Check out Noonan's chart to Dakar available here:What is known about the charts they had on board the aircraft? Was Gardner actually named on the chart, or might it only have been shown as one of several small islands with (approximate) positions?
I would love to find some examples of 'marine general charts' such as FN may have used to see what can be learned. That will be a bit of a quest to look forward to.
LTM -
Good points, John. And excellent find, Gary - thanks for sharing that - I look forward to digging into those!It wasn't a "find," I paid Purdue to make that copy for me. :D
LTM -
An additional point to ponder: as we know from the Niku Overflight Video the size and shape of Gardner Island are different from what was depicted on maps in 1937. AE and FN may have been thinking "well it doesn't match what's on the map but hey, it's land! We'll figure out where we are once we're on the ground." ........
......Were they truely so confident in Fred's navigation that DF wasn't of primary importance? I find that almost unbelievable......
The uncertainty of a celestial fix is considered to be 10 NM, very few fall outside of this distance from the actual position and most are much better, about 5 or 6 NM. To obtain fixes within 10 NM, the uncertainty of each LOP making up the fix must be less than 7 NM, very few fall outside this range and most LOPs are better, usually within about 3 to 5 NM of the actual postion. The celestial sun line LOP "landfall" procedure is a standard navigational procedure used to find small islands WITHOUT the use of any radio navigation aid whatsoever.......Were they truely so confident in Fred's navigation that DF wasn't of primary importance? I find that almost unbelievable......
Well, in our conjecture let's not lead ourselves astray. The DF was of primary (or at least equal) importance. Celestial Nav is not a silver bullet. Even with the best (and FN was clearly considered to be THE best) at the helm, it's nominal resolution is maybe ten miles.
LTM,
....TB
I think that if you have TIGHAR faith (believe in the Gardner theory) you likely believe that AE and FN, for whatever reason, failed to find Howland . . . Again, if you have TIGHAR faith, you believe that Betty heard the calls
It's likely the charts of the day didn't specify the island names but the Norwich City was one heck of a landmark. Again, if you have TIGHAR faith, you believe that Betty heard the calls for help and the name of the wreck. Reasonably minded people can make reasonable assumptions that the locals, who AE and FN thought might hear their radio calls, would know about the landmark. What better way to describe to those listening where they were. Time is an issue for them as water is limited. They need to be rescued. Even if they guessed they were on Gardner the natives may have another name for the island and not recognize "Gardner". Besides, what if they had doubts about what island they were on? So many islands with palm trees and lagoons. How do you describe the one you're on versus another? Your island has a great big shipwreck to make it special. If someone other than young Betty had heard the ships name would that have been enough? I think Ric posted somewhere in this forum that the shipwreck was not well known. But if someone else had heard it then it's still a better clue than "waiting for rescue on a deserted island with a lagoon and palm trees." Someone could at least investigate the name "Norwich City". Could this be why Gardner wasn't mentioned?
Interesting but I don't believe AE or FN had a morse key with them. Did you check in the post loss credibility paper to see if this message was marked as "credible"?The "281 message" is credible. AE and FN did not have a morse key with them so any attempt to send code was done by pressing and releasing the push-to-talk switch on the mic. Extremely cumbersome and resulting in a "poorly keyed" transmission as reported by the Navy.
Was there only one written interpretation on this message?
The "281" isn't so far off from the actual distance from Howland to Gardner, is it?
Sorry Ric, that's not how it works. If you could determine the time of noon, when the sun is highest in the sky, then you can easily find your approximate LONGITUDE, not your latitude. The sun circles around the earth (360 degrees) in 24 hours so it is traveling westward 15 degrees per hour (900 knots at the equator), one degree every four minutes and one nautical mile every 4 seconds. Since "noon" is connected to the sun, "noon" also travels westward at these same rates. This is not a normal technique because there are methods that provide a more accurate longitude. This is because the height of the sun changes very slowly around noon. Looking at noon at Gardner on July 2, 1937, the highest point the sun reaches 62° 18.6' at 2342:00 Z, noon. But, the sun climbs through 62° 17.6' at 2337:59 Z and descends through the same altitude at 2346:06 Z. This means that the altitude of the sun stays within one minute of arc, one-sixtieth of a degree, of its highest point for eight minutes, during which time the sun moves two degrees westward, which makes the longitude determined by this method only accurate within two degrees, 120 NM. And to achieve that accuracy you need a sextant because there is nobody on the planet earth that can see a one minute change in the sum's altitude without a sextant and it is difficult even with a sextant. And that's with a marine sextant which is much more accurate than a bubble sextant.The "281" isn't so far off from the actual distance from Howland to Gardner, is it?
If you don't have a sextant but you do have an almanac you can get your latitude pretty accurately by simply observing the time of local noon (when the sun is highest). If you know you latitude, you know how far you are from the equator. The spot where we think the Electra was when the "281" message was heard is 280 nautical miles from the equator.
Sorry Ric, that's not how it works.
If you can accurately measure the altitude of the sun at it's highest point, at noon, then you can easily determine your latitude but this also requires a sextant since you can't estimate the height with the naked eye any better than about ten degrees so you can only determine your latitude with a naked eye to a precision of about 10 degrees, 600 NM, so the "281" wasn't determined this way. To get to an accuracy of one mile you need the altitude to be measured to a precision of one minute of arc and the sextant carried by Noonan had a scale marked only every two minutes of arc.
The problem with this is that after you measure the sun's altitude at noon, you do the standard computation and the answer that you get at the end of the computation is the latitude, not the distance in NM (or SM) from the equator. There is no standard navigation procedure in which you convert the latitude to distance from the equator. Transmitting the latitude itself provides better information about their location because the receiver of the information can instantly look at his chart at the indicated latitude. If the transmitted information was distance from the equator then the receiver would have to convert it back again to latitude before he could look for it on his chart. So why would they do additional computations to convert the latitude to NM prior to transmitting it? This is especially unlikely if we are assuming that Earhart was doing this work since it is hard to believe that she took any interest in celestial navigation in light of her lackadaisical attitude towards other aspects of this flight, such as proper operation of the radio, that were even more directly in her bailiwick.Sorry Ric, that's not how it works.
Thanks for the correction.If you can accurately measure the altitude of the sun at it's highest point, at noon, then you can easily determine your latitude but this also requires a sextant since you can't estimate the height with the naked eye any better than about ten degrees so you can only determine your latitude with a naked eye to a precision of about 10 degrees, 600 NM, so the "281" wasn't determined this way. To get to an accuracy of one mile you need the altitude to be measured to a precision of one minute of arc and the sextant carried by Noonan had a scale marked only every two minutes of arc.
Now THAT is interesting. We think the airplane (and thus our heroes) were at roughly 4.65° South. If a degree of latitude in that neighborhood is 60 nm (I have great faith that you'll correct me if I'm wrong) then our heroes were 279 nm from the equator. The proximity of that number to "281" is intriguing but I have always wondered how Fred could be close but not precise. I would have thought that ol' Fred, if he could get their latitude at all, would nail it to the mile. You have provided a reasonable possible explanation. Not that I don't trust you ;) but I checked and the Brandis Navy Surveying Sextant is, indeed, marked in two degree increments.
The "281" message is one of the most cryptic, frustrating, and fascinating transmissions in the whole pantheon of post-loss radio signals. If 281 is an attempt to convey the plane's location it means that someone, either AE or Fred, has used the sextant to determine latitude, probably by shooting the sun at local noon, but has not used the sextant to get a precise location by shooting the stars on any of the three nights they've been there. Fred certainly had the required knowledge and expertise to do that. AE just as certainly did not but she may have been able to manage a simple sun shot.
The 281 message was sent in the very early morning hours (Gardner time) of Monday, July 5. The transmission Betty heard - with an apparently irrational Noonan - was heard later that same morning.
"If you could determine the time of noon, when the sun is highest in the sky, then you can easily find your approximate LONGITUDE, not your latitude."Not wrong, just read it more carefully. Notice I said "the TIME of noon" not the height of the sun at noon. I was simply responding to Ric's post in which he mentioned the "time of noon." The standard noon sight for latitude has been used since Columbus' time, you don't need a clock to do this, you only need a calender. You find the latitude by measuring the altitude of the sun at noon, the exact time is not important for finding latitude. But one cannot find longitude without accurate time and that wasn't available until the end of the 18th century. A four second error in the time will throw your longitude off by one nautical mile (at the equator), a one minute error in the time will cause a 15 NM error and a 4 minute error in the time will make a 60 NM error, one degree of longitude, in the calculated longitude. These errors in time can come from errors in the clock or in errors in estimating when the sun was at its highest point. As I said, one can find his APPROXIMATE longitude by observation at noon but not to a high level of precision due to noise in the observation which causes small random variations in the altitudes measured with the sextant.
Then the chapter "Finding Latitude by meridian transit and Polaris" in my copy of Crawford is wrong? :o No wonder they got lost.
I find it easy to believe that FN had a map showing the location of Gardner, but not the name of the island. It would be an easy matter to take the latitude off of the map, if he was sure that particular dot of an island was where they were at.
The idea that Noonan carried a marine sextant in the Electra comes from a letter that Noonan wrote to his friend Philip Van Horn Weems and published in Weems' Air Navigation, 1938 ed. In this letter Noonan was describing the procedures and equipment used when he was navigating the very much larger flying boats of Pan Am which had voluminous navigation stations and room for every imaginable item that could be of any use. (In fact, he was describing the first Pan Am pioneering flight from Alameda to Honolulu in a Sikorsky S-42, NR823M, April 16&17, 1935, two years before the Earhart flight. See attached photo.) And, even in the Pan Am four engined flying boat, Noonan wrote that the "Pioneer bubble octant...was used for all sights." It was a very different situation in the Electra so there is no direct evidence that Noonan carried a marine sextant on the Earhart flight. "Due to the spacious chart room and large chart table aboard the Clipper, the navigation equipment need not be so severely limited as in smaller planes...", page 423. You can read Noonan's entire letter on pages 422 through 425 of Air Navigation (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/weems).The "281" isn't so far off from the actual distance from Howland to Gardner, is it?
If you don't have a sextant but you do have an almanac you can get your latitude pretty accurately by simply observing the time of local noon (when the sun is highest). If you know you latitude, you know how far you are from the equator. The spot where we think the Electra was when the "281" message was heard is 280 nautical miles from the equator.
That makes the number even more interesting.
I have forgotten what instruments exactly FN carried, but believe there were two - one primary and one 'preventer' that was actually a nautical device modified for aviation use. Maybe these didn't survive - maybe they did. Even if they were 'limited' in accuracy FN may well have been able to sort out the '281' figure from all he could muster. Of course injury may be a factor against that, hard to say.
In the end though, it's hard to discount that AE and FN very well could have sorted that out and it would be an obviously desireable element for any message they might manage to get out while able. The number came from somewhere - what an odd coincidence if not related to Gardner.
Thanks, Ric.
LTM -
Specifically what navigational equipment do you think he would be unable to carry in the Electra?
Gary,As I said, there is no evidence that Noonan carried a second sextant on the Earhart flight, no witnesses, no documents and no photographs. No marine sextant is listed on the Luke field inventory. Noonan's letter would not be admissible evidence in a court of law to prove that a second sextant was carried on the Earhart flight because it is too remote in time and the circumstances are too different. In fact, the letter itself shows the circumstances are not the same, as Noonan wrote "Due to the spacious chart room and large chart table aboard the Clipper, the navigation equipment need not be so severely limited as in smaller planes..." and no one can dispute that the Electra is a "smaller plane" compared to the S-42. And note, Noonan did NOT say in the letter, "I always carry a marine sextant as a 'preventer.'" And Noonan made no mention of a marine sextant in his article published a year later (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/noonan-article/Noonan1936article.pdf?attredirects=0). (BTW, as to Noonan's experience at sea, ships commonly carried only one sextant.) (Although there is such a thing as "habit evidence," this one letter comes nowhere close to the requirements to prove an action based on a "habit.")
Please take this as a compliment. If I ever commit a crime I'm hiring you as my lawyer. I'm confident you would find a reason to prove I wasn't even at the scene.
To Jeff's latest post.... In the case of a very long trip would you not take a second sextant anyway as a backup? Your point about it likely being an FN habit is likely bang on. Navigation was FN's career. In fact on a clipper he probably needed the "preventer" less than he needed it on the global trip with AE.
Now THAT is interesting. We think the airplane (and thus our heroes) were at roughly 4.65° South. If a degree of latitude in that neighborhood is 60 nm (I have great faith that you'll correct me if I'm wrong) then our heroes were 279 nm from the equator. The proximity of that number to "281" is intriguing but I have always wondered how Fred could be close but not precise. I would have thought that ol' Fred, if he could get their latitude at all, would nail it to the mile. You have provided a reasonable possible explanation. Not that I don't trust you ;) but I checked and the Brandis Navy Surveying Sextant is, indeed, marked in two degree increments.
The "281" message is one of the most cryptic, frustrating, and fascinating transmissions in the whole pantheon of post-loss radio signals. If 281 is an attempt to convey the plane's location it means that someone, either AE or Fred, has used the sextant to determine latitude, probably by shooting the sun at local noon, but has not used the sextant to get a precise location by shooting the stars on any of the three nights they've been there. Fred certainly had the required knowledge and expertise to do that. AE just as certainly did not but she may have been able to manage a simple sun shot.
Did you mean Ebbco?Now THAT is interesting. We think the airplane (and thus our heroes) were at roughly 4.65° South. If a degree of latitude in that neighborhood is 60 nm (I have great faith that you'll correct me if I'm wrong) then our heroes were 279 nm from the equator. The proximity of that number to "281" is intriguing but I have always wondered how Fred could be close but not precise. I would have thought that ol' Fred, if he could get their latitude at all, would nail it to the mile. You have provided a reasonable possible explanation. Not that I don't trust you ;) but I checked and the Brandis Navy Surveying Sextant is, indeed, marked in two degree increments.
The "281" message is one of the most cryptic, frustrating, and fascinating transmissions in the whole pantheon of post-loss radio signals. If 281 is an attempt to convey the plane's location it means that someone, either AE or Fred, has used the sextant to determine latitude, probably by shooting the sun at local noon, but has not used the sextant to get a precise location by shooting the stars on any of the three nights they've been there. Fred certainly had the required knowledge and expertise to do that. AE just as certainly did not but she may have been able to manage a simple sun shot.
Ric....
I suspect I shall be sorry for wading into the middle of this...especially as I'm not taking either side on the matter. However, in the midst of all this I've become terribly curious.....
If we work it backwards, 279 miles is (as you've said) roughly 4.65°. However, 281 miles works out to be 4.683°. Obviously, this give us a difference of only 0.03°. Not really familiar with the Brandis sextant, but my archaic old Esco (also marked in 2° increments) isn't even close to being capable of that kind of resolution based only on a simple sun shot.
Perhaps all of this is just due to a simple (read: unfortunate) error in an attempt at interpolation? I mean, it seems that Fred mightn't have even been able to count his toes at the time, and AE was...well, AE.
(or am I merely embarrassing myself by having missed something here?)
....tb
Gary,As I said, there is no evidence that Noonan carried a second sextant on the Earhart flight, no witnesses, no documents and no photographs. No marine sextant is listed on the Luke field inventory. Noonan's letter would not be admissible evidence in a court of law to prove that a second sextant was carried on the Earhart flight because it is too remote in time and the circumstances are too different. In fact, the letter itself shows the circumstances are not the same, as Noonan wrote "Due to the spacious chart room and large chart table aboard the Clipper, the navigation equipment need not be so severely limited as in smaller planes..." and no one can dispute that the Electra is a "smaller plane" compared to the S-42. And note, Noonan did NOT say in the letter, "I always carry a marine sextant as a 'preventer.'" And Noonan made no mention of a marine sextant in his article published a year later (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/noonan-article/Noonan1936article.pdf?attredirects=0). (BTW, as to Noonan's experience at sea, ships commonly carried only one sextant.) (Although there is such a thing as "habit evidence," this one letter comes nowhere close to the requirements to prove an action based on a "habit.")
Please take this as a compliment. If I ever commit a crime I'm hiring you as my lawyer. I'm confident you would find a reason to prove I wasn't even at the scene.
To Jeff's latest post.... In the case of a very long trip would you not take a second sextant anyway as a backup? Your point about it likely being an FN habit is likely bang on. Navigation was FN's career. In fact on a clipper he probably needed the "preventer" less than he needed it on the global trip with AE.
Could they have crammed in an additional sextant, probably, but looking at all the things that Earhart removed from the plane, including even papers and her Colt pistol, a second sextant would seem pretty low on Earhart's priority list. We pilots want two of everything, two engines, two spark plugs in each cylinder, two magnetos on each engine, two fuel pumps, two navcoms, two GPSs, etc., but there is a limit. How about two life rafts, two parachutes for each person, two coffee pots, two "potties?"
By 1937 the Pioneer octant had been perfected and was carried in thousands of Air Force and Navy planes, virtually unchanged, through the end of WW2. Bubble octants are extremely simple and reliable instruments. Bubble octants were used on trans-oceanic airline flights through the 1970's and commonly on Air Force planes until less than ten years ago, (I believe that there are still some Air Force planes with them.) In all of these uses, only ONE octant was carried in each airplane, no "preventer" in B-17s, no "preventer" in Boeing 707s, no "preventer" in B-47s, no "preventer" in C-130s, and no "preventer" in B-52s, and none of these planes were limited by space and weight constraints like the Electra. No second octant was carried in any of these planes because they are so simple and reliable.
So, like I said, there is no evidence to prove that a marine sextant was carried on the Electra, the burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
gl
...but looking at all the things that Earhart removed from the plane, including even papers and her Colt pist0l
So, like I said, there is no evidence to prove that a marine sextant was carried on the Electra, the burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
If we work it backwards, 279 miles is (as you've said) roughly 4.65°. However, 281 miles works out to be 4.683°. Obviously, this give us a difference of only 0.03°. Not really familiar with the Brandis sextant, but my archaic old Esco (also marked in 2° increments) isn't even close to being capable of that kind of resolution based only on a simple sun shot.
I would not expect the difference between a case for an octant and a case for a sextant to be obvious to a casual observer, if found on a beach (although the serial numbers is a compelling argument). I also would expect FN to bring the case for the Octant, to protect it in flight. Where's that case?
Didn't AE mention the "Phoenix islands"?
I know, and you know, that the cases are quite different. My point wasn't clear - to someone not familiar with octants, the case found on the beach might have been described as being for a “sextant”. Were octants common enough for the difference to be well known? I was under the impression that they were primarily used by airmen, not by sailors.
Merry Christmas, Ric!...but looking at all the things that Earhart removed from the plane, including even papers and her Colt pist0l
Colt pistol??? Did AE have a Colt pistol?? I would LOVE for AE to have had a Colt pistol. For Christmas I'm asking Santa for documentation that AE had a Colt pistol.
If you read Mary Lovell's book I can understand your Christmas wish to Santa Claus.
Well Ric, Balfour was there and must have held the pistol in his hand so I count his letter as "documentation." As to it's being a Colt, I know I read it in a different book about Earhart's life, not one that concentrated on the disappearance. It was talking about her carrying the Colt at other times and didn't just talk about the final flight. If you are looking for a registration form or federal forms, well they didn't exist in those simpler times so don't dismiss Balfour's statement. (BTW, do you think Balfour was just having an hallucination after smoking dope one night?)If you read Mary Lovell's book I can understand your Christmas wish to Santa Claus.
Unfortunately neither Lovelll, nor Balfour, nor Long provides any real documentation that Earhart had a pistol, let alone a Colt pistol. I know I've seen a photo of her holding a Very pistol. I think it was during that same weighing session/photo op prior to the first world flight attempt.
Thanks for the Christmas card.
If the Electra had been "lost, misplaced, broke" along the way could they have gotten a replacement easily? O.K., more on point, if the Mk IIB drift meter had been "lost, misplaced, broke" along the way could they have gotten a replacement easily? The drift meter was also a critical piece of navigation equipment but, according to the Luke Field Inventory, only one of these were carried. The drift meter is smaller and lighter than a marine sextant so no reason not to carry a back up of that yet they didn't. The aircraft had two mounts for the drift meter, one on each side of the plane because this is necessary to measure drift when the wind comes from one side or the other. They also carried a third mount for it that could be mounted in the propped opened door when necessary to measure drift when the drift was slight and Noonan had to be able to look directly behind the plane in order to measure the drift. Yet, in spite of the detail paid to the use on this critical instrument, they didn't carry a backup.Gary,As I said, there is no evidence that Noonan carried a second sextant on the Earhart flight, no witnesses, no documents and no photographs. No marine sextant is listed on the Luke field inventory. Noonan's letter would not be admissible evidence in a court of law to prove that a second sextant was carried on the Earhart flight because it is too remote in time and the circumstances are too different. In fact, the letter itself shows the circumstances are not the same, as Noonan wrote "Due to the spacious chart room and large chart table aboard the Clipper, the navigation equipment need not be so severely limited as in smaller planes..." and no one can dispute that the Electra is a "smaller plane" compared to the S-42. And note, Noonan did NOT say in the letter, "I always carry a marine sextant as a 'preventer.'" And Noonan made no mention of a marine sextant in his article published a year later (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/noonan-article/Noonan1936article.pdf?attredirects=0). (BTW, as to Noonan's experience at sea, ships commonly carried only one sextant.) (Although there is such a thing as "habit evidence," this one letter comes nowhere close to the requirements to prove an action based on a "habit.")
Please take this as a compliment. If I ever commit a crime I'm hiring you as my lawyer. I'm confident you would find a reason to prove I wasn't even at the scene.
To Jeff's latest post.... In the case of a very long trip would you not take a second sextant anyway as a backup? Your point about it likely being an FN habit is likely bang on. Navigation was FN's career. In fact on a clipper he probably needed the "preventer" less than he needed it on the global trip with AE.
Could they have crammed in an additional sextant, probably, but looking at all the things that Earhart removed from the plane, including even papers and her Colt pistol, a second sextant would seem pretty low on Earhart's priority list. We pilots want two of everything, two engines, two spark plugs in each cylinder, two magnetos on each engine, two fuel pumps, two navcoms, two GPSs, etc., but there is a limit. How about two life rafts, two parachutes for each person, two coffee pots, two "potties?"
By 1937 the Pioneer octant had been perfected and was carried in thousands of Air Force and Navy planes, virtually unchanged, through the end of WW2. Bubble octants are extremely simple and reliable instruments. Bubble octants were used on trans-oceanic airline flights through the 1970's and commonly on Air Force planes until less than ten years ago, (I believe that there are still some Air Force planes with them.) In all of these uses, only ONE octant was carried in each airplane, no "preventer" in B-17s, no "preventer" in Boeing 707s, no "preventer" in B-47s, no "preventer" in C-130s, and no "preventer" in B-52s, and none of these planes were limited by space and weight constraints like the Electra. No second octant was carried in any of these planes because they are so simple and reliable.
So, like I said, there is no evidence to prove that a marine sextant was carried on the Electra, the burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
gl
Are you saying that if FN lost, misplaced, broke or had his primary sextant stolen then he would have been able to get it replaced easily anywhere on the world trip? Are you also saying that unless it was recorded somewhere in evidence then he couldn't possibly have had it with him? And aren't all the aircraft you list as having "no preventer" loaded up with modern, electronic nav equipment that have backup systems? Doesn't that mean the bubble octant in those aircraft is the backup to the backup? Whereas for FN it was his primary method of navigation?
Please excuse my ignorance of aeronautics and navigation practices.
Gary, Could you post a link to this documentation being quoted as an exhibit in a book? Thanks I can't seem to find it.O.K.
do you think Balfour was just having an hallucination after smoking dope one night?
Well that might make sense about his recollections about the radio communications, an important element of the story, but the pistol comment is so tangential to the main story that he would have no reason to even think about it when writing his letter if it didn't happen.do you think Balfour was just having an hallucination after smoking dope one night?
No, I think he was recalling the details of something that happened many years before he wrote the letter. I think recollections, whether related orally or written down, many years after an event are unreliable. If they're not, then we all have to buy tickets for Saipan.
Ric and Thom, the sextants you refer to had a vernier, or micrometer drum and vernier, did they not?
The Brandis sextants I've seen don't have any kind of "drum." The one I have here has a vernier and magnifier on the arc which is marked in 2° increments.
And the vernier permits interpolation to how small an angle?
If we work it backwards, 279 miles is (as you've said) roughly 4.65°. However, 281 miles works out to be 4.683°. Obviously, this give us a difference of only 0.03°. Not really familiar with the Brandis sextant, but my archaic old Esco (also marked in 2° increments) isn't even close to being capable of that kind of resolution based only on a simple sun shot.
My only point is that a sun shot from Gardner with a Brandis sextant might reasonably result in an estimate of 281 nm from the equator.
I'll help you guys out with this. Celestial navigation is based on the assumption that one degree along any great circle on earth is exactly 60 nautical miles. Meridians are great circles so latitude, which is measured north or south along a meridian, is also measured in degrees that are exactly 60 nautical miles long. Since the earth is not a perfect sphere, a degree along a great circle is not exactly 60 nautical miles depending where you on the earth, but to the precision available with celestial navigation you can't tell the difference. (This is not true, of course, when it comes to longitude since parallels of latitude are not great circles but get smaller the closer you come to either pole. The exception is that the equator which is a great circle.)If we work it backwards, 279 miles is (as you've said) roughly 4.65°. However, 281 miles works out to be 4.683°. Obviously, this give us a difference of only 0.03°. Not really familiar with the Brandis sextant, but my archaic old Esco (also marked in 2° increments) isn't even close to being capable of that kind of resolution based only on a simple sun shot.
My only point is that a sun shot from Gardner with a Brandis sextant might reasonably result in an estimate of 281 nm from the equator.
So, wouldn't it depend on what part of the island would be 281? Island is 4 miles long. So 281 could be +/- 4 miles therby making a potential range 277-285 miles. Depending on where the 281 is being calibrated. If 281 is calculated in the south, then the north would be 277 miles away, and if calculated in the north then the south would be 285 miles away.
The island is that size from roughly NW to SE, but not N to S (maybe half).
"281" miles south of equator = latitude running through Aukermaine area of island - 'dry' land. The place where some artifacts were found happens to lie there - shoe parts.
LTM -
Quote from GL -We call this "custom and practice in the industry" and a widespread practice in an industry is admissible to prove something happened or was done on a particular occasion. The flying industry, from before Noonan's time until quite lately, had a practice of carrying only one octant on a plane so this tends to prove that Noonan did not carry two sextants on the Earhart flight. ( It was also "custom and practice" that only one sextant was carried on ships too.) Of course, if you can come up with a photo or a witness statement saying that Noonan carried a mariner's sextant on the Earhart flight, or that he always carried a marine sextant duct taped to his stomach (he told me "you never know when you might need one"), then you win, you've proved your point. The letter to Weems doesn't even come close and would not even be admissible into evidence because it is too remote and the situation is too different so it cannot be used to show a "habit" of Noonan's. There is a reason we have rules of evidence to keep this type of thing from being shown to a jury, and I am not just talking about in criminal cases where the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" but also in civil trials with a much lower burden of proof of "more probable than not." The reason that this would not be admissible is that the people in the jury might make unwarranted and unreasonable inferences from it (kinda like you guys, I rest my case. ;)) And this is in a jury trial where the jurors are impartial and do not have a dog in the fight. Those who believe in the Gardner theory are not impartial, they believe that the sextant box found on the island supports their theory that the plane landed there so to help their theory Noonan had to have had that marine sextant in the Electra. This subtly affects their thinking regarding whether the marine sextant was on the flight. They are engaging in "circular reasoning." Earhart landed on Gardner so this sextant box came from them. Since this sextant box came from them then they must have had it in the Electra. Since they had the sextant box in the Electra and we found it on Gardner then we have proved that the landed on Gardner. We can go around the circle again if you like. This is classical "circular reasoning." For the box on Gardner to lend support to your theory you must prove by evidence independent of the box on Gardner that Noonan carried it in the Electra and nobody has been able to show that, only speculation and unsupported inferences from an inadmisable letter.
Through WW2 celestial navigation was the only method of long range, oceanic navigation. Towards the very end of the war, LORAN-A came on line and was installed in some planes. For example, the B-17 carrying Rickenbacker (a very big VIP on a high priority mission) only had celestial navigation for navigation and had only one octant on board and this was five years after Earhart disappeared."
I think your explanation of Rickenbacker's "fix" underscores the point: a "preventer" isn't a bad idea, now is it? Just curious, but what have WWII and later developments have to do with AE's fix in 1937? We're kind of stuck with what she was stuck with.
I already pointed that out.
Gary
What bothers me is: If they measured their latitude and found it to be 4degrees41minutes S why wouldn't they just transmit it as such? Why go thru the trouble of converting it to 281 miles N?
Gary
What bothers me is: If they measured their latitude and found it to be 4degrees41minutes S why wouldn't they just transmit it as such? Why go thru the trouble of converting it to 281 miles N?
I already pointed that out.
Gary
What bothers me is: If they measured their latitude and found it to be 4degrees41minutes S why wouldn't they just transmit it as such? Why go thru the trouble of converting it to 281 miles N?
Great minds running on the same tracks.
gl
This is news to me! Can you point us to that transmission?
Gary
What bothers me is: If they measured their latitude and found it to be 4degrees41minutes S why wouldn't they just transmit it as such? Why go thru the trouble of converting it to 281 miles N?
One of the radio transmission did point out the lat long of their locaiton. This discussion is focused on the 281 transmision for some reason. The transmision that did identify the lat long was remarkbly close to Garnder if you consider for a moment that the sextant was broken, lost, or otherwise non-functioning. Even using your finger strected at arms-length is a very crude way of measuring one degree of angular distance. If I recall correctly the radio transmission that had the lat long coordinate was within 20-30 miles of Gardner. Reasonable accuracy if all you have is your finger! Not trying to be funny, but rather morbidly realistic given undetermined circumstances. ???
| 107 | 1 | Ea. | Speed & drift indicator, type D-270, with handbook |
| 122 | 1 | Pelorus drift sight, MK II B with extra base |
This is news to me! Can you point us to that transmission?
Gary
What bothers me is: If they measured their latitude and found it to be 4degrees41minutes S why wouldn't they just transmit it as such? Why go thru the trouble of converting it to 281 miles N?
One of the radio transmission did point out the lat long of their locaiton. This discussion is focused on the 281 transmision for some reason. The transmision that did identify the lat long was remarkbly close to Garnder if you consider for a moment that the sextant was broken, lost, or otherwise non-functioning. Even using your finger strected at arms-length is a very crude way of measuring one degree of angular distance. If I recall correctly the radio transmission that had the lat long coordinate was within 20-30 miles of Gardner. Reasonable accuracy if all you have is your finger! Not trying to be funny, but rather morbidly realistic given undetermined circumstances. ???
gl
Well that's interesting. Of course that position is a whole lot closer to Hull island than it is to Gardner. Is this included in TIGHAR's list of all radio messages?This is news to me! Can you point us to that transmission?
Gary
What bothers me is: If they measured their latitude and found it to be 4degrees41minutes S why wouldn't they just transmit it as such? Why go thru the trouble of converting it to 281 miles N?
One of the radio transmission did point out the lat long of their locaiton. This discussion is focused on the 281 transmision for some reason. The transmision that did identify the lat long was remarkbly close to Garnder if you consider for a moment that the sextant was broken, lost, or otherwise non-functioning. Even using your finger strected at arms-length is a very crude way of measuring one degree of angular distance. If I recall correctly the radio transmission that had the lat long coordinate was within 20-30 miles of Gardner. Reasonable accuracy if all you have is your finger! Not trying to be funny, but rather morbidly realistic given undetermined circumstances. ???
gl
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pVIfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J9IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2178%2C945762 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pVIfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J9IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2178%2C945762)
- The lattitude was within 20 miles. Not bad measuring angular distances if all you have is your finger.
- The longitude was within 90 miles. Not bad either considering the timing errors introduced for calculating longitude if all you have is a wristwatch, the sun, and a horizon.
Yes, it is included in The Post Loss Radio Signal Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html) as entry 173–80540HS (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html#ID80540HS), and listed as "Not Credible."
Well that's interesting. Of course that position is a whole lot closer to Hull island then it is to Gardner. Is this included in TIGHAR's list of all radio messages?
gl
Well that's interesting. Of course that position is a whole lot closer to Hull island then it is to Gardner. Is this included in TIGHAR's list of all radio messages?
gl
I already pointed that out.
Gary
What bothers me is: If they measured their latitude and found it to be 4degrees41minutes S why wouldn't they just transmit it as such? Why go thru the trouble of converting it to 281 miles N?
Great minds running on the same tracks.
gl
I don't know,
Ric
Of course! DUH, forehead slap.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From GL: 'The flying industry, from before Noonan's time until quite lately, had a practice of carrying only one octant on a plane so this tends to prove that Noonan did not carry two sextants on the Earhart flight.'
It wasn't cut and dried. For example, the B-47 did carry two sextants. One used by the Navigator-Bombarier in the nose, the other by the copilot in the rear tandem seat behind the pilot.
By the way, the Luke Field inventory did list two drift sights. The Pelorus drift sight is the one we see in the picture by the nav table (picture below). The D-270 speed and drift indicator listed may be the Pioneer drift sight that is described in the New York Herald Tribune article quoted in My Courageous Sister, but I have not seen a picture or description of it.
107 Ea. Speed & drift indicator, type D-270, with handbook (http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/thumb/3/38/MK_IIB_Pelorus_Drift_Sight.jpg/80px-MK_IIB_Pelorus_Drift_Sight.jpg)
122 Pelorus drift sight, MK II B with extra base
We pilots would like to have two of everything but, in spite of this desire, most planes get by with only one engine, one compass, one altimeter, etc. So Noonan with one drift meter and one octant is certainly within normal bounds.Specifically what navigational equipment do you think he would be unable to carry in the Electra?
If it were me, I think I'd pack a preventer along - and FN would have realized better than I that one drop to the deck and an instrument is questionable at the very least. Isn't that how Rickenbacker got in trouble in a B-17 once? I don't think NR16020 or AE would have known the difference, or cared.
LTM -
Did you mean Ebbco?
As to whether celestial was simply a backup to a backup in modern times, here is a link to information about a book about B-52 navigators in the 60's and 70's written by the president of the Air Force Navigators Association. The book is Flying From the Black Hole (http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=114086)and I recommend it. This review should be enough to answer your question. Here are parts of it:Gary,As I said, there is no evidence that Noonan carried a second sextant on the Earhart flight, no witnesses, no documents and no photographs. No marine sextant is listed on the Luke field inventory. Noonan's letter would not be admissible evidence in a court of law to prove that a second sextant was carried on the Earhart flight because it is too remote in time and the circumstances are too different. In fact, the letter itself shows the circumstances are not the same, as Noonan wrote "Due to the spacious chart room and large chart table aboard the Clipper, the navigation equipment need not be so severely limited as in smaller planes..." and no one can dispute that the Electra is a "smaller plane" compared to the S-42. And note, Noonan did NOT say in the letter, "I always carry a marine sextant as a 'preventer.'" And Noonan made no mention of a marine sextant in his article published a year later (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/noonan-article/Noonan1936article.pdf?attredirects=0). (BTW, as to Noonan's experience at sea, ships commonly carried only one sextant.) (Although there is such a thing as "habit evidence," this one letter comes nowhere close to the requirements to prove an action based on a "habit.")
Please take this as a compliment. If I ever commit a crime I'm hiring you as my lawyer. I'm confident you would find a reason to prove I wasn't even at the scene.
To Jeff's latest post.... In the case of a very long trip would you not take a second sextant anyway as a backup? Your point about it likely being an FN habit is likely bang on. Navigation was FN's career. In fact on a clipper he probably needed the "preventer" less than he needed it on the global trip with AE.
Could they have crammed in an additional sextant, probably, but looking at all the things that Earhart removed from the plane, including even papers and her Colt pistol, a second sextant would seem pretty low on Earhart's priority list. We pilots want two of everything, two engines, two spark plugs in each cylinder, two magnetos on each engine, two fuel pumps, two navcoms, two GPSs, etc., but there is a limit. How about two life rafts, two parachutes for each person, two coffee pots, two "potties?"
By 1937 the Pioneer octant had been perfected and was carried in thousands of Air Force and Navy planes, virtually unchanged, through the end of WW2. Bubble octants are extremely simple and reliable instruments. Bubble octants were used on trans-oceanic airline flights through the 1970's and commonly on Air Force planes until less than ten years ago, (I believe that there are still some Air Force planes with them.) In all of these uses, only ONE octant was carried in each airplane, no "preventer" in B-17s, no "preventer" in Boeing 707s, no "preventer" in B-47s, no "preventer" in C-130s, and no "preventer" in B-52s, and none of these planes were limited by space and weight constraints like the Electra. No second octant was carried in any of these planes because they are so simple and reliable.
So, like I said, there is no evidence to prove that a marine sextant was carried on the Electra, the burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
gl
Are you saying that if FN lost, misplaced, broke or had his primary sextant stolen then he would have been able to get it replaced easily anywhere on the world trip? Are you also saying that unless it was recorded somewhere in evidence then he couldn't possibly have had it with him? And aren't all the aircraft you list as having "no preventer" loaded up with modern, electronic nav equipment that have backup systems? Doesn't that mean the bubble octant in those aircraft is the backup to the backup? Whereas for FN it was his primary method of navigation?
Please excuse my ignorance of aeronautics and navigation practices.
My only point is that a sun shot from Gardner with a Brandis sextant might reasonably result in an estimate of 281 nm from the equator.
We tend to focus on Earhart and Noonan as being very important people, but in the scheme of things, not so much. Compared to a B-52 on its way to Russia to drop some nukes in an effort to save millions of people in our country from the Russian nukes, Noonan and Earhart don't count at all. Yet, even in light of the importance of the B-52 missions, carrying only one sextant was good enough for Curtis LeMay and the Strategic Air Command (a notoriously hard-assed outfit.) If one sextant was good enough for LeMay then there is no reason to believe that one sextant was not good enough for Noonan.
By 1937 the Pioneer octant had been perfected and was carried in thousands of Air Force and Navy planes, virtually unchanged, through the end of WW2. Bubble octants are extremely simple and reliable instruments. Bubble octants were used on trans-oceanic airline flights through the 1970's and commonly on Air Force planes until less than ten years ago, (I believe that there are still some Air Force planes with them.) In all of these uses, only ONE octant was carried in each airplane, no "preventer" in B-17s, no "preventer" in Boeing 707s, no "preventer" in B-47s, no "preventer" in C-130s, and no "preventer" in B-52s, and none of these planes were limited by space and weight constraints like the Electra. No second octant was carried in any of these planes because they are so simple and reliable.
So, like I said, there is no evidence to prove that a marine sextant was carried on the Electra, the burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
gl
The LORAN station on Gardner did go on the air until November 15, 1944, the same for Baker and Canton, see Gardner LORAN station (http://www.loran-history.info/Gardner_Island/gardner.htm).
Through WW2 celestial navigation was the only method of long range, oceanic navigation. Towards the very end of the war, LORAN-A came on line and was installed in some planes. For example, the B-17 carrying Rickenbacker (a very big VIP on a high priority mission) only had celestial navigation for navigation and had only one octant on board and this was five years after Earhart disappeared.
gl
I'm really hoping that with Ric on hiatus that Gary seizes on this opportunity to try converting TIGHAR believers to the dark side. Then we can hear Gary's hypothesis on the mysterious disappearance of AE and FN. He can tell us all without the fear of Ric jumping all over him. What an opportunity Gary!!I might take you up on that.
I found the source for the argument that FN must have had a second instrument, a "sextant", back on page 3, #32, from GL: "... And that's with a marine sextant which is much more accurate than a bubble sextant."I used an A-7 which was a further development of the Mk 5 and the Mk3 Pioneer octant. The main difference between mine and the one used by Noonan is the simple pencil marking averger that makes marks on the altitude adjustment knob with each sight. By lining up the center of these marks with the pencil after completing all the sights, you find the average (actually the median) of the altitude which you then use with the average time, half way between the first and last observations. Noonan had to write down the individual altitudes and figure the average. Same accuracy either way but easier and quicker with the A-7, two minutes versus three minutes for the sights plus about one and a half minutes for Noonan to figure the average, so using the A-7 is about twice as fast.
In researching bubble Sextant accuracy I discovered GL's article on the very subject, in which he test flies a Navey A7, Mk3 Model 1 bubble sextant and proves that even in flight it is sufficiently accurate to find Catalina Island.(http://www.freelists.org/post/navlist/Test-flight-with-A7-bubble-sextant-to-investigate-accuracy-on-Noonans-navigation-on-Earhart-flight (http://www.freelists.org/post/navlist/Test-flight-with-A7-bubble-sextant-to-investigate-accuracy-on-Noonans-navigation-on-Earhart-flight))
Gary's test and analysis convinces me that Fred's bubble sextant was accurate enough to locate their position precisely enough, especially standing still. There is no need to invoke a second instrument on board.
Fred's Octant was a Brandis/Pioneer aircraft octant, Bu.Aero Serial 12-36, and likely looked like a conventional marine sextant except for the 90degree limitation. The resemblance assumes the similar vintage aircraft bubble octants are the same. Perhaps Gary can tell us why he believes Fred's octant would look like his A7, and the difference in accuracy?
Good points, John.Actually buffalo burgers.
I'm not sure how one would miss Catalina, with or without an octant or sextant, but it is an interesting exercise that Gary shared (I'd like to hear more about the $100 hamburgers too ;D).
LTM -
Gary - I'd appreciate some help finding documentation defining FN's octant/sextant. The only documention I've found describes the one that Harry Manning loaned him as a "Pioneer...#12-36", presumably meaning Bureau of Aeronautics (Bu. Aero) serial 12-36. This doesn't identify the Mark or Model number. Is that information available? The Pioneer model 342 (Mk.3, Mod.1) and model 206 (Mk.1, Mod.4) were both being sold in the early 30's, yet were physically quite different. How do we know which model was on the flight? You discussed this to some extent in your post #8 in "Questions for the Celestial Choir", but did not at that time have documentation. Have you found any yet that you could share?We don't know exactly which Pioneer octant he had on the flight.
Note that it makes more sense to me that FN would prefer an A5-style instrument, similar to your A7, for taking shots out a nearly vertical Lockheed side window. A more traditional open-frame sextant or octant would not be handy shooting high elevations, with the possible exception of shots from the front seats, making the presence of such an instrument seem less likely to be useful. On the other hand, you also mentioned that a marine sextant is more accurate than an aeronautical octant, so it might have been Fred's preference for critical navigation work.
Defining the instrument borrowed from Manning would help a little.
I've rolled my wheels on Andros, Abaco, Grand Bahama, Treasure Cay, New providence, Staniel Cay, Great Exuma, Long Island, Crooked Island and Great Inagua. Further along, South Caicos, Grand Turk, Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, Tortola, Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Winter is a good time to go. ;)Good points, John.Actually buffalo burgers.
I'm not sure how one would miss Catalina, with or without an octant or sextant, but it is an interesting exercise that Gary shared (I'd like to hear more about the $100 hamburgers too ;D).
LTM -
It's the best way to visit Catalina, cheaper and quicker than taking the boat across. You land at the airport and take a half hour bus ride into town for sightseeing. The airport is on a plateau 1500 feet above the sea with a cliff at each end of the runway, don't get low on approach or you end up making a smoking airplane shaped hole in the cliff.
If you take the boat over, you end up taking the same bus tour to see the buffalo and the other wildlife so flying in just lets you take the tour starting at the other end and you take the bus back to the airport with the other tourists.
gl
Very cool, Gary! Sorry I forgot the distinction of 'buffalo burger' - I realized that but lapsed as I wrote it.
I'm envious - you have a wonderful area to fly about in to enjoy many attractions. What you've described is one of the great things about the privilege of flying easier access to some real wonders out there in this world. Catalina is a beautiful and kind of mysterious place in terms of aura, I think.
Maybe one day I can fly there in person too - quite a nice adventure right off the coast! I'd have to 'do' the Bahamas to get anything llike the same offshore effect, passport and all - and that would be very 'different' anyway.
Thanks again for sharing that!
The LORAN station on Gardner did go on the air until November 15, 1944, the same for Baker and Canton, see Gardner LORAN station (http://www.loran-history.info/Gardner_Island/gardner.htm).
Through WW2 celestial navigation was the only method of long range, oceanic navigation. Towards the very end of the war, LORAN-A came on line and was installed in some planes. For example, the B-17 carrying Rickenbacker (a very big VIP on a high priority mission) only had celestial navigation for navigation and had only one octant on board and this was five years after Earhart disappeared.
gl
We still have an old Lowrance set on our trawler. I've thought at times recently that it would make a fair anchor, but it was great in its day!Well, that's all you can use it for now since the Coast Guard shut down the LORAN C system this year.
Good points, John.If Noonan was on Gardner with any kind of a sextant he would have had no trouble at all in determining his latitude at Noon. But not a chance in the world that Earhart would have been able to do the calculation necessary to do the same based on her complete disinterest in the things that directly affected her duties on the flight it is highly unlikely that she took any interest in what Noonan was doing. She would have had to have Noonan teach her about it and that seems unlikely. How many of you pilots reading this know how to operate a sextant, read a Nautical Almanac and do the noon sight computation? It is not normal knowledge for pilots.
One of the problems with Gary's arguments is... that they are just arguments. We can only have an 'opinion' based on what we can observe. I think you have shared some very important observations that reinforce my own belief that sorting out latitude at Gardner was not that mean a challenge for FN from the ground.
I'm not sure how one would miss Catalina, with or without an octant or sextant, but it is an interesting exercise that Gary shared (I'd like to hear more about the $100 hamburgers too ;D). And yes, it does tend to underscore an important point by which we might learn much about FN's equipment and habits.
I suspect FN would have had no problem dialing in his handy-dandy gear of choice, even with interpolations if necessary, to get a read. Time and firm ground would have been on his - or even AE's - side by the time stranded on Gardner.
Even AE? Not out of the question. She may have been a scatter-brain in many ways, but I don't think she even approached stupid. She had to have had some decent grasp of spatial orientation with the globe, and desperation is a mighty lever. Time can a hearty bowl of oats, too, when you are waiting desparately for rescue.
LTM -
I just re-read Noonan's April 29, 1935 memo to Pan Am and I didn't see any mention of a preventer, can you point it out?We pilots would like to have two of everything but, in spite of this desire, most planes get by with only one engine, one compass, one altimeter, etc. So Noonan with one drift meter and one octant is certainly within normal bounds.
gl
Maybe so, Gary. But we're not in FN's shoes, and he'd certainly done otherwise on at least one other occasion, regardless of how you might see it.
The circumstances of flying the Pacific with AE may easily have prompted the same caution in FN that led him to carry a "preventer" on at least one previous occasion.
No amount of argument from me or you can prove what he did aboard NR16020.
We do have one record of FN having carried a "preventer" in a certain circumstance once before.
He apparently also thought enough of that detail to not only mention it in a personal letter to a colleague, but to state it in a Pan Am memo.
He did say that all sights were taken with the bubble octant.
I am not aware of any other record where FN stating that he did otherwise, on any occasion. Which proves nothing about the AE flight.
But it does tell us something about what may have been important to FN, at least at a point in history that is recorded, regardless of what another might find important or rational.
Now, if there were a record of FN having said something like:
"I later found the carriage of a 'preventer' to be a waste of time, space and weight and elected to go without it",
If you guys want to believe that they landed on Gardner you will have to do it based on evidence other than the sextant box. To get the sextant box to Gardner you first have to get it on the plane and you have no evidence for that except a two year old letter talking about what Noonan did when he was employed by Pan Am. My first job was in a machine shop and there was a drill press there. I worked on the drill press but when I quit they didn't let me take the drill press home with me. If you want to now prove that I do have a drill press then produce an invoice from Sears or a photo of me with a drill press in my home or at least a witness statement saying they saw me using a drill press at home. You can't, so it is completely unjustified to make the leap that I have a drill press just because I used to work on one at my job. Even if I haven't made a statement that "I don't have a drill press" you can't make the absence of such a statement proof that I do have a drill press as you have done above where you point out that there is no statement from Noonan saying he didn't have a marine sextant, that he found them to be a waste of time. You are turning logic on its head.
- then we'd have an equally compelling record about FN deviating from something he previously had bothered to point out, wouldn't we?
That would be far more than speculating about what you or I might do, if we were FN, as we see it today.
I guess the probabities are that we'll never know what he did for certain. I guess we can also draw our own conclusions about what we think he probably did, too.
LTM -
I just re-read Noonan's April 29, 1935 memo to Pan Am and I didn't see any mention of a preventer, can you point it out?We pilots would like to have two of everything but, in spite of this desire, most planes get by with only one engine, one compass, one altimeter, etc. So Noonan with one drift meter and one octant is certainly within normal bounds.
gl
Maybe so, Gary. But we're not in FN's shoes, and he'd certainly done otherwise on at least one other occasion, regardless of how you might see it.
The circumstances of flying the Pacific with AE may easily have prompted the same caution in FN that led him to carry a "preventer" on at least one previous occasion.
No amount of argument from me or you can prove what he did aboard NR16020.
We do have one record of FN having carried a "preventer" in a certain circumstance once before.
He apparently also thought enough of that detail to not only mention it in a personal letter to a colleague, but to state it in a Pan Am memo.QuoteHe did say that all sights were taken with the bubble octant.
I am not aware of any other record where FN stating that he did otherwise, on any occasion. Which proves nothing about the AE flight.
But it does tell us something about what may have been important to FN, at least at a point in history that is recorded, regardless of what another might find important or rational.
Now, if there were a record of FN having said something like:
"I later found the carriage of a 'preventer' to be a waste of time, space and weight and elected to go without it",QuoteIf you guys want to believe that they landed on Gardner you will have to do it based on evidence other than the sextant box. To get the sextant box to Gardner you first have to get it on the plane and you have no evidence for that except a two year old letter talking about what Noonan did when he was employed by Pan Am. My first job was in a machine shop and there was a drill press there. I worked on the drill press but when I quit they didn't let me take the drill press home with me. If you want to now prove that I do have a drill press then produce an invoice from Sears or a photo of me with a drill press in my home or at least a witness statement saying they saw me using a drill press at home. You can't, so it is completely unjustified to make the leap that I have a drill press just because I used to work on one at my job. Even if I haven't made a statement that "I don't have drill press" you can't make the absence of such a statement proof that I do have a drill press as you have done above where you point out that there is no statement from Noonan saying he didn't have a marine sextant, that he found them to be a waste of time. You are turning logic on its head.
- then we'd have an equally compelling record about FN deviating from something he previously had bothered to point out, wouldn't we?
That would be far more than speculating about what you or I might do, if we were FN, as we see it today.
I guess the probabities are that we'll never know what he did for certain. I guess we can also draw our own conclusions about what we think he probably did, too.
LTM -
All you have is Noonan's letter about a flight for his employer, Pan Am, in his employer airplane, using his employer's equipment, two years prior to the Earhart flight on which he says a marine sextant was carried. (I guess you believe that everything on the plane belonged to Pan Am with only one exception, the marine sextant, does that make any sense?) This statement is just like my statement that I there was a drill press in the machine shop where I was employed. You do not have any photos or witness statement showing a marine sextant carried on the Electra anywhere around the world. There was no marine sextant mentioned in the Luke Field Inventory.
Before you can place the sextant box in Earhart's plane you first must prove that Noonan had a marine sextant in 1937.
Noonan's letter said that "two sextants were carried" it didn't say "I brought my own sextant" on the flight, (see attached.)
What makes you think he could take the marine sextant home with him when he left the employ of Pan Am? Do you think he took the bubble octant home too? What about the fire extinguisher? What about the chart table? What about the left engine, did Pan Am let him take that home? Wait, we know that Pan Am didn't let him take the bubble octant home because they had to scrounge one up for the Earhart flight. Where did they go to scrounge up a marine sextant? If you believe that he had a marine sextant from his days on the sea then you must take into account that he had been working for Pan Am since 1930, seven years prior to the Earhart flight so didn't need a marine sextant to navigate his ship. And do you have any evidence that he even had a marine sextant of his own when he was a sailor? Even if he did have one when he was at sea it is certainly reasonable that he would have sold the valuable instrument in the intervening seven years since he didn't need one at Pan Am.
Marine sextants are expensive now and they were expensive then, see: http://www.celestaire.com/Cassens-Plath/View-all-products.html
Some have claimed that the marine sextant was modified for use aloft by adding a bubble horizon attachment although there is nothing in Noonan's letter or any other evidence that was the case. Today, a bubble attachment for a marine sextant costs $950 in addition to the $1795 cost of just the sextant and they weren't cheaper in 1937, see prior link. Do you think that Pan Am would allow Noonan to take home such a valuable piece of equipment when he quit, or was fired? If Noonan bought one after he left Pan Am then where did Noonan get the money to buy one since he was unemployed for some time prior to hooking up with Earhart? A couple of days ago I posted that Earhart had a Colt Pistol, Ric demanded "documentation." Where is your "documentation" showing Noonan owning a marine sextant in 1937? Do you have a bill of sale? A photo of him with his marine sextant at home in 1937? A statement from any witness saying that they saw him with a marine sextant at home in 1937? Or even a statement that Noonan had told them that he owned a marine sextant in 1937? I'll answer that for you, no you don't.
What we do have is an interview with Helen Day, a friend of Noonans. In sum, Day recalled that she was at Noonan's room in Miami, helping the party gather their equipment and stuff for the flight. Helen said she helped carry down some of their stuff, including a pith helmet, thermos, a machete (in case they were forced down in a jungle, ."Someone carried AEs small suitcase......Fred carried only his octant". Nobody was carrying a "preventer" out to the plane for the departure from Miami. Noonan obviously did not leave the octant in the plane when they were in Miami and he certainly would not have left the equally valuable marine sextant in the plane either. Day's statement is direct evidence that they did not load a marine sextant aboard the Electra and you have no evidence in any form to contradict that statement nor any evidence that Noonan even owned a marine sextant in 1937.
So believe all you want that they landed on Gardner but do it without relying on the sextant box.
gl
Manning used a Bausch and Lomb octant, also known as the A-6, so there is a good chance that your photo of a possible sextant box is for this instrument. See attached photos and manual.
See TIGHAR TRACKS (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_1/The_Noonan_Project.html),Vol. 14, No. 1
Letter accompanying gift of sextant to the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, FL
"6 June 1968
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I, hereby, certify that the accompanying
Navigation Sextant was the property of Mr. Frederick J Noonan,
who was copilot-navigator on the World flight with Amelia Aerhardt [sic]
when their plane was lost in the Pacific Ocean.
This instrument was borrowed by the under-
signed who at that time was studying navigation under Mr. Noonan
in preparing for service in the Pacific Division of Pan American
Airways, for use in practice praticle [sic] navigation. Identification
marks are not in evidence, however, the undersigned hereby certifies
as to the authenticity of the above remarks.
W. A. Cluthe
Retired Captain, Pan American
World Airways.
Ex. C.A.P. USN, Number 12.
4312 Winding Way,
Mobile, Alabama-36609"
Well said Jeff and John. I like your approach on the Manning Sextant box John. Good approach.______________________
To your point Jeff, if I recall we were thinking that the sextant box might be evidence of a sextant on the island that might have been used by FN to do a star sight to locate their position. Lots of "mights". They also likely had a chart but the common thinking is the chart did not mention Gardner by name. Although recent postings in another thread that has pictures of AE and FN posing with their world trip mark does show the Phoenix island group on the chart.
As Gary has stated recently, sextants were quite valuable. Would someone else have brought a sextant to the island and somehow the valuable sextant and it's specially designed protective case we're separated? This isn't very likely. How many of the people who visited or inhabited Gardner would have reason to bring a sextant to the island? Isn't it likely to be a very small number? It's not likely anyone who stayed on the island would have a need for one. It's not like the island moves. Your position isn't going to change. So possibly someone who may be transient or just visiting. Taking up on John's idea who could this person(s) be?
Helen day was a good friend of Noonan's and lived in Miami. Helen and Noonan went out for dinner and, since she was the only one with a car, Noonan asked her to pick them up at the hotel and drive them to the airport in the morning. Helen went up to Noonan's room where he was gathering up equipment. Helen helped them "carry down their things-various items including pith helmets, thermos jugs, and a machete in case they were forced down in the jungle. Someone carried Amelia's small suitcase, which held five shirts, two pairs of slacks, a change of shoes, a light working coverall, a weightless raincoat, linen, and toilet articles. Fred carried only his octant." East To The Dawn, Susan Butler.
Gary
I haven't seen the Helen Day letter but, accepting your summary, her statement is "evidence" only that she didn't carry a sextant (octant) onto the plane nor did she see anyone else except FN carrying a sextant (octant) to the plane. She didn't know what was already on the plane or what others might have carried when not in her eyesight.
Well said Jeff and John. I like your approach on the Manning Sextant box John. Good approach.______________________
To your point Jeff, if I recall we were thinking that the sextant box might be evidence of a sextant on the island that might have been used by FN to do a star sight to locate their position. Lots of "mights". They also likely had a chart but the common thinking is the chart did not mention Gardner by name. Although recent postings in another thread that has pictures of AE and FN posing with their world trip mark does show the Phoenix island group on the chart.
As Gary has stated recently, sextants were quite valuable. Would someone else have brought a sextant to the island and somehow the valuable sextant and it's specially designed protective case we're separated? This isn't very likely. How many of the people who visited or inhabited Gardner would have reason to bring a sextant to the island? Isn't it likely to be a very small number? It's not likely anyone who stayed on the island would have a need for one. It's not like the island moves. Your position isn't going to change. So possibly someone who may be transient or just visiting. Taking up on John's idea who could this person(s) be?
Gee, I wonder whatever happened to the sextant carried on the Norwich City.
gl
Oh, I forgot about the ten ton safe they had in the plane for locking up valuables. I don't know about you, but I've had stuff stolen out of my locked plane. But if they had a safe in the plane then why did Noonan take any octant or sextant to his room?
Perhaps it was left locked up in the navigator's station in the locked Electra and FN carried his "preventer" on with him (the one Helen Day saw him carry).
Invoking the presence of a second sextant/octant on board the Electra weakens the argument for a Gardner landing. The most likely “sextant” box to be found on the island that could be associated with Fred Noonan is the one he borrowed from Harry Manning (see http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Noonan_Octant_Receipt.jpg). I think it safe to assume that FN took that particular octant on the Lae-Howland flight. I’m trying to find out more about that box. Inquiries to the Naval Observatory Records department regarding the box reported to have been found on Gardner haven’t turned up anything, so I’m trying a different approach, asking them what records of Manning’s instrument may be available, if any. GL believes the instrument was an “A5” style instrument, which would be reasonable assumption for 1937. However, we need to keep in mind that this is an assumption. We also need to keep in mind another assumption – that the box that Harry Manning’s octant was in wouldn’t have been confused for a “sextant” box. We know from existing examples of Octant boxes at the Smithsonian that some octants of the era used low-profile boxes typical of traditional marine sextants, and others used tall profile boxes. Tall boxes were becoming the normal style for Aircraft Octants just before the year of the flight. It is possible, if unlikely, that the box that Manning’s sextant was stored in was a low profile “sextant box” like the one found on Gardner. If we discover that Manning’s box doesn’t fit the Gardner box description, then the source of the Gardner box will remain a mystery, and the TIGHAR hypothesis will not be supported by that approach. If Manning’s box matches the Gardner box, then the case for AE/FN landing on Gardner is supported.Are you talking about the box for the Pioneer 12-36 octant or the box for Manning's Bausch & Lomb octant? The Pioneer octant was developed in 1931 and I know it was used by Lindbergh in 1933 and it is the only bubble octant discussed in Dutton, 1934 ed. The photo of Lindbergh's octant shows that it had reached its final form and is virtually indistinguishable from the later models, Mk III, A-5 and A-7. The shape of the octant determines the shape of the box and the box for the Pioneer looks nothing like a box for a marine sextant.
At this point we cannot say definitively what style of Octant box was on board the Electra. We may be able to say what sort of box Harry Manning’s Octant had, if Naval Observatory records are available. Some day we might even be able to say more about the box found on Gardner, if the numbers on it turn up in some record.
Invoking the presence of a second sextant/octant on board the Electra weakens the argument for a Gardner landing. The most likely “sextant” box to be found on the island that could be associated with Fred Noonan is the one he borrowed from Harry Manning (see http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Noonan_Octant_Receipt.jpg). I think it safe to assume that FN took that particular octant on the Lae-Howland flight. I’m trying to find out more about that box. Inquiries to the Naval Observatory Records department regarding the box reported to have been found on Gardner haven’t turned up anything, so I’m trying a different approach, asking them what records of Manning’s instrument may be available, if any. GL believes the instrument was an “A5” style instrument, which would be reasonable assumption for 1937. However, we need to keep in mind that this is an assumption. We also need to keep in mind another assumption – that the box that Harry Manning’s octant was in wouldn’t have been confused for a “sextant” box. We know from existing examples of Octant boxes at the Smithsonian that some octants of the era used low-profile boxes typical of traditional marine sextants, and others used tall profile boxes. Tall boxes were becoming the normal style for Aircraft Octants just before the year of the flight. It is possible, if unlikely, that the box that Manning’s sextant was stored in was a low profile “sextant box” like the one found on Gardner. If we discover that Manning’s box doesn’t fit the Gardner box description, then the source of the Gardner box will remain a mystery, and the TIGHAR hypothesis will not be supported by that approach. If Manning’s box matches the Gardner box, then the case for AE/FN landing on Gardner is supported.I thought that TIGHAR had claimed the the sextant box found on Gardner was for a Brandis sextant and that they have spent a great deal of time tracking numbers on Brandis sextant boxes.
At this point we cannot say definitively what style of Octant box was on board the Electra. We may be able to say what sort of box Harry Manning’s Octant had, if Naval Observatory records are available. Some day we might even be able to say more about the box found on Gardner, if the numbers on it turn up in some record.
I thought that TIGHAR had claimed the the sextant box found on Gardner was for a Brandis sextant and that they have spent a great deal of time tracking numbers on Brandis sextant boxes.
There were two different Brandis sextants adapted for use in flight. One was a standard marine sextant with a special Willson telescope that incorporated a bubble assembly. The second was entirely different, designed from the start for aircraft use. This sextant is different from almost every other sextant on earth in that the handle was placed so that it was held in the left hand while almost every other sextant on earth is held in the right hand. This special model also had a distinctly different box, one with a sliding cover instead of the normal hinged cover. To see one of these instruments scroll down to the last entry here: http://sextantbook.com/?s=brandis (http://sextantbook.com/?s=brandis)I thought that TIGHAR had claimed the the sextant box found on Gardner was for a Brandis sextant and that they have spent a great deal of time tracking numbers on Brandis sextant boxes.
I think that TIGHAR's claims are more modest than you make them out to be.
The box found on Niku (http://tighar.org/wiki/Sextant_box) was identified as a "sextant box" by people who knew what sextant boxes looked like.
The reasons to speculate that the box was a Brandis are:TIGHAR hasn't found any other numbering system with pairs of numbers marked on sextant boxes using different techniques (inked and die-struck).
- the numbers on the Niku box fit a pattern found on extant Brandis boxes
- bubble sights had been developed for Brandis sextants
- a box with two numbers on it said to have come from Noonan is in a Florida museum
The sextant at the Naval Museum in Pensacola formerly owned by Noonan is a Ludolph, not a Brandis.
My point is that why are they looking for a Brandis sextant box when the type of sextant that we know Noonan had owned was a Ludolph? Based on that piece of information I would be researching Ludolph boxes on the assumption that Noonan was more likely to own another Ludolph instead of a completely different type, the Brandis. Just because some Brandis sextants were adapted for in flight use doesn't mean that Noonan would have gotten one of these. Noonan did not say there was a "marine sextant with a bubble attachment," he said simply "a marine sextant."The sextant at the Naval Museum in Pensacola formerly owned by Noonan is a Ludolph, not a Brandis.
Yes, that pretty much is what the Ameliapedia article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Sextant_box#The_Pensacola_Sextant_Box_.283547_and_173.29) says.
There are two numbers on the box formerly owned by Noonan (3547/173). That's all I said about that box. They are scrawled on it, not inked or die-stamped. I didn't say it was a Brandis sextant or a Brandis box.
There are two numbers on the box found on Gardner.
Trying to figure out what the two numbers might mean led to the development of the tables on that page.
Neither the Pensacola numbers nor the Gardner numbers can be excluded on the basis of what we know so far.
The true statement that the Pensacola sextant is a Ludolph is irrelevant to the point I was making.
My point is that why are they looking for a Brandis sextant box when the type of sextant that we know Noonan had owned was a Ludolph?
No I hadn't read that article, I didn't know it existed, it is quite interesting. After reading the table and sorting it various ways, I wonder if you aren't working with a skewed data set. The reason I wonder is that the Brandis seems to be over represented and the White instruments way under represented. The Navy used lots of the White instruments so I don't know why there aren't more entries for them. The Mark 2 sextant, made by White, is even used for the illustration of "the Standard Navy Micrometer Sextant" in The American Practical Navigator, Bowditch, U. S. Navy Hydrographic Office Publication H.O. 9 and also in H.O. 216, Flight Navigation. I wonder if the people finding sextant numbers for your table weren't laboring under the same impression that I had, that they should only look for Brandis instruments. I remember Ric had a photo of the navigation station on the Pan Am Clipper showing what Ric said was a Brandis box on the shelf, but I can't find it now. You might also be interested in following the links I put in post 144, above. If you go to the sextantbook link there are clear photos of the Brandis 206C and also the Byrd sextant.My point is that why are they looking for a Brandis sextant box when the type of sextant that we know Noonan had owned was a Ludolph?
Have you actually taken the time to read the Ameliapedia article (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Sextant_box#The_Pensacola_Sextant_Box_.283547_and_173.29)?
Have you actually read the table (http://tighar.org/wiki/Sextant_box#Sextant_Box_Numbers:_Suggestive_Patterns) with an open mind?
Looked at the pictures?
The Niku numbers fit into the Brandis pattern.
The Brandis boxes are pretty routinely marked with two numbers--if they went through the N.O.
We've collected other pairs of numbers, too, as they have come along.
I got another pair tonight that I will add later (Henry Hughes and Sons, "Huson", 41386, No No., inspection date 1 January 1945).
If you have Ludolph numbers that you would like to add to the table, please send them along.
Nowhere have I (or, I believe, TIGHAR) said that "we are looking for a Brandis box."
The thread that I created for the sextant project is entitled, "Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,183.0.html) It says nothing about wanting only Brandis numbers. With the numbers we have collected so far, the Pensacola box and the Niku box fit best with the Brandis numbers. If you take time to read the table, you will see that the Brandis identification is labeled "theoretical." You may look at the page history to see that that label has been on those lines from the very beginning.
I don't mind defending a position I've taken. I do mind having opinions attributed to me that are demonstrably not mine. I don't have all of the TIGHAR materials memorized. If some of them go beyond the evidence at hand, you may take your complaint to the author of those materials.
I have a theory that explains the sextant box and the bones. After the Norwich City plowed onto the reef and several crewmen were drowned trying to get ashore, the navigator, fearing for his life, escaped ashore taking his sextant with him thinking he might need it to get off the island after everyone had left. He didn't run far enough and the crewmen who were angry about the loss of their mess buddies hunted him down and killed him. Of course they covered this up, saying the navigator was also lost in the surf.______________________
Gee, I wonder whatever happened to the sextant carried on the Norwich City.
gl
I think that is a fair wonderment, Gary. I've actually wondered about that myself.
LTM -
Gary - I'd appreciate some help finding documentation defining FN's octant/sextant. The only documention I've found describes the one that Harry Manning loaned him as a "Pioneer...#12-36", presumably meaning Bureau of Aeronautics (Bu. Aero) serial 12-36. This doesn't identify the Mark or Model number. Is that information available? The Pioneer model 342 (Mk.3, Mod.1) and model 206 (Mk.1, Mod.4) were both being sold in the early 30's, yet were physically quite different. How do we know which model was on the flight? You discussed this to some extent in your post #8 in "Questions for the Celestial Choir", but did not at that time have documentation. Have you found any yet that you could share?i don't think there is any ambiguity. In all the literature you will see that only the MkIII type instrument is referred to as a "Pioneer bubble octant." The 206 is really the Brandis and everyone knew that.
Note that it makes more sense to me that FN would prefer an A5-style instrument, similar to your A7, for taking shots out a nearly vertical Lockheed side window. A more traditional open-frame sextant or octant would not be handy shooting high elevations, with the possible exception of shots from the front seats, making the presence of such an instrument seem less likely to be useful. On the other hand, you also mentioned that a marine sextant is more accurate than an aeronautical octant, so it might have been Fred's preference for critical navigation work.
Defining the instrument borrowed from Manning would help a little.
No I hadn't read that article, I didn't know it existed, it is quite interesting.
After reading the table and sorting it various ways, I wonder if you aren't working with a skewed data set.
What examples?
Anyway, it seems there are ample examples of FN owning his own equipment - I'm satisfied.
LTM -
Well Jeff, if you liked that story you might like this one too: http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=108647&y=200906Good points, John.Actually buffalo burgers.
I'm not sure how one would miss Catalina, with or without an octant or sextant, but it is an interesting exercise that Gary shared (I'd like to hear more about the $100 hamburgers too ;D).
LTM -
It's the best way to visit Catalina, cheaper and quicker than taking the boat across. You land at the airport and take a half hour bus ride into town for sightseeing. The airport is on a plateau 1500 feet above the sea with a cliff at each end of the runway, don't get low on approach or you end up making a smoking airplane shaped hole in the cliff.
If you take the boat over, you end up taking the same bus tour to see the buffalo and the other wildlife so flying in just lets you take the tour starting at the other end and you take the bus back to the airport with the other tourists.
gl
Very cool, Gary! Sorry I forgot the distinction of 'buffalo burger' - I realized that but lapsed as I wrote it.
I'm envious - you have a wonderful area to fly about in to enjoy many attractions. What you've described is one of the great things about the privilege of flying easier access to some real wonders out there in this world. Catalina is a beautiful and kind of mysterious place in terms of aura, I think.
Maybe one day I can fly there in person too - quite a nice adventure right off the coast! I'd have to 'do' the Bahamas to get anything llike the same offshore effect, passport and all - and that would be very 'different' anyway.
Thanks again for sharing that!
Helen Day helped them "carry down their things-various items including pith helmets, thermos jugs, and a machete in case they were forced down in the jungle. Someone carried Amelia's small suitcase, which held five shirts, two pairs of slacks, a change of shoes, a light working coverall, a weightless raincoat, linen, and toilet articles. Fred carried only his octant." East To The Dawn, Susan Butler.We tend to focus on Earhart and Noonan as being very important people, but in the scheme of things, not so much. Compared to a B-52 on its way to Russia to drop some nukes in an effort to save millions of people in our country from the Russian nukes, Noonan and Earhart don't count at all. Yet, even in light of the importance of the B-52 missions, carrying only one sextant was good enough for Curtis LeMay and the Strategic Air Command (a notoriously hard-assed outfit.) If one sextant was good enough for LeMay then there is no reason to believe that one sextant was not good enough for Noonan.
By 1937 the Pioneer octant had been perfected and was carried in thousands of Air Force and Navy planes, virtually unchanged, through the end of WW2. Bubble octants are extremely simple and reliable instruments. Bubble octants were used on trans-oceanic airline flights through the 1970's and commonly on Air Force planes until less than ten years ago, (I believe that there are still some Air Force planes with them.) In all of these uses, only ONE octant was carried in each airplane, no "preventer" in B-17s, no "preventer" in Boeing 707s, no "preventer" in B-47s, no "preventer" in C-130s, and no "preventer" in B-52s, and none of these planes were limited by space and weight constraints like the Electra. No second octant was carried in any of these planes because they are so simple and reliable.
So, like I said, there is no evidence to prove that a marine sextant was carried on the Electra, the burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
gl
gl
What examples?
Anyway, it seems there are ample examples of FN owning his own equipment - I'm satisfied.
LTM -
gl
That was one he gave away when he was teaching navigation at Pan Am. This was even more remote in time than the 1935 flight that he wrote to Weems about. What this tells us is that at a remote point in time Noonan owned one sextant and that he had no need for a marine sextant anymore since he was now involved in flight navigation so he loaned it to a student at Pan Am. It is a real leap to claim that this proves that he carried his own sextant on the Electra many years later. Do you have any proof whatsoever that he personally owned any other marine sextant? If anything, this tends to disprove your theory in that this does prove that the only sextant that there is any evidence that he actually owned was NOT on the flight.
Anyway, it seems there are ample examples of FN owning his own equipment - I'm satisfied.
LTM -
gl
What examples?
gl
The one now at the Naval Air Museum in Pensacola, FL, for one, which was "...donated by W. A. Cluthe, a retired Pan Am captain, who said that he had borrowed the Ludolph sextant from Fred Noonan." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Sextant_box_found_on_Nikumaroro)
Unless of course you have good reason to believe Cluthe himself was a thief for having accepted and then given away goods that did not belong to FN to loan to Cluthe in the first place. I'm not prepared to make that claim.
LTM -
I remember the 172H in that I believe the earliest Lycomings Cessna used in that model were problematic - valve train issues I believe. I'm glad you didn't suffer that problem on top of the fuel issues.
Wow!, brings back memories. I rented a Cherokee Six and flew it from Chicago to the Virgin islands and back. The very next time someone flew that plane the engine quit cold and the pilot ended up ditching it in the lake. When they fished it out and examined the engine it turned out that the drive shaft to the magnetos had sheered. I believe that it was the IO-540-D1 engine and it also had both magnetos in one box with one drive shaft so the failure of the drive caused the loss of both mags. WTF were they thinking!!! when this engine was designed and certificated. It gave me something to think about, it was like somebody was trying to tell me something, with all the land around the plane ended up being DITCHED! I had just put 18.4 hours and about two thousand miles on the plane flying over the ocean and I promised myself that I wouldn't fly single engine over the ocean anymore. But, we all break promises as you might already know if you followed the link I placed in reply # 156 above (http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=108647&y=200906).I remember the 172H in that I believe the earliest Lycomings Cessna used in that model were problematic - valve train issues I believe. I'm glad you didn't suffer that problem on top of the fuel issues.
I believe you're speaking of the Lycoming O320-H2AD. An interesting engine, that one.
I've been told (by someone I would believe should know) that it was originally developed for helicopter applications. Don't know for sure that this is true...wouldn't surprise me though. Yes, it had valve train troubles....the valve lifter rods would seize in the housing tubes. Plus...it had a curious double magneto. Two magnetos....one housing ...all sharing a common drive. Really sort of defeated the purpose of having two magnetos in the first place. And when you unmated it from the engine....you ran a 50/50 chance of dropping a magnet down inside the engine case. A real bugger to work on.
....tb
Sorry about shouting on my previous post, but I don't know what I did wrong to make it come up bold. DUH
My first flying job was flight instructing at the old Hinsdale airport in 1972. I was in the neighborhood about a year ago where I ate lunch with friends at the chicken restaurant located near where the airport used to be.
Gary
Your connection with Chicago, Hinsdale? I was born/reared in a suburb south of Chicago (Chicago Heights) and worked at a Laboratory near Hinsdale (Argonne National Labratory). Wasn't flying then. Got my ticket in 1977 (soloed on the 50th anniversity of Lindbergh's arrival in Paris May 27, 1977.
That was one he gave away when he was teaching navigation at Pan Am. This was even more remote in time than the 1935 flight that he wrote to Weems about. What this tells us is that at a remote point in time Noonan owned one sextant and that he had no need for a marine sextant anymore since he was now involved in flight navigation so he loaned it to a student at Pan Am. It is a real leap to claim that this proves that he carried his own sextant on the Electra many years later. Do you have any proof whatsoever that he personally owned any other marine sextant? If anything, this tends to disprove your theory in that this does prove that the only sextant that there is any evidence that he actually owned was NOT on the flight.
Anyway, it seems there are ample examples of FN owning his own equipment - I'm satisfied.
LTM -
gl
What examples?
gl
The one now at the Naval Air Museum in Pensacola, FL, for one, which was "...donated by W. A. Cluthe, a retired Pan Am captain, who said that he had borrowed the Ludolph sextant from Fred Noonan." (http://tighar.org/wiki/Sextant_box_found_on_Nikumaroro)
Unless of course you have good reason to believe Cluthe himself was a thief for having accepted and then given away goods that did not belong to FN to loan to Cluthe in the first place. I'm not prepared to make that claim.
LTM -
.
gl