Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:31:05 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: LOP logic In re Ric's analysis of LOP limits: <> If you don't know where you are on the line, you could be farther than three and a half inches (350 nm) to the left of the center dot. If this is possible, I wouldn't waste any fuel heading left (northwest); I would head right (southeast), since I have a better chance of seeing something along the line in that direction, and, possibly, no chance of seeing something in the other direction. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric The significance of the 350 nm is that it is the distance between Howland (the desired destination) and Gardner (the farthest practical alternate on the line). If you only explore southeastward on the line you abandon the possibility that Howland is just over the horizon to the northwest, and you'd much rather reach Howland than anywhere else. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:40:56 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Wreckage IF the Electra landed on the flat reef at Niku, then one of the following had to happen. 1.It broke up in the surf and washed into the lagoon. 2. It broke up in the surf and washed over the reefs edge. 3. It broke up in the surf and parts washed into the lagoon and parts washed over the reefs edge. Since you are going to explore the lagoon for wreckage on your upcoming trip, do you have any plans to also search the edge of the reef? I understand the latter is in deeper water and may be more hazardous to dive, and more time consuming. **************************************************************************** From Ric We had divers in the water off the reef edge in 1989 and in 1991 we contracted for a sonar survey of the deeper water surrounding the island. Neither search can be considered thorough but neither search found anything either. There's a relatively shallow ledge (about 40 feet deep) just off the western edge of the reef. The ship we use, Nai'a, was in the Phoenix Group last year a dive expedition looking at the various reefs in the region. They took a quick look at the ledge mentioned above and saw no wreckage but we'll take another look at it this summer. You'll find a map of the areas we paln to cover on the website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/fuelexped.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:45:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Taroa >>Taroa was subjected to a pretty thorough archaeological survey several years >>ago by the Marshall Islands Historic Preservation Office, then under the >>direction of the Dr. Dirk Spenneman mentioned in an earlier post. >>Unaccountably, the Electra on the runway seems not to have been noted. > >From Ric > >That's because it's buried in the beach (according to Woody). Hey, Spennemann is an archaeologist! TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:50:32 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Taroa > That's because it's buried in the beach (according to Woody). I thought it was in the bunker, in the middle of the island, protected from discovery by unexploded shells. LTM (who can't resist!) Mike **************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh, we're cruel crowd. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:07:55 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: maritime losses Ric wrote (in reply to Dave Bush) :- >It's a fishing trawler and it was there in 1970 when Bruce Yoho visited the >island. I've seen his home movies of it. So Bruce found his Canton movies then ? But not the one featuring the engine he found, - or I guess you'd have mentioned it LTM Simon #2120 **************************************************************************** From Ric We've always had Bruce's home movies from Canton. It's just the one reel showing the engine recovery that is missing. I should also mention that there were a number (at least three as I recall) fishing trawler wrecks on McKean when we were there in '89 and, in fact, the very ship we were on - "Pacific Nomad" was a dive excursion boat converted from a Japanese long-liner that had been found abandoned on Kingman Reef. We were told that it is not uncommon for fishing vessels to go aground by "accident" to collect on the insurance. This kind of activity skews the maritime loss statistics. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:20:43 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: LOP's Next time the subject comes up, it might be helpful for some to know that although an lop for any purpose incl. part of a fix, while drawn on the map as a fine line, should be thought of as a 'swath' having a dimension of width equal to the approx. potential errors. When the sight was steady and well done it should be only a mile or two in width. A 'shaky' sight [turbulence, drifting clouds, etc] might be 10 or more miles wide. Regardless of initial accuracy it has the potential to 'grow wider' when advanced, depending on how accurately the ground speed was forecast, [as you mentioned] and miles of the advance. One can expect greater error using a hand held insrtrument thru a slanted windshield; compared to having it hanging from a hook in an astrodome, in which the optical errors of the dome medium have been accurately determined. Clearly, FN was operating in less than ideal conditions. You probably know of the many errors in getting the line properly drawn on a map. Beginning with the rounded values in the tables, the required math, the exact time, instrument & optical error incl. 'thru a windshield or any medium', and sometimes, parallax. Averaging the sight may be the largest; the body can never be held in the cross hairs for more than a couple seconds, even in still air. And there are a few more. Fortunately, the errors are seldom all in the same direction. Usually, but not always, some average out others. RC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:23:27 EST From: Ken Feder Subject: Pacific Preservation The latest issue (Volume 24, No. 1) of CRM (Cultural Resource Management; a publication of the U.S. Department of the Interior) focuses on preserving historical sites in the Pacific. There are some interesting articles about the archaeology of native sites, but also some of the articles concern the archaeology of World War II era remains. A short article by Wendy Coble looks at shipwrecks and aircraft; there is a neat photo of the remains of a Navy Corsair wreck on a reef in Palau. Thought you might be interested.. Ken Feder *************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. Is the Corsair above or below water, and if below, how deep? If above, is it subjected to surf action? How much is left? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:25:48 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Aluminium > It could well be that NOTHING will appear on the surface, > but that magnetometers will go crazy when passed over the surface. It could also be that the heaviest stuff will be closest to the passage entrance and the lighter stuff (aluminium small steel parts) will be further into the lagoon. Likewise the heavier stuff may be deeper and the lighter stuff less covered. A bit like finding pebbles in a bucket full of gold really.. Or from personal experience, finding Sapphires in a sieve full of pebbles.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:29:32 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart The survey was actually done by a team headed by a gentleman from Denmark named Henrik Christiansen while Dirk was the State Archaeologist. I ordered the book from the Alele Museum on said survey because they told me all of the sites are identified. Great site names too, A109, F778, etc, etc. No bibliography on what the sites were used for. Not much practical use for my purposes. Interesting to note that in the picture that I have of the planes being buried, that the bunker used doesnt appear as a site in the 1946 survey although all of the other bunkers that existed in 1944 are present in the 1946 survey. I would also like to point out to everyone involved with TIGHAR, that although Ric and I got off to a rocky start and I am not a TIGHAR member, he has posted most all of the information that I have pecked out on my keyboard without exception. His site is open to all with internet access and has afforded me information, especially about Fred Noonan, that has never before been available anywhere and made my work that much easier. Although we diverge on Amelia and Fred's fate and the eventual parking spot of that elusive airframe, he has been a most gracious host. The meaning of true research is the sharing of accumulated information with all interested parties to an eventual answer that reflects the truth. He is certainly doing that. Sooner or later , I believe that one of us will be sitting in the cockpit of NR16020, whoever that dogged person may be. I will be traveling to the Marshalls this year to do an intiial site survey on where I believe the plane is buried. Since Ric is the only one with a forum site, he will be the first to know what I found, if anything. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Speaking of sharing information, it would be interesting and informative to see a picture of airplanes being buried at Taroa. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:47:20 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Lagoon deposit Ric said... >Fortunately, there's little reason to think that anything is buried in that >sandbar, according to a PhD reef biologist at the University of Hawaii who >has considered the situation. Material washed through the passage should be >on the lagoon bottom at the base of the "talus slope". So, it's the talus slope that is probably of most interest. I take it the pump is not adequate to be of any use examining the talus slope either. And you wouldn't want to move enough material to do any good anyway. Whatever a diver can see is about all that is left. It would be interesting to know whether or not that sandbar has been growing and continually covering whatever might have been at the base of that talus slope at one time in the past. If that has been happening, there's little hope of finding anything that washed into the passage, be it pieces of the Norwich City or Earhart's Electra. *************************************************************************** From Ric Correction: He's not with U. of H. Here's exactly what Jim Maragos, coral reef biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion said: <> It is not the talus slope itself that is of the most interest, but rather the lagoon floor at the base of the talus slope. As seen in aerial photos and in real life looking over the gunwale of a launch in 1999, that talus slope is not a gentle incline but is a very sharp drop-off. We need to take a close look at the available aerial photography and the new satellite imagery we hope to have later this spring to see how much the boundary of that sandbar has changed over time, if at all. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:56:06 EST From: Mark Green Subject: Re: Harmonics I asked my brother (broadcast engineer) about harmonics. This is his reply: "It is highly unlikely that she (Amelia) could have been heard on any frequency other than the one the transmitter was set for." "The second and third harmonic energy of the signal would be minimal regardless of the frequency if the transmitter was operating properly. If you want the math, the harmonic of 3105 kHz is 6210 and the third harmonic would be 9315. Remember that the resonant circuits of the the transmitter would be set for 3105 and that in itself would serve to limit whatever harmonic energy, if any, could be generated." "I am not familiar with the transmitter aboard the Earhart aircraft, but I have had extensive experience with vacuum tube transmitters." I hope this helps, Mark Green **************************************************************************** From Ric I'd suggest that someone who IS familiar with Earhart's transmitter and antenna array, and has done a detailed study of the specific propagation situation that existed at the time, might be able to offer a more meaningful opinion. Bob Brandenburg has done just that. TIGHAR members received a summary of his report "Could Betty Have heard Amelia On A Harmonic" in their February issue of TIGHAR Tracks. Bob's full report will soon be up on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:00:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Probability of success For Tom MM Tom, I guess I wasn't very clear but I DID recognize the 20% figure was not something you were suggesting. What I was trying to say was the actual figure could only be 0% or 100%. In 1976 my son was diagnosed with cancer that had a 12% survival rate. That was a totally useless figure. My son would survive or he wouldn't. It also represented a statistical average which again is of no value to me. To someone but not to me. My son was lucky and he DID survive but at no time were decisions based on the 12% probability. I agree with you that some analysis might be in order but only if we know the input data and the analysis provides any useful information. Your example of a target 2,000 miles away DOES illustrate your point but that was not the case at hand. FN's target was but a fraction of that away. I think we need to use actual facts if any analysis is to be meaningful. Therein lies the rub. We don't have enough information to analyze. I think in a previous post I explained how a fairly accurate positioning of the LOP would be obtained. Now since we don't know the weather we don't know what fixes FN got if any. That means he either did and got an accurate LOP or he didn't and DRd to someplace he hoped Howland was. We will never know the answer to that unless we find the electra and FN's maps. If Noonan was able to get a couple of sun shots then he would also have been able to shoot the moon and Venus barring cloud cover in their directions. If that was the case he most likely had a good LOP but possibly 5 miles from where Howland actually was situated. And again we don't know if he had the corrected coordinates or not. The moon and/or Venus would have given him a fairly accurate position so it is doubtful he ran north and south on the LOP very far. More likely he ran it in a modified search pattern, varying the "LOP" a few miles in either direction so as not to lose his position. There was time between the "We must be on you" call and the "running north and south" call to do a minimum search before striking out. As to their options I think there was no choice other than to find Howland or head for the Phoenix group. Ditching in the ocean was not likely a choice not were the unreachable Marshalls. The Gilberts made little sense even considering the moon and Venus being available to help with the navigation as they were only available in the early hours. By the time they could get to the Gilberts FN would have only had the sun and a very unreliable position. Choosing the Phoenix group made sense in that the sun provided a course and there were several islands in a loose group. I don't think it would take any kind of deep analysis to make that choice and I could bet FN never thought about odds or percentages. But let's suppose he did or we wanted to assess those odds how would one do that and to what end? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:40:53 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Castaway Research > From Phil Tanner > > I honestly think this is not a productive avenue. There's a certain > intellectual stimulation in pondering definitions of the word "rare", but > that's not the issue, surely? In as sparsely populated an area as the > Phoenix Islands in 1937, by any sensible definition there weren't that many Phil, that the best response to this thread I've read. Let's suppose we find there are less castaways now than in 1937 what does that info do for anyone? And to Kenton S. on what I do to move the ball forward, I would say about the same as most on the forum but seem to get bogged down trying to clarify certain celestial vagaries and critiquing what some see as useless exercises. I am not suggesting your attempt to quantify the word "rare" is useless but I haven't been able to understand the point or what relevant information it would provide. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric In Kenton's defense (not that he needs me to defend him) I'll say that it was his research that turned up the WPHC files in England that have virtually revolutionized this entire investigation. If Kenton wants to chase shoes, castaways or frigate birds - baffling as it may be to me or others - I say "Go for it!" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:42:20 EST From: Tom King Subject: The closest thing to Niku Forumites who'd like to get a glimpse of what Nikumaroro's like might want to check out the latest National Geographic (U.S.), which has an article on Palmyra Island that includes photos of buka trees (Pisonia grandis, just called Pisonia in the article) and a coconut crab (Birgus latro). Palmyra, where we refueled en route to Kanton in '98, has recently been purchased by the Nature Conservancy, and may in whole or part become a U.S. Wildlife Refuge. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:46:07 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Taroa Mike Holt says: >I thought it was in the bunker, in the middle of the island, protected from >discovery by unexploded shells. I dunno about the airplane in the bunker, but when he was working on Taroa, Spennemann told me that one of his biggest problems WAS unexploded shells. Hard to do active preservation on a WWII structure full of live but deteriorating bombs and mortar rounds. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:57:23 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: FN's navigation First off, I'd like to say that your posting of a few days back regarding the casting of a wide net (wherein you noted crashed/sank, jap capture, and all the Phoenix islands) was an excellent summation of TIGHAR's Earhart Project to date. In essence, you did cast a wide net, and Niku is all you caught in it. Perhaps you could arrange things so that that post appears on the screen of anyone submitting a posting to the forum, before the listserver will accept the post, just as a friendly reminder of why we're here and what we're trying to do. My question is for the Noonan Project team and the Celestial Choir. If I'm following the threads correctly, the flights where FN's nav practices are being examined are the Oakland/Honolulu success, and the Lae/Howland failure. For Oakland/Honolulu, Fred used 2 body fixes, and had radio bearing assistance for final approach, correct? Is it then assumed that expecting radio bearing assistance on the final approach to Howland, that he used 2 body fixes for Lae/Howland? If so, given the greater degree of difficulty of the flight (Howland after 2500 miles being a more difficult target than the Hawaiian Islands after 1500miles) is that assumption a reasonable one. I'm not nitpicking--just curious as to your reasoning. You guys have done the research, and I'll accept your conclusions. Finally, for the presumed Howland vicinity/Gardner flight, Fred would (obviously) not be expecting radio bearing assistance for the final approach. Since this flight was during daylight, what sort of celestial nav./DR/etc. did FN have available? Is there any record of FN using more precise techniques, i.e. 3 body fixes, on flights where radio bearing assistance was not anticipated for final approach? I'm guessing that one cannot get a 3 body celestial fix during daylight, correct? Was there any technique available to FN to back up the LOP run to Gardner that might give him a greater certainty of success? Granted of course that if something was available, whether or not he used it would be pure speculation. Sorry for all the questions, and for any gross oversimplification errors I may have committed above. Just trying to get a better handle on all the nav. stuff on the forum. Dave Porter, 2288 (whose nav. skills are limited to compass, map, protractor, terrain association, and "stoutish walking shoes") **************************************************************************** From Ric A couple of points: Oakland to Hawaii is more like 2100 miles. Noonan most definitely WAS expecting radio bearing assistance for the final approach to Howland. That was the whole point in Itasca being there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:02:03 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Taroa I probably missed it, but is Taroa the new spelling for what we used to call Tarawa? LTM, who occasionally suffers CRS Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric No. Different place. Taroa is an island inthe Marshalls. Tarawa is an atoll in the Gilberts. The only things they have in common are that they're both in the Pacific Ocean and Amelia was never there. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:15:36 EST From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: Lagoon deposit For the benefit of the forum, maybe you could describe the types of debris and the condition you expect to find it in if it has been sitting in the lagoon since 1937. If memory serves, there have been past discussions on the chemical effects of a 64 year warm oxygenated salt water bath on both iron and aluminum. So, in addition to wave action breaking up objects on the beach, there is a chemical process at work in the water. It seems most likely that if divers can find anything left of the Electra, the debris will be iron (simply because it is hardier than aluminum) the pieces will be fairly small and severely corroded/rusted. Of course, the degradation of metal over time under these conditions is also part of the reason why TIGHAR broadened its search to include human remains and other artifacts. LTM Bill Carter #2313CE (Who thinks covering all the bases is the right way to go) **************************************************************************** From Ric Au contraire. Aluminum submerged in salt water seems to hold up pretty well - the deeper the better - because the real culprits are salt and oxygen together. Aluminum on the land on Niku is remarkably well preserved because the climate is so dry. By contrast, ferrous metal (iron and steel) practically rusts while you look at it. I would expect that aluminum several feet under water would also be in decent shape because of the lack of oxygen. The problem would occur when you bring it to the surface and all those chlorides that have become imbedded in the alloy begin to react with the air. The worst environment is when aluminum is alternately submerged and exposed in a tidal environment. Corrosion city. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:46:33 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Probability of success Alan: Just was shutting down the computer on my way out for a few days vacation on the coast, sans phone, email, and other distractions. I'll try to pick this up when I get back - if I can remember what it was I was concerned about . I just did not want to seem rude when I drop off the face of the earth. Most importantly, what I would like to encourage people to do is sketch out some of the alternatives themselves - my own misgivings are meaningless unless they make some sense to others. (1) Try sketching out a search pattern for Howland, recognizing that there is more uncertainty N-S than E-W, and see how much territory you could cover before splashdown (give yourself enough fuel to reach Niku). (2) Try estimating the error in the LOP, add more slop for flying back and forth, then expand your area of uncertainty as you move toward Niku with estimates of how well a DR could be followed, and add whatever you feel would be a good value for error in estimating wind drift. The uncertainty can grow pretty wide at that range, and Niku is out on the end by itself. (3) Then look at the idea that they could have simply headed for the center of mass of the Phoenix group, with the recognition that with a 10-12 mi "spotting range" (color the islands and a 10-12 mile radius circle and it really jumps out) the Phoenix group looks more like a catcher's mitt with few gaps. Sketch some parallel lines from the upper side of that arc of islands and from maybe Hull or Sydney or Mckean on the south. Factor in some divergence like in the Niku example, and look how far north or south of Howland they could be (without knowing where they are) and still virtually blunder into one of the group. Add another in flight sun LOP on the way, and see how that improves things. Well, gotta go. I don't mean to be a rabble rouser. Again, nothing in this says that they did not end up at Niku - I just can't figure out how the 157-337 LOP supports the idea. Maybe we all simply would have done different things if faced with this situation. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:47:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: How Common Are Castaways? > Refresh my memory. What part of this investigation are you researching to > "move the ball forward"? Kenton, as a lawyer I am quite familiar with productive arguments and the first sign of my opponent's weak or insupportable argument is when he shifts his attack to a personal nature. I shall assume I misinterpreted your comment. I am quite analytical but I'm afraid I'm still missing the significance of your castaway argument. I'm open to enlightenment. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:40:44 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: FN's navigation Dave Porter raises excellent questions. Let me try to answer them briefly. As Ric has already pointed out, the Oakland-to-Honolulu and Lae-Howland distances were comparable. And Noonan definitely was assuming that there would be a radio bearing to guide him to Howland at the end of the trip. The Oakland - Honolulu flight is the only documented example we have of Noonan's navigation practices. What we see there is that he never used more than two celestial bodies in a fix (a two-body celestial fix taken with a hand-held bubble octant can be in error by 20 miles or more), he allowed intervals of 2 to 3 hours between fixes, and that he assumed that he would get a radio bearing to steer at the end of the flight. Absent evidence to the contrary, we assume that this was typical of Noonan's navigation. If Noonan didn't know where he was at the time he expected to get the radio bearing from the Itasca, it would not be surprising that the best he could do was to get a sun line and say that he was somewhere on the 357/157 LOP. We are not aware of any instances in which Noonan used 3-body fixes, whether or not radio bearing assistance. Dave is correct that a three-body fix in daylight is not feasible. Noonan did have the sun and moon available on the fateful morning. As for what Noonan could have done to back up the LOP, he could have prepared for the worst case , i.e. that the expected radio bearing from the Itasca would not be available, and take very frequent fixes to reduce the cumulative position error to a manageable level. Hope this helps, Dave. Bob Brandenburg, #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric We also have the South Atlantic crossing, as documented on the chart he actually used (now at Purdue). Another long, over-water flight but with no expectation of a radio bearing at the end. It also has the advantage of there being no question as to who is doing the navigating. I don't have a copy of the entire chart. Randy, do you? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:53:08 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Taroa Mike, You must be misinterpeting statements attributed to John Heine in Brink's book. The persons that did the interviews on Majuro in 1982 have told me that the Heine brothers never made those statements to them. In the absence of any return calls from Brink as to supportive evidence to these statements, my assumption is the same as Ric's comments to me the first time I spoke to him years ago." Randall Brink put lies in his books so they would sell". In the absence of any reply by Randall to my requests for clarification on these points, I concur with Ric. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric Welllll... lying involves intent to deceive and I certainly can not speak to Mr. Brinks' intent. Let's just say that this book is strewn with statements that are not true. Whether he is careless, a liar, or just stupid is not for me to say. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:55:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP's > Fortunately, the errors are seldom all in the same direction. Usually, but > not always, some average out others. Bob, that was an excellent posting on the problems of celestial as it pertains to our subject. I hope everyone can see that even with everything going for Noonan his navigation to Howland might at best put him in the general vicinity of where Howland actually was or where it was erroneously plotted. It then depended on a visual sighting either by the crew or those on the ground or a DF steer. Clearly none of that was forthcoming. The more this subject is looked at I think it becomes clearer that hitting Howland was a far more difficult task in 1937 than they realized. It also is obvious that losing the belly antenna, not assuring DF was working and not establishing two way communication combined into a fatal scenario. From take off there were many opportunities to resolve those difficulties but no attempt was made to do so. It is possible that the lower antenna snapping off made no audible sound and that no one on the ground watching the take off saw it. I have my doubts. AE wasn't much for radio communications and there probably wasn't all that much in the way of position reporting in 1937. I am only guessing at that. Also, in spite of never being able to talk to anyone she was still stubbornly broadcasting as though she couldn't quite get it through her head that she had no two way capability. The DF never worked on their trip so I can only assume FN was counting on a steer from the Itasca. It's hard to imagine planning a more unsuccessful flight. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:52:40 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Castaway Research > If Kenton wants to chase shoes, > castaways or frigate birds - baffling as it may be to me or others - I say > "Go for it!" I do not mean to deter anyone (even the wombat) from any rabbit trail. I just find it harder to contribute to a thread I don't understand and hope for clarifying posts. In most of our ramblings a few gems oftimes emerge. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:59:18 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Taroa Ric wrote: > Speaking of sharing information, it would be interesting and informative to > see a picture of airplanes being buried at Taroa. Until the dig is completed, or I get a more generous funding offer than the one on the table, it will remain my intellectual property. The money proffered at the moment is only enough to walk the area to ascertain wether the area has been disturbed since the war ended. As you know Ric, the cost of renting Mag Scan and GPR requires a full value deposit. We dont have that kind of money. I very much envy your funding skills, something I have no experience at. I will state that if someone is willing to underwrite the trip with more funds, that I will share all of my information with them when the ink is dry on the check. Ric is welcome to put my email address up for anyone interested if he likes, at the same time I dont want to take money away from his own efforts. I'm just not that kind of person. I will also state that if I am successful, I will give TIGHAR the bulk of my research to post. I certainly owe him that. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Woody's email address is planeguy@etahoe.com I have no fear that Woody will take money away from TIGHAR's efforts. He has made the differences between his approach and ours crystal clear. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:02:08 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation Dave Bush wrote: > Finally, for the presumed Howland vicinity/Gardner flight, Fred would > (obviously) not be expecting radio bearing assistance for the final > approach. > Since this flight was during daylight, what sort of celestial nav./DR/etc. > did FN have available? Is there any record of FN using more precise > techniques, i.e. 3 body fixes, on flights where radio bearing assistance was > not anticipated for final approach? I'm guessing that one cannot get a 3 > body celestial fix during daylight, correct? Was there any technique > available to FN to back up the LOP run to Gardner that might give him a > greater certainty of success? Granted of course that if something was > available, whether or not he used it would be pure speculation. Dave, Ric answered your questions about FN expecting a DF at Howland. I think it is pretty clear he did. More than that it appears he NEEDED it. As to what Noonan had available upon reaching the vicinity of Howland he had the sun, moon and Venus clouds permitting. They would not have given him more than a two body fix due to their positions but he could have used all three to refine his position. If he had visibility to shoot sun shots he would have also had an east/west wind component and a ground speed. It is possible to get a three body fix in the daylight depending on the location of the bodies. Ideally we looked for a fairly equal triangulation if possible. I don't know what FN's navigation was like but some here on the forum are better qualified to answer that than I am. On the flight down to Niku FN had the same capability but no more. He would have repeatedly shot the sun and whatever else was up to navigate to the Phoenix group. He should have had a course line from the sun and still an east/west wind component. If the planet Venus was visible he could have obtained a speed line and a two body fix. I would have to go into the charts to see if he had more than the sun on the way to Niku. Something I have always fretted about was the visibility out of the airplane to shoot celestial. I don't know what the limitations were. Maybe someone here can answer that. I would suggest everyone keep in mind that wherever the celestial body was directionally the airplane could be turned to that was not a limitation - only an aggravation. The real question is how high an angle could Fred shoot. I have recently been advised by a long time military navigator that a shot could be taken in a slight but constant climb and certainly a slight roll with no heading change could expand the available angle. Only the sextant needs to be level. I'm not sure AE would have had sufficient skill to do either but it remains a possibility. If anyone wants to refute or support that concept I would be glad to hear from them. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:09:19 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: The closest thing to Niku I was there (Palmyra) about 20 years ago with a group that dug up a trunk full of bones , it became a double murder case! We sailed dowm there to spend a week looking at the WW2 sites that remained. Most of the stuff was slipping into the ocean, even back then. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric That murder case was later written up as a very fine book entitled (as I recall) "...And the Sea Shall Tell". The island also has its own wrecked Lockheed - a Lodestar that was wrecked bringing in a load of Hams (radio-type, not porcine). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:31:34 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Taroa If you want to find it on a map Dennis, it's part of Maloelap Atoll in the Marshall's. Dirk Spenneman has an excellent site about the Marshalls but I cant find the URL at the moment. Maybe Ric or Tom has it - they may even have put it on thge Forum recently. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:32:41 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart Woody -- I'm sure you're right about the name of the actual leader of the survey pack at Taroa; I don't have the report myself, but reviewed it some time ago at the National Park Service (which funded the work). As for the site names -- hey, you've got to call 'em something, and a numbering system like that is common archeological practice -- in part to avoid the bias and misinterpretation inherent in ascribing a use or specific place name to something you're not sure about. Sorry it's not useful to you, but I recall it as quite a thorough survey, to judge from the report, and Dirk Spenneman is nothing if not compulsive about detail. Good luck with your search. I trust that you're coordinating it with the Historic Preservation Office, and are getting all the necessary permits. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:33:21 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Lagoon deposit Incidentally, Jim Maragos is quoted extensively in the National Geographic article on Palmyra. Not about Niku, however. TK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:35:20 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Castaways, By Design The overall idea is not to do an exhaustive analysis of the statistics surrounding castaways. That was my poor attempt at pointing out that you should not throw around words like "rare" if you cannot back it up with data or apply the concept to a benchmark. Because Ric claimed castaways were rare you have the danger of it suddenly becoming gospel. A qualifier like "in my opinion" [they are rare] or "my gut feeling is" [they are rare] should be used. Apparent statements of fact on this Forum are subject to data calls. I will try to do a better job of articulating comments with that intent in the future in the continuing, but thankless job, of battling closed minds. We currently have two known instances of the British stumbling across human bones on islands. Both finds include evidence of women. You mignt ask: Was it unusual for the British to find skeletons on islands in the Pacific that included evidence of the female gender? I am hoping that my investigation into the how and why of what the British did in regards to the Henderson Island castaway will shed some light on the Gardner issue. that is all Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:36:30 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Castaways, Some Sources Chris K (and many others) wrote: ........"how many people have been lost overboard/shipwrecked over the years based on ships logs, etc)......" The reported sources of castaways in the historical literature is interesting. Some sources of Castaways include: 1. Shipwrecks (the popular "romantized" notion) 2. Intentionally put ashore by a Ship's Captain as punishment 3. Put ashore by the Captain at the request of the sailor...Sometimes due to the romantic notion of the castaway life, other times after becoming sick or delusional, etc.. 4. Unintenionally left behind, while a shore party was scouting for food/water an enemy or pirate ship would appear (after laying in wait) causing the mother ship to flee. K. Spading ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:48:36 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: The LOP again Maybe I'm just dense, but _assuming_ I'm somewhere on that line, but not knowing exactly where, how would I determine whether I'm not _already_ at the _extreme_ left (or NW) end of the line, when my chronometers inform me we should be intersecting with Howland (the dot in the middle of the line)? According to your explanation, it would seem I would have to have some reasonable knowledge of just how close to Howland I am on the LOP, in order to determine which way I should turn & for just how long I could maintain such a course, because if in fact I'm already _at_ the NW extremity of the 7" LOP line you've drawn, I'm already 350nm NW of Howland & turning NW (which we must presume they did, given AE's ...'running north & south'... message) for any extended period could seriously affect my ability to ultimately reach Gardner at the opposite end of the LOP, if after turning SE, I happen to miss Howland/Baker a second time. Is it possible that as the Electra approached Howland & assuming that FN had _not_ calculated a deliberate off-set, either NW or SE of Howland, could he have determined that they were on either the NW or SE side of Howland simply by the position of the aircraft, with reference to the rising sun, which if I recall correctly, should have been directly in front of them, if AE had accurately maintained their originally charted course during the night time hours of the flight... of course not considering any significant wind drift during the night... or am I again oversimplifying ? Frankly, I just find it hard to _believe_ that FN could have been off course 350nm to the NW , if the much later reports from residents of Tabiteuea, in the Gilberts, about hearing an aircraft over their island during the night, is true. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric No, Noonan could not tell which side of Howland he was on based upon the position of the sun because its progress across the sky was not enough different from where it had been at sunrise to give him a meanigful "cut." I too doubt that Noonan was 350 miles off when he hit the LOP but the point is that he couldn't know that for sure. (Even if the Tabituaea report is accurate, it was pitch dark when they crossed that area and they had no way of knowing that somebody heard them.) Not knowing where he was on the line, he did know that heading southeastward on the line while he still had enough fuel to go 350 miles was the best way to guarantee that he would reach some kind of land. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:52:46 EST From: Ken Feder Subject: Re: Pacific Preservation Ric asked: > Interesting. Is the Corsair above or below water, and if below, how deep? > If above, is it subjected to surf action? How much is left? The Corsair is below water; not sure how deep. The photo appears to my highly untrained eye to show a propeller and engine cowling (???I'm at home and the article is now in my office at the university and I wouldn't know what I was looking at anyway). There is another photo in the piece of the remains of a WWII airplane on land. The article in question presents a very brief discussion of WWII archeological sites in the Pacific so there is not a lot of detail. I would be happy to send you a photocopy of the article if it is of interest. **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ken. No need. There are lots and lots of examples of airplanes on the bottoms of lagoons and in the bush. I have yet to see an example of an airplane surviving for any length of time on an exposed fringing reef. Ken Feder ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:54:13 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Probability of success Tom MM wrote: > Then > look at the idea that they could have simply headed for the center of mass > of the Phoenix group, with the recognition that with a 10-12 mi "spotting > range" (color the islands and a 10-12 mile radius circle and it really > jumps out) the Phoenix group looks more like a catcher's mitt with few Catcher's mitt! Doesn't give you all the analysis we need? Sounds good to me Tom. That's how I would have thought of the Phoenix group had I been in Fred's shoes. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:03:37 EST From: Greg Rudzinski Subject: Re: FN's navigation A tamaya NC 88 navigational computor shows that between 1600GMT and 2000GMT 7/2/1937 Fred Noonan had the moon visable with meridianal passage occuring around 1830GMT. Any hole in the sky would have given him an oppotunity to obtain an accurate latitude by observing the moon at about 77 degrees of elevation with an azimuth of 000. He also had venus and the sun visible giving him a three LOP fix during day light. I believe FN scheduled the flight from Lae to Howland to take advantage of the available celestial bodies on that final morning. Venus could have been observed with a 157/337 LOP at around 1800GMT. This may have been his last observation rather than a low altitude observation of the sun which would have been obscured by clouds if any were present. Two hours of dead reckoning at 110kts has the potential for large errors. Has anyone considered the posibility of FN transposing Howland island and Baker island inadvertently when preparing his plotting sheet from a chart? **************************************************************************** From Ric Whoa! Is that correct? Would the Moon yield a 157/337 LOP at 1800 GMT? At 17:45 GMT Earhart says she's approximately 200 miles out but that's too early for Noonan to have gotten a sunrise shot. Might the Moon have been the primary source for that estimate and for the 157/337 LOP? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:04:56 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Taroa Tom, I certainly have my concerns about unexploded ordinance. The History of Marine Corps Aviation in WW2 lists 12,918 tons of bombs and rockets fired at the four Ratak chain bases ( Wotje, Mille, Jaluit and Maloelap)with a 30 % dud rate. This doesn't include ship shelling! The math comes out to 1,937,700 pounds of unexploded bombs and rockets per atoll. Thats a lot of nitro! There used to be a bunker full of torpedoes of the type used at Pearl Harbor on Taroa, but I was told that they were removed and destroyed in 1998. Apparently the US military removes the ordinance as part of irregular training. I am going to ask about this when I'm out there. Tourists regularly walk through the area where the planes are. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:07:58 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: FN's navigation >......given the greater degree of difficulty >of the flight (Howland after 2500 miles being a more difficult target than >the Hawaiian Islands after 1500 miles) The smallness of Howland and the fatigue from so many hours in flight might well make for a greater degree of difficulty. >......for the presumed Howland vicinity/Gardner flight, Fred would >(obviously) not be expecting radio bearing assistance for the final >approach. (--To Gardner). > Since this flight was during daylight, what sort of celestial >nav./DR/etc. >did FN have available? Sun and Moon, unless obscured by weather. At daybreak the Moon would have been high, and would not have set until around noon. The 1937 Nautical Almanac predicted the coordinates of those bodies. --The Sun at 2-hour GCT intervals, and the Moon at 1-hour GCT intervals. Various books of tables were available for computing the height at which a body should be seen from some assumed position. Noonan might well have used the Dreisonstok "Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators" which he had been known to favor. >Is there any record of FN using more precise >techniques, i.e. 3 body fixes....... Accuracy and precision can be improved with the averaging of sights. Given the same number of sights, a 2-body fix should be as good as a 3-body fix, so long as the LOPs cross with a fairly good cut. The usefulness of the 3-body fix is that if the triangle that is produced is too large it alerts the navigator that something is wrong. >I'm guessing that one cannot get a 3 >body celestial fix during daylight, correct? Crossing Sun, Moon, and Venus LOPs: To spot Venus when the Sun is up is plenty difficult, but in ideal conditions it is a possibility. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:15:14 EST From: Dave Porter Subject: Noonan nav. part 2 If my post suggested that I thought FN wasn't expecting radio bearing help from Itasca to make landfall at Howland, I must have misstated something in my unique, convoluted way.& I did say that (obviously) no radio bearing assistance was expected for the presumed flight down the LOP to Gardner. Sorry if I was confusing on that point. The question was regarding the validity of comparing Oakland/Hawaii to Lae/Howland. Yes, radio bearing assistance was expected in both cases, but it seems to one admittedly inexperienced in such matters that the more difficult target of the latter might call for more precise technique prior to the anticipated radio assistance. Then again, for one deeply experienced in such matters, like FN, the "familiarity breeds contempt syndrome" could come into play. Something along the lines of "So Howland's a flyspeck--who cares, Itasca's going to bring us in by radio anyway, no need to bother with super-precise fixes." Now I've wandered off course into speculation, which I didn't want to do, which is why I said originally that I will accept the opinions of those who have done the research. Feel free to answer while I remove my foot from my mouth... LTM, Dave (2288) **************************************************************************** From Ric You wording wasn't confusing. I just didn't read it carefully enough. Sorry. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:30:28 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Captain Friedell This is a probably out of topic, and certainly not part of the current discussion topics, but I thought it could be interesting for people interested in the history of the late thirties and WWII. I was looking on the net for available data on Cpt Friedell (the Colorado skipper). Here is what I found on www.csp.navy.mil/admirals/friedell.htm "Rear Admiral Friedell, born in Texarkana, Arkansas, August 22, 1883, was appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy from the Third District of his native state in 1901. Graduated in February 1905, he served the two years afloat then required by law before he was commissioned Ensign, January 31, 1907. He subsequently progressed in grade until his promotion to Rear Admiral, June 23, 1938. His tours included stops on USS Kentucky, USS Helena, the gunboat Villalobos, USS New Orleans, USS C-3, USS Bushnell, USS Connecticut, USS Rainbow, and USS Colorado. Shore assignments had him serving as an instructor in the Department of Marine Engineering and Naval Construction at the Naval Academy, in command of the First Division Submarine Flotilla, Atlantic Fleet, in command of the Submarine Repair Division, Navy Yard, Philadelphia, as instructor in the Department of Modern Languages at the Naval Academy, in command of Submarine Division 11, as department head of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Physics at the Naval Academy, commander of Submarine Divsion 12, commander of the Naval Gun Factory, Chief of Staff and Aide to the Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District, Pearl Harbor, as Commander Submarine Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet, as Commandant of the Naval Yard at Mare Island, California, and finally as Commandant of the Eleventh Naval District and Commander Naval Base, San Diego. It was during Admiral Friedell's tour as commanding officer of the USS Colorado that he supervised the search effort for the Amelia Earhart-Fred Noonan plane, lost in the Pacific in 1937. He retired on May 1, 1946 and passed away January 27, 1958." Commander Submarine Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet: in 1940-41 Commandant of the Naval Yard at Mare Island, California : in 1942-43 Commandant of the Eleventh Naval District and Commander Naval Base, San Diego 1944-45 Looking on what was available on these various assignments I found the following link : James V. Forrestal papers, correspondence - 1943, Box 58 Albert J. Bullitt, William. Re Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy. ... Franklin, Walter. Fraser, Bert. Frech, Richard J. Freeman, CS. Friedell, WL. Froelick, Howard. http://libweb.princeton.edu:2003/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/forrest al/forrestal_4.html [More Results From: libweb.princeton.edu] I could not connect to this link so I have no idea what it is exactly. It seems to be a collection of correspondence by J. Forrestal, secretary for the Navy, with various peoples. This collection being somewhere in a library at Princeton. The interesting things being the presence of W. Friedell's name, and the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy being somewhere connected also. In 1943, Friedell was Commandant of the Naval Yard at Mare Island, California , one, if not the largest ship yard for the Navy on the West Coast. So as there could be ample reasons for correspondence between these 2 peoples. But what has the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy to do whit this ? Do you think it is worth that somebody takes a look at the library at Princeton ? Best Regards, Edgard Engelman **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, as captain of the Colorado, Friedell had three airplanes aboard which were part of BuAer. When Friedell submitted Lambrecht's article for the BuAer weekly news letter there was a stink about Lambrecht's "informal style" which generated correspondence from the Chief of BuAer all the way up the CNO and CINCUS. That may be what they're referring to. If somebody has time to run it down it would at least answer the question and possibly head off some assertion that it was correspondence about the burning of the Electra on saipan. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:35:10 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: doubts Alan Caldwell said: "It is possible that the lower antenna snapping off made no audible sound and that no one on the ground watching the take off saw it. I have my doubts." I'm unclear as to what your doubts are. Are you doubting that the belly antenna snapped off, or are you doubting that if it did the noise would've been audible in the cockpit? If the antennae did snap off (and there is strong evidence for that argument) I believe that there is no way AE would've heard that noise over the sound of the engines, the banging of the airframe and landing gear as it trundled over rough ground with its 1,100 gallons of fuel and made its take-off run. Also, are you suggesting that witnesses to the take off "should" have been able to see the antenna come off? Remember, this is a "grass" strip (AKA dirt) and there was a lot of debris and dust being raised as the plane come up to full power and accelerated. That, added to the excitement of the event, would be more than enough of an excuse to not see the antenna break off and fall away. Ric, baby! what the URL again for the take-off video? LTM, who no longer trundles Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Dennis, sweetie, the takeoff video is at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ameliavideo.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:58:16 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: FN's navigation >Absent evidence to the contrary, we assume that this was >typical of Noonan's navigation. Ric: I think everyone is still comparing apples to oranges on this. The Hawaiian chain and the African coast were huge targets and only a blind man would miss them. Howland was much smaller and I think that Noonan would have been more on the ball on trying to steer directly to it. Also, considering the distance that one can receive DF, the fact that AE/FN went below the cloud cover indicates to me that they felt they were very close to the Island, because below 1000 feet, your DF range is greatly reduced. Thus you wouldn't drop down that low unless you felt certain that you were within range. So, anyone out there know how far they could out they could expect to get a DF steer at 1000 feet? LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric Once more, with feeling.....Noonan had no way of knowing how close he was to the island. He could only calculate what time he should reach the advanced LOP. He hoped that he would strike the advanced LOP at or within visual range of Howland - so he would naturally want to be down below the clouds as he approached that time. If you think that missing your destination on the West African coast is no big deal, take a look at the map - especially as it was in 1937. Talk about Darkest Africa.... As for the ease of hitting the Hawaiin chain, apparently Charles Ulm was blind because he missed them in 1934 and was never found. I am unconvinced by arguments that Noonan "would have tried harder" on the Lae/Howland flight than he did on other long over-water flights. Did Earhart make a successful takeoff at Lae because she tried harder than she did in Hawaii? Or had she become more proficient through practice? Are Noonan's navigational techniques and performance on recent successful transoceanic flights reliable indicators of his probable techniques and performance on the flight in question? I suspect so. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:23:29 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Niku I just downloaded the photo of Niku from your web and I'm using it as a screen saver. It's really an impressive photo, you should seriously consider producing a calendar. I do have a question about several areas of the atoll. If you start at the Norwich and walk up the channel, there is a bare spot to the right. There is a larger bare spot on the left (other side of the channnel) and near the point there appears to be a smaller bare spot. What are these? *************************************************************************** From Ric Here's something else from the TIGHAR website that you might use as a screensaver: <> We have produced and marketed a Niku calendar for the past two years. The bare spots you describe are low-lying areas that flood during high tidal or storm events. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:24:29 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: LOP's > From Alan Caldwell > > ... Also, in spite of never being able to talk to anyone > she was still stubbornly broadcasting as though she couldn't quite get it > through her head that she had no two way capability. ... She did have limited two-way capability. She knew that she was heard on 3105 because the Itasca transmitted the letter A on 7500 at her request. Maybe she and FN could have taken advantage of this link, if they had realized that it was their ONLY link with the Itasca. But, if I understand the record, her last message was something like, "I'm going to switch to 6210 now." Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:26:37 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: FN's navigation I have copies of both the S. Atlantic crossing and the Oakland-Honolulu crossings, but they are too large to conveniently copy or scan electronically. Parenthetically, I should mention that I've not done a rigorous analysis of the Oakland-Honolulu map writings to determine whether it was FJN or Manning who made the markings. They do look very similar to later writings that we know came from FJN. FJN did attempt a couple of 3-body fixes, but they were not satisfactory. The S. Atlantic crossing has but one fix or observation in the middle of the ocean that I cannot explain how FJN came to that particular point, as the "planets" don't line up. **************************************************************************** From Ric They were also reportedly in solid cloud for almost the whole trip. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:27:56 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Mooning? Ric asked: Might the Moon have been the primary source for that estimate and for the 157/337 LOP? If so, they would have been about 260 miles WEST of Howland, right? Oops! LTM, who may pine but doesn't moon Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric ???????? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:08:55 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: FN's navigation Greg Rudzinski wrote: << A tamaya NC 88 navigational computor shows that > between 1600GMT and 2000GMT 7/2/1937 Fred Noonan had > the moon visable with meridianal passage occuring > around 1830GMT. Any hole in the sky would have given > him an oppotunity to obtain an accurate latitude by > observing the moon at about 77 degrees of elevation > with an azimuth of 000.>> As everyone will agree, I know almost nothing about navigation, but it appears to me that the writer of the above posting is stating that it should have been possible for Noonan to have gotten a fix on his latitude the morning of the approach to Howland. Assuming I don't have longitude and latitude confused, haven't we been saying up until now that Noonan would NOT have been able to determine whether he was north or south of Howland when turning onto the LOP? However, if he were able to determine his latitude, then shouldn't he have known which way to turn on the LOP to intersect Howland?? Hmmmmm.....this all raises interesting questions, one of which would seem to be lessening the necessity of receiving a radio fix from the Itasca. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm eagerly awaiting a response from the Celestial Choir. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:11:04 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Taroa >From Woody, > > Mike, You must be misinterpeting statements attributed to John Heine > in Brink's book. The persons that did the interviews on Majuro in > 1982 have told me that the Heine brothers never made those statements > to them. I think I'm interpreting it right; look at page 155. However, you uncover the detail that the statements were never made ... The story has all the detail and the lack of detail that I have come to expect from memories separated by a war and time from the telling. Parts of the book, therefore, seem reasonable by one measure. It took me a while to reach page 155, however. >From Ric > > Welllll... lying involves intent to deceive and I certainly can not speak to > Mr. Brinks intent. Let's just say that this book is strewn with statements > that are not true. Whether he is careless, a liar, or just stupid is not for > me to say. I'm not going to attempt to determine his motives, but whatever he is, he's sloppy. On page 150 Brink records that a Japanese pilot stated that he made two passes at the intruder, firing once. There's a footnote for this: "ITASCA radio reports, in the U.S. Navy Reports of Search for Earhart." I think I put the book down when I read the citation: if it were accurate, the conspiracy had been documented for a long time, and it was available to anyone who asked. Funny that no one else seems to have uncovered that bit of information, using the same sources. From all I've read, looking around Niku is going to be a lot more profitable than any alternatives I've seen. In the meantime, I have a paper about Soviet computers to write for a class. On the other hand, there's a hell of a novel in all this .... Thanks, Ric. LTM (who checks her footnotes) Mike ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:12:43 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Captain Friedell > From Edgard Engelman > > Commander Submarine Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet: in 1940-41 > Commandant of the Naval Yard at Mare Island, California : in 1942-43 > Commandant of the Eleventh Naval District and Commander Naval Base, San Diego > 1944-45 > I find this list of Adm. Friedell's assignments very telling. Apparently Adm. Kimmel (CINCPAC Fleet on Dec. 7th '41) wasn't the only scapegoat for the lack of defense preparedness at Pearl. Friedell was an operational combat commander (COMSUBPAC) at Pearl Harbor until the attack. He was then sent back to the States to oversee a ship refit/repair facility. His next wartime assignment, although an important one with a lot of responsibility, was another "desk" job Stateside, keeping him away from combat decision making. Those jobs going to the now famous names of Nimitz, Hulsey, Spruence, etc. Friedell also retired as a Rear Admiral, the rank he achieved in 1938. He never got his third star. A ruined career. (Sorry for the off-topic wandering Ric) LTM Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:18:30 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: More mooning From Ric responding to Greg Rudzinski "Whoa! Is that correct? Would the Moon yield a 157/337 LOP at 1800 GMT? At 17:45 GMT Earhart says she's approximately 200 miles out but that's too early for Noonan to have gotten a sunrise shot. Might the Moon have been the primary source for that estimate and for the 157/337 LOP?" My point was that if the moon was the source of the 157/337 LOP at 1800GMT she was about 260 miles west of Howland and SURELY wouldn't have expected to see Howland. Would she? And surely wouldn't have started a run up and down the LOP, right? LTM, who is easily confused Dennis McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Whether derived from the sun, the moon, or a Ouija board - the LOP Fred got early in the morning was then advanced theoretically until it fell through his intended destination. He then measured the distance between the LOP he was on and the advanced LOP, plugged in his groundspeed, and came up with a time when the plane would reach the advanced line. That time was apparently a few minutes before 19:12 GMT when AE said, "We must be on you but..." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:28:00 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: FN's navigation Having flown in the Lockheed 10A (which has the same cockpit windows as AE's Lockheed 10E) I can say that the view from the cockpit is good and far better than from a DC-3. The windscreen is high and wide and so are the both side windows (which can be opened in flight). Sitting in the right hand cockpit seat FN had excellent view forward and to the right and using his sextant should not have been difficult. As the sun climbed AE could have lifted the nose of the aircraft to facilitate FN's work (which would have resulted in an increase of altitude). When looking at pictures of AE's Lockheed10E one can see that it also had two large observation windows in the rear fuselage, one on each side. If Fred was not sitting up front he would have been able to make fixes from his navigator's position in the rear. I'm not sure what angle the fuselage windows allow but I agree that it would have a simple matter for AE to tilt the aircraft a bit and allow FN to have a better view of any celestial body available from one of the windows. Remember that the cockpit windows could be opened for a greater obvservation angle. I believe the starboard fuselage window was in fact an emergency exit and the Electra not being pressurised, could be opened in flight if this was really necessary. **************************************************************************** From Ric On the standard Lockheed 10 the emergency hatch was as you describe but that was not the case in Earhart's machine. The large nonstandard window installed in the lavatory area of NR16020 prior to the first world flight attempt and subsequently skinned-over before the departure from Miami on the second attempt appears to be the same dimensions as the standard emergency exit. I wonder if the skinned-over window was, in fact, a hatch that could be removed in flight for taking unobstructed celestial sightings. Hmmm. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:37:26 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart Tom , I am learning more and more on the ins and outs of the laymans view of professional archaeology. I foolishly thought that the sites would have names like "the command post" or "the Admiral's quarters" instead of letters and numbers. The HPO office told me that in the book I purchased,"sites were identified". And Tom, I never commit to anything without having all my ducks in a row. I have the HPO's permit and regulations book complements of their office. The State Archaeologist at the time was most helpful and courteous.I understand the positision is again open.Thanks for your comments. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:39:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Pacific Preservation There are actually three planes portrayed; one entirely on dry ground, two entirely underwater. I've never seen an aluminum anything survive repeated exposures to both air and salt water. The whole Pacific Preservation issue is pretty interesting; I thought I'd try to get a copy or two for you to take to the museum and library folks on Tarawa, to show them what their neighbors to the north are up to. TK **************************************************************************** From Ric That would be good. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:50:30 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: FN's navigation I'm going entirely on memory, as my planetary information in buried in moving boxes. The moon was about 35% lit, and was oriented behind the plane towards the west. Since it follows (very approximately) the path of the sun, it would not give the 157/337 LOP, but a fairly oblique angle to it. I'll have to doublecheck and rerun the computer program to give you a better answer at this time. **************************************************************************** From Ric I misread Greg Rudzinski's post. It's Venus that he says would yield a 157/337 LOP at 1800 GMT. He says the Moon, at 000 azimuth at 1830 GMT, would yield a 90/270 LOP, thus providing latitude information. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:56:32 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Screensaver Gee Ric, I didn't mean to infringe on any of TIGHAR's photographs, and certainly I'm not going to try and peddle them to my neighbors. Does this mean I'm going to receive a mid-night call from the screensaver police? *************************************************************************** From Ric The reasons for the restrictions are many and, no, you will receive no visits from Cousin Vinnie. The photo has an imbedded virus that will erase your hard drive after a preset number of uses. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:59:20 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: FN's navigation Wait a minute. Do I get this right ? If the moon yielded an LOP at 17.45 that made AE say they were 200 miles out, then flying at 1.8 miles a minute (at 110 knots) they should have reached the 157/337 LOP for Howland 111 minutes later, meaning their ETA for the Howland 157/337 LOP would have been 19.36 GMT, right? Yet if we believe AE/FN were calculating from their moon LOP at 17.45 this could explain why at 19.30 AE said "Must be on you but cannot see you..." This was six minutes after they reached their LOP ETA, right ? In that case the six minutes difference put them within 10.8 miles from the island, probably prompting AE to say "we are circling...". If they were not within the 10.8 mile range, something was wrong with their navigation. Surely the sunrise would have been FN's second fix and should have provided him with a position update ? So either the sunrise confirmed his calculations and they expected to hit upon the LOP as scheduled or the sun didn't rise in the right place, in which case FN would have recalculated their position. In that case AE would not have expected to be on the LOP and say "We are upon you..." when she did. I feel we are finding more questions than answers. **************************************************************************** From Ric Herman, you have it almost as screwed up as I did. Let's see what the Celestial Choir has to say. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:02:26 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Moon LOP I re-ran the planetary computer program supplied by the Oceanographer of the Navy. Input time was July 2, 1937, 1800 GMT at position 27'N, 178*15'W, which is about in the area that one could expect to be to sight the sunrise along the Electra track. It's only a ballpark position, but you'll see that the results aren't that sensitive. The sun is at at angle of 67* E of N, and has a GHA (Greenwich Hour Angle) of 167*. The GHA is the standard measure of position relative to the Greenwich meridian, and states that the sun is 167* west of Greenwich overhead position. To get the LOP, add 90* and 270* to the angle of 67*, yielding 157/337*. Previous runs indicate a fair amount of real estate E/W that yields the same 67* direction. It takes quite some time before the sun rises sufficiently to change the angle. The moon is at an angle of 37.9* E of N, and has a GHA of 89*. Taking the difference of GHA (78*) says that the moon is 78* further W than the sun. This coincides with the moon being "gibbous" or crescent shape with 37% illumination. The LOP would be 90 and 270* added to 38*, or 128/308*. What's good about the moon is that it does give a reasonable "high noon" shot somewhat later, good for determining latitude. Crossing the two LOP's at 1800 GMT is not terribly good, being only 30*. For a two-body fix, one seeks a 90* crossing, not 30*. BTW, Venus rose about 3 hours prior to the sun. **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Randy. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:04:50 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation Bob Brandenburg wrote: > Dave is correct that a three-body fix in daylight is not feasible. Noonan > did have the sun and moon available on the fateful morning. Bob, I think for all practical purposes you are correct and we don't really know for certain what the weather was but it appears from U.S. Naval Observatory data that the planet Venus was available that morning. I have no clue as to whether FN had Almanac data to make use of it but the following was data for 19:50Z at Howland: Object GHA Dec Hc Zn Sun 116 32.2 N23 02.0 +27 39.6 64.2 Moon 194 07.8 N14 06.0 +68 10.4 308.3 Venus 164 34.7 N15 58.1 +70 43.7 37.5 Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:19:51 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Castaways, By Design > Apparent statements of fact on this Forum are subject to data calls. I will > try to do a better job of articulating comments with that intent in the > future in the continuing, but thankless job, of battling closed minds. Kenton, thanks for the post. I'm perfectly clear now and you are correct that trying to open closed minds and shoot down misconceptions is a constant chore and often not well received. There are many theories as to what happened to our famous duo and HOW it happened. To muddy the waters just a little it only takes one small misstatement and we are off on a foolish excursion. The phenomenal lack of information certainly contributes to that. Just as an example I have suggested a third body, the planet Venus was possibly available to Noonan but of course I don't know that for a fact. Weather conditions, lack of almanac data, or other reasons might have made that impractical or impossible. Maybe FN just thought he didn't need it. I've made that statement for a long time and no one has told me I'm wrong. I may be but no one has shot Venus down yet. In spite of that it seems generally accepted that FN only had the sun to shoot. Maybe so but I'm not sure why that view is held. On the other hand we may see in the coming months statements of "fact" that Venus was available. I've seen postings that FN got 2 star fixes on the way to Howland. The postings sound like facts in concrete but without knowing the weather enroute we have no clue whether he got ANY fixes. And you are also right we DO have a tendency to make seemingly vague comments but many of those are to avoid going back over lots of detail we erroneously think everyone already knows. Keeping us all honest IS a thankless job but keep at it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:20:47 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Probability of success > Catcher's mitt! Doesn't give you all the analysis we need? Sounds good to me Replying to my own post which was in error. I left out a meaningful word, "that." It should have read "Catcher's mitt! Doesn't THAT give you all the analysis we need?" Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:22:06 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation Ric wrote: > Are Noonan's > navigational techniques and performance on recent successful transoceanic > flights reliable indicators of his probable techniques and performance on > the flight in question? I suspect so. Noonan WAS a good professional. As such he probably navigated the same no matter what or where. My navigator did. Even though we had radars and great nav aids his celestial and DRs were done quite precisely when in fact he could have noozed most of the way. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:23:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: doubts > I'm unclear as to what your doubts are. Dennis, I'm not doubting the antenna snapped off. I have a slight doubt that no one was aware of it. In the T.O. film there is a small puff visible which might have been the antenna coming off. If I can see it in the poor quality film it seems to me someone at Lae ought to have also noticed. You are probably correct that the sound was over ridden in the cockpit. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:35:14 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation > Would the Moon yield a 157/337 LOP at 1800 GMT? No, Ric, it would not but it was a great idea -- greater than you think. Venus WOULD have given Noonan the 157/337 LOP at 1800Z. Here is the data, once again, from the Naval Observatory. Object GHA Dec Hc Zn SUN 89 02.4 N23 02.3 + 2 31.7 67.0 MOON 167 36.9 N13 46.0 +74 15.5 34.1 VENUS 137 04.8 N15 57.0 +48 10.1 66.6 Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, so this is kind of intriguing. Randy says that Venus had been up for about 3 hours. That would seem to raise the possibility that Earhart's statement at 17:45 GMT "about 200 miles out, approximately" was not just a DR ballpark guess. Maybe Fred initially got his 157/337 LOP from Venus. Question: Sounds like Venus is sitting right where the sun is going to come up. How much of a problem is that as dawn approaches? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:46:44 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP's > She knew that she was heard on 3105 because the > Itasca transmitted the letter A on 7500 at her Gosh, here I am wrong again. I knew that but it had faded off into oblivion. Doesn't that make it even more aggravating? If she had ANY clue someone heard her transmission on 3105 it seems she would have returned to 3105 and tried again when her "day" frequency produced no results. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, she DID return to 3105 at 19:30 GMT to say that she couldn't get a minimum. She may have tried again on 3105 at the next scheduled transmission time (19:45) but Itasca was blocking the frequency so they could not have heard her. She tried again at 20:13 to say that she was running on the 157/337 line and that she'd repeat the message on 6210. Here's a thought. What if she had transmitted her earlier messages on 3105 and repeared them on 6210 (without mentioning that she was doing that)? It wasn't hard to change frequencies - just flip a switch. If she did that then she would not have been sure which frequency Itasca had heard her on. With no subsequent luck on 3105 it would be reasonable to assume that 6210 was a better choice. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:48:15 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Mooning? Dennis wrote: > If so, they would have been about 260 miles WEST of Howland, right? > Oops! Dennis, at 1744Z AE guessed she was "about two hundred miles out" so at 1800z she might have been about 150 miles out give or take and depending on how accurate her 200 mile estimate was. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:57:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation Ric wrote: > I'm eagerly awaiting a response from the Celestial Choir. Is there a difference between deferring to the "experts" and copping out? Chris, you're correct --It has been said all along FN only knew his longitude but not his latitude. But that is not necessarily correct. The worst situation is that he didn't get celestial shots because of cloud cover and therefor didn't even know his longitude. IF he could shoot celestial there is little reason to doubt that he knew BOTH his longitude and latitude. Even after daylight, weather permitting, he could have determined both. As to Greg's post, I don't have a tamaya NC 88 navigational computer but I see no reason to doubt Greg's statement. Even if he is inaccurate I agree with his statement that FN should have been able to get a latitude. Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric <> I'm just trying to keep my head out of places that smell really bad. To get a latitude, Fred has to get a good "cut" on his 157/337 LOP (obtained from Venus or the sun or both) from another celestial body. The only candidate I know of is the moon which, according to Expert Randy and your own previously posted data, will give him only a 30 degree cut. Is that good enough to tell him which way he should turn once he hits the advanced LOP? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:58:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Moon LOP Randy, using your coordinates (I used Howland for the previous posting) the U.S. Naval Observatory computer gave these figures which are almost identical to the ones I got using Howland as a position. Object GHA Dec Hc Zn SUN 89 02.4 N23 02.3 + 0 54.2 67.0 MOON 167 36.9 N13 46.0 +73 01.5 37.9 VENUS 137 04.8 N15 57.0 +46 32.7 67.0 Only the sun and Venus would give a 157/337 LOP. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:01:49 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation Herman, We don't know what reasoning AE used to estimate she was about two hundred miles out. It could have been a combination of fixes and DR or a guess based on passage of time. There is no information to support FN got a moon shot at 17:45Z or 1800Z or at any time. Also I have no clue as to how fast they were flying. AE "thought" she was about 200 miles out at 17:44Z but who knows where she was. Even if that's so there is no other reference time and point to estimate a ground speed. Don't be confused by the 18:15Z call and the 100 miles out notation. The bottom line is that we don't know where they were at any given time nor how fast they were traveling so the rest of your excellent math goes for naught. What I think we were trying to get across was that FN may have also had the moon to shoot but contrary to a previous posting it would not have given a 157/337 LOP at 1800Z. The planet Venus would have given such an LOP but if he did get an LOP from Venus we don't know when he did it. Previously the thought was that the LOP came from a sun shot or merely preflight planning. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:02:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart Thanks, Woody; glad to know things are in order in Majuro. Yes, the archeologist job at the HPO there IS open. Tempting. I imagine that what they meant when they said the sites were "identified" is that they were located and marked on a map, not that they were given descriptive labels. Archeologists are real leary of labeling things they're not sure about, because the labels stick, sometimes long after it's been proven that the thing labeled wasn't actually what it was labeled as. Some, of course, carry this to an extreme and won't even label something whose function is perfectly obvious. TK ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:14:29 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: LOP's Ric wrote: > ... What if she had transmitted her earlier messages on > 3105 and repeared them on 6210 (without mentioning that she was doing > that)? It wasn't hard to change frequencies - just flip a switch. If > she did that then she would not have been sure which frequency Itasca had > heard her on. ... Well, if that's what she did, then she shouldn't have stuck with one frequency. The best thing would be to keep broadcasting on both, just in case. Itasca needed to get through to AE to deliver two messages: 1) You haven't given us a signal long enough for us to get a bearing on you. 2) Here is the direction you need to fly to find us. Since neither she nor Fred was up to speed with CW, and since Itasca's voice transmissions seem never to have reached her, and since Itasca had no voice capability on 7500, I don't see how these two messages could have gotten through to her. The failure to master CW is one link in the chain of poor decisions that led to the fatalities. Both DF and radio telephony were "modern" techniques. Having less sophisticated (but more demanding) older skills available might have saved them. Or, as other people have put it, they failed to have in place a reliable Plan B. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:50:50 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Venus at sunrise From personal experience on many eastbound Pacific flights you can see Venus clearly up to about 15 minutes prior to sunrise. The background light becomes too strong for the last 15 minutes. I haven't actually timed this but I think that is a fairly accurate figure. Dick Pingrey 908 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:51:54 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Venus at sunrise > Sounds like Venus is sitting right where the sun is going to come > up. How much of a problem is that as dawn approaches? Not much of a problem, Ric. They're miles apart so no chance of a collision. Oh, you mean would the sun's glare blot out Venus? No, they will both be usable as celestial targets. As you can see from their respective altitudes they are well separated. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:53:55 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP's > Here's a thought. What if she had transmitted her earlier messages on 3105 > and repeated them on 6210 (without mentioning that she was doing that)? It > wasn't hard to change frequencies - just flip a switch. If she did that then > she would not have been sure which frequency Itasca had heard her on. With > no subsequent luck on 3105 it would be reasonable to assume that 6210 was a > better choice. Makes a lot of sense. It sounds quite logical to broadcast on all the frequencies available since she was having no luck with any one frequency. We'll get this all reconstructed yet. (She WAS a logical person wasn't she? ) Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric All we can reconstruct is our own speculation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:57:36 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation > will give him only a 30 degree cut. Is that good > enough to tell him which way he should turn once he hits the advanced LOP? I would much rather have a better cut but barring any really bad shot it should give him a position close enough to either know which way to turn or to know not to go too far to the NW before heading SE. It's not likely his two LOPs are going to be even 50 miles off at the outside. More likely he could count on being within 10 or 20 miles. If his platform is stable enough he ought to be only a few miles off, maybe 5 or 10. His real problem is his east/west position. Let's say he was dead on an LOP going right through the erroneous position of Howland. He'll not see it from 1,000' five miles away. While I'm at it let's muse about what he did upon reaching his LOP. I know the "circling" comment is most likely incorrect. Listening makes more sense plus he can't circle. Noonan has to know his position at all times as he has no ground reference. He can't let AE wander about aimlessly or in circles. He has to plot what they are doing or they are really lost. I don't know what they did but here's what I would have done and I would guess FN did the same. Upon hitting the LOP I would have turned right or left based on what I thought my position was. But let's say I think I'm close on so I turn to the left as I want my last search course toward the SE where I will head if I don't hit Howland. I will fly NW maybe 20 or 30 miles and teardrop or procedure turn back to the SE so as to still be on or close on the same LOP. Now I can go maybe 60 or so miles to the SE. I still haven't seen Howland so I know the island lies a few miles off to the East or West. Now I will turn left at standard rate to head back to the NW and fly 60 miles paralleling my original LOP but to the East. Not finding Howland I'll turn left again at half standard rate to put myself on the West side of my LOP and drive SE another 60 miles. Well, that didn't work so I really don't know where Howland is so I'll just continue my SE heading to the Phoenix group. Now before everyone shoots at my procedures the only point is that Noonan had to plot all that and my suggestions would allow him to do that. Perhaps he did something else but whatever he did he had to keep an accurate plot of his position. He may have searched shorter distances and more tracks or longer distances for that matter. They arrived at a point where they thought Howland was at about 1912Z and it was at 20:13 AE mentioned 157/337. They would have been running some sort of search pattern for an hour by then and it would take little effort to determine how much of my suggested search pattern they could accomplish in that time. In addition we don't know when they gave up and headed SE for the final time but it was no doubt soon after the 20:13 call. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:49:50 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Must be on you... This line of postings concerning latitude is getting pretty interesting. Indeed, why would we, today, know anything more about sun, moon, star and planet positions on the morning of July 2nd than Noonan did in 1937? IF Noonan thought he could determine latitude that morning before setting out, this would make the radio direction finding much less important, and perhaps explains some of the cavalier attitude to making sure it was working o.k. In the larger scale of things, if he were able to get a latitude reading, it makes one wonder what went wrong. The really horrifying thought is that they flew right over Howland, or in theoretical visual range from both plane and ship, but neither saw the other nor did Earhart see Howland. Big sky, big sea, small plane, small island and loud surf. I have been at sea, and can well imagine this happening. That Earhart transmission "we must be on you but can't see you", has long been the one I have found most important and troubling. The "must" conveys almost a sense of disbelief that they weren't seeing island and ship. We've discussed before the mapping error of Howland's position, yet for reasons Ric explained I believe we feel confident that AE and FN had been told, even though the charts hadn't been fixed. I wonder if we're wrong? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm less troubled than you are by Earhart's choice of words. How many times have you searched a counter top for your car keys and said, "They MUST be right here." forgetting that you left them in your jacket pocket. Earhart's phraseology indicates only her own expectation. We don't know that Noonan shared her level of conviction. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:01:09 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: FN's navigation Chris Kennedy makes a good point. If Noonan got a moon shot near meridian passage, he could have worked out his latitude. If he did, he would have known which direction to turn on the LOP. And, by the way, he would have known how far he was from Howland. That he didn't get there and went to Gardner instead suggests that he didn't get that moon shot. Bob Brandenburg 2286 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:06:32 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: 200 or 100? When I omitted Venus as a candidate for a three-body fix, I neglected to mention that Venus would be close to the Sun's azimuth and probably would have been hard to see in the morning sun. But it is interesting to speculate that Noonan could have used Venus for an LOP before sunrise, and then shot another LOP when the sun came up. At 1744 GMT, when Noonan was about 200 miles out, Venus was at Hc 41 degrees and Zn 69 degrees, and the Sun was at Hc -4 degrees, or just below the horizon, and Noonan was in nautical twilight. But if he had shot Venus a little earlier, the Zn would have been closer to dead-ahead and FN's LOP would have been somewhere around 340/160. But the timing and apparent speed discrepancy between the "200 miles out" message and the "100 miles out" message suggest that the "200 miles out" estimate was based on a DR and the "100 miles" estimate was based on an LOP after sunrise. Bob 2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric Everyone agrees that the "200 miles out" report at 17:45 GMT and the "100 miles out" a half hour later at 18:15 GMT can not both be correct. Earhart's "We must be on you.." at 19:12 would seem to indicate that, by that time, they believed that they had reached the advanced LOP, had had time to look around enough to be convinced that there was a problem, and make a radio transmission pretty much on the quarter-past-the-hour schedule. For the sake of argument, let's say they hit (or thought they hit) the advanced LOP at 19:00. Let's also say, just for the heck of it, that they really were on the LOP that passed through Howland. We should apply a similar standard to the earlier transmissions and say that they represent a position estimate that was valid about 15 minutes before the message was actually sent. So - if they were "200 miles out" at 17:30 and were on the LOP at 19:00, they covered 200 miles in 90 minutes (we're talking ballpark here) for a groundspeed of 133 kts (assuming that the distances are provided to Ae by Noonan who speaks in nautical miles). That seems like a fairly reasonable speed given that the airplane cruises at 130 kts. They probably have a bit of a headwind but they're also probably coming downhill for much of that time, descending to 1,000 feet. If they're "100 miles out" at 18:00 and on the LOP at 19:00, they have covered those 100 miles in 60 minutes, for a groundspeed of 100 kts. For that to make sense you have to assume that the descent was already accomplished and that the cruising speed down low was more like 115 kts (into, say, a 15 kt headwind). Neither of those assumptions seems outlandish. In other words, in very general terms, either the 200 or 100 estimate could be correct, but not both. Bob's speculation that the earlier estimate was the rougher one makes sense, but it argues against recent speculation that Noonan got a predawn whack at Venus. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:22:49 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Taroa Mike , As I told you before, the statements attributed to John Heine are correct but were misinterpeted.. They related the story to a researcher many years ago. It was told to them by their father, Carl Heine a missionary that was beheaded during the war.The Brink version is incorrect as to context, not content As for the two seat Zero, it was a one off prototype that never went into production. It has no relation to the fighter plane of WW2 fame, either. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric William Green's "Famous Fighters of the Second World War" ( Hanover House, NY. 1958) has a photo of a two-seat Zero with the following caption: "The A6M2-K Zero-Rensen Model 11 tandem two-seat conversion trainer which was produced in 1942. A similar conversion of the later A6M5 was also made in 1944 by the 21st Naval Arsenal at Omura." You're apparently talking about some other airplane. The name "Zero" applies specifically and uniquely to the Type O Carrier Fighter. Production models of IJN aircraft were assigned type numbers based upon the last number of the current Japanese year. 1940 was the Japanese year 2600 so Mitsubishi's A6M series was known as the "Zero-Sen". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:27:00 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Niku Ric wrote:- <> Well surely this makes your Browser's caching of images also illegal. Excuse me while I flush my cache.... **************************************************************************** From Ric I suppose so. The nature of the internet has created some really thorny copyright issues. Just ask Napster. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:28:29 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: FN's navigation Ric wrote:- >I am unconvinced by arguments that Noonan "would have tried harder" on the >Lae/Howland flight than he did on other long over-water flights. Well, in my opinion this arguement hinges on Noonan's attitude to DF. If, at this stage Noonan was well acustomed to using DF and happy with it's capabilites, then I'd agree that "trying harder" for the Lae-Howland may not necessarliy have been the case. Get pretty close and the DF will take care of the rest. But what do we know of his attitudes ? Was he at all conservative ("these new fangled gizmos... " etc. etc.), bearing in mind he learnt his skills in the era before DF, one might expect to see at least a trace of traditionalist sceptism - certainly in the case of a long over water flight to a very small island where you perceive your life literally depends on it. I certainly can't imagine him not considering the scenario of the possibility of DF trouble on this flight - professional navigator that he was, and hence "trying harder". Just my opinion though. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:35:24 EST From: Tom MM Subject: LOP Sketch For your shooting enjoyment, I've stuck a jpg sketch up of an LOP based approach to Fantasy Island. This is obviously much more cluttered than the real thing - done so to illustrate several points. Please look at the conceptual big picture, and for the moment set aside the debate on whether they went straight in or tried an offset. I'm not using modern "rules of thumb" - instead I've tried to use an approach which (I believe) would have been in the back of anyone's mind attempting this. Note that with the uncertainty in the LOP right from the outset, if sighting distance is 10NM, Toni Carter could still miss. The width of the uncertainty around the LOP will grow with distance flown along it. Sorry for any errors or omissions - I wanted to try a visual description, and get it up quickly. Sorry for the size. Remember, you can right click and save for viewing in an editior. I'll leave it up for a day or two. If a visual proves helpful, I may try to put up a sketch of the Catcher's Mitt later this week or next. http://home.earthlink.net/~tomjan97/lop.jpg TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:52:00 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: FN's navigation Alternatively, could the failure to reach Howland also suggest that Noonan did get his moon shot, but that the error in Howland's position on charts was not known to Noonan? I guess what I am suggesting, here, is that we have said before (in relation to the fuel consumption work) that contra Long's theory, there is nothing to suggest that the flight used more fuel than was planned. It also seems that the "we must be on you..." transmission indicates that they thought they should see the ship/island, even though we know they hadn't received a radio direction. I am just reading the words Earhart transmitted and giving them their plain meaning. So, it would appear that they weren't relying upon the radio direction to find the island as they thought they had "found" it. I know it seems amazing, but perhaps they didn't know of the error, got the moon shot, and "found" Howland where the chart said, but beyond visual range of where Howland actually was. I apologize for being such a stickler on this, but I am slowly seeing the following analysis develop: 1. It WAS possible for Noonan to get a latitude fix, in addition to longitude. This is something new and important in the entire loss analysis that needs to be considered. 2. Assuming it was possible for him to get the fix, there is no evidence that he didn't get the fix (assuming #1 is correct, we have to be like Long and invent a reason why Noonan didn't get a fix). 3. AE subsequently reports "we must be on you....." Since we know that there was no radio direction transmission, it appears the flight didn't need one to be able to think they had found the island. This seems to confirm that Noonan was able to get a latitude fix. 4. Assuming 1-3 are accurate statements, the only way I can explain them not finding Howland was that Howland wasn't where the map said it was, and they didn't know about the error. One final question: When calculating the LOP, does the location of the "target" you are trying to locate somehow factor into your calculation? If so, then could you do the process in reverse to locate the coordinates of the target (Howland). In other words, if they were running on such-an-such an LOP they must've assumed that their target was located at a certain lat/longitude? If it's possible to do this, then this may give an idea of whether they really did know about the mapping error. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric No, the presumed location of the "target" has nothing to do with what LOP you get. That is dictated by what heavenly bodies you can see and where they are. All of this speculation about Noonan's supposed ability to navigate accurately to a tiny island without help from Radio Direction Finding ignores the simple historical fact that it was reliable DF that made island to island flight practical. We can sit in our chairs and make all kinds of pronouncements about what Noonan "should have" been able to do but the truth is that finding a small, isolated island after a long overwater flight without some kind of eletronic guideance was, and still is, considered impractical and extremely dangerous. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:16:56 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Taroa Mike, Dig a little deeper. There are 5 "type Zero" aircraft that were in Japan's inventory. One of those" Type 0's" was in flight status as of June 1936.It aint the fighter plane. I did my homework assignment years ago, you can do your own. I will tell you that jaircraft by Dave Pluth has a site on the net that lists them all. All the type number designates is the year that the contract for production was given final approval. Before production is approved, the planes are known by the year of the "Showa" calendar that the specification requirements were issued. The famous fighter was known to the Japanese as the 12 -Shi Carrier borne Fighter until the contract was approved in 1940 or 2600 by the japanese calendar. That's also shi-15 in the Showa calendar. You can find a primer on japanese calendars at Dan Fords net site. It took me years to sort this information out in books. I'm not giving you the URL's because everyone should do a little of their own "legwork" themselves. By the way Mike, US fighter pilots gave those planes the name Zero because of those big, round, red meatballs on the sides of the planes. I asked several Pacific theater fighter pilots and aces personally during a "gathering of eagles" several years ago.Those same red markings are called hinomarus in Japan. The US didn't obtain any japanese intelligence as to their design and designation system until after the war. Tell me what you find. Woody ************************************************************************** From Ric First of all, it was me, not Mike, who corrected you about the two-place Zero being a one-off. According to Green (cited in my previous post), on October 5, 1937 the IJN furnished Misubishi and Nakajima with specifications for a new fighter which was intended to replace the Mitsubishi Type 96 (A5M). The specifications, known as the "12-Shi" (after the twelth year of the Showa reign) were so demanding that Nakakjima considered them impossible to meet and withdrew from the competition following a design meeting at Yokosuka on January 17, 1938. Mitsubishi took up the project alone and had a 12-Shi mock-up ready for inspection by April 17, 1938. The prototype "12-Shi" aircraft was rolled out of the Nagoya plant on March 16, 1939 as the "A6M1 Reisen". Engine tests were run on March 18 and the aircraft flew for the first time on April 1, 1939 under the hand of company test pilot Katsuzo Shima. The prototype was accepted for testing by the Navy on September 14, 1939. A second prototype was delivered on October 18 and the two machines began acceptance trials. Results were good but their maximum speed of 304 mph fell just short of the 310 mph requirement set by the 12-shi specification. Meanwhile, a new, more powerful engine - the Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12 - had become available and it was decided to install one on the third prototype. Flight tests on this "A6M2" began on January 18, 1940 and were so successful that the Navy awarded the production contract before the test regimen was even completed. It was at this time that the airplane became the "Type OO" (year 2600). Later variants included the A6M3, A6M5, A6M6, A6M7, and the A6M8. This fighter and its variants were the only "Type OO" aircraft in the Japanese inventory. None were flying in 1936 (the initial specification had not even been issued). Although officially named "Reisen" the airplane was known to the Japanese, long before Pearl Harbor, as the "Zero-Sen" (Zero Fighter). The name has nothing to do with the national insignia. After the outbreak of war, according to Bill Gunston's "Fighters" (Grosset & Dunlap, NY. 1978), there was a great deal of American confusion about the airplane and various versions of the A6M2 were thought to be separate types and given the names "Ben", "Ray", "Hap" (later changed to "Hamp") and "Zeke". Now - tell us again about your research that indicates that Earhart's plane is buried in a beach along with a one-of-a-kind two-seat Zero that has nothing to do with the famous fighter. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:27:43 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Sketch of LOP My navigational experience rests only on use of a lensatic compass, GPS and a few worn and torn topo maps. My thanks to Tom MM for providing his sketch of a LOP based approach to Fantasy Island. For the first time I have a pretty good grasp on the term "advancing the LOP" and how precarious it can be. LTM, (who thanks Tom MM) Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:26:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation Ric Wrote: > We can sit in our chairs and make all kinds of > pronouncements about what Noonan "should have" been able to do but the truth > is that finding a small, isolated island after a long overwater flight > without some kind of eletronic guideance was, and still is, considered > impractical and extremely dangerous. That's a good summation of what AE and FN were trying to do. Let me make the LOP stuff a bit clearer. When we say the 157/337 LOP gave Noonan his longitude but not his latitude we are not being accurate. It will NOT give FN his longitude. Only if he knew his aproximate latitude would he then get his longitude. Why is that? Well because that LOP is at an angle to east/west and only if he had a north/south LOP (360/180) would he actually have his longitude without other aid. To get his latitude unaided by other LOPs he would have to get an east/west LOP (090/270). Let's say he only shot Venus or only shot the sun. He would NOT know his latitude and thus not know his position on the LOP but he could still plot it through Howland assuming he knew where Howland was. If he had but one more body to shoot he would have plotted two LOPs on his chart and they would have looked like an "X" but not like a cross. One pair of ends would have been much closer together than the other two. Where they intersect is where his position is supposed to be. The only reason for shooting THREE star LOPs is to reduce the possible error. In that case three lines would cross on the chart and the plane's position should be somewhere in the (hopefully) tiny triangle formed where all three intersect. That usually is a 2 to 3 mile space if all conditions are good. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:31:12 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Showa > From Woody > >Before production is approved, the planes are known by > the year of the "Showa" calendar I know the FORUM is a stickler for details (accurate historic research demands it), so I offer the following, since this has come up: The term "Showa" was not given to the years of Hirohito's reign until he died in 1989. If there was no qualifier added to a year (e.g.: Taisho 9, Meiji 31 etc), the year given was assumed to be the year of the current emperor. When Hirohito died it became necessary to give his reign a name to distinguish it from Akihito's. I don't know why a name was not given to the reign before (as was the case with the two previous emperors). Akihito's reign is known as Heisei, we are currently in year Heisei 12. To further cloud the issue, since Hirohito did not die on January 1st, 1989 is known both as Showa 64 and Heisei 1. LTM (who was born in Taisho 5) Kerry Tiller (Showa 27) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:50:06 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Taroa Ric, For you I will post the information. A6M, N,K Mitsubishi Type Zero Carrier Fighter Zero /Zeke E13A Aichi Type Zero Recon Seaplane Jake E14Y Yokosuka Type Zero Small Recon Seaplane Glen The above plane was submarine carried. F1M Mitsubishi Type Zero Observation Seaplane Pete K8K Kawanishi Type Zero Primary Seaplane Trainer- no US designation. Thats all five. **************************************************************************** From Ric You've listed five types that were accepted by the Navy in the year 2600, and therefore are "Type O" (or sometimes listed as "Type OO"). The popular Japanese name for the A6M series was "Zero-Sen" (Zero Fighter) which was shortened in common use to "Zero". I've seen no evidence - and I think it is incorrect - to refer to any of those other Type O aircraft as "Zeros". *************************************************************************** From Woody Ric, just a footnote Dave Pluth's site is a psyhco modeling site where they even argue about the types of paint used on various japanese aircraft. The planes are all listed there. As a matter of fact, all japanese planes used in the war , both Army and Navy are listed. I looked up all Type Zero aircraft in various books before finding this site. It was good to have my list confirmed by theirs. They have answered many technical questions to the best of their knowledge. Put jaircraft in on a search engine and it will take you there.As for two seat Zeros of the fighter type- trainer A6M2-K is easily distinguished by the canopy- the student sits behind a windscreen in front of the instructor-he's in a full canopy! The best photo of this model is in Ballantine's History of WW2 : weapons book 9 -Martin Caidin 1969-on page 145. There are 17 gun camera photos of japanese pliot bail-outs with a passenger of what appear to be single seat Zeros. I have seen only one of these pictures, the plane on fire, pilot and passenger( the passenger is in Flag Officer Whites!) bailing out - no parachutes. Death by melting is not my first choice either. The only known survivor of this custom built variant is on display as "53-122" at the National Science Museum in Tokyo, Japan.It was recovered from Rabaul, New Britian by Geoff Pentland and Barry Coran of Melbourne, Austrailia in August 1972. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric So what's your point? **************************************************************************** From Woody Ric, Just a few Zero notes. Janes Fighting Aircraft of WW2 (1996 Edition-Random House) lists the 4 Type Zero aircraft that saw combat. Bill Gunston wrote the foreword. In the book-Zero(Martiin Caidin, Matasaki Okuyama, Jiro Horikoshi- Ballantine, 1957). Okuyama was in charge of all the Navy's flight training in 1940. I'm only typing this because you have been such a gracious host. I hate typing. This is the last paragraph on page 34 of the Bantam(1991) reprint: In the first line striking force, all carrier based dive bombers were Type 99's; carrier based attack bombers were Type 97's; two-seat observation seaplanes were Type 95's and Type Zeros; three-seat scout seaplanes were Type Zeros and some Type 94's; and all flying boats were type 97's. I believe that Okuyama and Horikoshi had their information from a more reliable source than anyone else. I disagree with your author. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric I don't see any point in continuing a semantic argument about what is and isn't a "Zero". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:57:21 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 200 or 100? > But the timing and apparent speed discrepancy between the "200 miles out" > message and the "100 miles out" message suggest that the "200 miles out" > estimate was based on a DR and the "100 miles" estimate was based on an LOP > after sunrise. Bob, I'm more inclined to believe the 157/337 LOP was a precomp. Possibly not but I think so. Preplanning the celestial would have also preplanned the infamous "Plan B". My nav precomped the whole flight but I don't know whether that was Noonan's practice. Even if he didn't do it prior to flight he most likely did so in the air. I can not think of a good rational reason NOT to shoot Venus. FN NEEDED the information Venus could provide. I have no way of knowing whether 200 miles out was based on DR or on fixes but if you remember the "100 miles out" was suspect as it was clearly added later as evidenced by the type misalignment. I never convinced myself of whether she was saying she was 100 miles out or that she would whistle when she was 100 miles out. Let me also remind everyone that the fact they missed Howland is not NECESSARILY because they navigated in error. It could have been because Howland wasn't where they had it plotted BUT it could be they had Howland plotted correctly AND navigated accurately and just flat couldn't see the island for scattered CU. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:16:23 EST From: Greg Rudzinski Subject: Re: FN's navigation The following is a simulation of Fred Noonans last two hours of celestial navigation. FN most likely scheduled his observations. This technique gives the navigator immediate results after a celestial observation is made. All times are in Greenwich Mean Time on 2 July 1937. Howland Island is at Lat. 0 48N ; Long 176 38W Initial course is 80 true with a speed made good of 120kts. TIME 1800 Estimated position Lat. 0 41N ; Long. 178 48W Venus altitude 46 azimuth 67 LOP 157/337 1815 Dead reckoning Lat. 0 46N ; Long. 178 17W 100 miles from Howland Island. 1830 Estimated position Lat. 0 51N ; Long. 177 46W Sun altitude 9 azimuth 67 LOP 157/337 Speed checks at 120kts. 1840 Running fix Lat. 0 55N ; Long. 177 25W Moon altitude 77 azimuth 000 LOP 90/270 Sun advanced from 1830 to 1840. 1900 Estimated position Lat. 1 02N ; Long. 176 48W Sun altitude 16 azimuth 66 LOP 156/336 1902 Dead reckoning Lat. 1 03N ; 176 44W Course changed to 157. Speed reduced to 90kts. 1928 Dead reckoning Lat. 0 27N ; Long. 176 28W Circled until 1934. 1930 Sun altitude 23 azimuth 65 LOP 155/335 Estimated position same as 1928. 1934 Course change to 337. 2000 Estimated Position Lat. 055N ; Long. 176 40W Sun altitude 30 azimuth 64 LOP 154/334 Course changed to 157. At this point FN has checked his approach three times with no discrepancies. He can only conclude that His position for Howland Island is not correct. How do you explain the items found on Gardener Island? My guess is that Gilbert Islanders recovered AE and FN flotsam on their way to Gardener Island. It would make sence to search for more evidence on the beaches of the Gilbert and Phoenix Islands. **************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting speculation. You don't mention when you think the descent was made and I'm not sure why you think they slowed to 90 kts. Also, the idea that any circling was done is hard to support given the fact that the original Itasca radio log entry was clearly "drifting." "Circling" was added later. "Listening" makes more sense in the context of the message. How do propose that Noonan took all these new sun shots and got these new LOPs if they were below the clouds at 1,000 feet? Nonetheless, you have them proceeding on 154 at 2000 GMT. That gives them about four hours to get to Gardner - or do you subscribe to the theory that they didn't have as much fuel as they should have had? Your suggestion that Gilbert Islanders found flotsam on the way to their way to Gardner Island indicates that you're really not at all familar with how they got there. And who, do you suppose, was the castaway whose bones were found in 1940? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:20:59 EST From: Denise Subject: A Throwaway! Ric says: "Taroa is an island in the Marshalls. Tarawa is an atoll in the Gilberts. The only things they have in common are that they're both in the Pacific Ocean and Amelia was never there." Ric, I beg to differ. A.E. did go to Tarawa - parts of her, anyway - in a kanawa box - impounded by Dr Walter Issacs. LTM (who is curious as to why she's hearing Tarawa mentioned everywhere these days. It's a little too Jungian for her piece of mind.) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Was Walter Issacs related in some way to Lindsay Isaac? (just kidding) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:23:50 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: FN's navigation >From Chris Kennedy > >This line of postings concerning latitude is getting pretty interesting. >Indeed, why would we, today, know anything more about sun, moon, >star and planet positions on the morning of July 2nd than Noonan >did in 1937? *** Except for small refinements, we don't. > >If Noonan thought he could determine latitude that morning before >setting out, this would make the radio direction finding much less >important, ... Chris: With state of the art & Freds handicap of not having a nav station , astro dome, and radio operator as he did with the 'Clippers', Finding a one mile island when a fix within 5 miles under ideal conditions was the best he could expect, is not a formula for success every time.. Under perfect conditions he could find Howland. But what if they were not ideal? GPS working perfectly will be accurate within a few meters! But what if there is a glitch of somekind ? Ever heard of something like that happening? DF of some kind, either she does it or they do it, was the back up. Why else was the Itasca there? > .. perhaps explains some of the cavalier attitude to making sure it >was working o.k. Delaying the t.o. from Lae for a day or two to get the radio time signals was far from a cavalier attitude. Fred was aware of the job ahead. More likely he was assured by those in charge of the trip that all would be taken care of, thus he needed only to get within range; .. and I think he did. >... if he were able to get a latitude reading, it makes one wonder >what went wrong. Latitude or longitude are only lop's. At least two intersecting lop's are required to know where one is. Seeing and 'shooting' a body doesn't mean an lop within one mile. Time .. seconds .. is of the essence with some shots. With Polaris the pole star [perfect lattitude with just one shot] even a minute off is seldom of any consequence. But near the equator Polaris is not visable. With the sun a minute could be miles. Low altitude shots have a correction, the sun & moon have semi-diameter correction [the center is not easily determined] & the moon has a parallax error due to its nearness.. Anything other than three bright stars, high in the sky, about 120 degrees apart in azimuth, shot from smooooth air, will have a number of potential errors to contend with. .. > .. makes one wonder what went wrong... There were many things that could go wrong; the list is long. RCS ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:30:27 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Re: Captain Friedell To Kerry Tiller To remain a last time on this out of topic subject : I don't agree with your statement because Adm. Friedell was COMSUBPAC untill January 1941, and went on to build ships at that date. Admiral Withers was COMSUBPAC from January 1941 to May 1942, thus during the Pearl Harbor period. After that, guess what was his assigment ?? Commandant of the navy yard in Portsmouth ! I still believe that Kimmel and Short where the only scapegoats. Ask Adm. H. Stark (Chief of Naval Operation) and Adm. K. Turner (Chief of Navy War Plans Division) what they think about it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:35:40 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Taroa >From Woody > > Mike, Dig a little deeper. There are 5 "type Zero" aircraft that were in > Japan's inventory. [snip] > You can find a primer on japanese > calendars at Dan Fords net site. It took me years to sort this information > out in books. I'm not giving you the URL's because everyone should do > a little of their own "legwork" themselves. I've been there. Why do you think others don't read the same sites? > Tell me what you find. Hmmm .... What we have here is a failure to communicate. (I heard that in a movie once.) All I said was that Brink's book says that the Zero and the Electra are safely ensconced in a bunker on Taroa. It's what he wrote in his book. Whether or not it's true is something else; I take no responsibility for his work. I fail to understand what Zeroes have to do with any of that. > ************************************************************************** > From Ric > > First of all, it was me, not Mike, who corrected you about the two-place > Zero being a one-off. Oops. I need to read before I shoot. Thanks, Ric. > Now - tell us again about your research that indicates that Earhart's plane > is buried in a beach along with a one-of-a-kind two-seat Zero that has > nothing to do with the famous fighter. Discussing the bunker on Taroa and modified fighters isn't going to add much the AE/FN thing. But it is interesting. Two-seat fighters are a natural evolution. Sometimes they were practically field mods (TP-39s, for example, all seem to look they were thrown together by a bunch of teenagers). Ike had a TP-51 for his personal use; I would be surprised if an isolated Japanese admiral didn't have something like that available to him. In any case, I'm not gonna try to prove (or to disprove) anything about Taroa. I'm allergic to chemical explosives. LTM (who avoids fighters with any number of seats) Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:39:18 EST From: Woody Subject: Japanese calendars Kerry, When the spec for a particular aircraft is put out for competion it is known as Shi-9, (1934) Shi-10(1935) and so on . In every aviation book that I have read, that runs into the hundreds, they all say that the Shi number directly reflects the year of the present emperor's reign that the specs were issued. Here's the piece that Dan Ford, he lives in Japan, posted on his web site ( Here I am typing again,darn it!): During the war, an educated Japanese would be able to reckon time according to three different calendars. For discourse with foreigners he would follow the western calendar, but for everyday use he'd prefer the Showa calendar, based on the year Hirohito became emperor.( "Showa" means Enlightened Peace, the name Hirohito took for himself and his reign when he succeeded his father in 1926.) And for military purposes, he'd follow the koki calendar, based on the mythical founding of the Japanese dynasty in 660 BC. Here's how the war years are shown in the three styles. Western year Showa year Koki year Landmark event 1931 6 2591 Japanese army seizes Manchuria 1932 7 2592 Japanese navy raids Shanghai 1933 8 2593 1934 9 2594 1935 10 2595 1936 11 2596 1937 12 2597 Full-scale invasion of China 1938 13 2598 Rape of Nanjing 1939 14 2599 Border war with Russia 1940 15 2600 A6M Zero goes into service 1941 16 2601 To war with U.S., Britain, Dutch 1942 17 2602 Battle of Midway 1943 18 2603 1944 19 2604 B-29's begin to destroy Japan 1945 20 2605 Japan surrenders As you can see, the Shi number is derived from the year of the emperor's reign, or the SHOWA calendar.That is the year the the specs are put out to bid. The type number is derived from the year that the aircraft was approved for production, the KOKI calendar. I have a few pre-war books on Japanese history. One of them starts with the sentence: As Hirohito enters the ninth year of the SHOWA reign..... That book predates his death by 54 years. I don't agree with your calendar assessment. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:42:00 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: FN's navigation Greg R. wrote: > Howland Island is at Lat. 0 48N ; Long 176 38W Is the position given, below, for Howland, the true position, or the position incorrectly noted on maps at the time (July 2, 1937)? Thanks, --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric True position. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:40:54 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: FN's navigation To Bob Sherman Thanks, Mr. Sherman, for sending this. I appreciate the time and effort to put it together. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:42:12 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Captain Friedell > From Edgard Engelman > I don't agree with your statement because Adm. Friedell was COMSUBPAC untill > January 1941, and went on to build ships at that date. > Admiral Withers was COMSUBPAC from January 1941 to May 1942, thus during the > Pearl Harbor period. > I was obviously mistaken. I thought Adm. Friedell was COMSUBPAC until Jan. 42. Too many dead brain cells. Thank you for setting me straight. Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:57:49 EST From: Greg Rudzinski Subject: Re: FN's navigation It does seem that the 1940 castaway bones are AE and FN . I will buy that. I just can,t see the electra plane making it all the way to Gardener Isl. On my simulation I'm illustrating what FN would do as a navigator if he could. The descent occures at 1902 to prepare for landing (flaps down etc.). 90 kts also allows for more time in the air for remaining fuel. If the skies were partly cloudy for the last hour of their flight near Howland then FN would have been able to observe the Sun at 1000ft. **************************************************************************** From Ric If the airplane is where it's supposed to be to get best fuel economy (according to Kelly Johnson's recommendations) it's up around 10,000 feet until they decide to get below the scattered deck where they'll be able to look for the island. A rate of descent that's going to give them the best return on their investment is not going to be more than about 500 feet per minute. At that rate it will take them 18 minutes to get from 10,000 feet down to 1,000 feet. If they start their descent at 1902, as you speculate, they can't be at 1,000 feet at 1912 (as AE says they are) unless they've been coming downhill at 900 fpm. That would involve lowering the gear and flaps and pulling the power way back to come down at a landing approach speed, or just stuffing the nose down in a screaming dive. Neither makes any sense. I think our experienced celestial navigators will disgree with you about Noonan being able to shoot the sun from 1,000 feet below a scattered deck. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:59:15 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Taroa Ric, Maybe you need to do more research with WW2 japanese pilots, as I have over the years. They disagree with you. I agree with them. Maybe we should agree to disagree and leave it at that. The irresisitable force versus the immovable object theory seem to be in effect here. You wont have to put up with me after Friday. I will be on the road for about 3 weeks and after a short rest, I am moving home to Hawaii. The cold in Tahoe is kicking up my arthritis, and at 48 that's too young to feel this poorly every day. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:07:18 EST From: Greg Rudzinski Subject: Re: Electra fuel capacity I have come up with a scenario for getting the Electra to Gardener Island. (evidence is lacking) AE loads two or three barrels of fuel inside the passenger compartment to be transfered to main tanks through the stripping pump. When the barrels are empty then they are jetisoned. This provides 84 to 126 gallons of extra fuel and adding 500 to 750 pounds of weight. 40 gallons per hour at 140kts will increase range from 280 to 420 nautical miles. I have to admit that this will get the Electra to Gardener Island. (Gilbert Islands also) Questions: Will the tank found on Gardener Isl. fit into an Electra? If so how much fuel would it hold? If gasoline were stored in this tank would testing verify this after 64 years? Could this tank have served as a life raft? *************************************************************************** From Ric The tank on Gardner is a steel water tank from the village. It still says, "Police - Tarawa" on it. No extra fuel tanks were put aboard the Electra in Lae. The airplane's 1100 gallon fuel load should have been good for about 24 hours aloft - more than enough to get them to Gardner. This subject has been beaten to death on this forum and you can read about it at length in the Forum Highlights section of the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:08:54 EST From: Tom MM Subject: NAV Error? Alan noted: >...... the fact they missed Howland is not >NECESSARILY because they navigated in error. Yes - always important to keep in mind. The fact that they searched for Howland for about an hour and made the famous "we must be on you" and the "157-337" statements has provided those of us with navigational inclinations virtually endless entertainment. We cannot, however, state that because they did not appear at Howland that this was certainly due to some fault in navigation. Had the 157-337 statement not been logged, I would not be surprised if instead we would be analyzing every incident of less than stellar flying by our heroine, and making statements like "well, she crashed the Electra in Hawaii, bashed a bunch of other aircraft, and she was not viewed as a gifted flyer. No doubt she lost control of that pig at 1,000 ft while looking into the distance in a state of complete exhaustion and put them in the drink." We'd be debating the low level/low speed performance nuances of the aircraft and how qualified AE was for flying under those situations. We are extrapolating extremely fragmentary snapshots of information. It is possible that nothing that we spend our energy on had any bearing on the outcome of the flight. We should always qualify our statements with "I believe" or "we believe", and avoid making statements as if they were absolute certainty. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:10:50 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Japanese calendars What does this have to do with finding AE? Bob Lee **************************************************************************** From Ric That's what I've been trying to figure out. I think the answer is, "Not a blessed thing." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:48:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Electra fuel capacity How could we have missed the possibility that Earhart and Noonan landed on Tarawa and stole the tank from the police, and then were shot down on Niku by the RAF? Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:55:10 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Moon FAQ? I notice that the moon and planet issue has surfaced again, and rightly so. What seems to happen is that each new person that comes on line with a celestial background raises the issue. It is so obvious that it should be addressed somewhere as part of the approach and search for Howland, and the decision to head out, yet as far as I can see it is not ever mentioned on the web site, FAQ's or whatever. The omission makes it seem that TIGHAR is not willing to delve into this issue because it may not play out in a supportive way for the Niku hypothesis. Yet it is a very important and obvious issue. I can see arguments both ways, but if I were TIGHAR I would put together a coherant discussion in one place (FAQ?) that addresses this issue and carefully explains how it fits in. You might save yourself a lot of typing over the years. The furum does go round and round. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll be happy to put up a Moon FAQ. Who wants to write it? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:07:02 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: FN's navigation Ric wrote: > I think our experienced celestial navigators will disgree with you about > Noonan being able to shoot the sun from 1,000 feet below a scattered deck. This one does. Bob #2286 **************************************************************************** From Marty Moleski > ... 1,000 feet below a scattered deck. Ric, I've forgotten the source of our understanding about the weather that day. Did the Itasca report "scattered clouds"? Or is this just the prevailing condition on any old July morning in that part of the world? LTM. Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric It is, indeed, the prevailing condition on any old July morning in that part of the world, but Itasca's deck log also recorded "bc" (defined as "blue sky with detached clouds") conditions throughout the morning. Richard Black on Howland Island reported five-tenths cumulus cloud with bases at 2,650 feet (measure by weather balloon). **************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Before the celestial navigation experts opine as to Noonan's ability to shoot the sun from 1000 feet, below a scattered deck, they may want to consider that history is full of other navigators who have been able to accurately shoot the Sun under much, much worse conditions. For example, in 1915, Sir Ernest Shackleton and a crew of two or three others sailed from Elephant Island, Antarctica, to the South Georgia Islands, in a leaking lifeboat after having been marooned in the Antarctic wastes for about a year and suffering from frostbite. During this 800 mile open boat journey, they faced full-on Cape Horn seas and weather (i.e., huge rollers, wind, sleet/rain beneath an overcast sky----I've actually been to Cape Horn, and can testify to these sorts of conditions). Anyway, during a momentary, hazy break in the cloud cover, the Captain of the Endurance (Shackleton's ship--crushed in the ice), was able to get a Sun fix while Shackleton and the other men held him steady the best they could in the high seas. This was the only time the weather permitted a fix to even be attempted in the entire 17 day journey, and if he had been a half of a degree off, the South Georgia Islands would've been missed altogether. Of course, Sir Ernest landed and survived to tell the tale. So, celestial navigation experts, do you think that Noonan's "partly cloudy"/ "scattered deck" totally precluded him from getting any sighting? --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:08:16 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Funerals Tom MM said: We are extrapolating extremely fragmentary snapshots of information. It is possible that nothing that we spend our energy on had any bearing on the outcome of the flight. We should always qualify our statements with "I believe" or "we believe", and avoid making statements as if they were absolute certainty." Amen to that! And I believe the navigation thread has become so esoteric and thin that it deserves a decent burial. Call the chaplain and get the shovel, Ric. LTM, who can barely navigate the mall Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:11:32 EST From: Greg R. Subject: Re: Electra fuel capacity I agree that 1100 gallons of fuel will get the electra to Gardener. Sorry for beating a dead horse. What is the latest on the Canton engine? *************************************************************************** From Ric It exists only as anecdote (but then, so did the bones until we found the documentation). We haven't been able to find anybody who can corroborate Bruce's recollection of slinging the engine to Canton. If it's there at all it's buried in a dump we can't economically excavate. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:16:04 EST From: Pete Subject: Any Updates? I remember that all the medical types in Fiji and the other islands were keeping an eye out for the bones. I also remember there was some unrest in the Republic. Any updates on how things are going for Niku llll? I know the black fuel needle needs to move more, but is everything else still "Go"? Any sign of the kanawa box? Wishing you and all TIGHAR's the Best Pete **************************************************************************** From Ric No further word on the bones or the box. Preparations for Niku IIII are on track. Everything is "Go" and planning for the land and underwater operations are well underway. Lots of balls in the air right now. As they come to earth I'll be filling everyone in. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:23:37 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Still Suicidal? No, the subject title doesn't describe me, but just a facet of the recent postings on latitude/longitude that have added a new dimension to the idea that it would have been suicidal for AE and FN not to have headed southeast down the LOP toward Howland or to islands beyond. Up until recently we had been running under the assumption that the flight didn't know whether it was north or south of Howland when turning onto the LOP. Regardless, if you ran southeast on the LOP you would hit either Howland or other islands, so it's suicidal not to do that and keep running north and south. Makes sense. Now, the issue has come up of whether FN would have been able to compute his latitude. This is new. Cutting to the bottom line, it seems from all I've read that it could well have been possible for FN to have gotten a latitude fix (none of the celestial experts has come out with the flat conclusion that the heavenly bodies weren't there for FN to shoot), but that even if he were able to get a fix AND this were an accurate fix it would still not pinpoint Howland, but simply reduce the area in which the island lay. Indeed, it appears that it might reduce the area considerably. Of course, anything which reduces the area in which your target lies would, I suspect, tend to influence your decision whether to search for it. While my navigator is telling me that I can run southeast along the LOP and run by a number of islands on which to land, my navigator is also responsible for getting me to my primary target (Howland), and I'm not seeing it, even though he's telling me enough so that I can say "we must be on you but cannot see you". If I am going to believe him and fly to the southeast, then I should also believe him that we are near to our primary target even though I don't see it (again, I have reported to the ship that "we must be on you..." so I believe what I'm being told) . I do have four hours or so of fuel left, maybe more, to fly the distance, but how can I be sure that I am not going to have to search a bit for these islands if I fly beyond my primary target? After all, none of these islands along the LOP is Australia. Of course, none of these other islands has a landing strip and fuel and a ship standing by. In other words, given that my navigator says we must be close to Howland, am I better off using what time I have left (which may be considerable) to run a search pattern for my primary target and see if I can contact that damned ship for them to send a signal, and isn't it really suicidal heading permanently southeast? --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Nothing has changed. For all the speculation about the moon, I've heard no experienced navigitor claim that a 30 degree cut would give Noonan a reliable latitude. Once he reaches the advanced LOP he clearly does not know whether he is north or south of Howland (else why run north and south?). Ultimatley his only safe course of action is to run southeastward on the LOP. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:29:20 EST From: Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Electra fuel capacity Tom King wrote: > How could we have missed the possibility that Earhart and Noonan landed on > Tarawa and stole the tank from the police, and then were shot > down on Niku by the RAF? Sounds like Janet Whitney has a new mouthpiece. This isn't even funny. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:34:25 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: FN's navigation Wow, we are saying that FN has gone from being an expert in Trans-Pacific navigation to someone who can't navigate in weather conditions fairly typical of the area. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric All we're saying is that Fred Noonan was no better than the state of the art. In 1937 an airplane could not reliably cross a great expanse of ocean and find a small island on a limited fuel supply without help from DF. As to navigating in weather conditions fairly typical of the area, no navigator can shoot the sun if he can't see it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:17:08 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation > I think our experienced celestial navigators will disgree with you about > Noonan being able to shoot the sun from 1,000 feet below a scattered deck. These are low level CU, maybe about 2,000' to 2,500' bases and of significant number to prevent any meaningful celestial navigation. I speak from experience flying into and around the Azores, Bermuda and many years in VietNam. In addition the summer air at that altitude is turbulent. I always disliked low level because of that. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:22:23 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Still Suicidal? So, lets confirm one thing: FN could have gotten a latitude reading. So, that question is settled. However, before we can go further with this analysis, an "experienced navigator" needs to confirm that it's a "reliable latitude". I think we are more concerned with what the flight thought, and I don't think any of the experienced navigators sitting here in 2001 know what FN would've considered a "reliable latitude" fix sitting in the Electra in 1937. He may have been happy to get anything. However, it may be that the best indication that the flight considered it had gotten a "reliable latitude" (or at least a latitude of some usefullness to the flight) was the flight's own statement of "we must be on you, but can't see you". Remember, even if they were flat wrong about reliability, what the flight thought at the time about their situation was most important to what they decided to do. Not what we think, now. --Chris **************************************************************************** From Ric Look, you either have your latitude or you don't. Noonan didn't (as far as we can tell). He knew he wasn't up around Hawaii or down around Samoa, but I have yet to see anybody show how he could have known whether he was north or south of Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:24:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: FN's navigation Chris Kennedy wrote: > Sir Ernest landed and survived to tell the tale. So, celestial navigation experts, > do you think that Noonan's "partly cloudy"/ "scattered deck" totally precluded > him from getting any sighting? Chris, I would hate to base any theory on a 1915 anecdote told by the "hero" himself. That aside, FN was hunting for a tiny speck and having half the sky obscured by clouds and shooting from a bouncy airplane traveling over a hundred miles an hour which tells me the answer is he didn't shoot celestial under those conditions. Also I don't see the comparison. The boat is practically stationary, rough seas not withstanding, while the Electra is moving through the sky at a high rate of speed. FN had a fraction of the time to shoot a fix as did Sir Ernest. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:25:53 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Still Suicidal? Ric wrote: > Nothing has changed. For all the speculation about the moon, I've heard no > experienced navigitor claim that a 30 degree cut would give Noonan a reliable > latitude. Once he reaches the advanced LOP he clearly does not know whether > he is north or south of Howland (else why run north and south?). Ultimately > his only safe course of action is to run southeastward on the LOP. This is correct and Chris is quite right in that whatever celestial FN did only reduced the size of the area he believed he was in. Even a three body fix would not have necessarily pin pointed Howland. They used their navigation skills to get them close and then it was up to a DF steer or visible sighting to find Howland. I don't think there are two ways about that. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:31:54 EST From: Barbara Wiley Subject: Surprising information I suggest you read the chapter, Amelia, in Arthur Kennedy's book, High Times, Keeping 'em Flying. You may be surpirsed as to what he has to say. ************************************************************************** From Ric Perhaps you, or someone else who is familiar with the chapter, can give us a run-down on Mr. Kennedy's surprising information (whatever it may be) and the sources he cites. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:33:39 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: FN's navigation Chris Kennedy wrote; >...Shackleton ..was able to get a Sun fix ..[while] the other men held >him steady the best they could in the high seas. Sir Ernest survived. *** Sir Earnest was the proverbial, 'Lucky To Be Alive!!! > ..do you think that Noonan's "partly cloudy"/ "scattered deck" totally >precluded him from getting any sighting? ... Chris Kennedy ***'Scattered'? The Itasca noted it was more than 5/10's coverage. In a small boat one might be in a clear area for 5 or 10 min., but if one projects their cone of vision thru a hole 1,000 ft. or so above them, it does not incl. the entire sky by any means, and if the 'boat' was going 100+ knots, whatever are of clear sky above is going to change, and disappear a lot faster than at 5 knots. One more vote for McGee's resolution. RC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:38:35 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: FN's navigation Being a stupid non-navigator and/or pilot (unless 4 hours instruction in a Piper Cub counts!) , I still can't believe all the experts are so fixated on Earhart flying down a maybe- perhaps heading of 157° to look for a few more tiny islands, when BIG Canton was about the same distance. She HAD seen a copy of Pacific Air Pilot that made that island sound like a good bet (i.e., nice wide beach, possibility of potable water, etc. etc.). SOMETIME during that leg of the flight Fred would have gotten a good fix. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric No, don't listen to the experts. Your own amateur opinion about a science you admit that you don't understand is far more valuable. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:50:51 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: FN's navigation Ric wrote: > I think our experienced celestial navigators will disgree with you about > Noonan being able to shoot the sun from 1,000 feet below a scattered deck. Give me a break Ric. Neither Bob nor anyone else on the forum was present. Until you can produce a live Noonan or a continuous high quality motion picture taken out of each window, the answer can only be maybe, or maybe not. TOM MM *************************************************************************** From Ric You're correct in that anything we say about what happened on the flight, aside from the transmissions reported (but how accurately?) by Lae and Itasca, is speculation. On the other hand, some guesses seems to be safer than others. It's a pretty safe bet that they didn't fly the trip inverted. It's a pretty safe bet that they didn't go to Truk or Saipan or Mili or Cleveland. It's also a pretty safe bet that Noonan didn't get a sunshot from 1,000 feet under a 5/10ths cumulus deck. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:01:40 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: Electra fuel capacity Is Tom King in need of medication? *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess I need to explain this. Tom's posting was satirical. It was meant as a joke. Anytime you engage in satire you run the risk that somebody is going to take you seriously or, if they get the joke, be offended rather than amused. Many of us on the forum have experienced these problems in the past and will inevitably experience them in the future. And yes, we're all in need of medication. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:53:30 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Pacific Preservation 2001 Nice article on Ulithi (wasn't Margaret Meade there?) with pictures of surviving WW2 tanks in the surf. Any steel in an airplane must be less massive than a tank, but I suspect that there is hope for remaining fragments. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Who came of age a long time ago) http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/03/03072001/ulithi_40275.asp?site=WEBRELEAF **************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. That tank is in the lagoon which should not be subject to the full force of ocean surf. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:55:42 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: the LOP ...'Ultimately his only safe course of action is to run southeastward on the LOP'... This is true if we only consider the fact that the Phoenix Island Chain (or individual islands within the chain) represented the only _other_ known landfall on FN's established LOP for Howland Island, within the estimated, remaining fuel supply. However, unless FN or AE had _prior_ knowledge about the beach &/or reef flat characterisics of these islands, they could not be _certain_ of any safe, wheels down, landing for the Electra. Additionaly, without the establishment of reliable, 'two-way' radio communication with Itaska, (which had failed to acknowledge any of AE's _possible_ transmissions, during their flight to the SE on the LOP) they had no assurance of any rescue by Itaska from any of these islands, (some 350-400 miles SE of Howland) nor could they reasonably expect rescue from any other source within an island chain, (generally considered very sparsely inhabited) well removed from regularly traveled sea routes. None of these problems might have seemed insurmountable for the moment, to an exhausted, air-weary crew, who would have been delighted to see landfall (any landfall) on the horizon, at that stage of the flight, however any realistic anticipation of long-term (weeks???) survival on an isolated, equitorial, uninhabited Pacific island, with meager (if any) supplies of food & most importantly, fresh water, makes for a very grim outlook for the future. Needless to say, desperate people, in desperate (life or death) situations are more apt to willingly accept the possible long-term hazards/dangerous consequences of short-term decision making, in order to avoid more imminent, inevitable disaster or demise. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:18:05 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: FN's navigation This is a forum isn't it? There are lots of experts in many areas who have been entirely, completely and sometimes tragically WRONG. Finally, weren't all of us amateur at something sometime? S. Wesley Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, this is forum, but it is a forum with a purpose. And yes, experts are frequently wrong and anyone who has spent much time on this forum knows that we don't take anyone at his or her word but insist that they demonstrate their supposed expertise by explaining just why they hold the opinions that they do. If they can do that to our satisfaction we're inclined to accept their expert opinion. We do not subscribe to the notion that all opinions are created equal and when somebody offers an inexpert opinion that conflicts with numerous demonstrably expert opinions we're not much inclined to take it very seriously. All of us were, indeed, amateurs at some time and are still amateurs on most topics. That's why we try to learn from experts. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:21:51 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Surprising information Barbara Wiley wrote: >I suggest you read the chapter, Amelia, in Arthur Kennedy's book, High Times, >Keeping 'em Flying. You may be surpirsed as to what he has to say. Barbara, I have Art Kennedy's book and have thoroughly read it. As for the engines on her plane, there are distinctive differences in the R-985 -10A engines and the S3H1-1340-10E engines. The Pratt and Whitney site on the internet says she flew a 10A.Poppycock! Ric and I discussed this at length some time back. I have looked at hundreds of photos of that plane and it never was a 10A configured aircraft.As for his remarks about bending around the damaged gear with Amelia and her remarks about being a spy, we only have his statements to go by......and he is totally wrong about the engine configuration. That makes the whole chapter suspect to me. His memories were 50 years old when he wrote that book. Heck, I can't remember last week sometimes! Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Moving right along..... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:27:33 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: FN's navigation Someone posted trying to make comparisons between Noonan's task and Shackleton's journey home. I freely admit that what very, very little I know of celestial navigation comes from reading C.S. Forester & Patrick O'Brian. However, even I can visualize the differences between taking sun shots from moving boats and moving airplanes. LTM, who says "Make it noon - turn the glass and strike the bell" Amanda ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 14:05:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: the LOP Don Neumann wrote; > However, unless FN or AE had _prior_ knowledge about the beach &/or reef > flat characterisics of these islands, they could not be _certain_ of any > safe, wheels down, landing for the Electra. Additionaly, without the > establishment of reliable, 'two-way' radio communication with Itaska, > (which had failed to acknowledge any of AE's _possible_ transmissions, > during their flight to the SE on the LOP) they had no assurance of any That's a reasonable assumption, Don. However, there was no airfield as an alternate which meant they knew they had to ditch or find a reasonable beach on which to put the plane. I'm sure they would have assumed when they didn't show up a search would be made of all the nearest pieces of land. The only real help they could have given was which piece of land they planned to land on. I would guess they did that but weren't heard. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 15:00:45 EST From: Greg Rudzinski Subject: FN's Pan Am flights Did FN perform any flight route surveys to the Phoenix Islands while he was employed by Pan Am? I am looking for additional reasons for selecting Gardener Island as an alternate destination. Mckean Island of the Phoenix group is actually the closest alternate destination outside of the Howland and Baker Isl. pair. Canton and Gardener are approximately the same distance from Howland (about 350 nm). If the Canton engine story is correct then the Electra is somewhere other than Canton. Looking for a needle in a hay stack can be quite a chore if your in the wrong hay stack. How can somebody not remember where they found something as cool as a 9 cylinder radial? **************************************************************************** From Ric No. At the time of the Earhart disappearance Pan Am had not yet begun to survey the South Pacific routes. In my view, Gardner was never "selected as an alternate". It was just a coincidence that it fell on the LOP that Noonan would get that morning. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:49:36 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: FN's navigation Alan wrote: > These are low level CU, maybe about 2,000' to 2,500' bases and of significant > number to prevent any meaningful celestial navigation. I speak from > experience flying into and around the Azores, Bermuda and many years in > VietNam. In addition the summer air at that altitude is turbulent. I always > disliked low level because of that. It's also worth noting that the entire flight route from Lae to Howland was over the Tropical Pacific Warm Pool, a patch of ocean which has the highest average surface temperatures on the planet. This area is characterized by vigorous convection currents which produce not only numerous CU but also heavy turbulence below the cloud bases. Even if Noonan was able to see any celestial bodies, it would have been impossible to get usable sights with a hand held bubble octant in that turbulence. Bob, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:18:07 EST From: Tom MM Subject: LOP DR Comparison Finding 1937 flight era data on DR vs actual track is tough, but looking at the data on the Research CD for the Oakland - Honolulu flight gives some insight in what to expect when running down an LOP via DR. I understand that the software that Randy used did some smoothing, but I think the overall result might be better than the raw data with its inherant errors. I've picked out the longer legs, since anything less than about an hour's flight time (~130 NM) is bound to be suspect. Here is how things look when comparing DR to Actual track. I've added a column for extrapolating the error to an arbitrary 350 NM, since the distance run down the 157 LOP could be more or less than that. Still it is illustrative. Time Dist(NM) DR Cse (Deg) Actual Cse(Deg) Difference(Deg) Error@350 NM (NM) 0047-0317 308 242 239 3 18 NM 0317-0446 208 242 249 7 43 NM 0446-0738 382 242 247 5 31 NM 0738-0900 196 248 260 12 74 NM 0900-1007 155 239 252 13 81 NM 1007-1100 Too short 1100-1200 142 229 229 0(wow) 0 NM (based on radio bearings) 1200-1300 143 229 245 16 100 NM 1300-1339 Too short 1339-1410 Too short 1410-1520 178 218 221 3 18 NM (following radio bearing) 1520-1615 101 218 215 3 18 NM (following radio bearing) The average angular deviation from DR course was 6.9 degrees, although with the RDF it is probably unfair to include the last two low values since Bob maintains that they were following a radio beacon. The average of angular deviation at distances over 200 NM was 5 degrees. At 350 NM that would be 31 NM. If we assume that miraculously enough they hit the 157-337 LOP perfectly, that they never strayed at all from that exact LOP in the turning and running N-S for an hour, and if we assume that Howland and Niku lie exactly on a 157-337 LOP (they are slightly off), then how well must they be able to DR down that LOP to get within 10 NM sight distance of Niku after leaving the Howland area? They would need to achieve an average angular accuracy in flight of less than 1.6 degrees difference from their DR. At 15 NM sight distance that accuracy would have to be better than 2.5 degrees. That includes all sources of error - pilot, instruments, and wind. Virtually any error in hitting the LOP or subsequent search maneuvers would further reduce their prospects of nailing Niku. Can someone explain to me how an Electra era aircraft w/o RDF and apparently lacking adequate technology to estimate wind drift would attempt this? (Amateur experts will be awarded extra points). TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric Your analysis seems to indicate that an airplane can't DR anywhere very far without wandering significantly off track. If you don't like 350 miles try 3700. I guess "Lucky Lindy" really was phenomenally lucky. You seem to draw the conclusion that running down the LOP was an irrational act. Certainly the U.S. Navy "experts" in 1937 did not share that view when they tasked the USS COLORADO to search southeastward along the LOP. Nobody at the time articulated an opinion that the flight may have flown some kind of organized search pattern until it ran out of gas or flung itself blindly toward the "catcher's mitt" of the Phoenix Group. I think this points up a danger in historical research. It's always tempting to try to figure out what the most sensible thing to do would be and then ascribe that action to someone in the past. But the question is never what people SHOULD have done. It's what people DID do in the context of the times. Your question is not whether Noonan could have run down the LOP and hit Gardner (clearly that was possible), but whether he would have seen it as a rational course of action. We, of course, don't know what Noonan actually did in this situation, but we do know what other experienced aviation people operating in that same context reasoned that he would do. I submit that their opinion is inherently superior to ours. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:39:23 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Comprehending the final hours ...'I'm sure they would have assumed when they didn't show up a search would be made of all the nearest pieces of land. The only real help they could have given was which piece of land they planned to land on. I would guess they did that but weren't heard'... Alan #2329 ******************************************** Therein seems to lie the single most difficult aspect of the final hours of the flight to comprehend. In the final few messages actually received by the Itaska (no record, of course, of any messages actually _sent_ by AE but _not_ received by Itaska...or anyone else), we learn the...'gas is running low'...'we must be on you'...'we are _______(circling, listening...etc.)'...'we are running North & South on LOP...', however not a single clue as to their further intentions, should Howland not suddenly appear in front of the windscreen or they are unable to raise Itaska on the radio or obtain a DF bearing. Perhaps we may _speculate_ that at that point-in-time, the full realization of their plight did not actually occupy their immediate thinking, obsessed as they were with the objective of actually seeing Howland &/or securing two-way radio communication &/or DF bearing with Itaska. Maybe they were convinced they still had sufficient Fuel/time to search-out illusive Howland Island & they were not prepared to admit to themselves it was now time to consider & to convey to, the only source of rescue known to them at that time, Itaska, they were seeking an alternate landfall. Perhaps the change to the daytime radio frequency, (notice of which _was_ conveyed to Itaska) was the key, missing link, that ultimately caused them to literally 'disappear' from the airwaves at the most crucial stage of the flight, while Itaska's skipper made his decision to pursue a preemptory search to the NW , in the opposite direction from the flight, if we presume they headed SE on the LOP. To paraphrase an old motion picture title...Fate sometimes is indeed the Hunter...! Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric I wish, I wish, I wish we could get away from this notion that a decision was ever made to seek out an alternate destination. Earhart and Noonan were (I believe) trying to find Howland - period - full stop - end of sentence. At no point did they say, "Screw this. Let's go someplace else." There was no "Plan B." Running southeastward on the LOP was not the only course of action that might get them to Howland. They could also fly northwestward. But there were other islands to the southeast of Howland that could serve as landmarks to tell them how to get to Howland, so southeast was the best direction to fly. Finally figuring out where they were, but without enough fuel to get to Howland, was an almost worst-case scenario. The only thing less desirable was having to land in the ocean. I suspect that only when an island appeared in the windshield that obviously was neither Howland nor Baker did they fully accept that they were going to have to terminate the flight at someplace other than their intended destination. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:41:19 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: FN's navigation Bob Brandenburg wrote: > Even if Noonan was able to see any celestial bodies, it > would have been impossible to get usable sights with a hand held bubble > octant in that turbulence. I'll throw in a ditto with Alan & Bob. I have a collection of 12 vintage aviation sextants, one of which is the model A-7(similiar to the A-5 speculated to be Noonan's instrument borrowed from the Navy). You absolutely cannot get an accurate Hs on a turbulent platform. The artificial bubble horizon is much too sensitive and will throw your sight off 20 miles or more. This is not speculation. This is plain hard fact. I've tried too many times previous not to know. You put the instrument down until you get in the smooth air and keep track of your DR as best as you can until then. Amen! Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:31:39 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Octant vs Sextant Bob wrote; >Even if Noonan was able to see any celestial bodies, it >would have been impossible to get usable sights with a hand held bubble >octant in that turbulence. ---------------- One possible use for FN's marine sextant "preventer" could have been sights under turbulence conditions which render the bubble octant useless. Of course, you need to be at a reasonably low altitude, have nothing blocking the horizon below the celestial body, and it must be daytime. Since sights can be done more quickly than with a bubble, advantage could be taken of short duration opportunities. For example, my 1942 copy of Ageton's Manual of Celestial Navigation has dip corrections for altitudes up to 4,000 feet. I keep meaning to try this, but the thought of what might happen if I pulled out something as menacing as a black sextant on a commercial airliner has stayed my hand. Another use of the much more precise marine sextant could have been for backup time checks where radio signals were not available. FN could take a series of shots from a known position at a stopover, adjust his lop's east or west to pass thru his known position, and convert the adjusted distance to time difference between GMT and his chronometer. With careful measurements, I think he would do no worse than at most 5-10 (time) seconds error, and probably better. That should have been adequate for navigation with the much less accurate bubble octant. Best of all is a radio signal, but he was not without resources if that failed. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:41:40 EST From: Tom MM Subject: LOP DR Comparison >If you don't like 350 miles try 3700. I guess "Lucky Lindy" really was >phenomenally lucky. You seem to >draw the conclusion that running down the LOP was an irrational act. If "Lucky Lindy" had DR'd 3,700 miles to a tiny remote island in the Pacific, he would be called "Looney Lindy". Hitting the European continent is somwhat easier, but as AE herself found, you can miss by an Ireland or so. Yes, in my own ignorant amateurish way, I think that there were other good choices. It is not that I think the 157-337 Niku idea is irrational at all - what bothers me is TIGHAR's position that anything ELSE is irrational, suicidal, whatever. In fact, I believe that there were several very rational choices, none of them really good. Like many forumites, I parcel my bets out a percentage here, a percentage there. __% crashed at sea, __% Niku, __% other Phoenix, __% Gilberts. 0.00001% Other. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric My point about Lindbergh is that he, in fact, hit his targeted landfall on the coast of Ireland within something like three miles. Luck really is the only way to account for that. Parceling your bets does have the advantage of guranteeing that you will be correct, to some degree, when and if the answer is known. But if you're actually going to do something about finding the answer you have to pick a hypothesis and test it. I can't put x% of the team searching the ocean bottom and x% searching the Gilberts and x% checking out the other islands of the Phoenix Group. I have to go where the evidence points, and right now it looks to me like it all points to Niku. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:27:50 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: LOP -- yet again! Ric said: "I wish, I wish, I wish we could get away from this notion that a decision was ever made to seek out an alternate destination. Earhart and Noonan were (I believe) trying to find Howland - period - full stop - end of sentence. . . . I suspect that only when an island appeared in the windshield that obviously was neither Howland nor Baker did they fully accept that they were going to have to terminate the flight at someplace other than their intended destination." I take this to mean that they hit the LOP, didn't see Howland, and immediately turned right to head down the LOP, expecting to find Howland but also knowing that there IS land SOMEWHERE along that line. I interpret the comments to mean AE/FN did not initiate an "organized" search (i.e. expanding box patterns etc.) for Howland once they hit the LOP. Under this scenario it would've taken them less than 30 minutes (65+/- miles) to realize that something was seriously wrong and had two options: A, continue southeast and eventually hit some island; or B, do a 180 and fly for 30 minutes back to where they hit the LOP and continue northwest looking for Howland. Option B really hugs the big one considering the fuel situation. I am really baffled at why people have a hard time accepting this. I think Occam's Razor applies here. LTM, who's had a close shave or two also Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric You have somewhat misinterpreted what I said. I do not think that they "immediately turned right to head down the LOP." I suspect that they explored northwestward along the line for a some period of time dictated by their perceived fuel situation before reversing course and proceeding southeastward. That would makes sense and would explain AE's "running on north and south line" comment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:35:53 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: Navigation speculation Each time I read of the last hours of AE/FN's flight, I feel the dread of what Fred must have felt when after all those hours his destination did not appear. And I wonder if in his past experience anything like that had ever happened to him before, and if it did, what did he do? In my limited experience, an occasion like that is the greatest teacher of all, and a required ingredient in your profession. If FN had always found his destination in the past, he might well have been ill-prepared to handle what was probably the greatest surprise of his life. What to do? Recheck calcs? Sight the sun again and again, realizing that unless you can stay aloft until meridian passage there is no latitude? I have read the LBG nav log, and the same dread comes over me. And unless you experience this moment, however many hours that you have, your education is not quite complete. PMB #0856C. **************************************************************************** From Ric Peter, you make an excellent point. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:48:12 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Comprehending the final hours Unless they were WAY to the SE initially, I can't see them finding Gardner without deliberate descision to abandon Howland and head SE for any island. It presupposes they flew for something like 3 HOURS (Howland to Gardner) in a SE direction without even considering that "its been a long time - perhaps we got the wrong way" and turning NW again. What about the possibility that on hearing CW code through the DF loop, but no voice at all, AE & FN concluded (probably wrongly) that there'd been a considerable nav. error placing them beyond voice reception. With that positional doubt, turning SE may have been their only rational option. *************************************************************************** From Ric You went to where Howland should be and it wasn't there. Howland hasn't moved, so you must not be where you think you are. You feel pretty sure that it's somewhere on this line but you have no idea whether it's off to the northwest or down to the southeast or how far. You'd like to think that you're fairly close but you have no way of knowing that. Maybe your'e way off to the SE but you could just as easily be way off to the NW. At what point would you abandon the only plan that almost guarantees that you'll reach some kind of land and bet your life on the hunch that you couldn't be this far off? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:51:10 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Octant vs Sextant > From Tom MM > One possible use for FN's marine sextant "preventer" could have been sights > under turbulence conditions which render the bubble octant useless. Of > course, you need to be at a reasonably low altitude, have nothing blocking > the horizon below the celestial body, and it must be daytime. Since sights > can be done more quickly than with a bubble, advantage could be taken of > short duration opportunities. It's instructive to consider whether such opportunities existed. We know that FN was at 1,000 feet under a cumulus cloud deck with 50 percent coverage and bottoms at about 2,700 feet. We also know that in order to get a sun line early enough to estimate his distance from the 157/337 LOP through Howland, FN needed to get the sight soon after sunrise. From his altitude, FN was viewing the bottoms of the clouds at a grazing angle on the order of 2 degrees or less. At such a shallow viewing angle, the cloud bottoms appear to merge into a solid mass and 50 percent coverage looks like 100 percent. Hence, no near-sunrise sight opportunities. But what about opportunities to shoot the sun through gaps between clouds when the sight angle was steeper? Since cumulous clouds have random vertical development on the order of hundreds to thousands of feet, the gaps between clouds in FN's neighborhood were like silos. He could see the sun only if it was above the rim of a gap above him. Since the sun's declination was about 23 degrees north and FN was near the equator, the sun could easily be obscured by even moderate cloud thickness. FN's problem gets even worse when we consider his speed. At 115 knots, he was moving across the bottoms of cloud gaps at about 11,600 feet per minute. If the gaps averaged 1,000 feet in diameter, then FN's average time under a cloud gap was about 5 seconds, during which he would have to acquire the sun in his sextant's viewfinder and shoot the sight. Not much of an opportunity. The cold, hard reality is that having gone below the cloud deck, FN lost any realistic opportunity for a sun sight, either with the bubble octant or the sextant. Bob, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:46:23 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Octant vs Sextant This looks to me like you are concluding that FN wouldn't have been able to get a near-sunrise sun sight so as to be able to estimate his distance from the LOP through Howland ("Hence, no near- sunrise sight opportunities"). So, if he couldn't estimate his distance from the LOP, how do we account for the fact that the plane reported it was running "on the line"? Seems to me that either FN was able to get his near-sunrise sight, or that they were simply guessing they were on the LOP, which opens-up a whole other can of worms in the entire Gardner hypothesis if they were wrong. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric Bob is talking specifically about the problems associated with getting a celestial observation from down low, beneath a cloud deck. This has nothing to do with Noonan's ability to get a sun shot and an LOP when they're still "on top". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:48:04 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Navigation speculation Peter Boor wrote: << I have read the LBG nav log, and the same dread comes over me. >> What is the LBG nav log? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:53:14 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: LOP DR Comparison Ric wrote: > My point about Lindbergh is that he, in fact, hit his targeted landfall on > the coast of Ireland within something like three miles. Luck really is > the only way to account for that. I've heard somewhere--probably on this Forum--that Lindbergh taught dead reckoning to military pilots. I can't track down the quotation, but in his opening remarks he is said to have said something like, "The only thing wrong with dead reckoning is the name." I've got another very, very fuzzy recollection of the autobiography of a pilot and sailor who pioneered and taught navigation techniques to be used by pilots in WW II. They needed to have a system for keeping track of how much their evasive maneuvers had thrown them off track in order to find their targets and then get home again. This guy was nearly killed flying out of a harbor in Asia (Hong Kong? Singapore?) when his seaplane clipped some telephone or power lines that crossed part of his flight path. His story made me want to more about navigating. Haven't followed up on it so far, except for reading _Longitude_. Marty **************************************************************************** From Ric Lindbergh, as a civilian consultant, advised Army pilots in the Pacific during WWII primarily on fuel conservation techniques, but given his vast navigational experience he probably talked about that too. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:54:24 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Comprehending the final hours As a layman on this forum, your description of the final hours of the flight is what makes the most sense to me over any scenario. It is the most logical thing to do (outside of being accosted by aliens or Japanese ) LTM Troy TIGHAR 2348 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:01:48 EST From: Greg Rudzinski Subject: Re: Octant vs Sextant To Tom MM A traditional marine sextant can also be used for taking horizontal angles or relitive bearings from an aircraft cockpit. FN may have used his Ludolph sextant to check a seaplanes mooring when he was with Pan Am. I believe that bubble attachments were available for marine sextants in the 1930's but Im not sure. ************************************************************************** From Ric NR16020 was equipped with a pelorus for taking relative bearings. There was a mount at the base of each cabin window, port and starboard, and a single movable pelorus (which, for the uninitiated, is nothing more than a small telescope with crosshairs just like a telescopic rifle sight, that swivels on a base marked off in degrees that are aligned with the airplane - 0 at the nose, 180 at the tail). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:22:17 EST From: Greg R. Subject: 1940 Niku finding The 1940 Niku finding should have included a belt buckle, zipper, ring, cigarette lighter, pen, pocket knife, keys, money clip, sunglasses, wrist watch, and the sextant from the box. It seems as if the 1940 skeleton may have been naked. Do you thing Gallagher's helpers pilfered evidence? The sextant inverter was found and then unaccounted for. **************************************************************************** From Ric What the well-dressed castaway will wear this season.... I'd agree that all those things are possible artifacts that could be associated with a castaway, but to say that Gallagher's find SHOULD have included any of them is highly presumptive. Logically, a person marooned on that island for any significant period of time might be expected to have pared down their wardrobe to the bare essentials. This person does seem to have had shoes - a major concern for any European but not for a Pacific Islander. No clothing was found but textiles go away very quickly in the intense UVs. Small, durable remnants from clothing, such as zippers and buttons, might escape anything but an archaeological type of search. We intend to find out this summer. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:25:45 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: LOP DR Comparison Ric wrote : > My point about Lindbergh is that he, in fact, hit his targeted landfall on > the coast of Ireland within something like three miles. Luck really is the > only way to account for that. Even Lucky Lindy agreed to that. In his autobiography he wrote somewhere (I can look it up if you like) that he calculated his course without taking into account wind corrections since he had no information whatever on weather or the wind en route. It so happened that this was his best bet for he did hit upon Ireland within something like three miles from his estimated point. I remember he wrote that before he took off he was invited by navy officers to come and explain his navigation. He did and he wrote they were impressed because they didn't know how they would have solved his problem under the given circumstances (this being 1927 technology and weather information en route). Surely FN must have known about Lindbergh's technique too. Charles Lindbergh carefully calculated his route and sticked to his calculated headings. Being the good navigator he was I'm sure Fred Noonan prepared the flight to Howland just as carefully and also sticked to his figures. The one advantage he had over LIndbergh was that AE flew the airplane and he could check on the progress of the flight shooting celestial bodies. I also feel confident that he wouldn't have corrected course too often. He was pretty confident to be able to navigate to within DF range of Howland. Somebody on this forum wrote that on long haul flights over water he used to take altitude changes en route as an indication of changes outside air pressure and... not correct for wind but keep on course. Eventually they would get to where they intended to but faster than the guys who did correct for wind. Are we sure that FN hadn't learned this too ? So if someone takes out his slide rule and calculates FN's DR route to Howland, where would AE/FN eventually end up ? On the LOP and the Itasca DF signal would tell them which way Howland was. But that's where everything went wrong. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:26:58 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: FN's navigation Wouldn't it stand for reason that AE and FN would stay above the clouds for fuel economy as long as possible ? Therefore I think we can take it for granted they descended below the CU layer only when FN calculated they were approaching their LOP. In other words : the shooting of any celestial bodies was then over en under the cloud layer there was no further need for celestial bodies, only for Itasca ADF signal and/or the Mark One eyeball to see Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:29:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP DR Comparison For Tom MM Tom, maybe I'm losing too many brain cells but tonight I don't understand what a DR course and an actual course are. I know what true course and magnetic course are and what true headings and magnetic headings are. I know what track is. Our heroes had wind and precession or compass error working on them and the various celestial errors each time a body is shot. I don't know the wind and I don't know the precession rate of their compass if they had a DG or the errors of their mag compass. Therefore I am hard pressed to plot any kind of course for any distance. What am I missing? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:30:53 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Octant vs Sextant Tom MM wrote: > One possible use for FN's marine sextant "preventer" could have been sights Tom, you brought to mind a point not mentioned that I recall. We think of taking a celestial shot as observing a body for a two minute period, a minute later taking another 2 minute shot on another body and plotting the two shots adjusting for the time differential. That DOES take a little time but the reason for the two minute shot is for the purpose of averaging out the errors of sighting. There is nothing stopping a navigator from taking an instantaneous shot and recognizing the probable or possible error. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:07:09 EST From: Tom MM Subject: LOP DR Comparison As much as I feel compelled to yank on the TIGHAR'S tail from time to time, I do want to make it clear that I respect and appreciate your efforts to resolve the Earhart mystery. I wish more groups were out there pursuing their theories because ultimately that would lead to the larger goal of finding the remains of the aircraft and closing the books on this - whoever is right. After a couple of years on the forum, I will offer this honest and frank thought. If TIGHAR was less absolute, as in "this is the way and the light" about their own hypothesis, and a bit more neutral about other hypotheses, I believe it would add significantly to their credibility and base of support. Free advice - and of course, worth every penny. Back to the battle lines, TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Tom. I appreciate your thoughts. You, and others, may find this hard to beleive, but I regularly indulge an almost perverse desire to convince myself that the whole panoply fo Niku evidence is an illusion that can be explained away. When some artifact that we've been excited about gets eliminated, usually though our own research, its almost a relief (I told it was perverse). Likewise, I have searched quite eagerly for someone who can make a compelling case for crashed-at-sea or even Japanee-man-take-radyfrier-Saipan but, so far, without success. I was genuinely disappointed in Elgen Long's book. After so many years of him being seen by many as the voice of reason in the Earhart controversy, his long-awaited treatise on why Earhart went down at sea was - well - sad. Time and time again we've had gunslingers ride into our virtual town here on the forum. They call us out into the street and we let them draw and shoot. So far all we've seen are little flags that say "Bang!". LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:31:14 EST From: David Kelly Subject: things have not moved on I have been reading with great interest about your expeditions and the progress of this forum, but it seems that the forum keeps going in a circles. When people get bored with it they move on and a new batch of people get involved and you end up covering the same ground. My point is, the forum does not seem to be getting anywhere. Although I do realise that somewhere out there may be the one piece of information which will crack this mystery wide open, it has sofar been illusive. Regards David Kelly **************************************************************************** From Ric Actually, the turn-over on the forum tends to be mostly among lurkers with screen names like AmeliaFan or HotPilot. Occasionally we'll get a gunslinger but they don't last long. The serious researchers are Energizer Bunnies who keep going, and going.... Yes, a lot of the same ground gets covered repeatedly and some dead horses get dug up, but we do make progress. For example, after extolling Noonan as one of the era's finest aerial navigators, we have continued to look at his work and developed a more balanced view of his talents. Likewise, the whole LOP and Plan B questions have benefitted from repeated rehashings, with input from some new voices. No, the forum has not brought us that one piece of information that will solve the mystery - nor is it likely to. If it's out there we'll have to go get it. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:43:54 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Octant vs Sextant So, we are saying that we are sure that in the early morning FN would have gotten his LOP shot while he was above the clouds so that he could advance the LOP through Howland, but we are sure that he wouldn't also at that time have gotten any shots necessary to get a rough fix on latitude so he could have some idea, however rough, which way to turn when the got to the advanced LOP. In other words, we are sure that he made a conscious decision to solve only one piece of the puzzle as to his position when he had the opportunity to get answers to both. Then, when he dipped below the clouds, we are sure that both any further LOP shots and any latitude shots would've been impossible. --Chris Kennedy ************************************************************************** From Ric As I'm sure you know, we're not SURE of anything. All we can do is speculate about what seems reasonable. It seems reasonable that Noonan could have gotten a good LOP shortly after sunrise and it seems reasonable that he could advance it through Howland with some degree of accuracy (whatever that means). So far, it does not seem reasonable that a means of obtaining a reliable latitude (reliabe enough to know which way to turn on the advanced LOP) was available to him. It also does not seem reasonable to suppose that he got further celestial observations once the plane descended below the clouds. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:45:40 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: LOP DR Comparison Alan: The missing link is that the data came from the TIGHAR Research CD, which contains a wealth of info regarding the nav, weather, radio traffic, etc of each ship in the search or supporting the flight. The nav data from ships logs was run thru naval renavigation software used to smooth or reconcile the logged data and to compute set and drift. As a bonus, the Oakland - Honolulu flight is also included. I used the tabular output column headings to make it clear which I was using. The bottom line of the data that I extracted is a comparison between aircraft heading and actual track for a number of legs of the flight. I don't have it with me now, but as I recall, both are tabulated in degrees true. Anyway, my intent was to compare some actual leg by leg flight data for NR16020 with the accuracy requirements for DR'ng to Niku (which are pretty exacting). I won't claim that it "proves" anything, but it certainly gives me pause. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:06:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP DR Comparison > If TIGHAR was less absolute, as in "this is the way and the > light" about their own hypothesis, and a bit more neutral about other > hypotheses, I believe it would add significantly to their credibility and > base of support. Tom, that certainly works in many situations but being somewhat dogmatic and slightly dictatorial myself I have seen little reason to be less absolute. For example how does one be neutral about the theory of AE over flying the Marshalls when there is not one scrap of evidence she did so and all the available evidence shows it was not possible OR rational? Night time and insufficient fuel make the idea laughable. How can one be neutral about a book that so misrepresents the facts and ignores so many others and then presents no facts to support a theory. I'll be happy to discard any idea proven wrong. I'll be happy to accept any new evidence adequately supported but otherwise I'll stay staunchly on my course -- 157 degrees of course. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:18:54 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: sunrise LOP Ric wrote: > ... It seems reasonable that Noonan > could have gotten a good LOP shortly after sunrise ... The "200 miles out" message came in at 0615 Itasca/Howland time. What time was sunrise (using Itasca/Howland time)? Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric The sun was coming up at Howland just about the time that message was received. It was another 15 minutes or so before it rose 200 miles further to the west (although being at altitude would have lessened that somewhat). In any event, it's apparent that the "about 200 miles out - approximately" estimate was not based upon a sunrise celestial observation. It has recently been suggested that it could be based upon an LOP obtained from shooting Venus just before dawn, which would by coincidence also result in a 157/337 LOP. The "about 100 miles out" estimate a half hour later (if Earhart actually said that - which can be debated) could have been based upon a solar observation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:22:05 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: things have not moved on David Kelly wrote: > but it seems that the forum keeps going in a > circles. When people get bored with it they move on and a new batch of > people get involved and you end up covering the same ground. My point is, > the forum does not seem to be getting anywhere. David, your post reminds me of a regatta I watched from the shore. An elderly lady standing beside me asked to borrow my binoculars. After a few moments she said, "They're actually doing things out there." From a distance they were almost motionless but up close she could see feverish activity. An over view of the Forum might not show a lot of forward movement but an awesome amount of detail is being examined and reexamined. Each day someone's post contains a tidbit that makes our understanding of what happened a little clearer, perhaps a little more plausible and helps support some thoughts while keeping us from chasing too many rabbit trails. I never get bored. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:25:35 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Octant vs Sextant Ric wrote - in answering Chris Kennedy: > So far, it does not seem reasonable that a means of obtaining a > reliable latitude (reliabe enough to know which way to turn on the advanced > LOP) was available to him. Chris, the problem with getting a reliable latitude is in shooting two body fixes. If you cross two lines you can cross them anywhere. If Noonan could have shot a three body fix the rough point of crossing would have been obvious. Before sunrise and depending on the weather he could easily have done that but it would appear he generally shot two body fixes. What he did that night I haven't a clue. If he had a stable platform and good visibility he would have done ok with his two body fixes. Upon arrival and at sun up I haven't been able to find an easy way for him to ascertain his latitude with any reasonable accuracy. So when Ric says he wouldn't know which way to turn he is most likely on the money. I think Ric is fairly convinced FN did not offet his approach but was relying heavily on getting a DF steer. I've finally come to much that same conclusion but for a slightly different reason. I, too, think FN was trying to track directly into Howland. I think he had good celestial fixes inbound and was confident he knew exactly where he was. If he had a good fix not too far out the winds could not have done much damage to him unless they switched 180 degrees right after the fix so he ought to have been fairly close to his plotted destination upon arrival. I think our heroes were overconfident they could then visually sight Howland. I believe this because they had had no luck with their own DF on the trip, they had no two way communication so I have my doubts of how much FN was counting on a steer. I think if he did NOT have good celestial inbound he would have had no choice but to offset. Obviously he may have and we will never know it but if so it was a very small offset as they came in pretty close. All this again tells you they had no good answer to which way to turn. Something else to keep in mind is that their loud transmission told Itasca the plane was close but nothing told AE and FN they were close except what fix information FN was able to plot. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:36:04 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Octant vs Sextant That's right---we are not sure, and neither can the experts be sure even though they are saying that they are sure. What concerned me was that much of the expert analysis was applying the information we have on LOP, celestial sites, time and weather inconsistently, selectively and in a way which pre-ordained that FN would get the flight on the LOP, but without any hint of his latitude. If you are going to say that cloud cover would not permit a celestial reading near sunrise, then this means that neither a "reliable" latitude nor a reading necessary to "reliably" advance your LOP could have been performed. The clouds cover all, and are not discriminating between LOP and latitude. Hence, where did FN get the reading for the LOP? Well, above the clouds, you answer. Makes sense, but then it also makes sense for him to get whatever he could on latitude at the same time---especially if we are dealing with someone familiar in navigating in weather in that part of the world knowing he may not get a second chance once below. The experts don't discuss any of this, and while (hopefully) they are light years ahead of me in knowledge and experience in celestial navigation, their method of analyzing the recent information discovered on latitude has real holes in it , leaving the impression that they and TIGHAR are "sure" that the flight could have known nothing about latitude. This is flat wrong. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric You have gotten it into your head that Noonan could have determined his latitude at about the same time he got his sunrise LOP. I guess you got that from Greg R.'s original posting making that claim, which has since been shown to be incorrect. I see no inconsistencies or selectivity in the recent discussions about what information was availalbe to Noonan at various times given the presumed actions of the airplane and the known weather. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:45:32 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: LOP DR Analysis This is a pretty interesting piece of work, and yet it seems to suggest something fairly obvious: that is, that if you can't use radio direction finding and are "using the line" flying at 1000' to find islands along the line you have very little visual site areas on either side of your track. This requires real precision in everything to find the islands (precise charts, navigation and flying). Of course, you could increase altitude to try and widen the area, but that uses precious fuel and brings up the problem of the cloud cover. Would a slight "zig zag" pattern down the line, with the line at the center of your pattern be a realistic way to increase the visual site area? While, it would increase your total flight distance and fuel used (both to fly the added distance and in "scrubbing off" speed in your turns), it's a way you can increase visual range without increasing altitude and encountering the cloud problem. Any thoughts? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Airplanes are not race cars. While technically some speed is lost in the act of turning, the amount is so small as to not worth considereing. The real problem with flying a zigzag pattern is keeping track of where your original line is. It's not a road. You can't see it. The wind will shorten your zigs or lengthen your zags depending upon its strength and direction - which are also invisible to you. As Tom MM has shown, it's hard enough to DR a straight line, let alone a zigzaggy one. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:52:02 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Those impossible low level sunsights For those who remain interested in testing speculation and opinion (expert or otherwise) against "true stories", I submit the following from P.G. Taylor's PACIFIC FLIGHT (Sydney, 1937) pages 201-204: "[T]here is a great mass of cloud in the sky, reaching well above our level. ... At 17 h. 00 m. G.M.T. (0630 Honolulu) we come up with the cloud, and it is obvious we shall pass through its eastern edge. Below, it appears to reach almost to the water ... I can see difficulties arising for our sun sights. We are flying at 12,000 feet. The surface of the sea is only occasionally revealed in a patch of sunlight, but we particularly want those last sights to put us in as close as possible. "How about going down now? See if we can get the sun in a gap? "OK" Smithy's voice comes cheerfully back. "This is a critical stage of our flight. Everything has combined to prove that we are very close to where we should be, but the fact remains that we have seen no land for nearly 2000 miles of conditions which have so isolated us from the normal surroundings of the world that they seem barely to exist at all. "...We have never done this before, we cannot stop and wait to fix our position when conditions are suitable, and we have very limited fuel ... "At 2000 feet we are below the lowest layer and there are streaks of yellow glaring sunlight where the lately risen sun stabs its rays through the gaps in the cloud. It is hot and hazy and bumpy right to the sea, but the sun strikes slantwise on the ocean and it must be possible to get our sights. "Smitty eases the glide and picks her up with the motor as the surface of the sea comes up to meet us. At perhaps fifteen feet he has her running nicely, and the water slips by at 120 as he keeps her throttled back. ... "I run back the cabin-top and shift up in the seat to get the sights. The horizon, the sun, the clouds, the water, and everything in the world just flings itself about in the mirror, and cosmic lights dance upon the mixture of their images. With the altitude of the sun so low, this sextant gives no distinct image, which makes matters awkward with the machine leaping in the bumps. ... After a lot of wrangling I manage to lay a faint transparent image momemtarily on the horizon ... "Altitude 13 degrees 37 minutes ... The resulting position line, combined with the D.R. latitude worked up from the last sight of Polaris, gives our position. We are fourteen miles west of where we should be. ... " ... Like to try another to check up. The sight was not too good. ... Smithy throttles back again ... I chase the various features of the seascape all over the sky and finally sit the almost invisible sun on the horizon for a couple of seconds before it is wiped away by a procession of cloud and sea. 17 degrees 58 minutes. From this altitude the position line tallies closely enough to the first to leave no possible doubt. ... We alter course 4 degrees to starboard, and sit back with a more comfortable feeling of security. ..." The entire story (and indeed the whole book) is well worth reading. Oscar Boswell **************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. Sounds like Kingston-Smith had a hatch in the roof. That would be nice. Was that his Fokker "Southern Cross"? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:01:14 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: LOP DR Comparison The latest quotation from Chairman Ric: "Time and time again we've had gunslingers ride into our virtual town here on the forum. They call us out into the street and we let them draw and shoot. So far all we've seen are little flags that say "Bang!". That's what the man said just before the building collapsed from the termite invasion. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Tuck your flag back in your pistol Cam. The biggest threat to this project seems to be from mixed metaphors. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:06:01 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Navigation speculation Randy Jacobson asked: >What is the "LBG nav log"? "Lady Be Good?" *************************************************************************** From Dave Porter Someone a few days back reported getting chills from the LBG nav log, then later someone else asked what the LBG nav log was. At the risk of digging up a long dead horse, I think that the navigation log of the WW 2 B-24 bomber Lady Be Good is what is being referred to. For folks who weren't around last time this came up, the LBG failed to return to its North African base after a raid into Italy. The remains of the aircraft, and later, most of the crew, were found separately years later by workers for a petroleum exploration company. There was also a Twilight Zone episode loosely based on the event. According to a recent episode of "History's Lost and Found" on the Arts and Entertainment cable channel, the navigators log, which was found with the aircraft, did not have any entries after the time over target in Italy. It was the navigator's first combat mission, and the speculation is that he may have been busy manning a gun or something. The oft repeated quote was that the aircraft for whatever the reason, "did not have a functioning navigator," hence, the blank log. At night, with no nav, they simply didn't know when they crossed the coast, and flew on into the desert. LTM, Dave Porter, 2288 (not Dave Bush-I wouldn't want him getting blamed for some of the weird stuff I've posted) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:26:20 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: LOP DR A further note on this interesting work concerns the author's observation that Niku is slightly off a direct 157/337 line advanced through Howland. From the TIGHAR website, it looks to me that Niku is slightly to the east of the line. I can't tell how far, but if they were still at a thousand feet and they were exactly on the line I am wondering whether they could have seen the island? My impression from the posting is that you cannot see very far at all from 1000' (what, 10-15 miles either side??). Furthermore, assuming they did not know where they were latitude- wise,they would also not know where they were on the line after they intersected it and turned onto the line. Thus, they wouldn't know how far to fly along the line to the south before knowing they should see Niku if they turned a bit east. If they were off the line to the west to begin with, the problem definately gets worse, yet if they were off too far to the east, they still might miss it. It almost seems suicidal to run the line at 1000' without some sort of search pattern either side of that line (my "zig zag" or something else) to compensate for the fact that you may not be running it exactly true, and that even if you are the islands which lie along it are near the limit of your visibility at 1000'. You also have had no luck with radio direction finding. Alternatively, if at some point you concluded that Howland was long gone (and Baker, too, since they are close and Baker appears on the line), you might move your line over slightly to intersect these other islands (such as Niku). From what I remember of the issue involving the mis-mapping of Howland, I believe it was mapped too far west about 10 miles. Is this correct? If so, and the flight didn't know this, would "advancing" the LOP through where you thought Howland was advance you to a point where you might not be able to spot the island at 1000'? Advancing the line to a point west of the true position of Howland would also put the southern leg of that line that much farther from Niku (which is already off the line to the east). Hmmm, this gets more interesting. Too bad we don't know for certain that whether the flight was aware of the error. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric A 157/337 LOP drawn through the incorrect position for Howland passes about 5 miles east of Gardner. A similar line drawn through the correct position for Howland (about 5 miles further east) passes, as you'd expect, about 10 miles east of Gardner. In 1967, Ann Pellegrino and her crew were able to spot Howland ( a much smaller and harder to see island than Gardner) from about 10 miles away. That said, as has been pointed out here many times by many voices, an LOP is not a razor-thin line to begin with and running a couple hundred miles by DR without landmarks is going to result in some error. Recent discussions on this forum have shown that while running southeastward down the line was the best course of action, finding an island was far from a sure thing. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:34:51 EST From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: things have not moved on I am still here, I read the postings on the forum daily. It has been a long while since I contributed anything, but the forum is worthwhile to read. The ideas that come up recently like Betty's log and Gallagher's story are continually reshaped by other's posts. This makes the information on Tighar's website more complete, as now you can have a glimpse of what is going on behind the scenes. I guess if you have been on the list for a while, you would know this. I was wondering though, if the RN written on the back of the shoe heel would correspond to anyone involved with world flight? (or maybe its already been covered I've missed it entirely) LTM Charles Lim **************************************************************************** From Ric Most people don't sign or initial the inside of their shoe heels. We've had several shoe repairers tell us that it's not uncommon to "initial" your work so that if the customer comes back with a complaint you can know whether or not it was really your fault. I suppose we could search 1937 Burbank and Hollywood phone books for cobblers with the initials RN but even if we found Ralph Nelson Shoe Repair it wouldn't prove anything. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:44:30 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: No offset? From Ric As I'm sure you know, we're not SURE of anything. All we can do is speculate about what seems reasonable... ********************************************** Does it not also seem at least somewhat reasonable that an experienced trans-Pacific (PAA) aerial navigator, well knowing the rigor required of his skills to navigate over 2000(+) miles of open ocean, mostly at night, over previously uncharted waters, possibly facing often unpredictable, unstable wind/weather conditions, to a sandspit of a sea-level island, where his only electronic 'homing' device is operated by government 'employees', using what might be considered relatively new, technologically advanced equipment, would not consider 'hedging' his bet by charting a deliberate offset, either NW or SE of the desired LOP target, to cover for any possible variances created by said weather conditions or any imperfections in his own ability to make accurate sightings during the flight, so at least he could direct his pilot in which direction to _initially_ turn the aircraft, should (for some unexplainable reason) they failed to receive the DF bearing they were depending upon to bring them home ? I know, it's been said often enough, there is _no_ documented evidence that FN _did_ utilize the off-set technique on this or any other flights; However, conversely, there is no evidence that he _didn't_ use this technique, unless we accept AE's, somewhat ambiguous ...'running north and south'... message, as 'proof' that FN had not charted such an off-set...yet no one _knows_ which way FN told AE to turn_first_when they reached the LOP intersect where Howland was supposed to appear, or for that matter, at that point, whether he was giving her any directions. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric Using an offset would not seem as unreasonable as, say, turning back for the Gilberts but the best indication that they didn't use an offset is not "running north and south" (which, incidentally, she probably never said), it's "we must be on you.." which suggests that there was a moment in time when they expected to arrive. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:47:24 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: LBG For Randy - the "LGB" = Lady Be Good, the B-24 found in the desert. The nav log is in the USAF Museum in Dayton OH. When you read the log, you see that the Nav calculated an ETA for their destination, and then flew - and flew - and flew - and waited - and ...It gives me the creeps. PMB #0856. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:48:21 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: DR course For Alan - A DR course is what you plan or predict to fly, or it may mean what you think you have flown, using the best historical data that you have. An actual course (or track) is the course that you actually fly. It's really pretty simple, though navs tend to mix words, and course and track often are used to mean the same thing. Keep it simple...PMB #0856C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:25:11 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Skull scaling I was surfing the past Research Bulletins and was wondering if there is any progress on the 6/30/98 Bulletin "Skull-Duggery" now that you've been back in touch with Photek. I know Photek has a lot to do besides AE pro bono work, but this one seemed to be relatively simple. Andrew McKenna 1045CE http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/05_Skullduggery/05_Skullduggery.html Were the bones found on Nikumaroro on 1940 those of Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan, or did they belong to some other hapless, and as yet unknown, castaway? We should soon have solid scientific evidence with which to assess those possibilities. Even though we're still not sure what ultimately became of the bones after they were sent to Suva, Fiji for examination, the detailed measurements of the skull contained in the recently discovered doctor's report (see "Chasing the Bones," TIGHAR Tracks Vol. 14, No. 1) make possible the kind of hi-tech biometric comparisons with photographs which have become a standard method of remains identification. According to forensic imaging specialist Jeff Glickman of Photek, Inc., if six measurements of a skull are found to be identical to measurements made from photographs taken in life, the identification is considered to be absolute and is admissible in court. We don't have six measurements. We have four-- overall length and width of the skull, and height and breadth of the orbits (eye sockets)-- so an absolute identification will not be possible. However, an absolute disqualification is a possibility. In other words, we should be able to say either, "The person whose skull was found on Nikumaroro in 1940 was not Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan" or "The person whose skull was found on Nikumaroro in 1940 looked a whole lot like Fred Noonan (or Amelia Earhart)." Either conclusion will be highly significant to TIGHAR's investigation. The remains and artifacts (woman's shoe sole, sextant box, Benedictine bottle, campfire) found in 1940 appear to be linked to the artifacts found by TIGHAR (woman's shoe sole and heel, campfire with label fragment) at what seems to be the same site in 1991 and 1997. If the dimensions of the skull found there are all wrong for either Earhart or Noonan, then the person who died there was somebody else and that whole body of evidence must be discounted as being associated with the Earhart disappearance. If, on the other hand, the skull proves to be very much like that of either Amelia or Fred, then the likelihood will be greatly increased that the castaway(s) of Gardner Island were who we suspect they were. What We Have & What We Need To do the forensic comparison, Photek needs the skull measurements, full face and profile views of each subject, and some way to accurately scale the photographs. The measurements taken by Dr. Hoodless in Suva on April 4, 1941 should be as valid as if they were made yesterday. Finding what amounts to "mug shots" of Earhart and Noonan proved to be difficult but after examining hundreds of possibilities we have selected the photos shown below. Establishing scale in each photo is the trickiest, and most crucial, part of the process. *************************************************************************** From Ric The problem of scaling the available mug shots with sufficient accuracy to yield meaningfull results continues to thwart the comparison - and even if we solved that problem it would not be simple - and forget pro bono - it would be expensive. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:28:03 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: FN's navigation > Finding a one mile island when a fix within 5 miles under ideal > conditions was the best he could expect, is not a formula for > success every time.. I've just come back from a flight of 175nm coastal at 1000ft for most of the trip, except the last few miles where we needed 1500ft for clearance reasons. There are islands around 20nm off to the left for the whole trip. Making out the smaller ones of about 1nm size was, well, I knew they were there and I couldn't see them. The larger ones were no problem. From 5 miles it was ok, from 10 miles a little tricky. We had cumulous cloud bases about 1000ft above, blue sky between and an airplane with windows big enough so we could see our own landing gear, plus almost 360deg visibility and were flying only 80kts or so. I've done this exercise from higher up and had no trouble spotting these same islands, but from 1000ft it is very dodgy.. I suspect the visibility from the Electra would allow them to easily fly right over the island without seeing it. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:07:33 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Kingsford-Smith's Plane > From Ric > > Very interesting. Sounds like Kingston-Smith had a hatch in the roof. That > would be nice. Was that his Fokker "Southern Cross"? Gordon Taylor's comments relate to the flight to Hawaii in Kingsford-Smith's Lockheed Sirius, which had a sliding canopy. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Ah, yes. Thank you. The "Lady Southern Cross", technically an Altair (converted to retractable gear from the fixed-gear Sirius). Lindbergh aslo used that basic type for his survey flights. Couldn't ask for better visibility and a whole lot different from peeking out of the Electras few small windows. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:43:13 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Drift Sight? When looking at the Oakland - Honolulu data, another fairly obvious question arises - what technology or visual cues were available on NR16020 to help the navigator estimate wind and its effect? I used to think that FN could have estimated his wind from hourly fixes, but now that I have a clearer sense of the uncertainty in fix position, I realize that he would have to use fixes several hours apart to get a meaningful average wind estimate. By that time, it may have been of little use. This could be a significant problem on an aircraft where wind components could be a sizable fraction of the airspeed. I know there was a drift sight on the aircraft, but that does not tell us much. Any help with the following would be appreciated. 1. How "good" was this sight - to what accuracy could FN estimate wind components along and normal to his heading? 2. Could the sight be used day and night or just one or the other? 3. Was there some other cue that FN could use reliably? Switching gears to running down the LOP to Niku, could you tell me what TIGHAR assumes for wind components while running down the 157 LOP, and how FN might have adjusted his heading to keep himself on the LOP? TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric <<1. How "good" was this sight - to what accuracy could FN estimate wind components along and normal to his heading?>> From what I've seen, it was a decent enough instrument but the installation was a pretty half-assed arrangement that involved propping open the cabin door and mounting the sight on a couple of brackets. I know of no data to indicate how "good" it worked. <<2. Could the sight be used day and night or just one or the other?>> As far as I know it was strictly a daytime deal. The plane carried "aluminum powder bombs" that could be dropped to mark the ocean surface. <<3. Was there some other cue that FN could use reliably? >> Here I'll defer to the nautical aviator/navigators on the forum. <> All we have to go on is the surface wind as recorded in the Itasca deck log - about 11 kts from the east thoughout the later morning - and the observation taken by Black (time not specified) on Howland which was ESE at 16 kts on the surface; ESE 15 kts at 1,000 ft.; E at 17 kts at 2,000 feet. A good guess would seem to be that a flight proceeding along the 157 LOP at 1,000 feet would encounter a wind of 15 kts from something like 120 degrees - in other words, a light quartering headwind from the left. <> That depends upon how accurately he was able to determine the wind speed and direction that morning. If he knows what the wind is it's a simple matter to plug in a correction. The trick is in reading the wind either by means of the drift sight or just reading the appearance of the ocean. Again, those who have more experience at that than I do can tell you more. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:59:17 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Octant vs Sextant To Alan Thank you very much for sending this. I am reading some materials on celestial navigation so that I can track everyone a bit more closely on this complicated and frustrating topic, but so far I am getting the impression through all the debate that we have come some distance from the generally accepted idea to date that the flight would not have known anything about where they were north or south of Howland as the reached the LOP, to a position that they, perhaps, had some idea. Furthermore, I note that you talk about differences between yourself and Ric over the role that FN may have ascribed to DF-- Ric is pretty certain the flight viewed it as essential, whereas your view is that, while certainly helpful, the flight might not have viewed DF as essential to locating the island. Anyway, taken all together, even if the flight did not know whether it was north or south of Howland when turning onto the LOP, there is reason to believe now that the rudiments needed for the flight to obtain some sort of north-south fix were available to it. This may have been enough to give the flight an idea that they were no further than "X" miles north, or "Y" miles south of Howland. A "band" within which to look, so-to-speak. This is certainly extremely valuable information. Also, the recent work done by Tom on "drift" along the LOP has also challenged the notion that running along the LOP to locate islands (Howland or others) is as trustworthy a method as has been generally accepted to date. The bottom line is that while all these factors and variables does not preclude a flight southeast along the LOP to locate land, it certainly complicates the decision immensely, especially as you move out of the "band" within which you expected to find Howland----is the "band" calculation wrong and we need to continue southeast, or is the "band" calculation correct and are we too far off the LOP? Do we need to adjust the LOP eastward/westward to hit the islands other than Howland if we decide to continue southeast? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm stayin' out of this. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:07:16 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: No offset? I don't think there is any conflict between using an offset and expecting to arrive("be on") at a particular time. The offset is an insurance policy - one offsets with the expectation of intersecting the LOP (say) 30nm to the NW, and when one turns south on the LOP one expects to arrive in (say) 15 minutes - after flying those 15 minutes, "we should be on you". The interception point is not random - one chooses to offset a certain amount - but the offset technique recognizes that the navigation may be off enough so that the point of interception is not actually at the expected point - it may be 10 or 20 or 50 or 60 miles NW, rather than the intended 30. Oscar Boswell *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I see your point. Of course, if the 19:12 message came after interception of the advanced LOP and a run down it (or up it) for the length of the planned offset, it changes the speculation about the accuracy of the 200 and 100 miles out estimates. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:08:42 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: ZIGZAG > From Chris Kennedy > .. Would a slight "zig zag" pattern down the line, with the line at >the center of your pattern be a realistic way to increase the visual >site area? *** Absolutely not! The observer is at the center of the segment of his visability, whatever the conditions. The size of that segment will not change with the observers motion be it forward or having a number of lateral changes of direction. It will only change the physical area of observation. E.g. a '45' to the left will uncover new area further left of the original course that otherwise would not have been seen, but it will leave an equal area to the right of course [that would have been seen absent the left turn] out of the observers view. The benefit of Zigzaging is a corallary of perpetual motion. RC 941 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:03:34 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Signature on the shoe Ric wrote: >I suppose we could search 1937 Burbank and > Hollywood phone books for cobblers with the initials RN but even if we found > Ralph Nelson Shoe Repair it wouldn't prove anything. If Ralph Nelson's customers included anyone familiar, would tell us anything? Michael Holt ************************************************************************** From Ric First, before anybody gets excited, Ralph Nelson is a fictional character. We're talking "just suppose" here. Just suppose we found that Ralph Nelson of Hollywood Shoe Repair advertised himself as "Shoe Maker To The Stars" and included among his clients Clark Gable, Harpo Marx and Amelia Earhart. What would we have? Another layer of speculation and coincidence to add to the pile we already have. It would increase the preponderance of evidence but would be far from a smoking shoe. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:17:52 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: No offset? > From Oscar Boswell > > Ric: > > I don't think there is any conflict between using an offset and expecting to > arrive("be on") at a particular time. The offset is an insurance policy - one > offsets with the expectation of intersecting the LOP (say) 30nm to the NW, and > when one turns south on the LOP one expects to arrive in (say) 15 minutes - > after flying those 15 minutes, "we should be on you". The interception point is > not random - one chooses to offset a certain amount - but the offset technique > recognizes that the navigation may be off enough so that the point of > interception is not actually at the expected point - it may be 10 or 20 or 50 > or 60 miles NW, rather than the intended 30. > > Oscar Boswell > *************************************************************************** > From Ric > > Okay, I see your point. Of course, if the 19:12 message came after > interception of the advanced LOP and a run down it (or up it) for the length > of the planned offset, it changes the speculation about the accuracy of the > 200 and 100 miles out estimates. Well, remember that you believe the estimates were by different people. The 200 mile estimate was from the plane - perhaps based on DR and the growing light in the sky to the East (morning twilight begins before sunrise). The classic execution of the offset (if I understand properly) calls for a course change 60 miles before reaching the LOP - one alters course 20 degrees for a 20 mile offset, etc. The distance to the LOP is thus increased by only about 3 miles (20 squared = 400 ; 60 squared = 3600; 400 +3600 = 4000 and the square root of 4000 = 63 +) by a 20 degree change (20 mile offset). Adding the 3 mile increase, plus 20 miles flown on the LOP increases distance flown to cover the 200 miles to 223 - well within the capability of the plane during the period from 1744 to 1912, and no big deal when dealing with a rough estimate. If both estimates came from the plane, there's a conflict between 200 miles at 1744 and 100 miles at 1811, but the same conflict exists whether or not the offset was flown. *************************************************************************** From Ric Sounds like the offset or no offset question is a non-issue. There's no evidence that there was one but no significant consequence if there was. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:40:15 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: No offset? Is the issue of whether or not there was an offset really a non-issue? From earlier postings I thought the purpose of an offset, here, would have been to offset your intersect path to the LOP enough to the north to be fairly certain that you would hit the LOP at a point north of Howland and then could head south knowing Howland was south. Without a latitude fix it seems directly relevant and actually a pretty smart thing to do (especially if you're also having radio problems approaching the LOP), and is there any evidence that FN didn't do it here, even though he didn't apparently do it with the Clippers? Even if you missed Howland you could then continue along the LOP to Gardner, so doing an offset wouldn't seem to prevent the flight from getting to Gardner. --Chris **************************************************************************** From Oscar Boswell The only "issue" involved with the offset is trying to understand what probably took place that morning. For my part, I can't imagine FN not making an offset under the circumstances. But did he? We don't know. Does it make any difference whether he did or not? We don't know that either. But like many other seemingly unimportant issues, it may have some importance later in the discussion. It is, after all, a matter that relates directly to navigational technique and to the probable position of the plane at 1912 - both of which have a great deal to do with the ultimate outcome of the flight (whatever that was). **************************************************************************** From Ric I guess I'm just dense, but this seems like much ado about nothing. If we start with the assumption that - barring the discovery of a journal buried on Gardner - there is no way to know for sure whether or not an offset was used. We can have one camp argue for no offset, therefore the flight probably yahda-yahda-yahda; and another camp argue for a 30 miles offset to the north, therefore the flight probably yahda-yahda-yahda; and another camp argue for a 30 mile offset to the south, therefore the flight probably yahda-yahda-yahda; ad infinitum, ad absurdum, ad nausea. There are clearly numerous ways the flight could have ended up at Gardner, ranging from meticulously executed emergency procedures to blind dumb luck. The question is, did it? The answer to that is not going to be found in speculation about offsets or reconstructions of hypothetical scenarios (diverting as those exercises might be). I suggest that our energies and bandwidth might be better spent on subjects that address the testing of the Gardner hypothesis. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:43:09 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Fictional "Ralph Nelson" Ric said: "It would increase the preponderance of evidence but would be far from a smoking shoe." True, but it would raise the question what is a "Ralph Nelson" shoe doing here? But then we'd have to prove it was a Ralph Nelson piece of work. It could also be Rolf Neilson from Stockholm, Rajid Nubari from Mecca, or Ronaldo Nuevaro from Mexico City and a thousand other RNs -- RICHARD NIXON was a cobbler? I didn't know that. And I'm sure we could puree the subject, much like we did the cast away issue, and probably come to the same conclusion. LTM, who mourns "Shoeless" Joe Jackson Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric RN - Richard Nixon - my God! How could I have missed it? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:30:45 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Fictional "Ralph Nelson" Oh, for a moment there, I thought we had finally lost Ralph Nader on an isolated Pacific atoll, never to be heard from again.... Thomas Van Hare ************************************************************************** From Ric We can dream...... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:39:52 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: No offset? On the subject of offset, I do recall posting a year or so ago that in the book, China Clippers, they refer to Noonan's navigation technique. They say that he used offset. Furthermore, my interview with that Pan Am captain -- previously reported -- was that his recollection was that Noonan actually invented the offset technique and, as a result, "always used it". Regardless, I think I agree with Ric. The discussion is rather a dead end. If Noonan used offset, my view is that the logical choice would have been to select north if the islands to the south (Phoenix Group) were the emergency alternate selected. Alternativevly, if the winds were considered, the logical choice could have been to the south, so that the plane could have run downwind in its search -- or maybe the other way around -- but who knows? Ultimately, the options are still the same. They didn't make it to Howland Island. Therefore, they either ended up in the water or they made some island landfall and were not found by the following search effort. Like so many other readers here in this forum, I just have a hard time believing that with four hours of fuel on board they couldn't somehow have circled or run up and down the line long enough to find some island out there. After all, after an hour or two of circling, looking for the island, they would certainly have known that their computed position was less and less likely to be accurate. So, at some point, when there is still a couple of hours of fuel, you would think they would stop searching for an isolated island and just head to the nearest group of islands. But then, maybe they didn't. In the end, it is just all conjecture. To me, the real mystery is why no communication was heard after 5he "running north and south" report. At that point, she had four hours of fuel left, yet the radio, from that point onward is strangely silent. And she was calling in on prescribed times. Radio failure? Damaged antenna? We may never know. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:49:47 EST From: Ric Subject: Earhart event in Bay area For our forum subscribers in the San Francisco Bay area: On this coming Saturday, March 17, at the Hiller Museum in San Carlos, CA there will be a two hour presentation (1 p.m to 3 p.m.) entitled <> The speakers will be: <> Check it out at: http://www.hiller.org/about-us/press-releases/releases/amelia-earhart.html LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:06:59 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: No offset? You inadvertantly placed my signature after your comments on my last posting, which might cause some confusion. Your comments raise a number of disturbing questions, which, with your permission, I shall address in a few days. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Ooops! Sorry about that. I'll be happy to try to answer your disturbing questions but I'll be leaving for Tarawa on Saturday and am scheduled to return on March 30th. During my absence Pat will moderate the forum but she won't try to deal with disturbing questions from anyone. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:12:47 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Earhart event in Bay area <> Is this a back-handed way of saying TIGHAR is the un-serious side of things? Or are they just distancing themselves from the lunatic fringe? Or do they mean the lunatic fringe, including us? LTM Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric Far be it from me to interpret their remarks, but it's no secret that TIGHAR has a history with Elgen Long and with Steve Lyons that is not altogether collegial. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:04:36 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: No offset? In "Wings Across the Pacific" by Terry Gwynn-Jones, 1991, he says referring to the first PAA flight of the China Clipper to Guam in 1935 on which, "The next day's flight to Wake Island was not such a simple navigational exercise. Much of the flight was conducted over a dense cover of low cloud. Even though the island base was equipped with a radio direction finder to provide the aircraft with bearings, the equipment was still notoriously unreliable and no crew worth its salt would dare rely on radio alone to find its way". "Although taking octant (aerial sextant) sights of the sun enabled the navigator to easily determine the latitude, there was little to assist in determining the longitude, which indicated how far they had traveled along their course. Thus, on this leg in particular, Noonan navigated in earnest, putting into practice the techniques he had set up after conferring with Harold Gatty, Wiley Post's navigator on his first world flight." "One of the navigation methods Gatty introduced to Pan am was Francis Chichester's 'theory of deliberate error'...It was a standby procedure for locating Wake, as a former Clipper pilot Horace Brock recalled in his book Flying the Oceans:" "If we had serious doubts about our position, we would get a sun line when the sun was low in the sky in the late afternoon, as we were nearing Wake, and then advance the line to have it run through Wake on the chart. Then we would make a definite turn to the north or south and dead reckon up to the line, so to be reasonably sure we were either north or south of Wake. Then we would turn to fly down the line till we made landfall. It was sometimes nerve-wracking. Radio bearings would have made it all so easy - had good ones been obtainable. Often they were not." Ron Reuther **************************************************************************** From Ric Very interesting. I wonder when "Flying The Oceans" was written. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:18:02 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Who's Shoe? The infamous "Cat's Paw" heel is quite puzzling, if we are to believe the manufacturer's word being of mid- '30's construction. I could see a heel being somehow related to the nearby burn/fire deposit, but we know that is circa 1970's or later. That means that the heel would be at least 40 years old when it is abandoned. Unlikely. If the heel is not from Earhart, who is it from? Can we really take Bilt-Rite's opinion as gospel as to the date? Occam's Razor suggests, at least to me, that the assumption of mid-30's construction would appear to be faulty. Let's relax that assumption a bit...where does that lead us? What women have been on Gardner wearing a US-repaired shoe? Not too many, to say the least. Even if we consider the heel being put upon an Australian, New Zealand, British, Gilbertese, Fijian, or Samoan shoe, there still aren't that many women wearing shoes that have visited Niku. Maybe it isn't from a woman's shoe at all...I think it behooves (pun intended) us to re-examine all the inferences made from this heel, and see which, if any, really hold up to more intense scrutiny. **************************************************************************** From Ric The best documentable clue as to the heel's age may be the "Patent Pending" notation. Chris Kennedy is working on that now - looking into patent records. The patent probably had to do with the two "traction plugs" that were originally on the outside corner of the heel. If Chris can find when the patent was applied for, that will provide a not-earlier-than date. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:19:52 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: No offset? Ric wrote: >During my absence Pat will moderate the forum but she won't try to deal with disturbing questions from anyone. They'll wait for your return. Have a good trip. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:29:26 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Fictional "Ralph Nelson" Why exclude Royal Navy ? Wouldn't it be obvious some tar was wearing shoes issued by the Royal Navy ?.. **************************************************************************** From Ric If the Royal Navy hand marks the inside of its American replacement heels with the initials "RN" I'd say they need a bigger budget. **************************************************************************** From Charles Lim, As long as we are talking British Colonist expansion, you might as well add Royal Navy... but don't take me seriously. LTM Charles Lim **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I won't. **************************************************************************** From Chris Kennedy Another candidate for "RN"-- "Royal Navy". --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric What is this? Some kind of conspiracy? Nobody has mentioned "Registered Nurse." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:13:14 EST From: Greg R. Subject: Smoking Shoe No joke. A link between AE,FN,or GP and the RN on the shoe would be very convincing. The meaning of RN wouldn't be needed if a known pair of AE,FN, or GP shoes had the same mark under the heel. I include GP because AE may have used the same shoemaker as her husband. The odds of a coincidence are 26x26 or 676 to one. **************************************************************************** From Ric Before everyone gets too wound up about this RN thing: This week I'll be finishing up Part 2 of the "Shoe Fetish" research bulletin which will be the main article in this month's TIGHAR Tracks (to be mailed to TIGHAR members next week) and will also be mounted on the website after the members have received their newsletters. To cut to the chase - new research by Photek into the dimensions of the heel and sole of Earhart's shoe, as shown in the photo of her standing on the wing, has revealed that the photo is really quite deceiving and, after correcting for various factors, the shoe is actually quite a bit smaller than we had thought. The sole is 205.6 mm (roughy a size 6 1/2) and the heel is 55.1 mm in length. The sole we found on the island, when reassembled as best we could, measured approximatley 277 mm. The Cat's paw heel measures 81 mm in length. We're indebted to our ardent critic, Rollin Reineck, who first noticed that the heel in the photo seemed to be too short to be the heel found on the island. His criticism, expressed here on the forum back in December, prompted us to hire Photek to carry out a true forensic imaging analysis of the photo. It was expensive (which is one reason we had never done it before) and a lot more complex than we, or Rollin for that matter, ever suspected, but the results cast a new light on the Aukeraime shoe. It's too big to be the shoe in the photo. What does that mean? We're not sure yet. Anytime there's a big new piece of information it takes time to rethink previous assumptions and understand all the ramifications. Once the new bulletin is up we'll all have a chance to review the available information and kick around what new conclusions might be warranted. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:52:01 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: No offset? Actually, I think the Gardner hypothesis is helped by an offset: If you offset enough to be sure to hit the LOP north of Howland (and then turn south on the LOP), you have removed uncertainty as to which direction to head when you hit the LOP. Anything which removes or lessens uncertainty would seem to have, and may have had, the effect of avoiding using precious fuel in a futile turn to the north on the LOP, increasing the likelihood they made it to Gardner after missing Howland. I know these discussions of the LOP are painful, but it is THE central core to the Gardner theory, and hashing out all these questions here helps us avoid a major bust later. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, I'm in a trap. Apparently if I refuse to indulge endless speculation about offsets, whether AE and Noonan had Howland's correct location, how far away they could see various islands, how accurately they could DR down the LOP, etc., etc., then I'm being closed-minded and refusing to address "painful" issues that might result in a "major bust" later. At what point, I wonder, do we accept that it is reasonable and possible that the flight COULD HAVE run down the LOP and ended up at Gardner? It has been over 12 years now since Tom Gannon and Tom Willi first spread out a map on my kitchen table and explained the logic of the LOP and almost that long since I first read Capt. Wilhelm Friedell's explanation of that same logic in the search report of the USS Colorado and read a description of the technique in Weems "Air Navigation." Yes, it is central to the Gardner hypothesis but are we damned to flog it until every possible speculative nuance has been flogged to death? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:40:21 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: No offset? Ric--Regarding Brocks book-- Full title is--Flying the Oceans--A Pilots story of Pan AM-- 1935-1955---- My copy is a third edition---1978 copyright published by Jason Aronson, Inc... in 1983.. I show references to the original publishing by Stinehour Press--Lunenburg , VT in 1978..... I would guess 1978 is the date... LTM who resides in this dank musty library with me..... Jim Tierney **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, thanks. So none of the accounts of Noonan using an offset to find Wake are contemporaneous. That doesn't make them untrue, of course, but it does make them anecdotal. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:41:35 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Fictional "Ralph Nelson" If I ever meet anyone named Ralph Nelson, it's going to take me a while to stop laughing after I ask him about his shoe business. LTM (who never laughs at funny names) Mike ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:52:35 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Cat's Paw heels It should be remembered the the Cat's Paw heels were unisex. I am old enough to remembr buying them at the 10 cents store for about 35 cents a pair. You could also buy shoe soles. Most of my friends just put cardboard inside the shoe to cover up the hole. It was during the depression that they were popular *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, actually, they're still available and popular. Check with your local shoe repair shop. they even still have "traction plugs". Yes, replacement heels of this style are unisex. We never said otherwise. It was the press that talked about a "woman's shoe heel." BiltRite's opinion that the shoe found on the island was a woman's was based upon two things: -the "fineness and tightness" of the stitiching holes visilble on the sole - the small size of the brass eyelet ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:53:42 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Fictional "Ralph Nelson" Ric (baby): As long as we are getting totally goofy, then RN could also be Richard Noonan, Fred's brother, who also repaired shoes. *** Just kidding - Fred never had a brother that we are aware of *** LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:45:49 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: No offset? "Flying the Oceans: A Pilot's Story of Pan Am 1935-1955" was published in 1978. According to ABEBOOKS, only one copy is available at $125. I checked the Alibris site, and the book isn't listed there, so apparently there weren't many copies printed and most of those that were are still held in private collections or libraries. Brock also wrote a sequel in 1980, titled "More About Pan Am". According to ABEBOKS, that's available in paperback for $26. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:50:03 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: No offset? > From Ric > ... are we damned to flog it until > every possible speculative nuance has been flogged to death? Yes. We're basically just passing the time until Niku IIII sets sail. ;o) The any-idiot-artifact is what is needed (I still call it the MacGuffin, but that's a different dead horse). Looks like the heel may not pan out. What we really need is some of Amelia's teeth. Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric The heel/shoe thing is very complex and a real puzzler. Once I get this bulletin done there'll be lots to chew on. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:57:39 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: No offset? Re the Offset and the LOP Offset or not, circling or not, searching or not, running North and South on the Line or not, the bottom line is that they got close, but did not find Howland, so we know that there had to be some measure of error in where they placed their LOP. With perhaps only a 20 mile error east or west, is appears that visually locating Howland would have been a very difficult task, and they would have been forced to pursue some alternate. There are only two outcomes: ditch or find land. If they ditched, we are all barking up the wrong tree looking at NIKU (unless......) If any one of the post loss radio messages is authentic, it means they found land. Authentic radio signals or not, if they found land, we may be on to something as we have found an island on the LOP that is large enough to have been sighted visually from a resonable distance despite the error in their LOP, and which also has a history of bones of a castaway, shoes, sextant boxes, aricraft debris, and lots of other interesting stuff. Ric is right when he says all the speculation of what happened up by Howland is basically moot. We'll never really know what they did. We do know they didn't find Howland. We'll leave searching the ocean floor to the other guys. Let's concentrate on examining landfall they might reasonably be expected to achieve. Like Ric says, we are here to test the NIKU hypothesis, let's stay on target. LTM Andrew McKenna **************************************************************************** From Ric <<...so we know that there had to be some measure of error in where they placed their LOP.>> We don't even know that. The placement of the LOP could have been dead-on but if they hit it too far south they still would not find Howland before being forced to run south. **************************************************************************** From Oscar Boswell For my part, I was not interested in flogging the offset issue - I was interested in flogging the non sequiturs in statements about the offset issue. Oscar Boswell *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. That makes sense. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:59:42 EST From: Larry Turner Subject: Cats paw It has been my experience working on a ranch for fifty some years that old rubber left out in the environment will swell quite substantially. The difference in the picture of AE heal and the artifact does not (in my opinion) preclude it from being the one and same. There is no way to determine what amount of size change would take place on the heal left on the island for 60 some years. As one example I have a set of 50 year old tires which are still mounted on an old car chassis made into a feed wagon that are swollen and distorted from age. Pictures available if needed. (out behind the barn in the junk pile) LTM (who's old, wrinkled and distorted with age) Larry Turner ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric Interesting. What's the climate like where you are? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:06:45 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: Fictional "Ralph Nelson" Awhile back, I sent you an email in regards to Oliver Knaggs book, "Her Last Flight". The book mentions a Ron Noonan, no relation to Fred, but an old friend. Does anyone know anything about Ron Noonan? **************************************************************************** From Ric Ron's Shoe Repair, North Hollywood, Calif. "Cobbler To the Stars" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:21:11 EST From: Charles Lim Subject: Re: Cat's Paw heels I was wondering if there are any wear patterns on the heel that would indicate the walking posture of the person wearing yhe shoes that it was formerly attached. On the Cats paw heel, the initials seem to be discernible, so I'm guessing that any wear paatern on the heel might be descernible too? In any case I was also wondering if the wear (if any) would be consistent with someone walking on flat or rough surfaces (ie coral reefs). What I'm getting at is if there's a wear pattern on the heel, it could be a clue as to where or how the shoes or boots were used. Charles Lim **************************************************************************** Both heels, the Cat's Paw and the other one, exhibit typical wear patterns with most of the wear on the outside corner of the heel. The Cat's Paw heel has lost its "traction plugs" and so was really quite worn down. Niku's coral rubble is hell on shoes. Anybody who spent much time walking around on the island would soon have very worn looking shoes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:12:13 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Comprehending the final hours There has been a lot of speculation on what it was like to fly the route taken and what happened in the final hours. I would suggest that to truely appreciate the circumstances, someone actually re-creates the last flight using similar equipment on an aircraft with similar speeds etc. Of course you will never be able to fly the exact route due to wheather etc, but it may assist in the appreciation of the conditions. Regards David Kelly *************************************************************************** From Ric Doug Brutlag has been trying to figure out a way to do a meaningful recreation. It's a lot tougher, and more expensive than you'd think. Probably the closest anyone has come was Ann Pellegrino in 1967 in a Lockheed 10A. Most of the actual flying was done by an Air Force colonel named Bill Payne and the navigation was handled by Bill Polhemus. Polhemus has written an excellent report on the experinece which, it occurs to me, might be very instructive in our discussions. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:22:26 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Catcher's Mitt Straw Man I've finally had a chance to try to put together something on this. It is a fictional and supposedly humorous account (with navigation plots) of Toni Carter and her scruffy navigator "Wrong Way" Jones as they head for Enderbury. As it states in the intro, it is ONLY for purposes of discussion on the forum. A beautiful woman, a powerful aircraft, and a rogue navigator - what more can one ask for? http://home.earthlink.net/~tomjan97/Notes.htm TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:44:52 EST From: Bob Perry Subject: Cat's Paw rubber Not to take away from Larry's observations of his old car tires, but "swelling" is not a likely event with rubber exposed to the elements. Exposure to organic solvents (gasoline/oil, etc) is a different matter. Unvulcanized rubber dissolves in the latter solvents; vulcanized rubber in tires, shoe parts, radiator hoses, etc, swells in those solvents (not water). Possibly his car tires were exposed to oil, etc. Volatile solvents would evaporate over time, and swelling would disappear.. Tires, of course, degrade over time when exposed to ozone (oxygen, sunlight UV), and severe cracking occurs. A car sitting for 50-60 years undoubtedly has severely distorted (flat, cracked) tires. Rubber used in heels, even natural rubber, the only thing available before WW II and very susceptible to attack by ozone, was highly vulcanized, which reduces sites for such attack. The likelihood of much swelling in Cats Paw heels left in sand, salt water, air and sunlight, only, over a long time is small. The more likely event is reduction in dimensions from abrasion if subjected to wave action of the ocean on a beach,for example. Otherwise, it should remain largely intact, possibly with minor surface embrittlement. LTM, (those quadrillion tires near here aren't too "swell") Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:46:01 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Catcher's Mitt Straw Man Well, that ends my idea for a novel. Now I gotta find a different plot. (I REALLY like the peck-on-the-cheek part.) Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:39:07 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Reenactment Flight If the fuel availability problem(avgas) could be solved, a useful reenactment flight would be doable. That part of the world isn't uncivilized but still lacks some important aircraft support. Anyone out there wanna chip in for 10,000 gallons of 100 octane fuel, a few drums of oil, and a barge to move it? Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:49:13 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Catcher's Mitt Straw Man For Tom MM: Just a fact question (honest): Looking at your charts, it appears that Gardner lies to the west of the LOP at some distance (judging by what I know to be the size of Gardner and its distance from the LOP on the map), whereas the TIGHAR webpage map appears to have Gardner plotted in red to the east of the LOP virtually on top of it. Could you double check this to get an accurate reading on distance east/west....perhaps I am mis-reading one or both maps, or you used the map with Howland in the wrong position for your analysis. Thanks, --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric For crying out loud Chris, the illustration on the website is just that - an illustration to give people a general idea of what we're talking about. It's not an analytical tool. Yes, technically, the dot that represents Gardner should be just east, not just west of the line, and the dot is right up against the LOP line, but at that scale the line itself is probably 50 miles wide and Howland is about the size of Delaware. If we drew the islands to scale in that illustration you wouldn't be able to see them at all. Tom's lines and circles are drawn on a current navigational chart that, of course, shows Howland in the correct position and depicts the true relative locations, sizes and shapes of the various islands. If you want to see where the LOP would fall if drawn though the incorrect Howland position, put the Howland dot at .49 degrees North, 176.43 degrees West, then draw an LOP parallel to Tom's. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:43:22 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Catcher's Mitt Straw Man If you like, feel free to post the map on TIGHAR website that I made up and sent you awhile back. Perhaps, some forumites would like to download a copy if you can get it on the site good enough. One can draw the 157 LOP on it for themselves and see how things work out. It's 100% accurate in scale to the best of my knowledge(and ability). I promise (right hand upheld) not to sue for royalties. Doug Brutlag #2335 ****************************************************************************Fr om Ric Thanks Doug. Maybe we'll eventually put out a do-it-yourself Find Amelia kit. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:02:18 EST From: Ric Subject: Kiribati WWII History TIGHAR member Peter McQuarrie is a well-respected historian in New Zealand who has just completed his latest book, described below. I've ordered a copy for TIGHAR. ******************************************** Conflict in Kiribati - A History of the Second World War by Peter McQuarrie This book tells the story of those Pacific Islands which now form the Republic of Kiribati, part of the huge archipelago of tiny gem-like islands and atolls known as Micronesia, covering approximately half of the Central Pacific Ocean between the Philippines and Hawaii. During WWII Kiribati was part of the British colony of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. Setting the history within its larger political, social and military context, this publication documents the many dimensions of the war as it affected Kiribati. From the arrival of people of German descent who were fleeing from a harsh Japanese rule in Micronesia between the wars, it moves to the early days of the war, of coast-watching and German raiders, in addition to dealing with the periods of Japanese and American occupations. It is a history of a time and place and of the people involved; the indigenous I-Kiribati, Tuvaluans, German/Marshallese, New Zealanders, British, Chinese, American and Japanese. The book ends by discussing the after effects of the war and how they affected subsequent post war developments. Published by University of Canterbury, 237 pages, 36 photographs, 10 maps, index, notes and bibliography. Price US$20.00 delivered by air to USA. Order from: Peter McQuarrie, ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:04:32 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's flight to Sydney. Ric and all, I just arrived in Sydney. It was a night flight all the way. I asked the steward to find out from the crew how close we were coming to Niku. As you would guess they didn't know where Niku was but after many notes passed back and forth they DID know where Canton was and asked me to join them on the flight deck. Great experience sitting in the cockpit of a 747-400. We passed 87 nm NW of Canton. Just the thought was exciting to me as, unlike many of you, I had never been in that area. I looked down (32,000') but saw no wrecked aircraft. I thought I saw a Japanese carrier, a destroyer, and two squadrons of Zeros on Canton field but it was dark so I'm not sure. To be safe please relay this information to FDR. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:11:36 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: Fun with footwear Before anyone starts beating the bushes for FNs brother or the mysterious shoe repairman to the stars,who likes to initial his work where no one else can see it. Consider this- maybe it isnt RN, maybe its a RH or Rh notation for the repairman to replace the Right Heel of the shoe....right? ************************************************************************** From Ric Two problems: 1. It's pretty clearly an N. 2. As specified in the Biltrite report (see website), it's a left heel. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:17:21 EST From: Tom King Subject: speaking of books Chris Kennedy has asked me about where to get the book that Randy Jacobson, Kar Burns, Kenton Spading and I have been working on, and when it'll be out. In case others are interested, it's scheduled for publication in June or July (I THINK we're still on schedule), and you can get ordering information and such at www.altamirapress.com (search for Amelia Earhart, or Thomas F. King), or more specifically at http://www.altamirapress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=3DSearch&db=3D^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=3D0759101302 Incidentally, for those who took part in the name game a few months back, though there's a title on the blurb on the web site, we're STILL arguing about it, and it may change. I'm afraid that none of the entries from Forumites were pleasing to the publishers, though I liked several of them. TK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:21:25 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Christmas Is. Wreck I few months ago I mentioned that I had some information about an airplane wreck on an island in the Pacific. One of my contacts in the Pacific, who is helping locate the bones and research castaways, mentioned the wreck to me in the midst of some other correspondence. I have recently received a reply from him to my request for more details. I am not suggesting that this has anything to do with Earhart. I present it here in the interest of providing some context and as a possible source for some of the aircraft aluminum found on Gardner. ********** He wrote: Regarding your invitation for information regarding any plane wreckages on the islands: As a child on Christmas Island, I used to roam the island and there was a plane wreckage near to the village of Poland - at the first plantation plot, just before entering the village traveling from London village. I had always presumed that the crashed plane was a New Zealander's as there was a 'NewZealand Airfield' nearby..... ******************** LTM Kenton (no L) Spading ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:09:41 EST From: Chuck Boyle Subject: Re: Kiribati WWII History Thanks for putting Peter's email on the forum. He completed the phone system for the three small island in the Pacific, one being Atafu and he presently is installing a computer network on Atafu so the schools there can receive the education program from the college on Western Samoa. He is quite a guy. I have been in touch with him for the past ten years. I have on two occasions in the last few months talked with those I knew on Atafu. It was great to hear their voices after more than fifty years. They are great people. Chuck Boyle ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:11:34 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Alan's flight to Sydney. > I looked down (32,000') but saw no wrecked aircraft. Cool Alan. You got closer than the rest of us have(save Ric & company). Drink some Fosters for us. Have good time. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:31:27 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: News about Amelia search. Thursday, 15 March 2001 18:01 (ET) Deep-sea firm out to find Amelia Earhart HANOVER, Md., March 15 (UPI) -- The underwater explorers who helped reveal the secrets of the Titanic now believe they know where to find Amelia Earhart, the famed female aviator who disappeared in 1937. "We hope to mount an expedition later this year," said David Jourdan, president and founder of Nauticos, a deep-sea exploration firm in Hanover, Md. "We're pretty sure we can raise it to the surface. We're in arrangements to sign an agreement with the Smithsonian for their participation." Amelia Earhart vanished without a trace along with her navigator, Fred Noonan, on July 2, 1937, during the longest over-water leg of her record-setting attempt to become the first woman to fly around the world. "It's one of the biggest mysteries of our century," said Tom Dettweiler, the company's director of operations. "There's been a lot of speculation as to what happened to her." Nauticos worked with Elgen Long, an expert on Earhart, to pinpoint a secret area they are convinced is the aviator's final resting place. They think her all-metal airplane remains preserved on the bottom of the ocean, about 5,200 meters (17,000 feet) down. "We believe she landed on the water in a semi-controlled manner because she ran out of fuel," Dettweiler said. "A good pilot can put an airplane relatively intact on the surface of the water. Then it probably sank relatively quickly." The deep ocean's unique conditions may have kept Earhart's twin-engine plane very well-preserved. The deep ocean is cold and low in oxygen, conditions which prevent decay. Airplanes also tend not to use dissimilar metals, whose different chemical compositions could promote corrosion. While the plane may have survived, the researchers do not believe her crew did, given the projected landing area's open-sea location. "In her attempt to go around the world, to explore new territory, Amelia Earhart really set an example, even though she tragically did not survive in the end," Jourdan said. "And we really want to live up to that example that she set and finish her work." Nauticos has been working with Long for about four years, using a computer modeling system developed for U.S. Navy nuclear submarines. "You can put in any sort of data, whether from actual navigation instruments or just anecdotal information -- sighting of lights, wind and currents from historical data," Dettweiler said. Earhart's custom-built Lockheed Electra L10E disappeared in the Pacific somewhere in the 4,113-kilometer (2,556-mile) stretch between Lae, New Guinea, and the tiny atoll of Howland Island. Long's data helped Nauticos determine a preliminary search area of 5,180 square kilometers (2,000 square miles). The company then consulted with several scientists to narrow the area down. Radio experts in California helped determine how far from land the plane must have been, given Earhart's last radio messages. Jourdan said Nauticos also consulted a visual acuity specialist at MIT in Boston, given that Earhart said she could not see the landing site. Jourdan said the search team narrowed the plane's possible location to a roughly 1,300-square-kilometer (500-square-mile) area. Gordon Bowman-Jones, who has studied the Amelia Earhart mystery for the past 35 years, said the company has reached new findings through computer analysis that no one has ever come up with before. "For instance, the plane's fuel capacity was rated at 1,000 gallons at an ambient temperature of 60 degrees, but the fuel was loaded the aircraft at Lae at an ambient temperature of 85 degrees, where it would have expanded due to the heat," Bowman-Jones said. "When the plane climbed to an altitude of 8,000 feet, at which temperatures were at somewhere around 35 to 40 degrees, the volume of fuel would have decreased due to the cold. "Given the calculations, she could not have made it to Howland Island," he concluded. "She would have fallen short anywhere from 40 to 80 miles." Nauticos has been in talks for roughly a year now with the U.S. Navy, the Smithsonian Institution, National Geographic and various universities to sponsor a search and recovery mission. Nauticos has a long history of underwater expeditions, having served as operations manager for the Discovery Channel's 1998 special on the Titanic. "We'll need one ship, but it'll have to be a relatively large ship, capable of sustaining itself for at least 45 days out there, along with a fairly large crew and a lot of heavy equipment," Dettweiler said. "The difficulty is that this location is very far away from any major ports." Nauticos will use the ship to search the sea with a sonar array, moving back and forth in regularly-spaced paths. By analyzing and interpreting echoes received by the array, the scientists can tell if they have found a manmade object, such as an airplane. "The search itself should cost about $3 million, but we're looking at a much bigger picture here," Dettweiler said. "We want to be able to take care of it, ultimately possibly recover it and put it on exhibit, so you're talking about a lot more money once you add those aspects to it." Jourdan said a traveling exhibit for the recovered airplane is planned if and when the craft is found. (Reported by UPI Science Writer Charles Choi in Washington.) Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved. *************************************************************************** From Ric Translation: They don't have a ship, and they don't have the money. This is fund-raising hype. (Been there, done that.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:35:58 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: Leftovers Sorry Ric, my face is red. Looks like my theory is Left without a leg to stand on. Right? You dont suppose Richard Nixon ever visited?....oh never mind. ************************************************************************** From Ric Welcome to the club. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:07:29 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: News about Amelia search. Yeah, it really does sound like "no money, no ship", please send both and come to our seminar and eat our chicken. Oddly, didn't Long say that she perished somewhere along the LOP south of Howland after she failed to spot it? This implies to me that he thinks she had enough fuel and could've gotten to Howland, hence they are contradicting one of their authorities. I guess the "visual actuity specialist" is confirming she didn't see Howland....should've saved his fee. **************************************************************************** From Ric No, that's not what he says. It's a lot worse than that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:17:45 EST From: Tom MM Subject: News about Amelia search. Look what happens when maturity sets in. A big ship, big bucks, an expedition, fundraising. What they need is some enthusiastic college engineering students on summer vacation, a tough 28 ft sailboat, a large fishing rod, and 50,000 feet of kevlar line. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric You're right. We need to send Janet to their event. **************************************************************************** From Bob Perry Long's search plans made front page in yesterday's peninsula (San Francisco) paper, with AE picture and story, etc. The ante is now up to $4MM needed to fund Nauticos search. A Forum is scheduled to meet at Hiller Museum in San Carlos (Ric, where we met) tomorrow, Sat. 3/17, open to the public. I'll attend. LTM, (After Black Monday, who has $4MM$?) Bob # 2021 **************************************************************************** From Ric You'll be in good company. A number of other distinguished TIGHARs will be there. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:37:50 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Short of Howland <> Huh? **************************************************************************** From Ric That's just one snowflake on the tip of the iceberg. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:37:49 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: News about Amelia search. > Ric wrote, > > You'll be in good company. A number of other distinguished TIGHARs will be > there. ***************** I'll be there also! It's too bad I don't know what some of these other TIGHARs look like. Might say hello to them. I sure as hell can't wear my TIGHAR "Noonan Project" T-shirt. Don J. **************************************************************************** From Ric Sure you can. It'll be easy to tell who the TIGHARs are. They'll be the ones rolling around on the floor holding their sides. **************************************************************************** From Bob Brandenburg I'm think this must be an elaborate joke, but I can't resist asking anyway. Have these people undertaken anything approximating a competent engineering analysis of what they plan to do? For example, have they considered what they want to drag around looking for the aircraft at a depth of 17,000 feet, and how much the support cable, power cable, and communications/control cable, not to mention the towed body, will weigh -- and what towing/lifting capacitiy they will require? Have they worked out how they will actually lift the aircraft fom the bottom? Put slings under it? How? Using big grappling hooks? Or ....? Have they worked out a teleoperator rig that will do the job? Have they worked out how they will keep the aircraft intact while lifting it, and where they will put it on the ship when (if) they get it to the surface? Are they going to drag the Glomar Challenger out of mothballs for this? As for the estimated $3 million dollar cost, that's per day, right? Many more questions come to mind, but these will suffice. I happen to be passing familiar with deep ocean operations, including finding things, lifting things, and mooring things in that environment. It ain't trivial, and it's not an exercise for the unwashed. LTM, Bob #2286 **************************************************************************** From Ric If you read the article carefully you'll note that there is no mention of attempting recovery on the trip they HOPE to mount later this year. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:09:26 EST From: T. L. Simpson Subject: Safe Trip Dear Forum and Ric Baby,whats happening,just wanted to say (have a safe trip) and bring us back lots of info on AE and FN.I want you to know Iam still out here,I read the Forum every day.I don't say much cause its hard to compete with experts,but as Tom King said you can sure learn a lot off this forum.I only have 100 hrs in the air so I can't call myself a pilot,but about 40 yrs ago my dady said I was a pilot,yup, I said to him one day,Daddy I wonce to be a pilot,he said,son you all ready are, a barn yard pilot,a pilot of here,a pile of it there,right dad.Also Ric baby I want you to know Iam here for the long haul, I ain't gonna quit,I will pay my membership every year as long as TIGHAR is a live,or Iam a live,see a simple person can appricate Tighar.Its ok Ric if you pick on my spelling,I can take a lot of flack,Iam a TIGHAR.And to all the dudes and dudettes on the forum thanks for making my life a little better. (LTM)TL Simpson #2396 P.S.Happiness is seeing #2397 on the forum *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay Elgen, let's see you top THAT. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:12:27 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: News about Amelia search. With AES representatives and Tighar reps and Long advocates all at the Hiller Museum it may be a Earhart Smackdown!!! Ventura is the master of ceromonies. Ron Bright ********************************************************************* From Ric TIGHAR will post bail for any TIGHAR member in good standing but you gotta pay for any furniture you break. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 08:31:58 EST From: Patrick Gaston Subject: Shoe mystery solved It's absolutely amazing what you can find in the local library if you do a little digging. I have no idea why this article appeared in the Olathe, KS Headlight-Gazette -- maybe it was a slow news day -- but take a look for yourself: ****** GARDNER ISLAND, Phoenix Group, 8/21/35 -- Officials of Catspaw Corp., an American conglomerate catering to the footwear aftermarket, announced today that its Gardner heel-manufacturing plant would close at year's end. "We had planned to take advantage of Gardner's centralized location to export Catspaw heels to the entire Pacific rim," explained Seamus "Bud" Gallagher, plant superintendent. "Unfortunately we forgot to take into account that Gardner is 1200 miles from the nearest shipping lane. We had millions of heels stockpiled, with no way to get them to market." Compounding the problem, he said, was the fact that few Pacific islanders actually wear shoes. "I guess you could say that our marketing research left a little to be desired." In addition, Gallagher said, Catspaw was unable to lure skilled workers to the island "due to the fact that it's basically nothing but bird shit and scaevola. Not to mention the robber crabs, which seem to have killed a couple of our foremen." The remains have not been found, Gallagher added. "People are too afraid to go looking for them." The two missing employees, Herbert Nooning and Clarice "Clodhopper" Airpart, were last seen headed for a picnic on the island's picturesque Kanawa Point when they apparently became surrounded by a herd of the flesh-eating crustaceans. "They even packed their lunch in an old wooden box to keep it away from the crabs, but nothing stops those buggers when they're on a feeding frenzy," Gallagher mourned. "Still, I'm sure our people put up a good fight. Especially Clarice. She must have given the little bastards hell with those huge feet of hers." The plant closing spells termination for 35 Gilbertese workers and Gallagher, whose family joined him on the island in 1932. "My son, Gerald, has grown quite fond of the place and wants to come back, but he's always been a little odd. As far as the missus and I are concerned it's the armpit of the Pacific," the elder Gallagher said. "The only way you could get me back here would be if the plane crashed on the way to Honolulu." The plant's stockpile of 6.5 million replacement heels has been sold to Australia's Trojan Corp., which plans to convert the unwanted inventory into a new line of vulcanized condoms. "Can you imagine the problems we've had storing six and a half million shoe heels on a one-by-three island? I mean they're everywhere," Gallagher said. I know that Trojan Corp. will do their best, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the damn things were still lying around 50 or 60 years from now." After closing, the factory will be dismantled and shipped to Australia along with its inventory of replacement heels. Nature will do the rest, Gallagher predicted. "In a couple of years there won't be any signs of recent habitation left -- except maybe for a heel or two, and those cabanas we built out on the beach." **************************************************************************** From Ric You need a hobby. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 08:33:41 EST From: Larry Turner Subject: Cats paw The climate where I live: Central California over 100 in the summer and in the 30's in winter. To Bob Perry Is it possible the shoes were exposed to gas and oil in a crash landing on the reef? LTM Larry Turner ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 08:47:36 EST From: Margot Still Subject: Re: Safe Trip Hooray for T.L. Simpson #2396. LTM (who loves ALL her children) MStill #2332 and is also pulling for #2397 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:17:24 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: News about Amelia search. All kidding aside, I am delighted that Nauticos may be going out there, just as I applaud anyone who takes a shot at this. Remember, if ocean searches prove fruitless, it bolsters support for land based endings. As formidable an undertaking as it is, Nauticos or Williamson would be the ones to do it. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric And I, too, am delighted that somebody else is at least talking about doing more than talking. **************************************************************************** >From Herman De Wulf I'm no expert at raising Electra's from the ocean floor. Does anyone have experience lifting aircraft from ocean floors ? As far I am aware of the Germans do. Anyone who wants to see what the Electra might look like after 64 years in ocean water should take an interest in the salvaging of the only known WW II vintage Focke Wulf FW-200 four engine long range Luftwaffe patrol bomber from a Norwegian fjord in 1999. By raising it was all but destroyed. The aircraft had been ditched and as a result it had been damaged structurally which complicating its being raised safely. So would be AE's Electra. The Germans were interested in recovering the FW-200 Condor because a civilian version (which came before the maritime patrol bomber version) was used as an airliner by Lufthansa, making a non stop flight from Berlin to New York in 1938. The salvaging people were no amateurs. They were from a specialised company. When the hull was raised the tail and the cockpit sections broke off. What was eventually recovered is now under restoration at the Lufthansa maintenance plant in Hamburg for static display later in a Berlin museum. Raising AE's Electra would be like raising the FW-200, only from a greater depth. The Electra is a much smaller aircraft than a FW-200 but in a best case scenario would it probably be just as damaged. It would take just as much care to raise it IF it is there. It would take specialized people and cost even more money than the Germans could spend. It would probably cost more than anyone can afford who has to raise the money. To remain on the safe side let's say that raising AE's Electra from the ocean floor (if it is there) would cost more than anyone can estimate. Last but not least, as long as nobody KNOWS where to look, nobody will find the aircraft. A number of WW II airplanes have been discovered in different locations in Europe because elderly people still living in the area remembered where they had crashed half a century ago. There were no witnesses to AE's supposed ditching in 1937. When the Titanic was found (here we go again !) at least they KNEW where to look because in 1912 somebody gave its location. And eventually it took a submarine to go and take a look. If anyone wants to see what AE's Electra MIGHT look like IF it is raised, go to the Focke Wulf's website at : www.lufthansa-ju52.de/Oinclexd.htm **************************************************************************** From Kerry Tiller Is anybody gonna get this on tape? The entertainment potential seems high. Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From John Morrison I think you might find they are going to unveil a new AUV Happy Hunting John Morrison *************************************************************************** From bob Brandenburg > From Ric > > If you read the article carefully you'll note that there is no mention of > attempting recovery on the trip they HOPE to mount later this year. My remarks pertain to the overall scheme. The story says, inter alia: "We want to be able to take care of it, ultimately possibly recover it and put it on exhibit, so you're talking about a lot more money once you add those aspects to it." Bob ************************************************************************** From Ric A rather odd statement when you thnk about it. They want to "take care of it" and "ultimately possibly recover it"? If they find it, how do they pro pose to "take care of it" until they "ultimately possibly recover it"? This could be interpreted to mean that they'll keep the location secret - which would make sense. **************************************************************************** From Russ Spreeman Regarding the cost of the Nauticos expedition, I think the question REALLY is, how much would it cost to do up an Electra and dump it into the ocean in an opportune location, and then 'find' the wonderfully preserved craft. Sans AE and FN of course, who would have dissolved. Think of the money to be made from 'finding' the famous Electra... Russ Spreeman **************************************************************************** From Ric With all due respect, there is no way in hell anyone could do that. First of all, I know Elgen Long and he is an honorable man. Second, the existing Electras are well accounted for. Third, if you dropped an Electra over the side in 17,000 feet of water and did not track its descent with sonar, it c ould take you weeks to find it again and then (as Herman pointed out) you'd probably destroy it trying to recover it. As far as I know, no one has EVER successfully recovered an aircraft from that depth. **************************************************************************** From Jim Pearson Elgen Longs secret formula for locating AE...... One million, two million, three million, four.... I think she must be right-no wait!... Five million, six million,........ *************************************************************************** From Ric It's not fair to level that criticism against Elgen. As far as I know, the only money he has spent looking for Amelia has been his own. Neither Nauticos nor NOVA is offering to invest their own assetts in finding Amelia. They want somebody else to put up the money to hire Nauticos to look for the plane and so that NOVA can make a TV show for its own gain (and if you think that Public Television is non-commercial - think again). I've heard no mention of a nonprofit entity that is operating in the interest of history. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:03:18 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Shoe mystery solved > From Patrick Gaston > > It's absolutely amazing what you can find in the local library if you do a > little digging. ... >*********************** > From Ric > > You need a hobby. Thanks for the laughs this morning, guys. Tickled my funny bone just right! ;o) Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:03:54 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: shoe mystery solved Patrick: Thanks, I loved it. Isn't it amazing how well all this comes together when we depart from the strictly factual? Maybe some of the wilder AE theories were nothing but tongue in cheek humor that no one caught. It's not that we need a hobby so much as we need a break from it sometimes! TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:04:28 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: shoe mystery solved > From Patrick Gaston > GARDNER ISLAND, Phoenix Group, 8/21/35 -- Officials of Catspaw Corp., > ((..omitted..)) >*********************** > From Ric > You need a hobby. I think he's got one. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:06:01 EST From: Bob Perry Subject: Cat's Paw To Larry Turner: Good point. I think it's possible that AE/FN could have waded through water mixed with some gas/oil from a non-ideal landing on the beach of Niku. Assuming the validity of post-loss radio messages from the downed plane (an engine running), under that scenario one would think that the plane had not "crashed" but was largely intact. There could have been extensive damage anyway (landing gear,etc), as has been debated on this Forum at length, but I don't see burst or leaking gas/oil tanks consistent with engine(s) running for long. From my perspective, though, even if he/she waded through pools of gas/oil, it is mixed with water, and she/they undoubtedly moved onto dry sand, which would wipe off much/all of the residual oil, and gas would evaporate. One wonders, then, whether there would be enough exposure to give significant dimensional change in a Cats Paw heel. Swelling is not an instantaneous process with that kind of rubber. If the shoe part were soaked in oil over time, yes. Otherwise, no. In any event, you raise a good point about a change that could have occurred. LTM, Bob #2021 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:08:56 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: catcher's mitt straw man Could you tell Tom MM to put up his web page again? I saw it briefly while on the road (when I couldn't afford the download time), and would like to see it again. It now says that the page is not available anymore. Thanks. *********************** He is now told. Tom, what about it? I've been out of the loop.... Pat ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:12:16 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: No joke How do we know Elgen Long is getting closer to finding Amelia? He just bought a map of New Jersey. (see "Amelia Earhart Lives".) All kidding aside, I do respect Elgen Long. I have read his book on AE and I am sure Mr. Long is a fine and sincere person, a dedicated researcher and I wish him the best of luck. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:13:58 EST From: Troy Carmichael Subject: Re: news about Amelia search In regards to Herman's comments about raising an aircraft from the floor, I am reminded of the attempt of our illustrious government (CIA/Howard Hughes) in the late 1960's to raise a Soviet Golf-Class submarine about 1700 miles away from Hawaii and about 17,000 feet deep. It was a fiasco ($500 million) and the sub disintegrated as they pulled it up....All they got was about 38 feet of the sub (of 300). As a layman, I realize there is a big difference between a sub and an airplane but, geesh, how someone would find something as small as an airplane 3 miles down (possibly covered with sea bottom?) and then getting it to the surface without breaking apart???....hand sifting all of NIKU seems more appealing to me than that daunting task, ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:14:50 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Hiller special forum These are my impressions from the presentation today at the Hiller Aviation Museum. Other TIGHAR members were there and, I'm sure, will add their perceptions. Overall, this struck me as a major public relations announcement. This was a reasonably professionally put together program, including an experienced MC with THE VOICE, who made everyone's credentials sound impeccable. Elgen Long played second fiddle to Nauticos and Steve Lyons, the NOVA consultant (who is now apparently an independent producer). Elgen presented his basic lost-at-sea scenario, then Lyons summarized a Cal Tech analysis refining it, and Nauticos provided an overview of how their special expertise pin points the most likely crash location and gave an example of how they would get it using their recent experience in finding a submarine the Israelis have been searching 31 years for (note they have also found F-16's and, I suspect, various missiles launched from airplanes or submarines as they do classified navy work). Nauticos is dead serious about finding the plane and, as THE VOICE said, they have never failed to find their objective in any previous attempt (and per Dave Jordan of Nauticos don't plan to on this venture). This was not an event to ask for funding. While a three million cost was bandied about, they said the backing would be from private sources. Based on their responses, it seems to me that Nauticos and Nova are running the show and have been seeking venture capital backing to make this a profit making project, as in, "if we find the plane we all get rich." My guess is they already have some of the funding and have gone public to flush out the rest. The initial search effort (the 3 mil) will be to locate the plane and establish it as authentic. Then they will seek additional funds to go back and retrieve it for public display. The logical support for Long's head wind assumptions, which are key to his analysis, were made clear to me for the first time. Not by him, interestingly, but by Lyon's who was speaking from a professionally done slide presentation which was clearly part of their pitch used with private investors. They claim four reports of winds aloft (generally around the 8,000 foot level) which came from Lae, the Nauru, Honolulu, and the Itasca, all indicate nose winds of about 25mph. That's how they support the strong head winds along the total flight route. It was also made clear that they believe AE averaged 160 mph IAS, instead of 150 (obviously burning more gas). Long said that's what the Lockheed manual calls for in head wind conditions. Oh yes, TIGHAR was mentioned - by Lyon as canceling his Nova TV project (which eventually led him to Long) and as the only other competing AE theory specifically referenced by name (of course they demonstrated how the Cal Tech analysis conclusively proves not enough fuel was available to reach Gardner or any other island). To the casual observer, this was an impressive bit of song and dance. I bet they get the funding. blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:15:36 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Hiller forum, revised Oops, I made a mistake in my previous message and revised it below. Please use this instead of the former message. Thanks. These are my impressions from the presentation today at the Hiller Aviation Museum. Other TIGHAR members were there and, I'm sure, will add their perceptions. Overall, this struck me as a major public relations announcement. This was a reasonably professionally put together program, including an experienced MC with THE VOICE, who made everyone's credentials sound impeccable. Elgen Long played second fiddle to Nauticos and Steve Lyons, the NOVA consultant (who is now apparently an independent producer). Elgen presented his basic lost-at-sea scenario, then Lyons summarized a Cal Tech analysis refining it, and Nauticos provided an overview of how their special expertise pin points the most likely crash location and gave an example of how they would get it using their recent experience in finding a submarine the Israelis have been searching 31 years for (note they have also found F-16's and, I suspect, various missiles launched from airplanes or submarines as they do classified navy work). Nauticos is dead serious about finding the plane and, as THE VOICE said, they have never failed to find their objective in any previous attempt (and per Dave Jordan of Nauticos don't plan to on this venture). This was not an event to ask for funding. While a three million cost was bandied about, they said the backing would be from private sources. Based on their responses, it seems to me that Nauticos and Nova are running the show and have been seeking venture capital backing to make this a profit making project, as in, "if we find the plane we all get rich." My guess is they already have some of the funding and have gone public to flush out the rest. The initial search effort (the 3 mil) will be to locate the plane and establish it as authentic. Then they will seek additional funds to go back and retrieve it for public display. The logical support for Long's head wind assumptions, which are key to his analysis, were made clear to me for the first time. Not by him, interestingly, but by Lyon's who was speaking from a professionally done slide presentation which was clearly part of their pitch used with private investors. They claim four reports of winds aloft (generally around the 8,000 foot level) which came from Lae, the Nauru, Honolulu, and the Itasca, all indicate nose winds of about 25mph. That's how they support the strong head winds along the total flight route. It was also made clear that they believe AE increased her speed to 160 mph, instead of 150 (obviously burning more gas). Long said that's what the Lockheed manual calls for in head wind conditions. Oh yes, TIGHAR was mentioned - by Lyon as canceling his Nova TV project (which eventually led him to Long) and as the only other competing AE theory specifically referenced by name (of course they demonstrated how the Cal Tech analysis conclusively proves not enough fuel was available to reach Gardner or any other island). To the casual observer, this was an impressive bit of song and dance. I bet they get the funding. blue skies, -jerry ***************************** From pat---- sorry, jerry, I do these things in order.... P ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:17:36 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: raising the Electra? >If anyone wants to see what AE's Electra MIGHT look like IF it is raised, go >to the Focke Wulf's website at : www.lufthansa-ju52.de/Oinclexd.htm I tried to go there and got this message: HTTP/1.0 404 Objekt nicht gefunden Maybe I sneezed at the wrong moment?? Andrew McKenna **************** Gesundheit. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:20:45 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Re: octant vs. sextant >...the recent work done by Tom on "drift" along the LOP has also challenged >the notion that running along the LOP to locate islands (Howland or others) >is as trustworthy a method as has been generally accepted to date. Running along an LOP doesn't have to be just a DR exercise without course guidance. Really, a celestial LOP is a "circle of equal altitude," and frequent or infrequent observations give the navigator the ability to compare the altitude he is measuring with that which would be expected right on the LOP; in that way he can bracket the LOP in an attempt to track it. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:22:03 EST From: Walt Holm Subject: Notes from the Hiller museum presentation (long) On Saturday, 17 Mar 01, the Hiller Museum in San Carlos, CA presented a forum with Elgen Long, Steve Lyons, Reid Dennis, and Nauticos. The purpose of the forum was to outline their plans to do an underwater search for Amelia Earhart's aircraft in the area around Howland Island, and the rationale behind choosing the particular search area. The forum was well attended, with probably over 200 people present. There were a few TIGHARs there, including myself, Kris Tague, Jerry Hamilton, and Don Jordan, and a number of familiar faces whose names I don't remember. The notes below are my recollection of what took place; the other attendees may have a slightly different impression. Mangled names are my fault. -Walt Holm (# something or other) - - - - - - - - - - - - - The program began with the introduction of the MC for the afternoon, a Mr. Gordon Bowman-Jones. Whomever organized the event certainly picked the right speaker, as Mr Bowman-Jones was clearly a talented public speaker and salesman. By the end of the afternoon he was certainly going to have everyone convinced that this team had the answers to where Amelia's flight ended. Mr Bowman-Jones introduced the presenters for the day: - Elgen Long, AE researcher and author of "Amelia Earhart, the Mystery Solved" - Reid Dennis, who piloted the Grumman Albatross that escorted Linda Finch on her around-the-world flight a couple of years ago. - Steve Lyons, formerly of WGBH and Nova, now apparently an independent producer - Dave Jordan (founder) and Tom Dettweiler (Ops manager) of Nauticos, which has extensive experience in underwater search. Also introduced was Chris True, who was the son of Naval Officer Arnold True, who apparently was the weather officer at Pearl Harbor during Amelia's flight, and forwarded weather forecasts on to her at Lae. Elgen Long was the first speaker. Elgen is not a particularly dynamic speaker, but comes across as very sincere. The material he presented was similar to that given in his book tour last year, if anyone saw him at the Western Aerospace museum in Oakland. He spoke for a couple of minutes about his book, and the "new data" that makes the conclusions in his book more accurate than earlier efforts by other authors. The new data that he mentioned consisted primarily of the Chater report, and notes from an AP reporter (Hanslip or something like that?) that was in the radio room of the Itasca. The short (~10 minute) film that Elgen put together in 1989 was shown. This film lays out the fundamentals of what he believes. Basically, it combines the recorded signal strengths of the Earhart messages received by the Itasca, an analysis of probable navigation errors, and the probable visibility conditions on the morning that she was lost, to come up with an area in which she must have ditched. This area is west of Howland island. There was no mention in the film about fuel consumption calculations- the assumption is that since she stopped sending messages, and there was a message recorded in the logs of "1/2 hour of fuel left" one hour before her last transmission, that she ran out of fuel shortly after her last recorded message. Interesting quote at the end of Elgen's talk: "What was theory is now proven beyond a doubt" Gordon the MC came back at this point. He added that Elgen had funded a bottom survey of the ocean around Howland, and that the bottom is flat and featureless- perfect for finding a small object such as an airplane with sonar. The next speaker, Reid Dennis, was introduced. Reid described himself as "not an expert on Amelia Earhart, but a well-informed amateur" Reid flew the Grumman Albatross that escorted Linda Finch on her around-the-world flight. He showed several slides of Finch's Lockheed 10E, both pre- and post-restoration, including a publicity shot of Finch in a recreation of one of AE's poses with the aircraft ("Here's Linda doing what she does best"). Reid showed several more slides showing the route used by AE to go around the world, and contrasted it with the route that was used by Finch's flight- they differed quite a bit due to the overall lack of airfields in 1937. Finch did not land on Howland as there is no airstrip there today, but overflew it while flying from Tarawa to Kanton. Reid then proceeded to talk about Fred Noonan and how he likely navigated the flight. He started off by saying that "Noonan had a problem with alcohol", at which point I was surprised that Jerry didn't blow a gasket. He did go on to call Noonan the "world's best aerial navigator" Reid presented a chart showing the leg from Lae to Howland. Intermediate points were shown at Buka (?), Nukumanu, the USS Ontario, and a "Point X" a couple of hundred miles from Howland. This "Point X" was listed as being the intersection of the equator and the 180 degree meridian, and is supposedly where they would have been around sunrise. Reid made some comments about how Navy pilots in WW2 would routinely navigate back to their carriers from a couple hundred miles away, and that at sunrise Noonan would have known how far "north, south, east, or west" he was from the "Point X". No word on how Noonan would have used the sunrise for anything more than a line-of-position, or why the 180 meridian has any particular significance (after all, the prime meridian through Greenwich is a purely arbitrary selection). I think Reid has a somewhat different concept of navigation than I do. Reid commented that the navigational re-creation was based upon "The last flight of Frederick Noonan", by a USMC navigational officer whose name I didn't catch. There were some aerial photos of Howland Island presented, as well as some photos from the inside of Finch's plane. He made some final comments on the ditching characteristics of a Lockheed 10E, which he felt would be very bad. It was his opinion that the airplane would dig into the water if landed power-off, and the thin sheetmetal in the nose would collapse, incapacitating the pilot with a wall of water. Steve Lyons, the next speaker, was introduced. Steve used to be the senior editor of program development (or something like that) of Nova. Steve started with some PR about Nova, and then introduced the topic about which he was going to speak: What evidence is there that Amelia ran out of gas? This perked up my attention, since it is a topic in which I am very interested. He re-introduced the team that was working to put together the search (Elgen, Nova, Nauticos, etc.), and there was a new name on the list: Fred Culick, a professor of aeronautical engineering at Cal Tech. Steve gave a summary of how the team was put together, starting with the failed effort to have Nova put together a show on TIGHAR's efforts to find AE. After this fell through, Steve met Elgen and Marie Long, and was impressed with the amount of research that they had done. So he tried to get Nova to do a show on Elgen's work. They needed to get someone to check Elgen's calculations, and for this they found Fred Culick at Cal Tech. Fred verified that Elgen's navigation and fuel consumption numbers appeared correct, so Steve went looking for an underwater search company that could handle this kind of effort. He found Nauticos, briefed them, and they agreed to join the team. The team is now raising funds to proceed with the underwater search. Elgen's hypothesis hinges on the idea that AE ran out of fuel shortly after her last transmission. Therefore, Fred's analysis of the Lockheed fuel consumption would be critical for deciding whether to press forward with the search. This analysis resulted in Fred writing a paper entitled "Analysis of Amelia Earhart's Final Flight - July 2, 1937". The conclusion of this paper was that Amelia, once arriving in the vicinity of Howland, did not have adequate fuel to reach any other island besides Howland or Baker. Thus, TIGHAR's hypothesis (of landing at Gardner/Nikumaroro), or flying west to the Marshalls or Gilberts is effectively ruled out. Fred's starting point for the analysis was a 1988 article by Roy Blay in the Lockheed "Horizons" magazine, analyzing the fuel consumption of Earhart's aircraft, based upon Kelly Johnson's tests. The article concluded that she had enough fuel to fly for 24 hours, which would be sufficient fuel to reach Nikumaroro. I was not aware of this article and will try to round up a copy of it, since I am doing some work for Lockheed and can probably get access to their libraries. Fred corrected "problems" in Blay's article based upon factors that were mentioned in Elgen's book: - total fuel information from the Chater report - temperature of the fuel (fuel would have been hot when loaded, leading to smaller mass of fuel loaded than was previously calculated) - headwinds experienced during the flight This last bullet is really the key to the entire Long/Nova/Nauticos hypothesis. Steve showed slides of several weather reports that mentioned winds from the ENE, all at around 20-30 mph. Elgen feels that Amelia was flying into a headwind, advanced her power settings as would be required to achieve best range into a headwind, and therefore lowered the endurance of her aircraft to somewhere around 20 hours. Evidence presented to support this was the radioed report where she said "speed 140 knots", and a page from either a Lockheed report or the 10E flight manual (I didn't catch a source),which showed that for best range you should speed up flying into a headwind. Steve showed a slide summarizing the conclusions of Fred's paper. It appears that Fred has analyzed a number of different scenarios, each with a slightly different set of assumptions. Virtually every scenario ends up with an endurance in the neighborhood of 20-22 hours. I liked the format of the conclusions of the paper (analyzing different sets of assumptions), although obviously I haven't been able to check the contents themselves. The conclusion they left the audience with was that Amelia would not have had the fuel to proceed to Gardner or any other land. If she couldn't find Howland or Baker, then she would have had to ditch the aircraft. The final team players that were introduced were Dave Jordan and Tom Dettweiler of Nauticos. They are both ex-submariners. Dave is a USNA grad and founded Nauticos in 1986. Tom is a Purdue grad, did a stint as the science officer on the "Calypso", and has now been with Nauticos for 11 years. He runs their operations. Dave was the first speaker. He started with a joke about how with the all the work that Elgen and others have done, "we have the easy job". Then he laughed and said that this was not so, that the current search grid is too large to effectively cover. This is a common problem on the jobs that Nauticos does, and they specialize in a technique called "re-navigation", where they use computers to analyze all of the existing data about the target to attempt to shrink the search area. Apparently this has been very successful in the past, and Dave listed some of the successes that they have had: the Japanese carrier "Kaga" from the Battle of Midway, the Japanese sub I-52, and the Israeli sub "Dakar". Dave spent the rest of his talk showing how they had found the Dakar. This sub was purchased from the British by the Israelis in 1968, and sank near Crete on its maiden voyage. Evidently the Israelis are serious about never leaving dead soldiers on a battlefield, and they had been looking for this sub ever since. In 1999 they hired Nauticos to seach some more for the sub. Nauticos went through the "re-nav" procedure and managed to find the sub. There was lots of very impressive video showing both the operations on the deck of the ship, and pictures of the sunken sub. Tom then got up to speak for a while, talking about how they would recover the Electra. He showed a lot of video of operations on the Dakar, where the Israeli government hired them a second time, this time to salvage the "sail" of the submarine. Using remotely-operated vehicles, they attached lift points to the sail, and hauled it up ( I think the depth was in the neighborhood of 10,000'). The piece weighed two tons, and it was impressive to see it hauled to the surface. There was also talk about how you sample the water and ocean floor around the wreck to try to understand the environment that the wreck is sitting in, so you can better evaluate its structural condition before raising it. This concluded the talks, and there was a short Q&A session afterwards. Someone asked about getting more information on Nauticos. Their web site is www.nauticos.com. It was asked what TIGHAR was doing right now. The panel basically said they didn't know (the entire afternoon was pleasantly free of cheap shots against TIGHAR. Several of the participants during the day mentioned TIGHAR, but said words to the effect of " they have their ideas, and we have ours..."). Someone asked whether Amelia had any contact with the USS Ontario, and the panel said no. One wonders how many people put 2 and 2 together from this question, since Reid's navigation presentation had shown the Ontario as a navigation waypoint. I asked about the availability of Fred Culick's paper, analyzing the endurance of Amelia's Electra. It is not published and not available on the web, and Steve Lyons referred to it as "confidential". Since this report is the centerpiece of their hypothesis, this news struck me as being a little odd- although I can't say that I was surprised. There were questions asked as to the schedule of the search. After a roundabout reply, they basically said that they were still raising funds. When someone asked how they were raising money, it was emphasized that this was not a charitable effort, looking for donations. They didn't say anything more than this, and cut the discussion off. It left me thinking that they are looking for a commercial backer, perhaps with the recovered airplane to be marketed to cover the costs. This concluded the program. A bunch of us stayed around to chat afterwards, and then headed home. My summary: The Long/Nova/Nauticos hypothesis depends upon the assumption that Amelia was flying into a headwind, forcing her to increase her power settings, which decreased her endurance. Fred Culick has done an extensive analysis of this situation, but the team is not releasing his paper, so it cannot be independently checked. Nauticos (if funded) will attempt to narrow the search grid so they can cover the area at reasonable cost. It will be fascinating to see the results if the search proceeds. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:23:20 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Aircraft recovery Ric said: "As far as I know, no one has EVER successfully recovered an aircraft from that [17,000 feet] depth." Several years ago the U.S. Navy recovered an F-14 Tomcat and its Phoenix missiles from extremely deep waters after the plane rolled off the deck of one of the Navy's carriers. The reason for expending the time and treasure was because the Phoenix missile's technology was still classified information and we didn't want the Soviets to get it. My imperfect recollection is that the Tomcat was sitting inverted on the bottom at about 10,000 feet, and I remember seeing photos of the aircraft after it was brought up and it was beat up pretty good. Probably not repairable, but who cared we just wanted the missiles back. LTM, who avoids deep waters Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:24:09 EST From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Cat's paw I wonder if the RN on the heel could mean (REPAIR NOONAN) just a thought. TL Simpson #2396 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:26:26 EST From: Terry Lee Simpson Subject: Re: Hiller forum No doubt Mr. Long is a fine person,but you got to call his search scenario a Long shot........ #2396 ************************ Groans should be addressed directly to Mr. Simpson.... Pat ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:30:09 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Hiller event It was good to see Jerry, RC and Walt at the Hiller event on Saturday. There wasn't much time to visit because my butt was so sore from the little seats they provided, I had to walk around a bit to get the circulation back. I got there two hours early so I could get a good seat. Good thing I did, cause the place was packed! It was SRO by the time the MC took the stage. I don't think I can add anymore than Jerry did earlier this morning. A very good summary indeed Jerry. And he is right! They are dead serious, and made a very good presentation. Including two documentary films about Elgen's world flight and the Dakar recovery. I enjoyed both very much. They never once asked for money, and never even hinted as to how one might contribute. It was made clear that the price tag is about $3 million bucks just to do a sonar sweep.( I think they need to contact Janet!). I don't think I heard them say that they were positive the plane was where they think it is. Instead, my understanding is, that based on their "Renav" data and all available information, it is "most likely" somewhere near that location. It almost sounded as if they were leaving themselves an out. . . just in case. I expected more serious questions from the audience during the Q&A, but it looked to me like the audience was already well versed on the subject. I had some questions, but they were minor in detail and not worth asking. We TIGHARs are already well versed on the subject. Some much more than others. At least the TIGHARs stood up and were counted, but if there were any representatives from the AES they didn't make themselves known. Perhaps it was just as well. It wasn't a time for debating theories. All in all it was a good day at the Hiller. The worst parts were the seats and the hour and a half wait in the middle of the San Mateo bridge while they cleared an accident on the way home. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:30:55 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: catcher's mitt straw man Randy: The pages will be back up by midnight PST on 3/19. I realized that I had so much fun that I did not really summarize the concept well, and will try to do that. Also, for those wishing to put little pins recording the Battle of the Central Pacific between Ric, Nauticos, and the wily Gilbert Gang, I'll add a jpg of a chart covering the Gilberts, Howland, and the Phoenix group. http://home.earthlink.net/~tomjan97/Notes.htm TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:31:32 EST From: Don Iwanski Subject: Re: Hiller presentation "and there was a message recorded in the logs of "1/2 hour of fuel left" one hour before her last transmission, that she ran out of fuel shortly after her last recorded message." Now that sounds interesting - is this their new evidence? Her last transmissions showed her in a relativley calm manner, not as though she was flying around on extended time and fumes. Too bad they wont take the 3 million dollars and focus on the Niku's reef flat and surrounding area. I say Bah! to Elgen Long. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:33:13 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Finding Small Objects in Deep Waters I remember it was last year(or year before) a group successfully located and recovered Gus Grissom's Liberty Bell 7 capsule from the Atlantic where it sank after prematurely blowing the hatch & filling with water. I cannot tell how they managed to locate it and bring it up intact but it proves that small objects can be located and recovered in deep water. One thing Liberty Bell had going for it was that it had tohave been built like a Panzer tank to survive the rigors of a launch, reentry, & ocean splashdown. Airplanes are also built to take alot of punishment but not like spacecraft. If AE's Electra ditched I cannot believe it could do so totally intact. Good luck to the Nauticos if they do find something to recover from the deep blue. If they manage to find an airplane to bring to the surface I vote we have a TIGHAR pool and take bets on what depth the sucker breaks apart. Nautico's presentation sounds part interesting and part amusing. Reid Dennis' comment of Linda Finch's publicity pix,"doing what she does best" is particularily true. It most certainly wasn't her aviation skills. This venture reeks of a publicity-for-profit scheme, just like all the others. I don't think Nautico really cares if they find they find the Electra or not. If this flies, they get paid regardless. Time is very much money in this case. Interesting how a fuel burn scenario analysis of a 64 year old airplane should be classified. Let the games begin! Doug Brutlag #2335 ************************************ Hmmmm, well, the Liberty Bell 7 was in much shallower water, and the search area was very tightly constrained as there were a lot of people watching while it went down. Even so, it took a long time to find it, and many many years of number crunching and fund raising to set it all up. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:33:58 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Changing Winds of the Pacific Based on Walt Holm's nice digest of the Hiller Museum event, the sine qua non of Long's theory is the unaccounted headwinds encountered by Amelia. Long now relies on weather reports of 20-30 mph ENE that contributed most to her failing to get to Howland. This is interesting as the winds must me getting stronger or he found "new data". In a LA Times article( 28 Jun 87) Long cites the Itasca's weather report of 7MPH headwinds and uses that in his calculations. The other contributing factors were a faulty (4 degree deviation) compass, and Howland's erroneous "chart position" used by AE. In this analysis, Long says if you add the 6 mile difference in Howlands position, the seven mile headwinds and the deviation, you come up with a 17 miles shortfall- far enough away that Howland was invisible. Then shortyy after her last transmission, she ditched into the Pacific. Thus it seems the winds are getting stronger. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:37:26 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Say hi to pat Everybody say "hi" to Pat. She's running the show while Ric's out and about. I do have one small request..Pat, is it possible to broadcast short updates on Ric's activities/ LTM, (who loves to travel) Roger Kelley *************************** To the extent that I am in the know, of course. Ric and Vann have arrived in Tarawa and are being treated like visiting heads of state . Turns out Air Nauru has changed their flight schedule without bothering to tell anyone, so they must leave on Monday rather than Wednesday---- a big push to get everything done. They'll be back in the States at the previously arranged time as Air New Zealand has *not* changed their schedule. That's the news from Lake Pacific.... Maybe I'll know something more tomorrow. P ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:38:32 EST From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: raising the Electra? To Andrew McKenna It is there Andrew. I checked immediately. I suggest you go back step by step as I did today to make sure. 1. go to www.lufthansa-ju52.de 2. Since their English version is under construction, click DEUTSCH (this gives you the German language version but the pictures are the same) 3. Roll down the left list and click DLBS (which stands for Deutsche Lufthansa Berlin Stiftung) 4. Scroll down had click SONDERPROJEKTE (meaning special projects). There you'll see the remains when lifted from the seabed further pictures can be found when clicking FOTOSTORY DER BERGUNG in the middle section and GESCHICHTE DER BERGUNG just underneath it. Although the text is in German the captions are in both German and English ********* "Richard E. Gillespie" schreef: > >From Andrew McKenna > > >If anyone wants to see what AE's Electra MIGHT look like IF it is raised, go > >to the Focke Wulf's website at : www.lufthansa-ju52.de/Oinclexd.htm > > I tried to go there and got this message: > > HTTP/1.0 404 Objekt nicht gefunden > > Maybe I sneezed at the wrong moment?? > > Andrew McKenna > > **************** > Gesundheit. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:39:14 EST From: John Morrison Subject: Re: news about amelia search Yeah Troy - Good comparison with the Soviet Golf-Class submarine in the 1960's. Come on guys. It's 2001. If they find it - they will get it to the surface. Let's admit that much! John Morrison ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:41:06 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Altitude? According to the reports we now get from TIGHAR members who were at the Hiller Aviation Museum presentation, Ellen Long and those who believe in his crashed and sank theory say that AE encountered a constant headwind of 25 mph on 2 July 1937. I think they should first prove this. But suppose it is true, how do we know that AE flew at 8,000 ft. against that headwind as Long says ? And now I'm speaking from personal experience. I have never flown around the world and I have never flown across an ocean. But I have been flying over land into headwinds most of my flying career as all pilots do. We all know that wind increases with altitude. If you want to make better time or get farther, it is wise to descend to a lower altitude where you'll encounter less headwind. I remember overtaking an aircraft of comparable performance to mine one day by flying lower, leaving a friend up there battling against the headwind while I was flying faster at the same rpm settings. I even have been in a situation comparable to AE's (relatively speaking), with fuel low and still a long way to go. To save fuel I descended because at low altitude there is less headwind, resulting in better ground speed, which can be traded in for lower rpm and an increase in range. I do not pretend to be a better pilot. I do think AE knew what all of us know. She was even more aware of fuel economy. Why else did she leave all that gear behind ?. Therefore I find it hard to believe she has been battling against a 25 mph or whatever headwind at 8,000 feet if she could get better fuel economy at lower altitudes. Remember FN was monitoring their progress all the time and must have been fully aware of their ground speed and therefore of the headwind they encountered en route. And how does Long know that AE increased airspeed to 160 mph ? Oscar Boswel provided this forum with the Kelly Johnson Lockheed 10E test flight figures in the Lockheed report 465. They indicate that the 10E, although more powerful than the 10A, was faster than the 10A only at lower power settings from 42 % down. This setting corresponds with a speed of around 160 mph or 140 kts. Being "faster" translates into more economical at low settings. I thought someone had already calculated that AE's speed had been 150 kts (correct me if I'm wrong). I think the Hiller Aviation Museum meeting raises more questions than it provides answers. Before I buy Elgen Long's theory I would first like to know at what altitudes AE really flew. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:41:41 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Aircraft recovery Regarding the F-14 aircraft/Phoenix Missile recovery---- One of my reference books--Salvage-Rescued from the Deep--by David Williams Published by Ian Allen Ltd, Shepperton, Surrey in 1991- mentions briefly the F-14 incident... Mentions only 1976 without an exact date. Recovery took place in 2000 feet of water near Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands off Scotland...Aircraft was snagged by a drag wire between two ships and luckily recovered after careful lifting by experienced Navy salvage personnel....They knew about where the plane was because it rolled off the flight deck of the USS John F Kennedy and they had good references to the ships location when the accident occured......... It was a lot easier than 17,000 feet and no known references...... LTM Jim Tierney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:42:30 EST From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Nauticos and the Hiller Forum JHam notes: "They claim four reports of winds aloft (generally around the 8,000 foot level) which came from Lae, the Nauru, Honolulu, and the Itasca, all indicate nose winds of about 25mph." Walt Holm notes: "Elgen feels that Amelia was flying into a headwind, advanced her power settings as would be required to achieve best range into a headwind, and therefore lowered the endurance of her aircraft to somewhere around 20 hours." And JHam adds: "Long said that's what the Lockheed manual calls for in head wind conditions." In a UPI article posted by Roger Kelley, Gordon Bowman-Jones says some rather confusing things, but also: "...fuel was loaded [on] the aircraft at Lae at an ambient temperature of 85 degrees." Well, best of luck to Nauticos. That said, here's my first reaction to their reasons on why Earhart ran out of fuel shortly after reaching the Howland vicinity: 1. Headwinds. I'd sure like to see the documentation for those reported headwinds. Does anyone know how they'd get wind speeds and directions at 8000' in 1937? 2. Higher airspeed. I'd sure like to see that Lockheed manual. I don't understand how increasing your airspeed in level flight will *ever* increase your range in a headwind. I seem to remember this being kicked around the forum a while ago. What was the consensus then? 3. Warm fuel. I calculate that if Earhart filled up with 85*F fuel then she left with 60 lb less fuel than if she filled up with 60*F fuel. That's less than 1% of the total fuel on board. You know what? I don't think anyone knows Earhart's fuel on board to within 1%. From the Chater report we know she took on 654 imperial gallons, but the 1100 gal total appears to be an estimate. Chater says she had "*at least* 40 gallons of 100 octane fuel" in an 81 gal tank (emphasis added). Well, if it was actually 50 lb, that makes up the 1%. If Nauticos' method requires knowing Earhart's fuel on board to within 1%, then they better get awfully lucky indeed. I apologize if I've unearthed any horses buried when Elgen's book came out. --Mike Z. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:43:45 EST From: Nick Murray Subject: Re: Raising the Electra? >From Andrew McKenna > >>If anyone wants to see what AE's Electra MIGHT look like IF it is raised, go >>to the Focke Wulf's website at : www.lufthansa-ju52.de/Oinclexd.htm > >I tried to go there and got this message: > >HTTP/1.0 404 Objekt nicht gefunden > >Maybe I sneezed at the wrong moment?? I had trouble with the website address as well, but I managed to find the photos. I had to go to the root address www.lufthansa-ju52.de, then go to the "Deutsch" section (the "English" section was under construction). I then clicked on "Sonderprojekte" which brought up a page with the Fw 200 on it. Under the photos there is a URL "Fotostory der Bergung" which will take you to the first photo of the recovery, with two yellow buttons at the bottom to navigate to other photos. The plane does look in pretty bad shape. And no, working for a German owned company did not help me with the meanings of the words! LTM (who hopes that "Objekt nicht gefunden" means "Object not found" and not something else!), Nick Murray #2356CE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:44:38 EST From: Anthony Lealand Subject: fuel expansion By my calculations the plane would have been short of 17 gallons if the tanks were rated to hold 1000 gallons at 60 F but were filled at 85 F. This is a bit of an approximation as I dont know the fuel coefficient of expansion accurately. I took it as 0.0012, an average figure for fuels. It does allow for the expansion of aluminium fuel tanks which is only about a gallon in favour of more fuel. At forty gallons per hour consumption, 17 gallons less is not much. I know nothing about how planes designers and flight planning at this time made allowance for this. Did they put a label by the tank 500 gallons at 60F? Anthony Lealand ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:45:43 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Hiller forum While the several reports concerning the Hiller Museum program provided some interesting ideas & observations about locating the seemingly predetermined resting place of the Electra, there also seems to be the usual speculations & presumptions about the flight & it's termination by the authors of the program. While having no expertise in the field of meteorology, I must wonder just how the wind velocity & it's prevailing direction, was ascertained by the sources reported, (Lae, Nauru, Hawaii & Itaska) from an altitude of 8,000 feet ? Were there other aircraft in flight over the AE/FN route, or did they send weather balloons aloft ? Another nagging question also arises, (which we've already debated to death on the Forum) ...since the program at Hiller seems to have pinpointed the splashdown location of the Electra, somewhere around a hundred miles or so, approaching Howland Island, were there any questions or discussion regarding the fact that Itaska never received any radio message from AE informing Itaska of her intention to ditch the aircraft, her estimated position at that time, wind direction & velocity with ocean surface conditions ? With their splashdown location established, well within radio range of Itaska, how do they explain the failure of the Electra to transmit any final signal of the intention to ditch...do they subscribe to the theory that AE suddenly, without warning, ran out of gas & 'dove' straight into the ocean surface ? ....or do they suggest that she was just too busily involved in preparing to perform the ditching, that she neglected to perform the single most important task in the 'drill'... notifying the _only_ vessel capable of their rescue, of such intention ?... or do they maintain that somehow Itaska was unable to hear AE when she switched to her daytime frequency, after they received her last message ? Don Neumann sandon@webtv.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:46:52 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: changing winds of the pacific Really enjoying the reports on the Hiller meeting on this side of the Atlantic - thanks. This might be a simplistic point - it's a "would have", and I'm not a navigator - but I have a problem with the theory that headwinds left the flight dangerously short of fuel on arrival in the vicinity of Howland. Wouldn't a headwind for a large part of the flight which risked leaving them so exposed at the end just be the flip side of a tailwind which would have given them a safety margin big enough to get back to Lae from beyond half-way to Howland? If they had built in several hours of fuel safety, why would they push on while knowing that the safety margin was being eroded to the extent of endangering their lives? Conversely, if they faced an increase in headwind only when too far past the point of no return, doesn't this still leave them with too much fuel to have run out at the point the Long theory suggests? LTM, Phil Tanner 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:47:27 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: FW 200 recovery Herman, thanks for the URL. The remains of the Fw200 are quite a mess indeed, but it looks like at least one engine was developing power when she went it. If AE's 10E went down at sea I suspect it would look a lot like the Fw200 in terms of damage and corrosion, and would make any "restoration" very difficult.. The only German I know is gleaned from all of those W.W.II movies of the 40s and 50s; so, do they plan to "restore" the aircraft to static display or stabilize the deterioration and display "as-is?" LTM, who is also a bit deteriorated Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:48:27 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Altitude? Herman De Wulf wrote: > We all know that wind increases with altitude. If you want to make better > time or get farther, it is wise to descend to a lower altitude where > you'll encounter less headwind. > > [Remember that it is not quite that simple. Airspeed at a given fuel > consumption also increases with altitude, so one must balance the increase > in airspeed against the increase in fuel consumption.] > > the Kelly Johnson Lockheed 10E test > flight figures in the Lockheed report 465 indicate that the 10E, > although more powerful than the 10A, was faster than the 10A only at > lower power settings from 42 % down. > > [There is a bit of a non sequitur here when the words "although the 10E > was more powerful than the 10A" are used. The comparison table showed the > 10A and the 10E at the SAME horsepower - so the difference in AVAILABLE > horsepower was irrelevant. The interesting point was that at higher > horsepower settings, the 10E was slower than the 10A, as would have been > expected because of the 10E's greater drag, but the situation gradually > reversed itself as power was reduced, and at the SAME low horsepower > settings, the figures show the 10E as being slightly faster than the 10A. > I am still puzzled by this. Assuming that the data are correct, perhaps it > has something to do with the center of gravity being farther forward in > the 10E when loaded to the same weight as the 10A (because of the heavier > engines).] Increasing speed into a headwind is in fact a recognized technique to increase range - but it works only under very limited circumstances. If the plane is flying at V L/D speed, the correct technique is to increase speed by one-quarter of the headwind component. See the discussion in Peter Garrison, LONG DISTANCE FLYING, pages 141-143: "the effect of the headwind is merely to raise the most efficient speed by one quarter of the headwind component - not all speeds." AE was operating well above V L/D and the applicability of the technique is questionable. Long's assumptions are addressed in a separate email, which I shall send later today. Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:49:06 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Speeding up for a headwind? The availability of authentic Lockheed cruise data in Report 465 makes it possible to address the concept of speeding up for a headwind, as mentioned in Elgen Long's book. A review of Mr. Long's statements makes it clear that his idea is that one can achieve greater efficiency into a headwind by increasing cruise speed by an amount equal to 40% of the headwind. (Forty percent of the 26.5 mph headwind = 10.6, and he calls for a 10.5 mph increase, from 150 to 160.5 mph.) He cites Lockheed's Report 466 (operating instructions on the 10E), which I have not seen, but I will say that the Export Instructions on the 10A contain no references to headwinds that I noted. In any case, it is obvious that one can postulate an extreme situation in which speeding up helps against a headwind, but that is the rarest of exceptions. The correct solution in most cases is to slow down to achieve greater efficiency (which would be the expected effect of Kelly Johnson's instructions to lean the mixture more stringently). Now that we have performance charts on the 10E, let's look at the question for a minute. Since Mr. Long dealt with a headwind in the 26 mph range and speeds of 150 to 160 or so, I want to stick pretty close to those numbers. The closest ones on the 10E chart are the 1000 foot 200 hp (151 mph) and 250 hp (162 mph) cruise figures. Assume a headwind of 27.5 mph (40% of that = exactly 11 mph). Fuel consumption at 250 hp per engine is 40 gph; fuel consumption at 200 hp is 32 gph. Assume you have 160 gallons to burn. That gives 5 hours at 200 hp and 4 hours at 250 hp. If cruise speed is 151 and the headwind is 27.5, groundspeed = 123.5. In 5 hours, you will go 616.5 miles. If you increase airspeed to 162, groundspeed is 134.5, and in 4 hours you go only 538 miles. If you have a 100 mph headwind and increase speed from 151 (@200 hp - 32 gph) to 191 (@412 hp - 71 gph) at 1000 feet, the technique produces 5 x 51 = 255 miles at 151 mph airspeed and 91 x 2.25 = only 204.75 miles at 191. It doesn't work. Of course, you can always postulate an extreme case to prove that it does work. If you have a 150 mph headwind and speed up from 151 to 162 you get 4 x 12 = 48 miles, which beats 5 x 1 = 5 miles at 151. If there really was anything in the Lockheed 10E Operating Instructions that suggested this technique, it was bad advice. Recent postings mention a page from those instructions (presumably Report 466) being exhibited at the Hiller Aviation Museum presentation. Can anyone furnish us a copy? Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:49:45 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: octant vs. sextant Yes, there are a number of things that FN could have done if the decision was to head down the 157 line, including an offset approach on a new LOP close to Niku. However, from what I have seen on the forum and web site, TIGHAR's position seems to be that they just flew down the LOP and landed on Niku. So far, I've been too cheap to buy the 8th Edition, and in all fairness there may be something in there that I'm unaware of. My motive in hammering on the 157 LOP is not to eliminate it as a supporting leg for the Niku hypothesis, but to point out that it has weaknesses (as do all of FN's options). Also, I hoped to at least open the door a crack on the idea that there may have been several rational, not necessarily suicidal, but still not easy to accomplish choices/options open to AE and FN, and that heading for Niku was only one of them. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:50:11 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Long's Headwind I cannot believe for one nanosecond that AE would get a continuous 25 MHP head for the entire length of a 2500 mile trip. You are going too many miles through what is very likely changing weather systems and the winds are going to change with it. I don't want to start a discussion on meterology This is wishfull thinking on someone's part to match their theory. This continous 25 MPH wind sounds more like flatulence than fact. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:50:49 EST From: Dave Osgood Subject: Too precise I attended the Hiller event as well, and the previous summaries are quite accurate about the scope and quality of the presentation. My only additional comment about Elgin Long's theory is with the precision of his claims. To narrow down the search area, he states that the plane had exactly "x" amount of specific energy aboard, the diameter of S-5 radio reception zone was exactly "y" miles, and she headed north/south at exactly "z" time. There is too much precision. Even though Long claims there is scientific proof for each of these variables, credible opinions presented on this forum have shown that is not the case. Each one of these variables is subject to a substantial amount of inaccuracy that could have a profound impact on Long's theory. Many of the crucial factors to the entire disappearance story are approximations and assumptions made at the time of the event and each day forward. Therefore, it's a bit misguided to state most of the variables in absolute terms. Dave Osgood ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:51:52 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Sextant research At http://www.americanartifacts.com/smma/scishows.htm I found a reference to an Antique Scientific Instrument Show to be held: March 31, 2001 Dallas/Ft Worth, TX Antique Science & Tech Show 817-467-0368 Perhaps a Forumite from the area could stop by and ask some questions about the sextant box found on Gardner? LTM Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:53:21 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: changing winds of the Pacific > From Ron Bright > Based on Walt Holm's nice digest of the Hiller Museum event, the sine qua > non of Long's theory is the unaccounted headwinds encountered by Amelia. Long > now relies on weather reports of 20-30 mph ENE that contributed most to her > failing to get to Howland. > This is interesting as the winds must me getting stronger or he found > "new data". > In a LA Times article( 28 Jun 87) Long cites the Itasca's weather report > of 7MPH headwinds and uses that in his calculations. The other contributing.... One thing that CANNOT be ruled out is the chance of greater or lesser headwinds. I just returned from a trip where I flew a Cessna 172 about 200 miles and brought a VLA Gazelle (not much more than an ultralight) back. When flying in the little Gazelle it is not uncommon to be overtaken by cars if there is any reasonable headwind. On this trip however, there were headwinds forecast of up to 10 kts at 5-7000 ft where we should have been and tailwinds of up to 20kts around 2000ft where we would not usually have been. I flew back at 1000ft most of the way and achieved up to 90kt groundspeed in an aircraft that is usually lucky to average 60kts. I averaged 80kt for the trip. Groundspeed varied between 70 and 90 kt. The return took not much longer than the flight up in the "real" airplane. This was over a distance of around 200 miles in the tropics. Imagine 10 times that distance. Over 2250 odd nautical miles there is little likelihood that the wind was blowing exactly the same speed at the height they were travelling for the whole trip. It is possible, but it does not seem likely. Winds at night are usually different from winds in the day time. Winds first thing in the morning are usually different from winds later in the day. Look at a weather chart and see how the winds change direction around the highs and lows. look outside and see what happens to the weather during the day. Check the weather charts for various places. At some point the Electra had to be flying into or out of at least one pressure system. I still can't see how they could possibly have a steady headwind for the entire flight of 20 or so hours Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:54:46 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Altitude? Herman,the same thought struck me. First of all I have never encountered a constant wind for an entire flight of that duration in 20 years of flying. Secondly, we always changed altitude to minimize strong head winds. Thirdly, wind doesn't blow against airplanes. It is a large block of air that is moving at whatever speed. The plane is operating in the block. It is the attitude of the aircraft that determines its performance. If the plane is going 140k it is doing so whether the wind is a head wind or a tail wind RELATIVE TO THE BLOCK OF WIND BUT NOT RELATIVE TO THE SURFACE. The attitude of the aircraft changes with regard to its weight and power setting. If you will look at the t.o. time and each position report and the "we must be on you.." report it will show an expected low climbout airspeed and then an average of about 125k ground speed throughtout the rest of the flight. I'm in Sydney, australia away from my notes so don't hold me exactly to these figures. I'll post them when I get back first week of April. Also if you examine that data carefully you will see that the 150.7 longitude was recorded erroneously. It should have been 157. Say those figures to your self and you can see how that error could easily be made. As to Long and company one could accept all their data and still not have a clue as to where to look for the plane. It is obvious from their use, misuse and omission of data that they arrived at a location for the plane and THEN fit the data to it. Alan in Australia ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:55:36 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: changing winds of the pacific Winds get stronger with increasing altitude. If Itasca reported a 7 knot surface wind it would indeed have been possible to find anything between 20 to 30 knots above 2,000 ft. As a rule of thumb I would say you would most probably find 27 knots, veering 30 degrees more from the right than on the surface. That is if winds in the Pacific behave like they do in the rest of the Northern hemisphere. I've never been to Howland or to Nikumaroro so I don't claim to have any experience with winds there. Are there any meteorologists out there who know how winds behave around the Equator ? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:56:24 EST From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: fuel expansion Anthony Lealand wrote: "By my calculations the plane would have been short of 17 gallons if the tanks were rated to hold 1000 gallons at 60 F but were filled at 85 F." In startling contrast, I wrote: " I calculate that if Earhart filled up with 85*F fuel then she left with 60 lb [about 10 gallons] less fuel than if she filled up with 60*F fuel." Just in case anyone cares about this glaring discrepancy of 7 gallons, I used .00095 rather than .0012 for my expansion coefficient. I got it from the web. Can't vouch for its accuracy. Furthermore, I applied the expansion coefficient only to the 654 imperial gallons added at Lae, not the entire 1000 US gallon capacity (or 1100 gallons reported on board in the Chater report) and I didn't allow for expansion of the fuel tanks themselves. That is, I interpreted Gordon Bowman-Jones to mean that the fuel was loaded on board *after* it warmed to 85*F, as opposed to assuming the Electra was up to the brim with 1100 gallons of 60*F fuel that subsequently expanded and overflowed. Either way, the conclusion is the same: a fuel deficiency due to temperature is within the range of error of the estimated fuel on board. It's not worth sweating over. --Mike Z. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:53:26 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Fuel Consumption In the light of the recent Hiller Aviation Museum presentation I think it is the right moment to look again at the Lockheed 10E fuel consumption and check whether TIGHAR is right and the Nauticos people are wrong. This exercise may have been done here before. But since the Long people and Nauticos believe AE/FN ran out of fuel and crashed while TIGHAR believes AE could have landed at Gardner Island (Nikumaroro), I feel we should go over our sums again to keep in touch with facts and for the benefit of recent forumites. So I didn't read again all that Ric has published before but I took out my Airtour Flight Computer and did my own sums. Having flown in the Lockheed 10A myself I know its economic cruising speed is 140 kts IAS (which interestingly is 160 mph). Despite its more powerful engines performance of the Lockheed 10E differs from the 10A's only in the 10E being a bit faster at lower power settings which makes it better suited for long distance flights. The 10A and the 10E were aerodynamically almost identical, the 10E having bigger engines which produce a little more drag but both aircraft have roughly the same performance. However at 140 kts the 10E uses only 250 of its 600 available horsepower or 41.6 %. This corresponds with fuel consumption figures cited here before as being 42 or 43 %. Taking off in overweight AE's 10E had to fly faster initially. I think it was Kelly Johnson who provided the following fuel consumption figures (US gallons): First hour : 100 gallons Total : 100 gallons next 3 hours : 60 gallons 185 gallons next3 hours : 51 gallons 153 gallons next 3 hours : 43 gallons 129 gallons This means that after 10 hours of flying AE had used 567 gallons. Since she took off with 1,100 gallons she had then 533 gallons remaining in the tanks. At 42 gallons per hour this would last for another 12.36 hours, give or take a few minutes because of ambient temperature when filling up. I do not know what speeds correspond to the herebove mentioned fuel consumptions which were calculated for maintaining 5,000 ft. If anyone on the forum does, please let me know. And we have little information on wind either. In other words, where were AE & FN after having flown 10 hours and where would the next 12.36 hours get them against an unknown headwind ?. Long says there was a 25 mph. headwind all the time. If he means knots, that would have reduced the 10E's ground speed to 115 kts. If Long is right about the headwind I am convinced (but I can't prove this of course) that FN would have been aware of this from his navigator's position and I am also convinced that AE would have thought it wise to seek altitudes where they would encounter less headwind to increase their range. Descending to perhaps 2,000 ft could have reduced headwind by 50 % and increase their ground speed. The only information we have is AE's first approximate position report at 18.14 GMT saying they were 200 miles out. Having taken off from Lae at exactly 00.00 GMT they had been 18.14 hours in the air. According to the above mentioned figures, they would have burned 901 gallons of fuel. Cruising along at 43 gallons per hour, at 19.42 GMT and 64.5 gallons later, AE said : "We should be on you but cannot see you". At that time they had been 19.45 hours in the air and the fuel remaining would have been: 134.5 gallons. I guess that is why AE said "Fuel is getting low". However, with that amount of fuel left they could fly another 3.07 hours". In other words : AE and FN had covered the 2,556 miles in 19.3 hours, which gives an average ground speed of 132.4 knots. Whatever Long says, they were only one or one and a half hours late on their ETA and only 8 mph slow on their IAS because of headwinds if AE stuck to 140 kts IAS (Long says 160 mph) for best range performance, which is what I believe. We don't know how much time was lost looking for Howland flying up and down their Line of Position (LOP) of 157/337. But had they flown down the LOP at 157° right away, with wind ENE (let's say 10 kts from 70° at 1,000 ft) their ground speed at 43 gallons per hour would have been exactly 140 knots. Which means that after three more hours they would have covered 420 miles. The only uncertainty we have is the time lost looking for Howland when they discovered it wasn't where it should have been. Let's say they lost 20 minutes. That gave them 2.47 hours left. Flying at 140 knots they would have covered 414 miles in the next three hours. I don't have a detailed map of the area. But where does that land them ? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:54:17 EST From: John Morrison Subject: Re: changing winds of the Pacific During July the ITCZ (Inter-tropical Convergence Zone) moves north of the equator and if you look at the equatorial winds for this season they blow from the east for the entire circumference of the planet. Ferry pilots bringing aircraft from the US to Australia will tell you if you hop down to the equator you can ride them all the way home (and REDUCE power in the tailwind). Up at higher levels it is a different story. John Morrison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:57:03 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Speeding up for a headwind?/Thermal Expansion For Oscar Boswell: Thanks for this e-mail: Do you have any information comparing Johnson's "power curves" performance with the actual performance of the Electra on the world flight up to the Lae takeoff (letters, maintenance logs, etc.)? I realize that it was the case that Johnson's figures were based on tests of Earhart's Electra, itself, yet I am wondering how it actually performed on the flight over time with Earhart at the controls. I guess we can assume she followed the "curves", but, as with any piece of machinery, different operators can make a difference, and the efficiency of the equipment may have degraded slightly over the distance. My thought is that any significant decrease in actual performance over "power curve" performance would've been noticed and, perhaps recorded in some way. One thing I find questionable about the expert opinion mentioned at the seminar concerns thermal expansion of the fuel at Lae. Lae wasn't the only place along the route where this would've been a problem or even an issue, and we do know that Earhart was concerned about getting as much fuel aboard as possible (wasn't there a second "topping off" of fuel at Lae after the initial loading----this would've allowed the initial fuel load to have cooled and contracted, thus compensating for the factor noted in the expert opinion). Therefore, I suspect that any thermal expansion of the fuel lessening the ultimate amount which could be loaded would've been detected long before Lae, and corrected before setting out for Howland---supposition, I admit, but I think pretty safe one. --Chris Kennedy Oscar Boswell wrote: > The availability of authentic Lockheed cruise data in Report 465 makes > it possible to address the concept of speeding up for a headwind, as > mentioned in Elgen Long's book. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:57:50 EST From: John Morrison Subject: Re: Changing winds of the Pacific Here it is guys! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ogp/papers/houze1.html A little local knowledge always helps JM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:58:31 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Sextant research Good idea, Kenton. Looking for boxes with numbers on them would be a good idea, too. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:59:10 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Altitude Alan Caldwell wrote: > Herman,the same thought struck me. First of all I have never > encountered a constant wind for an entire flight of that > duration in 20 years of flying. Secondly, we always changed > altitude to minimize strong head winds. At the time in the world of aerial navigation, this was called, "hunting the wind", and was not only a common practice, but was considered essential for virtually all commercial traffic. It was, as I recall, the practice of the Pan Am Clipper service, and I have read numerous books where the captain of the "ship" (meaning the Clipper) would talk about being advised by the navigator to climb or dive to seek better winds. One particular commentcomes to mind, regarding that when a plane has an airspeed of something like 140 kts, the difference in arrival times between finding a low altitude 20 kt tailwind vs. a higher altitude 20 kt headwind were considerable, even though enjoying a higher true airspeed at the higher altitude. Doing the math on it really makes it clear, though I won't bore anyone with figures. As for a constant headwind over a 20 hour flight, I think that it would almost have to involve an act of God for that to happen. Too bizarre to even contemplate. Thomas Van Hare HistoricWings.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:00:00 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Altitude I note that in my comments on Herman De Wulf's posting I wrote that one must "balance the increase in airspeed [with increased altitude] against the increase in fuel conumption." Of course, I meant to say "balance the increase in airspeed against the increase in headwind." Sorry for the slip. Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:00:35 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Long's headwind It was my understanding that the head winds were not constant the entire distance, but rather varied to the extend that they averaged the speed claimed. They also converted the number from knots to MPH (or vice versa), which is how they came up with the ".5" figure. They freely admit this is all speculation, but it is based on a logical look at all the old and new data without trying to make it fit a preconceived theory. The bottom line is, that based on the endurance charts by Kelly Johnson, a thorough study of endurance by an Aeronautical Engineer at Cal Tech, the fact that there were no provable radio transmissions after 08:43, the S-5 signal strength at 08:43, the fact that Amelia said she had approximately 30 minutes of fuel remaining and a few other things which I have forgotten about, they feel is conclusive evidence that the Electra did not have enough fuel to fly to Gardner Island or Mili Atoll in the Marshalls or for that matter anywhere beyond about 300 miles from Howland. Therefore, it must be somewhere relatively near Howland. They are not entirely sure where, but feel it is most likely fairly close to a spot 35 miles northwest of Howland. It's easy for a person who was in attendance at the Hiller Museum on Saturday, to come away with the notion that they just might be on to something. It's also very easy for those not in attendance to find fault with everything they said. I just don't know! And prefer to think about it for a while longer. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:06:17 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Changing winds of the Pacific In reference to Ron Bright's observation that Long cites stronger headwinds than he noted in the LA Times article of 28 June 1987, The winds ARE getting stronger. The article Mr. Bright mentions came out before the Chater Report was rediscovered (in 1992). The Chater Report includes three key indicators of high headwinds at upper altitudes. The information is right there for everyone to see, and it is posted on the TIGHAR website. I believe that, like TIGHAR, Mr. Long has spent many years conducting research and reviewing data. As new data becomes available, analysis can be refined, which, in this case, it was. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:07:17 EST From: Mark Riddell Subject: FW 200 weakness The FW 200 may not be a particularly good example of an aircraft that anyone would reasonably expect to recover intact under even the best of circumstances. The aircraft had a known and documented "Achilles heel" in that a number of the type actually broke in half making normal landings. The fuselege was weak and a water landing or a recovery party trying to raise a sunken 200 would most likely cause the same thing to happen. I suspect a Lockheed 10 has more "backbone". Mark Riddell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:08:13 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: FW200 recovery For Dennis McGee I remember talking to Captain Bongsmann last year. He is the German pilot in charge of the the Lufthansa Ju-52 PR operation (see website) and flies the JU-52 regularly. He told me the FW-200 was being restored to static display standard. The aircraft has been donated by the Norwegian Aviation Museum to the Berlin Technical Museum (previously known as the Transport Museum). Reading the German text I found ti read (in 1999) they estimated the restoration job to last ten years. The engines have been moved to the museum for display already. Restoration of the hull goes on in Hamburg. As the picture shows the tail broke off when the aircraft was raised from the water. That was what they were afraid of because they knew the fuselage was broken when the aircraft ditched. It broke exactly at the place where the FW-200 typically had a weak spot (there have been cases of FW-200 breaking in two during taxi). You are right about the engines. In the German text it says all four were working when the aircraft hit the water. The crash report gave not explanation for the crash but that there had been a "technical problem". The author of the article understands however there was a problem with trim. He also reminds that shortly prior to the accident an other FW-200, returning from operations shortly before the accident, had been under "friendly fire" from German flak who had been warned of an incoming British raid... Whatever the reason for the ditching, the aircraft came down safely on the water in weather conditions 2-3 and was structurally damaged by impact. The aircraft did not float very long and sank nose first. All crew members could be saved by a motor launch. When the wreck was raised the nose section was missing. It probably broke off when the FW-200 hit the sea floor nose first. The present status of the a/c is that its engines appear to be on display in Berlin and that the hull is under restoration at Hamburg. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:34:43 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: fuel consumption > From Herman De Wulf > > The only uncertainty we have is the time lost looking for Howland when > they discovered it wasn't where it should have been. Let's say they lost > 20 minutes. Careful reading of the radio logs suggests that they spent almost exactly an hour searching for Howland before heading off into the unknown... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:53:40 EST From: Denise Subject: Ditching into the sea I've been following this Elgen Long "crashed and sank" discussion with fascination, but I'm reminded of the research done decades back by British author/radio broadcaster/journalist/novelist June Knox-Mawer. June Knox-Mawer, wife of a judge in the British Colonial Service, based in Fiji, spent years travelling around the Pacific putting together radio broadcasts for the BBC. During this time, because of her life-long fascination with A.E, Knox-Mawer did her own investigations on what was most likely to have happened to her. Knox-Mawer ended up writing a novel based on her theories, called "Shadow of Wings" or something. After years of discussions with people in the know, and doing a lot of research into floatation patterns in the Pacific, what Knox-Mawer believed was A.E. ran out of fuel, ditched into the sea, where she was kept afloat by the empty fuel tanks, and drifted until she came to an island. And yes, the island was Gardener. I don't believe the "ditch-and-drift theory" any more than I believe the "crashed-and-sank theory". (I believe A.E. did a simple reef landing on Nikumaroro) ... but I find it most interesting that after years of research into Pacific drift-patterns, Knox-Mawer was convinced, like us, that this was the island A.E. ended up on. No doubt Elgin Long hasn't heard this ditch-and-drift theory. And for some reason, telling you this just reminded me of something from my earliest childhood; a person we used to call "Coconut Lady". She was this strange American woman who used to wander around placing writing-covered coconuts into the ocean. We found her very mysterious and used to spy on her, convinced she was up to something sinister. Eventually we were told that she was writing a PhD thesis on where-what-placed-where in the Pacific ended up, so we lost interest and left her alone. I think this is the person Knox-Mawer had the most discussions with. And thinking about the Coconut Lady puts me in mind of two things: 1) Could she be the mysterious American woman mentioned as being on Gardener sometime way back in the 40s or 50s? It isn't unlikely. Coconut Lady certainly got around. 2) There is very likely an American PhD thesis stored in a library someplace that Elgin Long should be tracking down in order to have a long, hard look at to discover what-placed-where in the Pacific ends up. It may make him rethink a lot of what he believes. Hope this helps. LTM (who loves mysterious ladies) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:54:04 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Headwinds Doug Brutlag said: "This continuos 25 MPH wind [theory] sounds more like flatulence than fact." Amen to that. And it has the odor to match. LTM, who prefers terseness to being "windy" Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:55:17 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Nauticos Effort Is anyone associated with Nauticos et. al lurking at the AE Forum? I'm just curious because if Nauticos is reading all of the forum comments regarding Long's constant-wind theory they might be rethinking their commitment to the project. Long's theory of a constant 25 kt easterly wind for 20 straight hours should be suspect to anyone who is involved in air or sea travel. As others have emphatically pointed out, it just doesn't happen. Nauticos' involvement in various "search and recover" missions at sea certainly would require them to have top-notched meteorologists onboard. Surely someone over there has pointed out to them the folly of Long's theory -- haven't they? If I was going to burn up several million dollars on a search and recover mission I'd demand the best possible information. Too bad they're not getting it. Long's constant-wind theory is simply smoke and mirrors. LTM, an unrepentant skeptic Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ***************************************** good question, Dennis, and the answer is I don't know. OTOH---- there is none so blind as he who will not see..... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:54:28 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: fuel consumption Wow ! I hope you are wrong about the radio logs... 3.07 hours minus 1 hour means they would only have had 2.07 hours of fuel remaining to reach Gardner. Do you think they made it ? > >From Ross Devitt > > > From Herman De Wulf > > > The only uncertainty we have is the time lost looking for Howland when > > they discovered it wasn't where it should have been. Let's say they lost > > 20 minutes. > > Careful reading of the radio logs suggests that they spent almost exactly an > hour searching for Howland before heading off into the unknown... > > Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:55:32 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: ditching into the sea Some of us are aware of June Knox-Mawer since she was mentioned here some time ago. In fact as a result I have tried to locate her. Knowing she had worked for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) I tried to locate her through her former employer. I learned she retired some time ago (ten years I think). One of her former colleagues remembered her and provided me with a telephone number. This helped me tracing the number back to a place somewhere in Wales. I tried to ring her a number of times but there was never a reply. Since I wasn't sure she still lived there I tried to check on the number. However I learned they have strict privacy laws in Britain which make it illegal to check on telephone numbers to find out where somebody lives... If anyone knows where June Knox-Mawer lives these days, please let the forum now for it would indeed be interesting to have her on the forum. June grew up in the Pacific as a child before returning to England. I understand she was aware of TIGHAR and has been inspired by the Gardner theory when writing her book. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:57:04 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: fuel consumption I should have known better. The distance from Lae to Howland is 2,556 statute miles. It is also 2,220 nautical miles which makes it look a bit shorter. If you consider it is also 4,112 kilometers, it looks much more impressive. However, whether one calculates in statute miles, nautical miles or kilometers, the distance is the same and Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan covered it in 19.42 hours and had exactly the same amount of fuel remaining when she told Itasca "We should be on you but cannot see you.. However, calculating in nautical miles proves Elgen Long right about the headwinds since covering 2,220 nautical miles in 19.42 hours gives an average ground speed of 112.6 knots. Flying at 140 knots IAS (Long's 160 mph) this reveals AE must have been into headwinds averaging 27.4 knots. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:57:53 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: nauticos effort In re -- Dennis McGee's posting about a constant 25 knot headwind: Elgen and Marie Long do not espouse a theory of a "constant 25 knot headwind." Rather, a careful reading of their book reveals that they infer an average headwind based on four data points (from AE herself, the Chater report and from the Itasca). They justify the inference based on research of the consistency of headwinds in that part of the world and on Elgen Long's direct observations (he spent many years flying in the area). David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:59:15 EST From: Gary Payne Subject: Re: fuel consumption These points are to my mind one of the crucial considerations of what may have happened to Earhart and Co. It's impossible to know for sure how much time was spent searching for Howland but, if TIGHAR's fuel estimates are regarded as reasonably accurate, then it is not difficult at all to estimate how much time they COULD have spent looking for Howland. The reported radio strength, if memory serves, indicates that AE/FN were likely no farther than 80 miles at closest approch. Obviously if they'd arrived at the LOP to the NW of Howland, they would have seen it or Baker on a drive to the SE. So, I'm wondering if someone could make it simple for this non-pilot and gauge how much fuel they'd have had remaining had the intended destination acutally BEEN Gardner by way of Howland? Say they take off from Lae, fly all night to get to Howland and turn right down the LOP to reach Gardner. The fuel likely remaining on arrival will tell roughly how much extra time they could have spent searching for Howland. Does it seem a reasonable amount of time? It's important to remember also that every mile spent searching wrong direction is two miles before you can search the right direction. 20 minutes NW up the LOP would use an hour's worth of fuel before you get the same distance to the SE (crosswinds, headwinds and tailwinds notwithstanding and being too difficult for me to consider--again, I ain't no pilot). And AE did report they were looking north AND south. I don't think you need Elgen Long's freakish 20 hour headwind to use up the fuel when it may simply be a case of two desperate people trying their darndest to find their destination and delaying too long in the search until there was simply no hope of reaching any land any where. I've been a follower of the forum for a long time and find the discussions and considerations to be fascinating and sometimes infuriating. Since I'm not a TIGHAR member I generally keep my mouth shut (I think I've posted someting only one time before). This question of how long AE/FN COULD have spent searching for Howland and STILL made Gardner seems a central one though. I have to admit that while I find the TIGHAR theory to be logical and the evidence collected so far compelling, I still think the Electra wound up in the drink someplace to the SE of Howland and NW of Gardner. Otherwise reasonable will behave very strangely in times of stress, e.g. people hiding under beds or in closest when the building they're in is burning. Squirrely, sure, but it happens. They may well have just spent too long searching for Howland before considering any other possibility. Since I am admittedly a member of the Any Idiot Artifact club, I am curious as to whose bones ended up on Gardner. I don't feel obliged to prove they were NOT AE's though. I don't necessarily espouse that it was someone else, but it COULD have been. TIGHAR maintains it WAS AE so it becomes TIGHAR's job to make the claim stick. I guess I'm a bit of a skeptic at this point, but I hope I'm not perceived as one of the contentious ones. I'd LOVE to see the mystery solved and have no particular agenda about it. I guess I remain critical not because of what TIGHAR has found, but why MORE has NOT been found. Tantalizing as all the clues have been thus far it is the totality of all of them together that seems to suggest that AE/FN might have ended up at Gardner. Any one alone is merely a curiosity and not a single one of them is conclusive (at least to me). I remain therefore skeptically yours; --gary payne (generally silent forum observer) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:59:59 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Nauticos effort Looking at the Nauticos website, they say in part: "David Jourdan, president and founder of Nauticos Corporation joins a panel of experts at "The Earhart Search Symposium" to be held at the Hiller Aviation Museum at the San Carlos Airport, 601 Skyway Road in San Carlos, California." "Joins a panel of experts" - I'm beginning to think that some of the other presentations at Hiller may have been actually only slightly (if at all) related to the Nauticos efforts, and may have been largely filler material. Nauticos is a successful deep ocean search/recovery/exploration company. They have some absolutely remarkable accomplishments to point to. I doubt that they are revealing all (or even very few) of their cards, and they may be just as happy with some level of disinformation. Remember that they have absolutely no motive (except for mild PR) to reveal anything but fluff - unlike TIGHAR, they are clearly going for a very few private investors to whom, I assume, they would be willing to lay out something like the full story. If you log onto their site, you cannot find a way to financially support this effort if you wanted to. Anyway, I suggest that looking at what we view as their "presentation" may be a mistake. Given the work that they do, I will speculate that many of their clients demand the utmost in confidentiality, and they are probably quite used to saying very, very little about what they are really doing, or what analyses are using as a basis for their efforts. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:01:00 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Speeding up in a headwind Going faster into a headwind is an effective way to deal with a headwind problem but only to the extent that it does not advessly effect fuel consumption and over all endurance excessively. The fuel burn vs airspeed curve is a parabolic curve and as long as the airplane is flown over the relatively flat portion of the curve fuel consumption is not greatly effected by flying faster than the max range airspeed. If you fly on the fast side you allow the least time for the headwind to have its effect on the airplanes ground speed. If you fly on the slow side you increase the time the wind will have its effect so that even though you are in the air longer you don't cover as many ground miles. Long's problem is his assumption that the airplane was flown much faster then would be normal or practical. You can't increase the speed by 40% of the headwind unless it keeps you on the flat portion of the curve. In other words, 40% of a 10 kt headwind might be fine but 40% of a 30 kt wind wouldn't work. Rather than a percent of headwind the airspeed can be increased only to the point where the increased drag and fuel consumption have a relatively small effect on over all endurance. I suspect it would be no more than a 5 kt airspeed increase for the 10E. One would have to look at the fuel consumption vs airspeed curve to know how much increase is practical but certainly flying faster into a headwind and flying slower with a tailwind are well established procedures that work. Note: Max range is the furthest possible distanve traveled in still air while max endurance is staying in the air for the longest time. You go less miles in still air flying max endurance than flying max range power settings. I think Oscar was confusing the two when he wrote his article titled "Speeding up for a headwind". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:01:33 EST From: Anthony Lealand Subject: Search costs Dennis's comment "Nauticos' involvement in various "search and recover" missions at sea certainly would require them to have top-notched meteorologists onboard. Surely someone over there has pointed out to them the folly of Long's theory -- haven't they? If I was going to burn up several million dollars on a search and recover mission I'd demand the best possible information. Too bad they're not getting it. Long's constant-wind theory is simply smoke and mirrors." Perhaps Nauticos dont really care as long as they get paid, and best of all, get to log a lot of interesting items all over the sea bed. In my experience, when one tells clients in the kindest way their ideas are nuts they generally go off and badmouth one to all and sundry. It best to let it fall over naturally or run its course. anthony lealand ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:02:00 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Intersecting the LOP If Elgen Long and the Nauticos people believe Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan crashed in the sea and sank I find this difficult to believe because fuel consumption calculations indicate otherwise. And if the artifacts found on Gardner, both by Gallagher and by TIGHAR, are indeed related to Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan the I think it is time to look again at the fuel consumption and see if it was at all possible for them to reach Gardner. It was. According to my calculations they had 134.5 gallons left when they were over where they thought they would find Howland. Where were they really ? Let's recalculate the point where they most probably intercepted the 337/157 LOP. 134.5 gallons at 43 gph would theoretically last them for another 3.07 hours, give or take a few minutes. If the radio reports are anything to go by - and as The Wombat reminds - they would have been flying up and down the LOP for about one hour. That means they would have had two hours of gas left when they abandoned the search. There are two options. Either AE continued down the LOP on the 157 radial at the 43 gph setting giving her the 140 kts IAS or, no longer having a headwind to cope with, she could have throttled down to 38 gph for greater economy to make sure they got to the Phoenix Islands. Apparently in one of these two scenario's they found Gardner. At a setting from 43 gph the Electra would fly 140 knots IAS. The wind (as provided by Itasca) did not affect its ground speed. Reducing power to 38 gph her ground speed would have been something like 153 knots because of the Lockheed 10E peculiarity of becoming a little faster than the 10A at lower power settings. In the first scenario AE would have covered some 280 nautical miles to Gardner. In the second scenario she would have covered 306 nautical miles. Given the fact that there was fuel left to keep the radio going for some time after landing, they were probably a bit farther to the south than the figures I mention. Unfortunately I do not possess a map of the sea area in the Kirabati area and I am not sure of the exact distance between Howland Island and Gardner Island. I found a map on the internet, the scale of which I'm not sure of. Therefore I decided to give it a try and to the best of my ability measured the distance on the map in centimeters, converting the figures to nautical miles (oops !). I know this is not the most accurate way of calculating things but it's the only one available to me at the time. I came up with a distance of 349 nautical miles separating Howland and Gardner. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. If anyone has a reliable map, please do the exercise over again with the correct distances. Anyway, AE/FN either intersected the LOP at less than 280 nautical miles from Gardner or at less than 306 nautical miles. This translates into them either intersecting the LOP at around 70 or at around 43 nautical miles southeast of Howland. Since they searched for Howland for about one hour, one can assume that from the intersecting point they turned northwest for perhaps 15 minutes on the 337 radial, made a rate 1 turn and flew back on the radial 157 for 30 minutes. If they began their search at the point 70 miles southeast of Howland, the next 15 minutes back on the radial 337 would bring them to a point about 35 nautical miles from the island. If they began their search from the intersecting point at 43 miles, they would have come to within 8 miles. In both scenario's this would explain for the good radio reception at Itasca. One can only wonder why they didn't see Howland from a distance of 8 miles. Therefore I assume they intersected the LOP rather at 70 miles and never got any closer to Howland than 35 miles, which explains why there was give good radio reception. At that range they didn't see Howland. . This must have been when AE said : "We must be on you but cannot see you". They believed to be on Howland at 19.30 according to the radio log. Flying 337° for 15 minutes, then 157* for the next 30 minutes and back on 337° 15 minutes on their search pattern would have brought them back the same distance from Howland as where they began their search. Half an hour later, at 20.43 when the last radio call was heard, they apparently gave up. By that time FN had probably calculated it would be safe to use the remaining fuel to fly to the Phoenix Islands. He would have told her to maintain the 157° radial. The only snag I find with this scenario is why AE did not declare their intention in a blind transmission. Perhaps she may have concluded that nobody was listening anyway. I do not pretend I know what happend on 2 July 1937. But starting from the latest fuel consumption figures I tried to reconstruct the facts as best I can. If anyone finds I'm mistaken, please feel free to comment and to do the calculation all over again in possession of a real map and the correct distances. Remember that I used Kelly Johnson's figures.. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:55:55 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Thermal Expansion - With a few Kind words for Elgen Long In response to Chris Kennedy's question, I am sorry to say that I do not have any information on "the actual performance of the Electra on the world flight" other than the scattered references in "Last Flight." I think Elgen Long says somewhere (I don't have it in front of me) that the records show she averaged 56 gph and 155 (?) mph overall on previous flights. This is interesting, but fails to tell the whole story of what figures a maximum effort flight with minimum fuel in reserve might result in. Like Chris, I always prefer the real world figures. The Thermal Expansion issue confuses many people. The point is not that expansion of the fuel caused venting and a loss of fuel that could be "corrected".The point is that fuel is LESS DENSE at higher temperatures. If fuel weighs 6 pounds per gallon at 59 F ("standard temperature"), it weighs less than 6 pounds per gallon at 85 F, and more than 6 pounds per gallon at 43 F. If the tank is "full" with 100 gallons at 85 F, it does not hold 600 pounds, it holds some amount less (how much less is beyond the scope of this restatement). If you have only 50 gallons in a 100 gallon tank, you can compensate for the less dense fuel by adding 1 or 2 (or whatever) gallons, but if the tank is already full, you can't do anything to bring the weight of fuel in the tank up to 600 pounds.. The amount of available ENERGY in the fuel is dependent upon the density (the weight) - that's why these days we calculate by pounds per hour, rather than gallons. As a practical matter in light planes the variation is not enough to get excited about, and we simply assume a gallon is always 6 pounds, but the airlines, flying planes with huge fuel loads, do take actual weight into account both for payload and range reasons. (If you want to get absolutely the greatest fuel by weight into your tanks, the technique is to chill the fuel with dry ice, fuel the plane shortly before takeoff, and insulate the tanks with blankets to limit the heating, expansion and venting of fuel prior to takeoff. This in fact was done by Paul Mantz for the 1947 Bendix Race, and a picture of his blanket-draped Mustang is in Robert C. Mikesh, EXCALIBUR III : THE STORY OF A P-51 MUSTANG page 12 [Smithsonian Institution Press, 1978]. Charles F. Blair, Jr. bought the plane from Mantz and used it on his flight over the North Pole.) EVEN IF the 10 E's tanks were topped off immediately before takeoff, there is simply no doubt whatever (as a matter of physics) that the fuel weighed less (and contained less energy) than it would have at standard temperature. The question is: did that deficiency in the fuel affect performance in a way that impacted adversely upon ENDURANCE of the flight at given power settings? I suspect that the answer is "no", but I am reluctant to give a categorical answer, because that question is even farther outside my field than usual, and I do not have the time or energy to get up to speed and attempt to address it in detail at this time. It really needs a good aeronautical engineer and an engine man - both with open minds - with a pilot to cross-examine them. I had a few telephone conversations and some correspondence off the forum with our late friend, Birch Matthews, who was working on this and related issues for a book, and I think Birch believed that the "non-standard" atmosphere from Lae to Howland would have resulted in fuel consumption exceeding Kelly Johnson's standard atmosphere figures by around 7%. That would cause a reduction in endurance of about 2 hours. Birch was also concerned about the effect of reduced density of the fuel.Whether Birch's figures included the effect of the reduced density of the fuel or not is something I cannot say, because I did not get the opportunity to discuss that issue with him before he passed away. [I will add that I had doubts about Birch's tentative conclusions because in lightplanes temperatures higher than standard cause slight decreases in fuel consumption and slight increases in airspeed at specific engine settings - and thus efficiency (defined in miles per gallon in still air) increases with heat. In the C-210, temperatures 20 C above standard cause about a 3% increase in range. Apparently, the increased efficiency in higher temperatures more than compensates for the decreased density of the fuel.] Individual pilot technique is of course the MOST IMPORTANT part of the endurance/range equation. Kelly Johnson might have expected 23 to 24 hours out of the 10 E with AE flying and 1100 gallons. Perhaps Mantz could have gotten 26 or 27 hours. Lindbergh - what? 28 or 29 or even 30 or more? My favorite story illustrating the importance of the pilot at the controls is in Lindbergh's WARTIME JOURNALS pages 864-65 (entry for July 3, 1944). Lindbergh reports on his participation in a 12 plane flight (P-38's). After perhaps 4 or 5 hours (?) flying "One of the pilots reported low on fuel and was ordered to return home. Two or three minutes later a second reported his fuel tanks low and was sent back. Then a third. After that, Colonel MacDonald started back with the entire squadron. I had plenty of fuel in my tanks, having nursed the engine at minimum r.p.m and auto lean, and continued along the coast with my wingman. We found a barge up on the beach and made two runs on it. ... I then found two very small and empty barges ... and made two straffing runs on them. ... Around the next point ... I saw two barges ... so close to the high tide line that some of the tree branches overhung them ... I found that by sideslipping I could get in a good burst and that the barges were far enough apart to make two runs on each circle. After my second run, however, I noticed that my wingman was simply circling overhead. In reply to my radio query he replied that he, too, was low on fuel. I asked him how much was remaining in his tanks. He replied, 'about 175 gallons.' It was more than enough. I told him to pull his engine r.p.m down to 1,600, to put his mixture control in auto lean, and to open his throttle wide enough to stay in loose formation with me. I then set course for Owi island at an altitude of 1,000 feet and an indicated airspeed of 185 m.p.h. When we landed at Owi, he had seventy gallons left, a full hour's flight throttled down. I had 260 [sic] gallons in my tanks, although we both had exactly the same amount of fuel when we took off .. in the morning. ... We called all pilots for a meeting in the evening. I talked to them for half an hour on maximum range and fuel economy." The entry for July 14, 1944 (pages 875 - 76) recounts his flight in a P-47 from Brisbane to Horn Island, after initially being refused clearance because "a P-47 was not capable of making the flight ... without refueling." Told that the minimum fuel consumption of the P-47 was about 80 gallons per hour, Lindbergh responded that the R-2800 engine (2000 horsepower) should be capable of cruising at around 50 gallons per hour. After promising to monitor his fuel carefully and divert if it ran low, Lindbergh made the flight ("r.p.m down to 1,450 during the latter portion") arriving over Horn Island with enough fuel "to reach Nadzab[two hours farther] with almost a two-hour reserve". He landed at Horn only because he could not contact Horn Island by radio and get clearance to extend the flight plan to Nadzab. There are any number of very difficult issues in the endurance question, and Mr. Long and others who question the "24 hour and 9 minute" figure are not necessarily being foolish. And if the Lockheed Operating Instructions really did contain headwind instructions indicating that speed should be increased by 40% of the headwind, I would consider that a very interesting fact - since it is so obviously bad advice. I wish the forum had maintained enough rapport with Mr. Long to permit us to ask him to share the 10 E instructions with us. Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:57:19 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Nauticos effort Tom MM wrote: >...Anyway, I suggest that looking at what we view as their "presentation" may >be a mistake. Given the work that they do, I will speculate that many of >their clients demand the utmost in confidentiality, and they are probably >quite used to saying very, very little about what they are really doing, or >what analyses are using as a basis for their efforts. I guess that the real question is: "What else is lost in the Pacific, near Howland island?" Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:58:07 EST From: Wesley Smith Subject: Re: search costs Seems like there is a fair amount of second guessing going on about Nauticos and what they intend to achieve. In the spirit of academic freedom, why not wait and see their results. Or volunteer to help them and in so doing, present your own theories? I really enjoy the forum but look at the sanctimony! Why not e-mail Nauticos and cc the forum? At least you might get some factual results to share instead of this windbag full of conjecture aimed at the wrong audience. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:58:44 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Intersecting the LOP > From Herman De Wulf > ... If anyone finds I'm mistaken, please feel free to comment ... When the fuel calculations were last done on the Forum, someone recommended that we should NOT assume that all fuel on board is usable. Have you made that assumption in your calculations? Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:59:36 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Speeding up into a sea of confusion I don't believe I confused maximum endurance with maximum range, but I have obviously confused Dick Pingrey, and I apologize for that. Perhaps he missed my earlier (by 10 minutes) posting in response to Herman de Wulf (Re: Altitude), which mentioned that speeding up into a headwind was a "recognized technique" and referred to reader to Peter Garrison's discussion of the problems. Garrison makes the point (LONG DISTANCE FLYING pages 141 -43) that "The effect of the headwind is merely to raise the MOST EFFICIENT speed by ONE QUARTER of the headwind component - not all speeds." If you are flying at (or near) the most efficient speed (V L/D) the technique works; if not, it does not. My mistake for breaking the discussion into two postings, and relying on the reader to put them together. Now I am confused by Dick's comments, because I have just reread (twice) my posting, which does not mention (and does not refer to) either "maximum range" or "maximum endurance". It is simply a comparison of (what Mr. Long says was) Lockheed's specific advice with what would actually happen in the 10E (according to Lockheed's performance figures) if that advice were followed, at speeds in the 150 to 160 mph range (which are speeds for neither maximum endurance nor maximum range for the 10 E). The point is either (a) Lockheed gave the wrong advice, or (b) Mr. Long has misunderstood what Lockheed said. I would like to know whether the truth is (a) or (b). We need to see the "page from Lockheed's Operating Instructions" exhibited by Mr. Long to find that out. Speeding up for a headwind is in fact the proper technique but only within a limited performance range. It is also a technique that is hard to perform properly, because of the many interrelated mathematical equations and variations. In an airliner or G-V today a sophisticated computer will integrate accurate information on the wind, TAS, power, fuel consumption, etc., and enable one to use the technique very well. In a less sophisicated airplane, one is thrown back upon rule of thumb. In a tellling comment on the complexity of the matter, John Anderson, in his text AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN contents himself with the observation (page 311) that "the best range [airspeed] with a headwind is higher than that for no wind ..." and suggests two other books as references for those who desire to pursue the matter analytically. In any case, I don't have any real disagreement with most of what Dick says, and in fact think that it is simply a restatement of the point, which was not that "speeding up into a headwind never works," but was that "speeding up from 150 to 160.5 into a 26.5 headwind does not work in the 10E, and if Lockheed gave advice that caused one to conclude that that was the proper thing to do, it was bad advice." Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:01:03 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Intersecting the LOP Further to my previous posting on INTERSECTING THE LOP I am surprised to discover that my calculations correspond to a posting made in February by someone who drew up a map of the Howland/Baker area showing Howland in the middle of a 80 NM circle of uncertainty divided into sectors. Through logical thinking he ruled out all but one, eventually pointing at one area (which he named F) as the one in which AE/FN most likely intercepted the 337/157 LOP. Looking at the drawing again it strikes me that we both come to the same conclusion through different reasoning. We both think the Electra hit upon the LOP at a point some 70 nautical miles southeast of Howland. This is fascinating. It supports my calculations based on the Electra's fuel consumption as we know it today. When two forumites working independently come to the same conclusions and pinpoint the Electra in the same place using different techniques I think this is worth mentioning. It also kills the Eglen Long crash and sank theory. I'm sorry I lost the TIGHAR member's name. Will he please stand up to be identified again ? Herman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:01:55 EST From: John Morrison Subject: Re: Nauticos effort > Anyway, I suggest that looking at what we view as their "presentation" may > be a mistake. Given the work that they do, I will speculate that many of > their clients demand the utmost in confidentiality, and they are probably > quite used to saying very, very little about what they are really doing, or > what analyses are using as a basis for their efforts. > > TOM MM Agreed. I bet they use a new AUV. Wonder how we could find out ? JM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:02:58 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Speeding up In re Herman de Wolf's comment: <> The math here needs adjustment. 2,220 divided by 19.42 is 114.315; however, the denominator is incorrect. 7:42 a.m. local time is 19:12 GCT, NOT 19:42. Hence, 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight equals 19.2 hours. The correct calculation should be 2,220 divided by 19.2 = 115.625 David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:03:40 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Headwind and airspeed calculations To Herman and Ross, et al. You are all making assumptions that you have no firm basis to make. We can not say that Elgen Long was right about the headwinds when there are at least two unknown factors. We don't known the airspeed which was flown and thus we can not know the headwinds. There are many other variable which we can guess at but we really don't know. How long were Amelia and Fred in the area around Howland before they sent the, "We must be on you but can not see you" message? Do we rally know what altitude they maintained? Weather conditions could have forced them to fly higher or lower. Do we know they were on course or that they spent 15 minutes flying north on the LOP? Certainly we no not know the answer to any of these questions. A small error here and another small error there and we have major miscalculations. Simply stated, we do not know and can not know. With at least a half a dozen variables there is no way of knowing the answer to any of these questions. There in rests the error in Elgin Long's assumptions. No one knows the answer to what really happened during the flight but we do know that the airplane was capable of flying to the vicinity of Howland and then flying the LOP and arriving at Gardner. That is the only thing we know for certain, the rest is speculation based on certain assumptions that may or may not be correct. We talk about employing the scientific method. Speculation and unprovable assumptions are not part of the scientific method. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:05:09 EST From: Pete Subject: Re: nauticos effort I have to go with Tom MM about Nauticos. They ARE a business, and don't need to say how things are done, where funding comes from, etc. Elgen Long may have been happy to accept the Lockheed manual regarding headwinds. I wonder if he considered that AE's Electra was NOT the 10E Lockheed was selling to airlines. Was not this 10E PURPOSE-BUILT for this flight? Seems to me every effort would be made to build a lighter than stock model (Company reputation at stake during the Depression ya know) so I think "the manual" may be more of a guideline for fuel consumption. Having flown this far, I suspect AE had a good idea on how to lean the mixture to get the best gph for conditions anyway. Did the 10E have a fuel hogging carb-heat? Were "hot plugs" of some kind installed in those Pratts? Still working on the brevity thing, Pete (whose logbook still only has 10 hours SEL, under instruction) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:06:01 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: ditching into the sea Herman, One of the following people from the Romantic Novelists Association might be able to help you to get in touch with June Knox-Mawer, or perhaps pass on a message. They made an award to her about 1992 for Sandstorm. It is possible she is a member. Katie Ffordes FFORDES@aol.com or Karen King karenking@nonington.fsnet.co.uk Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:06:55 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: fuel consumption >From Herman De Wulf > >Wow ! I hope you are wrong about the radio logs... 3.07 hours minus 1 hour >means they would only have had 2.07 hours of fuel remaining to reach >Gardner. Do you think they made it ? My reasoning is this (in Electra times). 15:15 received strength 1 - still a fair way off. 17:44 received strength 3 - getting closer 19:12 received strength 5 we must be on you. Strength 5 means they are very near. 19:28 circling but cannot hear you 19:30 heard Itasca but unable to get minimum. Hearing Itasca on the Loop suggests they are still very close. 20:13 on line 157/337 rept on 6210. still strength 5, so still in the area. Unlike Ric I believe we are "circling" was probably correct. I also believe that the 157/337 message suggests that they are now flying along that line, and possibly looking for somewhere else to land. The weather reports received as Earhart was taking off predicted ESE winds about 25kts for half the trip and ENE winds about 20kts for the rest. Earhart's own transmissions suggest she was maintaining 140kts indicated air speed, and later that the wind was 23kts. This has been debated at length, but I believe it still suggests that during daylight hours the navigator has worked out by reference to the ground, and their Air Speed Indicator and charts, that they were maintaining around 117kts at 5.18pm. That is about 134mph and would get them to Howland in about 19hrs. Pretty close to "We must be on you..." We don't know the first figure in these calculations, but based on the Chater Report and Clarence Williams figures we can estimate it. Clarence Williams suggests a climb for 22 minutes. The Kelly Johnson figures suggest a fuel consumption of around 85-90gph for that time. I've used 100gph. WORST CASE SCENARIO 22min@ 100gph = 40gal 3hrs @ 60gph = 180gal (Kelly Johnson says 60gph) 3hrs @ 51gph = 155gal (Kelly Johnson says 51gph) 12.5hrs @ 45gph = 562gal (Kelly Johnson says 38gph or LESS if there's a strong headwind) TOTAL for 19hrs = 937gallons Balance in tanks 163gallons. Lose 60gallons in an hour searching at low altitude and we have about 100gallons left. 100gallons will last us about 2.5hrs at 38gph and get us about 350 - 390 miles. However, if we sticking to the Kelly Johnson / Clarence William figures we'd have something more like: BEST CASE SCENARIO 22 min @ 100gph = 36gal 3hrs @ 60gph = 180gal 3hrs @ 51gph = 153gal 12.5hrs@ 38gph = 475gal TOTAL for 19 hrs = 844 gallons. Balance in tanks 256gallons. Lose 60gallons beetling around searching for an hour and we have about 195 gallons left. 195 gallons at a fuel burn of 38gph lets us fly for a little over 5 hours and takes us somewhere between 721 and 770 miles. Somewhere between these extremes may be the answer. Even if they ran 7gph OVER their advised settings for more than 12 hours they should have still had fuel to burn on arrival near Howland. Enough to search for an hour, then bug off for somewhere else if necessary. The strength of the radio signals at 19hrs suggests they were close, which is why 19hrs has been used as the basis for the calculations. This gives an average ground speed of 116kts and a constant headwind of 14kts. With the winds forecast at ESE and ENE for the trip, that would be consistent with a wind speed in excess of 20kts from these directions. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:09:07 EST From: Dan Brown Subject: Re: shoes and stuff From Dan Brown I liked your idea very much, so spent yesterday searching Dissertation Abstracts from 1930 to 1970 for anything related to dispersal of objects by currents in the Pacific Ocean. I started by checking the acknowledgements in June Knox-Mawer's book "A World of Islands" for possible leads, but found none. Also had negative results searching all dissertations, so if the Coconut Lady really was conducting research, she never wrote it up. On a separate issue, noted that both "footwear" and "shoe polish" were items imported annually after the war by the cooperative stores in the Gilbert and Ellis Islands Colony. References: Carmichael, Peter, and June Knox-Mawer. A World of Islands. Viking Press, New York. 1969. LC76-75646. Colonial Office Report on the Gilbert and Ellis Islands Colony and the Central and Southern Line Islands. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London. 1949 and 1952-1953 forward. Dan Brown ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:35:20 EST From: Michel Carr Subject: Hey gang, this mean it's over? Well darn. Here I just joined the forum a week or so ago and now the mystery's solved. Here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1238000/1238006.stm Need to scroll down a bit for the AE blurb. Comes with a pic of AE with her foot near an engine - maybe someone can measure that shoe size now .... or just go and ask her maybe. Michel So she's not dead after all... Amelia Earhart, who vanished mysteriously over the Pacific during her attempted round-the-world flight in 1937, is alive and well and growing pineapples in the South Seas. Earhart's disappearance baffled the world The Weekly World News reports an Australian treasure hunter has found the 103-year-old holed up on a remote atoll. Conspiracy theorists will be delighted to learn that she freely admits to aerial espionage while attempting to circumnavigate the globe. Earhart told the salvageman she made a detour to photograph a Japanese military outpost at the personal request of President Franklin Roosevelt. But the plane ran out of fuel, tipping Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan into the sea. By way of proof, the tabloid runs a snap of the centenarian decked out in flight goggles. Now, cynical as this may sound, we can't help but notice that her eyewear bears more than a passing resemblance to a pair of modern-day ski goggles. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:40:48 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Shoes and stuff > From Dan Brown > > I liked your idea very much, so spent yesterday searching Dissertation > Abstracts from 1930 to 1970 for anything related to dispersal of objects by > currents in the Pacific Ocean. ... Here's a site with a possible lead: http://daphne.palomar.edu/wayne/pldec398.htm <Further to my previous posting on INTERSECTING THE LOP >I am surprised to discover that my calculations correspond to a posting made >in February by someone who drew up a map of the Howland/Baker area showing >Howland in the middle of a 80 NM circle of uncertainty divided into sectors. >Through logical thinking he ruled out all but one, eventually pointing at >one area (which he named F) as the one in which AE/FN most likely >intercepted the 337/157 LOP. > >I'm sorry I lost the TIGHAR member's name. Will he please stand up to be >identified again ? I believe you were referring to me. If you send me your e-mail address I can discuss this with you further. Harry Poole, #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:44:13 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: speeding up 2,220 nautical miles have to be divided by 19.7 since 42 minutes is 70 % of an hour. This results in an average ground speed of 112.6 kts. However, if the correct flying time was 19.12 hours then 2,200 : 19.2 = 115.6 kts. This means that the average headwind en route was 24.4 kts. This means that with the updated flying time AE/FN reached the point where they thought Howland was with 274.4 gallons of fuel remaining in their tanks. If they flew around for one hour at the same power settings they would have had something like 231.4 gallons remaining when they decided to head for the Phoenix Islands. We do not kow at exactly what time or at what point of their search pattern they decided to divert but with that amount of fuel they could have flown another 5 + hours (5.24 hours but probably less because of the amount of unusable fuelin any aircraft). At 43 gph. this translates into something like 753 nautical miles (minus some for unusable fuel). Quite a different picture from what Elgen Long depicts. David Evans Katz wrote: > > In re Herman de Wolf's comment: > > < Long right about the headwinds since covering 2,220 > nautical miles in 19.42 hours gives an average ground > speed of 112.6 knots.>> > > The math here needs adjustment. 2,220 divided by 19.42 > is 114.315; however, the denominator is incorrect. 7:42 > a.m. local time is 19:12 GCT, NOT 19:42. Hence, 19 > hours and 12 minutes into the flight equals 19.2 hours. > The correct calculation should be 2,220 divided by 19.2 > = 115.625 > > David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:45:36 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Intersecting the LOP In all aircraft there is a small amount of fuel that remains unusable. I do not know what that amount was in the particular case of AE's Lockheed 10E. However, when calculating the amount of fuel used to fly from Lae to Howland this is irrelevant since there was plenty of fuel to get there. In the case of calculating the point where the aircraft intercepted the LOP I assumed there was enough fuel remaining to get to Gardner. In this case it was not relevant to take into account an amount of unusable fuel. Marty Moleski wrote: >Herman de Wulf wrote: > > > ... If anyone finds I'm mistaken, please feel free to comment ... > > When the fuel calculations were last done on the Forum, > someone recommended that we should NOT assume that all > fuel on board is usable. Have you made that assumption > in your calculations? > > Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:46:29 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Headwind and airspeed calculations Dick is right when he says there are many unknowns. However there are a few things we do know. The economic cruise speed of the Electra is 140 kts IAS. Updated figures show that the actual flying time from Lae to where AE & FN thought Howland was (and they were very near) indicate flying time was 19.12 hours. This results in a ground speed of 115.6 kts. Flying at 140 kts IAS this means there was an average headwind of 24.4 kts. Dick Pingrey wrote: > To Herman and Ross, et al. > > You are all making assumptions that you have no firm basis to make. > We can not say that Elgen Long was right about the headwinds when there are > at least two unknown factors. We don't known the airspeed which was flown > and thus we can not know the headwinds. There are many other variable which > we can guess at but we really don't know. How long were Amelia and Fred in > the area around Howland before they sent the, "We must be on you but can not > see you" message? Do we rally know what altitude they maintained? Weather > conditions could have forced them to fly higher or lower. Do we know they > were on course or that they spent 15 minutes flying north on the LOP? > Certainly we no not know the answer to any of these questions. A small error > here and another small error there and we have major miscalculations. > > Simply stated, we do not know and can not know. With at least a half > a dozen variables there is no way of knowing the answer to any of these > questions. There in rests the error in Elgin Long's assumptions. No one > knows the answer to what really happened during the flight but we do know > that the airplane was capable of flying to the vicinity of Howland and then > flying the LOP and arriving at Gardner. That is the only thing we know for > certain, the rest is speculation based on certain assumptions that may or may > not be correct. We talk about employing the scientific method. Speculation > and unprovable assumptions are not part of the scientific method. > > Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:47:07 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: To Oscar on speeding up in a headwind Oscar, I think you cleared things up with your recent message. I suspect we are in complete or very near agreement. The main point being that the allowable increase in airspeed in a headwind is relatively small so as not to significantly increase fuel consumption. Long assumes a large increase in airspeed that would, almost certainly, significantly impact fuel consumption. I see no basis for this assumption but I don't have the aircraft performance tables to study. I can't answer your a. or b. question as I don't have access to the necessary information. In reading your earlier message it seemed to me that you were confusing max range and max endurance but, quite obviously, you were not. All of this is speculation as we really don't have any firm evidence as to how the airplane was flown, the actual winds or even that altitudes flown. It is intersting to speculate on these matters but it is just that, speculation. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:48:08 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: headwind and airspeed calculations On Sunday 25 March 2001 02:03, you wrote: > From Dick Pingrey > How long were Amelia and > Fred in the area around Howland before they sent the, "We must be on you > but can not see you" message? No, we don't know. However, from the wording of the radio log entries and the signal strengths recorded we can surmise (only) that up to that message they were getting closer and by the time they transmitted that message they expected to be "on" Itasca. Signal strength steadily getting stronger from S3 to S5 is indicative of the Electra approaching and arriving. Continued transmissions at S5 would suggest the Electra was somewhere within 100 miles or so of the ship, right up to the last transmission. If they were a couple of hundred miles away the strength should have gone back to S4 then S3. Careful reading of the radio log suggests they had not been long in the area when they transmitted that message. As I mentioned in another posting, I don't believe it is a coincidence that from that message to the LOP message was an hour. I'm personally not interested in rubbishing Long, nauticos and the others because I see just asbout as many valid points in their arguments as in TIGHAR's. I have always said that I don't believe the Electra "landed" on Gardner/Niku. My personal opinion is that they came close, and one or more of them made it ashore. The Electra may even have washed up on the reef for a time, leaving stories of an airplane on the reef. I have sound arguments against the landing on the reef, but I also suspect the "bones" WERE Amelia or Fred. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:48:48 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: headwind and airspeed calculations To Dick Pingrey You're right that I am making assumptions. Don't we all ? Doesn't Elgen Long make assumptions ? As any policeman will tell you crimes are solved by a process of eliminating one by one a number of assumptions derived from facts and artifacts found on the scene of a crime. As far as Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan are concerned the facts are : 1. The Lockheed 10A/E economic cruise speed is 140 kts IAS. 2. It took AE 19.12 hours to get to the point where she and FN believed Howland was. 3. This gave them an average ground speed over the past 19.12 hours at 115.5 kts. 4. Since AE, as any pilot would have done, must have maintained the 140 kts economic cruise speed during the whole flight this leads to the mathematical conclusion that over the 19.12 hours Amelia Earhart flew against headwinds averaging 24.5 kts. 5. The latest Lockheed 10E fuel consumption graphs available tell us that at 140 kts the aircraft would burn 43 gallons per hour. 6. Hence it is no assumption to establish mathematically that taking off with 1,100 gallons of fuel in the tanks AE burned 825.6 gallons of gas during the next 19.12 hours. 7. In other words, when Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan reached the point where they believed Howland was, they had 274.4 gallons of fuel remaining in their tanks. These are not assumptions. You're right Dick that from here on we don't know what happened and that from here on we start assuming. We do not know where Amelia Earhart intersected the Howland Line Of Position (LOP). Neither do we know the exact amount of time Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan spent flying a search pattern after having reached the LOP. But as the Wombat pointed out, looking at the radio logs it looks like they flew around for about one hour. At 43 gph this then left them with 231.4 gallons in their tanks, maybe a bit more if AE reduced power flying on the 337/157 radial since she did no longer have to fly into any headwind. But even if she continued flying with the power setting at 43 gph and 140 kts this would theoretically give her an endurance left of another 5.38 hours at around 20.12 GMT. Not taking into account the amount of unusable fuel in any aircraft this would theoretically translate into something like 780 miles. As I pointed out before I don't have a map of the Kiribati area. But from what I gather Gardner Island (Nikumaroro) is at something like 349 nautical miles (give or take a few) from Howland on the radial 157=B0. To me it looks like they could have made it to Gardner. In a previous posting I explained a "worst case scenario" but this was based on a faulty flying time figure which was corrected by David Katz who pointed out that AE's actual flying time from Lae to Howland (or where Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan expected Howland to be) was 19.12 hours. Therefore, assuming Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan did reach Gardner Island as the artifacts found by Gallagher and TIGHAR seem to indicate, we know that when they got to near Howland at leat they had 274.4 gallons of fuel remaining in their tanks, contrary to what Elgen Long says. I wouldn't call that an assumption. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:49:31 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: headwinds and airspeed ...'The weather reports received as Earhart was taking off _predicted_ ESE winds about 25kts for half the trip and ENE winds about 20kts for the rest'.. The key word here seems to be _'predicted'_ (emphasis added), there is no evidence available to document that this _'forecast'_ was proven accurate as to velocity or direction over the entire time frame of the charted Lae to Howland route & I believe only once during her several messages to Itasca does AE mention anything pertaining to wind velocity & that not in any way suggesting that the wind (direction/velocity) was being considered as any impediment to successfully reaching landfall at Howland. (As would seem to be the case if in fact a _steady_ headwind was requiring her to deviate in any material measure from her predetermined altitude/speed/fuel chart designations. Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:50:03 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Fuel consumption Here's another one for the "fuellies". With aircraft, the general rule is that when you refuel you FILL the tanks. Obviously they would not fill all the tanks for the shorter flights, or the overloaded airplane business would have been mentioned before Lae. On the other hand, I'd guess they "filled" certain tanks, perhaps leaving one or two empty for the long hop later. Unfortunately we don't know. Assuming this is what they did however, it gives some interesting figures. When Earhart arrived at Ft Lamy from Niamey, she added 1000 litres or 264 US gallons of fuel. The trip was about 870 miles and estimated time was 5hrs 48 minutes. Regardless of the flight time (does someone have the time she departed Niamey and the arrival time at Ft Lamey?), that adds up to 3.3 miles per gallon. The flight time planned for this leg was 5hrs 48 minutes. That makes a planned speed of 151mph and about 45 USgph. If she topped off the tanks at Surabaya before flying to Darwin, that 1290 miles used 365 gallons 3.55 miles per gallon. Planned flight time was 8 hrs 38 minutes. Planned speed was 150mph at about 43gph. Once again, do we have the departure and arrival times anywhere? I believe this is probably the case as the figures are consistent. The only spanner in the works is the possibility that the receipt written at Darwin may have been in Imperial Gallons. If this is the case, they averaged 50gph for that hop. With 1100 US gallons at Lae. At 50gph they had 22 hrs flight time at 150mph. At 45gph they had 24 hrs flight time at 150mph. At 43gph they had 25.6hrs at 150mph. At 50gph after 19hrs they should have had up to 3hrs 45mins fuel if they leaned out. If they leaned right down to Kelly Johnson's figures they may have stretched that to about 4 hrs. If the Darwin fuel was in US Gallons, and the fuel consumption was consistent, they were averaging a bit under 45gph for the flight. That means they would arrive at Howland after 19hrs (bearing in mind that this was 2 hrs later than planned flight time) with about 260 gallons! What If ???? What if the fuel usage Surabaya to Darwin was in Imp Gallons? 365 Imp Gallons = 438 USgallons in 1290 miles = 2.9 miles per US gallon at 50gph. The Lae - Howland trip should use 881 US Gallons and leave 219 US Gallons in 17hrs. Then the 19hr flight would have averaged 50gph (imp) for 836 imp gallons. 1100USgalls = 916imp gallons Full Load. That would leave 80 Imp gallons at the "we must be on you" call. Enough for 2 hours flying. So my questions are... What was the fuel in Darwin supplied as, US or Imperial Gallons? The reasoning here is that Aussies don't think in US gallons, and we know Earharts other receipts were made out in the local measurement. As we know for sure that the 264 gallons supplied at Ft Lamy were US gallons (converted from the 1000 Litres on the receipt), is there any reason why average fuel consumption should jump from 45gph to 50gph on the Darwin leg? Are there any other fuel receipts I have missed? Do we have the departure and arrival times for the various legs of the flight anywhere, perhaps from news clippings or other contemporary sources? Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:50:56 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Nauticos efforts Dan Postellon said: I guess that the real question is: "What else is lost in the Pacific, near Howland island?" I guess we shouldn't be too hard on Nauticos, after all they're just doin' their job. You pays your money and you takes your chances, as Popeye says. If they raise the $3M, and if they get out to Howland I'd be very, very surprised if they didn't at some point announce "some significant anomalies" in the search zone that had "characteristics consistent with those of an airplane." After all they're searching an area of, what?, 500 square miles? I suspect they are destined to find SOMETHING. LTM, who believes skepticism is a virtue Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:02:45 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Nauticos efforts Dennis McGee wrote: >... If they raise the $3M, and if they get out to Howland I'd be very, >very surprised if they didn't at some point announce "some significant >anomalies" in the search zone that had "characteristics consistent with >those of an airplane." After all they're searching an area of, what?, 500 >square miles? I suspect they are destined to find SOMETHING. I agree that they might find something. Nauticos does recovery work for various military organisations. I was just wondering if AE was a cover story, if they are actually looking for something else. Dan Postellon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:03:26 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Headwind and speed calculations It seems that all this most recent work on fuel consumption confirms the following: 1. AE and FN intended to arrive at Howland after about 20 hours flying time, and, in fact, did arrive in the area of Howland pretty close to that time. 2. The main problem with the Long theory is that there is nothing really solid to indicate that the flight encountered conditions in flight that caused AE to burn up more fuel. Indeed, doesn't this most recent work indicate that you can replicate Long's headwinds and theory, and STILL not have to have the plane ditch? 3. Since the Kelly performance figures indicated that the flight could stay aloft about 24 hours, and there is nothing to indicate that either pilot or plane was using more fuel than calculated, an arrival in in the Howland area after a little over 19 hours still leaves about 4-5 hours of fuel left. This is plenty to reach Gardner. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:04:53 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: to Oscar on speeding up in a headwind Dick Pingrey wrote: > ...In reading your earlier message it seemed to me that > you were confusing max range and max endurance but, quite obviously, you were > not. All of this is speculation as we really don't have any firm evidence as > to how the airplane was flown, the actual winds or even that altitudes flown. > It is intersting to speculate on these matters but it is just that, > speculation. > > Dick Pingrey 908C Well, 98.7 % of the forum is speculation. If Lockheed's operating instructions gave invalid headwind instructions, that would be an interesting fact. Questions (a) and (b) can be answered in one non-speculative way - by looking a the page of Lockheed Report 466 that Mr. Long cites. I can't imagine why anyone at all interested in the flight would not want to do that. Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:05:28 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Fuel consumption Bob Sherman said: "The specific weight of avgas* in lbs. per gal is 5.87 @ 60d/F. 6.25 @ -32d/F & 5.54 @ 140d/F if you want to make a graph." OK, using Bob's numbers AE had 18.991717 FEWER gallons of fuel at 85 degrees (F) than she had at 60 degrees (F). Here's my math. Assuming a straight line computation between the difference in weight per gallon between 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal.) and 140 d/f (5.54 lbs./gal) yields a difference of .33 lbs./gal. Divide that by the total temp difference between 60 and 140 yields 80. Divide that into the .33 lbs./gal. and you arrive at a weight increase of .004125 lbs./gal. for each one degree of temp increase. Multiply the increased weight per gallon by 25, the difference between the baseline 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal) and the take off temp of 85 d/F, this gives you a weight increase at 85 d/F of .103125 lbs./gal. Ergo, at 85d/F each gallon fuel weight .103125 lbs. MORE than it did at 60 d/F. Now, multiply the weight gain per gallon by the number of gallons known (1,100) to be on AE's plane (.004125 X 1100) and you get a total weight gain of 113.4375 pounds. But how many gallons is that? OK, take the baseline 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal) and add to that the new weight per gallon as adjusted (.103 lbs./gal) and it yields a weight of 5.973 lbs./gal at 85 degrees (F). Divide the total weight gain (113.4375 pounds) by the new adjusted weight per gallon (5.973) and you arrive at 18.991717 gallons. And flying at 38 gal/hr that gives her 30 minutes FEWER to be airborne. LTM, who burned up her calculator doing that! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:07:23 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: headwind and airspeed calculations Herman De Wulf wrote: > 5. The latest Lockheed 10E fuel consumption graphs available tell us that at 140 > kts the aircraft would burn 43 gallons per hour. > > 6. Hence it is no assumption to establish mathematically that taking off with > 1,100 gallons of fuel in the tanks AE burned 825.6 gallons of gas during the > next 19.12 hours. > > 7. In other words, when Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan reached the point where > they believed Howland was, they had 274.4 gallons of fuel remaining in their > tanks. There is an erroneous assumption underlying this line of reasoning. The 43 gph figure for 140 knots is at normal gross weight of 10,500 pounds, not at the 14,500 to 15,000 gross weight at which the plane left Howland. Your figures do not take into account the higher fuel consumption in the first 7 hours of the flight (which would have consumed something like an additional 132 gallons : 1 @100 ; 3 @ 60; 3 @51 = 433 gal in 7 hours versus your assumption of 7x43 = 301). Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:07:59 EST From: Barb Norris Subject: Re: Nauticos efforts Dennis McGee said: <> You're right. Given the recent plunge of the Mir into the Pacific, they just might find a chunk or two of the space station. But hey, sumthin's better than nuthin'. LTM (who believes anything's possible), Barbara Norris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:08:48 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: headwind and airspeed calculations Mr. De Wolf keeps referring to "19.12 hours". This is incorrect. The Greenwich Civil Time designation 19:12 means 19 hours and 12 minutes, NOT 19 and 12 one- hundredths hours. 19:12 equals 19.2 hours (that is, 19 hours and 2 tenths of an hour), NOT 19.12 hours. David Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:09:32 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Assumptions To Herman and the Forum. You are still making assumptions you can not justify or prove. Who is to say that Amelia didn't fly at 145 kts rather than 140 kts to off set the headwind effect and that the headwind average was actually 29.5 kts? We all know that there is zero possibility that winds were constant over 2000+ miles. Maybe she had a tail wind part of the time and flew at 135 kts and saved a lot of fuel by flying at the least fuel burn speed then got off track and thus it took longer to get to her destination. What you are stating are not facts beyond the actual distance, her time of take off and the probable time of arrival in the Howland area. All the rest is speculation on what we think she would have done. There are just too many things we do not and can not know for certain to say she arrived with 274.4 gal of fuel. It could easily be 50 to 100 gal more of less then your 274.4 figure. Elgin Long does make assumptions and there in is the problem with his solution to what happened to Amelia. Our assumptions may have a bit more basis to support them but they are, none the less, unproven assumptions and they may be completely in error. I have no problem with you going through this mental exercise but lets not assume any of this if fact. We simply have to little knowledge of what transpired on the flight to have confidence in these assumptions. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:10:09 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Speeding up With an estimate of overall speed of 115.6 knots, how do you get an average headwind of 24.4 knots unless you assume AE was flying at 140 knot IAS? The simpler assumption is to assume 130 knot speed, as recommended by Kelly Johnson, yielding an average of 14.4 knot headwind component (not counting climb time, etc.). This is a much more realistic average over 19 hours than nearly 25 knots! No meteorologist worth his salt would consider 25 knot headwind component over that much distance over that much time span in that part of the world. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:11:08 EST From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Received signal strengths Something that I find troubling in the thought-process of many on the Forum and elsewhere, is the apparent assumption that the signal strength figures like Strength 5 are absolutes and are quantified/quantifiable, or are the result of some standard to establish them. They absolutely are not. NOT. I hate to be the party pooper, but it is a fact that any radio operator's judgement of the strength of a received signal in those days (and, often, today) is totally subjective. In other words, if that operator THINKS the signal is "loud and clear" he/she will probably call it as an S-5 or whatever. But what about signal strength meters, or S-meters, you fairly ask? In the 1930s many radio receivers did not have them. Even in the case of receivers which did, those meters were designed to show one thing: maximum strength of a signal, for purposes of tuning "on the nose." There was NO reference to any signal strength figure (let's say, in microvolts) in the calibration of those meters. No matter what the scale may have said, it was strictly arbitrary. Each manufacturer's receiver would be rated in terms of that manufacturer's standards, not referenced to an industry standard. No industry standard for calibrating S-meters existed until some time in the 1960s and even then most manufacturers did not adhere to it. About the only manufacturer whose S-meter calibrations were anywhere near related to "real" signal strengths was Collins Radio Company. Hallicrafters, National, Hammarlund et al were "tune for maximum deflection." In other words, an S-9 reading on a Collins receiver might well be a 20 db over S-9 reading on a Hallicrafters receiver. The hoped-for implication by the uninitiated, uninformed potential consumer would be, the Hallicrafters set was "more sensitive" (to which I say: In Your Dreams!!!! Collins was and always will be La Creme de la Creme of radios... and the most expensive, but darn well worth it if one could afford it). It is simply not practical to state that an S-5 signal from NR16020 meant anything in terms of distance from Howland. Nor is it practical to say that the S-5 reception zone had any definite boundary. Radio signal propagation is not like shining a light beam down at the earth's surface. Especially at the low H-F frequencies we are dealing with here. "Ground wave" signals at both 3105 and 6210 KHz can and do travel beyond the radio horizon. They are not "line of sight" as many people think is common with VHF signals (i.e. 120 MHz)... and even at VHF, signals are hardly line of sight. Why else would you be able to receive FM stations on your car radio in the 100 MHz region, when you are in the middle of a city 50 miles removed from the transmitting station? (The answer includes the word, "Reflections") If Elgen Long's hypothesis (and Nauticos') depends upon such "absolutes" then I fear they will be dragging the bottom for years.... LTM (who always comes on strong) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:12:03 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: fuel consumption For Ross Devitt I agree with you on the reading 5 by 5 at 19.12 means they were so close that they believed to be "on you but cannot see you". That means the flight had taken them 19 hours and 12 minutes to cover the 2,220 nautical miles from Lae. When reading the radio log anyone can see that Amelia Earhart confirms what I learned last summer flying in the Electra (L10A) : speed was 140 knots, which is the Electra's economic cruise speed. A,d flying at 140 knots for 19 hours and 12 minutes results in a ground speed of 115.6 knots. Since 140 kts - 115.6 kts = 24.4 kts I think we can agree Elgen Long is right when he says AE flew into headwinds all the time. How strong these were locally at times is irrelevant. The end result is 115.6 knots to ETA. I based my calculation on AE burning 43 gph during the remainder of trip to be on the safe side. But even if she did reduce power at one point to 38 gph as the aircraft became lighter as Kelly Johnson suggests, whichever way you look at it, after 19 hours 12 minutes in the air I think we proved again that she still had plenty of fuel remaining, contrary to what Elgen Long says. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:19:17 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Assumption I was thinking through the problem of the fuel burn vs. fuel on board and the simple questions of time-speed-distance. It might help if we looked at this "backwards", and did some calculations as to what the estimated maximum fuel burn would have been (using higher power settings, higher winds, etc.) as a starting point to see just how little fuel she might have had at the time of arrival in the vicinity of Howland given a worst case scenario. My first question is would this be a worthwhile exercise? Thereafter, there is a question as to how to reasonably accomplish it: a) I don't have the Kelly Johnson charts; b) it might take a bit of discussion regarding just what "worst case" winds might have been. And finally, there is the question as to what might come of the discussion. Does it get us closer to any answers? Or might it be one of those lines of inquiry that unexpectedly comes up with some new direction or thought? Any takers? Thomas Van Hare Dick Pingrey wrote: > Maybe she had a tail wind part of the time and flew at > 135 kts and saved a lot of fuel by flying at the least fuel > burn speed then got off track and thus it took longer to > get to her destination. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:19:56 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Nauticos Efforts Dan Postellon wrote: > Nauticos does recovery work for various military > organisations. I was just wondering if AE was a cover > story, if they are actually looking for something else. Well, we didn't find Earhart's plane, but what a surprise that we found and raised the smashed hull of a Russain submarine. Is that what you are saying? That doesn't ring true, we are past the Cold War, and if there was a lost sub at this point (or anytime in the last five years), we'd have read about it -- take, for instance, the loss of the Kursk. As for recovering something else, like something of our own, that might be a different story. But that still wouldn't necessarily be the case, as it would be much easier to destroy the item or at least watch it closely, than to recover it. So, again, this doesn't make much sense there either. All in all, I'd have to say that it looks really like they are truly planning on going out there for Earhart's plane. And it may even be a worthwhile effort. If they really really scour the ocean floor and come up with nothing, what does that mean? And if they do find something, well, then that much does it for this effort -- and that will solve the puzzle for us all, finally and completely -- also saving us some money, time and effort to boot. I'm just glad it isn't my money going to pay for their search, because, frankly, I don't think they will find anything at all -- but then, I guess that pretty much goes for most of the people here in TIGHAR. Thomas Van Hare HistoricWings.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:20:42 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: fuel consumption Mr. Zuschlag, I based my calculations on both Ric's and Oscar Boswell's figures. Ric said AE's fuel burn was : 1 hour at 100 gph, 3 hours at 60 gph; 3 hrs at 51 gph and 3 hrs at 43 gph. That means 538 gls used after 10 hours and still 9 hrs to go with the remaining 582 gls. According to Johnson the 10E could then be throttled down to 38 gph which would give the 10E 24 hours endurance with reserves. Oscar Boswell showed a comparison in fuel consumption between the Lockeed 10A and the 10E, which was interesting because it indicated that the 10E, although more powerful (2 x 600 hp) was faster than the 10A only at lower power settings. We know that a 45 % power setting for economic cruise was common in the Thirties. Through intrapolation of Oscar Boswell's figures we see that at that setting the 10E flies at just over 160 mph, which is 140 knots. This corresponds with my own experience. I flew in the 10A last summer. Economic cruise speed of the 10A is 140 kts. Since the 10E has comparable aerodynamic performance I think AE stuck to 140 kts throughout the flight, meaning a 45 % power setting for 18 hours and a fuel consumption of some 43 gph. After 19 hours she reached Howland (or where she thought it was) having probably burned 949 gls. with 151 gallons remaining. From then on we are not sure. But flying up and down the 337/157 LOP Amelia Earhart was no longer flying into headwind and at a 45 % power setting this would have reduced her fuel consumption to 38 gph while airspeed would increase to 173 mph or 150 kts (the side wind component, based on the Itasca wheather information, had no effect on her ground speed then). It is my guess that even then AE would have stuck to 140 kts, which would translates into a power setting of around 33 %. And with the aircraft now much lighter this might have produced a fuel consumption down to perhaps 20 gph. If AE/FN circled or flew up and down the LOP for one hour at that setting she would have burned let's say on average 30 gph. This left her with 121 gallons to divert. From here on it's guesswork. At 30 gph the 10E would have had an endurance of 4 hours left in which theoretically it could have covered 560 nautical miles (not taking into account unusable fuel). At 43 gph it would have had an endurance of only 2 hours 48 minutes (again not taking into account unusable fuel) during which, at 140 knots, they would have covered 393 nautical miles. Which, if I am not mistaken is just about the distance to Gardner. So either they got to Gardner with fuel to spare or they got their by the skin of their teeth. But the artifacts found by Gallagher and by TIGHAR seem to indicate they got there, whatever Elgen Long says. "Richard E. Gillespie" schreef: > >From Mike Zuschlag > > Mr. De Wulf-- > > I've been re-calculating the fuel consumption myself, and while both of our > calculations suggest that AE would *not* have run out > of fuel immediately following the last transmission received by the Itasca as > Long maintains, I'm a little confused by some of your > calculations. Maybe you have access to numbers I don't have. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:21:16 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: intersecting the LOP For Harry Poole OK Harry. Got your coordinates now. I think I can agree with your observations. Calculating and recalculating fuel consumption actually leads to the same conclusion. I also think she must have been in F. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:26:02 EST From: John Morrison Subject: Re: Speeding up Randy Jacobson wrote: >No meteorologist worth his salt would consider 25 knot >headwind component over that much distance over that much >time span in that part of the world. ITCZ Intertropical Convergence Zone The low-level circulation over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is dominated by the easterly flow around the equatorward flank of the subtropical high-pressure belts near 30N and 30S. Superimposed on this planetary-scale easterly flow are weak synoptic-scale disturbances that cause the wind to fluctuate between northeasterly and southeasterly. These disturbances are called easterly waves because they move from east to west, in contrast to middle-latitude disturbances that usually move from west to east. Also endemic to the tropical oceans is a class of extremely intense, circular vortices called tropical cyclones, which account for the strongest sustained surface winds observed anywhere in the earth's atmosphere. Most of these storms develop during the warm season, over a few well-defined areas. Within the lowest kilometer above the sea surface the easterly flow is particularly steady and has a distinct equatorward component. Hence, the prevailing winds in the tropical North Atlantic and North Pacific are from the northeast, and those in the tropical South Atlantic and South Pacific are from the southeast. In the early days of sailing ships these wind regimes came to be known as the northeast and southeast trades, respectively. Until recently, it was widely believed that the tradewind belts in the northern and southern hemispheres were separated by a region of calm winds along the equator called the "doldrums". More recent evidence indicates that, with the exception of the extreme Western Pacific, the transition between the northeast and southeast trades usually takes place within a very narrow belt located several degrees north of the equator. This is the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), where the northeast and southeast trades flow together, and are characterized by strong upward motion and heavy rainfall. The ITCZ is most clearly defined over the eastern portions of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. At the longitudes of the major continents, the low-level tropical wind field exhibits a strong seasonal dependence, with a tendency toward onshore (sea to land) flow during summer and offshore flow during winter. The seasonal reversal is particularly pronounced over southeast Asia and adjacent regions of the Indian Ocean where the prevailing winds blow from the southwest during summer and northeast during winter. These seasonal wind regimes are known as monsoons (from the Arabic word mausin - a season). Over most of India, the summer (southwest) monsoon is characterized by heavy rainfall while the winter (northeast) monsoon is extremely dry. From Wallace, J. M. and P. V. Hobbs, 1977: Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey. Academic Press, 467 pp. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:27:17 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Fuel consumption > OK, take the baseline 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal) and add to that the new > weight per gallon as adjusted (.103 lbs./gal) and it yields a weight of > 5.973 lbs./gal at 85 degrees (F). Divide the total weight gain (113.4375 > pounds) by the new adjusted weight per gallon (5.973) and you arrive at > 18.991717 gallons. > And flying at 38 gal/hr that gives her 30 minutes FEWER to be > airborne. > > LTM, who burned up her calculator doing that! > Dennis O. McGee #0149EC But you should have SUBTRACTED .103 from 5.87 to get a weight of 5.767 at 85 degrees, shouldn't you? Oscar Boswell ********************** Boy, will I be glad when Ric gets back...... P ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:28:07 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Headwind and speed calculations Chris Kennedy wrote: > It seems that all this most recent work on fuel consumption confirms the > following: > > 1. AE and FN intended to arrive at Howland after about 20 hours flying time, > and, in fact, did arrive in the area of Howland pretty close to that time. > > 2. The main problem with the Long theory is that there is nothing really solid to > indicate that the flight encountered conditions in flight that caused AE to burn > up more fuel. Indeed, doesn't this most recent work indicate that you can > replicate Long's headwinds and theory, and STILL not have to have the plane ditch? Not to quibble too much, but: 1-The estimated flight time was 18 hours, which - absent some other explanation - perhaps indicates that headwinds averaging 8 or 10 knots faster than anticipated caused it to take 19 or 19+12 to cover the distance. 2-IF power had been increased as Mr. Long believes, the adverse effect on endurance would have been EVEN GREATER THAN HE SAYS - perhaps on the order of 20 - 25% rather than 8 1/2%, as the real world 10E figures indicate. Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:29:13 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Headwind and speed calculations Chris Kennedy wrote: > It seems that all this most recent work on fuel consumption confirms the > following: > > 1. AE and FN intended to arrive at Howland after about 20 hours flying time, > and, in fact, did arrive in the area of Howland pretty close to that time. We still don't know that. The weather reports came after they took off. Previous flight planning was for 17 hours in the other direction. Wind over Nauru the previous day was calm, even though at Lae it was blowing the wrong way. It seems they took off expecting less wind, and possibly estimated 18hrs to allow for the season. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:30:02 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Received signal strength Mike Everette wrote: > Something that I find troubling in the thought-process of many on the Forum > and elsewhere, is the apparent assumption that the signal strength figures > like Strength 5 are absolutes and are quantified/quantifiable, or are the > result of some standard to establish them. > > They absolutely are not. NOT. But they ARE based on the operator's PERCEPTION of how well he hears them. An experienced operator can discern that the signal received now is a certain amount stronger than half an hour ago, and that it is more clearly understood (readability - rather than strength). Earhart moved from the operator's perception of a minimum signal strength and readability to a strength 3 to strength five over a definitive period, then the strength stayed at 5 for the rest of the time. As the strength of the signal received depends more on the receiver than the transmitter, and the readability depends on the transmitter's signal quality, it should be fair to believe that for at least an hour the aircraft was close to Itasca. I agree that attempting to quantify distance from signal strength is a problem. Just set a scanner to the local airport frequency and try to judge the distance of tower traffic. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:31:17 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fuel consumption Herman De Wulf wrote: > I agree with you on the reading 5 by 5 at 19.12 means they were so close that > they believed to be "on you but cannot see you". That means the flight had > taken ........ air I think we proved again that she still had plenty of fuel remaining, > contrary to what Elgen Long says. I have worked the fuel figures so many ways it's crazy. Using only the tools Noonan would have had, and the weather knowledge he didn't have. A detailed posting has gone missing somehow, but the brief summary is, I checked the fuel loaded on the Electra after 2 legs of the trip. They showed an average of 3.3 miles per gallon over an 870 mile leg in Africa and 3.5 miles per gallon over the 1290 miles leg into Darwin. I have no departure and arrival times for those legs, but it does show some sort of consistency in fuel usage. If the flight went to plan, the leg into Ft Lamy would use 43gph and the leg into darwin would have used 45gph. Unfortunately without the times we can't know. On the other hand, 3.5 miles per gallon over 2556 miles is 730 gallons. At 43gph average that would get the Electra to Howland in 17hrs, which just happens to be the original flight time for the trip the other direction, so it appears 43gph average was the still air calculation all along, for a groundspeed of 150mph (not knots). HOWEVER... This next throws a spanner inthe works. We have photos of the Electra being refuelled in Darwin. The flight from Darwin to Lae took 7.7hrs. That is 159mph average. We know Earhart flew on 1st July for 30 minutes, that makes 8.2hrs. Add startup and taxi time for Darwin, Lae and the flight test, at worst 9hrs total. Fuel added at Lae was 785 USgallons (654 imperial). Divided by 9 hours (probably less) we have 87 Gallons Per Hour!! Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:32:28 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: More assumptions I don't mind if you play your ganes and speculate on what speed was flown, the winds, and the fuel burned but it has no significance in establishing facts. As Randy Jacobson pointed out Amelia might just as easily have flown at 130 knots into a 14.4 knot head wind. You have no way of knowing, it is all speculation. Also as Mike, the Radio Man, so properly noted the radio signal strength that was reported is totally subjective and can not be used to determine distance with any degree of certainty. Just because Amelia may (or may not) have had Lockheed Report 466 (what ever is may say) does not mean that she would follow it any more than any other set of instructions or better yet use the knowledge she most certainly gained from her flying up to that last flight. Perhaps the Forum is 98.7 speculation but the 1.3% of fact is what counts. Personally I will stay with that 1.3%. If not I am no more scientific in my approach that Elgin Long in the assumptions he has made. You have not convinced me that you can make facts out of multiple variables and a dash of speculation. Enough said. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:33:17 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: Received signal strengths > Nor is it practical to say that the S-5 reception zone had any definite > boundary. > > Radio signal propagation is not like shining a light beam down at the > earth's surface. Especially at the low H-F frequencies we are dealing with > here. > > "Ground wave" signals at both 3105 and 6210 KHz can and do travel beyond the > radio horizon. They are not "line of sight" as many people think is common > with VHF signals (i.e. 120 MHz)... and even at VHF, signals are hardly line > of sight. Why else would you be able to receive FM stations on your car > radio in the 100 MHz region, when you are in the middle of a city 50 miles > removed from the transmitting station? (The answer includes the word, > "Reflections") > I've also seen in the past, references to VHF signals that said that they are 'line of sight'. Not only is VHF not 'line of sight', but UHF (450 mhz range) and even 800 mhz. signals will travel further over the horizon than 'line of sight' (obviously, the higher the frequency, the closer to sight' it is). 'Absolute' 'line of sight' only exists in VERY high frequencies (such as microwave frequencies). For many years, many people have made reference to the 'assumption' that Earhart 'must' have been within 50 to 100 miles when she was being received at the strongest signal level. This might be true ('might' is the key word here), IF the signal was being received via ground wave. But, what IF this signal was being received via 'skip'? In this case, depending upon the exact conditions (for example, sunspot activity, partially related to the sunspot cycle at that time, time of year, time of day, radiation angle of the signal from her antenna, and of course the frequencies being used), the signal could have propagated several hundred miles, with a very strong signal. Some have said that it must have been groundwave propagation because of the way the signal got stronger and stronger as she 'apparently' moved toward Howland. But again, this is not necessarily the case - as she was moving toward Howland, other things were changing too - for example, the sunlight was increasing, which would cause the 'skip distance' to typically decrease on the low frequency that she was using at that time. So, as she was getting closer to Howland, the signal could possibly remain the same, or get stronger, while being propagated via 'skip'. My point is that it's been an 'assumption' that Earhart was within 50 to 100 miles at the point in time that the radio signals received were the strongest. This may very well be true, but, this is really only an 'assumption', since the same 'phenomenon' could be reproduced by 'skip' propagation. In the case of 'skip' propagation, she could possibly have been several hundred miles from Howland at the point of strongest signal reception. John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y Rayfield Communications, Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:34:32 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Received signal strength Mike Everette wrote: >Something that I find troubling in the thought-process of many on >the Forum and elsewhere, is the apparent assumption that the signal >strength figures like Strength 5 are absolutes and are >quantified/quantifiable, or are the result of some standard to establish >them. They absolutely are not. NOT... Mike E. makes a very valid point, the estimates of signal strength were only very _subjective opinons_, not to be considered as statements of fact...however, it must be noted (as I recall) each succeeding signal was 'rated' by the operator receiving same, as being somewhat stronger than those received previously, which would seem to reflect that the aircraft was approaching Howland & not flying away from the island, at least while the signals were being transmitted. Also, maybe the Nauticos people might consider trying to locate the Rickenbacker B-17, which ditched somewhere west of Canton Island (still in one piece when it sank), probably in the same general area where they will be looking for the Electra? Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:36:08 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Fuel consumption For Mike Zuschlag Further to your suggestion to use a fuel burn figure of 38 gallons per hour during the last 9+ hours, this would result in a saving of 45 gallons. In that case AE would have reached Howland having burned 904 gallons and with 181 gls remaining in the tanks. However, I do not feel AE was worried about her fuel since she and FN were sure to get to Howland with plenty of fuel remaining, never expected having to fly the aircraft at the extreme end of its endurance. Anyway, if you prefer to use the 38 gph for the last 9+ hours AE/FN's chances of reaching Gardner would of course have been even better. As for the headwinds, flying 2,220 nautical miles at 140 kts in 19 hours and 12 minutes ("We must be on you but cannot see you") shows their average ground speed had been 115.6 knots : 140 kts - 115.6 kts = 24.4 kts headwind. This is an AVERAGE headwind. The winds may have been stronger at places and less stronger at other places. In the end it is their flying time that indicates the amount of headwind they experienced en route. However, the ENE wind near Howland the Itasca reported no longer affected their groundspeed once they started flying on the 337/157 radial. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:37:08 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Intersecting the LOP Could someone please explain what "F" is? Is this the point you are calculating Earhart connected up with the Line of Position? If so, could you let us know where this point is (e.g., _?__ miles south/north of Howland). Thanks! --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:06:14 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: fuel consumption Thanks for all the ACTUAL fuel usage work. While I can't think of any reason why we should doubt the Kelly performance curves, actual, "in flight" performance over the actual route with Earhart at the controls is valuable information. Are their other "legs" you can calculate? This might put the Darwin/Lae work into some sort of context. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:07:04 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: More assumptions Dick Pingrey wrote: > I don't mind if you play your ganes and speculate on what speed was flown, > the winds, and the fuel burned but it has no significance in establishing > facts. You have no way of knowing, it is > all speculation. Well, let's list the relevant "facts" we know: 1- AE departed Lae at 0000. 2-AE was last heard by Howland at 2013. 3-No verifiable trace of her has ever been found. What would you care to add that under your own test (a) is relevant to the fate of the flight and (b) is not "speculation" to some degree? Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:07:33 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Radio signals and strength Mike the Radio Historian makes a good point regarding the subjectivity of the radio signal strength and adds that signal strengths are not "absolutes" and can not be quantified. He states "It is simply not pratical to state that a S-5 signal from [Earhart] meant anything in terms of distance from Howland." Signal strength taken alone may not be reliable but in this case and circumstances we must take it in context which I think yields a reasonalbe estimate. In Earharts case there are other factors along with the Signal "5" that give strong support to a good estimate of her distance to Howland. Her comments re her estimated positions,i.e, 200 miles out, 100 miles out,etc., reinforces the subjective qualitative measurement of the signal strength. The two should be taken together as clues to her whereabouts. It is interesting to note that there are only 3 signal strengths noted on the original Itasca radio log: 3:45am "S-1" "will listen on hour and half 7:58am "S-5" "we are circling, ..." 8:43 am "S-5" "we are on line of position... Note: I believe other officials, authors or researchers have added signal strengths to her transmissions inferring an ever increasing strength as she flew towards Howland. Maybe Capt Thompson later added signal strengths to other transmissions in his report from his recollection. But the orginal contemporaneous log by Bellarts, Ohara and Galten stand with just three. Thus, supplementing Mike's statement that the S-5 "didn't mean anthing in terms of distance to Howland," I think if you add AE's comments of her believed positions based on Noonan's experience and her flight plan to the subjectively recorded signal strengths of "5" , it is quite reasonalbe to conclude she was certainly less than 100 miles out (6:46am), and likely within a 50 miles range. Of course Mike is correct that there are no absolutes and standing alone the signal strengths don't mean much, but add these other variables, it is possible to make a pretty good estimate of her distance.That's what Nauticos seems to be doing- adding the S-5s, her radioed positions, the weather in and around Howland, and in Long's case, his assumption she ran out of gas about 0843, and there she is: nw of Howland in a 2000 square mile area. A piece of cake. And I might add, Itasca radioman Leo Bellarts, a very experienced operator, thought Amelia's voice signal was going to blow out the shack loudspeakers- a very strong, clear signal, that led him to believe she was within a 9 iron of the Itasca. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:08:13 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: intersecting the LOP > Chris Kennedy wrote : > > Could someone please explain what "F" is? Is this the point you are > calculating Earhart connected up with the Line of Position? If so, could you > let us know where this point is (e.g., _?__ miles south/north of Howland). > Thanks! Harry Poole did some good thinking and drew a map of the Howland/Baker region, dividing it in sub area's, named A to F. Through elimination he came to the conclusion AE must have intercepted the LOP in the F area. He explained this on the forum some time ago and offered anyone interested to send his drawing. I asked a copy and I got one. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:10:21 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: fuel consumption Ross Devitt wrote : > ... I checked the fuel loaded on the Electra after 2 legs of the trip. They > showed an average of 3.3 miles per gallon over an 870 mile leg in Africa and > 3.5 miles per gallon over the 1290 miles leg into Darwin. I have no departure > and arrival times for those legs, but it does show some sort of consistency in > fuel usage. If the flight went to plan, the leg into Ft Lamy would use 43gph > and the leg into darwin would have used 45gph. > ... > > On the other hand, 3.5 miles per gallon over 2556 miles is 730 gallons. At > 43gph average that would get the Electra to Howland in 17hrs, which just > happens to be the original flight time for the trip the other direction, so it > appears 43gph average was the still air calculation all along, for a > groundspeed of 150mph (not knots). I think this confirms my belief Amelia Earhart used the same power settings on the Pacific leg and was actually burning 43 gph all the time. Ross went on : > HOWEVER... This next throws a spanner in the works.... The flight from Darwin > to Lae took 7.7hrs. That is 159 mph average. We know Earhart flew on 1st > July for 30 minutes, that makes 8.2hrs. Add startup and taxi time for Darwin, > Lae and the flight test, at worst 9hrs total. > Fuel added at Lae was 785 USgallons (654 imperial). Divided by 9 hours > (probably less) we have 87 Gallons Per Hour!! Exactly. First 159 mph is very nearly 160 mph which again is 140 knots. This proves what I said before : AE liked that cruise speed. Second, Ross says that in the fuel consumption he mentions there were two take offs and a test flight. Aircraft typically use more fuel under these conditions. Let's consider that starting up engines, warming them up, do engine checks, then do propeller checks, followed by take off and climbing at full power explains high fuel consumption in the initial phase of any flight. Then there is the test flight take off followed by tests probably not at cruise speed at high altitude but using varying power settings at full rich and low altitude, making the aircraft use a lot of fuel. In my corner of the world people use liters. On rule of thumb based on liters is that an aircraft taking off will burn 20 % of its maximum horsepower, plus 1 liter per cylinder. In the case of the Lockheed 10E that means : 20 % of 1200 hp = 240 + 18 liters (2 x 9 cylinders) = 258 liters. This translates into something like 68-69 US gph. Not a very scientific method but one that gives an idea of what AE's was burning during during various take offs and test flights at low altitude in the abscence of the Johnson graphs. As for the 87 gallons, that is a figure I find hard to explain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:10:49 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: assumptions In reply to Tom Van Hare's question about the fuel burn I'd like to say that the only reason why I brought up the subject of AE's fuel consumption again was simply to double-check and see whether Elgen Long could be right and TIGHAR had been wrong. Whichever way you look at the figures, and no matter whether Amelia Earhart burned 38 gph or 43 gph during the last nine hours of the flight to Howland, the fact remains that that there is nothing to support Elgen Long's theory that she ran out of fuel west of Howland, ditched and sank. No matter what power setting she selected (and until someone find her log book we'll never know) she flew the 2,220 nautical miles from Lae to Howland (or where she and Fred Noonan thought it was) in just over 19 hours ("We must be on you but cannot see you"). Whichever power setting one prefers, at that time she had enough fuel remaining and could reach Gardner Island. Personally I am confident she cruised at 140 kts. She flew previous legs at that speed also and 140 kts happens to be the L10's most economical with fuel burn around the figures provided by Kelly Johnson. We know practically nothing about the winds en route. All we have is her flying time. But whichever way you look at it, when she was near Howland she had approximately 151 or 181 gallons of fuel remaining, contrary to the Elgen Long theory. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:11:20 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: fuel consumption Herman De Wulf wrote:- >> Economic cruise speed of the 10A is 140 kts. To complicate the issue yet further, this quoted figure of 140Kts is really just the most efficient speed at some given weight. The most efficient speed will actually vary with weight - being faster at heavier weights and slower at lighter weights. For a flight such as AE's last, where the aircraft was initially grossly overweight there's a huge weight difference between the start and end of the flight and it could be expected to make a fairly large difference in this most efficient speed at those points. The most efficient speed, at any weight, is the best compromise between the drag caused by speed (increases with speed) and drag caused by flying at higher angles of attack (increases with reducing speed). Most pilot's will be familiar with the "drag curve" - a sort of loose "U" shaped curve of Speed vs. Drag which is a combination of these two effects. The base of the "U" is the minimum drag speed. This is the speed at which fuel consumption would be at a minimum and endurance at a maximum. The speed giving maximum RANGE is usually slightly above this speed - where speed can be increased slightly for minimal drag increase. This occurs on this Speed/Drag curve where a line drawn between that point on the curve and the origin has minimum gradient. However, the point I'm making is that the whole curve shifts and changes shape with the changes in weight of the aircraft. Big weight changes = big curve shifts. I wonder if AE factored any speed changes into her flight. LTM (who always stays on the right side of the curve) Simon #2120 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:11:48 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: fuel consumption The WOMBAT wrote:- >>HOWEVER... This next throws a spanner inthe works. >>We have photos of the Electra being refuelled in Darwin. The flight from >>Darwin to Lae took 7.7hrs. That is 159mph average. We know Earhart flew on >>1st July for 30 minutes, that makes 8.2hrs. Add startup and taxi time for >>Darwin, Lae and the flight test, at worst 9hrs total. >>Fuel added at Lae was 785 USgallons (654 imperial). >>Divided by 9 hours (probably less) we have 87 Gallons Per Hour!! Yes, but you're assuming that at Darwin the L10E was fuelled to tanks full. Reasons not to fill to full include a lower fuel consumption at a lighter weight. LTM Simon #2120 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:13:49 EST From: Katie Ayers Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos I just was watching "Headline News" here in PA and found out that they think they may be able to find their bodies because they are only looking near Howland Island and they think that she may have crash landed 10 miles away from Howland Island. They think that the plane and the bodies of Noonan and Earhart will be in good condition. katie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:16:23 EST From: Mike Zuschlag Subject: Re: fuel consumption The Wombat writes: "HOWEVER... This next throws a spanner inthe works. We have photos of the Electra being refuelled in Darwin. The flight from Darwin to Lae took 7.7hrs. That is 159mph average. We know Earhart flew on 1st July for 30 minutes, that makes 8.2hrs. Add startup and taxi time for Darwin, Lae and the flight test, at worst 9hrs total. Fuel added at Lae was 785 USgallons (654 imperial). Divided by 9 hours (probably less) we have 87 Gallons Per Hour!!" I wouldn't spend too much time trying to reconcile that calculated 87 gph. It's a questionable assumption that Electra left Darwin with the same load of fuel as it left Lae. We know from the Lae takeoff film that the Electra barely gets off the ground with 1100 gallons on board. Given the risk of flying that loaded, it's reasonably possible that AE only fills to the 1100 mark for the longest legs. You could safely fly from Darwin with half that much. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:17:10 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: fuel consumption I'm afraid all the math (not one of my best subjects in school) involved with computing the navigational & fuel consumption aspects of the flight leaves me still more confused about where they wound-up (not to mention giving me one big headache) than I was when I first started attempting to research, investigate &/or rationalize all the various theories, hypotheses & scenarios which abound throughout the 60+ year history of this mystery! We do know (approximately) how much fuel they had in their fuel tanks when they took off from Lae, we know the time of their takeoff & we have the radio messages sent by AE enroute (hopefully, accurately recorded by the radio operators receiving such signals) so we have some idea that they _appeared_ to be reasonably on their time-line, on their prescribed course, for almost half the distance to Howland & _if_ the residents of Tabiteuea in the Gilberts are to be believed, in their report of hearing an aircraft near their island, during the night, then AE/FN were basically on course at a point over 75% of the way to Howland. Unfortunately, none of the messages received by Itasca were sufficiently detailed to provide any reliable information about the aircraft's speed, altitude, fuel consumption, wind/weather conditions or navigational position with reference to their objective, Howland Island, for that last 600-700 miles of the flight from the Gilberts. Isolated references to speed & altitude by AE seem to reflect that she did change altitude & throttle speed during the flight, but we don't know how often or exactly when or what may have prompted such changes. She made (as far as I can remember) only one passing reference to a headwind velocity & no comment as to any problems or adjustments such a headwind may have caused in piloting the aircraft or in FN's navigational calculations. We do know that FN did plot an LOP, but we do not know exactly when & what method he used (starlight/sunrise) or how far out they were when he first started to plot the LOP for Howland. =A0 We do know that AE referred to the LOP & mentioned they were _on-the-line_ flying north & south, but we don't know exactly where they were on the LOP when AE declared...'we must be on you'... or which way they turned _first_ or how far they may have flown in either direction. AE provided only a casual reference to fuel consumption...'running low on gas'..., yet suggested that she was going to change to her daytime frequency & would broadcast again at her _regular_ interval, at least seeming to _imply_ that she had sufficient fuel to remain aloft until then, without declaring any fuel supply emergency! At the risk of being redundant, the single most perplexing aspect of this mystery (to me anyway) was the total lack of any _details_ in any of AE's (received) radio broadcasts, with respect to the most critical subjects upon which their very survival depended: 1- Providing Itasca with at least a rudimentry explanation of where they _thought_ they were on the LOP & why... exactly what further plans they had for finding Howland, ditching or seeking other landfall, 2- Greater accuracy as to fuel consumption & at least an estimate of fuel remaining or number of hours they believed they could stay in the air, 3- Reason for such brief periods on the airwaves, when AE was seemingly attempting to have Itasca take a bearing on their position, 4- More detailed, momentary description of weather/wind/sea conditions, their speed & altitude. Naturally, as I've often pondered before, why no broadcast of intention to ditch the aircraft, _if_ they were as close to Howland (well within radio range, even on the daytime frequency) as the Longs suggest they were when they...ran-out-of-gas...? Oh well, as the song writer proclaims....'Somewhere...out there'... & I leave you once again with far more questions than answers! Don Neumann ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:47:02 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Tarawa Report - General I just got back home early this morning and I'm still not entirely sure what day it is in this part of the world. I'll get into the actual research results in later messages but for starters here's a general description of Tarawa. Earhart Project expedition team member Van Hunn and I spent seven days in Tarawa - from Tuesday, March 20 to Monday, March 26, 2001. Our orginal plan had been to stay until Thursday, March 29 but when we arrived we learned that Air Nauru had changed its schedule and now only makes the return trip to Fiji on Mondays. This meant that we would either have to accomplish 10 day's work in 6 days or stay until April 2nd. We decided to book our departure for the 29th, and extend our stay if necessary. As it turned out we were able to complete our work and make the March 26 flight. A word about air travel to Tarawa: At present, three airlines operate into and out of Bonriki International Airport on Tarawa. Air Kiribati operates Chinese twin-turboprop aircraft (sort of like Twin-Otters) between Tarawa and the other atolls of the Gilberts archipelago. Each island has an airstrip (of sorts) and internal air service within the Gilberts seems relatively routine. Air Kiribati makes no international flights and does not service Kiritimati (Christmas Island) which is part of Kiribati. The only way to get there is to fly to Fiji, then Hawaii, and thence to Kiritimati. There is no air service at all to the other outer inhabited islands - Fanning, Washington, and Kanton. Air Marshall Islands operates one flight per week to Majuro in the Marshalls. They now only have one airplane, an aging twin-turboprop Hawker Siddely, having sold their state-of-the-art but impossibly troublesome Saab 2000 to Vanuatu who have reportedly since sold the thing to somembody else. (That Saab is the same beast that stranded nine of us on Funafuti for six days in 1997.) Bottom line: nobody flies Air Marshall if they can help it. Air Nauru is the only carrier now flying between Tarawa and Fiji. The ai rline's routes include service from its home base at Nauru (which, by the way, is pronounced "nawROO") to several destinations in Australia, the Central Pacific, and until recently, Southeast Asia and the Phillipines, with a total fleet consisting of one Boeing 737-400 (registration VH-RON). Needless to say, the airline is stretched a bit thin and the Australian Civil Aviation Authority recently shut them down for ten days until they promised to make administrative and infrastructure improvements at their home base. When Air Nauru doesn't fly, the government of Kiribati has to charter Air Pacific (the Fijian national airline) to fill in - an inefficient and expensive expedient. Air Nauru is now flying again but only on "local" routes around the Central Pacific. The airplane itself is clean and attractive and seems to be well maintained but delays and cancellations are routine. Both our arriving and departing flights were many hours late. Unlike at Funafuti in Tuvalu, the airport on Tarawa is not a modernized WWII airstrip but is a new facility built on created land - thus the inhabitable area was increased rather than decreased by the construction of the airport. This is a major plus on Tarawa. Tarawa, of course, is an atoll - an irregular ring of coral surrounding a central lagoon - but, as is typical of most atolls, only a portion of the coral perimeter is above water. The inhabitable portion is an eastward pointing wedge (>) roughly 50 miles in length made up of a series of small islands, each a mile or two long but only a few hundred yards wide. The entire string of islands is now joined by causeways so that a single paved road runs fron the northern island of Naa, down around the "elbow" at Bonriki (where the airport is) to the island of Bekinibeu (where the Otintaai Hotel is), to the island of Bairiki (where most of the government offices are), and finally to Betio (pronounced "BAYso") at the southern extremity. It was on Betio that the British colonial offices were located in the days before WWII. The Japanese occupied Tarawa in December 1941 at which time the British colonial personnel and Australian and New Zealand coastwatchers were rounded up and imprisoned. All of the Gilbertese, except a few on the northern islands who managed to hide, were shipped away to be laborers elsewhere in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. In 1942 and '43 the Japanese brought in Korean workers and construction materials to turn Betio into one of the most heavily fortified islands in the Pacific. When American B-24s from Funafuti began to bomb the island in September of 1943 the Japanese summarily shot or beheaded all of the European prisoners. Among then was Capt.Handley who had helped search for Earhart back in 1937. Another casualty of the Japanese occupation was the Royal Colony Ship NIMANOA which had taken Harry Maude and Eric Bevington to Gardner in 1937 and had carried the bones of the castaway to Tarawa and to Fiji in 1941. Later that year her captain grounded her on the edge of Betio's lagoon reef rather than let her fall into enemy hands. She was a rusting hulk when, on November 20, 1943 the U.S. 2nd Marine Division came ashore across that reef. Japanese machinegunners hiding aboard NIMANOA riddled the wading Marines from behind as they struggled toward the beach. Naval gunfire and bombs from F4F Wildcats reduced the old ship to a pile of wreckage. Over the next three days, the Marines clawed their way ashore and finally rooted out and destroyed the Japanese defenders in one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific war. Over 5,600 men (about 1,100 Americans, 3,000 Japanese soldiers, and 1,500 Japanese and Koeran civilan laborers) died on an island two miles long by a few hundred yards wide in a period of about 76 hours. I will make no attempt here to describe the ferocity of that action except to say that today, 58 years later, despite decades of intense residential and commercial activity and nothing even remotely ressembling any attempt at historic preservation, signs of the battle are everywhere. It is routine to scuff your foot on the ground and turn up a bullet or a shell casing. Pockmarked bunkers and blasted gun emplacements dot the landscape. Construction projects still unearth unexploded shells and bombs - and bones. The reef is littered with the rusting remains of tanks and "amtracs" (the amphibious landing vehicles used in the assault). Van and I inspected and photographed the remains of several aircraft on the ocean-side reef. Most were evidenced by engines only but in one case a substanial portion of the aluminum centersection and wing structure of what appears to have been a single-engined Japanese aircraft were still present despite a worst-case situation where the wreck is alternately submerged and exposed by the tide. It's survival is doubtless due to the fact that Japanese aircraft aluminum was anodized against corrosion and, unlike Nikumaroro, Tarawa's reef flat (being in a more benign weather area) never gets pounded by heavy surf. Over on the lagoon side (Red Beach #2 in 1943) we hired a local boat at high tide and paid our repects to the NIMANOA. Van had his mask and snorkel along and we both went over the side and visited the old girl. "Hands-on history" at its most poignant. On Tarawa, one has the impression of being on the last scrap of earth on the edge of the world. It is as if some great ship has sunk stranding way too many survivors on far too little land. People live in extended family groups packed together on every available inch of ground. A house might be a one or two room cottage with a cement floor and a tin roof or, more commonly, simply an elevated wooden platform with a roof of coconut thatch. The only "green space" is the blue/green water of the lagoon which serves as a communal latrine. Drinking water is delivered twice a day by tank truck drawing from government desalinization plants. "Catchment" (rain) water is much preferred but not many people have enough roof area to collect signifcant amounts from the not-infrequent showers. Europeans and a few well-to-do people have houses big enough to maintain private cisterns. Although English is nominally the country's "official language", few people in the villages or on the outer islands of the Gilberts speak anything but Gilbertese. A walk down a residential street in Tarawa leaves you with three impressions - pigs, dogs, and kids. Most families have several pigs, kept in low pens and fed on coconut from the handful of trees on their land. Dogs are everywhere. It's inconceivable to be anywhere outdoors and not be able to see at least one, and usually two or three medium-sized, rangy, lethargic dogs. They are outnumbered only by the children, who are neither rangy nor lethargic. Well-fed, energetic, playful and often impossibly cute, they dash about like flocks of noisy birds. Older children are often seen in the clean and pressed uniforms of the various religious schools - Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or Seventh Day Adventist (no Moslem, Hindu, or Buddhist). After high school many children continue their education overseas, usually in Fiji - and every year about 1,100 of them return home to look for jobs that are not there. The unemployment rate is so high that no one seems to know what it is. It's just high, that's all. There is nothing to do. There is no industry. There are no tourists to speak of. If you don't work for the government or for one of the few foreign companies (Toyota, for example, has a dealership and maintenance facility on Bikenibeu) you get by from subsistence fishing and agriculture. Any large infrastructure projects are sponsored by foreign governments or companies. Foremost of these is Japan in the form of voluntary war reparations. Except for an active Peace Corps office, U.S aid is almost nonexistent. There is no U.S. consul. Australia and New Zealand each have a High Commission (embassy) on Bairiki and provide various services. There is also a British Consulate. The People's Republic of China has a huge embassy, but nobody seems to know why. With so many people packed into such a small space, health problems are inevitable. Tuberculosis and hepatitus are endemic; cholera and dengue fever are a constant threat. For a visitor, a battery of shots beforehand and constance vigilance while you're there is the only way to come home healthy. Tarawa's only upscale hotel, the Otintaai, provides a clean, bug-free, air-condtioned room with flush toilet and shower with running hot (well, sort of warm) and cold (well, sort of warm) water for about $US45 per night. The menu in the restaurant is somewhat limited but the food is good. Even so, Van and I drank only bottled water, ate no raw vegetables, and no chicken. We ate mostly broiled fish and rice. Lunch away from the hotel always came out of a can. (It will be a while before I can look at another can of canned spaghetti.) The local snacks naturally reflect local tastes. Are you up for prawn flavored corn puffs or "Fici" brand fish flavored chips? Our caution paid off and neither of us got sick. We rented a very decent Toyota Corolla (right-hand drive) for about $US27 per day and somehow managed not to hit any of the clueless dogs that are constantly in the road. You can't get lost on Tarawa. There is only one road. No stop lights, no stop signs, but watch out for the speed bumps (make that "speed hills"). Despite the abject poverty and overcrowded conditions, the people of Kiribati project no feeling of bitterness, desperation or despair. An uninvited European face on a village street is greeted only with polite smiles and perhaps a gang of giggling three-year olds shouting "I-Matang! I-Matang!" (Foreigner! Foreigner!). There is no begging or attempted salemanship. There is a strong sense of community and social peer pressure expressed in a Christian context. Some customs might strike us as antiquated. For example, a newly married couple is expected to produce a bloodied sheet on the wedding night to prove that the bride was a virgin. Success is announced the next day by the happy couple touring the atoll in the back of a truck that is swathed in red bunting. Failure can range from acute embarrassment for the families to annullment of the marriage. Crime is very low by our standards (knock over a convenience store and where you gonna hide?), but drunkeness and vandalism are on the rise in the especially crowded districts of Betio. Perhaps the biggest long-term threat to a country made up entirely of low-lying atolls is global warming. By some calculations the whole place could be underwater in twenty years. I posed that prospect to my old friend Kautuna Kaitara, the head of the Kiribati Customs Division. He grinned and said, "Remember Y2K?" LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:54:33 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: fuel consumption 87 gal/hour figure is based upon the fuel added at Lae. The implicit assumption in all these calculations is that the plane was fully fueled upon take-off at each station, and re-fueled fully upon landing at the next station. To do so would be reasonably insane, as the heavier plane causes inefficiency of fuel rate/burning. I suspect AE fueled the plane very much less than full during the short legs, and only fueled the plan fully when she was (1) either attempting a very long leg, or (2) knew that in the next few segments, fuel availability would be low. BTW, all of the charts used by Fred Noonan have markings on them predicting where the plane would be using 150 mileage markers. These markers are in statute miles. 150 statute miles = 130 nautical miles (+or- a hair). After exhaustively analyzing all of the flights with known available charts used by the navigator, and reconstructing the flights with known winds, I find no evidence whatsoever that AE attempted to fly the plane at a 140 knot IAS, but only at a 130 knot IAS. *************************************************************************** From Ric Randy is right. While I still have the excuse of jetlag to explain my rudeness, let me say that I have read the recent forum traffic concerning fuel consumption and hereby declare that thread dead and buried until and unless somebody who knows what the **** they're talking about has something new to add. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:12:19 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Bodies in good shape? >From Katie Ayers >...They think that the plane and the bodies of Noonan and Earhart will be in >good condition. Yeah, the bodies will be in excellent shape, as good as all of them they found aboard the Titanic! Now I really question their intellect! LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric Long and company never said that they expected to find bodies intact. Either Katie or the reporter she quoted got the story screwed up. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:15:31 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Assumptions To Oscar Boswell, To your list of facts I would add the following. 1. Several radio transmissions were heard from Amelia at Howland. 2. She reported being on the LOP that runs through Gardner Island 3. The airplane was capable of reaching Howland and then diverting to Gardner. There are probably a few other facts but nearly all the rest is speculation based on unproven assumptions. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:17:19 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos Anybody who expects to find bodies in good condition, or much of any condition, after 60 + years on the ocean floor gives new meaning to the word "optimist." LTM (who's optimistic, but not THAT optimistic) Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric Nauticos knows better. They never said it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:26:16 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos > From Katie Ayers > > I just was watching "Headline News" here in PA and > found out that they think they may be able to find their bodies > because they are only looking near Howland Island and they > think that she may have crash landed 10 miles away > from Howland Island. They think that the plane and the > bodies of Noonan and Earhart will be in good > condition. > katie In 1914 the Titanic sank with 1500 casualties. In 1987 Bob Ballard went to the bottom of the Atlantic and photo-mapped the entire wreckage area in great detail. No bodies, no remains whatsoever. What no one counted on was having deep-sea organisms that ate away at everything made of softer materials including human remains and even the once beautiful wood planking that made up the upper decks. I earlier speculated that this reeked of publicity-for-profit. For Nautico to put this on world newsreels is pure crapola. I don't even care to talk about their fertilizer any more. Doug Brutlag #2335 *************************************************************************** From Ric Let's be fair. She heard it on "Headline News"? Come on....how many times has TIGHAR been castigated by people who believed some screwed-up media story about our work? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:08:09 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: More assumptions I would add to Boswell's known "facts" the following: a. 1100 gals of fuel aboard b. she was flying eastward c. At 5;18 pm she reported a position, indicating an eastward flight, and 23k wind d. Her transmission reception by Itasca got clearer and louder,to a S-5 e. she didn't see smoke or Itasca f. weather conditions around Itasca were known g. AE believed she was at Howland long/lat h. She ran out of gas i. Her receiver didn't work *************************************************************************** From Ric <> Give or take a few gallons. <> More or less, at least up until sometime before 19:12Z. << c. At 5;18 pm she reported a position, indicating an eastward flight, and 23k wind>> But not the direction of the wind. <> Okay. <> But there may have been no smoke to see. <> Known to Itasca, that is. <> Perhaps for a brief moment some time immediately prior 19:12Z, but as soon as she realized that Howland was not there she had to accept she was not at Howland's lat/long. <> She did? Who says? <> So how did she hear the "A"s on 7500? Look - for crying out loud - you can not solve this mystery this way. A bloodhound can follow a scent to a lost person but Earhart and Noonan did not leave a scent. They could have gone here and they could have gone there. We can only consider the various places they could have gone and then see it there is any evidence that they went there. One place they could have gone is the bottom of the ocean. We can not look there. Nauticos can not look there. All the naval and research vessels in the world can not look there. The expanse of ocean where they could have gone down is too impossibly huge and the target too impossibly tiny. They could have also been taken away by the Japanese to who-knows-where? No one can look there either. The only other place they could have gone is to some other island. Even with the most liberal assessment of their fuel, the islands they could have reached are few but, even so, islands are difficult to search and any surviving evidence may be very small. It seems safe to say that if Earhart, Noonan and/or the Electra are ever discovered as the result of a purposeful search, rather than by accident, it will be on an island. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:09:34 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: How about this speculation. Why don't we assume that it would be good naviagtion practice for Fred to off set his course so as to reach the Line of Position 25 miles (or even 50 miles) to the north of Howland once he realized they were unable to establish radio contact to get DF assistance. By doing this they would insure that all they had to do was turn right when they reached the LOP and follow it through Howland and on toward Gardner. If he did this there would be no reason to turn north for a while upon reaching the LOP and they would save all the gas needed to back track. Obviously there is no basis for this speculation except it would be good practice that could save valuable fuel. Seems to me it is just as valid an assumption as any of the others. Like all the other speculation several things could be considered good practice but we have no firm way of knowing what they did and when they did it Dick Pingrey 980C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:28:03 EST From: Bob Sarnia Subject: The facts, ma'am, just the facts! I agree with Mike E -- up to a point. Determining radio signal strength without a meter was an arbitrary thing, not unlike the points awarded by judges in an ice skating competition. There was nothing definitive about it. Nevertheless, one was not likely to hear a signal at S-5 and record it as S-1 or S-2, or vice versa. Likewise, I agree that radio voice reception does not always determine distance, which I learned while using both ship and shore-based radios throughout Micronesia (1970-72), sometimes getting better reception between the Marshall Islands and Saipan, than between Truk and Ponape. However, having said that, in this particular case (AE's flight from Lae to Howland), signal strengths from 200 miles out and 100 miles out were recorded as S-3 and S-4 respectively by professional radiomen and verified by other observers standing by, so I believe it can safely be said that when her S-5 messages were received, she was then closing in on Howland, possibly just 30-50 miles away. While not all of these signal strengths were recorded in the Itasca's radio logs, I believe that Cdr. Thompson's report on AE's flight must surely include some later input by the radiomen who were on duty that day, when they had time to be more specific, and I see nothing sinister in that. Recently, there has been a spate of postings concerning fuel left on board, airspeed and wind. Everyone admits his/her conclusions are mere speculation, and as neither AE nor FN are alive to corroborate them, such second guessing can be disregarded or else everyone is going to be dragged down in a quagmire of irrelevant, convoluted and meaningless details. What we DO know is that AE sent a message at 0742 saying that she was running out of gas. Who would know better than she? One radioman recorded her as saying "only half-hour left," a message that was corroborated by two trained observers listening in -- professional journalists -- one of whom reported that "she called in slow measured words." Other than headwinds, we don't know why she was running out of gas. Perhaps some of her tanks sprung a leak; perhaps she didn't have as much gas on board as she thought when she left Lae; perhaps evaporation had a role in it. Such conjecture can go on forever. Yet many say that she must have had at least four hours of gas remaining when she arrived in the vicinity of Howland. In other words, AE didn't know what she was talking about! Doesn't it make more sense to believe that when AE said she was running out of gas, she meant just that -- that she was running out of gas? That, in turn, means she would not have had enough to fly down to the Phoenix Islands, and, in any case, why fly to an unknown destination when you know that there are people waiting for you, on the lookout for you, on Howland which, as far as you know, may be just a few miles away or just over the horizon? One other thought: if she couldn't find Howland, why would she feel so sure that she could find the Phoenix Islands? That group, on a map, looks like a ti ght cluster of islands that you couldn't miss in a pea soup fog, but they are many miles apart, more miles than Baker from Howland, so why go there and not find them any more than she could find Howland? Like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire! Sorry to disagree, folks, but she ditched, possibly within 30 miles of Howland, out of sight and earshot, to the north, south, east or west. That's about as close as we can get. Regards, Bob Sarnia. **************************************************************************** From Ric You titled your posting "the facts, ma'am, just the facts". Perhaps when you have some we can discuss the matter further. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:36:56 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: More on Economic Cruise Speed. To add to what Simon #2120 said about the economic cruise speed. He is 100% correct that the most economic cruise speed changes (actually become slower) with the reduction in weight as fuel is burned. There is still one more variable and that is altitude. As the airplane becomes lighter it can and should be flown at a higher altitude where air resistance is less and there is also less drag. Because the airplane is lighter it takes less lift to sustain it in flight. Thus the air can be less dense and still support the weight of the airplane which happens at a higher altitude. The effect of climbing to higher and higher altitudes tends to keep the most economic cruise speed closer to a constant while reducing fuel consumption. This is usually accomplished in step climbs as weight is reduced with the consumption of fuel. Now, how do we work this into the assumptions on how Amelia flew the airplane and resulting airplane performance? Dick Pingrey 908C *************************************************************************** From Ric We don't. Johnson's recommendations made no such provision. We could assume that Earhart followed Johnson's formula religiously or that she flew a far more complicated and efficient program or that she foolishly squandered her fuel bucking a speculative headwind. In the end we'd know no more than we know now. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:09:32 EST From: P. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos To Tom King and others whose skepticism is largely self-serving . . . considering the professional reputation of Nauticos one certainly should be optimistic and balanced. *************************************************************************** From Ric When someone says something that they can not or will not support with hard data it is not self-serving to call them on it. I do not believe that Nauticos ever said they expect to find bodies. I do know that Nauticos has said that they expect to find the Earhart aircraft but they refuse to produce the data to support that claim. They talk about the technique of "re-navigation" which they have used successfully in the past, but re-navigation relies upon having the original navigation data. Nobody has that for the Earhart case. We've seen Elgen Long's speculative reconstruction of the navigation and it is full of unwarranted assumption. The CalTech study that supposedly verifies Long's work is not being made public. Perhaps you know of some case where Nauticos (or anyone else for that matter) has been successful in a similar search? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:47:30 EST From: Ric Subject: Abbreviated Saturday Forum The forum for today (Saturday, March 31) will be somewhat abbreviated due to time constraints. It just took a long time to finish the archival research results from the Tarawa trip but there's plenty there to chew on. I'll catch up on the other postings Monday. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:47:55 EST From: Ric Subject: Tarawa Report - Archival Our mission in Tarawa was threefold: 1. ARCHIVAL Search the Kiribati National Archives for any documents that might enhance our understanding of events relating to the bones and artifacts found on Gardner in 1940 and generally increase our knowledge of the historical context. We also wanted to investigate the possibility that the bones and/or artifacts may have been repatriated to Kiribati when the Western Pacific High Commission was disassembled in the late 1970s. 2. ANECDOTAL Interview anyone who had lived on or visited Nikumaroro or might have first hand knowledge of the events and personalities of the island's colonial period. 3. LOGISTICAL Meet with senior Kiribati government officials to learn what plans they might have for Nikumaroro and to discuss contingency planning for the management of historic properties which may be found there. All three missions were accomplished with varying degrees of success. No dramatic discoveries were expected and none were made - but a great deal of new information has come to light which fills important gaps in our knowledge of the island's history and will help us focus this summer's search operations. *************************************************************** ARCHIVAL RESULTS We spent three full days (08:00 to 16:30) immersed in the Kiribati National Archives (KNA) and came away with 265 photocopied documents, plus the loan of three high resolution aerial mapping photos of Nikumaroro (which together cover the entire island) taken in 1985. From the government Mapping Agency we also have several copies of the new (1995) British Ordnance Survey map of Nikumaroro and the other Phoenix Islands. The map is based on the 1985 photos and an Australian ground survey that same year. Ironically, we did not get to see the original file of Gallagher's telegrams describing his discovery of the bones. That file, first brought to our attention in 1997 by New Zealand author and TIGHAR member Peter McQuarrie, has apparently become an item of some interest and had been pulled by the head archivist who was away during our visit. The assistant archivist - who by the way, worked many hours of overtime on our behalf - tried but was unable to locate the file. We, of course, have copies of the file anyway but it would have been nice to see the originals. We had also hoped against hope that the prewar files of the Administrative Officer on Tarawa (Gallagher's contemporary, David Wernham) and the files of the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert & Ellice Islands Colony (Jack Barley) on Ocean Island had somehow survived the war, but that seems to be a forlorn hope. Anything that was on Tarawa or Ocean Island when the Japanese invaded in December 1941 was apparently destroyed. Aside from some documents which apparently, like the bone file, came from Gallagher's office on Gardner, the earliest files in the KNA begin after the reconquest of Tarawa in 1943. We do, however, have some very interesting documents - for example: - The archives have John T. Arundel's diaries on microfilm. They are voluminous and span many years. They're also written in a scrawly, informal hand that is very difficult to read and the copy function on the archive's microfilm reader is broken. Nonetheless, I was able to find and transcribe a couple of references to Gardner Island in 1892, including a description of the number and nature of buildings Arundel put up there. These were: "1 store house - 8 sheets iron 1 dwelling - 12 sheets iron 1 cook house - 6 sheets iron" This description is consistent with the very decrepit structural remains we have identified on Nutiran. - We now have much more detailed information about the original 1938 -1941 settlement process. We have several lists submitted by Gallagher detailing names and occupations of not only the men but also the wives and children and supplies that made up the progressive waves of settlement. We now know, for example, that 6 pigs arrived with the families of the original work party in April 1939 (contrary to Emily Sikuli's recollection that there were no dogs or pigs on the island in 1940). The arrival date of dogs and pigs is important in speculations about the scattering of the castaway's bones. - The lists are also useful in trying to resolve anecdotal accounts involving bones and aircraft wreckage. There has been much speculation about whether the islands first Native Magistrate, Teng Koata, returned to the island after leaving in September 1940 and may have been in charge while Gallagher was away in Fiji from June 1941 to his return and death in September of that year. Could this have been when the aircraft wreckage and bones on Nutiran were found, thus explaining why Koata never mentioned them to Gallagher? The latest of the lists prepared by Gallagher, apparently sometime in the spring of 1941, shows Koata's successor "Iokina" as "Acting Magistrate". Koata and his family are not on the list. - A long letter in Gilbertese from Gallagher dated 2nd June 1941 (shortly before his departure) is addressed to Iokina and gives him detailed instructions about what to do while he (Irish) is gone. Clearly, Iokina is being left in charge. There is no mention in the letter of continuing clearing or planting operations at any distance from the village, nor of working on any "vacation house" at the southeast end - much less conducting any kind of search there. It now appears very likely that the clearing operations at Aukeraime and the Seven Site which are evident in the June 21, 1941 aerial photos taken by the U.S. Navy were accomplished prior to Gallagher's departure earlier that month. - A very rough map of the island drawn by Gallagher on or about March 23, 1941 officially designates the names of the island's various districts and passages. There is, of course, no mention of "Ameriki" - the section at the southeast tip where the Loran station would later be built. A legend in Gilbertese at the bottom describes the boundaries of each district. A handwritten note in English in Gallagher's hand says: "Copy given to each family on 24/3/41. The names were decided on by a meeting of landholders on the evening of 23/4/41." No mark or indication of any kind is present in the area of the Seven Site. Incidentally, the original name of Nutiran was "I-Nutiran" - literally "New Zealanders". - A large scale (1 inch equals 100 feet) hand-drawn map of the portion of Aukeraime just east of Bauareke Passage was made by Gallagher and is dated March 19, 1941. It is titled << Gardner Nikumaroro Island - Land Boundaries - Sheet 1 - 'Bauareke' Passage Area-East >>. Nine land demarcations are shown and numbered. A key shows what family name corresponds to each number. It looks like the baby grave and shoe parts are in the ninth (last) land parcel which was owned by the "Anibuka" family. - On the reverse of the above-described map is another hand-drawn map, but this one shows the entire island and is unsigned and undated. In addition to the nine land demarcations shown on Gallagher's map, this one has six more continuing eastward plus another nine on the western side of Bauareke Passage, making a total of 24 land parcels in that area. On this map the southeast tip of the island is labeled "Amerika" which dates it to sometime after 1943 and probably later. Most interesting is a 25th land parcel shown all by itself in the area of the Seven Site. The key ascribes the ownership of this parcel to "Komitina" which is the Gilbertese rendering of "Commissioner", a generic term for the local British authority. (Gallagher spelled it "Kamitina". The wartime District Officer on Canton, Lt. Col. Huggins, signed his communications to the Gardner magistrate "Komitina.") - In yet another map designating island land holdings, drawn by District Officer J. N. Freegard on 15th October 1954, the same parcel of land is labeled "Karaka" (the Gilbertese rendering of Gallagher). Although Gallagher himself never drew it on a map of the island (at least, not one that survives) nor mentioned anything in existing correspondence about having his own plot of land, it's clear that later authorities were under the impression that the Seven Site had been set aside by or for Gallagher. Had Gallagher wanted to have land on Gardner officially allocated to his personal use it seems like that authorization would have to come from higher up and there should be some mention of it in his file. There isn't. The maps made by Gallagher make no mention of Area 25 and yet later maps associate him with that location. - A series of telegrams to and from Gallagher prior to his arrival at Gardner may provide important clues as to why Area 25 was set aside and just how the discovery of the skull came about. On November 20, 1939, Gallagher - at that time on Beru in the Gilberts preparing another load of settlers for the PISS - received a communication from the Resident Commissioner on Ocean Island: "Following telegram has been received from Tremonger - 'Learn in conversation with N.M.P. Tutu that settlers Gardner Island complain one brackish well sole source of water. Cement cistern is cracked and useless.' Please telegraph your views of this serious situation with learnt possible delay. (sic)" I'm not sure who "Tremonger" is and I'm not sure where Native Medical Practitioner Tutu is at this time or how he got word about the alleged water shortage on Gardner, but Gallagher is hearing from his boss that there's a big problem back in the Phoenix. On November 23, 1939 Gallagher replies to the Resident Commissioner: "Pedro states Gardner will be all right until middle December. Tanks, barrels and suitable catchment are available for rain and sufficient rain has fallen lately on Sydney to put 3000 gallons in new cistern. In emergency 100 trees are available for toddy." "Pedro" is Jack Kima Pedro (sometimes spelled Petro), the half-Portugese/half-Tokelau construction foreman who built the cistern on Gardner. The same day, November 23, Gallagher sends another, more personal telegram to Jack Barley, the Resident Commissioner: "Please don't worry too much about Gardner - I give you my word that I really think they are O.K. Tutu will be here in a few days and I will discuss matter further with him." It is March 13, 1940 before Gallagher sends Barley a full report on the situation. By then he is back at his headquarters on Sydney Island, having called at Gardner to drop off new settlers (including Emily and her family) on January 12, 1940. He reports: "...The Magistrate (this would be Koata) was extremely surprised to hear that there had been any special anxiety regarding the water supply and stated emphatically that he had never had any cause to worry about the matter. Furthermore, the labourers all stated that they had not voiced any complaint. It would appear, therefore, as if the complaint originated from either the Native Dresser (this would be Ten Eneri), whom I forgot to question, or from one of the women on the island." He goes on to say that although the cistern is not "cracked and useless" it seems to never be more than half full and may need to be "re-rendered" (resealed?). "I have given instructions for the cistern to be re-rendered on the next occasion on which it is empty and am sending the Public Works Overseer, Mr. Jack Pedro, to inspect the work before he leaves the Phoenix Group.' He also says: "It is my present intention to move to Gardner in June ...." However, in June Gallagher is back on Beru. By this time Pedro is on Gardner checking the cistern. On June 18th Gallagher sends him a telegram asking: "Please telegraph whether there are forty kanawa trees on Gardner good enough to send to Rongorongo to be sawn into planks." The next day Pedro replies: "Kanawa trees over hundred on Gardner." This might be a very important exchange. We know that Gallagher had much of the furnishings in the new Rest House on Gardner made out of kanawa wood and that the coffin for the bones was made from kanawa, but it had never occurred to me before that, of course, there is no sawmill on Gardner. Apparently the only facility in the region that could saw logs into useable timber was at Rongorongo. I don't know where Rongorongo is but from other correspondence it's apparent that it is somewhere in the Gilberts. We know there were kanawa trees near the site where the bones were found and I had long suspected that the work party that originally found the skull was cutting kanawa. However, it is evident from the correspondence that kanawa cutting was not a priority for the laborers on Gardner. Their job was to clear land and plant coconuts. They had no need for kanawa and no way to cut it into planks. I speculate that it was Gallagher's telegram of June 18, 1940 that prompted Pedro to send a work party to the kanawa grove at the southeast end and that the skull was found during that operation. I think that at least some of the clearing we see at the Seven Site ("Area 25") in the June 1941 aerial photos is, in fact, the harvesting of the 40 trees that Gallagher wanted. The water tank and other material from the village may have been to support the logging operation. It may also be that it was Jack Pedro who told Gallagher about the skull and the Benedictine bottle when Irish arrived in early September, by which time Koata was already enroute to Tarawa with the bottle. At any rate, it's clear that Pedro was present on the island during the period when the skull was found. If this speculation is correct it means that Gallagher's description of when the skull was found (Telegram No.1 from Gallagher to Vaskess dated 17th October 1940, "Skull discovered by working party six months ago - report reached me early September.") is a bit off. - Another fascinating piece of correspondence that emerged from the archives is a July 1960 letter from Leo Bowler, editor of the San Diego Evening Tribune, to the "British Colonial Secretary" on Canton Island. Bowler basically relates the Floyd Kilts story and asks for official confirmation. The letter is passed to D.J. Knobbs, the District Commissioner for the Phoenix Islands District at Canton who replies in April 1961: "...I have searched through the early records of the Phoenix Islands District and can find no report of the discovery of a skeleton on Gardner Island in 1938." He goes on the say that various aspects of the story, such as the boat trip to Suva, are highly unlikely. In the face of such official and authoritative denial, it's hardly surprising that the Floyd Kilts story died on the vine. I don't think that Knobbs is perpetrating any kind of cover-up. The whole bones thing was kept very quiet. Some senior administrators at the time (Harry Maude, Ian Thompson, Eric Bevington) had no knowledge of it. It's hardly surprising that Knobbs didn't know. Nearly as valuable as the individually significant documents is the overall impression of the island's development, administration, and flavor as reflected in the routine communiques throughout the 1940s,'50s and early '60s. One gets the impression that Koata was a competent and very independent administrator. During his tenure as Native Magistrate there is very little communication between himself and anyone with regard to administrative matters or anything else. One of the few exchanges between Koata on Gardner and Gallagher on Sydney involves Irish squashing Koata's proposal to have only fellow Catholics settle on Gardner. By contrast, communications between various later British administrators and a progression of later Native Magistrates are characterized by innumerable whining queries about increasingly petty matters and annoyed paternalistic responses from the Brits. The impression I get is that Koata ran Nikumaroro as his own little kingdom and had little use for the new British kid who was in charge of the whole Phoenix settlement scheme. I think he was perfectly capable of doing all kinds of things that Gallagher never knew about. Once Irish arrived to live on the island Koata I suspect that Koata had no desire and saw little need to stay on. We copied many documents and reviewed many more that describe the postwar progress and eventual decline of the Phoenix settlement. In brief, the settlement on Sydney was abandoned as early as 1956 because of internal turmoil and mismanagement. By the late '50s Hull was becoming overcrowded and there was increasing pressure to settle more people on Gardner than the island was ready to accept. A new village on Nutiran was contemplated and begun but apparently never finished. Beginning in about 1960, drought conditions began to impact the settlements on Hull and Gardner and by early 1963 conditions were truly desperate. Water was being shipped in and people were rationed to one pint per day (!). There was no alternative to evacuation of both islands and the residents were removed to the Solomons on November 17, 1963. The above is, of course, just an overview of the mass of new information we retrieved from the archives. In the next installment I'll review what we learned from interviews with various local authorities and the few people who are still alive and remember the prewar years. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:52:19 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: assumptions > From Dick Pingrey > > To Oscar Boswell, > > To your list of facts I would add the following. > > 1. Several radio transmissions were heard from Amelia at Howland. > > 2. She reported being on the LOP that runs through Gardner Island > > 3. The airplane was capable of reaching Howland and then diverting to > Gardner. > > There are probably a few other facts but nearly all the rest is speculation > based on unproven assumptions. > I must respectfully suggest to you that one of your "facts" (#3) is what you call "speculation" in others. When you say "the airplane was capable of reaching ... Gardner" you necessarily make assumptions about winds and how the plane was flown (and what fuel consumption resulted). Your assumptions may be correct, and I may even agree with them, but it is then scarcely fair for us to attack someone else's different assumptions about these very same subjects as being "speculation" about things one "can't know about." Any recounting or investigation of a historical event necessarily resorts sometimes to "speculation" as you call it - some speculation is just better informed and more convincing than other speculation. Oscar Boswell **************************************************************************** From Ric Gotta agree. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:04:14 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: More assumptions In re Ric's comment: <> Except that Nauticos is in the business of doing exactly that -- they look for tiny objects in very deep, vast expanses of ocean. And, apparently, they find them. David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric That's like saying that because a doctor is in the business of curing illnesses he can raise the dead. Name one instance where Nauticos (or Oceaneering International or Williamson Associates or Woods Hole or Bob Ballard or anybody) has ever searched for and found anything analogous to the Earhart airplane. These guys find things that are not lost. The locations are known within feasible constraints. Even so, the task is very difficult and it can take a lot of time, money, expertise and talent to locate the object. NR16020 is truly lost and any deep water search for it, based upon the information that is presently available, is deluded. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:13:55 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos Ric wrote: <> In late February, there was an excellent hour-long program on The Discovery Channel about Nauticos and its discovery of the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga that went down during the battle of Midway. There was, apparently no certain record of where it went down, and the search area was quite expansive. In any event, the program describes Nauticos' re- navigation process (among other things). Apparently, the process involves not just known (original) navigation data, but the use of many other factors as well. Why don't you just give them a call and ask? David Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric I saw the same show and they did not "find the Kaga." They found part of a debris field that they deduced, probably correctly, was from the Kaga. The aircraft carrier itself - which, I will point out, was: A. known to be sunk in that general area B. somewhat larger than a Lockheed 10 eluded them. This is not intended to denigrate their achievement, which was considerable, but merely to point out the difficulty of deep water searches. It may surprise you to know that I've spoken with the guys at Nauticos on numerous occasions. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:15:07 EST From: P. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos All I am suggesting is that skepticism about a notion of "preserved bodies" should have been directed at the source, not at Nauticos. Further, why would Nauticos reveal their data in advance? Robert Ballard didn't. He apparently hoped keeping the Titanic site secret would protect it but nonetheless, his discovery made him a fortune. I am confident the same will hold true for whomever solves the mystery of Ms. Earhart. Like most things in this life, one needs merely to follow the money to discover the motives. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:16:18 EST From: Jim Pearson Subject: Nauticos effort I hope everyone will not be too terribly disappointed if Nauticos comes up empty handed. It has been my experience that if you are too confident about what you are attempting to do life is preparing to give you a lesson in humility! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:18:53 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Long and Nauticos For P. Wesley and Ric -- Not to quibble, but I never said that Nauticos had said it was going to find bodies; I merely commented, in response to a post alleging that they had, that anybody who thought they'd find bodies on the ocean floor was very optimistic. That, in view of the collective experience of underwater archaeology as documented in a pretty extensive literature, is a fact. As for my skepticism being self-serving -- I suppose it follows that the skepticism of crashed-and-sank advocates for the Nikumaroro hypothesis is also self-serving, and anyone's skepticism for the Japanese capture or abduction by space aliens or alive in New Jersey hypotheses is also self-serving. My, where will this end? LTM (who's mildly skeptical of this whole exchange) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:21:36 EST From: Tom King Subject: Escape from Tarawa Forumites who shared and helped with my puzzlement over finding British documents in the U.S. National Archives apparently produced on Tarawa well after the Japanese invasion of 10 December 1941 will be relieved to know that Peter McQuarrie's new book, "Conflict in Kiribati," has resolved the issue. It seems that the Japanese landed in December, knocked out the official radio, caused the grounding of Nimanoa, and did other mischief in December, then left, telling the inhabitants that they were captives and they'd better not try to escape. They then flew over the atoll regularly, but didn't come back in force until September of 1942. Most of the Europeans soon elected to escape. They got into contact with Suva using a radio that one of their number had secreted in the bush, and Sir Harry Luke arranged for the Fiji Government ship Degei to meet them at Nonouti. After some weeks repairing a damaged Burns Philp launch and two lifeboats (one from the torpedoed Norwegian ship Donerail, documents on which in the National Archives were what puzzled me in the first place), the main group started its arduous journey on 27 February 1942, reaching Nonouti on 9 March. The launch, with the only surviving functional motor left at Tarawa, towed the two lifeboats with 27 men aboard. the journey covered some 158 nm, and was pretty arduous -- they ran very low on water, and at one point the engine failed and they were at risk of drifting away into the offing, but got it started again. Degei was awaiting them at Nonouti, and they got to Suva on 18 March. As we'd suspected, and as suggested by the National Archives documents, Dr. Verrier (previously Isaac, who detailed the Niku bones for awhile at Tarawa) was among the escapees, as was Dr. Steenson, whose notes on his examination of the artifacts told us of the man's shoe and the little corks on chains. Tom King