Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity  (Read 87375 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #60 on: December 27, 2011, 02:37:05 AM »

... the original arrival date was March 20, 1937, three and a half months earlier than the actual arrival date and the runways had to be completed by that earlier date.

I think that Earhart could be pretty confident that the airport would be waiting for her.
The idea I floated that she may have been anxious on the state of the airfield is based on these TIGHAR reported facts. Is it arguable that she may have been anxious about this brand new airfield?  Yes. But how many of you pilots out there would take off for a mid ocean airfield just constructed at your request that no one had ever landed on and you know nothing about??  And it's near the end of your normal fuel load and no nearby airports as alternates?    Is it LIKELY she was anxious? True or false?
I remember flying across the Atlantic in a single engine airplane looking for the mid ocean airfield on Santa Maria Island when the thought ran through my head, "Kid, you are taking it on faith that the guy that drew this chart wasn't just playing a practical joke and that the island is really where it is plotted on the chart." Then, just as quickly, I realized that the chart was drawn by grown-ups who took their responsibilities seriously, knowing that peoples' lives depended on the care they took in doing their work and "that was that," that first thought never crossed my mind again. And the island was there, just where it was supposed to be.

Earhart also knew that grown-ups were in charge of building the airport on Howland so I don't see any reason for her to have had any anxieties on that score.

gl
« Last Edit: December 27, 2011, 02:39:37 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #61 on: December 27, 2011, 06:11:36 AM »

... the original arrival date was March 20, 1937, three and a half months earlier than the actual arrival date and the runways had to be completed by that earlier date.

I think that Earhart could be pretty confident that the airport would be waiting for her.
The idea I floated that she may have been anxious on the state of the airfield is based on these TIGHAR reported facts. Is it arguable that she may have been anxious about this brand new airfield?  Yes. But how many of you pilots out there would take off for a mid ocean airfield just constructed at your request that no one had ever landed on and you know nothing about??  And it's near the end of your normal fuel load and no nearby airports as alternates?    Is it LIKELY she was anxious? True or false?
I remember flying across the Atlantic in a single engine airplane looking for the mid ocean airfield on Santa Maria Island when the thought ran through my head, "Kid, you are taking it on faith that the guy that drew this chart wasn't just playing a practical joke and that the island is really where it is plotted on the chart." Then, just as quickly, I realized that the chart was drawn by grown-ups who took their responsibilities seriously, knowing that peoples' lives depended on the care they took in doing their work and "that was that," that first thought never crossed my mind again. And the island was there, just where it was supposed to be.

Earhart also knew that grown-ups were in charge of building the airport on Howland so I don't see any reason for her to have had any anxieties on that score.

gl

Yes Gary. I am sure grown ups were involved in all aspects of AE's flight. However she didn't make it so some grown up made a mistake somewhere.

Grown ups make mistakes. In terms of navigation look at this one. http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland_Island#Correct_location_of_Howland_Island_known_in_1937. One year before Amelia's flight Itasca discovered Howland Island was charted wrong. Now don't get me wrong here. I recognize that AE and FN had the correct charts. I raise this as an example of grown ups being well intended but still getting it wrong.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #62 on: December 27, 2011, 06:55:10 AM »

Your reply above Marty even states that AE requested 'as long a runway as possible for takeoff,'. She didn't know how long they were.

What is says is that the people in charge of building her the runway reported the existing and planned lengths to her on March 13.

I don't see how you turn that piece of information that she had been told about the length of the runways into the belief that she did not know the length of the runways.

Quote
The idea I floated that she may have been anxious on the state of the airfield is based on these TIGHAR reported facts.

The "reported fact" is that she was told how long the runways were.

What is not a "reported fact" is your surmise that "she may have been anxious" about the airfield.

Maybe she was.

Maybe she wasn't.

She took of from Lae on 2 July 1937, planning to use the airfield for a landing and takeoff.

Quote
Is it arguable that she may have been anxious about this brand new airfield?  Yes. But how many of you pilots out there would take off for a mid ocean airfield just constructed at your request that no one had ever landed on and you know nothing about??  And it's near the end of your normal fuel load and no nearby airports as alternates?    Is it LIKELY she was anxious?  True or false?

I don't know.  I never met her in person.  Feelings are funny things.  They are deeply personal.  Different people react differently from other people.  I understand that you are convinced that you have a rock-solid fact in your possession, based on what you imagine she would have felt.  I don't respect that piece of imaginary "evidence."  I look at the takeoff as evidence that she judged the Howland runways as serviceable for her purposes.

Thanks Marty. I originally floated the idea that she might have been anxious in another thread re 100 Octane fuel where I commented on a jpg copy of a telegram sent to Lae on June 25, 1937. The image came from Gary. It is here at http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=528.0;attach=431. This, to me, says there are three runways. One at 4100 feet, second at 2600 feet and a third at 2250 feet. It then says a 300 foot, 50 feet wide, extension is being added to the west end of the east west runway for a total of 2750 feet.  Now, at the risk of embarrassing myself if my math is wrong, I raise the fact that you can't add 300 to any of those runway lengths and get a runway length of 2750 feet!  4400, 2900 or 2550.  I believe the extension is being made to the runway most likely to be used due to the prevailing winds. So is it 2250 being extended to 2550 or 2700 or what?  More importantly is someone on the construction crew measuring correctly?  Who is doing the math?  It's grown ups Gary.  Why isn't AE questioning this if she got it?
I also believe that just because information was sent AE didn't necessarily get it.  You report Marty that she got the info in March. Yet she is asking for runway lengths in June. There are many examples of info requested and not received. Good intentions all by grown ups. Examples of poor communications abound.

Marty I do NOT believe I have solid evidence but I continue to say in this forum that you MUST read between the known "facts" and get into their heads. For some reason AE and FN did not make Howland. We don't know what happened.  TIGHAR has a hypothesis.  A good one in my opinion. I believe you have many of the available facts at hand and yet it's inconclusive. Many of the forum readers and contributors are pilots. These people have first hand knowledge of flying and are the best at getting into the pilots seat with Amelia and going through the motions of flying from Lae to Howland.  From what I read they don't know what happened. Theories, supposition, guesses, and "I think"'s but no answer to what happened.  So get out of the seat and into their heads. 1937 heads. What would AE say if she read that June telegram?  Would she have said "holy smoke. The guys building this runway can't even do math correctly.".

I know this is infinitely arguable because we have no facts on it. But in the absence of direct facts, what is "likely" to have happened?
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #63 on: December 27, 2011, 07:22:45 AM »

... the original arrival date was March 20, 1937, three and a half months earlier than the actual arrival date and the runways had to be completed by that earlier date.

I think that Earhart could be pretty confident that the airport would be waiting for her.
The idea I floated that she may have been anxious on the state of the airfield is based on these TIGHAR reported facts. Is it arguable that she may have been anxious about this brand new airfield?  Yes. But how many of you pilots out there would take off for a mid ocean airfield just constructed at your request that no one had ever landed on and you know nothing about??  And it's near the end of your normal fuel load and no nearby airports as alternates?    Is it LIKELY she was anxious? True or false?
I remember flying across the Atlantic in a single engine airplane looking for the mid ocean airfield on Santa Maria Island when the thought ran through my head, "Kid, you are taking it on faith that the guy that drew this chart wasn't just playing a practical joke and that the island is really where it is plotted on the chart." Then, just as quickly, I realized that the chart was drawn by grown-ups who took their responsibilities seriously, knowing that peoples' lives depended on the care they took in doing their work and "that was that," that first thought never crossed my mind again. And the island was there, just where it was supposed to be.

Earhart also knew that grown-ups were in charge of building the airport on Howland so I don't see any reason for her to have had any anxieties on that score.

gl

Btw If you look at Gary's takeoff calculations below you see that a runway of 2250, 2550 or even 2700 is cutting it mighty fine if she is using the east west runway. The one with the prevailing winds. If she had the same info as Gary then wouldn't AE be "anxious" about that airfield?  The same woman who ground looped a fully loaded Electra in Hawaii on a runway with "known" conditions?

"What Johnson said was correct for a 14,000 pound takeoff without flaps but was definitely NOT TRUE for a 15,000 pound takeoff which takes significantly more than 2,000 feet at standard conditions and even more at the 2,000 foot density altitude at Lae. According to report 487, it takes 2,600 feet to take off without flaps at 16,500 pounds at a sea level density altitude. Doing the same calculations we did before, we find that a takeoff at Lae at a density altitude of 2,000 feet and 15,000 pounds without flaps results in a ground run of 2,278 feet. Lest you think that this is all just theoretical mumbo-jumbo, this calculation agrees quite closely with Chatter's observation of 2,550 feet, a difference of only 272 feet, less than a 12% difference thus Chatter's observation confirms the accuracy of this calculation. (I accept Chatter's report as more accurate in all of it's detail compared to Collopy's short letter.)

It is interesting to look at what would have happened if Earhart had completely filled that tank, adding about 50 U.S. gallons weighing 300 pounds. A takeoff at 15,300 pounds without flaps would have taken 2,370 feet, only 92 feet longer. And if she had put the flaps down to the 30° position specified in report 487 the takeoff would have taken only 1,914 feet providing a 1,086 foot safety margin, 57% extra runway.

We know that Earhart did not fill that tank because she believed that she needed 100 octane fuel to get maximum power out of her engines but Pratt and Whitney documents show that the engines make full takeoff power of 600 horsepower using the 87 octane fuel available at Lae (Jeff Neville disputes this) so she could have filled that tank, made a safe takeoff, and then have an extra hour of flying endurance to find a safe place to land.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that Neville is correct and that she could only get 550 horsepower from each engine using 87 octane fuel, how would this have affected the takeoff? The length of the takeoff run varies with the inverse of the ratio of the engine power. Report 487 shows 2,100 feet for standard conditions, 30° of flaps, and 16,500 pounds using the full power of 600 horsepower from each engine, a total of 1,200 horsepower so taking off with a total of 1,100 hp gives a takeoff distance 9% longer, 2,290 feet. We adjust this for the takeoff weight of 15,300 pounds as we did before and find 1,970 feet. We then increase this by 6% to account for the density altitude so the complete calculation gives 2,088 feet compared to 1,914 for 1,200 hp (we could have just multiplied the 1,914 by 1.09 too), only 174 feet longer and with 912 foot safety margin, 44% extra runway available. Doing the same calculation for the flaps up scenario produces a takeoff run of 2,585 but this would be cutting it close so Earhart would have to have remembered to set the flaps correctly.
So no matter how you figure it, Earhart unnecessarily left behind an hour's worth of fuel and this fuel could have made a significant difference in the end. ".

 From the thread In Aircraft and power plant, Octane Analysis, reply 44. I'm not sure which runway he is suggesting she is using but the one I highlighted at the top adds up to a 3000 foot length and the closest to that is the reported 2900 foot runway. See runway lengths in http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=528.0;attach=431 supplied by Gary in Octane analysis.  Did I get my facts wrong here or is there a math problem?

 Not being a pilot means I am ignorant of certain facts so I trust people like Gary to set me straight.  I apologize in advance if I'm getting something wrong here or being seemingly misleading.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #64 on: December 27, 2011, 09:58:17 AM »

And one last point on this airfield on Howland. Look here http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Reports/BlackCruise.pdf. Look under the heading "June 26 and June 27". Pretty clear that the report, written by Richard Black himself, indicates that the 300 foot extension was finished in time for AE to arrive. But it's a thin layer of gravel over soft sand and only to be used for Take off as its deemed unsafe for landing.  It's also clear that the most commonly used runway will be the shortest one as the prevailing winds are from the east.  The telegram received on June 25 said nothing about the expansion being restricted to take offs only. But this also suggests to me that if she needed the whole length of that short runway then at close to take off speed wouldn't she possibly get her wheels into this extension of soft sand?  Also let me ask the pilots out there a question. On a gravel runway what would be her stopping distance with her fuel remaining?  Would she have been able to stop in the non extended 2250 Foot runway?

Based on my last few posts how can anyone say there "wasn't" a reason for to be anxious. Yes she probably didn't know most of what we know in hindsight but you guys are suggesting she had nothing to be anxious about. I'm suggesting she did. She really had no idea of the conditions of the airfield at Howland except what she got in the June 25 telegram. And we don't even know if it was provided to her. I'm confident she really wanted to get safely to California and declare her trip a success. This close to the end she wouldn't want to make a mistake.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #65 on: December 27, 2011, 11:29:13 AM »

... the original arrival date was March 20, 1937, three and a half months earlier than the actual arrival date and the runways had to be completed by that earlier date.

I think that Earhart could be pretty confident that the airport would be waiting for her.
The idea I floated that she may have been anxious on the state of the airfield is based on these TIGHAR reported facts. Is it arguable that she may have been anxious about this brand new airfield?  Yes. But how many of you pilots out there would take off for a mid ocean airfield just constructed at your request that no one had ever landed on and you know nothing about??  And it's near the end of your normal fuel load and no nearby airports as alternates?    Is it LIKELY she was anxious? True or false?
I remember flying across the Atlantic in a single engine airplane looking for the mid ocean airfield on Santa Maria Island when the thought ran through my head, "Kid, you are taking it on faith that the guy that drew this chart wasn't just playing a practical joke and that the island is really where it is plotted on the chart." Then, just as quickly, I realized that the chart was drawn by grown-ups who took their responsibilities seriously, knowing that peoples' lives depended on the care they took in doing their work and "that was that," that first thought never crossed my mind again. And the island was there, just where it was supposed to be.

Earhart also knew that grown-ups were in charge of building the airport on Howland so I don't see any reason for her to have had any anxieties on that score.

gl

Yes Gary. I am sure grown ups were involved in all aspects of AE's flight. However she didn't make it so some grown up made a mistake somewhere.

Grown ups make mistakes. In terms of navigation look at this one. http://tighar.org/wiki/Howland_Island#Correct_location_of_Howland_Island_known_in_1937. One year before Amelia's flight Itasca discovered Howland Island was charted wrong. Now don't get me wrong here. I recognize that AE and FN had the correct charts. I raise this as an example of grown ups being well intended but still getting it wrong.
They didn't get the position "wrong" they got the position as accurately as the technology allowed, and certainly accurately enough for finding the island again by ships and Earhart, the Itasca didn't have any problem returning to the island. The position would have been "wrong" if an error had been made placing the island a hundred miles away from its actual position.
gl
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #66 on: December 27, 2011, 11:49:35 AM »

The point was simply that well intentioned people make mistakes. Call this an error if you like but the data is still wrong. Your point was we should trust grown ups will do the right thing by building a nice airfield that no one should doubt as to position. I simply point out that not everything done by people is accurate. I used an example. I am not apportioning blame.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #67 on: December 27, 2011, 03:57:13 PM »

And one last point on this airfield on Howland. Look here http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Reports/BlackCruise.pdf. Look under the heading "June 26 and June 27". Pretty clear that the report, written by Richard Black himself, indicates that the 300 foot extension was finished in time for AE to arrive. But it's a thin layer of gravel over soft sand and only to be used for Take off as its deemed unsafe for landing.  It's also clear that the most commonly used runway will be the shortest one as the prevailing winds are from the east.  The telegram received on June 25 said nothing about the expansion being restricted to take offs only. But this also suggests to me that if she needed the whole length of that short runway then at close to take off speed wouldn't she possibly get her wheels into this extension of soft sand?  Also let me ask the pilots out there a question. On a gravel runway what would be her stopping distance with her fuel remaining?  Would she have been able to stop in the non extended 2250 Foot runway?

Based on my last few posts how can anyone say there "wasn't" a reason for to be anxious. Yes she probably didn't know most of what we know in hindsight but you guys are suggesting she had nothing to be anxious about. I'm suggesting she did. She really had no idea of the conditions of the airfield at Howland except what she got in the June 25 telegram. And we don't even know if it was provided to her. I'm confident she really wanted to get safely to California and declare her trip a success. This close to the end she wouldn't want to make a mistake.
I think I answered your question before, see:

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,528.msg7061.html#msg7061

and:

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,528.msg7230.html#msg7230

From my prior post, the takeoff distance with no wind at Howland is 1,375 feet with 30° of flaps. For a no flap takeoff the distance would be 1,700 feet. A 20 mph headwind would shorten the 30° flap distances by 41.5% and a 10 mph headwind would shorten these distances by 22%. So with 30° of flaps and a 20 mph wind the distance would be 804 feet, with a 10 mph wind it would be 1070 feet. Without flaps, the reductions would be 38% and 20% so the distances would be 1050 and 1356 respectively.

BTW, I don't make this stuff up, see attached graph from Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators, the official Navy manual.

The calculation is easy. The takeoff speed of the plane with the lighter fuel load of 825 gallons for the shorter flight from Howland to Hawaii at the gross weight of 13,350 with no flaps is 93.5 mph and for a 30° of flaps takeoff the takeoff speed is 85 mph. The formula for computing the takeoff distance allowing for wind is:

Takeoff distance (wind) = Takeoff distance (no wind) (1 -  wind speed/takeoff speed)^2
So for the 30° flap takeoff with a headwind component of 20 mph the calculation looks like this:

TD(w20) = 1375 (1- 20/85)^2
TD(w20) = 1375 (1 - 0.235)^2
TD(w20) = 1375 (0.585)
TD(w20) = 804 feet

You can work out the other examples yourself.





gl
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 12:10:41 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #68 on: December 28, 2011, 03:58:20 AM »


Btw If you look at Gary's takeoff calculations below you see that a runway of 2250, 2550 or even 2700 is cutting it mighty fine if she is using the east west runway. The one with the prevailing winds. If she had the same info as Gary then wouldn't AE be "anxious" about that airfield?  The same woman who ground looped a fully loaded Electra in Hawaii on a runway with "known" conditions?

Taking off into a 15 mph wind at a gross weight of 13,350 requires only 932 feet with the flaps down and 1198 with the flaps up. Even it she could only get 550 hp per side without 100 octane fuel the distances only increase by 9% making them 1016 and 1306 feet so the east-west runway, even without any extension, is more than twice as long as it needs to be. And with a  15 mphwind out of the east there would be no reason they couldn't use the 4100 foot runway for takeoff. When flying a tail wheel aircraft you prefer not to have a crosswind that exceeds 20% of your takeoff speed but that is not a firm limit. Taking off without flaps, the takeoff speed is 93.5 mph so a crosswind of 19 mph or a bit more is O.K. and she certainly would not need flaps to takeoff from a 4100 foot runway. After all, what do you think you do if you have to takeoff and land at an airport that only has one runway, you just deal with the crosswind. If all of your flying has been at airports such as JFK, LAX or ORD (there are about 14,000 airports in the U.S.) then you are probably not aware that most airports only have one runway. The next most common runway arrangement is two runways that cross at close to a right angle with one long runway and one much shorter runway. Why not have two long runways, you ask? Because they cost a lot of money and you need a lot more land and you don't need two long runways. If the wind is such that the crosswind is not excessive then you use the long runway. If the crosswind is too strong for using the long runway then you have no trouble taking off on the short runway into the wind.

gl
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 04:07:16 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #69 on: December 28, 2011, 08:08:08 AM »

And one last point on this airfield on Howland. Look here http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Reports/BlackCruise.pdf. Look under the heading "June 26 and June 27". Pretty clear that the report, written by Richard Black himself, indicates that the 300 foot extension was finished in time for AE to arrive. But it's a thin layer of gravel over soft sand and only to be used for Take off as its deemed unsafe for landing.  It's also clear that the most commonly used runway will be the shortest one as the prevailing winds are from the east.  The telegram received on June 25 said nothing about the expansion being restricted to take offs only. But this also suggests to me that if she needed the whole length of that short runway then at close to take off speed wouldn't she possibly get her wheels into this extension of soft sand?  Also let me ask the pilots out there a question. On a gravel runway what would be her stopping distance with her fuel remaining?  Would she have been able to stop in the non extended 2250 Foot runway?

Based on my last few posts how can anyone say there "wasn't" a reason for to be anxious. Yes she probably didn't know most of what we know in hindsight but you guys are suggesting she had nothing to be anxious about. I'm suggesting she did. She really had no idea of the conditions of the airfield at Howland except what she got in the June 25 telegram. And we don't even know if it was provided to her. I'm confident she really wanted to get safely to California and declare her trip a success. This close to the end she wouldn't want to make a mistake.
I think I answered your question before, see:

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,528.msg7061.html#msg7061

and:

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,528.msg7230.html#msg7230

From my prior post, the takeoff distance with no wind at Howland is 1,375 feet with 30° of flaps. For a no flap takeoff the distance would be 1,700 feet. A 20 mph headwind would shorten the 30° flap distances by 41.5% and a 10 mph headwind would shorten these distances by 22%. So with 30° of flaps and a 20 mph wind the distance would be 804 feet, with a 10 mph wind it would be 1070 feet. Without flaps, the reductions would be 38% and 20% so the distances would be 1050 and 1356 respectively.

BTW, I don't make this stuff up, see attached graph from Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators, the official Navy manual.

The calculation is easy. The takeoff speed of the plane with the lighter fuel load of 825 gallons for the shorter flight from Howland to Hawaii at the gross weight of 13,350 with no flaps is 93.5 mph and for a 30° of flaps takeoff the takeoff speed is 85 mph. The formula for computing the takeoff distance allowing for wind is:

Takeoff distance (wind) = Takeoff distance (no wind) (1 -  wind speed/takeoff speed)^2
So for the 30° flap takeoff with a headwind component of 20 mph the calculation looks like this:

TD(w20) = 1375 (1- 20/85)^2
TD(w20) = 1375 (1 - 0.235)^2
TD(w20) = 1375 (0.585)
TD(w20) = 804 feet

You can work out the other examples yourself.





gl

Thanks Gary. I don't think I have ever accused you of making things up. If I have I apologize. I think you're extremely helpful and your threads are usually accompanied with supporting data.

To that end I have spent several hours researching your statement on how much gas AE was going to load on Howland for the leg to Hawaii. I presume there is some form of flight plan or logistics document that you are referencing. I have been unable to find it and would find it interesting to review. Can you point me to it?  Thanks
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #70 on: December 28, 2011, 10:49:59 AM »

"...A total of 654 imperial gallons was filled into the tanks of the Lockheed after the test flight was completed. This would indicate that 1,100 US gallons was carried by the machine when it took off for Howland Island."
From the Chater report:
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Chater_Report.html

Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #71 on: December 28, 2011, 11:56:41 AM »

Thanks John but its the fuel load thats expected to be loaded at Howland for trip to Hawaii. Not Lae to Howland.  Gary did some takeoff distance calculations and indicated that AE was going with a lighter fuel load from Howland to Hawaii but I can't find the references to that.  It flies in the face of what the pilots have said in this forum before about leaving for a flight with less than full tanks.  But AE was her own woman.

I was thinking her takeoff distance from Howland was going to be the same as Lae with a full fuel load but Gary says she has opted for 825 gallons (presumed US gallons) from Howland.  This makes her aircraft lighter and therefore requires a shorter take off distance.

I'm interested to see what he has as I looked for some type of planning document that would show how often she left with less than full tanks at different points in her trip.  Ric had indicated that George Putnam arranged for fuel to be staged at all landing points in the trip. One of the reasons I'm guessing is availability and secondly for quality assurance.  If you know where such a document is John then please let me know. Thanks.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #72 on: December 28, 2011, 12:05:46 PM »


John
The operative part in the Chater Report states that All tanks were filled except for one 81 gallon tank that was about half full, i.e. lacked 40.5 gallons.  Subtracting that amount from the total capacity of 1151 gallons gives about 1110.5 galons at takeoff.  Every little bit counts.

The reason that the 81 gallon tank wasn't filled was that it contained 100 octane fuel which wasn't available at Lae.  Pity.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #73 on: December 28, 2011, 12:30:03 PM »

Thanks John but its the fuel load thats expected to be loaded at Howland for trip to Hawaii. Not Lae to Howland.

False.  The Chater Report is about the fuel taken on board for the Lae to Howland flight in 2 July 1937.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity
« Reply #74 on: December 28, 2011, 12:43:04 PM »

No guys. Gary has suggested that AE was going to only load 825 gallons when she ARRIVED at Howland. We know she didn't so it's a moot point. I asked if Gary or anyone has information as to how much she was planning on taking off with from Howland.

Marty I know the Chater report is re the fuel taken on at Lae to Howland. What about Howland to Hawaii?  I have searched Ameliapedia, this forum and the Internet in general. No luck. How does Gary know she only planned to load 825 gallons at Howland?

If I'm missing something then I sincerely apologize.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 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