TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Craig Romig on September 06, 2015, 01:52:23 AM

Title: Fuel usage
Post by: Craig Romig on September 06, 2015, 01:52:23 AM
https://m.facebook.com/224536440657/photos/pb.224536440657.-2207520000.1441523395./10152583037320658/?type=1&source=42 How much flight time remaining fuel would the Electra need to go from her final turn south to landing on gardner. A few hours minutes? According to this daigram
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on September 06, 2015, 06:01:13 AM
https://m.facebook.com/224536440657/photos/pb.224536440657.-2207520000.1441523395./10152583037320658/?type=1&source=42 (https://m.facebook.com/224536440657/photos/pb.224536440657.-2207520000.1441523395./10152583037320658/?type=1&source=42) How much flight time remaining fuel would the Electra need to go from her final turn south to landing on gardner. A few hours minutes? According to this daigram

It depends on altitude, weather conditions (headwinds or tailwinds), throttle and mixture settings, engine performance, etc.

You can see what the fuel burn would be under ideal conditions in the Kelly Johnson telegrams (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Kelly_Johnson.html).

You can actually search TIGHAR's website (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) to see whether anyone else has asked or answered the question in the past 26 years.  You might see what results you get from the search term, "enough fuel" (https://www.google.com/search?q=fuel+to+reach+Nikumaroro&sitesearch=tighar.org&gfe_rd=ssl&ei=ZinsVZqTKoLF-AXQ6ZbQBQ#q=%22enough+fuel%22+site:tighar.org).  Other search terms are possible, of course.


Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 06, 2015, 08:50:59 AM
It depends on altitude, weather conditions (headwinds or tailwinds), throttle and mixture settings, engine performance, etc.

Yes.  If Earhart followed Kelly Johnson's recommendations (and there's no way to know whether she did) she reached the LOP with about 190 gallons of gas left or about 5 hour's flying time at 38 gph - but that was at 10,000 feet pulling 24 inches manifold pressure at 1,600 RPM which delivered a true airspeed of 130 kts.
At last report, Earhart was flying at 1,000 feet presumably to get below he scattered cloud deck to look for Howland.  If she wanted to keep her speed up at the low altitude he would have to bump up her power setting and therefore her fuel consumption.  If she wanted to minimize her fuel consumption she would have to accept a lower airspeed.

What did she do? How far did she run north on the LOP before turning around and running south?  Did she climb  or did she stay low? How much power was she carrying.  How fast was she going? What was her fuel burn?  Nobody knows.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Craig Romig on September 06, 2015, 11:09:19 AM
Ok then if she was down to 30 minutes of fuel. How far from gardner would she be. If she could land and not restart the engines.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on September 06, 2015, 11:31:33 AM
If Earhart followed Kelly Johnson's recommendations (and there's no way to know whether she did) she reached the LOP with about 190 gallons of gas left or about 5 hour's flying time at 38 gph - but that was at 10,000 feet pulling 24 inches manifold pressure at 1,600 RPM which delivered a true airspeed of 130 kts.

I've added two sections in the article on NR16020 (http://tighar.org/wiki/Lockheed_Electra_10E_Special_-_NR16020#Normal_cruise_speed):

-- "Normal cruise speed"
-- "Recommended power and fuel management"

Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on September 06, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
Ok then if she was down to 30 minutes of fuel. How far from gardner would she be. If she could land and not restart the engines.

Wow!

Three assumptions for three sentences!

1. Randy Jacobson does not believe that "half hour left" was ever said (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,438.msg5193.html#msg5193).

2. No one knows how far from Gardner she would be, even if she said it.

3. TIGHAR believes that the "Post Loss Radio Messages" (http://tighar.org/wiki/PLRM) indicate that Earhart could restart the engines.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Craig Romig on September 06, 2015, 01:10:50 PM
Now I can't remember where I read about 30 min of fuel.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on September 06, 2015, 01:39:57 PM
Now I can't remember where I read about 30 min of fuel.

Let me google that for you (https://www.google.com/search?q=half+hour+left&sitesearch=tighar.org&gfe_rd=ssl&ei=T5bsVf7zPISX-gWzrrbQDQ).
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 06, 2015, 02:38:18 PM
Now I can't remember where I read about 30 min of fuel.

You can also check pages 94, 95, and 96 in Finding Amelia.

Earhart never said it.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: JNev on September 06, 2015, 09:20:54 PM
Ok then if she was down to 30 minutes of fuel. How far from gardner would she be. If she could land and not restart the engines.

Wow!

Three assumptions for three sentences!

Now, now...

1. Randy Jacobson does not believe that "half hour left" was ever said (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,438.msg5193.html#msg5193).

One can see that well enough (not just that Jacobson doesn't believe it, but that repeated comments about 'on the half hour' transmissions / listening could have been confusing to the listener, etc.).  'Low on fuel' apparently was said, but I'm not sure we're blessed with a definitive idea of what that would have meant in the context of that moment - close to going into reserves?  Further into reserves than desired?  An assumption due to hours elapsed and urge to find land soon?

One thing is certain - her known, verifiable transmissions ceased soon afterward (an hour or so?); assign whatever rationale for that one will - if flying around at around 1000 feet looking for the island, it remains possible that she simply ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea within moments after that, hands full of Electra from the first sputtering to the ditching (no feathering props, quick ride down).

This is of course not a new discussion but one of many years - from TIGHAR's archives -

Quote
Message:
7
 
Subject: Re: The Facts: Gas is Running Low
Date: 4/6/001
From: David Evans Katz

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>Can anyone RATIONALLY propose an alternate theory than
 >they got to the vicinity of Howland, couldn't pick up
 >the island visually and went on to the nearest land?

There is nothing IRRATIONAL about the alternate theory that they ran out of gas and went into the sea while looking for land (whether Howland, Baker, Gardner or Timbuktu). Irrespective of what is known about the Electra's prospective performance under the conditions AE faced, no one can know with any certainty precisely how much fuel remained at the time of her last transmission. We can certainly make informed estimates based upon fuel analysis and what impact external factors (such as headwinds, etc.) may have had, but it is all speculation.,p> That she stated that she was "low on gas" an hour before her last transmission is a fact. Whether she meant that she was just into her reserves or running on fumes is anyone's guess.

My point is that it is unfair to paint the alternate theory that AE splashed into the sea as "irrational."

David Evans Katz

---

Message:
9
 
Subject: Re: The Facts: Gas Is Running Low
Date: 4/6/01
From: David Evans Katz

Actually, Alan, I don't think it's irrational to pose the prospect that AE may have run out of gas within a short time of her last broadcast. the reason is that we do not know how she managed her fuel or what external factors may have impacted her fuel consumption, irrespective of the plane's capabilities.

Ric does point out, however, the inherent difficulty of testing such a hypothesis. While certainly difficult, apparently Elgen Long and Nauticos is, in fact, endeavoring to test the hypothesis. Whether they are succesful remains to be seen. The same is, of course, true for testing TIGHAR's hypothesis.

From Ric
Which was her "last broadcast"? The one heard by Itasca at 20:13 GMT (08:43 Itasca time) on July 2nd --"We are on the line 157 337...."

Or the one at 05:30 GMT on July 3rd (17:00 Itasca time on July 2nd) -- "We hear her on 3105 Kcs now, very weak and unreadable/fone."

Or the one heard by the guys on Baker at 06:50 GMT on July 3rd (21:20 Itasca time on July 2nd) -- "Baker heard Earhart plane strength 4 R7 ('good strong signals')..."

All of the above are from the Itasca radio log. Which do you want to throw out, and why?

Let's be clear that the hypothesis that Nauticos is testing is NOT that she ran out of gas shortly after her 20:13 transmission. They are testing the hypothesis that she ran out of gas at that moment AND that it is possible to know almost precisely where she was at that moment.

I'd rather look on Niku.

LTM,
 Ric


It is interesting to look back over time and to realize how little this argument has changed in its fundamentals over the years...

Granted, trying to pinpoint 'where' in the Pacific that could have happened seems mad - but given the area Nauticos actually covered, is that really the case, or did they establish a theoretical point outward from which to box the search area?  Granted also that Niku provides a 'box' - which is a highly desirable, nay, vital, to a rational search.

The question then remains how much confidence (thereby, rationally, 'belief') one has in the idea of transmissions after the 'we are on the line' call that is clearly that of Earhart by all we can tell.

2. No one knows how far from Gardner she would be, even if she said it.

Including of course, us.  It is one of the continuing conundrums of the Earhart search - and possibly an eternal one.

3. TIGHAR believes that the "Post Loss Radio Messages" (http://tighar.org/wiki/PLRM) indicate that Earhart could restart the engines.

Yes - if 'even one' such message is real then she had to be on dry land running engines.  TIGHAR 'believes', OK - but we lack 'hard' evidence to this day -

Back to Katz' quote from the archives above and the 'alternate possibility' that Earhart somehow didn't make Johnson's intended numbers on fuel consumption.  TIGHAR has her 'beliefs' - what of 'evidence'?  If one digs further into the archives -

Quote
Subject:  Re: Evidence
Date: 4/4/00
From:  David Evans Katz

For William Webster-Garman

We have no idea how deep into her reserve she was. We only know that she reported that she was "low on gas" an hour before her last transmission. I think that we should take her at her word. At 19:13 being "low on gas" does not make me optimistic that she believed she had as much as 5 hours left at that point.

With respect to "hard evidence that they were on Gardner", I submit that TIGHAR has no such hard evidence. "Anecdotes" of aircraft wreckage does not qualify as evidence in any reasonable forum. The qualify as hearsay. Actual Aircraft wreckage qualifies as evidence.

Moreover, reports of skeletons are not hard evidence that Earhart and Noonan were there. Those reports are also hearsay and the skeletons themselves (until they are found) are hard evidence merely that two humans (perhaps of European extraction) died there. They could have been two of the unfortunates from the old shipwreck or they could have been two other castaways (or they could have been Earhart & Noonan). In any event, this is hard evidence that two people died there, nothing more. The "fact" that Gerald Gallagher believed that Earhart might have been on Gardner is not quite the case. He wondered whether the remains might belong to Earhart and Noonan; there is no evidence of which I am aware that he actually believed that the remains belonged to E&N. This too, fails the test of hard evidence. Think of it this way: If someone unearthed (and subsequently lost) the bones of two other unidentified "Europeans" on McKean, such bones would have the same weight (as evidence) as those found on Gardner.

"Evidence" such as this appears to me to be as speculative and as fanciful as any other so-called evidence presented by other groups. I would classify TIGHAR's "evidence" as falling into the realm of interesting clues that may lead one to conclude that E&N possibly made it to Gardner. It is equally possible that they didn't.

David Evans Katz


From Ric

I suspect that most of the experienced pilots on the forum would agree that if you're 19 hours out and over the middle of the Pacific Ocean in a 150 mph airplane and you can't find your destination and you only have 5 hours of gas left you are most definitely "low on gas."

Contemporaneous written accounts by a first-hand source are by no stretch of the imagination "hearsay."

We also have a problem in semantics. William says we have "hard evidence" but David objects and says that all we have are "interesting clues." Let's see if we can sort this out.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines "evidence" as:

1. the condition of being evident
 2. something that makes another thing evident; indication; sign
 3. something that tends to prove; ground for belief

"Clue" is defined as:

"something that leads out of a maze, perplexity, etc. or helps to solve a problem."

I would submit that for all practical purposes the terms are interchangeable.

The term "hard evidence" is not defined but, I would suggest, is usually taken to mean evidence of a physical nature (as in documents, photographs, and artifacts) which is regarded as credible. David seems to be confusing "evidence" with "proof."

TIGHAR certainly does have hard evidence (grounds for belief) that the Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Nikumaroro. We do not yet have proof that that happened. By contrast, I am aware of no similar body of hard evidence to support a alternative hypothesis.

LTM,
 Ric

Bottom line, to have arrived at Gardner with enough fuel to make the 5 days of believed transmissions, then Earhart would have needed to fly fairly close to Kelly Johnson's guidelines.  I'm not sure we actually have more than a hope that she did so.  Johnson, in my view, was clearly trying to get Earhart to focus on controlling fuel consumption - much as Hooven tried to get her attention about radio navigation - something he failed to do.  Earhart seems notoriously inattentive to that sort of detail to me, so I simply don't share the same confidence that would lead to the same confident belief that TIGHAR has expressed.  Not saying it couldn't have happened - but in terms of evidence and probabilities in these things, while Niku is a neater box than the open sea, there remain many fuzzy edges around that box in my opinion.

Now there's three statements of fact - as to my points of view, for three sentences...

The archives are very interesting as to TIGHAR discussions from a decade or more back, by the way -

Some samples -

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights81_100/highlights82.html

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights121_140/highlights133.html#2
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Craig Romig on September 07, 2015, 01:40:54 AM
I was only curious as to what her position might have been if she only had 30 min of fuel left. I sure didn't want to drag up the subject of hearsay.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: JNev on September 07, 2015, 08:01:50 AM
Hearsay, or heresy?  :D
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 07, 2015, 08:15:56 AM
Now, now...

Now, now is right.  We don't need anyone filling over half a page without saying anything.
Posting arguments from 14 years ago is pointless.  Since then we have concluded a twelve year analysis of the post-loss radio signals, discovered the correlation between the credible signals and the water levels on the reef at Gardner, discovered and analyzed the object in the Bevington Photo, etc., etc.  Meanwhile, not only Nauticos but also Waitt have done multi-million dollar deep water searches around Howland without finding anything.  Crashed & Sank may not have been an irrational hypothesis in 2001 but it is today.  For those who want to flog that dead horse there are other places to do it.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: JNev on September 07, 2015, 11:31:55 AM
Since Marty took offense at my first response, I'll re-word it:

This is something over which honest and intelligent people may disagree.

I disagree that TIGHAR has made such conclusive findings as to render crashed and sank irrelevant.

The things you cite as such evidence are fascinating to discuss, obviously (they've been discussed exhaustively for years), but I find them short of being truly compelling that Earhart could have only ended up on Gardner.  To claim that these arguments are so compelling demands one of two things to succeed: more definitive proof (airplane), or to be repeated until the alternate voices can no longer be noticed.

The former will be required; the latter will never happen.

As to the claim that I've wasted space and that discussions from your own archives are irrelevant, I leave to the judgment of other readers.  In fact it is fascinating to see how TIGHAR has evolved from that time - and again, I leave it to the reader to discern the meat of all the analysis you cite for themselves, as I have.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 07, 2015, 12:05:17 PM
This is something over which honest and intelligent people may disagree.

Thank you. I think everyone here understands that you disagree and no one has suggested that you are dishonest or unintelligent.

In fact it is fascinating to see how TIGHAR has evolved from that time

Yes, of course TIGHAR has evolved as new research has revealed new evidence. It's called progress and it has come at great expense in time, labor, and dollars.
Meanwhile, no new evidence has turned up to support other theories (unless you're excited about Dick Spink's "dust covers").

- and again, I leave it to the reader to discern the meat of all the analysis you cite for themselves, as I have.

I share your confidence that readers can decide for themselves.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: JNev on September 07, 2015, 12:19:44 PM
The dust covers don't do much for me but they may be as substantial as your own evidence in the reader's eye - I agree, let the reader decide.

Fresh consideration of 'fuel usage' however yields much to think about.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 07, 2015, 12:21:59 PM
Fresh consideration of 'fuel usage' however yields much to think about.

What new information do you have about fuel usage?
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: JNev on September 08, 2015, 06:24:08 AM
Not to flog anyone's nag, dead or otherwise, but in response and as to room for doubt hereabouts -

I didn't say I had 'new information', just 'fresh consideration' -

One can 'do the math' in bookend cases:

Bookend ONE:

Using a fuel burn rate reported in a February 13, 1937 wire by "Putnam to De Sibour, London" - 310 pounds per hour (around 6.02 pounds per gallon at 59 degrees F): 310/6.02 = 51.495 gallons / hour - which is close to the "51.6" GPH and "52 GPH" as offered by Neff Jacobs (among other details) per below quoted posts:

Quote
...Having spent 40 years in engineering I will observe items become a commercial success or failure for more reasons than working well or not.  Case in point Kelly Johnson measured significant improvement in fuel economy using the Cambridge Meter.   It never seemed to catch on.  Was that because Earhart didn't make it, or because the filters seemed to plug a lot, or because according to an article in a Darwin paper Noonan reported Earhart habitually burned 52 gallons per hour or because it used a leaner burn than Pratt and Whitney recommended?    I strongly suspect a glittering endorsement form a successful Earhart could well have made the Cambridge Meter a must have item in all airplanes.
...

Neff

And -

I dug in my notes and found a quote from Sound of Wings, no page number. A Wire dated Feb 13 , 1937 ,Putnam to De Sibour ,  London , " Fuel consumption normal cruising speed per hour by weight 310 lb."   310/6=51.6 GPH These notes are yellow so from way back.  Context justifying heavy fuel loads over British Territory.   Max cruse for the engines would be 64 gph so it is not simply a claim for all it could burn.

Still looking for Darwin news papers.
Neff

Given that 1100 gallons were aboard at take-off in Lae per Chater (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Chater_Report.html), the Putnam/Noonan numbers yield roughly (splitting the difference between my more conservative 51.495 GPH and Noonan's least conservative 52 GPH = 51.7475 GPH) 21.257 hours of flight.

Bookend TWO:

Quote
Considering briefly Lockheed 487 Report by Kelly Johnson (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Report_487/Report487.html) and The Kelly Johnson Telegrams (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Kelly_Johnson.html) per your comment upstring -

It depends on altitude, weather conditions (headwinds or tailwinds), throttle and mixture settings, engine performance, etc.

Yes.  If Earhart followed Kelly Johnson's recommendations (and there's no way to know whether she did) she reached the LOP with about 190 gallons of gas left or about 5 hour's flying time at 38 gph - but that was at 10,000 feet pulling 24 inches manifold pressure at 1,600 RPM which delivered a true airspeed of 130 kts.
At last report, Earhart was flying at 1,000 feet presumably to get below he scattered cloud deck to look for Howland.  If she wanted to keep her speed up at the low altitude he would have to bump up her power setting and therefore her fuel consumption.  If she wanted to minimize her fuel consumption she would have to accept a lower airspeed...

Means something of around 38 GPH at best (at the end of all that fuel burn-off at the point of the LOP), or 26 hours out of 1100 gallons (roughly five hours remaining upon reaching the LOP) - which neither of us is likely to believe since as you point out she was not able to have such an optimum condition throughout the flight and because there are many unknowns, because as you say -

...What did she do? How far did she run north on the LOP before turning around and running south?  Did she climb  or did she stay low? How much power was she carrying.  How fast was she going? What was her fuel burn?  Nobody knows.

In sum we have two 'witnesses' (Noonan and Putnam) giving nearly identical 'reports' - if we dare trust that the wire and article written of exist (I'm going strictly by Jacobs' post at moment, having not seen that material - but he does cite notes in at least one case taken from the source) - of close to 52 gallons per hour, or roughly 21 and one quarter hour's worth of flying as a 'habit', AND we have the optimum Kelly Johnson case -

Split the middle if one will, etc. - that may be reasonable if we can believe that Johnson's pleas were sinking into Earhart's behavior, but we're stuck guessing. 

As to running 'slower' to 'save fuel' - in increases endurance (time in the air), yes - but not range.  Long explains that phenomenon well: if one is stuck trying to cover 'ground' (or open sea) to find a place, one is stuck using higher speeds to gain more ground for fuel burned.  Johnson's curves show this if studied.

---

So what is 'new'?  A realization that at best (for the Niku hypothesis) 'we don't know' BUT IF Earhart were somehow on the LOP remarkably far south such as to not find even Baker by flying north (how far must one stand off to miss seeing that island at 1000' and skies no more than 3/10's if we can believe the area was generally as clear as Itasca reported?), and then stumble upon Gardner off to the west by a few miles of the extended LOP, she MIGHT have had 2 or 3 hours of fuel aboard.

My concern is that this is fairly optimistic - but 'nobody knows'.

My other concern is that at 52 GPH +/-, thunk and dunk comes eerily close to her 'last known call' ("we are on the line...").  When I consider the reports of her fuel burn habit (and that Johnson may have realized the problem and had been trying to get her attention, much as did Hooven in other matters) and the simplicity of it, I do not see crashed and sank as so 'irrational', even in today's light - in part because 'nobody knows'.

So there's nothing 'new' here - we've known these 'numbers' for years.  Hence 'fresh consideration' lends room for huge doubt: I simply disagree that Long's notion has been rendered irrelevant.

Yes many things have been studied by TIGHAR over the years - but of even most recent study now are things like what role the island store may have played in supplying certain things to the seven site (as found by Betchart passengers under Tom King's supervision), that the 'camp zero' idea is an apparent no-go, and that we still lack airplane-defining hardware (I do look forward to TIGHAR's technical response to come on 22V1 (sorry, I've tired of keying the dashes in...)).

So, damn Putnam and Noonan for putting out that nagging commentary about 52 GPH anyway (26 GPH per engine), it creates a hellish outlier for us.  It doesn't help that perusing the net for R1340 fuel burn rates turns up that it is not unusual for the AT-6 (similar engine - same displacement and HP as on Earhart's plane, but single engine of course) to burn around 32 GPH in cruise (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/north-american-aviation/in-love-with-the-at-6.html#.Ve7OahpRGUk) - which would equate to a whopping 64 GPH on the Electra ("x 2") - the ridiculously high 'max rate', BTW, that we would not expect.

So the freshest consideration is that 'nobody knows', but arrival at Gardner with enough juice to transmit for 5 days is no shoo-in.  Fresh consideration reveals that arrival at Gardner would depend very much on a very serendipitous alignment of what some might consider to be a too-long string of improbable things: fuel burn rates closer to Johnson's recommendations than not against reports of the time - split the difference if you will; arrival way far south on the LOP - which given the offset of that line being NNW - SSE means more 'ground' covered to reach it (which in the allotted time means more speed which means more fuel burned), thence missing the moon and sun for 'shots' in what reasonably were around 3/10th's sky cover conditions - AND being so far south so as to miss Baker at the very least on the north-bound leg.

None of which is to say "no way", Ric.  It is simply to note that there remain rational reasons among many reasonable people to differ, that's all.  And thanks, I realize you didn't accuse me of dishonesty or a lack of intelligence.  Hats off for your efforts to turn up new things more lately than most others (no, I have zero confidence in the dust covers of whatzit island); and this isn't a 'pitch' for the 'other possibility(ies)' - it is merely to point out that others still 'hold water' (lots of it - that is a problem: the Pacific does occupy a huge basin).

Sorry for using so much space, but I hope something has been said.

All the best -
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 08, 2015, 10:02:56 AM
I didn't say I had 'new information', just 'fresh consideration' -

Actually they are old considerations. The fuel issue is far more complex than you describe.  You have to start with Lockheed Report 487 "Range Study of Lockheed Electra Bimotor Airplane" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Report_487/Report487.html) dated June 19, 1936.  Written by Lockheed engineers Kelly Johnson and William Nelson, Report 487 was Lockheed's attempt to verify that the 10E Special being built for Earhart could be flown 4,500 miles unrefueled - enough to go nonstop from Honolulu to Tokyo as was her original plan.

Bookend ONE:

Using a fuel burn rate reported in a February 13, 1937 wire by "Putnam to De Sibour, London" - 310 pounds per hour (around 6.02 pounds per gallon at 59 degrees F): 310/6.02 = 51.495 gallons / hour - which is close to the "51.6" GPH and "52 GPH" as offered by Neff Jacobs (among other details) per below quoted posts:


On February 13, 1937 Earhart and Putnam were in New York having just announced her plan to fly around the world. None of her Electra flying at that point had been at high weights over great distances.  52 GPH is a typical economical cruise for the 10E in normal operations. Kelly Johnson's recommendations for the long over-water legs were derived from test flights conducted in NR16020 in early March 1937.

...according to an article in a Darwin paper Noonan reported Earhart habitually burned 52 gallons per hour

Assuming such an article exists, Noonan was probably right.  During the world flight up to that time the Electra had never flown a leg longer than 1,961 miles (South Atlantic crossing). Most of the legs were under 500 miles. No need for Kelly Johnson's special long range full management profile.

And -

I dug in my notes and found a quote from Sound of Wings, no page number. A Wire dated Feb 13 , 1937 ,Putnam to De Sibour ,  London , " Fuel consumption normal cruising speed per hour by weight 310 lb."   310/6=51.6 GPH

Again, this was before Kelly Johnson's test flights in early March 1937

Bookend TWO:

Quote
Considering briefly Lockheed 487 Report by Kelly Johnson (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Report_487/Report487.html) and The Kelly Johnson Telegrams (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Kelly_Johnson.html) per your comment upstring -

It depends on altitude, weather conditions (headwinds or tailwinds), throttle and mixture settings, engine performance, etc.

Yes.  If Earhart followed Kelly Johnson's recommendations (and there's no way to know whether she did) she reached the LOP with about 190 gallons of gas left or about 5 hour's flying time at 38 gph - but that was at 10,000 feet pulling 24 inches manifold pressure at 1,600 RPM which delivered a true airspeed of 130 kts.
At last report, Earhart was flying at 1,000 feet presumably to get below he scattered cloud deck to look for Howland.  If she wanted to keep her speed up at the low altitude he would have to bump up her power setting and therefore her fuel consumption.  If she wanted to minimize her fuel consumption she would have to accept a lower airspeed...

Means something of around 38 GPH at best (at the end of all that fuel burn-off at the point of the LOP), or 26 hours out of 1100 gallons (roughly five hours remaining upon reaching the LOP) - which neither of us is likely to believe since as you point out she was not able to have such an optimum condition throughout the flight and because there are many unknowns, because as you say -

...What did she do? How far did she run north on the LOP before turning around and running south?  Did she climb  or did she stay low? How much power was she carrying.  How fast was she going? What was her fuel burn?  Nobody knows.

In sum we have two 'witnesses' (Noonan and Putnam) giving nearly identical 'reports' - if we dare trust that the wire and article written of exist (I'm going strictly by Jacobs' post at moment, having not seen that material - but he does cite notes in at least one case taken from the source) - of close to 52 gallons per hour, or roughly 21 and one quarter hour's worth of flying as a 'habit', AND we have the optimum Kelly Johnson case -


No.  As shown above, your Bookend One is meaningless with regard to the Lae/Howland leg. Earhart apparently followed Johnson's recommendations for the Oakland/Honolulu flight.  I see no reason to suppose that she ignored them on an even longer flight.


So there's nothing 'new' here - we've known these 'numbers' for years.  Hence 'fresh consideration' lends room for huge doubt: I simply disagree that Long's notion has been rendered irrelevant.


So much for your fresh consideration.  The bottom line remains the same. Nobody knows how Earhart managed her fuel on the Lae/Howland flight but it's clear that if she simply followed Johnson's recommendations as she had done in the past when she needed maximum range she should have had plenty of fuel to reach Gardner.  The abundant evidence that she did reach Gardner with fuel to spare suggests that she did what any reasonable person would do. 

Sorry for using so much space, but I hope something has been said.

I'd say that's a safe bet.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: JNev on September 08, 2015, 12:30:51 PM
I realize the true complexity of the thing - hence, 'nobody knows'.

Earhart also had Mantz aboard for Oakland-Honolulu -

Why would she not bother with the practice on the shorter legs and suddenly expect success with it when it really counted?  Doesn't make sense to me, but to each his own.

Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 08, 2015, 12:34:56 PM
Why would she not bother with the practice on the shorter legs and suddenly expect success with it when it really counted?

Why would she not make sure her RDF was working properly and suddenly expect success with it when it really counted?
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Neff Jacobs on September 08, 2015, 01:38:09 PM
From P&W Suggested Engine operation table.  Calculations after GPH for single engine mine.
600 HP 66 GPH .65 lbs/hp/hr   .61 LSC*   132 GPH for 2 engines.
550 HP 55 GPH .60 lbs/hp/hr   .55 LSC     110 GPH
500 HP 47 GPH .56 lbs/hp/hr   .49 LSC     100 GPH
400 HP was the Maximum  Setting that did not require rich mixture.
400 HP 32 GPH .48 lbs/hp/hr   .48 LSC      64 GPH
350 HP 28 GPH .48                                   56 GPH
300 HP 24 GPH .48                                   48 GPH
250 HP 21 GPH .50                                   42 GPH
The McRobertson Racer Lady Southern Cross was operated extra lean at high power settings.  The pounds per HP hour are included here to show other operation was possible.

Note:  As I read the Lockheed test report leaning resulted in fewer pounds of Gas per hour and therefore less power.   What the Cambridge meter did was allow Earhart to keep the engines accurately leaned as she changed altitude.  Gas contains a number of BTU per pound.  Leaning puts more air and less gas in per unit of time.  Fewer pounds = fewer HP.   LSC was leaned at high power setting were the recommended mixture was rich for cooling.  Kingsford Smith worked out the extra mixture for cooling the engine was not necessary at cool temperatures and high speed.

Work thru the Johnson Telegrams and adjust for 1100 gallons and you should come up with an average 45 GPH, or 24.4 hours.
Work thru report 487 for maximum hang time and you should come up with 33 GPH at an average speed of 103 mph, or 33.3 hours endurance.

To convert GPH to HP multiply GPH x 6 to convert to pounds.   Divide the number by the lbs/hp/hr. 
Example
52 GPH, 26 GPH for one engine.
26x6=156 pounds  156/.48 = 325 HP per engine.

To convert HP/engine to speed multiply x 2 for both engines.
325*2=650 Engine HP
to Convert to Thrust HP  Multiple by .75 for prop efficiency
650*.75= 487
Turn to Page 26, 27 or 28 of Report 487 depending on the weight you want to consider.  Hint the middle weight should get you close to Average performance.
and look up Thrust HP on the Sea Level curve should give you true air speed for that power setting.

Be careful of ramifications.
52 GPH gives 21.1 hrs endurance but also implies 325 hp, 160 mph Airspeed  around 16 hrs to Howland in still air.

33 hours at  33 GPH and 103 mph is 3430 miles.
25 hours at  44  GPH and 135 mph is 3375 miles.
21 hours at 52   GPH and 160 mph is 3360 miles

Conclusion.   Within limits range vs speed balance.
Have fun with this one and all
Neff
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 08, 2015, 01:59:35 PM
Work thru the Johnson Telegrams and adjust for 1100 gallons and you should come up with an average 45 GPH, or 24.4 hours.

Exactly.  "..BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW" at 19 hours 12 minutes into the flight.  She has 5 hours of fuel left.  She has just begun to burn into her 20% reserve.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Neff Jacobs on September 08, 2015, 05:57:47 PM
There is always crashed and sank.   She really did run at 52-54 GPH and had an hour fuel left at that point.

Earhart Arrived from Darwin with something like 335 gallons.  1100 - 785 = 315 gallons  plus 20 or so used for the 30 minute flight.  This put her into Lea with roughly a 50% fuel margin.  So smack in the middle of the Pacific with the receiver not working, the DF not working and the Navigator unable to make landfall 200 gallons may have been "RUNNING LOW." 

If you look at tankage the 6 wing tanks plus the 2, 118 gallon tanks comes to 634 gallons which is very close to twice 315.   The weight and balance work out right.  The Electra would be a little nose heavy with Fred up front and only fuel in the Original wing tanks.  So Fuel in the 102 gallon baggage compartment tanks and the 118 gallon fuselage tanks make sense.

Then there is the possibility as Tighar has pointed out that having not heard from Earhart for about 40-45 minutes after they believed they heard 30 minutes fuel left  they quit listening and missed a couple of transmissions and they did a CYA on the log book.

Does Tighar have any fuel receipts that Purdue does not?  I would love to know if 634 gallons was her usual fuel load unless she needed more.

Neff
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Joshua Doremire on September 08, 2015, 06:01:20 PM
Now, now...

Now, now is right.  We don't need anyone filling over half a page without saying anything.
Posting arguments from 14 years ago is pointless.  Since then we have concluded a twelve year analysis of the post-loss radio signals, discovered the correlation between the credible signals and the water levels on the reef at Gardner, discovered and analyzed the object in the Bevington Photo, etc., etc.  Meanwhile, not only Nauticos but also Waitt have done multi-million dollar deep water searches around Howland without finding anything.  Crashed & Sank may not have been an irrational hypothesis in 2001 but it is today.  For those who want to flog that dead horse there are other places to do it.

Wasn't a member 14 years ago.

I find it interesting to see how we got here/now. So it is entertaining and educational to see the fuel usage revisited especially in the current context of now. Think of the new members. I see this as a debate more than an argument and in debate facts come up to help others better see why one holds the position (theory) they do.

Fine line between "go search for the info" and having a discussion/debate over it even if it is just rehashing old facts. After all coffee with friends would get quiet and boring if you asked about today's weather and got told to go Google it. (Edit: Asking about 'the weather' in context of 1937 is a Google it.)       

Maybe I misread your intent by the way it's lumped together, however, it is not evidence to use "multi-million dollar deep water searches" as proof the plane isn't there or Crashed & Sank theory isn't sound. It simply means the plane hasn't been found. (By limits of technology used, invalid data from search areas covered, etc.)  Other reasons, as you listed, would better doubt the Crashed & Sank theory.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 08, 2015, 06:07:03 PM
Maybe I misread your intent by the way it's lumped together, however, it is not evidence to use "multi-million dollar deep water searches" as proof the plane isn't there or Crashed & Sank theory isn't sound.

Yes, I think you misread my intent. 
The fact that deep water searches around Howland haven't found the airplane does not disqualify Crashed & Sank.  After all, TIGHAR hasn't found the airplane either but that doesn't mean it isn't in the water off Nikumaroro.
What eliminates Crashed & Sank as a viable theory are the post-loss radio messages.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Alfred Hendrickson on September 08, 2015, 07:28:01 PM
What eliminates Crashed & Sank as a viable theory are the post-loss radio messages.

^^^ This ^^^
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 08, 2015, 07:28:13 PM
There is always crashed and sank.   She really did run at 52-54 GPH and had an hour fuel left at that point.

At what point? 

Earhart Arrived from Darwin with something like 335 gallons.
  1100 - 785 = 315 gallons  plus 20 or so used for the 30 minute flight.

Okay.  I can see where you get that.

  This put her into Lea with roughly a 50% fuel margin.

I don't see where you get that.  She took on 365 (presumably Imperial) gallons in Darwin according to the fuel receipt in the Purdue archives. That's 438 U.S. gallons.  How do you know how much fuel was in the airplane when they began fueling in Darwin?  Without knowing how much fuel they had aboard when they left Darwin how can you know that she arrived in Lae with a 50% fuel margin? 

If you look at tankage the 6 wing tanks plus the 2, 118 gallon tanks comes to 634 gallons which is very close to twice 315.   The weight and balance work out right.  The Electra would be a little nose heavy with Fred up front and only fuel in the Original wing tanks.  So Fuel in the 102 gallon baggage compartment tanks and the 118 gallon fuselage tanks make sense.

What are you saying?
  Chater (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Chater_Report.html) says:
July 1st — after the machine was tested the Vacuum Oil Co.’s representatives filled all tanks in the machine with 87 octane fuel with the exception of one 81 gallon tank which already contained 100 octane for taking off purposes. This tank was approximately half full and it can be safely estimated that on leaving Lae the tank at least 40 gallons of 100 octane fuel – (100 octane fuel is not obtainable in Lae). A total of 654 imperial gallons was filled into the tanks of the Lockheed after the test flight was completed. This would indicate that 1,100 US gallons was carried by the machine when it took off for Howland Island.

The airplane had a total capacity of 1,151 U.S. gallons.  According to Chater all of the tanks were full except for one "81 gallon" tank which was about half full.  Chater talks in Imperial gallons unless he specifies otherwise.  81 imperial gallons is 97 U.S. gallons.  There is no 97 gallon tank aboard NR16020.  The closest are the two 102 gallon baggage compartment tanks.  If one of those tanks was half empty she left Lae 51 gallons short of a full load.  In other words, 1,100 U.S. gallons.

Then there is the possibility as Tighar has pointed out that having not heard from Earhart for about 40-45 minutes after they believed they heard 30 minutes fuel left  they quit listening and missed a couple of transmissions and they did a CYA on the log book.

Say what?  When did TIGHAR ever suggest that?   If we did we've long since rejected that idea. There's no evidence to support it.  Itasca never stopped listening for her including all afternoon and into the evening when they believed they started hearing her again.

Does Tighar have any fuel receipts that Purdue does not?

No.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Craig Romig on September 09, 2015, 12:06:54 AM
Wait. A single engine uses say as example 26 gph. It would make sense that two engines would be double 26. 26X2=52.
If similar weight and aerodynamicly comparable planes had one engine vs two engines. The two engine plane would burn less fuel than the single engine because of power produced. The twin engines wouldn't have to work as hard as a single engine plane.
So a twin engine plan wouldn't use double the fuel as a single engine. In my scenario above.
Also the cooler the fuel is the more efficiently it burns.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 09, 2015, 09:55:33 AM
Craig ... oh, never mind.


LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Neff Jacobs on September 09, 2015, 01:17:30 PM

IF she ran at  52 54 GPH she would have had roughly 1 hour remaining at 1912Z, assuming crash and sink at 2013Z.


Earhart Arrived from Darwin with something like 335 gallons.
  1100 - 785 = 315 gallons  plus 20 or so used for the 30 minute flight.

This is true at 44 GPH which is the average consumption over 1100 gallons following Johnson's telegrams.

I think the following is a better estimate:
It took 785 gallons to fill the Electra to 1100 gallons.
1100 - 785 =315 Gallons remaining after 8.2 hours operation.
Darwin to Lea 1200 miles
7.7 hours for 1200 miles = 156 mph
Working back from 480 thrust HP looks like 51 GPH or 392 Gallons  + 25 gallons for the 30 minute check flight
comes to 417 gallons used at the end of the Check flight
438 gallons added at Darwin - 417 used =  21 gallons  Therefore she arrived in Darwin with 294 gallons.
This is an estimate +/-wind and distance as flown.
 
Corrected margin was 40%

Neff
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Neff Jacobs on September 09, 2015, 01:36:36 PM
Craig Romig  you may find this useful.
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/altair.htm
The LSC was a single engine plane of about half the Electra's weight that crossed the Pacific Brisbane, Fiji, Honolulu, San Francisco.  At 400 HP and down the LSC had similar speeds to the Electra.
Above 400 HP was off the Charts and into racing territory.
Note the LSC had a  Pratt & Whitney Wasp SE serial number 5522 rated at 550hp at 11,000 feet.  Normal critical altitude for that engine was 5000 feet.  According to P G Taylor LSC Navigator and co-pilot  the LSC flew "across 2100 miles of continent in 10 hours; she flew 200 miles at an average speed of 272 miles per hour"
272 implies the LSC was operating at 600 HP at 11000 feet for two hours.  That's crazy 1930s racer stuff but the long distance flights were mostly undertaken at less than 400HP.

All considered I think Earhart would have been better off in the Altair, but the LSC wound up in the drink also and nothing was ever found but one landing gear.  In any event you can trade between one and two engines almost one to one.
Neff
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 11, 2015, 01:52:07 PM
IF she ran at  52 54 GPH she would have had roughly 1 hour remaining at 1912Z, assuming crash and sink at 2013Z.

And that's the fundamental problem with Crashed & Sank. The aircraft had the ability to remain aloft for 24.4 hours using the guidelines Kelly Johnson provided specifically for Earhart but the Crashed & Sank theory stands the scientific method on its head and begins with the received wisdom that she ran out of gas after only 20.2 hours of operation.  Proponents of Crashed & Sank have to come with ways to make her run out of gas when they want her to, and that usually involves requiring her to do something incredibly stupid.  You want her to blithely ignore Johnson's recommendations.  Elgen Long wants her to foolishly boost power to maintain speed against an imaginary headwind.  Amelia Earhart may not have been the aviation pioneer she was cracked up to be but she was an experienced long distance flier and I don't think she was suicidal.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Bill Lloyd on September 11, 2015, 04:21:03 PM
And that's the fundamental problem with Crashed & Sank. The aircraft had the ability to remain aloft for 24.4 hours using the guidelines Kelly Johnson provided specifically for Earhart but the Crashed & Sank theory stands the scientific method on its head and begins with the received wisdom that she ran out of gas after only 20.2 hours of operation.  Proponents of Crashed & Sank have to come with ways to make her run out of gas when they want her to, and that usually involves requiring her to do something incredibly stupid.  You want her to blithely ignore Johnson's recommendations.  Elgen Long wants her to foolishly boost power to maintain speed against an imaginary headwind.  Amelia Earhart may not have been the aviation pioneer she was cracked up to be but she was an experienced long distance flier and I don't think she was suicidal.

Amelia Earhart had demonstrated that she knew how to manage a long distance flight. Unless something drastically happened to cause loss of fuel it is hard to argue that due to mismanagement she wasted over 4 hours of fuel.

I can understand how she got lost and could not find Howland without a radio bearing but to simply fly the airplane out of gas is hard to imagine. She is at fault for not being competent enough to operate the radio and follow a bearing to the island and it was a little too much to expect Noonan to navigate them there. He probably got them close but who knows which way they went.

I have been lost over water in the Gulf of Mexico and running low on fuel and it is the worst feeling in the world. If they did stumble upon Gardner, it was luck. There was sufficient fuel to get there.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: JNev on September 11, 2015, 09:50:50 PM
It's not a matter of finding the implausible, it is a matter of recognizing clearly stated understandings of Earhart's fuel management by Noonan and Putnam and that the lady often had discipline issues with many facets of her flying: radios, DF basics, taking off heavily laden without use of flaps as recommended by Johnson, etc., etc., etc.

Yes she made it to Ireland solo - but range wasn't the big issue in that one.  Nor had any previous leg of the round the world effort been as challenging.  She was gutsy and smart - and very lucky to make it to Ireland, for instance: broken exhaust manifold and bad weather should have defeated even the best of pilots, but she did it.  Great lady.

Who ever said she was suicidal?  That's far from the equation here - does that sort of suggestion stand the scientific method up more upright?  Does criticizing the very experienced Long for 'wanting' just the right thing when TIGHAR should perhaps seek to better support its own suppositions, such as the veracity of the post-loss messages?  Cannot those things stand on their own merits without taking Long down as abandoning aviation reason?

Noonan may well have gotten them close - good point, Bill; but I think it is far from a certainty that they had plenty of fuel to go beyond, as you state.  I too agree that it would have been luck if they did find Gardner (and I'm not against the idea - so not sure I fit the 'Crashed and Sank proponent' label, even if I do consider it a very possible outcome).

It is not a question of 'mismanagement', but that of exceeding a performance standard that had been reported before - meeting that of Johnson and abandoning that which caused his interest in improving her range capabilities - Johnson, who seems to have been imploring Earhart to embrace something better than she had before.  The very fact that he published that report and those telegrams suggests he was struggling to get her attention (in my view, yours may differ), and that some concern about her fuel management may have existed well enough.

Much doubt - I'll grant you all that; much unprovable, no matter your view - until the airplane is or may be found.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: James Champion on September 12, 2015, 08:29:08 AM
There is a tremendous amount of information and discussions about fuel within the Tighar website. From the discussions within this thread it was indicated that there was about 40 +/- gallons of the 100 octane fuel remaining. It figures that this is the last fuel Amelia would burn.

My question are: What is the fuel burn rate when flying a lightly loaded NR16020 if burning 100 Octane?

and: How long could 100 Octane run one engine for just the radios at the necessary RPM if on the reef at Gardner?

Also, once on Gardner Amelia and Fred could have drained a few gallons from the fuel sump drains and transferred them to a single tank to keep the radios operational. There is always a little fuel remaining in the tanks that cannot be used or reached by the fuel pumps when in normal flight. This residual fuel is usually never calculated as part of the available fuel for purposes of range calculations. Is there any estimate of how much the Electra would hold of this unusable fuel?
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Chris Johnson on September 13, 2015, 03:11:16 PM
Ric/Jeff

Why don't you both take this matter between you off forum!

Ted Campbell

Ted got a point, it doesn't look very professional for an 'International research Forum'
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Bill Lloyd on September 13, 2015, 08:06:11 PM
We now return to our regularly scheduled Forum.

The fuel consumption issue has been discussed for many years on this forum and there are voluminous technical documents and in depth posts on the subject. It is a fascinating subject and the reason that it continues to be debated is because, I think, the case appears to turn on whether or not Amelia Earhart had fuel enough to get to Gardner Island from wherever she was at the time of her last radio transmission.

I think that we must start with the presumption that the Electra could fly for 24 hours on a full load of fuel. We can stipulate that Amelia took off with a full load and reported at 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight "we must be on you but cannot see you", the inference here being that she thought that she had arrived in the vicinity of Howland Island.
 
I can find nothing but speculation and conclusory statements that Amelia was dilatory in her pilot duties. Perhaps her division of attention and concentration was not all that great, but she would have to be completely discombobulated to waste 4 hours of fuel without realizing it and making some sort of adjustment. I think that we must presume that she made a reasonable effort to comply with the setting Kelly Johnson provided her.

Notwithstanding, if she did waste fuel because she could not keep up with the task, a 2 hour wastage would still allow her to fly southeast and come upon Gardner. The last transmission at 20:13 GMT, "we are on the line 157" indicates to me that the nose of the aircraft was pointed to the southeast.

At one thousand foot altitude, Gardner island is visible at 35 miles distant. This being the case, Amelia was very fortunate, however, her luck was apparently fleeting.


Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Neff Jacobs on September 13, 2015, 08:18:32 PM
Craig,
If you Look at Lockheed report 487 you will see Earhart could fly very close to 200 mph at 60 GPH or with almost empty tanks 24 GPH at 95 mph.  So you can bound the amount of fuel.   You can do the math.  In the end exactly how much fuel was needed can only be bounded.   With 200 miles to cover presumably at a low enough altitude to be able to search I don't see how she could cover 200 miles on less than  48 gallons.  It would have been increasingly uncomfortable to run faster than about 130 mph in the daytime low altitude chop but maybe she was in a hurry to get it over with.
I hope this helps.
Neff
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 13, 2015, 08:37:26 PM
The last transmission at 20:13 GMT, "we are on the line 157" indicates to me that the nose of the aircraft was pointed to the southeast.

That's an interesting point.  She said "157 337" not "337 157."  She also said "running north and south" not "south and north."  You can't run in two directions at once so she is apparently describing the sequence of the running.
Title: Re: Fuel usage
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 13, 2015, 08:52:48 PM
In her message I wonder if her fuel on board calculations included the 40 +- gallons of 100 oct. fuel.  I would guess it did not.  Why?  This was take off fuel and not considered cruse fuel.  Do we have any idea of where this fuel was tanked - left or right wing tank?

Just hoping - right tank, up slope of reef and available to right engine for gen. power.

Ted Campbell