Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:04:37 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Asbestos & tarpaper Back down to earth from unrealistic Radiola conversions! >Okay. I'll buy roofing. It was near the roll of tarpaper but quite a ways >from the tank (which the Coasties said had a tarp rigged up overhead on poles >to direct water into it, and the poles are still there). How about that tarpaper, with the gritty coating? Sounds like roofing again but might be used for sidewalls or most anything you wanted to protect from elements. Is there evidence of that stuff at the village site? Or does it come from the Loran station? I wonder if anyone knows whether such stuff was used at the Loran station. Of course, it could migrate from there to the village but probably not in quantity. And here we have a whole roll of it - american, british, australian? ****************************************************************************** From Ric I'll reiterate that it seems very unlikely that any of the materials at the "7" site are from the Loran station except the rifle shell casing. The site already looked old when the Coasties found it in 1944. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:06:04 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: battery powered Radiola 80 William Webster-Garman wrote: >Yes. This continues to puzzle me. Not only did the Radiola 80 require 110 >volts 60 Hz alternating current (batteries are direct current and typically >far lower in voltage), but judging from the schematic, the heating elements >in those tubes sucked lots of amperes. Finally, I'm still having trouble >imagining how it could have been operated off of a battery. This has little to do with much of anything (quite off-topic) and I'm not seriously suggesting that Gallagher did any such thing... It's not that difficult to "convert" a 110 VAC radio for battery operation. You just disconnect all that power supply stuff and connect appropriate battery power to the actual radio receiver part of the circuit, thereby giving it the kind of DC voltages it wanted in the first place. The nasty part is the high current pulled by the indirectly heated cathodes in a set designed for AC operation. Filament type tubes used in battery powered sets don't pull nearly so much current. Even the battery powered sets tended to use big, old lead-acid storage batteries for filament voltage. In years past - many years past - I've done conversions both ways. Desperate situations may require desperate measures! I often wonder at some of the weird things I did in previous lives! And I may do it again. Some day I may refurbish my old Radiola-20 and rig up an AC power supply for it - a "battery eliminator." I don't think you can get those 45 volt and/or 90 volt batteries no more. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:09:49 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Prymak The language speaks for itself. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:11:57 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman Handily enough (thanks to Ric's and Kenton's assiduous dig through the WPHC archives) we have a receipt from Morris, Hedstrom, Ltd. for the parts they supplied (from Australia) in repairing Gallagher's wireless. It was the Radiola (#80#[obscured]/16163) that got repaired, and the parts used were: 1 Vibrator transformer 1 Vibrator cord 1 250,000 ohme 1 W Resistor 1 Megohme 1 W Resistor 1 .02 Condensery 1 .02 4.5 Bias Batteries (The plural is used, though only one is indicated in what appears to be the "quantity" column) As for the batteries -- the benefits of hindsight; there were a few radio parts lying on shelves in the still-standing building as of 1989, and there were doubtless pieces lying around the site, but at the time we didn't see them as having any importance, so we didn't collect them, and nobody thought (at least I didn't) to have our expedition radio expert, Bart Whitehouse, look at them in situ and document what they were. Ditto the batteries; we have a sketch and photos of the one the divers recovered off the bottom of Tatiman Passage (and returned), but no details, and nothing on the batteries at the radio shack -- except that they appeared to be identical with the one that came out of the drink. LTM (who ALWAYS regrets observations not made, but protests that one can't record EVERYTHING) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:17:47 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Fuel Management, Engines, Finch I did some celestial nav activities with Linda Finch in 1996 at the Oshkosh air show and sold her an A-10 model sextant. They wanted to showboat with it-not learn or use it. The engines on her Electra were essentially the same to my knowledge-P & W 1340's. They were built new from a collection new unused parts. At the show though one of the mechanics mentioned that the fuel burn was much higher than it should have been and was causing some concern. I suspect the break-in was not accomplished and that they solved the problem later. I seem to recall that avgas in those days had a higher octane and alot of lead content compared to what is on the market now. They are now trying to get on the market on unleaded avgas that still retains protective octane requirements. The engines would have required much preventative maintenance along the way to retain peak performance so as to get the burn figures calculated by Kelly Johnson-plug changes, valve adjustments, carb settings, oil & filter, etc. I never have run across anything that mentioned maintenance but I know it had to be done or she would never had made it as far as she did. Radial engines will generaly give reliable & faithful performance, but for every hour run them, you have to turn a wrench on them 2 or 3 times that. Finch never did land at Howland as the runways were unusable. She stopped at Tarawa I believe, overflew Howland, and then went on to either Christmas island or Canton, I forget where. She also had the advantage of multiple GPS, and Albatross chase plane, and a REAL pilot and babysitter keeping her out of trouble. Ahh, I'll shut up. Doug B. #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:32:15 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Electra range calculations - the easy way I see hundreds of hours are being spent on various calculations of the Electra's range based on every conceivable variable. But I have the answer. When Amelia picked up her new Electra, Lookheed Aircraft had posted the Manufactuer's Invoice on the rear cabin window. The invoice not only showed the MSRP but the various options and standard features, but also the EPA estimates of city flying and high altitude flying with the expected mileage.Just find this MSRP STICKER and the whole problem is solved!!! George Putnam wanted the option of the GPS but Fred Noonan said it wouldn't be necessary. Amelia did select the moonroof. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:24:20 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Re: Throttle Back Remember that the airspeed vs fuel burned chart produces a inverted bell shaped curve. Go slower than optimum and you burn more fuel and go faster and you burn more fuel. If Amelia slowed up so as not to arrive in Honolulu before sunrise but stayed on the relatively flat bottom of the curve she might burn more fuel but not a lot more. The RPM may have remained constant with a frozen prop but the manifold pressure could be reduced until drag required more power. If she was flying on the high side of the bottom of the curve (where you would normally be flying) then she could throttle back to same distance on the back side, use about the same power but be flying considerably slower. if she came back to the very bottom of the curve she would be flying slower and using the least amount of fuel. Al this depend upon what she really meant in describing her actions. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:47:27 EST From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: scientific method boring? > Eventually we'll find something simple enough for everyone to understand. > LTM, > Ric -----Heck, its not that the evidence is difficult to understand, its just that no piece of evidence is conclusive. Any amount of inconclusive evidence does not a smoking-gun make. LTM, HAG 2201. ****************************************************************************** From Ric And that is why the people who can't understand the significance of the evidence without a smoking gun will have to wait until the those who can follow the trail find one. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:56:11 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Bare spots Ric: I was just reviewing the photo of the island that is on the website and noticed that there are 3 very noticeable bare spots in the photos. One is to the right of the Norwich City, almost in the midst of the jungle, the second is to the left and is also, almost in the center of the jungle, while the third is very large and along the lagoon side to the left of the NC. Have these been explored? Are they accessible? I would think, given really bad weather, someone might move into such an area, if it were accessible. Do any other photos show the more detail of these spots? LTM, who doesn't like to see spots before her eyes. Blue Skies, Dave Bush #2200 ****************************************************************************** From Ric We have complete photographic coverage of all these areas at several points in time. We don;t have great detail but it's pretty good. We've "explored" all those areas. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:01:37 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: asbestos Fibro roofing (in Australia) was "rolled" with corrugations in the sheets. Obviously there is nothing to say flat sheets could not be used, but the corrugations provided a waterproof overlap between sheets. The nails were put through the "hills" and the water flowed down the "valleys" of the corrugations. It seems odd to me that the Colonial Administration would send out Heavy Asbestos sheets when they could pack lots more of the popular "corrugated Iron" which was used for both walls and roofing. The most common early buildings of this time in Australia and New Zealand had either all corrugated iron, or if they were "Posh" houses, corrugated iron roofing and fibre sheeting walls. RossD ************************************************************************ From Ric We've certainly seen plenty of "corrugated iron" on other developed parts of the island. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:03:50 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: C119G figures > From Skeet Gifford > > Recent discussion has referenced the L-10 cruise fuel consumption of 38 gph > vs. the "loiter" or (assumed) maximum endurance fuel flow of 20 gph. In this > case, Maximum Endurance was 47 percent of Long Range Cruise. > > The nearest example for which I have BOTH max. endurance and LRC data is the > C-119G. Comparing a mid-gross weight LRC to a relatively light gross weight > max. endurance yields a fuel flow reduction of 45 percent. > > 20 gph passes the test of reasonableness. Would you be kind enough to give us the altitude, fuel consumption and airspeed figures (indicated and true) for the C119G maximum endurance and LRC to which you refer? Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:06:54 EDT From: Rodd Devitt Subject: Ross to Renaud From Ross Devitt I have been flying since 1970. I do NOT have a lot of skill. I started when I was 16yo and gradually built up hours as a hobby, in between sailing, and horseriding, and motoring. There were times when I did not fly for 7 years, then only flew for 2 hours a year. I have flown to a lot of places, and in quite a number of aircraft types, but there are many more experienced pilots on the forum. The reason I post some of these things is because I am actually studying some of this stuff. And to me, flying is simply "fun". There are times when it gets way too technical here. However I do have technical training in some of these fields. other times I just bring something up because someone else will jump on my ideas and point out my mistakes. I get to learn a lot from that, and correct my mistakes. > I have only a few questions: was the fuel burned by Finch the same that the > fuel spent by Earhart ? ( I mean octane, and other parameters ). Also were > the engines ( P&W R1340 ) the same ? Is there any other factor that could > vary the fuel consumption between both flight spaced by 60 years ? There are so many differences between Linda Finch's flight and Earhart's flight that any comparison of fuel consumption must be guessing. I was trying to point out the speeds and distances. The speeds of the two flights would be much more likely to be close, than the fuel consumption. No matter how powerful the engines are, there is a point at which the aircraft just won't go much better. (Sort of). My earlier post about the little Gazelle was to indicate that drag has an effect on the aircraft, and we can almost double our air time and distance by flying at a speed that minimises drag (wind friction on the aircraft). In real life, even in Earhart's circumstances you probably wouldn't even try it. RossD (who spent 27 of those 30 years getting to solo - well, I had to start again...). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:19:28 EDT From: John Clauss Subject: Asbestos/Loran Station >Okay, but if that's the case it means that the transite is not part of the >activity that brought the other "building material" (screen, tar paper, >tank, poles) to the site in the Gallagher era - unless we're incorrect in >assuming that this site is the "house built for Gallagher" referred to by Laxton. OK, Then let's consider the possibility that the screen and tar paper might have also have come from the loran station. There is screen at scattered sites around the loran station. As I recall, it is dark green or some of the framing that is associated with it is dark green. I do not recall seeing tar paper. These types of materials might, more logically, have originated in the Coast Guard facility as opposed to the pre war Gardner settlement. Look at the picture of The Government House and think about the debris around its ruins . About the only western style building material that is apparent in the picture or remains at the site is corrugated metal sheet. I wonder if screening would even be of much use in the early settlement. Bugs don't really seem to be a problem. Something tells me that the transite, screen and tar paper might well have come from the loran station. This suggests that there was post war activity at the '7' site and that it was more convenient to use materials that were close by rather than bring them all the way from the other end of the island. It doesn't rule out the location as "the house built for Gallagher", but does suggest there was ongoing activity in this area. LTM John Clauss ************************************************************************ From Ric This seems to me like an unnecessary complication of the scenario. We know that the tank was there pre-Loran station because the Coasties found it soon after they arrived. We also know that the tank came from the village. So - big heavy stuff was brought there from the village prior to the arrival of the Coast Guard. Maybe the site was developed, abandoned, and developed again later but I don't see any particular evidence to support that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:24:35 EDT From: Don Jordan Subject: Help in LA I am researching the Noonan/Pallette connection and the Earhart/Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel connection, but have stalled for lack of a contact in the Los Angeles area. I could sure use some help from a local in the area! If anybody wants to help, they can contact me through my Web site or by E-mail. The Web address is http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/ I have forgotten and don't want to look it up, but can somebody tell me when and where the other Noonan auto crash was? I'm on the trail of the Fresno crash, but there was another one in the San Francisco Bay area which should be research also. Don J. ************************************************************************** From Ric Fred's car accident in April 1937 was in Fresno. That's the only one I'm aware of. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:25:42 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman >From William Webster-Garman > >For Tom King, > >The radio replacement parts that Gallagher cannibalized from his Radiola and >later requested replacements for were more than likely vacuum tubes (which >'burn out'). Are there any identifying terms? > >william 2243 In a properly designed piece of equipment using tubes the lifetimes of low power receiving devices is comparable with other parts most notably the capacitors which tended to yield some of their dielectric. If the unit had seen overvoltage problems (maybe an experimental generator) then the likelyhood of "burn out" of tubes is a consequence of improper use. No hypothesis here just want to clarify the inherent quality of tubes. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:29:48 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: somewhere in between David Evans Katz wrote: >My only question is whether they had sufficient fuel to reach Gardner. It appears that the Electra, as configured and fueled that day, had 24 hours or more endurance, which would have been sufficient for landfall at Gardner. We know Noonan was an excellent navigator, and that he had the expertise and the opportunity to fly the LOP when they couldn't spot Howland. > there is no hard evidence that they crashed (or ditched) into the sea, there > is also no proof that they landed at Gardner. There is more evidence that they landed at Gardner than that they crashed at sea, including the documented history of the woman's skeleton parts, the anecdotes of aircraft wreckage and the skeletons of male and female "european" castaways, and the fact the Gerald Gallagher (the resident British officer there) believed that Earhart might have been on Gardner. > Everything I have seen on the > TIGHAR site is as speculative as any theory advanced by those who believe > that AE & FN crashed or ditched into the sea. I disagree with that. Much of Tighar's current theory is backed by evidence, and it has significantly evolved over time as new evidence has emerged. I've watched this process happen. > What I believe to be reasonable is that they flew south on the LOP toward Gardner, a > destination they may have reached by the skin of their teeth if their fuel > consumption was optimal. There is evidence that they had sufficient fuel to reach Gardner. We just don't know at this time how close they came to running out of fuel, but I think it's realistic to assume that they were probably deeply into their reserve fuel. > While the Longs' assumptions have some flaws that you have so > very well described, I think that the truth lies somewhere in between > -- that is, somewhere in between Howland/Baker and McKean/Gardner. I suspect that if they did ditch, it was south of Howland, not north. There is a lot of compelling evidence that they may have reached Gardner. Pursuing that evidence with the objective of finding proof sounds reasonable to me. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:34:35 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: airspeed Ric wrote: >If she has a particular power setting to use at a particular >altitude she doesn't have any choice about her airspeed. It'll be whatever >it is. My understanding is that Johnson's figures were designed to yield 150 >mph (TAS) at each setting because that's the speed at which the Electra >airframe slips through the air most efficiently. Ric, Don't you mean 150 mph IAS? Greg ************************************************************************** From Ric Nope, I mean TAS. IAS is a largely meaningless figure that will very greatly with altitude, barometric pressure and temperature. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:55:53 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Null hypothesis? The process is usually referred to as being the Devil's Advocate, isn't it? I would think the only way to prove a null hypothesis is: a) prove it was impossible to happen (Ric's suggestion), or b) prove something else did happen, which may include part of a). In any event, only a) would qualify as a "null hypothesis because if b) occurred then it would not be a "null," it would simply be a different hypothesis being proved correct. Null, by definition, states nothing occurred and you can't prove nothing occurred, you can only prove it was impossible to occur. A "null hypothesis" is an oxymoron, i.e., a contradictory definition. Null means "nothing" but a hypothesis is not nothing, it is something. It represents a belief -- spoken, written or otherwise -- of certain circumstances. Giving voice to those beliefs constitutes "something," thereby negating the ability to call it "nothing," i.e. null. I think what Randy has is simply just another good-old-fashioned, common, run-of-the-mill, vanilla, everyday, white bread opposing hypothesis. LTM, who thinks Randy's Mustang is way cool! Dennis O. McGee #1049 ************************************************************************** From Ric I think you're over-thinking this. The term "null hypothesis" (although perhaps oxymoronic if taken literally, just like "military intelligence" or "government assistance") is, in fact, merely a term used to describe a useful reversing of a hypothesis for the purpose of perspective. In our case the null hypothesis is that you could select any Pacific atoll at random and, if you looked at it closely enough, you would find just as much evidence that Earhart and Noonan had landed there. The term Devil's Advocate (Advocatus Diaboli) is actually a religious term from the beatification and canonization process in the Roman Catholic faith. In assessing whether a person is worthy of sainthood a church officer is appointed to seek out all the evidence against the candidate. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:02:18 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Fuel Management >My understanding is that Johnson's figures were designed to yield 150 >mph (TAS) at each setting because that's the speed at which the Electra >airframe slips through the air most efficiently. The key phrase here (and I think you are right) is "slips through the air most efficiently". Well, the airframe doesn't respond to anything according to groundspeed, the airframe only performs according to the physical properties of the gases that it is in. Therefore IAS not TAS. Greg ************************************************************************** From Ric Nobody is talking about groundspeed. TAS (true airspeed) is IAS (indicated airspeed) corrected for pressure and temperature. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:06:59 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: somewhere in between In all this speculation, one thing I haven't seen anybody speculate about is this: I presume that the farther south along the LOP they were when they arrived at it, the less likely it is that they'd run out of fuel before arriving at Nikumaroro, all else being equal. If that simpleminded assumption is currect, then does anybody want to speculate about factors, if any, that might have caused them to be substantially off course to the south without knowing it? LTM (who's often off course) Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric The only factor I can think of is wind and it really doesn't matter which way it was blowing as long as it wasn't a direct headwind or tailwind. Under-correct and you'll be off course to one side of the track, over-correct and you'll be off course to the other side. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:08:06 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman For William Webster-Garman: Did my post of yesterday, with the complete list of parts supplied to Gallagher in replacement for those he cannibalized, not come through? Here it is again... LTM (who needs for people to repeat themselves from time to time) Tom King Subj: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman Date: 3/30/00 9:14:41 AM Eastern Standard Time From: TFKing106 Vern -- Handily enough (thanks to Ric's and Kenton's assiduous dig through the WPHC archives) we have a receipt from Morris, Hedstrom, Ltd. for the parts they supplied (from Australia) in repairing Gallagher's wireless. It was the Radiola (#80#[obscured]/16163) that got repaired, and the parts used were: 1 Vibrator transformer 1 Vibrator cord 1 250,000 ohme 1 W Resistor 1 Megohme 1 W Resistor 1 .02 Condensery 1 .02 4.5 Bias Batteries (The plural is used, though only one is indicated in what appears to be the "quantity" column) As for the batteries -- the benefits of hindsight; there were a few radio parts lying on shelves in the still-standing building as of 1989, and there were doubtless pieces lying around the site, but at the time we didn't see them as having any importance, so we didn't collect them, and nobody thought (at least I didn't) to have our expedition radio expert, Bart Whitehouse, look at them in situ and document what they were. Ditto the batteries; we have a sketch and photos of the one the divers recovered off the bottom of Tatiman Passage (and returned), but no details, and nothing on the batteries at the radio shack -- except that they appeared to be identical with the one that came out of the drink. LTM (who ALWAYS regrets observations not made, but protests that one can't record EVERYTHING) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:17:42 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Fuel Management >From Alan Caldwell > > Guys, you are confusing me which is not hard to do. I'll ask again -- wasn't > AE supposed to be flying 150mph (130kph) INDICATED airspeed? If so and she > reduced to 120mph ias that has to be a 20% reduction in airspeed. Which > numbers do I have wrong? > > I don't know where 155 or 144 or 4% or 6% numbers came from. I don't know how > anyone knows what her TAS was without knowing her altitude and OAT. The 144 comes from the rule of thumb that True airspeed is 2% higher than indicated airspeed for each 1,000 feet of altitude. You are certainly correct that the precise calculation requires OAT and (pressure) altitude . (We know the altitude because AE gives it as 10,000 feet. Ten times 2 = 20%, and 120% of 120 = 144.) The calculated TAS of 144 is 6 mph below the base speed of 150. Six is 4% of 150, so 144 represents a 4% reduction from 150. Under Johnson's plan, airspeed was not held constant, but increased during the period between power reductions; 155 is an assumed midpoint reflecting that increase; it is 11 mph higher than 144; 11 is 7% of 155, so 144 represents a 7% reduction from 155. And 6% is a typo for 7%.(Sorry!) ************************************************************************** From Ric Good point Oscar, and one that I had not fully appreciated. Under Johnson's plan of holding a given power setting for three hours at a stretch, the airspeed would slowly build as the aircraft became lighter, then at the end of the segment the power would be pulled back and the speed would drop back only to start slowly building again as more weight was burned off. If 150 mph TAS was the target speed for the BEGINNING of each segment maybe we need to rethink the aircraft's probable AVERAGE airspeed for the entire segment. That airplane may have been "faster" than we've been thinking and, thus, able to deal with a greater headwind component and still arrive in the Howland area when it did. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:19:56 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Prymak's sour grapes As alluded to in my original posting, Bill Prymak's comments are exactly what I would expect from someone who would logically be put out of business if the Niku theory is eventually proven correct. Of course, since logic has absolutely nothing to do with how conspiracy buffs operate, one of them might claim that the Japanese dismantled NR16020, and pulled some of AE's teeth, scattering some of both at Gardner to cover up their atrocities at Siapan. This is a fine example of the "don't bother me with facts, I know what I believe" school of thought, and there's another word that shares the first four letters of idiom which describes it precisely. LTM, Dave, 2288 PS if anyone is heading out to this summer's Dragon Dig a little early, and passing through Atlanta, I'll have a short layover there on July 2nd while returning home from my annual gig for Uncle Sam. I'd love to say hi to anyone who might be in the neighborhood. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:41:51 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Sea bottom search I was reading the story of the discovery of RMS Titanic by Dr Ballard and COMEX team ( wich is actually a french team ) in 1985-86. I was surprised by the difficulties they encountered. They knew quite precisely the position of the shipwreck ( it was noted in the CQD telegrams sent by the ship ). Furthermore, the target was big ( almost 46.000 tons of steel ). In spite of these points they took two expeditions of 2 or 3 weeks each ! Before them, lots of adventurers and scientists try to locate the boat with heavy and very sophisticated sonars... No hits... That is to say that it must be really a challenge to found a little plane such as Earhart's in deep waters, especially when you don't know where to search for it ! For these reasons the credibility of such a search, like the one which was conducted last fall, is not very high. Meanwhile, they said that they found something down a slope... For me, the main purpose of such an expedition is mostly " advertising". LTM *************************************************************************** From Ric Relatively small objects can be found in deep water IF the search area can be tightly constrained with hard data (such as radar returns from falling objects). As you point out, what makes the deep water search for NR16020 so impractical is that the search area can not be constrained except by rank, and some (including me) would say fanciful, speculation. I don't agree that the Timmer search, or Long's hoped-for search, are motivated by a desire to "advertise." I'm quite sure than neither Williamson and Assoc. (who are working with Timmer) nor Nauticos (who are working with Long) want to be associated with a failed search. I think that that all of these people really believe that the search area has been rationally and logically constrained. Everybody is using Elgen Long's numbers which have apparently been "validated" by independent "experts." I can only imagine that these "experts" have accepted Elgen's assumptions about fuel evaporation, headwinds, and power changes. That's why I'd like to see the studies. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:46:11 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Sextant vs. Octant About this sextant box... I was under the impression that Noonan used an octant (as opposed to a sextant) for his celestial navigation, and that he had borrowed the octant that he used on the flight from the United States Navy. I have been told that a sextant is not used in aeronautical celestial navigation. Does anyone know if this is true? David Evans Katz ************************************************************************** From Ric It is true that Noonan used a bubble octant as his primary instrument. It is also true that Noonan carried a conventional nautical sextant as a "preventer" (as he called it, using an old nautical term) or what we might call a "back up." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:54:59 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: airspeed > From Alan Caldwell > > I think you should consider that AE instead used a constant indicated air > speed OR a constant TAS (with help from FN). To do otherwise would have made > FN's navigation a nightmare. Tell me how to compute track, winds, and > position if the airspeed is not held constant? The hourly change in airspeed is no big deal. As a guess, perhaps 3 or 4 mph early in the flight, dropping to 1 or 2 mph later. It's not significant and is easy to allow for - it doesn't vary randomly, it's a steady increase. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:25:12 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman > 1 Vibrator transformer > 1 Vibrator cord > 1 250,000 ohme 1 W Resistor > 1 Megohme 1 W Resistor > 1 .02 Condensery > 1 .02 4.5 Bias Batteries (The plural is used, though only one > is indicated in what appears to be the "quantity" column) Good. With these items associated with the Radiola 80, it appears very likely that he was using it on battery power (vibrator transformers convert battery power DC to a reasonable facsimile of AC). william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:24:04 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Evidence Lancaster in the Kookaburra disappeared without a trace. His aircraft has been found about 60 yrs later). Charles Kingsfor Smith disappeared over water without a trace. Not long ago wreckage (landing gear parts I think) were found on a beach and positively identified. I think they were found where he shouldn't have been. But whatever, the piece(s) have helped throw light on one of avaition's greatest mysteries. It also means that the rest of the Lady Southern Cross is probably down there somewhere - waiting to be found. The point is, Earhart is another of those mysteries - certainly one of the greatest. Perhaps TIGHAR will unearth some small part that can be identified as part of the Electra. Perhaps not. The thrill of the hunt is in the chase or even better, stalking the prey. The kill is often an anti climax. RossD ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:17:39 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Electra specs So that means at 150mph she was getting around 19gph per engine (38gph). And those figures were at "full throttle". That's why the posting on the Gazelle figures. With light tanks, there just may be a low drag speed (just above glide speed, as you know - for most aircraft), that would make a huge difference to her range and endurance on the fuel left. (If she had any). RossD ************************************************************************* From Ric No, not "full throttle." 24 inches of manifold pressure and 1600 RPM. I'm not sure what "full throttle" would yield for that airplane at 10,000 feet but it would be more than that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:22:31 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: airspeed Do you have the glide speed for Earhart's Electra? Failing that the landing approach speed? rd ************************************************************************** From Ric The Lockheed specs say only: Landing Speed at Sea Level (wing flaps down) ... 65 mph ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:32:28 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: radio tube question This is way over my head, so I hope it doesn't sound too stupid. Here goes... one of you yesterday said that changing old style radio tubes was commonplace in those days, and similar to changing a lightbulb. One of TIGHAR's artifacts is said to resemble an unusual lightbulb base. Could the lightbulb base artifact be a part of a radio tube? LTM, who has changed lots of light bulbs, but don't know nuthin 'bout no radio tubes. Dave Porter, 2288 *************************************************************************** From Ric Good question. Seems awfully big to be a radio tube - about 7/8 inch across the base - but what do I know? We'll get some photos up on the website soon. If it turned out to be a radio tube that would be very interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:41:10 EDT From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Prymak > From William Webster-Garman > > The language speaks for itself. > > william 2243 No excuse for the language, perhaps. But it was obviously sent by mistake and was intended for private consumption only. A gentleman would have recognized the mis-sent message as such, and would not have published it on the forum as a way to deride someone who did not agree with him. Cam Warren ************************************************************************* From Ric On the contrary. The message was sent specifically TO the forum address and all the other addressees were listed as CCs. How do you do that by mistake? I was merely allowing Mr. Prymak to speak for himself, which he did most eloquently. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:45:02 EDT From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman Re: Tom King's post... >As for the batteries -- the benefits of hindsight; there were a few radio >parts lying on shelves in the still-standing building as of 1989, and there >were doubtless pieces lying around the site, but at the time we didn't see >them as having any importance, so we didn't collect them... Thanks Tom! I don't think the radio stuff did, or does, have any importance for the Earhart search. Just interesting to folks into old radio junk. As for the replacement parts, the interesting items are the vibrator transformer and cord. These suggest the existance of a device to produce high-voltage from a low-voltage DC source, such as a battery of some kind. >supplied (from Australia) in repairing Gallagher's wireless. It was the >Radiola (#80#[obscured]/16163) that got repaired, and the parts used were.... If it was the Radiola that got repaired, the vibrator supply must have been used to operate the Radiola from batteries. Maybe it supplied 110 VAC to the radio. That sounds like a very big "inverter" as it would be called - battery power in, 110 VAC out. I don't know that I even believe the vibrator to do that job! Maybe a motor/alternator rig... I have one of those things sitting in my basement. The other alternative seems to be the sort of thing I suggested, less than seriously, in my earlier post about disconnecting the original power supply and connecting batteries instead. In this case, it's a "B" battery eliminator. The request for "4.5 Bias Batteries" seems to fit that sort of scenario. These are what were called "C" batteries providing grid bias to the valves (tubes) and they lasted a long time. That adds up to: Run the heaters of the tubes, and the vibrator HV supply on big batteries, and continue to use "C" batteries for bias. Keeping the "C" batteries simplifies things just a little. Neither of these seem very attractive approaches. Maybe it's some indication of how far Gallagher was willing to go to try to make that Radiola work! And maybe it's about the point where he elected to get the "Ultima" designed to run on batteries, if that was the case, and that had a couple of short-wave bands. To specify simply a "vibrator cord" seems odd. It's as though all this was common practice and anyone would know just what a "vibrator cord" was. Needing both a vibrator transformer and a cord seems to suggest that the thing, whatever it was, went up in smoke! So, what about the vibrator itself? That's the thing that most frequently failed in such devices. Very puzzling... LTM (Who asked, "So, what's new?") ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:47:11 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bare spots Just to be sure, Dave, I just looked at the photo again and I THINK the first two spots you're talking about are basically where the '99 crew did its work, while the one on the lagoon side is a huge mudflat full of crabs that we explored in '89, figuring that it would have been a good place to land (but it wasn't; you can sink up to your tush in it). LTM (who doesn't like to sink that far) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:06:54 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Asbestos & tarpaper Well, but our Coastie informants don't describe asbestos and tarpaper; it could have gotten there during the CG period or later as the product of somebody's attempt to improve the site for some reason. But it's interesting to think about the fact that IF this was the House Built for Gallagher, and IF it was built for the purpose we speculate, then it was certainly built in late 1940-early 1941, when Gallagher says they had really bad weather... LTM (who would like to have a good roof over her head in the rain) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:16:15 EDT From: Michael Lowrey Subject: Trail width With regard to the possible trails in the 1938 photograph, what is the resolution of the picture? Or to put it another way, if there really were a trail created by a castaway or two, how wide would it have to be to show up in the photograph? Five feet? 15 feet? The reason I ask is that, in my experience, we humans tend to create rather narrow paths, especially over rough or overgrown terrain. It is easier, after all, to walk in our own tracks time after time rather than create a wider path. If the resolution weren't particularly good, I would find it hard to believe that any possible (broad) trails could be the result of one or two people. (Please excuse this question if it makes little sense, I'm the guy that always didn't score well on the spatial relationship tests back in junior high.) Michael Lowrey *************************************************************************** From Ric It's a good question. Fortunately, the fact that the "7" is a natural feature that is still pretty much unchanged; and having walked the ground myself; and having had the experience of watching trails emerge on very similar terrain on that same island over the course of several days of traffic; I can say that the width of the "trails" in the 1938 photo seems entirely consistent with what one or two people might create over a period of several weeks if not months. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:40:08 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Asbestos/Loran Station Ric says in response to John re. the Seven Site: Maybe the site was developed, abandoned, and developed again later but I don't see any particular evidence to support that. Well, except the fact that there's stuff there that Dick Evans and Bill Moffit don't mention. I don't think we need to "unnecessarily complicate the scenario," but we ought to keep possibilities in mind. LTM (who's always alert to possibilities) Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric Remember that the "7" site is not one pile of stuff (see the diagram in the current TIGHAR Tracks page 49). The building materials we're talking about are a good 15 to 20 meters away from the tank and bird bones scene that Evans and Moffit described. They're also a lot harder to find. The tank is white and sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb even in dense scaevola once you get anywhere close to it. We found the other stuff by conducting a fairly detailed (but not meticulous) search. It's very easy for me to beleive that Evans and Moffit found the tank site but never saw the building materials. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:51:34 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Null hypothesis? If you look at Henderson Island, which has a website even though it is uninhabited, you can find a report of unidentified, human, probably European skeletons that were later lost. No airplane aluminum or Plexiglas were found. An amazing amount of stuff can wash up on remote islands, running heavily to plastic toys, fish nets, and whiskey bottles, but you would not find it inland unless someone was there to pick it up and move it. I wonder if the Benedictine bottle is a red herring? I think that the timing of finds and photographs strongly suggests that AE and FN made it to Nikumaroro, but that the proof is not in. If only we could re-locate the bones.. Dan Postellon TIGHAR 2263 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:55:14 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: 20 gph vs 38 gph When AE reported on her approach to Hawaii she was burning 20 gph (vs the "normal" 38 gph) is there any pilot on the forum who would doubt she was referring to per-engine burn rates? Even though I'm a low-time pilot, I can not envision a scenario where a pilot could half the cruise fuel-consumption-rate and still stay airborne for very long. A Cessna 172, which in no way even approximates a Lockheed 10E, has a normal cruise of about 110 knots at 2,400 rpm burning about 8 gph at 1,000 feet. (These numbers are approximate, as I don't have the POH handy). By halving the fuel consumption to 4 gph (1,200 rpm?) you might get down to 55 knots -- and be nibbling at the edges of a stall -- but you won't stay at 1,000 feet, you're coming down whether you like it or not. To maintain 1,000 feet at ANY airspeed you would have to add power, thus increasing considerably your fuel consumption. The only way this airplane will burn 4 gph and not descend is during a high speed taxi. As an experiment the forum pilots should take up their favorite airplane next weekend and run the following experiment: Pick any weight and altitude you desire, set the aircraft at trimmed cruise, record your fuel consumption rate, airspeed (IAS or TAS, whatever), and altitude. Now, reduce the fuel consumption by 48 percent and make no (none, zero, zilch, nada, tepotah!) other changes and maintain this reduced-fuel-consumption status for five minutes. Record what happens and report the results to the forum on Monday -- assuming you started with enough sufficient altitude. We can play with charts, graphs, theories etc. all day, but let's apply some basic real-world practices here. You don't need a Lockheed 10E to estimate "beyond a reasonable doubt" what would happen if you reduced its cruise fuel-consumption-rate by 48 percent. It is my belief that ANY aircraft in trimmed and stable flight will descend if its fuel consumption rate is reduced by 48 percent and no other changes are made. Can anyone disprove my belief? LTM, who ain't being a turtle today! Dennis O. McGee #1049 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:10:31 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: AE movie update According to today's Detroit News, Julianne Moore has beaten out Cate Blanchett to play the lead in I Was Amelia Earhart. The other news is that Mel Gibson is on the short list (no pun intended) to play Fred. Considering for a moment the sheer number of bad movies that have been made of good books, d'ya think there's a ghost of a chance of the reverse being true in this case? (I aint holding my breath) LTM, Dave, 2288 ************************************************************************** From Ric Saints preserve us! This is looking ominous. Fred Noonan stood 6 feet and a quarter inch. Mel Gibson is - what? - maybe 4 feet? On the other hand, Mel played William Wallace in "Braveheart" and Will was supposedly close to 7 feet tall. To answer your question, no. It may be possible to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but about all you can make from horse manure is fertilizer. The only up side to a major, big budget, theatrical release motion picture based on "I Was Amelia Earhart" is that it will popularize the notion that the flight made it to an island and that AE and FN survived for a time. First there was "Flight for Freedom" which was a myth about AE being on a spy mission. Then there was the Diane Keaton made for TV movie which was a myth that had her run out of gas at sea. Then there was the Statrek Voyager episode that was a myth about her being abducted by aliens. Now we'll have a myth about her landing on an island. It was probably inevitable. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:16:46 EDT From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: Sextant vs. Octant Uh Oh!!! Refresh my memory. I just happened to see the Long book at the library and a picture of Manning using an octant. Did Gallagher know the difference between an octant and a sextant or was there a general use of a term? Should we be chasing an Octant number instead of a sextant number? Or have we already covered this and I'm off topic Clyde Miller ************************************************************************* From Ric You're not off topic. You're behind topic. Noonan used a bubble octant but carried a conventional marine sextant as a "preventer." Gallagher said the box had once contsained an "old fashioned" nautical sextant. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:22:16 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Sea bottom search Ric asked: << If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?>> In answer to your question - not a leg to stand on... ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:06:52 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Fuel Management >From Ric > >Nobody is talking about groundspeed. TAS (true airspeed) is IAS (indicated >airspeed) corrected for pressure and temperature. The reason it gets "corrected" is to establish the basis for the magnitude and vector of the aircraft which when vector summed with winds will yield ground speed and direction. Greg *************************************************************************** From Ric For Johnson to construct tables that would yield a continuous indicated airspeed of 150 mph as the airplane climbed would require increases, not decreases, in power and fuel consumption. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:20:52 EDT From: Harry Poole Subject: Re: radio tube question I have worked with many old radio tubes of that period. I would say that a 7/8 inch diameter base was just about right for many of those tubes. Many were larger. What type of material did the part appear to be made from? LTM Harry #2300 ************************************************************************* From Ric The base of the object seems to be made of a lightweight non-ferrous metal. The thing is far too complex to try to describe here but, for that very reason, I suspect that once we get some good photos of it up for everyone to see, someone will know immediately what it is. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:21:45 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman Thanks, Vern. Very interesting. Your post got me started wondering why Gallagher would have been so dedicated to operating his wireless if all he could do was listen, but then it occurred to me - duh - that there were things like the Battle of Britain going on. LTM (who would have been listening, too) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:22:57 EDT From: Christine J. Subject: Radio Tube Question I know nothing about radios, but I decided to take a look at an old set of 1951's British encyclopedia's that to my husbands chagrin I refuse to throw out, now perhaps they are going to come in handy once again. I looked up to see if I could find out what an "ultimate" was but no luck, but I did read a bit that likens the "thermionic valve"...... I imagine here in Canada and the States that will be......... "thermionic tube" as looking like an incandescent electric bulb. Also as a footnote the British Post Office from 1870 and still when these books were printed in 1951, controlled all the wireless (radio), telegraph, and telephone systems. So I would presume that is where if indeed Gallagher held any form of radio license, a copy would be held in their archives. Regards Christine J ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:23:59 EDT From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman Just for fun, I note that I have a vibrator for shavers made by ATR in St. Paul. 12VDC in, 115 VAC-60Hz out at 15 watts and intended to run off the lighter outlet in cars. It is about 2.75" x 2.75" x 4.0" and I got it used back in the middle 70's. jerry ellis #2113 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:25:23 EDT From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman > From Tom King > > For William Webster-Garman: Did my post of yesterday, with the complete list > of parts supplied to Gallagher in replacement for those he cannibalized, not > come through? Here it is again... Yes, the complete list did come through, and the contents seem to indicate that if those parts were associated with Gallagher's Radiola 80, he was operating it on battery power. william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:27:52 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Asbestos/Loran Station Fair enough. Incidentally, in comparing the Hoodless report and Gallagher's 17th October telegram, I see that Hoodless mentions two bones Gallagher doesn't -- a rib and the right scaphoid bone. I wonder if these were found during the "thorough search," or whether G. just neglected to mention them. LTM Tom ************************************************************************** From Ric Irish doesn't strike me as a neglectful sort of chap. What do a scaphoid bone be? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:31:09 EDT From: Ross Schlichting Subject: Re: radio tube question Good point Dave. Actually, 7/8" is right in the ballpark for a power or rectifier tube. LTM Ross Schlichting ************************************************************************* From Ric Hmmmm. For what it's worth, this thing didn't screw in. It has two wee pins on either side of the base so it looks like a push-and-turn sort of installation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:33:12 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: C119G figures >From Oscar Boswell > >Would you be kind enough to give us the altitude, fuel consumption and >airspeed figures (indicated and true) for the C119G maximum endurance and >LRC to which you refer? Thanks. Happy to oblige. Actually, I should have posted the numbers in the original posting. The C-119G is the oldest comparable airplane for which I have Long Range Cruise AND Maximum Endurance numbers. I have a C-47 manual, but it omits the Max Endurance data. In order to approximate the applicability of Johnson's L-10 numbers, I chose an LRC weight a pinch in the high side of mid-point and factored a 30 knot headwind(adds 4 knots and 80 lbs/hr). I did this because the C-119 was a whole lot more stable with a little extra speed. The maximum endurance (Maximum Lift/Drag) number is for a weight near the end of the flight. The numbers are for a C-119G, normal configuration, 5,000 density altitude. For reference: Operating Empty Weight 45,000 Wing Fuel (lbs) 15,540 Aux Fuel (lbs) 12,144 Max Takeoff Gross Weight 72,500 (subject to mission requirements) (VIEW WITH NON-PROPORTIONAL FONT FOR COLUMNS) LRC L/D MAX Gross Weight (lbs) 65,000 48,000 Total Fuel Flow (lb/hr) 1,180 650 True Air Speed (knots) 161 108 Skeet ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:37:46 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Null hypothesis? This null hypothesis thing is getting a bit tangled and may lead to unnecessary confusion, so let me try to clarify. The term "null hypothesis" has nothing to do with proving that something did not happen. The term is from mathematical statistics and is used to denote a particular statistical hypothesis, typically specifying the population from which a random sample is assumed to have been drawn, and which is to be NULLified, i.e. rejected, if the evidence from the random sample is unfavorable to the hypothesis. As a simple example, consider a factory making a batch of widgets which are required to meet certain specifications. The factory takes a random sample to find out if the batch is acceptable. The NULL hypothesis is that the widgets meet specifications. The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that the widgets do not meet specifications. The widgets in the sample are tested in accordance with a predefined statistical procedure, and if fewer than a specified number of widgets are defective, then the null hypothesis is accepted. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis, i.e. that the widgets do not meet specifications, is accepted. Semantic confusion about the word NULL can be avoided by thinking about this in terms of THE HYPOTHESIS TO BE TESTED and the ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS. In the TIGHAR context, the hypothesis to be tested (the TIGHAR hypothesis) is that Earhart landed on Gardner Island. The alternative hypothesis is that she didn't. Even though the TIGHAR methodology is not statistical, the hypothesis terms can be used in an evidentiary context just as well. Either Earhart got to Gardner or she didn't. When Randy says he has been unable to prove the NULL hypothesis, I understand him to mean he has been unable to prove the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis, i.e. he has been unable to find evidence that would enable him to reject (NULLify) the TIGHAR hypothesis. Hope this helps. LTM (who hates it when explanations nullify clarity) Bob Brandenburg, #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric See? If we bash about long enough, sooner or later somebody who actually KNOWS steps in and straightens us out. Thanks Bob. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:42:29 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: somewhere in between > Tom King > ... does anybody want to speculate about factors, if any, that might > have caused them to be substantially off course to the south > without knowing it? I'm still not comfortable with a magnetic variation of 9° 29' E for Howland Island in 1937, as reported to Alan Caldwell by Larry Newitt of the Canadian government. Where did they get that -- from an old chart, a measurement made in the central Pacific, or did they calculate it using today's standards? If the magnetic variation was incorrect for that area it will not have been as much of a problem for shipping as it would have been for aircraft, and there wasn't a whole lot of air traffic in that area back then. A shipboard navigator can take a lot more fixes per mile than an airborne navigator, so an error in course because of a miscalculated variation can be corrected more often and is less likely to be reported as a problem. Especially if it is a slight error. It's probably been reported here already but when was Noonan likely to have taken his last fix before expected landfall? I realize that my calculation of 14°35'E for variation is probably incorrect but this would have given them a course 5 degrees south what their course should have been, and if the variation was anywhere between 9° 29'E and 14°35'E they still would've been south. I don't have the knowledge or resources to do it but I think we should verify 9° 29'E using a current . Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric Frank has a point. If it turned out that the 1937 map was wrong that would be very interesting. Anybody got a geomagnetic model of the geomagnetic variation in 1937 handy? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:46:40 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: somewhere in between I've stated a number of times on the forum that I thought Noonan would advance the LOP so that it would intersect the entire Phoenix Island Group, which would maximize his chances of sighting any of the islands, accountinf for various navigational errors. With winds coming from the east, they would normally be set (if not corrected) to the west, and hence see McKean and Gardner first. ************************************************************************** From Ric It would take a pretty wiggly LOP to intersect the entire Phoenix Group. He's still gotta shoot for one or two islands at best. Just doesn't make any sense to me (but you knew that). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:48:17 EDT From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: 20 gph vs 38 gph >From Dennis McGee > >When AE reported on her approach to Hawaii she was burning 20 gph >(vs the "normal" 38 gph) is there any pilot on the forum who would doubt she >was referring to per-engine burn rates? To Dennis and the rest of the Forum: Remember that the 38 gallons per hour number was most probably for a mid-point gross weight. Frankly, we don't know what the fuel flow was in normal LRC near the end of the flight. On the other hand, the 20 gph number WAS reported when the gross weight was substantially reduced. For the SAME gross weight, here are more C-119 numbers. LRC L/D MAX Gross Weight (lbs) 65,000 65,000 Total Fuel Flow (lb/hr) 1,180 930 True Air Speed (knots) 161 125 Only a 21 percent reduction for Max L/D here. For airplanes where fuel comprises a large portion of the total weight of the aircraft (fuel was almost 53 percent of the total weight of Earhart's L-10E), performance varies widely with burn off. Skeet ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:56:52 EDT From: Jim Myers Subject: Dennis McGee's Comment I've been following this thread for some time and I agree with Dennis. I'm still working on this flying business but his pragmatic answer makes sense. The POH in the C-172 fuel consumption figures are based on altitude, temperature and % power (RPM setting in this case). In my experience, depending on year and engine, they will do about 110kts (indicated) with about 2300-2400 RPM at lower altitudes...below 3000'. POH says fuel consumption is about 6-6.5 gph to 7-7.5 gph depending on conditions. But the gph numbers are for a "new" engine. Taking into account a "used" engine and a "dirty" airplane, you better figure on at least 8 gph minimum under nearly all conditions for safe flight planning. You'll probably get a tiny bit better but no matter...its better to have gas in the tank than at the airport. If you pull back the power an additional 50% (from the assumed 65% -2300- 2400 rpm best cruise), you're at 1150-1200 rpm. The engine is probably not making more than 20% power at that rpm. That's just not enough to maintain altitude. You'll find yourself going in two directions....forward and DOWN! As a student you learn that steady state flying, not descending, climbing, or turning, the following forces are at equilibrium.....gravity = lift and thrust = drag. Its physics....gravity and drag in this case overcoming lift and thrust to drag you down. The best analogy in pulling the power back to 1200 rpm is a simulated serious partial engine failure...right away you establish your best glide, about 75-85kts, trading height for distance. If you are at 1000 feet, best start your precautionary/emergency landing check list right away...no forget that ...no time.... just look for a parking spot ....preferably something flat, no holes, trees, poles, cows, etc.. ..straight ahead, 1800' long and into the wind would be so sweet. No doubt about it you are going DOWN and you're going to need everything going for you when you start at 1000'. As you flair out just above that "primo" landing site AND now realize its been carpet bombed, full of fence posts, wire, junk cars and cow pies don't forget to do the following.. dump in the rest of the flaps (if you haven't already), push the nose over (keep the airspeed nailed at 55kts for soft/short field approach), pull the mixture off, shut off the fuel, throttle off, kill the ignition,! turn off the master and open the doors and upon touch down keeping the nose wheel off the ground as long as possible. How much power can you take off? Not a whole lot in my experience....2000 rpm will get a nice SLOW flight. Maybe 85-90 kts, a bit nose high. but OK. Boring....you're going nowhere ...fast. Anything less than 2000 and you are setup for partial power cruise descent. You can hold altitude with 10* flaps, 1700-2000 rpm and 75-80 kts. Any less rpm and you have a slow descent. Lets look at this from a different perspective....what would you really be saving if you cut the fuel consumption by 50%...?? I'll put the laws of physics on hold for this example and keep the math easy.... using C-172 as an example, you reduced from best cruise power (assumed 60%) to 30% and you maintain level flight. Your fuel consumption goes from 8 gph to 4gph and your indicated airspeed goes from 110 to 55kts. (Everything is cut in half, right??) What changes....?? The time it take you to get there goes up by a factor of 2. If your trip was 110 nm at 110 kts airspeed it would take, assuming no winds, 1 hour and you use 8 gallons of gas. If you slow to 55kts it will take 2 hours for the same trip 110/55= 2 X 4 gph = 8 gallons used for 110 nm. Where's the savings??? I've run the engine and the pilot an extra hour and used the same amount of gas anyway. Flying at just above stall speed for two hours would not be my idea of a fun trip. Just my thoughts.... Regards, Jim Myers ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:59:23 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Electra specs >From Ric > > No, not "full throttle." 24 inches of manifold pressure and 1600 RPM. I'm > not sure what "full throttle" would yield for that airplane at 10,000 feet > but it would be more than that. Sorry, I was quoting from TIGHAR website.. "AFTER NINE HOURS FLY AT SIXTEEN HUNDRED RPM TWENTY FOUR INCHES OR "FULL THROTTLE" TEN THOUSAND FEET AT ZERO SEVEN TWO AT THIRTY EIGHT GALLONS PER HOUR STOP" RossD ************************************************************************** From Ric Ooops! You're right. I'm wrong. My turn to be sorry. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:08:01 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: radio tube question 7/8" across at the base was NOT unusual for a radio valve in those days. I grew up using the things. It wasn't until the advent of valves like the "6N6" that we got used to the smaller valves. I am on the trail of a Radiola 80 at the moment, but the person concerned is not sure if it has been "reduced to components". For most of what you always wanted to know about radio valves (Tubes) check: http://w1.844.telia.com/~u84405432/index.htm and particularly: http://w1.844.telia.com/~u84405433/ilhiphi.htm I did my early training on Valve radios, and repaired and built a number of short wave and broadcast band sets in my early teens. When I got out of the RAAF in 1975 I was still repairing Valve radios, and almost all of the Televisions around were Valve sets. Another point. The radio parts on Niku may ba a lot newer than you think. Valve radios were in use well into the 1960's. Niku was settled still at that time. rd ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:11:41 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: radio tube question Oops.. I forgot. The pages referred to in my last posting show that by 1925, valves were being produced that only needed a little over one and a half volts dc at 0.15amp for "heater" and from 2 to 10 volts for the "plate". Thus reducing the battery drain considerably. Whoever has the schematic for the Radiola might find the valve types in those pages and work out an E=IR for them. (or P=EI or however you want to transpose it). rd ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:13:44 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Fuel consumption Thanks for yours precisions. Finch may have took benefit from the higher reliability that procure higher octane fuel. But, in another way, it is quite difficult to estimate what would be the difference in terms of fuel consumption between the two flights ( AE's and Finch's ). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:17:29 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman The AC power for the Radiola was PROBABLY 240VAC not 110VAC. Much of the equipment was sourced in Australia and New Zealand, where that is the AC voltage. rd ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:20:28 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: AE movie update >From Ric >>Saints preserve us! This is looking ominous. Fred Noonan stood 6 feet and a quarter inch. Mel Gibson is - what? - maybe 4 feet? On the other hand, Mel played William Wallace in "Braveheart" and Will was supposedly close to 7 feet tall.<< Poor Old Mel G. Full Name: Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson Birthday: Jan. 3, 1956 Birthplace: Peekskill, NY Height: 5' 10" Weight: About 150 Lb. Looks like he WAS maybe 4' 22". lol Of course if they decide to do some "on location" shoots, there may be the chance of an extended visit to Niku.. Perhaps an expedition can be funded in exchange for genuine footage.. (Please Don't take me seriously this time.. I really shouldn't have to explain my jokes....) rd ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:56:12 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: evidence For William Webster-Garman We have no idea how deep into her reserve she was. We only know that she reported that she was "low on gas" an hour before her last transmission. I think that we should take her at her word. At 19:13 being "low on gas" does not make me optimistic that she believed she had as much as 5 hours left at that point. With respect to "hard evidence that they were on Gardner", I submit that TIGHAR has no such hard evidence. "Anecdotes" of aircraft wreckage does not qualify as evidence in any reasonable forum. The qualify as hearsay. Actual Aircraft wreckage qualifies as evidence. Moreover, reports of skeletons are not hard evidence that Earhart and Noonan were there. Those reports are also hearsay and the skeletons themselves (until they are found) are hard evidence merely that two humans (perhaps of European extraction) died there. They could have been two of the unfortunates from the old shipwreck or they could have been two other castaways (or they could have been Earhart & Noonan). In any event, this is hard evidence that two people died there, nothing more. The "fact" that Gerald Gallagher believed that Earhart might have been on Gardner is not quite the case. He wondered whether the remains might belong to Earhart and Noonan; there is no evidence of which I am aware that he actually believed that the remains belonged to E&N. This too, fails the test of hard evidence. Think of it this way: If someone unearthed (and subsequently lost) the bones of two other unidentified "Europeans" on McKean, such bones would have the same weight (as evidence) as those found on Gardner. "Evidence" such as this appears to me to be as speculative and as fanciful as any other so-called evidence presented by other groups. I would classify TIGHAR's "evidence" as falling into the realm of interesting clues that may lead one to conclude that E&N possibly made it to Gardner. It is equally possible that they didn't. David Evans Katz ************************************************************************* From Ric I suspect that most of the experienced pilots on the forum would agree that if you're 19 hours out and over the middle of the Pacific Ocean in a 150 mph airplane and you can't find your destination and you only have 5 hours of gas left you are most definitely "low on gas." Contemporaneous written accounts by a first-hand source are by no stretch of the imagination "hearsay." We also have a problem in semantics. William says we have "hard evidence" but David objects and says that all we have are "interesting clues." Let's see if we can sort this out. Webster's New World Dictionary defines "evidence" as: 1. the condition of being evident 2. something that makes another thing evident; indication; sign 3. something that tends to prove; ground for belief "Clue" is defined as: "something that leads out of a maze, perplexity, etc. or helps to solve a problem." I would submit that for all practical purposes the terms are interchangable. The term "hard evidence" is not defined but, I would suggest, is usually taken to mean evidence of a physical nature (as in documents, photographs, and artifacts) which is regarded as credible. David seems to be confusing "evidence" with "proof." TIGHAR certainly does have hard evidence (ground for belief) that the Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Nikumaroro. We do not yet have proof that that happened. By contrast, I am aware of no similar body of hard evidence to support a alternative hypothesis. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:58:45 EDT From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Null Hypothesis For Dennis McGee "Rejecting the Null Hypothesis" is a process used in statistical analysis which is used to test the validity of a given statistical hypothesis. One begins by formulating the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, where the null hypothesis is the hypothesized parameter value compared with a sample result, and the alternative hypothesis is "not the null hypothesis". It (the null hypothesis) is rejected only if the sample result is unlikely to have occurred given the correctness of the alternative hypothesis. That is, the alternative hypothesis is accepted only if the null hypothesis is rejected. To take a classic example from statistics, an auditor wishes to test the assumption that the mean value of a group of values is $X. He takes a statistically valid sample of values and computes their mean value. He rejects value $X (the null hypothesis) only if value $X is contradicted by the sample mean. The concept of "rejecting the null hypothesis" has no meaningful application to the process of determining where AE & FN may have concluded their ill-fated flight. There are no sample arithmetic values from which one can draw a statistically valid sample in order to create an alternative hypothesis (the opposite of a null hypothesis). David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:01:23 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Gallagher, Radio Repairman Jerry Ellis wrote: <> In 1981 my business partner toured ATR owned by Mr. Charlie Nutter. At the time he toured it, the facilities looked like something out of the 1940s. Charlie has been around for years doing transistorized versions of the same thing, a smart guy. The technology didn't really go away it just doesn't require the vibrators anymore. Now it is all done with transistor switches. The concept of using magnetics to transform impedances in power conversion works just as well going down in voltage as going up, as evidenced by the millions of computer power supplies in use every day. Greg ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:10:47 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Fuel Management >From Ric > >For Johnson to construct tables that would yield a continuous indicated >airspeed of 150 mph as the airplane climbed would require increases, not >decreases, in power and fuel consumption. OK, no arguement over this. If I understand your point then, the desire was to hold 150 mph groundspeed (equiv 0 wind) and do so by modifying the IAS. A bit of an esoteric control loop function. IAS is then the dependent variable. Greg *************************************************************************** From Ric I suppose you could describe true airspeed as groundspeed in zero wind, but that's pretty much irrelevant. The idea is to develop a power management profile that will move the machine through the air at the most efficent speed (150 mph in this case) most economically. The indicating airspeed will modify itself as the airplane climbs into thinner air and colder temperatures. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:15:11 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Asbestos/Loran Station The scaphoid do be a part of the foot, so maybe it walked... ************************************************************************** From Ric Somebody just told me that there is a scaphoid bone in da hand too (at the base of the index finger near the thumb). Is that right? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:19:34 EDT From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Sea bottom search > I was reading the story of the discovery of RMS Titanic by Dr Ballard and > COMEX team ( wich is actually a french team ) in 1985-86. I was surprised by > the difficulties they encountered. They knew quite precisely the position of > the shipwreck ( it was noted in the CQD telegrams sent by the ship ). They had a precise, but incorrect, location. She was actually found about 22 km. east and 4 km. south of her reported position. The lifeboats were found about 8 km south west of the sinking position. In the book you mention, look for the diagram "Argo Search - Phase II" in chapter 6 "Discovery." The relevancy to AE, in my opinion, is that the Titanic's position was far better known than the Electra's. Even if we assume she ditched, the range of possible locations is huge. > Furthermore, the target was big ( almost 46.000 tons of steel ). In spite of > these points they took two expeditions of 2 or 3 weeks each ! Before them, > lots of adventurers and scientists try to locate the boat with heavy and very > sophisticated sonars... No hits... Quite. Catch the special on the recover of the Friendship 7. They had an EXACT position where that sank. They did find it fairly promptly, but again consider the comparision. > That is to say that it must be really a challenge to found a little plane > such as Earhart's in deep waters, especially when you don't know where to > search for it ! I agree. I'm amazed they're trying, actually. > For these reasons the credibility of such a search, like the one which > was conducted last fall, is not very high. Meanwhile, they said that they > found something down a slope... > > For me, the main purpose of such an expedition is mostly " advertising". Perhaps. However, I think they really believe. From their point of view, ours that the plane made it to landfall seems pretty, uh, amazing as well. You've no doubt heard the rumors that TIGHAR is just an excuse to let Ric and company wander around "exotic" places on someone elses dime. The fact that some of these "exotic" places are quick and/or slow death doesn't seem to enter their minds. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:22:50 EDT From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Sea bottom search >If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Do I get a gold star for the day? Tom #2179 ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, but you still can't go the boy's room. You just went. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:38:23 EDT From: Michael Lowrey Subject: Re: Null hypothesis? There is an important methodological mistake in Bob Brandenburg's widget example. In statistical hypothesis testing, only by being able to reject the null and accept the alternative hypothesis are you making a powerful statement. How you define the null and alternative is critical. Bob's example was: > As a simple example, consider a factory making a batch of widgets which are > required to meet certain specifications. The factory takes a random sample to > find out if the batch is acceptable. The NULL hypothesis is that the widgets > meet specifications. The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that the widgets do not > meet specifications. The widgets in the sample are tested in accordance with a > predefined statistical procedure, and if fewer than a specified number of > widgets are defective, then the null hypothesis is accepted. Otherwise, the null > hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis, i.e. that the widgets > do not meet specifications, is accepted. In other words, we are to assume the widgets are good to go (the null hypothesis) unless we have strong proof that they aren't (the alternative hypothesis). ("Strong proof" in statistics typically means 95 percent confident.) In this approach, you'd use the widgets unless you were at least 95 percent confident that they were defective. However, just because you can't reject the null/accept the alternative doesn't mean the null is true. That is a proposition that you haven't tested. In this case just because you aren't 95 percent confident the parts are bad doesn't mean the parts are within specifications. A far better approach is to assume (null hypothesis) the widgets are defective with an alternative that they aren't defective/are within specifications. You would reject the null only if you were at least 95 percent confident that the widgets weren't defective. Michael Lowrey ************************************************************************** From Ric Which reminds me of another concept I've often thought about with relation to this investigation - the concept of probability. What are "the chances" that a given island that "happens" to be on the LOP described by Earhart will "happen", three years later, to yield the bones of a castaway which "happen" to be most likley those of a woman of Earhart's stature and ethnic background and that a search of the same island will "happen" to produce the remains of a shoe which appears to match Earhart's and aircraft-related artifacts whihc "happen' to be consistewnt with the Lockheed Modle 10....etc, etc. In other words, is there a mathematical way to quantify this heap of coincidence? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:42:48 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: radio tube question In Asia there are lots of household light bulbs and sockets that do not screw in place. They use push and turn pins. The base dia is 7/8" across. I can send you one if you like. They differ from push/twist auto lamps which use two contacts and must be oriented, one pin is higher. On these the pins are directly opposite each other and can be installed either way. Goodluck Bob Lee ************************************************************************** From Ric This sounds like a mystery. We need to get some photos up on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:45:46 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Scaphoid bone > Irish doesn't strike me as a neglectful sort of chap. What do a scaphoid > bone be? From rather painful experience I can tell you a scaphoid bone be in the collection of bones in the wrist area.... rd ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:46:34 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: C119G figures Which said figures coincide nicely with my post on the Gazelle's max endurance figures. The point being that no matter what aeroplane or weight there is a point where you can cut the fuel consumption "drastically" if you need to eke out some more distance / air time. rd ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:47:51 EDT From: Sheila Emanuel Subject: Re: Help in LA > From Don Jordan > > I am researching the Noonan/Pallette connection and the > Earhart/Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel connection, but have stalled for lack > of a contact in the Los Angeles area. > > I could sure use some help from a local in the area! If anybody > wants to help, they can contact me through my Web site or by E-mail. > The Web address is http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/ I live in the Hollywood area -- not far from the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, actually. Maybe I could help. Email me if you haven't found anybody yet and we can discuss what kind of assistance you need. Sheila Emanuel ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:50:42 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Evidence The rule of thumb is that when aircraft are lost, they usually are found later at a location where they shouldn't have been. In many cases that is why they were lost in the first place : they hit high ground, even a mountain, or ran out of gas. That's why I wish the Timmer guys good luck... Wherever they are looking, I'm sure they're looking at the wrong place. Titanic was different in that here at least there was a known position. There is no watertight proof of AE landing at Gardner but it sounds credible (it's way off Howland) and the Phoenix group of islands would have been a logical alternate should they have failed to find Howland. I feel the artifacts found by successive Tighar expeditions are sufficient indications to back the theory. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:51:40 EDT From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: radio tube question This is interesting ! When I was a kid my father owned one of those huge wooden radio sets full of tubes inside. I remember it was an HMV, which was rather popular in the Thirties, at least in Europe.. I don't know much about tubes but I do remember the ones in the HMV set had different sizes and shapes. Some were silver, some were glass. I'm looking forward to the picture on the site. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:54:26 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: somewhere in between I obtained a geomagnetic map appropriate for 1937. Variations occur very slowly, due to changes in the flow field in the Earth's magnetic core. Geomagnetic maps are published once a decade, with the change in variation over the past 10 years (it's kinda hard to predict the variations in the future). By comparing the variations in 1930 and 1940, one can interpolate the variations for 1937. Alternatively, some academic universities publish the magnetic variations on a yearly basis, based upon updated measurements. There is no practical way that the variation around Howland changed by 5 degrees in a 10 year period: the most it changes around the equator area is about 1 degree every 10 years. My data were obtained from the Carnegie Institute of Magnetism, located here in DC, and is considered the best source of magnetic data in the US, if not the world. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:56:04 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: somewhere in between What I intended to state was that Noonan was choose to advance the LOP so that it would intersect the heart or geographic center of the Phoenix Group: have 1/2 of the islands on one side and the other half on the other side to maximize his chances of sighting the islands. No need to "wiggle" the LOP at all. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:58:30 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Null hypothesis Thanks Bob for the excellent explanation -- even I understood it. Congrats on your teaching abilities. I have null more to say on this topic. LTM, who's resting now Dennis O. McGee #0149 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:10:21 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: scaphoid bone The scaphoid is also called the navicular. Both words mean boat-shaped. This refers either to a bone in the wrist or the ankle. Both are little lumpy things that a non-expert might identify as a bone, but not have any idea where it came from. I could easily see Gallagher adding it to the bones he found, thinking that it was a fragment of some other bone. Women with osteoporosis often break the navicular in their wrist if they fall, and stick out their hand to catch themselves. LTM (whose naviculars were intact) Dan Postellon M.D. TIGHAR2263 ************************************************************************** From Ric Oh okay ... the navicular bone. Gotcha. All too well known to any horseman. Could Gallagher have identified one if he saw one? Given that his dad was a physician and Irish himself had had a year of medical school at St. Bart's in London, and given the identifications he did describe - I would suspect that the guy knew his bones. The fact that he didn't mention the rib or the scaphoid in his original notification may, as Tom King suspected, be evidence (a clue, ok?) that a subsequent search was conducted. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:18:09 EDT From: Christine J Subject: Saints Preserve Ric I can't resist the movie thing again...........now what Ross D said you may just get some publicity if a movie does come to pass!!!!!??? No matter how stunned, the source. Look at the Titanic, the character that Leonardo di Caprio played in the last epic, someone who perished on that ship, had the same name, as his character, his grave in the cemetery he is buried in Halifax, NS for a long time after the movie, was a shrine,weeping young women etc. great what the general population will discover, and do. Sorry to be off topic. (No Joke Intended) Regards Christine J ************************************************************************ From Ric So you're saying that we should be prepared for cruise ship visits to Niku. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:22:13 EDT From: Tom King Subject: scaphoid Actually, yes, I believe there's a scaphoid bone in the hand, too, but Hoodless specifies that the one he looked at was from a foot. ************************************************************************** From Ric Ahh. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:29:49 EDT From: Greg Subject: Re: Fuel Management >I suppose you could describe true airspeed as groundspeed in zero wind, but >that's pretty much irrelevant. The idea is to develop a power management >profile that will move the machine through the air at the most efficent speed >(150 mph in this case) most economically. The indicating airspeed will modify >itself as the airplane climbs into thinner air and colder temperatures. I understand your point and I have no quarrel with what you are saying. Now the next question, is there any math behind the idea? I mean it sounds like an interesting strategy but where is the proof that it is a superior solution to the fuel management issue? Has the approach withstood the test of time? Does anybody do anything like this today? It sounds to me like it is more of an experiment than a rigorous approach. If it truly saves fuel then I would expect it to be used. Greg ************************************************************************** From Ric I trust that our Ancient Eagles on the Forum will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the kind of power management profile that Johnson developed for AE is sort of a Sesame Street version of the long range cruise tables that can be found in operating manual of any relatively sophisticated aircraft. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:33:29 EDT From: Christine J Subject: Luke Field Inventory Upon reading this inventory I realize that the plane was returned for repairs, but it also doesn't discredit the fact that the inventory was put back on the plane for the next flight. On sheet three it reads item # 66 1 waterproof bag containing: 2 flying suits, 1 raincoat, 1 pair gloves, and 1 pair shoes. Could this not be a clue as to discrepancies of placement of shoes, or finding a shoe not necessarily where a body was believed to have lain? Regards Christine J *************************************************************************** From Ric I beg to differ. The Luke Field Inventory is useful only as a list of some of what was on the airplane for the first attempt to fly to Holwand Island. We also have some information about what AE probably had with her as clothing for that flight from interviews she gave. We have no solid information about what she had with her on the second world flight attempt other than what we can see in the many photos taken of her during the trip. Those photos show that she had at least two pair of shoes with her - a pair of blucher oxfords she flew in and a pair of two-toned shoes she seems to have worn for sight-seeing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:44:06 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: 20 gph vs 38 gph We actually know(or can calculate) quite a bit about the Electra's weight and performance at the time. The 38 gph figure was for an initial gross weight of about 10,000 pounds under Johnson's figures(14,000 takeoff reduced by 9 hours consumption of 462 gallons, or about 4,000).That is only about 500 pounds below the normal maximum gross weight of the airplane. At the time of the "20 gph" log entry, gross weight would have been about 9,000 pounds.(Assuming consumption after the first 9 hours of 40 gph = 240 pounds per hour = 1200 to 1400 pounds reduction, but adding 282 pounds for the additional 47 gallons of fuel carried over Johnson's 900 gallon allowance.) Look also at Johnson's fuel consumption figures: 60, 51, 43 and ultimately 38 gph. Using a specific fuel consumption figure of 0.48 pounds per horsepower per hour, we get total horsepower (both engines combined) of roughly 750, 650, 537 and 475 for the four settings.These are not mysterious figures - they correspond roughly to 70, 60, 50 and 45 % of maximum horsepower(and they correspond even more closely if one uses a specific fuel consumption between 0.45 and 0.48). Forty-five per cent was for many years accepted as the "normal" LRC setting in many airplanes. Normal LRC is not the most efficient speed, which is a unique angle of attack called "L over D speed." ( V L/D - the "L/D" should be in subscript.) Peter Garrison goes into V L/D in detail in Chapter 6 of his book "Long-Distance Flying." If I understand correctly, V L/D is a unique INDICATED airspeed, which remains constant at all altitudes (assuming - though Garrison doesn't say so explicity - that weight is constant). Fuel consumption increases with altitude in lockstep with the increase in TRUE airspeed as the constant indicated airspeed is flown at higher altitudes. Garrison says that in a normally clean lightplane(not so very different from the Electra in its range of airspeeds), V L/D is slightly above best rate of climb speed, and he gives figures for reductions in efficiency caused by flying above V L/D. Let's assume that the best rate of climb in the Electra was 90 indicated (a low estimate, I think) at 10,000 pounds.This is equivalent to a true airspeed (standard conditions) of about 107 at 10,000 feet. Let's postulate that V L/D gave a true airspeed of 110 mph at 10,000 pounds and 10,000 feet in the Electra, and work our calculations from there. Garrison says that a 40% increase in true airspeed over the true airspeed produced by flying at V L/D typically results in a 20% reduction in fuel efficiency. We know that 45% power (38 gph) gives 150 true(or thereabouts) at 10,000 feet and 10,000 pounds, which equals 4 miles per gallon(still air). That setting represents a bit less than a 40% increase in TAS (36.36%) and (presumably) a bit less than a 20% reduction in effiency. Be conservative and use the 20% figure. If 150 true is 80% as efficient as 110 true, and if 150 produces 4 mpg, 110 true produces 5 mpg (4 divided by 0.80 = 5). If 110 true yields 5 gph, fuel consumption is 22 gph, at a V L/D assumed to be about 92.5 mph indicated. If you assume V L/D of the Electra was 10 mph higher than that, yielding a true of 120, Johnson's 150 mph cruise is only 25 % higher than V L/D. Garrison says that a 20 % increase above V L/D results in an 8% reduction in efficiency, and a 30% increase results in a 15% reduction. Interpolating for a 25% increase, we can use 12 1/2%. We know that 150 mph true yields an efficiency of 4mpg (still air) and is 87.5% as efficient as 120. Therefore, a V L/D of about 102, yielding a true of 120 at 10,000 produces about 4.5 mpg(still air)( 4 divided by 0.875 = 4.5), at a fuel consumption of something over 26 gph(120 divided by 4.5 = 26.6666). Going one final step further, assume that V L/D produces 130 true at 10,000 (V L/D = 111/112 indicated). Johnson's 150 mph cruise is only 15% over V L/D. Garrison says 10% over V L/D produces a 3% decrease in efficiency, and 20% produces an 8% decrease. Interpolating for 15% gives about a 6% reduction in efficiency. If 150 produces 4 mpg, then 130 produces about 4.25 mpg ( 4 divided by 0.94 = 4.2253), and 4.25 gph at 130 equals a fuel consumption of about 30.5gph. All of the foregoing deals with speeds at about 10,000 pounds (slightly below normal gross weight). What can we say about the effect on TAS of further weight reductions caused by additional fuel being consumed? I believe there was a rule of thumb that flying an efficient high performance retractable single at heavy weight (25% over gross) produced about a 2 mph change per hundred pounds, with a smaller effect at weights below normal gross.(I can't give a source for this rule of thumb.) Assuming the Electra weighs about 3 times what the single does, we can guess that the change would be perhaps 1 mph per 300 pounds variation in weight. If the Electra were at 9000 when AE made the 20gph entry, we might expect its airspeed to be 3 mph higher at the same power setting than it would be at 10,000 pounds. This is not a big deal - and it's not a big deal even if our assumptions are off by a factor of 2 or 3. ************************************************************************* From Ric Okay, I'm out of my paygrade. I'd be happy to hear comments but I wonder if it's time that we started asking people who want to sling these numbers around to say a little bit about their education and experience in this field - not to pooh-pooh anybody's numbers but it is useful to know who's talking. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:47:18 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: 20 gph vs 38 gph I am not in much of a position to challenge Skeet's numbers regarding fuel consumption of C-119s or C-47s, or aviation in general, BUT . . . Developing hypotheses involves experimentation as much as it involves analysis and research. We have no Lockheed 10E to experiment with and the data we do have is limited. So, let's try something else. My proposal yesterday was to conduct a simple experiment. And I challenge all of the pilots on the forum to try it. For those who missed it, here it is again: "As an experiment the forum pilots should take up their favorite airplane next weekend and run the following experiment: Pick any weight and altitude you desire, set the aircraft at trimmed cruise, record your fuel consumption rate, airspeed (IAS or TAS, whatever), and altitude. Now, reduce the fuel consumption by 48 percent and make no (none, zero, zilch, nada, tepotah!) other changes and maintain this reduced-fuel-consumption status for five minutes. Record what happens and report the results to the forum on Monday." My belief is that all of the respondents will report essentially the same result. That being the case, it DOESN'T prove that AE's 10E would have those results, but it does add to the body of evidence that there is a strong probability the 10E would suffer the same results. I believe we are at times being "too scientific" and ignore the obvious to "prove" a point, when in fact there is not enough data to "prove" things one way or the other. In this instance it is my belief that: a) AE made an error -- or an incomplete statement -- in reporting her fuel consumption, or b) AE discovered a way to defeat the laws of gravity as they apply to aviation science. Personally, I like a) best. I gleefully await the results of the experiment by the valiant pilots of TIGHAR, and may gravity be forever suspended (no pun intended). P.S. TIGHAR is a non-profit organization so I suspect that any fuel, oil and rental charges (Oh, God! I hope not!) could be considered as a donation to TIGHAR to further its educational purposes. How sayeth thee on that issue, master Gillespie? LTM, who's running late today Dennis O. McGee #0149 ************************************************************************* From Ric I'm no tax attorney (thank God) but I seriously doubt that what you suggest would fly (pun intended) if examined by the IRS. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:43:12 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Null hypothesis? Sigh!!! The purpose of my posting was to provide a very simple explanation for the lay readers on the forum, within the context of Randy Jacobson's observations, and not to trigger a debate about lot acceptance sampling methodology. The point was - - - and is - - - that the concept of "null hypothesis" has nothing to do with proving that Earhart did not get to Gardner Island. For Ric: Classical probability methods could be used to quantify the heap of coincidence, if that we knew the probability of occurrence for each event. But finding those probabilities would be virtually impossible. For example (pause while I don my battle helmet and flak jacket), consider the probability of an island yielding the bones of a castaway which "happen" to be most likley those of a woman of Earhart's stature and ethnic background. This is a compound probability, being a function of (at least) the probability that such bones would be on a given island and, given that such bones are on an island, the probability that activity requisite for discovery of the bones would occur at the location of the bones. As another example, consider the discovery of the shoe remains. This is another compound probability case. First there is the question of the probability that such shoe fragments would be on a given island. Then there is the question of the probability that they would be found, As I recall, the remains were found by someone (you?) who stopped to rest by a tree and happened to notice a shoe fragment. At a minimum, we would need to know the probability of the discoverer stopping at that particular tree to rest and, while resting, looking at the particular spot where the fragment was. There is a branch of mathematics called "fuzzy logic" which might offer some leverage, but I think the chances of success would be dicey (pun intended) at best. Fuzzy logic attempts to provide a decision framework in cases where the inputs are imprecise - - - as is typically the case in ordinary human decisions. For example (here I go again), a driver approaching an intersection estimates the likelihood of getting through the intersection before the traffic signal turns red, and acts accordingly. The driver does not know: the exact distance remaining to go, or his/her exact speed, or exactly how much time remains before the signal changes, or the precise mass and acceleration/deceleration characteristics of his/her vehicle. The go/no-go decision is based on an intuitive application of fuzzy logic. It might be worth considering a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of using fuzzy logic to dig into the coincidence heap. I'm no an expert in the field, but I would be willing to give it a shot if there aren't any fuzzy logic experts on the forum willing to do so. LTM, who thinks fuzzy logic is an oxymoron. Bob #2286 ************************************************************************* From Ric Sounds like the overwhelming intuitive feel that many of us have that the hypothesis is correct might be an example of "fuzzy logic" at work, but I'm not sure we'd want to publicize it as such. Let's leave well enough alone. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:45:08 EDT From: Hugh Graham Subject: Re: 20 gph vs 38 gph > It is my belief that ANY > aircraft in trimmed and stable flight will descend if its fuel consumption > rate is reduced by 48 percent and no other changes are made. Can anyone > disprove my belief? > LTM, who ain't being a turtle today! > Dennis O. McGee #1049 -----Well, it all depends on the aircraft's "pounds per horsepower". The Lockheed L10E has a surprising low pounds per hp(dry weight) of only 5.8(7,000 pounds divided by 1,200hp), so that at the end of a flight(little fuel weight), it may well have been able to maintain altitude at 50% power, if not 50% fuel flow. Compare the L10E to a Cessna 172 which has "lbs per hp" of 10.3(1,800lbs div. by 175hp) which at full power isn't much different to the L10E at 50% power. It is interesting to note that the unarmed DH98 Mosquito in WW2 routinely flew to target on one of its two 1,900hp Merlins with 4,000 lbs. of bombs! Its dry "lbs per hp" was about 4.0. The most extreme example I know of is the single seat and no bomb bay version of the Mosquito called the Hornet. Its "lbs per hp" works out to 3.1(13,000lbs div by 4200hp). BTW, this Hornet in standard production form had a level flight top speed of 475mph. LTM, HAG 2201. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:47:32 EDT From: Frank Westlake Subject: Re: evidence > From David Evans Katz > > We have no idea how deep into her reserve she was. We only know that > she reported that she was "low on gas" an hour before her last > transmission. I think that we should take her at her word. At 19:13 > being "low on gas" does not make me optimistic that she believed she > had as much as 5 hours left at that point. I don't think we should take her at her word. Through years of experience (not flying) I've learned to not consider my reserve fuel while I still have my primary destination in mind, and in all communications I report my fuel status with respect to my primary supply. I don't start thinking about my reserve until I have to start thinking about an alternate destination. I do this because I don't want others who may try to make decisions for me to consider my reserve -- it's MY emergency supply, not theirs -- and because I don't want to inadvertently consider my reserve as something usable outside of an emergency. How about some of you experienced pilots -- would you report "low on gas" before you've touched your reserve? I would. I'm not suggesting that this is how Earhart did things, I am only suggesting that we can't assume she had started burning her reserve because of what she reported. > From Ric > > I suspect that most of the experienced pilots on the forum would agree > that if you're 19 hours out and over the middle of the Pacific Ocean > in a 150 mph airplane and you can't find your destination and you only > have 5 hours of gas left you are most definitely "low on gas." Oh, I should've read the whole message before I began replying. Since I went to the trouble of typing it (not an easy task for me) I might as well post it. Frank Westlake ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm glad you did. It's an interesting point. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:50:30 EDT From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Null hypothesis? To paraphrase the old bumper sticker, "Coincidence Happens" - I can confirm that through my years as an investigator. HOWEVER... Maybe this is a candidate for Chaos- or Game-Theory??? I'd bet there's a Tighar out there who knows! ltm jon 2266 *************************************************************************** From Ric Must be Hell to go through a career as a professional investigator with a name like "Watson." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:56:45 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Tax deductions Ric said: "I'm no tax attorney (thank God) but I seriously doubt that what you suggest would fly (pun intended) if examined by the IRS." *Wink!* *Wink!* Gotcha, big guy. I WILL NOT DO THIS -- *WINK!* -- TO TAKE A TAX DEDUCTION. (Just in case the IRS is listening in -- *wink*) LTM, who needs to see a doctor about her eye spasms Dennis O. McGee #0149 *************************************************************************** From Ric In all seriousness, however, members who participate in TIGHAR activities are often entitled to more tax deductions than they realize. Phone calls, travel expenses, meals, etc. are often legitimate deductions if you're performing research as a volunteer for a recognized nonprofit organization. What would make Dennis' original suggestion questionable is the casual you-can-try-this-at-home nature of the experiment. When in doubt, consult a tax professional. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:03:11 EDT From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Electricity OK, I'm confused (my subordinates attribute it to senility). It seems Gallagher was running his radios on batteries. Fair enough. It also seems like the mysterious socket you found is a bayonet lug light bulb. I know someone will correct me if I'm out of the box here, but I've never seen a vacuum tube with only two pins. I vote for light bulb. Now for my confusion. Where do we get electricity for lights? Was there some source for electricity on Niku during the later inhabitation? Was the LORAN station battery powered? Did the coasties have lights? (If they did I suspect the bulbs would have been American screw type). Was the village wired in later years? (I mean for electricity). Sorry if this is old ground. It may seem irrelevant to the AE/FN search, but I'm thinking in terms of artifact provenience. LTM (who's not senile) Kerry . _ . _ . _ . _ ************************************************************************* From Ric The Coast Guard had at least one big honking deisel generator. They had lights, power for the LORAN transmitter, and a big walk-in refrigerator. I don't know if the village had a generator in later years but I sort of doubt it. Fuel would be the big problem. Seems like their minimal electrical needs could best be served by batteries. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:19:01 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: scaphoid bone By my top-of-the-head accounting, we have the following things that Gallagher doesn't include in his report prior to Vaskess' direction to make a "thorough search," but that either he mentions or Steenson does subsequently: * Rib * Scaphoid bone of foot * Inverting eyepiece * Little corks on chains * Shoe of a male person Sure looks to me like they did SOME kind of search after being directed to, despite the crummy weather at the time. LTM Tom ************************************************************************** From Ric And by that logic (which I think is other than fuzzy) he did not conduct the Second Search alone. He said the inverting eyepiece was "thrown away by the finder" who, you can bet, was not himself. We may, in fact, have some evidence ( aka "a clue") as to how many people were involved in the Second Search. IF the "7" site is the bone discovery site and IF the tank was put there to provide water for the Second Searchers THEN the six or seven coconut shell halves found in the bottom of the tank may be an indication of the number of people present. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:28:23 EDT From: Birch Matthews Subject: Gallons per Hour Numerous messages have recently been posted on the Forum attempting to assess fuel consumption for the Earhart Lockheed 10E by comparing data available for C-119s, C-47s, contemporary light singles and so forth. Although interesting, such comparisons or analogies are indirect at best. Why not calculate fuel consumption and/or aerodynamic characteristics directly? Most texts on internal combustion engines and aerodynamics, regardless of vintage, illustrate how this is done. There is really nothing mysterious about the methodology. There is sufficient data to do this intelligently and accurately to a reasonable tolerance. I submit the accuracy of the final results will be better than analogies to dissimilar aircraft. As an aside, a few Forum contributors expressed concern about octane ratings of contemporary fuels versus that used by Amelia Earhart with respect to possibly experimentally assessing Amelia's fuel consumption. Octane numbers relate to the resistance of fuels to detonation, not the fuel chemical energy content. Therefore it is not relevant. Some worry about the gross weight at takeoff. We do not have the exact figure, but once again, there is enough information to make a reasonable estimate. Aircraft performance calculations can also be used to confirm a gross weight estimate. This is done by determining takeoff distance for a range of gross weight values. The turf field length at Lae was 3,000 feet of which Amelia reportedly used almost every foot. Hopefully the above comments are useful to the discussion. I offer them because from my perspective, engineering techniques should be part of the "scientific" approach Ric so often mentions. He also requested information on the background of persons commenting on this topic (and others?). A reasonable request. I am a retired aerospace engineer (29 years) with a degree in mechanical engineering. ************************************************************************* From Ric I can't fault Birch's suggestion. The one comment I can make is that Earhart's takeoff distance - according to Chater and confirmed by the film of the event - seems to have been in the neighborhood of 850 yards (2,550 feet) into perhaps a 3 to 5 knot wind. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:29:28 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Null Hypothesis For David Evans Katz: Hypothesis: David Evans Katz is living. Null Hypothesis: David Evans Katz never existed. There is only one David Evans Katz, so we must reject both hypotheses since there is not sufficient sampling? Sorry, but I can't buy it. The Null hypothesis came out of statistical theory, but can also be applied to singular events. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:36:41 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Airspeed I got the characteristics of the lockheed 12A "Electra junior"( Shorter hull than the L10 ) in one of my magazines. The stall speed was 103 kmh (62.3 mph) with full flaps. The engines were P&W R985 with superchargers... was NR16020 fitted with superchargers ? LTM ************************************************************************** From Ric Forgive me for butting in here, but the Model 12 was an entirely different airplane than the Model 10 although it wouldn't surprise me if the stall speeds were similar. Neither the R-985s of the Model 12 nor the R-1340s of the Model 10E were "supercharged" in the sense that we usually think of but they were equipped with a "blower" which, I gather, augmented the atmospherically available manifold pressure. Perhaps one of our Engine People could elaborate. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:37:29 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: 20 gph vs 38 gph Very interesting ! But, AE may have a double needle fuel flow gauge... So she may be referring to the two needles that both indicated 20 gph... Huh... I know it is quite doubtful... But who know ? LTM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:42:12 EDT From: Renaud Dudon Subject: Clue, proof, evidence At first glance, differences between clue, proof and evidence is quite obvious. A clue is the element that lead to one hypothesis ( "indice" in french, or index in latin ). The proof ("preuve" in french, probatio in latin) is the material element with what you could verify the hypothesis. The evidence appear to be the appearance of truth ( a guy holding a smoking gun over a bloody corpse ). For this last, in french, we say "Évidence". The latin root of the word is from video (i see). So, the clue may be one of the "unplugged" elements of a proof. Proof is the material confirmation of alleged truth. And, of course, evidence is a proof by itself. That was for the theory, but actually the frontier between vary a lot and is not tight. Sometimes a clue is a partial proof and a sufficent amount of proofs could build an evidence. That is just a question of words... Also a proof could be negative : " there is nothing that demonstrate that A is the truth, but there is nothing either to prove that it is impossible ". Moreover, there is what lawyers call the diabolica probatio : the proof that, by itself, cannot be obtained. That is, for example, the oral testimony from a dead witness... LTM *************************************************************************** From Ric It would seem from what you say that the word "evidence" in French has a very different meaning than it does in English where it is virtually synonymous with "clue." Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, further postings on this subject should be in Latin. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:43:32 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: somewhere in between I've missed a beat on the magnetic variation business. Frank talks about a "magnetic variation of 9° 29' E for Howland Island in 1937, as reported to Alan Caldwell by Larry Newitt of the Canadian government." Randy says the variation couldn't have changed that much between then and now. But is the question whether the variation really WAS what Newitt is said to have said (Who IS Newitt, by the way, and Caldwell; this is part of what I've missed), or whether that was what people THOUGHT it was, and if the latter, could that have caused Noonan to mis-navigate, and if so, how? I'm probably missing something really obvious, but if so, would appreciate being enlightened. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:55:29 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: scaphoid bone Re Gallagher's not mentioning the rib or scaphoid bone might be due to the need for terseness in radio telegraphy, rather than ommision of data. ************************************************************************* From Ric Gallagher didn't have to pay by the word. Many of his telegrams are, in fact, rather wordy. His accounting of what bones and artifacts were found was in response to this telegram he received on October 15, 1940: "Confidential. Please telegraph to me particulars of finding of skeleton in Gardner Island, including where found and state reason for believing it to be that of a woman and whether this belief based on anatomical characteristics. State dental condition and whether any evidence of dental work on jaw, length of skeleton from vertex of skull to arch of foot, approximate age and condition of bones and whether any hair found in the vicinity of skeleton. What have you done with skeleton? It should be carefully cared for and placed in a suitable coffin and kept in secure custody pending further instructions. Keep matter strictly secret for the present. Secretary, Western Pacific High Commission" This was the number two man in the entire Western Pacific High Commission issuing instructions and making inquiries of a very junior officer. This was a BIG DEAL. I think we can be very sure that no availalbe information was omitted from Galllagher's response. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:17:05 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Fuel Management I'm sorry for being overwhelmed by aircraft data. My understanding of AE's reduction of power as she neared Oahu was not due to a need to conserve fuel, but to arrive after daybreak. Her trip had taken less time than anticipated, and she couldn't well land at night, so she had to slow down somehow. What is the concensus of her cutting fuel to 20gph? Was this for the entire plane or just for one engine? I can understand the latter, as her fuel management sorta went to hell in a handbasket when the props froze in place due to lack of grease; she cut power back to 40gph (total) but was still able to fly at reasonable speeds and altitude. Am I reading things correctly? ************************************************************************** From Ric I feel your pain (and share your confusion). I don't think we have a consensus on whether the 20 gph refers to one engine or both. There have been some good arguments both ways. Ultimately, I don't think it much matters. You are correct. Her power reduction was not motivated by a need or desire to conserve fuel. They were fat on fuel and the success of the flight was assured. She merely wanted to slow her progress so as to not arrive before daylight. There is no indication that she faced a similar need to loiter on the Lae/Howland flight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:22:39 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Dennis McGee's Comment > If you pull back the power an additional 50% (from the assumed 65% -2300- > 2400 rpm best cruise), you're at 1150-1200 rpm. The engine is probably not > making more than 20% power at that rpm. That's just not enough to maintain > altitude. You'll find yourself going in two directions....forward and DOWN! Not necessarily correct, although I agree you will find yourself going forward AND down at those settings. Different aircraft - different performance, which was the point of my posting the Gazelle figures. The Gazelle is a two seat VLA General Aviation Training Aircraft. With its light All Up Weight and High Drag, it should be lousy to fly at low speed / power. Extract from the performance chart: Cruise Speed 75kts at 5000Rpm and 302 Nautical Miles in 3hrs 46mins (13.7Litres p/h) Best Endurance 51kts at 4000RPM and 466 Nautical Miles in 8hrs 37mins (6 Litres p/h) Extract from thre pilot's handling notes - ENDURANCE / RANGE page 11. For best endurance flying it is recommended to cruise at 4000RPM which gives an Indicated Airspeed of 51 Kts. (i.e. 54 Kts TAS at 3500 ft DA). Fuel Flow at this setting is 6 litres per hour. This power setting should also be used for holding if required or slowing down in the circuit to facilitate separation. If, due to carburettor ice or some other malfunction, the power output from the engine is reduced, the aircraft can still fly safely at a power setting as low as 3950 RPM. (approx 50 knots IAS), however an immediate landing is advised as the aricraft may be slowly descending. The marked reduction in fuel flow that occurs at 4000 RPM, is due to the fact that 50 Knots Indicated, is the air speed for the best Lift/Drag of the ratio Gazelle. (Best L/D Ratio = 9.7 to 1) It may then follow, that this speed (50 KIAS) is the best glide speed and the best angle of climb speed as well. However, the Gazelle Test Pilots recommend that 55 KIAS be used for glides and initial climb, to give adequate control if an emergency should occur such as a sudden gust that could cause a stall or a nose down requirement in an emergency. It then goes on to discuss flight planning..... So, the difference between gliding and flying is 1 knot!. And that takes 4000RPM from a cruise setting of 5000RPM. Max RPM is 5400 by the way! RPM reduction = 20% Airspeed reduction = 30% Fuel consumption decreases by 50% Range increases by 50% There is a set of figures like this for every aircraft ever made. Being heavier than the Gazelle, and with less drag, the best L/D for the Cessna, and for the Electra willbe higher. The fuel consumption and range won't improve as much. The point is, we can find these figures for Cessnas, and Pipers, I can look them up for the Baron, but they are goig to be different from the Electra. Someone posted figures yesterday for a heavy aircraft like the D