Date:         Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:57:10
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Thanks from Alan Caldwell

Thanks, Marcus.

*******************

Thanks, Dennis. I was an instructor pilot in both stateside and combat and often it was the most hazardous part of my job.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:57:35
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fatal mistakes

Good post, Marty. In my early flying days I used RDF for navigation and it was on all of our instrument check rides. RDF is NOT precision flying. Turbulence, thunderstorms and inherent errors made it less than the fun way to go. It allowed you to get close but even had AE been able to use such equipment she could have still missed Howland. no doubt she would have eventually pinned down the island, however.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:58:28
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Risks vs. rewards

Dennis McGee wrote:

> unfair to
> compare AE's final flight with others' earlier exploits, specifically
> Lindberg's flight or that of the White Bird.

That's true, Dennis. Both were aiming for targets impossible to miss.

My Son sails out of sight of the Texas coast into the Gulf. Drives Dad batty but my Son counters with, "All I have to do is head north. You can't miss North America."

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:00:42
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Fatal mistakes

For Marty Moleski

In my opinion the crash during the take-off run at Hawaii was another example of  Amelia Earhart overconfidence. She took off with asymmetric power settings to offset the effect of side wind. This was not according to the book as any pilot will tell you. Normally airplanes take off with full power from both engines. In the case of a tail dragger, as was the case with the Lockheed Electra, the tail comes up when speed is sufficient, which in an Electra is pretty soon after full power. From that moment on rudder and elevator become effective and the aircraft can be held on the runway centreline with the rudder. It is interesting to note that the Electra had two rudders. This as a special feature of the Electra, devised by John Kelly to increase longitudinal control as both rudders were mounted in the slipstream of the propellers, increasing their effectiveness. By using asymmetric power settings Amelia Earhart clearly intended to avoid having to push the pedals to hard and was planning to set both engines at the same rpm once the tail came up and obtain full power for the take off run when the tail came up. That is where things went wrong.

In any tail dragger, when the tail comes up there is a gyroscopic moment tending to send the aircraft in the opposite direction the propeller is turning. In Amelia Earhart's case adding power to the one engine with lower rpm to offset wind effect during the take-off run increased the gyroscopic effect, sending the airplane out of control. That is what caused the crash. In today's airplanes nose wheels have replaced tail wheels. Pilots now have better control of an aircraft during taxi and take off. There is no need for asymmetric power settings. It's against the rules anyway. I do know however that very experienced pilots sometimes fly approaches with asymmetric propeller pitch to offset strong sidewind. This method is not in the book but it is being done. It's alright when the pilot is experienced and as long as there is no sudden emergency arising. In my view it is risky because any airplane may for some reason have to go around, requiring both propellers having equal pitch and full power from both engines.

In my view Amelia Earhart should have avoided taking off with asymmetric power settings at Hawaii. Again the fact that she did what she did shows she was overconfident by nature and was in fact experimenting with things she could not control.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:03:05
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Fatal mistakes

Marty Moleski wrote:

>One might also go back to a much earlier link in the accident chain.
>If only AE could have managed the takeoff from Hawaii properly, her
>three assistants on board the aircraft probably could have made the
>radios and DF work to find Howland.  The story of the ground-loop is
>shrouded in AE's defensive statements and in the unwillingness of her
>passengers to testify against her, but I don't see how it was anything
>but pilot error on her part that led to the Luke Field crash.

- Sorry, but here we can ask some questions..

Who ever proved conclusively that the Luke field crash was really caused exactly by AE's piloting error - not a technical or any other cause (blown tire, etc.?) As far as i know, nothing like this was ever proven.

Why we must admit as something "obvious " that the story of the ground loop is  "shrouded in AE's defensive statements and the unwillingness of others to testify against her" - who ever prove that these statements were false and the positions of AE's companions were not sincere?

...In my personal view, it is rather a guess that may be caused rather by generally skeptical attitude to AE's (and especially GP's) statements. Yes, GP was both a husband and promoter of AE, and obviously wanted her to be presented in a "good light" in the media. It is truth. But whether it means that his - and her - statements about the reasons of accidents were necessarily untrue?... Certainly, I wouldn't say so.

There were many stories and versions about that Hawaii ground loop... not necessarily connected with the blown tire. Just for example: there was a story about Paul Mantz who was last who landed the Electra before that ill-fated takeoff, and made a quite rough landing that could damage the landing gear and weaken its mechanism... so, when the plane tried to take off - heavy and overloaded by fuel - the gear collapsed. 

I am not trying to say this version must be a holy truth. But why to abandon these, alternative versions so readily, and accept the version that it was NECESSARILY personally AE who was guilty in the ground loop - so unconditionally and readily?

Frankly, i can't see such a reason. Because of Paul Mantz?... Sorry, but he had his own reasons to be critical about AE... He was not generally kind about women pilots in general (his claims about Jackie Cochran are the good illustration...), and felt angry when he was "excluded" from the final stages and the departure of AE and FN during the second attempt... and so on.

Again, I would note specially that my position is not an attempt to say that AE or Fred Noonan were "saints" and never could make the error... and not a general advocacy of the thesis "no bad word about the dead ones".

The tendency that I am arguing against  is just this general tendency to be "specially skeptical about celebrities", and the tendency to accept readily the most critical and skeptic estimations of the abilities of the professional - on the basis of rather just a guesses about what exactly caused the fatal outcome of her final flight, and without too much respect to the previous most deserved and professionally conclusive career of this individual... Not more, not less...

Best Regards - LTM, Marcus Lind
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:47:12
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: fatal mistakes

> From Herman De Wulf ( #2406)
>
> In my opinion the crash during the take-off run at Hawaii was another
> example of Amelia Earhart overconfidence. She took off with asymmetric
> power settings to offset the effect of side wind.  ...

Thanks for the explanation of the mistake she made.

I agree with your overall idea that it was overconfidence that led to AE and FN's death.

After the Luke Field crash, AE got the plane all the way around the world.  On her takeoff from Lae, she showed immense courage as the plane apparently sank into ground effect off the end of the runway.

LTM.

Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:47:36
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Book available

The book "AMELIA'S VOICE" is available at: http://www.cafepress.com/johnwariner

George R. Werth
TIGHAR Member #2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:22:31
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Another Mystery Solved?

Ric's manuscript raised a point that may help to explain a question which has nagged me ever since I first read AMELIA EARHART'S SHOES, mainly, why the skipper of the USS COLORADO was unwilling to take a closer look at Gardner Island after Lt. Lambrecht reported seeing "signs of recent habitation" during his flyover of the island, but still concluded that no one was there.  Normally, when a senior officer receives a report from a junior officer that includes a conclusion, the senior officer rejects the conclusion out of hand or at least considers it suspect.  (Having been on both sides of that equation, I know this for a fact.)  Had Friedell acted in the predictable military manner, he would have rejected Lambrecht's conclusion about no one being on Gardner and given serious consideration to landing a shore party for a closer look.  However, as Ric points out in his manuscript, the Navy did not have accurate charts for the waters surrounding Gardner Island.

By standing in closer to shore, there was a very real danger that the COLORADO could have run aground with loss of life, loss of the ship,  and for Friedell, the loss of his career.  Given the stakes involved, is it any wonder that Friedell accepted Lambrecht's conclusion with little if any argument?

While we don't know for sure what Lambrecht reported to Friedell, but we do know that Friedell endorsed (and presumably read) the article  that Lambrecht submitted to the Bureau of Aeronautics Weekly News Letter (known today as NAVAL AVIATION NEWS), which clearly stated his having seen signs of recent habitation on Gardner.

LTM (who also never took any unnecessary risks)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:15:17
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Book available

Is the book "AE's Voice" a serious research book? What is the general nature of the book.

REBright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 2 Oct 2005 22:36:50
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Radios and crashes

Marcus Lind reads Marty M.'s comments and says:

" - Sorry, but here we can ask some questions.."

Yet two days ago, when I asked Marcus what caused AE's flight to fail, he refused to answer, giving the meaningless reply that they couldn't find the island. So, Marcus, if you are going to ask followup questions of Marty, and expect a reply, then I guess its fair for me to ask you a follow-up question (or three) ... and expect a reply...

Marcus, why was AE unable to find Howland Island?

And how could this happen if she was such a good pilot, as you seem to be implying?

And, what role did the radio issues play in this tragedy?

--
Paige Miller #2565	
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:35:55
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Another mystery solved?

Eric Beheim says:

>Had Friedell acted in the predictable military manner, he would have
>rejected Lambrecht's conclusion about no one being on Gardner and given
>serious consideration to landing a shore party for a closer look.
>However, as Ric points out in his manuscript, the Navy did not have
>accurate charts for the waters surrounding Gardner Island.

I happen to believe that Friedell accepted Lambrecht's conclusion. Why -- because I think Lambrecht's conclusion was that he saw no living humans after "buzzing" the island. He, and Friedell, were probably thinking that if an airplane flies around the island, any living human beings there will run out of the brush and try to signal the airplane by waving their arms, or otherwise. In fact, Lambrecht says in his report "Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there."

Thus, the conclusion was: no living humans, no need for further search on Gardner. I don't think the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the charts was a deciding factor at all.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:36:26
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Radios and crashes

For Paige Miller:

Sorry, Sir, but i gave my answer. And it was NOT "meaningless". It just reflected the real, factual level of our knowledge  - not only "my", but a generally available level of this knowledge  - about the exact actual reasons of the failure. Not more, not less. I just didn't want to speculate when being asked about exact, factual knowledge ("WHY?..."), Actually, NOBODY is having this exact knowledge today.  So - i answered: "I don't KNOW. What is really KNOWN  is just that they didn't find the island".

Amen.

I mean, we just know that they never found the island; and can just GUESS (since we never were in the cabin with AE and FN...  never researched the plane and its equipment after the crash...  etc.)  what could be an exact reason of the tragedy.

Yes, i certainly think that the radio played a very significant role in the situation.

Yes, i can imagine that some "gaps" in radio skills of the crew COULD play a serious negative role in the outcome.

But it is just a GUESS, as we do not know what was an exact reason why the radio on this leg didn't work well - was it damaged, or not properly tuned, or not properly used, etc. etc. etc. And, actually, my position was - and is - that is is unreasonable and not very fair to make a strong conclusions about general competence and skills of Earhart (and Noonan)  on the base of not any exact knowledge but just our guesses and beliefs about the  reasons of the fatal outcome - the guesses and beliefs that are, in my personal view, seriously influenced by the "post-factual knowledge syndrome" of us, with all the continuous and pretty well deserved professional careers of these individuals
factually ignored.

Respectfully - LTM, Marcus Lind

======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:37:09
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Asymmetrical thrust?

Herman De Wulf said: "In my view Amelia Earhart should have avoided taking off with asymmetric power settings at Hawaii. Again the fact that she did what she did shows she was overconfident by nature and was in fact experimenting with things she could not control."

Was the use of asymmetrical powers settings during take-off something AE had done before?  I don't know.  If in fact she had used this procedure often in the past then I would hesitate to call it "experimenting with things she could not control."  And if she had used this often the past then I would hesitate to also say she was overconfident.

I don't want to get tied down splitting hairs on the meaning of words, but not knowing her real-world experience in using asymmetrical thrust for cross wind take-offs I think we need to hedge our conclusions stating something to the effect, "While there is no record of Earhart's skills using this procedure, . . ."

LTM, who avoids asymmetrical thrust . . . ,
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:05:44
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Dennis McGee

Dennis,

I don't know whether Amelia Earhart had ever taken off with asymmetric power settings before. If she did it was not according the book. Normal procedure for taxi with side wind in a single engine airplane is keeping the stick (or the yoke) in the wind, using differential braking to keep the airplane on a straight line. However, multi engine aircraft can use asymmetric power setting during taxi when practical. However, on take off full power from both engines is required. Therefore in a multi engine tail dragger ( and high power singles too) when lined up on the runway centreline the pilot will then lock the tail wheel in the neutral position to keep the airplane on a straight course during the initial take off run. Once the tail comes up the rudder will be effective and there is then no need for a locked tail wheel any more. In my view Amelia Earhart was experimenting in a cavalier way with a newly found technique to begin the take off roll without locked tail wheel. It could be because the Lockheed 10 does not have a tail wheel locking mechanism. Is there anyone on this forum who is familiar with this item in the Lockheed 10 manual ?

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:06:07
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

I agree, Dennis. I flew single engine mostly although I DID use asymmetrical thrust the little time I had in twins. It just made sense to use whatever controls did the trick. Barring some comment from AE to that effect I don't think we have a clue whether she did or didn't.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 09:57:05
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

About this "Asymmetrical thrust" problem - just a thought that may be, possibly,  worth to consider.

In March 1937, in fact, AE was already not a novice in her Electra. She started to fly in it many months ago, and - despite her many activities on the ground in this period - still flew in it enough extensively, making a lot of takeoofs - and landings - at different conditions.

She flew in it with Jackie Cochran, Paul Mantz, and Kelly Johnson - who estimated her skills in this plane and good and competent.

And if she would want to make some "experiment" at the takeoff - the "cavallier" and risky one, or not so much - i would guess she probably would try to do it before that Hawaii takeoff, at less responsible and critical conditions.

And if she really did it ever before, obviously it did not lead to any serious incident (otherwise, we would know about it). Thus, since then she would know how to "walk out" from this situation successfully.

IN SUM, because of abovementioned, it seems somewhat doubtful for me that AE would try any "experimenting" with her Electra - without any actual need -  at such a responsible, difficult and important takeoff as it was on Hawaii then...  just during the World Flight, and having her crew aboard.

These thoughts leads me to a guess that the actual reason of the groundloop was another one, and probably rather lied in some technical  or other roots (blown tire? wind? weakened gear?... other reasons?... )- so something happened so suddenly and quickly that AE was unable to keep the bird under control... but not like she deliberately "experimented" with it in that exact moment. Just my thoughts of course.

Best Regards - LTM, Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:20:34
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Marcus Lind

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Taking off with asymmetrical power settings was not and is not in the book.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:53:51
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Herman De Wulf:

You wrote: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Taking off with asymmetrical power settings was not and is not in the book" -

 - sorry, cannot understand for sure what you mean... please clarify. If the idea is that the groundloop itself is a proof of the "asymmetrical power error" made, i would be cautios about such a statement.

Generally, the groundloop actually starts from some "asymmetrical action" - on influence - made on the plane... but the exact initial reason was not so necessarily the actions of pilot. It could also be wind... a blown tire... some other asymmetrical  problem in the landing gear... etc... Of course the possibility of the pilot's error also stays in this listing... but still not as undoubtful and obvious actual reason, i would say.

Best Regards - LTM, Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:23:37
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      No Answering Wave

Regarding the recent discussions here about Friedell, Lambrecht, and "no answering wave" coming from the atoll with "signs of recent habitation," I also note that Lambrecht's conclusion was that because of the above, Gardner contained "no living humans."

Hadn't AE and FN been missing for a week by the time of Lambrecht's flyover of Gardner Island?

Hadn't the great bulk of post-loss radio intercepts ended a few days earlier?

Mightn't somebody involved put two and two together, and upon reaching four, thought that since the missing duo weren't found alive somewhere else, that Gardner might possibly contain, along with "signs of recent habitation,"  some non-living humans?

Now I realize that I personally am a great deal more curious than most other people I know regarding oddities and things that look out of place, but Lambrecht and Co. weren't average joes.  They were on a SEARCH mission, and reported seeing signs of recent habitation on an uninhabited island in an area where the people they were searching for had gone missing.

Regardless of what the search planes didn't see -- an "answering wave"--  unless there was something very different about the human thought process between then and now, the situation and the known facts merited a landing party on Gardner Island.

LTM, who notes that getting a motor launch or other small craft from the Colorado across Gardner's fringing reef would have been another matter entirely,

Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:34:01
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

For Dave Porter

There has been much wondering and speculation about what those intriguing "signs of recent habitation" may have been.

William Webster-Garman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:50:13
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Accidents happen

For Marcus Lind

Marcus,

A ground loop is the result of the pilot losing control of the airplane. It is a phenomenon typical for tail draggers. Nose wheel aircraft don't ground loop because the nose wheel keeps the aircraft in a straight line. Tail draggers have their CG after  their main wheels. Therefore if the pilot loses control, the tail will try overtaking the airplane. During take off this is caused (among other things) by the gyroscopic effect created by the propeller(s), which tends to send the airplane off course during the take off run in the opposite direction of the direction the propeller is turning. This is offset by the pilot who, by pushing one of the pedals, uses the rudder to counter this effect. If the pilot fails to do so his airplane will leave the runway. Pilots know this and are trained for it to take off in a straight line by using rudder to keep their airplane on the runway centreline. Because their CG is behind their landing gear, tail draggers are more difficult to taxi than nose wheel airplanes in a side wind. Therefore pilots have to anticipate and react using  rudder and if necessary apply differential braking to keep the airplane in a straight line. In the case of twin engine tail dragger asymmetric power settings can be used to keep the airplane in a straight line. That result in one side of the airplane being pulled forward by the engine more than the other side. This can safely be done because little power is needed to taxi.

At take off full power is needed. It is considered dangerous to use asymmetrical power settings during the take off run because one side of the airplane will want to run faster than the other side. Therefore normal procedure is to have both engines providing full power. As soon as the tail rises the rudder is effective and the pilot will be able to keep his airplane on the runway centerline using his feet (using the rudder pedals). To keep the airplane in a straight line between the moment full power is applied and the rudder becoming effective, powerful tails draggers (like multi engines) have a system enabling the tail wheel to be locked so that the airplane can only go in a straight line. As the tail comes up the rudder will be effective an the pilot will be able to keep his airplane on the runway centreline.

Accidents have known to have happened because one of the engines failed during the take off run. This will send the airplane off the runway. It takes a good pilot to react in time and prevent an accident. Even then a good pilot may not be enough for an airplane can run away regardless the good pilot. Ask any old-timer who flew props during WW II.

Taking off with asymmetrical power settings to offset the effect of side wind during the take off run (as AE said she did) is something which is not in aircraft manuals. In my view it is dangerous and the crash at Luke airfield proved it was and it still is. It is risky because at take off the pilot will need full power from both engines. He will have to move the one lever forward of the engine providing less power than the other. That moment comes when the rudder becomes effective. It is the very moment when the gyroscopic effect of the propellers comes into effect which tends to send the airplane off the runway. With the gyroscopic effect from the one engine turning at full power already having to be taken care of, and the gyroscopic effect from the lagging engine coming up, the gyroscopic effect multiplies. Any pilot can be surprised by the suddenness of the phenomenon and the airplane will then ground loop. I have ground looped an airplane in my lifetime and therefore I know what I am talking about.

An airplane will run away with you and consider yourself lucky (which was my case) when the plane is sturdy and merely comes to a stop having made a 180 degree turn because you switched off the engine(s) immediately. I have known airplanes ripping off their landing gear sideways during the turn and land on their belly, as was the case with Amelia Earhart's Electra. I have known airplanes to run away with the pilot during take off an crash into a building after a 90 degree turn during the take off run.

I hope this explanation was sufficiently clear to explain my point?

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:32:37
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical power

Herman De Wulf said: "In my view [using asymmetrical power at take-off] is dangerous and the crash at Luke airfield proved it was and it still is."

I wasn't aware we had positively established that AE was using asymmetrical power at take-off.

LTM, who remains positive
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:57:34
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Accidents happen

Marcus Lind says:

"Yes, i can imagine that some 'gaps' in radio skills of the crew COULD play a serious negative role in the outcome."

Why do you have to imagine 'gaps' that COULD play a serious negative role? I believe it is a fact that AE and FN were not proficient in morse code. Eric Chater wrote: "On enquiry Miss Earhart and Captain Noonan advised that they entirely depended on radio telephone reception as neither of them were able to read morse at any speed but could recognise an individual letter sent several times. This point was again mentioned by both of them later when two different sets at Lae were used for listening in for time signals." That seems to me to be a gap that does not need to be imagined that prevented effective communication between Itasca and AE, as well as AE and the rest of the world after her disappearance. I cannot see how you can describe this knowledge as "post-factul (sic) knowledge syndrome".

Nor do I think it is "post-factul knowledge syndrome" to state that in 1937, Pan Am flew across the ocean, finding small islands by using Radio Direction Finding equipment; while AE took off for Howland believing that FN could find this tiny island by celestial navigation and without the help of radio. When she got to where FN said Howland should be, and they couldn't find the island, she tried using RDF techniques without success. Perhaps I should invent an "overconfidence" theory ... but this seems to me to be clearly knowledge that is most definitely not "post-factum" knowledge, as Itasca knew right then and there that AE could not find a minimum. Do you agree? And it seems to me that this lack of success with RDF techniques DID IN FACT play a serious negative role in the outcome. Do you agree?

I also have a general problem with your twice-stated disapproval of what you call "post-factul knowledge syndrome". Isn't learning things well after the fact  what historical research is all about? I mean, how else would you do historical research? For any research to be valid, it has to be based on facts ... even facts that were not well known at the time, as long as the facts are documented ... so, what exactly is wrong with "post-factul knowledge syndrome"?

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:51:47
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Accidents happen

Your note makes me wonder.  Do the propellers on a two-engine plane rotate in opposite directions?  Dan P.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:46:28
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Props

For Dan Postellon.

They don't but there have been a few exceptions in history. The WW II Lockheed P-39 Lightning twin boom fighter was one. So was the British de Havilland Hornet ship borne twin engine fighter. As a rule twin engine aircraft have both propellers turning in the same direction : to the right (as seen from the cockpit) in US built aircraft, to the left in British built aircraft (the one British exception was the Rolls Royce Merlin, which also turned to the right (Merlins powered the WW II Hurricane and Spitfire fighters, the multi-purpose twin engine Mosquito and the four engine Lancaster and Halifax strategic bombers.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:46:03
From:         From Dennis McGee
Subject:      Props

Dan Postellon said:  "Do the propellers on a two-engine plane rotate in opposite directions?"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  It depends on the make and model of the aircraft and make and model of the engines.

LTM, a well-known make and model
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:56:44
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Let's think this thing through.

Why would one use asymmetric power on takeoff?

Some  basic flying discussion is in order. Tail dragger aircraft have the center of gravity located aft of the main wheels so there must be a tail wheel to support the tail of the aircraft. That arrangement was known as "conventional gear" in the past. Now it is much more common to have the main wheels located further aft so the COG is forward of the main wheels and a nose wheel is then needed to keep the airplane in a level attitude Ground loops result  from having the COG behind the main wheels. If something causes the plane to start to swerve then the momentum of the COG rotating around the resistance from the wheels will cause the swerve to get more and more extreme and results in a loss of control on the ground. You can try this experiment when at the grocery store. Take a normal shopping cart which has castering wheels in front and fixed wheels in back Push it forward in the normal way and then give it a little turn and let go, the cart will straighten out and go straight ahead. Now turn the cart around and push it backwards and try the same experiment and you will see a ground loop and the cart might spin completely around if you had it going fast enough at the start.

If you look at any aircraft you will notice that there is much more of the aircraft fuselage aft of the main wheels than forward and this was even more pronounced in taildraggers since the main wheels are mounted further forward. Because of this, all airplanes have a weathervaning tendency which means that it will attempt to turn into the wind when in contact with the ground just like a weathervane. This is more pronounced with taildraggers but is still a problem with nosewheel airplanes. In order to keep the nose of the plane aimed down the runway when there is a  cross wind you line up on the runway using differential braking to point the nose, taxi a little forward to straighten out the tailwheel, lock it in place, (in aircraft that have such locking capability, does the Electra?) hold rudder away from the wind, hold the stick all of the way back to hold the tailwheel in solid contact with the runway, add full power to accelerate. After you reach a speed where the rudder will give you sufficient directional control to hold the nose straight in spite of the weathervaning tendency you push the stick forward to raise the tail while applying rudder away from the wind to keep the nose going straight. You complete the acceleration to takeoff speed in this attitude and then raise the nose slightly and climb out. In airplanes that can't lock the tailwheel you must use taps of the brake on the downwind side to keep it going straight which delays the takeoff.

Asymmetric thrust will also cause the nose to yaw (swing) just like using the rudder and can be used to steer the plane on the ground. It is quite common to bring up the power on only one side to make a sharp turn while taxiing, it is like rowing a boat with only one oar in the water.

So, back to the question, why would you use asymmetric power on takeoff? The only reason would be to keep the plane from weathervaning into an extremely strong crosswind, a wind too strong to deal with by use of the rudder alone. This would require using full power on the upwind side and something less on the downwind side for less than full power in total which would lengthen the takeoff run which doesn't seem like a good idea. A better way would be to simply hold the tail down until a higher speed is obtained where the rudder would have more authority to maintain directional control.

And another basic question, is there any reason to think that there was an extremely strong crosswind for the takeoff from Hawaii?

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:03:10
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Gary La Pook

Gary,

You are asking the right question. What do we know about wind conditions at Luke Field? The fact that Amelia Earhart took off with asymmetric power seems to indicate there must have been a strong sidewind to make her make that decision. That makes me wonder whether perhaps the Lockheed 10 did not have tail wheel locking. Is there anyone on the forum who knows that? You explain the take off run very well. With the locked tail wheel down the airplane will indeed stay on the runway centreline during the initial run. But as speed builds up fast the tail will come up. It will even without the pilot helping by using the yoke. Normally he will help a bit because the sooner the tail wheel is up, the sooner will the pilot have control using rudder. In my view there was no point in using asymmetric power settings during the initial take off run. To my knowledge that procedure is not even in the book. I do know that some pilots develop their own techniques with time that are not always approved of. As for airplanes with nose wheels, there are two kinds. There are models with a free nose wheel and there are others that can be steered using the rudder pedals on the ground. Those with the free nose wheels also have a tendency to weathervane. Today most airplanes have nose wheels that are steered, using the rudder pedals on the ground. Bigger aircraft have a separate small steering wheel set aside in the cockpit. Such airplanes will hardly weathervane.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:04:18
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Counter-rotating props

Thanks!  I was thinking that this would cancel out any gyroscopic effects, but I suppose it would make maintenance hell, with two different engines and props.  Dan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:05:36
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Counter-rotating props

Most airplanes have both engines rotating in the same direction, clockwise as seen from behind for american planes. Some more modern planes have counter rotating props with the left one going clockwise and the right prop turning counter clockwise as seen from behind for american planes. This involves a lot of complexity (read expense) since one engine has to be manufactured to turn the wrong way and the prop also. There is an advantage, which is why it is done, because counter rotating props lower the  Vmc (minimum control  airspeed)  so the plane can be flown at a slower speed and use shorter runways for takeoff  and landing.

There is one plane that has counter rotating props that turn in the wrong directions ( left one CCW and the right one CW) and actually increase Vmc. This is the P38 and no one has been able to explain to me why it was designed that way. Anybody know?

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:49:04
From:         Peter Polen
Subject:      Re: Asymmetric thrust

> asymmetric power

Ok Folks I think I need to add a little something here regarding this discussion.

First I have flown several twin engine airplanes in my day, use to own a Cessna 310 twin. Never used Asymmetric Power in my life, and was never trained to do it except maybe in a very low speed turn while taxing.

Second  regarding the Electra you are forgetting that the purpose of putting "twin" rudders on this plane situated on each side in the air stream from the engines was so the air from full power of each engine gave more affective ness to the rudders. If you used asymmetric power you defeat the purpose of positioning the rudders in the engine air stream.

Peter (wish I had the 310 back except for today's fuel prices) Polen
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 21:20:20
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Signs of recent habitation

Paige Miller wrote:

> Thus, the conclusion was: no living humans, no need for further search
> on Gardner. I don't think the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the charts
> was a deciding factor at all.

I believe it was Ric who once estimated that the total amount of time that Lt. Lambrecht could have spent flying over Gardner Island was about 10 minutes.  In any case, the fact that no "living person" responded to his "repeating circling and zooming" still leaves a number of questions unanswered.  What if they were unconscious?  What if they were too sick or injured to drag themselves out to where they could be seen?  What if they were already dead?  And so on.  These are the questions that Friedell would typically have put to Lambrecht when told that signs of recent habitation had been observed on an island that was supposedly uninhabited.  He then would have had to decide whether or not he wanted to risk his ship, his crew and his career to find out for certain.

LTM (who also should have asked some questions.)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 21:21:14
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Herman De Wulf wrote:

> ... In my view there was no point in using asymmetric power settings
> during the initial take off run. To my knowledge that procedure is not
> even in the book. I do know that some pilots develop their own techniques
> with time that are not always approved of. ...

The following is pure, idle speculation (nature abhors a vacuum, you know):

It seems possible to me that AE learned to use asymmetric thrust to taxi the plane and may have said to herself, "If it works so well at low speed, perhaps it would be a good trick to use during the takeoff run as well."

Since AE's mind is no longer around for me to use ESP on it, I can't provide any evidence for this theory.

I submit it as a suggestion that MIGHT help make sense of any data that may exist in the historical record (from Mantz or AE herself?) that hints at the use of differential power to steer the plane during the takeoff run.

The one thought that makes me hesitate to believe that she started out the run with differential power is that the plane was heavily loaded with four souls on board plus a fair amount of fuel for the flight to Howland.  Would she have risked using less than full power?  Did she reach for the throttles when the rudder did not seem effective?  Was there a moment of panic when the plane left the centerline and didn't seem to be coming back quickly enough?

I don't know.

Just throwing some ideas into the vacuum of evidence.  :o(

The hypothesis that still seems reasonable to me is this:  IF AE made a mistake on the takeoff from Luke Field, that is the first error that kicked off the chain of events that led to the fatal accident several months later.  IF it was purely and simply an accident (prop governor went bad, a tire blew, a bad gust of wind greater than the airframe could handle), then it was this accident that was the first link in the accident chain.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 21:24:21
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Counter-rotating props

>  From Gary La Pook
>
> There is one plane that has counter rotating props that turn in the wrong
> directions ( left one CCW and the right one CW) and actually increase Vmc.
> This is the P38 and no one has been able to explain to me why it was
> designed that way. Anybody know?

"The prototype started out with opposite propeller rotation, but from the first flights there was a puzzling aerodynamic buffeting.  An engine swap, left for right solved the problem and all the production P-38's had the same rotation; CW on the port side and CCW on the starboard side, when viewed from the front of the plane.  This simply means that Vmc is the same on either single engine, and yes, Vmc is a little higher than it would be if the props went the other way."

<http://www.team-38.com/8p38_faq.html>

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:09:43
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

Re: Lambrecht flight

It seems to me that Capt Friedel in charge of the aircraft  looking for Earhart may well have interrogated Lambrecht and his observer, and the others pilots, exactly what was  meant by "signs of recent habitation". It sounds so cold and final when just reading Lambrechts report. We will never know, and Lt Lambrechts explanation to Goerner was made long after the flight. Who knows for sure?

Ron B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:10:17
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

> And another basic question, is there any reason to think that there was
> an extremely strong crosswind for the takeoff from Hawaii?

Is there any clue what the winds for take off were cross wind or otherwise?

If I'm not mistaken, however, Herman's comment dealt with attempting to correct the normal gyroscopic turning of the aircraft on take off not correcting for a cross wind.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:10:52
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Dan Postellon said:  "I was thinking that this would cancel out any gyroscopic effects, but I suppose it would make maintenance hell, with two different engines and props."

Gyroscopic effects?  Hmmm, I've always called it torque.  Torque is a measurement of turning or twisting force, and gyroscopic effect would be . . .???  Are they one and the same?

LTM, who cut class that day
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:11:53
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

Eric Beheim said:

> In any case, the fact that no "living person" responded to his
> "repeating circling and zooming" still leaves a number of questions
> unanswered.  What if they were unconscious?  What if they were too
> sick or injured to drag themselves out to where they could be seen? 
> 
> . . . .  These are the questions that Friedell would typically have
> put to Lambrecht....

We do not know what Lambrecht told Friedell after the recon flight, or what questions were asked.  And there is no evidence that Friedell saw and approved Lambrecht's account of the recon flight that appeared later in the ship's newsletter.

Yes, we can use our past experiences to assume certain things, but I'm not convinced we should do that in this instance.

Had either man lived long enough to witness the confusion their inaccuracies and omissions caused among TIGHAR members I like to think they would have done things differently.  But then, I'm an optimist.

:-)

LTM, who often checks six
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:12:22
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Accidents happen

Paige Miller wrote: "Why do you have to imagine 'gaps' that COULD play a serious negative role? I believe it is a fact that AE and FN were not proficient in morse code" -

- yes, you are right - accordingly to available sources, they really weren't. I am not challenging this.

I am rather just skeptical about the idea to claim in a strong and unconditional way that it was an exact reason of the failure of the flight. I would be just more cautious about strong conclusions... that's all... as, actually, we weren't there in the cabin with AE and FN, so we don't know what an equipment (if any) could work improperly and why exactly, what an errors exactly  (if any) the crew did and why... and so on.

Also, You wrote: "it seems to me that this lack of success with RDF techniques DID IN FACT play a serious negative role in the outcome. Do you agree?" -

- yes, of course... My point was that we do not know for sure why exactly there was no success in RDF techniques in that exact case: was it because of the error of the crew, or the device was somehow damaged or worked improperly, etc. i.e. - again the EXACT reason of the failure is unclear.

About the "post-factum knowledge syndrome" in relation to the AE-FN disappearance research.

In my understannding, it is when we are trying to judge (and sometimes in a pretty strong way) how proficient or stupid were those people - and their decisions -  when we already know the outcome of their effort (and despite we do not know for sure the exact technical reasons of the failure)... and some people even makes a generally derogatory comments about the general competence of these people, factually ignoring by this way all the previous pretty proficient and deserved carreers of them.

The most simple example, in my view, is that one - about the morse key - that was already mentioned. I mean this "logical chain", that already looks as almost "canonized" sometimes :

"AE didn't want that equipment (that really could be useful)  - the flight ended with a tragedy  - thus, look how stupid she was" - and so on.

I am pretty sure if the flight would be successfully finished in Oakland after a few more days, the canonized and generally accepted "logical chain" would be:

"AE didn't want the morse key - many specialists warned how risky it was - but she really won and completed the flight without it! - so look how brave and proficient she is!" - and so on.

Both variants are the perfect example of the "post-factum knowledge syndrome", in my view.

LTM - Best Regards, Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:26:05
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Dennis McGee

Airplanes with contra-rotating propellers did not have two different engines. Both engines were the same but one engine had a gear box that made its propeller turn the other way.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:27:24
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Alan Caldwell

Alan,

I have no clue what the wind was at Luke Airfield that day. But the fact that Amelia Earhart chose to use differential power setting is an indication she must have been worried about the effect of a serious cross wind, serious enough anyway to make her choose that procedure. Gyroscopic effect appears during any take off with Any tail dragger regardless the wind. Under normal conditions this is not a problem as the pilot is trained for it. I explained the phenomenon merely to make it understood why on that particular day and under those particular circumstances Amelia Earhart lost control and the take off went wrong.

LTM
**********************************************

We don't know that Earhart *did* "jockey the throttles." We only know that Paul Mantz told her not to and thought that perhaps she did.

We don't know exactly what caused the wreck at Luke Field.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:28:45
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Accidents happen

For Herman De Wulf:

Thank you very much; your dissertation about the asymmetric power settings is really detailed and sufficiently clear to explain your point... and i do agree with your arguments.

Still, however, for me the general question is:  whether it was really the pilot's error about asymmetrical power that caused exactly this groundloop - or it could be also caused by another reasons, like technical ones (blown tire, etc.)? I would not dismiss this last possibility so readily and easily.

Also, i would agree with the doubts expresed in one of the last Marty Moleski's postings... It seems highly unlikely that AE would try any "experiments" with overloaded plane, full of fuel and with several souls aboard,  just at that responsible and important takeoff from Hawaii... If she would want some risky "experimenting" of this or any other sort, she had a full possibility to try it before...

Best Regards - LTM, sincerely - Amercus Lind
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:33:24
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Herman De Wulf said:  "Airplanes with contra-rotating propellers did not have two different engines. Both engines were the same but one engine had a gear box that made its propeller turn the other way"

Yes, but the part numbers for each engine will be different, therefore, different engines.  They will both have similar and/or identical parts, but they are different engines.  It is my understanding that when you modify an engine to alter its performance characteristics you are dealing with a different engine.

LTM, who is also different
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:33:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

On the subject of asymmetrical power settings I know of no evidence to suggest she was using that on take off in Honolulu. To the contrary there is evidence or at least a strong suggestion she was not. I don't know where anyone got that notion as a "fact." If someone does know please let me know.

Although I would never consider "Last Flight" a solid and indisputable document of fact, AE says on take off the plane suddenly pulled to the right and THEN she reduced power on the opposite engine hoping to control the turn indicating to me she had full power on both engines on the start of take off roll.

It would appear, then, that the problem occurred BEFORE asymmetrical power was initiated. It is also clear she MAY have over corrected but that only means she was unable to resolve the initial malfunction successfully.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:34:23
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Dennis McGee

Dennis,

I think it may be useful to explain some of the basics of flying for the benefit of forumites who are not familiar with flying an airplane. When an aircraft takes off a number of aerodynamic phenomena take place. First of all there is the wind. Normally an airplane takes off into the wind. However, since airfields have runways these days, airplanes have to use them. As a result they will have to take off with a side wind most of the time. A side wind pushes against the fuselage. As an airplane with a conventional landing gear (known as a tail dragger) begins its take-off run, it will act like a weathervane and turn into the wind. The pilot corrects this by applying opposite rudder. At the same time the propeller turning at full rpm is throwing the air backwards. The air swirls around the fuselage and hits the stabiliser. In an airplane with an engine turning to the right, the swirling air will hit the stabiliser from the left. This will push the tail to the right, forcing the aircraft to turn the left. This again is neutralised by the pilot who applies right rudder to counteract. Next there is torque. As the propeller turns to the right the airplane will react by wanting to turn left. The pilot also counters this by applying right rudder. Next is asymmetrical thrust from the propeller. It so happens that the propeller blade going down produces more thrust than the propeller blade coming up. This results in one side of the airplane wanting to accelerate more than the other side. In the case of an engine turning to the right, this will again mean the airplane will want to turn left. Again the pilot counters this by using right rudder. Finally a turning propeller is a giant gyroscope. Any force applied to it to change its attitude will translate into a movement 90 degrees away from the direction the gyroscope is turning. As a result when a tail dragger's tail comes up, the propeller will act like a gyroscope and push the nose of the airplane to the opposite direction, which again is to the left. All this may seem complex but in fact it is all very simple. As any pilot will tell you all he has to do is to apply rudder during take off to keep the airplane in a straight line. Apply all this to a British-built airplane with a British engine turning to the left and the airplane will tend to veer to the right all the time and the pilot will use his right foot to apply right rudder.  When taking off in an airplane with an engine turning to the right he will use his right foot. In an airplane with an engine turning to the left he will use left foot. No matter which engine is involved, the pilot will control the aircraft perfectly by applying rudder. The one factor with a noticeable influence will be the amount of side wind, which will demand proper rudder use. If you think this sounds complicated, in fact it takes an instructor in ground school half an hour to explain but when the student pilot is confronted with his first take- off, he understands it in half a second...

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:35:09
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Counter-rotating props

I can find no reference to the direction of rotation of the propellers on a P-38 being the cause of aerodynamic buffet. The source was improperly diagnosed as elevator flutter but was finally corrected by adding large wing-root fillets.

The propellers on the original XP-38 rotated inboard, that is, the port (left to those in Rio Linda) rotated clockwise and the starboard rotated counter-clockwise as viewed from the rear. With the exception of 143 aircraft built for export, the propellers on production aircraft rotated outboard. The props on the export aircraft all rotated clockwise.

Sources for the above are: Lockheed Aircraft since 1913, Francillon (NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS!), and Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Green.

I recall, but cannot immediately find a reference, that engines shipped to forward combat units all had clockwise rotating props, and were installed in either the left or right position. This was done to simplify inventory.

P-38 Trivia:

Mr. Charles Lindbergh, having been refused his commission by FDR, was (shhh!) sent to the Pacific by his employer, United Aircraft Corporation, where he instructed USAAF pilots in P-38 cruise control and flew several combat missions. On July 28, 1944, he shot down a Mitsubishi Ki-51.

P-38s ordered by the French (part of the 143 exceptions) specified throttles that operated in the reverse direction. This goes a long way toward explaining the success the French enjoyed against the Luftwaffe.

A P-38 was the first aircraft to land in Japan following their surrender on August 15, 1944.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:35:55
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

Dave Porter wrote:

> Lambrecht and Co. weren't average joes

Indeed.  In 1937, battleship skippers were the equivalent of aircraft carrier skippers today.  They were the Navy's most elite officers and constituted the "short list" from which future flag officers would be selected.  Getting underway from Pearl Harbor, CAPT Friedell undoubtedly was aware that AE was one of the most famous women in America, that she had many high-placed friends in Washington and elsewhere, and that the search mission would be front-page news.  In his final report detailing the COLORADO's role in the operation, Friedell clearly and concisely makes the case as to why the Phoenix Islands were the most logical place to search for the missing fliers. Yet, he concludes by stating categorically that "no dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation."  He must have based this conclusion on what he was told by LT Lambrecht or the people who debriefed Lambrecht.  Or, he deliberately chose not to report that Lambrecht had seen signs of recent habitation.  Had he done so, he (Friedell) might have had to explain why he didn't follow up by landing a search party. A few days after submitting his report, Friedell received for endorsement Lambrecht's official account of the search. This he undoubtedly read.  (Trust me, no officer in his position is going to endorse and forward something up the chain-of-command without reading it first.)  There, he reads that signs of recent habitation HAD been seen on Gardner.  Despite the fact that this directly contradicts his own account, he endorses and forwards Lambrecht's version anyhow. Since these two accounts were "chopped" by the same people further up the chain, it becomes harder and harder to understand why Friedell and Lambrecht were not asked to explain their actions in more detail.  (Or perhaps they were and the findings were never made public.  If this was the case, Friedell's strongest excuse would have been that he didn't want to endanger his ship by having to rely on inaccurate charts.)

LTM (who never had to rely on anything)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:36:31
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Herman De Wulf wrote:

> But the fact that Amelia Earhart chose to use differential power
> setting is an
> indication she must have been worried about the effect of a serious
> cross wind,
> serious enough anyway to make her choose that procedure.

Herman, where does this "fact" come from?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:37:08
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

From what I have read on this subject so far I see no evidence there was a crosswind or any wind at all or that asymmetrical power was being used for take off.

I have always taken the chiding to AE for "jockeying" the throttles as moving BOTH throttles back and forth rather than smoothly setting her power. That is a common fault of many pilots. I have never considered that it meant moving them in opposite directions. That would not be an expected conclusion when "jockeying" is discussed.

As a long time instructor I can tell you we try to teach "attitude" control along with a smooth and minimum throttle adjustment.  Instead many pilots jockey the throttles back and forth (in unison) trying to set an airspeed in climbs and descents.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:58:03
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Counter-rotating props

Skeet,

Thanks for all that information. Do you know why the production aircraft had engines that rotated outboard?

Gary laPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:35:49
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Alan Caldwell

Good question Alan. I read it somewhere but I'm unable just now to say where. I'll  have to look it up. It is one of those things I have always remembered because it seemed very plausible. In my opinion your are already providing the answer where you state that  Amelia Earhart said she reduced power on the left engine when the Electra started moving to the right during the  take-off run. To me this looks like the asymmetrical power setting we are talking about. I tend to believe her. I have always heard that in the first comments a pilot makes after a crash usually  reveal the truth.

LTM (who will try and find where to find it in print)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:45:33
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

What Mr. De Wulf said may be true for some aircraft but not for all. Some quick examples include the Piper Twin Comanche, designated as PA-30. Originally it was equipped with two engines that both turned to the right, clockwise. The model number for these engines is IO-320-B1A manufactured by Lycoming. The nomenclature is standard in the industry. The "I" means "injected" and the "O" means "opposed" the "320" is the displacement of the engine in cubic inches and the remaining letters refer to specific variations of the basic engine. When the Twin Comanche was improved with counter rotating engines the right engine was replaced with a LIO-320-B1A, the "L" meaning rotating to the left. The Piper Chieftain, PA-31-350,  uses a TIO-520-J2BD on the left and a LTIO-520-J2BD on the right. The added "T" means turbo-charged. None of these engines have gears. The Cessna Golden Eagle, C-421, does use geared engines, GTSIO-520-H, the same on both sides. The ":G" means geared. So to get these engines to turn the other way means they must have a different cam shaft, different prop and governor, different starter and probably other parts that I am not aware of possibly including crankshafts with different harmonic dampers.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:38:14
From:         Ron Dawson
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

I'm relying on memory as I did this research several years back. I was unable to find any naval documentation of Lambrecht's observer (J.L Marks, as I recall). He was not listed as a crewman on the Colorado's logs, nor was he found in general naval records for that time period.

Ron Dawson
2126
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:38:44
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Herman, AE is talking about reducing power on one engine to correct her plane's sudden swerve to the right not using asymmetrical power for take off to correct for a crosswind.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:39:19
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

To Dave Porter

I think you are arguing that because Lambrecht saw signs of recent habitation, but no answering wave, that the Colorado could should go back to search for "non-living humans". If I misunderstood you, please correct me. I think that would have been a foolish mission for Colorado, given the danger (the reef), the time and expense involved, plus as we now know, it would probably take weeks to search the entire island. And, was it their mission to find dead people? I don't think so. Plus, it is unlikely that Friedell knew the history of the island; perhaps those signs of recent habitation were from a survey party or other landing party? How would Friedell be able to say who was responsible for those signs of recent habitation. I think Friedell's decision not to search Gardner was very reasonable.

To Eric Beheim

Yes, I'm sure there must have been a discussion between  Lambrecht and Friedell about those issues you raise...however the the argument that AE might have been unconscious/sick/injured could also be applied to all Pheonix Islands, so I don't think it would have been a persuasive argument at that time. Nevertheless, it definitely would have been an interesting discussion. Which leads me to speculate...

Who wants to speculate with me? Let's suppose that as Lambrecht is circling Gardner, AE runs out of the brush, in poor health now, and waves her arms and Lambrecht sees her. Lambrecht immediately radios Colorado with the news but he has no way of landing on Gardner or contacting AE at that time. What happens next? How would they get AE off the island? Remember that when the Norwich City crew had to be rescued, they had to wait until Polynesian men who were experts at handling small boats were able to arrive at Gardner and make their way through the reef. And if you are AE, where do you wait for the airplane or ship to return? So, anybody ... what's the plan for Colorado and for AE?

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who always loved an answering wave)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:41:25
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Answering wave, accidents happen

They also could have been taken off by the Japanese Navy and were on the way to Japan.

Re: Accidents:
Great Explanation ! Aren't there any accident reports of the crashes she had and fault determined ?

Well stated, Paige!
Jim Preston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:00:53
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

Carol Osborne, at my request,  talked a couple of years ago with J. Ashley Wilson, Lambrecht's afternoon observer, the one that recalled the Hull Island landing. He could offer nothing re the morning flight over Gardner, but had heard nothing relevant. Only that binoculars were used.

REB
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:01:17
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

For Paige,el

Only a speculation, but one that I think played a role, if Lt Lambrecht missed seeing AE or FN or SOS signals on the beach or the island. Perception and anticipation!

Some of us have seen the helicopter tour ride around the island filmed by movie director Gillespie, and indeed it can be argued that it was possible to miss them.   LT Lambrecht and the other pilots were primarily geared to look for a big silver Electra 10E somewhere down on a reef or in the lagoon, something one could not miss. And  not seeing the aircraft, it may have influenced their attention and observation. Strickly an opinion.

LTM,
Ron Bright
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:02:00
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Herman De Wulf  wrote:

> Airplanes with contra-rotating propellers did not have two different
> engines. Both engines were the same but one engine had a gear box that
> made its propeller turn the other way.

I looked at a P-38 exhibit recently at the March Field Museum (Riverside, Calif.). My understanding from their displays was that the engines themselves (not the gearboxes) were different. Gary La Pook posted a list of parts that would be different in the two engines . . . I think the distributor, or else the plug wiring pattern, needs to be different too.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================= 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:03:00
From:         Patric Gaston
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

...because it's too funny not to...

Okay, I know I'm not supposed to post, but ....

"Let's suppose that as Lambrecht is circling Gardner, AE runs out of the brush, in poor health now, and waves her arms and Lambrecht sees her. Lambrecht immediately radios Colorado with the news but he has no way of landing on Gardner or contacting AE at that time. What happens next? How would they get AE off the island? Remember that when the Norwich City crew had to be rescued, they had to wait until Polynesian men who were experts at handling small boats were able to arrive at Gardner and make their way through the reef. And if you are AE, where do you wait for the airplane or ship to return? So, anybody ... what's the plan for Colorado and for AE?"

Good God, Paige.

1.  You land in the lagoon.
2.  Failing that, you do a some wig-wags to let AE know you've seen her, return to the Colorado, pick up a couple hundred cans of Spam, fly back to Gardner and drop them on the beach (hmmm ... maybe that's how Fred got that nasty head wound).  Tied to one of the cans is a note: "Camp pinpointed; all's well.   Breakers are hell.  Mother sends love. Remain near ship."

AE was thus the first person in history to endure a spam attack.

Pat Gaston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:03:29
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Alan,

Isn't reducing power on one engine asymmetrical thrust ? I'm pretty sure that this was the moment things began to get out of hand during the Luke Field take-off. Any idea whether Amelia Earhart's legs were long enough?  No this is not a joke. I've known tail draggers to groundloop because the pilot's legs were not long enough and he couldn't push the rudder pedal all the way down. Perhaps this may explain why Amelia Earhart chose to reduce power on the left engine.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:18:49
From:         Marcus Lind
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For Herman De Wulf:

If i understand Alan's point correctly, he argued that - possibly - AE used the "asymmetric trust" as her REACTION in attempt to regain the control over the plane, that was lost because of some (still not very clear) reason, when the plane suddenly started to groundloop... but not like she used the assymmetrical trust "from the beginning" and this was a primary initial  REASON of all the incident... Alan, please did I understand you right?

About AE's legs: she was a tall woman (5'8"), and some friends of her specially noticed that she had a very long legs... some even described her as having "the longest legs in the world!"...

Best Regards - LTM, Marcus Lind
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:24:54
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

Dennis McGee wrote:

> And there is no evidence that Friedell saw and approved Lambrecht's
> account of the recon flight that appeared later in the ship's
> newsletter.

Actually, Lambrecht's account was submitted via Friedell to the Bureau of Aeronautics Weekly Newsletter, an official Navy publication that is known today as NAVAL AVIATION NEWS.  While I can't say for sure what its distribution list was in 1937, it undoubtedly went to all Naval Aviation activities as does NAVAL AVIATION NEWS today.

As the senior officer in charge of the operation, Friedell was responsible for making all the hard calls based on the information provided by Lambrecht, so he undoubtedly asked some additional questions of Lambrecht or the people who debriefed him.  But of course, we don't know what orders Friedell had been given about standing in too close to Gardner Island or landing a shore party on another country's territory.  These also might have played a part in his decision not to investigate Gardner Island a little more closely.

LTM (who also made some hard calls)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:25:21
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Here's our latest model

Does anyone know; when the Lockheed Electra 10 was introduced, was it a state-of-the-art aircraft? I'm trying to get a feel for the caliber of plane this was. Was it a Cadillac or was it more of a Ford? Anyone know what a 10 would cost?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:29:20
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1

Danny Brown asks:

> The tanks of particular interest are the small ones at Amelia's left
> and right shoulder. The big one she is leaning on seems to have larger
> rivets than the artifact. I know you have probably already checked
> this, but I thought I'd make sure.

Yes, we considered that possibility, but 2-2-V-1 is .032 Alclad, far heavier than the very thin aluminum used in the tanks.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:30:20
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Signs of recent habitation

Ron Dawson said:

> I'm relying on memory as I did this research several years back.
> I was unable to find any naval documentation of Lambrecht's observer
> (J.L Marks, as I recall). He was not listed as a crewman on the
> Colorado's logs, nor was he found in general naval records for that
> time period.

Could he have been one the cadets that were onboard for training?

LTM, who is fully trained
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:31:13
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Captain's oversight

Paige Miller said:

> How would Friedell be able to say who was responsible for those
> signs of recent habitation. I think Friedell's decision not to search
> Gardner was very reasonable.

I would disagree with that.

Assuming Lambrecht told Friedell of the "recent habitation" then I think Friedell is remiss in not at least highlighting it in his report with the recommendation that a more detailed search be done at some point.  Had Friedell followed through on Lambrecht's sighting and been successful, the Navy would've garnered untold favorable publicity.  Even had they found AE/FN dead the Colorado captain and crew would've probably still been heroes for rescuing the remains of one of America's biggest stars.

Certainly I'm viewing this from a 65-year perspective, but not following up this clue is at best only reflective of 1937 search and rescue techniques and at worse a career-ending oversight by the captain.

LTM, whose career is also ending
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:31:54
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Spam attack

Patrick Gaston said:

> AE was thus the first person in history to endure a spam attack.

How long have you been waiting to use THAT one? ;-)

LTM, who loves Spam, but not spam
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:32:37
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

  From Alan Caldwell

> Isn't reducing power on one engine asymmetrical thrust ? I'm pretty sure
> that this was the moment things began to get out of hand during the Luke
> Field take-off..

Herman, the issue as I understood it was whether AE used asymmetrical thrust for take off not whether she used it to try to correct a problem that had already happened.

From the comments in her book "Last Flight" she was NOT using asymmetrical thrust for takeoff but ONLY to try to correct the sudden swerve to the right. That is entirely a different matter.

As to exactly when one could say things were getting out of hand that has to remain pure speculation. Maybe things were out of hand on the initial swerve and her use of asymmetrical thrust was simply to no avail. OR by her proper use of asymmetrical thrust she could have corrected the initial problem but over corrected and THEN things were out of hand. Which, we will never know.

All of this discussion about using asymmetrical thrust as a takeoff procedure has no relevance to the Honolulu takeoff.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:48:47
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

> Alan, please did i understand you right?

Perfectly, Marcus.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:52:59
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Electra history

Alfred, here is some info on the Electra.

Lockheed remained with Detroit Aircraft until 1931, when Detroit Aircraft went into receivership. A group of investors led by Robert Gross bailed the company out and purchased Lockheed's assets in 1932 for $40,000, forming the new Lockheed Aircraft Corporation with Lloyd C. Stearman as president. Allan Lockheed, who had left the company in 1929, returned as a consultant. Gross also attracted Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, a young engineer who would soon help make Lockheed's reputation.

Gross realized that the company needed to move past the Vega and similar planes if it was to compete with the other major aircraft companies, Boeing and Douglas. He also saw that the future lay with multi-engine planes and pushed for construction of a new plane that would be smaller, faster, and cheaper to operate than the larger Boeing and Douglas planes. His initiative paid off. Lockheed's innovative twin-engine Model 10 Electra, with retractable landing gear and twin fins and rudders, helped establish the company's line of commercial passenger aircraft. The 10-passenger all-metal plane flew for the first time on February 23, 1934. Northwest Airlines was the first airline to use the plane. In the late 1930s, eight U.S. airlines flew the plane as did European, Australian, Canadian, and South American customers. Model  10 Electras were used for long-distance flights, and Major James "Jimmy" Doolittle flew an Electra from Chicago to New Orleans in five hours 55 minutes in 1936 -- two hours quicker than the previous fastest time. Amelia Earhart disappeared in an Electra on her round-the-world attempt.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:17:43
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Recent habitation

For Eric Beheim

> Yet, he [Friedell] concludes by stating categorically that 'no
> dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation.' He
> must have based this conclusion on what he was told by LT Lambrecht or
> the people who debriefed Lambrecht. Or, he deliberately chose not to
> report that Lambrecht had seen signs of recent habitation. ... Despite
> the fact that this directly contradicts his own account, he endorses
> and forwards Lambrecht's version anyhow.

Hmmm...

Friedell says no signs of habitation (in the present) while Lambrecht says signs of recent habitation (in the past) ... I do not see any conflict between these two statements at all.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:18:44
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      No answering wave

For Paige Miller

The "non-living humans" I was suggesting Colorado search for were AE and FN:  sorry, I thought that was clear.  Whether or not Colorado's crew knew the history of the island, my point, which I stated clearly, or so I thought, was that signs of recent habitation were seen on an uninhabited island in the very area the searchers believed that AE and FN had gone down.  Was the importance of the search for Amelia and Fred in any way diminished by the thought that they might already have perished?

You note that the island would take a long time to search thoroughly. If a landing party found anything indicating the presence of AE and FN, why would there be time constraints placed on their actions?

"Well boys, as you can tell by the pry marks and footprints, it's clear that someone has very recently broken into the supply cache that the Norwich City survivors left behind.  Too bad our time's up, lets get back to the ship, and try not to step on any of those sharp shiny pieces of aluminum.  Jones, bring along that sextant you found, we'll put it to good use."

I also understand that getting a landing party ashore presented some difficulties; I alluded to that very thing in my LTM signoff note.  Are you suggesting that the level of difficulty involved in the task made it not worth doing?  On such a high profile mission as this was, that seems counterintuitive.

NOTE:  I understand and fully support TIGHAR's maxim that "we don't risk live people to find dead people."  That said, the Navy isn't TIGHAR.  The military has always been a risky profession, and has often risked the lives of its members for things far more trivial than finding missing Americans, alive or dead.

Uncharted or mis-charted reefs?  For as long as human beings have been going to sea in ships there have been procedures for dealing with things like that.

Yes, it is fun to speculate.  Let's go with your speculation of AE waving from the beach to Colorado's search party.  Couldn't one of the planes drop some supplies to keep her alive while the landing problem was sorted out?  Again, you seem to suggest that they abandon her to her fate simply because getting a rescue party ashore would have been difficult and dangerous.  I'd love to hear the press conference wherein that decision was explained..."Yes, as a matter of fact Mr. Putnam we did find your wife.  Well sir, she was alive the last time we saw her, but you see, she was on land, and we're the Navy you understand...it's just not our...ah...idiom.  Let's not bicker or argue over who killed who, this is supposed to be a happy occasion."

Paige, you make the case that the actual course of action taken by Colorado was "very reasonable," due to risk to the ship and crew.  I argue that given the circumstances, (signs of recent habitation on an uninhabited island in the area where the missing persons were thought to have gone missing)putting a landing party ashore on Gardner would have been an equally reasonable course of action.

LTM, who loves filling out Defense Department Consolidated Risk Management Worksheets,

Dave Porter, 2288
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:19:12
From:         Tom Strange
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Asymmetrical thrust/differential power settings, was this the cause of the Luke Field crash of NR16020 on or about 0619 of 20 March 1937? It appears many on this forum believe it to be so. This as many other aspects surrounding Amelia Earhart is open to speculation, and with that in mind, consider the following.

What do the crash site photos taken a little after 0900 show?

From documented accounts of the incident any significant weather mentioned?

How much time in type did Earhart have prior to incident?

The aircraft from engine start to conclusion of incident covered approximately 1000 feet of runway in a time span of 9 minutes, with aircraft NR16020 having made a 180 degree turn coming to rest mid-field facing in the opposite direction of take off run. No one has documented the beginning of aircraft oscillation from centerline take off, most assume shortly after tail wheel liftoff. Did Earhart taxi on to hard surface then proceed with take off run or did she start the take off run from a stationary position on the hard surface?

Documentation suggests two crewmen in aft navigation area of aircraft at time of incident.

Were they secured in place at time of takeoff run or free to move about?

"Last Flight" tells of power lever movement to correct for movement of aircraft to right of center line direction of takeoff run. Was this after unsuccessful application of rudder movement by Earhart to correct right drift?

 What I am suggesting is the Luke Field accident involving NR16020 is far more complicated to dismiss as pilot error revolving around power lever movement alone. I have only scratched the surface. As they say in hill country "you can kick the dog all night on this subject"

Food for thought.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 7 Oct 2005 18:48:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Tom Strang wrote:

> The aircraft from engine start to conclusion of incident covered
> approximately 1000 feet of runway in a time span of 9 minutes,

Where does this come from, Tom?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:45:39
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Signs of habitation

To Dave Porter

Yes, I understood you regarding the "non-living humans"; I understood that you meant AE and FN.  I do not know what specific orders Friedell received for this mission. However, I am not aware that the mission of the United States Navy was to recover dead civilians. Even in these extreme and high publicized conditions, I can't see the Navy doing this if there was a large expense or large effort involved. Furthermore, I do know that the search for AE was the most expensive search ever conducted by the United States Navy at that time, and of course Colorado was not supposed to be searching the Phoenix Islands, it was diverted from another mission. I don't see any of these facts pushing Friedell to search for dead civilians. I believe they would have swayed his decision in the direction of NOT searching for non-living humans.

We also don't know the exact conversations between Lambrecht and Friedell. I am sure that if Lambrecht said that those "signs of recent habitation" could have been a week or less old, Friedell might have undertaken a search. But perhaps Lambrecht said they were older than a week. Then what? Then you don't do a search. Friedell may have had very good reasons for ignoring those "signs of recent habitation".

Regarding your suggestion that if Lambrecht had seen AE, they should drop her some supplies. I think that's the best course of action. I cannot think of anything better (except perhaps to include some medicine in the package). The actual rescue might have taken some time due to the reef. I would hope that Lambrecht made note of the exact location where he saw AE and then dropped the package in that vicinity (or does your speculation envision dropping the package elsewhere?)

To Patrick Gaston

I'm not sure if you said everything in jest, or not ... but ... you can't have Lambrecht land in the lagoon. That airplane would never take off again. Spam doesn't work either, as AE doesn't have a can opener, just a clam opener!

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM

*****************************************

> you can't have Lambrecht land in the lagoon. That airplane would never
> take off again.

Paige, of course it would. It did at Hull.

Not that it would be a smart idea, but technically feasible.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:39:30
From:         Rusty Metter
Subject:      Re: Recent habitation

I think the signs of recent habitation may be simply a reference to the Norwich City supply shed and or wreck?

Rusty Metty

******************************************

The problem is we don't know. However, the Norwich City was referenced specifically so it's probably not that.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:51:09
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Signs of habitation

Paige Miller wrote:

> Friedell says no signs of habitation (in the present) while Lambrecht
> says signs of recent habitation (in the past) ... I do not see any
> conflict between these two statements at all.

Semantics aside, the statements "no dwellings appeared on Gardner OR ANY OTHER SIGNS OF INHABITATION" and "Here, SIGNS OF RECENT HABITATION WERE CLEARLY SEEN" are obviously contradictory.  Considering that CAPT Friedell's statement was based on the observations of LT Lambrecht, this contradiction of a critical point to the search effort becomes incomprehensible, given that they were both engaged in a high-profile, life & death rescue mission.  Friedell certainly knew that his official report of the COLORADO's role in the operation would be reviewed with more-than-usual interest and might even be read by FDR himself.  And LT Lambrecht was certainly not stupid enough to report one observation to Friedell and then a few days later have him to endorse an account that stated a totally different observation.  Given the possible consequences to his career, it is also incomprehensible why Friedell actually endorsed and forwarded Lambrecht's account, knowing that it contradicted his own official report on a very critical point.   Even more baffling is why those who reviewed these two accounts further up the chain-of-command failed to notice this contradiction. Of such stuff are conspiracy theories born.

LTM (who never contradicted anyone)
Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 8 Oct 2005 14:16:51
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Lagoon takeoff?

For Paige,

You said that Lambrechts plane couldn't take off from the Niku lagoon. What is that reason. He landed and took off from Hull's lagoon, or is there something different at Niku?

REB
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 8 Oct 2005 22:34:09
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Signs of habitation

The two chains of command, reviewing Lambrecht's article and the Search Report, were entirely different.  Except for Friedell, it is unlikely that anyone else in either chain was aware of the other report's details.

My interpretation is that while Friedell was obviously chary of bringing the Colorado close to any poorly charted island, he had available small boats carried by the Colorado that could have  been used.  Every ship in the Navy should have carried life boats, long boats, captain's boats, etc., that would have been used should there be a need to land personnel on one of the islands.  Why even undertake the cruise to search for Earhart if there was no way of going onto land to retrieve them onto the ship?

Lambrecht and co. were looking for a (nearly) intact plane in the lagoon or otherwise clearly visible.  They obviously did not see what they were looking for.  As for signs of recent habitation, there are many many possibilities that fit that phrase of English, ranging from a literal sign to abandoned dwellings of any sort.  The term "recent" may mean anything from 100 year old (relative to prehistoric dwellings), or day old. Unfortunately, Lambrecht's phrase is wide open to interpretation.  In my mind, whatever he and his colleagues communicated to Friedell was sufficient to warrant looking elsewhere and not landing personnel on Gardner.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 8 Oct 2005 22:36:39
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Lagoon takeoff?

For Ron Bright

All airplanes use a take off run to build up speed until their wings carry them. Seaplanes need a much longer take-off run than land planes because of the extra  drag from the water they have to overcome first. As a rule of thumb a sea plane will need about double the distance a comparable land plane would need. A seaplane begins its take-off run as a boat pulled through the water by the power of its propeller(s). As speed increases the shape of its floats (or its hull if it is a flying boat) will gradually push it upward and lift it out of the water. From that point on the airplane will skim over the water until it has built up a speed it will have to build up sufficient speed to come out of the water it will begin its real take-off run, skimming over the water until the air flow over its wings is sufficient for its wings to create lift and fly. All this takes a much longer distance (and more time) than a land plane taking of from a runway. As I understand it the lagoon at Gardner Island allowed Lambrecht room to land but not enough to take off again.

LTM
**********************************

The lagoon at Nikumaroro is approximately four miles (6.4 kilometers)
long. Call it six even.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:27:49
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Lagoon takeoff?

If the lagoon at Niku (Gardner Island) is 4 miles wide that should have been plenty of water to take off again. The question remains : why didn't Lambrecht land ?

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:29:33
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lagoon takeoff?

Possibly even the Spruce Goose could have got off in 30,000 feet.

Alan

*************************************

Unless and until it hit a coral head. The lagoon was surveyed for obstructions when they put in the LORAN station. There are LOTS of coral heads. It's hard to avoid them even in a slow, shallow-draft boat.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:58:09
From:         Larry Turner
Subject:      Re: Lagoon takeoff?

The reason he could not take off was, sure it was 4 miles wide but only 2000 feet LONG....:-)

LTM

*********************************

I guess that's a question of where you start measuring....
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 9 Oct 2005 12:56:35
From:         Lee Boyle
Subject:      Re: Lagoon takeoff

During WW11 PBY sea planes landed and took off from Gardner Island and Atafu Island.  The Coast Guard and Navy PBY did not have a problem landing and taking off.

I know because I came to the Atafu Island and those I replaces took off.  The same was at Gardner Island.

Lee Boyle.
Millville, DE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:18:33
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht's search report

Randy  Jacobson wrote:

> The two chains of command, reviewing Lambrecht's article and the Search
> Report, were entirely different.

You are correct in that the two accounts went up different chains-of-command.  For the record, CAPT Friedell's report was sent off on 13 July 1937 and went directly to Rear Admiral Orin G. Murfin, Commandant of the 14th Naval District based in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. LT Lambrecht's report was sent off on 16 July 1937 to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics and went via Friedell and via Commander, Battle Force, U.S. Fleet.  But keep in mind that, prior to World War II, the Navy was small enough so that most of the senior officers were well acquainted with each other.  Since Friedell's report was not classified, there is a strong likelihood that, prior to being filed away, Admiral Murfin routed it to other senior officers on his staff and shared it with those senior officers within his circle who were curious to learn more about the search operation other than what had appeared in the newspapers.  And Lambrecht's report was published in the Bureau of Aeronautics Weekly News Letter and therefore could have been seen by some of these same officers.  The senior aviation officer on Murfin's staff is one such possibility.

LTM (who never shared anything)

Eric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:19:33
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Admiral Murfin's Report

After sending off my earlier posting this morning, the thought occurred to me that Rear Admiral Murfin undoubtedly submitted a report to the CNO, describing what part his 14th Naval District played in the AE search effort.  In addition to the COLORADO, we know that he dispatched a PBY Catalina flying boat to Howland (and which was forced to return to Pearl due to inclement weather.)  Then too, there might have been information on radio transmissions received by the Navy in Hawaii. Murfin's report would typically have included Friedell's report as a separate enclosure, along with the report submitted by the Catalina flying boat's pilot (if one was written), etc.  We know that Friedell's report ended up in the National Archives, and it is unlikely that it got there directly from a filing cabinet in Hawaii.  If Murfin's report was also preserved and can be located, we'll have a much better understanding of who exactly had access to Friedell's account of what was seen at Gardner Island.

LTM (who never had much use for chains-of-command)
Eric
******************************************

Randy? Do you have this? If you do, we do I guess. Ric is in College Park at the course.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:20:12
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

For:  Alan Caldwell

Alan, the simple answer to your question is, personal observations at the perceived crash site on Ford Island 39 years after the event and AP wire service copy.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang   #  2559

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Tom Strang wrote:
>
>> The aircraft from engine start to conclusion of incident covered
>> approximately 1000 feet of runway in a time span of 9 minutes,
>
> Where does this come from, Tom?
>
> Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:21:53
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Murfin's report

Murfin's report did include an appendix containing the complete Friedell report.  However, that Murfin report did not include Lambrecht's newsletter. Lambrecht's newsletter was reviewed extensively in DC, and at one point was recommended that it not be published, due to the breezy nature of the writing.  Of course, that Admiral was finally over-ruled.  It was quite some time after the flight that it was approved (mid-August?).  Similarly, the Murfin report was submitted at the end of July.  By that time, it was clear that AE was not found by the Navy's search efforts, and that's that, as they say.

I have photocopies of both reports, as does TIGHAR central.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:22:42
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

> the simple answer to your question is, personal observations
> at the perceived crash site on Ford Island 39 years after the event and
> AP wire service copy.

I'm much pickier than that. A media report is of little or no value and unknown personal observations even less. However, it has no significance and I was merely being curious and suspecting there was no credible documentation. That would have been a tower log or accident investigation report.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:45:15
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: asymmetrical thrust

For: Alan  Caldwell

Sorry for your case of extreme disappointment!

Then again not everyone can get their hands on tower logs, Army investigative reports, personal diaries, hand sketched maps and other primary sources of information. No harm meant, I shall make every effort in the future to pause before posting so as not to disappoint others on this forum.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:21:51
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Asymmetrical thrust

Tom, don't take it so seriously. It isn't an important issue. I'm a lawyer. I deal in facts and supportable evidence but I know we have little in this mystery. I have no trouble with speculation or off hand reports. I just want to know what the various sources are so I can better evaluate the credibility.

This group has done an amazing job in rounding up logs, reports and other good documentation. There is, no doubt, more to be found.

Alan, who was not disappointed or even surprised.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:22:36
From:         Eric Beheim
Subject:      Another source of information

One other possible source of information on the Navy's role in the search for AE would be the COMMAND HISTORY inputs submitted for 1937. This is a report that all Navy activities are required to submit annually.  The opening portion is standard  "boilerplate," detailing the names of the unit's key officers and enlisted personnel, the unit's mission statement, its organizational chart, a listing of assigned aircraft and weapons systems, etc.  The second portion is a narrative account of significant events involving the unit that occurred during the calendar year and which would be of interest to future historians.  (Certainly, any involvement with the AE search effort would have been considered a significant event worth mentioning.)   Today, these Command Histories are submitted directly to the Naval Historical Center where they are archived.  Since they are not intended to be read by senior officers further up the chain-of-command, there is less of a tendency to "massage" the narrative to create a better impression. There should be 1937 Command History inputs for all of the major participants in the search: the 14th Naval District, COLORADO, LEXINGTON, Bombing Squadron 4, Torpedo Squadron 2 and Scouting Squadrons 2, 3, 41 and 42.  Other units that might somehow have been involved with the search would undoubtedly have detailed their roles in their Command History inputs as well.  Although the majority of these inputs probably have nothing new to contribute to TIGHAR's knowledge base, there is always the possibility that a nugget or two of useful information still remains to be found.

LTM (who had no new useful information of her own to contribute)

Eric
******************************************
Randy?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:02:52
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Command histories

Thanks, Eric, for that lead.  I was unaware that such histories are available, so I obviously didn't ask for them when I visited the NHC. Since I don't live in the DC area any more, it will have to be to others to revisit the NHC and examine these Command Histories.

Thanks!

>  From Eric Beheim
>
> One other possible source of information on the Navy's role in the
> search for AE would be the COMMAND HISTORY inputs submitted for 1937.
> This is a report that all Navy activities are required to submit
> annually.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:25:17
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      The Book

I received a query from a lurker and thought I'd put the info up here, too:

Linn Lewis wrote:

> Hi Pat,
> Am wondering when Rick's new book will be ready. Do you have any idea?
> Would like to purchase a copy.
> Linn Lewis

Deadline for the finished manuscript is December 31. Projected publication date is September, 2006. The exact date will be set sometime in the spring by the publisher, the Naval Institute Press.

We are running a program through TIGHAR Tracks for a preview, however. TIGHAR members are getting two or three chapters at a time for peer review. Membership is still just $55/year ;-).

https://tighar.org/membernew.html

Also, through the TIGHAR Literary Guild, anyone who contributes $100 to TIGHAR in support of the writing of the book will get a signed copy on publication. The contribution is tax-deductible.

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/guild.htm

So no need to wait until next September, nor to slog to your bookstore...

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:00:36
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Command histories

Eric Beheim said:  "One other possible source of information on the Navy's role in the search for AE would be the COMMAND HISTORY inputs submitted for 1937.  This is a report that all Navy activities are required to submit annually."

Randy Jacobson replied:   "Thanks, Eric, for that lead [on command histories].  I was unaware that such histories are available, so I obviously didn't ask for them when I visited the NHC.  Since I don't live in the DC area any more, it will have to be to others to revisit the NHC and examine these Command Histories."

I live in Annapolis and would be happy to help -- I'm always looking for a good excuse to take off a day from work.

LTM, who's still no slacker
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC

======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:44:35
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      First news

I'm hoping that someone on the Forum can help me figure out when and how news of Earhart's failure to arrive at Howland Island reached the general public.

The Coast Guard's San Francisco Division first knew there was a problem when a message was received from ITASCA.

EARHART CONTACT 0742 REPORTED ONE HALF HOUR FUEL AND NO LAND FALL; POSITION DOUBTFUL. CONTACT 0646 REPORTED APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED MILES FROM ITASCA BUT NO RELATIVE BEARING. 0843 REPORTED LINE OF POSITION 157 - 337 BUT NO REFERENCE POINT; PRESUME HOWLAND. ESTIMATE 12:00 FOR MAXIMUM TIME ALOFT AND IF NONARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTHWEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLE AREA.  SEA SMOOTH VISIBILITY NINE CEILING UNLIMITED.  UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED TIME.

ITASCA sent the message at 10:15 a.m. local time which was 1:45 p.m. in San Francisco.  That was plenty of time for the news to be in the West Coast evening newspapers, but the message did not say that Earhart was definitely lost and there was still the possibility that she would show up.  12:00 (noon) for ITASCA would be 3:30 p.m. PST.  Probably too late to make the evening papers.  San Francisco received no further word from ITASCA until 4:45 p.m. PST.

So what did the evening editions of the Oakland, San Francisco, and L.A. papers say?  How fast the news went out is important in evaluating the earliest reports of post-loss radio messages.

Thanks,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:46:46
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: First news

Oakland Tribune key headlines and quotes below:

JULY 1 (Thursday)
Headline - "Amelia Hops Today In Long Ocean Flight."


JULY 2 (Friday)
Headline - "Earhart Is Believed To Be Nearing Howland Isle."

Quote - "The last direct word from the Itasca was at 6:10 am PST today when it radioed it was picking up signals from the Earhart plane."

JULY 3 (Saturday)
Headline - "Noonan Sends SOS From Earhart Plane; Navy Fliers Aid Hunt; Searchers Hopeful."

Quotes -
"Spurred by weak distress signals, a vast search by sea and air is under way today for Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, forced down in the South Seas..."

"Belief that Amelia Earhart is safely down on a mid-Pacific atoll or coral reef was expressed today by her husband...and her technical advisor..."

I do not know what time of day the papers were released.

blue skies, jerry
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:27:34
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: First news

Jerry Hamilton says:

>> JULY 2 (Friday)
>> Headline - "Earhart Is Believed To Be Nearing Howland Isle."
>>
>> Quote - "The last direct word from the Itasca was at 6:10 am PST
>> today when it radioed it was picking up signals from the Earhart
>> plane."

The seem to have the time a bit wrong.  6:10 a.m. PST was 2:40 a.m aboard ITASCA.  At that time ITASCA had not received a signal that it could be sure was from Earhart and there is no record of a transmission to San Francisco Division at that time.  The first notice that San Francisco (or anyone else) had that ITASCA had heard Earhart was a message sent at 03:58 ITASCA time ( 07:28 PST).  San Francisco asked "Have you established contact with plane yet?"  ITASCA answered, "Heard her but don't know if she hears us yet."

>> JULY 3 (Saturday)
>> Headline - "Noonan Sends SOS From Earhart Plane; Navy Fliers Aid
>> Hunt; Searchers Hopeful."
>>
>> Quotes -
>> "Spurred by weak distress signals, a vast search by sea and air is
>> under way today for Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan,
>> forced down in the South Seas..."
>>
>> "Belief that Amelia Earhart is safely down on a mid-Pacific atoll or
>> coral reef was expressed today by her husband...and her technical
>> advisor..."

By Saturday morning McMenamy and Pierson had made their claims and the ACHILLES reception had been reported.  Maybe there was no evening newspaper.  Too bad there is no way to know what the commercial news broadcasts were saying on Friday evening.

Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:49:20
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: First news

The University of North Texas doesn't have much of a historic newspaper collection, but for what little it is probably worth:

The "Austin (Texas) Statesman" on July 3 was headlined "Amelia Rescue Forseen." The article reported that the KHAQQ call sign had been heard by radio operators from Sydney, Australia to Los Angeles, CA. (The ever-helpful Walter McMenamy was named as the Los Angeles operator. He said he recognized AE's voice in some messages.)

The "Dallas Morning News" headline on July 3 was "Earhart Forced Down at Sea on Dangerous Pacific." The UP dateline was Honolulu, July 2.

A smaller article was headed "Ship Isn't Heard From After Radio Says Fuel is Low."

My interpretation is that the first reports contained knowledge of possible post-loss radio messages. And also AE's misunderstood "only a half-hour left" message heard by the "Itasca."

LTM (who always reads the headlines)
Karen Hoy
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:52:30
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      The Norwich City's name boards

I know there has been endless speculation about whether the "New York City " that Betty reported hearing Amelia say may have actually been "Norwich City" and hence a direct tie-in to Gardner Island. I have been doing some grubbing around and brain picking among old timers as to how Amelia might have been able to get the name off of a burned, rusted wreck that had been sitting there for eight years.

The general consensus was that it was fairly common practice then, and is fairly common practice now, to cut the letters of the ship's name out of steel plate and attach them to the hull so as to provide a raised surface that a seaman painter (who are not generally noted for being fussy about such things) could simply highlight those raised letters in a contrasting paint. IF the Norwich City had this type of raised lettering on either side of the bows, which was still fairly intact in 1937, it would have been possible to make out the name. However, I have not been able to locate any good, close up shots of the Norwich City, and was wondering if anyone else on the forum had one or knows of a source?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, #2189CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:52:46
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: First news

I'm curious about why the newspapers used/believed McMenamy and Pierson's account that they had heard her signals. That must have been in conflict with what the navy was saying, since their only asset in the area, Itasca, was not searching the known coral atolls of the Phoenix Islands but was searching the vast ocean to the north of Howland. What do we know about what the Navy was saying about Earhart on July 3? Did the newspapers report the Navy's version of the search as well?
--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:42:15
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: First news

The Coast Guard and later, the US Navy, weren't particularly keen on letting the public in on what was happening on July 2nd, and the following day or so.  The two newspapermen onboard the Itasca were finally allowed to send their reports late that day when radio traffic allowed.  Thus, without any information coming from official sources, reliance upon amateur radiomen like McMenamy were the primary sources for newspapers.

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:21:23
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Earhart talk in Pullman, Washington

Some time ago I mentioned to the Forum that I'd be doing a talk on the Earhart Quest in Pullman, WA sometime in November.  The date, time, and place are finally set; it's Friday, November 18, at 3:10 pm on the Washington State University campus, Smith Center for Undergraduate Education, Room 518.  I give a sometimes enlightening, usually amusing talk an hour or so long, illustrated with lots of Powerpoint pictures, maps, and the like, and with time for questions, criticisms, shoes, rotten fruit, etc.

LTM
Tom King