TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => News, Views, Books, Archival Data & Interviews on AE => Topic started by: Andreas Badertscher on January 27, 2012, 03:32:06 AM
-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4-NPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LFUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1675,5918938&dq=gardner+island&hl=en
At the end it's mentioned that post loss radio messages have been received...
-
Another great read - thanks Andreas!
It really is amazing how well news traveled then. I guess the correspondents being aboard ship, etc. really got it done. We know of them from the facts of the ships and records that were made, but it's really cool to read the 'citizen's end' of the effort as given at the time.
LTM -
-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4-NPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LFUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1675,5918938&dq=gardner+island&hl=en
At the end it's mentioned that post loss radio messages have been received...
That's very interesting Andreas, the weather in the area during the search was not helping the searchers at all. Was it still bad when they overflew Gardner Island? Enough to hide the plane on the reef?
Jeff
-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4-NPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LFUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1675,5918938&dq=gardner+island&hl=en
At the end it's mentioned that post loss radio messages have been received...
That's very interesting Andreas, the weather in the area during the search was not helping the searchers at all. Was it still bad when they overflew Gardner Island? Enough to hide the plane on the reef?
Jeff
See this photo. http://tighar.org/wiki/Lt._John_O._Lambrecht#The_Lambrecht_Photo
This is reported in Ameliapedia as taken over Gardiner the day of the search. I don't think a plane could be hidden if it was on land at this time.
-
Was it still bad when they overflew Gardner Island?
The weather was not "bad" during the search. The weather was typical for that area - scattered cumulus clouds at about 2,000 feet and occasional widely-scattered rain squalls. No big deal.
-
Was it still bad when they overflew Gardner Island?
The weather was not "bad" during the search. The weather was typical for that area - scattered cumulus clouds at about 2,000 feet and occasional widely-scattered rain squalls. No big deal.
You're absolutely right Ric. The Associated Press report doesn't reflect the conditions the same as the Colorado report into the search. Nice to know that weather reports and forecasts for the same place were just as varied then as they are now. Some things never change! According to the BBC weather report today I should be fitting snow shoes to get about today, not one flake! :)
-
Was it still bad when they overflew Gardner Island?
The weather was not "bad" during the search. The weather was typical for that area - scattered cumulus clouds at about 2,000 feet and occasional widely-scattered rain squalls. No big deal.
A picture taken during the over-flight (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht_Photo.html) tends to underscore Ric's statement.
You'll find that TIGHAR has, right here on this site and searchable (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,454.0.html), a wealth of material to help answer many of the questions that occur to us on this stuff - it amounts to one incredibly excellent research library.
LTM -
-
also intresting....
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PEosAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yMoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7052,719990&dq=earhart+gardner&hl=en
-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lSItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gaQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1506,234730&dq=earhart+gardner&hl=en
Plane carried a machine for making drinking water....
-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lSItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gaQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1506,234730&dq=earhart+gardner&hl=en
Plane carried a machine for making drinking water....
Don't believe everything you read in the papers - especially about Amelia Earhart. No source is cited for that information and a machine "to vaporize drinking water from the ocean" is not mentioned elsewhere in the literature. There was no such machine listed in the Luke Field inventory. Still, it would be interesting to investigate what was available in 1937.
-
:) I was just quoting, not believing...
But you are right about that for sure!
-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lSItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gaQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1506,234730&dq=earhart+gardner&hl=en
Plane carried a machine for making drinking water....
Don't believe everything you read in the papers - especially about Amelia Earhart. No source is cited for that information and a machine "to vaporize drinking water from the ocean" is not mentioned elsewhere in the literature. There was no such machine listed in the Luke Field inventory. Still, it would be interesting to investigate what was available in 1937.
Hi Ric/Andreas,
In a July 9th Los Angeles Times newspaper article, Mantz is quoted as saying the 'water condenser' was purposefully left behind in Miami in exchange for a as well as a hand-cranked radio generator. So we at least know that such a 'machine' was available in 1937. It looks like the Luke Field inventory is not a perfect one-for-one match for what was on the 2nd flight.
Perhaps AE had the 'water condenser' shipped to Port Darwin in the same manner as the parachutes. Just no documentation to support it. Just saying it looks like we can't confirm nor deny the existance of such a water machine. Nor can we conclusively say that it was or was not on the trip to Howland.
Here is the link to previous post. Click HERE (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,147.msg678.html#msg678).
-
In a July 9th Los Angeles Times newspaper article, Mantz is quoted as saying the 'water condenser' was purposefully left behind in Miami in exchange for a hand-cranked radio generator.
But Mantz wasn't in Miami. Any information he had about what was aboard the plane when it left Miami must have come second hand later from Putnam or mechanic McKneeley.
This is the first I've heard of Mantz making such a statement. Do you have a link to the Los Angeles Times article? The question of whether there was a hand-cranked generator aboard the aircraft is an important one. In a July 5, 1937 New York Herald Tribune article Mantz is quoted as saying, "“She has no hand-crank aboard to generate power.”
-
This is the first I've heard of Mantz making such a statement. Do you have a link to the Los Angeles Times article?
I didn't mean to imply that Mantz was in Miami. Only that he was qutoed referring to Miami.
Sorry, our posts crossed paths. The link to the previous post is HERE (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,147.msg678.html#msg678). I think the article is copyright only availble for $$$. No direct link.
From the page that Cynthia sent me:
Los Angeles Times
Friday Morning
9 July 1937
Part I, p. 2
Mantz Continues to Hope for Safety of Aviatrix
... Mantz, who personally supervised much of the technical preparations for the flyer's second attempt to gird the globe by air, disclosed for the first time that the expedition carried no water condenser. "It ws left behind," he said. "I learned yesterday that 'A.E.' deposited both the machine that manufactures water out of human breath and her hand-crank generator for the radio somewhere along her route from Miami to New Guinea. ...
-
Mantz Continues to Hope for Safety of Aviatrix
... Mantz, who personally supervised much of the technical preparations for the flyer's second attempt to gird the globe by air, disclosed for the first time that the expedition carried no water condenser. "It ws left behind," he said. "I learned yesterday that 'A.E.' deposited both the machine that manufactures water out of human breath and her hand-crank generator for the radio somewhere along her route from Miami to New Guinea. ...
Now THAT makes sense. No water condenser. No hand-cranked generator. Thanks.
-
Now THAT makes sense. No water condenser. No hand-cranked generator. Thanks.
You're welcome. Sorry for the confusion regarding the context of my post.
I was just trying to demsytify the fact the a water vaporizing machine was even possible in 1937. As opposed to hyped-up newspaper articles. It appears that such a machine was possible and that AE was actually in possesion of one. That itself seems important to know.
What's interesting about this take-away is that it starts to suggest a pattern of her willingness to abandon resuce/survival gear in lieu of other reasoning. I feel this pattern of behavior is helpful to better understand her thoughts towards her decision(s) regarding parachutes in the other thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.0.html).
-
just thought i would post this as i come across it before :)
http://www.ameliaearhartmuseum.org/AmeliaEarhart/NewsClips/clip370615.htm
C.S.T
is that central summer time ?
-
Richie
Good link. Allows us to connect the times at various places along the trip to Central Standard Time (CST) and from that to other time zones here in the states in 1937 and hence to Greenwich Civil Time (GCT).
-
central standard time
on it like a car bonnet :D
-
Maybe it's just me, but I don't equate the words "water condenser" to a water machine.
To me, a "water condenser" would consist of an inverted funnel shaped object fitted with a small diameter coil of hollow pipe that could be placed over a container of ocean water. the water could then be boiled and the vapor condensed in the coils where it would Then drip out of the coil and into another container. Voila, fresh water. I guess it could be called a water machine.
Nowadays we do it by reverse osmosis, whatever that might be.
-
water condenser = converting contaminated water to consumable water like they do on iss
water machine = fresh water out of either bottles or water cooler etc
-
Maybe it's just me, but I don't equate the words "water condenser" to a water machine.
I think the term 'machine' was being used rather loosely back then. Almost everything was a 'machine' - even aeroplanes...
I found it interesting that one article referred to the water machine as a "water out of human breath" and another article as a "water from the ocean". Clearly two different sources. I wonder how such a device really worked. I suppose the ocean water suggestion you mention would make much more sense.
It seems pretty clear that some kind of water making device was selected for the 2nd attempt. Then abandoned for unknown reasons. The article quotes Mantz as stating they were 'deposited' somewhere between Miami and New Guinea.
-
i have read in a purdue telegram that they took all survival gear off as there was doted posts along the way so would have been inpossible to get lost but can i find it NO
???
always the same :)
-
water condenser = converting contaminated water to consumable water like they do on iss
water machine = fresh water out of either bottles or water cooler etc
Solar stills were available during WW2 but they may have been available in 1937. I am attaching the instructions that came with my solar still kit of three stills, the paper has deteriorated over the years. The stills are about the size of basketballs.
gl
-
water condenser = converting contaminated water to consumable water like they do on iss
water machine = fresh water out of either bottles or water cooler etc
Solar stills were available during WW2 but they may have been available in 1937. I am attaching the instructions that came with my solar still kit of three stills, the paper has deteriorated over the years. The stills are about the size of basketballs.
gl
Newspapers, as well as Mantz's own words already mention the water machine. So we have a reasonable level of certainty that one already existed in 1937. Furthermore, he (Mantz) states that it was on the airplane and 'deposited' somewhere between Miami and Lae. So we even know it was on the Electra for a good portion of the trip. If it was deposited in Lae, along with all the other survival gear, then it is also reasonable to suggest that the parachutes (already enroute) were left behind too. Why would she abandon water machine, hand-cranked radio, and other types of gear, but not the parachutes?
-
water condenser = converting contaminated water to consumable water like they do on iss
water machine = fresh water out of either bottles or water cooler etc
Solar stills were available during WW2 but they may have been available in 1937. I am attaching the instructions that came with my solar still kit of three stills, the paper has deteriorated over the years. The stills are about the size of basketballs when inflated.
gl
I have attached two photos of my solar distillation kit which consists of three inflatable stills, a plastic water collection bottle and some line to tie the stills together and to the life raft. A description of their use is found in Air Force Manual AFM 64-5, Survival, dated 1961 and also in Army Field Manual FM 21-76, Survival, dated 1986 so they were in use for quite some time. The whole thing weighs a little more than four pounds. Each inflatable still, when packed up, is six by six inches by 2 inches thick and weighs one pound, two point six ounces. So if Amelia had this type of kit along it wouldn't make much sense to leave it behind considering how light and compact it is.
AND, the Air Force Manual contains instructions on how to use a parachute to obtain DRINKING WATER! First you build a tripod out of sticks tied together with parachute cord. Then you make a pouch out of a piece of parachute material and suspend it, open end up, from the tripod and place a container below it. Then you build a small fire nearby and then you fill the pouch with snow.......oh.......never mind.
gl
-
water condenser = converting contaminated water to consumable water like they do on iss
water machine = fresh water out of either bottles or water cooler etc
Solar stills were available during WW2 but they may have been available in 1937. I am attaching the instructions that came with my solar still kit of three stills, the paper has deteriorated over the years. The stills are about the size of basketballs.
gl
Emergency solar stills are still being made (http://www.landfallnavigation.com/memss.html?cmp=froogle&kw=memss&utm_source=memss&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=froogle).
The only thing that I would call a "water machine" is this emergency water maker (http://www.landfallnavigation.com/-sas07.html), but these didn't come along until about fifteen years ago. They work by reverse osmosis and the hand pump supplies the very high pressure to force the water through the semi-permeable membrane that doesn't allow the salt molecules to get through, they're too big. This is the same principle used with much larger water makers used on boats and ships.
gl
-
water condenser = converting contaminated water to consumable water like they do on iss
water machine = fresh water out of either bottles or water cooler etc
Solar stills were available during WW2 but they may have been available in 1937. I am attaching the instructions that came with my solar still kit of three stills, the paper has deteriorated over the years. The stills are about the size of basketballs.
gl
Newspapers, as well as Mantz's own words already mention the water machine. So we have a reasonable level of certainty that one already existed in 1937. Furthermore, he (Mantz) states that it was on the airplane and 'deposited' somewhere between Miami and Lae. So we even know it was on the Electra for a good portion of the trip. If it was deposited in Lae, along with all the other survival gear, then it is also reasonable to suggest that the parachutes (already enroute) were left behind too. Why would she abandon water machine, hand-cranked radio, and other types of gear, but not the parachutes?
in the image i have attached, at bottom it says weather in favour of either plane or emergency boat staying afloat ?
yet people suggest there weren't one
so it is quite easy to think they discarded water machine at lae
-
i have spent all day today looking for telegram were amelia states they have removed all survival gear food etc to minimize weight, but aint found it yet
as got side tracked wid the footy an watchin breaking news that whitney houston had died so sad R.I.P
but i will find it :)
-
Going back to my basic training drinking water was drummed into us as being THE major priority in survival situations. It is possible to survive without food for longer than you would expect but, water is needed to keep the bodys vital organs and functions ticking over.Renal failure kicks in first causing your blood eloctrolyte levels to go pear shaped leading to loss of concentration and confusion which affects your ability to do and think straight. Dehydration kills before malnutrition even gets a look in. That said, the environment on Gardner island doesn't lend itself easily to getting said potable water. You would need to search out the part of the island that has the highest humidity levels i.e. away from sea breezes, to stand any chance of gaining water from airborne water droplets. Coconuts? If you can find them on the ground and, get them open but, don't rely on them for too long they don't do your digestive system any good after prolonged consumption. Rain! If it does, collect more than you will ever need but, you'll need something to collect it in and, protect it thereafter from evaporation, a cup or two won't last 10 minutes. You would need a couple of jerry cans full to tide you over to the next rain fall or, to cover your efforts in water collection from airborne water droplet collection, coconut harvesting etc...
Of course don't forget once dehydration has set in all this becomes impossible
IMHO and experience
Jeff
-
Jeff
Well said.
Order of need
Oxygen, without it you're gon in a matter of minutes
Water, without it you're gone in a matter of days
Food, without it you're gone in a matter of weeks.
If you're in a harsh environment, shelter and clothing.
Look up the NASA survival test, Lost On The Moon it's very interesting
-
Well now----all of this talk of a 'water machine" has me thinking :o that someone had the forethought to consider that the Electra may not make it to one of the the destinations, and AE & fred would need to go into survival mode, as I think Gary eluded to. Obviously, for someone to have gone to the trouble, there must have been a reason. HUM-----. i dont recall any water machines on navy of AAf planes that were flying over the Pacific-----and they would have had alot better chance to have needed survival 'gear"---considering there was a war going on.
Does any one here see anything alittle strange about that? What does something like that weigh?
Tom
-
Well now----all of this talk of a 'water machine" has me thinking :o that someone had the forethought to consider that the Electra may not make it to one of the the destinations, and AE & fred would need to go into survival mode, as I think Gary eluded to. Obviously, for someone to have gone to the trouble, there must have been a reason. HUM-----. i dont recall any water machines on navy of AAf planes that were flying over the Pacific-----and they would have had alot better chance to have needed survival 'gear"---considering there was a war going on.
Does any one here see anything alittle strange about that? What does something like that weigh?
Tom
They did have inflatable solar stills.
gl
-
Does any one here see anything alittle strange about that? What does something like that weigh?
Tom
Very interesting....
Reading between the lines are you saying the survival gear would have been more 'politcally' motivated as opposed to 'naturally' motivated?
I too find it interesting that she carried much of the survival gear for the entire trip then 'deposited' in Lae? Huh - right before the longest journey over open-water? Was there something inherently more dangerous flying over foreign countries than there was over open water?
-
Actually Erik--I was thinking the opposite way---that she expected to need the 'water machine' because of missing Howland.
Yep I'm certifiably crazy now :o
Tom
-
Well... that's what I would have originally thought too. But now we have the conundrum of why she intentionally 'depositied' it just before the open-water trip. Remember, the article also says she left behind a hand-cranked radio too. Unless there was a communication gaffe, and she actually took these items with her.
-
Well... that's what I would have originally thought too. But now we have the conundrum of why she intentionally 'depositied' it just before the open-water trip. Remember, the article also says she left behind a hand-cranked radio too. Unless there was a communication gaffe, and she actually took these items with her.
Could be that if they missed howland they were f++++d anyway then why bother with heavy survival stuff when they needed fuel?
-
If the Niku 'hypo' is correct, they needed survival gear more than they needed fuel. If the crash-n-sank 'hypo' is correct, they needed fuel more than they needed survival gear. Sucks that in the end they ended up needing both. :'(
-
And if the Nips got 'em, they didn't need either. Hmmm
-
Why no plan B in the remote chance that they miss Howland? An alternative strategy is always useful even if not needed.
Jeff
-
Jeff
AE wasn't the sharpest knife in the utensil drawer and prolly didn't even think about "what If" she missed Howland.
I mean, after she failed to get Lae on her RDF test during a test flight on the day before the takeoff, she "assumed" that the problem was that she was too close to the station to get a null. (see the Chater report) Yet, she took off anyway.
As a pilot with 46 hours of simulated instrument training time I can only shake my head over that decision.
-
Jeff
AE wasn't the sharpest knife in the utensil drawer and prolly didn't even think about "what If" she missed Howland.
I mean, after she failed to get Lae on her RDF test during a test flight on the day before the takeoff, she "assumed" that the problem was that she was too close to the station to get a null. (see the Chater report) Yet, she took off anyway.
As a pilot with 46 hours of simulated instrument training time I can only shake my head over that decision.
I don't know if you ever did NDB approaches utilizing the ADF. If you did, then you know that the ADF (same as AE's RDF) works directly over the transmitting antenna, you can't get "too close."
gl
-
Gary
Yeppers, many NDBs and just loved seeing that ADF needle go from nose-on to tail position when passing over the station and using it as an initial or final approach point.. Right, can never get too close.
Sounds to me as if she didn't have her unit tuned to the proper frequency and failed to "identify" it properly before trying to find a null.
-
Jeff
AE wasn't the sharpest knife in the utensil drawer and prolly didn't even think about "what If" she missed Howland.
I mean, after she failed to get Lae on her RDF test during a test flight on the day before the takeoff, she "assumed" that the problem was that she was too close to the station to get a null. (see the Chater report) Yet, she took off anyway.
As a pilot with 46 hours of simulated instrument training time I can only shake my head over that decision.
an 75 years later if not more, u r shaking Ur head at her decision, given the fact that neither her, or her plane have been positively identified or recovered
an given the technology of today we still search for smoking gun evidence, also u say u have i.e 46 hours of simulated instrument training
have u achieved anything to note... i.e broke records or flew round the world on a path not done before
i mean no disrespect but i find u judging Amelia on today's technology rather sad
i really mean this now. i respect Ric, Martin, Gary, u harry, an every one else on Tighar
so i think u shud judge Amelia for her time period an not our's :)
-
an before anyone as a go at me
harry said AE wasn't the sharpest knife in the utensil drawer
so what does that say about us who cant find her ?
:)
-
I thought the ADF was for listening to my favorite tunes. Of course my flying days were way before Ipods and earbuds. ;D
Randy
-
Raandy
Yeppers, tune tat baby in for the nearest AM or FM station and cruise right at it or away from it.
-
For the non-pilot types among us
NDB equals Non Directional Beacon, a radio wave being emmitted in a 360 degree pattern around the Antenna. RDF equals RadioDirection Finder which used a loop antenna that could be rotated manually such that when the loop was at 90 degrees from the direction to the station a current in a location on the loop was cancelled by the current in the loop exactly opposite,thus causing a null, i.e. no signal. An indicator in the cockpit pointed at the station antenna. The pilot could then alter course , taking bearings with the RDF until the indicator pointed in the nose direction meaning that you are flying to the station antenna.
-
The ADF equals an Auomatic Direction Finder that took care of all the rotating and showed the direction to the station antenna on a dial readout on the instrument panel Pilot just turned the plane until the needle pointed to zero, i.e. the nose position. (Ya fly the plane in the direction of the needle relative to the nose position, it's called "flying the needle".
Ah so, Clever these electron types 8)
-
Raandy
Yeppers, tune tat baby in for the nearest AM or FM station and cruise right at it or away from it.
Only AM stations work with the ADF and RDF.
gl
-
Gary
Thanks, GL. You are, of course as usual, correct in that. My bad
-
And neither will indicate whether you are going toward or away from the station without the "sense antenna".
-
and as we've seen----there were communication breakdowns with the flight-------Ou would think that on a leg where communication was very important that she might have wanted a backup hand crank radio, or some other way of "talking". Even a morse key just making taps would be better than nothing---epecially since she guessed that Itasca would be looking for her. (When you go hiking or camping in the wild, do you have a whistle?)
-
Woody
Gary (GL) pointed out in a previous post (sorry that I don't remember the post location or number) that the AE RDF didn't have the forward/backward anomoly/
Certainly, no plane with an ADF that I ever flew (1977 on) had that problem. I can't imagine trying to fly a NDB non-precision approach in weather and trying to figger out whether the station is in front of me or behind me. just another complication that isn't needed at a critical time.
-
You got that right. If I remember correctly, AE was to have been tested for instrument flight before the arround the world attempt but she did not do so. I think that would have included the use of radio navigation. I think that her comment about being too close to the station to detect the null at Lae may have been because of her limited knowledgeof radio navigation. In the states at that time the airways consisted of radio range stations that laid out the "highways in the sky". There was a"cone of silence" over these stations. See this reference for a very brief explanation of this system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_navigation This site has several references for more detailed explanations.
For you younger guys who have only flown with the newer ADF's with digital tuners, when I started flying the ADF's had what was called a "coffee grinder" tuner. You had to manually tune in and identify the station using the sense antenna and switch to the loop when you were close enough for the loop to work. Great fun.
-
Guys-----we cant think like its 2012-----or 1977. We have to take a time machine BACK to 1937---using their technology. Dark ages I know, but using todays stuff isnt going to figure out what SHE did.
As for Fred---take out the GPS, the TACAN, the XM weather, oh and the radio, and then navigate over the open ocean, under the clouds, and see how close YOU come to Howland. If you are that good, maybe we should buy the Electra that was on Ebay, outfit it EXACTLY like NR16020, and have the same radio communication problems that they had, and fly under similar conditions. Whose game? Harry? Gary? Not me---
Perhaps the best quote in Fred Goerners book came from Paul Mantz (supposedly)---the lae-Howland leg, "would like taking off fom my field here in Burbank, flying all nite with nothing to navigate by, calculate your drift, or take a star shot, and try to land on the 18 fairway on a golf course in New Jersey". I remember as a young man reading that than thought it was crazy.
Knowing what I know now------with all the problems, it was suicidal.
How many of you pilots out there fly a good distance without radio contact to someone". Oh yeah---you can nav by the ground and a map. Ok====try New York to the Virgin Islands---cloudy, nitetime, with maufunctioning radio, with just a compass. Anyone up for that?
Lets think about it-------
Tom
-
Richie
Has nothing to do with then or now. Before we deify AE consider this:
1. First woman to fly to 14,000 feet.
I don't know how she flew it but here's how I would: Take off and "trim" my elevator (yes, they had elevator trim capabilities in 1930's) to a climb of. say, 1,000 feet per minute and sit back and monitor my progress for 14 minutes, voila 14,000 feet. a record. Smile for the camera. I wonder whether she had oxtgen along for the last 5 minutes?
If I couldn't climb straight ahead for 14 minutes, then I would also"trim" my ailerons for a standard rate turn (360 degrees in 2 minutes) and sit back and monitor my progress as I "spiraled" up to 14,000 feet.
-
Richie (cont'd)
2. First woman to fly the Atlantic
She was a passenger, nuff said She smiled for the cameras
3. First woman to fly from Hawaii to Oakland.
Let;s see, ya takeoff and climb to cruise altitude, pointing your plane East and when ya see that huge land mass(the North American continent) ya look for the SF Bay and land at Oakland. Remmember to smile for the cameras.
-
Tom
As far as your question about a whistle? Yes, when I was younger and a Scout Leader (5 years, and 5 more as an Assstant Leader) I had a Whistle at all times not just on hikes and campouts.
And when I was White Water canoeing on the wild rivers of Wiscosin and Missouri I also had my Whistle, and a lot of other "survival" gear just in case.
And when I went wilderness fishing/canoeing in Northern Ontario and Manitoba and Saskatchewan I always carried my trusty Whistle and the appropriate gear and "survival" gear, just in case.
-
me too---5 years as Scout Leader--Wood Badge etc. NEVER would let anyone go anywhere without their whistles. Anoying though sometimes---sounded like the British troop in 'Bridge on the river Kwai"
-
Richie (cont'd)
2. First woman to fly the Atlantic
She was a passenger, nuff said She smiled for the cameras
3. First woman to fly from Hawaii to Oakland.
Let;s see, ya takeoff and climb to cruise altitude, pointing your plane East and when ya see that huge land mass(the North American continent) ya look for the SF Bay and land at Oakland. Remmember to smile for the cameras.
Harry, you make it sound soooo easy! So why did nobody else make it first? Back then I would not have tried it even as a passenger or tried to fly across the pacific in that small plane.
But she was the first woman on her own? She flew across the atlantic alone!
-
Andreas
Someone else did do it. I believe he did it in 1927. His name was Charles Lindbergh.
-
Tom
Wood Badge, eh. Congratulations on that accomplishment! I went thru the WB field process and got about half way thru the "Thesis" process when I changed jobs and the work pressure was such that I never got back to it. A real regret.
-
yeah a great experience. ive since 'retired', but still apply some of the stuff.
Highly recommend it.
-
Andreas
Someone else did do it. I believe he did it in 1927. His name was Charles Lindbergh.
REALLY???? Wow.
I think he was a male. And she was a woman. Get it?
Either way. It was a great adventure and you could have been killed very easely doing it. So what's your point? It was also easy for Armstrong. Just sit down in that rocket, point it to the moon and once you get there just open the door, climb down and make that footprint for history. Easy peasy.
-
I on't know how easy it was for Neil Armstrong sitting up there on top of that thing, But I suppose we could ask him, he accomplshed the goal. Where's AE?
-
I on't know how easy it was for Neil Armstrong sitting up there on top of that thing, But I suppose we could ask him, he accomplshed the goal. Where's AE?
She landed succesfully in Ireland.
That's it for me.
BTW: that Armstrong comment was sarcasm from my side related to your former post.
-
Andreas
Male/female I don't think an airplane flies any differently for a female than it does for a male. What's your point?
And I don't think that you seriously want us to equate AE's training in, preparation for, and aviation accomplishments at the stage of development of the aviatiion field at her time with those of Armstrong's
-
quick question
if Earhart's receiving antenna had stayed intact an she was able to communicate instrument wise
would she be able to ?
i have read in a couple places that AE an FN had to pass notes to each other, even when sat together in cockpit due to noise of engine's
so would she be able to, hear itasca radiomen talk back to her over the noise of engines with head phones on ?
based on 1937 technology ?
-
For you younger guys who have only flown with the newer ADF's with digital tuners, when I started flying the ADF's had what was called a "coffee grinder" tuner. You had to manually tune in and identify the station using the sense antenna and switch to the loop when you were close enough for the loop to work. Great fun.
Do you remember "whistle stop" tuning on your Superhomer?
gl
-
i mean no disrespect but i find u judging Amelia on today's technology rather sad
i really mean this now. i respect Ric, Martin, Gary, u harry, an every one else on Tighar
so i think u shud judge Amelia for her time period an not our's :)
I don't judge Earhart's performance against today's standards, I don't even judge her against the 1937 standards. I judge her performance against the standard she set for herself. When she was planning the flight, she and her advisers identified a need for a competent radio operator for the flight yet when Manning dropped out she ignored her own prior planning and did not look for another radio operator. Or, with the three months she had available, she could have learned radio operation and Morse code to an acceptable level of proficiency. She did neither. Without the radio she put all her eggs in one basket and, for some unknown reason, the celestial navigation did not work so they both died. She didn't even meet her own standard.
gl
-
Guys-----we cant think like its 2012-----or 1977. We have to take a time machine BACK to 1937---using their technology. Dark ages I know, but using todays stuff isnt going to figure out what SHE did.
As for Fred---take out the GPS, the TACAN, the XM weather, oh and the radio, and then navigate over the open ocean, under the clouds, and see how close YOU come to Howland. If you are that good, maybe we should buy the Electra that was on Ebay, outfit it EXACTLY like NR16020, and have the same radio communication problems that they had, and fly under similar conditions. Whose game? Harry? Gary? Not me---
Perhaps the best quote in Fred Goerners book came from Paul Mantz (supposedly)---the lae-Howland leg, "would like taking off fom my field here in Burbank, flying all nite with nothing to navigate by, calculate your drift, or take a star shot, and try to land on the 18 fairway on a golf course in New Jersey". I remember as a young man reading that than thought it was crazy.
Knowing what I know now------with all the problems, it was suicidal.
How many of you pilots out there fly a good distance without radio contact to someone". Oh yeah---you can nav by the ground and a map. Ok====try New York to the Virgin Islands---cloudy, nitetime, with maufunctioning radio, with just a compass. Anyone up for that?
Lets think about it-------
Tom
Sure, why not? I've got the Pioneer octant and the Mk II drift meter and the charts and nav tables already so if you'll just come up with the plane we can do it together. We can't do it on July, 2, 2012 because the moon will not be close to the position it was at in 1937 so it would be better to go on June 12th when it will be fairly close to the 1937 position. It would be even better to go on July 1, 2013 when the moon will be very close to the 1937 position. Of course it has been done already. In 1967 Ann Pelegreno and her navigator, Bill Polhemus, used celestial navigation to find Howland while flying in an Electra.
gl
-
And neither [RDF or ADF] will indicate whether you are going toward or away from the station without the "sense antenna".
This comes up all the time, the erroneous idea that you can't resolve the "180 degree ambiguity" without a sense antenna. You can, it is easy, and every pilot knows how to do it. Let's say Earhart has been traveling directly towards Howland and listening for the "A's" (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah......) from Itasca. She is now about 200 NM from Howland according to Noonan's dead reckoning, about 1730 Z. She starts to hear them but they are still to weak for her to get a minimum. Now it is 1745 Z and the signal is loud enough for her to get a minimum. She gets two minimums, one with the loop indicator 20° to the right of the nose and the second one at 20° to the left of the tail. Which is the correct bearing? Well, duh, the one in front of the plane is the only possible correct bearing because for the bearing behind the plane to be correct they would have had to have sneaked past the Itasca without hearing anything. The DR shows them approximately 170 NM short of the Itasca so we know this isn't the case so, for this scenario, there is no ambiguity to resolve. So just turn 20° to the right, the bearing is then right on the nose and you are on your way directly towards the Itasca. This is the most likely scenario for Earhart's approach to Howland.
But what if when you first get a null, the bearings are straight out to the side, over the wingtips? Then you do have an ambiguity since you might have missed the island either to the right or to the left so either bearing could be the correct one. Oh! what to do?
It's simple, just continue straight ahead. The bearings will change and the correct one will swing towards the tail. The incorrect one will swing towards the nose. Here is an analogy that might help you remember this. Let's say you are driving your car down the street and you see a really hot chick standing on the sidewalk on the other side of the street, about 45° degrees to your left. Which way does you head swing to follow her as you drive by? It swings counterclockwise, to the left, towards her tail.
If the original bearing is somewhere in between then just turn the plane to place the bearings over the wingtips, hold that heading for a few minutes and look for the one that swings towards the tail.
gl
-
Richie
I'm not judging AE on 2012 standards, nor even 1977 standards under which I learned to fly.
I'm suggesting that her actions did mot meet the standards of logic and common sense. Examples
1. Morse Code was the accepted standard for communications in 1937, yet AE couldn't send/receive it at even a basic level and didn't have a Morse key to send code at any level. She could only send by keying the mike.
2. By taking the trailing wire antenna off for weight saving reasons or cause it took time to wind it in and out eleminated any chance of sending a signal at a frequency that could be tracked by the Itasca/Howland RDF, or so I understand it.
-
Richie cont'd
3. When she ttested her RDF the day before she took off, it didn't work or maybe she din't work it properly (see the Chater Report). Either way,under any standards of logic or common sense, it immediately goes to an radio expert for analysis and repair and takeoff gets delayed until it's fixed and/or she receives proper instruction on its correct use. After all, it was their primary means of finding Howland from 200 miles out. But no, she takes off anyway.
Hey, that's the ticket, we prolly won't be able to find them with our RDF and they prolly won't be able to find us with their RDF, but let's kick the tires and light the fires and go anyway. That's why I shake my head.
-
very good points harry and gary
so she basically was sole reliant on noonans navigational skill's an RDF
now does Earhart's RDF Loop antenna, work the same way as the one itasca had on howland island
I.E you had to rotate it left or right to pick up a signal ?
an that would mean that the loop antenna had to be "dead centre" to plane for it to work properly ?
-
very good points harry and gary
so she basically was sole reliant on noonans navigational skill's an RDF
now does Earhart's RDF Loop antenna, work the same way as the one itasca had on howland island
I.E you had to rotate it left or right to pick up a signal ?
an that would mean that the loop antenna had to be "dead centre" to plane for it to work properly ?
dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
What do you think the bearing is?
gl
-
ok---I'm going to give myself another certificate for being crazy----
now if YOU were going to fly 1/2 way across the pacific, and radio communication was paramount to your survival, wouldnt you be more prepared? Its almost like her complacency was on purpose. Arrogant, maybe, purposeful, maybe too. What if----all those naysayers that said she got herslf 'lost' to enable the Navy to do a search was 1/2 true? She could have figured that she would be found and everything would be ok, after a search of the Gilberts and Marshalls was done. That theory doesnt work either, because she had no provisions for hanging out on Niku for several weeks. Maybe that plan fell apart when Fred was injured in the landing. Another mystery inside a mystery inside another mystery---
-
For you younger guys who have only flown with the newer ADF's with digital tuners, when I started flying the ADF's had what was called a "coffee grinder" tuner. You had to manually tune in and identify the station using the sense antenna and switch to the loop when you were close enough for the loop to work. Great fun.
Do you remember "whistle stop" tuning on your Superhomer?
I never had to do that myself but I remember my uncle doing it while I was flying with him.
gl
-
Gary, I am still trying to figure out this system. As I was trying to say, while I never used the civilian model you listed here I did use the same type system in Army flight school when we trained in the L-19. By the time I got out to regular units the comm sets were digital but the old type ADF's stayed around for many more years.
-
And neither [RDF or ADF] will indicate whether you are going toward or away from the station without the "sense antenna".
This comes up all the time, the erroneous idea that you can't resolve the "180 degree ambiguity" without a sense antenna. You can, it is easy, and every pilot knows how to do it. Let's say Earhart has been traveling directly towards Howland and listening for the "A's" (dit dah, dit dah, dit dah......) from Itasca. She is now about 200 NM from Howland according to Noonan's dead reckoning, about 1730 Z. She starts to hear them but they are still to weak for her to get a minimum. Now it is 1745 Z and the signal is loud enough for her to get a minimum. She gets two minimums, one with the loop indicator 20° to the right of the nose and the second one at 20° to the left of the tail. Which is the correct bearing? Well, duh, the one in front of the plane is the only possible correct bearing because for the bearing behind the plane to be correct they would have had to have sneaked past the Itasca without hearing anything. The DR shows them approximately 170 NM short of the Itasca so we know this isn't the case so, for this scenario, there is no ambiguity to resolve. So just turn 20° to the right, the bearing is then right on the nose and you are on your way directly towards the Itasca. This is the most likely scenario for Earhart's approach to Howland.
But what if when you first get a null, the bearings are straight out to the side, over the wingtips? Then you do have an ambiguity since you might have missed the island either to the right or to the left so either bearing could be the correct one. Oh! what to do?
It's simple, just continue straight ahead. The bearings will change and the correct one will swing towards the tail. The incorrect one will swing towards the nose. Here is an analogy that might help you remember this. Let's say you are driving your car down the street and you see a really hot chick standing on the sidewalk on the other side of the street, about 45° degrees to your left. Which way does you head swing to follow her as you drive by? It swings counterclockwise, to the left, towards her tail.
If the original bearing is somewhere in between then just turn the plane to place the bearings over the wingtips, hold that heading for a few minutes and look for the one that swings towards the tail.
gl
Gary, your explanation is right on as usual. The web site that I qouted for Harry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_navigation, when combined with the references it lists, gives a fairly good explanation of how the low freq nav systems worked.
-
Tom
May I borrow your "Crazy "certificate? hehe
Might her problem have been arrogance and plain old every day stupidity?
-
And neither [RDF or ADF] will indicate whether you are going toward or away from the station without the "sense antenna".
This comes up all the time, the erroneous idea that you can't resolve the "180 degree ambiguity" without a sense antenna. You can, it is easy, and every pilot knows how to do it.
gl
Also see:
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,555.msg9587.html#msg9587
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=555.0;attach=1391
gl
-
Both good reads and I agree with you about Hooven.
-
Richie
You tune your RDF to the frequency of the "Beacon", you identify by its identifier signal that it is the desired station, you listen for a signal and rotate the loop antenna ( doesn't matter which direction) until the signal stops (the null point), you read the needle on the direction card in the cockpit and "fly the needle" i.e turn the plane in the direction that the needle is pointing relative to the nose position (the nose position is 0). When a null is reached and the needle points to 0 then ya know the station is directly on your nose. Fly in that direction until ya see the island.
-
The proper operation of thr RDF in AE's plane was critical to sucessfully finding Howland and I find it unbelievable that she would takeoff after she had indications that her RDF wasn't operating properly. I understand that I am looking at it with hindsight and that, given the other delays for repairs and time calibration of FN's chronometer, their schedule was all akelter and "get homeitis" night have reared its ugly head, but the RDF was their lifeline.
I wonder when during the flight she discovered that it wasn't working ? Perhaps at the time that she reported being 200 miles out and asked that Itasca take a bearing on them?
Really sad, so close.
-
so did Earhart have to rotate her RDF ? and shud the RDF be 0 to nose cone , i only ask because on one off the photo's of lae take off u see Electra about to take off from side view
but the RDF doesn't seem to be aligned to front nose cone looks more turned to left
so just wondered :)
-
Richie
Let's say that you are flying North and the RDF "beacon" is coming from NE (45 degrees), you turn on your RDF and tune it to the frequency of the "beacon". Wherever the plane of the loop is facing you will hear a signal. You then rotate thbe loop until the signal disappears (the null). At that time the loop will be perpendicular to the direction from which the signal is coming and the needle in the cockpit will be pointing at 45 degrees indicating that the station is 45 degrees to the starboard side of your nose. You turn your plane to the right by 45 degrees and fly that direction. Then you take another bearing with your RDF (rotating the Loop until you get a null) and this time te null occurs when the needle indicates that the station is on your nose, i.e. the zero indication on the rdf card. You continue flying that heading and checking the RDF reading .
-
Richie
Modern day DFs are ADFs which stands for Automatic Direction Finder and you don't have to fool around rotating an antenna, its all done for ya. All ya have ta do is follow the needle on the ADF indicator. If it points 15 degrees to the right (starboard) ya turn right and watch the needle move towards zero i.e. the nose. Fly that direction keeping the needle pointing at zero and ya will fly right over the station abtenna. Then, if ya keep flying in the same direction the needle will move from zero to 180, i.e. the tail cause the station's antenna is behind you. Easy smeasy.
Now you're a pilot LOL
-
But what if when you first get a null, the bearings are straight out to the side, over the wingtips? Then you do have an ambiguity since you might have missed the island either to the right or to the left so either bearing could be the correct one. Oh! what to do?
It's simple, just continue straight ahead. The bearings will change and the correct one will swing towards the tail. The incorrect one will swing towards the nose. Here is an analogy that might help you remember this. Let's say you are driving your car down the street and you see a really hot chick standing on the sidewalk on the other side of the street, about 45° degrees to your left. Which way does you head swing to follow her as you drive by? It swings counterclockwise, to the left, towards her tail.
If the original bearing is somewhere in between then just turn the plane to place the bearings over the wingtips, hold that heading for a few minutes and look for the one that swings towards the tail.
gl
I have attached a diagram to show how the 180° ambiguity is resolved which is shown on the bottom diagram. The top diagram illustrates something I didn't mention before, that by timing the bearing change you can also determine how far you will then have to fly to get to the transmitter. The formula is:
Time to station = 60 x time for bearing change / number of degrees of bearing change.
An easy way to do this is to time the bearing change in seconds and then the answer will come out in minutes because a minute is 60 times one second. For example if it takes 5 minutes (300 seconds) for the bearing to change by 10 degrees then, when you turn to put the needle (null) on the nose, you will arrive at the station in 30 minutes. (5/10 x 60 = 30) or (300/10 = 30)
gl
-
The "100-miles out" comment is suspected to have been an estimate by the radio Operator, not something said by AE. See Note 3 at http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmissions_heard_from_NR16020 If so, then it can't be used for our navigation analysis, other than to assume AE was at her closest approach to the island.
Also, in discussions about loop antennae, keep in mind that they have frequency limits. AE seemed to have a fuzzy understanding of how to use the antenna to obtain a minimum, but specified a frequency that would not work with that antenna.
dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah dit dah
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
Can you find the minimum? Neither could she. Her loop antenna was only sensitive to different directions much lower frequencies.
-
there is sumthink not right about the itasca logs
dont know if anyone else has noticed, but not once on the 3rd july do itasca try communicating with plane
I.E ITASCA CALLING EARHART COME IN PSE
from last TRY AT 00:00PM 2ND JULY TO 12:30 4TH JULY
KHAQQ EARHART PLANE FROM ITASCA PLZ COME IN ON FONE OR KEY
THAT CALL SIGN JUMPS FROM 2ND TO 4TH AN YET ON 3RD JULY THE HEARD A WEAK CARRIER A GENERATOR TURNING ON/OFF
IS THERE A SIMPLE EXPLANTION FOR THIS ?
-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XuguAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dDEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4150,3907981&dq=fred+noonan&hl=en
Saipan Bones...