Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 106   Go Down

Author Topic: Still from ROV video  (Read 1298284 times)

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #885 on: February 17, 2012, 12:05:44 PM »

Do you suppose that the item circled in the first attachment could be one of the drift bombs shown in attachment 2?
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

John Joseph Barrett

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #886 on: February 17, 2012, 12:18:04 PM »

Looks like it could be. It would be so nice to be able to actually hold and examine just one of the objects seen down there. Of course, if you could get just one and it turned out to be just a rock or coral, that doesn't mean that the rest aren't aircraft parts. Of the items tentatively identified, which one would be the one to go for if you could?  LTM -John
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #887 on: February 17, 2012, 12:36:15 PM »

At this point I think I might have to try for the "camera". AE's camera was very expensive, about $85.00 at the time, so I doubt there could be many ways one like it could have gotten to the island. I don't think we have a serial number for her camera but the Luke Field inventory did list a serial number for a lens and one for a shutter housing so if the lump on top of the "camera" turned out to be them we could have the "smoking gun" everyone has been searching for. A lot of "IFS" there though and someone else has to make decisions like that.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #888 on: February 17, 2012, 01:35:29 PM »

Harry, Here is a picture that shows how the ventral antenna was attached to the mast for the pitot tube no less!! Note how the wire appears to be coated.

That's a good picture Woody. So if antenna was attached to pitot tube and, on take off at Lae antenna ripped off = damaged or mis-aligned pitot tube?
Would not there be discrepencies between the two airspeed indicators in the cockpit, one from the undamaged pitot tube and one from the damaged/mis-aligned one?
And if that was the case then how would you decide which one is giving you the correct airspeed?
Just a thought
This must be the place
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #889 on: February 17, 2012, 02:24:16 PM »

Jeff, it looks to me like that would happen. If the ventral antennas were installed as they were on some of the older Army aircraft that I flew, the antennas were attached to the fore and aft masts but the center mast mainly functioned to keep the wire from sagging. There was an insulator in the mast that the wire simply passed through. There has been earlier discussion about whether or not the pitot tube was bent. In the Lea takeoff photo it looked as if at least one of them was. The photo was evaluated by PHOTEC and they determined that it was not bent but rather an optical illusion made it appear to be. I, personally think it was bent (just my opinion). There has also been much discussion about whether one of the ventral antennas was removed before the second trip left Florida. The attached photo taken somewhere along the route, I'm not sure where, appears to show both of the rear antenna masts still installed. It is not obvious if the second antenna wire is still there. If both wires were still there, both A/S indicators could have been off. In whatever case, AE should have been able to maintain close to the correct airspeed just by using the proper power settings in conjunction with the other flight instruments.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 02:40:05 PM by Clarence W. Herndon »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #890 on: February 17, 2012, 03:34:17 PM »

Jeff, it looks to me like that would happen. If the ventral antennas were installed as they were on some of the older Army aircraft that I flew, the antennas were attached to the fore and aft masts but the center mast mainly functioned to keep the wire from sagging. There was an insulator in the mast that the wire simply passed through. There has been earlier discussion about whether or not the pitot tube was bent. In the Lea takeoff photo it looked as if at least one of them was. The photo was evaluated by PHOTEC and they determined that it was not bent but rather an optical illusion made it appear to be. I, personally think it was bent (just my opinion). There has also been much discussion about whether one of the ventral antennas was removed before the second trip left Florida. The attached photo taken somewhere along the route, I'm not sure where, appears to show both of the rear antenna masts still installed. It is not obvious if the second antenna wire is still there. If both wires were still there, both A/S indicators could have been off. In whatever case, AE should have been able to maintain close to the correct airspeed just by using the proper power settings in conjunction with the other flight instruments.
I think you have discovered why Earhart ran out of gas just after the 2013 Z message. Both pitot masts were bent out of shape causing both airspeed indicators to read too low. (There is no way that they can be bent to make the airspeed read too high.) To get the recommended cruise speed to show up on the airspeed indicators Earhart added more power which increased the fuel flow and so reduced the specific range (miles per gallon) causing the plane to run out of gas much sooner than expected. You might think Earhart would be suspicious that such high power settings were needed but she probably just chalked it up to operating at a higher gross weight than she had ever flown the plane at before.

gl
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #891 on: February 17, 2012, 04:18:00 PM »

"To get the recommended cruise speed to show up on the airspeed indicators Earhart added more power "
Gary, do you think this might also have added error to the 'distance from howland' communications?
This must be the place
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #892 on: February 17, 2012, 05:45:50 PM »

guys in recent weeks av been stepping back from rov video, cos there is that much debris on it that i feel i have too  :)

however i have been going over other images of reef, nessie, seven site etc,  an want ur opinions on following pic an tell me if u notice anythink odd ?



We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #893 on: February 17, 2012, 05:59:39 PM »

here is what am on about water, waves etc dont make identical patterns unless the left side was a mirage of right side i.e reflection soooo

what do u guys make of this image ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #894 on: February 17, 2012, 06:07:06 PM »

Jeff, it looks to me like that would happen. If the ventral antennas were installed as they were on some of the older Army aircraft that I flew, the antennas were attached to the fore and aft masts but the center mast mainly functioned to keep the wire from sagging. There was an insulator in the mast that the wire simply passed through. There has been earlier discussion about whether or not the pitot tube was bent. In the Lea takeoff photo it looked as if at least one of them was. The photo was evaluated by PHOTEC and they determined that it was not bent but rather an optical illusion made it appear to be. I, personally think it was bent (just my opinion). There has also been much discussion about whether one of the ventral antennas was removed before the second trip left Florida. The attached photo taken somewhere along the route, I'm not sure where, appears to show both of the rear antenna masts still installed. It is not obvious if the second antenna wire is still there. If both wires were still there, both A/S indicators could have been off. In whatever case, AE should have been able to maintain close to the correct airspeed just by using the proper power settings in conjunction with the other flight instruments.
I think you have discovered why Earhart ran out of gas just after the 2013 Z message. Both pitot masts were bent out of shape causing both airspeed indicators to read too low. (There is no way that they can be bent to make the airspeed read too high.) To get the recommended cruise speed to show up on the airspeed indicators Earhart added more power which increased the fuel flow and so reduced the specific range (miles per gallon) causing the plane to run out of gas much sooner than expected. You might think Earhart would be suspicious that such high power settings were needed but she probably just chalked it up to operating at a higher gross weight than she had ever flown the plane at before.

gl

You're doing it again Gary. You speculated that AE ran out of gas but said it as though it was fact. "I think you have discovered why Earhart ran out of gas just after the 2013 Z message."

TIGHAR doesn't know what happened to AE and neither do you. Are you intentionally twisting things to suit your way of thinking because you have no real evidence to work with? 

I could just say it this way.  " Objection your honor, statement has no basis in evidence or fact.". Probably not the right words but you get my point. 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 06:08:41 PM by Irvine John Donald »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #895 on: February 17, 2012, 06:14:07 PM »

here is what am on about water, waves etc dont make identical patterns unless the left side was a mirage of right side i.e reflection soooo

what do u guys make of this image ?

Sorry Richie.  In this Nessie shot I see a person walking back to shore. They have a bare midriff and possibly a swimming cap on their head. Dark top and bottom. One hand and arm up over their head.

I don't think either of us is right but I can always see "something" in shots like this. But just not an Electra.

Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #896 on: February 17, 2012, 06:20:51 PM »

here is what am on about water, waves etc dont make identical patterns unless the left side was a mirage of right side i.e reflection soooo

what do u guys make of this image ?

Sorry Richie.  In this Nessie shot I see a person walking back to shore. They have a bare midriff and possibly a swimming cap on their head. Dark top and bottom. One hand and arm up over their head.

I don't think either of us is right but I can always see "something" in shots like this. But just not an Electra.
what ur seeing is what is obvious ye

but bare in mind the nessie object as been zoomed in on from distance so the more u zoom in, the bigger the outline of object becomes  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #897 on: February 17, 2012, 07:18:55 PM »

If both wires were still there, both A/S indicators could have been off. In whatever case, AE should have been able to maintain close to the correct airspeed just by using the proper power settings in conjunction with the other flight instruments.
I think you have discovered why Earhart ran out of gas just after the 2013 Z message. Both pitot masts were bent out of shape causing both airspeed indicators to read too low.
gl

You're doing it again Gary. You speculated that AE ran out of gas but said it as though it was fact. "I think you have discovered why Earhart ran out of gas just after the 2013 Z message."

TIGHAR doesn't know what happened to AE and neither do you. Are you intentionally twisting things to suit your way of thinking because you have no real evidence to work with? 

I could just say it this way.  " Objection your honor, statement has no basis in evidence or fact.". Probably not the right words but you get my point.
Sure there is evidence, the most compelling of which is Earhart saying she only had a half hour of fuel left at 1940 Z. One radioman recorded it that way, "SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT," and the other paraphrased it as  "BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW." Now it didn't make sense that she should be running out that soon but it was possible to do that by running the engines at higher power. If she ran her engines at full cruising power, 550 hp per side, then the fuel flow would be 55 gallons per hour per side, a total of 110 gallons per hour, see attached power setting table. At that rate the fuel would all be gone after only ten hours. Of course it would make no sense for her to run her engines at full power but it is possible, depending on just what power settings she did use, to burn all the fuel in 20 hours and 13 minutes.

TIGHAR doesn't like the "1/2 HR LEFT" logged message so they came up with a strained, contrived explanation to try to get around the plain language of that message.

Further evidence is that she stopped transmitting after 2013 Z and none of the alleged later messages can be shown conclusively to have come from Earhart.

I didn't have any explanation before for why she would have used higher power setting. Elgin Long came up with an unreasonable explanation that she cruised faster at higher power settings to counter the headwind but the amount of extra fuel burned for that amount of headwind would not explain using all the fuel that quickly. But, increasing the airspeed in order to make the faulty airspeed indicator show the right number does make a reasonable explanation for using up the fuel.

And there is additional support for the damaged pitot theory, since this also explains the long takeoff at Lae, the plane barely skimming the ocean after that takeoff and the two puffs of dust behind the plane on takeoff. There is no reason the takeoff should have taken so much runway since the plane was only about 500 pounds heavier than when it took off from Oakland and that takeoff was only 1900 feet. An airspeed indicator that was reading too low would cause the pilot to accelerate to a higher speed than needed for the takeoff and this explains the long takeoff. The plane should climb at 730 feet per minute even at the maximum gross weight of 16,500 pounds and the plane was nowhere near that weight for the Lae takeoff. But to climb well the plane must be at the proper climb speed. With the airspeed indicator reading low then Earhart would hold the nose down in an attempt to see the correct climb speed on the airspeed indicator so she was actually flying at a higher speed which explains why she ended up skimming over the ocean instead climbing.

It all holds together.

gl
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 04:51:59 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #898 on: February 17, 2012, 08:33:08 PM »

there flight path was 2570 miles to howland

an according to this document the least the electra could do is 3100 so i think both fuel Q/A upto now wont be answered till we have the electra fuel gauge in front of us  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #899 on: February 17, 2012, 08:38:12 PM »

here is what am on about water, waves etc dont make identical patterns unless the left side was a mirage of right side i.e reflection soooo

what do u guys make of this image ?

Sorry Richie.  In this Nessie shot I see a person walking back to shore. They have a bare midriff and possibly a swimming cap on their head. Dark top and bottom. One hand and arm up over their head.

I don't think either of us is right but I can always see "something" in shots like this. But just not an Electra.
i never said u cud see electra i was askin ppl's opinion on what i have outlined to see what there thought is ?

but thanks for your opinion anyway  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 106   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

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

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP