Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 31   Go Down

Author Topic: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland  (Read 378103 times)

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #270 on: February 29, 2012, 09:50:18 AM »

Gary, for your information, here is the reply I sent you yersterday concerning your HF transmitter. "Thanks Gary. Good looking little sets. Too bad our wayward travelers didn't have access to such technology. Things probably would have turned out much differently." It was removed because of "too many quotations" (3). I wasn't aware of this rule but won't make the same mistake again!
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #271 on: February 29, 2012, 10:41:16 AM »

Gary, for your information, here is the reply I sent you yersterday concerning your HF transmitter. "Thanks Gary. Good looking little sets. Too bad our wayward travelers didn't have access to such technology. Things probably would have turned out much differently." It was removed because of "too many quotations" (3). I wasn't aware of this rule but won't make the same mistake again!

Woody,

Got to watch out for the quote police!

Think Marty just wants us to try and keep posts clear and simple to read (as well as not duplicate data on the server)
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #272 on: February 29, 2012, 11:21:18 AM »


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."

She said this just after completing her solo crossing of the Atlantic from New Foundland to Ireland on May 20-21, 1932. Directly beneath her flight path on April 14, 1912 the Titanic hit an iceberg, how long did those people last in the firigid North Atlantic water? Parachuting into the North Atlantic meant certain death. If you watched the TV show "Ice Pilots" last season you saw three episodes about them ferrying two planes across the North Atlantic and the crews wore their anti-exposure suits for the entire time, such suits were not available in 1932. The Pacific near the equator is a lot warmer and many airmen survived for many days floating in that area during WW2.
So Earhart's prior statement might not represent her attitude about parachutes on the Howland flight.

gl

« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 11:48:19 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #273 on: February 29, 2012, 11:52:54 AM »

Chris, I don't have a problem with the way they decide to run the forum as long as everyone is informed of the rules and they are consistantly enforced. I must have missed that one somewhere.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 11:55:37 AM by Clarence W. Herndon »
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #274 on: February 29, 2012, 12:24:53 PM »

Thinks its more of an unwritten rule.  Had one last week myself.
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #275 on: February 29, 2012, 12:30:02 PM »

I see them all the time. Some with more than 3 quotes as I had.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

James G. Stoveken

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #276 on: February 29, 2012, 06:17:21 PM »

I must have missed that one somewhere.

Shame on you, Woody!  How could you have missed the anti-metagrobolization rule??  You can read it here.   ;)
Jim Stoveken
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #277 on: February 29, 2012, 07:44:33 PM »


Shame on you, Woody!  How could you have missed the anti-metagrobolization rule??  You can read it here.   ;)

Thanks James. I thought I read all of those things but I missed that one somehow.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #278 on: February 29, 2012, 08:25:53 PM »

 Erik. 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

She is on the final legs of the trip, heading to the US. The Irvin company parachutes are $350 each. A lot of money in those days. Why ship them back to the very country they are headed for?  Why not just keep them onboard for the trip back?  Money was tight so why take the chance on losing them and why pay for shipping?  I have said this before. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let me ask this question?  Doesn't a seat pack parachute fit into a seat frame so the pilot isn't raised xx inches by the bulk of the pack. So they can still reach the rudder pedals and not hit their heads on cockpit canopies?  Were the Electra seats like these?
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #279 on: February 29, 2012, 08:47:18 PM »

  Let me ask this question?  Doesn't a seat pack parachute fit into a seat frame so the pilot isn't raised xx inches by the bulk of the pack. So they can still reach the rudder pedals and not hit their heads on cockpit canopies? Were the Electra seats like these?
Only if the seats were designed for seat pack parachutes which seems unlikely for a civilian transport aircraft. But you don't have to wear them at all times unless you are worried about structural failure, say from a badly performed aerobatic maneuver or from 20mm projectiles from a Zero. But running out of fuel doesn't happen suddenly so they would have had plenty of time to put the chutes on, tie the life raft and survival equipment to the harness, and head for the exits.

gl
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 08:48:51 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #280 on: February 29, 2012, 09:13:16 PM »

Thanks Gary. It's what I would have thought. But look at reply 283 in this thread. It's on page 19. It quotes AE saying she sat on a parachute pack. How would that effect her flying. Could the seat be lowered enough to compensate for the bulk of the pack?  Why believe the report in the newspaper?  No need to disbelief it. It's not sensational and if your going to reported something hat isn't true then why pick a parachute?
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #281 on: February 29, 2012, 10:50:27 PM »


She said this just after completing her solo crossing of the Atlantic from New Foundland to Ireland on May 20-21, 1932. Directly beneath her flight path on April 14, 1912 the Titanic hit an iceberg, how long did those people last in the firigid North Atlantic water? Parachuting into the North Atlantic meant certain death.
gl
In case you are thinking that the water is a lot warmer in May when Earhart flew the Atlantic than it is in April when the Titanic went down the answer is yes, a little bit, but not enough to make survival possible in the water in May. In April, the average sea temperature near Newfoundland is 32° F while in May it is 39° F. I have attached a graph from the Air Force Survival Manual showing survival times for persons immersed in the ocean. At 32° F the expected survival time is about one hour and five minutes while at 39° F. it is one hour and forty-five minutes, not enough time for her to be rescued. Note, that above 68° F the survival time is unlimited. The ocean temperature between Lae and Howland in July is 83° F. In a life raft in that climate it is possible to last a very long time.  Zamperini and Phillips, after their B-24 crashed north of Palmyra, drifted in a life raft for 47 days and ended up 2,000 miles away in the Marshalls where there were captured by the Japanese.

gl
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 11:27:04 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #282 on: February 29, 2012, 11:40:20 PM »

Thanks Gary. It's what I would have thought. But look at reply 283 in this thread. It's on page 19. It quotes AE saying she sat on a parachute pack. How would that effect her flying. Could the seat be lowered enough to compensate for the bulk of the pack?  Why believe the report in the newspaper?  No need to disbelief it. It's not sensational and if your going to reported something hat isn't true then why pick a parachute?
She flew a Vega on that flight but I don't know if the seat was adjustable up and down (some planes have seats that do) or was modified for a seat parachute. Even if the seat wasn't adjustable, the seat pack is only about three or four inches thick so isn't hard to deal with.
gl
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #283 on: March 01, 2012, 05:59:51 AM »

Thanks Gary. I sense about Amelia that if something was a nuisance she would resist doing it and since the article has her complaining about sitting on the parachute pack then, even if prudent, she may not have done the right thing.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #284 on: March 01, 2012, 10:09:20 PM »

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.
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. 

I have been doing some more research and I now doubt that solar stills existed as early as 1937, I found this:

"No item was more vital to the airman in a raft than a supply of drinking water; this was especially true in the hot reaches of the Pacific. After tests in December 1942, Arnold ordered the immediate procurement of the Delano Sunstill, "not something Materiel Command thinks is better."27 This still, weighing only two and one-half pounds and simple to operate, could produce under proper conditions about one pint of water per day. Unfortunately, deliveries were delayed for a whole year. Meanwhile, Materiel Command tried to incorporate into one unit the best features of all known solar stills but failed because of the reluctance of civilian manufacturers to share trade secrets. In December 1944 the U.S. government secured the patent rights to the Gallowhun Sunstill, and, in January, Wright Field invited bids on 350,000 units built to Gallowhun specifications. However, subsequent tests showed that the Higgins Sunstill could produce twice as much drinking water as the Gallowhun type, and efforts were made to standardize the Higgins still. Because of this series of delays, which Arnold's curt remark seems to have foreseen, sun stills did not come into general use until near the end of the war. Progress had been made earlier in the development of a desalting kit, and by September 1944 they were being issued. These kits took most of the salts from sea water by chemical precipitation and filtering, but the materials in the kit were subject to deterioration.28"

So it appears that they were not perfected until December 1942 and even then they weren't available until quite a bit later, see Unbroken.

The "Delano sunstill" was invented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's cousin.

The solar stills that I have, and that I posted a description of before, are the "Higgins" type but they did not go into production until the end of the war pursuant to a production contract of June 21, 1945, calling for 172,678 solar stills.

gl
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 03:19:43 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 31   Go Up
 

Copyright 2023 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