TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Celestial choir => Topic started by: JNev on December 18, 2011, 08:49:17 AM
-
Not that the last minutes or hours of NR16020 and her crew haven't been thoroughly examined as they are the subject of at least one major and rational theory of the 'end game': a landing on the reef at Niku.
Because the failure of radio DF at the end of the flight seems to figure so prominently in what happened, consdier an extract from Noonan's own comments about DF reliance and reliability in trans-oceanic flight of the 1930's from Gary LaPook's website "Freddienoonan" (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/noonan-article) - see pdf file there entitled "Noonan's 1936 newspaper article" and subheading "Radio Element" therein for some interesting historic background.
Also see "Fred Noonan's Pan Am Memo" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Reports/NoonanPanAm.pdf) in which he gives a detailed accounting of the application of radio for direction finding means. See especially his closing paragraph which sums nicely his view of the radio at the time (1935). Of note, while radio was an important development with much promise, it clearly had limitations. What FN does provide in sum, however, is that the radio D.F. methodology was quite valuable at 'the end of the line': final homing once a destination had been roughly achieved.
- I suggest that this memo provides insight into FN's expectations of how radio would be applied on the Earhart world flight, especially in locating Howland island at the 'end of the line'.
It is apparent that the success of D.F. as a tool in the manner FN spoke of would depend on several factors:
- Appropriate equipment (and frequencies)
- Capable operator(s)
- A reliable signal
NR16020 suffered in all of these regards. FN was then seemingly called upon to apply all of his many skills to find an alternate solution that NR16020 might finally emerge at Howland island. Among these seem to have been some combination of celestial navigation, an application of dead-reckoning and dependence on reasonable spatial awareness of his environment - the open Pacific and her scattered islands in various directions from where he thought he was located.
From these tools and this picture in FN's mind as derived from charts and experience would be the hope that NR16020 could still find Howland, or failing that, some other landfall (no doubt FN was keenly aware that he was riding in a landplane over an expanse of water...).
Herein also lies much of pro and con - from what the logical approach would be, to what FN would have been capable of and what his background suggests he might have done.
If the celestial skills of FN are to be believed, then FN had at his disposal a means of deriving a reasonable placement somewhere in the Pacific. No question there would have been limits, but to be able to determine something productive seems likely.
That said, back to radio D.F and FN's own thoughts about that resource - obviously celstial nav did have an annoying set of limitations which made the prospect of final homing to a fine point by D.F. signal highly desirable.
So NR16020 was in a 'fix' - without a 'nav fix'. What FN would do AE would surely follow, as would NR16020.
---
I am aware of critical review of the "LOP". In particular, Gary LaPook counts the "sunrise LOP" as "myth" in his article "The myth of the "sunrise" LOP" (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/the-myth-of-the-sunrise-lop) on his site. I find his article thoughtful.
I don't agree that the idea can be dismissed as myth - FN had too many tools and too much experience to have not been able to have used some form of this aspect of celestial navigation quite effecively. Somehow a "line 157 337" (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2002Vol_18/line.pdf) was eventually derived. It would be very odd for that line to just happen to be perpendicular to the sunrise azumith of 67 degrees that day. Timing of the shot seems to be a major point of argument for Gary. Exactly when the base siting was taken seems to matter almost not at all as I've labored through this discussion. What matters most is that some form of this navigation exercise resulted in the placement of a line on the globe according to what we can understand from AE's last transmissions to Itasca that morning.
FN had an accurate time-of-day (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Chater_Report.html) at-hand, so far as we can tell - Chater recounts the time-synch effort prior to departure from Lae in good detail. FN was not careless, except in his trust of AE for management of radio duties and coordination. He ensured that his tools were sharpened and available.
I encourage those who have not done so to read these articles for themselves, and other information on TIGHAR, at Gary's site, and others for themselves.
-
Not that the last minutes or hours of NR16020 and her crew haven't been thoroughly explored already, they are the subject of at least one major and rational theory of the 'end game': a landing on the reef at Niku.
LTM -
Carried over from prior thread:
Re: The Last Takeoff Footage.
« Reply #181 on: Today at 02:50:46 PM »
* ReplyQuote
* ModifyModify
* RemoveRemove
Quote from: Heath Smith on Today at 10:27:47 AM
Gary,
I was looking over your links and found this one:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxmcmVkaWVub29uYW58Z3g6M2I5OTVhMWZmMmI4ZDFiZA&pli=1 (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxmcmVkaWVub29uYW58Z3g6M2I5OTVhMWZmMmI4ZDFiZA&pli=1)
---
Landfalls - The safest way to get to destination
Landfalls are of two types: course line landfalls and speed line landfalls.
Course Line Landfall
The easiest landfall to fly and things being equal, the most accurate. is the course line landfall.
1. Observe a celestial body that gives a course line, line of position. Plot it on your Mercator chart
2. Advance the line of position through destination parallel to the one you just plotted.
3. Fly directly to the line of position through destination and turn toward destination.
4. Stay on this line of position until another line of position shows you to be off course.
5. Then repeat the process. But stay on a line of position through destinatiun. There is no ETA in a landfall other than your best known ground speed.
Speed Line Landfall
Because a course line is at times the more difficult type of line of position to observe, and because sometimes only speed lines are available, you will also fly a speed line landíall.
In this type of landfall fly definitely to one side of destination. When you reach the speed line through destination, turn and fly into destination.
---
It seems to me (with zero expertise in this area) that Course Line Landfall requires being able to measure some celestial body (Sun or stars). This would also imply (to me) that in order for Earhart to end up on the 337/157, they must have had a approach heading 90 degrees from the advanced line of position (Howland) and that they would have definitely had some celestial reference to use. Again, to me, this seems like a risky strategy in pre-dawn conditions, perhaps overcast, where you cannot be certain that you will find any reference. This approach only works assuming you have some reference correct?
The Speed Line Landfall on the other hand requires that you chose a point that is "definitely to one side of destination". This might be used when you may perhaps have only ground speed data that you have recorded since your last verified position correct?
So given the above advice, are we not just debating over the the degree of being "definitely to one side of destination" if a Speed Line Landfall was used?
Thanks in advance.
Good, I'm glad that you took the time to read that excerpt from the 1944 Navigator's Information File. You should also read the other references I posted such as Force Manual 51-40 (1951 and 1973) and Weems (1938) and other reference books available here (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/landfall-procedure). You can also read my analysis here (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-howland-island). From your question I think a little more explanation might be helpful since that excerpt didn't cover some more basic stuff about celestial navigation.
A "course line" LOP is one that runs parallel to your course line (or nearly so) so when you plot it on your chart and compare it with the desired course line you can ascertain if you are on course or off to the left or to the right. Since LOPs plot at right angles to the azimuth to the celestial body, a course line LOP involves observing an object out on the wingtip (or nearly so) and after you do the computations the resulting LOP is parallel to your course line.
A "speed line" LOP is one that plots across your course line at a ninety degree angle (or nearly so) and shows how much progress you have made towards your destination and this allows you to calculate your ground speed and estimate the time you should arrive at your destination. Or. more accurately, the time you will have flown far enough to reach your destination since a "speed line" gives you no information as to whether you are on the correct course to actually hit your destination, you may arrive at the correct distance but be far off to the side.
Since being on course is the most important part about finding the destination, and the exact time of arrival is less important, you must find a way to get on a "course line" that runs through the destination. If there is only one celestial object available for observation you must arrange it so that your final approach is on a course that puts the object out on the wingtip and so the resulting LOP is a "course line." This is the entire purpose of turning off to one side to then intercept an LOP that is a "course line" through the destination.
At night there are a myriad of celestial objects to observe so the "celestial landfall" procedure is used during the day when the only object available is the sun. From the time of sunrise until an hour later at Howland on July 2, 1937, the azimuth of the sun was 067° true. An LOP derived from observing the sun anytime within this one hour period results in the LOP running at right angles to that azimuth making the LOP run 157° and 337°. Noonan had no choice in the chosen course to use to approach Howland, it was dictated by the location of the sun, and they had no control over that. By turning off to the side of the direct course to Howland, when they determined that they had intercepted the LOP they then turned ninety degrees thereby putting the sun out on the wingtip and establishing themselves on the "course line" running through Howland. Noonan would then take additional observations of the sun to ensure they were staying on course to Howland.
Risky, sure, but that's all you've got before LORAN and GPS and this technique was the standard method used throughout WW2 for finding islands. But not as risky as a surface navigator might think, since you are usually on top of the clouds, and even if some clouds are above you they usually do not prevent observations for long periods of time.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prior discussion on this topic can be found on the Last Takeoff Footage (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,533.0.html) thread.
gl
-
...Since being on course is the most important part about finding the destination, and the exact time of arrival is less important, you must find a way to get on a "course line" that runs through the destination. If there is only one celestial object available for observation you must arrange it so that your final approach is on a course that puts the object out on the wingtip and so the resulting LOP is a "course line." This is the entire purpose of turning off to one side to then intercept an LOP that is a "course line" through the destination.
At night there are a myriad of celestial objects to observe so the "celestial landfall" procedure is used during the day when the only object available is the sun. From the time of sunrise until an hour later at Howland on July 2, 1937, the azimuth of the sun was 067° true. An LOP derived from observing the sun anytime within this one hour period results in the LOP running at right angles to that azimuth making the LOP run 157° and 337°. Noonan had no choice in the chosen course to use to approach Howland, it was dictated by the location of the sun, and they had no control over that. By turning off to the side of the direct course to Howland, when they determined that they had intercepted the LOP they then turned ninety degrees thereby putting the sun out on the wingtip and establishing themselves on the "course line" running through Howland. Noonan would then take additional observations of the sun to ensure they were staying on course to Howland.
Risky, sure, but that's all you've got before LORAN and GPS and this technique was the standard method used throughout WW2 for finding islands. But not as risky as a surface navigator might think, since you are usually on top of the clouds, and even if some clouds are above you they usually do not prevent observations for long periods of time...
gl
Very good, Gary - but they did not seem to find Howland.
What do you think happened next?
-
Wow====I'm amazed at the information presented by Jeff and Gary. For me to understand all of this, someone would have to physically show me how it works! Yeah, I'm not real smart. But--I do believe that Fred knew the islands in the pacific "around" his flight path, either by maps, or first hand knowledge from his days at Pan AM. So, I'm thinking that, they couldnt find Howland, and knowing that Niku and some of the other Phoenix Islands were close to the 155/337 LOP in a southeast direction, he knew that if they flew along that line they would encounter land. Hopefully Howland, with its runway and provisions for servicing the Electra. If not, Niku (Gardner), where there was nothing.
When they made Niku, even though he was injured, he may have been able to get a fix on their location. As hs been theorized in another thread, maybe he knew their location and approximate flight time to Howland, or Canton. Maybe they were going to attempt that, and just ran out of time. The tides too the Electra over the reef, and Fred and Amelia were now real castaways.
Well, thats a theory-
Tom
-
can some one tell me if 137/375 would be on a LOP an were would it be on google earth ?
-
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=2101&REC=4
i was just reading this an wondered wether these co ordinates put her near gardner ?
-
can some one tell me if 137/375 would be on a LOP an were would it be on google earth ?
157 and 337 are compass headings.
There are 360 degrees on a compass.
157 is approximately south-southeast.
337 is approximately north-northwest.
157 and 337 are "reciprocals" of each other. 157 is 180 degrees away from 337 and, of course,
337 is 180 degrees away from 157 (I know that is redundant, but still).
(http://moleski.net/mwiki/images/2/2a/Compass_x_240px.png)
There are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn on the face of the earth. From any point on earth, you may head toward 157 or 337 on your compass.
Here is a post with lots of pictures (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,206.msg1549.html#msg1549) that may help you visualize what the numbers mean.
The numbers you give (137/375) are not reciprocals of each other. 137 degrees on a compass is roughly south-east, while 375 is not found on the compass at all. The numbers run from 1 to 360; there is no "375" on the face of a compass.
The last recorded transmission from NR16020 (http://tighar.org/wiki/Last_transmission) says, ""We are on the line 157 337. Will repeat the message. We will repeat this on 6210 kcs. Wait. We are running [on] line [north and south]." Some professional navigators believe that gives a clue about a sighting that FN may have made at dawn. Click on the link to the article about the last recorded transmission from NR16020 (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Last_transmission) to see more pictures that may help you visualize the arguments being conducted here.
-
http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=2101&REC=4
i was just reading this an wondered wether these co ordinates put her near gardner ?
Richie, I had begun a reply to you earlier today that was similar to Marty's when you sent clarification (and the link) in your second message. It made me sure that you already have a good understanding of the specifics of the 157/337 line.
Thanks for the link to that strange handwritten letter -- once I read it, it was clear where you were coming from with those strange numbers, and that they weren't supposed to be reciprocal compass headings for a line of flight.
The person who wrote that letter (it was received at Purdue University 5 days after AE and FN disappeared) seems to have heard or read something about Amelia sending an SOS with those numbers. I can't recall ever reading anywhere else about a radio message with those numbers -- I cannot locate any of the entries in TIGHAR's "Post Loss Radio Signal Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html)" that speak about those numbers.
The writer of the letter seems to have then applied strange numerological skills to interpret them. Each number, she writes, references multiple people by name (AE, FN, GPP) -- including the letter writer herself and her boyfriend! "179 means Marvin Lawrence Arrowsmith, my boyfriend and 16 means Charlotte Moeller my name."
Weird.
-
Richie,
"Where" depends on "time" - that is, the "line" can be placed as a matter of position in the sky of the heavenly body the shot is based on - and where the globe is under you depends on "time" (when the shot was made).
That's a pretty basic description - but Marty and Bruce have already touched on it: 157 - 337 are not coordinates that place you anywhere - they simply define reciprocal headings. Those two headings are derived, in this case, from the sun rising at 67 degrees (90 degrees to the "line"). I believe Gary also has explained that extraction being possible up to about an hour after sunrise. And, in this case - if you do go to "Google Earth" you could run a line through Howland island along the 157 - 337 reciprocal and you'd get the idea I think.
But to your point - the only "where" you can establish depends on "when" you made the shot to establish the line - and then it is only in east-west terms, no north-south comes out of that line. That is another matter. But that's why 157 - 337 does not establish a point you can go to on Google Earth, etc.
LTM -
-
thx for replys will look thru them.
as u all prob know nearest iv been to any plane is to go on holiday :)
i just happened to Google Earhart SOS calls an the link was near the bottom
compared to the knowledge u guys have am pritty much out my depth but am willing to learn
an ye never know if some-think like that letter may lead to some-think
gl :)
-
come across this an thought it might be ov some use
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=3629&DMSCALE=6.25000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&REC=3&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0
-
(http://triggerpit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/russian-cosmonaut-photos.jpg)
http://triggerpit.com/2011/11/06/spectacular-photos-iss-cosmonaut-fyodor-yurchikhin-50-pics/
this image is from the iss if u save it an open in paint or CS5 an invert u get a good image of were we think electra was :)
-
http://triggerpit.com/2011/11/06/spectacular-photos-iss-cosmonaut-fyodor-yurchikhin-50-pics/ (http://triggerpit.com/2011/11/06/spectacular-photos-iss-cosmonaut-fyodor-yurchikhin-50-pics/)
Larger version of same:
(http://i.imgur.com/TA4Oy.jpg)
Very interesting!
-
if u open in paint an zoom in more were we think electra was, i swear u can see outline ov sumthink that was once there an marked the reef
-
Good find, Richie.
-
thx :)
-
Richie, you've made my day - that picture of Niku is spectacular! The tourism bureau should use it to attract visitors (but don't show the coconut crabs, or the daily temperatures, or the complete lack of water, or...)
-
Richue
Outstanding Pic. I swear I see an Electra in there and an oil slick from one. Is there a date for that ISS pic?
-
harry thats wishful thinking :)
what it does tell us though, is that were we think the Electra is, were we thought the reef edge slopes down to 1000 meters to sea bed an out.
its not if am right what Ur seeing is channels maybe a 1000 meters deep running from reef edge into pacific
-
Richie my man---you may have made breakthough. if you blow up the pic, you can see the outline of the Norwich City, and north of that, what looks like deep trough in the reef. It would be interesting to take this satellite pic, and compare it to the subsurface pics from the ROVs on the past expeditions, and see if your trough theory is correct. I bet it does.
Tom
-
Good grief!! Beg, borrow or steal a copy of the negative from the Russian Space Agency or at least have them make a high resolution print from it. They'd be more than happy to sell it, I'm sure! :)
-
You can also see the clearing we did at the 7 site in 2010.
Nice photo, must have been an unusually calm day.
AMCK
-
Great find Richie. The Russian cosmonaut who took that shot did an excellent job.
-
Andrew----did you dive on the ocean side of the reef on your expedition? I recall you dove in the lagoon, but off the reef?
Tom
-
Andrew----did you dive on the ocean side of the reef on your expedition? I recall you dove in the lagoon, but off the reef?
Ric told me at an EPAC meeting years ago that TIGHAR divers have covered the reef face to a depth between 100 to 150 feet. Tom King pegs it at 40 meters in the draft of his report on Niku VI (http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_VI_%282010%29). A lot of diving has been done during the nine expeditions (http://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Expeditions) TIGHAR has sent to Niku.
-
good info Marty---I missed it!
At least we know the electra is below 150 feet
-
At least we know the electra is below 150 feet
Well, saying that we "know" this requires a number of assumptions and qualifications.
What I feel confident in asserting is that the TIGHAR dive teams did not see big Electra parts in the parts of the reef that they searched.
If the Electra washed off the reef in the area that has been searched to a depth of 40 meters or so by divers and by the ROV to a depth of 300 meters (http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_VI_%282010%29#Underwater_Survey), and if the remnants are still more or less in that area of the reef, then we know that the pieces are deeper than that.
To put it the other way around, the remains of the aircraft haven't been found where TIGHAR has looked.
-
Great clarification Marty! After thinking about it, I 'assume' that the Electra is below 150 feet off the reef. Or parts of it anyway. I 'hope' its off the reef, and where the 2012 expedition can find it, along with major stern sections of the Norwich City. I 'hope' its down there too, and assume its on the bottom. Like I posted earlier, I hope the debris for the ship isnt covering parts of the Electra.
I just have wishful thinking, but i know that TIGHAR will find it.
Tom
-
I just have wishful thinking, but i know that TIGHAR will find it.
I'm hoping.
I've bet a lot of time and money on TIGHAR.
But I know that it's a bet against some long odds that can't be precisely quantified. :-\
-
is any 1 ere good wid photoshop to get better image of this pic
have opend it me self an there is deffo sumthink there
-
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/19_Forensicupdate.html
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/16_ForensicImaging/1953b_2.jpg)
bottom left corner open it in photoshop an mess with gradient map to get a better view of it
-
Going back to your original premise on this thread Jeff. We know from Itasca and those on Howland that they did not hear an aircraft that day. That suggests the plane wasn't overhead of Howland. How close do you need to get before your aircraft would be heard? Is there noise from surf action? Noise from all the birds? Has anyone been on Howland who can say? Any notes to the ambient noise factors? I haven't found any yet. Much has been said in this forum about AE and FN being able to spot Howland. Would Fred having been sitting in the copilot seat or in back? Where is the best viewing from the Electra for searching for land?
-
Nice post Jeff. Ric and other expedition members of TIGHAR have stated it was very hard to hear the helicopter over Gardner due to the surf and I presume the wind in the trees. While Gardner had/has a bird population the descriptions put forward by those in charge of Howland make a point of noting the large bird population to the point where they are requested to try to disperse them.
I also wonder about the fact that the runways are marking Howland like an "X" marks the spot. Take a look at the top down view of Marty's latest image.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,560.msg7862.html#msg7862 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,560.msg7862.html#msg7862)
No trees to spoil the view. Seems it should have been obvious if they got close.
Anyone who has gone to the beach or watched a wildlife show knows the birds don't generally sit around quietly. They usually are very loud. They also travel in large formations. I "wonder" if a large flock of white birds might not make Howland look like a cloud at a distance and from a height? Just thinking out loud Marty. Howland is void of trees and has a very low elevation. Did AE know that?
Could our intrepid fliers have been close enough to see Howland but not recognize it? If Jeff is right and they could approach as close as ten miles without being heard then as they travelled the LOP from the south then they may have missed it because they didn't know what to look for. That was bad of me to have a sentence with "if" and "then" in it. Sorry Marty. Just trying to think out of the box. I must go and dig around to see what data supports or dismisses these thoughts.
-
IJD
ref the birds, I have often wondered if that is what attracted AE/FN to Niku? The local bird population leaving the roost to feed.
-
The Birds, a good thought, however the McKean birds might have been returning to their roost and McKean was closer to Howland and not too far from 337/157. That might have caused AE/FN to deviate to McKean. Considering that they were flying between 0900 Howland time and noon, the birds would probably not be returning to land at that time.
The early Polynesians navigated in outrigger canoes to widely separated islands using visual sightings of rising/setting stars and memorized information passed down from previous generations to get them close to their destination and then looked for seabirds returning to their roosting island to guide them in to the island. No sextants, no RDF. Just detailed info about ocean currents, winds, clouds, etc. that was passed down from generation to generation to those showing the talent -and the inclination- to become "navigators". I read somewhere (I forget where) that the angle of suspension and frequency of oscillation of their testicles under their loin cloths played a part in their navigation along a path. I'll have to try to find some documentartion of that.
-
No trees on Howland - and it's markedly different from Gardner in appearance (take a quick look at both via Google Earth aerial views). I don't know that the contrast of runway to base earth there would lend much to making the island more visible.
McKean vs. Gardner and bird considerations? Speculation on my part, but I believe McKean vs. Gardner would depend more on which spotted first than deep analysis by that point in the flight. As to the bird factor, if they were spooked or already on the rise I suspect it would be a case of 'damn the birds, LAND'. Not a lot of options remaining at that point, you see.
The L10E should also have been a bit more capable of handling bird strikes than a biplane. You could always take a devastating shot through the windshield or something, but you don't have the plethora of vulnerably exposed struts and bracing wires that a biplane has - less fear. I guess a big frigate bird might create a hazard to a vertical fin or even the tail plane on the Lockheed, but my guess also is that odds would be that NR16020 could make it to the ground intact even in a flock of sea birds.
LTM -
-
You all know about Flight 1549 landing on the Hudson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imDFSnklB0k[/b]]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imDFSnklB0k (http://[b). Caused by bird strikes.
I go back to another point I have made previously defending a different point. How much did AE and FN know about Howland? Were they looking for a lush tree covered island?
Did they just miss seeing Howland because it's not really what we normally envisage as a south Pacific island?
-
You all know about Flight 1549 landing on the Hudson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imDFSnklB0k[/b]]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imDFSnklB0k (http://[b). Caused by bird strikes.
I go back to another point I have made previously defending a different point. How much did AE and FN know about Howland? Were they looking for a lush tree covered island?
Did they just miss seeing Howland because it's not really what we normally envisage as a south Pacific island?
They had been advised to expect to see a smoke trail and a ship hard not to visualize what to expect them to look like.
gl
-
Yes Gary. That smoke trail seems to be a sticky point in this forum. Only having seen smoke "plumes" in movies I believe it would be a good idea.
-
Certain fan engines do exceptionally poorly with certain types of bird strikes - such was the case in the miracle on the Hudson, I believe.
Not that birds couldn't have made big problems for NR16020. It's just that they also did not necessarily make big problems.
Yes, the elusive smoke trail... *sigh* - here we go again...
But I'll say one thing about the 'smoke trail' - by all AE did have to say that we're aware of, she didn't see it.
LTM -
It's not "here we go again" I just respond to questions as they come up. Sometimes they come up over and over again. It is easier to write a short response than to try to find the old discussion and direct them to it.
gl
-
Yes Gary. That smoke trail seems to be a sticky point in this forum. Only having seen smoke "plumes" in movies I believe it would be a good idea.
I know it's best to take anything a reporter reports with as much salt as your doctor allows in your diet, but the Keane report to Associated Press from the first attempt says, " Shoshone will make smoke screen starting daybreak. Should be visible more than hundred miles" (record #1457 (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_traffic_about_the_Howland_Island_runways)).
Writing about the second attempt (http://tighar.org/wiki/James_Christian_Kamakaiwi), Kamakaiwi noted, "Itasca was letting a big stream of black smoke out, streaming low over the water with the trade [sic]." I presume that he meant "with the trade winds."
On balance, I'd say that the boilermen probably did have some method of making large volumes of smoke for long periods of time.