Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 [61] 62 63 ... 106   Go Down

Author Topic: Still from ROV video  (Read 1282793 times)

Randy Reid

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #900 on: February 17, 2012, 09:51:25 PM »

Richie,

I tend to agree with Irv in that the object in the picture looks like a person wading across the reef toward the shore. Quality of pic is so bad tho, who knows?
As far as the waves go, they look pretty normal to me and I have lived on or near the beach for the last 50 years. You get a new view every second.
The white blob looks like a defect in the pic but could be a reflective highlight off a wavelet.
Is it a possibility that this picture was taken by someone standing on the reef? It could have been taken by a fixed lens camera with a fairly wide field of view.

Randy
Logged

Randy Reid

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #901 on: February 17, 2012, 10:09:36 PM »

Gary,

Wasn't there some type of power indicator gauge on the Electra. I seem to remember reading about some type of exhaust gas analyzer that was giving them trouble on the first portions of the trip and was supposedly repaired at one of the stops. I was given the impression that Amelia relied on that gauge to adjust power and fuel burn. Of course I could be imagining this ;D

Randy
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #902 on: February 17, 2012, 10:12:07 PM »


Gary
At takeoff the throttles would be to the firewall and the plane would be turning max rpms and  mx power.  Doesn't matter what the airspeed indicator says.  Then at some time the airspeed indicator nedle drops indicating a loss of speed?  And AE doesn't notice that?  She can't go any faster cause she's at full power already.  She gets outa ground effect and is heavily loaded so she dips a bit, happens alla time.  She establishes her climb with the engine rpms and notices the climb rate on the vertical speed indicator, no matter what the airspeed indicator says.

She reaches her cruise altitude and levels off, her vert speed indicator on zero, but because she is still at max rpms she has to fly nose down to keep from climbing, and she doesn't notice this?  She's flown that plane three quarters of the way around the world and doesn't know what rpm settings produce her cruising speed?  I think she notices it, gets on the radio and goes back to see what the problem is, if indeed there is a prblem..  I don't think thhat even AE would be that dense as to keep flying in a nose down attitude.  She would back off on the throttle to a rpms setting that gives zero climb  and steady cruise altitude on the altimeter no matter what the airspeed indicator says.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #903 on: February 17, 2012, 10:18:52 PM »

Richie.  The more you zoom in the more pixalated the image gets.  You really need the sharpest image possible to start with.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 07:23:51 AM by Irvine John Donald »
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #904 on: February 17, 2012, 10:20:58 PM »


Randy
Yes, the Electra had exhaust gas anylzer on each engine that allowed AE to adjust the richness/leaness of the fuel mixture for each engine to an optimal level for the flying conditions.  It was repaired at Lae (see Chater report)
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #905 on: February 17, 2012, 10:34:55 PM »

Jeff, it looks to me like that would happen. ...personally think it was bent (just my opinion). There has also been much discussion about whether one of the ventral antennas was removed before the second trip left Florida. The attached photo taken somewhere along the route, I'm not sure where, appears to show both of the rear antenna masts still installed. It is not obvious if the second antenna wire is still there. If both wires were still there, both A/S indicators could have been off. In whatever case, AE should have been able to maintain close to the correct airspeed just by using the proper power settings in conjunction with the other flight instruments.
I think you have discovered why Earhart ran out of gas just after the 2013 Z message. Both pitot masts were bent out of shape causing both airspeed indicators to read too low. (There is no way that they can be bent to make the airspeed read too high.) To get the recommended cruise speed to show up on the airspeed indicators Earhart added more power which increased the fuel flow and so reduced the specific range (miles per gallon) causing the plane to run out of gas much sooner than expected. You might think Earhart would be suspicious that such high power settings were needed but she probably just chalked it up to operating at a higher gross weight than she had ever flown the plane at before.

gl

That's very interesting, Gary - and nearly utter non-sense.

How do you KNOW such things to be true at all?  Quite a leap.

First of all, a slight bent pitot tube won't necessarily cause such a gross error.  We take great pains to keep tolerances on stuff like that for a good reason, but it's still far from certain that a bent tube would create that much error from what I've seen damaged and flown in the field over 4 decades.  I don't buy your statement at all as a certainty.  I also agree with Clarence Herndon that such errors can be readily spotted and dealt with well enough.

You, TIGHAR, nor I can know exactly what AE meant in that statement about running low on gas - maybe she meant the reserve she was able to spend searching before moving down the line - which of course you have always clearly rejected.  This appears to be nothing more than a convenient grab for you to bolster your pet thought on the idea of sputtered and sank - you have no substantiation for your claim.

After the celestial nav ad nauseam you have posted here you also know that you don't even have to chase A/S with power like that if any of your cel nav ideas are even near to the truth - so which is it?  You can't have it both ways.  If something is out of whack to that degree you sort it out - and they did have substantial mileage behind them at the 0718 position call (with identifiable land in sight).  That was enough miles to know if they had such a problem.  AE may have been dingy, but yes I do think she'd be suspicious - the airplane wasn't that heavy after several hours of burn-off, and again - she had a position check per above.  She'd come nearly around the world in the Electra by then - if the numbers were grossly crossed it's not likely she'd have chased the needles like that - with a navigator aboard, most especially.  It's a long leap to say that she'd 'chalk it up' to something like that - you're being too dismissive IMO.  You can have your opinion, of course - I just see it as flawed for obvious reasons.

Where do you get that both pitot tubes would have been bent anyway?  Maybe an astroid struck the bird...  You talk about TIGHAR grabbing at the 1/2 fuel remaining comment (highly questionable record on that anyway), but you grab this non-sense and hold it up?

Irv's got the right track on this - it looks like you're just contriving another crash-splash-n-sink platform.  But, NOW we know what your theory is!!!  Happy day!  :D

LTM -
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #906 on: February 17, 2012, 10:49:02 PM »

Quote
Sure there is evidence, the most compelling of which is Earhart saying she only had a half hour of fuel left at 1940 Z. One radioman recorded it that way, "SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT," and the other paraphrased it as  "BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW." Now it didn't make sense that she should be running out that soon but it was possible to do that by running the engines at higher power. If she ran her engines at full cruising power, 550 hp per side, then the fuel flow would be 55 gallons per hour per side, a total of 110 gallons per hour, see attached power setting table. At that rate the fuel would all be gone after only ten hours. Of course it would make no sense for her to run her engines at full power but it is possible, depending on just what power settings she did use, to burn all the fuel in 20 hours and 13 minutes.

TIGHAR doesn't like the "1/2 HR LEFT" logged message so they came up with a strained, contrived explanation to try to get around the plain language of that message.

Further evidence is that she stopped transmitting after 2013 Z and none of the alleged later messages can be shown conclusively to have come from Earhart.

I didn't have any explanation before for why she would have used higher power setting. Elgin Long came up with an unreasonable explanation that she cruised faster at higher power settings to counter the headwind but the amount of extra fuel burned for that amount of headwind would not explain using all the fuel that quickly. But, increasing the airspeed in order to make the faulty airspeed indicator show the right number does make a reasonable explanation for using up the fuel.

And there is additional support for the damaged pitot theory, since this also explains the long takeoff at Lae, the plane barely skimming the ocean after that takeoff and the two puffs of dust behind the plane on takeoff. There is no reason the takeoff should have taken so much runway since the plane was only about 500 pounds heavier than when it took off from Oakland and that takeoff was only 1900 feet. An airspeed indicator that was reading too low would cause the pilot to accelerate to a higher speed than needed for the takeoff and this explains the long takeoff. The plane should climb at 730 feet per minute even at the maximum gross weight of 16,500 pounds and the plane was nowhere near that weight for the Lae takeoff. But to climb well the plane must be at the proper climb speed. With the airspeed indicator reading low then Earhart would hold the nose down in an attempt to see the correct climb speed on the airspeed indicator so she was actually flying at a higher speed which explains why she ended up skimming over the ocean instead climbing.

It all holds together.

gl
Baloney IMHO.  You say there is evidence to support your theory and then show how the radio messages were confusing but picking the one that fits your theory.  Then you say "IF" she ran her engines at full power. How can a statement with "if" in it be used as evidence??  That's speculation. Then you say the post loss messages aren't credible. They can't be attributed to her. But the opposite is also true. No evidence to say it wasn't her. In fact the direction finding by qualified radio operators points to Gardiner.  So you're saying they didn't hear AE but heard something coming from an Uninhabited island. 

Then you say the only reason for a long takeoff was damaged pitots.  Talk about trying to make the evidence fit. There was no other possible reason for a longer take off??  Not one??  It had to be damaged pitots??  How about no mechanical issue and just a plain old lets drag the take off out for dramatic effect?  How about she was wiggling in her seat on the new seat pack parachutes because she was uncomfortable?  How about she felt something "go" during takeoff and instead of climbing away immediately she decided to double check everything? 

Read Harry's post on your nose down theory. Sure makes a lot of sense to me.

So I don't think it holds together. Speculation and guessing isn't evidence. 

Seems like your finally telling us you believe in the crashed and sank theory. 

Just read Jeff N' great reply to your post. Well said Jeff. It appears Mr. Lapook is out in the open now. And I have to say I'm just a little disappointed. I thought Gary would have something spectacular to share with us.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 10:52:22 PM by Irvine John Donald »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #907 on: February 17, 2012, 11:34:53 PM »


You, TIGHAR, nor I can know exactly what AE meant in that statement about running low on gas - maybe she meant the reserve she was able to spend searching before moving down the line - which of course you have always clearly rejected.  This appears to be nothing more than a convenient grab for you to bolster your pet thought on the idea of sputtered and sank - you have no substantiation for your claim.

"Maybe she meant the reserve" and as you typed those words you knew that it is as contrived as the old "the dog ate my homework" excuse, created to try to explain away this "inconvenient truth" because it doesn't fit your theory. Nobody talking to the Coast Guard is going to play word games like that, trying to keep it secret from the people who would have to search for her the true fuel state of the plane.
Quote



Where do you get that both pitot tubes would have been bent anyway?  Maybe an astroid struck the bird...  You talk about TIGHAR grabbing at the 1/2 fuel remaining comment (highly questionable record on that anyway), but you grab this non-sense and hold it up?

I was relying on Herndon's observation that both tubes could have been bent in the same event as it looked like to him that both ventral antennas were still on the plane and connected to the two pitot tubes. And there are TWO puffs of dust behind the plane on takeoff, not just one.

How is it "highly questionable" it's in the radio log, you just don't like it because it makes the Gardner theory less likely.

Try this analogy. Your oldest daughter, Cathy, is away at college. Your younger twin daughters, Mary and Joan, tell you they got a call from Cathy today but don't share with you what they talked about. When Mary and Joan go out to the movies you sneak into their room and read their diaries. Mary wrote, "Cathy has a new boyfriend but she thinks he is too short for her." Joan wrote, "Cathy's new boyfriend is only five feet two." How tall is Cathy's new boyfriend? Joan wrote detailed information while Mary wrote a paraphrase of that detailed information that did not conflict with the detailed information.  I think you would believe that the boyfriend is five foot two not just that he was short because you would rely on the detailed information. If Cathy had just said the boyfriend was short then Joan would have had to have made up the detailed information and doing so would not be truthful. Yet you turn this same logic upside down because you want to dismiss the "1/2 HR of fuel left" log entry.


As for setting the power, you know that there are two methods for doing this. You can set the power controls and then accept whatever airspeed the power setting produces, and this is the most common way for setting cruise power in small planes. The second method, for those occasions when maintaining a particular airspeed is important, you adjust the position of the nose to give you the desired airspeed and then adjust the power to maintain altitude. With Earhart attempting to maintain the airspeeds called out for maximum range she would be using the second method and accepting whatever power setting that required. With erroneously low airspeed readings she would actually end up going faster than she thought but would accept the higher power settings necessary for the higher speed because they were producing the desired indicated airspeed.

Quote

Irv's got the right track on this - it looks like you're just contriving another crash-splash-n-sink platform.  But, NOW we know what your theory is!!!  Happy day!  :D

LTM -
Check my posts back to 2002, I've always stated that I believe she splashed down in the vicinity of Howland.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 11:53:14 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #908 on: February 17, 2012, 11:40:49 PM »


Gary
At takeoff the throttles would be to the firewall and the plane would be turning max rpms and  mx power.  Doesn't matter what the airspeed indicator says. 
Sure it matters what the airspeed indicator says. You're a pilot so I know that you watched the airspeed indicator on every takeoff you have ever made. If the rotation speed was 90 mph she wouldn't pull the nose back until seeing 90 on the airspeed indicator. If the airspeed indicator was reading 20 mph too low then she would keep the plane on the ground until it actually reached 110 mph using a whole lot more runway.

Same in the climb, you know that you must maintain the correct airspeed or the plane won't climb at all or will climb poorly. I know that you have watched your ASI when climbing. If she was climbing at an airspeed 20 mph higher than the best climb speed this would greatly reduce the rate of climb.

gl
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 12:19:25 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #909 on: February 17, 2012, 11:44:27 PM »



Seems like your finally telling us you believe in the crashed and sank theory. 


Wow, you finally found me out. But don't pat yourself on the back to much since all you had to do was check my posts back to 2002, I've always stated that I believe she splashed down in the vicinity of Howland.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 12:03:44 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #910 on: February 18, 2012, 12:06:28 AM »



Seems like your finally telling us you believe in the crashed and sank theory. 


No surprise, you can check my posts back to 2002, I've always stated that I believe she splashed down in the vicinity of Howland.

Sorry Gary.  Point to just one of your prior posts where you state this.  Even Marty stated in a recent post that he could not find, in any post since joining the forum in 2002, where you stated what you believed.  Jeff Neville and I have been asking you to tell us what you believe in for months.
You even suggested you would tell us at Christmas.   Now it's "no surprise".  Give me a break.

Ok. So what evidence do you have to support your theory?  Hard evidence please.  No IF's, no could've, no It's what I would have done arguments. 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #911 on: February 18, 2012, 12:43:26 AM »



Seems like your finally telling us you believe in the crashed and sank theory. 


No surprise, you can check my posts back to 2002, I've always stated that I believe she splashed down in the vicinity of Howland.

Sorry Gary.  Point to just one of your prior posts where you state this.  Even Marty stated in a recent post that he could not find, in any post since joining the forum in 2002, where you stated what you believed.  Jeff Neville and I have been asking you to tell us what you believe in for months.
You even suggested you would tell us at Christmas.   Now it's "no surprise".  Give me a break.


=====================================================================
====
Date:         Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:13:26 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP)

"...

This brings me to another point that I have not seen any discussion of on the web
site or on the forum. The assumption that they blithely just followed the 157 LOP
to Gardner. This however is impossible....


 Would this make any sense since he would have to do this
work all over again while in flight with no greater probability of success in
finding Gardner than they had had up to that time in finding Howland and a whole
lot less fuel available to search for Gardner after using the fuel to fly an
additional 350 NM? Wouldn't it make more sense to use all of the fuel remaining
in searching for Howland since they knew they were fairly close to it
? If
necessary he could do the landfall procedure again at Howland using his
precomputaions which is a lot easier and less prone to error than doing them all
over again in flight while enroute to Gardner."

In other posts I also discussed how shooting a moon shot would keep them in the vicinity of Howland.

Doesn't look like I was hiding the ball.

gl


« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 12:53:51 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #912 on: February 18, 2012, 02:58:17 AM »

Hadn't noticed this before but, there's more black thin strips of rubber on the Electra...
This must be the place
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #913 on: February 18, 2012, 03:23:40 AM »

There have been a number of incidents with airliners in which the pitot tubes have given the crew false information. Either the pilot or co-pilots air speed indicator has been fed duff information. The problem lies with 'which one is correct' and, 'when does it become apparent that one of them is wrong'. Dealing with the second point, at take off = trouble (maximum weight) and, at night = trouble (no spacial awareness). The tubes in a couple of incidents were found to be blocked either by failing to fit the covers while sat on the ground and, by faulty maintenance procedures (taping over them and then forgetting to remove it). The first point 'which one is correct' was discovered by choosing the incorrect one, with tragic consequences, either a mid air stall at night or insufficient take off speed.
So even a slight amount of mis alignment on one of AE's Electra pitot tubes may have gone un-noticed, allowing her to at least get airborne but, it's still there quietly waiting to catch her out in the following hours.
It's just a possibility, it's not to be taken as written in stone.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #914 on: February 18, 2012, 05:05:17 AM »



Seems like your finally telling us you believe in the crashed and sank theory. 


No surprise, you can check my posts back to 2002, I've always stated that I believe she splashed down in the vicinity of Howland.

Sorry Gary.  Point to just one of your prior posts where you state this.  Even Marty stated in a recent post that he could not find, in any post since joining the forum in 2002, where you stated what you believed.  Jeff Neville and I have been asking you to tell us what you believe in for months.
You even suggested you would tell us at Christmas.   Now it's "no surprise".  Give me a break.


=====================================================================
====
Date:         Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:13:26 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Telegram Typos and Implications (LOP)

"...

This brings me to another point that I have not seen any discussion of on the web
site or on the forum. The assumption that they blithely just followed the 157 LOP
to Gardner. This however is impossible....


 Would this make any sense since he would have to do this
work all over again while in flight with no greater probability of success in
finding Gardner than they had had up to that time in finding Howland and a whole
lot less fuel available to search for Gardner after using the fuel to fly an
additional 350 NM? Wouldn't it make more sense to use all of the fuel remaining
in searching for Howland since they knew they were fairly close to it
? If
necessary he could do the landfall procedure again at Howland using his
precomputaions which is a lot easier and less prone to error than doing them all
over again in flight while enroute to Gardner."

In other posts I also discussed how shooting a moon shot would keep them in the vicinity of Howland.

Doesn't look like I was hiding the ball.

gl

Surely you jest?  That bolded line is you asking a question!  Not making any statement that you believe in the crashed and sank theory.   You're really stretching now.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 [61] 62 63 ... 106   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