Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:40:16 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Ric wrote:

> I'm not aware of any previous
> circumstance during FN's career (although there may be one) where he had to
> find an island without help from DF.

This may well be true. However, it seems from Gary's analysis of the Oakland
- Hawaii flight that they were prepared to ignore DF LOPs if the corresponding
fix seemed more reliable. It also seems to me that on at least this leg (and
admittedly since Manning was involved this may not have been unusual for Noonan)
that the DF was used more for confirmation  of position and the last stage before
arrival rather than having much impact on the method of navigation on the major
part of the journey. Since they were unable (we assume) to use DF on the Lae -
Howland leg, I am only really interested in the part of the Oakland - Hawaii leg
where DF was not too important.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you guys are missing the point that Bob Brandenburg was trying to make.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:47:35 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

>then the strength of the receptions at other fixed
> points (Howland, Baker, Nauru, Hawaii, California) should remain relatively
> constant, being effected only by the changing propagation environment and
> possibly a degradation over time in the capability of the transmitter.

The propagation environment will change in so many ways that I don't think the
strength of reception will remain "relatively constant" to any degree of precision
that will allow any comparisons. The propagation environment changes with time of
day, date, daylight path or nighttime path, ionization conditions, solar flares
and magnetic environment, battery condition, dampness of the aerial and hence
sea state, to name but a few.

Regards Angus.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

That is all true, but it should also be true that the propagation environment in
the region is the same for everyone at any given time - so perhaps we should pay
special attention to those occasions when multiple stations hear what seems to be
the same transmission at the same moment although at different strengths.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:48:33 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> My interpretation of Noonan's navigation in a nutshell:
>
> He sets out on the bearing to the target, assuming no wind.
> After a couple of hours, if possible, he determines a fix (either noon shot
> or multiple celestial body, or RDF bearing).
> If a large enough course deviation from actual to planned is found, he
> revises* the course heading back to the target, again assuming no wind.

Fine - *but how does he do it? I seem to remember you saying a while back that
there was no evidence from the charts of wind triangle calculation. If so, did
he merely alter course by the difference in angle between the bearing of their
track and the bearing of the target?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:53:22 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

> Fine - *but how does he do it? I seem to remember you saying a while back
> that there was no evidence from the charts of wind triangle calculation. If
> so, did he merely alter course by the difference in angle between the
> bearing of their track and the bearing of the target?

PS or did he (as you seem to suggest), start again from scratch, ignore the wind
information inherent in their new position and head direct for the target? This
would seem crazy as even correcting their previous heading by the angle between
their track and the direct line to their target would largely compensate for wind
(assuming it and their air speed did not change).

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:54:40 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

My heartfelt thanks to our forum  navigation experts for their initial analyses of
the Hono flight. For me, a neophyte navigator, it is food for thought.

I am hoping Gary, Angus, Randy, or someone else can answer a basic question for me.

I understand that the Altitude-Intercept method often used to determine position relies
on determination of the difference between observed altitude and computed altitude
from almanac and sight reduction tables. The difference is laid off starting from the
AP along the true azimuth line, marking this point and finally crossing this point
with the LOP. 

However, some of FN's star azimuth lines, e.g., Capella 1007 or Antares 1023 (perhaps
mislabeled in time?) seem to 'hang' in empty space with no AP point of origin. Am I
misunderstanding the basic concept or is Fred perhaps using some variation of the AI
method I am unaware of?

I have spent many hours with this chart and am puzzled by this area. Can someone
enlighten me?

Thank you all again,

harvey #2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:00:35 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Winds and bearings

Am I right in thinking that surface winds were quoted in degrees magnetic in 1937
and winds aloft were true or were all wind directions true at that time?

Regards Angus
************************************************************************
From Ric

Good question.  It's my impression that everything was reported in magnetic.
Randy?  Bob?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:01:07 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: navigation web site

It was late at night. I should have said that the scale was 2,900,000 to one
at the northern edge and 3,100,000 at the southern edge.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:32:40 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Raffle Results

The drawing has been made and the winner has won, but - sad to say - it is not
anyone on the forum.  We've notified the winner by telephone message and by email
but have not yet heard back, and we shouldn't release the name until we do.

By close of business yesterday 375 chances had been sold and we raised a total of
$7,345.  There was a flurry of last minute buying but nobody missed the deadline
and everybody who bought chances was included in the drawing.

A big Thank You to everyone who participated.  The Paradise Now/ Harbor Lights
Villa raffle was a key element in making it possible for us to put together this
year's field work in the Pacific.  There is more news on that front that I'll
cover in a separate posting.

Again, Thank You to everyone who participated.  Both Niku Vp and Fiji Bone Search
II will happen.  We all won.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:33:25 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Angus asked:

>Am I right in thinking that surface winds were quoted in degrees magnetic
>in 1937 and winds aloft were true or were all wind directions true at that
>time?

Angus is correct, at least for the past 60 plus years. Runways are generally
designated by magnetic orientation. There are exceptions, of course. LAX 25/07
L/R and 24/06 L/R, all of which have the same orientation. Winds transmitted
to pilots at the airport are magnetic. Everything else is true.
************************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

All wind information provided was in True degrees, or at least it was inferred
to me in True degrees.  Most wind information was only reported to 22.5*
precision (e.g. NNW), so absolute accuracy is lacking.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Let me see if I understand what you guys are saying.  When the tower tells a
pilot the wind direction ("November4353Quebec, you're cleared to land runway
33.  Wind 310 degrees at 12.") they're talking magnetic, naturally.  However,
all other reports of wind direction, such as in weather forecasts or winds-aloft
reports, is in True.

Randy believes, but doesn't know for sure, the it was also like that in 1937.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:34:10 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

One can easily and graphically determine a change in course from a known fix
to a known position within a couple of degrees on a chart.  That's good enough
to get you "on track" until the next time you make a fix.  There's really no
need to do precise computation of a new track bearing, if you assume no wind,
because the wind will change it inevitably.  As in the stock market, what
winds have occurred in the past doesn't translate into what will happen in
the future.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:35:18 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

AP points on the chart are usually at some integral latitude or longitude position,
simply for ease of plotting.  At least, that is what I can infer. Since many of the
AP's were not marked, FN must have simply known where they were in his head (or on
a piece of scrap paper) and graphically used a straight edge to mark the line that
would eventually intersect that point. There's no requirement to have the pencil
mark actually go to that AP point if one knows where it is.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:40:34 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      DF Question

Was DF used on any of the previous legs of the final flight as a navigational aid,
or was this specifically for the Howland leg? I suspect spartan coverage limited
its usefulness, but I thought I'd ask.

Bob
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm aware of no indication that DF was used or attempted on any previous leg of the
World Flight (except, of course, the Oakland/Hono trip in March).

As far as I know, the test flight at Lae on July 1 is the only time we know of during
the second world flight attempt that Earhart succeeded in establishing successful
two way communication with the ground.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:41:15 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: navigation web site

Thanks Gary for explaining this  simple method to measure chart distances.

Harvey 2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:57:30 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

Ric wrote:

> That is all true, but it should also be true that the propagation environment
> in the region is the same for everyone at any given time - so perhaps we
> should pay special attention to those occasions when multiple stations hear
> what seems to be the same transmission at the same moment although at
> different strengths.

What if the receiving station was hearing her via ionospheric propagation ('skip'),
rather than ground wave.  In that case, there could be times that a signal could be
getting stronger (due to changes in the 'skip' conditions), yet the transmitting
station be moving further away from the receiving station.

   John Rayfield, Jr.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll ask the radio experts to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understand that
for a station to be hearing a post-loss signal from Earhart via ground wave, the
station would have to be very close (within something like a couple hundred miles)
of the airplane.

If any of the post-loss signals were genuine, they had to be coming from an island
and there were no stations within ground wave distance of any island where the
airplane could have been.  Ionospheric propagation - what you are calling "skip"
- is the normal way that HF signals are heard.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:01:58 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

Angus wrote:

> This DR position seems to anticipate a GS of just 70 K (80.5 mph) from
> Farallon beacon, substantially slower than the 114 K anticipated for the
> next two DRs. Must this not indicate a measured change in headwind and
> therefore drift measurement and wind vector calculation?

Good point Angus,

Looking at the chart again, it is not completely clear what time they passed
over (or abeam of) Farallon island. There are several lines on the chart in
that vicinity that are not labeled and there are two different handwritings.
There is a line labeled 0047 for passing the Golden Gate and a line offshore
labeled 0054 but also with the notations "1252?" and "1254?" nearby in a
different hand. Although it is not marked on the chart, we know that they
departed OAK at 4:37 p.m. PST  , March 17, 1937 which is 0037 Z March 18,
1937 Z. It is about 15 NM "as the crow flies" to the Golden Gate which they
passed at 0047 Z, 10 minutes after takeoff showing a GS of about 90 K. Farallon
Island is 24 NM offshore so it would take about 16 more minutes to cover that
distance so it is not likely that they were over Farallon at 0054 Z but closer
to 0103 Z, nine minutes later.

There are DRs plotted for 0128, 0130, 0139 and 0145 showing a deviation to the
south of the rumb line and then onto the RL at the 0200 Z DR. The straight line
distance form Farallon to the 0200 Z DR is 83 NM but the path followed is actually
92 NM giving a GS of  97 K in the 57m period from 0103 to 0200 Z which is kind
of slow but they were climbing and this is about the same speed from OAK to the
Golden Gate so this might be reasonable. The higher anticipated GS after 0200 Z
is probably is due to the level off at the top of  the climb which allows the
plane for fly faster in level flight. This new estimate of the time over Farallon
changes the GS calculated between Farallon Island at 0103 Z  and the 0317 Z fix
from 123 K to 131 K due to the shortening the time period from 2h23m to 2h14m
but the rest of the calculation stay the same. I will post a corrected version
of my previous post.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:43:14 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Raffle Winner

The winner of the Paradise Now - Harbor Lights Villa raffle is Joshua King of
Redmond, WA.

This is actually a bit embarrassing for us because Joshua's father is none other
than our own Dr. Tom King.  Although technically permitted under Delaware law,
we decided at the outset of the raffle that members of the TIGHAR board of
directors were not eligible to win.  It just wouldn't look good.  So Tom,
wanting to support the raffle even if he couldn't enter himself, started buying
chances for his family and friends.  No harm in that.  Very early in the raffle
he bought five chances for his son Joshua and, lo and behold, it paid off.

We're very happy for Joshua and his wife and they are, naturally, delighted
at their good fortune.  Tom, on the other hand, is totally weirded out.

To top it off, because he "sold" the winning ticket, Tom (TIGHAR's Senior
Archaelogist) gets to attend the next Introductory Course in Aviation
Archaeology and Field School for free.

We want to thank Andrew McKenna for donating the week at Harbor Lights and
thanks again to all of you who bought chances and helped make the Paradise
Now raffle a success.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:43:20 EST
From:         Mike J.
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

The ground wave weakens above 500kc from many hundreds of miles at the lower
frequencies to only a few miles at <10mc. If the skywave refracts off the
ionosphere and returns to the earth and strikes a good conducting surface
like salt water, it will refract back upward and take a double hop and may
carry the signal a very long distance. When ground waves and skywaves arrive
in phase the signal will be stronger. When they are out of phase they will
be weaker or even cancel each other out.   This is called fading.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:55:47 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

Ric wrote:

> I'll ask the radio experts to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my
> understand that for a station to be hearing a post-loss signal from Earhart
> via ground wave, the station would have to be very close (within something
> like a couple hundred miles) of the airplane.
>
> If any of the post-loss signals were genuine, they had to be coming from an
> island and there were no stations within ground wave distance of any island
> where the airplane could have been.  Ionospheric propagation - what you are
> calling "skip" - is the normal way that HF signals are heard.

Maybe I missed something here, but I thought that someone had suggested that some
kind of 'distance and direction' might be determined from the locations and
movement of stations that had received the post-loss signals.  Did I misunderstand
or did I understand that 'suggestion' correctly?

By the way, I'm quite familiar with how HF signals are propagated (as well as many
other frequency bands up to 900 mhz) - I've been using HF for over 28 years and 
have been doing commercial radio communications work for about 25 years.

    John Rayfield, Jr.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

You understood correctly.  It is my contention that it is possible to make reasonable
inferences about the origin point (or points) of the post-loss signals by looking
at the strength of the reported receptions and the location of the receiving stations,
not as individual signals that may or may not be subjected to anomalous propagation
phenomena, but as a body of information.  Of particular interest are occasions when
more than one station reports hearing what appears to be the same transmission at
the same moment.

I am not a radio expert but I do have enough of an understanding of HF propagation
to know that, in general, the farther you get from the transmitter, the weaker the
reception.  Sure, there are exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:09:43 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

That's correct. Wind given by a tower is in mag while weather reports are given in 
true. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that the other winds are for "planning"
and thus you use a map with "true" (which of course you have to correct for mag
dev), but on landing approach, the mag wind is more important since you are
landing on a runway that is given in mag (although the runways never move and
mag drifts over time!).

And they wonder why pilots have accidents. We're too busy trying to convert this
to that and that to something else and something else to whatever. They really
should give everything in true and let us do all the math. Less confusing that
way. Either that, or they need to mount the runways on ball bearings and keep
them rotating into the wind!

LTM,
Dave Bush
*********************************************************************
From Ric

We used to have airports that were just big open fields and a windsock.  Much simpler.

************************************************************************
From Gary LaPook

Yep, only the surface winds given at the airport on ATIS or from the tower are
Magnetic. BUT  METARs , TAFs  etc. use true. See following excerpts from the AIM.

(Ric: not included)
*************************************************************************
From Ric

If you could find an excerpt from the 1937 Airman's Information Manual it
would be useful, but it hadn't been invented yet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:13:04 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

FN did not label his Assumed Positions (AP)  as such nor did he use a standard 
symbol to denote them. In the Air Force the standard symbol is an upside down
"v". It was not important to him since he knew his work. The more normal methods
used by Air Force navs utilizing  standard symbols and labeling allows other
navs to read the chart without the risk of a misunderstanding.

As for your specific questions, the AP for the 1007 Capella  line is 30-00 N
/144-24 W and for the 1323 Antares line is 26-00 N / 152-56 W. ( Note, the Antares
line is actually for 1323 not 1023, it was used for the 1328 fix so it was mislabeled
on the chart.)  We know that these are the APs because the navigation table being
used by FN, HO 208, Dreisenstok, requires that you use a whole degree of latitude
for the AP. The longitudes are where the azimuth lines cross the whole degree of
latitude and, if you look carefully, you will see that there are dots at those
locations which were used by FN in plotting the azimuth lines.

BTW, the altitude intercept method was also known as the Marc Saint Hilaire method
after the man who invented it.

gl
************************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds like there's a lot of mislabeling on the chart.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:15:56 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Research needed

>I find it
> curious/interesting, that while the rise time changes by 5 min over 11
> days, the set time remains steady!

The explanation is due to the change in the "equation of time" during the
same period. So what does this mean?

We all know that the day is 24 hours long based on our clocks that keep
regular time. We would expect that the time from noon one day until noon
on the next day should, therefor, be 24 hours. ( Noon is when the sun is
on your meridian, bearing exactly south in the US and bearing exactly
north in Australia, for example.) This in not the case because the speed
of the earth in its orbit around the sun varies throughout the year due
to its varying distance from the sun. This causes the period from noon
to noon to vary by several  seconds per day and the effect adds up so
that the time of noon varies + & - 16 minutes during different parts of
the year.

Noon at Greenwich should be at 12:00 o'clock but in the middle of February
it doesn't happen until 12:14 p.m. and in October it occurs at 11:44 a.m.
The difference between the mean, or clock time, of noon and the actual
time that the sun crosses the meridian is defined as the equation of time.

Look at :

http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/almanac-1937-22.JPG

in the equation of time column for July 2-12, 1937.  At noon at Greenwich on
July 2nd it was -3 minutes and 47.4 seconds while at noon GMT on July 12th
it had changed to -5 minutes and 25.1 seconds.

Applying the equation of time to we find that  noon GMT on July 2nd, 1937
happened at 12:03:47.3 p.m. while on July 12th it didn't occur until
12:05:25.1 p.m. 1 minute and 37.7 seconds later (about 2 minutes).

So how does this explain the times of sunrise and sunset? During the same
period the length of daylight was getting shorter. On July 2nd the sun was
up  0538 -    1930 a total of 13 hours and 52 minutes at St. Pete. Since
this period is centered on local noon we can divide this period in half,
6 hours and 56 minutes, and add this to the time of sunrise to find the
time of local noon, 12:34 p.m. On July 12th the the sun was up 0543 - 1930
a total of only 13 hours and 47 minutes about 5 minutes less. Doing the
same computation you find that noon on July 12th happened at 12:36.5 p.m.
about 2.5 minutes later. (Remember that the sunrise table is rounded off
to the nearest whole minute.) This is what we would expect since we know
the equation of time changed by 1 minute and 37.7 seconds, approximately
2 minutes.

So daylight got shorter by five minutes and noon shifted 2.5 minutes later.
If there had been no change in the equation of  time then we would have
expected the sun to rise about 2.5  minutes later and to set the same 2.5
minutes earlier. This shift of noon caused the whole change in the period
of daylight to be accounted for by the change of sunrise with no change in
sunset.

So why don't we see the same thing at Honolulu and L.A? Well, to the accuracy
of the table the same thing occurred in Honolulu. It doesn't work out the same
way in L.A. however because the length of daylight got shorter by 7 minutes
so it was not completely compensated for by the change in the time of noon.

gl
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I think this same posting was put up a couple of weeks ago.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:54:27 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Ric wrote:

> If you could find an excerpt from the 1937 Airman's Information Manual it
> would be useful, but it hadn't been invented yet.

I don't have one of those, but I do have a copy of "Practical Air Navigation"
by Thoburn C. Lyon.  Published by the US Department of Commerce, CAA,
September 1940.   What with verification and publishing procedures this
should be a pretty good snapshot of the state of the art in 1937.   It does
confirm that airport winds were magnetic, winds aloft were true. It also
covers then standard procedures for celestial navigation, determining a
line of position and so on.  (It even includes a kit to build your own
circular slide rule type navigation computer.)

Robert
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:55:35 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Research needed

Gary writes

> Noon at Greenwich should be at 12:00 o'clock but in the middle of February
>it doesn't happen until 12:14 p.m. and in October it occurs at 11:44 a.m.

This is pretty disturbing news. I thought if there was ONE thing I knew it
was when noon was. Now I don't even know that.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:09:28 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Elgen Long, I gather, estimated the weight of the Electra sans fuel at about
350lb lighter at Lae than on the Oakland-Hawaii trip. Since there was about
947 gal fuel on board then vs 1100 at Lae, this suggests the aircraft at
Oakland was 150 x 6 = 900lb heavier on fuel. The plane should thus have
been about 550lb net lighter at Oakland.

Does this estimate seem reasonable? I wonder if he took into account the
extra luggage and navigational paraphernalia that a crew of four would
have compared with a crew of two.

Do we have any eye-witness account of the take-off at Oakland and how it
compared to that at Lae? What were the wind strengths and directions for
Oakland-Hawaii as deduced from the weather charts compiled after the event?

Regards Angus
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I've never understood how Elgen justifies his sans fuel weight at Lae.
The empty weight of the airplane should have been influenced by several
factors including:

- the removal of the trailing wire system
- some structural beefing-up of the center section during the repairs
- the removal or alteration of the "navigator's station" in the cabin
- the addition of the Bendix radios that Elgen (and Cam) say were installed in Miami.

The truth is that nobody has the data to make an informed guess about what
the airplane weighed sans fuel at Lae.  I think there is probably about 500
pounds worth of uncertainty.

There is film of an Oakland takeoff but it's probably not THE Oakland takeoff.
It's probably the photo-op flight on the 16th.  The airplane just doesn't
look heavy enough to me.

I don't know what the winds were later determined to have been.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:11:12 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

Ric, if I understand this at least somewhat if a number of receptions were
received at about the same time, for example, very strong at Baker Island,
less strong at Howland and weaker still by a ship say 300 miles further
north then it is quite unlikely the message originated at Mili Atoll. OK,
a little facetious but using that scenario a significant number of similar
patterns should allow an educated guess as to where, generally, the signals
originated. Am I on the right track?

Alan
********************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:22:38 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Take-off time

Do we know if the aircraft started moving on its take-off run at Lae at 0000
hrs GMT or did it actually leave the ground at the end of the runway at this
time? Which time is usually used by navigators as zero hour? To explain a
little further, I assume the time that the wheels leave the ground is the
"time of departure" but to synchronise this to 0hrs GMT would not be so
easy as it depends on wind strength, weight, rate of acceleration etc and
an allowance for reaching take-off speed would have to be calculated. It
would on the other hand be very easy to start the aircraft moving at 0hrs GMT.

Regards Angus.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

There's really no need for that kind of precision. I can't speak for navigators
but I usually noted the "gear up" time as the beginning of the flight and I'd
try to make the notation accurate to the minute but certainly not to the second.
for one thing, you don't have time to make a notation until you get the airplane
cleaned up and the climb established.  In the case of the Earhart Lae takeoff,
all we know is that the departure time was reported by the authorities at Lae
as 10 a.m. local time.  If that is the time they closed the hatch and started
the engines, then gear-up was probably at least 20 minutes later.  If, instead,
they wanted to make a big deal about actually departing at OO:OO GCT then they
may have taxiied out to the end of the runway and waited until that moment to
advance the throttles.  I just don't know any way to know.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:50:00 EST
From:         Herman DeWulf
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Runways on ball bearings? The Navy uses aircraft carriers. Makes more sense too:
they're always steaming into the wind. And Ric is absolutely right about the 
pre-WW II grassfields. Only, they were larger than today's fields because they
were offering 360* runway availability. This is a luxury nobody can afford anymore.

LTM

(Ric, In the course of my career I had the opportunity to land on USS Nimitz,
USS Forrestal, USS Kennedy and HMS Hermes). The airplanes were Grumman C-1 and
C-2. On HMS Hermes it was a CH-47 as the Brits operated VTOL Sea Harriers that
need no arrester gear).
*************************************************************************
From Ric

One of my fondest memories is of flying a no-brakes, tail-skid equipped Tiger
Moth from Fair Oaks flying field in Surrey.  You get a prop and, when the oil
is warm, wave the chocks away.  Helpers have to walk your wingtips as you taxi
out to the edge of the field and do the run-up, but then it's just a matter of
pointing her into the wind and off you go.  Coming home you read the sock,
line up into the wind, kick into a sideslip to adjust your approach, and plop
her down.  Piece of cake.  The skid is a surprisingly effective brake,
depending upon how much backpressure you hold on the stick. You taxi back
to the line and boys run out to walk you in.  The year was 1967.  I was 19 
years old. (sighhhhh)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:52:57 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Each aircraft needs an airworthiness certificate before it is allowed to fly.
I take it that was true in 1937 as well. Therefore, if Amelia Earhart took
to the air in the repaired Lockheed Electra the FAA with all that special
gear, the aircraft must have been weighed in again and an airworthiness
certificate awarded and have all the necessary documents needed to be
allowed to fly. The originals may have gone but if they were issued aren't
there chances that copies somewhere survived?

LTM (who knows no flight is over until the paperwork is done, nor can it begin without it)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We have every scrap of surviving paperwork that the FAA has on that airplane,
and there is quite a bit, but unfortunately no weight and balance data have survived.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:54:00 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Take-off time

Some airports used to provide extra service over here and radio "time when
airborne" after take off. You're right, you have no time to write it down
but you can remember the time and fill out the navigation form accordingly
some minutes later having reached cruising climb speed or cruising altitude.
It is not over important but it helps dotting i's and crossing t's. In fact,
today's GPS eliminates the need for that kind of precision paperwork...

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:11:57 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      CDR Werner Thompson/Research on

I am in search of a biographical data regarding Cdr Thompson, skipper of
the Itasca in July 1937, whose role in the disappearance is somewhat
controversial. We have his official report written shortly afterwards,
but we do not have any material on his conversations with Henry Morgenthau,
his boss, at the end of July in Hawaii when presumably he was debriefed.

Perhaps someone out there has already compiled some information about Cdr Thompson.
We know that John P. Riley,Jr., wrote a rather scathing article on Thompsons
search and decisions in the Naval History magazine, Aug 2000. Riley writes that
CDR Thompson died of coronary thrombosis at age 53 in Sep  1939, in Ketchikan, Alaska.

I am wondering if he had any relatives and whether he donated any of his material,
memos, original notes, documents to any archive, museum, so forth. They may
contain some very valuable historical information relative to the disappearance.
Did Cdr Thompson ever write any memoirs of his experiences, for example?

This may not be of general interest, so those that may wish to help please
contact me.

LTM,
Ronald Bright
****************************************************************************
From Ric

It is very much of general interest and I second Ron's request for help in finding
out anything we can about Commander Thompson (whose first name was Warner, not Werner).
I don't hold out much hope for anything significant to come out about any conversation
he had with Morgenthau in Hawaii.  Morgenthau was there on vacation and I expect that
Thompson gave him the same CYA story that he wrote in his report, and Riley's
allegations about Thompson are unfounded and ludicrous, but I'd very much like
to know more about the man and what he was like.

Here's what we know from old Coast Guard Officers Registers:

Warner Keith Thompson
Born: in Utah, 27 March 1886
Died: 1 September 1939

Promotions:
Cadet - 8 November 1906
3rd Lieutenant (Ensign) - 22 December 1908
2nd Lieutenant (LTjg) - 31 December 1908
Lieutenant - 31 May 1920
Lt. Commander - 12 January 1923
Commander - 1 July 1929

Assignments:
CGC MANNING, Astoria, OR - 26 March 1912
CGC SNOHOMISH, Neah Bay, WA - 17 February 1915
CGC UNALGA, San Francisco, CA - 9 October 1917
CGC TAMAROA, Port Angeles, WA - 3 December 1921
CGC KANKAKEE, Evansville, IN - 11 July 1923 (CO)
Headquarters, Washington, DC - 20 June 1925
CGC McDOUGAL, Boston, MA - 23 August 1928 (CO)
CGC GRESHAM, Mobile, AL - 13 August 1930 (CO)
Navy Department, Washington, DC - 3 October 1932
CGC SARANAC, Galveston, TX - 11 may 1935 (CO)
CGC ITASCA, Honolulu, TH - 1 December 1936 (CO)
CGC INGHAM, Port Washington, WA - 20 August 1937 (CO)

It is interesting that most of his commands were for roughly 2 years
but he was only with ITASCA for about 9 months.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:13:22 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Smoke at Lae

What can be inferred regarding surface wind speed and direction from
the smoke seen adjacent to the runway on take-off at Lae? Smoke to me
looks about parallel to the runway which I seem to remember was 150
degrees magnetic. Can anyone hazard a guess on windspeed?

Regards Angus.

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

3 to 5 knots.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:31:08 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Angus Murray wrote:

> Do we have any eye-witness account of the take-off at Oakland and how it
> compared to that at Lae.

Earlier forum estimates of the takeoff distance and winds at Lae  are approx.
2850 ft.,5-7  knots,headwind

Long gives the takeoff distance at Oakland as 1897 ft. and the time as 25 seconds.
The source is the Oakland Times. I realize that this information is from a secondary
source, and that  Angus probably has this data, but I  wrote it up anyway in the
hope it is of some use.

> What were the wind strengths and directions for Oakland-Hawaii as deduced
> from the weather charts compiled after the event?

info  from E.  Long for the winds at Oakland on page 75 of his book is "the 4 pm
weather report showed the winds out of the south-west at 14 mph, with a temperature
of 48 degrees F"(a headwind). He attributes the report to U.S. Weather Bureau
observation, Oakland Airport,4:00 PM, March 17,1937.again,this is not precisely
what you asked about, so just ignore it if it is not useful

Ric wrote:

>I've never understood how Elgen justifies his sans fuel weight at Lae.  The
>empty-weight of the airplane should have been influenced by several factors
>including:
>- the removal of the trailing wire system

Is there any evidence that the trailing wire system was in use (or was not) on
the South Atlantic Crossing or the Hono trip? The reason I ask is that the airplane's
drag is increased by this system and the airspeed should be lower with the deployed
antenna.

harvey 2387
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know about the Hono trip but it could not have been used on the South
Atlantic crossing because it wasn't there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:31:46 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

Thank you Gary and Randy for your answers to my questions concerning AP determination.
That little dot on the chart identifying the AP was a revelation to me, and the
specific lat and long numbers are a great help to my understanding of navigation.

I look forward to your further analyses of the hono chart.

harvey 2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:27:28 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: CDR Warner Thompson/Research on

I seem to remember that Warner's son was also a coastie and was in contact with
TIGHAR circa 1998 or so.  Ric, is my memory failing again?

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

One of us is losing it.  I have no recollection of any contact from Thompson's family.
You may be thinking of Leo Bellart's son.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:29:40 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Harvey,

Thanks very much for the information.

> Long gives the takeoff distance at Oakland as 1897 ft. and the time as 25
> seconds

What was flying speed for the Electra in terms of weight?  We should be able to get
a rough take-off speed from the frame rate of the camera using the aircraft dimensions
for scale and fixed background markers. I note the runway at Lae was about 3000ft and
it would appear the Electra became airborne only near the end. Any ideas on the length
needed for take-off on this occasion?

All this should give us an estimate of the relative weights (Oakland/Lae) taking into
account wind speeds (12kt vs say 5kt) and even the actual weight at Lae with the
appropriate acceleration algorithm. The formula could be checked against Oakland
knowing the wind speed and direction and take-off distance and also take-off  performance
figures for extant electras with similar props and engines, to see if the result
is consistent. Oscar??

>The source is the Oakland times. I realize that this information is
> from a secondary source, and that  Angus probably has this data, but I
>wrote it up anyway in the hope it is of some use.

yes - indeed it is.

>> What were the wind strengths and directions for Oakland-Hawaii as deduced
>> from the weather charts compiled after the event?
> info  from E. Long for the winds at Oakland on page 75 of his book is "the 4
> pm weather report showed the winds out of the south-west at 14 mph,

Was this surface speed?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:30:42 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: CDR Warner Thompson/Research on

I have requested biographical data from the US Coast Guard Historical Division,
Wash DC. but it will take up to 12 weeks. The Div is open to the public and if
any Tighar member is there, maybe they could take a look. 2100 2nd St S.W.,
Washington DC, (202) 267 1394.

In view of the significance that the Itasca played in the AE flight, I am
guessing that he may have made some private notes, told a relative, etc.,
something more about the flight and the search.

 Howard Hanzlick's recollection of CDR Thompson was quite limited , but did
 see him in the radio room.

Some speculate that his reassignment from Itasca to Alaska , an out of the
way post, was some sort of disciplinary matter, at least informally. I will
see what I can dig up.

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 5 Apr 2003 10:32:08 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Take-off distance and weight.

> Long gives the takeoff distance at Oakland as 1897 ft. and the time as 25
> seconds

using:

s = ut + 1/2ft*    and     v* = u*+ 2fs

where x* is x squared

s = distance

t = time

v = minimum flying speed

u = initial speed = 0

f = average acceleration

1897 = 1/2f x 625  hence f = 6.0704ft/sec*

v* = 12.1408 x 1897 = 23031

v = 151.76ft/sec = 103.47mph = 89.91kt

Interestingly this is the exact speed (90kt) deduced from the chart for the
earliest stage between take-off and the  Golden Gate.

Ignoring density altitude, runway angle and winds, the difference in take-off
distance between Oakland and Lae seems to indicate a bigger differential in
weight than Long suggests even bearing in mind the exponential relationship
between weight ratio and take-off distance ratio but I will wait for some
feedback on take-off distance at Lae before going further. Anyone know the
drag coefficient, frontal area etc for the Electra and runway angles, height,
temps for Oakland and Lae in July?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 5 Apr 2003 10:53:22 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

As an X-Air Force Pilot and Commercial Pilot who used HF  radios from 1965-1985,
that statement is not entirely correct. Due to the Wave Bounce, what we called it,
one could be heard just as strong 10,000 miles away as one hundreds of miles away.
Most of the time in the Pacific we found that their was no degrading of the signal
except in certain areas at different times of the day. Back to what we learned, the
higher the Sun the higher the frequency.  ie: Over Wake IS. at noon the best frequency
was in the 13000 or 15000 range. But back to 11176 was the common freq. thru out the
Pacific. When I would run out of freq's in the Atlantic sometimes at night, 11176
would raise Hickam or Wake most of the time also 11179. Most of the time HF's were
not good within 100 miles of a station but who cared as VHF or UHF was in range then.

Jim  Preston
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It's not clear to me what statement you're referring to, but I presume that you are
taking issue with my statement that, generally speaking, the closer the station the
stronger the signal.  My understanding is that the degrading of an HF signal depends
upon how much time it spends in the layers of the ionosphere that have a degrading
effect on the signal.  Signals received by closer stations go up and come back down
at steep angles, minimizing the time spent in the layers. The layer that has the
most degrading effect - the "D" layer - is a function of solar radiation and gets
much stronger during daylight hours.  Higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths)
have a better ability to "survive" exposure to the D layer, hence your "higher
the sun, higher the frequency" rule.

People, like yourself, have practical experience and know what works in particular
situations.  It's not clear to me to what degree your experience with much higher
frequencies applies to 3105 and 6210.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 5 Apr 2003 11:10:41 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

> Long gives the takeoff distance at Oakland as 1897 ft. and the time as 25

Do any of you actually believe anyone could pin the take off roll right to the
foot? If it was stated at 1900' I could buy it but not 1897. Think about it.

Go out to a small field and see if you can determine the take off roll accurately
within 12 inches. I don't think so.

Alan
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Well hell, Elgen has the headwind pinned down to the knot, the fuel consumption
nailed down to the gallon, and the moment of fuel exhaustion calculated down to
the minute.  That's how the Crashed-and-Sankers constrain their search area to a
few hundred square miles.  Once you start questioning the precision of the
calculations the whole thing unravels.

We start at the other end.  We say the clues suggest that they may have ended up
on Gardner.  We don't need to know the unknowable precise details of the progress
of the flight to determine that it should have been possible for them to reach
Gardner.  That's all we need to justify an intense scrutiny of the island to see
if there is additional evidence that the flight got there.

All of this agonizing over takeoff weights and en route weather and LOPs and Plan
Bs is fun and keeps us off the street, but it is essentially irrelevant to the
problem of proving what happened to Amelia Earhart.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:50:43 EDT
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Color photos of Electra on Ebay

This is probably not news to anyone else, but some color photos (copies actually)
of AE's Electra are offered on Ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2168042238&category=419

LTM
JMH
0634C
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I see that the bidding has closed, so somebody got taken for a ride.  There are no
color pictures of Earhart's Electra.  The two color photos are of Finch's replica.

Here's a quick way to spot Finch's Phony.  Look at the propeller hubs. NR16020 had
non-feathering props with the counter-weights visible.  Finch's airplane has
full-feathering props with a smooth dome at the hub.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:52:41 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Take off distances are published in aircraft manuals but one shouldn't always believe
what they say. The figures in the manuals are calculated under ISA conditions and
surfaced runways. Things look different when taking off from grass to begin with.
As a rule of thumb one should add the standard 15 % take off run from dry grass.
But don't you take this for granted! Taking off from a short field which according
to the official figures is long enough, watch out if it has been raining recently:
the ground may be sodden and that might add perhaps 30 % to your take off run.
Which is further influenced by air temperature (ISA is 15?C), which in turn influences
air density. On a hot day an aircraft will need a longer take off run than on a cold
day. Not to mention the humidity of the air. We all know to watch out for "HHH" (high,
hot, humid conditions) when looking at the take off distance. All this makes me think
one shouldn't take Long's calculations too seriously. As Ric put it: it doesn't
matter how long the Electra's take off run was. What we want to know is whether
Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan did indeed land on Gardner Island. How long their
take off run was at Lae is in my view irrelevant.

LTM (who used to take off from a taxiway when the grass runway was sodden)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:55:16 EDT
From:         Richard Metzger
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

After reading the forum for a month, you have made finally made a true
investigative statement.

Thank you
Richard Metzger
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I try to make one every once in a while just to stay in practice.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:00:39 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

> All of this agonizing over takeoff weights and en route weather and LOPs and
> Plan Bs is fun and keeps us off the street, but it is essentially irrelevant
> to the problem of proving what happened to Amelia Earhart.

Of course that is true and I see three areas of "agonizing." One, such as you
note above, is the interesting task of filling in the pieces of the puzzle.
Doesn't move the ball forward but it will make the final chapter much more
interesting and I applaud all such efforts.

A second area is the dedicated effort to prove everything else wrong. It is not
clear in my mind why but such occurs in every project. Perhaps there are little
"I told you so" medals that can be awarded for whatever value.

The third area is the careful exploration of Niku diligently searching for clue after
clue based on good reason to look at this island. This is the main purpose of our
illustrious group and deserves the most emphasis.

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

The really ironic thing is that, once we have conclusively proved that the flight
ended at Gardner, all of our rank speculation about how it got there will suddenly
be seen as historical fact.  The puzzle pieces will be nicely filled in
marshmallow fluff.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:01:14 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

The math is great, Angus and a precise answer can be obtained but it's the input
that refutes the answer. The rule of course is GIGO. The input data cannot be
precise but only the mathematical process.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:05:58 EDT
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Off the wall question

What is the stall speed of an Electra 10E? I just wonder if it is possible for
a pilot to view the flat reef ( and see details) north of the NC, prior to landing.

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

According to Lockheed specs, a standard 10E stalls at 65 mph, flaps down.  A low
speed, low altitude pass over the proposed landing area (known as "dragging the 
field") has long been standard procedure prior to landing on a questionable surface.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:10:08 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Ship in sight ahead

At 10.30 GCT AE reported "Ship in sight ahead". Would it be possible to see the
lights of a ship from 10,000ft in the dark? If so, would it be possible to know
it was a ship and not an island? At what height would it be likely that one could
identify it as a ship?

Regards Angus.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I've never done it but I can't imagine that it would be difficult.  Any light on
a dark ocean would stand out and if there is any ambient light at (moon and stars)
it should be possible to see breakers on a shoreline or a wake behind a moving ship.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:23:54 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Randy Jacobson writes:

> One can easily and graphically determine a change in course from a known fix
> to a known position within a couple of degrees on a chart.

Do you mean "a change in heading" - which allows for winds (as the desired change
in projected course is obvious)? And did he do this in the ordinary way by set and
drift? If so, how do you know he did if there no evidence of that on the chart?

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:28:14 EDT
From:         Matt M.
Subject:      Re: Color photos of Electra on Ebay

Is it me or does the right hand pitot tube in the picture of her sitting on the
top of the plane not "look right", or is it just the picture?

Matt M
Michigan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It's just the picture.  That picture was taken in July of '36 when the airplane
was delivered.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:57:39 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Angus asked:

> Do you mean "a change in heading" - which allows for winds (as the desired
> change in projected course is obvious)?

No, I meant a change in course.  I believe FN did not account for winds in any
projected flight path.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:58:36 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Herman writes

> Take off distances are published in aircraft manuals but one shouldn't
> always believe what they say.

That's certainly true, Herman and in addition to the factors you discussed it
may surprise some who love precision to know that every aircraft is not the same.
The performance of similar aircraft often varies to some degree.

When I flew B-47s, a Boeing aircraft, I preferred those made by Douglas rather
than those made by Boeing or Lockheed. They performed better.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:05:40 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Alan wrote:

> The math is great, Angus and a precise answer can be obtained but it's the
> input that refutes the answer. The rule of course is GIGO. The input data
> cannot be precise but only the mathematical process.

Of course the input data CAN be precise! We don't KNOW that it's precise until
we input the data into the physics, see what happens and see if the result is
consistent with what else we know. Even then of course there may be multiple
data sets that roughly fit the real world circumstances but none the less,
one of those data sets (ie what actually took place) WILL be precise (to
whatever level of precision you want to consider).

Now I don't know how Long got his data but I read in the Tighar archive that
these figures are confirmed elsewhere. (Ric - what is the origin of these
measurements 1897ft and 25sec?). If they were timed and measured by an observer,
they may easily be sufficiently accurate to use usefully. Even if deduced from a
film with a somewhat hazily known frame rate they could still be useful.

On this particular topic I am in any case looking to see if the information is
consistent with my scenario, not to claim a critical importance to a hundredth
of a knot.

You think the how and why of AE's disappearance can never be solved to most people's
satisfaction as the information is too thin. I am quite sure you are wrong. I am
already absolutely certain that they landed at Niku (and I will nail my colours
to the mast on this one) and this is based on other evidence than the circumstantial
evidence that Tighar has unearthed. I am also sure I have solved the problem of the
how and am well advanced with working on the why although in this latter respect
determining a unique scenario may well be a lot more difficult. Ric KNOWS that AE
landed at Niku based on the diminishing probability that all the circumstantial
evidence discovered could somehow have arisen from other causes. Each circumstance
taken in isolation is fairly easily explained by an alternative believable scenario.
It is the combination of circumstances that multiplies the probability of each
being a coincidence to arrive at a very small chance that these circumstances
together did not occur by chance.

In the same way one can become confident of  a mathematically based scenario
in that if it satisfies all the conditions for what we do know and alternative
scenarios that fit the facts are far fetched, the chances that it is wrong
becomes small.

Regards Angus.

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

I don't know where Long's 1897 feet and 25 seconds come from.  Earhart was
born in 1897 and learned to fly when she was 25 - maybe that's it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:32:31 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

The 1897 feet and 25 second take-off data from Oakland was provided by
Richard(?) Miller, who was present at that take-off and was an official
of the Bureau of Air Commerce, and was AE's liaison with government.  He
issued a number of telegrams immediately after the take-off.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:36:29 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> Angus asked:
>> Do you mean "a change in heading" - which allows for winds (as the desired
>> change in projected course is obvious)?
>
> No, I meant a change in course.  I believe FN did not account for winds in
> any projected flight path.

Thanks Randy,

I must say I am a little surprised by this. Surely half the point of getting a
fix is to establish set and drift and once one has, the process of establishing
a correct heading is perfectly simple. Admittedly winds change on a long flight
but one has a much better chance of arriving at one's way-points (eg Nukumanu,
Ontario, Tabiteuea) if your heading is based on your last wind determination
from the last two fixes. One then has the advantage of further fixes from
pilotage.

What, other than lack of indication of set and drift calculation on the charts
leads you to believe this was the case?

Regards Angus.

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

Of the three "waypoints" you mention, only Ontario is known to have been used. 
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:38:13 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Ric wrote:

> I don't know where Long's 1897 feet and 25 seconds come from.  Earhart was
> born in 1897 and learned to fly when she was 25 - maybe that's it.

The 1897 feet and 25 seconds ("an excellent takeoff on a wet field") come from
a telegram to FDR from the BAC representative at the field. The same information
is repeated in LAST FLIGHT.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Did Miller really send the telegram to FDR?  Why would he care?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:39:59 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Motivations

Ric writes:

> All of this agonizing over takeoff weights and enroute weather and LOPs and
> Plan Bs is fun and keeps us off the street, but it is essentially irrelevant
> to the problem of proving what happened to Amelia Earhart.

Amen, brother. However....

Searching Niku is the province of only a few of us. I would think that members
have diverse motives for coughing up a few dollars to join TIGHAR and provide
that box lunch to the searchers. I rather enjoy the interplay of the various
posters to the forum. I don't pretend to understand what some of the posters
are chasing, but that doesn't mean that I should dismiss their interests. I
realize that you're only trying to moderate the forum and keep us on track.

I think that we can all rest assured that we want to SOLVE the mystery as best
we can. TIGHAR has a hypothesis -- and a damn good one -- that needs to be
confirmed. That happens on the island.

What makes the Earhart story fascinating is that is has a little bit of everything
-- aeronautics, navigation, radio, piloting skills, human failings and other
unknown or unknowable failures. No wonder the forum generates so much noise.
Keep up the good work everyone.

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:42:08 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Color photos of Electra on Ebay

Ric wrote:

>I see that the bidding has closed, so somebody got taken for a ride.
>There are no color pictures of Earhart's Electra.  The two color photos are of
>Finch's replica.

And somebody else is about to go for a ride.  I clicked on "view seller's other
items" and found another set of 4 photos, including 3 color shots of the Finch
Electra billed as "Amelia Earhart and her aircraft."  This time the give-away 
is even more obvious -- there's a guy with a video camera front and center.

Bidding closes in 28 hours!
LTM,
Russ
******************************************************************
From Ric

Is it possible that GP is still alive??
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:33:42 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Ric wrote:

> Did Miller really send the telegram to FDR?  Why would he care?

"Apparently he did" answers both questions. (My recollection is that FDR's
copy of the telegram is reproduced in AMELIA, MY COURAGEOUS SISTER.)
*************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

Ack!  It was Bill Miller!

I know of no telegram from the archives from Bill Miller to FDR.  That doesn't mean
it doesn't exist, but I never checked FDR's archival records, and no telegram copying
FDR appears in the other archives.
***************************************************************
From Ric

Oscar is right.  The telegram, on White House stationery, addressed to "The President"
and signed "W.T. Miller" is reproduced in AMELIA, MY COURAGEOUS SISTER (page 201).
I find it very odd.  From the contents of the telegram it is apparent that Miller
does not expect FDR to know much of anything about the flight.  He tells him where
they are going and who is aboard and that Mantz will leave the flight in Honolulu,
Noonan will leave the flight at Howland and Manning will leave in Australia.

*********************************************************
From Alan Caldwell

Randy wrote:

> The 1897 feet and 25 second take-off data from Oakland was provided by
> Richard(?) Miller, who was present at that take-off .................

Randy, could you hazard a guess as to what method Miller used to determine the
takeoff distance to the inch?

Angus, I defy anyone to give a believable explanation as to how someone in 1937
could have measured that takeoff distance down to the inch and what possible
significance it could have.

Alan
***********************************************************
From Ric

Alan, I think you're making a mountain out of this molehill.  Miller probably timed
the takeoff and then paced it off.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:34:53 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

I'll repeat this again: when navigating this way, the wind (or current, if you are
a ship) drift and set predicted for the future may not necessarily be the same as
that you have experienced.  If it changes significantly, accounting for the past
set and drift may make things even worse than simply ignoring wind/current.  As
they say in the stock market, which is an excellent analogy, past performance
does not represent future performance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:38:06 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Color photos of Electra on Ebay

Anyone wants color pictures of AE's L10E? I've got plenty. I took them at
Le Bourget in 1997!

LTM (who loves color pictures)
********************************************************
From Jex

<<there's a guy with a video camera front and center.>>

Yeh! And he's wearing Nike's, 'bumbags' 'n' Levi 501's,??????
***********************************************************
From Dave in Fremont:

> Is it possible that GP is still alive??

It's possible, but GP would have faked AE's signature to drive the price up.

LTM (who also would have noticed Finch's jumpsuit and Staten Island hairdo
in the color photo),
Dave in Fremont (#2585)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:39:30 EDT
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Ship in sight ahead

Angus said

> to know it was a ship and not an island?
> At what height would it be likely that one could identify it as a ship?
>
> Regards Angus.

I was flying up the Georgia coast late one afternoon with a friend where there
are lots of islands.  Suddenly my friend says "Hey, look at those ships, what are
they doing that far up the river?" I thought he was joking, I strained to see what
he was looking at, and all I could see were Islands, so I said what ships??  He says
right there, straight ahead of us.  Suddenly the islands I was looking at turned
into ships, long grey ghosts laying perpendicular to our flight.  I rubbed my eyes,
and looked again,  they were islands.  I said Hey Larry, those are not ships they
are islands.  Oh yeah he says, they're just islands.  We were only 5 miles away,
but they really did look like ships after Larry mentioned it.  Although this was
not at night, it was startling how easy it is to see an illusion.  In fact, the
FAA put a chapter in one of my old manuals titled "flight illusions at night"  
You have to be real careful about what you see over water, specially at night. 

regards, the Stoker #2535
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:41:25 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Angus writes:

> You think the how and why of AE's disappearance can never be solved to most
> people's satisfaction as the information is too thin.

Angus if you were addressing that comment to me you are far off base. I have never
said that. On the contrary I think it will be solved and conclusively. I HAVE argued
that the navigation evidence is thin. The puzzle will be solved on the ground some
place not by celestial, fuel, gross weight or by any navigation replotting. There
is insufficient evidence to refly the mission.

I don't think there is much prior to 8:43 L that has much significance. We know the
distance flown and the time of flight and Noonan's belief he was in the vicinity of
Howland. That gives a good fuel reserve estimate. The Niku theory has some evidence
of whatever quality. No other theory has any evidence at all. The aircraft was fuel
limited as to where it could go. To the Phoenix group or possibly to a Gilbert island
but nowhere else. Certainly it could not reach the Marshall's.

There is no evidence that would lead one to search a Gilbert island, no practical way
to search ocean and no evidence in any of the other Phoenix Islands. Seems like a no
brainer to me.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:04:43 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

> The 1897 feet and 25 seconds ("an excellent takeoff on a wet field")

The comment is interesting. AE was flying a heavily loaded aircraft at Oakland and
yet apparently pulls off fairly early considering the weight and the wet field but
she had the advantage of fairly low temperatures (48 degreesF).

At the Luke Field debacle her comment was something along the lines of "I thought the 
take-off was over".  The witness Mr Berger thought she had "pulled off too soon".

One has to wonder if her ground-loop was as a result of her lack of familiarity with
a high gross weight aircraft in ground effect. The aircraft reaches flying speed but
only while it is in maximum ground effect, very close to the ground. She feels the
vibration drop off as the wheels leave the ground  and pulls up at a rate consistent
with a power to weight ratio she is used to. There is insufficient reserve power to
keep the heavy aircraft accelerating sufficiently fast to overcome the drag caused
by the increasing angle of attack. The aircraft stalls as the ground effect rapidly
drops off with increasing height and drops back to the ground crooked, resulting in
the ground loop.

Her use of virtually the whole runway at Lae may have had as much to do with trying
to keep within ground effect as it was to do with high density altitude and high weight,
especially as the aircraft momentarily becomes airborne and then is allowed to sink
back before the end of the runway.

Comments?

Regards Angus
***********************************************************************
From Ric

That's not what the Army said happened.

"Miss Earhart paused very briefly in takeoff position then apparently opened the
throttles wide.  From where the undersigned (Phillips Melville, Major, Air Corps,
Operations Officer, Luke Field) was standing near the Southwest end of the mat the
airplane seemed to gain speed quickly.  The wingtips were observed to wobble slightly
as it ran over unevenesses in the mat.  Suddenly, the airplane was seen to be veering
to the left with increasing rapidity as in the initial stage of a ground loop; as it
swung it tilted with the outer (i.e., right hand) wing almost scraping the mat.
The right hand landing gear suddenly collapsed followed by the other and the airplane
slid in an abrupt left hand skid on its belly.  A shower of sparks spurted from between
the aircraft and the mat."

She never got anywhere close to being airborne, even in ground effect.  She just plain
lost it.  It's hard to convey the feeling of what it's like to make a takeoff in an
overloaded tailwheel airplane.  Once the tail is up it's like running down a steep
hill with your hands tied to a very heavy wheelbarrow.  You're trying to keep the
whole assembly moving in a straight line while dealing with tremendous forces by
making tiny  corrections.  If you let it get away from you at all, thing go to hell
in a handbasket in a big hurry.  In this case, I suspect that the seams in the
pierced steep matting introduced  deflections that Earhart was simply not competent
to handle.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:39:19 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Takeoff distance and weight

Alan wrote:

> Randy wrote:
>> The 1897 feet and 25 second take-off data from Oakland was provided by
>> Richard(?) Miller, who was present at that take-off .................
>
> Randy, could you hazard a guess as to what method Miller used to determine
> the takeoff distance to the inch?

Seeing as the distance is quoted in feet it seems reasonable to assume that the
distance is quoted to the nearest foot rather than the inch.

> Angus, I defy anyone to give a believable explanation as to how someone in
> 1937 could have measured that takeoff distance down to the inch and what
> possible significance it could have.

It seems likely that some marker or alignment was used to estimate the point of
take-off and that 1897ft was a best estimate of distance, measured after the event.
There is nothing wrong with quoting a best estimate to the nearest foot. If you
think it is closer to the correct distance than 1900ft it would be somewhat
disingenuous to quote the latter figure merely because it was a round figure.
It would, however, have been wise to qualify the statement by saying it was
estimated as 1897ft rather than implying it was in fact exactly  that distance
to the nearest foot. However I don't know the exact words used.

As to the significance I am not sure if you mean the significance of quoting to
the nearest foot, the significance of the information to Miller , or the
significance to us.

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:42:45 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Alan writes:

> Angus writes
>
> > You think the how and why of AE's disappearance can never be solved to most
> > people's satisfaction as the information is too thin.
>
> Angus if you were addressing that comment to me you are far off base. I have
> never said that. On the contrary I think it will be solved and conclusively.
>
> I HAVE argued that the navigation evidence is thin. The puzzle will be solved
> on the ground some place not by celestial, fuel, gross weight or by any
> navigation replotting. There is insufficient evidence to refly the mission.

You have not understood my terms. The "how and the why" are the result  of, and
the reasons for the NAVIGATIONAL problems. I am arguing with your assertion that
there is insufficient evidence to refly the mission and contrary to what you say,
celestial, gross weight and navigation re-plotting all have their place - but
there are other factors too.

> I don't think there is much prior to 8:43 L that has much significance. We
> know the distance flown and the time of flight and Noonan's belief he was in
> the vicinity of Howland. That gives a good fuel reserve estimate. The Niku
> theory has some evidence of whatever quality.
>
>No other theory has any evidence at all.

I am AGREEING with the Niku theory! But I am saying that there is a lot more to
it than merely proving where they ended up! Even finding Electra parts on Niku
would not be totally conclusive without the "how and the why". We know parts
from other aircraft ended up there. Electra parts could, in theory, have been
brought from another island or even drifted in with the tide. Even something
as big as an engine could have been collected elsewhere and dumped on the reef
as a boat anchor. (unlikely admittedly!) Re-plotting the navigation on the other
hand (with sufficient evidence), provides satisfactory corroboration of the
Niku circumstantial evidence, even if no other physical evidence is ever found.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:45:10 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

> That's not what the Army said happened.

OK I'm convinced.

Regards Angus.
***************************************************
From Ric

Isn't that against the forum rules??  <G>
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:54:06 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Ric wrote:

> Of the three "waypoints" you mention, only Ontario is known to have been used.

Waypoints don't have to be beacons. Any readily identifiable feature whose position
is known can be a waypoint. Obviously we can't be 100% sure of Fred's intended
course but I think there is little doubt that he would have been on the lookout
for such features which did occur on his intended course to assist with pilotage
and hence the principle of my point that wind corrected navigation allows a better
chance of establishing more fixes is sound.

Regards Angus
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I'm just cautioning against the tendency for accepted conjecture to evolve into
"fact".  Earhart gave Lae a position that is near the Nukumanu Islands so - bingo
- it is received wisdom that Earhart and/or Noonan "got a visual" on the Nukumanu
Islands.  Nauru heard Earhart say "Ship in sight ahead" so - bingo - everybody 
knows that Earhart saw the Ontario, or the Myrtlebank, depending on who you talk
to.  In 1940 the yacht YANKEE collects an anecdote from somebody on Tabituea who
remembers hearing an airplane pass high overhead at night and - bingo - Earhart
flew over Tabituea enroute to Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:57:19 EDT
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Re: Color photos of Electra on Ebay

I figured... "what the heck?" and wrote the guy a nice note suggesting that
possibly he was not aware that the color photos were of Linda Finch, and gave
him a Linda Finch URL.

Here is his reply:

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003

Thanks, I opened your e-mail at 4:30EST and did not have time to end the auction
due to work. I have ended this auction and will re-list correctly. I was under
the impression that these photos where of Amelia as that is what I assumed
Lockheed had sent me. My mistake and not fraud or deliberate mis-listing was
intended on my part. I thank you for pointing out my mistake. I received another
e-mail that I will respond to in a moment from another member that was quite
nasty in his remarks. I don't think I will be so polite in my response. Thanks
for your help. Richard Harris
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Same old lesson.  Never attribute malice that which can be explained by simple
neglect or incompetence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:15:23 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

>  Earhart gave Lae a position that is near the Nukumanu Islands
> so - bingo - it is received wisdom that Earhart and/or Noonan "got a visual"
> on the Nukumanu Islands.

Yes - an unwarranted conclusion.

If they had "got a visual" on Nukumanu, surely the easiest option would have been
to fly right over the island and merely record the time if an exact timed fix was
required. This would be a much better timed fix than via sights. And yet we are
led to believe that Fred got a celestial fix, close to intended course, in the
immediate vicinity. Why would he want to get a fix at this point if he already
knew where they were? This makes it rather likely that they did NOT see Nukumanu,
perhaps being above cloud at the time.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:16:19 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Angus writes

> Re-plotting the navigation on the other hand (with sufficient evidence),
> provides satisfactory corroboration of the Niku circumstantial evidence,
> even if no other physical evidence is ever found.

Angus, tell me what the sufficient evidence is to replot the flight.

What is needed is the Electra's TAS, headings and all the altitudes and winds
enroute. If you know that information you are the only person on God's Little
Green Earth who does. If you don't know ALL of that data you cannot replot
the flight.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:17:36 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      takeoff distance

Angus wrote

> As to the significance I am not sure if you mean the significance of quoting
> to the nearest foot, the significance of the information to Miller , or the
> significance to us.

Angus, I would not call 1897 an estimate. If Miller had said "around 1900 feet"
I would call THAT an estimate. 1897 is pretty exact. Your explanation tells how
one could make an estimate not how anyone could get an exact distance.

I don't see the significance to us. What do you see as the significance that I've missed?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:21:15 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Latitude by Polaris

I picked this snippet up on the net - a supposed description of Noonan's 
navigation techniques. I quote:

"To use this method, you cruise to the latitude of the destination, turn toward
the destination, maintaining this latitude by additional Polaris sights until
you reach the destination. The altitude of the sun at noon gives the similarly
usable information, and the calculation is very easy. This is called a landfall;
why, I don't know. Fred Noonan, Amelia Earhart's navigator, always flew landfalls,
but he is quoted by the people who talked to him just prior to his final flight "
I am going to try a three star fix on this flight." He missed his destination".

The idea that Noonan could in his usual lazy way fly blindly north until he hit
the latitude of Howland and then fly a constant latitude line towards Howland,
guided only by Polaris was obviously a non-starter on such a long trip, planned
to arrive in the early morning when neither Polaris or a noon sight would be
available. However, it seems Fred had other ideas and intended to navigate by
means of a single three star fix!

Since such apocryphal stories sometimes originate in fact, I wondered if there
was any grain of truth in the idea that Fred did in fact intend to change his
navigation technique at all - (perhaps taking three star instead of two star
fixes) and is there any evidence any such conversation took place?

Regards Angus.
*********************************************
From Ric

The whole thing is news to me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:23:58 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia at Saipan

Word comes from Saipan that the Chatauqua Society will bring "Amelia" to Saipan
next week as part of a repersonification of famous Americans. A woman impersonates
AE down to looks, speech, mannerisms, etc. [ Don't ask me what the Chatauqua Society
is]. Lots of interest remains in Saipan, says the Society.

Maybe the forum has some questions for Amelia, such as what the heck happened after
0843, 2 July, 1937?

Ron Bright
****************************************************************
From Ric

"Repersonification" - that's a new one.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:00:51 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Amelia at Saipan

Maybe that is the process in which they freeze a body, like Ted Williams, then
when new technology comes, thaws it out and presto, there is "Amelia". [Since
there was no ice on Niku, this may casts some doubt on the Niku theory!!]

Ron Bright
************************************************************************
From Ric

It's probably something like the Nauticos "renavigation" process.  If we could
"repersonify" AE we could just ask her what happened.  Maybe Carol Dow could help us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:02:53 EDT
From:         Gary laPook
Subject:      Re: Latitude by Polaris

What you describe ( following a latitude to destination based on noon sun shots )
was a technique use by ships in the days before the invention of accurate chronometers
(sea going clocks.) You don't need accurate time to determine your latitude by a
noon sun sight, you only need a calendar so you can find the sun's declination in
the almanac. This technique has no use in aerial navigation because noon only
happens once a day  so you couldn't use a noon sight to ensure following a parallel
of latitude to your destination especially since most flights last only a portion
of a day. It was useful in a sailing ship that might follow a latitude line for
several weeks taking a noon sight on each day.

Using Polaris is also useful at sea for following a parallel of latitude and accurate
time is not necessary for its use either and can be useful in northern latitudes.
But it would not have been available to Noonan because it would never have been
high enough in the sky to provide a useful sight at the latitude of Howland.  The
declination of Polaris in 1937 was 88 degrees 57.5 minutes north which means that
it was located 1* -  2.5 ' from the pole. (You just subtract its declination from
90 degrees which is the declination of the pole.) The highest Polaris would be in
the sky as measured at the latitude of Howland island (0* -48 ' North)  can be
computed by adding Howland's latitude to the distance that Polaris is from the pole.
48 ' plus  1* - 2.5 ' equals 1* -50.5 ' , less than 2* above the horizon.  During
other parts of the day the star would be even lower and would be at a minus 14.5 '
at the lowest point. Noonan couldn't use a Polaris sight even when at its highest
because his refraction table only had corrections for altitudes of 6* - 30 ' and
higher and so he would not know the correction that would need to be applied to a
Polaris sight in order to compute their latitude.

To understand Noonan's navigational techniques read his letter  in which he discusses
his navigational techniques which is published on pages 422 through 425 of the 1938
edition of Weems "Air Navigation" available at:

http://www.geocities.com/phinneasbluster/weems-422-423.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/phinneasbluster/weems-424-425.JPG

You will see that he used stellar fixes during the night, sun lines crossed with radio
bearings during the day (only when close to a radio station because he didn't like the
accuracy of radio bearings at long distances) and he computed the wind by  comparing
his "no wind" positions with his celestial fixes ( which is still the method used by
Air Force navigators today.)

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:39:26 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Wind compensation

From Gary's post (thanks Gary) I quote Noonan:

"Consequently the difference between "no wind" positions and fixes established by
observations were utilised entirely for determination of drift angle and, of course,
wind velocity and direction for laying new courses".

Noonan here states that drift angle, wind velocity and direction were indeed used
for "laying new courses".  Noonan  certainly didn't ignore the wind in deciding
his new headings after fixes on this flight so why should we believe that he did
so on the World Flight? Indeed, he states the method would not be so suitable
in areas where sudden wind shifts could be expected. This would be irrelevant
if he ignored the wind. The "no wind" position was purely a hypothetical position
which predicted what their current position would have been on their current heading
in still air and does not imply that he ignored the wind.

I also note that he used separate plotting sheets. Could this explain the lack of
indications of wind related geometry on the ocean chart?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:43:24 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Amelia at Saipan

I don't know about what's going on in Saipan, but here is the poop on
Chautauqua in general.

From the Boulder Colorado Chautauqua website:

On July 4, 1898, over 4,000 people gathered for the opening day of the Colorado
Chautauqua.  Boulder civic leaders and Texas educators had joined together to create
a cultural and educational summer retreat. Today, the Colorado Chautauqua is one 
of three remaining Chautauquas in the United States, and the only site west of
the Mississippi River, in continuous operation, with its original structures intact.

Before radio and television, the Chautauqua movement united millions in common
cultural and educational experiences. Orators, performers, and educators traveled
a national Chautauqua circuit of more than 12,000 sites bringing lectures, performances,
concerts, classes, and exhibitions to thousands of people in small towns and cities.
Theodore Roosevelt called Chautauquas, "the most American thing in America."

A Very Brief History of the Chautauqua Movement

The word "chautauqua" is Iroquois, and means either "two moccasins tied together"
or "jumping fish". Whatever the precise etymology, it's clear the word described
a lake in western New York, which by the Civil War was known as Chautauqua Lake.

In 1874, John Heyl Vincent and Lewis Miller rented the site of a Methodist camp
meeting to use in the post-camp meeting season as a summer school for Sunday
school teachers; this became known as the Chautauqua Institution. This reflected
a nation-wide interest in the professionalization of teaching. They were very clear
that their intent was educational, rather than revivalist. It should be stressed
that the Chautauqua Institution was never affiliated with any one denomination;
pretty much every faith group in the US has a chapel or building on the grounds
today. Still, the sort of mild Protestantism that has informed much of American
culture was an underpinning of the Chautauqua Movement.

Within a few years, the scope of the Chautauqua Institution had broadened to include
adult education of all kinds, as well as a correspondence course--the Chautauqua
Literary and Scientific Circle, designed to bring "a college outlook" to working
and middle-class people. Along with the educational (and education was broadly
defined to include the arts and public affairs) offerings at Chautauqua, its
thousands of summer residents attended concerts and social activities. By the
last decade of the nineteenth century, the Chautauqua Institution was nationally
known as a center for rather earnest, but high-minded, activities that aimed at
intellectual and moral self-improvement and civic involvement. Theodore Roosevelt
said that Chautauqua was "typically American, in that it is typical of America at
its best."

The Chautauqua Movement, with which the Chautauqua Institution has had a maternal
interest but never a formal relationship, grew out of that Chautauqua Literary
and Scientific Circle. As its members and graduates spread the Chautauqua idea,
many towns--especially in rural areas where opportunities for secondary education
were limited--established "chautauquas". These seasonal establishments were
influenced as much by the athenaeums, mechanics' institutes, and lecture series
"Back East" as they were by the Chautauqua Institution and reflected the intense
desire for self-improvement through education that has always marked the American
striver. "Chautauqua" had a degree of cache and became short hand for an organized
gathering intended to introduce people to the great ideas, new ideas, and issues
of public concern. "Independent chautauquas", those with permanent buildings and
staff could be found throughout the US by 1900, with a concentration in the mid-West.

After 1900, the "circuit chautauqua" became the principle expression of the
movement. The institutional chautauquas were somewhat wary of these travelling,
tented chautauquas. Still, at the height of the Chautauqua Movement, about 1915,
some 12,000 communities had hosted a chautauqua. Many of the lecturers and performers
were contracted by chautauqua agencies--the most notable was the Redpath Agency
in Iowa--and the quality of the offerings varied from Vassar-educated lectures
and Shakespeare to animal acts and vaudeville farce.

The movement pretty much died out by the mid-1930s. Most historians cite the rise
of the car culture, radio, and movies as the causes. There were several other important,
yet subtle, reasons for the decline. One was the sharp increase in fundamentalism and 
evangelical Christianity in the 20s; the bland non-denominationalism exhibited at most
chautauquas couldn't accommodate these impulses. Many small independent chautauquas
became essentially camp meetings or church camps. Another--seemingly contradictory
influence--was the rise of the liberated, educated woman. Chautauquas functioned
for many lower- and middle-class women much as the elite women's colleges did for
upper-class women. They were training grounds from which women could launch "real"
careers. When professional and educational opportunities increased, interest in
chautauquas dwindled. Finally, the Depression itself made chautauquas economically
impossible for organizers and audiences.

Several independent chautauquas survived. Estimates vary about how many function today
as they did in the late-19th century: offering summer-long educational, cultural, and
recreational programs and accommodations. The Chautauqua Institution flourishes,
offering a broad and dynamic program every summer. The Chautauqua Literary and 
Scientific Circle is alive and well. Boulder's is the only year-round chautauqua,
and the only one whose grounds are free and open to the public. The Chautauqua
Network is an informal alliance of institutions that range from church camps
with chautauqua roots to weeklong revived chautauquas (Waxahatchie, TX and DeFuniak
Springs, FL are examples).

Several state humanities councils have organized "Chautauquas" in the last decade.
These are generally programs of performers who represent figures from the American
past such as Mark Twain or Calamity Jane; many of the figures were not associated
with the historical chautauquas. More closely carrying on the spirit of the
Chautauqua Movement are programs for educators organized by universities (the
National Science Foundation has been active in this) and even a chautauqua
that travels around the mid-Atlantic states in the summers presenting everything
from symposia to juggling. Jim Hightower, the Texas iconoclast and political
commentator, is organizing a "Chautauqua Tour" to bring political/environmental/social
activists together, an exciting revival of the chautauqua idea.

You never know what you'll learn on the all knowing Forum.

LTM (who's moccasins are tied together)
Andrew McKenna
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Swell.  So now the society is going to educate people about AE by repersonifying
her on Saipan?
**************************************************************************
From Carol Dow

Ric,
Okay, I'll bite on this one. The movie moguls want to know who she is, where she
is at, and does she have a biography and credits. Also, is she SAG (Screen Actor's 
Guild) and whom the agent is. Over to anyone who is watching. Carol Dow
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh God.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:06:56 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      GPS

Gary LaPook ALSO wrote:

>You will see that he used stellar fixes during the night, sun lines crossed
>with radio bearings during the day (only when close to a radio station
>because he didn't like the accuracy of radio bearings at long distances)
>and he computed the wind by  comparing his "no wind" positions with his
>celestial fixes ( which is still the method used by Air Force navigators today.)

I thought the Air Force navigators today used GPS fixes (of course the GPS
satellites could be called "celestial"). Celestial is defined by my ancient
Webster's as:

1. Of or pertaining to the sky or heavens. 2. Of heaven; divine  3. Of or
pertaining to the former Chinese Empire or the Chinese people. - n. 1. A
heavenly being. 2. A Chinese; a humorous term.

Being derived from Latin makes me wonder (or ponder): I don't think the Romans
knew any Chinese, so how could they use it to mean Chinese? Surely this is an
"occident"!

I once knew a Celeste who was heavenly, but she wasn't Chinese, but I'll save
that for another letter.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:08:52 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Chautauqua

Regarding Chautauqua. Back to my antiquated Websters (actually it's the
Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary) Chautauqua is defined as:

A summer resort town in western New york on Lake Chautauqua (18 miles long);
seat of a summer educational association offering lectures, home study, concerts,
etc: pop. 4,376.

Uncapitalized it is defined as:

An educational assembly resembling those held at Chautauqua, New York.

Thus the Chautauqua which is mentioned apparently has no ties in any respect
with anything to do with AE or Boulder, Colorado but rather with "education". 
Thus, this erudite scholar believes that it is a code word for: "People with
too much time on their hands and not enough sense to get in out of the rain."
Sometimes also known in some circles as "Effete snobs." But mostly, it means
people who try to put into a million words or more that which can be stated more
clearly in a single sentence.

LTM,
Dave Bush
*********************************************************************
From Ric

You wouldn't by any chance be...related....would you?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:10:18 EDT
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Amelia at Saipan

Sometimes you get what you ask for... <grin>

LTM (who was in Actor's Equity, but never a SAG member)
Dave (#2585)
***********************************************************
From Ric

Ain't it the truth.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:11:01 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Wind compensation

All I can say is what I can infer from the charts that FN used and the notations
on them.  Others have examined the maps and can add their $0.02 worth.  On the
entire Oakland to Honolulu flight, there's only one or two course changes outside
of the immediate area of Oakland and Honolulu, so there's really little information
to base things on.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:13:18 EDT
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Amelia at Saipan

Carol wrote:

>The movie moguls want to know who she is, where she is at,...

Hi Ric,

She's behind the "at". Sigh!!!

Michael Haddock
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:22:49 EDT
From:         Richard Metzger
Subject:      Metal detectors

They took off in 1897.25 feet(sic.), headed for Howland, Got lost, possibly
ran out of fuel. Landed on an island Or crashed into the ocean. Can any more
be PROVEN! No charts, no eyewitnesses. Some evidence? Could be! You don't
need to know HOW they got somewhere, just where!

Change of subject.

What type of metal detectors were used on the TIGAR missions To Gardner Island?
Be very specific please.

Thanks
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We've used White's Electronics underwater pulse-induction metal detectors for
both underwater and onshore work for the past 17 years.  White's donates
several units of their newest model every time they upgrade the design.
Our current units, and the ones we used in 2001, are called "Surfmaster P.I.
Plus".  We've been delighted with White's products and we're very appreciative
of their faithful support of our work.

We actually now have more metal detectors than we need and we have several of
the previous design (known as the P.I. 3000) in excellent condition that we're
willing to sell for $200 each if anyone is interested.  They originally retailed
for over $600.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:24:20 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Alan wrote:

> Angus, tell me what the sufficient evidence is to replot the flight.
> What is needed is the Electra's TAS, headings and all the altitudes and winds
> enroute. If you know that information you are the only person on God's Little
> Green Earth who does. If you don't know ALL of that data you cannot replot
> the flight.

OK so you cannot do it from scratch or  100% exactly. But I am not suggesting
working from scratch. I have enough information to be able to reliably infer
some parameters and make excellent guesses at the others based on good evidence.
I'm making good progress and am confident that most people will agree my theory
explains all the known facts about the disappearance. I'll give you the evidence
when I've tied up all the loose ends.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:25:07 EDT
From:         Mary Ellen
Subject:      Chatauqua

I grew up in Chautauqua County.  Dave from Houston was correct when he said that
Chautauqua was known for education. People come from all over the country to attend
classes.  The music department is famous in the area. The word "Chautauqua" is Iroquois
for "Bag tied in the middle"  The town and county were named from Lake Chautauqua.
It looks like a bag tied in the middle.

To the best of my knowledge, Amelia never visited Chautauqua.  I will consult with my
parents to see if they are aware of any connection.

I realize this is off topic, but I wanted to clarify the knowledge of someone who got
his information from a book.  If I find a connection, I'll let you know, but it will ,
of course, have nothing to do with finding Amelia or her aircraft.

Keep up the good work!  I look forward to the reports from your upcoming trip.

Mary Ellen
Formerly from Jamestown, NY
currently Utica, MI
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:26:48 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Chautauqua

> You wouldn't by an chance be...related....would you?<

In reply to your query. No, I am not related to AE, Chautauqua, Boulder or Colorado
(the ship or the state), New York or any lakes of any size. And I only smoke my cigars
- fully inhaling and enjoying the sensation. But only about once a year or so and
preferably with a good - woops - can't use that stuff - Jack Daniels will have to
do from now on.

LTM,
Dave Bush
********************************************************************
From Ric

You answered my question.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:28:13 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: GPS

Today is 12 April 2003. The current Air Force training on this subject is contained
Air Force Pamphlet 11-216 dated 1 March 2001 entitled "Air Navigation" which
superseded Air Force Manual 51-40 Dated 15 March 1983 with the same title. 1 March
2001 is a date which I still consider to be  "today."

Page 142 of AF Pam 11-216  still shows how to compute the wind based on  the difference
in the "no wind" position  compared to a fix. This is still how GPS computes wind but
it does it automatically based on measuring the direction and distance between fixes
that it derives compared to inputs (either automatic or manual) of the heading and
airspeed of the aircraft which allows it to also figure a "no wind" position. Low end
GPSs do not do this computation and the pilot must still do the manual computation for
wind.

Chapters 8 through 13 covering pages 197 through 295 are devoted to celestial navigation
so the Air Force still considers it to be important. I also heard recently that the EC-135
aircraft are expected to use celestial for at least the next 15 years and still have the
mount for the Kollsman parascopic sextant on the roof of these aircraft even though most
other aircraft in the fleet are not expected to continue to use celestial.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:29:56 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

> I'll give you the evidence when I've tied up all the loose
> ends.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, Angus. I can track the flight up until 10:30 GMT fairly
accurately but not beyond that. A year's later anecdote that someone heard the plane fly
over Tabiteuea would be helpful if true but you can't hang your hat on that. The strength
5 radio transmissions are helpful but no one wants to commit they can put the plane
less than 80 miles away in any direction. That's the sum of the evidence. Noonan
thought he was over Howland. An hour later they indicated they were on a LOP and
running north and south. They and the line could be anywhere within a strength 5
radio distance in any direction and we don't know what that is. And we don't know
what they did or where they went after 8:43 L. For the life of me I can't imagine
what starting point in the Howland area you could possibly use or where you would
go from there or even when. I can make all kinds of guesses but there is nothing
to base a guess on of a supportable nature.

I can guess they were slightly north and beyond Howland and drove down to Niku. But
I sure couldn't take that guess to the bank.

I'll be interested in what you come up with.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:32:06 EDT
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Just a word of  encouragement and support for your quest to understand the
airplane's performance. I too am engaged in very similar efforts. For example,
I can duplicate within reasonable accuracy bounds the  take off performance for
the Hono and Lae flights by driving the flight equations with a simulated real
time clock using parameters taken  from Lockheed specifications, TIGHAR and other
sources and assuming that these are basically correct. What stymies me thus far
is the low IAS cruise speeds reported by various sources. (primarily Long).Typically,
the TAS calculated from these IAS run about 150 mph,far below the 487 predictions
of 170-180 mph. Oscar has pointed out this discrepancy  previously. I looked at
possible changes to drag coefficients and thrust, but so far these changes
have not improved the overall match to the available real world data.

Is it possible that the cruise airspeed indications for Amelia's plane were so
far off? I realize that there are calibration errors to be taken into account,
but the numbers seem very far apart.  Lockheed made it clear in R465-9 (1935)
that errors in  airspeed indicator readings needed reduction and steps were
being taken in that direction.

harvey #2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:18:11 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

Mary Ellen wrote:

> I grew up in Chautauqua County.

I never have grown up.  I spent some of my early years in Cattaraugus County,
which is next door to Chautauqua.  :o)

> To the best of my knowledge, Amelia never visited Chautauqua.

The artistic/academic community that grew up in Chautauqua sponsors events all
around the nation. It is part of the Chautauqua culture to send out "re-enactors."
They take on the appearance, dress and mannerisms of the famous person whose life
they are teaching about.  This is what the Chautauqua Amelia is doing--impersonating
her as part of a lecture or presentation.

This is just one of many movements that the Burned-Over District has inspired.
Mormonism got its start in upstate New York, along with the Second Great Awakening.
This is also the home of Lillydale, a 19th-century spiritualist community.

                    Marty #2359
        From Ellicottville, Allegany, & Buffalo
********************************************************************
From Ric

Sending an Amelia re-enactor to Saipan is a sad commentary on their historical rigor.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:20:03 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Betty's Note Book?

Sorry I've been distracted by the urban renewal project in Iraq - Now with the
recent revelation of the second coming of Amelia Earhart in Saipan I find it
time to re-focus on th mystery flight of NR16020 and its aircrew - The following
question pertains to Betty's note book - Did Betty's father take Betty's note
book with him when he contacted the USCG air station in St. Petersburg?
Respectfully:Tom Strang
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I think so, but I'm not sure.  I'll ask Betty.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:21:55 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Thanks Harvey. I am interested you think you have built an accurate simulation.

Where one runs into trouble here is the fact that the strip at Oakland was wet.
Wet grass can increase the takeoff distance by up to 30% - an unknown difference
which makes comparisons meaningless. I would be interested to know what you
think about weight difference. I get the impression that it was not nearly
as much as is often supposed. Figures for Lae bandied around are about 15,000lb
and maybe 14350lb for Oakland. I would not be suprised if both were more like
14,800lb. The big difference in takeoff distance seems more related to density
altitude difference rather than weight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:40:46 EDT
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      Merrill-Lambie radio communication

I was very favorably impressed with your brief indication a couple of weeks ago
about the kinds of hypotheses that could be tested by using the post-0843 radio
message matrix. It reminded me how the radio transmission data obtained during
the Merrill-Lambie "Daily Express" flights could be useful as a comparison for
such hypothesis testing. I don't recall much prior discussion of the similarities
and differences on the forum, so the following is summarized from the reference
cited below for general interest.

KHMER used a WECO 13C, crystal-controlled, three-frequency-channel (6590, 500,
and 333 kc) transmitter. It employed five tubes ordinarily capable of a carrier
power of 50 to 75 W but modified for the occasion to 100 W by Larry Campbell,
an EAL technician, in an installation described as "rushed". The cw operation
necessitated keying screens of the r-f tubes and having the oscillator running
continually. A carbon microphone was used for telephone communications.

A transmitter switch carried the antenna from receiving to sending, with a side
tone provided to allow voice monitoring during transmissions. Power was supplied
by a WECO 4B unit, a dynamotor supplying 1050 V for the transmitter tubes. A 50 A
generator driven by the engines kept the batteries charged.  A 12A revised receiver
was used for two-way communication, powered by a small dynamotor. It operated on
two frequencies by crystal control. The receiver was stationed aft in the plane
and remote controlled from the cockpit. Beacon signals were received on a tunable
WECO 14A type, ranging from 200 to 400 kc. Also a superheterodyne, it was located
beneath the right-hand pilot's seat. An 8B type box housed transmitter switches
and controlled both receiver volumes, providing an output from either receiver
or mixed output for either or both pilots. A jack box behind each pilot held
headphones and microphones.

A 4B power unit under the left-hand pilot's seat housed two battery-driven dynamotors.
The transmitter dynamotor developed 1050 V at 0.4 A, the smaller dynamotor developing
200 V at 0.085 A. A cockpit-controlled RCA radio compass was located in the ship's
nose. A shielded loop was mounted on the underside of the fuselage at the forward
end. The 6590 kc "V" antenna was 28 feet 4 inches long and extended topside from a
mast at the front center to the two rudder fins. About one-third of the way from
the tail, a stub feeder connected with the antenna just above the transmitter
station. Two antennas for beacon and radio compass were located beneath the
fuselage at the forward end. A trailing antenna assembly, similar to that
originally installed for KHAQQ, with a low-impedance antenna coupling system
modified to between 1500 and 2000 ohms, was present but not used "much" because
of the inconvenience in "scrambling back over the crowded cabin fuel tanks"
and because the range was found too short for clear transmission.

Flight headquarters were at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City where listeners
"sat glued to a receiver". On the east-bound flight, Lambie handled most radio
contacts on a prearranged schedule. Radio station WOR broadcast phonograph
records on 800 meters throughout the full flight to give radio compass bearings.
Droitwich, England, had a regular daylight broadcast schedule. Four hours out
of New York, flying in solid clouds between 4,000 and 8,000 feet, voice
transmission over the 6590 band began to "distort and break" and communication
was switched to code over the same band. KHMER's signals were missed by most
U.S. stations as they neared the mid-Atlantic about 500 miles beyond Newfoundland,
although ham radio operators in many parts of the world picked up 6590 kc signals
during that period. KHMER, however, received clear signals on 6590 kc until the
plane was about 800 miles beyond Newfoundland when reception "went dead". That
condition lasted until the plane was about 350 miles from Ireland when they 
picked up British signals on 6590 which came in clearly thereafter. A British
beacon led directly to London.  The east-bound flight took 21 hours, including
14 hours of "absolutely blind flying".

On the west-bound flight, British signals "dropped" about 550 miles off the coast.
KHMER was received "spottily" in the U.S. at 6 a.m. and between 8 and 10 a.m. EST.
Many messages came through clearer at flight headquarters than anywhere else.
Mackay Radio, RCA Communications, Radio Marine, and Coast Guard stations around
the world kept a constant check on messages and strength of signals, phoning the
data to the Waldorf-Astoria, and also occasionally messages were relayed from ships
at sea. Regular communication was hourly, but during its period of dead reception
during mid-crossing KHMER signalled every 15 minutes and was picked up "at some
point on the globe". The EAL stations at Newark, Washington, Miami, Atlanta, and
New Orleans received signals with varying success. At one point when KHMER was
over the mid-Atlantic, none of the eastern U.S. stations could pick up the
transmissions, but New Orleans received the signals clearly. East (sic) of
the mid-Atlantic, KHMER was picked up most consistently in Atlanta, although
Rockaway got the most powerful reception at times.

Reference cited: McClary, T.C. 1937. Merrill-Lambie commercial trans-Atlantic flight.
Communications, September 1937:38, cont. 62-63.

I'll reserve comment at this time regarding the implications of the above for
certain hypotheses regarding the Lae-Howland flight you may wish to test by
using the post-0843 radio message matrix. I wonder if any of the original records
of the "Daily Express" radio transmissions were preserved or compiled in more
detail. The comprehensive message analysis you are undertaking will be an impressive
achievement worthy of publication in the peer-reviewed literature.

Dan Brown #2408
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Dan. Excellent information.  The Merrill-Lambie flight is THE great
untapped resource for information about the demonstrated performance of the
Lockheed 10E Special on two nonstop flights of similar (actually greater)
distance than the Lae/Howland hop.  There is, perhaps, less to be learned
about radio performance that is analogous to Earhart's flight because the
transmitter wattage was double Earhart's and the receiver was an entirely
different set-up.  Still, there may be useful information there.

I'm curious about your cited souce.  Where did you find it?  Is there discussion
of other aspects of the flight?  We've gleaned a number of articles from contemporary
newspapers and periodicals but have been unable to find an authoritative "official"
account of the flights.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:35:17 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

> Sending an Amelia re-enactor to Saipan is a sad commentary on their
> historical rigor.

True.

I don't think the Chautauqua Institute provides scripts or guarantees the
historical accuracy of their re-enactors/impersonators.  When I saw a
Chautauqua performance at University of Nevada in Reno, Nevada, the
historical assertions depended on the performers themselves, some of
whom were UNR faculty.  They gave a talk on their historical character
"in character" and answered questions "in character", too.  That means
that there is a high degree of imrovisation going on in any presentation. 

Perhaps we can hope that in some bright future, there will be a Ric Gillespie
impersonator touring the South Pacific and explaining how he solved the
mystery of the final flight and made the world safe for accurate and
responsible historical investigation.  :o)

LTM & the boys.

                Marty #2359
*************************************************************
From Ric

ouch!
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:40:13 EDT
From:         Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: Merrill-Lambie radio communication

Very interesting.Is there a similar radio equipment list for 10E of AE/FN
on the Howland flight?
LTM
Mike J.#2591 (still knee deep but walking towards shore.)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Like everything else about the Earhart flight, the radio set-up is a point
of contention.  TIGHAR's Earhart Project Book (8th edition) contains an
excellent chapter by Mike Everette detailing the known radios and antennas.
The big point of contention is whether or not there was an additional Bendix
DF receiver aboard the airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:45:32 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Alan -- Your "guess" caught my attention.

I had "guessed" that the flight was actually to the south of Howland. The
only real reason was the timeline with Betty's notebook. With a new theory
that what Betty heard  may have taken place on Monday, it may change things.

My navigation skills and tools have proven over and over to be lacking, so....
Has anyone been able to follow a 157 heading to Niku from a point north of
Howland and managed stay far enough from any of the other islands, yet still
be close enough to Niku to see it?

Bob
************************************************************************
From Ric

I've always thought that the flight probably hit the LOP well south of Howland
and the Monte Carlo simulation commissioned by the Navy also put it there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:46:47 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

> Perhaps we can hope that in some bright future,
> there will be a Ric Gillespie impersonator touring
> the South Pacific

There already IS a Ric Gillespie impersonator touring the South Pacific.
The real one retired many years ago sitting in a rocker with the cat,
occasionally going out to the back yard to pet the horse.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:52:02 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

Ric et al,

The appearance of the Chatauqua Amelia Earhart is of course a tourist/publicity
deal for the Chamber of Commerce. After all they have the Garapan prison, where
some anti-Tigharites, believe she was held by the Japanese as sort of a POW .
You can see her intitials on the wall, some say.

My friend in Saipan will forward the news article and photos of her appearance
for forum update.

The Earhart impersonator, overheard by some, said something like " With my
compass and radio screwed up, I'll just head for Gardner Island by the Norwich
City. .Fred do we have enough gas?" Hard to believe, eh. 
Ron B.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Nobody would buy such a story.

What do you wanna bet they have the impersonator wearing a leather flying helmet?
All Amelia impersonators wear flying helmets and leather jackets. That's how
you know they're authentic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:55:50 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      KJ's figures and navigation

KJ's advice infers continually varying airspeeds as fuel is used up on each
rpm setting. What is the most likely scenario as to how AE made use of this
information?

For any accurate form of wind based heading calculation, Fred needed to predict
a constant airspeed or at least to be able to use an average airspeed. The
problem then is that the average airspeed derived from the previous leg would
be of little use when the settings and hence average airspeed were different.

Comments?
Regards Angus
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Everything we have from Amelia suggests that she flightplanned 150 mph - period.
What speeds the aircraft actually flew on various legs is anybody's guess but it
seems safe to assume that AE kept it simple.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:57:53 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

It ain't about historic rigor or accuracy - it's about "entertainment", theatrics
and new age "feel good" education. The facts be damned, but maybe the folks in
Saipan will get edicated.

LTM,
Dave Bush
*********************************************************************
From Ric

I see.  Sort of like television news.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:05:45 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Monte Carlo simulation

The Monte Carlo simulation was performed my myself, and not sponsored by the Navy.
******************************************************************
From Ric

I guess I had an incorrect perception of that episode.  I was under the impression
that you asked the company that wanted to sell Monte Carlo simulation software to
the Navy to use the Earhart flight as a demonstration of their product.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:08:31 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Ric wrote:

> I've always thought that the flight probably hit the LOP well south of
> Howland and the Monte Carlo simulation commissioned by the
> Navy also put it there

I've probably guessed they were north, south, east, and west of Howland at
one time or another for whatever value a guess is.

My reasoning for putting them north and east is this. If they actually over
flew Tabiteuea during the night and knew where they were (two serious IFs) 
Noonan had been facing stronger headwinds and from the NE up to that point.
The winds given by the Itasca that morning showed lighter winds and from
the east, slightly off Noonan's starboard. If he took up a no wind heading
to Howland from there the wind would have gently moved him north of course
a little bit, not much, and the weaker headwinds would have put him past
Howland when his LOP time was up.

Before anyone thinks too seriously about this keep in mind the required IFs.

1. Noonan overflew Tabiteuea.
2. He knew that.
3. He left Tabiteuea heading directly for Howland.
4. He didn't catch the wind shift or weaker headwind with his drift meter or
     otherwise.

If Noonan DID overfly Tabiteuea and knew it I can't think of a rational
theory for them ending up south of Howland. They would have had to fly
past Howland to get to the LOP and then turn NW or SE if they were really
confused about where they were. I suppose the question is how bad do we
think the navigation was.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:49:45 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Monte Carlo simulation

Doesn't the Monte Carlo simulation also have the plane turning onto a 337/157
heading at a point about 100 miles (nautical miles?) to the southwest of Howland,
rather than intersecting a 337/157 line running through Howland at some point
to the southeast of Howland?  If the plane turned onto this "Monte Carlo" 337/157
heading,  how far to the west of Niku would the plane be at the point of closest
approach?

Incidentally, I spotted a book by Clive Cussler,  "Sea Hunters II",  I believe,
which came out in 2002.  It mentions Cussler meeting up with TIGHAR's search for
White Bird and makes for interesting reading.

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

Yes, the Monte Carlo simulation puts the highest area of probability at 08:43
south and west of Howland.  There is no set distance for how much the plane
would miss Gardner because the simulation doesn't identify a single point but
rather zones of probability.

Cussler never met up with TIGHAR's search for the White Bird in Maine, nor
does he claim to.  In fact, he makes a big deal of the fact that he was
apparently there looking for the plane at the same time we were but we
didn't know it (like we would care). Clive's opinion of TIGHAR is similar
to yours but at least you know how to spell the name of the organization.
You're also a much better writer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:01:56 EDT
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      more Merrill-Lambie

More extracted from the September 1937 T.C. McClary article in Communications:

The technical supervisor of the Daily Express flights was Al Lodwick of Curtiss
Wright. "Huntington, navigation man of EAL" had plotted the constant magnetic
course and Jack Lambie the Lindbergh circle. The latter meant shifting bearings
every twenty or twenty-five minutes, but had the Daily Express been flying with
visibility and sufficient sky for celestial navigation, the shorter Lindbergh
circle would have been followed. Eastbound, flying blind between 4,000 and
8,000 feet all the way across, they had only brief periods of visibility.
There was no violent atmospheric disturbance, but there were solid cloud
layers heavily charged and a series of minor storms.

EAL technician Larry Campbell a year earlier had studied the results of the
Richman-Merrill flight tuned on 6590, 6210, and 500 kc. 6590, 500 (the marine
emergency frequency) and 333 (the international aircraft frequency) kc were
chosen for the Daily Express flights, but during the flights the range of
the lower frequencies was found to be too short for clear transmission,
leading the pilots and Larry Campbell to believe that the higher frequencies
"will prove" most effective. All wiring, magnetos, plugs, generators, etc.
were shielded to prevent interference from ignition, but no means was found
to carry off static accumulated by the plane. "Extensive research in this
direction will be carefully studied before any future distance hops."

Lockheed engineer Jimmy Gerschler had drawn a graph of speed and fuel
consumption along the course. The eastbound flight lasted 21 hours and 2
minutes at an average of 175 m.p.h. "Nothing less than a steady eighty-mile
headwind or hours of continuous sleet and snow could endanger the ship -
except bad radio."

That last sentence says it all. I found the article in my university's
library when Mike Everette asked for volunteers to search for ham radio
reports of contact with AE. Using the university's quite powerful research
resources, I have been unable to find any more details of the Merrill-Lambie
flights. Another relevant article (Anonymous. 1936. "Flying the Pacific by
radio". Electronics, April 1936:6-10) describes in detail the 1936 PAA
communications and direction-finding radio services between California
and the Philippines that supported the Clipper flights. If anyone is
interested, I can post some of that when forum traffic slows and I have
some spare time (ha ha).

Has anyone read George Palmer Putnam's 1942 autobiography, "Wide Margins"?

Dan Brown #2408
****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Dan.  I was not aware that GP had written an autobiography.

It's interesting to note that the Merrill-Lambie flights occurred in
May 1937 and were completed before Earhart's Electra came out of the
repair shop on the 19th. Their experience was, at least in theory,
available to Earhart and Noonan.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:06:24 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Monte Carlo simulation

The Monte Carlo simulation could only take the flight up to the point that
AE says "We must be on you but can't see you", which is well before 0843
local time, if I remember my times correctly.  At the time she said that,
she must have started a search pattern for Howland, and we have no idea
what direction she took.  The MC simulation assumed that the flight
accounted for predicted winds along the flight and that the entire 
flight was dead-reckoned without any navigational fixes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:56:59 EDT
From:         Dean Alexander
Subject:      Re: more Merrill-Lambie

> Has anyone read George Palmer Putnam's 1942 autobiography, "Wide Margins"?

I've read it Dan. Not much useful TIGHAR stuff but I found it interesting.

Dean #2056(I think)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:47:34 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Monte Carlo simulation

Chris writes:

> doesn't the Monte Carlo simulation also have the plane turning
> onto a 337/157 heading at a point..........

Folks, the fact that AE implied they were on a 337/157 LOP and running
north and south doesn't necessarily mean they departed the Howland
area on that heading or course. It may only mean they were conducting
a brief search using that LOP. Projecting that LOP SE from any particular
point is tilting at windmills.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:07:53 EDT
From:         Kyle Langston
Subject:      Itasca Log Entry

Last transmission received by Itasca: Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for
08:43 a.m. July 2, 1937

KHAQQ TO ITASCA WE ARE ON THE LINE 157 337 WE WL REPT MSG WE WL REPT N E S
S THIS ON 6210KCS WAIT, 3105/A3 S5 (?/KHAQQ XMISION WE ARE RUNNING ON LINE 43"

It would appear that Amelia is saying WAIT because Fred is about to tell her
something. Then the ON LINE is received.

Is it thought that this can't possibly mean anything and the entry is an error?

Kyle Langston
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know where you're getting that version of the 08:43 message but it's
very confused and confusing. Take a look at "An Analysis of the 0843 Message"
on the TIGHAR website at:
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/37_ItascaLogs/Itascalog.html

As for the meaning of "wait", I personally agree that she was probably interrupted
by Noonan passing her a note.  I think she paused for several seconds while she
read the note and then said something which was interpreted aboard the Itasca as
"We are running on north and south line".  She never said anything about 43. 
That's a time notation by the operator. 

Remember that AE and FN, although sitting next to each other, probably can't
communicate by voice at all by this point in the flight. There's a lot of room
for error between what Noonan wrote, how AE interpreted what he wrote, and what
they thought they heard aboard Itasca.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:11:05 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Flying the Electra

We have been talking so much about Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra. Would
anyone be interested flying in one? What about those forumites who are
interested in its technicalities? TIGHAR members wanting to learn more of
the Electra? Or does TIGHAR want to try out a few things? I know of one 1937
model available and waiting for work with two pilots to boot. It's not AE's
10E I'm afraid, nor is it Linda Finch's. You'll have to make do with the twin
450 hp 10A model owned by Air Canada. It's not flying this summer because life
is hard for Air Canada these days and the Electra is not flying its annual summer
fund raising circuit for the airline's "Dreams Take Flight" benevolent fund. But
anyone willing to pay for the cost can charter it any time, Captain Alan Macleod
tells me. If TIGHAR members want to find out what flying in a real Lockheed Electra
was like in 1937 and want to enjoy the music of its P&W Wasp engines, all you have
to do is contact alan.macleod@sympatico.ca . It carries eight passengers at a time.
Alan tells me the aircraft is a available anytime. However, it is also being used
in some TV programs in between time, so you better check with him.

LTM (who loved flying the Electra)
**************************************************************
From Ric

Herman, do you know where the airplane will be this summer?  I think they usually
hangar it way out west somewhere.  If it was going to be anywhere near civilization
it might be fun to build a TIGHAR gathering around it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:32:51 EDT
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Air Canada Electra 10A

Ric wrote: 

>I think they usually hangar it way out west somewhere.  If it was going to be
>anywhere near civilization it might be fun to build a TIGHAR gathering around it.

If it is hangared out west somewhere, perhaps we could consider a TIGHAR gathering
in Billings, Montana, heart of the Big Sky Country, and a very civilized place at
that. I'd recommend it, since I live here!

LTM, who liked cowboys and sagebrush,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
**********************************************************
From Robert Klaus
Ric writes:

>I think they usually hangar it way out west somewhere.  If it was
>going to be anywhere near civilization... 

Ric: many of us think of the West as being civilized; electric lights, indoor plumbing
and everything.

LTM Robert Klaus (not #2593)
Portland Oregon
**************************************************
From Ric

I'll take your word for it.

I tend to think of "the West" as anything beyond the Alleghenies.
***************************************************
From Al Jeffries

Rick:  A flight in a 10E could be another fund raising venue.

Al Jeffries
****************************************************
From Herman

It'll be in Montreal next week, according to Alan. That's all I know.
If you want more details I suggest you contact Alan Macleod. He knows
what the schedule is (if any).

LTM

Herman
****************************************************
From Ric

Thanks, I'll do that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:37:28 EDT
From:         Betty Brown
Subject:      Betty's answer

In my memory Dad did not take my book down to the coast guard ....We hadn't
heard her for a little while, I was still waiting to see if I could hear her
anymore.. Dad and Russ decided they better go down, but I kept my book in
case she came back on, to write it in the same place .. I can't remember
if they wrote any of what I had gotten down, to take with them or not...Love Betty
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:41:35 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Monte Carlo simulation

OK, I've mounted my horse, lance at my side and the windmill is in sight....

Enlighten me. I have flown to a point where an island should be. I have a
degree of confidence in my east/west position, but not in my north/south
position. I can't *stop* the plane from moving so it seems to me that I have
to make a decision relatively quickly. What would a pilot and/or navigator
do at this point? I could fly a planned pattern to search for the island and
still get back to my original location, but I can't just fly around looking,
right? If I lose track of my starting point, I have more problems. Why would
I fly anything but the LOP almost immediately upon realizing that I am not
where I should be?

Bob
*********************************************************
From Ric

In my opinion, the LOP is by far your best shot.  Run NW for as long as you
dare, then backtrack and keep going SE until you find something you can land on.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:24:11 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Flying over Tabiteuea

Alan writes:

>My reasoning for putting them north and east is this. If they actually
>over flew Tabiteuea during the night and knew where they were (two
>serious IFs)

As a non-pilot, I have a question. How would a pilot/navigator know (s)he
is over Tabiteuea (or any other specific island) in the middle of the night
with any degree of certainty, especially since the island in question did
not have electricity in 1937?

--
Paige Miller
***********************************************************
From Ric

Good question.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:25:08 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumororo

The way I read Alan's latest posting on 17 April concluding that "Projecting
that LOP SE [337/157] from any particular point is tilting at windmills" as it
may mean only that AE was conducting a brief search in the Howland area using
that LOP.

Maybe so , but it appears you have been "tilting at windmills" looking for
evidence at Niku and will have to change your name to Ric Quixote. As I
understand  the heart and soul of Tighar's theory ,as well as the earlier
predictions in 1937 by the Navy and other experts, following that LOP was
a logical choice. The plane would end up in the Phoenix, most likely Gardner
Island. It was and remains a core theory to her disappearance.

And AE more than "implied" she was on the 337-157 LOP and running north and
south. As the log reports she said "We are on the line 157 337 ..."

Ron Bright aka Sancho
**********************************************************
From Ric

She did say that she was on the line and that she was "running" on the line.
I guess anyone can argue about how long and in which direction, but you are
correct that TIGHAR's initial decision in 1988 to conduct in-depth research
into the islands of the Phoenix Group and particularly McKean and Gardner,
was based upon the logic of an extended southeastward run on the line.  Since
then we've found nothing to suggest Earhart's presence at McKean or any of
the other islands of the group - except Gardner, where we have found an
astonishing amount of information to suggest that the flight ended there.

Did Earhart find Gardner by running southeastward on the LOP?  I dunno. Seems
reasonable, but TIGHAR's focus is on proving where she ended up. Proving how
she got there would be a lot tougher - probably impossible unless we find a
journal or a map or something, which seems pretty unlikely.  The logic of
the southeastward run is a reason to look for evidence on Gardner but it's
not part of the hypothesis that we hope to prove.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 Apr 2003 09:47:35 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

> The logic of the southeastward run is a reason to look for evidence on Gardner
> but it's not part of the hypothesis that we hope to prove.

Good point, but it's still kinda fun.

What navigational options did FN have once he realized Howland wasn't where he
*thought* it should be? Over the next several hours could FN had any success
establishing a new fix? Would he have even tried? How long does it take to
accurately decipher a fix from a moving plane?

Bob
******************************************************************
From Ric

That's a can of worms that has been opened, inspected, sorted, and recanned many
times on this forum. Bottom line:  Yes, he could take more sunshots but the sun's
angle changes very slowly and by the time it had changed enough for him to get a
decent "cut" on the original LOP he would be committed to a course of action.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 Apr 2003 09:58:53 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Ron writes

> The way I read Alan's latest posting on 17 April concluding that "Projecting
> that LOP SE [337/157] from any particular point is tilting at windmills" as
> it  may mean only that AE was conducting a brief search in the Howland area
> using that LOP.

Ron, the LOP as WE know it is a line on a map drawn through Howland at a course
of 157 degrees going through Baker and on down to or near Gardner. It is my
feeling the purpose of the LOP was to find Howland. It had the added benefit of
going through Baker and on down to Gardner BUT ONLY if it went through Howland.
If our heroes were on the LOP and it was actually through Howland then it is
likely they would have found their island. Since they did not find Howland I
would have to conclude they were not on an LOP that went through that island.
In that case whatever course they were on and wherever it actually was it would
not have gone through Baker OR have led directly to Niku. If, however, they were
considerably south of Baker they could have been on an LOP which ran through
Howland but never got that far north. Barring that scenario they would have had
to fly some other course to get to Niku.

This is why I made the statement. The usefulness of the 157 LOP was to find
Howland. Once they realized they weren't going to find Howland on that line
its usefulness ceased. At this time if they were to fly to Niku they had to
figure another course to get there.

Alan
**********************************************************************
From Ric

If Noonan was able to get a good sun shot at or near sunrise he "should" have
been able to get a fairly accurate (within 10 miles) LOP and if he was able to
get a good handle on his groundspeed, either through subsequent sun shots (shooting
"speed lines") or using the drift meter, he "should" have been able to accurately
advance the LOP through Howland's presumed location (which may or may not have been
about 5 miles off).

If you're going to put the airplane on an advanced LOP that does not fall through
(or near) Howland you need to show evidence that Noonan was unable to get one of
those things  - a good dawn sun shot and a good groundspeed.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:02:45 EDT
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Re: Air Canada Electra 10A

If'n you all are a going to be way out west here a looking for a 10A make sure
yous have your shooten iron, cause we still have some of them injuns here.
*******************************************
From Ric

I've written to Capt. McLeod.  I'll let everybody know what I find out.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:21:30 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Flying over Tabiteuea

Paige Miller writes

> As a non-pilot, I have a question. How would a pilot/navigator know
> (s)he is over Tabiteuea (or any other specific island) in the middle of
> the night with any degree of certainty, especially since the island in
> question did not have electricity in 1937?

I echo Ric's reply. Good question. Now I have a question for you both. What
altitude were they at while flying over Tabiteuea if in fact they did? I also
assume you have decided these folks had no way of creating light such as lamps
or fires.

Finally, surf shows up at night but I sure couldn't tell you that above a certain
altitude it can't be seen.

Alan
***************************************************************
From Ric

As you know, no one can say at what altitude the plane was flying.  I have seen
Tabiteuea from the air in broad daylight from about 30,000 feet aboard an Air Nauru
(correction - aboard THE Air Nauru) 737 en route from Fiji to Tarawa.  Tabiteuea
is a 50 mile-long, very skinny atoll oriented roughly north and south.  We were
flying northward parallel to the atoll perhaps 20 miles to the west. I couldn't
see the whole thing at one time because of the scattered clouds below but I knew
that it had to be Tabiteuea because nothing else out there is that long.  Had we
been flying eastward and only been able to see the thin strip of land as we passed
over it, there would have been no way to tell whether it was Tabituea, Nonouti,
Abemama, or Coney Island.  Had it been nighttime and I had seen only a white
line of surf and an occasional campfire....you see my point.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:31:46 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumororo

> If Noonan was able to get a good sun shot at or near sunrise he "should"
> have been able to get a fairly accurate (within 10 miles) LOP

Old controversy but that sunrise sunshot is good for a heading check but not
for the LOP. The distortion inaccuracies are too great. not until the sun is
up 7 to 10 degrees could he achieve decent accuracy but he "should" have had
that opportunity.

If any of the "shoulds" had materialized he "would" have found Howland and we
would be hunting for the White Bird and Nauticos and Elgin would be off the East
coast of Florida hunting for you know what.

As far as I can see the only reason they didn't find Howland was their navigation
was not sufficiently accurate and/or environmental conditions (which has nothing
to do with Spotted Owls or saving the seals) precluded their seeing the Island
however close they may have been.

Alan
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Barring interception by space aliens or Zeros from the Akagi, I think we can all
agree that either their navigation was not sufficiently accurate or environmental
conditions prevented them from seeing what was right under their noses.  The
latter possibility presumes accurate navigation.

Considering the former possibility, the question becomes what aspect of their
navigation was not sufficiently accurate.  You suggest that they were unable
to get information that we all agree they "should" have been able to get.  I
suggest that they failed to get information (i.e. an accurate north/south
position) that I think we all agree was much more difficult to get - especially
without help from the DF.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:29:39 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Alan Caldwell/Monte Carlo Analysis

The results of the Monte Carlo analysis (discussed in the 8th Edition) are an
interesting read concerning the issues raised over the last several days by
Alan Caldwell.  It's best to actually read it oneself, with the TIGHAR website
maps handy, rather than just heard it described over the Forum.

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:18:06 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumororo

Ric wrote

> I suggest that they failed to get information (i.e. an accurate north/south
> position) that I think we all agree was much more difficult to get -
> especially without help from the DF.

Absolutely. I agree that was the most difficult part of their navigation if
Noonan only had the sun to navigate by and once the sun was up that is true.
Prior to that he had other celestial bodies to use and the period when he
didn't was not very long before he was due to hit Howland.

The sun rose at about 6:15 at Howland but at that time it was still dark where
Noonan was. He thought he was over Howland at 7:42 which is just an hour and a
half later.  Electra would have been less than two hundred miles west of Howland
when Howland was experiencing sunrise. How far afield is he going to get in that
short of a distance? A better question is how far north or south of Howland could
he be and not see the island and the folks on the Itasca and on Howland not hear
the plane. At 1,000' my guess is nine miles. Doesn't take much.

So let's say he is nine miles north or south of Howland but he still needs to be
short or long in order to miss both Howland and Baker during his search.

Because the headwind fell off I suggest he was probably long. How far? Well, it
wouldn't take more than nine miles again. BTW the nine mile figure is how far one
can see from 1,000 feet. Bottom line is that they could have been almost right
on navigation wise and even with good visibility missed Howland.

Alan
**********************************************************************
From Ric

You're making the assumption that Noonan had his position nailed via a multiple-body
fix shortly before sunrise.  His known performance on previous trips does not
support that assumption.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:20:36 EDT
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Info for Bruce Yoho

Re "injuns"

I read your little blurb and feel I must correct you. This is the 21st. century,
indigenous people are called American Natives. Please don't worry, they all own
casinos now.
*******************************************************************
From Ric

I knew somebody would clobber him for that.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:23:19 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Flying over Tabiteuea

Ric wrote:

> Had it been nighttime and I had seen only a white line of surf and an occasional
> campfire....you see my point.

I was just answering Paige Miller's question, Ric. He asked, 

> How would a
> pilot/navigator know (s)he is over Tabiteuea (or any other specific island)
> in the middle of the night with any degree of certainty, .......

I don't believe our heroes ever saw Tabiteuea or if they did were able to identify
it. I don't think anyone has suggested that seriously.

Alan
***************************************************************
From Ric

Nice retreat. :-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:40:21 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumororo

Did CDR Thompson state somewhere that he believed at the time he headed NW on
337 that the Earhart msg of "We are on line 337-157..." was most likely bisecting
(arbitraily) Howland and on down to the Phoenix.

Or did he simply feel that Noonan was 10 miles east or west of that "line" and he
looked southeast, saw it was clear, then looked northwest, saw it was cloudy some
40 plus miles away, and thus elected to go in that direction rather than southeast?

I probably am not framing this question well. In other words how did Thompson
interpret the " line ": sunline, dead reckoning line advanced forward, or as
simply a compass bearing AE was on at the time the last msg, then added what
the visibility was to make his fateful decision.

LTM,
Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thompson did not recognize the connection between Earhart's "157/337" statement
and the navigational logic of an LOP advanced through the destination.  It was
the Naval aviators at Fleet Air Base, Pearl Harbor later that evening who first
understood the significance of what she had said.  All Thompson knew was that the
plane had been somewhere close by but had failed to show up at Howland.  Earhart's
announcement at 07:42 that "gas is running low" was ( I believe erroneously)
reported by the second radio operator as "only half hour gas left".  Up until
that moment, the crew of the Itasca had believed that the plane had enough fuel
to remain aloft until at least noon. Now they accepted as fact that, for whatever
reason, it was nearly out of gas.  Having made that leap they never looked back,
even after it became obvious that the plane was still aloft and following some
sort of navigation procedure an hour later.

Thompson searched to the northwest for no more sophisticated reason than because
that's where the clouds were thickest.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:42:00 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumororo

Alan, you're starting to sound more and more like me!

LaPook
*****************************************************
From Ric

I thought we said no personal attacks. :-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:46:18 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumororo

OR....AE refused to follow the advice of her navigator and went off on some
tangent thinking that she "knew best."
  gl
******************************************************************
From Ric

OR...was abucted by space aliens.  I think we've shown that whatever happened
on the coast of Africa, Earhart did not disregard Noonan's instructions as she
later claimed.  Much later, after the aborted flight from Rangoon in which
Noonan got them back to the airport in a blinding rainstorm, Earhart expressed
great admiration for Noonan's navigational abilities.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:52:43 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

A bottom-line question for Alan Caldwell:   From everything you've seen and
read about what transpired on the flight, and from your own experience/knowledge,
what do you think was the navigational situation the flight faced vis-a-vis 
the Howland approach early morning on 7/2 (e.g., how close do you think they
could have thought they were), and, based on this, what would you have done
to get the plane to Howland if you were in Noonan's position?  I know this is
a difficult question, as it involves "putting yourself into the mind" of Noonan,
but I have to believe from all your postings, including your most recent ones
over the last few days,  that you thought this over a great deal.  Now is your
chance to give us your opinion and ideas.  This is not a "trick" question, I
am really interested in what you have to say.

--Chris Kennedy
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:59:33 EDT
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Info for Bruce Yoho

For Lawrence:

I think the correct term is "aboriginal Americans"... I'm a Native American,
having been born here, and I'm as white as George Will. <grin>

Dave (#2585)
****************************************************************************
From Ric

But the aboriginal Americans were immigrants like the rest of us and modern day
aboriginal Americans were born here just like you which makes them Native Americans
too - so none of the terminology is strictly accurate.  All such labels are terms
of art so the fairest thing would seem to be to let them decide what they would
like to called.

And I'll be darned if I can figure out what any of this has to do with Amelia
Earhart or Bruce Yoho.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:06:25 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      New Britain

What would normally be considered to be a safe minimum horizontal separation
to give the Electra from the island of New Britain with its 6,650ft mountains,
assuming one was flying at 8,000ft and in cloud? Are there any examples of the
sort of safety zone Fred gave to high mountains in other situations? Do we have
any idea of the approximate ceiling of the Electra at its Lae take-off weight?

Regards Angus.
******************************************************************
From Ric

I guess it would depend on how confident you were about the accuracy of your
altimeter, but if it was accurate at takeoff just a few hours ago it should
not be 1,000 feet off even if you passed through a major change in barometric
pressure (which, as far as I know, they did not),  In short,  I wouldn't worry
about it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:08:21 EDT
From:         Joe Weber
Subject:      Re: Info for Bruce Yoho

A "Native American" is anyone born in the western hemisphere.  Let us not abuse
the English language and words which have clear concise meanings. The "red
Indians", per the Brits, don't particularly care for the 'Native American'
misnomer.

Joe Weber
Bedford, IN
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Is there a consensus about what term they prefer? =========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:09:12 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Alan, check your math. The distance (in nautical miles) that you can see an object
on the surface  from an airplane is approximately equal to the square root of the
altitude in feet above the surface. The square root of 1,000 is approximately 32.
( The exact formula is 1.15 times the square root of the height in feet. Square
root of 1,000 is 31.6 times 1.15 equals 36.3 NM and is the value given in table
8 of Bowditch.)

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:11:32 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

> You're making the assumption that Noonan had his position nailed via a
> multiple-body fix shortly before sunrise.  His known performance on previous
> trips does not support that assumption.

This may be true and I am rather inclined to agree. Just to argue devil's
advocate for a moment however (and its not easy), perhaps the assumption is
still valid nonetheless. We should probably assume that if he could have got
a fix at that time he would have done so. Would he have relied entirely on a
last chance DF unless he had no other option?

If then he did not get this fix or another not too long before, the most likely
culprit ought to be the weather rather than habit. They should have still been
at height and so this further implies fairly good cloud cover up perhaps to
10,000ft (because if the tops were lower there is little reason why Fred would
not have asked AE to climb to get this important fix). However, the weather at
Howland was in fact only "part cloudy", similarly reported by AE on the other
side of the dawn line earlier in the morning. Bear in mind too that winds were
generally from the Howland direction (NE to E - a good description of their
intended course) and so the cloud experienced a couple of hundred miles out
was not perhaps so different as it was at Howland 15 hours earlier. The weather
at the time seemed relatively stable. Certainly Colorado experienced similar
weather even up to a week later (THIN scattered clouds at 2000 wind NE to E)
to that at Howland that day (part cloudy - 5/10 at 2650 wind NE to E) . There
is therefore some reason to assume the weather conditions were similar. I
seem to remember someone commenting on recording weather at Canton and
describing it as the most boring job in the world because it was always
the same - light easterly winds.

Unless we assume that the scattered cloud was maybe 7,500ft or more deep,
rather than the thin cloud experienced by Colorado later in the week, it
is perhaps arguable that Fred did get the fix. I can't say I'm convinced
though!

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:12:28 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Gary LaPook wrote:

> Alan, you're starting to sound more and more like me!
>
> LaPook
> *****************************************************
> From Ric
>
> I thought we said no personal attacks. :-)

That was vicious - from both of you.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:13:19 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Ric wrote:

> You're making the assumption that Noonan had his position nailed via a
> multiple-body fix shortly before sunrise.

No, just the possibility. Not even in the probability category.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:14:16 EDT
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Info for Bruce Yoho

Ric wrote:

> ...All such labels are terms of art so the fairest thing would seem to be to
> let them decide what they would like to called.

Point taken.

LTM,
Dave #2585
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:17:07 EDT
From:         John Barrett
Subject:      wreck photo update

Was anything conclusive ever learned either way about the wreck photo? Obviously,
it doesn't locate the plane in the photo, but it would answer the question of
whether or not AE and FN made landfall.
****************************************************************
From Ric

To really be conclusive we'll need to get Jeff Glickman to do a forensic imaging
analysis but there appears to be a significant discrepancy between the cowling
opening dimensions of Earhart's Lockheed 10 and the wreck photo airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:21:01 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      A valid assumption?

Would it be fair to assume that AE's early report of "part cloudy" meant that
she was either below or in the cloud? If she was above the cloud, looking down
she would perhaps find it difficult to see the extent of the cloud cover by a
waning moon and starlight. If on the other hand she was in the cloud, the aircraft's
lights would show up the broken cloud. Similarly if she was below the cloud the
partial cover would be apparent from intermittent glimpses of the stars.

Regards Angus.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I wouldn't be comfortable drawing any conclusions from that phrase about whether
she was above, in, or below the clouds.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:05:31 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: wreck photo update

Plus the rivet pattern in the nose of the Wreck doesn't fit the rivet pattern
of an Electra's nose.

LTM,
Dave Bush
*******************************************************************
From Mark # 1214C
As a "lurker", albeit a TIGHARite in my own way,  I occasionally feel compelled to
state a modest opinion. The proverbial "wreck photo" is not a Lockheed 10 of any
description. I have shared a printout of the photo with a group of local "geezers"
that still play with old airplanes and are good at what they do, and they say it
is something else. Maybe Japanese copy of something but not a Lockheed product.
The local thought favors the TIGHAR theory (but not without debate } that AE and
FN would have done their best to finally put their butts on some piece of land
somewhere..somehow, rather than land in the water. I sank once but it was in a
river and I could swim ashore. Land is far more favorable

       PS: Watch for floating stuff in rivers.
       LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:07:22 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Interesting. Over the weekend I was watching an episode of Modern Marvels on
the St. Louis Arch. They said on a clear day you could see about 30 miles --
this was from the observation deck at about 630 feet. I don't know how believable
that distance is, but it would appear to agree with the math given below. 

>>The exact formula is 1.15 times the square root of the height in feet.<<

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:13:42 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Angus says:

> We should probably assume that if he could have got a fix at that time he
> would have done so. Would he have relied entirely on a last chance DF
> unless he had no other option?

Angus, it may be we are making too much of the navigation and weather issues.
At 1,000' the horizon was about 9 miles away. Nine miles is well within an
average sun shot error so if Noonan was only nine miles off they would have
never seen Howland and the plane would not have been heard from the Itasca.

Error is circular meaning if they were only nine miles off it could have been
in any direction. Suppose, for example, they were nine miles NE of Howland
when they thought they were over the island. At that point they could turn
to 157 and fly for a while then reverse course to the NW and finally back
to the SE without ever seeing Howland OR Baker. That scenario satisfies the
following points.

1. their navigation was excellent
2. they could not see Howland or Baker
3. they were not heard

That is without even adding in the cloud shadows or the sun's glare.

Now before anyone runs with this I am not suggesting that's what happened but
I think it is one possibility. Now I  know Ric would also suggest they could
have been south. True. They could have been west of Howland or east of Howland
also. The point is they didn't have to be very far afield to miss Howland.
Noonan could have done an excellent job of navigating , made no errors and
come within normal celestial limits and still missed Howland.

Alan
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Your nine miles is dead wrong but, from a practical standpoint, probably not
far off.  Pellegrino had a very hard time finding Howland from a thousand feet
under weather conditions that were probably similar to those on July 2, 1937. 
They saw it from an estimated ten miles away after much searching.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:16:04 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Chris Kennedy wrote:

> what do you think was the navigational situation the flight faced vis-a-vis the
> Howland approach early morning on 7/2 (e.g., how close do you think they could
> have thought they were), and, based on this, what would you have done to get the
> plane to Howland if you were in Noonan's position?

Chris, I know exactly how close they thought they were. AE said "we must be on you"
so I have to assume they thought they were over Howland. As to the rest of your
question I would have to make up assumptions before suggesting what should be
done and that's not productive. By that I mean ensuing actions would be dependent
on Noonan's assessment of his navigational accuracy, what the actual cloud cover
was, what the visibility was, what glare, if any, there was. I don't know the
answers to any of those issues. I don't know whether at 1,000' Noonan had a stable
celestial platform and an adequate view of the sun. I don't know if there was
another celestial object visible enough to use.

All that aside and assuming there was no reasonable way to further check
his position he would be left with exercising some type of search pattern.
He would have to then assess how long he could search before looking for
land in some other place.

Given all the circumstances and limitations existing on that day I'm sure
they did all they could to locate Howland and I don't see how I or anyone
else could have done more.

My recent postings have only been suggestions of possibilities and to imply
that it was not necessary for our heroes to have made ANY errors whatsoever
and still have obtained the same result.

They lost the game because of DF and radio failings.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:29:32 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Info for Bruce Yoho

Ric wrote:

> Is there a consensus about what term they prefer?

It seems not.

There were over 500 tribes living in what the Europeans in 1507 decided to
call "America," the feminine form of the baptismal name of Amerigo Vespucci.

There was no one language for the 500 tribes.

There was no one word in the languages of the original inhabitants that described
all 500 tribes as a group distinct from the Europeans who took possession of the
lands the tribes had occupied.

Columbus called them "Indians" because he thought he had arrived in India.  Many
people tried to call the new world Columbia in his honor, but they lost the naming
rights to the folks who wanted to call the 'new' world "America."

As several people have pointed out, anyone born in the Americas is a "native"
American, because "native" is derived from the past participle of nascor, natus,
which means "born" in Latin.

The National Congress of American Indians claims to be the oldest (1944) and
largest group representing tribal governments.  They seem to have kept the name
"Indians" because it is a term used by the U.S. government in enacting legislation
on behalf of the many different sovereign nations which exist within the United
States.  From my own very limited personal experience and from what I've heard
from other Jesuits, some Indians like to be called Indians and some do not--hence
the multiplication of terms (Amerindians, native Americans, first inhabitants,
original peoples, etc.).

The problem is not directly relevant to finding out where AE & FN ended their
flight in July of 1937. It does illustrate the problem of doing historical
research and communicating the results in terms that are intelligible and
useful to the intended audience.  There is no "scientific method" for 
determining the proper terms to be used in ethnography, the study of groups
of people.  Each researcher makes choices based on their own intuition,
taste and temperament.

TIGHAR does face a somewhat similar situation with respect to Gardner/Nikumaroro.
We tend to prefer the name given to the island by the people who moved there
under the auspices of the Pacific Islands Settlement Scheme, but (as far as I
can tell) the name was not officially changed until after the island was
abandoned in 1963.

                    Marty #2359
*********************************************
From Ric

I think, technically, the name Nikumaroro (which had been used by the Gilbertese
settlers since October 1937) didn't become the official name of the island until
it was part of the independent nation of Kiribati (pronounced KIRibas - the 
Gilbertese pronunciation "Gilberts") in 1979.

As an arbitrary convention, I tend to refer to the place as Gardner when speaking
about events surrounding the Earhart disappearance and Nikumaroro when speaking
about the later settlement.  When speaking about our expeditions I often use our
affectionate appellation "Niku" which, interestingly enough, seems to have caught
on in Tarawa.  My passport is stamped "Republic of Kiribati - Port of Niku".
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:48:06 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Gary wrote:

> Alan, check your math. The distance (in nautical miles) that you can see an
> object on the surface  from an airplane is approximately equal to the
> square root of the altitude in feet above the surface. The square root of
> 1,000 is approximately 32.  ( The exact formula is 1.15 times the square root
>of the height in feet.  Square root of 1,000 is 31.6 times 1.15 equals 36.3 NM
>and is the value given in table 8 of Bowditch.)

Gary, I have no clue now where I got the 9 mile figure but you are correct it is
wrong. I used some calculator on the web but obviously it was not right. I've found
several different formulas all arriving at nearly the same result.

                           d = sqrt(2*R*h/b)

This seems to be the most correct of them all. Where d is the distance in nm, R
is the radius of the earth (3,440.1nm), and b is 0.8279 taking into consideration
of the refraction and distortion. They factored the latter two into 1.17. At
1,000' that formula gives a result of 36.99 nm.

The corrected distance requires a revision in my suggestion of how close AE
could have been to Howland, obviously. Not knowing what the actual visibility
was it would be only a guess but I'm willing to hazard a figure of around
twenty or so miles based on my experience in the Atlantic near the Azores and
Bermuda and in the Pacific near Wake and Guam.

Conditions change a lot so it could have been most any reasonable figure. The
bottom line is that I would concede it was more likely Noonan's navigation could
have been more in error than the minimum I suggested.

While on this discussion can anyone provide a better distance those R1340s could
have been heard?

On the Itasca it would have been somewhat noisy on deck and as I recall on
Howland there was a generator running. While neither should preclude anyone
from hearing the plane there could have been at least some degradation. However,
assuming quiet in both cases what would be a reasonable range to hear the plane?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:37:58 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Itasca radio volume on voice

Ric and radio experts,

Carrington writes that a check of  ITASCA'S voice strength volume was not
required after AE left Lae with San Francisco. He wrote that the fact "that
the Coast Guard radio operators failed to confirm the Itasca's voice strength
in the pre-tests  arouses suspicion as to why Earhart could not hear  the ITASCA's
radio transmissions" as she approached Howland. He cites the SF Coast Guard
division records that " no reply as to voice strength was received", in tests
with the ITASCA. The code transmissions were okay. [Carrington,"Earhart", p.135]

The way I read this is that he is maintaining that ITASCA'S voice transmissions
were not adequate and may have contributed to Earhart's difficulty or inability
in hearing the transmissions on 3105. 

The question is did SF or any other Coast Guard station clearly hear and record
ITASCA'S transmissions to Earhart during the 20 plus hour flight? Obviously
SF was monitoring ITASCA. If so one could compare logs.

Did Coast Guard SF hear any of Earhart's transmissions during the flight.

Notwithstanding Carrington's other controversial speculations, I thought this
was a different wrinkle on why AE didn't hear ITASCA viz-a-viz the loss of
her antenna or receiver failure.

LTM,
Ron Bright
************************************************************************
From Ric

There are no logs from Coast Guard San Francisco (COMFRANDIV) but any messages
COMFRANDIV sent to ITASCA are a matter of record and are on the Research CD.
I wasn't aware that COMFRANDIV had ever tried to check ITASCA's voice transmissions.
That would seem very strange.  I wouldn't expect San Francisco to be able to copy
any voice transmissions at that distance.  All communication between COMFRANDIV
and ITASCA was in code.  Only ITASCA heard Earhart's inflight transmissions.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:39:48 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Ric wrote:

> Your nine miles is dead wrong but, from a practical standpoint, probably not
> far off.  Pellegrino had a very hard time finding Howland from a thousand
> feet under weather conditions that were probably similar to those on July 2,
> 1937.  They saw it from an estimated ten miles away after much searching.

My feeling is that this is overly conservative. Colorado pilots could clearly
see the submerged Carondelet reef from ten miles in very similar weather
onditions. Visibility on the 2nd was described by Itasca as unlimited. Niku
is documented as visible from the deck of a sailing ship at 15 miles in good
weather. I would not be in the least suprised if it could be seen from over
20 miles at 1000 ft in the air in the right conditions. But those conditions
are crucial. Cloud shadows, haze, height of the aircraft, direction of the
sun compared with the direction of flight, availability of binoculars, etc
all have a big impact on visibility and a comparison with Pellegrino's flight
on a different day of a different year doesn't mean a lot. It also makes a
huge difference if you know exactly in which direction to look. If your
navigation is off you may be concentrating your attention in the wrong area.
If Fred was as good as Alan gives him credit for, they should have been
confident enough to concentrate their visual search on a very narrow angle
of view. The Colorado pilots seem to have had little difficulty in successfully
navigating to all the islands and this good navigation probably meant they
spotted places early because they were looking in the right direction.

However, even erring on the side of caution, I think 15 miles would be a fair
assumption, (less than half the distance to the horizon at 1000ft).

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:40:33 EDT
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      More useless trivia?

Marty Moleski said: " . . . "native" is derived from the past participle of
nascor, natus, which means "born" in Latin."

From which we derive "natal" and thus natatorium?

LTM, who is in swimmingly good health
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:46:18 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Alan brings up  THE most interesting aspect about her actions that underlies
the foundation of the Earhart disappearance; namely what did Amelia do after
she said she was "circling (or listening)" at 7:58, about sixteen minutes
after she thought she "must be" on Itasca at 7:42.

Alan wrote as a possibility that  at some time " he (Noonan) would be left
with exercising some type of search pattern." I  agree . Yet apparently in
conflict with that decision, the next radio transmission (8:44)  from Amelia
indicates she was flying on the line of position 157-337, running north and
south, suggesting she didn't follow a   search pattern but instead  opted
to continue looking for Howland using the sunline method of approach.

Some bet the farm that after running north and south and not finding Howland,
she decided to fly southeast on 157 with her belief she had sufficient gas to 
find a dry atoll, perhaps Gardner. Others think she went for plan b, and
reversed course back to the Gilberts.

Therein lies the mystery. And researchers are spending big bucks on what they
assume happened. No real consensus yet, although Tighar has found some
promising evidence at Gardner, yet to be confirmed.

LTM,
REB
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Running on the 157/337 line IS the search pattern.

>Some bet the farm that after running north and south and not finding Howland,
>she decided to fly southeast on 157 with her belief she had sufficient gas to
>find a dry atoll, perhaps Gardner.

No, no, no - for the hundredth time.  There was never a decision to abandon
the search for Howland and look for someplace else to land.  It's possible
that a second sun shot later in the morning revealed that they were south of
Howland but by then it was too late to turn back.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:51:06 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      AE on instruments

I gather that AE was not experienced on instruments. Would one be correct in
assuming that certainly in dense cloud she would be keen to  reduce altitude
(as the tops in the tropics can be very high) asap to avoid having to concentrate
continually on the instruments to avoid a spiral dive etc? Since disorientation
from flying in even broken cloud at night is not uncommon would she not take
the same action under those conditions?

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Earhart was not uncomfortable flying on instruments and her Sperry Gyropilot did
most of the work for her anyway.  Almost the entire South Atlantic crossing was
done in solid cloud.  If there was any motivation to descend below the cloud bases
(other than to search for Howland) it would be to avoid turbulence in significant
buildups but, absent a major weather system, that should not have been a problem at night.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:54:53 EDT
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Ric wrote:

> Your nine miles is dead wrong but, from a practical standpoint, probably not
> far off.  Pellegrino had a very hard time finding Howland from a thousand
> feet under weather conditions that were probably similar to those on July 2,
> 1937.  They saw it from an estimated ten miles away after much searching.

We've all read the "log" of Finch's flight, but did Pellegrino publish anything
other than what appeared in National Geographic?

Th' WOMBAT
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I wasn't aware that Ann Pellegreno had anything in National Geo.  Her book "World
Flight" was published by Iowa State University Press in 1971
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:58:35 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      CDR Thompson Dies Suddenly

I finally found  CDR Thompson's obituaries appearing in two of Ketchican, Alaska
newspapers on 1 Sept 1939. He was 53, and died of a sudden "heart attack".  The
usual biography follows and survivors were his wife, son Frank, age 13, and Ens
W.K. Thompson, also in the Coast Guard. Of interest to us was a note: "CDR T.
became prominent in world news in the historic search for Amelia Earhart...whose
plane was lost in mid-Pacific in 1937. ...then in Command of the cutter ITASCA...
he was the last person to hear her voice by radio." [The Alaska Fishing News and
the Ketchican Alaska Chronicle, both of 1 Sep 39 ]

After the ITASCA search, he was assigned to a cutter at Port Angeles, Wa in 1937,
then to Ketchican on 11 July 39 to establish a headquarters at Juneau. This was
his first divisional command.

I am trying to track down his sons who may have some of CDR Thompson's journals,
or memorabilia regarding the "historic" search. It seems to me that he would have 
written something outside official channels that might have reflected his personal
opinion.

LTM,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:59:26 EDT
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: Info for Bruce Yoho

Up a ways in Canada, they all call themselves "First Nations"....   Even though the
Gov Dept overseeing them is still called an "insulting" Dept of Indian Affairs....

Christian D
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:07:50 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Given the tiny size of Howland and its flatness (isn't it about a mile or so
across), shouldn't there also have been a slight east/west component of any
search pattern even if you thought you had essentially nailed the LOP through
Howland?

Also, thanks Mr. Caldwell, for your answer to my question.

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

The problem is a practical one.  When there is nothing down below but open ocean
(which all looks the same) the only information you have about where you are is
by keeping very close track of what you have done since the last time you knew where
you were.

In this case, all they knew (or thought they knew) was that they were someplace on
a 157/337 line that passes through Howland.  If you leave that line, how will you
get back to it?  Timed legs?  What if the wind changes? How big an East/West component
do you want? Ten miles?  Twenty miles?  Are you going to fly an expanding box (a
"square search")?  If so, you won't be able to explore nearly as far along the line
because you'll use so much fuel going back and forth.  More to the point, would you
describe a square search as "running on the line"?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:03:33 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Thompson and the radio log.

What do you think the reason was that Thompson added "overcast" to the radio log?
What did he have to gain from adding such a comment if it was not actually heard?
Is it possible he half-remembered the "part cloudy" comment from the next message
an hour or so later but seeing no reference to cloud in the 15:15GMT message thought
it appropriate to add what he believed he had been told at the time?

> Or did he simply feel that Noonan was 10 miles east or west of that "line"
> and he looked southeast, saw it was clear, then looked northwest, saw it was
> cloudy some 40 plus miles away, and thus elected to go in that direction
> rather than southeast?

What were the exact words describing the weather to the northwest and what was said
about how far away it was?

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

In researching the answer to Angus' questions I came upon something interesting.  It
appears that the "cloudy to the northwest" reason for searching first in that direction
was something of an afterthought.  The most contemporaneous records - the deck log and
the radio log - make no mention of cloudy weather to the northwest.  The first mention
of Thompson's estimate of what happened comes in a message he sent to Coast guard San
Francisco at 19:40 local time that evening (excerpt):

EARHART APPARENTLY HANDICAPPED THROUGH NITE BY CLOUDY WEATHER AS PORTIONS OF RECEIVED
MESSAGES INDICATED OVERCAST AND CLOUDY WEATHER. EARHART DIRECTION FINDER APPARENTLY
NOT FUNCTIONING AS WELL, AS SHE COULD NOT GET CUT ON ITASCA ON AGREED FREQUENCIES.  
EARHART HAD BARELY SUFFICIENT FUEL UNDER THE CONDITIONS TO MAKE HOWLAND. THOUGHT CLOSE
TO HOWLAND AT 0758 WHEN CIRCLING TRYING TO PICK UP LAND AND ATTEMPTS ITASCA TO GIVE
EARHART RADIO BEARINGS FAILED AFTER THOROUGH TESTS BOTH WAYS. BELIEF BASED ON SIGNAL
STRENGTH ONLY THAT AT 0758 EARHART PASSED CLOSE TO AND TO NORTHWARD OF HOWLAND AS
BELIEVED THAT SHE WOULD HAVE SEEN BAKER ISLAND IF PASSING TO SOUTHWARD.

At the time this message was sent it had been 9 hours since ITASCA departed Howland
to begin searching for Earhart.  The allegation that she had mentioned overcast
conditions during the night (although unsupported by the original log) has already
emerged.  Her "barely sufficient fuel" is stated as fact, as is the guess that she
said she was "circling".  There is no mention of cloudy weather to the northwest
of Howland.  North is given as the most likely area because she would have seen Baker
if she was south. 

The "clouds to the northwest" justification does not appear in Thompson's "Radio
Transcripts - Earhart Flight" dated July 19, 1937.  It is not until his "Cruise
Report" dated July 24, 1937 that the reason for searching to the north changes.
In that document, he begins his list of "Assumptions" with: "(a) That plane obtained
no fix during latter part of flight due to visibility and assumed further this due
to flying in cloudy weather and conditions which did not exist south and east of
Howland but did exist north and west." There is no mention of the Baker Island
rationale.

So, to answer your question, I think an explanation for an inexplicable event
evolved in Thompson's mind and became fact.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:13:20 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

I can never get the concept that she didn't at some time abandon the "search for
Howland". If after she turned south and ran 100 miles or so, gas running low, 
and no Howland, she must have at some time continued on knowing she missed the
target. Why else would she continue down that line.

By search pattern, I and Alan, I think, were referring to a box type pattern as
illustrated in many of the books, not just the "pattern" of the LOP.

LTM,
Ron Bright
****************************************************************************
From Ric

At what point do you abandon the search for Howland?  How do you go about doing
that? You don't know how far off you were and you've already looked to the NW as
far as your dared.  The longer you go southeastward without finding anything the
more you may suspect that you should have gone farther to the NW, but there is
nothing you can do about it at this point.  You have to continue SE.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:08:38 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: AE on instruments

> Earhart was not uncomfortable flying on instruments
> and her Sperry Gyropilot did most of the work for her anyway.

Ah yes - I had momentarily completely forgotten about that!

> Almost the entire South Atlantic
> crossing was done in solid cloud.  If there was any motivation to descend
> below the cloud bases (other than to search for Howland) it would be to avoid
> turbulence in significant buildups but, absent a major weather system, that
> should not have been a problem at night.

Do you mean  that turbulence would not have been a problem at night - and if
so why?

Angus.
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Except in areas of unstable air due to a weather system (such as a cold front),
those big  billowing, turbulent clouds only build up during the day because the
sun heats the earth and the earth heats the air and the air rises and the moisture
condenses and so forth. At night things tend to settle down.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:29:17 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

Thanks for that interesting research.

You don't mention this exchange between Thompson and Lexington re AE's most
probable position (on 07/16/37) which I found in the Tighar archive whilst
waiting for your reply.

He gives position estimates and then says:

ESTIMATE BASED ON FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: END OF FLIGHT, CLEAR BLUE SKY SOUTH
AND EAST OF HOWLAND; HEAVY CLOUD BANKS APPROXIMATELY 50 MILES NORTH AND WEST
OF HOWLAND.

This sounds like weather facts.

And then:

HER REPORTS INDICATE HIGH FLIGHT WITH OVERCAST AND CLOUDY WEATHER AND EVIDENTLY
FLYING IN CLURDS [sic] UNTIL THE LAST FEW MINUTES OF FLIGHT.

As you said at the time of this posting there is no support for this in Itasca's
log (except perhaps "cloudy weather"). Where he got the "high flight" from is a
total mystery as the only late height information he had was that they were
flying at 1000ft.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks.  I had missed that exchange with Lexington.  The deck log shows that when
Itasca reached a point about 50 miles NW of Howland at roughly 13:00 local time
the sky was "mainly cloudy" with 6/10ths coverage in alto-cumulus clouds.  No
altitude is mentioned.  The weather at Howland when they left had been "broken
clouds" with 5/10ths coverage in strato-cumulus clouds. Visibility was excellent 
and unchanged.

In other words, Thompson's "heavy cloud bank" 50 miles to the northwest was one tenth
heavier than the "cloud bank" at Howland.

It's fascinating to see how Thompson's version of what happened evolved over time.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:50:39 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

And now for the rest of the story...

COMDESRON2, the Navy organization in charge of the AE search, sent this radio
message to the Itasca on July 16, 2040GMT: "Assuming that Earhart plane or rubber
boat still afloat please submit your estimate as of noon today most probable
position first of plane secondly of rubber boat."

Thompson replied at 2330GMT, as recorded in the Thompson Radio Transcripts: "...On
assumptions given estimate most probably area origin 2*N, 179.3*E thence 5*N,
178.15*E thence 5*N, 175.45E thence 2*N, 177.5*E then to origin. Estimate based
on following conditions end of flight clear blue sky south and east of Howland
heavy cloud banks approximately 50 miles north and west of Howland.  Itasca had
laid heavy smoke screen for two hours which had not disintegrated and clearly
visible from south and east for 40 miles or more at altitude 1000.  Doubtful if
visible over 20 miles from north and west, signal strength and line of position
would indicate Earhart reckoning correct as for distance though she probably
carried line of position east before circling and afterward probably flew north
and south on this line. Her reports indicate high flight with overcast and cloudy
weather and evidently flying in clouds until the last few minutes of flight.  Signal
strength indicates the maximum distance 250.  Estimate plane down within 250 miles
of Howland between 337 and 45* true, and not nearer than 30 miles.  At latter
distance could not have failed to see smoke screen if she passed south.  Our
experiences sea and wind drift this vessel maximum 1 mile 270* and doubt if
plane or lifeboat would exceed.  On these assumptions most probable area as of
1200 today as indicated above.  Excellent navigator and experienced justify
assumption plane down on line of position or that line advancing eastward one 
hour on line of flight which assume was approximately 78* true from Lae."

It seems that is was the fact that the smoke screen could be seen for 40 miles and
not seeing Baker pointed Thompson to the north. 
************************************************************************
From Ric

Now it's the smoke.

Let's remember that this explanation is being made fully two weeks after the event.
There is no mention of the "smoke logic" on July 2nd.  How on earth could Thompson
know how far the smoke could be seen? (By the way, as has been discussed previously
on this forum, making smoke for two hours as Thompson claims should have done severe
damage to the ITASCA's boilers.) His claim that "Her reports indicate high flight
with overcast and cloudy weather and evidently flying in clouds until the last few
minutes of flight."  is totally unsupported.
*************************************************************************
From Randy again,

Ric: Thompson first mentions the clouds to the NW on or about the 17th, in a response
to Bill Miller (I think that was who it was) as to the conditions on July 2.  In his
response, Thompson says that there were clouds to the NW, and that is why he initially
searched that area.  I seem to remember that someone else telegramed his opinion as to
why that information wasn't provided earlier.  It may have been my notes when I compiled
the radio message database.  If you would like, I can look it up when I get home and
get specifics for you.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, let's try to nail this down.  Right now it looks like the clouds are first
used as a justification for the northward search on July 16 - two weeks after
the disappearance and two days before the search was called off.  It's pretty
apparent that Earhart is not going to be found and Thompson is in CYA mode. 
When he writes up his Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight on the 19th he can't
use the clouds because they're not mentioned in his own radio messages of the
2nd.  However, when he writes his Cruise Report on the 23rd the clouds become
the main culprit.

Thompson's Radio Transcripts report inserts the word "overcast" in the 0345
reception from Earhart, but that word does not appear in either Bellart's copy
of the original log or the later "smoothed" copy.  That's pretty damning.  It
appears that Thompson concocted a theory about what had happened which justified
his actions, and then altered the record to support his theory.

Why was it so important for him to justify his northward search?  The answer,
gentle friends, is in the drama of the post-loss radio signals.  For four days
Thompson had concentrated his search to the north believing that the flood of
distress calls thought to be from Earhart could be coming from a floating plane
or raft.  When word came on July 5th that such transmissions were impossible
and any calls must be coming from an island, Thompson was faced with two
possibilities: 

1. He had just wasted four crucial days searching in the wrong direction.

or

2. All of the supposed distress calls had been bogus.

Guess which position he adopted.

LTM,
Ric
***********************************************************************
From Angus

Ric said:

> The deck log shows that
> when Itasca reached a point about 50 miles NW of Howland at roughly 13:00
> local time the sky was "mainly cloudy" with 6/10ths coverage in alto-cumulus
> clouds

How did the cloud change as Itasca went further north from 50 miles NW of Howland?

Regards Angus.
********************************************************************
From Ric

Itasca didn't continue northwest.  At 13:55 local they changed course to 80
degrees and steamed eastward for the next several hours.  The cloud cover
lessened somewhat to 5/10ths at 14:00 and 3/10ths at 15:00, then 4/10ths at
16:00, and 5/10ths until 18:00. At 19:00 it was overcast (10/10ths) but by
22:00 it was only 2/10ths.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:53:05 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Ron Bright wrote:

> I can never get the concept that she didn't at some time abandon the "search
> for Howland"....................
>
> By search pattern, I and Alan, I think, were referring to a box type pattern
> as illustrated in many of the books, not just the "pattern" of the LOP.

Ron, I wasn't referring to any particular "pattern" of search. Keep in mind
Noonan thought they were over Howland so I would doubt he would take off and
fly a long distance in any direction. I have to guess he would first look in
his immediate area. He has numerous cloud shadows to help confuse the issue
and possible sun glare. I suspect then he would look to the LOP for help and
parallel LOPs. As time passed his confidence in his position may well have
diminished and he would have searched farther away. What he actually did I don't
know but that seems logical.

The problem with trying to analyze their actions is we don't know where they
were at any given time or where they THOUGHT they were once they realized
Howland was not directly below. They may have been slightly south and thought
they were considerably north or vice versa. You can see their actions would
have been different in either case. They also had to consider they might be
short or long on Howland. To properly analyze this you must consider all the
possibilities of where they actually were vs where they thought they were and
consider in each case what the logical response might have been. What you get
after that exercise I don't know but it might be interesting doing so.

As to abandoning his search for Howland that is doubtful. Howland was where
they were trying to fly to. Their goal then was twofold, to find Howland and
to locate their position whichever came first.

The search for Howland vs finding any place to put the airplane down was most
likely a continuum evolving from the former into the latter but might simply
have been attitude as opposed to some dedicated decision. I'm not sure there
is any significance.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:54:22 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Ron Bright wrote:

> Alan wrote as a possibility that  at some time " he (Noonan) would be left
> with exercising some type of search pattern." I  agree . Yet apparently in
> conflict with that decision, the next radio transmission (8:44)  from Amelia
> indicates she was flying on the line of position 157-337

I think I need to go back and reread some of my posts if not all of them. <G>

I'm not being clear enough and I'm leaving holes of opportunity in my musings.

1. I don't know what happened or where they went.

2. I don't know what "a search pattern" means other than ANY particular path they
might have decided upon. It could have been an Immelman to all four quadrants for
all I know. Whatever they did in looking for Howland ought to be reasonably called
a search pattern. It could have been made up on the spot.

3. I don't know what "abandoning" the search means. I also don't know what the
significance is. To me it is simply a state of mind whereas at some point they
realized they were not finding Howland but were finding some other landing spot
or that they might be nearer some other place. I do NOT think they ran up and
down 157 a couple of times and then said, "I give up. Let's go to Gardner." To
me the very nature of their situation pretty well eliminated the Gilberts as
even a consideration.

By that I mean the only good piece of information they had was the LOP however
good that was. They may not have had as good a north/south indication. Their
"search" would necessarily be directed along the only piece of navigational
data they had. That does NOT lead west to the Gilberts. You might say that at
some point they quit looking and turned west but they could not have known their
north/south position and how would they navigate west? No, it's not impossible
but SE was simple in comparison.

I agree, Ron, it is certainly possible although unlikely, they decided at 8:43
L or some particular time, "Let's head to Gardner." I don't know but I think it
is more likely that at some point they said, "I'm not seeing Howland but I think
we are close to the Phoenix group."

What difference does it make?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:55:56 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Ric writes:

> the only information you have about where
> you are is by keeping very close track of what you have done since the last
> time you knew where you were.

Ric, I'm glad you wrote that. I have mentioned this a number of times but it
might be helpful to think about that statement again. For those who want to
believe Earhart said she was "circling" rather than the more logical "listening"
I want to point out Noonan had to keep exact track of the plane's position during
any "maneuvering" Earhart might make once they got to and didn't see Howland.
Whatever flight path she took Noonan had to plot it and wandering around in a
circle is kinda hard to plot. Typically a navigator used a coin for his turns.
What ever coin a standard or half standard rate turn at a particular altitude
and airspeed required. Easier to draw. I would have expected short turns onto
reciprocal legs as most likely. Very plottable. Circles are not.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:00:13 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

Ric, what was the 7:58 radio call Thompson talks about?

Alan
******************************************************
From Ric

That's the "We are circling but cannot hear you..." call in which she asks
for a long count on 7500.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:02:24 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: More useless trivia?

Dennis McGee wrote:

> Marty Moleski said: " . . . "native" is derived from the past
> participle of nascor, natus, which means "born" in Latin."
>
>     From which we derive "natal" ...

Yes--and nation.

> ... and thus natatorium?

Nope.  Different root for that: nato (!), natare, natatus. I don't know whether
NATO knew or cared about the Latin word, which means "I swim."

Words are decidedly unscientific things, even though they have to follow some
rules in order to function as bearers of meaning.

"Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em."

LTM.

                Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:04:22 EDT
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Alan wrote:

>Typically a navigator used a coin for his turns.

You really lost me here.  He flipped a coin?      Please explain.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:53:03 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

Just how public were the various Thompson radio log transcripts? Were Thompson's
statements ever questioned by any members of the Itasca crew?

It's hard to make up details when there are witnesses.

By the way -- GREAT postings.

Bob
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Great question.  The actual radio logs were not public at all.  Technically,
they were available to the Coast Guard brass but there's no evidence that anyone
ever checked them against Thompson's doctored version, as presented in his "Radio
Transcripts - Earhart Flight".  That report, which was itself classified Confidential,
became the official version of what happened.

When Thompson's report was eventually declassified it, quite naturally, only served
to reinforce the theory it was constructed to support.  When we compare the original
logs to Thompson's report we're plowing new ground.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:53:47 EDT
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Coins?

Alan wrote: 

>Typically a navigator used a coin for his turns. What ever
>coin a standard or half standard rate turn at a particular altitude and
>airspeed required. Easier to draw. I would have expected short turns
>onto reciprocal legs as most likely. Very plottable. Circles are not.

Alan, can you explain this? I've gotten lost here. What is a "coin" in this context?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:54:32 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: More useless trivia?

This is totally off topic of course, but NATO still stands for North Atlantic
Treaty Organization. I agree the organization has been "swimming" lately not
knowing which way to steer, many members at a loss what to do with their
military forces since the fall of the Berlin wall. But for the US, member
states allowed their defence budgets to erode to the point they are hardly
credible as a fighting force.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:55:34 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Coins?

When I learned flying we were taught to prepare each flight carefully, using
a coin which we would put on landmarks we used as waypoints when preparing
our navigation. We would then draw a new track line from its center to the
next waypoint (on which we would again put the coin to draw a circle around it).
Then, using wind, drift and deviation we would write the new course to fly
next to the new line (plus ground speed, ETA to the next waypoint, altitude
to maintain  on that particular lap and fuel remaining. Fuel consumption was
meticulously calculated from waypoint to waypoint. The coin was really very
handy as it also fitted the screws of the engine nacelle which had to  be
opened to check oil level before flight. The reason why coins were used was
that when flying with a map on your knees, one would immediately see the next
waypoint/landmark which remained easily recognizable (usually it was some
castle or a water tank). No GPS in those days.

LTM (who always drew lines using a coin and calculated fuel consumption carefully
for obvious reasons)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:58:55 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Ric Quixote/Man of La Nikumaroro

Perhaps mistakenly, I have believed that the basis for Earhart getting to
Gardner Island [ The Tighar Theory ] was that after she realized they
clearly missed Howland, finding themselves now considerably south on the
LOP, there came a time they made a conscious, DELIBERATE decision NOT to
reverse and head northwest, but, with charts aplenty and available to Noonan,
exercised a contingency plan by flying  on to the Phoenix group . FN knew
that flying on that LOP he would eventually end up in the Phoenix . The
Coast Guard,. the Navy, Putman, and many others also theorized that scenario.

Ric, is that a fair statement?

This contingency plan was similar to the other  plan B supposedly mentioned by
AE to Vidal and others to reverse and go back to the Gilberts.

Finding Gardner Island, if they did, was not a fortuitous discovery. Of course
no one knows for sure that did happen shortly after 0843.

Ron Bright
*********************************************************************
From Ric

What we're debating is whether or not something happened in their heads, i.e.
a "decision" not to turn back.  Seems like a pretty futile discussion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:03 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

I wonder if Thompson actually wrote the response, or whether his XO did...
this may explain quite a bit as to why there are discrepancies between
various official reports after the 16th.  Who knows for sure?

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

There are discrepancies throughout the messages sent from the ITASCA,
starting on July 2nd.  The overall impression is that Thompson was rattled
and confused, and increasingly concerned that he was going to get blamed
for this mess.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:07:15 EDT
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Coins?

I think that Alan is a bit off base here. When I navigated in relatively
slow bombers/transports, we didn't use anything special for turn radii.
Only the faster aircraft, such as jets like the B-47 that Alan flew used
a coin for plotting turn radius. In the B-52, using JN charts, a nickel
was used to draw standard rate turns ("nickel turns")that compensated for 
turn radius. (I never flipped my nickel, but maybe some did.) I can't believe
FN or any navigator of that era drew anything but intersecting straight lines
for course changes. Until the "jet" era, it just wasn't necessary to try to
be that accurate, given other inaccuracies...PMB.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:10:06 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Betty's answer

Both Betty's father and Russell Rhodes (neighbor) made contact with the St.
Petersburg USCG Air Station personnel on the night of the radio reception -
Betty at this time is unaware of her note book message entries having been
presented by her father or Russell Rhodes during that contact - Would that
be a correct interpretation of Betty's 18 April forum post? 

Respectfully: Tom Strang

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

That's certainly the way I read it.  It also seems clear to me that Betty's
father and his neighbor went to see the CG together, which seems very natural.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:17:47 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Checking ITASCA's radio transmissions

Ron Bright says:

>Carrington writes that a check of  ITASCA'S voice strength volume was not
>required after AE left Lae with San Francisco. He wrote that the fact "that
>the Coast Guard radio operators failed to confirm the Itasca's voice strength
>in the pre-tests  arouses suspicion as to why Earhart could not hear  the
>ITASCA's radio transmissions"
>
As I recall, HMS Achilles heard ITASCA's voice transmissions several times, and
Achilles was approximately (I'm guessing here) 1000 miles away? Further away than
Earhart allegedly was. So I don't think Carrington has a good case here.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM (Who never could hear things that were far away)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

There is only one report of Achilles hearing anything and that was just after
sundown on the first evening (06:00Z on July 3).  Although Achilles didn't
understand what they were hearing at the time, they heard Itasca ask Earhart
send dashes and then they heard dashes in reply which were not heard by Itasca.
They then heard Itasca try to call Earhart again.  Achilles never heard voice
from Earhart.  They did, however, hear voice from Itasca which, as you say,
disproves Carrington's contention.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:18:55 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Going south

Ron Bright says: 

>I can never get the concept that she didn't at some
>time abandon the 'search for Howland'. If after she turned south and ran
>100 miles or so, gas running low, and no Howland, she must have at some
>time continued on knowing she missed the target. Why else would she
>continue down that line.

Look at it this way, after going south for 100 miles, Amelia knows she was
either way too far south of Howland when she turned south, or she was way
too far north of Howland when she turned south. She has no way of knowing
which one it is. In fact, there is probably close to a 50% chance that she
was too far south, and close to a 50% chance she is too far north. So what
are you going to do??

If AE was really north of Howland, then turning back and going north again
leads to open water. No land anywhere. Continuing south brings you to land.
If AE was really south of Howland, then continuing south brings you to land,
and turning around and going north will bring you to land (although you will
have to go more than 100 miles to get back to land). So 50% of the time,
searching north will result in a sure death sentence, while searching south
may bring you to Howland, and it may bring you to Gardner which is dry land
and may not be as desirable as Howland, but certainly more desirable than
ditching in the ocean. So continuing to go south is the most logical choice,
given that AE does not and cannot know whether she is north of Howland or
south of Howland.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who always went south)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:20:47 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Coins?

> You really lost me here.  He flipped a coin?    Please explain.
> Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263

I'm sorry, Dan. At this age I erroneously take for granted at times everyone
knows instinctively what my offhand and obsolete comments mean. <G>

I'll give you an example. We flew typically at 35,000' and 435 knots TAS. We
would draw out our flight plan on JN charts (I forget the scale and I think
they are designated something else now). At our turning points we didn't just
draw lines point to point but actually drew the turn. For this particular 
situation we used a dime and drew an arc using that coin rather than getting
out a pair of dividers, measuring the required radius and laying out the arc.
Our missions required us to hot points on the second and so the time of the
turn had to be taken into account.

To bring this into our current discussion at the point AE "arrived" over Howland
Noonan had a complicated navigation problem if they were to maneuver around
somewhat looking for Howland. What they did I don't know but if, for example,
they were on an inbound course of 078 degrees and turned right to a course
of 157 degrees using a three minute turn, Noonan needed to compute and plot
the 79 degrees of turn so he would know his position when Earhart rolled out
on course. That turn was an arc and the radius of the arc was important to
Noonan for keeping his position accurate.

I'm not saying FN did this. I don't know but in order to keep an accurate
position he had to.

If you want to see the significance draw a line at 78 degrees to a point called
Howland. From that point draw a line at 157 degrees. Extend that line say 40 NM.
Now draw a line from that point on a reverse course of 337 degrees for 80 miles
then back 157 for 40 NM. Using another color and starting at the point called
Howland draw an arc using a three minute turn to 157. Extend that line 40 miles
and draw a 180 degree arc to 337 degrees and so on. You will see there is a
significant difference in position and time involved. In addition the plane
is in a different position.

You now know more than you wanted to know about "coin" turns. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:26:04 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

> Thompson replied at 2330GMT, ........................

As an old military officer let me suggest strongly Thompson's report
is pure cover your ass.

With great reluctance I have to say Ric has the man pinned to his own
bulkhead. (just kidding Ric)

But seriously, If you will all read Thompson's report carefully within
the context of the time line and known facts he is without a doubt trying
to cover up his own ill advised decisions. "It wasn't his fault but rather
that stupid pilot flying in bad weather." <G>

The Thompson events for those few days have the making of a sensational story.

Alan
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Indeed they do.  Working on the post-loss radio study has convinced me that
the story of the failed search Earhart and Noonan is the story of the cruise
of the cutter Itasca.  It's a story that has never been told and I'd like
TIGHAR to tell it - but first I've got to get this study finished.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:30:13 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: More useless trivia?

Technically it isn't NATO, its N.A.T.O - an acronym for North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. Its good to know that the Atlantic has a treaty. My question -
was it designed to get the Atlantic to stop storming our beaches?

LTM,
Dave Bush
********************************************************************
From Ric

Gentle friends, if we start debating current affairs on this forum the peace
and tranquility of our discussions, not to mention the hard-won affection we
have for each other, will crash and sink.  I suggest that we stay on-topic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:01:40 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

I think you are being a bit too hard on CDR Thompson with regard to his decision
to initiate the search to the Northwest on the 337 course during those first few
hours. I would believe he took the immediate situation into
account and then headed northwest believing it was the right decision based on
what few "facts" were available.  Your indictment of Thompson of falsifying an
official coast guard report by altering the record to support his theory reminds
me of Carrington's damning indictment of Leo Bellarts who he accuses of "willful
if not criminal behavior" for sending out "As".

What criteria, observations, conditions, in your mind, would have supported a
decision to steam southeast on 157 vice the northwest on 2 July? Or what search
would you have initiated?  We have known weather conditions, the last msg and
signal strength, the LOP, her statement she was flying under 1000 ft, she was
"circling" at 7:58 [or listening], a crew that is observing 360 degree conditions,
a report of  "low on fuel", etc. I may be missing some significant variable.

The errors of the search pattern by the Itasca in hindsight are well spelled
out by Riley, namely Thompson didn't stay on the LOP, he searched at night,
and so forth.

LTM,
Ron Bright
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I have no stash against Warner Thompson.  He got stuck with a terrible mess
that he was clearly not up to handling, but in 1937 the term Search and Rescue
had not even been invented yet and he had neither the assets nor the training
to cope with the situation.  I do fault him for falsifying the official record
to cover his butt.

Carrington's criticism of Bellarts is uninformed and groundless.  Riley's critique
of Thompson's search plan is classic 2/20 hindsight and poorly researched.  I don't
think it's fair to fault Thompson's initial search to the northwest.  The "she would
have seen Baker" logic seems like a sound reason for going northwest first.  When
post-loss signals started to be heard he relied upon some bad information from
San Francisco that Earhart could transmit if afloat.  By the time the confusion
was straightened out on July 5th the calls had pretty much stopped and the Colorado
was nearly there and ready to carry the search southeastward.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:04:26 EDT
From:         Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: Going south

I've gone under the assumption that the way the Electra was configured that the
navigators "flat glass window" was on the port side of the aircraft. This would
mean that they would have to turn South-south east for FN to get his sun shot
then continuing on after realizing how far south they were.

LTM (who knows the axiom for assumption.) Mike J.#2591
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Noonan could also take celestial observations from the flat glass panel of the
windshield and side windows in the cockpit where he apparently spent most of his
time anyway.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:23:27 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

To better understand Thompson's reports we must consider the command structures
involved - Itasca, USCG both district and HQ, and Howland Island assorted Putnam
sponsored guests - Reality sometimes is lost when there are too many cooks in
the kitchen - Food for thought. 

Respectfully: Tom Strang
**************************************************************************
From Ric

On the scene that morning, the ball was firmly in Thompson's court.  As commanding
officer it was his boat.  There were no Putnam sponsored guests aboard.  There
were media reps and Army Air Corps reps.  Thompson didn't even tell CG Hawaiian
Section or CG San Francisco Division that he was leaving his assigned duty station
at Howland at 10:40 local (an hour and a half before Earhart was officially expected
to run out of fuel) until hours later.

Later that night command of the search was shifted to the Navy.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:28:12 EDT
From:         Doug Kiniry
Subject:      Staying close to Howland

It would seem that at the end of a 20 hour flight(maybe lower on fuel then
expected), exhausted, and having received a transmission from ITASCA, AE would
have continued using some grid pattern till she was out of fuel. She knows she's
near Howland and that the ITASCA is the only rescue vehicle that can find them
in a reasonable period of time. If she flies off south looking for other land
(remember her and fred are exhausted) and they happen to miss finding any, they
are outin open ocean and the ITASCA may not have any idea where theyare. EA might
think that they ITASCA is going to look for them by coveringa radius around
Howland thinking that they ended up left/right/short/long, but somewhere close
to Howland. They have enough gear(life raft/flares etc.............) to at least
floataround. If I'm going to float, I want to float where I think they are going
to search for me and find me a.s.a.p. Does anyone know what the land drop-off
is around Howland and Baker. Has anyone ever ran a magnitometer around these
twoislands. Maybe I can get my brother to ask the Navy to borrow one of theP3
Orion's he used to fly.
Doug Kiniry
***********************************************************************
From Ric

The land drop off is very steep around all of those islands.  The P-3 is a great
airplane but its MAD gear is designed to steel objects (i.e. submarines) that are
a whole lot bigger than the landing gear legs of an Electra (probably the best
magnetometer target on a Lockheed 10).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:29:33 EDT
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      NATO

Ric said:

>Gentle friends, if we start debating current affairs on this forum the peace
>and tranquility of our discussions, not to mention the hard-won affection we
>have for each other, will crash and sink. I suggest that we stay on-topic.

Ric's response is a fine example of a precautionary landing when faced with
limited fuel, a flat semi-dry reef, exploding surf on the west and the gentle
Nutiran beach on the east.

Flaps down, gear down, throttles retarded, flair, touch down, roll out, complete
stop, engine shut down.

Now, lets stay off of  "off topic" subjects and continue the search for Amelia!

LTM, ( who prefers a calm and tranquil forum),
Roger Kelley
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:37:35 EDT
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Checking ITASCA's radio transmissions

Ric says "There is only one report of Achilles hearing anything and that was
just after sundown on the first evening (06:00Z on July 3)."

Wasn't there a second occasion when Achilles heard Itasca? I don't have the
details handy (although I know I read about this somewhere), several nights
later, when Achilles heard Itasca broadcast to Earhart something like: "We
see your flare, we are heading in your direction". This was a case where
Itasca mistakenly believed a meteor was in fact a flare from Earhart.
--
Paige Miller
*********************************************************************
From Ric

You're confusing two incidents.  There is a book written by a former sailor
aboard Achilles that has a screwed-up version of the intercepts that is not
supported by the historical record.  And when Itasca was sent to chase the
"281 north Howland" they saw a meteor that they thought was flare. =========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:52:49 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

Ric said:

> In other words, Thompson's "heavy cloud bank" 50 miles to the northwest was
> one tenth heavier than the "cloud bank" at Howland.

I think perhaps we should not be too hasty to conclude that Thompson invented
some weather conditions to get himself off the hook. The report written
by the reporter on Howland (presumably James Christian Kamakaiwi) specifically states:

.........AT SEVEN THIRTY HST WE WERE READY. EVERYONE SEEMED TENSE AND SORT
OF BREATHLESS. WE WATCHED THE SKY HOPING TO PICK THE PLANE OUT AGAINST WHITE
CUMULUS CLOUDS WHICH WERE ALL AROUND THE HORIZON. THE SUN WAS HOT ON THE
WHITE CORAL...............

and

THEN WORD WIGWAGGED FROM ITASCA - AMELIAS SIGNALS ON DIRECTION FINDER SHOWED SHE
WAS NORTHWEST OF THE ISLAND. HAD SHE OVERSHOT? TO THE NORTHWEST WAS A BIG BANK
OF CLOUDS. WHAT A GRAND BACKGROUND THAT WOULD MAKE.  (my punctuation)

A few observations:

"There was cumulus all around the horizon" and "the sun was hot on the white
coral". This implies that the cloud cover was perhaps greater on the horizon
and a fair amount of sunshine was getting through locally - consistent with
"partly cloudy" "To the northwest was a big bank of clouds" It was evidently
impressive enough to make a "grand background". This is eyewitness testimony
and seems to confirm Thompson's claim of heavy cloud to the northwest.

The one factor that urges a little caution is that there is no evidence of a
DF fix being taken at the time which casts doubt on the report being completely
contemporaneous and therefore accurate. However, it is quite possible that if
the DF fix was tenuous, it was not thought worth recording.

Regards Angus.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That press release was sent at 03:00 local time on Howland the next morning.
At the very least I think we can say that the clouds on the horizon were
taller to the northwest.  The comment "THEN WORD WIGWAGGED FROM ITASCA - 
AMELIAS SIGNALS ON DIRECTION FINDER SHOWED SHE WAS NORTHWEST OF THE ISLAND."
is interesting.  Your speculation that ITASCA was able to get an indication
too tenuous to log is possible but it seems odd that Thompson didn't list it 
among his growing and changing reasons for searching northwest. =========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:54:42 EDT
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Chautauqua Amelia

I've gotten a little behind in my forum digests.  Hope this isn't too late.

The Chautauqua Society sent an Amelia re-enactor to Gardner in 1940, but the
only person who showed up for the talk was the wife of the local native
magistrate.  <G>

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

That's pretty good.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:59:50 EDT
From:         David Kelly
Subject:      Re: Checking ITASCA's radio transmissions

Just a minor point, the Achilles has been referred to as HMS Achilles, I was
of the understanding that it was HMNZS Achilles.  Is my understanding incorrect?
It later become the INS Delhi.
*********************************************************

From Ric

I'm not sure when HMS Achilles officially became HMNZS Achilles but she's
referred to as HMS in the radio traffic, including the messages from Achilles.

Achilles, of course, went on to become famous as one of the ships that engaged
the German "pocket-battleship" Graf Spee.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:24:46 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

A couple of other eyewitness reports. Hanzlick the UP reporter aboard the
ITASCA told us on video tape on 12 Sep 02 that Capt Thompson believed that
stronger winds "would have pushed her more to the northwest." Hanzlick added
that "to the northwest there was a bank of clouds". (no distance). Hanzlick
also said that "Capt Thompson , after feeling she was down, decided to go
Northwest area where the radio operators thought her signals were coming
from, within a 100 miles of Howland." (I don't know how the operators would
know from what direction the signals were coming from)

This were not all anecdotal recollections as he was referring at times from
his journal that he made in pencil, now fading. But as of yet I do not have
those journals to verify which statements were made contemporaneously as
well as his weather observation. I am not sure either if he directly
interviewed Thompson. All needs to be clarified.

Hanzlick did say he heard Amelia say " partly cloudy" at 0453 but not
the overcast as alleged by some, I think Dwiggins. Hanzlick went to Howland
with a welcoming shore party at 6:00am , and didn't return until about 9:10
am. He did not hear any transmissions between those hours and of course did
not personally hear the last msg of the LOP. His dispatches were made after
reviewing the logs and interviewing the operators and Thompson, and crew.

At age 92, he made a remarkably good impression as a witness.

I am  not sure I posted his interview transcript to TIGHAR, but he has many
interesting comments about the life and times aboard the ITasca,  the search,
the encounters in the Gilberts, Black, Kenner, Bellarts (who he gave a bottle
of scotch to) and George Putnam.

LTM,
Ron Bright
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Ron.  I was not aware that Hanzlick was still alive, let alone that
you interviewed him.  I would very much like to have a dub of that interview.

His recollection hearing the 04:53 transmission from Earhart is contradicted
by Leo Bellarts in the interview he did with Elgen Long in 1973.  According
to Leo, nobody but he himself heard those early transmissions because they
came over the operator's earphones only.  It wasn't until later, when they
were stronger, that they were put out over the speakers.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:26:03 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Coins?

You are forgetting one thing Alan, the radius of turn for a constant bank
increases with the square of the airspeed.. Flying at 435 knots is approximately
3.3 times the 130 knots being flown by the Electra. To make your "three minute
turn" at 435 K required a bank angle of 38.6* and results in a turn radius of
21,073 feet, or 3.46 nm. Using the same bank at 130 K (and they could have used
a steeper bank if they had wanted to which would result in a smaller turn radius)
results in a turn radius of only 1,882 feet, only .3 NM which, as you lawyers say,
is de minimus. Simply starting the turn 10 seconds early would correct for this
radius and put them right on the LOP.

Gary LaPook
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:29:42 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

Ric,     With all due respect to your response, I get the impression you
have never participated in a high profile military-media barbecue and car
wash event - Ric your insight is illuminating at times and is most valued. 

Respectfully: Tom Strang
******************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Tom.  I never have and hope I never do.  Your insight would be
appreciated.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:30:32 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Coins

Let me add further on the use of a dime for drawing the radius of turn at
435 knots on a JN chart. The scale of a JN chart is 2,000,000 to 1. This
means that one foot on the chart equals 2,000,000 feet on the earth.  A
dime on the chart equals 2,000,000 dimes on the face of the earth. I
measured the diameter of a dime and it is .65 inches which is the same as
.054 feet. So a dime covers 108,000 feet on the earth which is 17.8 NM.
(.054 X 2,000,000 divided by 6076 feet per nautical mile.)  The radius
is one-half this or 8.9 NM so it would not appear that a dime would
accurately represent the radius of a "three minute turn" at 435 knots
which is only 3.46 NM. 
Gary LaPook
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:59:31 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Primary Sources/ 30 mins or low on fuel?

A frequent question is how trustworthy are primary sources cited in research
books on AE? I decided to re-check a long held notion that the UP reporter
Hanzlick had copied contemporaneously the " 30 min" gas comment and the last msg.

Elgin Long cited Howlard Hanzlick's  "handwritten notes" of the content of the
0742 message AE sent about gas: "Gas is running low have half hour supply left"
[p. 232]  This was to support Long's contention she ran out of gas within the
hour, albeit the half hour left was probably an estimate. Okay. 

I wanted to check that out as well as the  reported "frantic" voice description
as attributed to AE on the final msg .

It turns out that  it is true that Hanzlick's handwritten notes reflect the "...half
hour supply left" comment, BUT it turns out that Hanzlick  and others were with
the shore party on Howland from about 6-9 a.m. and couldn't have heard those
messages. Subsequently,  Hanzlick corrected the implied version that he heard
that statement. No he hadn't it,  but told me that he had copied those notes
from O'Hare's log. And he did not hear the last message about the LOP. He
returned to the ITASCA about 9:15 a.m.

Hanzlick,neverless, was a good reporter and used what he thought were trustworthy,
accurate transcripts of Amelia's last msgs. He simply copied notes from the logs.

Thus it pays to check and recheck some of the research.
LTM,
Ron Bright
************************************************************************
From Ric

Indeed it does.  It's very clear that O'Hare's "half hour gas left -sez she"
interpretation of the 07:40 (by his clock) transmission was accepted as true
by Commander Thompson and others aboard Itasca even though it was contradicted
by Galten's 07:42 log entry ("but gas is running low") and the undeniable fact
that she was still in the air and transmitting an hour later. The notion seems
to have taken hold that, for some reason, Earhart had much less fuel than everyone
had expected her to have.  By the time Hanzlick returned to the boat that assumption
appears to have taken on the mantle of fact.  The notion is reinforced by the fact
that he copied O'Hare's log (who was technically not even supposed to be logging
Earhart traffic) and not Galten's.

As to the nature of Earhart's 08:43 transmission - there is a letter on file at
the NASM library dated 17 May 1938 from Coast Guard Commandant, Rear Admiral Waesche,
to Assistant Treasury Secretary Gibbons regarding a New York Times article that
apparently alleged that somebody aboard Itasca had heard Earhart scream and then
a crash.  Waesche tells Gibbon that Commander Thompson, both in his offical report
and in a personal letter to Waesche on this specific subject, was emphatic that
no such thing happened.  "The official report states, which was confirmed by
Commander Thompson's personal letter, that toward the end, Earhart talked so
rapidly as to be almost incoherent and ,also, that - 'Earhart's last message
was hurried, frantic, and apparently not complete."

Waesche concluded with:

"I am convinced, from the official report, and from Commander Thompson's
personal letter, that no sound whatsoever was heard from the Earhart plane
after it hit the water - nor for some minutes previous thereto."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:12:36 EDT
From:         Peter Polen
Subject:      Re: Thompson and the radio log.

I am a little rusty on the Thompson thread. How did he falsify his report and do
I understand it right that he sailed his ship before he should have left his position?
Peter

Peter Polen
****************************************************************************
From Ric

In his official report Thompson inserted the word "overcast" in Earhart's 04:53
transmission.  The original log and the later "smoothed" version of the log,
have only the phrase "part cldy".  It's an important alteration because Thompson
was advancing his own theory that Earhart had been unable to get a fix because
she was flying in cloud.

The Itasca, at Thompson's order, left Howland to begin searching northwest at
10:40 even though he had recently told headquarters that he would stay there
until noon (Earhart's expected fuel exhaustion time).  He didn't tell anyone
he had left Howland until 13:30.  As far as I know, he didn't violate any
specific orders by doing that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:31:33 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Coins

Is this where the old saw " you can turn on a dime" came from?

Respectfully: Tom Strang
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:05:53 EDT
From:         Niki Zanzonico
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time...

Hello to one and all. I have been a lurker here for some time and since the
Wreck photo came around again, I thought I'd give it a shot...

Among other things, I do "forensic imaging" for law enforcement - and also as
 a hobby.

After much scaling I came up with a cross section of 40 inches; but this was
after averaging on 4 different screens. (Since this measurement is "after the
fact", I figure this and a buck will get me on a bus...)

I also spent a few more hours on this scan and came up with a few other
details about the wreck that may or may not have been addressed. Rather
than discuss them all here, I threw up a REALLY quick El Cheapo website
for anyone who cares to review the results...

http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html

(keep trying - their server is the pits ...any comments, tips or screams
are most welcome...)

Ric, I believe there WAS another film of the Lae takeoff... I viewed it
about 10 years ago.

Not only that, but I believe I have a copy stored somewhere. If I recall
correctly, I was analyzing a digitized version for a gentleman that worked
for CBS at that time and clearly remember the "dust ball" that appeared
under the craft on takeoff.

The vantage point of this film was on the opposite side of the field: the
aircraft was running from left to right on takeoff. What stood out was that
the "dust ball" occurred very near the camera.

After viewing the Lae takeoff from the Tighar site, it can be seen where
there may have been another camera shooting footage. Watch as the view is
almost directly across the strip and you'll see what appears to be an
automobile and some people standing near it...

There are some interesting things in this footage that you may not have
touched upon... f'rinstance, the breaking away of the belly antenna appears
to happen directly in front of the camera - and I'm not talking about the
"dust ball" (which appears to be a tailwheel hop...)

Anyway, thank you for letting me be "little" long winded...
Niki Zanzonico
BTW, my membership is on the way.
********************************************************************
From Ric

You're right about the server.  No luck.

Needless to say, if you can find anything to support the idea of a second
takeoff film (like a copy of it) that would be exciting, but I can tell
you right now that the "puff" (dustball, whatever) is not a tailwheel hop.
The tail wheel is nowhere near the runway throughout the entire film
sequence. And if the second film shows the antenna failure so clearly
why did it never get mentioned before we developed the hypothesis and
proved it with forensic imaging?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:14:41 EDT
From:         Niki
Subject:      Re: Wreck Photo ...one more time...

Give the site another shot - it seems to be up again...

http://www34.brinkster.com/nitroniki/default.html

Ric, perhaps I should have been a little more clear on which film I was talking
about when I stated that the breaking away of the belly antenna appears to happen
directly in front of the camera...

I was referring to the "first" film - the one on the Tighar website. The section
of footage I'm referring to is where Amelia taxis past the camera.

The heavily-laden aircraft is extremely close to the turf (which appears to be a
slight incline towards the rear) At one point, there appears to be something breaking
away just under the nose in the area of the starboard pitot tube. This is the same
point where the camera operator pans back behind the aircraft as if he noticed
something come out from behind and then quickly pans back to the aircraft.

The belly antenna appears to be missing in the following frames.

(I will post the particular frames I'm talking about on the website -
or another)

> ...why did it never
> get mentioned before we developed the hypothesis and proved it with
> forensic imaging?

I don't believe I was here when that occurred...

LTM,
Niki

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

Interesting website.  I think you make a good case for the Wreck Photo being
a KI-54.  I agree that it's not an Electra.

>At one point, there appears to be
>something breaking away just under the nose in the area of the starboard
>pitot tube.

Why would something break away at that time?
*********************************************************************
From Lawrence
I had no problem getting into the web site. Very interesting Niki, and very well
done. It does appear, from your photos and analysis, that this is indeed a Ki-54.
************************************************************
From Tom King

Keep trying, Ric; the website came right up for me, but I don't know enough to
critique it.  Fascinating stuff, though; I'd love to see what Jeff Glickman
thinks of it.
*************************************************************
From John B

Niki, thanks for the effort. I, too, lurk in the shadows of the effort to find 
the truth behind AE and FN's ending. I believe that TIGHAR is close to resolving
the where if not the why of the mystery. The photo had me wondering since it was
at least similar to AE's plane (from a non-pilot's point of view), and did fit
with the Canton engine theory. Thanks again. To all involved in this quest, keep
up the good work. There are a bunch of us lurkers out there cheering you on.
****************************************************
From Rich Young

Excellent site, Niki!  Another datum I hadn't noticed until I looked at
your site is the engine mounting centerline relative to the wing.  The
Electra seems to have the engine mounted so that the center of the engine,
(height-wise)  is at or near the most forward part of the leading edge.
(That is to say, when viewed head-on in a flying attitude, the wing leading
edge almost perfectly "splits" the apparent view of the engine.)   Both the
Ki-54 and the wreck photo seem to clearly have the engines mounted with the
center of the engine noticeably lower than the wing leading edge.  Just
another thing to consider...

Rich
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:26:14 EDT
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Missing Antenna

Re the lost antenna comment you made in reply to  Niki Zanzonico.    I am a
bit doubtful  about the puff of dust. Between 0900 Local time on the 1st/July/37
and 0900 on 2nd/July 20.1mm (0.7ins) of rain fell at Lae. This would indicate
to me a very damp if not wet runway which in my opinion makes a puff of dust
unlikely but a splash of water from the wheels or prop wash possible.     At
one stage Forensic Imaging indicated that the right hand pitot tube was bent
but was later found to be an illusion.     How sure are we that the antenna
is missing ?     How far above ground would the antenna post be, 3 to 4 feet?
Amelia would have taxied out on taxiways used every day by other aircraft so I
feel striking rough ground is not very likely.    I doubt if she started  beyond
the normal runway threshold as any advantage gained  by extra runway length
would be lost in trying to accelerate over rough ground.   Just my thoughts
on the subject.

              Jack Clark   #2564
**********************************************************************
From Ric

We're as sure as we can be from analysis of both the film and still photos of
the takeoff that the belly antenna is present when the aircraft taxis out and
is not present when the aircraft actually leaves the runway.  Exactly how and
when it went away is a matter of conjecture. As to the "puff" - we considered
a splash from a wheel passing through a puddle and compared the film to film of
the Oakland takeoff in March which clearly shows the wheels splashing though
puddles.  Not the same.  The "puff" erupts under the fuselage after the wheels
have passed.  At least one later anecdotal eyewitness account of the takeoff
(Bertie Heath) speaks watching the takeoff from a plane overhead and seeing dust
kicked up as the plane passed over a dirt road that crossed the runway. 

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:31:21 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Primary Sources/ 30 mins or low on fuel?

> Earhart talked so rapidly as to be almost
> incoherent and ,also, that - 'Earhart's last message was hurried, frantic,
> and apparently not complete."

It must be a tribute to the radio operators they were able to write down the
8:43 message in spite of it being almost incoherent, hurried, frantic and
incomplete. The transcript doesn't appear incomplete to me.

Alan
*****************************************************************
From Ric

The radio log transcription of the 08:43 message is a mess.  See
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/37_ItascaLogs/Itascalog.html