TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Aircraft & Powerplant, Performance and Operations => Topic started by: Gary LaPook on October 25, 2011, 11:02:33 PM
-
I am attaching a photo showing what appears to be several long rods with handles along the starboard 118 gallon tank. These appear in many photos. What is their purpose?
gl
-
Any chance that they were to open and close valves to regulate which tank was supplying fuel? I'm not aware of the plumbing method used for the fuel lines. Did all drain into one common line that then fed either engine or could each tank be isolated from the system with a valve operated by a lever? Seems to me that it might be wise to be able to isolate a tank from the system in case that tank had a problem, like contaminated fuel, etc. Did all tanks supply fuel constantly so as to not upset the trim of the aircraft? Could levers and rods be used to control fuel valves? Just a thought....
-
I've often wondered about those rods. We have the Lockheed schematic for the airplane's fuel system as of March 12, 1937 (5 days before the departure of the first world flight attempt). We'll put that up on the TIGHAR website along with some other photos and documents concerning the fuel system. I'll post a link as soon as they're up.
-
1936 and 1937 (acc. to captions)
(http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Amelia_Earhart_Photos/Amelia_Earhart_In_Cockpit_Of_Locheed_L-10_Electra_In_1936.jpg)(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4048/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4048-976.jpg)
-
1936 and 1937 (acc. to captions)
The 1936 photo was taken before the tanks were installed. Whoever took the 1937 photo had to be lying on top of the tanks.
-
The 1936 photo was taken before the tanks were installed. Whoever took the 1937 photo had to be lying on top of the tanks.
Lol - so often, pictures of the photogs in action would have been as interesting as their subjects.
Another view - undated, from the Oakland auction last month:
(http://oaklandlocal.com/sites/default/files/i/earhart--cockpit.jpg)
-
That was kind of huge - do photos that large work here, or would smaller be better?
-
Just the rods:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6102/6282959261_f1e78f923c_b.jpg)
-
A biggie of the original photo in this thread:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4700606554_5f53dd4c8b_b.jpg)
-
In the photo with Paul Mantz, you can see what looks like a sight glass that has been added to the aft side of the door frame. It is not evident in the photo of AE listening to the headsets. Would be interesting to date these photos and create a timeline of when stuff was added.
My guess is that, combined with the sight glass, the rods are valve controls for fuel management.
Also interesting to note that with these rods in place, the cabin door would not have been possible to close, yet it is still there.
amck
-
That was kind of huge - do photos that large work here, or would smaller be better?
You can set the size you want (http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Img) for the image to display.
[img width=640]http://oaklandlocal.com/sites/default/files/i/earhart--cockpit.jpg [/img]
(http://oaklandlocal.com/sites/default/files/i/earhart--cockpit.jpg)
Then if someone clicks on the image, it will open up to full-size.
-
There doesn't appear to be much of a gasket set on the top hatch, which would probably create a lot of wind noise/whistling while in flight. I'm amazed that any of the pilots of that era had ANY hearing left.
Jeff Lange
# 0748C
-
1936 and 1937 (acc. to captions)
(http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Amelia_Earhart_Photos/Amelia_Earhart_In_Cockpit_Of_Locheed_L-10_Electra_In_1936.jpg)(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4048/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4048-976.jpg)
------------------------
It's interesting that in the left photo you can see the Cambridge analyzer mounted above the instrument panel below the compass and in the second photo it is gone. I have attached a blow up of the Cambridge.
gl
-
It's interesting that in the left photo you can see the Cambridge analyzer mounted above the instrument panel below the compass and in the second photo it is gone.
They moved it to right in front of the pilot on the main panel. There were many changes to the instrument panel layout over time. The Harney Drawings (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&path=46&product_id=51l) show the layout as of January or February 1937 - the last good cockpit shot we've found.
-
In the "Ditching at Sea" forum, Reply #23, (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6228.html#msg6228) Chuck provides "Vent_Lines.jpg" photo that shows a row of objects on the tops of the tanks approximately in line with the Mystery Rods. There are three objects visible. A 4th one may be underneath the raised platform on top of the aft tank, and may be the reason for that particular platform to be raised higher than the one that extends along the tops of the forward 3 tanks. The purpose of the aft platform seems to me to simply provide a place for someone to climb on top of the tanks without putting a knee directly onto the tank top. Once on top of the tanks, someone could crawl forward on the narrower, and slightly lower, forward platform. That much I believe is obvious.
I would suggest that the objects are the fuel lines from each tank, and manually operated valves were either already in place, or were added later. Access to the valves, if already in place back then, might have been by reaching or crawling to within convenient reach. Practical experience might then have shown this to be impractical, especially if only two people are on the a/c, leading to the use of the Mystery Rod actuators so the pilot could control fuel.
(http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=481.0;attach=238;image)
-
In the "Ditching at Sea" forum, Reply #23, (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6228.html#msg6228) Chuck provides "Vent_Lines.jpg" photo that shows a row of objects on the tops of the tanks approximately in line with the Mystery Rods. There are three objects visible. A 4th one may be underneath the raised platform on top of the aft tank, and may be the reason for that particular platform to be raised higher than the one that extends along the tops of the forward 3 tanks. The purpose of the aft platform seems to me to simply provide a place for someone to climb on top of the tanks without putting a knee directly onto the tank top. Once on top of the tanks, someone could crawl forward on the narrower, and slightly lower, forward platform. That much I believe is obvious.
I would suggest that the objects are the fuel lines from each tank, and manually operated valves were either already in place, or were added later. Access to the valves, if already in place back then, might have been by reaching or crawling to within convenient reach. Practical experience might then have shown this to be impractical, especially if only two people are on the a/c, leading to the use of the Mystery Rod actuators so the pilot could control fuel.
(http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=481.0;attach=238;image)
---------------------------
But the fuel diagrams show three interconnected rotary valves that move through the entire 360 degrees. Assuming these rods are actually torque tubes with handles, it would not be possible to hook fuel valves to them and be able to rotate the connected valves through 360 degrees. But these valves were supposed to be placed within reach of the pilot on the cockpit floor so another reason the dismiss these rods as being activators for the fuel selector valves.
Were these dump valves so that the fuel could be jettisoned in case of an engine failure so that the plane might be able to fly on only one engine? If they were dump valves then using them improperly could have accidentally lost fuel but this seems unlikely since you would expect the controls for that to have some safety guards over the controls. Still scratching my head.
gl
-
It's interesting that in the left photo you can see the Cambridge analyzer mounted above the instrument panel below the compass and in the second photo it is gone. I have attached a blow up of the Cambridge.
Take another look at your photo's and compare the compasses they are different as well.
LTM,
Don
-
At http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/51_HeatShields/51_DetectiveStory.html is a photo of the fuel tanks early in their installation. The top platforms are not present, but the area where the fuel lines attach to the tanks are lost in glare. If someone has access to a high-resolution version of the same photo, perhaps it will help us guess what the rods might have connected to.
-
At http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/51_HeatShields/51_DetectiveStory.html is a photo of the fuel tanks early in their installation. The top platforms are not present, but the area where the fuel lines attach to the tanks are lost in glare. If someone has access to a high-resolution version of the same photo, perhaps it will help us guess what the rods might have connected to.
-------------------------------
Speaking of heater ducts, just what kind of heater did they have, was it a Janitrol or was it steam heat like in a DC-3 or something different?
gl
-
Speaking of heater ducts, just what kind of heater did they have, was it a Janitrol or was it steam heat like in a DC-3 or something different?
Boy oh boy - did you ever just open another Pandora's box. I'll give you the lowdown tomorrow. ;D
-
Ric u cant do that.
Boy oh boy - did you ever just open another Pandora's box.
u got too tell us now, what u meant or put a link up to what u mean ;D
-
Sorry to make you wait Richie.
The system the Lockheed Model 10 used to keep the crew and passengers warm was not sophisticated. The hot air in the heating ducts along the base of the cabin wall came from cuffs around the engine exhaust manifolds. The manifolds got hot which warmed the air in the cuffs which then circulated through the ducts.
The Model 10 was designed to have passengers, not fuel tanks, in the cabin. Heating ducts are good for passengers, but not good for fuel tanks - which might be the key to the identity of some of the most puzzling artifacts we've found in abandoned village on Nikumaroro. The mystery is explained in detail in an Earhart Project Research Bulletin published July 12, 2007 entitled Detective Story (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/51_HeatShields/51_DetectiveStory.html)
Once everybody who's interested has had a chance to read it, I'll bring you up to date on what we've learned since then.
-
:) no worries
have read the detective story 3 times now :)
-
have read the detective story 3 times now :)
LOL. Okay, okay.
TIGHAR member Leonid Sagalovsky successfully researched the fate of Lockheed 10E Special NR-16059 "Daily Express" after it was sold to the Soviet Union.
Here is a summary:
"This Electra was registered as CCCP-H214 on 17 June 1938 and in August skis for this aircraft were shipped from the USA. It was dismantled by Factory No 156 (TsAGI) in 1939 and was then delivered to Aeroflot as spare parts." The plane was cancelled from the Polar Aviation register on April 15, 1940 (source: Lennart Andersson's 2010 book "Aeroflot Origins - Red Stars Vol. 6"; the Model 10E Electra, NR16059, c/n 1065, gets a half-page in the section on "Imported Minor Types.")
Factory No. 156 is the famous Tupolev Design Bureau, now a government-owned Tupolev Corp, in Moscow. A historian on Tupolev's staff provided information that the factory made detailed drawings during the Electra's disassembly. We followed it up and traced the Tupolev report on the "Daily Express" to Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI). An inquiry to MAI confirmed that the report exists in their library and contains photographs taken in 1939. I was able to obtain copies of some photos, but the full report remains inaccessible due to (irony of ironies) the US State Department sanctions on MAI in connection with "WMD proliferation activities."
So, I'm afraid the fate of NR-16059 is very much known and it is Aeroflot spare parts."
We are currently trying to get the State Department to waive the restriction so that we can get the full report.
-
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/51_HeatShields/10shieldinstalled.jpg)
would the dado not lye flat on top of heat shield instead of up right as its to far away from side an would obstruct fuel tank as you can see in this image
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/51_HeatShields/11Earharttanks.jpg)
also if u look at this image if the floor was designed for easy access why put ply boards on it ?
-
would the dado not lye flat on top of heat shield instead of up right as its to far away from side an would obstruct fuel tank as you can see in this image
The "dado" IS the heat shield. The hypothesis is that the structures we found are not dados at all but insulating barriers between the heater ducts and the tanks. I think there's room there. the heat shields (itf that's what they are) are very thin. We know from the example of Alaska airplane that there has to be some kind of insulation there.
also if u look at this image if the floor was designed for easy access why put ply boards on it ?
The floors of all Electras were plywood.
-
just come across this site thought some of u guys would be intrested in
http://www.theelectraproject.com/facts.html
click on aircraft facts
-
Andrew, et al:
In looking at these photos (not necessarily presented here in order they were taken), I think the door may have been able to swing closed and be latched shut. In the first photo, note what appears to be a cutaway relief in the edge of the door at the lower left hand corner of the photo (we only see the lower radius of the cutaway feature at the bottom corner - the door handle is at left center and what appears to be the window in the door is seen in the left upper corner - the window/latch position locations are more clearly seen in the second photo). This cutaway additionally allow for clearance of the door and the "midshaft handles" on the rods when closing or opening the door. Also it appears that the cutaway in the door matches the flange through which the mystery rods pivot at the distal end. Though matching in profile, it does not appear that the flange and the door cutaway engage each other when the door closes as the door appears to stop aft of the pivot flange as seen in the the third photo (aft of the sight tube). It appears that when the third photo was taken, the relief was not yet cut into the door as the door appears to be pushed closed touching the mystery rods (note what appears to be a "document" or placard on the cockpit side of the door revealing the position of the door - airworthiness certificate perhaps?).
I do find it interesting that it appears that the mystery rods can be actuated by the handles on the cockpit side of the doorway but also with handles on the cabin side of the door as well unless those aren't handles. If they are handles that are attached midshaft, the handles would limit the rotation of the rods to about 90 degrees of motion before running into the adjacent rods.
Curiouser and curiouser.....
LTM,
Friend
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4700606554_5f53dd4c8b_b.jpg)
(http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Amelia_Earhart_Photos/Amelia_Earhart_In_Cockpit_Of_Locheed_L-10_Electra_In_1936.jpg)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6102/6282959261_f1e78f923c_b.jpg)
-
just come across this site thought some of u guys would be intrested in
http://www.theelectraproject.com/facts.html
click on aircraft facts
We helped those guys. The illustrations are from the Harney Drawings (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&path=36&product_id=51). We gave them permission to use them. I can't vouch for all their specs but I do know that their fuel quantity numbers are wrong. According to the last Bureau of Air Commerce inspection of the airplane on May 19, 1937 there were 12 fuel tanks:
6 in the wings totaling 398 gallons
6 in the cabin totaling 753 gallons
Total 1,151 gallons
-
Andrew, et al:
In looking at these photos (not necessarily presented here in order they were taken), I think the door may have been able to swing closed and be latched shut. In the first photo, note what appears to be a cutaway relief in the edge of the door at the lower left hand corner of the photo (we only see the lower radius of the cutaway feature at the bottom corner - the door handle is at left center and what appears to be the window in the door is seen in the left upper corner - the window/latch position locations are more clearly seen in the second photo). This cutaway additionally allow for clearance of the door and the "midshaft handles" on the rods when closing or opening the door. Also it appears that the cutaway in the door matches the flange through which the mystery rods pivot at the distal end. Though matching in profile, it does not appear that the flange and the door cutaway engage each other when the door closes as the door appears to stop aft of the pivot flange as seen in the the third photo (aft of the sight tube). It appears that when the third photo was taken, the relief was not yet cut into the door as the door appears to be pushed closed touching the mystery rods (note what appears to be a "document" or placard on the cockpit side of the door revealing the position of the door - airworthiness certificate perhaps?).
I do find it interesting that it appears that the mystery rods can be actuated by the handles on the cockpit side of the doorway but also with handles on the cabin side of the door as well unless those aren't handles. If they are handles that are attached midshaft, the handles would limit the rotation of the rods to about 90 degrees of motion before running into the adjacent rods.
Curiouser and curiouser.....
LTM,
Friend
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4700606554_5f53dd4c8b_b.jpg)
(http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Amelia_Earhart_Photos/Amelia_Earhart_In_Cockpit_Of_Locheed_L-10_Electra_In_1936.jpg)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6102/6282959261_f1e78f923c_b.jpg)
-----------------------
And as to the idea that the rods operated the fuel valves, the first photo shows one of the in floor fuel valves, Earhart's right foot is on part of it. In photo two you can see two more fuel valves on the instrument panel below the throttles.
gl
-
perhaps the "handles" on the cabin-side of the cockpit bulkhead are "stops".....to limit the available range of rotation of the rods ??
-
Perhaps the rods do not rotate - those handles might be intended to be pulled on. The bearing block would work either way.
Are there any photos showing the handles in any other positions? Rotated? Pulled forward?
90-degree rotating handle implies something like ball-valves on the aft ends of the shafts. Pull-handles imply something like poppet or spool valves, or a linkage that turns the motion through an angle, like a bell-crank. If there were emergency dump-valves on the tanks, I would expect them to be large, and on the bottoms of the tanks. You wouldn't want such a valve to be accidentally bumped open, but a pilot might want to have a crew member dump fuel during an emergency, so there are redundant handles - one set where the pilot/copilot can reach them, and another set where crew in back can reach them.
Was the plane safe to land with full tanks, as might be necessary if a problem developed immediately after takeoff?
Was the aircraft tested with water in the tanks before they were filled with gas? Dumping the water might have been through temporary valving.
-
Perhaps the rods do not rotate - those handles might be intended to be pulled on. The bearing block would work either way.
I thought about that, too, last night - that these rods might not be actuating something by rotating axially but may be set up in a push-pull configuration to perform that function instead.....if only we knew with certainty what that function was!
LTM,
Friend
-
Just a thought.... The tanks installed inside the cabin were not Lockheed standard tanks correct? The forward tank is mounted very close to the center of gravity of the airframe with the remaining tanks lined up fore and aft behind it. I believe those rods control simple valves that allow fuel to be burned from each tank in succession. In other words, the engines fed from the front tank only and the valve allowed fuel to be moved forward to the front tank for use. This arrangement would allow her to keep the aircraft balanced in flight. I think when looking at vehicles from the early part of the last century we need keep in mind that simple solutions to a problem were used all over. Ever really look at a Model A car or any other vintage aircraft closely? Simple solutions... I think they call it the K.I.S.S. method...
Gums
-
I'll take a guess, having spent a couple days thinking about those handles. One possible reason for the large handles is to provide a better purchase by someone of small stature sitting in the pilot's seat. Those small handles on the cockpit-ends of the rods might be enough for a strong man with big hands to pull, but they're in a poor position for someone with a small stature to apply much force. Think of where you'd be putting your hands and arms to pull on those small handles in an emergency - your left hand is on the wheel, you're seatbelt is tight, you're dividing your attention between flying the airplane and reaching with your other hand to pull on the little handles, which are about shoulder-height on the same plane as your seat-back, and a bit more than an elbow distant from your shoulder. If you're sitting in a chair right now, reach for that location - it's really awkward, and you have little leverage to pull with. The long handles further back might be just where AE could reach back and "straight-arm" them. Try that while you're sitting down - stick your right arm straight back just below shoulder level and make a fist. That's about where those handles are located, if the "someone" has short arms. The three distinct angles might also be intentional, to make it easy to tell which handle you are grabbing without looking. Reach back, grab one, and lean forward while rotating your torso to the left, and you'll be able to pull with a lot of force.
This still doesn't explain what the rods did, but the above description sure sounds consistant with emergency dump valves to me.
I see that the handles and rods are on the Harney drawings. I also can see the rods barely visible under AE's elbow in one of the photos on page 2 of this thread. It still isn't clear what they connect to, but I'm hopefull they'll show that detail in some unexpected photo.
Does anyone recognize the small handles from any other aircraft use? The look tantalizingly familiar to me...
-
Just a thought.... The tanks installed inside the cabin were not Lockheed standard tanks correct? The forward tank is mounted very close to the center of gravity of the airframe with the remaining tanks lined up fore and aft behind it. I believe those rods control simple valves that allow fuel to be burned from each tank in succession. In other words, the engines fed from the front tank only and the valve allowed fuel to be moved forward to the front tank for use. This arrangement would allow her to keep the aircraft balanced in flight. I think when looking at vehicles from the early part of the last century we need keep in mind that simple solutions to a problem were used all over. Ever really look at a Model A car or any other vintage aircraft closely? Simple solutions... I think they call it the K.I.S.S. method...
Gums
-----------------------------------
Except there were three floor mounted valves plus the two mounted below the throttles to select the tank to be used.
Here is a link to the fuel plumbing blueprint at Purdue:
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=3683&CISOBOX=1&REC=8
Unfortunately it is incomplete. I have not been able to find a complete
copy, does anybody have access to a complete one?
Check the diagram and you will find that the two valves we see below the throttles and their labels are in accord with the diagram. The valve on the right under the throttles is labeled "Engine selector valve" on the diagram. The left valve shown in the photo is the one shown cut off along the left edge of the diagram near the top. Based on this correspondence, we can expect that the other three valves were installed as shown on the diagram.
gl
-
5 valves shown on the diagram:
1) Engine Selector [3-way]
2) Stripping Valve [3-way]
3) (For)ward (Select)or Valve [ 6-way]
4) (cutoff on top left of dwg) [appears to be 6-way, identical labelling to 3)]
5) Center Floor [only 2 "off" positions shown. Appears to be similar to 2), so may have 3 positions, 2 of which are off]
3) and 4) are the ones mounted under the throttles. They have identical sector labels, but different functions that aren't immediately clear (I assume one controls return fuel flow). The diagram shows 4) connecting to the 2) Stripping Valve, which is not a term I'm familiar with. It may be a return selector.
Both 3) and 4) have "fuselage" sector labels, which may refer to the large aux. tanks in the passenger compartment, unless there was a different "fuselage" tank in addition to the aux. tanks. There are no labels visible that indicate the ability to select among the specific aux. tanks.
It would be nice to see the entire drawing. There isn't quite enough information to tell us about the aux. tanks' plumbing. A reasonable design might have a single selector valve to chose from any one aux. tank, plus another selector valve to chose which tank receives returning fuel. The drawing may show two more valves.
Is there any question that the mystery rods are associated with the fuel tanks?
-
Here is a link to the fuel plumbing blueprint at Purdue:
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=3683&CISOBOX=1&REC=8
Unfortunately it is incomplete. I have not been able to find a complete
copy, does anybody have access to a complete one?
Yeah, we have good, cleaned-up, legible facsimiles of the complete schematic plus a fueling order form that Earhart apparently intended to use during the world flight (dunno whether she used it or not). We'll get 'em up on the TIGHAR website along with hi-res photos of the cabin and tank details.
The Harney Drawings do show small streamlined ports on the belly of the aircraft - one for each tank - that he labeled "fuel drains." If that's what they are it's odd that the openings face forward. I would expect drains to face aft. I would expect vents to face forward but the plumbing for the vents is clearly manifolded and seems to go up to the filler ports on top of the fuselage, not individual vents going down to the belly.
BTW, anyone who is interested in sorting out these questions should really get themselves a copy of the Harney Drawings (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=51) folio. I won't say they're perfect but they are by far the most accurate representation of what the aircraft looked like at the time it disappeared. The drawings are beautifully rendered in a bound collector’s folio of fifteen full-color 11″ by 17″ drawings on heavy glossy paper. You can also get them on disk as hi-res jpegs. No extra charge.
-
5 valves shown on the diagram:
1) Engine Selector [3-way]
2) Stripping Valve [3-way]
3) (For)ward (Select)or Valve [ 6-way]
4) (cutoff on top left of dwg) [appears to be 6-way, identical labelling to 3)]
5) Center Floor [only 2 "off" positions shown. Appears to be similar to 2), so may have 3 positions, 2 of which are off]
3) and 4) are the ones mounted under the throttles. They have identical sector labels, but different functions that aren't immediately clear (I assume one controls return fuel flow). The diagram shows 4) connecting to the 2) Stripping Valve, which is not a term I'm familiar with. It may be a return selector.
Both 3) and 4) have "fuselage" sector labels, which may refer to the large aux. tanks in the passenger compartment, unless there was a different "fuselage" tank in addition to the aux. tanks. There are no labels visible that indicate the ability to select among the specific aux. tanks.
It would be nice to see the entire drawing. There isn't quite enough information to tell us about the aux. tanks' plumbing. A reasonable design might have a single selector valve to chose from any one aux. tank, plus another selector valve to chose which tank receives returning fuel. The drawing may show two more valves.
Is there any question that the mystery rods are associated with the fuel tanks?
----------------------------------
There are 6 valves, not 5.
The valves on the panel are 1 and 4 and they do not have identical labels. On the Purdue website you can enlarge the images so that you can see them more clearly.
Look at the photo I attached showing the two valves below the throttles, you can read the labels clearly.
Contrary to modern twin engined planes the Electra had a fuel system that fed both engines from the same tank. The right valve under the throttles is a standard Electra valve, with "right engine on," "left engine on," "both engines on ," and "both engines off" positions choosing which engine is to receive fuel from the fuel system. The left valve is in series with the right valve and is also almost standard, it selects the fuel tank to use, "right 97 gal. wing tank," "left 97 gal wing tank," "right 102 gal wing tank," "left 102 gal wing fuel tank," "off," and then the added position of "fuselage tanks." When in the "fuselage tanks" position it then opens the port to a third valve that selects which of the fuselage tanks to use. If it was desired to use fuel from one of the two forward 118 gallon tanks then the third valve was turned to "off" and fourth valve was opened to chose "right" or "left."
gl
-
5 valves shown on the diagram:
1) Engine Selector [3-way]
2) Stripping Valve [3-way]
3) (For)ward (Select)or Valve [ 6-way]
4) (cutoff on top left of dwg) [appears to be 6-way, identical labelling to 3)]
5) Center Floor [only 2 "off" positions shown. Appears to be similar to 2), so may have 3 positions, 2 of which are off]
3) and 4) are the ones mounted under the throttles. They have identical sector labels, but different functions that aren't immediately clear (I assume one controls return fuel flow). The diagram shows 4) connecting to the 2) Stripping Valve, which is not a term I'm familiar with. It may be a return selector.
Both 3) and 4) have "fuselage" sector labels, which may refer to the large aux. tanks in the passenger compartment, unless there was a different "fuselage" tank in addition to the aux. tanks. There are no labels visible that indicate the ability to select among the specific aux. tanks.
It would be nice to see the entire drawing. There isn't quite enough information to tell us about the aux. tanks' plumbing. A reasonable design might have a single selector valve to chose from any one aux. tank, plus another selector valve to chose which tank receives returning fuel. The drawing may show two more valves.
Is there any question that the mystery rods are associated with the fuel tanks?
----------------------------------
There are 6 valves, not 5.
The valves on the panel are 1 and 4 and they do not have identical labels. On the Purdue website you can enlarge the images so that you can see them more clearly.
Look at the photo I attached showing the two valves below the throttles, you can read the labels clearly.
Contrary to modern twin engined planes the Electra had a fuel system that fed both engines from the same tank. The right valve under the throttles is a standard Electra valve, with "right engine on," "left engine on," "both engines on ," and "both engines off" positions choosing which engine is to receive fuel from the fuel system. The left valve is in series with the right valve and is also almost standard, it selects the fuel tank to use, "right 97 gal. wing tank," "left 97 gal wing tank," "right 102 gal wing tank," "left 102 gal wing fuel tank," "off," and then the added position of "fuselage tanks." When in the "fuselage tanks" position it then opens the port to a third valve that selects which of the fuselage tanks to use. If it was desired to use fuel from one of the two forward 118 gallon tanks then the third valve was turned to "off" and fourth valve was opened to chose "right" or "left."
gl
-------------------------
The above description is quite straight forward and should not confuse anybody.
Now looking at the rest of the fuel plumbing diagram in the Electra we come to the confusing part. There are two additional valves, the first labeled "stripping valve" and the one just below it on the diagram labeled "...RD," the rest of the label that is cut off is "forward floor valve." This valve duplicates the left valve on the instrument panel (this is the upper left valve on the diagram that is cut off) and both of these valves are connected in parallel allowing selecting any of the fuel tanks. This second valve is used to transfer fuel INTO a selected fuel tank. The valve on the instrument panel selects the tank that fuel is drawn OUT OF to go to the engines. The forward floor valve is connected to the stripping valve and the stripping valve selects where the fuel to be transferred comes from, either from the wobble pump or from the tank selected for supplying fuel to the engine.
Two examples will make this clear. Let's say all the fuel from the number 5 fuselage tank has been used up. Earhart then switches the left fuel selector valve away from the "fuselage" position to one of the wing tank positions to keep the engines running. She then sets the stripping valve to the wobble pump position and sets the forward floor valve to one of the wing tanks positions and then pumps the handle to move the remaining fuel from the depleted fuselage tank into the selected wing tank. After this is completed she then sets both of these valves back to off. (Note, only fuel from the fuselage tanks can be moved with the wobble pump and it can only be sent to a wing tank. Also, the plane must be using a wing tank during this operation, not one of the fuselage tanks. )
The other use of this system is to transfer fuel between tanks by use of the mechanical fuel pump. The stripping valve receives pressurized fuel from the engine side of the fuel pump, this fuel coming from the tank then being used to feed the engines. By manipulating the stripping valve and the forward floor valve, fuel can be directed to any other tank in the plane to maintain balance except fuel from one fuselage tank cannot be transferred to another fuselage tank. (See recent post on fuel system thread)
.
gl
-
Could the mystrey rods have been designed for 'sealing' the tanks as much as they were for 'dumping' the tanks? This newspaper article states the tanks were adapted for quick emptying and complete sealing. I've never heard that mentioned before. Click on the article for link.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7041/6871413815_87be8e4fa5.jpg) (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RnYcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VWQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1567%2C245323)
-
Geez, 6 tanks capable of being sealed off and making a buoy.
Or, perhaps removed from the plane and laid down and attached together to make a raft of sorts. Add a hasty mast and a parachute sail and, well you can get the idea...
-
with fred 'injured', how was she going to get those tanks out of the plane? On the reef, with rising water? Oh i get it, take the tanks out and let them float to the shore while you retreve another---or out to sea---. How about doing in one by one----thats moving a tank 100yds maybe to the shore line, walking on reef. By the time she retreved the tanks, if the tide was coming in, there water problaby be knee to waist deep. Would be a very tireing job. I doubt seriously that she handled that.
Tom
-
Thread hijack:
Ric, what became of the actual model Mr. Harney made? Did not see that mentioned.
End thread hijack!
-
with fred 'injured', how was she going to get those tanks out of the plane? On the reef, with rising water? Oh i get it, take the tanks out and let them float to the shore while you retreve another---or out to sea---. How about doing in one by one----thats moving a tank 100yds maybe to the shore line, walking on reef. By the time she retreved the tanks, if the tide was coming in, there water problaby be knee to waist deep. Would be a very tireing job. I doubt seriously that she handled that.
Tom
What tools did they have to remove the tiedowns and the fuel manifolds from the tanks?
gl
-
Thread hijack:
Ric, what became of the actual model Mr. Harney made? Did not see that mentioned.
End thread hijack!
So the thought is the model may have depicted the rods? I dont think this is picture is from the Harney drawings (nor a model), but it does show the rods. Click on the image for link.
(https://www.niar.wichita.edu/CompMechPortal/Portals/0/image036.gif) (https://www.niar.wichita.edu/CompMechPortal/MainMenuCurrentResearchProjects/AmeliaEarhartsCrashReconstruction/tabid/94/Default.aspx)
-
with fred 'injured', how was she going to get those tanks out of the plane? On the reef, with rising water? Oh i get it, take the tanks out and let them float to the shore while you retreve another---or out to sea---. How about doing in one by one----thats moving a tank 100yds maybe to the shore line, walking on reef. By the time she retreved the tanks, if the tide was coming in, there water problaby be knee to waist deep. Would be a very tireing job. I doubt seriously that she handled that.
Tom
What tools did they have to remove the tiedowns and the fuel manifolds from the tanks?
gl
I think Harry and Tom were just fun'in around. We ought to toss in the hand-cranked radio playing bluegrass music to top off the visual! :P
Seriously though... Anyone ever heard of the ability to intentionally seal off the tanks to make them air tight? Could that explain the rods? Or is the newspaper article far fetched?
-
Ric, what became of the actual model Mr. Harney made? Did not see that mentioned.
Bill Harney donated it to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum in Old Rhinebeck, NY. As far as I know it's still there. The model belongs in the National Air & Space Museum alongside AE's Vega. The Electra model they have there now is woefully inaccurate.
-
I don't see how the mystery rods could possibly "seal" the tanks. We can see the tank vent line fittings on top of the tanks, and there is no obvious connection to the rods to seal them. The bottoms of the tanks are already sealed. There aren't many functions that the mystery rods might serve, other than emergency dump valve actuation. Dump valves are expected to be installed on the tank system, just as they are already installed on the wing tanks. The Harney drawings show rather generic dump valve outlets, but no details of what the mystery rods did, nor any dump valve connections. The wing tank dump valve(s) were actuated by a Tee-handle mounted on the floor next to the pilot's seat. Where were the emergency dump valve controls for the big cabin tanks, if the mystery rods weren't them?
The idea that the big fuselage tanks were planned to be removed from the aircraft in an emergency is highly imaginative. I would think it would be more practical to leave them inside the aircraft, to keep it afloat.
-
I would agree about the NASM's model of Amelia's Electra. Every time I see it, I leave that part of the museum shaking my head. I mean, this is the NASM, for pete's sake!
LTM, who trys to get his models right,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
I wasn't suggesting that it was "planned" to remove the tanks in an emergncy, I was viewing it from a perspective of two souls on an deserted island, realizing that the cavalry ain't coming over the horizon, and if they were ever gonna get off the island they would have to do it themselves. Maybe they could build a hasty raft outa felled Buka trees, or maybe they could use what they had, tanks.
-
Gary
Tools? Don't know what they had on flight 2, but the Luke inventory showed all kinds of tools including a pipe wrench, hand ax, pliers, screwdriver, various wrenches etc on the plane after the ground-loop.
-
I think John Ousterhout is probably correct about these rods relating to a dump function for the aux tanks.
It's true we lack the 'linkage' between the rods and 'rather generic' dump valves shown in the Harney drawings, but the layout of these rods is highly suggestive of something to be actuated from the cockpit in a hurry, although somewhat necessarily contrived the way they are. The 'knobs' may have been inadequate for AE's grasp from her seat, and the handles may have been an afterthought but good means for her to get a better grasp. They could also conceivably be grasped by FN who might scoot forward on top of the tanks to do so, if necessary by AE's request (but from cockpit would be the primary idea, I think).
What bugs me is safety - how do you avoid inadvertant actuation? A couple of thoughts - there may have been a substantial throw, or travel, required of the rods to actuate the valves. There could have been a distinct over-center arrangement to keep the mechism soft-locked until a firm pull appied. There also could have been break-away wire somewhere, out of our view so far.
Just ideas - but dump actuation does seem most likely IMHO. I would love to see that model.
LTM -