Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:00:56 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Antennas, so far The figure of 500 miles applied to the 500 kHz channel sort surprises me, and i have to wonder if they really went 500 miles straight out, or wandered along the coast somewhat. Keep in mind that at 500 kHz the antenna may have been something in the range of 5% efficient. With a tranmitter of maybe 60 watts actual power at the antenna post, maybe the radiated equivalent was 5 watts or less on 500 kHz. However, that could still be useful for some ground station to take a DF bearing on them. I recall when i was living out in the country in the 1990s and the power failed for several days. So there was basically no local electrical noise. I heard on a portable radio, a ham station in the 190 kHz band, transmitting with 1 watt input power (fractional watt output power), and a 50 foot antenna, at a range of some 50 miles. And that was with a makeshift short wire antenna where i was living. Yes- this is anecdotal, but if you look into ham operation on the restricted low power band of 160-190 kHz, it is a constant that with optimized equipment ranges of 100 - 200 miles are achievable and not remarkable. So i'd have to tend to think that the V antenna could have been useful for her in getting help from a ground DF station. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:01:41 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Antennas, so far Ric wrote: >... Gurr is the clown who moved the dorsal antenna mast forward >thinking he could give the airplane some capability on 500 kHz in >lieu of a trailing wire. > >Gurr knew that it would only work if the airplane was "right on top" >of a ship: he "improvised a loading coil and resonated the top antenna >system. Obviously this was not a very efficient radiator, but I pointed >out to Amelia that there was not much more than 50 watts of power and >at that frequency the range would be limited, even with the more >efficient long wire. Furthermore, the only people she could raise on >500KH would be ships at sea, and then she would have to be on top of >them to be heard. This is what she wanted, because, as she put it, 'if >we see a ship, we can verify our position.'" Is something better than nothing? AE was going to fly with zero provisions for 500 kcs operation. Gurr was trying to give her some communication on a band that Mike Everette called "essential" for the round-the-world attempt. >All he did was royally screw up the aircraft's ability to transmit on >3105 and 6210. We know AE was heard on 3105 well enough to have allowed communication--if the RECEIVER system hadn't failed. Everything we know about the end of the flight was transmitted on 3105. I don't think you can blame Gurr's work on the dorsal Vee transmission antenna for the loss of the aircraft. 6210 worked well enough in other tests to pass muster. Gurr was not the last tech to tune AE's transmitter. Gurr never disabled the trailing antenna. He knew that the trailing wire (and CW) were needed for effective communication on 500 kcs. >"I left the trailing wire reel installed, and it could be used. In >fact, on one of our test flights, I unreeled this antenna and tried to >raise someone on 500 kHz without success. 500 kHz is a frequency used >for emergency communication. Ships at sea monitor this frequency with >automatic equipment, but the radio operator still has to react. My sea >experience showed 500 kHz to be a poor performer unless you can put out >a strong signal to trip the auto alarm over any real distance, >especially in daytime when low frequency propagation is poor, and it >would be an advantage to be in busy shipping lanes. Amelia was sold and >wanted the 500 kHz capability, and I gave it to her as efficiently as >possible under the limited circumstances." > >When push came to shove, we don't know whether the 500 kcs capacity >of the dorsal Vee would have helped the Itasca DF on AE and FN. >AE didn't try it. To use the trailing antenna (if AE hadn't >had the tubes removed), Fred would have had to crawl into the >back of the plane and lower the wire--just at the time when he >would want to be watching for sight of Howland ahead. The plan to have a good navigator (Noonan) and a good radio operator (Manning) aboard was an altogether superior plan to having AE and FN handle the tasks alone. Gurr went over the DF issues with Manning thoroughly. AE wouldn't pay attention. She said, "We'll pick up the skills by the time we need them." Seems to me that TIGHAR agrees that it was primarily operator error that caused the loss of the aircraft. We know the loop antenna worked on 7500 kcs. If AE had asked for a transmission within the limits of her instrument, she might have found Howland. Gurr knew those limits. He tried to teach AE. AE wouldn't listen. If we have to use epithets, let's call AE the "clown." Her mistakes were far worse than Gurr's. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:02:06 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Antennas so far In my previous post, in the first sentence, I meant to say that Gurr stated the original top Vee antenna was not working well on 3105 and 6210 kcs. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:02:35 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Radio skills Alan wrote: "...It is not likely that the requirements for a third class license is the same today as it was in the 30s " - - Yes, agree of course... certainly requirements changes with times. All what i meant, was just that if some category and qualification, named somehow (for example "3rd class radio operator"), formally exists - in any time - it certainly means that SOME (this or that, greater or smaller is another question) level of skills and knowledge must exist and be proven to get such license... Just this. LTM - sincerely, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:02:54 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Radio skills Hue Miller wrote: "...what if they had attempted to make the final crossing without any radio of any kind onboard. How would you judge that decision's influence on the chances of surviving, or of surviving when difficulty is experienced using navigation and vision alone? What IF the Howland direction finder was working, and AE's receiver was working? And Howland/ Itasca transmitted, for example, "We have you at bearing x degrees. 5 minutes ago you were at bearing y. You need to correct your course to z; acknowledge and transmit long count again in xyz minutes." Would that have been critical (decisive) ?" - - I think, your points are certainly good and - at least from the modern and "postfactum" perspective - may be certainly correct. Yes, for sure, if everything would work perfectly - as your "good scenario" describes - it would simpliy a lot the approach to Howland... at least IF Noonan would not be able to find it quickly and without problems. However, i'm afraid, we are just talking about different things. What i have doubts about (and asked about), was another matter. What i doubt, is whether all this radio stuff was really considered then, in mid-30s, by Earhart and Noonan, as absolutely "critical and decisive" - or, rather, as an important and useful but still a "reserve", or "insurance", thing? As i wrote, i still did never see any contemporary evidence that it was "not" a Noonan's job to find Howland", and that AE and FN assumed as impossible for FN to find it without radio navigation. Today, in the era of total dominance of the radio and electronics in navigation, it seems obvious and undoubtful; but what we discussing, was in another era - 72 (!) years ago; and, it seems as not very historically reasonable to "project" the modern mentality and way of thinking onto the people who lived and worked inanother era... at least without a hard contemporary evidence that they, then, really thought and plannedexactly this way. That, whas what i actually meant. LTM - sincerely, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:03:20 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Radio antennae Since the top antenna was tuned and matched to the transmitter at the chosen operating frequencies, 3105 and 6210, this antenna should also be the best antenna available for receiving too since the signal could be routed to the receiver through the matching unit. Certainly it would not be a worse receiving antenna than an un-tuned belly antenna. So why would anybody go through the trouble and expense of adding a belly antenna for receiving since the top "V" antenna was better and was available at no extra charge? gl ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:56:25 From: Rick Jones Subject: Control Box and Instrument Panel photos There are two separate control boxes in similar photos on the Purdue site. b13f12i4 is a picture that Purdue says is "an unidentified man (possibly Harry Manning)". Elgen Long also uses this photo in the center section of his book and identifies him as "radio expert Cyril Remmlein". That control box is different than the one in: b10f8i12 which Purdue says is "E. Jay Quinby of Western Electric". This control box has a meter in the center (zoom in to see). The one in the other picture has a large knob in the center and labeling for the loop. Long's published photo of the instrument panel says it was taken by F. Ralph Sias about May 26, in Miami. If anyone in the Florida area wanted to dig further, maybe his heirs could be helpful. "F. Ralph Sias (1905-1991) graduated from the University of Florida in 1928 with a B.S.E.E. degree. During his years in the engineering field, he specialized in measurements -- electrical, mechanical, fluidics and optical. He received a total of eighteen U.S. and several foreign patents." Rick J ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:26:52 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Antennas so far >From Don Jordan > >In my previous post, in the first sentence, I meant to say that Gurr >stated the original top Vee antenna was not working well on 3105 and >6210 kcs. Before or after lengthening the dorsal vee? In other words, before or after the flight to Hawaii? Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:33:46 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio antennae >From Gary LaPook > >Since the top antenna was tuned and matched to the transmitter at the >chosen operating frequencies, 3105 and 6210, this antenna should also be >the best antenna available for receiving too since the signal could be >routed to the receiver through the matching unit. Certainly it would not >be a worse receiving antenna than an un-tuned belly antenna. So why >would anybody go through the trouble and expense of adding a belly >antenna for receiving since the top "V" antenna was better and was >available at no extra charge? One advantage: shorter run from receiver to receiver antenna. The receiver was under the co-pilot's seat. The transmitter was amidships. AE's setup (or her practice) seems to have been "one mode at a time." I have the impression that she wanted to transmit twice an hour and listen twice an hour, but not have both the transmitter and the receiver active at the same time. The sequence of antennas seems to have been: Original configuration ---------------------- 1. Ventral antenna: transmit and receive 2. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs Bell Labs configuration ----------------------- 1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 3105 and 6210 kcs 2. Ventral antenna: receive 3. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs Hooven configuration? --------------------- 1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 3105 and 6210 kcs 2. Starboard ventral antenna: receive 3. Port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna? 4. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs 5. Faired-in loop antenna Revised configuration before Hawaii flight ------------------------------------------ 1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 3105 and 6210 kcs 2. Starboard ventral antenna: receive 3. Port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna? 4. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs 5. External loop antenna Revised configuration before final flight ----------------------------------------- 1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 500, 3105, and 6210 kcs 2. starboard ventral antenna: receive 3. port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna? 4. External loop antenna Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:51:42 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Antennas, so far Marty Moleski writes, >Quoting Gurr, "Furthermore, the only people she could raise on >500KH would be ships at sea, and then she would have to be on top of >them to be heard. This is what she wanted, because, as she put it, >'if we see a ship, we can verify our position.'" But of course 500 kHz will not support voice and neither Earhart nor Noonan could understand morse code, so how AE expected to verify her position by communicating with a ship on 500 kHz is a mystery. Think about it. She sees a ship at sea. She has to laboriously send morse code by keying her mic, "Unidentified ship, this is KHAQQ. What is your position?" Assuming that the unidentified ship realizes that the clumsily-sent code message being heard on the guard frequency is from the airplane they may or may not be able to see or hear overhead, the ship's operator taps out the string of numbers that represents their lat/long. The long series of dots and dashes is utterly useless to Earhart. >Is something better than nothing? AE was going to fly with >zero provisions for 500 kcs operation. Gurr was trying to >give her some communication on a band that Mike Everette >called "essential" for the round-the-world attempt. Something is not better than nothing if the something is, from a practical standpoint, useless and degrades the performance of something useful. Mike Everette was right. >I don't think you can blame Gurr's work on the dorsal >Vee transmission antenna for the loss of the aircraft. I agree. >6210 worked well enough in other tests to pass muster. >Gurr was not the last tech to tune AE's transmitter. True. >Gurr never disabled the trailing antenna. He knew that >the trailing wire (and CW) were needed for effective >communication on 500 kcs. > >"I left the trailing wire reel installed, and it could be used." A puzzling assertion to be sure. A photo of the aircraft taken in Burbank on May 20 shows that the belly mast through which the trailing wire was deployed is no longer present. May 20 was the day after the airplane came out of repair and the day AE and FN flew up to Oakland to collect the commemorative covers, thus officially (albeit secretly) beginning the second world flight attempt. They returned to Burbank that night and the next day left for Miami with GP and mechanic Bo McKneeley aboard. >"In fact, on one of our test flights, I unreeled this antenna and >tried to raise someone on 500 kHz without success." What test flights could he be talking about? After the extensive repairs, during which the dorsal mast was moved forward and the belly mast for the trailing wire was removed (or rather not reinstalled) the airplane was signed off as safe to fly on May 19. The next day the second world flight attempt began. Gurr was not aboard. >"Amelia was sold and wanted the 500 kHz capability, and I gave it to >her as efficiently as possible under the limited circumstances." In other words, he compromised her system by lengthening the dorsal antenna to satisfy Earhart's demand for a capability she wasn't competent to use. >When push came to shove, we don't know whether the 500 kcs capacity >of the dorsal Vee would have helped the Itasca DF on AE and FN. >AE didn't try it. To use the trailing antenna (if AE hadn't >had the tubes removed), Fred would have had to crawl into the >back of the plane and lower the wire--just at the time when he >would want to be watching for sight of Howland ahead. Gurr's recollections, as related to Fred Goerner many years later, about leaving the wire reel aboard and testing it himself without success during "one of the test flights" doesn't track with known events. Anecdotal recollections are not reliable sources of information unless they can be corroborated with hard evidence (i.e. datable photos and/or contemporaneous written documentation). I seem to recall having made that point in the past. >Seems to me that TIGHAR agrees that it was primarily operator >error that caused the loss of the aircraft. We know the loop >antenna worked on 7500 kcs. If AE had asked for a transmission >within the limits of her instrument, she might have found >Howland. Gurr knew those limits. He tried to teach AE. AE wouldn't listen. >If we have to use epithets, let's call AE the "clown." Her >mistakes were far worse than Gurr's. I have to agree with you. The common thread throughout the whole tragic story is Earhart's acquired situational narcissism - her own belief in Putnam's hype about her - and the willingness of otherwise competent professionals to go along with the joke. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:59:18 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio antennae Gary LaPook asks, >So why would anybody go through the trouble and expense of adding a >belly antenna for receiving since the top "V" antenna was better and >was available at no extra charge? I say again, the belly antenna was not added. It was there from the beginning and can only have been a receiving antenna. The dorsal V was added much later and photos show that the terminal on the transmitter for linking the receiver in to the same antenna was bare. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:35:37 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Antennas, so far For Hue, He did not say they flew out to sea 500 miles, that was my calculations. Gurr said, "We flew out to sea for 3 . . .maybe 4 hours, and then Manning gave us a course to fly up the coast" All the while I was using the DF to keep a null on one of the broadcast stations I had tuned in. I had a whole list of them there with me." He also specifically stated that he tried all 3 frequencies 500, 3105, and 6210 kcs to call stations ashore, and that he got a reply of "Loud and clear" each time. They did this on 3 separate test flights. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:40:51 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Radio antennae Marty Moleski writes, >AE's setup (or her practice) seems to have been "one mode >at a time." I have the impression that she wanted to >transmit twice an hour and listen twice an hour, but not >have both the transmitter and the receiver active at the >same time. That's what she said. She intended to receive on the hour and half, and transmit on the quarter and three-quarter hour. >The sequence of antennas seems to have been: > >Original configuration >---------------------- >1. Ventral antenna: transmit and receive >2. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs Disagree. The ventral antenna was too short for transmitting. I think the ventral antenna was always just a receiving antenna and, in the original configuration, all transmitting was done with the trailing wire. That would mean that the aircraft had no transmitting capability while on the ground, but in 1936 that was not an issue. >Bell Labs configuration >----------------------- >1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 3105 and 6210 kcs >2. Ventral antenna: receive >3. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs The Bell Labs work was done in November 1936. At that time the aircraft already had the Hooven equipment installed (see below). The aircraft came away from Bell Labs with: 1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 3105 and 6210 kcs 2. Ventral antenna: receive 3. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs 4. Port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna 5. Faired-in loop antenna The aircraft had more radio capability at this time than at any time in its career. >Hooven configuration? >--------------------- >1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 3105 and 6210 kcs >2. Starboard ventral antenna: receive >3. Port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna? >4. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs >5. Faired-in loop antenna The Hooven configuration was done in October 1936. The dorsal antenna wasn't there yet. 1. Ventral antenna: receive 2. Trailing antenna: transmit 3. Port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna 4. Faired-in loop antenna >Revised configuration before Hawaii flight >------------------------------------------ >1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 3105 and 6210 kcs >2. Starboard ventral antenna: receive >3. Port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna? >4. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs >5. External loop antenna Agree. The trailing antenna was moved from the extreme tail to a mast under the cabin. >Revised configuration before final flight >----------------------------------------- >1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 500, 3105, and 6210 kcs >2. starboard ventral antenna: receive >3. port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna? >4. External loop antenna The port ventral antenna was not re-installed after repairs were completed. For the second world flight attempt the antennas were: 1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 500, 3105, and 6210 kcs 2. starboard ventral antenna: receive 3. External loop antenna That's all. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:04:22 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Antennas, so far For Marty Moleski , You wrote: "He [Gurr]tried to teach AE. AE wouldn't listen. "If we have to use epithets, let's call AE the "clown." Her mistakes were far worse than Gurr's. " I could not agree with you more. When I read the "Clown" statement on the forum, it made my hair stand on end! But I can't say that I agree with you on the first statement above. Gurr specifically states, in his own voice on the tape, that he had trouble getting Amelia in the cockpit to show her how to work the DF. He knew she would need it to find Howland. He says that Mantz wasn't any help, and actually apposed him. "I tried and tired." he said, "But I finally got her in the cockpit so I could show her. I showed her how to take bearings on the various broadcast stations around Burbank, and she got rather good at it. I worked with her for quite a while. She knew how to use it!" Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:32:50 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Control box and instrument panel photos Rick Jones writes, There are two separate control boxes in similar photos on the Purdue site. >b13f12i4 is a picture that Purdue says is "an unidentified man >(possibly Harry Manning)". Elgen Long also uses this photo in the >center section of his book and identifies him as "radio expert Cyril >Remmlein". That's not Harry Manning. The box is attached by a cable to a Bendix MN-5 loop, presumably about to be installed on the Electra. The writing on the box is partly obscured by the man's thumb. It says: Type (illegible) Directi Bendix Radio Com Washington, D The illegible bit appears to be a three digit number. It might be 286 or 388. Hard to tell. It could even 20B. That control box is different than the one in: >b10f8i12 which Purdue says is "E. Jay Quinby of Western Electric". >This control box has a meter in the center (zoom in to see). The >one in the other picture has a large knob in the center and labeling >for the loop. That photo shows the Western Electric 27A Remote for the 20B receiver. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:33:12 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio antennae Earhart's transmit and receive schedule did not necessarily have any connection with when either piece of equipment was on or off. That schedule was simply when she expected to receive and when she expected someone to listen. I have no clue when she activated her equipment. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 13:10:41 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Antennas so far Hue Miller writes, >We have the photo of the Bendix person showing AE >the new Bendix loop coupler. .... We also know the version the >Bendix rep showed AE was the >3 band model, 150-1500 kHz, but there was another version that tuned >up to 8000 kHz. In the photo of the Bendix rep holding the box and AE holding the attached loop, the box has a selector switch for 5 bands. There's no way to know whether that is the actual box installed in the airplane. No photo of the cockpit shows a box that looks anything like the one in the photo. >Maybe from scrutinizing the loop ontop AE's plane we can finally >conclude she did or didn't have the Bendix appliance onboard. It's a Bendix MN-5 loop for crying out loud. It LOOKS like the Bendix loop in the ads and the newspaper articles published at the time (New York Herald Tribune, Mach 7, 1937) have a cutesy photo of AE peeking through the loop with the caption "The pilot smiles through a Bendix direction finder." Other photos show the loop attached to a box that clearly says Bendix Radio Company. Earhart herself says in an interview in Karachi during the world flight that she has a Bendix direction finder. >Granted, moving the dorsal antenna around on the aircraft any number of >feet would not have improved 500 kHz operation. The % of increase in >antenna length compared to the ideal of 1/4 wave on 500 kHz, 125 meters, >is miniscule. However, i don't see that this increase, somewhat >improving operation on 3105, 6210, was somehow really negative. We're re-plowing old ground. Years ago Mike Everette showed that the change in dorsal antenna length was disastrous. Quoting from Chapter II, Section B.3 of the The Earhart Project Book, Eighth Edition, page 6: "The antenna was now 33% longer than the optimum length specified for the 13 series transmitter in the HF range. .... (T)he extra length radically altered the tuning. ... The length of antenna plus extra lead-in was now very close to an odd fraction of a resonant length on both frequencies. ... The increase in length meant a radical change in the antenna's characteristic impedance at both frequencies. Complete retuning of the transmitter was necessary and that spelled trouble." etc. etc. I'm always happy to explore new possibilities based on new observations and new evidence, but this re-hashing of ancient misconceptions and unwarranted assumptions is a waste of time. Pat, please note. This thread is dead. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:00:18 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Radio skills Marcus, Go to my website at: http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/ to find contemporary source documents on navigation in the 1930's. gl ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:44:23 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Antennas so far >From Ric > >Quoting Gurr, "Furthermore, the only people she could raise on >500KH would be ships at sea, and then she would have to be on top of >them to be heard. This is what she wanted, because, as she put it, >'if we see a ship, we can verify our position.'" > >But of course 500 kHz will not support voice and neither Earhart nor >Noonan could understand morse code, so how AE expected to verify her >position by communicating with a ship on 500 kHz is a mystery. Agreed. The only point I was making is that Gurr knew that 50 watts into the dorsal Vee wasn't going to carry very far. >>Is something better than nothing? AE was going to fly with >>zero provisions for 500 kcs operation. Gurr was trying to >>give her some communication on a band that Mike Everette >>called "essential" for the round-the-world attempt. > >Something is not better than nothing if the something is, from a >practical standpoint, useless and degrades the performance of >something useful. Mike Everette was right. Everette says: "In fairness to Joseph Gurr, however, it must be remembered that Earhart was obsessed with saving weight and this was one main reason she left behind her trailing-wire antenna. Gurr was trying to help preserve her 500 KHz capability, to enable use of the only emergency frequency then available; but by lengthening the dorsal Vee antenna, he created other serious problems. His radio knowledge may have been more empirical than theoretical; therefore, he may not have realized the extent or cumulative effect of the problems created by his changes. This sort of empirical knowledge was typical of the times; but it was not adequate to deal with this situation." Everette also says that we do not know how Gurr wired the coil for 500 kcs nor what approach he may have taken to re-tuning the system with the longer antenna. >>Gurr never disabled the trailing antenna. He knew that >>the trailing wire (and CW) were needed for effective >>communication on 500 kcs. >> >>"I left the trailing wire reel installed, and it could be used." > >A puzzling assertion to be sure. A photo of the aircraft taken in >Burbank on May 20 shows that the belly mast through which the trailing >wire was deployed is no longer present. May 20 was the day after the >airplane came out of repair and the day AE and FN flew up to Oakland >to collect the commemorative covers, thus officially (albeit secretly) >beginning the second world flight attempt. They returned to Burbank >that night and the next day left for Miami with GP and mechanic Bo >McKneeley aboard. What his assertion suggests is that he finished his work before the reskinning was complete and that he was not told about the decision not to reinstall the belly mast. I don't see him not knowing about that decision being terribly significant or puzzling. If he saw that there was no mast, he could easily have said to himself, "Well, they'll put one in shortly." Or he may not have noticed the anomaly. We don't know what the plane looked like the day he last saw it (how much work was done? how much remained to be done?). >>"In fact, on one of our test flights, I unreeled this antenna and >>tried to raise someone on 500 kHz without success." > >What test flights could he be talking about? With Mantz and Manning prior to March 17. >After the extensive >repairs, during which the dorsal mast was moved forward and the belly >mast for the trailing wire was removed (or rather not reinstalled) the >airplane was signed off as safe to fly on May 19. The next day the >second world flight attempt began. Gurr was not aboard. Understood. The claim I was making was that the radio system was tested in flight, not just with a smoke-meter. >>"Amelia was sold and wanted the 500 kHz capability, and I gave it to >>her as efficiently as possible under the limited circumstances." > >In other words, he compromised her system by lengthening the dorsal >antenna to satisfy Earhart's demand for a capability she wasn't >competent to use. It wasn't her demand. Like Mike Everette, Gurr knew that "The frequency of 500 KHz was essential for the round-the-world flight. Until the middle of World War II, this was the only universally monitored (guarded) distress frequency. Ships at sea, and maritime shore stations, were required by international regulations to maintain watch on 500 KHz. During specified parts of every hour, radio silence would be observed in order to listen for stations in distress. At all other times, 500 KHz was a calling frequency. Ships, shore stations and aircraft made initial contact on 500, then moved to other working frequencies like 410 or 425 KHz" (Everette). When Gurr first put some 500 kcs capacity on the dorsal Vee, Manning was involved. AE and FN didn't need to know code to put out a 500 kcs signal that the Itasca might have used to take a bearing on them. >Gurr's recollections, as related to Fred Goerner many years later, >about leaving the wire reel aboard and testing it himself without success >during "one of the test flights" doesn't track with known events. Do we know that Mantz and Manning never made any test flights prior to March 17? >Anecdotal recollections are not reliable sources of information unless >they can be corroborated with hard evidence (i.e. datable photos and/ >or contemporaneous written documentation). I seem to recall having made >that point in the past. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There has to be some reason to impugn Gurr's recollections other than "he didn't have enough pictures taken of him aboard the aircraft during the test flights." There is no doubt that some of the details escaped him. I don't think the story of a test flight with Mantz and Manning is the kind of thing that would be an invented memory or something that would be hard to remember. Gurr says he saw photos of the plane with a cigar-shaped pod under the belly. That claim seems to have no confirmation in TIGHAR's research; the Hooven fairing was on top of the plane and wasn't cigar-shaped. I think we have to chalk the claim about the cigar-shaped pod up to misremembering for the time being. So, too, with the mystery receiver: "I do not know who was responsible for this acquisition, nor where it came from. I was pleased, as now the plane was capable of covering larger segments of frequencies which could be useful in radio communication, and even in radio direction finding. While the direction finding loop was designed for the lower frequencies, I found I could get a fairly good null on AM Broadcast Stations up to 1500KH. I figured it would probably be useful even on 3105KH if the received signal was strong enough" (3 May 1982). Gurr wrote about it again 29 March 1988: "The receiver was a six band job covering 1.5 to 15 MH. (150 to 15,000 KC For me it was easy, but I'm afraid Amelia did not quite understand the how of it. He final reply was 'we will have lots of time en route to learn all about it.' True--en route OAKLAND to LAE was certinly time enough to learn how to tune that very fine, and really simple receiver." There are only a few logical possibilities: 1. Gurr was right about a new receiver being installed. A. Evidence to the contrary is wrong. B. Evidence to the contrary shows that the receiver was replaced. 2. Gurr was wrong about the new receiver. A. He lied on purpose. B. He made a mistake. I think that issue is a red herring. Gurr didn't call it a Navy receiver nor did he think it was anything more than a nice receiver that was better than the one it replaced. He could well be wrong about the kind of box it was packed in and right about the fact that there was such a receiver at one time. I recognize a kindred spirit in Gurr. He was an Ameliaholic. Like many of us in TIGHAR, he worked as a volunteer, just for the fun of being associated with an interesting project. He never made a penny from the work he did for Earhart. He suffered from guilt because he knew that if he could have trained AE better (which, of course, was never his sole responsiblity), she could have found Howland: "I can only imagine what was happening in that cockpit during ring the last hour of flight, with fuel running low, two way communication failing, unable to get any outside opinion or help. They were lost. A fine airplane, operational radio gear, help standing by, every reason for success so close but for the human element that failed to produce at the critical moment." It's true that not everything Joe did under the sway of Amelia's charm was rational. That seems to have been true of a lot of the men who met her. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:11:39 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Radio antennae >From Ric > >That's what she said. She intended to receive on the hour and half, >and transmit on the quarter and three-quarter hour. Was this a strange and unusual way to use the radio even in 1937? >>The sequence of antennas seems to have been: >> >>Original configuration >>---------------------- >>1. Ventral antenna: transmit and receive >>2. Trailing antenna: transmit 500 kcs > >Disagree. You can't. I'm just trying to write down what you said this week. :-P >The ventral antenna was too short for transmitting. I think >the ventral antenna was always just a receiving antenna and, in the >original configuration, all transmitting was done with the trailing >wire. That would mean that the aircraft had no transmitting capability >while on the ground, but in 1936 that was not an issue. OK. Chart revised. http://tighar.org/wiki/NR16020_antennas >The Hooven configuration was done in October 1936. The dorsal antenna >was there yet. I'm gonna guess you meant to say "not" there yet and fix the table that way. >... The trailing antenna was moved from the extreme tail to a mast >under the cabin. Noted. >>Revised configuration before final flight >>----------------------------------------- >>1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 500, 3105, and 6210 kcs >>2. starboard ventral antenna: receive >>3. port ventral antenna: DF sense antenna? >>4. External loop antenna > >The port ventral antenna was not re-installed after repairs were >completed. OK. Just to confirm: Would the starboard antenna have been wiped out in the crash, too? Was it deliberately re-installed as part of the rebuild? >For the second world flight attempt the antennas were: > >1. Dorsal antenna: tuned to transmit 500, 3105, and 6210 kcs >2. starboard ventral antenna: receive >3. External loop antenna > >That's all. OK. Thanks for the clarifications. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:19:07 From: From Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Antennas, so far >From Don Jordan > >... Gurr specifically states, in his >own voice on the tape, that he had trouble getting Amelia in the >cockpit to show her how to work the DF. He knew she would need it to find >Howland. He says that Mantz wasn't any help, and actually apposed him. >"I tried and tired." he said, "But I finally got her in the cockpit >so I could show her. I showed her how to take bearings on the various >broadcast stations around Burbank, and she got rather good at it. I >worked with her for quite a while. She knew how to use it!" She evidently did OK when Joe set up the situation for her and dictated the frequencies to be used and watched to make sure that she flipped all of the correct switches. That's one kind of "know how." She didn't have the kind of familiarity and ease with the radio system to cope with the failure of her receiver (or the loss of the receiving antenna, as the case may be). Here's Gurr, 3 May 1982, to Goerner (transcribed by Pat Thrasher, 1998): "I have always felt, and I feel now, and always will feel a sense of responsibility and even a tinge of guilt that the project failed. Amelia had all the necessary equipment, apparently all in working order, but the skill factor simply was not there. Yes, I tried and tried to get Amelia into that airplane while it was in Burbank, to teach her the fundamentals of radio direction finding. I felt that the success of the project depended on a successful homing in on the Coast Guard Cutter Itasca at Howland Island. If you have ever flown over the ocean, as many of our United Air Lines Pilots did in the Air Transport Command operation during the war, you know that our pilots always homed in on radio range signals which were set up at all the tiny islands they were destined for. I mean ALWAYS. Literally thousands of flights were made, jumping from one tiny island to another. The fact that these flights were made over water had nothing to do with it. All that did matter was that each destination had a radio range to home in on. Of course they navigated, celestial and dead reckoning,, but the last one or two hundred miles were flown on a radio beam. If for some reason the radio signal failed, or was unusable on one island, the flight planned and carried enough fuel to proceed to another island where the range was working. This was under visual flight conditions. Amelia absolutely had to home in on Howland. They navigated close enough, the strength of their radio signals showed that. At 7:58 A.M. July 2nd their signals were strong, and 50 watts of power at 3105 kilohertz at that time of the day had a limited range. Right here was the crucial period. If the Itasca heard them that well, they were definitely within range of radio signals from the Itasca, strong enough to easily take a heading via the direction finder. Finding Howland now depended on Radio Direction finding, and absolutely nothing else, smoke signals from the Itasca or anything else notwithstanding. Knowledge and accurate and precise use of DF was needed now, and there was a failure. Amelia knew that DF was vital to the operationat Howland. Therefore, we must assume that the equipment on board was functioning properly before leaving Lae, New Guinea. She must have realized that she could hardly expect to sight Howland by navigation alone, flying over 2550 miles distance, with no markers, unknown wind and cloud condition. DF bearings were her only salvation as she approached the vicinity of Howland Island. "Fred, I should have insisted on spending more time in instructing Amelia in the use of DF, knowing that, to a large degree, radio direction finding would sooner or later spell success or failure of the entire project. It was close. "As long as you asked, and as long as an unloading my story for the first time, here are a few personal comments. Amelia and Noonan flew a great distance, with several stops en route, over countries with radio stations. Frequencies and tine of operation of staions all over the world are known and published. There was all kinds of time and every opportunity to practice the use of their direction finding equipment. By the time they reached Lae New Guinea, both Amelia and Noonan should have been expert in radio operation on that airplane. Now Fred, what happened at Howland? Amelia did all the radio work. Noonan was not a pilot, so we must assume Amelia did all the flying. Amelia was well checked out and versed in flying that airplane, but obviously she was not proficient in operation of the radio. From the logs I have seen, it was a poor performance. They could not seem to coordinate their radio conversations with Itasca, could not establish a meaningful two way conversation to enable them to perform a plan of operation with Itasca. I can only imagine what was happening in that cockpit during ring the last hour of flight, with fuel running low, two way communication failing, unable to get any outside opinion or help. They were lost. A fine airplane, operational radio gear, help standing by, every reason for success so close but for the human element that failed to produce at the critical moment." Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:48:29 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Amelia and portable HF/DF at Howland Having the most extensive database of all correspondence of gov't agencies associated with the Earhart flights, I have never run across the name of August Detzer. I did find him in the Sept, 1937 Dept. of Navy Phone Book, but he was a Lt. at the time in the Dept. of Naval Communications. His phone extension and office number did not correspond to any sub-department head. >From Ron Bright > >While of the subject of radio and RDF, I revisited a letter that Fred >Goerner sent fo Commander Hiles , March 10, 1970. He wrote that he >learned from Capt August Detzer, OP-20-GZ in 1937, that "Miss Earhart >was indeed cooperating with the Navy in the testing of the direction >finding equipment at the time of her disappearance, and that she was >fully aware that the Navy had arranged to have the 3105 HF/DF >established on Howland Island for her use". > >Goerner said that he found it hard to understand why Capt Safford >could have "completely forgotten" the matter. > >Although she had direction finding equipment aboard, it is my >understanding that AE didn't know about the portable Navy HF/DF unit >at Howland. Would it have made any difference? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 19:31:07 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Amelia and the portable HF/DF at Howland Where was August Detzer in 1970? Goerner refers to him then as Capt, but indeed in 1937 Detzer was most likely a Lt. In 1970 he may not have been connected to any Earhart flights, maybe just retired. I don't see any further information as of yet on Detzer. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 19:31:25 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Gurr letter Marty, The lengthy content you quote indicate it was transcribed by Pat Thrasher in 1998 suggesting of course that it was a tape. Yet the same content is included in a letter, signed "kindest regards, Joseph H. Gurr". 29 Hawthorne Ave., Los Altos, Ca. I have a scribbled notation it was a letter in 1984. What was it? I would think that if a nice new receiver arrives in a box marked "US Navy" with a multi frequency, it was reasonable to assume it came from the Navy! Ron ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 19:31:43 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Miami vice Marty, Nice summary of the antenna's configurations timeline. The biggest unknown is exactly what happened at Miami with the PAA folks readjusting the antenna system. Earhart told PAA Michelfelder when she got to Miami that she couldn't transmit far and was unable to reach anyhone with her transmitter on 3105 and 6210. Several test flights were made trying to tune the transmitter to the antennas using a local radio station. It didn''t work. Elgen Long discusses at length the problems she was having with her antenna and receiver. Just after her take off at Miami, her transmitter appeared to be working okay as the Dept of Commerce heard her at 410 miles out and AE did hear WQAM from Miami an AM station. But the next day, AE turned her Bendix receiver to listen to WQAM but heard nothing. [Long] Makes you wonder at what point did her receivers fail? Did she acknowledge receiving any other station enroute to Lae? Is there a more definitive analysis or report, repair orders, etc. of exactly what was done to the varioius systems at Miami? Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 19:55:19 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr letter Ron Bright wrote: >The lengthy content you quote indicate it was transcribed by Pat >Thrasher in 1998 suggesting of course that it was a tape. No. She was copying a letter. In a different letter, Gurr talks about a tape he made of an odd phone call. Goerner refers to tapes of interviews with Gurr in his interview notes. >Yet the same >content is included in a letter, signed "kindest regards, Joseph H. >Gurr". 29 Hawthorne Ave., Los Altos, Ca. I have a scribbled notation >it was a letter in 1984. What was it? Letter dated 3 May 1982. >I would think that if a nice new receiver arrives in a box marked "US >Navy" with a multi frequency, it was reasonable to assume it came from >the Navy! Gurr says that he didn't know who acquired it or where it was from. I save boxes and ship things out in them despite the discrepancy in labeling. I can quote Gurr against Gurr. He describes the new receiver in 1982 as "a fine multi-frequency receiver, covering frequencies up to 20 megahertz." "45 years is a long time to remember fine details!" 1937 + 45 = 1982. 29 March 1988, Gurr writes Goerner: "The original DF receiver was a 200--400KC, plus 3105 and 6210 capability, mounted under the copilot's seat. It worked OK." Then he describes the new receiver as "a six band job covering 1.5 to 15 MH. (150 to 15,000 KC)." 52 years is a clearly longer time "to remember fine details!" I'm not saying Gurr is infallible--clearly, he is not. But I like what I learned about him in his letters: a radio geek since high school, served four years in the Navy, fell in love with aviation, found a niche, got involved in some interesting odd jobs (early TV, Bendix air races, Amelia's gig), and lived to a ripe old age. My impression is that people came to him asking questions (he says Goerner looked him up in 1969) and he doesn't seem to have tried to cash in on his Amelia connection in any way. I personally find him an interesting and sympathetic character. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 20:00:16 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Miami vice >From Ron Bright > >Nice summary of the antenna's configurations timeline. Thanks. I'm just trying to write down what is on the website and in Ric's recent posts. >... The biggest >unknown is exactly what happened at Miami with the PAA folks >readjusting the antenna system. I haven't started reading about that on the website. >Earhart told PAA Michelfelder when she got to Miami that she couldn't >transmit far and was unable to reach anyhone with her transmitter on >3105 and 6210. Several test flights were made trying to tune the >transmitter to the antennas using a local radio station. It didn''t >work. OK. That supports the case against Gurr. I can't answer any of your other questions. There may be stuff on tighar.org that does ... Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 20:12:45 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Gurr letter Marty, Gurr's memory was not that bad either way. It could easily be confusing. The appearance is identical but RA-1 tunes up to 20000 kHz while the RA-1B tunes up to 15,000 kHz. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:08:30 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr's letter >From Hue Miller > >Marty, Gurr's memory was not that bad either way. >It could easily be confusing. The appearance is >identical but RA-1 tunes up to 20000 kHz while the >RA-1B tunes up to 15,000 kHz. -Hue Miller If that is what Gurr saw, neither must have made it to the final flight. "There's abundant comtemporaneous literature, including schematics, of the 13C transmitter. The best is probably a sales bulletin published at the time by Western Electric called 'A Three-Frequency Radio Transmitter for Airplanes' by W.C. Tinus, Radio Development Department. "The 20B receiver and the 27A remote that goes with it are described in a similar Western Electric sales bulletin published in September 1936 entitled 'An All-Purpose Radio Receiver for Mobile Applications' by K. O Thorp, Radio Development Department. "The presence of these radios aboard NR16020 and the frequencies they cover are documented in a Lockheed memo dated July 30, 1937 addressed to Courtland Gross and signed by J.W. Cross. "I can send you photocopies of all of the above if you wish (just cover the copying and postage), or, if there is sufficient interest we can put them up on the website." Ric Gillespie, 21 June 2000 Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:16:32 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gurr's letter Is this on the web site, Marty? Alan >"The presence of these radios aboard NR16020 and the frequencies they >cover are documented in a Lockheed memo dated July 30, 1937 addressed >to Courtland Gross and signed by J.W. Cross. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:34:01 From: Marcus Lind Subject: A "joke" Ric wrote: "The common thread throughout the whole tragic story is Earhart's acquired situational narcissism - her own belief in Putnam's hype about her - and the willingness of otherwise competent professionals to go along with the joke" - Sorry Ric but i respectfully disagree. I think this "definition" is a huge overstatement, and not fair or well based one. Dozens (if not hundreds) of aviation and business people, of many professions and specialities, worked with Earhart and left some memories and descriptions of their professional contacts and of Earhart as a real personality and character "behind" the public publicity image. Some of them liked it more to work with her, and there were some (certainly a minority) who liked it less. But nobody of them, ever, characterized Earhart as "clown", or "joke", or alleged some "narcissism" to her, etc. And, sorry again, but to me it certainly seems they knew better; the power of their "cumulative" historic evidence" is beyond the reasonable doubt. Yes, naturally Earhart (and Noonan) could make errors; as you do, and I do, and everybody does; nobody is perfect. Still i don't think it gives a good reason to call you, me, or anybody else as "idiots", "clowns" etc. Also, can't see how it can help the real research. Rather it is my impression it can only irritate some people who are more respective to AE and FN and "alienate" them from TIGHAR. As always, just my personal opinion. LTM - sincerely, Marcus Lind ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:34:40 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr's letter >From Alan Caldwell > >Is this on the web site, Marty? > >"The presence of these radios aboard NR16020 and the frequencies they >cover are documented in a Lockheed memo dated July 30, 1937 addressed >to Courtland Gross and signed by J.W. Cross. Not that I could see from a quick search. The assertion is on the website: Ric Gillespie, 21 June 2000 Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:35:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Antennas so far Marty Moleski writes, >>In other words, he compromised her system by lengthening the dorsal >>antenna to satisfy Earhart's demand for a capability she wasn't >>competent to use. > >It wasn't her demand. Sure sounds like it to me. "Amelia was sold and wanted the 500KH capability, and I gave it to her as efficiently as possible under the limited circumstances." >Like Mike Everette, Gurr knew that >"The frequency of 500 KHz was essential for the round-the-world flight. >Until the middle of World War II, this was the only universally >monitored (guarded) distress frequency. Ships at sea, and maritime >shore stations, were required by international regulations to maintain >watch on 500 KHz. During specified parts of every hour, radio silence >would be observed in order to listen for stations in distress. At all >other times, 500 KHz was a calling frequency. Ships, shore stations >and aircraft made initial contact on 500, then moved to other working >frequencies like 410 or 425 KHz" (Everette). From what Gurr wrote to Goerner, it sounds to me like he thought having the 500 kHz capability was pointless. "(O)n one of our test flights, I unreeled this antenna and tried to raise someone on 500KH without success. 500KH is a frequency used for emergency communication. Ships at sea monitor this frequency with automatic equipment, but the radio operator still has to react. My sea experience showed 500KH to be a poor performer unless you can put out a strong signal to trip the auto alarm over any real distance, especially in daytime when low frequency propagation is poor, and it would be an advantage to be in busy shipping lanes. Amelia was sold and wanted the 500KH capability, and I gave it to her as efficiently as possible under the limited circumstances." In the above passage he's giving the reasons why he doesn't think 500 kHz is going to work for Earhart. - Even with the trailing wire he couldn't raise anybody. - Earhart was not going to be able to put out a strong signal. - Earhart was not going to be in busy shipping lanes. When he says, "Earhart was sold ..." he means that she was sold on the idea of having 500 kHz capability despite his reservations. >AE and FN didn't need to know code to put out a 500 kcs signal >that the Itasca might have used to take a bearing on them. True, but Gurr doesn't mention that and it never seems to have occurred to Earhart. >>Gurr's recollections, as related to Fred Goerner many years later, >>about leaving the wire reel aboard and testing it himself without success >>during "one of the test flights" doesn't track with known events. > >Do we know that Mantz and Manning never made any test >flights prior to March 17? On the contrary. We know that Mantz and Manning and Kelly Johnson made test flights prior to March 17. Gurr may have also participated. Gurr wrote to Goerner: "I left the trailing wire reel installed, and it could be used. In fact, on one of our test flights, I unreeled this antenna and tried to raise someone on 500KH without success." I interpreted the two described actions as being sequential. He left the reel aboard and tested it. You're probably right. He could be saying, "I left it aboard and there was a way it could be used (even though the mast wasn't installed) but I knew the thing wouldn't work." >I don't think the story of a test flight with Mantz >and Manning is the kind of thing that would be an >invented memory or something that would be hard to >remember. I would tend to agree with you, but making judgements about which memories are accurate and which aren't based on what it seems should have been memorable is how Electras end up getting burned by Marines on Saipan. >Gurr says he saw photos of the plane with a cigar-shaped >pod under the belly. That claim seems to have no confirmation >in TIGHAR's research; the Hooven fairing was on top of the >plane and wasn't cigar-shaped. I think we have to chalk >the claim about the cigar-shaped pod up to misremembering >for the time being. See above. >So, too, with the mystery receiver: > >"I do not know who was responsible for this acquisition, >nor where it came from. I was pleased, as now the plane was capable >of covering larger segments of frequencies which could be useful in >radio communication, and even in radio direction finding. While the >direction finding loop was designed for the lower frequencies, I >found I could get a fairly good null on AM Broadcast Stations up to >1500KH. I figured it would probably be useful even on 3105KH if the >received signal was strong enough" (3 May 1982). Lordy, I wonder if Gurr told Amelia that she didn't need to worry too much about the published limits. >Gurr wrote about it again 29 March 1988: "The receiver was a >six band job covering 1.5 to 15 MH. (150 to 15,000 KC For >me it was easy, but I'm afraid Amelia did not quite understand >the how of it. He final reply was 'we will have lots of >time en route to learn all about it.' True--en route OAKLAND >to LAE was certinly time enough to learn how to tune that >very fine, and really simple receiver." > >There are only a few logical possibilities: > >1. Gurr was right about a new receiver being installed. > > A. Evidence to the contrary is wrong. > > B. Evidence to the contrary shows that > the receiver was replaced. > >2. Gurr was wrong about the new receiver. > > A. He lied on purpose. > > B. He made a mistake. Re-reading Gurr's letter to Goerner, I suspect we may be misconstruing what he wrote. I'll deal with that in a separate posting. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:12:42 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: A "joke" I agree with Marcus here. Even Joe Gurr stated that "Amelia was a real lady, very friendly and was always kind to him. Palmer Putnam on the other hand, was all business, and was never friendly." Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:36:29 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Gurr's letter Alan Caldwell asks, Is this on the web site, Marty? "The presence of these radios aboard NR16020 and the frequencies they cover are documented in a Lockheed memo dated July 30, 1937 addressed to Courtland Gross and signed by J.W. Cross. The memo is reproduced (poorly) on page 278 of Carol Osborne's book "Amelia My Courageous Sister." It lists the equipment installed by Lockheed - a WE13C with crystal- controlled frequencies 3105, 6210, and 500 Kcs, and a WE20B receiver - "at the time this ship was built." It also says, "The radio compass, which was installed elsewhere, was manufactured by the Bendix people." This has to be a reference to the Bendix/Hooven Radio compass installed in October 1936 and subsequently removed on or about March 7, 1937 and replaced by the Bendix MN-5 loop. Cross was apparently unaware of the change. He also wrote, "(W)e have good reason to believe that additional equipment was installed by Miss Earhart at the time her ship was in Miami." He doesn't say what the good reason is. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:53:05 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: A "joke" Marcus Lind writes, >Yes, naturally Earhart (and Noonan) could make errors; as you do, >and I do, and everybody does; nobody is perfect. Still i don't think >it gives a good reason to call you, me, or anybody else as "idiots", >"clowns" etc. >Also, can't see how it can help the real research. Rather it is my >impression it can only irritate some people who are more respective >to AE and FN and "alienate" them from TIGHAR. I call them as I see them. Before founding TIGHAR, I had a long career in aviation safety, risk management, accident investigation, and underwriting. I got into that business because, although I have always loved aviation, I developed a loathing of airplane accidents after watching several friends die in a horrific multi-plane mid-air collision during an air race in Cape May, NJ in 1970. Airplane accidents take people away from people. They are, in most cases, preventable. All that is required is for the practitioners to approach aviation with discipline, respect, and responsibility. All pilots make mistakes but some pilots make too many mistakes. Earhart made too many mistakes because she failed to approach her flying with sufficient discipline, respect, and responsibility. She was a great advocate for women's rights and she and Putnam were true pioneers in 20th century celebrity management, but I do not believe she was an "aviation pioneer" and I do not think her approach to flying should held up as an example of anything except verification of the old British saying, "All aeroplanes bite fools." "Idiot" and "clown" are harsh labels. So is "dead." Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:53:54 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Antennas, so far Marty, I'm specious ! I'd like to see that letter in Gurr hand writing. It is pretty much what he says on my tape, but the below sound like paraphrasing. There are words used below, that Gurr doesn't use on the tape. Can we see that letter in real time? Also, using a DF is not that complicated. I think anybody could learn to use it in one 15 minute session. Besides all she did was take a bearing and give the number to Fred. He did the rest. Just find the location of the transmitter, and draw a line on the map out from it on the reverse of the bearing she gave him. All Amelia had to do was turn on the radio, tune in a station, flip to the loop, and rotate the loop to get a null (lowest audio), and give the reading to Fred. Of course the station had to be transmitting long enough for her to do all of that. I'm sure Fred was well experienced in using DF. He could have been helping her, or doing it himself. We just don't know. She was the only voice heard on the radio, but I doubt very seriously that Fred was just back there with his feet up waiting to land. I imagine that by that time he was back there working his butt off and getting pretty nervous. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:28:39 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr and antennas >From Ric > >>It wasn't her demand. > >Sure sounds like it to me. "Amelia was sold and wanted the 500KH >capability, and I gave it to her as efficiently as possible under the >limited circumstances." OK. She didn't come up with the idea by herself. :o) >From what Gurr wrote to Goerner, it sounds to me like he thought >having the 500 kHz capability was pointless. > >In the above passage he's giving the reasons why he doesn't think 500 >kHz is going to work for Earhart. >- Even with the trailing wire he couldn't raise anybody. >- Earhart was not going to be able to put out a strong signal. >- Earhart was not going to be in busy shipping lanes. > >When he says, "Earhart was sold ..." he means that she was sold on the >idea of having 500 kHz capability despite his reservations. In other words, he agrees with TIGHAR that the modification he made was not going to put out a strong signal--as Everette notes in his technical analysis. Gurr understood the comm problem. >>AE and FN didn't need to know code to put out a 500 kcs signal >>that the Itasca might have used to take a bearing on them. > >True, but Gurr doesn't mention that and it never seems to have >occurred to Earhart. The original impetus to add 500 kcs to the top Vee was when Manning was still around. It probably would have occurred to him (among many other problem-solving strategies). Picking up the 3 May 1982 letter where Gurr is talking about Manning's attention to safety details: "... Everything was laid out on the apron, checked out, then carefully repacked and properly stored. I do not know if Amelia was checked out in the use of this equipment, but then Harry was, so no problem. "At this point we got into a hassle about the trailing wire antenna installed in the airplane, and which was intended for use on 500 kilohertz. I had previous experience with trailing wires, and it is an efficient radiator. However they are not reliable mechanically. The wire has a rather heavy lead ball attached to its end. An airplane moving at cruising speed puts an enormous strain on this wire, and the wire is subject to breaking, especially in rough air, the lead ball can break off, and you have no antenna. Airlines used them in the early days when low frequencies were used, and they soon discarded them. The pressure was on me because Amelia wanted the 500 KH capability. The transmitter had this frequency. I improvised a loading coil and resonated the top antenna system. Obviously this was not a very efficient radiator, but I pointed out to Amelia that there was not much more than 50 watts of power and at that frequency the range would be limited, even with the more efficient long wire. Furthermore, the only people she could raise on 500KH would be ships at sea, and then she would have to be on top of them to be heard. This is what she wanted, because, as she put it, 'if we see a ship, we can verify our position.'" >I interpreted the two described actions as being sequential. He left >the reel aboard and tested it. You're probably right. He could be >saying, "I left it aboard and there was a way it could be used (even though the >mast wasn't installed) but I knew the thing wouldn't work." I don't see that he was ever clued in on the absence of the mast after the repairs. In my reconstruction of events, he had tested the trailing antenna before March 17 and ***THOUGHT*** it was still available after repairs (no flight tests for him after the repairs). I don't think the story of a test flight with Mantz and Manning is the kind of thing that would be an invented memory or something that would be hard to remember. >I would tend to agree with you, but making judgements about which >memories are accurate and which aren't based on what it seems should >have been memorable is how Electras end up getting burned by Marines >on Saipan. You can't subtract Gurr from the picture. Either he is responsible for lengthening the Vee or he isn't. If he is, then he was there, doing things, making changes. The kind of story he is telling fits with known facts (flight tests before March 17). It doesn't strain my credulity to think that his memory was functioning well enough about the main details of what he did during the two or three months that he was under Amelia's spell. "I do not know who was responsible for this acquisition, nor where it came from. I was pleased, as now the plane was capable of covering larger segments of frequencies which could be useful in radio communication, and even in radio direction finding. While the direction finding loop was designed for the lower frequencies, I found I could get a fairly good null on AM Broadcast Stations up to 1500KH. I figured it would probably be useful even on 3105KH if the received signal was strong enough" (3 May 1982). >Lordy, I wonder if Gurr told Amelia that she didn't need to worry too >much about the published limits. He may have planted that seed. But someone else must have put her on to 7500 kcs. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:29:04 From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: Re: Belly antenna What was the length of the belly antenna and how does that length compare with the frequency range of radio range stations that were being used in the US for navigation ? Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:30:24 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Antennas >From Don Jordan > >I'm specious! I suspect you meant to type "suspicious." "Specious" means "giving the illusion of value." >I'd like to see that letter in Gurr hand writing. All of Gurr's letters to Goerner were typed. Goerner sent Gurr some typewritten questions. Gurr hand-wrote answers to those. >It is >pretty much what he says on my tape, but the below sound like >paraphrasing. There are words used below, that Gurr doesn't use on the >tape. Two problems: 1) I don't see any words below that I could double-check. When you want to include words in your text, perhaps you could select the ones you want and make sure they don't get cut off by your word-processing program. 2) I don't see why Gurr's written words should exactly match what he says on tape at a different time. >Can we see that letter in real time? Pat and Ric dug up the correspondence in 1998. I think it's up to them to decide whether then can or should reproduce it on the website. They're pretty busy with some other things nowadays. >Also, using a DF is not that complicated. I think anybody could >learn to use it in one 15 minute session. Learn the basics, yes. Learn enough to troubleshoot the system under pressure? Apparently not. >... All Amelia had to do was turn on the radio, >tune in a station, flip to the loop, and rotate the loop to get a null >(lowest audio), and give the reading to Fred. Of course the station >had to be transmitting long enough for her to do all of that. And it had to be at the right frequency for a good response. She asked for an absurdly high frequency given the apparently KNOWN limitations of her DF equipment. ============ Putnam says: 200 to 1400 kcs =============== June 25th at 2245GMT, the Coast Guard San Francisco office sent a radio message ... Mr. Putnam now at Oakland and advises Ms. Earhart at Bandoeng Java for repairs to motors and departure indefinite. She will cable details communications from Port Darwin direct San Francisco and you will be given all information immediately. All communications from plane will be on 500, 3105, or 6210 kHz by voice, positions being given at 15 and 45 minutes past the hour. Itasca adjust transmitter for possible use 3105 kHz for voice. Direction finder on plane covers range of about 200 to 1400 kHz. ========== AE asks for 7500 kcs, offers 3105 kcs =============== At 0720GMT, June 26th, Earhart responded with ...Itasca transmit letter A, position, own call letters, as above on half hour at 7.5 MHz. Position ships and our leaving will determine broadcast times specifically. If frequencies mentioned unsuitable night work inform me at Lae. I will give long call by voice 3105 kHz quarter after hour, possible quarter to. ========== AE says 200 to 1500 and 2400 to 4800 kcs OK ============== At 1930GMT, June 26th, the San Francisco office of the USCG sent out a priority radio message stating Following information from Earhart this date quote homing device covers from 200 to 1500 and 2400 to 4800 kHz any frequencies not repeat not near ends of bands suitable unquote. ... assume continuous signals after her direction finder in range. ========== Itasca needed 270 to 550 kcs =================== On 2040GMT, June 28, Itasca sent this message to Earhart Itasca transmitters calibrated 7500, 6210, 3105, 500 and 425 kHz CW and last three either CW or MCW. Itasca direction finder range 550 to 270 kHz. Request we be advised as to time of departure and zone time to be used on radio schedules. AE doesn't seem to have paid attention to this telegram. The Itasca is telling her that they cannot DF on 3105 kcs. For them to take a bearing on her, she needs to transmit between 270 and 550 kcs. Because her transmitter was crystal-controlled and had only three frequencies (500, 3105, 6210 kcs), her efforts to make a noise in the microphone by whistling or singing were a waste of breath--and too short besides. Fifteen minutes is enough to learn how to spin the antenna. It's not enough time to master the concepts about what is going on and what is the right way to use one's equipment. >I'm sure Fred was well experienced in using DF. Gurr says Fred took zero instruction from him on the radios. Fred was well experienced in letting radio operators operate the radios. >... I imagine that by that time he was back >there working his butt off and getting pretty nervous. I imagine he let AE run the radios per the division of labor that the plane was set up for. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:30:49 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gurr's letter Thanks, Ric. not of much value in the long run as too many changes then occurred but still nice to put in the chain. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:37:41 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antennas Don, do you have a transcript of the tape or has that already been posted somewhere? I get confused with all the "variations" Gurr supposedly said. You are correct in the simplicity of DF. I flew DF for a long time in my early flying days. I was tested on finding a station, flying a required bearing both inbound and outbound and setting up a holding pattern and doing a penetration followed by an ADF landing approach. There is little to it but our real concern is whether she could find a station. First of all they had to know the general direction of the station or they weren't paying any attention to their flight. In the case of Howland it was generally in front of them so all that was needed was to tune in the frequency and rotate the loop slightly in both directions off their heading until she got a null. It was a crunchy cockpit and either one could do that. It shouldn't take a full minute. At that point Noonan must have been in the copilot's seat helping look for the island. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:08:07 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Gurr's taped interview of 1970 Has anyone heard and transcribed the tape at Fredericksburg that Goerner made with his interview of Gurr in 1970. All I have is Goerners notes based on the tape. Ron ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:17:41 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Antennas That seems odd to me. why would Earhart ask for that if as some of you say, she couldn't read Morse code? To me it is obvious she could. My understanding was that neither were "proficient" enough to communicate much in code but they would know all the letters for all the stations enroute. Does anyone not know A,N,W,and S? She already knew the Itasca call letters and their essential position so it wouldn't take a genius to simply listen for Itasca. The numbers for the position are too simple to be concened about. Look at the code and you can see. It takes about two seconds to memorize the numbers. Of her frequencies, which were CW and which were MCW? Alan >...Itasca transmit letter A, position, own call letters, as above >on half hour at 7.5 MHz. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:46:35 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Antennas >From Alan Caldwell > >...Itasca transmit letter A, position, own call letters, as above >on half hour at 7.5 MHz. > >That seems odd to me. why would Earhart ask for that if as some of >you say, she couldn't read Morse code? Because a string of As, in theory, would be all she needed to get a null. The station may even have had a mechanism to generate the As (I'll defer to the radio experts on that). >Of her frequencies, which were CW and which were MCW? Tinus says that the radio could transmit both CW and MCW. He doesn't say that it's limited to any frequency. Mike Everette says that the radio was only capable of CW. He also does not say that it is limited to any frequency. If the transmitter had three kinds of signal it could emit (A1, A2, A3), it must have had a three-way switch to pick the right mode (Tone, CW, Voice). If two modes, a two-way switch (CW, Voice). Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:02:19 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Gurr This is a far too long analysis of the letter Joe Gurr wrote to Fred Goerner on May 3, 1982 in response to Goerner's request that he relate his recollections about his involvement with Amelia Earhart. Gurr mentions few dates but by matching his comments with known events it's possible to reconstruct the chronology of his actions with a fair degree of accuracy. Gurr says: "I was introduced to Amelia Earhart and George Palmer Putnam. They were both very disturbed because the radio on Amelia's airplane did not work . She had just flown in from New York and no radio. Story was that Bell Labs in New York had installed the equipment, and they were frantic to think that the radio could fail after having been installed by so prestigious a group of engineers." This had to be in late November or early December 1936. The Bell Labs radio work was done at Hadley Field, NJ in late November 1936. The airplane was inspected on November 27, 1936 and the radios listed were: WE trans. & rec trans. rear of cabin rec. under copilot seat Bendix Radio Compass rear of copilots seat in cabin The Bendix/Hooven Radio Compass had been installed in Dayton, Ohio in October. At that time (October) the plane had: - The original starboard-side belly receiving antenna. - The trailing wire that deployed from the extreme end of the tail below the nav light. - The loop for the Radio Compass covered by a translucent fairing on the top of the fuselage just behind the cockpit area. - The sense antenna for the Radio Compass on port-side belly parallel to the receiving antenna. In November, Bell Labs added the the dorsal V antenna, so when Gurr first saw the airplane it had all of the above antennas. Gurr's description of the airplane at that time is a bit flawed: "The fuselage was solid gasoline tanks, two rows of them, from bulkhead to bulkhead, with just enough room between the tops of the tanks and the overhead for a person to be able to crawl from the stern to the cockpit on their tummy. Located in the stern, just opposite the main entrance door was a small table for the navigator's use. The radio transmitter was installed above this table. Jammed in what space they could find was a toilet." There was a single row, not two rows of tanks; the transmitter was installed under, not above the table; and the toilet was in the standard lavatory location. Gurr writes: "I worked on that airplane evenings, days off and whenever I had the chance. About this time I met Captain Harry Manning, a most interesting man." The time is late February 1937. On February 12, AE announced at a press conference in New York that she was going to fly around the world. She, GP, mechanic Bo McKneeley, and Harry Manning then flew the Electra back to California. At this time the airplane still had the same radio and antenna set up described above. Gurr liked Manning and described working with him to lay out and test all of the plane's emergency gear. Then he says, "At this point we got into a hassle about the trailing wire antenna installed in the airplane, and which was intended for use on 500 kilohertz." Whether this was the original trailing wire that deployed through the tail or the replacement that deployed through a mast under the cabin is not clear. Again, the time has to be late February or the first week of March, 1937. Gurr writes: "I left the trailing wire reel installed, and it could be used. In fact, on one of our test flights, I unreeled this antenna and tried to raise someone on 500KH without success. 500KH is a frequency used for emergency communication." Once we have it in context this passage makes perfect sense. All this is taking place shortly before the Oakland/Wheeler flight. This has nothing to do with lengthening the dorsal V. That didn't happen until after the Hawaii crash. Gurr is saying that, prior to the first world flight attempt, he tried to talk AE out of messing with a trailing wire and 500 kHz at all. When he says, "Amelia was sold and wanted the 500KH capability, and I gave it to her as efficiently as possible under the limited circumstances." he's talking about the trailing wire set up for the first attempt. It sounds like he's the one who moved the trailing wire from the tail to the under-cabin mast. Gurr next says, " About this time we received a box marked U.S. Navy, containing a fine multi-frequency receiver, covering frequencies up to 20 megahertz. I do not know who was responsible for this acquisition, nor where it came from. I was pleased, as now the plane was capable of covering larger segments of frequencies which could be useful in radio communication, and even in radio direction finding. While the direction finding loop was designed for the lower frequencies, I found I could get a fairly good null on AM Broadcast Stations up to 1500KH. I figured it would probably be useful even on 3105KH if the received signal was strong enough." Again, this is happening within about two weeks of the departure for Hawaii. A New York Herald Tribune article dateline Burbank, March 6 features a photo of AE peeking through the soon to be installed Bendix MN-5 loop. "A last minute addition in navigation equipment is a Bendix direction finder, installed during the last week. It's 'loop' carried on the outside of the ship just above the cockpit is adjustable by the pilot so that it may be turned in any desired direction." In photos datable to this time, the faired dome of the Bendix/Hooven Radio Compass goes away and is replaced by the loop above the cockpit. However, the sense antenna on the port-side belly remains in place. Is Gurr's recollection correct? Was the Bendix/Hooven receiver replaced with another Bendix receiver that used the MN-5 loop and the port-side sense antenna? Gurr then talks about his frustration with AE not bothering to learn how to use the new equipment and about the long test flight he did with Mantz and Manning. He then says, "Shortly before Amelia's departure for Oakland to start her flight westward, a new face appeared on the scene. It was Fred Noonan." Noonan was hired on or about March 13. Gurr: "Anyway, my work was finished. I was never even introduced to Noonan. I did not see him in the final preparations at Burbank. I could now only hope for the best." He then describes the Luke Field accident. "The damaged plane was shipped back to Lockheed at Burbank for repair. I was called in regarding the radio installation, as everything had to be removed. I took the whole installation home. My job was to make sure that the equipment was not damaged, I took everything apart and checked completely. There were some repairs and adjustments made which I am sure were not required because of the accident, but nothing serious." So, according to Gurr, no radios were added or deleted during this time. Gurr: "While the airplane was being repaired at Lockheed, I took the opportunity to redesign the top antenna. This required a new stub mast on top of the fuselage, behind the cockpit, with a wire to each rudder, and a lead-in from one side to an insulator in the fuselage. The antenna looked similar as before, but now we had about 50% more wire. It made a great deal of difference in radiated energy. Also, because of the added wire, this top antenna now would be more effective on 500KH. I made a loading coil. and tuned it for maximum output. It was still not much under the circumstances but it got out and Amelia was pleased." As we've previously discussed, Mike Everette disagreed as to the consequences of lengthening the dorsal antenna. "We designed a belly sensing antenna for preliminary reception of signals to be used for direction finding." But the airplane already had a sense antenna before the accident. Why was there a need to design another one? And when the airplane came out of the shop the port-side belly sense antenna was no longer there. It's possible that the dorsal antenna was now used for both transmitting and receiving and the starboard-side belly wire was appropriated as a sense antenna. But if the airplane did have a separate DF receiver as Gurr claimed, it would still need two belly antennas. Gurr: "I left the reel antenna on board, and it could have been used. Harry Manning knew how to switch it in if necessary. This work was done at Lockheed. However, Captain Harry Manning's leave of absence would now run out before Amelia could make her flight, so he bowed out and returned to Washington. " The reel for the trailing wire may still have been aboard as Gurr says. There's no way to tell. But the mast through which the wire had been deployed was not reinstalled. Gurr's comment about Manning knowing how to switch it in implies that he didn't know about Manning leaving the team at the time he decided to leave the reel aboard. Gurr: "Before he left, he and I had dinner and a long talk. Amongst other things, Harry gave me his version of the ground loop incident in Honolulu. I had talked with Amelia about what happened." Gurr then describes AE's version of the accident but never gets around to giving Manning's version. The rest of Gurr's letter is own speculation of what went wrong. "Amelia did all the radio work. Noonan was not a pilot, so we must assume Amelia did all the flying. Amelia was well checked out and versed in flying that airplane, but obviously she was not proficient in operation of the radio. From the logs I have seen, it was a poor performance." Gurr's account of his involvement with Earhart and the Electra tracks fairly well with known events. The big discrepancies are : - his claim that Earhart and company received "a box marked U.S. Navy, containing a fine multi-frequency receiver, covering frequencies up to 20 megahertz" shortly before the Oakland/Wheeler takeoff. There's no mention of such an event by anyone else, nor is there a photo of such a device, or any mention of it in the letters, telegrams and messages surrounding the flight. - his mention of designing a sense antenna during during the post- crash repairs. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:34:00 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr >From Ric > >... When he says, "Amelia was sold and wanted the 500KH >capability, and I gave it to her as efficiently as possible under the >limited circumstances." he's talking about the trailing wire set up >for the first attempt. It sounds like he's the one who moved the trailing >wire from the tail to the under-cabin mast. It doesn't sound that way to me at all. These are the points he makes in his original order: 1. While working with Manning, "we got into a hassle about the trailing wire antenna." We agree on the date: pre-March 17. 2. Trailing wire antennas are "not reliable." 3. "I improvised a loading coil and resonated the top antenna system." 4. "I left the trailing wire reel installed, and it could be used." You seem to have skipped over points 2 & 3. >... Gurr's comment about Manning knowing how >to switch it in implies that he didn't know about Manning leaving the >team at the time he decided to leave the reel aboard. I think you're right about him not knowing AE's plans for Manning. It sounds as though while he's fiddling with the radios and reinstalling them, he is assuming that Manning will still be handling them. Do you know when Manning ceased to work with the group? That may mark the end of the time that Gurr was involved, too. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:38:07 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Gurr If the concensus is that there was no separate DF homing receiver on board during the last flight, at what point could it have been removed, and was this another weight-saving measure, do you suppose? The Bendix RA-1 was certainly something that Gurr would have remembered right, i believe. It's selling price had to be couple months pay equivalent. Maybe its installation was just postponed "forever" due to the all the work required to removed the WE and replace it, making up cables with connectors, etc. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:49:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gurr No it wasn't too long. It was extremely helpful in sorting the various comments to date. I have three issues. 1. Gurr said he designed a sensing antenna. Clearly the crash wiped out everything on the belly of the plane. I take his comment as "replacing the belly masts and antenna, nothing more. He may have adjusted the position of the masts at best. Designing may have been a bit of an over statement. Slightly self serving possibly but I have no problem with that issue. 2. Mike's quarrel with the redesign of the dorsal antenna. I haven't the slightest doubt Mike knows what he is talking about and that his analysis is perfectly correct. The only difference I see is that Mike is dealing with theory -- what should have resulted. Gurr actually did the work and tested it. Maybe it should not have worked but Gurr said his flight tests obtained a loud and clear response. That means it DID work. Had it not it would have been redone. How could there be a question about that? I don't know that we can resolve this. We don't have a plane with the same set up to test. I have to take both guys at face value. I believe Mike is right it shouldn't have worked and I believe Gurr that it did. >3. The US Navy box and contents. >a. Gurr may have misremembered. >(1). Something we know about was in an old used box having >nothing to do with the Navy. >(2). It may not have said US Navy. >(3). He may have been wrong that it was a "fine receiver." As >you pointed out there is no evidence of a separate DF. >b. Maybe it happened but was never used. Someone thought it was a >good idea and was over ruled. That was the best analysis I've seen. There are still holes I don't have clear, however. I'm still fuzzy on what frequencies she could talk on, which ones were CW only and which frequencies the DF would work on. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:52:18 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gurr Marty, my understanding it that item three occurred after the crash at Luke. Is that not correct? Alan >3. "I improvised a loading coil and resonated the top antenna system." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:56:41 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gurr That is how I saw it, Hue, assuming there actually was none on board. I see THAT as a problem with our analysis. There were a lot of changes made but our limited number of photos were simply moments in time. Changes could have been made within minutes after a particular photo. Take for example, Ric said, in response to the idea the dorsal antenna was BOTH a transmitting AND receiving antenna, the receiver terminal was not connected. Why couldn't it have been off for some maintenance and back on a few minutes after the photo? Alan >From Hue Miller > >If the concensus is that there was no separate DF homing receiver on >board during the last flight, at what point could it have been >removed, and was this another weight-saving measure, do you suppose? > >The Bendix RA-1 was certainly something that Gurr would have >remembered right, i believe. It's selling price had to be couple months pay >equivalent. Maybe its installation was just postponed "forever" due to the all >the work required to removed the WE and replace it, making up cables with >connectors, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:59:09 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Gurr Marty Moleski writes, >>1. While working with Manning, "we got into a hassle about the >>trailing wire antenna." We agree on the date: pre-March 17. >> >>2. Trailing wire antennas are "not reliable." >> >>3. "I improvised a loading coil and resonated the top antenna system." >> >>4. "I left the trailing wire reel installed, and it could be used." > >You seem to have skipped over points 2 & 3. You're right. Gurr "improvised a loading coil and resonated the top antenna system" to give it some 500 kHz capability, thus (in his mind) eliminating the need for the trailing wire but he left the wire installed to humor Earhart. Later, during the post-crash repairs he lengthened the top antenna to improve its 500 kHz performance. >>... Gurr's comment about Manning knowing how >>to switch it in implies that he didn't know about Manning leaving the >>team at the time he decided to leave the reel aboard. > >I think you're right about him not knowing AE's plans for >Manning. It sounds as though while he's fiddling with >the radios and reinstalling them, he is assuming that >Manning will still be handling them. > >Do you know when Manning ceased to work with the group? >That may mark the end of the time that Gurr was involved, >too. I'm frankly surprised that Harry hung around long enough to have dinner with Gurr after the ship got back to California. My impression is that he stopped working with the group about the time the airplane slid to a stop on the runway at Luke Field. Fred Noonan gave him a receipt for the borrowed Navy octant that same day. If you look at the photo of AE, FN, and HM aboard the Matson liner Maolo on their way home later that day, Amelia and Fred are smiling and putting the best face on it. Harry is not a happy camper. The Electra didn't arrive back in California until April 2. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:03:22 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Gurr Hue Miller asks, >If the concensus is that there was no separate DF homing receiver on >board during the last flight, at what point could it have been >removed, and was this another weight-saving measure, do you suppose? The only separate DF receiver knonw to have been aboard the aircraft at any time was the Bendix/Hooven Radio Compass install in October 1936 and removed when the Bendix MN-5 loop was installed in early March 1937. According to Hooven, the motivation was to save weight. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:57:45 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Gurr and antennas >He may have planted that seed. But someone else must have >put her on to 7500 kcs. > >Marty That's what puzzles me. Okay, assuming no separate receiver, fine; but SOMEONE had to wire the loop to the "HF Antenna" connection on her one receiver. Not only that, but the someone had to provide for a relay box on the receiver, to switch the receiver from the loop to the wire antenna ( belly antenna wire ). ( Bendix catalog mentions a small unit which attached to face of receiver, which did the switching. I'm not saying she bought and installed the unit at all: just that this is one way to do it. Any compentent radio repair station could have built this from scratch. Or, as the research bulletin mentions, "someone" could have just wired the LF-DF and HF-wire antenna connectors together. This is kinda Mickey Mouse engineering and i "think" it would disturb DF operation on both ranges but i suppose it could have happened. BTW, i was looking at the Navy manual for the DU-no suffix ( RDF-1 equivalent ) last nite and saw a couple interesting (to me) items. One, it seems the amplifier in the RDF-1 was not so much to improve senstivity as to compensate for the cable length to the actual receiver, and to enable a receiver with no balanced input (i.e. only A & G connector) to be used with a 2-wire, balanced, ungrounded output from the loop. Also - the RDF instructions suggest that if, say during periods of propagation disturbance, when getting a null proves difficult to impossible, specifically HF-DF, as in "7500 kHz", the flier should give up on trying for any null and turn loop for the broader area of maximum signal, and proceed in that direction. ( This assumes a unidirectional loop pattern when used with a "sense antenna" but even without it, without a sense antenna, the instruction still holds.) ( I can quote the paragraph, if there's interest. ) I suppose whoever sold AE on the 7500 kHz business never got as far as explaining this point, maybe didn't know it himself. I certainly had no clue until i read it. Even if the sector you headed off into was much broader in degrees than any narrow null bearing, at least you were headed in the right direction, and you could try again later to get a better bearing or even use sight, i suppose. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:58:15 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Gurr Gurr's description of the airplane at that time is a bit flawed: "The fuselage was solid gasoline tanks, two rows of them, from bulkhead to bulkhead, with just enough room between the tops of the tanks and the overhead for a person to be able to crawl from the stern to the cockpit on their tummy. Located in the stern, just opposite the main entrance door was a small table for the navigator's use. The radio transmitter was installed above this table. Jammed in what space they could find was a toilet."<< There was a single row, not two rows of tanks; the transmitter was installed under, not above the table; and the toilet was in the standard lavatory location.<< Not to make too big a deal about it, but . . . the transmitter was under the table, and he reports it as being above the table? Wow! I wonder how the heck that happened. Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:59:46 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Gurr From Alan Caldwell >2. Mike's quarrel with the redesign of the dorsal antenna. I haven't >the slightest doubt Mike knows what he is talking about and that his >analysis is perfectly correct. The only difference I see is that Mike >is dealing with theory -- what should have resulted. Gurr actually >did the work and tested it. Maybe it should not have worked but Gurr said >his flight tests obtained a loud and clear response. That means it >DID work. My reading of the transmitter text for this equipment tells me that 50 some feet is in no way excessive. WE provided for substantial variance in antennas working with the radio, as did all manufacturers. The output circuit, altho simple, is the same as used by many other manufacturers of the time. If the antenna is too long, you can "electrically shorten" it with a series capacitor. The antenna was way too short on 500 kHz so the opposite electrical element was applied in series - a series inductance - "loading coil" - was attached. >3. The US Navy box and contents. >a. Gurr may have misremembered. >(1). Something we know about was in an old used box having >nothing to do with the Navy. >(2). It may not have said US Navy. >(3). He may have been wrong that it was a "fine receiver." As >you pointed out there is no evidence of a separate DF. >b. Maybe it happened but was never used. Someone thought it was a good idea and was over ruled. US Navy was buying the same product from Bendix at the same time. I think Mike Hanz described Bendix as having some kind of "sweetheart deal" with the Navy; that may have been done tongue in cheek but Bendix gear was unique in the military in that it retained its Bendix nomenclature and wasn't military nameplated ( RDF-1 about the only exception i can think of. ) Where this is going. I recalled that of the factory new equipment i have seen from this era, even if it was destined for the Navy, the cardboard box was not marked US Navy, only with the manufacturer's type number. Thus i am tending to think that the box did indeed come right from the Navy and was not sent to AE from right off the Bendix factory, not plucked from a line of material to be sent to the Navy. The fact of "Navy" + expensive late model equipment would certainly make it a memorable thing but there still is no proof it was ever installed. You might think that at Lae the checking technician might have remarked on it, or that it would not have required any further "calibrating". -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:22:22 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr >From Alan Caldwell > >2. Mike's quarrel with the redesign of the dorsal antenna. I haven't >the slightest doubt Mike knows what he is talking about and that his >analysis is perfectly correct. The only difference I see is that Mike is >dealing with theory -- what should have resulted. Gurr actually did the work and tested it. Maybe it should not have worked but Gurr said his >flight tests obtained a loud and clear response. That means it DID >work. No, that's not what he says. He says he flight-tested the FIRST modification (loading and resonating the dorsal Vee for 500 kcs when Manning was still around). There were no such flight tests of the lengthened dorsal Vee after repairs. Or, rather, Gurr was not on the test flights. The test flights were from ... uh? ... Oakland to Miami (the secret beginning of the second attempt). If I understood a previous post correctly, they came to Miami complaining that their radios weren't working right (receiver and transmitter problems). >Had it not it would have been redone. How could there be a question >about that? I'm gonna speculate that they were strapped for cash and couldn't afford time for testing. They tested across N. America, stopped in Miami, got some stuff fixed (?), and went on their way eastward around the world. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:22:59 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr >From Alan Caldwell > >Marty, my understanding it that item three occurred after the crash at >Luke. > >Is that not correct? That is not how I read the letter. 3. "I improvised a loading coil and resonated the top antenna system." Gurr talks about this before telling the story of the test flight with Mantz and Manning on which he says they checked out the radios and found everything OK (except they couldn't raise anyone on 500 kcs using the trailing wire). Then he talks about the crash. Then he talks about lengthening the dorsal Vee and making a coil for 500 kcs operation. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:33:50 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Gurr Alan Caldwell writes, >There are still holes I don't have clear, however. I'm still fuzzy >on what frequencies she could talk on, which ones were CW only and >which frequencies the DF would work on. She could talk on 3105 and 6210. She could transmit on 500 kHz but only in code. Her DF could take a bearing on signals between 200 and 1500 kHz Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:16:40 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gurr That makes sense, Hue as I worked for Bendix making Navy HFs. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:21:54 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Gurr "AE and FN didn't need to know code to put out a 500 kcs signal that the Itasca might have used to take a bearing on them." "True, but Gurr doesn't mention that and it never seems to have occurred to Earhart." I think there are two sources that said they could use voice on 500 kcs. One was Gurr on the tape, and the other was Putnam in a note to the Coast Guard. I thought I saw a transcript of that note in an earlier post by some one. On the tape, Gurr does say that he told Amelia that very thing. "I told her that all she had to do was put a piece of chewing gum on the button and just leave it. Then take it off every now and then and see if anybody comes back." Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:45:08 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Gurr >From Ric > >'She could talk on 3105 and 6210. >She could transmit on 500 kHz but only in code. >Her DF could take a bearing on signals between 200 and 1500 kHz ' Going back to the Gurr tape again, I find that he states she could transmit and receive on 3105 and 6210. That she could transmit and receive on 500 kcs. And that she could receive on the DF from 2 to 4[00], and from 575 up to about 1,000 [AM broadcast band], including 3105 and 6210. Then something much higher up to the ham band, True, he doesn't specifically say that he could use voice on 500 kcs. But he does say that he tried all three frequencies several times, on three separate test flights, and they always came back to him with "Loud and clear". He does not mention code at any time on the tape. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:03:00 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Gurr Don Jordan wrote, >Going back to the Gurr tape again, I find that he states she could >transmit and receive on 3105 and 6210. True >That she could transmit and receive on 500 kcs. True >And that she could receive on the DF from 2 to 4[00], and from 575 >up to about 1,000 [AM broadcast band], including 3105 and 6210. "Receive on the DF" (if those are the words he used) implies that there was a separate DF receiver. There is no evidence for a separate DF receiver. As Marty Moleski listed in his posting earlier today, during the second world flight attempt both Earhart and Putnam described the frequency range of the direction finder in coordination messages to the Coast Guard. On June 25 Putnam told the Coast Guard: "Direction finder on plane covers range of about 200 to 1400 kHz." On June 26 Earhart told the Coast Guard: "homing device covers from 200 to 1500 and 2400 to 4800 kHz any frequencies not repeat not near ends of bands suitable" Neither seems to bear much relation to what Gurr said on the tape. Then something much higher up to the ham band, True, he doesn't specifically say that he could use voice on 500 kcs. But he does say that he tried all three frequencies several times, on three separate test flights, and they always came back to him with "Loud and clear". He does not mention code at any time on the tape. Nobody can use voice on 500. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:03:25 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Gurr I don't recall reading any limitation on the transmitter design so it could only transmit telegraphy on 500 kHz channel. Anyone? However, there wouldn't be much point, as any ship station wouldn't have voice capability there, only CW telegraphy and tone telegraphy. Plus, the actual "voice power" in an AM transmitter is a fraction of the carrier power; the power output on 500 kHz was already low enough to be very limited in use. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:09:06 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: gurr >From Ric > >Nobody can use voice on 500. Do you mean in a legal sense? -Hue ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:21:59 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Gurr >I'm gonna speculate that they were strapped for cash and >couldn't afford time for testing. >Marty Hmmmm....was that basically her style, i'm thinking: "Hey, let's get moving, places to be and people to meet, we'll figure out the rest later". Also, is there an unnamed player here also: the one who put the 7500 idea in her head, and who possibly modified the plane's receiver connection to connect the loop up on the 2 top bands? Where and when did this player enter the scene? -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:22:15 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Gurr Hue Miller asked, >>From Ric >>Nobody can use voice on 500. > >Do you mean in a legal sense? As far as I know, nobody used voice on such a low frequency. I was under the impression that it's not even possible. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:31:22 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Gurr Well, I'm certainly no expert on radio. But I am an expert on what I hear on the tape . . .be it right or wrong. Gurr specifically states that when the plane left California for the second attempt, she could receive on two separate receivers. And, I don't know one way or the other if you could at that time use voice on 500 kcs. I wish we could find out for sure. All I know is, that Gurr said that he tested the three frequencies and got a "Loud and clear". He never mentions a key, or code even once in that description. And, he said that he was in the right seat for the test flights. I doubt that there would have been a key in the cockpit. He said that Mantz was checking out all of the instruments and engines, he [Gurr] was checking out the radios, and Manning was back there "doing his little tricks". It probably doesn't amount to a hill of bean though. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:31:48 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Gurr ". . .under the impression . . ."? That implies that you are not really sure. That opens up a whole new can of worms. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:28:11 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Gurr Here's a simple fact that voice on LF is certainly workable: remember when the tower broadcast on 278 kHz, and the plane was on....uh, i forget, was it 3123 ? kHz. Still, it would be extremely unusual for any ship or marine-service land station to have voice capable equipment in their 400- 500 kHz band. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:29:11 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Gurr >From Ric > >As far as I know, nobody used voice on such a low frequency. I was >under the impression that it's not even possible. Voice was carried by Amplitude Modulation (AM). It has to be demodulated (separating the voice information from the carrier wave) in order to be intelligible. 500 kcs was, by convention, CW or MCW. With "continuous wave" (CW), the transmitter just sends a carrier wave with no modulation at all. The receiver, when it hears a CW transmission, creates the tone to tell the human listener that the wave is on. Modulated continuous wave (MCW) is AM. You can hear MCW transmissions on an AM radio under the right circumstances. You can't hear CW transmissions because the AM radio isn't equipped with a circuit to generate a tone to show that a carrier wave has been received. I'm morally certain that Earhart could have put her transmitter into voice mode in any frequency. There's no technical reason why 500 kcs can't be modulated (modulated CW modulates such long waves). The practical reason not to do so is that it would be unlikely for anyone to have their sets in the AM listening mode: "No one monitoring 500 would have been listening for/expecting a voice signal on 500." [[Mike Everette]], 7 Sep 2000 [http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forum_Archives/200009.txtForum.] Similarly, there is no technical reason why CW can't be used on higher frequencies (as the Itasca did with the string of As on 7500 kcs). You just put the transmitter in the right configuration to react to the key by turning the carrier wave on and off. With MCW, the transmitter would need a tone generator to modulate the outgoing signal. But that is no harder in the higher frequencies than in the lower frequencies. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:30:09 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Gurr Is it possible that AE was having so many problems with her DF and its related hardware that when she reached Miami and had the Pan Am guys handy she arranged with Tripp to have the whole thing sorted out to Pan Am specifications? After all, along the way she would be landing in locations where Pan Am had stations/radio/DF for their own fleet. Ted ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:49:17 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: gurr That sound logical. But remember, Gurr stated that he arranged to have the shore stations listening for their call before they took off for the test flight. The shore stations would have had time to prepare and be listening for Gurr's call. Don J. >I'm morally certain that Earhart could have put her >transmitter into voice mode in any frequency. There's >no technical reason why 500 kcs can't be modulated >(modulated CW modulates such long waves). The practical >reason not to do so is that it would be unlikely for >anyone to have their sets in the AM listening mode: >"No one monitoring 500 would have been listening >for/expecting a voice signal on 500." Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:49:45 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Gurr The surprising thing is, that Gurr said the system was working so well before they left California on the second attempt. He did say that the Electra was having all kinds of electrical problems when it arrived from New York before the Honolulu flight. I wonder what kind of electrical problems? Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:33:44 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Gurr If you look at an old sectional chart, say form the '60s, you will find an LF frequency listed in the communication boxes for airport control towers. For further proof that voice "is possible" on 500 kcs just turn on your A.M. radio and tune to the bottom of the band and listen for a station on 530 kcs which is were the A.M. band begins, just 30 kcs higher. Nothing special had to be done for Itasca to hear a voice transmission form AE, you have to do something special to hear a C.W. signal by turning on the "beat frequency oscillator" (BFO). Assuming Itasca was listening for a C.W. signal with their BFO turned on they would still hear the voice transmission from AE but it would be distorted and have a squeal caused by the action of the BFO with the A.M. signal. The radio operators would recognize this and turn off the BFO. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:39:26 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Gurr I have a small 5 band radio and I receive voice on the low bands. Gary, I have a celestial issue if you will email me. acaldwell@aol.com Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:14:39 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Gurr F ventral (underside) antenna WAS receive antenna AND Was located there to be closer to the receiver rather than an inside-airframe run back to the transmitter Can we assume that the same concern applies to any "sense antenna"? You want to minimize the run inside the aircraft. You want to keep the wire out of the way of crew. The sense antenna does not need to be anywhere as long as the communications antenna (citation available). So it would be logical to have the sense antenna ON TOP the plane, a few feet of wire near the loop. However, there is no separate sense antenna at this date (Lae flight). The receive antenna COULD have been used for sensing - however this would require a switchbox or relay of some sort - a complication, more to remember and deal with. So - NO sense antenna. AND loop antenna was visually not the RDF-1 loop => we conclude, NO ADF onboard ( easy ), and more importantly: NO RDF-1 / aka "Loop Coupler" on board, as this unit installation requires a sense antenna. ______________________________________________________ RA-1 receiver has on HF bands, only unbalanced input, unsuitable for direct connection to loop antenna for DF work, can only work with a HF loop antenna by means of RDF-1 "interface" between it and loop AND NO RDF-1 on board => NO RA-1 onboard ________________________________________________________ BTW, thinking about the procedure outlined in the RDF-1 manual: without a sense-antenna equiped loop, the advice to head in direction of maximum signal, does not apply. You need the sense antenna to alter the loop pattern to a more unidirectional response, not "figure 8" of plain loop. So that trick was unavailable to her. Speculation on less firm ground: perhaps AE was given this stuff but in haste to get going, keep moving, and aircraft weight consideration, never had it installed, or only partially installed, and changed mind. (re: cockpt photo w/ RA-1 control box - identified anyway to my satisfaction. ) However there may have been a disconnect, either she assumed the HF-DF training also applied to the plane's standard WE equipment; or the person who trained her / misinformed her was either not up on the art of HF-DF or was not really aware of what her cabin avionics actually consisted of. If that's the case, i wonder where that uninstalled equipment ended up? Someone inherited it, or returned to Navy? I know it's redundant, but WHY WHY WHY at the most critical part of the flight, had she specified 7500 kHz as the homing beacon frequency - a truly insane choice! -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:28:21 From: Pat Thrasher Subject: New Research Bulletin I've just put up a new research bulletin with 14 photos on the subject of the changeover in Earhart's plane from the Hooven DF to the loop and the "Miami" photo. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/58_MiamiPhoto/58_MiamiPhoto.htm P ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:26:26 From: Dennis O. McGee Subject: Re: New research bulletin Good work, guys!! And that's why they pay YOU the big bucks . . :-) LTM, who's an unpaid volunteer Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:24:02 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: New research bulletin Excellent! And there you go: the box had to be the control box for the Bendix- Hooven radio compass. Bendix accounts for the distinctive frequency dial window; the difficulty in recognizing it accounted for by the extremely limited production of the instrument. The Hooven undoubtedly (well.....probably) tuned the standard DF ranges of 200-400 and 550- 1500 kHz, so the dial window would have 2 bands, and you WOULD have a dial window and not some simpler tuning arrangement. In the "undated photo" with AE looking up left, and "BOX" with arrow pointing to it, looks like 3 jack type connectors on left wall of "box"; 2nd one down looks like headphone sized cord, bottom one with shorter "shank" at equipment end of it, and narrower than above, i take to be the flexible tuning cable. Nice work on identifying the hangar location! -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:25:43 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: New research bulletin Are the controls for their main radio, the WE equipment, visible in any photo? Thanks- Hue Miller ************************** No, those controls are over on the right side of the knee panel, in front of the co-pilot's seat. The Harney drawings are back from the printer and will go out FedEx probably Friday (waiting on FedEx boxes). You'll see when you get yours the exact placement and type of WE controls. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:31:25 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: New research bulletin Great work, folks, and proof that a picture is worth a thousand words. I wonder whether the page needs a brief description of why this question is significant. Those of us who have been following the discussion in this forum for the last couple of weeks probably more or less understand what's going on. (I admit that much of it goes way beyond what I remember from physics classes 40 years ago). Is it fair to summarize the recent points: 1.) We don't know for certain what radio equipment was installed in the Electra when it left Lae. 2.) We don't know whether all components of the radio(s) were present, functional, and correctly tuned. 3.) Regardless of what equipment was present and working, it would not have worked very well if used as AE seems to have discussed. 4.) The evidence seems to support a conclusion that AE's understanding of the technology was limited. It also supports a conclusion that AE did not recognize the importance of that technology, the importance of her skill level in that technology, or the importance of this issue in finding Howland. Do we know of other navigation problems earlier in the flight? Crossing Africa or Southern Asia should be somewhat simpler than finding Howland, but being a degree or two off early in the day will put you a long way off after 1000 miles. It would be nice if someone could find a photo of the cockpit that morning in Lae. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:32:03 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Timeline of second round-the-world attempt Back in 2000, Ric did a nice list of the legs flown by AE and FN on the second round-the-world attempt. I've put the list into table form: http://tighar.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_second_round-the-world_attempt I decided to take a calendric approach, allowing one row per day. That allows room for specific notes if there is some record about what happened on that day. Corrections and suggestions most welcome. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:32:34 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: New research bulletin Very interesting photos, and they look much better here, at least to me, than what i have seen previously in hardcopy. Now the Hooven control box, looking at it some more: (Miami photo) I see that its format is more square than the RA-1 control box. It has 2 cranks. I'd guess the bottom crank is the band change one due to its position, also the white lettering looks shorter than "TUNING". (To me, anyway. ) Two toggle switches, possibly "ON" and "CW OSC" (tone generation when tuning telegraphy). Knob in upper right corner, "VOLUME" ? Below it item first looks like knob, but it's not circular (just to right of white spot in frequency dial window) - i take this to be the "pilot lamp projector" - same style as seen on RA-1: it projects light from a small bulb off to the left, onto the frequency dial. And what's that tubular thing hanging down and almost looking like it attaches to something on the front panel. I'm wondering if it really attaches or just looks like it. Can it be somekind of small lamp on a gooseneck or flexible extension? There's a grouping of 3 items on the control box upper top area that almost look like they're reflecting light, maybe from it: the two toggle switches and the knob just to the right of them, that this "lamp" looks like it attaches to. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 22:31:51 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: New research bulletin Tom Doran writes, >I wonder whether the page needs a brief description of why this >question is significant. Yeah, that was kind of a rush job. I'm going to rework it and add more of an introduction. >Is it fair to summarize the recent points: > >1.) We don't know for certain what radio equipment was installed in >the Electra when it left Lae. That's correct, but at least we can now be reasonably certain that "the box" was not there. >2.) We don't know whether all components of the radio(s) were >present, functional, and correctly tuned. We know there was a problem with 6210 (see Chater letter). >3.) Regardless of what equipment was present and working, it would >not have worked very well if used as AE seems to have discussed. True. >4.) The evidence seems to support a conclusion that AE's >understanding of the technology was limited. It also supports a >conclusion that AE did not recognize the importance of that >technology, the importance of her skill level in that technology, or >the importance of this issue in finding Howland. I would agree with that statement. >Do we know of other navigation problems earlier in the flight? >Crossing Africa or Southern Asia should be somewhat simpler than >finding Howland, but being a degree or two off early in the day will >put you a long way off after 1000 miles. There were minor navigation problems but this was the only leg where radio was critical to success. >It would be nice if someone could find a photo of the cockpit that >morning in Lae. I'd settle for genuine photo of the cockpit in Miami. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 22:32:11 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: New research bulletin Hue Miller writes, >Now the Hooven control box, looking at it some more: (Miami photo) Let's stop referring to it as the "Miami" photo. I'd suggest maybe the "Early March Cockpit" photo. I don't see much point in agonizing over the features of the box. It's irrelevant. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:21:36 From: Marty Moleski Subject: HFDF coming into Lae The October 2005 TIGHAR Tracks says: "To make sure the message got through, she sent two cables via separate commercial services. Both telegrams expressed the desired radio frequency as wavelength in meters in accordance with the British system. One telegram said that she would be sending and receiving on a wavelength of 36 meters. The second telegram had it that she would be "receiving and transmitting 36.6 meters D-F loop." The message is ambiguous in that the "D-F loop" (the hoop-shaped radio direction finder antenna mounted on the cockpit roof) was a receiving antenna and could not be used for transmitting. Its mention in the telegram implies that Earhart intended to use her direction finder to home in on signals sent by Lae on 36.6 meters." 36 meters = 8.32 MHz 36.6 meters = 8.19 MHz Whose idea was this? Are those reasonable frequencies for Lae to use? Was her DF test in Lae done on one of these frequencies? (I may be able to answer that myself if I go read Chater--but it's time to hit the hay). Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:52:41 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: HFDF coming into Lae Marty Moleski writes, >The October 2005 TIGHAR Tracks says: > >"To make sure the message got through, she sent two cables via >separate commercial services. Both telegrams expressed the desired >radio frequency as wavelength in meters in accordance with the >British system. One telegram said that she would be sending and >receiving on a wavelength of 36 meters. The second telegram had it >that she would be "receiving and transmitting 36.6 meters D-F loop." The message is ambiguous in that the "D-F loop" (the hoop-shaped radio direction finder antenna mounted on the cockpit roof) was a receiving antenna and could not be used for transmitting. Its mention in the telegram implies that Earhart intended to use her direction finder to home in on signals sent by Lae on 36.6 meters." That same passage is on page 66 of Finding Amelia. >36 meters = 8.32 MHz > >36.6 meters = 8.19 MHz Whose idea was this? Apparently Earhart's. >Are those reasonable frequencies for Lae to use? No. The following is from page 67 of FA: "Earhart and Noonan made the twelve-hundred-mile flight from Darwin to Lae without incident except that, once more, there was radio trouble. After takeoff she was able to talk to Darwin for the first part of the journey, but as she approached New Guinea she was unable to establish contact with the airfield at Lae. This time the problem was procedural rather than mechanical. The airline manager at Lae later reported: "On arrival Miss Earhart pointed out that whereas these radios [the two telegrams she had sent from Darwin the night before] advised us of a wave length of 36 metres, in reality her wave length was 49 metres which explained why we failed to pick up any messages from her." "Lae had not heard Earhart's transmissions because the Lae radio operator had been told to listen on the wrong frequency. But Amelia would not have been able to hear Lae even if the conversion from kilocycles to meters had been correctly computed. In her telegrams she had intended to advise Lae that she would be both transmitting and receiving on her daytime frequency of 6210 kilocycles. For her to receive on that frequency, Lae would, of course, have to be transmitting on that frequency. The radio station at Lae transmitted on 6522 kilocycles, though, and, like most stations at that time, had neither the capability nor the legal latitude to alter its broadcast frequency. Because she did not receive any of Lae's transmissions, Earhart could not try to use her radio direction finder to navigate. Consequently, she did not discover that her direction finder was unable to home in on high-frequency transmissions." >Was her DF test in Lae done on one of these frequencies? No. From page 74 of FA: "Before having the plane fueled for the flight to Howland, Amelia made a short test flight to confirm that everything was working. She was, at last, able to establish two-way voice communication with the ground, transmitting to Lae on her daytime frequency of 6210 kilocycles and receiving Balfour's reply on Lae's frequency of 6522 kilocycles. Balfour's assessment of the aircraft's transmitter was that the "carrier wave on 6210 kc was very rough and I advised Miss Earhart to pitch her voice higher to overcome distortion caused by rough carrier wave, otherwise transmitter seemed to be working satisfactorily." Earhart then asked him to send a "long dash" while she attempted to take a bearing on the station, but this attempt to use her homing device was unsuccessful as well. ".... "During the test flight, Earhart found she could receive Lae's signal, but the intensity of the sound did not change when she rotated the loop. In the terminology of the time, she could not "get a minimum," and so could not get a bearing on the sending station. The problem was that although the radio receiver could pick up the signal and she could hear the tone in her headphones, the direction-finding aspect of the system could not respond to such a high frequency. Amelia, however, decided that the test had failed because the airplane was too close to the station and the signal was too strong. " "It is not clear whether Balfour's previous ground test of the receiver included taking a bearing using the direction finder, but it is known that he carried out his test on a signal of 500 kilocycles, a frequency well within the loop antenna's 200 to 1500 kilocycle capability. In the flight test, Earhart tried to take a bearing on Lae's 6522 kilocycle signal but could not get a minimum. Balfour accepted Earhart's diagnosis of the problem, and so passed another opportunity to discover the flaw in her plan for finding Howland Island." Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:18:35 From: Reed Riddle Subject: Re: HFDF coming into Lae >From Ric > >Marty Moleski writes, > >>36 meters = 8.32 MHz >> >>36.6 meters = 8.19 MHz >> >>Whose idea was this? > >Apparently Earhart's. I severely doubt that. We've all agreed that Earhart was not as proactive as she should have been in understanding the radios and how they work. In such a case, a person does not say "Oh, I can do this however I want, it will work" and just do it. They stick to cookbooks and what they have been told, or they use their practical experience. She had no practical DF experience, aside from what she did during the trip (do we have a record of when/where she used DF on the world flight?), she would have been relying on what frequencies someone told her she could use. So, either Earhart was told that she could use those frequencies, or else she did a real test along the way and found that the DF worked at the higher frequencies. I would guess the former was the main thing...someone told her she could use DF at those kinds of frequencies. And, Ric's report yesterday showed that the DF changed, maybe close to the final flight; are there differences in the two DF unit's frequency ranges? Could she have been told that one unit worked at certain frequencies, the other on different ones, and conflated the two? The tragedy of this just might be that she was told the DF would work at frequencies where it did not...if she was using the right frequencies then she may have gotten a minimum and flown in, even with the dodgy receiver. It's wrong to brush this off as Earhart choosing frequencies on her own...as lax as she could be that's not something even she was going to do. Reed ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:29:34 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: HFDF coming into Lae >From Ric > >>36 meters = 8.32 MHz >> >>36.6 meters = 8.19 MHz >> >>Whose idea was this? > >Apparently Earhart's. OK. So it wasn't just 7500 kcs (7.5 MHz) that she was fixated on. Of course, if she had intended (as you suggest and as seems reasonable) to use 49 m, it was still beyond her loop's range. Thanks for the detailed descriptions of the Darwin-Lae leg and the direction-finding test in Lae. Much appreciated. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:30:16 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: HFDF coming into Lae Reed Riddle writes, >We've all agreed that Earhart was not as proactive as she should >have been in understanding the radios and how they work. In such a >case, a person does not say "Oh, I can do this however I want, it >will work" and just do it. I think you've just articulated Amelia Earhart's philosophy of life. >They stick to cookbooks and what they have been told, or they use >their practical experience. She clearly had the impression that the DF would work at those frequencies. Where the heck she got that impression is anybody's guess. Joe Gurr knew the loop specs topped out at 1500 kcs but he thought it might work at 3105 kcs, so he may have been the one who put it into her head that she could use high frequencies. >She had no practical DF experience, aside from what she did during >the trip (do we have a record of when/where she used DF on the world >flight?), she would have been relying on what frequencies someone >told her she could use. There is no account in the newspaper stories or in her own writings of her ever successfully using DF during the second world flight attempt. For that matter, there are precious few documented incidents of her successfully using the radio at all. During the South Atlantic crossing: "About midway we passed an Air France mail plane. Unfortunately I could not 'talk' to it. the mail plane's radio equipment, I believe, is telegraphic code, while mine, at the moment, was exclusively voice telephone. As always, I broadcast my position by voice each half hour. Whether it was heard at all, or understood if heard, perhaps I shall never know." >So, either Earhart was told that she could use those frequencies, or >else she did a real test along the way and found that the DF worked >at the higher frequencies. I would guess the former was the main >thing...someone told her she could use DF at those kinds of >frequencies. Or she just made that assumption. >And, Ric's report yesterday showed that the DF changed, maybe close >to the final flight; My report showed that the DF changed in March, immediately prior to the first world flight attempt. At that time the Bendix/Hooven Radio Compass system, which featured it's own separate receiver, was removed. A Bendix MN-5 loop was added which had the capability of using the airplanes existing Western Electric receiver, thus eliminating the weight of the second receiver. I'm aware of no evidence that the receiver set-up was changed after that. >are there differences in the two DF unit's frequency ranges? Could >she have been told that one unit worked at certain frequencies, the >other on different ones, and conflated the two? Neither the Radio Compass nor the MN-5 loop would work at high frequencies, but Gurr seems to have been under the impression that she could DF at least up to 3105. >The tragedy of this just might be that she was told the DF would >work at frequencies where it did not...if she was using the right >frequencies then she may have gotten a minimum and flown in, even >with the dodgy receiver. There's no indication I'm aware of that there was anything wrong with the receiver. The belly antenna was toast but the loop clearly still worked. Had she asked Itasca to transmit on a suitable frequency she should have been able to take a bearing and find the island. >It's wrong to brush this off as Earhart choosing frequencies on her >own...as lax as she could be that's not something even she was going >to do. Well, neither of us can get inside her head and say what she would or wouldn't do but, despite frequent - not to say frantic - requests from the Coast Guard, she didn't communicate anything about frequency choices or radio procedure for the Howland flight until she was in Bandoeng, Java. Whether she chose frequencies based upon her own impressions of what her radios could do or relied upon bad advice is immaterial. As pilot in command it was her responsibility to be prepared to bring the flight to a successful conclusion. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:31:06 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: HFDF coming into Lae Reed Riddle wrote: >... do we have a record of when/where she used DF on the world >flight? Koepang to Port Darwin, 28 June: blown fuse Port Darwin to Lae, 29 June: wrong frequencies telegraphed Lae to Howland, 2 July: wrong frequency requested, couldn't get minimum. >The tragedy of this just might be that she was told the DF would work at >frequencies where it did not...if she was using the right frequencies >then she may have gotten a minimum and flown in, even with the dodgy >receiver. Yes. The fact that she received a signal on 7500 kcs shows that her receiver was not totally out of commission (no blown fuse). It seems as though she would have gotten a bearing if she had asked for something in the original range sent to the Itasca by Putnam on 25 June: "Direction finder on plane covers range of about 200 to 1400 kHz." Coulda, shoulda, woulda. :o( >It's wrong to brush this off as Earhart choosing frequencies >on her own...as lax as she could be that's not something even she was >going to do. OK. I took Ric to be saying that the frequencies in the telegrams (36 m and 36.6 m) were not those used by Lae but those suggested by Earhart to Lae (for whatever reason she had to think they would work). Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:36:02 From: Mona Kendrick Subject: William Powell >From Marty Moleski > >The October 2005 TIGHAR Tracks > > I know this is off-topic, but I can't resist pointing out, for the sake of the aviation history enthusiasts, that there's a significant name in the newspaper article about Dana Randolph's interception of a distress call: "Tuesday the father received a telegraph message from a man signing himself Lt. William J. Powell, of Los Angeles, requesting Dana's picture and biography and saying that a tour for him is planned." William J. Powell was among the first African-Americans to receive a pilot's license. Having gone to considerable difficulty to find someone willing to train him in 1929, he made it his mission to open up flight training to other African-Americans, and set up a flight school in Los Angeles in 1930. It was one of only two flight schools in the U.S. established by and for African-Americans during the 30's. Pat, if you want an AE connection to keep things technically on-topic, how about this: among AE's collection of newspaper clippings about women in the news, now preserved at Purdue, is a story about Marie Daughtery's parachuting performance at a 1930 Los Angeles air show hosted by Powell's flight school. Daughtery was one of his students. --Mona ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:13:33 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: HFDF coming into Lae Seems to me Gurr was too sensible a person to have hyped the HF DF to her. With his experience he was sure to know it was purely unproven, experimental. And knowing AE ( and we knowing how he felt about AE's tech acumen ) he was sure to know that would be a BAD matchup. From the forum several years back, when talking about this and the RDF-1 (Bendix loop coupler), if i recall, it came out (maybe via Mike Hanz's material, non forum member) that 7500 had somehow figured in the early, maybe Navy, experiments with HF DF, something like it had been mentioned in the literature as a frequency dedicated for DF work. I'm sure AE didn't think up this deal herself. Also - who modified the wiring of her plane's installation, to allow the receiver to switch from loop to wire antenna, on the 2 higher bands? Or even, as the Research Bulletin suggests, even possibly just jumper the loop and wire antenna connections? I discount the latter possiblity, as it would, i think, ruin the loop characteristics on the genuine homing freq's - which would have shown up as a glaring problem earlier in the flight, i would think - but of course i cannot be sure this wasn't done. I don't think AE would have done the jumpering, but not sure of that either - anyone along the way, even at some flight station, not knowing better, could have done that. If it wasn't done that way, then someone had to build a small relay box or switch box to attach to the receiver, to be able to manually switch the "communication bands" of the receiver over to the loop. ( Bendix had such a product at least by 1940 - but i don't know if it was sold earlier or even if AE's rework person would have bought it - wouldn't have been that hard to build one from scratch.) Anyway that's how i see it. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:37:15 From: Tom Doran Subject: Additional photos I discovered a bunch of online photos at www.corbis.com. Do a search for Earhart and 335 images come up. I'd never seen many of them before. It seems to me a couple of them could be used on the wiki or the website to illustrate various points about recent discussions such as the radio configurations at various times. There might be other questions the photos could address. Some captions on the photos are clearly incorrect. Corbis says the original captions are included for historical purposes., i.e., "This is what they original publisher said they were." Sometimes that apparently includes offensive language. One image, NA006493, labeled simply Amelia Earhart before the last flight standing on the wing at night, shows two thin tubes vertical to the bottom of the belly of the aircraft. They might be 18 inches apart. One appears to be where the midline of the wing intersects the midline of the fuselage. The other is off to the left of the plane on the midline of the wing. Another, U404650ACME, labeled AE's plane at an Australian airstrip during her flight, seems to faintly show a single tube. The photo is fairly grainy. Another, U397492ACME , described as AE & FN enter the aircraft at San Juan, PR, appears to show a pair of tubes along the midline of the Electra's belly. One is about even with the middle of the wings, the other is halfway to the tail. One image, described as AE's Electra passing over the Golden Gate Bridge, seems to show the aircraft with landing gear retracted. Were the landing gear actually retractable? Something seems off about the whole image. I'm not sure it actually is the Electra. Corbis, a Microsoft subsidiary, acquired a collection of historic photos about a decade ago. The have added to it since and keep the original prints and/or negatives in secure storage in an environmentally controlled cave somewhere. Images on the website are low resolution with a watermark but it can still be copied. In Windows, right click and "save as." Hi-rez images are available for sale without the watermark. The price depends on how you plan to use it. Maybe they would give TIGHAR a price break for historical research. There is also a satellite image of Niku from 2001. It might be useful for comparison with the 2007 version on Google Earth. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:37:43 From: Tom Doran Subject: Another Electra photo Found another Electra photo in the Wikipedia article on the Lockheed Electra. It show two pairs of tubes on the belly. One pair is even with the wings, the other is halfway to the tail. The photo is identified as made at Oakland on 3/20/37. Tom Doran, # 2796 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:49:23 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: HDFD coming into Lae Hue Miller writes, >Seems to me Gurr was too sensible a person to have hyped the HF DF >to her. With his experience he was sure to know it was purely unproven, >experimental. Hue, what are you talking about? There is no evidence for an HF DF aboard the airplane. That was the point of my Research Bulletin. >Also - who modified the wiring of her plane's installation, to allow >the receiver to switch from loop to wire antenna, on the 2 higher bands? Nobody modified anything. The Bendix MN-5 loop came with a coupler that allowed it to use the Western Electric 20B receiver. >Or even,as the Research Bulletin suggests, even possibly just jumper >the loop and wire antenna connections? The Research Bulletin suggests no such thing. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 21:11:42 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Additional photos Tom Doran writes: >One image, NA006493, labeled simply Amelia Earhart before the last >flight standing on the wing at night, shows two thin tubes vertical >to the bottom of the belly of the aircraft. They might be 18 inches >apart. One appears to be where the midline of the wing intersects >the midline of the fuselage. The other is off to the left of the >plane on the midline of the wing. Those are the Electra's twin pitot tubes. The photo was taken when the airplane had two parallel belly wire antennas. Each was anchored to a pitot mast and passed through a mast amidships and another mast under the rear cabin. >Another, U404650ACME, labeled AE's plane at an Australian airstrip >during her flight, seems to faintly show a single tube. The photo is >fairly grainy. This is Darwin. At that time the plane had two pitot tubes (clearly visible) but only one belly antenna. The single "tube" you see on the starboard belly is the aft mast for that antenna. >Another, U397492ACME , described as AE & FN enter the aircraft at >San Juan, PR, appears to show a pair of tubes along the midline of >the Electra's belly. One is about even with the middle of the wings, >the other is halfway to the tail. Not the midline, off to the starboard side. You're looking at the masts that support the receiving antenna - the one that was lost at Lae. >One image, described as AE's Electra passing over the Golden Gate >Bridge, seems to show the aircraft with landing gear retracted. Were >the landing gear actually retractable? Something seems off about the >whole image. I'm not sure it actually is the Electra. Yes, the landing gear was retractable. >There is also a satellite image of Niku from 2001. It might be >useful for comparison with the 2007 version on Google Earth. Tom, we commissioned all of those satellite photos. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:03:56 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Additional photos >From Tom Doran > >I discovered a bunch of online photos at www.corbis.com. Do a search for >Earhart and 335 images come up. Thanks. As you say, lots of interesting photos. >... It >seems to me a couple of them could be used on the wiki or the website to >illustrate various points about recent discussions such as the radio >configurations at various times. There might be other questions the >photos could address. I did not get the impression that permission has been granted to copy the photos. I tried to get some idea from the links from photos, but gave up after a few minutes. We don't want to put anything on the site without proper clearances. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:42:46 From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: HFDF coming into Lae >Hue Miller writes, > >>Seems to me Gurr was too sensible a person to have hyped the HF DF >>to her. With his experience he was sure to know it was purely unproven, >>experimental. > >Hue, what are you talking about? There is no evidence for an HF DF >aboard the airplane. That was the point of my Research Bulletin. Let's be clear that "HF DF" term can apply to two things: the hardware, and the practice. We agree there was no "special" equipment onboard, however she surely did attempt "HF DF". I mean, i don't think Gurr recommended she try homing on these frequencies; clearly he never would have recommended any attempt up on 7500. >>Also - who modified the wiring of her plane's installation, to allow >>receiver to switch from loop to wire antenna, on the 2 higher bands? > >Nobody modified anything. The Bendix MN-5 loop came with a coupler >that allowed it to use the Western Electric 20B receiver. Check your research bulletin, Ric: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/52_ElectraRadios/52_ElectraRadios.htm "The antenna input circuit of the Model 20 receivers was designed to accept connections from two separate antennas: one for low-frequency Bands 1 and 2, the other for high- frequency bands 3 and 4. "Normally, the high-frequency antenna would be shared with the transmitter, and connected to the receiver through the antenna changeover relay inside the transmitter. The low -frequency antenna could be a separate structure connected to the low-frequency antenna input. Since the Gurr modifications meant the same antenna would now be used for transmitting on both the L-F and H-F bands, however, it becomes unclear how the two inputs on the receiver might have been used. [ Clearly, this paragraph above does not match our current understanding, which is that the receiver HF wire antenna was the ventral, underside antenna. However, the receiver had TWO antenna inputs. SOMEONE provided a modification so that the HF antenna input - or both - could select between loop and HF wire. ] "Perhaps they were simply jumpered together. If so, sensitivity degradation may have resulted from connecting the input circuits for the low - and high-frequency bands in parallel, due to one partially detuning the other; but the actual extent is not known. " Even IF they were jumpered together, you still do not connect both the loop and the wire antenna to the antenna connector at the same time. SOMEONE provided some additional switchology. I'm thinking additionally, IF the two inputs were jumpered, perhaps this spoiled the directional characteristic of the loop antenna, by the interaction of the 2 circuits. Gurr might have been aware of this circuit addition, even if he wasn't responsible for it; i wonder why otherwise he would comment that the loop "might" function above its normal limit of 1500 kHz. If there wasn't some switching to make the loop available to the receiver HF input, this would be irrelevant to her setup. >>Or even,as the Research Bulletin suggests, even possibly >>just jumper the loop and wire antenna connections? > >The Research Bulletin suggests no such thing. -Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:44:05 From: Jim Hopper Subject: Re: Additional photos When you search www.corbis.com for Amelia Earhart you choose "rights managed" or "royalty free" at the time you input your search info. None of the Earhart photos are "royalty free". ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:57:42 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: HFDF coming into Lae >>Hue, what are you talking about? There is no evidence for an HF DF >>aboard the airplane. That was the point of my Research Bulletin. > >Let's be clear that "HF DF" term can apply to two things: the hardware, >and the practice. We agree there was no "special" equipment onboard, >however she surely did attempt "HF DF". I mean, i don't think Gurr >recommended she try homing on these frequencies; clearly he never >would have recommended any attempt up on 7500. Agreed. >>Nobody modified anything. The Bendix MN-5 loop came with a coupler >>that allowed it to use the Western Electric 20B receiver. > >Check your research bulletin, Ric: >>http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ResearchPapers/ElectraRadios/ElectraRadios.htm Okay, I see where the confusion is. That's not MY Research Bulletin. That's Mike Everette's Research Bulletin. (Mike has forgotten more about radio than I'll ever know.) I thought you were referring to my recent Research Bulletin at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/53_MiamiPhoto/53_MiamiPhoto.htm As you point out, our thinking about the ventral antenna has evolved since Mike wrote that paper several years ago. I agree that there had to be a way to select between the wire and the loop. >"The antenna input circuit of the Model 20 receivers was >designed to accept connections from two separate antennas: >one for low-frequency Bands 1 and 2, the other for high- >frequency bands 3 and 4. > >It would seem logical to use the terminal for Bands 1 (200 - 400 kcs) >and 2 (550 - 1500 kcs) for the connection to the loop. The loop won't >work on frequencies above 1500 kcs anyway. Use the terminal for Bands >3 & 4 to connect to the belly wire. That way, when you select Band 1 >or 2 on the receiver remote you're automatically selecting the loop. >Select Band 3 or 4 and you automatically get the wire. seems very >simple and efficient (to me anyway). But that's not the way Earhart's system was set up because, using the loop, she did hear Itasca's transmission on 7500. In the photo of the Bendix rep holding the loop coupler and AE holding the MN-5 loop, the coupler clearly has a 5 position band selector, so clearly it was designed to couple the loop to more than just the two LF bands. The couple also has a three-position switch which might be an antenna selector (what else would it be?). Remember, this coupler was not designed specifically to connect the MN-5 to a WE20B receiver. It could be used with "any standard receiver" so the switches might have positions for more bands and antennas than were necessary for this particular aircraft. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:58:28 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Additional photos >From Marty Moleski > >I did not get the impression that permission has been granted to >copy the photos. My understanding from looking at the links: 1.) Anyone can view or download the images from the website for private use. These would be low-rez images with the watermark. 2.) Once you "register," giving your personal info --name, address, credit card number, etc.--- you can access and download higher resolution non-watermarked images for private or pre-publication uses such as design and layout of your proposed use. You click "yes" to agree to the rules for usage. 3.) If you want to publish the images on a website, poster, book, etc., a registered user can request a qoute for the fee that would be required. Some images on the Corbis site are listed as "royalty free," i.e., public domain. The images I've seen on the site with that label are either government product or very old. During the recent discussion of radio antennas, for instance, some of the Earhart/Electra images would have clarified for me what people were talking about. There are probably other items on the TIGHAR website that could easily be illustrated for those website visitors who are not experienced aircraft people. Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:05:33 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Voice/range box aboard the Electra? A question sent to me from an old-timer: Did the Electra have a Voice/Range box? His explanation of the question: ========== A Range-Voice box was a silvery metal box about 2" x 4" w/a 1 1/2" bar knob on the top. Every radio equipped plane had one from the T- 6 to the Connies, DC-4s & DC-6s. Weather was broadcast at :15 and :45 every hour. The one problem with the :15 and :45 weather broadcasts and the range-answering pilot calls was the annoyance and distraction to those aurally tracking a leg or making a let-down. The head phones were plugged into the box. The bar knob had three positions: Range, Both, Voice. Selecting "Range" switched in a filter that either allowed just the range tone (1200 cps dots & dashes) to come through. Selecting "Voice" filtered out the d-d tone allowing better voice recognition. Selecting "Both" allowed all transmissions to come through. If the switch was in the Range position, 'voice' was way in the background and almost impossibe to hear, much less understand. Its basic significance was that it was part and parcel of the :15 - :45 weather broadcasts plus any other voice on the range. Loop range had to be shut down for voice broadcast while the Adcock type of range had a separate tower for broadcast, all of which could be from most annoying to serious, for one making a let down. Hence the filter box. The introduction of the VOR's circa 1949 and and their poliferation by the late 1950s made the box obsolete. If AE's plane did not have one, it would be an anomaly. =========== Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:50:33 -0400 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Voice/range box aboard the Electra? Marty Moleski writes, >A question sent to me from an old-timer: Did the >Electra have a Voice/Range box? > >His explanation of the question: >========== >A Range-Voice box was a silvery metal box about 2" x 4" w/a 1 1/2" >bar knob on the top. Every radio equipped plane had one from the T- >6 to the Connies, DC-4s & DC-6s. Your old-timer is a spring chicken. He's talking about WWII and immediately post-war aircraft. There is no mention of a Voice/Range box in any of the literature about Earhart's Electra and it wouldn't have worked in the middle of the Pacific Ocean anyway. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:36:27 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Voice/range box aboard the Electra? Marty, I flew the T-6G for about 55 hours. None of my T-6 aircraft had such a box. I just looked through a batch of T-6 pictures and such a box was not on any of the planes. My flying was in 1955. Possible years before there was such equipment. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:12:21 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Voice/range box on the Electra? >From Alan Caldwell > >Marty, I flew the T-6G for about 55 hours. None of my T-6 aircraft had >such a box. I just looked through a batch of T-6 pictures and such a >box was not on any of the planes. > >My flying was in 1955. Possible years before there was such equipment. OK. My friend may be mistaken. Or by 1955, they may have done something else to solve the problem (such as provide needles on an ADF instead of requiring pilots to listen to audio to stay "on the beam"?). Speaking of being mistaken, there was a nice article on what a watchmaker inscribed in Lincoln's watch in 1861: The story as told by the watch repairman and his family was true (he did scratch a memorial of the beginning of the Civil War inside the watch) and inaccurate (he did not mention slavery in the engraving as he had claimed in 1906). Memory plays tricks on us all. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:09:43 -0400 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Human memory Marty wrote: "Memory plays tricks on us all" Ain't that the truth! I have experienced this myself. I wish I could remember where I got this quote from, but there was a website that had a story about two people recalling an occurrence at a baseball game. They saw the exact same thing, but remember it very differently. It was very interesting. The person who recorded the two versions wrote: " . . . . human memory is fallible ... with the passage of time we confuse the sequence in which events occur and compress or expand their timing, we remember details we consider important and forget those we don't, we exaggerate our own involvement in events, and we idealize our memories to reflect what we want to remember rather than what actually occurred. All of this is not to say that no one's memory should ever be trusted, but that when we try to reconstruct events, a contemporaneous account is generally superior to human recall . . . " Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:17:11 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Human memory >From Alfred Hendrickson > >... I wish I could >remember where I got this quote from, but there was a website that had a >story about two people recalling an occurrence at a baseball game. They >saw the exact same thing, but remember it very differently. It was very >interesting. The person who recorded the two versions wrote: > >" . . . . human memory is fallible ... with the passage of time we >confuse the sequence in which events occur and compress or expand their timing, >we remember details we consider important and forget those we don't, we >exaggerate our own involvement in events, and we idealize our memories >to reflect what we want to remember rather than what actually occurred. >All of this is not to say that no one's memory should ever be trusted, >but that when we try to reconstruct events, a contemporaneous account is >generally superior to human recall . . . " Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:41:44 -0400 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Human memory Thanks, Marty. That is exactly the website I was referring to. I did not have it bookmarked. I had an experience once where I saw an event occurring, I wanted to participate in it, but didn't. Some time went by, maybe a few years, and I told someone that I had been a participant. I had wanted so badly to be a part of the event, that I placed myself in a role there. I was wrong about it, but I actually believed it. It was a weird unintentional transference of myself into something, based on my own wishes. Someone who was there and witnessed the event corrected me on it, and told me that, no, I was not a part of the thing. Frankly, it was a sobering lesson for me. Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:36:37 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Human memory >From Alfred Hendrickson > >Thanks, Marty. That is exactly the website I was referring to. I did >not have it bookmarked. Thanks be to Google! :-O >I had an experience once where I saw an event occurring, I wanted to >participate in it, but didn't. Some time went by, maybe a few years, >and I told someone that I had been a participant. I had wanted so >badly to be a part of the event, that I placed myself in a role >there. I was wrong about it, but I actually believed it. It was a >weird unintentional transference of myself into something, based on >my own wishes. Someone who was there and witnessed the event >corrected me on it, and told me that, no, I was not a part of the >thing. Frankly, it was a sobering lesson for me. BTDT. I have a luminous memory of OJ Simpson winning a game against a Super Bowl Champion in a season when the Bills won just two games. He broke a run from scrimmage and scampered 78 yards for the touchdown. Unfortunately, the press completely neglected to record this extraordinary event. It is as if it existed solely in my imagination. :o( Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:56:25 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Voice/range box on the Electra? >From Alan Caldwell > >Marty, I flew the T-6G for about 55 hours. None of my T-6 aircraft had >such a box. I just looked through a batch of T-6 pictures and such a >box was not on any of the planes. > >My flying was in 1955. Possible years before there was such >equipment. My friend and informant was trained in WW II. The T-6's and other models he flew, begining in late 1943, had the Range-Both-Voice boxes. The end of the box was where one pluged in their headphones & the bar-knob was on face of the box. He spent an hour with some other old timers on the phone confirming his recollection, all of whom recall using the box in various training planes in the early 40's, specifically, T-6, T-10, T-11, C-45's (the twin tailed Beech somewhat similar in size and appearance as the L- 10s), the C-47s/DC-3s, and C-46s. One told him the box was in his advanced trainer in 1953. There is no question but that they were in a number of planes. He concedes that Rick may be correct that it belonged to the WW-2 era planes and may not have been used in '36. It was however developed as an aid for users of the old '4-course Radio Ranges', especially the Adcock that did not have to shut off the 'range' to talk. A choice of filtering out either the dot-dash, or voice, was a great aid to the users, AND if in the Range position, one would only hear faint crackles of static if there were any voice xmsns, which was why it might have been germane. So far he hasn't found any friends who flew planes with radio prior to '40. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:11:53 -0400 From: Mike Piner Subject: Position plots There are four position plots that we have looked at. The one at 5:19 GMT has been deemed wrong, as too far south and only 186 miles from Lae. The next one at 7:18 GMT is ok, and seems to be very close to the great circle arc from Lae to the then used position of Howland. The next position has been estimated to be position of the Myrtlebank at approx 10:30 GMT hrs. the last "position" is a report of an airplane flying over Taputeouea during the night. Plot those points on Google earth. and it seems in line until one uses the "ruler tool on earth. set it to "path" and you get a segmented path looking like changes made in direction. If one extends the last two to the vicinity of Howland/Baker, you find that you have a point about 65 miles south of Howland. Couple this with the 'Cloudy" report at 1415 GMT, "overcast" report at 1515 GMT, and the "partly cloudy" report at 1623 GMT, The 1415 GMT is just before Taputeouea, 1920 mi (est) from Lae, 1515 GMT is 2060 mi (est) from Lae, and 1623 GMT, 2200 mi (est) from Lae, or 360 from Howland. By this time (1623 GMT), it was too late to get any Star sightings, as this is less than an hour before sunrise at 1745 GMT. Some have dismissed these cloudy reports for good reasons, but what if they are all good reports, it would be a plausible reason for the electra to be off course. Amelia never reported sunrise over the radio, as far as we know, perhaps it was too overcast to witness it. One could argue that the last two positions are tenuous, and I would agree, but something happened, because many of us think the plane was south of Howland I. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:39:29 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Position plots Mike, if you will look at the web site you will find that there were two WX reports showing a weather system first at 250 miles east of Lae then 300 miles east. Plotting their route indicates to me they skirted that system slightly to the south. Their position at 5:19 was 150.7 but may have been misread from 157 degrees. In either case keep in mind there is no way to know at what time they were at that position as Noonan could have been reporting they were at that position at that time, estimating that position or had been at that position as much as 45 minutes earlier. The flight to Hawaii so indicates. They were simply reporting on schedule a quarter past the hour. The call at 1030 is also a problem. The transmission was either "ship ahead" or "lights ahead" and it is not known which. If it was "lights" it might have meant Nauru and if it was "ship" it could have been the Myrtlebank or any ship. Not all that much help. The over flight of Tabiteau is an oral comment not contemporaneous and that island is quite long north to south. We (nor anyone) don't know where the plane was at any given time. Even take off at Lae could have been 1022 L or 1000. I have suggested 10:22 as Doris Rich reported because the Electra operating manual directs the crew to use block times and Air New Guinea used block times not take off times. Long said they climbed in the cockpit a few minutes before ten. I discussed that with Elgen. There was no time given for over flying Tabiteau so where they were at any time in relation to that island is not known. The great circle track would indicate an inbound of 079 but it could be quite off from that depending when they made a final correction to Howland. Noonan, like most navigators, mine included, did not stay on course making frequent corrections. That unnecessarily complicates the work. Instead they maintain course (unless they get considerably off) and make a final correction to destination somewhat close in. That makes the inbound heading totally unknown. The times you gave (1415, 1515, and 1623) cannot be correlated with positions because we have no idea where the plane was once it left Lae. You also cannot plot the course at any point so there is no information to show a segmented course or a solid line of any kind. A Myrtlebank crew member claimed a plane flew overhead but gave no time. There is nothing to tie that to 1030 except as one possibility. If they over flew the Myrtlebank they would have been about 25 miles north of course. We don't know if they even knew the Myrtlebank was out there. Suppose they thought it was the Ontario and adjusted course accordingly? Or suppose it was some other ship and again they thought it was the Ontario and adjusted? We don't know the weather. Around Ocean Island the weather was good. Beyond that we don't know but the Itasca deck logs indicated 3/8ths scattered CU that morning. Inbound to Howland that morning there was the possibility of sun, moon and Venus shots even if only instantaneous shots. I did celestial navigation for SAC so I can see no reason Noonan could not get a fix unless his sextant/octant was/ were inoperative. Earhart said, "We must be on you....." That is quite definite. Had they not had a good position she would have most likely said they ought to be close or something of that nature. Having flown in those same conditions Mike, I can tell you it is difficult to pick out a small island with the sun glaring on the water and cloud shadows muddying up the scenery. I think they got within a few miles but just couldn't find the island. Depending on their relative position the Electra engines could not have been heard as close in as three miles. Bottom line it is not possible to plot the Electra's course. But nice try. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:03:11 -0400 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: Position plots Thanks Alan I like to plot and Google earth is a nice tool. I also thought that the 150.7 E lat might have been 157 lat. Really there is only one position from Earhart/Noonan, and that is the one at 7:18 GMT. Ric and others researched the position of the Myrtlebank to be an area of 10 by 20 NM centered at 2-20 S/167-10 E. The trouble at Taputeouea is that no one knows where on the Island's 30 mile north south length the plane crossed. I do these things for the fun of it. All the mileage estimates was using an average speed of 135 MPH for the whole trip. You are right about the hearing of an airplane engine more than 3 miles. I live on the coast and I can't hear airplanes as far as 5 miles away. I have a question for you. How many gallons did the plane use to get to 4000 ft with a heay load of fuel? Callopy stated that the electra was still close to the ocean until it flew out of sight. That suggests that they went 3to 5 miles to gain altitude. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:56:43 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Ditching For anyone interested in the ditching theory NIAR published the results of their reconstruction of Earhart's Electra ditching yesterday March 15, 2009. Their conclusion is as follows: "Based on the analysis results the ditching event should be classified as a survivable accident. A survivable accident is where sufficient cabin structure and seats remain to aid survival of one or more occupants, and where further loss of life is the consequence of drowning, or other post- crash incidents." "Providing that there was no lap belt failure and that she was able to egress the aircraft, unless she was rescued within hours of the crash event she would have been exposed to the elements without any survival gear. More likely she would have drowned." The actual ditching off Boston in 1967 the plane sank after 8 minutes. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:23:34 -0400 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Ditching I handled a case a few years ago involving a PA-31 Piper Navaho that ditched near Hilo Hawaii on a sight seeing flight. It floated for 60 seconds allowing seven occupants to get out but one 60 year old lady rode the plane to the bottom of the ocean. When her body was recovered in the plane it was discovered that she had inflated her life preserver prematurely so could not get out through the emergency exit. The plane suffered an oil leak from the oil filter converter plate causing the loss of one engine. The plane should have been able to maintain flight on the remaining engine since the single engine service ceiling is about ten thousand feet and the airport was at sea level. We deposed the mechanic and discovered he did not use the proper proceedure in setting the waste gate controler so the remaining engine was not producing full power leading to the loss of altitude and ditching. Here is a link to the NTSB report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX00FA310&rpt=fa gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:57:52 -0400 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Ditching question The NTSB report cited by Gary says the pilot reported that the Piper Navajo touched the water tail first, bouncing for a second time. His remaining engine was a reduced power and the flaps were fully extended. I think the plan was to reduce airspeed to lessen the impact. The was a hard impact when the main part of the fuselage touched down on the water and the pilot was briefly unconscious or disoriented. The recent ditching of the airliner in the Hudson River seems to have experienced something similar. In one interview, the pilot reported that the tail touched the water first then the main fuselage hit pretty hard. Video from security cameras seems to back that up. The aircraft continued to move forward 150 to 200 feet (a guess) before stopping. The airliner also had full flaps but his engines were stalled out, providing no forward thrust. Is the correct procedure for ditching: low power and full flaps, with a tail first landing? Both the airliner and the Navajo had landing gear retracted. Was these the accepted practices in 1937? Would AE have known this? My guess is that a ditching pilot has a couple of priorities: don't flip over nose first and stay afloat as long as possible. It seems like tail first, landing gear up would contribute to your chances of not flipping and of not breaking up on impact. For those in the "Crashed and Sank in open ocean" school of thought, a gear up, tail down approach to the water would have been what AE should have attempted. Would it be different if you were trying to land in the surf at Niku? When I was in jump school in the army water landings were one thing that was covered. From the air, you cannot tell how deep the water is. It may be six inches or 20 feet. You have to prepare for landing as though it were dry land. We don't know whether AE circled the island looking for the best spot or simply touched down as soon a possible. Either way she couldn't have known what lay under the water. It might have been gently sloping sand with a foot of water on top. From TIGHAR reports, the underwater terrain (on the Norwich City side of the island) is actually very irregular coral with some areas close to the surface and deep holes or crevasses in others. With paratrooper logic, she should have had gear down, preparing for a standard dry land touchdown. Considering the resistance of the water and the irregular surface below the water, though, gear down would have increased the chance of flipping over nose first. If pushing landing gear through the water didn't force a flip, catching them on a protruding coral head would. If we think that even one of the post loss messages is legit, doesn't that argue against the Electra flipping or even just rolling over on its nose? Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:00:56 -0400 From: Ed Lyon Subject: Re: Ditching question Back in about 1958, while I was working on Johnston Island in the Pacific, a C-124 belonging to MATS ditched north of Johnston, maybe 200 miles or more distant from us, the closest landfall. We had no aircraft on Johnston, but the USCG dispatched a Grumman amphibian out of Hickam that found the plane, and landed near the C-124, which was still afloat, riding high in very calm water. They reported that all four engines (those miserable P&W 28-cylinder radials) had come free and that lightened the plane considerably. The fuel tanks in the wings were empty (which is why they ditched). The Grumman took off the crew, put a marker light and transponder on the C-124, and left for Johnston, which was closer than Hickam. Next day the C-124 was still there, spotted by other USAF planes that had gone out to see if they could somehow help. Finally, so we were told, a Navy DDE was sent to try to tow the plane to Johnston. They apparently tore away part of the nose section, after which the plane sunk. But it was afloat for days. Ed Lyon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:01:22 -0400 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Ditching question I've landed my parachute in lakes about a dozen times and lake water is dark and murky and you can't tell the depth. But ocean water over coral reefs is different, it is clear and the coral is bright. Flying over coral reefs it looks like dry land below you even though the water might be 6 or more feet deep, so just the opposite of lake water. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:01:43 -0400 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Ditching question Normal landing attitude for a plane is nose high, tail low. Normally the tail doesn't touch down first because the main landing gear is lower than the tail. But with the wheels in the wells the tail is always going to touch first. gl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:35:29 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: Ameliaschpiel in Alaska For Forumites in the neighborhood of Anchorage, AK: I'll be giving one of my ever-popular Ameliaschpiels on the Niku Hypothesis and its pursuit, on the evening (5-6 PM; they tell me that's a good time) of April 3 in Rasmuson Hall, Room 101, at the University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Drive. Refreshments, I'm told, will be provided, and admission is free. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:34:55 -0400 From: Rick Jones Subject: Breakers When the Norwich City stranded on Gardner Island, water was retrieved from the lifeboat's "breakers". Breakers are defined as a cask with water: a small cask for water, used especially on a lifeboat. They were, at one time, made of wood with staves, with a closure which was tethered to the cask. Which brings to mind the description of the corks with brass chains found on Niku. Can anyone find a web illustration of such a breaker? Rick J ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:31:33 -0400 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Breakers Couple of years ago there was some discussion of the corks on chains. We've talked about water casks, desert water bags, specialized liquor bottles, whatever we could think of. Rick dug up a photo of a water cask on the Bushnell, or some other ship that had been to Niku, and a description by one of the crew of how they used them if my memory is good. I shared some photos of a wooden stave cask with a wooden "cork" attached with a chain, apparently brass, that came from the owner of a nautical curio shop from who's estate I bought a house once upon a time. He left a bunch of curios behind which proves that you can't always take it with you. As far as I know, it is the only example of a "cork on a chain" we've been able to find. I'll try to post them up on the Ameliapedia Wiki in the Corks found on Niku section, or if you email me directly, I'll share them. Andrew ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:50:24 -0400 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Breakers From I've posted some photos of my cask on the Ameliapedia at http://tighar.org/wiki/Cask1.jpg amck ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:37:43 -0400 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: Breakers Can we trace the chain "type" to time era? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:26:36 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Information on Paddy McDonald TIGHAR purchased some copies of correspondence from the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau. In the files was an obituary for Paddy that confirmed what our genealogists had figured out. I've updated his biography here: http://tighar.org/wiki/Patrick_D._Macdonald I added material from his correspondence with Sir Colin here: http://tighar.org/wiki/WPHC_Archives Marty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:40:44 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald There's also some very interesting stuff about the closedown of the WPHC archives, and about the last days of the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme. But if there are extensive Macdonald papers, they remain elusive. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:46:24 -0400 From: George Werth Subject: Font size of postings Request that postings to this forum be increased to Font Size 18. This Old Geezer is suffering from Macular Degeneration; his eyesight has deteriorated to the point that he is no longer driving and finds it difficult to read this forum's postings without a magnifying glass. It has occurred to me that there may be others in the forum that might benefit from a larger font size. This font size is 18. Thank you for your consideration. George R Werth TIGHAR Member #2630 *********************************** Unfortunately, we can't change the font size. The email to the Forum goes through an outside server which formats everything to a default plain text. However, you can probably set the size of type for incoming emails. If you will tell us what email program you are using I am sure someone can help you with that. Pat ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:07:59 -0400 From: Tom Doran Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald >From Marty Moleski > >I've updated his biography here: > >http://tighar.org/wiki/Patrick_D._Macdonald > >I added material from his correspondence with Sir Colin here: > >http://tighar.org/wiki/WPHC_Archives > Abbreviations: I don't know what these terms mean: CMG, CVO, WPHC, GEIC It would be a good practice in the wiki to define abbreviations the first time they are used in each article. The wiki is a great idea. It should make the info much more accessible. Is there any reason to think that MacDonald, or anyone, might have shipped the bones to London for storage? Also, on the Viti page, it says: " According to Tofiga's notes, Viti departed Canton at the same hour Sir Harry says the Clipper took off for Suva and arrived at Hull around 4:30 p.m., remaining only an hour before continuing on to Gardner" Is this saying that Pan Am flew to Gardner? Have we heard this before? Tom Doran, #2796 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:32:04 -0400 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald I think the correct interpretation is that the Viti sailed from Canton to Hull, and then went to Gardner. The PanAm Clipper left Canton at the same time as the Viti. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:33:03 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald >Is there any reason to think that MacDonald, or anyone, might have >shipped the bones to London for storage? I can't think of one. But MacDonald writes about the difficulty he had disposing of the WPHC's furniture, and even though Tofiga has told us he's sure the kanawa box wasn't part of the furniture holdings, I still wonder about how things that were neither archives nor tables and chairs were dealt with. >Also, on the Viti page, it says: " According to Tofiga's notes, Viti >departed Canton at the same hour Sir Harry says the Clipper took off >for Suva and arrived at Hull around 4:30 p.m., remaining only an hour >before continuing on to Gardner" The sentence needs work. It's the Viti that, having left Canton as the Clipper took off, then visited Hull and Gardner. The Clipper flew to Suva, as I recall. LTM (who would not try to land a Clipper in Niku's lagoon) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:56:29 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald >From Tom Doran > >http://tighar.org/wiki/Patrick_D._Macdonald > >http://tighar.org/wiki/WPHC_Archives > >Abbreviations: I don't know what these terms mean: CMG, CVO CMG (Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George), CVO (Companion of the Royal Victorian Order), Some honor for service--not high enough to earn him the title of "Sir," I guess (the Times called him Mr Patrick Macdonald). WPHC, GEIC Western Pacific High Commission Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony >It would be a good practice in the wiki to define abbreviations the >first time they are used in each article. Agreed. >The wiki is a great idea. It >should make the info much more accessible. I hope so. >Is there any reason to think that MacDonald, or anyone, might have >shipped the bones to London for storage? I doubt it--but people do strange things sometimes, don't they? I think we can bracket the time when the bones and sextant box went missing: after Vaskess and before Burne. 1. AFTER VASKESS: My supposition is that if Vaskess had been in on the decision to discard either box, he would have opened the bones file and made a note to that effect. Although the numbering system changed during WWII, Vaskess could easily have found the file and recorded the decision. Not to have done so would be dereliction of duty for a man of Vaskess' character (a first-rate bureaucrat). As far as I can tell, Vaskess was on duty until some time after WW II. (If anyone can check the Civil Lists for the WPHC, that would be a big help in pinning down the dates of Vaskess' career.) 2. BEFORE BURNE: Bruce T. Burne was the last professional archivist for the Western Pacific Archives (the predecessor of the WPHC Archives now housed in Auckland, NZ). He quit or was retired in 1976. I spoke with him in 2003 and he was absolutely certain that the WPHC archive did not contain the bones or the sextant box during his tenure. >Also, on the Viti page, it says: " According to Tofiga's notes, Viti >departed Canton at the same hour Sir Harry says the Clipper took off >for Suva and arrived at Hull around 4:30 p.m., remaining only an hour >before continuing on to Gardner" > >Is this saying that Pan Am flew to Gardner? Have we heard this before? No. It says that the Viti stopped for an hour and then continued on to Gardner. I've modified the sentence to make it a little clearer. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:57:00 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald >From Tom King > >>Is there any reason to think that MacDonald, or anyone, might have >>shipped the bones to London for storage? > >I can't think of one. But MacDonald writes about the difficulty he had >disposing of the WPHC's furniture, and even though Tofiga has told us >he's sure the kanawa box wasn't part of the furniture holdings, I still >wonder about how things that were neither archives nor tables and >chairs were dealt with. Bruce T. Burne told me that he was quite sure that neither the sextant box nor the bones were in the Archive during his tenure, which preceded Paddy's time as "acting Archivist." I didn't ask about a kanawa box with no bones in it. :o( Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:19:59 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald >Bruce T. Burne told me that he was quite sure that neither the >sextant box nor the bones were in the Archive during his tenure, >which preceded Paddy's time as "acting Archivist." But as I understand it from both the "new" notes we've received and from what Tofiga told us, Paddy had at least two roles in the closedown of the WPHC -- distributing the archives, and disposing of the Commission's furniture. If the box o' bones was classified as "furniture," it might have had no relationship to the archives and hence not come to Burne's notice. To me a box o' bones doesn't seem much like furniture, but it doesn't seem much like archival material either; I wonder about stuff that may have fallen through the cracks between the two categories. TK ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:28:48 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald >From Tom King > >But as I understand it from both the "new" notes we've received and >from what Tofiga told us, Paddy had at least two roles in the closedown of >the WPHC -- distributing the archives, and disposing of the Commission's >furniture. If the box o' bones was classified as "furniture," it might >have had no relationship to the archives and hence not come to Burne's >notice. To me a box o' bones doesn't seem much like furniture, but it >doesn't seem much like archival material either; I wonder about stuff >that may have fallen through the cracks between the two categories. My own impression is that the head of the archives (first Burne, then Paddy) would have known what was in the building. But strange things do happen. From what we've learned of Paddy's career, he was not continuously present in Fiji from 1941 until 1978 (as I had originally assumed). The two boxes may have been disposed of while he was elsewhere. There are some microfilmed articles by Dorothy Crozier, the founding archivist of the WPHC, that may be of some interest. These are at the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau (PMB)--the folks who sent us the Paddy Mac correspondence. I've put an asterisk next to the articles that I think might be worth reading. PMB 1196 Dorothy Crozier Papers on the Western Pacific, 1936-1977 http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/reels/manuscripts/PMB1196.PDF Reel 11 Reports on the WPHC Archives, including the following papers by DC: * "Memorandum on the Proposed Separation, Future Housing and Present Survey of the WPHC Archives", Ts., 9pp; * "Interim report on the WPHC Archives", 4 Jul 1952, Ms., 24pp.; * "Interim Report on the Progress of the Survey of the Western Pacific High Commission Archives", 30 Sep 1952, Ts., 8pp.; * "Programme for the Construction and Completion of the Survey of the WPHC Archives after May 1953", Ms., draft, c.30pp.; * "Notes on the WPHC Archives", Ms., 6pp. Continued on Reel 12. Reel 12 Reports on the WPHC Archives. Continued from Reel 11. * DC, "The Establishment of the Central Archives of Fiji and the WPHC", Ts., 9pp., and Ms., drafts. Draft Inventories. Not microfilmed. Notes on WPHC Registers and Indices. Ts., 7pp. Inventory of WPHC Archives, Part I; Items 1-70. Ms., draft, c.20pp. WPHC General Orders, 1883, 1884, 1886; Ms., transcripts. 3pp. Inventory of WPHC Archives, Part II; Items 71-76. Ms., draft, c.300pp. Inventory of WPHC Archives, Pt.II. Items 89-460. Ms., draft, c.400pp. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:52:14 -0400 From: Mike Piner Subject: Re: information on Paddy McDonald Has all this been examined??? LTM She always perused "stuff" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:41:52 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald Mike Piner writes: >Has all this been examined??? All this what? The "new" MacDonald material? Just got it, so examination is underway. My initial perusal didn't reveal any boxes of bones, but there's lots of other relevant information, I think. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:29:23 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald >From Mike Piner: > >Has all this been examined??? It's not clear what you mean by "all this." If you mean the list of materials contained in the Crozier microfilms, the answer (as far as I know) is "no." Marty ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:37:59 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Information on Paddy McDonald >From Tom King > >>Has all this been examined??? > >All this what? The "new" MacDonald material? Just got it, so examination >is underway. My initial perusal didn't reveal any boxes of bones, but >there's lots of other relevant information, I think. I put up the material that I thought was most relevant to the missing boxes in two articles on the wiki: Lots of details from the Times obituary: http://tighar.org/wiki/Paddy And much new information added to this section and the next: From Ted Campbell > >Is it possible that the bones where kept for a period of time, not >knowing what to do with them, and then turned over to a local church >for final internment? Roger checked both burial and cremation records for all the graveyards in Suva from 1940 to 1990 or thereabouts. http://tighar.org/wiki/Roger_Kelley%27s_Reports--Fiji%2C_2003 I had high hopes that he would find a good lead. Giving the bones a "decent burial" seemed to me like a very British thing to do. >Remember the original file contained the possibility that they could >have been a white female - AE! Hoodless' report argued that they were the bones of a male: http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_found_on_Nikumaroro That's probably the strongest reason why the case was closed. Just some lost guy. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:08:06 -0400 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Earhart's bones I wonder if you have that backwards. The officials would have preferred that they be male bones, and native or mixed race as well, to minimize governmental fuss. That would sure help dispell any doubt. Dan Postellon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:26:11 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Earhart's bones For Dan Postellon It begins to smack of conspiracy theorizing, but I think particularly given the times -- with Britain being blitzed by the Nazis, Churchill and Roosevelt trying to maneuver the US into the war, Lindbergh leading the charge for US isolationism -- that the undesirability of having Britain perceived to have let Earhart die on one of "their" islands had to be hovering around in the back of Sir Harry Luke's mind. That's the way I play it out in my novel, anyhow. LTM (who says it's a rotten novel)