TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Aircraft & Powerplant, Performance and Operations => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 06, 2011, 01:05:14 PM

Title: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 06, 2011, 01:05:14 PM
Short answer: Earhart could not transmit from the Electra if it was floating on the water.

Excerpts from Bob Brandenburg's research paper, "Bombing the Bridge to the Marshall Islands": (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/50_HillPaper/50_HillPaperCritique.htm)

COMFRANDIV message to the Itasca, at 1525 PST/5:

… RADIO TECHNICIANS FAMILIAR WITH RADIO EQUIPMENT ON PLANE ALL STATE THAT PLANE RADIO COULD NOT FUNCTION NOW IF PLANE IN WATER AND ONLY IF PLANE WAS ON LAND AND ABLE TO OPERATE RIGHT MOTOR FOR POWER.

COMFRANDIV message to Itasca and COMHAWSEC 6 at 2245 HST/5, stating in pertinent part:


DYNAMOTORS ALL MOUNTED UNDER FUSELAGE AND WOULD POSITIVELY BE SUBMERGED IF PLANE WAS ON WATER.

COMFRANDIV message to Itasca at 2330 PST/5:

INFORMATION JUST RECEIVED FROM LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT COMPANY STATES POSITIVELY EARHART PLANES RADIO TRANSMITTER COULD NOT REPEAT NOT OPERATE IF PLANE WAS ON WATER.

Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on June 06, 2011, 02:35:26 PM
marty, I have one small thing to contest with your statement here.

The plane’s center of gravity (CG) was forward of the wing, and virtually all buoyancy was aft of the CG. The unpressurized fuselage was not watertight. If the plane ditched, the nose section, the cockpit, and the space below the cockpit, would flood within minutes and the plane would float nose-down, with the engines and generator submerged and inoperable. The main electrical junction box would flood, short-circuiting the electrical system and discharging the batteries. And the transmitter dynamotor would be submerged and inoperable.

the approximate CoG on an aircraft is roughly 25% back from the leading edge of the wing (simply put). this is also the center of gravity for the load and fuel carried in the plane. any combination of fuel tanks etc. would be centered on this point. there are times when an aft tank is added to a plane but in general they are only moving a small percentage of the fuel load into that tank as it would move the center of gravity dangerously rearward, making the craft unstable.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 06, 2011, 05:58:39 PM
marty, I have one small thing to contest with your statement here.

It's not my statement.  It is Bob Brandenburg's.  He is the author of the material that follows the line that says "Excerpts from Bob Brandenburg's research paper, 'Bombing the Bridge to the Marshall Islands.'"  Bob outranks me in age, technical skills, TIGHAR membership, and military pay grade.

Quote
The plane’s center of gravity (CG) was forward of the wing, and virtually all buoyancy was aft of the CG. ...

the approximate CoG on an aircraft is roughly 25% back from the leading edge of the wing (simply put).

I know what you mean.  I even know how to calculate the Mean Aerodynamic Chord (http://moleski.net/rc/WingMAC.htm) for various planforms, which is used to find a starting point for optimizing the CG of an aircraft.  I haven't done a calculation on the Electra's planform nor have I seen one on TIGHAR's website.  I agree that it cannot be "forward of" the wing, although perhaps "forward on" the wing might be an accurate description.

Quote
this is also the center of gravity for the load and fuel carried in the plane. any combination of fuel tanks etc. would be centered on this point. there are times when an aft tank is added to a plane but in general they are only moving a small percentage of the fuel load into that tank as it would move the center of gravity dangerously rearward, making the craft unstable.

Understood and agreed.  I know the characteristics of tail-heavy aircraft all too well, albeit only on a small scale.

We know something about the floatation characteristics of a standard Lockheed Electra.

From the old Forum: (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/199812.txt)


Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:01:07 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      Re: The aerial search

Concerning Tom Van Hare's comments on a ditching at sea, that whole scenario would be even more complicated based on the fact that we would have no idea about how they ended up in the ocean. Did AE pull off a perfect (ie: no significant damage to the aircraft) water landing? How long did the plane float? Were they able to get lots of useful equipment, food and water off of the airplane before it sank? Did they actually have a raft and/or life jackets aboard? Did she mess up the landing and then they got out by the skin of their teeth? Only one survivor of the landing? Etc, etc, etc.

Although they had at least some survival training, there were many instances of long periods of survival at sea by people during WW2. Eddie Rickenbacker spent 22 days in a tiny raft with two other men. (Ironically, his crew was on their way to Canton Island!!) They were not able to get any supplies off of the B-17 except for four oranges. The vast majority of the survivors of the USS Indianapolis made it for five days and they had neither rafts or life jackets. Another air crew survived for 31 days in a raft.

Of course, in order to believe that AE/FN ditched and then made their way to Niku, we would all have to disregard any and all possible evidence of aircraft parts on the island and also the reported radio transmissions after the flight. The possibility of a ditching at sea is another "mind boggler"!

LTM,   Gary Moline

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

From Ric

For what it's worth:

According to a New London Connecticut newspaper article dated 8/28/67, Lockheed 10E N233PB belonging to Provincetown-Boston Airlines was landed in about 20 feet of calm water 200 yards off a beach 20 miles south of Boston. The plane stayed afloat for eight minutes permitting all 14 persons aboard to escape with minimal injuries (one person was briefly hospitalized).  Five nonswimming passengers were even rescued from the wing before the plane sank.

Of course, this aircraft did not have the fuel tanks featured on Earhart's Electra.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on June 07, 2011, 08:43:10 AM
It's not my statement.  It is Bob Brandenburg's.  He is the author of the material that follows the line that says "Excerpts from Bob Brandenburg's research paper, 'Bombing the Bridge to the Marshall Islands.'"  Bob outranks me in age, technical skills, TIGHAR membership, and military pay grade.

I couldn't tell if the bullet points were your summation or not

I know what you mean.  I even know how to calculate the Mean Aerodynamic Chord (http://moleski.net/rc/WingMAC.htm) for various planforms, which is used to find a starting point for optimizing the CG of an aircraft.  I haven't done a calculation on the Electra's planform nor have I seen one on TIGHAR's website.  I agree that it cannot be "forward of" the wing, although perhaps "forward on" the wing might be an accurate description.

the actual balance point is irrelevant, the general statement that the floatation was to the rear is flawed. not that it changes the outcome of a water landing any, there is still no way the electrical system would function with the plane floating flat and level. I still fail to see how it could function after being submerged even for a short time. (as would most likely be the case with a reef landing theory)

Understood and agreed.  I know the characteristics of tail-heavy aircraft all too well, albeit only on a small scale.

We know something about the floatation characteristics of a standard Lockheed Electra.

From the old Forum: (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/199812.txt)


Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:01:07 EST
From:         Gary Moline
Subject:      Re: The aerial search

Concerning Tom Van Hare's comments on a ditching at sea, that whole scenario would be even more complicated based on the fact that we would have no idea about how they ended up in the ocean. Did AE pull off a perfect (ie: no significant damage to the aircraft) water landing? How long did the plane float? Were they able to get lots of useful equipment, food and water off of the airplane before it sank? Did they actually have a raft and/or life jackets aboard? Did she mess up the landing and then they got out by the skin of their teeth? Only one survivor of the landing? Etc, etc, etc.

Although they had at least some survival training, there were many instances of long periods of survival at sea by people during WW2. Eddie Rickenbacker spent 22 days in a tiny raft with two other men. (Ironically, his crew was on their way to Canton Island!!) They were not able to get any supplies off of the B-17 except for four oranges. The vast majority of the survivors of the USS Indianapolis made it for five days and they had neither rafts or life jackets. Another air crew survived for 31 days in a raft.

Of course, in order to believe that AE/FN ditched and then made their way to Niku, we would all have to disregard any and all possible evidence of aircraft parts on the island and also the reported radio transmissions after the flight. The possibility of a ditching at sea is another "mind boggler"!

LTM,   Gary Moline

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

From Ric

For what it's worth:

According to a New London Connecticut newspaper article dated 8/28/67, Lockheed 10E N233PB belonging to Provincetown-Boston Airlines was landed in about 20 feet of calm water 200 yards off a beach 20 miles south of Boston. The plane stayed afloat for eight minutes permitting all 14 persons aboard to escape with minimal injuries (one person was briefly hospitalized).  Five nonswimming passengers were even rescued from the wing before the plane sank.

Of course, this aircraft did not have the fuel tanks featured on Earhart's Electra.

Quote
yes, the only thing this example shows is that a 10E has the ability to survive a ditching.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 07, 2011, 09:13:35 AM
I still fail to see how it could function after being submerged even for a short time. (as would most likely be the case with a reef landing theory)

You apparently don't understand the reef landing theory. We have demonstrated through tidal hind casting and on-site surveys that it should have been possible to land a Lockheed 10 successfully on the reef during the time Earhart could have arrived at the island and for the essential electrical components on the aircraft (battery, dynamotor, transmitter, etc.) to remain above water even at high tide for the several days that credible post-loss signals were heard.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on June 07, 2011, 09:34:21 AM
I still fail to see how it could function after being submerged even for a short time. (as would most likely be the case with a reef landing theory)

You apparently don't understand the reef landing theory. We have demonstrated through tidal hind casting and on-site surveys that it should have been possible to land a Lockheed 10 successfully on the reef during the time Earhart could have arrived at the island and for the essential electrical components on the aircraft (battery, dynamotor, transmitter, etc.) to remain above water even at high tide for the several days that credible post-loss signals were heard.

I understand it, I just don't agree that the electrical equipment would stay dry even if it was mostly above water. IMO (you know what that will get ya lol) the surf action would have gotten anything in the lower portion of the craft wet. With one side of the landing gear stuck in a "channel" in the reef the nacelle on that side would be pretty close to touching the ground/bottom. drawing a line across the nacelle to the opposite landing gear how high does that place the fuselage above the ground/bottom?? I for one am very leery of believing any of the post loss messages. like I said, this is only my opinion and given the publicity I find it hard to make any hard and fast argument for the post loss transmissions.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 07, 2011, 10:13:10 AM
I couldn't tell if the bullet points were your summation or not

I've modified the message to put them all in green ink.  That's easier than using quotation marks.

Quote
the actual balance point is irrelevant, the general statement that the floatation was to the rear is flawed.

I am even less familiar with buoyancy calculations than I am with aerodynamics.

Bob Brandenburg, LCDR USN (retired) (http://tighar.org/wiki/Brandenburg) has a more than passing experience with flotation, I imagine.

It seems conceivable to me that the way the airplane responds while moving through the air (location of CG with respect to the center of lift) might differ from the way it responds to water. 

"Center of Gravity is the point in a body where the gravitational force may be taken to act.  Center of Buoyancy is the center of the gravity of the volume of water which a hull displaces" ("Center of Gravity--Center of Buoyancy"). (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/centre-gravity-buoyancy-d_1286.html)

The article about the sinking of a standard Electra appears in "Amelia Earhart's Crash Reconstruction" (https://www.niar.wichita.edu/CompMechPortal/MainMenuCurrentResearchProjects/AmeliaEarhartsCrashReconstruction/tabid/94/Default.aspx) by the National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR).  It sounds to me as though that aircraft did not assume a substantially nose-down attitude--the passengers were reported to have been rescued from the wing.

Quote
not that it changes the outcome of a water landing any, there is still no way the electrical system would function with the plane floating flat and level. I still fail to see how it could function after being submerged even for a short time. (as would most likely be the case with a reef landing theory)

TIGHAR has collected tidal data on several of the latest expeditions and found out how to correlate the conditions on Niku with other areas nearby that have established tide tables.  This allows "hindcasting" the expected tides for July, 1937.  I presume, without evidence, that TIGHAR has calculated the effect that the high tides might have on the fuselage and dynamotor.  I don't have any of the data in hand nor do I know where it might be on the website in an easily accessible form, but here are some conclusions drawn from TIGHAR's studies:

"Some portions of the reefs surrounding the uninhabited atolls of the Phoenix Group are smooth enough to permit a normal, wheels-down landing and are dry at low tide. During the late morning hours of July 2, 1937, the time when the Electra could have arrived overhead, the tide was out in the Phoenix Islands" (Gillespie, Finding Amelia, p. 178).

"On the reefs of the southwestern Phoenix Group, late in the morning on Monday, July 5, 1937, it was roughly the midpoint of an incoming tide. Water levels on the reefs ranged from a few inches to a couple of feet, depending on the exact location, but even at full high tide the levels did not reach five feet. There could be knee-deep water in the cabin if the plane was on its belly, but in that situation the radio would be submerged and inoperable. For the messages to be legitimate, it had to be possible to run the plane’s right-hand, generator-equipped engine to recharge the battery. For the right-hand propeller to have clearance, the right-hand landing gear had to be supporting the engine" (Gillespie, Finding Amelia, p. 180).

"In Gardner’s case, the protecting reef is a broad, flat expanse of hard coral. At high tide, upward of four feet of water cover the surface, but at low tide, the reef flat at Gardner is dry or covered by only a thin film of water. At such times, from the air, the island looks like it is surrounded by a giant parking lot. In many places, especially near the ocean’s edge, the reef surface is smooth enough to ride a bicycle—or land an airplane. On the morning of July 9, 1937, the tide was high at Gardner Island, and a photograph of the shoreline taken from one of the search planes shows lines of surf running across the flat to the beach. Heavy breakers all along the reef’s seaward edge hide anything that might have been there" (Gillespie, Finding Amelia, p. 208).
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 07, 2011, 12:54:52 PM
I understand it, I just don't agree that the electrical equipment would stay dry even if it was mostly above water. IMO (you know what that will get ya lol) the surf action would have gotten anything in the lower portion of the craft wet. With one side of the landing gear stuck in a "channel" in the reef the nacelle on that side would be pretty close to touching the ground/bottom. drawing a line across the nacelle to the opposite landing gear how high does that place the fuselage above the ground/bottom??

I agree that would be a problem.
We don't know what happened.  All we can do is look at the clues we have and try to construct hypotheses to explain them. "Nessie" appears to be aircraft wreckage - possibly landing gear components.  It shouldn't be there 3 months after the event unless it's jammed in a groove.  It's in an area near the reef edge where grooves are common but the aircraft cannot have landed that close to the reef edge because the water is too deep and the reef surface is cut with grooves.  So the landing had to be further up on the reef flat where the surface is drier and smoother. in that area, the water level at high tide does not get high enough to cause a problem until after the credible messages have stopped.

 The current working hypothesis is that the aircraft landed intact on the high, dry and smooth part of the reef and was able to send radio signals for several nights before it was swept seaward. Nessie was left behind as the aircraft was swept over the edge. Why would it be swept seaward?  Normally the surf action on the reef in that area is west to east - straight toward the shore.  There are times, however, when the flow comes around the northwest tip of the island and surf travels NNE to SSW across the reef flat. Those conditions could drive the plane seaward.

I for one am very leery of believing any of the post loss messages. like I said, this is only my opinion and given the publicity I find it hard to make any hard and fast argument for the post loss transmissions.

That's okay. You haven't seen all the evidence yet. We're still tweaking the Post-Loss Radio Signals Catalog. We should have it ready for publication soon.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on June 07, 2011, 01:44:19 PM
Another aspect to consider is that there is a difference between wave action and spray slapping against the bottom of the aircraft and the bottom of the aircraft actually being immersed in the water. Although not a pressurized craft, I would have to think that the build quality of the Electra would have been sufficient to keep out waves slapping against it, at least for a time. Depending of course, on damage caused by the landing, the height of the surf, severity of the wave action, and the length of time the fuselage was subjected to it. Immersion in the water for any length of time would likely lead to a fair amount of water seeping in through seems in the skin, around rivets, etc. Ric, when the surf is running across the reef and out to sea are the prevailing winds flowing that direction as well? I've driven cars, atv's, etc in moving water on occasion. It wouldn't need much surf against those big, fat tires, and some wind to get the plane to move a bit, but I'm not sure if I can see that causing enough downward force to jam a wheel into the reef. Maybe a good sized wave to lift the plane and then drop it hard could do it, but I would sooner think it more likely to be at the end of the roll out. In the location where Nessie was, would the surf have been high enough at any time to lift and then drop the plane? About how much depth does it take to float an Electra? Looking at the reef today, would the location of Nessie be at the end of the best possible roll out area or does farther inshore on the reef look better?   LTM- John
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 07, 2011, 02:21:12 PM
Another aspect to consider is that there is a difference between wave action and spray slapping against the bottom of the aircraft and the bottom of the aircraft actually being immersed in the water. Although not a pressurized craft, I would have to think that the build quality of the Electra would have been sufficient to keep out waves slapping against it, at least for a time. Depending of course, on damage caused by the landing, the height of the surf, severity of the wave action, and the length of time the fuselage was subjected to it. Immersion in the water for any length of time would likely lead to a fair amount of water seeping in through seems in the skin, around rivets, etc.

I agree.

Ric, when the surf is running across the reef and out to sea are the prevailing winds flowing that direction as well?

Not necessarily.

I've driven cars, atv's, etc in moving water on occasion. It wouldn't need much surf against those big, fat tires, and some wind to get the plane to move a bit, but I'm not sure if I can see that causing enough downward force to jam a wheel into the reef.

Nothing could jam a wheel into the reef but a wheel could roll into a groove and easily get jammed in there. I used to think that was the most likely explanation for Nessie but I don't think that's what happened.

Maybe a good sized wave to lift the plane and then drop it hard could do it, but I would sooner think it more likely to be at the end of the roll out.

The problem is that if the airplane ends up that far out at the end of the roll out the water is too deep for the post-loss radio signals to be sent.

In the location where Nessie was, would the surf have been high enough at any time to lift and then drop the plane?

Lift and drop?  Probably not. Knock it sideways hard enough to collapse the gear? Definitely possible. That's the hypothesis Bob Brandenburg and I are currently investigating.  Once the plane is on its belly it's much more susceptible to being pushed seaward.  If the gear failed like it did in the Luke Field accident (check the photos) Nessie could be the wreckage of a gear leg and tire that got jammed in a groove and left behind as the aircraft was being pushed seaward.

About how much depth does it take to float an Electra?

Sitting on its gear?  Something over ten feet. Not gonna happen without a major storm.  Sitting on its belly?  Maybe seven feet.  Again, you're just not gonna get that much water on the reef without a weather event for which we have no evidence.

Looking at the reef today, would the location of Nessie be at the end of the best possible roll out area or does farther inshore on the reef look better?   LTM- John

No.  You'd have to land at least 30 meters closer inshore.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on June 07, 2011, 06:01:04 PM
I guess then that it's possible that the plane didn't so much float off the reef to sink in deeper water, even at the edge of the reef, as it did get moved enough by the surf to eventually get sideways and suffer a gear collapse, or a total gear collapse if the left gear had gone first on landing. Once on its belly and in the water, no more radio signals could be sent. The surf then continues sliding it seaward, one gear gets caught in the groove and torn off, the rest slips over the edge into the spur and grooves where it is obscured by the surf during the Colorado's search. Sliding across the surf and being buffeted by the waves and the coral could easily open up the fuselage and allow it to quickly fill with water and not float far. Being a tail dragger I would have to think the rudders and elevator would be an easy surface for the water to act upon, turning the plane, maybe with every tide change, and pulling it toward the sea. If that is the case I can't imagine how horrible it would have been to watch what was happening without being able to do anything about it as the water would have been too high to run the engines enough to hold position. Assuming that both gear were down and tires intact. I know the Nessie analysis is being done in Jeff Glickman's free time. Any idea of when it may be possible to say with any degree of certainty what Nessie is?     -John
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: david alan atchason on June 07, 2011, 06:54:15 PM
I happen to have the book open in front of me, "The Search for Amelia Earhart" by Goerner. Page 210: Mantz and Putnam say the extra fuel tanks had been constructed in such a manner that the aircraft would float. Then P. 211 Mantz and Putnam say a special battery had been installed in the cockpit to meet such an emergency (the plane in the water). Were Mantz & Putnam heavily medicated or why do they say this? Also Goerner is very sympathetic to Capt. Thompson of the Itasca. He figured if they were south of Howland they would see Baker. If they were close to Howland they would see the Itasca's smoke. So he figured they were most likely NW of Howland. I think this was very perceptive on his part. Going on the 337/157 message he headed NW. What if they flew quite a ways, realized they probably were going in the wrong direction. Now it's too late, they don't have enough fuel to go back SE of where they were. So they land in the water. The plane does float. The radio does work as Putnam & Mantz said. They make their weak transmissions for 3 days or so. 281 is the heading for Marianas. Then Betty hears their alarm about the water level. The plane is finally sinking. Luckily, the Japanese have been watching and they pick them up.................
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: david alan atchason on June 07, 2011, 07:11:50 PM
Another point I just thought of. The L-10 that landed in the water off Humarock. That Provincetown-Boston flight is only 20-25 miles as the crow flies. How much  gas did that plane have in it? Would you fly with almost empty tanks to save weight, or would you fill up and then fly a certain number of flights till the gas was low and then fill up again? With full tanks they would sink quickly. With empty tanks they might float a while. With empty tanks and empty auxiliary tanks is it possible they would float indefinitely?
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: david alan atchason on June 07, 2011, 07:24:32 PM
Couldn't an engineer calculate how much buoyancy 1200 + gallons of air space would provide and compare it with the weight of the plane to see if it is possible to float the plane? Doesn't a submarine get floated by blowing air into the ballast tanks? I would think there would be a standard table showing the volumes needed. Yes, you would think Lockheed engineers did this. You would also think the auxiliary tank people would calculate this. Did Lockheed install the auxiliary tanks?
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 07, 2011, 08:00:18 PM
John, I think you summation is spot on.

I know the Nessie analysis is being done in Jeff Glickman's free time. Any idea of when it may be possible to say with any degree of certainty what Nessie is?     -John

I do not yet have Jeff's written report but I will answer you with an abstract question.

At what point does TIGHAR's evidence become so good that we don't dare release it before we've had a chance to secure the site?  Is there such a point?
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on June 07, 2011, 08:27:03 PM
Sir,
    You are something of a tease!  I'll be looking forward to your report whenever you feel it's ready for consumption!
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Bill Lloyd on June 07, 2011, 08:54:27 PM
John, I think you summation is spot on.

I know the Nessie analysis is being done in Jeff Glickman's free time. Any idea of when it may be possible to say with any degree of certainty what Nessie is?     -John

I do not yet have Jeff's written report but I will answer you with an abstract question.

At what point does TIGHAR's evidence become so good that we don't dare release it before we've had a chance to secure the site?  Is there such a point?
When you can present direct evidence that can be confirmed to be part of the airplane flown by Amelia Earhart. How can you do this with a photograph of an object that is difficult to identify much less connect it to Earhart's airplane? You can make the argument all day that " the confluence of coincidences is supportive of the hypothesis" but that argument is simply not convincing.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: david alan atchason on June 07, 2011, 09:28:59 PM
My earlier post should have said Marshall Islands not Marianas. I just did a calculation on the back of an envelope. If I understand Archimedes Principle right. 1200 gallons empty tanks displaces 1200 gallons of water at 8.35 Lbs./gallon. 8.35 x 1200 = 10020 lbs. Empty weight of AE's plane = 7265 lbs. Yes, it would float. I welcome any corrections.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 07, 2011, 10:20:21 PM
My earlier post should have said Marshall Islands not Marianas. I just did a calculation on the back of an envelope. If I understand Archimedes Principle right. 1200 gallons empty tanks displaces 1200 gallons of water at 8.35 Lbs./gallon. 8.35 x 1200 = 10020 lbs. Empty weight of AE's plane = 7265 lbs. Yes, it would float. I welcome any corrections.

Yes , but when desintegrated , or the fuel pipes broken , A/c does not float for long . Usually , Electra (no major damage) floated for abt 10 minutes before going down ( 10 filed @ F.A.A.) , due to heavy engines & lightweight fuselage A/c immediately nosed down @ forward speed zero.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on June 08, 2011, 06:39:12 AM
Posted by: david alan atchason
My earlier post should have said Marshall Islands not Marianas. I just did a calculation on the back of an envelope. If I understand Archimedes Principle right. 1200 gallons empty tanks displaces 1200 gallons of water at 8.35 Lbs./gallon. 8.35 x 1200 = 10020 lbs. Empty weight of AE's plane = 7265 lbs. Yes, it would float. I welcome any corrections.

Yes, your math is correct with 2755 lbs to spare. There is a problem with this, however. In order for the tanks to provide their maximum displacement, thus buoyancy, they would have to be fully submerged. I don't have a schematic of the plane but would presume that the auxilary tanks mounted in the cabin would have reached nearly to the top of the cabin, with the cabin floor at about wing level. This would mean that, in order for the auxilary tanks to provide buoyancy then the wing tanks would already be submerged. In order for any of the tanks to function they would have had to have been vented. As liquid (fuel) is drained out another liquid (air) would have to be introduced in to avoid creating a suction or collapsing the tank. Someone with more knowledge of the plane can help out here but I would believe that the wing tanks would be backfilling with water through the vents before the auxilary tanks start providing any real buoyancy. This creates an additional issue in that the nose would have less buoyancy and be lower than the tail meaning that the auxilary tanks would not be in an equal amount of water and therefore not providing maximum buoyancy until the last tank in line is submerged. By then wouldn't vent lines on the others be submerged and allowing them to backfill as well? I don't think that you would have maximum bouyancy at any time due to this. Additionally, this is assuming that there is no damage and the plane is just sitting on its belly. If it has buoyancy at all then the wave action comes into play by damaging the plane as it bounces up and down and is worked over the reef. I don't think the aluminum would have held up long, the steel of the Norwich City gave in to the reef. I think any bouyancy provided by the tanks at all simply aided the sea in moving the plane to the edge of the reef where it became stuck, beaten apart, and slid over the edge.   LTM -John
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on June 08, 2011, 06:56:22 AM
From Ric: At what point does TIGHAR's evidence become so good that we don't dare release it before we've had a chance to secure the site?  Is there such a point?

Ric, I believe that there is such a point and that point is reached when evidence indicates that an object(s) that would offer definitive proof is at a specific location or in a specific area and that, without responding to and securing that area before announcing the evidence, it would be possible for someone else to reach the area first and either destroy the evidence out of malice or claim the discovery for themselves. In TIGHAR's case, the evidence being destroyed before it could be collected and proven for what it is can be used to discredit the hypothesis of what happened to AE/FN, making the quest that much harder. The evidence being announced as a discovery by someone else, although proving TIGHAR's case, would still be a bitter pill to swallow. Having been in law enforcement for 22 years I can say that, when we have sufficient evidence to believe that something happened at a specific place we secure that place, obtain a search warrant, and locate the evidence we were looking for (most of the time). In this case you are dealing with an island controlled by a sovereign nation that is located in an inconvenient place with a less than hospitable environment, making the security and search for whatever the object(s) might be much more difficult. No, much as I'd like to know every detail and what it is that may be waiting to be found, some things need to withheld from the rest of us until the search is concluded. Although a tid bit released here and there does keep the forum moving. In a round about way I would believe that something is on the horizon, the thunderclap perhaps?   LTM- John
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on June 08, 2011, 09:52:58 AM
I understand it, I just don't agree that the electrical equipment would stay dry even if it was mostly above water. IMO (you know what that will get ya lol) the surf action would have gotten anything in the lower portion of the craft wet. With one side of the landing gear stuck in a "channel" in the reef the nacelle on that side would be pretty close to touching the ground/bottom. drawing a line across the nacelle to the opposite landing gear how high does that place the fuselage above the ground/bottom??

I agree that would be a problem.
We don't know what happened.  All we can do is look at the clues we have and try to construct hypotheses to explain them. "Nessie" appears to be aircraft wreckage - possibly landing gear components.  It shouldn't be there 3 months after the event unless it's jammed in a groove.  It's in an area near the reef edge where grooves are common but the aircraft cannot have landed that close to the reef edge because the water is too deep and the reef surface is cut with grooves.  So the landing had to be further up on the reef flat where the surface is drier and smoother. in that area, the water level at high tide does not get high enough to cause a problem until after the credible messages have stopped.

 The current working hypothesis is that the aircraft landed intact on the high, dry and smooth part of the reef and was able to send radio signals for several nights before it was swept seaward. Nessie was left behind as the aircraft was swept over the edge. Why would it be swept seaward?  Normally the surf action on the reef in that area is west to east - straight toward the shore.  There are times, however, when the flow comes around the northwest tip of the island and surf travels NNE to SSW across the reef flat. Those conditions could drive the plane seaward.

I for one am very leery of believing any of the post loss messages. like I said, this is only my opinion and given the publicity I find it hard to make any hard and fast argument for the post loss transmissions.

That's okay. You haven't seen all the evidence yet. We're still tweaking the Post-Loss Radio Signals Catalog. We should have it ready for publication soon.

and we never will KNOW what happened with the plane during and directly after landing and in regards to any post loss signals. because of the nature of radio transmissions, and the amount of publicity at the time anyone could have (and did) make guesses as to what happened and create their own little recreation as fact. I like to think of radio similar to the internet. a "fact" can pop up without any known origins or traceability. with the likely condition of the wreckage it is UNlikely we will know what condition the plane was in when it finally landed.

I look forward to reading the catalog, but I always think in the back of my mind "how hard would it have been to look at a map and take a guess"
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: david alan atchason on June 08, 2011, 10:19:28 AM
Quote
Yes, your math is correct with 2755 lbs to spare. There is a problem with this, however.

This is why I need input from an aeronautical engineer. I don't think that the vents would be straight up open pipes, but what do I know? The air vents on the drive axles of my trucks had a cap on them, presumably to keep out dirt. Possibly a plane would have the same, to keep dirt out of the gas. Lockheed said the plane would sink, Putnam said it was designed to float. Did Putnam have sealing type vents installed on the wing tanks? I also read in Goerner's book that there was a spare battery in the cockpit for emergency radio. In any case, this was supposedly one of two L-10s that had auxiliary tanks installed. The others, with their factory installed regular tanks would float like a brick, I am sure. Another item that puzzles me is why did the plane in the Hudson float? Presumably they had full fuel tanks. Or did they? What if somebody goofed and they took off with empty tanks? The bird story was concocted, but the plane floated nicely on it's empty tanks. Far fetched? Do they have air spaces built into these new jets? I am an incurable skeptic.
To continue on, if Amelia actually landed on Niku, and by and by the waves sucked the plane out, maybe it would just float away??? That would be a logical progression of my conjecture.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Owens on June 08, 2011, 10:30:08 AM
Quote
Yes, your math is correct with 2755 lbs to spare. There is a problem with this, however.

This is why I need input from an aeronautical engineer. I don't think that the vents would be straight up open pipes, but what do I know? The air vents on the drive axles of my trucks had a cap on them, presumably to keep out dirt. Possibly a plane would have the same, to keep dirt out of the gas. Lockheed said the plane would sink, Putnam said it was designed to float. Did Putnam have sealing type vents installed on the wing tanks? I also read in Goerner's book that there was a spare battery in the cockpit for emergency radio. In any case, this was supposedly one of two L-10s that had auxiliary tanks installed. The others, with their factory installed regular tanks would float like a brick, I am sure. Another item that puzzles me is why did the plane in the Hudson float? Presumably they had full fuel tanks. Or did they? What if somebody goofed and they took off with empty tanks? The bird story was concocted, but the plane floated nicely on it's empty tanks. Far fetched? Do they have air spaces built into these new jets? I am an incurable skeptic.
To continue on, if Amelia actually landed on Niku, and by and by the waves sucked the plane out, maybe it would just float away??? That would be a logical progression of my conjecture.

The plane in the Hudson sank.  By the time the captain took one last pass through the cabin before exiting, water was reportedly waist deep.  It floated for a while because pressurized aircraft have reasonably watertight hulls. How long it floats, and how fast it sinks, depends upon how many and what size holes you rip in the aluminum panels on the airplane's belly when you ditch. 


Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: david alan atchason on June 08, 2011, 10:51:33 AM
Thank you for info. That clears that up, I am not much of a news-watcher, so I missed all that. They must have salvaged it from the bottom of the Hudson then?
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on June 08, 2011, 11:12:09 AM
Another point I just thought of. The L-10 that landed in the water off Humarock. That Provincetown-Boston flight is only 20-25 miles as the crow flies. How much  gas did that plane have in it? Would you fly with almost empty tanks to save weight, or would you fill up and then fly a certain number of flights till the gas was low and then fill up again? With full tanks they would sink quickly. With empty tanks they might float a while. With empty tanks and empty auxiliary tanks is it possible they would float indefinitely?

generally a plane will only take on the amount of fuel it needs. sometimes if they will turn around and fly back without the ability to refuel at the stopover they will take more then required. the general rule is the plane needs to have enough fuel on board to complete the flight plus enough extra to make it to the an alternate airport (not including reserve). taking on uneeded fuel costs more. you can't carry as much cargo, you have to lift the weight of the fuel etc.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Owens on June 08, 2011, 12:26:04 PM
Thank you for info. That clears that up, I am not much of a news-watcher, so I missed all that. They must have salvaged it from the bottom of the Hudson then?

There were many boats on the scene quite quickly, which allowed them to get lines onto the aircraft and prevent it from going all the way to the bottom while they towed it to the shore; it didn't really sink until it was tied up along shore:
(http://new01.ugc.kontain.com/photo/20090117/prod_98f3658e-c9a0-40da-8083-4f82ef44d88e/tb_1920x1080.jpg)
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 08, 2011, 02:27:32 PM
I look forward to reading the catalog, but I always think in the back of my mind "how hard would it have been to look at a map and take a guess"

Several people did and there were a number of hoaxes that were widely believed at the time, but our analysis of the reported receptions goes way beyond merely assessing content. Radio signals are electromagnetic phenomena with known properties and capabilities that can be reconstructed. 
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: david alan atchason on June 08, 2011, 02:41:25 PM
As I read in Goerner's book, Amelia had an extra battery installed in the cockpit so she could transmit if she was in the water. If that is true, there must also be a radio or emergency radio that could be powered by that battery. Otherwise what would be the sense of an extra battery? Farther along in his book there is another reference to the "emergency radio" I believe, but I would have to reread the book to find it. I'm wondering if Putnam and Mantz, who seems like an old pro, rigged up the plane so it would float and would transmit as long as it landed well in the water. Wouldn't Mantz  think of the wing tank vent problem right away, as I did? Didn't flying boats have some kind of system to keep water out of the tank vents, wherever they were? I mean even the slightest amounts could be big problems.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Kevin Weeks on June 08, 2011, 06:41:52 PM
I look forward to reading the catalog, but I always think in the back of my mind "how hard would it have been to look at a map and take a guess"

Several people did and there were a number of hoaxes that were widely believed at the time, but our analysis of the reported receptions goes way beyond merely assessing content. Radio signals are electromagnetic phenomena with known properties and capabilities that can be reconstructed. 

I never fail to find some interesting insights in tighars reports like this. We will see if it changes my mind on the validity of any post loss radio traffic.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 09, 2011, 02:10:15 PM
My earlier post should have said Marshall Islands not Marianas. I just did a calculation on the back of an envelope. If I understand Archimedes Principle right. 1200 gallons empty tanks displaces 1200 gallons of water at 8.35 Lbs./gallon. 8.35 x 1200 = 10020 lbs. Empty weight of AE's plane = 7265 lbs. Yes, it would float. I welcome any corrections.

Right , we do not know of course , but when tanks !/2 filled with water as an average , A/c would have a mass of 7,265 + 5,010 = 12,265 Lbs , 54,505 N ,  against a boyancy force of 22,264 N .
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Owens on June 09, 2011, 05:52:55 PM
My earlier post should have said Marshall Islands not Marianas. I just did a calculation on the back of an envelope. If I understand Archimedes Principle right. 1200 gallons empty tanks displaces 1200 gallons of water at 8.35 Lbs./gallon. 8.35 x 1200 = 10020 lbs. Empty weight of AE's plane = 7265 lbs. Yes, it would float. I welcome any corrections.

Right , we do not know of course , but when tanks !/2 filled with water as an average , A/c would have a mass of 7,265 + 5,010 = 12,265 Lbs , 54,505 N ,  against a boyancy force of 22,264 N .

I'm sorry, but in a thread that has had a lot of silly calculations in it, this one takes the cake.   I'll leave finding the error as an exercise for the reader, but  here's a hint: Take a barrel, with a mass (empty) of 10 Kg, a capacity of 200 liters, and an exterior volume of 210 liters.  Punch it full of holes all over, so as soon as you toss it onto the surface of the sea, it fills with water.  How many such barrels would you need to tie to a floating soccer ball in order to sink it?

Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 09, 2011, 08:09:41 PM
Take a barrel, with a mass (empty) of 10 Kg, a capacity of 200 liters, and an exterior volume of 210 liters.  Punch it full of holes all over, so as soon as you toss it onto the surface of the sea, it fills with water.  How many such barrels would you need to tie to a floating soccer ball in order to sink it?

Does the composition of the barrel make a difference?

Wood, metal, fiberglass, plastic?

10 kg of balsa wood might float better than 10 kg of steel.

Ah.  I guess you've specified the density of the material by saying that there is a 10 liter difference in the interior and exterior volume.  Whatever it is, it has a density of 1 Kg per liter, which at standard temperatures is the density of water itself.  It will be neutrally buoyant in the water and so it should float just beneath the surface, which means that you could never get enough barrels to sink your soccer ball (so long as we are using ties that also are at least neutrally buoyant).
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Owens on June 11, 2011, 08:27:08 AM
Take a barrel, with a mass (empty) of 10 Kg, a capacity of 200 liters, and an exterior volume of 210 liters.  Punch it full of holes all over, so as soon as you toss it onto the surface of the sea, it fills with water.  How many such barrels would you need to tie to a floating soccer ball in order to sink it?

Does the composition of the barrel make a difference?

Wood, metal, fiberglass, plastic?

10 kg of balsa wood might float better than 10 kg of steel.

Ah.  I guess you've specified the density of the material by saying that there is a 10 liter difference in the interior and exterior volume.  Whatever it is, it has a density of 1 Kg per liter, which at standard temperatures is the density of water itself.  It will be neutrally buoyant in the water and so it should float just beneath the surface, which means that you could never get enough barrels to sink your soccer ball (so long as we are using ties that also are at least neutrally buoyant).

Bingo.   

As goes barrels, so go fuel tanks.   As the tanks fill with water and you want to calculate whether or not the airplane will still float, you can't count both the mass of water in the tank and the reduced air space. You need to count one or the other, otherwise you're double counting.

Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 11, 2011, 09:14:17 AM
As goes barrels, so go fuel tanks.   As the tanks fill with water and you want to calculate whether or not the airplane will still float, you can't count both the mass of water in the tank and the reduced air space. You need to count one or the other, otherwise you're double counting.

I have no doubt you're right, but my powers of visualization are not keeping pace with the scenario.

Would you need calculus to figure out the rate at which a vessel sinks?  It seems to me that you've got a lot of things changing simultaneously--the change in the buoyancy provided by some air pockets or material less dense than water vs. the tug exerted by materials beneath the waterline that are denser than water.  It's not the weight of the water that sinks the boat; it is the weight of the materials denser than water that sink the boat (?).
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Brad Beeching on June 11, 2011, 09:24:58 AM
..... and if the tank or tanks had fuel in it (them), then the calculations change yet again! Gasoline is lighter than water so it should help the tank float. Didnt a deep submersible (Trieste) use gasoline in a bladder above the capsule to provide floatation?

Brad
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Owens on June 11, 2011, 09:43:17 AM
As goes barrels, so go fuel tanks.   As the tanks fill with water and you want to calculate whether or not the airplane will still float, you can't count both the mass of water in the tank and the reduced air space. You need to count one or the other, otherwise you're double counting.

I have no doubt you're right, but my powers of visualization are not keeping pace with the scenario.

Would you need calculus to figure out the rate at which a vessel sinks?  It seems to me that you've got a lot of things changing simultaneously--the change in the buoyancy provided by some air pockets or material less dense than water vs. the tug exerted by materials beneath the waterline that are denser than water.  It's not the weight of the water that sinks the boat; it is the weight of the materials denser than water that sink the boat (?).

That's right.  (And we're getting mighty far afield here)... but (discounting the weight of the tank walls themselves) the net buoyancy of a submerged 100 liter tank with 50 liters of air and 50 liters of water in it is the same as the net buoyancy of a 1,000 liter tank with 50 liters of air and 950 liters of water in it.   

My main point was, a comment which should have read, "Yeah, but bear in mind that the empty fuel tanks would lose buoyancy as they took on water," instead introduced a calculation that offered precision without accuracy.... Beware quantitative answers to qualitative questions.


Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 11, 2011, 09:43:26 AM
..... and if the tank or tanks had fuel in it (them), then the calculations change yet again! Gasoline is lighter than water so it should help the tank float. Didnt a deep submersible (Trieste) use gasoline in a bladder above the capsule to provide floatation?

Yes, the Trieste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste) did using gasoline in its float:

"The sphere weighed 13 metric tons in air and eight metric tons in water (giving it an average specific gravity of 13/(13-8) = 2.6 times that of sea water). The float was necessary because of the sphere's density: it was not possible to design a sphere large enough to hold a person that would withstand the necessary pressures, yet also have metal walls thin enough for the sphere to be neutrally-buoyant. Gasoline (petrol) was chosen as the float fluid because it is less dense than water, yet relatively incompressible even at extreme pressure, thus retaining its buoyant properties and negating the need for thick, heavy walls for the float chamber. ...

"Nine tons of magnetic iron pellets were placed on the craft as ballast, both to speed the descent and allow ascent, since the extreme water pressures would not have permitted compressed air ballast-expulsion tanks to be utilized at great depths. This additional weight was held in place actively at the throats of two hopper-like ballast silos by electromagnets, so that in case of an electrical failure the bathyscaphe would rise automatically to the surface."
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Jeff Scott on June 12, 2011, 03:02:19 PM
Another item that puzzles me is why did the plane in the Hudson float? Presumably they had full fuel tanks. Or did they? What if somebody goofed and they took off with empty tanks? The bird story was concocted, but the plane floated nicely on it's empty tanks. Far fetched? Do they have air spaces built into these new jets? I am an incurable skeptic.

Airbuses are fitted with a "ditching button (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/01/the-airbus-ditching-button.html)" allowing flight crew to "seal the aircraft" during a water landing to maximize buoyancy as long as possible.  Once activated, external valves and openings are closed to reduce the rate at which water enters the aircraft.  Apparently this wasn't used during the Hudson landing, however.  The pilot said it probably wouldn't have made much difference since the landing tore holes in the fuselage.

So long as they ditch relatively intact, most planes will float for a little while because of the buoyancy of internal tanks and aviation fuel being less dense than water.  They generally will flood and sink within a matter of minutes.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: david alan atchason on June 13, 2011, 04:58:16 PM
Quote
If the airplane has fuel tanks (with fuel jettisoning provisions) that can reasonably be expected to withstand a ditching without leakage, the jettisonable volume of fuel may be considered as buoyancy volume

This quote is from the link in the previous post. It does not say that the fuel tanks will fill with water due to water coming in the vent. So do modern airplanes have self sealing vents so if you land on water you can jettison fuel and make yourself buoyant or more buoyant? Did they have such a system in 1937? I would guess not, but if AE's plane did have that modification it might float for a while. To me, that might be relevant in some which way. That's all I'm saying, and that is why I originally raised this issue. I was just curious.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Owens on June 14, 2011, 08:35:49 AM
One can argue barrels and apples all day long, but planes sink - eventually.

Another crummy fact about ditching - there are too many variables and such an event is highly unpredictable. 

That was sort of my intended point... that the answer is, "A ditched plane will float for a while, depending upon how much damage you do during the ditching."  We have no way of knowing how much damage was done, so therefore we have no way of knowing how long "a while" is.  Attempts to introduce calculations are silly, especially when those calculations are wrong.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 16, 2011, 08:29:45 AM
One can argue barrels and apples all day long, but planes sink - eventually.

Another crummy fact about ditching - there are too many variables and such an event is highly unpredictable.

That was sort of my intended point... that the answer is, "A ditched plane will float for a while, depending upon how much damage you do during the ditching."  We have no way of knowing how much damage was done, so therefore we have no way of knowing how long "a while" is.  Attempts to introduce calculations are silly, especially when those calculations are wrong.

In a  nosing down Electra due to the heavy engines ,   you can´t climb up to the tail door , so you must leave through the top cockpit hatch , making water immediately if you might succeed in opening it .
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Austin on June 16, 2011, 09:13:53 AM
One can argue barrels and apples all day long, but planes sink - eventually.

Another crummy fact about ditching - there are too many variables and such an event is highly unpredictable.

That was sort of my intended point... that the answer is, "A ditched plane will float for a while, depending upon how much damage you do during the ditching."  We have no way of knowing how much damage was done, so therefore we have no way of knowing how long "a while" is.  Attempts to introduce calculations are silly, especially when those calculations are wrong.

In a  nosing down Electra due to the heavy engines ,   you can´t climb up to the tail door , so you must leave through the top cockpit hatch , making water immediately if you might succeed in opening it .

Without wishing to start another interminable discussion, that is pure conjecture (again), even with the extra tanks to crawl over. Many aircrew have escaped from seemingly impossible crash scenarios over the years whilst others have perished when escape seemed simple. It is amazing what can be achieved when your life depends on it.
Personally, whilst I (thankfully) have no experience of an air accident, I once crashed a race car that I had to wriggle into to get seated with getting out a similar experience. After the crash I was out like a greased eel, I don't think I touched the sides!
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 16, 2011, 10:27:32 AM
One can argue barrels and apples all day long, but planes sink - eventually.

Another crummy fact about ditching - there are too many variables and such an event is highly unpredictable.

That was sort of my intended point... that the answer is, "A ditched plane will float for a while, depending upon how much damage you do during the ditching."  We have no way of knowing how much damage was done, so therefore we have no way of knowing how long "a while" is.  Attempts to introduce calculations are silly, especially when those calculations are wrong.

In a  nosing down Electra due to the heavy engines ,   you can´t climb up to the tail door , so you must leave through the top cockpit hatch , making water immediately if you might succeed in opening it .

Without wishing to start another interminable discussion, that is pure conjecture (again), even with the extra tanks to crawl over. Many aircrew have escaped from seemingly impossible crash scenarios over the years whilst others have perished when escape seemed simple. It is amazing what can be achieved when your life depends on it.
Personally, whilst I (thankfully) have no experience of an air accident, I once crashed a race car that I had to wriggle into to get seated with getting out a similar experience. After the crash I was out like a greased eel, I don't think I touched the sides!

Of course it is , no discussion necessary but expectations for the Electra NR 16020 crew were not favorable to say the least . B.t.w. something better  is valid for the "van Asten sunrise" -fix : R.Nesbit , experienced A/c navigator in the Earhart era , later during WW-II in the USAAF , quotes the sunrise fix in Missing Believed Killed in a paragraph ´Fixing of Position based on Sunrise´ ; he also believes such sunrise fix was established between the 200 & 100 mls out messages of 1744-45 & 1615 GMT . The book is of 2002 , I have my knowledge not from this source , so it is an additional one I up to now did not know of .
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 16, 2011, 10:31:06 AM
The book is of 2002 , I have my knowledge not from this source , so it is an additional one I up to now did not know of .

You have no monopoly on baseless speculation.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on June 16, 2011, 12:21:03 PM
But regardless of all this "ditching" talk, the hypothesis and current evidence is that they did NOT ditch. We can't lose sight of that.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Owens on June 16, 2011, 02:14:00 PM
This article on "Recognizing and dealing with trolls" could be useful:  http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html (http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html)
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 16, 2011, 02:18:47 PM
This article on "Recognizing and dealing with trolls" could be useful:  http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html (http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html)

Very useful.  Thanks Chris.  I think we need to stop feeding our trolls.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 16, 2011, 02:38:58 PM
The book is of 2002 , I have my knowledge not from this source , so it is an additional one I up to now did not know of .

You have no monopoly on baseless speculation.

I am second
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Cynthia M Kennedy on June 16, 2011, 05:10:49 PM
Great article, Chris.

Cindy


This article on "Recognizing and dealing with trolls" could be useful:  http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html (http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html)
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Don Dollinger on June 17, 2011, 08:10:57 AM
Quote
That was sort of my intended point... that the answer is, "A ditched plane will float for a while, depending upon how much damage you do during the ditching."  We have no way of knowing how much damage was done, so therefore we have no way of knowing how long "a while" is.  Attempts to introduce calculations are silly, especially when those calculations are wrong.

While channel browsing last nite I caught a segment of "Unsolved Mysteries" about the Earhart disappearance.  It honed in on the 2 theories crashed in ocean and interred on Saipan with interviews of many people including Elgin Long, etc., etc., etc.,

In one segment they said that if the Electra ditched in the ocean it could float for 5 hours.  Where in the #$%& did that computation come from?  Anyone with knowledge of the other 2 theories have any information on how these supposedly came up with that computation?

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 18, 2011, 06:23:27 AM
In one segment they said that if the Electra ditched in the ocean it could float for 5 hours.  Where in the #$%& did that computation come from?

The actual calculation is 5 hours 11 minutes.  Anyone can do it using a marine sextant.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Owens on June 18, 2011, 12:55:22 PM
In one segment they said that if the Electra ditched in the ocean it could float for 5 hours.  Where in the #$%& did that computation come from?

The actual calculation is 5 hours 11 minutes.  Anyone can do it using a marine sextant.

What kind of tent is it that you're referring to there?  Sounds mighty interesting.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 18, 2011, 03:21:13 PM
Any available document of this ?
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 18, 2011, 07:08:22 PM
Any available document of this ?

It's not mentioned in any of the flight manuals but it's something that any navigator would surely know about.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 19, 2011, 12:55:44 AM
Not by sextant but by abacus : A/c made good 4 miles per gallon , @ 1912 GMT 45 gls (for "1/2 hr") remained : even closest land points Winslow Reef (210 mls) or McKean (350 mls) could not be reached otherwise than with moped consumption .
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 19, 2011, 01:11:16 AM
Possibly by accounting for 220 gals/hr taken in by the fuel tanks capacity of 1,100 in case of no further damage . As from F.A.A. files the 5 hrs endurance is hilarious : Lockheeds Electra (10 incidents @ sea in files) from normal production batches before sinking period is 10-12 minutes for no major skin damage .
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 19, 2011, 04:34:55 AM
As from F.A.A. files the 5 hrs endurance is hilarious : Lockheeds Electra (10 incidents @ sea in files) from normal production batches before sinking period is 10-12 minutes for no major skin damage .

You find the 5 hour "calculation" hilarious but not your own.

FAA files say 10 Electras lost at sea?  I don't think so. We know of one. Give us dates and registration numbers for the others. Cite the specific source.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 19, 2011, 08:49:11 AM
... Anyone can do it using a marine sextant.
What kind of tent is it that you're referring to there?  Sounds mighty interesting.

It took me a whole day to get that joke.   ::)

The Master said, "He who laughs last not get joke."   :-\

Ten demerits to me for being so humorless!   :P

Maybe we should start selling "marine sextants" in the TIGHAR store (https://tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/tigharstore.html).
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 19, 2011, 01:10:48 PM
... Anyone can do it using a marine sextant.
What kind of tent is it that you're referring to there?  Sounds mighty interesting.

It took me a whole day to get that joke.   ::)

The Master said, "He who laughs last not get joke."   :-\

Ten demerits to me for being so humorless!   :P

Maybe we should start selling "marine sextants" in the TIGHAR store (https://tighar.org/TIGHAR_Store/tigharstore.html).

Sometimes its best to just ignore them  ;)

Then again that could account for my failure to scale the corporite hights  >:(
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: h.a.c. van asten on June 19, 2011, 02:51:26 PM
F.A.A. files on Electra , I possibly have it from Lovell but do not remember exactly . The text was " At least 10 Electra´s ..etc" .
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 05, 2012, 02:17:28 PM
I have a question that is peripherally related to this thread as it deals with the source of post-loss transmissions please move it if you know of a more appropriate one.  I have read a couple of places that the engineers who built the Electra stated that radio transmission from that plane in the water would not be possible but have not seen a clear explanation as to why that was.  If one assumes a non-castastrophic water landing ( i.e. the plane was floating upright in one piece) with empty fuel tanks supplying plenty of buoyancy. My understanding is that batteries ( if fully charged) could operate the radio for 90 minutes ( I assume there was no chance, of running the engine on the water).  I think it was also suggested that the electra was front heavy and would tilt forward in the water, perhaps submerging the cockpit which would also of course make using the radio difficult.  However in life and death situations people can often find ways to jury rig something not spelled out in the engineering specifications, was there another reason why it would be impossible to transmit from the surface of the ocean ?

The reason I ask is that post loss signals that were used to get directional bearings in the Pacific ( not the Betty transmissions) are the most convincing evidence for the Niku hypothesis ( IMHO), if there is no chance of those coming from a floating place then either they were hoaxes from someone in the area of gardner at that time ( extremely unlikely) or the plane was on land and in shape to transmit for those few days.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: pilotart on July 05, 2012, 03:17:39 PM
Water, especially salt water would have 'shorted-out' the electricity needed for the radio to work.

It is truly sad that All of the messages were deemed to be 'hoaxes' at the time or they would have put more effort into looking on 'land' locations beyond single fly-overs.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 05, 2012, 06:51:25 PM
... I have read a couple of places that the engineers who built the Electra stated that radio transmission from that plane in the water would not be possible but have not seen a clear explanation as to why that was.  If one assumes a non-castastrophic water landing ( i.e. the plane was floating upright in one piece) with empty fuel tanks supplying plenty of buoyancy. ...

The question about how well and how long the Electra would float has been pursued in another thread: "Might Electra have floated some distance off-shore?" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=340.15)

A brief FAQ (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/float.htm) reads, "The opinon of supposed experts at the time was that, with all those empty fuel tanks, the Electra would float 'indefinitely.' We actually had some calculations run by Oceaneering International in 1991. There were 12 individual fuel tanks aboard NR16020 – three in each wing and six in the cabin. If all the tanks were empty and intact, the 7,000 lb (empty weight) airplane would be 1,200 pounds buoyant. Damage to one, or even all, of the tanks in one wing should not be sufficient to sink the airplane."

See also "Ditching into Water" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=733.0) for more considerations about CG and how the plane might float.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 06, 2012, 04:58:01 AM
A fairly detailed study of the likelyhood of the survival of ditching is also available here

http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/earhart/article.asp?id=1054

They conclude that she would likely have survived the ditching however they also say she would have had only 8 minutes to get out of the plane based on the time another Electra took to sink showing a lack of attention to the particulars of this case.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 06, 2012, 05:28:25 AM
Pilotart, I understand that seawater is devastating to electronics but It seems to me that if the outer skin of the Electra was not breached in the ditching that they would have period of time to transmit before the batteries ran out, I was asking about the arbitrary way the engineerS are quoted about there being no possibility of any radio messages sent if they ditched
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: John Ousterhout on July 06, 2012, 08:42:35 AM
Keep in mind that the outer skin of the Electra isn't water-tightf enough to float like a boat. It would quickly settle deeper into the water as it flooded through the various openings built-in (door, hatches, inspection covers, cooling ducts, etc).  The battery and the dynamoter were very low in the fuselage and would be some of the first parts of the "electronics" to submerge and be rendered inoperable.
You're right that there would be some time after first contact with the water and the radio becoming unservicable.  The amount of time might even be slightly longer than it takes a car crashing into water to submerge it's battery and electronics.  The ability to float depends on the buoyancy of empty tanks remaining intact and sealed inside the fuselage, which means the lower parts of the aircraft would be submerged. I'd be surprised if the radio might remain functional for as long as a minute after ditching.  It certainly would not have been functional hours or days after ditching.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Gary LaPook on July 06, 2012, 04:42:52 PM
Keep in mind that the outer skin of the Electra isn't water-tightf enough to float like a boat. It would quickly settle deeper into the water as it flooded through the various openings built-in (door, hatches, inspection covers, cooling ducts, etc).  The battery and the dynamoter were very low in the fuselage and would be some of the first parts of the "electronics" to submerge and be rendered inoperable.
You're right that there would be some time after first contact with the water and the radio becoming unservicable.  The amount of time might even be slightly longer than it takes a car crashing into water to submerge it's battery and electronics.  The ability to float depends on the buoyancy of empty tanks remaining intact and sealed inside the fuselage, which means the lower parts of the aircraft would be submerged. I'd be surprised if the radio might remain functional for as long as a minute after ditching.  It certainly would not have been functional hours or days after ditching.
The main problem is the dynamotor that converts 12 volts to the very high voltages needed to run a tube type radio mounted on the floor. This is an electric motor that turns a generator, ever try running an electric motor under water?

gl
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: John Ousterhout on July 06, 2012, 05:19:47 PM
"...ever try running an electric motor under water?"  That's the dynamotor mentioned.  They don't work when damp, let alone when submerged.  Likewise the lead-acid battery would quit working when submerged in salt water.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 06, 2012, 06:44:20 PM
My point in this thread has not been a lack of understanding of what seawater would do to a radio but in establishing that the engineers statement of no possibility of radio transmission after a ditching is correct.  As I understand it the batteries could power the radio for a while but there would be zero chance of recharging after the Electra hit the water, it's a bit of a stretch but say Fred and Amelia were running out of fuel after searching for Howland and knew they were going to have to ditch, would they realize that moving the radio and batteries would give them a chance to transmit after a water landing.  To be clear I don't think this happened but if post loss radio transmission after a ditching can be completely eliminated then, as I said a couple of posts ago, the rf directional signals that track to gardner island area become very convincing evidence, they could only have originated from fn and ae on land at Gardner, then Betty's notebook, freckle cream bottles etc do not matter in making the case for the niku hypothesis.  Of course one could still blame a mischievous native with a radio in his canoe or that a series of experienced radio operators across the pacific all misidentified transmissions and made mistakes in tracing their sources to the Gardner area.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: John Ousterhout on July 06, 2012, 07:32:16 PM
Matt sez: " I was asking about the arbitrary way the engineerS are quoted about there being no possibility of any radio messages sent if they ditched"
sorry if I wasn't clear in my posts - I was trying to give the reason the radios wouldn't work after a ditching, rather than trying to answer your question.  Let me try to clarify -  the Lockheed Engineers knew that the battery and dynamotor would be covered/filled with sea water almost immediately in a ditching, ending any chance of further radio use.  The Harney drawings don't provide enough detail to see how the battery and dynamotor were accessed, but they are shown under the fuel tank area, so my guess is there was an access panel in the bottom of the fuselage.  It would not have been water-tight, and would likely collapse in a ditching.  Perhaps Gary can provide some details of what happens to hatch covers and inspection covers in a ditching?  I'm no expert.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 06, 2012, 07:44:58 PM
Thanks John, I'm not trying to be a pain but to me this seems important in the establishment of the niku hypothesis.  You have come very close to answering my question, I realize that chances of the radio working is very small but we have people on these forums arguing for a million to one probability radio transmissions occuring and the electra flying back to New britain when it reasonably didn't have the fuel, it would be good to be able to say that any post loss radio transmissions had to have come from land.  I may be missing something, does the radio require the dynamotor/generator for operation or just battery charging?
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 06, 2012, 07:47:14 PM
Matt, you have to remember that the Electra probably would not have floated the same way that the Airbus that "Sully" landed in the river did.
His fuel tanks were in the wings and "belly" of the aircraft. The cabin and a good part of the wings were above at least a good part of the flotation that was available for the Airbus.

The only tanks in the Electra that were below the cabin were those in the wings and they would not have prevented the ship from sinking. Sea water, and quite a bit I would guess, would have had to enter the cabin of the electra before enough flotation would be provided by the internal tanks to prevent the aircraft from sinking. Most estimates that I have seen think that the nose of the airaraft would have settled more than the rest of the cabin which would most  likely mean more water up front. Up front was where the radio receiver, located under the copilot's seat, one of the batteries (the only access to which was through an outside hatch in the belly of the aircraft) and the dynamotor, located under the pilot's seat, that provided the AC electrical power for both radios were located. The transmitter and the second battery were both mounted on the floor of the aircraft near the navigator's station in the rear of the aircraft. They might have also been in the water, but if not, the items up front and most of the electrical wiring would probably have been quickly shorted out by the water.

Moving the battery and radios would  not have been enough to make them work. The electrical wiring would have had to have been moved too. AE couldn't make the RDF work. Do you really think she could have rewired the electrical system? I don't think Fred could have done it either.

Below is one of the Harney drawings that shows where everything was located. Maybe that will give you abetter understanding of the problems.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 06, 2012, 07:54:43 PM
Thanks John, I'm not trying to be a pain but to me this seems important in the establishment of the niku hypothesis.  You have come very close to answering my question, I realize that chances of the radio working is very small but we have people on these forums arguing for a million to one probability radio transmissions occuring and the electra flying back to New britain when it reasonably didn't have the fuel, it would be good to be able to say that any post loss radio transmissions had to have come from land.  I may be missing something, does the radio require the dynamotor/generator for operation or just battery charging?

Matt, the generator and dynamotor are two separate things. The generator was mounted on and driven by the right engine to provide DC power to charge the batteries and to run the dynamotor. The dynamotor produced AC power to run the radios. Simple explanation.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Matt Revington on July 06, 2012, 08:13:18 PM
Thanks CW
That does finally get it through my thick head, a ditched engine can't run, a non-functioning engine means the generator doesn't run, no generator and the dynamotor doesn't run, no dynamotor and the radio won't work. Therefore if any of the post loss radio transmissions are real then AE was on land ( or beach or reef).  And if the transmissions used to do the rf bearings were real then niku is the only reasonable piece of land that they could have been on.
Thanks
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 06, 2012, 08:25:40 PM
Glad I could help. The part about the radios working, YES. The part about Niku, we think so, still trying to prove that.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 06, 2012, 09:02:57 PM
Thanks CW
That does finally get it through my thick head, a ditched engine can't run, a non-functioning engine means the generator doesn't run, no generator and the dynamotor doesn't run, no dynamotor and the radio won't work. Therefore if any of the post loss radio transmissions are real then AE was on land ( or beach or reef).  And if the transmissions used to do the rf bearings were real then niku is the only reasonable piece of land that they could have been on.
Thanks

Matt, now that you understand a simple explanation of the problem, here is a more detailed version if you want to go there. It talks about low voltage DC and high voltage DC instead of DC and AC power. I used the DC/AC to try to make things a little more simple.

http://tighar.org/wiki/Lockheed_Electra_10E_Special_-_NR16020 (http://tighar.org/wiki/Lockheed_Electra_10E_Special_-_NR16020)
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: John Ousterhout on July 06, 2012, 11:30:10 PM
Matt, I think you're finally 'getting it', thanks to Woody clarifying things better than I can, especially for the diagram. The dynamotor could run off of the battery, but not if it was wet.  If the engine could run the generator, but the dynamotor was wet, the radio would still not work.  That part of the aircraft would have needed to be not just above water, but dry, to transmit.  That pretty well dictates that it needed to be above water all of the time.  Dip a dynamotor in salt water and it stops producting high voltage, even after drying out.  It would need to be rinsed with fresh water, at a minimum, unless it had arced and made carbon tracks on the insulation.  In that case it's permanently inop until rebuilt.
Title: Re: Could Earhart’s Transmitter Operate If Her Plane Was Afloat?
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 07, 2012, 05:45:58 AM
Fuses would be the first to go, that's their job, to protect the circuit. Water will conduct voltage and current to parts of the circuit it was not designed to handle, pop!