Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Why 10AM from Lae?  (Read 62290 times)

Zach Reed

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Off-Topic
« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2011, 12:28:56 PM »

On one of the forum threads over the past year, I saw a discussion on whether it was possible for AE/FN to send radio signals if the plane was floating. I think the point in question was whether they had to crank an engine to send signals.

I sort of skimmed past the conversation at the time, because the idea of them floating around in a plane sending radio signals sounded hilarious...


but its kind of struck my curiousity now. Does someone remember where that thread was?
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2011, 11:11:45 AM »

Well ... I was trying to be polite by suggesting he kick back and watch Amelia. If it's as bad as Ric says, are we all in danger of ... going blind? 
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5331
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Off-Topic
« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2011, 11:32:23 AM »

On one of the forum threads over the past year, I saw a discussion on whether it was possible for AE/FN to send radio signals if the plane was floating. I think the point in question was whether they had to crank an engine to send signals.

The plane could not transmit if afloat because critical elements of the radio system would be underwater water.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2908
Re: Off-Topic
« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2011, 12:55:53 PM »

... the idea of them floating around in a plane sending radio signals sounded hilarious ...

I don't think it was a thread in its own right.  I'll go start one, perhaps, so that we have a ready reference.

At any rate, Ric gave the short answer.  Here is Bob Brandenburg's research paper on the topic,  "Bombing the Bridge to the Marshalls," with contemporary sources to back up his claims.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #49 on: June 08, 2011, 11:54:14 PM »

G.Lpk. There is no reason to be impressed by anything mathematic since the GHA/LHA listing is arithmetical ; may it be that time sight , or longitude by chronometer do not have , or no longer possess a paragraph in American Practical Navigator , that does not mean that the technique not existed resp. was dispersed among navigators circles , might it be as an emergency measure.

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

Well, I would think it pretty amazing that if your sunset method was well known among navigators that no one ever thought to include your sunset method in any of the editions of the American Practical Navigator since 1802 through 2002, two hundred years of publication since it designed to be comprehensive and is the definitive reference navigation text in the U.S.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2011, 12:07:45 AM »

Mt.Fwr . I suppose you were on Gardner when the aircraft landed there after a 200 mls southwards navigation fault of which you have documents ?  Any theory developed must be first ,that is on short term , be consistent : not any flaw of computation must be present and there is no contradiction with logic. The  relevancy (does it match things that happened) is of second line importance and dependend of further research. If this rule (consistency-relevancy) is trespassed you will always see that opponents try ,with many words , undermine the statements of theory , and when not succesful , they turn vexed and end with the clincher "pure speculation" . For complex incidents like Earhart´s , it´s background containing mathematical implications ,any theory without quantitative outcomes is useless.

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

OK, I have another theory then that should satisfy you. A flying saucer from Mars visits the Earth on July 2, 1937 and pulls Earhart's plane into the flying saucer and then returned to Mars with the Electra, Noonan and Earhart inside.  This theory is "consistant"  and there is no contradiction with logic so this theory is as good as yours based on your standard. It is also "relevant" as it does explain the disappearance.

gl
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2011, 08:07:57 AM »

G.Lpk. There is no reason to be impressed by anything mathematic since the GHA/LHA listing is arithmetical ; may it be that time sight , or longitude by chronometer do not have , or no longer possess a paragraph in American Practical Navigator , that does not mean that the technique not existed resp. was dispersed among navigators circles , might it be as an emergency measure.

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

Well, I would think it pretty amazing that if your sunset method was well known among navigators that no one ever thought to include your sunset method in any of the editions of the American Practical Navigator since 1802 through 2002, two hundred years of publication since it designed to be comprehensive and is the definitive reference navigation text in the U.S.

gl


It was possibly not known to everyone , or it was deleted from specific handbooks , it nevertheless appeared in maritime nav manuals from which I learned it. Important is that it was known by F. Noonan , since he used it near Nukumanu : there , only the sun was available , for the exact recomputation see EJN-2011 .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2011, 08:23:49 AM »

Mt.Fwr . I suppose you were on Gardner when the aircraft landed there after a 200 mls southwards navigation fault of which you have documents ?  Any theory developed must be first ,that is on short term , be consistent : not any flaw of computation must be present and there is no contradiction with logic. The  relevancy (does it match things that happened) is of second line importance and dependend of further research. If this rule (consistency-relevancy) is trespassed you will always see that opponents try ,with many words , undermine the statements of theory , and when not succesful , they turn vexed and end with the clincher "pure speculation" . For complex incidents like Earhart´s , it´s background containing mathematical implications ,any theory without quantitative outcomes is useless.

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

OK, I have another theory then that should satisfy you. A flying saucer from Mars visits the Earth on July 2, 1937 and pulls Earhart's plane into the flying saucer and then returned to Mars with the Electra, Noonan and Earhart inside.  This theory is "consistant"  and there is no contradiction with logic so this theory is as good as yours based on your standard. It is also "relevant" as it does explain the disappearance.

gl

And better : they were jettisoned over 174-31-W / 04-40-39-S
Logged

david alan atchason

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2011, 10:35:35 AM »

Quote
The plane could not transmit if afloat because critical elements of the radio system would be underwater water.

I certainly am not arguing that I know better than the experts. I completely agree that as the diagrams of the plane show, any transmissions from the floating plane would be hilarious. But what about the alleged statement of George Putman that an auxiliary battery was installed in the cockpit for emergency? If that's all that was done, and no provision was made for it to power an emergency radio, or to be hooked up somehow to their factory installed radio, that would be hilarious, too. (Zach, no offense, I'm just having fun with the word hilarious.) Maybe the battery hit Fred in the head during a rough landing. So was George Putnam talking through his hat?
But it doesn't matter. Say AE did land on Niku. The Japs have several ships nearby. It only takes them 3 days to find her. They have all the equipment they need to drag the plane off the reef, because they are prepared. The Itasca is off looking to the NW. Yes, a few parts are broken off dragging the plane, maybe a landing gear, but they pick up all the pieces they can find and off they go with AE and FN captured. Yes, they  desperately want that plane that they suspect could be a spy plane.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5331
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2011, 12:15:37 PM »

I'm sorry, but this nonsense has gone on long enough.

But what about the alleged statement of George Putman that an auxiliary battery was installed in the cockpit for emergency?

Putnam made no such statement.  If you disagree cite your source. If your source is Goerner's book, check the sources Goerner cites in his footnotes - no, wait, his book has no footnotes.  Goerner's 45 year-old book is full of bad information and you're swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

Say AE did land on Niku. The Japs have several ships nearby.

Really?  What ships?  Where were they? Cite your sources.

It only takes them 3 days to find her. They have all the equipment they need to drag the plane off the reef, because they are prepared.

How do you know that? Cite your sources.

The Itasca is off looking to the NW. Yes, a few parts are broken off dragging the plane, maybe a landing gear, but they pick up all the pieces they can find and off they go with AE and FN captured. Yes, they desperately want that plane that they suspect could be a spy plane.

This kind of unsupported blather is pointless and adds nothing to the discussion.  If you wish to contribute to this forum you'll have to do what the rest of us do and support your ideas and opinions with hard facts.  Otherwise I will remove your postings.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 01:02:58 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2011, 11:15:40 PM »

G.Lpk. There is no reason to be impressed by anything mathematic since the GHA/LHA listing is arithmetical ; may it be that time sight , or longitude by chronometer do not have , or no longer possess a paragraph in American Practical Navigator , that does not mean that the technique not existed resp. was dispersed among navigators circles , might it be as an emergency measure.

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

Well, I would think it pretty amazing that if your sunset method was well known among navigators that no one ever thought to include your sunset method in any of the editions of the American Practical Navigator since 1802 through 2002, two hundred years of publication since it designed to be comprehensive and is the definitive reference navigation text in the U.S.

gl


It was possibly not known to everyone , or it was deleted from specific handbooks , it nevertheless appeared in maritime nav manuals from which I learned it. Important is that it was known by F. Noonan , since he used it near Nukumanu : there , only the sun was available , for the exact recomputation see EJN-2011 .

Possiby since it is the Practcal Navigator handbook ?  mr.Noonan must have known the fashion since he applied it @ sunset @ 27 miles off Nukumanu.
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #56 on: June 10, 2011, 10:18:09 AM »

G.Lpk. There is no reason to be impressed by anything mathematic since the GHA/LHA listing is arithmetical ; may it be that time sight , or longitude by chronometer do not have , or no longer possess a paragraph in American Practical Navigator , that does not mean that the technique not existed resp. was dispersed among navigators circles , might it be as an emergency measure.

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

Well, I would think it pretty amazing that if your sunset method was well known among navigators that no one ever thought to include your sunset method in any of the editions of the American Practical Navigator since 1802 through 2002, two hundred years of publication since it designed to be comprehensive and is the definitive reference navigation text in the U.S.

gl


I tried ( by "Practical Celestial Navigation" , S.P.Howell) and agree , by correcting NA listings for latitude and position difference from centre of time zone (APN method) , the outcomes do not sufficiently follow the by formula(e) precise time to seconds . This would say that mr.Noonan acquired his sunrise time from his sunset time and coordinates , having these precomputed by H.O.208 , Tab.II. There is also a manual "Emergency Navigation" in my library , I will consult that later.

Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2011, 10:56:48 AM »

More importantly, the Itasca could have added her powerful searchlight which Amelia could have easily seen (before the ‘grey-of-dawn’) for 100NM or more (123NM @ 10K alt., clear night) depending on aircraft altitude and availability of clouds above Itasca to illuminate.

I was thinking about exactly this the other day.  The problem is that if they started the flight later in the day and missed seeing the searchlights they would have to continue on their path and wait for dawn (which would be about another hour or so away). ...

So far as I know, TIGHAR has not found a document from 1937 explaining the actual rationale for the 0000 GMZ takeoff from Lae (10:00 AM local time). 

What we do have evidence of is the expected time of arrival calculated before the takeoff:

"Finally, just before 8:00 PM aboard Itasca, official notification of Earhart’s departure arrived from Lae, via Samoa: 'Urgent, Black, Itasca . . . Amelia Earhart left Lae at 10 AM local time July 2nd. Due Howland Island 18 hours time.' This information presented a new picture. The plane had left Lae two hours earlier than previously reported, and the eighteen-hour time-en-route estimate indicated that Earhart anticipated lighter headwinds than predicted in the most recent forecast. Itasca should now expect the plane to arrive at around 6:30 AM" (Finding Amelia, p. 85).

From telegrams it is known that several takeoff times have passed in review. Leaving the runway at your standard time zero hours is of practical importance for DR since it averts continuously reckoning backwards to non-zero time points. To reach the Greenwich anti meridian at exact sunrise is imho no option , since sunrise o/b of an aircraft is extremly dependent of the groundspeed which is for long range flights impossibly predictable in anticipation (Nukumanu , e.g. was reached with 44 minutes delay due headwinds stronger than from forecast).


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

It appears that the 10 am takeoff was pretty random and not linked to navigational considerations. Although this time provided a convenient time to be approaching Howland, just shortly after being able to obtain a star fix and with the sun available for final approach (at least as a backup) , prior radiograms from Earhart had announced other, different, departure times. As further proof that having a recent star fix was not a consideration,  we only have to look at the planned Hawaii to Howland flight. They had planned to depart at 11pm Hawaii time (0930 Z) which would have put them at Howland at about 2100 Z, 9:30 am Itasca time. They actually attempted the takeoff at 5:40 am Hawaii time ( 1610 Z) so would have arrived at Howland at about 0340 Z, 4:10 pm Itasca time with no opportunity for star or moon fixes.

Gary LaPook


July 1 (as from documents) by comparison of Adelaide time signal , chronometer was 3 sec slow , ultimately on July 2 , 08 am , the time signal of Saigon was received upon which crew decided departure @ 1000 LZT , 0000 GMT .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2011, 11:19:22 AM »

There is no indication that Noonan requested any information about Nauru. The cable mentioning the new light appears to have been simply a courtesy appended to a weather report.

The "Lights in sight ahead" report is from a letter by T.H.Cude , 1937 Nauru director of police , to F.X.Holbrook claiming that the word "Lights" not "ship" have been heard in the Earhart transmission on 3105 kcs.

The original source is a State Department telegram from Sydney, Australia dated July 3m 1937, which reads: “Amalgamated Wireless state information received that report from ‘Nauru’ was sent to Bolinas Radio ‘at 6.31, 6.43 and 6.54 PM Sydney time today on 48.31 meters (6210 kHz), fairly strong signals, speech not intelligible, no hum of plane in background but voice similar that emitted from plane in flight last night between 4.30 and 9.30 P.M.’ Message from plane when at least 60 miles south of Nauru received 8.30 P.M. Sydney time, July 2 saying ‘A ship in sight ahead.’ Since identified as steamer Myrtle Bank sic which arrived Nauru daybreak today."

Unless Mr. Cude  produced the actual radio log for that night, the contemporary written record (the State Dept. telegram) trumps his 20+ year-old recollection.

When Earhart (as from documents) asked by telegram to Nauru for weather conditions , the reply contained additionally that industrial lights would be switched on , and a tower beam @ 560 ft above sea level (erroneously printed in telegram "5600 ft") , visible from ships 34 mls off , would burn . Optical range from 8,000 ft altitude was in theory ca.137 mls.
Logged

Tim Gard

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #59 on: April 05, 2013, 07:44:00 AM »

I appreciate the input from all posters to this thread. It's been very informative.

Like the initial poster, I saw Bowen's statements about the Lae - Howland leg in Linda Finch's The Final Hours, Amelia Earhart's Last Flight.
 
Though point X may not have been the most accurate fix, it was a reference that  Bowen considered worthwhile.

In Mercy Mission (the docu-drama) they count the number of knuckles on the pilots' hands between the sun and the horizon to establish flight 771 being to the west of (flight 308).
Their altitudes were different (zero feet versus flight level 35).

Later they use differences in the noted time of sunset to establish 771's position relative to Auckland.

/ Member #4122 /
/Hold the Heading/
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP