Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Point of No Return  (Read 24385 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Point of No Return
« on: April 11, 2012, 11:28:00 PM »

Boy, that term "Point Of No Return" runs shivers down my spine and has been used in many movies to heighten tension. "We can't turn back, we must go forward, no matter what!"

In reality, it's not that dramatic.


The "point of no return" is just another example of the more general "radius of action" calculation. This was known in 1937 since it was published by Noonan's friend Weems in Air Navigation, 1931, and in Navigation and Nautical Astronomy, Dutton, 1934.

The formula is quite simple and there are various ways to write it depending on how you want the result. The inputs are the endurance (based on the fuel on board divided by fuel flow) the head (or tail) wind component for the approximate first half of the flight and the true airspeed of the plane. The true airspeed and the wind component are combined to determine the ground speed out (on course towards the destination) and the ground speed for the return leg.

So:

Time (to PNR) = (Endurance X GS return)/(GS return + GS out)

Since the wind component causes an equal but opposite effect on the ground speed for the GS out and the GS return the divisor is simply 2 X TAS so the formula can be rewritten:

Time PNR = (Endurance X GS return)/(2 X TAS)


We know for sure that the plane had an endurance of at least 20:13. Using the TAS of 130 knots (150 mph) and the wind component of 23 knots as determined in flight, and reported by Noonan, we can substitute into the formula:

GS out = 107 K
GS return = 153 K
2 X TAS = 2 X 130 = 260 K

T = (20:13 X 153)/260

T = 11:54
If we multiply this time by the GS out we find the distance to the PNR.

Dist PNR = 107 K X 11:54 = 1273 NM

Alternatively, if you just want the distance to the PNR you can use the formula:

Dist PNR = (Endurance X GS out X GS return)/(2 X TAS)

D = (20:13 X 107 X 153)/ 260

D =  1273 NM

To confirm that his is a correct result we can divide the distance by the GS return:

1273 NM / 153 K = 8:19

8:19 + 11:54 = 20:13, the endurance.

So we can be sure that had they turned around prior to 11:54 Z  they could have made it back to Lae. If, in fact, the endurance was only 20:13 then we also know that if they turned around any time after 11:54 Z that they could not make it back to Lae, they would have been past the "point of no return."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Using a 15 knot wind component from the July 1st forecast you get:

11:16 and 1297 NM

Using the 25 knot wind component from the July 2nd forecast you get:

12:03 and 1265 NM

-----------------------------------------------------------

If Noonan thought he had a 24 hour endurance using the 23 knot wind component then he would have calculated the PNR as 14:07 at 1511 NM. Using a 15 knot wind component then he would have gotten 13:23 at 1539 NM and with a 25 knot wind he would have gotten 14:18 and 1502 NM, just past Nauru, so the decision had to be made more than 100 NM west of the Gilberts at about the time that Itasca first heard from the plane at 1415 Z.

See attached excerpt from the Navigator's Information File.


gl
« Last Edit: August 02, 2012, 03:41:21 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2012, 11:55:45 PM »

We have already looked at one simple example of the “point of no return” so this would be a good point to do some
more computations. I know some are interested in the New Britain hypothesis and a point of no
return calculation may help in an analysis of this theory.

The PNR is a simple case of the “radius of action” calculation. These calculations determine how
far away you can fly and still make it back within the endurance of the aircraft. If you go beyond
the PNR or the “radius of action” then you can’t make it back to the departure airport, that’s why
it is called the “point of no return.”

Navy pilots flying off of aircraft carriers have to do a more complicated radius of action
calculation because if they just make it back to the point where they took off from, there won’t be
an airport there, the carrier has moved on. It should be obvious that if the carrier is steaming in
the opposite direction from the plane's outbound course that the plane will have to turn around
sooner to go back and chase after the carrier.

The way this “radius of action from a moving base” calculation is done is by drawing a vector
diagram including the normal wind vector and then adding a vector to represent the speed and
course of the carrier. Then the radius of action (PNR) calculation is done with the combined
effect of these two vectors. Conceptually, the calculation is done based on the wind that would
have been measured by the moving carrier.

We can use the “radius of action from a moving base” computation to look at the case of the
plane departing from Lae and returning to New Britain, either to one of the airports at Rabaul
or to the crash site proposed by the Australians. We do this by using a “fictitious aircraft
carrier.” The east end of New Britain is 344 NM east of Lae on the course line to Howland. If a
fictitious carrier departed  Lae at the same time as Earhart, steaming towards Howland, it would
have arrived at the east end of New Britain at the end of 20:13 (the proven endurance of the
plane) by steaming at 17 knots. Fortunately, the required vector diagram is as simple as it could
be since the plane and the ship were heading directly into the 23 knot headwind measured by
Noonan. So the fictitious carrier would have measured a direct headwind of 40 knots. We use
this 40 knot value instead of the true wind of 23 knots to do the calculation for the PNR for a
return to New Britain.

Doing the calculation:

TAS = 130 K   (2 x TAS = 260 K)

Speed of relative movement out   = 90 knots.

(The plane is moving away from the fictitious carrier at only 90 knots because the carrier is
chasing after the plane.)

Speed of relative movement return = 170 knots (130 K + 40 K)

PNR time = (20:13 x 170 K)/260

PNR time = 13:13

Multiplied by the speed of relative movement out of 90 K places the plane 1190 NM from the
fictitious carrier. But since the real ground speed was 107 K it would be 1414 NM from Lae.
This is 141 NM further and 1:19 later than in our first computation of  PNR for a return to Lae.
To check our math we can subtract this 13:13 from the endurance of 20:13 giving us 7:00 hours
to return to New Britain. Seven hours multiplied by the actual return ground speed of 153 knots
means the plane will travel 1071 NM back towards Lae. Since it would be starting 1414 NM
from Lae it will end up 344 NM east of Lae at the eastern end of New Britain, just as we expected.

Doing the same computation using an endurance of 24 hours we use a slightly slower speed for
the fictitious carrier since it now has 24 hours to travel the 344 NM resulting in a fictitious speed
of 14.3 K and a relative wind of 37.3 K. The PNR for New Britain then occurs at 15:26 Z, 1653
NM from Lae. This is 1:19 later and 142 NM further from Lae than the similar calculation for the
return to Lae. So even using a 24 hour endurance and a planned return to New Britain, the
decision to turn around would have had to have been made prior to passing the Gilberts. Since
we know the plane went past this PNR and proceeded for at least 4:47 further, to the vicinity of
Howland, it would not have been possible for the plane to make it back to New Britain even with
a 24 hour endurance.


See attached excerpt frm the AAF Flight Navigation Manual, 1945.
gl
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 11:07:23 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2012, 03:17:10 AM »

Thanks Gary!!!!

Any chance you can humor me with one of you descriptions for a lay person who's only flight experience is to be ferried from A to B for business or pleasure?

(Like the car one you did for the LOP discussion)
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2012, 01:00:38 AM »

Thanks Gary!!!!

Any chance you can humor me with one of you descriptions for a lay person who's only flight experience is to be ferried from A to B for business or pleasure?

(Like the car one you did for the LOP discussion)
O.K., cutting to the chase. We know that prior to passing the PNR they had the ability to return safely and try again another day. We know that they did not turn around prior to the PNR because they continued on to the vicinity of Howland which is well past the PNR. We know that on the planned flight from Hawaii to Howland they considered the possibility of turning around and, after Noonan had computed a PNR for that leg, had taken on additional fuel to allow for a return to Hawaii against the existing wind which makes it logical that they would have done the same if they had encountered a problem on the last flight. The entire "around the world flight" was planned around the need for celestial navigation on the leg to Howland and just two days before takeoff Earhart had sent a radiogram from Lae saying "FN MUST HAVE STAR SIGHTS."

Putting all this together we can conclude that they were satisfied with the navigation (FN was getting star sights) until at least passing the PNR which rules out the idea that they were just dead reckoning.

The second thing we can determine from these calculations is that they also could not return to New Britain from the vicinity of Howland thus making that theory very unlikely.

I have attached two charts depicting the PNRs I discussed in the two prior posts.

A and B are for a return to Lae and C and D are for return to New Britain.

 PNR "A" is the first case, 20:13 fuel on board, time at PNR 1154 Z 1273 NM from Lae and 949 NM short of Howland.

PNR "B" is 24 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1407 Z, 1511 NM from Lae and 711 NM short of Howland.



PNR "C" is 20:13 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1313 Z, 1414 NM from Lae and 809 NM short of Howland.


PNR "D" is 24 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1526 Z, 1653 NM from Lae and 569 NM short of Howland and only 50 NM short of the Gilberts.

gl
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 01:30:26 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2012, 03:50:00 AM »

Thanks Gary, much clearer for Mr Terra Firma  :D
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2012, 01:22:25 AM »

Thanks Gary, much clearer for Mr Terra Firma  :D
I only go into such detail so that you won't have to just take my word for it, I like to provide enough information so that you can do the computations for yourself, test different assumptions, etc. We know that Noonan knew how to do these computations because he did it when planning a turn around and a return to Hawaii and because it was a commonly known technique and was described in Weems (Noonan's friend's) book published in 1931 and in other standard texts. I have attached an excerpt from Weems, Air Navigation, 1931.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 04:00:51 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2012, 03:11:41 PM »

Gary--
I read and understand your computations for PNR. After thinking about it for a while, it could have been possible for AE to have gotten to the area of Howland, and tried to make it to the Gilberts. What messed up that theory for me was the radio signals for 3 days post loss, coming from the Phoenix group. I guess Mr. Brandenburg will talk about that in DC.
I would have thought they might have considered turning back when there was no response to the radio transmissions. Hindsight, but makes more sense than continuing without 2 way radio communciation. I guess I'll learn more in DC.

BTW----thank you for putting up with me and my sometimes crazy questions. I'm just trying to be logical. I put myself in the position of trying not to know the deal, and being convinced. Then its easier to explain to someone else, that really doesnt understand what this is all about.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2012, 07:57:13 AM »

That is some great work on the PNR Gary! Very clear indeed. Just one follow up question. Are the figures based on "arrival in Howland area, can't see it, immediate turn around and return" or have you allowed some lee-way for time to search for Howland, then return. My thought was that if they spent any amount of time searching for Howland then this would impact on the distance they would then be able to cover on the the return, therefore reducing it. Does that sound plausible?
This must be the place
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2012, 02:01:01 AM »

That is some great work on the PNR Gary! Very clear indeed. Just one follow up question. Are the figures based on "arrival in Howland area, can't see it, immediate turn around and return" or have you allowed some lee-way for time to search for Howland, then return. My thought was that if they spent any amount of time searching for Howland then this would impact on the distance they would then be able to cover on the the return, therefore reducing it. Does that sound plausible?
I guess you missed the main point about the Point of No Return which is that after you pass it you cannot return, you have insufficient fuel. Look at the chart I posted and you will see that the PNRs are all well short of Howland so it was impossible to even get to Howland (let alone search around Howland for a period of time) and then to return to either Lae or Rabaul.
gl
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2012, 05:40:13 AM »

Thanks Gary, that makes the New Britain theory a little harder to believe given the facts and figures you have worked out. Don't doubt that the Aussie patrol found aircraft wreckage but, not the Electra.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2012, 11:14:39 AM »

GLP said

Quote
We know that Noonan knew how to do these computations because he did it when planning a turn around and a return to Hawaii and because it was a commonly known technique and was described in Weems (Noonan's friend's) book published in 1931 and in other standard texts. I have attached an excerpt from Weems, Air Navigation, 1931.

Glad I revisited this thread as I was begining to wounder what 'plan B' was for the Hawaii/Howland leg of the fist attempt.  What other islands they could have aimed for if they couldn't find Howland.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Point of No Return
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2012, 06:25:59 PM »

Glad I revisited this thread as I was begining to wounder what 'plan B' was for the Hawaii/Howland leg of the fist attempt.  What other islands they could have aimed for if they couldn't find Howland.
Interesting question. Johnston Atoll is 300 NM to the right of the course from Honolulu to Howland and Kingman Reef is 425 NM to the left. The distance from Honlulu to Howland is 1,645 NM. For the first 390 NM Hawaii is closest. For the next 709 NM Johnston is closest. For the next 25 NM Kingman is closest and for the last 520 NM Howland is closest. However, neither Johnston nor Kingman had a runway or people. It might have made sense to head for Johnston in the event of the failure of one of the engines during the middle of the flight which would then have necessitated dumping all or most of the fuel remaining in the cabin tanks in order to be able to remain aloft on just one engine. Then, with just the fuel in the wing tanks, the plane should have been able to make it to Johnston or possibly even back to Hawaii or on to Howland depending on exactly where the engine was lost.

After arriving in the vicinity of Howland it would make no sense to try for either of these islands as an alternate because it is 916 NM to Kingman and 1,040 to Johnston from Howland while Gardner is only 350 NM and Nikunau, the closest of the Gilberts, is only 435 NM.

gl
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 07:30:54 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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