========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:34:30 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why Was Amelia Doing The Flight? From Alik On a clear day one can see an island 15 to 20 miles out from the _surface_. This was a routine experience in the Navy. I would guess that from an airplane that distance would be even greater, depending on altitude. Besides, sea water tends to change from a deep blue to a greenish-blue as you approach land, typically at about 20 miles from shore. It doesn't matter what kind of land it is, this tends to be generally true. If you've ever spent a significant amount of time at sea you would know this; which is why most people don't realize just how deep the blue gets on the open ocean. I'm no pilot, but I would be hard-pressed to imagine how a pilot within 20 miles of land could not know it, provided they have sufficient visibility to the water directly beneath them. Alik ************************************************************************** From Ric I wonder if your experience applies to Pacific atolls. I've had the pleasure of approaching Niku by ship six times now and we've never gotten a visual on it at more than about 10 miles and I've never seen any change in the sea color. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:36:05 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Ground Penetrating Radar From Jim W., There is an interesting tool being used by the UN in Kosovo to aid in clearing mines. A foundation called Mineseeker Foundation is using Ultra Wide Band Synthetic Aperture Radar that is able to locate objects as small as two inches and up to four inches deep. It is mounted on an airship (blimp) and is able to scan 119 square yards per second. The scannings are put onto CD's and given to those locating the mines and other ordinance. Plans and hopes are to use five of these around the world. Too bad Niku isn't a little higher up on the list of priorities for minefield scans. Jim W. ************************************************************************** From Ric It's alos kind of hard to get there in a blimp. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:37:30 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Jon Watson Hi Ric, For Cam - Why not save yourself the time and trouble of all that tedious and expensive copying, and simply make dupes of your CD's (see Ron Bright's recent post referencing same)available at a reasonable cost? I bet you'd sell enough copies to more than offset the hundred and fifty bucks you might get selling one paper copy. It sound's like the bulk of the work is done - the scanning. Bulk CD's are cheap - even in small quantities. Let the computer do the work, and recoup some of your expenses. ltm jon From Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:39:34 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? From Dave Chase, Wilton, CA Ric said: " She was "competent/proficient" in the skills needed to accomplish the World Flight as far as Lae, New Guinea but not to accomplish the Lae/Howland flight. " I'd guess you'd say it was mostly the lack of radio skills that made her non-proficient for the Lae/Howland flight? Certainly, the one person who was, perhaps, most qualified to judge her skill sets, Paul Mantz, probably recognized that without the proper radio (and radio skills) she was at great risk, even with Fred on board. (I assume it's NOT navigational skills per se that was lacking, since Fred was on board with a world class skill set) And, given that she took off from Lae successfully with an enormous load, and presumably landed successfully at Niku in extreme conditions, it seems to me her skills at actually flying a plane per se were more than adequate. For the record, I'm not a pilot, but I sure would say that having good judgment, being disciplined, planning ahead for contingencies, etc are probably more important than knowing how to take off and land, even in difficult circumstances. The latter only being necessary but not in the least sufficient. I guess where I've been struggling with the 'competency' issue is that for awhile I assumed that if you knew how to take off/land and find your way around, you were pretty much a "pilot", ergo Earhart was competent. That, may in fact, be the view of many non-pilots. Another view might be might be that since Earhart generally demonstrated poor planning/judgment etc and seemed uninterested at staying abreast of aviation technology, she was a hack aka poor pilot. To me this is the nub of the issue: if she was a hack, then she was probably incompetent to fly any other leg as well and should have been grounded earlier in her career! Of course, that would never have happened given her celebrity status... DC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:43:58 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Island spotting from the air From Angus Alan, Thanks for your opinion and experience. I seem to remember it mentioned on the forum that the Colorado could be seen from 35 miles. This seems a little at odds with what you and Ric say. Even the underwater Carondelet reef could be easily seen from 10 miles. Assuming AE & Co were looking hard ( I bet they were!) and seeing as we know the weather at Howland, this seems to me to indicate that they probably missed Howland by more than 15 miles and maybe by more than 20 miles. If so, this points to a major error in navigation rather than a mere difficulty in spotting the island when they were in its immediate vicinity. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric Bear in mind that Colorado was quite a bit taller than anything on Howland and that, when underway, she left big white wake. I would also argue that being 20 or even 50 miles off after 2500 miles is not a major error in navigation. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:48:43 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Underwater searches From Tom Byers Are there any plans for an underwater search in the area NW of Howland Island? Granted its like looking for a needle in a haystack but who knows what might turn up? Tom Byers ************************************************************************** From Ric There have been two underwater searches by different companies in the area NW of Howland, one in December 1999 and the other in March 2002. Each cost well over a million dollars. Neither was successful. Both companies say they want to go back and search some more. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:59:07 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: History channel From Bill Leary > Last night I watched an old 1976 program of "In Search Of" > ((..omitted..)) > I was surprised that it took nearly twenty-six years for him to > get the funds to search for the aircraft. You think with all of his > calculations, he could have convinced someone to search for the > Electra much earlier than the Nauticos expedition. This looks like a case of waiting for the technology to catch up, or at least make it financially workable. Compare, for example, the search for the U.S.S. Thresher in 1963 with the search for the Liberty Bell 7 in 1999. In both cases the location was well known (for an object lost at sea, anyway). It took two months to find Thresher, searching a 100 square mile area with three oceanographic research ships and up to ten other Navy support ships (see http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/Alumni/stories/Gerard_Sam_Thresher.htm for a nicely written first-hand story about this search). It took ten days to find the Liberty Bell 7, searching a 24 square mile area, with a single towed device. They lost the ROV and when the came back four months later with another, even though they had an exact GPS of her location, it took two days to find it again. If I recall correctly, the search area, based on those calculation is something like 500 square miles. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:59:52 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Koshu movements From Carol dow For Ron Bright: Oh Lord, Ron, with the Irene Bolam stories. I have E-mails here from one of the Irene Bolam's and more on Cragmire. I would be happy to send them to you snail mail. RSVP with the address if you want them Carol Dow #2524 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:00:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Go Go Goldstein! From Carol Dow Thanks Denise, It's nice to get some support now and then. Carol Dow #2524 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:08:03 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Goldstein & Dillon From Cam Warren So sayeth Ric - > I confess that I'm at a loss to understand your bitterness. You >complained that we had somehow tried to repress your HF/DF paper so I >offered to send it to anyone who wanted it. I don't believe I ever complained about "repression". I did think it was somewhere in the TIGHAR files - sadly neglected, perhaps, and it was loudly derided by you (and others) at the time. But it's nice of you to send it out to those who asked for it. > You're now doing a pretty good impression of a guy whose bluff has >been called. I wasn't going to bother with replying to this, since it strikes me as incredibly cheeky coming from someone who artfully dodged answering my original questions (which, by the way, were politely and reasonably put). Have you ever considered running for political office? You are remarkably well-qualified! Cam Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric At least you didn't call me a journalist. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:25:44 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: New subscriber From Jack Clark To Carol Dow: Thanks for the chart Info Carol I will give it a go. To Alan: Thanks for your response. I am not trying to marry the coordinates to the message time. The coordinates must have been given to AE. by Fred and he could only have got them if they were at that spot at that time ie noon on the 2/july/1937. So they must have been at that point at that time. What time AE passed the message is not important. I am tryng to prove that they made that detour and have given a reason why they should do so. I push this point because any detour must use more fuel and so must be considered in calculating how much fuel remains on arrival at Howland. The theory that they went to Gardiner rests on the fact that they had sufficient fuel , so any detour must be taken into account. This position report has tended to be dismissed as a garbled message or Radio operator mistake in the past. I dont think it was I must confess I am only an armchair navigator but I think I have a good grasp of the subject Jack. **************************************************************************** From Ric What you have is a hypothesis. Because there appears to be no way to test the hypothesis, all that can be said is that it is your opinion that the position was accurately reported and recorded and represents a detour that must be accounted for in any fuel calculation. I would say that, because there were no third party sightings anywhere along the route, is impossible for anyone to know what route the airplane took from Lae to apparently someplace in the general vicinity of Howland some 19 hours later. In assessing how much fuel the airplane could have or should have had when it was last heard from, all we can do is look at previous examples of the type's demonstrated performance and see what they tell us about the machine's potential given the particular conditions of the flight in question - to the extent we know what those conditions were. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:36:19 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Battery charging. From Angus Murray Ric, Can anyone hazard a guess at what fuel consumption in gph might be expected from a single R1340 at a 1500 rpm whilst charging the battery assuming the engine was already hot and the charge rate was moderate ( say 30% discharged)? Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric I think it's a good question to address but I wonder why you pick 1500 rpm? The 10E special had constant speed props. Normally for this kind of ground operation you'd have the propellers set at "full increase" or "high rpm" (in other words, fine pitch, taking little bites of air). I don't know what throttle setting (usually expressed as manifold pressure in inches of mercury) it would take to achieve 1500 rpm on an R1340 at sea level but that and the mixture are what would determine the rate of fuel consumption. I would think that the first question has to be how fast does the engine need to be turning over for the generation to deliver a charge to the battery? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:42:21 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Battery charging. From Angus Murray Ric, Do we know the likely maximum current output of the R1340 generator at 1500 rpm? Regards Angus. *************************************************************************** From Ric The short answer is no. Lockheed specs for the 10E call for: "1 Eclipse Type E-5 Generator (50 ampere) shielded. Installed on left engine." Apparently Earhart's was installed on the right engine but there's nothing in the very limited paperwork we have for her airplane that specifies what kind of generator she had. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:43:43 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Off-topic (Glenn Miller) From Joe Hi Theres also a report his body was confirmed thru dog tags somewhere washed up evidentally on a beach. I have it here someplace Joe W3HNK *********************************************************************** From Ric That seems very unlikely. There was no funeral. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:07:33 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Off Topic but worthwhile From David Kelly The architectural fraternity have already had many discussions on definitions of conservations, restoration etc. etc. The aviation archaeology fraternity are just starting. Providence is the one area which concerns me, it is possible to have two (or more) aircraft with the same providence i.e. one has the original wings and the other may have the original fuselage. I wrote my thesis on restoration and conservation of historic facades of buildings, and many of the definitions from that would be just as applicable to aircraft e.g.: "1.4. Conservation means all the processes of looking after an aircraft so as to retain its historical significance. It includes maintenance and may according to circumstances including preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaptation and will be commonly a combination of more than one of these. 1.5. Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric, contents and setting of an aircraft, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction and should be treated accordingly. 1.6. Preservation means maintaining the fabric of an aircraft in its existing state and retarding deterioration. 1.7. Restoration means maintaining the EXISTING fabric of an aircraft to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of the new material. 1.8. Reconstruction means the returning of an aircraft as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction of materials (new or old) into the fabric 1.9. Adaptation means modifying an aircraft to suit proposed compatible uses. 1.10. Compatible use means a use which involves no change to the cultural significant fabric, changes which are substantially reversible, or changes which require a minimal impact. 1.11. Conjectural re-construction means an =E6sthetic recreation of an aircraft based on drawings and photographs with little knowledge of the detailed structure of the machine. 1.12. Re-creation means a recreation of an aircraft based on original construction techniques and structure as far as practical." I believe that the aviation industry needs some kind of international agreement between the various groups with an interest in aviation archaeology to get together to compile internationally agreed definitions and systems. Sorry for getting on my hobby horse, I will dismount now. Regards David Kelly ************************************************************************** From Ric I generally agree with your definitions. Although it's off-topic for this forum and we really can't afford to get off on that tangent, it's a very important subject. Some years ago we put together a "TIGHAR Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology". Quite a few air musuems, mostly new museums that are not in the U.S., have officially adopted TIGHAR's definitions as the standard. The only international association of air museums, the aviation division of the International Association of Transportation Museums (IATM) made an attempt about ten years ago to come up with universally agreed-upon definitons - and hit a brick wall. The problem is that any standardization tends to devalue something in your collection. What you had been calling an "original" suddenly becomes a "reproduction", etc. Applying the kind of standards from the real world that you (and TIGHAR) suggest turns most air museums into theme parks full of fakes. Understandably, such standards are not welcomed. We stopped preaching about it many years ago because it was accomplishing nothing but making a lot of people angry. There has been some progress but it's very spotty. The National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola is now doing some excellent preservation work but the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum has actually gone backward. One of the most encouraging developments is the popularity of full-scale replicas built from new material from the grond up. For an outstanding example see http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:12:33 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Off-topic (Japanese Sub Find) From Tom Riggs In response to John B.'s posting (Fri, 30 Aug 2002), Ric wrote: "The midget sub find is actually quite interesting. One of the reasons it wasn't found before is that it was "hiding" amidst a lot of other junk. If Electra wreckage is mixed in with Norwich City debris deep on the reef slope we'd be faced with the same problem. What makes any search operation at Niku so expensive is the remoteness of the location. That wasn't a problem with the japanese sub" Ok, so what if Electra wreckage could be mixed in with Norwich City debris? The University of Hawaii team still managed to find the Japanese sub in spite of all the other junk. Also, if there are no documented reports of aircraft (or sea-craft) crashing on Niku island, then a deep-water search should be all the more easier since it limits artifact identification to only two possible sources...Norwich City, or Electra. Ok, so what if a deep-water search operation is expensive due to the remoteness of Niku. Unless someone asks University of Hawaii if they are interested in conducting a search, we will never know what their financial resources are, or what they are willing to spend. TR #2427 **************************************************************************** From Ric I know those guys. I know their ships and I know their resources. We've talked to them several times about Earhart and Niku. U of H would be more than happy for us to charter Moana Wave or the K-O-K (their two reserach vessels) for about $15,000/day. They don't do freebies. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:48:33 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: A Search in New Directions From Tom Riggs Recently, the Tighar board of directors decided to continue their 14-year search for conclusive artifactual evidence that AE, FN, or the Electra were on Niku island. With all due respect for the hard work and dedication put forth during these past Tighar expeditions, I have to ask: "What is there to find on the island?" Assuming Tighar's theory that AE and FN successfully landed on the reef flat and made it to shore, we can be certain they had with them: a.. Their physical bodies b.. The clothing (shirts, pants, shoes, etc.) they were wearing. We know what their clothing looked like because they were wearing it in the photos taken just before they took off from Lae. What we can not be completely certain of is all items they may have possibly salvaged from the Electra and carried onto the island. Gallegher documented finding bones, sextant box, bottle, etc., but nothing he could conclusively identify as belonging to AE, FN, or Electra. If AE or FN managed to salvage some additional items from the Electra other than those found by Gallegher, it is reasonable to assume they would have also kept those additional items close-at-hand near where they were trying to survive (and later perished). If so, why did Gallegher (or the survey crews, or the native colonists, or the Coasties, or Tighar) not find any additional items? Also, consider that if the Electra was already pushed over the reef edge when Lt. Lambrecht flew over 7 days later, then AE and FN only had those 7 days (or less) in which to perform any salvage work. Consider the following: a.. If the bones Gallegher found (and are now lost) were in fact those of AE and FN, and he collected all of the bones such that there are none remaining, then we can rule out Tighar finding bones of AE or FN on Niku. Even if the crabs (or wild pigs? or dogs?) carried off a few of the bones, the chance of discovering just one after 65+ years would be very remote. a.. If the artifacts (sextant box, etc.) Gallegher found (and are now lost) were the only artifacts AE and FN brought with them to the island, then there are no other AE/FN artifacts to be discovered on the island by Tighar. Based on the above assumptions it appears the probability would be very small for finding either AE bones, FN bones, or artifacts they carried onto the island. If so, then what artifactual evidence would there remain to look for? Oh yeah, how about the huge, 7000 lb. aluminum airplane that was theoretically bashed to pieces on the north shore reef edge. The numerical probability of finding a single piece of conclusive artifactual evidence from the Electra stuck in the reef edge, lagoon passage, or deep water is significantly greater if one were to look in those areas rather than continuing to search the island surface for something that could no longer be there. Bottom Line: If the physical remains of AE, FN, and any artifacts they carried onto the island were removed by Gallegher in 1940, and 14 years of searching by Tighar has not uncovered any further conclusive evidence, then why not re-focus the search on where there is more chance of finding something? If Tighar can not finance a deep-water search, then why not at least focus future effort and funds on the relatively shallow lagoon and passage? I know we've been down this road before, but I can't help myself. Thanks for listening. TR #2427 ************************************************************************ From Ric It's okay. I appreciate your concern and I agree with you that the chances of conclusively identifying the castaway(s) from surving personal effects seem remote but the Seven Site is yielding fascinating information which could help us understand how the castaway(s) lived and died. We also have no idea what might turn up in the next excavation. Let me try to articulate our reasoning with respect to the search for airplane debris. Our hypothesis is that the airplane was landed safely on the reef just north of the shipwreck, sent radio signals for several days and was subesequently washed off the reef by wave action. We think that it remained relatively intact but submerged in shallow water just off the reef edge for several years, which explains why its presence seems to have been known to the early settlers, especially fishermen, but not to any of the white administrative or survey personnel who visited the island up through the early years of the Pacific war. We currently suspect that at some time in the late 1940s the airplane began to break up and pieces started to appear on the reef flat and beaches on the west end of the island. Many of these were found, recovered and used by the colonists for local purposes. The utility of this debris may have encouraged the importation of other aluminum debris from wartime wrecks on Canton and other islands. Some buoyant pieces from the Electra seem to have washed through the main passage and onto the lagoon shore. Other pieces reportedly washed up on the Nutiran shore (north of the passage). Apparently, none of that wreckage now survives, either because it was all collected and used or because the aluminum has now corroded away. Some pieces seem to have washed up on the shoreline south of the passage. Both the "dado" (Artifact 2-18) and the section of airplane skin (2-2-V-1) were found near the shore along that coast. Neither show obvious signs of having been "worked" by the colonists and both have been found to have deposits on them which may indicate that they spent a year or more submerged in shallow water. We're presently trying to learn more about these deposits but they do appear reinforce our hypothetical sequence of events. We can see from a number of aerial photos taken over the years and from our own observations on the ground, that the western-most point of land south of the main passage (WE18 on the grid map) is subject to periodic overwash which deposits quantities of sand, and logically anything in the sand, inland along that point. There's a large area in there that may well contain aluminum that was washed ashore but has never been subjected to an organized visual and metal detector search by TIGHAR. That area is one of the prime targets for Niku V. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:49:25 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: HF/DF From Gary LaPook Well, if High Frequency Direction Finding (HF/DF) was so good then how come it was never developed further? All of the aircraft beacon stations are located between 190 and 535 khz in the Low Frequency band. The radio equipment in the airplane, the automatic direction finder (ADF), covers just from 190 through 1600, the beacon band and the AM broadcast band which is located immediately above the beacon band. gl. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:52:02 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Island spotting from the air From Angus Murray Ric said: I would also argue that > being 20 or even 50 miles off after 2500 miles is not a major error in > navigation. I have to agree with you on this. However, "major" is a rather relative term. If his usual standard of navigation was to within 10 miles as I believe he claimed, this was maybe double the error (if the time since the last fix was similar to his usual interval between fixes of 2-3hrs) Since his last fix was probably about 354 miles out, this corresponds to about 3hrs (at 118kt). Let us say it was a larger error than one might expect for Noonan, although not major in absolute terms. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************** From Ric Whatever he claimed, his performance on the previous flights we know about wasn't anything like within 10 miles. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:53:26 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Irene Bolam's what? From Angus Murray > Oh Lord, Ron, with the Irene Bolam stories. I have E-mails here from one of > the Irene Bolam's and more on Cragmire. > Carol, If you're going to do any writing you'll have to learn the difference between the possesive and a plural. What you mean is "one of the Irene Bolams" not "one of the Irene Bolam's" Regards Angus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:04:16 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Koshu movements From Angus Murray Ric, Is it likely that Fred would have had a copy of sailing directions with him which included detailed information for the Marshall Islands? Is he likely to have had charts covering the Marshalls at reasonably large scale? (We are assuming here that he was not on a secret mission to the Marshalls). Regards Angus. ************************************************************************* From Ric One indication about how Fred may have handled the need for detailed information about specific areas or features is the chart he used on the South Atlantic crossing. It's a large scale chart that has very few details that would be useful for "pilotage" once you reached the African coast, so Fred made notations along the margin of the map. He'd draw a box in which he'd print something like: "Cape Verde w. mound. White cylind. tower 66 ft. Flash white Vis. 26 mi." He then drew an arrow from the box to the place on the map it referred to. That sounds very much like the kind of information he would have gleaned from Sailing Directions. Making the notations on the map would save him the weight of a whole book of Sailing Directions and put the information right where he needed it for reference. Whether he had information with him about the Marshalls or the Phoenix Group is anybody's guess. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:05:48 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why Was Amelia Doing The Flight? From Herman De Wulf / Belgium Alik wrote: "On a clear day one can see an island 15 to 20 miles out from the surface... Besides, sea water tends to change from a deep blue to a greenish-blue as you approach land, typically at about 20 miles from shore. It doesn't matter what kind of land it is, this tends to be generally true". This may be a rule of thumb. In the Pacific atolls tend to rise steeply from the sea without color warning. Elsewhere sea beds tend to rise slowly indeed, causing the sea to change color from blue to greyish as Alik points out. As for visibility, 15 to 20 miles is sheer luxury and should have been sufficient to see Howland had they been near it. But because of a lack of greyish water around Howland there is no such traditional clue of nearby land. If you ever crossed the 20 miles Channel between France and England on an average day, you would have found yourself lucky with 5 miles visibility. That is why most VFR flights across the sea are flown in IFR : it is very hard to miss England flying 330 degrees outbound Cap Griz Nez. But if you have never done it before it takes confidence... And you feel relieved to see any land having been suspended in a featureless grey emptiness in front, above and below, the only horizon being the one on the instrument panel and the only instrument telling you that you are still alive being the altimeter. That's why I still admire AE for trying to fly around the world with the relative experience she had and the technical means at her disposal in 1937. If she missed Howland, remember there were no such things as inertial navigation and GPS in 1937 and the only reliable instrument to find Howland was not an ADF nor a QDM but the Mark 1 Eyeball. LTM (who believes the compass, the stop watch and the Mk 1 eyeball but considers GPS a great invention) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:06:37 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Off-topic (Glenn Miller) From Herman De Wulf I think Ric is right. Glenn Miller's UC-64 took off and was never seen again. The aircraft was reported missing after fuel time had expired and the aircraft had not landed anywhere. As far as the records go there was never a report of bodies washed ashore. Whether the aircraft was hit by bombs being jettisoned by a Lancaster bomber or was shot down by trigger happy gunners on a Navy ship, we'll never know. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:09:19 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why Was Amelia Doing The Flight? From Alik It may be the case that it doesn't work in the case of Gardner and/or Howland as I have seen exceptions to this rule, but the sea color change is _very_ subtle and it takes quite a few observations to get to the point where you can spot the difference. I couldn't make out the color difference until I had watched closely for it about a dozen times. As for pacific islands, I know it works at Johnston island (the only one I've approached by ship). Columbus and Magellan, along with most other sailors before the advent of good maps and navigational aids, knew they were close to continents and islands long before land was sited. Many thought this a mystic thing, but in fact they were just looking over the gunwales at the water. There are many little tricks like this long since forgotten by most (like Magellans tricks for reading what are now called trade currents). So I suppose this may not be common knowledge to pilots, and a pilot may not know to look for this, or to be able to spot it if he did. As for the visuals, you're not the first to relate such an experience to me. I'm not sure where the difference comes from. On a clear day, about one hundred feet above water and with binoculars, we could see ship masts at 15 - 20 miles. Islands were usually even easier to see. At night, ship lights could definitely be seen at 20 miles on a clear night. These distances are based on radar ranging. Alik *************************************************************** From Ric Of course, aboard little Nai'a, even up in the crow's nest, we're nothing like a hundred feet up. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:18:02 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Battery charging. From Angus Murray Ric, There was some speculation on rpm required for charging on the forum some time ago. Generators, as was pointed out, do not perform well at low rpm which is why all modern vehicles are fitted with alternators. Generators were controlled by a control box which uses a cut-out to prevent the battery discharging through the generator when the output voltage of the generator is insufficient to exceed the battery voltage and charge the battery. The cutting-in speed for car generators of this era was between 600 and 1500 rpm so I chose the conservative figure of 1500rpm to maximise fuel consumption. We would have to know the exact specs of the R1340 generator to answer the question of the cutting-in speed and the gearing, if any, between the crankshaft and generator. Regards Angus ************************************************************************* From Ric There are still lots of R1340s and generators around. What we need is somebody who owns and flys a T-6 ("Harvard" to Brits) who can tell us what it takes to get the generator to put out a charge. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:21:37 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Off Topic but worthwhile Ric, As for the merits of conservation, restoration, etc. I'd like to remind that it is very difficult today to find a mediaeval building a thousand years old in Europe that hasn't been renovated. That applies to such historic sites as the 4,000 year old palace of Knossos (near Hiraklion, Crete), medieval Venice and includes cities like Bruges and Ypres (Belgium). If restoration work had not been done, the buildings and the cities would be mere ruins today. The same is true with aircraft. Authentic wrecks may be authentic. But how did the original look like? Apparently a lot of people like restored medieval cities and buildings. That is why tourists flock to them and take pictures. The Brussels Market Square (which is popular with American tourists) was completely rebuilt following destruction by French artillery in the 17th century. The medieval city of Ypres Belgium) was completely destroyed in WW 1. It was rebuilt after the war to its present mediaeval splendor. And the Castle of the Counts in Ghent (Belgium) was built in the 11th century but would be a shambles if it had not been renovated in the 19th century. LTM (who thinks that a thing of beauty should be a joy forever, even with needs some repairs) *********************************************************************** From Ric Rebuilt castles are popular with tourists but they don't tell us much about what castles were really like. Air museums today are full of rebuilt airplanes for the same reason. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:22:22 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Paxton's letter to Naval Intelligence From Angus Murray Ric, Do you or anyone on the forum have a copy of the letter sent by Nina Paxton to Naval Intelligence in August of 1947? The latter letter of September 1947 to the FBI is of course available on the net but I have not come across the former. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:52:29 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Battery charging. From Skeet Gifford The T-6 manual and typed operating procedures for the R-1340 variously indicate 1,000 and 1,200 as generator cut-in RPM. The Lockheed 10 manual (R-985) gives idle at 800-1,000 RPM. No mention is made of generator cut-in. ************************************************************************ From Ric Sounds like 1,200 rpm might be a safe number. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:53:13 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Sailing Directions From Angus Murray Ric, Does anyone on the forum have a description from pre-war Sailing Directions of Knox island off Mili atoll? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:54:21 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: A Search in New Directions From Tom King So, the argument here is that since it's hard to find stuff on Niku we ought to look someplace else, even though we don't think they wound up someplace else? Isn't that a little like looking on C Street for the dollar you lost on A Street, because the light's better? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:14:58 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Cam Warren Attention: Jon Watson Re: HF/DF research references should be sold on CDs. I've thought of that, for maybe 10 years or so. But let's back up a minute, and examine the purpose. What I have is reams and reams of reference material, which I have condensed down into a report which I posted on the Forum. So you have the basic substance, the reason why AE quite probably had an HF/DF system aboard the Electra. I also provided Bob Brandenburg (and all the Forum monitors) with an enlarged list of references. If you think I made this all up, or just misinterpreted the information, you only need to spot check as many items as you wish, consulting the sources I named. After checking may 5 or 10, maybe two dozen, you'd probably be satisfied. Randy Jacobson spent five years or so putting all the Navy/Coast Guard formal radio messages on a CD, which TIGHAR was selling for $100 or so. Useful and valuable as it is, they apparently sold very few. (Randy says, probably tongue in cheek, "Maybe two!) I offered to have my stuff copied (commercially - at cost) if Bob B. or Ric really wanted it, not to make money on it. Note too, that we're talking about "raw data", not a concise series of brief "sound-bites" that would display a notarized document from Adm. Somebody, attesting to the fact that George Putnam requisitioned an RDF-1 from the Navy on such-and-such a date. Case in point; the 300+ pages of RDF-2 correspondence. I studied the whole thing, and took two pages of useful notes. If you want to repeat the process, you can order the file from the National Archives, and they'll be happy to copy it for you, at a cost 0f $50 or so. Bottom line; non-fiction authors provide references so the reader can verify the information on his own, rather than take the author's word for it. They don't send out photostats - or CD-ROMs - as a practical matter. Ric would have you believe that a footnote is no guarantee, but then he probably suspects the dairy is putting water in the milk it sells him. Hey, ginger ale continues little or no ginger these days, but the percentage is printed on the can, and if you don't want to trust the canner, you could hire a lab to test it. Thanks for your interest, and if you still really want to buy a CD under the circumstances, we can talk about it. (by the way, currently my files are all on Zip disks, and are constantly being updated). Cam Warren *********************************************************************** From Ric For the record, TIGHAR has sold about 15 research CDs to date at $100/ea. We're a recognized 501(c)(3) public charity. The receipt we send with the CD specifies that $80 of the $100 is a charitable contribution and is tax deductible within the limits of the law. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:19:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Things That Trouble Me From Warren Ric, As you know by now, I am fascinated with both the Canton engine story as well as it's potential "missing engine connection" with the wreck photo. I realize that both items are unsubstantiated, but the individual stories and they way they key together-bolster the possibility of truth in my mind. I am disturbed that the wreck photo shows that the airplane is apparently resting comfortably on land, and appears to have been there awhile. I have traveled some in that neck of the woods, and at one time saw a crashed Japanese Zero moderately intact on an island near Truk (Now Chuk) Lagoon 50 years after the fact. I cannot help that nagging feeling that I have-that there should still be a moderately intact hulk (missing one engine?) somewhere on land. I am curious-has the wreck photo research been taken to it's logical conclusion or have you hit the proverbial brick wall? Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric I've always felt that the thing to do when you hit a brick wall is to start chipping at the bricks. We're still actively looking for information that might help us understand the photo. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:52:32 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Battery charging. From Angus Murray Skeet, Great work - thanks. Can you confirm the output voltage as 12 volt and that the maximum current is 50 amps? I assume the Electra had a pair of 6 volt 13 plate cell batteries in series judging by the Exide model number. Is this correct? Any leads on fuel consumption at 1200rpm at sea level in fine pitch? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:53:25 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Island spotting from the air From Alan Angus, you would need to fly in similar conditions to comprehend first hand how difficult it is to spot a tiny island on a bright sunny morning looking into the glare of the sun and through scattered cu. I assure you it is easy to fly directly over it and miss it. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:54:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: New subscriber From Alan > The coordinates must have been > given to AE. by Fred and he could only have got them if they were at that > spot at that time ie noon on the 2/july/1937. Jack, I must have too much going on to concentrate properly but I'm not clear why you say for AE to be at certain coordinates it had to be only at noon. Unless I'm missing something any set of coordinates can be passed at any moment around the clock. What am I missing? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:55:27 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: New subscriber From Alan > The theory that they went to Gardiner rests on the fact > that they had sufficient fuel , so any detour must be taken into account. > Jack, that isn't necessary to consider even if they DID detour somewhat. The airplane uses the same fuel no matter where it is. It doesn't know whether it is on course or off. It's simply time in the air. That was 19.2 hours. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:57:08 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Seeing islands from the sea From Marjorie Alik says the ability of Columbus and Magellan to know they were near "islands and continents" was considered mystical but was based on subtle changes in the color of the sea. Isn't there a very great difference between locating atolls and locating high islands (and continents) because clouds tend to collect above the high islands and can be seen for hours before the island itself rises above the horizon. I once was on a freighter sailing from Truk to Pohnpei and for at least half a day before we arrived we could see a pile of clouds on the horizon that almost echoed the shape of that very rainy island. According to Micronesian tradition, the islanders found their way between atolls by learning the currents and watching for the way the prevailing swells broke strangely under the the influence of a a distant atoll they had gone around. This is supposedly the point of the lovely Marshallese navigation charts made of strips of wood with cowry shells representing the islands. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, having never navigated between atolls. But those folks did manage to get around from place to place before the internal combustion engine entered their world. LTM (who prefers canoeing on small lakes) Marjorie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:03:59 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: A Search in New Directions From Lawrence For Tom King Sorry, but I think you missed the authors point. He merely suggest that TIGHAR look elsewhere on the Atoll, mainly the reef's edge and ocean floor. So, if you lost a dollar on "C" street, you don't look on "A" street, you look into the "C" Street gutter. **************************************************************************** From Herman De Wulf Tom King wrote : "So, the argument here is that since it's hard to find stuff on Niku we ought to look someplace else, even though we don't think they wound up someplace else? Isn't that a little like looking on C Street for the dollar you lost on A Street, because the light's better?" That is exactly how I feel. I think it is for the researchers who actually went there to decide whether it was worth the effort and whether it is meaningful to continue. That does not exclude TIGHAR looking into other scenario's. But before these are investigated I feel Gardner Island or Nikumaroro should remain the main target of TIGHAR efforts until it is pretty sure there is nothing to be found. Spending resources on other scenario's at this point looks like throwing away money that are hard to come by. LTM (who remembers one Murphy saying one always finds things in the last place one looks). ************************************************************************* From Ric Lawrence is correct. Tom Riggs was not suggesting that we look anywhere other than Niku. He merely felt that we should abandon the land search in favor of the water. << If Tighar can not finance a deep-water search, then why not at least focus future effort and funds on the relatively shallow lagoon and passage?>> In my reply I tried to explain why we feel that there are land areas that still need to be searched. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:08:16 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Irene Bolam's what? From Carol Dow Angus, Your are so right. The apostrophe is in the wrong place. Sorry. I type too fast. Carol ************************************************************************* From Ric Uh... Carol... the apostrophe shouldn't be there at all. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:09:20 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Koshu movements From Ron Bright For Carol Dow Carol, I am not researching the Bolam/Earhart alleged connection. Thanks for the offer though. Some others on the AES channel are invovled and they may very well want some of your material. If you like I can give you an educated opinion off forum at brightway@aol.com. LTM, Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:13:12 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Paxton's letter to Naval Intelligence From Ron Bright Angus Woody is a virtual achivist with Paxton material, docs, and letters to Naval Intelligence, Walter Winchell, et al. Contact Woody via Tighar. *************************************************************** From Ric I think you'll find Woody Rogers at planeguy@ETAHOE.COM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:53:44 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Paxton's letter to Naval Intelligence From Angus Murray Ron , Ric Thanks for the link guys. I did contact Woody a long time ago but he had mislaid the disc it was on so I was hoping someone else might have the letter. I know the mere mention of Mili probably sends Ric into some sort of a head-banging frenzy but I would have thought a copy of this letter ought to be material he should have. You WILL discover that Nina is not a red herring Ric - trust me! ;-) Regards Angus ********************************************************************* From Ric I agree that Nina may not be a red herring. I'd like to have a copy of her 1947 letter. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:56:03 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Craig > Thanks for your interest, and if you still really > want to buy a CD under > the circumstances, we can talk about it. (by the > way, currently my files > are all on Zip disks, and are constantly being > updated). > Sorry to be short-fused, but I for one am getting tired of this thread. You prove yourself or you don't. The more you sidestep, the worse you look. The research community works like this - you propose a hypothesis, you research that hypothesis, you write a paper (usually) in support of your hypothesis, referencing that which supports your hypothesis. You then release your paper into the masses to be scrutinized - and either independently confirmed or questioned. You've done ok so far, except from my perspective you have done nothing to back up your claims. Without references supporting you hypothesis, you are dead in the water. You can write things on this forum like no one understands you, or that Ric is too paranoid to believe you, or that he hasn't sold enough CDs to justify you putting your stuff on CD, blah blah blah blah. Whatever. It is this simple: You either prove the claims in your paper by providing references, or you don't. Until you do, you'll always be met with skepticism. You don't exactly compel belief when you say things like "after checking may 5 or 10, maybe two dozen, you'd probably be satisfied." Research does not function in this manner. Everything must be checked. A tiny hole can sink the biggest ship. These things take time. The 10 years you've put into this paper will surely be worth it when you finally prove all your claims - and convince even Ric that what you say is true. But until such time as you provide references, I for one will treat this paper like all other unsubstantiated claims --- fiction. My guess is that you can't provide references to your claims because when you wrote the paper, you didn't take the time to make notes on where you found certain pieces of information,and now you are unwilling to go back and try to find everything. So, instead you try to beat it over the head of everyone on the forum, aghast when people don't believe what you say. Maybe Ric is somehow trying to suppress your report. There have been many claims made on this forum. If one were to believe every claim made on this forum as unquestionable truth, we'd be digging holes somewhere in Japan looking for the Electra. Sincerely, Craig ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:58:05 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? For Dave Chase, Wilton, CA. We on the forum need to qualify AE & FN's skill levels rather than opinionate their skill levels - suggest it may be more productive to supporting the TIGHAR group Gardener / Nikumuroro Island Hypothesis - Otherwise? ***************************************************************** From Ric How do you propose to "qualify AE & FN's skill levels". ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:17:29 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Battery charging. From Skeet Gifford For Angus Murray The following from a Lockheed 10 maintenance manual printed in 1948: The Lockheed 10 did indeed have a (nominal) 12-volt system with one 12-volt battery. As with your automobile, charging voltage was a little higher at 14.2 volts. Unfortunately, the maximum output of the generator is not specifically listed, but it is protected with a 60 amp fuse. Fuel consumption at low power settings has proven to be elusive. Some manuals for this class of airplane provide an inclusive number for engine start, taxi, run-up and takeoff. KJ's fuel burn for the first hour included such an allowance. The amount of throttle required for 1,200 rpm is very small and I don't recall fuel consumption at a "fast idle" being a concern in piston engined aircraft. That doesn't really answer the basic question: "How much fuel did she need to transmit for four nights?" Skeet ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:23:25 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Things That Trouble Me From Ron Berry Warren , one of the things that bothers me about the wreck is, that the main wing spar is broken and misaligned in the photo. If anyone can explain how an aircraft with broken main spar and the rear cabin missing can still stand up, I would be very interested. There are other things that bother me about the wreck photo, but more on that later. I believe that there is evidence that the aircraft in the wreck photo is a long distance Electra 10E. How many were built? **************************************************************************** From Ric The Model 10 does not have a "main spar" in the conventional sense. There is a built up structure known as a "main beam" that is too far aft to be visible in the Wreck Photo but I see no evidence that it is broken. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:25:11 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Wreck photo! PNG From Denise You say: We're still actively looking for information that might help us understand the photo. Ric, I queried one of the people who told me about the Electra wreck in the PNG jungle and he showed me a photo that he claimed was it. Naturally I know nothing about what a Electra wreck looks like, but I can recognise a jungle, and this is definitely a photo of a plane wrecked in a tropical jungle ... albeit a very healthy tropical jungle, so it isn't your photo. I am very aware that PNG and surrounding islands have jungles full of wrecked WWII planes and this could be any one of those, but if you're interested I can possibly get a copy of the photo from the guy and scan it and send to you. Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, please. That would be interesting to see if only for purposes of comparison. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:29:01 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: New subscriber From Jack Clark: Alan Re fuel usage. You are correct,time in the air is the critical factor. Re coordinates. I will try to explain how I came to my conclusions, I hope it's not too long winded. When I first started researching the flight I plotted a course Lae to Howland using great circle course and distance confirmed at www.info.gov.hk/javascpt/gcsail.htm in order to estimate where AE/FN would be at the time of their various radio calls. I also plotted an estimated noon sun transit position which I assumed Fred would do as a normal part of his routine. This would give him an accurate Lat. which would tell him how far off course they were and enable him to estimate any drift or other corrections that may be required. Some time later I saw the Chater letter on TIGHAR'S web-site and noted the apparrent ambiguos position report. I plotted this also and realised it was near the same meridian I had previously plotted for the noon sighting. So I thought could this be a noon shot also. Using the calculator at http://mach.usno.navy.mil and going to Data Services/positionof Sun & moon/sun &moon data for one day and entering the Lat. Long date and time zone (10 hrs East ) shows this to be so.and relates approximatlely to where one would expect them to be after two hours flight. Does this not indicate that for FN to have passed these figures to AE for transmmision they must have passed through that point at that time. Of course anywhere on that meridian would also be at local noon but Fred gives a Lat as well which ties them to that particular position. Jack Clark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:43:28 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: A new scenario From Angus Ric, It was no-one's fault. Amelia flew heroically and Fred navigated faultlessly. But then it happened!.......... Still hundreds of miles from their destination, the starboard prop suddenly detaches itself from the crankshaft. Fatigue failure has struck, initiated from an undetected crack caused by the Luke Field accident and accelerated by the cruel overloading at takeoff. The prop, relieved of the drag of the aircraft surges ahead and begins to fall. The right wing, deprived of power, slows and drops and the aircraft turns and rolls viciously right into a dive as the port engine continues to pull. Amelia applies full opposite aileron and rudder and quickly closes the throttles and shuts down the starboard engine. At that moment, the loosened prop smashes into the right hand side of the nose as the aircraft catches up with it. Fred, sitting in the right hand seat, is hit by flying debris and seriously injured. Amelia is less seriously hurt being further away. After a titanic struggle she regains control but Fred is semi-conscious and in no condition to navigate and Amelia must do the best she can. In spite of her efforts, the aircraft continually veers to the right of course as they press on on the single engine. As they near the longitude of Howland, Fred recovers sufficiently to get a sun shot but by now they are WAY off course to the south. They turn on to the 157/337 line. After a short search to the north for Howland, they are forced to turn south and are glad to sight Gardner. Its a good landing, but with only one engine Amelia is unable to taxi the aircraft away from the reef edge where they have landed. The aircraft just turns in circles. With the supercharger doing service as a flywheel they are still able to run the starboard engine at low rpm, enough to charge the battery. Eventually, the aircraft is swept off the reef by the surf on the morning of the ninth of July and floats off to sink some way offshore. When the Colorado search party arrive a few hours later, the aircraft is nowhere to be seen. Now if that Canton engine has a sheared crankshaft.......... :-) Regards Angus *************************************************************************** From Ric I know this has got to be a joke but I'll bite. A. The propellers and hubs were replaced after the Luke Field wreck. B. If the starboard prop departs the shaft and hits the fuselage ain't nobody going anywhere but down. C. Odd that AE wouldn't happen to mention in any of her radio transmissions that such interesting events had transpired. D. The reason they can't taxi away from the reef edge is because the only place that is smooth enough for the airplane to move around on is the part of the reef out near the ocean where they landed. E. Supercharger as flywheel doesn't work. An airplane engine without a prop will tear itself to pieces in no time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:04:43 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: MERRILL FLIGHTS From Herman De Wulf / Belgium Ric, It took some time but Flight of London has produced the particles it published on the Merrill Atlantic crossing in 1937. As the forum does not support attachments I'll send them by fax. They do not contain technical information of fuel management. They do contain surprising information (at lest to me) regarding their navigation. It appears that when arriving in Britain they were a bit off course and landed at the wrong airport. There is also an interesting comment by Merrill on the Sperry autopilot. Herman ************************************************************************* From Ric Thanks Herman. I got your fax. A note of clarification: I can receive email attachments just fine at the forum address. I just can't distribute them on the forum. You are the only forum subscriber who has responded to my request for information about the Merrill/Lambie flights. I have since assembled, but not yet analyzed, a great deal of information from newspaper and magazine microfilm archives. I had not, however, seen the Flight articles. There are some errors in the Flight articles. For example, they have the engines as 450 hp when, in fact, the airplane was virtually a duplicate of Earhart's. Also, they did not bring motion picture film of the Hindenburg disaster to England, only stills. The coud have brought movies but British authorities declined, not wishing to "spoil the gaeity" of the Coronation cermonies for King George VI. (It was a different world back then.) With other sources to check against we should be able to catch any mistakes. I knew about the Sperry Gyro Pilot but the bit about using 100 octane gasoline for takeoff is new information. The Merrill/Lambie flights are a fascinating and hitherto untapped source of excellent information about the performance capabilites of the Model 10E Special. We'll be looking at them very closely. LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:05:48 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Jon Watson Hi Ric, In reference to Cam's report, Craig wrote: > Maybe Ric is somehow trying to suppress your > report. No, Ric has made it available to anyone who wanted a copy. If I thought it was of significance, I'd probably get a copy myself, but it seems like a moot point to me - it doesn't matter what kind of DF was aboard. It either didn't work, or for whatever reason they couldn't use it. Regardless, they got lost. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:17:17 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Amelia vs. the scaevola From Eric One question which has always puzzled me about the 7 site is how AE and FN were able to hack out the scaevolo to make their campsite. Did the Electra's equipment inventory include a machete? It would seem more logical that they would have selected a site that was relatively free of jungle growth, particularly scaevolo, which sounds like some pretty nasty stuff. This is not to imply that they didn't camp out at the 7 site. (It might have been cleared by somebody who was already there or who had been there earlier.) Your comments, please. Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca. ************************************************************************** From Ric You're right. Only fools like us would hack through that much scaevola, but in 1937 the Seven Site was very different than it is today. Aerial photos taken in 1937, 1938, and 1941 show the inland areas where we found evidence of habitation to be forest (probably Buka, Kanawa and Ren) rather than open bush country as it is today. Forested areas on Niku are the most pleasant environments on the island. The big trees shade out the underbrush but let the breeze blow through. The present-day Buka forest that immediately adjoins the Seven Site on the west side is almost cathedral-like in its majesty. At some time after 1941 the trees at the Seven Site were cut down. Anytime the overstory is removed on Niku, the scaevola invades and today the site is a hopeless tangle. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:29:50 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? From Dave Chase, Wilton, CA. Ric - the last message in this thread says it's 'for me', but who is it from????? Frankly, I don't really see the 'need to further qualify AE & FN's skill levels'. Trying to do so would perpetuate a thread that would forever be herding cats! As for more opinion!: There is no question that FN was a world class navigator. His experience and professionalism speaks for itself. There is also no question that AE was involved in numerous accidents - far more than her female peers of the day. And by the way, the ones who are still alive will attest to that as well. No more opinion on this subject from me.... On the subject of FN, I've got an excellent article written by FN on his procedures for navigation. If you don't have it, I can send a copy. Of course, there's no guarantee that these weren't modified for that last flight... DC *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sorry. That posting was from Tom Strang. Not everyone remembers to sign their postings. (It also saves me time if you put in your "From Whoever" line at the beginning of the message.) As for world class navigator Noonan, I'm afraid that another Earhart Myth may be about to fall. A close look at ol' Fred's documented performance on previous flights shows him to be less than rigorous, to say the least. Pan Am's transoceanic operations relied on the Adcock DF system. Precise navigation to the destination by the navigator was not a requirement. All he had to do was get the flight within range of the Adcock (200 to 500 miles or so) and he was home free. Fred got a lot of press as PAA's star navigator but the fact is, his chart's tell a rather different tale. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:30:49 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: True or false? From Dennis McGee Craig said: "There have been many claims made on this forum. If one were to believe every claim made on this forum as unquestionable truth, we'd be digging holes somewhere in Japan looking for the Electra." Well said, squire. I couldn't agree more on your take on this entire episode. It's time for the author to walk the walk. LTM, who's worn out several pairs of walking shoes Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:45:43 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Cam Warren Attention Craig (who fired off the following) - > Sorry to be short-fused, but I for one am getting > tired of this thread. You prove yourself or you > don't. The more you sidestep, the worse you look. And it looks like you're not paying attention. If you'd read the message (via the Forum) which I addressed to Bob Brandenburg, you might reconsider the implied accusation that I was not telling the truth. I'm not sure what your background is, but the reference as to how "the research community works" raises questions as to your familiarity with the process. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, Ill try to explain the situation yet again. Neither TIGHAR nor Cam Warren can positively prove - at this point - exactly what DF equipment was aboard the Electra. Ric makes a good guess, based on conventional wisdom, but leaves several holes in the story. Until recently, the chief argument against my theory was that government entities had no interest in the use of high frequencies for direction finding. I have established that was definitely NOT the case. They were keenly interested. Such equipment existed, and not merely as experimental. I have cited substantiating evidence. Multiple pieces of evidence, and I've told you precisely where to look for confirmation. But I'm not obliged to do your homework, or spend my money copying the pile of documents and shipping them off to you, suitably highlighted, of course. And I don't think very many in the "research community" will do it either. Did Amelia have the option to install what was probably a "state of the art" HF/DF? Definitely. Was it installed? Somebody knew, but I don't presently have any unimpeachable testimony. But I'm still searching. But there is evidence that unpublicized modifications were made in Miami, and we KNOW AE attempted to DF on 7500 kc, which would suggest she had the appropriate gear. > My guess is that you can't provide references to > your claims because when you wrote the paper, you > didn't take the time to make notes on where you found > certain pieces of information, and now you are > unwilling to go back and try to find everything. So, > instead you try to beat it over the head of everyone > on the forum, aghast when people don't believe what > you say. (And my guess would be you are a TIGHAR toady, but I'm trying to avoid personal barbs.) You haven't seen my Earhart library, nor my several hundred files, nor my stack of notebooks. Ron Bright has seen, and mentioned, the quickly accessible material on computer disks. So, what's your problem? If you'd care to list the confirmation you seek, perhaps I can find an appropriate quote or two. But then, you'd probably challenge the citation. Government interest in HF/DF? Already cited. Available production line equipment? Already cited. Quantity government orders in the mid-thirties for such equipment? Already cited. Circumstantial evidence that supports my theory? Already cited. Positive PROOF that Amelia had HF/DF? Not yet, but I'll keep trying. Positive PROOF that Amelia only had LF/DF? None. Meantime, I'd be most interested in your detailed, and substantiated, rebuttal. (But until then, try to be a little more charitable!) Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me make it simple. Let's assume that all of Cam's sources say exactly what he says they say. After all, Cameron is an honorable man. What we're left with is Cam's opinion. You either agree with his opinion or you don't. I don't and, by golly, I expect all of you TIGHAR Toadies to fall in line and agree with me like you always do. Now, can we move on? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:05:22 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: New subscriber From Randy Jacobson None of the position reports AE gave prior to 0718 GMT make any sense relative to their flight path. Some are so far off to be laughable. I attribute it to copy/listening errors by the radio operator. Plese see the 8th edition for more details regarding these position reports. I should also mention that an analysis of radio reports of positions from Oakland to Honolulu compared to the actual positions marked on the maps used by Noonan indicate a minimum delay from position to report by 15 minutes, and as much as 45 minutes. Earhart broadcast on a radio schedule only, and provided only the latest position information she had, regardless of whether it was timely. This was a grievous error, as one should provide both the position and time of the position fix to truly be helpful in case of an accident and loss. ************************************************************************* From Ric One of the most difficult things for us to understand today is that radioed "position reports" by long-distance publicity flights in the 1930s were more in the nature of press releases than actual navigational reports. Dick Merrill, a professional airline captain, sent very specific position reports by radio to Eastern Airlines' heaqdquarters in Newark, NJ during his return flight from England. Newsmen were crowded around the receiver and eagerly reported his progress to the waiting public. Later Merrill admitted that he had been "just guessing". ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:08:15 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Shane Brinkman < Now, can we move on?>> ribit, ribit, ribit ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:08:46 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Phil Tanner But why would a government the size of the US, with all its air force and naval air resources and a major base in the middle of the Pacific, NEED to use a flight like Amelia's? Say the military wants to try out new radio gear by Bendix, Warren and Gillespie Inc, or whoever - why not put it in one of its own planes and test it for itself, rather than relying on civilians with a commercial link to the manufacturer? Even if it was installed and had worked for AE and FN, surely the government wasn't going to sign any contract on their say-so and would need to perform its own assessment anyway? And if it's remotely secret, why trail it round a dozen or so airports in what we'd now call the Third World? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:09:31 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: H-1 Racer From Chris in Petaluma, Ca The Wright built replica of the Hughes H-1 Racer will be flying at the Reno Air Races in Reno, Nevada next week on Sept. 12 thru 15 for those interested. Chris#2511 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:10:15 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Competency vs Proficiency? From Tom Strang, Apology in order to Dave Chase and Ric for not signing last post - Crisis management moment interrupted post. Respectfully: Tom Strang ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:14:10 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Battery charging. From Harvey Re:battery charging: For Angus: You requested "any leads on fuel consumption at 1200 rpm at sea level in fine pitch". What follows is a very approximate calculation done by extending the available manufacturer's data into the engine low power range . The bottom line is that I think that at the conditions stated, the single 1340H engine consumed about 5 - 8 GPH. Thanks to Ric who realized the importance of determining the approximate minimum RPM (1200),the speed at which the generator cuts in and to Skeet for locating the RPM data and the fact that the plane had a 12 volt batteryThe speed information makes it possible to estimate fuel consumption. Here is my reasoning: With the throttle set at or near idle the lowest manifold pressure given by P&W in their Sea level Horsepower Calibration curve is 20 inches. Perhaps 19" is attainable. To estimate the brake horse power at these MP's and 1200 rpm,I extended the BHP given by the Lockheed power control chart , R.487,page 11, from 1600 down to 1200 rpm at these two MP's using a straight line approximation to calculate the BHP.The results are 73 HP at 20" and 49 HP at 19",both for single engine operation. These engine power levels , I believe, are more than adequate to drive the generator since they greatly exceed the generator's capability of recharging the battery at the maximum generator current output. For example,at an approximate maximum charge rate of 50 amperes at 12 volts the power flow to the load is 50*12=600 watts. At 746 watts per horse power, this amounts to a little less than 1 HP needed to deliver the 50 amps. With a single battery at 6 volts, the charging power is half. Even allowing for the generator efficiency, the single engine power far exceeds the generator' s charging capability. To determine fuel consumption from BHP,we need to know the specific fuel consumption,sfc in pounds/HP-hour. Unfortunately,the sfc data supplied by Lockheed in R.487on page 34 does not extend below 200 HP. The same is true for the P&W data. Again, by extending the known data in a straight line fashion, we get an approximate idea of sfc at the low BHP levels. The P&W sfc values are higher than Lockheed's at the higher engine horsepowers encountered in the normal operating range,but at these low levels,there isnt much difference-both show similar high sfc values at 19" equal to approximately 0.65. At 20",we get 0.63 lb/hour,nearly the same. Finally, to calculate fuel consumption in gallons per hour we need to multiply sfc by BHP to obtain pounds per hour of fuel consumed and then divide the result by 6 pounds /gallon to get the final result in GPH. The results at 20" are 0.63*73/6 = 7.7 or rounded off 8 GPH and at 19" we get 0.65*49/6 = 5.3 or 5 GPH. The length of time SE would have been able to reansmit before her tanks ran dry depends of course on the fual consumption and the larger question of what her reserve was when she and Fred landed at Niku. If she had 100 gallons remaining when she landed, they could have sent messages for a maximum of 100/5.3=19 hours total time. At 8 gph, the transmission time limit for 100 gallons would be down to about 12 1/2 hours. Etc. I will leave the estimate of elapsed time (how many nights)to others or for another time. harvey #2387 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:41:55 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Battery charging. From Skeet Gifford For Harvey and Angus Using a completely different method, I calculated 6 gallons per hour at 1,200 rpm. No argument. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:07:09 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Reaction From Dennis McGee RE: Angus's scenario of Sept. 4 Just what we'd expect from Ric -- letting the facts get in the way of a good story! LTM, a fact known by all Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:57:30 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Japanese cooperation From David Chase Ric, I know this is off the TIGHAR theory but has anyone you know of in recent times ever tried to see if the Japanese would answer any questions about Earhart? David ********************************************************************** From Ric The first question would be, just who are "the Japanese"? One prominent Japanese historian - Hiroshi Nakjima, Executive Director of the Pacific Society in Tokyo, is a TIGHAR memeber and has been very active in our project for about 10 years. Nakajima-san has had no difficulty at all in accessing official records, nor has any other researcher seeking Earhart information in Japan as far as I know. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:58:49 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Cam Warren Dear me! Phil Tanner wants to know why the government would have Earhart test new equipment, instead of one of their own guys. I guess you just tuned in, Phil! I thought I made it abundantly clear that the equipment in question - the Bendix RDF-1 - was a "done deal", and the Navy had already ordered and presumably installed some of the 150 units intended for PBYs. Besides the government, the commercial airlines (specifically TWA) were interested, and had requested special clearance for the classified gear so that they could do their own testing. A convincing demonstration by Earhart would have boosted sales for Bendix, one the the sponsors of the Earhart flight. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:04:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: A new scenario From Gary LaPook You sound like Arthur Alan Wolk. gl ************************************************************************* From Ric Who does? Angus or me? For forumites who may not know, Arty Wolk is the world's most successful/rapacious aviation plaintiffs' attorney. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:17:24 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Why use Earhart? From Patrick Gaston From Pat Gaston: Although Earhart's star was on the wane in 1937 -- in fact, the entire Last Flight has a Norma Desmondish feel to it -- she was still, arguably, one of the 10 or 15 most famous people in the world. The celebrity-endorsement biz being much the same back then as it is today, I can envision Bendix equipping Earhart with the latest-greatest DF gear in return for a post-flight endorsement. Imagine the ad copy: "Even Though My Navigator Was Drunk And I Know Less About Radio Than Most Chimpanzees, I Still Found Howland With My BENDIX RA-1 Direction Finder! Get Yours Today And Never Miss An Important Landfall Again!" It also makes sense that the Bendix PR machine would have held its fire pending a successful outcome of the flight. (Headline: "HIGHLY-TOUTED BENDIX RADIO GEAR SENDS FAMED AVIATRIX TO THE BOTTOM") When the flight was decidedly less than successful, Bendix conveniently forgot about its involvement. Having said all this I'm still not sure that the specific DF equipment aboard the Electra has much to do with the grand scheme of things. But if Cam wants to pursue this angle, more power to him! LTM Pat Gaston ************************************************************************** From Ric Cam's speculative scenario would have ring more true if there was any known occasion when Earhart accepted equipment for a flight but kept it secret until the flight was successfully accomplished. The Sperry Gyro-Pilot, for example, was a new gizmo that was met with some skepticism by the conservative pilot community. There were rumors that the thing could "run away" and crash your airplane for you. Nonetheless, Earhart's use of the Gyro-Pilot was openly publicized before the flight. Closer to home, the installation of one of five prototype examples of the Hooven/Bendix Radio Compass aboard the Electra in October 1936 was no secret. It was pulled out in February and replaced with an old MN-5 Bendix loop and the new coupler - again, well-publicized. If Bendix later added yet another radio to NR16020 but kept it quiet he was breaking an established pattern. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:14:42 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: New subscriber From Jack Clark: To Randy Jacobson: Thank you for your comments. The only actual position report I am aware of prior to the 0718 Z one is the report I have been discussing with Alan, which I am trying to make sense of. The Chater letter (Page6) only gives two actual position reports received. I agree with you it was a grievous mistake not to give a time the fix was calculated (it also makes it harder for us to follow the flight !!) Perhaps Amelia did try to transmit the report earlier, Chater's letter notes that communications were prevented by interference until 0418Z and then the entire message was not readable. Re the Oakland Honolulu flight . I believe they carried two pilots and two navigators on that trip with one navigator doing duty as a radio operator. This would ease the burden on each individual. To Ric: Re the Merrill flight, he was flying from continent to continent and could perhaps afford to be a bit more casual. Fred was looking for a pin point in the ocean and would I feel make his sightings as accurate as possible even that eariy in the flight. It does not seem as though I can offer any further explanation of my reasoning regarding the 0518Z report. As the outcome of the matter does not affect the outcome of the flight ( I am just trying to clear up one of the many side issues) perhaps I should just agree to disagree and let it go at that. The only person I can find with a similar opinion is Elgen Long and he only mentions it in passing giving no definite opinion. I did not get the idea from him and had come to my conclusion some time before I read his book a few months ago. I have been trying to obtain information on the 8th. edition Randy mentioned but on selecting the link on the Earhart Project page I only get a Page canot be found message. Is the link not operating at present ? Or it may be a fault at my end. Is the 8th edition a hard copy item or CD ? I would also like to know its cost. Jack Clark. *************************************************************************** From Ric Ooops, looks like that link got broken. I'll get it fixed right away. The 8th Edition is available on line (via an individual password we send you) and we also send you hard copy in a three-ring binder so that updates and new chapters can be added as they become available. The price is $100. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:18:55 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: MERRILL FLIGHTS From Herman De Wulf / Belgium Ric, The story of the film/photos I find in my history books is a little different. Merrill and Lambie did bring the film reels of the Hindenburg crash to London (they were shown in the movie theatres - no TV yet) but they did not return with any film reels of the coronation of king George VI because they were not ready in time. As they could not wait for meteorological reasons Merrill and Lambie flew back carrying 600 still pictures instead. LTM *************************************************************************** From Ric There appears to be a discrepancy among the sources. It may be clearer once I have a chance to really get into it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:42:52 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? Ric writes - > Cam's speculative scenario would have ring more true if there was any > known occasion when Earhart accepted equipment for a flight but kept it >secret until the flight was successfully accomplished. Well, I think you're missing the point. This was presumably the first time Earhart accepted any government-classified gear, and it's obvious the Navy wasn't anxious to publicize the usage of HF for DF at the time. Bendix obviously had his eye on another, bigger contract from the military. Exactly how TWA got wind of the RDF-1 is not known, and they probably were aware that any test results they came up with wouldn't be revealed to the public until some time later. Part of the agreement with the Navy Dept. surely included a "non-disclosure" clause. The agreement specifics aren't available in the Archives, only the notation that there was a request for the equipment granted. (NARA Group 72, Correspondence). Hooven's low-frequency ADF was not classified, nor was the Sperry Auto-Pilot. Remember too, that Bendix bought out Hooven's company in January, 1937. If Vincent Bendix, or his engineers, thought there was a greater commercial benefit if Earhart used the ADF, then that would have been the choice. But the high frequency RDF had two big advantages, much greater range, and since the components could be smaller, lighter weight. Ric still seems to have the mindset that the RDF was a step backward, but that's comparing apples to oranges, and there's no reason for it. Hindsight being so useful, one can safely second-guess the Putnam's judgment, and say that Amelia would have found Howland with the easier-to-operate ADF. But that doesn't alter my explanation. She had a new HF/DF and it didn't work - for her. Cam Warren ********************************************************************** From Ric So the RDF-1 is classified but somehow TWA knows about it and Bendix (not the government) wants Earhart - who, as far as anyone knows, does not have any kind of securty clearance - to secretly test it so he can crow about this thing that nobody is supposed to know about. I'm sure it all makes perfect sense to you. I got my mindset that the RDF was a step backward from Fred Hooven, the guy whose Radio Compass was replaced by the RDF, who was of that mindset when he wrote his 1982 paper about his experiences with Earhart and his opinions about the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:43:55 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? From Dave Bush Ric: Also, why would a well respected company send an untrained chimp up to "test" or "tout" a product without being absolutely certain that the chimp knew exactly what to do to be successful and that the equipment would work as expected. I still say that if AE was flying something that important that Bendix would have seen to it that she got far more training (or that Noonan would), than we've seen any documentation of. But, that's just me, I never look for coverups, just common sense. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 (thanks again for the easy to remember number) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:45:18 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper FROM: Dave in Houston Cam: If TWA knew about - and you know that TWA "requested" permission to use it, then you know that there is a papertrail showing these requests - so they didn't hide that fact, so where is the papertrail showing that AE was using the equipment? What I'm saying is that there isn't any logic to your insuations that there was a coverup of any kind. Pan Am has ordered these "top secret" units for their totally open civilian transports and TWA is requesting them for their totally open civilian transports. Where's the coverup? To me, if the thing is top secret, then at each and every stop, there would have been an armed guard posted around the aircraft to prevent the inspection or theft of the "top secret" device. Now, Cam, as smart as you are, surely you can see the flaw in your assertions that there was any of this equipment aboard AE's 10E (I hope). LTM, Dave Bush ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:49:15 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: PNG's Wrecked Electra - not From Denise Well, I took a photocopy of the "Electra wrecked in a PNG jungle" photograph to a guy who knows heaps about historical planes and asked if he could tell me anything about it. He could and did. The photograph was taken in 1959 by an Australian guy called Bruce Adams, a photojournalist with - he thinks - "The Age" newspaper in Melbourne. And not only is it not an "Electra wrecked in a PNG jungle", it isn't even in PNG (although that war isn't over yet), and is another famous missing plane altogether. It's the wreck of Yamamoto Isoroku's plane shot down by US Forces in Bouganville. It seems Adams hunted it down after interviewing many hundreds of locals, and a harrowing trek through the mountains and jungles of the Bouganville interior. It won Australia's 1960 Walkley Award for Photo-journalism. Since the photograph is so well known, I'm sure you already have it or have access to it. Of course, if you don't, I'm still more than willing to hassle with my ridiculous scanner to get it to you. LTM (who always avoided hassling) Denise *********************************************************************** From Ric No need. We're very familiar with the Yamamoto "Betty", a well-known and quite controversial wreck. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:59:03 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Frequency research needed From Ric In evaluating the post-loss radio signals, we need to know where and how the frequencies 3105 and 6210 were being used in 1937. Were those frequencies unique to aviation use? Were they used internationally or just in the U.S.? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:31:02 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: PNG's Wrecked Electra - not From Warren Hi, I'm confused (not the first time-probably not the last either). Is the wreck photo that Denise speaks of-the the photo in the TIGHAR archives (missing engine etc.)? Thanks, Warren ************************************************************* From Ric No. Different photo. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:32:49 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Jon Watson Hi Ric, For Cam - What specifically about the Bendix RDF-1 was classified? There were other radio direction finding units (Bendix, Hooven, etc)already in use that were not classified. Ric, refresh my memory - when did Bendix buy Hooven? > the equipment in question - > the Bendix RDF-1 - was a "done deal", and the Navy had already ordered > and presumably installed some of the 150 units intended for PBYs. > If the Navy had already bought or committed to buying 150 units for the PBY, I don't understand why they would have any interest in having Earhart "test" classified government equipment. Likewise, I have a hard time reconciling in my mind the government de-classifying the equipment just so Bendix could get publicity out of it. Besides, Bendix would just as easily get their favorable publicity from her flight with any of their products - and we know the loop itself was a Bendix product. You also mention the airline interest in the equipment, but according to your post ... > the commercial airlines (specifically TWA) were > interested, and had requested special clearance for the classified gear > so that they could do their own testing. ... since the airline/s were already interested and wanted to do their own testing anyway,(first) there doesn't seem to be a need for Bendix to generate interest - the airlines were apparently already interested, and (second) it doesn't seem to me that the airline/s would get much "test data" out of Earhart's use. Their requirements, testing and use of the equipment would be specific to their individual applications. ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:35:07 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? From Herman De Wulf (#2406) Cam wrote : "Exactly how TWA got wind of the RDF-1 is not known". I believe people involved in aviation knew what was going on in the aviation world then as they do today (that world was much smaller then than now). Maybe they just read Aviation Week? As for TWA, let's not forget they knew Amelia Earhart very well. She had been on the board when the airline was still called TAT. So was Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh had been instrumental in TAT's decision to operate the all metal Ford Trimotor and in having them equipped with two way radio. Amelia Earhart was appointed assistant to the general traffic manager. TAT publicity releases advertised she had been hired to develop interest in air travel among women. In 1929 they inaugurated the first transcontinental TAT air service together: Lindbergh flew the first eastbound flight out of Glendale airport to New York and Amelia Earhart inaugurated the first westbound flight from Port Columbus. Although I understand she did not fly the aircraft herself. Perhaps it is useful to remind that part of the transcontinental trip back then was by train because aircraft flew only in daytime. Passengers for Los Angeles left New York Penn Station by train for Port Columbus, Ohio, where two Ford Trimotors (baptized "City of Columbus" and "City of Wichita") were waiting to fly all 19 of them to Waynoka. There passengers boarded a Santa Fe train to Clovis again, from where two more Ford Trimotors would fly them to there final destination: Los Angeles. Eastbound and westbound flights began at the same time. The first eastbound flight from Los Angeles was flown by Charles Lindbergh himself (out of Glendale). But he flew only as far as Winslow. There he took over the "City of Columbus" and flew it to Los Angeles. On board was Amelia Earhart, who inaugurated the first westbound flight from Port Columbus. TAT loved to see its name linked to celebrities. Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart were not the only ones hired for their reputation. When Lindbergh's Ford Trimotor was readied for the first eastbound flight it was baptized "City of Los Angeles" just before departure from Glendale by Hollywood celebrities Gloria Swanson and Mary Pickford. Also present was Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford's husband. To make a long story short, TWA knew AE and AE probably still had personal ties there with some people, including Charles Lindbergh. And he was the man who knew about airborne radio equipment. LTM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:38:42 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? From Cam Warren Ric - You state: > I got my mindset that the RDF was a step backward from Fred Hooven, the guy > whose Radio Compass was replaced by the RDF, who was of that mindset when he > wrote his 1982 paper about his experiences with Earhart and his opinions > about the disappearance. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Mr. Hooven, whose talents extended far beyond the ADF. I have his 1982 paper, and copies of his extensive correspondence with Goerner, as well as considerable biographical material. Hooven had a low opinion of Vincent Bendix, and eventually left his employ. Hooven's Radio Compass was routinely replaced by an LF Bendix system (which appears to have been upgraded to the RDF-1 at Miami). One of the purposes of "The Flying Laboratory" was to evaluate various types of direction-finders. Bendix acquired Hooven's company AND Radio Research Labs in early 1937, and - no doubt influenced by the lucrative Navy contracts - favored the latter company. Hooven, who built gear for the Army Signal Corps, was understandably grumpy with the turn of events and was vocally critical. Since the Bendix LF system worked just fine en route to Honolulu, under the skillful operation of Harry Manning, Earhart/Putnam naturally were easily "sold" on the later "state-of-the-art" HF/DF model. As far as Earhart's lack of a "security clearance", I'm sure good buddy FDR could clear up that little problem if necessary. On the other hand, as I've suggested, the RDF-1 may well have come out the Bendix "back door" and therefore was not publicly mentioned at the time. (I'm just offering some possible answers, not formulating a conspiracy theory, so put down your tar-brush!!) Cam Warren ******************************************************************* From Ric No, no - you hang on to the tar brush. You have yourself almost completely covered. Just let me know when you're ready for the feathers. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:45:13 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Cam's HF/DF paper From Cam Warren Well, I thought I'd provide a little research fodder for a dull summer, but . . . . Dave Bush says - > there isn't any logic to your insuations that there > was a coverup of any kind. Pan Am has ordered these "top secret" units > for their totally open civilian transports and TWA is requesting them > for their totally open civilian transports. Where's the coverup? . . . . > Now, Cam, as smart as you are, surely you can see the flaw in your > assertions that there was any of this equipment aboard AE's 10E (I > hope). (Why do I have to explain everything twice? Doesn't anybody READ the e-mails??? I NEVER said Pan Am was "ordering these 'top secret' units". I DID SAY TWA had petitioned the government for a single unit for evaluation, NOT to install on "their totally open civilian transports". NARA Record Group 72 "Index to General Correspondence 1925-42, QM(5000)" includes a 5x7 file card, labeled "RADIO RESEARCH CO., INC". (If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that company became part of Bendix Radio 1/'37). entries included on the file card read as follows: 9/28/36 From ONI* Fwdg ltr fm Radio Research Co., Wash. DC dtd 9/24 to SecNav. re:Encl. of ltr fm Trans- continental & Western Air Inc. dtd 9/21 re req supply with model RDF-1 Direction Finder Unit. (E22-PL)9/30. (L11-4(2) *(That's "Office of Naval Intelligence") A later entry reads: 11/21/36 To SecyState Fwding copy req. of Radio Research Co. to supply T&WA with a Mdl RDF-1 Radio Direction Finder Unit for experimental purposes, approved by War & Navy Depts. (PL2) 12-3-36. L11-4(2). Looks legit to me, and hardly a purchase order to your local K-Mart. Feel free to track down the original correspondence if you're so inclined. (Why do I suspect people that ask these kind of questions never cracked open a book, or looked up anything in the Archives themselves?) Cam Warren =========================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:26:34 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Frequency research needed From Randy Jacobson Those frequencies were used by the aviation community throughout the US. I'm not sure if they were standardized in other countries, but I doubt it. There is a Russian broadcast station at that time that was using 3105 kHz, but very low power. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:27:44 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: New Subscriber From Jack Clark: To Alan Randy & Ric: I have been over my data a few more times and I have "seen the light" my reasoning doe's not provide PROOF that the position given was taken at noon local time 0200Z. The references I used only give the time the sun would transit that position, although it COULD have been a noon shot (not quite the same thing). My apologies to Alan Randy & Ric and thanks. Jack Clark. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:28:32 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? From Marty Moleski > ... But, that's just me, I never look for coverups, just common sense. That reminds me of Hanlon's Razor, which may or may not have been quoted in the Forum before: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:30:09 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: HF/DF, TWA, Cam Warren From Ron Reuther The following extracts from my MSS Wings Over San Francisco Bay may relate to Cam Warrens comments about TWA (and others?) and radio direction finding on Earhart's aircraft in 1937.. Recall that Earhart and Eugene Vidal were close friends. Ron Reuther TESTING AT OAKLAND In March l934, the Army Air Corps took the DC-l (the first and only type of a series of famous and highly successful airplanes designed and built by Douglas Aircraft Company) on bailment from TWA. It was leased for the duration of the project by the U.S. Department of Commerce to research and test new navigation and radio devices and techniques, in anticipation of the likelyhood of regular commercial over-ocean air travel. To make the test flights out of the Oakland Municipal Airport, the Army assigned captain Clayton Bissell (later a general in the WW II CBI theater) and captain Albert J. Hegenberger (of first-flight-to-Hawaii fame). Lieutenant A.R. Johns represented Wright Army Airfield for the antenna, and Chester Snow represented the Department of Commerce. The engine manufacturer furnished a representative and a Mr. Brig represented Douglas Aircraft Company. Eugene L. Vidal, father of the famous writer Gore Vidal, and very much involved in Amelia Earhart's last flight was Director of the Bureau of Air Commerce and was directly responsible for this test program. Considerable secrecy surrounded this project. The program evaluated the new Sperry autopilot and the Kreusi radio compass. Many flights were made, most of them far out to sea. Sometimes the aircraft would be out so far that Honolulu was closer than Oakland. Special permission was requested from the U.S. Department of Commerce to fly a landplane between the mainland and Honolulu, but was never granted. Approval to continue to Honolulu was sought many times by radio when the aircraft was near, or even past, the midpoint; but approval was never granted. Just as the program seemed certain to achieve success, congressional funds for its support, previously appropriated, were vetoed presumably by the executive department of the government and the program was terminated. The aircraft was returned to TWA on April 1, 1935. Soon thereafter, the Department of Commerce official, Clarence M. Young whose approval was required, quit his government job to become an executive of Pan American Airways, which was using flying boats rather than landplanes on scheduled flights over the Pacific! MORE TESTING AT OAKLAND In May l936, United Air Lines announced Oakland was the site of a successful series of tests of the nation's first practicable "blind" landing system. J.D.Woodward headed up the project, but the genius behind this system was Thorp Hiscock, a former upstate New York banker and WW I Army flyer and William Lawrenz, an electronic "Handy Andy," whom Hiscock had met during the war, and who was a partner in a ranch with Hiscock in Yakima, Washington were they both had lived until being assigned to the Boeing School of Aeronautics in Oakland by Bill Boeing. Hiscock married Bill Boeing's sister-in-law, and thus became one of Boeing's few close friends. Hiscock was instrumental in developing radio communication in aircraft. Herbert Hoover Jr. of Western Air Express who had been wrestling with radio communications for some time, was sent to collaborate with United's team, and Western Electric Company assigned technicans to work with them. Soon all United aircraft had Hiscock radio sets installed and the sets were made at the Boeing School of Aeronautics. For several years the development and testing of this system had been carried on at Oakland. First experiments were conducted by the Boeing School of Aeronautics, using a single-engined Boeing biplane. Then after the the system had been fully tested and found to be workable, the apparatus was transferred to one of the Boeing 80's, a large tri-motored biplane. Again "it worked", and the experiments were begun using one of the larger Boeing 247's, the same as those used in regular service on the transcontinental and coastal airways. United Air Lines made use of the blind landing beam installed at the airport and a 'robot" pilot, which was installed in the aircraft. In the tests, 24 perfect landings were made out of every 25, with all windows in the plane sealed from light. Over 7000 test landings were made. The human pilot, totally ignored the customary controls, and handled the plane by turning dials on the instrument panel which in turn actuated the "robot" pilot. One of the pilots and a flight engineer of this "flying laboratory" was Ben O. Howard, who became well-known as a builder of aircraft, one type of which was known as the Howard DGA, which stood for "damn good airplane". Hiscock developed other significant aids to aviation including de-icing boots on the leading edges of wings and tail surfaces, variable pitch propellers, and a device to control the temperature of fuel in flight thereby increasing the efficiency of engines in flight and adding to the crusing range of airplanes. Unfortunately Hiscock died in 1939.? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:40:40 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: Why use Earhart? From DavyFlyer HI, I think we miss the point on AE having not a Security Clearance. (of some degree ). My reason is this. When you look at one of her Pictures, all dressed up, She is being presented a set of Government wings. What a good way to have one inducted in to Government control. DavyFlyer ************************************************************************* From Ric If it's the photo I think you mean it shows a very young Amelia receiving "honorary" wings from some National Guard squadron. It's just a PR photo. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:26:45 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum Sender: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum From: "Richard E. Gillespie" Subject: Re: A new scenario From Gary LaPook > You sound like Arthur Alan Wolk. > gl > > ************************************************************************* > >From Ric > > Who does? Angus or me? > > For forumites who may not know, Arty Wolk is the world's most > successful/rapacious aviation plaintiffs' attorney. I meant Angus. gl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:29:09 EDT Reply-To: The Amelia Earhart Search Forum