Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:35:18 From: Peter Polen Subject: Photographs of AE Just thought some one might know the answer to this question????? Over on Ebay their are 12 8 X 10 original "Wire Photos" of Amelia Earhart up for bid. There are only 2 bidders biding on all 12 at $130.00 dollars each. That puts the total sum at about $1,560.00 dollars for all 12 photos, assuming one of the bidder wins all 12. My question for this intelligent board of Earhart fans is....who in the world would spend $1,500.00 dollars on these photos???? If we could get that person to put up that kind of money to TIGHAR, Ric could print his most important Post-Loss-Messages book right now. Inquiring Minds Want to Know. Peter Polen Pittsburgh, PA *************************************** Well, people will spend money on all kinds of things, as we all know. However, getting someone to send it to TIGHAR wouldn't necessarily put the publication date on the book forward. Ric is still deep in the throes of writing, but we have submitted a proposal to a publisher and are getting favorable noises back. We'll see how it all turns out. Pat =============================================================== Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:36:30 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Noonan post-loss message For Ric Is there any documented evidence relating to Fred Noonan having transmitted any voice message on the second world flight attempt? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 > From Ric > > Ron Bright says: > >> One possible way to resolve the mystery message maybe with the kind of >> radio analysis Brandenburg did with the post loss msgs. Namely, the signal heard >> at Nauru could not have originated at Niku. > > A. There is no "mystery message." There is an allegation based on an > anecdotal recollection many years later that is directly contradicted > by a primary contemporaneous written source. No contest. It never happened. > > B. When did Bob Brandenburg say that the signals heard at Nauru could > not have originated at Niku? > >> Is it possible to look at the transmission possibility of sending a voice >> msg, rather clear and identifiable, some 1900 miles north of Howland to Midway >> Is on 3105 about 7:00 am in the morning , 2 July 37. > > That would be entirely outside the pattern. One of the most interesting > aspects of the post-loss signal reports is that only three stations - > Howland Island and Baker Island and Achilles - hear intelligible voice > on either of Earhart's primary frequencies. Stations further away from > the Phoenix Group - Itasca, Nauru, Midway, Wake, Hawaii - sometimes > hear unintelligible voice. Except for one questionable reception by > Coast Guard San Francisco, nobody beyond about 2,000 miles out from > Howland hears voice on a primary frequency. (McMenamy and Pierson can > convincingly be shown to be hoaxers.) > >> Or are we facing skip >> charactertics that, for instance, indicated the possibility that the West Coast, >> Wyoming (Dana Randolph) and even the East Coast (Betty) received siganls. > > The Earhart receptions heard by Dana Randolph and Betty and several > other shortwave listeners, if heard at all, were heard on a harmonic of > 3105. Those receptions had nothing to do with skip characteristics. > >> If Midway couldn't receive voice that would end it right there. > > Midway certainly had the capability to receive voice transmissions and > they did hear a man's voice on 3105 but it was unintelligible - which > is consistent with the signal originating at Niku or anywhere at a > similar distance from Midway. > >> The signal >> from 80 or so miles southwest of Howland would have passed right over >> Itasca. > > HF signals are not directional. > > LTM, > Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 11:25:10 From: Tom King Subject: Re: photos of AE For Peter Polen While Pat's doubtless right about Ric's writing schedule (who would know better than she?), getting somebody with enough loose change to toss $1500 at Amelia pictures to toss it TIGHAR's way instead would certainly help advance us toward another visit to Niku, which we badly, badly need. So nobody should be discouraged from keeping noses to the ground looking for sources of support. I've been trying lately to use carefully selected mailings of Amelia Earhart's Shoes to see if I could catch the interest of wealthy potential contributors, and if anybody has ideas about where to invest such mailings, I'd be happy to hear about them: tfking106@aol.com. LTM Tom ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 11:25:44 From: Tom King Subject: Ameliaschpiel in Salt Lake City I'll be giving one of my "Ameliaschpiels" -- a 1-hour+ Powerpoint-assisted presentation on TIGHAR's pursuit of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis -- in Salt Lake City, Utah at the Public Library, at 7 pm on May 23. Admission is free, Q&A after the talk. Sponsored by SWCA Environmental Consultants, a firm with which I'm affiliated in my day job. Come one, come all..... LTM Tom ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 11:26:14 From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Photos of AE > My question for this intelligent board of Earhart fans is....who in the > world would spend $1,500.00 dollars on these photos???? To paraphrase Garfield the Cat; "It's amazing the things people would rather have than money." Are any of these anything we haven't all seen before? > If we could get that person to put up that kind of money to TIGHAR, Ric > could print his most important Post-Loss-Messages book right now. I wonder if we could sell some of those pictures of Ric avoiding having his ankles bitten off by sharks at Niku this way? Bill Leary, #2229 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:09:11 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Noonan post-loss message Tom S, After reviewing the actual handwritten letter from this Stewart A. Saunders it appears this was simply a made up the story about receiving a msg, from some station, about the sunline and 80 miles south, from Noonan. Ric's investigation shows no such receipt by PANAM and Saunders didn't have the message. He was writing Bellarts after seeing an article in the SF paper in 1967, the time that Goerner's book was published. Goerner was in the area also and Saunders claimed he talked with Goerner and Briand about this. However a search of Goerners files, hundreds of interviews and files, shows no "Saunders". It is inconceivable that Goerner would have ignored a genuine msg received by Midway's Pan Am station of that nature. We also have found no reply by Leo Bellarts to Saunders. Saunders was in the Oakland VA hospital at the time he wrote the letter, and I am wondering what ward he was on! If Noonan made any other transmissions, Ric would know. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:36:25 From: George Werth Subject: Re: Ameliaschpiel For Tom King Is your 'Ameliaschpiel' going to be on C-SPAN? Hope so. George TIGHAR Member 2630 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:36:49 From: Jackie Tharp Subject: Re: Photos of AE My question is why in the world would someone pay that much money, when you can download an enlarged copy of the photo's to print on your own computer? I always check out Amelia stuff on ebay, and have downloaded and printed tons o' photo's for free. You can enhance them, print them on photo quality paper, etc. I seriously doubt that those are original photo's anyway. They probably downloaded them from some place else.... LTM, Jackie #2440 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:15:01 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ameliaschpiel For George Werth My Ameliaschpiel on C-Span? How does one get that to happen? Hire a lobbyist? ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:25:44 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: fuel weight at Lae If the tanks are not full then it shouldn't make any difference. But if they are then the fuel that expands overflows and runs out the vent line. On the other hand the difference is small. for jet fuel the rule of thumb is that the fuel expands about .5% per ten degree F increase in temp. This should be approximately correct for avgas also. So if the tanks were full and the temp increased 20¡ F then the fuel would expand 1% and be lost overboard. 1% of 1100 gallons is only 11 gallons, not much to worry about. gl > From Alan Caldwell > > I am not a physics major and you guys are confusing me which is not that > hard to do. I thought that raising or lowering the temperature of a liquid > increased or reduced the volume but the weight stays the same. Only if > you change the number of gallons would the weight change. Am I wrong? > > Also how do you get 60 degree gasoline at a place where the minimum average > temperature is 71? > > Finally where did we get 75 degrees for take off? > > And finally finally how do we know the temperature spread between > final refueling and take off? > > I'm missing something here. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:16:08 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Noonan post-loss message For Ron Bright, My question was not asked because of the Stewart A. Saunders story line. Over time and many dead ends, I've never come across any documentation of Fred Noonan ever making radio transmissions in voice or code during either the first or second world flight attempts by Earhart and company. This does not preclude making an attempt to do something you have never done before when sucking up the seatpan your setting on in a life or death moment of deliberation. But if Fred had a history of transmitting even if briefly. The possiblity would exist to identify style and technique to help ID say an unknown male voice in a post loss radio message. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:10:35 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Noonan post-loss message For Tom S. Maybe someone on the forum is aware of Noonan transmitting from a Pan Am Clipper , but as you say, I haven't heard that Noonan transmitted on either of the two world flights, code or voice. The 281 code msg, as I recall, was so roughly transmitted, no one could tell who sent it, if that is possible. Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:35:36 From: George Werth Subject: Re: Ameliaschpiel For Tom King C-SPAN shows authors reviewing their books on Book TV. I hoped that you might be featured reviewing AMELIA's SHOES. Oh, well, you can't win them all! Cheers George R Werth TIGHAR MEMBER # 2630 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:56:31 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ameliaschpiel Nice idea, George, but I just checked Book TV's lineup, and they all seem to be books about SERIOUS topics. Thanks for the thought, though... ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:10:25 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Fuel weight -- again Gary LaPook speculated on the loss rate of avgas at Lae prior to take-off. Attached is my reply back in 2001, again in 2004, and now again today. Bob Sherman may want to add to this, defend himself, or have me arrested. The choice is his. :-) Bob Sherman said: > The specific weight of avgas* in lbs. per gal is 5.87 @ 60d/F., 6.25 @ -32d/F > and 5.54 @ 140d/F if you want to make a graph. OK, using Bob's numbers AE had 19.67 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 at 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal.) and 140 d/F (5.54 lbs./gal) yields a difference of .33 lbs./gal. The total temp difference between 60 and 140 is 80 degrees. Divide that into the .33 lbs./gal. and you arrive at a weight decrease of .004125 lbs./gal. for each one degree of temperature increase. Multiply the decreased 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 decrease at 85 d/F of .103125 lbs./gal. Ergo, at 85d/F each gallon of fuel weighed .103125 lbs. LESS than it did at 60 d/F. Now, multiply the weight loss 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 loss of 113.4375 pounds. But how many gallons is that? OK, take the baseline 60 d/F (5.87 lbs./gal) and subtract 0.103125 to arrive at the temperature-adjusted weight of 5.767 lbs./gal at 85 d/F. Divide the total weight loss (113.4375 pounds) by the new adjusted weight per gallon (5.767) and you arrive at 19.67 gallons. That is, at 85d/F the airplane was capable of carrying 19.67 FEWER gallons of gas then it could carry at 60 d/F And flying at 38 gal/hr, it means Amelia and Fred had 30 FEWER minutes to be airborne. LTM, who burned up her calculator doing that! Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:17:21 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Fuel weight again Dennis: You got all the math correct .. except 85 degrees was a bit warm .. my calculations of some years ago gave just under 20 minutes as the loss in total air time .. Not that it changed where or why she crashed, just refined the estimates for total fuel [a little less as seen by the engines] and small loss of gross wt. due to the same quantity of gallons.weighing a bit less. I believe it was Oscar that opined the slightly lower gross weight at the start, would over 20 hours or so, result in a slightly less fuel burn, that might just wash out the small quantity of fuel not present at the start. I have the highest regard for Oscar's opinions. For Alan, the specific gravity of av gas is significantly different than jet fuel .. which varies noticeably by type; the early composition of jet fuel, being part gasoline, was closer to the sp.g of avgas than the several later types. Except for, 'Pull back for up', much of your experience in the 50's, if that early, may not have been too comparable with that experienced by Amelia. Cheers, RC Bob Sherman ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:37:42 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Fuel weight again Bob Sherman said: > Dennis: You got all the math correct .. except 85 > degrees was a bit warm .. my calculations of some years ago gave just > under 20 minutes as the loss in total air time . . . Yes; the temps were entirely arbitrary (just for calculation purposes) so obviously with a lower temperature the loss would also decrease. The difference in range using your numbers and mine amounts to about 10 minutes over a 20-24 hours period. If you're cutting it that close, 10 minutes isn't going to make a difference anyway. :-) LTM, who applauds fuel efficiency Dennis O. McGee #1049EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 19:07:13 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel weight again Bob, you are certainly correct that my experience which started in '55 was different from AE's in '37 in many respects. I flew a twin Beech as the closest thing to her plane and I don't have a clue now what the octane rating of the avgas was. I flew the T-6G and a few other props before going almost exclusively to jets. For them we used JP4. We used 6.4 lbs to the gallon and never worried about temperature or any other factor even with avgas. We never had to do anything as maxed out as AE's last leg of her flight either. I DID have to navigate cross country in props using the bird dog and whiskey compass during the early years. In jets I did all the celestial as a backup to my navigator. My equipment was lot better than Noonans and I had a stable platform with a slight Dutch roll. In addition we had radar to back us up and pressure pattern. We used HF across the pond but radios were never a problem. Everyone knew where we were and where we were going whether we had contact or not. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 19:07:50 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel weight again Dennis McGee writes: > OK, using Bob's numbers AE had 19.67 FEWER gallons of fuel > at 85 degrees (F) than she had at 60 degrees (F). Great job, Dennis. As I have said before, the only problem I have with this whole subject is no one knows what the temperature of the avgas was when the plane was refueled OR when it was refueled or what the temperature was when the plane took off. Therefore no one knows what the temperature increase OR decrease was or IF there was one. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 12:35:36 From: George Werth Subject: Comment On Fuel Load Calculations --- My Mother, may she RIP, used to tell me, "IF is a little word with a LONG TAIL!" The initial conditions can make a lot of difference. That's why it's important to spell them out! George TIGHAR MEMBER # 2630 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 12:36:29 From: Paige Miller Subject: Noonan post-loss message This talk about Noonan's alleged post-loss message got me thinking, and then I realized that there was a fact about celestial navigation that I couldn't remember exactly ... and since you guys are the experts and I have never tried to do any celestial navigation, the question is: Is it true that during daylight hours, you can only determine your position east-west using celestial navigation, but that you cannot determine your position north-south? Thanks! Paige Miller #2565 It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 12:37:01 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Noonan post-loss message For Ron Bright, Thanks for your reply - Pan Am has been one of the most productive dead ends for infomation on Noonan due to the purge by Trippe - Pan Am information floating around relating to Noonan is mostly hearsay in nature unfortunately. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 09:31:05 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Noonan post-loss message At local noon, the height above the horizon of the sun will provide you the latitude. After accurate chronometers were developed, the time of local noon will also give you longitude. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 09:31:33 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan post-loss message I'm sure someone will give you a more detailed answer but yes, you CAN determine your north/south position as well. A noon sun shot or crossing the moon or a planet or even a bright star will provide a day time fix during those hours where those bodies can be seen. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:02:31 From: Jeff lange Subject: Re: Ameliaschpiel For Tom King, Tom, don't sell yourself short. If you ever watch any of the CNN book reviews, some of the books/authors/subjects are sometimes way out there. I think having you on there reviewing your book would be a great program! Just my .02 worth Jeff Lange #0748C ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 13:39:30 From: Mike Everette Subject: Interesting program on History Channel May 15 The History Channel will air a program called "The Hurricane that Saved London" tonight at 9 pm (May 15). This concerns the archaeological effort to excavate the crash site of a Hawker Hurricane that rammed a German bomber about to unload on Buckingham Palace. Might be interesting. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:24:20 From: John Harsh Subject: Of general interest From the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association website. LTM John Harsh 0634C <><><><><> Navy loses warbird case, may still pursue others http://www.aopa.org/members/index.cfm The Navy's claim that it owned a Brewster-built F3A-1 Corsair (not a Buffalo) recovered by a Minnesota aircraft restorer has been dismissed by a Minneapolis federal district court judge. Lex Cralley of Princeton, Minnesota, who works as a mechanic for ground equipment used by an airline, was told that he does indeed own the aircraft he recovered in 1991 from the mud of North Carolina where it sat after it crashed in 1944. An attorney with the Navy Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia warned Cralley during earlier proceedings that she is pursuing similar cases. Cralley will exhibit the as-yet unrestored aircraft at Oshkosh this summer. (May 10) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 15:46:35 From: Ron Bright Subject: Midway Radio Operators Ric, As you know I am trying to identify a Stewart A. Saunders who reported in a letter to Keo Bellarts in 1968 that he was present at Midway Island on 2 July 37 when a msg was delivered purportedly from Noonan describing an earlier position and sunline. Saudners wrote he was the airport manager in July 37, but was now writing from Oakland "VA" hospital. I have not been able to identify him through SS death indexes, city directories, or county records. I have found the daughter of the Midway airport manager in 1938, but haven't been able to identify the 1937 airport manager. So far none of the Midway Island residents now registered on the Midway web recall the Earhart receptions. As far as we know, no such msg from Noonan was received on 2 July. Later on 5 July Pan Am reported hearing signals with a rough southeast bearing. Do we know who those three Pan Am radio operators were? LTM, Ron Bright Bremerton Wa ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:35:48 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Midway Radio Operators Ron Bright asked: > Do we know who those three Pan Am radio operators were? The "Operator In Charge" at Midway was G. H. Miller. We don't know if there were other operators at Midway. The "Operator In Charge" at Wake was R. W. Hansen. We don't know if there were other operators at Wake. The "Section Supervisor for Communications" in Honolulu (Mokapu) was K.C. Ambler. We don't know if there were other operators at Mokapu. The "Communications Superintendent for the Pacific Division" at Alameda in California was G.W. Angus. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 21:11:31 From: Pete Gray Subject: Re: Midway radio operators Midway may have had strict "Hours of Operation" in 1937 to conserve generator power. I wonder if more than one Watch Rotation was on the radio equipment at Midway during that time. If so, then more than one Operator for duty. If not, then the equipment was shut down to conserve power for Depression-era military base operation. Any mention in records of "lights out" on Midway meaning the generators went down to conserve fuel? Such a thing would have been "Standing Orders" for the base as issued by the Commanding Officer. Records of using precious fuel would have to have been kept somewhere, since Midway would have needed a ship to perform resupply of the station. Let me look a little more to see what vessel kept the supply line to Midway going then, maybe her logs still survive? Pete, used to be #2419, working on getting it back when "working" also applies to myself. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:05:51 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The New TIGHAR Book As you know, I'm writing a book. "The Suitcase In My Closet -- Uncovering the key to the Amelia Earhart mystery" is both a history book and a research study. It will be a major work consisting of eighteen chapters, plus appendix, plus a DVD with all supporting documentation. Part One of the book, Losing Amelia, is a narrative of Amelia Earhart's attempts to fly around the world as documented in the letters, memos, telegrams, radio messages, maps and logbook entries that recorded events as they actually happened. The documented record answers questions that have fueled decades of conjecture and puts to rest a number of theories about the flight's fate. Part Two, A Cry In The Night, addresses the question of whether any of the post-loss radio signals was sent from the lost plane. If Amelia Earhart called for help then the mystery of her disappearance is a far smaller mystery than has previously been supposed. Transmissions from the aircraft were not possible unless it was on land. If there is reason to believe that genuine distress calls were received, then there is reason to believe that the Earhart plane made a survivable landing on a reef or island -- and the possible locations are very few in number. The research is about 90% completed and the writing is presently about half finished. We're presently negotiating with potential publishers and expect that the finished book will appear on the market next year, but TIGHAR members won't have to wait that long. Over the next few months we'll be asking the members of TIGHAR to help peer review the semi-final draft manuscript. Beginning with the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks scheduled for mailing in the next couple weeks, we'll serialize the book in monthly installments of at least two chapters. TIGHAR members are invited to give us their comments and corrections either by letter, fax, or email. The draft manuscript will not be available on the TIGHAR website. If you'd like to be part of the peer review process all you need to do is become a member of TIGHAR. You can join on line at https://tighar.org/membernew.html As a TIGHAR member you'll also be eligible for discounts on TIGHAR wearables and publications, not to mention being able to post messages on this forum. But you'll need to join now so that we have time to get you on the mailing list by the time the new TIGHAR Tracks goes out. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 20:10:49 From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: The new TIGHAR book Ric/Pat---I am already a member of Tighar---you knew that.... OhBoy,OhBoy,OhBoy...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I cant wait to see the new book in TT....I will certainly have my comments ready...Maybe even a few suggestions/corrections. Put me down for three copies when published----sight unseen..... Good Luck--cant wait... Jim Tierney---#0821 Simi Valley, CA. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 08:41:29 From: George Werth Subject: Re: The new TIGHAR book That book sounds like a wiener to me -- a collector's item! A firm yes for one book. George R. Werth TIGHAR member # 2630 Sunnyvale, California ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:20:49 From: Art Carty Subject: Re: The new TIGHAR book I sure hope George meant "winner"........lol > From George R. Werth: > > That book sounds like a wiener to me -- a collector's item! > A firm yes for one book. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:10:43 From: Lawrence Glazer Subject: Re: The new TIGHAR book Ric, that is brilliant. You give members the reward of a free look at the (draft) book, and you get peer-reviewed by a bunch of knowledgable and motivated (and opinionated) people. Way to kill two birds with one stone. Of course you are going to be deluged with criticisms, but then you are used to that. But only two chapters per issue? Did I read that right? Won't that take a few years? LTM, who could never wait to read the next chapter. LMG ******************************************* From Pat No, it won't take all that long. Here are the chapter headings: Introduction PART ONE -- LOSING AMELIA Chapter One -- Kamakaiwi Field Chapter Two -Hawaiian Debacle Chapter Three -- Reversals Chapter Four -- Not For Publication Chapter Five-- Stand To Sea Chapter Six -- Denmark=92s A Prison Chapter Seven --We Must Be On You Chapter Eight -- Itasca Alone Chapter Nine -- Signs of Recent Habitation Chapter Ten -- A Serious Handicap Chapter Eleven -- Banquo=92s Ghost PART TWO -- A CRY IN THE NIGHT Chapter Twelve -- Patterns Chapter Thirteen -- Weeding The Field Chapter Fourteen -- Synchronicity Chapter Fifteen -- Where The Lines Cross Chapter Sixteen -- The Haunted Women Chapter Seventeen -- Laying The Ghost Chapter Eighteen -- Finding Amelia Acknowledgements Appendix A quantitative analysis of the Post-Loss Radio Events. Some chapters are shorter than others and will get run more than two at a time. Maybe 6-8 months/issues. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 19:11:06 From: Ron Bright Subject: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? Forum, As you recall I came across a letter written in 1968 from a Stewart A Saunders, Oakland, Cal., to Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts, of the Itasca, informing him of a msg that PAA had received from the Com. Pacific Cable Co (relay station) on 2 July 37 , He wrote that the msg was delivered to him while having dinner with PAA Capt Ed Musik who had just arrived from Honolulu. Saunders, writing some 31 years after the event, recalled it was Midway Island as he was the Airport Manager. The msg read: "Early morning sunline.... repeat....80 miles southeast Howland...30 minutes gas- Noonan". At least that is what Saunders recalled as he didn't have the message in hand. Efforts to locate and identify Saunders at Oakland, Hawaii, San Francisco area, and at Midway and social security death indices were negative. Then Ron Reuther, Oakland Air Museum, found a reference to Saunders in a book, "Pan American Pioneers, the rest of the story", by Krupnick. Yes, Stewart A Saunders was a station manager, but NOT at Midway in July 1937, but at Kingman Reef, arriving there by the ship "North Wind" on Feb 1937. Saunders had been station manager at Wake and was in and out of Honolulu. PAA Clippers landed in the ocean adjacent to Kingman Reef as a PAA ship was stationed there for housing for crew personnel, and food. Kingman Reef is about 6-700 nm northeast of Howland. Thus Saunders story of getting that msg delievered was true, although we don't know what time the msg was actually received and by whom. Very likely, he simply was mistaken which PAA island he was attached to after 30 plus years. Here are some questions regarding its significance. Did PAA at Kingman Reef intercept signals from the Electra? Are there other accounts from Kingman Reef? Was the 80 mile southeast estimate from Howland accurate? Was Capt Musik present at dinner on 2 July 37 arriving from Honolulu? I don't think anyone has found any msg sent by Noonan. In view of Noonans past connections with PAA and Saunder's personal acquaintance, the reference attributing the msg to Noonan may simply have referred generically to the Earhart Electra. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 19:43:29 From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/PAA receptions of Earhart? Ron Bright, I doubt that Saunders was at Kingman Reef on July 2, 1937, as PAA only sent the Northwind there when they expected to operate a flight via Kingman Reef and I think they only operated a total of 3: the initial one in late March-early April 1937; the 2nd (and 1st airmail with W.T. Miller as a passenger) in December 1937-January 1938 and the third one, in 1938 which was lost at Pago Pago with Capt Musick and crew aboard. Thus I think the reef was vacant in the summer of 1937 i.e., July 2-3, 1937. Of course it is possible that Saunders could have been at Midway relieving the normal station manager Luderer who might have had reason to temporarily leave Midway at that time. Luderer finally left Midway in May 1939 and became the station manager at Canton. Musick was at Manila on July 2, 1937. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 08:50:11 From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/PAA receptions of Earhart? Pat--I go along with Ron Ruether on Saunders. The station ship for Kingman Reef became a PanAm purchased schooner, named Trade Wind, when the charter on the North Wind expired. She was only there for the two flights in Dec 37and Jan 38. After Musick's loss, the route became inactive and Trade Wind was used by PanAm as a base supply ship. I assume that RR has records to support his placing Capt Musick in Manila on 2 July 37. Jim Tierney Simi Valley, CA ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 08:50:45 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? Ron, I saw nothing in your note to support this contention. You cited a number of "facts" but none that confirm Saunder's allegation. What did I miss? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 17:36:30 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? Allen, I have made so many Saunders posts, I don't know which "contentions" you are referring to. Simply put Saunders said he was a Midway Island, Airport Manager, having dinner with Capt Ed Musik, PAA, when a msg was deleivered from Pac Com Cable company, purportedly from Noonan. Something like " early morning sunline.... 80 miles southeast of Howland (not Honolulu)... 30 minutes of gas'"Noonan". He was writing to Leo Bellarts after seeing an article in the SF Chronicle in 1967. Ron Reuther found out initially that that where was a Saunders who was Wake Is manage, then located at Kingman reef in Feb 37. Apparently he wasn't there in July 37 as the Northwind ship was only on station a few times. (SEE Reuther post". So that puts Saunders back at Midway, 2 July, but Ron Reuther beleives that Musick was at Manilla on 2 July 37, which throws a money wrench into Saunders written version. Ric G has said that there were not PAA intercepts on 2 July. Maybe this Pacific Com Cable Co., location unknown, received a voice msg from Noonan, and that is the issue. Or was Saunders recollections 31 years old pretty confused about the circumstances. No msg has ever been found. Saunders is sort of a mystery as we were unalbe to identify him at Oakland, SF, or area through city directories, etc. LTM, Ron b ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 21:50:31 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? Ron, there is certainly a ring of truth to the Saunders' story in spite of the inconsistencies. It is easy to discount things just because of that but after 31 years we should expect problems. There is often some grain of truth to almost every story. Not all of them are made up out of whole cloth. Folks forget or get things confused but usually I think there is some element of fact in there somewhere. I could believe Noonan made a voice broadcast but not a code message. I could believe he gave a position SOUTHWEST of Howland but SE is a problem. But that's an easy mistake after all this time. The 30 minutes of fuel COULD have been where Itasca got that message. Maybe the operator ONLY heard that part or copied that part. Where Musick was doesn't bother me. My computations on the navigation would not conflict with the Electra being 80 miles SW of Howland and Noonan having just shot a sun line or that they THOUGHT they only had 30 minutes of fuel left. Once the needles get down so low they cannot be accurately read. They should have had more. IF the radio call WAS made it might well have been around 07:42 AM Local when AE thought they were right on Howland then Noonan broke in after his sun line to say well they were really 80 miles SW but all Itasca got was the fuel comment. The question would be why there is no record of the radio call. If the Saunders' story has merit there SHOULD be a record somewhere I would think. How do we pursue this further? I don't think this should be dismissed out of hand but I am not seeing any confirmation yet of course. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:33:30 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? I agree that we just can't throw this anecdotal recollection out the window. He was a PAA airport manager, knew Noonan very well (his description of drinking), he was on Wake, Kingman Reef, and maybe Midway. He recalls Musick. Anyway the guy had some bono fides re the Earhart story, and was after all taking time and energy to write to the Chief Radioman Bellarts about some article in the SF Chroncile. I am at a standstill now, on where to go. I am in touch with a Midway Island resident who is trying to dig up some more information re Saunders. His letter by the way, was on his own Letterhead "Stewart A. Saunders", printed nicely at the top. He was not mickey the dope. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:34:02 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? To: Alan Caldwell Interesting argument that you posted - maybe some truth to claim of receiving a message from the cable company. You guess that Noonan's message could have been sent at 0742 but the Itasca log shows that AE made a call at that time - "must be on you but can't see you." Wouldn't this suggest that if FN did make the call it would have been sometime before 0742? That is, how long would it have taken them to travel the 80 miles before AE would have thought they were now "on you but can't see you." Take the time to travel 80 miles from the 0742 time and get a new time. With this new time would it be possible for FN to get a sunline fix i.e. was the sun high enough to get a fix? You might have to subtract a little more time here to allow for FN to calculate and fix a position on his chart, etc. How does this little extra time fall into the time frame for getting a sunline? At 0758 AE says "we are circling but can't hear you." How does this 16 minutes (0758-0742) line up with the time to travel 80 miles? At 0803 AE says "we received your signals (assuming the AAA's) but can't get a minimum." At this time they would have been "circling" for 5 minutes or there abouts. At 0843 AE says they are "on the line 157/337 running on north and south line." So, from the time you might estimate when FN could have made his sunline fix, report they were 80 miles SW of Howland, fly the 80 miles NE, circle 5 or so minutes, then run the 157/337 line for some period - I would guess some kind of search pattern - then set off for parts unknown i.e. Gardner, would your calculations give them enough fuel to reach the island we are so interested in? Regarding the 30 minute fuel remaining comment. What do others think this might refer to? Time before having to get into their reserve, the time estimated before they ran out of fuel, or the time estimate basis what they see on the gauges. My guess would be time left before getting into the reserves basis they flew an additional hour looking in the vicinity of Howland - i.e. 0843-0742 from initial report to time of last transmission. Having said this would there have been enough reserve remaining to allow them to reach Gardner? Ted Campbell ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:34:56 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? Well, I'm confused. We know that Itasca heard AE say "we must be on you". AE & FN thought they knew where they were in relation to Howland at this time. Later Itasca hears that AE was running north and south on the line 157-337. This latter reception implies that they do not know where they are in relation to Howland. Now, in this as-yet unconfirmed PAA reception, they know exactly where they are, 80 miles SE of Howland. Can someone explain how they went from running 157-337 without knowing where Howland was, to knowing exactly where Howland was? Furthermore, if the were indeed 80 miles SE of Howland with 30 minutes of gas left, why did Itasca not hear this particular transmission? And finally, if they were indeed 80 miles SE of Howland with 30 minutes of gas left, why didn't they at least find Baker Island? There are many inconsistencies here, that don't add up to me. -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 13:54:23 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? To Paige, et al re the "Saunders Recollection" A few guesses about the Saunders letter. He wrote this some 31 years later for clarification about the msgs to Leo Bellart. He didn't have the hard copy of the msg and he was recalling what he was told while having dinner with Capt Ed Musick,PAA, while on Midway Is. Since his letter refers to the gas situation (low or thirty minutes) whatever msg he received has to have been heard around the 0742 time, not a dinner time at Midway. I think MIdway and Howland were on the same clock. But nevertheless by dinner, AE had long run out of fuel. His recollection of 80 miles southeast, could be southwest or even northwest, I guess. His reference to receiving or implying the msg came from "Noonan" may simply be that it was a general generic reference to the Electra and Earhart. Since Saunders was a pal of Noonan, he may well have thought it was Noonan sending a msg or his memory was faulty. I would probably take Noonan out of the equation. We are still left with who sent this msg to Midway. Was it another PAA station at Honlulu, the "Cable Co", etc that forwarded this to Midway sort of as a FIO. So we must struggle with the sunline, 80 miles southeast (seems to me an amateur reported that same distance) and the thirty minutes of gas report. Intriguing.... Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 18:24:32 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Kingman Reef/ PAA receptions of Earhart? Ted, I made my comments loosely and did not mean to imply the mystery message was transmitted or received precisely at 07:42 but rather in that general time frame. The 30 minutes of fuel is a possible comment but an unlikely one as there was no way for the crew to know exactly how many minutes of fuel were remaining. The Daily Express, similarly configured had to land short of destination solely for the purpose of dipping the tanks as they could not determine fuel remaining from the gauges. The fuel comment cannot have any significance. Only if there was a position and associated time could the message have any importance. It is not likely Noonan made the radio call but I think Ron Bright has analyzed that issue well. Without seeing the actual message speculating on this is worse than tilting at windmills. Noonan could possibly have shot a sun line at any time so we can't do any computations based on 80 miles in some direction at some unknown time. As to the radio call regarding "circling" if you will check the archives you will find that it is generally accepted that the word was "listening." Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 20:58:38 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Midway message Ron Bright says: > Since his letter refers to the gas situation (low or thirty minutes) > whatever msg he received has to have been heard around the 0742 time, not a > dinner time at Midway. I'm sorry, I cannot accept the logic behind this statement. 1) At 0742, Amelia tells Itasca "We must be on you but cannot see you" That is inconsistent with the purported content of the message that AE is 80 mi southeast of Howland. 2) If there is 30 minutes of gas left (as opposed to "low gas" which could mean anything), that happens much later than 0742, unless you buy into Elgen Long's calculations, which I do not. And as Alan points out, there is no way for the crew to estimate their remaining gas. -- Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 08:34:38 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Midway message I find it difficult to agree with Paige Miller who, referring to Alan, says that "there is no way for the crew to estimate their remaining gas". This statement is contradictionary to the way airplanes are flown. Fuel monitoring is part of any flight planning and all the more so on such a long flight across the vast Pacific Ocean. Any pilot can tell you that in the flight planning phase an airplane's route is plotted and so is the amount of fuel that is going to be burned en route. During flight planning fuel remaining is actually written at regular intervals on the map(s) used for navigating the airplane to its destination. When I learned flying we were taught to draw our planned route on the map, indicate such important information as heading, altitude, ground speed AND FUEL REMAINING at regular intervals. The amount of fuel remaining was calculated, based on the published fuel consumption of the engine(s). And these published figures were reliable. I am sure that Amelia Earhart planned her flight not differently and in accordance to procedures. No one in his right mind would embark on such a flight without an eye on fuel consumption. As any pilot knows at any given time how much gas is left in the tanks, I feel pretty sure that when Amelia Earhart talked to Itasca she knew what she was talking about. The fuel situation calculation, made before take off in the flight planning phase, is an essential part of flight planning. Of course, after all those hours in the air Earhart's actual fuel situation may have varied a bit from initial calculations and not correct down to the last gallon, but at least she knew what her fuel situation was. Since Fred Noonan was in charge of navigation he too had to be familiar with that part of the flight planning. Therefore he must have been aware of the fuel situation as well. LT. (who knows pilots dot their I's and cross their T's because they know the value of little things like these) ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 08:43:37 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Midway message Herman, that is a good dissertation on what should have happened but there is no evidence they had a fuel chart. Apply your logic to the "Daily Express" whose crew landed and dipped their tanks to find that answer. Why did THEY not know how much fuel was in their tanks but AE and Fred DID? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 10:13:14 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Midway message Wouldn't the fact that AE said ANYTHING about fuel infer that they had some idea of their fuel consumption/fuel remaining while in flight? They may have been way off on their calculations but I think her statement (either 30 min. remaining or running low) tells us they had some idea of what fuel they were burning along the way. Secondly, if the TIGHAR hypotheses is correct they must have had some idea of the fuel remaining before lighting out for Gardner in order to keep from getting wet. Otherwise, I would assume their thinking would have been - of course I am guessing here - if we don't have enough fuel to get to land somewhere to the South let's just hang around the area of Howland until we run out, we just might happen upon Howland or at least we are in the general area where rescue ships are standing buy. I still think my post of 5/22/05 suggesting a resetting of the clock back to where they made possible reference to distance from Howland/fuel remaining, etc. would shed some light on whether it would have been even possible for them to make Gardner and/or have an idea of fuel consumed. Ted Campbell ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 10:14:24 From: Pat Thrasher Subject: TIGHAR Tracks The new issue of TIGHAR Tracks will be mailed tomorrow, including the two chapters from _The Suitcase in My Closet_. It goes out first class so everyone in the States should have it within a few days. Have fun. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 15:17:57 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Midway message NEVER BELIEVE THE FUEL GAUGES ! That is one of the things I learned. When you do the pre-flight check, first look at the gauges, then use a dip stick and check whether what is in the tanks corresponds with what the gauges say... I forgot the number of times I climbed on top of a (high wing) Cessna to check the fuel remaining in the tanks after a previous flight! Therefore I'm not surprised that the "Daily Express" crew landed and dipped their tanks to find out the answer. I would have done the same. They wanted to know how much fuel they would have for the return flight. You may be right there is no "evidence" AE and FN had a fuel chart. But I find it hard to believe anyone in his right mind would start out on such a flight without a means of knowing how much fuel he or she would be burning (and remaining) as the flight progresses. It's called "airmanship". LTM ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:28:23 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: MIdway message Plus Herman, I believe I've read here on the forum that the general opinion of the folks was that the Howland leg was the only flight where there was maximum fuel put on board. If AE and FN had no idea of how much fuel they burned on each leg nor did they have any idea of how much fuel remained near the end of each leg I would have thought (besides dumb "airmanship") they would have maximized the fuel load each time they landed and subsequently took off; I don't believe this was the case prior to Howland. Ted Campbell ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:28:52 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: fuel aboard Herman, I think you are probably right that AE and Noonan DID keep a fuel log. The crew of the Daily Express probably did too as in both cases fuel was critical. Yet, near the end of the Daily Express flight they STILL didn't know how much fuel they had and so landed with about an hour or so yet to go and dipped their tanks. when the gauges read full they know the tanks are full and when they read half they know that's reasonably what they have but when the needles are down close to the empty mark they don't know exactly how much fuel they have. And it is ONLY at that point that exact quantities need to be known. When the tanks are half full and they should have about 600 gallons an error of maybe 25 gallons per tank could not be read nor is it all that important. But when there should be 139 gallons total left that error is terribly important but still not readable on those gauges. One last point. If, as you say the performance charts are pretty doggone accurate and I agree, then I can say without fear of being significantly off that at 08:43 AM Itasca time the Electra had almost exactly 139 gallons of fuel left. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:30:39 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel aboard Ted, I have several comments so I'll put them in your note. Ted Campbell writes: > Wouldn't the fact that AE said ANYTHING about fuel infer that they had > some idea of their fuel consumption/fuel remaining while in flight? Certainly they would have had "some idea" of their fuel consumption but they needed more than just an idea. If they preplotted a fuel graph and plotted actual points in flight they should have been close but according to the same charts they would not have been down to 30 minutes at anytime we received radio reports from them through 08:43. > They may have been way off on their calculations but I think her statement > (either 30 min. remaining or running low) tells us they had some idea > of what fuel they were burning along the way. We don't know what "running low" meant and clearly they had far more than 30 minutes so whatever their "idea" was it wasn't accurate. Just as "we must be on you" was not accurate. > Secondly, if the TIGHAR hypotheses is correct they must have had some idea > of the fuel remaining before lighting out for Gardner in order to keep from > getting wet. Otherwise, I would assume their thinking would have been - of > course I am guessing here - if we don't have enough fuel to get to land > somewhere to the South let's just hang around the area of Howland until > we run out, we just might happen upon Howland or at least we are in the > general area where rescue ships are standing buy. Not at all, Ted. First of all we don't know they lighted out for Gardner or any other place or where they were at any time. They didn't know so whatever their rationale for whatever they did it was NOT based on an exact fuel reading OR an exact location. > I still think my post of 5/22/05 suggesting a resetting of the clock > back to where they made possible reference to distance from Howland/fuel > remaining,etc. would shed some light on whether it would have been even > possible for them to make Gardner and/or have an idea of fuel consumed. Ted, we don't know there WAS such a message or what it said. IF they said they were 80 miles in some direction we don't know what that direction was or if it was accurate. Nor do we know they said they only had 30 minutes of fuel left or WHEN the message was supposedly sent OR received. So the bottom line is no light can be shed at all from the Saunders story. Ted, here is where we are with the flight. We think they took off at 10:00 AM local Lae time but it has also been reported as 10:20. No absolute confirmation of either time. On their third in-flight report we are aware of they gave a position which MIGHT have been a visual sighting but gave no time. Judging from previous such reports we ought to conclude they were at that point plus or minus up to forty-five minutes. From that point on neither we nor anyone else on God's little green earth knows where or when they were at any particular point. We can't even guess how close they were to any place at any time. We don't know where they went or when they went there. We think they went to Gardner but we have little evidence to confirm that. Supposed sightings of aircraft wreckage on the reef is compelling at least. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:41:56 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: fuel aboard Ted Campbell says: > Secondly, if the TIGHAR hypotheses is correct they must have had some idea > of the fuel remaining before lighting out for Gardner in order to keep from > getting wet. Otherwise, I would assume their thinking would have been - of > course I am guessing here - if we don't have enough fuel to get to land > somewhere to the South let's just hang around the area of Howland until > we run out, we just might happen upon Howland or at least we are in the > general area where rescue ships are standing buy. As I understand the TIGHAR hypothesis, at no time did AE or FN decide to head for Gardner. Thus they never had to decide if they had enough fuel to get to Gardner. -- Paige Miller #2565 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:37:12 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fuel aboard Paige Miller wrote: > As I understand the TIGHAR hypothesis, at no time did AE or FN decide > to head for Gardner. Thus they never had to decide if they had enough > fuel to get to Gardner. Paige, you are reminding every one of a key point in our mystery. I would further support your statement by pointing out that AE THOUGHT they were over Howland but it is rather obvious they were not. Clearly they did NOT know where they were and if they didn't know their location it seems logical they could not make a decision to navigate from an unknown position to a specific position. If, somehow they got a fix they were satisfied with why would they go to anywhere other than Howland? It follows then that they either never got a fix and 1. blindly stumbled across Gardner or 2. headed in the general direction of the Phoenix group hoping to hit one of them or OR by the time they located their position they were too far south to make it back to Howland and realized they were closer to Gardener. I'm sure other scenarios could be devised but it seems unlikely they made some kind of fuel Vs destination decision. Not knowing their exact location or their exact fuel I don't see how one would do that. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 11:08:02 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: fuel aboard Alan, Refresh me again why you have exactly 139 gals left at 0843 when Long's calculations(and others) have them near empty. Frankly I doubt if anyone can come up with a figure that precise. Even Oscar Boswell says there were simply too many unknown variables enroute to give an accurate real time estimate of fuel remaining: ie headwinds, altitude changes, diversions, fuel flow problems, etc, no matter how precise fuel consumption could be calculated from Johnson's still air figures. They may have searched for Howland for hours,with their transmitter inoperable or Itasca not receiving. Noone knows for sure, until AE/FN or the Electra is found, exactly what their decisions were. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:37:01 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel aboard Ron, I was being facetious. Of course no one could figure their fuel exactly. First of all we don't know how much they started with or for certain their take off time but using the smallest reported figure and a 10:00 AM take off then simply applying the fuel charts to the elapsed time until their 08:43 AM radio call the fuel remaining is 139 gallons. Anyone if free to argue it could have been plus or minus some reasonable amount but no one can support zero. If you back that up with the actual fuel usage of the Daily Express you will get a similar result. In my opinion the reason Elgin has the fuel at zero is that he needs it to be at zero or the plane won't run out of gas when he wanted it to. I know of no one else who has computed the fuel reserve at zero. TIGHAR folks generally have come up with around 150 gallons. Oscar is correct in that there ARE variables. 1. Amount of fuel on board at take off. 2. Elapsed fight time. As to any other I don't know of any that could wipe out 139 to 150 gallons of fuel. The altitude the plane flew is of little significance according to Kelly Johnson. All their reported altitudes were well within the envelope. NO ONE REPORTED THEM AT 12,000 FEET, so you can put them between 7,000' and 10,000' for the leg. Clearly they could have flown other altitudes but there is NO evidence of that. Prop planes have a large envelope for altitudes with little effect on fuel. Not true of jets or turboprops. The fuel usage is a mechanical function as Oscar has posted numerous times. The engines use a specific weight of fuel to produce one brake horsepower and it takes so much BHP to move the plane through the air. As the plane gets lighter through fuel usage the GPH slowly reduces. That's all in the charts. I can also tell you if the angle of attack is extraordinarily off it will take more power to move the plane. There is a reasonably large envelope for that and it is not a supportable factor in this case. Wind does not blow on airplanes unless they are on the ground. The plane flies through a block of moving air. We don't care what the winds were. All we care about is how long the plane was in the air. Elgin created factors that cannot be supported to run the plane out of gas. Utter nonsense. Elgin ignored AE's position reports and flew the Electra on a different route forcing them to climb high over mountains. The known evidence disproves that. Secondly at that point in the flight it was not reasonable to get to that altitude nor would it have been necessary. Elgin also created an extraordinary headwind not supported by the facts and postulated they had to add a lot more power. None of that is anything but speculation. Elgin also got rid of fuel before take off without any evidence or support for the contention. Just go with the best supported facts and ignore all the other nonsense. You CAN reduce the fuel flow but to do so you have to slow the airplane down. From the known data it is clear they did NOT fly slow at a reduced GPH NOR did they fly faster at a higher GPH. They flew the required distance in a known amount of time. The bottom line is that you are correct that the EXACT fuel remaining at 08:43 cannot be determined but we can come close. What they did after 08:43 in searching or heading out is not relevant to how much fuel they had at 08:43. If you take the flight time from 10:00 AM local at Lae until 07:42 and the distance between Lae and Howland you can see they flew at roughly the expected airspeed. I recognize they were NOT at Howland at 07:42 but they were close enough that the average airspeed would not change significantly using a corrected actual location. In that amount of time their fuel expended is simply a matter of the aircraft performance charts. From 07:42 through the next hour they would most likely be at a reduced airspeed searching for Howland. Certainly they would not have used more than 38 gallons in that time. The fuel reserve in the Howland area is hardly a mystery. They had enough to get to Gardner, about four hours of fuel. No credible support can show they were out of gas. Any one can speculate about fuel leaks, engine or prop malfunctions and the like but no one can produce any evidence to support such speculations. Finally if the fuel on board was more than we have generally accepted they would have MORE fuel not less. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:39:20 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: fuel aboard There can be no doubt that AE was not where she thought she should have been. One cannot navigate from an unknown position to a known position. That is unless that destination happens to have radio equipment to give a QDM or a heading. However, this is can only be done after having established the direction from where the lost airplane is transmitting. . Since no such equipment was present at Gardner or anywhere else in the Phoenix Island, one can safely assume that AE and FN headed for the islands hoping to stumble upon one of them. LTM (who says : "never lose your bearings") ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:45:41 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: fuel aboard One of the questions that keep haunting me is why AE, after having failed to find Howland and to establish contact with Itasca, never made a blind transmission on the frequencies available to her announcing to whoever was listening that she would divert to the Phoenix Islands. LTM (who used to say that when a flyer is in trouble he should apply the CCC procedure: Climb, Confess, Communicate) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:18:27 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: fuel aboard To Ted Campbell It stands to reason that when Amelia Earhart took off from Lae she had all the fuel on board the airplane could hold. After all, hadn't she removed all unnecessary things, including some vital equipment, so that every pound and ounce saved could be translated into fuel? As I explained before, she must have calculated her fuel burn as any pilot did. It simply is unconceivable that she didn't. N normally she would have written the figures on her map(s) as all pilots did and still do. That was exactly what Charles Lindbergh did back in 1927. Fuel consumption of the Lockheed 10E was a known factor. Therefore AE and FN would have known how much gas was left when they approached Howland. I do agree that AE's figures were merely calculated, based on the Kelly Johnson charts. No one can rely on what fuel gauges say. That is the reason why fuel consumption is always calculated for each and every flight. The actual amount of fuel remaining would not have been far from what had been calculated although the exact figure may have been a little different perhaps. That we shall never know. If her maps were found we would know a lot more... We all know how long the Lockheed 10E had been in the air. Therefore it can be calculated how much fuel she SHOULD still have had when she arrived at what she believed to be Howland. I think we agreed on 139 gallons. Give or take a few gallons this is the figure we have to work with. The very fact that she was able to still transmit long after her ETA had run out, indicates she had enough fuel to get to someplace. And that someplace can only have been the nearest land. Which, according to the theory TIGHAR is trying to prove, was Gardner Island. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:13:11 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: fuel aboard Herman, we may never know the answers to a lot of our questions I am afraid. Based on some of the radio traffic we know of the answer to your radio question may not be that complicated. First of all we have to concede AE may have made all kinds of radio transmissions we have no record of. Secondly at 08:43 she switched to her day time frequency that may not have been receivable at close range. Leaving Lae she was not heard from until over four hours after take off that we are aware of. It was her night time frequency that Itasca heard in close. It could be that after switching to 6210 she never got far enough away for the Itasca to hear her. Certainly someone must have unless her radios just failed. The post loss radio transmissions make that seem not likely. I think it was just a propagation problem. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:47:00 From: Emmett Hoolihan Subject: Re: fuel aboard Alan Caldwell & Herman DeWolf(2406): IMHO, the radio problem was much simpler than you make it out to be. As a student pilot in 1961 Colorado Sprigs, CO, our radios in the rental fleet were the "coffee grinder" type(no crystals). You really didn't know for sure that you were on the correct frequency until hearing a voice. That being the case in 1961, think of the radio tech in July of 1937. Add to that that most reports place Amelia as not the" brightest candle in the shop" when it comes to radio tech in general, and I think a valid conclusion would be that at the very least she was grossly deficient in aircraft radio procedures. Am I missing something? "Diverting to---" wouldn't have entered her mind even if she knew where she was going. By that time their brains were probably fried after being aloft such an extended period of time. One can only imagine! LTM, Emmett 2405S ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 19:38:35 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: fuel aboard > ...she must have calculated her fuel burn as any pilot did. It simply is > unconceivable that she didn't. Normally she would have written the figures > on her map(s) as all pilots did and still do. On all of the maps used by AE and FN that I examined at the Purdue Library, none of them had any along-the-route fuel burn rates. The only exception was her loitering around Hawaii from the Oakland to Honolulu trip, when she stated she was burning (I think this is correct) 18 gal/hour. This figure was on the back of the map.