Print

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

Did I read it right?   1 pint a day?? 

[Gary LaPook]

Did I read it right?   1 pint a day??

Apparently!

I could find nothing to show that the Delano units were ever manufactured so it looks like the aircrews had to wait until the last months of the war to have stills. I showed mine to a friend who flew a B-24 until the end of the war and he had never seen one before or any other solar still.

It just stands to reason that if this technology, or any other technology, for making water existed prior to the war that it would have been rushed into mass production in 1942, so it appears that Mantz was blowing smoke or that he was misquoted.

gl

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

A Wikipedia article on Hydration/Dehydration said that an average person in an average temperate area such as the UK would need 2.5 Liters per day to stay hydrated (that;s about 5 pints, if I've done my arithmetic correctly)..What good is 1 pint a day?

[Erik]

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? 

Another question could be, Why not take them along during the entire trip too?  A parachute deployment, from such a severe airborne event, would be just as important to save your life regardless of where, how long the flight, what terrain, day or night, etc.  In other words a parachute will save you life at anytime, anywhere.  So why just for the ocean trip, why not for the all the entire trip.  Still perplexed by this.

[Erik]

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

No offense... But, I doubt she thought it through that much.  Differentiating specific temperatures, for survival rates, etc.  She most likely made that statement as a general reference on liklihood of survival in open ocean of undetermined length.  It's possible she may thought that, but not probable.

[Erik]

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

Maybe.  Maybe not.  This article appears to have a different perspective.  The "art" going back to the 1880's. We'll just have to put odds on the likelihood, both for, and against such an argument.  How about a 60/40 split?  Perhaps her version was a poorly formed 30's protyped that may or may not have functioned as well as the 'newer' models of the 40's.

New York Times; Apr 8, 1951
SOLAR SEA-WATER STILL
The United States spent considerable time and money during the recent war to devise ways of distilling sea water so that it could be drunk.  Research of this type was necessary because of the frequency with which crews of planes that had been shot or forced down in the Pacific had to fend for themselves until rescued.  Various methods of taking the salt out of sea water were tried.  One of the more successful was based on evaporating sea water in a solar still.  The "art," as patent lawyers say, goes back to 1880.

A Wikipedia article on Hydration/Dehydration said that an average person in an average temperate area such as the UK would need 2.5 Liters per day to stay hydrated (that;s about 5 pints, if I've done my arithmetic correctly)..What good is 1 pint a day?

You've got a good point.  But, heck would you rather have one pint or zero pints? 

[Gary LaPook]

She said this just after completing her solo crossing of the Atlantic from Newfoundland 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

No offense... But, I doubt she thought it through that much.  Differentiating specific temperatures, for survival rates, etc.  She most likely made that statement as a general reference on liklihood of survival in open ocean of undetermined length.  It's possible she may thought that, but not probable.

I don't think that she had to give it much thought prior to her making her statement in 1932, everybody knew the story of the Titanic, it was a fairly recent, only twenty years had passed, big event. A hundred years have now passed and still everybody today knows about the Titanic and that most of the passengers died in the cold water. But five years later, after consulting with her team of expert advisers, it would not be surprising that she had been educated on the difference in temperatures and survival times and so had changed her attitude on the usefulness of parachutes on the Howland flight.
So what do your base your opinion on that it was "not probable?"
gl

[Gary LaPook]

I have been doing some more research and I now doubt that solar stills existed as early as 1937.

New York Times; Apr 8, 1951
SOLAR SEA-WATER STILL
The United States spent considerable time and money during the recent war to devise ways of distilling sea water so that it could be drunk.  Research of this type was necessary because of the frequency with which crews of planes that had been shot or forced down in the Pacific had to fend for themselves until rescued.  Various methods of taking the salt out of sea water were tried.  One of the more successful was based on evaporating sea water in a solar still.
The "art," as patent lawyers say, goes back to 1880.

And just what was the "art" that this article is referring to? Is it the specific art of making solar stills for aircrews forced down at sea? Oh, wait, Orville didn't fly until 23 years after 1880. Or was it for making a large desalination plant to make fresh water from the sea for a municipal water system? I would think that the "art" goes back to the first time that a man boiled water and saw some condensation on the lid of the pot, much, much earlier than 1880.

Something else that patent lawyers know is that there is a big difference between filing a patent application and developing a viable device based on that patent. If this were a developed technology then it would have been placed into mass production at the beginning of WW2 and not just three months before the end in June 1945. So aside from a patent and Mantz's statement, what other evidence do you have that a "water machine" was manufactured and available in 1937?  And if the best a solar still could do, after three years of high priority war time development, was just one pint per day, just how much do you think an "experimental" unit would make in 1937?

Oh, and did you look for such a patent? I found just two that predate WW2 and the first goes back to 1870 not 1880, and the second to 1927, I have attached them. You will  notice that neither state claims for emergency water production for use by sailors or airmen, and the designs don't look like they would work in a life raft. The Delano patent application is dated November 12, 1942 and is the first one to mention emergency use.

So my split of the odds that she had a "water machine" versus that she did not is 0 to 100 until you come up with some evidence showing that she did and that such things existed in 1937.
gl

[Erik]

So what do your base your opinion on that it was "not probable?"
gl

My own experiences, mixed with some feedback from a couple of skydiving friends, as well as some pilots.  One of the skydiving buddies told me it wasn't so much the temperature, but the lack of water training that she should have been most scared of.  He said, "You can drown very quickly if you dont know how to extract yourself properly".  Regardless of water temperature. 

[Erik]

And just what was the "art" that this article is referring to? Is it the specific art of making solar stills for aircrews forced down at sea?

The "art" isn't that complicated.  Simply condensation.  You can make a home-grown still in your backyard.  I admit, it probably wont do you much good in terms of water production.  But the "art" itself is fairly basic.

Oh, and did you look for such a patent?

Nobody is saying she carried a patented water machine.  Just a water machine.  It could have been a crude home-made, variety, or an experimental one.  Afterall, it might not even have been a still, but another type.  I found a report of water still expermentation from 1939, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume exermenational ones were being tested in 1937.  Maybe in fact that's why it was reported she left it behind, becuase it was of such crude, primitive design, where it didn't work, and wasn't worth the effort.

So my split of the odds that she had a "water machine" versus that she did not is 0 to 100 until you come up with some evidence showing that she did and that such things existed in 1937.

At least give it a 1:100 ratio.  Unless the newspaper reports were complete fabrication, there was certainly something that was being referred to when reporting a 'water machine'.  Perhaps is wasn't a full fledged patented device, but even a home grown device would still qualify as having existed.

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

Erik
Yes, 1 pint is better than 0 pints, but won't keep ya alive in the Pacific in July.

I would have figged out a way to evaporate sea water and collect the fresh water condensate .  Yes it would have been a monumental task.  I don't know what kind of containers they had on the plane that could have withstood the rigors of fire and boiling,  the sextant box could have been used to store the water, but not muxch.  Perhaps, something was available on the remains of the NC, probably pots and pans?  Who knows?

We do "know" two things,
     1. They took off from Lae
     2. They  didn't land at Howland.

[richie conroy]

three things 

1. They took off from Lae
2. They didn't land at Howland
3. They went South on L.O.P

My Reason to believe No.3

because when they said must be on you but cannot see u, they were going off The Time Airspeed and were they shud be on Map

we know they didn't find howland, so we can speculate they didn't have a fix until they announced they were on the 157/337 L.O.P

let's say were approaching the T junction of flight path to the L.O.P 337/157

the sun comes up north of L.O.P correct

but we know from itasca reports an other search party's the reason for searching north of Howland was because they said the sky to north was full of culminus clouds and south was clear blue sky

now my opinion is this...

they were about to join L.O.P, if u go left ur gunna fly in to clouds and if ur waiting to see Sun to get fix, the closer you get to clouds the longer u will have to wait for Sun to rise over clouds !!!

also there is no islands to north of Howland for a good 1000 miles ?

if u see sky to the north is full of clouds an Ur waiting to get a fix.... U THEY are going to go south for the simple reason the further u go away from clouds the quicker Ur going to see the sun an be able to get fix plus they know they had more chance of finding an Island Reef Atoll etc ..

also the Itasca didn't actually hear Earhart till 07:42 as it was NRUI who were relaying messages till then,

so given last transmission for Itasca at 08:43 sort of makes sense why they didn't hear nothink, after that time

 

[Irvine John Donald]

Hi Harry. Just wanted to correct your "We know two things" statement. We actually know three things.

3.  Gary LaPook thinks AE and FN crashed and sank.

A little humor or is it Irv trying to needle Gary a bit.  I am hoping he is going to the symposium.

Sorry Harry. Richie claimed the third item so mine goes to four. LOL

[Gary LaPook]

My own experiences, mixed with some feedback from a couple of skydiving friends, as well as some pilots.  One of the skydiving buddies told me it wasn't so much the temperature, but the lack of water training that she should have been most scared of.  He said, "You can drown very quickly if you dont know how to extract yourself properly".  Regardless of water temperature.

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

[Gary LaPook]

At least give it a 1:100 ratio.  Unless the newspaper reports were complete fabrication, there was certainly something that was being referred to when reporting a 'water machine'.  Perhaps is wasn't a full fledged patented device, but even a home grown device would still qualify as having existed.

I'll go with 1:99. 

gl