Hi Harry. The wheel being out on that pile is interesting. I am not a pilot so I ponder the reason why it would be removed. Is the wheel normally removable? I always thought they were permanently fitted. You racing car drivers with removable steering wheels but planes? When I first looked at the picture I thought it was a pile being loaded but then I thought this could also be a pile being unloaded. The key may be the wheel. If loading why it is the wheel on top? Wouldn't that be last on and reinstalled when AE is getting ready to go. If unloading it may be that everything else came out first and AE came out last and put the wheel on the pile top. What do you think Harry?In many aircraft you can remove the control wheel simply by removing a single pin. It is useful to remove the right side wheel to make room for dropping parachutists, to make more room for a front seat passenger, or to make more room for Noonan to use his octant to take the anticipated observations of the sun which would be almost directly in front of them as they approached Howland. We know that Noonan took sights from the co-pilot's seat on the flight to Dakar and also on the flight to Hawaii.
Thanks Gary. That's very helpful. Do you think it's loading or unloading? Getting rid of extra weight for the full fuel tanks? The newspapers are pretty clear but the photo could verify one way or the other.But it would not have made any sense to pay to ship them to Darwin and then ship them back. They must have considered the weight constraints for the Lae to Howland leg earlier and had decided that they could take parachutes. The plane was only about 500 pounds heavier at Lae than it was when it took off from Oakland for Hawaii. Is there any record of the chutes showing up back in the States?
That's definitely a spare wheel. How do you know the picture was taken in Darwin? If chutes were loaded at Darwin then does this mean she flew without parachutes to this point? I'm stumped on why parachutes would be loaded at Darwin. Why feel the need for them now and not before? If yes then why? Is it likely then that the chutes would have been unloaded at Lae. (Good point Harry).
Would a 1937 era parachute have metal parts that TIGHAR may have in its possession already? Sorry about all the questions but I know very little about the field of aeronautics.
Thanks Gary. Why ship them to Darwin? Why wouldn't they have carried them since the start of the trip?You would think they would have had them for the whole trip, which is what Amelia said, but the newspaper stories are pretty clear. These are seat type chutes that you sit on like a seat cushion so it would not be surprising if the sat on them for the comfort, if nothing else. I wouldn't expect them to have the straps hooked up since they should have had plenty of time to prepare to bailout, not like getting shot down by a Zero.
Because of the internal fuel tank would AE have gone out through the roof hatch?.
Would they wear them in flight or just if they decided to use them?
My brother is a volunteer firefighter in a small community that has a parachute club. He has seen someone who should get their money back. Landed in a shopping mall parking lot. Not pretty.
I find this thread interesting from the standpoint that there may have been parachutes onboard when they landed at Gardner. As survival tools I would have thought they might be useful. If any metal parts remained and had been or could be found then that would be potentially more evidence. The parachutes in the picture don't show any metal work that I can see.You should be able to spot the metal snap laying on the parachute pack (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=904&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=3.04878&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=18&DMROTATE=0&x=76&y=142). This is one of the leg strap snaps and the same kind was used for the chest strap.
Here is a link to a Life magazine article to the Irving Parachute company. Pictures from 1937.The Irvin Parachute Company also established the "Caterpiller Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_Club)" named for the silk worms that made the silk for the parchutes. To join the club all you had to do was to use a parachute to save your life.
Some metal in riser harness and shoulder straps.
http://wnyheritagepress.org/photos_week_2008/irving_air_chutes/irving_air_chutes.htm (http://wnyheritagepress.org/photos_week_2008/irving_air_chutes/irving_air_chutes.htm)
If u look at the wrinkles on Fred's shirt on the lower back, then I would guess that this picture was taken after landung and they were unloading the plane.I suspect that Fred's shirt was permanently wrinkled after all those days in the plane.
I had a case where an overhead crane on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy, being used to mate a very expensive communications satellite to the top of a rocket dropped the satellite and caused seven million dollars of damage to it. Crane operator screwed up.
Dale
Yeppers, never know what goes on in someone's mind.
Briefly, I once witnessed one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" moments.
The objective was to lift, move, lower, turn, set in place a 400 ton Stator over the Rotor of a MG set.
Well, the load got lifted and moved over the rotor, but, instead of following the reviewed and signed off procedure, the "genius" crane operator decided to turn the load while ir hung 20 feet above the rotor.Needless to say, the crane failed, the load fell bouncing on the rotor, etc. No deaths, no injuries, only 16 million dollars and 6 month delay. "Seemed like a good idea at the time."
I'd really like Gary's input on when chutes would be wanted, and when they wouldn't be. I've never worn one, but then I've only flown a few small GA aircraft. In general, light aircraft are usually thought of as being the best means to get back onto land in case of emergency. Then again, I can think of a few situations in which a parachute might be a better choice, over mountains for one example. If I were in great big highly visible Lockheed though, with lots of big empty fuel tanks that mostly guarantee flotation, I think I'd take my chances with the aircraft in a ditching. There was no liferaft or emergency radio to take with, so bailing out would mean leaving everything else that might help survival. I don't recall reading that they even carried life vests, but I'm not sure about that. A floating Lockheed would be easier to spot than a single person, if that's what they thought of. Juust how useful might a parachute be over the ocean?On my honeymoon with my first wife, I flew a Cessna 172 from Chicago to the Virgin Islands.
Gary, nice story and lucky for you that you have experience of sky diving. What about AE and FN though? Neither of them have any jumps between them, how likely then that one or both of them in a similiar situation would be able to jump?Virtually none of the military pilots who have bailed out had any previous jump experience, they managed to get past the white knuckles. There are no "practice jumps" they are all real from the very first one. Same is true of civilian pilots who have made it into the "Caterpiller Club."
Wonder how many didn't bail out as they had white knuckle syndrone where on a commercial jump first timers grip for there lives and the instructor talks them down until there grip weakens and then gives them a helping hand such as you would have given your wife.Your wording makes me chuckle. I remember an occasion when a first time skydiver was hanging under the wheel strut and wouldn't let go. I knew it was just a matter of time until he did let go, you can only hang on for so long, and we were approaching the forest surrounding the airport. If he didn't go soon, when he finally did let go, he would land in the trees. So I just stomped on his fingers, he let go and landed safely on the drop zone. He didn't remember how he managed to bruise his fingers.
On the leg from Grand Turk to San Juan, Puerto Rico, about 400 miles, right in the middle, out
of radio contact with anybody for awhile, the engine started coughing and shuttering,
Just thought I would post this as it was one of the reasons why it was decided to curtail night drops near water by Brit Paras. The other reason was in daylight drops over water the task was to release the harness (but still be in it) and drop free at less than 50ft. The problem discovered was that guys were having difficulty in judging height where there were no reference points to refer to e.g. buildings/trees. End result was people exiting harness at incredible heights in excess of 125 ft. Ouch!Back in the '70s a group of skydivers wanted to set a group high altitude jump record, got a plane that could go high and oxygen equipment and went up to 35,000 feet. They were trying to find the drop zone but a solid layer of clouds moved in which prevented any view of the ground. Since they were up there already they didn't want to ride the plane down so the pilot talked the FAA radar controller to give them vectors to the drop zone and when the controller told them they were there the jumpers got out of the plane. As they fell they entered the clouds (interesting, this does not violate FAR part 103) and when they came out the bottom all they saw below them was water. The controller had been watching the wrong blip on his radar and the jump plane was over the middle of Lake Erie. I think about ten jumpers drowned.
Jeff
"Automatic rough" starts when you first go "feet wet" as you "coast out," not after being over the ocean for a couple of hours.
On the leg from Grand Turk to San Juan, Puerto Rico, about 400 miles, right in the middle, out
of radio contact with anybody for awhile, the engine started coughing and shuttering,
Nothing like a long ocean passage to make the engine run rough. Or an instrument flight over the mountains at night. It's not known what it is about the physics of these passages that affects engines ;)
Number two presumes your conclusion, that they were on Gardner. Another way to look at this, if they had parachutes in the plane when they left Lae, then the parachutes not being seen by Lambrecht or found on Gardner is additional evidence that Earhart did not end up on Gardner.
Now I will take the other side of the point and say perhaps they did unload in Lae because...
1. There is no sign or record of parachutes in aircraft leaving Lae.
2. No sign of parachutes being used as survival gear at Gardner
3. Weight was an issue leaving Lae for Howland. trade parachutes for fuel. (someone already said the parachute weight was negligible)
Comments?
I'm no expert, going up a step ladder requires mind over matter but to jump out of a plane with a shute i've never used and the thought that I could get wound up in ropes, guides and silk and then not be able to open the harness makes trying to land the ship in the drink a no brainer. Also can I swim? what about my navigator? 5 lengths in the pool or hours in the sea (and don't forget the sharks!!!!!)No good choices were available. Earhart had the chutes shipped to Darwin so she had obviously decided that jumping was safer the ditching, and it is. The rest cuts both way, you still have to swim with the sharks no matter how you got down into the sea.
Now land! thts something I understand?
Thanks John. As a non aviator I'm still puzzled re when you would and wouldn't carry a parachute. 1937 and aviation is still relatively young. AE is flying around the world and flying over oceans and lots of land between airports. Why would they not consider parachutes as essential on every flight. Even a flight from town to town in the US. Any flight for that matter. Was it common for non military pilots to fly without parachutes?Some apparently start with the presumption that parachutes are useful over land but not useful over the ocean, and that is just wrong. You have probably noticed that they don't carry parachutes on your over land airline flight, why not? Parachutes are only useful for dealing with a very narrow list of in-flight problems. Most crashes happen while landing or taking off and by the time you know you have a problem, you have already hit the trees plus the plane is not high enough to allow the chute to open anyway. They are useful if you have a structural failure which is why you must wear a parachute when doing aerobatics since, if you screw up, you might pull a wing off.
DUH!
Boy do I feel stupid, the answer was staring me in the face and I missed it. There is no conflict between the two accounts. We are not talking about two parachutes, we are talking about four parachutes, the two she had carried around the world and the replacements for them that had been shipped out to Darwin.
Why replacements, why not just continue on with the chutes that she had?
Because regulations require that a parachute may not be carried in an American airplane unless it had been opened, hung up, aired, inspected, and re-packed by a U.S. licensed Parachute Rigger within the prior 60 days. The rigger must seal the ripcord and sign the parachute log card that is carried in the parachute container. This must have been accomplished within in the preceding 60 days or it would have been illegal to have the chutes in the Electra. I know that this has been the regulation for the last 60 years so I am confident that the same requirement applied in 1937. From my experience with the old CARs I know that these types of regulations do not change in any appreciable way
The tip-off, which I missed, is in the newspaper story, the parachutes had been delivered from America "Fully tested and ready for immediate use," so they must have been packed within the prior 60 days by an American Parachute Rigger. Earhart had to remove the first, out of date, set of chutes from the plane and replace them with the legal chutes. Then, as she said, she shipped the first set of chutes home.
I have attached several photos of my chest type parachute. You open the protective flap in the front to expose the ripcord and the ripcord pins. The last pin is sealed with a lead seal on thread carrying the code imprint for the particular rigger which you inspect before every jump to ensure that the chute has not been opened since it was sealed by the rigger. The back on the container has a pocket in the center which holds the log for the chute showing when it was packed, the license number of the Parachute Rigger, and his signature.
gl
I think we can be fairly sure that the 'chutes were collected in Darwin and carried to Lae. Whether they remained on board for trip to Howland is unknown.I am attaching two catalog pages of parachute hardwear.
Two years ago we received this email:
'"My father who served in the U.S. Army in WWII and helped liberate the Philippines and the surrounding islands. He has bestowed upon me I think a rare piece of history before he passed away. When he was in Lae, New Guinea, he bought a hook from a native that was supposedly taken out of Amelia Earhart's plane. Maybe the local "Sam" stole it out of her plane I don't know. My dad bought it from him, and gave it to me. What route should I pursue to authenticate it's verification? I believe it is from a Lockheed Electra, so I'd like to make sure. If it is real, it could be a treasure for many to enjoy."
We asked for photos of the "hook" (see attached). It's almost certainly parachute hardware but after considerable research we were not able to pin down whether it could have come from the Irvin 'chutes that AE picked up in Darwin. Maybe the editor of "Last Flight" was just mixed up about where the 'chutes were left behind. Maybe they were left in Lae and the fastener in question is from one of those 'chutes. Bottom line: it is far from certain that the parachutes were aboard for the Howland trip.
I think we can be fairly sure that the 'chutes were collected in Darwin and carried to Lae. Whether they remained on board for trip to Howland is unknown.I am attaching two catalog pages of parachute hardwear.
Two years ago we received this email:
'"My father who served in the U.S. Army in WWII and helped liberate the Philippines and the surrounding islands. He has bestowed upon me I think a rare piece of history before he passed away. When he was in Lae, New Guinea, he bought a hook from a native that was supposedly taken out of Amelia Earhart's plane. Maybe the local "Sam" stole it out of her plane I don't know. My dad bought it from him, and gave it to me. What route should I pursue to authenticate it's verification? I believe it is from a Lockheed Electra, so I'd like to make sure. If it is real, it could be a treasure for many to enjoy."
We asked for photos of the "hook" (see attached). It's almost certainly parachute hardware but after considerable research we were not able to pin down whether it could have come from the Irvin 'chutes that AE picked up in Darwin. Maybe the editor of "Last Flight" was just mixed up about where the 'chutes were left behind. Maybe they were left in Lae and the fastener in question is from one of those 'chutes. Bottom line: it is far from certain that the parachutes were aboard for the Howland trip.
gl
She wouldn't jump out of that plane until the engines were sputtering and there was no sight of a landing spot. She and GP had too much invested, in that bird and neither AE or FN were 'sky divers' The parachutes, if aboard, went down with the Electra over the reef and that may be some of what you are seeing in the ROV stills. "T" handles, ropes, wheel, steering wheel. Too bad they didn't get them out before the surf took the Electra over the edge...they would have made nice tents and been VERY easy to see from the air!Considering the value of parachutes for survival camping, sun shade, hundreds of feet of lines, etc. and the several days that the Gardner Island hypo has them in and out of the plane, it seems most likely that the chutes were carried ashore immediately if they were onboard the plane and it landed on Gardner.
Jeff Hayden asked the question, "Did they carry parachutes (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg9604.html#msg9604)?"Attached is a clear picture of a seat type parachute.
In her book, Last Flight, Earhart wrote that they left their parachutes at Darwin, to be shipped home, so that should be the end of it. (I have attached an excerpt.)
Or is it?
I must point out that I have found errors in her book, possibly originating with Earhart herself or possibly with the editor of the book, George Putnam. Is this another error?
The reason I am asking this question is that I found two Australian newspaper articles reporting her arrival in Darwin that calls this into question. Both articles state that the first thing Earhart did when she arrived in Darwin was to inquire whether her parachutes had arrived from the U.S. so that she could load them into the plane and take them with her to Lae and, presumably, on to the U.S. Each article contains a lot of detail giving them, what lawyers call, "indicia of reliability," they appear trustworthy. And each article states different facts supporting this explanation so it wasn't just one guy copying from the other guy, it appears that two guys checked these facts themselves. I have attached these two articles.
Here is the photo, taken in Darwin, showing the two seat pack parachutes on the ground.
(https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=571.0;attach=1372)
gl
But why all this shipping of parachutes around the world?
She said that early in the book about flying over Brazil.But why all this shipping of parachutes around the world?
Good question. Logically, you don't ship parachutes halfway around the world to an obscure place like Port Darwin unless you think you might need them. (duh)
Did Earhart consider parachutes essential to crossing vast stretches of water? I don't recall any mention of a parachute being carried on her 1932 Newfoundland to Ireland flight, or her 1935 Honolulu to Oakland flight. Most significantly, there are no parachutes in the Luke Field inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html). So unless I'm missing something, the available evidence suggests that Earhart did not consider parachutes essential to crossing vast stretches of water.
But why else would it be important to have parachutes waiting for them in Darwin? The route from Darwin to Lae took them over about 400 miles of New Guinea jungle, including the Owen Stanley mountain range. In 1986 I flew in a helicopter from Port Moresby across the Owen Stanleys to the Agaiambo Swamp in Oro Province. Believe me, there is NO place to make a forced landing and the route is dotted with airplane wrecks plastered on the walls of mountain passes. Having heard of the hazards of the New Guinea jungle Earhart might have (wisely) opted to have parachutes aboard for the Darwin/Lae leg. I have a recollection of Earhart writing somewhere that she was more concerned about flying over jungles than over oceans, but I don't see it in a quick scan through Last Flight. Anybody else remember that?
Ric, has anything been found on Gardner that may be part of a metal fastener or buckle from a parachute?
very interesting find Gary. I wonder if these two widgets are reworked bits of parachute hardware, buckles/quick release/clips/tensioners etc.. without the wood screws of courseI think we can be fairly sure that the 'chutes were collected in Darwin and carried to Lae. Whether they remained on board for trip to Howland is unknown.I am attaching two catalog pages of parachute hardwear.
Two years ago we received this email:
'"My father who served in the U.S. Army in WWII and helped liberate the Philippines and the surrounding islands. He has bestowed upon me I think a rare piece of history before he passed away. When he was in Lae, New Guinea, he bought a hook from a native that was supposedly taken out of Amelia Earhart's plane. Maybe the local "Sam" stole it out of her plane I don't know. My dad bought it from him, and gave it to me. What route should I pursue to authenticate it's verification? I believe it is from a Lockheed Electra, so I'd like to make sure. If it is real, it could be a treasure for many to enjoy."
We asked for photos of the "hook" (see attached). It's almost certainly parachute hardware but after considerable research we were not able to pin down whether it could have come from the Irvin 'chutes that AE picked up in Darwin. Maybe the editor of "Last Flight" was just mixed up about where the 'chutes were left behind. Maybe they were left in Lae and the fastener in question is from one of those 'chutes. Bottom line: it is far from certain that the parachutes were aboard for the Howland trip.
gl
Parachutes over water only makes sense to me (which is nothing to do with what AE may have been thinking) in the case of a night ditching (ditchings are usually not pretty, gentle things anyway - can't get better at night).
But I also have immediate thoughts against bailing over water, even at night -
- Separation from gear in the plane that I might want for survival
- Separation from other survivors - two generally have a better chance than one
LTM -
http://tighar.org/wiki/Life_raftI'm not sure that is definitive. The Luke inventory does supply some evidence but it is not conclusive as to what was loaded aboard several months later in California. And there is the photo posted above with Earhart and Putnam holding the kites standing in front of the Electra. No need for the kites if no life raft.
Sorry, no life raft on board. The above link should help sort out the confusion.
This is the first time I've heard of kites in relation to the flight. Where did you hear that?
And there is the photo posted above with Earhart and Putnam holding the kites standing in front of the Electra.
Question?---If YOU were over open ocean, would you parachute out, or ditch the plane. YOU may or may not sink in either case. And------according to the crew of the Indianapolis in 1945, there are sharks out there. And around Nikumaroro. So, that leads to the question. Obviously if she wasnt going to be able to ditch the plane, bail out. Oh --lets see---either crawl over the fuselege tanks and out the door, or up through the roof hatch. If the plane had any airspeed, I dont think she would make it out without injury. So, to me that make the parachute thing a mute point. She would set it down somewhere.When ya gotta go, ya gotta go, ya find a way to get out of the plane, ask all the guys who managed to do this during the war and others. There are more than 10,000 members of the Caterpiller Club. You slow the plane down to near stall speed to minimize the aerodynamic forces on the doors, push them open and leave. The autopilot holds the plane steady even after both engines flame out and the elevator trim tab maintains the slow airspeed. I've made about 10 jumps from planes with just normal doors, you can push them open against the wind stream. The overhead hatch would be even easier to open since it would not be pushed against the wind stream. Of course there are times when you can't get out such as after a structural failure, losing a wing, causing the plane to spin creating so many G's that you can't make it to the door but no reason to expect such a problem with the Electra. And the sharks are going to be there anyway no matter how you get down.
Tom
You are toast. Bring some jam. It's lighter.
Hi Harry.But if the parachutes were in the plane when they took off from Lae and IF they landed on Gardner then why weren't the chutes seen by Lambrecht on his flyover? Chutes are perfect for emergency shelters, the chute is 28 feet in diameter and there are 28 lines each about 40 feet long, more than 800 feet of very strong line altogether. Chutes were originally all white but at some point they switched to orange and white for better visibility, I don't know if that was before 1937 or not till WW2. The Gardner hypo has them landing mid-day so they had plenty of time to unload the plane that day and additional opportunities on the following days so it is unlikely that the chutes were left aboard. And why was some trace of them not found when the island was settled only a couple of months later? So, the absence of the chutes on Gardner, if they were in the plane at takeoff from Lae, tends to disprove the Gardner hypo. And the logic is that the chutes WERE in the plane leaving from Lae.
Naw. I know they didn't bail. I believe the TIGHAR hypothesis. Just a point I was making. We need to tie what was on the Electra to the island. We could argue they did or didn't need a fire extinguisher if we wanted to but that's not the point. It's not why they have things on the plane. For us it's "if they did can we find evidence on the island to prove they were there.
So, the absence of the chutes on Gardner, if they were in the plane at takeoff from Lae, tends to disprove the Gardner hypo.
And the logic is that the chutes WERE in the plane leaving from Lae.
And Noonan's expectation was based on what?
IMHO
AE/FN probbably had no reason to unload items from the plane right away after landing. My opinion is that they expected the Itasca to be steaming towards them even as they landed on Gardiner sometime around noon on Friday 7/2/37.. FN probably knew, from his maritime experience, that the Itasca's top speed would be about 20 knots so they could expect it to be coming over the horizon in about 18 hours, i.e. at about 0600-0800 Saturday 7.3.37.
If the wings come out of the Northwest, that would be a left quartering tailwind during the flight, and during the cloud cover during the night, could have pushed the plane on a more southernly course.
So at daybreak, Noonan shot his sunline, but they were south of Howland.
Tell me how you find your location on the 157/337 line with no reference than open ocean?
I'm not trying to be difficult, but apparently Commander Thompson made the same mistake I am---since he searched NORTH of Howland, instead of South.
Could the parachute explain the white arrowhead feature that was never resolved?
Well harry, I'm not a nuclear physist, so Im just asking the question. WE are talking about navigating in 1937, not 2012. no GPS, no DF, and apparently no real data for Noonan because of the clouds. Ric is right, and that was the point to my question----you dont know where you are along that 157/337 line. And probably the shape of Gardner wasnt what he had on his maps----so there we are. back to the stone ages, and very unprepared.I've explained this navigation before, they would know how far south of Howland they were, see prior post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,555.msg9453.html#msg9453)
I've explained this navigation before, they would know how far south of Howland they were, see prior post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,555.msg9453.html#msg9453)
Gary----I'm not trying to be a dumb ass---one of the first radio messages stated "weather cloudy". And where did she pass over the Ontario for a fix? Did I miss that? Seems to me if she overflew the Ontario, she would have had some communication about that, at least to let someone know that she was on course. I understand DR, and you adjust your course by taking a fix on a landmark and compare it to your heading. BUT---what landmarks are there in the middle of the pacific? And---if it was cloudy, how was Noonan going to shoot a star sight? Last I saw, flying over the ocean at nite was pretty dark.Yes, you did miss it.
Yes, that's what everybody else would do in that situation. The plane is knee deep in the Pacific, there is some wave action, Noonan has heard of "tides" Get everything off the plane and safely ashore because you can't be sure it won't be washed away or the stuff damaged if you put off carrying everything ashore.
Gary
Am I to believe that they landed and immediately kicked into "survival" on a deserted island mode?
Ric, this issue has come up innumerable times in our correspondence over the years.I've explained this navigation before, they would know how far south of Howland they were, see prior post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,555.msg9453.html#msg9453)
Quoting from your previous post:
"...they would not have proceeded more than 110 NM south from the D.R. position ..."
"Noonan knew how far they had flown since the last fix and would have allowed the appropriate offset for the intercept point on the sunline LOP."
"...then Noonan would have aimed 110 NM,...."
"They would then fly 220 NM south-southeast ..."
"...they would still not proceed more than 110 NM further to the south-southeast ..."
"...they would have had to have been an additional 58 NM off to the right of the DR ..."
"Using this LOP, Noonan would have known how far he was north or south ..."
" ... Noonan could have determined how far they were south of Howland and so would have let them know that they had to turn around ..."
Replace all those "woulds" and would haves" with "could" or "could have" or "might" or "might have" and it becomes clear that your post is pure speculation. Based on your own considerable knowledge and experience, the actions you describe are what you believe Noonan could have or perhaps even should have done- and I'm not saying he didn't do them - but to then say with certainty that they would know how far south of Howland they were is patently false.
They had all day do these actions, they are not mutually exclusive. Even with your scenario, they still had to spend at least one night ashore and a parachute provides shelter and they were used that way many times by other crashed aircrews. First they get everything ashore, can't take more than an hour to unload the plane (probably only 15 minutes) leaving six hours before sunset to do what you would have done. As for troubleshooting the radio, based on their level of knowledge all they could do is check the fuse, one minute, see that wire to antenna is connected, 5 minutes, finished trouble shooting, total 6 minutes. They didn't have a tube tester machine with them and, according to the Luke inventory, they didn't carry spare tubes anyway so the troubleshooting of the radios was very limited.
Gary
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
They thought that they would see the Itasca arrive within about 20 hours, at or soon after daybreak. Of course, we know that didn't happen.
At what point in their efforts to unload the plane do you think they would have soughht out the problem with the radio? Sought out a fix? Began radio distress calls? Tied off tghe Plane to prevent it from sliding off the reef?
I think that these actions would carry higher priority than kicking into "survival" mode.
We can argue around the edges about the level of DR uncertainty but one moon observation line and they did know how far north or south of Howland they were and the weather, as reported by Itasca, allowed moon shots south of Howland.I've explained this navigation before, they would know how far south of Howland they were, see prior post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,555.msg9453.html#msg9453)
Quoting from your previous post:
"...they would not have proceeded more than 110 NM south from the D.R. position ..."
"Noonan knew how far they had flown since the last fix and would have allowed the appropriate offset for the intercept point on the sunline LOP."
"...then Noonan would have aimed 110 NM,...."
"They would then fly 220 NM south-southeast ..."
"...they would still not proceed more than 110 NM further to the south-southeast ..."
"...they would have had to have been an additional 58 NM off to the right of the DR ..."
"Using this LOP, Noonan would have known how far he was north or south ..."
" ... Noonan could have determined how far they were south of Howland and so would have let them know that they had to turn around ..."
Replace all those "woulds" and would haves" with "could" or "could have" or "might" or "might have" and it becomes clear that your post is pure speculation. Based on your own considerable knowledge and experience, the actions you describe are what you believe Noonan could have or perhaps even should have done- and I'm not saying he didn't do them - but to then say with certainty that they would know how far south of Howland they were is patently false.
There is a big difference between ditching in the flat water of a river and ditching into the waves in the open ocean.
Gary
I value your opinions greatly and you always express them eloquently (now comes the "however") however, even though at a younger age (much younger, hehe) I wanted to learn how to jump out of a moving airplane, I got over it!
Like pilot Sullenberg (Sully) said to the NYC Controller, "We'll be in the Hudson", my communication would sound like this "New York Control, 704 Mike Victor, I'll be in the drink." LOL
Think about this:
For most of that 2,500 mile flight you're over parts of the Pacific that get very little ship traffic and, in 1937, no air traffic. (On all of our nine voyages to Nikumaroro, only ONCE have we encountered another ship at sea once we got out of immediate Hawaiian, Fijian, or Samoan waters - and that was a possible pirate.) There was no plan for either Ontario or Itasca to conduct any kind search. In other words, just as with Earhart's other ocean flights, if you go down at sea - either by ditching or by parachute, whether you have a life raft or not - your chances of rescue are effectively nil. What sense does it make to carry the weight of rafts or parachutes? You are toast. Bring some jam. It's lighter.
I can understand that the idea of jumping out of a plane with a parachute is pretty scary (I know that from experience!) But, we know, that Earhart must have considered the scariness aspect of it and then still came to the decision that she could foresee some type of in-flight emergency on the around world flight when jumping would be the safest course of action to take, that is why she had parachutes along. So it looks like she was prepared to get over the scariness and hit the silk.
Tom
The neat thing about opinions, everyone has one! I agree with you.
There is no way in the world that I would jump out of the Electra, going 150 mph, thru a hatch over my head nor out the door. No way, Jose. I'd ride that baby down to, hopefully, a soft uneventful landing and get out as quickly as I possibly could, raft and kites or no raft and kites.
But then, I'm not AE.
From 1623 Z to 1912 Z the plane traveled only about 360 NM, 10% of which is 36 NM plus the uncertainty of the celestial fix of 10 NM makes the total DR uncertainty at 1912 Z only 46 NM if a fix was obtained about 1623 Z.
QuoteFrom 1623 Z to 1912 Z the plane traveled only about 360 NM, 10% of which is 36 NM plus the uncertainty of the celestial fix of 10 NM makes the total DR uncertainty at 1912 Z only 46 NM if a fix was obtained about 1623 Z.
Given what you said about the legal standards and standard practices you are presenting evidence for opposing legal counsel here.
I think you make a very good case that they did not get a fix at 16:23 GMT.
If I read between the lines it seems that you are suggesting that they were well within visual range (potentially of Howland and Baker) yet failed to find the either island during a search for them. Is this the case? This seems the most unlikely scenario.
I have written what Noonan did while approaching Howland (including using the "Landfall procedure" of offsetting to the north-northwest) and you always complain that this is just speculation. You complain that I have no evidence of what Noonan did but you are wrong, I have admissible evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
But, of course, this could be overcome by direct evidence that he was not acting in conformity with his training or with the customary practices in his field so this puts the burden on you, Ric, to come up with admissible evidence that Noonan was NOT doing that.
"If you have a logged radio transmission in which Earhart said "Noonan told me to pass on that he will not use the normal procedures for finding an island but will do something different this time" then you win but without that logged message, I win."
She reports circleing, looking for Howland.
In this case the possible DR error will continue to grow as the plane travels along the LOP until it possibly becomes large enough to allow the plane to be flying too far away to see the destination.
Shaw said: ‘England and America are two countries separated by the same language’,
Richie
I wish I could remember the famous quote by Winston Churchill, but it went something to the effect that we Americans and our British cousins share common things in our cultures and almost speak the same language. LOL
Being of Irish descent (or is it dissent?) I understand your dialect with few problems. Not to Worry.
Could the parachute explain the white arrowhead feature that was never resolved?
We think we located the area in 2007 and searched it with metal deterctors. Nothing there.
For metal harness fittings.Could the parachute explain the white arrowhead feature that was never resolved?
We think we located the area in 2007 and searched it with metal deterctors. Nothing there.
Nothing there in 2007. But how about 1938. Is there anything to exclude the white arrowhead as possibly two parachutes 'stitched' together to form what was seen in the photo (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuV/arrow.jpg)?
Metal detectors - for cloth parachute? If it was dismantled or taken away by natural forces, I doubt any detector would find something that is simply not there.
If it was a parachute and it eventually found its way downwind, I suppose the area to search would be further towards the lagoon, and not at the exact location seen in the photo anyway?
I didn't realize the Japanese were gunning for NR16020...
I don't think that is a fair description of our legal system, Ric. Court procedures, rules of evidence, jury instructions, courtroom control by the judge are all designed to place a discipline on the truth finding process and to help jurors think clearly when evaluating conflicting evidence and theories so that there is the highest probability that they will arrive at the truth about what actually happened. I recommend this as a useful way to consider the competing Earhart theories and evidence.I have written what Noonan did while approaching Howland (including using the "Landfall procedure" of offsetting to the north-northwest) and you always complain that this is just speculation. You complain that I have no evidence of what Noonan did but you are wrong, I have admissible evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
But this is not a court of law. The objective of a lawyer in a court of law is not to discover truth - it is to win the case. A good lawyer can argue either side of any given case. You win by convincing the judge, or jury, that your representation of events is correct. The rules of evidence define and limit what tools you can use to make your case but essentially it's a sales job. Many an innocent man has gone to jail, or worse, because the prosecution "proved" he was guilty. Many a felon has gone free because the defense "proved" there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict. OJ walked.
That is technically known as "jumping to conclusions." It is certainly an easy conclusion to "jump to," the plane is missing and the line they said they were on extended on the chart does go to the Phoenix group, "Shazam, just follow that line." And in the back of the room a nervous Lieutenant j.g., sitting with a plotting board in his lap, the Nautical Almanac on top of it along with H.O. 211 navigational tables and papers and pencils says "Sir, I've done some calculations"...... and he then wilts away under the stare of Captain Fridell. "X.O. inform engineering to to light off the boilers and get steam up, I want to be underway in six hours." YES SIR!But, of course, this could be overcome by direct evidence that he was not acting in conformity with his training or with the customary practices in his field so this puts the burden on you, Ric, to come up with admissible evidence that Noonan was NOT doing that.
If this was merely a court of law I would cite your exhaustive testimony describing all the ways Noonan should have been able to find Howland and argue that the fact that he clearly didn't is direct evidence that he was not acting in conformity with his training or with the customary practices in his field. I would then produce evidence that experienced naval aviators at Pearl Harbor in 1937 believed that Noonan would probably run southeastward down the LOP
; that experienced aerial navigators (Willi and Gannon) later agreed with that assessment
; that the post-loss radio signals show that plane was on land and sending distress calls for nearly a week; that the Colorado pilots saw signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island; that a photograph taken three months after the disappearance shows debris on the reef that is consistent with the landing gear of a Lockheed 10; that three years after the disappearance the bones of an otherwise unexplained castaway were found on Gardner Island, etc., etc., etc.
You're right, we both want to find out what actually happened.
The "jury" of this forum is a lot tougher than any jury you'd ever face in court. Many of them have expertise and experience that would never survive voir dire."If you have a logged radio transmission in which Earhart said "Noonan told me to pass on that he will not use the normal procedures for finding an island but will do something different this time" then you win but without that logged message, I win."
Gary, it's not about winning.
For metal harness fittings.
Gary. I understand what you are saying about the court system. Presenting a case, either for prosecution or defense means you must use court rules to keep the process fair, reasoned and balanced. Then the judge or jury can make a decision on which side is correct in a fair proceeding.To answer your question directly, no, I don't believe any of the radio signals were credible. I have been delaying saying this while I studied the Brandenberg analysis of them and I am close to the being finished.
Let me just ask you one question at this time. Do you believe some of the post loss radio signals were credible? I believe that's a yes or no answer just like in the court system. I await your reply. Thank you.
Ok---another dumb question for those believing the Japaneese exucuted AE. How did they capture her? I would think that the lexingon and colorado search teams 'might' have seen any ships in the area----considering they were searching a large part of the south pacific. I think the Japaneese Navy would hav elot of explaining to do if they were that far south of the Marshall Islands.Look at my prior post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6583.html#msg6583)
I dont suppose anyone has some ships logs show any Japaneese vessels anywhere near Niku in 1937-1938. HUM----maybe they did fly a seaplane or 2 there, and thats how they did it. One landed on the reef, wheels up like on water, except the water wasnt deep enough, and it ripped the bottom out. Its remains are what is in the still pic that Richie and Jeff have been laboring over. The second planes crews were smarter--they landed in the lagoon, found AE and took her away.
Ok ---its nonsense----or maybe---
Stranger things have happened
Gary. I understand what you are saying about the court system. Presenting a case, either for prosecution or defense means you must use court rules to keep the process fair, reasoned and balanced. Then the judge or jury can make a decision on which side is correct in a fair proceeding.To answer your question directly, no, I don't believe any of the radio signals were credible. I have been delaying saying this while I studied the Brandenberg analysis of them and I am close to the being finished.
Let me just ask you one question at this time. Do you believe some of the post loss radio signals were credible? I believe that's a yes or no answer just like in the court system. I await your reply. Thank you.
When I am finished I will explain why I have come to that conclusion so please save the howls of derision until I have done so.
gl
Gary, I'm not clear about the hypothesis of the post loss transmissions. Were they transmitting each time the tide went out, after it had flooded the radio equipment? Is that correct? If it is then the radio equipment must have been extremely watertight to be able to function again after a dowsing of seawater, valves, variable resistors, capacitors, battery etc...
Jeff H.
Gary has said clearly he does NOT believe there were ANY credible post loss radio signals. He doesn't believe there were ANY transmissions by AE so any question to Gary on how they transmitted is moot. He can only say they never happened.
However there are numerous threads and posts on this topic throughout the forum. The radio equipment was not waterproof however the tides were at their lowest point when AE landed on
Gardner. During the week of post loss radio signals, if you believe in them, the tide was rising
and, while the Electra was believed to be able to transmit for that week, by the Thursday the
tides pulled it off the reef edge. So during high tide that week the radio gear was dry and not
getting doused. Heath gives a good summary of that.
Ok thanks Irv, so it was possible to transmit, that's all I needed to know.
Jeff
Did they still have the life raft with them when they took off from Lae? In the film 'Amelia' it was binned to save weight. Surely that can't be right?Her husband said that she had a life raft on board, see attached newspaper clipping. Putnam was interviewed on July 2nd and the story was published on July 3rd.
I am guessing a "Very Pistol" was a flare gun? I have never heard that before.
I found an interesting reference to a pistol here (http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/earhart/article.asp?id=955).
"In one letter to Chief Bellarts, Balfour stated that Amelia handed her facility book plus a lot of papers along with her pistol and ammunition to him prior to her takeoff for Howland Island."
Could flares have been referred to as "ammunition"?
Earhart carried a Model 1903 .32 cal Colt Automatic Pocket Pistol with her for self-defense which is the one she gave to Balfour along with ammunition for it. She did not give away her "Very Pistol" which is a flare gun.
Balfour also wrote the same thing to Holbrook as I posted before:
Presumably you mean if a pistol was found in a foreign country where she landed.
Well, somebody but the word "Very" in brackets and changed the original meaning from "automatic pistol" to "Very pistol." As to recollections many years later, I was given a pistol in 1965, 47 years ago, and I still remember exactly what kind of pistol it was, what kind of sights it had and the what the grips looked like and I know that it was not a Very Pistol. I think Balfour (unless he was already institutionalized with dementia when he wrote those two letters) wouldn't have had any trouble remembering such things accurately.Very pistol, bore is about 1.5 inches. The cartridges are similar to shotgun shells, but instead of shot they may contain various color flares including parachute flares. This will fire a flare several hundred feet into the air, IIRC, one of the flares would reach 1200 feet.
Randy
Gary's sorting out of the 'pistol' delimma seems more important now - it would be helpful to find out how that change in the statement that he notes above did occur.
If it WAS a 'Very' pistol that AE left behind, it was a bad choice.
Like landing at St. Louis? Hmmm... that didn't seem to bother her much.Presumably you mean if a pistol was found in a foreign country where she landed.
Yes. There were many restrictions placed by foreign governments - what airports she could use, fumigation of the airplane, health certificates, no firearms, etc.
Well, somebody but the word "Very" in brackets and changed the original meaning from "automatic pistol" to "Very pistol." As to recollections many years later, I was given a pistol in 1965, 47 years ago, and I still remember exactly what kind of pistol it was, what kind of sights it had and the what the grips looked like and I know that it was not a Very Pistol. I think Balfour (unless he was already institutionalized with dementia when he wrote those two letters) wouldn't have had any trouble remembering such things accurately.Very pistol, bore is about 1.5 inches. The cartridges are similar to shotgun shells, but instead of shot they may contain various color flares including parachute flares. This will fire a flare several hundred feet into the air, IIRC, one of the flares would reach 1200 feet.
Randy
Gary's sorting out of the 'pistol' delimma seems more important now - it would be helpful to find out how that change in the statement that he notes above did occur.
If it WAS a 'Very' pistol that AE left behind, it was a bad choice.
Irv, I think Mr. LaPook was trying to be funny, making a backhand reference to Amelia and Fred landing in Saint-Louis, Senegal, Africa, instead of Dakar, Senegal, Africa.
Gary, the point of my post was to clarify the the restriction on a hand gun would be a restriction by a foreign country. Ric's response clarified and, I believe, confirmed it. She wouldn't need permits for landing on US territory. Her flight was sanctioned at the highest levels of the US government. Therefore why would she need to offload her pistol in Lae other than for weight. She had already landed at all the foreign airports of her trip already. If she still has the pistol then she has no need to get rid of it now for compliance with the permits. Her next three, and last stops, are all US controlled airfields. Howland, Hawaii, and California.Maybe it was just a present to him because of all the help Balfour had given her. She obviously thought highly of him since she asked him to come on the flight. And she didn't see any risk of landing in a jungle or ending up in some dangerous foreign town after Lae for the rest of the flight so didn't need the pistol for protection anymore.
What in the heck does landing in St. Louis have to do with this?
Geez. Maybe she gave it him because the fourth of July was coming up and she heard they had no fireworks. I can make anything up if you want me to.
What is a facility book? It sounds official. She could autograph that and he would have a great souvenir. Less dangerous. More valuable.
Geez. Maybe she gave it him because the fourth of July was coming up and she heard they had no fireworks. I can make anything up if you want me to.It may be hard for people today to understand that in the past is was quite common for people to carry pistols for protection which is why there were so many "pocket" pistols made by every manufacturer. They also made "muff" pistols for ladies to carry in their muffs. Senators also carried pistols onto the floor of the Senate so don't turn your nose up at the idea of Earhart carrying a pistol for protection at all the stops while going around the world.
What is a facility book? It sounds official. She could autograph that and he would have a great souvenir. Less dangerous. More valuable.
Geez. Maybe she gave it him because the fourth of July was coming up and she heard they had no fireworks. I can make anything up if you want me to.It may be hard for people today to understand that in the past is was quite common for people to carry pistols for protection which is why there were so many "pocket" pistols made by every manufacturer. They also made "muff" pistols for ladies to carry in their muffs. Senators also carried pistols onto the floor of the Senate so don't turn your nose up at the idea of Earhart carrying a pistol for protection at all the stops while going around the world.
What is a facility book? It sounds official. She could autograph that and he would have a great souvenir. Less dangerous. More valuable.
gl
Clarence, thanks for the info. Now I understand. The facility book of her trip would be a great souvenir. Better than the gun as it could be autographed. I still wonder why she would give anything away or dump gear at Lae. If she completed the trip, as intended, anything she carried on the trip would be a valuable momento.
Where did the idea come from that she left behind her life raft and other emergency equipment, like parachutes.
I agree Clarence. Would she have retired or become the first female fighter pilot of WWII?
I agree with your logic on over water gear, Gary - it seems like what a reasonable crew would do.Sure, it on page 6 of the last message she sent to the Herald Tribune and was published in her book as the second part of the last chapter and is available at Purdue.
Can you provide a link to AE's written message above? Somehow I've missed that before.
Thanks.
LTM -
Check these links which should disabuse you of those thoughts. Link 1 (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/flight-planning-aspects-relating-to-a-possible-earhart-s-spy-flight)and link 2 (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/was-earhart-a-spy).
Re: Papers left at Lae
erhaps she was concerned about them falling into non-friendly hands if she went down while flying over the Mandated Island Territory belonging to an ever increasingly belligerent empire?
That's what Earhart's friend/competitor/bitter rival Jackie Cochran did, she set up the WASPs.I agree Clarence. Would she have retired or become the first female fighter pilot of WWII?
Irv, I doubt she would have retired, flying is one of those things that gets into your blood. Since we didn't have any female fighter pilots in WWII I don't see her doing that. We did, however, have a fairly large group of female pilots that ferried all types of wartime aircraft from the factories to locations were they could be used either in training or in the actual war effort. I could see her possibly doing that. I could see her wanting to try out those newer, faster more exotic planes.
Very pistol, bore is about 1.5 inches. The cartridges are similar to shotgun shells, but instead of shot they may contain various color flares including parachute flares. This will fire a flare several hundred feet into the air, IIRC, one of the flares would reach 1200 feet.Attached below is a photograph of the type of Colt Pocket Pistol that I believe Earhart gave to Balfour. Compare it to the photo of a Very Pistol available here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1607). Do you think Balfour would have any trouble remembering which type of pistol she gave him?
Randy
I look at statements like this and then try to figure out if such things are even possible or if the statements are misquotes or just plain B.S.Where did the idea come from that she left behind her life raft and other emergency equipment, like parachutes.
This article suggests she left some of the emergency equipment behind. If the plane's fuel tanks were designed to intentinonally dump/seal fuel in emergency, it wouldn't be far-fetched that she may have left behind the life raft too. Parachutes too - maybe?
Los Angeles Times | 9 July 1937
Mantz Continues to Hope for Safety of Aviatrix
Mantz, who personally supervised much of the technical preparations for the flyer's second attempt to gird the globe by air, disclosed for the first time that the expedition carried no water condenser. "It ws left behind," he said. "I learned yesterday that 'A.E.' deposited both the machine that manufactures water out of human breath and her hand-crank generator for the radio somewhere along her route from Miami to New Guinea.
So, could we use this hand crank generator, or one with a similar output, an output within the capability of a human, to power the WE 13? Well it depends on how much power is required by the WE 13 transmitter. I have attached the specifications for that transmitter and the thing to notice is that it requires 65 amps at 12 volts. Multiply these two numbers together and you find that it needs 780 watts in order to put out its measly 50 watts of transmitted power. So can any human, hand crank a generator and make 780 watts? The answer is, absolutely not!To put this in perspective, it takes one horsepower to generate 746 watts. Are you as strong as a horse? An athlete on a bicycle can generate 0.2 hp (150 watts) for a short time and about 0.1 hp (75 watts) for a long time but this is by using the legs and the largest muscles in the body, not with a hand crank.
For those of you who don't know what I have been talking regarding the filaments heating up the tubes to get them hot enough to work and who don't know that the orange glow looks like just go out to your kitchen and make some toast. Look down into the toaster and you will see exactly the same orange glow coming off the heating wires in your toaster and you can warm your hands up over them. A toaster takes a lot of power and so do the heating filaments in radio tubes.
But wait, couldn't you just put out a weak signal by cranking out 76 watts with the generator and feeding that into the WE 13? Wouldn't that at least put out a five watt signal, one-tenth of the input power producing one-tenth of the output power? Uh, no. Vacuum tubes need power just to heat them up, quite a bit of power, before they can even start working at all. I remember warming my hands over my radio on cold nights and there was always that warm orange glow from the filaments in the tubes. So before we can get the WE 13 to transmit any signal at all we must power up the filaments in the five tubes and this takes 127 watts, 10.6 amps at 12 volts! So even if Earhart or Noonan could crank with all their strength on a hand crank generator they would not have been able to even warm up the tubes in their WE 13 transmitter so it couldn't transmit any signal whatsoever.
gl
Los Angeles Times | 9 July 1937
Mantz Continues to Hope for Safety of Aviatrix
Mantz, who personally supervised much of the technical preparations for the flyer's second attempt to gird the globe by air, disclosed for the first time that the expedition carried no water condenser. "It ws left behind," he said. "I learned yesterday that 'A.E.' deposited both the machine that manufactures water out of human breath and her hand-crank generator for the radio somewhere along her route from Miami to New Guinea.
I look at statements like this and then try to figure out if such things are even possible or if the statements are misquotes or just plain B.S.
Looking at the claim that, at some point she had a "hand-crank generator" that she could discard along the way, what category does this statement fall into?.
I agree with you. You know that my position is that celestial navigation is accurate enough to find the island but they had planned from the beginning to have two independent methods for finding Howland, celestial and RDF. It is inconceivable to me that at this point they abandoned that careful plan and proceeded without the second method, the RDF, tested to be operational.
Erik
"...perhaps poor decision making." ?
Just one among many.
Worst decision: Taking off without knowing whether her RDF was operational or that she was operating it properly. Even after having done a test and getting a result that her RDF wasn't operating properly. How's that for poor decision making??
I agree with you. You know that my position is that celestial navigation is accurate enough to find the island but they had planned from the beginning to have two independent methods for finding Howland, celestial and RDF. It is inconceivable to me that at this point they abandoned that careful plan and proceed without the second method, the RDF, tested to be operational.
Erik
"...perhaps poor decision making." ?
Just one among many.
Worst decision: Taking off without knowing whether her RDF was operational or that she was operating it properly. Even after having done a test and getting a result that her RDF wasn't operating properly. How's that for poor decision making??
gl
NO!
Does that mean that you also agree it is likely she left behind some of her emergency/rescue gear too?
Erik
I don't know what she left behind or didn't leave behind. It pales to insignifance when compared to taking off w/o knowing absolutely that her RDF was working and/or that she knew how to communicate with Itasca's RDF.
NO!
Does that mean that you also agree it is likely she left behind some of her emergency/rescue gear too?
Go back and read what I wrote before (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10561.html#msg10561), where did that idea come from in the first place? Her husband, interviewed on July 2nd, stated that she carried a life raft, see my prior post. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10353.html#msg10353)
gl
NO!Putnam said:
Go back and read what I wrote before (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10561.html#msg10561), where did such an idea come from in the first place? Her husband, interviewed on July 2nd, stated that she carried her emergency equipment, see my prior post. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10353.html#msg10353)
Gary
"...that at this point they abandoned that careful plan and proceed without the second method, the RDF, tested to be operational."
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that after the two days delay for repairs and chronometer setting, "get homeitis" set in and the idea of a further delay to check out the RDF and fix it just didn't compute. Call it over- confidence, arrogance, stupidity, all of the above, who knows?
What post "test flight" statements can you point to to support your belief that they had somehow determined that the RDF was working? And how do you think they made that determination?
Hi Harry. Can you refresh me on how we know her RDF wasn't working when she left for Howland? Did she radio Lae to say it wasn't working? I believe she didn't communicate that info to anyone. She had flown a test flight t Lae and could not get RDF to work and she assumed she was too close to Lae. But in the final few transmissions she is sending messages that suggest she thinks RDF should work. Are we just speculating it was broken when she took off based on the test flight?
Gary, I didn't say I believed they determined the RDF was working. I said I believed she was talking like it was working. But Harry cleared that up. She wasn't using her RDF (that we know of).What post "test flight" statements can you point to to support your belief that they had somehow determined that the RDF was working? And how do you think they made that determination?
Hi Harry. Can you refresh me on how we know her RDF wasn't working when she left for Howland? Did she radio Lae to say it wasn't working? I believe she didn't communicate that info to anyone. She had flown a test flight t Lae and could not get RDF to work and she assumed she was too close to Lae. But in the final few transmissions she is sending messages that suggest she thinks RDF should work. Are we just speculating it was broken when she took off based on the test flight?
gl
1. What makes you think that there were radio beacons that Earhart could tune in to test her RDF? I suspect that there were no radio beacons at all in that part of the world in 1937. Remember Balfour had to make an arrangement with another station in order for that other station to transmit a signal so that Balfour could conduct the ground test of the RDF the day before the airborne radio test.
IRV
The Chater Report said that she tried the RDF on the plane's test flight by attempting to pick up the Lae station and was unable to get a null. When she landed she said that she "assumed" that the reason was that she was too close to the antenna (Lae antenna). She took off next AM.
As I always say when I mention this point, either the RDF wasn't working properly or she wasn't operating it properly. Either way, when the successful completion of the leg depends on the RDF, you don't takeoff without knowing absolutely that it works, no assumptions. She took off without knowing.
I am not aware of any radio transmissions in which she mentions that she was attempting to acquire the Itasca's RDF beacon. Quite the contrary, she asked for the Itasca to take a bearing on her. And the equipment she had on board wasn't capable of sending a signal at a frequency that the Itasca could aquire and follow as she flew.
What could she have done?
1. During the test flight,Tuned the RDF into another station (Rabaul, perhaps) to see if the RDF worked ok. If it worked, ok. If it didn't work, then FIX IT before taking off.
2. After takeoff, tuned the RDF to the Lae station as she flew away to see if the RDF was working. If it worked, ok. If not, turn back and FIX IT.
IRV
No problem, sometimes it is hard wrapping our minds around the details.
GaryI thought my prior post was pretty clear since I mentioned the airborne test in the first paragraph. To make it clearer, I have added the underlined words to my previous post.
Here is a quote from the Chater report. "At 6.35 a.m., July 1st, Miss Earhart carried out a 30 minute air test of the machine when two way telephone communication was established between the ground station at Lae and the plane. The Operator was requested to send a long dash while Miss Earhart endeavoured to get a minimum on her direction finder. On landing Miss Earhart informed us that she had been unable to obtain a minimum and that she considered this was because the Lae station was too pwerful and too close."
Do you dispute this direct report from an eye witness to the events?
She could transmit on 500, 3105 and 6210.But Itasca could only take bearings on her 500 kcs frequency and without the long wire antenna she could not send much of a signal on that frequency but she should have given it a try.
See http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Worldflight/finalflight3.html :But there was nothing they had to understand being transmitted in Morse code on 7500 kcs because all they were sending was "A's."
"1930GMT: "KHAQQ calling Itasca we received your signals but unable to get a minimum. Please take bearing on us and answer 3105 with voice." Another radioman reports this message as: "Amelia on again at 0800 [local time] says hears us on 7.5 megs go ahead on 7500 again." "
Note that all 7500 kcs transmissions from Itasca were in Morse code, which AE could not readily understand. Itasca also transmitted on 3105 kcs, but AE could only listen on one frequency at a time.
there is others aswell but this mentions at bottom amelia an fred re done the maps an charts
(http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=2295&DMWIDTH=750&DMHEIGHT=1600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&REC=1&DMTHUMB=0&DMROTATE=0&DMSCALE=25)
come across these on purdue so thought i wud post themYou have found a draft of Last Flight. This book was based on dispatches sent by Earhart to the New York Herald Tribune from her various stops around the world. These dispatches were edited by Putnam and published after Earhart disappeared. It is interesting that the comment in the book about sending the parachutes back from Darwin is NOT found in the original, contemporaneous, newspaper story. See attached excerpt from the June 29, 1937 issue of the paper.
(http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=2423&DMWIDTH=750&DMHEIGHT=1600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&REC=1&DMTHUMB=0&DMROTATE=0&DMSCALE=25)
Sorry GaryAt 1745 Z, at the same time as the 200 mile report, she asked Itasca to take a bearing on her and again at 1815 Z so why do you think she did that? Because she expected to be able to use her RDF at least as far out as 200 miles, it had been used at 600 miles on the flight to Hawaii. So from this request it is obvious that at 1745 Z, at the latest, but probably earlier, she knew that her RDF was not working. So the 200 mile position, if not sooner, was the place to make a slight turn to the left to aim to intercept the LOP to use the normal procedure in this situation. If, while on the way to intercept the LOP, the RDF started working or they got a bearing from Itasca they could turn immediately to head directly towards Howland with very little additional flight time. If they never got radio navigational information they could complete the normal landfall procedure and locate Howland.
I realize now which question you were answering. I didn't think there was but wanted to make sure. She asked Itasca to take a bearing on her but never mentioned to anyone that she thought her RDF may br broken. Or did she think it WAS broken. Didn't it get reported that she thought the Lae station was just too close? As you flyers all point out, it would be madness to take off on a long over water flight "knowing" your RDF is broken. Especially whe it was such an integral part of the flight at the end. She may have tried to test with Lae when she first took off but I believe it was reported they didn't hear her for 4 hours.
Did she believe her RDF was broken?
Good points, Gary. That clunker (by today's standards anyway) in the Electra sucked up a lot of juice to transmit -Her radio needed 780 watts (65 amps at 12 volts) to put out a signal of only 50 watts, a ratio of 15.6 to 1. My transmitter puts out 100 watts with an input of only 228 watts (19 amps at 12 volts) a ratio of only 2.28 to 1 so Earhart's radio used almost 7 times as much power as mine does per watt of output.
If the portable generator could produce enough juice it would probably kill the average guy to run it down in that heat (if on Gardner, for instance). ;)
LTM -
come across these on purdue so thought i wud post themYou have found a draft of Last Flight. This book was based on dispatches sent by Earhart to the New York Herald Tribune from her various stops around the world. These dispatches were edited by Putnam and published after Earhart disappeared. It is interesting that the comment in the book about sending the parachutes back from Darwin is NOT found in the original, contemporaneous, newspaper story. See attached excerpt from the June 29, 1937 issue of the paper.
(http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=2423&DMWIDTH=750&DMHEIGHT=1600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&REC=1&DMTHUMB=0&DMROTATE=0&DMSCALE=25)
gl
EXCEPT that we have two contemporaneous newspaper accounts saying that she did receive parachutes at Darwin. So it is not speculation, she is silent on this and the newspapers have positive statements so the newspapers win.
You have found a draft of Last Flight. This book was based on dispatches sent by Earhart to the New York Herald Tribune from her various stops around the world. These dispatches were edited by Putnam and published after Earhart disappeared. It is interesting that the comment in the book about sending the parachutes back from Darwin is NOT found in the original, contemporaneous, newspaper story. See attached excerpt from the June 29, 1937 issue of the paper.
gl
NOR does she say she recieved them so we can only speculate
:)
EXCEPT that we have two contemporaneous newspaper accounts saying that she did receive parachutes at Darwin. So it is not speculation, she is silent on this and the newspapers have positive statements so the newspapers win.
You have found a draft of Last Flight. This book was based on dispatches sent by Earhart to the New York Herald Tribune from her various stops around the world. These dispatches were edited by Putnam and published after Earhart disappeared. It is interesting that the comment in the book about sending the parachutes back from Darwin is NOT found in the original, contemporaneous, newspaper story. See attached excerpt from the June 29, 1937 issue of the paper.
gl
NOR does she say she recieved them so we can only speculate
:)
gl
EXCEPT that we have two contemporaneous newspaper accounts saying that she did receive parachutes at Darwin. So it is not speculation, she is silent on this and the newspapers have positive statements so the newspapers win.
gl
papers sell on breaking news etc leaveing parachutes behind would not be big news so why mention it ?
especially due to price per word sent!!!!
Good points, Gary. That clunker (by today's standards anyway) in the Electra sucked up a lot of juice to transmit -Her radio needed 780 watts (65 amps at 12 volts) to put out a signal of only 50 watts, a ratio of 15.6 to 1. My transmitter puts out 100 watts with an input of only 228 watts (19 amps at 12 volts) a ratio of only 2.28 to 1 so Earhart's radio used almost 7 times as much power as mine does per watt of output.
If the portable generator could produce enough juice it would probably kill the average guy to run it down in that heat (if on Gardner, for instance). ;)
LTM -
gl
Good points, Gary. That clunker (by today's standards anyway) in the Electra sucked up a lot of juice to transmit -Her radio needed 780 watts (65 amps at 12 volts) to put out a signal of only 50 watts, a ratio of 15.6 to 1. My transmitter puts out 100 watts with an input of only 228 watts (19 amps at 12 volts) a ratio of only 2.28 to 1 so Earhart's radio used almost 7 times as much power as mine does per watt of output.
If the portable generator could produce enough juice it would probably kill the average guy to run it down in that heat (if on Gardner, for instance). ;)
LTM -
gl
It's a Yaesu FT-757 GX transmitting on every frequency from 500 khz to 30 mhz. I also have a SGC SG-2020 which puts out 20 watts with 48 watts input, 4 amps at 12 volts, that covers the same range of frequencies.
Her radio needed 780 watts (65 amps at 12 volts) to put out a signal of only 50 watts, a ratio of 15.6 to 1. My transmitter puts out 100 watts with an input of only 228 watts (19 amps at 12 volts) a ratio of only 2.28 to 1 so Earhart's radio used almost 7 times as much power as mine does per watt of output.
gl
Just out of curiosity what kind of transmitter do you have that puts out 100 watts?
Another thought on a 'portable' generator (hand cranked type) -Let's do the math. Assume that Noonan could crank out the 76 watts that an army guy could with the example hand cranked generator I showed before. At 12 volts he would be putting out about 6 amps to recharge the battery. But putting amp hours into a lead acid battery and then taking them out again to run the radio loses about half the power in the process so, in effect, he is only providing 3 amp hours of available power for every hour he cranked which would be enough to power the transmitter for about 3 minutes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to carry a hand cranked generator, does it to you?
The transmitter was reliant on battery state, not direct generator feed - so the batteries had to be re-charged at times to permit transmissions.
The Electra's generator was good for 50 amps; the dynamotor used for transmitting drew 60 amps (I think the 65 amps Gary mentions is also true for total requirement - there's other circuitry running in there too...).
But even running off batteries you of course must re-charge to continue the effort - and one can still get a good idea of how tough it would be to effectively re-charge the batteries between rounds of transmitting attempts with a hand-driven generator. Possible, but a time and energy consuming chore for sure.
LTM -
That doesn't sound like the "water machine" described by Mantz that condensed moisture from a person's breath. But if she had solar stills like they had during WW2 then it wouldn't make any sense to leave then behind on an over ocean flight with two more legs to go, totaling 6500 miles, since that is what solar stills were designed for. And they weighed about one pound each and took up very little space, See prior post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,590.msg10006.html#msg10006)
Here's another article that provides a bit more detail. This article makes it appear that a generator was not carried on the flight at all, as opposed to being discarded. It also clarifies the idea that emergency batteries were carried on board to power the transmitter in case of emergency, and suggests that such a generator would have been used for that purpose as opposed to powering the radio itself.
New York Times; Jul 11, 1937
IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE SMALL STORAGE BATTERIES WOULD NOT APPLY CURRENT TO THE TRANSMITTER FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS. NO HAND GENERATOR WAS CARRIED TO CHARGE THE BATTERIES. THE ONLY SOURCE OF POWER FOR THE RADIO WAS FROM AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR COUPLED TO THE CRAFT'S 500-HORSE-POWER MOTOR.
I'm not necessarily making an argument for or against these supposed items, but rather if we establish that they were on board would add more credibility to rafts and parachutes being on board too.
In contrast to the generator being on the plane or not, there are several different newspaper articles that make reference to the water condenser again. Unlike the generator, the water condenser appears to be a much more credible report. There are several articles that meniton it was used to vaporize ocean water, which makes sense.
Gary, suppose we can establish with reasonable certainty that the water condenser (or still) was a legitmate device carried on board the plane. Would your opinion be that she kept this on board, discarded it as some articles suggest, or that it was never on board in the first place? Or even a complete hoax?
I know it is kinda drifting from the parachute thread, but since all these items are of the same survival gear category, perhaps trends can be established on her pattern for carrying these on board or not.
then he mentioned it in last flightYah, why didn't Lambrecht see the parachutes on Gardner, rigged by Earhart and Noonan to provide shelter from the sun and to act as an emergency signal? I've got an idea, because Earhart was not on Gardner.
also if it was true they only just recived them, why no sign of them in search if they were that important an low on fuel ?
That doesn't sound like the "water machine" described by Mantz that condensed moisture from a person's breath. But if she had solar stills like they had during WW2 then it wouldn't make any sense to leave then behind on an over ocean flight with two more legs to go, totaling 6500 miles, since that is what solar stills were designed for. And they weighed about one pound each and took up very little space, See prior post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,590.msg10006.html#msg10006)
In contrast to the generator being on the plane or not, there are several different newspaper articles that make reference to the water condenser again. Unlike the generator, the water condenser appears to be a much more credible report. There are several articles that meniton it was used to vaporize ocean water, which makes sense.
Gary, suppose we can establish with reasonable certainty that the water condenser (or still) was a legitmate device carried on board the plane. Would your opinion be that she kept this on board, discarded it as some articles suggest, or that it was never on board in the first place? Or even a complete hoax?
I know it is kinda drifting from the parachute thread, but since all these items are of the same survival gear category, perhaps trends can be established on her pattern for carrying these on board or not.
But I don't see why you don't accept that she carried emergency equipment, her husband said she did on the day she disappeared. See attached newspaper.
gl
This is interesting....
Mrs. Putnam - Prescott Evening Courier; Jul 13, 1932
"This time I had to sit on a hard parachute pack all the way. I didn't wear a parachute on the ocean flight because I decided that even if I needed it, it wouldn't do me any good."
Thoughts?
This is interesting....
Mrs. Putnam - Prescott Evening Courier; Jul 13, 1932
"This time I had to sit on a hard parachute pack all the way. I didn't wear a parachute on the ocean flight because I decided that even if I needed it, it wouldn't do me any good."
Thoughts?
I don't understand this quote, it appears to be contradictory. This was after her Atlantic crossing so the first part says she did take a parachute with her on that crossing, sitting on it, but the second part appears to deny it. Or is she saying that she sat on a seat type of chute, the same kind we see in the photo taken in Darwin, but did not wear the harness snapped around her? Of course in the latter case she could always put the harness on and jump if needed. Did she have a life raft with her on that flight? If she didn't then she might as well have gone down with the plane.
gl
Gary, for your information, here is the reply I sent you yersterday concerning your HF transmitter. "Thanks Gary. Good looking little sets. Too bad our wayward travelers didn't have access to such technology. Things probably would have turned out much differently." It was removed because of "too many quotations" (3). I wasn't aware of this rule but won't make the same mistake again!
She said this just after completing her solo crossing of the Atlantic from New Foundland to Ireland on May 20-21, 1932. Directly beneath her flight path on April 14, 1912 the Titanic hit an iceberg, how long did those people last in the firigid North Atlantic water? Parachuting into the North Atlantic meant certain death. If you watched the TV show "Ice Pilots" last season you saw three episodes about them ferrying two planes across the North Atlantic and the crews wore their anti-exposure suits for the entire time, such suits were not available in 1932. The Pacific near the equator is a lot warmer and many airmen survived for many days floating in that area during WW2.
What I found interesting was her opinion towards a parachute over the ocean, regardless. It is pretty clear that she felt a parachute over the ocean wouldn't do much good.
Here's another quote from her.
New York Times; Jul 14, 1932
"It probably wouldn't have done me any good anyhow over the ocean."
I must have missed that one somewhere.
Shame on you, Woody! How could you have missed the anti-metagrobolization rule?? You can read it here. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,392.0.html) ;)
Let me ask this question? Doesn't a seat pack parachute fit into a seat frame so the pilot isn't raised xx inches by the bulk of the pack. So they can still reach the rudder pedals and not hit their heads on cockpit canopies? Were the Electra seats like these?Only if the seats were designed for seat pack parachutes which seems unlikely for a civilian transport aircraft. But you don't have to wear them at all times unless you are worried about structural failure, say from a badly performed aerobatic maneuver or from 20mm projectiles from a Zero. But running out of fuel doesn't happen suddenly so they would have had plenty of time to put the chutes on, tie the life raft and survival equipment to the harness, and head for the exits.
In case you are thinking that the water is a lot warmer in May when Earhart flew the Atlantic than it is in April when the Titanic went down the answer is yes, a little bit, but not enough to make survival possible in the water in May. In April, the average sea temperature near Newfoundland is 32° F while in May it is 39° F. I have attached a graph from the Air Force Survival Manual showing survival times for persons immersed in the ocean. At 32° F the expected survival time is about one hour and five minutes while at 39° F. it is one hour and forty-five minutes, not enough time for her to be rescued. Note, that above 68° F the survival time is unlimited. The ocean temperature between Lae and Howland in July is 83° F. In a life raft in that climate it is possible to last a very long time. Zamperini and Phillips, after their B-24 crashed north of Palmyra, drifted in a life raft for 47 days and ended up 2,000 miles away in the Marshalls where there were captured by the Japanese.
She said this just after completing her solo crossing of the Atlantic from New Foundland to Ireland on May 20-21, 1932. Directly beneath her flight path on April 14, 1912 the Titanic hit an iceberg, how long did those people last in the firigid North Atlantic water? Parachuting into the North Atlantic meant certain death.
gl
Thanks Gary. It's what I would have thought. But look at reply 283 in this thread. It's on page 19. It quotes AE saying she sat on a parachute pack. How would that effect her flying. Could the seat be lowered enough to compensate for the bulk of the pack? Why believe the report in the newspaper? No need to disbelief it. It's not sensational and if your going to reported something hat isn't true then why pick a parachute?She flew a Vega on that flight but I don't know if the seat was adjustable up and down (some planes have seats that do) or was modified for a seat parachute. Even if the seat wasn't adjustable, the seat pack is only about three or four inches thick so isn't hard to deal with.
That doesn't sound like the "water machine" described by Mantz that condensed moisture from a person's breath. But if she had solar stills like they had during WW2 then it wouldn't make any sense to leave then behind on an over ocean flight with two more legs to go, totaling 6500 miles, since that is what solar stills were designed for. And they weighed about one pound each and took up very little space, See prior post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,590.msg10006.html#msg10006)I agree. I think the newspaper misquoted Mantz. For example, he may have said something along the lines of "vapor from air", and the reporter may have mistakingly thought "vapor from breath". It is interesting to note that other newspapers refer to the 'water machine' as being capable of producing fresh water from the sea or ocean. So, it would appear that a 'water machine' of some sort (likely a water still), truly did exist and was carried by Earhart for some portion (if not all) of her journey.
gl
Apparently!
Did I read it right? 1 pint a day??
Erik. Or, would it make more sense for them to be shipped back since she felt that her use for them over the land was obviously no longer needed
She is on the final legs of the trip, heading to the US. The Irvin company parachutes are $350 each. A lot of money in those days. Why ship them back to the very country they are headed for? Why not just keep them onboard for the trip back? Money was tight so why take the chance on losing them and why pay for shipping?
She said this just after completing her solo crossing of the Atlantic from New Foundland to Ireland on May 20-21, 1932. Directly beneath her flight path on April 14, 1912 the Titanic hit an iceberg, how long did those people last in the firigid North Atlantic water? Parachuting into the North Atlantic meant certain death. If you watched the TV show "Ice Pilots" last season you saw three episodes about them ferrying two planes across the North Atlantic and the crews wore their anti-exposure suits for the entire time, such suits were not available in 1932. The Pacific near the equator is a lot warmer and many airmen survived for many days floating in that area during WW2.
What I found interesting was her opinion towards a parachute over the ocean, regardless. It is pretty clear that she felt a parachute over the ocean wouldn't do much good.
Here's another quote from her.
New York Times; Jul 14, 1932
"It probably wouldn't have done me any good anyhow over the ocean."
So Earhart's prior statement might not represent her attitude about parachutes on the Howland flight.
gl
I have been doing some more research and I now doubt that solar stills existed as early as 1937, I found this:
A Wikipedia article on Hydration/Dehydration said that an average person in an average temperate area such as the UK would need 2.5 Liters per day to stay hydrated (that;s about 5 pints, if I've done my arithmetic correctly)..What good is 1 pint a day?
I don't think that she had to give it much thought prior to her making her statement in 1932, everybody knew the story of the Titanic, it was a fairly recent, only twenty years had passed, big event. A hundred years have now passed and still everybody today knows about the Titanic and that most of the passengers died in the cold water. But five years later, after consulting with her team of expert advisers, it would not be surprising that she had been educated on the difference in temperatures and survival times and so had changed her attitude on the usefulness of parachutes on the Howland flight.
She said this just after completing her solo crossing of the Atlantic from Newfoundland to Ireland on May 20-21, 1932. Directly beneath her flight path on April 14, 1912 the Titanic hit an iceberg, how long did those people last in the firigid North Atlantic water? Parachuting into the North Atlantic meant certain death.
gl
No offense... But, I doubt she thought it through that much. Differentiating specific temperatures, for survival rates, etc. She most likely made that statement as a general reference on liklihood of survival in open ocean of undetermined length. It's possible she may thought that, but not probable.
And just what was the "art" that this article is referring to? Is it the specific art of making solar stills for aircrews forced down at sea? Oh, wait, Orville didn't fly until 23 years after 1880. Or was it for making a large desalination plant to make fresh water from the sea for a municipal water system? I would think that the "art" goes back to the first time that a man boiled water and saw some condensation on the lid of the pot, much, much earlier than 1880.I have been doing some more research and I now doubt that solar stills existed as early as 1937.
New York Times; Apr 8, 1951
SOLAR SEA-WATER STILL
The United States spent considerable time and money during the recent war to devise ways of distilling sea water so that it could be drunk. Research of this type was necessary because of the frequency with which crews of planes that had been shot or forced down in the Pacific had to fend for themselves until rescued. Various methods of taking the salt out of sea water were tried. One of the more successful was based on evaporating sea water in a solar still.
The "art," as patent lawyers say, goes back to 1880.
So what do your base your opinion on that it was "not probable?"
gl
And just what was the "art" that this article is referring to? Is it the specific art of making solar stills for aircrews forced down at sea?The "art" isn't that complicated. Simply condensation. You can make a home-grown still in your backyard. I admit, it probably wont do you much good in terms of water production. But the "art" itself is fairly basic.
Oh, and did you look for such a patent?Nobody is saying she carried a patented water machine. Just a water machine. It could have been a crude home-made, variety, or an experimental one. Afterall, it might not even have been a still, but another type. I found a report of water still expermentation from 1939, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume exermenational ones were being tested in 1937. Maybe in fact that's why it was reported she left it behind, becuase it was of such crude, primitive design, where it didn't work, and wasn't worth the effort.
So my split of the odds that she had a "water machine" versus that she did not is 0 to 100 until you come up with some evidence showing that she did and that such things existed in 1937.At least give it a 1:100 ratio. Unless the newspaper reports were complete fabrication, there was certainly something that was being referred to when reporting a 'water machine'. Perhaps is wasn't a full fledged patented device, but even a home grown device would still qualify as having existed.
I mentioned the drowning risk in my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg9728.html#msg9728). I checked my logbook and found that I made a total of nine water jumps and I didn't drown, not even once. (I have attached a page showing two of my water jumps.) The only training you get prior to jumping into the water is an oral briefing to slide your butt far back in the harness, undo the snaps on the leg and chest straps, turn the chute so that you are facing into the wind, and when your feet get wet just slide out of the harness and swim straight ahead, upwind, to stay away from the chute. There is no such thing as a "practice" parachute jump, they are all for real. I had lunch with my WW2 B-24 pilot friend today and I asked him what training he had about jumping into the Pacific and he said just an oral briefing covering exactly the same points.
My own experiences, mixed with some feedback from a couple of skydiving friends, as well as some pilots. One of the skydiving buddies told me it wasn't so much the temperature, but the lack of water training that she should have been most scared of. He said, "You can drown very quickly if you dont know how to extract yourself properly". Regardless of water temperature.
I'll go with 1:99. ;)
At least give it a 1:100 ratio. Unless the newspaper reports were complete fabrication, there was certainly something that was being referred to when reporting a 'water machine'. Perhaps is wasn't a full fledged patented device, but even a home grown device would still qualify as having existed.
That is for a person doing normal activities like working eight hours a day. For a survivor minimizing his activities he can get along on a lot less water. I have attached a page from the Air Force Survival Manual, AFM 64-5 showing the water needed by survivors in a desert environment and the needs of persons at sea are lower since they can use sea water to wet their clothing to act as artificial sweat.
A Wikipedia article on Hydration/Dehydration said that an average person in an average temperate area such as the UK would need 2.5 Liters per day to stay hydrated (that;s about 5 pints, if I've done my arithmetic correctly)..What good is 1 pint a day?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say and I do know the joke about BS, MS and PHD.
Gary
I have a Bridge in New York City, I'll sell it to ya for next to nothing LOL
BS, MS, PhD Ya know what that stands for? LOL
three things :)No, the sun comes up almost due east, only 23 degrees away from directly east.
1. They took off from Lae
2. They didn't land at Howland
3. They went South on L.O.P
My Reason to believe No.3
the sun comes up north of L.O.P correct
I'll go with 1:99. ;)
Well it thought that was better than the 1:100 that you suggested. ;)I'll go with 1:99. ;)
Sarcastically? or Respectfully? :-\
I mentioned the drowning risk in my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg9728.html#msg9728). I checked my logbook and found that I made a total of nine water jumps and I didn't drown, not even once. (I have attached a page showing two of my water jumps.) The only training you get prior to jumping into the water is an oral briefing to slide your butt far back in the harness, undo the snaps on the leg and chest straps, turn the chute so that you are facing into the wind, and when your feet get wet just slide out of the harness and swim straight ahead, upwind, to stay away from the chute. There is no such thing as a "practice" parachute jump, they are all for real. I had lunch with my WW2 B-24 pilot friend today and I asked him what training he had about jumping into the Pacific and he said just an oral briefing covering exactly the same points.
My own experiences, mixed with some feedback from a couple of skydiving friends, as well as some pilots. One of the skydiving buddies told me it wasn't so much the temperature, but the lack of water training that she should have been most scared of. He said, "You can drown very quickly if you dont know how to extract yourself properly". Regardless of water temperature.
My point is that it doesn't take a lot of training to learn how to use a parachute over the ocean and Earhart had plenty of time and expertise around her to learn this.
gl
Neither was Rickenbacker, he was 52 years old, in average shape and NOT a serviceman. He and Zamparini were not in temperate zones, they were in the same area of the Pacific as Earhart was overflying. The Lady Be Good crew landed at about 26 degrees north latitude, the same as Miami Florida, the Arabian Desert and Baja Mexico, places not known for "temperate" climates. And they landed in the desert, not the sea, where very low humidity sucks the moisture out of you so you need more water there, not less, than in the area Earhart was overflying. I have attached a file that will take you to the Lady Be Good location on Google Earth.
Gary
They weren't in a temperate zone, they were in an equatorial zone in July. Their water needs would be more in the area of 1 gallon a day (8 Pints)
Cut it in half and say they only needed 4 pints a day (no activity, no sweating, adequate nutrition, shelter from the sun etc.). Then they would only have a 3 pint per day deficit. How long do you think they would survive?
They weren't athletes or servicemen in great shape, they were 40 year olds in average condition.
Well there are thousands of people who would disagree with you about it being "common sense" that parachuting into the ocean " won't do much good!" Go talk to WW2 aircrewmen who did just that and lived to tell about it. An attorney friend of mine bailed out of his F-105 over the ocean and I still see him in court. And ask George H. W. Bush whether he agrees with your assessment of "common sense."
"...Earhart had plenty of time and expertise around her to learn this..."
And plenty of time and expertise to get the ba-jeezuz scared out of her too! :o
Her comment about 'chutes not doing any good over water wasn't a result of her awareness thinking through all the technical, and facutal permutations we're doing here. But, rather good 'ole common sense, that jumping out of a plane over open water won't do much good!
"...Earhart had plenty of time and expertise around her to learn this..."
And plenty of time and expertise to get the ba-jeezuz scared out of her too! :o
Her comment about 'chutes not doing any good over water wasn't a result of her awareness thinking through all the technical, and facutal permutations we're doing here. But, rather her good 'ole common sense, that jumping out of a plane over open water won't do much good!
So what makes you think that your opinion represents "common sense?"gl
I'm have to agree with Gary on this one. A parachute, while not a guaranteed life saver, is designed to provide aircrew with a chance of surviving an aircraft crash, either land or water. Whether the pilot chooses to use it it times of emergency is up to the pilot but if you don't have it with you then there is no choice. Carrying a parachute would have been prudent. Over land or water.
I'm not claiming to be an expert in how much water is needed to survive, I am only pointing you to the real experts in the Air Force and what they say about this which is different from what you were doing. I also pointed you to several real life examples where people survived a lot longer than you would have predicted for people in their situations.
Gary
No, I do not consider myself to be an expert in this matter, nor do I consider you to be one either
I have to agree with Gary on this one. A parachute, while not a guaranteed life saver, is designed to provide aircrew with a chance of surviving an aircraft crash, either land or water. Whether the pilot chooses to use it in times of emergency is up to the pilot but if you don't have it with you then there is no choice. Carrying a parachute would have been prudent. Over land or water.Back in 1972 a friend of mine, Bob Staehling, had an engine failure one day while flying N7984C, an SNJ, the Navy version of the AT-6, which has the same engine as Earhart's Electra. He made an emergency landing in a plowed farmer's field, the plane flipped onto its back crushing the canopy and killing Bob (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=67376&key=0). Bob had been shot down three times in WW2 and he parachuted into the Pacific each time and floated in his life raft, the first time for nine days, before being saved. We all thought it to be terribly ironic that he had survived being shot down in the Pacific three times and then got killed on dry land only a mile from his house. I wouldn't be at all surprised if his last thoughts had been "gee, I wish I had worn a parachute on this flight."
Gentlemen (Gary and Harry), can we all agree that survival situations have many factors that contribute to the success or failure of the survivalist. Having fresh water is essential. However how each individual handles the situation varies by individual and the tools at hand.Well this is kinda important. They had some water on the plane but we don't know how much. Based on the Air Force manual they would last 9 days with no water at all and longer based on the amount of water they had. If they went down at sea I don't see how they would be able to obtain fresh water except from infrequent rain showers because emergency inflatable solar stills for use at sea were not produced until 8 years later. But we also know that infrequent rain can allow survival for 47 days as proven by Zamperini. If they made it to land then it would be a lot easier to find one quart a day than two gallons a day as Harry claims they needed. On the sea shore they could make a crude still out a piece of aluminum to make a pot to boil seawater and another piece to hold over the pot to collect fresh water condensation. If they were on Gardner then it would appear that they could last virtually indefinitely, finding or making the needed amount of water and with unlimited crab cakes to eat. They should have still been alive when Maude arrived only three months later. And Maude's people were able to find drinkable water by digging several wells.
One gallon per day per person, two gallons for Earhart and Noonan together. I see that you have then cut it in half so the total would only be one gallon per day.
Gary
If you are going to attribute things to me, then be accurate! You will see in post 322 that I said 1 gallon per day, not 2 as you say in your post above that I said. See my quote below from my post #322.
"They weren't in a temperate zone, they were in an equatorial zone in July. Their water needs would be more in the area of 1 gallon a day (8 Pints) Cut it in half and say they only needed 4 pints a day (no activity, no sweating, adequate nutrition, shelter from the sun etc.). Then they would only have a 3 pint per day deficit. How long do you think they would survive?"
Gentlemen (Gary and Harry), can we all agree that survival situations have many factors that contribute to the success or failure of the survivalist. Having fresh water is essential. However how each individual handles the situation varies by individual and the tools at hand.Well this is kinda important. They had some water on the plane but we don't know how much. Based on the Air Force manual they would last 9 days with no water at all and longer based on the amount of water they had. If they went down at sea I don't see how they would be able to obtain fresh water except from infrequent rain showers because emergency inflatable solar stills for use at sea were not produced until 8 years later. But we also know that infrequent rain can allow survival for 47 days as proven by Zamperini. If they made it to land then it would be a lot easier to find one quart a day than two gallons a day as Harry claims they needed. On the sea shore they could make a crude still out a piece of aluminum to make a pot to boil seawater and another piece to hold over the pot to collect fresh water condensation. If they were on Gardner then it would appear that they could last virtually indefinitely, finding or making the needed amount of water and with unlimited crab cakes to eat. They should have still been alive when Maude arrived only three months later. And Maude's people were able to find drinkable water by digging several wells.
gl
If they went down at sea I don't see how they would be able to obtain fresh water except from infrequent rain showers because emergency inflatable solar stills for use at sea were not produced until 8 years later.As further evidence that solar stills were not available in 1937 I have attached a page from the Pilot's Information File dated 1944 showing all the equipment included with a multi-person Army Air Corps life raft such as those carried in bombers. Although there are cans of water shown there are no solar stills shown.
gl
I have attached a page from the 1944 Pilot's Information File showing the standard way of parachuting into the sea, nothing has changed in the last 70 years.
I mentioned the drowning risk in my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg9728.html#msg9728). I checked my logbook and found that I made a total of nine water jumps and I didn't drown, not even once. (I have attached a page showing two of my water jumps.) The only training you get prior to jumping into the water is an oral briefing to slide your butt far back in the harness, undo the snaps on the leg and chest straps, turn the chute so that you are facing into the wind, and when your feet get wet just slide out of the harness and swim straight ahead, upwind, to stay away from the chute. There is no such thing as a "practice" parachute jump, they are all for real. I had lunch with my WW2 B-24 pilot friend today and I asked him what training he had about jumping into the Pacific and he said just an oral briefing covering exactly the same points.
My point is that it doesn't take a lot of training to learn how to use a parachute over the ocean and Earhart had plenty of time and expertise around her to learn this.
gl
As further evidence that experts in the Army Air Corps and its successor the U.S. Air Force, considered one pint a day to be enough water to sustain life for survivors in a life raft, I am attaching a page from the 1945 Navigator's Information File that instructs survivors to drink just one pint per day.
But according to AFM 64-5, a total of two pints per day would keep them alive for a long time and twice that amount, two quarts, would keep them alive indefinitely. Rather than using your made up numbers I will stick with the numbers developed by the experts at the Air Force.
gl
"They should have still been alive when Maude arrived only three months later. And Maude's people were able to find drinkable water by digging several wells."Let me complete your sentence. "Except - they obviously weren't" alive on Gardner Island, when Maude arrived, in fact, they may never have been alive, on Gardner Island, at any time.
Except - they obviously weren't. Survival manuals are neat and keen and fun to read and all that - in the safety of your air-conditioned office. Out in the field, in real life, things may or may not work out the way the book says they should. Real life has a way of getting in the way.
LTM, who pushes paper but learned not to trust "The Book,"
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
If they went down at sea I don't see how they would be able to obtain fresh water except from infrequent rain showers because emergency inflatable solar stills for use at sea were not produced until 8 years later.As further evidence that solar stills were not available in 1937 I have attached a page from the Pilot's Information File dated 1944 showing all the equipment included with a multi-person Army Air Corps life raft such as those carried in bombers. Although there are cans of water shown there are no solar stills shown.
gl
gl
Although there are cans of water shown there are no solar stills shown.
Although there are cans of water shown there are no solar stills shown.
No, but the capiton says that the square cans may be replaced with chemical sea water kits. Similar to this one pictured. This kit was available at least in 1940, maybe earlier.
The following was written on an old Museum label that accompanied this kit:"
In 1935 two English chemists, Adams and Holmes, discovered that certain synthetic resins could remove all the solid substances dissolved in water.
Chris,Chutes definitely sink, I've seen it happen.
Silk parachutes don't float. Then again, they don't sink with much authority either. It won't persist long enough in the water to be a useful marker for searchers to spot. A floating aircraft is more likely to be spotted than a swimming parachutist.
There is not an absence of documents, there are documents that make affirmative statements that solar stills were not available until 1945, see my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10831.html#msg10831).As further evidence that solar stills were not available in 1937 I have attached a page from the Pilot's Information File dated 1944 showing all the equipment included with a multi-person Army Air Corps life raft such as those carried in bombers. Although there are cans of water shown there are no solar stills shown.
gl
How does the saying go? "Absence of evidence it not evidence of absence" - or something like that....
Just because these documents don't include references to stills in '37 doesn't mean they didn't exist. It just means it wasn't documented. Or, wasn't in the documents we are stumbling across as we find them.
There is not an absence of documents, there are documents that make affirmative statements that solar stills were not available until 1945, see my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10831.html#msg10831).
So I've supplied documents supporting my point so now it is your turn, Eric, to come up with documents showing that solar stills were available in 1937 rather than just speculating and hiding behind the old smoke screen of "Absence of evidence it not evidence of absence."
gl
Sure you can prove what WAS available in the '30's, just find a document from then describing it.
I should have been clearer in my words when using the word 'still'. I certainly did not meant to narrow the inention to a 'solar still' only. But, rather any kind of 'still'. Or even chemical devices too. What I meant was that we have know way of proving either way if any type of device was available during the 30's. Nor, do we have any way of proving that any type of device was not available.
The best we can do is go with 'likelihood' of such devices being available or not. In my opion, there is a strong likelihood of some type of water purifying device (not necessarily a 'still', and not necessarily a 'solar still') available to them.
Since a 'solar still' can be made in one's backyard with a sponge and clear plastic, it is going to be very difficult to prove that one was not available in '37. Afterall, she could have had one customized for her. It's obvious from several newspaper articles that some type of device was being talked about. Whether it is a 'human breath' device, a solar device, a chemical device, or otherwise is of curiosity, but not needed to prove that they existed in the 30's.
Something existed in the 30's. It's up to us to find out what.
We all NOW know the method of making an improvised solar still for use on land of spreading a piece of clear plastic over a hole dug in the ground and collecting the condensate that collects on the underside of the plastic sheet. But I remember when I first heard of that method and saying to myself, "well that make sense, why haven't I heard of that before." It is an obvious invention NOW but it hasn't been around all that long. Although they described many other methods for securing water on land, neither the Army Survival Manual, FM 21-76, nor the Air Force Survival Manual, AFM 64-5, prior to their 1985 revisions, described this type of solar still. It seems real obvious now, but it wasn't real obvious prior to the mid-80's.
I was going to revise my previous post to add the following:
We all NOW know the method of making an improvised solar still for use on land of spreading a piece of clear plastic over a hole dug in the ground and collecting the condensate that collects on the underside of the plastic sheet. But I remember when I first heard of that method and saying to myself, "well that make sense, why haven't I heard of that before." It is an obvious invention NOW but it hasn't been around all that long. Although they described many other methods for securing water on land, neither the Army Survival Manual, FM 21-76, nor the Air Force Survival Manual, AFM 64-5, prior to their 1985 revisions, described this type of solar still. It seems real obvious now, but it wasn't real obvious prior to the mid-80's.
But as a Boy Scout in the early 1970's, I knew about collecting moisture in an emergency by placing a clear plastic sheet over a hole dug in the ground. It's in my BSA manual in my bookcase at home! I'm sure this method was devised long before I was a Tenderfoot....but how long before? My dad knew about the same method in the 1930's as a Boy Scout. He didn't use Vis-kween back then but if he knew about it then, methods to collect water by placing a translucent material (allowing the sun to warm the underlying soil to release it's moisture) over a hole in dug the ground must have been known by the time of the World Flight. Just how long has this method of obtaining moisture been known but not necessarily published? And as far as the World Flight is concerned, did it have to be a commercially-produced product to be on the plane or was it a common-knowledge backyard device that wasn't necessarily purchased from a provisioner or produced in a factory?
Friend
They might have had a water-proof canvas tarp, perhaps engine covers.
And as to a "breath condensing machine" I pointed out before (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10649.html#msg10649)that the laws of physics doesn't allow such a device. And if the news reports got this wrong why do you think they got anything else in those stories right?
Thanks for the info on the digging a hole in soil to obtain a basic solar-powered water still. It's kinda funny, my earlier 'backyard' comment was a figure of speech not intended to literally mean digging in the backyard, but rather to imply building a crude mechanical unit in one's 'backyard'. I have to admit, both concepts are intriguing.
Changing subjects a bit...
I just found this article after a some searching around. This article is referring to a crew of four airmen in 1925, that went down at sea. By the seventh day, the crew used a 'water still'. This was in 1925! So some type of 'still' must have been available by '37.
The Evening Independent - Jul 3, 1937
John S. Rodgers and his four navy fliers were rescued by a cruising submarine after drifting for nine days, most of the time without food or water, on a flight to Honolulu in 1925. They managed to get a portable water still working and on their seventh day afloat had a half canteen full.
(BTW, maybe it should be "potable" not "portable." )
gl
Now that's interesting Gary. A photo with the pilots wheel removed and stacked on a pile of parachutes. Were they coming off the plane or going on? could go either way.Shown in the picture are the control wheel which is listed in the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) as item 64, and the tail wheel as item 26.
(https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=571.0;attach=1372)
i have often wondered what the arrow feature, by seven site was,
first i thought it was a marker to search planes, then i wondered if it was a sea water filter, as i have read if u were stranded on a island if u built a feature similar to a waterfall with rocks, an poured sea water down it by time it reaches, beaker, bottle, cup, etc it would be drinkable
anyway after rotateing image is it possible it cud be a cover i.e tent useing a parachute ?
It also says, one minute later in he show, that the night before the last flight that Earhart "called the Herald Tribune office in New York where G.P. and Gene Vidal were waiting." But we know that G.P. was not in New York, he was in California and who knows where Vidal was.
According to this documentary posted on youtube, they left both the parachutes and raft in Miami.
See: Amelia Earhart: The Price of Courage (http://youtu.be/g7aMcDeuQ8I) at about 43:50 in to the video.
It is an interesting documentary if you have not yet seen it.
Maybe both stories are true?Except that in the book published by Putnam it says that the chutes carried all the way around the world were shipped back from Darwin, see excerpt from book (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1376) and the original newspaper story (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1730). Also see the two Australian newspaper stories here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1377), and here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1378). The first thing Earhart did when she landed in Darwin was ask if the chutes had arrived from the States so they were not a "surprise" gift from Putnam.
For example, lets say GP sent the parachutes to Darwin, knowing ahead of time that AE wasn't fond of them, and would purposefully leave them behind. Almost as a 'surprise' gift. Then... after receiving the parachutes in Darwin, AE sent them right back home in spite of GP.
I know crazy thinking.... But, it would certainly explain both versions of the story. : )
Perhaps after leaving them in Miami she did reconsider the need for them over the Pacific as they progressed along in the flight. Could she have just purchased a couple new ones at Darwin at the time? Were they a rare commodity at the time?The two Australian newspaper stories said they were shipped from America. See prior post, one above.
What is interesting is that they say in the documentary that she also left the raft in Miami yet I believe you had posted previously that Putnam thought she had a raft aboard which is also contradictory.
The question of the raft seems to be an important one as if they did not safety land on a reef at Gardner, and they did ditch at sea, they would almost certainly be dead within just an hour or two without a raft and without life preservers. Leaping out of the plane before the motors cut would be unlikely. As they would have progressed in their search there would have been some hope that Howland or another island would suddenly come in to view. If one more more of the engines died you have a control problem and you will probably not be able to strap on the parachute and secure the raft as you descend from only 1,000ft or perhaps a bit higher.
Except that in the book published by Putnam it says that the chutes carried all the way around the world were shipped back from Darwin
Except that in the book published by Putnam it says that the chutes carried all the way around the world were shipped back from Darwin
So, if he says it it must be true. So, why start the thread "Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland" then? Is there a doubt to the parachutes being on board or not? ??? Now, I am a bit uncertain of the purpose behind starting this thread....
"they parachutes arrived from the U.S., and they sat in the office, " and she asked about them as soon as she landed and you see them in the photo next to the plane, so she did not just leave them in the office with instructions to send them home. And ask yourself, would that make any sense after incurring the expense of shipping them to Darwin, why pay additional shipping charges when you can just bring them back in the plane?
Although the news paper articles did say that they parachutes arrived from the U.S., and they sat in the office, there is no mention that she walked out with them. Perhaps she arrived and said "ship them back, I don't want them", at which point they were sent back to Putnum. It is hard to believe that the her husband got this story wrong as he probably was the one on the return to sender slip. If he did get them back I wonder where they went? Perhaps there is a mention of this over in the Purdue collection. The raft remains a mystery...
Does anybody know the where to find an clean copy of this picture? Without the white annotation boxes.Here is the link to the photo (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=904&CISOBOX=1&REC=18) at Purdue.(https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=571.0;attach=1372)
And ask yourself, would that make any sense after incurring the expense of shipping them to Darwin, why pay additional shipping charges when you can just bring them back in the plane?
If the parachutes had value to Earhart why did she not take them from Miami? Was it a concern about weight flying from South America to Africa? That does not seem likely as the distance from Hawaii to California was less.That was what I was thinking too. It does seem a bit odd. There is also the past history of her attitude towards the usefullness of parachutes doing no good over the ocean. So, yes it would seem she would have wanted them over land but not over water.
The only reason that I can think of would be if the husband took it upon himself to send them to her and she did not want them in the first place. From what I understand she was very independent and if she did not like something she was not shy about letting you know. I could see her doing that if Putnam was taking some action that she did not approve of herself. If she was upset about them being sent perhaps that is why she immediately asked about them when they arrived.Sounds reasonable to me. I used the term surprise gift earlier, but the surprise could have been disclosed to her sometime during her flight, and that's why she was asking about them.
The arrow feature is intriguing - whether parachutes or not we may never know, but I wonder if that merits a re-visit at some point to look for any remnants that might have been missed before? What were shock cords and such made of at that time? Other parts (other than obvious metal parts)? Metal might have been salvaged away from that location by Earhart or later inhabitants, whereas some remnant of other material may still exist (although the years will rob us of it, if not already done).
As long as we are speculating, if she didn't have parachutes from the start, maybe she got scared on the long legs and then asked Putnam to ship chutes to her in Darwin in anticipation of the 6,500 miles of open ocean ahead of her between Lae and California. She obviously knew they were on the way since she asked about them when she landed in Darwin. It is pure speculation on your part that she was upset by their arrival since there is no mention of her being upset in Darwin by the arrival of the chutes. And there the parachutes are, piled up next to the plane, no reason to drag them out to the plane if she were shipping them back from Darwin.
If the parachutes had value to Earhart why did she not take them from Miami? Was it a concern about weight flying from South America to Africa? That does not seem likely as the distance from Hawaii to California was less.
The only reason that I can think of would be if the husband took it upon himself to send them to her and she did not want them in the first place. From what I understand she was very independent and if she did not like something she was not shy about letting you know. I could see her doing that if Putnam was taking some action that she did not approve of herself. If she was upset about them being sent perhaps that is why she immediately asked about them when they arrived.
It would seem that these would have historic value if they were indeed shipped back. It is would be amazing to me if the owner of the parachutes did not recognize that. That is an argument for them being on the plane.
On the flip side she wrote a telegram to the press while in Lae (search for Lae in Purdue collection) where she say that she has never traveled lighter. She mentions her luggage with some clothes and toothbrush and Noonan's lightly packed aluminum case that he picked up along the way. Perhaps she was a bit paranoid about the weight, rational or not.
Parachutes doing no good over the ice cold North Atlantic ocean.If the parachutes had value to Earhart why did she not take them from Miami? Was it a concern about weight flying from South America to Africa? That does not seem likely as the distance from Hawaii to California was less.That was what I was thinking too. It does seem a bit odd. There is also the past history of her attitude towards the usefullness of parachutes doing no good over the ocean.
Putnam wrote in the book published later that the chutes that had been carried all the way around the world were unloaded and shipped back from Darwin. How can that claim make any sense.
You are answering a different question than what you quoted from my prior post. Just explain how it would make sense to ship the chutes back from Darwin if they had carried them that far and not just keep them in the plane.QuotePutnam wrote in the book published later that the chutes that had been carried all the way around the world were unloaded and shipped back from Darwin. How can that claim make any sense.
The guy cutting the checks usually has the best memory. I am sure he coordinated of the all logistics and also covered the expenses. I am not saying that his statements are indeed fact but it does make sense that he would have the better recollection versus reporters only out for the scoop and a paycheck.
Just explain how it would make sense to ship the chutes back from Darwin if they had carried them that far and not just keep them in the plane.
Just explain how it would make sense to ship the chutes back from Darwin if they had carried them that far and not just keep them in the plane.
It's "Occam's Razor (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOccam's_razor&ei=sSNiT83tEcXAtgeW05SFCA&usg=AFQjCNF84W7jolTAzmttuT6WBHtaRGB1XA&sig2=YGFitr9n6-nsfJ_8BT_KkA)" -- "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The first KISS principle, I guess.
Marty
I remember convincing myself some time ago that Gary's explanation about two sets of Chutes, one unloaded at Darwin and sent back to the States, one loaded at Darwin and taken along to Lae (and beyond?, prolly), was correct. Been waiting for someone else to see the logic that it fits the things written about the Chutes (newspapers and Putnam)..
Now, I am working on the phrase that goes well beyond my Altar Boy Latin of 65 years ago. Help us out here. 8)
Relative to the "steering wheel", perhaps she was in the habit of removing it to prevent someone from stealing her precious plane, but that presents the question of why not both steering wheels? details, details, details.
Getting in and out of the cockpit through the overhead hatch might be much easier for two people if one steering wheel were removed. Without the extra tanks in back, the “normal” route would be out the back door, but that’s a difficult route to exit by. Judging by the Luke field accident account, Fred normally rode up front during takeoffs, and possibly during landings as well, so removal of one of the steering wheels may have been routine before boarding, and (possibly) before exiting.Please, the use of the term "steering wheel" is starting to grate, let's use the correct terminology, it is a "control yoke."
That's the choice you would make but there are thousands of others who decided the other way when confronted with an emergency landing or ditching in similar sized aircraft.
Tom
The neat thing about opinions, everyone has one! I agree with you.
There is no way in the world that I would jump out of the Electra, going 150 mph, thru a hatch over my head nor out the door. No way, Jose. I'd ride that baby down to, hopefully, a soft uneventful landing and get out as quickly as I possibly could, raft and kites or no raft and kites.
But then, I'm not AE.
given the space between the door an rear mono wing tail, jumping out at 150 mph is suicidalThat's a question that comes up with new student skydivers and the answer is, no, it is not suicidal. If you look at the planes that are commonly used for skydiving you will see that the tail is even closer to the door than in the Electra. So, why don't you get hit by the tail after you jump out? Simple, because you are still going forward with the speed of the plane. If you jump out and lay on your back you see the plane apparently going strait up and if you are piloting the plane the jumpers appear to go straight down, they are not left behind to be struck by the tail. If you could be standing next to the plane as the jumper left you would see him traveling forward at the same speed as the plane and maintaining a position directly below the plane as he falls.
is it not ? :o
No, it is a "control yoke," just pick up any book on learning to fly.
*GL prefers "Steering Yoke". The Luke field inventory, item 64, calls it a "Control column wheel".
It is true that after a small amount of time the plane will pull ahead of the jumper due to the drag on the jumper not being balanced with thrust from a propeller but this does not happen until the jumper is well below the plane. I've jumped 329 times and never hit the tail, I've dropped hundreds of jumpers while flying the jump plane and I have watched thousands of jumps and nobody else ever hit the tail either. I have never even heard of a jumper hitting the tail of the plane he had exited. Do you have any examples of a jumper hitting the tail of the plane he jumped from?
Gary
Yes, generally the "Jumper" will be below the plane since he/she has the same forward velocity as the plane when he/she exits, (now comes the "however") however the Jumper's body is less streamlined than the plane so it has a bit more drag (force in opposite direction to direction of motion) slowing it down relative to the plane. Whether it would be enough to cause the Jumper to strike the "H" tail of an Electra? Possibly. Depends on the configuration of the Jumper's body.
Of course we have all seen a Jumper achieve a position where he/she can minimize that drag and actually appear to be "flying".
Of course, as a former artillery officer, you know that a body falling out of a plane, a bomb dropped from a plane, an artillery shell fired into the air travels in a trajectory that is roughly parabolic. Thus, the Norden Bomb Sight solved the geometry (trigonometry) of that configuration and allowed nuch more accurate bombing. That's why the development of that sighting devive was "Top Secret".
Do you have any examples of a jumper hitting the tail of the plane he jumped from?
Parachute gets stuck on tail of plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLTw4RE7xYc)
Even in the u-tube video the jumper did not hit the tail, only the parachute did. Of course you are always careful to prevent the chute from opening prematurely, students are taught to protect the ripcord when moving about in the plane but that was always a danger that had been recognized and is the reason we jump pilots also wore chutes.QuoteDo you have any examples of a jumper hitting the tail of the plane he jumped from?
I was poking around on Youtube today and saw some chutes getting caught on the tail. People were getting sloppy at the door and almost lost their life. Interesting to watch.
I just remembered Harry, you're a physicist, you can figure it out for us. I'll give you some data to work with. A skydiver, falling face to earth, grabbing as much air as he can in the maximum drag position, reaches a maximum terminal velocity of 120 mph IAS, say 180 feet per second. If you want to go faster you put your arms against your sides, spread your feet a little bit so that they act like the feathers on an arrow, and this makes you then fall head first in a minimum drag orientation so you then accelerate to a terminal velocity of about 200 mph IAS, say 300 feet per second. When you leave the plane you are in the horizontal position so you present this minimum drag attitude to the relative wind. Let's say the Jumper weighs 200 pounds with his equipment and, to make this easy, let's say the plane is flying at 100 mph, 150 feet per second at 10,000 feet where the air density is .00175 slugs per cubic foot.
Gary
Yes, generally the "Jumper" will be below the plane since he/she has the same forward velocity as the plane when he/she exits, (now comes the "however") however the Jumper's body is less streamlined than the plane so it has a bit more drag (force in opposite direction to direction of motion) slowing it down relative to the plane. Whether it would be enough to cause the Jumper to strike the "H" tail of an Electra? Possibly. Depends on the configuration of the Jumper's body.
Of course we have all seen a Jumper achieve a position where he/she can minimize that drag and actually appear to be "flying".
Of course, as a former artillery officer, you know that a body falling out of a plane, a bomb dropped from a plane, an artillery shell fired into the air travels in a trajectory that is roughly parabolic. Thus, the Norden Bomb Sight solved the geometry (trigonometry) of that configuration and allowed nuch more accurate bombing. That's why the development of that sighting devive was "Top Secret".
Thanks, I forwarded that on to my daughter's fiance, he is a begining skydiver.
That is an interesting discussion about the physics of the jump.
Looking around a bit I found this article (http://www.makeithappen.com/spsj/collisio.htm) about someone that died on jump hitting the horizontal stabilizer on a King Air. Apparently he had jumped up a bit on exit and this is what caused his untimely death.
I dug out my logbook and it turns out I made this "Negative G exit" on May 31, 1971 as my 167th jump. The reason that the pilot wouldn't do this again is he said looking up at me above the plane scared him that I would fall down back into the plane. Explaining the physics to him didn't help. I find interesting the story posted by Heath about a jumper that managed to hit the tail by "jumping up" a foot when he left the plane, on my jump I was well above the plane at the top of my trajectory. But I had worked it out beforehand and the key to my jump being safe was having the pilot roll left into a steeply banked left turn before I left the plane. This put the plane into a rapid left turn while I went straight ahead so the plane was never directly below me.
I remember one jump I made on which I talked the jump pilot into trying something different. After I was standing out on the wheel strut and holding onto the wing strut I had the pilot dive the plane to pick up some extra speed. He then pulled up into a steep climb using the extra speed to permit a high rate of climb. Then, while we were still going up, the pilot rolled to the left and pushed the nose down and I let go and, since the plane was still going up at the instant that I let go, I continued to go up for about 2 or 3 seconds, I could feel myself stop going up and then start going down (it was a weird feeling) and I remember looking down on the jump plane below me silhouetted against the ground and the pilot looking up at me through the open door. It was way cool but I could never talk the pilot into doing it again.
gl
O.K. let's look at that. The worst case situation would be a person presenting himself to the airstream in the maximum high drag position. We already know that this is the position that results in a 120 mph terminal velocity and is the position normally used by skydivers. You can't get more drag than this. So let's do the math using a reasonable jump speed of 80 mph, which is the speed used for landing approach. Exiting at 80 mph will cause the jumper to accelerate towards the tail at a rate of 0.81 g since 80 mph is 2/3rds of the 120 mph terminal velocity and the square root of 2/3rds is 0.81. One g is 32 feet per second per second so 0.81 G equals 26 feet per second per second. The distance covered by a constantly accelerating body equals 1/2 acceleration multiplied by time squared (D= 1/2 at^2.) If we solve for the time necessary to cover a specified distance, the formula becomes t = square root (2 dist/a). It is 6.9 feet from the Electra's door to the horizontal stabilizer, I have attached a diagram of the plane and you can scale it off for yourself. Since the maximum acceleration towards the tail is 26 feet per second per second the formula gives 0.73 seconds to go back to hit the tail. But the acceleration towards the ground is 1 g, 32 feet per second per second, so the first formula shows that this same person will have fallen 8.5 feet in the time it would take to go back and hit the tail. And, unlike the King Air's tail, the horizontal stabilizer on the Electra is mounted on top of the fuselage, 4.1 feet above the bottom edge of the door, 0.8 feet higher than the King Air's. So assuming a jumper was bent over a little bit, he would already be below the horizontal stabilizer when he left the plane. Or using the same methodology used in the King Air case, (http://www.makeithappen.com/spsj/collisio.htm) the jumper's center of gravity is 2.875 feet above the bottom of the door and would fall 8.5 feet by the time the tail passed over, and since the tail started off being 1.225 feet above the jumper's COG, the tail would pass over the jumper's COG by 9.7 feet.
Heath
Very interesting indeed. In physics, as in life, and ocean currents, the Devil is in the details and in the initial conditions. I must confess, I can't imagine why a "jumper" would jump up when exiting a plane.
Gary
In my post , when I was referring to a "jumper" I wasn't referring to one that conciously(sp?) exited the plane and achieved a horizontal "grabbing air" position and then went into the heads- down, low drag configuration. I was more like thinking of someone exiting from a plane in trouble, not a trained chutist.
I do agree that in most circumstances hitting the tail would be an unusual occurrence. I'm not sure about the possibility of hitting a vertical stabilizer (two of them) on an "H" tailed plane like the Electra.
In the King Air accident the physics shows that he would hit the tail but nobody would have done that computation prior to the accident because common wisdom, as proved by millions of jumps, is that you can't hit the tail.
Gary
Thanks again for the refresher course in Dynamics 3101. I remember taking that course in 1960.
I guess that in the King Air case, where the physics of the situation would predict that the "jumper" couldn't hit the horizontal stabilizer, there nust have been a problem with the initial conditions assumed for the calculations because he did hit the stabilizer.
Yep, but he had to work at it. It is also common wisdom that it is very unlikely to be struck by lightning but people get killed by lightning every year. An extremely rare event does not disprove the common wisdom.
I guess that "common wisdom" was wrong, oops the jumper died.
That is because Putnam would have been of no use on the flight (maybe in the hotel...) so the fuel, which did have a use, was better to have aboard. However, parachutes might prove to be useful on the flight, and if the occasion actually came about, they would be VERY USEFUL, so it changes the equation to favor giving up 6.6 gallons and replacing that with parachutes. And, that is a false choice anyway since Earhart did not restrict her fuel load on takeoff from Lae because of concern about weight but because she believed she could get more power with undiluted 100 octane fuel. And she never flew any other leg with full fuel tanks either. And 6.6 gallons equates to only 7 to 10 minutes of flying time, at most 25 miles, and the plane, according to fuel computations, had a very large reserve at the time of takeoff so 6.6 gallons was of no importance.
A couple of things that I can think of. One, she was paranoid about un-necessary weight. In her telegram from Lae she indicated that she had never traveled lighter. In an interview with Putnam they joked about him coming along and she said that she would rather have the 180lbs of fuel. So she was always equating the weight of the object versus the equivalent fuel. I am not sure how much a pack weighed back in the day but I am sure they were not light light a modern parachute. What would you guess, 20 pounds times 2, 40 pounds for the chutes? 40 / 6lb = 6.6 Gallons?
Earhart was of the mindset that parachutes would do no good over the open ocean. I know... I know... Gary's gonna argue the water temerature thing. But, that is not evidence of what she was thinking.Which is exactly what Putnam said she had in the plane so parachute plus life raft equals much better chance for survival than ditching. You don't seem to get it, ditching is a very dangerous undertaking, a high percentage of the occupants never get out of the plane, while a parachute is almost perfectly safe. I'm sure you have ridden on amusement park thrill rides, they are scary but you know when you strap in that they are perfectly safe. The same thing for parachutes, the idea of using a parachute is scary but, just like the roller coaster, they are extremely safe.
There are also newspaper reports from other aviators where abandoning parachutes in lieu of rafts was prefered for flying over open water.
I dont see what good a parachute would do you over open water anyhow. Unless, you had an accompanying raft with provisions waiting for you.
And did they also have the mythical phone call from Lae the night before the takeoff to Putnam and Vidal in New York?Wait,Putnam was in Oakland and there was no telephone service, even locally, in Lae til 1939.
I agree with you Erik. Unless there was a raft on board parachuting to the ocean would just provide for a few minutes of life in an almost certain jump to your death if you did not jump with a raft. It would defy common sense that AE and FN were not keenly aware of this. That is why I was trying to draw some attention to whether the raft was indeed on board. According to the documentary that I posted earlier, they claimed that the raft, parachutes, and some lucky charm were left in Miami. There must be some basis for this story as I cannot believe the folks that put together the documentary just invented this.
I am sure you guys have already seen this Amelia Earhart's Crash Reconstruction (http://www.niar.wichita.edu/CompMechPortal/MainMenuCurrentResearchProjects/AmeliaEarhartsCrashReconstruction/tabid/94/Default.aspx).
Conclusion:
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.
Parachuting into water is frought with difficulties and should only be attempted by those trained to do so.How many times did you land a parachute in the water? There may very well be a good reason to not make training jumps into the water since they carry a higher risk than jumps onto land, so why not avoid that extra risk, especially since jumping into water is NOT part of the mission of paratroops? It is part of the mission of Navy SEALS and they do make lots of jumps into water for training and for real. If Earhart did decide to jump from the plane into the Pacific, it would not be a training jump, she would already be in a dangerous situation. There are no good choice when the engines stop making noise over the ocean so you are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Yes there is danger parachuting into the ocean and yes there is even greater danger ditching a land plane into the ocean. Thousands of pilots have chosen option "A" and survived parachuting into the ocean and the only training they had was a verbal briefing on how to land in the water or only from reading their manual. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=592.0;attach=1763)
Main problem being that if you are still in the harness when you hit the water (you will go under) you will end up with dozens of rigging lines and a huge silk mushroom on top of you and, wrapped around you. Now, you will have to exit the harness, untangle the rigging lines and escape from the silk while underwater, good luck. The idea is to unstrap and exit harness at 20 to 50 feet thus leaving you clean on entry into water.
As I mentioned previously we stopped training jumps over water due to a number of factors which resulted in near fatal and fatal incidents.
So for safety don't jump at night over water and, always have a reference point so you can judge your height when exiting harness. We had dummies exiting the harness in excess of 100 feet! OUCH!!!
And don't give me the old story that she was concerned about the slight amount of weight of the chutes.
That's fine but none of that was emergency or essential equipment.QuoteAnd don't give me the old story that she was concerned about the slight amount of weight of the chutes.
Telegram, 1937 July 2, Lae, NG, to Press tribune, Oakland, Calif. (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=1419&REC=5)
It almost sounds pathetic, a briefcase with papers, clothes, and a toothbrush. And Fred had a little tin case that rattles.
Two days packing and repacking only the essentials. Sounds like someone was a bit concerned about weight. Obsessed? Perhaps.
However, as one who has never jumped, my thoughts remain with 'ditching' - although I've never ditched either, and realize it's no picnic. That's simply a bias based on my own experience, and I don't mean to say it's the best option.
But it leaves me with believing I would like to understand more about the conventional wisdom at the time before trying to think of how AE may have seen it. The information AE would have had offered to her, etc. would have a lot to do with my own opinion about how strongly she would feel about insisting on chutes for this leg, or not. Jungle is a no-brainer; sea, less so, for me anyway, as stated.
Q the argument re shuits and life raft then!!!I would settle for the life raft when flying over oceans, the airline industry would back me up on this, they supply life jackets, not parachutes ;)
(sits back for pages 31-33)
On a lighter note, but not for the chap involved in this little incident. This is what happens when you exit the plane like a scarecrow (keep your arms tucked in to your body) Notice how his flailing arm gets caught in the rigging lines thus preventing deployment and detatchment.That's a cool video, obviously Brits from the camouflage pattern. That seems to be a strange body position to use, American paratroops keep their hands on the reserve chute. We had a similar setup in the jump planes I flew, and jumped out of, to deal with the same "jumper in tow" situation. The static line had a snap that, instead of being connected directly to the plane, was connected to a "D" ring on a short piece of webbing, the other end of which was connected to the male portion of a capewell parachute riser quick release fitting (http://www.capewell.com/files/Brochures/Release_ProductSheet.pdf) and then a short piece of webbing went from the female capewell fitting to a snap that was then connected to the "D" ring on the floor of the plane. The plan was that if we had a "jumper in tow," if he was conscious he was supposed to signal us by putting his hands on top of his helmet at which point the jump master would open the capewell, releasing the static line and the jumper, and he was then supposed to pull his reserve ripcord. If we didn't get the signal that he was awake then the jump master (me if I happened to be the jump master on that lift) was to take his reserve chute off of his harness, snap his reserve onto the "D" ring on the static line, snap a short static line to the ripcord of the reserve and then open the capewell allowing the jumper to fall away and the reserve chute would open and lower the jumper to the ground at the other end of the static line, just like in the video. We gave this some thought and realized that we couldn't do this if the static was wrapped around the jumpers neck because, when the reserve opened, it would have snapped his head off. In this situation we planned to fly the plane down as though landing, slow the plane down to about 55 knots, and then when the jumper was within a foot or two of the ground, pop the capewell. No system is perfect but that would maximize his chance of survival. It turned out we never had the occasion to use this system but the video shows that it would have worked.
HUPRA Hung Up Parachutist Release Assembly
http://youtu.be/pFSpNmjU84c (http://youtu.be/pFSpNmjU84c)
I guess we should have patented our system. :)
A Recovery System
The HUPRA consists mainly of a second parachute that can be attached to the aircraft anchorage cable via the cable assembly and snap-lock connector and enable the release of the fouled line. The recovery parachute is a highly-engineered, critical emergency parachute. This Aeroconical™ Type 5000, which is also used on ejection seat systems, has a canopy diameter of 21.3 ft (6.5m). The assembly is comprised of a 10 ft (3 m) extension strop, a snap-lock connector assembly and a 3.58 m (11 ft 9 in) steel wire cable sub-assembly."
http://www.airborne-sys.com/pages/view/hupra (http://www.airborne-sys.com/pages/view/hupra)
Oh come on Harry, you could have gotten by that experience if you had given it the old college try. Here is an example. I made my first jump and then one week later I was out at the drop zone to make my second jump. This was in the days before skydiving altimeters so we determined when it was the right time to pull our ripcords by counting seconds, "one thousand one...one thousand two...," for short delays or with a stopwatch for longer delayed free falls. We also had chest mounted reserve parachutes and they had an instrument panel mounted on them to hold the stopwatch.
I mentioned somewhere on the forum that at one time I had a desire to learn to jump out of a plane but that I got over it. Here's how.
A co-worker and friend with whom I had gone to grad school decided that he would learn to jump and I went to watch his first jump. All went well and Tom jumped, his chute opened. and he was floating down. A young lady jumped out after he did, her chute didn't open, she froze and didn't pull the reserve. Tom said she passed him like a rocket. The mess on the ground exceeded the worse that I had ever seen, and I had been on a voluntary fire dept for years. Up to then the worst I had ever seen was the result of a race between a train and a group of 6 teenies in a Pontiac convertible in which the teenies lost.
I decided then and there that I didn't want to jump outa planes after all.
Now if only this guy had had a chute!!! 1933 Imperial Airways Dixmude crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Imperial_Airways_Dixmude_crash) He'd have got away with it?
....I remember when the bvack door on the 727 was actually used.
Thread Drift (HighJack?) Alert AAHOOGAH< AAHOOGAH LOL
D B Cooper, November 24, 1971, Portland, Oregon takeoff; Seatle, Washington for the chutes and money.
This week's TV show "Mythbusters" was entirely devoted to surviving on a desert island with little more than duct tape. They used the clear plastic wrapping from a pallet load of duct tape to make a solar still. They dug a hole in the beach until they hit salt water, placed a cup in the bottom of the hole, stretched the clear plastic over the hole weighted down in the center over the cup with a rock, just like in the Boy Scout manual. The whole thing was about five feet in diameter. They managed to collect only a quarter of a cup in a day of sunshine!
John O
In my "Waxed Paper" item, I wasn't suggesting that AE/FN had some on their plane, just that the hole in the ground technique was known at lleast in the '40s and plastic wasn't needed for the technique.
As I recall my ScoutMaster's demo, he had a roll of the waxed paper
A lot of work, but it worked. What I learned hen, but prolly didn't realize it cuz I was only about 12 years old, was to use what is available and use your brain and you have a good chance of surviving.
ood "legs"As I said, Nothing new under the Sun.
I found these links to a more complete story about Roger's flight (http://hawaii.gov/hawaiiaviation/hawaii-aviation-pioneers/john-rodgers/1925-flight-to-hawaii) an to a photo of his seaplane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Aircraft_Factory_PN).
Except no plastic or wax paper was involved, it was not a solar still. Rogers and his crew improvised by burning wood torn from the airplane to boil seawater and condense fresh water. The crew was not in a life raft but in their seaplane that they landed at sea after they ran out of gas. The plane remained afloat for ten days while they made a sail from fabric torn off the plane and the crew sailed it 400 miles to Kauai. They used the water they had on board and they collected some rain water. On the seventh day they distilled seawater by burning wood for five hours and collected half a canteen full off fresh water.
gl