Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:22:28 EDT From: Dick Strippell Subject: stupidity RIC: a reason why things go wrong, never rule out sheer STUPIDITY *********************************************************** From Ric Dick, I just KNEW that if we kept trying we could find something that we could totally agree on. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:24:24 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Spinning prop i am getting the "spinning prop" from the "morningstarinteractive" site, even on my somewhat limited webtv system. it works just fine & i've "stored" it in with my other earhart/noonan "favorite" web pages, then whenever things get too "hot" on the forum, i can punch-in my "spinning prop" site to remind me that the mission is still to find that plane & to leave the re-writing of history to the professional "revisionists", who seem to have their own respective versions of the "truth" already firmly established in their own minds. don neumann ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:29:41 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Morgenthau/Thompson > I submit that Warner Thompson's report was at best an attempt to fill in > the blanks with something that made sense to him, and at worst a major > exercise in cover-your-butt fabrication. Ah! I agree with you. I interpreted your earlier message to mean the radio message transcripts (essentially correct), not the radio logs (largely paraphrased). Mea Culpa. (You can bronze this message if you like...one of the few times I have conceded to you!). ************************************************************* From Ric I'll die content. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:37:39 EDT From: Sydney crash Subject: Re: Sydney Crash I want to second Craig's disquiet about Ric's easy dismissal of parts being from the Sydney crash because they're from areas that "burned up." When someone describes something as having "burned up" it doesn't necessarily mean that it's reduced completely to a gaseous state; I'll bet a lot of junk could be left over from the burned area of the plane. Tom King *************************************************************** From Ric Well, I'll tell ya. My opinion of what would and wouldn't likely survive that occurence is based upon the dozen or so crash-and-burn accidents I investigated in my former life with the aviation insurance industry and on the photocopies of photocopied photos that accompanied the report Craig sent. It sure looks to me like that sucker burned bigtime. For those who haven't been treated to the aftermath of an airplane fire it's hard to imagine how something as solid looking as an airplane can be reduced to a few charred remnants. Aluminum burns at 1100 degrees F - not melts - burns. A gasoline fire is more than sufficient to make any aluminum component of the airplane simply go away. When an airplane burns without major intervention by fire-fighting agents you're typically left with a couple of outer wing sections, a tail, and the hulk of the engine(s). Components close to the ground (belly skins, seats, some cockpit controls) may survive in badly charred condition because most of the heat goes up. But how about parts that are thrown clear on impact and thus not subjected to the fire? In my experience, in accidents of this type, that pretty much doesn't happen. I remember a loss we had back in about 1978. A twin-engined Beech Baron clipped a tree on a hill during a night approach to Middletown, PA near Harrisburg. The airplane was considerably smaller than a C-47 but was probably traveling at a similar speed (100 kts more or less) when it lost a chunk of outer wing and hit the ground on its side about 150 yards farther on. It burned on impact. By the time the fire company arrived all they could do was put out the resulting grass fire. When I got there the next morning the pilot (most of him anyway) had the been removed but the scene was otherwise undisturbed. Other than the wing components sheared off by the tree, there was no scattering of wreckage. The airplane held together on impact. I was able to get information about throttle, prop and mixture control positions from what was left of the power quadrant, and I could get the fuel selector position but the instruments on the panel were melted. You don't want to know about the smell. What I can see in the photocopied photos of the Sydney crash is very reminiscent of that loss. I think that any component not located in the extreme tail or the outer wing sections should show the effect of intense heat. I'd be interested to hear from forum members who have first-hand experience with similar scenarios. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:40:52 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Noonan Project >If Fred did any drinking, he apparently kept it under control in New >Orleans - no arrest record there between 1914 and 1937. Did they ARREST people for drinking in New Orleans in those days? Tom King ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:44:10 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Exchange of ideas??!! >And please don't make assumptions about my "flag waving upbringing." I >didn't have one. A flag or an upbringing? TK ************************************************************* From Ric Neither. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:50:46 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: the prop Spin, spin, spin the prop, Gently o'er the web.... Tom King ************************************************************** From Ric Verily, verily, verily, verily Reason's on the ebb ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:03:06 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Campfire sites Thank you, Tom King, for your description of the topography of the area of the TIGHAR campfire site. Now I don't have to ask about the lay of the land. So, that, in itself, does not suggest a direction in which to look. That tree does sound interesting. Might it be the one under which the skeleton was found? In addition to other things that might be found, I persist in the hope that some small bones, or bone fragments, might still be found if one sifted the soil in the right place. Those enigmatic Gilbertese names carved in the tree... I presume they are simply names and do not say: "Here so-and-so found old bones..." And that tree must be examined closely to be sure it does not somewhere say: 0 0 EARHART WAS HERE ---m-^-m--- ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:13:33 EDT From: Kari Subject: Canton 1937 First time to email your forum. I would like to know if you have any information on the scientific parties that landed on Canton in June 1937, or if you know of how to obtain information on them. They were reported to have been on the island to observe a solar eclipse. American and British(New Zealand) scientists attended. Do we know if anyone talked to these scientists, or if they produced any reports on their observations during the time AE would have been in the area? Thanks Kari ************************************************************** From Ric Yes, we have quite a bit of information about the scientific parties that came to observe the June 8, 1937 eclipse from Canton Island. The most readily accessible sources are articles published in National Geographic in September 1937 and also later. Both the Americans and the Brits were gone from the island long before Earhart's flight on July 2nd. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:16:37 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: map of Howland For anyone who is interested, Chuck Jackson has sent a URL for a map of Howland Island. http://cliffie.nosc.mil/~NAWFB/factbook/map-gif/hq-150.gif ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:19:29 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Howland fact sheet Here's the URL for a Howland "fact sheet" courtesy of Chuck Jackson http://cliffie.nosc.mil/~NAWFB/factbook/hq-f.html ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:27:39 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Wreck Photo Putting some pieces together: 1. The Photo was taken by someone standing on the beach looking inland 2. There are Coconut palms in the background 3. There were 5 No. palm plantations planted about 1892 Where were these palm plantations on Nikumaroro? Are any of them a few hundred metres from the beach? If so, what relationship is this location to where the campfire was found? What i am trying to do is determine possible sites on Nikumaroro where the photo may have been taken based on the little information we have. Of course this assumes the photo is genuine. Regards David Kelly ************************************************************** From Ric From what we can see in the old aerial photos, prior to the clearing that occurred circa 1949, there was a stand of original cocos a few hundred meters back from the Nutiran beach in the same area where former-residents of the island have told us there was airplane wreckage in the late 1950s. This area is on a completely different part of the island from where Gallagher found the bones, shoe parts, campfire etc, and where we found shoe parts, campfire, etc. The two sites are about two miles apart. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:56:04 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Label is modern I have received from Walt Holm 0980C a modern label (apparently red chili peppers packaged in France) with a EAN barcode that includes a numeral 8 and associated bars in the final sequence. I have compared these markings, under magnification, with those at the extreme edge of the label fragment found in the remains of the burn feature on Nikumaroro and I concur with Walt that they are virtually identical. We'll mount comparative scans of the two sets of markings on the TIGHAR website in a new Research Bulletin early next week. From this, supported by what Vern Klein 2124 has learned about the history of corrugations on cans, I think we are safe in concluding that our label fragment and, by definition, the fire that burned it, are of modern origin. That, in turn, means that our campfire is not Gallagher's (or more correctly, the castaway's) campfire and we have not yet identified the precise site where the bones and artifacts were found in 1940. If this conclusion is valid, it means we can stop worrying about the exact identity of our label fragment and move on to developing a hypothesis about where we should look for the 1940 site. Reactions? Love to mother, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:01:00 EDT From: Dick Strippel Subject: Howland fact sheet >Here's the URL for a Howland "fact sheet" courtesy of Chuck Jackson > >http://cliffie.nosc.mil/~NAWFB/factbook/hq-f.html YOU MIGHT SAY, RIC THAT IT'S THE CIA (YES)"FACTBOOK" YOU REFER TO-WIDELY AVAILABLE IN LIBRARIES --DICK *********************************************************** From Ric I didn't know that. Thanks Dick. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:10:38 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Sydney Crash OK, I stand corrected; I certainly don't have the experience that comes anyplace near Ric's when it comes to burning up airplanes. I'm just very leary of absolute assumptions about what "must have" happened. LTM Tom King ************************************************************** From Ric Let's remember never to make absolute assumptions about what must have happened. The best we can shoot for is educated guesses about what seems most likely to have happened. And about half the time we'll be wrong (if we're lucky). ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:16:18 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Label is modern There must be something we can do with all that great banana research. LTM Tom King ************************************************************ From Ken Sounds like progress to me. Great detective work. It's just as important to eliminate the false leads as it is finding the real ones. Ken ************************************************************ From Ric The label, and therefore the fire, being modern is actually good news for us. It explains why we haven't found more at that particular site and opens the possibility that there is more to find at the true 1940 site, which can not be very far away. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:26:59 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Noonan Project Assume you are just pulling my chain - but to clarify it for others, by "keeping it under control", I meant no arrests for public drunkeness, driving under the influence, disturbing the peace, etc. Egad, in the old days you could be arrested for homelessness, they called it "vagrancy". Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 P.S. now the prop spins for me - amazing what happens when you sometimes follow directions. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 09:11:49 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Stating the obvious When you were last on Nikumaroro, how thoroughly did you and your team search the area of Nutiran? It seems to me (and i know i am stating the obvious which you have already concluded) that this area is probably the most likely place in which you may find traces of the Electra. This would make some sense also, the local village is cut off from this area by the Tatiman Passage so only kids and people with a specific reason would venture over there. The Loran station is at the other end of the Island so chances are the USCG personal would not venture to that part of the island. If AE & FN were lost and the only sign of human contact was a ship wreck (the SS Norwich City) then that may have been a deciding factor in choosing that place to put down. Was the SS Norwich City on the maps they were using? FN may have used this as a landmark. With respect to where the evidence found by Gallagher may have been, it would seem to me that it would be on the beach side of the island, not on the lagoon side. If they thought there was any chance of being rescued then they would not have strayed too far from the beach. Regards David Kelly *************************************************************** From Ric >...how thoroughly did you and your team search the area of Nutiran? We have conducted no search, as such, on Nutiran. We always considered it to be among the least likely places for wreckage to be found because we know that early visitors to the island (Maude and Bevington in Oct. '37, the New Zealand survey team in Dec. '38 and also Maude and Gallagher later in Dec. '38) all came ashore up by the wreck of the Norwich City. The Kiwis surveyed the whole bleedin' northwest corner of the island and produced a topographic map with contour lines at an interval of one foot. We figured that, surely, they'd have come across airplane wreckage had any been there. In retrospect we can see (once again) that it's a mistake to make absolute assumptions about what must have happened. To produce a detailed contour map you don't have walk every inch of the ground, and nobody in their right mind goes back into the bush on Niku without a compelling reason. Although Nuitran district is physically close to the village, the broad lagoon passage makes it more remote than one might think. For the Coasties, especially, it would be almost inaccessible. As far as we know, Norwich City was not an any map that would have been available to Earhart and Noonan, but it certainly would be a prominently visible feature from the air. It was obviously a wreck but everything else that might have indicated possible habitation (the ruins of some huts used by Arundel's 1892 coconut planters and a flagpole and placard set up in February 1937 by HMSLeith claiming the island for His Majesty) was at that end of the island. As to whether AE and FN would hang out on the ocean or the lagoon side of the island, I agree with your logic that they'd want to be able watch for ships (in "Robinson Crusoe" it's called the necessity of having "a view to the sea."). By that same reasoning, their main camp should be on the northwest corner of the island (Nutiran) so as to watch the horizon from whence help is most likely to come. However, it's clear from Gallagher's description that the castaway camp he found was near the lagoon shore in the same region where we found the shoe parts. etc. One possible explanation for this apparently illogical location (whoever the castaway was) is that it is not a base camp but a transient camp. If you're marooned on a desert island you need to inventory your assets by exploring your new home. On Niku, even traveling as light as possible, it will take you at least two or three days to circumnavigate the atoll and really see what's there (the answer, unfortunately, is - not much). If you're moving along the southern side of the island you're on the lee side and you're defintely going to want to make your overnight camp on the lagoon shore where there's a breeze. In October 1937 Bevington came upon a site right in the area we're talking about which looked to him like "someone had bivouacked for the night." The paucity of artifacts found with the bones by Gallagher seems to support this notion of a transient's camp. On Nutiran, the New Zealanders noted what they took to be the Norwich City survivors' camp. Maybe it was. Maybe somebody else also used it later. Speculation. Love to mother, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 09:17:15 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Wreck Photo/Carrington Quoting Ric... >As for Carrington, it wouldn't take much to find someone with a better >relationship with him than I have. When I called him on the phone he wouldn't >even acknowledge who he was and he referred to me in the third person. To the >conspiracy crowd I am the Great Satan. What the heck - it's a snappier title >than Executive Director. Is it known whether he's still around? If so, maybe someone else could get him to talk about the photo. (Do NOT mention TIGHAR and do NOT argue spy theory) Do we know where he is? If he's not living -- or even if he is -- I wonder what family there may be? Someone else might not be so unwilling to talk about things he may have talked about. I take it that "the seaman", HMS Adamant, is known by name. "The seaman's name could not be found among the ship's company of HMS Adamant..." (From: "Is This Earhart's Elactra," TIGHAR Tracks, Sept. 30, 1997) ********************************************************* From Ric The seaman's name was alleged to be Ray Elliot (sp?) We have a special agent working on the case. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 09:14:53 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Noonan Project I recently asked Captain J.C. Clark, formerly of the Mississippi Shipping Co., if he had ever heard any stories about Noonan drinking. This was his response. From Capt. Jay Clark Ric: During Noonan's time with Delta Line he had no blemish on his record. At Delta Line the management was rather strict and any misconduct would have resulted in dismissal. In conversation with the "old timers" I never heard a disparaging word about him. Incidentally, Delta Line (Mississippi Shipping Co.)should never be confused with the Delta Queen operation on the Mississippi River. Delta Line was a deep sea operator with trade routes to South America, West Africa and Europe. The name was formally changed to Delta Steamship Lines, Inc in the early sixties to avoid confusion with the river operation, which was not in any way connected to Delta. I was with Delta from 1936 (cadet/midshipman) then deck officer becoming Master in 43. In 46 I became manager of Delta in South America, then Europe and Africa. I served as President of Delta from April 59 until April 79, then as Chairman for a short time. Never during my tenure with Delta did I learn of any adverse criticism of Noonan, and certainly there was never any mention of a drinking problem. Trust this is adequate for your purposes. Regards, Jay Clark ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 09:15:00 EDT From: Tim Smith Subject: Label Fragment OK, I'm now willing to consider that the label fragment could be post-1970. It does look like it has a bit of a Euro-spec UPC code. I have a 1997 luncheon meat can from Germany at my side. The last digit in the code ends with an 8 (lower loop bigger than the upper loop, too) and does strongly resemble the Niku frag. I'm not entirely convinced yet, though. Here's why: The 8 looks a little crooked (leaning to the left a bit) to me but maybe that is an artifact of charring. Second, if it is a UPC code, either the code is printed upside down or the "rower produce" is printed upside down. I've looked at a lot of labels lately and it is quite rare to see much upside down printing. I don't recall ever seeing an upside down UPC code. Checking my collection of canned luncheon meats from around the world, it is not uncommon for the code to run vertically, but never upside down. I'll keep looking at older labels until someone can show me an example of the whole label. If its post-1970, somebody should be able to find one in the pantry pretty easily. SMP (Spins My Prop), Tim Smith,#1142 *********************************************************** From Ric We'll try to get some good comparison's mounted on the website today or tomorrow. Consider the possibility that the border containing the words ..ROWER PRODUCE continues as a complete rectangle and that each side of the rectangle contains the same legend - maybe something like THE BEST GROWER PRODUCE. In that case, what we see as the top of the label might well be the bottom and the barcode is not inverted at all. Just a thought. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:15:46 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Campfire sites: Bevington Revisiting "Completing the Puzzle," TIGHAR Tracks, Sept. 30, 1997, I realized it was Bevington, not Gallagher who said it looked like "someone had bivouacked there." A diary entry for Oct. 14, 1937. We have Gallagher's "South East corner of island... etc." Did Bevington have anything more to say about the location? ************************************************************** From Ric We need to make a distinction between Bevington as a contemporaneous written source (the diary entry) and an anecdotal source (what he told us in an interview in 1992). The diary says only that when he took Maude on a lagoon tour by canoe of points he had visited on his previous day's walk around the island, "We found many interesting things including signs of previous habitation." It was when we queried him about this particular comment that he indicated the general area where we found the shoe parts and made the comment about it looking like someone had bivouaced for the night. He also said he remembered "low walls or piles of rubble" of some kind. When we asked Maude if he remembered anything of the sort he replied, "Yes, curiously enough I do seem to remember the low pile of rubble that you mention. As far as my fickle memory of small events 60 years ago, it was in an open space at the other end of the lagoon from the village. I would describe it as a little pile of debris, not much higher than the surrounding earth, and after scratching around on it I came to the conclusion that it was a rubbish dump used by Arundel's labourers when they spent some years on Nikumaroro planting coconuts for him." When pressed further he responded, "As far as I remember the debris you speak of looked like a pile of coral sand. I concluded that it would be from Arundel's workers because they were the only people on the island prior to our arrival." Interstingly, Maude himself in an earlier report says that the plantings by Arundel's workers were confined to the western end of the island, which is borne out by aerial photos taken in the late '30s/early 40's showing the surviving groves of Arundel's trees. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:25:34 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Searching Nutiran In Australia we have a saying about kiwi's which springs to mind: kiwi's...eats, roots and leaves..... Are you going to have a look around the Nutiran when you go back for Niku IIII? *************************************************************** From Ric A thorough search of the Nutiran beachfront vegetation is one of our top priorities for Niku IIII. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:28:54 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Searching Nutiran A couple of additions to Ric's response. 1. Actually, in '89 we did search ON Nutiran, though we certainly didn't do it thoroughly enough. One of our first hypotheses was that the landing had been made onthe Nutiron mudflat, a clear area that extends well up from the lagoon. Since Nutiran hadn't been planted until late in the colony's history, we reasoned, the plane could have been back in the trees along the marin, not discovered until the '50s, and then assumed to be war wreckage. So we searched the mudflat for stuff that might have fallen off the plane, and the fringes for the plane itself. Zip results. As part of the fringe survey we made some of our first scaevola transects back into the bush, and like to died. Then we did a fairly thorough poking/crawling/climbing around inspection of the fringes. Later, getting rather desperate, we considered the possibility of a crash into the high bukas in the northern part of Nutiran, and stumbled around in there for several days (inspiring the song "Blunder Through the Bukas" to the tune of "Tiptoe Through the Tulips"). Giving up, we moved to other areas, but did circumnavigate the island on the ocean-side beach, poking here and there into the fringing vegetation, and finally on virtually the last day on-island John, Veryl, and LeRoy took a very quick look at Southeastern Nutiran, not far from the area that's now of interest -- found lots of evidence of late colonial use of the area, but nothing Ameliaesque. But it was a VERY quick look. Re. lagoon vs. ocean shore as a campsite: During the '97 work at Aukaraime I took several occasions to work my way over from the site to the ocean shore, because it did seem logical that if they were camped there they'd at least have some kind of presence on the ocean side. Could be, but the cocos get thicker as one goes ocean-ward, which means that the fronds and dead nuts and baby cocos on the ground get thicker. The ground also generally gets a bit lower. If we're going to go that way, we're going to have to invest a lot of energy in ground clearing. I tend to think that our best bet right now is to try to glean the accounts of bones -- all of them -- for everything we can get that might help us pinpoint the Gallagher find site -- and get to Tarawa, London, and wherever else is necessary to look for more records -- particularly any Macpherson notes -- toward the same end. And then search the living daylights out of the place. Love to Mom Tom King Project Archeologist ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:34:28 EDT From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: Sydney Crash Ric, While I agree that most likely anything in the main cabin of the C-47 burned, there is a good chance that anything from it could have also survived. A good enough chance that we shouldn't decide anything is definitely not from the C-47 just because that part of the aircraft burned. While I have only been to two crash sites immediately after the accident, many of the over 150 crash sites that I have been to are remote enough that much of the wreckage remains today. I have found many items from the portion of the aircraft that burned. From intact instruments to radios to logbooks. Let me guess that the Baron did not go through too many more trees. It also sounds like it lost much of its forward movement and had primarily vertical (downward) movement when it hit. The following is an except from Major Cotner's statement in the Sidney crash report: "The plane went up over the trees for a distance of about 150 yards and started coming down through the trees again, sheering off trees until it came to rest approximately 376 yards from the first tree it struck." My experience when a plane goes though trees it is like cheese going over a cheese grater. Major Cotner does go on to state: "The airplane burned completely with the exception of the tail section and the left wing from the motor out, also, the right wing which had been lost." He would not go on to list: except one window, a 1 by 2 foot section of skin, a cable fragment etc. I have been to crash sites where the official report states that there was nothing left of the plane or it burned completely and have found many identifiable pieces (large enough to take two people to lift). The common notion of an airplane crash is much like the one in the mystery wreck photo, and not one of many pieces scattered over 376 yards. The report also stated: "One occupant was said to have been thrown clear of the plane and died a few minutes later." Now wasn't that "item" from part of the plane that burned to nothing? Again, I highly doubt that the navigator's bookcase came from this crash. I think it has come from another source. Do the mounting holes show any damage indicating that it was torn from its mounts or does it show any other evidence of crash damage? LTM Craig Fuller Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research AAIR ************************************************************** From Ric No damage to the mounting holes. No apparent impact or fire damage. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:45:32 EDT From: Mike Subject: Re: stating the obvious Am I correct in understanding that only one persons bones were found by the campfire? If so, does that imply that (assuming they are from our party) that the other person died in the landing? And may have left their bones over by the crash sight, which you say could be a couple miles away... perhaps buried (if not probably long gone). I've been wondering why AE or FN would wander a couple miles away from the airplane and camp there. There's nothing much around except the village remains, right? ************************************************************* From Ric There are lots of possible scenarios that could account for only one set of bones being found. Two people who die from thirst, illness, whatever, are not likely to die at the same moment. The first to go could have been buried by the second. The first to become too weak to travel could have been left behind while the first continued on. If any of the post-loss messages are genuine, there was no crash per se. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Earhart and Noonan might very logically have tried to explore the island for possible resources upon accepting the possibility that they might have to await rescue for some time. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:54:03 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Stating the obvious assuming a.e. did set down on niku island, & since the "norwich" was clearly the only obvious landmark, it would seem logical a.e. would have tried (if at all possible) to land close to the wreck? another thought, none of the "post-landing" radio signals received make any mention of a "wrecked- ship". if such signals were, in fact, from a.e./noonan, one would think they would have tried to i.d. their location with some reference to the shipwreck? (in fact, i believe it was among the very first things that lambrecht observed on his overflight of the island a week later!) don neumann *************************************************************** From Ric Remember that the only post-loss message received by an "official" source which contains any content at all is the "281" message heard on the night of 4 July. That was fragmentary, incomplete phrases. We don't know what is missing. At least on of the ham operators in the states who claimed to have heard a transmission from Earhart said that she said, "Ship on reef south of equator." If the transmission was genuine, was she referring to her airplane as her "ship" or was she trying to describe the most distinctive feature of the island? LTM, Ric PS To make capital letters hold down the key that says "shift." ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:05:58 EDT From: Erik Flippo Subject: Membership sale Please put me down for the two-year membership special. I am sending you my credit card number via snail mail. Your website was a big help when I was researching Amelia last year for a class project at ArtCenter College of Design in Pasadena, CA. We had to design a memorial to a historical figure of our choosing. As it was the 60th anniversary of AE and FN's disappearance, the world flight was all over the news. I didn't know a lot about the subject then, but I must say the mystery of it all intrigued me. The tantalizing clues posted on your site sucked me into the search, and I've been lurking happily on the forum since January. I think making my membership official is long overdue -- but, hey, better late than never! BTW, if anyone is interested in seeing the design for my AE/FN memorial, it's posted at: http://members.aol.com/erikflippo/amelia.html Love to mother, Erik Flippo ************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Erik. You're in under the wire. The sale ends today Aug. 3rd. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:13:09 EDT From: Asa Bricker Subject: My Reply Every one has an assumption . . .some assume AE & FN went down in the water and some think they landed on an island. Some believe there was a conspiracy, others don't and still others keep an open mind. In the end it doesn't matter what we think. When the final story is told some will be right, some wrong. My comment about agreements we're not aware of was an attempt to keep an open mind, YES, I do believe there were agreements made we don't know about. That doesn't mean the agreements had to be sinister in nature (agreements to act as a spy). I'm amazed you were able to judge my thought process and understand how I see and cope with the world based on a brief comment. Surely you missed your true calling! Concerning my planned address to the Washington Pilots Asso. My plan had been to discuss the AE / FN flight as aviation history. This would have included the government search and how the flight has resulted in any number of theories,searches, books, and how TIGHAR is currently investigating their theory that AE & FN landed on an island. Let the audience draw their own conclusion(s) about the story, the books, the search, and TIGHAR. Guess I'll proceed without mentioning TIGHAR since you seem to have the public relations / advertisement / fund raising situation well in hand. No, I'm not a member of TIGHAR, I don't agree / disagree with TIGHAR. You may be right. For that matter you may be wrong, time will tell. I don't join every group that I have interest in, however that doesn't mean I can't say something nice about them and just maybe my comments might help that organization. Others have commented that it's your Forum, your reply was (something to the effect) that you're only the moderator. Well it's your Forum, TIGHAR is your origination and you have a THEORY. . . Two last thoughts: People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks! and you never know when a tiger might turn into a chipmunk! Love to ALL, Asa Bricker ********************************************* From Ric Mr. Bricker is replying to my posting which said: >I should have known better. > >What I have is a photocopy of an unpublished manuscript of something well >over a hundred pages by "L.F. Safford." The table of contents sheet implies >that the name of the work is "Flight Into Yesterday" and states that it was >"Revised 23 June 1971." Later parts of the manuscript have the title as >"Amelia Earhart's Last Flight - A Tragedy of Errors." The impression I get >is that Safford changed his mind about what he wanted to call the piece. >There is an introduction by "Bob Stanley", an ex-navy pilot who had >participated in the Lexington's search for Earhart and a number of indices of >various press releases, radio messages, etc. The entire point of the > manuscript appears to be to debunk any notion of covert government involvement >in the Earhart flight. > >TIGHAR certainly can not sell Safford's work. We don't own it and I have >no idea what its copyright status may be. (Randy - Do you know where there >might be a publicly accessible copy of Safford's manuscript?) > >I may regret this, but I have to call you on your statement, "I'd like to >see the mystery solved also, however I do believe there were agreements made >that we're not aware of (who knows if we ever will be)." Forgive me, but that >sounds to me like a classic conspiracy mind-set. In ten years of >struggling with the Earhart case I've come to understand that there is no >reasoning with someone who "just knows" something. It does no good to review >facts and sources with people who think like that because their beliefs >have nothing to do with facts and sources. It has more to do with how >they see and cope with the world. No matter what is found they will never be >convinced that there isn't a secret hidden layer behind it all. If I've >misinterpreted your meaning, I apologize. > >About your address to the Washington Pilots Assoc. - we're always happy to >support our members efforts to spread our message. At this point you're >not a TIGHAR member and it doesn't sound like you're much in agreement with >our message. Correct me if I'm wrong. > >The sale on new two-year memberships and two-year renewals for present >members at the reduced price of $70 ends on Monday August 3rd. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:35:47 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Campfire sites Vern wrote: >And that tree must be examined closely to be sure it does not somewhere say: > > 0 0 > EARHART WAS HERE ---m-^-m--- And pray to God it doesn't say KILROY WAS HERE! \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- Tom Robison Ossian, Indiana ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:37:52 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Wreck Photo Not mindful of Dick Strippel's admonition to read the book before you post, I posted anyway. Should have known better! Relative to a "broadcast" question, "Reminisce," etc... I finally read the book. TIGHAR Tracks in this case. Carrington says the photo was given to him by a british seaman. So, the place to seek information would be Britain. However, Carrington's "british seaman" doesn't seem to check out very well. Who knows where the photo came from? The photographer could be anyone, anywhere. For now I guess we wait to see if the special agent comes up with something! ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:42:17 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Label Fragment Tim Smith wrote: > I've looked at a lot of labels lately and it is quite rare to see much >upside down printing. I don't recall ever seeing an upside down >UPC code. We have a 'Grocers Outlet' store nearby. They buy perfectly good products from major mfgrs. that have all sorts of label and other cosmetic defects. RC 941 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:47:35 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Tree of names To Vern -- yeah, the tree just has names, as far as we could tell. Highly distorted by growth of the tree and in a few cases by splitting of the trunk, but Tonga, our Kiribati representative, had no trouble reading most of them. No Earhart, no Noonan that we could see. I still have trouble believing that the tree could be old enough; it needs to be looked at by a specialist. I'd sure like to think that there are still bones there (wherever "there" is), but there's a lot working against us. On the other hand, as Ric points out, on the other side of the island there were bird bones that seemed to have been preserved in place, on the surface, since Coast Guard times. And we've seen pig, turtle, and dog bones in the village. It may be that the crabs quit chewing on bones once the organic content drops below a certain level; we don't have much data on crab dietary behavior. They might also drag them down holes, which could preserve them at depths of up to half a meter. It's too bad there's no such thing as a bone detector. LTM Tom King ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:04:20 EDT From: Jack J. Subject: Model of L-10 / raising funds A model of the Electra has been mentioned on the forum as a possible fund raiser. As a model builder of some 40 years I want to share some information with the forum members and you. Williams Brothers, Inc., a model kit manufacturer of many years has announced that they will release a 1/48th scale kit of the L-10 Electra. The original release date was slated for May of this year but I have not seen the kit yet. They also produce a very nice kit in 1/8th scale of the Pratt and Whitney Wasp engine. It is an earlier and smaller version of the wasp, but a nicely detailed scale replica. TIGHAR could probably purchase the kits at wholesale, given it's 501(c)(3) status, and resell them at retail, ergo make a profit. This might be considered to be an unrelated business activity to your 501(c)(3) status, and cause havoc. I do not think this is a good idea. TIGHAR could produce a calendar with each month featuring a picture of AE and/or Noonan, and definitely some pictures of the L-10E. Or, TIGHAR could produce a special edition of it's magazine filled with detailed information and pictures about the subject L-10E such as; the engines, the demarcation lines of the international orange paint, the special observation windows for Noonan, the variations in ADF antenna (football vs loop type), the change in registration number from NX 16020 to NR 16020, etc. This is the kind of information modelers eat up, and are willing to pay for, especially pictures they can use to duplicate the detail in their models. If you are interested in pursuing any of this I would be very happy to share more of my thoughts with you. Given the announced release of the Williams Brother's kit I know from experience that the modelers will be looking for accurate detail information. Who better to provide it than TIGHAR, at a modest revenue raising profit. I would be interested in what the other forum members think of the calendar idea. TIGHAR already does publishing so this should be a snap. A good aviation calendar sells from $15 to $20 (some more than that). Food for thought, God speed, LTM, and all that. Jack J. ************************************************************ From Ric These sound like very good ideas. I'm familar with the Willam's Brothers intention to put out a kit. I understand that one of the principals has been quite ill but that they still intend to produce the model. I'll put up a separate posting about the ready-made model we'll be making available soon. I love the idea of a soft-cover book dedicated to NR16020. Over the years the airplane has been the subject as almost as much mythology as Amelia (for example; there was no special observation window for Noonan, etc.). Calendars we can do. What do you want to see? We could do a bunch of old Amelia photos but we'd have to be careful about copyright. We could do the evolution of Earhart's Electra from construction to Lae. That would be cool. We also have lots of great expedition photos of Niku, etc. Maybe do a calendar called The Earhart Project Expeditions. Or a travelogue piece called An Island Called Niku. Or a general TIGHAR calendar with photos from 14 years of TIGHAR expeditions to Maine, New Guinea, Germany, Newfoundland and the Central Pacific. Ask and ye shall receive. Lets have some more ideas. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:14:10 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Postcard from Fred Ric: following is a letter I received today from Juliette D., FN's god- daughter. Dear Mr. Dawson: Your letter and copied article arrived earlier this week. Thank you for adding to my memorabilia on Frederick J. Noonan, the navigator for Amelia Earhart's flight of 1937. I am looking forward to receiving from Richard Gillespie, director of TIGHAR, a copy of the journal you mentioned. The postcard my godfather sent from India on the 1937 flight has been copied, front and back, to provide any further insight to Noonan's participation in that event. I have also included a copy of the envelope which enclosed the letter my father received from his long time friend. You will notice that the final figure of the date is blurred. However, I recall that the postcard arrived after their plane disappeared. Vaguely, my memory of their landing in India had something to do with engine or other repairs, so there was a delay. I guess I was excited and thought that it meant the plane had not crashed. Ah, youth! The date, July 7, which was on the newspaper article, was the day before my fifteenth birthday, and I had spoken to Noonan when they stopped in New Orleans. One other bit of information from the letter that I can tell you. Noonan married in Jackson, Mississippi in July 1927. He did not name his wife, however, but noted that she was Irish, like my own mother. I enjoyed our phone conversation and hope that you can gain a little more insight into Noonan's background. If you happen to find a newspaper copy of the crew of the Pan American Trans-Pacific "China Clipper", let me know. Good luck to you on further research. Sincerely, Julette D. Ric: Not too much information, but interesting nevertheless. The postcard reads: Dear Juliette: Just a ----- to say I am sorry not to have seen you when in N.O. and to send my kind regards to your mother and father and the others. Sincerely, Fred Noonan (postmarked Calcutta, 18 Jul 1937) my note: not to get overly sentimental, but here was a thoughtful individual. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 P.S. If I can figure out my new scanner, I will send you a copy. We ought to have enough handwriting samples to debunk the "note in the bottle " theory by now. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:16:02 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: postcard: a second look re: the postcard - after shutting down my computer, it occurs to me that postmark of July 18 couldn't be right, unless its a ghost. On closer look, a stroke of his pen covers the far right side of the N in JUN, making it look like JUL. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:18:28 EDT From: Dick Pingrey Subject: landing choices Don, Having made two emergency landings due to engine failures in single engine airplanes during my 40 plus years and several thousand hours as a pilot I can assure you that landing on the best landing site is far more important than landing close to a ship wreck. If at all possible Amelia, or any other reasonable pilot, would land while the engines were still operating (before running out of fuel) and would land where the airplane could be kept intact if at all possible. Landing a twin engine, or any other airplane, with out engine power would be a last choice regardless if the landing was made on land or sea. Dick Pingrey 908C ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:22:10 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Pilot Noonan Here is the reply from the FAA, dated July 30, 1998, received today. (address) Dear Mr. Dawson: Thank you for your letter requesting verification of certification on Frederick J. Noonan. Frederick J. Noonan was issued limited commercial pilot certificate 11833 with ratings airplane single engine land, dated January 23, 1930. This letter may be used as verification that our records show the airman has passed all written and practical tests required to obtain the certificate and ratings. If you require further assistance, please contact the Airmen Certification Branch at (405) 954-3261. Sincerely, (signed) Harold K. Everett Manager, Airmen Certification Branch ************************************************************** From Ric Well, well, well... I wonder what a "limited" commercial certificate was? ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:23:50 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Electra Models TIGHAR has made arrangements with a company that produces molded-resin scale models of classic aircraft for the creation of a 1/48th scale model of the Lockheed Model 10E Special in which Earhart disappeared. (A 1/48th scale rendition of the Electra results in an airplane with a roughly 14 inch wingspan.) The company has sent me photos of the model of Earhart's plane they have been selling and there are some inaccuracies which they have promised to correct for the TIGHAR limited edition of this model. We want this model to be as correct as possible to NR16020 as it was at the time it disappeared. The company has agreed to produce a prototype for us to inspect and spec out corrections. They'll then be ready to produce the limited edition TIGHAR model which, of course, be available only thorugh TIGHAR. The only other models of Earhart's Electra that we're aware of are carved mahogany versions produced in the Philippines (again 1/48th scale) which we specked out several years ago. We had 50 made and we have three left. We sold about a dozen numbered examples on stands with individualized polished aluminum plaques for $1,000 as part of the fundraising for Niku II (1991). The rest were unnumbered and came with generic stands for $250. They are very attractive and more accurate than any other available model, but the molded-resin process permits better detailing and more consistenty. They're also produced here in the States which makes for faster and more reliable production (it took a year to get the Philippine models in hand). The new limited edition TIGHAR models of Earhart's Electra will come with a specially-inscribed polished black acrylic stand which will include the Earhart Project logo. The price will be $395. Realistically, it could be a couple of months before these are ready for delivery (by the time a prototype is produced, we spec out the corrections, and the production run begins). We'll start accepting deposits of $100 now to reserve places in the production run - first come, first served. Balance due immediately prior to delivery. We'll also offer a special Collector's Edition in appreciation of a $1,000 contribution toward Niku IIII. Each Collector's Edition aircraft will carry a constructors number (c/n) modelled on Lockheed's original system. Earhart's airplane was c/n 1055 (the 55th Model 10 built). Collector's Edition Electras will begin with c/n 1055-1. Each aircraft will come on an individualized stand which will include the Earhart Project logo, the contributor's name and the model's c/n. We'll start accepting deposits of $250 now Collector's Edition aircraft with c/ns allocated first come first served. In appreciation of the forum's dedication to the project, we'll hold off making this offer publicly available via our website for two weeks (until August 18). Incidentally, the Love to Mother T-shirts and magnets will be in this week and we'll be shipping next week. Thanks for your patience. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:36:39 EDT From: unknown Subject: a new book Good morning - Ric - I was just in the web for Amazon books (amazon.com) and noticed a new entry: "Amelia Earhart's Daughters: The Wild and Glorious Story of American Women Aviators from WWII to the Dawn of the Space Age" by Leslie Haynsworth and David Toomey to be published this month Amazon, as usual, is offering it at a very fair price. *************************************************************** From Ric "Amelia Earhart's Daughters" huh. Maybe Jane Mendelsohn was right about AE and Fred being lovers on a deserted island. Capt. Bill Scarborough 0075 (that's right 0075) recently sent me his copy of Jane's book "I Was Amelia Earhart." He didn't like it and said he didn't want it back. I have my own copy. I don't like it either. Now I have two copies. What if this started another deadly forum trend and I was inundated with unwanted copies of I Was Amelia Earhart? I suppose we could send them to Jane so that she can resell them. Nah. Needlessly cruel and terminally cheeky. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:45:33 EDT From: Ann Hinrica Subject: Fundraising ideas yes, a model and calendar would be great...and perhaps an engagement/weekly planner; stationary; stickers; bookmarks;etc. Just a few ideas. LTM, Ann 2101 ************************************************************* From Dennis McGee I really like the idea of a model of the 10E and that you are thinking of doing both a kit for the modelers and a completed version for us former modelers (all of that glue in the 50s and 60s may account for some of my behavior these days, friends claim). For the completed model, I assume you'll be doing it in high-grade plastics rather than metal to keep the details (rivets, seams, etc.) in scale. Most commercial metal models (e.g. Franklin Mint and Danbury Mint) are way out of scale in their detail work, consequently the stuff looks junky, I think. The TIGHAR calendar idea is great, also, but I would suggest that it be big enough (18" X 24", or so) that it can actually be used for something more than taking up space. Pat has enough photos in her collection I would think to fill up the 12 pages or so. But a real HOT seller, I think, would be a Amelia/Princess Di memorial tea cup or plate. The second in the series would be a FN/Prince Charles shaving mug or shoe horn . . . Any votes for these? Spinning Mom's Prop Dennis 0149 *************************************************************** From Don Neumann how about some photos of the participants in each of the visits to niku island, along with a brief resume of their respective backgrounds? don neumann ************************************************************** From Ric I've been lobbying for a Dr. Tom King action figure for years. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:48:23 EDT From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: landing choices dick: i agree, thats why i added (if at all possible) ! however, if ric's estimate of the fuel a.e. still had available is correct, i would assume she would have had just enough fuel still available to circle the island to pick-out the best possible, dry, wheels down landing spot & it would seem logical that any otherwise appropriate spot, reasonably close to the "norwich" wreck, would have been her logical choice. don neumann ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:59:43 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Electra Models Please debit my credit card immediately by $100 for the deposit for one of the resin L10's Thanks Simons Ellwood #2120 ************************************************************** From Ric Thank you sir. Production slot No. 1 goes to Simon. Next? ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 16:02:44 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: campfire sites >And pray to God it doesn't say KILROY WAS HERE! > \\ ~ ~ // > ( @ @ ) > -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- <--- PRETTY GOOD ASCII ART! > But Kilroy WAS there! He built that campfire. His mark has not been found because it's on the side of the Electra somewhere back in the bush. I just hope he didn't have some American service woman with him and they both left their civilian shoes! ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 16:57:45 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Bone detecting >>It's too bad there's no such thing as a bone detector.<< It wouldn't exactly be a bone detector but I've thought a lot about the kind of technology used in the hard-rock mining industry to separate desired minerals from huge amounts of ground up rock. Floatation and gravimetric methods, and even electrostatic methods used to separate titanium dioxide grains from sand. I end up thinking there is probably not enough difference in surface properties or density of bone and coral sand to accomplish such a separation. Moreover, it would probably be more difficult, under the circumstances, than just sifting and looking. On the subject of bones... We have measurements on the skull. Do we also have measurements on the long bones? Both Earhart and Noonan appear to be the tall, long-legged types. Is the "short, stocky" characterization actually correct? Are we deluding ourselves in thinking these could possibly be the bones of either Earhart or Noonan? *************************************************************** From Ric Before I reply to Vern's question I want to state that I have no formal training or expertise in what I am about to shoot off my mouth about. Of the various guesses Dr. Hoodless made about the individual whose bones were found on Niku in 1940, his assessment of height and stature would appear to be the most shaky. The human body has six types of long bones. They are: humerus - the upper arm bone, shoulder to elbow radius - the shorter, thicker forearm bone ulna - the longer, skinnier forearm bone femur - the thigh bone, hip to knee tibia - the shin bone, the thick knee to foot bone fibula - the thinner knee to foot bone Of course, a complete person has two of each type. Of these twelve possible long bones, the remains found on Niku included only six: left humerus right radius right femur left femur right tibia left fibula As you can see, both ulnas (ulni?) were missing, and in no case were all the bones of any one limb present. In addition, Dr. Hoodless specifically stated that the bones were very "weather-beaten." Gallagher said they were damaged by coconut crabs. It is not unreasonable to expect that there was significant loss at the ends of the bones where joint cartilage might be particularly attractive to the crabs. It is my understanding that loss in these areas makes the accurate assessment of stature much more difficult. Curiously (to me anyway), Dr. Hoodless chose to use only three of the long bones to estimate the person's height and stature: the humerus measured 32.4 cm the tibia measured 37.2 cm the radius measured 24.5 cm He didn't include measurements for either of the femurs in his notes. He applied a standard formula known as Karl Pearson's Formula to the length of the humerus and got an estimated height for the individual of 5 ft. 4.3 inches. By the same method, the tibia indicated a height of 5 ft. 5.7 inches. The radius indicated a height of 5 ft. 6.5 inches. He averaged these and estimated the individual's height at 5 ft. 5.5 inches. Amelia Earhart's pilot's license says she was 5 ft. 8 inches tall. Fred Noonan listed his height as 6 ft. 1/4 inch. Karl Pearson's Formula is still very much in use but has been much revised since 1941. We have yet to have a forensic anthropologist review Dr. Hoodless's work. Between the comparison of skull measurements with scaled photos of Earhart's and Noonan's heads, and a modern assessment of the reliability of Hoodless's estimates, we should be able to get a better picture of the likelihood, or unlikelihood, that the bones found on Niku belonged to either of our friends. Love to mother, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 08:25:13 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Fundraising ideas Re: I've been lobbying for a Dr. Tom King action figure for years. It'd probably be more active than the original. Actually, I like the idea of a calendar, and we can have a contest to decide what speculative anniversaries to note in early July. Props over Niku Tom King ************************************************************** From Ric July 2 - arrival at Niku, landing on reef-flat. July 2 through July 4 - attempts to communicate by radio July 5 - aircraft destroyed by surf July 9 - overflight by search aircraft from USS Colorado July 12 - AE and FN begin exploration of island July 14 - AE and FN establish temporary camp near southeastern lagoon shore. July 15 - FN unable to travel. AE continues alone. Beyond that I'd have to speculate. :) LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 08:47:16 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: coral rubble pile >When pressed further he responded, "As far as I remember the debris you >speak of lookedlike a pile of coral sand. I concluded that it would be from >Arundel's workers because they were the only people on the island prior to our >arrival." "a pile of coral sand" sounds like a GRAVE to me. Might explain why only one skeleton was found on the surface. What do you think? Andrew McKenna 1045 ************************************************************* From Ric Sort of a natural jump ain't it? Niku is not a place where you casually build sand piles if you don't have a good reason and even if Arundel's workers were down that far on the island for some reason it's hard to imagine that they were environmentally-correct enough to bury their garbage. On Niku, you bury something to keep it away from the crabs. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:39:20 EDT From: Jack Streight Subject: Calendar specifics Since you asked for "it". here are some more ideas for the calendar. Front cover - TIGHAR emblem re. AE and any obligatory acknowledgements. Each month a picture of AE and/or AE and Noonan, and or other important folks in her life, e.g. Paul Mantz, Putnam, etc. Dates in the various months should note the various holidays AND the date AE set her various records. These could be small notations in the bottom of the date box, e.g. July 2nd. AE last seen at Lae New Guinea. AE was associated with Lockheed aircraft via the L-10 and several Lockheed Vegas, I believe the Vegas were -5s. The Vega she crossed the Atlantic in is in the Air and Space Museum in DC. The Vega she used to cross the Gulf of Mexico is purported to be in a museum in Philadelphia PA. Consider asking Lockheed to be a sponsor for the calendar. Further consider asking Beech Nut to be a sponsor as they had her flying a Pitcairn autogiro with their logo emblazoned on the sides of the aircraft. You would have to include the picture of the autogiro in the calendar, and they may have a few neat pictures they would let you use for the calendar, and later for a book, or special edition of TIGHAR Tracks. Then there if Pratt and Whitney. They may want to jump on the band wagon and be a corporate sponsor. AE said many nice things about the reliability of their engines, great advertising! The national archives has many great pictures of AE and her aircraft, as does Purdue University, Lockheed, P& W, Etc. I would think that any sponsors you get would allow you to reproduce the pictures for a charitable cause without the royalties, if indeed the copyrights have not run out after 60 years. The old copyright laws allowed for 14 years plus an extension of 14 more years. The new copyright laws, changed in 1978 allow much longer periods for certain items. Most calendars are most likely at the printers by now but a calendar dedicated to AE could be produced for the 1999 year by someone of your aptitude to get things done. Speaking of the 99's, they would be a good source of sales, and maybe even sponsorship. I'll go back to the drawing board for now. Please let me know when my ideas have worn out their welcome! Jack J. Streight and level, or at least not more than 15 degrees of bank! LTM **************************************************************** From Ric As you can imagine, in the course of ten years of trying to raise money for this project (and occasionally succeeding) we have some experience with some of the issues you raise. For example: 1. The issue of copyright of Earhart photos is extremely murky. Most photos are claimed by one or more collections who police their alleged copyright with varying degrees of rigor. The same photo is often credited to different sources in different publications. Then there's the outfit in Indiana which claims to have ALL rights to the use of Earhart's name and image via the family. As long as we use photos in our magazine and website as part of an educational/historical information service we're in pretty good shape. Outright commercial exploitation is another matter. The last thing we need is a copyright infringement lawsuit, so we need to tread carefully in this matter. 2. We have repeatedly asked Lockheed, and most recently Lockheed/Martin, for sponsorship of various aspects of the project. They have been very friendly but, so far, have declined to participate. We stay in touch. (Incidentally, the Vega that is in the Smithsonian is the same one that was in Philadephia's Franklin Institute.) 3. Last year Pratt & Whitney sponsored the Flight of the Finch to the tune of more than five million dollars. I have met with the VP for Corporate Communications who handled that deal. As he put it, "We're out of the Amelia business." 4. You've never tried to deal with the 99s, have you? I'm not trying to be negative. I'm just speaking from experience. Fundraising for historical projects as popular and controversial as Earhart is difficult, tricky and fraught with traps. You can get stuck with a lot of expensive inventory on an item that sounded like a great idea but just didn't catch on. You can spend thousands of hours courting corporate sponsorships that never happen. You can find yourself embroiled in a lawsuit which, even if you win, costs thousands of dollars and hours to defend. We've made all of those mistakes. We'll probably make more, but at least they'll be new ones. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:45:48 EDT From: Bob Williams Subject: Production slot #2 Chalk me up for one of the L10 models. Charge my credit card the $100 bucks deposit. Love to Mother, Bob *************************************************************** From Ric Thank you sir. Production slot #2 goes to Bob. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:59:06 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Production slot #3 Electra model production slot #3 goes to Jeff Lange, TIGHAR member 0748C. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 10:46:09 EDT From: Susan Bound Subject: Fundraising ideas I would suggest some inexpensively priced materials that people on limited budget can afford. Buttons, T-shirts (especially very large sized ones i.e. Texas Small), screen savers, calendars, mugs, mouse pads and the like can be produced inexpensively and sold. These things could be sold through your WEB page, or perhaps in a tie in with amazon.com. After all, not everyone can afford a presentation model. Surely there are a number of photos that could become available for use. Does Amelia's family have the copyright to any photo's they would be willing to share for this purpose? A screen saver could have pictures of Niku with all the search sites marked or a panoramic view of the island. I also like your idea of the CDROM, especially if it's priced within reason. Susie ************************************************************** From Ric These are good ideas. We do need "low end" items but there's a point where the cost of accounting, handling and shipping negates the benefit. For example, a $2 button wouldn't make any sense even if we got them for free. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:23:56 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Quick L10 question.... Quick question - regarding the engine cowl dimensions for the L10E, can you confirm that the INNER dimension for the ring cowl is in fact 37 inches as stated in the Wreck Photo article on the TIGHAR web site ? The reason I'm asking is the photo in the latest TRACKS of the cowl you found at Pensacola seems to show the outer diameter as 53.5 inches, but the tape reads roughly 47.25 inches on the inner edge. This gives the "frontal thickness" of the ring cowl as about 6.25 inches all around, which would yield an inner cowl dimension of about 41 inches, not 37. Thanks Simon Ellwood #2120 ************************************************************** From Ric That was not a quick question but I'm glad you asked it. I had to go back and reconstruct where our various cowling measurements came from. On 10/14/97 I sent the following message to Jeff Glickman at Photek summarizing our research up to that point. ************* Jeff, Allow me to summarize what we've learned about the wreck photo so far. 1. The structures we can see appear to be consistent with those of a Lockheed Model 10. Some of which (such as the flaired base of the windshield centerpost) are quite distinctive. Conversely, we have found nothing in the photo (so far) that is inconsistent with the Model 10. 2. A rather exhaustive search has, so far, failed to turn up a strong competitor as an alternative aircraft-type. Research continues. You are currently attempting to determine whether the dark area in the left foreground is an object (possibly a float as Frank Lombardo has suggested), or a shadow. 3. Lockheed specs for the Model 10 call for a 9 foot propeller. We're now quite certain that, as of its last official inspection, Earhart's airplane did, indeed, have 9 foot propellers. Assuming that the airplane in the photo is a Lockheed 10 with a 9 foot prop, the external cowling dimension is 54 inches (error factor +,-1.34 inches) and the diameter of the cowling opening is 37.1 inches (error factor of +,- .3 inches). 4. We have actual external cowling and cowling opening measurements for the Model 10A (47 inches and 33 inches respectively) which effectively eliminate the possibility that the airplane in the photo is a Lockheed 10A (or the similarly small-engined 10B). If the airplane in the photo is an Electra it must be either a 10C or 10E, both of which used the larger Pratt & Whitney R1340 engine. 5. Getting actual measurements for the big-engined Electras is complicated by the fact that no 10Cs survive and only one 10E (c/n 1042 owned by Grace McGuire) exists and the owner will not permit anyone to have access to the aircraft. We know that the actual engine diameter of the10E's R1340 S3H1 is 51.6 inches and have estimated the external cowling diameter at 52 inches. McGuire has made a rough measurement of the external cowling diameter of her airplane which she says is 52 inches "give or take an inch" and has measured the cowling opening (a much easier task) at 37 inches. We'll try to get a more precise external measurement from McGuire but, at present, we can say that the proportions of the engine on the airplane in the wreck photo are consistent with the "big-engined" Electras (the 10C and 10E). Nine aircraft of that type are unaccounted for. Earhart's 10E Special is one of them. 6. The only apparent structural feature which offers a possibility for further isolation of which unaccounted-for 10C or 10E this may be is the starboard firewall. We do not see mounting features for the standard 8.5 gallon oil tank and we do see what may be attach points for the brackets that held Earhart's larger tank (probably 11 gallons). Of the unaccounted-for Electras Earhart's is the only one known to have had non-standard oil tanks. We have not yet been able to identify other structures visible on the firewall. Please let me know if I've accurately characterized where we stand. Love to Mother, Ric ****************************** On October 16, 1997 Jeff replied: Ric, As I am not a aviation/aircraft expert I do not feel qualified to address such issues. My comments below are in CAPS to distinguish them from your text. Love to Mother, Jeff In a message dated 97-10-14 10:26:56 EDT, you write: Allow me to summarize what we've learned about the wreck photo so far. 1. The structures we can see appear to be consistent with those of a Lockheed Model 10. Some of which (such as the flaired base of the windshield centerpost) are quite distinctive. Conversely, we have found nothing in the photo (so far) that is inconsistent with the Model 10. I DO NOT KNOW IF THE FLAIRED BASE OF THE WINDSHIELD CENTERPOST IS A DISTINCTIVE FEATURE AS I HAVE NOT EXAMINED A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF OTHER AIRPLANE CONFIGURATIONS. I AGREE THAT THE STRUCTURES WE HAVE EXAMINED THUS FAR ARE CONSISTENT WITH A LOCKHEED MODEL 10, AND AS OF YET, WE HAVE NOT IDENTITIFIED ANYTHING INCONSISTENT WITH A MODEL 10. 2. A rather exhaustive search has, so far, failed to turn up a strong competitor as an alternative aircraft -type. Research continues. You are currently attempting to determine whether the dark area in the left foreground is an object (possibly a float as Frank Lombardo has suggested), or a shadow. I HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED IN THE SEARCH FOR OTHER CANDIDATE AIRCRAFT SO I CANNOT COMMENT AS TO WHETHER THE SEARCH HAS BEEN EXHAUSTIVE. I AM CURRENTLY ANALYZING THE DARK AREA IN THE LEFT FOREGROUND OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TO DETERMINE WHAT CAUSED THIS IMAGE ON THE FILM. 3. Lockheed specs for the Model 10 call for a 9 foot propeller. We're now quite certain that, as of its last official inspection, Earhart's airplane did, indeed, have 9 foot propellers. Assuming that the airplane in the photo is a Lockheed 10 with a 9 foot prop, the external cowling dimension is 54 inches (error factor +,-1.34 inches) and the diameter of the cowling opening is 37.1 inches (error factor of +,- .3 inches). THE FIGURES YOU PRESENT ABOVE ACCURATELY CONVEY THE RESULTS OF MY ANALYSIS. 4. We have actual external cowling and cowling opening measurements for the Model 10A (47 inches and 33 inches respectively) which effectively eliminate the possibility that the airplane in the photo is a Lockheed 10A (or the similarly small-engined 10B). If the airplane in the photo is an Electra it must be either a 10cC or 10E, both of which used the larger Pratt & Whitney R1340 engine. I AGREE WITH YOU, PROVIDED THAT ALL MODEL 10'S USED 9' 0" PROPS. 5. Getting actual measurements for the big-engined Electras is complicated by the fact that no 10Cs survive only one 10E (c/n 1042 owned by Grace McGuire) exists and the owner will not permit anyone to have access to the aircraft. We know that the actual engine diameter of the10E's R1340 S3H1 is 51.6 inches and have estimated the external cowling diameter at 52 inches. McGuire has made a rough measurement of the external cowling diameter of her airplane which she says is 52 inches "give or take an inch" and has measured the cowling opening (a much easier task) at 37 inches. We'll try to get a more precise external measurement from McGuire but, at present, we can say that the proportions of the engine on the airplane in the wreck photo are consistent with the "big-engined" Electras (the 10C and 10E). Nine aircraft of that type are unaccounted for. Earhart's 10E Special is one of them. I HAVE NOT INVESTIGATED WHICH AIRPLANES ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR, SO I AM RELYING ON YOUR RESEARCH. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REMAINDER OF THIS. 6. The only apparent structural feature which offers a possibility for further isolation of which unaccounted-for 10C or 10E this may be is the starboard firewall. We do not see mounting features for the standard 8.5 gallon oil tank and we do see what may be attach points for the brackets that held Earhart's larger tank (probably 11 gallons). Of the unaccounted-for Electras, Earhart's is the only one known to have had non-standard oil tanks. We have not yet been able to identify other structures visible on the firewall. AGAIN, I HAVE NOT INVESTIGATED ANY OF THE AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION DATA AND AM RELYING UPON YOU TO PERFORM THIS RESEARCH. I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPEARS TO BE A USEFUL AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION. ******************** As you can see from the above, the 37 inch internal opening dimension came from Grace McGuire. I don't recall whether I made a separate verifying measurement of the cowling in Pensacola, but if I did I didn't take a photograph. I certainly see your logic and I see two possibilities: 1. McGuire's measurement was fully four inches off and the correct internal measurement is 41 inches, in which case the cowling in the wreck photo is unlike that of a 10E. 2. McGuire's measurement was correct and her cowling is different from the one in Pensacola. This would mean that there were at least two types of 10E cowlings. I don't know how likely that is, but we also don't know for sure which, if either, of the two cowlings measured were original Lockheed equipment. This is a perennial problem in aviation historical investigations because any airplane that has survived throughout a long service life is likely to have had parts replaced and complete logs are seldom available. Bottom line: We can't say for sure what the dimensions of Earhart's cowlings were. We could do the same scaling to a known photo of her airplane as we did to the wreck photo but, unfortunately, that would again take a great deal of Jeff's time. He does this work for TIGHAR as a contribution and, right now, whatever time he has to spend we hope he'll spend on our skull comparison exercise. I'll be interested in any thoughts you have on the matter. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:07:34 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: Gurr Letter and Radio Equipment The more I read Gurr's account of the Electra's radio installation, the more questions it raises.... Gurr states that when he was called upon to look at the radio system for the very first time, he found the receiver inoperative. Amelia had flown from the East Coast to California without a working HF receiver, after having had the equipment checked out by Bell Labs. Could it be possible.... That someone's big feet got entangled in the antenna lead, since the receiver was located beneath the co-pilot's seat, and pulled it loose? Is it possible that this happened again, at a much more critical phase of the flight? Also, with regard to Gurr's story about the acquisition of a receiver in a box marked US Navy, which he says was installed in the aircraft: I have been puzzling over this one. Gurr says it was a four band receiver, covering up to about 20 MHz. Well, as far as I know, the Navy had no four-band receivers covering up to that frequency in the 30s, for use in aircraft. The Navy's standard aircraft receiver was designed in 1928 by Western Electric, and was designated the RU series (RU-8,RU-11,RU-17 etc, depending upon the modification/production series, and whether the gear was to be installed in a 14 volt or a 28 volt electrical system). The RU radio was rather primitive. It was not a superheterodyne design, but a TRF set and was not band-switching, but used plug-in coil boxes to change the tuning range (some of the coil sets were dual-range, usually covering one low-frequency band and one high-frequency, i.e. 195-400 KHz and 2500-4700 KHz; these were selected remotely using a switch driven by a flexible cable connected to a selector operated by the pilot). Changing coils would have been done by the radio operator if the crew included one. The radio was tuned from a remote "coffee grinder" head in the cockpit, with a dial scale calibrated in "0-100" marks, not directly in frequency. The various coil boxes covered the range 195 KHz to 13.575 MHz in individual bands. The companion transmitter (or at least the one usually paired with the RU) was the GF series, also using plug-in coil boxes, covering 2500 through 7700 KHz in various ranges; or the GO and GP series transmitters which were very high power for the time (100 or more watts out) and used aboard large planes like PBYs. I can't believe AE had one of those RU receivers... too confusing to use it! These radios were used in everything from Boeing F3B biplanes, to PBY Catalinas, to early SBD Dauntlesses and SB2C Helldivers, to F4F Wildcats. They served all through WW2, even when paired with some far more modern transmitters like the Collins Autotune. The Navy had, so far as I know (and I am still digging on this) only one multiband aircraft receiver at the start of the war, which means it was developed in the late 30s: the RCA-built ARB receiver which was a four-band superheterodyne covering about 150 KHz to 9.05 MHz. The ARB was a darn good radio; and it did have the type of antenna input circuit needed for use with a DF loop. It did not have DF capability above 1500 KHz, at all. The other multiband receivers the Navy used in aircraft were all low frequency radios. The DZ series receivers were intended for use in navigation, i.e., DF. They covered about 15 KHz to 600 KHz in three or four bands. No HF capability on this radio. Later Navy aircraft radio setups used multiple receivers, each covering a single frequency range, to cover the range 150 KHz through 9.1 MHz. I refer here, to the RAX, ARA, AN/ARC-5 equipments. After that, the switch to VHF for air-to-air and air-to-ground was underway (by 1943-44). The Navy did have the AN/ARR-15 multiband set by mid WW2 (covering up to 18 MHz) but it was under development in 1941. By the way, the HF range of frequencies commonly used by Naval Air was 3 MHz through 9.1 MHz. This was probably true from the early 30s through mid-WW2. Long-range patrol planes, bombers and transports had (later in WW2) the capability to work up to 18 MHz. Admittedly, there are equipments I may have missed in my research; but to my knowledge, most military radio gear in the 30s (until about 1938-39) was several generations behind civilian equipment. My point: I sort of doubt (note: sort of) that AE got hold of any Navy receiver she'd have wanted to use... or that a civilian radio technician who was "up" on the communications hardware scene would have advised her to take along. The stuff was either too antiquated, too user-unfriendly or too specialized. For those reasons I have questions about the Gurr account. Gurr may well have taken the radios home to check them out, using whatever kind of power supply or supplies he could cobble up to get the right voltages. He probably never did a complete system bench check at home -- this involves all parts, control heads, accessories etc. together, not just the radios themselves. As those who have worked in avionics or on military radios well know, many times the problems occur in CORDAGE -- wiring harnesses, plugs etc. Of course if he test-flew the setup, hopefully any problems would surface... unless they were highly intermittent in nature, which can drive you clean out of your mind. Or may be altogether missed until a critical moment or when a particular mode of operation is selected. That's the stuff we blame on "gremlins." (Hey, I believe in those things!) Also, aircraft gear is specialized in construction. It is no simple matter to switch out an installation. Cables have to be made up... a complete new weight-and-balance has to be run on the aircraft... at least for the first-in-a-type for the new installation; after that it's a matter of following the tech order. Above all, the gear has to fit the space. Considering that remote control boxes, tuning heads etc. would have had to be changed, I feel it is not very likely that any "quick" substitution was made. Can any former Navy aviation radiomen help us out further? 73 GA GL Best DX AR Mike E. the Radio Historian *************************************************************** From Ric A phenomenon I have noted time and again in dealing with the Earhart case is that anyone who had dealings with Amelia around the time of the world flight tended, in later years, to greatly inflate their role in the drama. Albert Bresnick, a kid that Putnam hired to take some publicity photos, emerged during the 1980s as Amelia Earhart's Personal Photographer and sold authentic prints of his photos. He also claimed that she had once hinted to him that she was pregnant, and that she considered taking him along on the flight. Before his death earlier this year, Earhart's mechanic Ruckins "Bo" McKneely also regretted not going along on the flight, as if that was ever an option. Harry Balfour, the radio operator in Lae, New Guinea later claimed that Earhart had invited him to come along on the Howland flight. Joseph Gurr's name does not appear anywhere in any of the documentation or publicity I have seen concerning the aircraft or the flight. I've never seen a photo that claims to show him with AE. The letter to Goerner is the sole piece of evidence I know of that indicates he had anything to do with Earhart, and it was written in 1982. I'm not terribly surprised that it doesn't stand up well to knowledgeable scrutiny. Love to mother, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:32:22 EDT From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Noonan Proj. LA help We need a little help from our friends in tracking Noonan. Our previous Los Angeles volunteer has, like, disappeared. Just another Earhart related mystery. So if you like spending time in libraries and have access to a major one (ideally the central LA library or a university) we could use your help. Just plunk the keys on your keyboard and email me to volunteer. We thank you. Blue skies, -jerry ************************************************************** So, American. You are surprised we speak your ranguage. Who will be the next victim? ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:07:27 EDT From: Tom Cook Subject: cowling opening As I posted on 3 June 98, picture # 53 in "Sound of Wings" shows AE's 10 when new at about the same angle as the wreck photo, by measuring the cowl openings and the propellers from tip to center of hub in both pictures I concluded that they were the same size, APPROX. 36" (actually I intended to say approx. 36 or 37", but I left off the 37. TC 2127 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:26:02 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Gurr Letter and Radio Equipment > The more I read Gurr's account of the Electra's radio installation, the >more questions it raises.... And some differences between his letter & Q&A. Letter says Navy rcvr. ...to 20 mhz, while Q & A says ..to 22 mc .. I would be tempted to believe the latter because it used the idiom of the times, and throughout most of his career. However the diference is of no significance. > Gurr states that when he was called upon to look at the radio system for >the very first time, he found the receiver inoperative. Amelia had flown >from the East Coast to California without a working HF receiver, after >having had the equipment checked out by Bell Labs. Of greater significance is the loss of LF for navigation across the country. She would not be the first to cross the continent by pilotage, but what a royal pain that would be! Or did she have a navigator or was her adf installed at that time? If either, forget the foregoing. > Could it be possible.... That someone's big feet got entangled in the > antenna lead, since the receiver was located beneath the co-pilot's seat, > and pulled it loose? Is it possible that this happened again, at a much > more critical phase of the flight? Therein lies a real possibility, but only if the antenna lead did not have a 'screw-on' plug. The type of ant. input 'terminal' of both the W.E. & the 'navy rcvr' should be listed on some drawing, spec sheet, or doc. That would make or break a real possibility. RC #941 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:31:00 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Bone measurements Ric wrote: >Before I reply to Vern's question I want to state that I have no formal >training or expertise in what I am about to shoot off my mouth about. But you done good! >Of the various guesses Dr. Hoodless made about the individual whose bones were >found on Niku in 1940, his assessment of height and stature would appear to be >the most shaky. It's unfortunate that he didn't measure the femurs, I understand these provide the best estimate of height. But he was dealing with pretty beat up old bones. I suspect he was having to guess at the original shape of the ends and total length of the bones. He probably used those he believed he could make the best guesses about. He ends up with a height estimate of 65.5 inches (the average). This is 2.5 inches short for AE (68 inches). And 6.75 inches short for FN (72.25 inches) It looks close for AE but 6.75 inches short is pretty far off for FN. Dr. Isaac said, "male... Polynesian, elderly." I believe Dr. Hoodless also said, "male... but of european or mixed origin." Only half a pelvis was found. Gender determination may be uncertain. To connect to Amelia and Fred, we need the gender or the height to be badly off. Maybe the skull measurements will provide some kind of answer. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:40:58 EDT From: Tom Ruprecht Subject: Model data Just a note to support what another modeler wrote earlier- an issue of TIGHAR Tracks devoted to details of the Electra would be of great interest to those interested in the subject. There is a niche market for such books as one can see from any hobby shop. The hesitation on relying on it (as worth the trouble for significant fundraising) is my feeling and experience that it won't sell in large number because the subject doesn't have guns. Civil aircraft are not nearly as popular as military ones. If it is produced, perhaps as a double issue (saving you one or more issues' work), extra copies should be sold @ at least $20 each to non members. Color three-views and detail views of hard-to-model items (cockpit, interior, landing gear, *antennas*) make modelers salivate. It should also be made available or at least announced through major modeling publications (a review should be free for the cost of sending them a copy) and the IPMS Quarterly. Rupe 1465C ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:45:04 EDT From: Jim Thompson Subject: Aerial photos of Niku Can anyone tell me where I can obtain aerial photographs of Nikumaroro? I've read several references to them in the archives. It would be helpful to be able to match areas that I read about in the forum with photograph(s)of them. [The Canton photo has been very useful in this respect!] I've come across one air photo in the 1997 "GIS World" article about TIGHAR's work, but it doesn't explicitly list any directional orientation. Would it be possible/worthwhile to create an on-line photo archive? Thank you. james thompson (P.S. Are new TIGHAR members considered "cubs"?) *************************************************************** From Ric No. We expect and encourage new TIGHARs to roar as loadly as the old guard. Our website makeover (now under construction) will include a photo tour of Niku including aerial photos. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:49:27 EDT From: Natko Katicic Subject: fund raising I am new to the forum (I am doing my best though to read the LOGs back to November) so I don't know if this has been said already. I am also not familiar with U.S. legislation so this aspect of my ideas eludes me. Still, I would like to chip in with a few suggestions for fund raising. I think that not only members would very much welcome the possibility to buy a video tape with the expedition coverage that was aired on ABC and whatever other media coverage there is, including maybe original footage the expedition team shot on site. I believe the copyright side should be OK (for a small royalty maybe). Don't forget to make PAL (as opposed to NTSC) copies for your European audience. You could set up a "TIGHAR Shop" on the web site (with a secure server maybe for credit card transactions) and offer all those merchandising articles (T-Shirts, Sweat-shirts for the winter, Model Electras, Video Tapes, TIGHAR Tracks, Niku Maps, Cofee Mugs, Fridge magnets, ...) for sale. Hope this was a constructive contribution, Love To Mother, natko. P.S: The Prop Spins For Me. *************************************************************** From Ric ABC did not produce videotapes of their show because they didn't want to go to the expense of clearing the footage they used from other sources (for example, clips from Flight for Freedom). We could edit together something from the videotape we've shot ourselves and we've considered doing that. Just a matter of devoting the time to it. We do intend to set up a TIGHAR Shop on the website as you suggest. The secure financial transaction software is available and we're presently struggling with the mechanics of how it will fit into the overall site. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:54:31 EDT From: Mike Evereet Subject: Earhart's radio equipment The type of antenna connection used on aircraft radios in the 30s and 40s was, almost universally, a type of "push-post" or spring-loaded binding post, which also had a ceramic feed through insulator passing through the radio's case or panel. Screw-on fittings were not in general use until years later. Coaxial cable was not used to interconnect most airborne radio gear until the advent of VHF communications, when designers settled on making everything work into a fixed impedance, standardized at 50 ohms. HF gear fell under the same design philosophy at the same time, and any antenna tuners or loading networks were consequently designed to match a complex impedance like an aircraft antenna to that value. This came about after World War II. Up until that time, aircraft radios were designed to work into a wide range of antennas, over a broad impedance range. Use of coaxial cable would have caused many problems in such a design environment. High radio frequency voltages developed when working a transmitter into a high impedance load (several hundred or several thousand ohms) which might not be completely matched at the frequency, would cause the cable to heat up or arc over. Therefore, open-wire leads insulated with ceramic beads were in general use. The receiver connection might be as simple as a length of cloth insulated heavy wire between the receiver and the terminal on the transmit-receive (antenna) relay. Coaxial cables were, however, used to interconnect components where shielding of the leads was important, or where high radio frequency voltages were not involved. One specific instance is the lead from the sense antenna to the antenna input of a DF receiver, and Bendix gear used coaxial input with screw-on fittings. A reason to use shielded cable at the lower frequencies used for DF (200-1500 KHz) is to keep out electrical noises generated inside the aircraft. This is a real problem at low frequencies, somewhat less so at HF. I would be willing to bet that the Western Electric receiver used a push post. Gurr stated that when he first looked at the Electra to check the non functioning HF receiver, he found it under the copilot's seat... the antenna lead was disconnected or pulled loose. These push-posts were not safety-wired. I can't ever recall seeing one with provisions to safety-wire it, and this is a result of experience with Collins, Aircraft Radio Corporation, Philco, Wells-Gardner, Western Electric and other manufacturers' products. As for the "Navy Receiver" Gurr cites: The only four band Navy receiver within this time frame which I am aware of, for aircraft use, was the ARB series which covered 195-400, 400-1500, 1500-6000 and 6000-9050 KHz bands. This was also designed for use in a 28 volt system. What voltage did the Electra use? (I don't think a 14 volt ARB counterpart was ever made.) The next potential candidate would be an RBM or RBS receiver, but these were designed for ground use. They were substantially identical units, but the RBM had a lightweight aluminum case and had a 12 -14 volt dynamotor power supply. The RBS was in a heavy steel box with a separate 115V AC 60 hertz supply. Neither the RBM nor RBS could be remotely controlled or tuned. They were not suited for aircraft use. Besides, the RBM/RBS high-frequency sets covered only 2-20 MHz in four bands. There was a companion low frequency RBM/RBS covering 200-2000 KHz in four bands, so two receivers would have been needed to cover the entire range Gurr speaks of. I do not think this system was a possibility. Every other Navy receiver of which I am aware, from this time period, was a big heavy clunker useful for anchoring battleships if it went bad. The aircraft stuff all used plug-in coils, not bandswitching, until about 1939-40. Again, if any old-time Navy radiomen can shed more light, please feel free to jump in. 73 GM GL Best DX AR Mike E. the Radio Historian ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:59:48 EDT From: Tom Cook Subject: date of post re Wreck Photo I posted that I had measured picture #53 in "Sound of Wings on 3 June, I actually posted the dimensions on 20 June, sorry about that. TC 2127 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:40:39 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: sex identification of bones In addition to my M.D., I have a B.A. in anthropology. In theory, it is easy to identify the sex of a pelvis by looking at the angle formed by the "Sciatic notch". In practice, there are always effeminate male skeletons and android female skeletons, so there is considerable overlap. Statistics and photos of the pubic symphysis (the place where the pelvic bones join in front) were collected from the re-patriated skeletal remains of Korean war dead. The characteristics of this area change with age, and you can get an approximate age as well. From an archeological perspective, these would be considered "recent" bones. The sex could be definitively determined by DNA testing in most modern forensic pathology labs. If you had the bones! Dan Postellon ************************************************************** From Ric Because he had half of a pelvis (innominate bone) to work with, we've considered the sex identification to be one of the more reliable parts of Dr. Hoodless's opinion about the individual whose partial remains were found. Would you agree? ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:46:27 EDT From: Deacon Michael Cantrelle Subject: Fred Noonan Real new at this. Don't know if I can request this, but here goes. Looking for photos of Fred Noonan for a friend who happens to be his Godchild. Searched the net but was only able to find one small photo with Amelia. Would be very grateful for any help. Thanks, Deacon Michael Cantrelle *************************************************************** From Ric Noonan's godchild? That's pretty interesting. We're curious to know more. Who were the parents and what was there connection to Noonan, and where did this all take place and when? I'll send you a JPEG photo of Noonan in a separate email. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:51:19 EDT From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Earhart's radio equipment One worthy source concerning themselves with vintage radio equipment is an organization to which I belong, called the Antique Wireless Association, Inc. This association is a non-profit historical organization concerned with radio collectors, historians, and old-time wireless operators. They publish a journal called "The Old-Timer's Bulletin," with many useful articles, photos, and schematics pertaining to radio equipment from Marconi wireless days to the advent of the transistor. They may be reached at the following location (they also operate an antique radio museum!): Antique Wireless Association, Inc. Box E, Breesport, N.Y. 14816 Telephone: (607)739-5443 Another antique radio xmtr/rcvr info source, dealing with both military and non-military vintage equipment is Electric Radio Press, Inc., which publishes a monthly journal called "Electric Radio," appropriately enough, to which I subscribe. They can be reached at: Electric Radio 14643 County Road G Cortez, Colorado 81321-9575 Phone/FAX (970) 564-9185; E-mail: er@frontier.net Anyone interested in two good radio history sources, check these out! I suspect that someone in either/both of the groups may know a great deal about the AE/Electra radios. My prop spinneth over, ---- Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS :) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:27:55 EDT From: Dick Strippel Subject: Re: Earhart's radio equipment RIGHT ON, MIKE CONGRATS ON AN ACCURATE WELL-THOUGHT-OUT MESSAGE. TOO BAD RIC PROBABLY WON'T READ IT WITH HIS CLOSED KNOW-IT ALL MIND --DICK ************************************************************* From Ric Sorry to disappoint you Dick, but Mike's accurate and well-thought-out message prompted me to email him directly and recruit his help in trying to identify Artifact 2-3-V-1, the cables and connectors which have been so difficult for us to pin down. I'll probably be FedExing the artifact to him next week. For new forum members: Don't mind Dick. He's our resident curmudgeon. We love him. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:54:23 EDT From: Jack Subject: Pan Am report Just back from a month's vacation and have a couple of quickies. I was poking around the Naval Historic Center and located U.S. Coast Guard records, Group 26 National Archives (505 pages). Microfilm Reel NRS-246-C includes correspondence & messages; Pan American Airways report, Earhart plane flight and the transcript of the USGC Itasca log for July 1937. Question 1: Was the TIGHAR Tracks "Log Jam" dated October, 1996 derived from this report? I am interested in what this report has to say about Pan Am's unofficial involvement but I'm not sure its worth $40.to find out. Question 2: Have you reviewed this report? The last time I communicated with you, I asked why Lt. Daniel Cooper (Army Air Corps) was on the Itasca and you indicated he was in charge of the aircraft maintenance team. After giving this some thought while fishing one other question came to mind. Question 3: Why did AE use the Army maint. instead of the experts....Lockheed maint. at Howland? Please understand that I am not a conspiracy theorist but if I was on that flight, I wouldn't settle for second best. I would want Lockheed maint. people. Had a great vacation at Greenport L.I. fishing, bumming and saw Operation Sail and all the Tall Ships. LTM, Jack, 2157 ************************************************************** From Ric >Question 1: Was the TIGHAR Tracks "Log Jam" dated October, 1996 derived >from this report? I am interested in what this report has to say about Pan >Am's unofficial involvement but I'm not sure its worth $40.to find out. I'm not sure what "Pan American Airways report" you mean. There were some memos about the post-loss radio signals and attempts to take bearings on them, but I've never seen a formal report from Pan Am. The was a Pan American System Report on Proposed Joint Rescue Procedure dated August 26, 1937 which supposedly suggested ways which Pan Am and the Coast Guard could improve coordination in cases like the Earhart search. We've never been able to find that report but we'd very much like to. We've seen excerpts from the Coast Guard's vehement reply to it which implies that Pan am was saying something like, "She was alive for a while and we couldn't get our act together quickly enough to find her in time." The Coast Guard took the position that all of the post-loss messages were either hoaxes or misunderstandings, that the airplane went into the drink shortly after the last transmission heard by Itasca, and nobody did anything wrong because there was never any hope of helping her. The transcript of the Itasca radio logs you mention is the big thick document that Cmdr. Warner Thompson put together to cover his butt. We have that. This is also the document that Morgenthau didn't want to give to Paul Mantz. The "Log Jam" article was based upon the original radio logs, not Thompson's altered version. >Question 2: Have you reviewed this report? The radio transcripts, yes. The Pan Am report, I'm not sure. Depends on what it is. >Question 3: Why did AE use the Army maint. instead of the >experts....Lockheed maint. at Howland? Please understand that I am not a >conspiracy theorist but if I was on that flight, I wouldn't settle for second >best. I would want Lockheed maint. people. I think you overestimate Earhart's resources. There is no way she could afford to put a Lockheed mechanic on a boat for a month or more just so she could have an expert on hand at one stop. The government help was free and there was no major maintenance planned for the overnight stay on Howland. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:32:49 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: sex determination Ric wrote: >Because he had half of a pelvis (innominate bone) to work with, we've >considered the sex identification to be one of the more reliable parts of Dr. >Hoodless's opinion about the individual whose partial remains were found. >Would you agree? Yes and no. It is like determining sex by looking at the face. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is not. I'd rather see a sample with DNA analysis for Y chromosome markers. There are masculine-looking women and feminine-looking men in the general population, either in terms of faces or pelvises. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:36:15 EDT From: Ken Feder Subject: sex identification Dan Postellon wrote: >In addition to my M.D., I have a B.A. in anthropology. In theory, it is >easy to identfy the sex of a pelvis by looking at the angle formed by the >"Sciatic notch". In practice, there are always effeminate male skeletons >and android female skeletons, so there is considerable overlap. Most of the forensic anthropologists I know will claim something over 90% accuracy in sexing a skeleton based on the pelvis (of course, you can be 50% accurate just by guessing). Add the skull into the mix and these same scientists will up their accuracy to something like 95%. So, there is always some possibility for error, but the pelvis and, especially the pelvis and skull together give you a very good shot at accurately identifying the sex of an individual. Ken Feder Anthropology CCSU ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:43:36 EDT From: Tim Heck Subject: Electra Models Wow, $395. What about the working man Mr. Gillespie? I can't afford that, despite my interest. How 'bout a cheaper kit, you know, 39.95, something less detailed, and maybe w/o all the special TIGHAR Specs. Just a decal, or imprint. LTM, Tim **************************************************************** From Ric I know, I know. I'd also like to find a ship that charters for $500/ day instead of $5,000. There's a company that is supposedly soon coming out with a plastic kit of the Electra which we may be able to offer in the price range you're talking about. I'll let everyone know more when I know more. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:50:18 EDT From: Mike Everette Subject: The Wreck Photo Here is a thought: Has this possibility been considered, re the Wreck Photo? That it might possibly be... could it be... an Avro Anson...? Just wondering. 73 Mike E. the Radio Historian ************************************************************* From Ric Yeah, we thought about the Anson. Most of them were steel tube and fabric but there were some later aluminum versions but I'm not sure but what the underlying structure was still steel tube (sort of like the Piper Aztec). Some even had R985 engines, but none had the larger R1340. Windshield is wrong too. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:57:37 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Takin' a break Just so's everybody knows, I'm away until Monday (8/10). Pat will handle the forum 'til then. Love to mother (actually that's who I'm going to see. I guess the secret is out. I have a mother.) ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:59:34 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Coral rubble pile I just have a real hard time believing that Maude and Bevington wouldn't have recognized a grave as a grave. Tom King ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:01:10 EDT From: Bob Williams Subject: Antenna lead in If Amelia had inadvertently disconnected the HF Receiver Antenna lead-in with her foot, she wouldn't have been able to hear anything from Itasca on 7500kc with the loop antenna. Love to Mother, Bob ************************************************************** From Ric Good point. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 07:49:45 EDT From: Bob Williams Subject: Artifact 2-3-V-1 In 1937 coax didn't exist. Neither did coax connectors. None of the electronics equipment on the Electra used coax or coax connectors. If artifact 2-3-V-1 is cable with coax connectors attached, it came from a W.W.II aircraft. However, from the pictures I have seen of the artifact, it appears to me that the connectors have extremely long center pins. Much longer than what was used on the standard Amphenol type coax connectors of the 1940s; and still the standard today. They look to me more like the connectors I saw on the ignition harnesses I remember from the old DC-4 and B-377 aircraft. I wasn't involved with engine electrical work, but I remember those harnesses and the problem with radio ignition noise a break in their shields would cause. Love to Mother, Bob ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 07:51:29 EDT From: Tim Heck Subject: Re: the Wreck Photo Thinking about the photo. What we need to do is take every twin, triple, or quad engined aircraft. Narrow out the jets, and start from there, like scientists. About like so. 1a) Plane has high slung wings go to 2 1b) Plane had low slung wings, go to 3 2a) Plane has ship-like hull, or pontoons, go to 4 2b) Plane has no ship like hull, or pontoons, go to 5 And so on. LTM, Tim Heck Aviation Enthusiast and Researcher ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:04:01 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Aerial photos of Niku Ric wrote: >Our website makeover (now under construction) will include a photo tour of >Niku including aerial photos. As Tony the TIGHAR would say, GRRRRREAT! Ric also wrote: >Love to mother (actually that's who I'm going to see. I guess the secret is >out. I have a mother.) And all this time we thought Pat found you under a coconut crab on Niku... Love to YOUR mother... Tom #2179 Never forget the importance of history. To know nothing of what happened before you took your place on earth, is to remain a child forever. [unknown] ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:06:22 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: Limited Commercial I set that one aside but forgot to answer it. RE; Noonan's pilot license. Limited Commercial = Commercial privileges within a 10 mile radius. The Dept. Of Commerce issued airman ratings in 1930; this one along with the others was continued for awhile at least under the CAA. To recap: Private Pilot = Could carry passengers but not for hire. Commercial Pilot = Could carry passengers for hire anywhere. To accommodate the 'Sunday Sightseeing' from local airports, the limited commercial was given. It did not require the min. x-country hours and distance of a commercial. RC #941 ******************** Thanks, Bob. P ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:08:55 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: sex identification Nobody seems to want to address the matter of having only half a pelvis and how this might influence the accuracy of sex determination. And if this bone has been gnawed on by crabs... Neither Dr. Isaac nor Dr. Hoodless were modern day forensic anthropologists. Now what's the accuracy of either of these two very different determinations likely to be? ************************** The one or two folks we've asked who are in a position to know are very dubious about the quality of i.d. that could have been made at that time with those (limited) facts to go on. I know we have an MD/anthropologist in the house.... Pat ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:12:56 EDT From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: The Wreck Photo I've crawled over an Anson which happened to be in pieces being restored at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. The wing spars are a completely wooden box structure and there's no panel near the LE with two holes cut out. The wreck's definitely not an Anson. The museum also has an Airspeed Oxford - very similar looking. I can definitely rule this out also. The two front runners I have are still the L10E and the Ki-54, although I haven't completely ruled out the Caprioni 310 yet. Simon Ellwood #2120 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 12:06:16 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: sex identification Re. Vern's --- Nobody seems to want to address the matter of having only half a pelvis and how this might influence the accuracy of sex determination. The thing is, the best and easiest way to judge sex from pelvic bones is from the sciatic notches, which exist on both sides of the pelvis and are usually quite distinctive sexually. Ladies got wide open ones for having babies, while gents have narrower ones. So in the sciatic notch department, half a pelvis is almost as good as a whole one -- except, of course, that it's POSSIBLE to have significant disparity between the two notches in a single pelvis. Isaac and Hoodless certainly were well aware of sciatic notches and what they indicated. Hence their attribution of SEX is very likely to be accurate. Age estimates are PROBABLY pretty good because they had the skull (assuming the skull and the post-cranials were from the same bod), and suture closure in the skull is a pretty good (though only pretty good) indicator of age, also well known in the 30s. Stature may be an entirely different matter, though, and in all of this we need the opinions of honest-to-god forensic anthropologists. Tom King Project Archeologist ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 12:08:48 EDT From: Dick Strippel Subject: Re: Gurr Letter and Radio Equipment Bob Sherman wrote: >The more I read Gurr's account of the Electra's radio installation, the >more questions it raises.... The more I read Gurr's account, the more I believe he never worked on the com equipt-----------------------dick ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 12:10:10 EDT From: Mike Ruiz Subject: Re: Graves and Bevington Tom King wrote: >I just have a real hard time believing that Maude and Bevington wouldn't have >recognized a grave as a grave. I know if *I* stumbled across a skeleton and a pile of dirt, I'd be watching the skeleton! Maybe its just a case of immediate distractions. Also, if the survivor buried the other, they may have been short on strength etc. and may not have made a regulation grave. (But I can't imagine a Westerner not sticking up some kind of marker, crude wooden cross, etc.) ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:34:30 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Graves and Bevington Mike Ruiz writes: >I know if *I* stumbled across a skeleton and a pile of dirt, I'd be >watching the skeleton! Me, too; you really do have to watch those sneaky devils. But Bevington and Maude didn't find a skeleton; the colonists and Gallagher found the skeleton, about two years later. All that Bevington and Maude seem to have found is the pile of dirt -- or whatever it was. LTM TK ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:37:32 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: One more time... I expect that most have heard that Steve Fossett is up, up and away again. The southern hemisphere this time to avoid the anti-American/European politics that have stopped everyone to date -- if not equipment problems. He's over the South Atlantic currently. A LOT of water to get over on this kind of route! The intended course will take him over Australia and the South Pacific. If something does go wrong, I wonder if he'll end up on Niku? More artifacts to confuse the situation there! ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:38:15 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: The cable again Continuing with the possibility that the shielded cable with Howard P. Jones series 101 plugs might have come out of the ignition/magneto circuitry, who would have specified the wiring associated with the engine? P&W? Might it be possible to learn something about the wiring of the engines on AE's Electra from them? I presume we don't have access to any similar engine of the period to see what's on it. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:41:36 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Model data In a similar vein, I have just received details of how to obtain copies of the Electra drawings held by the Smithsonian. Would it be of assistance if someone could sort these documents out and possibly reproduce some of the more relevant ones on CAD, modified according to what we know of AE's? Also, I have learnt that there is an Electra based at Bankstown airport in Sydney (my home strip). I believe it is hangared as the insurance is too expensive for them to fly it. At a guess it is probably an A or B, however, it may be useful as a further reference. I am trying to find out who owns it so I can have a 'sticky beck' at it. Regards David Kelly Tom Ruprecht wrote: >Just a note to support what another modeler wrote earlier- an issue of >TIGHAR Tracks devoted to details of the Electra would be of great interest >to those interested in the subject. There is a niche market for such books >as one can see from any hobby shop. The hesitation on relying on it (as >worth the trouble for significant fundraising) is my feeling and experience >that it won't sell in large number because the subject doesn't have guns. >Civil aircraft are not nearly as popular as military ones. If it is >produced, perhaps as a double issue (saving you one or more issues' work), >extra copies should be sold @ at least $20 each to non members. Color >three-views and detail views of hard-to-model items (cockpit, interior, >landing gear, *antennas*) make modelers salivate. It should also be made >available or at least announced through major modeling publications (a >review should be free for the cost of sending them a copy) and the IPMS >Quarterly. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:33:43 EDT From: Ron Dawson Subject: Swan logs The deck logs of the USS Swan for 30Oct42 to 13Dec42 are on their way to you for your perusal. They arrived in a damaged package and were wet, ("neither rain nor sleet nor snow"), but I spread them out and dried them - wrinkled, but readable. Interesting, but puzzling. November is informative, but in December, they clammed up and most entries read, "no remarks". I've already copied the ones I want to keep. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:36:00 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: A small excursion I went on an interesting trip yesterday. Locals never visit the places that are right there in their area. I did it anyway. And I passed some interesting things along the way. Starting from within the city, I took a route tourists passing through would not take. The route took me past the old "downtown airport" situated about ten minutes from downtown Kansas City, Missouri . That was real handy back in the days when all airplanes had propellers. It also made for some interesting landing approaches when the jets came on the scene and needed every inch of runway there! That airport is still in use but major passenger flights all go to the Kansas City International Airport about 20 miles further north. We're like all the other cities now. You spend more time with ground transportation than in the air. The Goodyear Blimp is here presently. It was just lifting off with its nose pointed up steeply. At the far north corner of the old airport, I passed the area where "Save-a-Connie" is restoring one of them, and a Martin 404. They've accumulated a lot of junk too. I'll probably be back looking at some of it again. They might have an old magneto. About 20 miles north on I-29 I passed KCI and got buzzed by a 747 about to touch down on the E-W runway. A few miles further north I left I-29 and headed northwesterly on state and county roads. The next sighting of interest was a big signboard that said: "Welcome to Atchison, Kansas -- Birthplace of Amelia Earhart" There was a big picture of Amelia and of the Electra climbing into the sky. It has the "V" antenna and the loop but no belly antennas. No pitot masts either, as I recall. Of course it proclaims all sorts of historic sites and antique/collectible shops. Atchison also has a railroad history being the point of origin of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe and a junction point with the Burlington Northern. The route turned to the west and I was soon crossing the Missouri River on the "Amelia Earhart Memorial Bridge." Then there was a sign pointing the way to the "Amelia Earhart Memorial Airport." I checked the airport... The Electra was not there. There were only three small aircraft. Then I set out to visit the house where Amelia was born and grew up. I drove up the hill where Amelia had done the belly-flopper on the sled. This was a thing young ladies didn't do in those days. It's quite a hill. Maybe she really did go under the horse which would not have worked very well had she been sitting up in lady-like fashion! The house, now a museum (owned by the 99's) is up on the bluff overlooking the Missouri River. It has been restored to pretty much the way it was when Amelia lived there. The room that was Amelia's contains a lot of things that were hers including her desk given to the museum by Muriel. You can't actually see the river from the first floor level, you see trees on the other side of the river. That's Missouri and in the flood plain. At this point, the river flows southward and is the dividing line between Kansas and Missouri. From the second floor and from Amelia's room you can see the river. Amelia probably spent a lot of time watching the boats and long strings of barges traveling up and down the river... When she wasn't romping around on the river banks looking for whatever adventure the day might hold. She would have seen side-wheelers and stern-wheelers all steam powered and coal burning. Looking out on the river from Amelia's window took me back to my own childhood. That river continues southward back to Kansas City where it turns east and heads across Missouri to St. Louis where it joins the Mississippi. About a hundred miles to the east of Kansas City and a few years later, I was growing up in a house up on the bluff overlooking the Missouri River. I watched some of the same boats Amelia would have watched. While I was watching the boats and romping around the river bank, she was already long gone from the river and flying around somewhere. Returning to Kansas City, I took the "Amelia Earhart Memorial Highway." That's US 73 between Atchison and I-70 at a point at the western edge of the part of Kansas City that is, in fact, in Kansas. An easy, direct way for anyone traveling I-70 to make a side trip up to Atchison. Those people are sure playing the Earhart thing for all it's worth! ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:43:35 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Model Data Replying to David Kelly: >I have just received details of how to obtain copies of >the Electra drawings held by the Smithsonian. Would it be of assistance if >someone could sort these documents out and possibly reproduce some of the >more relevant ones on CAD, modified according to what we know of AE's? We really don't need that much sophistication to produce an accurate model. We can get what we need from existing photos and three-views. However, having Electra drawings on CAD would certainly be a good research tool. I've seen the microfilm and you have your work cut out for you. The quality is lousy. =======================================