Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Landing near the Norwich  (Read 100691 times)

Michael Elliot

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #90 on: January 30, 2013, 08:05:08 PM »

So, Marty, you’ll have to add the figment I posted to your collection of same.

re. The Walrus crew. You, RG are a pilot. So am I. We both know that what you can see on the ground, and remember, when you’re PIC is really limited. The observer/nav/copilot is in a better position (assuming he’s paying attention over the correct side. The Walrus seated two crew side by side – not tandem.) The probability that the Walrus crew could miss a fuselage and wings of an Electra that had been pounded by surf for 18 months, and was mainly submerged and might have been obscured with sand, growth, etc – from my standpoint – is pretty high. And the photo suggests they were at least 1000ft AGL.  So my assignment of probability of their missing it is relatively high.

The probability that the NZ Survey Team could miss such an artifact is a much more serious question. If they were camped in sight of the area and could observe it at all tide stages, then I’d say that it’s a small probability that they would have missed a plane wreck halfway across the reef, even if it was flattened by surf. So, that’s why I posted. And, there’s one more reason why I posted.

In this photo, there are three (3) possible Electra artifacts.

First, Heath Smith pointed out the “interesting” image, and I suggested it had some characteristics of an empennage. To help in the visualization, after looking at Heaths pic,  reef pic (1) copy.jpg, appended, see the wreck pic. of CF-HTV appended. Think about it with the elevator torn off.

Second, I pointed out the “planform” in my 29 Jan 2013 post, above.

Third, there is another artifact in the planform photo -- three parallel lines in a SE-NW direction that terminate in the planform, roughly where the landing gear would have been.  Keep in mind that nature may occasionally generate two parallel lines, but seldom does she do three parallel lines.  Also keep in mind prevailing wave directions. It’s a puzzle.  I’m interested to discover whether I’m the only one who saw this puzzle. And, this may, indeed, be an artifact of digitizing. So:

I’d like to ask Ric if he could arrange for a copy of the 1 Dec 1938  print negative to be made using hi-res. film -- preferably 6cm medium format -- and send it to me.  Maybe that will keep me out of mischief for a while. I have some experience interpreting film. No rush. Whenever.

BTW, in previous expeditions, did anyone go over this reef section with a metal detector that works underwater and is designed to detect aluminum, (See Ebinger GmbH  Metallsuchgeräten at: www.ebingergmbh.com) or even just an old fashioned one that prefers iron, nickel etc?

Appreciate your tolerance of my figments. Thanks
Mike
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #91 on: January 30, 2013, 08:55:19 PM »

In this photo, there are three (3) possible Electra artifacts.

First, Heath Smith pointed out the “interesting” image, and I suggested it had some characteristics of an empennage. To help in the visualization, after looking at Heaths pic,  reef pic (1) copy.jpg, appended, see the wreck pic. of CF-HTV appended. Think about it with the elevator torn off.

I scanned the print at 600 dpi and blew up the features you reference.  See attached images.  Heath Smith's interesting image is a flaw in the photo - a Y-shaped piece of something-or-other on the negative when the print was made.

Second, I pointed out the “planform” in my 29 Jan 2013 post, above.

There is no planform.  It's a speck of dust on the negative.

Third, there is another artifact in the planform photo -- three parallel lines in a SE-NW direction that terminate in the planform, roughly where the landing gear would have been.

I see no parallel lines.

BTW, in previous expeditions, did anyone go over this reef section with a metal detector that works underwater and is designed to detect aluminum?

The metal detectors we use will detect and kind of metal and are extremely sensitive, but going over the reef with a metal detector would be like going over a parking lot with a metal detector.  It is not possible for something to be buried in the reef.  If there was metal on the reef it would have to be on the surface where we could see it.

Appreciate your tolerance of my figments. Thanks

No problem. 
Logged

Michael Elliot

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #92 on: January 30, 2013, 11:13:19 PM »

Well, that's better. 600dpi helps. There's nothing there. It's all digital pic. noise. And you wondered why I had been going on about film.

Two things I'll leave you with.

1.  A reef is a living thing: it grows. And doing so it can entomb debris. So, I wouldn't write it off. Esp. on the next expedition -- you'll need a shore crew in addition to the underwater crew.
2.  Did the 4th artifact near the bottom of dot.jpg also vanish at 600dpi?

Regards
Mike
PS. Did you get ver 6 of the Survivors list?

Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #93 on: January 31, 2013, 04:01:26 AM »

re. The Walrus crew. You, RG are a pilot. So am I. We both know that what you can see on the ground, and remember, when you’re PIC is really limited. The observer/nav/copilot is in a better position (assuming he’s paying attention over the correct side. The Walrus seated two crew side by side – not tandem.) The probability that the Walrus crew could miss a fuselage and wings of an Electra that had been pounded by surf for 18 months, and was mainly submerged and might have been obscured with sand, growth, etc – from my standpoint – is pretty high. And the photo suggests they were at least 1000ft AGL.  So my assignment of probability of their missing it is relatively high.

Mike, I won't get in to a discussion of the probability of the Walrus crew detecting the Electra, if it was in fact on the reef when they flew over. In the recent past there have been many posts made about probabilities of dectection from aircraft. I will, however, submit some information about the aircraft. The quote below comes from this wikipedia article about the Supermarine Walrus.

"Although the aircraft typically flew with one pilot, there were positions for two. The left-hand position was the main one, with the instrument panel and a fixed seat, while the right-hand seat could be folded away to allow access to the nose gun-position via a crawl-way.[6] An unusual feature was that the control column was not a fixed fitting in the usual way, but could be unplugged from either of two sockets at floor level. It became a habit for only one column to be in use; and when control was passed from the pilot to co-pilot or vice-versa, the control column would simply be unplugged and handed over. Behind the cockpit, there was a small cabin with work stations for the navigator andradio operator."

This quote leads me to believe that the normal crew for the Walrus was probably three, pilot, navigator and radio operator. The wikipedia article, as well as this article indicate that there was a forward and a rear gunner position on the Walrus. Both were outside the aircraft and, probably, had a much better field of view than from the cockpit. Whether this would equate to a higher probability of detection for objects on the ground I cannot say.

It also appears that the 1938 New Zealand photo of Gardner Island, which was made from a Walrus, was probably made from the rear gunner position because of the way the wing tip and aft part of the stabilizing float are included in the upper right part of the picture which is attached below.

I submit this for whatever it may be worth.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2013, 06:30:07 AM »

It also appears that the 1938 New Zealand photo of Gardner Island, which was made from a Walrus, was probably made from the rear gunner position because of the way the wing tip and aft part of the stabilizing float are included in the upper right part of the picture which is attached below.

After looking at some of the other pictures of the Walrus aircraft it appears that I was wrong in my determination that the 1938 New Zealand photo of Gardner was made from the rear gun position. The part of the wing and float shown in the first picture appears to be the leading edge of the wing, with position light, and the front of the float, with curved "bow" and mooring eye, see picture two.

Sorry about my misinterpretation. It seems the picture could have been taken from either the "co-pilot's" seat or the front gunner position although it looks more like from the "co-pilot's" seat.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2013, 09:42:39 PM »

I always found this photo intriguing. 

The arrows show the path of incoming ICBMs landing near the Norwich City, part of the SAMTEC project conducted at Niku.  The reason we can't find any electra wreckage is because of the nuclear blasts that took place there at Camp Zero.....

or not

Now back to your regularly scheduled reality show.... 
:-)

amck
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #96 on: February 01, 2013, 01:17:48 AM »

Do we know what the arrows mean?

Why have them on an image taken from the other end of the island?
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #97 on: February 01, 2013, 09:51:11 AM »

Do we know what the arrows mean?
Why have them on an image taken from the other end of the island?

Chris, this is where I got the picture. The caption for the picture only says that the arrows point to "features of interest" at the far end on the island.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #98 on: February 01, 2013, 11:52:01 AM »

Thank You  :)
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #99 on: February 01, 2013, 03:47:47 PM »

If I had to guess....
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #100 on: February 01, 2013, 03:49:12 PM »

Shipwreck's in the wrong place  :) unless there was another!
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #101 on: February 01, 2013, 03:51:29 PM »

Shipwreck's in the wrong place  :) unless there was another!

I'm not holding the Royal Navy to a high degree of precision in this case.
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #102 on: February 01, 2013, 04:40:52 PM »

Notice how there was one arrow diagonally pointing at the "shipwreck" that has been almost entirely erased?

I wonder why, but in the end it probably doesn't matter.

amck
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #103 on: March 01, 2013, 06:30:13 PM »

Notice how there was one arrow diagonally pointing at the "shipwreck" that has been almost entirely erased?

I wonder why, but in the end it probably doesn't matter.

amck

Probably pointing to the Bevington Object, but before Jeff Glickman's approval...
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

George Pachulski

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #104 on: March 14, 2013, 06:45:26 AM »


 I wonder if our mis-adveturers , on the island saw the plane fly over the south-east corner of the island and decided to move there to wait for other planes or ships ?

If this was the only area of the island flown over a plane in the reef surf would have been very hard to spot.... at the other end of the island ...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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