Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 31   Go Down

Author Topic: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland  (Read 347192 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #315 on: March 04, 2012, 08:28:32 PM »

I have to agree with Gary on this one. A parachute, while not a guaranteed life saver, is designed to provide aircrew with a chance of surviving an aircraft crash, either land or water. Whether the pilot chooses to use it in times of emergency is up to the pilot but if you don't have it with you then there is no choice. Carrying a parachute would have been prudent. Over land or water.
Back in 1972 a friend of mine, Bob Staehling, had an engine failure one day while flying N7984C, an SNJ, the Navy version of the AT-6, which has the same engine as Earhart's Electra. He made an emergency landing in a plowed farmer's field, the plane flipped onto its back crushing the canopy and killing Bob. Bob had been shot down three times in WW2 and he parachuted into the Pacific each time and floated in his life raft, the first time for nine days, before being saved. We all thought it to be terribly ironic that he had survived being shot down in the Pacific three times and then got killed on dry land only a mile from his house. I wouldn't be at all surprised if his last thoughts had been "gee, I wish I had worn a parachute on this flight."

(I have attached a picture of N7984C the plane that Bob got killed in. That's me in the back seat giving some dual instruction.)

gl
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 02:00:40 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #316 on: March 04, 2012, 09:19:30 PM »

Gentlemen (Gary and Harry), can we all agree that survival situations have many factors that contribute to the success or failure of the survivalist. Having fresh water is essential.  However how each individual handles the situation varies by individual and the tools at hand.
Well this is kinda important. They had some water on the plane but we don't know how much. Based on the Air Force manual they would last 9 days with no water at all and longer based on the amount of water they had. If they went down at sea I don't see how they would be able to obtain fresh water except from infrequent rain showers because emergency inflatable solar stills for use at sea were not produced until 8 years later. But we also know that infrequent rain can allow survival for 47 days as proven by Zamperini. If they made it to land then it would be a lot easier to find one quart a day than two gallons a day as Harry claims they needed. On the sea shore they could make a crude still out a piece of aluminum to make a pot to boil seawater and another piece to hold over the pot to collect fresh water condensation. If they were on Gardner then it would appear that they could last virtually indefinitely, finding or making the needed amount of water and with unlimited crab cakes to eat. They should have still been alive when Maude arrived only three months later. And Maude's people were able to find drinkable water by digging several wells.

gl
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 11:15:57 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #317 on: March 04, 2012, 10:17:21 PM »


Gary
If you are going to attribute things to me, then be accurate!  You will see in post 322 that I said 1 gallon per day, not 2 as you say in your post above that I said.  See my quote below from my post #322.
     "They weren't in a temperate zone, they were in an equatorial zone in July.  Their water needs would be more in the area of 1 gallon a day (8 Pints) Cut it in half and say they only needed 4 pints a day (no activity, no sweating, adequate nutrition, shelter from the sun etc.).  Then they would only have a 3 pint per day deficit.  How long do you think they would survive?"

No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #318 on: March 04, 2012, 11:06:34 PM »


Gary
If you are going to attribute things to me, then be accurate!  You will see in post 322 that I said 1 gallon per day, not 2 as you say in your post above that I said.  See my quote below from my post #322.
     "They weren't in a temperate zone, they were in an equatorial zone in July.  Their water needs would be more in the area of 1 gallon a day (8 Pints) Cut it in half and say they only needed 4 pints a day (no activity, no sweating, adequate nutrition, shelter from the sun etc.).  Then they would only have a 3 pint per day deficit.  How long do you think they would survive?"
One gallon per day per person, two gallons for Earhart and Noonan together. I see that you have then cut it in half so the total would only be one gallon per day.
The only source you cited to is "Wikipedia" and that stated 2.5 liters, approximately 5 pints per day. Then you arbitrarily increased it to an even gallon, 8 pints, and then you again pulled a number out of the air and cut that in half for survivors who are minimizing their activities, not doing normal labors. But according to AFM 64-5, a total of two pints per day would keep them alive for a long time and twice that amount, two quarts, would keep them alive indefinitely. Rather than using your made up numbers I will stick with the numbers developed by the experts at the Air Force.

gl
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 11:25:14 PM by Gary LaPook »
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 #319 on: March 05, 2012, 02:01:29 AM »

Gentlemen (Gary and Harry), can we all agree that survival situations have many factors that contribute to the success or failure of the survivalist. Having fresh water is essential.  However how each individual handles the situation varies by individual and the tools at hand.
Well this is kinda important. They had some water on the plane but we don't know how much. Based on the Air Force manual they would last 9 days with no water at all and longer based on the amount of water they had. If they went down at sea I don't see how they would be able to obtain fresh water except from infrequent rain showers because emergency inflatable solar stills for use at sea were not produced until 8 years later. But we also know that infrequent rain can allow survival for 47 days as proven by Zamperini. If they made it to land then it would be a lot easier to find one quart a day than two gallons a day as Harry claims they needed. On the sea shore they could make a crude still out a piece of aluminum to make a pot to boil seawater and another piece to hold over the pot to collect fresh water condensation. If they were on Gardner then it would appear that they could last virtually indefinitely, finding or making the needed amount of water and with unlimited crab cakes to eat. They should have still been alive when Maude arrived only three months later. And Maude's people were able to find drinkable water by digging several wells.

gl

Maybe, maybe not How to die on Niku
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #320 on: March 05, 2012, 02:56:42 AM »

If they went down at sea I don't see how they would be able to obtain fresh water except from infrequent rain showers because emergency inflatable solar stills for use at sea were not produced until 8 years later.

gl
As further evidence that solar stills were not available in 1937 I have attached a page from the Pilot's Information File dated 1944 showing all the equipment included with a multi-person Army Air Corps life raft such as those carried in bombers. Although there are cans of water shown there are no solar stills shown.
gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #321 on: March 05, 2012, 03:08:00 AM »


I mentioned the drowning risk in my prior post. I checked my logbook and found that I made a total of nine water jumps and I didn't drown, not even once. (I have attached a page showing two of my water jumps.) The only training you get prior to jumping into the water is an oral briefing to slide your butt far back in the harness, undo the snaps on the leg and chest straps, turn the chute so that you are facing into the wind, and when your feet get wet just slide out of the harness and swim straight ahead, upwind, to stay away from the chute. There is no such thing as a "practice" parachute jump, they are all for real. I had lunch with my WW2 B-24 pilot friend today and I asked him what training he had about jumping into the Pacific and he said just an oral briefing covering exactly the same points.

My point is that it doesn't take a lot of training to learn how to use a parachute over the ocean and Earhart had plenty of time and expertise around her to learn this.
gl
I have attached a page from the 1944 Pilot's Information File showing the standard way of parachuting into the sea, nothing has changed in the last 70 years.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #322 on: March 05, 2012, 03:33:00 AM »


 But according to AFM 64-5, a total of two pints per day would keep them alive for a long time and twice that amount, two quarts, would keep them alive indefinitely. Rather than using your made up numbers I will stick with the numbers developed by the experts at the Air Force.

gl
As further evidence that experts in the Army Air Corps and its successor the U.S. Air Force, considered one pint a day  to be enough water to sustain life for survivors in a life raft, I am attaching a page from the 1945 Navigator's Information File that instructs survivors to drink just one pint per day.

gl
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #323 on: March 05, 2012, 07:26:29 AM »

Gary,  as Chris Johnson so clearly points out, there are many ways to die on Niku. Dehydration is only one of them. We know that obtaining fresh water on Niku has always been difficult without a lot of work. Were AE and FN up to the task? We don't know. But arguing the amount of water required and suggesting they could have survived until Maude arrived is speculation only. For all we know they died from infection, disease, injury, food poisoning, heat stroke, etc.  too many variables to put it down to dehydration alone.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #324 on: March 05, 2012, 09:32:51 AM »

"They should have still been alive when Maude arrived only three months later. And Maude's people were able to find drinkable water by digging several wells."

Except - they obviously weren't. Survival manuals are neat and keen and fun to read and all that - in the safety of your air-conditioned office. Out in the field, in real life, things may or may not work out the way the book says they should. Real life has a way of getting in the way.

LTM, who pushes paper but learned not to trust "The Book,"

Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #325 on: March 05, 2012, 10:06:24 AM »


Gary
Just in case you can't understand what the words They and their mean.  I didn't say 1 gallon per person per day, evidently you misread or something..   I said "They weren't in a temperate zone, they were in an equatorial zone in July.  Their water needs would be more in the area of 1 gallon a day (8 Pints)" see post #322, this thread (Bolds mine, hjh).
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #326 on: March 05, 2012, 10:27:55 AM »


Chris, Monty
Good article on How to die on Niku, to which I would add Concussion after banging head on a hard object during a less than smooth landing.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #327 on: March 05, 2012, 10:38:04 AM »

"They should have still been alive when Maude arrived only three months later. And Maude's people were able to find drinkable water by digging several wells."

Except - they obviously weren't. Survival manuals are neat and keen and fun to read and all that - in the safety of your air-conditioned office. Out in the field, in real life, things may or may not work out the way the book says they should. Real life has a way of getting in the way.

LTM, who pushes paper but learned not to trust "The Book,"

Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Let me complete your sentence. "Except - they obviously weren't" alive on Gardner Island, when Maude arrived, in fact, they may never have been alive, on Gardner Island, at any time.

gl
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 12:06:19 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Erik

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #328 on: March 05, 2012, 01:34:22 PM »

If they went down at sea I don't see how they would be able to obtain fresh water except from infrequent rain showers because emergency inflatable solar stills for use at sea were not produced until 8 years later.

gl
As further evidence that solar stills were not available in 1937 I have attached a page from the Pilot's Information File dated 1944 showing all the equipment included with a multi-person Army Air Corps life raft such as those carried in bombers. Although there are cans of water shown there are no solar stills shown.
gl

How does the saying go?   "Absence of evidence it not evidence of absence"  - or something like that....

Just because these documents don't include references to stills in '37 doesn't mean they didn't exist.  It just means it wasn't documented.  Or, wasn't in the documents we are stumbling across as we find them. 

Logged

Erik

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland
« Reply #329 on: March 05, 2012, 01:54:56 PM »

Although there are cans of water shown there are no solar stills shown.

No, but the capiton says that the square cans may be replaced with chemical sea water kits.  Similar to this one pictured.  This kit was available at least in 1940, maybe earlier.

The following was written on an old Museum label that accompanied this kit:"
In 1935 two English chemists, Adams and Holmes, discovered that certain synthetic resins could remove all the solid substances dissolved in water.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 02:28:54 PM by Erik »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 31   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 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