Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:50:01 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: P&W Data and Other Thoughts In partial response to interest in engine data as posted by the Forum on 31 December, I offer the following. All of the data pertain to the S3H1 Wasp engine: Date Octane Takeoff Rpm MAP Normal Critical Alt. 11/34 80 550 Hp 2,200 34.5" 550 Hp 5,000 Ft 12/35 80 550 Hp 2,200 34.5" 550 Hp 5,000 Ft 12/39 80/87 610 Hp 2,250 560 Hp 5,000 Ft 05/41 91 600 Hp 2,250 36.0" 600 Hp 5,000 Ft 11/42 91 600 Hp 2,250 36.0" 600 Hp 5,000 Ft Data for Dec '35 and May '41 are from P&W power curves for the S3H1/R-1340-AN-1 engines. The remaining three dates represent information taken from P&W data sheets for the S3H1 engine. With the advent of higher octane fuel, Pratt & Whitney was able to increase rated power from 550 to 600 horsepower (with one temporary excursion to 610 horsepower). Availability of higher octane fuels allowed engine manufacturers to increase manifold pressure through additional supercharging without encountering destructive detonation. Chemical energy of the various octane-rated fuels (about 19,000 Btu/Lb or 138,000 Btu/Gal) was essentially constant even though additives (primarily tetraeythl lead) decreased the detonation tendency at higher manifold pressures. Cruise fuel economy at a given power setting is essentially unchanged with higher octane fuels. One way higher octane fuel can increase fuel economy is by changing the engine compression ratio. Efficiency increases somewhat by raising the compression ratio. This change was not employed on Amelia's engines, however. The ratio on her engines was 6:1 and remained at this level because she was using 80 octane fuel. As a matter of historical interest, Pratt & Whitney maintained this compression ratio during subsequent years even though high octane fuels became available. Cruise economy is gained by keeping the manifold pressure up and the rpm low for a desired engine horsepower output. The piston engine is basically an air pump. For instance, Kelly Johnson recommended that Amelia run a fuel/air mixture ratio of 0.072 for all but one cruise power setting. At this ratio, 13.9 pounds of air were mixed with every pound of fuel consumed by each of Amelia's two Wasp engines. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Birch. That's an excellent explanation. So, if all S3H1 engines retained the 6:1 blower ratio, and if higher octane rating only becomes significant at high power settings, then perhaps the fuel economy results obtained on Finch's flight might be more useful than we had at first supposed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:56:22 EST From: George Mershon Subject: Coconut Crabs Happy 2000 and on! On "Discovery" last evening (12-30-99) was an interesting show about crustaceans. And, they mentioned the coconut crab. It was stated that there was no evidence of the crabs climbing trees to cut down a coconut, even though the crabs did climb trees. Also reported was the fact that the crabs are vegetarian. What was your experience? George Mershon *************************************************************************** From Ric I've read that before and I can tell you from personal observation that they're not vegetarians - or at least the one sitting in the tree eating the rat wasn't. I also have pretty good evidence that the smaller land crabs on Niku not only eat meat but are active predators. One day in '89, Pat and i were standing in the jungle talking quietly when a land crab scuttled by with what appeared to be a freshly killed rat in its claws. Made us kinda glad they don't get any bigger than they do. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:17:17 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Lockheed Tech Reports In response to Jerry Hamilton's posting on 31 December: I did not find Report No. 623. There were a few (perhaps less than 1 or 2 percent) of the Lockheed reports listed in their records I wanted that they could not locate. That these reports are missing could be due to a number of reasons. They could have been misfiled. Kelly may never have turned over the reports to the company archives, or someone removed the report and never returned it for record storage. Noticeably absent were reports on Howard Hughes' Model 14, for example. Kelly's widow has about four cartons of material involving her late husband at her home. I was never able to review these records, although I tried. Even visited her home one day and got a chance to review the many books in his library, but not the cartons. May try again. My opportunity to review the Lockheed archives came about when Walter Boyne, author of "Beyond the Horizons," ask me to support his research for this Lockheed Martin-sponsored history of Lockheed. Because it had corporate sponsorship, I had just about complete freedom to investigate everything they had in the way of files: corporate, technical, financial, proposals, biographies, correspondence files, board of directors minutes and so forth. I reviewed everything I could think of during a period of about 15 months. As a part of the Lockheed Martin merger, the corporate archive storage and retrieval function was removed from Lockheed, and the entire operation subcontracted to an outside firm. I don't know the name or location of this firm, but could probably find out if it is important. I do not have a copy of the Model 10E operating manual as I have told Ric previously. Nor did I find reference to one during my search. The one I have is for the 10A and it was put together for export reasons. All of the technical data are given in metric units. I do have Report No. 465, "Flight Tests on Lockheed Electra Model 10E." This is about 50+ pages in length (including raw data sheets) and consists of three parts or sections. Part three includes "fuel consumption tests." Amazingly, even the calibration curves for the manifold pressure instruments and tachometers are included. I used this particular test report section to calibrate my own fuel consumption calculations. I also used the four power setting data points Kelly provided Amelia prior to the first flight attempt. I have seven pages in landscape format listing Lockheed and Vega reports I copied during my research. The period by these reports covers roughly 1932 - 1942. If I can assist you with anything specific, please let me know. *********************************************************************** From Ric That's extremely generous of you Birch, and I would urge forum subscribers not to ask Birch for copies of this data unless you really know how to read and make use of this kind of technical information. Where, I wonder, did Elgen Long get the idea that Lockheed recommended an increase in power settings in the event of a headwind? On page 233 of his book he says, "According to data from the Lockheed Model 10 Flight Manual, with a headwind of 26.5 mph the correct true airspeed for maximum range is 160.5 mph." In "Notes" he attributes this to Lockheed Model 10 Flight Manual "Indicated Airspeed for Maximum Range" page 35a. I can't imagine that there is only one flight manual for all four variants of the Model 10 (A,B,C & E), each of which used a different engine. Elgen doesn't specify that he is referencing the Model 10E flight manual and, so far, nobody seems to have seen such a document. Birch, is there a chart or graph for "Indicated Airspeed for Maximum Range" on page 35a of the Model 10A export manual that you have? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:41:06 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Crab Source Ric says... >I'm not disagreeing that it would be good to have a controlled experiment, >but I wonder why we put so much weight on the judgement of one 28 year old >colonial service officer who had been on Niku for all of three weeks when he >decided that the bones had been scattered by crabs. Maybe because it's a primary, written source????? TK ************************************************************************** From Ric The fact that Gallagher's opinion appears in a primary written source gives us great confidence that it really was his opinion. It does not make his opinion correct. If he reported seeing crabs trotting off carrying bones, that would be pretty convincing - but all he reports is that some of the bones weren't there and he attributes that to coconut crabs. His actual words are ( telegram of 17 October 1940): "All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones." But from his cataloging of the bones that are present, it is apparent that it is not only small bones that are missing. Half of the pelvis is gone (How much, I wonder, does half of the pelvis of a typical 5 foot 7 inch female weigh?), plus all of the spine and ribs and several of the long limb bones. I also wonder about the damage to the ends of the bones. Hoodless talks about this and it's apparent that it's not just a matter of the flesh being cleaned off. These bones ends sound like they've been gnawed. I'd sooner attribute that kind of damage to the rats than the crabs, but no rat is going to run off with a tibia (or rather, I don't want to meet the rat that could run off with a tibia). I still smell more than a rat, or a crab, at work here. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:50:14 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Noonan's Sextant While I cannot find the reference book I got the info from, I believe FN used an A-5 model bubble sextant manufactured by Pioneer. Accuracy is good-for a bubble sextant. General speaking if you can shoot a 2 or 3 line fix and get within 10 miles you are doing pretty good. Besides the problems of shooting through a moving platform you will get an error imposed on the bubble itself by aircraft movement. Personally I say if you can shoot 10-15 miles with a hand-held bubble sextant you are doing good. Holding the thing steady in your hand is also a challenge-in turbulence, forget it! I mainly use the A-10 series which was used by the AAF in WWII, but I may be coming into possession of an A-7 Pioneer sometime in the future(late Christmas present). The A-7 was the next model after the A-5-not much difference to the best of my knowledge. It's accuracy is about the same. I'm getting the manual to it soon and then I'll be able to tell what kind of averager it had. Understand it was very reliable-all of them are precision instruments to be cared for. I've never tried using a marine sextant at all. You would need an artificial horizon of some sort. I can't comment on how well it would work. In any case, the real key to successful celestial is PRACTICE-PRACTICE-PRACTICE. I've been practicing for 12 years and I am still learning. Fred had been doing it since he was a teenager when he went off to sail square riggers I believe. Fred and Nathaniel Bowditch were the best that ever sailed & flew. Happy New Year to all. Am going off to go aviate & navigate again. I'll let everyone know if Y2K shut my airplane down. The A-10 is along just in case. Doug Brutlag *************************************************************************** From Ric You may be entirely correct about Noonan using a Pioneer A-5. The instrument Manning borrowed from the Navy was a Pioneer bubble octant (serial number 12-36) and if the A-5 was current in March of 1937, then it was probably an A-5. But watch out for flat statements in Earhart books. There are no reference books on the Earhart disappearance (at least until the 8th Edition is finished) and folklore abounds. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:02:36 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Where were AE and FN on the LOP? Ric wrote: <> Huh? I wasn't talking about spy missions. I just thought it had been established some time ago that offset navigation was a pretty common thing for people to do in '37, and it struck me, reading Randy's material, that if I'd been in Noonan's shoes I'd be pretty concerned about not being able to see Howland when I go to where it ought to be, and about then not knowing which way to fly on the LOP, and that that would make an offset somewhat attractive. TK *************************************************************************** From Ric The point I was tryin to make is that the question of which side of Howland Noonan may have offset his navigation is the same as wondering whether she would have spied on Truk or the Marshalls - it presupposes an event for which there is no evidence. What I got out of all of the discussions about offset and Noonan was that, while he was certainly aware of the technique, it was not one he used when he expected to get DF information. The reported transmissions from Earhart contain no clue, that I'm aware of, that an offset was being used and, in fact, the phrase "We must be on you..." rather clearly implies an attempt to navigate directly to the island. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:09:55 EST From: Tom King Subject: Millennium Island I think what's now "Millennium Island" used to be "Caroline Island." TK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:18:25 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Monte Carlo simulations Ric wrote: << I'm out. All I got is some scrap metal and some shoe parts. >> And they're on loan from Kiribati. But then, any country that would gamble on changing the International Date Line to make them first into the 21st century has to be a risk taker. ************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe they figure - What the heck, the place is going to be underwater in 25 years anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:20:51 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Happy 2000 1/1/2000 As the clock strikes 12 over here in Belgium, I wish all those participating in the Earhart forum a happy and prosperousnew year. May God bless you all. LTM from Herman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:35:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fuel Consumption Assumptions This became a rather LONG post as I checked a few things (sorry) but it is also relevant to references I made in earlier postings about weather as I still don't think a lot of the forum realize what weather does in the tropics. (Apologies to everyone who has lived in the tropics for a few complete years). Cumulous tend to get to about 8000ft here, but I can't remember exactly what clouds we've flown through at night (didn't take notice as I wasn't the pilot. I am NOT instrument rated and NOT flying very often). Over 8000ft, they are usually Alto Cumulous or Alto Stratus. Once again I opened my mouth too soon. Now I have to check night propagation! However the July 1 forecast suggests Cumulous about 10,000ft and I've never seen cumulous clouds stop dead at a particular altitude. (I don't suggest it can't happen). As for not seeing that kind of activity on Niku, I wonder what a year on Niku is really like? I know you've seen some rain activity in the area. But it's the early part of the trip, and the equatorial area that would have caused them the greatest problems. On the other hand, have a good look at the Lambrecht photo. We have been prevented from a VFR flight of 80 miles by a sky like that. Our destination reported sunshine, clear skies and not a cloud in sight. 80 miles..... AE could have caught almost any kind of conditions. However she didn't report cloud to Itasca. I do know the following is described about the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone: The ITCZ is a band of low pressure which forms over the regions of the warmest waters and land masses in the tropics. The ITCZ is identified on the satellite image as the band of bright clouds located just north of the equator. The ITCZ is not a stationary band but tends to migrate to the warmest surface areas throughout the year. In the early part of the calendar year, the high sun occurs in the Southern Hemisphere causing a southward displacement of the ITCZ. As the high sun period travels from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere, the ITCZ follows by migrating northward attaining its maximum northward displacement during the month of June. It forms a band of cloud around the equator which could have been still near Howland in early July, but not necessarily as far south as Niku. The satellite photos show it fairly localised along the strip a couple of degrees North & South of the equator. However it doesn't (from my memories of life further North) seem very seasonal, rather it hangs around all year to some extent. I may be wrong about this - I often am! Now, Back to the Chater report. On July 1st 7.30am the weather report suggested: EARHART LAE FORECAST THURSDAY LAE TO ONTARIO PARTLY CLOUDED RAIN SQUALLS 250 MILES EAST LAE WIND EAST SOUTH EAST TWELVE TO FIFTEEN PERIOD ONTARIO EO LONG ONE SEVEN FIVE PARTLY CLOUDY CUMULUS CLOUDS ABOUT TEN THOUSAND FEET MOSTLY UNLIMITED WIND EAST NORTH EAST EIGHTEEN THENCE TO HOWLAND PARTLY CLOUDY SCATTERED HEAVY SHOWERS WIND EAST NORTH EAST FIFTEEN PERIOD AVOID TOWERING CUMULUS AND SQUALLS BY DETOURS AS CENTRES FREQUENTLY DANGEROUS FLEET AIR BASE PEARL HARBOUR I know this was the previous day, but tropical weather is interesting in its habits. It was followed the next day at 10am by: EARHART LAE ACCURATE FORECAST DIFFICULT ACCOUNT LACK OF REPORTS YOUR VICINITY PERIOD CONDITIONS APPEAR GENERALLY AVERAGE OVER ROUTE NO MAJOR STORM APPARENTLY PARTLY CLOUDY WITH DANGEROUS LOCAL RAIN SQUALLS ABOUT 300 MILES EAST OF LAE AND SCATTERED HEAVY SHOWERS REMAINDER OF ROUTE PERIOD WIND EAST SOUTH EAST ABOUT TWENTY FIVE KNOTS TO ONTARIO THEN EAST TO EAST NORTH EAST ABOUT 20 KNOT TO HOWLAND FLEET BASE PEARL HARBOUR and BARO 29.898 THEMO 83 WIND EASTERLY 3 CLOUDY BUT FINE CLOUDS CI CI STR CU CUMI MOVING FROM EASTERLY DIRECTION SEA SMOOTH. NARU 8 AM UPPER AIR OBSERVATION 2000 FEET NINETY DEGREES 14 MPH 4000 FEET NINETY DEGREES 12 MPH 7500 FEET NINETY DEGREES 24 MPH These reports and the fact that I live in the tropics (no - it's not actually ON the equator, and there ARE variables 20degS) have led to a number of my suggestions. 1. In the last takeoff movie at Lae, "look at the clouds!". Have a close look at what she was flying in. Not much blue sky in the background. Of course I can't see the original footage, but if that's one of our typical days.... 2. Observe the forecast winds as Amelia went higher. 7500Ft mostly headwind at a little over 12 kts. And This: AVERAGE OVER ROUTE NO MAJOR STORM APPARENTLY PARTLY CLOUDY WITH DANGEROUS LOCAL RAIN SQUALLS ABOUT 300 MILES EAST OF LAE AND SCATTERED HEAVY SHOWERS REMAINDER OF ROUTE PERIOD WIND EAST SOUTH EAST ABOUT TWENTY FIVE KNOTS TO ONTARIO THEN EAST TO EAST NORTH EAST ABOUT 20 KNOT TO HOWLAND. This also suggests the "Headwinds" I have brought up often when postings refer to fuel usage and average speed. I know we can't "assume" AE had a headwind all the way to Howland, but local conditions would indicate the likelihood. What it was though can only be taken from AE's radio report of "wind 23kts". The only wind she'd be reporting is head or tail as it has a direct bearing on her ground speed (assumption based on common practice). 3. It's the "dangerous Local rain Squalls" I have brought up a few times with regard to part of the flight. If I remember correctly I said "No pilot in his right mind would fly through one". This bit jumps out from the previous day: AVOID TOWERING CUMULUS AND SQUALLS BY DETOURS AS CENTRES FREQUENTLY DANGEROUS. We can assume that they meant the centres of the Towering Cumulous were frequently dangerous. However the following report is extracts from a visit to Lat 6-10S Long 140-130W. Bear in mind that in 9 days they travelled about the distance AE would go in one hour: "May 25, 1997 (Saturday). We were introduced to the ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone) somewhat gradually. On our ninth day we saw our first squall. We still had good winds and moderate seas. Then came squall number two and then number three. We watched as lightening lit up the sky off in the distance. As we heard no thunderclaps, we felt that the storm was far enough away to not begin worrying........ We did get some rain but it was not much to worry about. It was somewhat refreshing as we had been subject to uncomfortable heat for several days at that point...... Well the fun was about to begin. I was down below taking my turn at a nap. Phill was on watch and was studying the sky off in the distance on the port side. He saw one cloud formation that looked somewhat ominous. Pretty soon I was called on board and told to make sure I had on my safety harness and was strapped down. Phill had heard a loud whirring off in the distance and decided to put a reef in the main. He barely got the first reef in the main when this whirring increased. ...... We were down to as little sail as we could get. The wind began to blow furiously. The bambini broke loose and was being held on by only two small tie lines in the corners. We cut the lines and threw everything that was in the cockpit into the salon. At about this time the Autopilot went on vacation. Phill told me to get him a lightweight rain jacket, put in the storm hatch board and get down below. The last thing I saw was true wind speeds of 40 knots. ...... We rode this storm for about an hour and a half. There was a steady sheet of rain making visibility for Phill nearly impossible. He had to just stay on course and be able to see the instruments. The storm eventually turned into a normal squall with just moderate to heavy rain and wind speeds of 20+ knots. ....... We checked the instruments and learned that we had seen true wind speed of 44 knots and apparent wind speeds of 44 knots. This was our first and hopefully our last Force-9 gale. .........As a result of this experience we made a concerted effort to get as many weather reports as possible. " Sorry it's so long. This is the sort of storm we would refer to as a "dangerous rain squall". If they are around, they come up suddenly, are pretty ferocious for a while, then disappear (until you hit the next one). They tend to live in groups. RossD. (We are 9.5 hours into the new year and the Millenium Bug hasn't eaten the bank computers yet!. According to the figures I'm just as poor as I was yesterday...). No apparent emergencies. Everything working... ************************************************************************* From Ric Earhart's reported comment of "wind 23 knots" is interesting. The fact that she reports in knots strongly suggests that the information comes from Noonan (and she has no way of knowing what the wind is anyway). I can't imagine why Noonan would report a wind other than a wind component that was effecting their progress, one way ot the other. Speculating further, it seems like a 23 knot headwind would be something of a concern and not consistent with her earlier reports of "everything okay." Her earlier report of "speed 140 knots" also suggests a tailwind. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:41:00 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Crab Source Televisiom continues to fulfill its promise to inform and educate the ignorant masses. I even learned the real facts about Coconut Crabs! The Discovery Channel did a documentary program on lobsters and crabs. A few seconds were devoted to the coconut crab. Here it is practically word for word as broadcast. Coconut Crab: It gets to be as big as a football and can easily snip off your finger. It's a terrestrial night feeder and, like most land crabs, is a vegetarian. It climbs trees in search of fruit and eats fallen coconuts. Some clain that it harvests coconuts from the trees but this has not been proven. The young crabs have soft abdomens and protect themselves by using the shells of other creatures until they grow a hard protective shell of their own. This behavior is due to the fact that they are descended from the ancestors of hermit crabs. It appears that TIGHAR has some very mistaken ideas about coconut crabs. Many years ago, I was associated with a guy we characterized as, "A walking encyclopedia of misinformation." I think his descendants must have all gone into producing TV documentary programs to inform the masses. ************************************************************************** From Ric Here's a scary thought. Other life forms in the universe are probably getting most of their information about us from television. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:58:00 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Global Warming in Kiribati Global warming ? I saw the pictues too. Pretty alarming, no ? Totally off-topic, in the year of our Lord 1000 people also believed the end of the world had come. In 2000 some are no wiser. Today it's no longer angels with flaming swords that are feared but a "millennium bug" or "gobal warming'. I shouldn't worry too much about that. After all, mankind lived the most interesting part of its history between 1000 and 2000 ? That includes flying around they world in Electra's. Only God knows what's in store but surely not global warming caused by airplanes ! They weren't around at the end of the glacier period, or were they ? I met many meteorolgists and I still have to meet the FIRST who CONFIRMS that global warming in the Northern hmisphere causes ice to melt at the Antarctic. They all DENY there is a link. Perhaps it's all the fault of the dinosaures ? Maybe they caused the ice to melt. Anyway, anyone who wants to be "politically correct" today will tell us WE are responsable for the warming up of the globe, especially those among us who pilot airplanes, not the good old Sun. So either we sell our airplanes to save the world or we sell the Sun. Or the dinausares. From Herman (who believes in progress, not in doomesday scenario's) ************************************************************************** From Ric We've seen no evidence of rising water levels at Niku over the eleven years we've been going there. We've seen storms hit the island and damage stuff that was previously undamaged for many years, but whether that's evidence of global warming or just normal cycles is not apparent. As for Y2K, from what I can see it was an invention of the media. Yes, there were some computer problems that needed fixing and they got fixed, but the media saw a chance to create a news story and a lot of people made a lot of money. Now everyone is breathing huge sighs of relief. Reminds me of the story about the guy who walked around all day firing a shotgun into the air every five minutes. Someone asked him why and he said, "It scares away the elephants." "But there are no elephants around here." "Works, doesn't it?" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:01:26 EST From: Jon Subject: Monte Carlo Techniques I work for the U.S. Navy, developing automated surface missile test systems, and we use a variation of the Monte Carlo simulation techniques to establish our initial test parameter tolerance values - Jon, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, CA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:52:11 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: 10 miles or 100 >>I still say that AE/FN would not have been that far off target. FN could >>have, would have and should have been getting sightings on stars all night >>long and that means they would have been VERY CLOSE. Unless the crosswind >>component changed very drastically during the morning hours or some anomaly >>cause AE to steer way off course, they should have been on target. >> >>LTM (love this mess) >>Blue Skies, >>Dave Bush >************************************************************************** >From Ric > >So what happened? As has been pointed out so many times - they could have been within ten miles and missed seeing the island. I was trying to point out that all the people trying to place them over 100 miles off course are the ones that are off course. Fred's navigation should have put them well within 100 miles, just that it was one very small target to hit it precisely. LTM Blue Skies, Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric That's a question which seems to fall in the "unknown and unknowable" category. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:50:25 EST From: Terry Ann Linley Subject: Re: Crab Source My Invertebrate Zoology book (author: Robert D. Barnes, 1980), states the following about Birgus latro: They are terrestrial decapods (land crabs with five pairs of thoracic appendages), closely related to the hermit crab, and are found in Indo-Pacific regions. Adult coconut crabs have abandoned the hermit crab habit and have acquired a crablike form with a flexed abdomen. The adults live in burrows further back from the sea but are still a coastal species. Bi rgus can climb trees and has been reported to climb to the tops of palms and mangroves 60 feet tall, using the sharp heavy ends of the legs like spikes. It descends backwards. Coconut crabs feed on carrion and both decaying and fresh vegetation, and they can husk and open fallen coconuts. They obtain water by drinking. There's more about the respiratory system, but that really isn't necessary here. The book has photos of an adult and a juvenile; the latter is pictured in typical hermit crab manner, with its abdomen housed within a gastropod (snail) shell. LTM, Terry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:59:21 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100 Ric, I think I told you I was trying to work the celestial backwards to pin down possible tracks or areas where the Electra could have been for Noonan to get a sun shot azimuth of 67 degrees. I have been working with the Dept. of Aerospace Engineering & Center for Space Research Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas. I received a reply from that department this morning showing me how to make the computations. The preliminary results are general and as follows: Using an azimuth of 67 degrees exactly and not a fraction off there was no place south of Howland inbound that Fred could have found a 67 degree azimuth. I recognize a slight deviation from exactly 67 degrees could have occurred but it would not change the general conclusion. If they were on course due west of Howland inbound he had a 67 degree azimuth all the way. They could also have been north of course as much as 120 nm but at about 200 miles west. It was 7:42a when they reported "WE MUST BE ON YOU..." so the above information is accurate if the sun shot was made before that time. If the sun shots were made AFTER that time they could ONLY have been considerably north of Howland -- 240nm to 300nm north and I seriously doubt they flew in close to Howland at 7:42a and managed to get that far north in 8 to 20 minutes which were the only times 67 degrees could have been obtained at that late time. I will refine the data and supply all the figures this weekend. (Busy week.) Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Very interesting. If they were exactly on course they would not be due west of Howland but slightly to the southwest (inbound no wind heading of 77 degrees True). Does this mean that in order to get a 157/337 sunrise LOP they HAD to be somewhat north of course at that time? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:00:34 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Crab source Let me second what Ric said about the dietary habits of Birgus latro, having gone through a fairly good chunk of the literature on the subject. The various studies are conflicting, but it appears that the idea that they're vegetarian is pretty much folklore, and in fact they're omnivorous. And as Ric says, we've seen one of 'em with our own eyes doing kinky things with a rat corpse. If he or she wasn't eating the critter, I hate to think what he or she WAS doing. The smaller ones do indeed go through a hermit phase, and trot around in other folks' shells. When we tried a "controlled" experiment, putting out a leg of lamb on the beach (It got washed away after a couple of days by the prelude to Cyclone Hina), the little guys in their borrowed shells were all over it in a matter of hours. Again, I can't testify that they were eating it, but I doubt if they were performing an autopsy. LTM (who stays strictly out of other people's shells) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:01:38 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Global Warming in Kiribati Changes in sea level are a well-documented worldwide phenomenon, and there's every reason for the people of Kiribati (and those who visit and study there) to be concerned about what may happen to the place. At various times in prehistory Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay have been pleasant valleys with streams running through them; melting ice made them otherwise. It would be pretty strange if environmental conditions had stabilized entirely in the last few hundred years -- with or without human impacts on such conditions. I don't think we've observed Niku long enough, or with enough rigor, to say whether there's evidence of sea level rise there, but rising levels have been pretty clearly documented in the Marshalls and Tuvalu. LTM (who thought she'd rise to the occasion) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:03:19 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Model 10 Flight Manual With respect to information contained on page 35 of the manual I have for the Model 10, it would seem that it is different from the one Long refers to in his book. First of all, there is no 35a in my copy. Second, page 35 in my copy is a curve. I will scan this page and send it as an attachment in a subsequent e-mail today. At the moment, I am at a loss to explain or understand Long's comment contained on page 233 of his book. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:05:06 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Crab Source Terry's textbook says: "Coconut crabs feed on carrion." That's consistent with what I've seen. So they eat dead critters; whether they catch live ones is another matter. One can imagine some really icky experiments. LTM (who's just carrion on) Tom King *************************************************************************** From Ric Think of it as an opportunity to bring along some people on the next expedition whom we might not have otherwise considered. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:10:44 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100 << Does this mean that in order to get a 157/337 sunrise LOP they HAD to be somewhat north of course at that time?>> I wish I could answer that with a definite yes or no but it DOES appear that the answer must be yes. I checked all the coordinates south of 0 degrees 48 minutes North all the way back to 179W. It is possible but less than likely that 67 degrees could be found. But there are close fractions. The easy one would be 67.2 or 66.8 and if they are rounded off or Fred's sextant was not quite that accurate then he could well have been dead on course. I'll check out 77 degrees and see how it comes out but generally speaking I found little probability they could be south of a due east course. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric Is it possible to plot a band on a map which encompasses the locations where the airplane could have been and gotten a 67 degree sunrise (plus or minus a couple of tenths)? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:25:37 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100 I imagine some other people have tried finding an Island the size of Howland at sunrise already. Just out of curiosity, I'm going to grab the Warrior a couple of mornings and go looking. I need to know just what it looks like. I'll wait until mid year when the weather conditions are similar to AE's flight. We have over 70 Islands so I'll find one I haven't seen. RossD ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:30:58 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100? << Is it possible to plot a band on a map which encompasses the locations where the airplane could have been and gotten a 67 degree sunrise (plus or minus a couple of tenths)? >> Yes, but I wont have time to work on the 77 degree course thoroughly until this weekend but preliminary checks show that although a 67 degree azimuth could be obtained at 6:20a to 6:30a from 179W to 176W the sun's elevation was extremely low - averaging only a degree and a half above the horizon with a maximum height of 3.3 at the 176W line at 6:30 and at that time They should have been somewhat west of that longitude, about 60nm or so. ( arbitrarily figuring 133k GS) What that tells me is that they could have been on course but probably on a course somewhat due west to east or even slightly north of that track. There is a lot of room to maneuver and still find 67 degrees of azimuth but I suspect we will be able to eliminate being well south of Howland or well north. It appears to me from first glance your theory that they were pretty close to track and hit Howland fairly close is supportable. I think it also makes it more likely they missed Howland simply because they couldn't see it visually and not because of any gross navigation error. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Randy Jacobson This is kinda silly. FJN doesn't actually measure the 67 degree azimuth to the sun. He assumes a position on the globe, the books tell him when the sunrise is going to be and the azimuth. There will be a good range of latitudes that will give him that azimuth +or- a few tenths of a degree. He then compares the book time of sunrise to what he observes, and that gives him a correction towards/away from the sun along a 67/247 line. What's important is where Noonan THINKS he is, not where he really is, that determines the 67 degree line. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:42:18 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: A Bit of History A number of people, including Amelia Earhart and some authors, have quoted the range of her Electra 10E as 4,000 miles. This figure derived from a preliminary estimate developed by Lockheed chief engineer Hall Hibbard before a purchase contract was ever signed. George Putnam and Amelia were still negotiating with Lockheed. More important, it was an estimate made prior to establishing the final number of fuel tanks and resulting total volume. This would not be finalized for about three months after the purchase order was signed. In addition, Hibbard was concerned about the takeoff distance with such an overloaded Model 10E in context with the airfields that Amelia might encounter. More to the point, he advised Bob Gross (Lockheed president) that any estimated range was deeply dependent upon fuel management during a long flight. He had serious reservations about Amelia's ability to monitor and control fuel/air ratio. Whether this feeling was grounded in fact or just an apprehension is not know. Everything else can be documented. Hibbard used a standardized range estimating formula: Range = 0.98 [ No. of Gallons of Fuel - 10 / Gallons per Hour ] x (Cruising Speed in Mph). The 0.98 factor allowed for fuel consumed during climb to cruising altitude. The "minus 10" was an allowance for engine warm up. Hibbard selected 40 gallons per hour average total fuel consumption for long distance flights. This represents a brake specific fuel consumption rate of 0.48 lb-fuel/horsepower/hour. Cruise speed was estimated at 150 mph with the engines operating at about 45 percent of full power (247.5 horsepower per engine). Using this equation and the numbers cited yields a theoretical range of 4,006 miles. Unfortunately, no one challenged this figure or tried to understand what it represented. It was a preliminary estimate to begin with. It was also an estimate for still air. It was used as a guide for air line operations. And finally, it was overly general for application to a specific flight profile of an airplane with a 50 percent over gross weight. Why did Hibbard use this estimating approach? Probably for a number of reasons. A primary reason was that Lockheed was financially undernourished at the time, and did not have the resources to do any elaborate parametric range study for a single customer. There was no market for 4,000 mile Electras. In addition, Lockheed was going to sell the Electra to Putnam for a bargain basement price. Contrary to what Elgen Long claims, Lockheed did not provide any performance guarantee with the sale of Amelia's airplane. One reason was that they had a prior bad business experience with Putnam and didn't trust him. More important, they were modifying a Model 10 to a point beyond their experience. There were too many variables. To have provided a specific performance guarantee would have been an unacceptable business risk, especially with Putnam. Bob Gross was an astute business man who was willing to take prudent risks in return for potentially rewarding payoffs. This wasn't one of those situations. In spite of this, the 4,000 mile myth has persisted in the minds and writings of a number of people. In reality, is was significantly less than this number. *************************************************************************** From Ric Great posting Birch. Thanks. What, I wonder, was the previous bad experience with Mr. Putnam? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:29:53 EST From: Stephen Frawley Subject: Re: Fuel Consumption Assumptions What assumptions about the headwind has TIGHAR made? Both the forecasts from Pearl Harbour mention easterlies, Nauru reported upper easterlies and the average winds for the route have a large easterly component. Assuming that AE knew the mean upper winds for the route (if such data was available then) and had seen the first Pearl Harbour forecast, she would have expected some sort of an easterly. Her "Wind 23 knots" remark could therefore reasonably be interpreted as referring to a headwind. How does a 20-25kt easterly affect the ability of the aircraft to reach Niku? Stephen Frawley *************************************************************************** From Ric I'd prefer not to make any assumption about headwinds, crosswinds or tailwinds. The distance from Lae to Howland is 2,223 nautical miles, but we know that they didn't end up right at Howland. It seems most reasonable to assume that they reached the LOP near Howland, but not close enough to see the island, at around 07:30 local time (1900 GMT), just a few minutes before Earhart's "We must be on you but cannot see you.." transmission. Because we dont know where on the LOP they were at that time, we have to pick an arbitrary number to work from. Birch Matthews used 2, 246 nautical miles. If they covered that distance in 19 hours, they made an average ground speed of 118 knots. The aircraft's recommended cruising speed was 130 knots. If they followed that recommendation, and figuring that climb and descent balance out, that gives them an average headwind over the entire route of 12 knots. Whether that's a steady wind on the nose of 12 knots (pretty unlikley) or a variety of different winds from different directions at different times, really doesn't matter. The only questions impacting upon their ability to reach Gardner Island ar how much fuel they had remaining once they reached the LOP at (ballpark) 1900 GMT and what were the winds between Howland and Gardner? The available information suggests that those winds were easterly thoughut the morning at something like 12 knots. Without getting out my trusty E6B and trying to rmember how to plot a wind triangle, I would guess that a 12 knot wind from 090 (True) gives an airplane on a 157 degree course (True), a headwind component of maybe, oh, 5 knots. So running down the LP at 130 knots indicated at 1,000 feet that morning, the Electra was making (ballpark) 125 knots over the ground (uh, water). The arithmetic is easy. If they have one hour of fuel they can go 125 nautical miles from wherever they started. Two hours - 250 nm. Three hours - 375 nm. Gardner is 356 nm from Howland. If they start anywhere south of Howland, and have anything close to three hours of fuel left, and just hold that course - they should reach land. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:47:45 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: 8th edition Ric: You estimate that the 8th edition of TIGHAR's AE/FN saga will be out by March 2000. Can we get a discount if we order early, like next week or so? I definitely want a copy but would also like to shave a pence or two off the bookstore (dreaming, right?) price. Discounts for early order also makes good business sense by helping with your cash flow The cash from the early orders let you pay the printing costs and not force TIGHAR to dip too far into its limited cash on-hand, or go too far into debt. In ANY event, please put my name on the list for a copy. LTM, who is Irish, not Scottish Dennis O. McGee #0149CE *************************************************************************** From Ric Pre-publication advance orders for the 8th Edition are being accepted for $49.95. Once the monster is actually off the table the price will go up to $69.95. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:50:03 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: usable fuel Mr. Matthews said: "Trapped fuel on the P-39 amounted to 3.1 percent. Somewhere I have a similar figure for the P-51 (can't lay my hands on it at the moment). Memory tells me it was just slightly greater than the P-39." That 3.1 percent unusable seems to be awfully high, but if that is what Bell's calculations/demonstration prove, then I guess that is probably right. However, I think it would be erroneous to compare the generic fuel systems of fighter aircraft with commercial aircraft and arrive at any meaningful answer. Fighters are designed for performance, lethality and durability. These factors demand an design that is not conducive to conventional fuel systems and often result in unconventionally shaped cells and plumbing. If the main fuel cells are in the wings, for example, they must conform to the demands of the wings' designers and be fitted around spars, armament, ammo boxes, spent-ammo ejector-chutes etc. all of which limit the cells' size, shape and location. Add to that the weight problems of fuel sloshing around in the wings during high-speed maneuvers and additional problems arrive. Additional fuel cells in fighters are often are located where ever there is room, such as the fuselage or sometimes even in the vertical stabilizer, and consequently end up in really strange shapes. Commercial aircraft are designed for comfort, profitability and practicality (sometimes). Consequently their fuel systems tend to be more standardized, i.e. squares, rectangles, spheres. etc. The plumbing of fuel systems in fighters and commercial aircraft are greatly different also, again complicating the comparison of their generic "usable fuel" numbers. The only validity, I would think, between comparing fighter and commercial aircraft would be that they both carry fuel and that a certain portion of that is unusable. Now, if you want to compare the fuel systems in BOMBERS and commercial aircraft of that era that is a another issue. Anybody out there have access to Boeing's or Consolidated's data on the unusable fuel in the 4-engine B-17 (or B-29) and B-24, respectively? Or better yet, stick to twins and go for the North American B-25, the Martin B-26, or the Lockheed A-20. I would think the fuel system of the twin-engine bomber would be closer to that of a twin-engine commercial aircraft than would fuel systems of fighters and 4-engine bombers. LTM, who is Y2K compliant Dennis O. McGee #1049CE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:20:23 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100 Ross writes: << Just out of curiosity, I'm going to grab the Warrior a couple of mornings and go looking. >> Ross, take GPS, good radios and stay in touch with us. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:40:53 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100? << There will be a good range of latitudes that will give him that azimuth +or- a few tenths of a degree. >> You're correct, Randy. If you vary the 67 degrees enough you could cover a great part of the South Pacific but I think I pointed that out. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm pushing the envelope of my understanding on this issue. Let me see if I've got it. So, the night before the flight, Fred consults his almanac and charts and says, "Okay, if I'm pretty much on course as we approach Howland (And I'm Fred Noonan and I WILL be on course.) the sun is going to come up at 67 degrees. That will allow me to get a 157/337 LOP which I can then advance...etc...etc." Fast forward. There he is, sitting out there over the ocean in the pre-dawn glow waiting for the sun to come up. BANG! There it is. The first flash of light on the horizon, and up comes that big red ball. Now, how in the name of Manganibuka is he supposed to measure whether that sun is at 67 degrees or 66.8 degrees or 67.4 degrees? He's lucky if the directional gyro is accurate to within a couple of degrees after having reset it a couple dozen times since they took off. Seems to me that he has to assume that he's pretty much on course (based on his celestial work during the night) and that the sun is pretty much at 67 degrees. As long as its position generally agrees with the DG he know he's in the right neighborhood. I think this is what Randy was getting at. Assuming that the 157/337 LOP was based upon a precise 67 degree sunrise is crediting Noonan with information that he can't possibly have. Am I wrong about this? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:33:37 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: A Bit of History I can't claim to begin to understand the engineering issues involved in some of the current threads, but the general thrust of the fuel consumption debate is causing me to reconsider one of my preconceptions about the Earhart flight. Namely, that although the mystery surrounding its end has given the story longevity, it was essentially a bit of a stunt which wouldn't really have proved anything had it ended in success. As a layman it looks increasingly to me like even if it wasn't breaking and dramatic new ground in exploration/pioneering terms, in engineering terms the demands made of the plane if everything was to go well mean it was a venture well worth undertaking. Comments? LTM, Phil 2276 ************************************************************************** From Ric It's a fascinating point to ponder. At the time of the World Flight, Pan American had been flying scheduled passenger service across the Pacific for the better part of a year in flying boats (four engined Martin M130s). The DC-3 had also been in service for a year but not, of course, on long over-water routes. Conventional wisdom held that trans-oceanic passenger travel was most appropriately carried out in large flying boats. It wasn't until after World War II that commercial aviation began using land planes (most notably the DC-4) for trans-oceanic flights. Earhart's (and Putnam's) billing of the Model 10E Special as a "Flying Laboratory" was mostly hype. When queried on the subject, Amelia talked about studying the effect of long distance flight on the human body and trying out different kinds of sun glasses. The one piece of cutting-edge avionics installed aboard the aircraft (the Hooven Radio Compass) was removed prior to the world flight. Even the special long-range fuel tank system of the 10E Special was not unique to NR16020. In May 1937, before Earhart and Noonan had even departed on the second World Flight attempt, another 10E Special (c/n 1065, NR 16059) had made the first trans-Atlantic commercial flight when Dick Merrill and John Lambie carried film of the Hindenburg disaster from New York to London nonstop. They returned with film of the coronation of King George VI and flew nonstop westbound more than 24 hours from London to Boston and still had 170 gallons remaining. In other words, in terms of range and endurance, the 10E Special had already demonstrated more capability than Earhart was attempting. I think your orignal conclusion was correct. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:41:30 EST From: Ty Sundstrom Subject: paperwork Just a note on unusable fuel, for those trying to get a little closer to what might have been on board; unusable fuel was generally a figure that meant unusable in normal attitudes within the aircraft's acceptable or approved maneuvers list. Most all aircraft will drain more fuel than it is placarded for, as unusable, for this reason in smooth, straight and level flight. I am not sure but I believe that the C.A.A. only required an operating limitation sheet for aircraft certified at the time of AE's aircraft. This sheet would have been the equivalent of an operators flight manual. This would have been the minimum documentation on board and a manufacturers flight manual would have been a much expanded version of this with fuel flow charts loading graphs, do and don'ts for the aircraft, etc. It (the operating limitations) would have possessed weights, empty and loaded, available fuel, oil, number of crew and passengers, and operating speeds. A copy of this sheet was normally placed in the aircraft's file (permanent record) with the C.A.A. Has this record been accessed for AE's aircraft? They would surely be in federal dead storage but then again if somebody has changed title on the aircraft recently as in the last 15 years anybody can access the micro-fiche file in Oklahoma City with the F.A.A. If not, a request to the F.A.A. that these files be retrieved from dead storage can be made. This stuff has already been done I'm sure so I hope I'm not speaking out of turn. Ty N. Sundstrom ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Ty. Due to the on-going interest in Earhart's airplane, the FAA long ago pulled out everything they have to be copied for the curious. We have all that paperwork but there's no manual of any kind amongst it and there seems to be a lot of other stuff missing that you would expect would be there (like all of the weight and balance for the various modifications). Maybe there's more someplace in dead storage but the FAA says not. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:08:25 EST From: R. Johnson Subject: Dot-Dash Photo Update Any recent update on the analysis of the dot-dash photos? R. Johnson *************************************************************************** From Ric What we really need at this point is better imagery to work with. We have a copyneg of the 1938 photo (Photo #3 on the Forensic Imaging Update) enroute from New Zealand but it could be the end of the month before it gets here. We also really need to get a very high resolution scan of the original 1937 Bevington photo (Photo #1). It's now at the Rhodes Library at Oxford University and for some reason they're a bit hesitant to just pluck it out of the collection, stuff it in a envelope, and send it to us. I may actually have to go to England to negotiate a compromise. Initial results using the copyneg we have of that photo have been so encouraging that we really want access to the original. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:20:52 EST From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: Crab source Ric wrote: <> There's a fund raiser here too.....Tee shirts that read..."I'm crab bait!" or "I went on this expedition searching for Amelia Earhart and all I got was this lousy Tee shirt and multiple crab bites" or "I'm Koo Koo for Niku" How about...."Pinch me. I'm crabby!" Clyde Miller (who still has too much time on his claws) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:31:40 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Coco Crabs This was submitted to a listserve of marine biologists who are particularly interested in the science and preservation of coral reefs. With apologies to Tom King for the blatant plagarism. Thanks for the material. LTM (who knows not to rewrite good material) AMCK ============================================================= Greetings, Here is a coconut crab (Birgus latro) question for consideration by the Coral List subscribers. During 1940 a partial skeleton, woman's shoe, and a sextant box (without sextant) were reported by the British colonial administrator of Gardner Island of the Phoenix Islands, now called Nikumaroro, part of the small nation of Kiribati. At the time the administrator, a Mr. Gallagher, speculated that the skeleton might be that of Amelia Earhart. In his report to his superiors, Gallagher describes the bones found as having been scattered by coconut crabs. The bones discovered consisted of the following: a skull, lower jaw, one thoracic vertebra, half pelvis, part scapula, humerus, radius, two femurs, tibia and fibula. I am with a nonprofit organization called TIGHAR - The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery. For the last 12 years we have been investigating the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan based upon the navigational principles in use during 1937, and what little scientific evidence is left regarding the mystery. Our theory, primarily based upon navigational logic (and developed prior to unearthing the reports of bones being found on the island), is that Amelia and Fred made it to Gardner (Nikumaroro) Island after not being able to locate Howland Island, only to perish as castaways. Artifacts discovered during several expeditions to Nikumaroro, including part of a 1930's woman's shoe and aircraft aluminum and Plexiglas, generally support our theory. We do not have a smoking gun yet, however. We'd like to know (a) whether coco crabs actually scatter bones at all (If they don't, then the bones must have been scattered by something else -- e.g. dogs brought with the colonists, which would give us a handle on when they were scattered); and (b) if coco crabs do scatter bones, how far do they scatter them (horizontally and vertically); and (c) is there any sort of pattern to the scattering? Please keep in mind that some of the bones missing from the list above are quite large. Unfortunately, for some strange reason nobody seems to have given these fascinating questions a whole lot of research attention. Does anyone have insight into the capability and likelihood of coco crabs scavenging and scattering the body of a human sized mammal? The bones were shipped to Tarawa and ended up in the collection of the Central Medical School in Fiji. The were apparently discarded in 1990 when the Medical School reorganized. Any information regarding the current whereabouts of the bones would be greatly appreciated. We are also seeking photos, especially aerial photos of Nikumaroro. Has anyone been there? Please respond to me directly. For more details about the bones discovered and our search in general you may visit the TIGHAR website at www.tighar.org. Thanks in advance for your help. Andrew McKenna ================================================= RESPONSES SO FAR ARE AS FOLLOWS: ================================================= Dear Andrew, Yes, I read with interest your observations and questions concerning coconut crabs and the fate of Emelia Earhart. My experience with coconut crabs in this regard is very interesting but may not be of much help. Some years ago, I was hired by the FBI to investigate the famous Palmyra murders of Muff and Mac Graham. It turned out that Muff Graham's bones were found in the sand in Palmyra Lagoon lying just a few feet away from an aluminum box. The box was badly chared and contained human colesterol on the inside. We think it was used by the murderer (Buck Walker) as a crematorium and then sealed and dumped into the lagoon. Subsequent decay and the production of gas resulted in the box floating to the surface where it drifted to shore. Six years later, the box, now badly corroded, broke open and spilled the bones on the sand. By this time, the bones were completely devoid of tissue, and remained in place, within a 6 foot diameter partially buried in the sand. No scavenging activity took place because the bones lacked any organic matter. However, coconut crabs do exist on Palmyra, as do wild dogs and other smaller land crabs. While conducting our investigation, we did an experiment with a 100 pound fish carcass, planting the dead animal on the beach, and, all of these animals were involved in scavenging the carcass and its bones. A 5 pound head was pulled helter skelter along the beach and into the low lying jungle. So, scavenging is a definite possibility in your case; that I am sure. My story has been published in several places if you would like the references. Dr. Richard Grigg Professor of Oceanography University of Hawaii ======================================================= Andrew, Coconut crabs can get quite large, especially on uninhabited coral islands where they are safe from humans (they are a prized delicacy). I have seen some specimens between 5 and 10 lbs, and they can live for more than 50 yrs. They are the largest invertebrate that lives on land, although they breed in the ocean and the larval part of their lifecycle is in the ocean. Obviously anything that big that can climb a tree and snap off, husk, and eat a coconut is very powerful and capable of moving objects larger that itself, although not a whole human body. When the body deteriorated, it is possible that coconut crabs could have dragged limbs and other body parts closer to its "home", usually a burrowed hole in the ground. So it is likely that coconut crabs might have been responsible and capable of scattering body parts. The Phoenix Islands were uninhabited until the 20th century, although several were visited in the mid 19th century to collect guano. For example, Howland and Baker (equatorial Phoenix Islands under U.S. possession) were initially claimed by the U.S. under provisions of the 1859 Guano Act. Kanton (previously Canton) Atoll was subject to disputed claims by both the British and U.S. and has been steadily occupied over the past 30 years at least, and perhaps longer. It is possible that residents at Kanton might have visited Gardner. As you know, the rest of the Phoenix Islands were first claimed by the British before they all and Kanton becme the Phoenix group of the Republic of Kiribati in 1979. Before independence, and during the 1940s to 1950s, I believe, the British colonists moved settlers to several of the Phoenix Islands, possibly including Gardner. The settlements were later abandoned due to water and food shortages. However, during the time of occupation, settlers may have had dogs which in turn would have discovered and scattered the bones. Given the nature of hermit crabs, coconut crabs, and ants as scavengers, it is very likely that all the bones would have been picked clean within a few years, with or without dogs involved. Interestingly, the Republic Of Kiribati wants to attempt another settlement of the Phoenix, including Nikumaroro, although I have argued against it on grounds of threat to wildlife. I will be involved in a trip to Howland and Baker next month, but we have neither time nor permission to visit the non-U.S. Phoenix Islands. Another group is also planning a trip to the non-U.S. Phoenix Islands later in the spring, including Nikumaroro. I hope the information I have provided is useful to you. Good Luck! James E. Maragos, Ph.D., Coral Reef Biologist, Remote Refuges U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:55:40 EST From: Karn Burns Subject: decomposition re. decomposition Thanks for the info, Ric. The lamb and the dates were added to the background info here. I thought I was missing much more. And thanks for pointing out Gallagher's lack of reliability as an expert witness in this area of the investigation. His testimony on crab behavior could easily be thrown out of court for lack of credentials. The factors to consider in decomposition experiments: 1. TIME: How long is required for a human body to decompose to a dry state on Niku (dry bones or mummified flesh with dry bone) 2. AGENTS: a. biological - both microorganisms and macroorganisms, b. chemical - pH of "soil," pH of rain, ultraviolet radiation, and ____ ), c.mechanical - rain, wind, abrasive coral We have batted all of these factors around without conclusions simply because there is insufficient data. As I wrote to Tom, I have been relying only on experience from the southeast U.S. and places such as Haiti (very similar because it is hot and somewhat dry). I can think of two ways to produce data that will help with conclusions: 1. Comparative Information: The first comes from Tom's Saipan info: Time and crab dispersal has already been covered by crime scene investigators in a parts of the world with similar environmental conditions and crabs. Let's identify more of those places and learn of their experience. Perhaps I should continue the communication already begun by the police in Fiji. I could offer to teach the course that they want for expenses only if they help me with decomposition data. What do you think? Are there parts of Fiji which are close enough environmentally? 2. Experimental Information: Haul several pigs or dogs along in the freezer and place them in well-documented sites on Niku. Don't stop there. Do the same in a place (such as Saipan) with ongoing meteorological records (as long as the area can be secured). Enough for now, LTM, Kar Burns ************************************************************************** From Ric I guess the question is, how important is it to establish whether or not coconut crabs scatter bones? Let's say we littered Niku with dead pigs (with a control on Saipan) and found that no scattering occurred. We might then conclude that whatever scattered the bones of the Gardner Castaway was not Birgus latro. We'd then try to determine when the first dogs and/or pigs arrived at Niku. If they didn't show up until AFTER Gallagher found the bones we'd have an even bigger mystery. However, the only reason we're interested in how the bones got scattered is to be able to make some judgement about when the castaway died. I submit that we're only really interested in that bit of information if we can be quite certain that the castaway was, indeed, Mrs. Putnam. If it turned out that there was good reason to suppose that she somehow survived until shortly before the first colonists arrived, that would be interesting to know. So, I guess what I'm getting at is that chasing Birgus latros' eating habits seems like a worthwhile line of investigation but not at the expense of limiting our effort to find out who got eaten. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:57:37 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Putnam and Lockheed Ric, The troubles that developed between Putnam and Lockheed involved the sale of the very first 10A. The end result was that both parties resorted to contacting lawyers. The dispute was finally settled. It left a sour taste in the mouth of the Lockheed people. I have to save a couple of heretofore unpublished and interesting tidbits for my book. I assure you that the episode had nothing to do with the 10E Special that came along a few years later. Rather, the episode revealed more about the personality of George Putnam and his tendency to wedge himself into a situation where he thought he could make a buck. If it had a bearing on Amelia's last flight and your investigation, I would share it with you. Hope you understand. Sincerely, Birch Matthews ************************************************************************** From Ric I understand completely and I'm eager to read your book. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:01:16 EST From: From Ross Devitt Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100 Trust me, I'll have one Very Big Island behind me if I'm flying East... I'm just going to find an Island a bit off shore that's about the same size as Howland and go looking for it in similar cloud conditions at 5000ft, 3000ft & 1000ft and see how easy it is to spot from various distances. There's nothing scientific about the idea, I just want to know what it looked like trying to find that spot. I figure the Electra could be throttled back to 100 knots or so if they were searching. The little Warrior cruises at 105. The part that interests me is how much water is covered by the fuselage looking forward and to the sides. I can't see FN sticking his body out the window at 100kts plus, trying to look past the body of the aircraft. As someone who spends a lot of my flying time at around 1000ft - 1500ft I have a lot of trouble with some of the things in the search reports. I've been on a "paper chase" where we had to find bright blue tarpaulins 7 yards square with black letters on them in fields in an area where we knew they were. We were given land marks for reference and directions to fly plus "clues". Should be a lot easier than finding an aircraft on a beach / reef right? Well, amost all of the aircraft involved spent considerable time searching for at least one of them - and once we found it we wondered how we missed it. One of the other little exercises they threw at us is the "downed aircraft". A white cross in the shape of an aircraft on the ground (with wings & stabilizer and Ident marks) and the crew camped by it (with a few cold beers - lucky devils). We had to prove we had found it. To that end they had the thing supposedly on its roof with the Ident showing, but we didn't know that until it was found. Out of 20 aircraft beetling around at various altitudes - many of them missed it. I was in a Tiger Moth on the day and whilst I was a little distracted by being asked to fly an unfamiliar aircraft on a student licence - I was glad it wasn't me down there relying on being found. The point of all this? Most people reading this post would wonder that an aircraft with a 55 foot wingspan (guess) could not be seen by searchers from the air. Over time there have been a lot of aircraft found years later in areas fully covered by an air search. There have also been survivor's reports that "aircraft flew right over us and didn't see us!" RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric 55 feet is correct. At earlier times on this forum we have had abundant testimony that agrees with your own experience. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:09:15 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Radio Communication Ric, A nagging question but since everyone agrees AE was close to Howland with her "we're on you..." and her last message at 08:43 -46 of "We are 157-337...",presumably flying at about 1000ft. altitude, why no further radio contacts if she decided to turn south and fly on to Niku or the Phoenix Is? Wasn"t her signal strength the highest at S-5? Or is that the mystery. Or has this been answered?Her radio was working all right it seems. Unless like recent plane disasters the last 1000 ft was only seconds and no time for a last transmission. Was she using a handheld mike or affixed to her helmut? Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric Everybody remembers that in her last transmission received by the Itasca, Earhart said she was on the 157/337 line, but they tend to not pay attention to the rest of that same message where she says "Will repeat this on 6210 kcs." Immediately following the 08:43 message, Earhart changed frequencies on her transmitter from 3105 (which Itasca had been hearing at S-5) to 6210, a frequency that was known to be a problem on her transmitter (according to the inspection done in Lae) and a frequency that Itasca had never heard her on. There is also widespread agreement among radio operators that frequencies in that range can be a problem in the morning hours, especially over relatively short distances. In other words, the most likely explanation for why the itasca stopped hearing transmissions from Earhart is because of the frequency change she said she was making at that time - not because the airplane suddenly fell out of the sky. To answer your other question, Earhart used a hand held mic. "Boom" mics on helmets did not come into use until relatively recently and Earhart did not wear a helmet anyway. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:16:19 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100? << Assuming that the 157/337 LOP was based upon a precise 67 degree sunrise is crediting Noonan with information that he can't possibly have. Am I wrong about this? >> With all the years of experience with his equipment and trade and his reputation I would never say that. He had done just the same probably hundred or thousands of times. None of the variables facing him were anything new. << he know he's in the right neighborhood. >> As you know just being in the right neighborhood will not get anyone to Howland or even close. Both you and Randy are correct that there are or may be variations in the data. There are many inherent errors such as instrument error, instrument capability, abnormal atmospheric refraction, optical resolution of the human eye, dutch roll of the aircraft, rough air, and so on. We can't account for any of that so we need to go with best information recognizing it is not absolute precision. Just like the fuel exercise we can compute it down to the last teaspoon which will give us a base line but still recognizing all the variables and try to visualize the outer edges. That is what I'm doing with the celestial. I am looking for a base line, something that will approximate the perfect solution and then look for the outer edges of possibilities. To assume perfect micro accuracy is indeed, as Randy suggested, silly but it is necessary to have a starting point. Fred was, by all accounts, a superior navigator. Such a person, with his experience can play fine music with less than great equipment. My navigator was such a person. We were a select SAC aircrew winning competitions time after time with a 3nm CEA. (Circular Error Average) Both he and I did the shots and compared for accuracy. This was pure celestial that was graded after the flight by standardization personnel. We both knew the short comings of the equipment and of the many errors we faced. A good instrument has an error of between .1 and .3 degrees. Not a whole lot. My airplane had dutch roll but we compensated for it through experience. You start to get a sense of the movements and you feel out a correction. Fred may have not been exactly on course but you can bet he was damned near. On his inbound leg he not only had the sun but the moon was about 30 some degrees off the sun's azimuth. If he saw one he saw both. I'm not going to use an azimuth of even .1 off 67. I can't assume any errors so I'll use none. We need to know under accurate conditions where he most likely was and THEN start factoring in how far off he could reasonably be. If we instead assume the DG was a few degrees off and he shot the azimuth a few tenths off and didn't accurately handle refraction and the atmosphere was weird that day he could have been anywhere. At worst we should be able to arrive at general conclusions as to where he was NOT. Personally I believe the sun of a gun was on course, knew where he was and they just missed seeing the island because of little clouds, glare, or whatever. As you pointed out Ric, with the generator and other noises, clouds, more sun glare, and whatever else even the folks on the ground would not necessarily have spotted the plane at 1,000' and a few miles off. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:17:19 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Island search Ric is right. We have talked about this a lot but I might add that in my experience the visibility is usually a bit hazy and on a bright morning with a low sun it is not easy to make out distant objects. Cu look like islands and it is hard to tell the difference. When you go out keep this in mind as you try to duplicate the conditions. You can have good reported lateral visibility and it can still not be perfectly clear. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:15:52 EST From: Laurie Subject: Re: A Bit of History Forgive me if this is a question that everyone else but me is aware of - You mentioned that "one piece of cutting-edge avionics" that Amelia had aboard the Electra was the Hooven Radio Compass. What was the reason for them installing and then removing it? And when was it removed? In Miami? In Los Angeles? And while I'm asking potentially obvious questions, how common was it to use the particular radio direction finder that they used with the circular antenna? How new on the market was that particular direction finding system? Thanks - Laurie LTM - ************************************************************************** From Ric We haven't talked about this much and it's a subject that is not touched upon in any of the Earhart books, and yet it's both interesting and indicative of Earhart's approach to the world flight. When the airplane was delivered in July 1936, it had a garden-variety Western Electric transmitter and receiver, and no DF capability. Sometime in October of 1936, one of five prototype "Radio Compass" automated direction finders invented by Frederick J. Hooven was installed in the airplane at Wright Field, Ohio. The "Radio Compass" system was entirely separate from the aircraft's other radios. It consisted of a receiver which was mounted in the cabin on top of the fuel tank just behind the cockpit bulkhead on the copilot's side. Photos indicate that it may have also had its own dynamotor installed in that same location. (The Western Electric receiver was under the copilot's seat and the dynamotor was under the pilot's seat.) The Hooven Radio Compass used an antenna that seems to have been more of a ball (roughly the size of a tether ball) than a conventional open loop. The antenna was housed in a translucent dome on the top of the fuselage just about over the midpoint of the wing. Exactly why Earhart/Putnam had this piece of equipment installed is not known. We know that the world flight was contemplated, if not yet announced, and it may be that it just fit with the idea of a Flying Laboratory. One of the virtues of the Radio Compass (known later as an Automatic Direction Finder and still in use today as the ADF) over the "old fashioned" manual unit is that it is easier to use in that it requires fewer mental gymnastics. That might also be something that would appeal to Earhart. The Hooven Radio Compass stayed in the airplane until the first week of March 1937 when, as part of the final preparations for the first World Flight attempt, the dome disappeared and was replaced by the now-familar open loop over the cockpit. Hooven, in later years, wrote about the change. He was incensed that Earhart had removed his invention and replaced it with an "old fashioned" system for the sake of saving 30 pounds. He also made the point that the low drag of the faired dome more than made up for the weight penalty as compared to the high drag of the open loop. At the same time that this change was made, Bendix came out with a new coupling unit that permitted their open loop to be used with existing receivers. This seems to be what was installed on NR16020 in lieu of the Hooven Radio Compass. In other words, Earhart found a way to eliminate on entire radio (30 pounds) and still have DF capability, albeit not the new easy-to-use variety. Ironically, Hooven had also been bought out by Bendix. Debate still rages about twhether there were one or two receivers aboard NR16020 during the second world flight attempt, but so far I have seen no contemporaneous evidence that a second receiver was aboard. Right up until his death in 1985, Fred Hooven was convinced that Earhart's decision was the principal cause of the flight's failure to find Howland Island. He may have been right. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:25:54 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: decomposition All this still leaves you with parts of a shoe including a very small brass eyelet. Somewhere close at hand there are likely to be more brass eyelets? Obviously the team went over the whole area with a very sensitive metal detector. Is the detailed report of that part of the expedition posted on the net? No matter which way you look at it, there appars to be only two likely possibilities for Gallagher's shoe and TIGHAR's shoe parts. Did sailors wear shoes with a replacement catspaw heel and lace up eyelets? Were any of the sailors prone to cross dressing? Did AE & FN get ashore? Did sailors on the Norwich Castle wear shoes with lace up eyelets that looked like a "woman's" shoe? Were there any female passengers or crew on the N.C.? (I know, this has been answered..) Have graves of the dead N.C. Crew been accounted for? Is it possible the bones are from a seaman? I'm sure all these questions have been considered. We can surmise that at some more recent time a passing Yachtie stopped at Niku for lunch (burnt label fragment with barcode). And just happened to do it near where TIGHAR found shoe fragments. I wonder if said yachtie did a bit of exploring and found the shoe fragments in the vicinity of a Ren tree and brought them back to look at over lunch. Just some more kindling for the fire... RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric A detailed discussion of the archaeological work that found the eyelet will be included in the 8th Edition. I dunno where the other eyelets are. We looked real hard and only found one. we not only used a good metal detector but we screened and visually inspected the first several centimeters of soil from the enitre area. That's how we found the eyelet. Without rehashing a lot of thoroughly plowed ground - - there were no women aboard Norwich City - the heel has been dated to the mid-1930s - we'v been unable to come up with any credible hypothesis for the presence of a castaway (probably two castaways - a man and a woman) on Gardner Island prior to 1940 other than the man and woman who are known to have disappeared in that same region in 1937. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:30:44 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: usable fuel Sticking to twins as Dennis McGee suggests, I think that if we want to have an idea of the amount of unuseable fuel in a Lockheed 10 we better compare comparable aircraft. P-39 or P-51 were single engined. I don't know about bombers. I do have some information on Wasp-engined DC-3s, of which there are quite a few around. I'm reliably told by people who fly them that the unuseable amount of fuel in a DC-3/C-47 with Pratt and Whitney Wasp engines is between 10 and 15 US gallons or roughly 5%. Unuseable fuel and oil is 110 lbs. That's the figure in the manual. Hope this information is of any help ? LTM from Herman ************************************************************************** From Ric Skeet Gifford has consulted the USAF flight manual for th C-47 and finds that the difference between total and useable capacity of the four tanks is about 1.5 percent (1.58 percent for the mains and 1.48 percent for the aux). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:41:02 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Radio Communication Ric, perhaps we have gone over this before but do we have a reason why Earhart would've changed frequencies? Might it have been because she thought she wasn't being heard on her current frequency? --Chris *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. She had two voice frequencies - 3105 and 6210. 3105 was supposed to be her "nightime" frequency because its propagation properties are better at night and, of course, when she started trying to call the Itasca it was still dark. 6210 was supposed to be her "daytime" frequency, but she had been warned in Lae that her transmitter was "very rough" on that frequency and that she should "pitch her voice higher to overcome distortion" when using that frequency. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:45:29 EST From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: Coco Crabs If this group is planning a trip to Niku...any chance of a TIGHAR or two hitching a ride. (Of course only those who have been there can tell us how much 1 or 2 people could accomplish in whatever time frame the coral group is intending and whether it's worth the effort to ask. If nothing else the Norwhich City site could be quickly addressed?) Clyde Miller (who is always looking for a free lunch) ************************************************************************* From Ric We're looking into that. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:46:31 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Coco Crabs For Andrew McKenna -- Good stuff! Jim Maragos is an old friend of mine, but I'd long since lost touch with him. If you can send me his e-mail address, maybe I can prevail upon him to do an experiment or two for us. LTM (who's not at all crabby today) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:14:37 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Scattered bones I agree with Ric that we may be placing too much emphasis on whether or not crabs scattered the bones found by Gallagher. The only relevance to bone scattering, I think, would be if we started finding other human bones considerable distances apart, i.e. finding toe bones in one spot and vertebra 10-20 yards away. But even then, just the discovery of human bones would be far more important than how widely they were scattered or how they were scattered. Also, no one knows Gallagher's definition of "scattered." Is it 8-10 bones within a 10-foot radius, a 20- or 30-foot radius? Is it an identifiable skeleton with the major bones displaced only a few inches? It appears we are up against one of those many unknowable facts we often run into. On a related issue, one of the respondents to Andrew McKenna's query on coconut crab behavior stated that a scientific party was scheduled to visit Niku in the spring. Is there anyway some TIGHAR experts could piggy-back on that trip and do some more research in conjunction with the scientific work? I'm not talking a whole expedition like Niku I-IIII, but two or three knowledgeable folk that could dedicate their time to tracking down just one or two facts rather than the broad brush work done so far. LTM, who's pulled a boner or two over the years Dennis O. McGee #0149CE *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure that you entirely got my point about the crab question. While we don't know how scattered the bones found by Gallagher were, he does say that the remains were found "under a Ren tree" so they don't seem to have been scattered all that much. The main issue is that whole bunch of bones, including some big ones, were just flat missing. Something picked up or dragged them away and the fact that whole chunks of the body are missing (for example, the spine and the rib cage) suggests that those chunks went off together rather than piecemeal. I just have a hard time seeing even Crabzilla walking off with a human torso. This really sounds more like dogs to me, but dogs didn't arrive until the colonists got there and dogs aren't much interested in bones that aren't nice and meaty. Dead critters, human or otherwise, tend to lose their meatiness very quickly on Niku. That means the IF the scattering of the skeleton was more likley attributable to dogs than crabs, then the castaway was not long dead when the colonists (and dogs) arrived. My point was that this possibility is really only of great interest IF the castaway was none other than..... and we shouldn't let this thread of the investigation take precedence over, for example, forensic imaging of the photos that might establish the presence of the airplane on the reef. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 17:56:53 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Radio Communication Part II Ric, Thanks for the answer but a follow up question on AE's frequency change from 3105 (night) to the supposedly better day frequency 6210. You indicate that radio experts believe the 6210 frequency can be a problem in early morning and over short distances. But if, as TIGHAR contends,she flew on some 400 miles south taking some 2 1/2 hours towards NIKU,why wouldn't ITASCA eventually hear her on 6210 at a much longer range (well within her 50 watt transmitter capacity) later in the morning? Any truth or validity in Carrington's report that AE's receiver crystals didn't "match" exactly Itasca"s crystals, that is she had to mechanically switch vs. "hand tune" ? I believe you and Carrington both believe that AE's radio signals were heard sometimearound l0:30 AM (howland time) from 2 July until 6 July 37. How can we explain her ability to transmit then ,but not airborne? I'm certainly not a radio expert, so these are lay questions. The entire TIGHAR theory rests on the fact she flew on to NIKU and so a satisfactory explanation of AE's inability to contact Itasca or anyone (other ships or stations)must be explained. Aftr all her transmitter was working fine from 2:00 am inbound to Howland to at least 8:44am. (Some authors add an 8:55am reception from AE repeating the "are running North and South") Don't know what that means.Happy Holidays, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know where Earhart was at 08:43 (the time that actually appears in the Itasca radio log) or how long it took her to reach Gardner if that's where she went. Neither do I know how long or how many times she continued to try to call the Itasca after so many failed attempts. I don't think anybody knows those answers. I don't know where Carrington got the idea that the crystals used by Earhart and Itasca did not match but I do know that Earhart had no way to "hand tune" the transmitter frequency even if she wanted to. I don't think Itasca's transmitters were crystal controlled. I do know that they calibrated their frequencies. Frankly, I don't take anything that Carrington says seriously. I disagree that TIGHAR must provide a "satisfactory explanation" for why Itasca did not hear anything form Earhart after 08:43. We can suggest reasonable possibilities based upon the available evidence (and there are several) but it's doubtful that anyone will ever know for sure. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:10:58 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100?/Or how close is close Alan, I keep looking at that photograph of Linda Finch"s Electra with the green 2/1/2 mile island with breakers splashing on the shore from several miles out and it hard to believe that AE/FN couldn't have seen that Island in the sun...unless the photo has been enhanced or something. And Itasca was blowing smoke supposedly visible for 40 miles. The photo appears on page 128-129 of the National Geographic Jan l998. Regards, Ron Bright ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll let Alan address your question about whether photos that appear in Nat'l Geo represent the real world, but I will mention that the claim of smoke visible for 40 miles seems to be another case of Commander Thompson covering his butt. Itasca started making smoke at 06:14 and a ship like that can only make smoke for about half an hour without seriously endangering its boilers. By the time Earhart was close enough to see smoke it's almost inconceivable that there was any smoke to see. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:16:51 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Scattered bones Ric says... << the fact that whole chunks of the body are missing (for example, the spine and the rib cage) suggests that those chunks went off together rather than piecemeal. >> Well, maybe, I've seldom seen a skeleton in the field with a full complement of vertebrae and ribs -- in fact, NEVER with a full set of ribs -- and the dead guy that Kar Burns and I looked at in Fiji last summer (who admittedly was in an area frequented by dogs) had a few ribs and a few vertebrae which were in a pretty advanced state of decay, and he'd been there only a few months. Rib cages and spinal collumns come apart, and the pieces are pretty easy to carry off. And being small, they're going to biodegrade a lot faster than big stuff. It's the big bones that I have trouble envisioning getting carried off by crabs or birds. LTM Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric Around here (northern Delaware/southeastern Pennsyvania) we have an overabunda nce of whitetail deer and there is seldom a shortage of deer carcasses around to amuse the local canine population. Something I see repeatedly is an intact and still articulated spinal column, often with a skull still attached. No sign of the rest of the skeleton. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:18:26 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: decomposition Regarding searching for shoe parts, etc.: the shoe parts found in '91 were almost all pretty concentrated, right around what turned out, upon excavation in '97, to be the remains of a fire, which contained a piece of container label with a bar code on it. The exception was the "odd" heel -- that is, the one other than the Cat's Paw replacement heel, which was several meters away. One of our problems in searching the site, both by eye and by detector, is that there's no obvious limit to the site -- we've worked in a relatively clear area around where the shoe parts were found in '91, but there's no guarantee that there aren't other parts off in the surrounding bush, which is VERY dense ferile coconut jungle, ground covered thickly with fronds and nuts. Another problem, of course, is figuring out what the relationship is (if it's not entirely coincidental) between a shoe dating from the 1930s and a bar-coded label that can't be earlier than the 1970s. Was the shoe picked up accidentally in detritus that was thrown on the fire and burned? If so, where was it picked up? How far did it travel? Or is there some other explanation? It makes for complicated project planning, with lots and lots of guesswork and potential for error. LTM (who's prone to error) TKing ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:30:48 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: Radio Communication Ron Bright wrote: >A nagging question but since everyone agrees AE was close to Howland >with her "we're on you..." and her last message at 08:43 -46 of "We are > 157-337...",presumably flying at about 1000ft. altitude Not everyone agrees that she was close to Howland, when she made the statement that "we must be on you". :-) Based on my own personal experiences in using HF radio, over the last 25 years, I suspect that she was somewhere between 150 to 200 miles (maybe even a bit further) from the Itasca, to the south (or southeast), (on the 157-337 LOP), when she thought that she was 'on them'. ************************************************************************* From Ric I'm curious as to how radio factors alone would make you think she was that far away. Itasca was hearing here at S-5 which is as load as it gets. She may well have been as much as 200 miles away and still be heard that loudly, but how would it be different if she was closer? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:33:19 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Re: Usable Fuel Considerations With respect to Forum members who have questioned or commented on my "useable fuel" estimate, I would point out that the number and length of fuel lines in the modified Electra were in excess of what will be found in a P-39 or P-51. I venture to say that the total length of fuel lines in the Electra exceeded the DC-3 as well. I believe the lines were increased in size after the airplane was manufactured, possibly at the request of Paul Mantz. I will check my Lockheed correspondence file, but my memory says the size was increased from 3/8 inch to 1/2 inch diameter tubing. (At my age you are welcome to question my memory.) The change makes sense, however. Someone realized that the trapped fuel fraction was excessive and probably the pressure drop in the system with smaller lines contributed to the problem. I suspect that adding a wobble pump was in part due to this (possible) problem. I will check my file and let you know if my memory is correct. Certainly the total number of tanks in the Electra exceeded all of the above airplanes with each having an ullage volume to one degree or another. With more lines there would be more fittings with the potential to leak. The pressure drop in the system had to be significant because of the internal surface area of the tubes and the number of bends and turns necessary to complete the system. This might be amenable to some rough analysis. Let me think about that. I would remind all that my useable fuel estimate (using the Bell test measurements as a baseline reference) includes a variety of factors. I would be happy to learn about actual test measurements on other aircraft if any of the Forum members can provide references. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:39:58 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Off Forum Commentary Several forum subscribers have emailed me off-forum with comments on my description of the situation facing Fred with referencing to the sunrise azimuth. For what it's worth: ****************************************** From Mark Prange >...the night before the flight, Fred consults his almanac and charts and >says, "Okay, if I'm pretty much on course as we approach Howland.......the >sun is going to come up at 67 degrees. Right. He can calculate it to the nearest tenth if he wants, but it isn't necessary, nor would it be easy to plot with such accuracy. > That will allow me to get a 157/337 LOP Right. >which I can then >advance...etc...etc." He would most easily compute that LOP first using coordinates that lend themselves to plugging into whatever tables he used. When I used H.O. 208 with that morning's Sun, the position was N 1 deg, W 177 deg 03 min. 28 miles from Howland. >There he is, sitting out there over the ocean in the pre-dawn >glow waiting for the sun to come up. BANG! There it is. The first flash >of light on the horizon...... Right. That time difference from the precomputed time will tell him how far west to shift the LOP so that it will represent a line he is really on. > Now, how in the name > of Manganibuka is he supposed to measure whether that sun is at 67 degrees > or 66.8 degrees or 67.4 degrees? Right, it would be a problem if he really wanted to to that. A Sun azimuth is measured with an azimuth circle or an astro compass from a known position in order to establish correct heading. Ships at known positions use such information to correct gyrocompasses. Aircraft at very roughly known DR positions can usually get reliable heading information by measuring azimuth with an astro compass. > He's lucky if the directional gyro is accurate >to within a couple of degrees after having reset it a couple dozen times >since they took off. Right. >As long as its position generally agrees with the >DG he know he's in the right neighborhood. If he is in the right neighborhood, its azimuth will agree with the DG if the DG is accurate. But just because it does is not automatically an indication of being there. He could be off course and still estimate the sun at 067. If the Sun were visibly 5 degrees off a bearing of 067, the plane would be well off course. Position estimation by the Sun's azimuth is not practicable because of the great distance--around 5400 miles--to the Sun's subpoint. >Assuming that the 157/337 LOP was >based upon a precise 67 degree sunrise is crediting Noonan with information >that he can't possibly have. Noonan might have known the azimuth to the nearest tenth for some assumed position, but plotting the LOP wouldn't need to be done to that accuracy. And it would not be feasible or conventional to measure the azimuth with that kind of accuracy in the aircraft. Mark Prange ************************************************************************* From Tom MM Ric: Yes, you are right. The only measured value is the sun's altitude. The time is read and recorded. If an azimuth is taken it can be very approximate and used only as a rough check against the computed value in order to detect a blunder in using the tables. From there, the Almanac and sight reduction tables (from an assumed position) provide the computed azimuth and altitude of the body IF observed from the assumed position. The azimuth would probably be plotted to no better than 1/2 degree. It is not generally a sensitive value in establishing an LOP or fix. Small corrections are also made to the measured sextant altitude via the Almanac. This process of comparing your measurement with values that you would have measured if you had been exactly at your assumed position (AP) works much better than it sounds. Marine observations can give results to better than 1 nautical mile - aircraft procedures seem to give an accuracy of about 10-15 NM. Today, the whole process once you sit down with the data takes (using only tables and plotting) something on the order of 10 minutes per sight. I doubt it was significantly different in Noonan's time, but fatigue, and adverse conditions can slow things down or contribute to a blunder. It can be convenient to pre-compute azimuth and computed altitude for later use, but you must then make adjustments to your AP and LOP if you actually take the sight at a different time than anticipated. If you miss by more than a minute (of time) or so, you are better off to recompute. You must also recompute if it turns out that you think you are off course and are not reasonably close to your AP. In sum, the angle of the 157-337 line is probably a rounded figure (to the degree). It would have been based on Noonan's assumed position, which would be the closest tabulated value to his estimated position at sight time. It should have worked pretty well regardless of a course error to the north or south. Quite a puzzle - just enough info to give one hope that a little more analysis will provide the crystallizing insight, but too little info to close the loop with any certainty. TOM MM ************************************************************************** From Bob Sherman RE: The deju vue sun line. In the instant case, the 'line 90d to the azimuth' of the sun line. The azimuth can be found in advance [for any case] as you noted. The lat & 'local hour angle' of the observer will determine the the time and the az ['true' direction] of the body . Thus 67d was the az. 157/337 the lop. The time is found in the almanac for an assumed position. If the sight coincides with the listed time, one is on a 157/337 [or whatever was 90d to the listed az] which is drawn thru the course line at the assumed position*. One should be on the lop, and at the point it crosses the course IF the course is correct. But at that moment, only the lop is current; all else is dr. Error in course will move one up or down the lop from the course. Any error in sighting the body, incl. time or computations will result in moving one forward or backward on the assumed course. In short, one has a single line of position, not a fix. The bottom line is a 'band' for the lop, and a 'broader band' for the dr course, if it had been some time since last verified. [for each degree from the proper heading, one will move one mile at right angles to the course for each 57 miles of forward travel.] Long periods of dr without hitting a coast line or determining ones position fairly accurately, [a small island without a 'homer'] can be fatal. *Not affecting the accuracy too much and not an error, is the need to move the lop toward# or away from the point on the course that was used to consult the almanac, if the body was not sighted at the listed time. That is the principle of 'pre-computed sights'; get the data for the presumed position and time, then move the line forward or back according to the seconds difference in 'actual vs computed altitude' of the body; [time of sunrise, or sun's altitude at other times] # and/or to move the lop in the direction of travel to validate the lop for a future time; error will be for an incorrectly assumed ground speed. Not for the forum because I was not a professional. navigator. One of that crowd should be relied upon for the correct wording & procedure. Fred made out previously because he had better sighting provisions and he or someone qualified, operated the df. [Any lack of trust in df was related to bearings from far away stations]. AE had good luck with dr because at various places along her course or at least near the destination, there was a landfall or some prominate landmarks to verify position. Given AE's experience - perhaps colored by her good luck - she should have known that finding HOW would require some help. Her lack of interest in DF indicates to me that she was relying on some other plan to zero in on HOW when Fred got them close. [DF on the Itasca or DF brought to HOW, or ?] RC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:47:36 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Off Forum Commentary - ooops! My apologies to Alan Caldwell, Mark Prange, Tom MM and Bob Sherman. I just mistakenly posted to the forum privately sent comments which I had intended to forward only to Alan. There are no deep dark secrets that I've now braodcast to the world, but it's something I didn't intend to do and there is no way I can recall a forum posting once it has been sent. Sorry guys. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:50:18 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Screw ups << Personally I believe the sun of a gun was on course >> Ric, you can see how much the sun lines have been on my mind. I should have wrote ".... son of a gun...." Freudian slip. OR a clever pun? No, I just screwed up. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric You think THAT's a screw up? I'll show you a screw up. See my "Off Forum Commentary" posting that was supposed to be sent only to you. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:39:40 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: 10 miles or 100? Let me try again, because you didn't seem to understand what I was trying to say, Alan. FJN doesn't measure the 67 degree azimuth: he doesn't even try or want to. The way this works is this: he guestimates his position, and calculates from that position the time of sunrise (or height of a star, for example). Part of the tables he looks at gives him the direction to look at, to one degree accuracy. He then looks at the sun or star, and measures the height above the horizion (in the case of the sun, the time the upper limb clears the horizon). By comparing the time of measurement and the height of his measurement to his calculations for his assumed position, he can then calculate an offset along the line of look direction (for the sun in this case, 67 degrees). The offset then determines where the line of position should be which crosses the look direction at a perfect 90 degree angle. That's all there is, and there ain't no more! FJN never, ever, measures azimuth or look direction to any celestial body: it is in the tables! Now, you can, however, determine the area on the earth that would have that look direction to determine where his assumed position may be, but it will only provide a constraint to the north or south, but it will be the same the entire day along that band of latitude. Hope this helps. ************************************************************************** From Ric Just a note for the rest of us who are tryng to follow this. The "offset" Randy is talking about has nothing to do with the "offset method" of finding a destination along an LOP that was debated to death a while back. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:44:07 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Radio tests? Is there a member of TIGHAR with an amateur radio licence, and some other amateurs and equipment that will broadcast and receive on BOTH AE's frequencies that could do a bit of real life propagation checking over a period of time - in addition to the modelling that is being done. RossD ************************************************************************* From Ric We've got more HAMs than a butcher shop, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish to have people just send messages on 3105 and 6210 at various times of the day over various distances. I'm not sure it would even be legal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:56:54 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Usable Fuel Considerations Some authors put the fuel capacity of AE Electra at l250 gallons. Some at 1150 and most at 1100 at takeoff. Unless Electa endurance is necessary to get the plane to NIKU what difference is it because of all the other variables. With some luck, if the artifacts found by TIGHAR are linked to AE the whole question is mute. Regards, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Excuse me for jumping in here, but the variety of claims about the Electra's fuel capacity or takeoff load out of Lae in various books has more to do with the limitations of the authors than with any paucity of reliable information. The airplane's total fuel capacity was 1151 gallons and the takeoff load was 1100 gallons (for all practical purposes). You're correct in that, if TIGHAR finds conclusive evidence that the flight ended at Nikumaroro, it might be said that it doesn't matter how it got there. Our objective here, however, is more ambitious than that. We're trying to understand what happened and toward that end we're trying to establish the facts of a case that has been fraught with rumor, legend and folklore for 62 years. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:13:31 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Scattered bones Good point re. the deer; I've seen 'em too. But there are a couple of things to consider. One is the point to which the cartilage and musculature have decayed by the time you see the skeletons; once they decay, my own observation is that the skeletons get scattered around pretty quickly (As a wierd teenager, I used to collect these things). Another is that deer vertebrae and ribs are a good deal heavier than our own. LTM (who'd rather not acknowledge her parenthood here) Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric You mean more massive and robust, or physically larger and therefore heavier? At least around these parts, a 200 pound deer is a big deer and I'll betcha that if you dressed me out and fed me to the dogs, my spine would be almost indistinguishable from that of a large deer. But I agree that the dragging off of an intact backbone needs to be done when the carcass is still pretty fresh. (Note: I will resist suggestions of that these hypotheses be tested by experimentation, popular as those suggestions may be.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:28:42 EST From: John Rayfield Subject: Re: Radio Communication >From Ric > >I'm curious as to how radio factors alone would make you think she was >that far away. Itasca was hearing here at S-5 which is as loud as it gets. > She may well have been as much as 200 miles away and still be heard that >loudly, but how would it be different if she was closer? With the signals that strong, there wouldn't have been any difference in the 'sound' of the signals, between ground wave and skip propagation. But, if the signals were received via ground wave, then she would have been very close to the Itasca (as she said, 'on them'), which doesn't seem likely, since she didn't find Howland or the Itasca. It would appear that she was indeed further away from the Itasca than what she thought. This would seem to indicate that the signals were received via skip propagation. Here's my thinking: The signals either had to be arriving at the Itasca via ground wave or via skip - that's a 'given' fact. If the Itasca was hearing Earhart via ground wave, then with that strong of a signal, she would have had to have been pretty close - just as she thought when she said that she must be 'on them'. If she were as close as she thought, then she should have been able to find the island. On the other hand, if the signals were arriving at the Itasca via skip, then she couldn't have been too close to the Itasca - otherwise, they wouldn't have heard her, or the signals would have at least been weaker, since the signal would have been 'skipping over' the Itasca. With skip propagation, there will be a certain 'range' of distances, over which a signal will be heard well. Anything less than, or greater than, that 'range' of distances, and the signal levels are weaker (or even 'gone', as far as hearing them). So, considering the strong signals received by the Itasca, this means that she would have had to have been very close to the Itasca (if the signal propagation was via ground wave), or she was much further from the Itasca than she thought and was within a certain 'range' of distances from the Itasca (if the signal propagation was via skip). John Rayfield, Jr. - KR0Y *************************************************************************** From Ric Consider this. The strength of the signals recieved by Itasca increased steadily and evenly from the time they first heard an unintelligible transmission at 02:45 local time until the Strength 5 "We must be on you.." at 07:42. The strength remained at maximum for the next hour until the last signal at 08:43. This steady progression followed by a constant strength would seem to suggest a steady approach up to a certain point where the signal was maximum, and then the aircraft staying within that (unknown) range for the next hour. Sounds like ground wave, not "skip." Everything we're learning about the navigational situation faced by Noonan argues for a very close apparoach to Howland, and all the comparable experiences we're hearing about from others who have tried to find small islands on seas dotted with cloud shadows indicate that you can be VERY close and not find what you're looking for. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:32:34 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Off Forum Commentary - ooops! <<...but it's something I didn't intend to do and there is no way I can recall a forum posting once it has been sent. Sorry guys. >> It's OK, Ric. I, for one. am going to pretend I didn't see it. I'll be up all night answering all that. Thanks. OK, so not tonight but I'll work on it tomorrow. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:33:55 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Usable Fuel Considerations << With respect to Forum members who have questioned or commented on my "useable fuel" estimate >> Birch, I hope I haven't questioned your estimate as I enjoy detailed and specific analysis. We certainly need a good starting point on fuel and good analysis of fuel consumption enroute. Not to cut entirely to the chase but don't we first need to determine if the 1100 gallons included or excluded the unusable fuel? If the former we know to deduct it. If the latter it is just an aircraft weight and balance issue. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:11:54 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Easy to see Howland? << I keep looking at that photograph of Linda Finch"s Electra with the green 2/1/2 mile island with breakers splashing on the shore from several miles out and it hard to believe that AE/FN couldn't have seen that Island in the sun...unless the photo has been enhanced or something. >> Ron, that's a good point. Was that photo taken from the Electra cockpit at 1,000'? I haven't seen the photo but my guess it was taken by a professional photographer or if not then you can rest assured it was still enhanced for publication. Unless it was taken from the cockpit at 1,000' during the same weather conditions as existed on the fateful morning and at the approximate time AE was over or near Howland it would not be a relevant piece of evidence. I would love to fly around that area at 1,000' on a morning similar to July 2, 1937 and see with my own eyes what they faced. Unfortunately we don't even know what those weather conditions were with enough accuracy to duplicate. Actually seeing Howland from the air would be one of the benefits of Ric's idea to pick a time and fly a bunch of folks through the Howland and Niku areas. This forum is like old time radio. We write things and then each of our imaginations conjure up a picture -- all different. The good example is this very issue. Think of the Electra at 1,000', scattered cumulus clouds, good visibility or whatever ITASCA said it was. What picture pops into your mind? YOUR picture, Ron, is probably the NG photo. My picture might be trying to find Wake Island in a C-130E on a slightly hazy morning with a bright sun and scattered clouds during the summer of 1963. You can imagine the image non fliers might visualize. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric I dug out that issue of Nat'l Geo (Jan. '98) and took another look at that photo. Here's what I see. 1. The photo looks southwestward from a point I guesstimate to be about two to three miles to the northeast of the island and an altitude of perhaps 2,000 feet. 2. The sun seems to be a bit to the right of the photographer's back (roughly north) so I would guess that the time of day is late morning or early afternoon. 3. Sky condition over the island are clear. No shadows are visible on the surface of the sea and the island is brightly lit in the unobstructed sunlight. There is some scattered cumulus maybe ten miles to the west and northwest. Bases of such clouds out there typically are at about 2,000 feet and these look very typical. Buildups are not significant. Maybe a thousand feet. There is also some high stratocumulus way off in the distance. There is also a telltale wisp of budding cloud between the camera plane and the island which tells me that the camera plane is slightly above the level of the cloud bases (ballpark 2,000 feet). Smart. That way the camera is not looking through the layer of haze below the cloud bases. 4. Finch's plane is in the right hand foreground heading NNW. 5. I can't tell whether any enhancement was done later, but It's quite apparent that this photo was the result of a carefully devised plan to position the island and the airplane in the most advantageous lighting. Look at that photo, drop your point of view by about half, move about three times farther away from the island, sprinkle the sea with cloud shadows, and look into the sun instead of away from it - and tell me how easy it is to see Howland. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:04:09 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Expedition participation Hey Ric, I would love to visit Niku island with TIGHAR. I here by submit my application for the position of "First Gofer" for the up coming Niku expatiation. Will successfully complete any task assigned. I'm serious if TIGHAR is seriously considering allowing my presence. Roger Kelley, #2112 ************************************************************************** From Ric Here's how we approach expedition participation. Our typical Niku team is only 14 people so we have to be VERY selective about who we put on the team. Expertise in various needed skills is, of course, a factor in the selection of any given individual but is not nearly as important as a general ability to handle the physical and psychological stresses of the expedition. What we need out there are are bright, tough, pleasant people who are committed to the organization and its goals. How do we find people like that? First we invite applicants to complete a two-day course in Aviation Archaeology and Historic Preservation which we give periodically. That not only gives them some background in how we go about our work but also gives them an opportuity to meet us and us to meet them face to face. Once they've completed the course, they can participate in a non-Earhart TIGHAR expedition. This gives them some field experience and lets us see how they do under field conditions. From the TIGHAR members who have met the above qualifications we then assemble a team which seems most likley to be able to carry out the mission of a particular Earhart Project expedition. These people donate only their time and expertise. TIGHAR pays their expenses out of the general funding for the project. We're very fortunate that, over the twelve years of the project, we have built a cadre of men and women who have shown themselves to be well suited to the work. That doesn't mean that the door is closed for additions to the team, but any new applicant should understand that we already have a core group of experienced people who know the project, know the island, and know each other. On occasion we have accepted Sponsor Team Members who have made a significant financial contribution toward the expedition rather than go through the full selection process, but even Sponsor Team Members must be judged physically and emotionally suitable. Bluntly put, no donation is large enough to compensate for having a jerk along. None of our Sponsor Team Members have been a problem and most have proven to be genuine assets to the team. At this time we're contemplating holding a combined Aviation Archaeolgy Course and Expedition in the northwestern United States this summer. I should have more details soon. we have not made any decision yet about whether we'll be accepting Sponsor Team Members for Niku IIII, which we now anticipate will happen in the summer of 2001. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:22:13 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Fuel Lines and Repairs I checked my correspondence file on the Earhart Electra and found reference to insulating the fuel lines; however, no mention of increasing the line size. It's obvious my memory failed me this time. (First time this year!) Of possible interest, though, is a listing of repairs made by Lockheed after the infamous accident in Hawaii. Although you may already have this information, I am forwarding it as it may be of interest. Six engineering orders were issued covering: Wing Assembly Fuselage (Repair drwg 40084) Empennage Assembly Center Section Assembly (wing) Landing Gear Installation Landing Gear Assembly At the component level,15 drawing numbers are listed together with the quantity of each item: 1 - Center antenna mast, fuselage station 147-5/8 1 - Rear antenna mast, fuselage station 254 1L - Antenna mast, fuselage ("L" indicating left) 1L - and 1R - Pitot tube assembly & installation 2 - Stop, for landing gear axle, station 94 1 - Pulley bracket, left engine control 1 - Pulley bracket, right engine control 2 - Flare cover, fuselage 17 - Ventilator, fuselage 1L - and 1R - Plate, center section brace attachment 1L - and 1R - Gusset plate, center section, station 81 1/2 4 - Brace tube, nacelle landing gear support 1R - Tee section, center section nacelle attachment, station 69 1 Outlet, fuselage heating system 1L - and 1R - Engine mount support This information is listed on Lockheed drawing number 49164 dated April 13, 1937. I do