TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Sheila Shigley on October 23, 2011, 10:30:34 PM

Title: FAQ: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Sheila Shigley on October 23, 2011, 10:30:34 PM
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5084584903_d2b1746c48_b.jpg)

(From left) William Stewart Markham, Kini Pea, Killarney Opiopio, James Kamakaiwi, and two military personnel on Howland, June 1936.


(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5085180840_f9c1b66e06_z.jpg)

Aboard Itasca, Jan 1936
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 24, 2011, 05:39:12 AM
The airfield on Howland, built in Feb/Mar 1937, was named Kamakaiwi Field after Jimmy Kamakaiwi (the guy in the cap).
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Sheila Shigley on October 24, 2011, 08:27:30 AM
The airfield on Howland, built in Feb/Mar 1937, was named Kamakaiwi Field after Jimmy Kamakaiwi (the guy in the cap).

Handsome chaps.  I was wondering about the cannon, and found this:

(http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/large/2b0c306e-6b5d-4292-9ecf-9b666c78f362.JPG)

These two small cannon stand outside the Hawaii Maritime Center near Aloha Tower in downtown Honolulu. A plaque on one of them describes their discovery:  "Presented to Commander Service Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet by the officers and men of USS Tawakoni (ATF-114) who recovered it from Howland Island, July 1963, while conducting scientific operations with the Smithsonian Institute Ecology and Epidemiological Survey. It was once used as part of a saluting battery by Americans who occupied the island from 1857-1878."

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9RTK_Howland_Island_cannons
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on October 24, 2011, 03:22:52 PM

What were we (The USA) doing on Howland from 1858 to 1878??
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Bruce Thomas on October 24, 2011, 04:55:03 PM

What were we (The USA) doing on Howland from 1858 to 1878??
It was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it:  digging guano -- lots and lots of guano -- a.k.a. bird poop.  From a Googled webpage (http://www.janeresture.com/howland/) this quote:

Quote
On February 5, 1857, Alfred G. Benson and Charles H. Judd landed on Howland from the Hawaiian schooner Liholiho (Captain John Paty), raised the American flag, and took formal possession in the name of the American Guano Company, of New York, by erecting a small house and "leaving various implements of business." They stayed until the 26th, taking a generous sample of the guano which they found in great abundance.

On the same cruise of the Liholiho, Jarvis and Baker islands likewise were claimed, and shortly thereafter guano digging operations were begun on them by the American Guano Co., under bonds 1 and 2, dated October 28, 1856. But strangely, claim was not made to Howland until December 3, 1858 (bond No. 4), and accounts of guano enterprise generally assign it to the United States Guano Company.

The reason for this was this competition between two guano companies for the use of the island. In June, 1859, representatives of the American Guano Co. were landed on Howland. The same month the ship Ivanhoe arrived, hoping to get possession for the United States Guano Company, but left, disappointed. However, the latter company somehow managed to get a toehold on the island, for in February, 1861, it was learned that Captain Stone of the American Guano Company's brigantine Josephine landed on Howland and politely notified two agents of the United States Guano Company, whom he found there, to be ready to leave whenever the opportunity offered. Thereafter Howland was visited regularly by the American Guano Company's vessel which brought supplies to the guano islands.

The years 1870 to 1872 marked the peak of Howland guano digging. Between August and December, 1870, with Captain Ross as superintendent, seven ships (German, British, and American) were loaded with 7,600 tons of guano, in 109 working days, a record for this guano island. American guano digging enterprise seems to have come to an end on Howland in October, 1878, when "Captain Jos. Spencer, wife, and 3 children, E. Wheeler, Chas. Hines, John MacWiggins, Gabriel Holmes, and 34 native labourers" returned to Honolulu aboard the Joseph Woolley.

Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 27, 2011, 07:56:41 PM
I would like to use this thread to pull together some information about the development of the runways on Howland Island, in preparation for improving the wiki article on Howland (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland).

For starters, I've taken the chart in Finding Amelia (p. 14) and traced the runways on an image from Google Earth.

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/6/61/Howland_and_runways.png)
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 27, 2011, 09:41:22 PM
Nice. Is north up? Can I suggest a compass graphic?
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 27, 2011, 10:40:37 PM
Nice. Is north up? Can I suggest a compass graphic?

OK.  If you refresh the page, you should see the compass and a label for the location of Itascatown.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 28, 2011, 07:58:27 AM
Good Marty. Nice and clear. According to Ameliapedia http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland_Island (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland_Island). The island is two miles long by a half mile wide so your runways look to be to scale. What measurements did you actually use?  The ones from the June 25 telegram from Black. http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=528.0;attach=431 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=528.0;attach=431). The east west runway is listed in that official telegram as being extended on the west end by 300 feet to either 2550 or 2750 depending on how you do math. Since a half mile equals 2640 feet then it's not likely the 2750 number which is the wrong math anyway.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 10:38:54 AM
Good Marty. Nice and clear. According to Ameliapedia http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland_Island (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland_Island). The island is two miles long by a half mile wide so your runways look to be to scale. What measurements did you actually use?

I derived my drawing from a chart that is readily available in Finding Amelia (http://tighar.org/wiki/FA), on p. 14.  I've added a caption to that effect on the thumbnail.

Quote
The ones from the June 25 telegram from Black. http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=528.0;attach=431 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=528.0;attach=431). The east west runway is listed in that official telegram as being extended on the west end by 300 feet to either 2550 or 2750 depending on how you do math. Since a half mile equals 2640 feet then it's not likely the 2750 number which is the wrong math anyway.

I'm very aware of your anxiety about the discrepancies in the math.  I have a surmise about the different numbers, but haven't finished pulling all of the pieces of information together.  Actually reading the sources that are available and piecing the information together takes time and energy.  Asking questions off of the top of one's head doesn't.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 28, 2011, 12:33:58 PM
Sorry Marty.  I have looked at a lot of documents in and out of the TIGHAR site. Thats what prompted me to ask my questions.  It may trigger someone to think of another direction to think in.

Thinking about this is all we have as forum members. We can't pick up artifacts.  The expeditions are limited and expensive. We are spread all over the world. Can't get together for a beer night easily.  After we search the material all we can do is ask questions or "think".

Your experience and the work you do is appreciated. You and others keep everyone here on the straight and narrow. Job well done.  I look forward to your surmise.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 02:35:19 PM
Sorry Marty.  I have looked at a lot of documents in and out of the TIGHAR site. That's what prompted me to ask my questions.

I've found 40+ telegrams on TIGHAR's website dealing with the construction of the airport.

They explain the 200' foot discrepancy in a way that I find quite intelligible and satisfactory. 

As often happens when doing research, I found something I wasn't looking for--a very poignant passage from James Christian Kamakaiwi that I haven't seen mentioned very often.  I've put it on the wiki (http://tighar.org/wiki/James_Christian_Kamakaiwi#Waiting_for_Amelia) for future reference.  In the spring of 1937, Kamakaiwi and the other colonists worked 24 hours a day for 12 days in preparation for the first world flight.  He had been picked as the head of the colonists and was chosen to greet Amelia when she landed. 
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 09:02:49 PM
The data that I have found on the construction is now available on the wiki (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_traffic_about_the_Howland_Island_runways).
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 28, 2011, 10:53:35 PM
Sorry Marty.  I have looked at a lot of documents in and out of the TIGHAR site. That's what prompted me to ask my questions.

I've found 40+ telegrams on TIGHAR's website dealing with the construction of the airport.

They explain the 200' foot discrepancy in a way that I find quite intelligible and satisfactory. 

As often happens when doing research, I found something I wasn't looking for--a very poignant passage from James Christian Kamakaiwi that I haven't seen mentioned very often.  I've put it on the wiki (http://tighar.org/wiki/James_Christian_Kamakaiwi#Waiting_for_Amelia) for future reference.  In the spring of 1937, Kamakaiwi and the other colonists worked 24 hours a day for 12 days in preparation for the first world flight.  He had been picked as the head of the colonists and was chosen to greet Amelia when she landed.

Sorry Marty. I'm missing it. There is nothing new in this new wiki compilation that explains the math discrepancy to me.  But it's okay.  I don't think it even adds anything here. The birds were probably going to be a bigger problem.   Funny thing is that all this work was done and there was never an aircraft landing on this airfield.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howland_Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howland_Island) Float planes landed in the ocean here but no aircraft ever used the runways. Seems a shame.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 28, 2011, 11:47:20 PM
The data that I have found on the construction is now available on the wiki (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_traffic_about_the_Howland_Island_runways).
Thanks, that was very useful. We lose sight that the planning and the runways were for the flight to proceed from Howland to Lae. So there were 29 drums of aviation fuel on the island, enough to get all the way to Lae.

The runway lengths were planned for a heavy weight takeoff, the light takeoff to Hawaii should have been much easier and well within the existing runways.

The runways were completed in March so no reason for there to be radiograms to Earhart in Lae since she was informed in person while she was in the States.

The portable radiophone had a standard marine frequency of 2670 kcs, it is still a standard marine frequency.

gl
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 29, 2011, 12:46:26 AM
Sorry Marty. I'm missing it. There is nothing new in this new wiki compilation that explains the math discrepancy to me.

I've done the math in a new section of the article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_traffic_about_the_Howland_Island_runways#Different_methods_of_measuring_runway_length).

Quote
I don't think it even adds anything here.

I would say that the evidence that we have available demolishes your theory that Earhart would have been so worried about the conditions at Howland that it would have influenced her decision about how much gas to carry.

1. The work was conducted by an engineer.

2. It was inspected by several competent men.

3. The basic work was completed before the first world flight attempt.  "Airport and runway construction inspected and work commended by Black, Captain Meyer, Lieutenant Cooper. Consensus that facilities provided are entirely adequate" (#1469, Campbell to Wynne).

4. The runways were only in better condition for the second attempt three-and-a-half months later.  It had rained, which firmed up the surface.  Some low-lying weeds had grown on most of the runways, which also helped to act as a binder.  The work on flagging off the best portions reported in the Cooper message is part of putting icing on the cake; it would not be grounds for anxiety, but for reassurance about the quality of the work that had been done.

5. There were four barrels of high-octane gas waiting for her on Howland.  She did not have to conserve the high-octane gas she had on board in Lae.
 
The radio traffic does show that there was anxiety about the completion of the runways before the first attempt--but not anxiety about the quality of the supervisors or the dedication of the workers.  Campbell and the colonists worked 312 hours straight at one stretch.  That shows a very admirable work ethic. 

Quote
The birds were probably going to be a bigger problem.

Isn't it wonderful what you can learn from reading primary sources?
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 29, 2011, 08:33:02 AM
Hi Marty. Thanks for putting in the new section. Your very last line in that new section is 2250' feet between markers, plus the narrow 300' addition, plus the flagged off 200', gives a total of 2750' available for takeoff.. I disagree with your intrepretation of the March 4 telegram where the 200 feet is mentioned. 
It says:
East west runway now complete. Two hundred feet of west end is sandy and soft though entirely usable. Have been having constant wind average about 16 miles per hour for past month since east wind prevails this time of year have made every effort to make east west runway as long and smooth as possible. Unfortunately have not equipment which can haul gravel to to be used as binder for sand. However balance of runway surface since being rolled is in excellent condition.
The runway was set out to be 2400 feet. The telegram above says runway now complete. Then says that 200 feet of west end is sandy and soft. Not that "we flagged an additional 200 feet that is sandy and soft".  Then it says "balance of runway surface" is good. That suggests the difference of the original 2400 feet less the 200 feet of sandy and soft. 

Also take the width of the island into account. 2640 feet probably plus or minus a fudge factor.  How do you get 2750 feet into 2640 feet?  I wonder if the island width is determined at low or high tide?  How much difference would that make?  However you couldn't have the end of your runway exposed to tidal effects.

Where I originally raised this issue was https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,528.msg7003.html#msg7003 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,528.msg7003.html#msg7003).  I simply said that AE was thinking ahead (planning) to her takeoff from a newly constructed runway at Howland. This was in regard to the value of 100 Octane fuel. Since then this subject has taken on a life of its own.  There is no evidence to confirm AE was or was not "anxious" about her arrival or take off at Howland. I suggest she was no more anxious than any of her other take offs and landings on this trip. I think you're suggesting the same thing. We are interpreting the March 4 telegram differently. If nothing else the wording of the telegram could have been clearer.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 29, 2011, 11:40:35 AM
excellent work Marty----all of this is becoming clear now.
Tom
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 29, 2011, 12:11:45 PM
Quote
The radio traffic does show that there was anxiety about the completion of the runways before the first attempt--but not anxiety about the quality of the supervisors or the dedication of the workers.  Campbell and the colonists worked 312 hours straight at one stretch.  That shows a very admirable work ethic. 
Quote

Sorry. One last point. I think the men did an amazing job with what they had. I have not disparaged them or their efforts.  If I did then I apologize. With the raw materials they had, the poor state of the equipment, the time constraint and the number of men on the island I think it was an absolute shame their efforts were never realized. Amazing effort.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 29, 2011, 11:07:28 PM
What a shame that Howland had no future as an airport beyond AE's attempt.  It really was a magnificent effort.

The graphics bring it home - nice work, Marty.  Seeing the chart imposed on the photo really makes it 'real' somehow.  No doubt the terrain was optimized to gain what we see - fascinating layout.

Somehow though the folly of AE's effort may mirror the 'future' of land planes traversing the ocean in those days: inadvisable and not oft repeated, never at Howland.  Maybe she'd of been better off if the Navy had just lent her a PBY - and thus might have saved the U.S. Guv-mint a fair bit of money.

LTM -
Or if they had gone with the first plan to do in-flight refueling over Midway Island. Worst case was a mid-air and the Navy guys could have bailed out. The cost of the lost plane would have been less than building the runways on Howland.

gl
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 29, 2011, 11:48:36 PM
The runway was set out to be 2400 feet. The telegram above says runway now complete. Then says that 200 feet of west end is sandy and soft. Not that "we flagged an additional 200 feet that is sandy and soft".

The telegram that caused you (but not Amelia) so much anxiety dates from 25 June, almost four months later than the first mention of the sandy 200' on the E/W runway.

The telegram that caused you (but not Amelia) so much anxiety is the one that has much shorter distances for all three runways than any previous  messages:

I'm morally certain that these are the "Runway distances between markers," marked as available for landing.  For takeoff, more of the runways could be used than could be used for landing. 

For those who have eyes to see, this is what the 25 June Cooper telegram means.  Here, I'll highlight the important phrases:

"All runways at Howland Island in good condition with good approaches as now marked. Wind socks erected at intersection of runways and at west end of east west runway. Runway distances between markers as follows: north south 4200 feet, north east south west 2600 feet, east west 2250 feet. Prevailing wind from the east 15 mph. A 300 foot strip 50 feet wide is being added to west end of the east west runway to increase the total length to 2750 feet for take off."

landing zone of 2250' + sandy stretch of 200' + new, narrow strip of 300' = 2750'

The math really isn't that hard.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 29, 2011, 11:52:01 PM
The portable radiophone had a standard marine frequency of 2670 kcs, it is still a standard marine frequency.

OK.  Earhart could have tuned her receiver to 2670 kcs.  But her transmitter was crystal-controlled for three frequencies: 500 kcs, 3105 kcs, 6210 kcs.  I guess they could have talked to her on 2670 kcs and she could have replied on 3105 or 6210 kcs, presuming that the portable radiophone would be near another receiver or headphone.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 29, 2011, 11:56:55 PM
The graphics bring it home - nice work, Marty.  Seeing the chart imposed on the photo really makes it 'real' somehow.  No doubt the terrain was optimized to gain what we see - fascinating layout.

Kudos to Ric and Pat for finding the chart and publishing it in Finding Amelia.

Quote
Somehow though the folly of AE's effort may mirror the 'future' of land planes traversing the ocean in those days: inadvisable and not oft repeated, never at Howland.  Maybe she'd of been better off if the Navy had just lent her a PBY - and thus might have saved the U.S. Guv-mint a fair bit of money.

Finding Amelia explains how the airport was planned anyway, both as grounds for claiming the islands for the U.S. and as emergency strips for aircraft.  I'm not sure how much extra the preparations of the runways cost the government.  The workers definitely suffered--312 hours in a row of grading is a lot of work, no matter how you slice it.  That, more than the money, shows me what power she wielded over men.  Still does, I guess.  I'm one of her guys, too.   8)

LTM -
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 30, 2011, 07:42:58 AM
The runway was set out to be 2400 feet. The telegram above says runway now complete. Then says that 200 feet of west end is sandy and soft. Not that "we flagged an additional 200 feet that is sandy and soft".

The telegram that caused you (but not Amelia) so much anxiety dates from 25 June, almost four months later than the first mention of the sandy 200' on the E/W runway.

The telegram that caused you (but not Amelia) so much anxiety is the one that has much shorter distances for all three runways than any previous  messages:

  • N/S: 4200' vs. 5200' in last Campbell message (13 March).  Difference: -1000'.
  • NE/SW: 2600' vs. 3050'.  Difference: -450'.
  • E/W: 2250' vs. 2400'.  Difference: -150'.
I'm morally certain that these are the "Runway distances between markers," marked as available for landing.  For takeoff, more of the runways could be used than could be used for landing. 

For those who have eyes to see, this is what the 25 June Cooper telegram means.  Here, I'll highlight the important phrases:

"All runways at Howland Island in good condition with good approaches as now marked. Wind socks erected at intersection of runways and at west end of east west runway. Runway distances between markers as follows: north south 4200 feet, north east south west 2600 feet, east west 2250 feet. Prevailing wind from the east 15 mph. A 300 foot strip 50 feet wide is being added to west end of the east west runway to increase the total length to 2750 feet for take off."

  • "Good approaches" = "approaches to land the aircraft."  Pilots don't talk about "approaches to a takeoff."  So the markers mark landing zones on the three runways, which are notably shorter than the full length of the runway.
  • "Runway distances between markers" = "the following numbers are about the landing zone, not the takeoff zone."
  • "2750 feet for take off" = "Although we judge that only 2250' of the E/W runway are suitable for landing, with the 300' extension and the previously flagged off 200', that brings the total length of this runway to 2750 feet for take off."
landing zone of 2250' + sandy stretch of 200' + new, narrow strip of 300' = 2750'

The math really isn't that hard.

Okay Marty.  I went to Google Earth to that same image you have provided.  I used the measuring tool and using your new runway overlaid image as a guide, I measured the east west runway as you laid out.  The length I got from that is 2450' approximately.  That was measured from inside of each of the beach areas. 

200' of the west end is then reported as soft sand.  You can see this change in topography on the image, I think. To add the 300' extension they then would have used the beach area to its maximum out to the high water mark.  I believe I understand it now from a non pilot standpoint.  Thanks for sticking with me Marty. 

From a non pilot standpoint I ask this.  If you can't use that 200' of soft and sandy ground then you also can't use the 300 foot extension so why have 500' of unusable runway?  I'm sure on a treed island it would mean the trees were down to make a clear climb out zone. (I apologize to the pilots out there who know the proper terminology). Or that obstructions were cleared.  On this treeless and obstruction free island it seems a waste of that manpower and resources.  Is this unusable space just to satisfy AE that she has had her request for making the runways as long as possible satisfied?  Or something else?

Thanks to all for allowing me to work through this.  Im sure it made entertaining reading.

Its not the math thats hard its how its described in the imperfect language of English. (What is the formula?)   Handy for us to have tools such as satellite imagery through Google earth.  Too bad AE didn't have that luxury.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Erik on December 30, 2011, 08:40:34 AM
The graphics bring it home - nice work, Marty.  Seeing the chart imposed on the photo really makes it 'real' somehow.  No doubt the terrain was optimized to gain what we see - fascinating layout.

Kudos to Ric and Pat for finding the chart and publishing it in Finding Amelia.

I agree.  Marty, do you have a .kmz to share?  Or was this done in a graphic editor by chance?
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 30, 2011, 10:19:28 AM
From a non pilot standpoint I ask this.  If you can't use that 200' of soft and sandy ground then you also can't use the 300 foot extension so why have 500' of unusable runway?

The engineers and pilots on the scene apparently saw a different between the forces acting on run way in landing, when the mass of the plane weighs more heavily on the ground because of G forces caused by the rate of descent as compared to the 1 G load (or less) as the plane begins its runout and approaches takeoff speed.

Quote
On this treeless and obstruction free island it seems a waste of that manpower and resources.  Is this unusable space just to satisfy AE that she has had her request for making the runways as long as possible satisfied?  Or something else?

So far as I know, we don't have documentation about the thought process that went into marking landing zones and distinguishing landing length from takeoff length in the final telegram from Cooper on 24 June.  All we can do is to make guesses about what kind of thinking might have been behind the decisions they made at that time. 

In short takeoffs, it is not unusual for pilots to hold the plane still with the brakes and run the engines to full takeoff power.  Every inch helps.  500' of acceleration before reaching the firmest part of the runway may have looked like a good deal to those who decided to add the 300' x 50' strip at the last minute. 

Yes, I'm sure that they were reacting to AE's (or Miller's?) repeated requests to create the longest possible runway on the island.  So, for example, note Campbell's rather acid remark from 10 March (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_traffic_about_the_Howland_Island_runways), in the middle of the 312-hour marathon: "The north-south runway will never be used because of too much cross wind, however will be ready since they seem to place a great deal of importance on length regardless of wind direction."  He was all alone on the island at that time; when the rest of the ground crew arrived on the 15th and returned in June, they seem to me to have confirmed his preference for the E/W runway and agreed with his assessment that the long N/S runway was not good for takeoff.

It sounds to me--and I admit that I am reading between the lines--that the guys on the island knew that the E/W runway was best for takeoff directly into the prevailing winds.   That was probably the easiest runway to keep clear of birds.  I imagine (without proof) that the reason for flagging off 1000' of the 5200' N/S runway was because the highest concentration of birds was at the north end of the island.  Given limited resources to chase birds, working on the 2750' E/W takeoff strip would have to be easier than clearing 4000' or 5200' on the N/S runway.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 30, 2011, 10:21:12 AM
I agree.  Marty, do you have a .kmz to share?  Or was this done in a graphic editor by chance?

I used Inkscape (free download) and .SVG to compose the picture.  See attached.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 30, 2011, 02:48:29 PM
The portable radiophone had a standard marine frequency of 2670 kcs, it is still a standard marine frequency.

OK.  Earhart could have tuned her receiver to 2670 kcs.  But her transmitter was crystal-controlled for three frequencies: 500 kcs, 3105 kcs, 6210 kcs.  I guess they could have talked to her on 2670 kcs and she could have replied on 3105 or 6210 kcs, presuming that the portable radiophone would be near another receiver or headphone.
I was just commenting on the origin of that frequency. Earhart didn't know about it and it provided no advantage over 3105 kcs and she couldn't transmit on it anyway. It appears that if would be used for communication with Itasca or other ships since it is a standard marine frequency.

gl
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 30, 2011, 02:49:25 PM
The runway was set out to be 2400 feet. The telegram above says runway now complete. Then says that 200 feet of west end is sandy and soft. Not that "we flagged an additional 200 feet that is sandy and soft".

The telegram that caused you (but not Amelia) so much anxiety dates from 25 June, almost four months later than the first mention of the sandy 200' on the E/W runway.

The telegram that caused you (but not Amelia) so much anxiety is the one that has much shorter distances for all three runways than any previous  messages:

  • N/S: 4200' vs. 5200' in last Campbell message (13 March).  Difference: -1000'.
  • NE/SW: 2600' vs. 3050'.  Difference: -450'.
  • E/W: 2250' vs. 2400'.  Difference: -150'.
I'm morally certain that these are the "Runway distances between markers," marked as available for landing.  For takeoff, more of the runways could be used than could be used for landing. 

For those who have eyes to see, this is what the 25 June Cooper telegram means.  Here, I'll highlight the important phrases:

"All runways at Howland Island in good condition with good approaches as now marked. Wind socks erected at intersection of runways and at west end of east west runway. Runway distances between markers as follows: north south 4200 feet, north east south west 2600 feet, east west 2250 feet. Prevailing wind from the east 15 mph. A 300 foot strip 50 feet wide is being added to west end of the east west runway to increase the total length to 2750 feet for take off."

  • "Good approaches" = "approaches to land the aircraft."  Pilots don't talk about "approaches to a takeoff."  So the markers mark landing zones on the three runways, which are notably shorter than the full length of the runway.
  • "Runway distances between markers" = "the following numbers are about the landing zone, not the takeoff zone."
  • "2750 feet for take off" = "Although we judge that only 2250' of the E/W runway are suitable for landing, with the 300' extension and the previously flagged off 200', that brings the total length of this runway to 2750 feet for take off."
landing zone of 2250' + sandy stretch of 200' + new, narrow strip of 300' = 2750'

The math really isn't that hard.
And you can always land in a shorter distance than you can take off from.

gl
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 30, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
From a non pilot standpoint I ask this.  If you can't use that 200' of soft and sandy ground then you also can't use the 300 foot extension so why have 500' of unusable runway?

The engineers and pilots on the scene apparently saw a different between the forces acting on run way in landing, when the mass of the plane weighs more heavily on the ground because of G forces caused by the rate of descent as compared to the 1 G load (or less) as the plane begins its runout and approaches takeoff speed.

Quote
On this treeless and obstruction free island it seems a waste of that manpower and resources.  Is this unusable space just to satisfy AE that she has had her request for making the runways as long as possible satisfied?  Or something else?

So far as I know, we don't have documentation about the thought process that went into marking landing zones and distinguishing landing length from takeoff length in the final telegram from Cooper on 24 June.  All we can do is to make guesses about what kind of thinking might have been behind the decisions they made at that time. 

In short takeoffs, it is not unusual for pilots to hold the plane still with the brakes and run the engines to full takeoff power.  Every inch helps.  500' of acceleration before reaching the firmest part of the runway may have looked like a good deal to those who decided to add the 300' x 50' strip at the last minute. 

Yes, I'm sure that they were reacting to AE's (or Miller's?) repeated requests to create the longest possible runway on the island.  So, for example, note Campbell's rather acid remark from 10 March (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_traffic_about_the_Howland_Island_runways), in the middle of the 312-hour marathon: "The north-south runway will never be used because of too much cross wind, however will be ready since they seem to place a great deal of importance on length regardless of wind direction."  He was all alone on the island at that time; when the rest of the ground crew arrived on the 15th and returned in June, they seem to me to have confirmed his preference for the E/W runway and agreed with his assessment that the long N/S runway was not good for takeoff.

It sounds to me--and I admit that I am reading between the lines--that the guys on the island knew that the E/W runway was best for takeoff directly into the prevailing winds.   That was probably the easiest runway to keep clear of birds.  I imagine (without proof) that the reason for flagging off 1000' of the 5200' N/S runway was because the highest concentration of birds was at the north end of the island.  Given limited resources to chase birds, working on the 2750' E/W takeoff strip would have to be easier than clearing 4000' or 5200' on the N/S runway.
It's fairly common to have displaced thresholds at airports. The following is from the official FAA publication known by everybody as the "AIM." (Prior to these days of political correctness it's title was "Airmen's Information Manual." Hmmm... what ever became of that perfectly good word "aviatrix" as in "Amelia Earhart, world famous aviatrix.")
-----------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration

Aeronautical Information Manual

 Official Guide to

 Basic Flight Information and ATC
 Procedures


Section 2-3-2 (https://tighar.org/smf/%20http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap2/aim0203.html)

2. Displaced Threshold. A displaced threshold is a threshold located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway. Displacement of a threshold reduces the length of runway available for landings. The portion of runway behind a displaced threshold is available for takeoffs in either direction and landings from the opposite direction. A ten feet wide white threshold bar is located across the width of the runway at the displaced threshold. White arrows are located along the centerline in the area between the beginning of the runway and displaced threshold. White arrow heads are located across the width of the runway just prior to the threshold bar, as shown in FIG 2-3-4.

NOTE-
Airport operator. When reporting the relocation or displacement of a threshold, the airport operator should avoid language which confuses the two.

i. Demarcation Bar. A demarcation bar delineates a runway with a displaced threshold from a blast pad, stopway or taxiway that precedes the runway. A demarcation bar is 3 feet (1m) wide and yellow, since it is not located on the runway as shown in FIG 2-3-6.

1. Chevrons. These markings are used to show pavement areas aligned with the runway that are unusable for landing, takeoff, and taxiing. Chevrons are yellow. (See FIG 2-3-7.)

j. Runway Threshold Bar. A threshold bar delineates the beginning of the runway that is available for landing when the threshold has been relocated or displaced. A threshold bar is 10 feet (3m) in width and extends across the width of the runway, as shown in FIG 2-3-4.


-------------------------------------------------

You wouldn't want to land on soft sand because plunking your wheels into the sand might cause the plane to nose over (especially with a tail wheel aircraft like the Electra) due to the momentum of the center of gravity of the plane being high above the point where the wheels are stopped  by the soft sand. But this is not a problem on takeoff where the only thing the soft sand can do is to slow the initial acceleration due to it's higher "mu" (co-efficient of rolling resistance.)

gl
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 30, 2011, 04:52:24 PM
I was just commenting on the origin of that frequency. Earhart didn't know about it and it provided no advantage over 3105 kcs and she couldn't transmit on it anyway. It appears that if would be used for communication with Itasca or other ships since it is a standard marine frequency.

Yes, there was a radiotelephone for use between the offshore craft and the Itasca.

But this one was for talking with Earhart. From the Howland runways article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_traffic_about_the_Howland_Island_runways):

#1494
18 Mar

Black to Earhart, Putnam

Following for William Cogswell, Pan Pac Press Honolulu; phone 5573. Following for Amelia Earhart, Putnam: "Portable radiophone on Howland 2670 kcs. Campbell will stand by to answer any questions on runways as you come over island. All here wish luck."
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 30, 2011, 05:39:21 PM
I was just commenting on the origin of that frequency. Earhart didn't know about it and it provided no advantage over 3105 kcs and she couldn't transmit on it anyway. It appears that if would be used for communication with Itasca or other ships since it is a standard marine frequency.

Yes, there was a radiotelephone for use between the offshore craft and the Itasca.

But this one was for talking with Earhart. From the Howland runways article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_traffic_about_the_Howland_Island_runways):

#1494
18 Mar

Black to Earhart, Putnam

Following for William Cogswell, Pan Pac Press Honolulu; phone 5573. Following for Amelia Earhart, Putnam: "Portable radiophone on Howland 2670 kcs. Campbell will stand by to answer any questions on runways as you come over island. All here wish luck."
I missed that. It appears that somebody had the wrong idea of the radio capabilities of Earhart's radio equipment.

gl
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 30, 2011, 06:39:27 PM

#1494
18 Mar

Black to Earhart, Putnam

Following for William Cogswell, Pan Pac Press Honolulu; phone 5573. Following for Amelia Earhart, Putnam: "Portable radiophone on Howland 2670 kcs. Campbell will stand by to answer any questions on runways as you come over island. All here wish luck."
I missed that. It appears that somebody had the wrong idea of the radio capabilities of Earhart's radio equipment.

That was my first impression, too.  But I honestly don't know how a "radiotelephone" or "radiophone" works, nor exactly where or how they planned to have it set up on the island.  Perhaps the gear could have received on 3105 kcs and transmitted on 2670 kcs? 

It's a strange little detail that I haven't seen commented on before.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 30, 2011, 07:13:16 PM
Gary,  please allow me another question related to take off distances. If Lae to Howland used almost 1890 feet of runway due to the weight of the plane and a full fuel load, then does that mean it would be the same approx 1890 feet taking off from Howland to Lae. As she would have done on the first world attempt?  If yes then would she have used the longer runway?  Remembering that the 300 foot extension wasn't there for the first attempt.  Purely from the standpoint of interest. It has no bearing on the hypothesis. Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: John Ousterhout on December 30, 2011, 10:33:15 PM
A comment on soft surfaces during takeoff:  the takeoff begins with the full weight of the aircraft carried on the wheels.   As the aircraft gains airspeed, the wings can begin to carry more of the weight, and the wheels carry only what’s left over.  Near the end of the takeoff run, the wings can carry nearly all of the weight, and the wheels only carry a light load.  Even soft sand can be strong enough to carry this light load, but it’s only a light load at the end of the takeoff run.   Since the workers knew which direction the aircraft would take off (into the wind), they also knew which end could afford to be soft, and which end needed to be firm.
A really long crosswind runway is fine if the cross wind is manageable by the aircraft and within the pilot's capability.  Taking off straight into the wind is always preferred though.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: JNev on December 30, 2011, 10:51:34 PM
I would not doubt that surface loadings at various phases entered into the planning.  But, even softer than desired surfaces may simply be more forgiving in over-run situations if 'prepared' than would be rough, un-prepared surfaces. 

NR16020 had rather large footprint tires of relatively light bearing.  Simply avoiding a blown tire might make all the difference in whether a take-off could be completed or not, if the tires could provide enough bearing resistance to keep the plane 'afloat' and rolling on the surface. 

The exercise could then have been more about emergency margins than real intent of hard-use runway.

LTM -
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 31, 2011, 12:56:33 AM
Gary,  please allow me another question related to take off distances. If Lae to Howland used almost 1890 feet of runway due to the weight of the plane and a full fuel load, then does that mean it would be the same approx 1890 feet taking off from Howland to Lae. As she would have done on the first world attempt?  If yes then would she have used the longer runway?  Remembering that the 300 foot extension wasn't there for the first attempt.  Purely from the standpoint of interest. It has no bearing on the hypothesis. Thank you in advance.
I don't know where you got the 1890 foot value from. My prior calculation for takeoff at Lae was 2278 feet without flaps and 1914 feet with 30° flaps. This was at sea level, 85° F, no wind, 1100 gallons of fuel on board making the weight 15,000 pounds. The actual no flap takeoff distance measured by Chatter was 2,550 feet, only 272 feet more than the calculated distance. If you don't believe Chatter then you at least know that the plane could take off in less than 3,000 feet under those conditions. See my prior post here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,524.msg6902.html#msg6902). Since the weather conditions are virtually the same if taking off from Howland to fly to Lae we know that the plane could certainly get off in 3,000 feet and most likely in 2,550 feet or a little bit less without flaps. The north-south runway at Howland was much longer than 3,000 feet and there is no reason to believe that the plane could not take off with a 15 mph crosswind on that runway. If taking off into a 15 mph east wind then the 2,550 feet becomes only 1,867 without flaps and the 1,914 foot flaps down takeoff would only take 1,349 feet so either way the east runway would have been long enough.

However, flying to Lae from Howland with the existing, fairly normal, wind conditions on that route the flight would take significantly less time so the plane could have taken off with less fuel. It is 2,556 SM miles and the 25 mph headwind on the leg from Lae to Howland would be a 25 mph tailwind going the other way making the ground speed 50 mph faster and taking about 5 hours less. This means that that flight could be made with about 250 gallons less fuel which weighs 1,500 pounds so the takeoff could have been made at a significantly lower weight of 13,500 pounds which is approximately the same as I calculated for the Howland to Hawaii flight.

I wrote before:

"Except we know that they had planned to carry only 825 gallons of fuel for the leg from Howland to Hawaii which is only 1892 SM, 664 SM shorter than the Lae to Howland leg. This is 275 gallons less than they carried on takeoff from Lae so the weight of the plane would have 1650 pounds less, only about 13,350 pounds. Doing the same takeoff calculations I have shown before we know that the takeoff distance varies with the weight ratio squared. Report 487 gives 2100 feet for a takeoff at 16,500 pounds, 13,350 pounds is only 0.809 of the maximum weight, which squared equals 0.654 times 2100 feet predicts the takeoff distance at Howland of 1,375 with 30° of flaps. For a no flap takeoff the distance would be the same 0.654 times 2,600 feet for a Howland takeoff distance of 1,700 feet."

Then adjusting this for a takeoff into the wind, I wrote before:

"From my prior post, the takeoff distance with no wind at Howland is 1,375 feet with 30° of flaps. For a no flap takeoff the distance would be 1,700 feet. A 20 mph headwind would shorten the 30° flap distances by 41.5% and a 10 mph headwind would shorten these distances by 22%. So with 30° of flaps and a 20 mph wind the distance would be 804 feet, with a 10 mph wind it would be 1070 feet. Without flaps, the reductions would be 38% and 20% so the distances would be 1050 and 1356 respectively.

BTW, I don't make this stuff up, see attached graph from Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators, the official Navy manual.

The calculation is easy. The takeoff speed of the plane with the lighter fuel load of 825 gallons for the shorter flight from Howland to Hawaii at the gross weight of 13,350 with no flaps is 93.5 mph and for a 30° of flaps takeoff the takeoff speed is 85 mph. The formula for computing the takeoff distance allowing for wind is:

Takeoff distance (wind) = Takeoff distance (no wind) (1 -  wind speed/takeoff speed)^2
So for the 30° flap takeoff with a headwind component of 20 mph the calculation looks like this:

TD(w20) = 1375 (1- 20/85)^2
TD(w20) = 1375 (1 - 0.235)^2
TD(w20) = 1375 (0.585)
TD(w20) = 804 feet

You can work out the other examples yourself."

You can do the calculation for a 15 mph wind.

gl


Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 31, 2011, 10:44:45 AM
Thanks John, Jeff and Gary. Your replies are much appreciated and helpful to a non pilot type.  Gary I am sure I saw the 1890 foot takeoff run number in messages or reports from observers at Lae. In trying to find them this morning I did see another number in the Chater report. He reports a run of approximately 850 yards (2550 feet).  I will keep looking for the other two references.

Jeff, you raise another interesting point with your notes on the tires. Would landing on an unprepared surface like the reef flat be likely to cause a flat tire or would they actually be better for that type of surface? 
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: JNev on December 31, 2011, 11:29:40 AM
I think the tires would be well-suited:

They were resilient types (balloonish) but aren't exactly without tread toughness.  They are similar to what you might know as 'flotation' tires - not far from what is used on light tractors, etc.

That type of tire absorbs a great deal of shock and tends to allow rolling over minor deformities without so much upset.  A blowout is always possible, but if those tires were in reasonable shape a landing where TIGHAR has theorized should have left NR16020 with pretty reasonable chances of a successful rollout.

A 'hard' tire would be an entirely different thing: they tend to have a more compact footprint and therefore bear with more concentration on the surface; a yielding surface will rut more easily under such tires.  Harder tires also won't yield as much on uneven ground and will translate more shock into the struts and finally into the airframe.  Even though they may look 'tougher', they may actually blow out more quickly in some adverse situation due to less yielding of the sidewalls and tread.

This isn't so scientific - just some insight I can offer for what it's worth.  My belief is that AE would have found some comfort in knowing additional length was available, even if relatively soft ground: it would have been free of major perturbances that could upset the plane or directly puncture tires.  At the end of a take-off run the tires would be somewhat more lightly loaded and might track quite well over the slightly softer ground, if needed, without any trouble.  It could also be in the back of your head that you could lose an engine and need to try to stop - or at least control the airplane as much as possible at the end of things.

Not a bad hip-pocket improvement to hold if you were in AE's shoes.

LTM -
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 31, 2011, 11:50:34 AM
Thanks Jeff. I believe the tires would have been most helpful on the reef flat due to their less rigid structure. Less likely to blow out. You're description of "balloonish" is a good one.

How long does rubber last in a coral environment like Nikumororo?  Would the tire survive the reef better than the more rigid aluminum?  Would the tire still be identifiable? As a tire? As a tire from the Electra?  Would natives have brought tires to the island for any reason with similar tires?  Work carts?  Americans bringing vehicles?

Just thinking that the tires may be in better shape than the airframe due to their more resilient action in the dynamics of the surf.
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 31, 2011, 02:35:25 PM
A WWII era tire was found during Niku IIII ("Wheel of Fortune") (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/41_WheelofFortune/41_Wheel.html) expedition.  This article covers that and other interesting stuff about 'wheels'.

Another picture and more analysis of the Electra's tires in this article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F).
Title: Re: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Irvine John Donald on January 01, 2012, 08:28:35 AM
Thanks to Marty and Jeff for their recent posts on tires. I had seen these articles before and suggest that if you haven't read them yet then please do so.  I always seem to get more from these articles when I see them a second time. Probably because the context is more meaningful.
Title: Re: FAQ: Howland Runways / Kamakaiwi Field / Pics of Howland colonists
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 09, 2013, 05:27:30 AM


(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5085180840_f9c1b66e06_z.jpg)

Aboard Itasca, Jan 1936

Denise Murphy says, "I've been in the Bishop Museum archives and seen this same photo. Back row, left to right: Luther Waiwaiole, Henry Ohumukini, William Yomes, Solomon Kalama, James Carroll. Front row, left to right: Henry Mahikoa, Alexander Kahapea, George Kahanu, Sr., Joseph Kim. (George Kahanu, Sr. collection).