Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 22   Go Down

Author Topic: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival  (Read 251677 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #225 on: April 07, 2012, 03:56:42 PM »


A standard parachute lowers a 200 pound person at 20 feet per second, 13.6 mph. What this means is that a 13.6 mph wind into a standard emergency parachutes will make 200 pounds of pull.  If you double the wind speed it will produce four times the pull, 800 pounds at 27.2 mph. However, in the Gardner area in July,  94% of the time the wind is less than 24 mph. So doing the math, with a wind of 24 mph a parachute will make only 623 pounds of force, is that enough to move a lifeboat?

gl

BTW, the 200 pound load descending at 20 feet per second is the performance requirement for emergency parachutes under FAA regulations and is spelled out in TSO-C23 (Technical Standing Order.) A 20 foot per second descent rate can also be achieved by jumping (without a parachute) off something 6.2 feet high. A 250 pound suspended load will hit the ground at 22 feet per second, the equivalent of jumping off something 7.8 feet high.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #226 on: April 07, 2012, 04:17:56 PM »

If the Norwich City was in the picture you might be able to make a guess at the scale.

Illustration by Pat Thrasher; copyright TIGHAR.  Context: "Landing on the Reef?"


Looking at that satellite photo from the perspective of a pilot who has looked down at a lot of islands and coral reefs and beaches, I don't see anything particularly more alluring about the spot proffered by TIGHAR than spots closer to the beach. It may be true from walking out there today that you can determine that that spot is smoother than locations nearer to the beach but why would you think that would be obvious to Earhart? The edge of the reef (not colored by Thrasher) is a darker color than the water just off the beach which shows that it is deeper water. Why would Earhart choose to land in deeper water near the surf line when the water close to the beach is shallower and the bottom not obviously rougher or more dangerous to land on? And, duh!, even without the difference in the color, based on common experience most people expect the water to be shallower adjacent to the beach rather than farther out and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Earhart didn't also have this expectation.

gl

« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 04:23:55 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #227 on: April 07, 2012, 07:16:32 PM »

I agree with Gary concerning the issue of the putative landing area. AE and FN would probably have no idea of the depths of the reef edge and the water closer to the beach. Why would they risk landing in what to them from the air was appeared to be water rather than on or near the beach which from the air would at the least appear dry and shallow.

Also, try as I might, and I have some experience of using aerial photos and aircraft on archaeological surveys I cannot see any anomalies or indications of anything other than natural occurrences and features in the photos showing the area to the north of the Norwich City. To be frank I suspect people are seeing what they want to see rather than what is actually there.

The flight by the Navy searchers over the island was conducted by trained pilots and observers - observing from the air was their trade. If they couldn't see signs of an aircraft the size of the Electra and its distinctive red panels then I would say it wasn't there to be seen.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #228 on: April 07, 2012, 07:29:56 PM »

even if the anomaly's is not aircraft wreckage, or rocks thrown up from reef ledge, they are not natural occurrence ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #229 on: April 07, 2012, 07:33:08 PM »

If the Norwich City was in the picture you might be able to make a guess at the scale.

Illustration by Pat Thrasher; copyright TIGHAR.  Context: "Landing on the Reef?"


Looking at that satellite photo from the perspective of a pilot who has looked down at a lot of islands and coral reefs and beaches, I don't see anything particularly more alluring about the spot proffered by TIGHAR than spots closer to the beach. It may be true from walking out there today that you can determine that that spot is smoother than locations nearer to the beach but why would you think that would be obvious to Earhart? The edge of the reef (not colored by Thrasher) is a darker color than the water just off the beach which shows that it is deeper water. Why would Earhart choose to land in deeper water near the surf line when the water close to the beach is shallower and the bottom not obviously rougher or more dangerous to land on? And, duh!, even without the difference in the color, based on common experience most people expect the water to be shallower adjacent to the beach rather than farther out and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Earhart didn't also have this expectation.

gl

because they may not have had a choice due to fuel being zero
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #230 on: April 07, 2012, 07:37:43 PM »

an dependent on were the fuel pipes were in situ in tanks, when the plane was in a parked position there was enuff to fire engines up  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #231 on: April 07, 2012, 07:55:20 PM »

u can understand by seeing this underbelly image of an Electra that it would be hard to spot under water due too colour  :)

 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #232 on: April 07, 2012, 08:35:58 PM »

even if the anomaly's is not aircraft wreckage, or rocks thrown up from reef ledge, they are not natural occurrence ?

Richie, how do you know they are not a natural occurrences? To me they just look like momentary clearings in the silt and muck caused by currents. That "object" at the reef edge bears no resemblance to any part of an aircraft. As for "there was enough fuel to fire the engines up" when it was parked, then parked is the operative word and what better place to park an aircraft you are trying to preserve than on shore rather at the edge of a reef subject to tide, large waves, wind and other damaging conditions. If the aircraft was still airworthy, and had fuel then it was Earhart and Noonan's lifeline, if not for flying but certainly to send radio messages - not something to be left in a dangerously exposed position on the outer edge of a reef.

Also it seems to me that in their eagerness people are forgetting that the hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan landed on Nikumaroro Island is just that, a hypothesis. They are also extrapolating from that unproven hypothesis that therefore the alleged post-landing radio messages must have come from Nikumaroro Island rather than elsewhere and taking a further leap unto the dangerous world of creating hypotheses from hypotheses, they are then creating an imaginary series of events concerning the use and subsequent loss of the Electra and the subsequent behaviour and fate of EA and FN, all to explain the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Now I am not claiming super powers of intelligence, but to me that chain of thought seems to be starting at the wrong end. What we see is a classic case of inventing a solution then working backwards to cherry pick information and creating purely hypothetical constructions to support it. Believe me that that is as far from scientific analysis of data as it is possible to get.   

To do all that they first must "establish" that the Electra landed on Nikumaroro, then to explain why it wasn't sighted by the Navy searchers (trained observers) they have to park it on the edge of the reef where it can be conveniently washed away by the sea. That is how flimsy the case is - no amount of imaginative studying of aerial photos, or those imaginative "identifications" of aircraft parts in the footage taken by the ROV has added anything in the way of real evidence. Even "Nessie" could be anything, including an out of focus image of a person walking across the inner reef area.

Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.

The Nikumaroro landing is just one hypothesis explaining what happened to Earhart and Noonan and to be honest currently there is not much in the way to physical evidence to support it. That is not to say it isn't a possibility, just to say instead that it remains an unproven hypothesis like a ditching at sea somewhere in the vicinity of Howland Island; the New Britain crash while following a reciprocal course; or the possibility that Earhart and Noonan having decided not to waste fuel looking for Howland set a course for the Gilberts and came down somewhere there. I simply don't buy the idea of them landing on the most exposed portion of the island they could possibly pick that's all.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #233 on: April 07, 2012, 08:44:42 PM »

Looking at that satellite photo from the perspective of a pilot who has looked down at a lot of islands and coral reefs and beaches, I don't see anything particularly more alluring about the spot proffered by TIGHAR than spots closer to the beach. It may be true from walking out there today that you can determine that that spot is smoother than locations nearer to the beach but why would you think that would be obvious to Earhart? The edge of the reef (not colored by Thrasher) is a darker color than the water just off the beach which shows that it is deeper water. Why would Earhart choose to land in deeper water near the surf line when the water close to the beach is shallower and the bottom not obviously rougher or more dangerous to land on? ...most people expect the water to be shallower adjacent to the beach rather than farther out and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Earhart didn't also have this expectation.

gl

Because the area is often not fully under water and can be observed and compared to other nearby areas and seen to be relatively free of roughness like areas closer to the beach - that's been my understanding as I've followed TIGHAR's detailed discussion of this.  Given the determination of tides on July 2, 1937 and days following, as best as can be determined, it is believed that the reef flat would have been at low water when the flight arrived, with tides rising gradually over days following.

The make-up of the reef flat has been commented on recently as to the difficulty the Electra would have undergone anywhere on the reef other than the 'flat' after a landing where TIGHAR posits because adjacent areas of the reef are too rough - including beachward (the so-called 'boat channel').  Of course this doesn't address your concern about being able to discern 'good' from 'bad' areas for a landing from flight - but at low water that would be possible.  It does look to me as if it would take some deliberate effort to sort that out - but I believe, from what I can see from the pictures of the reef at low water, that relatively 'safe' areas could be sorted out.  Just IMHO, and I have dragged a fair number of landing strips for 'friendly' terrain before landing in my own time.

So, yes, latter-day walk-abouts certainly reveal what you've pointed out, but AE didn't have that going for her - we know that; but on a low-water day it can also be observed from above, IMHO and as discussed previously in the forum, etc.

LTM -
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #234 on: April 07, 2012, 09:04:44 PM »


Looking at that satellite photo from the perspective of a pilot who has looked down at a lot of islands and coral reefs and beaches, I don't see anything particularly more alluring about the spot proffered by TIGHAR than spots closer to the beach. It may be true from walking out there today that you can determine that that spot is smoother than locations nearer to the beach but why would you think that would be obvious to Earhart? The edge of the reef (not colored by Thrasher) is a darker color than the water just off the beach which shows that it is deeper water. Why would Earhart choose to land in deeper water near the surf line when the water close to the beach is shallower and the bottom not obviously rougher or more dangerous to land on? And, duh!, even without the difference in the color, based on common experience most people expect the water to be shallower adjacent to the beach rather than farther out and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Earhart didn't also have this expectation.

gl

because they may not have had a choice due to fuel being zero
Two responses. If they could glide to that spot they could glide to the spot parallel to it near the beach. Second, if they had the fuel to send out radio calls then they also had gas to pick any spot they liked.
gl
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 09:10:52 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #235 on: April 07, 2012, 09:14:48 PM »


 Of course this doesn't address your concern about being able to discern 'good' from 'bad' areas for a landing from flight - but at low water that would be possible.  It does look to me as if it would take some deliberate effort to sort that out - but I believe, from what I can see from the pictures of the reef at low water, that relatively 'safe' areas could be sorted out.  Just IMHO, and I have dragged a fair number of landing strips for 'friendly' terrain before landing in my own time.

So, yes, latter-day walk-abouts certainly reveal what you've pointed out, but AE didn't have that going for her - we know that; but on a low-water day it can also be observed from above, IMHO and as discussed previously in the forum, etc.

LTM -
The water is shallower next to the beach than it is out near the edge of the reef and, guess what, if the tide goes out it will still be shallower close to shore than out on the edge of the reef and the beach will be wider.

gl
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 03:48:24 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #236 on: April 07, 2012, 09:36:31 PM »

Quote
Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.

Can you tell us more about the phenomena of disturbed sand? Thanks.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 09:58:46 PM by Heath Smith »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #237 on: April 07, 2012, 09:45:45 PM »

 if what has been suggested in other posts about fuel is right, by selecting tanks manually it would be possible to select a different tank based on miles covered yet the tank isn't exhausted,

yet the one on approach to gardner may have exhausted ?

maybe the intention to park plane at shore edge was the plan but was scuppered by wheel gettin caught in crevice we will have to wait an see what new expedition shows up

i.e an electra wid 2 wheels

   
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #238 on: April 07, 2012, 10:00:39 PM »

an Malcolm

are u saying we all should not have posted on the discussion forum till it was proved the Electra landed on Gardner

REALLY

?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival
« Reply #239 on: April 07, 2012, 10:07:35 PM »

Quote
Now it might not mean much in the scheme of things but I was a professional archaeologist, and I did survey work in which I used aerial photos and observation from helicopters on some jobs. On one such job I was using a helicopter to survey a coastal strip, not unlike the one at Nikumaroro and I can attest that seeing anything in water that is disturbed by waves is very very difficult, so from personal experience I can say that these poor photos from the late 1930s tell me nothing. All I see are images of natural phenomenon like waves, channels in the coral and disturbed sand all highlighted by reflections off cresting waves.

Can you tell us more about the phenomena of disturbed sand? Thanks.

that shadow on water line is actually due to sum think wrote on back of photo which has soaked through photograph  :(
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 22   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