Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Fuel load, head winds, range  (Read 52904 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2011, 07:58:13 AM »

One of the radio logs contains:  “Earhart on now, says running out of gas, only ½ hour left, can’t
hear us at all.”

The other log records: “We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low, been
unable to reach you by radio.”

If Earhart had said only “gas is running low” or “running out of gas,” if you were the radio
operator would you have made up the specific and detailed “only ½ hour left” and entered it in
your log? I thought not.

Witnesses to stressful events (assaults, robberies, accidents) often give conflicting accounts of the same event.  I do not accuse the person who wrote down "one half hour left" of making this up deliberately; that person probably thought that is what AE said. 

The two logs are not of equal value.  One is from the radio operators themselves.  The other is not.  See "Log Jam" for details.

Notice that in the next message received after the controversial 7:42 AM transmission (7:58 AM), Earhart asks the Itasca to transmit on 7500 kcs now or "on the next scheduled half-hour."  If she only had 30 minutes of fuel left at 7:42, she is now down to 14 minutes.  She does not seem to be anxious about splashing down shortly.  Her announced plan was to listen on the hour and the half-hour, so I presume she meant 8:30 AM:  Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 03:45-4? a.m. July 2, 1937 EARHART HEARD FONE/ WILL LISSEN ON HOUR AND HALF ON 3105-SEZ SHE 45/4– .

From "Log Jam":

Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 07:42 a.m. July 2, 1937

KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE MUST ON ON YOU BUT
CANNOT SEE U BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT A 1000 FEET 42

Aboard Itasca
: The situation is growing more tense. It is clear that Earhart has not heard Itasca’s transmissions although they are now receiving her at maximum strength (S5) indicating that she is within at least one hundred miles and possibly much closer. A second, less detailed, radio log kept by the ship records this message as “EARHART ON NW SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY HALF HOUR LEFT CANT HEAR US AT ALL.” Lt. Cooper’s report and the ship’s Deck Log, however, both agree with the primary radio log that the phrase is GAS IS RUNNING LOW. Cmdr. Thompson knows that the flight should have enough fuel to stay aloft until noon.

Aboard NR16020
: The time is 19:12 and Howland has not appeared as hoped. Earhart has dropped down to 1,000 feet so as to get under the scattered deck of clouds. She and Noonan believe they are very close to their destination but really need to know which way to turn on the line to find Howland. With 188 gals. remaining, enough for just 4.95 more hours, they are now burning their reserve. Gas is running low. There is, however, a contingency plan that will guarantee landfall before the fuel is exhausted. By turning right (157°) and running down the advanced line of position, one of four islands is bound to appear. If they are now too far north they will come to Howland. If they are already south of Howland then Baker, Mckean, or Gardner Island will eventually appear, provided they begin running southeast on the line when they have roughly three and a half hours of fuel remaining. Their situation at this point is serious but not desperate.

Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 07:58 a.m. July 2, 1937

KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE ARE CIRCLING BUT CANNOT HR U GA ON 7500 WID A LNG COUNT EITHER NOW OR ON THE SKD TIME ON 1/2 HOUR (KHAQQ S5 A3) 0758

Aboard Itasca
: Apparently Earhart’s transmissions are coming in so loud that the speakers are distorting her words. At first the operator thinks he hears “WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU” but that can’t be right so he goes back, partially erases DRIFTING and types in CIRCLING, which seems more reasonable to him. There is also confusion about how much fuel she has left. If Earhart is really expecting to run out of gas at 08:12 (HALF HOUR LEFT at 07:42) why is she asking Itasca to “GO AHEAD ON 7500 KILOCYCLES WITH A LONG COUNT EITHER NOW OR ON THE SCHEDULED TIME ON THE HALF HOUR” by which time she will already be in the water?

Aboard NR16020
: The time is 19:28 and the situation is now serious enough that Earhart, for the first time, departs from her regular transmission schedule. She probably says, “WE ARE LISTENING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU” then asks for a long count on 7500 either now or in two minutes. Having failed in repeated attempts to get the ship to take a bearing on her, she will try to use her direction finder to take a bearing on the ship.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 07:59:58 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2011, 11:40:54 AM »

@ GMT 1912 for 1/2 hr fuel for the planned journey was left (abt 22 galls) , the max. 25 galls (but probably 16 galls) special avgas allowed for additional flight time . @ 1945 GMT regular gas ran out and cocks were set for supply from special fuel , again for +/- 1/2 hr .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2011, 12:14:29 PM »

The 1/2 hr reserve GMT 1912 concerned the normal avgas store to fly from departure to destination . Besides the regular gas , 50 galls special fuel 100 oct was on board @ take off . The remaining quantity @ 1912 GMT allowed for more than 1/2 hr flight . If fuel run out time is taken GMT 1815 , the remaining special fuel was +/- 16 gallons .
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2011, 12:25:31 PM »

One of the radio logs contains:  “Earhart on now, says running out of gas, only ½ hour left, can’t
hear us at all.”

The other log records: “We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low, been
unable to reach you by radio.”

If Earhart had said only “gas is running low” or “running out of gas,” if you were the radio
operator would you have made up the specific and detailed “only ½ hour left” and entered it in
your log? I thought not.

Witnesses to stressful events (assaults, robberies, accidents) often give conflicting accounts of the same event.  I do not accuse the person who wrote down "one half hour left" of making this up deliberately; that person probably thought that is what AE said. 

The two logs are not of equal value.  One is from the radio operators themselves.  The other is not.  See "Log Jam" for details.

Notice that in the next message received after the controversial 7:42 AM transmission (7:58 AM), Earhart asks the Itasca to transmit on 7500 kcs now or "on the next scheduled half-hour."  If she only had 30 minutes of fuel left at 7:42, she is now down to 14 minutes.  She does not seem to be anxious about splashing down shortly.  Her announced plan was to listen on the hour and the half-hour, so I presume she meant 8:30 AM:  Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 03:45-4? a.m. July 2, 1937 EARHART HEARD FONE/ WILL LISSEN ON HOUR AND HALF ON 3105-SEZ SHE 45/4– .

From "Log Jam":

Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 07:42 a.m. July 2, 1937

KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE MUST ON ON YOU BUT
CANNOT SEE U BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT A 1000 FEET 42

Aboard Itasca
: The situation is growing more tense. It is clear that Earhart has not heard Itasca’s transmissions although they are now receiving her at maximum strength (S5) indicating that she is within at least one hundred miles and possibly much closer. A second, less detailed, radio log kept by the ship records this message as “EARHART ON NW SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY HALF HOUR LEFT CANT HEAR US AT ALL.” Lt. Cooper’s report and the ship’s Deck Log, however, both agree with the primary radio log that the phrase is GAS IS RUNNING LOW. Cmdr. Thompson knows that the flight should have enough fuel to stay aloft until noon.

Aboard NR16020
: The time is 19:12 and Howland has not appeared as hoped. Earhart has dropped down to 1,000 feet so as to get under the scattered deck of clouds. She and Noonan believe they are very close to their destination but really need to know which way to turn on the line to find Howland. With 188 gals. remaining, enough for just 4.95 more hours, they are now burning their reserve. Gas is running low. There is, however, a contingency plan that will guarantee landfall before the fuel is exhausted. By turning right (157°) and running down the advanced line of position, one of four islands is bound to appear. If they are now too far north they will come to Howland. If they are already south of Howland then Baker, Mckean, or Gardner Island will eventually appear, provided they begin running southeast on the line when they have roughly three and a half hours of fuel remaining. Their situation at this point is serious but not desperate.

Itasca Primary Radio Log entry for 07:58 a.m. July 2, 1937

KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE ARE CIRCLING BUT CANNOT HR U GA ON 7500 WID A LNG COUNT EITHER NOW OR ON THE SKD TIME ON 1/2 HOUR (KHAQQ S5 A3) 0758

Aboard Itasca
: Apparently Earhart’s transmissions are coming in so loud that the speakers are distorting her words. At first the operator thinks he hears “WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU” but that can’t be right so he goes back, partially erases DRIFTING and types in CIRCLING, which seems more reasonable to him. There is also confusion about how much fuel she has left. If Earhart is really expecting to run out of gas at 08:12 (HALF HOUR LEFT at 07:42) why is she asking Itasca to “GO AHEAD ON 7500 KILOCYCLES WITH A LONG COUNT EITHER NOW OR ON THE SCHEDULED TIME ON THE HALF HOUR” by which time she will already be in the water?

Aboard NR16020
: The time is 19:28 and the situation is now serious enough that Earhart, for the first time, departs from her regular transmission schedule. She probably says, “WE ARE LISTENING BUT CANNOT HEAR YOU” then asks for a long count on 7500 either now or in two minutes. Having failed in repeated attempts to get the ship to take a bearing on her, she will try to use her direction finder to take a bearing on the ship.


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

I agree that witnesses often get things wrong when questioned about events later.

Watch this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bioyh7Gnskg&NR=1

Watch the video before scrolling down, I don't want to ruin it for you.















 There have
been studies done of this where a group of unsuspecting test subjects suddenly see an event
staged in front of them and it is videotaped. They are then asked what they saw and what is
striking in the research is that the witnesses miss seeing things that are obvious on the videotape.
Based on this research, it is much more likely that Bellarts missed hearing the "half hour left"
statement than that the other guy heard something that wasn't there. In addition, this log entry
was made at the time and it was not yet a particularly stressful time in the radio room as this was
the first report by Earhart that she was having difficulties, so no reason to anticipate the eventual
outcome.

------------------------------------------------------
I think it more likely that Earhart's idea of "on the next scheduled half-hour"  was the next scheduled half hourly scheduled time, 8:00 am, just 2 minutes from her "now."

You can all make up your own minds about this.


gl
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 11:38:13 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2011, 04:44:43 PM »

I agree that witnesses often get things wrong when questioned about events later.

Watch this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bioyh7Gnskg&NR=1


Yes.  I flunked the test years ago when I first saw a version of this.  It had a gorilla walking through the crowd of ballplayers.

Quote
I think it more likely that Earhart's idea of "on the next scheduled half-hour"  was the next scheduled half hourly scheduled time, 8:00 am, just 2 minutes from her "now."

You can all make up your own minds about this.

Well, her language in an earlier message was "on the hour and the half-hour," so that "on the hour" would mean 8:00 AM and "on the scheduled half-hour" would mean 8:30.  That WAS her announced schedule for listening, so it sounds to me as though she knew it was time for the 8:00 AM broadcast "now" and that she expected to be in the air 30 minutes later at 8:30.  In other words, these messages make me think that she never said "I'm going down 30 minutes from now."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #35 on: August 20, 2011, 05:19:43 AM »

I agree that witnesses often get things wrong when questioned about events later.

Watch this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bioyh7Gnskg&NR=1


Yes.  I flunked the test years ago when I first saw a version of this.  It had a gorilla walking through the crowd of ballplayers.

Quote
I think it more likely that Earhart's idea of "on the next scheduled half-hour"  was the next scheduled half hourly scheduled time, 8:00 am, just 2 minutes from her "now."

You can all make up your own minds about this.

Well, her language in an earlier message was "on the hour and the half-hour," so that "on the hour" would mean 8:00 AM and "on the scheduled half-hour" would mean 8:30.  That WAS her announced schedule for listening, so it sounds to me as though she knew it was time for the 8:00 AM broadcast "now" and that she expected to be in the air 30 minutes later at 8:30.  In other words, these messages make me think that she never said "I'm going down 30 minutes from now."

----------------------------
To help us decide if Amelia actually said "half hour left" it would help if we knew if it were even possible for her to have burned that much gas in that time period. In looking at the various fuel consumptions we have assumed that Earhart flew at the correct speed and ran her engines so as to get the maximum possible range from the fuel on board. What if she didn't, would it have been possible for her to be down to a half hour of fuel at 1912 Z?

The calculations made in the past assumed a BSFC of .46 (Lockeed report 487) and nobody believes that she was able to get the .42 optimistic value in that report which was based on the requirement for her to fly a much longer leg to Tokyo. Nor was there any reason for her to try, since she should have had an abundance of fuel for the significantly shorter leg to Howland.

(BSFC means Brake Specific Fuel Consumption, pounds per hour per horsepower, the amount of fuel burned per hour for each horsepower being produced.) Since AVGAS weighs  6 pounds per gallon we can convert the 1100 gallons on board to 6600 pounds for this calculation. With a BSFC of .46 pounds per hour per horsepower, burning one gallon per hour will produce 13 horsepower. With this shortcut you can just divide the power output by 13 to find the gallons of fuel consumed per hour. Using this BSFC makes it appear that there was no way for her to use up all the fuel so quickly. The trouble with assuming that she operated with that BSFC is that you can only adjust the engines' mixture controls to lean the mixture out the achieve that BSFC at lower power settings and at high power settings you need to run the engines at "full rich" and then the engines burn fuel at a higher rate so the BSFC goes up. Air cooled aircraft engines use this extra fuel flow to dissipate the high heat being produced at high power settings and this extra fuel is not burned and does not produce any extra power.

I have the power setting table from Pratt and Whitney for the S3H1.

According to Pratt and Whitney, each engine burns 65 gallons per hour at the full 600 hp power output making the BSFC .65. (65 X 6 /600 = 65), a total of 130 gallons per hour. Running the engines at full power would have used up the 1100 gallons on board in 8:28 and if only 1050 gallons were on board in only 8:05. But you are allowed to run at 600 HP for only 5 minutes.


Running the engines at 550 hp burns 55 gallons per hour (each side, 110 gph total) making the BSFC .60 and
burning all the 1100 gallons in ten hours causing the engines to fail at 1000 Z so she could have run out of fuel 10 hours and 13 minutes prior to her last transmission. If she departed with only 1050 the engines would have quit at 0933 Z.

Contrary to Lockheed report 487 and other documents that state the BSFC of .42, the best BSFC obtained according to this Pratt and Whitney (the people who manufactured the engines)  table is .48 and this was at 300 and 350 hp. Cruising with 350 hp per engine burns 28 gallons per hour per engine which would have used 1100 gallons in 19 hours and 38 minutes and 1050 gallons in 18 hours and 45 minutes. Cruising with 300 hp per engine uses the 1100 gallons in 22:56 and 1050 gallons in 21:52.


So the answer to the question is YES, it is possible for Earhart to have opperated her engines in such a way as to have consumed all of the fuel in that short period of time.

gl



« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 12:57:15 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2011, 10:30:13 PM »

I believe if she was burning fuel at that rate she would not continue to Howland. Based on your calculations she would have seen her fuel reserve disappear early enough to divert or return to Lae. Interesting that you think she burned more on this leg than previous legs. Her calculations were based on historical fuel usage and fuel burn rates as calculated by Lockheed.
If she was burning fuel at a greater rate why wouldnt she also mention that in a radio transmission?
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #37 on: August 20, 2011, 11:56:09 PM »

I believe if she was burning fuel at that rate she would not continue to Howland. Based on your calculations she would have seen her fuel reserve disappear early enough to divert or return to Lae. Interesting that you think she burned more on this leg than previous legs. Her calculations were based on historical fuel usage and fuel burn rates as calculated by Lockheed.
If she was burning fuel at a greater rate why wouldnt she also mention that in a radio transmission?

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

I didn't say that she did. I just said that it was possible.


gl
« Last Edit: August 21, 2011, 07:52:19 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2011, 01:23:48 AM »

The as by experience specific  fuel flow weight was 310 lbs/hr (letter AE & radiogram Putnam , 13 feb 1937) , @ 65% CD power for 3.00 MPG specific flight length . For the Lae-Howland leg expenditure was 321 1/4 lbs/hr for 2.56 specific length , 3.6% more consumption which was not alarming so that it was unnecessary to return to Lae , or evade to any other place , let go that shortage would be signalled from aboard . The 321 1/4 lbs consumption was , it is true , for a longer endurance , but for the entire journey fuel stores were sufficient . It was not possible to reach from the Howland region other land points than the island itself (and Baker) , but for Lae-Howland there was no gap between supplies and expenditures .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2011, 02:54:45 AM »

BHP needed was  {(m . g . / CL/CD] . v ]} Watts / 746 hp/W giving for V = 69 m/s    4,838 kg m/s^2 x 69 m/s = 333843 kg m^2/s^3 = 0.334 MW / 746 hp/kW = 448 hp   averaged over the flight . For normal practice BSPC was 310 lbs/hr / 715 hp = 0.43 @ 65% CDP . 448 hp x 1.44 due the headwinds = 645 hp . BSPC for the flight to Howland was 1,028 galls / 19h12m = 321 1/4 lbs/hr , divided by 645 hp gives BSPC = 0.50  for 645 hp / 1,100 hp = 0.59 x 100% = 59% CDP . All figures within reasonable performance features show that there was no fuel supply problem (321 vs 310 lbs/hr/hp is 3.5% more only) for departure to destination , giving this latter found within 1/2 hour after first negative attempt , so that another phenomenon, i.e. one  allied with navigation must have triggered the ultimate breakdown .
Logged

Richard C Cooke

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #40 on: November 16, 2011, 07:33:04 PM »


I have the power setting table from Pratt and Whitney for the S3H1.

gl
Any chance of posting this table?

Thanks
Richard Cooke
Logged

Richard C Cooke

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #41 on: November 21, 2011, 10:42:28 AM »

Apply some Newtonian Aero Dynamics : The lift needed for an A/c in horizontal flight is from CL . 1/2 . r . S . Vt^2 = m. g . in th dimension Newton (N) . For NR 16020 @ 8,000 ft with r = 0.964 kg/m^3 , S = 42.6 m^2 surface wing , Vt = 69 m/s TAS , Vw = 8 m/s headwind , average mass = 4,932 kg in flight we find : m . g  = 48,383 N with CL = 0.459 lift coefficient . Reasonable glide ratio CL/CD Lockheed 10  is 10 (report Lockheed no.487) . Thence : 48,383 N / 10 =  4,843 is the propeller draft needed . The mechanical propulsive efficiency  ep was 21.6% (0.76 for propellers , Report 487 ; & reasonable 0.28 for the engines) so that for a range R follows : E = (m . g . R) ep^-1 , or by insertion : 4.63(4,838 N x 2,628 mls x 1,6092 m/mi x 1,000 m/km) = 9.47 x 10^10 kg . m^2 . s^-2 in the energy dimension  J  for Joule .  Divide by 47 x 10^6 J / kg gasoline chemical energy and find  2,015 kg , 4,438 lbs , or 740 US gallons for 2,528 mls Lae to Howland , zero wind , duration 19h12m , offset included . The power needed to pull 48,393 N is  CL . 1/2 . r . S . Vt^3  in zero wind , to be transposed to CL . 1/2 . r . S . (Vt + Vw)^3 in the event of headwind speed Vw . (Vt + Vw)^3 = 1.39 Vt^3 . Note that any acceleration factor against resistance translates to the  factor in 3rd power to energy needed  (2 x as fast = 8 x greater energy) . Hence : needed for 2,628 mls in headwind 18 mph , 8 m/s , Beaufort 6 is : 740 galls x 1.39 = 1,028 galls . Remaining @ GMT 1912  22 galls 87 oc & max. 25 galls 100 oc fuel from 1,100 initial store . The specific range was 2,628 mls / 1,028 galls =  2.56 mph , so that by extrapolation follows that after GMT 1912  a maximum distance  47 x 2.56 mls = 120 mls  could be additionally flown . This range is from the Howland region too small for reaching any other in the Pacific land point than Howland itself , or Baker .
I believe you are counting the headwind twice.

The planning flight time at 150mph was 17hrs, and the estimate when they took off was 18hrs, which would be a ground speed of 142mph, implying an average headwind of 8mph.

The actual flight time to Howland appears to be 19.2hrs to the "I must be on you call", which would give a ground speed of 133mph implying 17mph average headwind.

To deal with a headwind you have to choose between longer flight time, or more power, not both.  AE seems to have gone for the longer flying time hence arriving in 19.2hrs instead of 17.

Assuming AE followed the profile in Kelly Johnson's telegrams in 19.2hrs she should have used 870-880 gallons depending on what you assume for warm up and taxi.

Richard Cooke
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2011, 10:02:31 AM »


I have the power setting table from Pratt and Whitney for the S3H1.

gl
Any chance of posting this table?

Thanks
Richard Cooke

Yep.

gl
Logged

Richard C Cooke

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2011, 05:59:34 AM »

Thank You   :)

Richard Cooke
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Fuel load, head winds, range
« Reply #44 on: December 21, 2011, 10:42:02 AM »


I believe you are counting the headwind twice.

The planning flight time at 150mph was 17hrs, and the estimate when they took off was 18hrs, which would be a ground speed of 142mph, implying an average headwind of 8mph.

The actual flight time to Howland appears to be 19.2hrs to the "I must be on you call", which would give a ground speed of 133mph implying 17mph average headwind.

To deal with a headwind you have to choose between longer flight time, or more power, not both.  AE seems to have gone for the longer flying time hence arriving in 19.2hrs instead of 17.

Assuming AE followed the profile in Kelly Johnson's telegrams in 19.2hrs she should have used 870-880 gallons depending on what you assume for warm up and taxi.

Richard Cooke

This is a very interesting thread about the fuel consumption.

My question for Richard is this, didn't Earhart need to stick to the flight plan and adjust her heading based on the magnetic declination that she experienced during the flight?

Isn't it critical to adjust your airspeed to match the 150 mph ground speed so that the magnetic influences of the Earth are kept in check when it comes to following your compass heading?

It seems that if you deviate from the plan, as you suggested using a 138 mph ground speed, this would throw a wrench in the entire flight plan? Perhaps I am missing something?

Thank you in advance.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
 

Copyright 2020 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP