Date:         Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:14:14
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Forum Fodder

For John Harsh --

Thanks, John.  Lots of object lessons in that story, and once we get Amelia safely home, I guess we know which mystery to work on next.  Seems like a sensible explanation, and SWAG is a great addition to our  vocabulary.

LTM (who's been known to SWAGger)
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Feb 2005 15:43:36
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Phone service in New Guinea

On June 30, 1937 the New York Herald Tribune ran an article headlined "Amelia Ready to Fly to Howland Island".   The article is a first-person account by AE of her flight to Lae from Darwin and her plans for departing for Howland.  Under the headline is the notation "by telephone to the Herald Tribune".

I have always been under the impression that there was no telephone service from Lae to the United States.  If there was phone service it's hard to understand why Earhart communicated to Putnam from there by cablegram unless it was purely a matter of expense ( the phone call to the Trib was certainly paid for by the paper). Earhart and Putnam did talk by phone when she was in Karachi, India and again when she was in Bandoeng, Java.

Elgen Long, on page 178 of his book, says that "Earhart asked if she could make a telephone call to the United States and was told there was no telephone service from New Guinea."  Unfortunately, he cites no source for the statement. If Long is right then the Herald Tribune article is very strange.

Can anybody confirm with real documentation whether there was phone service from Lae to the U.S. in 1937?

LTM
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 2 Feb 2005 19:20:49
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Phone service in New Guinea

Isn't there an International Herald Tribune?  Could she have spoken to one of their reporters in, say, Sydney, who then forwarded the information on to the New York office?

LTM,
Russ
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 2 Feb 2005 19:21:50
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Phone service in New Guinea

Ric said:

> Under the headline is the notation "by telephone to the
> Herald Tribune.' . . . Can anybody confirm with real documentation
> whether there was phone service from Lae to the U.S. in 1937?

I've always thought that back when radio was new that when some one talked about phoning reports etc., they were referring to radio-telephone service, which I assumed meant shortwave radio.  Don't tell me I've been wrong all these years . . .

The first trans-Atlantic phone cable didn't open until 1956 (http://www.sigtel.com/tel_hist_tat1.html), even though radiotelephone service had opened between the U.S. and England in 1927.   I would be surprised if there was any landline phone service from New Guinea to anywhere even by 1937.

LTM, who's often on hold
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 2 Feb 2005 19:22:47
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Phone service to New Guinea

Being one of those dinosaurs who actually lived in the era when the telephone and the telegraph were sophisticated means of communication, I can testify that mentioning the use of either the telephone or the telegraph to transmit an article was routine in the international press until the Sixties to indicate how advanced the technology was a newspaper was using to bring the news to its readers.  Any article from overseas, no matter how it reached the paper, was bound to be preceded by the information "by telephone" or "by telegraph". If the Trib got the story it must have come either by telephone or by cable. The paper was certainly proud of it. If there was no telephone service from Lae to the United States  that did not exclude the possibility there was perhaps a telephone service from the United States to Lae the paper had access to. Never underestimate the press...

LTM (who spent a lifetime in the press)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 5 Feb 2005 10:12:43
From:         Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: Phone service to New Guinea

"1934: AT&T inaugurates transpacific telephone service, initially between the US and Japan. Calls travel across the Pacific via radio. The initial capacity is one call at a time at a cost of $39 for the first three minutes."
LTM Mike J.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:24:27
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Phone service to New Guinea

>  From Mike Juliano
>
> "The initial capacity is one call at a time at a cost of $39 for the
> first three minutes."

That's about $550 in 2004 dollars.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:59:55
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Research needed

One of Earhart's severest critics was Major Al Williams.  Can anyone point me toward a good source of information about just who Al Williams was?  I have the impression that he was sponsored by Gulf Oil much as Jimmy Doolittle was sponsored by Shell.  His Grumman "Gulfhawk" is in the NASM collection.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:23:12
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Research needed

Ric---

Al Williams (USN) was Jimmy Doolittle's (USAC) counterpart.   During 1923 he held the world landplane speed record (as Doolittle did 9  years later in 1932).  Doolittle worked for Shell, Williams for Gulf.   He later became a top aerobatic pilot (with Curtiss Hawk and Grumman G-22  Gulfhawk) and wrote several articles on the principles of aerobatics. Before  entering aviation he had been a pitcher for the New York Giants.  If you  need any specific info I am sure I can come up with more.

---Russ
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:45:13
From:         Ed Lyon
Subject:      Re: research needed

Major Al Williams wrote a daily newspaper article on aviation, ranging from "how to fly" to aerobatics and a wartime critique of air warfare practices. The articles were syndicated and appeared in many non-Scripps-Howard papers in this country.  I think I read every one of them from about 1941 to 1946.

Ed Lyon
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:46:05
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: research needed

Ric--Try the AAHS website--American Aviation Historical Society in Santa Ana, CA. A quick look shows they had Part III of an article on Al Williams in the Fall 2002 Quarterly--Vol47--No3......I probably have them around here but need some hours to find them.

Back to you later.

Yes --he was famous in the 30s  and was in the Marines and I believe he test flew  a ME-109 model in Germany before the war. Later

Jim Tierney
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:46:32
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: research needed

Ric--Volume 47- year 2002 of the AAHS Journal has articles in Numbers 1,2 , 3 of that year--covers his life...Spring -summer-fall issues. and an additional  brief article in the winter issue on the GulfHawk.... Anything else.....????????????????

Jim Tierney
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:58:15
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: research needed

Thanks to everyone who helped point me toward some good sources of information on Al Williams.  Al was quite unusual for an aviator in that he was an excellent writer.  It's about the only trait he had in common with Amelia.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:39:04
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia's Last Known Position

Since AEs last known position on her world flight is of great interest I found this exchange from the Itasca , apparently omitted elsewhere, in the National Archives.

While attempting to locate Itasca, Amelia radioed that she must be near but couldn't see the ship.

        ITASCA: CALLING KHAQQ, WHAT WAS YOUR LAST KNOWN POSITION

        KHAQQ:  WHEN I WAS NUMBER ONE FOR TAKEOFF AT LAE.

Now I hope this helps our research!

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:56:39
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Question for the moderator

What do you do these days what with the paucity of contributions to the Forum?

George Ray Werth
# 2630

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

Oh, I amuse myself here and there. For instance -- my big project at the moment is putting every single issue of TIGHAR Tracks on our website as a PDF file (you download them and read them with Acrobat Free Reader). It's exhaustive and exhausting, because we're talkin' 20 years of newsletters and magazines. I've gotten Volumes 1 through 9 up, and Volume 10 #1. Much of the artwork has to be recreated because the programs in which the originals were done don't exist any more -- or else it was done by hand, pre-computer. Finding or matching fonts is also interesting.

One of the fascinating things about this exercise is that it is a full history of TIGHAR and of each of our projects. For those with the time and the interest, I highly recommend a look. An index of the TIGHAR Tracks Archive is at http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/archive.html, arranged in five year chunks. Also there is a link to download Acrobat Reader if you don't already have it.

Let's see, what else am I doing. Helping Ric with research on The Book. Editing finished chapters of The Book. Listening to Ric talk about The Book. Processing memberships, renewals, orders, and so on. Paying bills. Working with the accountant, who is new to TIGHAR. That sort of thing. You know. Business.

But if anyone has something interesting to discuss, I'm all ears.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:59:53
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: Question for the moderator

Jeez--Pat--sounds like you could volunteer as a school crossing guard to fill up those empty hours in the day.....

hehhehheh
Jim Tierney
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:02:15
From:         Tom King
Subject:      What's going to happen to Nikumaroro

Scary though hardly unexpected item today in Jane's Oceania Homepage Newsletter (See _www.janeresture.com_ (http://www.janeresture.com) ):

> Finally, one would have to be concerned about reports of king  tides with waves of up to 2.8
> meters high reaching sea walls and damaging homes in Kiribati.
>
> A report from Greenpeace has indicated that a number of villages suffered major damage, with
> drinking water and farms  contaminated by salt water. Greenpeace also reported that the Betio
> (a  southernmost islet of Tarawa, the capital of the Republic of Kiribati)  hospital, had been
> flooded.
>
> A report from the Kiribati Meteorological  Office has indicated that climate change may be partly
> to blame for the  king tides. The report indicated that king tides are becoming more and more
> frequent with the sea level seeming to be higher than in the past.
>
> Greenpeace has indicated that the damage underlines the need for the  world's industrial
> polluters to reduce air emissions considered to be  causing global warming and an attendant
> rise in sea level.
>
> For more  information about the Republic of Kiribati, you are invited to visit the  following
> Web site:
> _http://www.janeresture.com/kirihome/index.htm_
> (http://www.janeresture.com/kirihome/index.htm)

Of course, these kinds of conditions have nasty environmental, economic, social, and cultural impacts that are a lot more important than the search for Earhart, but they're also not doing any good to Nikumaroro and the evidence we're trying to extract from it.  And we're only likely to see more of it  as the years go by.  While Greenpeace may not be the world's most reliable    source of news on this kind of thing, there are plenty of other indications of  what rising sea levels are doing.  We've seen them ourselves over the sixteen years we've been working on Niku.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:04:10
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      AE and fuel

Pat, here's a slightly off-topic item I'd like to post. This fuel-usage issue still nags at me. (I'm probably sticking my hand into a hornet's nest!) As far as I know, our concern with AE's fuel usage has pretty much stopped with an understanding that she had sufficient fuel to get to Gardner. I'd ask Forumites this question: Would it have been possible for her to have gotten farther? Much farther? Is it possible for the plane to have ended up in New Britain? I'm not sure, but I don't think sufficient evidence exists to out-and-out dismiss the notion. The thing that bothers me about saying, "There was not enough fuel to get her there" is that the knowledge we have of AE's fuel consumption is apparently limited to that indicated in the Kelly Johnson telegrams. I'd like to see a detailed  analysis, if such a thing exists, based on what AE actually experienced. I'd also like to hear some opinions.

LTM, this is what you get when the Forum is slow,
Alfred #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:03:00
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Niku calls

I know that Ric is almost ready to publish the analysis of alleged post loss transmissions, if any,  but I thought we might get a sneak preview of any  if it relates to Earhart's survival on Niku theory.

Are there any specfic transmissions that can be  conclusively traced to  Niku island during the first week of her loss? For example, the PanAm triangulation from Wake, Honolulu and Midway?  Is the Betty receptions still in the mix?

If this lets the cat out of the bag, we can wait.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:38:36
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Forum is Dead

I want to change my vote. I thought it would be a good idea to charge for the forum but it was a mistake. The internet is all about a free exchange of ideas. We should admit this was a failed policy and open the forum back up for all to use FREE of charge.

Any thoughts?

Rusty
(I have a member # somewhere)

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

Well, I dunno. Certainly members of TIGHAR have long formed the vast majority of posters. I think it's all Ric's fault, he's the trouble maker around here who gets people riled up and posting. Now that he's buried in a book I don't seem to be able to get folks gingered up.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:49:04
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Niku calls

Ron Bright says:

> I know that Ric is almost ready to publish the analysis of alleged post loss
> transmissions, if any,  but I thought we might get a sneak preview of any  if
> it relates to Earhart's survival on Niku theory.

I'll take this opportunity to crawl out of my hole and bring everyone up to date on what I'm working on down there.

As most of you know, I started out intending to write up our research on the post-loss radio signals, but it soon became apparent that I couldn't write about the alleged receptions without putting them in the context of the time in which they were heard -- the 1937 search. Telling the story of the search and post-loss receptions required more than a research bulletin on the TIGHAR website or an article in TIGHAR.  It had to be a book, so I began writing the book.  Working title, "Losing Amelia -- The 1937 Search for Amelia Earhart and why it failed"

As I've dug into the original source material (thousands of government radio messages, telegrams, and letters) I've been astounded to find that the story they tell is not the story that was told in the various official reports that were written after the search was abandoned, nor is it the story that has been told over and over again by Earhart's many biographers.  It's a story of heroism, frustration, bureaucratic fumbling, political favoritism, staggering incompetence, and ultimately tragedy.

As for the post-loss radio receptions, some were undoubtedly hoaxes; none were misunderstandings of Itasca's attempts to contact Earhart; and many appear to have been legitimate transmissions from the Electra.  Or let me put it this way -- either there were legitimate distress calls from the Electra or their was a hoaxer located in the vicinity of the Phoenix Islands within hours of the disappearance who had a transmitter capable of sending illegal voice signals on 3105 kcs and was able to mimic Earhart's voice, knew that she had no morse code key, and knew that neither she nor Noonan was adept at sending code.

Bob Brandenburg is still working on the signals heard and the bearings taken by Pan Am. His technical report will be included with the exhaustive source material that will accompany the book on a DVD.

The allegations of shortwave listeners like Betty Klenck, Dana Randolph and Nina Paxton who claimed to have heard distress calls from Earhart are an entirely separate phenomenon.  You could throw them all out and still have a compelling case that legitimate calls were being sent from the airplane.  If they heard Amelia their receptions were highly unusual, but by no means impossible.  The possible authenticity of what they reported hearing can only be judged by examining and comparing the content of the messages they said they heard and the circumstances that must have prevailed for the transmissions to be genuine (for example, a message alleged to be sent from a floating Electra cannot be authentic).

I'm still hoping to have the manuscript completed this spring.  I'm writing early in the morning and handling other TIGHAR duties during the day.  I'll continue to let Pat handle the forum but I'll try to take time to answer questions and I'll continue to appreciate the research help the forum has been providing.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:39:50
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Dead forum

OK, ok, ok, ok, ok, ok,  . . . now that we got some time on our hands let's do something productive with it, like coming up with a different title for Ric opus on the post-lost radio signals.  This IS the 21st Century and, well, titles like,  "Losing Amelia -- The 1937 Search for Amelia Earhart and why it failed," just ain't gonna cut it in today's market.   It's not that Ric isn't talented, and the title is very descriptive and gets right to the heart of the material.  It is indeed a scholastic title for a scholastic work.

But face it folks, that isn't what sells books these days. You've got to have a hook, the title (and cover art) needs panache, elan, character, or whatever.  The present title would've been a block buster title back in 1953 or an adequate title of college junior's term paper, circa 1964 or so.  This book needs a title with some zip, some tang, something saucy, provocative, and enticing, just like the heroine it spotlights.

So, how about Pat?  Can we enlist some of the greatest minds in the vast sea of aviation archeology to write a new title for Ric's book?  And for extra credit let them also offer a description of the accompanying cover art . . .???

LTM, who appreciates Friday afternoons
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:40:21
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Re: Forum is Dead

OK, I've got a question that might be interesting. Quite a while ago I remember TIGHAR coming to the conclusion that the dark patch that was showing up in one of the Photos on Gardner turned out to be a patch of Red Algae. I took a stab at that and suggested that the Red Algae may have been caused by the presence of unusualy large amounts of aluminum (say like a sunken Electra) in the water. Ric said Red Algae was Not caused by aluminum. I think that it can indeed be caused by it. If anyone out there knows for sure I would like to hear an opinion.

Thanks
Rusty in Seattle
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:07:15
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Dead forum

How about "Charles and Camilla:  How they didn't find Amelia Earhart"

 Dan Postellon

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

Right. OK, Dan, YOU do the research.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:08:21
From:         Terry Simpson
Subject:      Lambrecht

.Been thinking about what Lt. John Lambrecht said about "signs of recent habitation". why isn't it possible that what the Lt. seen was tracks left by the the Japs trying to get the aircraft off Nuki. I don't think they could of loaded it on a ship,because it would probaly be a fishing vessal,but they could have drug it off at high tide and sunk it so no one would know Fred and Amelia were ever there.Maybe thats wy your finding L-10 parts on the island.would'nt surprize me if you found the plane off the reef with a cable attached to it......Terry L.Simpson #2396(LTM)

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

Why would a Japanese fishing vessel go to all that trouble?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:18:43
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      Book title

Pat---Dennis McGee--whom I hope to meet some day--has a good idea about the title of Rics latest scholarly tome.....He throws around all those old dinosaur words like panache and elan that all us old dinosaurs love to hear and use and reflect on and wish for the 'good old days'.

I think a contest for a new title might be a good idea, might awaken the interest of some forumites and revive what has become a somewhat moribund forum.

I would support a competition for a new inspiring/energetic/eye catching title contest.......

Ric/Pat--How say you????....as Bill O'Reilly says.....

Jim Tierney
********************************

Gee, Jim, you almost had me there, until the reference to O'Reilly.

Oh well, I guess I can overlook it.

We have been using the "Losing Amelia" title because someday we're gonna write "Finding Amelia". The reason for THAT title is that one of  the activities associated with the Nikumaroro cruises is writing new song lyrics to old tunes, and the first one ever written was "Finding Amelia" to the tune of "Waltzing Matilda."

Once a crazy lady vanished in an aeroplane
Crazy but not near so crazy as we
For we sing as we search through
The black tip sharks and buka trees
"Who'll come a-findin' Amelia with me?"

Finding Amelia, finding Amelia,
Who'll come a-finding Amelia with me?...

etc

So, even if it seems unimaginative, at least there was some sort of reasoning behind it.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:20:34
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

For Alfred Hendrickson

Assuming you understand the relative locations of New Britain and Howland Islands in regards to the last known flight of Amelia Earhart and her sidekick Fred Noonan - Understanding voice communication recieved by Coast Guard Cutter Itasca suggests that NR16020 was in the vicinity of Howland Island at or about 0843  2 July 1937.

Logic suggests that return towards New Britain from Howland Island area an act of madness!

With all due respect, it would appear that the fuel range of NR16020 continues to be limited only by the imagination of a few folks chasing the Earhart last flight legend with little concept of Pacific blue water distance and aircraft (NR16020) infrastructure limitations involved.

If NR16020 is found to have landed on New Britain it would have occurred early in the flight leg rather than later after nearing Howland Island area.

Sorry but this return from Howland Island towards New Britain dog just can not hunt.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang   # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:21:00
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What's going to happen to Nikumaroro

Think positively, Tom. Although something might wash off of Niku something might wash up.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:23:35
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Forum is dead

Rusty Metty wrote:

> The  internet is all about a free
> exchange of ideas.

Rusty, I don't have a clue where you got that idea. There is no free lunch on the Internet. Everything you see on it is being paid for by someone in some manner. You may be free loading but someone is paying so you can.

Alan
***************************************

Also, Rusty must have missed the amendment to Forum Changes. No one is being asked to pay to post in a direct way; but in order to cut down on some of the extraneous (and often very silly) stuff we have instituted a  rule that only TIGHAR members can post. Anyone at all can still read, lurk, snicker, etc.

If you want to post, hey, go to https://www.tighar.org/membershipnew.html and join up.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:24:36
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Dead forum

How about "Sex in the Phoenix Islands?"

Alan

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

No, I don't think so; we aren't marine biologists (since virtually all of the sex in the Phoenix Islands is done by marine critters.....).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:07:08
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Alfred Hendrickson writes:

> The thing that bothers me about saying, 'There was not enough fuel to
> get her there (to New Britain)' is that the knowledge we have of AE's
> fuel consumption is apparently limited to that indicated in the Kelly
> Johnson telegrams."

Incorrect, sir!

According to the Itasca Logs, Amelia herself said:

*"We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low."*

So at the time she thought she was near Howland, she also didn't have much gas left. So we know an additional fact that is not mentioned in the Kelly Johnson telegrams. Now, we cannot know exactly how much fuel was left, but Amelia's informed opinion is that fuel is low. I cannot see how you can interpret low fuel near Howland as leaving open the possibility that she could return to New Britain.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:16:17
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Paige, you are exactly correct. We have Kelly Johnson's telegrams and we have Amelia's OWN estimate that her fuel was low. We also have more than that which I will mention directly.

Amelia's comment that her fuel was low is hardly substantive information.  We can attach different meanings to that. We have beat this to death but it bears mentioning again.

We know that the destination was Howland but we have no idea what or if there was an alternate plan. The fact that there was no other airfield is not determinative. They could have planned on heading toward the Phoenix group  in hopes of finding land or back to the Gilbert's or north to the Marshall's or all the way back to Lae or New Britain as has been discussed. OR  just hang around searching for Howland. If she was talking about fuel to find Howland low fuel sounds more ominous. If she meant she would soon have to head  to another choice for landing she could have meant maybe another four  hours.

The decision would depend on where they decided they were and IF they could decide where they were. Wandering around aimlessly doesn't seem likely.

They were at 1,000' feet and might have been able to shoot the sun and a planet or climb until they could. Climbing would use fuel but there wasn't  much choice there.

Maybe they didn't try to get a fix but I find that illogical. Assume for a moment they did. Why not try for Howland again? Should we assume they found their position to be too far from Howland now to return? I could buy that before believing they didn't have enough confidence they could find it on  the second try. That doesn't necessarily mean they had to be closer to some    place else. Given the number of choices the Phoenix group presented they might  have been a more attractive choice even though slightly further away.

But why Niku? I can only guess it was closest to their newly found position. It was NOT because it was an extension of the infamous LOP. Why? Because after running "north and south" on 157/337 and NOT finding Howland or Baker Noonan HAD to know his LOP did NOT go through those two islands and therefore an extension of it would not go to Niku.

I agree he could have been far enough south as to have never encountered Howland or Baker but there is no rationale to date supporting the Electra being that far off course.

I said we had more information on fuel. We do. We have Kelly Johnson's test flight data on a similarly loaded 10E the year before showing all the relevant    fuel performance. In addition we have the performance of the Daily Express. The  Express used between 45 and 51 gph over a 24 hour flight. My estimate of AE's  fuel based solely on the Express is 111 gallons of fuel at 8:43 am local Itasca  time. Our only problem is that we don't know where the plane was at that time.  We have at one time estimated that position to be within 80 miles of Howland but  we can't put that in concrete.

Using the performance charts for the airplane the most I can come up with is 139 gallons of fuel but that is another hour of flying and makes Niku more reasonable.

One last caution for those trying to reduce fuel consumption. Reducing fuel flow also slows the airplane down. It can stay in the air longer but it    can't increase range. Each pound of fuel is capable of creating X amount of HP. that's a design feature. As the plane becomes lighter it takes less HP to  move it a given distance. Thus you can see that near the end of a flight the gph is less than at the beginning to maintain the same TAS. The limits to that are simply chart data.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:17:24
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

For those who can't find this on the TIGHAR web site here is the information Ric posted in regard to the "Daily Express."

The plane was loaded with 1270 gallons of fuel and took off at 2115Z from Ainsdale Beach. It flew until 1950Z (estimated) landing for a fuel check at Squantum Naval Air Station. the tanks were shown to contain 170 gallons of fuel. That is air time of 22 hours and 35 minutes and the use of 1100 gallons of fuel.  That computes to just under 49 gph.

The plane supposedly was on the ground 20 minutes and did not refuel. It took off and landed at NY at 21:37Z. Elgin Long stated supposedly the plane had 97 gallons of fuel on landing. That is not entirely accurate. What he wrote was  that Merrill had a nearly full 97 gallon wing tank. I'm not sure what that means. 70? 80? 90? 95? Regardless the fuel usage comes out essentially the same.  In the Web posting the flight time was figured incorrectly but of little matter.

Keep in mind the Daily Express also used the Cambridge fuel analyzers and fuel was considered quite critical as evidenced by the Squantum landing just to check.

Using 49 gph for AE's plane she would have had 111 gallons at 8:43 am Local Itasca time. (20.2 hrs times 49gph).

I must also add we don't know the relative weights of the planes and we do know the Daily Express flew at low altitude a great part of the way. How much difference that makes could only be determined if we knew the gross weight of each plane. Anything else is pure speculation. I have to believe the flight altitude would make some significant difference.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:18:01
From:         Terry Simpson
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht

Good afternoon,Forum,Pat,Ric,this morning Pat you answered my posting<why would a Japanese fishing vesssl go to all that trouble>well this is just my thinking ,but everybody in the world knew about that flight.I have read that the emperor of Japan was very interested in Amelia's plane,so the word was out.I asume A and F were approching from the northwest on LOP to Nuki,they could have flown over a ship(fishing vessel) and had been seen.I know nothing of radio of that period,but suppose they radioed there superiors and were told to pick them up .It dosen't seem like to much trouble to drag the plane off the reef,look at what they did at Peral Harbor.I can't believe you could float an airplane......say all the way too say Mili and  doubt you could hoist a L-10 on a fishing vessel and if you could I can't believe it would'nt have been seen by the searh that was going on.So to make it short,they dump the L-10 in the drink and took the crew of the Electra to where ever.Again just thinking,food for thought ,also I heard something about Ric being down in a hole with a book,better make sure it isn,t a Playboy,just kidden.....Terry L. #2396 (LTM)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:18:24
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

For Paige Miller - Thanks for your response. AE said "We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low." There is nothing in this statement that allows us to make any calculation of her fuel mileage or fuel usage. She did not know where she was, so she couldn't tell anyone where she  was. She must have known how much fuel she had left, but she never told anyone else.

I, too, have a hard time squaring her statement with the New Britain Theory. I keep asking myself if she was going to go to New Britain, why would she say "we must be on you, etc."

For Tom Strang - Thanks for your response. I do understand where New Britain is, and it certainly seems to me that attempting to go back there is, as you say, an act of madness. But, to say it was madness, don't you have to begin by assuming that she was close to Howland? What conclusive evidence do we have that tells us she was close? Suppose she never got near Howland, she just thought she did? The range, as we know it, of NR16020 was determined from the Kelly Johnson telegrams. Is there any other information available that we could use to calculate her range?

Ahh, heck with it. Maybe you're right. Maybe the dog just won't hunt. :-) I've been accused of being a dreamer more than once! I keep thinking that it would be cool to conclusively rule out New Britain, or to admit that it is in the realm of the possible.

LTM, who says the Forum ain't dead, it's just resting!
Alfred #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:18:49
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

I have one more comment on our heroes choice of secondary destination. It could have been inadvertent of course.

We don't know how much if anything Noonan knew of the Phoenix Islands. The only clue I know about is that he underlined Enderbury (or someone did) on his first attempt map.

I see the possibilities as

1. accidental
2. whichever one he was closest to
3. whichever one offered the safest landing area.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:19:25
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Red algae

Rusty--

My guess is that the reddish brown algae was just that, reddish brown algae.

However, If you aren't going to rule out aluminum as the source for turning algae red, then you can't rule out iron either as this red patch was not significantly distant from the wreck of the Norwich City.  The high iron content did stain some other things like the mollusk shells in the area which exhibited an unusually dark reddish color.  If you are going to attribute the reddish tint of the algae to metals, I would think iron would be a more likely candidate to stain something red than aluminum.  Maybe I'm wrong though... 

Either way, having personally searched the area by SCUBA, I can tell you that there was neither aluminum nor iron there in 2001.  The reddish brown algae was on top of a flat section of coral less than 3 feet deep just seaward of the surf zone at low tide.  It was a little unusual in that it formed this flat shelf, while most of the surrounding coral beyond the break in the reef flat was more rutted, for lack of a better description.

LTM (who likes her algae Rusty)
Andrew McKenna
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:15:12
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

> ............but gas is running low." There is nothing in this
> statement  that
> allows us to make any calculation of her fuel mileage or fuel  usage.

Fairly true, Alfred. I always thought it interesting that at 8:43 am she didn't mention fuel. That leads me to believe it was not as critical as some would like to make it. Of course at that time she doesn't appear to have given up hope they would find Howland. What I AM having trouble  with is believing they were so totally lost they could be hundreds of miles from  where they thought they were. Even if they made a gross navigation error it should have been quickly obvious. For example if Noonan had misapplied variation  and was 19 degrees right of track he or Amelia would certainly have caught that by next fix time.

If anyone wants to run the exercise you will see Noonan could have flown a no wind flight plan and got pretty close. For those who know we don't know the enroute winds I'm suggesting just applying the forecast weather. The point is that the winds just don't matter near as much as one might think. The winds were  forecast generally out of the East and they were flying generally toward the  East. That means the North/south component was not that devastating.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:15:44
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Dead forum

I agree with Alan Caldwell. The word "sex" should be in the title, even if there is no sex in the book... A learned gentlemen recently advised young would-be writers how to write a book.  One has to find a  beginning. Then one has to find a surprising end. When you got hat you start writing something to fill the gap in between. It doesn't matter what you write really. The books that sell well are those that are too silly for words. And of course there has to be a lot of sex in it. The story doesn't matter really... Speaking from personal experience I would like to add that It helps if you have written books before because publishers hate to publish books written by authors who are unknown to the public. Don't give up, Ric !
LTM

Herman
(who has written one book, a long time ago)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:16:03
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Dead Forum

A title ? What about "The secret of the sexy Electra" ? I find the Electra has something sexy. Much sexier than the DC-3 and certainly better looking than Pan Am's Martin flying boats !

LTM
Herman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:23:30
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re; AE and fuel

Thanks, Alan. I was not aware of the Daily Express information.

Pat, can you point me to where this is? Is it on the TIGHAR website?

LTM - Alfred #2583

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

No, it's not. What we have is about 15 MB of images of newspapers, magazines, etc. I can run a CD for anyone who'd like one -- just send me some dough. $10 would do it to cover the CD itself and the shipping. Eventually I'll have the time to get it all converted and up on the website, but not yet.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:23:45
From:         Malcolm Andrews
Subject:      Re: Dead forum

The forum isn't dead. But we've got rid of a lot of boring posts.

LTM

Malcolm Andrews
#2409
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:25:44
From:         Danny Brown
Subject:      Naming the Book

Pat and Ric:

I like the idea of soliciting name suggestions from forumites for the book on post lost messages. As a marketing professional for 35 years, I can tell you the name will be VERY important for sales to those outside of TIGHAR who have less than a consuming interest in solving the mystery. I might add that the general public is an area where the book can reap the most exposure for TIGHAR. I feel the present working title is not the best for promoting sales to the masses (sorry Ric). As you know, I have supported TIGHAR with a membership for years and have offered opinions and advice when I deemed it might be helpful. Because my expertise lies mostly outside technical research needs, I really feel I haven't contributed much to the TIGHAR's efforts. However, in this case, I may finally be able to offer valuable assistance to TIGHAR's efforts.

I'll be glad to start the suggestons for a title and waive any claim of royalties or value attached to use of one of my titles. However, you may want to consider awarding a free copy of the book to the author of any title used for the book. I realize that my suggestions for a title may not be anywhere near good enough for use, but I would still like to get the ball rolling from forumites who are much greater literary giants that I.

My two suggestions are:

1. "Witness to Survival -- The post-lost messages of Amelia Earhart"
2. "SOS: Amelia Earhart Calling"

I might have more later, but these should ignite the fuse of contributions.

However, Ric, if you think it is better to extinguish this fuse immediately, please do so with my blessing.

LTM
Danny Brown
#2426
*****************************************

I'm certainly willing to let the fuse run and see what blows up. We're pretty attached to "Losing Amelia" for the reasons I mentioned, but that doesn't mean we're right.
P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:27:15
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Alan Caldwell writes:

> Maybe they didn't try to get a fix but I find that illogical. Assume
> for a moment they did. Why not try for Howland again? Should we assume
> they found their position to be too far from Howland now to return? I
> could buy that before believing they didn't have enough confidence they
> could find it on the second try. That doesn't necessarily mean they had
> to be closer to some place else. Given the number of choices the
> Phoenix group presented they might  have been a more attractive choice
> even though slightly further away.
> 
> But why Niku? I can only guess it was closest to their newly found
> position. It was NOT because it was an extension of the infamous LOP.
> Why? Because after running "north and south" on 157/337 and NOT finding
> Howland or Baker Noonan HAD to know his LOP did NOT go through those
> two islands and therefore an extension of it would not go to Niku.
> 
> I agree he could have been far enough south as to have never
> encountered Howland or Baker but there is no rationale to date
> supporting the Electra being that far off course.

Alan, is this a new theory of yours (that AE made it to Gardner but not by following the LOP)? Because if you have mentioned it before, it has not made it into my permanent memory bank storage device (TM).

And while I think this is a very reasonable theory, nevertheless, this does bring up one problem in my mind ... let's assume that they have flown south and away from Howland by the time Fred gets his next fix. Let's also assume they are not reasonably near the LOP that goes through Howland and Baker. These are your assumptions if I read them properly, if not correct me. Then the question I have is "Why not head for McKean"? Isn't that closer to just about anyplace south of Baker (past the midway point between McKean and Baker)? The problem is, when you start from somewhere off the LOP through Howland and Baker and way south of Baker, and you head for McKean, you are not on a course whereby if you don't find McKean, you can keep going on that same heading and arrive next at Gardner.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:27:40
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Alfred Henrickson writes that going from Howland to New Britain is an "act of madness". But then he adds: 

> But, to say it was madness, don't
> you have to begin by assuming that she was close to Howland? What
> conclusive evidence do we have that tells us she was close? Suppose she
> never got near Howland, she just thought she did?

It depends on what you think the word "conclusive" means, Alfred.

Is it possible that at the very same time Amelia tells Itasca "we must be on you", one of those radio-atmospheric-bounce-thingies (I forget the technical term) causes Itasca to hear Amelia at maximum strength even though Amelia is nowhere near Howland? It is also possible that those same radio-atmospheric-bounce-thingies cause all of Amelia's preceding transmissions to sound as if there is a pattern whereby the strength is increasing with each transmission?

So now what is conclusive here? There is certainly a very small possibility that all of these low probability things happened, but I would contend that the probability is so low that it is conclusive that Amelia was somewhere near Howland.

But to claim that Amelia made it to New Britain, somehow all of this has to be explained away. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What is more believable to you? That Fred's navigation had them say hundreds or even a thousand miles off course at the same time that the radio signal strengths indicated they were near Howland, or that they were indeed near Howland?

The New Britain hypothesis has to explain these issues, and so far as I know, no explanation by its proponents have been forthcoming. Thus, in absence of AE's electra found on New Britain, I have to conclude there is no substance to the New Britain hypothesis.

Paige Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:19:30
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

When we were casting about for a name for what became Amelia Earhart's Shoes, the marketing people at the publishers were very, VERY insistent that we include the name "Amelia Earhart," not just "Amelia," or anything cleverer. Although I wasn't very happy with this, I had to acknowledge the wisdom of including the magic words that every search engine will find.   So, while I like "Losing Amelia," too, I have to acknowledge that it's kind of  an in-joke, and reluctantly am coming around to the idea that the title ought to  be something else.  Not that I have anything to do with the decision.

LTM (who has no opinion whatever on all this)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:19:55
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

How about this for a title:

Amelia? Fred?.......are you there?

LTM (who always liked to know where I was)
Kerry Tiller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:20:21
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

I agree full heartedly with Alan.  When Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic in 1927 he had no clue what wind to expect en route, so he planned his flight without any wind correction. He arrived more or less exactly where he expected to arrive on the Irish coast.  I believe this would have applied to Earhart's flight too. She had the advantage of having at least better information about the to expect weather en route and knew she would fly into the wind most of the time. So, Noonan's calculations helping she would be near Howland at the time her watch told her so and she said "We must be over you but we can't see you"..

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:43:37
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

> 2. "SOS: Amelia Earhart Calling"

To me, this one is a bit to close to "SOS Titanic" by Eve Bunting (Harcourt Children's Books, 1996).

Before we go on, do I understand correctly that the current proposed title is "Losing Amelia"?  With no sub-title?  Or is that just the current working title?

      - Bill Leary #2229
********************************************

The title we are working with is

Losing Amelia: The 1937 Search for Amelia Earhart and Why it Failed.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:56:40
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: Naming the Book

"'Can You Hear Me Now?' asked Amelia Earhart"

With apologies to Verizon because it's a slow day at work.

Karen Hoy #2610

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

I wonder if they've trademarked it.....

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:57:14
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

I'm Amelia Earhart-can you hear me NOW.

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

Great minds department.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:58:05
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Dead forum

Herman, I thought sex was a good idea but Pat said there was no one in the Phoenix Islands now except marines. Apparently she doesn't know much about marine life. The only difficulty is this is supposed to be about Amelia not a bunch of marines.

What about "Shore leave on Niku with Amelia?"

Alan

(Yes, I know, Pat but this is funnier. <G>)

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

This is what I get for posting the Forum on a Sunday.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:58:37
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Pat, run me a CD and hit my card. If I need to verify the number and mo/yr let me know.

The information I quoted is from a posting by Ric and it is on the web site. I did a google search for TIGHAR and "Daily Express" and there it was. Also a comment by Cam.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:04:55
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Paige, you read me correctly if I understand what you wrote. And no, it is not a new theory. It is not important albeit common sense.

You have two possibilities. One, the LOP DID go through Howland. (On Noonan's map of course it did.)  The Electra then had to be too far to the SE for their brief search to get within 20 miles of Baker. Keep in mind  their search may not have exceeded one hour -- from 7:42 to 8:43. In that time  they could not fly very far. Simple math will tell you the distances but it  looks like they had to be around 80 miles SE of Baker if they first turned NW  and flew for 60 miles or half an hour. Flying back SE for half an hour would put them back at 80 miles SE of Baker at 8:43. Or they could have been 20 miles SE  of Baker and turned SE to fly their search ending up back 20 miles SE of Baker. That's one possibility. The second is that the LOP did not in actuality go through the physical location of Howland and Baker. On his map it still did of course. Various sighting and/or plotting errors could have put the LOP short or long by 20 miles or so. I picked 20 miles arbitrarily as within that distance they should have sighted the islands.

Now for the Niku theory the best situation is that they are 80 miles SE of Baker at 8:43. That leaves about 240 miles to Niku and with even my low estimate  of 111 gallons they could make that in two hours with about an hour reserve.  Piece of cake. Even at 20 miles SE of Baker they could make Gardner in two and a  half hours with a half hour reserve. Now why did they not go to McKean? Maybe  they just missed it.

So, if the LOP did not physically go through Howland it would not have led to Gardner. That has to be rather obvious.

Now as to why they went wherever they went your guess is as good as mine.  I tried to point out that if Noonan picked a choice on purpose his reason  is unknown to us but most probably because he thought the plane could  survive landing there OR it was simply closest.

Also as I stated they could have simply stumbled on their  destination.

This is not in opposition to Ric's idea that they just drove down the LOP and there was Gardner. Certainly that could be.  Even if the LOP was not in line with Gardner there is no reason to believe Noonan's navigation could not have ended up there. We know too little to figure this out.

My contention is that there is nothing supporting them being very far off course. I am troubled believing they arrived at 7:42 120 miles south of track. That presents a minor problem of course but doesn't negate the theory.

If I recall Ric's comments on the Phoenix Islands not all of them were ideal landing places. Even Niku was not Edwards AFB but from what I know it presented better aircraft survivability than the others. Is that correct, Ric? Those who have been to all of them could speculate far better than I could but that still leaves out the factor of where they actually were at 8:43 and that may well have been determinative.

Alan
*************************************

> the Phoenix Islands not all of them were  ideal landing places.

True. McKean, Birnie, Phoenix, and Enderbury are all makateas, little round patches of coral with nothing to recommend them. Canton, Sydney, Hull, and Gardner (Kanton, Manra, Orona, Nikumaroro) are atolls, and somewhat more inviting, but of them Niku is the best.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:05:40
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

All this nonsense aside I think if the publisher likes the title they probably know best.

Alan
*****************************

We haven't got so far as names yet with a publisher. Sufficient unto the day.....
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:06:00
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

Amelia Earhart from beyond the grave -  The Post-Loss Messages

or

Castaways on a South Pacific Isle: Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:31:18
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Pat says:

>Canton, Sydney,
>Hull, and Gardner (Kanton, Manra, Orona,  Nikumaroro) are atolls, and
>somewhat more inviting, but of them Niku is the  best.

Fond as I am of Niku, I'm not sure we can really say that, since we've not been on Manra or Orona at all, and have spent only a couple of days on Kanton.

There may be dandy places to land on their reef flats, or maybe elsewhere.

However, they're all pretty far off to the east from the LOP, and even McKean is a bit off (plus it's much smaller than Niku and has no trees, making  it less visible (except, of course, for its clouds of birds, and then there's the smell).  Niku has the great advantage of being smack dab on the LOP.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:32:36
From:         David Jeane
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

"Disappearing With A Trace...The post-loss Messages of Amelia Earhart"

David R. Jeane
#2498

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:33:09
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

For  Alfred Hendrickson

> "Suppose she never got near Howland" <    -  Possibility recognized,
> but no factual evidence to support that possibility.

> " The range, as we know it" <   - Do we know it?

Do we know whether the women's voice communicated to the CG cutter Itasca was in fact that of Amelia Earhart?

New Britain Landfall theory is still valid, but just not on a fligth path from the Howland Island area - What if the New Britain landfall theory has more substance to it than has been publicly acknowledged?

One can stir the proverbial pot questioning aspects pertaining to Amelia Earhart's last known flight - Which validates forum death premature.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang    #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:33:31
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Thanks for reminding me regarding the landability (is that a word?) of the various islands.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:34:02
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      The name game

Before you can settle on a name you need a naming strategy. What exactly is the name supposed to communicate to the reader of the book cover.

I suspect everyone agrees the name needs to communicate that the book is about Amelia Earhart. Personally I think using only her first name would be adequate. I also find it more personable, which makes it more interesting to me. If I were back in my advertising days I would use a research study to evaluate the book name recognition with two alternatives - full name and first name only. Unless there was a major increase in recognition with the full name I would elect to use Amelia. This issue is a testable proposition.

But what else should the name convey? I think it should be provocative. For instance, a name like The Last AE Radio Messages is not. However, Amelia's Last Words is (granted this is a bit of overstatement, but that's advertising).

Based on the above, my entries in the contest follow:

Amelia's Last Words.
Missing Earhart Evidence Recovered.
Who Lost Amelia Earhart?
Amelia's Cry In The Night.
Amelia Calls For Help.
The Missing Earhart Distress Calls.

As an additional thought, I'm thinking the overall "hook" for the book is in the idea that the generally accepted last transmission from Earhart has been discovered to be incorrect. This is a simple, easy to understand, strong reason for why another AE book.

blue skies, JHam
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:52:52
From:         Gene Dangelo
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

How about: "Amelia Earhart: the Air, the Waves, and the Airwaves"

Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, #2211
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:53:32
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: the name game

I've never really had much of a problem with the proposed title -- I actually kind of like it.  However, I can see the value of really stressing that this is about Earhart.  Wouldn't the simple solution therefor be to call it, "Losing Amelia Earhart."  Anything more artful or subtle tends to obscure the biggest selling point.

The current subtitle "The 1937 search for Amelia Earhart and why it Failed" (?) seems a bit dry, unwieldy and scholarly (assuming this book is aiming for more of a mass audience).

How about something like?:

"Losing Amelia Earhart: The Failed Rescue of History's Most Famous Missing Person."

or

"Losing Amelia Earhart: The Failed Rescue of America's First Lady of the Air."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:54:08
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: The name game

I don't know a thing about writing or publishing books, but I do know how to search for them in a library catalogue.

A title with AE's full name would result in hits in Title, Subject, and Keyword searches. This would also work with online searches. It really helps people who don't know much about searching, or who aren't aware of that newly published AE book and just stumble across it.

I had never heard of "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" before finding it in a keyword search for a general Earhart biography.

Karen Hoy #2610
University of North Texas Library
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:55:33
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: the name game

Jerry Hamilton - said:.

> As an additional thought, I'm thinking the overall "hook" for the book
> is in the idea that the generally accepted last transmission from
> Earhart has been discovered to be incorrect. This is a simple, easy to
> understand, strong reason for why another AE book.
> blue skies, JHam

In response to this, I'd like to see the cover picture one of those of A/E in the cockpit with her headphones on...  That would be toooo cooool.... With the millions of A/E books out why is a reason for another needed?. This book is soooo different from all the rest, that its Cover and Title would induce many to take a look inside.  Once they read through a couple of pages of Rics storytelling, and read some of these messages, They would be totally obsessed with knowing the whole story, and would have to buy it.

By the way, I LIKE the title "Can you hear me now?"  Wish I thought of it....
LTM
Jackie Tharp #2440
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:17:36
From:         Terry Simpson
Subject:      Re: Naming the book

As always,hope you're well.It seems like all through the years the stuff you hear and read about Amelia is the The word' LOST' .  It  is used so much.Lost this lost that,why not 'FOUND''? Thats what Tigar is trying to do, isn't it? How about'FINDING AMELIA' brief and to the point and it says to everyone what you all are trying to do.Mr.Tom King, I think it was, said you shouldn't use just the single name.If so, you could put the word ''FINDING AMELIA ''in large gold letters up towards the top and just under the name Amelia you put her last name in much smaller letters.The small letters could be black or red  and yet a nice sapphire blue would work.Then you use the picture ''Final Approach'' for the cover.I think it would be cool.That is an awsome picture,and would make a great book cover.Just thouhts and two shots.And while I am at it Pat my membership was due the end of Jan. My fees should be $45.00 because of my S.S....would it ok be if I sent you $25.00 two mouths in a row,that would make Tighar an extra five bucks and sure would help me out.Terry L.(#2396)
LTM....................PS, I ment to compliment you on TT Volume 20# 3 it is a great read,I showed it to some friends who are avation buffs,some real negative jurks and they complimented you on it.I will pass a few on to you,excellent,good read,thats good work,and for me all I can say is 'THANKS'' I was trying to decide weather or not to renew my membership this year and then Tighar Tracks came in the mail,I read it and the decision was made.Tighars membership an is excellent money value.I have been  with Tighar now four years,I have absolutly no regrets.For those I have bored(TUFF)I pay my way for the privilige to post as long as it pertains to Amelia,Fred and Tighar.To the Lurkers out there that read this and I am sorry for using that word because I don't like it.I think its rude and inconsederit,a so called lurker is really a POI (person of interest) To all POI I urge you to join,you won't be sorry,If your interested in Avation this is certenly one of best ways to go for up to date info on Amelia Earhart and Capt Fred Noonan.Yes Iam pushing memberships,Its my way of trying to help Tighar,by helping Tighar I am helping myself because I AM a member.To Ric I will try to recrute a new member this month for Tighar.I will seriously work hard to get at least one.If we could get each excisting member to at least recrut one person that would double the membership, I know dreaming,but I promise I will get at least one new member this month,its the least I can do.........May good forces be with us all....Alan too....TERRY
L(#2396) LTM (who always said to me shut ta hell up)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:51:36
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Re: the name game

If Ric wants the definitive book on resolving the mystery to be "Found....etc" or "Finding....etc", then his desire to echo that in the current book really should have "losing" or "lost" in it; I like the symmetry. So..........

"Losing Amelia Earhart, Castaways (or, Cast Away) in the Pacific"   my second choice

"Losing Amelia Earhart, A Failure to Communicate"

"Losing Amelia Earhart, and Why It Didn't Have to Happen"

"Losing Amelia Earhart; the Search That Failed"

"Lost in Plain Sight; the Search for Amelia Earhart"      I like this one best

"Lost, the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart"

"Lost and Alone, Amelia Earhart"

"Lost; Amelia Earhart Calling"

Hey Ric, you must be sooooo sorry you set this off......................

LTM (who always wanted to be a literary critic)

Art Carty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:26:41
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: the name game

>  From Art Carty
> ... Hey Ric, you must be sooooo sorry you set this off ...

I'm delighted that Ric hasn't taken time off from WRITING THE BOOK to follow up on the title firestorm.

Writing is hard work.

It's solitary confinement.

No one else can take a bath for you.  No one else can write your book for you.

Most people who talk about writing books never do.

I've written two books.  One is out and the other is due to be released in mid-May.  Although my knowledge is not verifiable through empirical techniques, I consider myself an expert witness on what it takes to get a book completed.

Magda Polanyi wrote her husband Michael, "You are nearly human if you don't write books."  Michael wrote his brother, Karl, "You must finish your book quickly now.  The only way to do it is to think of the next one.  Put everything that is in your way into the future plans and publish the residue."

I think the book Ric is writing now is supremely important.  It weaves together all of the work he and TIGHAR have done over the last two decades. I'm confident that it will give a huge impetus to TIGHAR's work when it is finished.

I'd like to ask the members of the Forum to leave Ric alone for the next few months.  It will be a quieter, less interesting place because of his absence, but we will all gain a great deal from letting him invest his energy in The Book. Discussion of titles and marketing strategies will only make sense AFTER the book is written.

LTM.
Marty #2359
**************************************************

To be absolutely honest about all this... Ric has no idea the Name Game is even going on. He isn't subscribed to the Forum and knows only what I tell him. When he needs information, I post Research Requests for him.

I am the Gate Guardian and let nothing and no one past <G>.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:02:07
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: the name game

I agree that AE's full name should be included.  And a clear Author indicated as well.  Any the dust cover should have an application to TIGHAR on the inside......
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:21:10
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: the name game

> From Pat:
>
> To be absolutely honest about all this... Ric has no idea the
> Name Game is even going on. He isn't subscribed to the Forum
> and knows only what I tell him. When he needs information,
> I post Research Requests for him.
>
> I am the Gate Guardian and let nothing and no one past <G>.

Nice work, Pat!

You guys make a great team.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:22:46
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: the name game

Well, it looks like I blew it.

I can only assume that my original post about renaming the post-lost radio signals book appeared TOO serious.  I mean, I was joking about this, gang; my intent was to play around a  little.   There were some really good entrants ("Can you hear me now" - LOVED it, Karen, absolutely loved it!!) but I was aiming a little lower, so low in fact that I could hear Ric and Pat groaning all the way down here in D.C.

I have a few entries myself, though some of them don't exactly jibe with the TIGHAR theory.  In the interest of brevity and to accommodate search engines, I've used the same subtitle for all entries.

SHARK BAIT!
Subtitle: Amelia Earhart's and Fred Noonan's Ultimate Fate . . .?

Dinner of Two . . .
Subtitle . .

Want Fries with that?
Subtitle . . .

Lost and Found?
Subtitle . . .

Another Crappy Day in Paradise
Subtitle . . .

Cialis, Lavitra, and Viagra
Subtitle . . .

Wish You Were Here . . .
Subtitle . . . .

And for cover art will have AE's 10E locked in a low-altitude dog fight with a Do-335 (I KNOW it s German plane, but the readers don't; it's a weird enough looking plane to get their atention.  Sheesh.) The 10E is twisting and turning over Niku with one engine smoking and the 335, with Japanese markings, is closing in with all guns blazing.  In the upper left and right corners are pictures of AE and FN - just in case the title/subtitle are too subtle. :-)

I know there are better titles out there, so come on; Pat just LOVES this type of stuff.

LTM, who knows she'll regret this in the morning.
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:24:28
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: The name game

Why not use the name "Lady Lindy ?" If the book is meant to reach the masses it needs reference to something popular. And who was more popular in 1937 than "Lady Lindy" ? My suggestion(s) : "How we lost Lady Lindy" or "How America lost Lady Lindy ?"

LTM (who will not claim copyright)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:24:45
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: The name game

You have a point there, Karen. If books will be sold via Amazon Amelia Earhart's name has to be on the cover. Perhaps like :

"How America lost Lady Lindy", with as subtitle : "The truth about the disappearance of Amelia Earhart"

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:25:01
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: the name game

For Art,

I would be careful with the word "alone". After all Fred Noonan was flying with her. An there was the Itasca radio room crew listening too...

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:43:42
From:         Rusty Metty
Subject:      Re: Forum is dead

Alan,
read my note again and this time keep it in context. You have pulled 'Free' out and stood it up alone. What I said was a "Free exchange". An exchange is not what this forum is doing. Let me slow it down - let's think of it as an "open exchange". Allowing others to read what we say is hardly an exchange.

The internet is very much about an "Open (Free) Exchange" of ideas. Indeed it more about a free (literally free) exchange of ideas by the day. We are currently experiencing a revolution in the form of open source software. the Mozilla browser I read these posts on is free. Not only was it developed in it's entirety with donated time it's licensing agreement maintains that it must by law remain free.

Free blogs, free software, free email. Is our moderators time free? No it is not, but that is the job of the moderator, to moderate.

this forum will in my opinion increasingly begin to chase it's tail.

Ubiquitous information for all is the goal.

Rusty Metty
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:44:40
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: the name game

I, for one, can't wait to read Ric's book. Up to now nothing has persuaded me that they came down on Niku. But maybe this book will get me  to rethink my "Crashed and Sank" position.  I hope I can digest it all  and we all get to discuss it in the forum because of all the theories we have  discussed on the Tighar Forum this one may be the most important  information concerning Earhart and Noonan's whereabouts ever - the fact that  they have come down somewhere and were still alive and trying to send sos's  for help. Forget all these frivolous titles we are suggesting. It has to be one  that suggest how important this find is - exactly what Ric has suggested for a  title.

Cheers from Bill Shea
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:45:09
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: the name game

I would bet that 95% of Americans under 50 could not identify who "Lady Lindy" was, or even "Lindy." They would probably think it was about a cross-dresser.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:21:06
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Alan Caldwell says: "I tried to point out that if Noonan picked a choice on purpose his reason is unknown to us but most probably because he thought the plane could survive landing there OR it was simply closest." Then he says: "If I recall Ric's comments on the Phoenix Islands not all of them were ideal landing places." And then Pat Thrasher adds: "True. McKean, Birnie, Phoenix, and Enderbury are all makateas, little round patches of coral with nothing to recommend them. Canton, Sydney, Hull, and Gardner (Kanton, Manra, Orona, Nikumaroro) are atolls, and somewhat more inviting, but of them Niku is the best."

Now, hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute, podners. I was with you, and I agree with almost everything you say, except for this part. AE and FN do not know any of this. They don't know which of the islands might be a good landing spot and which are not. At that time in 1937, no airplane had ever landed on those islands. I would claim that it is also very likely that information about where you could land in the Phoenix Island *was not known* at that time. How could it be? Even if the survey teams that studied the Phoenix Islands made a note of that, what is the likelihood that this information made it to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. Little, I would say. (Unless, of course, someone knows otherwise...) Not only do we not know if AE and FN even considered a back-up plan if they couldn't find Howland, but we also don't know what maps they had of the Phoenix Islands, nor what information they had about possible back-up landing sites.

So Noonan is somewhere southeast of Baker and can't find Baker or Howland. He takes a sun-sight and learns he is way south(east) of Baker and he decides he is closest to ... where? I think the only choice is McKean. That's all I'm arguing -- it doesn't make sense to say he headed to Gardner because it would be easier to land there.

Now, having said that, I agree that he still might have missed McKean and wound up at Gardner, there are numerous paths that could make that happen -- but not if he was on an LOP west of the LOP through Howland.

If you look at the map, you are west of that LOP and you head for McKean, you cannot miss it and wind up at Gardner. Further, it is also possible that AE and FN arrived at McKean, decided there was no place to land and decided to try the next island just beyond the horizon (that must have been a doozy of a discussion, huh?). And maybe they wound up at Gardner by accident, although I consider that somewhat unlikely.

Paige Miller

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

Paige, you are quite right -- we just don't know what, if anything, Earhart and Noonan either could or did know about the Phoenix Islands. It does appear that the only map readily available of Gardner *may* have been one done from an 1870s survey which was grossly inaccurate; however, this is not certain.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:21:42
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Tom Strang writes:

> Do we know whether the women's voice communicated to the CG cutter
> Itasca was in fact that of Amelia Earhart?

Mr. Strang, if you are going to base an argument on this statement, then you need to provide evidence that indicates those communications were not Earhart. Otherwise, I consider your statement above to be one of the most ridiculous things ever said in the Earhart Forum. Specifically, I would like you to tell us (since you are implying there is a possibility) what other female was out in the middle of the Pacific near Itasca, broadcasting on a radio frequency reserved for aircraft?

Next statement by Mr. Strang: "New Britain Landfall theory is still valid". Aha, by simply implying that Itasca *might* have heard someone else (without proving or even providing a hint at who that someone else might be), you make a conclusion that something else is possible. Allow me to call this line of argumentation "ridiculous" too.

I said a few days ago, referring to the fact that Itasca did indeed hear Amelia Earhart and therefore AE was close to Howland with fuel running low, "The New Britain hypothesis has to explain these issues, and so far as I know, no explanation by its proponents have been forthcoming."

So, Mr. Strang, what is your evidence that Itasca did not hear Amelia?
--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:20:46
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: the name game

Sorry to disappoint you Bill but the book will not tell you where they landed. It will only lay out the case that they DID land somewhere and continue transmitting for a few days. I'm not down playing the significance of the book. It will be earth shaking to all those who would have our heroes dive into the  ocean at 8:43 AM or shortly thereafter.

It will end the crashed and sank theory but it will not tell you where they landed or what happened to them after they got on solid ground. 

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:21:19
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Paige Miller writes that we don't know if AE and FN "even considered" a backup plan if they missed Howland. I suggest you read the Vidal interview, and a few biographies that quote Vidal's recollection that if they missed Howland, they would reverse course and head back to the Gilberts from whence they came. Now you can consider the weight of that evidence, but it is "admissible". I also think that Mrs F. Noonan corroborated that statement, and I shall look it up.

Here is a collateral question for the radio experts, which may have been answered sometime ago. Could the Nauru intercept of a msg some 12 hours after her last, the one that was "unintelligible" but sounded like the "voice last nite, no hum of the airplane in background"  been sent from Niku northwest to Nauru?

LTM,

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:21:59
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Paige Miller wrote:

> So  Noonan is somewhere southeast of Baker and can't find Baker or
> Howland. He  takes a sun-sight and learns he is way south(east) of Baker
> and he decides  he is closest to ... where? I think the only choice is
> McKean. That's all  I'm arguing -- it doesn't make sense to say he headed
> to Gardner because it  would be easier to land there.

Paige, slow down my friend. A sun shot will give Noonan just another LOP running generally NW/SE. It won't tell him he is way southeast. The sun is not going to tell him he is closest to any place. It will only give him an east/west  position.

The only clue we have regarding Noonan's knowledge is the fact he underlined (or someone did) Enderbury on the map for the first attempt. No one  knows what that means if anything. We also don't know that he DIDN'T have good knowledge of all the Phoenix Islands.

Now, given that no one knows where they were at any time that morning and  we don't know what knowledge Noonan had it is still pure speculation as  to why he went wherever he went.

Depending on where he was he could have drawn an LOP that would have gone  to any island and/or missed any island within obvious limits. IF he even could shoot a celestial body the sun was not the only one up that morning.  He might have even obtained a fix and navigated to his new destination direct and not on  any LOP.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:24:48
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: open forum

>  From Rusty Metty
>
> The internet is very much about an "Open (Free) Exchange" of ideas. ...
>
> Free blogs, free software, free email. Is our moderators time free?
> No it is not, but that is the job of the moderator, to moderate.

I support TIGHAR's decision to ask contributors to "put their money where their mouth is."

Folks who don't like the new policy can vote with their feet--or mice, as the case may be.  There are, as you note, plenty of free sites elsewhere.

> this forum will in my opinion increasingly begin to chase its tail.

Time will tell.

> Ubiquitous information for all is the goal.

If I'm not mistaken, you may buy open access for the whole world.  I forget the exact price we agreed on, but it was probably something like $5,000 a year (800 x $50 = $4,000).

LTM.
Marty #2359

*****************************************************
Anyone may still garner information from the Forum and our website at will. All we hope to do is limit the number of extraneous and time-consuming posts (like Rusty's) to those generated by people who are willing to support the organization.

Anyway, I'm killing this thread.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:29:25
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      The post loss messages and where are we?

To: Paige Miller and Forum

Paige's 2/13/2005 post:

> And while I think this is a very reasonable theory, nevertheless, this
>  does bring up one problem in my mind ... let's assume that they have
>  flown south and away from Howland by the time Fred gets his next fix.
>  Let's also assume they are not reasonably near the LOP that goes
> through Howland and Baker.
>
> These are your assumptions if I read them
> properly, if not correct me. Then the question I have is "Why not head
> for McKean"? Isn't that closer to just about anyplace south of Baker
> (past the midway point between McKean and Baker)? The problem is, when
> you start from somewhere off the LOP through Howland and Baker and way
> south of Baker, and you head for McKean, you are not on a course
> whereby if you don't find McKean, you can keep going on that same
> heading and arrive next at Gardner.
> The problem I keep having with regard to what AE and FN knew or  
> didn't  know is hidden somewhere in the post loss messages that Ric is  
> working on.

I don't recall any discussion of the post loss messages (unless there are some we are not aware of) where in AE and/or FN gave any hint of where they were or where they thought they were - no Lat/Long, no South/North/West/East of anywhere, no island group and certainly no specific island, etc. This leads me to believe that they were indeed lost without a clue of where they were (at least during the time they could have broadcasted). If this is indeed the case then something very serious went wrong with their equipment or other navigation resources either in flight or after they landed (predicated on the post loss messages being valid).

Let's look at what we have to work with if Gardner was to become their home away from home: Gallagher finds a "sextant box," a bottle, shoe parts and very little else. What he didn't find was a sextant, charts, diary, time piece, log book or any other items that would be handy to have if you wanted to know where you were. If the plane was intact enough to let them send radio messages where is all the good stuff that was onboard?

Some 60+ years later TIGHAR finds bits of airplane parts that could have come from the L10, some shoe parts that could have come from AE or FN but again nothing that would be called a treasure to hold onto if you wanted to know where on the face of the earth you were.

Nothing! Completely lost and no way to find out where you are!

The book title: "Prelude To A Legend - Amelia Earhart Realizes She's Lost and Hope Slips into Despair, her last message."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:11:56
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: the name game

<<It will end the crashed and sank theory >>

I wouldn't hold my breath (as it were).  I don't think any  evidence or analysis will prevail upon hard-core adherants to Crashed-n'-Sank, Japanese Capture, Irene Bolam, or other such hypotheses to change their opinions. 

LTM (who is endlessly impressed with the human ability to dismiss evidence that conflicts with biases).
********************************

We have long thought that if we were to find the aircraft, intact or otherwise, at Niku, there are those who would
1)	Say the Japanese planted it there
2)	Say WE planted it there after finding it at Saipan
3)	Say the US government planted it there

etc

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:12:29
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Ron, you are right. Vidal's supposed comment IS evidence. Anyone else quoting Vidal is not.

Even if AE actually said they would turn around and fly to the Gilbert's that has no evidentiary weight. Even if she said it to you in person.

What they actually did would have depended on the circumstances of the moment such as fuel remaining, where they decided they were and what destination was easiest to get to. By that I mean which island could Noonan navigate to with  the most certainty.

With the sun behind him, how would Noonan navigate to the West? Even if he could all he would be getting is more speed lines. Going west would have been utter foolishness.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:12:53
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: the post loss messages and where are we?

Ted Campbell wrote:

> If the  plane was intact enough to let them send radio messages where
> is all the good  stuff that was onboard?

How can anyone disagree with your statement Ted?

Cheers from Bill Shea
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:26:27
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      How many assumptions?

I've been seeing a lot of assuming lately on the forum.  And that got me to wondering, how many assumptions are we allowed to have before our ideas (i.e., pet theories, SWAGs, hunches, etc.) are just so much malarkey?

Most of us here are not up to date on the entire history of the AE search and certainly don't understand each nuance of every small clue that has been collected.  Speaking for myself, and perhaps others, I've avoided the rigorous training necessary to hone my mind into a powerhouse of intellectual reasoning, such as we've seen with Ric, Alan, Marty and others.

So, my question is, how many times should I accept the disclaimer. "Let's assume . . ." before I can with a clear conscience ignore the posting?

LTM, who's easily sidetracked
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:08:18
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: The post loss messages and where are we?

> ... Let's look at what we have to workwith if Gardner was to  
> become their home away from home: Gallagher finds a "sextant box," a bottle,
> shoe  parts and very little else. What he didn't find was a sextant, charts, 
> diary, time piece, log book or any other items that would be handy to have if
> you wanted to know where you were. If the plane was intact enough to
> let them send radio messages where is all the good stuff that was onboard?

All the navigation stuff would have become useless when the plane could no longer transmit calls for help.  No point in carrying it with you to the survivor's camp.

I've always theorized that the sextant box held AE's diary, if she was the castaway who died on the island.

The missing items that really bother me are the knife and the ax listed in the Luke Field inventory.  I don't think they ever would become useless.  But if the Niku hypothesis is true, the plane must have gotten lost somehow between July 2 and the naval overflight on July 9th.  The loss of the plane might explain the paucity of the survival kit found near the skeleton.

Stuff may yet be waiting to be found on the island--if TIGHAR can raise the money to fund another expedition.

LTM.
Marty #2359=
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:52:08
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: How many assumptions?

>  From Dennis O. McGee
>
> ... how many assumptions are we allowed to have before our
> ideas (i.e., pet theories, SWAGs, hunches, etc.) are just so much
> malarkey?  ...

Please note that you are asking a philosophical question.

There is no laboratory technique or repeatable experiment you can run to answer a question like this.

Engineers like to warn each other against making UNSTATED assumptions because "when I assume, I make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me.'"

There is no assumptionless reasoning.  Even the person who says, "I will doubt everything until I can prove it to be true" is assuming, without proof, that they are capable of telling the difference between a valid and an invalid proof.  The proper translation of the maxim is, "I will doubt everything except my ability to reason correctly."  If we are not allowed to think that we know how to think, we may as well stop talking altogether.  It's an enormous assumption, but without it, there can be no progress at all.

I'm not interested in counting the number of assumptions that make up the foundation of the competing theories about the fatal flight (Niku, splashed and sank, Japanese capture).  ...

[Drat.  My hypothesis generator just kicked in.  I realized that no one has yet explored the possibility hat the Japanese loaded AE onto an aircraft, flew her close to Howland, forced her to make false transmissions, then spirited her away to die nobly next to Fred on Saipan.  <sigh> ]

... Just counting the number of assumptions is no way to evaluate the quality of a theory.  Each assumption and the arguments that flow from it have to be dealt with on their own merits.

Here are the assumptions I'm conscious of making:

1. The radio operators logged the final transmission accurately.  (I wasn't there and we have no recordings to test their logs against.)

2. The testimony of the navigators is true that the LOP in the last message was derivable from a dawn observation.  (I'm not a navigator.)

3. Drawing a line parallel to the dawn LOP through Howland comes close to Gardner.  (I'm not a cartographer.)

4. Kelly Johnson's notes on fuel consumption are a reliable guide to the range of the aircraft. (I'm not an aviator.)

5. The Chater Report gives us a reliable account of how much fuel AE had on board on July 2, 1937. (I wasn't there, but we have no contradictory evidence.)

6. AE and FN probably did what they said they were going to do--fly north and south on the line.  (This is just a WAG.  Being human, they may have lied or changed their minds or made a mistake.)

Based on these assumptions, I think it is reasonable for TIGHAR to have searched Niku, reasonable to think that the bones found there in 1940 might be Amelia's, and reasonable to go back and see if anything else can be turned up.

I don't think it's an airtight case by any means. To adopt the Niku hypothesis for the sake of argument means that the search party, the mapping expeditions, and lots of other folks missed seeing AE, FN, and the plane.  That goes against lots of other assumptions I would like to make about "what life on Niku would have been like if AE and FN had really landed there."  If the Niku hypothesis is true, something strange happened
with the aircraft and the survivor--but strange things do happen and people make mstikaes.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:35:45
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Tsunami effects?

In view of all the damage and destruction caused by the horrible Tsunami, would it be a good idea to try to get some arial or satellite photo's of Niku? I keep thinking things like: What if it picked up a certain cockpit and threw it up into the treetops? Or maybe theres a partial fuselage just sitting on  the beach somewhere. Or a wing standing against the remains of the Norwich City? I dunno, I can't stop thinking about the possibilities..

LTM, Jackie Tharp #2440

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

The Phoenix islands are on the other side of a lot of land from where the tsunami hit, and it seems they were unaffected. The only people we know of who routinely overfly the area is the RNZAF in P-3s. They will take an occasional snapshot but their focus is illicit fishing. Obviously we'd love to have tons of pictures... but haven't been able to figure out any really good way of getting them.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:52:52
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: How many assumptions?

Dennis, leaning back on my powerhouse of knowledge let me suggest that a mere one assumption is malarkey. You may safely stop reading as soon as you see that word or one that is similar.

On the other side of that coin if we limit ourselves to pure known and confirmed facts the Forum would have been over and closed down about a decade  ago.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:53:48
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Tsunami effects?

There was a recent cyclone in theSolomons and Am. samoa (Tikopia)

Dan P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:14:20
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

For Paige Miller

Your opinion has been duly noted!

I merely submitted those questions as food for thought - It would appear you have had difficulty digesting that food for thought - Sorry for that bout of indigestion.

In answer to your question - Logic dictates that proving the feminine voice communicated on 2 July 1937 to Coast Guard Cutter Itasca was or was not Amelia Earhart's would be like pushing a length of rope in a straight line up a hill.

Thinking out side the box can be enlightening - As your comments have illustrated.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:16:26
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Tsunami effects

There was something on TV yesterday about Kiribati. A spokesman (I forgot to write down his name) said that the future of the Kiribati Islands is grim as they will disappear beneath the sea level in a couple of years time as a result of the rising ocean levels caused by the green house effect. He said the island populations will have to move to other parts of the world , which almost certainly will cause cultural problems

LTM

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

Yeah, it's a problem. Pacific atolls tend to have a max elevation of less than 20 feet. They can be overwashed by large storms, and rising sea levels will erase them. The volcanic islands (Samoa, Fiji, Tahiti, etc.) will lose coastline as well. Lots of population displacement.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:29:54
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Tsunami effects

Jackie Tharp wrote

> In view of all the damage and destruction caused
> by the horrible Tsunami, would it be a good idea to
> try to get some arial or satellite photo's of Niku?

A while back, I sent an inquiry to the Samoa Dept of Meteorology as to the affects of the Tsunami in Samoa, American Samoa, and the Phoenix Islands thinking that there might have at least been a large wave. Seems it was undetectable due to weather in Samoa, and probably the negligible at best at Niku.

Here is the reply

Hello Mr. McKenna,

Thank you for the request. Your interest in the tsunami effects on Nikumaroro as well as the other islands mentioned for the purposes of TIGHAR's cause is commendable. Unfortunately, I am not aware of whether the effects of the tsunami were felt on Nikumaroro. This is due to the fact that we do not have access to the tide gauge sea level results from Kiribati, a result of persistant communication failures. Hence, I am not able to justify whether any likely impacts would have been felt.

As for Samoa, there existed negligible traces. However, due to the fact that a low pressure system lay north of Apia which generated associated swells and choppy surface water conditions on the day, it is more likely that the choppy surface water experienced along the northern coast of the islands was a result of the low pressure system, and likewise the swell, as indicated by the correlations in the timing of the respective phenomena.

Now this is not to say that traces of the tsunami wave were not experienced. Perhaps there may well indeed exist tsunami wave traces, but the data leads us to attribute the rough surface waters experienced to the low pressure system as the dominating factor.

As for American Samoa, I am unaware whether they actually received traces from the tsunami, or whether they were actually experiencing the same rough seas we were, a result which most likely was attributed to the low pressure system lying north of the entire island group. It would be best advised for you to contact American Samoa National Weather Service for clarification.

In terms of the likely impacts on Samoa as a result of the tsunami, to this day there are no reports from the public on any damage caused, and that is likely due to the fact that the waves experienced on the day were insignificant enough to create any notable effects. Assuming that there was damage though, then the low pressure system would have to have been critically assessed in order to try and eliminate it as the cause for the
waves.

As for Nikumaroro and Kanton Islands, well it is difficult to say anything really based on the limited data to work with. However, i feel it is unlikely that any significant impacts were felt as a direct result of the tsunami. The tide gauges installed in Vanuatu and New Zealand recorded moderate rises in their immediate sea level as a direct result of the tsunami. It seems that the wave made its way through the Arafura Sea and into the Coral Sea, and it is likely that the South Equatorial Current and the East Australian curent may have played a part in influencing its travel path down to New Zealand, as well as preventing it from reaching regions northeast of the Solomon Sea (eg. Kiribati). The numerous land masses scattered in the central western pacific also served to reduce its wave energy as it moved further east of the Coral Sea.

Again though, it is perhaps better that you contact the Kiribati Met Office to ascertain the true reality.

As for me, I hope that this may have served to answer a few of your queries.

Thanks again for initiating contact...

Regards,
Shaun Williams
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:03:46
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

I believe we can take it for granted that any female voice heard over the radio in the Itasca radio room in the middle of the Pacific Ocean ON 2 July 1937 can only have come from Amelia Earhart. Any discussion of the possibility this voice could theoretically also have come from another female pilot in the area compares to the time consuming and useless discussions by church leaders on the gender of angels in the days of Byzantium (later called Constantinople and today's Istanbul). I think Marty will agree.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:14:38
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

> From Herman De Wulf (#2406)
>
> I believe we can take it for granted that any female voice heard over the
> radio in the Itasca radio room in the middle of the Pacific Ocean ON 2 July
> 1937 can only have come from Amelia Earhart.

I agree with your judgment that it is highly improbable that any woman other than AE could have been heard by the Itasca.

But our reasoning depends on a multitude of assumptions: that the radio men heard what they said they heard; that no one has doctored the logs; that there was no odd propagation from some non-AE source; that the English used in the texts means today what it meant then; etc.

I would categorize this view as "reasonable opinion," not something that other reasonable people must accept on pain of exile from the courts of reason.

> Any discussion of the possibility this voice could theoretically also have
> come from another female pilot in the area compares to the time consuming
> and useless discussions by church leaders on the gender of angels in the
> days of Byzantium (later called Constantinople and today's Istanbul).
> I think Marty will agree.

Not fair!  It's off-topic for me to argue that angelology is, in its own way, as valuable to the life of the mind as speculating about who may have been responsible for what was heard on the Itasca in 1937.  ;o)

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:13:51
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Marty,

It was not my intention to mix angelology and the search for Amelia Earhart. If you feel offended by the figure of speech I apologize. Where I live (Belgium, which is mainly catholic) that figure of speech about the gender of angels is idiomatic in the Flemish language. Therefore I didn't feel it was off-topic using it. Here it is frequently used in colloquial speech to describe "unending discussion that does not solve the problem that had to be solved". My command of the English language may not be what it should since I live in Belgium but I'm trying to improve... By the way this forum has been a great source of information linguistically. Finally, it was my understanding that the figure of speech would be understood as such.

Herman

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

I wonder how many non-native speakers of English think we were terribly weird for referencing the physical abuse of deceased equines so much? :-)

Interesting that the reference to counting angels has entered colloquial speech in Belgium, but has the same essential meaning as flogging of dead horses.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:17:00
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

> From Herman De Wulf
>
> It was not my intention to mix angelology and the search for Amelia
> Earhart. If you feel offended by the figure of speech I apologize.

Not at all.  No blood, no foul.  I tried to respond to your humor with my own humor, but I guess it wasn't funny enough to make you laugh.  :o(

> Where I live (Belgium, which is mainly catholic) that figure of speech
> about the gender of angels is idiomatic in the Flemish language.

Here's a saying I learned from a Belgian woman:

"Tout ce que la femme veut, dieu le veut."

It's not going to help us find Amelia, but it is a good way to navigate some relationships.

LTM.
Marty #2359
***********************************

I don't know whether to request a translation or not.....
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:19:06
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Tom Strang says: "In answer to your question - Logic dictates that proving the feminine voice communicated on 2 July 1937 to Coast Guard Cutter Itasca was or was not Amelia Earhart's would be like pushing a length of rope in a straight line up a hill. Thinking out side the box can be enlightening - As your comments have illustrated."

In Paige Miller's world, evidence is considered, opinions are formed, and if the evidence is strong enough, tentative conclusions are formed.

In Tom Strang's world, established facts can be questioned, not by providing counter-evidence or a counter-argument, but by simply questioning them; and then, once such a fact is questioned, other theories are "still valid", as he said a few days ago. The New Britain hypothesis is "still valid" simply by implying that the words heard by Itasca were not Amelia's. In addition, my Paraguay hypothesis is also "still valid" because maybe that wasn't Amelia near Howland. Both appear to be equally "valid" under this mode of thinking.

In addition, in Paige Miller's world, I am open-minded enough to listen to new evidence or new lines of argument, and if that new evidence or argument is convincing enough, I can change my tentative conclusion. The time for thinking out of the box, in my world, is when the facts are not conclusive. There is no need in my world to "think out of the box" when someone tells me the sun rises in the east, nor is there any need to "think out of the box" when someone says the voice heard by Itasca was Amelia Earhart's. (By the way, my Paraguay theory indicates I do think out of the box...)

Still, even though I have reached my tentative conclusion on this issue, I would be happy to listen to Mr. Strang's (or anyone else's) evidence or argument that it was not Amelia. I take the totality of Mr. Strang's two posts (not just the part I quoted) to indicate that he has no evidence, nor does he have an argument, to support the implication he has made twice that it was not Amelia Earhart that Itasca heard.

Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:41:50
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Tsunami effects?

Radio Australia reported on 10 Feb that "king tides" had struck Kiribati over the previous two days, with waves up to 2.8 metres high breaching sea walls and damaging homes. Cited Greenpeace as saying the Betio hospital was partially flooded, a number of villages affected and wells contaminated. The director of the Met Service, Tekena Teitiba, said while king tides were not uncommon, they were becoming more and more frequent.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:13:14
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

For  Paige Miller

In your reply to me Mr. Miller you chose the following words "In Tom Strang's world, established facts can be questioned"  -  Are you inferring that the feminine voice communicated to the Coast Guard Cutter Itasca was factually that of Amelia Earhart rather than an assumed fact?

 It would appear that some folks who participate on this forum consider it valid to question the signal strength of this communication with Itasca, but find it taboo to question the authenticity of the voice  -  Why is that?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang    #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:22:11
From:         Emmett Hoolihan
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

For Mr. Tom Strang:

Although it's not "taboo" to question whose voice it was, "unrealistic" would be a better choice of words (in my opinion).

Face it. The number of female pilots in 1937 could all be included on one (1) piece of letter size paper. The number of multi-emgine female pilots would've been half that and the number of female pilots WILLING to be flying in that part of the world--you could probably count on one hand.

That that voice was any other than Amelia's is "unrealistic". Let it go!

Respectfully,

Emmett Hoolihan
2405S
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:26:00
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Was it AE?

Tom Strang says:

>       In your reply to me Mr. Miller you chose the following words "In
> Tom Strang's world, established facts can be questioned"  -  Are you
> inferring that the feminine voice communicated to the Coast Guard
> Cutter Itasca was factually that of Amelia Earhart rather than an
> assumed fact?
>
>      It would appear that some folks who participate on this forum
> consider it valid to question the signal strength of this
> communication with Itasca, but find it taboo to question the
> authenticity of the voice  -  Why is that?
>
Evidence, Mr. Strang, evidence.

I have asked you in each of my previous two messages for evidence that it was *not* Amelia. You have continued to provide no such evidence. You continue to provide no argument in favor of the position that it was not Amelia.

If you are going to question this "fact", provide the evidence or argument that supports your position that it was not Amelia.

So here we go, Mr. Strang. I propose a contest. You provide the evidence or argument that it was not Amelia, and I (and probably others) will provide evidence that it was Amelia. Accept? Or not?

Paige Miller
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:11:25
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Strang vs. Miller

For Paige or Tom,

I may have come in late, but what specific signal are you discussing that allegedly came from Earhart, or "her", a female voice I think? Time, who received it and the msg content? And what if anything was done? Did other stations beside Itasca hear this?

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:11:56
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Was it AE?

For Paige Miller

Paige -  No I can not validate the voice communicated to the Coast Guard Cutter Itasca on 2 July 1937, as that belonging to Amelia Earhart nor can I disprove that either - Frankly Paige I never said I could.

As on the morning of 2 July 1937 up to the present day the feminine voice heard by Itasca has always been *ASSUMED* to been that of Amelia Earhart - I admit a very reasonable assumption under the circumstances.

My questioning of that assumption is not to distract from that assumption, only to call attention to the fact that it is only an *ASSUMPTION*.

An assumption however reasonable should never be construed as "established fact".

Paige, being that I'm unable to prove at this time that the voice heard by Itasca was not that of Amelia Earhart, I see little need for a contest of wits.

It is time for the forum to return to more important matters such as telling Ric what his book title should be.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:30:01
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Strang vs. Miller

Ron, I think you HAVE come in late. The fuss is the contention that the female voice received by the Itasca has not been proven to be Amelia Earhart's voice. If I know Pat well enough she is just about to pull the plug on this
total nonsense.

Alan

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

I keep hoping someone will make a good point along the way.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:41:03
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Strang vs. Miller

Alan,

Another words, the "female voice" supposedly heard has not been proven to be AE nor disproved, I guess, hence it is "nonsense" to continue to debate it. I thought that might be critical to Rics thesis she was alive some 10 hours later.

I don't think Strang and Miller have conceded yet! My point, which you didn't answer, was simply which signal are the refering to? I know the debate, but some of us would like to see the original log reports that they are arguing about.

Pat loves an arguement, keeps the forum from getting rigor mortis as some have inferred from the "dead forum".

Your input always breathes or gives some CPR back into the forum!!

LTM,
Ron Bright
Bremerton,Wa
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:41:48
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      How Close?

It is probably fair to say there is general agreement that AE's voice was the one heard by the Itasca radio folks. But, Tom is right, it is an assumption. It seems a safe one to me, but I can neither prove nor disprove it.

What I have concluded recently is that there is also general agreement here that AE was quite close to Howland. How close, I ask? May I have some numbers? At closest, was she 10 miles from Howland? 20? 30? 50? Would anyone say that, at closest, she was 100 miles away? More?

Alfred #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:23:39
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: How close?

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

> What I have concluded recently is that there is  also general agreement
> here that AE was quite close to Howland. How close,  I ask? May I have some
> numbers? At closest, was she 10 miles from Howland?  20? 30? 50? Would
> anyone say that, at closest, she was 100 miles away?  More?

Don't be too sure Alfred, When I was in the Navy stationed on Guam. Most of the radio signals we got had lower nighttime HF freqs and daytime higher HF freqs. The problem we had was just in the morning when the D layer came up and we switched to the higher day frequency.  You could be on one of those frequencies from,  say 6AM to 9 AM and the quality would change as the sun  came up.

What I am saying is that we could get a good signal from further away than we could - say, an hour later.

I would think it is very possible that Earhart could have been heard a few hundred miles away with good quality at that time of the morning, then when she got closer, the same frequency would not be as strong due to the D layer.

Any radio experts out there to confirm this?  Cheers from Bill  Shea
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:11:51
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

I'm guessing Emmett's callsign would naturally have been "Hot  Lips," if he had ever been a Naval aviator;-)

LTM,
Dave Carter (#2585)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:21:29
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Engine fire

Some time ago we had a spirited discussion regarding the engine fire AE had. I was reading through the Model 10 operating manual from Lockheed yesterday and came across an item I thought interesting in light of the engine fire.

Item 14 in the starting engine checklist cautions the pilot not to "pump" the throttles as it will likely cause an engine fire.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:22:55
From:         Emmett Hoolihan
Subject:      Re: AE and fuel

Hot lips is close and you can imagine how many times I've heard that. But, "NO," my son's call sign is "Hoolie"--- I've always been "Emmett."

Emmett in Laverne(KPOC)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:27:21
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Sticking my neck out

While the Forum is in idle or worse, I thought I would sort of summarize some of what we know or have been told or read as the case may be. Some of what I write is just my own speculation so I'm not writing this as the last word and anyone is welcome to disagree with any or all of the postings. If you take exception, however, you will be wasting your time unless you have the support of contrary evidence or a rational piece of reasoning.

If I make a mistake point it out as I don't want anyone on the Forum misled by my carelessness. I'll do this in short postings. First will be a few comments on fuel load at Lae. Second will be take off time at Lae. Next I'll write about the flight from Lae to midpoint. After that I'll post a few words about the flight from midpoint to the vicinity of Howland and finally a posting about fuel usage for the flight. I've just reviewed most of the Earhart books and it is appalling how much disagreement there is just on what we consider known facts. There are a lot of careless errors and invented "facts" I notice. I am sure most of you have found the same to be true.

For those of you who have no interest in what I think I'll cut to the chase with a quick summary. All I am doing is suggesting the Electra may have had 1110 or 1120 gallons of fuel rather than 1100 at Lae. I'm also suggesting it may be that they took off at about 10:20 AM rather than 10:00 AM. I am pointing out that the position reports AE transmitted and the time they were transmitted do not coincide and therefore no accurate ground speed can be computed. Keep in mind we do not know what the enroute winds were so trying to compute GS is a waste of time. I am suggesting that trying to break up the flight into increments will give false results and the best we can do is break at the mid point. I am suggesting at 1030 GMT it is more likely they were near the Myrtlebank rather than the  Ontario. We CAN estimate some averages IF, IF, IF we assume the Electra DID get reasonably close to Howland. That COULD be a fatal assumption of course. I am suggesting also that based on what we know about the fuel issues AE had 130 to 150 gallons of fuel reserve at  8:43 AM local  Itasca time.

I am NOT suggesting what happened to the Electra or where it went AFTER 8:43 AM.

Next posting will be Part 1. Fuel load at Lae.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:28:07
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Part 1: Fuel load at Lae

Part 1. Fuel load at Lae

Starting with the fuel issue, we have generally accepted that the Electra had 1100 gallons of fuel at Lae. I think we are shorting the plane 10 to 20 gallons.

The Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report of May 19, 1937 (the last one done before the flight) certifies that the aircraft had 12 fuel tanks of the following capacities -

In the wing centersection:
2 ea. of 81 gallons
2 ea. of 16 gallons
2 ea. of 102 gallons

In the fuselage:
2 ea. of 118 gallons
3 ea. of 149 gallons
1 ea. of 70 gallons

Total - 1,151 gallons

Both Chater and Collopy seemed to accept 1100 gallons as the total fuel load in spite of their own statements to the contrary. Chater says that the 81 gallon tank containing 100 octane "was approximately half full and can be safely estimated that on leaving Lae contained at least 40 gallons." That would give us 1110 gallons of fuel. Collopy, however, said the tank contained 50 gallons of 100 octane fuel which would give us 1120 gallons total fuel. In either case they clearly had more than 1100 gallons.

Next time I'll post Part 2. Take off time at Lae.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:28:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Part 2: Take off time at Lae

Part 2. Take off time at Lae

Three different times have been reported although we generally accept 10:00 AM local Lae time as correct. Elgin states the plane taxied out just before ten. He couldn't possibly know that but rather is helping them make a ten o'clock take off I would guess.

Another report has them taking off at 1200 but I suspect that is a confusion between GMT (0000Z) and Lae local of 10:00 which are one and the same. The other report has them taking off at 10:20 AM local. There appears to be no support for the latter time.

In this regard there are two issues that have been bothering me. When I flew we used brake release as take off time but usually the tower logged us off when we broke ground. When I flew passenger and cargo runs we used block out and block in times. Since Lae was a cargo and passenger facility I started to wonder if Lae used block times or not. I couldn't find when the block concept appeared. However, looking through the Lockheed model 10 operating manual I found reference to block time so it existed in the 30s before AE's flight. On page 20 there is a section on flight planning which uses block to block time for flight planning computations. I don't know if AE blocked out at ten or took off at ten but I think it is an open issue.

The second problem I have been concerned about also relates to the actual take off time. AE supposedly said she would listen on the hour and half hour and report at quarter after and quarter till. I can't find any support for that or when she said it prior to the Lae take off if indeed she did but the fact is she only reported at 18 to 20 minutes after the hour. We typically reported every hour after take off on over water legs. Is that where AE's reporting time came from? Did she block out at ten, taxi, do her run up and check lists then start take off roll close to 18 and break ground close to 20?

The question might be what significance could this have? The answer is a more reasonable flight plan, ground speed and more fuel reserve.

Next, Part 3. Flight from Lae to Midpoint
Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:30:30
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Part 3: Flight from Lae to Midpoint

Part 3. Flight from Lae to Midpoint

I'll do this assuming a take off time of 10:00 AM.

Depart Lae

10:00 AM  0000 GMT
Way point 150.7 E 7.3 S  Reported at 0519 GMT
Distance  186 N.M.

This gives a GS of 37 Knots which is ridiculous.

If the 150.7 E position was in error and should have been 157 E it makes more sense. The distance then is 596 N.M. and yields a GS of 112 Knots. These computations require an unsupported assumption that the position and the reporting time coincide. We can't make that assumption. Noonan could have made his fix on the hour and AE simply reported on her scheduled reporting time. In the latter case it would change the ground speed to 119 Knots. Not much difference but some.

The problem now switches to the second way point. The distance from the above position to 4 33' S 159 7 E is only 196 N.M. for a two hour flight yielding a GS of 98 Knots. That would mean a head wind of 32 Knots. Hard to buy. Again this is assuming the position and reporting time coincided. Not likely.

For those of you waiting for a discussion of AE's 0800 GMT transmission you will wait a long time. There is no support for such a radio call and it would have been on her listening time not her transmission time.

If I recall correctly that originated with Lovell possibly Rich but neither Chater nor Collopy nor any radio log supports the contention.

From this second position to the  Ontario is 400 N.M. If the Electra was over the Ontario at 1030 GMT the GS between those two points would be 125 Knots. That would make more sense whereas being over the Myrtlebank at 1030 GMT would require a GS of 152 Knots which is not reasonable. In both cases you can see the problem. In the former we have to assume a 5 Knot head wind and in the latter a 22 Knot tail wind. I doubt either are correct.

That's the rub. Clearly there is something wrong with making the positions coincide with the fixed reporting times. So, if we take an average ground speed from Lae to Ontario we get 113 Knots and to the Myrtlebank we get 122 Knots. Both are believable and acceptable. That means that at 1030 GMT the Electra could reasonably have been over either one. I picked the Myrtlebank because a ship's crewman claimed he heard the plane fly over. No one on the  Ontario has made such a claim that we know of.

Now for a caveat. All of the distances are computer generated great circle distances which Noonan had no way of flying. Instead he flew a series of courses to approximate a great circle route. Consequently his route is slightly longer than mine. Lae and Howland are exact geographic sets of coordinates. NO OTHER point discussed is. The 159 7' E point may be the next most accurate as there were a group of islands within a few miles whereby Noonan could check his fix. We do not know for certain the exact position of the  Ontario or Myrtlebank nor do we know the geographical relationship between the Electra and whichever ship supposedly sighted at 1030 GMT. Finally we do not know exactly where the Electra was at 7:42 AM.

Next posting will be in regard to the flight from  Ontario or Myrtlebank to Howland.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:31:21
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Part 4: Flight from Ontario/Myrtlebank to Howland

Part IV. Flight from Ontario/Myrtlebank to Howland.

Taking the case of Ontario to Howland first and continuing at 113 Knots GS the Electra should traverse the 1091 N.M. in 9 hours and 38 minutes putting the Electra near Howland about 56 minutes later than AE believed. They would be getting there at 2008 GMT instead of 1912 GMT.

That doesn't take into consideration that the winds were predicted to be lighter from midpoint to Howland. That means Ontario is still a possibility if the winds were light enough and the ground speed picked up to 125 Knots. Believable if we can believe the head wind is only 5 Knots.

If we use the Myrtlebank the distance is 1009 N.M. and the ground speed would be 116 Knots which is easier to accept as that gives us a head wind of 14 Knots. Both cases assume the fallacy the Electra ended up over Howland. Even if it was around 20 miles off and thus they still couldn't see Howland the figures would be approximately the same.

Next time I'll approximate a fuel scheme.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:32:18
From:         From Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Part 5: Fuel scheme

Part V. Fuel scheme.

In this part I am just going to apply Kelly Johnson's fuel schedule to the flight which has been done a number of times before but it bears repeating in light of some of the current discussions. I would like to add that the Daily Express used approximately the same amount of fuel in a 24 hour flight with a similarly loaded aircraft. Going over the fuel usage AE had on her  Oakland to  Honolulu flight we find the same fuel usage. I can support both of those contentions if someone needs me to do so.

There have been other computations of the Oakland flight's fuel but they are not correct. Also there is some reluctance to accept Kelly Johnson's fuel schedule which is interesting since Johnson was the designer of the plane. Kelly Johnson also was not pulling those figures out of his hat. The year before, Johnson test flew a model 10E weighing 16,500 and configured with the same fuel total AE had. I have all of his work, charts and conclusions. The fuel figures he gave AE were probably based on those tests. They come out just as he said and the fuel consumption of AE's plane will average around 49 GPH just as Kelly said, Lockheed said, the Oakland flight did and the Daily Express achieved.

There is also a contention that AE supposedly said she reduced power and was getting 20 GPH at 120 IAS on the tail end of the Oakland to  Honolulu flight. We are to believe that is 10 GPH per engine. Not so. When the plane is cruising and using 51 GPH throttling back to 40 GPH is a good savings but just as the charts show. The Electra, like all airplanes, uses a specific amount of fuel in pounds to create one horse power to drive the plane through the air. ALWAYS. Every minute of it's flight. That's pure physics and the design of the airplane systems. It can't be changed by the pilot no matter how the power is set. As the plane uses fuel it becomes lighter and it takes LESS HP to drive the plane and consequently the GPH is reduced. But we already know that. That is what Kelly Johnson's fuel protocol says. He stated 100 Gallons to level off if the climb to altitude doesn't exceed 30 minutes. Then so many gallons per hour for the first three hours and so on. That is in concrete. That doesn't mean a pilot can't waste fuel and use more than normal. Of course the pilot could or even dump fuel for that matter.

Now I believe, given the facts, (gross weight, OAT, etc.) it probably took longer to get to 7,000 feet initial altitude. But let's use 30 minutes just for the sake of argument. We will also use a take off time of 10:00 AM or 0000 GMT, and 1100 gallons of fuel. At 0030 GMT AE is leveled off at 7,000 feet and now has 1000 gallons of fuel. The next three hours use 180 gallons of fuel at 60 GPH. It is now 0330 GMT and AE has 820 gallons left. After the next three hours at 51 GPH she has used 153 gallons more and has 667 gallons left at 0630 GMT. The next three hours uses 129 more gallons leaving her with 538 gallons at 0930 GMT. She now has 9 hours and 42 minutes left until she thinks she is over Howland. She will use 38 GPH for that period using up 370 gallons of fuel and leaving her at 1912 GMT with 168 gallons. One more hour until she reports searching on the 157/337 LOP at 8:43 L leaves her with 130 gallons of fuel. That's an average fuel consumption of a little over 48 GPH. For the purists on the Forum the airplane doesn't suddenly change from 60 GPH to 51 GPH after three hours. This is a gradual change but those are averages over the period. No amount of "fuel management" is going to change that. I don't know what GPH figure she could attain by slowing the plane down until it hangs on it props but at that configuration it isn't going anywhere. It can only loiter. Reducing power only increases air time but cannot increase range.

That leaves AE with about 3 hours and 25 minutes to dry tanks. That won't get her much more than 450 N.M. and you can take that to the bank. <G> Where it WILL get her depends on where she was at 08:43 AM.

As a final note if the Electra took off with 1120 galloons and at 10:20 AM AE will have just a little bit more wiggle room at 8:43 AM.

Alan, #2329
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:01:17
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Succinct; I like that.

I have just a couple of minor nits to pick with it.  One, for easier reading by the newbies maybe you could explain who Chater and Collopy are.  Two, an explanation of "block time" would also benefit those not familiar with airplane talk.  Lastly, and I am not totally clear on this myself, wouldn't AE also be reducing her speed as she burned off fuel. If she maintained the same throttle settings from start to finish her rate of consumption would remain fairly consistent even as her weight decreased but her speed increased, wouldn't it?

LTM, whose speed is also decreasing.
Dennis O. McGee #1049EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:58:24
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Good points Dennis.

For those who don't know, Eric H. Chater was the General Manager of Guinea Airways at Lae, Papau New Guinea. James A Collopy was the District Superintendent for Civil Aviation for the Territory of New Guinea.

As to your airspeed question, Dennis, AE tried to maintain a true airspeed of 150 mph or 130 Knots throughout her flight. As the airplane gross weight was  reduced it required less power to maintain that true airspeed. So the answer is she was not reducing her airspeed but rather her power settings in order to maintain the same airspeed. For those who remember some of the discussion about  gradually changing airspeed you can accept that didn't happen. Noonan required a constant true airspeed in order to compute his time and distance problems and  thus his next position.

Does that do the trick, Dennis?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:00:20
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

BTW, thanks, Dennis. It is easy to make assumptions that everyone knows all the minor points when clearly they don't.

Anyone who is not clear about anything I have written please don't hesitate to ask. I didn't write this for my own amusement but hopefully to clear up a few  things and get folks thinking.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:02:02
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Part 3: Flight from Lae to Midpoint

By examination of the flight from Oakland to Honolulu, we have proven that the positions provided at the time of radio transmissions were latent, from 15 minutes to nearly 45 minutes, if I remember correctly.  One cannot use Earhart's reported positions and time of reports together.  Her radio schedule was set, and she simply reported the last position provided to her, whether it was a projected DR position or actual fix.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:18:19
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Part 3: Flight from Lae to Midpoint

Exactly, Randy and I think I said that albeit not as clearly as you did. Thanks.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:19:49
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Alan Caldwell said: "Does that do the trick, Dennis?"

You bet!  Thanks.

And for the newbies, your definition of "block time" is . . . .?

LTM, who operates at Vmc too often,
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:20:25
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Part 3: Flight from Lae to Midpoint

I would like to make sure everyone understands the importance of Randy's posting. The maps and all the calculations for the Oakland to Honolulu flight showed conclusively that when they reported a position they could have been AT that position 15 to 45 minutes before or possibly not even have arrived at the position at the time of the position report. The position reports were made on a  fixed schedule and had no bearing on the position being reported. In that time  of aviation we weren't flight following airplanes as we do now. Think
1937 not  2005.

The bottom line of that is that as I said in my postings no one can use any of that information to plot the flight from Lae to anywhere nor can anyone derive a ground speed from any of that data. All I did was show that using each way point would NOT give any usable information. Only using take off time and the 1030 radio report could a person even make a half intelligent guess. Using  take off time and the 7:42 AM report is the same because we don't know where the  plane was. We can make a semi reasonable guess but that is all and that is all I  meant to do.

I think anyone can see that if the plane was 400 miles from Howland at 7:42 is various directions then various speculations could be reasonable.

I hope everyone is clear on this that we know only one point in the whole flight and that is Lae. We don't even know where they were at 1030 GMT.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:22:04
From:         Ray Miller
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> BTW, thanks, Dennis. It is easy to make assumptions that everyone
> knows all the minor points when clearly they don't.
>
> Anyone who is not clear about anything I have written please don't hesitate
> to ask. I didn't write this for my own amusement but hopefully to
> clear up a few  things and get folks thinking.

Alan, I would like to question two points you make in your reply to Dennis. Would Amelia really have reduced her power settings as speed increased as the result of fuel burn off ?

In my opinion, she may well have left the throttle levers where they were and accepted the additional speed as a bonus. After all, she was under pressure of time, as she seemed to be keen to arrive back in the USA on the 4th of July. Secondly , in what way was it important to maintain a constant airspeed ? Fred's primary means of navigating the Electra was Astro-navigation , not Dead Reckoning. Variations in speed would not affect Fred's fixes would they ?

Regards to all and LTM..
Ray # 2634.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:22:18
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

I agree with Alan Caldwell. A major point in air navigation is maintaining a constant airspeed. Without that it is impossible to calculate one's position. While maintaining airspeed, the ground speed may vary according to the wind. This will be computed when verifying the plane's position at waypoints or - in Earhart's case -  by Noonan's navigation. I am also convinced Amelia Earhart flew at a constant 150 mph because that was the speed a Lockheed 10 was flown back in 1937 as it still is today. Ask the pilots who still fly them. It is true that as the airplane progresses in flight, it becomes lighter as fuel is burned. Therefore it will need less power to maintain airspeed. One can then reduce rpm to save fuel. Or one can let the plane climb to altitudes where air density is lower, which will result in less drag and in a saving of fuel. One good example of this was the Concorde. It would typically begin its supersonic dash across the Atlantic at 45,000 feet and arrive at the other side at 51,000 feet, followed by a glide to its destination with engines almost at idle.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:02:11
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Good grief, Dennis I am losing it. <G> OK Block time. For those who  do not know.

Private planes, Military planes other than passenger or cargo, use start take off roll on the runway or when the plane leaves the ground as take off time. There is usually an insignificant difference.

Civilian and Military cargo and passenger flights use what is called block times instead. Take your usual airline flight as an example. The passengers have  no use for the time when the plane is on the runway. They need to know when the  plane is due to leave the gate after boarding so they don't miss their flight.  When the plane taxies away from the gate that is known as block out time. When  the plane taxies IN to the gate to let the passengers off that is known as block  in time. The whole airline runs on that concept for obvious reasons. It is  driven by passengers getting on and off the plane at the gate. The flight  schedule then is based on block times. When you see the arrival time posted on  the board that's not when it lands. That's when it is due at the gate. The whole  concept is far more rational than when a plane leaves the ground.  <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:03:39
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Good thoughts, Ray, and of course we have no way of knowing anything AE did but she flew the whole round the world flight trying to maintain a constant TAS  so I would have to assume she did so on the last leg also.

Changing her airspeed wouldn't have any affect on whether she made it home on the fourth. We're talking about only a small variation in time. Unfortunately  any variation in speed is detrimental to Noonan's navigation. While he is shooting his celestial shots AE must maintain a stable airplane longitudinally,  laterally and airspeed. Changes in any of them induces significant errors in the  results of the shots. I might add, I'm not speaking theoretically. I shot  celestial for ten years backing up my navigator in SAC (Strategic Air Command).

So my answer is that there was no rationale for AE to try and fly faster at any point in her flight. And as a matter of operating procedure the normal descent in the Electra was to maintain 120 mph indicated airspeed. In this case Noonan would have required a constant TAS so he would know when he got to his LOP.

The change in airspeed WOULD adversely affect Noonan's celestial. Here is how. Noonan shoots his first star for a two minute period and jots down the time and data. Then he shoots the second star for a two minute period and writes down  the data. Now he has to move one of the two shots so they in effect were shot  simultaneously. In order to move the shot he has to be at the same constant  airspeed so that the distance moved will be correct.

Now this may be clear as mud but I can't give an extensive celestial lesson in this brief posting. I hope this was clear enough but the bottom line is that  the airspeed must be constant.

If that doesn't help, Ray let me know and we can discuss it off forum or on the phone.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:03:58
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Thanks, Herman. Good examples. And a good clear explanation. I fear most of mine are not.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:33:18
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Review of new "Shoes"

Pretty nice review of AE's Shoes at
http://archaeology.about.com/od/biographie1/fr/king.htm

LTM
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:42:57
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Ray and Alan

Beyond celestial navigation reasons, wouldn't increasing her speed result in a dramatic increase in induced drag, and therefore reduce fuel efficiency (= increase GPH)?

Drag increases at the square of the velocity, yes?  The increase in horsepower required to go faster would far outweigh the reduction in horse power from weight loss from fuel burn, yes?  Am I missing something?

I'm sure there are folks on the forum who can calculate this better than I, but 150 mph would have  been chosen as the balancing point between horsepower required (fuel burn), and drag induced.  It was not simply picked out of a hat for fun.

Anyone with a instantaneous mileage computer in their car can test this.  Check the mileage at 20mph, 55 mph, and then at 90 mph.  What changes is the drag you are inducing at the higher speed.

There is a reason that 55 mph was chosen as the US National speed limit during the oil crisis, just as there is a reason Kelly Johnson chose 150 mph for the most efficient airspeed of the Electra.

Andrew McKenna
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:20:59
From:         Walt Holm
Subject:      Re: Part 5: fuel scheme

Alan:

The one part you're going to need some more head-scratching on is how the Electra flew differently on the Lae-Howland leg than on the Oakland-Hawaii flight.

You claim:

1. Amelia flew the Electra at 150 mph TAS to aid celestial navigation ("...AE tried to maintain a true airspeed of 150 mph or 130 Knots throughout her flight")

2. Amelia used power settings as per the Kelly Johnson telegrams.

Yet, the KJ telegrams were referencing a flight with a 900 gallon fuel load, and you claim that Amelia took off at Lae with 1110 gallons or so.  Even accounting for one less passenger and reduced equipment, she was heavier going out of Lae than she was taking off out of Oakland.

So, how can you have a heavier airplane, when flown at the same power settings, obtain the same True Airspeed?

-Walt Holm   TIGHAR #something or other
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:21:30
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Andrew McKenna wrote:

> there is a reason Kelly Johnson chose
> 150 mph for the most efficient airspeed of the Electra.

There's absolutely NO evidence  that Kelly Johnson ever said that 150 mph was the "most efficient airspeed" of the Electra - so far as I know. I'd be happy to have a citation for this statement. Thanks.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:33:36
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Andrew, you make a good point. You are quite correct that one can induce additional drag by flying at other than optimum airspeeds. It is not actually an airspeed causation but rather an aircraft attitude problem. Flying too slow as I  pointed out in my postings (I referred to hanging on the props) puts the airplane in a nose high position and thus increases drag immensely.  Flying at higher than ideal airspeed also alters the attitude of the aircraft and increases drag. Each aircraft will have different best airspeeds and those change with altitude and gross weight. The optimum flight path often looks like a long oval construction.

There is also a necessary trade off in that we rarely fly at optimum. In  SAC I normally flew at 435 Knots TAS constant. We made very few altitude changes and usually flew at 34,000 or 35, 000 feet when permitted.

Optimum flights were more of a ground teaching experience than an actual operational event. Generally it was just not practical and we merely accepted the lesser efficiency.

In AE's case that is exactly what happened. The plane was not flying an optimum flight path which is quite obvious.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:53:13
From:         Alan CAldwell
Subject:      Re: Part 5: Fuel scheme

Walt, no matter what is written it is exceedingly difficult to make things of this nature crystal clear. AE flew at 150 mph TAS in order that Noonan could do his time and distance calculations. It doesn't have anything to do peculiar  to celestial. Just navigation in general.

I didn't claim at any time that AE used Kelly Johnson's POWER SETTINGS. She used whatever power settings needed to achieve the desired airspeed. In both cases (Lae or Oakland) she used whatever would give her 150 mph TAS. At no time  could Johnson's schedule be used as the telegrams laid out nor was that expected. All he was doing was showing what could be expected for the flight as far as fuel usage was concerned. He COULD have made that schedule as it was actually going to be performed but it would have taken him days to extract from  the charts a gradual change of power settings necessary to achieve a constant  TAS. Impractical and unnecessary. Johnson was not expecting AE to hold certain  settings for a three hour period and then suddenly change them for the next  three hours.

For the Oakland flight the Electra had 947 gallons of fuel on board not 900. The 900 was what they planned to leave Honolulu with. They also had more folks on board for the Oakland flight. (AE, Noonan, Manning and Mantz) Since we don't know what the gross weight was in either case it is not possible to accurately make comparisons. The fuel usage in both cases should have been comparable, however.

Does that clear up your head scratching, Walt?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:55:52
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Correct, Oscar, and thanks for the comment. I haven't a clue why AE picked 150 mph TAS. I also don't know what the most optimum airspeed was for any particular condition. If someone wants to go through that exercise they are welcome to do so but I don't consider it a significant issue.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:39:42
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Noonan's calculations

Alan and flight experts,

While perusing the Honolulu Advertiser of 21 MARCH 37, which contains Amelia's own personal explanation of the Luke field crash, she writes that when she took off for Howland  " the load (of gas) was not the ship's limit by any means."

Noonan, she wrote, estimated he would cruise at the same speed maintained enroute to Wheeler Field from Oakland, and that they would '"consume approximately nine hours in making the 1600 mile flight."

Wow, that comes up to 177 mph enroute to Howland.

I don't know if that makes any differnce in future flight calculations. Noonan, and Manning were accompaning her. She also said she had enough fuel so she could return to Honolulu after eight hours if weather went bad, so forth.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:53:16
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Alan Caldwell writes a lot, but some of it was this:

> All I am doing is suggesting the Electra may have had 1110 or 1120
> gallons of fuel rather than 1100 at Lae. I am also suggesting it may
> be that they took off at about 10:20 AM rather than 10:00 AM.

Alan, thank you for laying out your facts clearly and describing how they combine to lead you to your conclusion. I haven't read the whole thing yet, however I am enjoying what you have written and your efforts are appreciated.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who never really had conclusions flow from facts...)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:53:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Ron, your figures are incorrect. AE averaged 132 Knots from Oakland to Wheeler. Even using miles per hour that is only 152 mph. I have to assume she  was talking about true air speed as she had no idea what ground speed she would encounter so she would be talking no wind.

The distance between Oakland and Wheeler is 2090 n.m. The flight time was  15 hours and 47 1/2 minutes. That's 132 knots average ground speed. We don't know what the winds were.

As to the newspaper item it is totally inaccurate. The distance  is 1897 s.m. or 1649 n.m. not 1600. Nine 9 hours doesn't even make sense.  The reporter got everything wrong. No wind that would take over twelve and a  half hours.

It is correct that 900 gallons of fuel they had on take off was not the ships capacity. As you know it was 1151.

File that newspaper piece in file 13. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:54:29
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Efficacious air speeds

Oscar Boswell writes: "There's absolutely NO evidence that Kelly Johnson ever said that 150 mph was the 'most efficient airspeed' for the Electra ------." That may be well and good BUT I'm reminded that whilst learning to fly in a Piper J-3 there was no need to worry about an 'efficacious' airspeed; as I recall the J-3 took off at 40 mph, cruised at 40 mph and landed at 40 mph! When flying into a head wind of more than 40 mph, my ground speed was a negative number. One time when landing into a head wind the throttle was adjusted so that the ground speed was zero (0) mph; the owner of the airplane and a bystander took ahold of the wing struts and pulled me to the ground whereupon I cut the throttle and tuned off the engine.

George Ray Werth
# 2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:55:09
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Ron said,

> "Noonan, she wrote, estimated he would cruise at the same speed maintained
> enroute to Wheeler Field from Oakland, and that they would '"consume
> approximately nine hours in making the 1600 mile flight."
> Wow, that comes up to 177 mph enroute to Howland.

Thank you Ron for this valuable information. Based on this predicted ground speed, and noting the probable presence of tailwinds for Hono flight and forecast tailwinds for the Howland leg, it is possible to interpret the speeds quoted by Long for the Hono flight of 170 mph at 4 hours and 180 mph at about 7.5 hours as ground speeds rather than air speeds. Further analysis of the available flight data is required to nail this down.
harvey,2387
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:55:46
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Alan,

150 mph is the economical cruising speed of the Lockheed 10. I know because I flew in one some time ago and talked with the two pilots afterwards. I wrote an article about the 10 which was published in an aviation magazine. Captain Alan Mcleod (Air Canada) who captained the ship, told me. That's how I know. If you need further information on technical aspects of flying the Lockheed 10 or power management, I suggest you contact Captain Alan McLeod at Air Canada directly.  I understand he retired since but still flies Air Canada's vintage Lockheed 10A, at least until recently. The vintage airplane was used by Air Canada as a PR tool and made fun flights over various cities in Canada with paying guests who supported Air Canada's employee charity, ACFamily.

LTM
Herman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:44:04
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Thanks, Paige. That was a very nice note. I appreciated it. My series was directed more at the newer folks as a quick way of getting a feel for the Earhart story. I know most of it is old hat for long term Forumites. It also was not designed as the last word in the mystery at all. It is just how I see things  at this stage and every day something new could surface changing our ideas and  opinions.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:44:22
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Alan's summary

Thanks, Herman. I've been in contact with the Canada folks some time ago  but I appreciate the information.

I suspected 150 mph was a fairly ideal airspeed for the Electra else it would not have been picked but the issue is well down on my priority list.  <G> The same could be said about AE's favorite altitude. It was probably a best altitude for what she was doing but again I have had other  priorities.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:59:32
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      AE and FN Navigation

To: Alan Caldwell,

For us non-navigation types a few questions that you may be able to answer for us:

How often would you have expected FN to take a navigation fix while en route from Lae, during the daylight after takeoff, at night during the flight and just after sunup the next day?

What causes a navigator to take a fix at any given point in time?

How does FN's navigation fix frequency align with AE's planned transmission schedule  i.e. every hour, once in a while, more often  than her planned transmission?

How does AE's actual transmissions, where she gives a position report, align with FN's navigation fixes i.e. coincides with every other one, each time she reports, or there is no correlation?

Thanks,
Ted
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:14:29
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: AE and FN navigation

Ted Campbell wrote:

> For us non-navigation types a  few questions that you may be able to
> answer for us:

Thanks, for the email, Ted. Hopefully I can answer your questions clearer than I usually do. <G> I've copied your note to make it easier to answer  and not miss anything.

> How  often would you have expected FN to take a navigation fix while
> enroute from  Lae, during the daylight after takeoff, at night during the
> flight and just after sunup the next day?

Ted, there is no set requirement or schedule but Noonan frequently took fixes every 30 minutes at times. It would not necessarily be different at different times of the day or night. One factor to keep in mind is the weather.  They may well have been flying in and out of overcast weather and so Noonan would necessarily take fixes when he could. For example seeing weather ahead he might want to take a series of fixes anticipating the possibility he would not be able to get one for a while. After sunup the morning of July 2, 1937, Noonan  would want to take as many sun shots as he could to define his ground speed as  precisely as possible. That's just my opinion and what I would do. Noonan may  have taken two shots and ran with it for all we know. Now the problem most folks  have not come to grips with is that there was only a very short time between  sunup that morning and arrival time at or near Howland. I'll cover that in  another post later on after I recover from this series. <G>

> What  causes a navigator to take a fix at any given point in time?

As I mentioned above, weather could be a factor, noticing a wind shift or wind speed change might induce him to take a fix. He might take a fix and project it to a course alteration point. There could be a number of reasons you can see.

> How does  Fn's navigation fix frequency align with AE's  planned transmission
> schedule  i.e. every hour, once in a while,  more often than her planned transmission?
>
> How does AE's actual  transmissions, where she gives a position report, align
> with FN's  navigation fixes i.e. coincides with every other one, each time
> she reports,  or there is no correlation?

I'll combine the last two questions, Ted. AE's transmission schedule was to be at 18 past the hour. There has been some information that she would transmit  at quarter after and quarter of the hour but instead she reported at 18 past.  Noonan's fixes and or position reports bore no correlation with AE's transmissions. As Randy Jacobson pointed out in an earlier post, Noonan's fixes could be latent 15 to 45 minutes or even projected.

Everyone should keep in mind that in 1937 there was not the flight following we have today. There was really no one to report to or who cared. In AE's case there were folks who wanted to know when she took off and when she anticipated Howland. Other than that I suppose the media was interested but  that's about it. Today our planes are flight followed for a number of reasons not the least of which is collision avoidance. In 1937 it would have been difficult to find another plane to run into. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:25:17
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Alan,

Those are not my figures, but as you point out , a reporters.

 Maybe the reporter or editior got the figures screwed up. But it was 1600 miles in 9 hours approximaely. She is quoted in the article on other matters. Noonan's estimated time is not under quotes.

   At least we know she was not taking off with a full load of gas.

Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:11:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

No problem, Ron. Reporters rarely get things very accurate. Worse than that are all the careless errors in the Earhart books. How anyone can make such a mess is beyond me.

The take off fuel from Honolulu was to be 825 gallons but Amelia felt like she should have more of a safety margin and asked for 75 additional gallons. That brought the total up to 900 gallons, 47 gallons less than she had taking off from Oakland.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:26:11
From:         Walt Holm
Subject:      Aircraft drag

Andrew McKenna writes:

> Beyond celestial navigation reasons, wouldn't increasing her speed
> result in a dramatic increase in induced drag, and therefore reduce
> fuel efficiency (= increase GPH)?
>
> Drag increases at the square of the velocity, yes?  The increase in
> horsepower required to go faster would far outweigh the reduction in
> horse power from weight loss from fuel burn, yes?  Am I missing
> something?

Hi Andrew:

Careful with your terminology here.  Induced drag is the drag created by the wing in the process of generating lift.  It actually *decreases* with increasing airspeed.  What you were likely thinking of is the parasite drag of the aircraft, which increases with the square of the airspeed.  The total drag is the sum of the two, and when plotted versus airspeed forms a U-shaped curve. The bottom of the curve is the airspeed at which drag is at a minimum, and is approximately the airspeed to fly for maximum range (the airspeed which gives you the best "fuel mileage") --- unless you are a colossal geek, you can treat the minimum drag airspeed as best range airspeed.

This total drag curve changes with aircraft weights and altitudes, so the best range airspeed will change as the fuel burns off.  Best range *Indicated* airspeed varies with the square root of the aircraft weight.  Changing the altitude changes the relationship between indicated and true airspeed, as I'm sure you're well aware.  So climbing in altitude as the fuel burns off can allow one to maintain a fairly constant true airspeed while still flying a best range indicated airspeed profile.  The pilot would hold the IAS to a predetermined schedule to match the fuel burnoff, and climb as necessary to keep the TAS relatively constant.

The basics of aerodynamics, airplane performance, and aircraft cruise control are covered well in William Kershner's "The Advanced Pilots Flight Manual".  His books are very popular and this should be available in any airport pilot shop.  I highly recommend it for anyone who is interested in how airplanes fly, but does not wish to dive into a college-level aerodynamics text.

-Walt Holm
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:44:31
From:         Walt Holm
Subject:      Re: Part 5: fuel scheme

Alan Caldwell writes:

> I didn't claim at any time that AE used Kelly Johnson's POWER SETTINGS.

Yes, that's true, in Part 5 you don't claim that AE used KJ's power settings.  But you do show a lot of math using the fuel flows taken from KJ's power settings, so at this point I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are claiming.  Perhaps you could summarize part 5 for me in the following fashion:

a.) Here's what I believe are the established facts regarding the Electra's fuel burn and AE's fuel management
b.) Here's a set of assumptions which I believe are reasonable
c.) In combining the established facts and these assumptions, here is a set of conclusions that I reach.

That way we won't get into long-winded arguments regarding who's claiming what.

-Walt Holm TIGHAR # something or other
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:16:41
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Aircraft drag

Great post, Walt. I was trying to keep things simple but that was a good idea to explain it in better detail.

Does that apply to a Berliot 11? <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:17:13
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Part 5: fuel scheme

I'm not going to get into any further discussion of a technical nature of a subject that simply deals with averages, Walt.

The Kelly Johnson schedule is NOT to be taken verbatim nor could any one  use it as such. Those are pure averages. I dealt only with general fuel flows and I am not going to suggest that specific power settings were used at say three hours and 17 minutes to achieve X gph.

Johnson was telling AE what she could expect for her total flight. He was not giving specific directions for a minute by minute flight protocol.

Take it for what it is.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:31:10
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: AE and FN navigation

Ted Campbell wrote:

> For us non-navigation types a few questions that you may be able to
> answer for us:
>
> How often would you have expected FN to take a navigation fix while en route
> from Lae, during the daylight after takeoff, at night during the flight and
> just after sunup the next day?

FN could not undertake much in the way of celestial navigation during daylight hours, except taking a noon shot and possibly combining that with a moon shot (not usually done).  Other navigational fixes could be taken off of land, of course.  During night-time hours, FN appeared to take navigational fixes about once every 2-3 hours, primarily to determine if the plane has deviated far from the dead-reckoned course since the last fix.  FN plotted dead-reckoned (and projected) positions on the charts from the last true fix about every half hour, assuming 150 miles/hour (130 knots).

> What causes a navigator to take a fix at any given point in time?

As previously stated, FN appeared to take a fix when sufficient time has passed to determine gross deviations from expected path.

> How does FN's navigation fix frequency align with AE's planned transmission
> schedule  i.e. every hour, once in a while, more often  than her planned
> transmission?

FN's celestial fix schedule was once every 2-3 hours.  Thus, AE's radio schedule was more frequent, and often reported projected dead-reckoning fix that may have been up to 45 minutes out of date.

> How does AE's actual transmissions, where she gives a position report, align
> with FN's navigation fixes i.e. coincides with every other one, each time
> she reports, or there is no correlation?

Rarely did she report a true navigational fix; rather, she reported the last dead-reckoned projected fix she got from the navigator.  At no time did she ever report a position and associated time of the position "fix".  I was only able to determine the time of the fix by looking at the charts and comparing those time markings and positions to her reports of the position.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:31:29
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Alan,

Maybe you could calculate when AE thought was a reserve supply of gas when she got in the vicinity of Howland, from Honolulu.

These are arbitrary but could serve as a model. Howland is 1900 statue miles from Honolulu, I think.

1900 miles/ 150 mph= 12.6 hr fllight to Howland
12.6 hrs X 45 gph = 567 gals used
900 - 567 = 333 gals reserve
333 gals/ 45= 7.5 hrs of flight left to search

You have the more accurate figures, so what would your computation be for a plan "B" or search for Howland. I think in the Lae to Howland most agree she may have left only 4 hours of reserve fuel for search, etc. Be interesting to compare with the  figures what AE thought she would have left at Howland on the first attempt.,

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:27:18
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Ron, I wouldn't even attempt to guess what AE was thinking at 7:42 AM when she did not see Howland. There was no real plan B. There was no other airfield.  She either landed at Howland or she ditched or found a place to hopefully make a  salvageable landing.

In order to decide what to do she had to figure out where she was. Whatever that took it had to be the first priority. If she had to climb high enough for Noonan to get a reasonable fix then that's what she would have to do. Only AFTER  she found her position could she even begin to make a decision. Whatever fuel  she had THEN and whatever Noonan computed the winds to be would be the factors.

I don't know any of that information.

She may have undershot or overshot or been north or been south. IT would seem from her transmission she thought she was directly overhead. It would be logical to me they would first turn NW to search then make their last turn SE because there was nothing to the NW and there were alternate possibilities to the SE. They searched for an hour at least. Turning west at that point seems highly unlikely. Possible, but again it depends on where Noonan finally located  their position.

It is fairly safe to assume they were not overhead Howland. They weren't heard. It is also not likely they were NW on an LOP that went through Howland or SE close in to Howland or Baker on that same LOP. That leaves them at least 20  nm short or long of Howland or massively in error to the South.

Since the winds were falling off I would opt for them having overshot Howland. My curiosity is why Noonan couldn't get an accurate LOP through  Howland.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:28:19
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Fuel expansion at Lae

This ought to generate some interesting comments. <G>

One of my friends wrote off Forum reminding me of the fuel expansion/evaporation issue Elgin Long brought up. Elgin's theory, I guess, was that due to expansion/evaporation the Electra actually left Lae with less fuel than was thought.

Here would be my initial questions the answer to which would be  needed to support that theory.

1. At what time was the aircraft last fueled and what was the air temperature and the fuel temperature in the barrels?

2. What was the temperature differential between the time the plane was refueled last and take off time?

3. What assurance do we have the tanks were never topped off or checked prior to take off?

For those of you who are rushing off to reread the Earhart books or research the Internet for this information, slow down. It isn't there. We have no such information and thus the expansion/evaporation theory is just a crock.

But let's not quit there. Let's look at this more carefully. No matter what time the plane was refueled the fuel in the barrels sitting out was the same temperature as the air.

Secondly let's say the plane was refueled late in the day after the peak heat. What will the temperature be doing? Getting hotter? No, it is cooling off slightly for the evening. Lae's average maximum temperature for July was 81 F and the average minimum was 71. Not a huge difference and certainly the temperature had not peaked by ten in the morning.

One last comment and from Elgin himself. On page 188 of his book he says, "There should be only limited expansion of the fuel anyway, because the gas in the barrels was probably already warmed to 75 degrees." Maybe he forgot he said that. <G>

Now you can go into all the technical aspects of this you want but unless you can offer proof AE did NOT have the tanks topped off or checked before take off you are tilting at windmills. I will tell you that in all my flying career our tanks were checked and topped off, if needed, before every take off.
 
Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:20:58
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

For Harvey,

Yes, Longs book, p 79 and 80, attribute  a "170 mph" and a "180 mph" speed from Manning, some 600 miles out of SF. In the end she averaged 144 true airspeed .

Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:30:37
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Alan,

I think you have explained this before, but Noonan advanced an LOP, maybe a sun line, on to where he thought it would intersect Howland. He had to use speed, etc from one shot to another, and guess where he should turn when he arrived.

Isn't that the problem with DR, that is if your off say 10 miles, you may not  see Howland as you flew by, either north or south.

Tighar says that Noonan flew direct into Howland, with no off set method. That even makes it worse, doesn't it?

Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:42:30
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Ron, we don't actually know whether Noonan flew direct to Howland or purposely used a small offset. There is no way to tell. Ric believes they flew direct. I also share that belief because offset was more of a ground school navigation teaching technique. It sounds better than it actually is. The idea,  of course, is that by offsetting you know which way to turn to destination. However if the navigation is accurate it is unnecessary. If the navigation is  not it may well not do any good.

Some of the celestial folks can check this out as I have but Noonan had less than an hour after sunrise to take sun shots on the inbound leg to Howland. An hour prior to their "we must be on you" transmission the sun was up only three degrees. An accurate shot, avoiding low altitude error requires the sun to  be up 10 degrees or more. At any rate Noonan may not have had time to get an  accurate LOP IF he had good visibility for the shots in the first place. He needed a minimum of two accurate shots to get a ground speed. It would appear  that he didn't get them. At 1,000' his clear air visibility is about 19 miles.  Add in morning haze, sun glare and cloud reflections and they could have actually been just out of hearing range by the folks at Howland and on Itasca.

It would have taken only a small error to miss seeing Howland. We don't need to conjure up some outlandish scenario to account for their plight. The only thing we can say for certain is that they were NOT dead on Howland, they were not within hearing distance of the folks awaiting them and they were not NW on an LOP that went exactly through Howland.

We also don't know if Noonan had the exact correct coordinates of Howland. Clarence Williams map he made for Noonan had Howland five miles toward 281 degrees from its actual location. That means Noonan could have had an even smaller error and still missed Howland.

As to Noonan's celestial possibilities he had very little to work with. IF the weather permitted his shots he DID have a 37 degree cut on the moon to add to his sun shot. Not good but better than nothing. The moon, however, was rarely  used. Both the moon and the sun being large objects were not thought to be as  accurate as a pin point star or planet. There WERE a couple planets up that  morning but they were not in a position to give latitude, just more speed lines  and that is also the situation Noonan would have trying to fly west to the  Gilbert's. No course lines. Only speed lines. Very poor choice. SE to the  Phoenix Islands was the better choice as he had course lines.

I'm not sure I answered your question, Ron, but as to flying direct being worse I wouldn't say so. If Noonan was say 20 miles off NW or SE and his LOP was accurate, it would have been a small matter to check both ways and find Howland.  If he guessed wrong on the first turn he's out maybe 20 to 30 minutes. Not a big  deal.

If you want to chat about this write me off Forum at acaldwell@aol.com and I'll give you my phone  number and we can better resolve your questions.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:43:06
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Kelly Johnson's fuel schedule

Apparently there are a few who don't fully understand the issue of Kelly Johnson's fuel schedule that he gave to Amelia.

What he gave was a text book answer to the flight. He gave her a chart of what she could expect her fuel usage to be using block power settings. He never intended her to literally use that as she was going to fly a constant true airspeed of 150 mph. And she was not necessarily going to be flying optimum altitudes. No one ever would expect her to set her power as Kelly wrote for three hours and then reset for the next three hours. She could not maintain a constant TAS doing that. I'm sure everyone on the Forum knew that. To suggest otherwise is just not thinking this through. (That doesn't go for folks who have little clue about flying airplanes)

AE, during flight, was given the indicated airspeed to hold for the true airspeed Noonan desired. He would compute that as they did not have a true airspeed indicator. AE would then monitor and adjust as necessary her power settings, altimeter and vertical speed to maintain that airspeed. This would be a constant adjustment.
   
I might add here that Clarence Williams flight plan heading west had about six course changes of one degree to approximate a great circle route. The same would have been true in general heading east. A previous question about the frequency of Noonan's fixes had several general answers but you can see he would probably want a fix close to a course alteration at a minimum. Those course alterations did not occur hourly but rather every few hours.

Most navigators I'm familiar with did not alter course in little minor ways but did so quite infrequently. They might allow the plane to be off track a significant amount and make a final alteration to destination. In modern times we don't have that latitude but must adhere close to course all of the time. Not so in 1937.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:45:27
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Fuel expansion at Lae

Alan Caldwell said, in part ...

> One of my friends wrote off  Forum reminding me of the fuel
> expansion/evaporation issue Elgin Long brought up
> We have no such information and thus the expansion/evaporation theory
> is just a crock.
>
> But let's not quit there. Let's look at this more carefully. No matter
> what time the plane was refueled the fuel in the barrels sitting out
> was the same temperature as the air

[RC, 'the friend']  Gas being at the temp. of the ambient air does not alter the principle that I suggested to you, nor did I rely on 'Elgen's expansion

> Now you can go into all the technical aspects of this you want but
> unless you can offer proof AE did NOT have the tanks topped off or
> checked before take off you are tilting at windmills.

First Windmill:  It does not matter if AE's tanks were topped off at the end of the runway while rolling.  She effectively had less gas than whatever you or the guru's decide was the gallons in her tank for the following reason:

Power produced by the engine is related to the mass of the fuel burned.  The standard for avgas is 5.87 lbs. per gallon at 60 deg. F. For example at 60deg. F. 1100 gal. would weigh 6457 lbs. If that same 1100 gals [topped off seconds before T.O. or not] had an average temp. of 70 deg. F. it would weigh 6402 lbs.; 50 lbs. less, just over 9 gals. If the temp. of the fuel was 75 deg. F. the loss of fuel weight would be 71 lbs, or just over 12 gals. or about 20 min. of flying time

That was my point:  Whatever the number of gallons of gas in her tanks, if the average temp of the fuel in her tanks was warmer than 60 deg. F. The engines were going to effectively 'see' less fuel.

Alan tells us:

> Lae's average maximum temperature for July was 81 F and the average
> minimum was 71
>
> One last comment and from Elgin [sic] himself. On page 188 of his book
> he says, "There should be only limited expansion of the fuel anyway,
> because the gas in the barrels was probably already warmed to 75
> degrees." Maybe he forgot he said that. .

What he may have forgot to mention was that the fuel, already expanded, then occupied more space, and what filled the space of a gallon, warmer than 60deg. F., looked like less than a gallon to the engines.   A.E left Lae with an equivalent fuel load Less than the number of gallons in the tanks.     Cheers,  R.C.   842
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:02:43
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Alan wrote:

> Ron,  we don't actually know whether Noonan flew direct to Howland or
> purposely  used a small offset. There is no way to tell. Ric believes
> they flew direct.  I also share that belief because offset was more of
> a ground school  navigation teaching technique. It sounds better than
> it actually is. The  idea, of course, is that by offsetting you know
> which way to turn to destination. However if the navigation is
> accurate it is unnecessary. If  the navigation is  not it may well not
> do any  good.

<Remainder clipped>

In many situations on the  Forum, educated guesses of what Putnam and Noonan may  have done on the Lae-Howland leg are based their past performance. I know very little about the previous legs of this flight and  Noonan's navigational practices; therefore, this ignorance raises two  questions:

1) Is there any hard evidence  to suggest that Noonan had navigated using an offset on previous legs  of this circumnavigation attempt, did he always chart a direct course,  or was it a combination of the two?

2) Although this call would be purely  speculative and subjective, considering the risks involved (big  ocean, small target), is there any evidence to suggest that Noonan  would (if he had always used direct navigation) deviate from his previous  practice and navigate using an offset?

I hope this was unambiguous, but I just got  home from Parent's Weekend at Stanford:)

LTM,
Dave Carter  (#2585)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:06:48
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: Fuel expansion at Lae

For R.C. and Alan:

Bob Sherman said:

> Alan  Caldwell said, in part ...
>
>> One of my friends wrote off   Forum reminding me of the
>> fuelexpansion/evaporation issue Elgin Long brought up We have no such
>> information  and thus the expansion/evaporation theory is just a
>> crock.
>>
>> But  let's not quit there. Let's look at this more carefully. No
>> matter what  time the plane was refueled the fuel  in the barrels
>> sitting out was the same temperature as the  air.

I'm  reminded of the Steven Wright line: "Whatever room you're in, it's always "room  temperature"...

> Gas being at the temp. of the ambient air does not alter the principle
> that I  suggested to you, nor did I rely on Elgen's expansion
>
>> Now you can go into all the technical  aspects of this you want but
>> unless you can offer proof AE did NOT have the  tanks topped off or
>> checked before take off you are tilting at  windmills.
>
> First Windmill:  It does not matter if AE's tanks  were topped off at
> the end of the runway  while rolling.  She effectively had less gas
> than whatever you or the guru's decide was the gallons in her tank for
> the following reason:
>
> Power  produced by the engine is related to the mass of the fuel
> burned.  The  standard for avgas is 5.87 lbs. per gallon at 60 deg. F.
>  For example at 60deg. F. 1100 gal. would weigh > 6457 lbs. If that
> same 1100  gals [topped off seconds before T.O. or not] had an average
>  temp. of 70 deg. F. it would weigh 6402 lbs.; 50 lbs. less, just over
> 9 gals.  If the temp.of the fuel was 75 deg. F. the loss of fuel
> weight would be 71 lbs,  or just over 12  gals. or about 20 min. of
> flying  time
>
> That was my point:  Whatever the number of  gallons of gas in her
> tanks, if the average  temp of the fuel in her tanks was warmer than
> 60 deg. F. The engines were going  to effectively 'see' less fuel.
>
> Alan tells us:
>
>> Lae's  average maximum temperature for July was 81 F and the average
>> minimum  was 71
>
> One last comment and from Elgin [sic] himself. On page  188 of his
> book he says, "There  should be only limited expansion of the fuel
> anyway, because the gas in the  barrels was probably already warmed to
> 75 degrees." Maybe he forgot he said that.  .
>
> What he may have forgot to mention was that the fuel, already
> expanded, then occupied more space, and what filled the space of a
> gallon, warmer than 60deg. F., looked like less than a gallon to the
> engines.   A.E left Lae  with an equivalent fuel load Less than the
> number of gallons in the tanks.     Cheers,   R.C.   842

R.C., I'm a mathematician, not a physicist, but I think you are drawing a skewed  correlation between volume and weight. If the total volume of a tank is 150 gallons, it's 150 gallons, no matter what the temperature may be. Of course,  liquids expand or contract based on temperatures, but this is really nitpicking.  I'm no expert, but I'd wager 35 cents in real American money that if the stated  capacity of the fuel in a Lockheed Electra 10E was 1100 gallons, there is  no way you could have forced 1112 gallons of gasoline into that Electra.  Granted, your argument has some merit if fuel capacity was gauged in "pounds of  fuel", as in more recent times. Providing all tanks were "topped off" at the  beginning of the take-off run, 1100-1120 GALLONS of gas was what they had and  what they depended upon.

In short, what you are stating is that if  the Electra took off from Lae when the temperature was 60 degrees (Fahrenheit),  the Electra would have weighed 71 pounds more than it would if the temperature  was 75 degrees (Fahrenheit), nothing more.

LTM, (who never knew how much fuel an engine  "sees")
Dave  (#2585)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:07:20
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Alan,

I am not convinced Noonan planned a direct flight to Howland. He probably would have done so with today's navigation equipment but with the facilities available in 1937 it is doubtful. Hitting the target bang on after 20 hours flying would have been sheer luck. Pan American's flying boats (they were using the Martin 130 at the time, I believe) flew offset courses and intercepted radio signals near the end of their flights to locate and find their destinations. The advantage of using an offset course, as we were all taught in elementary flying training, is that one knows which way to turn when your watch tells one when he has reached his Line Of Position (LOP): the line crossing the destination at 90 degrees with ones track. From that moment on all depends on the accuracy of the pilot's or the navigator's dead reckoning (and in Noonan's case his en route updates by using stars, the moon and the sun to determine his position). Remember the sun provided Noonan with a useful LOP at sunrise only because it enabled him to calculate how far he was from the LOP that really interested him: the one that crossed Howland. Now we reach the point where things went wrong. We know this for certain because Amelia Earhart at one time told Itasca over the radio : "We must be on you but we can't see you". We all know what went wrong then : the use of radio navigation for finding Howland, either through vectoring (which Itasca was unable to provide) or by using the airplane's ADF (which for some reason did not work). Within two years following Earhart's disappearance World War II would show in Europe how unreliable "pin point navigation" based on dead reckoning really was in those days. Experienced as both Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were, and given the size of Howland they were supposed to hit in mid-ocean,  all indications are that they got lost not because of Noonan's navigation but because of their radio problem. 

LTM (who used LOPs a lot in VFR days)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:27:08
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Noonan definitely used the offset method for the flight from South America to Africa.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:07:38
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

> From Dave (Carter) in Fremont:
>
> ... is there any evidence to
> suggest that Noonan  would (if he had always used direct navigation)
> deviate from
> his previous  practice and navigate using an offset?

I can't answer the question as phrased.

I would submit that AE's last message may be evidence--however slender--that FN did not use an offset on the fatal flight.

If he had, would she have said that they were flying "north and south" on the line?

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:17:25
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Dave, don't quote me but to the best of my knowledge Noonan may well have used an offset in the past but his normal routine made that difficult to tell without looking at his charts. Noonan, like most navigators I knew and worked with made very few course corrections then located destination and altered to it. That was not an intentional offset. Noonan used a DF at the end of his flights and modern navigators used radar or some other nav aid to do the same. Now with GPS it's not an issue.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:28:13
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fuel expansion at Lae

Dave, Bob's point is that the engines are not interested in gallons but rather pounds. The Electra engines used X amount of pounds of gasoline to create one horse power. So if there were less pounds of fuel there was less to drive the airplane.

Where Bob and I diverge is that one, there is no data existing to compute the problem and two, I think it was far less significant.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:38:14
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Herman you may be right that Noonan used an offset. Personally I don't think so but I certainly would not discount the possibility.

The so called sunrise LOP has been discussed to death but there is so much  inherent error that I would never consider it reliable. None of my navigators would use that technique although it was always taught in ground school. After  the sun was up 10 degrees it is considered reliable and Noonan had about 45 minutes to shoot all the speed lines he wanted to determine his NW/SE line of position and his ground speed IF, IF, IF he could see the sun to shoot.

I don't disagree that DR was hardly precision navigation. There were enough factors to make it somewhat of a guess. Starting from a good precise position, knowing the winds and there not being a change it was fine but when did anyone  ever have that luxury. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:38:40
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonans' calculations

Exactly, Marty. Although that IS slim evidence as you point out it certainly is an indication. Had they flown their offset, turned on the LOP on their computed time and flown down the line they would only know they were at Howland when they saw it so they could not have said "we must be on you" having done that.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:49:22
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Thanks, Randy. For all we know he used it all the time but I'm not sure what the significance now. <G>

Question. On the Oakland flight we know the PRs came as much as 45 minutes after the fixes. Were they at somewhat random times or always on the hour or some such schedule? My recollection was they were more random but I don't have the data in front of me now. Also when the PR came before the fix how much before?

The significance of my question is to show how big a window around a PR there might have been. The point again being there is absolutely no usable  correlation in trying to redo their flight as to periodic ground speeds.

My last question is why are we spending our Sunday with this?  <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:53:11
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

For Alan - I have replied to you several times regarding the use of offset (and other) navigation techniques. These techniques to navigators were far more than "ground school navigation teaching techniques". At navigation school in the 50's we were indeed taught them, and they were practiced and used by many of my predecessors, like one of the navigators on the same mission as the LBG in 40's, who used the technique to resolve the anticipated ambiguity of the German radio beacon and the home station radio beacon on the African coast. Had the LBG navigator used the technique, LBG wouldn't likely have ended up where she did. As a navigator/bombardier in the B-36, I practiced and used them all. Many of my mentors were WWII vets, who taught me to use anything and everything that I had ALWAYS, so I always had a back-up. On the long flights from Texas to Guam non-stop and un-refueled, we used the technique a couple of times just to practice. Very satisfying to watch it work. We used pressure-pattern too, something unknown in FN's time (although his wandering back and forth across his intended track as he entered and exited highs and lows was telling him something useful). Our work on those long over-water flights had more similarity to FN's task than your work at perhaps three times his speed in a B-47, because we also had reciprocating engines, and two flight engineers to monitor fuel usage, and to set power for a desired constant average TAS over periods between fixes.

Now, I don't know either whether or not FN used offset. It can be argued either way, for he certainly intended to use radio homing for the endgame. As a former navigator, I only object to your dismissing these old offset techniques out of hand. Your forum contributions certainly stir the pot. It always makes my hair stand on end to (as a navigator) place myself in the cockpit of that L10, listen to the radio, hear nothing, look out the window, see nothing, note the expiration of my ETA, and think, "Now what?"

Peter Boor #856CS
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:53:34
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: Noonan's  calculations

For Marty - from an airplane cockpit point of view, my experience is that AE's use of "flying north and south..." doesn't mean no offset. They could have flown a very small offset, used the advanced LOP and a predicted ETA to denote their destination, and then, not finding the island, flew up (nearly north) and down (nearly south) looking. She did give the line (LOP) direction in degrees...but no joy at Howland. Except for the acknowledgement of the one radio reception on 7500, she must have thought that she had flown into a vacuum - no one, no island, no ship, no nothing. What to do?

Peter Boor #0856CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:54:12
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

If what you mean by PR is "Press Report", I will assume you meant a radio position report.

1. They followed the same pre-arranged schedule: 15 and 45 minutes after the hour.  Not all times was a report heard or made.

2. At no time did a radio report preceed a position report.

3. You'll have to ask Marty about why we spend our Sundays the way we do.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:56:00
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Fuel expansion -Nit Picking at Lae

Dave wrote:

> Bob Sherman said:
>
>> That was my point:  Whatever the number of  gallons of gas in her
>> tanks, if the average  temp of the fuel in her tanks was warmer than
>> 60 deg. F. The engines were going  to effectively 'see' less fuel.
>
> R.C., I'm a mathematician, not a physicist, but I think you are
> drawing a skewed  correlation between volume and weight. If the total
> volume of a tank is 150 gallons, it's 150 gallons, no matter what the
> temperature may be. Of course,  liquids expand or contract based on
> temperatures, but this is really nitpicking.

Dave:

1. Nit picking is a large part of the posts.  The exact fuel load has been argued since 1990 .. as I recall.

2. It does not matter if the capacity of the tanks are in gallons or potato sacks or weight is measured in lbs. or doubloons .. The volume of the tanks will hold a lesser mass of fuel at a warmer temp than at a cooler temp .. ergo the range is affected .

'Odlum' or whatever the name of the guy that flew from Hawaii to almost Newark NJ in a Navion(?) used dry ice on his fuel to get the necessary increase in range.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:51:04
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Peter Boor wrote:

> ...Our work on those long over-water flights had more similarity to
> FN's task than your work at perhaps three times his speed in a B-47, because
> we also had reciprocating engines, and two flight engineers to monitor fuel
> usage, and to set power for a desired constant average TAS over periods
> between fixes.

Do I understand you to say that sufficient navigational accuracy was obtained by setting power to a fixed value and averaging TAS over the time interval between fixes? If so,do you think that AE and FN might have used this technique as contrasted with frequent adjustments of power to achieve a nearly constant TAS for navigational purposes?

harvey 2387
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:51:25
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Peter, I did not mean to dismiss offset as much as it sounded. I know it  was used long ago and you are right, my experience was far beyond the offset days. My apologies to you and all the old navs who DID use offset.

I still don't believe FN used offset into Howland for the reasons previously given but I'm at a loss to understand what difference it makes.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:51:49
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Peter, I don't know about the offset but in effect there must have been one. I think you laid out what they most probably did as well as could be done.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:52:36
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

Peter Boor wrote:

> Your  forum contributions certainly stir the pot.

Peter, thanks for understanding that my purpose was to stir the pot and breathe some life back into this group and get people thinking again. I'm not quite as dogmatic and opinionated as I sometimes sound. Almost but not quite.  <G>

Let me ask you the same question I asked a couple of others. Not a game. I don't know the answer. On the offset issue my reasoning was AE's call "We must be on you..." If they were flying straight in it was timed. When the time was up  they thought they were there. If they flew an offset it was timed to the LOP at  which time they turned and flew on the LOP. How then would AE know they "must be  on you...."  My reasoning is that they couldn't know because they didn't  know where they were on the LOP. They could only know when they saw the island.  Where am I wrong?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:53:01
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Fuel expansion at Lae

I think Bob is wrong about engines not being interested in pounds but in gallons. Engines want the gallons they need. It's the pilots who want to know how many pounds that is. Given the payload they have to carry on a particular flight, when calculating their weight and balance they find how many pounds are left for fuel for the flight. This may eventually dictate a fuel stop en route. Specific weight of avgas being 0.72 this will allow them to calculate how many gallons the engines will need to reach their destination, adding legal reserves for a possible diversion. This dictates the total amount of fuel needed. This amount should always be within the limits dictated by the airplanes MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight). Which brings us back to the pounds. In the case of Amelia Earhart the situation was quite clear : she wanted as much fuel as the Lockheed 10E would take, limiting payload to the bare minimum. In fact the Electra only carried only its crew of two, their clothes and perhaps their toothbrushes. All unnecessary weight was left behind at Lae as every pound was needed for gas. As the engines would burn the fuel in GPH, AE was interested in how much gas the airplane could take in pounds. In fact she took off in overweight. Her engines didn't care. It would seem to me they burned gallons.

LTM (who used to calculate fuel consumption to the last drop)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:53:19
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Fuel expansion at Lae

Dry ice on the fuel ? How did he manage that ?

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:46:07
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

For Randy Jacobson

Mr. Jacobson your statement that "Noonan definitely used the offset method for the flight from South America to Africa", fosters the following question  - Mr Jacobson, was there any advantage for Noonan to use the offset navigational methodology on this flight leg from Natal to Dakar?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang   # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:26:45
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Fuel temperature

Hermann said:

> I think Bob is wrong about engines not being interested in pounds but in
> gallons. Engines want the gallons they need.

Hermann:  You misread... I said,  Engines 'see' or use fuel according to its mass .. lbs. others said in effect, a gal. is a gal. regardless of temp.  Or that temp. doesn't make any difference. Simply put,: a container filled to the brim with cold gasoline will be heavier than if filled with hot gasoline . and  an engine will deliver more power from a cold gallon of gasoline than a hot gallon because the 'given volume' of cold fuel will be of a greater weight.

7/8ths. of a gallon of 'ice cold' fuel will produce about the same horse power as 1-gallon of hot fuel ..

> Dry ice on the fuel ? How did he manage that ?

Hermann how could an old pilot with such wide experience miss that historic flight and how it was possible to get  more pounds of fuel into his tanks by chilling it?  He had dry ice packed around the drums of fuel for several days before refueling .. and had dry ice in bags around the wings for the same time so that the cold fuel would encounter cold tanks.  As it warmed, it would overflow .. losing some of the fuel.   Once in the tanks, and the cold blankets removed, he made haste to taxi out and take off so as not to lose any more 'overflow' as the fuel warmed.

For about 15 years, Tighar's of all stripes have been working with and talking about maximums .. and minimums.  How far could she have flown?    Gals. per hour and per mile.   Distance,  time,  reserve fuel, effects of headwind .. questioning power settings,  ... anything to prove or disprove arrival at islands of varying distances from Howland ... exactly how much fuel was in the tanks ...

I am saying that If the temps. on Lae between several hours before her departure and her last top off were above 60 deg. F. , she had LESS usable fuel in her thanks than whatever number of gallons anyone can determine .. even if they can prove the accuracy of their number to the OUNCE.

To the argument that it doesn't make any difference, it certainly does not increase her available fuel.

Bob   [RC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:57:52
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Noonan's calculations

There was a definite advantage to using an offset for Africa, similar to that of using the offset for an island.

Noonan advanced the LOP past Dakar, and had Earhart turn "north". Because Dakar sits on a westward jutting peninsula on the coast of Africa, he applied a sufficient offset to the south, so when the turn was made, one would know the situation immediately.  If water was present under the plane, then everyone knew they were south and east of Dakar.  Continuing to fly "north", eventually, landfall would be reached.  Since the coastline runs NW/SE south of Dakar, one simply follows the coast to the NW and voila! Dakar should appear.  Unfortunately, fog was present, and AE and FN didn't see the coastline until they transited the peninsula, and crossed from land to sea.  At that point, the coast line runs SW/NE, so to get to Dakar, they simply had to turn to the SW and follow the coast.  Unfortunately, that direction was socked in, but to the NE was clear.  So, they followed the NE coast to St. Louis and landed, just before dusk.

A brilliant strategy for using an offset navigational method, marred only by fog.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:12:27
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fuel temperature

Bob, I understand what you are saying and I agree the engine uses pounds.  It uses 0.46 pounds to make one BHP per hour. According to the oldest weather data I could find for Lae in July the average maximum temperature was 81 F and the average minimum was 71 F. I don't want to argue those temperatures and I don't think they mean all that much but if the temperature of one gallon of fuel  varied ten degrees what would the weight difference be?

Alan