TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Radio Reflections => Topic started by: richie conroy on September 19, 2011, 04:08:25 PM

Title: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on September 19, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
just wondered if anyone had come come across this before  http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1012500

'... we are on line of position 156-157...'
'... don't hold... with us much longer... above water... shut off...'
... ship on reef... south of equator...

weren't aware of any amateur radio logs of amelia earhart, saying with ship on reef south of equator

so i assume its false  ???
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 19, 2011, 04:47:26 PM
just wondered if anyone had come come across this before  http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1012500

'... we are on line of position 156-157...'
'... don't hold... with us much longer... above water... shut off...'
... ship on reef... south of equator...

weren't aware of any amateur radio logs of amelia earhart, saying with ship on reef south of equator

so i assume its false  ???

Check out the article about a teenager named Dana Randolph in TIGHAR Tracks  (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/2103.pdf) back in 2005.  It's on page 22.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Chris Johnson on September 20, 2011, 06:24:41 AM
Article created May 2003 very poor.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 20, 2011, 09:35:17 AM
Article created May 2003 very poor.
Well, if it's super high quality writing about the topic that you're looking for, that's available (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=64), too!  ;D
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on September 20, 2011, 09:39:15 AM
how would a boy ov that age know there was a shipwreck ran a ground on an atoll some were unless it really was amelia

Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Chris Johnson on September 20, 2011, 12:29:53 PM
Article created May 2003 very poor.
Well, if it's super high quality writing about the topic that you're looking for, that's available (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=64), too!  ;D

Shame on you Bruce! As a fully paid up Ameliaholic i've got it, read it and had to hide it from the wife who vowed to "ebay that book about your other woman"  ;D
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Gary LaPook on September 20, 2011, 02:59:48 PM
just wondered if anyone had come come across this before  http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1012500

'... we are on line of position 156-157...'
'... don't hold... with us much longer... above water... shut off...'
... ship on reef... south of equator...

weren't aware of any amateur radio logs of amelia earhart, saying with ship on reef south of equator

so i assume its false  ???

------------------------------

It was pretty common in the '30s to refer to an airplane as a "ship," so this would be a claim that Earhart was saying that her airplane "ship" was on the reef.

gl

gl
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 21, 2011, 10:19:21 AM
It was pretty common in the '30s to refer to an airplane as a "ship," so this would be a claim that Earhart was saying that her airplane "ship" was on the reef.

I'm going to keep after you about this "would" stuff. ;D   "Would" is a guess masquerading as a fact.  It's possible and even likely that she was referring to her plane as her "ship." She often did.  But if she meant a vessel she might logically have used the same words.  There's no way to know.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on September 21, 2011, 10:59:12 AM

It is just as likely, perhaps even more so, that she was referring to a "ship" on the reef, i.e. the Norwich City on Gardner.

Why make simple things complex?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Gary LaPook on September 21, 2011, 08:20:38 PM

It is just as likely, perhaps even more so, that she was referring to a "ship" on the reef, i.e. the Norwich City on Gardner.

Why make simple things complex?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was responding to reply # 4

"how would a boy ov that age know there was a shipwreck ran a ground on an atoll some were unless it really was amelia"

That writer apparently didn't realize that there was another explanation for the use of the word "ship" so seemed to take it as conlusive that Earhart was reporting the Norwich City and that she must, therefore, be on Nikumororro.

So O.K. there are two explanations and no way to decide which one might be right. Also keep in mind that at wasn't only  Earhart that used the word "ship" in referring to airplanes, it was commonly used by everybody during that era so this message is not conclusively proven as being from Earhart.

gl
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 22, 2011, 05:47:49 AM
So O.K. there are two explanations and no way to decide which one might be right.

That's right, but it's not "ship" that makes Dana Randolph's report credible.  He said he heard AE say "ship on reef southeast of Howland" at a time when everyone was still assuming that distress calls were coming from an airplane afloat on the ocean.  Lockheed's statement that the plane could not transmit if it was in the water had not yet appeared in the media.

Also keep in mind that at wasn't only  Earhart that used the word "ship" in referring to airplanes, it was commonly used by everybody during that era so this message is not conclusively proven as being from Earhart.

Yes, ship was a common term for an airplane right up through WWII.  The credibility of Randolph's report has nothing to do with "ship."  A local Department of Commerce radio operator investigated and verified Randolph’s report, and found that the call sign heard was KHAQQ, and that the signal frequency was “near 16000” kHz, which is close to 15525 kHz, the 5th harmonic of 3105 kHz. It was plausible for Randolph to be tuning there, since 15525 kHz was near a shortwave broadcast band. The investigator also found that the signal included a statement – not reported by the newspaper – that the plane was “on a reef southeast of Howland Island.” The possibility of a hoax can be ruled out, given the investigation and the fact that the newspaper was published every other day, hence printed news of post-loss signals had not yet reached Rock Springs.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on September 22, 2011, 10:29:42 AM
how would she know the island she was on was southeast of howland if she couldn't find howland to begin with ?

which means she must have had either the sextant box or the map case with her or a compass
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 22, 2011, 10:44:59 AM
how would she know the island she was on was southeast of howland if she couldn't find howland to begin with ?
which means she must have had either the sextant box or the map case with her or a compass

She has to be in the airplane to use the radio and the airplane certainly had a compass and a sextant and maps.  There are no islands northwest of Howland, so if she has flown southeast and is on an island she is on an island southeast of Howland.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on September 22, 2011, 02:45:01 PM
sorry Ric an all

 i know if i read all info on Tigar i would get all my answer's, but it would probably take me a few months to do so  :) so sorry for asking or commenting on things that have probably been answered or said a million times  ::)

i have only been interested in amelia earhart since i watched ur program on discovery, an what an excellent program it was i might add,

now the reason i asked about amelia knowing were she was, is too try to work out what she would have took from plane to seven site, to try an identify the remaing artifacts  :)     
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Gary LaPook on September 22, 2011, 10:30:23 PM
So O.K. there are two explanations and no way to decide which one might be right.

That's right, but it's not "ship" that makes Dana Randolph's report credible.  He said he heard AE say "ship on reef southeast of Howland" at a time when everyone was still assuming that distress calls were coming from an airplane afloat on the ocean.  Lockheed's statement that the plane could not transmit if it was in the water had not yet appeared in the media.

Also keep in mind that at wasn't only  Earhart that used the word "ship" in referring to airplanes, it was commonly used by everybody during that era so this message is not conclusively proven as being from Earhart.

Yes, ship was a common term for an airplane right up through WWII.  The credibility of Randolph's report has nothing to do with "ship."  A local Department of Commerce radio operator investigated and verified Randolph’s report, and found that the call sign heard was KHAQQ, and that the signal frequency was “near 16000” kHz, which is close to 15525 kHz, the 5th harmonic of 3105 kHz. It was plausible for Randolph to be tuning there, since 15525 kHz was near a shortwave broadcast band. The investigator also found that the signal included a statement – not reported by the newspaper – that the plane was “on a reef southeast of Howland Island.” The possibility of a hoax can be ruled out, given the investigation and the fact that the newspaper was published every other day, hence printed news of post-loss signals had not yet reached Rock Springs.
-----------------------------------------------------
As I see it, there are four possible explanations for Randolph's report:
1) he made it up himself;
2) he heard a hoax broadcast;
3) he misunderstood a news broadcast about the Earhart situation; and
4) he actually heard a transmission from Amelia.

Your argument against the first possibility is that the local newspaper had not yet published a story about the disappearance so Randolph could not have known about it and so could not have made up this story. HELLO!, the kid had a RADIO and could have learned about the Earhart situation before the story was published in his local newspaper.

As for the second possibility, anybody who had also heard of the situation could have made up the story and a hoax broadcast. As to being on a reef southeast of Howland, any hoaxter could look at any map of the Pacific or a globe and notice that the closest islands are southeast of Howland, so it would not be a great leap for a hoaxter to put that language in his fake message and to also use the common word "ship" for the plane on the reef. And this other hoaxter didn't need to read about it in Randolph's local newspaper.

In the third scenario, the kid heard part of a shortwave broadcast in the standard 19 meter international broadcast band, 15,100 to 15,800 kcs:   .....static (fade) "......the ship may be afloat but some believe (suddenly louder) the ship is on a reef southeast of Howland Island (fade) but the Coast Guard is still....." Anybody who has ever listened on a shortwave radio to international broadcasts knows that these signals fade in an out so this scenario is realistic.

And the fourth possibility is that he heard a legitimate Earhart message.

gl
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2011, 10:04:42 AM
First let me say that I appreciate your thoughtful skepticism.  "Preaching to the choir" is always dangerous and answering your questions and challenges is an excellent reality check.

As I see it, there are four possible explanations for Randolph's report:
1) he made it up himself;
2) he heard a hoax broadcast;
3) he misunderstood a news broadcast about the Earhart situation; and
4) he actually heard a transmission from Amelia.

I agree.

Your argument against the first possibility is that the local newspaper had not yet published a story about the disappearance so Randolph could not have known about it and so could not have made up this story. HELLO!, the kid had a RADIO and could have learned about the Earhart situation before the story was published in his local newspaper.

I did not say that Randolph was not aware of Earhart's disappearance. He certainly WAS aware that Earhart was missing. That's probably why, when he first heard her (or what he believed was her), he hollered to his father , "Hey Paw! I got Miss Earhart!" who "came running in" from the kitchen.   What I said was  "printed news of post-loss signals had not yet reached Rock Springs."  Both Randolph and the local newspaper editor were unaware that other post-loss signals had been heard. The story in the local paper was headlined "First Radio Contact With Miss Earhart Made By Rock Springs Boy."

It is, of course, possible that 16 year-old Dana Randolph made the whole thing up but his father Cyrus also claimed to have heard the transmissions so if it was all a hoax, Cyrus Randolph was in on it.  According to the newspaper story,  "Dana's uncle, Victor Randolph, who lives next door, came in and was told about the reception of the call for help.  "Everybody wants to know about that,' he told his nephew. 'Get down town and report that.' Cyrus and Victor Randolph immediately went to the police station to learn where the report should be made. They were directed to the local Department of Commerce radio operator" who, in turn notified Washington.

The Randolph family was African-American.  To suggest that they were perpetrating a hoax is to suggest that an African-American family in Rock Springs, Wyoming in 1937 made up a story about hearing distress calls from a famous white woman and reported the fable, not to the newspaper, but to the police department and then to a representative of the federal government. You can make your own judgement about the likelihood of that happening.

As for the second possibility, anybody who had also heard of the situation could have made up the story and a hoax broadcast.

It is true that anyone can make up a story.  Making a hoax broadcast that only one person hears is trickier.  I don't know how you do that.  Using the Ionospheric Communications Enhanced Profile Analysis and Circuit Prediction Program (ICEPAC), Bob Brandenburg has calculated the chances of Dana Randolph hearing Earhart on the 5th harmonic of of 3105 Khz as 0.016.  It turns out that at the same time Dana Randolph was hearing what he thought was Amelia Earhart, Mrs. Crabb (we don't have her first name) in Toronto was hearing fragments of a conversation between a man and woman she believed to be Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan.  Mrs. Crabb heard what she heard on 18639 Khz, the 6th harmonic of 3105 KHz - a different frequency than Randolph but also a harmonic of Earhart's frequency.  The probability of Crabb hearing Earhart was 0.009.  In both cases - Randolph and Crabb - hearing Earhart would be an unusual, but far from impossible event and entirely consistent with the intermittent, fading in and out signal they reported. 

In our evaluation of all of the known reported post-loss signals we identified 28 apparent hoaxes but in all cases it appears that the reporter was the hoaxer - in other words, claiming to hear something they did not really hear.  We found no evidence of anyone sending a bogus transmission.

As to being on a reef southeast of Howland, any hoaxter could look at any map of the Pacific or a globe and notice that the closest islands are southeast of Howland, so it would not be a great leap for a hoaxter to put that language in his fake message and to also use the common word "ship" for the plane on the reef. And this other hoaxter didn't need to read about it in Randolph's local newspaper.

All true.  Let's look at what it would take to perpetrate a hoax transmission.  First you must have a transmitter or access to a transmitter.  Then you have to decide what frequency to send your hoax transmission on.  If you choose a commercial broadcast frequency lots of people are going to hear your hoax - but that didn't happen.  If you choose a harmonic of Earhart's frequency that would make your hoax more credible, but nobody was listening for Earhart on harmonics of her frequency so you can't count on anyone hearing your hoax. What fun is that?

In the third scenario, the kid heard part of a shortwave broadcast in the standard 19 meter international broadcast band, 15,100 to 15,800 kcs:   .....static (fade) "......the ship may be afloat but some believe (suddenly louder) the ship is on a reef southeast of Howland Island (fade) but the Coast Guard is still....." Anybody who has ever listened on a shortwave radio to international broadcasts knows that these signals fade in an out so this scenario is realistic.

We, of course, don't know everything that was being said in news broadcasts about the search, but what we do know is that in 1937 a female newscaster, or "presenter" as our British cousins say, was extremely unusual if not unheard of.  We presume that Dana and his father were aware that Miss Earhart was a woman. We also know that at the time Dana Randolph said he heard Amelia say "ship on reef" (Sunday morning, July 4) there was no speculation yet in the print news media that the plane might be on land. 

And the fourth possibility is that he heard a legitimate Earhart message.

After carefully considering the alternatives we feel that this is the most likely explanation and we have judged this report of a post-loss message to be credible.  That doesn't mean that we can prove that this particular message was sent by Earhart.  It just means that, based on what we know about it, the message appears to be credible.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Mona Kendrick on September 23, 2011, 04:07:37 PM
To suggest that they were perpetrating a hoax is to suggest that an African-American family in Rock Springs, Wyoming in 1937 made up a story about hearing distress calls from a famous white woman and reported the fable, not to the newspaper, but to the police department and then to a representative of the federal government. You can make your own judgement about the likelihood of that happening.

     I think this is probably a very astute assessment.

Mona
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on September 24, 2011, 11:20:52 AM
right let me try an correct this  :)

what i meant by asking

how would a kid know there was a shipwreck on a atoll in the middle of no were!!

i weren't implying it was a hoax, it was more YIKES this kid must of heard amelia because he couldnt know that,

also i was unaware amelia called her plane a ship, which makes me think even more it really was amelia, because to say ship instead of plane,

could mean that people who were close to her would know any radio signals she sent were not a hoax because she said ship not plane an probably not allot of hoaxers would get onto that 

dya get me
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Gary LaPook on September 25, 2011, 05:07:07 PM
right let me try an correct this  :)

what i meant by asking

how would a kid know there was a shipwreck on a atoll in the middle of no were!!

i weren't implying it was a hoax, it was more YIKES this kid must of heard amelia because he couldnt know that,

also i was unaware amelia called her plane a ship, which makes me think even more it really was amelia, because to say ship instead of plane,

could mean that people who were close to her would know any radio signals she sent were not a hoax because she said ship not plane an probably not allot of hoaxers would get onto that 

dya get me
-------------------------------------

You missed my point that it was common for airplanes to be called ships by many people so the use of the word "ship" doesn't eliminate the hoax possibility.

gl
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on September 28, 2011, 01:10:30 PM
did amelia's plane have any kind of wireless radio that could be take in off it
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 28, 2011, 01:21:14 PM
did amelia's plane have any kind of wireless radio that could be take in off it

No
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 02, 2011, 12:40:06 PM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Amelia-Earhart-FBI-Files-CD-Aviation-Airplane-/290461763234#ht_6660wt_1139

as any 1 come across page 2 in this listing before ?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 02, 2011, 12:42:29 PM
also i know first letter is to tighar but the second letter is not the second letter in fbi files tighar recieved like on ere

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/entertainment/fbi/earhart/index.html
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 02, 2011, 01:06:42 PM
as any 1 come across page 2 in this listing before ?

Yes, we have all that.  The letter is from Nina Paxton.  We have a huge file on her.  Nina is an interesting case. Her initial report of having heard a call from Amelia - message #47 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID31900PX) in the catalog - is credible but her later versions of what she heard got weirder and weirder.

Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Don Dollinger on October 03, 2011, 09:48:04 AM
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Amelia-Earhart-FBI-Files-CD-Aviation-Airplane-/290461763234#ht_6660wt_1139

as any 1 come across page 2 in this listing before ?

That is all availble on-line @ http://vault.fbi.gov (http://vault.fbi.gov) just use Amelia Earhart as the key words in the search bar.

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 03, 2011, 10:17:51 AM
There's really nothing of any particular interest in the FBI file. The very fact that there is an FBI file on Amelia Earhart is testament to the silliness of some previous investigations of her disappearance.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Rich Ramsey on October 03, 2011, 12:43:07 PM
There's really nothing of any particular interest in the FBI file. The very fact that there is an FBI file on Amelia Earhart is testament to the silliness of some previous investigations of her disappearance.

Dang it Ric! She was abducted by aliens. That is not silly! Ridiculous maybe but not silly.

Seriously though I would agree with you on this point. All mysteries are usually solved with a simple answer. The only thing between a mystery and a solved tragedy like this is 1 survivor.

BTW, gonna put in for my TIGHAR Research here as soon as the pay check clears! Keep up the great work. You solved the mystery, now just have to prove it.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 03, 2011, 03:00:48 PM
cheers Ric Don Rich

i have no doubt that Amila an Fred landed on gardener an that the remains found were them, an the only thing missing is that conclusive link like the electra or the bones for positive DNA

but bare with me, am trying to get thru the 12 pages ov previous general discussion posts so i tend to google stuff i read an it take's u to else were like ebay an stuff  :)
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 06, 2011, 02:06:56 AM
could sum 1 tell me "if the electra flipped over on landing i.e on to its roof would amelia still be able to run engines to use radio ?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Chris Austin on October 06, 2011, 08:28:21 AM
could sum 1 tell me "if the electra flipped over on landing i.e on to its roof would amelia still be able to run engines to use radio ?

I don't think I'd volunteer to do the start up even if there was clearance for the prop to turn!
It's likely that fuel, oil and the batteries would all have leaked very badly at best.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 06, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
surely they r all sealed tanks or the fumes alone would kill them lol i was thinking more ov the antenna breaking off but then thought what if it landed were there was a crevice  an the antenna survived the flip over  :o yeah that didnt happen  :D just me an theory's
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Don Dollinger on October 06, 2011, 03:05:57 PM
Quote
surely they r all sealed tanks or the fumes alone would kill them

Actually they would be vented outside of the aircraft.

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 06, 2011, 04:21:46 PM
the last radio log received by Itasca they were still in the air, but soon after the engines stalled cos ov no fuel so on gliding to land on gardener if there plane were to flip then any dregs left in tank would be enuff to rotate engine enuff to send mayday,

i only ask cos if they were going down an engines were running, there would surely be mayday calls heard or logged  an i have not come across any yet ?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 06, 2011, 04:24:29 PM
also if i remember correctly the overflow ov tanks went back into tanks
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Don Dollinger on October 07, 2011, 09:20:29 AM
Quote
the last radio log received by Itasca they were still in the air, but soon after the engines stalled cos ov no fuel so on gliding to land on gardener if there plane were to flip then any dregs left in tank would be enuff to rotate engine enuff to send mayday,

i only ask cos if they were going down an engines were running, there would surely be mayday calls heard or logged  an i have not come across any yet ?

Post loss messages show (if in fact they are actually from the Electra) that they were able to run the engines as they needed to run the right hand engine to be able to use the radio which would more then likely indicate that they landed the Electra intact.

That is not to say that there were no mayday calls, just that they were not received until the post loss messages after landing on Gardner.    They were obviously experiencing some type of radio problems on the flight to Howland and perhaps it got worse (i.e., was no longer transmitting either).  This would not be the first time that they experiencied radio problems and gonna use that 'bad word" but they "could of" found a radio problem such as another blown fuse and fixed it once they landed thus restoring their ability to at least transmit again. 

Put yourself in that situation.  If your engines are running and you are looking for a place to land, is their actually a May Day?  Sure your low on fuel but not out and because your not sure where you are on the North/South line, for all you know you may be way North of Howland and still end up flying right over it.  If not, then you are on track to find an alternate landing location (Phoenix Island Group).   After landing, you assess the situation and send out the post loss messages in hopes of rescue.  Not so sure I, in that situation, would have bothered continuing to broadcast in flight as I have not gotten responses so I am not sure the radio is even working. 

Lastly, and I am no expert on the Electra and know I will be corrected if wrong, but doubt seriously that they would be able to run the Electra engine while upside down on the reef.

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 07, 2011, 12:53:31 PM
cheers for reply don

just trying to think of reasons why the electra is or was teasingly out of sight in 1937 images

also when i think of what i would do in that situation, me i would of got on that shipwreck the norwhich an would of seeked shelter

has any 1 ever actully been right thru the ship to see if there was any evidence amelia or fred visited it ?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 07, 2011, 01:17:13 PM
how can it be possible that the crew of the norwich city were rescued in 7 days in middle of no were, yet they couldnt find amelia earhart even though they knew location from poss radio signals
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 07, 2011, 04:26:46 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=-4.654331,-174.539634&spn=0.001628,0.002411&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6

is this a bit of outer reef 20 meters out from shore line ?

Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 07, 2011, 06:26:38 PM
really sorry for last post http://archaeology.about.com/b/2009/10/26/whatever_happened_to_amelia_earhart.htm

just the person who replies in comments on this site i.e David Billings, i feel was very disrespectful towards tighar members

will not happen again  :-[
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Gary LaPook on October 07, 2011, 07:34:13 PM
the last radio log received by Itasca they were still in the air, but soon after the engines stalled cos ov no fuel so on gliding to land on gardener if there plane were to flip then any dregs left in tank would be enuff to rotate engine enuff to send mayday,

i only ask cos if they were going down an engines were running, there would surely be mayday calls heard or logged  an i have not come across any yet ?
---------------------------------

Like in your car, the fuel pickups in the fuel tanks on the plane are in the bottom of the tanks so if the plane was upside down, even if the tanks were full, the engine could not run. You couldn't run your car's engine if your car was upside down either.

gl
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 08, 2011, 06:18:04 PM
how can it be possible that the crew of the norwich city were rescued in 7 days in middle of no were, yet they couldnt find amelia earhart even though they knew location from poss radio signals

That's an easy one - because the Norwich City's radio operator stayed with it long enough to get out an SOS with a precise position as the ship exploded and burned around him. It's a whole lot easier to find the needle in the haystack if the thread is still tied to it, if you get my meaning.

Sadly, in Amelia's case, the ball was dropped, and dropped very, very badly, by a number of people and agencies. Monday morning quarterbacking 74 years after the event doesn't change the fact that mistakes were made and, unfortunately, two people died before the right kind of help could get to them in time.

LTM,
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No. 2189CER

P.S. - thank you for the link to that story on About.com, Richie. I couldn't help but notice who the Oct. 8, 2011, poster was ... which was good for a chuckle.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 08, 2011, 08:09:55 PM
in all honesty i didnt read past comment 2 as i was that bemused by david billings post, as Ric has in my view backed all his questions with answers as has tighar, and have answered questions with evidence  :) 
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 09, 2011, 12:59:52 PM
how can it be possible that the crew of the norwich city were rescued in 7 days in middle of no were, yet they couldnt find amelia earhart even though they knew location from poss radio signals

That's an easy one - because the Norwich City's radio operator stayed with it long enough to get out an SOS with a precise position as the ship exploded and burned around him. It's a whole lot easier to find the needle in the haystack if the thread is still tied to it, if you get my meaning.

Sadly, in Amelia's case, the ball was dropped, and dropped very, very badly, by a number of people and agencies. Monday morning quarterbacking 74 years after the event doesn't change the fact that mistakes were made and, unfortunately, two people died before the right kind of help could get to them in time.

LTM,
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No. 2189CER

P.S. - thank you for the link to that story on About.com, Richie. I couldn't help but notice who the Oct. 8, 2011, poster was ... which was good for a chuckle.

I miss Mr Van S, the forum is less electric without his 'smurf isms' ;)
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 09, 2011, 06:40:04 PM
prob been asked before but i haven't come across it yet in forums, i wonder y amelia or fred didnt do a SOS or HELP in the sand around island or stay were they could be seen if a plane flew over ?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 09, 2011, 06:46:40 PM
prob been asked before but i haven't come across it yet in forums, i wonder y amelia or fred didnt do a SOS or HELP in the sand around island

There's no sand on that beach.  It's all coral rubble.  The might have laid out a message with cut vegetation but they they would have to be expecting an aerial search and, as  far as they knew, theirs was the only airplane in that part of the world.

or stay were they could be seen if a plane flew over ?

Again, there was no reason for them to expect an aerial search.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 09, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
Ric how long would high tide be at its highest for, an would it be possible wen high tide receeded an batterys gettin low amelia could have tryed to fly plane around island to charge batterys  but as gone down before getting to were she took off from an ditching it out beyond reef ?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 09, 2011, 07:42:09 PM
She did not need to fly the plane to recharge the batteries.  She could recharge at 900 RPM (little more than a fast idle) burning only 6 gallons per hour. All she needed was for the water to be low enough for the prop to clear.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 10, 2011, 04:22:43 AM
She did not need to fly the plane to recharge the batteries.  She could recharge at 900 RPM (little more than a fast idle) burning only 6 gallons per hour. All she needed was for the water to be low enough for the prop to clear.

When you say clear, do you mean totaly clear of the water or could she run the prop in shallow water?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 10, 2011, 06:31:40 AM
When you say clear, do you mean totaly clear of the water or could she run the prop in shallow water?

Totally clear.  Airplane propeller tips bend if they hit anything hard - and water, at that speed, is like concrete. If the tip is bent the prop becomes unbalanced. An out of balance prop will set up vibration that can tear an engine off its mounts.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Rich Ramsey on October 10, 2011, 08:12:50 AM
This is a total Newbie question but if they had the mean's couldn't they remove the Prop and run the engine that way to recharge the batteries?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 10, 2011, 08:26:20 AM
This is a total Newbie question but if they had the mean's couldn't they remove the Prop and run the engine that way to recharge the batteries?

Nope.  You can't run an airplane engine without the prop. The engine would tear itself to pieces. The prop acts as a flywheel. 
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Dan Swift on October 10, 2011, 12:46:25 PM
Confirming what Ric said.  Can't run without the prop...needs the resistance and the balance.  And it would rip things apart if it started to strike the water at the bottom of its rotation...even at only 900RPMs. 
Those old radials only cruised at about 2,000 rpms (someone confirm that for me), so 900 pretty fast actually.  Makes me wonder if AE tried to stay on the radio too long and the prop did start making contact with the water.  It very well could have been the end of the engine and there fore the end of the radio transmissions.  Another "could of / I wonder if" statement.  Sorry!   
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 10, 2011, 01:01:29 PM
Full throttle for Earhart at sea level was 28.5 inches of manifold pressure and 2050 RPM
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Rich Ramsey on October 10, 2011, 02:52:48 PM
I thought that would be the answer but I wasn't sure. No harm in checking.  As to your "wonder if"... if I only had a time machine. I would so pick this point and place in time. Just so I can know, I wouldn't change anything, just the need to know the truth.

Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Dan Swift on October 10, 2011, 04:45:02 PM
Wow Ric!  No wonder she almost crashed into the sea off Lae!  That lack of power plus 6600 extra lbs. of gas!
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Gary LaPook on October 11, 2011, 12:12:02 AM
Full throttle for Earhart at sea level was 28.5 inches of manifold pressure and 2050 RPM
-------------------------------------------------------
I thought takeoff power was 35.5 inches and 2250 rpm and maximum continuous power was
32.5 inches and 2200 rpm.

gl
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Gary LaPook on October 11, 2011, 12:37:36 AM
prob been asked before but i haven't come across it yet in forums, i wonder y amelia or fred didnt do a SOS or HELP in the sand around island

There's no sand on that beach.  It's all coral rubble.  The might have laid out a message with cut vegetation but they they would have to be expecting an aerial search and, as  far as they knew, theirs was the only airplane in that part of the world.

or stay were they could be seen if a plane flew over ?

Again, there was no reason for them to expect an aerial search.
---------------------------------------------------

Good point  so they would have been expecting a shipborne search.

This also further disproves the "get lost so the Navy can search the Mandates" theory since the Lexington was not conveniently located  at the time. For the "Mandates search" plan the Lexington would have been at Pearl or Lahaina Roads, not 3,000 miles away in San Diego.

gl
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: JNev on October 11, 2011, 06:47:05 AM
Full throttle for Earhart at sea level was 28.5 inches of manifold pressure and 2050 RPM
-------------------------------------------------------
I thought takeoff power was 35.5 inches and 2250 rpm and maximum continuous power was
32.5 inches and 2200 rpm.

gl

Depends on where you look -

Engine performance limits according to FAA TC Data Sheet #590 for the L-10E are as follows -

Engines:
2 P&W Wasps S3H1

Placard Limits:
Maximum, except takeoff
Below 4000 ft. pressure alt.
     30-1/2 in. Hg., 2000 rpm (450 hp)
4000 ft. pressure alt. and up
     29 in. Hg., 2000 rpm (450 hp)
Takeoff (one minute)
     34-1/2 in. Hg., 2200 rpm (550 hp)


This is at "Revision 0" for the L-10E TC Data Sheet, which remains unrevised to this day.

The TC Data Sheet E-143 for the engine is another matter - but there are two points to consider:

1 - the data sheet information for the airplane with installed engines is always / would have been the controlling data for NR16020, and

2 - the engine data sheet was revised as late as August 7, 1973, so performance upgrades may have (probably did) happened (happen).  I did not delve into the original or previous revisions of engine TC Data Sheet E-143 to see, but that is common enough. 

Anyway, some of your numbers may be found there, especially given the conditions provided by "Note 5" therein -

Rating:
(Impeller gear ratio) - 10:1
(this is for the integral supercharger - Jeff)
Maximum continuous, hp., rpm, in. Hg., at:
     Critical altitude (ft.) - 550-2200-32.5-5000
           ("Critical altitude" power means making 550 hp at 2200 rpm and 32.5 in. Hg. at 5000 ft. press. alt. - Jeff)     
     Sea level pressure altitude (ft.) - 550-2200-34.0-S.L.
          (meaning 550 hp at 2200 rpm and 34.0 in. Hg. at Sea Level)
Takeoff (5 minutes), hp., rpm, in. Hg., at:
     Critical altitude (ft.) - 600-2250-35.5-3000
          (Meaning 600 hp at 2250 rpm at 35.5 in. Hg. at 3000 ft. press. alt. - Jeff)
     Sea level pressure altitude (ft.) - 600-2250-36.0-S.L. (See Note 5)
          (Meaning 600 hp. at 2250 rpm at 36 in. Hg. manifold press. at sea level for 5 minutes; Note 5 stipulates "best power mixture strength and 450 degrees F cylinder head temperature" limits and increased Critical Altitude / higher manifold pressure limits with the use of 91/96 octane fuel - Jeff)

Unless AE had some amending data that I do not know about regarding her permissible performance parameters, the data we see in L-10E TCDS 590 above is what she would have been governed by - for good reason: detonation and high temps result from running above those numbers and those things destroy cylinders, etc. very quickly.  I believe the "Lockheed Report 487: Range Study of Lockheed Electra Bimotor Airplane" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Report_487/Report487.html) document bears-out that AE was bound by what we see in the L-10E TCDS.

LTM -
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 11, 2011, 06:56:32 AM
Full throttle for Earhart at sea level was 28.5 inches of manifold pressure and 2050 RPM
-------------------------------------------------------
I thought takeoff power was 35.5 inches and 2250 rpm and maximum continuous power was
32.5 inches and 2200 rpm.

gl

Engine performance limits according to FAA TC Data Sheet #590 for the L-10E are as follows -

Engines:
2 P&W Wasps S3H1

Placard Limits:
Maximum, except takeoff
Below 4000 ft. pressure alt.
     30-1/2 in. Hg., 2000 rpm (450 hp)
4000 ft. pressure alt. and up
     29 in. Hg., 2000 rpm (450 hp)
Takeoff (one minute)
     34-1/2 in. Hg., 2200 rpm (550 hp)


My mistake. My numbers were Johnson's recommendations for the first hour of flight. 

I have a 1946 Pratt & Whitney "Specific Operating Instructions" for the S3H1 engine that shows "Take-off (5 min) 600 bhp, 2250 RPM at Sea Level."
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 11, 2011, 02:18:34 PM
av read thru quite allot ov tighar's,  previous forum posts an am unable to find a list of every single item found at seven site if 1 exists ?

also has some looked thru luke field inventory an gallaghers invenory from when he died ?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Gary LaPook on October 11, 2011, 04:46:32 PM
Full throttle for Earhart at sea level was 28.5 inches of manifold pressure and 2050 RPM
-------------------------------------------------------
I thought takeoff power was 35.5 inches and 2250 rpm and maximum continuous power was
32.5 inches and 2200 rpm.

gl

Depends on where you look -

Engine performance limits according to FAA TC Data Sheet #590 for the L-10E are as follows -

Engines:
2 P&W Wasps S3H1

Placard Limits:
Maximum, except takeoff
Below 4000 ft. pressure alt.
     30-1/2 in. Hg., 2000 rpm (450 hp)
4000 ft. pressure alt. and up
     29 in. Hg., 2000 rpm (450 hp)
Takeoff (one minute)
     34-1/2 in. Hg., 2200 rpm (550 hp)


This is at "Revision 0" for the L-10E TC Data Sheet, which remains unrevised to this day.

The TC Data Sheet E-143 for the engine is another matter - but there are two points to consider:

1 - the data sheet information for the airplane with installed engines is always / would have been the controlling data for NR16020, and

2 - the engine data sheet was revised as late as August 7, 1973, so performance upgrades may have (probably did) happened (happen).  I did not delve into the original or previous revisions of engine TC Data Sheet E-143 to see, but that is common enough. 

Anyway, some of your numbers may be found there, especially given the conditions provided by "Note 5" therein -

Rating:
(Impeller gear ratio) - 10:1
(this is for the integral supercharger - Jeff)
Maximum continuous, hp., rpm, in. Hg., at:
     Critical altitude (ft.) - 550-2200-32.5-5000
           ("Critical altitude" power means making 550 hp at 2200 rpm and 32.5 in. Hg. at 5000 ft. press. alt. - Jeff)     
     Sea level pressure altitude (ft.) - 550-2200-34.0-S.L.
          (meaning 550 hp at 2200 rpm and 34.0 in. Hg. at Sea Level)
Takeoff (5 minutes), hp., rpm, in. Hg., at:
     Critical altitude (ft.) - 600-2250-35.5-3000
          (Meaning 600 hp at 2250 rpm at 35.5 in. Hg. at 3000 ft. press. alt. - Jeff)
     Sea level pressure altitude (ft.) - 600-2250-36.0-S.L. (See Note 5)
          (Meaning 600 hp. at 2250 rpm at 36 in. Hg. manifold press. at sea level for 5 minutes; Note 5 stipulates "best power mixture strength and 450 degrees F cylinder head temperature" limits and increased Critical Altitude / higher manifold pressure limits with the use of 91/96 octane fuel - Jeff)

Unless AE had some amending data that I do not know about regarding her permissible performance parameters, the data we see in L-10E TCDS 590 above is what she would have been governed by - for good reason: detonation and high temps result from running above those numbers and those things destroy cylinders, etc. very quickly.  I believe the "Lockheed Report 487: Range Study of Lockheed Electra Bimotor Airplane" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Report_487/Report487.html) document bears-out that AE was bound by what we see in the L-10E TCDS.

LTM -
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have attached TCDC E-143 and also the power setting table from P&W for this engine, each of which supports the values I mentioned.

gl
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 11, 2011, 04:46:44 PM
av read thru quite allot ov tighar's,  previous forum posts an am unable to find a list of every single item found at seven site if 1 exists ?

This article on the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/wiki/Seven_site) gives you some leads.

For more recent developments, read the most recent  (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/contents26_30.html)TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/contents26_30.html).

Quote
also has some looked thru luke field inventory an gallaghers invenory from when he died ?

Yes, some people have "looked through" these lists.

Luke Field inventory. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html)

Inventory of Gallagher effects: box contents. (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Gallagereffects.html)

Inventory of items in Gallagher's house. (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Gallagereffects2.html)

Two watches and a signet ring. (http://tighar.org/wiki/GBG#Two_watches_and_a_signet_ring_missing)

Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Chris Johnson on October 12, 2011, 02:43:16 AM
av read thru quite allot ov tighar's,  previous forum posts an am unable to find a list of every single item found at seven site if 1 exists ?
also has some looked thru luke field inventory an gallaghers invenory from when he died ?

Richie,

this is where you will find the most detailed list that I have seen TIGHAR report to PIPA (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/PIPAreport/Niku6PIPAreport.html)

Goto Page 2 of the report and about halfway down is Excavations at the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/PIPAreport/PIPAAppendices/PIPAAppendixA.html) Appendix C gives a list of objects Found on all expeditions (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/PIPAreport/PIPAAppendices/PIPAAppendixC.html) upto and including 2010 but I beleive that not all items for 2010 are listed.  This isn't just for the Seven Site but also other areas explored.

Hope that helps?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 12, 2011, 05:53:20 AM
Excavations at the Seven Site[/url] Appendix C gives a list of objects Found on all expeditions (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/PIPAreport/PIPAAppendices/PIPAAppendixC.html) upto and including 2010 but I beleive that not all items for 2010 are listed.  This isn't just for the Seven Site but also other areas explored.

That's correct.  There were something over 175 individual artifacts recovered from the Seven Site during the 2010 expedition.  We have, naturally, focused on the most interesting ones.  We'll eventually get a complete list up on the website but don't expect to cruise through it and find things that are on the Luke Field inventory.  I wish it was that easy.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 12, 2011, 08:56:25 AM
i know it wouldnt be that easy i just wanted to know all atifacts found, an at quick glance appendix did u find an acutal wheel nut or what the wheel attaches to ?
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 12, 2011, 09:09:34 AM
i know it wouldnt be that easy i just wanted to know all atifacts found, an at quick glance appendix did u find an acutal wheel nut or what the wheel attaches to ?

Say wha???  Are you talking about the legendary "Wheel of Fortune?"   That was a supposed airplane wheel seen on the reef by a marine biologist during a New England Aquarium expedition to Nikumaroro in 2002.  We sent a small team out to find it in 2003 but by then storm activity had apparently carried it away.
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: richie conroy on October 12, 2011, 11:45:40 AM
lol Ric my bad i tend to type how i speak  ???, an that is what i meant yes the wheel hub, also the amount of artifacts yous have found are you sure amelia an fred did not dismantle the plane !!!  :D

didn't realize their was so much i still haven't read  in tighar
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on October 13, 2011, 04:39:20 PM
The TIGHAR site is getting to be like the Smithsonian - no way to see it all.

True.

Quote
Good news is if you are persistent enough to handle all the reading it is easy to find stuff by topic, etc.  Marty's got some good guidance up on this (how to find stuff).  My problem is all the stuff I find on the way to looking something up... like the guy who can't put down a dictionary or encyclapedia  ;D

Ric created two new finding aids.  I've listed them, along with some other suggestions, on this page: "How do I search tighar.org?" (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) 
Title: Re: bbc article
Post by: Don Dollinger on October 14, 2011, 09:42:21 AM
Quote
The TIGHAR site is getting to be like the Smithsonian - no way to see it all.

The penultimate guide to everything Amelia.  Seems most others places you find that has information about Amelia either lists Tighar or has information culled from Tighars archives...

LTM,

Don