Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:25:52 From: John Harsh Subject: Where's the Forum? I haven't gotten any updates lately. Is the forum still up or should I look for a technical issue on this end? ********************* Yes, the Forum is still there, just Real Quiet. We need an application of the Automatic Thread Starter Machine, I guess. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:24:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Three questions Everybody has probably used the on line encyclopedia Wikipedia. You can find information on just about anything in the Wikipedia and each page has multiples links to other pages with related information so that you can follow any number of threads as far as your curiosity leads you. Anyone can contribute to the Wikipedia so the editors are constantly struggling to assure that the information presented is factual. Later this year, TIGHAR will unveil the Ameliapedia - "An on line encyclopedia of reliable information about Amelia Earhart, her mysterious disappearance, and what has been learned about what really happened." The Ameliapedia uses "wiki" technology to preserve, organize, and present the vast and varied body of research developed in the course of TIGHAR's twenty-year and on-going investigation. The work of building the Ameliapedia is being done by members of the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC). We're making every effort to make it's as complete and factual as possible. The idea is to make the Ameliapedia the "go-to" source for anyone looking for Earhart-related information. We expect that, in the wake of the release of the Hollywood biopic "Amelia" sometime next fall, there will be a spike in public interest. The film will reportedly not offer a solution to the mystery. People will have questions and they'll go on line to find answers. We want the main page of the Ameliapedia to be as inviting as possible, so we're trying to anticipate what those questions will be. I'd appreciate the forum's opinion as to the three questions members of the general public will be most likely to have when they walk out of the theater. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:18:45 From: Hilary Olson Subject: Re: Three questions 1a Why did they not look harder? Where did they look? 1b How to find detailed map of 1937 Pacific with Amelia's route of intended flight from Lae to Howland/ prevailing wind chart and currents. 2. What has been found ,by whom, where and can I see it? 3. Are any of her family/friends /searchers that were alive in 1937, still alive. My Q What did Captain Thompson take to his grave in Ketchikan Ak. Ameliapedia Sounds like a great idea. Hilary C Olson #2633 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:52:36 From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: Re: Three questions 1. What REALLY happened to Amelia? 2. If she did get to Gardner Island, why didn't the Navy find her? 3. Weren't there enough coconuts and fish for her and Fred to survive for a long enough time to get rescued? LTM, who prefers open-book tests Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:25:44 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Three questions 2. If she did get to Gardner Island, why didn't the Navy find her? That one keeps coming up, and I wonder if there's any really succinct, easy-to-understand way to answer it. To anyone who's been on Niku it's a no-brainer, and I suspect it's not hard for most people who've done search and rescue to answer, but how to make it clear to the casual questioner? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:26:19 From: Michael Haddock Subject: Re: Three questions 1. Was AE a good pilot or just another stunt flier? 2. Why did she take off from Lae knowing her radio/compass did not work? 3. Why will TIGHAR not engage with a deep sea exploration outfit to find the plane? (I know the answer but I think a lot of people will ask) LTM, Michael Haddock, #2438 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:33:33 From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Three questions Quickly and off the top of my head... 1--Why did she make the flight.? 2-Exactly when did she make the flight.? 3-Why are we still looking for her---she failed.? jim Tierney ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:49:08 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Michael Haddock asked: >1. Was AE a good pilot or just another stunt flier? I agree that some people will want the answer to some form of that question. >2. Why did she take off from Lae knowing her radio/compass did not work? I don't think she did. I think she thought everything was working just fine. >3. Why will TIGHAR not engage with a deep sea exploration outfit to find the plane? >(I know the answer but I think a lot of people will ask) TIGHAR would LOVE to engage a deep sea exploration outfit to find the plane. We need only two things to make that happen: - A deep sea exploration company that thinks they can conduct a thorough search in the very difficult reef slope environment of Nikumaroro (several companies, including Nauticos, have said it's beyond their capability). - The money to hire them to do it. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:00:27 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric > >I'd appreciate the forum's opinion as to the three questions members >of the general public will be most likely to have when they walk out >of the theater. This depends, somewhat, on the movie and what it shows...the open questions from the movie will be the first ones that come to mind. And, for all we know, most of the movie might be about her love life, which will then bring about questions like "Was she really a lesbian?", "Was she sleeping with Fred?", or whatever salacious questions people can think of. So, I guess the first question is if the Ameliapedia is going to address any of these other things, or if it will strictly stick to the last flight and what happened to her. Once it is open to the public, the rest of her life will be added to it, that is the nature of wikis...it's probably a good idea to have as much factual information about her entire life in there as possible. As for disappearance questions, the obvious one is why she couldn't communicate that day, followed by what happened to her after the last communication. We think we have evidence for both of those, but competing hypotheses will need to be mentioned in the wiki (again, they will be added in later). Explaining the evidence and flaws in each hypothesis really should be a highlight of the wiki...and care will have to be taken to make sure any edits are kept as factual as possible. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:26:11 From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Three questions 1. Have we ( as in TIGHAR) ever obtained a cost figure on such a deep sea search? 2. Would an organization such as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, National Geographic, History Channel, Discovery, and/or the Smithsonian care to get involved or join forces for such a formidable and historic venture, and are any federal historic grants available for such an undertaking? (That's actually a twofer question...) 3. Could anything else be as exciting, I mean---really? Best Wishes To All, The long lost, currently battling pneumonia, but still living, Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS (# 2211) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:26:44 From: Art Carty Subject: Re: three questions I'd suggest a short clip from the helicopter ride from several years ago; as I recall, there is even some commentary on how hard it was to see several expedition members on the beach when they knew exactly where to look. >Art Carty > >From Tom King > >2. If she did get to Gardner Island, why didn't the Navy find her? > >That one keeps coming up, and I wonder if there's any really >succinct, easy-to-understand way to answer it. To anyone who's been >on Niku it's a no-brainer, and I suspect it's not hard for most >people who've done search and rescue to answer, but how to make it >clear to the casual questioner? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:27:10 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Three questions After my presentation of various theories, the three most often asked are: 1. Did Amelia survive and die on Saipan? 2. Was she on a clandestine spy mission for ONI/FDR 3. Is there any conclusive physical evidence, assuming the post lost signals were genuine, supporting a survival? Optional , Is there a continuing search? Where? Most are aware of the various artifacts found by Tighar and ask about Tighar, based on various newspaper accounts, etc. Few have seen National Geographic special. REB ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:01:56 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Three questions For Gene -- A few months ago, I asked my friend Greg Stemm, who runs Odyssey Marine Exploration in Tampa, FL -- whose exploits you may have seen recently on the Discovery Channel -- for a ballpark guesstimate of costs of a thorough search of the Niku reef face. Odyssey has about the best robotic search technology on the planet. Having looked at satellite imagery and such bathymetry as there is, Greg said they wouldn't even want to try. The slope, the ruggedness of the surface, the dangers inherent in deploying pricey equipment in such an environment, all were major discouragements. And Odyssey is a whole lot more into the business of taking risks than is an outfit like the Smithsonian or National Geo. LTM (who says drink your chicken soup) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:02:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Dr. Gene Dangelo asked: >1. Have we ( as in TIGHAR) ever obtained a cost figure on such a >deep sea search? Not a question people re likely to ask the Ameliapedia but to answer your question: No. First we have to find somebody who can figure out a way to do it before we can know how much it would cost. >2. Would an organization such as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, >National Geographic, History Channel, Discovery, and/or the >Smithsonian care to get involved or join forces for such a >formidable and historic venture, and are any federal historic grants >available for such an undertaking? (That's actually a twofer >question...) Short answer: No. >3. Could anything else be as exciting, I mean---really? Success is exciting and the anticipation of success is perhaps even more exciting. But if Al Capone's fault turns out to be empty that is not exciting. Best wishes on your recovery, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:02:48 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Ron Bright writes: >After my presentation of various theories, the three most often >asked are: >1. Did Amelia survive and die on Saipan? >2. Was she on a clandestine spy mission for ONI/FDR Obviously you need to change your presentation. >3. Is there any conclusive physical evidence, assuming the post >lost signals were genuine, supporting a survival? Interesting question. If one assumes that at least some of the post-loss signals were genuine there doesn't need to be further evidence of survival. If there is conclusive physical evidence of survival then it doesn't matter whether the post-loss signals are genuine. What I hear you saying is that you find the post-loss signals to be compelling but not conclusive. To be convinced you also want physical evidence. Not a problem. >Optional , Is there a continuing search? Where? Yes, I agree. I hear that a lot too. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:03:12 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Three questions I stand corrected, Ric. I thought on her morning test flight before actually taking off for Howland Island that she knew the radio compass was not working properly. I must be getting old! LTM, ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:03:40 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric > >... The Ameliapedia uses "wiki" technology ... It actually uses the same software engine as Wikipedia--MediaWiki. It probably will never have as many bells and whistles as Wikipedia has added on to the basic WikiMedia foundation, but it's nice to be in the same software family. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:23:47 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric > >What I hear you saying is that you find the post-loss signals to be >compelling but not conclusive. To be convinced you also want >physical evidence. Not a problem. You tease. :) What is the status of the DNA testing, and when do you expect to have results you can share? Or, is there something else that this is referring to? Reed ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:24:07 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Three questions For Mike Haddock << I must be getting old!>> As Amelia would probably tell you if she could, that beats the alternative. LTM (who doesn't remember WHERE she left that radio compass) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:37:31 From: Terry Thorgaard Subject: Re: Three questions That's one. Or, to put it a bit differently, what did the naval reconniasance report mean. It's been a long time since I looked at that part of the puzzle in detail, but they reported "signs of recent activity" or something. What did that mean? And, depending on what it meant, if they saw something why didn't they conduct a more detailed search of Gardner. Another big question is what ever happened to those bones in Suva? >From Dennis O. McGee > >... >2. If she did get to Gardner Island, why didn't the Navy find her? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:38:28 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: three questions Terry Thorgaard asked >(W)hat did the naval reconniasance report mean. It's been a long >time since I looked at that part of the puzzle in detail, but they >reported "signs of recent activity" or something. What did that >mean? And, depending on what it meant, if they saw something why >didn't they conduct a more detailed search of Gardner. All is revealed in "Finding Amelia - The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance" available from Amazon.com for $19.11 or from TIGHAR, signed by the author for $25 (http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/tigharstore.html) >Another big question is what ever happened to those bones in Suva? Ain't it though? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:09:55 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Three questions 1. Where did I put my car keys? 2. Where the hell is my car? 3. Where do I go for more information and the facts about this interesting woman? Well, those would be first three in my mind... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:10:28 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Three questions I've looked at all the questions in their various forms and I can tell you if they WERE answerable you wouldn't have to be asking the questions. No one knows the answers. If we did you would already have them. No secrets are being kept. Going further, however, I can also tell you that if there was a smoking gun, i.e. concrete evidence, money and organizations would be falling out of the sky to get in on the final episode. Let's just take the question of the under water search for example. If you were the under water search company where would you search? Here would be the questions: 1. Do you have concrete irrefutable proof the plane landed on Niku? 2. If so, do you know where exactly around the circumference of the island the plane came to rest? 3. What is your proof they didn't move it from where it landed? 4. If it washed over the reef did it float for a while or sink immediately? 5. If it floated for a while how long did it float? 6. If it DID float, in which direction and for what distance did it float before sinking? If anyone can answer ALL six questions you might have a shot at an under water discovery. Keep in mind how long it took to find the Titanic and they COULD answer those questions - maybe not perfectly but pretty close. As for Earhart and her plane going to the Marshalls, can anyone tell me how to get them there? To be close enough to fly there Noonan would have had to be 400 to 500 miles off course to the north and the evidence indicates he was south of track. If they were picked up off of Niku tell me how to get the plane off the island and onto what Japanese ship when no seaplane tender was within a thousand miles? The best "evidence" we have is that they went to Niku. There is NO evidence of any alternative theory and I know that comment will cause a scream. The Japanese capture stories are all in conflict and again there is no rational theory that gets our heroes and the plane to the Marshalls. And no, you can't pick just the crew and not the plane. But if someone wants to argue the Marshalls give me the rationale, workable theory and evidence. As for Niku the helicopter video which was flown lower than Lambrecht flew shows it is virtually impossible to spot people and since he didn't get there until the 9th the plane was probably already gone. The bones. There has been a massive effort to find the bones to no avail. I'm not sure what more can be done but Ric can answer that better than I. What have I missed? Oh! I found two. To Mike regarding her DF leaving Lae. The previous day Earhart flew a short test hop but could not get a null. She concluded she was in too close and the station was too strong. There are two things that could be implied from this. One, she obviously thought the DF was so important she flew a test hop to make sure it was working. Two, after leaving Lae the next day I see an implication she retested her DF further out and it worked. If it didn't she would likely (but not certainly) would have turned back for a quick repair, top off and launch again. they had time as they were getting to Howland too early in the first place. As to the secret spy mission that means over the Marshalls with insufficient fuel to even get as far as Mili Atoll and all in the dark. Dropping flares in order to get pictures just MIGHT have given them away and out running Japanese planes if there were any would have been tough. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:10:54 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three Questions >Reed Riddle says: > >I guess the first question is if the Ameliapedia is going to address >any of these other things, or if it will strictly stick to the last >flight and what happened to her. Our intent is for the Ameliapedia to be as factual as we can make it. We have no intention of getting into tabloid speculation. >Once it is open to the public, the rest of her life will be added to >it, that is the nature of wikis...it's probably a good idea to have >as much factual information about her entire life in there as >possible. The Ameliapedia will be open to the public to read but not to add to or edit. In that respect it will be different from the Wikipedia, just as it will be different from the Wikipedia in that information presented will be more reliable. >As for disappearance questions, the obvious one is why she couldn't >communicate that day, followed by what happened to her after the >last communication. We think we have evidence for both of those, >but competing hypotheses will need to be mentioned in the wiki >(again, they will be added in later). Competing hypotheses will be given a fair airing but they will be held to the same standards of evidence TIGHAR applies to our own work. >Explaining the evidence and flaws in each hypothesis really should >be a highlight of the wiki...and care will have to be taken to make >sure any edits are kept as factual as possible. Yes, and we will do that, but we won't let the Ameliapedia become a debating platform. If proponents of Crashed & Sank or Japanese Capture don't like the Ameliapedia's presentation of the facts they can build their own wiki. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:46:15 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions >Reed Riddle asked: > >What is the status of the DNA testing, and when do you expect to >have results you can share? Or, is there something else that this is >referring to? We're still working on getting reference samples of Earhart and Noonan mtDNA for comparison to mtDNA recovered from island material. The good news is that we expect to have those reference samples soon. We also now know that isolating the source of the island mtDNA and eliminating the possibility of contamination from our own team members (most notably me) will be more complicated than we at first thought. The bottom line is that nobody should hold their breath for any earth- shaking announcements any time soon. The DNA thing might turn out to be highly significant or it could be a bust. We just don't know yet. I should stress that while the line of DNA investigation has the potential for providing "smoking gun" proof that the Niku hypothesis is correct, it does NOT have the potential of invalidating the hypothesis. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:46:37 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Randy Jacobson offers: >1. Where did I put my car keys? > >2. Where the hell is my car? Randy is correct that many of the queries may come from people like himself. >3. Where do I go for more information and the facts about this >interesting woman? That's sorta the idea of the Ameliapedia. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:53:03 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Three questions For Alan Caldwell: >The bones. There has been a massive effort to find the bones to no >avail. I'm not sure what more can be done but Ric can answer that >better than I. Well, I'm not Ric, but I'll offer an answer anyway. The most likely place we haven't searched is the Colonial War Memorial Hospital in Fiji -- a great rambling heap of a place whose construction began in Victorian times and it shows. All manner of nooks and crannies in which a box of old bones might have gotten stashed and forgotten. The administrator stiffed us in 1999, but we couldn't have begun to give it a proper look-over anyway. We haven't tried since, but as of 2007 there was a new administrator who was likely to be a lot more cooperative, particularly if approached by sympathetic people with medical backgrounds. If we had a retired doctor with a year to spend in Fiji, or a couple of them, the CWMH would be where I'd want to send them. LTM (who avoids hospitals, herself) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:07:26 From: Jim Tierney Subject: The movie All this questioning--brings up THE movie... All I know is that Eccleston/Gere/Swank are the trio of important people. 23 October 2009 is release date and they have filmed in Toronto.... Are there any other links that we can go to to get any more info---- for those of us who are not in 'the showbiz'.. Jim Tierney ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:15:54 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions >Alan Caldwell writes: > >Let's just take the question of the under water search for example. >If you were the under water search company where would you search? >Here would be the questions: > >1. Do you have concrete irrefutable proof the plane landed on Niku? If you're a contractor being paid to do the job, all you need is irrefutable proof that TIGHAR can pay your fee. >2. If so, do you know where exactly around the circumference of the >island the plane came to rest? You'll search where TIGHAR pays you to search. TIGHAR will pay you to search where all of the available evidence indicates that the plane probably ended up. >3. What is your proof they didn't move it from where it landed? The nature of the reef flat itself. You don't just go taxiing around on that reef. >4. If it washed over the reef did it float for a while or sink >immediately? All of the available evidence suggests that it broke up on the reef edge. >5. If it floated for a while how long did it float? > >6. If it DID float, in which direction and for what distance did it >float before sinking? There's no evidence that it floated and considerable evidence that it didn't. >If anyone can answer ALL six questions you might have a shot at an >under water discovery. We know the most logical place to look. We have a shot at an underwater discovery if we can figure out the right technology and find the funding. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:34:16 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: the movie Jim Tierney asks: >All this questioning--brings up THE movie... >All I know is that Eccleston/Gere/Swank are the trio of important >people. 23 October 2009 is release date and they have filmed in >Toronto.... Where did the 23 October date come from? I have not seen a specific release date. The 23rd is a Friday, as it should be. Swank is Earhart. Gere is Putnam. Eccleston is Noonan but it's a bit part. Ewan MacGregor is Gene Vidal, the third leg of the love triangle that is the centerpiece of the film. They shot in Toronto, Nova Scotia, and South Africa. They built full scale non-flying replicas of the Friendship and the Vega. They used a Model 12, flown from France to South Africa (quite a trip), as a stand in for the Electra. >Are there any other links that we can go to to get any more info---- >for those of us who are not in 'the showbiz'.. Just Google "film amelia." Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:44:34 From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: The movie >Are there any other links that we can go to to get any more info---- >for those of us who are not in 'the showbiz'.. Try these: www.imdb.com Search under "People;" enter the names of any of the principal actors, if you don't know the exact title of the movie. There will be a link within the actor's filmography. www.moviebytes.com This site may have other info. Mike Everette ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:56:45 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Three questions From Alan Caldwell > >Two, after leaving Lae the next day I see an >implication she retested her DF further out and it worked. If it >didn't she would likely (but not certainly) would have turned back for >a quick repair, top off and launch again. they had time as they were >getting to Howland too early in the first place. Turning back wouldn't be an easy decision. If done early in the day, it would mean a dangerous landing with a fuel load that's still godawful heavy. Once repaired, re-launch would be delayed at least until the following morning. I doubt she would have tried taking off again later the same day, because density altitude was climbing along with the temperature at Lae. As it is, she'd barely gotten off the ground within the available runway at 10:00 in the morning. With a higher density altitude later in the day, it likely would have been impossible to successfully take off with the same heavy load. LTM, who likes cool dense air Mona ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:44:07 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Three questions 1. What weather conditions i.e. winds, cloud cover, etc. would be necessary to cause AE and FN to a) miss Howland by a far enough distance as to not see the island when they were in the vicinity? b) place them in a position to consider Gardner Island as an alternate? 2. Is there evidence to suggest that the weather conditions noted in the answer to question one existed? 3. Given the evidence collected over the years by TIGHAR on Gardner Island and other sources e.g. government file, radio DF reports, etc. is there an alternative explanation to the TIGHAR AE/Gardner Island hypothesis? Ted ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:04:46 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Three questions You could be right, Mona. gethomeitus is a powerful force. Alan >Turning back wouldn't be an easy decision. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:26:28 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Three questions I suggest the opening page (home page) have whatever graphics seem appropriate, then a description of the site's content and purpose. There could be a link to TIGHAR's home page for info on other projects. The next page would have three parts: 1. What is the Niku hypothesis and what is the evidence for it? This would be 95% of the site content. 2. What is the "crashed and sank theory," and why don't you agree? I believe we need to address this since it is one of the most common theories. We could refer to the books, articles and website (if any) which favor this idea. It is an attractive theory because it is easy, simple and virtually serves as its own proof. Nothing would conclusively disprove it but discovering the plane or some bones somewhere on land. They people who've searched at sea must realize that their odds of success are low. It's taken many decades to find warships and ocean liners. They are much bigger than an airplane. 3. What are the other theories? This would be the place to list and describe the Japanese capture, New Jersey housewife, US spies, Tokyo Rose, etc., schemes. The purpose would be to respond to the question, "What about the alternate theories?" For the most part the other theories are just flakey on their face. When not obviously nutty, an even handed description of the evidence or lack thereof for these arguments bolsters the credibility of the work done by TIGHAR. The Niku section could be completely or mostly question and answer format. Including descriptions of the other theories allows to people to make their own decision. Many people will have heard these ideas and probably have a vague memory of what they include, and little memory of what is offered in support of them. I'd include some biographical material on AE to address the question of whether she was a serious flyer or a celebrity goofball. I don't see any reason to include the tabloid speculation about her personal life. Finally, I'd include a page of links to other relevant pages. There could be links to Kiribati and other Pacific islands, to other aircraft recovery projects, to WWII history, to the Howland settlement by the Hawaiian youth. A familiarity with Japanese or British colonial and war strategy, Australian warship recovery, early Pan Am history, the lagoon at Truk, etc. demonstrates the breadth of knowledge in TIGHAR. We're not one trick ponies. I'm sure other TIGHAR members could suggest additional websites to link to. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:33:22 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Three questions Just as an aside..... There should be a page somewhere that explains how the scientific method works, how it is being applied (or not) in the search of Earhart, and why it is important to follow the evidence instead of hearsay. And, please, we need to refer to everything (including the Gardner landing) as an hypothesis...none of the various ideas behind Earhart's disappearance has risen to the level of a theory (as defined by science as opposed to the TV definition). TIGHAR's work has a much more solid foundation, has more supporting evidence, and has a far better possibility of being testable, than any of the other hypotheses out there. And, with the radio study especially, it has more concrete evidence behind it. There isn't the smoking gun yet, and there are still alternate explanations for everything, but the TIGHAR hypothesis is the best explanation of all of the data collected so far when examined as a whole. The pages for the other hypotheses should be simple statements of the basic hypothesis, support for and against, and links to more information. It would be nice to ask people who support those hypotheses to participate, so that those pages are fair and accurate statements of the other hypotheses (it will keep those others from complaining they were left out or their ideas disparaged). Reed ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:33:56 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Three questions I wonder whether there is some way to get to Swank and Gere with the TIGHAR story? Eventually they will be asked, "What do you think happened to AE and FN?" If their answer is, "Nobody knows, but I heard they were captured by the Japanese and shot as spies," that is not helpful. Do we have ideas on how to capitalize on the movie's opening? A classified ad in Variety might help.. I once worked on a campaign that used little one inch tall ads in the local a couple of times a week for a couple of months. It might show up anywhere in the paper and it did get attention. Our ad could simply be: Where's Amelia? www.tighar.com What happened to Earhart? www.tighar.com What does it take to get something added to the press packet handed out at a movie premiere? Has a producer ever expressed serious interest in doing a documentary on either TIGHAR's work, or the disappearance in general? It would be great if something came out soon after the movie. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:47:14 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Three questions Amen to what Reed says (below). "Theory" is a much, much misused term, and if people don't like a four-syllable word, tough. And, please, we need to refer to everything (including the Gardner landing) as an hypothesis...none of the various ideas behind Earhart's disappearance has risen to the level of a theory (as defined by science as opposed to the TV definition). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:28:10 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Three questions Tom, I would like to add my amen also and also suggest all the questioners peruse the web page and the new wiki thoroughly. I think they will then have a much better understanding of the whole project. Then they will see why the loose use of "theory" (and I'm guilty also) is better termed a hypothesis. They can see what the evidence is and evaluate its credibility. But I would like to caution everyone not to hang your hat on debunking a single piece of evidence. It all fits into a larger picture. The post loss transmissions is a good example. You might be able to find a few messages not credible but try and find ALL of them not credible for if any single message is good the Electra had to be on land somewhere. TIGHAR believes that land is Niku. No one has come up with an alternative piece of land and there ARE rational reasons to pick Niku. Alan. >From Tom King > >Amen to what Reed says (below). "Theory" is a much, much misused >term, and if people don't like a four-syllable word, tough. > >And, please, we need to refer to everything (including the >Gardner landing) as an hypothesis...none of the various ideas behind >Earhart's disappearance has risen to the level of a theory (as defined >by science as opposed to the TV definition). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:29:10 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Tom Doran asks, >I wonder whether there is some way to get to Swank and Gere with the >TIGHAR story? We have gotten to Swank. She's not interested. Swank and Gere are actors. They get paid to play a part. >Eventually they will be asked, "What do you think happened to AE and FN?" >If their answer is, "Nobody knows, but I heard they were captured by >the Japanese and shot as spies," that is not helpful. People who listen to actors' opinions about subjects other than acting get what they deserve. >Do we have ideas on how to capitalize on the movie's opening? Many. >A classified ad in Variety might help. Why Variety? It's an entertainment trade publication. >What does it take to get something added to the press packet handed >out at a movie premiere? The willingness of the producers to include it. We're not going to get that. >Has a producer ever expressed serious interest in doing a >documentary on either TIGHAR's work, or the disappearance in >general? It would be great if something came out soon after the movie. Funny you should ask. There have been several documentaries about TIGHAR's work but we've never gotten a fair shake. We're very much interested in making our own documentary and are actively seeking the funding needed. We have a tremendous archive of video material going back twenty years and an excellent working relationship with a topnotch production company. We can make a dynamite show. All we need is the financial backing. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:29:43 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions >From Tom Doran > >I suggest the opening page (home page) have whatever graphics seem >appropriate, then a description of the site's content and purpose. There >could be a link to TIGHAR's home page for info on other projects. WikiMedia (the same software, more or less, that runs Wikipedia) is an interface between the user and an indefinitely extensible database. TIGHAR has a lot of information that should go in a database. Once it is in the database, people can draw on it in various ways. >The next page would have three parts: There is no "next page." As with Wikipedia, the user decides what is worth reading next. >... I'd include a page of links to other relevant pages. ... Every article in a wiki should have links to other articles on the site and/or external links. There could, of course, be special articles that were meant primarily as links pages. But each editor should strive to make their article lead into other parts of the database. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:30:18 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: Three questions I guess Ric is the "Thread Starter Machine". Reed Riddle states what I thought after I stumbled on to the TIGHAR website two years ago this March. I was very young when this happened, (1937) and I remember hearing talk about Amelia for years, I heard someone saying her last words about "...a line 157/337....", and couldn't make anything out of it, what a curious message I thought. As I read documents and the Hypothesis, I said WOW, all this has been done by this group of people, I sent in my Joining fee right away. I think others would react the same way if the message was in or on the right vehicle. There are lots of ideas in this thread. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:31:03 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions Reed Riddle wrote: >There should be a page somewhere that explains how the scientific >method works ... That implies a commitment to a particular philosophy of science. I prefer to talk about the methods of science than "THE scientific method." One size does not fit all. The method used to weigh elephants doesn't work for determining the mass of the Higgs boson (if it exists and if it has any mass). Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:53:03 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Three questions >From Marty Moleski > >Reed Riddle wrote: > >>There should be a page somewhere that explains how the scientific >>method works ... > >That implies a commitment to a particular philosophy of science. > >I prefer to talk about the methods of science than "THE scientific >method." One size does not fit all. The method used to weigh >elephants doesn't work for determining the mass of the Higgs >boson (if it exists and if it has any mass). Marty, what you are referring to is the specific method to do a measurement, but that is not the scientific method at all. Actually, in the case of your examples, they are basically the same method. If you want an accurate weight, you build an instrument that will measure that weight properly, and then you take the measurement many times and get the mean/median values. The scale might be different, but it's basically the same measurement method in both cases. You can't talk about what a piece of data means unless you can connect it with the entire set of data; it is the relevance to everything else that matters. The mass of an elephant isn't an important thing (unless it sits on you), while the mass of the Higgs just might change our perception of basic physics. How you get that data (your idea of a method) matters in determining if the data point is valid; once you have confirmed that then all that matters is how it affects the theory or hypothesis. The scientific method is the way we do science, the way we connect that data point to the rest of the data out there. We get some piece of data, come up with an idea to explain it, test it against current theories, and then modify the theories to improve them in the face of the new data. In fact, Wikipedia has an excellent explanation of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. That is what TIGHAR should stress, how the scientific method is being used to construct the Niku hypothesis, and how it is the only rigorously scientific project pursuing the answers about the disappearance. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:54:09 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Three questions Marty says: << The method used to weigh elephants doesn't work for determining the mass of the Higgs boson (if it exists and if it has any mass).>> It doesn't? You mean one can't hypothesize that a Higgs boson ought to have a mass of X and then test that hypothesis (or try to) in the Large Hadron Collider? If you're right, the European Union is sure wasting a lot of money. I think the principle of deducing hypotheses and testing them was the "scientific method" to which Reed was referring. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:21:05 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions >... The scientific method is the way we do science, the way we connect that >data point to the rest of the data out there. We get some piece of data, >come up with an idea to explain it, test it against current theories, >and then modify the theories to improve them in the face of the new >data. In fact, Wikipedia has an excellent explanation of this: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. The opening of the article supports my view: "Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]" They do not speak of "the" scientific method, but "bodies of techniques" and "a" scientific method. Talking about "the" method implies that there is only one way to be scientific. I suggest that there are many varieties of science. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:21:42 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions >From Tom King: > >Marty says: << The method used to weigh >elephants doesn't work for determining the mass of the Higgs >boson (if it exists and if it has any mass).>> > >It doesn't? You mean one can't hypothesize that a Higgs boson ought to >have a mass of X and then test that hypothesis (or try to) in the Large >Hadron Collider? If you're right, the European Union is sure wasting a >lot of money. I think the principle of deducing hypotheses and testing >them was the "scientific method" to which Reed was referring. I didn't say that it didn't exist. I didn't say that it was an untestable hypothesis. I'm eager to see what comes out of the LHC. I noted that the techniques for determining the mass of such particles are quite different from those of determining the mass of other things in the universe. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:45:57 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Three questions Please excuse me for "pouring some cold water onto the warm enthusiasm", so to speak... however, after some thinking, i thought it may be worth to express some thoughts of skeptic nature about this ("Ameliapedia") project... From all what i read and could understand, it is my impression that such website, in fact, would "duplicate" one of the sections of the existing "basic" TIGHAR Website - "Amelia Earhart FAQs": http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html - being, in a sense, it's "extended and technically advanced version"... But is there a big sense for such duplication, and whether it can give something substantial, useful and poroductive?... Sorry but I have some doubts about that... Well, let's guess that this new Swank movie will be commercially successful and will find a good audience and PR, - so naturally some people will want to learn more about AE and her story, and will start to dig in the Internet. But, it seems natural to guess that the first place they will "go", will be the Wikipedia... then, possibly, the AE's "official website", and the website of AE Birthplace Museum. Those who will want more, particularly about the disappearance - and especially those who ever heard about TIGHAR - will, naturally, go to the TIGHAR "basic" (current) website - to the "Earhart Project" section, and particularly to this "FAQs" chapter - where many of these "questions", that are discussed here on Forum during last 2 days, are already presented and analysed in fact (!) - and in a pretty detailed way. This (current) TIGHAR website - www.tighar.org - exists already for many years; it is having some "name and reputation", it is known, easy to find and navigate, and already presents a lot of info. And just i can't see any reason why and how, exactly, some newly created website, duplicating this info, would became more "popular", and/or successful, and/or more frequently visited, then the "basic" TIGHAR website - and what it will "add" and how it can "help", somehow, in any reasonable aspect... Well, maybe it is really worth to modify and extend, somehow, the existing page http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html - - adding some new materials and "capabilities" based on the new internet technologies etc... But to duplicate it with entirely new Website?... hmmm... i just can't see how it may help and be useful and productive... Rather, i suspect, it would be just distractive... I may be wrong of course, but just some thoughts... Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:05:29 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions I think we're getting tangled up semantically. A single "method" (defined as a way of approaching a problem) can employ a variety of "techniques." If I use the "psychic" method of investigation I might employ remote viewing or tarot cards or tea leaves or any of a variety of other techniques - but the underlying assumption about how to arrive at reliable answers is the same. The Wikipedia definition does not, I submit, support the notion that there are many scientific methods. It says, "Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques ..." It does not say, "Scientific methods are bodies of techniques...." Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:15:26 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: Three questions I just Googled "Amelia Earhart" and the first website is the official website of Amelia Earhart. Ontop of the page,and off to the right are some "Adds by Google". So Tighar takes out an add on the oficial website. The folks leave the movie, turn on their computer, googles Amelia Earhart, clicks on the first one, and there is the TIGHAR add expounding how we have processed the available data into a coherent Hypothesis about her final destination. LTM ************************************ As of yesterday we have paid advertising on Google which should move us up the ranks. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:00:16 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions >From Marcus Lind > >Please excuse me for "pouring some cold water onto the warm enthusiasm", >so to speak... however, after some thinking, i thought it may be worth >to express some thoughts of skeptic nature about this ("Ameliapedia") >project... > >From all what i read and could understand, it is my impression that >such website, in fact, would "duplicate" one of the sections of the >existing "basic" TIGHAR Website - "Amelia Earhart FAQs": > >http://www.tighar.org/forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html The information in the FAQs should be replicated in the database (eventually), but not in the form of one page. A wiki consists of articles. In a good wiki, the articles provide basic information about one topic at a time--not dozens. One article can be referred to by indefinitely many other pages. So, for example, one might have an article entitled "Emily Sikuli (Tapania Taiki." All of TIGHAR's information about Emily should be digested on that page, with the appropriate links to her interview and/or other longer articles about her. When TIGHAR learns something new about Emily, a note to that effect should be made on that page. Then when some other author of an article wants to talk about Emily, all the author has to do is make a link to the fundamental article about her: [[Emily Sikuli (Tapania Taiki) Emily]] The author does not have to give much, if any, information in the derived article. If the reader knows all about Emily, there is no need to follow the link. If the reader wants to know who she is and why the author is talking about her, the link is right there to go the page that explains how she fits into the puzzle. >- being, in a sense, it's "extended and technically advanced >version"... No. It's not extended and advanced. It's an entirely different method for storing and retrieving information. Old site: HTML pages constructed by hand. Wiki: PHP-generated output based on queries made to the database. >But is there a big sense for such duplication, and whether it can give >something substantial, useful and poroductive?... Sorry but I have some >doubts about that... I don't. I've put more than five weeks (all told) into making a demo wiki for TIGHAR to play with, creating the new web server, installing MediaWiki and all the tools it needs, translating the pages from the demo into MediaWiki syntax, installing extensions, documenting the system, and teaching people how to use it. >But, it seems natural to guess that the first place they will "go", will >be the Wikipedia... then, possibly, the AE's "official website", and the >website of AE Birthplace Museum. The Ameliapedia is intrinsically worthwhile regardless of how many people like it or use it. Because it is an indefinitely extensible database, it is a great place for TIGHAR to store information. MediaWiki makes it easy to put information in the database and get it back out again. To use the old method (HTML), you had to know how to code HTML. And then you needed permission to upload to the site. If I'm not mistaken, TIGHAR has had one (1) person responsible for **ALL** of the content on the site. (Take a bow, Pat. And three or four curtain calls, too.) The wiki lets a lot more people tell what they know without the burden of learning how to edit HTML pages or running the risk that the changes they make will get out of control. >Those who will want more, particularly about the disappearance - and >especially those who ever heard about TIGHAR - will, naturally, go to >the TIGHAR "basic" (current) website - to the "Earhart Project" section, >and particularly to this "FAQs" chapter - where many of these >"questions", that are discussed here on Forum during last 2 days, are >already presented and analysed in fact (!) - and in a pretty detailed way. Fine. If that's all they want, that's all they'll get. They will not be obliged to use the wiki if they don't want to. >This (current) TIGHAR website - www.tighar.org - exists already for many >years; it is having some "name and reputation", it is known, easy to >find and navigate, and already presents a lot of info. >And just i can't see any reason why and how, exactly, some newly created >website, duplicating this info, would became more "popular", and/or >successful, and/or more frequently visited, then the "basic" TIGHAR >website - and what it will "add" and how it can "help", somehow, in any >reasonable aspect... It's not a new website. It's a new section of tighar.org. (Well, the entire operation has shifted over to a new SERVER, but that's a different kettle of fish. Details available on demand, but then don't give me the old "too much information" look after I start talking.) Marty= ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:06:57 From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: Re: Documentary Ric said: "We have a tremendous archive of video material going back twenty years and an excellent working relationship with a topnotch production company. We can make a dynamite show. All we need is the financial backing." I'm a little short this month, but check on me after this week's Power Ball drawing. LTM, who never keeps a kicker Denn O. McGee, #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:07:54 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric > >I think we're getting tangled up semantically. A single "method" >(defined as a way of approaching a problem) can employ a variety of >"techniques." If I use the "psychic" method of investigation I might >employ remote viewing or tarot cards or tea leaves or any of a variety >of other techniques - but the underlying assumption about how to >arrive at reliable answers is the same. > >The Wikipedia definition does not, I submit, support the notion that >there are many scientific methods. It says, "Scientific method refers to >bodies of techniques ..." It does not say, "Scientific methods are >bodies of techniques...." You can read without using semantics. The sentence may be parsed: "The phrase 'scientific method' refers to bodies of techniques ..." The reason for the expansion is simple: Scientific method does not o anything. It is not a person. It does not "refer." The author of the sentence was writing elliptically. In other words, the author is using "scientific method" as a collective term, like people, flock, or team. Moreover, the claim that "The scientific method is thus and such" is not generated by "the scientific method" (if there is one). It is a philosophical outlook, not a finding from physics, chemistry, biology, archaeology, or any of the other disciplines generally accepted as examples of sciences in our society. The proper use and illustration of scientific methods, when and as they apply to the questions TIGHAR asks, is part of TIGHAR's 501 (c) 3 educational mission. Promulgation of a particular philosophy of science, I suggest, goes beyond TIGHAR's proper mission. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:14:28 From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: For Marty Marty Molenski said: "I'm eager to see what comes out of the LHC." OK, we're getting way off topic here, but Marty I'm surprised to hear YOU say that. As I understand the LHC, one of the goals is to recreate and explain the origins of the Big Bang and to explain what existed prior to it. One scientist (unnamed) said finding an answer to these questions may very well disprove the existence of God, as we define him. Whoa! I don't like where this is going. :-) Anyway, considering your career, Marty, I'd think you'd be taking a big risk with your eagerness " . . . to see what comes out of the LHC." :-) But then, I guess that is what basic science is about. LTM, who is a believer Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:26:05 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Three questions Are we tilting at semantics again? Alan >From Tom King: > >Marty says: << The method used to weigh >elephants doesn't work for determining the mass of the Higgs >boson (if it exists and if it has any mass).>> > >It doesn't? You mean one can't hypothesize that a Higgs boson ought >to have a mass of X and then test that hypothesis (or try to) in the >Large Hadron Collider? If you're right, the European Union is sure >wasting a lot of money. I think the principle of deducing hypotheses >and testing them was the "scientific method" to which Reed was >referring. > >TK ****************** Yes. PT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:37:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Three questions You have made good points, Marcus. I have serious doubts the Earhart movie will be much of a success. I haven't seen much general knowledge or interest in anything 72 years old. I'm 76 and I am not seeing much interest in me. It is clear by now most people have not dug into the TIGHAR web site or we wouldn't be having most of the questions I've seen here. Unless the new Wiki leads them by the hand I have doubts anyone will dig into IT. I applaud Marty and his great work in putting it together and I hope people will make good use of it. We will, as we are somewhat of an incestual group playing off one another. For outsiders that may be a different story. I suspect a relatively small audience for the new movie and little follow up interest unless we, somehow, can generate it. By that I mean with press conferences and perhaps another TV documentary. The days of the movies opening would be a great time for the announcement of new and significant evidence. Of course, tomorrow would be good also. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:42:25 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Three questions MIME-version: 1.0 Marty, The scientific method is the philosophy that scientists follow when they do science. In all fields. Scientists use techniques appropriate to their various field to gather the measurements, come up with hypotheses, and test theories. In every case, the way that they are trained to do the science is based on this principle. You're getting stuck on the idea that measuring mass with a particle accelerator, or a balance, or a scale, are all somehow done using a different philosophical basis for doing the measurement. In my dissertation, I measured the mass of stars, which used none of those techniques. But, all of us use the same idea, the same philosophy, to use the masses to further understand whatever theory is being tested. It's a matter of training; I have never talked to another scientist who didn't understand, as part of their view of doing science, what the scientific method was, and who used some other philosophy to do science. And yet all of us used wildly different techniques to do the actual science. And, it is this use of the scientific method that sets TIGHAR apart from every other Earhart project. It should be played up, as the scientific analyses of the radio messages, weather patterns, and all the other stuff have laid a strong foundation for determining if Earhart ended up on Gardner. It's also a lesson in how hard science can be, which most people don't really get. Marty, it may just be that we aren't understanding what your objection is. If you have an example of some other philosophy of doing science (one that is not a technical difference between different fields), please share it...I honestly don't know of another philosophy. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:14:32 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: For Marty >From Dennis O. McGee > >Marty Moleski said: "I'm eager to see what comes out of the LHC." > >OK, we're getting way off topic here, but Marty I'm surprised to hear >YOU say that. As I understand the LHC, one of the goals is to recreate >and explain the origins of the Big Bang and to explain what existed >prior to it. One scientist (unnamed) said finding an answer to these >questions may very well disprove the existence of God, as we define >him. As Tonto is said to have said to the Lone Ranger, "What you mean 'we', white man?" The way I define God (and physics), nothing in the domain addressed by the results of a physical experiment can change my conviction that one God created everything that science studies. But, as you noted, this goes far afield from TIGHAR's mission. That's why I'd like TIGHAR to stay out of the field of the philosophy of science. Philosophy does deal with questions about the relationship between God and the universe; TIGHAR's work for historic aircraft recovery does not. ;o) Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:03:03 From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: Re: Three questions Alan Caldwell said: "I haven't seen much general knowledge or interest in anything 72 years old. I'm 76 and I am not seeing much interest in me. " Don't be so hard on yourself. Anyone who has logged as much time in B-47s as you has to have some socially redeeming value. LTM, who is straight and level Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:04:13 From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: Re: For Marty Marty Moleski said: "Philosophy does deal with questions about the relationship between God and the universe; TIGHAR's work for historic aircraft recovery does not. ;o)" Oh-oh. I gettin' outta the way; I don't have a dog in this fight. :-) LTM, who knows when to fold 'em Dennis O. McGee #0194EC ************************************** As does TIGHAR and the Forum. Gentlemen, you may retire to your corners and contemplate your next rounds in private. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:34:43 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Three questions Thanks, Dennis. Know anyone who needs bombed? Alan >From Dennis O. McGee > >Alan Caldwell said: "I haven't seen much general knowledge or >interest in anything 72 years old. I'm 76 and I am not seeing much >interest in me. " > >Don't be so hard on yourself. Anyone who has logged as much time in >B-47s as you has to have some socially redeeming value. > >LTM, who is straight and level >Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************** I dunno about Dennis, but I've sure got a little list. ;-) Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:04:11 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Documentary Ric said: "We have a tremendous archive of video material going back twenty years and an excellent working relationship with a topnotch production company. We can make a dynamite show. All we need is the financial backing." Such a documentary would be a natural as a supplemental feature distributed on the "Amelia" DVD. Rick J ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:20:32 From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: Re: Three questions From Alan Caldwell said: "Thanks, Dennis. Know anyone who needs bombed?" Yeah. Start here. http://geology.com/satellite/cities/washington-dc-satellite-image.shtml LTM, who would like to go along as an observer Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ****************************************** Hey, Dennis, when we all end up at Gitmo being interrogated as terrorists, you'll go our bail won't you? To Any Snoops: JUST KIDDING, OK? Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:53:52 From: Mike Piner Subject: National Geographic News Look at National Geographic News, dated February 14, 2009. I googled "earhart theories", the name of the article is Where is Amelia Earhart- Three theories. Nothing much new except search for Dados by Tighar. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:54:40 From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: Re: Three questions >Alan Caldwell said: "Thanks, Dennis. Know anyone who needs >b***ed?" > >Yeah. Start here. >http://geology.com/satellite/cities/washington-dc-satellite- >image.shtml > >LTM, who would like to go along as an observer >Dennis O. McGee #0149EC > >****************************************** > >Hey, Dennis, when we all end up at Gitmo being interrogated as >terrorists, you'll go our bail won't you? > >To Any Snoops: JUST KIDDING, OK? > >Pat You need to talk to Alan, he's the one who brought up the B-word. Besides, I heard all the guys at Gitmo being transferred to new Zealand? Maybe The Wombat will offer a little aid and abetting. :-) LTM, felony-free since 1985 :-) Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:58:36 From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric >... >I'd appreciate the forum's opinion as to the three questions members >of the general public will be most likely to have when they walk out >of the theater. Ric I took an "unscientific" poll (n = 1) of household middle-aged women who may or may not represent the demographic that would see the Amelia movie. She's not particularly familiar with TIGHAR or aviation or archaeology, and knows little more about Earhart than what the general public might catch floating on the popular media. Her three questions were: 1. Where is she? 2. Was she irresponsible in making the around-the-world flight? 3. Was she really personal friends with Eleanor Roosevelt? FWIW. --Mike Z. from Massachusetts ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:40:41 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Mike Z. presents some interesting questions from at least one member of a demographic group likely to see the film. My answers would be: >1. Where is she? That's a religious question beyond my pay grade. >2. Was she irresponsible in making the around-the-world flight? Yes. The flight was well within the existing and proven procedures, facilities, and technology. Earhart was irresponsible for undertaking the flight without the knowledge and expertise to use the procedures, facilities, and technology. Noonan was an excellent navigator but the successful completion of the Lae/Howland leg depended upon radio and neither AE nor FN had more than a rudimentary familiarity with radio. Their plan for finding Howland was poorly organized and unworkable from the outset. Had everything gone smoothly they may have been able to fix it "on the fly" through communication with Itasca, but the loss of the belly antenna on takeoff presented them with a problem they didn't know how to diagnose, let alone work around. The Earhart tragedy is a tragedy of hubris. >3. Was she really personal friends with Eleanor Roosevelt? Yes, she really was. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:43:41 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric > >Earhart was irresponsible for undertaking >the flight without the knowledge and expertise to use the procedures, >facilities, and technology. . . . The Earhart >tragedy is a tragedy of hubris. I guess it's ok to toss around our personal opinions on the Forum, but I hope that terms like "hubris" and "irresponsible" (or for that matter, "courageous" and "inspiring") don't make it into the Ameliapedia where the articles will be, we hope, entirely fact-based. It's one thing to analyze what a person knew and when they knew it, and quite another to ascribe an attitude to them. Without a comprehensive knowledge of the pressures a person is under, and what options the person perceives to be available, we can't really state as fact that they had a bad attitude. LTM, who says all pilots commit pilot error Mona ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:57:52 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Mona writes, >I guess it's ok to toss around our personal opinions on the Forum, >but I hope that terms like "hubris" and "irresponsible" (or for that >matter, "courageous" and "inspiring") don't make it into the >Ameliapedia where the articles will be, we hope, entirely fact- >based. It's one thing to analyze what a person knew and when they >knew it, and quite another to ascribe an attitude to them. Without >a comprehensive knowledge of the pressures a person is under, and >what options the person perceives to be available, we can't really >state as fact that they had a bad attitude. The Ameliapedia will not make value judgments or ascribe attitudes or motivations. The idea is to offer easy access to reliable and verifiable facts. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:31:04 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: three questions For Mona: Thanx so much for your response about personal opinions... I often feel like the Lone Ranger when I object to the forum about that. I have to say, you said it in a more thoughtful and nice way than I do... It always brings out my Irish temper, because it strikes me the same way as the old "women drivers" retoric. I sure appreciate the kindred spirits on the forum (men and women) who always defend our Girl when these things come up. Way to go, Mona :) LTM who kinda likes the courageous and inspiring remarks, but knows it's not proper or useful for Ameliapedia... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:53:44 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Three questions I don't think anyone is being "anti-woman" or "anti-Amelia" when they criticize her skills. From my perspective, she enjoyed being a pilot and receiving the fame and adulation that came with it, but she wasn't so interested in updating her skill set or learning new things as aviation technology improved. She seemed content to continue with the things she had learned to start with, rather than trying to innovate. This sounds like the sort of complacency that causes a pilot to put a jet on autopilot until it crashes into a house. (Hopefully, the accident report from Buffalo doesn't mince words!) I welcome criticism, because it is often the only thing that makes me improve. Unfortunately, it's too late for AE, but we should be honest about what do we know. Just for the record, I'm the world's worst driver. Karen Hoy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:11:05 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Three questions >From Karen Hoy > >This sounds like the sort of complacency that causes a pilot to put a >jet on autopilot until it crashes into a house. (Hopefully, the >accident report from Buffalo doesn't mince words!) > >Unfortunately, it's too late for AE, but we should be honest about >what do we know. Yes, we should be honest about what we know . . . and don't know. The NTSB investigation is just starting and we don't know whether "complacency" had anything whatsoever to do with the accident. We don't even know yet what caused the plane to pitch up and stall. This is the kind of rush to judgment that I'd like see us get away from. LTM, Mona ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:16:24 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: Three questions I do not get such an attitude at all from one of her speeches. The ocassion is an address to the National Geographic Society in the September 1932 issue. She talks in some detail about future inovations which will probably enhance instrument flying, She talks about having to fly near the ocean after her altimeter failed while flying under clouds. By 1937, she had to be an experienced pilot. My question (1) would be: Why did she leave the key behind? LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:17:07 From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric >... >The Ameliapedia will not make value judgments or ascribe attitudes or >motivations. The idea is to offer easy access to reliable and >verifiable facts. That sounds best to me. However, if we assume the one individual I asked is somewhat typical, then I think we can anticipate the audience will often have questions that imply judgments, such as whether so-and-so was "irresponsible" or not. Various takes on the "who was at fault?" vein would be among those that I bet will get asked a lot. I guess the design issue for EPAC is how to present and organize the facts so that people can easily gather the relevant information to make their own judgments. For example, there may be articles on Earhart's and others' preparations for the trip. --Mike Z. from Massachusetts ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:08:42 From: Pat Gaston Subject: Hubris Ric wrote: "Had everything gone smoothly they may have been able to fix it "on the fly" through communication with Itasca, but the loss of the belly antenna on takeoff presented them with a problem they didn't know how to diagnose, let alone work around. The Earhart tragedy is a tragedy of hubris." I would have to disagree with that last word. Earhart did not take lightly the difficulty of finding tiny Howland. But the way she had it figured, she had the problem covered three ways: 1. She had one of the world's finest navigators on board. 2. If that didn't work, she could ride in on the Itasca's signal. The belly antenna would have been important here. 3. If that didn't work, the Itasca could home in on >her< signal and talk her in. This option required no more than a functioning radio and sufficient batteries for the HF-DF unit on Howland which the Coast Guard, through no fault of Earhart's, failed to supply. Today we would call it double redundancy. If the loss of the belly antenna was, in fact, the reason everything went agley, that was simple bad luck and not hubris. It also seems apparent that something was amiss with Earhart's receiver. Balfour (whose tinkering may have caused the whole mess) claimed he was in two-way communication with her, but read his words closely and he says merely that he sent Earhart weather reports, while she sent him position reports. That sounds a lot like two people talking >at< each other rather than >to< each other. In fact, the one time Balfour sent Earhart a direct request -- not to change frequencies -- she either disregarded it or, more likely, never heard it. Earhart acknowledged hearing the Itasca only once, oddly on 7500 kHz -- a frequency she must have plucked out of thin air. There is no evidence she ever heard anything on 3105 or 6210. Had she been able to establish reliable communications with Itasca on either frequency, odds are she would have lived to a ripe old age. It may have been hubris that convinced Earhart she could get along without replacing Manning. But could even Manning have repaired a balky receiver (or replaced a belly antenna) in mid-air? I suppose the answer is, "It depends." And I suppose we'll never know. I tend to think that it was not a tragedy of hubris, but -- less poetically -- of all one's chickens coming home to roost at precisely the same time. Call it Murphy's Law, Squared. Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:15:28 From: Hilary Olson Subject: Re: Three questions This movie may spark some other Q's and memories of people who in the past may have had mentioned to them about some papers, memorabilia, or photographs etc that have been pushed away in an attic or box somewhere ..forgotten ....till now ...Let's hope they find how to contact TIGHAR with those. Hilary ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:16:05 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: three questions The NTSB sometimes is a bit quick on pilot error. You'll notice in the sequence they had just initiated lowering of the flaps. If only one flap actuated it would have been a huge control problem. At 800 feet that leaves little time -- five seconds in this case. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:16:26 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Three questions Mike, she actually had two keys and I have never been 100% satisfied they were both accounted for. The usual answer to your question is (1) she cleaned out everything not absolutely essential to keep the weight down -- except the key hardly weighed anything. I don't buy that as an answer. And (2) you will hear that their Morse was so poor they couldn't effectively use the key. I don't buy that either. They DID know Morse code from station identifier's. No doubt they were slower than mud -- at least on Earhart's part. Just one of those things Amelia may have done we don't have a good reason for. Note, I said may. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:17:10 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Three questions I certainly agree with Mona, and other Colleagues who shares her points. As about the Earhart's skills and "degree of responsibility", i think it was discussed a lot of times already on this forum... so will just summarize my personal views: 1) Earhart, in her time, was a good, skillfull and professionally competent pilot. It is certainly proven by: a) her prominent 16-year career - with enough many successful (some of them record-breaking) flights at difficult conditions, at nighttime etc. b) a number of accidents relatively small in comparison to other pilots of the era with a same kind of flying and of similar "status" c) professional opinions of numerous contemporary pilots - who knew Earhart professionally, flew with her, and knew "firsthand", were - largely - pretty much respectful and even complimentary. The listing includes, particularly, Wiley Post, Jackie Cochran, Paul Collins, Leigh Wade ("...She was a born flier, with a delicate touch on the stick"). 2) The criticism of Earhart's skills is based, in fact, on only two "primary sources": claims of Elinor Smith, and opinion of Paul Mantz about the possible reasons of the Hawaii groundloop. The claims of Smith (who avidly dreamed to be the first aviatrix to fly across the Atlanctic solo) about Earhart, however, are so obviously filled by aroma of jealousy that it is difficult to accept it without cautiousness and skepticism. In some cases she made claims that were simply plain untrue, and there are proofs of that. About Mantz, it must be noted that 1) he wasn't in cockpit with Earhart during the groundloop - so in fact could only guess about the reasons, as anybody else; and 2) such critical guesses, he started to express after being in fact fired from the "Earhart team" at uneasy and conflicting circumstances. 3) It is my personal opinion that to criticize Earhart (or Noonan) for the failure of the World Flight (as well as to judge about Earhart's competence on the base of this flight (and outcome) exclusively - ignoring all her previous career) is not reasonable; just because of the actual, exact technical reasons of such outcome of the flight is still unknown, and is a matter of guesses. Meanwhile the facts are that Earhart and Noonan successfully made a largest part of their World Flight - without any significant accidents and failures - and thus could fairly hope to make the rest of it, using the technique and methods they practicized. From the modern point of view (when a lot of cars are equipped with GPS and many drivers will not start any long journey without it - not mentioning the pilots), it MAY seem strange or "irresponsible" that Earhart (and Noonan) dedicated too little attention to radio navigation and equipment. It is worth to remember however that the time was mid-30s - not today, and not even mid90s or 80s... and such a total domineering of radio and electronics - and total dependence on it, characteristic for modern time - was not not so characteristic for that era. Earhart had aboard a professional and experienced navigator, and could also hope for some assistance from Itaska at approach to Howland. For them, in that time and at those circumstances, it reasonably could seem as enough, or even more then enough. And, until the Lae- Howland leg, their methods obviously worked. During that leg, it didn't... but, again, without exact knowledge, it would be purely speculative to say that the reason was some lack of competence of Earhart (or Noonan) - and, thus, unfair to judge about their capabilities on such speculative base. [Ric's book, BTW, provides a very serious data and facts about why the planned radio assistance from Itaska, that Earhart and Noonan hoped for, was not properly effective... and Ric refers there to the evidence of Bellarts and other primary and competent sources. I think that "Lost" chapter gives a lot of good food for thinking ]. Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind P.S. For Alan: thank you for your kind reply and understanding of my recent points on "Ameliapedia" project... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:17:36 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Three questions For Marty Moleski: Thank you for your kind explanation; i didn't understand it that the new project will be an integral part of the existing TIGHAR website. Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:25:29 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Mike Z. writes, I think we can anticipate the audience will often have questions that imply judgments, such as whether so-and-so was "irresponsible" or not. Various takes on the "who was at fault?" vein would be among those that I bet will get asked a lot. I guess the design issue for EPAC is how to present and organize the facts so that people can easily gather the relevant information to make their own judgments. For example, there may be articles on Earhart's and others' preparations for the trip. You raise some interesting points. We can strive to present only verifiable facts but no one can ever present every verifiable fact about a given subject. The facts you choose to present and the way you choose to present them inevitably influence the impressions readers take away and the judgements they make. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:37:09 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Three questions Hilary makes a very good point, I think, which makes me wonder if there's some way we could post an explicit appeal for such memorabilia, not just on TIGHAR's website but more specifically on some website(s) directly related to the movie. You never know what might surface. LTM (who says you never know if you don't ask) From Hilary Olson This movie may spark some other Q's and memories of people who in the Past may have had mentioned to them about some papers, memorabilia, or photographs etc that have been pushed away in an attic or box somewhere ..forgotten ....till now ...Let's hope they find how to contact TIGHAR with those. Hilary ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:54:08 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Pat Gaston takes issue with my opinion that the Earhart tragedy is a tragedy of hubris. Earhart did not take lightly the difficulty of finding tiny Howland. But the way she had it figured, she had the problem covered three ways: 1. She had one of the world's finest navigators on board. More precisely, she had one of the world's finest dead reckoning and celestial aerial navigators aboard. 2. If that didn't work, she could ride in on the Itasca's signal. The belly antenna would have been important here. One of the biggest Earhart myths is that it was Noonan's job to find Howland Island. It wasn't. Noonan's job on the Lae/Holwand flight was the same as it had been when he worked for Pan Am and when he flew with Earhart, Mantz, and Manning on the Oakland/Wheeler flight. Noonan was responsible for getting the flight to within radio range (a few hundred miles) of the intended destination using dead reckoning and celestial techniques. At that point it was up to other members of the crew to use radio navigation to bring the flight in. Aboard the Pan Am clippers that job was done by a dedicated radio operator. Manning performed that function on the Oakland/Wheeler flight. On the Lae/Holwand flight it was Earhart's job. Earhart's announced primary plan was to, as you say, "ride the Itasca's signal" to find Howland using her radio direction finder. That's what she told the Coast Guard she would do, but the frequency she told them to use (7500 kcs) was far too high for her Bendix MN-5 loop antenna to respond to. Her plan was unworkable from the start, even if all of her equipment had functioned perfectly. Her own coordinating messages to the Coast Guard, such as they were, were contradictory. The Coast Guard could see there was a problem several days before the flight but when San Francisco Division suggested to Commander Thompson that he straighten Earhart out about the frequencies, Thompson told Division to butt out. He was determined to keep Itasca's role passive so that, in the event the flight didn't go well, no blame would land on his shoulders. On July 2nd, Noonan did his job and got the plane to within radio range of Howland but then Earhart changed the plan and asked Itasca to take bearings on her rather than the other way around. In pre-flight messages Itasca had told her the frequencies limitations of their direction finder she asked them to take bearings on a way-too-high freqeuncy anyway. The tried to tell her that they couldn't do what she was asking but she couldn't hear them. 3. If that didn't work, the Itasca could home in on >her< signal and talk her in. This option required no more than a functioning radio and sufficient batteries for the HF-DF unit on Howland which the Coast Guard, through no fault of Earhart's, failed to supply. As far as the Coast Guard was concerned, Itasca taking bearings on her signal and "talking her in" was never in the plan. Richard Black of the Dept. of Interior was the one who arranged for the HFDF on Howland over Commander Thompson's objections. Earhart was never told anything about the HFDF on Howland. Today we would call it double redundancy. There was no double redundancy. She had an announced plan of using her loop antenna to take a bearing on Itasca. That plan was flawed from the start because she apparently didn't understand the limitations of her equipment. But instead of using her announced plan, she sprung a new plan on the Coast Guard when she asked Itasca (not Howland) to take a bearing on her signal. That plan was unworkable too because of the limitations of Itasca's direction finder (which she should have known). There was an HFDF that could have taken a bearing on her signal but her transmissions were too short and the batteries weren't managed properly and ran out - but the HFDF was never part of Earhart's plan because she never knew about it. If the loss of the belly antenna was, in fact, the reason everything went agley, that was simple bad luck and not hubris. The significance of the loss of the belly antenna is that it prevented Earhart from getting advice from the Coast Guard about what to do to correct the flaws in the way she was trying to use her equipment. It also seems apparent that something was amiss with Earhart's receiver. Balfour (whose tinkering may have caused the whole mess) claimed he was in two-way communication with her, but read his words closely and he says merely that he sent Earhart weather reports, while she sent him position reports. That sounds a lot like two people talking >at< each other rather than >to< each other. In fact, the one time Balfour sent Earhart a direct request -- not to change frequencies -- she either disregarded it or, more likely, never heard it. I see no indication that there was anything wrong with her receiver. She couldn't hear Balfour because the belly antenna was gone. Same for Itasca's transmissions. She was listening using an antenna that wasn't there. Earhart acknowledged hearing the Itasca only once, oddly on 7500 kHz -- a frequency she must have plucked out of thin air. There is no evidence she ever heard anything on 3105 or 6210. Had she been able to establish reliable communications with Itasca on either frequency, odds are she would have lived to a ripe old age. The reason she heard the Itasca's morse code "A"s on 7500 was that she hoped to take a bearing and had switched the receiver to the loop antenna. The receiver could pick up that frequency just fine and there was nothing wrong with the loop antenna, except that it couldn't take a bearing on a frequency that high. When Earhart was "unable to get a minimum" (bearing) using the loop antenna, she switched the receiver back to the missing belly antenna. Had she simply left the loop selected and set the receiver frequency to 3105 she would have heard Itasca's voice transmissions just fine. She had a system malfunction (the loss of the belly antenna) but didn't understand her equipment well enough to diagnose the problem and perform a very simple work-around (use the loop for voice communication). It may have been hubris that convinced Earhart she could get along without replacing Manning. Hubris to think she could get along without a radio operator AND not bother to learn how to use the equipment herself despite it being the key element in the most dangerous part of her world flight. Call it hubris, negligence, or recklessness - it was predictably fatal. But could even Manning have repaired a balky receiver (or replaced a belly antenna) in mid-air? I suppose the answer is, "It depends." And I suppose we'll never know. It wasn't rocket science. All she needed was a basic understanding how things worked. I tend to think that it was not a tragedy of hubris, but -- less poetically -- of all one's chickens coming home to roost at precisely the same time. Call it Murphy's Law, Squared. Any pilot knows that Murphy is always your copilot. In my opinion, the chicken that came home to roost was Earhart's long history of relying on luck rather than expertise. For the Lae/Howland flight she was in over her head so far that all it took was one minor mishap (the loss of the belly antenna) to tip the scales. It now appears that Noonan's skills were sufficient to prevent them from having to ditch at sea ... but therein lies another tale. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:13:17 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Hubris From Ric In my opinion, the chicken that came home to roost was Earhart's long history of relying on luck rather than expertise. I don't think so. This statement is at odds with her philosophy of flight preparation (for example, "The best good luck charm is a good mechanic"; for more examples, read her post-Atlantic solo articles wherein she stresses the importance of pre-flight preparation). I don't see how any of how her record flights could be characterized as trusting to luck over expertise. For the May 1932 Atlantic solo, for instance, she trained in instrument procedures under William Ocker himself, credited as the father of instrument flying, back when that was a very young science (Ocker's first textbook on instrument flight wasn't published until June 1932, a month after her flight). LTM, Mona ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:14:36 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Wanted: Paddy MacDonald's letters and diaries I'm working on the Ameliapedia articles for Bones II (2003). After reading and revising my notes for a few days, I've had a big DOH! experience. What we found out (and what TIGHAR may already have known) was that Paddy MacDonald was **there** from beginning to end of the bones story. He carried the bones to Hoodless in 1941. He was there when the WPHC holdings were divided between Tarawa and Honiara in the 1950s. He was the Colonial Secretary and acting Archivist when the files were packed and shipped to Hanslope Park and Tarawa in the 1970s. If there was one person who knew what happened to the stuff collected on Gardner, it was almost certainly he. I personally have done precisely nothing to follow up on the question of how to get in touch with the MacDonalds. My bad. :o( Genealogists, can you help? Maybe a death record for him in Britain? Heirs? If anyone has access to the Civil Lists for Fiji, that might help pin down more information about him. Patrick D. MacDonald * Nicknamed "Paddy." * Rose from Assistant Secretary in 1941 to Colonial Secretary--a very prestigious and important position. ** The Colonial Secretary was virtually a dictator. The Governor was a ceremonial figure and might set policy, but the Colonial Secretary was the CEO. He had three telephones on his desk, gave orders, and approved spending. He was "pretty damn good." (([[Ron Gatty| RG]]) * Employed by WPHC from ~1941 to 1978. * Took the bones from the office to Hoodless at FSM in summer of 1941. * Colonial Secretary and in charge of boxing things up in 1978. Acting Archivist from the time that [[Burne]] retired (or quit) in 1976 until at least April 6, 1978. * Both files and office equipment were sent to London. Lists of files were drawn up and typed. They were then packed in small archive boxes-- no more than 5 files to a box. The small boxes were then stacked in a wooden packing crate. They fit perfectly, with no need of any kind of straw or other packing material. * Tofiga remembers Paddy as "fair, firm and meticulous." * Ron Gatty: "The Governor was a ceremonial figure and might set policy, but the Colonial Secretary was the CEO. He had three telephones on his desk, gave orders, and approved spending. Paddy was pretty damn good." * Daughter: Veronica ("Ronnie"). May have married someone named something like Gardner. She worked for BOAC and got reduced fare flights for her father. ([[Ron Gatty| RG]]) * May have had a part-interest in the Grand Pacific Hotel. [[Ron Gatty]] saw him there in a humble role--acting, perhaps, as the desk clerk. * Died in the late 1990s in Britain? * Almost certainly knew everything there was to know about the [[Bones found on Nikumaroro| bones found on Nikumaroro]]. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:15:48 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Three questions From Ric >Tom Doran asks, >>some way to get to Swank and Gere with the > >We have gotten to Swank. She's not interested. Swank and Gere are >actors. They get paid to play a part. >People who listen to actors' opinions about subjects other than >acting get what they deserve. It's true that many actors are airheads, but that doesn't prevent the media from asking them questions on serious subjects. >>Do we have ideas on how to capitalize on the movie's opening? > >Many. > >>Anything that rank and file TIGHAR members could help with? > >>A classified ad in Variety might help. > >Why Variety? It's an entertainment trade publication. I suggested Variety because much or most of the media attention is likely to come from the entertainment press, which follows Variety closely. Maybe someone would follow up to briefly ask, "What happened to AE? One group that says they know is TIGHAR...." I would not expect the hard news press to pay much attention to a movie or the questions it raises. Other papers might be as good or better prospect. The movie, from what I've read, ends a couple of years before the flight. It's mainly concerned with the relationship between AE and Putnam from about 1928 to 1934. It may be that someone in TIGHAR knows a writer who could be interested in the subject. Reporters are always looking for story ideas. There are also publications such as airline magazines and community newspapers which don't pay their writers but accept unsolicited submissions from anyone. It would also be useful to create one or more short (five to ten minute) videos to post on YouTube. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:16:13 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Hubris I would caution that we don't know how the MN-5 loop functioned as a DF antenna at frequencies 3105, 6210, 7500. It "may" have been characteristics of radio propagation at those frequencies and the time of day that spoiled things, rather than the limitations of the loop equipment itself. I "believe" the MN-5 is just electrically, a low inductance winding of a couple turns of wire inside its static shield round loop frame. If i'm correct, this is electrically the same as the loop used on WW2 Navy portable HF direction finder, which covered these frequencies and higher, and certainly this particular equipment worked - within the limits of the science. I agree that not getting a null on the 7500 beacon, she could have simply tuned down to 3105, better, and used the loop for voice reception. This would have been simpler then having to also switch over to the (nonexistant) underside antenna. It may also have been potentially more possible to get a bearing null on the Itasca's voice signal at 3105 than the 7500 kHz beacon. This is also my conclusion from my brief experiment with DF at these frequencies - the lower the frequency, the more short-term stable the frequency this time of day, and the signal path - resulting in a more definite distinct null. It would seem that here was another branch to grab at, but they missed it too. BTW, if the loop antenna on the craft at this time was still verifiably the Bendix MN-5, that rules out there being the Bendix loop coupler onboard, doesn't it? As i seem to recall from the coupler's wiring diagram, it required a loop specifically manufactured to be used with it, which could not be substituted for. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:16:51 From: Marty Moleski Subject: English Research: Government dispatches to Colonial Office A suggestion from Margaret Patel, who worked in the National Archives of Fiji: "Ask to see the Government dispatches to the Colonial Office." I didn't follow up on this suggestion in Fiji. I don't think I understood what she was saying. But it now makes sense. Ric and Kenton may already have covered this angle when they went to Hanslope Park ... Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:17:18 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Three questions >From Jackie Tharp #2440 > >Thanx so much for your response about personal opinions... How about that? Seventy-two years later and AE still catalyzes spirited discussion. And it's not just because GP did a good job of publicizing her. LTM, Mona ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:56:49 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald The England and Wales Death Index 1984--2005 (from ancestry.com) shows 18 men under the name Patrick MacDonald. Only one was Patrick D. Does he look like a possible match? Name: Patrick Donald MacDonald Birth Date: 21 Jul 1909 Death Registration Month/Year: Jun 1987 Age at death (estimated): 77 Registration district: Surrey South-Western Inferred County: Surrey Volume: 17 Page: 1313 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:57:37 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Mona Kendrick quotes me, >In my opinion, the chicken that came home to roost was Earhart's >long history of relying >on luck rather than expertise. And offers, >I don't think so. This statement is at odds with her philosophy of >flight preparation (for example, "The best good luck charm is a good >mechanic"; for more examples, read her post-Atlantic solo articles >wherein she stresses the importance of pre-flight preparation). Earhart's stated philosophy was at odds with her actions. She talked a good line but if you look at what she actually did rather than simply take her at her word you'll find that her idea of thorough preparation was to lean heavily on the expertise of others rather than acquire expertise herself. Compare Lindbergh's solo Atlantic flight with Earhart's. He reached his intended destination flying nonstop 3,700 miles from New York to Paris. Bernt Balchen flew Earhart's Vega to Newfoundland. She rode as a passenger. Her solo transatlantic flight was extremely courageous but she covered less than half the distance Lindbergh flew and she got lost and failed to reach her intended destination. She was very lucky. As exhaustively documented in Finding Amelia, Earhart's preparations for the first world flight attempt were handled mostly by George Putnam, Bill Miller, and Paul Mantz. Preparations for the second world flight attempt were handled mostly by Putnam and were totally botched. Look, I'm not out to trash AE. She was incredibly brave and she passionately believed in the future of commercial air travel. But having spent twenty years (so far) studying primary sources relating to her flying career, it's very evident that the legends that have grown up around her are just that - legends. Legends are good. Legends inspire. But it's important not to confuse legend with history. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:58:12 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald Marty Moleski writes of Paddy MacDonald, >If there was one person who knew what happened to the >stuff collected on Gardner, it was almost certainly he. I agree. The question is, did Paddy MacDonald leave papers and, if so, where are they? According to his service record, his name was Patrick Donald MacDonald so, despite his nickname, he was probably a Scot. Genealogists will have the devil's own time tracking his family line. He first appears on the Western Pacific High Commission Service List in 1932 as a Cadet assigned to the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony. At that time he was probably in his early twenties so he was likely born sometime around 1910. As a Colonial Service Cadet he almost certainly went through the same program at Cambridge that Gallagher, Wernham and Bevington went through a few years later. If so, Cambridge will have records of where he was from or at least where he went to school. If we could find out where he was from we could probably find his family. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:38:59 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald I've found a Patrick Donald MacDonald on a New York Passenger List, who left Trinidad, Cuba for New York, arriving on May 10, 1945. His estimated birth year is 1910, He was born in Bells, Hill, Scotland, and the passenger list showed that he was a civil servant. I'm still searching for more, but this just might be our guy. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:39:21 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald More on Patrick He travelled with his wife, Delia Edith, and a Son, Neil Mateson, age 5. He lists his nationality as British. His wife is from Westcliff, England, and his son was born in Auckland, New Zealand.. Seems to me that a Colonial Secretary would do alot of travelling, and will look at other ports of call... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:48:36 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald From Reed Riddle Interestingly, I found this: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Author/Home?author=McDonald,%20Neil,%201940- It might be the same Neil MacDonald, and it might not, but the age matches so maybe it's a place to start. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:10:21 From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric >... >I'd appreciate the forum's opinion as to the three questions members >of the general public will be most likely to have when they walk out >of the theater. I asked a couple more people what they'd want to know about Earhart. Both of them, as it happens, are middle-aged women like the previous person, but unlike the previous person, both have a professional connection to aviation. The number one question, not surprisingly: 1. What happened to her? In other words, what is the answer to the mystery that she is most famous for. Some of my respondents' questions have answers that depend on opinion, judgment, and/or analysis, rather than strict facts: 2. What were her contributions? 3. To what degree was she personally driven to do what she did, and to what degree was she manipulated by those around her? These are in the same category as whether she was irresponsible or not -not questions directly answered by an encyclopedia, but my impression is that they're questions people most want answered. Articles can provide facts relevant to the questions. There can be an article describing the business of being Earhart, for example, detailing who the players were, and what their roles were. There can be an article about how she prepared for her last flight. Some things might be harder to account for factually, such as the degree she inspired women to achieve or men to regard women differently. There may also be articles not actually about Earhart but about the historical context which may help answer judgment questions (e.g., what were the aviation safety standards of the time, what are the merits of radio vs. celestial vs. dead reckoning navigation used separately and jointly, what were other stunt fliers and other female pilots doing at the time). In any case, as Ric points out, being factual doesn't necessarily mean succeeding at being entirely neutral. My respondents also had questions that are about facts, but appear to be useful for answering the judgment questions. It seems the people I talked to have little trouble reformulating their judgment questions into factual questions which one can search an encyclopedia for, although I should note that these individuals all had doctorates and training in research, so maybe they're good at that kind of thing. 4. What were her aviation accomplishments? 5. What were her qualifications as a pilot? I can see articles directly addressing these questions. There can be a list of her aviation "firsts." There could be timeline of training and certifications (or lack thereof). Then there are questions I might categorize as "trivia," sort of a "I think I heard something about this somewhere -what was it?" 6. Who was her navigator? 7. What were the names of her planes? I believe the question about a friendship with Eleanor Roosevelt fits here (although I think unbeknownst to the individual asking, that friendship appears to be more than trivial to her last flight). Finally, there's a general curiosity about the basics of who she was. The encyclopedia could include a general biographical overview, from which it can link to other more detail articles for those interested. Another thing that readers might find useful is a bibliography of popular books about Earhart, each with a descriptive blurb so those interested in a narrative account of her story (rather than hypertext) can get one that fits their respective inclinations. --Mike Z. from Massachusetts ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:12:58 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald >From Jackie Tharp # 2440 > >I've found a Patrick Donald MacDonald on a New York Passenger List, >who left Trinidad, Cuba for New York, arriving on May 10, 1945. > >His estimated birth year is 1910, He was born in Bells, Hill, >Scotland, and the passenger list showed that he was a civil servant. >I'm still searching for more, but this just might be our guy.. Could well be. Ric says his full name was Patrick Donald MacDonald and that it sounds Scottish. Cuba and New York are a long way from the South Pacific, but perhaps he was on a leave of some kind. Or transferred to the Atlantic for a time before going back to Fiji? Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:13:25 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald >From Jackie > >More on Patrick > >He travelled with his wife, Delia Edith, and a Son, Neil Mateson, age >5. He lists his nationality as British. His wife is from Westcliff, >England, and his son was born in Auckland, New Zealand.. > >That's encouraging. He was in Suva, Fiji, in the summer of >1941, carrying the bones from the WPHC to Hoodless. I think >his title was Assistant Secretary. > >Seems to me that a Colonial Secretary would do a lot of travelling, >and will look at other ports of call... He became Colonial Secretary later in his career. Tofiga worked under him in Suva. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:14:19 From: Moda Kendrick Subject: Re: Hubris >From Ric > >She talked >a good line but if you look at what she actually did rather than >simply take her at her word you'll find that her idea of thorough >preparation was to lean heavily on the expertise of others rather than >acquire expertise herself. Compare Lindbergh's solo Atlantic flight >with Earhart's. He reached his intended destination flying nonstop >3,700 miles from New York to Paris. Bernt Balchen flew Earhart's Vega >to Newfoundland. She rode as a passenger. Her solo transatlantic >flight was extremely courageous but she covered less than half the >distance Lindbergh flew and she got lost and failed to reach her >intended destination. She was very lucky. The aforementioned instrument training with Ocker is expertise she had to acquire and exercise herself -- no one else was flying the plane the night of 20 May 1937. And she evidently got quite good at it, since she was able to negotiate the severe turbulence of a nighttime thunderstorm, 5 unbroken hours of night IMC in moderate turbulence, and intermittent IMC thereafter on an instrument assemblage we'd today consider partial panel -- no attitude indicator (they weren't in wide use yet), and a broken altimeter. (Hmmm -- I hope I never have to fly in turbulent night IMC on partial panel.) The Atlantic solo was never intended to be a duplication of Lindbergh's route, time, and distance, otherwise she'd have taken off from New York. The record flight was defined as beginning at Harbor Grace; getting the plane up there from Newark wasn't part of the record and it made all the sense in the world to have Balchen fly that stretch so she could nap before the long night flight awaiting her. Fatigue impairs judgement, so it's smart to get rested up. She got no more lost than Lindbergh did. Neither of them found it possible to use their drift meters in the conditions they flew and hence didn't have a running talley of winds for course corrections. Both of them aimed for Ireland as the first available visual course checkpoint before the intended destination of Paris, but lacking the previous many hours' wind info, couldn't be sure of their dead reckoning. At comparable points in their respective flights, when near Ireland, both feared they were south of course because of recently-noted northwest winds. When Lindbergh's elapsed time indicated he might be near, he was struggling to make his sleep- deprived brain lay out an estimate of ground tracks flown for the previous 10 or 15 hours ... and lo and behold, his southern Ireland checkpoint loomed out of the haze before he could get his estimate put together. When AE's elapsed time indicated she might be near she turned due east (from a heading of southeast) to be sure of hitting land ASAP because she'd decided to divert to the nearest land rather than risk flying any longer than necessary with a fire going up front. The decision to divert seems to me to be good judgement. The point is, for good reasons, neither of them could be sure of their positions when near Ireland, but as it turned out they were both nearly on their intended courses. And she had a very good reason for not going all the way to Paris. LTM, Mona ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:14:37 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris To Mona Kendrick I certainly agree with your points. The available materials (bios, memories, descriptions of involved people) presents a conclusive picture of impressive amount of preparations done by Earhart before her record flights, and it was a general opinion of many that she behaived as a professional, competent and well aware about "every part of her plane". [ Well, she could be really less attentive to such particular aspect as radio navigation - that is true - but, as i wrote already, her time (20s-30s) was not yet a period of such importance and domineering of radio and electronics as the later (including ours)times; so, she just relied on other methods more. ] It is true that a lot of other people were actively involved in preparations to the World Flight - unlike the Lindbergh's 1927 Atlantic crossing - but i don't think it is fair or even reasonable to criticize Earhart for that, or to compare that flights in any aspects - at all. They were just too different, and the Lindbergh's flight ( itself, an amazing feat of courage and profewssionalism of course) obviously required much less amount of preparations, logistics and bureaucracy - of all kinds - then the flight around the world, across many borders, and in the airplane of entirely different generation - that required entirely different amount of maintenance. The flight like Earhart's, and in such airplane, simply could not be prepared by one or two persons... it seems obvious. As about the reasons why Earhart was "lost" in her 1932 Atlantic crossing, and was forced to land on the very first land she saw, i think the reasons are well known: a very bad weather and multiple malfunctions in the aircraft equipment. And, sorry, it is not a "legend"; it is a plain fact. The fact that she survived and landed safely after that, rather confirms her quality, i think, then presents any reason to doubt of criticize her skills. Just my opinion of course. Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:15:07 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris ...Ric wrote: "One of the biggest Earhart myths is that it was Noonan's job to find Howland Island..." - - It still doesn't seem to me that it is so much wrong concept, even although the "radio part" in their plans was also quite significant. As Mr. Ron Bright wrote (on another Forum) some time ago, Weems wrote about Noonan and his abilities in his May 1938 article in Popular Aviation, and concluded that Noonan simply would not have missed Howland because of a navigation error; Noonan was too good for that, he wrote. So Weems thought that they didn't make it rather because of some mechanical failure, or ran out of gas somewhere close to Howland. I don't think such opinion and confidence was somehow "unique", unprofessional, and not shared by Noonan himself (and AE); and, if so, it is logical to think that both AE and FN seriously counted on this ability and capability while making their plans. What actually happened, is another story of course (and, still,rather a matter of speculations). Those who are interested in details, can ask Mr. Ron Bright - who (if i remember) is having the full text of that Weems article... Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:15:39 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald Jackie's nailed him, I think. I'm pretty sure Paddy's wife's name was Delia, and they had a son. I say "pretty sure" because I read about them last weekend in a book that I cleverly managed to leave in a hotel in West Virginia; the hotel staff has found it and is fedexing it to me. Paddy's family shared a flat with the Maudes and Bevingtons in Aukland during part of the War, and there's a picture in the book (Susan Woodburn's "Where Our Hearts Still Lie," about Harry and Honor Maude) of the three wives, Eric Bevington, and their kids, all crowded together but keeping stiff upper lips. I seem to recall that Paddy was reassigned to the West Indies for awhile, too. So, very importantly, Jackie's given us the name of the son. Neil Mateson MacDonald. Shouldn't be too hard to find. LTM, who tips her bonnet to Jackie. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:17:38 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald I've found 3 ships manifests. 10 May 1945 Arrived in New York from Trinidad, Cuba. Ship Maaskerk. Birth year 1910, British Civil Servant, Nativity Scotland. Born Bells Hill, Scotland. Wife Delia Edith age 31, Son Neil Mateson age 5. Last residence: Trinidad, Port of Spain. Wife born in Westcliff, England, Neil born in Aukland, New Zealand. 28 May 1945 Arrived in London from Georgetown, Guyana. Ship: Maaskerk. Ports of call Georgetown and Port of Spain. Accompanied by Wife Delia and Son Neil M. 13 August,, 1949 Arrived Southhampton, England, from Wellington, New Zealand. Ship: Dominion Monarch. Ports of call: Wellington, Sydney, Melbourne, Fremantle, Cape Town and Las Palmas. Accompanied by Wife Delia, Son Neil, and Daughters Sally and Hilary aged 2. Last residence Fiji. I think we got him... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:44:35 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald >From Jackie Tharp #2440 > >... Accompanied by Wife Delia, Son Neil, and >Daughters Sally >and Hilary aged 2. Last residence Fiji. > >I think we got him... Sounds like it. Mrs. Brown said the daughter I asked about was Hilary or Sally (not "Ronnie" as claimed by Ron Gatty). TIGHAR strikes again! Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:45:06 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald A first run through Google got me nothing on Neil Mateson MacDonald. I wonder if the Mateson is misspelled; it's unusual. Lots of Neil MacDonalds, of course, including one who's a correspondent for the CBC and stationed here in D.C., but he looks a good deal too young. LTM (who's looking for an older man) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:45:24 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Three questions Mike Zuschlag writes, >I asked a couple more people what they'd want to know about Earhart. >Both of them, as it happens, are middle-aged women like the previous >person, but unlike the previous person, both have a professional >connection to aviation. etc. Thanks Mike. Very helpful. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:17:39 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald Nice work, Jackie. A real 411 operator. LTM, who often dials "O" Dennis O. McGee 0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:43:56 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Mona Kendrick writes, >The aforementioned instrument training with Ocker is expertise she >had to acquire and exercise herself -- no one else was flying the >plane the night of 20 May 1937. And she evidently got quite good at >it, since she was able to negotiate the severe turbulence of a >nighttime thunderstorm, 5 unbroken hours of night IMC in moderate >turbulence, and intermittent IMC thereafter on an instrument >assemblage we'd today consider partial panel -- no attitude >indicator (they weren't in wide use yet), and a broken altimeter. >(Hmmm -- I hope I never have to fly in turbulent night IMC on >partial panel.) The only witness to what happens on a solo flight is the pilot, who has a vested interest in how good the story is. I have no way of knowing how accurate Earhart's account of her transatlantic solo flight was, but in researching Finding Amelia I discovered several cases in which she and Putnam were less than truthful in their statements to the press and to the government. Still, there's no denying that she flew solo from Newfoundland to Ireland - the first person to make the crossing since Lindbergh. >The Atlantic solo was never intended to be a duplication of >Lindbergh's route, time, and distance, otherwise she'd have taken >off from New York. But her departure from Teterboro with Balchen was kept secret and the flight from Harbour Grace was carefully timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of Lindbergh's flight. >She got no more lost than Lindbergh did. I guess it depends on what you call getting lost. Lindbergh wasn't sure where he was but, as it turned out, he was smack on course. Earhart didn't know where she was and she hit Ireland 200 miles off course. In her book "The Fun of It" she wrote, "As it happened, I probably was exactly on my course, and I think I hit Ireland about the middle." Not true. She hit Ireland in the extreme northwest corner. Had she been another fifty miles off she'd have missed Ireland entirely. >When AE's elapsed time indicated she might be near she turned due >east (from a heading of southeast) to be sure of hitting land ASAP >because she'd decided to divert to the nearest land rather than risk >flying any longer than necessary with a fire going up front. There was no fire going up front. She had a cracked exhaust manifold and at night she could see flames licking out but in no sense was the airplane on fire. >The decision to divert seems to me to be good judgement. It seems to me that, at her level of expertise, good judgment would have been to stay home. She got lucky. >The point is, for good reasons, neither of them could be sure of >their positions when near Ireland, but as it turned out they were >both nearly on their intended courses. No. Lindbergh was on course. Earhart wasn't. >And she had a very good reason for not going all the way to Paris. I agree. I doubt she could have found it. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:45:13 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald Here's our guy again. Born 1941: UK Incoming Passenger Lists, 1878-1960 UK Incoming Passenger Lists, 1878-1960 Name: Neil M MacDonald Birth Date: abt 1941 Age: 8 Port of Departure: Wellington, New Zealand Arrival Date: 13 Aug 1949 Port of Arrival: Southampton, England Ports of Voyage: Wellington, Sydney, Melbourne, Fremantle, Cape Town and Las Palmas Ship Name: Dominion Monarch Search Ship Database: http://search.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?&f2=Dominion%20Monarch&db=passengerships Shipping Line: Shaw, Savill & Albion Company Ltd Official Number: 166828 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:45:52 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald Patrick MacDonald's wife: Name: Delia Edith MacDonald Birth Date: 3 Aug 1913 Death Registration Month/Year: Nov 1994 Age at death (estimated): 81 Registration district: Hove Inferred County: Sussex Register number: 73C District and Subdistrict: 4571 Entry Number: 105 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:04:03 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Marcus Lind wrote, >...Ric wrote: "One of the biggest Earhart myths is that it was >Noonan's job to find Howland Island..." - > >- It still doesn't seem to me that it is so much wrong concept, >even although the "radio part" in their plans was also quite >significant. If by "quite significant" you mean "life and death", I agree. Without the radio part, which was Earhart's responsibility, Noonan could not realistically expect to find Howland within the expected constraints of time and fuel. >As Mr. Ron Bright wrote (on another Forum) some time ago, Weems >wrote about Noonan and his abilities in his May 1938 article in >Popular Aviation, and concluded that Noonan simply would not have >missed Howland because of a navigation error; Noonan was too good >for that, he wrote. I have the complete article. Weems wrote that it was his opinion that "...some complication other than problems associated with navigation caused the loss of Earhart's plane." He felt that the Pan Am clippers had " ... a tremendous advantage over a plane such as the Earhart plane in that the clipper planes fly over scheduled routes after careful preparation with ample personnel and equipment and supported by trained shore stations to give constant communication by radio, radio bearings, and meteorological and other data." >So Weems thought that they didn't make it rather because of some >mechanical failure, or ran out of gas somewhere close to Howland. Not necessarily. Weems recognized the importance of competent radio support. See above. If Ron Bright interpreted Weems otherwise I think he was mistaken. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:53:15 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Hubris >From Ric > >Mona Kendrick writes, > >>The aforementioned instrument training with Ocker is expertise she >>had to acquire and exercise herself -- no one else was flying the >>plane the night of 20 May 1937. And she evidently got quite good >>at it, since she was able to negotiate the severe turbulence of a >>nighttime thunderstorm, 5 unbroken hours of night IMC in moderate >>turbulence, and intermittent IMC thereafter on an instrument >>assemblage we'd today consider partial panel -- no attitude >>indicator (they weren't in wide use yet), and a broken altimeter. >>(Hmmm -- I hope I never have to fly in turbulent night IMC on >>partial panel.) > >So, how do you fly IFR with a broken altimeter? On August 13, 1973 I was returning form Sioux Lookout, Ontario to Chicago Midway in a Cessna 207, N1558U, and had landed at Duluth to clear customs. I took off at night into an eight hundred foot overcast ceiling. Climbing though two thousand the altimeter hands spun around and in less than ten seconds reached thirteen thousand feet and stopped moving. Since there was no way the plane could climb that fast I immediately realized that the altimeter had gone kaput. What would you have done? Give it a thought. Here is what I did. I told ATC that I had lost my altimeter. "What are your intentions." Don't you just love that standard response from ATC, makes you really realize that you are on your own! "I'd like eight thousand." "Climb and maintain eight thousand." So, why did I ask for eight thousand? I climbed at full throttle until I could only get twenty two inches of manifold pressure and then leveled off. Since atmospheric pressure drops off approximately one inch of mercury for every thousand feet you climb, starting from thirty inches at sea level, it will drop off to twenty two inches at eight thousand feet MSL. I maintained twenty two inches manifold pressure at full throttle, using the manifold pressure gauge as an altimeter. After three hours I was vectored onto the ILS at MDW, kept the throttle wide open and figured my decision height would be twenty nine inches. Broke out of the clouds at about 1500 feet and landed without a problem. This was before Mode C and blind encoders and there was no redundancy for the altimeter. After this flight I cut a window in the face of my Altimaster sky diving altimeter and marked a scale on it creating a Kollsman window so I could set it to the local altimeter setting. From that day to this, my modified altimeter has been in my flight bag on every flight. gl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:54:03 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Hubris >From Ric > >The only witness to what happens on a solo flight is the pilot, who >has a vested interest in how good the story is. I have no way of >knowing how accurate Earhart's account of her transatlantic solo >flight was, I agree, but at least we can say that her story hangs together well with the verifiable parts. The Weather Bureau's North Atlantic chart for the morning of 21 May 1932, for example, bears out her descriptions of weather. >But her departure from Teterboro with Balchen was kept secret If she'd had to deal with the press at Teterboro, she'd have been delayed getting off. >Earhart didn't know where she was and she hit Ireland 200 miles off >course. In her book "The Fun of It" she wrote, "As it happened, I >probably was exactly on my course, and I think I hit Ireland about the >middle." Not true. She hit Ireland in the extreme northwest corner. >Had she been another fifty miles off she'd have missed Ireland >entirely. No. A postflight newsreel clip showing the flight sketched out on a blackboard shows her first landfall as County Mayo on the west central coast of Ireland, and Teelin Head in the extreme northwest corner as a secondary landfall. This accords with what she said about hitting the coast in the middle, finding the clouds too low to venture into the mountainous inland, and turning north to where the weather was clearer. I'd guess she stayed over water along the shoreline, where she couldn't hit terrain, until finding high enough cloud bases at Teelin Head to head inland. >There was no fire going up front. She had a cracked exhaust manifold >and at night she could see flames licking out but in no sense was the >airplane on fire. "Fire going up front" was merely my brief way of referring to the unsafe exhaust manifold situation. She had to be very concerned about the possibility of the flames spreading and/or of a hunk of metal vibrating loose and striking an essential part of the plane. LTM, Mona ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:05:15 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Gary Lapook writes, >On August 13, 1973 I was returning form Sioux Lookout, Ontario to >Chicago Midway in a Cessna 207, N1558U, and had landed at Duluth to >clear customs. I took off at night into an eight hundred foot >overcast ceiling. Climbing though two thousand the altimeter hands >spun around and in less than ten seconds reached thirteen thousand >feet and stopped moving. Since there was no way the plane could >climb that fast I immediately realized that the altimeter had gone >kaput. What would you have done? Give it a thought. Immediate 180 and begin a descent at the same rate I was previously climbing. In the short time between takeoff and when I'm once more back where I started from the ceiling is not going to have changed significantly. I should break out at eight hundred feet with plenty of room to find the airport and get back on the ground. I'd, of course, let Sioux Lookout know what I was doing in case there were other departures headed my way. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:50:55 From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Lindberghs arrive Howland after 21 hour flight Howland - AP - Charles and Anne Lindbergh landed their Lockheed 10E this morning at 8:05 am local time after a 21 hour 3 minute flight from Lae, New Guinea. According to Col. Lindbergh, all unnecessary items (including two fuel tanks) were removed from the plane to save weight, only 1,000 gallons of fuel were carried, and the flight was conducted at low rpm, altitude and airspeed. Measurement of remaining fuel indicated over 210 gallons, "enough", Col. Lindbergh noted, "for more than 8 hours of additional flying throttled back." Mrs. Lindbergh remained in constant Morse code radio communication with various stations and ships throughout the Pacific, and the plane received directional bearings taken by the Itasca during the last 500 miles of the flight. Among the items left at Lae as non-essentials were parachutes, personal clothing, and one of Col. Lindbergh's two pistols. Despite their efforts at weight reduction, the flyers still carried a 44 pound battery-operated emergency radio plus sextants, chronometers and related navigational items weighing 49 pounds for use from their rubber boat in case of an emergency landing at sea. [Compare Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Listen, the Wind pages 195-202, 230-260 , and Appendix passim (South Atlantic Flight 1933); Charles A. Lindbergh, Wartime Journals , page 864-865 and 875-876 (P-38 and P-47 long range flights)] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:15:54 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: three questions Mike Z asks: >My respondents also had questions that are about facts, but appear >to be useful for answering the judgment questions. It seems the >people I talked to have little trouble reformulating their judgment >questions into factual questions which one can search an >encyclopedia for, although I should note that these individuals all >had doctorates and training in research, so maybe they're good at >that kind of thing. >4. What were her aviation accomplishments? >5. What were her qualifications as a pilot? >I can see articles directly addressing these questions. There can be >a list of her aviation "firsts." There could be timeline of training >and certifications (or lack thereof). Mike's points, along with other comments in the last day or so such as who AE trained with, remind me of a kind of research project I haven't looked at since undergraduate days, about 40 years ago. At that time, thinking I might want to be an English major, I spent a semester reading literary journals. In those periodicals academics from around the world submit articles attempting to explain various minute, apparently trivial, aspects of a writer's life or work. There might, for instance, be an article on F Scott Fitzgerald describing how as a teenager a summer job in a mechanic's shop likely informed his description of touring cars in The Great Gatsby. Numerous journals focus only on Shakespeare. One article explained that birds mentioned in some Shakepseare play were likely meant to be starlings because of XYZ reasons. Another writer discussed a 16th century work on women's health. That earlier writer explained that the lactation of a new mother generated in her sentiments of love, mellowness and generosity. Once lactation ended two things happened. Menstruation began and a woman's "nature" turned from generous, mellow and loving to, at best, unpredicatble and prickly. This proved two things. First, milk and blood were simply two sides of a coin, one turning into the other. Secondly both fluids create the nature of a woman, blood causing a bad temperament. The modern writer then discussed Lady MacBeth, one of literature's more evil women. Shakespeare described how his character had been a generous, loving woman. Once the blood of the assassinated Duncan came in to play Lady Macbeth became Satan himself. You may remember the,"Out! Damned spot," scene. The modern academic tells us that the "common knowledge" of the times informed Shakespeare's characterization and would have made perfect sense to his audience. In the forum and on the TIGHAR website there are numerous discussions which in isolation seem trivial and tangential. In the grand scheme of things the design in the 1930's of zipper pulls, the architecture of 70 year old radios or the background of Earhart's trainers are not really momentous questions. In the context of the disappearance they turn out to be pretty important. Maybe the Ameliapedia needs to resemble a literary journal in this way. There could be detailed discussions of apparently trivial questions that actually resolve a major mystery. It would be a massive task to turn the content of all of the TIGHAR website and these forums into such a thing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:16:32 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Mona Kendrick writes, >A postflight newsreel clip showing the flight sketched out on a >blackboard shows her first landfall as County Mayo on the west >central coast of Ireland, and Teelin Head in the extreme northwest >corner as a secondary landfall. This accords with what she said >about hitting the coast in the middle, finding the clouds too low to >venture into the mountainous inland, and turning north to where the >weather was clearer. I'd guess she stayed over water along the >shoreline, where she couldn't hit terrain, until finding high enough >cloud bases at Teelin Head to head inland. Okay, this is interesting. We have a classic historical investigation problem - contradictory evidence. Let's define the question. Where did Amelia Earhart make landfall on her 1932 solo transatlantic flight? Let's look at the available primary sources. 1. A postflight newsreel clip showing the flight sketched out on a blackboard shows her first landfall as County Mayo on the west central coast of Ireland, and Teelin Head in the extreme northwest corner as a secondary landfall. The obvious questions are, "Who provided the information used to draw the sketch?" and "Is it accurate?" 2. Earhart's own description in "The Fun of It" written and published that same year. "I had flown a set compass course all night. Now I changed to due east and decided to head for Ireland. I did not want to miss the tip of Ireland and the weather was such I couldn't see very far. I thought I must be south of the course, for I had been told by the weatherman in New York that I might find rain south of my course. There was a wind that might blow it on (sic), so when I ran into the storm I thought that I was in this weather spoken of. Then when I saw the northwest wind, I was sure I must be south. As it happened, I probably was exactly on my course, and I think I hit Ireland about the middle. "I started down the coast and found thunderstorms lower in the hills. Not having the altimeter and not knowing the country, I was afraid to plow through those lest I hit one of the mountains, so I turned north where the weather seemed to be better and soon came across a railroad which I followed hoping it would lead me to a city, where there might be an airport. "The first place I encountered was Londonderry and I circled it hoping to locate a landing field but found lovely pastures instead." If you look at a map of Ireland you'll see that for Earhart to have made landfall anywhere in County Mayo and then also make landfall at Teelin Head on the extreme western end of County Donegal, she would have to have crossed another 50 miles of open water (Donegal Bay). There's nothing like that in her description and it seems unlikely that she would, having found land, abandon it again not knowing where she was. Her description fits a landfall at Teelin Head. A short exploration south along the coast encountered thunderstorms in the hills so she headed north "and soon came across a railroad." (There are very few railroads in Donegal Bay.) The railroad led her to Londonderry. She actually landed near Culmore, bit north of the city. The only part of Earhart's description that doesn't track is her statement that "As it happened, I probably was exactly on my course, and I think I hit Ireland about the middle." Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:34:02 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald OK, Roger Kelley looked in the materials that came from Hanslope Park. Civil Lists from Hanslope Park "Selected Colonial Service Records" Patrick Donald MacDonald birth: 21 July 1909 13 July 1939 4 March 1939 President of Fanring Islands Defense Force, Colonial 8 April 1940 Acting Assistant Secretary to the High Commissioner 25 May Relinquished duties as Assistant Secretary December--back again So the first record that Karen Hoy found is our man. The port record that gives his date of birth as 1910 must have been an estimate or approximation. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:21:18 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: three questions From Tom Doran >Maybe the Ameliapedia needs to resemble a literary journal in this >way. >There could be detailed discussions of apparently trivial >questions ... TIGHAR has inadvertently learned an immense amount about every aspect of Pacific life from the 19th century to the 20th: shipping, flying, society, economics, politics, culture, religion, geology, navigation, botany, tropical taphonomy, etc., etc., etc. >... that actually resolve a major mystery. How much of this incidental research helps to solve the mystery remains to be seen. It certainly provides a context for understanding people's actions and decoding some of the texts--and resolving conflicting stories. >It would be a massive task to turn the >content of all of the TIGHAR website and these forums into such a >thing. A 1:1 transformation is not in the works right now (every page on the website transported to wiki format). The work I'm doing right now has several different dimensions: * Putting up information that has not been recorded on the classic site from Bones II (2003). [Finished last night after midnight.] * Summarizing some key details from the classic site about the main characters and events in the story. [Underway. No way to estimate what remains to be done. Every time I look at the classic site, I see dozens of things that should be entered in the wiki.] * Incorporating information from current research (e.g., keeping the list of sextant numbers current). * Making reasonable links to every part of the classic site so that if someone stumbles across the Ameliapedia first, they can find their way to the longer versions of the story. * Documenting how the system works from the root perspective (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, MediaWiki, and other supporting software) so that Pat has the information she needs to keep the system running if I'm unavailable. * Teaching new editors how to create and edit articles. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:45:53 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Three questions >From Marty: > >The work I'm doing right now has several different >dimensions: > >* Putting up information that has not been recorded >on the classic site from Bones II (2003). [Finished >last night after midnight.] > >* Summarizing some key details from the classic site >about the main characters and events in the story. >[Underway. No way to estimate what remains to be >done. Every time I look at the classic site, I >see dozens of things that should be entered in the >wiki.] > >* Incorporating information from current research >(e.g., keeping the list of sextant numbers current). > >* Making reasonable links to every part of the >classic site so that if someone stumbles across the >Ameliapedia first, they can find their way to the >longer versions of the story. > >* Documenting how the system works from the root >perspective (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, MediaWiki, >and other supporting software) so that Pat has >the information she needs to keep the system >running if I'm unavailable. > >* Teaching new editors how to create and edit >articles. Sounds like a good job for a student intern. It might be possible to find one who'd work for free, but a better bet would be to raise a few thousand bucks to give a stipend for a couple of months. Relying on volunteer labor can be frustrating if you have a schedule and need to enforce some kind of quality control. Any prospect of such a fundraising effort, say, aim for $3000 for ten weeks of work? Tom D., #2796 ************************************* Well, Marty is working for free. He is the best of all possible volunteers: he came up with the idea, he pursued the necessary technology, he is implementing the systems, AND -- last but by no means least -- he is intimately familiar with the project which is absolutely necessary and which would not be obtainable in a student intern, who btw are not so thick on the ground as you might think. Even with the next town over being a university town. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:46:29 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald As a genealogist, I can tell you that these one year "errors" may come from people having an age, but not a birthdate, from some document like a census. Dan Postellon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:05:12 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions >From Tom Doran > >Sounds like a good job for a student intern. It might be possible to >find one who'd work for free, but a better bet would be to raise a few >thousand bucks to give a stipend for a couple of months. Relying on >volunteer labor can be frustrating if you have a schedule and need to >enforce some kind of quality control. Any prospect of such a >fundraising effort, say, aim for $3000 for ten weeks of work? I wrote a short paragraph a few months back suggesting applying for a $150,000 grant (if I remember correctly) to digitize TIGHAR's records. It's no small task. I think the wiki would make a fine repository for such a project if such a benefactor came along. ************************************* >From Pat Thrasher: > >Well, Marty is working for free. Not entirely. TIGHAR sent me to Fiji and New Zealand in 2003. I am deeply indebted for having the opportunity to go on such a great adventure. :o) >... he came up with the idea ... I thought someone else did. Tom King? Dan Postellon? I just indicated that I knew how to do a thing like that. >... he is intimately familiar with the project which is absolutely >necessary and which would not be obtainable in a student intern ... Interns have to be trained. That's why my sketch of a budget included money for the supervisors as well as the people doing the digitizing. Meanwhile, the beauty of a wiki is that many people can volunteer to help edit and maintain it. We will not have open registration. Folks who want to gain editing privileges will have to offer some evidence that they are capable and well-intentioned. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:50:06 From: George Werth Subject: Ameliapedia For all persons involved in launching Ameliapedia: HOOAH! GeorgeRatWerth@cs.com TIGHAR Member # 2630 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:41:36 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Hubris Well that's one way to do it. I forgot to mention that it was raining and the visibility was only one mile and it was very dark I considered your solution and rejected it because I didn't like the idea of flying around low in the dark and rain. But I was wondering if AE had an MP gauge in her plane on the trip to Ireland so she could have used my method to maintain altitude. gl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:05:33 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Gary LaPook writes, >Well that's one way to do it. I forgot to mention that it was >raining and the visibility was only one mile and it was very dark I >considered your solution and rejected it because I didn't like the >idea of flying around low in the dark and rain. Granted. Scud-running in one mile visibility would be a bit dicey. >But I was wondering if AE had an MP gauge in her plane on the trip >to Ireland so she could have used my method to maintain altitude. Depends on whether the Vega had a variable pitch prop (constant speed had not yet been invented). Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:05:56 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Hubris >From Gary LaPook > >But I was wondering if AE had an MP gauge in her plane on the trip to >Ireland so she could have used my method to maintain altitude. No MP gauge. She said she used her VSI. --Mona ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:39:06 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Three questions Yeah, but what else? Alan >Well, Marty is working for free. He is the best of all possible >volunteers: he came up with the idea, he pursued the necessary >technology, he is implementing the systems, AND -- last but by no >means least -- he is intimately familiar with the project which is >absolutely necessary and which would not be obtainable in a student >intern, who btw are not so thick on the ground as you might think. >Even with the next town over being a university town. > >Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:04:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Flying puzzle Gary, I've been thinking of your puzzle. There's not enough info to make a good decision. You had a pirep brief before you took off so you should know the surrounding weather. In 1973 they still had radar at military bases so I suppose off hand I would establish a positive rate of climb such as 500fpm, squawk emergency on the IFF and see if someone could vector you to a military field and a GCA approach. Of course if they could get you to FR conditions it would be a piece of cake. I would not descend. Even here near Austin there are many towers and rolling hills. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:04:49 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Hubris >From Ric > >Okay, this is interesting. We have a classic historical investigation >problem - contradictory evidence. You make some good points about the discrepancies. I suppose she could have been lying about hitting the middle first, but I'd prefer to take the innocent-until-proven-guilty approach. >A first landfall at Teelin Head doesn't seem quite right because the >weather at her first landfall was low clouds (she'd been flying under >a low marine layer for some time) and limited visibility in haze. If >those were the conditions at Teelin Head, she's just returning to the >same lousy visibility after a foray east and south along the shore of >Donegal Bay. As you point out, the problem with getting to Teelin Head from the County Mayo shore is that there's 50-odd miles of Donegal Bay to cross and it's unlikely she'd want to abandon land for parts unknown. A possible scenario is that from the County Mayo shore she climbs several thousand feet above the cloud tops, keeping an initial west heading during the climb to ensure staying over water where there's no terrain to slam into, to take a good look around for unclouded areas. From altitude she spots the north shore of Donegal bay and clearing weather, and heads for it. Trouble is, she doesn't say anything, in any of the accounts I know of, about doing such a climb. But this scenario does have the advantage of explaining how she noticed the weather being clearer to the north of her first landfall. (It wouldn't have been so easy to spot from down low in haze.) LTM, Mona ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:28:57 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Flying puzzle It turned out to be no problem maintaining altitude with the MP gauge. RADAR vectored onto the ILS and keep the needles centered and the runway magically appears almost every time. gl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:29:24 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Ameliapedia MIME-version: 1.0 >From Alan Caldwell > >Yeah, but what else? He's also explaining to inquiring minds what a wiki is and why it seems like a worthwhile tool to develop for TIGHAR. :-P Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:29:48 From: Dave Porter Subject: Higgs boson For Marty Moleski, I waited as long as I could stand it, and nobody else asked (Dennis, you're slipping)...if a Higgs boson exists, but doesn't have mass, does that mean it isn't catholic? ;-) LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:31:08 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Wanted: Paddy MacDonald's letters and diaries TIGHAR members might remember the Australian National University published an article called "The Bones of Nikamororo", which I had cropped drastically in order to fit in in the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau magazine. They later suggested that had they known more about it I should not have agreed to crop it. For anyone who doesn;t remember, the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau is trying to preserve all documents related to the Pacific colonies that are still available. They have most of the stuff around on J.T. Arundel and other Pacific interests. Anyway, i keep track of stuff in their archives from time to time and I noticed that in the index to the collections of ANU/PMB stuff are the following: *PMB 1189/271 (*1973-1978) * Seychelles, Solomons and Gilberts. Includes the following documents: * /Solomon Islands: Character and Culture/, Sep 1975, Ts., draft, annotated, 9pp., together with papers on the SI budget session, 1976, and a response to paper by J.A. Boutilier on SI District Officers, Dec 1978, Ts., 3pp.; * D.C.C. Luddington, / Solomon Islands Valedictory Despatch 1976/, Ts., 11pp. * C.H. Allan, /First Impressions of the Solomon Islands/, 1977, Ts., 13pp.; * C.H. Allan, /Solomon Islands Annual Review for 1977/, Ts., 21pp., appendix; * C.H. Allan, /Constitutional Advance in the Solomon Islands/, 1977, Ts., roneo, 9pp.; * C.H. Allan, /Constitutional Advance in the Solomon Islands/, Sep 1977, Ts., roneo, 15pp.; * å * J. Moore, /Gilbertese Settlement in the Solomon Islands/, May 1977, Ts., carbon, 29pp., appendices and cover note; together with P.D. Macdonald, /Questions relating to Emigration of Gilbertese, especially from Phoenix and Southern Gilbert Islands, to the Solomon Islands/, Apr 1977, Ts., p/c, 18pp.; * J.H. Smith, /The Gilbert Islands: A Valedictory/, 3 May 1978, Ts., roneo, 3pp.; * /Seychelles Political Despatch/, 21 Feb 1973, Ts., roneo, 10pp.; * B. Greatbatch to FCO, re Seychelles, 22 Mar 1973, Ts., 3pp.; * Record of Conversation between FCO Minister and Seychelles Delegation, 19 Jun 1973, Ts., 4pp.; * Meeting with the Governor of the Seychelles and Seychelles Ministers, 20 Jul (1973), Ts., p/c, 5pp.; * B. Greatbatch, / [Seychelles] Valedictory Despatch/, 1973, Ts., carbon, 9pp.; * James R. Mancham, / Report on Seychelles constitutional matters/, 14 Sep 1973, Ts., 1p. * C.H. Allan, / First Impressions of the Colony of the Seychelles/, 1974, Ts., 15pp.; * C.H. Allan, / The Seychelles General Election, 1974/, 7 May 1974, Ts., 12pp.; * C.H. Allan, / The Seychelles Review for 1974/, Ts., 13pp. * /The Seychelles Connection/, n.d. (1977?), Ts., annotated, 9pp. *PMB 1189/60 (1978-1985) USP, Archives, P.D. *MacDonald*. C.H. Allan's correspondence with the University of the South Pacific, the Western Pacific Archives, Paddy *MacDonald* and others. If it is any help Marty, you can email me personally and I will give you the contact details for the Executive Director of the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau. I'm shure Greg would be as courteous and helpful to you as he was to me. As you can see above, the second reference, there was correspondence between him and USP as well. The most recent of this stuff was around 1985. I have no idea who C.H. Allan is/was but that might be somethign to follow up re what happened to MacDonald and any papers/ letters. cheers, Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:31:34 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris Ric wrote: " There was no fire going up front. She had a cracked exhaust manifold and at night she could see flames licking out but in no sense was the airplane on fire>. - The "cracked exhaust manifold" obviously meant a real danger of the fire, and the one progressing with time going on - while the cracked steel continued to suffer from the flow and pressure of hot exhaust gases. That's what Earhart actually meant, and i think the danger was pretty much real. Mone wrote: "..." Fire going up front" was merely my brief way of referring to the unsafe exhaust manifold situation. She had to be very concerned about the possibility of the flames spreading and/or of a hunk of metal vibrating loose and striking an essential part of the plane" - I completely agree. LTM - Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:31:54 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris Ric wrote: "...I have the complete article. Weems wrote that it was his opinion that "...some complication other than problems associated with navigation caused the loss of Earhart's plane." - - Thank you for quoting; and i still think that is exactly a key point here - to which i actually referred yesterday. It expresses what Weems wrote about the Earhart flight (not Clippers, other topics, etc.) and what he thought about it. LTM - Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:32:30 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris Ric wrote: "...The only witness to what happens on a solo flight is the pilot, who has a vested interest in how good the story is..." - Sorry, not so about Earhart's 1932 flight: she had a barograph installed. Ric wrote: " - I guess it depends on what you call getting lost. Lindbergh wasn't sure where he was..." - - i think, it is exactly what is called "lost" in aviation: when the pilot is not sure where he or she is. He/she can be, actually, on his/ her right course in this moment, or not so: but, if he/she does not KNOW it for sure - that is what i would call "lost". [To Lindbergh's admirers: please don't take this as offence! - i really consider him a great pilot and have a full respect to outstanding things he did... all i try to argue for, is only a fair and unprejudiced judgement.] Ric wrote: "It seems to me that, at her level of expertise, good judgment would have been to stay home" - - sorry for repetition, but Earhart's level of expertise and skills was pretty much respected by many contemporary top-class professionals - including Jackie Cochran, Leigh Wade, Wiley Post, Paul Collins, and others. They were the pilots who knew Earhart in person, flew with her, and considered her a peer and respected properly. Does this mean that they were also not enough good, and should also rather "stay home" - instead of flying and doing what they did?..................... If the answer is "yes" - then, i would just say it is quite original view, that i personally don't share. (Sorry.) If the answer is "no" - then, i don't think it is fair to use different standards to judge about Earhart and others. Just my opinion, as always. LTM - Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:49:25 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Wanted: Paddy MacDonald's letters and diaries Good stuff, Wombat; thanks much. I've just gotten in touch with Cherly Hoskin at the Barr Smith Library, U. of Adelaide (Susan Woodburn, the previous Special Collections Librarian, who literally wrote the book on Harry and Honor Maude in the WPHC, has retired); she's just back from leave, but kindly has promised to look for MacDonald material as soon as she can. LTM (who's very impressed with the kindness and efficiency of librarians in Adelaide) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:09:56 From: Hilary Olson Subject: Re: Higgs boson Yes it will be agnostic. >For Marty Moleski, > >I waited as long as I could stand it, and nobody else asked (Dennis, >you're slipping)...if a Higgs boson exists, but doesn't have mass, >does that mean it isn't catholic? ;-) > >LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:16:10 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Higgs boson But it'll be able to knot, splice, and apply the rope's end. >From Hilary Olson > >Yes it will be agnostic. > >>For Marty Moleski, >> >>I waited as long as I could stand it, and nobody else asked (Dennis, >>you're slipping)...if a Higgs boson exists, but doesn't have mass, >>does that mean it isn't catholic? ;-) >> >>LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:14:16 From: Hilary Olson Subject: Flight simulator I apologize to forum if this Q has been suggested, done ,shot down, criticized etc etc. because I am going to ask ......Would it be possible to use a flight simulator to program the last flight plan from Lae to Howland and as best we can, using the same type aircraft, tools (no glass cockpit), flight conditions etc. Also using a female pilot with similar flight skills and knowledge as AE and a navigator using same skills as Fred Noonan. The reason to see where they would go and what they would do at crunch time. I realize computer models do the reckoning today and give calculated paths but they do not put the stress and other human variables in. Hilary C Olson (Who hates HO for initials) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:16:34 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Higgs boson No, but don't stand next to it in the woods! >From Dave Porter, Fort McCoy, WI > >For Marty Moleski, > >I waited as long as I could stand it, and nobody else asked (Dennis, >you're slipping)...if a Higgs boson exists, but doesn't have mass, >does that mean it isn't catholic? ;-) > >LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:20:42 From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Higgs boson << Hilary Olson writes, "Yes, it will be agnostic." >> Just what we've been looking for... De agnostic artifact! LMT, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:47:37 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Higgs boson >From Dan Postellon > >No, but don't stand next to it in the woods! > >>From Dave Porter, Fort McCoy, WI >> >>For Marty Moleski, >> >>I waited as long as I could stand it, and nobody else asked (Dennis, >>you're slipping)...if a Higgs boson exists, but doesn't have mass, >>does that mean it isn't catholic? ;-) >> >>LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 If a massless Higgs boson falls in the forest, and there's no one there to not weigh it, does it still not have mass? LTM, who says I'd better leave physics to the physicists ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:48:11 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Ameliapedia That was a joke, Marty. You are doing an awesome job and have all the credentials one could ask for. Alan >From Marty Moleski > >>From Alan Caldwell >> >>Yeah, but what else? >> >>He's also explaining to inquiring minds what a wiki >>is and why it seems like a worthwhile tool to >>develop for TIGHAR. :-P >> >>Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:50:16 From: Andrew Faulkenr Subject: Re: Paddy MacDonald Hillary Roberts ("The daughter of former Fiji deputy Governor Patrick Macdonald...") lived in Bermuda until November 2007 and I expect can be contacted through the Royal Bermuday Yacht Club. http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?artic leId=7d7a5b330030003§ionId=60 The internet is a wonderful research too! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:28:46 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Mona Kendrick writes, >You make some good points about the discrepancies. I suppose she >could have been lying about hitting the middle first, but I'd prefer >to take the innocent-until-proven-guilty approach. She will remain innocent of misrepresenting her landfall in Ireland because no one can prove otherwise. What we can say with some certainty, however, is that on other occasions she didn't hesitate to mislead the public to protect or bolster her reputation. The most notable example is her story about why she landed at St. Louis rather than Dakar at the end of her South Atlantic crossing. As detailed and documented in Finding Amelia (pages 42-3), Noonan's map for that flight and a letter he wrote afterward reveal the account she gave the press to be a fabrication. A possible scenario is that from the County Mayo shore she climbs several thousand feet above the cloud tops, keeping an initial west heading during the climb to ensure staying over water where there's no terrain to slam into, to take a good look around for unclouded areas. From altitude she spots the north shore of Donegal bay and clearing weather, and heads for it. Your efforts on her behalf are truly heroic. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:06:49 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: flight simulator Hilary Olson asks, >Would it be possible to use a flight simulator to program the last >flight plan from Lae to Howland >and as best we can ,using the same type aircraft, tools (no glass >cockpit), flight conditions etc. Same type aircraft - no problem. Same tools - no problem. Same flight conditions - problem. Nobody knows for sure what weather and winds she encountered. >Also using a female pilot with similar flight >skills and knowledge as AE I ain't goin' there. >and a navigator using same skills as Fred Noonan. Should be doable. Do you want him to drink or not? >The reason to see where they would go and what they would do at >crunch time. I realize computer models do the reckoning today and >give calculated paths >but they do not put the stress and other human variables in. Aside from the unknowns about weather and wind, the human variables would make the whole exercise meaningless. A person's actions and reactions at any given moment depend upon a million variables of genetics, personal history, emotional stability, etc. etc. What we'd need is not a flight simulator but a Wayback Machine. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:19:15 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: Re: Hubris >From Ric > >Your efforts on her behalf are truly heroic. No more heroic than the daily hypothesis-tossing-at-the-wall we do on the Forum. We keep tossing until we find one that sticks. :) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:29:11 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Ameliapedia >From Alan Caldwell > >That was a joke, Marty. Understood. I was just trying to top it. ;o) >You are doing an awesome job and have all the >credentials one could ask for. Thanks. I've learned a lot in the last month. "It is good to be [root]." Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:30:52 From: Dan Hall Subject: Ameliapedia and Three Questions From Dan Ball I've been watching this thread with great interest as it deals with my line of work. After watching almost 100 replies to this message (did you expect so much debate?) I thought I'd put my two cents worth in. You might not agree with some of what I have to say, but maybe some of it will be of use to you. First of all, I agree on the idea of a one-stop-shopping place for all factual data, it would be a great asset to researchers. It has to be totally un-biased though, presenting each fact equally. With all the facts presented, it should become obvious to the average user that the TIGHAR hypothesis is the one that makes the most sense. For example, using the term "myth" implies a certain amount of bias, so that word should not be used on the wiki at all. Second, there seems to be some confusion by the majority of the people who responded about what a "wiki" actually is. I run into this quite often, as there are a lot of people out there that are into the "latest buzzword" craze and insist they need a wiki when it doesn't really fit their need. The word is over-hyped, and wiki software is actually declining in popularity in the web 2.0 era. Most of the comments I saw in the replies were talking about what a website or a FAQ would look like, not a wiki. In its most simple form, a wiki is an online database, allowing the quick change of topic to flow with the person's interest. Different words can be hyperlinked to different pages in the wiki, providing a seemingly endless amount of information brought to the user in a smoothly flowing manner. Now this is the part where people get confused about a wiki, as an identical "traditional" website can be created that mimics this functionality to the point where an average user cannot tell the difference between a wiki and a website. The difference is the way these pages are created. In a traditional website, a link is made in one page, and then a new page is created with web publishing software as a separate file. In a wiki, no special software is needed, using a normal web browser all a person has to do is put a couple of brackets around a word or phrase and a new page is created, with no actual creation of a separate file. But, enter the CMS... With the rise in uses Content Management Systems, this same effect can be created, using only a web browser. Both can be edited by anyone logging into the website, and the CMS has a much-much larger variety of tools to work with. So, what is a wiki good for? If the same thing can be done with a CMS, why would someone use it? Simply put, it's perfect for an online database, an encyclopedia of information, so an "AmeliaPedia" is a perfect use. Now, after thinking about this for a week, and hearing Marty talking about how he has been working on it, I decided to look it up and see what has been done so far. Seeing as no link was posted, I had to go look for it. The first problem I found is that the domain AmeliaPedia is not registered in any way shape or form. With domains only costing a few dollars a year, there is no reason why the .com and .org domain names shouldn't be registered immediately. If you don't register them, as soon as you start advertising the wiki someone else will register those domains, probably with malicious intent and redirect all of your visitors to their website instead. Then, I did some searches and found that Marty has been posting the link to the AmeliaPedia on a bunch of forums around the Internet. So, I checked out the wiki, and sad to say I was a bit disappointed with what I found. I understand that the site is not ready for release to the public yet, but there are some fundamental design problems that I noticed immediately. - The URL (http://tighar.org/wiki/Ameliapedia) leads you to a subset of pages on the TIGHAR site, and the first page you see is a wiki version of the TIGHAR home page. If you are advertising it as the "Amelia"pedia, then the first page you go to should be about Amelia, not a page advertising TIGHAR and its sponsors. All of those can be linked to from within the AmeliaPedia, but it shouldn't be the first page you see. That turns off a lot of people right away. - The vast majority of the pages are merely redirected links to pages on the TIGHAR website. By linking pages this way, you are breaking the wiki functionality, and essentially creating a page of links instead of a wiki. If that is what you are going to do, don't bother with a wiki, but re-organize your existing pages. - The format of the pages is straight out-of-the-box MediaWiki. Granted, an "encyclopedia" doesn't need to be all fancy graphics, but it has to at least look like it is using modern-day software. Sorry, this is just a pet-peeve, I run across soooooo many wikis around the web that are left at the default settings that people just pass right by them because of their amateurish looks. So... What would I recommend? - Register the AmeliaPedia domain name, immediately, before someone else scoops it up and uses it against you. (I briefly considered registering it myself.) - Point that domain at a nice-looking wiki start page that breaks everything down into a few starting categories. Having a huge front page with a ton of links tends to overwhelm the average user. - Convert all the links that are currently redirected to the TIGHAR website into actual wiki pages with the same content. If you want to link to the main website, link to them in the reference section instead (Once a user leaves the wiki, the odds of them not coming back rises significantly.). The idea is to give them a never-ending series of links where they can explore to their hearts content without ever leaving the site. - Convert some of the longer pages into multiple wiki pages, sorted by topic. Pages that are too long are often not read. - Cross-reference each page to each other, every time a word is mentioned on one page that is explained on another page, link it. - Create a nice-looking custom template to use for all pages. Give it some decent (although simple) graphics and make it look like it was done by a professional. Oh, and the three questions... I would divide these into categories of questions; most of the ones I Saw would be covered by these three questions: 1. Who was Amelia? 2. What is known about the ill-fated flight? 3. What are the theories of what happened? If you would like some more input like this, let me know, I'm always willing to help people out. If this offends you, let me know and I'll quit bothering you with my critiques. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:36:11 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Marcus Lind writes, >Ric wrote: "...If the only witness to what happens on a solo flight >is the pilot, who has a vested interest in how good the story is..." > >- Sorry, not so about Earhart's 1932 flight: she had a barograph >installed. No need to apologize. A barograph is not a flight data recorder. It measures barometric pressure over time. That's all. Her barograph would record pressure changes due to climbs, descents and weather patterns but it would provide no information about flight in or out of clouds, what course changes she made, where she made landfall, etc. Ric wrote: " - I guess it depends on what you call getting lost. Lindbergh wasn't sure where he was..." - >- i think, it is exactly what is called "lost" in aviation: when the >pilot is not sure where he or she is. He/she can be, actually, on >his/her right course in this moment, or not so: but, if he/she does >not KNOW it for sure - that is what i would call "lost". By your definition, anyone who flies by dead reckoning (not that anyone much does any more) is lost most of the time. You calculate the heading you think will work based on what you think the winds are doing, and then you just have at it and see what happens. You spend a lot of time worrying and you might adjust your heading based on updated wind information, but you're not lost until you get to somewhere you expect something to be and it's not there. Lindbergh was worried but he wasn't lost. He hit Dingle Bay dead on. Earhart didn't know where she was until she landed and asked somebody. That's lost. Ric wrote: "It seems to me that, at her level of expertise, good judgment would have been to stay home" - >- sorry for repetition, but Earhart's level of expertise and skills >was pretty much respected by many contemporary top-class >professionals - including Jackie Cochran, Leigh Wade, Wiley Post, >Paul Collins, and others. Earhart had her friends in the business but there were other well respected top-class professionals who thought she was a fraud. Everyone has their friends and enemies (even me). Performance is the measure of skill and expertise. Earhart's record speaks for itself. I'll leave it at that. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:49:14 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Paddy Macdonald Good googling, Andrew! LTM (who knows a good google when she sees one) >From Andrew Faulkner > >Hillary Roberts ("The daughter of former Fiji deputy Governor Patrick >Macdonald...") lived in Bermuda until November 2007 and I expect can be >contacted through the Royal Bermuday Yacht Club. >http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?artic >leId=7d7a5b330030003§ionId=60 The internet is a wonderful research too! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:25:08 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Ameliapedia and Three Questions Dan Hall wrote: >But, enter the CMS... With the rise in uses Content Management >Systems, this same effect can be created, using only a web browser. >Both can be edited by anyone logging into the website, and the CMS >has a much-much larger variety of tools to work with. I'm webmaster for Joomla-driven CMS: http://nsrca.us I did a similar site for a branch of the same organization: http://f3a.us We could install a CMS system down the road if that seems to be the right approach to take. >The first problem I found is that the domain AmeliaPedia is not >registered in any way shape or form. With domains only costing a few >dollars a year, there is no reason why the .com and .org domain names >shouldn't be registered immediately. If you don't register them, as >soon as you start advertising the wiki someone else will register >those domains, probably with malicious intent and redirect all of >your visitors to their website instead. Those people! :-O >- The URL (http://tighar.org/wiki/Ameliapedia) leads you to a subset >of pages on the TIGHAR site, and the first page you see is a wiki >version of the TIGHAR home page. If you are advertising it as the >"Amelia"pedia, then the first page you go to should be about Amelia, >not a page advertising TIGHAR and its sponsors. All of those can be linked to >from within the AmeliaPedia, but it shouldn't be the first >page you see. That turns off a lot of people right away. If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of Ric's question that started this thread was to come up with a front-page article for the Ameliapedia. He's working on it. The front page is just an article like any other article in the wiki. It can be modified as needed. It's not written in stone. >- The vast majority of the pages are merely redirected links to pages >on the TIGHAR website. By linking pages this way, you are breaking >the wiki functionality, and essentially creating a page of links >instead of a wiki. If that is what you are going to do, don't bother >with a wiki, but re-organize your existing pages. It's true that a set of pages could be considered as a database. But it isn't organized to be easily searchable. Wikis are like gardens. You plant a lot of seeds and hope that they grow. You may not see the difference between the wiki and the classic site, but I do. It allows TIGHAR to organize information as it comes in. See for example: http://tighar.org/wiki/Sextant_box_found_on_Nikumaroro You can click on the odd little markers in the headings and look at the table in different ways. The other material that is new and not available on the classic site is the story of Bones II (2003): http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_II >- The format of the pages is straight out-of-the-box MediaWiki. >Granted, an "encyclopedia" doesn't need to be all fancy graphics, but >it has to at least look like it is using modern-day software. Sorry, >this is just a pet-peeve, I run across soooooo many wikis around the >web that are left at the default settings that people just pass right >by them because of their amateurish looks. The chrome is controlled by .css. If you'd like to design a style for the site, send it to me. I'll put it up as an optional skin. If folks like it, we'll use it. But it's just chrome. I like MediaWiki for what's under the skin. I don't know what wiki you're thinking of that is more modern. It's the same software that runs Wikipedia and I expect that it will be maintained very well over the years by the MediaWiki foundation. >- Register the AmeliaPedia domain name, immediately, before someone >else scoops it up and uses it against you. (I briefly considered >registering it myself.) Above my pay grade. But it sounds like good advice. >- Point that domain at a nice-looking wiki start page that breaks >everything down into a few starting categories. Draft a page. You can look at Help for editors if you'd like to do it in wiki syntax. >Having a huge front page with a ton of links tends to overwhelm the >average user. If you mean the navigation stuff on the left, I don't want to get rid of that. Folks who use Wikipedia should be fairly familiar with that. >- Convert all the links that are currently redirected to the TIGHAR >website into actual wiki pages with the same content. That is, of course a possibility way down the road. Have you ever done a project like that yourself? Do you know what it takes? I translated about 120 pages of HTML content into Joomla's CMS format. BTDT. I know what it takes. I also translated about 40 articles from Dokuwiki syntax into MediaWiki syntax (going from our demo site to the production site). It can be done. I know how to do it. I'm not going to do it now. Getting links on short wiki articles is my goal for this phase of the development. This afternoon I added a lot to the Gallagher article: http://tighar.org/wiki/Gallagher I expect that there will be a lot more links there before I'm done scanning the old site. >If you want to link to the main website, link to them in the >reference section instead (Once a user leaves the wiki, the odds of >them not coming back rises significantly.). Our goal is not have folks use the wiki. Our goal is to let people find what they're looking for. If it's on the classic site, great! >The idea is to give them a never-ending series of links where they >can explore to their hearts content without ever leaving the site. If the links on the classic site lead them into the classic site, more power to them. >- Convert some of the longer pages into multiple wiki pages, sorted >by topic. Pages that are too long are often not read. That's just editing. If you have an article, then you can doll it up. Tom King has put up perhaps a dozen articles on the archaeology that has been done by TIGHAR. The content is first-rate. Once the articles are up, they can be wikified. >- Cross-reference each page to each other, every time a word is >mentioned on one page that is explained on another page, link it. That's a matter of taste. If I have one link to the [[WPHC]] in a short article, that's enough for me. I may mention the WPHC another four or five times, but the reader can see where the link is. >- Create a nice-looking custom template to use for all pages. Give it >some decent (although simple) graphics and make I look like it was >done by a professional. The skin I talked about above is what gives us the template. It **IS** the same for all pages now. If we switch skins, the new template would be applied to all pages. >If you would like some more input like this, let me know, I'm always >willing to help people out. If this offends you, let me know and >I'll quit bothering you with my critiques. No blood, no foul. The total cost to TIGHAR so far has been less than $100. If you'd like to hire a professional to do designs for the site, you may talk with Pat and Ric. If you are a professional and are offering to donate your services, they would probably be most welcome. If you're just acting as a sidewalk superintendent, thanks for the kindly and well-meant advice. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:37:50 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Hubris From Alan Caldwell Interesting, Mona. Email me off forum at acaldwell@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:23:24 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris Ric wrote: "A barograph is not a flight data recorder. It measures barometric pressure over time. That's all" - - sorry, not fully so; as you fairly noted yourself a bit later, "Her barograph would record pressure changes due to climbs, descents and weather patterns". Exactly so, and that's what i meant: it confirmed the extremely difficult conditions at which Earhart made that flight - thus, showing a level of skills for which she must be well respected (at least IMHO). Ric wrote: "By your definition, anyone who flies by dead reckoning (not that anyone much does any more) is lost most of the time" - - Well, not really... i tend to agree that if the degree of uncertainty, in pilot's mind, about his/her place, is limited exclusively by the technical limitations of exactness due to the used method of navigation - then, it would be unfair to say that this pilot was "lost". Still, it seems for me as important factor that Earhart did her flight at weather conditions significantly worse then Lindbergh faced. Ric wrote: "Earhart had her friends in the business but there were other well respected top-class professionals who thought she was a fraud" - - They could think whatever they wanted, but the ones whom i referred really flew with Earhart, in one cockpit - and that's why, IMHO, their opinions were credible and worth of consideration. From Earhart's critics who were "top-class professionals" and "flew with Earhart in one cockpit" - to know firsthand what they are trying to tell about - i can refer to only two names: Elinor Smith and Paul Mantz. However both of them, IMHO, cannot be considered as unprejudiced and credible sources if about this topic - because of pretty serious reasons that i presented in one of previous messages. And it doesn't seem as fair and convincing to me to allege that the mentioned top-class pilots who flew with Earhart and whose opinions I mentioned, were respectful and even complimentary just because of being Earhart's "business friends". Some of them were (although, it still doesn't "prove" yet their "guilt" of expressing a non-sincere and factually unsubstantiated professional opinion); some of them, weren't (General Leigh Wade's opinion, for example, was formed after just one and quite "occasional" flight with Earhart, in 1929, when she impressed him with her skills to pilot a new pretty whimsical Consolidated trainer - designed with neutral stability). And, BTW, the rivalry and jealosy in the record-breaking aviation of the era, quite obviously, were not "less actual and influental" then the friendship... Elinor Smith is a good proof. LTM - Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:43:08 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: flight simulator Ric wrote: "... but they do not put the stress and other human variables in. Aside from the unknowns about weather and wind, the human variables would make the whole exercise meaningless. A person's actions and reactions at any given moment depend upon a million variables of genetics, personal history, emotional stability, etc. etc. What we'd need is not a flight simulator but a Wayback Machine" - - with these Ric's points, i certainly agree. And that's exactly why i always tried to argue that our guesses of what exactly happened, if even rational and reasonable one, are still only speculations; just because of being a guesses produced by a relaxed people (us) seating now safely in convenient and secure environment - at conditions pretty different from the ones that existed in the Electra cockpit that morning... Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:52:26 From: Matthew Harrison Subject: Re: flight simulator Actually, this is an idea that has occurred to me in the past as well. It might make an effective marketing tool for TIGHAR if approached in a manner similar to the MAAM-SIM B-25 "Briefing Time" add-on. I wouldn't worry about lack of historically accurate weather data (just let the users select the weather systems they want in sim), Amelia's pilot skills or Noonan's navigational skills (not things that can be implemented anyway). Few are going to expect a downloaded "Wayback Machine" anyway - they (I) would love to sim That Plane, in Those Places, in order to relive as much of Those Times as possible, if only virtually. Back to the marketing tool idea: there is a lack of high quality "Ameliana" available to the FS community. TIGHAR might consider developing an add on which could be donation-ware in various ways. The entire package might be free-ware, or certain elements of it might be free but with a fee charged to access the entire kit. The kit might include the following: - A high quality NR16020 add-on with detailed 3d modelling and flight characteristics, accurate instrumentation, with detailed virtual cockpit. - High quality terrain add-ons for Nikumaroro, Lae, and Howland Island - Missions and flight plans to recreate either her entire flight, or just the leg from Lae - ITASCA and Colorado models with flight plans for search aircraft. I think this alone would be enough to generate a lot of attention for TIGHAR and quite possibly some revenue. But why not take it further? It would be perfectly possible to create a simple but very immersive documentary using FS. Radio traffic could not only recreate what we know was communicated that day (and after!), but could be (if the virtual pilot tunes in) the narrative outline of what TIGHAR believed happened. There might be, on the Niku add-on, TIGHAR dig sites uncovering the important finds, with markers explaining them. We could turn Niku into a virtual nature trail / museum. We could have a stranded NR16020 on the beach broadcasting post-loss messages, until it is pulled into the depths at last. Really, the possibilities are extensive. Now I realize this would be a significant effort, and so I'm willing to donate my time to help. I'm a 3d CG hobbyist, and could definitely help with modelling and "skinning" the Electra, the ships, the geography, were TIGHAR to decide to launch such a project. It's reasonable to assume, with adequate resources, that such a project could be finished not long after the upcoming movie is released. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:27:28 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Marcus Lind writes, >it [Earhart's barograph] confirmed the extremely difficult >conditions at which Earhart made that flight - thus, showing a >level of skills for which she must be well respected (at least IMHO). It did? What extremely difficult conditions could it record other than possibly an area of low pressure? Who examined the barograph? Is there a report? Does the barograph still exist? >Still, it seems for me as important factor that Earhart did her >flight at weather conditions significantly worse then Lindbergh faced. She did? Who compared the barographs? >From Earhart's critics who were "top-class professionals" and "flew >with Earhart in one cockpit" - to know firsthand what they are >trying to tell about - i can refer to only two names: Elinor Smith >and Paul Mantz. >However both of them, IMHO, cannot be considered as unprejudiced >and credible sources if about this topic - because of pretty >serious reasons that i presented in one of previous messages. I can understand why Elinor Smith might be seen to be biased against Earhart but why would Paul Mantz have it in for her? He was her friend and paid technical advisor. After she disappeared and the Navy abandoned the search, Mantz shared Putnam's conviction that she was marooned on an island. It was Mantz who pressed Mrs Roosevelt to have the Coast Guard report released. Years later he told his biographer, Don Dwiggins, of his frustration with AE's cavalier attitude toward technical matters and her refusal to follow his advice about piloting technique. Arctic explorer Brad Washburn turned down her invitation to be her navigator for the same reason. TIME magazine saw Earhart's world flight as an over-hyped publicity stunt. "Between 1924 and 1933 the globe was girdled six times by aircraft. Last year, when Pan American Airways started carrying passengers across the Pacific, reporters Herbert Ekins and Leo Kieran circled the globe on commercial lines. Soon after, Pan American's President Juan Terry Trippe and a party of friends also flew around on commercial lines. Last week, Aviatrix Amelia Earhart Putnam took off from Oakland "to establish the feasibility of circling the globe by commercial air travel" and "to determine just how human beings react under strain and fatigue." "Harry Manning wisely jumped ship after the Luke Field debacle because he had lost faith in Earhart's ability and lost patience with Putnam's pushiness. When Earhart announced she would try again, Major Al Williams publicly wrote that "Amelia Earhart's "Flying Laboratory" is the latest and most distressing racket that has been given to a trusting and enthusiastic public. There's nothing in that "Flying Laboratory" beyond duplicates of the controls and apparatus to be found on board every major airline transport. And no one ever sat at the controls of her "Flying Laboratory" who knew enough about the technical side of aviation to obtain a job on a first-class airline." As I said before, performance is the true measure of any pilot. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:28:10 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: flight simulator Matthew, email me off forum in this regard at acaldwell@aol.com Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:34:21 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: flight simulator Matthew Harrison proposed some very interesting ideas about an Earhart sim add-on - not as a research tool but as an entertaining educational tool and possibly an income stream for TIGHAR. It's something we've kicked around from time to time and it may be an idea whose time has come. I'd like to recruit a working group of volunteers who have the familiarity with the flight sim world and the programming skills needed to turn the idea into reality. Matthew has already offered to help, as has the inimitable Alan Caldwell. If anyone else on the forum has expertise in this area and would like to help, please email me privately at tigharic@mac.com. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:45:40 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Ameliapedia and three questions >From Marty: > >Wikis are like gardens. You plant a lot of seeds and hope that they >grow. Marty is doing a great job, IMHO. I like it. One question, though. At several points in the samples offered there are brief notes, apparently ideas for further study. It wasn't clear to me whether they are notes by the current writer, or quotes from notes made by some earlier writer. Could those sections be labeled either, "Editor's Notes," or, e.g. "Gallagher's diary, August 1940." There were a couple of times I got confused about the initials, didn't remember who or what they stood for. Tom D., #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:16:53 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: flight simulator >From Ric > >If anyone else on the forum >has expertise in this area and would like to help, Unfortuntely I don't have that expertise. I fooled around with an early version of Flight Simulator about 15 years ago but never succeeded in getting the plane in the air. My understanding is that there is a basic program underlying the software with different versions adding data about specific aircraft and airports. I recommend using her entire flight, with options at the end. Let the player choose the Solomons, Saipan, or Niku. Give it a crashed and sank option, for that matter, plus all the islands within a thousand miles of Howland. Actually there could be versions of numerous historic flights, Lindberg, Wiley Post, etc. Not sure who the market would be, though, other than teenage boys and a handful of terrorists. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:31:30 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: flight simulator Following up on what Ric wrote about this, even if one could build a spot on simulation model of Earhart's 10E in early July 1937 (no way to do this, there will never be nearly enough information about the thousands of tiny details as to the condition of that aircraft when it left Lae), or the weather (forget it), one could never model the behaviour of those two folks that day. Moreover, chance has something to do with human behaviour and in an aircraft, the tiniest little variations in control can have sweeping sway on the outcome hours later. Put another way, there were indeed trillions of "ways" to fly the 10E to the Howland area and we'll never know which way they they did it. LTM, who'd rather think about chaos theory whilst buying cheese at the grocery store. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:51:22 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Hubris Mantz was very, very talented but one must understand the context of his flying career: Hollywood, which for Mantz, meant mixing his aviation and business know-how with publicity and now and then, big risks, which he handled through his knack for preparation. Given this, he wasn't ever a typical pilot but within what he did, he was a professional. The Mantz-Earhart match in Los Angeles was almost foregone to happen at some time. If someone like Paul Mantz had worries about AE's professionalism, those worries were worthy of heed. LTM, who liked checklists. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:55:38 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Flight simulator Ric wrote: >Matthew Harrison proposed some very interesting ideas about an Earhart >sim add-on - not as a research tool but as an entertaining educational >tool and possibly an income stream for TIGHAR. It's something we've >kicked around from time to time and it may be an idea whose time has >come. Not gonna join the team. A suggestion: to make money on a sim, it has to be exciting and brief. A 22-hour sim is not going to get a lot of customers through it and most of the flight would be in the dark seeing nothing. Do like the Air and Space Museum. They have a sim of landing on the moon. You get to fly the last 60 seconds of the landing, complete with warning buzzers and computer failure. You see what Armstrong saw. You have his fuel load. You see if you can land without crashing. So for the Ameliasim, give the customer two or three minutes to pick a landing site and perform a walk-away landing. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:26:37 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Ameliapedia >From Tom Doran > >Marty is doing a great job, IMHO. I like it. One question, though. >At several points in the samples offered there are brief notes, >apparently ideas for further study. It wasn't clear to me whether >they are notes by the current writer, or quotes from notes made by >some earlier writer. > >Could those sections be labeled either, "Editor's Notes," or, e.g. >"Gallagher's diary, August 1940." If it's not labeled, it's the editor. So, for example, in the stubs for Earhart and Noonan, I give their full names, birth dates, and date they were declared dead without a source. Here I have assembled information from various locations on the classic site into one article: http://tighar.org/wiki/LORAN_station If I have a source, I give a source. I find VERY interesting things in the Forum Highlights. See: http://tighar.org/wiki/Yankee and http://tighar.org/wiki/Inverting_eye_piece_found_on_Nikumaroro There were a couple of times I got confused about the initials, didn't remember who or what they stood for. Tell me which initials on which page and I'll make a redirect for them. If you give me enough useful feedback, I'll make you an editor on the wiki and you can make the changes yourself. ;o) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:47:55 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: flight simulator Marty Moleski wrote: >A suggestion: to make money on a sim, it has to be exciting >and brief. A 22-hour sim is not going to get a lot of customers >through it and most of the flight would be in the dark seeing >nothing. >... >So for the Ameliasim, give the customer two or three minutes >to pick a landing site and perform a walk-away landing. Maybe build two or three sims for the package. One as Marty says, short and sweet, maybe another could start with an audio of a voice actress doing Amelia saying at 07:42 hrs: "We must be on you, but cannot see you... but gas is running low. Have been unable to reach you by radio. We are flying at 1,000 feet," with a textured map of Gardner Island ready and waiting 350 nautical miles to the southeast (don't forget to do a fit model of the Norwich City, her back broken on the reef). Never mind the starting position of such a sim would be a more or less wild guess. LTM, who says, "Amelia couldn't click on file/new game." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:23:28 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Flight simulator >From William Webster-Garman > >chance has something to do with human behavior and in an aircraft, >the tiniest little variations in control can have sweeping sway on >the outcome hours later. Put another way, there were indeed >trillions of "ways" to fly the 10E to the Howland area To me, that's the point. Let people learn how difficult the task (i.e. the whole flight) was. It's true you wouldn't want this to be in real time. Nobody will sit there for 12 hours looking at a black screen. You could, however, let the player get the aircraft in the air in Miami, point towards Africa and let the computer calculate an arrival point and time based on the player's decisions. If there were evidence of a 30 knot crosswind eight hours out, add that factor also. If the player neglected the wind and ends up in Venezuela, or runs out of gas, so be it. It's a game. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:34:49 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: flight simulator This whole thing sounds like you need to take to the streets. Run a listing of our TIGHAR members, break it down by 3-4-5 geographical areas, set up a 1-2 day town hall meeting and see which members are willing and able to do what in their spare time to help with this project. Some of us that couldn't even tune in a radio could offer financial help or logistical support or something. Something to think about. Ted ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:35:56 From: Matthew Harrison Subject: Re: Flight simulator Just to clarify, what I am suggesting is that an add-on for Microsoft's Flight Simulator X (FS or FSX) be created as an "edutainment" vehicle for TIGHAR, which might also generate some amount of revenue. Google "MAAM Briefing Time" for an example of how this has been done to support the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum. There is a large market for FS add-ons, with various sites dedicated to free and pay-ware, ranging from individual aircraft (or even paint jobs, called "skins") to complete conversions - one of which returns the continental US to the 1930s, with appropriate airports and aircraft. This does not entail the creation of a custom-built simulator for research activities. As I see it, this could be a tool to market TIGHAR's findings, and hopefully promote further research. I think we can go further than merely recreating NR16020, to the best of our abilities, in a virtual world. I think we can create a new way to document historical research, in a manner that is interactive and that will appeal to "simmers" as well as younger students. For instance, to expand on William's illustration of Amelia's 07:42 message, a narrator could explain the importance of the fuel question, with TIGHAR's interpretation of it. The narrator might squeeze in and out of radio tune around communications between ITASCA and NR16020, to preserve suspension of disbelief. I agree with Tom that including the entire flight would be ideal, and even other important flights Amelia undertook. I think special attention and effort should be paid to the last leg, of course. See above for comments about potential markets (I don't think terrorists will have anything to gain by our efforts). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:44:10 From: Matthew Harrison Subject: Re: flight simulator Understand that, as an add-on for Microsoft's Flight Simulator, a variety of methods already exist for interacting with long time- frames. I myself never completed the 1934 MacRobertson race in the DH-88 included in FS 2004 in real-time, but accelerated time at various points throughout to manage the flight in an enjoyable evening. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:44:34 From: Jack Thomas Subject: Re: flight simulator There have been a couple of Earhart-related flight simulator packages produced. One, quite new: http://www.abacuspub.com/catalog/s790.htm And another, quite old: http://www.cdaccess.com/html/pc/ameliae.htm -Jack Thomas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:15:43 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: flight simulator Marty, you are right about a 22 hour sim being boring but fortunately we don't have to sit for 22 hours. Flight Simulator has a speed up feature to go as much as 4 times faster than normal and one can also manually reposition the plane far ahead so the long legs are virtually eliminated. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:35:59 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: flight simulator It's important in the design of this to consider first what we want to get out of it. Is it going to be an adventure game? Is it going to be a teaching tool? Is it going to be a puzzle game? Those are going to determine what the final product will be like. Which of those is going to get the game out there, and which of those help TIGHAR the most, is something to be determined. Personally, as a former flight simmer, I know how those guys think: they will want to take it on as a challenge to see if they can manage to do what Earhart and Noonan failed to do. The flight sim genre is full of people who want to make things as realistic as possible, and who thrive on challenges like landing in impossible weather. Giving them a realistic plane, and realistic weather, and realistic visuals, will be the key...then they'll go at it to see where they can put the plane down. They might not really care about what has been found on Niku, so the educational part would be lost on them...and biasing the game towards the TIGHAR theory would not be a good idea because it would limit the options. As an aside, I've never seen this timeframe of the flight sim community that well represented. Mostly there are the fighter jocks (that was me), people who want to fly commercial, and then people who do realistic training. There might be a desire for the more "stick and rudder" time period, so considering how to make this a period piece might be worthwhile. After all, if you model Earhart's Vega then you can model Wiley Post's. Again, it depends on what kind of game we want. And, if it wasn't obvious, I'm volunteering. :) Reed ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:36:28 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Hubris re Mantz On page127, of Dwiggins book, he wrote that Mantz believed that the "navigator missed the island and Miss Earhart flew until out of gas, and due to fatigue tried to land too high over clear water...causing a crash that would kill them instantly". I don't see where he shared Putnams conviction she landed on an island. R. Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:13:32 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Ron Bright says, >On page127, of Dwiggins book, he wrote that Mantz believed that the >"navigator missed the island and Miss Earhart flew until out of gas, >and due to fatigue tried to land too high over clear water...causing >a crash that would kill them instantly". I don't see where he shared >Putnams conviction she landed on an island. Mantz may have changed his mind by the time Dwiggins talked to him in the mid-1960s, or he may have said what he did in an effort not to feed the Japanese Capture frenzy. Goerner's "The Search for Amelia Earhart" was published in 1966. "Hollywood Pilot" came out in 1967. Whatever Mantz told his biographer thirty years later, newspaper accounts from 1937 are replete with his statements that he was convinced she had come down on an island. Primary sources Ron. Primary sources. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:18:01 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Hubris Newspapers are primary sources? How many times have you said newspapers can get the story wrong? If that is true we should believe AEs mother who said AE was n a secret mission!! You are probably refering to the LA times of 3 July when Mantz, being quoted by Putnam, said he believed she landed on a coral atoll "close to Howland Island". And he added that in the background of the radio calls he heard what sounded like the" roar of an airplane engine...Several islands in the Phoenix were "large enough" to allow a plane to land". All double hearsay, Putnam quoting Mantz and of course newspapers are hearsay. What was the primary source for Mantz? He related (LA Times) that he talked with McMenemy who told him that he heard Earhart say "KHAQQ.." and if that were true that could be Amelia and she would be on land. This is what he passed on to GP. . I think Mantz was trying to comfort Putnam with the slight possibility of survival. Me, After he accessed all the facts, I take Mantz quoted statement to Dwiggins that she went into the ocean as a "primary" source, not a news account in 1937,. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:24:54 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: flight simulator For the benefit of others interested in the Flight simulator project and/or want to help or input ideas, Matthew and I have exchanged a few emails about the subject. This is not a new idea as Abacus put out such a program many years ago when we were still using Window 98. It was called "Around the world." It consisted of the airplane and the adventure with all the stops around the world including the old Lae airport and Howland Island. It was never updated as it was not a good seller. I have two copies and it was OK but Flight sim and Win98 are relatively poor products then. Just days ago "Around the world in 80 days" was released by Ryan Barclay of RBFTP Networks Limited. It uses an Electra to fly around the world but does not follow Earhart's route. The plane is not a good copy of her electra. The flight sim folks have long been making add-on Electras, mostly 10As. Dave Eckert was one of the first designers and his Electra has been a standard. Nick Botamer of Historic Airliners has done a lot of work on 10Es. I worked with two groups in Europe one of which was FS_Design Berlin. That was Dale DeLuca and Erik Hohmeyer. Their plane was used by Mark rooks of RSDC Aircraft to "upgrade" to FSX. For some unknown reason he used the aircraft.cfg from the default DC-3. At this writing I know of no perfect 10E of Earhart fame. Berlin's plane for FS9 was good and used the correct aircraft.cfg. The Berlin Electra came with a "modern" panel which I think was Eckert's old panel and a panel with a Sperry autopilot. It even came with a "sextant" to shoot celestial. X-plane is another popular simulator but has a far smaller user base. Matt can probably make the airplane using GMAX or FSDS and I think we need to do that rather than add in another team. We will take far more time but I don't see a time problem. The plane ideally should be as accurate as possible for the users benefit. Actually you can model a brick and make it fly as it is the air file and aircraft.cfg files that do all the work. If the airplane is modeled it will produce the air file and cfg file. I can modify both to replicate Earhart's plane. I'm not a scenery maker so we need someone who can make a good representation of Lae and Niku. I think this is about all we have discussed so far. Alan ************************************ Yesterday we delivered to the printer the files for the Electra drawings, a project 3 years in the making. One of the reasons it took so long was getting the instruments as close to perfect as possible. They aren't perfect but they're pretty durned close. And the artwork, done by moi, belongs to TIGHAR and can be used in any TIGHAR product. :-D We have lots of photos and film of the Pacific and the island. AND -- we are in the process of hiring a wildly competent web programmer and an artist, both local, who will be able to work on this project. (The economy makes people available we usually wouldn't be able to touch....) So I think the time has come to actually do this. We need a Real Plan. Reed Riddle has been kind enough to volunteer his services, and we will be setting up a working group. Film at eleven. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:26:16 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Higgs boson Dave Porter said: "I waited as long as I could stand it, and nobody else asked (Dennis, you're slipping)...if a Higgs boson exists, but doesn't have mass, does that mean it isn't catholic? ;-) " My apologies for not raising to the bait, but I was visiting friends in Charleston, SC, and missed Marty's original cast. Nonetheless, recognizing his abundant knowledge, skills, and abilities I'm looking forward to other opportunities. :-) Also, I know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, philosophically speaking, so I'll check. :-) LTM, who plays 'em close to her chest Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:26:49 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: Three questions So far i've only come up with 1 question. 2nd question. What about any information in the post loss transmissions,(assuming they bring them up in the movie), the one about "281 mi North" put out with key (or mike or however it was done by whoever sent it. The other one that I like is in Betty's notes, "58 338". It is likley Betty didn't hear or write down the "1", and it was 158 338. Now that is different than the stated LOP by one degree. Fred has time to figure the speed times time in flight, 281 miles. When he is injured in the landing, he can only figure that the bearing back to Howland is 338 degrees, from his chart. Still thinking that they were in the approximate location of Howland when they arrived at the LOP, the Island he was on didn't fit the chart, so he couldn't report which Island. This 281 mi is then the location of where they hit the LOP, which is 123 mi south of Howland. It is also a line back to the erroneous position of Howland. Google earth is a great tool to do this on, its fun and, fellow tighars, it is conjecture on my part. LTM She tried to figure things out ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:44:26 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Harry Luke This is way off the usual run of topic, but long time TIGHARS will know of Sir Harry Luke's involvement in the PISS, along with Bevington et al. What I didn;t know was that he had his own personal version of the Royal Yacht. http://www.nzmaritime.co.nz/viti.htm Might be an interesting read for those of us interested in the incidental history of Gardner Island. Cheers, Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:44:53 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Hubris His death also suggests that caution was not one of his virtues. Dan Postellon >From William Webster-Garman > >Mantz was very, very talented ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:45:37 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris Ric wrote: "...It did? What extremely difficult conditions could it record other than possibly an area of low pressure? Who examined the barograph? Is there a report? Does the barograph still exist? ............................She did? Who compared the barographs?" - Yes Ric; she did, and the rapid changes of altitude - recorded by a barograph - are the evidence of the weather problems she faced. It all is described in many Earhart books, including her pretty serious and scholar biographies. They all describes the extremely difficult conditions (thunderstorm, icing, equipment failures, and even the cracks in the wing strengthening structures found by mechanics after the landing - that confirms the exteme mechanical stress that Earhart's plane suffered in that flight). Sorry but are you going to say now that it all is a falcification of evil PR genius Putnam and "Earhart buffs"?... If yes - sorry but then i must say i consider it as extraordinary statement - that naturally requires extraordinary proofs. So - sorry Ric, but since now (if you really want to prove a point like this) it is "your burden" to find that barograph, and all other related weather data of the moment, and to prove - conclusively and with all facts and documents in hands - this extraordinary statement of you. Until it will be done - sorry, but i respectfully disagree with you position, and consider it as display of bias, prejudice and lack of objectivity. You can dislike my opinion (or just censor this message) but such it is - and i stay with it. Ric wrote: "...why would Paul Mantz have it in for her?..." - - because of, although considering himself as "her friend and paid technical advisor", he was in fact fired from the Earhart team - at uneasy and undoubtfully unpleasant circumstances, and because of the reasons that itself can be a topic of special "historic research". Ric wrote: "Harry Manning wisely jumped ship after the Luke Field debacle because he had lost faith in Earhart's ability and lost patience with Putnam's pushiness" - - That's how HE explained this. Meanwhile, when Jackie Cochran expressed some doubts in his abilities as aviation navigator and proposed to Earhart to "test" him, riding him as a passenger at night to some point and asking him then to find the way back home, - he couldn't. See the Doris Rich book for the details of the story. And, at least to me, this story "speaks volumes" about what and why Manning could claim about Earhart and Putnam after that. Ric wrote: "Major Al Williams publicly wrote that ="Amelia Earhart's "Flying Laboratory" is the latest and most distressing racket that has been given to a trusting and enthusiastic public. There's nothing in that "Flying Laboratory" beyond duplicates of the controls and apparatus to be found on board every major airline transport. And no one ever sat at the controls of her "Flying Laboratory" who knew enough about the technical side of aviation to obtain a job on a first-class airline" - - In a free country, Major Al Williams could publicly write whatever he wanted; however: 1) his points quoted above are totally irrevelant to the real skills of Earhart and Noonan as a pilot and navigator, and 2) since (at least accordingly to the info available to me) he never flew with Earhart himself, his opinion - IMHO - is having a zero weight, in comparison with the ones who did (fly with AE) - and commented their experience in entirely different tone. Ric wrote: " As I said before, performance is the true measure of any pilot" - - Completely agree. Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:18:59 From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: Flight simulator Re; the flight simulator thread ; I have suggested before that TIGHAR get involved with producing a high quality Electra for the flight sim addon market. There needs to be the passion that TIGHAR has demonstrated in the past for other Earhart projects toward a simulator Electra 10. Microsoft did a good job on her Vega that came with their FS9 / FS2004 Simulator deluxe version. The Mid-Atlantic Air Museum has several flight sim addon aircraft that they sell to support the museum but mainly for the FS-9 / FS2004 Microsoft Simulator. http://www.maam.org/flightsim/news/tbm_pr_2.htm TIGHAR should concentrate on Earhart's Electra 10 right down to modeling the fuel system and tanks. TIGHAR could retain the copyright and push the price to $100 per copy or parallel the MAAM pricing structure. TIGHAR can also do the scenery for NIKU and sell AKA "donationware" too. There is free ware scenery to make Lae to look as it did in 1937 and there is freeware scenery for Howland island. I have experimented a lot with the different scenarios and watched the sun come up in the windshield similar to what they saw that morning. "Active Sky" is one of the addon weather simulators that can be purchased to use for experimentation en route if so inclined. The ultimate end result for the effort is to preserve Earhart's Electra for the computer simulation world. One note of caution. Microsoft has two widely used flight simulators at the moment. FS9 / FS2004 and FS10 / FSX. There are different design considerations for aircraft addon models. Some aircraft will not work in both simulators. Who knows what FS 11 will bring. It's my belief that FS9 / FS2004 is probably more widely used at the moment. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:50:40 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Sir Harry Luke >From Ross Devitt > >This is way off the usual run of topic, but long time TIGHARS will know >of Sir Harry Luke's involvement in the PISS, along with Bevington et al. >What I didn't know was that he had his own personal version of the Royal >Yacht. > >http://www.nzmaritime.co.nz/viti.htm > >Might be an interesting read for those of us interested in the >incidental history of Gardner Island. Fascinating! Thanks for the link. Very much appreciated! Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:52:34 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Hubris >From Dan Postellon > >[Mantz'] death also suggests that caution was not one of his virtues. You could say he earned a living taking risks. As with the strategy of going all-in on every hand in Hold 'em, "It works great until it doesn't. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:55:23 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: flight simulator >From Daryll Bolinger > >One note of caution. Microsoft has two widely used flight simulators >at the moment. FS9 / FS2004 and FS10 / FSX. There are different >design considerations for aircraft add on models. Some aircraft will >not work in both simulators. Who knows what FS 11 will bring. It's >my belief that FS9 / FS2004 is probably more widely used at the >moment. Actually, there won't be an FS11, Microsoft has laid off the flight simulation team from what I hear. Whether they bring them back when the economy approves is anyone's guess right now. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:13:57 From: Matthew Harrison Subject: Re: Flight simulator It's obvious that several TIGHAR members have been thinking along similar lines about the possibilities of a Flight Simulator add-on. I found a comment from Ric laying out the "gaming" aspects he'd like to see: "Can you find Howland Island? Want to spy on the Japanese? You can load special cameras aboard but you'll have to leave some fuel behind. Can you go to Truk or the Marshalls and still be within a hundred miles of Howland by 07:42 the next morning? Can't find Howland? What's your best chance for finding land before your fuel runs out?" That's from 1998! Rather illustrates the subversive aspect of Ric's thinking, don't you think? It seems like there are various goals we have in mind when discussing the possibility of such an add-on. It may be possible to use the add- on to do research, to market TIGHAR, to build some kind of revenue stream, to simply enjoy a high quality recreation of the Lae flight and others, and/or to document TIGHAR's theories in an unusual and highly interactive way. Most of these goals support one another, and not all need be available in the first release. Glad to read that a working group is being formed. I can't wait to see the new Electra illustrations! LTM, who always thought a virtual Electra was better than none at all. ******************************** The folio of Electra drawings is *at the printer*!!!! After THREE years!!!! YAY! Pat ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:14:47 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Hubris Dan Postellon wrote >His death also suggests that caution was not one of his virtues. >Dan Postellon >>From William Webster-Garman >> >>Mantz was very, very talented Yes, indeed, as you may be hinting Dan, talent and caution are not always linked and moreover, behaviour can change. Mantz was clearly thoughtful about risks earlier in his career (even if he was lucky too). I still wonder if booze truly had anything to do with his death, seems to me he must have known scraping a skid on the ground could have been lethal. On the other hand, it only takes one careless screwup in a lifetime... LTM, who warned her kids about Hollywood ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:15:19 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Flight simulator Daryll, truly has been a long time advocate of using a Flight simulation model. the only thing I would caution about is everything must be done in-house or contracted for. We cannot use freeware for commercial purposes. The other issue is that we don't know if or when there will be another Microsoft Flight Simulator. Microsoft shut down that project and laid off all the ACES folks. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:15:36 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Hubris Hi all.. If you guys are interested, You tube has a film of Mantz's death on the set of Flight of the Phoenix. I don't have the link off-hand, but have seen it.. They have many aircraft short films, including Jimmy Stewart. LTM who says "It's somethin' to see. Wow " ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:56:18 From: Jeff Lange Subject: Re: Hubris Here is the link to the Paul Mantz crash video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82nN_lqn58 LTM (who stayed away from crashes) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:56:48 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Hubris If you watch the video, you can see that he did not drag a skid. He touched a bit sharply on the last pass, and the "plane" had a structural failure in the tail boom. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:57:43 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Three questions I've got my three questions: 1. Was she really unfaithful to Putnam? (None of TIGHAR's business, really, but that's what people will ask after the movie, I surmise.) 2. What went wrong on the fatal flight? 3. Where did Amelia die? Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:46:57 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Hubris Reed Riddle said: "If you watch the video, you can see that he did not drag a skid. He touched a bit sharply on the last pass, and the "plane" had a structural failure in the tail boom." I probably shouldn't be so picky, but it appears the exact sequence could be: Mantz had a hard landing which caused " . . . a structural failure in the tail boom . . ," which separated from the fuselage. This led to a nose-heavy condition that, coupled with high speed, caused the nose to tuck under and induce a forward tumble. It wasn't the structural failure that killed him, it was the speed and subsequent impact. Picky, picky picky. I know. LTM, whose impact is historic Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:47:56 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Harry Luke For Th' Wombat We know RCS Viti very well; it was she that took Gallagher around on his mission deploying coastwatchers, and then brought him and Macpherson to Niku where Gallagher died. Rather tersely described, without reference to GBG, on the site you referenced. On her next trip to Niku Sir Harry himself was aboard, and describes the visit in his "From a South Seas Diary." Certainly more of a ship than any HiCom before him had commanded. It'd be nice to know what ever happened to her; she's surely not still bumping around SE Asia. LTM (who like sir Harry always travels in style) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:48:56 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: flight simulator Alan Caldwell wrote >We cannot use freeware for commercial purposes. Open source software under CC, GPL and/or BSD licences can be used for commercial purposes and can be of the highest quality. Some folks would be amazed to learn how many of their banking and web transactions are handled by secure machines running open source software. As for a commercial AE flight simulator, one could (maybe should) build a scenario for the commercial Microsoft package, which has by far the most widely installed base at this time. However, only to let forum readers know and nothing more, open source architectures likehttp://www.flightgear.org/ may at least bear looking into. It's GPL'd (the most restrictive, the license I like least), but one can do as one pleases to the code and sell it at any price, so long as the source code is made freely available (this can be separate availability). This doesn't mean "giving away the store," a big chunk of the money being made in IT these days is from open source, most customers and clients don't develop and compile their own source code. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:24:21 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: flight simulator You may have a problem using Flight Simulator: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:24:57 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: hubris Dennis O. McGee wrote: could be: Mantz had a hard landing which caused " . . . a structural failure in the tail boom . . ," Mantz wasn't trying to land, instead, he was making a last pass (second take, as I recall) to set up a climb from very near the ground for the cameras, which through later editing was to be made to look like a take off. He swooped in so very low to the ground, one of the skids scraped a bump sticking up from the desert floor, the aircraft nosed over and because it was so structurally weak, the fuselage broke from the G stresses, which wound up shoving the nose even harder into the ground, then crushing it with Mantz inside. By the way, there were tires hidden in the skids, for landing on a paved runway, the thing wasn't in the least designed for those skids to ever touch the ground, which is what killed him. They wound up using the first take and also cut a scene from the end of the movie. LTM, who tries sticking to Boeing, such as they are these days. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:36:28 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Flight simulator Come to think of it, a wholly stand alone, purpose-built Amelia sim package could be built onhttp://www.flightgear.org/, then sold on as such. LTM, who thinks worries can be made into strengths. >From Dan Postellon >You may have a problem using Flight Simulator: >< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:20 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Hubris The point is that Amelia also made her living taking risks. The justification for those risks is personal. >From Marty Moleski > >From Dan Postellon > >>[Mantz'] death also suggests that caution was not one of his virtues. > >You could say he earned a living taking risks. > >As with the strategy of going all-in on every hand in Hold 'em, "It >works great until it doesn't. > >Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:50:58 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Marcus Lind writes, >Ric wrote: "...It did? What extremely difficult conditions could it >record other than possibly an area of low pressure? Who examined the >barograph? Is there a report? Does the barograph still >exist? ............................She did? Who compared the >barographs?" - > >Yes Ric; she did, and the rapid changes of altitude - recorded by a >barograph - are the evidence of the weather problems she faced. > >It all is described in many Earhart books, including her pretty >serious and scholar biographies. They all describes the extremely >difficult conditions (thunderstorm, icing, equipment failures, and >even the cracks in the wing strengthening structures found by >mechanics after the landing - that confirms the exteme mechanical >stress that Earhart's plane suffered in that flight). >Sorry but are you going to say now that it all is a falcification >of evil PR genius Putnam and "Earhart buffs"? Marcus, I take it that you can't answer my questions. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Earhart's account of the conditions she experienced and the actions she took are accurate. I'm just asking for some kind of verification beyond her own word. The barograph might well provide such verification but I've never seen any kind of independent report to that effect. I'm willing to accept a secondary source, such as a biography, if the source of the facts presented are cited and credible. I'm not aware of any book that provides a source for statements about the solo Atlantic flight other than Earhart's own words. >If yes - sorry but then i must say i consider it as extraordinary >statement - that naturally requires extraordinary proofs. There is nothing extraordinary about asking for independent verification. That's what the barograph was for. I'm simply asking whether anybody actually compared the barograph to Earhart's story. The flight was historic. The barograph should still exist. >So - sorry Ric, but since now (if you really want to prove a point >like this) it is "your burden" to find that barograph, and all >other related weather data of the moment, and to prove - >conclusively and with all facts and documents in hands - this >extraordinary statement of you. I agree that to prove that Earhart was lying I would need to find hard documentary evidence that contradicts her story, just as I did with regard to her tale about why she landed at the wrong airport at the end of her South Atlantic crossing. It would be fun to try but other projects have a higher priority right now. >Until it will be done - sorry, but i respectfully disagree with you >position, and consider it as display of bias, prejudice and lack of >objectivity. Why would I have a prejudice against Amelia Earhart? Before we started this project 20 years ago I never gave two hoots one way or the other about Amelia Earhart. In the course of our investigations I've become aware of documented facts that make it clear to me that the realities of Earhart's career were quite different from the legends that grew up around her both during her life and afterward. You're willing to take Earhart at her word. I'm not. The standards I, and other TIGHAR researchers, apply to Earhart's statements are no different than those we apply to any source of information. >You can dislike my opinion (or just censor this message) but such it >is - and i stay with it. I don't dislike your opinion and I wouldn't dream of censoring your message. I appreciate the opportunity to articulate the difference between the way each of us form our opinions about what is true. >Ric wrote: "...why would Paul Mantz have it in for her?..." - > >- because of, although considering himself as "her friend and paid >technical advisor", he was in fact fired from the Earhart team - at >uneasy and undoubtfully unpleasant circumstances, and because of the >reasons that itself can be a topic of special "historic research". As far as I know, Mantz was never fired as Earhart's technical advisor. He was out of town (at an aerobatic competition in Cleveland as I recall) when the Electra came out of repair on May 19. Earhart and Putnam decided to begin the second world flight attempt the next day with a "sneak takeoff" (Putnam's words) telling the press that the flight to Miami was just a shakedown flight. Mantz learned that the second world flight attempt had begun when he read it in the newspapers after Earhart and Noonan left Miami on June 1. Mantz wasn't fired. They just went behind his back, probably because they knew he would object to starting out so soon after a major rebuild. When Earhart disappeared Mantz worked closely with Putnam to help the Coast Guard and Navy try to find her. I'm aware of no evidence of hard feelings. >Ric wrote: "Harry Manning wisely jumped ship after the Luke Field >debacle because he had lost faith in Earhart's ability and lost >patience with Putnam's pushiness" - > >- That's how HE explained this. Meanwhile, when Jackie Cochran >expressed some doubts in his abilities as aviation navigator and >proposed to Earhart to "test" him, riding him as a passenger at >night to some point and asking him then to find the way back home, - >he couldn't. See the Doris Rich book for the details of the story. >And, at least to me, this story "speaks volumes" about what and why >Manning could claim about Earhart and Putnam after that. Mantz (not Earhart) found Manning to be inept at celestial navigation from an airplane. That's why Noonan was brought on board at the last minute. Manning was still valuable for his radio skills. That's why he remained on the crew for the Hawaii flight. Mantz came along because he didn't trust Earhart to be able to handle the heavy takeoff from Oakland. He was obviously right, as Earhart demonstrated on the attempted takeoff from Luke Field. >Ric wrote: "Major Al Williams publicly wrote that Amelia >Earhart's 'Flying Laboratory' is the latest and most distressing >racket that has been given to a trusting and enthusiastic public. >There's nothing in that 'Flying Laboratory' beyond duplicates of the >controls and apparatus to be found on board every major airline >transport. And no one ever sat at the controls of her 'Flying >Laboratory' who knew enough about the technical side of aviation to >obtain a job on a first-class airline" - > >- In a free country, Major Al Williams could publicly write whatever >he wanted; however: 1) his points quoted above are totally >irrevelant to the real skills of Earhart and Noonan as a pilot and >navigator, and 2) since (at least accordingly to the info available >to me) he never flew with Earhart himself, his opinion - IMHO - is >having a zero weight, in comparison with the ones who did (fly with >AE) - and commented their experience in entirely different tone. So anyone who praised her ability is credible and anyone who trashed her (even if they flew with her) isn't. >Ric wrote: " As I said before, performance is the true measure of >any pilot" - > >- Completely agree. Let's leave it at that. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:05:46 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris Ric wrote: "Marcus, I take it that you can't answer my questions. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Earhart's account of the conditions she experienced and the actions she took are accurate. I'm just asking for some kind of verification beyond her own word......[.....]..... I'm willing to accept a secondary source, such as a biography, if the source of the facts presented are cited and credible...etc. " - - Ric, sorry but it seems you can't see my actual point. My point was that the extreme weather conditions faced by Earhart are confirmed by: 1) her own words - and yes, i think it is enough respectful source - at least until it is proven that she was lying (why after all i must apply to a pilot who proved her skills and bravery by Doint The Thing a higher standards of suspicion more strict then to criminals at court???...) 2) the facts of malfuntions of the parts and equipment of the plane - evident after landing and verified after landing by mechanics and press (and if you think it is a "mass falcification" - then sorry, but please prove it; i personally don't believe to such "mass falcifications" (just like i don't believe in "Americans never were on the Moon", etc. - all those conspirative absurd)..) 3) and, i am pretty sure that if the facts of bad weather in the area of the Atlantic crossed by Earhart were just "her falcification", it would be inevitably noted and debunked, not even during the following 77 years but pretty quickly. The weather observations in those years were not like today, of course, but still not THAT bad to miss a serious thunderstorm (after all the thunderstorms had their own traces and were noted after reaching some points of observation; a lot of ships regularly crossed the Atlantic... etc. etc. etc. ) So I am pretty sure if the thunderstorms were just "Earhart's fabrication", it would inevitably "float up" and would be debunked since long ago. Thus, it is my opinion that the "cumulative power of reasonable evidence" conclusively proves in this case that Earhart was correct about what she faced in that flight. [Of course, i don't pretend you to share my opinion.] Ric wrote: "As far as I know, Mantz was never fired as Earhart's technical advisor. He was out of town (at an aerobatic competition in Cleveland as I recall) when the Electra came out of repair on May 19. Earhart and Putnam decided to begin the second world flight attempt the next day with a "sneak takeoff" (Putnam's words) telling the press that the flight to Miami was just a shakedown flight. Mantz learned that the second world flight attempt had begun when he read it in the newspapers after Earhart and Noonan left Miami on June 1. Mantz wasn't fired. They just went behind his back, probably because they knew he would object to starting out so soon after a major rebuild " - - That's what i meant under the "uneasy and apparently unpleasant circumstances"; and, it is just my personal opinion that such circumstances certainly should cause in Mantz - undoubtfully a professional, and the one valuing and estimating himself enough high - a "hard feelings". Plus to that (just repeating - sorry): during that Hawaii groundloop, Mantz WASN'T in the cockpit; so his opinion cannot be a "verdict" of any sort, and can be - in the best case - considered as "educated guess of a professional", but nothing more. And, i can't see any rational reason to accept every word of Mantz (just for example! - or, anybody else) as a Holy Truth Stright From Holy God - but simultaneously consider Earhart as a "liar apriori" and question every word and statement of her... That's exactly what i meant under "double standard", "bias" and "prejudice"... Ric wrote: "Mantz (not Earhart) found Manning to be inept at celestial navigation from an airplane. That's why Noonan was brought on board at the last minute" - - Please see the Doris Rich's book for the details of the story (sorry for not referring to ecxact page - i'm not home and don't have the book near me ). Ric wrote: "Manning was still valuable for his radio skills. That's why he remained on the crew for the Hawaii flight. Mantz came along because he didn't trust Earhart to be able to handle the heavy takeoff from Oakland. " - - Sorry, what is independent source proving this statement? Just Mantz's words? Sorry but why, if so - with all my respect to Mantz and his professionalism - must take every word of him as holy truth, not believeing in any word of Earhart? "Double standard" again? Accordingly to the books, Mantz came aboard to met his fiancee on Hawaii - to where he wanted to arrive ASAP; so to fly with Earhart was, reasonably, a good way to achieve this. Ric wrote: "He was obviously right, as Earhart demonstrated on the attempted takeoff from Luke Field" - - Respectfully but certainly disagree. The actual reason of the Luke Field groundloop was never conclusively established, so to claim that it was Earhart's "lack of skills" or so can be nothing more then opinion. Meanwhile other ones exists, and apparently quite reasonable ones. Just for example, there can be different opinions about the Roessler and Gomez book "AE-Case Closed," but some info presented there is pretty curious. Enroute to Hawaii one of the Electra's propellors became stuck in the wrong pitch; Mantz noted this, and had the propellor pitch mechanisms checked by mechanics on Hawaii. The one stuck in the wrong pitch was totally dry of lubricant, and the metal partly damaged. Here is where Mantz should have stop the flight - until the new pitch propellor mechanism could be supplied by Lockheed. Instead, they hand sanded the badly galled pitch mechanism and re-lubricated it. Then, upon takeoff, the propellor again went into the wrong pitch. A Mechanic at the Hawaiian Depot, George H. Miller, said that one propellor seemed to be running faster than the other, causing the Electra to vere to one side. AE tried her best, but in the overloaded Electra was not able to pull it off, and the plane ground-looped. Photos taken right after the Electra lay wounded, show that indeed one propellor was in the wrond pitch - that is seen on photos in the book. To me, this explanation sounds rational and certainly not worse then any other speculative one; and if so, the cause of the groundloop was in fact not AE but Mantz - who, as a "technical advisor", should know and care better. And who knows, wasn't this explanation - if correct - influence, a bit later, the controversial and "unkind" decision of Earhart and Putnam not rely any more on Mantz's advice?... [ Just a speculation? yes, certainly. But, to me, not worse one then many other ones expressed on the Forum... ] Ric wrote: "Harry Manning wisely jumped ship after the Luke Field debacle because he had lost faith in Earhart's ability and lost patience with Putnam's pushiness" - Again, that's how HE explained this. So, again - believeing every word of Earhart critics, and rejecting apriori any alternate explanation?... To me, personally, it still seems obvious that Manning's professional pride should be inevitably harmed by that "test" (prompted by Cochran and done by Earhart); and tyhat should inevitably influence his attitude to "Earhart team", and his statements. Ric wrote (about Major Al Williams' statements and my estimation of them): "So anyone who praised her ability is credible and anyone who trashed her (even if they flew with her) isn't" - - No, of course not; sorry but you apparently missed my point. Williams DIDN'T fly with Earhart, while many others (Wiley Post... Jackie Cocran... Leigh Wade... Paul Collins... Clarence Johnson...) DID - and that's why i consider their opinions as much more credible and authoritative. Ric wrote: " As I said before, performance is the true measure of any pilot" - Completely agree. Let's leave it at that" - - Glad that we can agree at least on something in this topic :) LTM - best regards, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:06:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Hubris Obviously we see different things. I don't see a high speed pass. I see either a landing or touch and go. The attitude of the aircraft is slightly nose up indicating a slower airspeed. You guys don't know what a hard landing is. The touchdown was solid, no doubt, but hardly a hard landing. It WAS , however, hard enough for structural failure of the fuselage. I don't see that Mantz did anything that wrong. The vehicle should have been able to make it through that. You will also note there wasn't the instantaneous reflexed acceleration at the initial touchdown. More indication it was probably a landing than even a touch and go. I've served on safety boards and viewed countless aircraft accidents. Most of our accidents were hard land events as short field landings was our main job. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:59:37 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Marcus Lind writes, >The actual reason of the Luke Field groundloop was never >conclusively established, so to claim that it was Earhart's "lack of >skills" or so can be nothing more then opinion. Meanwhile other ones >exists, and apparently quite reasonable ones. > >Just for example, there can be different opinions about the >Roessler and Gomez book "AE-Case Closed," but some info presented >there is pretty curious. Enroute to Hawaii one of the Electra's >propellors became stuck in the wrong pitch; Mantz noted this, and >had the >propellor pitch mechanisms checked by mechanics on Hawaii. The one >stuck in the wrong pitch was totally dry of lubricant, and the metal >partly damaged. The incident is described in detail in Finding Amelia (pages 20-21). The complete U.S. Army accident report is on the TIGHAR website athttp://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldReport.htm >Here is where Mantz should have stop the flight - until the new >pitch propellor mechanism could be supplied by Lockheed. Instead, >they hand sanded the badly galled pitch mechanism and re-lubricated >it. Both hubs were overhauled at the U.S. Army Hawaiian Air Depot, a major maintenance facility. The hubs were transported back to Wheeler Army airfield and installed on the Electra. Mantz test flew the aircraft and found the props worked perfectly. >Then, upon takeoff, the propellor again went into the wrong >pitch. A Mechanic at the Hawaiian Depot, George H. Miller, said that >one propellor seemed to be running faster than the other, causing >the Electra to vere to one side. Miller actually wrote, "It seemed to me that the left engine was turning over a little faster than the right engine and the ship was taking its course slightly toward the right of the field where I was standing. At about one hundred yards away from me the right engine seemed to take a quick hold and the ship at once changed its course from the right to a sharp left -- about a quarter circle. At this point the right wing seemed to settle toward the ground and the left wing upwards. The left wheel had left the ground and remained in that position for about fifty or sixty feet before the right running gear gave way and let the ship come down on its under-carriage. The tire gave way just as the ship settled down on its right side." This sounds to me like "jockeying the throttles." Not a propeller malfunction. >AE tried her best, but in the overloaded Electra was not able to >pull it off, and the plane ground-looped. Photos taken right after >the Electra lay wounded, show that indeed one propellor was in the >wrond pitch - that is seen on photos in the book. I have the book and, for the life of me, I have never been able to see what Roessler and Gomez are talking about. The caption on Fig. 3-4 (page 89) says "Note that the RIGHT propeller is clearly shown in the high pitch, low RPM position." But the photo doesn't show that. The right prop is clearly in the low pitch, high RPM position just like the left prop and just like they both should be. The prop tips on both sides are curled forward, indicating that both engines were pulling power when the hit the pavement. Ric wrote (about Major Al Williams' statements and my estimation of them): "So anyone who praised her ability is credible and anyone who trashed her (even if they flew with her) isn't" - >- No, of course not; sorry but you apparently missed my point. >Williams DIDN'T fly with Earhart, while many others (Wiley Post... >Jackie Cocran... Leigh Wade... Paul Collins... Clarence Johnson...) >DID - and that's why i consider their opinions as much more credible >and authoritative. When did Wiley Post ever fly with Earhart? Or Jackie Cochran for that matter? Maybe they did but I've never seen mention of it. You dismiss Elinor Smith, Paul Mantz, and Harry Manning all of whom did fly with her. Ric wrote: " As I said before, performance is the true measure of any pilot" - Completely agree. Let's leave it at that" - >- Glad that we can agree at least on something in this topic :) Agreed. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:17:49 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Hubris Alan Caldwell wrote: >Obviously we see different things ...I see either a landing or touch >and go. Alan, in looking over some sources on this, there seem to be sundry takes as to whether he was trying to get the shot by making a touch and go or a low pass. I do agree with you that he has the nose pulled up, as if he were setting up for a touch and go. LTM, who could tell you a thing or two about low passes, which can indeed be touch and go. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:33:05 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Hubris Ron Bright writes, >Newspapers are primary sources? How many times have you said >newspapers can get the story wrong? If that is true we should >believe AEs mother who said AE was n a secret mission!! Yes, contemporary newspapers are primary sources. That doesn't mean they are infallible. Primary sources can be dead wrong, but if we're wondering what Mantz thought happened to Earhart in 1937, his quoted statement in 1937 newspapers are more credible than what he told his biographer thirty years later. I'm not suggesting that Mantz lied to Dwiggins. He may have changed his mind by then. >You are probably refering to the LA times of 3 July when Mantz, >being quoted by Putnam, said he believed she landed on a coral atoll >"close to Howland Island". And he added that in the background of >the radio calls he heard what sounded like the" roar of an airplane >engine...Several islands in the Phoenix were "large enough" to allow >a plane to land". All double hearsay, Putnam quoting Mantz and of >course newspapers are hearsay. I'm referring to a couple different articles (not the LA Times article). In a New York Herald Tribune of 4 July Putnam quotes Mantz as saying that he believed "Miss Earhart landed on one of the Phoenix Islands, a group southeast of Howland." Mantz himself elaborated in an interview that appeared in the same paper the next day, 5 July. "They had more than 1,000 gallons of gasoline when they left Lae, New Guinea for Howland Island." Mantz said tonight. "Flying at 150 mile an hour, the fuel would last them twenty-four hours or about 3,500 miles. Amelia couldn't have been out of gas last Friday ....an island or even a strip of coral would have been worth taking a chance. I would have done that myself. So there they probably are, sitting and waiting and sending messages." Incidentally, in the same article Mantz said she had a "water distilling machine" that "guarantees they won't die of thirst." I had missed that. I wonder what kind of water distilling machine he could be talking about? >After he accessed all the facts, I take Mantz quoted statement to >Dwiggins that she went into the ocean as a "primary" source, not a >news account in 1937. His quoted comments in 1937 are a primary source and the fact that two separate interviews (one relating his comments via Putnam and one directly with Mantz) agree, give the story credibility. By the time Mantz talked to Dwiggins thirty years later he may have changed his mind. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:22:09 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Lost... lost Amid all the jousting I have gotten lost in radios and antennas. What antenna did Earhart receive on 7500? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:22:39 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Radio skills While folks are busy taking issue with each other I have a question about Earhart's poor radio skills. I recognize there was a lot of problems between the Electra, Itasca and Howland but exactly what relevant skills was Earhart missing? Yeah, I know she was not a whiz on Morse code but she had an off on switch, volume and tuning knob the use of which doesn't require a rocket scientist. She turns the radio on, tunes the frequency, adjusts gain, and talks then listens. One simply repeats as necessary. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:44:14 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Lost.... lost Alan Caldwell asks, >Amid all the jousting I have gotten lost in radios and antennas. >What antenna did Earhart receive on 7500? She didn't receive any antennas on 7500. (Phfffft) She did receive Itasca's morse code "A"s (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah, ...). Because her intent was to take a bearing, it seems safe to assume that she was using the loop. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:24:23 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio skills From Ric >...exactly what relevant skills was Earhart missing? Yeah, I know >she was not a whiz on Morse code but she had an off on switch, >volume and tuning knob the use of which doesn't require a rocket >scientist. She turns the radio on, tunes the frequency, adjusts >gain, and talks then listens. One simply repeats as necessary. I guess only being able to "recognise an individual letter sent several times" (per Chater) qualifies as not being a whiz at Morse code. Earhart seems to have had no grasp at all of frequency limitations. She told Itasca that her direction finder had an upper limit of 1500 kcs and then she turned around and asked them to send signals on 7500. Itasca told her that their own DF was only good up to 500 kcs but she blithely asked them to take bearings on her signal at 3500 kcs. Her announced plan to find Howland depended on her RDF but I can find no indication that she ever got the thing to work. Her negligence seems almost suicidal. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:29:06 From: Chuck Buzbee Subject: Re: Hubris For Alan Caldwell Alan, when I viewed the video, I noticed a short blurb in the top right hand corner. If you click on this, a lengthy account of the crash appears. It may even be correct. Chuck Buzbee ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:54:42 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Hubris Thanks, but I'll stick with the video. Alan >Alan, when I viewed the video, I noticed a short blurb in the top >right hand corner. If you click on this, a lengthy account of the >crash appears. It may even be correct. > >Chuck Buzbee ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:39:35 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills Can we safely assume the direction finder function worked allright? I mean, it did on earlier, stateside flights: her own accounts state so. So it is the attempt to do this on shortwave frequency that failed. I wonder who hyped her on the wonderfulness of HF direction finding. She seems to have bought the whole story. I wonder if the radio fellow at Lae thought it strange that she wanted to test direction finding on the higher of the voice channels. Perhaps Lae had no low or medium band transmit capability, so he went along with that attempt. I was unable to find specifics on any Lae station in the Berne List books i have. Certainly it would have been a simple matter to get a solid bearing on the Itasca transmitting somewhere in 400 - 500 kHz band. That would have saved them. As for radio skills - even after the landing, it wouldn't have taken much, IF the telegraph key was still onboard, so they could control the transmitter. Perhaps one of her books or charts on board had the Morse code character list. If not, everyone remembers "SOS". Transmitting telegraph rather than voice would have been several times more effective than voice communication. Any Boy Scout with a telegraph key and a Morse character list could do this. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:39:59 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Lost... lost >From Alan Caldwell > >Amid all the jousting I have gotten lost in radios and antennas. What >antenna did Earhart receive on 7500? She was trying to use the Itasca's signal for direction finding, so presumably she had switched to the loop antenna. It was the only signal from the Itasca that she reported receiving. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:40:37 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills Alan Caldwell wrote: >While folks are busy taking issue with each other I have a question >about Earhart's poor radio skills. I recognize there was a lot of >problems between the Electra, Itasca and Howland but exactly what >relevant skills was Earhart missing? Yeah, I know she was not a whiz on >Morse code but she had an off on switch, volume and tuning knob the use >of which doesn't require a rocket scientist. She turns the radio on, >tunes the frequency, adjusts gain, and talks then listens. One simply >repeats as necessary. She seems not to have understood the principles of radio direction finding. She seems to have made bad decisions about the equipment to carry. She seems not to have used the information at her disposal to solve the communication problem. Longer version here. It's just being drafted (by me) and hasn't been checked by the experts: http://tighar.org/wiki/What_went_wrong%3F I'm done with it for today. :o) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:41:05 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills I noticed that in the takeoff film, the loop antenna is visible momentarily around second 00:18. I wonder if it would be worthwhile, or do-able, to scale the size of this loop and positively determine whether it is an MN-5 or the later "special" Bendix coupler device. BTW, kind of a sidetrack, and who knows if worth mentioning, but i was reading a magazine about a 1961 visit to Pitcairn Island, and the visitor remarked at the width of the natives' feet, which size he attributed to their constantly going barefoot. Perhaps a sidenote to the size of any shoe relics found on Niku. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:41:40 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills Ric wrote: >... Itasca >told her that their own DF was only good up to 500 kcs but she >blithely asked them to take bearings on her signal at 3500 kcs. There is a piece missing here and I haven't tried to track it down yet on the Forum. Whose idea was it to get the Army HF DF equipment? When was that decision made? What did AE know about the capacity of that equipment? If she knew about the HF DF stuff, was her request to use 3105 all that idiotic? (I'm not disagreeing with anything else you said. Just wondering about the Army piece of the puzzle.) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:02 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills I have a rather beat example of the "Bendix loop coupler" on hand here. Perhaps when weather improves, i could shot some photos of it at various distances, turned as much as possible to the same rotation angle as that in the period photos, and forward them to TIGHAR central? As i said, the coupler thing will not play with just any other off the shelf loop. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:43:59 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Hubris Ric wrote: "Miller actually wrote, "It seemed to me that the left engine was turning over a little faster than the right engine and the ship was taking its course slightly toward the right of the field where I was standing. At about one hundred yards away from me the right engine seemed to take a quick hold and the ship at once changed its course from the right to a sharp left -- about a quarter circle. At this point the right wing seemed to settle toward the ground and the left wing upwards. The left wheel had left the ground and remained in that position for about fifty or sixty feet before the right running gear gave way and let the ship come down on its under-carriage. The tire gave way just as the ship settled down on its right side." - This sounds to me like "jockeying the throttles." Not a propeller malfunction." - - Sorry but i have somewhat different impression. For me the key phrase seems the starting one - "It seemed to me that the left engine was turning over a little faster than the right engine and the ship was taking its course slightly toward the right of the field where I was standing" - and it sounds to me like a propeller malfunction as a primary reason that started the problem and caused the accident. Anyway, thank you for your comments and link. Ric wrote: "When did Wiley Post ever fly with Earhart? Or Jackie Cochran for that matter? Maybe they did but I've never seen mention of it. You dismiss Elinor Smith, Paul Mantz, and Harry Manning all of whom did fly with her" - About Cochran, please see her book "Stars at Noon", from 1954 i believe; her flying with Earhart is described there by herself; please see the chapter "Amelia". About Post, can't refer right now to exact time and occasion - can only remember that i saw such statement somewhen in literature or article (can provide the exact reference when will find it again). About others, please see AE's bios: particularly, the comments of Leigh Wade can be found in the Doris Rich book - page 85. Ric wrote: "You dismiss Elinor Smith, Paul Mantz, and Harry Manning all of whom did fly with her" - - Yes i do, and for pretty serious reasons ( presented not once already). The repetitive comments of Elinor Smith on Earhart, for years, were so much obviously filled with jealousy that it seems just impossible to accept them without skepticism. In some cases, she tried to spread in aviation community the denigrating stories about Earhart that were simply plain untrue (and i have proofs of that). Mantz was undoubtedly a high-class professional; however he was NOT in cockpit with Earhart in the moment of groundloop, so his opinion about Earhart's "guilt" is, in the best case, an "educated guess". Plus to this... after all, wasn't Mantz himself been killed in accident (alas)? Using the logics of the ones who repeatedly "bashes" Earhart for that groundloop, it would be fair to expect them "judging" the same way about Mantz (or even in a more definite way - as at least Earhart's groundloop didn't kill anybody). Still, however, the professionalism of Mantz remains, almost universally, beyound the doubt - while Earhart is regularly bashed, even although her actual guilt remains just a version. [ This all is not to denigrate or trash Mantz - who, IMHO, certainly WAS a proven top-class professional anyway... just to illustrate how the unfair and unreasonable "double standards" works] About Manning, he was a professional seaman - captain and navigator - but not a professional pilot to judge competently about such things. Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:44:20 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Radio skills Alan Caldwell wrote: " ...exactly what relevent skills was Earhart missing? Yeah, I know she was not a whiz on Morse code but she had an off on switch, volume and tuning knob the use of which doesn't require a rocket scientist. She turns the radio on, tunes the frequency, adjusts gain, and talks then listens. One simply repeats as necessary." - - Alan, i tend to share these points... and, i am still not convinced in correctness of this concept that "it wasn't FN job to find Howland, only get close". Certainly, if he got close his job would be easier with the DF radio stuff. But i don't think i ever seen, in many years of reading from all kinds of available sources, a certain reference that Noonans mission - as it was actually planned during the preparations for the flight - was "only to get enough close for radio navigation" ; and no reference that it was somehows assumed that he couldn't find Howland without DF. If anybody is aware about such reference, from authentic contemporary source (not any our modern theoretizing and speculations), - i would be certainly interested to see it. Kind regards - LTM, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:14:09 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Hue Miller > >I wonder who hyped her on the wonderfulness of HF direction finding. Why was she so fixated on 7500 kHz? She asked for that from the Ontario en route. It is the only frequency she tried (apparently) while approaching Howland. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:14:29 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills Scratch my previous reply. AE was fixated on 7500 only with the Itasca. She asked the Ontario for a transmission on 400 kHz. As good as 500 kHz for the equipment she carried. I shoulda looked it up first ... Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:11:10 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio skills Marty Moleski asks, >Ric wrote: > >... Itasca >told her that their own DF was only good up to 500 kcs but she >blithely asked them to take bearings on her signal at 3500 kcs. Typo. My bad. Should be 7500, not 3500. >Whose idea was it to get the Army HF DF equipment? The HFDF was borrowed from the Navy by Richard Black. >When was that decision made? It's complicated. For the whole story see Finding Amelia page 51-2. In a nutshell: Shortly before the first world flight attempt, Harry Manning and Bureau of Air Commerce consultant Bill Miller had requested that a DF (not an HFDF) be set up on Howland "if practicable". At that time the aircraft had a trailing wire, reasonable capability of transmitting on 500 kcs, and a crew member (Manning) who was adept at Morse code. The request arrived after the Coast Guard cutter tasked with supporting the flight had already sailed, but Dept. of Interior's Richard Black who was in charge of the expedition knew about it and thought it was a good idea. While Itasca was in Hawaii preparing to depart for Howland in support of the second world flight attempt, Black was deeply concerned that there had been virtually no communication from Earhart about radio procedures to be used on her upcoming flight to Howland. Black also felt that Itasca's radiomen were too inexperienced and he suggested that they be replaced for this cruise with expert Navy operators. Commander Thompson had a fit and refused to consider the idea. Black decided to do an end-run around Thompson. He revived the idea of putting a DF on Howland but he also noted that in press reports Earhart had mentioned only her two higher frequencies, 3105 and 6210. He enlisted the help of Army Air Corps Lt. Dan Cooper who arranged for the loan of an experimental HFDF from the Navy. Knowing that Thompson wouldn't accept a Navy operator, Black tried to recruit a highly experienced Coast Guard operator from the crew of USCG Taney which was laid up for refit, but the guy he wanted was sick. The best Black could do was a Radioman 2nd Class by the name of Frank Ciprianni. Thompson still didn't like the idea but he went along with it. As he later wrote, Mr. Black and Lieutenant Cooper of the Army had the Navy send a high frequency direction finder on board. The Coast Guard did not request the equipment and did not receipt for it." This all happened on or about June 16 by which time Earhart was in Karachi. She was in touch with Putnam but neither she nor her husband were communicating with the Coast Guard about radio coordination. When there later was an attempt between Earhart, Putnam and the Coast Guard to establish radio procedures for the Lae/Howland flight, nobody on the Coast Guard end said anything about the HFDF. >What did AE know about the capacity of that equipment? Zip. She didn't even know it was there. >If she knew about the HF DF stuff, was her request to >use 3105 all that idiotic? Had she known about the HFDF her request to take bearings on her transmissions on 3105 should have been made to Howland, not Itasca. But the point is moot. - She asked Itasca to take bearings on her (which was never in her announced plan). Itasca had told her that their DF was good only up to 500 kcs but she asked them to take bearing on her transmissions on 3105 kcs, That's idiotic. - She told Itasca to transmit on 7500 kcs and tried to take a bearing on that signal with a direction finder that she herself had told them wouldn't work on frequencies higher than 1500 kcs. That's idiotic. - Having heard nothing using her belly antenna, she did hear a signal on 7500 after switching to the loop antenna, which should have told her that she had an antenna problem, not a receiver problem. But she switched back to the bad antenna instead of trying to establish voice communication using the loop. That's idiotic. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:14:36 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Wanted: Paddy MacDonald's letters and diaries I'm working on the Ameliapedia articles for Bones II (2003). After reading and revising my notes for a few days, I've had a big DOH! experience. What we found out (and what TIGHAR may already have known) was that Paddy MacDonald was **there** from beginning to end of the bones story. He carried the bones to Hoodless in 1941. He was there when the WPHC holdings were divided between Tarawa and Honiara in the 1950s. He was the Colonial Secretary and acting Archivist when the files were packed and shipped to Hanslope Park and Tarawa in the 1970s. If there was one person who knew what happened to the stuff collected on Gardner, it was almost certainly he. I personally have done precisely nothing to follow up on the question of how to get in touch with the MacDonalds. My bad. :o( Genealogists, can you help? Maybe a death record for him in Britain? Heirs? If anyone has access to the Civil Lists for Fiji, that might help pin down more information about him. Patrick D. MacDonald * Nicknamed "Paddy." * Rose from Assistant Secretary in 1941 to Colonial Secretary--a very prestigious and important position. ** The Colonial Secretary was virtually a dictator. The Governor was a ceremonial figure and might set policy, but the Colonial Secretary was the CEO. He had three telephones on his desk, gave orders, and approved spending. He was "pretty damn good." (([[Ron Gatty| RG]]) * Employed by WPHC from ~1941 to 1978. * Took the bones from the office to Hoodless at FSM in summer of 1941. * Colonial Secretary and in charge of boxing things up in 1978. Acting Archivist from the time that [[Burne]] retired (or quit) in 1976 until at least April 6, 1978. * Both files and office equipment were sent to London. Lists of files were drawn up and typed. They were then packed in small archive boxes-- no more than 5 files to a box. The small boxes were then stacked in a wooden packing crate. They fit perfectly, with no need of any kind of straw or other packing material. * Tofiga remembers Paddy as "fair, firm and meticulous." * Ron Gatty: "The Governor was a ceremonial figure and might set policy, but the Colonial Secretary was the CEO. He had three telephones on his desk, gave orders, and approved spending. Paddy was pretty damn good." * Daughter: Veronica ("Ronnie"). May have married someone named something like Gardner. She worked for BOAC and got reduced fare flights for her father. ([[Ron Gatty| RG]]) * May have had a part-interest in the Grand Pacific Hotel. [[Ron Gatty]] saw him there in a humble role--acting, perhaps, as the desk clerk. * Died in the late 1990s in Britain? * Almost certainly knew everything there was to know about the [[Bones found on Nikumaroro| bones found on Nikumaroro]]. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:15:48 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Three questions >From Ric > >>Tom Doran asks, >>>some way to get to Swank and Gere with the >> >>We have gotten to Swank. She's not interested. Swank and Gere are >>actors. They get paid to play a part. >>People who listen to actors' opinions about subjects other than acting >>get what they deserve. > >It's true that many actors are airheads, but that doesn't prevent the >media from asking them questions on serious subjects. > >>Do we have ideas on how to capitalize on the movie's opening? > >Many. > >>Anything that rank and file TIGHAR members could help with? >> >>A classified ad in Variety might help. > >Why Variety? It's an entertainment trade publication. I suggested Variety because much or most of the media attention is likely to come from the entertainment press, which follows Variety closely. Maybe someone would follow up to briefly ask, "What happened to AE? One group that says they know is TIGHAR...." I would not expect the hard news press to pay much attention to a movie or the questions it raises. Other papers might be as good or better prospect. The movie, from what I've read, ends a couple of years before the flight. It's mainly concerned with the relationship between AE and Putnam from about 1928 to 1934. It may be that someone in TIGHAR knows a writer who could be interested in the subject. Reporters are always looking for story ideas. There are also publications such as airline magazines and community newspapers which don't pay their writers but accept unsolicited submissions from anyone. It would also be useful to create one or more short (five to ten minute) videos to post on YouTube. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:16:51 From: Marty Moleski Subject: English Research: Government dispatches to Colonial Office A suggestion from Margaret Patel, who worked in the National Archives of Fiji: "Ask to see the Government dispatches to the Colonial Office." I didn't follow up on this suggestion in Fiji. I don't think I understood what she was saying. But it now makes sense. Ric and Kenton may already have covered this angle when they went to Hanslope Park ... Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:17:35 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio skills Hue, it wouldn't have mattered whether they knew one single Morse code letter. Just transmitting anything would have helped. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:25:41 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Ric > >It's complicated. For the whole story see Finding Amelia page 51-2. Thanks for the nutshell version! Re-reading FA is on my list of things, but not Any Day Now. :o) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:26:18 From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Radio skills 400 khz is 750 METERS - that has been suggested as a possible source of confusion. >From Marty Moleski > >Scratch my previous reply. > >AE was fixated on 7500 only with the Itasca. > >She asked the Ontario for a transmission on 400 kHz. > >As good as 500 kHz for the equipment she carried. > >I shoulda looked it up first ... > >Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:42:15 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Oscar Boswell > >400 khz is 750 METERS - that has been suggested as a possible source >of confusion. She put it in writing: At 0720GMT, June 26th, Earhart responded with ...Itasca transmit letter A, position, own call letters, as above on half hour at 7.5 MHz. Position ships and our leaving will determine broadcast times specifically. If frequencies mentioned unsuitable night work inform me at Lae. I will give long call by voice 3105 kHz quarter after hour, possible quarter to. This contradicts the June 25th telegram that position reports would be given "given at 15 and 45 minutes past the hour." Jacobson: "It is unclear why Earhart wants the Itasca to broadcast at 7500 kHz, since she is asking for code and cannot use that frequency for direction finding. The actual wording in the telegram is 7.5 megacycles."[6] She asked for it viva voce, tuned to 7500, heard the Itasca's transmission, and failed to get a minimum: # 1928GMT: "KHAQQ calling Itasca we are circling [?] but cannot hear you go ahead on 7500 with a long count either now or on the schedule time on 1/2 hour" # 1930GMT: "KHAQQ calling Itasca we received your signals but unable to get a minimum. Please take bearing on us and answer 3105 with voice." Another radioman reports this message as: "Amelia on again at 0800 [local time] says hears us on 7.5 megs go ahead on 7500 again." I doubt she knew enough about freuency and wavelengths to make the 400 kHz/750 m relationship. I doubt she drew the number out of a hat. Someone must have sold her on the idea that it was a good frequency for her to use. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:42:47 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Radio skills You know, this has always bothered me..... The only time Earhart seemed to ask for 7500 was with Itasca. Why would she do that just at that moment? Especially considering that on the flight itself she asked for a transmission from Ontario on a frequency that would work. It doesn't really make sense to switch like that at the last minute, even if someone had no idea what they were doing. Maybe we're missing something...context matters, and everyone here who flies is used to the radio procedures that are used post WW2. Everyone "thinks" of using the radio is a far different procedural manner; our biases towards that can affect our perspective. Before that, things were different, and it would have been a lot less formal where Earhart was (even without her lack of radio skills). Our knowledge of her communications basically comes from the Itasca log, so if they misinterpreted something then we of course also will. As for her not using the loop antenna to talk to Itasca...Earhart was not an experienced radio operator, I think we can all agree on that one. Odds are very likely that she was told at some point "use DF with the antenna switch in X position, switch to Y to talk". Once she lost the antenna, she lost the use of position Y, but that doesn't mean anyone ever explained to her that she could use position X for anything aside from DF. An experience operator would have known, but if she was just given "cookbook" instructions for operating the radio then she just might never have known that she could use any antenna. Do we know how she was trained? I think knowing that, and knowing how she used the radio during the flight, would tell us a lot more about what happened that morning. There are just a couple things that seem like she was doing things differently that morning, all of a sudden, and that makes no sense. I know FA takes a look at a lot of this, but maybe it would be a good idea to look at it again in terms of what her habits were, and what habits were broken on the last flight...people don't break habits without a good reason, and why they do it almost always tells you something about what happened. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:24:05 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio skills Reed Riddle writes, >The only time Earhart seemed to ask for 7500 was with Itasca. Why >would she do that just at that moment? Especially considering that >on the flight itself she asked for a transmission from Ontario on a >frequency that would work. It doesn't really make sense to switch >like that at the last minute, even if someone had no idea what they >were doing. > >Maybe we're missing something...context matters, Yes, it does. Earhart did not change her plan at the last minute. When she was in Bandoeng, Java she finally got around to sending a message to the Coast Guard about her desired radio procedures for the Lae/ Howland flight. As described on page 62 of Finding Amelia: Her instructions were very specific. For the flight from Lae to Howland she wanted Ontario, the navy ship positioned halfway along the route, to be ready to transmit on 400 kilocycles. When she got close, she would call the ship and it should then send the Morse code letter N (dash-dot) repeatedly for five minutes. At the end of each minute the ship should also send its call letters, NIDX, twice. By hearing the letter N and identifying the call letters Amelia could be sure that she was listening to Ontario. She would then, presumably, use her direction finder to home in on the ship and make sure she was on course or Howland. Her instructions for Itasca were somewhat different. Rather than wait for her to call, the cutter was to transmit the Morse code letter A (dot-dash), the ship's position, and its own call letters, NRUI, every hour on the half hour on a frequency of 7500 kilocycles. Position ships and our leaving will determine broadcast times specifically. If frequencies mentioned unsuitable night work inform me Lae." >Do we know how she was trained? I think knowing that, and knowing >how she used the radio during the flight, would tell us a lot more >about what happened that morning. I can find no mention of an instance during the world flight when she successfully established two-way radio communication with anyone - except for the test flight at Lae. Mantz later wrote of his frustration because she wasn't much interested in training. The way she handled the requirement that she get an instrument rating before attempting the world speaks volumes. See pages 16 and 17 of Finding Amelia. >I know FA takes a look at a lot of this, but maybe it would be a >good idea to look at it again in terms of what her habits were, and >what habits were broken on the last flight...people don't break >habits without a good reason, and why they do it almost always tells >you something about what happened. She didn't break her habits on the last flight. She stayed very much in character. The first world flight attempt was fairly well organized because some competent people, primarily William Miller at the Bureau of Air Commerce and Richard Southgate at the State Department, were doing the planning. But preparations for the second attempt were handled almost exclusively by Earhart and Putnam and were seriously botched. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:01:20 From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Radio skills Well - I was just suggesting that perhaps she didn't clearly understand the difference between 750 meters (which equals 400 kc - a standard direction finding frequency at the time) - and 7.5 Mhz (or 7500 kCycles - Hertz didn't come in for another 50 years). Even today, perhaps even on this forum, some people are vague about such things. 7.5 and 750 and 7500 sound like they should correlate closely, but they don't if meters are involved somewhere. I am not the first to point this out, and in fact it was discussed here years ago. (For the information of anyone who may be care, "meters" can be closely converted to kilocycles by dividing 300,000 [the approximate velocity of light in meters per second] by the figure given in meters. 300,000 divided by 750 = 400. Ham operators still (I think) speak of meter "bands" - the 15 meter band, for example being frequencies around 20,000 kHz (or 20 Mhz). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:07:51 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: radio skills Her instructions were very specific. For the flight from Lae to Howland she wanted Ontario, the navy ship positioned halfway along the route, to be ready to transmit on 400 kilocycles. When she got close, she would call the ship and it should then send the Morse code letter N (dash-dot) repeatedly for five minutes. At the end of each minute the ship should also send its call letters, NIDX, twice. By hearing the letter N and identifying the call letters Amelia could be sure that she was listening to Ontario. She would then, presumably, use her direction finder to home in on the ship and make sure she was on course for Howland. Did that happen? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:33:15 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Oscar Boswell > >Well - I was just suggesting that perhaps she didn't clearly understand >the difference between 750 meters (which equals 400 kc - a standard >direction finding frequency at the time) - and 7.5 Mhz (or 7500 >kCycles - Hertz didn't come in for another 50 years). We agree that it is very likely that she didn't understand the relationship. She tried 7500 once. She heard something. She couldn't get a minimum. She didn't ask for a transmission on another frequency. If she had tried to use 3105, she might have heard the Itasca talking to her. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:41:20 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio skills >Alan Caldwell asked, > >Her instructions were very specific. For the flight from Lae to >Howland she wanted Ontario, the navy ship positioned halfway along >the route, to be ready to transmit on 400 kilocycles. When she got >close, she would call the ship and it should then send the Morse >code letter N (dash-dot) repeatedly for five minutes. At the end of >each minute the ship should also send its call letters, >NIDX, twice. By hearing the letter N and identifying the call >letters Amelia could be sure that she was listening to Ontario. She >would then, presumably, use her direction finder to home in on the >ship and make sure she was on course for Howland. > >Did that happen? Nope. Ontario never heard nuthin. Not sure why. Nauru heard her. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:48:52 From: Ron Bright Subject: TIGHAR Tracks index I am wondering if Tighar has thought of a content index of the Tracks. I have copies from 1997 to Oct 2008, but it drives me nuts trying to go back and find an article that I know must be in there someplace. It would be invaluable for newcomers and oldtimers to look up conveniently a subject matter. A big job, but perhaps you could entice an intern to spend a few days compiling the content. The index could be updated annually. Example: TIGHAR TRACKS OCT 2008 "Smoking Gun" theory and hypthoses p. 1 Archaeological Update on broken glass, compact and cosmetic p. 2 Examination of 1401 bones at Seven Ci p.2 Testing of M-1 carbine shells found at fire site p.3 Possible material suitable for DNA testing p.3 The 3105 donut re transmitting range p.3 etc R. Bright *************************************** See http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/contents1_5.html and ff. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:35:22 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills >Nope. Ontario never heard nuthin. Not sure why. Nauru heard her. > >Ric I will foolishly tread forward here. Perhaps the phenomenon of "skip zone" was responsible: too far for good reception of ground wave, or direct wave, and not far enough away to receive her signal via skip propagation (sky wave.) I think i have seen old propagation charts which actually give distances for the skip zone, a dead zone of no reception, around the transmitting station. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:35:40 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills Oscar, i think that's a "possible" explanation but maybe more likely is that somehow she was hyped on the magical 7500 number. It has been a long time now, but we in the past in discussing this, were talking about the US Navy's (and others') experiments with shortwaves direction finding, and that somehow 7500 kHz seemed to be mentioned as a frequency to settle on, for this.... -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:36:07 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Marty Moleski > >She seems not to have understood the principles of radio direction >finding. Marty, dunno if i'd go quite that far. She did use it successfully back in the States, or at least saw it done successfully by someone in her plane. If it's working right, there's not that much to it - certainly easier than the navigator's work. However when she tried to use it at Lae and Howland, no luck- either the thing was technically unworkable at those frequencies, or she got flustered by how indistinct and wavering was the (normally very distinct) null point, and gave up. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:36:29 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills I doubt she drew the number out of a hat. Someone must have sold her on the idea that it was a good frequency for her to use. Marty That's what i was wondering. Possibly the 7500 figure first made it to her consciousness when the Bendix rep showed her the new Bendix loop coupler device, and maybe mentioned the US Navy's use. Why at the date of her trans Pacific flight this magic number reoccurred is a puzzle to me. If someone else hyped it to her, pitched it to her, that was almost criminal, but she wasn't the one to be experimenting with radio navigation on a dangerous flight. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:37:11 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Ric > >Nope. Ontario never heard nuthin. Not sure why. Nauru heard her. The message data base shows that on 19 June (Record No. 143) Itasca requested the Governor of Samoa to get information on the frequencies available on Ontario (and also Swan). On 20 June (Record No. 147), Samoa told Itasca "ONTARIO TRANSMITTER 500 WATTS FREQUENCY RANGE 195 TO 600 KCS EITHER CW OR MCW NO HIGH FREQUENCY EQUIPMENT ON BOARD". The phrase NO HIGH FREQUENCY EQUIPMENT ABOARD is critical. Earhart couldn't transmit on on a frequency Ontario could copy. On 26 June, Earhart requested -- via Black -- that "ONTARIO STAND BY ON 400 KCS TO TRANSMIT LETTER N FIVE MINUTES ON REQUEST WITH STATION CALL LETTER REPEATED TWICE EVERY MINUTE". The key phrase here was "ON REQUEST". Apparently Earhart either didn't receive -- or ignored -- the fact that Ontario had no HF equipment on board. It would be reasonable for Ontario to assume that Earhart knew what she was talking about, and had the means to request the desired transmission. On 1 July, Earhart sent to Black "ASK ONTARIO BROADCAST LETTER N FOR FIVE MINUTES TEN MINUTES AFTER HOUR GMT FOUR HUNDRED KCS WITH OWN CALL LETTERS REPEATED TWICE END EVERY MINUTE STOP PLAN LEAVE BY TEN THIS MORNING NEW GUINEA TIME". Apparently, Earhart discovered that her previous plan -- for Ontario to transmit when requested -- was not feasible, so she shifted to this new plan for transmissions on a schedule. However, she appears not to have considered the time delays inherent in communications via relay stations in the mid- Pacific, and assumed that her revised request would get to Ontario in time. I don't find any record of Earhart's revised plan reaching Ontario. If it didn't get through, then Ontario would be expecting Earhart to request the signal when she wanted it, and Earhart -- not knowing that the revised plan didn't get through -- would be expecting Ontario to be broadcasting the DF signal on her requested schedule. Result: no DF signal from Ontario. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:38:00 From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Radio skills I thought the discussion concerned the question of WHY she used 7500, when that was not a good direction finding frequency - ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:10:12 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio skills >Bob Brandenburg writes, > >On 20 June (Record No. 147), Samoa told Itasca "ONTARIO TRANSMITTER >500 WATTS FREQUENCY RANGE 195 TO 600 KCS EITHER CW OR MCW NO HIGH >FREQUENCY EQUIPMENT ON BOARD". The phrase NO HIGH FREQUENCY >EQUIPMENT ABOARD is critical. Earhart couldn't transmit on on a >frequency Ontario could copy. Do we know that NO HIGH FREQUENCY EQUIPMENT ABOARD refers to receiving capability as well as transmitting? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:10:37 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio skills Bob, you can see well the communication confusion. It might be helpful for all of us if you guys would put together a bulletin showing the radio equipment, available frequencies, wattage, range, whether voice - CW- or both, for Lae, Ontario, Earhart's plane, Itasca and Howland. If you would kindly keep the frequencies in KCS only it would be appreciated. Where there is a transmission or message referring to meters please translate. Somewhere I saw that at Lae just before the test hop the radio man tuned Earhat's radio for 3054 rather than 3105. Is that so and if so why? I also remember seeing the Itasca radio upper limit was 3000 and it was "hoped" they could read 3105. I also don't know what Earhart could do with the Loop. Could she talk and receive on it? On what frequencies? As you can see compared to me Earhart had great radio skills. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:27:54 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Hue Miller > >>From Marty Moleski She seems not to have understood the principles >>of radio direction finding. > >Marty, dunno if i'd go quite that far. She did use it successfully >back in the States, or at least saw it done successfully by someone >in her plane. By Manning, most likely. If it's working right, there's not that much to it - certainly easier than the navigator's work. If it's the only thing you're doing, it should be a piece o' cake. Earhart was flying the plane, talking on the radio, and probably keeping a weather eye out for the island. I just finished adding some drawings here: http://tighar.org/wiki/Direction_finding However when she tried to use it at Lae and Howland, no luck- either the thing was technically unworkable at those frequencies, or she got flustered by how indistinct and wavering was the (normally very distinct) null point, and gave up. I've played with a portable AM radio at some of my Amelia talks. I can give a pretty good demo of what it means to "find a minimum" (which seems to be the language used in the sources rather than "null point" [???]). See this section and the two that follow that document Earhart's apparent lack of understanding about her equipment and the equipment used by the Itasca (and, presumably, the borrowed Navy HFDF on Howland). From Bob Brandenburg > >On 1 July, Earhart sent to Black "ASK ONTARIO BROADCAST LETTER N FOR >FIVE MINUTES TEN MINUTES AFTER HOUR GMT FOUR HUNDRED KCS WITH OWN CALL >LETTERS REPEATED TWICE END EVERY MINUTE STOP PLAN LEAVE BY TEN THIS >MORNING NEW GUINEA TIME". Apparently, Earhart discovered that her >previous plan -- for Ontario to transmit when requested -- was not >feasible, so she shifted to this new plan for transmissions on a >schedule. Chater says: "Miss Earhart and Captain Noonan spent a considerable time in the radio office ..." They may have picked up a clue from doing so about what the Ontario could and could not do for them. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:29:00 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Radio skills You got that almost right. The speed of light is about 300 million meters per second not 300 thousand. But your example worked ok because you also used kilocycles per second, (1000 cycles per second) so the thousands canceled out and you got the right answer. gl >From Oscar Boswell > >Well - I was just suggesting that perhaps she didn't clearly understand the >difference between 750 meters (which equals 400 kc - a standard direction >finding frequency at the time) - and 7.5 Mhz (or 7500 kCycles - Hertz didn't >come in for another 50 years). Even today, perhaps even on this forum, some >people are vague about such things. 7.5 and 750 and 7500 sound like they should >correlate closely, but they don't if meters are involved somewhere. I am >not the first to point this out, and in fact it was discussed here years ago. >(For the information of anyone who may be care, "meters" can be >closely converted to kilocycles by dividing 300,000 [the approximate velocity of >light in meters per second] by the figure given in meters. 300,000 divided by >750 = 400. Ham operators still (I think) speak of meter "bands" - the >15 meter band, for example being frequencies around 20,000 kHz (or >20 Mhz). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:29:26 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Trailing antennas These are not mission-critical questions. Just curiosity. Were trailing antennas extended at all times during a flight? Or just when they were used for transmission? Were they vulnerable to work-hardening and breaking? Some of TIGHAR's material says that Manning had to crank the antenna in and out by hand. (Or maybe just let it play out but then crank it back in?) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:29:52 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Alan Caldwell > >I also remember seeing the Itasca radio upper limit was 3000 and it >was "hoped" they could read 3105. On 2040GMT, June 28, Itasca sent this message to Earhart Itasca transmitters calibrated 7500, 6210, 3105, 500 and 425 kHz CW and last three either CW or MCW. Itasca direction finder range 550 to 270 kHz. Request we be advised as to time of departure and zone time to be used on radio schedules. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:31:27 From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: Radio skills I recall seeing an article in a Darwin newspaper about their arrival there. They (AE or Fred) reported radio problems on the leg to Darwin. It makes me wonder where the radio problems started. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:32:03 From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Radio skills Yes, of course you are correct - it's about 300,000 kilometers per second (299,792+) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:47 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Ric > >Do we know that NO HIGH FREQUENCY EQUIPMENT ABOARD refers to >receiving capability as well as transmitting? We don't know that, but it's a good bet. There would be no point in having HF receiving capability without HF transmitting capability. A station sending a message to Ontario via HF would have no way of getting a receipt for the message unless Ontario was close enough to respond on LF -- in which case the message originator would send it on LF. Ontario was a coal-burning fleet tug, built in 1912. Those ships had relatively short cruising range -- recall Ontario's anxiety to leave plane guard station as soon as Earhart passed, due to low fuel state -- and normally operated fairly close to home, at distances compatible with LF. Ontario's plane guard station was about 1400 nmi from Samoa -- where she was assigned as station ship -- and could well have been beyond LF communication range, in which case traffic would have to be relayed. One possible relay route would be from Samoa to the Rabaul Radio (VJZ) coast station at New Britain Island -- about 700 nmi from Ontario's station --on 6180 kHz or 17500 kHz, thence to Ontario on LF. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:15:20 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Alan Caldwell > >Bob, you can see well the communication confusion. It might be >helpful for all of us if you guys would put together a bulletin >showing the radio equipment, available frequencies, wattage, range, >whether voice -CW- or both, for Lae, Ontario, Earhart's plane, >Itasca and Howland. If you would kindly keep the frequencies in KCS >only it would be appreciated. Where there is a transmission or >message referring to meters please translate. I can provide the radio equipment details for Itasca, Howland, and the Electra. I'll put this on my to-do list. Currently, I'm working an important task related to the Electra's electrical system. As for the radio logs and messages, the info you want is scattered among many hundreds of messages in Randy Jacobson's database on the DVD that comes with Finding Amelia. Everything there is organized in time sequenced PDF formatted files, so you can easily scan and search for what you want. It's an instructive exercise, and provides valuable insight into the flow of communications and the fog- of-war effects at critical points on the time line. >Somewhere I saw that at Lae just before the test hop the radio man >tuned Earhat's radio for 3054 rather than 3105. Is that so and if so >why? I don't recall that specific frequency, but the Chater report mentions that the Electra's receiver was tuned to the Lae frequency for the test hop. There would be no point in retuning the transmitter to that freq. >I also remember seeing the Itasca radio upper limit was 3000 and it >was "hoped" they could read 3105. The nominal upper limit of the T-10 transmitter coverage was 3000 kHz, but Itasca reported successfully tuning it to 3105. There was no receiver cover constraint re 3105. >I also don't know what Earhart could do with the Loop. Could she >talk and receive on it? On what frequencies? The loop could connect to the receiver, not the transmitter. As I recall, there was extensive discussion of the loop on the forum some years ago. >As you can see compared to me Earhart had great radio skills. Surely, you jest. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:04:08 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Radio skills When using DF to plot your position from bearings measured at the ground station from transmissions from the aircraft at long range the null and the accuracy of the bearings needs to be quite good or the position will not be very useful. But when homing on a ground transmitter the null can be very wide, say up to 45 degrees, and you will still get to the ground station even though not by the most direct path with some wandering off to the side. But you are flying into a cone of bearings (think of a funnel) and the size gets smaller and smaller as you approach the transmitter so you will eventually spot the station. You can also deal with the loss of the sense antenna which would, result in a 180° ambiguity, by simply turning 90° right or left and watch the bearing change over a few minutes time. The bearing TO the station will always move aft toward the tail. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:37:03 From: Charles Wood Subject: Re: radio skills A skilled navigator like Noonan would not have "wandered off to the side" while homing to a ground-based ADF. Most WWII AAC Navigators accomplished that feat with little difficulty. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:08:21 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Trailing antennas You let them out at the beginning of the flight and retract them before landing to avoid having them torn off. There is a small cone at the end of the wire to provide drag so that the antenna trails out smoothly behind and does not flail about. You also might reel it in or out some during flight to re tune it if changing frequency bands. Some reels had counters so you could just reel out the amount that was right for the frequency or the wire might be marked at the appropriate lengths. Some installations had tuning meters on the transmitter or on the matching unit that you watched while extending the antenna to establish the correct length for the frequency in use. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:08:47 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Radio skills They also had problems approaching Dakar. gl >From Daryll Bolinger > >I recall seeing an article in a Darwin newspaper about their arrival >there. They (AE or Fred) reported radio problems on the leg to >Darwin. It makes me wonder where the radio problems started. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:22:04 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Radio skills Of course a skilled navigator, using a properly operating RDF, (or any instument rated pilot using an ADF) would not have "'wandered off to the side' while homing to a ground-based ADF." He would figure a wind correction angle and maintain the same relative bearing from the nose and "TRACK" to the station This is not "HOMING" to the station since homing involves just keeping the relative bearing on the nose which causes a longer flight path as the wind blows the plane off to one side but you eventually get to the station. Noonan obviously knew how to do this since he told AE to keep the relative bearing to Makapuu off to the side of the nose on the approach to Hawaii. My point was that even with a poorly operating RDF, with a wide or indistinct null, that AE should have been able to find Itasca if she knew what she was doing. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:26:18 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: trailing antennae >From Gary LaPook > >You let them out at the beginning of the flight and retract them before >landing to avoid having them torn off. There is a small cone at the end >of the wire to provide drag so that the antenna trails out smoothly >behind and does not flail about. You also might reel it in or out some >during flight to re tune it if changing frequency bands. Some reels had >counters so you could just reel out the amount that was right for the >frequency or the wire might be marked at the appropriate lengths. Some >installations had tuning meters on the transmitter or on the matching >unit that you watched while extending the antenna to establish the >correct length for the frequency in use. Thanks for the info. Makes sense. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:52:42 From: Charles Wood Subject: Re: Radio skills The point is OK, but not pertinent. AE's job was to fly the aircraft. It was Noonan's job to provide her the headings to properly track to any beacon (when fortunate enough to have one available) which presumably she could accurately maintain. If she was going to do that without Noonan's assistance, why bring him along? >From Gary LaPook > >Of course a skilled navigator, using a properly operating RDF, (or any >instument rated pilot using an ADF) would not have "'wandered off to >the side' while homing to a ground-based ADF." He would figure a wind >correction angle and maintain the same relative bearing from the nose >and "TRACK" to the station This is not "HOMING" to the station since >homing involves just keeping the relative bearing on the nose which >causes a longer flight path as the wind blows the plane off to one >side but you eventually get to the station. Noonan obviously knew how >to do this since he told AE to keep the relative bearing to Makapuu >off to the side of the nose on the approach to Hawaii. > >My point was that even with a poorly operating RDF, with a wide or >indistinct null, that AE should have been able to find Itasca if she >knew what she was doing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:23:24 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Radio skills The loop antenna was located above AE's head and was for her to operate, not Noonan. Pilots have had no problem using RDF's without the aid of navigators. AE said she couldn't get a null. This means the receiver was working, she must have been hearing something that she couldn't null. So either she or Noonan (if you want to put the blame on him, go ahead) or both of them failed to use the equipment properly to home in on Itasca and this includes the choice of an imappropriate frrequency. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:43:31 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Radio skills Or, they used it as they were told to, but that method was not the right one to use under the circumstances. I still think that why she decided to use 7500 is a big mystery...I haven't seen anything that indicates why she chose that frequency, or who told her to use it on her approach to Howland. Unless I've missed something, and she tried to use that at some other point. Reed >From Gary LaPook > >The loop antenna was located above AE's head and was for her to >operate, not Noonan. Pilots have had no problem using RDF's without >the aid of navigators. AE said she couldn't get a null. This means >the receiver was working, she must have been hearing something that >she couldn't null. So either she or Noonan (if you want to put the >blame on him, go ahead) or both of them failed to use the equipment >properly to home in on Itasca and this includes the choice of an >inappropriate frrequency. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:50:13 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Charles Wood > >The point is OK, but not pertinent. AE's job was to fly the aircraft. It >was Noonan's job to provide her the headings to properly track to any >beacon (when fortunate enough to have one available) which presumably >she could accurately maintain. If she was going to do that without >Noonan's assistance, why bring him along? I believe the layout of the cockpit was revised so that AE had responsibility for operating the radios and the overhead loop antenna. I think it was her job to get the final bearings needed to complete the flight. So she was flying the plane, tuning the receiver and transmitter, trying to DF, and probably doing her share of trying to see the Itasca and the island. I don't know whether the cockpit layout would have allowed Fred to relieve her of some of these duties. Did he have a headset? Was he listening for the null, too? Could he talk to her at all (given the noise the prop tips made inches from their heads)? They got themselves into a pretty pickle. With the benefit of hindsight, we can think of a dozen ways that they could have completed the flight successfully (the accident chain is pretty long). Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:54:36 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >From Gary LaPook > >The loop antenna was located above AE's head and was for her to >operate, not Noonan. Any idea of what the control for her loop would have looked like? Wheel? Knob? Crank? ??? Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:17:28 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills >I've played with a portable AM radio at some of my Amelia talks. >I can give a pretty good demo of what it means to "find a minimum" >(which seems to be the language used in the sources rather than >"null point" [???]). >Marty Marty, this is also a useful trick for those in the know who like to listen to distant AM stations or sports shows, to use the null to minimize the interferring stations on the same channel, or to minimize local noise from TVs or other appliances. BTW, i'd say null is the context correct term, minimum would be for a general audience. Sometimes you can even find an older portable radio with the HF bands which is sensitive enough to pick up some stronger stations without extending the telescopic whip. Getting a bearing with one of those, say on some station in the USA, like a powerful gospel broadcaster in the 6 or 7 MHz range, can be a frustrating game of skill and chance. If you have the time, and aren't having to watch a fuel gauge! BTW, the fact that we are able to demonstrate this on the AM band with a normal entertainment radio, which has no way to disable the "automatic volume control" or "automatic gain control" (which actually only limit stronger stations from blasting the volume), destroys the idea that AE's DF effort might have failed because she forgot to switch off the AVC (or AGC) manually. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:18:09 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Trailing antennae Every HF installation I have ever seen used the same antenna for transmitting and receiving. This includes antennas from near the door to the tail, from the tail to a wing tip, from wingtip to tail to wingtip, and also trailing antennas. This just makes sense for several reasons. An antenna that is tuned to the transmitting frequency is also the most efficient antenna available for receiving the same frequency. Antennas are tuned circuits and work best on the frequency to which they are tuned. They may work on other frequencies but not nearly as well as the frequency to which they are tuned. It is hard enough to find the room on the airplane to mount one tuned antenna, where do you put another tuned antenna? Another reason is that you want to make sure the receiver is not connected to any antenna when the transmitter is transmitting or else the receiver could be destroyed by the powerful radio energy being radiated from a separate antenna only a couple of feet away. Radio installations have antenna relays that connect the antenna either to the transmitter or to the receiver but not to both at the same time. When the push to talk switch is pushed this relay disconnects the receiver and then connects the transmitter to the antenna which prevents damage to the receiver. There was no VOR receiver, no VHF tranceiver, no glide slope receiver, no transponder, no DME, no radar altimeter, no AIRPHONE, no GPS, no LORAN, no doppler radar, no weather radar, no marker beacon receiver, no ELT, no ham radio, and no CB radio on board NR16020. The only radio equipment was one MF/HF receiver and one MF/HF transmitter with an RDF tuning unit with loop antenna. So what would a belly antenna be for? The only possibility is that it was a sense antenna for the RDF. An RDF or an ADF uses a loop antenna to determine the bearing to a transmitting radio. This works because this type of antenna does not receive equally well in all direction but the signal strength varies as you rotate the antenna. The strongest points are only a little bit stronger than the rest of the pattern but the weakest points, the nulls, are very deep and the signal drops off to almost nothing. You can see this for yourself. Get any portable radio, tune to an AM station and then rotate the radio and you will notice that the volume stays essentially constant except where it drops off sharply into the null. (You may have to try different orientations of the radio depending on the orientation of the antenna inside the radio. Try it standing, on its edge and laying flat on its back, one of these positions will work.) Rotate the radio some more and you will find another null after rotating the radio 180° from the first null. This is the dreaded "180° ambiguity". Adding a second antenna that has a non directional reception pattern, such as a belly antenna, and wiring it properly into the radio fills in one of the nulls so you eliminate the ambiguity, you are left with only one null. Makes you wonder,if the belly antenna was gone so there were now two nulls, that AE's comment that she couldn't get a null meant that she got more than the expected one null so thought the RDF wasn't working and she didn't even try to use the nulls that she did get. gl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:43:20 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio skills >... Sometimes you can even find an older portable radio >with the HF bands which is sensitive enough to pick up some >stronger stations without extending the telescopic whip. Getting a >bearing with one of those, say on some station in the USA, like >a powerful gospel broadcaster in the 6 or 7 MHz range, can be >a frustrating game of skill and chance. ... I don't take chances. I just use the white noise generated by my laptop. The noise goes from maximum to minimum very nicely. :o) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:57:10 From: Andrew Faulkner Subject: Re: Trailing antennae >From Gary LaPook > >"Makes you wonder, if the belly antenna was gone so there were now two >nulls, that AE's comment that she couldn't get a null meant that she got >more than the expected one null so thought the RDF wasn't working and >she didn't evev try to use the nulls that she did get." Interesting thought but the timing is not right if the sensing (belly) antenna was lost on lift off to Howland Island as hypothesized. It was during the Lae check-out flight, prior to this, that AE commented that she "couldn't get a null". So either there was no sensing antenna installed (its existence is not documented,) or AE was having some other problem unrelated to that antenna while preparing in Lae. Andrew Faulkner ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:27:48 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Trailing antennae Gary, doesn't that mean her lack of radio reception was due to a receiver malfunction not the possible loss of the belly antenna? It could also mean the belly antenna was not lost. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:17 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Trailing antennae 0800-03 "KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA--WE RECEIVED YOUR SIGNALS BUT UNABLE TO GET A MINIMUM--PLEASE TAKE A BEARING ON US AND ANSWER 3105 WITH VOICE" gl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:03:35 From: Andrew Faulkner Subject: Re: Trailing antennae >0800-03 >"KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA--WE RECEIVED YOUR SIGNALS BUT UNABLE TO GET A >MINIMUM--PLEASE TAKE A BEARING ON US AND ANSWER 3105 WITH VOICE" Thanks Gary, From the Chater report we see: "At 6.35 a.m., July 1st, Miss Earhart carried out a 30 minute air test of the machine when two way telephone communication was established between the ground station at Lae and the plane. The Operator was requested to send a long dash while Miss Earhart endeavoured to get a minimum on her direction finder. On landing Miss Earhart informed us that she had been unable to obtain a minimum and that she considered this was because the Lae station was too pwerful and too close." The comunication 0800-03 you quote above still does not explain away the problem during the earlier check-out flight in Lae, in which she experienced the same result "unable to obtain [get] a minimum". Andrew Faulkner ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:19:20 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Trailing antennae If i have this correctly, the TIGHAR conclusion is that there was no special Bendix loop-coupler-tuner ( civy nomenclature apparently RDF-1, later Navy nomenclatured as "DU" ) on board. Also apparently no dedicated DF receiver. Hence, no use for any sense antenna. In that case, the under antenna was strictly receiving. As Gary ( i think it was ) pointed out, you can execute a simple maneuver requiring only a few minutes, to indicate which direction is the correct direction. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:19:55 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: flight simulator There is a website devoted to Flight Simulator (www.fsinsider.com) that includes the following note: Dated 1/26/09 By now, many of you have heard that Microsoft has closed Aces Studio, the publisher of Microsoft Flight Simulator. This was not a reflection of the quality of the products Aces has developed, the sales performance of the games, or the quality of the team at Aces. This difficult decision was made to align Microsoft's resources with our strategic priorities. Microsoft Flight Simulator X will remain available at retail stores and web retailers, the Flight Sim community will continue to learn from and encourage one another, and we remain committed to the Flight Simulator franchise for the long term. Microsoft Game Studios is investing significant resources in many exciting and new areas of gaming and entertainment, including Windows games. We believe these future investments will push innovation, community, and collaboration to unprecedented levels and will provide more synergy with our ongoing investments in Games for Windows - LIVE as well as other Windows entertainment technologies. We have nothing specific to announce at this time, but stay tuned for more information. We are humbled and proud of the passion and support that the Flight Simulator franchise has developed over its more than twenty-five year history. This includes you, the large community of flight simmers, as well as the vibrant third-party ecosystem that has developed around the game. We will continue to produce, sell, and support the latest version of Flight Simulator as we plan for future versions of the franchise. Thank you for your understanding of our decision and for your continued support! Apparently, Microsoft has some kind of official relationship to the site. There appears to be a large and active community of Flight Simulator fans. They have conventions, develop and exchange free plug ins for the program, and have blogs and message forums. Seems a little like trekkies. Although Microsoft will do no further development work on the software it sounds as though the flight sim community may keep going strong, and the software will be available for the indefinite future. I'd guess there could well be an interest in a simulator plug for AE's flight. Whether there are developers who'd work for free, or any money to be made with the thing, I don't know. The plug-ins that are available at retail go for 30 to 40 bucks. They include adaptations for various aircraft to add to the program and scenery disks. They also include missions," or a set of instructions to fly" from point A to point B, given various conditions of weather and terrain. Tom D., #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:20:16 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Trailing antennae Gary, not to be hypercritical but i do want to comment on some items in the recent post. The aircraft antenna for "low HF frequencies" unless you have a very large transport plane, is not usually sufficiently long enough to even present 1/4 wave resonance. The transmitter adjusts for that. So by itself, the antenna is usually "nonresonant" by itself on your talk channels. So by itself, it's not a "tuned antenna". The receiver input is only approximately matched - the idea is just like a random antenna for your home set - the receiver has no precise close-matching controls anyway. So, yes, the underside antenna or any stretch of wire anywhere would do for the receiving. My thinking on why they retained the underside antenna, assuming this idea that it was for receiving only, was that the stretch from the transmitter midship to the front was a longer run, from the transmitter to the receiver, and (theoretically) not good practice, possibly presenting signal loss and noise pickup inside the plane. The underside antenna to the receiver, the wire run inside the plane would be only 2-3 feet a most - i think. A relay at or inside the receiver could do the grounding of the antenna - i don't recall offhand if the receiver circuit contained a relay inside (this relay of course grounds the receiver antenna input, to protect it during transmit, and also helps silence the receiver) and i'm not where i can look at the diagram, but this was the usual practice - not an optional fillip. ( Consider this also in light of the the Betty account, where AE seems to be receiving and transmitting at same time. ) To summarize, i guess: We don't know that the Bendix tuner-coupler thing was onboard. No coupler, no sense antenna. And yes, it seems to make sense that the underside antenna would be a dedicated receive-only antenna. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:08:30 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Trailing antennae >Hue Miller writes, > >If i have this correctly, the TIGHAR conclusion is that there was no >special Bendix loop-coupler-tuner ( civvy nomenclature apparently RDF-1, >later Navy nomenclatured as "DU" ) on board. I think there was a Bendix device aboard the aircraft that allowed the loop to be used with the Western Electric 20B receiver. I think it was integral to the Bendix MN-5 loop and was the same device described on page 42 of the August 1937 issue of Aero Digest magazine. Under the heading "Aero Radio Digest - The Newest Developments in the Filed of Aircraft Radio" the first article is entitled "Bendix D-Fs". I quote: "Bendix D-Fs are designed to operate in conjunction with Bendix Type RA-1 receiver, but will also give accurate and dependable bearings when used with any standard radio receiver covering the desired frequency range." >Also apparently no dedicated DF receiver. Hence, no use for any >sense antenna. In that case, the under antenna was strictly receiving. That is correct. I think the evidence for that is overwhelming. >As Gary ( i think it was ) pointed out, you >can execute a simple maneuver requiring only a few minutes, to >indicate which direction is the correct direction. I would suggest that work-arounds, even simple ones, were far beyond Earhart's radio acumen. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:09:52 From: Ron Bright, Subject: Re: Electra antenna We have been discussing whether it was the Electra's malfunctioning receiver or the loss of the belly antenna that was the cause of the AE's failure to receive voice after Lae, I went back to Ric's book to see what he had to say. On p 103-104 he asserts that the Electra had three antennas: 1) transmitting antenna on the top ,2) primary antenna for receiving voice was the belly wire, and 3) the "loop" antenna on top of the cockpit. Ric usually cites his sources or references of significant statements, but I see no cites concerning the claim that the belly wire was the voice receiving antenna. I am sure there must be some sompelling evidence from witnesses, records, installation diagrams etc., that back up that claim. In the 8th Edition by Tighar, Chapter II, Section B.3 page 15, (2001) Ric's radio expert Mike Everette, wrote earler about of the antenna setup. There is a "debate as to the exact nature of the receiving antennas aboard NR 16020". He offered two scenarios. The top antenna was for transmitting only. The belly wire antenna was used for voice reception. And if so, this accounts for the hypothesis that when the belly antenna was lost at the Lae takeoff, she couldn't recieve voice. He also added that the belly antennas MAY NOT have been used for communication reception at all, but they were sense antennas for radio direction finding. He said there was " unfortunately,no available source to confirm their exact function". In an Aug 2000, Project Bulletin, Ric provides photographic evidence that the belly antenna was most likely ripped off from during the takeoff sequence at Lae. No doubt but was this AEs voice receiving antenna? Many experts believe that the standard VEE antenna configuration for AEs voice communication was used for both transmitting and receiving. The belly antennas were, as Everette suggested, for radio direction finding.[ Merrril and Lambie used the top antenna for transmitting and receiving and they did talk to AE at Miami, as I recall.]I leave this resolution up to radio gurus Hue Miller, Mike Everette, Bob Brandenburg, and Paul Rafford. I am looking for primary material that supports either hypothesis. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:34:20 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Trailing antennae Gary, that could have been the same problem she had at Lae -- possibly too close and too loud a signal. Personally it sounded to me that the transmission was too short. Alan >From Gary LaPook > >0800-03 >"KHAQQ CALLING ITASCA--WE RECEIVED YOUR SIGNALS BUT UNABLE TO GET A >MINIMUM--PLEASE TAKE A BEARING ON US AND ANSWER 3105 WITH VOICE" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:34:49 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio antennae Good post, Ron. Let me ask this question (of anyone) if Merrill and Lambie could transmit AND receive on the top "V" antenna why do we think Earhart couldn't? Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:35:18 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Electra antenna Ron, i don't see that any one has really established that there was any special DF type receiver. The WE receiver on board did not use a sense antenna, AFAIK. Think i'm gonna head for the book.... IF this antenna didn't serve as sense antenna, why was it kept on the plane? I suggest this was to lessen the run from any antenna to the receiver. You know, to use this Western Electric receiver for DF on the voice channels, assuming NO loop coupler and no separate receiver, it would have to be manually switched from wire antenna (underside antenna) to loop, because it has 2 sets of antenna connectors, one for LF-MF (longwave and standard AM broadcast) and one for HF (the voice channels). The loop normally was permanently connected only to the connector for "LF", the bottom two ranges, which were not used for communication. So you'd assume that "someone" had installed a throw switch to change from HF wire antenna (in this case, underside antenna) to the loop. In other words, to switch the loop between the "low" and "high" sides of the receiver. If AE was able to pick up the Itasca on 7500, and then tuned back to 3105 or 6210 and couldn't hear them, would she really not try flipping this switch back and forth? No effort and it doesn't require cranking any controls, etc. The possibility mentioned in TIGHAR research bulletins that these two connections might simply have been jumpered, i dismiss, as this would have ruined any direction finding on the "normal direction finding frequency bands". I wonder, was this switch somehow wired wrong? As i have said before, i don't at all believe having the "Automatic Volume Control" know still left on, ruined the direction finding, and i don't see how flying a few miles away from the Lae station (during the test flight) would not have provided an ideal signal to practice on. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:36:38 From: Hue Miller Subject: Possible ID of Howland Navy DF I posed the question to the "milsurplus" radio enthusiasts list, as i was puzzled regarding what HFDF equipment the Navy had in 1937. I was guessing it would be a commercial receiver such as the National Radio Company model "HRO", mated with the same Bendix loop coupler we have already discussed for possible aircraft use. Very fortunately, i think, Nich England responded with a link to an article on Navy HFDF stations from this era "By 1936, OP-20-G proposed a system a for a strategic tracking system (HFDF) in the Pacific Ocean area. The proposed net would consist of nine fixed stations and twelve portable stations, with Point St. George included as one of the fixed stations. Others included Corregidor, Guam, Oahu and more, classified in the original documents... "On 26 August 1936 LCDR Safford at OP-20G indicated his interest is the establishment of the high frequency D/F site at Point St. George. On 30 December 1937, a Model XAB/HRO (see photo for equipment photo) previously installed on USS LEXINGTON (CV-2) was ordered for Point St. George. Another XAB/HRO was to be installed at the Naval Reserve Aviation Base, in Oakland, California. As a result of this activity, OP-20G requested additional radiomen for the HFDF stations. At that time the HFDF net consisted only of Mare Island (control), Point St. George, Point Arguello California, and Fort Stevens in Oregon. " I suggest if this interests you, check out the article at http://www.virhistory.com/navy/nyw.htm There are also some photos, including one of a "Model DT portable HFDF" shack. The DT equipment was apparently Navy nomenclature for the commercial receiver HRO plus the antenna equipment "XAB". "X" ahead of Navy type designation indicates experimental, pre-standard issue. The "D" as the first character in standard Navy old-style nomeclature indicates "direction finding". This old-style nomenclature began to be replaced with the current AN/ type nomenclature in 1943. The HRO receiver was used by many hams and commercial communications stations. It had an outboard power supply unit, and was mostly used with AC mains power but there was also a 6 volts DC vibrator type supply available for mobile use. I don't know the draw in amps at 6 DC but it must have been several amps. It seems to have been colossally poor discipline to let the battery run flat just around the time the equipment was most needed, with no car battery handy for backup. I think Nick has nailed the type equipment used at Howland. Thanks, Nick!! Oh, by the way, one minor nit. The photos identify a DP receiver as "HFDF". The DP tuned only up to 1500 kHz. I had this receiver at one time; gave it to a friend because the thing, at around 120 lbs., was just too heavy for me to move around. I had from time to time thought about asking for it back, but his house burned just before Christmas 2008 and that was the end of it. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:37:16 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: DF antennae >From Ric >I think there was a Bendix device aboard the aircraft that allowed the >loop to be used with the Western Electric 20B receiver. I think it >was integral to the Bendix MN-5 loop and was the same device described >on page 42 of the August 1937 issue of Aero Digest magazine. Under >the heading "Aero Radio Digest - The Newest Developments in the Filed >of Aircraft Radio" the first article is entitled "Bendix D-Fs". However, Ric - a basic loop would not require any coupling or interface, it can be connected right to (in this particular example) the "LF" connection on the 20B receiver. The 20B does not need any kind of interface device. I am looking at a Bendix catalog, undated; i believe it is 1940. It shows the RA-1 and a apparatus set called MN-13. It includes the infamous Bendix loop coupler, same as seen in the photo with AE and the Bendix rep; an MN-20 or MN-24 loop, and a handcranked AZ control. The MN-20 is 9 inches and the MN-24, 18 inches, BUT each loop sits on a faired mounting fully about 5 inches tall. That does not match the loop seen on the aircraft, which probably then is your earlier MN-5 loop. However your Aviation Digest rather vague article seems to be describing this same loop coupler as in the Bendix catalog. However if this device's specific and distinct loop isn't seen on AE's plane i think we can go with the maybe assumption that no such loop coupler, interface, or whatever you want to call it, was onboard. I am suggesting that if the basic round loop with no distinct faired support is not seen on AE's plane, and i have not seen any otherwise, then the loop was wired right to the receiver, meaning no additional controls to work with - except maybe the loop/ wire antenna switch. This conclusion also seems to do great harm to Long's narrative of what happened. It would appear the comm/nav equipment on board was basic and by 1937, even maybe a little behind the times: transmitter, receiver, circular loop antenna, power supplies, nothing more. I quote: >"Bendix D-Fs are designed to operate in conjunction with Bendix Type >RA-1 receiver, but will also give accurate and dependable bearings >when used with any standard radio receiver covering the desired >frequency range." This has to be the device i described above! >I would suggest that work-arounds, even simple ones, were far beyond >Earhart's radio acumen. Ric Whoa! -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:39:33 From: Pat Gaston Subject: Belly antenna Following up on Gary LaPook's excellent post, it occurs to me that putting a separate receiving antenna on the bottom of AE's aircraft -- in addition to being unnecessary and probably counteproductive -- would have been monumentally stupid from a design standpoint. Think about it: In the 1930s, paved runways were the exception rather than the rule. Most airfields were just that -- dirt-and-grass strips that had been leveled to a greater or lesser extent, but were still subject to such hazards as chuckholes, gullies, standing water, storm debris, etc. That's why aircraft of the day had those big balloon tires -- to help negotiate the rough spots. Given this fact, would any sane radio engineer have mounted something as indispensible as the primary receiving antenna in such an exposed position? Consider the classic tail-dragger, like Earhart's Electra: If that small rear wheel hits a pothole -- or if the rear belly mast, only inches off the ground, encounters a stray tumbleweed or a molehill -- well, there goes your communications system. Of course, this is exactly what Ric thinks happened during the takeoff roll at Lae. The biggest problem with this theory, it seems to me, is that it assumes whoever designed the antenna layout was an idiot. In fact, Lockheed's engineers had to know that most of Earhart's takeoffs would be from unimproved fields; it thus strains credulity to believe they would expose the mission to disaster from common ground hazards when -- as Gary points out -- a dual-purpose dorsal antenna was not only safer, but better. If you absolutely >had< to put an antenna on the bottom of the plane, one of secondary importance like a backup or "sense antenna" makes the most -- uh -- sense. Lose the sense antenna and you will have problems resolving the infamous 180-degree ambiguity, but it's not going to render the entire DF setup useless. Lose the receiving antenna and you are talking catastrophic system failure. All of this is quite apart from the fact that there was no practical advantage to be derived from a separate, ventral receiving antenna. It merely adds complexity and risk to the system without any attendant benefit. As Paul Rafford, a former Pan Am radio engineer, wrote me last night: "In my 25 years working with at least a dozen different types of airliners, I never saw one that used separate antennas for transmitting and receiving. It's just not practical!" Not practical because "You can't expect to transmit and receive simultaneously on the same antenna (or separate antennas, for that matter). Either way, a switching relay is required to avoid overloading the receiver. Therefore NOTHING is gained by using a separate antenna for reception, and since in Earhart's case it would be physically shorter than optimum, reception would be substantially poorer than with the topside vee." That comment came from Cam Warren, former commercial broadcast engineer and holder of a first-class FCC radiotelephone license. (Yes, our little discussion group was buzzing last night.) Certainly, nobody really knows what the belly antenna was for, and everyone's entitled to an opinion. But for reasons of both durability and superior efficiency, I'm persuaded that Earhart's primary receiving antenna was not mounted on the bottom of her aircraft. Pat Gaston ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:39:56 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Trailing antennae >From Alan Caldwell > >Gary, that could have been the same problem she had at Lae -- possibly >too close and too loud a signal. Personally it sounded to me that the >transmission was too short. I don't think that was the problem with the Coast Guard transmission. It was definitely a problem with AE's transmissions. They were all short. I've been piecing together some of the material from the Forum and the classic site about radio questions: http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio See this article for an interesting comment by Mike Everette about the problems with AE's loop antenna and the 7500 mHz transmission: http://tighar.org/wiki/Loop_antenna Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:40:26 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio antennae >From Alan Caldwell > >Good post, Ron. Let me ask this question (of anyone) if Merrill and >Lambie could transmit AND receive on the top "V" antenna why do we >think Earhart couldn't? Because you have to physically wire an antenna to both the transmitter (one box) and the receiver (a different box) to make one antenna do double duty. It can be done. The question is whether that was the way the Electra was wired. Gurr says the last time he saw the plane, it transmitted from the top and received from the bottom antenna. http://tighar.org/wiki/Gurr That doesn't mean that the setup stayed that way. I'm far from done re-reading TIGHAR's articles on the evolution of AE's radio systems ... Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:41:02 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Possible ID of Howland Navy DF >Hue Miller writes, > >I think Nick has nailed the type equipment used at Howland. Thanks, >Nick!! I agree. Your description sounds about right. Like almost everything else about the Lae/Howland flight, the HFDF on Howland seems to have been half-ass arrangement. It was apparently experimental but not classified (or the Navy wouldn't have released it to an Air Corps Lt. and a civilian for use by a Coastie). We know it had no built-in compass rose for taking bearings because Ciprianni had to use a "pocket compass" on the one occasion when he was able to take a bearing. According to Leo Bellarts' later recollections, the loop had no stop on it and when Ciprianni brought it back on board Itasca its insides were a tangled mess from the loop having been rotated too far. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:22:14 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: DF antennae >Hue Miller writes, > >Ric - a basic loop would not require any coupling or >interface, it can be connected right to (in this particular example) >the "LF" connection on the 20B receiver. The 20B does not need >any kind of interface device. Well, I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert on the subject but the 1937 Aero Digest article seems to imply that a coupler is required. The article describes four Bendix loops: The MN-1 "is mounted directly on the coupling unit, with manual control and lock at its base." I guess this would be the type of loop where the whole rig was inside the airplane. The Douglas TBD-1 Devastator had this type of loop and coupler mounted under the canopy between the bombardier and the rear gunner. The MN-3 "provides for external mounting of the loop directly above the coupling unit on an extension shaft. The MN-5 "can be mounted at a point not directly above the coupling unit, with the rotation controls on the loop shaft at the cabin roof." This sounds like the rig on NR16020. The MN-7 "is remotely controlled by a handwheel operating an hydraulic pressure system which provides a smooth and positive means of rotation and control over a distance of 25 feet." Over the past few months, in finalizing the portfolio of Electra drawings (now at the printer) we have struggled greatly with reconstructing an accurate representation of NR16020's instrument panel at the time of the second world flight attempt. A cockpit photo alleged to have been taken in Miami shows a Bendix Pilot Direction Indicator (left/right needle) on the panel right in front of her. It also shows an unidentified box mounted on the upper left part of the eyebrow panel. We've always figured that the box had something to do with DF. If it's not the coupling unit referred to in the Aero Digest article, I don't know what the heck it is and I don't know where the coupling unit could be hiding. >I am looking at a Bendix catalog, undated; i believe it is 1940. >It shows the RA-1 and a apparatus set called MN-13. It includes >the infamous Bendix loop coupler, same as seen in the photo with >AE and the Bendix rep; an MN-20 or MN-24 loop, and a handcranked >AZ control. The MN-20 is 9 inches and the MN-24, 18 inches, BUT >each loop sits on a faired mounting fully about 5 inches tall. That >does not match the loop seen on the aircraft, which probably then is >your earlier MN-5 loop. Yeah, apparently the series only went to the MN-7 in 1937. >It would appear the comm/nav equipment >on board was basic and by 1937, even maybe a little behind the times: >transmitter, receiver, circular loop antenna, power supplies, nothing >more. It was certainly Fred Hooven's complaint that Earhart ditched a state- of-the-art DF in favor of an "old fashioned" system in order to save weight. "Bendix D-Fs are designed to operate in conjunction with Bendix Type RA-1 receiver, but will also give accurate and dependable bearings when used with any standard radio receiver covering the desired frequency range." >This has to be the device i described above! Agreed, but there does seem to have been some kind of coupler. >>I would suggest that work-arounds, even simple ones, were far beyond >>Earhart's radio acumen. Ric > >Whoa! The record speaks for itself. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:22:33 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Communications Well, it is obvious to me that we have far from nailed down all the communication equipment. In order to more fully understand what happened on the Lae - Howland flight we need to do that. We may have it essentially correct or possibly significantly off the mark. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:25:59 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Belly antenna >Pat Gaston writes, > >Following up on Gary LaPook's excellent post, it occurs to me that >putting a separate receiving antenna on the bottom of AE's aircraft >-- in addition to being unnecessary and probably counteproductive -- >would have been monumentally stupid from a design standpoint. If so, then Lockheed's design of the antenna system on NR16020 as delivered to Amelia Earhart on July 24, 1936 was monumentally stupid. According to Lockheed records, the airplane at that time was equipped with a WE13C transmitter mounted on the floor of the cabin behind the fuel tanks and a WE20B receiver under the copilot's seat. There is no loop antenna or DF capability of any kind - just a transmitter and a receiver. The airplane, at that time, had two antennas: - A trailing wire that deployed out from an aperture just under the tail navigation light. - A wire that ran along the belly from the starboard side pitot mast through a mast amidships starboard of the centerline, to a mast starboard of the centerline under the rear cabin window. So what was that belly antenna for? It can't be a sense antenna because the airplane has no need for a sense antenna yet. When a DF radio was installed later that year, a second, parallel belly wire antenna was installed on the port side. Is it a combination transmit/ receive antenna? The lead-in wire to the antenna comes out of the fuselage right under the copilot's seat where the receiver is located. The transmitter back in the cabin has two terminals - one for the lead-in from the transmitting antenna and one for a wire to the receiver so that both can use the same antenna. Photos show that the terminal for the wire going to the receiver has nothing attached to it. Whether you think it makes sense or not, the starboard-side belly wire antenna has to be a dedicated receiving antenna. It's the ONLY antenna on the aircraft that remained unchanged from the day the airplane was delivered until the antenna disappeared sometime between taxi-out and take-off in Lae. >Think about it: In the 1930s, paved runways were the exception >rather than the rule. Most airfields were just that -- dirt-and- >grass strips that had been leveled to a greater or lesser extent, >but were still subject to such hazards as chuckholes, gullies, >standing water, storm debris, etc. That's why aircraft of the day >had those big balloon tires -- to help negotiate the rough spots. > >Given this fact, would any sane radio engineer have mounted >something as indispensible as the primary receiving antenna in such >an exposed position? Consider the classic tail-dragger, like >Earhart's Electra: If that small rear wheel hits a pothole -- or if >the rear belly mast, only inches off the ground, encounters a stray >tumbleweed or a molehill -- well, there goes your communications >system. As you say, that's why you have those big balloon tires to give that rear antenna mast more than a foot of clearance - unless you overload the airplane to 150% of its maximum designed gross weight and then taxi into the over-run of a New Guinea airstrip. >Of course, this is exactly what Ric thinks happened during the >takeoff roll at Lae. The biggest problem with this theory, it seems >to me, is that it assumes whoever designed the antenna layout was an >idiot. In fact, Lockheed's engineers had to know that most of >Earhart's takeoffs would be from unimproved fields; it thus strains >credulity to believe they would expose the mission to disaster from >common ground hazards when -- as Gary points out -- a dual-purpose >dorsal antenna was not only safer, but better. If you and Gary had been charge I'm sure things would have turned out better. >If you absolutely >had< to put an antenna on the bottom of the >plane, one of secondary importance like a backup or "sense antenna" >makes the most -- uh -- sense. Lose the sense antenna and you will >have problems resolving the infamous 180-degree ambiguity, but it's >not going to render the entire DF setup useless. Lose the receiving >antenna and you are talking catastrophic system failure. You mean like the catastrophic system failure Earhart experienced? >All of this is quite apart from the fact that there was no practical >advantage to be derived from a separate, ventral receiving antenna. >It merely adds complexity and risk to the system without any >attendant benefit. As Paul Rafford, a former Pan Am radio engineer, >wrote me last night: "In my 25 years working with at least a dozen >different types of airliners, I never saw one that used separate >antennas for transmitting and receiving. It's just not practical!" >Not practical because "You can't expect to transmit and receive >simultaneously on the same antenna (or separate antennas, for that >matter). Either way, a switching >relay is required to avoid overloading the receiver. Therefore >NOTHING is gained by using a separate antenna for reception, and >since in Earhart's case it would be physically shorter than optimum, >reception would be substantially poorer than with the topside vee." >That comment came from Cam Warren, former commercial broadcast >engineer and holder of a first-class FCC radiotelephone license. >(Yes, our little discussion group was buzzing last night.) You guys are talking about what makes sense to you about the way it should have been done. I'm talking about what we can read from the records; what we can see from the photographs; and what is known to have transpired during the flight. >Certainly, nobody really knows what the belly antenna was for, and >everyone's entitled to an opinion. But for reasons of both >durability and superior efficiency, I'm persuaded that Earhart's >primary receiving antenna was not mounted on the bottom of her >aircraft. You reach your opinion your way and I'll reach mine my way. Fair enough. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:26:46 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: DF antenna Hue, can you identify what Ric is talking about? The box shown in the picture looks like it has two small hand cranks if I'm seeing it correctly. Alan >A cockpit photo >alleged to have been taken in Miami shows a Bendix Pilot Direction >Indicator (left/right needle) on the panel right in front of her. It >also shows an unidentified box mounted on the upper left part of the >eyebrow panel. We've always figured that the box had something to do >with DF. If it's not the coupling unit referred to in the Aero Digest >article, I don't know what the heck it is and I don't know where the >coupling unit could be hiding. ************************* Yes, if anyone can identify this thing we would be very grateful. P ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:27:13 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio antennae Just for information, the Daily Express had no loop antenna on top but the bullet shaped ADF antenna on the bottom as my T-6 had behind the cockpit. It also had the top "V" antenna and a belly antenna. When it went to Russia they added an antenna from a short stanchion on the side near the bullet shaped antenna leading aft. I have no idea what its radio configuration was. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:27:45 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: DF antenna Well, let me try some compiling of what we have. Then we'll shake the barrel some more and see what comes out. >From Ric >The article describes four Bendix loops: > >The MN-1 "is mounted directly on the coupling unit, with manual >control and lock at its base." >I guess this would be the type of loop where the whole rig was inside >the airplane. The Douglas TBD-1 Devastator had this type of loop and >coupler mounted under the canopy between the bombardier and the rear >gunner. Yes- sounds good to me. In the Devastator, at least in the factory photos, this is identified as "RDF-1". However this is not Navy avionics nomenclature, and the only Navy item i have seen that matches this is the Navy model DU and DU-1. The DU, no suffix, was pre-war production and tuned up to 8000 kHz. These are pretty uncommon, i'd guess *very* roughly 1:20 in production figures compared to the WW2 production model, DU-1, which only tuned up to 1500 kHz, just like the MN-1 (i think) and just like the one in the Bendix rep with AE photo. The MN-3 "provides for external mounting of the loop directly above the coupling unit on an extension shaft. This sounds like the thing the Navy nomenclatured type DW. The thing sat an a shelf and the extension shaft, about 30 inches long, at least in the model i had, went up and thru an opening in the aircraft skin. The MN-5 "can be mounted at a point not directly above the coupling unit, with the rotation controls on the loop shaft at the cabin roof." This sounds like the rig on NR16020. >Over the past few months, in finalizing the portfolio of Electra >drawings (now at the printer) we have struggled greatly with >reconstructing an accurate representation of NR16020's instrument >panel at the time of the second world flight attempt. A cockpit photo >alleged to have been taken in Miami shows a Bendix Pilot Direction >Indicator (left/right needle) on the panel right in front of her. It >also shows an unidentified box mounted on the upper left part of the >eyebrow panel. We've always figured that the box had something to do >with DF. If it's not the coupling unit referred to in the Aero Digest >article, I don't know what the heck it is and I don't know where the >coupling unit could be hiding. I wait eagerly (but patiently) to see the drawings, and possibly the photo, to try to link that item to anything we can identify. BTW, one of the other AE books, darn it i cannot remember title right now, a paperback which puports to be a final report on the flight, if i recall, published in BC Canada, or author is living there, had a low res photo of the plane's tunnel, and you can see what looks like ? the receiver dynamotor ? unit sitting on top one of the fuel tanks. Am i right? Is this factored in to the drawings? I was thinking a little more about the failure of the Howland DF set. That really was gross negligence, i think. Think about what would have happened, say if the flight was a round the world flight by a pair of Navy patrol planes, and not a civilian adventurer. The explanation that the DF wasn't working due to battery being run down, i don't think would have flown. There would have been some kind of inquiry, reprimands. In this case however, AE's own non-communication problem masked this other failure. Especially a shame as the Howland equipment, an Adcock system (of vertical antennas) was not subject to the same directional problems and errors that a loop antenna, such as in AE's plane, was. "IF" they had been up & working "AND" AE able to hear, they could have given her pretty accurate bearing info. No spare battery? - i thought you always had to have one in use, one charging or charged - standby. How hard was it, to do their job right? -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:28:06 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Belly antenna Pat, interesting discussion, but i uh....am not, uh, convinced quite yet. I "think" i have some olde aviation lit that says the earliest installations had separate antennas. When the drawings are finalized, maybe this will help my thinking on this, as i'm concerned about how long the antenna lead (wire) from the transmitter to the receiver up front would be. I think you put too much emphasis on importance of the antenna length etc. to receiving. As i stated, the receiver was intended to work basically with any and all aircraft antenna. There is enough reserve amplification available in the receiver that 20 compared to 40 feet is not going to make a practical difference. If this is a sense antenna, and nothing onboard that used it, wouldn't she have canned it long before? I don't recall how long this belly thing was. But sense antennas don't need to be long and in what i have read about in manuals ( "reference citation needed" ) they could be a few feet long, like 6 to 10 feet, or even just a vertical short mast, altho there's no law that a longer antenna couldn't be used. Of course, the big "IF" is whether the plane had the naked basic WE original installation, receiver + transmitter + loop, or if there was something else interesting going on. -Hue ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:28:27 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Trailing antenna >From Alan Caldwell > >Gary, that could have been the same problem she had at Lae -- possibly >too close and too loud a signal. Personally it sounded to me that the >transmission was too short. No- Itasca kept the transmission going for a while. Why wouldn't Lae have done the same thing - a "long count" or solid carrier for them to tune in? Re "signal too strong" at Lae: at 100 MPH, how long does it take to get a few miles away? Lae was not a 50,000 watt broadcast station. If i can get a satisfactory DF at a broadcast station of 5000 watts at 7 miles here, how long did she have to fly to get distance from a 100 watt aviation ground station? ( That's a tough calculus problem, but you get the picture. ) -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:09:38 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Belly antenna Ric wrote: "It's the ONLY antenna on the aircraft that remained unchanged from the day the airplane was delivered until the antenna disappeared sometime between taxi-out and take-off in Lae." Ric, if I recall correctly, the evidence that the belly antenna was torn off of the plane at Lae is (1) Photek's photographic study of a few years ago and (2) an anecdotal story from many years ago of an antenna being found on the runway at Lae. Is this correct? Or is there other evidence supporting this? Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:10:17 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: Trailing antenna Well, I think the answer to that one is the same reason that she couldn't get a minimum at Howland...the antenna and DF system was not set up to work properly above 500Hz or so. Which brings us back to the outstanding question of why she decided to start using higher frequencies for the DF. If we all agree that Earhart was a radio novice, then she should have been doing basically what she was told. Whoever installed the gear should have told her the frequency range it would operate on, and I'd be surprised if she ever would have tried to use it outside those instructions. It's possible that she was never told the proper range, or that it would work with any frequency, but that just seems wrong. Another possibility is that, at some point, she did get a minimum on a higher frequency, and then decided for herself that she could use it however she wanted. But, from everything I've read, she was the kind of pilot that would use the instruments as instructed instead of trying to figure out novel ways to play with them. Finding Amelia has a record of communications...I don't have the time to look now, but in there is there a good record of what frequencies she asked for or used for DF during the flight and planning? If she suddenly asks about higher frequencies, maybe we can correlate that with something else, which then might tell us something about her training or equipment. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:10:48 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: DF antenna Hue Miller writes, >I wait eagerly (but patiently) to see the drawings, and possibly the >photo, to try to link that item to anything we can identify. The drawings are at the printer as we speak. Drop me an email at tigharic@mac.com and I'll send you a jpeg of the Miami cockpit photo. >BTW, one of the other AE books, darn it i cannot remember title >right now, a paperback which puports to be a final report on the flight, >if i recall, published in BC Canada, or author is living there, had a >low res photo of the plane's tunnel, and you can see what looks like >? the receiver dynamotor ? unit sitting on top one of the fuel tanks. >Am i right? Is this factored in to the drawings? The book you're thinking of is "The Amelia Earhart Report" by George C. Carrington. I've lost track of my copy but the I'm familiar with the photo you're talking about. It shows what I believe is the Hooven DF receiver which was installed on top of the fuel tanks on the starboard side just behind the cockpit bulkhead. It was gone by February 1937 so it's not included in the drawings >I was thinking a little more about the failure of the Howland DF set. >That really was gross negligence, i think. Think about what would have >happened, say if the flight was a round the world flight by a pair of >Navy patrol planes, and not a civilian adventurer. The explanation >that the DF wasn't working due to battery being run down, i don't >think would have flown. There would have been some kind of inquiry, >reprimands. In this case however, AE's own non-communication >problem masked this other failure. Especially a shame as the Howland >equipment, an Adcock system (of vertical antennas) was not subject >to the same directional problems and errors that a loop antenna, such >as in AE's plane, was. Where did you get the idea that the Howland DF was an Adcock system? I'm quite sure it wasn't. It was basically just a loop on a box. >"IF" they had been up & working "AND" AE able >to hear, they could have given her pretty accurate bearing info. No >spare battery? - i thought you always had to have one in use, one >charging or charged - standby. How hard was it, to do their job right? The same question could be asked of the entire Coast Guard/Navy search but, in fairness, it was never the Coast Guard's job to give her bearings. Earhart's announced plan was to do her own DFing using her loop. Black, with Cooper's help, took it upon himself to provide some kind of HFDF capability as a backup. After the debacle in Hawaii in March, Black was under no illusions about Earhart's competence and he was desperately afraid that things would not go as planned. Frank Ciprianni is the guy who screwed up and had the Howland HFDF running long before it needed to be, but who was responsible for managing Ciprianni? As a Coast Guard serviceman he was technically under the authority of Commander Thompson, but Thompson took no interest at all in the HFDF arrangements on Howland. Black and Cooper slept aboard Itasca that night, so they weren't ashore during the night to manage Ciprianni. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:31:48 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Belly antenna Alfred, a piece of wire was found. I know of no identification it was an antenna or even where on the field it was found. Certainly it is easy to believe that wire was the belly antenna since it could not be seen on the photo. The photo work was well done. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:32:19 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Trailing antenna Reed, from what transpired it is easy to say Earhart was a radio novice or even worse. In 1937 there was little or no radio use and many planes had none. I would think, however, with a round the world flight in the making and all the radio installations she would have learned as much as she could about them and their use. I don't see any evidence of that. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:25:55 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Belly antenna Alfred Hendrickson asked, >Ric wrote: It's the ONLY antenna on the aircraft that remained >unchanged from the day the airplane was delivered until the antenna >disappeared sometime between taxi-out and take-off in Lae." > >Ric, if I recall correctly, the evidence that the belly antenna was >torn off of the plane at Lae is (1) Photek's photographic study of a >few years ago and (2) an anecdotal story from many years ago of an >antenna being found on the runway at Lae. Is this correct? Or is >there other evidence supporting this? I don't think it's accurate to say that Photek's photographic study is evidence that the belly antenna was torn off the plane at Lae. The evidence is that the photographs show that the masts supporting the antenna are present when the aircraft taxis out for takeoff and are not present when the aircraft comes back past the camera on takeoff. The Photek study merely confirms scientifically what is visible to the naked eye. The antenna went away. Now you see it. Now you don't. I do not consider the anecdotal story about wire being found on the runway to be evidence. I would put it in the same category with the puff of dust that erupts under the aircraft in the takeoff film. It's interesting and it may be related to the antenna loss, but it's not evidence of the antenna loss. If you need confirmation beyond what you can see with your own eyes you need only note that the events subsequent to the takeoff are entirely consistent with the antenna being lost. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:26:24 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Belly antenna >Alan Caldwell wrote: > >Alfred, a piece of wire was found. I know of no identification it >was an antenna or even where on the field it was found. More accurately, there is hearsay testimony that a wire was found. http://tighar.org/wiki/Lost_antenna I'm sure you would cross-exam the witness very vigorously and ask the judge to throw the claim out of court if you were on the other side of the aisle. ;o) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:31:22 From: Mike Piner Subject: Communications I'm wondering, from what has been discussed, could any intellegent Morse code message have been from AE or FN? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:38:40 From: Marty Moleski Subject: History of Antennas Table I'm trying to draw up a table showing the different configurations of the Electra's antennas. http://tighar.org/wiki/NR16020_antennas#Variant_installations Help wanted and much appreciated! Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:18:55 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Belly antenna You know Marty, I don't even remember when the infamous wire was supposedly found or by who or where we got the information. I must not have thought it was critical to the story. Alan >From Marty Moleski > >Alan Caldwell wrote: > >>Alfred, a piece of wire was found. I know of no identification it >>was an antenna or even where on the field it was found. > >More accurately, there is hearsay testimony that >a wire was found. > >http://tighar.org/wiki/Lost_antenna > >I'm sure you would cross-exam the witness very vigorously >and ask the judge to throw the claim out of court if >you were on the other side of the aisle. ;o) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:19:42 From: Hue Miller Subject: Howland antenna "It was mentioned that the Point St. George station regularly reported about 15% more bearings in response to net flashes than any other station in the net. This was believed to be attributed to the fact that the dipoles on the HFDF unit at Point St. George were tuned and that the Model DT was operated on alternating current. " I cannot right now find the email that this response of mine applies to. But, reading the above from the Navy report published on the web pages i referenced, you have here the clue that Howland used an Adcock DF antenna, not a loop. The clue, of course, is "dipoles". The photo of the "DF shack" is tiny and low-res, but you can see a horizontal beam going across the peak of the shack; at each end of this beam was a vertical antenna, "dipole". A dipole refers to a bisected length, by the way, and has no reference to actual length. The fouled-up coil mentioned as a victim of careless storage practice was probably the goniometer rotating coil assembly, used to control the output of the Adcock antenna. The text also mentions a DT DF setup at Bainbridge Island, near Seattle. This became one of the main stations for intercepting Japanese Navy ( "IJN" ) radio traffic during WW2. A loop antenna would be probably not deliver the needed signal strength for long-haul reception and certainly had nowhere near the DF accuracy when pulling in HF (shortwave) signals. The network of coastal and shipboard Adcock system HF direction finders was also used in WW2 to locate German U-boats in the Atlantic. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:20:26 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Trailing antenna A few points about Earhart and radio (trying to answer Alan's question about the "evidence")... Alan wrote: "...from what transpired it is easy to say Earhart was a radio novice or even worse. In 1937 there was little or no radio use and many planes had none. I would think, however, with a round the world flight in the making and all the radio installations she would have learned as much as she could about them and their use. I don't see any evidence of that" - - accordingly to the bios, yet in November 21, 1934 a permit for AE's radio issued in Washington; and a month later AE was licensed as a third-class radio telephone operator. Shortly before her departure to the World Flight (March 14, 1937) AE passed her written and radio (sic) tests - that was necessary for renewal of her license. I think, it suggests that she had some, at least basic, skills and knowledge about her radio. Kind regards - sincerely, LTM - Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:48:20 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Belly antenna >From Alan Caldwell > >You know Marty, I don't even remember when the infamous wire was >supposedly found or by who or where we got the information. I must not >have thought it was critical to the story. That's why I put the source on the wiki. It's third- or fourth- hand. I'm not saying it's wrong, of course. Just that it's not same-day documentation. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:29:18 From: Rick Jones Subject: Western Electric Type 20 Sales Brochure Ebay has an 8 page sales brochure listed at: http://cgi.ebay.com/1936-BROCHURE-WESTERN-ELECTRIC-TYPE-20-AIRCRAFT-RADIO_W0QQitemZ310123718446QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item310123718446 "Original sales brochure for this early commercial aircraft wireless. Large format 8x11 inch 8 pager. Tech info and requirements for the Model 20A, 20B Radio receivers, and also the 27A Control unit for both. An unusual aviation collectible, to say the least, and quite scarce! " Rick J *********************************** What is the bidding like? Is it at all affordable? We'd really like to have this. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:34:57 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Western Electric Type 20 Sales Brochure Buy It Now for $45 Karen **************************** Could somebody do this real quick like and send it to us? We can reimburse you but I am soooo swamped today..... Mini tanks! Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:52:39 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Noonan's radio skills Ric, do we have any details on how the Pan Am navigators interacted with the radio operators during a transoceanic flight? What I am looking for is information on how well FN understood the practice of "radio navigation". We know that the Pan Am navigators got the planes within the vicinity of the airport/station, but then did they go back and sit down and leave it up to the radio operator to guide the pilot to the landing? Or did the navigator work the flight all the way down in concert with the radio operator? We have laid a great deal of responsibility on AE concerning her dealing with the DF when she was close-in to Howland but I wonder what FN would/could have been doing in those closing minutes. If you count experience as a significant factor in using radio navigation to find Howland, clearly the most experienced in this regard would have been FN. Ted ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:53:15 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Western Electric Type 20 Sales Brochure I bought it and will send it to you when it arrives. Karen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:16:29 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Western Electric Type 20 Sales Brochure You're most generous, Karen. And fast! Rick J ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:40:54 From: Karen Hoy Subject: Re: Western Electric Type 20 Sales Brochure Would TIGHAR be interested in the following, from the same seller: Very scarce original sales brochure for the line of aircraft wireless units that Western Electric Radio was selling to the private aircraft market in 1935. Info and tech data on the model 19A transmitter, and the 17A reciever. VG condition. An 8 pager, 3.5 by 6 inches in diameter. Beautiful, and quite scarce! ************************** Just on general principles, yes. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:41:25 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's radio skills >From Ted Campbell > >.. If you count >experience as a significant factor in using radio navigation to find >Howland, clearly the most experienced in this regard would have been >FN. I'm not Ric, but I have an opinion. I'm sure that Fred would know what to do with a bearing AFTER a radio operator derived it. There is no evidence that Fred knew anything about operating the radios onboard. Gurr says that he gave some instruction to Earhart and Manning but none to Noonan. This article tells the story of how Manning and Noonan navigated to Hawaii on March 17, 1937: Ric, do we have any details on how the Pan Am navigators interacted >with the radio operators during a transoceanic flight? > >What I am looking for is information on how well FN understood the >practice of "radio navigation". We know that the Pan Am navigators >got the planes within the vicinity of the airport/station, but then >did they go back and sit down and leave it up to the radio operator >to guide the pilot to the landing? Or did the navigator work the >flight all the way down in concert with the radio operator? On the Pan Am Clippers neither the navigator nor the radio operator guided the pilot to the landing. The ground station did that via instructions relayed through the radio operator. The radio operator established morse code communication with the ground station and then transmitted a signal. The ground station used its large Adcock Direction Finder antenna array to take a bearing on the signal. The ground station operator then sent a morse code message to the radio operator aboard the Clipper telling him the bearing. The radio operator then informed the pilot and he corrected the heading as appropriate. So, as you see, the radio operator didn't do any navigating. He simply operated the radio. >We have laid a great deal of responsibility on AE concerning her >dealing with the DF when she was close-in to Howland but I wonder >what FN would/could have been doing in those closing minutes. If >you count experience as a significant factor in using radio >navigation to find Howland, clearly the most experienced in this >regard would have been FN. Flying aboard a Pan Am Clipper would not give Noonan any experience in operating an airborne DF. Pan Am didn't use them. Pilots on domestic airlines, however, did use airborne DFs to navigate. Earhart, unfortunately, went to some lengths to avoid taking the radio navigation test prior to her world flight. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:32:33 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Radio skills Third Class FCC license is really nothing, isn't it? I mean they basically hand them out to radio broadcast people after they agree not to use profanity, and other basic rules, right? That means about zero technical knowledge. Technical knowledge about repair wouldn't have helped her either. What you going to do if you're stuck at some African airfield and your radio breaks? You can't carry spares anyway, or tools. However, maybe a better understanding of how to use it would have been appropriate. It would have also been good if she knew enough to know trying to use 7500 for homing was still experimental and not to be toyed with in life-or-death circumstances. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:33:49 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Howland antennas "But, reading the above from the Navy report published on the web pages i referenced, you have here the clue that Howland used an Adcock DF antenna, not a loop. The clue, of course, is "dipoles". The photo of the "DF shack" is tiny and low-res, but you can see a horizontal beam going across the peak of the shack; at each end of this beam was a vertical antenna, "dipole". A dipole refers to a bisected length, by the way, and has no reference to actual length." Please be careful referencng any photos of Howland and their radio set-up. In addition to the radio used by the 4 colonizers, the Itasca put some sort of another radio on the island so they could talk directly to Cipriani. What you are probably seeing are portions of those antennas. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:34:26 From: Ron Bright Subject: Gurr, antennas, and Ameali For those that are interested in Joseph Gurrs relationship with the Electra and Earhat whilst fixing her antenna before the World Flight. In Ric's post of 26 Feb 09, he accurately describes the antenna configurations of the 10E when it was delivered from Lockheed in July 1936. There was a single belly wire dedicated to receiving voice mounted under the aircraft. Ric claims this belly antenna was the only one that remained "unchanged" from the day of delivery to the time it disappeared at Lae. I am not so sure about that, as I would think that this belly wire and masts would have been seriously damaged at the Luke field crash by the looks of the airplane on the tarmac, but maybe not. . Nevertheless, what did Joseph Gurr say about the original antenna configurations at Burbank prior to the start of the world flight. In a letter to Fred Goerner circa 1964 he described his meetings with Amelia and Fred at Burbank during their initial preparations, and became their radio "genius" when he fixed the radio receiver when he found the antenna lead under the co-pilots seat disconnected. He describes various test flights out to sea and found that he was able to take bearings on broadcast stations using the "belly sensing antenna" by switching to the direction finding loop. The plane subsequently started the World Flight with that configuration. After the crash at Luke Field in March 37, Gurr , asked to repair the radios, removed all of the radio installations. Gurr said he then "redesigned" the top V antenna by raising it off the fuselage with a new stub mast with a wire to each rudder and a lead in from one side to an insulator in the fuselage. Additionally he redesigned a "belly sensing antenna for preliminary reception of signals to be used for direction finding". (Maybe he was repairing the original wire) Six years later on Jan 19, 1970, Goerner interviewed Gurr at his home. I don't have this tape but in a general transcript prepared by Goerner, Gurr confirmed his descriptions of redesigning the top and bottom antenna installations after the Luke field crash. He added the Electra did have a Navy Bendix built direction finder which he installed..Gurr believed that the Electra could transmit whether on land or sea as long as the top of the aircraft was above water (emergency batteries) but the Electra could not receive because the " V antenna for reception was beneath the aircraft". In 1977, Gurr was professionally filmed and taped by a Scandia employee in California concerning his work on the Electra.(1) In this interview, he reiterated his association with Amelia, Mantz, Putnam and Capt Harry Manning at Burbank, and described test flights. The radio equipment worked "just fine". After the Luke field crash he again worked on the radio systems at Burbank, "beefing up' the the top antenna with a 20" stub mast which he also moved forward. On three test flights the DF worked fine with AM stations using the DF loop and he was able to get accurate bearings. He described other interesting aspects of her preparations and believed she would have known how to use the RDF going into Howland. He was at a loss on what "happened" to her. I don't pretend to understand all of these redesigns and functions but that is what Joe Gurr recollected after some thirty years and more. Gurr seems to confirm that the primary receiving antenna, although perhaps replaced, was below the aircraft, and parallel to the sensing antenna. LTM, Ron Bright (1) I cant identify who the interviewer was and the exact date of the interview. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:09:52 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Miami photo Hue Miller writes, >I don't know anything about the Hooven DF receiver; in fact, in 40 years i've not >seen a trace of one, or advertising, or an article. Was this ADF, so there was >no operator rotating of loop required? There were reportedly only three of them. One was installed on NR16020 from roughly October 1936 until early March 1937. Another one, or possibly the same one, was on Howard Hughes Lockheed Model 14 during his around the world flight in 1938. According to Hooven, this was the first ADF. He called it a Radio Compass. >The other photo, the undentified "crank thing", is that in the upper left, above >the windshield? I see what you mean about crank: at first i thought that was just >a fastener, tho. Yeah, it does seem to be a crank. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:47:05 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr, antennas, and Amelia From Ron Bright >... In a >letter to Fred Goerner circa 1964 he described his meetings with Amelia >and Fred at Burbank during their initial preparations, and became their >radio "genius" when he fixed the radio receiver when he found the >antenna lead under the co-pilots seat disconnected. Isn't that the 3 May 1982 letter? The 1982 letter says that Goerner didn't contact Gurr until 1969. Cf: >He describes various test flights out to sea and found that he was able >to take bearings on broadcast stations using the "belly sensing antenna" >by switching to the direction finding loop. The plane subsequently >started the World Flight with that configuration. The way I read the letter, that was the first world flight (March 17). >After the crash at Luke Field in March 37, Gurr , asked to repair the >radios, removed all of the radio installations. Gurr said he then >"redesigned" the top V antenna by raising it off the fuselage with a new >stub mast with a wire to each rudder and a lead in from one side to an >insulator in the fuselage. Additionally he redesigned a "belly sensing >antenna for preliminary reception of signals to be used for direction >finding". (Maybe he was repairing the original wire) There probably wasn't much left of the original after the crash. >Six years later on Jan 19, 1970, Goerner interviewed Gurr at his home. I >don't have this tape but in a general transcript prepared by Goerner, >Gurr confirmed his descriptions of redesigning the top and bottom >antenna installations after the Luke field crash. He added the Electra >did have a Navy Bendix built direction finder which he installed..Gurr >believed that the Electra could transmit whether on land or sea as long >as the top of the aircraft was above water (emergency batteries) but the >Electra could not receive because the "V antenna for reception was >beneath the aircraft". A ventral V antenna is mentioned only in Goerner's notes. None of Gurr's letters uses calls the sensing antennas "V" antennas. >... He was at a loss on what "happened" to her. He seems to have made up his mind by 1982: "Amelia had all the necessary equipment, apparently all in working order, but the skill factor simply was not there. Yes, I tried and tried to get Amelia into that airplane while it was in Burbank, to teach her the fundamentals of radio direction finding. I felt that the success of the project depended on a successful homing in on the Coast Guard Cutter Itasca at Howland Island. "If you have ever flown over the ocean, as many of our United Air Lines Pilots did in the Air Transport Command operation during the war, you know that our pilots always homed in on radio range signals which were set up at all the tiny islands they were destined for. I mean ALWAYS. Literally thousands of flights were made, jumping from one tiny island to another. The fact that these flights were made over water had nothing to do with it. All that did matter was that each destination had a radio range to home in on. Of course they navigated, celestial and dead reckoning, but the last one or two hundred miles were flown on a radio beam. If for some reason the radio signal failed, or was unusable on one island, the flight planned and carried enough fuel to proceed to another island where the range was working. This was under visual flight conditions. "Amelia absolutely had to home in on Howland. They navigated close enough, the strength of their radio signals showed that. At 7:58 A.M. July 2nd their signals were strong, and 50 watts of power at 3105 kilohertz at that time of the day had a limited range. Right here was the crucial period. If the Itasca heard them that well, they were definitely within range of radio signals from the Itasca, strong enough to easily take a heading via the direction finder. Finding Howland now depended on Radio Direction finding, and absolutely nothing else, smoke signals from the Itasca or anything else notwithstanding. Knowledge and accurate and precise use of DF was needed now, and there was a failure. "Amelia knew that DF was vital to the operation at Howland. Therefore, we must assume that the equipment on board was functioning properly before leaving Lae, New Guinea. She must have realized that she could hardly expect to sight Howland by navigation alone, flying over 2550 miles distance, with no markers, unknown wind and cloud condition. DF bearings were her only salvation as she approached the vicinity of Howland Island. "... I should have insisted on spending more time in instructing Amelia in the use of DF, knowing that, to a large degree, radio direction finding would sooner or later spell success or failure of the entire project. It was close. "... Amelia and Noonan flew a great distance, with several stops en route, over countries with radio stations. Frequencies and tine of operation of stations all over the world are known and published. There was all kinds of time and every opportunity to practice the use of their direction finding equipment. By the time they reached Lae New Guinea, both Amelia and Noonan should have been expert in radio operation on that airplane. " ... what happened at Howland? Amelia did all the radio work. Noonan was not a pilot, so we must assume Amelia did all the flying. Amelia was well checked out and versed in flying that airplane, but obviously she was not proficient in operation of the radio. From the logs I have seen, it was a poor performance. They could not seem to coordinate their radio conversations with Itasca, could not establish a meaningful two way conversation to enable them to perform a plan of operation with Itasca. I can only imagine what was happening in that cockpit during ring the last hour of flight, with fuel running low, two way communication failing, unable to get any outside opinion or help. They were lost. A fine airplane, operational radio gear, help standing by, every reason for success so close but for the human element that failed to produce at the critical moment." >Gurr seems to confirm that the primary receiving antenna, although >perhaps replaced, was below the aircraft, and parallel to the sensing >antenna. Yes, his comment about not being able to receiveif stranded on an island or floating on the water because the receiving antenna (whether a V or a straight wire) was below the fuselage seems to confirm Ric's view of the function of the ventral antenna. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:48:02 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Miami photo Hue Miller asks, >Ric, what's the deal on the ceiling, visible just to the top right corner of the >passageway, farther toward the front from where AE and the loop entry is? It seems to be a plate associated with the refueling port for the starboard side forwardmost fuselage tank. >Your explanation of the loop cable leaves me wondering how to explain one of >the four armored cables on front. Also, what's this horizontal rail thing on the >right wall, with a couple of vertical "drops" coming off it? My dumb guess would >be 12 volt distribution, but what do i know? There's an identical rig on the left side. I've always assumed they're associated with the fuel system. >Also, where do you reckon the sense antenna takeout lead is? It's hard to tell but there's something that looks like it might be an insulator on the belly just about under where Earhart is in the photo and close to the port-side belly antenna. That would make sense. >I am kinda puzzled that with the DF receiver so high up in the ship, they didn't >place the sense antenna on top, not go all the way to the bottom side of the >ship. The sense antenna would only have to be maybe 6 ft long, i think, (i guess) >so wouldn't that fit up top without running into the main antenna? Puzzlement >here. The guy to ask would be Fred Hooven. Unfortunately he died shortly before we began this project. >BTW, this thing in the Miami photo. The "window" in it looks - >suspiciously - like the window in the RA-1 receiver control box. I will >take a look at the catalog later today. This is scary. The RA-1 control box does have the same funny-shaped window, but the box in the Miami photo is definitely not an RA-1 control box. The funny-shaped window does suggest that the box in the Miami photo is a Bendix product. The presence of a window and a crank would seem to imply some kind of frequency selection or tuning function. I wonder if the box serves as a remote for the WE20B receiver when the loop is selected? Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:12:05 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gurr, antennas, and Amelia Ron, photographs of the Electra confirm that her top antenna mast was lengthened and moved forward after the Luke crash. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:12:46 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Gurr, antennas and Amelia Marty, The dates are confusing but here are my three sources 1.Letter from Gurr to Goerner. The one I have starts at page 2, but the donor indicates circa 1964. I can't find the donors name so far. Page 2 starts half way down with "Now it happened to be Amelia Earhart in 1937" 2. A "transcript (partical) typed by Goerner on 19 Jan 70 re Joseph Gurr. Notes on the margin indicate it was a typed interview at his home in Los Altos. I don't have the tape. 3. A hour tape made by an unidentificed employee of Scandia circa 1977 based on the interviewers comment, "here we are 40 years later"...I don't know who else has the tape. A film was made and the tape was made as the filming was done,hence pretty amateurish. The rememberances sound very similar.Yes Gurr started working with AE prior to the start of the first attempt. Ron B PS Marty , send me your email, as I have another question about an article you wrote years ago. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:32:33 From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: flight simulator Sorry for coming late to the party. Just re-established my cyberspace outpost after a month long war with computer aliens. I am an avid flight/racing/wargame sim player. Been at it since the Amiga days. Currently aviating with MS FSX (all updates) and racing online with a group which self-developed the sim (CMS ILMS racing series). My day job, before becoming mostly retired, was in marketing and advertising with a significant amount of new product development experience. Developing a successful product/service depends on the favorable resolution of a few key issues: THE USER/BUYER 1. Who is the target audience (lifestyle, demographics, activities)? 2. Why will they be interested (what will trigger their investigation)? 3. What will motivate them to use/buy (discovery, challenge, experience, education)? 4. What will cause them to be satisfied/enthusiastic after use? THE PRODUCER 1. What's to be gained (why bother, what's the payoff)? 2. Can it be done (technology, financing, experience)? Odds of success are dramatically increased by getting user/buyer feedback in the idea/prototype/finished product stages of development. I see the possibility of two different products based on user/buyer segment and TIGHAR goals: 1. Replication of last flight, and possibly others, for the dedicated flight simmers seeking the challenge of full on historical realism. 2. Interactive discovery/learning experience for those intrigued by the mystery of AE's disappearance. If the Committee To Develop is looking for bodies I volunteer. Check Six, JHam (2126) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:53:14 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr, antennas, and Amelia >From Ron Bright, > >The dates are confusing but here are my three sources > >1.Letter from Gurr to Goerner. The one I have starts at page 2, but >the donor indicates circa 1964. I can't find the donor's name so far. >Page 2 starts half way down with "Now it happened to be Amelia >Earhart in 1937" Here is the part you're missing (transcription by Pat Thrasher, circa 1998): ==================================== May 3, 1982 Mr. Frederick Allen Goerner Twenty-four Presidio Terrace San Francisco, Cal, 94118 Dear Fred: In reply to your letter of January 20th; You asked me to tell my story in detail, about my connection with Amelia Earhart's Preparation for her around the world flight. You have indicated to me that you felt I could perhaps shed some light on why the mission was not successful. Yes Fred, perhaps I can. At least, this is my story, how I felt then, and how I feel now. I have lived with a feeling about Amelia's flight, and the feeling is not to my liking. Not that it dominates me all the time, but every time "Amelia Earhart" comes up, as it does so often, my concern turns almost to a feeling of responsibility. I know I should not feel this way, because Amelia must have had many opportunities before the flight, and while en route, to consult and receive instruction in the use of the radio equipment, from people very likely better qualified than I. What I shall put down here is mainly based on a technical point of view, with an ending of my opinion you asked for. All your research into the search for Amelia is one thing. My thinking, and indeed involvement, is based on my personal background of education and experience in radio and aviation. As you know, I have purposely kept out of any discussion about my involvement. Fred, I worked on the equipment, and I did my best to instruct Amelia in the operation and use of it. The flight failed because something failed in the airplane, perhaps equipment, which I doubt, perhaps cockpit failure or perhaps both. I have always felt that in a way I failed and had nothing to be proud of. So I chose not to discuss the operation. If you had not uncovered my name at Lockheed, it would still be so. My involvement was in 1937. You found my name in Lockheed's engineering file in 1969. At the time of my involvement with Amelia Earhart in 1937, I brought with me a record of four years at sea as a radioman in the Navy. I was discharged in 1922 as Chief Radioman before I was 21 years old. I had already taken my examination and obtained my First Class Radiotelegraph License in New York, in preparation for a life at sea. However, aviation detoured me and I became involved in engineering and construction of the prototype of two way, high frequency- as we called it in those days- radio telephone equipment with Boeing Air Transport in Oakland, California in 1929. I remained in ground operations until 1936, when I was assigned as a Flight Dispatcher in Burbank, California. This was a new activity in Flight Operations, and Boeing School of Aeronautics took on the job of instructing the men assigned to these new jobs. We completed courses in Aeronautical Meteorology, Advanced Meteorology, Radio Direction Finding, Dead Reckoning Avigation, Avigation and Celestial Avigation. We attended the same classes as pilots in equipment familiarization. With the exception of actual piloting the airplane, we were required to be qualified in every phase of flight operations and ground operations as well. It was an interesting and busy life, long hours of work and home work, and we all loved it. We were helping to build an airline, and we knew it. During this time, and ever since I was a kid in High School, I had, and still have, an Amateur Radio Station on the air. I made it a point to keep up to date through technical papers and extra curriculum work in the field. Amateur Radio was one of the ways to keep my construction fingers busy. Then there were commercial consultant jobs that seemed to pop up every so often. Some of them rather interesting, like being involved in the installation of a television transmitter in Bakersfield, California. I worked with Dr. Lee DeForest, who was the designer. The equipment was monstrous, but we made it work and we had a picture. This was 1935. Now it happened to be Amelia Earhart in 1937. So much for background. ===================== >2. A "transcript (partical) typed by Goerner on 19 Jan 70 re Joseph >Gurr. Notes on the margin indicate it was a typed interview at his >home in Los Altos. I don't have the tape. Yes, Pat and Ric have shown me that transcript, too. >3. A hour tape made by an unidentified employee of Scandia circa 1977 >based on the interviewers comment, "here we are 40 years later"...I >don't know who else has the tape. A film was made and the tape was >made as the filming was done,hence pretty amateurish. I haven't seen that. >The remembrances sound very similar. Yes, Gurr started working with >AE prior to the start of the first attempt. Ron B PS Marty , send me >your email, as I have another question about an article you wrote >years ago. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:53:48 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Gurr, antennas, and Amelia I believe I have the tape of Gurr that you are referring to. I just listened to it again tonight, and heard him talk about the radio installation. Some things he was very clear about. He said that he taught Amelia how to use the Direction Finger, and she in fact "was quite good with it." He said that it worked very well on test flights out to sea from Burbank, and all along the California coast. He also said that he modified the top Vee antenna, so that she could use it on all frequencies. He definitely stated on the tape that the top antenna could be used to transmit and receive on all frequencies. It was her primary communication antenna. At no time of the tape does he mention a belly antenna. But he does talk about the trailing wire antenna. His opinion was that she really didn't need it, that her Vee antenna was sufficient for all radio work. The tape was made in Gurr's home, but no date is indicated. The tape recorder was left running while Gurr was being filmed. It catches all kinds of background noises, including the door bell when some one came to the door for something. The tape is about 30 or 40 minutes long. Question? Don Jordan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:54:36 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Miami photo Got home and am looking at the Miami photo from Ric, which looks MUCH better here than the small dark print i made earlier. My thoughts: 1.There is a typical receiver size dynamotor over on the right top deck of the unit. Those 2 light short pieces at 45 degree angles are hold-downs for the dynamotor assembly. 2. The small chrome looking or shiny small rectangle being pointed at by AE's left hand ring finger, is the flexible tuning shaft, with it's shiny metal knurled fastener. 3. AE's left hand is attaching a wire or narrow cable to the ADF front. Because it takes off parallel to the front panel, not straight out or radiused, i am guessing it is just a single or double conductor, and may be the sense antenna wire. 4. There seems to be 4 fat armored cables coming off the left side panel. I account for some: control box multiconductor; power cable, 2 conductor able to carry about 5 amps; loop signal cable, ? low capacitance double conductor shielded ? cable; and one more, no idea. Possible power to the loop assembly? 5. In addition, on the unit side facing us, looks like some large power connector or signal meter hole was cut, but not used, making the inside chassis visible. Due to this being a prototype or rush job - no cover piece installed over this hole? My take on it, anyway. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:55:05 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Gurr, antennas, and Amelia Gurr confirms that. Don J. >From Alan Caldwell > >Ron, photographs of the Electra confirm that her top antenna mast >was lengthened and moved forward after the Luke crash. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:55:51 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Gurr, and antennas, and Amelia For Marty, I just listened again to the audio tape of Gurr telling about the radio installation, and Earhart's DF abilities. What is stated below did not come from Gurr, or at least it is paraphrasing. It is NOT an exact quote. It appears to be biased, and written by some one else. I can hear Gurr's voice clearly on the tape. Some of it is accurate, but there is a lot left out. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:56:38 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Radio skills Hue Miller wrote: "Third Class FCC license is really nothing, isn't it?" - - I am not a radiooperator myself, and have no any radiooperator license. So, i just don't know what exactly is "Third Class FCC license" (and what it was in 30s). So, i just referred to the fact that Earhart did have such license. And, it still seems reasonable for me to assume that some, at least basic, radio knowledge and skills were required to get such license (as well as some level of skills was obviously needed to pass the "tests" that Earhart passed in March 14, 1937, to renovate her license). Doesn't the fact of some tests, just itself, logically assume that there is some level of something (knowledge, skills) is required and examined?... That's just what i meant. LTM - sincerely, Marcus Lind P.S. Generally, I am still under strong impression that such "ultimately principal" importance of radio skills for Earhart and Noonan to reach Howland is rather an artificial modern concept (inspired and conditioned by total dominance of electronics and radio in modern navigation), not a proven undoubtful reality of the days of Earhart's flight. At least i still did never see any contemporary evidence that it was "not a Noonan's job to get them to Howland", and that Earhart and Noonan (and their advisors) assumed that it was impossible for him to find Howland without radio navigation. In short, i just can't see any real proof that the radio equipment, in the original plan , was considered as such a "critical point" (or a "difference between life and death", etc.)- not just a useful "backup" and reserve method. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:57:13 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Cockpit mystery box H.M.: BTW, this thing in the Miami photo. The "window" in it looks - suspiciously - like the window in the RA-1 receiver control box. I will take a look at the catalog later today. This is scary. R.G.: The RA-1 control box does have the same funny-shaped window, but the box in the Miami photo is definitely not an RA-1 control box. The funny-shaped window does suggest that the box in the Miami photo is a Bendix product. The presence of a window and a crank would seem to imply some kind of frequency selection or tuning function. I wonder if the box serves as a remote for the WE20B receiver when the loop is selected? Ric Okay, here i go: As a contestant on the game show "Name That Thing", here's my thinking: 1.There is no exact match in my 1940 Bendix catalog. However, we agree the distinctive "window" indicates a Bendix product. 2. The Bendix MR-1 control box for the RA-1 receiver is, per catalog, approx. 7 inches tall and 10 inches wide. The unit in the pix is ?maybe? this size - hard for me to visually judge - but is "turned 90 degrees", that is, "portrait format" instead of the MR-1's "landscape format". 3. Bendix would not make a control box for another manufacturer's product and another manufacturer would never countenance the mixing of units. In any case, the connectors, cable conductors, and tuning range would never work for a mix of Bendix and WE components of the same radio equipment. 4. Let's rule out that it is the control head for a loop-antenna coupler type thing: The Bendix "loop amplifier" ( Bendix's actual designation for the control unit ) has 3 knobs and 2 switches. It does not have a detailed tuning window or scale, such as a receiver has. The only crank associated with the loop coupler thing is an AZimuth control, and it's on a separate small box. 5. Therefore i concur that the thing in the photo is the type of control box that a receiver would use, that is, local control head for a remotely stashed receiver. 6. The mystery unit has at least one crank-type knob, left side amidships. Is that thing below it another crank? The Bendix RA-1 is a little "different" in that the band change does not operate with a "click" detente, it rotates continuously and the desired wave band is "cranked" into position. Thus the MR-1 has 2 crank type knobs. In the MR-1 these are black and are on the right side. 7. The white strip below the tuning window on mystery item, i take for silkscreened on manufacturer model information - the MR-1 has an actual nameplate affixed below the window. 8. The MR-1 has 2 crank knobs, one plain round black knob, and 3 switches, and 2 "quarter inch phone jacks." The mystery item has one or 2 crank knobs, two? maybe round knobs, 2? maybe toggle switches. Over on its left wall, is that a single phone jack? Just above the window to the right, is a blur. The actual MR-1 has a unique type of panel light projector which stands out from the front panel, and may almost look like a large oblong knob. I am thinking this thing on the mystery box, is the same pilot lamp assembly, and perhaps some of the blurring of the other panel items on the mystery unit, is the result of light from the pilot lamp . Oh, yes, i wanted to also note that the function of an up-down toggle switch can also be performed by a rotating knob. 9. I don't see any cables coming from the mystery item. It requires 2 flex control cables - tuning and waveband - and a multiconductor cable of 1/2 inch or less for the electrical functions. On the top of the mystery item, some cylindrical thing - i don't understand that. 10. My conclusion: a prototype or early production of the MR-1 control box for the Bendix RA-1 receiver. I don't think anyone extant has ever seen one. Even the WW2 MR-1's are very scarce; it seems these units were usually left in the aircraft to be scrapped out, along with mounting trays and cables. 11. Apparently we don't know for certain that this photo is of AE's plane. However, IF i am right, and it's in fact an early production, control box for the RA-1: how many Lockheed Electras were flying with the latest and newest Bendix development on board? Am i all wet, without a liferaft? Where do we go from here? -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:57:59 From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: Howland antenna "But, reading the above from the Navy report published on the web pages i referenced, you have here the clue that Howland used an Adcock DF antenna, not a loop. The clue, of course, is "dipoles". The photo of the "DF shack" is tiny and low-res, but you can see a horizontal beam going across the peak of the shack; at each end of this beam was a vertical antenna, "dipole". A dipole refers to a bisected length, by the way, and has no reference to actual length." Hue, the Pan Am website, at one time, had a story about the construction of their Pacific bases. If I recall correctly their Adcock antennas consisted of about 16 telephone poles per antenna array arranged in a large diameter circle. The wooden telephone poles supported the wire for the antenna. I think it would be easily recognizable and a major construction consideration. It was the size of the array that gave reliable HFDF to give the Clippers direction information from about 200 miles out. I believe Noonan expected the same from Howland when AE requested bearing information from 200 miles out. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:58:30 From: Ron Bright Subject: Amelia and portable HF/DF at Howland While of the subject of radio and RDF, I revisited a letter that Fred Goerner sent fo Commander Hiles , March 10, 1970. He wrote that he learned from Capt August Detzer, OP-20-GZ in 1937, that "Miss Earhart was indeed cooperating with the Navy in the testing of the direction finding equipment at the time of her disappearance, and that she was fully aware that the Navy had arranged to have the 3105 HF/DF established on Howland Island for her use". Goerner said that he found it hard to understand why Capt Safford could have "completely forgotten" the matter. Although she had direction finding equipment aboard, it is my understanding that AE didn't know about the portable Navy HF/DF unit at Howland. Would it have made any difference? LTM, RON Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:26:05 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Miami photo Hue Miller writes, >Got home and am looking at the Miami photo from Ric, which looks >MUCH better here than the small dark print i made earlier. >My thoughts: Those are all good thoughts Hue but the photo you're referring to is not the "Miami photo." The "Miami photo" is the one that shows the cockpit instrument panel. Elgen Long alleged that the photo shows the panel of NR16020 in Miami prior to Earhart's public departure on the second world flight attempt. There is nothing in the photo that identifies the aircraft as NR16020 but the panel layout is consistent with other known photos of Earhart's aircraft. There is also nothing in the photo that identifies when and where it was taken. The photo you're referring to that shows the receiver mounted on top of the fuel tanks in the cabin was probably taken in October 1936. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:36:40 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio skills Marcus Lind writes, >- I am not a radiooperator myself, and have no any radiooperator >license. So, i just don't know what exactly is "Third Class FCC >license" (and what it was in 30s). So, i just referred to the >fact that Earhart did have such license. And, it still seems >reasonable for me to assume that some, at least basic, radio >knowledge and skills were required to get such license (as well as >some level of skills was obviously needed to pass the "tests" that >Earhart passed in March 14, 1937, to renovate her license). I had to get a Third Class FCC license before I could solo. The only skill I needed was the ability to fill out the brief form requesting the license. That was 1965 but I'd be surprised if the requirements had become less rigorous since 1937. A Third Class license basically tells the FCC that someone by your name is going to be talking on an aircraft radio. >Generally, I am still under strong impression that such "ultimately >principal" importance of radio skills for Earhart and Noonan to >reach Howland is rather an artificial modern concept (inspired and >conditioned by total dominance of electronics and radio in modern >navigation), not a proven undoubtful reality of the days of E>arhart's flight. > >At least i still did never see any contemporary evidence that it >was "not a Noonan's job to get them to Howland", and that Earhart >and Noonan (and their advisors) assumed that it was impossible for >him to find Howland without radio navigation. In short, i just can't >see any real proof that the radio equipment, in the original plan , >was considered as such a "critical point" (or a "difference between >life and death", etc.)- not just a useful "backup" and reserve method. I give up. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:44:29 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Cockpit mystery box Hue Miller wrote, >3. Bendix would not make a control box for another manufacturer's >product and another manufacturer would never countenance the mixing >of units. In any case, the connectors, cable conductors, and tuning >range would never work for a mix of Bendix and WE components of the >same radio equipment. Then how do you explain the description in the August 1937 Aero Digest article? "Bendix D-Fs are designed to operate in conjunction with Bendix Type RA-1 receiver, but will also give accurate and dependable bearings when used with any standard receiver covering the desired frequency range." Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:16:38 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Cockpit mystery box >From Ric > >Hue Miller wrote, > >>3. Bendix would not make a control box for another manufacturer's >>product and another manufacturer would never countenance the mixing >>of units. In any case, the connectors, cable conductors, and tuning >>range would never work for a mix of Bendix and WE components of the >>same radio equipment. > >Then how do you explain the description in the August 1937 Aero Digest >article? Mixing receiver components, Ric. That thing is NOT a loop coupler. It is WAY too complex to be a loop coupler. Compare it to the photo of the loop coupler the Bendix rep was showing AE. The loop coupler put out a radio signal, selected and amplified, for use by ANY kind of receiver - from home radio, if you wanted, to aircraft receiver. Otherwise it had no mechanical or electrical linkage to your receiver. -Hue ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:22:27 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Howland antenna >From Daryll Bolinger >Hue, the Pan Am website, at one time, had a story about the >construction of their Pacific bases. If I recall correctly their >Adcock antennas consisted of about 16 telephone poles per antenna >array arranged in a large diameter circle. The wooden telephone poles >supported the wire for the antenna. I think it would be easily >recognizable and a major construction consideration. > >It was the size of the array that gave reliable HFDF to give the >Clippers direction information from about 200 miles out. I believe >Noonan expected the same from Howland when AE requested bearing >information from 200 miles out. Interesting point, Daryll, on another possible misunderstanding during the flight. I at this point haven't read anything about the Pan Am setup. That is way more complex than any Adcock setup i'm familiar with. The "small Adcock array" which you see in some of those Navy website photos did offer usable resolution - altho in WW2 it was the linkup of information from several at a time which narrowed down the U-boat operating area, not pinpoint location. -Hue ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:59:57 From: Hue Miller Subject: Antennas, so far So, is it settled now that the V antenna was both receive and transmit? If so - then some other failure accounted for her non-reception. Also - IF the V was for ALL comm use - why was the under antenna retained at all? Its only use then, could be as a sense antenna. But AE's original WE receiver didn't use any sense antenna: thus there had to be another DF system on board. I "think" i have established to my satisfaction that there most probably was a Bendix RA-1 on board, as a second receiver. ( Altho i'm thinking at this point, we cannot rule out the WE receiver was removed and replaced by the more capable Bendix? ) The Bendix RA-1 does not use a sense antenna either - by itself. It seems to me: V antenna used for communications => belly antenna NOT used for communications => belly antenna still present => belly antenna used for sense antenna => device using sense antenna on board. What was that device? It would have to be the infamous "Bendix loop-tuner", nomenclatured MN-13. I need to scrutinize that Lae photo and try to compare the loop antenna to the Bendix catalog item. Is Cam Warren vindicated? Oh no! ;-0 BTW, as we discussed long ago, altho you add about 35 lbs to your load for the additional receiver, this eliminates a whole lot of dial cranking, if you are trying to communicate, using just one receiver, in the same time frame. As we're aware, all "serious" aircraft - airlines, cargo, military, etc. - carried a separate navigation receiver. ( "avigation" - i like that term. ) Gurr might have done a good job preparing AE as well as he could, and checking her installation, but i'm wondering if Bendix sold AE a bill of goods besides the second receiver, regarding the HF DF. I'll have to look into just why the HF DF was thought to be so wonderful. Was it perhaps the radio atmospheric noise level on the lower frequencies, at these latitudes? -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:03:54 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: radio skills >From Marcus Lind >At least i still did never see any contemporary evidence that it >was "not a Noonan's job to get them to Howland", and that Earhart and >Noonan (and their advisors) assumed that it was impossible for him to >find Howland without radio navigation. In short, i just can't see any >real proof that the radio equipment, in the original plan , was >considered as such a "critical point" (or a "difference between life >and death", etc.)- not just a useful "backup" and reserve method. Well, think about this, then: what if they had attempted to make the final crossing without any radio of any kind onboard. How would you judge that decision's influence on the chances of surviving, or of surviving when difficulty is experienced using navigation and vision alone? What IF the Howland direction finder was working, and AE's receiver was working? And Howland/ Itasca transmitted, for example, "We have you at bearing x degrees. 5 minutes ago you were at bearing y. You need to correct your course to z; acknowledge and transmit long count again in xyz minutes." Would that have been critical (decisive) ? -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:57:47 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Howland antennas I have not seen anything of that description on Howland, but I have seen photos of that type of antenna on other Pacific islands. Dan Postellon Tighar2263 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:02:02 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr, antennas, and Amelia >He also said that he modified the top Vee antenna, so that she could use >it on all frequencies. He definitely stated on the tape that the top >antenna could be used to transmit and receive on all frequencies. It >was her primary communication antenna. ... Her transmission potential was limited to three frequencies because her radio was crystal-controlled and pre-tuned for 500, 3105, and 6210 kcs. If the tape says that the top antenna was also used for receiving, then that contradicts what Goerner thought Gurr told him in the 1970 interview--that reception came from the ventral antenna rather than the dorsal antenna. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:38:24 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Antennas, so far Hue Miller writes, >So, is it settled now that the V antenna was both receive and >transmit? Absolutely not. >Also - IF the V was for ALL comm use - why was the under antenna >retained at all? Exactly. >I "think" i have established to my satisfaction that there most >probably was a Bendix RA-1 on board, as a second receiver. Based on what evidence? There is zero documentation for the presence of a second receiver. A Bureau of Air Commerce inspection dated November 27, 1936 describes a Bendix Radio Compass "rear of copilot's seat in cabin" (as shown in the photo). Hooven later alleged that Earhart ditched his system for a more primitive system in order to save weight. His claim is corroborated by photos that show that the distinctive faired-over loop of the Hooven system disappears in early 1937 about the same time the loop first appears. The Bureau of Air Commerce inspection done when the airplane came out of repair on May 19, 1937 makes no mention of a second receiver. If you've "established" that there was an RA-1 receiver on board based on assumptions you've made about the function of an unidentified box in an undated photo alleged to have been taken in Miami, I'd say you're on shaky ground. >The Bendix RA-1 does not use a sense antenna either - by itself. >It seems to me: >V antenna used for communications => belly antenna NOT used for >communications => belly antenna still present => belly antenna used >for sense antenna => device using sense antenna on board. >What was that device? >It would have to be the infamous "Bendix loop-tuner", nomenclatured >MN-13. > >But the August 1937 Aero Digest article that lists the "new" Bendix DF >equipment lists only the MN-1, MN-3, MN-5 and MN-7. > >I need to scrutinize that Lae photo and try to compare the loop >antenna to the Bendix catalog item. Would that be your 1940 Bendix catalog? >Is Cam Warren vindicated? Oh no! ;-0 Only if you follow his methodology. >BTW, as we discussed long ago, altho you add about 35 lbs to your load >for the additional receiver, this eliminates a whole lot of dial cranking, if >you are trying to communicate, using just one receiver, in the same time >frame. As we're aware, all "serious" aircraft - airlines, cargo, military, etc. - >carried a separate navigation receiver. ( "avigation" - i like that >term. ) I think it's a mistake to draw any conclusions about Earhart's aircraft by comparing it to "serious" aircraft. >Gurr might have done a good job preparing AE as well as he could, and >checking her installation, but i'm wondering if Bendix sold AE a bill of >goods besides the second receiver, regarding the HF DF. I'll have to look into >just why the HF DF was thought to be so wonderful. Was it perhaps the radio >atmospheric noise level on the lower frequencies, at these latitudes? You're constructing fantasies. Gurr is the clown who moved the dorsal antenna mast forward thinking he could give the airplane some capability on 500 kHz in lieu of a trailing wire. All he did was royally screw up the aircraft's ability to transmit on 3105 and 6210. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:44:05 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio skills Marcus, it is not likely that the requirements for a third class license is the same today as it was in the 30s. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:07:54 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antennas, so far >From Ric > >Hue Miller writes, > >>So, is it settled now that the V antenna was both receive and >>transmit? > >Absolutely not. > >>Also - IF the V was for ALL comm use - why was the under antenna >>retained at all? > >Exactly. I will recant on this. I go back to thinking that having the receiver entrance quite close to the receiver is preferable to a longer inside run of wire from the transmitter to up front. >>I "think" i have established to my satisfaction that there most >>probably was a Bendix RA-1 on board, as a second receiver. > >Based on what evidence? There is zero documentation for the presence >of a second receiver. A Bureau of Air Commerce inspection dated >November 27, 1936 describes a Bendix Radio Compass "rear of copilot's >seat in cabin" (as shown in the photo). Hooven later alleged that >Earhart ditched his system for a more primitive system in order to >save weight. His claim is corroborated by photos that show that the >distinctive faired-over loop of the Hooven system disappears in early >1937 about the same time the loop first appears. The Bureau of Air >Commerce inspection done when the airplane came out of repair on May >19, 1937 makes no mention of a second receiver. > >If you've "established" that there was an RA-1 receiver on board based >on assumptions you've made about the function of an unidentified box >in an undated photo alleged to have been taken in Miami, I'd say >you're on shaky ground. Okay - then we need to discard the importance of that photo. I don't have a problem with that. However, i will say that my guesstimation of its purpose is the most reasonable standing. That box has nothing to do with any loop antenna. There is a photo of the Navy contract equivalent to the Bendix loop thing at the top of the photo in this link http://aafradio.org/flightdeck/b17.htm To my eye, this looks "fatter" than the loop visible ontop AE's plane. Anyone else comment on the appearance? The only advantage, maybe, to her using the Bendix thing was to ?maybe? improve DF performance on the higher bands. However one would not use the Bendix amplifier thing with the aircraft's original antenna, a loop not specifically sold with the coupler; else the coupler's tuning chart, and tuning range, would no longer be reliable. Alright, i'm back to thinking default, orginal radio equipment, entirely WE, no extras. >>But the August 1937 Aero Digest article that lists the "new" Bendix DF >>equipment lists only the MN-1, MN-3, MN-5 and MN-7. >> >>I need to scrutinize that Lae photo and try to compare the loop >>antenna to the Bendix catalog item. > >Would that be your 1940 Bendix catalog? We have the photo of the Bendix person showing AE the new Bendix loop coupler. We also know the Navy began buying them around this time in the version with the higher bands, Navy nomenclatured "DU". We just at this moment don't know which MN- designation Bendix used for it. We also don't know if Bendix later renomenclatured it as the MN-13. We also know the version the Bendix rep showed AE was the 3 band model, 150-1500 kHz, but there was another version that tuned up to 8000 kHz. We know the size of the loop used with ANY version of the Bendix loop coupler - as distinguished from other Bendix products. Maybe from scrutinizing the loop ontop AE's plane we can finally conclude she did or didn't have the Bendix appliance onboard. >>Gurr might have done a good job preparing AE as well as he could, and >>checking her installation, but i'm wondering if Bendix sold AE a bill of >>goods besides the second receiver, regarding the HF DF. I'll have to look into >>just why the HF DF was thought to be so wonderful. Was it perhaps the radio >>atmospheric noise level on the lower frequencies, at these latitudes? > >You're constructing fantasies. Gurr is the clown who moved the dorsal >antenna mast forward thinking he could give the airplane some >capability on 500 kHz in lieu of a trailing wire. All he did was >royally screw up the aircraft's ability to transmit on 3105 and 6210. Granted, moving the dorsal antenna around on the aircraft any number of feet would not have improved 500 kHz operation. The % of increase in antenna length compared to the ideal of 1/4 wave on 500 kHz, 125 meters, is miniscule. However, i don't see that this increase, somewhat improving operation on 3105, 6210, was somehow really negative. You get somebody to get back in the plane, pop off the cover of the transmitter and readjust it. One to two hours work, max. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:02 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Antennas, so far Ric wrote: "You're constructing fantasies. Gurr is the clown who moved the dorsal antenna mast forward thinking he could give the airplane some capability on 500 kHz in lieu of a trailing wire. All he did was royally screw up the aircraft's ability to transmit on 3105 and 6210." But on the interview tape made of Gurr, he specifically states that the original antenna installation did not work well on 500 kcs. That is the reason he modified the Vee on top. He also states that he, Mantz, and Manning flew the Electra out to sea for about 3 or 4 hours on three different occasions for the specific purpose of testing the radio installation. That's roughly 500 miles from land. That was the whole purpose of the test flights. He said that he contacted the range stations before take-off and asked them to be listening for their call when they got out to sea. He stated that he called them on all three frequencies, 500, 3105, and 6210, and that they came right back with a reply of "loud and clear" on all three. He also states that because the top Vee was working so well, that she really didn't need the trailing wire antenna any longer. According to his statement he did not recommend that she remove it, only that it was not necessary because the top Vee was working so well. Amelia was so pleased that she sent him an autographed picture of the two of them with the caption "With 500 kilocycles of appreciation - Amelia Earhart". Don J.