Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 31   Go Down

Author Topic: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland  (Read 411894 times)

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #255 on: February 26, 2012, 02:48:27 PM »

then he mentioned it in last flight

also if it was true they only just recived them, why no sign of them in search if they were that important an low on fuel ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #256 on: February 26, 2012, 05:55:32 PM »


EXCEPT that we have two contemporaneous newspaper accounts saying that she did receive parachutes at Darwin. So it is not speculation, she is silent on this and the newspapers have positive statements so the newspapers win.

gl

papers sell on breaking news etc leaveing parachutes behind would not be big news so why mention it ?

especially due to price per word sent!!!!

But how would reporting that Earhart picked up her parachutes at Darwin sell Australian newspapers? These stories were published before she disappeared.
Logged

Erik

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #257 on: February 27, 2012, 06:40:37 AM »

Good points, Gary.  That clunker (by today's standards anyway) in the Electra sucked up a lot of juice to transmit -
If the portable generator could produce enough juice it would probably kill the average guy to run it down in that heat (if on Gardner, for instance).  ;)
LTM -
Her radio needed 780 watts (65 amps at 12 volts) to put out a signal of only 50 watts, a ratio of 15.6 to 1.  My transmitter puts out 100 watts with an input of only 228 watts (19 amps at 12 volts) a ratio of only 2.28 to 1 so Earhart's radio used almost 7 times as much power as mine does per watt of output.

gl

Here's another article that provides a bit more detail.  This article makes it appear that a generator was not carried on the flight at all, as opposed to being discarded.  It also clarifies the idea that emergency batteries were carried on board to power the transmitter in case of emergency, and suggests that such a generator would have been used for that purpose as opposed to powering the radio itself. 

New York Times; Jul 11, 1937
IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE SMALL STORAGE BATTERIES WOULD NOT APPLY CURRENT TO THE TRANSMITTER FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS.  NO HAND GENERATOR WAS CARRIED TO CHARGE THE BATTERIES.  THE ONLY SOURCE OF POWER FOR THE RADIO WAS FROM AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR COUPLED TO THE CRAFT'S 500-HORSE-POWER MOTOR.

I'm not necessarily making an argument for or against these supposed items, but rather if we establish that they were on board would add more credibility to rafts and parachutes being on board too.

In an earlier post, on a different thread several weeks ago, another good point was also made.  If we can reasonablly establish the likliehood of particular items being on the plane or not, that gives us more ability to include or exclude these items in other artifact related topics, such as the ROV thread.

In contrast to the generator being on the plane or not, there are several different newspaper articles that make  reference to the water condenser again.  Unlike the generator, the water condenser appears to be a much more credible report.  There are several articles that meniton it was used to vaporize ocean water, which makes sense.

Gary, suppose we can establish with reasonable certainty that the water condenser (or still) was a legitmate device carried on board the plane.  Would your opinion be that she kept this on board, discarded it as some articles suggest, or that it was never on board in the first place?  Or even a complete hoax?

I know it is kinda drifting from the parachute thread, but since all these items are of the same survival gear category, perhaps trends can be established on her pattern for carrying these on board or not.



Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #258 on: February 27, 2012, 11:54:05 AM »

Good points, Gary.  That clunker (by today's standards anyway) in the Electra sucked up a lot of juice to transmit -

If the portable generator could produce enough juice it would probably kill the average guy to run it down in that heat (if on Gardner, for instance).  ;)

LTM -
Her radio needed 780 watts (65 amps at 12 volts) to put out a signal of only 50 watts, a ratio of 15.6 to 1.  My transmitter puts out 100 watts with an input of only 228 watts (19 amps at 12 volts) a ratio of only 2.28 to 1 so Earhart's radio used almost 7 times as much power as mine does per watt of output.

gl

Just out of curiosity what kind of transmitter do you have that puts out 100 watts?
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #259 on: February 27, 2012, 09:38:00 PM »


Her radio needed 780 watts (65 amps at 12 volts) to put out a signal of only 50 watts, a ratio of 15.6 to 1.  My transmitter puts out 100 watts with an input of only 228 watts (19 amps at 12 volts) a ratio of only 2.28 to 1 so Earhart's radio used almost 7 times as much power as mine does per watt of output.

gl

Just out of curiosity what kind of transmitter do you have that puts out 100 watts?
It's a Yaesu FT-757 GX transmitting on every frequency from 500 khz to 30 mhz. I also have a SGC SG-2020 which puts out 20 watts with  48 watts input, 4 amps at 12 volts, that covers the same range of frequencies.
gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #260 on: February 27, 2012, 10:11:03 PM »

Another thought on a 'portable' generator (hand cranked type) -

The transmitter was reliant on battery state, not direct generator feed - so the batteries had to be re-charged at times to permit transmissions.

The Electra's generator was good for 50 amps; the dynamotor used for transmitting drew 60 amps (I think the 65 amps Gary mentions is also true for total requirement - there's other circuitry running in there too...).

But even running off batteries you of course must re-charge to continue the effort - and one can still get a good idea of how tough it would be to effectively re-charge the batteries between rounds of transmitting attempts with a hand-driven generator.  Possible, but a time and energy consuming chore for sure.

LTM -
Let's do the math. Assume that Noonan could crank out the 76 watts that an army guy could with the example hand cranked generator I showed before. At 12 volts he would be putting out about 6 amps to recharge the battery. But putting amp hours into a lead acid battery and then taking them out again to run the radio loses about half the power in the process so, in effect, he is only providing 3 amp hours of available power for every hour he cranked which would be enough to power the transmitter for about 3 minutes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to carry a hand cranked generator, does it to you?

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #261 on: February 27, 2012, 11:59:04 PM »


Here's another article that provides a bit more detail.  This article makes it appear that a generator was not carried on the flight at all, as opposed to being discarded.  It also clarifies the idea that emergency batteries were carried on board to power the transmitter in case of emergency, and suggests that such a generator would have been used for that purpose as opposed to powering the radio itself. 

New York Times; Jul 11, 1937
IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE SMALL STORAGE BATTERIES WOULD NOT APPLY CURRENT TO THE TRANSMITTER FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS.  NO HAND GENERATOR WAS CARRIED TO CHARGE THE BATTERIES.  THE ONLY SOURCE OF POWER FOR THE RADIO WAS FROM AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR COUPLED TO THE CRAFT'S 500-HORSE-POWER MOTOR.

I'm not necessarily making an argument for or against these supposed items, but rather if we establish that they were on board would add more credibility to rafts and parachutes being on board too.

In contrast to the generator being on the plane or not, there are several different newspaper articles that make  reference to the water condenser again.  Unlike the generator, the water condenser appears to be a much more credible report.  There are several articles that meniton it was used to vaporize ocean water, which makes sense.

Gary, suppose we can establish with reasonable certainty that the water condenser (or still) was a legitmate device carried on board the plane.  Would your opinion be that she kept this on board, discarded it as some articles suggest, or that it was never on board in the first place?  Or even a complete hoax?

I know it is kinda drifting from the parachute thread, but since all these items are of the same survival gear category, perhaps trends can be established on her pattern for carrying these on board or not.
That doesn't sound like the "water machine" described by Mantz that condensed moisture from a person's breath. But if she had solar stills like they had during WW2 then it wouldn't make any sense to leave then behind on an over ocean flight with two more legs to go, totaling 6500 miles, since that is what solar stills were designed for. And they weighed about one pound each and took up very little space, See prior post here.

But I don't see why you don't accept that she carried emergency equipment, her husband said she did on the day she disappeared. See attached newspaper.

gl
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 12:14:45 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #262 on: February 28, 2012, 12:08:24 AM »

then he mentioned it in last flight

also if it was true they only just recived them, why no sign of them in search if they were that important an low on fuel ?
Yah, why didn't Lambrecht see the parachutes on Gardner, rigged by Earhart and Noonan to provide shelter from the sun and to act as an emergency signal? I've got an idea, because Earhart was not on Gardner.

gl
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 01:46:53 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #263 on: February 28, 2012, 04:12:47 AM »


One thing I have wondered about for some time is whether or not they hand any wrenches on board. Let's say that they had landed on a reef or even up on a beach, and the starboard prop did not have enough clearance to turn. Could they have removed the prop? If the engine was unloaded without the prop, would that have decreased fuel consumption running at some minimum RPM? Adjustable spanner (adjustable wrenches, Crescent wrench) should have been available then and would have been a good tool to have on board. Does anyone know the size of the nuts on the prop to know if this could have been possible? Were there special tools required to remove the prop? Thanks.
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #264 on: February 28, 2012, 06:10:39 AM »

Post removed due to excessive quotation.  MXM, SJ
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 06:45:21 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #265 on: February 28, 2012, 06:45:58 AM »

Heath,
The engines won't run without propellers.  They're the "flywheel" for the engine.  They're also surprisingly heavy, requiring a lifting device, if not other speciality tools - Gary or someone else with the data could tell us how much one weighs.  Um, our castaway mechanics would also need a shark-proof ladder, in addition to the shark-proof hoist.
There wouldn't be any realistic way to decrease minimum fuel consumption from an idling 600hp engine beyond setting the prop to flat pitch and leaning the carb a bit.  The alternator only draws a couple hp, so the engine hardly notices it's there as it gobbles fuel.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Erik

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #266 on: February 28, 2012, 08:23:25 AM »


In contrast to the generator being on the plane or not, there are several different newspaper articles that make  reference to the water condenser again.  Unlike the generator, the water condenser appears to be a much more credible report.  There are several articles that meniton it was used to vaporize ocean water, which makes sense.

Gary, suppose we can establish with reasonable certainty that the water condenser (or still) was a legitmate device carried on board the plane.  Would your opinion be that she kept this on board, discarded it as some articles suggest, or that it was never on board in the first place?  Or even a complete hoax?

I know it is kinda drifting from the parachute thread, but since all these items are of the same survival gear category, perhaps trends can be established on her pattern for carrying these on board or not.
That doesn't sound like the "water machine" described by Mantz that condensed moisture from a person's breath. But if she had solar stills like they had during WW2 then it wouldn't make any sense to leave then behind on an over ocean flight with two more legs to go, totaling 6500 miles, since that is what solar stills were designed for. And they weighed about one pound each and took up very little space, See prior post here.

But I don't see why you don't accept that she carried emergency equipment, her husband said she did on the day she disappeared. See attached newspaper.

gl

I agree.  I think the newspaper misquoted Mantz.  For example, he may have said something along the lines of "vapor from air", and the reporter may have mistakingly thought "vapor from breath".  It is interesting to note that other newspapers refer to the 'water machine' as being capable of producing fresh water from the sea or ocean.  So, it would appear that a 'water machine' of some sort (likely a water still), truly did exist and was carried by Earhart for some portion (if not all) of her journey.  The focus of the article is not so much what the items were per se, but whether anything was purposefully discarded or not. 

As far as the generator, that too appears to be a misquote.  It wouldn't surprise me if Mantz simply stated that "she didn't have one" and the newspaper mistakingly thought "she deposited one".  If anything, it seems pretty clear that a hand-cranked generator was not practical, and was not carried on the trip at all.  The water machine on the other hand, seems likely that one was carried on the trip, and perhaps with her til the end.

I am not saying that I don't accept any emergency equipment being carried aboard, but rather making arguements both for and against to see what results.  My original argument was that she carried a water machine aboard.  But, both Ric and Marty pointed to Mantz's article firmly claiming that the water machine was discarded and/or not on the trip at all.  I'm leaning towards the water machine being on board the entire trip, and the generator not being aboard at all. 

As for the parachutes - I'm still on the fence.

Logged

Erik

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #267 on: February 28, 2012, 09:56:01 AM »

This is interesting....

Mrs. Putnam - Prescott Evening Courier; Jul 13, 1932
"This time I had to sit on a hard parachute pack all the way.  I didn't wear a parachute on the ocean flight because I decided that even if I needed it, it wouldn't do me any good."

Thoughts?
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #268 on: February 28, 2012, 06:14:50 PM »

This is interesting....

Mrs. Putnam - Prescott Evening Courier; Jul 13, 1932
"This time I had to sit on a hard parachute pack all the way.  I didn't wear a parachute on the ocean flight because I decided that even if I needed it, it wouldn't do me any good."

Thoughts?

I don't understand this quote, it appears to be contradictory. This was after her Atlantic crossing so the first part says she did take a parachute with her on that crossing, sitting on it, but the second part appears to deny it. Or is she saying that she sat on a seat type of chute, the same kind we see in the photo taken in Darwin, but did not wear the harness snapped around her? Of course in the latter case she could always put the harness on and jump if needed. Did she have a life raft with her on that flight? If she didn't then she might as well have gone down with the plane.
gl

Logged

Erik

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #269 on: February 29, 2012, 09:19:41 AM »

This is interesting....

Mrs. Putnam - Prescott Evening Courier; Jul 13, 1932
"This time I had to sit on a hard parachute pack all the way.  I didn't wear a parachute on the ocean flight because I decided that even if I needed it, it wouldn't do me any good."

Thoughts?

I don't understand this quote, it appears to be contradictory. This was after her Atlantic crossing so the first part says she did take a parachute with her on that crossing, sitting on it, but the second part appears to deny it. Or is she saying that she sat on a seat type of chute, the same kind we see in the photo taken in Darwin, but did not wear the harness snapped around her? Of course in the latter case she could always put the harness on and jump if needed. Did she have a life raft with her on that flight? If she didn't then she might as well have gone down with the plane.
gl

It does seem contradictory.  I think it means during the first flight she had no parachute at all (neither sitting or wearing), and on the second flight flight she sat on the parachute (ready to wear), even though she felt it would do no good over the ocean. 

But, that is not what I found interesting. 

What I found interesting was her opinion towards a parachute over the ocean, regardless.  It is pretty clear that she felt a parachute over the ocean wouldn't do much good. 

Here's another quote from her.
New York Times; Jul 14, 1932
"It probably wouldn't have done me any good anyhow over the ocean."

Which begs the question about the controversy at Darwin, did she have a parachute delivered specifically for the flight over the ocean, when she clearly had feelings indicating the opposite, that it would do no good?  Or, would it make more sense for them to be shipped back since she felt that her use for them over the land was obviously no longer needed?

The implication being that they would be good over land, but not over the ocean. 

Personally, I could see that as a valid argument too.  Where parachuting into the ocean would do no good.  Unless of course a nearby ship knew exactly where you were or you had nearby rescue gear avaliable.  And, conversely where having a parachute over land would do a lot of good.  Whereas, not wanting to make a crash landing over unknow terrain, forests, etc, then bailing out with chute, somewhat nearby your plane, with potential rescue gear nearby. 

Confusing...

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 31   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