Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?  (Read 167265 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #120 on: December 20, 2011, 11:00:01 AM »

I thought that TIGHAR had claimed the the sextant box found on Gardner was for a Brandis sextant and that they have spent a great deal of time tracking numbers on Brandis sextant boxes.

I think that TIGHAR's claims are more modest than you make them out to be.

The box found on Niku was identified as a "sextant box" by people who knew what sextant boxes looked like.


The reasons to speculate that the box was a Brandis are:
  • the numbers on the Niku box fit a pattern found on extant Brandis boxes
  • bubble sights had been developed for Brandis sextants
  • a box with two numbers on it said to have come from Noonan is in a Florida museum
TIGHAR hasn't found any other numbering system with pairs of numbers marked on sextant boxes using different techniques (inked and die-struck). 


There were two different Brandis sextants adapted for use in flight. One was a standard marine sextant with a special Willson telescope that incorporated a bubble assembly. The second was entirely different, designed from the start for aircraft use. This sextant is different from almost every other sextant on earth in that the handle was placed so that it was held in the left hand while almost every other sextant on earth is held in the right hand. This special model also had a distinctly different box, one with a sliding cover instead of the normal hinged cover. To see one of these instruments scroll down to the last entry here: http://sextantbook.com/?s=brandis

The sextant at the Naval Museum in Pensacola formerly owned by Noonan is a Ludolph, not a Brandis.

Noonan said a "marine sextant" was carried as a preventer. He did not say a "marine sextant equipped with a bubble attachment" was carried as a preventer so there is no reason to believe that the sextant that he carried as a preventer two years earlier while working for Pan Am had such a bubble attachment. Also, there were other marine sextants that had bubble attachments and you still can buy bubble attachments, I posted a link to Celestaire before, Only $950.00. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that it was a Brandis if that is your only reason.

I have posted on a navigation website an excerpt from a book describing the development of these instruments, you can find it here. The missing page 192 is here and page 193 is here.
gl
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 11:29:35 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #121 on: December 20, 2011, 03:02:45 PM »


Gary
I don't recall having said anything about a "ten ton safe" on the plane.  Perhaps you should look up the word "perhaps".  Actually , no, I haven't ever had anything stolen from my locked plane, but I concede that something like that might have happened to FN at some time and thus induced him not to leave a sextant (octant) on the locked plane.  On the other hand, who knows?  Perhaps when the equipment for the world flight was being purchased , presumably on the Purdue budget, a sextant was purchased and FN also took his own "poreventer" on board.  Again, who knows?
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #122 on: December 20, 2011, 05:11:59 PM »

The sextant at the Naval Museum in Pensacola formerly owned by Noonan is a Ludolph, not a Brandis.

Yes, that pretty much is what the Ameliapedia article says.

There are two numbers on the box formerly owned by Noonan (3547/173).  That's all I said about that box.  They are scrawled on it, not inked or die-stamped.  I didn't say it was a Brandis sextant or a Brandis box.

There are two numbers on the box found on Gardner.

Trying to figure out what the two numbers might mean led to the development of the tables on that page.

Neither the Pensacola numbers nor the Gardner numbers can be excluded on the basis of what we know so far. 

The true statement that the Pensacola sextant is a Ludolph is irrelevant to the point I was making.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #123 on: December 20, 2011, 07:41:01 PM »

The sextant at the Naval Museum in Pensacola formerly owned by Noonan is a Ludolph, not a Brandis.

Yes, that pretty much is what the Ameliapedia article says.

There are two numbers on the box formerly owned by Noonan (3547/173).  That's all I said about that box.  They are scrawled on it, not inked or die-stamped.  I didn't say it was a Brandis sextant or a Brandis box.

There are two numbers on the box found on Gardner.

Trying to figure out what the two numbers might mean led to the development of the tables on that page.

Neither the Pensacola numbers nor the Gardner numbers can be excluded on the basis of what we know so far. 

The true statement that the Pensacola sextant is a Ludolph is irrelevant to the point I was making.
My point is that why are they looking for a Brandis sextant box when the type of sextant that we know Noonan had owned was a Ludolph? Based on that piece of information I would be researching Ludolph boxes on the assumption that Noonan was more likely to own another Ludolph instead of a completely different type, the Brandis. Just because some Brandis sextants were adapted for in flight use doesn't mean that Noonan would have gotten one of these. Noonan did not say there was a "marine sextant with a bubble attachment," he said simply "a marine sextant."
gl
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #124 on: December 20, 2011, 08:35:00 PM »

My point is that why are they looking for a Brandis sextant box when the type of sextant that we know Noonan had owned was a Ludolph?

Have you actually taken the time to read the Ameliapedia article?

Have you actually read the table with an open mind?

Looked at the pictures?

The Niku numbers fit into the Brandis pattern.

The Brandis boxes are pretty routinely marked with two numbers--if they went through the N.O.

We've collected other pairs of numbers, too, as they have come along.

I got another pair tonight that I will add later (Henry Hughes and Sons, "Huson", 41386, No No., inspection date 1 January 1945).

If you have Ludolph numbers that you would like to add to the table, please send them along.

Nowhere have I (or, I believe, TIGHAR) said that "we are looking for a Brandis box."

The thread that I created for the sextant project is entitled, "Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?"  It says nothing about wanting only Brandis numbers.  With the numbers we have collected so far, the Pensacola box and the Niku box fit best with the Brandis numbers.  If you take time to read the table, you will see that the Brandis identification is labeled "theoretical." You may look at the page history to see that that label has been on those lines from the very beginning.

I don't mind defending a position I've taken.  I do mind having opinions attributed to me that are demonstrably not mine.  I don't have all of the TIGHAR materials memorized.  If some of them go beyond the evidence at hand, you may take your complaint to the author of those materials.

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #125 on: December 20, 2011, 09:10:00 PM »

My point is that why are they looking for a Brandis sextant box when the type of sextant that we know Noonan had owned was a Ludolph?

Have you actually taken the time to read the Ameliapedia article?

Have you actually read the table with an open mind?

Looked at the pictures?

The Niku numbers fit into the Brandis pattern.

The Brandis boxes are pretty routinely marked with two numbers--if they went through the N.O.

We've collected other pairs of numbers, too, as they have come along.

I got another pair tonight that I will add later (Henry Hughes and Sons, "Huson", 41386, No No., inspection date 1 January 1945).

If you have Ludolph numbers that you would like to add to the table, please send them along.

Nowhere have I (or, I believe, TIGHAR) said that "we are looking for a Brandis box."

The thread that I created for the sextant project is entitled, "Can you add to the list of sextant numbers?"  It says nothing about wanting only Brandis numbers.  With the numbers we have collected so far, the Pensacola box and the Niku box fit best with the Brandis numbers.  If you take time to read the table, you will see that the Brandis identification is labeled "theoretical." You may look at the page history to see that that label has been on those lines from the very beginning.

I don't mind defending a position I've taken.  I do mind having opinions attributed to me that are demonstrably not mine.  I don't have all of the TIGHAR materials memorized.  If some of them go beyond the evidence at hand, you may take your complaint to the author of those materials.
No I hadn't read that article, I didn't know it existed, it is quite interesting. After reading the table and sorting it various ways, I wonder if you aren't working with a skewed data set. The reason I wonder is that the Brandis seems to be  over represented and the White instruments way under represented. The Navy used lots of the White instruments so I don't know why there aren't more entries for them. The Mark 2 sextant, made by White, is even used for the illustration of "the Standard Navy Micrometer Sextant" in The American Practical Navigator, Bowditch, U. S. Navy Hydrographic Office Publication H.O. 9 and also in H.O. 216, Flight Navigation. I wonder if the people finding sextant numbers for your table weren't laboring under the same impression that I had, that they should only look for Brandis instruments. I remember Ric had a photo of the navigation station on the Pan Am Clipper showing what Ric said was a Brandis box on the shelf, but I can't find it now. You might also be interested in following the links I put in post 144, above. If you go to the sextantbook link there are clear photos of the Brandis 206C and also the Byrd sextant.
gl
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 09:47:55 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #126 on: December 20, 2011, 09:21:05 PM »

______________________
Gee, I wonder whatever happened to the sextant carried on the Norwich City.

gl

I think that is a fair wonderment, Gary.  I've actually wondered about that myself.

LTM -
I have a theory that explains the sextant box and the bones. After the Norwich City plowed onto the reef and several crewmen were drowned trying to get ashore, the navigator, fearing for his life, escaped ashore taking his sextant with him thinking he might need it to get off the island after everyone had left. He didn't run far enough and the crewmen who were angry about the loss of their mess buddies hunted him down and killed him. Of course they covered this up, saying the navigator was also lost in the surf.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #127 on: December 20, 2011, 10:08:06 PM »

Gary - I'd appreciate some help finding documentation defining FN's octant/sextant.  The only documention I've found describes the one that Harry Manning loaned him as a "Pioneer...#12-36", presumably meaning Bureau of Aeronautics (Bu. Aero) serial 12-36.  This doesn't identify the Mark or Model number.  Is that information available?  The Pioneer model 342 (Mk.3, Mod.1) and model 206 (Mk.1, Mod.4) were both being sold in the early 30's, yet were physically quite different.  How do we know which model was on the flight?  You discussed this to some extent in your post #8 in "Questions for the Celestial Choir", but did not at that time have documentation.  Have you found any yet that you could share?
Note that it makes more sense to me that FN would prefer an A5-style instrument, similar to your A7, for taking shots out a nearly vertical Lockheed side window. A more traditional open-frame sextant or octant would not be handy shooting high elevations, with the possible exception of shots from the front seats, making the presence of such an instrument seem less likely to be useful.  On the other hand, you also mentioned that a marine sextant is more accurate than an aeronautical octant, so it might have been Fred's preference for critical navigation work.
Defining the instrument borrowed from Manning would help a little.
i don't think there is any ambiguity. In all the literature you will see that only the MkIII type instrument is referred to as a "Pioneer bubble octant." The 206 is really the Brandis and everyone knew that.
gl
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #128 on: December 21, 2011, 02:39:13 AM »

No I hadn't read that article, I didn't know it existed, it is quite interesting.

Thanks.  It's one of my favorites.

Quote
After reading the table and sorting it various ways, I wonder if you aren't working with a skewed data set.

If you have data to add, we will add it.

If you can find the Naval Observatory logs, they should immediately tell us whether 3500/1542 was part of the system.

That won't tell us how it got to Niku.

All it will tell us is that the sextant box had spent some time in the Navy system.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #129 on: December 21, 2011, 10:20:00 PM »

Gary

We didn't start out looking for Brandis boxes.  We started looking for sextant boxes that had two numbers as described by Gallagher in his telegrams.  Only after looking at many, many sextant boxes did we start to figure out that there was a pattern with the boxes that had two numbers, and that led us to Brandis as most of the boxes with two numbers contained Brandis sextants with two numbers.  Brandis is the result of the research, not the assumption at the start.

Keep in mind that Gallager wrote in his telegram "Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542--sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel."

The "stencilled" is a big clue.  In the boxes that we've looked at, including the one that I own, the Brandis number is stenciled, as in painted stenciled numbers, on the box as well as imprinted on the arc of the sextant.  The Navy number is punched / imprinted into the wood as well as etched on the arc by hand.

The point is that the research into boxes with two numbers pointed to Brandis boxes that had been in the USN system and therefore had a USNO calibration number, we did not set out to find Brandis boxes with two numbers.

Many of the boxes contain sextants that do not match the numbers on the box.  The Ludolph sextant at Pensacola apparently does not have matching numbers to the box, so it could still be a Brandis box. 

I don't know what numbers are on that sextant, or if it has one number or two.  Does anyone?  Would be interesting to know.

Andrew
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #130 on: December 22, 2011, 02:32:32 AM »



Anyway, it seems there are ample examples of FN owning his own equipment - I'm satisfied.


LTM -
What examples?

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #131 on: December 22, 2011, 02:44:31 AM »

Good points, John.



I'm not sure how one would miss Catalina, with or without an octant or sextant, but it is an interesting exercise that Gary shared (I'd like to hear more about the $100 hamburgers too  ;D).
LTM -
Actually buffalo burgers.
It's the best way to visit Catalina, cheaper and quicker than taking the boat across. You land at the airport and take a half hour bus ride into town for sightseeing. The airport is on a plateau 1500 feet above the sea with a cliff at each end of the runway, don't get low on approach or you end up making a smoking airplane shaped hole in the cliff.
If you take the boat over, you end up taking the same bus tour to see the buffalo and the other wildlife so flying in just lets you take the tour starting at the other end and you take the bus back to the airport with the other tourists.

gl

Very cool, Gary!  Sorry I forgot the distinction of 'buffalo burger' - I realized that but lapsed as I wrote it.

I'm envious - you have a wonderful area to fly about in to enjoy many attractions.  What you've described is one of the great things about the privilege of flying easier access to some real wonders out there in this world.  Catalina is a beautiful and kind of mysterious place in terms of aura, I think.

Maybe one day I can fly there in person too - quite a nice adventure right off the coast!  I'd have to 'do' the Bahamas to get anything llike the same offshore effect, passport and all - and that would be very 'different' anyway.

Thanks again for sharing that!
Well Jeff, if you liked that story you might like this one too: http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=108647&y=200906

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #132 on: December 22, 2011, 03:08:02 PM »


By 1937 the Pioneer octant had been perfected and was carried in thousands of Air Force and Navy planes, virtually unchanged, through the end of WW2. Bubble octants are extremely simple and reliable instruments. Bubble octants were used on trans-oceanic airline flights through the 1970's and commonly on Air Force planes until less than ten years ago, (I believe that there are still some Air Force planes with them.) In all of these uses, only ONE octant was carried in each airplane, no "preventer" in B-17s, no "preventer" in Boeing 707s, no "preventer" in B-47s, no "preventer" in C-130s, and no "preventer" in B-52s, and none of these planes were limited by space and weight constraints like the Electra. No second octant was carried in any of these planes because they are so simple and reliable.
So, like I said, there is no evidence to prove that a marine sextant was carried on the Electra, the burden of proof is on those who make that claim.

gl
We tend to focus on Earhart and Noonan as being very important people, but in the scheme of things, not so much. Compared to a B-52 on its way to Russia to drop some nukes in an effort to save millions of people in our country from the Russian nukes, Noonan and Earhart don't count at all. Yet, even in light of the importance of the B-52 missions, carrying only one sextant was good enough for Curtis LeMay and the Strategic Air Command (a notoriously hard-assed outfit.) If one sextant was good enough for LeMay then there is no reason to believe that one sextant was not good enough for Noonan.

gl
Helen Day helped them "carry down their things-various items including pith helmets, thermos jugs, and a machete in case they were forced down in the jungle. Someone carried Amelia's small suitcase, which held five shirts, two pairs of slacks, a change of shoes, a light working coverall, a weightless raincoat, linen, and toilet articles. Fred carried only his octant." East To The Dawn, Susan Butler.

gl

Here is a link to a movie showing them carefully weighing everything going on to the plane and you can see the pith helmet. They were obviously concerned with weight so would they have carried an extra un-needed sextant? This movie adds additional support to the credibility and accuracy of Helen Day's statement.
gl
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 05:41:26 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #133 on: December 22, 2011, 08:13:32 PM »



Anyway, it seems there are ample examples of FN owning his own equipment - I'm satisfied.


LTM -
What examples?

gl

The one now at the Naval Air Museum in Pensacola, FL, for one, which was "...donated by W. A. Cluthe, a retired Pan Am captain, who said that he had borrowed the Ludolph sextant from Fred Noonan."

Unless of course you have good reason to believe Cluthe himself was a thief for having accepted and then given away goods that did not belong to FN to loan to Cluthe in the first place.  I'm not prepared to make that claim.

LTM -
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?
« Reply #134 on: December 22, 2011, 10:53:05 PM »



Anyway, it seems there are ample examples of FN owning his own equipment - I'm satisfied.


LTM -


gl
What examples?

gl

The one now at the Naval Air Museum in Pensacola, FL, for one, which was "...donated by W. A. Cluthe, a retired Pan Am captain, who said that he had borrowed the Ludolph sextant from Fred Noonan."

Unless of course you have good reason to believe Cluthe himself was a thief for having accepted and then given away goods that did not belong to FN to loan to Cluthe in the first place.  I'm not prepared to make that claim.

LTM -
That was one he gave away when he was teaching navigation at Pan Am. This was even more remote in time than the 1935 flight that he wrote to Weems about. What this tells us is that at a remote point in time Noonan owned one sextant and that he had no need for a marine sextant anymore since he was now involved in flight navigation so he loaned it to a student at Pan Am. It is a real leap to claim that this proves that he carried his own sextant on the Electra many years later. Do you have any proof whatsoever that he personally owned any other marine sextant? If anything, this tends to disprove your theory in that this does prove that the only sextant that there is any evidence that he actually owned was NOT on the flight.
.
gl
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 11:07:19 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP