Moreover, people should pay attention to Earhart's certified, bonafide contributions to man and woman-kind. Nobody originally gestated the placing of women on a level playing surface with men more than she did. And she was a remarkably profound poet and writer, and an all too obvoius world humanitarian who wrote and spoke about equal rights for all races and cultures, let alone her own gender. Just read how she denounced her own county's treatment of African Americans in "Last Flight," ten years before Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color line. Here was a woman, so so far ahead of her time, as evidenced by the abilities she knew she controlled and was courageousely willing to demonstrate on the grandest of scales against opposing forces, both physically and philosophically, and both spiritually and emotionally, and yes, I do blame our government's Executive Branch's of the last two decades for not standing up for her, when it easily controlled and still controls the ability to correct her historic legacy for our posterity, by expalining to the public in its own terms, what has for decades been clearly unexplainable by the public it its own terms. Also, as long as TIGHAR exists, it too can be blamed as the chief entity that obfuscated the true value of Earhart's history to the media, and therefor to the public, as for about a dozen years now it has stifled the more Earhart knowledgeable and concerned individuals' abilities to bring the true value of Earhart's legacy into focus... with the help of our own government. I argue, if TIGHAR never existed, such help gained might have already been realized by now. Tod Swindell *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know who you are Mr. Swindell, but I thank you for sharing with us your unique perspective on the case. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:12:07 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Mystery Flight? For years I have looked at that very famous photo of Amelia and Fred standing by the tail of NR 16020, AE on the left, looking intently at a large world map. AE is in her checkered shirt and Fred in his usual dark long sleeved dress shirt. ( see back of Donahue's book, Klaas's book, photo section, for example) Now look at the chart. There is a route plotted from Miami, to Chicago, to Oakland, to Hawaii, and to the southwest. Or in reverse. When did AE fly that route? *************************************************************************** From Ric You're right. I never noticed that. Odd. Could that have been the 1935 Honolulu/Oakland flight? Where did she go after Oakland? Was there a PR tour? The photo is obviously just a staged photo-op but I wonder when it was taken. My guess would be prior to the first attempt. There was no publicity for the second attempt until they got to Miami and AE's long-sleeved shirt doesn't look like Miami in late May (Fred always dressed exactly like he is seen in the photo). The map is just a prop and it could be one that AE had kicking around in Burbank. You don't actually use a map like that except for general planning or demonstration purposes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:13:36 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts > But if Mantz was accurate when he told Carrington that they planned the > Phoenix Islands as an alternate, > Well, A) I couldn't find any such remark quoted in Carrington's "What Really Happened at Howland" ("Unabridged Report II). And B) I don't find Mr. C. to be a very credible reporter in the first place. Nor does Ric, if I recall correctly. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric As usual, I agree with Cam. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:15:42 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: [earhart] re Daryll's Nav Problem The old rule about offset was that the less sure you are of your possition the greater the offset. When crossing the Atlantic, Noonan had only the sun for celestial support. Therefore he was not to sure of his positon. Conseqently he used 100 mile offset. That equates to about 36 minutes of time. I would have done the same. **************************************************************************** From Ric Pssst, guys, there was no offset on the South Atlantic crossing. Go look at the map. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:17:19 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Re: [earhart] re Daryll's Nav Problem Daryll, I think you can be sure that all the AES members would klike to see a solution to the AE story. (Not so withTIGHAR) When AE couldn't find Howland, they headed for the Marshalls, not necessarily for Mili. They weren't sure of their position when they departed the Howland area so it would have been very difficult to be precise about where they were headed in the Marshalls, But the Marshalls haveover 1100 islets and 13 or so atolls spread over a large ocean area. I think thatthey felt confident that they would see one of these pieces of land if they could stay in the air that long. In short, Mili was not the target, it just happened to be the area where they landed The Goerner about face is still a mystery to me. He seemd to havemounds of supporting evidence concerning the Marshalls , but for reasons apparently known only to him he "disabused" his belief in the Marshalls. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:24:46 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? Re: Tod Swindell Could this be one and the same? From "The Crew of Trigon" Tod Swindell Producer Past President of Desperado Films, Inc. (w/ Universal Television) was Co-Creator and Head Researcher for the CBS pilot Miracles and Other Wonders, 1992. With D.W. Maze, Swindell Produced Ariadne Kimberly' The Woman in the Moon in 1995 starring Maria de Medeiros and Portia De Rossi. He also founded The Tod Evan Company in 1996, an acquisitions company specializing in historical hi-concept. Dale ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:35:29 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island names (Duke of York) Presumably you're well aware that there is a New York island in Kiribati? The trouble is it is way over at 160W, 1176 miles away from Howland. I suppose the more optimistic assessments of fuel consumption might get them there but we have the problem that it was inhabited in 1937 with 80 Gilbertese and 2 supervisors. Seems a very long shot but that name is soooo good a match with the notebook. The bearing, at 76.6degrees from Howland is entirely consistent with an extension of the track from Tabiteuea (where they were supposedly heard) to Howland. However, this would have added more than seven hours over and above the flight to Howland and would have left little time to search for it or for Howland considering the maximum flying time available.Could they somehow have flown further than they realised and got to a point where the Line islands were closer than the Phoenix group? Seems highly unlikely. This would need a reversed equatorial jet stream and no-one doing any serious navigating. Another possiblity is that AE thought they were at NY although in fact they were somewhere else (eg Gardner). Clarence's individual maps with few island names got me thinking. What if the Phoenix map had been unlabelled as such (because Clarence knew very well which map was which), and Amelia, (Noonan being out of commission after the landing) was actually looking at the Line island map. Could she have thought Gardner was New York island? One of those weird coincidences (which happen naturally) is that Gardner is at 4 40S. New York island is at 4 40N. Could Amelia have put two and two together and got 5? Again - rather unlikely. Longitude is the one parameter that she should have had some good idea of, unlike latitude, and the longitude of Gardner and New York island are very different. However, I thought I'd throw this lot into the pot to keep it boiling and provoke a few comments. Although the Duke of York hypothesis has some good points, one of the things I don't like about it is there are too many syllables to equate directly to New York. Under conditions of poor reception, Due North, for example, would be more easily mistaken for New York than Duke of York would have been, even though in the latter situation we have one word identical. The difference in distance from Howland of Gardner and Atafu is 264 miles. If they believed themselves on Atafu and were in fact on Gardner, they had made an error of 264miles. The only way that such an error could have realistically been made is that they joined the LOP around 264 miles north of Howland. Although Noonan could have made an error of maybe 150 miles (according to Clarence), 264 miles is really rather unlikely. If they were actually at Atafu of course, there was no error in estimating their position. However, it would be strange for them to fly as far as 614miles before sighting land and nonetheless be able to find Atafu. Moreover it was inhabited, so they probably didn't land there. Maybe we need to look elsewhere for NY. The 1.36S 179E position you queried, appears in Friedells report. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric What is attractive about Atafu/Duke of York is that it is on the LOP. It is, of course, not at all reasonable to think that the flight actually got there, but the same document that raises the question (Betty's Notebook) also presents a Fred Noonan who is in no shape to help AE figure out where she is. It's not hard to construct a scenario where there is a 157 337 line drawn on a chart that goes far beyond the plane's actual range and passes to, or even points to Atafu. It's likewise not hard to imagine that Fred had not kept AE breifed on where he thought they were in the noisy cockpit, and if injured in the landing, was unable to bring her up to speed. But it's all speculation. <> Okay. I see it. That's gotta be a reference to McMenamy and Pearson. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:24:25 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Do I understand correctly that Cam Warren has furnished you with a table that is supposed to show Mantz' cruise control advice? I would be very happy to obtain a copy and to defray any costs involved. Ditto for the Carrington document. Thanks. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric It's a table but it's not at all clear exactly what it represents. It's in a published work so I'll suggest that you communicate directly with Cam about getting a copy. I'll send you Cam's email address privately. I don't have the Carrington document he refers to. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:29:32 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: Back to the Gilberts Rollin wrote : << Daryll,, The old rule about offset was that the less sure you are of your possition the greater the offset. When crossing the Atlantic, Noonan had only the sun for celestial support. Therefore he was not to sure of his positon. Conseqently he used 100 mile offset. That equates to about 36 minutes of time. I would have done the same.>> Rollin, I would propose for Doug, a course line starting at Tabiteuea because of the report of an aircraft flying overhead during the night. That course would go to Howland. 100 nm out from Howland on that course line would be an X "marks the spot". That spot is a procedure turn to the NW. That course line is the Hypotenuse of a right triangle with 100 nm legs. That leg would be ~ 141 nm if the LOP was at a right angle but I don't think it is. AE reported this point as 200 miles out. She roughly added 141 + 100. The objective is to hit the DR (dead reckoning) point which is a procedure turn also on the LOP and was 100 nm out from Howland in the 337° direction of the LOP. AE reported this point as ABT 100 MILES OUT. They were then inbound to Howland heading 157°. (they thought) Do you see any problems ? Daryll *************************************************************************** From Ric Daryll, I recommend that you not use terms like "procedure turn" when you obviously don't know what they mean. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:37:05 EST From: Tom Roberts Subject: Re: Nauticos plans >From Ric > >That's a 450 nm RADIUS from Howland. It's just under 160,000 square miles. It's more like 636,000 square nautical miles, or 840,000 square statute miles. I think your number was for a 450 nm DIAMETER. LTM, Tom Roberts, #1956CE Riverside, CA **************************************************************************** From Ric Oooh .... you're right. Thanks. And Nauticos believes thay have the search area pinned down to 500 square miles. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:38:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? > I argue, if TIGHAR never existed, such help gained > might have already been realized by now. > > Tod Swindell Tod, does the fact that for many decades after 1937 TIGHAR actually did not exist affect your argument any? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:45:35 EST From: Subject: RRon Reuthere: Japanese ship activity July 37 Ron Bright writes: >J.A. Donahue writes > that in the 250,000 square mile search by the US Navy only one "non-descript > merchant tramp freighter" was seen. Donahue says it was so inconsequential it > wasn't even identified by the Lexington force. I think Donahue was referring to the British ship M.V. Moorby. Ron Reuther *************************************************************************** From Ric That doesn't sound right. The Moorby was actually recruited to help Itasca check out the 281 message on July 6. By the time Lexington got to the area she should have been long gone. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:52:15 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? > And it worked, and he has > earned fame and fortune in the process of advancing his "baseless" > theory that tricked un Earhart educated folks into supporting him with > money and accolades. > If the elements that characterized his Niku theory were not > so outlandishly far fetched, less of the most astute researchers would > refer to him as the idiot he made made himself out to be > Tod Swindell I am glad you posted this rather pompous and ungrammatical verbiage. I certainly had a good laugh.The writer shows as much ignorance of the likely circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and the motives of Tighar as he does of good English. There's little doubt in my mind that in spite of the limited evidence, the Niku hypothesis beats any other, and I say that as a sceptical physicist. The other day I checked the bearing of Niku wrt the radio station on Hawaii. It was 211.8 degrees, just over 1 degree different from the 213 degree bearing obtained on one of the post loss messages and well within the suggested 1.6 degree error bracket for this type of DF. When one additionally considers the bones, the radial (admitedly anecdotal), the LOP, the nearest alternate land, the sextant box, the dado, the perspex, and the post loss messages, the Tighar hypothesis is way ahead of anything else. Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric The fame and $2.50 will buy me a cup of coffee in Washington, D.C. where I meet with my fellow government conspirators. If I had the fortune I could afford the $2.50. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:53:22 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? In response to Tod Swindell, remember, fire bad, food good. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:59:45 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? Shhhhh! Can you keep a secret? Earhart was indeed a spy, and the government was involved then. To help deflect researchers from uncovering the real truth, I was contacted by Col. North on behalf of Ronald Reagan to enlist Mr. Gillespie to pursue the Gilligan Island hypothesis. Both Ric and I have been well paid by the government, as evidenced by our homes, cars, jewelry, and extensive first class travel. God Bless America. **************************************************************************** From Ric RANDY!!! First Chester Nimitz spills his guts to Goerner and now you have to go and .... just a minute ... Condee Rice is on the phone. This could get ugly. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:01:40 EST From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Re: Island clothing > From Tom King > > A couple of years ago the police and the HPO's archeologists on Saipan > examined a site where the victims of a double murder had been deposited, 3-4 > months before; all that remained, oddly enough, were the remains of one of > the victims' pantihose, UNDER the bones. Pantyhose? In Saipan? What, is the whole island airconditioned by now? In my day (1967-70) no one in Saipan owned pantyhose, let alone wore them to be murdered in! Marjorie Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric New heights in off-topic discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:09:22 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: [earhart] re Daryll's Nav Problem Actually, there was an offset, but we can't tell whether it was deliberate. Noonan had one apparent fix midway, which showed him well north of the track, and the plane apparently diverted course more southerly to compensate. As they approached the coast, Noonan believed he was south of Dakar, and had AE make a left turn so that she would enter the city from the south. Unfortunately, when she did so, she ended up well east of Dakar in heavy cloud cover and didn't discover where she was until she crossed the land-sea boundary northeast of Dakar. ************************************************************************ From Ric I'd argue that it's not an "offset" if it's not deliberate. Sure looks like Noonan merely over-corrected for the northerly error and hit the coast too far south. When you're shooting for a coastline with many distinctive features I don't see any point in an offset. Unlike shooting for an island, if you miss your target it should be no problem to figure out which way to turn. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:11:34 EST From: Marjorie in Montana Subject: Special for the grammar cop Marty wrote: > I sent Ric a note about how much I admired him taking > the apostrophe out of "SATs" and contemned him for > dropping it from "ain't". I had hoped he would read > it, get a laugh, maybe, and toss it in the bit bucket. I assume to contemn a person, the condemnation must be uttered with contempt? > My apologies to the Forum for contributing to > thread drift. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea > maxima culpa! > Yeah, me too. Sorry. Marjorie Smith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:12:56 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Island clothing > From Ric > > And before somebody suggests it, no, I am NOT going to try pantihose to > reduce chafing. Have you thought about thinner legs? *************************************************************************** From Ric Constantly. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:35:40 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Apostrophe All through the discussion of "Hoist on his own petard" it bothers me that no one noted that the spelling in Shakespeare was "Hoist on his own petar.("Petar" was to rhyme roughly with "engineer" on a previous line. **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh brother, here we go. A petar (now spelled petard) is a case containing explosives which was placed against or under a wall to bring it down. To be "hoist with your own petar(d)" is to be blown up with your own charge. Hamlet, Act III, scene iv Hamlet is speaking with his mother, the queen: "There's letters sealed, and my two school fellows Whom I shall trust as I will adders fang'd, They bear the mandate. They must sweep my way, And marshall me to knavery. Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the enginer [sic - not engineer] Hoist with [sic - not on] his own petar; and 't shall go hard But I will delve one yard below their mines, and blow them to the moon." There is no need for "enginer" to rhyme with "petar". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:49:24 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island names (Duke of York) > It's likewise not hard to imagine that Fred had not kept AE > breifed on where he thought they were in the noisy cockpit, and if injured in > the landing, was unable to bring her up to speed. But it's all speculation. This is a scenario I have considered but can she really have had no idea of time elapsed since they thought they were near Howland, and/or no idea of her ground speed and unable to make even a rough calculation of distance? Deciding it was Atafu, meant an overestimation of distance travelled of 264 miles (1.75hrs). (I always thought time passed quickly when you were having fun or running out of fuel so if anything she should have chosen Gardner) I suppose Noonan could have made a 150 mile error (too southerly) in estimating the position of Howland but even then she was still wrong by over 100 miles (40mins). They would both have to make large errors in this scenario. Possibly she decided that at 156 degrees Atafu was closer to the LOP (157) than Gardner at 159 degrees. Angus. ****************************************************************************** From Ric When Howland did not appear when "we must be on you", all they knew for sure was that they were not where they had thought they were. They had good reason to think that they had the east/west component nailed pretty close but how far off they were north/south was anybody's guess. You make a short run to the northwest then you turn around and head southeast, not knowing what you'll find, but convinced that you should find something before the fuel runs out. After what seems like an eternity an island appears that is clearly not Howland or Baker. You have a pretty good idea how far you have come but, because you have no good handle on where you started from, all you know is that it's an island somewhere more or less on the LOP. Could be Gardner, could be Duke of York. Maybe you have a map that shows island shapes. Maybe you don't. If you do, you take one look at the map of Gardner and conclude that this can't be it. Gotta be Duke of York. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:59:43 EST From: John Temple Subject: Noonan grave I have just finished a copy of Amelia Earhart's Shoes. I was very impressed with the methodical research and the volume of information you have unearthed. I find your hypothesis very compelling and hope future work will validate your effort. One thing struck me though - there was very little mention of any concerted look for a separate grave for the navigator, Fred Noonan. All the discussion of the bones focused on Amelia, yet at least one of the possible post event messages heard by listeners suggested that Mr. Noonan was badly hurt. If this is true, wouldn't it be likely that the two would have stayed together in the vicinity of the ship and the supply cache, perhaps until his demise? It would seem strange for them to split up and for one to end up as far away as the seven-site if the other was injured and in need of serious care. In that event, isn't it likely that Amelia buried him there on the beach, perhaps adjacent to the stricken sailors from the wreck? Without adequate digging tools, the sandy beach would have offered the easiest way to dispose of a body. If this happened, his bones, disturbed by weather and animal life over the next few years could have become mixed with those of the hapless sailors and been found by the later colonists and thought to be from the ship. If, as the book suggests, the early colonists were very sensitive about these bodies, they may have been gathered and reburied, possibly on the beach or even in the colony cemetery. It just seemed strange to me that, except for a possible male shoe, nothing else surfaced to indicate his fate. You may have already come to this conclusion and thrown it out for very viable reasons I am unaware of but none of your writings I have seen suggest that. If that is the case, then perhaps an expanded excavation of the oldest graves in the graveyard might yield some good result. Good luck with the project. I'll follow your future efforts with considerable interest. John E. Temple **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. I hope you'll consider joining TIGHAR. There is no communal graveyard. Each colonist family buried their dead on their own land. Following just the logic you describe, we excavated a suspected grave site near the Norwich City wreck last September but it proved not to be a grave at all. There's another site close by that might also be a grave but we didn't have time to address it on this last trip. Excavating a grave or suspected grave on Niku (we've done four so far, counting the skull hole at the Seven Site) involves, on average, three to five days of back-breaking labor in 100 degree heat. There's a limit to how much we can get done on any given expedition. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:07:27 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Mystery Flight? Re: Mystery map Klaas cites the Los Angeles Co Museum of Natural History as the photo credit. He says the photo shows them in a hangar showing route of last flight. That can't be entirely true since it includes Chicago. But the photo does look like it was a posed "photo-op" and taken during the world flight.(Note FN's finger pointing to the map!) If that was the map they used, they may have ended up in Fargo, ND My guess is the photo was taken on 31 May 37 at Miami as AE and FN are wearing the same shirts with "Bo" McKneely in an other publicity shot, see p. 32 of Donahue's book. Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I'll buy that - except I don't agree with Donohue that the guy in the white coveralls is Bo. Lord knows what the map is supposed to represent. I don't think it's important. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:32:30 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: [earhart] re Daryll's Nav Problem I have to agree with Ric on this. There was no offset on the South Atlantic crossing. AND, there was no sun . . . at least not very much. The weather was so poor: . . . "it necessitated blind flying for ten of the thirteen hours we were in flight." I have a personal letter from Fred Noonan describing that very flight. Visibility was less than a half mile when they made the landfall. They could not determine exactly where they hit the coast. Fred said to go right . . .Amelia said to go left. Guess who was correct? Now look at the map. If they offset 100 miles to the north, they would have missed St. Louis as well. St. Louis is nearly on the same heading as from Natal to Dakar. Continue to fly the same course used to cross the Atlantic and you will pass very close to St. Louis. And, they didn't turn left to fly north on the "LOP". They turned left to fly up the coast looking for Dakar! Don J. ************************************************************************* From Ric << I have a personal letter from Fred Noonan describing that very flight. Visibility was less than a half mile when they made the landfall. They could not determine exactly where they hit the coast. Fred said to go right . . .Amelia said to go left. Guess who was correct?>> Don, the above creates a false impression of what Noonan wrote. Here's what he said: "With few exceptions the weather has been splendid. The flight from Natal, Brazil to Africa produced the worst weather we have experienced - heavy rain and dense cloud formations necessitated blind flying for ten of the thirteen hours we were in flight. To add to our woes the African coast was enveloped in thick haze, rendering objects invisible at distances over a half mile, when we made landfall. And our radio was out of order - it would be in such a jam. However, with our usual good luck, if not good guidance, we barged through okay." There is nothing there about not being able to determine exactly where they made landfall - only that it was difficult because of the haze. And there is certainly nothing to support AE's later story about a disgreement as to which way to turn. I think AE fabricated the story to cover the fact that they intentionally chose to bypass Dakar (because of the horrible visibility) to land at St. Louis. They didn't have permission to land at St. Louis and there were no customs facilities there - and they couldn't get permission because the radio wasn't working. The French authorities might easily have impounded the airplane and caused all sorts of trouble, but by saying it was a mistake ("Silly me. I should have listened to my navigator.") she avoided any delay. It's speculation, of course, but there is no way to reconcile AE's version with the map. Anybody who doesn't think that AE was capable of lying to get around the authorities hasn't done their homework. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:42:15 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Just curious, why do you think Amelia survived to see her birthday on the 24th of July? I understand the post lost messages ended on the 9th, and I can see her surviving that long (hell of a struggle) but an additional 15 days? Thanks, Lawrence **************************************************************************** From Ric She may even have seen her 41st birthday. We know there was a cache of supplies left by the Norwich City rescuers somewhere near where she probably came ashore. If she was the castaway whose remains were found by Gallagher she had moved far from that location, had figured out how to catch local wildlife to survive, and didn't have much at all in the way of clothing left. All of that offers the possibility of a considerable period of survival prior. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:47:30 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Niku nudity The Wombat said: "Many years of walking about on tropical reefs taught me that naked is good! However, where modesty is a virtue, try a lap lap (sarong, wrap etc.) as uniform on Niku V. Depending how you wear it you can cover as much or as little as you like . . . " No way, Dude! Ric and I are about the same size and neither of us could with a straight face argue for walking around with a loin cloth or sarong. Ok, maybe a sarong, but anything less and even the natives would blanch. LTM, who's under orders to remain fully clothed at all times Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric We could test your hypothesis with some photos on the website and some natives. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:52:22 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? I missed the original message. Actually, I'm more commenting to people who make comments like this one, rather than to this particular individual, so I guess it doesn't matter. > And it worked, and he has > earned fame and fortune in the process of advancing his "baseless" > theory that tricked un Earhart educated folks into supporting him with > money and accolades. Have you actually read, with an open mind, the "baseless" theory? Then read, with an at least equally open mind, the supporting research? The use of the word "baseless" above and "outlandish" later on would seem to indicate not. I came into this thinking these people were a bunch of loons. Everyone KNOWS Earhart went down in the Pacific around Howland. Truthfully, I had nothing better to do for an hour (I was waiting for a test to complete at the office) and spent it wandering the TIGHAR web site. After the hour I'd moved from thinking they were loons to thinking they were just wrong. That night and home I finished everything on the site and decided maybe they had something, joined the forum, and went about reading the researches of the "crashed at sea" and "captured by the enemy" theorists. Over the next month I became convinced. NOT convinced that they, or now I'd say "we," (I'm a member now), have absolutely found the final resting place of E&N, but that the evidence says we MAY have found it. And that, compared to the other theories, this one holds water better than they do. I'm a trouble shooter by profession. All I care about is the facts. I'll postulate theories to match the facts I've got, thent est them to see if they work out. This is what TIGHAR is attempting to do with this theory. One of the most impressive things I've seen in the Earhart forum is admissions that we barked up the wrong tree about something. There is little display of hanging on to some idea after it's been proven wrong, and the attempt is always made to prove it wrong. This is, in my not so humble opinioni, the very basis of scientific analysis. If it turns out the plane is found in the water off Howland, I won't be shocked. Just a bit surprised. And, I hope the research continues to determine what the evidence that was found at Niku really was attached to. I doubt there would be another trip there, but from what we've got and what we know, I'd like to see if we can figure out who was really there and what they were doing. The store of knowledge on research methods would be worth the effort, I think. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:52:37 EST From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? Oh, let him have his opinion. The forum is full of opinions, like well, you know what I mean. Regards, S. Wesley Smith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:55:31 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Apostrophe For the medically or linguistically inclined, "petard" means "fart" in French, a reference to the unusual noise such a device made. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(Who swore, but only in French.) ************************************************************************ From Ric One way or another, all of our off-topic threads seem to end up in the same place. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:03:40 EST From: Daryll Subject: Howland off-set LOP approach >Daryll, as I've said before, I'm happy to post new information but I'm >not going to post a long string of speculations based on folklore. >So far you have not shown that you have a basic grasp of the facts of >the case. >Ric Is this where the ridicule starts ? Re your first para : You say you can't see the "off-set" on Noonan's chart of the South Atlantic? Did you look right at the end of the _BIG_ line, maybe short little lines 1/16 th of an inch ?.....Can you see any approach plates on a sectional today? This reminds me of the Movie "A Few Good Men",....Cruz tosses the Marine Corps Manual to the witness and asks what page the directions to the mess hall are on !...... I said I would refer to items that had been discarded before. This is why you are still looking for AE. I refer to a standard navigational technic used in the '30's that has been documented and a reference in "Last Flight" to the technic and you call it folklore. I understand your hostility Ric,....the off-set LOP technic is your achilles heel. Any navigator (or logically thinking person) would see by studying the approach what the "miss" consequences are. A navigator can miss by 100 nm south (right) of the course line and still find Howland without a radio. A navigator can miss north (left) of his course line by 100 nm and be out of luck when low on fuel and without a radio. The critical miss point regarding AE & FN seems to be 50 nm to the north (left) of the intended course. Commander Thompson knew what the "miss" consequences were, that's why when he "steamed-up", he didn't waste time looking south on the 157° LOP. You can sit down with a piece of "quarter ruled" paper and a protractor and see that. To answer a couple previous questions; ......after a couple of 100 nm trips up and down the LOP, Noonan realized he was lost somewhere north and by now off the LOP. The 281° heading also corresponded to Jaluit by a couple of degrees. Jaluit had a strong broadcast station on 3105. It operated from the morning into the evening. Just to keep you posted, our side has July 2, 1937 figured out by using, facts and contemporaneous documentation. How's your side doing again?.... Anyone with questions about constructing their own LOP approach plate for Howland can reach me off-Forum. Philosophically speaking, I read you loud and clear. Daryll **************************************************************************** From Ric The longer I let you go on, the harder it becomes to avoid ridicule. In the interest of civility this is probably a good place to stop. I think you've given everyone a good look at how "your side" operates. I would urge anyone who is so inclined to take you up on your offer of direct communication. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:08:07 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: Noonan grave I may be missing something here on the issue of the grave(s), but I had assumed that the theory was that Amelia died, Fred buried her, and that was that. At that point, the only living person on the island was Fred, so I don't find it surprising that there was no grave found for him. Who would have dug it? Even if he dug one himself, and lay down in it to die, there is still the question of who would have filled it in once he died. I somehow doubt he would have been able to pull the filling in on top of himself. So either Fred died in the bottom of an open grave (that was never found), or he died out in the open. Either way, from the experiment with the leg of lamb last year, I don't see how his remains would have stayed around for very long. Am I missing something else? Why is it a mystery that no grave was found for Fred? Stuart **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, you're missing quite a bit. Indications are that the castaway whose partial skeleton was found in 1940 was a woman, so if somebody buried somebody Amelia buried Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:28:03 EST From: Stuart Alsop Subject: Re: Noonan grave > From Ric > > Yes, you're missing quite a bit. Indications are that the castaway whose > partial skeleton was found in 1940 was a woman, so if somebody buried > somebody Amelia buried Fred. Thanks for the correction, Ric. I guess I need to go back and re-read the web site about the skeleton. I had completely the wrong impression about the skeleton issue. It just goes to show what happens when you assume things, without checking the facts! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:31:14 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Special for the grammar cop > From Marjorie in Montana > > Marty wrote: >> I sent Ric a note about how much I admired him taking >> the apostrophe out of "SATs" and contemned him for >> dropping it from "ain't". I had hoped he would read >> it, get a laugh, maybe, and toss it in the bit bucket. > > I assume to contemn a person, the condemnation must be uttered with > contempt? The beauty of contemning people is that it can be done when one lacks jurisdiction to condemn: Main Entry: con-temn Pronunciation: k&n-'tem Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English contempnen, from Middle French contempner, from Latin contemnere, from com- + temnere to despise Date: 15th century : to view or treat with contempt : SCORN synonym see DESPISE Making judgments about researchers and research projects is essential in conducting archeological investigations. With limited resources, you have to pick and choose whom to trust and what to spend time on. No scientist can examine all possible hypotheses or conduct all possible experiments; to be scientific is to select what to work on, and to be a good scientist is to have good hunches about what will and will not work. I trust Ric's judgment about what happened to AE and FN. I admire the way that he and TIGHAR have published the story of things found and evaluated. Some clues have proven to be dead ends (the book case, the red algae, maybe even the shoes); others still seem viable. Ric's punctuation skills are not on par with his archeological gifts. Fortunately, he's married to someone who has the grammar gene, and she brings TIGHAR's publications up to professional standards. Lamentably, good grammar isn't going to contribute to the solution of the Earhart mystery. What is needed can't be gotten out of a dictionary; it's got to come out of the ground--or out of the ocean. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:34:48 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Apostrophe > From Ric > There is no need for "enginer" to rhyme with "petar". Agreed. One of the few books I've kept from my BA years is my Hamlet Variorum. What we see printed in our modern editions of Hamlet is the result of thousands and thousands of editorial choices. I'm in Chicago for a few months, so I can't just pull the old Variorum off the shelf and look up the line in question, but I remember from previous readings that it is a substantial entry. My favorite, for ethnic reasons, is the series of arguments about leaded poleaxes (or sledded Pollacks) smitten to the ice. Textual criticism is where this whole drifted thread began: just as with Shakespeare (Shakspere, Shaksper; see http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html), so with the radio transcripts--it's not easy to determine the original words with the precision we desire. Garbling happens. There are parts of the story about which reasonable people of intelligence and good will may respectfully disagree--until the Any Idiot Artifact (AIA) is found. Hmm, I'm going to re-coin the phrase: what we want is evidence that will convince any REASONABLE idiot. Unreasonable idiots will imagine that artifacts on Niku were planted by the U.S. or Japanese government in order to cover up the coverup. So what we want, and all we can ever get, is an ARIA. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric Well sung. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:35:57 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Niku nudity > We could test your hypothesis with some photos on the website and some > natives. This is a great idea - charge everybody to vote - fund the next expedition. In the alternative - charge everybody MORE, to keep the pictures OFF the website - fund the next TWO expeditions! ltm, jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:24:35 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan For Oscar Having girded my loins and carefully read your treatise, my non-enginer (sic) brain has been unable to fault with your computations. I think you have shown that the airplane had the theoretical capability to fly considerably longer/farther than a simple application of Kelly Johnson's recommendations for the Oakland/Honolulu flight would suggest. My original suggestion was : "Let's suppose that Mr. Johnson (or someone else who was competent to do so) prepared a simple hour-by-hour power management program for Amelia for the Lae/Howland leg." You have certainly laid out an hour-by-hour power management program but it differs from the kind of plan Kelly presented to AE in some important respects. Because you're pushing for a higher standard of performance, your hour-by-hour program is naturally far more demanding than Johnson's three-hour blocks. More importantly, your program is consumption-driven whereas Johnsons was speed-driven. In other words, for each hour you instruct Earhart to achieve a particular rate of fuel consumption within a range of airspeeds, in most cases leaving it up to her to figure out what combination of throttle, propeller, and Cambridge setting will achieve that result. By contrast, Johnson's plan apparently assumed a constant airspeed (150 mph) which simplified monitoring progress at the expense of efficiency, and gave the pilot Sesame Street instructions - so many inches Hg, so many RPM, such and such Cambridge setting - and told her what rate of fuel consumption to expect. I suspect that Kelly did it the way he did because he knew his customer. The kind of power managment profile you have constructed might be very similar to that flown by Dick Merrill on his impressive Lockheed 10E Special nonstop flight from London to Boston and thence to New York (something over 24 hours unrefueled) but I'd be very surprised if AE had the knowledge and expertise to get that kind of performance out of the airplane. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:26:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan grave For John Temple -- Thanks for your thoughtful comments; let me add a bit to what Ric has said. Assuming we're basically correct in the hypothesis, there are several things that could have happened to Noonan: 1. He could be the castaway and it's Earhart that's missing (In other words, Hoodless could have been right). 2. He could have wound up buried near the landing site, i.e. presumably near the Norwich City. This presents us with some real problems, since the Norwich City victims were buried there too, and there were I Kiribati living in the area who in at least one case certainly buried their dead there. So there may be quite a few bodies in the ground around there. And not only does it take at least 3-5 days to excavate a grave (and that's with a team of 3, so more like 12-15 person-days); it's also something that we want to do only with great care and respect, and obviously the permission of government. 3. He could have wound up buried at the Seven Site after he and Earhart both worked their way down there and lived awhile. There are some interesting largish rocks lying around there that -- well, the imagination runs rampant in the tropical heat. 4. He could have died somewhere in between the landing site and the Seven Site. There's no reason to think that, having run out of provisions and patience at the landing site, the Electra's crew made a bee-line for the Seven Site. They may have, particularly if they thought the pond at what would later be the Loran station was fresh water, but they may also have worked their way around, camping for awhile at other places, and Noonan could have died at any of these spots or anywhere in between. So, there's a lot of territory in which we could look for Noonan's mortal remains (which, if buried, weren't necessarily marked in any way), and digging for them when we think maybe we've found them is a big investment of time and labor, and a touchy matter culturally and politically, so...... Any suggestions will be welcome. Thanks for your note; I'm glad you enjoy the book ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:58:35 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Re: She may even have seen her 41st birthday. But to do that, she would have had to avoid detection by Maude, Bevington, and their I Kiribati colleagues when they looked the island over in the fall of '37. I can easily imagine their missing dead people in the bush, but not live ones. I know, it's POSSIBLE, but ... ************************************************************************* From Ric Just for the fun of it.... Let's say that Earhart and/or Noonan are hangin' out at the Seven Site in October 1937 (probably still arguing about whose fault it all is) when RCS Nimanoa ties off to the stern of Norwich City on the morning of Wednesday the 13th. She has come down from the Gilberts so her approach to the island is not visible from the ocean beach at the Seven Site nor can the western end of the island be seen from the lagoon shore. Bevington and a few of the Gilbertese delegates set out to walk around the atoll which they believed was only a three mile hike (it's more like eight). They went counter-clockwise from the main lagoon passage, walking at first in the bush but soon deciding that they could make much better time walking along the ocean shore. They had not brought any water with them and by the time they got to the southeast tip they were all in trouble. The walk up the shoreline past the Seven Site was made around 2 p.m. - the hottest part of the day - and was more a survival trek than an exploration and was almost certainly made down at the water's edge where the walking is easiest but footprints disappear with the first tide. Anyone who has been to the inland Seven Site knows that the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade could go up that beach and you'd never know it. The British expedition remained at the island two more days but, according to Bevington's diary, never again went closer to that end of the island than Aukeraime just east of Bauareke Passage - still about a mile away. Could Maude and Bevington have made their visit and never seen or be seen by someone living at the Seven Site? I'd say not only was it possible but it would have been remarkable if they HAD been seen. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:59:55 EST From: Carol Linn Dow Subject: Re: Island Names For: Ron Bright I have been in the library at Radcliff College, and they are very cooperative. You can look at anything they have, no questions asked. The "Cliffes" are very nice. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:09:11 EST From: RC Subject: Noonan grave II >> Yes, you're missing quite a bit. Indications are that the castaway whose >> partial skeleton was found in 1940 was a woman, so if somebody buried >> somebody Amelia buried Fred. I must have missed quite a bit too, Ric, because I do not understand your reply. Could you have meant that Amelia WAS buried by Fred?? RC **************************************************************************** From Ric No. Have we communicated so poorly? Look: 1. A castaway's bones were found in 1940. 2. The castaway is thought to have been a woman (woman's shoe sole and recent analysis is bone measurments). 3. The castaway had not been buried. If the unburied castway was Earhart then if anyone died and was buried by the other one it had to be Fred. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:30:24 EST From: Christopher Ferro Subject: 41st Birthday > Just for the fun of it.... > Let's say that Earhart and/or Noonan are hangin' out at the Seven Site in > October 1937 ... > I'd say not only was it possible but it > would have been remarkable if they HAD been seen. > LTM, > Ric Perhaps it is conjectures like this that get some of the forumites to get bent out of shape and make accusations like "baseless speculation" and the like. Some "what ifs" are fine, but in my opinion this leads us nowhere. LTM, Christopher (still in Wheeling) *************************************************************************** From Ric I have to disagree. We know there was at least one castaway on the island - possibly two people, a man and a woman. We also know at least one place where he/she/they hung out. There is nothing baseless about that. We don't know when he/she/they arrived or how long he/she/they survived. I think it's perfectly legitimate and useful for us to try to get a handle on how long a castaway might remain undetected given known events at known times. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:33:22 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Howland off-set LOP approach >I refer to a standard navigational technic used in the '30's that has >been documented and a reference in "Last Flight" to the technic and you >call it folklore. Riccen, Volkloren? Konnen sie nicht Vorsprung Durch Technic? (Wirklich dieser Darryl ist ein wunder an gelehrsamkeit!) Von A. Earhardt.(Am ende der welt an Mili atollen) *************************************************************************** Von Ric I am already off my chair falling. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:43:08 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Mantz citation Ron Bright asks <> Unfortunately, I do not have a copy as I borrowed TIGHAR's copy and read it before I talked with Capt. Carrington re the "wreck photo" and had one of the most unusual conversations in my life. The fact that I could say "I read your book" helped keep him on the phone for 10 minutes even though he basically denied that both the photo and himself ever existed. He kept insisting that since I was only a 400 hour pilot, I wasn't "qualified". For what I don't know, and he wasn't about to explain. Later on he insisted that the "owners" of this (nonexistent) photo were likely to sue TIGHAR and the Smithsonian for publishing it. Go figure. It is a shame that he won't cooperate and let anyone track down the origin of that photo. I cannot remember where exactly in the book the cite is, and I can't find any notes that I may have taken while reading it. It's in there somewhere. Yes, the context of the quote was a conversation with Mantz regarding the planning for the first E to W attempt, however it strikes me that if they thought about the Phoenix as an alternate for the first attempt, it makes sense that they would consider the Phoenix as a possible alternate for the second attempt, or at the very least remember that they were there. For Cam It was in his book, (Ric - what's the actual title?) not "What Really Happened at Howland" ("Unabridged Report II). I never said that Carrington was a credible reporter. His anecdote is what it is, just as the 25 year old anecdotal quote by Vidal of Amelia saying she would return to the Gilberts is what it is. They both carry about the same weight. Either, both, or neither may be accurate. Your point was that the "only" alternate plan that anyone had heard of was going back to the Gilberts, and I just wanted to point out that this is not the case. How credible they are is another story. LTM Andrew McKenna *************************************************************************** From Ric The book is "Amelia Earhart - A Report by G. Carrington". It's not indexed so finding the reference means plowing through the whole book, which I'm not particularly eager to do. I'll send it to you again if you want to chase it down. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:45:45 EST From: Les Kinney Subject: Re: Noonan grave II Ric rarely do I write here - yes I am only a guest on your forum - a lurker at best, but Ric give it up on the bones - Whether you agree with the doctor in 1940 or not, he was trained as a physician, I am sure he saw many skeletal remains in his career, and yes he had more knowledge of the bone structure of the "locals" than anyone on this board. - he did not believe the bones were that of a Caucasian female - period. He had no axe to grind and I imagine that if he thought there was the slightest possibility the bones were that of a Caucasian woman, common sense would seem to think he would have examined them even more closely prior to issuing a statement in the matter. Secondly - you have not been able to find those "bones" to prove he was wrong. Thirdly, like you, I have been on many South Pacific islands and I have found all sorts of debris including shoes washed up hundreds of yards inland, well beyond the shore, dumped by storms and surges. To say the "sole" which apparently came off of a rotting shoe found anywhere on the island possibly could have come from AE is a reach especially when you consider that none of us will ever know how many individuals were on that island from 1937 until the discovery of the sole of the shoe. Les Kinney ************************************************************************** From Ric Thank you for your opinion. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:46:18 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Island Names For Carol Linn Dow Any chance you can get back to Radcliff and snoop around Clarence Williams papers,etc looking for a map that has Hurd Is on it? Thanks Ron Bright Bremerton ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:08:34 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified > but I'd be very surprised if AE had the knowledge and expertise > to get that kind of performance out of the airplane. > LTM, > Ric From Oscar Boswell Well, I agree with much of what Ric says about the Longer Range Flight Plan, and there is certainly no satisfactory evidence that anyone prepared such a plan for AE. But I disagree with the suggestion that the Longer Range Plan is somehow more complicated than KJ's, or more demanding on the pilot. It's really the SAME PLAN, only with a couple of extra lines in the telegram. That it appears complicated is merely the result, I suppose, of my inept exposition. The plan doesn't INSTRUCT the pilot to maintain a range of airspeeds. Those airspeeds are simply what RESULT from following the plan, and they are included in the posting as a running commentary for forum readers on what is taking place. In hour 5, the "plan" is simply "Cruise 8000 at 51 gph [at KJ's settings]". That's it! After 10 hours, the instruction is simply "fly at 10,000 feet, 1600 rpm, 0.72, 36 gph" instead of "24 inches ... 38 gph". Makes not a bit of difference to the pilot - it's no more difficult to select one MP than the other. There are only two additional sentences to the plan: "After 5 hours (at 36 gph), fly at 1600/21.5 inches, 0.72 and 30 gph", and "after 5 more hours, fly at 1600/20.5 inches and 26 gph." The comments on the plan in the posting are information for us, not the pilot. Look at Hour 5: "Speed (190 normal)" simply means the plane will normally (at 10,500 pounds) have a True air speed of 190 on 51 gph at 8,000 feet. The weight at the END of HOUR 4 (13280) is, of course, the weight of the plane at the START of Hour 5. The speed factor for that weight is .7030. Multiplying that speed factor by the normal speed of 190 gives 132 mph, which should be the true airspeed at the START of Hour 5. The posting gives the weight (12,974) and speed factor (.7280) for the END of Hour 5 too. Multiplying the normal speed (190) by that speed factor (.7280) gives 138 mph, which should be the true airspeed at the END of Hour 5. The average airspeed (and distance travelled in still air) for the hour is thus about 136 miles. NOTE WELL: at this stage of the flight, this is still KJ's plan and not mine. And note also AE doesn't need to know anything about the weight or "speed factors". The Longer Range Plan is NOT "an hour by hour plan" - which would give even greater range at the expense of a bit of speed. Actually it's really not that complicated either to draft or to follow such an hour-by-hour plan. After giving the outlines of the plan as sketched in KJ's telegram (as expanded above), you merely say "in hours 11 and following, also monitor the INDICATED airspeed at hourly intervals (or more often). If the speed exceeds 130 mph IAS, reduce MP to reduce speed to 130 IAS, and relean to 0.72" (Note that 130 IAS is about 154 true at 10,000 feet.) The sharper the pilot, and the more frequent and accurate the monitoring, the greater the efficiency that will be achieved. To repeat: the Longer Range Plan does not ask the pilot to maintain an airspeed between 134 and 138 mph during Hour 5. The posting simply points out that the plan (which at this point in the flight is KELLY JOHNSON'S PLAN), if flown with 1150 gallons (instead of the 900 for which it was intended) produces between 134 and 138 (and not 150) in hour 5 (assuming my calculations are correct). At 38 gph late in the flight, KJ's plan should produce 175 mph (not 150). Remember that KJ wrote his plan for 900 gallons. That is 1500 pounds less fuel. The weight of the plane upon which KJ based his calculations would have been about 1000 pounds less than the 15,100 we have used. (Subtract 1500 for fuel; add 100 for extra gear; add 400 for two extra occupants anticipated on the Hawaii flight.) That means that at the START of Hour 5 the weight would have been (13,280 - 1000 = 12,280 + 132 [assumed extra fuel not burned in first 2 hours because of lighter weight] =) 12,152. Speed factor is about .80 . Multiply the normal speed (190) by the speed factor (.80) and you get 152 mph (fancy that!). One reason that I am interested in any information on Paul Mantz' cruise instructions is that Mantz apparently told a number of people that he prepared some sort of curve-based table for AE to fly by - this would be an "hour by hour" management plan. I find the fragmentary information about such a plan interesting because I see no reason for Mantz to have said he had done this if he hadn't - I mean, it's like taking credit for instructing the Titanic crew on ice-avoidance procedures, isn't it? Oscar ************************************************************************** From Ric You'll have to pardon me if I'm being dense here, but if I'm flying Kelly Johnson's plan for - say - the second three hour block (hours five, six and seven), I know that I'm supposed to be at 8,000 feet and that the Manifold Pressure (throttles) should be set at 26.5 inches, and that the props should be set at 1,800 RPM and I should lean the mixture until I get 072 on the Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer. That should get me 51 gph and an airspeed (I presume) of 150 mph. If I'm following the your program you say: <> I don't know where my throttles, props and mixture are supposed to be set in order to do that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:10:49 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan I agree where you say that Kelly "apparently planned a 150 mph airspeed". I was reliably told by guys who still fly a Lockheed 10A today that 150 mph is the Electra's best cruising speed. Performance of the 10A and the 10E was very similar although the 10E had more power. The Electra was built to fly faster than 150 mph. Those were the days when gas was cheap and speed more important to airlines. But "the figures Lockheed used in those days were optimistic", my spokespeople told me. They stick to their 150 mph they found in their manuals. Even Kelly Johnson must have been aware of the optimism of Lockheed sales people. It is my belief he did advise AE to fly the Electra at 150 mph (that would be 130 kts to the rest of us who were taught to fly knots). As the flight progressed the Electra would become lighter and would climb. AE would let the ship climb and throttle back to maintain her best cruise speed, using the settings Kelly Johnson had advised. She may have encountered stronger headwinds at higher altitudes. I have seen many educated guesses and learned calculations about fuel management and ground speeds, headwinds, cross winds and wind components. Eventually it all adds up to AE flying the 2,556 miles from Lae to Howland (or very near to it) at 150 mph in under 20 hours. Which translates into an average ground speed of 129.4 mph. OK, let's say it was 130. That means she had battled against an average head wind of 20 mph (17 kts), which is not unusual. According to Kelly Johnson at that time she would still have had four hours of fuel left. Flying a heading 157? there would be a cross wind but no head wind anymore. And that would have allowed the Electra another 600 miles before running out of gas. That's why I believe the Electra pilots who say one flies a Lockheed 10 at 150 mph. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:18:52 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Ric says: >I'd say not only was it possible but it >would have been remarkable if they HAD been seen. Well, maybe, but although Eric B. may have kept a stiff upper lip about the ordeal on the windward beach, I have trouble imagining all his I Kiribati colleagues struggling along without a whole lot of banter, or maybe moaning and groaning. But anything's possible. In which case, maybe AE and FN swam to Mili.... **************************************************************************** From Ric It's interesting. You and I have both spent lots of time at the Seven Site and you feel that somebody sitting in the shade of a ren tree up on the ridge could hear people talking down by the water's edge on the beach. My impression is that I couldn't shout loud enough to make somebody on the ridge hear me if my life depended on it. Any other Seven Site denizens want to weigh in on this one? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:19:46 EST From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: Special for the grammar cop > Lamentably, good grammar isn't going to contribute to the solution > of the Earhart mystery. What is needed can't be gotten out of > a dictionary; it's got to come out of the ground--or out of the > ocean. > LTM. > Marty #2359 Marty, I have great respect for you as a scholar for making this statement. I for one do not post for the very issue of correct grammar. Thank You Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:21:46 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Niku nudity > This is a great idea - charge everybody to vote - fund > the next expedition. In the alternative - charge > everybody MORE, to keep the pictures OFF the website - > fund the next TWO expeditions! > ltm, > jon Or you could do a really scary Niku V calendar..... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric That would depend on who we put on the team. We might need some new criteria for team selection. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:24:19 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: island attire/chafing A book I once read about Navy Seal training alleged that during extended periods of exposure to saltwater surf, they wear silk boxers to prevent chafing. Of course the author may have been conspiring with the Executive Branch to keep some other more dastardly truth from us. LTM, who says there's nothing more dastardly than Navy Seals in silk boxers. Dave Porter in Detroit, TIGHAR# 2288 **************************************************************************** From Ric I feel a little better knowing that even Navy Seals get chafed thighs. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:59:52 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Here's the Telegram with the Longer Range Plan The point I was trying to make earllier today is that the 72, 60, 36, 30 (etc) gph cruises are EACH at ONE CONSTANT POWER SETTING. There is only ONE power setting for 51 gph, which is flown for 3 hours. There is only ONE power setting for 36 gph, which is flown for 5 hours. And so forth. With 1150 gallons of fuel, the telegram reads: Climb [*] to 7000. Fly one hour at 72 gph [*], drift climbing to 8000.[* insert power settings] Fly 2 hours 60 gph [*] Fly 3 hours at 51 gph [*] Fly 3 hours at 43 gph [*] Fly 5 hours at 36 gph [*] 10,000 feet Fly 5 hours at 30 gph [*] Remainder at 26 gph [*] (If I were sending a telegram with these instructions, I would add:) TRUE airspeed about 125 at start of cruise flight (72 gph at 7000), gradually increases to 155 by end of tenth hour, averaging 135 mph in first 10 hours. At 10,000 and 36 gph, TAS about 145 to start, and will increase gradually to 170 over 5 hours. At 30 gph, TAS about 160 mph to start, will increase to 165 mph plus. At 26 gph, TAS about 155 to start, will increase to 160 mph plus. (I might also add something like the following:) To increase range after the first 10 hours, at 1600 rpm hold 120 constant INDICATED air speed (approximately 142 TAS) at 10,000 feet. Monitor speed closely (hourly or more often), and if IAS exceeds 120 reduce MP and relean to 0.72 to reduce IAS to 120. Fuel consumption 35 gph at the start of hour 11, declining to less than 25 gph near end of flight, and averaging under 30 gph. Estimated total endurance 28 to 30 hours. Thanks. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:01:11 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Mantz citation (Carrington book) I really couldn't care less, and wouldn't bother, but I happen to have the Carrington book on my desk. George's first book was Amelia Earhart - a Report (1977) He apparently rewrote it in 1989, when it was titled Amelia Earhart - What Really Happened at Howland. ISBN 0-9693015-1-4. There IS an index. Apparently he deleted the Mantz reference to the Phoenix Islands, although I've seen it elsewhere. Bear in mind that Mantz was out of the loop for Earhart's second attempt at circumnavigation of the globe. Cam Warren Oh, and Carrington's dedication to "Cam" (and others) certainly wasn't for me! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:13:09 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Howland off-set LOP approach > Volkloren? > Konnen sie nicht Vorsprung Durch Technic? > (Wirklich dieser Darryl ist ein wunder an gelehrsamkeit!) > Von A. Earhardt.(Am ende der welt an Mili atollen) My German is VERY rusty, but I think Angus said, "Folklore? Aren't you familiar with the famous [passage?] technique? (Actually, this Darryl is a wonder at scholarship!) From, Earhardt (at the end of the world at Mili Atoll). Did I get that right? Or even close? Vorsprung Durch Technic has me perplexed. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I read it as: Folklore? Don't you understand Progress Through Technology? (Certainly this Darryl is a wonder at scholarship!) From, Earhardt (at the end of the world at Mili Atoll). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 10:16:32 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified > From Oscar Boswell > > Well, I agree with much of what Ric says about the Longer Range Flight Plan, and > there is certainly no satisfactory evidence that anyone prepared such a plan for > AE. > > But I disagree with the suggestion that the Longer Range Plan is somehow > more complicated than KJ's, or more demanding on the pilot. It's really the > SAME PLAN, only with a couple of extra lines in the telegram. We only have Clarence Williams's flight plan for the first attempt. It suggests 22 minutes to climb to 8000ft, then blocks of around 71 minutes in groups of three which correspond to small changes in heading. Kelly Johnson's advice seems to tie in with that, with his power setting changes fairly closely to the times of the heading changes. All of which suggests that things were arranged so the pilot and navigator had the simplest job possible,fly at 150mph changing heading and engine settings at about the same time, even though there is anout ten minutes difference each hour. One thing is obvious. The first flight plan relied on maintaining as close to 150mph as possible over the entire route, which would enable Fred to estimate drift and work out his DR position as well as possible. It seems very strange than no similar flight plan has been found for the Lae - Howland crossing. Had Clarence Williams been dropped from the planning team by then? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric I think Williams (a paid consultant) was probably dropped when Noonan became the sole navigator. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:03:54 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified >From Ric > > If I'm following the your program you say: > > < (av.speed) 136; weight 12,974 (.7280). > > Hour 6 - Cruise at 51 gph; speed 138-143; distance (av. speed) 141; > weight 12,668 (.7528). > > Hour 7 - Cruise at 51 gph; speed 143-149; distance (av.speed) 146; > weight 12,363 (.7828).>> > > I don't know where my throttles, props and mixture are supposed to be set in > order to do that. The 60, 51 and 43 gph settings are those shown in KJ's telegram. The setting for the 51 gph cruise is "Three hours at Eighteen Hundred RPM Twenty Six point Five inches at Zero Seven Two at Fifty One Gallons Hour." REPEAT: the Longer Range Plan is simply KJ's plan, with a slight reduction in power in the 11th hour (a 36 gph setting rather than 38 gph) followed by further reductions to 30 gph and 26 gph rather than holding the 38 gph setting for the entire flight after the first ten hours or so. The only other change is the assumed higher setting (72 gph) for Hour 2, for stall speed reasons. I jumped to the obviously incorrect conclusion that when people saw "60 gph" and "51 gph" and "43 gph" they would realize this. Similarly, when I gave my 36 and 30 gph settings, I expected readers to understand that the power setting (and altitude) would be maintained until a change was indicated. My mistake - no, I mean it! It's my job to make it clear, and I obviously failed to do that. Your presumption about airspeed may be correct in the 900 gallon plan, but I don't think you're going to get 150 mph at this point in the 1150 gallon flight because of the increased weight - the speed shift with weight is what this entire discussion is about. As I mentioned in my first posting today (this is my third), with a 900 gallon departure(and 4 people), I would expect around 150 at the beginning of Hour 5. (Reviewing the posting, I see an arithmetical error. With 900 and 4 people, at the start of Hour 5 weight should be 12,412 and the speed factor .7781, which would give a speed of 148 when applied to the 51 gph normal cruise of 190 at 10,500 pounds.) With 1150 (and 2 people, less 100 pounds of gear) the plane would weigh about 13,280 at the start of Hour 5. At KJ's 51 gph setting, speed should be about 134 True at the beginning of hour 5 and 138 at the end, for an average of around 136. In Hour 6, the speed would be 138 to 143 for an average of 141. Hour 7 143 to 149, average 146. (With only the 1100 gallons they actually carried, it would have been a little bit faster.) We all know that increased weight reduces speed at a given power setting. The interesting (and hard) question is "by how much." It may be that KJ expected to produce an average speed around 150 under the conditions of the flight to Hawaii with 900 gallons. And those numbers may have worked very well for the entire flight to Lae, BECAUSE GROSS WEIGHT NEVER EXCEEDED THE HAWAII FLIGHT - until Lae, when the extra fuel was added. If AE had no plan from KJ or Mantz for this leg, she was a test pilot exploring the performance of the plane. At the start of Hour 5, these models show a loss of 14 mph between a 900 gallon load and an 1150. On the actual flights, she carried 947 and 1100, which narrows the performance gap. But there was a reduction in speed. And the weight penalty persisted throughout the flight. Over 18 hours, how much is it? An average 5 mile penalty is 90 miles. An 18 hour flight plan takes 19+12 before they "must be on" , and the reduced speed may be part of the reason.. I'm tired of the numbers too, and I'm making silly mistakes - but let's try one more quick set of calculations and end it for the day. Assume that the KJ flight profile is used for both flights (ie, no increase to 72 gph in hour 2). With 947 gallons and 4 people (actual Hawaii departure), weight at the start of Hour 5 would be about 12,700 pounds, which gives a speed factor of .7517 and an estimated True airspeed of 143. With 1100 gallons and 2 people (less misc. gear) (actual Lae departure), weight at the start of Hour 5 would be about 13,100 pounds, which gives a speed factor of .7175 and an estimated True airspeed of 136. The penalty in this hour seems to be about 7 mph, rather than the 14 we saw comparing the 900 gallon and 1150 gallon flights. After slightly more than 10 hours, weights would be reduced by 1700 pounds, to 11,000 (speed factor .9326 x 175 = 163.2) and 11,400 pounds (sf .8839 x 175 = 154.7), a difference of 8 1/2 mph. What would be the average over the entire flight? Maybe we'll do those calculations another day. And to all a good night! Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Oscar, I really do thank you for your patience with my denseness. The numbers are indeed wearying, especially for those of us who are numerically challenged in the first place, but it's worth slogging it out because natural law is one of the few absolutes we have in this mystery. I think you may be on to something. As you note, Earhart expected the flight to take 18 hours and yet it was 19 hours or so before "we must be on you". We can't say 19 hours and 12 minutes exactly because the message was sent very close to her scheduled transmission time of quarter-past the hour. I think the best we can say is that the flight to "we must be on you" took roughly an hour longer than she expected it to. The question is, why? Stronger than expected headwinds? Maybe, but there's no evidence of that. Her "time chart" for the world flight (second attempt) now on file at Purdue has the Lae/Howland leg flightplanned for 17 hours and 1 minute (150 mph). Her 18 hour estimate was made in Lae and apparently anticipated an average 8 mph headwind component. However, her "height 7,000 feet, speed 140 knots" transmission back to Lae at 4 hours and 18 minutes into the flight seems to indicate that they were actually picking up some tailwind at that time. So why did the flight take an hour longer than anticipated? I think you may have found the answer. A. As far as we have been able to determine, the Kelly Johnson recommendations for the Oakland/Hono flight are the only long range power management instructions she ever received. We know that the Oakland/Hono flight went very well from a fuel conservation standpoint. I see no reason to believe she was not content to use that same formula for similar flights at similar weights, and it should have worked very well. B. As you point out, Lae/Howland was the first time she had flown the airplane at a weight greater than the Oakland/Hono flight. C. If she didn't understand the degree to which the greater weight would affect her speed, and if, in fact, it is the case that the greater weight slowed the airplane by an aggregate of about 8 mph over the entire flight - bingo - there's the added hour. If the arithmetic works it's a pretty good argument that she was using the old Kelly Johnson formula. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:05:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified .... preparing to escape from California on Sunday if my lungs can take that much more stuff in the air I am breathing. You folks out here must have iron lungs Oscar, Your posting of a longer range fuel plan is incredible. Too bad AE only had Kelly Johnson. That was very thorough and detailed. I think I even understood it. Although I might not totally agree AE came anywhere near flying that profile I appreciate the points you made in doing this. Namely that we may be too quick sometimes in coming to conclusions. You have shown me that at least it was technicially possible to end up with more fuel than is conventionally thought. I hope she did. If I didn't get lost in the figures I believe you indicated a fuel consumption factor of .48 and possibly .46 (?) per horsepower per engine. Did I get that right? That figure I believe you said referred to pounds. I don't dispute that but it made me wonder why it was in pounds rather than a liquid amount. Do you know why? Just curiosity. It also brought to mind a question I tried to get an answer to earlier and that is how to figure horsepower at different RPM and manifold pressure settings. Can you tell me that? I suppose CCs of the engine goes into the formula and maybe some constant or other factor. I've seen it before but can't find it again. Does mixture affect horsepower or just fuel consumption? You can see my low level of understanding of recips. I flew only a few props and mostly pure jets and turboprops. You have certainly made me reopen some of my conclusions although I may not alter them significantly for other reasons. I really appreciate when someone goes to such extents to help us all better understand some of the factors involved in our mystery. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:07:02 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Mantz citation I reviewed Carringtons book and I find no reference to Mantz telling Carrington that the Phoenix was an alternative. It could be in there but well hidden. But even if Vidal was on the witness stand with a hearsay statement from Amelia, she could well have changed her route, say to Niku, based on all the circumstances at the time. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:11:19 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Landing Disaster > From Ric > >It's interesting. You and I have both spent lots of time at the Seven Site >and you feel that somebody sitting in the shade of a ren tree up on the ridge >could hear people talking down by the water's edge on the beach. My >impression is that I couldn't shout loud enough to make somebody on the ridge >hear me if my life depended on it. > >Any other Seven Site denizens want to weigh in on this one? I'll have to side with Ric on this one. While surveying the site, 30 meters was about the limit that we could hear each other, even with the advantage of no scaevola between us to absorb the sound. Given the sound-absorbing qualities of dense scaevola and the perpetual white noise created by the wind going through the tops of the brush and the ocean surf, I'm certain that a person at the high point (and coolest spot) of the 7-site would be unable to hear shouting, much less normal conversation on the beach. My ears suffer from 40 years of flying, but I never heard the Naiad approach from the lagoon side either, nor could I hear the helicopter until it was almost directly overhead. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:13:16 EST From: Suzanne Subject: Re: AE on Front Page of The Everett Daily Herald >Interesting front page. I saved the file to hard disk, trying "CFM" and >also the "JPG" extension, but can't read it with Quick View Plus, which >reads just about anything. Do you have some wizard software?? > >Cam Warren No, I don't have any special software. Did you make sure to save the "larger" picture of the newspaper? It has a pixel size of 1000 x 1405 pixels. (The smaller version is 290 x383 pixels.) To get to the larger photo, you have to double click on the smaller photo on the web page front: http://www.heraldnet.com/100/index.cfm?image=3jul1937#historic This is the direct link to the larger picture: http://www.heraldnet.com/100/images/3jul1937lg.gif Put your mouse over the pic, right click, and choose "save picture as" and save it to your hard disk, without the html code. You will see it's actually a "gif" format and not a "jpg" format. Then, open the picture in any picture-viewing software. A good all-around one is VuePrint Pro http://www.hamrick.com/upg.html it's easy to zoom in and out, by right and left mouse clicking. I've got Quick View Plus also, and it does show the picture. And again, the type of monitor you have can make a difference. Generally, trinitron screen offer the sharpest picture quality, while LCD screens offer the weakest quality. CRT screens have a wide range of quality and clarity. Try setting your screen resolution to at least 1152 x 864 True Color, reboot. (Go to Display Properties in your Control Panel, Settings tab.) Good luck! Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:18:40 EST From: Phil Major Subject: Itasca Communications Is it possible for someone to post or direct me to the official records of the radio messages recieved by the Itasca from the Electra with the exact text, frequency, local time and strength recieved. Is there a record of wind speeds and direction in the Area of Howland Island from midnight untilfour hours after the last message was recieved. Phil Major **************************************************************************** From Ric The Earhart Project Research CD available via the TIGHAR website (see http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/tigharstore2.html) may be what you're looking for. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:23:30 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Noonan grave Sort of an odd question, those twin radials probably burned a lot of oil on such a long Lae to Howland trip. Did they carry extra oil to replenish the engines in flight or was the trip not long enough to use that much? If so, I imagine that the oil would have been in large cans or can with a spout of some kind. If they did crash on the reef, I wonder if they would have thought to bring some for signaling purposes? What other uses might it have? Did they have a tool kit on board? (Just thinking of artifacts to look out for) Chris #2511 (who wishes Ric would post my complements to Oscar Boswell!) (From Ric: Okay.) I sure wish Oscar Boswell was my math teacher in high school, I sure coulda used him! Chris #2511 ************************************************************************** From Ric The airplane had oversize oil tanks. There was no way to add oil in flight and there is no reason to think there were cans of oil aboard the airplane. We really have no way of knowing what was aboard and what wasn't. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:25:28 EST From: Phil Tanner in Reading, UK Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Clarified Thinking about the merits of different fuel plans - what arrangements (if any) do we know/can we make an educated guess at for Earhart and Noonan grabbing some sleep during the flight when out of radio ranage at both ends? Would less frequent adjustments have been factored in with this in mind? LTM (who needs seven hours a night) Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not aware of any such arrangements. Beyond that, we can only speculate. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:43:22 EST From: Russ Plehinger Subject: pertinent thoughts This may get me banned but I have 2 things to say. 1st--we all know that you are "the man" and have more expertise in the area of AE & FN but is it really necessary for you to be so sarcastic and smug when others present ideas and theories that you don't agree with. 2nd--I had some weird idea that this forum was to evaluate evidence regarding the Earhart flight. So why all the nonsense about grammar and nudity and the redundant dribble about island names. Does anyone really care to tune into all of this? *************************************************************************** From Ric No, criticism of my immoderate moderating will not get you banned. I make no apology for my failure to suffer fools gladly or for my indulgence of occasional whimsical excursions for the sake of a little comic relief. We take the work very seriously, but not ourselves. I take as many punches as I throw. Solving the Earhart Mystery is an extremely difficult task and we're not here to exercise some kind of politically correct notion that all opinions are created equal. I try my best to keep ad hominum attacks off the forum but stupid is stupid and it reveals itself without my help. This can be a pretty rough place and sometimes a pretty silly place, and I really don't expect everyone who tries it to like it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:47:35 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo Ron Bright wrote (excerpts): >For years I have looked at that very famous photo of Amelia and Fred .... >looking intently at a large world map. AE is in her checkered shirt and >Fred in his usual dark long sleeved dress shirt. > >My guess is the photo was taken on 31 May 37 at Miami It's interesting that you mentioned this photo, since I'd just seen it on the web at this URL: http://celebrate2000.cjonline.com/stories/051799/his_1937.shtml That page states: Aviator Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan hold a map of the Pacific Ocean showing the route of their final flight before Earhart's around-the-world attempt in 1937. --ASSOCIATED PRESS/FILE A larger photo is here: http://celebrate2000.cjonline.com/images/051799/Amelia_Earhart.jpg To me, the picture looks doctored. It may look that way due to the image being a low resolution one. Yet, in the photo, her left arm looks like it's at an unnatural position, and her left hand and arm look drawn on the photo. With her elbow at her bustline, would her hand reach up so far? So my point is, if the picture is possibly doctored, the "route" could have been sketched on as well. As the famous "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" song lyrics go, "People say believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear." LTM, Suzanne ************************************************************************* From Ric I see what you mean. AE's left arm definitely looks weird. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:00:29 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: Howland off-set LOP approach Danke schoen. David Katz ******************************************* From Ric Bitte. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:01:53 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Noonan grave II I think that the bones are the most intriguing part of the story. As a physician myself, I doubt that the good doctor saw many human skeletons, unless he did a lot of forensic anthropology investigating murders in the islands. How many murders could there have been? The doctor most certainly did have "an axe to grind". The previously uninhabited islands, like Canton/Kanton were claimed by both the US and Britain, and at the time had economic value as potential airplane landing sites for cross-Pacific flight. It makes a difference if the skeleton is local, as it would give added value to the claim that "we" (the Gilbertese and the British) have been on this island since ancient times. If the bones were AE's or Noonan's, this would make and strengthen an American claim to "our island where our brave pioneers died in an attempt to cross the Pacific." If your salary was paid by the British government, and there was any doubt that the skeletons were American or Pacific, what would you say? Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who knows on which side her bread is buttered) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:28:09 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Landing Disaster Points well taken, Ric and Skeet. Until Ric's post this morning I hadn't really thought about my own auditory experience at the Seven Site, and having now done so I think you're right. It would be easy enough for someone to pass by on the beach, even engaged in a good deal of chatter, without being heard. Pretty awful to imagine that one or more of them may have been alive and missed by Maude and Bevington. There's a helluva novel in this. ******************************************************************** From Ric Think about finding footprints after it's too late. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:29:52 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan grave II For Dan Postellon -- I generally agree with you about Hoodless' ability to analyze bones, particularly since he hadn't been doing doctoring very long. He'd come out to Fiji as a teacher, and only very recently had gone back to England and gotten his MD. No offence to his memory; he was a truly great man in the history of Pacific medicine, but there's no reason to think that he was a bones expert. As to whether he had an axe to grind, I wouldn't want to cast aspersions, but you're right about the political situation between the US and GB at that time regarding the Phoenix Islands. Plus, I've always wondered if larger geopolitics may have played a role in Sir Harry Luke's unwillingness to let the Yanks know about the bones find. The Battle Britain was underway; England was fighint for its life; Churchill and Roosevelt were trying to get the US engaged; Lend-Lease was underway, and Lindbergh was travelling the country trying to keep the US out of the War. Gotta wonder whether there was a certain reluctance to spread around the idea that AE had died on a British-held island. However, I've asked Sir Harry's erstwhile Aide-de-Camp, Sir Ian Thomson about this, and he says he never heard of such a consideration. Anyhow, on balance there doesn't seem to have been much reason for Sir Harry to want to get the Americans involved; whether that influenced Hoodless in any way -- even subconsciously -- is something we can't know. It's also worth noting that even when one has the bones in hand, and real experts looking at them, there can be lots of arguments about just what kind of person it is, as shown by the current case of "Kennewick Man" in Washington State, whose Native American credentials have been challenged by some highly qualified physical anthropologists and defended by others. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:03:27 EST From: Russ Plehinger Subject: gas and oil It has been mentioned that "we have no way of knowing just what was on board". Has anyone ever thought that AE might have had extra tins of fuel on board. These could have been easily added to the cabin tanks. In many of the Atlantic flights of the 1930s (as well as numerous endurance record flights) carrying extra fuel in tins was quite common. *************************************************************************** From Ric There is no mention by Collopy or Chater of such extra fuel being carried and, as far as we know, there were no filler necks on the fuselage tanks that could be acessed from inside the cabin. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:10:00 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Foot Prints To Ric and Tom King, But wouldn't the cast-a-way(s) have left foot prints in the sand to be seen as well? Dick Pingrey in Selah, 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. However, the footprints might logically be only right around the beach in front of the Seven Site. The sand there is very deep and soft and footprints are just depressions in the sand. Someone trudging past could very well miss them. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:12:33 EST From: Michael Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo Well - doggone, Freds right hand looks pretty dodgy as well. And ... what is the map resting on? If Fred was holding it pressed against the tail fin, then surely the rolled part of the map would be crushed flat????? Perhaps somebody would like to try holding a map as per the picture? Just some more food for thought! Regards Michael [in Edinburgh Scotland] **************************************************************************** From Ric It's not quite as strange as it appears. The map is resting on the tip of the horizontal stabilizer that sticks out past the vertical fin. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:14:07 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Specific Fuel Consumption > From Alan Caldwell > > If I didn't get lost in the figures I believe you indicated a fuel > consumption factor of .48 and possibly .46 (?) per horsepower per engine. Did > I get that right? That figure I believe you said referred to pounds. I don't > dispute that but it made me wonder why it was in pounds rather than a liquid > amount. Do you know why? Just curiosity. > > It also brought to mind a question I tried to get an answer to earlier and > that is how to figure horsepower at different RPM and manifold pressure > settings. Can you tell me that? I suppose CCs of the engine goes into the > formula and maybe some constant or other factor. I've seen it before but > can't find it again. Does mixture affect horsepower or just fuel consumption? Alan Caldwell's questions about "specific fuel consumption" raise issues we've discussed before (particularly in the posting "Learning to think about the Performance of the 10E" on 4/11/00). Consumption is measured in pounds because the engine "burns pounds" - that is, it is the DENSITY of the fuel that determines the power available from the fuel. We say a gallon of ordinary aviation gas weighs 6 pounds, and it is very close to that at 59 F and 29.92 inches of mercury (standard conditions). In colder conditions, because of contraction that volume of fuel weighs more than 6 pounds. In warmer conditions, because of expansion, it weighs less than 6 pounds. Note well - the total weight of the fuel doesn't change, only the VOLUME of the fuel changes. Assume a 2 gallon container (to eliminate the question of venting): If you place 1 gallon in the container at 59 F (weighing 6 pounds) and allow the fuel to warm up to 80 F, there will be slightly more than 1 gallon of liquid in the container, but the gas will still weigh 6 pounds. If the fuel is cooled to 30 F, the fuel will still weigh 6 pounds, but the volume of it will be less than 1 gallon. (You can chill the fuel with dry ice if you wish. This will enable you to put "heavier" gallons in the tank, and pack more energy into the plane. As the fuel returns to ambient temperature it will expand and the tanks - if full to the brim - will "vent" the excess fuel. Any lightplane pilot has seen fuel streaming from the vents as the sun warms the wing of a plane topped off early in the morning. The dry ice technique was used by none other than Paul Mantz to fuel his Mustang for the 1946 Bendix race. The plane's tanks had a volumetric capacity of 856 gallons. By cooling the fuel, Mantz was able to put THE WEIGHT EQUIVALENT OF 875 gallons (5,250 pounds) into the 856 gallon (5136 pound) tanks - an increase of roughly 2.2%. See Birch Matthews, WET WINGS & DROP TANKS, pages 158-160 and 177. There's a picture of Mantz' plane with the wings draped in blankets to insulate against heating and venting in Robert C.Mikesh, EXCALIBUR III: THE STORY OF A P-51 MUSTANG, page 12. This P-51 C [NX-1202] was purchased from Mantz by Charles F. Blair, Jr., who used it on his solo flight over the North Pole, and is in the collection of the National Air and Space Museum.) I don't know how to figure horsepower at different RPM and manifold settings, without the manufacturer's chart for the engine. (I know that there is a theoretical way to do it, but I think the manufacturer does it with a dynamometer.) Modern piston engines are assumed to burn 0.45 pounds of fuel per horsepower hour, with normal leaning techniques. This is equivalent to 7 1/2 gph per 100 horsepower being produced. Fuel consumptions somewhat higher than that were normally expected from the P&W radials in the 1930's. P&W said the 10E's engines would burn 0.52 pounds per hour at maximum cruise hp (412 per engine) and 0.48 at 350 hp. As I mentioned, the 10A export manual indicates a range of 0.46 to 0.48 at lower horsepower settings IF (as it is careful to point out) the Cambridge analyzer is used - "without this unit, it is quite hard to obtain the ranges shown consistently as it is advisable to run the mixture on the rich side when uncertain as to just what it is." (page 24). When you look at the 10E Power Control Chart and locate the RPM and MP settings given by KJ for 60, 51 and 43 gph, you find that the settings correspond very closely to 400, 350 and 300 hp per engine, but the fuel consumption figures are significantly BELOW what would be expected at those horsepowers. At 300 hp per engine (600 total) an sfc of 0.48 would give 48 gph; an sfc of 0.46 would give 46 gph; and so forth. (The strict coincidence of the sfc and fuel consumption only exists at 600 hp total power for mathematical reasons - makes it easy to calculate.) KJ's indication of 43 gph at this setting is equal to an sfc of 0.43 - too low for 600 hp (particularly when maximum leaning is not being used). Alan's question "Does mixture affect horsepower or just fuel consumption?" hits this nail on the head. Mixture can affect BOTH horsepower and fuel consumption. Back to the Cessna 210M for a minute. Cessna provides detailed charts showing TAS at various power settings, altitudes, and temperatures, at "recommended lean mixture" (ie, 25 degrees rich of peak - if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it). Each of the 6 pages of the chart contains the notation "For best fuel economy ... operate at 6 [pounds per hour] leaner than shown ... or at peak [exhaust gas temperature] ..." NONE OF THE CHARTS MENTIONS SOMETHING ELSE THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO THAT. Buried in the "Amplified Procedures" section (page 4-19) is the note "This will result in approximately 6% greater range .. [and] 4 KNOTS DECREASE IN SPEED." If leaning the mixture to peak only affected fuel consumption, the speed wouldn't change - there would be nothing to cause it to change if the power produced remained the same. The aggressive leaning reduces horsepower a little, as well as eliminating the fuel waste caused by running too rich. Let's illustrate the effect with the "rule of thumb" standard cruise in the 210 - 160 knots at 80 pph, which equals 2 nm per pound of fuel. If at the same MP and RPM settings we lean 6 pph to 74 pounds per hour, and speed falls off the predicted 4 knots, we are getting 156 knots on 74 pph, or 2.108 knots per pound - about a 5.5% increase. In short, the fuel consumption figures given by KJ tend to indicate that in addition to operating efficiently, the engines were producing a bit less horsepower than the MP and RPM settings given called for, because of ... ? ( non-standard conditions, instrument variations, whatever?). Thanks for the kind words. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:20:19 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Prolonging the project Rollin Reineck snipes: <> WELL, EXCUUUUUUUSE ME! Think what you like about TIGHAR, but I can assure you that all of us on NIKU IIII are not a bunch of dolt headed boobs who took a month out of our lives to go out there and sip pina coladas while discussing how we can prolong the project by means of fooling the rest of the world and laying the ground work for future expeditionary fun. In fact, it was quite the opposite with a serious sense of urgency to find the "smoking gun" infused into everything that we did. Many a conversation on strategy and tactics were had, and all of them were slanted on taking our best shot at finding what we were looking for. Solving the mystery is the key to prolonging the project, not the other way around. The smoking gun will only be the beginning of the unraveling of the "the rest of the story," and the impetus for further research. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about the latest efforts of the AES and the progress you've made in solving the mystery. I'd love to hear it, give us your best stuff to chew on. Who knows you might change all of our minds on the subject. In the mean time (I expect it will be a while before you share anything) please don't insult TIGHAR and its membership by offering up pot shots on how we're not trying to solve the mystery. It is just those kind of quips that undermine your reputation as a serious researcher, and indicate that you are incapable of being objective. Andrew McKenna ************************************************************************** From Ric Down boy - sit, sit. Good boy. Rollin, don't SAY stuff like that. If this chain snaps you're toast. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:24:10 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: pertinent thoughts <<...This can be a pretty rough place and sometimes a pretty silly place, and I really don't expect everyone who tries it to like it.>> Well said Ric. For this newbie, I enjoy the hell out of the forum & I frequently catch myself laughing out loud! Keep up the good work my friend!! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:30:11 EST From: Carol Linn Dow Subject: Re: Island Names I was in the Boston area like once in my life to call on Parker Brothers Games and to meet Muriel Morrissey, Amelia's sister. I had extra time so I visited the Radcliffe library and got stuck on Amelia's book of poems (not very scientific I'm afraid). I wish I would have realized at the time what was there (the Hurd Maps). Right now I don't have any plans to return to the Boston area. Anyone who is in the neighborhood can stop in. By the way Muriel was a super gal. We really hit it off. I have a small collection of letters from her that I'll donate to the Library in Atchison some day. I'm rambling on a little bit, but some of our people might like to know about Muriel. I called her from Boston and received an instant invitation to visit her home in a Boston suburb. She was a very gracious and kind woman, and anyone who visited Muriel's home was instantly invited in for tea and cookies. Muriel was very slender, the same as Amelia, and an exceptionally avid listener. The air crackled with electricity when you talked with her. I believe she was in her sixties when I visited her, but she was not diminished by age by any amount. She was active (chased the cat out the door) and had a high degree of enthusiasm for almost anything she did. We talked about Amelia, and Muriel believed her sister crashed at sea and was lost forever. There was a Commander Thompson ( I believe, I would have to check the books) from the Navy who called on her and impressed upon Muriel the extent of the storm the Lexington Carrier Group ran into in the events that followed Sept. 2, 1937. He didn't see how anything could have survived at sea if they went down in the ocean in the area close to Howland Island. There was quite a storm system that was evidently developing in the area. On the other hand, Amelia's mother (Amy) believed she was on some type of a spy mission. Muriel didn't mention anything about spy missions but Amy's position on her daughters disappearance did come out in later newspaper articles. So... we're back to the drawing board. What happened and where's the airplane? Hope you enjoyed this short narrative on Muriel. Carol Linn Dow ************************************************************************** From Ric Uh, Carol, it was July 2nd and the Lexington group did not run into any storm. It is interesting, however, if it's true that Commander Thompson called upon Muriel to assure her that her sister went down at sea. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:47:21 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan According to Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, page 161 the specific range varies directly with the weight ratio. SR2 = SR1 x W1/W2 So for 14000 vs 10500 the specific range would equal .75 times the specific range at 10500 meaning that it would take 1/3 more fuel to go the same distance if everything is done right.. However, to achieve maximum range the airplane must be operated at the airspeed that produces L/D max (lift over drag). This is approximately the same as best rate of climb speed. It seems to me that 150 mph is well above that speed (does anybody have a flight manual for a 10a that gives the best rate of climb airspeed?). This speed then varies with the square root of the weight ratios so the cruise speed at 14000 pounds to achieve L/Dmax is 15% above the speed at 10500 pounds. It appears that they were operating well above the speed for L/Dmax for 10500 pounds. Since a higher speed is needed at 14000 pounds then they were probably operating closer to the L/Dmax airspeed and so were operating more efficiently. This presupposes that they did not increase their airspeed still higher while operating the the higher weight. However, they would have done better to slow down to the correct speeds for L/D max for the takeoff weight and then periodically reduce speed as fuel was burned off. They would not need any fancy power setting tables for this. They only need to operate the engines at the lowest rpm that the engines will tolerate and then set the manifold pressure to achieve the target airspeeds. Also, the power required varies with the weight ratio raised to the 1.5 power. This means to fly at the most efficient speed at 14000 pounds requires 53% more power than at 10500 pounds with a fuel flow increased by the same 53%. See if this fits in with your calculations. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:54:07 EST From: Ed Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo You probably are aware that there are living witnesses to AE/FN's time in Miami. In fact there is a Gentleman who I think may be a member a TIGHAR who was the last to put fuel in the plane before her takeoff. His name is Bill Schleisenger(spelling?) who is a pilot himself (Spitfires, American Eagle squadron, P51, U.S. Army Air Corp, etc.) a real hero. Maybe Bill could shed some light on events that took place, etc. He was interviewed by the Miami Herald when the flight was reenacted a few years ago. I had a chance to break bread with him and what a Gentleman! He's walking history! LTM Ed of PSL #2415 *************************************************************************** From Ric I've never talked to Mr. Schleisenger. Eyewitnesses 65 years after the fact are a real challenge to the historical researcher. The best you can hope for is that they can point you to some source that will verify what they tell you. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:03:14 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Brussels Subject: Re: Noonan grave Chris' question is interesting. Any pilot has to calculate weight and balance before take off. The includes calculation of the weight of the fuel in the tanks and oil the in the engines. I don't know about 1937 procedures but today the weight and balance sheet has to be on board. AE must have made the calculation and probably took it with her. But isn't there a chance she left a copy ? or let's try an other approach : if we know to the last drop (or almost) how much fuel she bought in Lae, there should have been a bill for oil. Pratt & Whitney could answer the question how big the oil tanks were. If we know that we can figure out how much oil the engines had used to get to Lae. Do P&W still have documents on the Wasp SH3-1 engine ? If not, what about people who fly a Lockheed 10E ? They should have a manual. I'm thinking of Linda Finch in particular. She flew her Lockheed 10A turned into a 10E along (almost) the same route and must have had the same big oil tanks. How much oil did she use ? LTM (who wants to know everything) *************************************************************************** From Ric The Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report for NR16020 dated May 19, 1937 (the last one before the world flight) shows tha airplane having an 80 gallon oil capacity in 4 tanks. That's a lot of oil. Maximum oil capacity for the off-the-shelf 10E was 17 gallons. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:28:40 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Castaway Hangout Ric wrote: >I have to disagree. We know there was at least one castaway on the island - >possibly two people, a man and a woman. We also know at least one place >where he/she/they hung out. There is nothing baseless about that. Did you mean to say: "We also know at least one place where he/she/they....may have....hung out."? Isn't the place where the castaway hung out still a theory? LTM Kenton Spading St. Paul MN *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. So is evolution. Let's briefly review the reasons we think that the Seven Site is where the castaway(s) hung out. 1. It fits (as good as any place does) Gallagher's description of where he found the bones. 2. We have photographic proof of brush-clearing activity at the site contemporaneous with Gallagher's search for more bones and artifacts (search done in the fall of 1940; photo taken June 1941). 3. We have documentary evidence in island maps that the Seven Site was set aside for some purpose attributed to Gallagher, but no mention of activity in any of his reports (other than the "secret" bones file) that would explain what is going on there. 4. We have physical evidence recovered from the site ( charcoal, bird bones and the partial remains of a turtle) which matches Gallagher's description of what he found with the skeleton. 5. So far, analysis of the faunal material (animal remains) recovered from the site suggest inexpert non-islander practices (clams carried inland and bashed open; a turtle butchered out on the beach and only the shell and meat brought inland). 6. We have photographic evidence of a human presence (trails) at the Seven Site that predates the settlement of the island. One of the trails just happens to join the clam shell deposits at the site with an old clam bed on the lagoon shore. 7. We have recovered artifacts from the site which appear to be beachcombed objects used as cutting tools. 8. There is an old excavation at the site which appears to be a burial of something small that was later dug up - which, of course, matches Gallagher's description the burial and exhumation of the skull. I'm probably forgetting something, but the point is it's pretty overwhelming. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:31:59 EST From: David Katz Subject: St. Louis diversion In re: > I think AE fabricated the story to cover the fact that they > intentionally chose to bypass Dakar (because of the horrible visibility) > to land at St. Louis. They didn't have permission to land at St. Louis > and there were no customs facilities there - and they couldn't get > permission because the radio wasn't working. > > The French authorities might easily have impounded the airplane and > caused all sorts of trouble, but by saying it was a mistake ("Silly me. > I should have listened to my navigator.") she avoided any delay. It's > speculation, of course, but there is no way to reconcile AE's version > with the map. > > Anybody who doesn't think that AE was capable of lying to get around the > authorities hasn't done their homework'... Exactly what is your basis for presuming that AE did not have permission to land at St. Louis? She certainly had permission to land at Dakar. What motive would the French authorities have for impounding the plane, or even causing a delay? Why would AE believe that they would? Please cite some factual basis for your premise. Thank you. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Even today, countries have designated "airports of entry" which have customs services available. Take off from Buffalo, fly across into Canada and land at a little airport that is not an "airport of entry" and see what happens. It was even more stringent in 1937. A major part of Earhart's planning for the World Flight was obtaining landing clearances for her intended destinations. Even so, there were glitches (there was a big flap and delay in Darwin, Austalia because her immunization records were not in order). She had permission to land at Dakar but that took special arrangements. Remember, there were very few international flights into French Senegal in those days. Ever mess with the French? I am, of course, guessing about why AE made up the story, but it's very clear from the chart and from Noonan's letter that it's not true. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:24:58 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Sydenham ...mercifully back in Austin (no offence to Californians) Thanks, Ron for a couple of your posts. In shooting at the Gilberts and Marshalls I have never denied the possibility of our heroes getting there nor have I ever championed the ideas. It is the Electra I have focused on in trying to fathom it's flying possibilities upon departing the Howland area if indeed that occurred. Oscar, in great detail and well supported, has tried to point out we might be cutting AEs fuel reserve too short. I think he has certainly made a good point that it was possible to fly the plane much more conservatively than we believed was possible. I don't necessarily believe that was done but I must rethink some of the factors in light of Oscar's postings. You add much to our understanding as does Oscar and many others on this forum. I'm often awed at what this group can come up with. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:26:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Confusion > Caldwell and others make a good case for what Noonan would do when AE > couldn't find Howland. BUT, they are overlooking one factor;. i.e., Fred > wasn't flying the airplane. Amelia was (and don't you forget it). Cam, you may well be right about AEs strong headedness. And as you say who will ever know. I've thought of that possibility but just couldn't come up with an alternate plan she might have insisted upon. She might have been strong willed but she wasn't stupid nor was she a navigator. Fred was both a navigator AND a pilot. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:27:54 EST From: Nicolas Uribe Subject: North star? I'm sure my question has been answered before at some point in time, but for the benefit of us "lurkers" with a limited knowledge of celestial navigation, WHY was it that FN had "no idea of his north-south position on the LOP?" Surely he would have sighted the North Star at 4 or 5 AM - just before sunrise - thus giving him a pretty good idea of his latitude? Kind regards, Nicolas Uribe Cali, Colombia **************************************************************************** From Ric Would someone in the Celestial Choir care to answer this? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:28:47 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Landing Disaster > From Dick Pingrey > > I will stick with my thought that landing any where other then > Howland would be a disaster. Dick, first of all seeing my name and Ric's linked must be a terrifying thought to both of us. I guess landing somewhere on dry land under those circumstances would have been a great victory to me. "Live to fight another day" To me, water would have been the disaster. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:30:17 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Oil Consumption As I recall the R-985's in my Twin Beech used about 1/2 pint per hour(or less sometimes) between the 2 motors combined. The R-1340's being an identical engine should have been about the same as long as everything else was normal. My engines were fresh overhauls at the time as well and running like swiss watches. Doug Brutlag #2335 (who enjoys the sound of finely tuned round engines) **************************************************************************** From Ric I assume that you're using "identical" in a general sense, ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:37:19 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: SE on the LOP (important) > I would probably circle for a short time, Whatever they did FN had to be able to plot it to keep from losing his position. It would not have been random circling. (And I know you didn't say random) The only thing that makes sense to me is to fly half standard rate turns and race track lines parellel to his LOP. At the lower airspeed he might have opted for standard rate turns so they could see down at the water better but it and the airspeed needed to be plottable. My nav flew "quarter" turns and "Dime" turns because they were easy to plot quickly. They had to surmise they were either short or long of target in addition to being either north or south so a race track would have been the thing to do. They milled around for about an hour so they may have turned north on the LOP direction for a short time, then south making their turns to the left both times. After flying south for a while they would have covered the line through where they thought Howland was and now they need to similarly fly a line north and south some miles to the west then some miles to the east. They may have tried one more line even further east and even further west but I doubt they would have done more. My guess is that they thought their problem was one of north/south error rather than east/west. They may not have done that at all of course or they might have put all their search in north/south. The point is that whatever they did FN had to be able to follow it. My personal belief is that at some point he had AE climb so he could get another fix. I don't know what the tops of the CU were. Too high and they most likely did not climb. anyone know the cloud tops? Bases were around 2300 or 2400 feet I think. Correct me on that. Alan #2329 *********************************************************************** From Ric Bases were at 2,650 over Howland but that was at noon. No mention of tops. On a typical morning out there it's not unusual to get build-ups that look to go to maybe 5 or 6 thousand. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:40:48 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Island names OK, two substantive things for me to ask/state. Forgive me if these Q's have already been asked, but I am just getting to last weeks email and have 150+ to go: Q1: Say "Duke of York" emphatically (as if you were trying to make that information clear over the radio) and I find that in my 2002 American English I emphasize "Duke" and "York", glossing over the "of". This is due to several reasons, the most obvious being the hard "k" consonant sounds. This could explain why, over a static-filled reception, Betty could say "New York or something that sounds like New York". Both share the York and the "ew" sound of the if the first word. In hurried, unclear speech, the "Duke of" could easily make someone wonder "what was that word?". I do it all the time when listening to music; I'm always pulling out the J-Card to read the lyrics (quick aside, if a cassette has a "J-Card", what do we call it on a CD?) Q2: Now to my supposition as to why (assuming AE transmitted she was on D of Y island) AE/FN could've thought they were on DofY and not Niku. Supposing they turned NW first on their LOP, went as we suppose for 30 minutes or so, and didn't see Howland. They would then think they are two far south of Howland(we know, now, that they could be right on it and not see it due to cloud cover, etc) and proceed SE on the recip of the LOP. Thinking they were two far South of Howland when they began their SE course, they would forward their starting position along that line farther SE than actual. When they saw the island and landed, they would assume it was DofY because, for time in the air, airspeed, etc, it couldn't be Niku because they started (in their mind) much further South of Howland than reality. This has happened to most of us pilots at some time in our career if we have had the (mis)fortune to do much dead reckoning. Ok, fire away..... Those are my thoughts LTM -troy-- TIGHAR # two-thousand something ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:54:01 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: 10E's Range The on-going discussion regarding the range of AE's Electra makes me wonder if there are any surviving fuel consumption records from AE's previous flights. If there is evidence that she habitually/occasionally/never hit the mark regarding fuel consumption on her many earlier flights, it seems we could draw some inferences regarding her technique in July 1937. I apologies if this issue has been covered before. LTM, who is a creature of habit Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric It's an interesting point. I can't think of a time in AE's career when she had to land early because of gas. On the 1932 Atlantic crossing she landed in Ireland having used only 350 of the 420 gallons she took off with. Her Honolulu/ Oakland and Mexico City/Newark flights likewise do not seem to have been at all close on gas. The Oakland/Honolulu flight has huge reserves. Whatever her other failings, Amelia seems to have habitually played it safe on fuel consumption. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:55:46 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Foot Prints >Someone trudging past could very well miss them. In the tired of the afternoon, one tends to focus on just placing one foot in front of the other. Between coral rubble and deep sand, finding firm footing is a constant problem. It would not surprise me if our intrepid hikers missed unexpected clues. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:58:38 EST From: Herman De Wulf in Brussels Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan For Gary LaPook Yes. That manual exists. Ask Cpt. Alan MacLeod, ex- Air Canada, who flies a Lockheed 10A. His e-mail address is : alan.macleod@sympatico.ca LTM (who loved flying the Electra) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:59:57 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Expedition criteria Exploiting Ric's wickedly playful nature of late and drawing from recent Forum postings, here are my six new criteria for participation in future Niku expeditions. All participants must: 5. Understand basic navigation (i.e. the BIG arrow on a map usually points north); 4. Explain the difference between KmPH, KPH, and MPH; 3. Have the wit, satire, and subtleties of a Dorothy Parker, Ogden Nash, or Sam Kennison; 2. Possess impeccable grammar; 1B. Look good in a loin cloth or thong; 1A. Look even better without a loin cloth or thong. LTM, who has forsaken hedonism Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:11:00 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: The Identical Sense Yep, I mean identical sense. The folks at the engine shop said the R-1340 was a growth version of the reliable R-985. Design similiar but greater displacement, bigger pineapple, beefier crank & main bearings......you know the routine. I'm guessing that when AE met her demise the engines had around 150-200 hours on them. The R-985 does not have a TBO (time before overhaul) per se-Pratt has an AD (airworthiness directive) on the crankshaft which requires an inspection to be done at 1600 hours, meaning you have to disassemble the case so you might as well perform an overhaul & bring the engine back to 0 time. Assuming all required, preventative, and routine maintenance was performed along the way, those motors should have performed faithfully, ran smooth, and had a lower(relatively speaking of course) oil consumption on the predicted/historical parameter. I don't believe they were major oil burners until they approached their recommended overhaul time. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:11:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Foot Prints When we got to the site this year, there were some very apparent turtle tracks up from the water to the vegetation fringe, and within a few days they were pretty well invisible. Of course, that was with a lot of people tromping up and down the beach. I'd guess that if a person had walked down to the water within a couple or three days before Bevington and the guys walked by, their tracks would have been clearly evident (assuming that the weather hadn't been too rough and the seas running too far up the beach), but older tracks would be easy to miss. Plus, the beach is most easily walked on down close to the water where the sand is firm, and there, of course, tracks aren't preserved. If Bevington & Co. were strung out along the beach near the water line, which seems likely, they wouldn't be able to see tracks very easily. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:13:50 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: North star? No way Nick. Assuming they were even close to their planned course line they were south of the equator which means the Polaris the North Star would have been more than 90 degrees up from their field of range to sight it. Polaris is very close to being on top of the North pole of the earth (don't ask me to quote how close). One can only sight up to 90 degrees perpendicular of whatever is available. In other words-impossible. Polaris is very useful to gauge latitude as a norm, but if you're south of the equator it's not available. Good question. This reminds me of an old sailing movie (black & white)- I think it was a 1940's--50's version of Captain Bligh or Cook or something. Anyway, they are trying to get an idea of their position when the Captain says "get me a latitude from Polaris". They were sailing in the south pacific near Tahiti or thereabouts. Ha! The writers really screwed up or didn't do their homework. Very amusing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:14:19 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: North Star Clarification I may have made a poor choise of words on my description of why Fred could not have seen Polaris. When I said it was more than 90 degrees up I meant from their position on Earth-not their actual plane of sighting. It would have been below the horizon off to their left (north, since they were heading east). I apologize for any confusion. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:16:59 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Last Will and Testament You and your navigator have been on a deserted island for nine days or a hundred and nine days. Food and water are a problem and your health is fading. You know you are not going to be rescued in the near future and you fear the end is very near. What do you do? Do you try to write a letter to your husband or wife and seal the document in some way as to protect it from the elements? Do you carve your name on a coconut tree? Do you scratch your initials on a rock? The point being, wouldn't you try to leave something for future searchers to find? This may sound a little romantic, even a bit silly, but leaving one's mark on the world is basic human nature. I'm sure if AE and FN were on Niku, they would have tried to leave something. Perhaps something simple as a pile of rocks with a personal item at it's center. However, storms, animal action or human interferrence destroyed what you left. Perhaps, its so simple, it has been overlooked by all who visit. Just a thought. ************************************************************************* From Ric Well, if it's there it has been overlooked by people who were trying very hard to look at everything. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:18:20 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Island Names For Carol Linn Dow, Carols story of meeting Muriel Morrisey was entertaining for if anyone had some inside dope, it seems Muriel would have been in on it. One of the unsolved collateral mysteries withing the Earhart mystery is did George Putman really trek behind Japanses lines for three days to get to a Marine Corp radio station off the China coast so he could "hear better" the Tokyo Rose broadcasts. He reportedly said after less than a minute that " ... although fiendishly well coached, but Amelia-never". Although this has been quoted in other research , the source of that information comes only from Muriel Morrisey, see p.266, of AE, My Courageous Sister. I have always doubted this story. Why would the US want to put George in such a perilous position when the radio broadcasts were quite clear in the So Pacific. I don't beleive he went there and the story by Muriel remains unresolved. Her mother, Amy, allegedly attended every single day of the Toyko Rose trial in San Francisco. Too bad when you visited you were unaware of some of these questions. She and Carol Osborne wrote a heck of a book. Ron Bright Bremerton, WA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:33:55 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Castaway Hangout Your description of all of the evidence at the 7 site suggests a pretty well established Castaway spot with remarkable pre-settlement well traveled trails, bird and shell evidence, and other stuff that suggests lots of activity for the pair of castaways . But the haunting question is how could Maude and Bevington and the colonists there just 2 1/2 months after AE's alleged landing at Niku missed such observable activity. It seems that all of the evidence of human activity that you point out would be quite fresh at that time. I just can't beleive that if AE/FN were still alive in Oct 37, when Maude,et al arrived . It seems that AE/FN (if capable) would continue to engage in affirmative actions to signal potential searchers,e.g.,flying kites,building fires, marks in the sand,etc., not only at the seven site but other strategic areas of the Island. Maude describes that every nite they build large camp fires up near the Norwich City for several days to keep the crabs away. Wouldn't AE and FN been looking in all directions day or night for help. My guess is that if AE and FN made it to Niku, they were dead by early Oct 37, and that any of the obvious visible signs of activity at the seven site were mostly obliterated when Maude and Bevington trudged by. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. That's probably the best advertisement for the Aerial Tour anyone could write. Does anyone who has seen the video have any trouble whatsoever believing that somebody could be at the Seven Site and have no idea that somebody was building bonfires up on the shore near the Norwich City? Unless you've either been there yourself or seen the place from the air in the video you really have no idea what the situation is like. You also do not seem to have an accurate impression of what the Maude/Bevington visit was like. You might find it instructive to read or re-read Bevington's Journal at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:39:38 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Island names For this scenario to work it means that essentially they had to believe that they met the LOP 264 miles further south than they should have. I think it is just possible, as Ric suggsted, that AE could have lost track of her flying time from the supposed position of Howland (or where they met the LOP) and Fred was in no condition to put her right after the landing. However, if Fred believed he was at Atafu, he would be admitting to a 264 mile error in navigating to the LOP. Perhaps he did not get a celestial fix at all but to admit to himself that he was that far out would have been difficult. Especially as he probably wasn't. Even Clarence Williams did not think he would be more than 150 miles off. However, if he got a good sun shot at sunrise he would have been very confident of the LOP even though he didn't know his position on it. Consequently the non-appearance of Howland might have been interpreted as them being too far south (there were no islands to the north). It seems more likely though that he would have believed that they missed it and his navigation was generally good. The difficulty of spotting a small island without a lagoon amongst the cloud shadows would be well known to him. The amount that he would have reassessed his position of interception of the LOP in a southerly direction would in any case be only by the distance of the northerly leg of the LOP search. In other words they would have had to have flown 264 miles (less say 10 miles for extra visual range) north on the first leg of the search. This seems an unreasonable distance to fly unless Fred had reason to suspect that they were miles too far south. We doubt he used offset navigation so this would not in ordinary circumstances be a contributory factor. It is of course possible that he got no celestial fixes and so decided to use an offset of say 100 miles to the south. This could have added to an error of say 150 miles south caused by drift which he might want to take account of. However, if he did use an offset, it is more likely that he would have used an offset to the north. Then when they flew the (longer) southerly leg there would be less chance of missing Howland by not going far enough. They would also end up initially closer to Howland when they met the LOP as the offset offset their too-southerly course. A southerly offset of 100 miles would need a 300 mile northerly leg. A northerly offset would only need a 100 mile northerly leg assuming their maximum expected error was 150 miles and they searched 50 miles beyond the extreme expected position in both cases. Regards Angus. ****************************************************************************** From Ric I think you're suffering from a surfeit of "would haves". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:41:55 EST From: Ric Subject: No Forum Tuesday There will be no new forum postings on Tuesday, November 12. The forum will resume as usual on Wednesday. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:44:37 EST From: Ric Subject: No Forum Tuesday (correction) November??? Did I say November??? Make that February 12. Sheesh! LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:14:48 EST From: Ric Subject: Knob answers & questions Tom King and I spent a fascinating day yesterday at the Nondestructive Testing Lab at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD. Through Tom's contacts, the lab has undertaken the task of identifying the little metal knob (Artifact 2-6-S - 45) recovered from the Seven Site. So far, using ultrasound and conventional high-powered magnification, the lab has not been able to decipher the badly degraded raised letters and numbers on the face of the knob. We suspect that it could be a patent number. Yesterday was the day that they tried the Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) to see if better results could be obtained that way. Tom and I were on hand as observers. As you may or may not know, an SEM uses a beam of electrons to "excite" materials placed in a vacuum chamber. The result is graph with various peaks corresponding to the elements present. Thus, you can find out what elements something is made up of and in what proportions. It's also a good way to get really good, close-up look at something. Unfortunately, we found that the SEM did not make the raised markings any easier to read. They're going to try cleaning the artifact with ultrasound and then see if conventional microscopy and angled light will work better. We also tried to identify the elemental make-up of the artifact, and the results were surprising to say the least. Normally (make that, always) the peaks on the graph exactly line up with one of the elements in the Periodic Table (remember that big chart on the wall in chemistry class?) but in this case a reading taken on a place where the knob had been filed to expose bare metal resulted in a peak that did not align precisely with any element. That can't happen - but it did. After several hours of head-scratching and jokes about artifacts from Roswell, we concluded that the closest match is lead. The knob seems to be made of lead, but we also got one spot on the back edge of the knob where it came up bang-on aluminum. The only thing we can think is that the surface against which the knob rotated was aluminum and a fleck of aluminum remained after the knob broke off. So what sorts of devices have lead knobs that (perhaps) rotate against an aluminum surface? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:54:00 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Last Will and Testament I doubt if there's a one of us who's been to the island without fantasizing about finding a bottle with AE's diary in it -- or something. Trouble is -- besides the bigness of the place and the fact that we haven't looked at it all -- there are all kinds of simple things that COULD be where somebody secreted something -- a big rock here, a couple of rocks there. In 1989 we spent a long time puzzling over something we came to call "Coralhenge," on the mudflat at the head of the lagoon in Nutiran -- standing coral slabs and small cairns, arranged at intervals around the edge of the mudflat. We invested far more time than we probably should have in plotting them all out and scratching our heads before we figured out that they were property boundary markers from the 1950s. Then there's the tree at Aukaraime with names carved into it. Nope, not Amelia, not Fred, nor Koata, nor Gerald -- a bunch of I Kiribati names that don't match anybody in the records we've found so far, at the site where the shoe was found. One of many loose ends. We're looking, Lawrence, we're looking. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:01:52 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: island names > From Ric > > I think you're suffering from a surfeit of "would haves". Well - four "would haves" in such a long spiel is hardly repetitive. So I'm jumping to the conclusion that you think I'm jumping to conclusions. I don't think there's any problem with "would have" if one makes it clear the scenario is hypothetical and that the object of "would have" is in fact a necessary consequence; and even if it isn't, that most sane people would think that it is. Two w/hs were qualified by "likely" which leaves two to use as a sanity test. If you don't agree, you fail the test. (I bet he doesn't agree) Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric One thing I've always found useful in historical hypothesizing is to remember that whenever we say "would have" it means we're guessing. Anytime we say "so-and-so would have done thus and such, so therefore they would have done this other thing" we're piling guesses on top of guesses. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:05:18 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo > I've never talked to Mr. Schleisenger. Eyewitnesses 65 years after the > fact are a real challenge to the historical researcher. The best you can > hope for is that they can point you to some source that will verify what > they tell you. And of course, only by talking to these people while they're still around and asking the right questions can you know if there's a missed verifiable source out there somewhere... Maybe the odd surprise even... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric That's right, but I have to tell ya, it gets real old. Sometimes it seems like everyone who was within a mile of Amelia Earhart at some point holds "the key to the mystery." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:06:18 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo Regarding the picture with the map, > From Ric > > I see what you mean. AE's left arm definitely looks wierd. it looks to me like she's pushing the paper against the tail. Also, it was not at all uncommon for pictures to be "enhanced" by darkening outlines for clarity when printed in the newspaper. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:07:25 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Re: Landing Disaster I think my original posting said that in terms of the around the world record flight landing any where except Howland was a disaster and was to be avoided at all costs except if the option was ditching. I am in full agreement that when Howland wasn't found Amelia and Fred needed to have a plan to take them to an alternate place to land (not to ditch). I simply feel that the chance to continue the around the world flight was very likely to disapeared once a landing at Howland was not possible. As it turned out, whether or not they landed at Gardner, failing to find Howland cost them their lives an even greater disaster. Dick Pingrey in Sealh, 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:09:14 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Specific Fuel Consumption Oscar, I couldn't have asked for a better or more complete answer. I really appreciate the time you take to explain such things. I'm a technical person in as much as I went to an engineering college prep school and I have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. If I see or hear something I don't know or understand I have to look it up. Is that compulsive? I understand the dynamometer test for HP and I can also see how easy it is for little rules of thumb to throw our answers off over a significant distance. I know there are many factors in this issue we don't have data for. Altitudes, OAT, etc., can clearly mess up our educated guesses. You have, BTW, given me everything I need to work out some scenarios for whatever value they may end up being. Thanks again, Oscar Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:10:43 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan > However, they > would have done better to slow down to the correct speeds for L/D max for the > takeoff weight and then periodically reduce speed as fuel was burned off. They > would not need any fancy power setting tables for this. They only need to > operate the engines at the lowest rpm that the engines will tolerate and then > set the manifold pressure to achieve the target airspeeds. Don't forget stall speed and angle of attack. I'm not convinced you can make easy comparisons between the 10a and the 10e. Nor am I certain DIRECT relationships are accurate. I can't argue one way or another but that is my thoughts on that. Alan, open to the possibility #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:29:20 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Castaway Hangout You say you have photographic evidence of trails around the seven site indicating castaways. To form trails it seems to me that you would have to walking the same pathway over and over for a LONG time before you actually made what appeared to be trails. (trail would be devoid of any foliage and leave a pathway of bare earth) If this is the case, then I suggest that perhaps other castaways that were there were there for months or longer. If Noonan had died soon after arriving, then AE alone would have had to make those trails. Seems unlikely. Could those trails have been years old? Some of the trails left by the gold rush pioneers were still visible 100 years later. I know, vastly different, but you get my point. Don't you have recent photos of the seven site that still show trails 60 yrs later? Chris #2511 (who would be burned to a crisp if caught sitting between Angus and Oscar Boswell from their sheer brainpower) ************************************************************************ From Ric As you say, California is a vastly different environment. Coral rubble is a darker gray on the sun-exposed top than on the shaded bottom. When you walk across it you scuff up the surface and expose the lighter colored coral rubble underneath. One person walking the same route could easily make a visible trail in a just a couple of days. Such trails do not, however, persist for very long if not used because the sun darkens the coral. The trails visible in the Dec. 1,1938 photo of the Seven Site are not visible in the July 9, 1937 photo taken by Lambrecht or in the April 30, 1939 photo taken by the survey plane from the USS Pelican. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:31:05 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Foot Prints And this also assumes that the castaways, should either still be alive, were/was also highly mobile and had not given up hope on survival and frequented the ocean front. doesn't seem likely to me. The location of the 7 site seems to imply that a base was set up near the food supply in the lagoon and not the most obvious place to be rescued from, ie the ship. What I mean is that, after a while, you move away from being rescued (the ship) and move near to your food source (clams/lagoon) and water. 6 months later how inspired would a castaway be to go look out at the ocean everyday for....... nothing? LTM troy in Pleasanton, CA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:32:28 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo regarding this picture: http://celebrate2000.cjonline.com/images/051799/Amelia_Earhart.jpg excerpts: >From Michael >And ... what is the map resting on? --------------------- >From Ric >The map is resting on the tip of the horizontal stabilizer that sticks out >past the vertical fin. Plus, if my theory of the altered picture holds true, Amelia is also adding support with her left arm which is probably under the map. (Thus, they drew the phoney left arm on top of the map for dramatic effect.) Maybe! Suzanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:42:07 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Best Range Speed & Power Required Many thanks to Gary LaPook for his input and questions. Let's consider some of the issues he raises. WHAT WAS THE BEST RATE OF CLIMB FOR THE 10E? About 120 mph INDICATED airspeed. Report 465 contains a chart (page 13) showing climbs at 105, 120, and 137 mph. These correspond, apparently, to best ANGLE, best RATE, and CRUISE climbs. [As it happens, I have a 10 A flight manual (export version - metric) which contains the following instructions on "maximum power" climb: "start at an indicated speed of 182 km/hr and drop off 1.609 km/hr for each 305 meters of climb". Laying aside any extensive comment on the unintentionally hilarious picture introduced by the drone who converted so literally to metric ("Fritz, we are now at 1830 meters, your speed should be 172.346 km, not 171.902 km, watch it"), we need only note that this corresponds to increasing the IAS 1 mph per 1000 feet of climb (or, as the Lockheed clerk should have written, about 1 km per 200 meters). The 10 E chart contains no notations about increasing IAS (though I should add that the copy of the chart I have is a bit incomplete, and is copied on several letter sized pages from a larger chart). Report 465 is an analysis of flight tests on the 10 E and not a formal flight manual, so perhaps the omission is not surprising.] WHAT IS V L/D AND WHAT WAS IT IN THE 10 E ? As Gary points out, the "speed of maximum lift over drag" (V L/D) is a single unique INDICATED airspeed at which the airplane achieves its most efficient angle of attack. V L/D (the "L/D" should be written in subscript to the V) varies with weight. See the discussion in Peter Garrison, LONG DISTANCE FLYING, pages 137 ff. Garrison says V L/D is "typically somewhere near the speed for best rate of climb." Since we know that best rate of climb is 120 mph INDICATED, let's assume that V L/D is about 120 INDICATED at 10,500 pounds. Like the stall, V L/D is said to vary with the square root of the weight ratio. At 14,000 pounds then (for example) V L/D will be equal to 120 mph multiplied by the square root of 14,000/10500, which equals 1.1533 (or, as Gary said with reference to the stall, roughly a 15 % increase). That gives 138 mph INDICATED (using 138.396 would be pretending to more precision than exists). Remember this: at sea level, INDICATED and TRUE airspeeds are the same, but TRUE airspeed increases over INDICATED by a factor of about 2% per thousand feet. Since V L/D is an INDICATED airspeed that remains CONSTANT WITH WEIGHT, the TRUE airspeed flown when flying at V L/D INCREASES with altitude. At 8000 feet and an Indicated airspeed of 138 mph, TRUE airspeed would be about 160 mph - this is the TRUE airspeed that the 10 E would have to hold at 8,000 feet to attain V L/D and achieve maximum efficiency at 14,000 pound weight At 12,500 pounds, V L/D would be about 9% higher than at 10,500 pounds (the square root of 12500/10500 = 1,091), say 131 mph INDICATED, which would be about 157 TRUE at 10,000 feet. At the normal gross of 10,500 pounds, the V L/D of around 120 mph INDICATED would require a TRUE airspeed of about 144 mph at 10,000 feet. Once weight was reduced to 9,000 pounds, V L/D would be about 93 % (.9258) of the normal gross weight V L/D - say 111 mph INDICATED (about 133 mph TRUE at 10,000 feet and about 113 TRUE at 1,000 feet). Take it the final step - just before fuel exhaustion, weight would be about 8,200 pounds and V L/D would theoretically be about 88 % (.8837) of the normal gross weight value - 120 x .88 = 105.6 - call it 106 mph INDICATED (107 TRUE at 1000 feet; 127 TRUE at 10,000). As the foregoing shows, V L/D gradually DECREASES from 138 mph INDICATED at 14,000 pounds early in the fllight (say 140 indicated at 14,200 pounds and the start of Hour 2 with 1100 gallons) to 106 mph INDICATED as fuel is exhausted. The MOST EFFICIENT FLIGHT PLAN is a smooth continuous reduction of power to follow the reduction in V L/D as weight is reduced by fuel burn - ie, you fly slower and slower as the flight progresses. (As a practical matter, you would follow a precomputed chart showing a reduction say every hour to a new lower IAS. If your IAS was 138 at 14,000 pounds and you expected to burn about 360 pounds of fuel during the hour, your target speed at the end of the hour would be a bit less than 137 mph - or to show the numbers 14000 - 360 = 13,640 pounds; and 13640/10500 = 1.2990; and the square root of 1.2990 = 1.1397; and 1.1397 x 120 = 136.7. Remember also that at a constant power setting speed would be increasing with fuel burn, perhaps by as much as 5 mph at this stage of the flight. The best technique, then, would be to maintain IAS no higher than 138 during Hour 2 by making reductions whenever you observed an IAS in excess of 138, radually reducing the target airspeed to slightly below 138 as the hour progressed and arriving at 136.7 at the start of Hour 3 - more precision than any pilot was likely to achieve. But flying a little above V L/D costs little in efficiency, and merely reducing the IAS at hourly intervals would approximate flying at V L/D very well.) DOES POWER REQUIRED VARY WITH THE WEIGHT RATIO RAISED TO THE 1.5 POWER ? Let me confess at the start that though I have some facility with numbers, my math background is deficient, and my engineering background is non-existent. But I believe saying that something "varies with the weight ratio raised to the 1.5 power" is the same as saying that it "varies with the square root of the cube of the weight ratio" - if I am wrong about that, perhaps someone will be kind enough to correct me. The issue of power required is discussed in John D. Anderson, Jr.'s AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN, pages 234 ff and passim, and the notes I made when I waded through it indicate that I understood that the power required varied with the square root of TWICE the cube of the weight ratio (it's more complicated than that, but that's how I simplified it). I have doubts about the accuracy of either of these formulas WHEN APPLIED TO AN AIRCRAFT OPERATING FAR ABOVE ITS NORMAL GROSS WEIGHT. Let's assume that the 10 E will maintain 150 mph at 10,500 pounds at 1,000 feet on 200 hp per engine (the chart says it will do 151, but let's round the numbers). At 14,000 pounds, what horsepower will be required to maintain 150 at 1000 feet ? Using the square root of TWICE the cube of the weight ratio gives a power factor of 2.1691, which seems to indicate that 434 hp per engine would give 150 mph at 1000 feet and 14,000 pounds - just under the METO power of 450 hp given for the engines. (Using merely the square root of the cube of the weight ratio gives a power factor at 14,000 pounds of 1.5338, which seems to indicate that 306 hp per engine would give 150 mph at 14,000 pounds and 1000 feet.) Remember that the initial cruise power setting ("60 gph") is about 400 horsepower per engine. Let's work backwards from there to calculate at what weight 150 mph would be obtained with 400 hp per engine under the formula that horsepower required varies with the square root of TWICE the cube of the weight ratio The "power factor" is 2, because 400 is twice our base figure of 200 hp. Working backwards, we square 2 to get 4 (which = twice the cube of the weight ratio), divide 4 by 2 to get 2 (which = the cube of the weight ratio) , take the cube root of 2 to get 1.2599 (which equals the weight ratio), and multiply 1.2599 by 10500 to get 13,229 pounds, the weight at which 400 hp per engine should theoretically give 150 mph at 1000 feet, under this formula. This is roughly the weight of the plane (starting with 1100 gallons) near the end of hour 4, when we expect the plane to be at 8,000 feet. True airspeed at 8,000 feet should be about 5.5% higher than at 1,000 feet by rule of thumb that there is a 0.8% variation per thousand feet in the 10 E at the same setting (see posting 4/11/00 - Learning to Think about the Performance of the 10E), or about 158 mph - this is 20 mph higher than I estimated in the posting of 1/30/02 "Fuel for the Gilberts." At 12,000 pounds (see discussion below) this formula predicts about 156 mph at "43 gph", which is 14 mph above the number given in "Fuel for the Gilberts." (Note that in this discussion I am factoring in my subsequent adjustment reducing initial weight to 14,800.) Let's do a slightly different calculation using the formula stating that power required varies simply with the square root of the cube of the weight. That formula indicates (as mentioned) that 306 horsepower per engine should maintain 150 mph at 1000 feet and 14,000 pounds weight. If this formula is correct, what speed would be obtained at 12,000 pounds weight and 306 hp?. The weight ratio (12,000/10500) is 1.1429. The cube of that is 1.4929, and the square root of 1.4929 = 1.2218. Dividing 306 hp by 1.2218 = 250 and indicates that at 12,000 pounds and 306 horsepower per engine, speeds equal to those at 250 hp and normal gross weight should be achieved. The cruise chart in Report 465 indicates that at 250 hp per engine, 8,000 feet and normal gross weight the 10 E is capable of about 173 mph. Remember that the "43 gph" setting is about 300 hp. A 12,000 pound weight would be reached near the end of hour 8 (with 1100 gallon departure). This approach predicts say 170 mph at 8,000 feet, 12,000 pounds and 43 gph. This is 27 mph higher than estimated in "Fuel for the Gilberts". (At 14,000 pounds and "60 gph" this formula predicts about 180 mph [=normal gross speed @ 283 hp/engine] or about 42 mph higher than predicted in "Fuel for the Gilberts".) All of these numbers are rather on the high side to match what apparently took place during the flight, which is why I modified the "power required" calculation to apply to airspeed. As mentioned in the original posting, it may be incorrect, but was chosen to err on the side of conservative estimation of range. If the plane really was faster earlier in the flight than estimated, that simply means it could have gone even farther than estimated in the Longer Range Flight Plan. And that's it for the time being! Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:47:47 EST From: Thomas Hamberg Subject: Re: North star? Doug Brutlag wrote: "Polaris is very useful to gauge latitude as a norm, but if you're south of the equator it's not available." Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the Southern Cross have a similar position and navigational function in the Southern Hemisphere? Then the question remains why didn't FN get the latitude before sunrise? LTM (who mainly stay in the north) Thomas Hamberg #2380 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:04:14 EST From: John Clauss Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions > After several hours of head-scratching and jokes > about artifacts from Roswell, we concluded that the closest match is lead. > The knob seems to be made of lead, but we also got one spot on the back edge > of the knob where it came up bang-on aluminum. Having held the knob I am skeptical about it being made of lead. It's just not heavy enough. How about an aluminum knob with remnants of lead paint or a lead coating? John Clauss *************************************************************************** From Ric We at first thought it might be an aluminum knob with remnants of paint (which would explain the lead) but the results we were getting from the SEM were just backward of that. On two different places where the surface had been filed down to what we're sure is bare metal, we got the "sort-of lead" reading. We got the same thing on a couple of spots where it had not been filed. The only aluminum we could find was the one spot on the back edge. They're going to look for more aluminum along that edge. We ran out of time. I can't argue with you. The thing is fairly heavy but it doesn't seem heavy enough to be lead. I had assumed that it was probably aluminum and that most of the weight was from the steel channel around the inside. But it's also hard to argue with a Scanning Electron Microscope. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:48:45 EST From: Matt Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions I would think a lead knob would feel obviously heavier than an aluminum knob just holding it in your hand and playing with it. Does the artifact feel more like lead? or aluminum? Matt Mondro *************************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately. it's not that simple The knob has a ferrous (probably steel) channel that sort of lines the interior surface. It's hard to know how much of the knob's weight to ascribe to the knob itself and how much is due to the channel. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:34:27 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions I very doubt much the knob is lead. It would be obvious from its weight when compared to aluminium alloy. You can easily check its density by putting it in a "specific gravity bottle" which is a bottle with a ground glass stopper having a fine hole. You top it up with water until it exudes through the hole in the stopper. You then weigh it . Remove the knob and re-weigh. The difference in weight is that of the volume of water displaced by the knob. The knob itself is then weighed and its density is its weight in gm divided by the volume of water it displaced in cc. (Since the density of water is 1gm/cc, the difference in weight in gms is the same as the volume displaced in cc).This could be compared with the known density of different elements or alloys. The same technique could be employed on the other artifacts. It seems altogether more likely that it is aluminium alloy contaminated by lead ( if indeed lead is detected). Something like the adjuster on the sight of a rifle might fit this scenario. Aluminium alloys do in any case contain trace quantities of lead. An SEM produces a characteristic X-ray spectrum for each element. Because the technique covers a finite area, the X-ray spectrum generated will be a superimposition of the spectra for individual elements in an alloy. This maybe the source of the difficulty in interpretation. A specific gravity bottle can be obtained from even a school lab and the test is very easy to do. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric From the work we did with the NTSB lab in determining the aluminum alloys of airplane components recovered from the island, I'm familiar with the superimposition of peaks you describe. I don't think that's what's going on here. We took multiple shots at two different places where we had filed down to bare and on places we hadn't disturbed. Each time we got the same return (except the one aluminum hit on an undisturbed spot). The immersion technique won't work in this case because we have an artifact made up of two components of different metals. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:36:21 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions Just a thought. Would it be difficult to do a weight comparison. You could immerse the artifact in a graduated cylinder to determine it's volume & then compare it's actual weight to a sample of lead of equal volume. Make sense? LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************* From Ric The artifact is not made of all one kind of metal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:37:09 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Southern Cross While I'll confess up front I've never had the opportunity to view the Southern Cross personally other than charts, I have to wonder if it would possible to view in the pre-dawn light of an early morning over the pacific. In such time Polaris would not be bright enough to see. It is fairly dim and one would need to be a while after sundown or before sunrise to view it. I'll also confess that if my memory serves me correctly the cross is not necessarily useful for a latitude check the way Polaris is-Bob-Alan-help me out here? Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:53:47 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: island names > One thing I've always found useful in historical hypothesizing is to remember > that whenever we say "would have" it means we're guessing. Anytime we say > "so-and-so would have done thus and such, so therefore they would have done > this other thing" we're piling guesses on top of guesses. That "would have" means you are guessing is true only in a very limited sense. If someone jumped into a river, you can very reliably say that they "would have" got wet. Mere jumping to unwarranted conclusions is what is objectionable, not putting forward a scenario which includes "would have" where any reasonable person would agree that whatever was being suggested would be an inescapable consequence. Regards Angus. **************************************************************************** From Ric What you say is true. There are reasonable "would haves" and unreasonable "would haves" but the term always expresses an assumption - a guess. Sometimes it seems like a safe guess ("Had I jumped into the river I would have gotten wet.") and sometimes it seems less so ( "Had I jumped into the river I would have just walked across the water to the shore.") but it's always a guess. The important thing to remember is that it is a guess and not a fact. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:58:06 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: North Star and Southern Cross Ric, Tom Hamberg and Doug Brutlag, Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you can see either the North Star within 10 or 15 degrees north latitude nor can you see the Southern Cross within 10 or 15 degrees south latitude from the Equator. You have to be further north or south before they are visable. Dick Pingrey 908C (Washington State) *************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Doug, you are correct, the Southern Cross is not nearly as easy to use as Polaris is. To answer someone else's question re Polaris, the star varies between 1 and 2 1/2 degrees from North. It rotates in a tiny circle if viewed from the "North Pole." That sounds like an insignificant amount but we took that into consideration when doing Celestial for SAC inspections (Strategic Air Command for new folks ). Using the Southern Cross required making an imaginary point between the cross and earth five times the length of the long axis (not of evil) of the constellation. Tough way to navigate but OK for a rough answer. I've never used it but I have seen it. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg Doug is right. The Southern Cross is not over the pole, although two of its stars are listed in the 1937 Nautical Almanac. The question is whether FN could have seen those stars given the local presence of clouds obscuring his southern horizon. On the weekend, I'll check the geometry of FN's southern horizon star field and get back to you. Don't have time now - - I've been summoned for jury duty. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:02:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: North star? > Then the question remains why didn't FN get the latitude before sunrise? What makes you think he didn't? If it is because you are buying all the rhetoric about Noonan being far off course north or south of Howland let me point out again that once the Electra faded out of view after take off from Lae, New Guinea there is not one single soul living that knows where the airplane was at any given time. I don't know. Long doesn't know. No one knows. Could Noonan have passed directly over Howland? Sure. Why not? Because they didn't see the island? No, with the scattered CU below they could have easily missed it from ten thousand feet. Because no one on the ground or on the Itasca saw them? No, for the same reason. Because no one on the ground or on the Itasca didn't hear them? Not necessarily. Not at ten thousand feet with all the noise of the ship. But WERE they still at ten thousand feet over Howland? Who knows. Maybe they were lower but still out of sight or maybe they weren't even close to Howland. We will never know and NO ONE KNOWS NOW. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:32:15 EST From: Fred Madio Subject: No Subject Is it possible that the file might have been used previously to file something else that contained lead? Fred Madio **************************************************************************** From Ric If file contamination accounts for anything it might be the one aluminum spike we got, but not the lead. We got the same reading from spots we had not filed at all. *************************************************************************** From RC to Ric & John: Try the Eureka way. Weigh it in air then immersed in water. I have done that many times to determine density of both pure metals and alloys. **************************************************************************** From Ric The object is made of two component parts which are of different metals. ************************************************************************** From Angus Murray > From Ric > Unfortunately. it's not that simple The knob has a ferrous (probably steel) > channel that sort of lines the interior surface. It's hard to know how much > of the knob's weight to ascribe to the knob itself and how much is due to the > channel. Since the density of (steel + aluminium) is less than that of say (steel + lead) in the same volumetric proportion in each case, a specific gravity test would still determine if the knob itself was a substance denser than steel (eg lead). Even if it was all steel (ie a zero aluminium component), its density could not approach that of a knob with any component of a denser material than steel in it. Regards Angus.. **************************************************************************** From Jerry Ellis I've learned something; I didn't know SEM could do elemental analyses! > It's also a good way to get really good, close-up look at something. I did know about this capability. > After several hours of head-scratching and jokes > about artifacts from Roswell, we concluded that the closest match is lead. > The knob seems to be made of lead, but we also got one spot on the back edge > of the knob where it came up bang-on aluminum. The only thing we can think > is that the surface against which the knob rotated was aluminum and a fleck > of aluminum remained after the knob broke off. 1. The total volume of the entire knob can be determined by displacement in a liquid; that is, the volume of the liquid substracted from the volume of the liquid with the knob immersed. 2. The volume of the sleeve inside can be calculated by measuring its dimensions. Its mass can be determined crudely by using the density of iron and its volume. You did say it seemed to be ferrous in another posting. 3. The difference in the total volume and that of the sleeve would give the volume of the rest of the knob. 4. The mass of the total knob can be found on a simple balance. 5. The difference in the mass of the total knob minus the mass of the sleeve from 2. gives the mass of the rest of the knob. 6. The mass of the rest of the knob from 5. and the volume of the rest of the knob form 3. can be used to calculate the approximate density of the metal composing the rest of the knob (without the iron sleeve inside). The density of lead is 11.3 g/cc. That of iron is 7.86g/c and for aluminum the density is 2.70g/cc. Even with crude measurements, it would seem possible to determine if it is lead or aluminum. It may be an alloy with some intermediate density; but then they should have found other elements too. Have the folks at the Naval Lab done that sort of density study? Jerry Ellis #2113 **************************************************************************** From Ric Not to my knowledge. ************************************************************************** From Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho >We took multiple shots at two different places where we had filed down >to bare and on places we hadn't disturbed Did you use a file that was absolutely uncontaminated? Files are very difficult to clean. Dale *************************************************************************** From Ric Contamination from the file might explain the one aluminum spike but not the multiple places, filed and unfiled, that came up as lead. *************************************************************************** From Paul Penwell Measure the specific gravity of the knob. Easily done with the suitable balance. The result may not tell you exactly what the material is but may rule out what what the bulk composition is not *************************************************************************** From David Osgood So called "pot metal" is an alloy that can contain large amounts of lead in addition to other metals. The term doesn't dictate any specific ingredients or proportions, but rather a witch's brew of metals. It's commonly used to create inexpensive components - like knobs. This could explain the "sort of lead" diagnosis. David Osgood *************************************************************************** From Ric I had wondered about "pot metal" myself, but being an alloy doesn't explain the off-element peak. Each of the elements in the alloy should exhibit its own peak. **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt What common alloys contain a high proportion of lead? Solder is of course the best known lead alloy. Pewter is another such alloy. Pewter was used for many things, knobs included. The lead in the alloy made the metal more malleable. As a point of interest, if the knob was common (lead) pewter, in a marine environment the artifact would probably oxidize enough to form a lead sulfate film over most of the object, possibly resulting in the "almost lead" reading. Of course this doen't tie in with the aluminium readings and you'd have high tin/antimony readings. We're getting way outside my metalurgy and archaeological knowledge. It may give you something to consider though. There are other alloys used for knobs on things like cockpit instruments. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric The surface does have a coating of some kind of oxidized accretion and we were picking up traces of sulfur - all of which fits your pewter hypothesis - but I don't recall getting any tin or antimony. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:00:53 EST From: Dave J. Subject: Longitude and Lati. Question OK Forum, I have this thought and question. Go to Page89 of Donahue's book. Being around Ham operators, I really don't go along with the idea that they where feeding wrong info to the sources that was collecting info back then. Lets say for the study, if this transmission was picked up, and was somewhat not clear; and you don't buy Donahue's "Unreadable Code Message" ( which I DON'T) as recorded at " 0900-920/3 ; then what is it. Well, I believe Fred knew where they went down. He had the equipment, and new the navig. " 179 is the Longitude and if the sound is not clear of the 1 and you drop it and in the ? blank place your "0" then you have 06 for the Lati. So it's 179/06 or maybe if the 9 was not clear and it sounded like a 5; Then we have 175/06. I don"t charts but can someone tell me where 179/06 shows up in the area. Next thing I wonder and feel strongly about, is that you may never find Fred on island. Have you ever tried digginga grave for someone when you are week and small your self? I read that we don't know what equipment was on the plane, but you think they would be smart enough to at the most to have a rubber raft. If so, then when it looked like things where going down, the thought was that we will try for 50/50 chance. You stay AE and me Fred the Navg. will try to nav to some island for help. I have been enjoying the forum, and I wish I could have made the trips with you. DaveFlyer ************************************************************************** From Ric From what I can see on the map 179W 06S is maybe seven hundred miles east of the northern islands of the Ellice Group (modern day Tuvalu) 179E 06S is closer. Maybe 200 miles. 179 E or W 06N is the middle of nowhere. 175W 06S is south and just west of Nikumaroro something just under 100 miles 175E 06S is not close to anything. For what it's worth. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:22:27 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: Castaway Hangout Are you suggesting AE survived until around Dec 1, 1938? A year and a half? Not a pleasant prospect. Just to think she may have been alive when that photo was taken. *************************************************************************** From Ric In theory, entirely possible. The only real limiting factor we have on when the castaway died is the length of time it took for the remains to get to the condition they were in when found first discovered in 1940. Based upon what we've learned about deterioration rates and crab behavior, a couple months would be plenty of time. As long as we're writing novels, there is a folktale from the earliest days of colony on Niku that tells of the Island Magistrate's wife having an encounter with a tall, fair-skinned woman with a blank (deadpan) expression. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:57:56 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Mystery Photo Redux Still sort of an interesting photo as a trivia question on Millionaire. It seems to be ubiquitous. For those who have Cam Warrens edited "Flight into Yesterday...the Amelia Earhart Enigma" by Capt L.Safford, turn to page two for a close up view of the same Mystery Map. This time it is on a wall back of Amelia's head. Photo taken by Albert Bresnik, her "official" photographer. No date. The Map clearly shows an air route from Miami, north to Chicago, west to Oakland, west to Honolulu, and west toward Lae with mileage, etc. Where the map you have is folded against the stabilizer, South America is shown with what appears to be aeronautical airport circles around Paramaribo, and Fortaleza. No return route back to Miami. It could be a Map prop that they carried with them for publicity stills. The only interesting thing is it doesn't show the world flight as planned/performed (almost). Ron Bright Bremerton,Wa *************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting photo - and I think it solves the mystery. I think what we're looking at is simply a photo of the first World Flight route starting in Oakland going westward until it comes back around via Miami and Chicago to Oakland once more. The line isn't visible over the Caribbean for some reason, but I'll betcha it's there. If Bresnik took the photo (which he apparently did) then it has to date from late February/early March 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:50:57 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Longer Range Flight Plan Assuming that the only difference between the "a" and the "e" is the power of the engines I would expect the lift of the wings and the drag, both parasitic and induced, to be the same so that comparisons that are based on lift and drag should be valid. So that at the same weight the best rate of climb airspeed should be the same and the angle of attack for best L/D would be the same, irregardless of weight. Of course the airspeed needed to fly at this angle of attack would vary with the square root of the weight. To understand why this is so remember when you fly at the fixed angle of attack that produces best L/D that angle of attack is producing a fixed coefficient of lift. Since you need to make more lift to support a heavier airplane and the coefficient of lift is fixed you must increase the indicated airspeed. Simplifying the formula for lift, lift is proportional to coefficient of lift times velocity squared. So if you fly twice as fast you will make four times as much lift. This is the same analysis as required for figuring out accelerated stall speeds and maneuvering speed. Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric The more powerful R1340 engines of the E series airplane had a diameter that was roughly 3 inches greater than the R985s of the A series. That may not sound like much but it represents a significant increase in flat plate area and, therefore, drag. The bigger engines were also heavier which moved the CG forward which, of course, had to be compensated for with elevator trim which, of course, caused more drag. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:03:12 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Southern Cross Polaris is particularly useful for determining latitude because it is a special case being less than one degree from the north pole and special tables are available in the Nautical Almanac which makes the computation of latitude quick and easy after measuring its altitude with a sextant. It might have been visible from the vicinity of Howland island as it is visible as far south as 3 degrees south latitude from an airplane at 10 thousand feet. However, its altitude, at the most, would have only been one and a quarter degrees and may have been obscured by haze. Also, such low altitudes have larger errors possible due to large variations in refraction of the light from the star when at low altitude. Navigators prefer to use stars more that 10 degrees high. If viewed from 10 thousand feet when south of the equator, the altitude of Polaris could be below zero and the correction table in the Nautical Almanac doesn't cover altitudes less than zero. (If you are wondering how you can see a star below an altitude of zero it is because you are looking slightly downward to the horizon. From ten thousand feet the visible horizon is more than one and a half degrees below zero. In addition, refraction of the light from the star allows you to see a star that is actually below the visible horizon. A star observed exactly on the visable horizon from ten thousand feet is actually at minus 2 degrees- 27 minutes altitude.) The Southern Cross is a constellation in the southern hemisphere that is not very near to the south pole being 27 degrees away. Its two main stars, Acrux and Gacrux, are in a line that points to the south and this constellation is useful in determining direction but no more useful than any other stars in determining latitude. Also, these stars would not have been visible during the last 5 hours of the flight. (You can see the entire Southern Cross anywhere south of 27 degrees north latitude so you can see it the next time you are in Florida or farther south.) Of course Noonan could have used many other stars either to the north or to the south to determine his latitude. Fomalhaut and Markab would have been perfectly placed to provide his latitude near the end of the flight. Of course the computations would have been a bit more complex than when using Polaris but nothing that Noonan would have found difficult as it is just the normal computations done when calculating celestial lines of position. Gary LaPook *************************************************************************** From Ric I don't recall that anyone here ever suggested that Noonan could not have verifed his position through celestial observations throughout the hours of darkness. (Later allegations that Earhart had mentioned an "overcast" are not supported by the original Itasca log.) Let's give Fred a good three-star fix at some time an hour or so before dawn. It's going to show him either that he is on course or that he needs to make an adjustment and so he either leaves things alone or plugs in a correction. Fine. Then what? That last three or four hundred miles that is the tricky part. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:13:50 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Mystery Flight + Map Photo I looked at several reproduction of this phote in several books today and it is clear that she is resting her elbow on the chart which is laying on the horizontal stabilizer. LaPook ************************************************************************* From Ric Gary, I suspect that - like me - you're a lot less annoying in person than comes across in print. :) Her elbow is nowhere near the chart. She is resting her elbow on the horizontal stabilizer and part of the map is also supported by that surface. Her left arm and hand do look funny but I really don't think it's worth worrying about. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:33:37 EST From: Jdubb Subject: Re: the knob For my two cents, the artifact looks like the crown on top of older canteen stoppers. A pewter cap might have a steel washer inside. The ring bolt passes through cap, washer, and cork. Also explains the aluminum on the back. (if the canteen was aluminum) Check out http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/j_mayo/uscanteen.html for some civil war examples Jdubb *************************************************************************** From Ric I see what you mean. Of course, it's not just like the Civil War examples (we'd have fun explaining THAT one) but the principle is the same. There are two canteens in the Luke Field inventory so we might be forgiven if we jump to the conclusion that Castaway Amelia had a canteen. A canteen is an interesting possibility. At first you think "Canteen. Sure, makes sense." but then you think, "So where does your garden variety castaway get a canteen?". Which leads me to try approaching this whole castaway business from a slightly different direction. Let's construct a Null Hypothesis, i.e. the castaway is NOT in any way attributable to the disappearance of NR16020. Is there a scenario that fits the facts better? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:36:15 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Niku from the air Just got my aerial tour video (the conversion to PAL worked fine, by the way). It really brings this place I've been to in my head every day for the last three years to life. I'm very surprised how difficult it is to spot people on the ground from the air - even from a lower altitude than Lambrecht seems to have flown at and with no doubt much better downward vision from the cockpit than he had. One of the things that first got me really hooked on TIGHAR was Bruce Yoho's compelling account of finding an aircraft engine on an island he never knew the name of and taking it back to Kanton. I was wondering if there are any features of Nikumaroro as seen from the air which make Bruce more or less inclined to think Niku was the island? (Bruce - I realize it's a long time ago and you didn't have posterity in mind when you made the trip!) LTM Phil Tanner 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:37:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Polaris > - I've been summoned for jury duty. You too? I have to report on the 25th. This will be my 6th time and they never pick me. They don't want lawyers on their juries. As to Polaris the only comment I saw was that it is not usable unless more than two degrees above the horizon but I'll tell you NOTHING is really usable until ten degrees above due to atmospheric distortion. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:40:27 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Knob answers & questions Pretty exciting news, very interesting and puzzling as well. Could the artifact be an alloy of Lead? Pewter perhaps? I took a couple minutes to look up a periodic table, and found that Lead (#82/atomic wt 207.2) sits between Thallium (81/atomic wt 204.38) and Bismuth (#83/atomic wt 208.98). No overt clues there that I could see. Good work. Let's home that their further research turns up some more data. ltm, jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:44:18 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: the knob Ok, the knob is made of lead or aluminum or a combination of both. Non-magnetic metals. I'm not an expert in radios, but does this suggest a radio component, yes or no?. Thanks, Lawrence **************************************************************************** From Ric No. Just means that somebody doesn't want it to rust, doesn't need it to be real hard or strong, and doesn't care if the knob is itself is kinda heavy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:48:18 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross You are talking about two different uses for Polaris and the Southern Cross. The main use of Polaris is to determine direction as it is always between 359.3 and 000.7 degrees true when viewed from the equator and between 359.0 and 001.0 when viewed from the latitude of the U.S. Its azimuth varied slightly more in 1937 as it was located 1 degree 2.5 minutes from the pole which is 17.5 minutes farther from the north pole then than in 2002. The Southern Cross is also used to determine direction but since the closest star in the Cross, Acrux, is located 27 degrees from the south pole you must imagine a line through Gacrux and Acrux which points towards the south pole and extend that line 5 times the spacing between those stars which then takes you to approximately the south pole. You then use this estimated spot to determine the direction of south. As you can see, this is quite approximate especially when compared to the precision of using Polaris for direction. Now a completely different use for Polaris is to use it to find you latitude. Since it is located so close to the pole it was possible to construct a special very short table that is included in the Nautical Almanac which gives a correction factor that you just add to the altitude that you measured of Polaris with your sextant to very quickly determine your latitude. There is no comparable procedure for using altitudes of the stars in the Southern Cross for determining latitude and you must use the much longer computation that you would use with any star for determining a celestial line of position. The declination of Polaris in 1937 was 88 degrees 57.5 minutes north which means that it was located 1 degree 2.5 minutes from the pole. (You just subtract its declination from 90 degrees which is the declination of the pole.) This means that during a part of each day it would be visible on the surface at 1 degree 2.5 minutes south latitude. In fact, refraction adds 34.5 minutes to the height of a star on the horizon which makes it appear that much higher in the sky. So when refraction is taken into account Polaris was visible as far south as 1 degree 37.0 minutes south latitude from the ground during part of each day in 1937. From an airplane at 10 thousand feet you are looking downwards 1 degree 37 minutes when you look at the horizon. Refraction for a negative 1 degree 37 minute altitude is 55 minutes so any star that you see right on the horizon is actually at a negative 2 degree 27 minutes. You then add this to the 1 degree 2.5 minutes that Polaris is south of the north pole and you find that Polaris was visible as far south as 3 degree 29.5 minutes south latitude from 10 thousand feet for part of each day in 1937. On July 2, 1937 polaris would be at its highest point in the sky at about 0646 local time but would not be visible as the sun would have risen at 0600 local time. However, about one and a half hours earlier at 0512, nautical twilight, Polaris would still have been less than 5 minutes lower than its maximum elevation. So Polaris might have been visible to Noonan during the later part of the flight leading up to morning twilight. At the other end of the spectrum, the Southern Cross would not have been visible during the last 5 hours of the flight. BTW, the Southern Cross is visible in its entirety as far north as 27 degrees north latitude so it can be seen in Florida. It is at its highest point in February at about 0300 local time.( There is a pattern here. As many degrees as a star is from the pole is the same number of degrees of latitude that it is visible on the other side of the equator.) Gary LaPook ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:03:02 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: the knob The idea that the knob is really a canteen top is interesting. Maybe consistent with the idea of a pewter-like alloy, too. Do we know what kinds of canteens the Coast Guardsmen had? ************************************************************************* From Ric I can't imagine that they were anything but standard GI canteens. You know, the kind with corks and little brass chains. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:09:02 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Polaris > From Alan > > You too? I have to report on the 25th. This will be my 6th time and they > never pick me. They don't want lawyers on their juries. > > As to Polaris the only comment I saw was that it is not usable unless more > than two degrees above the horizon but I'll tell you NOTHING is really usable > until ten degrees above due to atmospheric distortion. They don't want mathematicians, either. I was excused on peremptory challenge by the defense yesterday. That's my second time being called and rejected. A few more of these and I may develop a complex. Hmmmm. I wonder if they'd buy that as an a priori excuse next time. I agree completely that nothing is really usable below ten degrees. It's worth noting that Noonan had both the Nautical Almanac and H.O. 208, neither of which provides refraction corrections for observed altitudes less than 6 degrees. I'm currently doing a detailed audit of Noonan's navigation on the Oakland to Honolulu flight looking for insights into his methods that might shed some light on what happened on the Lae-Howland leg. The audit includes every aspect of his navigation, including reworking all his sight reductions using H.O. 208, and he didn't shoot any bodies with Hc less than about 30 degrees. As for getting a latitude without using Polaris, he didn't have to use southern hemisphere stars. For example, assuming he was bang on track for Howland at 1612Z (3 hours before the "we must be on you" signal) about 350 nmi out, DUBHE (the alpha star in Ursa Major) was available at altitude 29* 03', azimuth 359* 23'. If there weren't any clouds on his line of sight, he could have obtained a good latitude from DUBHE. But, as Ric says, then what? Bob #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric You wanna see faces blanch at jury selection, just tell 'em you're a former accident investigator. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:05:18 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: the knob > I can't imagine that they were anything but standard GI canteens. You know, > the kind with corks and little brass chains. Oh, THAT kind. Actually, I was wondering if maybe they got issued older equipment, and hence might have had something left over from WWI, which might have had a lead cap. ************************************************************************* From Ric Dick Evans? Chuck Boyle? What say ye? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:15:45 EST From: Ric Subject: Off Topic - Jury Duty Since the little exchange between Bob Brandenburg and me about not being selected to serve on juries, I've received a number of messages from others citing the reason that THEY are considered as undesirable. I don't really think we need a new thread - Why I Didn't Get Picked - but it does make me wonder if there is something mutually exclusive about Earhart Forum participation and desirability as a juror. Has anyone on the forum ever actually been selected and served on a jury? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:20:28 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross > You are talking about two different uses for Polaris and the Southern Cross. Not at all, Gary. You are preaching to the choir. Although a pilot, I shot celestial and navigated airplanes for twenty years. I never used ANY celestial body to determine direction. They were used to establish fixes. I can't recall ever being in an airplane or any where else for that matter that I didn't know which direction I was facing or flying. I never cared what celestial bodies I was using as long as they were spaced to allow a nice three star fix, weren't above 70 degrees or below 10 degrees. That left more stars and planets than I can count. Too much is being made of the celestial subject. It is quite simple. Noonan could see to shoot objects or he couldn't. He also had other techniques to help determine his position and track. The necessary objects were in the sky. Whether he could see them is something we will never know. Whether a particular object was available has no significance. Finally, he got the airplane to the vicinity of Howland. Exactly how close will never be known nor can anyone figure that out by any set of data or method that is known at the moment. They did not see Howland. We know that but we don't know why. The reason if known would not advance the ball. We know they could have gone down nearby or gone somewhere else. No one knows where. All the rehashing of celestial in the world will not answer that question. We can use the available information to look at places they might have gone to see if there are any clues. IF they went down at sea the possible area is too vast to conduct a practical search using current technology and funds. There is some evidence found on Niku and none anywhere else. It seems to me that the game would be to search where evidence was found and not where none was found. Seems common sense to me. I cannot see the significance of whether the Southern Cross or Polaris even existed let alone whether they were available for any useful purpose. We are having fun trying to reconstruct navigation and fuel but with all the unknowns those issues may well never be resolved to a useful degree. There is a reasonable assumption our heroes arrived in the vicinity of Howland with some gas left over. If so they didn't have a lot or AE would not have indicated they were low on fuel. How much they had left is subject to great speculation and can never be computed to an exact amount. That means we don't know exactly how far they could roam before exhausting their reserve. We can guess and eliminate extreme distances. The great effort the guys have put forth on Niku has the best chance of moving the ball down the field. Anything else is mere distraction at the moment until other evidence is discovered. Unsupported speculation will not do the trick. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Very nicely put. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:32:07 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: other castaway A castaway not related to NR16020? If you just had the skeleton, I'd consider sperm whalers. I just finished reading a book "Ahab's Trade" that discusses whaling in the Pacific. Some captains took their wives, and 5 degrees to either side of the equator was prime sperm whale hunting territory. Some captains preferred to stop at uninhabited island to avoid the problems with alcohol and venereal disease. The Wilkes Expedition was partly an exploration in support of the sperm whale fisheries. The prime years for the whale fishery in the tropical Pacific were about 1820 to 1849, with a few stragglers later than that. You might get a metal knob, but no Plexiglas! If you found any pieces of iron, most whaling tools were wrought iron and not steel. I seriously doubt that you would have anything from that era made of aluminum, which was exceedingly rare and expensive. All the castaway site finds could have been left after the castaway, but I would expect a whaler to have left something that could be dated to pre-1900. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 *************************************************************************** From Ric No plexi at the Seven Site, and the only artifacts we can be sure were associated wth the castaway are the ones that Gallagher found. Nothing that he found was prima facia 20th century in origin. Sextant boxes, shoes, and corks with brass chains were certainly around in the 19th century. We also know that bones can survive for a long time in the open on the island. The best indication that the event was relatively recent rather than ancient is the legibility of the numbers on the sextant box. It's hard to imagine a wooden box out in the weather on that island holding up for more than a few years. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:46:54 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: New York Lifebouy In an unrelated investigation I found a memo from G-2, Japan, dated 8 Aug 49, in which the Army has asked the Japanese to research any clues to Earhart in the Marshall Islands. In a response by a Japanese official of the Jaluit Branch Office, a Y. Nakajima wrote in part that he learned from an employee of the Jaluit Branch office, Ryzuzo Morita, that Morita in 1937 had found a red horseshoe lifebuoy inscribed with "NEW YORK" adrift on the sea near "Radak Island". Morita thought the lifebuoy may have come from the Electra. [ I can't find Radak Is ] I can't offhand recall all of the references in "Betty"s notebook to New York but here is a Japanese report referring to a 1937 discovery of a New York clue. Have no idea if there could be any connection to that life ring to Betty's notes. We don't know what emergency gear was aboard but AE was from New York and the Electra was at New York, and maybe,,just maybe......!!! Ron Bright Bremerton, WA *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm from New York. Most of us have been to New York. Few of us carry around red life buoys that say New York. The 1937 Berne List shows no fewer than five ships with the name NEW YORK - 3 German registry and 2 U.S. registry. Any one of them could have lost a life buoy over the side. I've long wondered if the Morita incident might be the kernel of truth at the heart of the Japanese capture myth. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:56:34 EST From: Subject: Re: the knob > From Ric > > No. Just means that somebody doesn't want it to rust, doesn't need it to be > real hard or strong, and doesn't care if the knob is itself is kinda heavy. Wouldn't weight have been an issue for a knob designed to be used on avionics equipment? Or were the entire units so heavy back then, that the extra few grams from a lead knob would not have made any difference, either way? Isn't it possible to check with manufacturers of avionics equipment from that era, to determine if they ever used knobs made of lead, or lead alloy, on their equipment? Just a thought. *************************************************************************** From Ric Reality Check Number 531: Current manufacturers of anything can rarely provide useful information about products the company made decades ago. Cataloging and storage of historical archives are seldom in the corporate budget. Employees retire, then die. Companies are sold or merged. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are rare. Preservation of paper history is the job of archives. Preservation of physical history is the job of museums (which are increasingly becoming quasi-educational theme parks rather than repositories of preserved objects - but that's a different issue). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:04:58 EST From: Mike E. Subject: Re: the knob >The idea that the knob is really a canteen top is interesting. Maybe >consistent with the idea of a pewter-like alloy, too. Do we know what kinds >of canteens the Coast Guardsmen had? Is this the "knob" I looked at? No Way! Something this small would not be a canteen lid. The top of some other kind of bottle PERHAPS, but I recall no evidence of threads. It surely is NOT the cap from a GI canteen. I have a bona fide WW2 version of one of these. Uh-uh. My thought was that this thing COULD be part of a plate-cap from an electron tube -- the connection point outside the glass envelope for the plate electrode. MAYBE. But I am not convinced of it. Especially if it's lead. Conceivably it could be part of the internal structure of a tube however, but that is doubtful if it is marked with a patent number... I haven't done a lot of looking (to do so requires busting a tube and they don't make too many of 'em any more, right?) but do not recall seeing much in the way of patent numbers INSIDE a tube. A lot of tubes, when new, were packed with lists of patent numbers pertaining to them, on paper, as part of the box liner stuff. 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric For what it's worth, the knob was not found in association with the other artifacts that we are now quite sure came from one or more vacuum tubes. It was found at the second deposit of clam shells. The only other artifacts found in that particular archaeologcal unit were the little fasteners 2-6-S-03A and 03B. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:07:55 EST From: Marty Joy Subject: Canteens >I can't imagine that they were anything but standard GI canteens. You know, >the kind with corks and little brass chains. Are you making a funny? Wouldn't G.I. canteens in 1937 be much like G.I. canteens in 1941, I.E. aluminum with plastic or aluminum screw-on caps? *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, that was a joke. 1937 GI canteens are not an issue. The Coast Guard was there in 1944/45. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:11:28 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Off Topic - Jury Duty > From Ric > ... Has anyone on the forum ever actually been selected and served on a jury? I got to see a whole rape case (6 men, 2 of whom were father and son, one woman, one night). Just before the case was given to the jury, I and two other alternates were dismissed. We didn't know we were alternates, but everyone else knew. I asked one of the lawyers why they let me be an alternate, since I came to the courthouse every day wearing clerics. She said, "You have a nice smile." Other than that, I've never even made another voir dire. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric That must be it. We all think we were dismissed because of our professions or associations and it's really because we have bad smiles. :)))))))) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:55:23 EST From: Kathi Subject: Re: Off Topic - Jury Duty (huge) Rick, last November I served on a jury; the case, a drive by shooting. During the interview process, I told them I was a field investigator for MUFON for the last six years and investigated privately for twenty eight years in the field of ufology - I also told them I was a follower of TIGHAR (and gave them the thumb nail view of TIGHAR) and that I wasn't a mem- ber but a daily reader of their form - My name was the first one they chose. Ended up getting sequestered out of the deal too! Kathi **************************************************************************** From Ric Oh my God. **************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg It has been my observation that forum participants display higher-than-average intelligence. Although I do not wish to cast aspersions on our learned counsel forum colleagues, I am impelled to wonder whether trial lawyers n general try to compensate for a weak case by weeding out intelligent prospective jurors. Bob #2286 *************************************************************************** From Harry Poole I may have been the only member of the forum who was actually picked on a jury. In October, I was selected for a drug purchase trial, and was selected as the foreman. In our case, since the defendent claimed it wasn't him, and since even the arresting officer could not identify him, we found the defendent innocent (actually we found that the police did not prove he was the guilty party). Harry #2300 **************************************************************************** From Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Re: Jury duty I was on a jury but it was pre-forum so maybe it is a purloined Forum List that is used by the lawyers. Dale **************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag Yep Ric I've served on 2 juries in as many trials a few years ago. What do you want to know? Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Bill Zorn One of these days, some of my juror experience is going to be included some web pages I've been working on. Perhaps this little off topic discussion will inspire me to work on it a bit more. I was on jury duty, and went three for three. In three. Three Voir dire, three trials, in three weeks. My experiences over the years with TIGHAR, and this forum made me a better juror. Critical thinking, Occams' razor, LTM, et al. My experiences last year with the State of New Mexico, Second Judicial Distinct made me a better person...... events inside and outside the courthouse forced me to think about citizenship, freedom, justice, et al. I was on jury duty, September 11th. Bill Zorn TIGHAR 1562C juror #177 ************************************************************************** From Peter Boor Yes - every once in a while I have been picked, although having a college degree seems to keep one out. Mine is in Physics. My most memorable trial was of the seven LA County Sheriffs (Majors something) that were caught skimming money from drug dealers. There were some others. Unforgettable...Peter Boor in Doylestown. ************************************************************************** From Randy jacobson We don't serve on juries because we don't have any peers: we're peerless! *************************************************************************** From Gary Paine I'm not a TIGHAR but I do lurk on the forum and, yes, I have been on a jury and served through all the way to a verdict. It was a case concerning a woman suing a grocery store chain for a hundred grand because she was horsing around with a shopping cart, tipped it over in the parking lot and skinned her hand. What was hilarious is that the woman claimed to be an artist and that she was no longer able to paint, draw or even comfortably hold a brush or pencil because of nerve and muscle damage to her hand. One of the corporate defense lawyers set up on an easel a map of the store and parking lot and asked her to show the path she had been traveling when the cart tipped. She started to point it out. He asked her if she would trace it so the jury could see better and handed her a fat marker. She did, drawing without a hint of difficulty or discomfort, making a bold line across the huge easel map. The defense lawyer asked her to indicate some other landmarks on the map, which she did without hesitation, flipping the marker around in her hand so she could use her finger to point, then flipping it back to make the notations when he asked her to label the spots. He took the map away then, without another comment other than to say "thank you." The defense rested. The woman's lawyer looked like he was about to choke on glass the entire time she was drawing and actually slumped his head on the table when she handed the marker back to the defense attorney. We, the Jury found in favor of the defendant. And I NEVER thought I would be one to side with corporate suits over an individule. *shiver* I was also on a jury for a murder trial that was a potential capital punishment case. When it ended early in a mistrial, I was VERY relieved. --gary payne *************************************************************************** From Ed of PSL I was called twice for jury duty and selected twice. Once as a juror (two week trial involving multiple suits and loss of life) and one as an alternate (released when the case went to the jury). These were very interesting experiences, one in Pennsylvania and one in Florida. I felt good as a citizen afterwards in each case. LTM Ed of PSL #2415 *************************************************************************** From Bill Moffett Ric: Guess my smile is OK. I sat on a jury in Houston, TX Traffic Court back in the 60's. Don't remember the details of the case(s). In the late 80's I caught a week of Federal Court in Philly. One case dealt with and apparently defective pacemaker which meant, as I recall, that the plaintiff had to undergo a second operation to install a replacement. We found in favor of the plaintiff and against the maker of the pacemaker. There was a second case dealing with drugs. Recall listening to a young woman who got into the sale of "coke" in order to support her habit. Sad! Tragic! We nailed the dealer, but the DEA couldn't get higher up the chain. Too bad. I got out of a third case which dealt in some fashion with the local mob. (Angelo Bruno was still around as I recall.) In the jury selection process we were questioned by the attorneys. When they learned that my father-in-law retired as the US Marshal in Seattle, I was excused! Stay tuned: I've been summoned to sit on the jury in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County, PA, Feb. 25-26. Bill Moffet #2156CE of Wayne, PA *************************************************************************** From Janet Powell >Has anyone on the forum ever actually >been selected and served on a jury? Certainly have, - twice! Theft and attempted murder, - but it was before joining the Forum, and I've often wondered why I've never been selected again........ Mmmmmm.... Janet #2225 *************************************************************************** From Mike Haddock Last year I had the priviledge to serve on a jury and was the foreman of the jury in a medical malpractice suit. Fascinating but extremely frustrating. Our jury found for the defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, who had botched a knee replacement surgery. The surgery had to be redone but the surgeon doing the corrective procedure would not make any incriminating statements about the doctor in question. I was so bothered by the decision that I wrote the plaintiff's attorney a letter and explained how our august group had ruled in favor of the doctor. He appealed and lost. I enjoyed the entire week but the result left a bad taste in my mouth. LTM Mike Haddock, #2438 **************************************************************************** From David Kelly If you really don't want to be picked, you can walk into the court and when the silk (a senior lawyer in Australia/UK etc) starts to question you for selection, you can just say "I think the bastards guilty" and you are guaranteed not to be picked. Although you won't win any friends amongst the judges. ************************************************************************ From Jim Tierney No- I have never served on a jury--but here in Ventura County , CA--I got the notice and on five occasions in six years-I went-got on the panel and after the questioning I was bounced by one side or the other..... Must be the way I look and talk which is different from the majority of those here on the left coast.. Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:09:25 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway Let me take a stab at the null hypothesis (i.e. castaway is not AE or FN). I'll base my scenario on the case of the Wing-On, an American yacht that fetched up on a reef in Fiji in 1940 after drifting for some hundreds or thousands of miles following a disaster that left her without power and unable to steer. Scenario: The year is 1925. The yacht Leg-Off, out of Los Angeles, is cruising the south seas, her crew consisting of Joe Oarless and his wife Mary, and Sarah Spikeless and her husband Marlin. Somewhere east of the Marshalls they encounter a storm and the yacht is dismasted. Using their trusty sextant to navigate, the Oarlesses and Spikelesses crank up the engine and chug along toward Jaluit, but soon run out of gas. They can do nothing but drift. They soon run out of food and water. Things get desparate. One by one they expire until only Sarah is left alive. A rain squall strikes and Sarah is able to collect some water in a benedictine bottle and some casks with small corks. The squall drives the Leg-Off up on the windward side of Niku, where Sarah, virtually deranged from her experience, is able to struggle ashore with her water containers, a couple of pairs of shoes, and the sextant in its box, which to her somewhat confused mind seems like it might come in handy. The Leg-Off breaks up on the reef. Sarah is revived by the water, the need to protect herself from several hundred voracious coconut crabs, and the ready availability of fish, shellfish, birds, and turtles. Having been a girl scout in her youth, she is able to get a fire going with the sextant lenses, and subsists on the island for some months before finally expiring. Voila -- this scenario not only accounts for everything both Gallagher and we observed at the Seven Site (except the probable Coast Guard and later material) AND it's consistent with Gallagher's and Isaac's estimates of the age of the bones. The population structure of the Win-On's crew was as described above, by the way, and only one member of the crew, one of the wives, survived, landing in Fiji in a thoroughly deranged state of mind. ************************************************************************** From Ric One question: Did no portion of the yacht Leg-Off survive to later be noticed on the reef or shore by the two ships that rescued the NC survivors in 1929 or be seen and mentioned by the NZ or Bushnell surveys or Gallagher's search? The NZ survey in 1938 saw, photographed and noted the presence on the shore of a lifeboat from the NC. One to the things that I have always found interesting about Gallagher's castaway is the apparent absence of any explanation for how the person or persons got to the island. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:12:42 EST From: Chris in Petaluma Subject: Re: New York Lifebouy Is it confirmed that AE had a life raft? If so, she had no need for bouys. Right? **************************************************************************** From Ric It is NOT confirmed. In fact, there is no indication that she did have a life raft aboard the Electra. She did have one aboard her Vega for the 1935 Hono/Oakland flight, but the Luke field inventory lists only personal flotation devices on the Electra. And nobody knows what was aboard coming out of Lae. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:14:10 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Seeds of AE's survival You may well be right that the origin of AE's survival, true or not, may have started with the Ryuzo Morita report in July 1937. He was an employee of the Jaluit Branch Office, South Sea Government. Morita believed [ most likely mistakenly] there could have been a connection between the New York lifebuoy and AE's plane. No doubt that the Japanese were searching the Marshalls at our request. Morita was "later" transferred, according to the G-2 memo, to Saipan as a secretary in a hospital, then to Guam when the war started. Morita must have discussed his "findings" with contemporaries at Saipan. Interestingly, Morita makes no mention that the Koshu sailed in to Jaluit Harbor in late July 37 with the Electra on the stern where Japanese corpsman Bilermon Amaron treated AE and FN, according to some researchers. Morita was there in July 37, and in view of his familiarty with the Earhart disappearance would have been in a positon to know or personally observe those events. I had not heard of Morita before. LTM, Ron Bright Bremerton,WA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:19:18 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: other castaway > From Ric > > It's hard to > imagine a wooden box out in the weather on that island holding up for more > than a few years. You did leave one there I hope? To check back on NikuV? Possibly one of the more important experiements. Mine was left in as near to a similar environment as I could find above the coral rubble, back a couple of metres behind the tree line, but about 10 mths later it had disappeared, probably picked up by some yachtie wandering around on the island. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric We've left lots of things on the island over the years in the hope of being able to use them on future trips but they always either disappear or deteriorate to the point of being useless. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:20:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: New York Lifebouy > that Morita in 1937 had found a red horseshoe > lifebuoy inscribed with "NEW YORK" adrift on the sea near "Radak Island". > Morita thought the lifebuoy may have come from the Electra. [ I can't find > Radak Is ] >.....!!! Ron Bright Google lists a Radak Island in the Carolines.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:21:47 EST From: Susie Subject: Re: Off Topic - Jury Duty I served on a Grand Jury for three months. It was an eye opening experience! Don't ever go to jail. Susie ************************************************************************** From Ric It's a constant struggle. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:27:17 EST From: Dale Intolubbe, Rathdrum, Idaho Subject: Amelia Mystery solved? http://www.bluegrassnet.com/tgbs/A/Amelia_earhart.html Dale **************************************************************************** From Ric They've got the lyrics screwed up and song misattributed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:28:44 EST From: Harold Davey Subject: Artifacts 2-6-S-21-F and 2-6-S-32 I have been in the commercial aviation business for over 50 years (I'm 68) and in looking at the unidentified artifacts on your web site two of them seem somewhat familiar. Artifact 2-6-S-21F looks like it might be the mounting cap of a radio tuning coil. In radios of the 1937 era tuning short wave radios was usually done with a combination of tuning capacitors and tuning coils. The coils were usually constructed with very fine copper wire wrapped around a cylindrical waxed cardboard tube and the item 2-6-S-21F looks like the mounting base found on one or both ends. The Artifact 2-6-S-32 looks like part of the ceramic mount for a plate type tuning capacitor out of a radio set. The capacitor blades were usually made of aluminum and could have corroded away. On the other hand I could be entirely mistaken about the nature of the parts. I am in the middle of reading "Amelia Earhart's shoes." Very interesting. Cheers, Harold Davey Bedford, Texas (near DFW airport) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:29:57 EST From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Canteens I do not remember ever seeing a GI Canteen during my stay on Atafu or Canton. Chuck Boyle. Presently staying in Naples, FL for the month of February. This is the place to be. **************************************************************************** From Ric So were there no canteens around at all? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:30:55 EST From: Doc Holloway in Bland, MO Subject: Canteens I dug out my old canteen from my Boy Scout days. It's a surplus "almost" WWI variety with a 1918 date on the back. It has a screw-on cap secured with a brass? chain. The cap is ~ 1 1/4" in diameter and ~ 5/8" tall. The top is somewhat dome shaped and the sides have 1/2" vertical striations. The cap is attached to the chain with round headed rivet. Both the cap and the canteen seem to be aluminium. As I vaguely recall, the cap used to have a cork insert to provide a seal. LTM (Who was known to keep "medicinal" brandy in her canteen.) Doc ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:32:08 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: the knob > Current manufacturers of anything can rarely provide useful information > about products the company made decades ago. Tell me about it. When I was a kid my grandmother used a product called fomaline in her ice cream. My best guess is that it is akin to Junket Rennet but there is not a living soul on earth that knows what it was or now has ever heard of it. I contacted all the ice cream makers. They never heard of it. Gone into oblivion. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:07:58 EST From: Stuart Subject: Fomaline > From Alan > > Tell me about it. When I was a kid my grandmother used a product called > fomaline in her ice cream. ... For what its worth, from a Copernic web search, this is the only reference that came up to anything called "fomaline". I hope it wasn't this stuff that your grandmother used in her ice cream! http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/1998/280898/Features/FN6.html Stuart ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:13:45 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway In response to the question: >Did no portion of the yacht Leg-Off survive to later be noticed on the reef >or shore by the two ships that rescued the NC survivors in 1929 or be seen >and mentioned by the NZ or Bushnell surveys or Gallagher's search? No; in the four years prior to the Norwich City wreck it was entirely beaten to scrap, and besides, it was on the SE windward side while the NC was on the NW lee. All signs were long gone by the late '30s. It wasn't a very big yacht (The Wing-On, as I recall, was described as a converted whaleboat, or something of the kind) *********************************************************************** From Ric And why, apparently unlike the Wing-On, was the loss of the Leg-Off never reported? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:14:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway Re.: We've left lots of things on the island over the years in the hope of being able to use them on future trips but they always either disappear or deteriorate to the point of being useless. True, but on the other hand, in the village the wooden walls of the Co-op store and wireless shack have held up pretty well for 40 years. It's not at all clear to me what controls the rate at which wood deteriorates on Niku, but I suspect that it varies a lot with exposure to sunlight and moisture. Since we don't know the conditions under which the sextant box was found, I've never given much thought to trying to replicate them. However, we left a lot of stuff at the Seven Site, and recorded what was left in fair detail, so we should be able to get some kind of fix on the question if and when anyone goes back. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:20:55 EST From: Mike E. Subject: Re: Artifacts 2-6-S-21-F and 2-6-S-32 Thanks to Harold for this input. My thoughts.... >Artifact 2-6-S-21F looks like it might be the >mounting cap of a radio tuning coil. In radios of the 1937 era tuning short >wave radios was usually done with a combination of tuning capacitors and >tuning coils. The coils were usually constructed with very fine copper wire >wrapped around a cylindrical waxed cardboard tube and the item 2-6-S-21F >looks like the mounting base found on one or both ends. I'm not sure I agree with this... the 30s coil forms I am familiar with, from commercially made equipment, are made of either Bakelite, ceramic, or Steatite. Very few tuning adjustments are actually found on coils... most stuff of this vintage was tuned by means of variable "trimmer" capacitors connected to the coils. AE's receiver was not tuned by varying the coils themselves in any way. Rather, it was tuned by a large variable capacitor like most any other radio of the period. The transmitter was tuned by means of taps on the coils, or connection to the wire of the coils themselves. There was one small "trimmer" adjustment on the transmitter output coil, but this was adjusted using a screwdriver or tuning tool, through a hole in the panel... not a knob. All the other tuned circuits in the transmitter were "broadband" in nature, no tuning adjustments. >The Artifact 2-6-S-32 looks like part of the ceramic mount for a plate type >tuning capacitor out of a radio set. The capacitor blades were usually made >of aluminum and could have corroded away. Now, this is an interesting thought... I have seen variable capacitors, from this era, of which part of the structure -- usually the part where the connections to the "stator" or stationary plates was made -- was made of Micarta (and this artifact is made of Micarta). I have a few such capacitors, which I think were made by Hammarlund or National, who made parts for everybody in the radio manufacturing business. By the way, most variable capacitors were and still are constructed so that the rotor plates, and the adjustment shaft, are at ground potential. Especially those used in a transmitter. Some, mostly small "trimmers" are made with a ceramic structure to which the plates are mounted by means of metal shafts or other structure. AE's transmitter, however, used fixed capacitors in all tuned circuits; again, the tuning was done by changing tap points on the coils. This artifact could just as easily be part of the mounting base for a coil assembly... but: Unless and until we get a chance to examine a real, live WE 13C transmitter, and a WE 20-series receiver, to see if any of the pieces match, I fear we are shooting at the moon, trying to make a connection to AE through these items. The AT&T Archives in Warren, NJ may have one in its collection. Perhaps contact should be made there. That may "settle this hash" once and for all, including the debate on the artifacts we are pretty sure are the remains of vacuum tubes (but not necessarily from AE's equipment). Unfortunately I am a long way from Jersey and due to my teaching schedule a trip is not possible now.... LTM (who has more connections than the phone company) and 73 Mike E. *************************************************************************** From Ric I, for one, see no reasonable connection between the artifacts that are increasingly certain to be radio tube components and Earhart's radios. More and more, these are looking like radio tubes brought from the Loran station and used for rifle target practice. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:22:04 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: other castaway Not a bad scenario, but I'd bet in 1925 that the yacht would have been insured, with some record of a total loss or a missing vessel. I originally mentioned whalers, thinking that there wouldn't have been many records, but apparently many of them were insured as well (The crew paid the insurance out of their "lay" or share of the profits). There are recorded whalers, who disappeared without a trace. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Thar she blows!) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:55:58 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: No Subject This has probably been discussed, but I was looking at the inventory list of Gallagher's personal items and there were 2 wireless radios. Any thoughts about the artifacts being from Gallagher's wireless equipment? Hope this hasn't been beaten to death already. LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 *************************************************************************** From Ric Small radios. Receive only. Can't be the source of this stuff. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:28:26 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross Alan, we are on the same sheet of music. I guess my previous postings got pretty long winded, I just slipped into "instructor mode." Mainly I was responding to the postings from Dick, Bob and Doug who didn't seem to have a clear understanding of celestial. Also, your previous comment about extending the line through the Southern Cross five times to an imaginary point didn't make it clear that this was for an approximation of the south direction (in a boy scout sort of a way, not for precise navigation) and not for determining latitude. It is hard to measure the altitude of an imaginary point with a sextant. It is common, however, for many "Navs" to use Polaris to determine direction to check compass error and gyro drift. See AFM 51-40 (1973) page 14-16. This technique is still in AFPAM 11-216 (2001) page 268. Although Noonan didn't have a peroscopic sextant, which makes it real easy to measure the bearing to a star, I believe the aircraft had a pelorus which he could have used to take such bearings in the same way (either with Polaris or other stars) to check for compass errors. I also agree with you that you want to avoid using altitudes below 10 degrees due to the variations in refraction that can throw your LOP off by many mile. (Comments mainly aimed to provide additional information to non navigators.) Gary LaPook **************************************************************************** From Ric <> Cough, choke, gag. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:40:33 EST From: Dale Intolubbe Subject: Re: Amelia songs Is this the real song? http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/ly-from.htm#amelia And what of this? http://freespace.virgin.net/dream.tree/japanps.html Does TIGHAR have this kind of stuff in its collection? Dale *************************************************************************** From Ric http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/ly-from.htm#amelia has it right. Red River Dave is the songwriter and those are very close to the lyrics I've heard on an original recording (although we do not have such in our collection). we do have two or three other songs about Amelia that people have sent to us over the years. I'm not familiar with the True Story of Amelia Earhart by Matthews mentioned in the second url. We, of course, have an extensive libarary of songs written in the course of various TIGHAR expeditions, including such classics as "Finding Amelia" (tune: Waltzing Matilda), "The Earhart Song" (tune The Air Force Song), and "Pardon Me, Tin" (tune: Chatanooga Choo Choo). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:42:59 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway Dan Postellon Excellent point about insurance, so how do we go about finding all the insurance records of vessel losses between, say, 1910 and 1935 in the central Pacific? *************************************************************************** From Ric It's called Lloyd's List and it's at the PRO in London. Kenton and I dug around in it for the better part of day when we were there. I suppose it may even be available on line now. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:49:43 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: other castaway Re: And why, apparently unlike the Wing-On, was the loss of the Leg-Off never reported? The Wing-On drifted ashore on an inhabited island in Fiji, where the lone survivor was treated in hospital by Dr. Steenson, as I recall. So it was reported at that end; Sir Harry and his staff had to interact with Abbott, the US Consul, about it. The Leg-off wasn't thus reported because, of course, there was no one on Niku to report it. As to whether the Wing-On's loss was reported at the U.S. end, no doubt it was, but the only reason I've seen documentation about the wreck was that it turned up in Abbott's files, now in the National Archives, and is also mentioned by Sir Harry in his "From a South Seas Diary." I've never seen documents from the U.S. end, and don't know where they'd be. So the hypothetical Leg-Off's loss might well have been reported, but where would such records exist today? Coast Guard archives? But where? No doubt The Forum Knows. It would be interesting to know how many boats and ships were lost upwind of Niku between, say, 1910 and 1937, with crew members or passengers (especially female) going missing. I'll bet that (a) it's not a terribly small number and that (b) there's no real way of putting an outside number on it, considering all the nations whose nationals might be puttering around the Pacific. *************************************************************************** From Ric The best source is probably Pacific Islands Monthly. They reported all sorts of things that went on in the islands. A missing yacht or sunken frieghter would be a big story. Library of Congress has, as I recall, a pretty collection. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:50:53 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Is a solution wanted? Ref--Todd Swindell and his discourse/diatribe---- Thats a lot to read and digest.... Where did HE come from????? Ric/Pat have gained 'fame and fortune'' ??????? Not the Ric/Pat I know..... OK-maybe 30-45 minutes of fame--but not fortune!!!!!!!!!!!!! I could copy and read it again--but I will leave that to better forumites--if they wish to......I will get on with my life... Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:55:02 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Formalin Alan wrote, excerpts: >When I was a kid my grandmother used a product called fomaline in her ice >cream... there is not a living soul on earth that knows what it >was.... the ice cream makers never heard of it. Gone into oblivion. Alan, here is your info. (Ric *knew* I'd find this for you!) Formalin is a water-based solution made from formaldehyde, and is used as a preservative, and in the making of disinfectants, fungicides and germicides. It's also apparently used in dairy products in foreign countries. It's also used in fish tanks to kill parasites. It is more often spelled "formalin" than "formaline". You can read more, by searching Google http://www.google.com/search?q=formalin+solution http://www.google.com/search?q=formalin+ice+cream LTM, (who would rather wait for the embalming table for her dose of formalin) Suzanne **************************************************************************** From Ric Good Gawd. I've used formalin to toughen horses' hooves. Not the sort of thing I would expect to find in ice cream. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:59:31 EST From: David Katz Subject: Re: other castaway > Did no portion of the yacht Leg-Off survive to later be noticed on the reef > or shore by the two ships that rescued the NC survivors in 1929 or be seen > and mentioned by the NZ or Bushnell surveys or Gallagher's search? The NZ > survey in 1938 saw, photographed and noted the presence on the shore of a > lifeboat from the NC. Apparently, no portion of an Electra 10-E survived to be later noticed on the reef (or anywhere else) by anyone, either. David Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric True - as long as you discount John Mims, Timou Samuelu, Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu, Tapania Taeke, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:01:13 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Fomaline I suspect that the chemical on the reference site is a typo, and should actually be "formalin", which is a formaldehyde compound. My recollection is, they use it in the beauty shop business as well, as a disinfectant. Or used to, anyway. The beauticians liked it because it made their fingernails really hard, so they'd grow longer without breaking. ltm jon 2266 **************************************************************************** From Ric Same for horses' fingernails. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:15:00 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: The Crashed and Sank Theory "The Race to Find Amelia" (Project Bulletin 2/20/02) is a handy summation of deep water search activities, despite your strong hints that such projects are sheer folly. (What was the name of that well-known PR man who actually FOUND a needle in a haystack - on a bet?) The conventional wisdom around TIGHAR hangouts is that the Electra couldn't possibly have sunk to the bottom of the Pacific, since there is no confirming evidence, such as floating debris (be it flotsam or jetsam) or an oil slick. Those clues are mighty handy for searchers, but all to often never turn up, even if the crash location is reasonably well identified. Capt. Safford said it well; "I was aboard a destroyer performing plane guard duty for the NC-4 trans-Atlantic flight in 1919, and on another for the Dole Flight (Pineapple Derby) in 1927. I was present at the scene of the crash of the dirigible AKRON and missed seeing the MACON crash by less than an hour. I know from personal experience how rapidly the ocean can swallow a disabled aircraft, leaving no visible trace." I'm sure the Coast Guard can tell you the same, and may even be able to provide statistics. [Note: there were several planes lost on the Pineapple Derby - with no survivors or oil slicks found, despite their wood and cloth construction..] Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric The bulletin can be found at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/35_Titanic/titanicbulletin.html No argument. The lack of any direct evidence that the airplane went down at sea does not mean it didn't happen. In the absence of direct evidence that something else happened, crashed and sank seems to be the most logical default explanation. The problem is, there is quite a bit of direct evidence that suggests that something else DID happen. But that's not why the deep water search is folly. The folly is in thinking that a reasonable search area can be constrained and such a tiny target can be found - even if it's there somewhere. Watch for another bulletin "RMS Ttitanic versus NR16020" later today. It will present graphic comparisons between the two searches. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:28:06 EST From: Ric Subject: Not off topic - believe it or not Here's a question I'd like to put out to the forum. After we have some answers I'll explain it all but I don't want to prejudice the respondents. The question: You've dug some clams at the seashore (or bought them at the fish market) and you're going to eat them raw. How do you get them open? Second part: Same question but this time it's oysters. How do you get them open? In each case, describe the tool(s) and technique(s) and also where and how you learned how to use them. Thanks, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:57:48 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross > From Gary LaPook > > > I guess my previous postings got pretty long winded, I just slipped into > "instructor mode." Mainly I was responding to the postings from Dick, Bob and > Doug who didn't seem to have a clear understanding of celestial. It is a relief to know that those of us who thought we understood celestial navigation can look forward to learning from a real expert. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:01:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory Cam, the needle in a haystack is not a good analogy. The haystack is a small contained object and it is known the needle is in it. I echo Ric's comment about the lack of evidence not being the folly issue. The folly is thinking it is rational to search over 600,000 square miles of ocean without the slightest clue where in that area to search. If you don't know where the 600,000 sq miles of ocean came from you've missed a lengthy thread. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:27:48 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory Yes, the Electra was "a tiny target" compared to the TITANIC. But what about that cargo door (from a United Airlines {?} plane) recovered halfway between San Francisco and Honolulu?? By all means read "Blindman's Bluff" re cold-war submarine activity, if you haven't already. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric The technology exists to find a safety pin on the ocean bottom. That's not the point. The 747 cargo door was found because the search area could be accurately constrained with practical limits. They had radar plots that tracked its descent. It wasn't "lost". They knew where it was within relatively tight parameters so they could search very tightly - and they still felt lucky to have found it. If you drop a contact lens while standing over a stoppered sink you have a reasonable expectation of finding it. If you drop it while leaning over the edge of a hot air balloon basket at 2,000 feet you can probably forget it. To say that Earhart may have run out of gas and crashed at sea is not unreasonable. Finding a target that small in a 2,000 square mile area 17,000 feet down is theoretically possible given enough time, but it has never been done. The real search area, however, is more like 636,000 square miles. We've seen the reasoning used to narrow the search area to 2,000 square miles and it is deeply flawed. Make no mistake, I am all in favor of Nauticos, Timmer, Kammerer, and Howdy Doody (if he can raise the money) going out and searching the ocean bottom for Amelia Earhart. It stimulates the economy and keeps the search in the news. Their failure will naturally (if not logically) swing the pendulum of attention back to where the evidence is - Nikumaroro. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:38:06 EST From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: North Star and Southern Cross > Mainly I was responding to the postings from Dick, Bob and Doug > who didn't seem to have a clear understanding of celestial. > > Cough, choke, gag. I guess I came in late on something. *************************************************************************** From Ric You might say that. You're talking about folks who have years of practical experience in celestial navigation in the air and on the sea. They are among a group of forum subscribers we have come to refer to as our Celestial Choir. They'll listen to what you have to say and debate you point by point, but you just rode into Tombstone and told the Earp brothers to meet you down at the OK Corral. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:35:05 EST From: Ric Subject: Of Clams & Oysters (huge) Here are the first day's results of of our "How to open a clam or oyster" survey. ************************************************************************** From Tom King "When the oysters have a slight gap at the closed hinge, you can make quick work of them either with a beer-can opener or a stout oyster knife. Place an oyster, curved side down, on your work surface; the small or hinge end of the oyster should be facing you. "The beer-can opener. This is the easiest opener. Turn it upside down, insert the pointed end into the gap at the hinge, press down on the handle while holding the oyster firmly with your other hand -- the hinge pops open. "Or the oyster knife. Work the point of an oyster knife into the hinge with an up-and-down pushing motion until the hinge pops." Julia Child: The Way To Cook. Alfred A Knopf 1999:118 *************************************************************************** From David Katz Simple observation of the clams (or oysters) would indicate that I would need a knife or similar implement to open them. Been there, done that many times on numerous clambakes. Can't wait to learn how this relates to the search for AE. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf (#2406) in Brussels I don't know about clams. I've never tried to open clams. I do know about oysters. And mussels. A simple way to open them is to cook them. If you want to eat your oysters raw you'll need a special "oyster knife" which is sold in any decent supermarket and therefore you'll find in any decent kitchen. If you live in Europe, try your Swiss army knife. They are on sale everywhere and are not only used by the Swiss military... I think everyone has one (I have two because I lost one and later found it). Swiss army knives can be used for a dozen or more various jobs and have at least a dozen different knives of different sizes, awls, screwdrivers, a pair of scissors and whatever it takes a soldier to survive in the open (or do some repair work at home). Even opening oysters. Remember oysters have a week spot where you have to put the knife, then jerk it open. But it's sound advice always to protect the hand holding the oyster by wearing a leather glove or at least a towel. Sometimes oysters fight back and refuse to open and if you lose control over the knife. Oooooch ! By the way, Ric, if you buy them at the fish market you can always ask the guy who sells them to open them for you... LTM (who always carries a Swiss army knife when in the open) Herman (#2406) *************************************************************************** From Amanda Sorry, I've only ever seen Julia steam them. ;-) But here's a naive question from a city kid: if you've just harvested them from the lagoon, doesn't that mean they're still alive? When Julia was cooking clams and oysters she had live ones from her fishmonger. Julia demonstrated how to tell they were still alive: tap gently on the top shell. They don't like it and close up. LTM, who always watches Julia with me. Amanda Dunham TIGHAR #2418, patron ************************************************************************** From Jon Watson Well, if I didn't really know what I was doing, and had limited or no real resources - ie: marooned on a tropical island - I suppose I would put them on a hard surface and hit them with a rock until they broke. If I had a knife, or a piece of thin, spring steel, I might figure out how to cut them open, but I probably wouldn't be that sophisticated initially, especially if I was really hungry and didn't want to take the time. If I had a pot, fire, etc, I might try boiling them or steaming them. Sounds pretty good, actually. Makes me nostalgic for the days of my youth, when we raked a few clams out of the Delaware Bay.... ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Dan Postellon I'd prefer to steam them with hot rocks and seaweed. If I had to eat them raw, I'd slip a very thin knife between the shells and cut the "hinge" or muscle that holds the shells together. I've never actually done this, but I think I saw it in "The Joy of Cooking". I'd do the same for oysters. The only shellfish around here are zebra mussels, and I wouldn't want to try eating them. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM(But only in months with an 'R'.) **************************************************************************** From David Kelly The answer to both is an oyster knife and a lot of bandages (I always cut myself whenever I do that). Also, with regards to oysters, if you are taking them off a rock at the sea shore then you don't have to open them, you can only prise half the shell of the rock anyway. If, of course, you are talking about how AE etc could open shell fish, I would suggest that if they did not have a handy oyster knife or similar, a large rock would suffice. Regards David *************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell Ric, I saw my dad shuck oysters after we bought some at the docks in Baltimore. I had the impression this was the first time he had bought raw oysters. He pried them open with a screwdriver. It appeared to be a first impression attempt. It wasn't easy until he finally got on to it. I don't think a pocket knife would hold up to the chore. I later saw a neighbor do it with a tool he called an "oyster shucker." It looked like a short broad heavy duty knife. Again he just worked it in and pried but for him it seemed easy. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Lawrence I use a small, but thick edged knife and force my way into the shell to cut the abductor muscles. A good, spicy sauce is the key to enjoying muscles, clams, and oysters. Thanks, Lawrence. **************************************************************************** From Angus Murray How to open a Clam: 1) Find a large piece of coral or steel from the wreck to use as a hammer and smash open on a hard surface (eg the reef). 2) Find a sharp piece of steel or glass to use as a knife to cut the muscle at the hinge of the clam from outside. 3) Find a thin strip of steel to drive with another heavy chunk of steel into the edge joint of the upper and lower halves and wedge the clam open. 4) Heat the clam in its shell along the hinge with fire which will destroy the muscle and allow easy opening or perhaps cause voluntary opening. 5) Put the clam in a container full of water, or a pool on the reef, watch until it opens and quickly ram in a chock (chunk of coral etc) to hold it open. 6) Throw clam repeatedly against a hard surface (coral, Norwich City, etc) until it breaks ( the clam) 7) Climb up the superstructure of the Norwich City and drop the clam as far as possible on to the deck. 8) Find a long bar or girder of some sort on the Norwich City. Wedge the end under eg a door hinge or flange. Put the clam underneath and use as a giant nutcracker. 9) Use a steel door on the N.C. as a nutcracker.Prop the clam close to the hinge and slam the door. 10)Salvage the radio & battery from the electra. Radio to the outside world that I was having a clam bake and ask for instructions or find out from the guests. 11) Connect the anode supply of my radio to the clams hinge, ground the other end of the hinge to the chassis and await developments. 7) would probably not apply to oysters owing to the unfavourable surface area to weight ratio. I have never opened a clam in my life so most techniques are entirely theoretical. I have only opened shellfish on the beach as a kid using stones as a hammer. I think if I could find the tools, I would cook the clam in its shell using the sextant lenses as burning glass to start a fire. Then I would wedge/cut open to avoid damaging the meat of the clam by smashing the shell. Most of my knowledge of the habits of oysters resides in the following Oysters are prolific bivalves Rear their young ones in their shell (how they piddle is a riddle But they do - So what the hell!) Angus. *************************************************************************** From Lp Hi Ric, You have to pry them open; with something thin and that can give you leverage without bending. If I came upon some and was looking at them, my first thought would be to try prying first. Then, if no luck, I would try hot or boiling water. IM not a sea side person, and live only 50 miles from AE home. But the above logic would be for me first. The last thing would I would do was to smash them, but figure there must be an easy way since I have never found broken shells with the ones I eat. Haaa . good luck ************************************************************************** From Marty Joy I, like many others in the Northwest, have had considerable experience in opening clams and oysters. As I recall, our Heroes were from the Midwest and probably had no experience with either. Putting myself in their position with no experience. I would probably do this: noticing that each bivalve had a seam around the middle, I would try to insert something like a pocketknife, belt-buckle, clamshell half, into the seam and pry it open. Now while we all know that raw oysters are very tasty, our heroes may not have shared our opinion. If they had a way to boil water, they could have just dumped them in and waited for them to open. If they were really hungry, they probably would have smashed them open, scooped out the innards and eaten them raw or cooked them over an open fire. **************************************************************************** From Chris Rehm I can pry them open with a screw driver, both types of shell fish will probably break off some pieces of the shell,ie the shells will be chipped really could use any rigid pointy object, even maybe a stick if it was a really hard wood chris rehm *************************************************************************** From Tom King: Since I know why this isn't off topic (but won't tell), let me add one other factor: our primary interest is in BIG clams, like Gooyducks on the Pacific coast and whatever's similar on the east coast. *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, this is interesting. My initial request for information was: <> Mostly we've demonstrated that forum subscribers can't just answer the question - but we already knew that. Several respondents had no knowledge or experience in the subject but offered their opinion anyway (so what else is new?). Several tried to second guess what I was getting at. However, some interesting information has emerged. 1) The "right" way to open an oyster is not intuitive. You have to have been taught how to do it. 2) The technique seems to also work on clams, although only David Kelly said so specifically. 3) Those who knew how to open an oyster by going in at the base of the shell, as described by Julia Child, were Herman in Belgium and David Kelly in New South Wales, Australia. So far we've not heard from anyone in New England. Marty Joy, who says that he has a lot experience opening clams and oysters in the Northwest, didn't answer the question but instead speculated about what he thought a castaway might do. It's not clear whether he knows the Child technique or not. Let's see who else responds. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:36:32 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory I agree that a deep water search for AE's plane is a real crapshoot. The Titanic's position was pretty well documented if I'm not mistaken and she was a large target. On this forum we can't agree within a hundred miles or so where AE "might" have wound up. I personally subscribe to the Nikuu hypothesis. I can't imagine well intended people putting up large sums of money to promote a deep sea search when there is no hard evidence she went down at sea let alone WHERE she went down. Keep up the good work Ric! LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:39:39 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Of Clams & Oysters Living by the seaside where oysters and clams are plentifull in front of my home, I see daily one of the most effective but simple ways to open them. A seagull takes the clam or oyster up about 30-40 ft in the air, drops them on the rocks to crack the shell. If one drop doesn't work the gull tries again,and within two or three drops has a nice beak full of an oyster or clam. The shell usually is damaged. The gulls on Puget Sound never go hungry. LTM ( Love those Mollusks) Ron Bright Bremerton, WA *************************************************************************** From Ric Northwest US. Not familar with the Child technique. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:43:04 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Fomaline I'd recommend carrageenan, made from red algae. (See, I told you I could keep this on-topic) Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:47:26 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Radio queries etc Can anyone qualified offer any opinion on how AE's signal strength (qualitatively) might change with orientation of the aircraft? E.g. If she turned 180 would the signal be expected to change noticeably? Has anyone considered the effect of wet or dried salt spray on aerial insulators in allowing leakage to earth. I imagine a landing on a reef close to breakers would rapidly result in degraded communication from this problem unless the operator knew enough to clean the insulators regularly. Presumably this is not something pilots or navigators were taught about? How similar is the inaccurate19th C map of Gardner to Atafu? Do we know the probable basis and its date of Noonan's charts of the Phoenix group? Where did Pan Am source their charts at that time? Regards Angus **************************************************************************** From Ric Bob Brandenburg and Mike Everette can help you with the antenna orientation question. I don't know the answers to your other questions. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:49:32 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Crashed and Sank Theory > But what about that cargo door (from a United Airlines {?} plane) recovered > halfway between San Francisco and Honolulu?? At last, a subject about which I have a little knowledge! The coordinates where the door impacted the ocean surface were known, as was the current. The door was found within a short distance of its predicted location on the ocean floor. The specific technology used to pinpoint the door was not revealed, but the location was determined during the first week of investigation at HNL. Recovery of the door was another matter. The cause of the door opening in flight was chaffed wires rather than human error, as was initially postulated. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:17:23 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Of Clams and Oysters Yet another trend is the responses from non-coastal types is that they would try to cook them first. This reminds me of a line from the song "Hopelessly Midwestern" "If you still think sushi looks a lot like bait, you're hopelessly Midwestern" from Grand Rapids, Michigan Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:19:14 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters In the northwest where clams and oysters are plentiful, the Indians probably found them about 200 years ago. I have always wondered who tried to eat the first oyster! Anyway, as I said, by observing gulls dropping clams on the beach, one would simply take a clam and strike it on a rock,crumbling the shell. There is your raw clam. Same with an oyster. Simply take a rock and hit the oyster a few times, crack the shell, and you have a raw oyster. It wouldnt take long before one could observe the hinge where you could now insert an instrument, but others prefer opening the oyster at the opposite end of the hinge. A good shucker can do about 20- 30 oysters in a minute. The easiest way is to put an oyster on top of a fire, and in about a couple of minutes , the oysters opens up. All Tighars are invited to a Hood Canal Oysterfest this summer. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:22:42 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio queries etc > From Angus Murray > > Can anyone qualified offer any opinion on how AE's signal strength > (qualitatively) might change with orientation of the aircraft? E.g. If she > turned 180 would the signal be expected to change noticeably? > Has anyone considered the effect of wet or dried salt spray on aerial > insulators in allowing leakage to earth. I imagine a landing on a reef close > to breakers would rapidly result in degraded communication from this problem > unless the operator knew enough to clean the insulators regularly. > Presumably this is not something pilots or navigators were taught about? The radiation pattern of AE's antenna was essentially circular at radiation angles exceeding about 2 degrees above the horizontal. So when the aircraft was airborne, orientation had no significant effect on signal strength. When the aircraft was on the ground, the radiation pattern for low takeoff angle (i.e., long distance single-hop ionospheric paths) varied slightly from omnidirectional, so aircraft orientation made a slight difference in radiated field strength in any given direction. This effect was taken into account in modeling the field strength for post-loss signals. I have not considered the effect of salt spray on the antenna insulators in the radio signals analysis. For what it's worth, I know that shipboard antenna insulators work well in salt spray conditions, even without intervening rain to wash them clean. I've often operated in high sea states with lots of spray, and no rain, without noticeable degradation of radio signals. My guess is that AE's insulators probably were not seriously encrusted by salt spray, even absent rain, because the combination of breeze and high ambient temperature at Niku would tend to dry the spray rapidly thus minimizing salt adherence to the insulator surface. TIGHAR expedition team members may be able to shed some empirical light on this question based on their observations of debris on the reef flat. What say, guys? Is there significant salt spray encrustation on the Norwich City wreck, or on debris such as the boiler, etc? Bob #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric Nah. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:17:42 EST From: Ric Subject: False alarm A little drama has played out here over the last few days that I'd like to share with everyone as an illustration of the pitfalls of anecdotal evidence. My notes: About 09:30 this morning, Monday February 18, we got a phone call from Charles "Chuck" Troutman who said that he is a former employee of Global and was a flight "mech" (mechanic) with an Air Force missile project in the Phoenix Islands in 1974/75. He remembers being on a trip where some scientists went to look at the wildlife on Nikumaroro. The name Roger Clapp sounded familar to him (Roger is an ornithologist who was on that trip and has shared his notes and photos with us). They landed, he thinks, near the smaller lagoon passage and while the crew was waiting for the scientists to do their thing he did some poking around back in the bush where he says he saw that shoe that we found and two graves. He also saw the wreckage of an airplane similar to a Twin Beech. He has photos. There was a building that had a monument near it. At first I thought he was talking about the old landing beacon near the Co-Op store but he says that the monument was much smaller than that. Maybe an 18 or 21 inch base and about four feet tall. It wasn't far from the beach. He says that the airplane wreckage was "a little distance" away and "off to the right". There was a cylinder that he thought might be from a Pratt & Whitney "1320" and a "hydromatic" prop. He has seen our documentaries on television and just assumed that we must know about this stuff. He is now flying for a company called Airahoma(?). He's flying left seat in a Convair 240 (former USAF T- something or other), hauling priority freight for DHL between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Best way to reach him is by his cell phone. When he called he was driving to the company's main office in St. Louis and expected to arrive there in about four hours. He had prints of the photos with him and, once he gets to the office, he'll scan them and email them to me. My impressions: The guy certainly sounds totally legitimate. No indication that he is looking for fame or fortune. Everything he said about SAMTEC and the island checks with what we know. He is absolutley certain that the island was Gardner. He is also quick to admit that his memory may be mixing up details about where he was on the island. I didn't quiz him too hard on this first call. I kept it light but I made it clear I was very interested in seeing his photos. All we can do at this point is just wait and see what the photos show. 14:45 Chuck called to say that prints have been scanned and should be on the way shortly. He says there was a "centersection" and a "two-bladed prop" on the ground just behind it. after thinking about it, he thinks that the photo of the monument was taken on Sydney Island, ( I know there is such a monument there) but he feels sure that the others were taken on Gardner. 15:30 Nothing has arrived. Called and found out that the file is too big and the person on the computer doesn't know how to make it smaller. We'll try again tomorrow. My impressions: If he really has photos of a centersection and prop beside graves on Gardner it almost HAS to be somewhere in the village, which means that it's not there now. So where did it go? An Electra centersection weighs several thousand pounds. Nobody would move something like that without having an awful good reason - which means a big conspiracy to hide Earhart's fate. Seems totally incredible, but if the photos are for real.....? What if they show the famous Wreck Photo, but further deteriorated? Tuesday, 2/19/02: 11:40 Chuck called. He'll take the prints to Kinko's and have them scan them and email them to me. The more I think about this the less sense it makes. Centersection, prop, grave - all sounds like the C-47 wreckage on Sydney. We have a photo of that wreckage taken in 1971. Should be apparent if his photo shows the same scene. 12:30 Photos arrived. Just as I thought. It's the C-47 on Sydney. Called Chuck and gave him the news as gently as possible. He's disappointed and not a little embarrassed. He says that the pilots "led him to believe" that they were on Gardner. I guess that's easier than saying that he just remembered it wrong. No matter. Thank goodness he had photos and we have good information and a photo of the Sydney wreck or we'd be concocting all kinds of explanations for where the wreckage went. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:16:24 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters I think: Clams are best openend from the front by prying open the shell and cutting the muscle inside. You need a fairly sharp instrument to get between the two halves. ( via visual survey at the raw bar while waiting for oysters ) Oysters are best opened from the rear by cutting the ligament that holds the two halves together. You need a less sharp and more durable instrument (Personal experience shucking many dozens) LTM ( who prefers oysters) Andrew McKenna ************************************************************************* From John Harsh I have never liked seafood and would only consider trying to eat a clam or oyster (there's a difference?) because there was absolutely nothing else left. I can imagine myself trying a few times unsuccessfully to pry one open before smashing it with a rock or similar tool. Assuming the resulting mush failed to attract a cow or chicken, I would consume it raw. Anything else would require more effort than I would be willing to expend for mere seafood. Regarding demographics, I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia (home of 2002 Daytona 500 Champion, Ward Burton). LTM (who thinks you should determine if either Fred or AE liked seafood. The one who did was survived by the one who didn't, if you know what I mean) JMH #0634C ************************************************************************** From Troy ok, I've never done either. If it were me, I would get a knife and pry it open. If that didn't work, I would try crushing some against eachother unless I had a rock. Maybe then I would smash it and pull the broken bits of shells out. If I had a fire, I would just boil them until they open up. It is my assumption that they would open up when you boil them. What is the difference between a clam and an oyster???? ************************************************************************** From Ric Well, for one thing, oysters grow pearls. Clams don't. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:36:10 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: Of Clams & Oysters - the point Okay, here's the reason for the question: Some of the clam shells recovered from the Seven Site show clear signs of having been bashed open. Others appear to have been opened the way oysters are opened (by people who know the technique). So far, our research indicates that Pacific island peoples don't bring clams "home" at all, but rather remove the meat in situ or right on the shoreline. In other words, the presence of the clam shells and the ways they were opened suggests that the person who ate the clams (presumably the castaway) was not a Pacific islander and was familiar with the "right" way to open an oyster. Our little survey suggests that, at least in 2002, that technique is known to relatively few people in the general population. At least in the 20th century, the custom of eating raw shellfish seems to have been pretty much confined to coastal areas where fresh seafood was available (naturally) and was most common among upper-middle class and upper class economic groups. For what it's worth, Earhart - who lived most of her adult life in Massachusetts and New York - fits that profile. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:40:30 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Radio queries etc Bob, First thanks for your very illuminating reply re signal strength. Re leakage via salt water I would query your conclusion that water/salt was not an issue. You may have heard of an Australian by the name of Ben Carlin who crossed the Atlantic in an amphibious jeep (really!) just after WWII. He had continuous radio transmission failure until it was suggested that sea water might be the problem. I quote: "And that was the end of our radio troubles except that even in the finest weather I always had to wipe the invisible film from the insulator before transmission" (Half Safe - Andre Deutsch p166). Sea water is undoubtedly a better electrolyte than a dry salt film and a damp salt film concentrated by repeated evaporation of water would be even better. In the high temperatures of Niku at the reef edge one might expect these conditions. If the film that caused Ben Carlin problems was invisible, lack of dried salt on eg the Norwich City would prove nothing. Further, I don't see why rapid drying would hinder adherence of such a film. Repeated wetting and rapid drying would in fact thicken the layer of salt. If on the other hand the insulator was continuously wetted, no real concentration by evaporation could occur as the strengthening solution was washed off by and diluted by fresh seawater. Perhaps you have run into no problems with shipboard insulator leakage because the insulators were specifically designed (long leakage path) to cope with just this problem It is unlikely the electra antenna insulators would have been designed with this problem in mind. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric On the island we carry handheld marine band radios for intra-team and ship-to-shore communications. Salt film has not been a problem. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:42:51 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: False alarm It may be a disappointment but at least it shows some people are interested in what TIGHAR does and are motivated enough to go out of their way to try and be helpful. LTM (who said that all clouds have a silver lining) *************************************************************************** From Ric We consistently find that most people are eager to help and very few seek any kind of personal gain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:46:30 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Convair 240 I looked it up. The military Convair 240 was the C-131. LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric It was also the T-29 "Flying Classroom". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:54:17 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Sydney photos Is this the C-47 that bit the dust in the 1940's doing some low passes as observed by locals and killed a few people? Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************************************************** From Ric The same. See "The Crash At Sydney Island" http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/14_2/14-2Sydcrash.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:02:12 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: The Crashed and Sank Theory > The Titanic's position was pretty well documented if I'm not > mistaken and she was a large target. The reported position was never believed, but yes, it was a hard, precise data point to start from. She was ultimately found fourteen nautical miles south east of that reported position. But it's worth remembering that the searchers EXPECTED to find her many miles south east of the recorded location, for reasons I won't go into here. There's no comparable data point (reported position) for the Electr