TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Celestial choir => Topic started by: Adam Marsland on July 10, 2012, 01:07:09 AM
-
I had posted this in the navigation forum, but I realized that it was probably the kind of thing that more properly belonged in its own thread. At the risk of turning things too speculative, I want to ask a question I asked once before, 10 years ago.
In the jumble of numbers and letters that inexplicably fill Betty's Notebook, which purports to be a fragmentary transcription of a weak radio reception from Earhart, there are several entries that, if you sound them out phonetically (as they were heard), are consistent with broadcasting a LOP of 158-338:
"158 mi. "
"58 338"
"fig 8 - 3. 30"
"Z 38"
"38-3 "
"3"
"30"
By my count, of the 12 fragmentary number transcriptions, that's seven that are consistent with hearing a fragment of someone saying the phrase "one fifty eight three thirty eight," including two that are nearly complete transcriptions of that phrase, once you sound them out phonetically, which is exactly how fragments like this would be transcribed. Given that I work in sound design, I've always thought that one of the key things about Betty's Notebook to understand is that without context, it's hard to work out what any one fragment of a word really means. We all experience this when we try to understand a conversation without knowing the topic, or can't hear some of the words. Is it a Z or a 3? Did someone call for someone named Steve, or was that the first part of "stevedore." Absent any frame of reference, "Norwich City" could easily be interpreted as "New York City," in fact it would be more likely, because given an unknown quantity we will generally default to something familiar. You have to factor that in if you are trying to interpret something like this -- not just what might have been being transmitted, but what was being actually heard and how that would be interpreted by someone that had no frame of reference to guess at what the whole of the sentence might be.
I realize that this is speculative, but to me it's also very striking since the numbers themselves always struck me as something it was improbable a hoaxer would come up with, since it's too obscure and would tend to make people DISbelieve the message (as, indeed, they have). And AE repeating the line of position in the message both makes some sense in terms of revealing their position, and also give us some sense of what about half of those numbers, mistranscribed in phonetic and fragmentary fashion, might mean.
So here's my question: would there be any reason at all for the LOP to be shifted by one degree if AE was indeed transmitting them? I seem to recall that no one could think of any when I first posed this question. But the repetition of variations of those two numbers, once you sound out the transcription aloud and account for how garbled the transmission would have been, is very striking to me.
postscript: I understand that some pooh-pooh Betty's Notebook outright or view it with a great deal of skepticism, and believe that any walk down the speculation road is a fool's errand. That is fine. My personal opinion is that since there is a distinct possibility that BN is genuine (as there has been no evidence that it isn't other than the long odds of the reception itself), then it's worthwhile to think these kinds of things through as we may find unexpected light through analyzing them. If the transmission happened, the numbers mean something. Which is my way of saying that, having acknowledged this, blanket responses saying this is too deep in the weeds and these kinds of questions shouldn't be bothered to be asked are in no way helpful. :) If AE broadcast the line of position altered by one degree to help people find their location, then it's an odd enough occurrence that deducing the reason for it could conceivably advance the hypothesis in terms of how the flight ended and how they got on Niku, or where they thought they were.
-
I had posted this in the navigation forum, but I realized that it was probably the kind of thing that more properly belonged in its own thread. At the risk of turning things too speculative, I want to ask a question I asked once before, 10 years ago.
In the jumble of numbers and letters that inexplicably fill Betty's Notebook, which purports to be a fragmentary transcription of a weak radio reception from Earhart, there are several entries that, if you sound them out phonetically (as they were heard), are consistent with broadcasting a LOP of 158-338:
"158 mi. "
"58 338"
"fig 8 - 3. 30"
"Z 38"
"38-3 "
"3"
"30"
By my count, of the 12 fragmentary number transcriptions, that's seven that are consistent with hearing a fragment of someone saying the phrase "one fifty eight three thirty eight," including two that are nearly complete transcriptions of that phrase, once you sound them out phonetically, which is exactly how fragments like this would be transcribed. Given that I work in sound design, I've always thought that one of the key things about Betty's Notebook to understand is that without context, it's hard to work out what any one fragment of a word really means. We all experience this when we try to understand a conversation without knowing the topic, or can't hear some of the words. Is it a Z or a 3? Did someone call for someone named Steve, or was that the first part of "stevedore." Absent any frame of reference, "Norwich City" could easily be interpreted as "New York City," in fact it would be more likely, because given an unknown quantity we will generally default to something familiar. You have to factor that in if you are trying to interpret something like this -- not just what might have been being transmitted, but what was being actually heard and how that would be interpreted by someone that had no frame of reference to guess at what the whole of the sentence might be.
I realize that this is speculative, but to me it's also very striking since the numbers themselves always struck me as something it was improbable a hoaxer would come up with, since it's too obscure and would tend to make people DISbelieve the message (as, indeed, they have). And AE repeating the line of position in the message both makes some sense in terms of revealing their position, and also give us some sense of what about half of those numbers, mistranscribed in phonetic and fragmentary fashion, might mean.
So here's my question: would there be any reason at all for the LOP to be shifted by one degree if AE was indeed transmitting them? I seem to recall that no one could think of any when I first posed this question. But the repetition of variations of those two numbers, once you sound out the transcription aloud and account for how garbled the transmission would have been, is very striking to me.
postscript: I understand that some pooh-pooh Betty's Notebook outright or view it with a great deal of skepticism, and believe that any walk down the speculation road is a fool's errand. That is fine. My personal opinion is that since there is a distinct possibility that BN is genuine (as there has been no evidence that it isn't other than the long odds of the reception itself), then it's worthwhile to think these kinds of things through as we may find unexpected light through analyzing them. If the transmission happened, the numbers mean something. Which is my way of saying that, having acknowledged this, blanket responses saying this is too deep in the weeds and these kinds of questions shouldn't be bothered to be asked are in no way helpful. :) If AE broadcast the line of position altered by one degree to help people find their location, then it's an odd enough occurrence that deducing the reason for it could conceivably advance the hypothesis in terms of how the flight ended and how they got on Niku, or where they thought they were.
Here's the problem with your idea, there never was a 158-338 LOP in the vicinity of Howland or Gardner on July 2, 1937. The direction of the LOP is determined by the azimuth of the sun so to have a 158-338 LOP you need the sun to be on an azimuth of 068° and it never was. This may be confusing to those of us in the U.S. because or experience is that the sun rises in an easterly direction and then the direction to the sun, it's azimuth, changes in a clockwise direction with the numbers increasing during the day, 90 to 100 to 180, south at noon, to 220 to 270 and then setting in a generally westerly direction. Things were different on Howland and Gardner in July. Howland is just north of the equator and Gardner is south of the equator. The sun in July is about 23° north of the equator so it passes north of those islands. The sun rose on an azimuth of 067° and then moved in a counterclockwise direction, 067 to 066 to 065....to zero, straight north at noon then onto 330 to 310 to 300 and setting on an azimuth of 293°. Because it's azimuth never changed to 068° there would never be a 158-358 LOP.
gl
-
Gary
What about the subsequent days, what were the azimuths for July 3-7? We don't know exactly when Betty heard these numbers, so it is possible that these are derived from a date different than July 2.
Also interesting that Niku is closer to 158° from Howland than 157°, at least according to Google Earth.
Andrew
-
Gary
What about the subsequent days, what were the azimuths for July 3-7? We don't know exactly when Betty heard these numbers, so it is possible that these are derived from a date different than July 2.
Also interesting that Niku is closer to 158° from Howland than 157°, at least according to Google Earth.
Andrew
Good try..... but no. Since this was near the summer solstice, the declination of the sun was changing very slowly so it's azimuth at sunrise stayed 067° through 7/7/37 at both Howland and Gardner so there is no way to produce a 158-338 LOP on those days.
gl
-
And what would be the margin of error if you were standing on an island taking the sun shot to try to determine the azimuth / LOP as opposed to calculating it from the almanac?
amck
-
Gary according to the itasca logs that 157 - 337 was questionable, because it had come over radio when the radio men thought she was already down,
So if they find the wreckage of the electra this week, what would have been correct L.O.P to take them to gardner ?
I just wonder if they typed correct L.O.P and that's why its questionable ?
-
And what would be the margin of error if you were standing on an island taking the sun shot to try to determine the azimuth / LOP as opposed to calculating it from the almanac?
amck
But you never attempt to measure the azimuth for a celestial observation since it comes out during the normal computation.
gl
-
Gary according to the itasca logs that 157 - 337 was questionable, because it had come over radio when the radio men thought she was already down,
So if they find the wreckage of the electra this week, what would have been correct L.O.P to take them to gardner ?
I just wonder if they typed correct L.O.P and that's why its questionable ?
There is no LOP to take you to Gardner see:
https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/why-it-was-not-possible-to-follow-lop-to-nikumaroro
gl
-
I take your point, Gary, and it's a fair one. But noting that, let me ask you to look at this another way, and try to apply your expertise in another way...as I have said, it's easy enough to poke a hole in something this speculative. But this is a different kind of thought question, and one where, if you can let go of your skepticism for a moment and think it through from a different perspective, you might come up with an excellent answer (albeit one that you might not want to come up with!)
For the purposes of this thread, make two assumptions: one, that Betty's Notebook is genuine. Second, that the recurrence of these numbers is not a coincidence. Neither is proven, but both are possible and to me, plausible.
Regardless of whether such an LOP existed or not, is there any reason why AE (not necessarily FN) would have thought transmitting an (apparently fictitious) LOP of 158/338 would help people find her? It's a slightly different question than the one you are answering. Assume for a moment that, regardless of what you think makes navigational sense, that's what she did. Why?
I admit I can't think of a reason, but I really am dogged by this question. For reasons I have stated, I believe the BN to be more likely to be real than not. I really do not believe the number recurrence is a coincidence, either. But as to why...I'm stumped.
-
I too am skeptical of the Betty Notebook. Too many miracles for her to have heard so much for so long. That being said I do not think there has to be something nefarious. Betty was a very talented young lady based upon her drawings and she obviously loved to doodle and had a vivid imagination. There are obvious answers for all the 3's and 8's. They are the most numerous numbers when doodling. Ask one of your kids to doodle all over a piece of paper and see which numbers occur most. Betty probably had heard lots of radio programs about AE, not just March of Time, and may have been inspired by that and during another broadcast started imagining a dialogue based on some of the speculation she had heard. Watch TV after an airplane accident and how many analysts come on with their speculation. So she starts doodling dialogue and throwing in numbers. Page jumping is hard to account for but her picture jumping could still be the answer. The Father/Mother stuff is hearsay and hard to prove.
Why not nefarious? My grandfather always wanted to be a pilot, his brother in law was a pilot and was killed in a crash in the 20s. After I became a pilot he always talked to me about it and how he wished he had flown in WWI (too old for WWII). But he was the most honest man on the planet. When he started getting senile he suddenly started describing his exploits flying in WWI.
Now that I've said that I don't want all the BN devotees decending on me. I said skeptical, not convinced either way. just trying to show a possible way the nice old lady could be telling the truth as she remembers it. The longer you tell a story the more real it becomes to you till one day even you believe it.
Still a lot of other ways to answer those numbers. FN taking sights and asking her to write down numbers while she is talking on radio. Sextant angles, times and so forth would not make sense out of context. so don't give up on me...just not sold.
JB
-
Take your point, John, but it's another one of those "I don't buy the premise, so I'm reaching for an explanation that doesn't really make any more sense than what I'm being asked to buy, but it just sounds less fantastic so I feel OK saying it" kinds of explanations to me (meaning no offense). It certainly sounds very plausible on the surface, it just doesn't fit in any way what's actually there in the book and the person's recollection. To me, it's an explanation solely crafted to fit one's disbelief in BN, not what we actually have there, which isn't convincing to me. But...I acknowledge, certainly possible.
I can't prove that Betty's Notebook is for real, it's simply that all other explanations are less credible than it being real. So in that sense, I'm not "sold" either. Just going with what the most likely scenario is to me weighing what's there and what we know.
I appreciate that you threw out another possible explanation -- that's what I'm looking for. It's fine if other people can explain this away. I can't. It's been bugging me for years, but for the life of me I can't imagine why she would broadcast that. Even if she was telling them she was down the LOP, why change by one degree? Why not broadcast lat/long if FN was taking measurements? It doesn't make any sense to me. But I can't get around the recurrence of those numbers, particularly that "58 338" staring me right in the face, followed by "fig 58 3.30". I'd like to just assume that it means nothing, that it's just scribbling, that Betty dreamed it up, or it's a coincidence. But in my gut, I simply don't buy it. As I said, the other explanations only seem less far-fetched on the surface, but they really aren't.
-
I take your point, Gary, and it's a fair one. But noting that, let me ask you to look at this another way, and try to apply your expertise in another way...as I have said, it's easy enough to poke a hole in something this speculative. But this is a different kind of thought question, and one where, if you can let go of your skepticism for a moment and think it through from a different perspective, you might come up with an excellent answer (albeit one that you might not want to come up with!)
For the purposes of this thread, make two assumptions: one, that Betty's Notebook is genuine. Second, that the recurrence of these numbers is not a coincidence. Neither is proven, but both are possible and to me, plausible.
Regardless of whether such an LOP existed or not, is there any reason why AE (not necessarily FN) would have thought transmitting an (apparently fictitious) LOP of 158/338 would help people find her? It's a slightly different question than the one you are answering. Assume for a moment that, regardless of what you think makes navigational sense, that's what she did. Why?
I admit I can't think of a reason, but I really am dogged by this question. For reasons I have stated, I believe the BN to be more likely to be real than not. I really do not believe the number recurrence is a coincidence, either. But as to why...I'm stumped.
The true course from Howland to Gardner id 159°, see chart here. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/trial/gnc-20-7.JPG?attredirects=0)
If, after landing she measured that course on her chart with a plotter, then she might have measured 158° depending on the accuracy of her chart. But that is a course, not an LOP, so there is no reason to mention the "338." For this scenario to make any sense she had to know she was on Gardner so why not just say "GARDNER ISLAND" over and over again? None of the alleged post loss messages, and that includes Betty's, contain the word "Gardner" nor the word "Phoenix" not any other position information.
See: https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,674.msg13056.html#msg13056
and https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,674.msg13063.html#msg13063
gl
gl
-
No, you're absolutely right about all that, Gary. It doesn't really make any sense. Can't shake it, though.
-
For this scenario to make any sense she had to know she was on Gardner so why not just say "GARDNER ISLAND" over and over again? None of the alleged post loss messages, and that includes Betty's, contain the word "Gardner" nor the word "Phoenix" not any other position information.
Of course you are right Gary. The other thing that I find interesting is that of the plots of post loss messages, as illustrated in post #98 of http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,764.0.html http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,764.msg15832.html#msg15832 only one seems to come within cooee of Nikumaroro. Superficially at least this could indicate that Earhart and Noonan were anywhere along those lines but as the bulk of the post-loss messages are known to be clouded by deliberate faking, to be honest one must say that the evidence is tainted. Which is not to say that it is entirely possible that after flying around looking for a dry spot to land the pair found Nikumaroro but that the post-loss messages are not safe evidence.
-
Malcolm
Yes many of the post loss messages were frauds or mistakes, but most those involve attention seeking or just plain confused amateurs in North America (perhaps including Betty) . The rdf operations in Hawaii and on wake were manned by professionals and though the lines don't intersect exactly at niku they come close, and there is no other piece of land that is closer to those lines. It's possible those operators mistook some garbled search transmissions from the area but it's hard to see how some hoaxer would generate false transmissions from the sea near niku
-
I'm not commenting on the validity of Betty's notebook, but the notion that PAA radio bearings don't point to Gardner as a likely source. Five of the seven PAA radio intercepts (over 70%) resulted in bearings within plus or minus five degrees of Gardner. The intersection of these bearings creates an area of probability that encompasses Gardner.
Given signal strength and duration of transmission, the PAA operators demonstrated solid technical proficiency to get within plus or minus five degrees (of our hindsight Gardner Island location). Please refer to Mr. Brandenburg's RDF Analysis research paper, page 3, paragraph 3 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/RDFAnalysis/RDF3.html) which describes the operator's procedure for obtaining a bearing:
"A signal bearing was indicated by an aural null. But instead of measuring the null bearing directly, the operator observed bearings on each side of the null where the signal level was high enough for accurate measurement, over a period of 2 to 3 minutes, and averaged those bearings to obtain the null bearing. the accuracy of the bearings on each side of a null, and thus the accuracy of the average bearing, would be adversely affected if a signal was weak or of short duration."
In summary, the area of probability formed by PAA's radio bearings was an excellent indicator of where to search.
JB
-
GL sez: "For this scenario to make any sense she had to know she was on Gardner so why not just say "GARDNER ISLAND" over and over again? None of the alleged post loss messages, and that includes Betty's, contain the word "Gardner" nor the word "Phoenix" not any other position information."
To continue the scenario a bit, she didn't 'have to know she was on Gardner' - that would depend on what charts she had available. The charts she had may not have identified Gardner by name. I've previously used the example of a chart from Gary LaPook's site (https://b98f4441-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-dakar/Chart1.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7co4MJO-f8Ki-yAnfSf6NWTUbbhcbFB9iHP449clOo6TwBXAe-LKPFWcAN-GkTTSBNPb7wo_U1rIjrCTc1ygRHvidYj_t9qFn-yxGcj2j7s_wVa1oeMIx_sWe24-1oIZUs_aRgYfJjlPbaVfMWyHT5za0aGR8TIVAblj35LSg1Uo05Nfy6Ld4-8YEUntx9KJBVWVTI6Am-VKYBeraJG8xqapKNUphLeieIqb7Wh6F2M3F3L5QZtlXqiYRVYo01YPfCxIjDZY&attredirects=0) that Fred used on the Atlantic crossing that did not name tiny dots of islands in the Cape Verde group that were comparable in size to Gardner.
However, even a large scale map of the Pacific would reasonably be expected to have the Phoenix group labeled, even if the individual islands weren't. In that case, why wouldn't Amelia's messages from Gardner contain "Phoenix" repeated as often as "3" and "8"? Do Betty's notes contain words that might suggest "Phoenix", but misunderstood?
-
I would add that 158/338 could be a measured bearing and range (in NM) from Howland to Gardner depending on accuracy of the map used. Still a skeptic just pouring gas on the fire.
JB
-
I would add that 158/338 could be a measured bearing and range (in NM) from Howland to Gardner depending on accuracy of the map used. Still a skeptic just pouring gas on the fire.
JB
I think it burns well enough without the gas John ;)
-
I think that continues to be the greatest category of misunderstanding/obfuscation offered by the "typical" naysayer, i.e, that because THEY would certainly say, do, or understand a certain thing, that AE/FN obviously MUST also have. There must be a name for the application of such a fallacy...Marty?
dp
-
I think that continues to be the greatest category of misunderstanding/obfuscation offered by the "typical" naysayer, i.e, that because THEY would certainly say, do, or understand a certain thing, that AE/FN obviously MUST also have. There must be a name for the application of such a fallacy...Marty?
dp
A good point - my personal approach to both sides of this general debate is to question what each offers as evidence. That may seem to make me a double naysayer or just someone who will do anything to start an argument. The answer is of course neither.
Evidence offered to support a hypothesis needs to be rigorously tested for only that way can we satisfy ourselves as to its value in contributing to the hypothesis proof. The equal applies to the naysayer's objections. Of course the most unsafe thing that one can propose is the argument which begins "Well if I was in that position ..." because if one was in that position one could enlighten us all with a first hand verifiable account, and clearly as we are debating the subject then clearly that is not the case.
As regards Earhart and Noonan on Nikumaroro I admit to scepticism but equally one must say that scepticism is not absolute denial, it is just simply not absolute acceptance. One of the reasons why I rather dislike the hypothetical cases offered to explain post-loss behaviour on Nikumaroro is that they actually encourage "Well if I was in that position ..." type answers rather than ones which are useful such as properly checked artifact provenance and properly carried out surveys - the things which TIGHAR has done as one should expect.
We all await the results of this trip with interest.
-
Perhaps the 158/338 was her heading, not LOP. I don't remember reading that she said it was LOP.
-
Well, It looks like things are as lively as ever here.. ;D
IF any of the post loss messages are true, who ever said that anyone ever heard ALL of any one message sent? Maybe they DID broadcast the position as best as they could work out, broadcast it repeatedly, over and over again, only.... no one heard it? Maybe what Betty heard, and what others perported to hear was only PART of the full message? Over and over again I read comments that dismiss the post loss signals always use the arguement that "Well, they never said they were on Gardner, so the messages must be false, or a hoax, or all the other gobbledegook I see, but none of the naysayers even consider that most of the reported messages were fading in and out at the time they were heard, so how do we know that they never broadcast where they were (if they knew)? And maybe, just maybe, they were actually doing what they said they were doing, flying a heading of 158/338, maybe the compass in the cockpit was one degree off? I'm not a pilot, but I have a few hours in my logbook, and as far as I can tell, MANUALLY herding an airplane exactly on a heading, with the needle never leaving the chosen degree mark aint easy, so maybe she WAS flying 338 instead of 337. Ok... I'll head back under my rock...
-
And maybe, just maybe, they were actually doing what they said they were doing, flying a heading of 158/338, maybe the compass in the cockpit was one degree off? I'm not a pilot, but I have a few hours in my logbook, and as far as I can tell, MANUALLY herding an airplane exactly on a heading, with the needle never leaving the chosen degree mark aint easy, so maybe she WAS flying 338 instead of 337. Ok... I'll head back under my rock...
Brad, your evaluation of whether AE could have been flying an exact heading is probably "right on". A picture of what was probably her "primary compass" can be found here (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,1153) and is shown in the photos below. As you can see from the pictures, the compass was calibrated in 10deg increments which means there would have been some "estimating" of the exact heading in addition to the difficulty of holding the desired heading. She did, however, have an autopilot to help her out but we have no way of knowing how well it would hold a heading.
-
I believe the notebook and that the "158/338" was given to Amelia by Fred as the heading to fly (if this number was given by Amelia over the radio it was after the landing and after whatever injuries suffered by Fred in the landing...at which point he was almost incoherent).So it is my opinion (humble, of course) that she was on an island(unknown to her by name...but having on it a wrecked ship, referred to as something that sounded to Betty as the" New York " but which we believe to have been the Norwich City) and that she had flown a heading of 158 to get there.What she actually flew, or what her compass read doesn't matter. That would have depended on the wind and what heading she had to hold to maintain the correct track over the ground/sea.
In the air, Fred was okay, and he could have given her new bearings/headings(they are different) every few minutes as long as he determined that they were on the 158/338 that he believed would get them to the nearest land.
So sitting there with the tide comming in, 'transmitting in the blind', trying to get word out while she could and hearing no answer...she did what she could and repeated what she knew: that was the heading that she 'tracked' to get her where they were.
It should have been good enough to save her, if there were not so many "opinions " against her.
And don't overlook that as far as what hours she could transmit...even 8 or 10 inches above the water at 1500 rpm, which is what it takes for the generater to"kick in", the prop is picking up a considerable spray that envelopes the whole engine...I doubt she was running the engine at the same time she was transmitting...doubt you could have heard Fred talking across the cabin to her over the mike...
If the prop is touching the water at all, it is about impossible to develope enough power to move the airplane especially if it is in danger off floating off the reef.
I have flown to a boat in trouble and helped the people on board to safety while the authorities were still talking to them on the radio about what kind of equipment they had onboard...two different worlds, I know, but I have little patience for conversation and theories when people are trying to stay alive..
As for knowing where she was, all she knew was there was something under her she could land on while she still had gas...and the charts,judging from what the Navy planes determined, were not accurate.
Even to me, this reads as kind of grumpy !?!
Don't mean to be!
Goes with being useless old guy...
Message to Self ; We're not saving lives, here, just solving mysteries and its supposed to be fun!
Bill (proud to have a number now !!)
#4131
-
And don't overlook that as far as what hours she could transmit...even 8 or 10 inches above the water at 1500 rpm, which is what it takes for the generater to"kick in", the prop is picking up a considerable spray that envelopes the whole engine
900 rpm was sufficient. That's what Mantz said at the time and what we confirmed with engine tests at Covington Engines in Oklahoma using an R-1340 and an Eclipse E-5 generator (like hers) with a 2-1 ratio. (BTW, fuel burn at 900 RPM is 6 gph, just like Mantz said.) In your experience, how much spray would be picked up at 900 RPM?
...I doubt she was running the engine at the same time she was transmitting...
I would think she'd be crazy not to. Transmitting runs the battery down very quickly and an R-1340 can be hard to start. If she runs her battery down transmitting without the engine running she may not have enough battery left to start the engine to recharge the battery. Game Over.
doubt you could have heard Fred talking across the cabin to her over the mike...
There has been a lot of discussion about that. An engine at ticking over at 900 RPM is going to make a lot less noise than at 1500. The microphone aboard the airplane in the Luke Field inventory was a Western Electric 631b - a carbon mic. We don't know what kind of mic was being used on the second world flight attempt. Both Betty in Florida and Mrs. Crabb in Toronto reported hearing conversations or exchanges between AE and a man who was with her, although at different times. Their reports are otherwise credible and seem to corroborate each other.
If the prop is touching the water at all, it is about impossible to develope enough power to move the airplane especially if it is in danger off floating off the reef.
Agreed.
-
Sat for years behind a 1340 and an E-5 but just remembered the otter uses a geared engine where the prop runs 2/3 rds the engine speed !
So there goes any value to any guesses I have.
But I think I pointed out that the engine has to speed up above the 'kick-out' speed of the voltage regulator...and I would have said it was at least above 1200 rpm...but I concede all that because it was just a observation.
(Props cost a lot, so we didn't ever pick up spray...matter of pride...even when turning downwind on a windy day !!...so that was a big point with me)
What I did go by was: isn't there someplace in the records where the critical transmission heard by Betty is at the same time as the coast guard and the navy but discarded because they did not believe they could have come from Amelia because it was after she would have been down in the water so was ignored (I restrain from personal comment here) ...?
They remarked the engines "were not running because no background hum"...
But I only commented on all this because the hours of transmission had been calculated very precisely...It impressed me!..
and the 'clearance ' was tighter than would truly exist I think; and I still dont think the engines necessarily were running all the times...I have several times operated all day with no generator by just charging up at night and that's on floats where 'propping' it is a hassle (but the nose gearing helped the couple of times I had to prop it, and that on wheels.)
I have a mic like hers somewhere in my junk pile and the earphones and in fact had an old radio(older than hers) that had "her" crystal in it...you just poked in a different crystal to change frequencies...and we took it apart to use as an on/off switch in the Travel Air when we restored it...and they are not Noise Cancelling, for what that's worth.
Wasn't the transmitter on the co-pilot seat and FN in the back? so where was he when they were talking to betty?
I'm not helping here, am I !?!
I'm Out.
-
Hi Bill.
I would suggest that you might want to do some research about the radios in Amelia's Electra. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Modifications_by_Joe_Gurr) This is a good place to start if you look at all of the links in the article. Have fun with the reading, it will take a while.
-
isn't there someplace in the records where the critical transmission heard by Betty is at the same time as the coast guard and the navy but discarded because they did not believe they could have come from Amelia because it was after she would have been down in the water so was ignored (I restrain from personal comment here) ...?
They remarked the engines "were not running because no background hum"...
You're thinking of the operator at Nauru who heard unintelligible voice transmissions on the night of July 2nd that he recognized as the same voice he had heard from the plane in flight the night before "but without the hum of the plane in the background." Two engines at cruise power would make a lot more noise than one engine loafing at 900 RPM.
Wasn't the transmitter on the co-pilot seat and FN in the back? so where was he when they were talking to betty?
The transmitter was in the cabin on the floor behind the fuselage tanks. The receiver was under the co-pilot's seat. The dynamotor was under the pilot's seat. Fred would be in the right seat (or trying to climb over Amelia to get to the hatch over her head). It's a tight cockpit.
-
Two engines at cruise power would make a lot more noise than one engine loafing at 900 RPM.
It is also possible that the radio was being operated solely on battery power (fully charged) with no engine running, assuming, obviously, that a safe landing had preceded the transmission.