Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:14:40 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: F.N's Navigation

I imagine this has been covered somewhere (If I recall Ric is a pilot), but
I see this business of the accuracy of F.N.'s navigation crop up all the
time, and now the suggestion that Nav may not be an "exact" art.

Visual navigation over LAND was NOT an exact art (it pretty much is now with
Global Pos Sats).  I have several times found myself blown off course on a
short flight of maybe 250 miles (and I can see what's under me when flying
over the ground).  (I have completely missed an Island offshore due to fog.)

The problem is, the further you fly on a given heading, the harder it is to
stay on course and the bigger any error will be.

RD  (Who enjoyed looking for info on inventory items)

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The issue of Noonan's known navigational techinques and demonstrated accuracy
has been the subject of rather intense research and will be covered in
considerable detail in the 8th edition of the Earhart Project Book currently
being put together.  Most of the raw text has now been written and we're
ready to begin the process of editing and layout.  We're probalvy looking at
March for final publication.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:43:45 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Antennas

Congratulations! Verification that the bottom antenna was ripped off is,
obviously, a critical fact relating to the Earhart mystery. One which no
one else has uncovered. And one which may have a direct impact on why the
communications failed so miserably. There has been so much speculation
about this and maybe it comes down to something as simple as a lost
antenna. As I recall we were never able to resolve exactly what radio gear
was hooked up to which antenna. I suggest someone contact Elgin Long re the
antenna hook ups. He seemed to have fairly strong documented info on the
radio set ups and modifications. I was going to ask him about the antenna
connections when he gave his presentation in Oakland, but didn't get to. He
is giving presentations in San Diego and Seattle air museums over the next
few months if someone wants to try to catch him then. Good diligent,
thorough, documented, and successful investigation in the TIGHAR way. Kudos.

blue skies, -jerry

PS - if you still need a photo of the top of an Electra I can take a
picture of the Lockheed in Oakland.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

At your convenience, yes, we still need a good close shot of the seam that
runs down the middle of the ship.

Elgen Long's "knowledge" of the aircraft's radio set up suffers from the same
problems that plague the rest of his research.  He just doesn't understand
the difference between anecdote and hard evidence.  He "knows" all sorts of
things that he has decided are true and are therefore (to him) true.   For
example, he is certain that there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard the
airplane although there is no real evidence for that.  He presents a photo
which he says shows the remote head for the RA-1 installed in the cockpit of
NR16020 and states that this photo was taken on or about May 26, 1937 in
Miami by Pan American mechanic F. Ralph Silas.  His source for this
information is his own interview with Silas in 1977, forty years after the
event in question.  There is nothing in the photo itself to date when it was
taken or even confirm that it is Earhart's airplane.  The remote head is
mounted in what seems to be a rather dangerous position on the cockpit's left
"eyebrow" panel and sticks down beside the pilot's left temple.  Elgen says
that this could be very hazardous in the event of a ditching (as indeed it
would be) but he doesn't explain while this prominent feature is not visible
in any of the many photos taken of the airplane during the world flight.
If Elgen has real evidence about the aircraft's radio system he hasn't made
it public.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:48:31 EST
From:         George Kastner
Subject:      Lesser, fewer

"As of today there are 649 subscribers to the Earhartforum.  Less than half
are active supporters of the research everyone enjoys."

Actually, Ric, "less" describes mass nouns.  In this sentence you need
"fewer supporters," which is for countable nouns.  For instance, you have
"less water," though not "fewer water," since the water itself cannot
be counted.  (Though you could have "fewer gallons of water," the gallons
being countable.)  Likewise you have "fewer supporters," since you can
count each and every one (though they certainly could be "less active").

G. Kastner #862C

PS: As a bookseller, I see all those titles with themes--Sue Grafton uses
the alphabet in her mysteries: A Is For Alibi, B Is For Burglar; Greeley
uses the Beatitudes, etc.  I am going to write a mystery series wherein
each title contains a grammatical error: No Job To Small, Laying in Wait,
etc.

My wife feels I have too much spare time on my hands.  Probably true./gk

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Correction noted and appreciated.

The non-members are indeed countable. We shall do so and report the results
of this counting.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:49:55 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      thorough searches

<<The next people we know visited the island were Maude and Bevington
in Oct. '37 but they make no mention of coming across the wreck survivors'
camp. >>

These are the same guys who so "thoroughly" surveyed the island that they
wouldn't have missed anything?  Hmmmm

LTM
A McKenna 1045
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:53:50 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher

About the only similarity I see in the "mystery object" in MAY20DEP.JPG and
the Tighar/Niku fire extinguisher is that both are cylindrical in shape.
I've got a letter off to The Thermos Company, with a printout of
MAY20DEP.JPG enclosed, in the hope they may be able to identify the "mystery
object" even though it may not by their own product.  As we say,
confirmation that a thing is NOT significant, not what we thought it might
be, also advances the project.

The Thermos Company has an interesting history of the "Thermos Bottle" on
their web site.  There are no pictures of old Thermos bottles but it gives
me hope that someone there may be familiar with bottles made in the 1930's,
or before. And perhaps those made by others as well.  There is no e-mail
address given, hence my snail-mail letter.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

That could be useful.  To my untrained eye, the "neck" of the cylindrical
object in the photo is so narrow as to make it impractical for the dispensing
of liquids.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:16:26 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      USS Cabot (CVL-28)

  WARNING!  This post contains no Amelia Earhart related material whatsoever.
 However, since part of the wider TIGHAR mandate is to promote preservation
of historic aviation artifacts, I'm hoping that Ric will indulge me for just
a moment...

  The USS Cabot (CVL-28), is the last surviving light carrier from WWII and
the only aircraft carrier that retains its basic 1940s era configuration
(complete with straight, wooden flight deck).  She served with distinction
through 18 months of the Pacific Campaign, earning 9 battle stars and the
Presidential Unit Citation.  During that time, the ship lost 110 members of
her crew - 35 as the result of two simultaneous Kamikaze strikes.

  The Cabot is now at scrapyard in Brownsville, Texas awaiting her fate.  To
me, learning that this ship still exists was like hearing that Bob Ballard
had gone looking for the Yorktown and discovered it...STILL AFLOAT.  There is
an organization with a chance to save the Cabot as a museum/memprial, but
they need help to bring enough pressure on the scrap dealers to sell her at a
fair price.  I naturally thought of contacting the Earhart Forum, the
quickest way to access a large group of highly motivated, history-minded,
well-educated, cybersavvy (not to mention good-looking) go-getters and
hopefully set them to the task at hand.

  If anyone is interested in learning more, you can visit the Cabot website
at
<< www.usscabot.com >> or contact me directly.

  LTM,
  Russ
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Although admittedly off-topic, I have no objection to postings like this.
The forum IS an unusual (and astonishingly good looking) group blessed with
great intelligence and eclectic tastes.  Notices of historical and/or
historic preservation projects which may be of interest to the forum are
welcome with the understanding that they are a one time announcement and not
intended to launch a thread of discussion on this forum.

Thanks Russ.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:19:48 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: off-topic details

Bill wrote:

<< We conjecture that AE & FN weren't where they thought they were since they
 didn't show up where they were expected.  On the other hand, perhaps their
 navigation told them they were X miles from Howland, and maybe they really
 WERE in exactly X miles from Howland, and just didn't find it. >>

Thanks, Bill. That was my point to Herman. You obviously made it clearer than I did.
I wasn't disagreeing with Herman other than not shutting a door on a possibility.

Alan, who is not going to tell Pat who the family lawyer is
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:28:30 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: The Lost Antenna

Ric wrote in reply to a private congratulatory email about the lost antenna,

> Thanks, but will the public accept it?  In the 12 years we've
> been working on Earhart case I've been continually amazed at how difficult it
> is to make a dent in the legend.  It's been quite an education.

The public is usually ignorant about history in any case. The obvious route
is to get the source material and accounts of it into data bases and
repositories that are likely to be protected and consulted through the
centuries. Thus, truth will have a way of slipping through, regardless of
the wider motives of the writers of history.

The average person has difficulty retaining complex and seemingly
conflicting ideas simultaneously. This is probably partly due to human
nature, and certainly something that better educational methods could
alleviate. But progress along these lines is very slow-- it has taken 5,000
years (since the invention of writing) to gradually pull people from living
in a soup of superstition and ritual into a cauldron mixed with
superstition, ritual, and a few basic points of reality (no need to digress
here into the enormous survival benefits of blind ritual-- which is a kind
of cultural instinct).

Romantic subjects are notoriously prone to distortion, and people often
accept fictional novels and short stories tied to historical events as fact.

Be patient, protect and disseminate TIGAHR's discoveries and excellent
documentation. Over time (and it could be a very long time), widely
published historians will tend to pick up elements of the TIGHAR thread.

Even if TIGAR finds something like a chunk of engine block on Niku with an
Earhart related serial number on it, it could be years (even decades) before
wide public acceptance happens. And if acceptance comes quickly (spectacular
news coverage, etc), the accompanying distortions from bad Hollywood movies
and intellectual adventurers trying to grab attention will utterly vex you
anyway!

regards,
william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:43:33 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: off-topic details

Bill wrote:

<< We conjecture that AE & FN weren't where they thought they were since
<they didn't show up where they were expected.  On the other hand, perhaps
<their navigation told them they were X miles from Howland, and maybe they
<really WERE in exactly X miles from Howland, and just didn't find it. >>

Judging from own experience I think it is safe to say that when a pilot knows
exactly where he is, he'll find whatever it is he's looking for. It's basic
navigation. But AE's radio message tells us : "We are on you". But they
couldn't see it. Therefore I think we must assume they were not where they
thought they were, probably X miles off, perhaps indeed as little as 10 miles
as has been suggested here. But that is exactly the problem. And that is what
TIGHAR (and others) have been trying to solve for the last 60+ years. They
were clearly not where they thought they were. And I think they didn't have a
clue as to where to look.

If their navigation told them they were x miles from Howland, as Bill says, an
d if they were sure of that, then it would have been a piece of cake heading
for Howland. They didn't, and one reason why is that visibility was not what
we believe it was, as I tried to explain in my previous posting.
It is generally believed that the weather was clear. How clear exactly ? Was
Howland CAVOK ? If so that would imply 10km visibility. If Itasca could see
the horizon, visibility would have been something like 20 miles. If it was
less,  not seeing Howland is understandable. And finding Howland in that vast
empty ocean without radio aid not only called an LOP but for "GPS quality"
navigation by Noonan. It also called for better than CAVOK visibility for a
VMC approach.Do we have information on visibility at or near Howland that day
?
Put simply : did the Itasca crew ever mention they could see the horizon ?
If they did and AE was flying at 1,000 ft.as has been said, then FN had a
problem. If they didn't, they still had a problem but at least we know which
one.

LTM from Herman, who used to find pins in haystacks, weather permitting
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Throughout the morning of July 2nd the ITSACA's deck log recorded visibility
"9" which means "Prominent objects visible above 20 miles."  It is the
highest category of visibility available to the keeper of the log.  The sky
condition was recorded as "bc" which is defined as "blue sky with detached
clouds".

Pehaps someone could enlighten me as to the point of this whole discussion.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:46:32 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Fire extinguisher

Fire extinguisher vs vacuum (Thermos) bottle...

>From Ric
>
>That could be useful.  To my untrained eye, the "neck" of the cylindrical
>object in the photo is so narrow as to make it impractical for the dispensing
>of liquids.

Yes, what appears to be a cap on the object in MAY20DEP.JPG is small.  It
would cover a stopper and bottle neck about the size you find in the typical
Thermos bottle when you remove the larger "drinking cup" type cap.  You'll
recall that most Thermos bottles designed for liquids do not have a very
large neck opening.

The cap, however, is usually nearly the diameter of the outside of the whole
housing, as seen on the other vacuum bottles in the picture.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 1999 20:21:18 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: thorough searches

Andrew says of Maude and Bevington:

"These are the same guys who so "thoroughly" surveyed the island that they
wouldn't have missed anything?  Hmmmm"

Yep.  This is a good example of how careful you have to be about interpreting
historical sources, and avoiding reading things into them.  From Maude's
standpoint, given what Maude was interested in, I imagine they DID survey the
island "thoroughly."  They looked it over for possible places where people
could live, looked at its coconuts, generally checked out its agricultural
land, got a sense of the productivity of the lagoon, etc.  He wasn't being
slipshod, or saying anything untrue, when he said they had "thoroughly"
inspected the place; they just weren't inspecting it to find airplanes or
aviators.  In the same sense, the TIGHAR crew this year "thoroughly"
inspected a portion of western Nutiran looking for airplanes and aviators,
but it would be wrong for somebody interested in, say, spider populations to
surmise that TIGHAR did a thorough arachnid survey.

LTM (who wonders how many arachnid web sites there are)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:40:00 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      off-topic details

>Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the point of this whole discussion.
>
>LTM,
>Ric
***************************

Sorry Ric. Basically we were trying to understand why AE and FN failed to
find Howland, I guess.... OK, so FN either unknowingly made a minor
navigation error and they missed Howland, or his calculations were correct,
as Bill thinks, and they knew where they were but they didn't find it. The
mystery remains.

LTM from Herman (who for a moment thought poor visibility was to blame).
*************************************************************************
From Ric

From what I've seen of the case it seems to me that Earhart and Noonan failed
to find Howland because an essential element in their navigational plan
failed.  That essential element was navigational assistance via radio.   That
assistance could have come in the form of instructions (what we today would
call "vectors") from the Itasca based upon bearing taken by the ship, or from
bearing taken on the ship by the aircraft's own DF equipment.

There is no evidence I know of to indicate that Noonan ever expected to find
Howland by DR and celestial techniques alone.  The radio was an essential
part of the equation.  At least part (and we're not sure just what part) of
the radio failure was caused by the takeoff accident that deprived the
airplane of its belly antenna.  Whatever it's purpose, we can be quite sure
that it had a purpose, and that it's loss had serious consequences.

The knowledge that the aircraft suffered from such an accident adds an
entirely new dimension to the Earhart disappearance which, in the past, has
been laid entirely to human error.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:28:42 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Facts of the case

I hope you might indulge me for a moment here. I'm new to the forum and I
(and I suspect other newbies) would love to get some facts together in a
line, so to speak.

I have read the FAQ list but there is SO much information there that it
overlaps itself.

Anyway, to get to the point ---
I would like to ascertain if the following items are why Tighar believes that
AE and FN had landed (or crashed?) on Niku.

Physical evidence:
1. A fragment of a woman's shoe that might have been worn by Amelia
2. A bottle of Benedictine that might have been Amelia's or Fred's.
3. A sextant box that might have belonged to F. N.
4. Some bones that could be Amelia's or Fred's
5. A photo of "something" on the reef that is currently being analyzed to see
if it might be wreckage from the Electra.

Anecdotal "evidence"
1. A woman named Emily's story that she saw some "airplane wreckage on the
reef."
when she was living on Niku.

I understand that each or any of these things could be elaborated on but are
they essential the point? Inquiring minds, etc.. ...

Regards,
Jim Razzi
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It's bit more involved than that.  Here's a quick summary:

1.   We are aware of no evidence that suggests that the flight went down at
sea.  No radio call was heard announcing such a ditching nor did Earhart ever
say that fuel exhaustion was imminent.  The 1937 search failed to find any
trace of debris on the sea. (Itasca Radio Log.  U.S. Navy Search Report)

2.  When last heard from at 08:43 Earhart said she was flying on a "157/337"
line but she was not understood to say what direction she was flying on that
line. (Itasca Radio Log)

3.  Such a line passing through Howland Island also passes within visual
range of Gardner island.

4.  Our fuel calculations indicate that the flight, when last heard from, had
adequate fuel so that if Earhart followed the line in the 157 direction she
should have reached Gardner. (Chater Report.  Kelly Johnson tlegrams.)

5.  The Navy's July 9th aerial search of Gardner noted signs of recent
habitation which are not readily explainable unless they were left by the
people who disappeared in that area one week before. (Lambrecht's report.)

6.  The British October 1937 visit to Gardner noted signs of previous
habitation which are not readily explainable unless they were left by the
people who disappeared in that area three months before. (Bevington's diary)

7.  Early settlers on Gardner Island (Nikumaroro) tell of an airplane wreck
on the reef in 1940, long before any possibility of WWII activity.
(Interviews with Emily Sikuli and Otiria O'Brian in Fiji in 1999.)

8.  A wartime anecdotal account describes aircraft debris in use by residents
of Nikumaroro in 1944 which the locals said came from "an airplane that was
here when our people first came." (Interview with former USN PBY pilot Dr.
John Mims in 1995.)

9.  Photographic evidence confirms the presence of anomalous material on the
reef in the location where aircraft wreckage is described to have been seen.
(1937 Bevington photo, 1938 NZ survey photos)

10.  Anecdotal accounts of former residents describe aircraft debris seen on
the reef near the main lagoon passage, in the shoreline vegetaition, and
along the lagoon shore just opposite the passage in the late 1950s.
(Interviews with Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taeke on Funafuti in 1997)

11. Photographic evidence indicates the presence of light colored metal
debris on the reef-flat near the main lagoon passage in 1953.  (Forensic
imaging of 1953 aerial mapping photo.)

12. Aircraft debris consistent with the Lockheed Model 10 and (to date) not
identified as consistent with any other aircraft type ever know or suspected
to have been in the region has been found in the abandoned village on the
island. (Results of TIGHAR expeditions in 1989, 1991, and 1996.)

13.  Anecdotal accounts by former residents and an American serviceman tell
of the remains of a man and a woman discovered on the island and, in some
cases, associated with the purported airplane wreck (Interviews with Dr.
Teinamati Mereki and Reverend Aberaam Abera in the Solomon Islands in 1995;
correspondence with Bauro Tikana in Tarawa in 1991; interviews with Tapania
Taeke on Funafuti in 1997; interviews with Emily Sikuli and Otiria O'Brian in
Fiji in 1999;  San Diego Union interview with Coast Guard veteran Floyd Kilts
in 1960.)

14. Extensive official British government records confirm the discovery in
1940 of the human remains of a castaway who perished while attempting to
survive on Nikumaroro sometime prior to the island's settlement in 1939.
With the bones were found a sextant box bearing a stencilled number that is
similar to a number written on a sextant box known to have belonged to Fred
Noonan, and the remains of a woman's shoe and a man's shoe. (Records of the
Western Pacific High Commission)

15.  Evaluation of the measurements taken of the bones found on Nikumaroro in
1940 by modern forensic anthropologists indicate that the individual was most
likely a white female of northern European extraction who stood approximately
5 feet, 7 inches tall. (Paper prepared by Dr. Karen Ramey Burns, Dr. Richard
Jantz, and Dr. Thomas F. King for the annual meeting of the American
Anthropoligical Association in 1998.)

16.  The remains of a shoe found on Nikumaroro by TIGHAR in 1991, in the same
part of the island where tradition holds that the bones were found in 1940,
has been judged to be of the same vintage, style and size as the shoes worn
by Earhart on her final flight. (Analysis by the BiltRite Corporation in
1992.)

I've probably missed some points of evidence.  There are getting to be rather
a lot of them.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:41:17 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      human error

Please don't forget that Amelia attempted to run a check on her DF while at
Lae. She was unable to do so attributing the failure to being too close to
the Lae radio station.

If DF was so important to Noonan's navigation plans, Earhart should never
have taken off for Howland without positive confirmation that her system was
working, and that she was proficient in its use.  In that context there was
definitely human error on the part of both parties.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I suppose we can't say for sure whether the DF was working during the test
flight or not.  Perhaps Amelia was right, but it does seem negligent for her
not to have gotten a positive check on it.  It also seems negligent for
neither her nor Nonan to have been proficient in Morse or to have insisted
upon better coordination with the Coast Guard.

If Lindbergh had failed to reach Paris I wonder how many instances of
negligence we'd be able to come up with.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:08:54 EST
From:         Bill
Subject:      off-topic details

> Sorry Ric. Basically we were trying to understand why AE and FN failed to
> find Howland, I guess.... OK, so FN either unknowingly made a minor
> navigation error and they missed Howland, or his calculations were correct,
> as Bill thinks, and they knew where they were but they didn't find it. The
> mystery remains.

My original point was that where as we now DO know that 4th officer Boxall's
calculations of Titanic's position was inaccurate, we do NOT equally know
that Noonan miscalculated the Electra's position.  However, Hermann is
correct that we moved on from that point to the one he states above.

    - Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:11:48 EST
From:         Anna Weber
Subject:      Re: Facts of the case

Thank you, thank you thank you! I am not new to the forum, but I'm also not
an aviator or a historian and sometimes the terms frequently used on the
forum are over my head. (I often have to ask my father who is a pilot what
you all are talking about!). Ric, every once in a while someone asks for some
additional information that's not in the website like Mr. Razzi did, and you
respond very clearly in a way that keeps me feeling like I'm in the loop.
It's very appreciated.
Anna Weber
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I expect that we often get so absorbed in examining the branches and leaves
on individual trees that we forget to step back and take a look at the forest.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:18:21 EST
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Bones paper

Is it possible to purchase a copy of the Drs.Burns and King's 1998 paper to
the AAA? I am guessing that it is included in the research CD, but $100 isn't
an expenditure I can make just now.

How is your doing eye doing? Be sure and take good care of yourself, we need
our fearless leader!

Thanks,
Suzanne #2184
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We can do better than that.  Just go to the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bull12_19_98.html

My eye seems to be healing just fine. In another couple weeks I should be as
good as new.  Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:26:47 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum costs sponsor

If you check out the forum sign-up page on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/forum/AESForum.html
you'll see a banner with the following announcement:

"The Amelia Earhart Search Forum is made possible in part through a grant
from Select GIS Services, an ESRI Authorized Introduction to ArcView GIS
provider."

Select GIS Services is covering TIGHAR's direct costs in subscribing to
ListServ, the company that distributes the forum.  The CEO at Select GIS
Services is none other than our own Jim Thompson, TIGHAR 2185.

Thanks Jim.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:53:13 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Fuel Exhaustion Descent

In context with the absence of any Mayday from Amelia at to point of fuel
exhaustion, consider that she was probably still flying at 1,000 feet when
the tanks ran dry. (To have climbed higher again would have depleted her fuel
supply at an even greater rate.) She would not know precisely when the fuel
would be exhausted, only that she was extremely low on fuel with each passing
minute. Certainly she must have been simultaneously still searching for any
safe haven to set down.

One can imagine she would have been rather busy at the moment the last drop
of fuel passed through the engines. She would have been trying to extend her
glide and then set up for a crash landing while working the wobble pump in a
vain attempt to coax a bit more fuel into the engines. Unless Noonan was up
front too, it would have been difficult to find time to send a last message.
At a rate of descent of 100 ft/min, she would be at sea level in only 10
minutes from the point at which the airplane started down. At a downward rate
of 150 ft/min, the descent would have been about 6.7 minutes. At 200
ft/minute she had only 5 minutes to do anything. Not much time.

There is also the likely possibility that at some point she stalled the
airplane trying to stretch her glide path. This could easily reduce the time
values mentioned above.

I don't know what the power-off sink rate of the Model 10 was, but I doubt it
was less than 100 ft/min. Superimpose fear and fatigue on this situation and
I find it entirely plausible that no Mayday message went out over the
airways. I also understand that this is speculation on my part, but I would
argue at the same time that it is not an unreasonable scenario.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

And I woud argue that to speculate that Earhart permitted the tanks to run
dry in flight is to:
1.  Make the assumption that she and Noonan were unsuccessful in their
attempt to find land.
2.  Make the assumption that Earhart was either unaware or chose to ignore
the fact that her chances for survival in a water landing would be greatly
increased by deciding to execute a ditching under power rather than wait
until the engines failed.

Speculation about why Earhart did not make a distress call is no different
from speculation about why the Navy's aerial search of Gardner did not see
the airplane on the reef.  Each is an aspect of the hypothetical scenario
that doesn't seem to make sense so we try to think of possible explanations.
In the case of the crashed-at-sea scenario, the cessation of radio
transmissions is the only indicator that the flight may have ended that way.
To make it work one must argue, as you have, for the crew's incompetence.
In the Nikumaroro scenario there are abundant indicators that the flight did
reach the island and there is no need to ascribe to the crew any
unprofessional behavior.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:04:55 EST
From:         Natko Katicic
Subject:      Re: Facts of the case

Ric writes:

"It's bit more involved than that.  Here's a quick summary:"

Excellent summary. I missed such focusing contributions from you lately.
Used to be more of them in the past. I suggest that Pat mounts this summary
'as is' on the web site, maybe as the leading FAQ or similar and provide it
with a few links for further reading.

Now a question:

Is the location of the debris field under point 11) consistent with the
debris we are investigating right now (Sikuli)?

*************************************************************************

From Ric

Yes.  Absolutely.  The apparent debris field of light-colored metal in 1953
is directly "downstream" from the location where Emily says she saw wreckage
in 1940.  In fact, the beauty of the whole thing is the way all of the
disparate pieces of the puzzle from far-flung sources fit together to form a
picture that, while still not complete, is becomng clearer and clearer.

I do want to put this summary up on the website but I want to be sure I
haven't missed anything.  We can also provide links from various points in
the summary to in-depth discussions in TIGHAR Tracks articles, Research
Bulletins and to documents now on the website.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:19:18 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: human error

>>If Lindbergh had failed to reach Paris I wonder how many instances of
>>negligence we'd be able to come up with.

Good point, although in reality I don't think many would have cared much--
he wasn't famous yet and probably would have simply disappeared into
oblivion, another footnote of failure.

Earhart was female and famous, which for good and bad is also a great recipe
for public fascination.

william 2243

**************************************************************************
From Ric

A better example might be the disappearance of Nungesser and Coli just eleven
days before Lindbergh's departure.  Neither was female (to the best of our
knowledge) but both were very famous.  Their arrival in New York was assumed
to be such a sure thing that Lindbergh canceled his transatlantic plans when
he learned of their takeoff from Paris and, when they were overdue in New
York a French corrspondent scooped the competitoon by wiring a complete
account of their triumphal arrival back to France.  In the wake of the
shocking news that the aviators were missing, a rumor arose in France that
the American weather bureau had intentionally withheld word of a storm over
the Atlantic to lure the French heros to their death.  Things got pretty ugly
in the streets of Paris.  Some American flags got burned and Ambassador
Herrick urged American contenders for the Orteig Prize not to take off for a
few days.  The delay helped buy Lindbergh the time to fly his airplane from
San Diego to N.Y. and utimately beat the other contestants.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:38:18 EST
From:         Earl Kindley
Subject:      Re: human error

If you have the time and think it worthwhile, please comment on the use of
today's aircraft safety standards to evaluate actions taken by 1930's
aviators.  For example, are the things we consider poorly done or negligent
today, applicable to the standards in effect then?  Some things, of course,
are unchanged since Orville and Wilbur.  However, I have the impression we
now have a more highly developed sense of aviation professionalism Vs
aviation "foolishism."  This does not denigrate yesterday's aviators, it's
just the nature of maturation.

So, should historic figures be evaluated against the standards of their
times, or, current standards, through the looking glass of comfortable
perspective?  (Thomas Jefferson --though not an aviator so far as I know--
is a good example of this "applicable standards" conundrum.)

Thanks. E.G. Kindley, 2131
**************************************************************************

From Ric

Excellent point.  If historians, and especially historical investigators, had
a mantra it would be "Context. Context. Context."

Today we have much, much higher expectations of safety and security than were
prevalent in the 1930s (heck, we put helmets on kids on tricycles!).  Earhart
wrecked at least 11 eleven airplanes in the course of her career.  She and
Noonan flew around the world in an uninsured airplane. They never filed a
flight plan because there was no such thing as a flight plan (in any formailzed
sense).

To get some sense of the mix of pioneering bravado and budding
professionalism that pervaded 1930s avaition I would urge anyone to visit a
good library and leaf through the aviation periodicals of the day.  It was a
different world.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:53:44 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: Facts of the case

Thanks for the extensive summary and I think many other newcomers will
appreciate it also.

Best Regards,
Jim Razzi
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:09:43 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: Lost antenna

The only problem I have with the lost antenna is, that if it were indeed
ripped off during the taxi at Lae, why didn't somebody find it after the
plane left? There surely were a number of people who witnessed the little
mishap when the Electra was lumbering along the ground, so wouldn't they
investigate the area to see if, in fact, something HAD been dislodged from
the plane?

Regards,
Jim Razzi

**************************************************************************
From Ric

The most likley time for the ground strike to have occurred was during the
turn around at the far "approach" end of the runway which was easily half a
mile from where the spectators stood.  This is when the aft antenna mast was
at risk from sideloads for which it was not stressed.

We do have one second-hand anecdotal account which indicates that the antenna
was later found on the runway.  Bob Fullenwider, TIGHAR 0126, says that while
he was stationed in Lae during World War II an "old timer" who had worked at
the airfield before the war told him that he wasn't a bit surprised when
Earhart went missing because "we found her antenna wire laying on the runway
after she left."  Bob related this anecdote long before we had established
that the antenna was missing in the photos.  If such a discovery did take
place, neither Collopy nor Chater was apparently aware of it when they wrote
their respective reports a few weeks later.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:13:50 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: human error

>> when they were overdue in New York a French corrspondent scooped the
competiton by wiring a complete account of their triumphal arrival back to
France. >>

Never over-estimate the credulity of the press <grin>.

william 2243

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Don't get me started.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:43:23 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Ditching 101

Ric said: " . . .  her chances for survival in a water landing would
be greatly increased by deciding to execute a ditching under power rather
than wait until the engines [to fail] . . . "

    This point has been mentioned several times but no one has explained
why a power-on ditching is preferable to one without power.  We all ASSUME
that the slower the airplane is when it bellys in, the greater are the
crew's chances of survival.  But why is power important, other than for a
go-around?

LTM, who often bellied into 2nd base
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Now, mind you, I've never done this and I hope I never have to, but this is
what I've read about ditching and it makes a lot of sense.

So there you are, faced with the prospect of putting a land airplane down in
the open ocean.  Your "runway" is not going to be flat.  If you're lucky it
will be a series of rolling hills (swells) and valleys (troughs) which may or
may not be aligned with the wind.  At the speed you're going to hit them (in
an Electra, roughly 60 mph) they're made of concrete, so it makes sense not
to smack into them but to land along their long axis on the "back" of a
swell, even if it means a crosswind approach.

You also don't want to make a three-point full stall arrival.  Much better to
come in nose-high and drag your tail before you hit.  You're almost certainly
going to skip once before the nose digs in and you come to an abrupt stop, so
the slower you can be going the better.  You might even come in below your
power-off stall speed  "behind the power curve" with full flaps and carrying
quite a bit of power.

It's a hairy prospect and it might take several tries to get everything lined
up just right, but if you sit up there trying avoid the inevitable until the
engines quit you're going to be faced with taking whatever you can get - dead
stick and out of options.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:57:42 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: human error

Ric said:

>>If Lindbergh had failed to reach Paris I wonder how many instances of
>>negligence we'd be able to come up with.

Good point. At the other hand, Frenchmen Nungesser and Colli failed to cross
the Atlantic (flying west) only two weeks before Lindbergh succeeded (flying
east). Nobody accused them of anything, certainly not of negligence. They
simply ran out of luck.

In 1927 people believed aviation was not yet ready for that kind of exploits.
The crossings by US Navy Commander Read in hops via the A=E7ores and Lisbon in
a Curtiss NC-4 proved the crossing was hazardoud. And the other succesful
crossing that year by Brits Alcock and Whitten-Brown in a modified Vickers
Vimy bomber in May 1919 won them the Orteig prize for the first crossing but
had proved only that airplanes could fly from New Foundland to Ireland. Both
flights had been such hazardous achievements that by 1927 it was generally
believed aircraft were insufficiently reliable to link continents.

Lindbergh proved them wrong, thanks to his dependable Wright Whirlwind engine
and the big fuel tanks of his Ryan NYP. And being extremely lucky for not
icing-up and waking up in time before crashing into the ocean. Having flown
non-stop from New York to Paris he was the first to link the continents by
air and became an instant hero.

Nungesser and Colli, who almost succeeded, were soon forgotten. They were not
blamed for enaything. They probably iced-up and crashed, either in Canada or
in Canadian waters, having succesfully crossed the Atlantic. We'll never know
for suere as long as their airplane hasn't been found. Being made of wood and
canvas there is little chance anything of it can still be found.

As with AE/FN indications are they almost reached their destination, their
ultimate fate remaining unknown. The "indications" are basically Canadians
declaring having heard an airplane around the time Nungesser and Colli could
be expected to be in that area.

>Earhart was female and famous, which for good and bad is also a great
>recipe for public fascination.

Correct. Isn't that why we are still trying to find out what happened at
Howland and Gardner ? (while others are dragging the ocean floor elsewhere...)

*************************************************************************

From Ric

Alcock and Brown won the London Daily Mail Prize of 10,000 pounds (roughly
$50,000 at that time).  Lindbergh won the Orteig Prize of $25,000.

We know a little bit about the Nungesser/Coli attempt.  You might want to
visit the TIGHAR website and click on Project Midnight Ghost.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:10:34 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Fuel Exhaustion Descent

Birch Matthews wrote:-

>At a rate of descent of 100 ft/min, she would be at sea level in only 10
>minutes from the point at which the airplane started down. At a downward rate
>of 150 ft/min, the descent would have been about 6.7 minutes. At 200
>ft/minute she had only 5 minutes to do anything. Not much time.

I think these figures are very optimistic for powerless descent rates,
bearing in mind the L10E didn't have feathering props.
I'd guess maybe around 1000ft/min would be more realisitc, giving only about
a minute down to to the sea.

I totally agree with Ric's assessment that in such a situation when you've
gotta put the plane in the sea - do it under conditions of maximum control -
i.e. still under power.

LTM
Simon #2120

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree with Simon and with myself.  With two props windmilling that pig
would probably glide like a toolbox - and AE probably knew it.  On top of
that, the big engines of the 10E tended to make it noseheavy.  The 10E that
ditched off Massachusetts in 1967 lost power in the right engine and the
pilot couldn't maintain altitude with the left engine operating (that's how
bad it is if you don't have full-feathering props).  He made a successful
ditching but the water was calm near the shore and he still had the left
engine.

To say that AE waited until the engines quit to land the airplane (whether on
land or water) is to call her an idiot.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:12:06 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: human error

By today's standards neither Charles Lindberg or AE would be allowed to take
off ! They lacked the qualifications needed today and their aircraft didn't
comply with today's requirements !

LTM from Herman (who loved the old days when everything was possible)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:51:32 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum stats

As of December 1, 1999 there were 651 subscribers to the Earhart Forum.
Of those, 197 (30 percent) are TIGHAR members.
66 subscribers  (10 percent) frequently or occasionally post messages to the
forum.
Of those, 52 (79 percent) are TIGHAR members, and 14 (21 percent) are not.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:04:56 EST
From:         Clye Miller
Subject:      Off-topic speculation

Of course playing "WHAT IF..." is great.  Given today's search and rescue
options Amelia and Noonan would have radioed their GPS location prior to
landing on the island.  Their irridium Satellite phone would have hooked
them up instantly with the outside world for MSNBC online reports.  Even a
crackup of the plane would have initiated both black box recorders pinging
their little hearts out.  Of course with a GPS, GPWS, and other current
standard Avionics they would never be lost, wouldn't have to land or crash,
Noonan wouldn't have to be along to navigate and what's the point of flying
around the world anyway and the whole issue would be mote.  Amelia would
probably be President of her own startup internet company and Noonan would
be working as a car salesman in Sunny California.   (ummmmhh?  Now THERE is
an excellent off topic discussion.....What would become of Amelia and Fred
if they were with us today.   Although Maybe we need to say you'll accept 10
of the best postings of the off topic discussion and limit it to that.)

Thanks
Clyde Miller

(who is always willing to wander off topic because of his short attention
span)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Obviously, the answer to the question "What would Amelia and Fred be doing if
they were alive today?" is "Scratching at the inside of their coffins."

But the question "If AE and Fred were as old today as they were in 1937 (39
and 44 respectively) what would they be doing?" although totally off-topic,
is an interesting one.  I'll take the first (not the best) 10 offerings.

LTM,
Ric (who feels like DJ on a Top 40 station)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:06:00 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Ditching 101

<< if you sit up there trying avoid the inevitable until the
 engines quit you're going to be faced with taking whatever you can get - dead
 stick and out of options. >>

Exactly right, Ric. It's simply a question of do you want control over your
landing or no control. I'll opt for control.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:12:24 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: human error

<< Nungesser and Colli, who almost succeeded, were soon forgotten. They were
not blamed for enaything. They probably iced-up and crashed, either in Canada
or in Canadian waters, having succesfully crossed the Atlantic. We'll never
know for sure as long as their airplane hasn't been found. Being made of wood
and canvas there is little chance anything of it can still be found.  >>

Don't be too hasty. Check with Elgin first.

Alan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I am not going to get sucked into a discussion of l'Oiseau Blanc but I will
say that there is every likelihood thatthe airplane's 1,000 lb., 12 cylinder,
W-configuration, Lorraine Dietrich engine still survives somewhere.  After
eight years of research and 28 expeditions we think we have it cornered to
about a 10 square mile area of Godforsaken muskeg in Newfoundland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:16:01 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Fuel Exhaustion Descent

I don't know what the power-off descent rate of a Lockheed 10E
is either, but the descent rate of a DC-3 is in the range of 680 to
815 feet per minute at glide speeds of 92 and 110 knots IAS
respectively. These numbers are for gear up and both props feathered.
The L-10E props didn't feather. I know, apples and oranges. Just
for a frame of reference.

Skeet Gifford

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yeowch!  I hope you didn't establish that by experimentation.  I'll betcha
that Simon's 1,000 feet per minute for a windmilling 10E is pretty darn close.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:20:49 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      So????

Herman said: "By today's standards neither Charles Lindbergh or AE
would be allowed to take off ! They lacked the qualifications needed today
and their aircraft didn't comply with today's requirements !

    1.  "By today's standards neither Charles Lindbergh or AE would be
allowed to take off ! "
    What "standards" are we talking about?  And exactly who would not
allow them to do it.?  There are no international rules preventing anyone
from flying across the ocean.  If someone elects to try and fly a Cessna 172
from New York to Paris next week all they'd have to do is fuel up and go.
Would it be foolish? Yes; a certain amount of common sense and preflight
planning is necessary.  But there is no institution -- public or private --
to prevent someone from simply gassing up and going.

    2.  "They lacked the qualifications needed today and their aircraft
didn't comply with today's requirements !"
    What "qualifications" are we talking about, here?  A pilot's
license?  I believe both AE and Chuck had them.   Instrument Flight
Rules-qualified?  Those didn't exist in their day.
    To say AE and Lindbergh did not have the training international
pilot have today and that  "their aircraft didn't comply with today
requirements" for international flight is a keen sense of the obvious.

    So what's your point?

LTM, period
Dennis McGee #0149CE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Uh, guys?  This whole thread seems pretty pointless.  Herman lives in Belgium
where there are probalby quite a few more General Aviation restrictions than
Americans are accustomed to. And Earhart did have an Instrument Rating.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:22:16 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      Re: Off-topic speculation

At ages 99 & 104 Id bet they would be on the Jerry
Springer show!
Joe W3HNK
*************************************************************************
From Ric

That's one.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:44:42 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Final Descent

Ric, I believe you may have misinterpreted my comments regarding the final
descent of Amelia's Electra. I did not imply, nor should you infer from my
comments, that I presume to know where the airplane came down. I do not.

When I noted: "At a rate of descent of 100 ft/min, she would be at sea level
in only 10 minutes . . ." the use of the words sea level is an altitude
reference, not a spatial location. I deliberately chose my words carefully to
encompass the Gardner Island possibility.

The intent was merely to illustrate that from 1,000 feet, it doesn't take
much time to reach the earth, and that this fact alone may account for the
lack of any Mayday. I don't claim that's what happened, only that it is a
rational scenario.

In response to your first comment, I did not "make the assumption that
Earhart and Noonan were unsuccessful in their attempt to find land." To the
contrary. My scenario includes this possibility.

With respect to your second response, aircraft ditching at sea was, I
believe, not widely studied until the advent of World War II. I have not seen
any reference indicating Amelia was trained or studied the art of ditching an
airplane with or without power. If she was in proximity to Gardner Island,
you may be entirely correct in your speculation.

And finally, please tell me specifically how you reached the conclusion that
I have argued on the side of crew incompetence or unprofessional behavior?
That is a pretty harsh retort in view of the fact I was merely attempting to
give some perspective of how little time it takes to descend 1,000 feet.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm sorry if I responded too harshly.  You began your posting with:
"In context with the absence of any Mayday from Amelia at to point of fuel
exhaustion, consider that she was probably still flying at 1,000 feet when
the tanks ran dry."

That seems pretty clearly to make the assumption that the tanks ran dry.  My
point was that it would have been foolish ( incompetent, unprofessional ) for
her to allow the tanks to run dry.  Subsequent postings have made the case
that the descent, in such asn event, could well have been considerably more
rapid than you postulated.

In other words, there is a consensus that you are correct in saying that an
inflight dual engine failure at 1,000 feet would make things pretty exciting
in the cockpit and might preclude a distress call, but (and for that very
reason) there is also a consensus that such a scenario is less likely than a
landing under power.

While it is certainly true that ditching procedures became formalized and
much more widely disseminated during WWII, the notion that it is better to
make a precautionary landing with power than to wait until you run out of gas
probably goes back to the Wright brothers.  Amelia herself exercised that
option on numerous occasions and thoughout her career as a long-distance
flyer I'm aware of no instance in which she ran out of gas in flight.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:48:54 EST
From:         Joe
Subject:      l'Oiseau Blanc

Ric wrote:

<<After eight years of research and 28 expeditions we think we have it
cornered to about a 10 square mile area of Godforsaken muskeg in
Newfoundland.>>

Do you have any more expeditions planned for this one? Id sure like to go!
Joe W3HNK

************************************************************************
From Ric

Let's find Amelia first.  To push the project in Newfoundland further will be
very expensive.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:03:54 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Fire Extinguisher - Final Opinion

I recently received this Final Opinion letter from Jeff Glickman regarding
the fire extinguisher:

FINAL LETTER OF OPINION

Dear Mr. Gillespie,

Thank you for sending the negatives of TIGHAR artifact 2-4-V-100
and of A. Earhart and F. Noonan loading NR16020 depicted in the
photograph taken by Dustin Carter at Burbank Airport on May 20,
1937 (may20dep.jpg).

This letter addresses the relationship between 2-4-V-100 and the
rightmost canister-like object located in a group of four canister-like
objects located on the ground to the right of A. Earhart's feet.
While the JPEG image may20dep.jpg shows this canister-like object
to be overexposed, the original negative is properly exposed.

Several structures present in 2-4-V-100 are absent in the canister-like
object in may20dep.jpg.  These are:

1)   6 metal bands that wrap around 2-4-V-100, and
2)   what appears to be a handle located at the top of 2-4-V-100.

Further, 2-4-V-100 has a transition area from its neck to its body
that is flatter (has a smaller angle relative to vertical) than that shown
in the canister-like object of may20dep.jpg.  This difference cannot
be due to damage to 2-4-V-100 because the required deformation
would not result in the smooth surface seen in this part of 2-4-V-100.

While there are additional differences between 2-4-V-100 and the
canister-like object of may20dep.jpg, these reasons are sufficient to
establish that these are different objects.  Therefore 2-4-V-100 does
not match the canister-like object seen in may20dep.jpg.

Best Regards,

Jeff Glickman
Board Certified Forensic Examiner
Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners

Jeff Glickman
PHOTEK
209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202
Hood River, Oregon 97031
*************************************************
I had a couple of questions for Jeff, to whit:

There are no metal bands that wrap around the artifact.  Those are
impressions stamped into the metal.  The body of the cannister is a single
sheet of metal.  I can see one "ring" around the object in the May 20 photo
but it does seem to be a slightly different distance from the top of the
cannister than is a similar "ring" on the artifact.

The handle on the artifact rotates freely and we had speculated that a
similar handle on the cannister in the May 20 photo might be oriented
edgewise to the camera.

The differences in the transition area from the neck to the body do, however,
seem to be a disqualifier.

Ric
**************************************************************************TTo
which Jeff replied:

Ric,

Here are clarifications to your questions:

By "metal bands" I also mean "impressions stamped into the metal".
I did not mean to imply that sole source of the metal bands could be seperate
pieces of metal applied to the body of the canister, but rather they are
visual
features present on the canister.

may20dep.jpg has a circular top, possibly a cap, composed of a polished metal
containing a complex reflection.  It is the reflection of adjacent items in
the circular
cap which gives the mistaken impression of a handle.

Best Regards,

Jeff Glickman
Board Certified Forensic Examiner
Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners

PHOTEK
209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202
Hood River, Oregon 97031
***************************************************************************
Okay.  So 2-4-V-100 is not the thing in the May 20 photo.  That doesn't mean
that it's not Amelia's fire extinguisher but it does mean that the photo is
not a reason to think that it might be.   We'll put up an updated Research
Bulletin soon.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:07:37 EST
From:         Mark Cameron
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher

Just a thought - we had many cylindrical items in my home when my
Mother-in-law was staying with us that resembled the object in the photo -
could it possibly be an Oxygen tank? Would Amelia and Fred have taken a few
along just in case they needed some? I have no idea what an O2 tank would
have looked like in the 1930s but if smaller versions existed at that time
could this be one?

LTM
Mark Cameron #2301
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I gotta say that it doesn't look like any oxygen bottle I ever saw.  No
oxygen is on the Luke Field inventory.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:35:03 EST
From:         Ty Sundstrom
Subject:      Re: Fuel Exhaustion Descent

There is one thing that puzzles me about this fuel exhaustion scenario: very
seldom do both engines quit simultaneously when the fuel runs out even if
both engines were feeding from the same tank due to: different fuel line
length, different exact mixture settings for each engine, variances
in internal casting flaws in each engine that would vary the fuel consumption
slightly and so on, so if realistically they didn't quit at the same time
there might have been time to call out.  And five minutes is a very long time when
you experience an emergency of any type.  This is a comment from actual
in-flight emergency experiences in various antique aircraft.  Just sit and
watch the clock for five minutes and you will see what I mean.  The human
mind works very fast and the model 10 was a good flying aircraft so the
demands on a pilot, in my most humble opinion, would not have been such that
it would have prevented a radio call.   Although this opinion is offered,
it just illustrates the fact that there is no black and white answers for
now except that they didn't make it.

Ty N. Sundstrom

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The fuel system schematic for NR16020 does seem to indicate that both engines
always fed off the same tank - a bit weird but it does simplify fuel
management.  However, as you say, other factors make a truly simultaneous
silence be pretty unusual.

As for the way time goes into slow motion in an emergency: I couldn't agree
more.  I'm sure we all have our own stories
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:54:14 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Fuel Exhaustion Descent

If Amelia Earhart was at 1000ft and IF the engines failed at that height,
she would not have descended at 100 or 150 ft per minute.  The aircraft is
just too heavy to sustain that rate of descent without power.  Ask anyone
who has been practicing forced landings in a Cessna or Piper what their
R.O.D. is in a glide...

I gather Ric is/was a pilot (I think I read it somewhere).  Anyway there
must be lots of other pilots on this forum.  Rate of descent is controlled
by power, you add power you go down slower.  Without power, you have to
actually get the nose DOWN to keep flying.  I haven't seen the Electra's
flight manual, but I doubt it would glide better than say a modern Beech
Baron (twin) and remember they were supposedly carrying a lot of freight
(spares).

I believe they would not have had more than 2 minutes to descent in glide
configuration from 1000ft.

What gets me is "KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE MUST ON ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U"  -
At 1000feet, if Earhart was say 30 or 40 miles off track or had somehow
overflown Itasca at that time, she would be unlikely to see Gardner Island
or Itasca.  All it would take was for the sun to be low, or a little haze...
We know from her reports at this time she still had at least an hour of
fuel.

"BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT
A 1000 FEET 42"

On her frequency - in fact on any frequency - her chances of being picked up
by ITASCA were bad.  Anyone who flies would tell you, the radio will work
better, higher, say 3 or 4 thousand feet.

There are only two reasons she would logically descent to 1000ft.

1    Due stress of weather.  (She may have encountered low cloud some
distance out that was not apparent to ITASCA) - I believe this is most
likely (been there, done that).  As close as she was to Howland, she would
not want to waste fuel climbing again.

2    She may have had some relatively minor engine problems especially if
she'd had to lean the mixture excessively.  We know there were some plug
problems with the type of engine and they had to be changed regularly -
For her to remain at 1000ft meant she was pretty certain she was close.  I
fly around islands in the tropics.  I would not attempt to look for a small
island from below 3000 feet.  From 1000ft a small island might be "just over
the horizon" or "just under the aeroplane".

It's unlikely the Electra would have a glide descent of better than 500ft
per minute.  2 minutes is plenty of time to make a distress call.  "Mayday,
mayday mayday - KHAQQ, KHAQQ, KHAQQ, out of fuel, on line 157 337, ditching
in water"

If I say that slowly, and clearly it takes about 15 seconds (try it).
There's not a lot more she could have said.  Of course if she was a fair
distance from ITASCA by the time she supposedly "ran out of fuel", and if
they were transmitting at the time she made the call - they would not have
heard it.

On the other hand, If AE still had her reserve 20% when she arrived near
Itasca (and at sig strength 5 she had to be fairly near) she could have
given up in frustration and flown to the nearest alternate island.

Sorry to "waffle on" but the following points have been bugging me for some
time.

Why was AE at 1000ft.  when she had:

Less chance of her radio being effective,

Less chance of seeing the island and

Less time to plan a descent if something went wrong.

Ross  (Who had no intention of doing anything but read this stuff)

**************************************************************************

From Ric

Well Ross, your first guess was correct.  The reason was almost certainly
weather.  ITASCA's deck log described "blue sky with detached clouds"
throughout the morning and an observation taken on Howland puts the scattered
deck at 2,650 feet.  It may well have been a bit lower earlier.  Those are
very typical conditions out there, and as you know, if you're above even a
widely scattered cloud deck you can't see anything except what is right below
you.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:58:00 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher

Ric wrote:

<<I gotta say that it doesn't look like any oxygen bottle I ever saw.  No
oxygen is on the Luke Field inventory.>>

  I agree.  Oxygen tanks are now all painted green internationally, but I
don't know when this was started.  They are under fairly high pressure, and
therefore most have rounded ends for structural reasons.
 Dan Postellon
#2263
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:59:56 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Off-topic speculation

Okay, I'll bite -
AE would be 1st officer on a UAL 767 flying the Pacific route
FN would be teaching navigation at a maritime academy
ltm
jon  2266

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll buy that.

That's two.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:03:34 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: So???

Ric wrote:

<<Uh, guys?  This whole thread seems pretty pointless.  Herman lives in
Belgium where there are probalby quite a few more General Aviation
restrictions than Americans are accustomed to. And Earhart did have an
Instrument Rating.>>

Well, the point is...
I don't want to begin another off-topic discussion here. But I think it is
useful to remind a number of things have changed since the old days. Ric
summed it up very well.

You can't just fill'er up, kick the tires and fly to Paris. You have to file
a flight plan if you intend to make any international flight and it has to be
approved first. Most airspace on this side of the ocean is class B or C
today. Airspace is controlled from 4,500 ft up, not uncontrolled up to
18,000ft as in the US. You're watched by radar all the time by the aviation
authorities and the military of the countries whose airspace you use. That's
why they insist you inform them you're coming. Your aircraft has to be
equipped with a number of compulsory instruments, including two-way radio,
transponder and ELT. All these things Lindbergh didn't have to bother with.
He didn't want radio to save weight... For overwater flights life saving gear
is compulsory (lifevests at least and you have to wear them if you're flying
a single engine).

For international flights you need your private pilot license endorsed for
"working knowledge of IFR", after an examination. This is not an IFR
qualification, merely a safety safeguard to keep you from flying into hills
or ditch in the water in poor visibility while flying VFR abroad.
The endorsement is issued by the national civil aviation authorities after an
oral and a practical examination about instruments, familiarity with IFR and
radio procedures. Radio license is compulsory of course. There's no flying
without radio any more. You'll have to prove you're able to fly blind safely
for 50 minutes, executing ATC procedures as told, getting your aircraft out
of "unusual situations". Generally you have to prove you know the ropes, won't
 get lost in cloud or fog or crash into a mountain. Before passing the test
you have to prove you've had at least 10 hours instrument practice. Just to
fly VFR.

They won't let you fly the Atlantic, though (it would be foolish to try) if
you're not fully IFR qualified. When filing your flight plan you have to
stipulate your route, flight level or altitude and provide the list of
diversion fields. In France they have you sign a document in which you
promise to pay for the cost of looking for you when you ditch and for fishing
you out of the drink should you want to make an overwater flight...

Suppose you fill up your Cessna 172 and go as Dennis suggests. You cross the
Atlantic succesfully (you may need some extra fuel). Well, then you'd have a
lot of explaning to do when you land at the other side and you'll lose your
license for having entered airspace without permission and probably for
having violated all the rules in the book of international flying...

Ric, I have no intention of going into the details any further lest this
becomes another off-topic discussion. My pint was that if Charles Lindberg
and Amelia Earhart were still around and would like to do again what they did
in their day and in the same way, they wouldn't be allowed to take off by the
authorities because so many rules have been invented since that didn't exist
then. And because aircraft have to be equipped in a way their's was not. Most
of the equipment that is compulsory now wasn't even invented. And they
defenitely wouldn't let Lindbergh leave his radio behind to save weight.

LTM from Herman (who is familiar with flight plans)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:05:38 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      spiders

Tom King wrote:

<<In the same sense, the TIGHAR crew this year "thoroughly"
inspected a portion of western Nutiran looking for airplanes and aviators,
but it would be wrong for somebody interested in, say, spider populations to
surmise that TIGHAR did a thorough arachnid survey.>>

Exactly my point, expertly stated.

AMCK  1045
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:09:15 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      B-18

    About three week ago, I offered to check out the B-18 here at Castle
Air Museum.  I wanted to compare the artifact found on Niku to the B-18
to see if the artifact did indeed come from that type of airplane.  I
think some one on the forum said they thought the piece of aluminum
came from the B-18 Bomber.  I would like to get a template to do a
comparison.  Can anyone help?

Don J.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

And I said that we'd put up a full description and photos of the artifact on
the website as soon as we can get to it, and we will.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:14:35 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Forum stats

Ric, am I one of the 197? I was SOOOO excited today when I received my packet
in the mail..............until I opened it. The ENTIRE reason for joining
(sorta) was the fridge magnet and NO fridge magnet. A membership card,
sticker and some promos but no fridge magnet. I was devastated. I had had a
hard day at the car wash (they gave my Cad floormats to a black pick up and I
got two grungy black ones. They'll pay for new ones but it was aggravating
and THEN to not get my fridge magnet was just too much. I actually poured
myself a social drink.

Anyway I want one of those hats. I have a good sized collection of caps and
that would fit right in. If you want to put a hat and a magnet in the mail or
if you prefer to wait for a check I'll do that.

Thanks for letting me become a member. I'm proud to belong.

Alan
*************************************************************************

From Ric

Aaaargh!  I am truly mortified.  Hat and magnet will be winging their way to
you post haste.  A thousand pardons.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:55:02 EST
From:         Terry Ann Linley
Subject:      Re: Forum stats

I was a taken aback (and not just a little) by your Forum
Stats.  This Forum takes time to digest and is thought-provoking for the
participants, and is not something a person with only a passing
interest in Amelia Earhart would join.  Why, then, are so many  subscribers
NOT members of TIGHAR?

Perhaps if all the Forum subscribers knew how much it really does cost to run
this organization, more would join.  For instance, what does it cost to run
the Forum each month, or produce an issue of TIGHAR Tracks, or publish the
8th Edition of the Project Report?

LTM (who believes in putting her money where her mouth is),
Terry
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Your question of why more forum subscribers have not yet joined TIGHAR is
worth contemplating.  The forum is a lot like public radio.  It's there for
anyone to enjoy for free.  Some choose to help support it, others don't.
It's a personal choice.

Most forum subscribers, both members and non-members, are "lurkers" who never
post a message.  That too is a personal choice.

I expect that for some forum subscribers our natterings here are little more
than entertainment.  They're not likely to fork over $45/yr for what they can
get for free.  I'd like to think that the forum subscribers who join TIGHAR
do so because they recognize that the intellectual stimulation that happens
here is worthy of their financial support.  They believe in what we're doing
and how we're doing it - and they want to be a part of it.  They were TIGHARs
before they even heard of the organization.  They're now just hunting with
others of their kind.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:59:43 EST
From:         R. Johnson
Subject:      AE & FN

I believe Fred would be working for the Jet Propulsion Lab and being
held responsible for the loss of a Mars landing craft due to a failure
to convert meters to feet.

I believe Amelia would be running for U.S. Senator from New York. I
heard she was a Yankee fan.

R. Johnson
LTM ( who always votes )
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Right on.
That's three.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:01:38 EST
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      slow motion

Time in slow motion during emergencies....The 15 seconds the ground literally
moved in waves under by feet during the Loma Prieta earthquake. At the time I
was in charge of the student housing facilities at Stanford U. Later one of
my staff said "I didn't know you were Catholic." When I asked how she now
knew she said "while we were holding each other during the shaking, you kept
saying "Mother of God will this ever end?", over and over again.  Longest 15
seconds of my life...and the most expensive for the University with 167
million dollars of damage. I'm certain that as AE and Fred were attempting to
land they too said some imaginative things!!!

Delighted to hear that your eye is mending well.

LTM,
Suzanne #2184
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:14:51 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      AE & FN

If they were alive today (and the same ages as they were then, and IF they
had completed the 'round-the-world trip)...

Amelia would have her own TV talk show, and Fred would be the aviation
"expert" that all the networks call on when there is a big crash somewhere.

LTM (who LOVES Jerry Springer)

Tom #2179
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, I can see that.

That's four.

***************************************************************************By
JT

At 102 (AE) & 106 (FN) years of age, both would have already been
recognized by Willard Scott & Smuckers on the Today Show for turning 100
years old.

LTM (if it's Smuckers, it's gotta be great jam!),

JT
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live comment that, by Smucker's logic, even
better names for jam companies would be "Nose Hair" or "Mangled Baby Ducks."
(Just watch.  Somebody will correct that quote and document who said it on
what show and when.)

That's five.

**************************************************************************
From Alan

This is just too hard to pass on. If AE and FN were still alive they would be
laughing their you know whats off at the Longs and all the other fringe
speculators and hopefully not at us.

Alan
*************************************************************************
From Ric

"Oh would some power the gift to gi'e us, to see ourselves as others see us."
(To a Louse by Robert Burns)

Six.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:52:39 EST
From:         Bill
Subject:      Re: Forum stats

> Hi, Ric and Pat.  I was a taken aback (and not just a little) by your Forum
> Stats.  This Forum takes time to digest and is thought-provoking for the
> participants, and is not something a person with only a passing
> interest in Amelia Earhart would join.  Why, then, are so many subscribers
> NOT members of TIGHAR?

For me it was a financial issue.  I joined the forum, and even made
comments, for a number of months before I joined TIGHAR.  The first aspect
of "financial" was that I wasn't even sure I wanted to join.  The months
spent reading and participating convinced me that this wasn't just another
loony idea.  Having decided it had merit, and that I indeed WANTED to
support it, I then had to wait until I could afford it.  I gave myself FORUM
membership as a birthday present.  Lame way to justify the expense, maybe,
but it's been satisfying to know that my birthday now, to me, represents not
just another year lost, but another year putting a few bucks towards an
interesting research project and, just maybe, solving one of the mysteries
of the century.

- Bill #2229
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:20:12 EST
From:         John
Subject:      Silly questions

I have what you might consider two 'silly' questions. I just became more
then a little interested in AE. I'm reading a book intitled 'Flying Blind' a
fun bit of fiction written by 'Max Allen Collins'. I was curious about AE's
ability as a pilot, was she only 'average' as some have stated?. Was there
any truth to the rumor's that AE engaged in some 'biplane' activity?

                                            Thanks! John
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Your question about AE's flying ability is not at all silly but it is
difficult to answer and a hotly debated topic.  I guess the first step would
be to define what constitutes a "good pilot."  For me, the standard has
always been "Would I let this person take my kids for an airplane ride?"
From what I know of Earhart's career and character I would have to say, "No"
(but then, I'm rather attached to my kids).

I have heard no rumors that she engaged in "biplane" activities (if I correctly
interpret that you mean bisexual activity).  The only real information we
have about her sexual value system is the note she handed Putnam just before
the marriage ceremony in which she advised him that she had no intention of
remaining faithful to him or vice versa. In any case, such questions have no
bearing on our investigation of her disappearance.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:38:08 EST
From:         Janet Powell, grandniece of the captain of the Norwich City
Subject:      The survivors's camp

Ric wrote:

<<"Before leaving camp all provisions etc., were placed in the shelter, but I
sincerely hope that no-one will ever be so unfortunate as to need them."

That's the entire reference.  But I just thought of something.  Maybe I'm
reading too much into this but I get an implication that the provisions were
not just casually left behind but were more or less neatly "placed" in the
shelter.>>

In order to avoid any 'confusion', I have in the past tried to limit my
personal thoughts about Daniel Hamer's statement.  However, on this occasion
I have to say that whilst I completely understand your caution in analysing
his words too closely, I am firmly of the belief that they are accurate,
i.e. a true account of events, as he saw them.

The way I see it is that whatever the purpose, if he had gone to the trouble
of writing those words, then he meant what he said.  Therefore, I can only
conclude that this was a deliberate act.

My father comes from a family in which for the last 2 generations all the
men have shared a life at sea, and consequently I have an understanding of
such a lifestyle.  My opinion is that as Master, Dan would have taken his
responsibilities seriously, and if that included an act of good intent, then
he would have done it.  Such an act would have been an entirely appropriate
exercise of his duty.

Maybe he did it with the thoughts of those who 'couldn't' be saved, in mind?
This too makes complete sense to me.  He certainly knew the Steward and his
wife personally and the idea that a small, deliberate act could possibly
assist anyone in the future, would be an entirely appropriate mark of
respect, given that little else was possible.

In conclusion, my belief is that if analysis of  'suspected survivors
campsite photo' demonstrates that it was 'haphazardly abandoned', then
something or someone disturbed it in the intervening years.  (The question
then being, who or what?)

As for the apparent possibility of locating the remains of that campsite
sometime in the future......? - fair boggles the mind!

Additional Thoughts  (Purely THOUGHTS!...)

My father suspects that is was highly likely that alcohol could have been
included in the 'provisions' sent from Capt. Swindell of the Trongate.
(Could this be a source for your Benedictine bottle...???  - Sorry - I'll
have to go back and read about that bit again!)

Regarding the sextant.......  He feels that it would have been extremely
unlikely that such a valuable possession, often privately owned, would have
been left behind, unless in error.  Furthermore, he believes it unlikely
that it would have been rescued without it's box.

(Am still making enquiries for information relating to the possibility of a
connection with Reardon Smiths.)

The Rescue Site/The Lee Shore

I'm still not sure if I'm clear about this, but are you concluding that this
location was to the South (East?) of Bauareke Passage?  (I ask only out of
interest and not because I have any other view.)

That's all, (and I'm sure enough!), for now.

Janet
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Just my opinion, but I think that the Norwich City supply cache is an
excellent candidate for the source of the Benedictine bottle as well as the
"corks with brass chains" thought to have come from "a small cask."  In fact,
I think that these possible corelations and the disheveled appearance of the
camp in 1938 can be seen as evidence suggesting that the castaway found by
Gallagher in 1940 had found and used the Norwich City cache.  Obviously, these
are not items of hard evidence but they are jigsaw puzzle pieces that happen fit
our hypothesis very neatly.

My reading of the various descriptions puts the evacuation site somewhere in
the neighborhood of Bauareke Passage but it's hard to be more specific than
that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:19:08 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: The survivor's camp

I really enjoyed reading Janet Powell's note.

Ric wrote,

> Just my opinion, but I think that the Norwich City supply cache is an
> excellent candidate for the source of the Benedictine bottle as well as the
> "corks with brass chains" thought to have come from "a small cask."

It's a good possibility.

Regarding the untidy condition of the cache when it was photographed in
1938, it may be useful to bear in mind that the castaway(s) found by
Gallagher were not the only potential customers. Undocumented visitors could
have passed through the area in the late 20s and early 30s and gradually,
carelessly, picked through the supplies. Storm activity could have also left
its mark.

A visitor in July 1937 may have found the site already in a state of chaos.

william 2243

***************************************************************************
From Ric

True.
*************************************************************************

From Ross D,

And to serve its purpose it (the cache)  would have to be somewhere obvious. Is there
fresh water in many places on the island?  If you were leaving a cache of
supplies I imagine you would site it somewhere near water, close enough to
the wreck site to carry the supplies and for the wreck to be a reference
point.  I imagine you would also leave writing implements "just in case".
Who knows what you might find.

If I pranged an aeroplane on a reef, and assuming my injuries were not too
severe, I would drag food, medical kit, flares and rope etc from the
aircraft.  I would then search for water.  If I found a cache of supplies I
would make camp close to water and not far from the cache.

On the other hand, if I or my partner only just managed to struggle
ashore.....

I am looking forward to you discovering the cache from NC.  A castaway with
a Benedictine bottle...  Hmmm.  I'd say there had to be more goodies where
that came from.

RossD.  (who spilled burning Benedictine on his beard once...)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

There is no fresh water on the island that can be reached by a castaway,
(Later settlers used dynamite to blast wells that produced water of marginal
quality.)  The only fresh water available to a castway would be what he
brought with him, what he found cached on the island, and what fell from the
sky in sporadic showers.

Finding the NC survivors' campsite is going to be a b--ch.  Our only real
shot is if we can spot it in the old aerial photos, but the one photo we have
of it up close (and we only have that in the form of a photocopy so far)
shows it to be back under the trees (naturally).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:23:16 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: AE & FN


If AE and FJN were alive today, AE would be disguised as Irene Bolam of New
Jersey and FJN would be disguised as Joe Klass (very inside joke).

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Except Mrs. Bolam died in 1983.  Joe Klaas, as far as I know, is still around.

That's seven.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:29:06 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Forum stats

And then some of us are truly struggling to even keep our access to the net
at the moment.  As an occasional pilot, I had always been interested in AE,
but only in passing.

It was only whilst supposedly confined to bed for months that I sneaked onto
the net once every few days (when I could sit for a while) for a short
session.  I heard on the local radio that AE's plane had been found so I did
a search and found TIGHAR.  I emailed Ric and found that although it had not
been found there was an active search going on.

I promised that as a thank you for the courtesy of replying to my email (I
think it was Pat that originally replied) I would in fact join TIGHAR as
soon as I was financial.

Then I started my little project to research the red items in the Luke Field
Inventory.  That gave me something to ward off the boredom for a few months,
and was of great therapeutic value to me (mentally at least) and the thank
you email made it worthwhile.

After 6 months with no income and no insurance due to previous injuries I am
not quite in the situation to do it.  But as soon as I am, there will be one
more change in the numbers.

I guess there may be others a little hard up but we won't all be hard up
forever.  My first "luxury" is going to be a subscription to Tighar.  When
(and I WILL) I get back up and running I have promised myself I'll make a
donation of some sort.

In the mean time, 5am, when I wake up, and get my email from you nice people
is the best time of my day.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

(gulp) What can I say to that?  - except - Thank you Ross.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:33:23 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Couldn't happen today?

Clyde Miller wrote:

<<Of course with a GPS, GPWS, and other current standard Avionics they would
never be lost, wouldn't have to land or crash>>

NOT NECESSARILY TRUE

A case in point.  The Colorado Civil Air Patrol recently spent more than 300
flight hours during the Thanksgiving holiday looking for a Bellanca Viking
piloted by a 6000+ hour pilot CFI and his pilot wife, with a brand new hand
held GPS, cell phone, etc., who disappeared during beautiful weather without
a trace.  He did not file a flight plan, and there was no signal from the ELT
aboard the plane.

The search was unsuccessful even though we had a rough idea of where they
disappeared from a position report he made to ATC and NTAP radar return data.
 Veritable needle in a haystack looking for a green and white aircraft in the
pine trees and snow.

Just because you have lots of technology in your aircraft doesn't mean that
you can't get lost, will get an SOS message off successfully, or assure that
you are going to be found.  When things go bad they usually go bad quickly,
and there is little time to do more than just react to the situation.

A cell phone can be useful for the post crash survivors, but establishing
credibility these days is just a difficult as it was for the post loss AE
messages.  We had one crash last January that managed to reach via cell phone
the Sheriff's department dispacher who refused to believe that they were the
victims of a plane crash, and kept asking if they had witnessed a plane crash
instead.  After several subsequent calls of unsuccessful attempts to convince
the dispachter that they were the victims, their cell phone battery died.

If it weren't for the efforts of an intrepid XC skier who heard the plane go
down and finally located the wreck after searching for two hours in a
blinding blizzard (why they werer flying in the mountains during a blizzard
is another question), they would surely have perished due to exposure.  Three
lucky crash victims.

Technology will not necessarily save your bacon when the chips are down.

Andrew McKenna 1045
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:42:12 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Ditching

As a safety briefing, I offer the following.  There is a boatload of good
information regarding ditching aircraft to be found at:

Equipped to Survive
http://www.equipped.com/

and in particular a very good case study by a guy who flew from Ohio IFR only
to have to ditch in the Chesapeake due to engine failure:
Equipped to Survive
Ditchings
http://www.equipped.com/ditching.htm

His research revealed that 63% of ditchings recorded in the NTSB files
occured during "non-overwater" flights, much like his own fligt from Ohio.
Well worth reading, especially for the pilots in the crowd who think they
don't fly over water enough to worry about ditching.

Next on the hit parade is a video of a Mooney ditching found at :
Rif's Place to Visit
http://www.rifkin.com/

scroll down to "Rif's digital photo album" and look for the Mooney ditching
video in three different resolutions.   Start with the 850K version unless
you have a supercomputer with lots of memory and MHZ.

In this video you will see quite clearly what Ric described earlier, ie

" You're almost certainly going to skip once before the nose digs in and you
come to an abrupt stop... "  Doesn't look like fun, but in this case
survivable.

Enough on ditching.  Seems to me that since TIGHAR's main theory does not
include ditching, and any ditching theory is impossible to prove/disprove
until those underwater guys spend the next 100 years searching the Pacific
and come up with some hard evidence, we should spend less time talking about
something we cannot make any realistic progress on.

Lets go back to the Dado (my favorite piece of evidence), plexiglass, photos,
bones, etc.  Things that we do have a bead on.

LTM (who doesn't believe AE ditched at all)

Andrew McKenna  1045C
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:01:19 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The survivors's camp

For some reason I thought we had a source indicating that the evacuation site
was on the ocean side opposite Kanawa Point.  Foua Tofinga and Emily Sikuli
say that this is where they went off the island in 1941, for what that's
worth.

LTM
TK

************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's what we have.

Capt. Hamer says in his statement:
"The two (rescue) vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable
place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous.  A place was found
about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad,
but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over.  We then
crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the
outside and transported the boat to the edge of the reef."

That last phrase is the key.  Can you imagine anyone dragging a several
hundred pound lifeboat through the scaevola or over the coral rubble rather
than walking it through Bauareke Passage?  I suspect that Emily and Tofiga
left the island from the same place for the same reason.  They left in
December - Westerly season - so they had to go around to the south side.
There had to be a place to get the island surf boat out to the reef.
Bauareke Passage is the only game in town.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:04:33 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Fire extinguisher vs Thermos bottle

I've had an e-mail response to my letter to The Thermos Company with a
printout of MAY20DEP.JPG enclosed.  I did not ask any leading questions.  I
simply said that there was some question as to what the object at the rear
right might be.  Since they have that interesting history page on their web
site, I hoped they might know what the bottles were like in about 1930.
This is the response received:
               **********************************

Thank you for sending the photo of Amelia Earhart.  It is fascinating.

I'll try to answer your questions.  First, I cannot tell for certain if the
pictured bottles are the genuine Thermos brand vacuum bottles.  Based on my
investigation into our archive product from that era, I believe most, if not
all, are Thermos brand bottles, however, I can't be sure.

As for the 4th bottle in question, it is also a vacuum bottle.  Many bottles
of this era had very small cups which, from a distance, look like a simple
stopper for the bottle.  In fact, the first vacuum bottles had a cork.  Then
came a more refined stopper and cup.  So it was not unusual to see a bottle
with a shot glass sized cup/stopper.

Thank you again for your interest.

John Lanman
Vice President of Marketing
The Thermos Company
               **********************************

So... I continue to believe that we are looking at four Thermos, or other
make, vacuum bottles.  There is no point in tryin to match what we see in
that photo with a fire extinguisher.  We don't have a picture of the fire
extinguishers that were on the Electra.

This leaves wide open the possibility that the extinguisher (PYRENE1,JPG)
found on Niku is, in fact, from the Electra.  It may also have come from the
LORAN station, or it may be of some other presently unknown origin.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree entirely.  Thanks Vern.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 09:39:31 EST
From:         David
Subject:      L'Oiseau Blanc, and other ramblings...

Ric wrote:

> Let's find Amelia first.  To push the project in Newfoundland further will
> be very expensive.

...and this coming from a guy who has led expeditions to one of the most
remote and inaccessible islands on earth exactly how many times now?

I would have thought that with one Yankee buck buying almost $1.50
Canadian right now, it would be a bargain to travel in Canada, and
certainly a lot closer than Niku!  In the ten years that this project has
been on your back burner, what new technology has has cropped up that
might help you find the engine?  I suppose ground penetrating radar is no
good because of the water in the muskeg, but what about ultrasound, or
even taking water samples in a grid pattern and then having them analyzed
for trace amounts of metallic elements?  What about the low-flying-heli-
copter-mounted sensors that the USAF was using a few years ago to try and
find (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) the missing bombs from that A-10
that the guy used to commit suicide?  I thought I'd heard that it was a
Canadian invention (the chopper had Canadian registration letters); and
heck, that company may even have an office in Newfoundland already!

Here's another thought: The Canadian government's Heritage department was
able to provide some money ($30,000 Canadian as I recall) to help dig up a
Halifax bomber in Belgium a couple of years back, and the results were
several proper military burials (the German night fighter pilot responsible
was even there all the way from south America!) and many recovered parts
to assist in the restoration of another Halifax back in Canada.  The
entire process was widely publicized here in Canada, especially in
aviation circles, and really raised the profile of aviation archeology.
My point is that if you've got good evidence to pinpoint where you think
the engine will be found, you could very well be able to get some money
out of the French government.  Perhaps if you lay all your cards on the
table for the French Ambassador, you could play to the French sense of
pride!  Think what a huge find it would be!  Mon dieu!

Herman was right on the money (Francs or dollars?) about the hoops to jump
through for flying the pond.  One of my friends living in Ottawa was goofy
enough to fly his 172 to London, England and back one summer with his
brother.  Their planning began many months ahead of time, and they needed
all sorts of special equipment on board, especially survival gear
(cold-water immersion suits, buoyant ELTs, etc.).  Maybe the FAA lets you
Yanks gas-n-go, but up here, Transport Canada is a less wild-west minded
outfit, and demands that you have a full and current IFR rating, plus you
have to get your aircraft inspected and certified by a government official
at a certain airport in New Brunswick, before you can even depart.  On and
on it goes with international paperwork, but I won't bore you with the
rest of it all.  Basically, although my friend and his bro had the trip
of a lifetime, their conclusion was that if you want to cross the Atlantic
at far less cost, more easily, faster, and with a much higher margin
of safety, take an airliner!

By the way, if AE and FN were alive today, AE would be a motivational
speaker making the corporate feel-good team-spirit-building weekend-retreat
circuit, and FN would be developing GPS software for his own navigational
consulting company.  They'd probably have met up at some point while she
was giving a stress-relief seminar to Fred's overworked outfit.  Since
both of these characters mesh into the corporate world so well, they'd
probably be living at Tokyo addresses now, having been "captured by the
Japanese" years earlier.  Fred's love of Saki (rice wine) would
undoubtably be the subject of great speculation around the office.

One last thought, seriously.  In concurrence with what others have already
postulated, I would be wildly astounded if the gliding rate of descent in
the 10E would be any less than 1,000 FPM.  Last July, I had an oil-related
engine failure in a Cessna 182.  It bled out all 11 quarts in the first
seven minutes of flight due to an incorrectly installed oil filter - and
it was not installed by me! The first sign of trouble was an oil pressure
reading of 0, so I shut the engine down and started trimming for best glide
speed.  Yes, I got the full Mayday out, and was even courtious enough to
let the four skydivers on board bail out!  Although I was at 4,000 feet AGL
when things started to go bad, I was rolling to a stop in a farmer's field
less that three minutes later!  Fortunately, there wasn't a scratch on the
aircraft, myself, or anything else.  The plane had been retro-fitted with
a three-bladed prop, and a larger 300 hp engine (versus the original 230 hp),
so although it's rate of climb was spectacular when everything was working,
it's gliding ability was certainly degraded compared to the handbook's
distance graph.  As far as the Electra goes, even with flaps and gear
retracted, I'd say that with two windmilling props and those big draggy
radials hanging in the slipstream, it would almost come down like an anvil
chained to a piano!

LTM, (Who tries to get the French government to pay for her Saki in Tokyo)

David  :-)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Permit me to present a short course in research funding.  The ability to fund
any given project is directly proportional to the public knowledge of the
question and desire for the answer to be found.  Amelia is on of those names
like Winston or Adolf where you don't even need to say the surname.  To most
people, Nungeeser and Coli sounds like a law firm in Montreal.

I'm hoping that eventual success on the Earhart Project will create an
appetite for an encore that will let us really go after a truly historic lost
airplane - l'Oiseau Blanc.  If the Canadian government could be induced to
help out that would be wonderful but first they would have to be persuaded
that Newfoundland is in Canada, and then we'd have convince the Newfies that
they're part of Canada.  As for funding from the French government, I can
only conclude that you have never had the privilege of dealing with the
French government.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 10:24:45 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      ditching

I almost hesitate to further this discussion because, at this point, it's
all so much speculation and hot air. However, I don't recall anyone
factoring Noonan into why there wasn't an SOS with position report final
message. He spent 20 years at sea and was a Master who could captain any
size ocean going vessel. I don't think he would have ended up in the water
without providing a last position report if it was humanly possible. He
would have been acutely aware of the fuel situation (can't plot a course
anywhere without knowing what it is). And, as I understand it, he plotted
navigation positions in advance of the actual location so he wouldn't have
needed to wait until the last ten minutes to start furiously calculating.
Even if he thought he was within 10 miles of Howland, given his background,
I can't see him going into the drink without a final position report. Of
course, if the equipment failed...

blue skies, -jerry
LTM (who just spent $0.02 she probably shouldn't have)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 11:08:55 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      ditching

Ditching an aircraft in water might be likened to paddling a canoe
though white water, you try to maintain the same rate of paddling to
keep in front & on top of the wavewash created by the rushing water so
you don't _drop_ (bow first) between the uneven crests & to maintain
enough control to avoid being turned sideways.

If you don't keep-up the same paddling rate you have little control of
your craft & will quickly flounder & risk capsizing in the rough water.

Since AE mentioned..."gas running low:..  on at least one occasion
during her broadcasts, as recorded by Itaska, it doesn't seem likely she
would be caught by surprise when the fuel tanks coughed-up the last drop
of gasoline.

Don Neumann

***************************************************************************
From Ric

In my experience, once you get down to the last dregs it's very hard to
predict just when she's going to quit.  Gas guages are not particularly
accurate when the needle is bouncing on zero.

As a kid, I had a co-pilot job flying a semipro ice hockey team around the
northeastern U.S. and Canada in a DC-3.  We used to routinely burn the
auxillary tanks dry before swtiching to the mains, but if you let the engines
cough once you immediately had 23 panicked hockey players in the cockpit with
you.  This tended to make the aircraft noseheavy and difficult to trim and so
was to be avoided.

The procedure was to watch the aux tank fuel guages until they started to
bounce on zero then you switched your attention to the low fuel pressure
warning light. At the first flicker you switched to the main tank and hit the
boost pump.  The engine in question never missed a beat.

Once, many years later, I was ferrying a Piper Arrow (light single engine
retractable) and was stupidly trying to minimize refueling stops.  I was
bucking a headwind and, consequentally, was flying at only about a thousand
feet above the ground.  I had burned one tank down as far as I dared and
thought I was on the last quarter of the second tank when everthing suddenly
got very quiet.  I tapped on the fuel guage and the needle, which had hung up
at the one quarter mark, abruptly clunked to zero like it had been shot.  I
immediately swtiched back to the "empty" other tank and hit the boost pump.
The engine reawoke to my immense but only temporary relief.  I knew that it
would die again any minute and I decided that the next level thing I saw was
going to get landed on (because you never, ever make a dead-stick,
off-airport landing if you can avoid it).  As it turned out, I spotted a
windsock on a barn and put her down on a farmer's distressingly small private
airstrip where he kept a J-3 Cub.  He begrudgingly sold me enough gas to get
to the next real airport.

I can recall a few other occasions where my own rank stupidity left me
chugging along staring at fuel guages that read "You're screwed" but each
time the airplane made it to the next airport (although one time it did quit
on the taxiway).

The point of all this "there I was" nonsense is that you have to be even
stupider than me to find yourself faced with a dead-stick landing.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 11:25:37 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The survivors's camp

You're right, Baureke is the only plausible place to get a boat through from
the lagoon to the seaside (other than Tatiman, of course).  As for Tofiga and
Emily, though, they were pretty specific about having come off around the
Ritiati/Noriti border opposite Kanawa Point.  I'll make it a point to check
with Tofiga the next time we correspond.  Of course, they weren't travelling
under the extreme weather conditions that plagued the Norwich City survivors,
and they may have been using a canoe.

TK
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  It may be that the over-the-reef ferrying was done in a boat provided
by the VITI in which case a canoe might have dropped them off on the lagoon
side near Kanawa Point and there may have been a trail cut over to the ocean
side.

However, I can tell you from experience that you DON'T want to try to land a
canoe in that pretty little cove just east of Kanawa Point.  It's too shallow
to get right up to the shoreline and when you step out of the boat to walk it
to shore - GLOOP - you go right out of sight in quicksand unless you manage
to grab the gunwale of the boat on your way down. Ask me how I know.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 11:26:50 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fire extinguisher vs Thermos bottle

Thanks indeed, Vern.  What the dismissal of the photo image does is throw us
back on the specifications that Pyrene sent me as the most likely descriptors
of the extinguishers aboard the Electra.  These are not much like the one we
found; they have sort of nipple-shaped business ends rather than flat ones,
and would not have stood up by themselves.

LTM (whose business end -- well, never mind)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 12:23:08 EST
From:         L. Malvone
Subject:      Re: ditching

I have a question, has anybody thought that the plane may have come apart
in the air and crashed either from a structure fault or maybe fuel explosion?

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, let's consider those two hypotheses.

1.  Inflight structural failure.
Airplanes come apart in the air due to extreme forces that exceed their
design limitations, or from a design or manufacturing flaw.  Exreme forces
can be caused by weather or by violent manuevers (sometimes spelled
"manouevres").  There were no extreme weather conditions reported in the
region and I know of no indication that the airplane engaged in violent ...
thingys.  The Lockheed Model 10 was, if anything, overbuilt and extremely
strong.  I've never heard of one coming apart in flight and NR16020 had
already flown 2/3 of the way around the world safely.  Seems like we can
eliminate inflight structural failure as a likely explanation.

2. Fuel explosion
If it happened it would sure bring things to an abrupt stop but, in the
absence of any evidence to suggest that such a thing happened, it seems like
a dead end as an investigative thread.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 12:37:35 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: The survivors's camp

So that's what happened,  AE landed inside the lagoon on the nice wide
stretch of sand near Kanawa (the only nice wide stretch of sand on the
island?) and the plane sank in the mud...

(well, it's a silly idea, but I'm smiling at the picture of Ric hanging off
the gunwhale up to his neck in smelly mud)...

Ross D

**************************************************************************
From Ric

There's just a narrow stretch of beach sand along there.  Not at all an
attractive landing place.  The quicksand is in the shallow water leading up
to the beach, but - yes - it is smelly, and - yes - it was pretty funny (but
only after I was reasonably sure I wasn't going to die).  John Clauss was
having his own near-death experience on the opposite side of the launch while
Russ Matthews and Dr. Kar Burns (who had sense enough to stay in the boat)
were in danger of dying from laughter.

We have way too many stories like this.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 17:52:06 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: L'Oiseau Blanc, and other ramblings...

David wrote :

>The Canadian government's Heritage department was able to provide some
>money ($30,000 Canadian as I recall) to help dig up a Halifax bomber in
>Belgium a couple of years back, and the results were several proper military
>burials (the German night fighter pilot responsible was even there all the
>way from south America!) and many recovered parts to assist in the
>restoration of another Halifax back in Canada.

Good point. By the way, I saw the Halifax or what was left of it, after its
recovery. There was hardly anything that could be used to help restore
another Halifax but the twisted metal did have exhibition value. I remember
one of the huge wheels was still intact and inflated...
I mentioned that Halifax some time ago in the forum because the way it was
recovered showed similarities with what TIGHAR is trying to achieve with the
Electra. In this case a group of dedicated aviation enthusiasts with an
interest in "aviation archeology" knew more or less where the airplane
crashed. Some older inhabitants of the village recalled that it crashed in a
bog one night in 1943. The Germans had tried to recover it but had given up
as it sank deeper in the bog, although they did succeed in extracting some of
the aircrew for burial. Then the airplane disappeared in the bog.
It was in a densely populated area, unlike Gardner Island. Nobody cared to
look for it for the next 50 years. But learning it was there, the entusiasts
convinced the Canadian government to help them recover the bomber and the
Canadian government indeed paid for the rent of a crane to raise the wreck,
in order to give the missing crewmembers a proper burial. They were indeed
buried as David described.
The enthusiasts were the same bunch of motivated people members of the TIGHAR
expeditions are. They believed they would succeed and they did. With some
help from the Canadian government, which was mainly interested ingiving the
missing crew members a decent burial. In addition they got their Halifax back
for exhibit in a war museum.
Couldn't the US government be convinced that TIGHAR can find the Electra and
found willing to provide some support for the recovery from Gardner Island ?
Let me cite two examples of government aid that both happened here. Some
years ago the Brussels Air Museum learned they could have a Canadian CF-100
for free for the museum, provided they took charge of transportation from
Canada to Brussels. As the Belgian air force had operated the type in the
Fifties, the Ministry of Defense simply ordered a navy ship to Canada to go
and fetch the airplane. Officially the vessel was sent on a "goodwill tour"
to Canada... The aircraft is now on permanent exhibit in Brussels.
Some ten years ago the same museum learned it could have a Westland Lysander
airplane, of the type used by the RAF for covert operation in WW2. As Belgian
agents were flown into occupied Europe in such airplane, again the ministry
of Defense was found willing to help. It ordered the air force to send a
C-130 to Canada to collect it. In fact it was a wreck. It has been lovingly
restored to FLYING CONDITION by a number of dedicated volunteers. I saw it
flying over my home only last week. .
Perhaps in Europe we are more attached to relics of the past. But I remember
having seen beautifully restored historic airplanes in the US also. Couldn't
the US government then be convinced AE is part of American heritage and that
therefore it would be worthwhile using some of the formidable resources at
its disposal to go to Niku and comb the place ?

LTM from Herman (who loves old airplanes, even if they're bent a bit)
*************************************************************************

From Ric

We have, from time to time, received help from the U.S. government in the
form of donated expertise and laboratory work by the FBI, the NTSB, and even
the CIA (but don't tell anybody).  On other occasions we have been
unsuccessful in getting help from  other government agencies.

Aviation historic preservation in the U.S. is, as it is in Europe, the
exception rather than the rule.  Rare indeed are the museums who understand
that you can't preserve something by throwing most of it away and building
something new that looks like the old thing.  In this country the National
Museum of Naval Aviation is doing some good preservation work and in England
the RAF Museum at Hendon and the Imperail War Museum have some good examples
of preserved aircraft.  On the continent, the Netherlands Military Aviation
Museum at Soesterberg has been a leader in the field.  In Australia the
Australian War Memorial Museum has pioneered some important preservation
techniques and in Canada the National Museum in Ottawa has a couple of
interesting projects going.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:01:25 EST
From:         John
Subject:      Re: Silly questions

Thanks..i knew my second question was a little 'shallow' but i didn't know
who to ask. Could you explain more about what you know of AE's ability as a
pilot and her character??.....Thanks again!, John

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Any assessment I made of AE's ability as a pilot would be subjective and
merely my own opinion (which would be guaranteed to offend someone, no matter
what I said).  Earhart's accomplishments, and her failures, are a matter of
record.

What's true for her flying ability is even more true of her character.  Some
see her as a hero and role model.  Others see her as less than that.  What is
beyond question is that she has become legendary.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:06:53 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      More Odds and Ends

I have been thinking a little about the radio related items here and
at the risk of covering old ground and boring people to sleep I offer
the following thoughts.

1)  You said that the radio system was in two boxes at disparate points
    ie receiver up front and transmitter in back. So musing a bit, in
    many of the earlier avionic systems the receive antenna and the
    transmit antenna were separate and the receiver system was used both
    to navigate and to receive incoming messages during communication.
    In one version of the concept there is no antenna changeover switch
    from receive to transmit because it does not use a common antenna for
    communication. In fact King Radio made the last of these as the KX145
    up to about ten years ago. Genave also made a unit called the A200. It
    is an efficient way to put navigation and communication in the airplane.
    I do not know that this was the case here but it seems plausable. In
    the 1930's the reasons would be; WEIGHT, POWER CONSUMPTION, and COST.
    I put these in capital letters because the penalties were huge then.
    Perhaps someone has the actual equipment manuals for these components
    including the suggested antenna arrangements. It could be that the
    design of the antennas aboard the 10E were taken directly from the
    radio manufacturers manuals.

2)  We know AE could effectively transmit and ineffectively receive. The
    records show this. It implies that the airborne transmitter system
    (the antenna is a part of the system) was functioning significantly
    better than the receive system during communications. We also know
    that the navigation receiver was not functioning correctly. Could
    this system installation have been the common receive antenna for
    nav and com as noted above?

3)  If all that was left of the receive antenna (electrically viewed from
    the radio) was a small part of the feed exposed past the sheet metal
    then, the receive sensitivity would be hugely diminshed. That is, the
    required field strength for audible reception would have been increased
    by easily 40 dB (each 10 dB corresponds to a factor of 10 so 40 dB is a
    factor of 10,000) and perhaps an much as 60 dB (a factor of 1 million).
    What this implies is that in order for her to have received anything
    she would have had to have been very close to the sender. Exactly how
    close cannot be known but there is a bit more information here in that
    there was enough signal to be heard intermittently but not to null or
    point. By the way, could it be that the receiver was mounted under the
    right front seat in order to shorten or effectively eliminate the lead
    to the antenna? A smart idea if one is trying to get the most out of
    a receiver. If so then the antenna was electrically coupled to the end
    nearest the cockpit. This might help explain why AE could hear anything
    with only the stub as the actual receiver input impedance may have been
    high enough to allow the stub to operate nearly unloaded (but also
    unmatched). Similar to todays LORAN antennas which are unloaded by the
    preamplifier either in the antenna base or in a preamplifier nearby.

4)  I also think that it is reasonable to believe that if all that was
    left of the antenna was a stub, then the antenna sensitivity may have
    had a large null in the pattern caused by the fuselage obstructing the
    incoming wave from the pilots side, thus making turns necessary to find
    a strong enough signal to hear. The additional null(s) may have grossly
    interfered with any attempt to use the loop.

5)  There have been comments here about line of sight and the difficulties
    of communicating at VHF. But AE was not transmitting at VHF and the
    propagation charactistics of 3 and 6 MHz are not the same as those
    which pilots experience at VHF. The guys who use HF up in Canada,
    Alaska, over the Atlantic or Pacific can perhaps share what they have
    experienced using it. In addition as noted here previously the
    expected propagation at 6 MHz is not the same as 3 MHz. I remember
    that Northwest used something around 7 MHz for transatlantic
    communications.

\_ Greg _/

**************************************************************************
From Ric

This is, I'm afraid, very old and well-trampled ground.  An excellent
description of what is known about the aircraft's radio system and
capbilities will be included in the forthcoming 8th edition of the Earhart
Project Book.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:12:41 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: The survivors's camp

Ric wrote:

<<It's too shallow to get right up to the shoreline and when you step out of
the boat to walk it to shore - GLOOP - you go right out of sight in quicksand
unless you manage to grab the gunwale of the boat on your way down. Ask me
how I know. >>

I imagine you know about it the same way you know about the lagoon at McKean,
no???

LTM (who says, tread gently)
TK
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Like I said, we've got way too many of these stories.
The main difference between this one and the "incident" at McKean was that
this time there were people there to pull my butt out (if I could get them to
stop laughing).
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:14:54 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      AE's piloting skill

From time to time there are postings that cast doubt upon the piloting
skills of AE & the navigational skills (& sobriety) of FN.

The best response to these contentions is the fact that AE/FN had flown
over three quarters of the way around the world, under what at times
could be described as less than optimal conditions, with no reported
instances of any problems directly related to any breech or lack of
piloting/navigational skills.

I seem to recall that those observing the takeoff from Lae expressed
their admiration at AE's ability to handle the heavily, fuel laden
Electra & get it airborne within the constraints of the somewhat
primative conditions of the runway at Lae.

From the various reports from the flight, subsequent to takeoff,  that
are available, the flight appeared to be going well, giving the
impression they were probably on course through the Gilberts.
Whatever problem caused them to _miss_ Howland Island, would seem to
have developed or become apparent, during that last 600-700 mile portion
of the 2500 mile (longest) overwater leg of the flight.

While AE's piloting skills may have been subject to question before the
round-the-world flight attempt, there seems to be little doubt that she
was an expert at handling the Electra & all it's idiosyncrasies by the
time she lifted off the runway at Lae.

Don Neumann
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:20:12 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Navigation

I received this in answer to a post to Ric and agree it would be good to see
what forum members thought (It started out as just a photocopy of a
map......)  My comments are next to the ***.

The full text of the original post is right at the bottom.  The text with a
map (300kb) is at:

http://www.ross.devitt.com/amelia

Ross,

If the 5:18 p.m. position report of 4.33 South, 159.7 East is accurate, it
places the aircraft on the direct Great Circle from Lae to Howland and almost
exactly over the Nukumanu Islands at 4.30 South, 159.30 East.

My trusty Encyclopedia Britannica puts the Ontong Java Islands at 5.20 South,
159.30 East.  Just about exactly one degree of latitude to the south of the
Nukumanu group they seem to be a possibility but it would mean that Fred
isn't where he thinks he is.

*** My point exactly.  for the reasons below and in the text I think he was
out a bit.

1    it was dark
2    there was reported bad weather
3    they had to detour (absolutely NO PROOF that this happened, but....)

As for what route they really followed to get there, I've seen several
different opinions.  Some say they diverted south to avoid high terrain on
New Britain.  That's a possibility but it seems like an awfully big detour if
the 3:19 position is accurate.  Your idea of avoiding the "dangerous rain
squalls" is another possibility but it assumes that they heard the weather
report that there is no evidence that they heard.

***  The documented evidence points to the fact that they didn't get the
weather report that came in as they took off, but they didn't have to hear.
You can see bad rain storms for quite a distance.  Cu clouds go way up, and
they would not fly through them (the dangerous rain squalls) as heavily laden
with fuel as they were, in fact I suspect they would not fly through them at
all, as the reports seem to indicate that the aircraft was overloaded and the
structural stresses placed on the airframe by turbulence - well i guess
you've flown through it , you know what I mean.

***  They would try to use the "1 in 60 rule" or whatever was applicable and
go around and back on to their planned track.  Or they could keep flying out
at about the lattitude of Lae until they thought the squalls to their left
were thinning and turn North East for Nukumanu.

The other possibility, of
course, is that they didn't deviate at all and that the 3:19 position was
just heard or copied wrong.

***  As suggested above, if (another "if") they saw bad weather ahead, they
would probably contunue as close to due East (an easy compass bearing to
follow) until they cleared the storms.

I suggest that you put your ideas in a posting to the forum and invite people
to look at your website.  Should promote some interesting discussion.

Ric

***  OK,  here is the text from the page.  To the forum - this is "pure
speculation" and the guesswork is done from an atlas not a chart, so the fact
that I was only about one degree out on the location of Ongtong Java shocked
me.  The full text of my babbling can be found at the temporary web page on
http://www.ross.devitt.com  more interesting to new forum members might be
the copy of the map from the atlas.

It shows the direction of the "337/157" line that AE reported herself as
flying.  You can clearly see why TIGHAR expect to find she landed at
Nikumororo (Gardner Island on the old atlas map).  I have scribbled in the
names of the other islands mentioned in the TIGHAR documents so you can see
their relevant positions.

Also, don't take too much notice of the ideas on navigation - unless as an
active celestial navigator you would be kind enought to correct my errors.  I
did cel. nav theory (and a little prac) a very long time ago.

**********************************   (This is a long post)

Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan departed Lae at 10am (Local Time) on July 2nd.
All air navigation times are kept in UTC now, or Greenwich Mean Time back
then. Lae is GMT + 10 hours, so Fred Noonan would have found the 10:00am
local time convenient due to it being exactly midnight GMT. This would make
calculations (up to the crossing of the International Date Line) relatively
simple.

Howland on the other hand is GMT - 11 hours. Some people calculate it as -
11hours 30 minutes, however normal practice is to use the "whole hour" for
the time in a zone. It is often forgotten that the time zones do not follow
the longitude meridians.

A log was kept by Placer Dome, a mining company with an office at Lae, of
most aspects of AE's operations at Lae. This report is in TIGHAR's web site
and the times and reports below are taken from that. Amelia had arranged to
transmit at 18 minutes past each hour to Lae station. For the first 4 hours
the transmissions were not clear enough to make out her reports, then at last
one partly intelligible report came through.

At 2:18pm, AE reported her height as 7,000ft, her speed as 140 knots and
something else that could not be heard. By this time she was 4.3 hours out
from Lae. At 140 Knots/no wind she would have travelled just about 600
nautical miles. If the wind she reported later was a headwind, and was
current for the early part of the flight, she would have been only about 440
nautical miles out.

At 3:19pm, Earhart's reported position was received as "150.7E, 7.3S". This
is strange, as that position was about 150 nautical miles South East of Lae.
If the time was logged in Local Time, it would mean they were covering about
28 nautical miles an hour over the ground for the first 5.3 hours.

The 150.7East is certainly wrong, probably due to the radio interference
reported on AE's earlier transmissions.

The 7.3South is interesting however, as when the Electra was taking off, a
weather report was received at Lae warning of 24/25 knot easterly winds and
"dangerous rain squalls" about 300 miles east of Lae. This put bad weather
between The Island of New Britain and the Solomon Islands. No pilot in their
right mind flies through "dangerous rain squalls" intentionally, so it
appears that AE might have kept south of the bad weather for about 5 hours
(assuming the 7.3S is correct.). That would put them about 157.7East, which
is much more likely. From there they would have to divert back on to their
planned track, and there was only one land mark available on the track that
did not involve flying back in the direction they had come from.

Turning to a heading of somewhere around 020 would have brought them over a
scattered group of atolls and islands in about 2 hours.

At 5:18pm, they reported to Lae that they were at "4.33South, 159.7East at
8,000 ft over Cumulus Clouds wind 23 knots". This places them (if it is
accurate) about 750 nautical miles out from Lae and probably just over the
Ongtong Java Is. Which would be convenient as if he could see them would give
FN a visual fix on a small group of tiny island atolls. If FN's position was
correct, and if he used Ontong as a visual fix (remembering that cumulous
cloud does not always cover the whole sky) then the 23 knot wind they
reported was a head wind as the Electra had only covered the ground at an
average of about 103 nautical miles per hour. (This tallies pretty well with
a 23 knot headwind, and an indicated airspeed of 140 knots.

Also, if Fred Noonan did get a visual fix on Ongtong, his time and distance
calculations would have confirmed an average headwind of 23 knots. I my
personal theory is that this is exactly what he has done. It seems just too
much of a coincidence that his position reports him almost exactly over this
group. And without knowing his exact position he had absolutely no way of
calculating the wind.

Ongtong is pretty much the last landfall before the Gilbert group about 900
nautical miles away. Another reason why I believe Fred Noonan would have used
Ongtong as a visual reference for his ded reckoning.

That was the last transmission received by Lae station, although they
listened unsucessfuly for the Electra for another three hours.

Now, if FN was using Ongtong to get his last definite visual fix before
heading out over the deep blue sea (and as it is almost in a direct line from
Lae to Howland I'm sure I would). And If his position report at 5:19pm ws
correct (it puts him pretty well right there), and IF my theory about staying
south of the "dangerous rain squalls" for almost 3 and a half hours was
correct, then FN had a little problem.

If he could fly a straight line from Lae to Ongtong, he would not only be
able to work out his ground speed, but also his "drift", the distance the
wind was blowing him from his planned track for the first 1/3rd of his
flight. If, on the other hand, AE had to stay south of the weather (a not
uncommon occurence around heavy rain), then the next chance he would have of
getting a visual would be over the Gilbert group. It is recorded that the
lights at the mines on Nauru were going to be left on all night for the
aviators to pick up a visual reference, but depending on the weather that
night, a soft glow about 150 miles to the north of them would not provide a
"fix" of his position.

It is also unlikely that FN could get an exact fix over the Gilbert Islands
at night either. That means his drift calculations depended entirely on
Celestial Navigation. Not something I'd like count on too much in an aircraft
at night.

Another reason I believe FN would have picked Ongtong for his last landfall
is that a direct line from Lae, through the group seems to come out pretty
close to the line between Howland Island, and Baker Island (just to the S.E
of Howland.)

It would be a safer bet to aim for a spot right in the middle between those
two islands so close together that they would be bound to see one or the
other as they flew through. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the
bearing and reciprocal of 337/157 just happens to be as close as I can get to
the bearing and reciprocal of the Howland/Baker combination.

Once the sun came above 20 degrees over the horizon, FN would have used the
sextant to get a "sun shot". That would tell him how far North or South they
were. Another one some hours later would be needed to give them a longitude
fix (East/West). This assumes that he could get a clear shot at the sun.
Clouds can foul up sextant sun shots like you wouldn't believe.

If the head wind dropped to around 13 knots during the night, the Electra
would be over Howland some time around 18:30 GMT or 18 and a half hours
flying time at about 125/130 knots during the night.

Now For The Fun Part....

If FN and AE missed sighting Howland, and obviously they knew they had to be
close to 176.38 Longitude by then there was really only ONE viable option.

If FN calculated the LOP that they were on, then using his calculated average
ground speed, advanced it to Howland, he would then have an estimated time to
arrive over the island. When they could not see Howland or Baker at that
time, they had to be either North or South of Howland by a fairly large
distance (visibility was reported at 20 miles at sea level in the vicinity -
of course sometimes in the morning in the tropics, there is a haze over the
sea and horizon, and you actually can't see as far as you can at sea level).

Bear in mind that Howland is only 10 feet high at its highest point, and only
a mile and a half long by half a mile wide. Most of it is no more than a
metre above the water. The whole thing is reported to be almost 3 times the
size of The Mall in Washington, DC.

If they were anywhere North on longitude 176.38E , then there was no way they
would turn LEFT to 337 degrees. There is nothing out there but water. To find
either Howland or Baker they would need to know exactly how South they were
to know how far to fly PAST the LOP to turn North West. If they knew that,
they would not be in the predicament in the first place.

Turning RIGHT to 157 on the other hand virtually anywhere within 150 miles
either side of Howland's position on Lattitude 176.38 , and especially if
they flew "past" Howland, WOULD bring them into enough islands to at least
get themselves a visual fix on more than one island.

Flying a little over 2 hours at 140knots would bring them into the middle of
a group of islands, and a chance of setting down intact.

I believe it was NO COINCIDENCE that they were flying the 337/157 line, and
under no circumstances would they consider heading out at 337.

So there it is. A little story to go along with the picture above of the
general area where the flight and searches took place.

This is my reasoning based on what I'd plan for the same trip, and compared
with the reports received by the US Coast Guard Cutter Itasca and the radio
operator at Lae. There are numerous variations - almost everyone has a theory.

Some day I'll get hold of the full set of charts covering this area and check
this out more accurately.

For an "in depth" view of the search for Amelia Earhart, and up to date
information on research and actual searches go to http://www.tighar.org There
you'll find information on artifacts that have been recovered during an
extensive search for Amelia earhart's Locheed Electra along with documents
and reports from the period.

TIGHAR is a no-profit organisation, and if you want to help support the
ongoing search for the Earhart aircraft and other historical projects, you
can join TIGHAR as a supporter for only $45 a year.

RD.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:51:34 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: More Odds and Ends

There is no indication that AE heard anything other than the 7.5MHz signal
she requested, and that was heard from the loop direction finding antenna,
an antenna that was presumably not part of the regular receiver system.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:56:40 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Navigation

There's another possibility for the Nukumanu Island report, based upon
historical precedence.  During AE's crossing of the Pacific towards Hawaii,
she gave several position reports, none of which contained a time
associated with the position.  Reconstructing the maps used (to be reported
in the 8th Edition), I was able to determine that none of the position
reports were celestial: all were dead reckon positions.  All were
determined prior to the actual time of the report. and represent projected
positions at such and such a time (which didn't correspond to the scheduled
radio broadcast).  Examining FN's chart of the Atlantic crossing and of
maps across the US, he simply took the nominal flight speed and course and
plotted estimated positions in the future for cross-referencing should a
landmark be sighted.  Obviously, this doesn't always work across water, but
the plots are there for the Atlantic.  Since the Nukumanu Island position
report is so close to the great circle/rhumb line of the projected course,
I feel that this position report is a projected dead reckon position, and
given to AE to give her some semblance of where the plane was.  I don't
believe her modus operandi was to provide information sufficiently detailed
nor accurate enough for flight reconstruction.

OK, I'm ready to take the hits.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree with Randy.  Earhart doesn't seem to have ever gotten the idea about
what a postion report is supposed to be.  It's almost like she thought of
them as press releases.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:13:21 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Re:  forum statistics

Thanks for giving us the raw numbers, un-"spun" and letting us interpret for
ourselves what they might mean. (and a pox on percentage posting pollsters
who don't want us thinking for ourselves)You've confirmed once again that I
made the right decision when I sent that check to the folks on Fawkes.

I think if Fred and Amelia were around today, they'd still be mourning the
loss of Kelly Johnson (and Ed Heineman) and they might wonder why 30 years
after going to the moon, our space program consists of:  A. losing hardware
in the vicinity of Mars, and B.  doing laps around the planet in an
outer-space pickup truck that was designed in the 1970's.

On the History Channel over the weekend, I watched WW II footage of a B-29
ditching just offshore of Iwo Jima or Siapan, I forget which, and my first
thought was "where do they keep the wheelbarrows that those guys tote their
b**ls around in when they're out for a walk?"

LTM, who'd rather have me digging ditches than ditching airplanes

Dave Porter, 2288
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:30:40 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: L'Oiseau Blanc, and other ramblings...

Ric summed up a list of very interesting aviation museums.
For the benefit of forum members who are interested in the Lockheed 10, I'd
like to add an information which is hot from the needle.

Anyone who'd like to see a rare Lockheed 10A Electra will be able to do so
soon in the new section of the London Science Museum at Kensington now being
prepared. The historic airliner will be part of a new permanent exhibition
entitled "The making of the Modern World" and the display will extend
exhibition areas by a third and illustrate "History of Industrialisation and
Technology" from 1750 to the present.

It will also include the Apollo 10 space capsule and the Stephenson Rocket
(which is not a space rocket but happens to be the world's very first steam
locomotive). The exhibit opens in June 2000, so make a note in your agenda,
gentlemen. This is a must on your next  trip to Europe...

I also like to add to Ric's mentioning the the RAF Museum at Hendon (London)
that I believe the latter is rather of a temple where aviation is worshipped
than just of museum. I consider it one of the best in the world.

As for the Imperial War Museum at Duxford (near Cambridge, England), it is
home to practically anything that flew in WW2, both in European skies and
over the Pacific. It also houses the Museum of the us 8th Air Force. Most of
it is in flying condition. Each summer they do WW2 over live with all these
historic airworthy airplanes, including Spitfires, Hurricanes, Messersmitts
109, Blenheims, P-40 Kittykawks, P-47 Thunderbolts, P-51 Mustangs, B-17,
B-25, Lancasters, Grumman F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, Grumman TBF Avenger,
Chance-vought F4U Corsairs, PBY Catalina, the lot... They have recently
acquired a Mitsubishi Zero. Anyone interested let me know. I can let you know
the  dates of the shows, so you can plan your next trip to Europe accordingly
(yes, you can fly in with your own airplane if you want to and save time.
Mind you, you'll have to file a  flight plan...).

To Ric's list I'd like to add two more : the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum
in Washington, which is arguably the most comprehensive on development of
flight, and the USAF museum at Marshfield AFB, California. The latter is part
of a USAF airbase and seems to have one example of anything that flew in USAF
livery since 1945 until this day, including SR-71. But that, I'm sure, most
US forum members may be aware of. I just wanted to add them for good measure.

LTM from Herman (who loves old planes)
*************************************************************************

From Ric

This is pretty off-topic but it was my impression that the Imperial War
Museum does not attempt to rebuild its artifacts to airworthy condition.
The airplanes that fly at the big WWII airshow at Duxford belong to private
collectors like Stephen Grey of The Fighter Collection.  Be assured that no
World War Two aircraft fly in modern airshows.  Surviving examples of World
War Two types are often used as the foundation for rebuilt replicas of
themselves.  It's a multi-million dollar entertainment industry and it's
great fun, but it's not historic preservation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:48:06 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      aviation progress

Dave Porter wrote:

> after going to the moon, our space program consists of:
>A. losing hardware in the vicinity of Mars, and
>B.  doing laps around the planet in an
> outer-space pickup truck that was designed in the 1970's.

Interestingly, while most of the avionics and control elements of the
shuttles have been totally redesigned, modernized and upgraded repeatedly
throughout the 80s and 90s, the basic airframe of today's space shuttle was
actually designed in the late 60s, when NASA knew that one way or another
congress would force them into some sort of effort at more economical space
flight after the Apollo program.

There is a parallel with the Boeing 747, which first flew regularly in 1969.
The same basic airframe design is in use, which in the case of this aircraft
has been enormously safe and successful, but a 747 pilot from 1970 wouldn't
at all recognize the cockpit of a 1999 model 747: Inside, 30 years later,
it's a very different aircraft.

That the same airframe is still being manufactured for new planes probably
indicates enormous skill on the part of aviation designers at Boeing in the
1960s.

I wonder what Earhart would have felt if she had lived long enough to fly
non-stop from LA to Tokyo in a 747?

william 2243 (who feels more secure out over the Pacific or Atlantic ocean
in a 747 operated and maintained by a reputable airline than on a local
freeway, and has recently become fond of the 777)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:57:27 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: forum statistics

I think "lurkers" was rather an unfortunate term to use to describe those who
for one  reason or another can't afford to pay or choose not to . You seem to be
saying if you don't agree with us by "joining"  then you shouldn't be allowed
to watch us play.
Hmmm...

Jim Razzi
**************************************************************************
From Ric

"Lurker" is a standard internet term for one who subscribes to, but does not
post to, a newsgroup or email list.  Lurkers on the Earhart Forum might or
might not be TIGHAR members.  The term is in no way pejorative.  If all 650
or so subscribers to the forum posted messages we'd all be buried.  We
encourage anyone to post who has something substantive to contribute to the
research or to the conversation and we hope that anyone who can afford to
will join TIGHAR.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:40:22 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      museums

I agree with Herman's comments on Museums.
One slight correction---the last one mentioned should be  March Field at
Riverside,
California.......

Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:42:29 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: forum statistics

OK, I'm mollified, but I wish Internetters (new word?) would use standard
English to "communicate" instead of  jargon like, "flame, trash", and "burn"
when they mean "criticize, delete, and copy". And now I have to add "lurker"
for "non-participant".
Phew!! Webster come back, we need random acts of clear definitions!!!

Jim Razzi
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:24:54 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      preservation

Ric,
Contrary to what you believe they do have authentic WW2 airplanes in flying
condition at Duxford. They have been overhauled or restored of course. The
Spitfires are mostly former RAF gate guardians restored to flying conditon.
They crashed an authentic Me-109G last year. It had been captured in the
Lybian desert in 1943. It was flown by an RAF Vice Air Marshall. At this
moment they are restoring an Avro York transport to flying condition.
Many aircraft in the show are indeed privately owned indeed. On the 60th
anniversary of the first flight of the Spitfire (1936) they managed to put 20
into
the air. P-51s too are authentic, as are PBY's, TBM, F4F, F6F and F4U.
Some of these are ex-French. Many are indeed owned by private collectors,
like the nearby Shuttleworth Collection at Old Warden. In addition the RAF
still has -believe it or not- at least one Spitfire, one Hurricane and one
Lancaster in its inventory.

                    Herman
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Herman, you completely missed my point.  Historic preservation is the saving
and safeguarding of relics from the past - that is, the physical material
that was there then and is here now.  If archaeologists found the remains of
a chariot in a pharoah's tomb nobody would say, "Well, the harness has got to
go but we can build a new one and we'll have to replace most of the wood, but
with some work we should be able to make this baby as good as new."  If
somebody did that no one would say, "Wow, look at that.  An authentic Egyptian
chariot in horse-worthy condition."

Airplanes, like automobiles, are still too new to be valued by the public as
historic properties.  Most of what passes for aviation and automotive
preservation is, in fact, the creation of reproductions using some original
material for the sake of nostalgia, education and entertainment.  I hasten to
say that there's nothing wrong with that.  A World War Two airshow can be
genuinely educational, tremendously moving, and tons of fun.  However, the
cost of failing to recognize the difference between the real thing and a play
actor is to risk destroying artifacts of great rarity in the name of
"preservation."

A classic example is the P-38 Lightning removed at great risk and expense
from the Greenland icecap several years ago.  Other than being a bit
squished, the aircraft was almost perfectly preserved - paint, leather,
everything - but because the intent of the salvors was to end up with a
flyable airplane, very little of what came out of the ice has been saved in
the process of rebuilding the machine.  It's a question of economics.  A
flyable P-38 is worth a million dollars or more.  The only all-original WWII
P-38 in captivity wasn't worth anything.

Many years ago, TIGHAR adopted as its motto a quote adapted from the
Stonehenge Manuscripts of 1660 by John Aubrey:
"Let us bend our best efforts to the preservation of antiquites that they
might escape the teeth of time and the hands of mistaken zeal."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:28:16 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Dead Stick Landing

>The point of all this "there I was" nonsense is that you have to be
>even stupider than me to find yourself faced with a dead-stick landing.
>
>LTM,
>Ric

Remind me not to allow my grandchildren to fly with you!

I must agree that given any choice in the matter, AE would have
(speculation) elected to ditch the electra with full power, however, I
must say that if she were pushing to reach an island landfall (Gardner)
in the Phoenix chain & if the fuel guage(s) didn't accurately record
when the engines were actually breathing fumes, it remains a
_possibility_ that she could (speculation again) have hit the water
(dead stick) just short of her objective, leaving she & Fred with a swim
to the beach, assumng the Electra didn't splashdown nose first .  In any
event, she'd have been too far out of radio range to SOS the Itaska
(steaming NNW of Howland)  anyway.    Of course, that scenario nixes any
post landing radio transmissions.

My own personal, undocumented, purely emotional opinion is that if she
got within sighting distance of Gardner ( or, to accomodate all the
other theories) any other landfall, she would somehow have coaxed the
last drop of fuel out of those tanks, in order to make a wheels down
landing on any available reef flat!

One more thing, after viewing the Electra model schematic drawings, I
would be inclined to think that lateral view from the cockpit of
anything to port or starboard would have been nigh impossible, with two
big P & W engines hanging forward of the wing, limiting visability to
the horizon, straight ahead.    Best lateral visability would have been
from the two midship windows adjacent to Fred's navigational table.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:56:34 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Navigation

Randy would have to be correct here, for the flight over water.  Deduced
reckoning was the only navigation technique available to private pilots up
until a few years ago.

Radio Direction Finding and visual or celestial fixes simply allow you to
check your navigation and correct it.

So my point is that the first longitude position report has to be wrong
(probably written down incorrectly) for the time flown - but the lattitude
is probably correct.  That would get them around the storm near New Britain.
For FN to get them so far wrong that early in the flight is very unlikely.
(There's no way they did 4 hours at 28 knots.)

And the second one would have been their last "visual" fix (the actual
sighting of Nukumanu) to put them back on their planned track for Howland.
Navigation requires that they actually "knew" where they were on the
starting end of their planned track, and what direction "heading or
bearing - depending how you look at it" to fly to get there.  They needed a
visual fix before leaving land - and the last possible visual fix is
Nukumanu.

Passing Nauru in the darkness they may (or may not) have seen the glow from
the lights way off to their left.  That would give FN a confirmation of his
Longitude (perhaps) and even some vague confirmation of Lattitude.
Remember, as well as huge mine workings being lit all night, there was a
5000 candlepower (pretty bright for those days) light set up a long way off
the ground.

We can see the ordinary lights from our coalfield draglines and coastal
towns for a long way at night and often use them to confirm our ground
speed.

I imagine the Gilbert islands at night would be another matter though.

I still can't see FN being too far from where he thought he was when he
reached the Howland end.

RD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

My only comment is a cautionary one.  We don't have any evidence of a storm
near New Britain.  All we have is a forecast which starts with the words
"Accurate forecast difficult account lack of reports your vicinity" and
mentions "no major storm, apparently partly cloudy with dangerous local rain
squalls about 300 miles east of Lae...".
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:41:14 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: museums

Thanks for corracting me Jim,

I wasn't sure of the spelling. But I sure came back with heaps of precious
pictures !
Oh, and I forgot the Planes of Fame at Chino.

                        Herman
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:47:11 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: preservation

I guess I won't be able to convince you. Of course you're right in your
criticism of the "aircraft preservation industry", as you know it to exist in
the US. Some museums and some companies indeed rebuild historic aircraft
using one original and canibalizing other airplanes to make one new one. The
same happens over here. But...

But the Messerschmitt Me-109G that the RAF Vice Air Mashall crashed last year
( pilot overshooting the runway at Duxford in an emergency landing because of
trouble with the ORIGINAL engine) was not privately owned. It was British
government property and a genuine German Me-109G that had been captured by
the British in Tunis in 1943. It had been brought to Britain for flight
trials at Boscombe Down and had been stored at the end of the war until the
Imperial War Museum decided to bring it out again, because it was in good
condition after all, and fly it after an engine overhaul (this being the
original Daimler Benz 601 and not the British Rolls Royce Merlin you'll find
in some Spanish license-built examples). It flew in its original 1943
Luftwaffe desert scheme colours. I saw it. I made pictures of it.

There are guys out there in England who fly authentic Consolidated PBY
Catalina's. Of course the engines have been overhauled. But those are not
rebuilt airplanes. The Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Avro Lancaster bomber
I mentioned are owned by the RAF. They are not part of an "industry". They're
just well maintained at great expense, by the RAF and fly, not for commercial
reasons but to remind the British nation they won WW2. Compare them to the US
Navy keeping the USS Constitution as a piece of American Heritage in Boston
harbor, if you like.

I know a guy in Belgium (one Karel Bos, who lives in Brasschaat) who owns a
1945 built Vickers Supermarine Spitfire XIV with an original Rolls Royce
Merlin engine. Of course it has been overhauled since TBO of those engines
was only 250 hours... But the airplane as such has not been "rebuilt", it has
simply been maintained in flying condition. You can see and touch it in its
hangar at Antwerp airport. Karel Bos (now 70) flies it purely for fun, mostly
on sunny Sunday afternoons. I reckon he's the oldest Spitfire pilot in the
world. He's not a professionl pilot. He has a PPL.

I feel it will be difficult to convince you, probably because you have so many
examples around you in the US where historic airplanes that are really
replicas. But over here we have some authentic Boeing B-17 Flying
Fortresses flying around. Those too are privately owned. They have never
been rebuilt. They have been extensively repaired, their engines have been
overhauled according to requirements. These aircraft are genuine. They have
not been "restored" by canibalisation of others, nor have they been rebuilt
like some of the Lindbergh Ryan NYP replicas or the Vicker Vimy that flew to
Australia.

                    Herman
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Herman, let's just drop the subject.  It's completely off topic and it's
pretty apparent that you just don't get what I'm talking about.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:52:33 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Navigation

From Randy Jacobson

Regarding visual sighting of the Nukumanu Islands: I checked all British and
American charts from the time period, and none show these islands with any
exactitude; the charts were simply too small a scale to show details.  Again,
I am forced to conclude (speculate?) that the position was simply a point on
the great circle route, pre-plotted, and that the position relative to an
island was pure coincidence.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I tend to agree with you on this.  somewhere along the line somebody noticed
that the position given was close to those islands and suddenly it's received
wisdom that Fred saw the Nukumanu Islands.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:17:51 EST
From:         Tom Cook
Subject:      Preservation /  Restoration

Ric:  I know that we've been over this before, but what do you do if the
artifact has been modified before you get it, do you attempt to return
it to the condition of historic significance, or do you preserve it just
as you received it?  Example:  The Hughes HK1 (AKA SPRUCE GOOSE)  It had
to be disassembled to be moved from Longbeech CA to McMinnville OR.
While it was at Longbeech it was painted with a thick white
"fireproofing" paint so it did not look like it did when new, or when it
made it's one and only flight.  I have been told that he engines had
been changed from 3000 hp R4360's to a later model that developed 3500
hp, because Howard Hughes considered it underpowered, he also had an
airconditioning system installed to keep the pilot cool and there is a
spiral staircase that was installed after the flight to replace the
extension ladder that can be seen in pictures taken at the time of the
flight.  The linen fabric that covered the control surfaces which had
been painted has been replaced with new polyester fabric (and a good job
it is) and I have been told that they are sanding the white paint off
the hull and wings.   BTW they have made progress on the new permanent
museum,  they have graded the site and poured a lot of concrete in the
past year.  The plan is to reassemble the Hk1 and exhibit in the new
museum along with the rest of their collection which includes a Me109g,
a Spitfire  a C47, a B 17, a Ford Trimotor, a BD5, a Dehaviland Vampire,
Howard Hughes personal Hughes helicopter (serial#2) and many more.
  Their website is www.sprucegoose.org

With regard to tension in the cockpit, I wonder how accurately A/E could
tell how close to fuel exhaustion she was with all those one of a kind
fuel tanks, I would think that if she had never run  them dry, she might
not know EXACTLY how far the needle would go before the engines cut out.
Could she read the levels in the various tanks without actually
switching tanks?   I have a friend who crash landed a F6F Hellcat  near
Portland OR a few years ago because he couldn't get his fuel switch over
valve to work,  Both he and the A/C survived, but with considerable
damage.  Dead stick landings are HELL!!
My brother had a engine failure in a Tripacer over a city in CA  several
years ago, when he called "MAYDAY" he was directed to a small nearby
airport where he was able to land safely.
A while back we discussed post loss radio signals and how much A/E would
have had to run the engine to keep the batteries up enough to operate
the radio and ensure enough power for a  restart the next time.
The manual for the HK1 says not to run the engines below 1400 rpm for
more than 15 minutes unless an APU is hooked up to keep the batteries
charged, I know, a 10E and the HK1 are different airplanes, but they
both used P&W Wasp engines (different sizes, OK, a LOT different)  They
were built about 10 years apart.
LTM who knows a 10E from the HK1      TC 2127
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Before I reply to your preservation question I want to emphasize that this
stuff is not just my purist opinion.  Standards, procedures, and definitions
for historic preservation have been hammered out over the past hundred years
or more by scholars, curators and conservators in museums around the world.
The problem is that most air museums and aviation enthusiasts are not
familiar with this immense field of study or, if they are, somehow feel that
airplanes are exempt from the rules that apply to everything else.  In an
attempt to make this information more accessible to the aviation community we
have published The TIGHAR Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology
which is now used by many air museums in the U.S. and Europe.  We should
probably put it up on the TIGHAR website in the Preservation section.

Okay.  Here's a short course.
"Original" means the same physical material ("fabric" in the parlance of the
discipline) that is passed down from a particular time in history.  It does
not mean new stuff that is just like the old stuff or old stuff from some
other object).   Lindbergh's "Spirit of St. Louis" in the Smithsonian is not
original to his transatlanitc flight.  It is largely original to 1928 when it
arrived at the museum following Slim's grand tour of the U.S. and Central
America.  Saying an aircraft is "original" is meaningless unless you provide
a reference date.  The older an airplane is, the less likely it is to be all
"original" to its manufacture date or it's period of historical significance.

"Restoration" means returning the existing "fabric" of an object to a known
earlier state through the minimal introduction of new material.  This is what
your'e talking about with the HK-1.  Sand off a later layer of paint, replace
some headliner, clean it up, etc.  You can't make it "original" to the famous
test flight unless you find the old engines (not engines just like the old
engines but the actual engines that were on the airplane) and tear out the
air conditioner and staircase and find that old extension ladder.  Probably
ain't gonna happen.  The HK-1 will, at best, be a "restored" version of the
airplane as it was whenever they stopped messing with it.   The "Spirit of
St. Louis" has been restored through the replacement of the clear overhead
panel that had yellowed and split over time.

You can return something to a known earlier appearance through repair and the
introduction of substantial new material (new skins, new wiring, overhauled
engines, new paint, etc.) but now you have a "reconstruction."  If you decide
to make it look like something it never was (paint an airplane in the colors
of a famous ace, for example) then you have a "conversion."  In both cases,
the object has lost it's "historical integrity."

If you decide to return the object to service rather than preserve it you
have a "rehabilitation."

Like I said originally, there is very little aviation historic preservation
going on anywhere.  It's getting better, but very slowly.

LTM,
Ric
**************************************************************************
From Dennis McGee

A short version of Ric's recent preservation/restoration speech
aired here would be a statement I heard several years ago from a carpenter
who came from a long line of woodworkers:  "This is my grandfather's
hatchet; dad replaced the handle and I replaced the blade."

LTM, who is in dire need of both restoration and preservation
Dennis McGee #0149CE
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:20:31 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Navigation

And it's the "dangerous local rain squalls about 300 miles east of Lae..."
that interest me.  As I live in what is loosely referred to as the tropics
(around 20deg South) and as I previously lived in the proper tropics (closer
to 10deg South - and not far from where all this happened), I know what
happens to the weather up here.

Perhaps I shouldn't be defending poor old Fred so much, but really, on a
long distance flight like this it is the navigator's flight - not the
pilot's.  All the pilot has to do is point it where the navigator says!

I can take off here in beautiful clear weather for a flight that's around
1.5 hours in the Baron at say 160 - 180 knots (Yep, I know it will go
faster, but so does the fuel...)  Not much different in speed from the
Electra.  200 miles out, and I arrive at an airport I can't see, let alone
land at.  It is not at all unusual to be around 10 miles away in the local
training area, and have to return to the airport because of weather closing
in and a ceiling of 700ft and closing, when it was CAVOK half an hour
before.

When sailing, we have "Whitsunday Whiteouts".  We can be smack in the middle
of one of the busiest waterways in the world, and land withing 6 miles in
all directions, and not able to see anything.  This can happen in minutes.

My point is not that there was a major storm, rather that no-one in their
right mind flies through rain squalls up here...  Especially around New
Guinea  - the clouds reach incredible heights, and they tend to have rocks
in them...  Not that there were any problems with that on AE's path, but the
squalls would be very hard on even a strong looking aircraft like the
Electra.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get some idea across of what
they were facing...

Ross  (Who thought he promised not to post any more on this ...  (sorry)
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:05:31 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      difference between preservation and maintenance

One of the differences between "preservation", as Ric describes, and
"maintenance", as Herman has been describing, is very simple: By definition,
one doesn't preserve an historic aircraft by flying it and exposing it to
risk, as in Herman's example of "the Messerschmitt Me-109G that the RAF Vice
Air Marshall crashed last year ( pilot overshooting the runway at Duxford in
an emergency landing because of trouble with the ORIGINAL engine)". That
Me-109G wasn't being preserved, it was being maintained for flight (original
equipment not withstanding), and since flight was the priority, the aircraft
was ultimately degraded, not preserved. By definition, one doesn't fly
aircraft that are under preservation.

For example, in the very unlikely event that the Earhart Electra was somehow
found pristine and intact, and somebody managed to "overhaul" the engines
etc and get it into the air, this act would be the antithesis of
preservation (i.e. protection) and would cause great discomfort to many
aircraft historians and others among us who appreciate the educational and
cultural benefits of true artifact preservation.

LTM (who was well maintained if not well preserved)
william  2243
***************************************************************************
From Ross Devitt

In the Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Australia about 10 - 15 years ago
(Brissy is a hell of a long way south) I saw the aircraft belonging to one
of our Australian pioneer aviators.  It was a steel & timber frame, fabric
covering, and had crashed in the desert back in the thirties.  I can't
remember without checking - I think it was the Kookaburra which went missing
in the Kimberley (like a larger version of Death Valley - much larger).  It
was found not all that long before I saw it.

Point is it had been "preserved" as it was found.  Crumpled, sand abraded,
tattered bits of fabric.  It hardly looked like an aircraft.  The museum has
taken photos of the site from all possible angles, treated the metal, wood
and fabric with preservatives and displayed it as a diorama in as near to
the original setting as possible.  I think they may have left the pilot's
remains out of the display.....

I have seen examples of "restored" aircraft from a similar wreck.

I suspect that this is close to what you would mean, Ric by "preservation"
rather than "restoration"...

Am I close (for a change)?

RD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, the RAF Museum at Hendon has similar displays of a Hurricane and a
Halifax but a thing doesn't have to look decrepit to be preserved.  Sometines
we get lucky and, due to some extraordinary circumstance, something survives
for a long time in excellent condition.  The point is, it what it is.  There
is no way to turn back the clock.

***************************************************************************
From Tom King

The Offishul U.S. Gummint definitions of things like "preservation,"
"restoration," and "rehabilitation" -- discussed with reference to historic
buildings but generally applicable to airplanes too (and generally consistent
with Ric's usage, though damn, Ric, do you have to be so snooty about it?)
can be found at http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/secstan1.htm.

LTM (offishully)
Tom King

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, maybe what comes across to you as "snooty" is merely the frustration I
have felt for years watching well-meaning and dedicated enthusiasts delude
themselves.  I have not yet found a gentle way to point out that "fully
restored" as used by the aviation community means "fully stripped of it's
historical integrity."

This is a VERY difficult and emotional issue and there is tremendous
potential for misunderstanding and shoot-the-messenger feelings.  As I have
said many times, I have nothing against fixing up old airplanes and I love
flying old types, but I do think that it's important not to kid ourselves
about what constitutes preservation.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:09:52 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Navigation

End of thread...   Thanks everyone, I stand corrected, but it was a
possibility, and I thought Ontong Java was bigger and closer to the position
report.

I still believe my reasoning was sound, but I accept it was probably
incorrect.  (Wish there was some way to know just what they were thinking.)

I read about LTM in the FAQs.  Mother would be getting pretty sick of this
particular thread by now...

RD
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:57:47 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Navigation

>I read about LTM in the FAQs.  Mother would be getting pretty sick of this
>particular thread by now...
>
>RD

Looking at any particular "thread" won't always seem to show much, however,
looking at all the "threads", you will see a much bigger picture - whether in
our search or Earhart or the new sweater at the mall.  One thread doesn't
make a whole, but weaved together properly, we find a complete picture - its
just knowing how to weave the threads together properly thats the trick.

By the way - my daughter, a freshman in high school, had a project to do in
history and (with a little nudging from ol' dad) decided to do one on our
heroine.  Thanks to TIGHAR for the fabulous website, she used many of the
pics from "our" website, as well as the info and hypothesis.  The project
consists of two "project boards" back to back (most use only one) - she found
fabric with little clouds all over it for the background, blank paper with
clouds on it and then glued, pasted, taped, stapled all of it together into a
very dramatic and interesting project - the grade isn't back yet, so I don't
know what she and her team earned, but I'd give them an A+.  Of course, I'm
prejudiced, but those are the grades she typically gets on these things, so
she has a track record that I can go by.  Thanks again to everyone who has
contributed and to Ric & Pat especially for their efforts to replace myth
with science.

LTM - #2200
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:07:40 EST
From:         Chuck Jackson
Subject:      preservation etc.

OK,RIC---WE'VE GOT IT---NOW STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!

RESPECTFULLY,  EVERYONE.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

As you'll see from the following postings, not everyone got the word that you
speak for the entire forum.  I tried to avoid this thread but it's apparent
that at least some subscribers to the forum not only want to talk (fight?)
about it but also feel that it is very much on-topic.  Respecting their
wishes, I'll post and respond to their comments.

Fair warning - the rest of this posting deals with preservation.  Anyone who
feels as Chuck does should avail themselves of the delete key now.

***************************************************************************
From Natko Katicic:

Ric writes:
"Herman, let's just drop the subject.  It's completely off topic and it's
pretty apparent that you just don't get what I'm talking about."

Ric???

Off Topic? Do _I_ have to remind you what the acronym TIGHAR stands for? The
International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery. NOT The International
Group for finding AE or educating the public. As I understand it, what
Herman is talking about is your PRIMARY objective above all other projects.
No Sir!  To my mind this discussion is not off topic - not even on this
forum.

Regarding your dispute, I believe Hermann understands quite well that you
mean "freezing" an airtifact [sic ;-)] in it's "as is" condition for future
reference. Probably the word *Original* is the culprit for it is not an
unambiguous notion. Herman is just talking of a differnet aspect of the
notion *original* which in my opinion is quite as valid in the discussion
about historic preservation in general.

Last but not least, such a curt (to put it mildly. 'Rude' would probably be
more adequate) reply to the impeccable posting of a regular, distinguished
and until now aparently appreciated contributor intimidates and puts-off
other forum participants as well - and Mother too.

LTM (who has spoken - Haugh)

Natko.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Settle down Natko.  Perhaps a little frustration but no rudeness was intended
in my reply to Herman, and as you'll see from the posting below, none was
apparently taken.

Aviation historic preservation is certainly on-topic for TIGHAR in general
and that's why we have a Preservation section on our wevbsite.  For this
forum, I'd like to limit the discussion to issues directly effecting the
conservation and eventual curation and exhibition of artifacts found or hoped
to be found in the course of the Earhart Project.

Most words have many meanings ("freezing" for example) and the first step in
communication is agreement about the meaning of the words we use.  In the
aviation world terms like "preservation", "restoration" and "original" have
taken on quite different meanings than they carry in the traditional museum
world.  It's like the old joke - If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does
a horse have?   Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

***************************************************************************
From Herman De Wulf

Just in case anyone is interested in what happened to that Me-109G since, it
is under repair (or should I say it's being restored ?), to be brought to static
display standard.

This had originally been planned. But having been stored for half a century in
flying condition, it had been decided by the Imperial War Museum to bring it
to airworthy standard before exhibiting it in the museum and let it fly at the
Duxford airshow for ONE SEASON, just to prove it still flew.

However, the rare airplane proved such a success and its  engine is such
fine condition that it was decided to let it fly ONE MORE but FINAL
SEASON before putting it on static display for good.

The RAF Vice Air Marshall who flew it on its LAST FLIGHT thought he had
an engine problem when he saw smoke coming out of the exhaust and
decided to get down as quickly as possible. As he was in downwind, he
turned sharply, pushing the nose down in final. As we all know that causes
an airplane to pick up speed and since an Me-109G was designed for speed,
it needed all of the endless runway to throw off speed and settle.
At the end of the runway it literally fell out of the sky, bounced over
the fence and across the adjoining freeway, to land in a field across the road.
Its conventional landing gear being incompatible with a potato field, the plane
nosed over, landing on its back. Luckily there was no fire.

From here on the preservation-mindedness of  the British showed. The pilot
refused to be saved from his precarious position by lifting the plane with a
crane as this would... damage the plane. He insisted it be handled with great
care. When it was eventually righted, the Vice Air Mashall climbed out,
dusting off his flying suit.

The Me-109G that survived a world war but was almost destroyed when
flown in peacetime, is now under repair (or should I say under restoration,
Ric ?). It is being brought to static display standard but will not fly again.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

In historic preservation terms "Black 6" (the Me-109G under discussion) is a
"rehabilitation" and therefore not a historic property.  That doesn't mean
it's a piece of junk. It's an extremely rare aircraft, to be sure, and
certainly worthy of attention and exhibition.  "Repair" in the aviation
maintenance sense of the word, is probably the correct way to describe what
is being done to Black 6.  The decison whether or not to fly the airplane
once it's fixed is purely one of risk management.

**************************************************************************
From Clyde Miller

Stepping away from the issue of ownership etc.  I would vote to preserve and
display whatever large portions of the Electra survived in a near habitat
diorama.  Backdrop of the island, even a campsite reconstruction.  Live
crabs etc.   Maps, pictures, artifacts, perhaps even the surf lapping onto
the beach where the parts were discovered. Best of all TIGHAR expedition
member cardboard cutouts peering from the jungle.

Clyde Miller
(who believes once a plane crash always a plane crash)
***************************************************************************
From Ric

RAF Hendon has just such an exhibit of what's left of a Hurricane found on a
beach.  Very evocative interpretation.  The National Museum of Naval Aviation
in Pensacola, Florida has an exhibit of an SBD and and F4F (as I recall) in
as-found but stabilized condition.  They're in a room intended to simulate an
underwater environment.

An exhibit of Electra wreckage would depend a lot on how much we find and
where we find it.  Having a full-size replica near-by seems like a good
interpretive feature also.

**************************************************************************
From Alan

<< I have not yet found a gentle way to point out that "fully
 restored" as used by the aviation community means "fully stripped of its
 historical integrity."
 
 This is a VERY difficult and emotional issue and there is tremendous
 potential for misunderstanding and shoot-the-messenger feelings.  >>

I well understand your point. For most of my adult life I have been intrigued
by the Sopwith Camel. Periodically I would find a small plastic kit and build
one. I have no idea where they went. I now have a flying model kit with about
a 6' wingspan - still unbuilt unfortunately. I read everything I could about
the plane. I talked to a WWI aircraft historian - self styled. He told me the
flight characteristics (not all that safe) the numbering and markings. Then I
found an old book describing Sopwith building the plane and turning the first
one over to the RAF for a test flight at Aerodrome #1 in England. It was test
flown on a day in 1917 by 2/t Alan K. Caldwell. (No, it wasn't me. I'm old
but not that old)

A few years ago I found there was one at Wright-Patterson Air Museum. I was
really excited when I got there only to read the sign that it was totally
remade from pictures, etc. It was never a real Camel. That plane now meant
nothing to me. If I had come across a wreck in a field in France THAT would
have been a real Camel.

Alan L. Caldwell, not to be confused with.............
***************************************************************************
From Ric

But at least the sign told the truth about the exhibit.  Many museums don't
happen to mention that the airplane on display is not what it appears to be.
As a general rule, the more information provided about "this particular
airplane", the better the museum.

The value of "living history" displays using rebuilds and replicas is
illustrated by the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in Old Rhinebeck, NY.  On any
summer weekend you can watch a Sopwith Camel chase a Fokker DVII around the
sky (plus performances by about a dozen other WWI vintage types).  Of course,
you're not watching "real" WWI airplanes but you're getting a visual,
auditory, and olfactory approximation of what they were like.  The buzz of
rotary engines and the smell of burnt castor oil alone are worth the price of
admission.

**************************************************************************
From Dick Pingrey

Ric,

        Yes, I can agree with your definitions but not fully with the purpose
or perhaps it is the reasoning you state with those definitions.  Museums
serve the public in many ways and it is not just to preserve static history.
They must entertain the public as well as educate them and preserve artifacts
for them to study.  Some times it is desirable to present an airplane as it
looked and functioned the way it was at the time it was operational.  That is
also educational and it preserves an additional technology.  The technology
of how things work.

        When we destroy one of the few remaining ME-109s we have lost a major
part of history but if we carefully repair a Piper Cub to original
specifications and put it on display it does more to educate than the same
airplane with fabric in shreds and parts falling off.  After all these are
hundreds of Piper Cubs still around.  If that same Cub flies so people can
see the technology of the 1930s in operation they learn more about our
aviation history than if they only saw it as a static display.

      There is a balance in all this and it goes beyond just saving or
preserving things as they are found.

Dick Pingrey 908C

***************************************************************************
From Ric

You're getting into some interesting issues that go beyond the question of
what does and does not constitute preservation.  The first job of a museum is
to preserve and exhibit relics of the past.  Education is a secondary
mission, but an important one.  The Cub reconstruction you describe sounds
like a valuable interpretive tool.  Entertainment is also a necessary aspect
of museum science because you have to get people to come see what you have.

You're absolutely right about the need to seek a proper balance.  In any
museum there is always tension among preservation concerns, interpretation
(education), and marketing.  Volumes have been written on the subject.  In
some cases, most notably the Enola Gay fiasco at NASM, the conflict is played
out on a national scale (and I'm already sorry I mentioned it).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:09:07 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: difference between preservation and maintenance

Think of it as saving the artifact as found in the wild, like the Tyranosaur
skull that is encased and crushed inside a large chunk of sandstone, and
reconstructing the skull from the fragments, filling in the missing pieces
with plastic, and putting braces on the teeth to make them look like they are
"supposed to".

One maintains its historical "in situ" significance, the other is still of
historical interest, but is no longer "original" (although a whole lot more
interesting to look at).

A McKenna 1045C
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The re-assembled skull would be a "restoration" because it would "return the
object to a known previous state through the minimal introduction of new
material " (like maybe some plastic and some glue).  This, of course,
presumes that most of the skull is there and that the way an intact skull
looks is "known."  Such a restoration is, as you say, still historic (well,
actually, prehistoric).

But if you take a few skull fragments and reconstruct a whole skeleton and
then cover it with styrofoam flesh and plastic hide you have a potentially
educational exhibit, but it's not a dinosaur.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:47:58 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      New on the website

A new Research Bulletin about the Lost Antenna is now up on the TIGHAR
website at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin12_7_99.html

and an expanded version of the summary of evidence recently posted to the
forum is up as "The Next Step:  TIGHAR's Earhart Project: Hypothesis and
Plan".  There's a link on the main Earhart Project page or you can go
directly to

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/AEhypothesis.html

You'll see that in the "Supporting Evidence" sections we've provided links to
articles, documents, and Research Bulletins on the website for more in-depth
explanations.  eventually we want to have all of the sources cited under
Supporting Evidence accessible on the website.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:25:49 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Experimental communications

Ric, has anyone thought about bringing along an HF transceiver and
trying the propagation at the same power levels and with a similar
antenna configuration on the next expedition?

\_ Greg _/

************************************************************************
From Ric

We're doing better than that.  There is some very good propagation analysis
software available that can model a particular system and plug in the many
variables (location, time of day, sun spot activity, etc.) and come up with
information far better than an on-site experiment that would not be able to
duplicate all that.

Bob Brandenburg should have a report for us early next year.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:06:34 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: preservation etc.

Ric says --

In historic preservation terms "Black 6" (the Me-109G under discussion) is a
"rehabilitation" and therefore not a historic property.

Uhhh, Ric, there are innumerable perfectly good historic buildings that have
been rehabilitated and are still included in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places; I'd certainly call them historic properties (as
does the National Historic Preservation Act).

When an airplane, or a boat, or a house, or anything else gets so changed
that it stops being historic is an unresolved and probably irresoluble
question, and any time we have to make decisions about how to treat a
historic property we have to face real-world, practical questions about
what's feasible, cost-effective, in the public interest, etc.  Sometimes we
do things that destroy the property's historic integrity because on balance,
it's the best thing to do.  Other times the balance gets struck someplace
else.  There just aren't any absolutes in the historic preservation business,
however much some people would like it to be otherwise.

LTM (who likes old stuff fine, but says change is inevitable)
Tom King
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You and I have both struggled with the National Park Service's efforts to
publish guidelines for nominating historic aviation properites to the
National Register and it's like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver.

My comments were based on "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Historic Vessel Preservation Projects" published by the National Park Service
(the same folks who run the National Register of Historic Places). It's the
closest thing we have to guidelines that would be applicable to aviation
preservation projects and it says (on page 12):

"Regardless of their quality or use, and notwithstanding the degree to which
they might serve the purposes of historic preservation, reconstructions,
reproductions and conversions do not meet the criteria of the definition of a
historic vessel."

Some boats that have been made usable ("rehabilitated") retain enough of
their original fabric to be considered historic, but returning an old
airplane to airworthy condition necessarily entails the introduction of so
much new material that it becomes a reconstruction and, therefore, no longer
a "historic aircraft."

You seem to be arguing for a fuzzy, politically correct,
if-it-feels-right-do-it approach to historic preservation.  I'd like to think
that intelligent standards can be set and have been set (for vessels anyway),
but you can't set standards of any kind without upsetting somebody.  That's
how we end up with high school graduates who can't find England on a map and
museums that show us a shiny new 1918 airplane and tell us that it's "all
original."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:15:19 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Fire Extinguisher

For:  Tom King

Did Pyrene claim the Niku extinguisher as possibly their own?  Did they
indicate that they had ever made anything like it?

I've looked at a lot of old fire extinguishers of various makes, and
including a lot by Pyrene, on e-bay.  The thing that seems to be unique
about the Niku extinguisher is the nozzle end with what appears to be sort
of a guard around the nozzle - a continuation of the outside diameter with
what looks like three slots 120 degrees apart surrounding the nozzle
protecting it and also making it possible for it to stand up on that end.

At this point, I'm inclined to believe a particular handle shape is unique
to Pyrene extinguishers.  If this is valid, then the handle of the Niku
extinguisher says, NOT Pyrene.

I think we need to find an extinguisher with that kind of end, and perhaps
that kind of handle, to identify its maker.  Maybe that will lead to some
idea of where it may have come from.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:57:28 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: Experimental communications

Let me preface this by saying that it would be terrific if irrefutable proof
were found that AE and FN landed on NIku. BUT, and at the risk of getting
caught between a "kill the messenger" and the "Emperor's new clothes"
syndrome, I don't understand how ruminations about antenna losses, or
navigational errors, or fuel consumption could have anything to do WITH that
proof other than leading to the "NIiku landing" theory which has already BEEN
in place for years.     ( ? )

Regards,
Jim Razzi

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Good question - and I have a good answer.  Although the "Niku landing" theory
has been in place for years that doesn't mean that it's sacrosanct or frozen.
 It is under constant review and subject to amendment or total trashing at
any time.  We want to know everything we can learn about all aspects of the
Earhart/Noonan flight and if, for example, new information about fuel
consumption makes a compelling case that there is simply no way that the
airplane could have reached Niku it will save us several hundred thousand
dollars and a couple dozen bottles of sunblock not having to go back there.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:17:41 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      preservation

I think both Tom King and Ric are correct (what did you expect from
a guy who works in Washington D.C.?).
    If one plans to use the artifact, then it probably will not remain
"original" because it needs to meet certain standards for safe use.
    If one plans to only display the artifact, then it probably will not
be viewed too often because the public doesn't like looking at shabby,
ratty, dirty "historic" artifacts.
    When I was a docent at the National Air and Space Museum's storage,
restoration and presentation facility in Silver Hill (whew, what a mouthful)
in the 1980s we had on display an unrestored "original" Spad XIII that still
had unrepaired battle damage from World War I.  The plane alleged was still
in its original fabric covering with the original markings, which included
linen patches (with an Iron Cross on them to signify enemy battle damage)
covering approximately 20-25 bullet holes.
    However, when the NASM curators removed the plane's fabric covering
they sometimes found patches where there were no bullet holes underneath.
(Oops!)  Also some of the holes that were covered by patches apparently were
"inconsistent" with the ammunition used by either side during the conflict
(anybody ever hear of a .30-caliber or 7.9 mm pencil?).
    They did find one hole in the structure of the horizontal stabilizer
that apparently was the real McCoy.
    The last I saw the airplane it was in NASM's downtown WWI Gallery
looking very "restored."
    The point is, if NASM displayed the airplane "as is" a great cry
would rise from the masses to "do something," yet in meeting the demands of
the public they have destroyed or degraded (depending upon your view point)
the value of the artifact.
    It just goes to prove, you can't please 'em all.

LTM, who has no battle damage
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE

*************************************************************************
From Ric

It all comes down to education.  Nobody complains that the ancient Greek
pottery in the British Museum is chipped.  In fact, if it wasn't people would
say "Now wait a minute....".  The common sense that it's okay and even
manadatory that something old should look old somehow doesn't apply to air
museums.  The same person that would doubt the authenticity of a piece of
pristine pottery will stand in front of "Smith IV" (the like-new Spad
mentioned by Dennis) and say "Gee, an authentic WWI fighter."  Go figure.
It should also be said that preservation is not accomplished by neglect
(which is how Smith IV got to the point where it was ready to just collapse in a
heap on the floor).  If you expect fragile material to last a long time you
have to take very good care of it.  It's called "conservation" and it's a
huge part of museum science.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:53:24 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      map comment, Noonan

>>That's how we end up with high school graduates who can't find England
>>on a map

And, I might add, often don't even know how to read one.

I enjoyed reading the new hypothesis page at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/AEhypothesis.html . When you have a moment,
could you briefly elaborate why you believe Noonan might have died near the
wreck site, and how his remains might have come to be buried on the western
side of the island?

william  2243

**************************************************************************
From Ric

It goes like this.  Assuming that he was there in the first place, he had to
have died somewhere, and only one person's remains (most likely female) were
found at the campsite even though there seems to have been part of a man's
shoe there.  Most likely explanation? Spare shoes salvaged from her dead
partner.  She could wear his but he couldn't wear hers.

Other objects found at or near the campsite (Benedictine bottle and "corks
with brass chains") seem to link the campsite person and, by definition the
man's shoe, to the Norwich City survivors' camp which is near the putative
landing site.

Several independent anecdotal accounts describe bones found near the Norwich
City wreck by the island's first settlers.  After seeing the environment on
that shoreline first hand, TIGHAR's forensic anthropologist Dr. Karen Burns
feels strongly that unburied bones would not survive there for long at all.
So whose bones were found?  Possibly one or more of the three shipwreck
casualties who were buried by their shipmates in 1929 and whose graves may
have been uncovered by subsequent storms, or Noonan who may have been buried
by his shipmate in the same area and similarly uncovered.

Gallagher makes no mention of the bones found near the shipwreck so we must
presume that he was unaware of them.  We do have pretty good indications that
what the settlers did with bones they came across is bury them, and there
does seem to be at least one, and possibly a second, grave on that part of
the island.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:08:30 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: Experimental communications

Better yet, seeing and doing rather than just thinking and surmising
force an understanding at a different level. I offer the following as
an example. In Europe it has been a part of the studies of prehistoric
life to try to live in the habitat and with the tools and resources that
are known to have existed. One item of study was copper in the use of
axes. It was ASSUMED that the value of copper was minimal because it was
so easily dulled but what was found when it was used in situ was that
copper was also easy to sharpen and was very useful and much could be
accomplished with it.

\_ Greg _/
**************************************************************************

From Jim Razzi

OK, good answer to good question received, Thanks.
Jim R.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:09:58 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: preservation etc.

Well, I'd say that at base, historic preservation IS a pretty fuzzy,
politically correct, if-it-feels-good-it's-allright business.

LTM (who's pretty fuzzy today)
Tom King

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Fair enough.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:11:06 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: preservation

Just a quickie here ---
I love this thread. All this stuff about preservation of historic items is
fascinating and one of the reasons there are so many "lurkers"  "lurking"
around the Tighar forum. <grin>
JR
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:34:06 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      Impellor Diameter

I am trying to determine the diameter of the supercharger impeller used in
the Pratt & Whitney S3H1 Wasp engine that powered Amelia's Electra. I need
this data to refine my calculations on fuel consumption at various power
settings. Perhaps one of your Forum members can supply this piece of data or
point me in the right directions.

Best regards.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

My best suggestion would be to contact an engine shop that overhauls 1340s.
Believe it or not , their are still shops that specialize in those engines
and there are even still some S3H1s in service ( I heard of a pair on a
Grumman Mallard).

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:37:40 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Experimental communications

When I was in the RAAF, I trained as a radio tech.  I used to know the
formula for calculation the half and quarter wave lengths for different
frequencies.  This made it possible to string a plain wire antenna for
anything, even a 27Mhz CB, which I think was 1/4 wave around 7 foot six
inches, and 1/2 wave, around 15 foot.  (roughly)

There are bound to be a couple of "Hams" on this forum.  If they calculate
the wave length of 6210Khz and 3105Khz and 7???Khz, we can probably find the
length of the antennas on the Electra (top of fuselage and bottom) nad
divide into the wave length to see which is close to a 1/4 or 1/2 wave.
Then you might know which one "fell off" as that is what seems to have
happened.

I would guess that the culprits were 6210 on top and 3105 on bottom.  The
length of wire has to be divisble into the wave length by 2 or 4 or 8
preferably.  You may also find it is between the actual "posts" that hold
the wire away from the fuselage, rather than the distance from where the
wire comes our of the Fuselage.

Sometimes the front bit is just for bracing the antenna mast against the
slip stream, so there might be a few differnt calculations to do for the
possibilities.

From the pictures you have, and the plans for the Electra you should be able
to find the distances involved.

At the very least it may be just another technical detail "added" to the
growing information base.

RossD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

We have detailed information regarding antenna length although there is still
considerable debate about the possible purpose of the belly antenna that was
lost.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:53:11 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Radio messages

    The radio messages are still intriguing to me.  How are we doing
with organizing them into understandable format?  I am particularly
interested in three at the moment.

    The "281" message is still gnawing at me!  I should have kept a copy
of it when Ric put it on the forum, but alas I didn't.  Is it on the web
somewhere?

    There was also a message that was supposedly picked up by the H.M.S.
ACHILLES, which made them turn to the south and continue searching.  Do
you know what the bearing was of that message and it's content.

    The last one contains the phrase, "Can't hold with you much longer"
Is the full text of that one somewhere on the site?

    Ric,  thanks for putting Tom T. in touch with me.  I think I
understand now what you and Pat must be going through each day.  How do
you have time for the forum?

    The B-18 crew chief and I will be examining the artifact as soon as
I get a copy.  The Castle Air Museum is always willing to cooperate in
my endeavors involving their aircraft.  I am even allowed inside for
pictures when necessary.  I return the favor by keeping an eye out for
usable parts from the wreck site I visit.  If anybody  needs any B-29
main landing gears for stocking stuffers,  I can fix you up.

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The 281 message was heard in Hawaii on the night of July 4th.  It contained
fragmentary phrases in very badly sent morse code:
281 NORTH HOWLAND
CALL KHAQQ
BEYOND NORTH
DON'T HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER
ABOVE WATER
SHUT OFF

Intriguing as this message is, preliminary results of the propagational
analysis seem to indicate that it is nearly impossible for the message to
have originated from Earhart's aircraft if it was on Gardner.

The Achilles heard two stations talking to each other.  One said, "If you
hear us give us a few dashes." and the other replied with some dashes and
then sent KHAQQ in code.  The Achilles did no searching for Earhart.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:46:10 EST
From:         Hugh Graham
Subject:      Re: preservation etc

---In other words, if I replace my car's fender, I am no longer driving an
original, but a reproduction?  Someone better tell the Mercedes museum.
    What about the prototype DeHavilland Mosquito which sits in Salisbury
Hall in London, where it was built in 1940 as a wooden, unarmed bomber.
It is the only prototype DH98 ever built, and flew with various engines and
experimental loads and crashed heavily at least once, which unintention-
ally demonstrated it could be repaired in the field.
    By the way, the DH98 type had the lowest casualty rate of any combat
plane in WW2(highest number of sorties per loss) and the lowest fatalities
per ton of delivered bombs.  It was the fastest bomber of WW2, and
successfully performed missions impossible by any other aircraft, such
as flying in at 15 feet to pinpoint bomb the walls of the Amiens prison to
release hundreds of resistance workers due to be executed.
    The yellow prototype serial W4050 that sits in Salisbury Hall in the
"Mosquito Museum" set the DH98 level flight speed record of 437 mph at
29,000 feet using Merlin 77 engines and also set the DH98 altitude
record of 40,000 feet with Merlin 61 engines.
     Now, to an Archaeologist's way of thinking, W4050 may not be
preserved, but to my way of thinking it is probably the most interesting
and fascinating single aircraft of WW2 extant, and is no reproduction.

    LTM(who likes the black DH98 airliner used to ferry spies), HAG 2201.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

It depends a lot on when the new fender was put on the Mercedes. The
maintenance and modification issue that you raise is often a source of great
confusion. Let me see if I can explain it.

Any man-made tool (and airplanes, cars and boats are tools) undergoes
maintenance and modification in the course of its service life.  Most tools
eventually reach a time when their usefulness in performing their intended
purpose (in the case of an airplane - carrying people around the sky) is exhau
sted and they get junked.  However, in rare cases, the technology of the tool
or some task the tool performed or someone's enthusiasm for that type of
tool, give the tool a new purpose - that of a repository of information, or
as a reminder of the task it performed or as a tribute to the people who used
it and others tools of its type.  That change in purpose from a machine used
to carry people (and perhaps bombs) around the sky, to a device whose primary
value is as a relic of the past, can occur at any time in an airplane's
career.  It might be a prototype retired after its first flight (the Hughes
HK-1 "Spruce Goose") or after a long record-setting career (the DH98 you
mention) or it might be a tattered wreck that is the last surving example of
its type.  No matter.  Whatever the airplane is like at the moment the
decision is made that the airpane is "historic", that is the "original" that
the preservationist is starting with.

So, you see, the DH98 is not a reproduction or reconstruction, it is an
"original" of what it was when its purpose changed - unless, of course, somebody
has decided to try to make it look like they think it once looked at some
time in its storied past. Once the decision has been made to "save" a
particular airplane, further decisions must be made about just what it is
we're trying to save.  If what we want is to keep the thing that was there at
a particular moment in history either for sentimental or informational
reasons, or both, then it's a no-brainer that we carefully safeguard whatever
is there.  If what we want is to recreate the look, and in some cases the
feel and sound and smell of the past, then we throw away the stuff that is no
longer attractive or safe or does not represent the time period we're trying
to recreate and we replace it with new stuff or salvaged old stuff from other
aircraft to create the illusion we're after.  Both are legitimate ends and
its always a judgement call as to what is the best way to deal with a
particular old airplane (or car or boat or gun or you-name-it).  The
important is to recognize that we're making a choice and not think that we're
doing one thing when we're dong something quite different.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:29:57 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Impellor Diameter

Lufthansa is still operating a Junkers Ju-52/3m with three P&W WASP engines.
They are being overhauled by a US company, COVINGTON. I don't have their
address but If you search the internet for Covington, you should be able to
find them. If not, contact Lufthansa.

The pre-WW2 Ju-53/3m is operated by a subsidiary called BERLIN-TEMPELHOF
STIFTUNG, which is an independently operating foundation to  keep the 1936
vintage trimotor in the air for PR purposes. And yes, you can still book
seats on Ju-52 flights in Germany.

                        Herman
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, Covington, I was trying to think of that name.  In Oklahoma I believe.
They advertise in many of the trade publications.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:33:58 EST
From:         Ty Sundstrom
Subject:      Re: Impellor Diameter

A quick look around for the overhaul manual on the Wasp came up empty handed
but a look at the type certificate sheet on the engine says that it had a
10:1 blower.  Suggest looking through the overhaul manual on the engine
as it will have specific fuel flow and consumption charts for all engine
operations as well as oil usage numbers and so on.......P&W did all the home
work for guys like me who can't count but can draw to intersecting lines on
a graph..........bingo!

Ty Sundstrom
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Dec 1999 17:38:26 EST
From:         Robert Klauss
Subject:      Recovery, Repair and Restoration.

  Continuing the car thread on the question of originality.  Are you familiar
with the #2 Ferrari?
  The second Ferrari was built as a coupe, prototype for their first road
cars.  After not quite a year it was taken back to the factory to be rebodied
as an open wheel racer to join the number 1 and 3 cars on the European
circuit.  While racing it suffered a serious "unintentional off track
contact" (what the rest of us would call a crash).  During rebuild the frame
was replaced with a stronger stiffer item.  Subsequently the engine and
tranny were replaced with later components, newer wheels and brakes were
installed, etc.  Finally the old #2 car was retired to the company museum.
  Meanwhile back at the ranch.  The original coupe body, after sitting in the
works yard for some years was sold as scrap, and eventually wound up with a
collector.  He subsequently found the bent frame and the original motor.  If
memory serves he acquired a correct, but not original, transmission and
differential etc.  He repaired the damaged bits, bolted it all back together
and now has a complete car.
  The question is, what car is it?
  Neither the coupe or racer have all original parts, but the coupe has far
more original parts.  On the other hand, the factories #2 car has had that
identity continuously (and legally) for its entire existence.
  No easy answers.

Robert Klaus
 *************************************************************************
From Ric

Egad!  The issue of "continuous identity" is an interesting one.  The
American warship "Constellation" is a case in point.  She has been repaired
so many times that there is now almost nothing left of the original ship but
she has always been the Constellation.  But if someone found the old timbers
and cobbled together a ship, what would it be?

I don't think it would the Constellation anymore than the re-assembled
Ferrari coupe is the No. 2 Ferrari.  Bizarre as it sounds, I think its a
replica of the original using original parts.  The underlying principle in
all of this is that it is impossible to turn back the clock.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Dec 1999 17:44:12 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Radio messages

<<The Achilles did no searching for Earhart.>>

    But did they take a bearing?  And if so, what was it and their
position at the time?

    Also, any ideas how one might go about contacting Linda Finch, or
seeing her airplane?

Don J.
************************************************************************
From Ric

HMS Achilles took no bearing.  None of the ships that heard signals took
bearings.  Their direction finders could not take bearings on HF frequencies.
 The only bearings taken on post-loss signals were by Pan Am "Adcock" arrays
on Oahu, Wake, and Midway, and by the Hf direction finder on Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:10:30 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      preservation etc

Hugh Graham wrote :

<By the way, the DH98 type had the lowest casualty rate of any combat
<plane in WW2(highest number of sorties per loss) and the lowest fatalities
<per ton of delivered bombs.  It was the fastest bomber of WW2, and
<successfully performed missions impossible by any other aircraft, such
<as flying in at 15 feet to pinpoint bomb the walls of the Amiens prison to
<release hundreds of resistance workers due to be executed.

After the war there was criticism among RAF pilots on the wartime mass
production of expensive heavy four engined bombers while the Mosquito, which
was cheaper to build, carried the same bombload as a B-17, had a crew of only
two, deliverd its payload more accurately, flew faster than anything else and
had a lower casualty rate. "It would have been better", its was said, "if
Britain had mass-produced the cheap Mosquitoes instead of the expensive
high-tech Halifaxes and Lancasters that had needed crews of seven and had
higher casualty rates.

One reason why the Mosquito had a low casualty rate was it was made of woodn
which made it all but invisible on German radars. Another reason was  it
speed which enabled it to outpace fighters.

When de Havilland had first offered his DH98 design to the RAF they laughed
their heads off and told him "nobody wants wooden airplanes anymore". They
changed their minds, however, when his "wooden wonder" outflew anything else
in the inventory, did not call for strategic materials such as aluminium and
could be mass-produced by by cabinetmakers all over Britain, the pieces
eventually being assembled in any factory or shed available.

The lessons learned through the Mosquito left their impression, for when the
RAF re-equipped with its present fleet of Tornadoes, The old Mosquito was
referred to, saying they wanted "a versatile aircraft that could be used as
an interception fighter, a bomber or a reconnaissance plane LIKE THE OLD
MOSQUITO".

As for preservation/restoration or whatever, British Aerospace (successor to
the de Havilland company) rebuilt a DH98 Mosquito to airworthy standard and
at its own expense some time ago. The airplane was an eye-catcher at
airshows for several seasons, including Duxford's. Last year (or was it the
year before ?) it was stalled making a stall turn and crashed, killing both
the company pilot and his observer. The accident caused criticism among the
veteran aircraft crowd in Britain. It was said such rare planes were far too
valuable to be flown.

                        Herman
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The primary value of a rebuilt airplane is as a demonstrator to show people
what the type looked like.  Isaac Newton had it right - what goes up must
come down - and any airplane in service can be lost to an accident.  But it
is also true that any exhibit in a museum can be lost to fire or other
disaster.  It's all a question of risk versus return.  The demonstrator can
do its demonstrating much better if it flies but it does so at higher risk of
loss.  In any event, it's not a historic preservation question. The decision
to sacrifice the historic integrity of the aircraft for the sake of its
value as a demonstrator was made long ago.

Dear as the subject of aviation historic preservation is to my heart, this
after all is the Earhart Forum.  The new hypothesis and summary of supporting
evidence along with our pre-expedition research and expedition search plans
are now up on the website at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/AEhypothesis.html

Any comment or critique would be welcome.
We're also in the process of expanding and overhauling the FAQ section to
make it more user-friendly.

LTm,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:20:27 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher

I haven't had a reply from Pyrene to the picture of the extinguisher.
However, the specs they sent me support your observation that Pyrene's handle
is different from the one on ours.  On both the 1 qt. and 1.5 qt. models, the
specs show a simple, sort of banana-shaped handle, while ours is a hollow
oval with nipples on either end.

As for the business end, I don't think I see quite what you see (and it's
sitting in my lap as I write this).  The outside diameter does indeed
continue for maybe 3 mm beyond the almost-flat end, and it's on this rim or
lip that the thing stands when it's on end.  The end itself is very slightly
domed, and the actual squirter, rather than being central, is way off at the
edge.  There aren't any slots.

I suspect we'll find out the origin of the extinguisher if we ever find
equipment records for the Loran station.

LTM
Tom King
**************************************************************************
From Ric

If I was a betting man I'd wager that it's of British manufacture and was
PISS property.  The simple, practical banana handle on the Pyrene unit speaks
of Yankee minimalism while the more elaborate handle on 2-4-V-100 speaks of
aesthetic concern for the proper way this sort of thing should look.  How's
that for objective artifact assessment?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:20:11 EST
From:         Gene Bialek
Subject:      Re: Radio messages

 Ric:-  Richard Black, in his papers at the Naval Historical Center, states
that the experimental short-wave direction finder on Howland Island was not
working properly.  He claims that the gun batteries from the ITASCA, used to
operate the direction finder, had weakened during the night.  The Coast
Guard operator (whose name was Cipriani) heard some of the messages but not
well enough to get a bearing.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

That's true for July 2nd but on July 6th Itasca reported to Coast Guard
Headquarters in San Francisco:

HOWLAND REPORTED BEARING SOUTH SOUTHEAST OR NORTH NORTHWEST MAGNETIC (but)
NO UNILATERAL DUE TO NIGHT EFFECT.  FREQUENCY SLIGHTLY ABOVE 3105.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Dec 1999 10:10:04 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Recovery, Repair and Restoration.

If I'm not mistaken, Ric, it was recently found that the supposed
"Constellation" in Baltimore actually isn't, but is an entirely different
(and more recent) ship altogether, that was made to look more or less like
the original Constellation sometime in the late 19th or early 20th century.
Doesn't change your point any, but the example may not be as good as it used
to be.

LTM (who could use a little face-lift herself, but then would she be Mother?)
Tom King

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks.  Very interesting.  Many is the WWII era airplane that is painted in
the colors of a famous ace who actually flew a slightly different model.  A
couple of years a go I met a very excited 8 year old who was convinced that
he had just seen the "Memphis Belle" at an airshow.  I didn't have the heart
to tell him that what he had seen was a B-17G that had served only in a
Stateside training role but had played the famous B-17F "Memphis Belle" in a
very bad Hollywood movie.

That actually raises another interesting issue.  Most "restorers" go to great
lengths to make their creations as "original" as possible and the use of
absolutely accurate materials (whether salvaged or fabricated) is rewarded in
competitions - but the long term effect, after several changes in ownership,
can be to make it virtually impossible to tell what is real and what is
illusion.  The Smithsonian goes to great lengths to carefully label
fabricated parts.  Another, and more forthright, technique is to purposely
use very different material to "fill in the gaps" for exhibition purposes.
(Think of a typical dinosaur skeleton exhibit or a pice of re-assembled
pottery.)  But in order to do that you have to surrender the fantasy and
embrace the reality - and the historic aviation community (like the historic
automotive community) is, for the most part, not yet ready to do that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Dec 1999 10:42:40 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher

Ah, a mystery wrapped inside an inigma!  The extinguisher is from PISS, and
what did the Coast Guardsmen do to put out that fire on the beach?  Must be a
conspiracy!

Actually, I'll take your bet, Ric; I can't imagine what the PISS would be
doing with fire extinguishers.  Of course, you've looked at the Co-op store
records a lot more closely than I have; I may be making a big mistake....

LTM (who hopes we all understand that PISS = Phoenix Islands Settlement
Scheme)
Tom King

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Fear not.  The records do not indicate that the Co-op store ever stocked fire
extinguishers, however, it would hardly surprise me if we eventually find a
message from Gallagher to the Resident Commissioner which said something like:
"Very pleased with new Rest House here on Gardner which has been constructed
entirely of local materials but must confess I would sleep more soundly if
you could send along a good portable fire extinguisher with next shipment of
provisions.
Irish."

***************************************************************************
From William

Since you mention it, 2-4-V-100 does look more UK than US to my eye as
well.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Sycophant. <G>

*************************************************************************
From Vern

I'm much inclined to agree with that.  I wonder if any of our friends in
Britian can get a look at some old extinguishers, or pictures of old
extinguishers?

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Nothing makes me more nervous than when people agree with me.

*************************************************************************
For Tom, Ric,

A pretty off-the-wall thought...  How sure are you that it's a fire
extinguisher?

Might it be some sort of hand operated pump?  There's a pump in either case
but is that possibly all it is?  If what is taken to be the outlet nozzle is
actually the intake, the extended outer diameter would allow it to rest on
the bottom of a container witout blocking the inlet -- IF there's a slot.

What is that light rectangle I see near the bottom end in the photo?  It
does look like there might be writing on it.  Is that your own identifying
label??  Hence, no slot(s)??

If it's a pump, then there has to be an outlet, presumably at the top - the
handle end.  I presume there is none such present.  And I would certainly
expect the handle to be in the center, if it's just a pump.

Tom mentioned that the nossle is off-center.  The handle appears to be
off-center also - lined up with the nozzle, I presume.  That seems odd.  It
would be easier to make with the pump in the center, the way Pyrene does it.
The American penchant for simplicity - minimization?  That makes it easier
to form the end pieces.  I see no good reason to place the pump part of a
carbon-tet extinguisher off-center.  To me, a concentric arrangement just
seems natural.  A curious, possibly unique, aspect of this artifact but I
don't know what can be made of that.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Worth thinking about.  It's certainly designed to spray something.  Bug
spray?  I doubt it.  There's no provision for refill.  What else might you
spray?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Dec 1999 10:59:51 EST
From:         Peter Vincent
Subject:      NZ Pacific Aviation Survey

As a 20-year practitioner of the Scientific Method in an allied field, the
posting of the December 99 hypothesis reinforced with me the investigative
difficulty when experimenting , interpreting and testing data from the one
element for which scientific precision is lacking - the human element. Human
beings can never be counted upon to react in a specific manner all of the
time [even AE and our assumptions of her likely behaviour in a crisis].

And for witnesses in a cross-cultural setting [including with a local
interpreter] when examined on matters of recall, particularly of what may be
a seeming non-event or any significance in the past, any response - to
register a high credibility rating - has to be balanced on the framing,
environment and even the grammatical structure of the question posed; often
down to the tonal and body language of the questioner.

Having spoken to ni-Vanuatu in Espirito Santo in relation to missing WW-II
P-38s, and who with willingness and politeness can still "read" and produce
an answer desirable to the questioner.

My observation and main query: Notwithstanding above, Emily Sikuli and Otiria
O'Brian clearly have information nuggets and the closest as living witnesses
to the mother lode. But has there ever been any similar active research to
identify/locate members of the New Zealand Survey team of 1938/39? There is
certainly corroborative value in the formality of the NZ report but the
lights could really go on if an actual expedition member could be located and
interviewed.

LTM
Peter Vincent

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Excellent observations Peter.  We are very aware of the hazards inherent in
gathering anecdotal accounts when we're interviewing folks.  We even go so
far as to lay little traps for them to see if they're "reading" us and just
telling us what they believe we want to hear.  We feel very good about the
information we've gotten from the folks on Funafuti and in Fiji - not to say
that what they told us is an accurate rendition of what happened, but that
what they told us represents their best recollection of the events in
question rather than their best guess of what we wanted to hear.

We've been trying for some time now, with the help of several of our New
Zealand members, to track down any surviving members of the survey party.  So
far, as luck would have it, the only one we've found is Henderson who got
sick just as they arrived at the island and was evacuated immediately.  Still
looking.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:59:02 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Just the FAQS ma'am

Pat has just completed a major overhaul and reorganization of the FAQ section
of the website.  I think you'll agree that's it's huge improvement.  Take a
look at
http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:41:39 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

I don't believe anyone has speculated this, but could the fire extinguisher
be from the Norwich City, and salvaged by the Gardner Islanders for some
purpose?  The ship must have carried a number of fire extinguishers, as
that is the biggest hazard at sea...

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, the Norwich City burned and I don't see any fire damage to the
extinguisher but I don't know if the fire was intense enought to melt
something like the extinguisher.  Interesting thought (not to mention another
possible source of His Majesty's Fire Extinguisher.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:13:41 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      messages

From Don Jordan

That's true for July 2nd but on July 6th Itasca reported to Coast Guard
Headquarters in San Francisco:
HOWLAND REPORTED BEARING SOUTH SOUTHEAST OR NORTH NORTHWEST MAGNETIC
(but) NO UNILATERAL DUE TO NIGHT EFFECT.  FREQUENCY SLIGHTLY ABOVE 3105.

Ric,  what was the content of the message?  Do they say?  Where can we
read all the related messages from the Itasca?

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

There was no content. Like most of the transmissions heard it was no more
than a carrier wave (background signal).

Everything that Itasca heard and heard about is on the Volume 1 CD of the
Earhart Research Library, plus much, much more.  Got 'em sitting right here.
Get 'em while they're hot.  Only $100.  History at a bargain price.  Make
your check payable to TIGHAR or call or fax with your Visa or MasterCard.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:22:06 EST
From:         Michael Lowery
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

Did the entire Norwich City burn? Just because a ship catches fire does
not necessarily mean the entire ship burns, especially if there's a
strong wind blowing which might keep the fire from some portion of the
ship.

Best wishes,

Michael Lowrey
**************************************************************************
From Ric

She sure burned enough to force everybody to abandon ship in the middle of a
storm in the middle of the night.  The collison with the reef seems to have
ruptured one of her fuel oil bunkers so the fire was coming from down below
and had plenty of fuel.  Pretty bad fire.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:08:05 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      FAQ's

From Don Jordan,

    I glanced over the FAQ' today, but to me it seems they raise more
questions than they answer.  I realize you do your best to make them as
factual as possible, so there must be something I am missing.

    For example in the "Would the Electra Float" question.  We have long
thought that the Electra would float for a long period of time, if  not
indefinitely.  As early as July 2, 1937 the "Experts" were saying the
Electra is a floating raft with all those empty tanks.  I read in the
FAQ's that the empty weight of the aircraft was 7,000 lbs. and that it
would be 1,200 lbs. buoyant.  So far, so good.

    Then I turn to the Hawaii inventory list of parts shipped back to
the states after the crash.  It says the approximate weight of the
damaged Electra and all of it's miscellaneous cargo, less fuel and oil
is 14,114  lbs. estimated. They would not ship an airplane back full of
fuel.  I realize that some of that weight is packaging, but that is a
hell of a long ways from 7,000 lbs..  What am I missing?  It would seem
to me that as soon as the air spaces in the fuselage were full of
water,  the Electra would sink like a stone.  Maybe they were forgetting
about all the non fuel and oil items on that airplane that day.

    So, do we know the weight of the aircraft on take off from Oakland?
It would seem that we could do the math and subtract the weight of the
fuel  on board to arrive at a fairly accurate weight on July 2, 1937 at
fuel exhaustion.

    Then we come to the "Did Amelia have an alternate plan" question.

    She, at one time said she would turn back to the Gilberts if she
could not find Howland.  She must have thought she could make it or she
would not have said it.  Also, as for not having enough fuel to return
to the Gilberts. That depends on where she was when she made the
decision.  And that is what we don't know.  If she was in fact on the
157/337 line which ran from Howland to Baker and Niku, then she would
have had to be about 100 miles south of Baker.  She said she was flying
north and south on the line looking for an island and none appeared.
(that we can prove).  So she didn't go very far north on the line or she
would have hit Baker!

    With an estimated three and a half hours fuel remaining at that
point, then she could have just made Niku and not the Gilberts.  But,
what if she was on a direct course for Howland, but came up just 50
miles short.  Then, she could just barely make Niku but would be in
range of about three islands in the Gilberts.  Arorae, Nikunau and
Beru.  It would have been a stretch, but she must have thought she could
do it, or she would not have said it.

    Looking at the wall map it looks like the only land fall on the 157
course to the south is Niku.  miss it by ten miles either side and you
are all through!  But the Gilberts are far more islands, closer together
and almost all in a row.  She would have a much better chance of land
fall, I would think.

    The FAQ would lead you to believe that a turn back would be
impossible.  But I wonder if it would have been impossible.

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

You raise a good point about the discrepancy between the aircraft's empty
weight of 7,000 lbs. and the 14,114 lb. total weight of the material shipped
back from Hawaii.  A photo of the fuselage being slung aboard a ship shows
that no huge crate was constructed around it.  It's hard to see where all
that extra weight came from.

Figuring an accurate takeoff weight for the Lae departure is problematical
because we don't know  the effect of the many changes that were made in the
airframe between the time of the Luke field crash and the second world flight
attempt.  Elgen Long says the empty airplane was 342 pounds lighter but he
doesn't say how he arrived at that number and, if his other research is any
indication, it's a meaningless guess.

<<She said she was flying north and south on the line looking for an island
and none appeared. (that we can prove). >>

Well, no, not at all.  Virtually every Earhart book you pick says that her
final words were "We are running north and south" but the original Itasca
radio log is not clear about what she said.  What IS clear is that whatever
she said caught the radio operator off-guard and he had to go back several
minutes later and insert what he thought she said.  What he crammed into the
available space in the log can be interpreted as "We are running on north and
south line" or "We are running on line north and south" but it's just as
likely that she said something slightly different, perhaps. "We are running
on line north to south."

After considerable attmepts to find the original source, the whole
turning-back-to-the-Gilberts thing appears to be pure folklore.  There's no
proof that Earhart ever said it and, if she did, it was not based upon the
real life situation she faced when she was over the Pacific, and it was not
Noonan talking.   What makes following the line of postion make sense is that
you don't need to know where you are on the line in order to find land.  Just
run to the southeast and you'll run into Howland, Baker or Gardner.  Turning
back to the Gilberts makes no sense unless you know exactly where you're
starting from (in which case you're not lost in the first place).  On your
wall map the Gilbert's might look like a densely packed group of islands, but
they're not.  They're tiny atolls with vast stretches of empty ocean between
them.  A turn back to the Gilberts would not be impossible -  merely
suicidal.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:12:49 EST
From:         Don Dickerson
Subject:      Fire Extinguisher / Raiders:

Having finished reading all my  A.E. Forum messages ( with great interest
I might add ), decided to find a movie on T.V......when I happened to bump
into, "Raiders of the Lost Ark".  How fitting!
     To make a long story short......the scene where our hero has
commandeered the German truck and is in the process of kicking his German
passenger out of the vehicle, the camera pans clearly by, what looks like,
our favorite fire extinguisher.  The shot took me by surprise and only lasted
two seconds or so....but as I remember.....it was  quite detailed and  was
painted green.
    It would seem to me that someone (possibly the studio) still  owns this
truck and possibly the extinguisher, with brand name attached.
    LTM, Don

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Cool!  Okay gang.  It's freeze-frame time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:31:58 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      website updates/historic preservation

Great job on the website updates.  I encourage everyone who hasn't yet done
so to check it out.  I particularly like the instant links to
documentation/supporting evidence.

Pat deserves to be singled out for high honors for redoing the FAQ section.
FAQs sorted, organized, grouped and presented by topic/heading.  Outstanding
job.

Folks, the Earhart Project portion of the TIGHAR website is not the same
site it was last week.  It was great--now it's better than great.  Tell your
friends.

Regarding historic preservation, Ric, since you mentioned it, and I have a
teensy bit of expertise in the area, I'd like to elaborate very briefly on
the historic preservation of firearms, hoping that doing so will help
illuminate the overall preservation discussion.

Most of the firearms on the Antique Arms Collector market just barely
predate cars and airplanes, so some of the same problems arise.  However,
the sheer numbers of items in private hands does mean that the rules are
rigidly adhered to because there is no other way to determine value when the
items are bought/sold/traded/etc.  Known manufacturer proof-marks and
manufacturer letters of provenance and known dates of production for various
batches of serial numbers establish what is or isn't original.  Beyond that,
condition dictates price.  A beat-up specimen in original condition is worth
far more than a pristine specimen that has been restored or modified.  Thus,
my uncle's Model 1873 Winchester, bought by his grandfather after it left
the factory in 1891 (I have the letter of provenance) for about $15.00,
which now has almost no bluing left on the metal, and no varnish at all
remaining on the stocks, but still wears all the stuff it left the factory
with, is worth something like $1,500.00.  You can easily double that for one
in better condition, and just as easily halve it for one that has been
modified or restored.  To get some idea of the value of the thing as a tool,
a replica of current manufacture goes for about $300.00.

Since the "market" for historic cars is considerably smaller, and is smaller
yet for historic aircraft, the number of people who understand and wish to
keep the historic value of artifacts by preserving them rather than
restoring them is smaller.  As I understand it, Ric and TIGHAR stand with
that smaller, but historically more important group.  While I know nothing
of dollar values for old airplanes, I'd suspect that the relic in the
Carrington wreck photo, if found somewhere and recovered, would be worth far
more to historians than Linda Finch's modified 10A/E.

If anyone wishes to discuss historic firearms, please contact me off-forum.

LTM, who is still in original, unmodified condition.

Dave Porter, 2288
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Dave, thank you for that.  I was aware that the historic firearms community
is far, far ahead of the cars and planes community but I had never thought of
sheer volume and market forces as the explanation.

Unfortunately, while historians might value the airplane in the Wreck Photo,
historians historically don't have any money.  If that airplane were
discovered today and looked just like it appears in the photo, it would
probably be salvaged and rebuilt either for museum display or to be flown, or
it might be parted out to supply "original" parts for other rebuild projects.
 Eventually it would end up just like Finch's airplane - a modern re-creation
of an old type which incorporates some material that is original to its
earlier service life.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:42:25 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      fire extinguisher

I'm happy to try and find out what I can about British fire extinguishers of
the period at this end - suggest getting on with it once the festive season
has passed - but there's something I'd like clarified which may already have
been covered in messages I haven't fully digested.

Do we know it's a fire extinguisher of some sort, or just that it's an object
that looks more like a fire extinguisher than anything else? The handle on
top looks like it might belong to some sort of bug spray, which one might
suppose a colonial outpost would be keen on. If it is an extinguisher, the
size does suggest something for stowing in an enclosed space, eg aboard a
plane.

ltm, Phil Tanner 2276
**************************************************************************
From Ric

No, we don't know for sure that it is a fire extinguisher but I tend to think
that it's not a bug sprayer because there's no apparent way to refill the
thing (unless maybe you emersed the bottom end in a bucket and just sucked it
full by pulling on the handle).
Your observation about the implications of its limited capacity sounds valid.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:44:35 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Impellor diameter

Was reading in the AE Forum that someone was looking for impeller specs
for a Pratt & Whitney R-1340 (Electra engines) and the Covington Engine
shop.  That's where I had the R-985's overhauled for my AT-7/SNB-5.
Covington can be contacted at:

phone: (918) 756-8320/ 800-324-8320/fax (918) 756-0923 , email:
kelly@covingtonaircraft.com, and www.covingtonaircraft.com(website).
They are experts on these engines and do good work.  I also have a copy
of DYKE'S AIRCRAFT ENGINE INSTRUCTOR by A.L. Dyke published in 1930
which contains a section on P & W "Wasp" with specs, construction,
operation, lubrication, periodic inspection, top overhaul, full overhaul
remarks, running-in, and engine & mag timing.  Also has chapters on
carburetors, compasses, radio beacons, fuel depth gauges, flowmeters.  I
would be willing to share info via copy machine if the requesting party
agrees to buy me a beer or two someday.

Doug Brutlag
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:51:23 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fire Extinguisher / Raiders:

Oh, man, what a great excuse to watch my favorite movie!

LTM (who knows a REAL archeologist when she sees one)
TKing
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:41:31 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

< No, we don't know for sure that it is a fire extinguisher but I tend to
think that it's not a bug sprayer because there's no apparent way to refill
the thing (unless maybe you emersed the bottom end in a bucket and just sucked it
 full by pulling on the handle). >>

Actually, there's a little hole in the "top" (the end with the handle).  One
could fill it with a funnel, but it would be rather tedious.

TK
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:47:45 EST
From:         Greg
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

Is there any residual chemical smell? Maybe small amounts near the end
of the opening? Maybe there is enough for a chemical spectral analysis,
this amount would be a lot less than may be odorous.

\_ Greg _/
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Tom has the artifact but I'd be very surprised if there was any residual
smell.  That thing has been kicking around for a loooong time.  I suppose we
could try chemical spectral analysis but it hardly seems worth the time and
expense.  We have to watch our cost/benefit ratio very carefully.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:38:32 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

Is there any benefit in cutting this thing open and seeing if there's any
residual chemicals etc....

Clyde Miller
(who realizes this then probably causes more problems than it  solves)

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Let's see if we identify it by non-surgical means first.

*************************************************************************
From Tom King

(checking for whiffs of residual chemicals)

Nope.  Just checked.  No smell.  Not even the scent of Scaevola.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:41:58 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      FAQs - The significance of 337 - 157

All AE & FN had to be sure of was that they had gone at least as far East as
Howland.  They could continue for up to about 400 miles east if they
overshot Howland, turn onto 157 and finish up smack in the middle of a
collection of islands, mostly bigger than Howland.  (For reasons shown below
they didn't have to go that far).

The fact that if they overshot Howland, continued on for a while and turned
Due South They would also hit the islands was mentioned to me yesterday,
HOWEVER, they would have to go a long way past Howland to do that.

If they were South of Howland, when they thought they were at Howland's
Longitude, and turned "left" to 337 or "right" to 157, they would still miss
it or Nikumororo.

So whatever happened, they could not reasonably be expected to turn to 337
unless they knew the distance they were south of Howland and the distance
past (East).  (If they knew that, they would have arrived exactly where they
wanted.)

On the other hand, turning to 157 "anywhere" that they could reasonably
believe they were at or past Howland's longitude put them on either a direct
track for Niku, or the shortest possible direct line to the other islands in
the Phoenix group, thereby limiting the fuel wasted searching for the tiny
Island.

Howland is about a mile long and a half mile wide.  According to CIA
listings it is only 10 feet (3 metres) high at the one high point on the
island.  Most of the island averages about 3 feet high.  (have heard Howland
reported as 20 feet high - but everything I can find in print lists it as 3
metres).

Niku and most of the other islands in what was the Phoenix group seem larger
and would be easier to spot if one was flying around looking for somewhere
to land.

They would have to leave the vicinity of Howland with about 2 hours of fuel
to allow them to fly towards Niku, locate it and land.  From their last
reports to Itasca, it sounds as if they might have done that in time...

Ross D
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:49:42 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      website updates/historic preservation

Ric replied to Dave Porter :

<If that airplane were discovered today and looked just like it appears in the
<photo, it would probably be salvaged and rebuilt either for museum display
<or to be flown, or it might be parted out to supply "original" parts for other
<rebuild projects.
<Eventually it would end up just like Finch's airplane - a modern re-creation
<of an old type which incorporates some material that is original to its
<earlier service life.

For the record and by way of comparison: Lufthansa say their veteran
Ju-52/3m is 80% original. That is to say, the wings are still original, a new
fuselage was borrowed from an other Ju-52-3/m in 1948. The original BMW 162
engines were replaced by Pratt & Whitney Hornets (the BMW 162 was the German
licence-produced Hornet) and later by Wasps. It's got constant speed
propellers installed at one time in its career and three-bladed propellers
were added recently to comply with today's environmental requirements. The
wheels are from a Curtiss C-46 and the cockpit has been completely updated to
today's airline standard. An electronics bay has also been installed under
the cockpit.

The airplane looks like the original, though. The LBA (German equivalent of
the FAA) dropped its requirement for windshield wipers since the no 2 engine
is considered to be equally efficient, not because the original aircraft
lacked these.

                        Herman
**************************************************************************
From Ric
The airplane serves its purpose.  It recreates some of the look and feel of
the past.  How much "original" material is employs to accomplish that is not
very important.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:54:57 EST
From:         Mike Meunich
Subject:      Fire extinguisher

   As a volunteer fireman for over 30 years and numerous classes, ratings
etc, I think you are looking in the wrong place.  Both England and the US
have extensive and numerous organizations, such as the NFPA, with even more
numerous fire buffs and experts in various fields, including extinguishers.
I have looked at  Artifact 2-4-V-100 for some time and tried to find similar
examples in many of the training manuels and publications.  I could be carbon
tet it could also be other types of vaporizing fluid extinguishers.  My
documents only go back to the mid 60's but the NFPA has a complete section on
extinquishers and their expertese and records and substantial.  There is a
similar British organization.  The advantage is that their knowledge is not
limited to Pyrene, Kidde, etc, but is across the board.  I am sure they
probably have extensive photo archives and specification records as well.
You might also try UL (Underwriter's Labratories since they certify a huge
number of all catagories of fire apparatus and also have extensive libraries
of all types and manufacturers.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mike.  What does NFPA stand for?  Perhaps National Fire Prevention
Association?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:04:23 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

Ric asked:

<<What does NFPA stand for?  Perhaps National Fire Prevention Association?>>

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), publishers of the National
Electrical Code, the Life Safety Code, the Fire Prevention Code, the
National Fuel Gas Code, and the National Fire Alarm Code.  The mission of
NFPA, which was organized in 1896, is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire
and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating
scientifically-based consensus codes and standards, research, training, and
education.

The Massachusetts/Call Volunteer Firefighters Assn have a bulletin board
related to rare and antique Fire Extinguishers.

http://www.mcvfa.org/wwwboard/messages/842.html

Is there a picture of this "fire extinguisher/thermos bottle"?
I missed the start of the thread, but it sounds like a fire extinguisher was
found on Niku.  I know the one on Earhart's aircraft was one quart, but what
is the capacity of the one you found?

Ross D
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Read all about it and see the pictures at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin11_28_99.html

Since that bulletin was posted we have determined (actually Jeff Glickman at
Photek has determined) that the object found on Niku is not the same as the
object seen in the photo of AE and Noonan loading the Electra.  The object
found on Niku is probably a fire extinguisher.  The object about to be loaded
aboard NR16020 is probably a thermos bottle.  We haven't determined the
capacity of the Artifact 2-4-V-100 but a quart and a half seems about right.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:12:30 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      flares

I read on the TIGHAR site that flares were reported to the North (West or
East, I can't remember which), and attributed to a meteor shower.  It also
said that AE had no flares on board.  Is there a written report of that?
There is a listing for them on the Luke Field Inventory, but I can't find
where it says they  were not on board for the flight...

RossD

**************************************************************************

From Ric

A few nights after the disappearance, when Itasca was searching far to the
northwest of Howland, lights were seen in the sky that were at first taken to
be flares but were later determined to be a meteor shower.  Nobody knows
whether there were flares aboard the aircraft for the Lae/Howland flight, but
the kind of flares the Electra carried were flares intended for dropping from
the aircraft to illuminate the ground for a night landing.  Earhart also
apparently had a flare gun (and presumable ammunition for it) for firing
distress signals but anecdotal accounts suggest that she did not bring the
gun along on the Lae/Howland flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:54:14 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

Any chance of Manufacturing etchings, markings, etc. being inside the
cylinder?  Would X-rays reveal that?

Clyde Miller
(who apparently "Really" wants to cut this thing open.)

***************************************************************************
From Ric

My answer to both questions is, "I doubt it."

*************************************************************************
From Mike Meunich

NFPA is National Fire Protection Association in Batterymarch, Massachusets.
Will get full address and section for you tommorrow if you cant find

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mike.  Ross Devitt in Australia got that for us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:16:59 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      options

There is one consideration that we should keep in mind regarding which
direction AE/FN decided to turn when they were unable to establish any
reliable contact (radio or visual) with Howland Island or the
Itaska. What information did AE/FN have regarding the
habitability of the islands of the Phoenix Chain, for instance, did they
know that Hull Island _was_ inhabited & that Gardner Island was _not_
inhabited? Seems unlikely that AE would have had such
knowledge (unless she had established an alternate landfall before the
flight & made some pre-flight inquiries regarding habitation of the
Phoenix Chain islands or FN still had some recollection of these islands
from his Pacific charting days with PanAm).

Since AE/FN had no prior knowledge that their disappearance would
touch-off the greatest air/sea search in history (until that time), it
would seem that their only anticipation of being found & rescued (should
they _miss_ Howland) rested with being able to somehow establish
reliable radio communication with the Itaska.

The thought must have occurred to AE/FN that the possibility of
establishing reliable radio contact with Itaska (given their
unsuccessful efforts _in the vicinity_ of Howland) would probably
_diminish_ the further away from Howland Island they flew.

Their dilemma:

1) Ditch the plane, in what they perceived to be the immediate vicinity
of Howland & trust that the Itaska would launch a search for them in the
waters in the general area surrounding the island;

2) Try to determine an accurate course (not knowing exactly where they
are on the LOP FN had established) to turn back to the Gilberts (which
they knew _were_ inhabited, with the possibility of finding a radio
available they could use to try & establish contact with Itaska ) &
probably have to ditch anyway when they ran out of gas short of
landfall, but hopefully close enough to be picked-up by island
inhabitants;

3) Turn SE on the lower leg of the LOP toward the Phoenix Chain (a more
certain target, directly on the LOP, than  trying to ded reckon a course
to the Gilberts, from an unknown position on the LOP) which is several
hundred miles closer to Howland than the Gilberts, with the
_possibility_ of making a wheels down landing & then using their own
radio to try & contact Itaska, even though they have no sure knowledge
that they could long survive on an uninhabited, isolated island; when
they really aren't sure there are any other inhabited islands close
enough to assist them in any rescue attempt or any radio equipment that
could be used to let Itaska (and the rest of the world) know they had
survived.

Given these choices, I'm thankful that such a decision wasn't left-up to
me!

Don Neumann
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It's actually possible to make the argument that Earhart and Noonan
considered landing the Electra at sea to be so suicidal that they intended to
evacuate the airplane in flight rather than ditch, should the occasion arise.
 The evidence for that is the fact that a contemporaneous Darwin, Australia
newspaper article says that (contrary to what was later published in the
heavily-edited book "Last Flight") Earhart and Noonan picked up two
parachutes that had been shipped ahead to Darwin.  Why fly two thirds of the
way around the world without parachutes only to collect them prior to the
long overwater legs unless you felt that a water landing was out of the
question?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:20:26 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: flares

It is the gun I was referring to.  The flare gun (and one round of
ammunition) is on the Luke Field Inventory.

Obviously, (when?) they landed on Gardner, there are certain things they
should have brought ashore.  Water and food (we know the aircraft had
survival rations, at least at Luke Field) and the flare gun and flares.

It seems odd that I can only find one flare listed, but that's all I can
see.  It would seem very strange for an aviator to leave behind that basic
survival aid.  (But then anectdotally, AE & FN did a few strange things).

I'm trying to think of obvious "metallic" things that should turn up on the
shore other than buttons & cloth.  Finding something as small as an eyelet
was great though.

We know there is an inverting eyepiece sonewhere.  That will be at least an
inch or so of metal & glass.  It is also strange in itself.  The eyepiece is
used to flip the sextant image so it is "more natural" to look at (a sextant
as you know will show the imabe upside down).  An experienced navigator
probably wouldn't bother using it, hence finding it with the box.

So where is the sextant.  No navigator would keep such a valuable instrument
out of its box...

So many enigmas....

So there it is.  I believe you are going to find a sextant laying around
there somewhere.  And it will be the "personal" backup one, not the
Electra's one.  FN would have brought his "old faithful" ashore if he
brought one...

Ross D
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:25:05 EST
From:        Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

I hadn't seen these photos before, but to my eye, and the fact that they are
placed with the "personal luggage" and pretty much last aboard it is likely
that all four items are vacuum flasks.

Given the distances flown, and that most aviators then tried to carry a
flask of hot coffee (or tea if British?) four flasks of hot coffee may be a
sensible assumption.

The back one however has a wider neck.  In the old days when we had metal
flaskt (mostly Thermos or Stanley brand) there were several neck sizes.  The
wide one was commonly used for hot "food" like a good stew.  The middle size
for soups etc., and the smallest for coffee or tea only.  The theory being
that the smaller the opening the less heat escaped each time you opened it.

As all four objects have cups on top (over the opening) I wonder where the
idea one of them might be a fire extinguisher came from??

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

There is a distinct similarity between the artifact found on the island and
the shiny cylinder in the photo.  Honest, there is.  No, really.  It was
worth checking out.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:13:40 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

We're such an international group!  Where else but TIGHAR can you get an
address in Massachusets from a guy in Australia!
You gotta love it!
ltm
jon 2266

***********************************************************************
From Ric

Not to mention intelligent, courageous, and good looking.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:27:32 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Preservation stuff

Hello "Slow Burn" from all us "Grits"! :)

Two things I would like to add to the preservation dialog that is currently
floating about:

    1.)  Having worked with several major exhibitions in the US, including
Napoleon, Imperial Tombs of China, Titanic, etc.  I have learned something
important.  There will always be some jackass who knows the price of
everything and the value of nothing.  For instance, during the Napoleon
exhibition we had a portion of the jewelry he bestowed on his women.  As I
would walk through the galleries checking on this or that, someone, at least
once a day, would stop me and ask me the value of a certain diamond necklace
that was on loan from the Smithsonian. It rounded out at about 200+ carats.
I would respond "It is priceless."  and they would always say, "Yes, but what
is it really worth?".  And I would explain the historical value of the piece
and how it could never be replaced, etc.  And still, "Yes, but how much is it
worth?".  By this time I was wondering about the future of the human race.
So I just made up a figure and they were happy and went on their way.  (How
frightning these people are loose!)

    2.)  I am currently working in a regional history museum and I have
plenty of school age children.  They are fascinated by unrestored, original
equipment ONLY as long as they can associate it to a major historical event.
For instance, we have a Conestoga wagon that is 160 years old.  The ancestors
of the family who loaned the piece traveled in this wagon from South Carolina
to settle in Tennessee.  Kids are mesmerised by this wagon.  But yet, the
pieces we have from everyday life have no interest to these children.  On
explaining the mechanics of a rope bed, a child was overheard to say, "why
didn't they just get a new one?".  Further on, we have some Civil War muskets
and clothing and let me tell you, I have to pry those kids off that glass
with a scraper.

What am I trying to say?  I am trying to say that the public is very finicky
about historical objects.  TIGHARs do not represent the majority of the
public (unfortunatly).  Once you get out among the hordes it can be very
surprising at how selective the interest of the public is as to how authentic
an artifact may be.  Some will admire at face value while others must have a
dollar amount.  Yet others will only be interested in an artifact if it is
connected to major event with which they are familiar.  You would be amazed
at some of the things I have heard in museums over time.  Just last week a
nine-year-old boy tried to buy an artifact off me.  He could not understand
it was priceless and not for sale.  He said, "Everything has a price."  How
frightening this is for the future.

LTM (who knows the value of everything)
MStill
the head TIGHAR's #1 fan.

************************************************************************

From Ric

Fascinating subject.  It seems to me that all historic preservation relies
upon the informed observer understanding the connection an object has to
PEOPLE.  Objects are not interesting. Only people are interesting.  Dead
people go away and never return.  Objects don't necessarily go away and,
thus, provide us with a visible, tangible link to people who are
irretrievably gone.  The Great Pyramid is just a pile of cut stones until you
know something about the people who built it.

The folks who insist upon knowing the monetary value of an object are, for
whatever reason, unable to make that connection or simply have no interest in
the people of the past. They seek to connect the object to themselves by
putting it in a context they understand - money - but the concept is the
same. The object must be connected to a person in order to have value.

Original objects which show the effects of time provide the strongest sense
of connection to the people of the past.  They stand in defiance of the
mortality we all face and say, "Yes, they are gone, but I am still here to
tell you about them."   Other objects have been repaired and rebuilt so that
they appear to deny rather than defy "the teeth of time."  Like Peter Pan,
they take us to a nostalgic Never Never Land, and like Peter, they are
necessarily works of fiction.  Ideally, we should all be able to enjoy and
recognize the value of both of these manifestations of our desire to expand
our experience beyond our own alotted time and connect with those who have
gone before.

(Ya know, that's the first time I've been able to articulate that.  Thanks.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:34:02 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

Ric wrote:

>There is a distinct similarity between the artifact found on the island and
> the shiny cylinder in the photo.  Honest, there is.  No, really.  It was
> worth checking out.

<grin> With all due respect, early on, after staring at the photo for about
45 seconds, I never thought there was even a faint possibility that the
shiny cylindrical object closely grouped with 3 other thermos containers was
anything else than another thermos-- and certainly not artifact 2-4-V-100,
which does appear to be a maritime or aviation fire extinguisher from the
first half of the century.

Although I obviously agreed with Jeff Glickman's conclusion when it was
posted, and usually agree with TIGHAR's tactics and methodology, I felt that
referring the image to him was a complete waste of a valuable resource.

william 2243

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Actually, it didn't cost us much at all to have Jeff take a look at it, but
it does emphasize the point that we have to selective about what questions we
ask and how aggressivley we choose to pursue an answer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:08:56 EST
From:         David
Subject:      parachutes

> Earhart and Noonan picked up two parachutes that had been shipped ahead to
> Darwin.

Okay Ric, so are you fairly sure that they had these 'chutes on the
Lae-Howland leg, and if so, what would be left of them to find on Niku
today?  Do you know if they were organic (silk) or synthetic (nylon,
though I don't think this came into widespread use until a few years
later), and if we do know what they were made of, how would they have
'aged' in the tropical climate?  What about the buckles, etc. - if they
were stainless steel, they might be around in good shape, but would they
have serial numbers stamped into them?  Have any attempts been made to
trace the manufacturer of these rigs? ...since parachutes generally do
have serial numbers and a paper trail.  Also, do you know if AE/FN had
taken any training in using these devices, since body position in
freefall does make a big difference.

LTM, (Who only cares that her 'chute works when required!)

David  :-)
******************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, first let's be clear that we don't know that the 'chutes were carried
on the Lae/Howland leg.  We can be quite sure that they were picked up in
Darwin because the newspaper article says they were there waiting for her and
we have a photo of them, and some other stuff, stacked in front of the
Electra's cabin door in Darwin.

Here's the passage from the June 28, 1937 article:
(describing the flight's arrival at Darwin)

** Although Capt. Noonan appeared to be little affected by the long flight,
Mrs. Putnam looked tired when she appeared smilingly before the crowd.  She
was hurried away to a quiet room in the civil aviation administrative block
to discuss with her agents the arrangements for her short stay.

One of her first actions was to ask the Civil Aviation Officer (Mr. Alan
Collins) whether two "Irvin caterpillar 'chutes'" had been delivered from
America.  Fully tested and ready for immediate use, the parachutes were
waiting in Mr. Collin's office.

As a safeguard against emergency, they will be carried on the hazardous final
stages of the flight. **

Unless I am very mistaken, a parachute in 1937 was absolutely silk and was
probably packed in a cotton pack.  Such organic materials have a short life
on Niku, but - as you say - the buckles, especially if they were stainless -
might well survive IF the 'chutes made it to shore.  I certainly would have
brought the 'chutes ashore for use as shelter (but remember that AE and FN
were not expecting an aerial search so spreading out a parachute as a signal
doesn't make much sense).

IF they brought the 'chutes along on the Lae/Howland leg and IF they brought
the 'chutes ashore  and IF they used them to construct some kind of shelter
from the sun, could these be the "markers of some kind" that Lambrecht later
told Goerner were the "signs of recent habitation'" he had referred to in his
newsletter article?

At the very least, this whole bit about the parachutes is yet another example
of how original sources directly contradict events described in Earhart's
posthumously-published book "Last Flight."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:31:37 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      fire ext. - historical precedent

<<Any chance of Manufacturing etchings, markings, etc. being inside the
cylinder?  Would X-rays reveal that?
Clyde Miller
(who apparently "Really" wants to cut this thing open.)>>

This is beginning to remind me of the Karaka safe.

************************************************************************
From Ric

Me too.  Back in 1989 during our first trip to Niku we came across a big ol'
safe in the remains of the Government Station.  It was locked, or at least
rusted firmly shut (no way to tell which).  Now, bear in mind that the island
had been abandoned in a very orderly manner and it is hardly surprising that
a several hundred pound safe did not get taken along.  It would also be
extraordinary if anything of any interest or value was left behind in the
safe.  But the very fact that it was an unopened safe drove some of our,
shall we say - more imaginative - team members absolutely nuts.  Tom and I
found ourselves constantly saying, "No, we're not going to open the stupid
safe.  It would cost at least half a day to cart the tanks and equipment for
a cutting torch all the way to where the safe is, cut the thing open, and lug
the equipment all the way back to the ship.  The hypothesis that the safe
contains something important is not sufficiently supportable to justify the
cost of testing it."  The safe remained closed.

As I recall, on a subsequent visit ( I forget which) we noticed that the safe
had rusted though.  The was nothing inside.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:40:56 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: flares

The sextant/sextant box/inverting eyepiece thing is puzzling.  Why was the
sextant not with the box?  Seems most likely that it had been left somewhere
and the box used to carry things (though it doesn't seem like a real
convenient thing to carry stuff in).  But then why was the inverting eyepiece
there?  Maybe used as a lens to focus sunlight to start fires?  No telling,
but there doesn't seem to be any good reason to expect the sextant to be in
any close proximity to where the sextant box was found -- wherever THAT was.

LTM (who hopes it was a safe sextant)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:43:51 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

I'll take the blame for thinking the thing in the picture might be the
extinguisher.  I'd taken the extinguisher to a meeting at TIGHAR Central; we
were all looking at it, the photo was lying there, and I said "Hey, look at
that!"  Everybody else looked at it and had similar impressions, so we
checked it out.  Sheesh, so sue me!

Tom King
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Anybody who wants the title of "Formulator of Disproven Hypotheses" will have
to get in line behind me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:52:08 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Fred Noonan's Sextant (Octant)

If Fred held to his previous history you could find two instruments:
likely a Pioneer A-5 series refered to in the trade as an octant, and
the modified mariner's sextant aka/the "preventer".    These instruments
were made of brass & aluminum & could quite possibly survive all these
years because when they were not in use, they would be packed in a wood
storage case that was well made from a finished hardwood.  I have
several in my collection that are vintage WWII era and none have had
corrosion.  Granted they were not usually sitting in a salt air
enviornment, but up until the late 1960's they used a lubricant derived
from whale oil.  I still find smears of this lubricant when I add
another to my collection.  It tends to gum up over time but it also kept
I believe corosion away.  If Fred took care of his equipment this way, I
think some beach combing & a metal detector could possibly find these
tools of his trade.  I do not know if the beachcombing w/ metal
detectors technique had been done on previous expeditions.  Any comments
Ric?

Doug B.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Some sections of beach have been metal detected extensively.  Others (read
most) not at all.  Niku has about 10 miles of beach which ranges from about
100 to 200 feet in width.   One person with a metal detector can thoroughly
search perhaps 100 feet of beach in an hour, not counting digging the hits.
As you can see, it's pretty important to figure out where you should be
searching.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:54:01 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

Don't mind me.  I'll throw anything I think may be logical at you.  I can
see a similarity if I convert the artifact picture to black & white.

That's the great thing about TIGHAR.  "Leave no stone unturned".

(Or as the hippie on the beach feeding grass to the seagulls said...
"Leave no Tern unstoned".)

I still reckon you are going to find a sextant somewhere on Niku.  Unless
the sextant and box belonged to the Master of the Norwich City.

I think that's unlikely however as a sextant was a VERY expensive (and a
brass one still is) piece of treasured equipment, and there's no way the
master of a ship would leave the sextant or even its box and an eyepiece
(that is more commonly used in the air) lying around in the scrub.

Somewhere on the island there are more "tin bits"...

Ross D
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:15:44 EST
From:         unknown
Subject:      Forum Archives

You must get tired of answering the same questions every time someone new
gets interested in the forum.

The FAQs are great (Thanks Pat) and answer a lot of things, but there are
also many things that have been obviously discussed before.

Is there a "historical" copy of the forum going back to the start?  One
where we can go in, look up a thread and see if the answer is already there.

I know there must have been a lot of discussion on the Wreck Photo.  I would
like to see who else found what I believe I see in the pictures I sent you,
and what their reasoning might be.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Every message that has been posted on the Earhart Forum since its inception
in November 1997 is available for your review although only monthly logs
since July 1999 are avaiblale through the automated retrieval system.  For
logs prior to July 1999 please send me a private email and I'll send the
desired logs to you as attached .txt files.
Here are step-by-step instructions for accessing the automated retrieval
system:

The archives are kept as a monthly digest, starting in July 1999 and
continuing month by month.

First, send an email to:

listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com

with the command:

INDex earhartforum   (that's all you have to put in the body of the message)

You'll get back a list of all the archive files available. It will look like
this:

  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9907         LOG OWN      469,519 1999-07-31 13:07:49
  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9908         LOG OWN      914,442 1999-08-31 10:58:11
  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9909         LOG OWN      689,946 1999-09-30 15:35:28
  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9910         LOG OWN      485,598 1999-10-31 15:28:20
  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9911         LOG OWN      954,276 1999-11-30 14:41:46
  EARHARTFORUM  LOG9912         LOG OWN      341,805 1999-12-15 11:50:10

Choose the one you want and send another email to

listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com with the command:

GET EARHARTFORUM LOG [whichever one you wanted]

so if you wanted the log for July, your message would read:

GET EARHARTFORUM LOG9907

Within a few minutes you'll get back a confirmation message, and a separate
file with the log you wanted. They'll come as downloadable text files, too
large for most email software. They'll open in any word processor.

If you have any problems, be sure to let me know.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:24:36 EST
From:         Jim Razzi
Subject:      Re: Taking Parachutes

Ric, I know it's a very minor point, but in my opinion, the reason one would
take a parachute is to bail out of a plane over LAND should anything go wrong
with the aircraft.  If ditching is perceived as suicidal, parachuting into
the ocean beats it hands down. It seems to me you would sink like a rock
before you had a chance to untangle yourself from all that silk and harness.

Regards,
Jim R.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, so that's what you would do, but Earhart and Noonan didn't equip
themselves with parachutes until they had completed most of their over-land
flights and were about to begin their big over-water legs, so it would seem
that their opinion differed from yours.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:33:02 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Re: parachutes

"Why fly two thirds of the way around the world without parachutes
only to collect them prior to the long overwater legs unless you felt
that a water landing was out of the question?
LTM,
Ric "

Does seem dumb, especially when the only thing worse than ditching an
aircraft at sea would seem to be bailing out of said aircraft over an
empty ocean, with no land in sight & no rubber raft or any other
survival equipment available. 0Although I wouldn't swear to
it, I don't believe AE or FN had ever made prior parachute jumps before,
at least not under such dire circumstances. None the less, a
wheels down landing on Terra Firma would always seem more acceptable
than ditching in the ocean!  

Don Neumann

*************************************************************************
From Ric

The closest AE ever came to making a parachute jump, as far as I know, was a
publicty stunt she did on a parachute tower that Putnam was involved in
marketing as an amusement park ride.  I would be very suprised if she ever
made an actual jump.  Amelia's thrill seeking did not run to physical
sensations.  She was a very conservative pilot and reportedly did not even
care for steep banks, let alone aerobatics.

Likewise, I can't imagine where Noonan might have gotten any parachute
training.

That said, I've never made a parachute jump but I've worn a 'chute many, many
times.  For evacuation purposes there's not much of a learning curve.  Jump
out, count to ten, pull the handle, change your underwear.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:06:50 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: FAQs - The significance of 337 - 157

<< If they were South of Howland, when they thought they were at Howland's
Longitude, and turned "left" to 337 or "right" to 157, they would still miss
it or Nikumororo.
 So whatever happened, they could not reasonably be expected to turn to 337
 unless they knew the distance they were south of Howland and the distance
 past (East).  >>

I've seen several comments similar to this one which leads me to believe the
LOP is not fully understood by all. Noonan did NOT need to know whether he
was north, south, east or west of Howland to turn in either direction on the
LOP to correctly over fly Howland or navigate on to the Phoenix group. It
would have made the choice much easier and if he turned in the correct
direction he could not miss Howland or the Phoenix except by visually missing
them. Let me explain how the LOP is made and used.

For sake of argument and referring to the diagram below let's assume Fred was
around 200 miles west of Howland and flying a course (a) of due east. (so my
drawing below will come out) Fred shoots a 2 minute sunshot giving him the
altitude of the sun and its azimuth. In this case 67 degrees of azimuth.
Using that information he plots his LOP (1) angled across his course. He
knows now that he was on that line some place at the mid time of the shot.
Ten minutes later he takes another sun shot and again plots the LOP (2)
angling across course. Using the distance between the two LOPs and the time
between them he now has his ground speed in addition to a new position. Next
he draws a line parallel to the first two lines so that it will pass through
Howland Island (LOP 3). Now he measures the distance between the second LOP
and the line running through Howland and applying his ground speed to that
distance he arrives at an estimated time to the Howland LOP. He still does
not necessarily know where on the line he is. Now let's say he believes he is
north of Howland so on his ETE he will turn right to 157 corrected for what
he believes is his wind from the ground speed calculation. He will have
Amelia lead the turn onto the LOP by a number of seconds calculated using her
rate of turn indicator (turn and bank) and the number of degrees to turn.
Perhaps ten minutes later Fred will take another sun shot which will NOW tell
him whether he is drifting right or left of his LOP course. He now has a good
wind to navigate by but still no north -- south position -- maybe.

If Fred thought he was south of Howland he would do exactly the same thing.
Remember the LOPs are all parallel so again when his ETE arrives he has
Amelia start her turn and again leading the turn but this time left to 337.
When his ETE comes up he is ON the 157-337 LOP that goes through Howland no
matter WHERE on the line he contacts it. In either case he has only two
problems. One, where he is on the line and two, visually spotting Howland.

As to knowing where he was on the LOP he could know that because he offset
his course either north (b) or south (c) on the way in or because he also
shot a moon shot to cross an LOP with his sun LOP or because he shot a
running LOP on the way in. The running LOP takes into account the sun's
azimuth changes over time thus making a subsequent LOP at a slightly
different angle. By moving an old LOP up to the newest one the LOPs would
cross at a very narrow angle and give him a rough idea of his position. The
timing involved in doing a running fix leads me to believe there was
insufficient time to do that in the approximately two hours from sunrise to
his last radio call.

The bottom line is that Noonan had to know he was on an LOP that ran through
Howland and they were ON that line unless he was unable to get a ground speed
as noted below. He had the capability of fixing his position north and south
and knowing reasonably how far they were north or south. I think they just
flat could not see the island visually.

     1                       2                                               3
b __\ _____________ \ ___________________________\
     \               \
     \
a____ \_____________ \____________________________\*_Howland______
       \              \
      \
c______\ _____________\ ____________________________\
        \              \
         \
           LOP                     LOP
     LOP (157-337)

As you can see in the diagram above the distances between LOPs are the same
no matter whether they were on course (a) north of course (b) or south of
course (c). For the sake of explanation assume LOP 1 was taken at 6:30am and
LOP 2 was taken at 6:40am and the distance between the two is 20nm. That
gives a ground speed of 120k. Now Fred draws LOP 3 through Howland and
measures the distance between LOP 3 and LOP 2. Let's say the distance is
120nm so he now knows he will hit the LOP 3 some place in one hour or at
7:40am. It is at that time (less turning time) he has Amelia start her turn
to 157 or 337.

The point is that getting on the LOP 3 passing through Howland was simple and
I can think of no reason he wasn't on it. He had to be able to shoot the sun
or he couldn't have obtained the 157-337 LOP. There remains the question of
whether he could figure his north south position. If he could see the sun he
could see the moon. It was up and at a good cross angle. That would give him
a fair fix. It is also possible, of course, that because of weather he was
only able to get one sunshot and so had to "guesstimate" his ground speed and
thus his ETE to the LOP through Howland would not necessarily be all that
accurate. I hope this was clearer to you guys than it appears to me after I
have reread it.<G> One caveat here is that I have over simplified the
procedures by leaving out all the DR figuring but the explanation still holds.

Alan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Nice try Alan.  I hope you have better luck than I've had.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:27:47 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      Re: parachutes

Did Fred or Amelia have any exposure to the care and use of a parachute.
The movies make it look pretty simple...Plane going down, open door, jump,
pull ripcord, chute open, land....As aviators would they (short of immediate
needs to exit the plane, such as fire, plummeting to earth etc.) Have
deliberately left their perfectly good airplane even  when their next best
choice is to ditch the plane, toss out survival gear and then leap into the
unknown?

Clyde Miller

**********************************************************************
From Ric

The whole point of a parachute as an emergency escape device (rather than as
a scary toy) is that it's pretty user friendly.  It doesn't require a lot of
special care and if you can pull a handle you can make it work.  The Electra,
equipped with an autopilot, seems like a fairly easy airplane to exit in
flight.  The biggest risk would be getting smacked by the tail.

Why jump? It's all a question of percieved comparative risk.  If I was flying
an airplane at night in instrument conditions over rugged terrain and i had
an engine failure or ran out of gas, you better believe I'd bail out rather
than ride it down if I had the option.

Linda Finch expressed profound concern about the prospect of having to ditch
her Electra.  The nose and cockpit section are so lightly constructed that
they might be expected to crush, trapping the occupants as the airplane sank.

Of course, theres no way for us to know just why AE and FN wanted those
parachutes, but it does seem to be the case that they wanted them.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:40:42 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Gilberts and Gilbeys (?)

The Dons (Jordan and Neumann) echo my thoughts.  While charting a course for
Niku may have made the most sense from a strictly navigational standpoint,
there were other factors to be considered. -- specifically, people and
water.  The Gilberts had both and Gardner had neither.  Let's not forget
that nobody knows precisely where Our Heroes were when they turned right or
left on that line of position.  Was a turnback to the Gilberts
>>necessarily<< suicidal?  No, since AE could just as easily have been 100
miles north of Howland as 100 miles south.  Was it worth the risk?  Only if
you think your chances of rescue are greater in an environment containing
actual human beings.

In any event, I for one am unwilling to dismiss the puported "Gilberts
backup plan" as Earhart folklore until the Vidal papers have been searched
box by box and page by page.

Speaking of folklore, I am reminded of what was said about U.S. Grant,
another Famous Alleged Drunk, by one of his contemporaries:  Grant didn't
drink any more than anybody else in the Army, so the story went.  He just
couldn't hold it.  Which got me to wondering about Fred Noonan.  Is it
possible that Fred didn't drink more than anybody else, but simply ran afoul
of a Boss Lady who disapproved of alcohol in ANY form?   Certainly AE had an
alcoholic parent, and she seems to have become less tolerant of the stuff as
the years went by (going so far, I believe, as to ban it from her California
home).

We know that on at least two occasions during the last flight, AE complained
of "personnel problems" and "personnel unfitness."  This has entered Earhart
lore as code for Fred's On The Sauce Again.  Still, it is difficult to
reconcile these complaints with Fred's cheery, upbeat letters from enroute
(copiously quoted in "East to the Dawn") and the chipper Noonan who fairly
sprints up the Electra's wing in the Lae takeoff film.  This is a guy who
was supposedly getting blind drunk on a regular basis?  One wonders if Fred
was no more than a social drinker (by the standards of his day), while AE,
freethinker and pioneering feminist, was just a bit of a bluenose in the
alcohol department.

Ric, any chance of making available in CD form the NZ Survey Report and all
78 photos, together with all of Bevington's and Maude's Niku diaries and
photos?  Perhaps you could even get permission from Maude's publisher to
excerpt relevant chapters from "Of Islands and Men."  I dunno if I'd pay
$100 for it, but maybe 25....

Patrick Gaston
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We just don't seem to able to get across why it is that following the LOP was
greatly preferable to turning back to the Gilberts.  Perhaps William
Webster-Garman's recent posting will have more success than have my meager
efforts.

I can think of no reason why Earhart or Noonan would have had any better
information about the population situation in the Phoenix Group than did the
U.S. Navy.  If they turned back for the Gilberts, for whatever reason, it
seems pretty certain that they went down at sea because (as you point out)
the Gilberts were densely populated.  It's a possibility, but like every
other possibility we can think of except a landing at Gardner, there is a
rather impressive absence of evidence to support it.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:44:46 EST
From:         Mike Meunich
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

I have reviewed my oldest source, 12th edition, 1962 volumn of the fire
protection handbook to look for similar units.  The handbook is not an
exhaustive reference, quite the opposite, but it does have a section on
portable fire extenguishers, (18) and there are some photographs.  The photo
on the Web site does not reveal in detail the arrangement on the "top" of the
unit.  There appears to be a handle on the "top" with some type of orifice
that lines up with the stem of the handle.  I assume that a shadow of the
handle appears on some type of backdrop.  I think it would be unusual for the
handle to located so near to what has been referred to as a "nozzel".  Anyone
carrying the unit would be subjected to the contents of an accidental
discharge and if the "handle" is actually an activating device, the operator
couldn't "point and shoot" the unit and control the flow simultaneously.  But
for the "plumbing"and some additional piping, there is a photograph of a unit
on page 18-36 of the handbook which depicts as very similar extinguisher.  I
don't have a scanner, but would fax a copy of the photo if you like.  The
handle is actually a pump handle or control valve and what has been referred
to as a "nozzel" is actually a nipple to which a hose is connected.  The base
of the unit on the Web site and the photo is flat and is designed to stand on
a floor or flat surface allowing the operator to actuate the handle and
direct the agent through the hose in a "point and shoot" method through a
nozzel on the end of the hose.  The photo has a classification plate located
exactly where the classification plate seems to have been on the unit on the
Web site, assuming it is, in fact, an extinguisher.  The unit depicted in the
handbook is a vaporizing liquied extinguisher, usually a specially treated
form of carbon tetrachloride or chloro-bromomethane.  When the liguid stream
was directed as the base of a fire, the liquid rapidly evaporated and formed
a smothering vapor blanket.  This type was effective on both Class B (liquid
hydrocarbons) and Class C (electrical) fires.  It was not effective on Class
A (ordinary combustibles such as wood or papar) fires, thus would have been
suitable for the AE mission.  The handbook indicates four types of pressure
units and one type of pump unit within this catagory of extinguishers ranging
in capacity from one quart to 3 and 1/2 gallons.  Pressure units are
pre-charged with Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, or medium pressure air.  The other
type is literally a manually operated pump.  Examination of the unit should
reveal the method of actuating, charging, discharging etc if it is, in fact,
an extinguisher.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mike.  I'd like to see the photo.  Our fax number is (302) 994-7945.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:46:13 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: FAQs - The significance of 337 - 157

I can see my diagram did not upload correctly but I think you can get the
idea. There are three slashes prior to LOP one that should be part of LOP
three and the LOP (157-337) comment should be under LOP 3. I don't know why
it reformatted but stuff does on AOL.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:48:18 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      parachutes

Ric said:  "For evacuation purposes there's not much of a learning
curve.  Jump out, count to ten, pull the handle, change your underwear."

    I jumped once -- from 13,400 feet.  Luckily I had two instructors
with me.
    Actually the process is: jump out, free fall for 9,500 feet, pull
the ripcord, wipe the smile off your face.
    The only thing more fun than terminal velocity is realizing that the
Queen Air you rode up in actually lands before you do!  Now THAT is a rapid
rate of descent.

LTM, who likes to do most things at least once
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Notice that I said, "For evacuation purposes...."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:28:53 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      U.S. Grant

Let me interrupt this sizzling discussion on fire extinguishers for just a
moment.  I know it will be hard to tear yourself away and go off topic but I
MUST clear something up.  He has been presented as a falling down drunk and
that was simply not the case.  He did drink heavily but that was out of
LONLINESS for his WIFE.  He did command some of his major campaigns under the
influence but still was a very successful commanding general. Lincoln was
quoted as saying, "I can't give up this man.  He fights!".  Only when his
drinking began to run to the excess did Lincoln become concerned.  He
resolved the situation by sending for Mrs. Grant to spend some time with her
husband and all was well again.

We now return to our scheduled program.

LTM (who also has a B.A. in Military History)

MStill
**************************************************************************
From Ric

And to be irrelevant as well as off topic, Sam Grant was also reportedly one
of the finest horsemen ever to attend West Point.  His wartime mount
"Cincinnati" was every bit as magnificent, although not nearly as well known,
as Lee's "Traveler."
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:30:07 EST
From:         Robert Sherman
Subject:      Re: parachutes

>  Do you know if they were organic (silk) or synthetic (nylon,...

***Dr. Carruthers of DuPont extruded a polymer in 1939 that
they named Nylon.  They were so excited about the filament,
they forgot to copyright the name....    RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:31:22 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Significance of 337-157

To Alan,

Best explanation of celestial landfall I've seen yet-it almost brought
tears to my eyes.  Just wish I could have seen the diagram to go with
it.  I just started to try and figure out the same thing but you beat me
to it.  Shoot your email address to me.  I work
with air celestial nav myself.

Doug Brutlag
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:32:42 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Taking parachutes

I've never experienced the joy of leaving an airplane whose wheels weren't
firmly on the ground, but my dad earned his membership in the caterpillar
club exactly as you describe - during WW2, C-46 flying the Hump - lost and
out of gas at night.  They had no problem making the decision.  As they say
- it beats the hell out of the alternative...  btw the Chinese found them
instead of the Japanese, and in about 2 weeks they were back with their
unit.  The airplane disappeared into the mountains and has never been found.
ltm,
jon 2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:33:39 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: parachutes

A few years later a lot of aircraft crews (bear in mind that WWII aircrews
were not taught to use parachutes in practice - only theory) survived
parachuting from their aeroplanes to be rescued by patrol boats and
amphibians...

I think I'd rather parachute into Pacific waters with an average year round
temperature of over 80 degrees that the English Channel....

There are all sorts of possibilities...

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:38:23 EST
From:         Tom Ruprecht
Subject:      Parachuting

C'mon you guys, quit embarassing yourselves with the parachuting thread.
(count to ten, hitting the tail...)

Tom #1465C, USPA D-12099, 825+ jumps, 9+ hours freefall time ;-)
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Wellllll, those of us without the benefit (?) of your experience are merely
repeating what may only be folklore (counting to ten, hitting the tail...)
but it may be exactly the same folklore known to Amelia and Fred.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:41:56 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: FAQs - The significance of 337 - 157

I agree with Alan.  I was suggesting that if FN could not get a fix on his
speed at night, then any plots he made during that morning could be off for
distance.

Of course if the sun and moon could both be shot, he'd have two sides of the
triangle and be very close to a North / South fix.

FN was a very experienced navigator with considerable over water experience.
I think I previously mentioned a technique used some years earlier by Sir
Francis Chichester on solo over water flights.  Don't try to find a "speck
in the ocean", aim for a position to one side of it and turn towards it when
you reach the line it should be on.

The point I'm trying to suggest is:
1    Noonan would have known of Chichester's methods as they had been used
by other aviators.
2    If (and only If) Noonan used a similar technique, would he aim for the
Southern side of the probable position, or the Northern side where turning
in a Southerly direction would at least give him optional islands if he
missed Howland.

If only we knew how he thought...

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

If you only knew how long and hard we've fought over whether Noonan used the
fabled offset method......

All I can do is ask that you  go back and review the forum archives on the
subject.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:47:07 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: parachutes

At last reports AE and FN were tooling about at 1000ft....

RossD
*************************************************************************
From Ric

True.  What's your point?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:50:29 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: fire ext. - historical precedent

Ric says...

As I recall, on a subsequent visit ( I forget which) we noticed that the safe
had rusted though.  The was nothing inside.

This is true, but of course that could mean only that the little golden idol
with the ruby eyes and the inscription "Love from Fred to Amelia" had been
removed by whoever tipped the thing over and broke it open.  Although I was
pretty hard-core about not opening the thing, I must admit to having had
regrets.  When I got back I had fun for a couple of years writing a novel
based on the expedition (but without Earhart) in which the save WAS opened,
and contained the pivotal artifact.  Couldn't sell it any better than those
who wanted to open the safe could sell their idea to Ric and me.  Oh well....

LTM (who's old enough to have regrets)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:51:40 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan's Sextant (Octant)

Another problem with metal detecting the beach, particularly near our
now-posited landing site, is that there's all this metal from the Norwich
City scattered around.  You could spend a LOT of time digging hits.  And of
course, if Fred DID bring his gear ashore, there's no guarantee he would have
left it on the beach.  And then, the beach has changed a lot since '37......

LTM (who thrives on ambiguity)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:56:30 EST
From:         Ken Knapp
Subject:      Re: parachutes

I have a friend who told about buying a parachute many years ago. I don't
remember the exact details of when that was, but I can ask him. Anyway,
parachutes have logbooks, just like airplanes do. He told me that the last
logbook entry on this parachute was signed by Amelia Earhart. If this story
(and my recollection of it) is accurate, it would seem that she did have
exposure to the care and use of a parachute.

Ken Knapp

**************************************************************************
From Ric

She may well have owned a parachute at some point but, given that every
trivial incident in AE's flying career has been written about ad nauseum, it
sure seems like if she had ever made a parachute jump, willingly or
otherwise, we'd know about it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:18:56 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: parachutes

>From Ross d.
>
>I think I'd rather parachute into Pacific waters with an average year
>round temperature of over 80 degrees ...

*** Must have come out as a typo, Ross, or a busted thermometer;
'taint so.     RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:34:17 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Gilberts and Gilbeys (??)

Ric wrote,

    "We just don't seem to able to get across why it is that following
the LOP was greatly preferable to turning back to the Gilberts."

    Because Ric, most of us don't believe she was on the LOP which ran
down the middle of Howland, Baker and on to Niku.

    Think about it for a minute.  She said she was running north and
south on the line.  That means maybe thirty or forty miles north and
then maybe a hundred miles south, or visa versa.  To have Noonan be on
that line he would have to be pretty damn far off course north or south
but not east or west.  In other words, he figured the head/tail wind
perfectly, but forgot the cross wind component.

    If he were north of Howland, they would have seen it when the turned
south.  If they were south of Howland, they would have seen Baker when
they turned north.  The only way they could have been on that line and
miss Baker or Howland would be if they hit the line almost one hundred
miles south of Howland.  I don't think Fred was that  drunk!

    But what if they did hit the line a hundred miles south, do you
think they would say to themselves,

    "Well. . . Howland is not here.  I don't think we know where we are,
so let go south for three hours and see what's down there"

    In my opinion, they simply could not have been on the Howland LOP
and not found Baker at least.  With maybe four hours fuel left, they
could have almost gone to Niku and back.

Don J.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

This is like Miranda.  At this point, anything I say can and will be held
against me.  If there is ANYBODY out there who thinks they help Don Jordan
begin to understand what a Line of Position is - be my guest.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:36:47 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: FAQs - The significance of 337 - 157

<< If you only knew how long and hard we've fought over whether Noonan used
the fabled offset method......>>

Ric has even beat me down on the offset theory. I am coming around to the
idea that Fred had enough confidence in his ability that he may well have
navigated straight to Howland. I'm not seeing any evidence yet that he
offset. I don't think he needed to if he had any decent star, sun and moon
shots. I am not convinced he was expecting a good DF on arrival but the mere
fact Amelia called for one lends support that they DID in fact expect a DF
steer. The report they were running north and south (IF that is accurate) is
still not troubling. I had enough confidence in our celestial navigation to
go direct and not offset. We DID have an LOP through destination and running
back and forth over a short distance was not a problem. Admittedly we had
radar and Vortacs but on exercise only celestial and DR could be used.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:55:05 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      beach changes

<< And then, the beach has changed a lot since '37...... >>

I'm sure it has Tom. You guys have already gone through this I suppose but I
have checked historical weather data from the Pacific and little is available
from the Phoenix area but that may well be because it is out of the beaten
path for heavy duty storms. I would imagine Niku has been hit hard a few
times since 1937 but I can't support that yet.

Alan

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I can.  For example:
First week of January 1939 - the New Zealand survey party experienced
"exceptional westerly swells" which resulted in tides that were "4 feet above
the ordinary spring tides of December 6th."

November/December 1940 - Gallagher reported "severe and almost continous
North-Northwesterly gales" which did considerable damage to the newly
established colony.

Sometime between when we left the island in October 1989 and returned in
September 1991, severe westerly weather had taken out a massive concrete and
rebar beacon high on the beach which had marked the landing channel.  About
50 feet worth of beachfront vegetation was piled like cordwood against large
trees inland, and the seaward side wall of the Co-Op Store (well back off the
beach) had been knocked down by waves.

And then there was 1997 when we cleverly managed to be there for some
westerly weather.  I don't want to talk about it. <G>

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:14:41 EST
From:         Dustymiss
Subject:      Re: parachutes

Because you have never heard of Amelia making a parachute jump, only means
that she never had to exit a disabled aircraft while in the air. In those
days it was not necessary to take training in jumping, as far as I know, it
was just necessary to have one while flying, and if you had to jump. It was
on the job training as far as how to use it. At least that is how it seemed
when I heard Fay Gillis Wells talk about the time she was forced to jump back
in the late twenties(I believe - or very early thirties)

To the best of my knowledge, Amelia was not a member of the Caterpillar club,
but it was SOP to carry a parachute any time you were flying  in the late
20's and into the thirties - So, I am certain that she was familiar with
having to wear one, even though she may never have had to use it. Some
examples are Marvel Crossen who jumped out of her damaged aircraft during the
1929 Air Derby, with parachute; Fay Gillis Wells who became the first woman
to join the Caterpillar Club and Charles Lindbergh, if I am not mistaken
jumped with one in the story where the plane followed him because he forgot
to cut the engine before jumping.  Plus, as you recall, in the information I
got from the University of Wyoming, while doing the research on Gene Vidal
and a potential plan B that there was a newspaper article about Amelia being
the first woman to test a stationary parachute jump platform. The photo that
accompanied the story shows her in the air, under canopy.

If you wish, I shall endeavour to find out from Fay Gillis Wells if she ever
remembers Amelia jumping, the next time I speak with her.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, that would be interesting, but I have to take issue with your impression
that pilots routinely carried parachutes during the '20s and '30s.  Military
and airmail pilots routinely wore parachutes, but airline and general
aviation pilots did not.  Earhart wore a 'chute when flying the Pitcairn
autogiro in 1931 and seems to have carried a seat pack on at least some of
her long distance flights in her various Vegas. There's a photo of her
wearing a parachute (actually, just the harness for attaching to a seat pack)
taken immediately after the completion of her Mexico City to Newark, NJ
record flight in 1935.  That long crossing of the Gulf of Mexico in her
single engined Vega is supposedly where she got the idea that it would be
much better to do overwater flights in a multi-engined airplane.

As you've noted, AE was not a member of the Caterpillar Club (Lindbergh set
an unenvied record as a triple member) and in those days "sport" parachuting
was limited to exhibitions at fairs and airshows.  Amelia's supposed testing
of a stationary parachute jump platform was a publicity stunt staged by GP.
He was involved in a venture to market the towers as amusement park rides and
military training aids.  One tower ended up at Coney Island and another at
Camp Benning, Georgia.  Amelia's "test" was the subject of a newsreel.  She
sits in a swing-like seat and is hoisted to the top of the tower.  When the
'chute reaches the top it drops a few feet before inflating and Amelia
screams (it's not clear whether the sceam was real or dubbed in later).

In summary, Earhart was certainly familiar with parachutes but there is no
evidence that she had ever made a parachute jump.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:39:41 EST
From:         Dana Sibilisky
Subject:      on parachuting

lets remember the adage, for those of us who fly, 'any landing you can walk
away from, is a good landing'. I find it impossible to believe, with 5 hours
of fuel remaining, albeit an exhausted crew, still an experienced one, AE
and FN are trying to find this fly speck of an island. After trying for a
few hours, they had to be thinking of the alternatives. One of them had to
have known something about the other islands, if nothing more than that they
could look out the window and see a few, simple pilotage. I'm sure three
things came to mind, first AE is looking for enough field,  then they are
thinking about habited islands, of course enhancing their chances of being
rescued, and then I wonder whether they knew about the SS Norwich running
aground. If they had any idea this island was the site of an earlier search
and rescue, that may have been why they decided to put down there. On the
other hand, has anyone actually flown over that area, I might just try it
someday. Say you are up there, you cannot see Howland, what can you see?
Certainly you see some land, and where there is land, there is a chance to
land on it. I could never believe FN and AE would have chosen, I mean
chosen, to say well, "lets keep looking for Howland until we run out of gas,
then parachute into the deep blue shark infested sea".  No I think the
parachutes were there for emergency evacuation in the case of total engine
failure, and a plane plummeting out of control. The facts do not seem to
bear this event out. AE would have landed the plane not jumped out of it.

Dana L. Sibilsky MD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

To see more than one island at a time over that part of the Pacific you'd
need to be at - oh - 30,000 feet or so at least.  You'd also need a sky free
of the scattered cumulus deck that forms at about 2,000 feet nearly every
day. From 1,000 feet, where Earhart said she was, land is an extremely scarce
commodity.

As for flying over that area, if you'd like to give it a try you'll need an
airplane with about 2,000 miles of range to do it safely.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:02:08 EST
From:         Harry Poole
Subject:      Re: LOP

Ric -  clarify the LOP question

I don't think most of us have any misunderstanding about what a line of
position is, but the questions are related to it.

Was there any evidence that they were on a LOP, in addition to that garbled
message which could have many different meanings?

If they were following the LOP, was his navigtion so bad that he missed his
destination by 100 miles?

If he was closer to Howland (which the "must be on you" received as a strong
signal implies), why did they miss both Howland and Baker?

LTM

Harry #2300

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Once more - with feeling....

There was nothing garbled about Earhart's statement "We are on the line 157
337"  The questionable part is her subsequent comment about "running on north
and south line" or "running on line north and south" and the only thing that
makes it questionable is the way the entry was crammed into the available
space by the radio operator who was typing the log and the clear indications
that he was caught off-guard by this last part of the message.

Nobody in 1937 who understood celestial navigation techniques had any doubt
that the "line" Earhart referred to was a Line of Position that fell through
her intended destination.  The same is true today.  There is no other
rational explanation.  Let me try to explain.

On that day, in that place, the sun rose at 67 degrees. (You're flying along
and you look out at the predawn horizon.  Look at your compass, correct for
variation, and find 67 degrees True.  That's where the sun is going to come
up.)  Because the Earth is round, exactly where you are on this ball
determines exactly WHEN you see the sun rise.  Obviously, anyone to the left
or right of you is going to see the sunrise at the same time you do, but
somebody in front of you will see it sooner and somebody behind you will see
it later.  In other words, the precise moment you see the sunrise tells you
(and your buddies along a line to your left and right) very accurately where
you are in an east/west sense, but you don't have much information about your
north/south position. That line you and your left/right buddies are on is a
Line of Position.

Noonan knew ahead of time that the sun would rise at 67 degrees.  A Line of
Position is always 90 degrees to the observed body (in this case, the sun),
so he knew in advance that the rising sun would give him a Line of Postion
that ran 337 degrees one way and 157 degrees the other way.  All he had to do
was note what TIME the sun rose for him and he'd be able to draw a 337/157
line on his map and say, "Okay, we're somewhere on this line."  That line is
going to fall somewhere (200 miles more or less) west of Howland.  Now he
draws a parallel 337/157 line through Howland and measures the distance
between the two lines (let's call it 200 nautical miles).  He now determines
how fast the aircraft is travelling (let's say 115 knots).  He now knows that
in an hour and fortyfive minutes he'll be somewhere on that 337/157 line that
passes through Howland.  If he doesn't see Howland right out there in front
of him, he at least knows that it's somewhere on the line to his left (337
degrees) or right (157 degrees).  Fortunately, there are other islands on or
near the same line (Baker, McKean, and Gardner), all of which are on the 157
degree side of Howland.  That means that he can't afford to look in the 337
degree direction very long because if he is already north of Howland there is
nothing out there but the deep blue sea.  Running down the line in the 157
degree direction, on the other hand, virtually guarantees that he'll find
land of some kind before he runs out of fuel.

Think of the Line of Position as an interstate highway (spelled "dual
carriageway" in Britain) with four exits but no signs.  Noonan doesn't know
where he is on the highway but he does know that as long he heads southeast
while he still has at least three hours of fuel left he is bound to come to
an exit.  Turning back to the Gilberts would be abandoning the only sure bet
he has.

Could Noonan have hit the LOP as much as 100 miles from Howland?  Sure.
Would that be terrible navigation? No.  That's an error of less than 5
percent in a 2200 nautical mile flight with virtually no landmarks.  Radio
Direction Finding to "fine tune" the navigation for the last 200 miles or so
was essential, but that part of the plan failed.  The strength of the
transmissions heard by the Itasca does indicate that the aircraft was "close"
to Howland, but how close is "close" is purely a judgement call.

That's about as simple as I can make it.  I hope it helps.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:02:53 EST
From:         Bill Zorn
Subject:      Re: parachutes

Any evidence that  Putman and the parachute manufacturer were laying the
groundwork for some sort of post flight advertising or PR campaign?

Bill
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Not that I've seen.

*************************************************************************
From Herman de Wulf

What's that stuff about counting to ten before pulling the rip cord. We were
thaught to count crocodiles : "one crocodile, two crocodiles, three
crocodiles..." When you had counted three you had to pull the rip cord.
It's interesting to read that Tom has been fallen for 9 hours in his
lifetime. It would scare me to death.

LTM (from Herman, who likes a parachute to sit on but would hate having to
use them)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:07:54 EST
From:         Bill Zorn
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

I was looking at the picture of artifact 2-4-v-100, and the photo taken by
Dustin Carter May 20 1937. And did my own crude, crude photo analysis, and
side by side comparison (cut and paste, cut and paste, zoom zoom,zoom)

Couple of questions.

As to 2-4-v-100, on the top of the handle, is this "rams Head effect" at one
side (left in the photograph) ornamental or is there some sort of hinge, or
mechanism.

On the bottom segment of the artifact there is a small light colored band or
stripe. (my guess is 3/16" to 5/16" by 1" to 1 1/8") Does this appear to be
where a manufactures tag of some sort may have been affixed? Any evidence of
small brads or rivets?

A very intriguing  piece of somebody's history

How large is the original negative of the May 20 picture?

When I look at the refection in the side of the aircraft, I can make out the
light colored suitcase, and the tops of the two taller thermos bottles.
Adjacent to the larger refection of the thermos bottle, there is a shape or
lighter area inconsistent with the detail visible with regard to the
suitcase. Could this be a refection of a similar handle to 2-4-v-100?  Or are
the geometry's wrong to see the top of the object in this photo?

At the degree of resolution I am able to construct with regard to the May
20th picture, I cannot tell for certain, but I believe the angle is wrong to
be able to see any appreciable detail in the reflections in the cap of the
larger thermos bottle.

William H. Zorn 1562C

***************************************************************************
From Ric

For those who missed it when it was posted November 30th, here is a
professional assessment of the photos in question:

**************************************
FINAL LETTER OF OPINION

Dear Mr. Gillespie,

Thank you for sending the negatives of TIGHAR artifact 2-4-V-100
and of A. Earhart and F. Noonan loading NR16020 depicted in the
photograph taken by Dustin Carter at Burbank Airport on May 20,
1937 (may20dep.jpg).

This letter addresses the relationship between 2-4-V-100 and the
rightmost canister-like object located in a group of four canister-like
objects located on the ground to the right of A. Earhart's feet.
While the JPEG image may20dep.jpg shows this canister-like object
to be overexposed, the original negative is properly exposed.

Several structures present in 2-4-V-100 are absent in the canister-like
object in may20dep.jpg.  These are:

1)   6 metal bands that wrap around 2-4-V-100, and
2)   what appears to be a handle located at the top of 2-4-V-100.

Further, 2-4-V-100 has a transition area from its neck to its body
that is flatter (has a smaller angle relative to vertical) than that shown
in the canister-like object of may20dep.jpg.  This difference cannot
be due to damage to 2-4-V-100 because the required deformation
would not result in the smooth surface seen in this part of 2-4-V-100.

While there are additional differences between 2-4-V-100 and the
canister-like object of may20dep.jpg, these reasons are sufficient to
establish that these are different objects.  Therefore 2-4-V-100 does
not match the canister-like object seen in may20dep.jpg.

Best Regards,

Jeff Glickman
Board Certified Forensic Examiner
Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners


Jeff Glickman
PHOTEK
209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202
Hood River, Oregon 97031
*************************************************
I had a couple of questions for Jeff, to whit:

There are no metal bands that wrap around the artifact.  Those are
impressions stamped into the metal.  The body of the cannister is a single
sheet of metal.  I can see one "ring" around the object in the May 20 photo
but it does seem to be a slightly different distance from the top of the
cannister than is a similar "ring" on the artifact.

The handle on the artifact rotates freely and we had speculated that a
similar handle on the cannister in the May 20 photo might be oriented
edgewise to the camera.

The differences in the transition area from the neck to the body do, however,
seem to be a disqualifier.

Ric
**************************************************************************
To which Jeff replied:

Ric,

Here are clarifications to your questions:

By "metal bands" I also mean "impressions stamped into the metal".
I did not mean to imply that sole source of the metal bands could be seperate
pieces of metal applied to the body of the canister, but rather they are
visual features present on the canister.

may20dep.jpg has a circular top, possibly a cap, composed of a polished metal
containing a complex reflection.  It is the reflection of adjacent items in
the circular cap which gives the mistaken impression of a handle.

Best Regards,

Jeff Glickman
Board Certified Forensic Examiner
Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners

PHOTEK
209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202
Hood River, Oregon 97031
***************************************************************************
Okay.  So 2-4-V-100 is not the thing in the May 20 photo.  That doesn't mean
that it's not Amelia's fire extinguisher but it does mean that the photo is
not a reason to think that it might be.   We'll put up an updated Research
Bulletin soon.

Love to mother,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:12:40 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Gilberts and Gilbeys (??)

<< If there is ANYBODY out there who thinks they help Don Jordan
 begin to understand what a Line of Position is - be my guest. >>

Ric, I tried. Maybe my "diagram" was too confusing.<G>

<< This is like Miranda.  At this point, anything I say can and will be held
 against me.  If there is ANYBODY out there who thinks they help Don Jordan
 begin to understand what a Line of Position is - be my guest. >>

Ric, I reformatted my diagram and sent it to myself to see if it would come
out better. It did so maybe this will help. I can understand Don's puzzlement
that our duo did not see islands if they were near or over them. I've tried
to find islands like that many times before in the Pacific and in the
Atlantic. The islands were big islands - Bermuda, the Azores, Guam, Hawaii
and so on. With broken cumulus clouds at a low level it is not easy to do to
spot them visually. The cloud shadows look like islands. Then look at the
highly restricted view from the Electra cockpit just to make it more
difficult. It doesn't surpise me at all if they flew right over Howland AND
Baker and didn't see them. Any way for what it is worth below I repeat my
reformed LOP diagram.

Alan


     1               2            3
b __\ _______ \ ___________________\
     \         \                    \
      \         \                    \
	  
a____ \________ \____________________\*_Howland
       \         \                    \
        \         \                    \
		
c______\ ________\ ____________________\
        \         \                     \
           LOP           LOP         LOP (157-337)

<<  Because Ric, most of us don't believe she was on the LOP which ran
 down the middle of Howland, Baker and on to Niku.

     Think about it for a minute.  She said she was running north and
 south on the line.  That means maybe thirty or forty miles north and
 then maybe a hundred miles south, or visa versa.  >>

One more comment to Don. I don't know how many of us believe she was or was
not on the LOP but you can count me as a believer. I see no evidence to
believe other wise. It was a simple navigation matter to be ON the LOP. They
would have to work to be off of it. And the running north and south comment
does not imply ANY particular distance north or south. They could have been 3
miles north or south as WELL as 100 miles north or south. DR would get them
closer than that.

Granted it was a long leg into Howland and it is possible Fred couldn't get a
star shot but he DID get a sun shot. If he only got one he would have trouble
with ground speed and that could put his LOP projected through Howland off
but he would still have a good idea of over all ground speed from Nauru to
the LOP so he was not totally without input. He also could take drift
readings so even with only one sun line he should have been pretty close.
I'll stick to my theory of just not being able to visually sight the islands
until I see evidence to the contrary.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:14:34 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Sextant and box

Reading the report of how the captain was swept overboard as he tried to
enter the first lifeboat tells me that the captain's "valuable" sextant may
very well have ended up in the drink, and even possible that the box was
separated from the sextant - given the violent forces at work at that time.

LTM - who doesn't like going in the drink under those conditions
Blue Skies,
Dave Bus
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:33:21 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Cincinnati

Ric wrote:

<<And to be irrelevant as well as off topic, Sam Grant was also reportedly one
of the finest horsemen ever to attend West Point.  His wartime mount
"Cincinnati" was every bit as magnificent, although not nearly as well known,
as Lee's "Traveler.">>

Cincinnati is an Indian word (which Nation I don't know), but it would be
interesting to know the meaning.  Considering all of the various coincidences
in hisory, it would be fascinating to find out that it actually meant
"Traveler"!

LTM who loves history, but not dates!
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The Indian nation you're thinking of was the Roman Republic.  The city of
Cincinnati was named after Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, born ca 519BC,
famous for his devotion to duty in times of crisis and for relinquishing the
reins of power when the crisis was past.  Guys like George Washington saw
Cincinnatus as something of a role model but Grant may have named his horse
"Cincinnati" simply because he bought him there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:39:11 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Gilberts and Gilbeys (??)

>From Ric
>
>This is like Miranda.  At this point, anything I say can and will be held
>against me.  If there is ANYBODY out there who thinks they help Don Jordan
>begin to understand what a Line of Position is - be my guest.

WELL! Ric, I will give it a try.  Draw a line (Line Of Position) from
Cincinnati to Vicksburg.  You can verify when you reach that line, but you
don't know WHERE along the line you are for absolutely sure.  You could be
north of Cincinnati or south of Cincinnati.  You DO KNOW you are on that line
or within plus or minus 5 miles of the line.  At 1000 feet under an overcast,
it is difficult to see far.  Cincinnati airport is only two football fields
long and one football field wide with NO bleachers.  Good luck in finding it!
 So you know that there are five or six other, even larger airports along
that line and if you don't find Cincinnati, you have a very good shot at
finding the others or reaching Vicksburg itself.  Vicksburg, by the way is
about 10 times the size of Cincinnati and it's painted bright red!  Now
change the names to Howland (Cincinnati) and Gardner (Vicksburg) and see if
it doesn't make some sort of sense, especially given that they are the only
landfalls within your current fuel range and the only other option is to
"ditch" in the middle of Lake Michigan (re:  Pacific Ocean).

LTM who prefers the nearest land, parachute or no!
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:45:02 EST
From:         R. Johnson
Subject:      Off topic - U.S. Grant

Fred Noonan probably navigated better without drink, just as U.S. Grant probably
fought better without drink. Regarding Grant, Lincoln responded " I can't spare
this man, he fights", only in response to calls  for Grants' resignation after he
was soundly defeated in the first day of fighting at the Battle of Shiloh, by the
the great southern patriot Gen. Albert S. Johnston. I would assume the northern
aggressors ( U.S. Grant ) sobered themselves the following day, therefore
enabling themselves to gain the ground they had lost one day earlier.

R. Johnson
LTM ( who believes " The South shall rise again" )

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Off-topic is one thing.  Off-topic and political is something else.  This
thread stops here.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:08:06 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Gilberts and Gilbeys (??)

Don Jordan wrote:

> Because Ric, most of us don't believe she was on the LOP which ran
> down the middle of Howland, Baker and on to Niku.

Who is "most of us"? I'd like to see that statement backed up by some
verification. Until then, the statement is so categorical that it undermines
the credibility of the accompanying statements, which I'll briefly respond
to anyway.

> To have Noonan be on that line he would have to be pretty damn far off course
> north or south but not east or west.

Ric is correct, Don, when he says you don't understand what a line of
position is. The whole point of the LOP is that Noonan's accuracy north or
south is irrelevant-- spot-on, or hundreds of miles off course, he would
still hit the calculated LOP without fail.

> If he were north of Howland, they would have seen it when the turned
> south.  If they were south of Howland, they would have seen Baker when
> they turned north.

This idea is incomplete. There is no assurance that they would have seen
either island under any circumstance other than an almost precise flyover
below cloud cover. It is more likely that, whatever their final fate,
Earhart and Noonan were within nominal visual range of Howland (and later,
presumably Baker), and failed to see either of them because of scattered
cloud cover and cloud shadows. It helps to have the experience of actually
having flown over the trackless and immense Pacific to fully appreciate how
difficult it is to pick out a small island from hundreds of dappled cloud
shadows. Without a good DF bearing, spotting your target from more than a
few miles at any altitude can quickly become a lottery.

> But what if they did hit the line a hundred miles south, do you
> think they would say to themselves,
> "Well. . . Howland is not here.  I don't think we know where we are,
> so let go south for three hours and see what's down there"

Whether or not they actually made an attempt to follow the LOP to Gardner,
Noonan had no reason to ask what was on the southern extremity of the line:
As one of the foremost experts of Pacific aerial navigation of his time, he
certainly knew the answer: The Phoenix group, including Gardner.

There is no evidence that he hit the LOP several hundred miles to the south
(on the contrary, the evidence indicates that he guided Earhart to a point
on the LOP rather close to Howland), and as has been explained countless
times here in the past, he didn't need to be several hundred miles south of
Howland in order to hit the LOP. However, in the very unlikely event that
they were off course by several hundred miles to the south, it would have
placed them that much closer to the Phoenix group and made a course of 157
even more compelling.

> In my opinion, they simply could not have been on the Howland LOP
> and not found Baker at least..  With maybe four hours fuel left, they
> could have almost gone to Niku and back.

This is false, for two reasons. First, as I mentioned above, visual
conditions could have precluded them from seeing Baker unless they were
virtually on top of it. Second, it is possible that they reached the LOP
south of Howland or Baker, and despite an attempt to run the line north for
several miles, saw nothing. Knowing that with 4 hours of fuel remaining they
were virtually assured of reaching the Phoenix group by following their
known LOP (and, if they were unknowingly north of Howland, reaching Howland
or Baker long before that), there remains a very strong possibility, even
probability, that they ultimately chose to fly a course of 157 degrees.

Combined with the strong physical and anecdotal evidence that has built up
over the years, it is, in the absence of hard physical evidence otherwise,
impossible to reasonably deny the possibility (note "possibility") that they
reached Gardner and landed there, dying of injuries and/or exposure in the
weeks that followed.

LTM (who liked sunrises)
william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:31:14 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Gilberts and Gilbeys (??)

Alan wrote,

 I can understand Don's puzzlement that our duo did not see islands if
they were near or over them. I've tried to find islands like that many
times before in the Pacific and in the Atlantic.
**************************
    Maybe they  could not see the islands!  But if that were the case,
how could the islands not see them.  I'd be willing to bet that not
everyone who knew she was coming was in the radio room listening to the
radio!  I wonder how many were on the railing with binoculars scanning
the horizon, and how many were on Howland doing the same.  If they
couldn't see them, surely they could have heard them.  We already know
you can be on one of those island and hear but not see an airplane.

    Nobody heard them, nobody saw them!  I'd also be willing to bet they
were not within 25 miles of Howland at any given time and certainly not
within 50 or 60 miles south of Howland on a bearing of 157 degrees at
any given time.

Don J.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

In 1967 Ann Pellegreno and her three-man crew were within 10 miles of Howland
before one of them caught a glimpse of the island.  With 50 percent fewer
eyes aboard they may not have seen it until they were much closer.
Could someone on the deck of the Itasca have heard a Lockheed Electra that
was 10 miles downwind at 1,000 feet?  Ever been on the deck of a ship with
generators running?  My guess would be that the airplane would have to buzz
the ship to be heard by anyone on deck.  Can you see an Electra that's 10
miles away at 1,000 feet?  Dream on.

Could the people on Howland or Baker have heard a Lockheed Electra that was
10 miles downwind at 1,000 feet?  Ever been on an atoll?  Any idea how much
ambient noise is created by the surf on the surrounding reef?  We didn't hear
the "phantom" airplane on Niku until it was very close.  Those of us onshore
didn't see it because we were back in the bush and couldn't see the sky.  I
don't know why the people aboard Nai'a didn't see it.

But you're right about one thing.  Nobody at Howland or Baker saw the or
heard the Electra because it never got close enough to be seen or heard.  A
stunning conclusion.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:36:11 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Cincinnatus

<<Guys like George Washington saw Cincinnatus as something of a role model
but Grant may have named his horse "Cincinnati" simply because he bought him
there.>>

*Cincinnati, Ohio is named for the same Cincinnatus, who is on the city
seal.
Dan Postellon
Tighar 2263

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, the least he could do is slip the seal a fish once in a while.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:45:16 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      LOP's, Gilberts, Good Gracious,ETC.

Bravo William!

Another sound explaination of why AE & FN could have made to Phoenix.
Everyone's opinion is worth discussing, but I tend to agree the Gardner
diversion seems the most likely probable.  Ric, I know it would be quite
the undertaking to say the least, but this mystery needs a real & well
orchestrated reenactment.  Not as a silly unprofessional amateurish
ego-serving publicity stunt like you-know-who, but one planned &
executed by professionals who really want to bring closure to this with
the right attitude & honor.

This forum is a blast---check's in the mail Ric.

Doug (the navigation nut) B.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:28:05 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: LOP

Don't forget that to determine the sun line Noonan has to not only see where
the sun comes up, but also to take a sight for the angle of the sun over the
horizon - something he cannot do until at least 7.30am on the 2nd of July,
followed by another one about 3 hours later (to give the sun time to
move -well the earth to move- far enough for an accurate second sight.

He needs both sun lines.  That means that unless the sky was clear enough of
clouds (a possibility) between abouut 5.15am to 5.54am local to let him take
3 star shots, (and that assumes he is lucky enough to catch stars exactly on
the meridian at twighlight), he can't get a reasonable fix until around
10.30am local.

Also, any navigation relies on knowing how long, how fast, and in what
direction they were travelling.  Noonan had around 9 hours when he:

1    Would find it difficult to get a celestial fix.  (No horizon - and yes,
an inverting eyepiece may help, but trying to keep the aeroplane dead level
at night is not like having a horizon to reference so any readings would be
inaccurate).

2    Had to rely on Amelia flying at a perfectly constant ground speed (he
couldn't use the drift meter at night to get drift and ground speed so
that's not likely)

3    Had to hope the wind remained constant (also unlikely over that
distance)

4    Had to know the wind speed and direction to start with (the last
reading would be with the drift meter before dark on 1st July - and then
only if they were low enough)

He could not know with only one sun shot, just where along the its LOP he
was.  In fact he could not even know his longitude i.e. the distance he had
travelled from Lae.  He should be somewhere in the vicinity, but even if
Howland was "just over the horizon", he was stuffed without the Radio
Direction Finder until he could get two sun shots.

And he could not get a simple lattitude shot until noon, when the sun was at
its highest overhead.

>Obviously, anyone to the left
> or right of you is going to see the sunrise at the same time you do, but
> somebody in front of you will see it sooner and somebody behind you will see
> it later.  In other words, the precise moment you see the sunrise tell you
> (and your buddies along a line to your left and right) very accurately where
> you are in an east/west sense,

Close, but it only works like that on the South of the equator.  North of
the Equator for your buddies to see the sunrise at the same time they would
have to be on a line more like 023/203.

When the sun rose on the 2nd of July:

At 10 degrees North of the equator and 90 degrees angle to the equator it
was about 5.55am.

At 5 degrees North of the equator, sunrise was about 5.45am

At the equator 0deg on the 2nd of July the sun rose about 5.35am.

At 5 degrees South of the equator, sunrise was about 5.45am.

At 10 degrees South of the equator it was about 5.55am.

So the line of  "beginning of daylight" is a vee with the point at the
equator.

Using the tables and the sun sight, that is part of how you determine your
latitude, unless you wait for a noon sight when the sun is at its zenith
(directly overhead).

So Ric's LOP and time his buddies see the sunrise is correct if it does not
cross the equator.  The line that passes through Howland and Niku only just
crosses the equator so the difference would be negligible.

It would be interesting to see exactly what direction the sun comes from at
Niku in July.  I've just taken altitude and direction at about 20deg South
and in December it is 98 degrees magnetic.  That's 90 degrees true, or Due
east.

So next time you are on Niku in July how about a sunrise direction???

So whether 337/157 was a "Line Of Position" or "the Line they were flying
along" which is probably more likely, owing to it passing through Howland
and Niku is debatable.

That they reported being on the line 337/157 is logged.  Exactly what was
said in the  running north ??? south message has been questioned.  If they
said they were running north TO south, then it's a fair bet they were
heading towards the Phoenix group.

Running north AND south suggests darting back and forth along a heading and
sounds really unlikely.

RossD (who thinks 337/157 was the direction they were flying - not a LOP)

************************************************************************
From Ric

I am not a celestial navigator but I've spent a good bit of time over the
past twelve years discussing this specific situation with some very
experienced celestial navigators and I think you have some fairly major
misconceptions about what is possible and what isn't.  But before I shoot off
my big mouth I'll give the forum's Celestial Choir ( Hmmm, I rather like
that) a chance to chime in.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:31:41 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: parachutes

Well, we are 20deg South of the equator and have year round average water
temp of 70degrees.  I figured the equator just might be a little closer to
the temp in Darwin (10deg south).

Either way, even 70degrees would be warm enough.  (You still suffer
hypothermia though)..

RossD

************************************************************************
From Ric

So your statement that the Pacific's water temperature averages 80 degrees
was more or less a guess?  Gotta watch out for stuff like that around here.
This gang is merciless.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:37:27 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      U.S. Grant

Please, oh please oh wise and mighty head TIGHAR, just one more post on
Grant....

The calls for Grant's resignation were due to his high casualty figures, not
his drinking.

Thank you, oh handsome TIGHAR.

Back to parachutes and fire extinguishers...

LTM,

MStill
************************************************************************
From Ric

No. I'm sorry.  I'm simply not susceptible to flattery.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:51:05 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: LOP

Ric, Alan, Don and others.

I have finally found a plain english site which describes "simply" the
concept of celestial navigation.

There is even a page which describes the "Line Of Position" (what I was
referring to as sun lines) and how you find it (using the 2 sun shots I
spoke of).

Only in this explanation they are using star sights which work the same way.

For anyone who is confused by the discussion on Navigation or LOP, have a
look at:

http://peck.ipph.purdue.edu/al/space3.html    and its associated pages.

(This just happens to be the one with a simple outline of LOP near the bottom
of the page.

It is written in much simpler language than any of my rextbooks on the
subject.

RossD   (Who still thinks FN was not a drunk and was an excellent navigator)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:55:30 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      LOP Sine Qua Non

Ric:  Should you refine and condense your LOP explanation,
and I think that you should as a document for the record, consider
the following.  Fred's LOP was in effect a 'band' due to the inherent
errors inherrent in most LOP's.  In the instant case, the astronomical
data was rounded, a second or two in noting the rise of first light, and
again when the lower limb cleared the horizon, ditto the second line
to determine ground speed since the first line, the assumption of what
the ground speed would be to the advanced line thru HOW, and the
fact that Fred's HOW was several miles west of its actual position,
results in a line that has 'width'; a cumulative error easily between one
and ten miles; for even the best of navigators.

Since an error that positioned the line further east would put them even
closer to Howland [acct. error of Howland's position], increasing the possibility
of seeing Howland [initiallty or when flying the LOP] it is more reasonable to
believe the line was a couple miles at least, short of Howland's '37 position.
Thus increasing their actual distance from Howland initially, and while flying
the LOP.  It would thus be farther from Bak as well, and perhaps fortuitously
right on Gardner. {the LOP thru Howland's position passes about 5 - 7 mi. [as
I recall] east of Gardner.    Conclusion:  Flying the LOP along its westerly
limit of accuracy would decrease the possibility of seeing Howland and Baker,
but increase the possibility of seeing Gardner.    Turn that over in your mind.

Regards,  RC

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Good point.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:43:59 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Gilberts v. Niku

Per Ric:  "We just don't seem to able to get across why it is that
following the LOP was greatly preferable to turning back to the Gilberts"

Think you missed my point.  I probably didn't make it very well.  Assuming AE had
absolutely no idea what she was going to do if she failed to find Howland,
then certainly it made sense to follow the LOP.  On the other hand, if she
had a preconceived Plan B (and 3.5 hours of fuel remaining) then it
would not have been out of character for her to follow that plan.  That's
why I consider the Vidal papers so important.  Sure wish we had a Forum
member in Laramie!  (By the way, I agree that if they DID turn back to the
Gilberts they didn't make it, but a documented backup plan could open up new
areas of inquiry.)

Alan's explanation of LOP navigation is the best yet, but the fact remains
that FN's sunrise LOP still had to be advanced to Howland by dead reckoning.
There is no evidence that Fred was able to take the additional sun and moon
shots that would have allowed him to get a better fix on their position.  If
FN was able to get only a single sun shot (remember AE reported cloudy
weather), the margin of error increases the farther the LOP is advanced
eastward by DR.  This would seem especially true if Fred was having trouble
gauging headwinds or drift.  (And if he wasn't having trouble with one or
the other of these items, they should have found Howland.)  So it is well
within the realm of possibility that AE was considerably short of (or past)
Howland when she turned onto the 157/337 line -- in which case said line
would not run through Niku.  If Alan's theory is correct, then two people
who were desperately seeking land -- any land -- not only flat out failed to
see Howland, but probably missed Baker as well.  I suppose in sunrise
conditions this, too, is possible.

BTW, a contemporary news account, written during the search and datelined
Honolulu, reported the total population of the Phoenix Group in July 1937 as
three (count 'em) people.  Another reason Earhart MAY have thought her
chances were better in another direction, even if Niku was closer.

LTM (who realizes all this stuff was hashed and rehashed some months ago)

Pat Gaston
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The only comment Earhart made about weather was "partly cloudy" logged by the
Itasca at 04:53 (and probably sent at AE's regular transmission time of
04:45).  The other alleged reports of "overcast" conditions do not appear in
the original log and seem to be the later invention of Warner Thompson,
captain of the Itasca, as part of his campaign to exonerate himself from
blame.

Let's remember that the alleged comment about turning back to the Gilberts
was made by Amelia Earhart, not Fred Noonan.  Let's remember also that the
happy coincidence of the sunrise LOP, advanced through Howland, falling
through several other islands was entirely a function of when the flight took
place.  The world flight was far behind schedule and neither AE nor FN could
have known, until the night before the flight, exactly what day they would be
making the trip.

As long as we're debating anecdotes, I'll mention that Martin Aircraft
Company representative Francis "Fuzz" Furman, who in 1937 was based in
Bandoeng , Java, spent quite a bit of time with Fred while the Electra was
there having maintenance done.  Fuzz (whom I interviewed in 1989) remembers
that Fred was concerned about the Lae/Howland leg and was almost obsessive
about repeatedly checking the accuracy of his chronometer.  Conversely,
Chater describes Earhart and Noonan as being very confident about the flight
immediatley prior to departure.  Of course, by that time, Fred knew that he'd
be approaching Howland on the mornng of July 2nd and precomputing his sunrise
LOP showed him that he'd have a line that would give him three other islands
as alternates.  Couldn't be better.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:00:29 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Sam Grant

Puh-leeze just one more comment before this thread is snipped:  Note I
referred to Grant as a "famous ALLEGED drunk".  I'm aware of no credible
evidence, except for one cryptic comment by Meade, that Grant was ever in
his cups during active command operations.  A self-promoting journalist
named Sylvanus Cadwallader alleged that he saw Grant roaring drunk during a
behind-the-lines boating foray up the Yazoo, but Charles Dana, Assistant
Secretary of War, was on the same trip and reported nothing untoward.  Dana
had been dispatched by Stanton specifically to check on reports of Grant's
intemperance.

If Grant did occasionally tie one on, MStill is right: it was out of
loneliness for Julia and the kids, or sheer boredom.  The incident referred
to in M's post occurred during the Petersburg siege, one of those times when
not much was going on.  Julia arrived, took charge, and that was that.  They
were completely devoted to each other.

So I respectfully take issue with the statement that Grant "did command some
of his major campaigns under the influence," but would be most pleased to
correspond with Mr. or Ms. Still on this subject.

LTM (who considers Grant ALMOST as fascinating a character as AE),

Pat Gaston

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, I tried.  The fact is that the sort of person who is engaged by this
forum is often fascinated by other historical characters and puzzles (myself
included).  In a desperate attempt to salvage some relevancy for this thread
I'll note the similarity of Patrick's observations about Grant to my own
about Noonan.

On a separate issue, I'd like to assure (reassure?) everyone that my
not-so-secret (albeit purely platonic) admirer MStill is Ms. Still.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:49:34 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Gilberts and Gilbeys

William wrote,

>This idea is incomplete. There is no assurance that they would have seen
>either island under any circumstance other than an almost precise flyover
>below cloud cover.

There was no cloud cover that day around Howland "Ships Log:USCG
Itasca; Friday 2 July 1937. . . Sky conditions; clear. . .

William also stated,

>Who is "most of us"? I'd like to see that statement backed up by some
>verification.

We TIGHARs are not alone in the search for Amelia Earhart.  There
are millions of researchers and interested people out there.   Most
believe in the theory of the last book they read on the subject.  Some
believe in a Japanese involvement, some in a ditching at sea there are
even some takers for the "Living in Upstate New York" story.  The TIGHAR
"Running south on the LOP" theory is just one of many.  Though I have
not taken  a survey, I would guess there are maybe 500 forum members who
agree with the theory.  There is nothing wrong with that, but they are a
mere flyspeck on the sea of theories!  The wise man will be a little
more reserved and open minded. . . just in case!

William again,

>Ric is correct, Don, when he says you don't understand what a line of
>position is. The whole point of the LOP is that Noonan's accuracy north
>or south is irrelevant-- spot-on, or hundreds of miles off course, he
>would still hit the calculated LOP without fail.

Can you guarantee  that Fred was able to get good celestial fixes
during the night, and that he knew what the wind was during the last few
hours of the run for the island.  Can you guarantee he knew the wind
speed, cross wind component and ground speed, exactly.  If he knew that
exactly, this forum would not exist because the Electra would have
touched down to refuel right on time!  If you can't assure me that he
knew these things, then you can't be sure the Electra ended up at a
point some many miles to the south on a bearing of 157 degrees.

>Whether or not they actually made an attempt to follow the LOP to
>Gardner, Noonan had no reason to ask what was on the southern extremity
>of the line: As one of the foremost experts of Pacific aerial navigation
>of his time, he certainly knew the answer: The Phoenix group, including
>Gardner.

Yes, he probably did!  He was good.  He could navigate all day and
all night, and after 2,556 miles hang a right turn for another 400 miles
and hit Gardner dead on.  Only problem was. . . he was supposed to land
at Howland!  I am not blaming Fred, but the fact is. . . somebody messed
up!

>However, in the very unlikely event that they were off course by
>several hundred miles to the south, it would have placed them that much
>closer to the Phoenix group and made a course of 157 even more
>compelling.

If they knew that a course of 157 degree would take them to Gardner,
then shouldn't they have known that 337 degree would take them to
Howland?

>First, as I mentioned above, visual conditions could have precluded them
>from seeing Baker unless they were virtually on top of it.

Ships log;. . . Sky Conditions; Clear!

Ric said that it would be difficult to see the island if they were
at 1,000 feet and within 10 miles.  OK.  They were not in between
Howland and Baker and if they ran 10 miles north without seeing either
one, then they had to be south of Baker by more than 25 or so miles.
That would put them over, or close to 100 miles off course to the
south.  To do that, they would have to know the ground speed from the
last known position and not figure in any cross wind component.  I doubt
they had a perfect 90 degree cross wind which would change the track,
but not ground speed!

>Knowing that with 4 hours of fuel remaining they were virtually assured
>of reaching the Phoenix group by following their known LOP .

With four hours of fuel remaining, it doesn't seem logical that they
would only search to the south.  With that much fuel, they could have
gone one hundred miles to the north, then one hundred miles back to the
starting point and still had enough fuel to reach Gardner and circle for
45 minutes. (Based on what we think we know about fuel flow and airspeed
of the Electra)

Also,  if they were on the Howland based LOP, the only island they
would be assured to hit in the Phoenix Group would be Gardner.  They'd
miss all the rest!  But there are two islands to the north.  All things
being equal, would you give up two for one?

>Combined with the strong physical and anecdotal evidence that has built
>up over the years, it is, in the absence of hard physical evidence
>otherwise, impossible to reasonably deny the possibility (note
>"possibility") that they reached Gardner and landed there, dying of
>injuries and/or exposure in the weeks that followed.

I agree, it is possible!  But I 'm not willing to bet the farm on it.

Don J.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Two quick comments - one to Don and one to William:

Don,

I don't know what Itasca Deck Log you're looking at but the photocopy of the
original deck log in the National Archives that I'm looking at makes no
reference to "sky conditions."  There are entries for "Weather by Symbols"
and for "Clouds" which are broken down as to "Form", "Moving From", and
"Amount."

There is a log entry for every hour of the day.  The entries for 1 a.m, 2
a.m., and 3 a.m. under "Weather by Symbols" are "B" which is defined as "blue
sky - cloudless."  From 4 a.m. through noon the entries are all "BC" which is
defined as "blue sky with detached clouds."  The cloud descriptions for each
hour are as follows:

4 a.m.  alto cumulus moving from east, amount "2"
5 a.m.  cumulus moving from east, amount "2"
6 a.m.  strato- cumulus moving from east-northeast, amount "4"
7 a.m.  cumulus moving from east, amount "3"
8 a.m.  cumulus moving from east, amount "3"
9 a.m.  cumulus moving from east, amount "2"
10 a.m.  cumulus moving from east-southeast, amount "3"
11 a.m.  Strato-cumulus moving from northeast, amount "5"
12 noon  cumulus moving from northeast, amount "5"

(Note: At 10:40 a. m. Itasca left Howland and headed northwest to search for
Earhart because it looked like there were more clouds in that direction, so
the cloud conditions at 11 and 12 do not necessarilly reflect what was
happening at Howland.)

For William

Don is an excellent representative of the "most of us" he is referring to.
We're wasting our time arguing with him.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:50:39 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Sextant and box

Dave provides a plausible, if hard to prove or disprove, scenario for
deriving the sextant box from the Norwich City.  Of course, we'd still have
to explain how it got down to the "Southeast end" with somebody who died
there after eating turtles and birds.  No way of finding out whether the
captain's sextant box might have had numbers on it, I suppose.  Janet???

LTM (who doesn't have anybody's number)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:51:57 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Gilberts and Gilbeys (??)

I just happened on an FAA analysis dealing with the range at which the
average human being with 20/20 eyesight can see an airplane (ca. 7 miles) and
recognize the type of aircraft (ca. 7/10 mile).  I presume this refers to the
unaided human eye, but I know from standing quite a few bridge watches in the
Navy that it's easy to miss things with binoculars, too.

LTM (who's a real looker)
Tom King
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:53:30 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: parachutes

>>I think I'd rather parachute into Pacific waters with an average year
>>round temperature of over 80 degrees ...
>
>*** Must have come out as a typo, Ross, or a busted thermometer;
>'taint so.     RC

Even if it was so, a sea temp of 80 is 16 degrees below body temp.
Hypothermia will eventually set in.

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:02:55 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      5 steps to a LOP

The 5 steps to a LOP (from the Bill Myers School of Navigation...)

1    You measure the altitude of an object (and the time.)

2    You calculate the position of the object at the time of observation
using the Nautical Almanac.

3    You use your assumed position from DED Reckoning to calculate what the
altitude should have been and what the azimuth (direction of the object)
should have been.

4    Comparison of the altitude you measured with the one you calculated
gives you an offset that can be plotted on a chart as a line of position
(LOP).

5    A "fix" is then obtained by observing where a bunch of LOPs cross.

RossD.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds to me like steps 1 and 2 give you the LOP and steps 3 and 4 are merely
to make sure that you shot the star you think you shot (which is not much of
an issue when the star is the Sun).  Step 5 is irrelevant to this discussion
except to note that Fred had only one star to shoot and by the time it had
moved enough to give him a reliable "cut" on his first shot he was already
committed to a course of action.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:03:45 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: flares

Make that 14 flares and 2 parachute flares...

Oops!!

RossD  Who didn't read the QTY column  (blush)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:42:30 EST
From:         Deniis McGee
Subject:      autopilots and personal needs

This is not about the LOP; that dead horse has been pureed.
Scheeeze!

So, who the hell was flying the airplane during the whole thing --
we're talking 16-plus hours without a break.  Did AE hand-fly this bad boy
all the way or did she turn over a lot of the flying duties to good old
"Iron Mike," her auto pilot?.

Not to get too personal, but how about . . .ah . . .  how do we say
this, "personal needs."  Any indication how that problem was handled?
Sixteen hours without a break is a lo-o-o-o-o-ng time to hold it.

LTM, who maintains excellent personal hygiene :-)
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE
************************************************************************
From Ric

The Electra was equipped with a Sperry Gyro Pilot (3-axis autopilot) and Fred
certainly should have been capable of flying the airplane enroute, so there
were three people (two human and one robotic) to share the load.

The standard Model 10 had a potty back in the tail and, although I've never
seen specific mention of it, it would certainly seem reasonable to have
NR16020 so equipped.  There are also anecdotal accounts of a
specially-designed, female-friendly business end for a relief tube in the
cockpit.

One thing is for certain.  By the time they got to Lae, Ae and FN were very
accustomed to spending lots of time in that airplane.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:57:32 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Gilberts and Gilbeys

Ric stated,

>I don't know what Itasca Deck Log you're looking at but the photocopy of
>the original deck log in the National Archives that I'm looking at makes
>no reference to "sky conditions."

If I have wrong information, then I apologize, but the reference and
source for the comment was taken from "TIGHAR TRACKS "Log Jam", page one

Quote:
    "Ship's Log: USCG Itasca; Friday; 2 July 1937
    0200 Drifting to westward of Howland Island. . . Wind; East Force 2
(light breeze). . .
    Temperature; 81 degrees F. . . Sky Conditions; clear. . . Sea
Conditions; 1 (Moderate   swell calm seas)"

Granted it was 0200 in the morning, so maybe by 08:45 AM there were some
clouds present, but if I can't trust this source to properly interpret
historical information, who can I trust?

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The Log Jam article is accurate in stating that the sky was clear at 0200,
but the purpose of that article is to detail and analyze the radio log
entries, not the weather conditions throughout the day.

The incorrect interpretation that the sky condition remained unchanged was
yours, not TIGHAR's, but I would advise you not to trust anyone's
interpretation of historical information.  Go to the primary source.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:38:07 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: LOP

I'm not a navigator either, but wasn't there considerable discussion some
time back about the sextant / octant used by FN?  Do I understand correctly
that in such a device a bubble may substitute for an actual horizon?  Being
experienced in aerial navigation over the Pacific (read: pioneer in
establishing Pan Am's Pacific routes), I have to presume that FN was
knowledgible and experienced in the peculiarities of night-time aerial
navigation, and was capable of making the most of what he had available.

ltm,

Jon 2266 - ps the SASE is in the mail!

**************************************************************************
From Ric

yes, as i understand it, that's sort of the point of a bubble octant.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:44:59 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Gilberts and Gilbeys

Well, one last response.

Don Jordan replied,

>     If they knew that a course of 157 degree would take them
> to Gardner, then shouldn't they have known that 337 degree would take them to
> Howland?

If you can't answer this question for yourself by now, I respectfully assure
you that you are unqualified to discuss any navigational options or
probabilities of choice based on celestial navigation.

>     Can you guarantee  that Fred was able to get good celestial fixes
> during the night, ...Can you guarantee he knew the wind
> speed, cross wind component and ground speed, exactly.  If he knew that
> exactly, this forum would not exist because the Electra would have
> touched down to refuel right on time!

Oh my goodness. What a stunning observation. It never would have occurred to
me, without your assistance, Don, that this forum would probably not exist
if Earhart and Noonan had landed successfully at Howland. My perceptions are
forever transformed.

"Guarantee"? If you are looking for guarantees, you are in the wrong forum.
You might try a political forum, however.

>but the fact is. . .somebody messed up!

Yes, Don. Someone, somewhere, failed to adequately prepare for at least one
variable.

> Ships log;. . . Sky Conditions; Clear!

Regarding the cloud cover recorded on the log of the Itasca for the time
period during which Earhart and Noonan were presumably in the vicinity of
Howland, you are incorrect. You cannot advance your position here by citing
inaccurate or fictional history. Again, you might want to try a political
forum.

>     With four hours of fuel remaining... they could have
> gone one hundred miles to the north, then one hundred miles back to the
> starting point and still had enough fuel to reach Gardner and circle for
> 45 minutes. (Based on what we think we know about fuel flow and airspeed
> of the Electra)

I will allow your remarks here speak for themselves regarding your expertise
in trans-Pacific aviation, navigation, aircraft reliability curves and pilot
judgement in the late 1930s.

> I agree, it is possible!  But I 'm not willing to bet the farm on it.

Actually, the idea here, using your metaphorical device, is that Earhart and
Noonan, if they did decide to fly a course of 157, did it because they knew
that not the "farm", but their lives were "on the table", and that a heading
of 157 was probably their "best bet" for keeping them. There is fascinating
evidence, but no proof, that they "won" the first "bet", only to lose the
next "wager", that of survival on an uninhabited island.

LTM (who preferred Bridge)

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:54:21 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      The U.S. Grant Forum

As long as our attention is still diverted ... I wasn't going to ask this,
but is there any truth to the rumor that Lincoln wanted to find out what USG
was drinking and send a case of it to each of his other generals???
Sorry, couldn't resist.
ltm
jon  2266

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Hey, I do famous fliers and famous horses.  Don't ask me.  (But I have no
doubt that somebody will answer your question, chapter and verse.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:02:32 EST
From:         Bethpage 89
Subject:      Re: LOP

Ross D. wrote:

>to determine the sun line Noonan has to not only see where
>the sun comes up, but also to take a sight for the angle of the sun over
>the horizon

Knowing the sun's azimuth, and noting the time that the sun first emerges is
sufficient for a single sun line if the negative angle and the refraction
are known.  Just how good an idea Noonan had of refraction at very low
angles is hard to know.  The table in HO 208 doesn't provide refraction
information for angles below about +5 degrees.

>....unless the sky was clear enough of clouds (a possibility) between abouut
>5.15am to 5.54am local to let him take 3 star shots, (and that assumes he is
>lucky enough to catch stars exactly on the meridian at twilight), he can't
>get a reasonable fix until around 10.30am local.

Sighting two bodies is enough for a reasonable fix, and neither needs to be
near the observer's meridian; it is just good to have enough azimuthal
separation for a good cut.

>Noonan had around 9 hours when he:
>1    Would find it difficult to get a celestial fix.  (No horizon - and yes,
>an inverting eyepiece may help, but trying to keep the aeroplane dead level
>at night is not like having a horizon to reference so any readings would be
>inaccurate).

Air navigators get good sights using artificial horizons.  An airplane that
is trimmed for level flight is a good platform for observations, (if the
pilot keeps hands and feet off the controls during the observation).

>He could not know with only one sun shot......his longitude i.e. the
>distance he had travelled from Lae.

The Sun LOP was very nearly perpendicular to the course line, so it did give
some idea of the distance traveled.

The Moon had risen very high around the time of sunrise, and sighting it
might have been impossible without an overhead window, but if it was visible
it would have been useful later in the morning for a cross-LOP.

>And he could not get a simple latitude shot until noon, when the sun was at
>its highest overhead.

That kind of sight would be good for approximating longitude, too.

>> Obviously, anyone to the left or right of you is going to see the sunrise
>> at the same time you do, but somebody in front of you will see it sooner and
>> somebody behind you will see  it later.  In other words, the precise moment
>> you see the sunrise tells you (and your buddies along a line to your left and
>> right) very accurately where you are in an east/west sense,
>
>Close, but it only works like that on the South of the equator.  North of
>the Equator for your buddies to see the sunrise at the same time they would
>have to be on a line more like 023/203.

Over Howland, the direction of sunrise that day was 067 True.  That azimuth
of the sun would be approximately the same for a fairly wide area, even a
little south of the Equator.  A sunrise Sun Line is very nearly a great
circle, with the azimuth toward the Sun changing by a degree each 69 miles
or so.  Howland is very near the Equator; the Sun's LOP for the early
daylight hours was about 157-337 for that vicinity, both north and south of
the Equator.

To see the sun rising perpendicular to where its LOP is 023/203 that day,
the observer would have to be well north of the Sun's (North 23 degrees)
track.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:07:29 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP's, Gilberts, Good Gracious,ETC.

Doug B. wrote:

<< Ric, I know it would be quite the undertaking to say the least, but this
mystery needs a real & well orchestrated reenactment.  >>

Ric, you fly it and I'll map read but I want good radios and antennas left ON
the plane. I'm free this weekend or right after Christmas.<G>

Alan

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not typed in the 747 and we'd need an airplane at least that big to
accomodate our entire Celestial Choir.  Whadya say Skeet?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:14:02 EST
From:         Bethpage 89
Subject:      LOP (again)

Ross D. wrote:

>When the sun rose on the 2nd of July:
>At 10 degrees North of the equator and 90 degrees angle to the equator it
>was about 5.55am
>At 5 degrees North of the equator , sunrise was about 5.45am
>At the equator 0 deg on the 2nd of July the sun rose about 5.35am.
>At 5 degrees South of the equator, sunrise was about 5.45am.
>At 10 degrees South of the equator it was about 5.55am.
>So the line of  "beginning of daylight" is a vee with the point at the
>equator.

The Sun rose not in the direction of 090, but rather in the direction of
about 067, because its declination at that time of year is about 23 degrees
north of the Equator.

Interpolation of the 1937 Nautical Almanac Sunrise table gives sunrise times
at 10 degree intervals, with the times for N 10 deg., 0 deg., and S 10 deg.
being about 5:45, 6:01, and 6:18.  (Pages 706, 708, 710, and 711). Rather
than a V, the Sun LOP at that time, the terminator, is very nearly straight
and circles the earth.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:17:24 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Ms. or Mr.

Oh handsome TIGHAR, I never realized some might question my gender.  I would
hate to give any other TIGHARs the wrong idea.  MERCY!

I have had many adjectives applied to me, but 'platonic' is a first.  I'll
add it to the collection.

LTM (who wants her head TIGHAR to maintain his sterling reputation)

MSTILL (thats Margot Still if you still have any questions in your mind)
Platonicly yours, right Pat?

**************************************************************************
From Ric

 If my reputation was sterling I wouldn't have to make platonic assurances.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:33:58 EST
From:         Bethpage 89
Subject:      Sun LOP

>....the fact remains that FN's sunrise LOP still had to be advanced to
>Howland by dead reckoning.
>There is no evidence that Fred was able to take the additional sun and moon
>shots that would have allowed him to get a better fix on their position.
>If FN was able to get only a single sun shot (remember AE reported cloudy
>weather), the margin of error increases the farther the LOP is advanced
>eastward by DR.

The sunrise LOP would only have to be advanced to Howland by dead reckoning
in the event that the sun became so obscured that it couldn't be seen.  Is
there evidence that Noonan was able to see the sun at exactly sunrise?  The
157-337 LOP corresponds to the alignment of the Sun LOP for a good while
after sunrise as well.

************************************************************************
From Ric

If the airplane was where it should have been (at 10,000 feet) and the
weather where it was was similar to the sunrise weather at Howland (some
widely scattered cumulus with bases at maybe 1,500 and probably no
significant build up), it seems like he should have been able to see the sun
if not exactly at the moment it broke the horizon, very soon afterward.
When they get in closer they need to descend below the cloud bases in order
be able to look for the island (hence Earhart's later comment that she is at 1,000
feet).  Once they're down low and the sun is up, they'll have to make do
without further sun shots.  The question is, how far out did they descend?
If I was Noonan and I was still about 200 miles out when the sun came up, I'd
want to stay high long enough to shoot some "speed lines" to confirm my
groundspeed.  Fuel economy was also much better at altitude.  I might start
down about 50 miles out, but that's just a guess.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:37:40 EST
From:         Bethpage89
Subject:      Re: 5 steps to a LOP

Ross D. wrote

>The 5 steps to a LOP (from the Bill Myers School of Navigation...)
>
>1    You measure the altitude of an object (and the time.)
>
>2    You calculate the position of the object at the time of observation
>using the Nautical Almanac.
>
>3    You use your assumed position from DED Reckoning to calculate what the
>altitude should have been and what the azimuth (direction of the object)
>should have been.

>4    Comparison of the altitude you measured with the one you calculated
>gives you an offset that can be plotted on a chart as a line of position (LOP).
>
>5    A "fix" is then obtained by observing where a bunch of LOPs cross.
>
>*************************************************************************
>From Ric
>
>Sounds to me like steps 1 and 2 give you the LOP and steps 3 and 4 are merely
>to make sure that you shot the star you think you shot.....

Steps 3 and 4 are necessary unless the body's subpoint is so near that it is
right on your chart.

In aviation the steps are sometimes done in the order of 2, 3, 1, 4, 5--with
the various corrections being applied (with opposite sign) to the (2) the
height computed instead of to (1) the height sighted.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:38:44 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      LOP (correction)

I stand corrected (by myself at least)  I forgot Noonan had a bubble octant
on board as his primary nav aid.

With the bubble octant he had a sort of artificial horizon to use, but he
still had to allow for his own altitude above the sea.

So he did have fixes available through the night.

RossD
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:40:34 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: parachutes

PACIFIC ISLANDS REPORT

Pacific Islands Development Program/Center for Pacific Islands Studies

EL NIÑO INCREASES WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE PACIFIC.

TOKYO, Japan (April 10, 1998 - Radio Australia)---The Japan Meteorological
Agency says temperatures in parts of the Pacific Ocean have reached record
levels.

The average water temperature in the eastern equatorial region rose to 29 C
(84 F) in March...

> *** Must have come out as a typo, Ross, or a busted thermometer;
> 'taint so.     RC

OK,  I was wrong.  So maybe year round average of 80deg was a little
optimistic - but as far as the temperature goes "'tis so sometimes   "... !!
However you'd be surprised how little the (measured - not guessed) water
temperature varies through the year in the tropics.

RossD   who lives where the water is sometimes too warm to swim in
comfortably
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:49:17 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: LOP Sine Qua Non

Can someone please show me a log entry that says AE was on a "Line Of
Position".

It doesn't appear to be in any of the entries I can find on the web site...

RossD

**************************************************************************
From Ric

 As far as we know, Earhart never used the phrase "Line of Position" in a
transmission heard by the Itasca (or anybody else).  What the Itasca log
records her as saying is, "We are on the line 157 337."  It is possible that
she was referring to a clothes line or a telephone line, but a Line of
Position seems more likely given that fact that the only LOP Noonan could
have gotten that morning was a 157 337 line.

The radio transmission heard by Itasca are discussed on the TIGHAR website in
an article called "Log Jam" which can be found at
http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/logjam.html

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:56:44 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LOP

I'm sorry, but I can't let this misinformation pass without comment:

"Close, but it only works like that on the South of the equator.  North of
the Equator for your buddies to see the sunrise at the same time they would
have to be on a line more like 023/203."

"So the line of  "beginning of daylight" is a vee with the point at the
equator."

This is utter hogwash.  The LOP obtained locally is good for about 100
miles in either direction, and is, in reality, a tangent line to a great
circle around the earth.  Look at any picture of earth from space, and you
will see the terminus, or the edge of light and shadow.  It is a smoothly
varying position (and angle) relative to its position.  The LOP angle
changes slowly with latitude, but does not become a "V" anywhere, nor does
it change angles to 23/203 degrees until nearly a change of 90 degrees
latitude.

As stated, the LOP is locally valid, and all aerial navigatiors, including
FJN, knew their best fixes were good to about 10 nautical miles, which is
good enough (usually) to get you close to visual range.  FJN knew that the
LOP was valid wherever he observed it, and that it was valid for
approximatley 100 miles to either side of him.  The errors associated with
an inaccurate latitude within 100 miles or so is well within the 10 nm
error limit.

There are really two critical questions that can't be answered. (1) Did FJN
really observe the sun at daybreak, or did he pre-calculate the LOP without
an actual observation that would fix his longitude?  (2) Did he take
another sun shot later on to determine if his dead reckoning navigation of
the previous LOP to Howland was still accurate?  Unfortunately, we will
never be able to definitively answer these questions.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Don't take it personally Ross.  We don't.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:03:40 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: parachutes  'tis so !!!

I  said...

>I think I'd rather parachute into Pacific waters with an average year round
>temperature of over 80 degrees that the English Channel....

Bob Sherman said...

> *** Must have come out as a typo, Ross, or a busted thermometer;
>'taint so.

and...

>From Ric
>
>So your statement that the Pacific's water temperature averages 80 degrees
>was more or less a guess?  Gotta watch out for stuff like that around here.
>This gang is merciless.

To Ric, and the "merciless gang"!    " 'tis so sometimes "... !!

I know some of my comments are odd, but they are not usually without some
foundation.

I can't "prove" that what you call a LOP is not what someone like Halsey
Herreschoff calls it, (My OWN Translation: "The line between where your DR
says you think you are, and the sun sight says you think you should be"), It
would appear that between some schools of navigation there are different
interpretations.  Everything I have ever found in my studies on the subject
tells me you don't calculate a LOP in advance, it is the result of your
current calculations to determine your real position.

However as I did with the items on the Luke Field Inventory I can support
some claims.

OK,  I was wrong.  So maybe year round average of over 80deg was not totally
accurate, however since I know you prefer the "scientific method" to a good
guess I'll amend my statement to read:

"year round average of 81.66deg F".

Now to the support for my hypothesis:

Item 1..

PACIFIC ISLANDS REPORT
Pacific Islands Development Program/Center for Pacific Islands Studies
EL NIÑO INCREASES WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE PACIFIC.

TOKYO, Japan (April 10, 1998 - Radio Australia)---The Japan Meteorological
Agency says temperatures in parts of the Pacific Ocean have reached record
levels.

The average water temperature in the eastern equatorial region rose to 29 C
(84 F) in March...

However you'd be surprised how little the (measured - not guessed) water
temperature varies through the year in the tropics.

Item 2..

In the exact region where TIGHAR is searching (170E to 170W & 5N to 5S)
(Howland is 176.38W & 0.48N and 180 is actually right in the middle between
170E & 170W) the WATER temperatures for 1994 (the last for which I have
complete records) was:

Jan        82deg
Feb        82deg
Mar        81deg
Apr        82deg
May        83deg
Jun        82deg
Jul        80deg  (whoa - getting down near my average)
Aug        83deg
Sept       81deg
Oct        82deg
Nov        81deg
Dec        81deg

These figures are courtesy of (wait for it)...
The Ocean Climate Laboratory (OCL) at the National Oceanographic Data Center
(NODC)

And I'd expect their guess to be at least as good as mine  :-)

Item 3..

As of 3 Hours ago (1800UTC), the temps at Tarawa/Kiribati according to our
VERY PRECISE measuring equipment located AT Tarawa was:

Water:   81degF
Air:     79degF

The outside air temperature where I live in Australia at 6.00am local was
81degF.  I haven't collected a local sea temp this morning, but based on
yesterday's figures it should be around 82degF at this time at the surface
in deepish (over 30 feet) coastal waters.

I only get Kiribati sea temperatures when i want them, but I can average them
out over a year to see how far out my guess was  :-)

I also have hourly reports of wind speed/direction and gusting at Kitibati
and a few other things less likely to interest people.  (From an Australian
University measuring station).

However as I suggested, and Tom I think also suggested - even in warm water
you will eventually suffer from hypothermia - (just ask the survivors from
the Titanic).

I stand by my original statement re parachuting!

"I think I'd rather parachute into Pacific waters with an average year round
temperature of over 80 degrees than the English Channel...."

RossD    who lives where the water is sometimes too warm to swim
comfortably...

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Not to flog a dead horse, but we're not searching Howland.  Niku is at 4
degree 40 minutes South, 174 degrees 32 minutes West.  No matter.  The water
around there is indeed considerably warmer than the English channel.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:04:30 EST
From:         Birch Matthews
Subject:      FAA Analysis

To Tom King

Would you please reference the FAA analysis you mentioned in your recent
posting?

Thanks
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:45:14 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: The U.S. Grant Forum

Yes Jon, it is true.  When Lincoln was asked what he planned to do about
Grant's drinking, he replied as quoted.

MStill
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:53:25 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: FAA Analysis

I'll have to get permission to share the particular document I was looking
at; it was prepared for a case that may go to court.  But the published
sources it cites are:

Vision and Visual Perception:  Lorrin A. Riggs, 1965
Bioastronautics Data Book, Second Edition: NASA SP - 3006, 1973
The Student Pilot's Flight Manual, Seventh Edition: William K. Kershner, 1993

It's the last that apparently contains specific reference to the 7-mile
visibility and 7/10 mile recognizability rule.

LTM (who's invisible)
Tom King

**************************************************************************
From Ric

The Kershner Manual is popular.  Should be readily available.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:56:02 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Artifact

    I have recently received the template for the aircraft skin found on
Niku.  Who is it that thinks the piece might be from a B-18?  I need to
ask more questions as to possible location.  After doing a walk around
today, I think I might need some help!

    Also, what aircraft have been positively ruled out?  I have the
entire Castle Air Museum at my disposal.  Some how they guessed what I
had,  what I wanted to do and where we think it came from.    I did not
tell them before hand.  They have examples of over 35  W.W. II aircraft
and are only 5 miles away.  I can check anything.

Don J. (Who says Merry Christmas to William and all, and a Happy New
Century)

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I suggest you check 'em all.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:57:13 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: parachutes  'tis so !!!

RossD  said...

>I think I'd rather parachute into Pacific waters with an average year
>round temperature of over 80 degrees channel.

***Sorry that I mentioned it Ross, I should have known that you
meant Central Pacific.   There are ice bergs in both 'end' of
the Pacific.   RC
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:00:03 EST
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: fire extinguisher

<<Actually, there's a little hole in the "top" (the end with the handle).  One
could fill it with a funnel, but it would be rather tedious.

TK>>

The hole in the top is probably to allow for air to escape from the top of
the cylinder while drawing the plunger back to suck some sort of liquid into
the thing from the bottom, not a hole used to fill the container.

Tough way to fight a fire, sucking one cylinder at a time, but I suppose it
is possible.  More likely a bug sprayer, or perhaps some sort of grease gun.

How about a hand pump for adding oil to the engines while in flight?

A McKenna  1045
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm going to assume you're kidding about adding oil to the engines in flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:05:51 EST
From:         Don Neumann
Subject:      Lambrecht revisited

Just spent some time re-examining Lt. Lambrecht's report on the website.

One of the things that occurred to me was the fact that Lambrecht & his
flight seemed to experience no difficulty in locating or identifying any
of the islands in the Phoenix chain (except for Winslow Reef, which was
probably awash when they searched for it) or in navigating their way
back to their ship, which was apparently underway during the search.

Now I realize that although they were out of visual contact with the
ship for most of the search,  Lt. Lambrecht did specifically comment
upon the excellent radio communications they experienced (something
AE/FN obviously did _not_ have as they approached Howland)  & that they
were probably never more than 100 miles away from the ship at any given
time; Never-the-less, they did navigate a somewhat circuitous route,
changing course & direction on numerous occasions in order to reach each
of the islands in the chain.    However they were able to make such
landfalls in very close proximity to the headings recorded on their
charts, having no more available navigational equipment (maybe less)
than AE/FN had aboard the Electra.

Lambrecht also reported no difficulty in seeing any of the islands upon
their approach, other than occasional rain squalls that were apparently
quite common to that area & usually these were very local occurrences.
He also reported being able to see the ship some 30 miles away. (Maybe
she was smoking?)

While there is always the possibility that Lambrecht & his flight
experienced more pristine weather conditions than AE/FN, a week after
their flght terminated, it would seem that if AE/FN, did elect to fly
southeast on their LOP & if their fuel consumption estimates were
reasonably accurate, they should have been able to spot these islands at
the same locations on their charts as the Navy flyers did, the only _IF_
being whether they did have  sufficient fuel reserves to actually
_reach_ one of the islands & then pick out a reasonably safe appearing
stretch of reef flat to negotiate a wheels-down landing.

Don Neumann
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:10:08 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Refraction

Don't forget that due to refraction you have to waith until the sun is at
least 20deg above the horizon to sight it...

RD
************************************************************************
From Ric

That's probably what the textbooks say but, from what I understand from
experienced celestial navigators, it is possible to correct for refraction.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:12:04 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: LOP

Hey I don't take it personally.  I made a boo boo.

Also I wasn't referring to the line of position in this - I was referring to
the beginning of daylight at those lattitudes either side of the equator,
and they are from the current chart not the 1937 one (sorry).

And (oops) I forgot the sun was not directly over the equator in July.
However, the person standing at the equator still gets to see the sun BEFORE
his friends to the south.

HOWEVER it only holds true if everyone is on the same longitude.

Believe me it is a fact and it's to do with the curvature of the earth.

0deg        0540    (Equator)
10degS      0555
20degS      0612

If all these guys (and gals?) are standing along the much discussed LOP
though, well it would be different.

Shouldn't try to oversimplify things  <G>

In the mean time, if they were all on one longitude (not the LOP), and the
sun was over the equator, the Vee should hold good if they all had to see
the sunrise at the same time due again to the curvature of the earth..

RD
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:14:20 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      parachute correction

The temperatures for the year round average (not that it is important
anyway) were taken for 5degN to 5degS of the equator and 170E to 180 to 170W
and that should cover Niku at 4 degree 40 minutes South, 174 degrees 32
minutes West.  There was less than 1/2 deg average monthly variation down to
10S.

All this over my preferring to jump into warm water rather than cold water?
I'd really prefer not to jump at all.  But it was fun.

RD  (the dead horse lives?)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:17:16 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      sextant/octant

I've been ferreting around for information again.

Octant vs Sextant - How did Noonan navigate at night?

At its simplest...  (and most of this is pulled out the encyclopaedia).

A sextant uses the horizon as a reference point.  When you look through
the telescope part at the sun, you move a lever, which moves a mirror,
and adjusts the reflected image of the sun downwards until the bottom of
the sun just touches the image of the horizon.

If you look through an inverting eyepiece, when you move the mirror,
instead of the image of the sun looking like it comes down to meet the horizon,
the image of the horizon looks like it is moving up to meet the sun.
In practice the inverting eyepiece would be more likely to be used
when trying to sight a faint object like a star.

To use a sextant, you MUST be able to see the horizon.  At night away
from civilization, the horizon is very unlikely to be seen distinctly.

A "bubble octant" on the other hand does solve one problem - partially.

In aerial navigation a bubble octant, sometimes called a bubble sextant
is used, in which a spirit level is reflected into the field of view
in such a way that the center of the bubble indicates the true horizon.

It still requires clear enough skies to take sights on at least 2 and
preferably 3 stars with as wide an angle as possible between them.
At night navigation with no visible horizon can never be as accurate
as a daytime sun sight or a twilight star shot because the navigator has to take
his height above the earth into consideration.

Even taking sights using a sextant from the deck of a small yacht, you
have to correct for the height of your eye above the surface of the sea.

Imagine trying to obtain that sort of precision in an aeroplane (ever
flown in absolutely no turbulance?).

So what does the sextant / octant do?

Basically it measures angles very accurately.

At any given moment in daylight, the sun can only be over ONE spot
on the earth's surface.  When you shoot the sun with the sextant you get an angle
between the horizon and the sun.  Picture the sun sitting on the top
of a "cone".  The angle is the steepness of the sides of the cone.

Using this, and the direction to the North or South pole and a few other
things you can calculate where on earth you are at the moment.

This might make this whole thing simpler for people who don't want to learn about
azimuth, zenith, intercepts, declination and so on....

For a nice one page explanation of how all this works, look at:

http://www.nav.org/cel/introduction.html

RD
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:43:26 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP

<< The Moon had risen very high around the time of sunrise, and sighting it
 might have been impossible without an overhead window, but if it was visible
 it would have been useful later in the morning for a cross-LOP. >>

Good comments, Beth. I'm having a little trouble understanding the point of
our LOP discussion unless some would have a master navigator not having much
of a clue as to what he is doing. Unless I am misinterpreting some of the
postings it would seem there is a determination to "prove" Noonan headed out
into oblivian not knowing where he was or where he was going so we all ought
to just pack it in. Or am I being too harsh?

There have been good LOP explanations on the forum in addition to my posting
which apparently was not as simplified and clear as I had hoped. I'm not
certain everyone understands LOP yet. To post celestial procedures doesn't
get us any where and that's why I tried to boil it down to only make a couple
of points -- how to get a ground speed and how to know when one is on an LOP
going through destination. I'm missing the point on the rest of the
arguments. No one has claimed that they know Noonan did or did not take star
or sun shots. We can not know what altitude he was at or what altitude the
clouds were or their extent. We only have the Itaska log giving an indication
of cloud cover and those entries looked to me as though sun shots were
possible.

If the sun was visible I would almost believe the moon was also. That morning
the moon's azimuth allowed for a good cut on Noonan's sun shot -- at least 30
degrees and the highest altitude was 76.7 degrees. One posting by Ross said,
"Don't forget that to determine the sun line Noonan has to not only see where
the sun comes up, but also to take a sight for the angle of the sun over the
horizon - something he cannot do until at least 7.30am on the 2nd of July,
followed by another one about 3 hours later (to give the sun time to move
-well the earth to move- far enough for an accurate second sight."

Not exactly, Ross. First of all I don't know how to take a sun shot when the
sun is over the horizon. The sun as it peaks over the horizon is basically
good only for an azimuth to reset DGs. Until the sun is about ten degrees
altitude the LOP would not be very accurate which would not stop a navigator
from shooting for LOPs, however. They'll refine as the sun gets higher. Also
it doesn't take 3 hours to get a second shot. The sun rises fairly rapidly
and ten minutes is sufficient. Below, courtesy of the Naval observatory is
the selected sun table for Howland on the morning of July 2, 1937.

Time    Altitude        Azimuth

06:20        0.7        67.0
06:30        2.8        67.0
06:40        5.0        66.9
06:50        7.2        66.9
07:00        9.5        66.8
07:10       11.8        66.6
07:20       14.1        66.4
07:30       16.4        66.2
07:40       18.6        65.9
07:50       20.9        65.6
08:00       23.2        65.2
08:10       25.4        64.7
08:20       27.7        64.2
08:30       29.9        63.7
08:40       32.2        63.0

You will note the sun peeped at about 6:20a local with an azimuth of 67
degrees. That was not good for very long. You will also note the altitude
changed about two degrees every ten minutes. That's a sufficient change to
use as a plot. By 8:40a local the azimuth had changed 4 degrees. Granted that
makes a skinny convergence but better than none. While I'm at it here is the
moon table for the same period.

Time     Altitude   Azimuth      Fraction
                                illuminated
06:20       72.5        40.7       0.37
06:30       74.0        34.1       0.37
06:40       75.2        26.4       0.37
06:50       76.1        17.5       0.36
07:00       76.6         7.6       0.36
07:10       76.7       357.3       0.36
07:20       76.3       347.2       0.36
07:30       75.6       338.0       0.36
07:40       74.4       329.8       0.36
07:50       73.1       322.9       0.36
08:00       71.5       317.1       0.36
08:10       69.7       312.3       0.36
08:20       67.8       308.3       0.36
08:30       65.8       305.0       0.36
08:40       63.8       302.2       0.36

Ross, I'm not clear why you think Noonan needed a three star fix between 5:15
and 5:54a. The significance of those times escapes me but it is late and I'm
tired - Christmas shopping. I also don't understand why you think he couldn't
get a reasonable fix until 10:30a. By 7:00a he ought to have obtained a Hell
of a fix with the sun at almost ten degrees altitude and the moon, albeit
high in the sky, at about a 60 degree cut. Where am I wrong? Someone will say
Noonan could not see the moon at that altitude because of the cockpit
configuration but they will be incorrect. I guarantee I could see the moon
from the cockpit and if you'll think about it you'll figure out how to do it.

I think Ric answered the no horizon comment and how to keep the airplane
level so I won't. We apparently don't know if Noonan had drift flares aboard
so we can't say he couldn't use the drift meter at night but if he could get
any star fixes in those 9 hours he was OK. The wind didn't need to stay
constant. I know of no place where it does. Noonan would have been the last
person to expect it to do so. Also he didn't need to know the the start wind
speed and direction. That was easily computed as he was in sight of land
periodically for a long way out. We know he went past Nauru so he was doing
OK at that point and his problem now was from Nauru in to Howland. It is
possible he could get a position over flying the Gilberts. I sure would have
tried if I had visibility and there were ANY lights. Ross, you are correct
that one sun line would not tell Noonan where he was on the LOP nor would it
give him his exact longitude. He still needed to cross the LOP with another
to know that but I have a feeling he didn't wait till noon to get another sun
shot for latitude.<G>

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

A couple of quick comments - one investigative and one administrative.

Because the 67 degree postion of the sun, from which a 337/157 LOP is
derived, was only valid at sunrise and for 10 minutes thereafter, we are
pretty much forced to assume that IF the 157 337 "line" that AE referred to
is an LOP, he had to get it in those first ten minutes.  We must also assume
that it is that LOP and not a later one that he advanced through Howland,
otherwise AE would have said, "We are on the line 155 335" or some such.  Why
would Noonan cling to an early, and perhaps less accurate, LOP unless there
was something about it that he really liked?   Such as the fact that it
offered alternate destinations?

And now for something completely different.  When someone submits a posting
but doesn't sign their name I generally just use an abbreviated version of
their screen name.  I can see, however, that this practice can create some
confusion as when Alan refers to Mark P. (abbreviated screen name
"bethpage89") as "Beth." From now on I'll give everyone at least a first name
and last initial if you don't sign the message yourself.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:46:40 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: parachutes  'tis so !!!

<<  No matter.  The water around there is indeed considerably warmer than the
English channel. >>

Ric, I was so busy flogging poor Ross about his celestial I completely missed
the 80 degree water thread. Does this mean it will take longer to die in the
waters near Niku than in the Channel but you still end up dead? Please don't
anyone try to compute how much longer.

Alan
#2329 and proud of it

***********************************************************************
From Ric

No one dies of hypothermia in the waters around Niku.  The sharks like their
dinner warm.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:48:54 EST
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Don J. and the Line of Position, etc

While everyone should be encouraged to seek answers that may be
different from those favored by the majority of TIGHAR researchers Don J.'s
views remind me of the old statement, "Don't confuse me with facts.  My mind
is already made up".

Having spent many hours flying over the Pacific I can certainly add
my experience that Pacific islands are often very hard to spot from the air
especially if there are cloud shadows on the water.  I thought your
explanation of the Line of Position was outstanding as was your explanation
of why it is difficult to see or hear an airplane unless it is very close.
Any airplane 5 miles away at 1000 feet altitude would be almost impossible to
see or hear based on my own personal experience.

I think the most compelling evidence that they were on or very near
the LOP that runs through the island is Amelia's statement, "We must be on
you but can not see you".  She certainly would not have made that statement
if she and Fred were not convinced it was true.

Dick Pingrey 908C
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:53:10 EST
From:         Janet Powell
Subject:      Re: Sextant and Box

Tom said...

<No way of finding out whether the captain's sextant box might have had
numbers on it, I suppose.  Janet???>

I'm afraid I have no further information on this, but am still looking.

However,  whilst I would agree that Dave may pose a very interesting
question about the sextant box, I would like to clarify a small point.

My understanding is that the Capt, together with the Chief Officer, was in
the process of checking the port boat and lowering it in preparation for
launch when he was swept overboard.  (Orders to abandon ship were not given
for another 3/4 hour or so).

It was, and still is, the duty of a Master that he be the last to leave his
vessel and the last to be rescued in a situation such as this, and I would
suggest that the Capt had no plans to take to *that* lifeboat at *that*
time.

LTM, (whose found her number!)
Janet Powell  #2225

**********************************************************************
From Ric

Excellent point.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:31:35 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

Ric wrote:

>I'm not typed in the 747 and we'd need an airplane at least that big to
>accommodate our entire Celestial Choir.  Whadya say Skeet?

We could accommodate about 418 of our closest friends on a live
demonstration. The tough part would be the 130 KTAS. Feasible at lighter
weights with full flaps--now, about that fuel consumption....

Skeet

**************************************************************************
From Ric

This silliness has gotten me thinking (always dangerous).  I wonder, I
wonder, how the economics would work out if we chartered a state-of-the-art
airplane (maybe a long-range 767) and flew the Lae/Howland/Niku route
collecting what data were possible in such a different airplane (maybe
figuring to recreate only the last few hours of the flight at similar speeds
and altitudes).  I could see the charter going L.A., Honolulu, Fiji, then
flying the reenactment as a separate mission out of, and back into, Fiji.
Then home.  Or maybe it would be cheaper to charter only the reenactment
portion of the flight and have people travel scheduled service to and from
Fiji (it's only about $1,000 round trip from L.A.).  That way we we could
charter an airplane out of New Zealand or Australia and have them meet us in
Fiji.  Or if we were going to charter an Aussie airplane anyway, maybe it
would be more "marketable" to recreate the whole flight and have everyone
meet in Sydney for a flight to Lae, and then do Lae/Howland/Niku and then
maybe down to Pago Pago to refuel before heading back to Sydney.

We'd time it so that we'd do the reenactment on July 2.  The idea would be to
fund data collection by a small scientific team while providing paying
passengers with the opportunity to fly the fabled route and see places they'd
probably never see any other way.  Could we fill the airplane?  How big an
airplane could we fill?  The media would love it and, if the economics were
right, it could actually help fund the next expedition.

Worth considering.  Comments?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:47:39 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Don J. and the Line of Position, etc

Dick Pingrey 908C wrote

>         I think the most compelling evidence that they were
> on or very near the LOP that runs through the island is Amelia's statement,
> "We must be on you but can not see you".  She certainly would not have made
> that statement if she and Fred were not convinced it was true.

When I was around 9 years old and first read that line, "We must be on you
but can not see you", it seemed to me that they were convinced they were
very close to the island, and probably were.

I still believe it to be very probable. And it seems to me that if they had
the skill to get to the vicinity of Howland, especially without a working
DF, and didn't see it because of cloud shadows, which to me is most likely,
then they probably had the ability to fly a calculated (and advanced) LOP on
a heading of 157 and reach Gardner.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:52:01 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

<< This silliness has gotten me thinking (always dangerous).  I wonder, I
 wonder, how the economics would work out if we chartered a state-of-the-art
 airplane (maybe a long-range 767) and flew the Lae/Howland/Niku route
 collecting what data were possible in such a different airplane (maybe
 figuring to recreate only the last few hours of the flight at similar speeds
 and altitudes). >>

Sounds great but let's not allow all of TIGHAR to go. We need to leave a
cadre behind to search for us in case we are never heard from again.

Alan
#2329
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You're so encouraging.... whom do you suggest we leave behind (i.e. whom do
you want searching for you)?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:13:28 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      sunrise

<< Because the 67 degree postion of the sun, from which a 337/157 LOP is
 derived, was only valid at sunrise and for 10 minutes thereafter, we are
 pretty much forced to assume that IF the 157 337 "line" that AE referred to
 is an LOP, he had to get it in those first ten minutes. >>

First of all my apologies to Mark. Sorry about the Beth comment.

Ric, you will notice in the sun chart that although 67 degrees held only for
the first ten minutes an azimuth minutely close to that held for much longer
- say until 7:00a or possibly even 7:10a where the azimuth was within 4/10 of
67.

Also that 67 degree azimuth was for someone exactly over Howland and we don't
know that is where and when Fred took his sun shot. A 67 degree azimuth could
also be obtained in other areas near Howland but at different times of
course. The block of time we are working with is from 6:20a when the sun rose
to 8:44a when Amelia announced the 157-337 report. I'm trying to pin down
where and when a 67 degree azimuth could have been found and whether the area
is specific enough to be of value.

Alan
#2329
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, of course.  I should have thought of that (duh).  Okay, so the sun comes
up at 06:20 local.  First question:  are we sure we've got that right?
Remember the Itasca was using that screwy 11.5 hour time zone.  06:20 Itasca
Time would be 17:50 Greenwich.  Zat what the tables say?

Assuming 06:20 is the correct sunrise time for on-the-ground at Howland, is
that the time that the first "limb" (I think it's called) peeks over the
horizon or when the whole ball clears the horizon?  How would being at 10,000
feet directly over Howland effect the time you saw the sun rise?  Would you
see it a few seconds or a few minutes earlier than the folks on the ground?
Now go 200 hundred miles to the west.  When you gonna see the sun?

At 06:15 AE told Itasca that she was approximatley 200 miles out.  That was
her regularly scheduled transmission time so the estimate may or may not have
been current, but assumming that it is, Is there anyway that they could have
seen the sun at, say, 06:10 (17:40 Zulu) from 200 miles west of Howland at
10,000 feet?  If not, then the estimate almost has to be based on a predawn
star shot and DR.  Yes?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:04:45 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: artifact

I'm the one who suggested the B-18 as a possible match.  The three areas I
wanted to check using an accurate mask of the part are below and above the
aft fuselage, and the top of the outboard wing skin.

The first area is a spot near centerline on the lower aft fuselage about
one to two feet aft of the tail wheel well.

The second area is on top of the aft fuselage, one to one and a half feet
off centerline between the upper gun turret and the fin.

Finally, the outboard panel upper wing skin which starts about 14 inches
out from the butt joint.  The specific area I think might match is the
forward inboard corner.

There are several other areas of wing skin on the McChord B-18A that have
similar rivet spacing and taper.  The areas all had crossing lines which
ruled them out.  An earlier B-18 or DC-2 might not.

I'd like to suggest that any forum member near the Air Force Museum at
Wright Paterson look over the C-32 (DC-2) in the annex for other possible
matches.

My reason for thinking this might be a chunk of a Douglas rather than
Lockheed airplane is based on the spacing of the rivets in their rows, and
the spacing and taper between rows which agrees with several late '30s and
early '40s Douglas aircraft, but does not apparently match the Lockheed 10.

Anyone who would like to discuss this in detail can contact me by email.

Robert Klaus
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The lack of a crossing line of rivets on 2-2-V-1 is one of the features that
makes it so unique.  There are no finished edges present on the artifact, so
it's a hunk broken or blown (but not cut) out of the middle of a larger
sheet.  That means you need a "throw" of at least 25 inches with no crossing
line of rivets.  On a fuselage, crossing lines of rivets are usually dictated
by the presence of bulkheads or "circumfurentials."  There are a few places
on a Lockheed 10 fuselage that qualify, but I think you'll find that such
unbraced spans are hard to find on most aircraft of that era (including the
B-18 and the DC-2).

Another hard to match feature of 2-2-V-1 is the combination of itty-bitty #3
rivets (shaft diameter of 3/32s of an inch) with 1 inch pitch (distance
between rivets) in a .032 thickness skin.  I've only been able to find that
particular formula on the Lockheed 10.  You usually find #3 rivets in thinner
skins and spaced farther apart.  I think you'll find that the similarly
spaced lines of rivets in the DC-2/DC-3/C-47/B-18 wing are bigger rivets.
The artifact has a very specific and complex rivet pattern.  We've never been
able to match it on any airplane, but we've come closest on the Model 10
Lockheed.  Remember -  "Almost don't count 'cept in horsehoes and hand
grenades."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:11:30 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

You know, if we staged through Fiji there'd probably be some economical way
to combine such a reenactment with the proposed Tarawa trip, resulting in the
possibility that we'd have something significant in the way of new historical
or oral historical data to report at the same time.

TK

***************************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

I, for one, would not want to be on the re-enactment flight, as I don't
want to get lost for 60+ years, nor land a 767 on a reef flat, thank you
very much!

Randy Jacobson.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Wimp.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:13:27 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      LOP forever

I've only scanned all the LOP postings but I don't think anyone has,
recently, commented on how simple it was for Fred to establish that Sunrise
Line of Position.  He didn't have to measure any angles hence didn't need to
use his sextant (nor octant).  All he required was a chronometer that was
correct and an eye-ball view of the edge (limb) of the sun first peeking
above the horizon.  Sunrise was almost dead ahead.  (He would need to make
some minor adjustments for their altitude and for atmospheric refraction but
he knew all about that stuff.)

Once he had that time observation, his tables told him where he was in an
essentially east-west sense. (Somewhere on a not quite north-south line) The
tables also told him the exact direction of that line on that date -- The
157 - 337 line Amelia mentioned.  That is the Sunrise LOP for July 2, 1937
and clearly the only way she would have known how to specify the line.  They
were somewhere on a line directed southward at 157 degrees and northward at
337 degrees.  (Note that those are 180 degrees apart.  It's simply a
straight line running approximately north and south.  It's slanted 23
degrees off from north-south.  Just about the tilt of the earth's axis of
rotation.  Isn't that odd? <grin>)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:19:47 EST
From:         David
Subject:      climb or stay low?

I assume that AE dropped to 1,000 feet to find Howland which she couldn't locate
at a higher altitude.  Since she had several hours of fuel remaining and not
finding the island, would she then began to increase altitude to continue looking
or stay close to the deck?  Wouldn't she have been better off to stay at a
somewhat higher altitude, or did she descend because she was fairly confident
that the island was near?

LTM (whose # is in the mail - hopefully you received my check!)

David

*************************************************************************
From David

Indeed we did.  Thank you.  Your membership materials will go out Tuesday.

Eahart was at 1,000 feet almost certainly in order to get below the scattered
cloud deck.  Whether she later climbed back up to a more efficient altitude is
a matter of conjecture but there are two compelling reasons not to do that:

1.  It burns precious fuel.
2.  You can't see any island that might appear.

I would have stayed low.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:23:05 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: artifact

Ric wrote:

>> I suggest you check 'em all.<<

    But if I do that, I won't have time to make posts to the forum. . . . Oh.
. . I get it!
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:20:11 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Engines

    OK. . . here is another little question which has been gnawing at
me.  Should aircraft wreckage be found somewhere, anywhere, and say the
only thing identifiable is an engine.  Are we sure we have the correct
serial numbers for her engines?

    It would seem that after such a crash and engine sudden stoppage as
took place in Hawaii, that it would be better to exchange the engines as
opposed to taking them apart to inspect the crack?  Today that is
mandatory, was it then?  At the very least, I think they would have
changed the crank.

Don J.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Lockheed 10E Special c/n 1055 was delivered on July 24, 1936 with P&W R1340
S3H1 engines numbers 6149 and 6150.  The Bureau of Air Commerce Aircraft
Inspection Report which was signed upon the completion of repairs on May 19,
1937 shows those same engines still in place.

Similarly, the aircraft was delivered with Hamilton Standard 12D-40 propeller
hubs numbers 26333 and 26334.  The same hub serial numbers appear on the May
19, 1937 report.

The only documented change is to the propeller blades.  The aircraft was
delivered with  Hamilton Standard 6095A-6 blade sets numbers 58831-32 and
58833-34.  The May 19th report shows blades sets 66570-71 and 66572-73
installed.

I agree that, from the look of the props after the accident, I would have
suspected crankshaft damage.  The prop tips on both engines were bent forward
- a dead give away that both throttles were still advanced when the props hit
the ground. However, the paperwork is quite clear that they just put on new
prop blades.  Must be tough engines.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:07:23 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: LOP

This LOP discussion has been very interesting and helped clear up a few
things I didn't understand correctly.

Thanks everyone, for patiently correcting my assumptions and speculations.

RossD.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

You're a gentleman and a scholar, and you have restored my faith in the
Australian race. (It's a Real story that happened before you came on to the
forum. I'll tell you all about it sometime over a Fosters).
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:15:04 EST
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Noonan and That Other Guy

Ric wrote:  "In a desperate attempt to salvage some relevancy for this
thread I'll note the similarity of Patrick's observations about Grant to my
own about Noonan."

Precisely the point of my initial post, which, unfortunately, got all this
started.  FN's alleged intemperance may have been exaggerated by a
teetotaling Earhart (or a husband intent on shifting the blame), just as
Grant's alleged intemperance was exaggerated by his rivals for command.

LTM (who, to paraphrase another US President, says "The speculation stops
here"),

Pat Gaston
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Granted.   The really wierd thing about the Noonan rumors is that they don't
seem to start until almost 30 years after his death.  We can't find a single
reference to Fred and drinking that appeared in print prior to Goerner's 1966
best seller "The Search For Amelia Earhart."
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:16:50 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: sunrise

The following puzzles me...

>Also that 67 degree azimuth was for someone exactly over Howland and we don't
>know that is where and when Fred took his sun shot. A 67 degree azimuth could
>also be obtained in other areas near Howland but at different times of
>course. The block of time we are working with is from 6:20a when the sun rose
>to 8:44a when Amelia announced the 157-337 report. I'm trying to pin down
>where and when a 67 degree azimuth could have been found and whether the area
>is specific enough to be of value.
>
>Alan
>#2329

Would not the sunrise be seen at the same azimuth, within the accuracy of
observation, all along their route?  They were flying almost directly toward
the point where the sun would rise and their latitude changed by only a
couple of degrees during the last few hours. It seems to me they would wind
up with the same Sunrise LOP, 157/337, wherever they observed the sunrise -
clearly somewhere west of Howland.  The time of sunrise told them where they
were along their route - esentially their east/west position.  From there
they advanced the LOP by dead reckoning.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:27:35 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Landing on Coral

> <<Do you have any decent pictures of the reef surface in the area where
> they might have landed?>>
>
> Yes.  I stood on the spot this past July.

Are any of them on the TIGHAR site?
Is the reef in fact coral & rock or is it just smooth rock?

RossD    Who has more of an idea about LOPs now.

************************************************************************
From Ric

There are, of course, aerial photos of the area in the Forensic Imaging
research bulletin (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bulletin11_29_99.html)
I'll try to get some of the photos I took last summer (which show the surface
texture better) up on the website soon.  Gotta get these calendars done first.

The reef is entirely coral.  There is no true "rock" on Niku except for a few
stone tools brought there by prehistoric visitors.  All of the reef-flat
surrounding the island is rock-hard coral.  None of it is sandy.  Some
portions are polished smooth, others are deeply pitted and jagged.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:40:43 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

Oh most handsome head TIGHAR,

I would crawl buck naked over a highway of broken glass to go on the
reenactment flight.  Let other TIGHARs fall where they may.

When do I get my number?  I hope its a good one.

LTM (who says take plenty of cold beer for provisions)
MStill

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Please, no!  That won't be necessary.  I'm sure we can dispense with the
broken glass and the highway.

Your member number is 2332, a most elegant number blessed with symmetry and
significance.  It is, in fact, a palindrome. (No extra charge.)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:45:30 EST
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht revisited

> From Don neumann
>
> Just spent some time re-examining Lt. Lambrecht's report on the website.
> Now I realize that although they were out of visual contact with the
> ship for most of the search,  Lt. Lambrecht did specifically comment
> upon the excellent radio communications they experienced (something
> AE/FN obviously did _not_ have as they approached Howland)  .

This not so much a reply to Don's message, but he reminded me of a
something.  In an earlier message Ric wrote

>We're doing better than that.  There is some very good propagation analysis
>software available that can model a particular system and plug in the many
>variables (location, time of day, sun spot activity, etc.) and come up with
>information far better than an on-site experiment that would not be able to
>duplicate all that.
>
>Bob Brandenburg should have a report for us early next year.

I am all for this type of software, but you can't help to wonder how
accurate it is, sometimes propagation can surprise you.  Perhaps since we
know Lt. Lambrecth had excellent radio communications, it would be good to
enter the information and see if the software with all the variables plug
into it, gives him excellent conditions for radio communications.
Regards.

Warren Lambing
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not the expert on this subject but it seems to me that there is little
comparison between Lambrecht's very short range plane-to-ship communications
and the alleged post-loss transmissions heard thousands of miles away.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:50:18 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Choir

<<....if they were all on one longitude......,and the sun was over the
equator, the Vee should hold good if they all had to see the sunrise at the
same time due again to the curvature of the earth.>>

That would be at the times of the Equinoxes, at about the 23d of March and
September.  The terminator should run very nearly north and south.  One
nautical almanac tabulates these sunrise times for March 22, which indicate
that at that time the terminator is almost meridional.

5:58  N 60
5:58  N 58
5:59  N 56
5:59  N 54
6:00  N 52
6:00  N 50
6:01  N 45
6:01  N 40
6:02  N 35
6:02  N 30
6:03  N 20
6:03  N 10
6:04    00
6:04  S 10
6:04  S 20
6:03  S 30
6:04  S 35
6:04  S 40
6:03  S 45
6:03  S 50
6:03  S 52
6:03  S 54
6:03  S 56
6:02  S 58
6:02  S 69

Somewhere there's a website which shows a views of Earth as if from space;
the user can specify the date and time, I believe, and the orientation of
the terminator is shown.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

And, no, the URL is not www.Arnold.com.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:51:54 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

<< You're so encouraging.... whom do you suggest we leave behind (i.e. whom do
 you want searching for you)?>>

Well, so much for THAT idea.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:55:31 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: sunrise

Ric, I WAS using the screwy Itasca 11.5 hours off Z and that's what the
tables are based on. Your altitude question certainly makes good common sense
that the higher one is the earlier one would see the sun and that is true but
the effect is fairly negligable. I found this comment in celestial navigation
information.

Altitude

(negligible to 2 degrees)

    This factor is normally negligible. According to the IGRF, a 20,000 meter
climb even at a magnetically precarious location as Resolute, 500 kilometers
from the north magnetic pole, would result in a two-degree reduction in
declination.

While altitude may not have a significant effect the observer's east/west
postition clearly does. If Noonan is several hundred miles West of Howland he
will see the sun at a later time than an observer AT Howland. In checking the
tables I found that at 180 miles west of Howland Fred would see the sun ten
minutes AFTER an observer at Howland. If the sun rose at 6:20a at Howland
Fred would not see it until 6:30a if he was 180 miles west of Howland.

As to the screwy time between the Itaska and Howland I elected to use Itaska
time of 11.5 off Z solely for illustrative purposes and have given no thought
yet to resolving the difference to determine what someone at Howland would
actually see. When I have some more data of possible positions for shooting
67 degree azimuths I'll worry about real time.

I have given a lot of thought to the "200 mile out" call also and I think you
are dead on that it had to be based on pre dawn celestial or maybe just DR.
There is no possibility Noonan could have taken a sun shot at 6:15.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:03:26 EST
From:         Roger Kelley
Subject:      Info on Amelia

Last month  the question of where Amelia had her L-10-E repaired
following the Luke Field crash provoked me to do a little research.  As
a result, I discovered information which might provide answers.

I discovered newspaper articles in the Glendale News Press which were
published in March and April, 1937, which quoted Amelia as stating that
her L-10-E was being repaired at the Lockheed Burbank facilities.

One article in the Glendale News Press, dated April 1, 1937 related to
Amelia and her mother, Mrs. A. O. Earhart, while they were shopping in
downtown Glendale.  This article mentions Amelia's residence and the
repair of the L-10-E.    It states, "At her Valley Spring Lane home in
North Hollywood this morning, Mrs. Putnam verified the report that she
and her mother had been in Glendale to "do some shopping."  Later in the
article, "Her airplane, which crashed at Honolulu on her proposed world
circling flight two weeks ago, is being repaired a the Lockheed Aircraft
Corp. factory in Burbank."

To date, I have found nothing which indicates that the L-10-E was
repaired in shops located at the Grand Central Air Terminal, Glendale.

The Glendale News Press article of April 1, 1937 also confirms previous
information that Amelia was residing on Valley Spring Lane at the time
of her second World Flight attempt.

I discovered some other neat stuff about Amelia.  Although most, if not
all, is known to Amelia's followers.

First, I discovered two pieces of upholstery, approximately 5" x 4"
each, dark red or maroon in color with a hand written note stating,
"Pieces of upholstery used in Amelia Eheart's plane.  Gift of Mrs. Max
Green, March, 1975."  Nothing more than this brief statement.  Note that
Earhart was misspelled.  Could it be that Max was employed by Lockheed
and snatched some scraps after the seats were completed and installed
(or re-installed)?

I'm searching for Max or his survivors at the present time.  No luck so
far.

Second, I discovered the obituary of Neta Snook Southern, dated March
26, 1991 and published in the Los Angeles Times.  She died at the age of
95 and was a flight instructor in her youth.   Southern claims to have
taught Amelia how to fly in 1921 at Kinner Field in what is now South
Gate, CA.

Third, I discovered another article in the Glendale News Press dated
July 10, 1929, announcing the arrival at Grand Central Air Terminal of
the first Transcontinental Air Transport planes to complete the New York
to Los Angeles air/rail commercial trip.  By rail and air, the trip took
two days.  The lead aircraft was piloted by Co. Charles A. Lindbergh and
one of his passengers was Amelia Earhart.  Amelia was listed as the
"Assistant Traffic Manager of T.A.T."

Help me out here folks.  Was Transcontinental Air Transport the
forerunner of Trans World Airlines?  Does anyone know what became of
T.A.T.?

And last, I discovered several photographs of Amelia.

One such photo was a non-professional snap shot depicting Amelia, a
small girl, (approx age 5?), and a gentleman about 40 years old standing
near each other ,in front of a wood frame house.   Between the house and
the three people is the upper and lower wing, and right landing gear, of
an unknown type bi-plane.   The caption reads, "Bert Kinner and daughter
Dorothy with their favorite customer.  Amelia Earhart's first airplane
was Kinner-built in 1920.  The Kinner residence, located on Flower
Street, permitted easy access to the runway.  (Cora B. Kinner)"

Flower Street is located on the .west boundary of Grand Central Air
Terminal, Glendale, CA

Another photo appears to be a professional 8 x 10 depicting a young (25)
Amelia standing next to the engine and prop of a bi-plane.   The caption
reads, "Amelia Earhart promoting Kinner aircraft and engines."

One photo depicts Amelia in flight suit, wearing leather helmet and
goggles, standing with her hand on the prop of a bi-plane which has
"Kinner" painted on the tail.  The caption reads, "Amelia Earhart beside
her Airster, 1921."  Although well composed, this photo appears to be a
snap shot.

Two other photos which appear to be professional 8 x 10, depict a
bi-plane with a three cylinder engine and two bladed prop.  One photo
depicts the entire aircraft from the left side and the other depicts the
entire aircraft from left front.  The word "Kinner" is not painted on
the tail.  Nor can I detect any other writing on the aircraft.  The hand
written caption on one reads, "Built for Amelia Earhart in 1923 (but not
delivered to her, due to health problems.)  Had to quit flying because
of sinus infection.  However, she did fly it occasionally.  See John
Bark's book, shows A.E. with this job, tho incorrectly captioned as
Canary."  The statement "(but not delivered to her due to health
problems.)" has a line drawn through it as if it might be a strike
out.   This same photo has a stamp on it stating, "JOHN W. UNDERWOOD."

The other photo has three captions on the back.  The first is hand
written and states, "Kinner Airster for Earhart, c 3/23."  The next
caption is typed and reads, "Amelia Earhart's second plane built by
Kinner aircraft in March, 1923.  Built in Glendale."  The third caption
reads, " Amelia Earhart's second airplane was this Glendale-built Kinner
Airster, c. March 1923.  It was very much an experimental proposition.
The engine was a Kinner-copy of the Wright L-2, forerunner of the
Whirlwind, but it was fraught with eccentricities.  It threw more oil
than it consumed and vibrated excessively.  Even so, it gave A.E. great
pleasure to be a part of the development program.  The experience gained
from her flying helped Kinner build a better engine and by 1930 he was a
leader in the field."

Does anyone know what became of Kinner engines?

Can anyone on the forum tell me if this info is new or just
rediscovered?

LTM (who hates long postings)
Roger Kelley, #2112
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:10:54 EST
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Mr. or Ms? (!)

Maybe I missed some ambiguous double entendre somewhere, but I thought
MStill's gender was pretty clear from the moment that the GIRTS acronym was
explained.

I also thought I had a pretty good understanding of LOPs until finding out
here that when using one, Lake Michigan suddenly appears just north of
Cincinnati. <G>

LTM, who says that everything she knows about celestial navigation, she
learned from reading Earnest K. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter."

Dave (2288) Porter, who HATES it when the three position triangulation lines
come together in a triangle instead of a single point.

************************************************************************
From Ric

Ambiguous Double Entendres R Us
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:16:21 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP forever

<< I've only scanned all the LOP postings but I don't think anyone has,
 recently, commented on how simple it was for Fred to establish that Sunrise
 Line of Position.  He didn't have to measure any angles hence didn't need to
 use his sextant (nor octant).  All he required was a chronometer that was
 correct and an eye-ball view of the edge (limb) of the sun first peeking
 above the horizon.  Sunrise was almost dead ahead.  (He would need to make
 some minor adjustments for their altitude and for atmospheric refraction but
 he knew all about that stuff.) >>

Sorry, Vern but that is not going to work. True he will get an azimuth for
his LOP but he needs an accurate altitude of the sun to PLACE the LOP. To get
an accurate sun shot the sun needs to be between 20 and 70 degrees altitude
and the ole I-ball will never get an altitude even close. What he CAN do as
the sun just barely peeps over the horizon is get a great azimuth to reset
his gyros and he needs to shoot the sun to get that. We don't want him
turning the plane just to eyeball in a heading. Next, we would only know if
the sunrise was dead ahead if we knew what course they were flying and we
don't. Finally, you are correct that Fred needed to deal with refraction
error but that's routine. Altitude is not going to make a whole ton of
difference.

But I might add that all this LOP stuff is making everybody think and as it
becomes clearer it becomes easier to see why we are saying they were ON the
LOP someplace and why it is so much easier to see that their option was
heavily weighted to drive down the LOP to Niku than blunder blindly out to
sea in search of the Gilberts.

Alan
#2329
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Does the rest of the Celestail Choir agree with Alan?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:35:53 EST
From:         Doc Holloway
Subject:      T.A.T.

Roger Kelly wrote:

 <<Help me out here folks.  Was Transcontinental Air Transport the
forerunner of Trans World Airlines?  Does anyone know what became of
 T.A.T.?>>

T.A.T. was indeed one of the forerunners of Trans World Airlines.  T.A.T.
joined with Western Air Express on 1 October 1930 to become
Transcontinental and Western Air, Inc.  The corporate name was changed to
Trans World Airlines in May of 1950.

LTM (Who always loved the TWA Royal Ambassador service.)

R.L."Doc" Holloway
TWA Capt., Ret.
**************************************************************************
From Dick Pingrey

Roger,

In 1942 and probably for some additional years TWA stood for
Transcontinental and Western Airlines.  I think the Change to Transworld
Airlines came after WW-2.

Dick Pingrey 908C

**************************************************************************
From Ric

The standing joke in the 1930s was that TAT stood for "Take A Train".
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:43:55 EST
From:         Dn Jordan
Subject:      Don J. and the LOP

William wrote,

>And it seems to me that if they had the skill to get to the vicinity of
>Howland, especially without a working DF, and didn't see it because of
>cloud shadows, which to me is most likely, then they probably had the
>ability to fly a calculated (and advanced) LOP on a heading of 157 and
>reach Gardner.

Was the cloud cover any better at Gardner?  Could it be seen better from
the air than Howland?  If they could fly a calculated 157 degree heading
to read Gardner, wouldn't it be better to fly the 337 degree heading to
reach Howland.  That was the intended destination!

    It seems that everyone wants to defend the "Down the LOP" theory to
the death, when the truth is they could have been anywhere in the
vicinity and still ended up on Gardner!  They could have come up short
and to the south and found Gardner while searching on an easterly leg.
Why is it necessary to find Gardner while approaching from the north on
a heading of 157 degree?

Don J.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I give up.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:47:17 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: sunrise

It is my understanding that the azimuth of the sunrise is the same along any
given latitude (it changes a little hour by hour as the earth rotates about
the sun and the relative orientation of the earth's axis to the sun changes
but this variation is apparently not significant to sextant tolerances over
a 12 hour period). In principle, by observing and measuring the azimuth of
the sun at sunrise, and comparing this reading to the correct date column on
a table (reflecting altitude too), Noonan was able to determine the latitude
(NS) of the Electra. It is not necessary to know the time of day to
successfully accomplish this first step-- but it is necessary to have a
sextant and a set of printed tables (azimuth/date/latitude/altitude) to
consult.

After this step, using a very accurate chronometer (to read the correct time
of sunrise in hours, minutes, and seconds), consultation of another column
on a table, based on pre-calculated times of day of progressive sunrise at a
given latitude, would have given him his longitude (EW). One would assume
that they were above cloud cover when they spotted the sunrise. The sun
sighting is distorted by the atmosphere as the sun appears over the limb of
the earth but there are techniques for compensating for this, including
timing a wait until the sun is high enough for an undistorted view and then
taking the angle and subtracting the wait time.

To sum up, with a sextant, a good chronometer (which is a very accurate
clock or watch), a relatively unobstructed view of the sunrise, and a set of
printed tables, Noonan would have been able determine both his latitude and
longitude within roughly 30 miles.

He could have done some additional double checking against any nocturnal
celestial sightings he might have taken earlier, combined with an estimate
of distance (and bearing) traveled, calculated as a function of time and
average airspeed.

A line of position is a "sun line", directly related to the axis of the
earth and the orientation of that axis to the sun according to the earth's
position in solar orbit, along which the sun will rise at the same moment
across all latitudes. On the morning of 2 July 1937 in the central Pacific,
this line was approximately 157/337, irrelevant to latitude or longitude. As
an absolute, it became a convenient known line which could be advanced by
"dead reckoning" along their course to Howland.

From Howland, this line extended at a bearing of 157 degrees to the vicinity
of Gardner island). This means that on 2 July 1937 the sun rose at about the
same time on both Howland and Gardner, but at a different azimuth (slightly
more northerly at Gardner).

Because their flight gradually progressed to a more northerly latitude, the
anticipated azimuth of the coming sunrise would have increased slightly as
they traveled along their route.

As a matter of trivia, historically, the primary economic motivation in past
centuries to develop really accurate timepieces was that knowing the time of
day (or elapsed time over long periods) was essential to calculating
longitude (EW) on long ocean voyages made by merchant vessels.

I hope this helps-- and I welcome corrections on anything I've missed.

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:49:10 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: LOP forever

Sun shots (or stars, for that matter) never are done for azimuth directions
(direction from north), but for altitude.  At sunrise, one has three
choices for times: upper limb, middle of sun, and lower limb to measure
time of that limb breaking the horizon.  The LOP direction is
pre-determined by azimuth, and can be obtained from any almanac.  The
position of the LOP is determined by the time compared to what one expects
based upon a dead reckon postion.  Any difference moves the LOP back or
forward to update your DR position.  The same can be done for other times,
but that does require a sextant/octant to measure altitude.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:53:46 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: sunrise

Vern asked:
<< Would not the sunrise be seen at the same azimuth, within the accuracy of
 observation, all along their route?  They were flying almost directly toward
 the point where the sun would rise and their latitude changed by only a
 couple of degrees during the last few hours. It seems to me they would wind
 up with the same Sunrise LOP, 157/337, wherever they observed the sunrise -
 clearly somewhere west of Howland.  The time of sunrise told them where they
 were along their route - esentially their east/west position.  From there
 they advanced the LOP by dead reckoning. >>

That's close, Vern. It is true the sunrise azimuth would be essentially the
same IF their latitude did not change. Any change in latitude would have a
corresponding change in the sun's azimuth. We don't know what their course
was inbound to Howland. If their flight deviated from planned course because
of weather (winds, storms, cloud cover) then their inbound course could vary
greatly. Even more so if Noonan felt a need to correct back to course rather
than set a new course direct to destination. Also the only part of their
course we are concerned with as far as sunrise is concerned is from 6:20a to
8:44a. Otherwise it is dark.

You are also correct that the sunrise moment would tell them where they were
as to their east/west position -- but at sunrise that information is not
accurate. Again to get an accurate LOP the sun must be between 20 degrees and
70 degrees altitude. At ten degrees the accuracy is OK for a reasonable
position but not any great accuracy can be achieved until the sun is higher.

I can see your reasoning that if the sun peeps up at 6:20a then they had to
be ON or NEAR the line of LOP going through Howland because the table says at
that time the sun will have an altitude of 0.7 degrees. But such is not the
case. Perfect time to get an azimuth as just the tip of the sun's arc shows
above the horizon but because of refraction and atmospheric disturbance the
accuracy at that low altitude cannot be determined with significant
reliability. Thus they could not get a speed line nor an LOP to advance.

I also checked my maps and depending on whether they over flew Nauru or
passed considerably south of Nauru and whether they came in over Howland or
as much as 100 miles north or south of Howland their inbound course could
have varied from about 64 degrees to as much as 97 degrees. And THAT we don't
know.

Making assumptions is OK for the sake of gaming out possibilities but not for
much else. Your comment, "They were flying almost directly toward the point
where the sun would rise and their latitude changed by only a couple of
degrees during the last few hours," cannot be supported with the information
available. Celestial navigation is highly precise in spite of inherent
errors. Relatively small changes mean a great deal in fixing a position. You
will note the azimuths in the table are in tenths though shooting to that
accuracy is dubious.

You can see that it is easy to make statements based on what we think, what
we thought we read, or what someone else erroneously wrote. Unfortunately
those statements take on a life of their own. Thankfully, Ric does a good job
of getting us back on track as well as do the comments and questioning from
each of the members. That's what we do well -- question each other.

If I'm not mistaken what we know about Amelia's inbound leg to Howland is
that it came from a westerly direction of unknown course, at an unknown
altitude and unknown ground speed. We believe at some time and place between
6:20a and 8:44a Noonan was able to get a sun shot. DRing from a pre dawn star
fix would NOT give the 157-337 LOP. We don't know whether they obtained more
than one sun shot, obtained a moon shot or drift information. It DOES seem
clear to me they thought they had an LOP going through Howland and they
thought they were on it. Rough fuel consumption exercises indicate they may
have had about 3 1/2 hours of fuel reserve at 38 GPH. On the trip to Hawaii
Amelia indicated she could meter back to 20 GPH if she had to. The only point
of this is that there is a reasonable chance they had fuel to make it to
Niku. Keep in mind the fuel problem is far from being resolved and at this
time is only an educated guess. With the LOP they had an almost certainty of
reaching one of the Phoenix group but not the slightest clue how to get to
the Gilberts without a latitude position.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:56:15 EST
From:         Dick Pingrey
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

        The charter flight sound like a good idea.  It may well be possible
to make it part of a separate charter from Australia, New Zealand or some
other point of departure.  Let say a charter (non TIGHAR) is organized for a
group to spend a few days in Fiji.  TIGHAR then charters the airplane from
Fiji for its flight which returns to Fiji.  The airplane is now used for the
return of the original non TIGHAR group to the country of origin.  All that
the TIGHAR group pays for is the portion to and from Fiji and to get to Fiji
what ever way they can work out individually.  It might be possible to do the
same thing out of American Samoa or some other location if the rate is
cheaper.


Dick Pingrey 908C

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Good thought.  We're seriously looking into this.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:58:51 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      T.A.T.

Roger wrote:

>... The lead aircraft was piloted by Co. Charles A. Lindbergh
> and one of his passengers was Amelia Earhart.  Amelia was
>listed as the "Assistant Traffic Manager of T.A.T."  Help me out
> here folks.  Was Transcontinental Air Transport theforerunner
>of Trans World Airlines?

YES

>... anyone know what became of T.A.T.?

Remarkably close ...  The first TAT 'transcontintal flight' left
Grand Central station NY at 6:05 July7, 1929 as a Penn. R.R.
train to Columbus Oh. [where it continued next morning by [Ford 'Trimotor']
at a signal from Chas. L. who was in Gov. Young's
office in LAX.  [have picture]  A.E was on the train.  She was
Asst. Tfc. Mgr. of TAT [to get the ladies to fly].

One more train ride & one plane later, they arv. Glendale.
Meanwhile, the day before they arrv., C.Lindbergh flew the
first Eastbound trip from Glendale [while A.E was one day
away, still west bound].   Never did the twain meet ....

Sans details, TAT, Western Air Exp., Maddux, & Standard Airlines
became Transcontinental & Western Airways [T & WA, later TWA]
at the time of the 'Airmail Scandal' in 1930.   RC  [ret. TWA capt.]
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:26:34 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: sunrise

The sunrise azimuth on July 2nd is 067 degrees for an observer anywhere on, or
even within a few degrees of, the latitude of Howland Island.

Time relationships are best considered in terms of GMT.

Sunrise for an observer on the ground at Howland Island on July 2nd occurs at
1746 GMT.

An observer at 10,000 feet has a geometric horizon distance of 114.4 nautical
miles.  The sunrise terminator moves at 15 degrees per hour which, at or near the
equator, corresponds to a speed of 900 knots.  This means that a stationary
observer at 10,000 feet will, assuming a clear horizon, see sunrise approximately
7.6 minutes earlier than an observer on the ground at the same geographic
position.

An observer 200 miles west of Howland will see sunrise approximately 13.3 minutes
later than an observer at Howland, at the same altitude.  To get the time of
sunrise at 10,000 feet 200 miles west of Howland, subtract 7.6 minutes from the
surface sunrise time, giving 1738.5 GMT.  Then add the correction factor, 13.3
minutes, for an observer 200 miles to the west.  This gives sunrise there at
1751.7 GMT, or 1752 GMT which is close enough for government work.

Wherever Noonan was when he saw sunrise, he saw the sun at an azimuth of 067
degrees, and his sunrise LOP would be parallel to the 157/337 LOP through
Howland.

Noonan had plenty of time between his sunrise and arrival at the Howland LOP to
take sun shots and estimate his ground speed and ETA at the LOP.  Even though the
Sun's azimuth was shifting counterclockwise with time, it didn't shift more than
a few degrees between 1752 GMT and 1912 GMT, which would be the latest time of
arrival at the Howland LOP.  Consequently, his ground speed calculations were not
significantly impacted by the shift in the Sun's azimuth, and he could accurately
time his turn onto the Howland LOP.

The sunrise calculation procedure is only slightly more complicated in the case
where the airborne observer is known to have been at some position before sunrise
and it is desired to know when he will intercept the terminator.  In that case,
one uses the relative closing speed between the observer's platform and the
terminator to compute the sunrise differential.


Bob
**************************************************************************
From Ric

So, if the sunrise from 10,000 ft 200 nm west of Howland is seen at 1752 GMT,
then Earhart's statement at 1745 GMT that she is "approx. 200 miles out" can
not be based upon an LOP established by observing the sunrise - OR - she's
closer than 200 nm.  How much closer? We're only talking a difference of 7
minutes.  How far is she from Howland if she sees the sunrise at - say -
1740?  Or what if she's at 12,000 feet?

My point here is that the 1745 transmission may be a very important clue to
where the airplane was at that time.  Itasca hears Earhart at her regularly
scheduled transmission times at 02:45 local (1415 GMT), 03:45 (1515 GMT),
4:45 (1615 GMT) but never gives any estimate of her position.  Nothing is
heard from her at 5:45 local (1715 GMT) but then at 06:14 local (1744 GMT)
she comes on with her first request for Itasca to take a bearing on her. A
minute later she says that she's "ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT/ APPX." and
begins whistling into the mic.

Sounds to me like 200 miles is the magic number. Once she is that close she
expects to be able to get the all-important DF bearing that will allow her to
find Howland.  The question is: Does the sunrise have anything to do with the
200 miles out estimate?

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:32:34 EST
From:         Margot Still
Subject:      Re: GIRTS

'scuse me Dave but that should be GRITS (Girls Raised In The South).  I don't
think I want to know what a GIRTS is (or are).

I do agree with you on LOP's.  I had a terrible time with it in ground school
and I thought I had it until now.  Back to ground school I guess.

LTM (who wants to hear more from "Ambiguous Double Entendres R Us")

MStill 2332
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:42:28 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Sunrise

>From Alan
>
>....the higher one is the earlier one would see the sun and that is true but
>the effect is fairly negligable. I found this comment in celestial navigation
>information.
>
>Altitude
>
>(negligible to 2 degrees)
>
>This factor is normally negligible. According to the IGRF, a 20,000 meter
>climb even at a magnetically precarious location as Resolute, 500 kilometers
>from the north magnetic pole, would result in a two-degree reduction in
>declination.

Is it a change in magnetic declination that is being referred to as
"negligible to 2 degrees" in the excerpt?

Mark
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:48:50 EST
From:         Ty Sundstrom
Subject:      Re: Prop strikes

In most cases of prop strike damage, low power prop strikes tend to do the
most harm(to the engine), where as high power prop strikes most often but
not always do very little damage to the crankshaft.  This is possibly caused
by the rotational contact intervals being closer together at higher rpm,
which would provide a somewhat smoother contact than the lower rpm would.
This is not the same as a real sudden stop where the prop stops turning upon
impact even though most power prop strikes are referred to as "sudden
stops".  The likelihood of damage is also determined by the particular
model of engine/crankshaft in question as some are definitely worse than
others for ending up as a non-serviceable part.  I have seen P&W 1340's
come back(during agricultural spraying)  with the No. 1 cylinder busted off
and they were still running but making a lot of noise!  They are tough old
engines.

Ty N. Sundstrom
*************************************************************************
From Ric

So the issue is much more "How quickly did it stop?" than "How bent are the
props?".
Makes sense.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:50:40 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      refraction

>he needs an accurate altitude of the sun to PLACE the LOP. To get
>an accurate sun shot the sun needs to be between 20 and 70 degrees
>altitude....

Is this because of the uncertainties of refraction for sights below 20
degrees?

>....Fred needed to deal with refraction
>error but that's routine. Altitude is not going to make a whole ton of
>difference.

It probably was routine for Noonan, being the practitioner that he was.  It
would be interesting to learn what refraction tables or formulas were
available in 1937.  I wonder what the editions of "American Practical
Navigator" that far back say about solving for refraction at altitude.

I am under the impression that refraction is considerable for very low
sights--for a sextant altitude of 0 degrees the refraction being  about 32
minutes of angle at Sea Level, and about 22 minutes at 10,000 feet MSL.  We
have tables now to give us a prediction of refraction; maybe working from
experience Noonan had a very good idea of what refraction correction to
apply.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:52:11 EST
From:         Michael Lowrey
Subject:      T.A.T.

TAT merged with Western Air Express (WAE) on July 24, 1930 to form
Transcontinental and Western Air (TWA) after a "Shotgun Marriage."
Essentially, the Hoover Administration would allow only three
transcontinental airlines (to prevent "unnecesaary and self-destructive
competition") and TAT and WAE were told to merge if they they wanted to
be allow to provide the service.

Michael Lowrey
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:00:55 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      The forum environment

Unless I got it totally wrong, I thought the forum was for interested people
who have ideas to throw them into the circle and have those ideas pushed,
pulled and poked at so that they learned something (as happened here.

It has been great listening to the replies and responses, and correcting
some of my assumptions.  However I didn't expect it to go on so long and I
hope that didn't bother anyone.

Although I might push a point until someone clarifies it enough for me to
understand - I don't mean to imply that it's "the gospel according to
RossD".

It's usually because I see somethig differently and can't see quite how
someone else was perceiving it.

Thanks again..

RossD

************************************************************************
From Ric

You didn't get it totally wrong.  You got it totally right.  We're eager to
have anyone throw their ideas and observations into the circle as long as
they're willing to have them scrutinized and dissected and chewed upon.
There are those who can't handle that kind of peer review and they've found
this forum to be a very uncomfy place.  You're not one of them.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:09:06 EST
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

Who is going to fly the Electra?  Is there not a Lockheed Electra over there
already fitted out with long range tanks etc?...

RossD

*************************************************************************
From Ric

We have no intention of reenacting the Eahart/Noonan flight with a Lockheed
10.  There have already been two pointless "recreations" (not) of the flight
using Electras.  What we're considering is a reenactment of the controversial
final portion of the flight - the approach to Howland and subsequent
theoretical course - to see what we cold learn from a real time celestial
exercise that would duplicate, as closely as practical, the conditions
encountered by Noonan.  That could be done in a big, modern, safe airplane
and might be fundable by letting a couple hundred interested people come
along as observers.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:27:28 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Lambrecht revisited

Don Neumann wrote:

>Lambrecht also reported no difficulty in seeing any of the islands upon
>their approach, other than occasional rain squalls that were apparently
>quite common to that area & usually these were very local occurrences.

Brief heavy rain squalls are a common fixture almost everywhere in the
Pacific. While on Guam, I normally left the barracks at 0700 for the
one-mile walk to the flightline shop.

It was not out of the ordinary to get soaked to the skin sometime during
that walk, and yet be totally dry (though somewhat disheveled) by the time
I reached the shop.

Tom #2179
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:38:05 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

I love the idea of a reenactment, even though the money involved sent my
billfold into convulsions as soon as I read the note.

I wish I could afford it, but I can't. Still, I'd love to read about such a
flight, and might consider buying a video of the event. (billfold's pulse
and respiration almost returned to normal at that thought)

Somehow I don't see the media getting excited about this, but I am
extremely cynical about those folks anymore.

Of course this opens up the market for T-shirts and other items, emblazoned
with:

"Tighar flew over Nikumaroro, but all I got was this lousy T-shirt" or
somesuch.

I'd suggest a C-130, even though it's noisy and not terribly comfortable.
You'll be able to get low and slow over Niku and allow the pax to take lots
of pix.

Ric, this reminds me of the cruise ships that were chartered to go out and
observe the raising of artifacts, and piece of the hull, from the Titanic,
in 1997 I think (perhaps 1996). If the reenactment of the flight is a
success, you might think about chartering a cruise ship to Howland, Baker,
Niku, et. al.

LTM (who loves to cruise)
Tom #2179
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We really don't have any idea yet about the cost, but we're researching that.
 The most likely aircraft type at this early, early stage seems to be a 767 300 ER.
The cost of chartering a Lockheed 100 (civilian version of the C-130) would
be prohibitive.  We want a fast, economical, comfortable aircraft with lots
and lots of seats so we can hold the cost-per-passenger down.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:03:17 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      LOP

>From RC
>Fred's LOP was in effect a 'band' due to the inherent
>errors inherent in most LOP's.

That is a very good point.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:26:47 EST
From:         Monty Barnett
Subject:      Busy Fred

  During the search for Howland Island when Amelia
reported," should be over you but can not see you".
I would think that Noonan would be up front helping to
sight the Island, probably with binoculars. Could he do
all his navigation work  in the front seat, or would he have
to go back and forth  from his place in the back? I
heard from somewhere that he would have to crawl
over the fuel tank to get up front; sounded like it wasn't
real easy.

Monty Barnett #2224
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We really have very little information about what the aft part of the cabin
was like following the repairs.  Prior to the first world flight attempt
there was plently of publicity about the rather elaborate "navigator's
station" designed by Harry Manning and Paul Mantz. That set-up has passed
into legend as the way the airplane looked, but there is no indication that
it was retained by Noonan after both manning and mantz were out of the
picture.  Nobody seems to have taken any photos of the cabin area immediately
prior to or during the second world flight attempt.  We can only presume that
Noonan had some kind of surface back there where he could spread out a chart.

We do know that the fuselage fuel tank arrangement was unchanged.  Crawling
back and forth over the tanks between cockpit and cabin looks like it would
be a bit awkward but not difficult.

I'm guessing, but it seems reasonable that Fred would want to take his
sunshot/observation from up front then go back to lay the lines on the chart
and do the arithmetic to predict their ETA.  Then, as you say, he'd want to
be up front to look for the island.  He should have plenty of time to do that.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:31:06 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      The solution!

Skeet said: We could accommodate about 418 of our closest
friends on a live demonstration. The tough part would be the 130 KTAS.
Feasible at lighter weights with full flaps--now, about that fuel
consumption....

Well, now, I think Skeet hit on the solution.

Try this: put all 418 members of the Celestial Choir (CC) with
parachutes into Skeet's 747, fly to the LOP, turn right at Howland, descend
to 1,000 feet at Niku, make the CC jump into the 80-degree water, wade
ashore at the Norwich City, and investigate the area around the obstructions
Emily talked about.

Man, it doesn't get any better than that!!

LTM, who likes all of her threads neatly tied together
Dennis O. McGee #0149CE

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Good news Den.  You've just been appointed Jump Master.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:33:51 EST
From:         Paul Chattery
Subject:      Re: Holiday Gift

Dear Ric,

The refrigerator magnet has qualities of understated elegance and quiet
cool, it is also a visual treat, and grand company for those times when the
forum is uncharacteristically quiet.  The LTM calligraphy reminds me that
mother is both a feminine and an uncompromising force; the Art Deco
exclamation point is a powerful motivator to check Email nowwwww.  I believe
I hear radials, must go and count ping pong balls.

With grateful thanks,

Paul Chattey

*************************************************************************
From Ric

You are too kind.  Merry Christmas.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:43:08 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Norwich City Sextant

Ric:  I originally mentioned that the captain of the NC was swept overboard
by a wave while trying to get a lifeboat away, and the reply was that he
wouldn't have been trying to get in that lifeboat because as captain he would
be the last person off.  Very true, but the story said both lifeboats were
swept away, meaning everyone that got to shore did so the hard way, by
swimming.  Very, very unlikely they would try to swim with something as big
and clunky as a sextant in a box.   Ergo, the sextant found on the island was
either washed up from the wreck of the NC (possible separating the box from
the sextant and the inverting eyepiece, etc) or else it was scavenged from
the NC at a later time by the local islanders, but I see no reason for them
to claim to have found it somewhere else other than the wreck, unless there
was some tabu associated with approaching the wreck.  I find it very
plausible that the sextant box found by Gallager would be from the NC because
it is unlikely that the captain was able to take the sextant off with him.
Considering that they knew where they were, they didn't need a sextant.  They
would, most likely, take only those things that would insure their survival
until help could arrive.  That's my story and sticking with it.

LTM, who prefers to survive in style
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I wouldn't exactly call it a taboo, but Emily has said that the Norwich City
was off limits to the colonists.  Besides, it's hard to explain how a wooden
box would survive a fire.  That means that IF the sextant box came from the
shipwreck it almost had to go into the water at the time of the evacuation.
It certainly seems possible that, even though Capt. Hamer had already gone
for an involuntary swim, the box with sextant was placed aboard the second
lifeboat and the sextant itself was lost when the boat capsized, leaving the
wooden box to be washed ashore and later found by the mysterious castaway(s).
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:59:11 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: LOP

Don't you think its time to LOP off this particular thread?

LTM, who abhors loose threads, loose women and loose change.
Blue Skies,
Dave Bush

************************************************************************
From Ric

No, I don't.  I realize that it's beyond the interest and perhaps the
arithmetical acumen of some, but a thorough understanding of the navigational
problem faced by Noonan is, I beleive, essential to an intelligent assessment
of the possible ways in which he resolved it.  If nothing else, this thread
should make the point that the Lae/Howland flight was not a seat-of-the-pants
venture (as were many of Earhart's earlier long distance flights).  Fred
Noonan's trade was a complex combination of science, skill, and art.  The
more I learn about it, and him, the harder it is to beleive that he let that
airplane go into the drink.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:00:08 EST
From:         Jim Tierney
Subject:      T.A.T./Lindbergh

Ric-One minor correction on CA Lindbergh/TAT---

Charles Lindbergh did pilot the first eastbound flight on TAT from Glendale
to Winslow, AZ.

He then transferred to the Westbound flight  at Winslow and flew it back to
Glendale.. AE was a passenger on the flight and they did fly together. She of
course as a passenger..

Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:28:23 EST
From:         Clyde Miller
Subject:      blame

In reference to Fred's possible failure as a navigator...let us not overlook
that Amelia might very well have opted to take a seat of the pants approach
at some point when a crisis arose too and compounded the problem by her
decisions.

Clyde
(Who is happy as long as the blame is not his)

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I am as hesitant to blame AE for a speculative failure as I am Capt. Noonan.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:29:56 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction

>From Mark Prange
>
>>he needs an accurate altitude of the sun to PLACE the LOP. To get
>>an accurate sun shot the sun needs to be between 20 and 70 degrees
>>altitude....
>
>Is this because of the uncertainties of refraction for sights below 20
>degrees?

You're absolutely correct, Mark. And you hit on the operative word,
"uncertainties." If it was just a matter of applying text book corrections
for refraction it would not be a problem.

Alan
#2329
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:32:35 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

<< I'd suggest a C-130, even though it's noisy and not terribly comfortable.
 You'll be able to get low and slow over Niku and allow the pax to take lots
 of pix. >>

Initially that sounded good as I have a couple thousand hours as an IP in the
130 but it eats fuel and only carries about 80 passengers.

Alan
#2329

*************************************************************************
From Ric

I can just see 80 tourists with cameras peering out of the open rear ramp of
a Herc.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:34:52 EST
From:         Bill Moffett
Subject:      T.A.T.

Seasons greetings to all,

In response to Roger Kelley's of 12/19 questions about Transcontinental Air
Transport, the Centennial History of the Pennsylvania Railroad by Burgess &
Kennedy, 1949, says T.A.T. was launched in the spring of 1928.  Purpose was
to provide 48-hour service from coast to coast using rail travel by night and
flying by day.  Night flying was not indulged in except by some of the
hardier air-mail pilots.  The backers of the new company were Wright
Aeronautical Co., Curtis Airplane & Motor Co., National Aviation Corp.,  the
Pennsylvania Railroad Co. and a banking group headed by Blair & Co. of New
York.  PRR invested $500,000 for a one-fifth interest...Following the joint
award of a coast-to-coast airmail contract to T.A.T. and Western Air Express,
a new corporation, Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. was formed for the
purpose of unified operation and T.A.T. accepted 47 1/2 percent of the stock
of the new company for its equipment and other assets, and was thenceforth a
holding company.  Cancellation of all the airmail contracts by President
Roosevelt in February 1934 led to reorganization of TWA later in the year.
The PRR retained its interest until 1936 when its stock was sold.  How
off-topic can we get?  Reminds me a bit of Gypsy Rose Lee's position as Vice
Pres. of Unveiling on the Lancaster & Chester RR!  (Ric, you probably know
that Admiral W.F. "Bull" Halsey was VP of White Horse Supply on the L&C.)

LTM (who kept one foot on the ground, especially at night)

Bill Moffet  #2156
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:38:55 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: sunrise

> From Ric
>
> So, if the sunrise from 10,000 ft 200 nm west of Howland is seen at 1752
>GMT, then Earhart's statement at 1745 GMT that she is "approx. 200
> miles out" can not be based upon an LOP established by observing the sunrise
> - OR - she's closer than 200 nm.  How much closer? We're only talking a
>difference of 7 minutes.

Is it possible that at "first light", before sunrise but when the horizon
began to show light, that Noonan, based on their average speed through the
night, was able to extrapolate the distance estimate before actually seeing
the sun rise? Maybe that could account for the 7 minute difference.

william 2243

***************************************************************************
From Ric

I dunno, but nearness of the times makes me suspect there is some connection.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:39:35 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      T.A.T.

Was it Howard Hughes who gave TWA its name in 1950 -?

william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:41:01 EST
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Don J. and the LOP

Don J wrote:

<< Could [Gardner] be seen better from the air than Howland? >>

  Gardner Island is at least four times bigger than Howland, so I think the
answer is yes, bigger things are easier to see than smaller things.

<< If they could fly a calculated 157 degree heading to read Gardner,
wouldn't it be better to fly the 337 degree heading to reach Howland.  >>

  The whole point is that they wouldn't have known for sure that they were
flying 157 degrees "to Gardner."  Rather, they were flying 157 degrees "to
dry land."  By the time they knew for sure which land, it would have been too
late to turn back.

  LTM,
  Russ
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:53:43 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: sunrise

> So, if the sunrise from 10,000 ft 200 nm west of Howland is seen at 1752 GMT,
> then Earhart's statement at 1745 GMT that she is "approx. 200 miles out" can
> not be based upon an LOP established by observing the sunrise - OR - she's
> closer than 200 nm.  How much closer? We're only talking a difference of 7
> minutes.  How far is she from Howland if she sees the sunrise at - say -
> 1740?

She would be about 23 miles from Howland if she saw sunrise at that time.

> Or what if she's at 12,000 feet?

At 12,000 feet, sunrise at a given point comes 8.35 minutes earlier than at the
ground.  It's a function of horizon distance, which is easily calculated. Take
the square root of the altitude in feet, and multiply the result by 1.144 to
obtain horizon distance in nautical miles.

> My point here is that the 1745 transmission may be a very important clue to
> where the airplane was at that time.  Itasca hears Earhart at her regularly
> scheduled transmission times at 02:45 local (1415 GMT), 03:45 (1515 GMT),
> 4:45 (1615 GMT) but never gives any estimate of her position.  Nothing is
> heard from her at 5:45 local (1715 GMT) but then at 06:14 local (1744 GMT)
> she comes on with her first request for Itasca to take a bearing on her. A
> minute later she says that she's "ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT/ APPX." and
> begins whistling into the mic
>
> Sounds to me like 200 miles is the magic number. Once she is that close she
> expects to be able to get the all-important DF bearing that will allow her to
> find Howland.

It's possible that Noonan's plan called for a DF bearing about 200 miles out,
irrespective of the time of sunrise.

> The question is: Does the sunrise have anything to do with the
> 200 miles out estimate?

It's unlikely that she saw sunrise before 1745, even assuming a clear horizon.
However, the estimate could have been based on Noonan's DR derived from star
sights during the night.  He might not have had a good fix, but he could have kept
a running estimate of distance made good during the night, and planned to confirm
it at sunrise.   The fact that the bearing request came just before his sunrise
could be just a coincidence.

LTM,

Bob   #2286
***************************************************************************
From Ric

<<She would be about 23 miles from Howland if she saw sunrise at that time.>>

Tha doesn't sound right.  She has to be 177 miles closer to Howland to see
the sunrise 7 minutes earlier?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:55:07 EST
From:         Mark Prange
Subject:      Sunrise

> >In principle, by observing and measuring the azimuth of the sun at
> >sunrise, and comparing this reading to the correct date column on a
> >table (reflecting altitude too), Noonan was able to determine the
> >latitude (NS) of the Electra.

The accuracy of an astrocompass in flight, if in fact Noonan had one on the
Electra, is not as good as the accuracy that can be expected of a sextant.
Which altitude--the Sun's or the observer's--is referred to in the table you
mention parenthetically?  --Mark
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:57:05 EST
From:         Vern Klein
Subject:      Re: LOP forever

Having jumped into this with both feet some months ago knowing nothing about
navigation but with a fair idea of how the earth moves relative to the sun,
I've contended that all Fred needed to determine the 157/337 LOP was an
accurate determination of sunrise time.  The almanac did the rest for him.
That continues to be my belief.  Randy says it with different words and
appears to be familiar with Air Almanacs which I am not.

I completely agree with Randy's comments as quoted below.  I have yet to be
convinced that this will not work.

>>From Randy Jacobson
>
>Sun shots (or stars, for that matter) never are done for azimuth directions
>(direction from north), but for altitude.  At sunrise, one has three
>choices for times: upper limb, middle of sun, and lower limb to measure
>time of that limb breaking the horizon.  The LOP direction is
>pre-determined by azimuth, and can be obtained from any almanac.  The
>position of the LOP is determined by the time compared to what one expects
>based upon a dead reckon postion.  Any difference moves the LOP back or
>forward to update your DR position.  The same can be done for other times,
>but that does require a sextant/octant to measure altitude.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:26:56 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Norwich City fire

Ric says:

>Besides, it's hard to explain how a wooden box would survive a fire.

I think you're overplaying the fire.  This wasn't an airplane fire, with
everything going up in a big ball of flame; it was a big old burning ship,
with lots of opportunities for stuff to go unburned because there wasn't
enough oxygen around its location, it got wetted by the sea, etc. etc.  There
must have been enough of the (presumably wooden) decks left for Maude, the
Kiwis, et al to get across the wreck when they tied off to it.  I don't think
there's any reason to think that wooden objects like sextant boxes couldn't
have survived to be scavenged by the colonists.

LTM (who's burning with interest in this)
Tom King

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Here are Second Officer Henry Lott's references to the fire:

"After a considerable time (following the grounding) I noticed smoke coming
from the fiddley.  I looked down in No. 3 (hold) and I could just see flames
down below.  I went quietly to the Engineers and told them.  They went down
below and reported that the ship was on fire."
(After unsuccessfully trying to lower the port lifeboat) "By that time the
ship was a furnace in the Engine Room and No. 3 hold....We had the intention
of waiting aboard until daylight.  She started exploding down below."

Captain Hamer described it this way:
"Shortly before 4 a.m. smoke was seen issuing from the engine room and in
less time than it takes to tell the engine room, stokeholds, and number three
hold burst into flames.  Fanned by the strong winds it wasn't long before the
vessel presented an alarming spectacle.  Minor explosions were occurring at
frequent intervals...."

Examining photos taken aboard the wreck in 1937 and 1938 I can't see any fire
damage to the deck nor can I see the striations that are typical of a wooden
deck, but that doesn't mean it wasn't wood.  About all we can say about the
fire beyond the descriptions by the eye witnesses is that it was bad enough
to motivate all of the crew to abandon ship into the teeth of a storm.

LTM
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:33:49 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      Tropical vis, reenactment, cel nav from a jet, etc.

Greeting to all AE sleuths.  I just got home from a Carib trip & I get
avalanched by all these emails-62 to be exact!  Wow- we all got too much
time on our hands!  Anyway....

I flew a 757 to the carib this weekend.  I was holding at a fix to the
NW waiting for my turn to get into to St. Thomas.  The humidity was much
higher than normal(even for the tropics).  A few small rainshowers in
the area.  I observed alot of scattered cloud cover and the visibility
was advertised as 10 miles+.  Holding at 3000 ft. 10 miles from my
island target I could not see it.  The vis may be 10+ on the surface but
in the air it varied a few miles plus/minus.  Lucky for me my airplane
has 3 laser-ring gyro Inertial reference systems along with a flight
mangement unit, 2 vor's, & 2 ADFs.  For AE & FN to have missed seeing
Howland which is much smaller than Thomas makes perfect sense although
unfortunate for them.  If they were searching at 1000 above the waves
their prevailing vis would likely be even worse.  I have no doubt
whatsoever that FN was one of the best if not the best navigators in the
universe at this time and if anyhone could have nailed a rock in the
middle of the pacific no bigger than Howland he could do it.  It must be
understood by those who have not done cel nav or island hopped in an
ocean enviornment that the danger of a navigation problem or missing
your target this small was very great. Weather reporting then was crude
in the civilized world but for their part of the globe not existant.
Celestial nav can work very well but you still must be able to eyeball
your target.  It's accuracy for aviators was not as precise as it worked
for mariner due to aircraft speeds, sight reduction methods, moving
platforms, and equipment limitations to name a few.  What's my point?
Give Fred his due and a break at the same time.  Put yourself in Fred's
boots.  If I knew the risks of missing my target in a pond as big as the
pacific were that great, my backup plan would be to hit some real estate
where my odds would be better to make a landfall and the Phoenix islands
would be a very good (multiple)target.  Fred could have also deduced a
northly wind aloft that would aid them in their diversion to the SE-make
their fuel reserve stretch a little further.  Disagree if you wish, but
my instincts go with Gardener.

A 767-300ER for the reenactment?  A possibility.  Some problems though.
It could certainly get the job done of going from point A to B with lots
of range but it would be next to impossible to fly it anywhere close to
Electra speed for the landfall & diversion.  You would be carrying 10's
of thousands of pounds of fuel to do that portion of the trip.  Add that
to the empty weight of the airplane, passengers, bags, and you could not
slow it down enough.  Even if you could, your fuel flow would go up
exponentially (gear, slats,& flaps hanging out).  I also see a problem
of some of these island airports(i.e. Kanton, Tarawa, Christmas island)
not being equipped or unable to service a wide-body aircraft.  I
personally would favor a prop aircraft.  It could fly much lower &
slower and do it much more efficiently.  C-130 as suggested might be a
good candidate.  Got a few other candidates but prefer to research their
performance & range first.  I have shot celestial from a 767 though with
an A-10 sextant.  It can be done.  You have to know what part of the
windshields to shoot from for the least refraction error.  There are
curves toward the corners that will throw your sight off 20-40 miles.  I
have fixed the standard refraction error on a good observation at a -4
minutes of arc.

Whatever you put together Ric, my gear is ready to go.  Let's do it.

Doug B.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Our choice of flying machine will necessarily be dictated by economics and
availability.  The paying passengers will make the experiment possible.

Whatever shape it takes, let's remember than the reenactment was originally
Doug's brainchild.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:45:05 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Norwich City sextant

>It certainly seems possible that, even though Capt. Hamer had already gone
>for an involuntary swim, the box with sextant was placed aboard the second
>lifeboat and the sextant itself was lost when the boat capsized, leaving the
>wooden box to be washed ashore and later found by the mysterious
>castaway(s)."

I agree.  If you are abandoning ship with lifeboats, then the sextant is
probably the most important piece of gear necessary for survival and
navigation.  If the NC folks hadn't made contact with another ship, and
were ensured of rescue, then they might have to take to the lifeboats and
navigate someplace where civilization exists.  You can't do that without a
sextant.  Thus, sextant in lifeboats is one of the first orders of business
in abandoning ship.  It certainly is not the last thing to take!  Sorry,
Janet, but that is my $.03 worth (inflation, you know, is robbing us all!)

Randy Jacobson
***************************************************************************
From Ric

For what it's worth, the preparation of the lifeboats for launching was done
before the fire got bad.  The cool thing about this theory is that it
explains the presence on the island of a sextant box, but not a sextant.
Lifeboat capsizes, box falls out, catch comes undone, sextant falls out and
sinks, box washes ashore with just an inverting eyepiece still secured inside.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:47:59 EST
From:         Doug Brutlag
Subject:      More on Fred Noonan

In his book,  SKYWAY TO ASIA, William S. Grooch then an Operations
Manager for Pan Am in the late 30's commented about Fred Noonan's
navigation skills.  When describing the survey flights across the
Pacific to Midway & Wake Island he writes quote" In the Clipper, (Fred)
Noonan shot the sun every hour: his fixes agreed with the
direction-finder bearings.  (Captains) Sully & Tilton (Clipper Pilots)
hit Wake Island on the nose".  He is also described training navigators
for Pan Am. In another section, Fred was descibed able to quote"shoot
the sun standing on his head".  Everything said about FN is entirely
complimentary and reguards him as nothing short of a skilled
professional.  All the information of him written at the time says
nothing negative.  The alcoholism stories to me are pure unadulterated
BS.  You cannot have a problem as that and do the job of an airial
navigator at all-and doing it with Fred's reputation for skill &
accuracy-forget it!   I think it can be agreed that he navigated the
Electra very close to Howland Island judging from the strength of the
radio transmissions.  Factor in though fatigue, days of flying and
crossing many time zones, and possibly fumes from all that 100 octane in
the cabin could only compound the problems they were encounting.
Working around petrol fumes gave me a big headache once and tylenol was
not invented back then.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Picky detail:  While I certainly agree that gasoline fumes are no fun to work
around, the notion that the Electra was plagued by that problem is another
example of various authors blowing a single comment by AE way out of
proportion.  On the South Atlantic crossing AE complained that gasoline fumes
made her sick, but that was because the tanks had been overfilled.
And the gas used on the Lae/Howland flight was mostly 87 octane (not that it
smells any different).
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:51:59 EST
From:         William Webster-Garman
Subject:      Re: Sunrise

> Mark Prange wrote:
> Which altitude--the Sun's or the observer's--is referred to
> in the table you mention parenthetically?

I was referring to the observer's altitude. Please bear in mind that my
comments were about the general concept of deriving a solid LOP, and not
speculation about how Noonan actually did it that morning.


william 2243
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:01:33 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: sunrise

This is probably dumb, but what assurance do we have that the clock on the
Itasca wasn't 7 or 8 minutes off?
ltm,
jon 2266
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Good question.  Itasca certainly had a ship's chronometer that was quite
accurate but whether the clock in the radio room was set preceisely is
another question. The only way I can thnk that we have to check is to compare
their time notations in the radio log with Earhart's pre-stated radio
schedule.  She said she would transmit at quarter past and quarter to the
hour.  Itasca logs her transmissions at

0345
0453 (but this is almost certainly a delayed entry)
0614
0645
0742
0800
0843

Looks like they were pretty close.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:33:14 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      200 miles? 100 miles?

Sorry, Ric, but someone has provided possible 'bum' information.  At
1811GMT, AE says she was 100 miles out.  If true, she was at 25.5'N, 178o,
15.4'W.  Sunrise at that position was at 1755GMT, just about enough time
between sunrise and the later radio report for FJN to work up the LOP.
   At 200 miles out, sunrise would be even later.  At 10k feet elevation,
there is an 8 minute advantage towards sunrise, so it would have been seen
at 1748GMT.  It is simply impossible for Noonan to calculate the fix, give
AE the information in time for her to broadcast the 200 miles out at
1744GMT.  Times are based upon middle limb of the sun, so a minute or so
advance beyond above is possible if FJN was making measurements at the
leading edge of the sun (upper limb).  Based upon readings of all prevous
FJN charts, it took him at least 15 minutes to work up LOP's into a fix.

If FJN did sight a sunrise prior to 1744GMT, and worked it up so AE had a
decent distance to go, then why was the next broadcast 30 minutes later
state only 100 miles out?

LTM, who never looks directly into the sun.
Randy Jacobson
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I think we're all pretty much in agreement that the 200 mile estimate was
probably not based on a sun shot.  The Itasca radio log entry which has
traditionally been interpreted as an estimate by Earhart that she is 100
miles out was recorded at 06:45 local (1815 GMT) - not 18:11 (not that it's
any big deal).  I agree that the timing suggests that this estimate could
much more likely be based upon a sun shot and LOP calculation.  However,
there are two possible problems with that hypothesis:

- If they're 100 nm miles out at 18:15 GMT and they have covered that
distance at the time Earhart says "We must be on you.." at 19:12 GMT (57
minutes later) they're making only making 105 knots.  I suppose that's
possible if they've already made their descent down to 1,000 feet, they're
playing it real conservative on the power, and they have a bit of a headwind.

 There's also the point that Earhart's scheduled transmissions can be
conveying old information.

- The original radio log entry looks very suspiciously like the appended
notation " - abt 100 miles out" was not intended as a quote but was the radio
operator's own estimate based upon the strength of the transmission.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:34:25 EST
From:         Jon Greenberg
Subject:      Pacific navigation (off topic)

Speaking of finding tiny islands in the Pacific, there's a fascinating
article about native navigation in the islands of Micronesia at
http://www.museum.upenn.edu/navigation/Intro.html.
It shows how the navigators of the Caroline islands learn the stars, the
geography, and the sailing directions throughout Micronesia without the
benefit of sextants, chronometers, radios, almanacs, or writing.  The
navigators are highly revered, as well they should be.

LTM (who always knows where she is)
Jon Greenberg 2047
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:36:21 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Norwich City Sextant

Randy Jacobson wrote

>I agree.  If you are abandoning ship with lifeboats, then the sextant is
>probably the most important piece of gear necessary for survival and
>navigation.  Randy Jacobson

But wouldn't a sextant be a useless piece of dead weight without all
the items it takes to make it work?     Maps, charts, almanacs, slide
rule, compass, etc., etc.  Kinda like a safe!  With out the combination
to the lock. . .  it's worthless.

I would think the Captain would have his hands full of Log books
instead, or maybe he used the empty sextant box to carry the log books.

Don J.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:52:07 EST
From:         Jon Greeberg
Subject:      Re: Norwich City Sextant

> It certainly seems possible that, even though Capt. Hamer had already gone
> for an involuntary swim, the box with sextant was placed aboard the second
> lifeboat and the sextant itself was lost when the boat capsized, leaving the
> wooden box to be washed ashore and later found by the mysterious castaway(s).

I don't think so.  None of the descriptions of the sextant box mention
damage that would most likely be caused by tumbling in the surf - especially
if it was severe enough to force the box open and eject the sextant.  From
other wooden instrument boxes I have seen, there is a pretty good latch or
lock, and some device to secure the instrument inside the box.  (Is that the
case with the known sextant box?)  Had there been damage, I believe that
Gallagher, as thorough as he was, would have mentioned it at some point.
Besides, it was used as a container to hold the other "pieces of evidence"
being sent to the High Commissioner, so it couldn't have suffered much.

That's my conjecture for the day.

LTM
Jon Greenberg 2047

*************************************************************************
From Ric

For what it's worth:  Having handled the Pensacola sextant box quite a bit,
it's my opinion that the scenario described could have occurred had that
sextant and box been dumped in the ocean and tumbled about in the surf.  The
catches on the box are simple hooks and the device is not secured within the
box.  As for how beat up the box found by Gallagher was - I don't think we
can draw any conclusions except to say that the numbers were still legible
and the box was, as you say,  intact enough to be used as a container.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:53:48 EST
From:         Jon Greenberg
Subject:      Re: LOP

> Noonan's trade was a complex combination of science, skill, and art.  The
> more I learn about it, and him, the harder it is to beleive that
> he let that airplane go into the drink.

But did he let the drink go into the airplane?

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
Jon Greenberg 2047
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:01:08 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Reenactment

Ric wrote

>I can just see 80 tourists with cameras peering out of the open rear ramp of
>a Herc.

Aw, Ric, you ain't lived 'til you've stood on the open ramp of a Herk at
180kias about 50 feet off the deck...

But I realize now that my initial suggestion of a Herk was a poor choice...
not enough windows, not enough potties, and no bar.

Tom #2179
*************************************************************************
From Ric

You could probably get the same effect from laying face down in the bed of a
pickup truck at 90 mph with your head hanging off the back of the lowered
tailgate.

I also recommend sitting (no seat belt) in the open door of a Huey flown by a
Vietnamese student pilot with your legs dangling over the side.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:03:39 EST
From:         Tom Robison
Subject:      Re: Tropical vis, reenactment, cel nav from a jet, et

Okay, it needs to be a prop aircraft that will carry 120+ pax, plus TIGHAR
staff performing the navigation experiment, + film crew, and needs to have
enough windows for nearly everyone to see out at the same time, and at
least four restrooms, and flotation devices and life rafts in case the
unthinkable happens... only one I can think of that might come close would
be a Super-Connie... but does a Connie have the range, given the above
stated load?

Tom #2179

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Actually, the Graf Zeppelin would be perfect.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:07:59 EST
From:         Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Norwich City sextant

>I agree.  If you are abandoning ship with lifeboats, then the sextant is
>probably the most important piece of gear necessary for survival and
>navigation.  If the NC folks hadn't made contact with another ship, and
>were ensured of rescue, then they might have to take to the lifeboats and
>navigate someplace where civilization exists.  You can't do that without a
>sextant

But we'd be talking about a wooden box left outdoors in a tropical
environment for some 11 years which remains in a fit state for stencilled
numbers to be legible and with hinges not rusted away. Is this feasible?

LTM, Phil 2276

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Good point, Phil.  Off the top of my head, I'd say no.  If the castaway is
going to find the box it pretty much has to be out on the beach and not
hidden from the sun.  That's a brutal environment.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:10:23 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: blame

<< I am as hesitant to blame AE for a speculative failure as I am Capt.
Noonan. >>

I agree. Noonan was clearly Amelia's best and only answer to the question of
where are we and how do we get some place else. Her radios and DF let her
down so what else did she have. Even if we postulate she had no faith in
Noonan and was determined to do something other than his sug