Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:25:28 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Blindfold Evidence Ric, I sent an E-mail to Joe Davidson, "Amelia Earhart Returns from Saipan," and asked him what he thought of the blindfold discovery. Davidson's group has bone fragments from the gravesite they excavated. They are trying to collect DNA evidence on what they found. Interesting. The question is was it the same gravesite? Carol Dow #2524 ********************************************************************** From Ric No. The question is - was it a gravesite? Bone fragments in bulldozed ground on an island where so many people have died do not a gravesite make. ============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:31:06 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Shoes - AE Maybe lots of shoes, but did Amelia carry a brown leather attache case or briefcase with a snap lock in her Electra?? Ron B. ************************************************************************ From Ric We're talking Amelia Earhart here, not Imelda Marcos. There is such briefcase among luggage and stuff to be loaded aboard the Electra prior to the departure from Burbank on May 20. No way to tell whether it's Earhart's or Noonan's but it would be surprising if there were not some sort of briefcase aboard for a flight like that, and in those days, that's what a briefcase looked like. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:33:02 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Evidence Ric has an excellent point. Practically nothing is filmed or witnesses by hundreds of people. As far as a historical, archealogical find with the standard of proof relying on the intergrity of the finder, there is no doubt in my mind that Brennan found it in that hole. Whether the cloth was the "blindfold" as described by Blas on Earhart, or if it was Earhart that Blas saw, or whether or not it was connected in any way to Blas's testimony, is argueable. Blas's testimony is of course suspect in many ways as she decribed the victim wearing rings, which reportedly Earhart did not have. But the fact that a black cloth of that size and shape was found by two credible diggers with Mrs. Blas' grandson standing in the ditch and the front end loader operater as a witnesses, seems irrefutable. (There is a photograph of Harris in the ditch with the grandson, but there is no cite exactly when the photo was taken or if it was a reenactment.) Ron Bright ****************************************************************** From Ric I think we can all agree not to contest that a piece of black cloth was found as described. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:34:30 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Evidence For Alan, I have no disagreement with your positon. I know and accept the "blindfold" discovery and Blas' story as a better than average anecdote that found some support with the cloth "blindfold " discovery in the hole exactly where Blas said she saw Earhart shot. Pretty darn interesting. I know of no other physical evidence found in the Marshalls. Unfortunately Brennan did not take the evidence much further other than some lab guy saying it was "consistant" with cloth made in the late 30s. Nothing else done and the cloth lies in a glass case. Maybe absolutely nothing, but should it be looked at? The Marshall Island evidence of which I am quite critical amounts to tons of witnesses from Mili, to Jaluit and Saipan starting with Elieu's hearsay, to Bilermon Amram's story, to Josephine Blanco to Nieva Blas with many in between. On the other hand, check out the physical evidence as presented by Devine in his new book "With Our Own Eyes", The Amelia Earhart Incident, just out. And to complicate matters I can count at lease five Electras seen at various places. Ron Bright ============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:35:41 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Evidence Alan you must differentiate what are references that I refer you to between what is convincing evidence. Brennan reported in his book what he found and how he found it. You can evaluate it rather than me write out the whole enchilada. TIGHAR reports what they find on Niku in the same manner. I have no doubts that they have documented their research and I believe in their integrity. My point is that I like to have folks look at the reference material in print. Take it from there whether it has any merit. LTM, Ron Bright (who by the way didn't beleive that Amelia sent that telegram to GP in Aug 1945) =============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:46:28 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > those of us who are not Ric face this problem all the time What a comforting thought. I was getting worried that more of us were Ric that was safe. Tom, you gave a good example of how to document a find. I could have put Scott on the stand to tesify he actually saw the guys digging and uncovering the cloth -- if that had been the case of course. Scott's position gave him some credibility. There would then have been a rebuttable confirmation the event DID take place. I have no clue how I could connect it to Earhart given what we know. Alan =============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:47:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Shoes - AE > Sixty ODD years later people might start wondering whose shoes > the were and why and how they were left behind. True. I worry that in the future someone will find an old Texas restaurant menu listing, among other entrees, Buffalo wings. Alan =============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:48:25 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > Why would anyone assume that a scrap of cloth > recovered from an excavation was a "blindfold". Because they WANT it to be a blindfold, Gary. Alan ============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:49:22 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > For one thing, if by some chance DNA was present at the > moment of recovery, it has now been overlaid with the DNA of everybody who > has handled the artifact since then. True, Ric. I was just trying to be positive for Ron. Upon testing we might find the DNA of General Douglas MacArthur or someone else of that stature who had been there. But I think Douglas just faded away blindfoldless in the states. Alan ============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:50:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > In the case of the blindfold, the "intriguing possibility" was presented and > touted, but that's where it ended. The shoe parts were similarly presented > and touted, Of course another difference is that there is no doubt the shoe parts are really from shoes whereas there is no clue as to what the piece of cloth is or was from. Alan =============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:52:38 EST From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: Evidence > Maybe there are many things in those books that need checked out. My skin crawled at the sight of this... Unless you're from some hamlet in western Pennsylvania, the correct phrasing is "Maybe there are many things in those books that need TO BE checked out." Sorry to be so picky, but in the words of someone far more astute: "Words mean things." LTM (who heard from many a Pennsylvanian such gross incorrectness as "this floor needs swept") Dave *********************************************************************** From Ric Fair warning: we're not going to launch a whole new thread on regional idiomatic idiosyncrasies. =============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:02:39 EST From: Lawrence Subject: Re: Battery Power Ok, so it's not necessary to run an engine to run the radio. Amelia could have run the Electra into the scavola (sp?) and used the radio for at least five hours? Tides don't mean anything unless you figure in the nine days of post lost messages. ************************************************************************ From Ric The tricky part about putting the Electra at Gardner is not explaining why Lambrecht didn't see it on July 9. Aerial searches missing airplanes on the ground is the rule - not the exception. The tricky part is explaining why neither the Maude/Bevington expedition in October 1937, the New Zealand Survey expedition in December 1938 through January 1939, nor the USS Bushnell survey in November 1939, reported seeing any airplane wreckage on the reef or beach or in the bush. Our current hypothesis is that the aircraft was, during that entire period, sunk and essentially intact in relatively shallow water just off the edge of the reef and only began breaking up and washing ashore several years later. All of the anecdotal and photographic evidence we have of aircraft debris on the reef and beach date from 1945 through about 1959. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:05:13 EST From: Larry Subject: Amelia's Shoes Ric wrote: > However, further analysis of photos of Earhart's shoe heels > shows that they were an unusual two-tone color and not at all like either of > the heels found on the island. If the shoe heels are two tone by using two different color material, is it possible that the white and black became separated and all you found was the black half? Larry ************************************************************************ From Ric No. The color division was left and right, not top and bottom. The inside half of each heel was light colored and the outside half was dark. =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:02:02 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Battery Power From Tom King: Ric says: >Our current hypothesis is that the aircraft was, during that entire period, >sunk and essentially intact in relatively shallow water just off the edge of >the reef and only began breaking up and washing ashore several years later. It is? Why does the airplane need to be intact? I can't think of any reason not to assume that the plane had by the time of the Colorado flight gone over the edge of the reef and broken up, with its pieces scattered to some extent or other over the face of the reef. The Colorado pilots then don't see the plane because there's nothing to see but the heavy undercarriage, stuck where Emily Sikuli later reports it in the visually confusing surf zone at the reef edge. Maude and Bevington and the Kiwis don't see it for the same reason. The pieces then move along with the current and are periodically vomited up onto the reef flat during storms, for folks like Tapania Taiki to find. Of course, this may or may not be what happened, but it seems to me to fit the data better than does the "submerged but intact" premise, and to explain more with less effort. What does "submerged but intact" buy us in terms of accounting for observations? ************************************************************************ From Ric You say: >the plane had by the time of the Colorado flight gone over >the edge of the reef and broken up, with its pieces scattered to some extent >or other over the face of the reef. What are you calling the "face of the reef"? The ledge? The reef slope? If the plane is in pieces, some of those pieces are going to float (tanks of various sizes, cushions, small pieces of aluminum sheet with kapok insulation attached, etc.) and any piece of sheet aluminum with a large surface area in proportion to its mass should be very susceptibe to movement by surf forces. Let's put the wreck where Emily says she saw it - just over the reef edge where the surf breaks. It's real hard to see the plane torn apart in that location and not have a whole bunch of aluminum sheet and other junk scattered across the flat and up onto the beach. And yet, by your scenario, all that stuff has to stay off the reef flat until at least after the Bushnell Boys are gone (November of 1939). Emily sees what she sees sometime between her arrival in about January 1940 and her departure in November 1941. Gallagher doesn't see any airplane parts. He arrives in September of 1940 and leaves in June of 1941, returning only a couple days before his death in September. Try this scenario: The airplane sits, largely intact and undiscovered, just over the reef edge a little bit north of the shipwreck until the big storms of November/December 1940 when it starts to break up and debris starts to appear on the reef flat. Until his departure in June, Gallagher is absorbed in relocating the village and beginning clearing and planting operations on Aukeraime so he has no occasion to be up on northern Nutiran, but at some point (maybe only after Gallagher has left the island) the fishermen who fish around the shipwreck (because it's good fishing) notice some debris and follow it to what's left of the plane wreck. The story gets around and Temou points out the curiousity to his daughter Segalo (Emily) sometime between June and November 1941. By that time the wreck is reduced to the state Emily describes. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:08:01 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: Five Electras Ron, You're counting five Electras? The Electras were a commercial transport in that era and in that part of the world prior to WW II. Anthony Eden even flew one to a meeting with Adolph Hitler. Then again, I would question the aircraft identification ability of the average natives in the Pacific. All I know is what I read in books and see on the tube. That's all I know. Carol Dow #2524 =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:22:26 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Dive search area/Fred and the bottle. What is the furthest point north (or north and east) of the NC which has been searched by the dive team along the reef canyons? I seem to remember seeing a map of Niku after Niku IV showing this but can't find it now. In view of Amelia's apparent (and as it transpired on takeoff - justified) obsession with weight reduction, does the presence of the benedictine bottle not either tend to disqualify the castaway as being AE/FN or alternatively (and more likely) lend support to the idea that Fred had dipsomaniac tendencies and had brought the bottle on board without AE's knowledge? Is there any possibility that Pan Am records still exist explaining how he came to leave the airline? On another topic, a friend has just bought a RR Merlin 69 to rebuild. Has anyone got or know of any spare parts that might be useful, particularly carburetter and rocker covers? Regards Angus. *********************************************************************** From Ric As I recall, the reef edge north of the shipwreck was searched all the way up to the NW point of the island. I don't think there's much that can be done with the Benedictine bottle. Bottles float. A castaway might be able to beachcomb a bottle, or a bottle of "medicinal" booze may have been included in the Norwich City cache. If we could find a primary source reference to Noonan having a particular fondness for Benendictine, that would be interesting. The Pan Am records now at the University of Miami do not appear to include employment records. The best source we've found so far for the circumstances surrounding Fred's departure from PAA is a reference in a 1939 book written by his contemporary, PAA Capt. William Grooch, who says that Fred quit over a dispute about working conditions. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:35:28 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence > Ric wrote: > Fair warning: we're not going to launch a whole new thread on regional > idiomatic idiosynchrasies. Hi Ric, I thought it was just time for our annual grammar debate... ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************** From Ric Naw...new national standards have been set. Anything that appears here on the forum is well within the guidelines. =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:50:14 EST From: Harvey Subject: engineering math model,Electra 10E I have been preparing a computerized engineering math model of the Electra 10E for some time now and I think it is time to share this work with the forum. What it does: The model attempts to simulate the performance of the plane in the take off,climb, and cruise and approach flight modes. Each major airplane system:engine including fuel consumption,propeller,control surfaces,and aerodynamics was represented as faithfully as possible using the available data. The advantage of using the computer is that the user can quickly alter a parameter and rerun the scenario. It will be possible,for instance to 'fly' various flight plans such as Kelly Johnson's and evaluate the results. Factors such as winds,fuel consumption, altitudes,speeds and headings which are not well known can be varied and the effects analyzed. I am aware that the results may not shed much light on key issues such as fuel remaining in the vicinity of Howland ,but I think its worth a try. How it is done:To develop the math model, maximum use was made of the Lockheed specifications R465 and R487 copies of which were so graciously and generously provided to me by Ric and Oscar Boswell last July.Prior to that, I was greatly hampered by the lack of data and for 2 years had only modest success in predicting performance and matching Mr. Johnson's flight plan.For the model, I set up digitized tables representing the performance charts contained in the reports and then linked them together to form a system. Airplane motions were obtained by solving the aerodynamic force and moment equations for accelerations,then integrating to find the speed and plane position. Many of these relationships are time dependent and use aero data such as the drag polar in R.487. To run the resulting model on the computer, these functions are coded and executed in a logical (e.g. forces before speed) using a counter to increment time.A new pass is made through the equations every 0.1 second.The small time increment was necessary to accurately solve rate equations when these are changing such as when engine power is changed or a climb is entered. All the equations and logic are programmed in the Visual Basic 6 language,a windows oriented,user friendly program recommended to me by a highly talented professional software engineer,Mike Trigoboff .Both batch and real time scenarios can be run. Running in real time over a 19 hour period makes one appreciate batch processing.(Amelia,stay alert!).Inputs and displays are operable on a visual form provided by the VB6 environment. Currently,the math model runs to some 60 pages of code and grows daily. Goals: When the work is more or less completed it should be possible for a pilot to use the system and observe the effects of various configurations and variations. As mentioned previously,I am currently setting up a complete flight scenario based on the Kelly Johnson telegrams for Hono as applied to the Lae flight. Because the system is user friendly, others beside myself will be able to run the system. It is a long term goal of mine to develop a flight sim version that employs simulated flight controls and displays. As examples of the type of problems you can run with the sim,each portion of the takeoff is modelled in detail including ground effect,the use of flaps, raising the tail as soon as the speed is adequate, accelerating in the 2 point configuration and finally liftoff. A reasonably accurate assessment of total runway distance used is calculated. When time permits It should be interesting to observe the results as the plane goes over the cliff at the end of the Lae runway and sinks from sight,hugs the sea then accelerates to climb speed. For the simulated climb,an optimum climb for a given weight can be determined by varying climb speed and flight path angle. A rudimentary simulated flight pitch axis autopilot is driven by flight path commands. This was done to enable preprogramming the flight path in batch mode. Limitations,problems,additions 1. There appears to be a conflict between R465 and R487 in the area of speeds attained at various altitudes and power settings. Oscar Boswell commented on this in a recent letter. In general,the airspeeds for a given altitude and BHP claimed in R465 are greater than those in R487. Differences can amount to approx. 10 mph. I followed R487 because the bulk of the design data is in this report.However, I did use the Engine Power Control Chat on page 11 of R465 and the associated carburetor heat power correction as the basis for the simulated engine. 2. The specific 10E wing section characteristics were not available. This leads to some fuzziness in angle of attack, but it's not critical. If anyone knows the section 4, 5 or 6 digit designation,I would appreciate it if they contacted the forum or me. 3. I haven't yet added the ability to bank and turn to a heading. 4. The fuel consumption data provided by Lockheed appears to be optimistic as compared to that available form the engine manufacturer, P&W. I have simply coded sfc,gph, total fuel consumed, etc to represent both sources of data. I believe that Oscar Boswell has made some preliminary comments on this subject and I look forward to any further light he can shed here. I owe all my understanding of fuel related issues to this fine, caring scholar. At present,all the sim can do is compare the 2 cases for a given flight. I set this comparison as an early goal with the Lae parameters installed.(of course,many items: winds, altitudes, power settings must be assumed.) I am curious to see just how much variation we get in say total fuel consumption as these assumed conditions are changed. 5. Add a glide slope capability to simulate the approach to a destination. Tests The sim is only as good as the tests run on it. Most of these are to check the model against the known Lockheed data base. You could say that the sim was shaped by these tests since nearly every test resulted in a model change. The more advanced tests are those where you gather data between or outside the range of the known data points and attempt to predict performance. For example,the specified speeds in R.465 are mostly measured at a standard weight of 10500 lb. However the data in R487 is calculated at 9300, 12900, and 16500 lbs. The interpolation enables the analyst to compare performance at the same weight. One could perform these calculations by hand,but it would take 'forever'. Why do it? It's a time saving computational tool for analyzing plane performance. Perhaps we can add something to the information we already have. Only time will tell. In the meantime, I am learning a great deal about airplanes and enjoying it immensely. For me,the work is its own reward. And occasionally I even run into my family. Thank you, Ric, Oscar Boswell and Doug Brutlag for the encouragement and support and information you gave me when I needed it the most. Much more to come. Hope there is some interest, LTM, Harvey,#2387 ************************************************************************ From Ric I recently received from Pratt & Whitney several pages of technical data on the operation of the Wasp S3H1 engine. I'll send copies to you and to Oscar. We also have, as yet unanalyzed, a great deal of data on the two transatlantic flights of the other Lockheed 10E Special, NR16059, the "Daily Express". That data should also be useful in testing your model. Oscar already has a CD with the PDFs of the various press reports describing the flights. I'll send one to you along with the engine data. =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:57:42 EST From: Bill Stout Subject: Radio Group - Collins One of my employees just pointed out that the noon speaker next Wednesday at a series of electrical engineering conferences (IEEE) in Cedar Rapids will be speaking on the Collins Amateur Radios groups involvement in the search. From what I see, (see attachment) it looks like they are buying in to the ran out of gas and sank theory, but not for sure. Do we know what they are all about, or would you like men to attend and see what they are up to? Any questions, such as are they doing anything with the post crash radio signals, etc? Bill Stout Member ************************************************************************ From Ric I have a recollectiuon that Collins did some kind of study that supported Elgen Long's conclusions - probably something about assigning ranges to the in-flight transmissions based upon their reported strength. Yes, it would be nice to know what they're saying. I'll be surprised if they're interested in the post-loss messages. Crashed and Sankers tend to deal with them by quoting the later Coast Guard assertion that they were all investigated and found to be either hoaxes or misunderstandings. Yes, the Coast Guard said that but it was not true. =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:58:34 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Evidence Ron Bright wrote: > I know of no other > physical evidence found in the Marshalls. That is the whole point. If she were there, you would expect some evidence. Dan P. =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:03:10 EST From: Thomas Van Hare Subject: Earhart Print and Desktop Calendar Our hat is off to Scott Allbee for his incredible rendering of Earhart's aircraft, on final approach to the reef flat on Gardner Island. As our way, at HistoricWings.com, to help TIGHAR kick off its auction and fund raising effort for the next mission to Nikumaroro, we have published the artwork as a desktop calendar for downloading -- it makes a great background for your computer screen and, we hope, will encourage everyone to join in the bidding process for prints: http://www.historicwings.com/monthly/ Niku beckons -- on the wind, you can hear the voices of the ghosts of aviation history calling. Help us solve the mystery. Thomas Van Hare HistoricWings.com ******************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Tom. Bids for low-number copies of the signed, limited-edition prints are being accepted on the secure TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/TIGHAR_store/electrapainting.html =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:14:03 EST From: Roger Subject: Re: Earhart Television show I was wondering if you, or anyone in your organization, saw the Earhart program shown twice last night on the Travel Channel. In the Earhart report they said they found records from the last man to talk to Earhart as she departed Lea, New Guinea and he had in his notes the problems Earhart was having getting to Howland Island. She had to climb to 11,000 feet at one point to get over a storm and that cut into her fuel reserve. The notes had her airspeed info and her altitude info and they calculated that at those throttle and altitude settings Earhart only had 20 hours and 13 minutes of fuel. . . . not enough fuel to reach the Phoenix Islands some 350 miles away. The other thing they mentioned on the Earhart program was the shoe that was found on Niku was two sizes smaller than the size Earhart wore. My question is, could she have only had 20 hours of flying time and therefore, not enough fuel to reach Niku and is it true the shoe you found was two sizes too big to be Earhart's? Roger *********************************************************************** From Ric No, I didn't see the show. Sounds like they've made an amazing discovery. The last person to talk to Earhart. Wow, I wonder who that was? And they calculated that she would run out of gas at the very moment of her last in-flight radio transmission. What a coincidence. The show is obviously a treatment of Elgen Long's speculations. To answer your questions: The airplane could have run out of gas at any time but there's no evidence whatsoever that it ran out of fuel earlier than the 24 hours it was expected to have. The size of the shoe whose remnants we found on Nikumaroro is a matter of some debate but it does seem to be larger that the size Earhart wore (which is also a matter of some debate). However, we've largely discounted that shoe as being connected to the Earhart disappearance for other reasons. =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:43:11 EST From: Bill Thursby Subject: Hammer her or fly her? OK, the forum has been a bit too quiet. >It's like the story of my grandfather's hammer -- my dad replaced the >handle and I replaced the head. (edited) I enjoyed this short story and made me do a lot of "deep thinking" since I own both a "1942 Staggerwing" and a "1946 Luscombe". My father died back in 1959 when I was a child of six. (BTW, the rest I am making up) His grandfather passed down the family hammer that he help build our family house with it 1874. The handle broke in 1890 and his father hand crafted a new handle in 1891 to match the original so that he could keep on "nailing". After nail after nail, the darn head finally gave way and my pappy replaced it as a young kid with an identical head. He personally hand forged it so that it would match the original. He kept on hammering with this "original hammer" until he died many years later. Would I have any interest in the original hammer? Not really, I would wonder why my ancestors were so lazy that they didn't fix it. Like a "Lightening" aircraft, I am sure that they would have wanted to see it either hammering or flying again. The entire concept of restoration is a very emotional and touchy idea to address. Is it better to leave parts of an aircraft in ice and applaud the explorers that left her there, or should we applaud those that restored what they could to a flyable plane 60 years later so that today's generation might appreciate what happened during WWII. How many airplanes, including Amelia's, hadn't gone through some form of restoration since they were at the factory. Maintenance (as my wallet will confirm) is a natural part of the life of an aircraft. Engines only have an expected life (TBO). Fabric on wings is expected to be replaced at a regular interval. Does doing this ruin the historic value of an aircraft where this is a normal maintenance item; I personally don't think so. I believe that I understand Ric's ideals (not necessarily ideas), but I believe that there is a strong preference of many to understand what these historic aircraft really looked liked when they were used and flown. They were never intended by either their pilots or designers to be part of an ice exhibit. If TIGHAR finds the remnants of Fred and Amelia's airplane, would it be best to historically leave it underwater in the reefs? (OK, I'm trying to be positive here). If so, only a very few would ever be able to see her and appreciate her historic significance. Where do we stop and sacrifice historic purity for the education of the world? As usual, I am not disagreeing with Ric, but arguing for the sake of better understanding. For the few that know Ric's and my background, it is more of feuding head-strong brothers that love one another than two really trying to disprove one another. LTM, -- Bill Thursby (Member #2210 and former board member) ************************************************************************ From Ric The key to understanding historic preservation is the idea that an object (whether a hammer or an airplane) undergoes a fundamental change at the moment we decide that it has greater value as an historic artifact (something that was there then and is here now) than it has for the purpose for which it was made (driving nails or flying through the air). As long as its greatest value is seen as a working tool it makes perfect sense to replace whatever parts you need to replace to keep it working. You might want to replace worn out parts with parts that look just like the old ones so that it looks very much like it used to look, but its function hasn't changed - it's hammer - it's an airplane. A hammer or an airplane that is made of mostly new material but looks pretty much like it did in the old days (as far as we can tell) can be a great educational tool for showing people what we think old hammers and airplanes looked and felt and sounded and worked like - but they're not preserved historic objects. All old things aren't worth preserving. In fact, very few old things are worth preserving. It's a pain in the butt to preserve old things. For one thing, it's a lot harder and more expensive than repairing them. But there are a few things that are worth saving. Just which things are worth saving and which are best fixed up to use again, and which should just be pitched into the trash will always be a matter of discussion and debate. The important thing is to understand the difference and make a conscious decision. Should the wreckage of Earhart's Electra be recovered and preserved or left in situ? My opinion: the primary justification for recovering and preserving it woud be educational in the sense of forcefully and dramatically putting an end to the mystery. It's the mystery that makes the plane "historic". =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:46:36 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Battery Power To Ric -- I won't deny that your scenario is possible, but I also think that in discounting mine you're making a lot of assumptions about what the wreckage "would have done" on the edge of the reef, the slope down to the shelf, the shelf itself, and perhaps the slope below. I just don't think it's necessarily true that a breakup and scattering of the plane down the face of the reef (i.e. the slopes, canyons, and leges below the lip of the reef flat) would promptly produce a visible scatter of wreckage on the flat. If it wouldn't, then my scenario is as good as yours. Until we're able to push an Electra or something like it over the edge of the Nutiran reef or something like it, I don't think we're going to be able to resolve what it actually would have done. Might make an interesting computer simulation, if one could control the variables. =============================================================== Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 13:18:02 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Earhart Television show > No, I didn't see the show. Ric, it was that same old Long/Nauticos garbage. Nothing new and nothing correct. Alan =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:31:19 EST From: William Shea Subject: Glad to be aboard I have been reading the TIGHAR website for a while now. Today I just joined the TIGHAR Forum and would like to give my point of view. I have researched the evidence put out by TIGHAR and any other evidence so I feel I have the same information on the last flight as anyone else. But I do not come up with the same results as TIGHAR. I would like to tell where I think they ended up and why. Am I allowed to do this? Cheers from William Shea (new subsciber) *********************************************************************** From Ric Be my guest. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:34:54 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Fred's womanizing In a conversation with Gordon Vaeth recently he recalled that a "Dutch Shildhower" (ph), Fred Noonan''s boss at PAA in the 30's told him that on two occassions he warned Noonan about "drinking and womanizing". Vaeth couldn't add any other details, but had talked with Dutch personally sometime in the late 60s. Vaeth added that the PAA folks had a very stick policy, a zero tolerance if you will, for employees drinking even off duty. So Dutch's remarks must be tempered with that rigorous policy. By no means did he say he was a drunk. I don't know what the PAA policy was for "womanizing"!!! LTM,DS Ron Bright ************************************************************************ From Ric I ain't touchin' that one. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:46:00 EST From: Russ Matthews (#0509C) Subject: Re: Earhart Television show I caught just about the last 15 minutes of the second airing last night -- totally by accident, I hadn't even realized it was on (but, then who would have expected something like this on the Travel Channel?) Apparently an hour long documentary presented under the oft-used title "In Search of Amelia Earhart," the section I saw dealt with Long/Nauticos in general and the radio signal analysis/Renav in particular. The radio piece involved "experts" building "exact copies" of the Electra's transmitter and antenna -- recording a woman's voice reading Earhart's last transmission -- ADDING in varying degrees of "static" -- broadcasting the results over their replica radio -- then asking Ham operators throughout the country to write down the perceived signal strength. From this process, we are told, one can calculate a "hard number" for "S-5" and thus how far AE was from the Itasca when she made her last transmision. From that point it became truly hilarious for me to watch how the filmamkers struggled to find creative ways to pad out the rest of the hour. They showed the Nauticos offices, they talked about the company's past successes (but, showed no footage -- rights issues perhaps?), they showed people working at a super-computer, they showed an ROV techician going skydiving to get a "feel" for what's it's like to be 17,000 feet above something (without all the water in the way), they showed a guy driving to work (in fast motion) while talking about "Renav" (Nauticos' proprietary software that takes computes all known factors about the last journey of a missing ship or plane and supposedly pinpoints its resting place on the ocean floor), they showed computer generated maps with lots of numbers and "data" dancing in the background. And yet, when it came time for the big conclusion, to show what resulted from all this high tech effort -- they showed nothing at all. We are told that Nauticos is virtually certain they know where the plane is, but that the information is "top secret." Funnily enough, there is NO mention at all of the expedition earlier this year that came up dry. All in all, what I saw struck me as GIGO wrapped up in the video equivalent of smoke and mirrors. LTM, Russ =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:01:09 EST From: Craig Fuller Subject: Re: Hammer her or fly her? Bill Thursby wrote: >I believe that there is a strong preference of many to >understand what these historic aircraft really looked liked when they >were used and flown. This is the problem with most restored aircraft, they do NOT look like what they REALLY looked liked when they were used and flown. Most of these aircraft have been so beautifully restored that they "look better than they did when they rolled off the factory line" and do not look like what the front line aircraft actually looked like. The planes have been repainted with modern paints that usually are not quite the correct shade and are definitely not the right type of paint. In the interest of safety, the cockpits are fitted with modern radio gear, the radioactive instrument faces are replaced with safer ones that might look close to the original, but never quite look right. The same goes for the stenciling in the cockpit, some restorers have done a great job to research and create the stencils the correct size and font, but that is not the norm. >How many airplanes, including Amelia's, hadn't gone through some form of >restoration since they were at the factory. This is another reason why the "Glacier Girl" should not have been restored. Virtually all aircraft HAVE gone through some form of restoration since they were at the factory. Here we have a P-38F that was virtually brand new, had not been in service long enough to see any major alterations, that was preserved under ice since 1942. Unlike most of the crashed aircraft that I have seen, this one actually looked like a P-38-- other than that the skin was wrinkled and there was some minor damage from the belly landing, this was a recognizable airplane exactly the way it was when it rolled off the factor line. Though not pretty, one could see exactly the way it was painted, the type of instruments and avionics installed in a combat aircraft in WWII. I can't find the source (and if someone can find it and the exact percent I would appreciate knowing it), but recall something like 80% of Glacier Girl had to be replaced in order to make it airworthy. It is hardly the same plane that flew in WWII. Don't get me wrong, I am not against restorations or flying historic aircraft. Had this been banned long ago I probably would not have developed an interest in aviation. It is just to see a rare gem modified to make it useful that bothers me, sort of like saying the Hope diamond is just too big to wear comfortably on a ring and then cutting it into several smaller diamonds. Perhaps if the original team had recovered at least one of the other P-38s that would be preserved "as found" the total restoration of "Glacier Girl" would be a good thing, but they did not due to finances. It was their money, but it sort gets to the old saying of if you are not going to do it right, don't do it at all. If only one was recovered it should have been preserved as is. Denmark was smart in the original deal with GES requiring them to recover two, it was a shame they did not enforce the contract. I am sure that if Denmark said we are keeping the first one, we would have seen a second expedition. Though not as plentiful as a P-51, I can see numerous restored P-38s flying in the US, but there are none that I can see that have not been modified in some way since WWII. Margot Still writes: >If I am to correctly understand the situation of "Glacier Girl," it was >obvious that the only possible way to salvage any of this plane was to do so one >piece at a time. Currently the technology does not exist to salvage the >aircraft as a whole in a financially prudent manner. While they did have to disassemble it, they disassembled it in major components, it was done in such a way that it could have been reassembled with minimal introduction of "new" fasteners, rather than the usual chain saw disassembly used by most salvagers. Craig Fuller AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research http://www.AviationArchaeology.com ********************************************************************** From Ric Just throw a little more 100 octane on the fire - another justification for rebuilding old airplanes, especially "warbirds", is the educational value of hearing what they sound like and feeling how they fly - "experiencing" them. Trouble is, in many cases neither the sound nor the feel is historically accurate. Most rebuilt WWII aircraft that had turbo-superchargers (B-17, B-24, P-38, P-47, etc.) do not have them hooked up and operational. No need, because they're not flown at high altitudes - but the turbos had a distinctive whine that is absent in the modern recreations. And as for the "feel" of a fighter or bomber stripped of armor plate, guns, ammunition, and heavy old radios - they give an entirely false impression of how doggy the real aircraft were under combat conditions. Rebuilding and flying old airplanes is great fun. I love to fly old airplanes. But lets' call it what it is - entertainment. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:02:24 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Five Electras It was not Anthony Eden who flew to Munich but Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The Lockheed 10A Electra belonged to British Airways, a British private airline, not to be confounded with the airline of the same name today. France's prime minister Daladier also flew to Munich, but in an Air France Bloch 220. The French considered their French twin superor to the DC-3. The two looked very much alike (more or less)anyway. LTM (who likes i's dotted and t's crossed as they should) =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:57:53 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Radio Group - Collins [the post-loss messages] Ric said: > Crashed > and Sankers tend to deal with them by quoting the later Coast Guard assertion > that they were all investigated and found to be either hoaxes or > misunderstandings. Yes, the Coast Guard said that but it was not true. Well, isn't THAT interesting! You have some new information to substantiate your statement? (And no, I don't want to hear another discourse on Betty and her Atwater Kent - or whatever.) Cam Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric Perhaps it's new information to you. Correct me if I've missed something but the only claim that the messages were later investigated and explained is found in a March 22, 1938 U.S. Coast Guard response to an August 26, 1937 Pan American System Report on Proposed Joint Rescue Procedure. Maddeningly, we've never been able to find a copy of the PAA report that was being replied to but apparently the airline was attempting to put some protocols in place after the debacle of the Earhart search. The Coast Guard response was written by Stanley V. Parker, Commander, San Fransciso Division. Parker's description of the Coast Guard's role in the Earhart flight is a bitter cover-your-butt masterpiece of half-truth, distortion, and outright falsehood. The phrase that Crashed and Sankers take as gospel is: "NOT ONE (emphasis in the original) of the amateur reports received during the Earhart search was accurate,and all reports of receipt of signals from the earhart plane were definitely known to be false, as the San Francisco Division had a continuous intercept watch at three separate locations guarding 3105 and 6210 kc using beam receiving antennas, with better equipment than is available to amateurs, and no signals were heard other than those of the Itasca on 3105 kc..." Wellllll....as it turns out, what was heard by whom, and what was investigated, and the results of those investigations is well documented in the official government radio traffic compiled so painstakingly by Randy Jacoboson (and available on CD via the TIGHAR website). A grand total of three amateurs were investigated. Two (Ham Charles McGill of Oakland, CA. and a shortwave listener "Mrs. Young" of Wilmette, OH were found to be highly suspect but a transmission heard by one shortwave listener, Dana Randolph of Rock Springs, WY was "thought to be from KHAQQ" in part because "SIGNALS FROM MID PACIFIC AND ORIENT OFTEN HEARD INLAND WHEN NOT AUDIBLE ON COAST". That quote is from a message sent from the San Francsico Division to the ITASCA at 23:10Z on July 4, 1937. No investigation was made into the other 14 HAMs and 4 shortwave listeners who were known to the Coast Guard during the search (we're not counting Betty). Parker's claim that San Francisco Division heard "no signals ...other than those of the Itasca on 3105 kc..." is a bald-faced lie. The offical record shows 9 reports by the San Francisco Division of unexplained receptions on 3105 at times when the ITASCA's radio log shows she was not transmitting. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:58:48 EST From: Harvey Subject: Re: Electra on film? I saw what appeared to be an Electra model10 (A?) on takeoff in a brief scene in a film "All the Pretty Horses" with Matt Damon. Anyone ? harvey #2387 =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:59:44 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Re: engineering math model,Electra 10E There is an airplane simulation program called X-Plane for the computer which allows you to design your own airplane. It has been reviewed as being one of the most accurate and realistic simulations available to the general public. Before completely reinventing the wheel, you might like to take a look at this program to see if it can assist you in your efforts. The web site is http://www.x-plane.com/ . Good luck. blue skies, jerry =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:04:10 EST From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Battery Power what happend to all of those empty fuel tanks? were dreaming folks. *********************************************************************** From Ric Describe for me a scenario in which the fuel tanks (made of extremely thin aluminum) could get out of the airplane without being crushed or having holes punched in them. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:19:34 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Earhart Television show Roger wrote: > I was wondering if you, or anyone in your organization, saw the Earhart > program shown twice last night on the Travel Channel. Roger, let me go over what you saw with a few corrections to the program. Ric was correct in that it was the rehashed Elgin Long/Nauticos special. The show started off saying Long flew to Howland regularly in his younger years. I suppose that might be true but I don't know why he would do that. Ric, did you know he did this? If so why? At any rate all this mysterious "new" information Long claimed to have found is just the old Chater report which we all have. Ric can tell you how long we have had the Chater Report but I believe it was made available to TIGHAR in 1991 by Placer Dome. He claimed in the video it had all the airspeeds, altitudes, ground speeds and winds aloft that no one previously knew about that solved the whole mystery. That's not true. It simply had the only three radio reports recorded that AE made to Lae. The first at 2:18 p.m. gave their altitude as 7,000 feet, no position, and an unqualified airspeed of 140 knots. Since her indicator was in MPH it is assumed that was a ground speed as indicated and true air speed have no significance to be reported. That would indicate a tail wind and if it was the average since take off it would be considerably in excess of 10 knots. If they were flying at the south side of a low pressure area that would be expected. The second report at 3:19 p.m. gave a position but not the time they were at that position and the altitude of 10,000 feet. It also said there were some cumulus clouds and that everything was OK. The third report at 5:18 p.m. gave a position and again not the time over that position, their altitude of 8,000 feet over cumulus clouds and "wind 23 knots." That's it. From that information Long stated in the video that five hours into the flight a storm blew up causing AE to have to climb to 11,000', way above optimum, and climb over the Bougainville Mountains using massive amounts of fuel. If you would like to plot out the two positions given in the second and third report you will see they flew south of Bougainville thus avoiding the volcanic mountains which actually only go up a little over 8,000 feet. So the question is where did Elgin Long get 11,000 feet? Why does he say they flew OVER Bougainville when the known evidence shows they did not? Where does he get the massive storm that "blew up?" The answer is he had to make that up to run the Electra out of fuel, just as he casually eliminated 51 gallons of fuel from the airplane at start. The weather report received at Lae at take off stated conditions over the flight path were generally average with no major storms but "with dangerous local rain squalls about 300 miles east of Lae...." Long then said at seven hours into the flight they encountered 25 mph headwinds and that AE had to "gun the engines to compensate." The 5:18 p.m. report simply said "wind 23 knots". You can assume that was a headwind or a tail wind depending on the pressure system they had just flown through although it isn't stated nor is there any indication there was a strong headwind for the whole or even most of the flight. On the contrary it is simple math to refute Long's contention with known facts as opposed to made up "facts." You can do this yourself rather than take my word for it. The takeoff occurred at 00:00 Z and the radio report "we must be on you" occurred at 19.2 Z. No math is needed to see that is 19.2 hours of flight. The distance covered was 2232 n.m. Now you have to do a little math to see the average ground speed was 116.25 Knots with their 130 Knots planned true air speed and that gives an average headwind of 13.75 Knots. But you can argue we don't really know where the Electra was at 19:12 Z. That's true but what difference does it make? If they were a hundred miles off in any direction the results would not change significantly. Now if you will, off the top of your head, concede about 100 gallons for takeoff and climb out to level off and about 20 to 30 minutes then apply Kelly Johnson's fuel schedule to the remainder of the flight and you'll end up with around three or four hours fuel reserve at "last" message time. The usual figures are around 150 gallons and I "guessed" in at about 139 gallons. In Kelly Johnson's own book he stated his figures contained about a 25% safety factor. Nauticos is using a software program they call RENAV to plot the exact position the Electra ran out of gas. The quote from the program said that the software "allows Nauticos to retrace the last movements of any ship or plane lost at sea. (Where's flight 19 guys?) The input data for the program is fuel consumption which you can see is far afield already, headwinds, which are doubly in error, and radio transmission information which their "expert" has given them to recreate an actual track of the aircraft. The radio guy uses the following input data to provide exact locations of the plane: 1. Recreations of AE's voice using a simulated voice. Guess the accuracy of this. 2. Rebuilt radios to simulate the radios in the Itasca and the radios in the Electra even though there is some doubt as to the latter. 3. A guess, in actual miles of what S5, S4, etc (radio signal strength) meant in 1937. The radio logs do not contain a signal strength annotation. That information came from Commander Thompson's report and no one knows where he got them. Four such comments were supposedly reported. 4. Simulated static. What was the exact static conditions that morning? If you had 1,000 radios of the same make do you suppose every one would have exactly the same characteristics? And what were the exact characteristics of the Electra's radios on the morning of July 2, 1937? What were the exact atmospheric conditions on the morning of July 2, 1937? I don't know and neither does the radio guy. Computer models are subject to GIGO. Garbage in, Garbage out. From all this nonsense Nauticos has computed an exact "ladder" search pattern the Electra was engaged in just prior to running suddenly out of gas and crashing into the sea. The ladder search pattern, in this case, was supposedly a 90 degree left turn for some distance, followed by two 90 degree right turns and then two 90 degree left turns and repeated as a search pattern. The "scientific" radio computations are based on about five radio transmissions of which there are no recordings and lasted a few seconds each. That means that if the radio guy actually had all the real and exact data and could really do as he claims he could place the aircraft in only four positions. The last radio call was also supposedly S5 which does not indicate the plane was going away from the previous position wherein the strength was S5. That doesn't tell me the plane was inbound about to crash within 50 miles. Nauticos has had great success in the past -- with lost boats. Boats do not move at 130 knots and only go down, down, down. Ric, did I get anything wrong? I taped the program so THAT part is accurate. I am not responsible for any errors in this posting nor Notre Dame's loss to Boston College. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric An excellent summary. >Long flew to Howland regularly in his younger >years. I suppose that might be true but I don't know why he would do that. >Ric, did you know he did this? If so why? As I understand it, Elgen was an enlisted USN radio operator on the big four-engined PB2Y "Coronado" flying boats during the war. I suppose they may have gone near Howland a few times. >The radio logs do not contain a signal strength annotation. Actually they do. The very last reception is noted as "A3 S5" meaning "voice, strength five (maximum)". =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:25:10 EST From: Brent Subject: Re: Evidence When you head back to Niku and say there is no further evidence found on AE will you keep pursuing this as far as further expeditions go or will this be the final attempt. Would be good though if something conclusive is found. Brent ************************************************************************ From Ric We'll continue the investigation as long as there is reasonable expectation of finding further evidence. Right now that expectation is very high. We'll know if and when the expectation is no longer high enough to justify further searching because you, the interested public, will tell us by not funding further research. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:26:18 EST From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Evidence If they planted it (the "blindfold"), you would think that they would at least use white material, not black. Couldn't even get that right :) David J Kelly =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:33 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Five Electras From Phil Tanner >It was not Anthony Eden who flew to Munich but Britain's Prime Minister >Neville Chamberlain. Waaaay off topic, but I think you are both right and Eden can be seen standing near Chamberlain in the famous "I have a piece of paper" footage. Phil Tanner 2276 ******************************************************************* From Ric As Foreign Secrtary (wasn't he?) it would make sense for him to there. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:36:07 EST From: Wes smith Subject: Re: Evidence Tell me where I can find the authoritative guide to making a "blindfold" please? Mr. Kelly is quick to criticize....reluctant to do. ****************************************************************** From Ric Why on earth are we talking about this rag? Maybe it's Amelia's execution blindfold and maybe it's somebody's shirt-tail. It's utterly devoid of context or provenance and, supported only by an uncorroborated anecdote, it's useless as anything but fodder for pointless speculation. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:37:41 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: engineering math model,Electra 10E > There is an airplane simulation program called X-Plane for the computer > which allows you to design your own airplane. It has been reviewed as being > one of the most accurate and realistic simulations available to the general > public. To each his own. I have all the sims including x-plane. It sucks. Microsoft flight simulator is still the industry standard and about 99% of the addons are written for it. There is an excellent airplane designing tool built in and Abacus also has a great design program called FSDS or flight simulator Design Studio. Scenery for FS by Microsoft is being designed using satellite photos and could not be more accurate. Third party designers use what is called mesh scenery to help achieve realism. Off Topic? Probably but the connection is that there are several Electra models available though not exactly AE's. I also had a friend design a third party addon to place the runway at Howland and the old Lae airport back in flight simulator. Both are available at flightsim.com, a web site I have absolutely no connection with other than downloading their free addons. Alan, who plays as hard as he works =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:38:33 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Evidence Re. the color (and shape) of the "blindfold." It ought to be noted that the Garapan area on Saipan, where the thing was found, was a very Japanese community, with Geisha houses and Shinto shrines and a quite large Japanese population (See Russell, Scott, "From Arabwal to Ashes: A Brief History of Garapan Village, 1898-1945," Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report 19, Saipan, Dept. of Education, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 1984). I'm no expert on traditional Japanese attire, but it's my strong impression that it tends to be voluminous, complicated, and multi-hued. I should think there'd be lots of sources for a triangular dark-colored chunk of cloth. LTM (who always dresses well) TK =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:39:14 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Evidence For Brent At risk of being accused of shameless self-promotion, let me suggest that you take a look at our book, "Amelia Earhart's Shoes," for a summary of the available evidence (as of 2001). We've hardly not found any, and there's little reason to think we won't find more when we go back. Or before going back, for that matter. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:41:05 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Five Electras So long as we're waaay off topic, Chamberlain's trip would forever be remembered by his proclamation when he returned to England of "Peace in our time". Ric, there was a very interesting article in the L.A. Times on Saturday about a P-51 that was recovered in Germany that had been shot down in 1944. It caught my eye because my dad was flying that day & they were often escorted to the target by P-51's. I put it in the mail on Saturday. Hope you enjoy it. LTM, Mike Haddock #2438 ********************************************** From Ric Thanks. I'll watch for it. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:41:48 EST From: Tom King Subject: 11/17 Talk Reminder to Washington DC forumites: I'll be talking about The Quest on November 17 at 2 pm at the College Park (MD) Aviation Museum at the historic College Park Airport. And selling/signing copies of "Shoes." General museum admission charged ($4, I believe), and reservations required; phone 301/864-6029 for reservations. My talk at UCLA on November 15 is, I believe, filled up. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:50:30 EST From: Wes Smith Subject: Re: Evidence I agree.......why on earth are we talking about this rag? I am laughing too much......thanks, Ric. ******************************************* From Ric You are most welcome. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:59:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Glad to be aboard William Shea writes: > I have researched the evidence put out by TIGHAR and any other evidence > so I feel I have the same information on the last flight as anyone else. > But I do not come up with the same results as TIGHAR. I would like to tell > where I think they ended up and why. I'm sure we all look forward to your critique, William. Before you post it I might suggest you REREAD the TIGHAR web site and "other evidence" then after drafting your post reread it critically as you know we will. If your points are valid or even arguable they will be welcomed. If they are carelessly drawn you'll be flamed unmercifully but in good humor -- sorta. In the latter case rest easy, as you will not be executed summarily or even banned for life. Ric tolerates unbelievably bad garba..... I mean well meaning thoughts. ********************************************************************* From Ric We're all sitting around in the saloon drinking our rotgut and trading stories when a voice from the street yells, "Step outside! I'm gonna straighten you hombres out!" We look at each other and sigh... another gunslinger. The undertaker quietly gets up and leaves by the back door. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:02:07 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fred's womanizing Ron, you know how I feel about anecdote although I agree some have merits and need to be checked out. This weekend I reread all the Earhart books looking for a specific piece of info and in reading Gervis' book I saw where Noonan had to be helped into the Electra the morning of July 2nd. Looking at the actual film of that incident you see that was totally untrue. Noonan stepped up on the wing and gave AE his hand and helped her pass him. The derogatory stories have dubious basis as you point out and clearly have wings. Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric Lest anyone think that Fred is the only one they tell stories about .... I've heard some doozies about AE. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:03:48 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence > Re. the color (and shape) of the "blindfold." What about all those headbands we see won by the "Ninjas?" IT could have been countless things in addition to a blindfold. In goerner's book the picture of the blindfold alone shows it stark black but the picture of it being held up shows it to be off white or maybe cream colored. Curious. Alan ********************************************************************** From Ric ALAN!!!! =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:05:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Evidence From Alan > Why on earth are we talking about this rag? Maybe it's Amelia's execution > blindfold and maybe it's somebody's shirt-tail. It's utterly devoid of > context or provenance and, supported only by an uncorroborated anecdote, > it's useless as anything but fodder for pointless speculation. > True but other than that what is your objection? Alan ********************************************************************* From Ric You guys make me old. =============================================================== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:06:21 EST From: Warren Subject: Re: 11/17 Talk Hi Tom, Would love to hear your presentation. Any plans to come to Milwaukee or Chicago any time soon? Regards, Warren =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:00:42 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Fred's womanizing Does anyone in Tighar land have a familiarity with the "Dutch Shildhower" (phonectic) that was reportedly Fred Noonan's boss in the mid 30s at Pan American Airlines? As I understand it, noone has found any reports of FN drinking officially recorded in his PAA record. I mentioned it only as interesting anecdote from Vaeth. It is a fruitless line of inquiry that has been beaten to death over the years. Just like AE's comment that the flight was delayed because of "personnel problems" with the so called inference that Fred was suffering from a hangover. We have all seen Fred looking pretty spiffy jump up on the wing, as Alan points out, help AE and off they went.... LTM, Ron Bright =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:01:44 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Earhart Television show >The show started off saying Long flew to Howland regularly in his younger >years. I suppose that might be true but I don't know why he would do that. There is no record of anyone flying to or landing at Howland Island since Earhart. One WWII plane had engine seizure and managed to ditch quite close to Howland, but that was unplanned. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:02:16 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Electra on film? It's been a while since I saw the film ("All the Pretty Horses"), but I think it was most likely a Beech 18 (and not a Lockheed 10A). LTM, Russ =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:03:27 EST From: William Shea Subject: Re: Glad to be aboard Yes, Ric, i will do as you suggest and reread your website. I have no reason to want to argue with anyone but if I still feel the same then I will give you my results and wonder if anyone has the same thoughts as I do. As I am new here, I am sure that they already have. Thanks for providing this Forum. Cheers =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:06:12 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Earhart Television show >The show started off saying Long flew to Howland regularly in his younger >years. I suppose that might be true but I don't know why he would do that. >Ric, did you know he did this? If so why?" I thought that the airstrip was abandoned after Amelia's attempt. There isn't much room on Howland for anything but an airstrip, and I can send you the photos to prove it. Why would anyone fly there regularly? Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ********************************************************************* From Ric Nobody did, and I'm sure Elgen never claimed he did. It was probably just an error by the script writer. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:24:01 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Radio Group - Collins [the post-loss messages] Yes, I've seen the Parker Report, and accept it with some reservations. I suppose it's possible that SFDIV DID only investigate three reported post-loss intercepts. But I place a great deal more trust in Chief Radio Electrician (later Lt. Comdr.) Henry Anthony, a person I've mentioned in the past. Anthony was highly thought of by his superiors (and the Navy head of OP-20G, Capt. Safford) for his talent and ability in the field of radio interception. I have in my files several official documents (still marked confidential) going back to 1932, lauding his abilities. In '36 Washington wanted to transfer him to Hawaii for intelligence work. SFDIV protested emphatically, since they felt he was too valuable an asset in their offices. However, his transfer was effected. When Earhart disappeared, COMHAWSEC immediately put Anthony to work in the Coast Guard Radio Intercept facility in Honolulu's Aloha Tower, where a crew of radiomen listened night and day for any possible signals from Earhart. In later letters and interviews, Anthony consistently maintained that they heard nothing directly, and thoroughly checked out all the reports. One pithy statement he later made - in a radio interview for Fred Goerner - sums it up: "Never one signal was heard from the Earhart plane. She went off the air at 0846 Howland time. That was the last signal ever heard from Earhart. I spent five damn days in that Aloha Tower with all my radiomen manning every possible frequency and everybody that heard signals from her aren't worth pure and unadulterated stuff that makes the grass grow!" I'm sure Anthony filed a rather more formal official report on his findings with Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, but I've yet to turn up a copy. Apparently Parker's was accepted as doctrine, but it's unfortunate that he (Parker) didn't feel obliged to quote what HAWSEC had to say. I suggest that you should be a little less eager to discredit the Navy (particularly the Colorado air search) and Coast Guard whenever their findings do not whole-heartedly support TIGHAR's Niku scenario. Cam Warren ********************************************************************** From Ric Parker's report is demonstrably false. Anthony, as you say, made no report that anyone has ever found but the statement you quote from a radio interview (that had to be done about 30 years later) is simply a personal opinion that is not supported by the COMHAWSEC records from that time. I'm not eager to discredit anybody. I just compare what peope wrote later with the contemporaneous records of what really happened. It's very clear that, following the failed search, the Coast Guard (in the persons of Thompson, Parker, and apparently Anthony) didn't let the facts get in the way in making the case that the Coast Guard had had done nothing wrong. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:27:10 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Evidence Come on guys! What's all this blindfold stuff? Europe's full of sabres who are said to have belonged to Napoleon. Apparently there isn't an inn on the old continent where the French emperor stayed without forgetting his sabre. Let's consider this blindfold thread something like Napoleon's sabres and get on with the real work LTM (who actually owns one of Napoleon's sabres) ************************************************************************ From Ric Maybe we should sell Earhart Execution Blindfolds on the website. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:28:00 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: 11/17 Talk For Warren -- Sorry, I'm afraid my travel is pretty much bicoastal, though I will be giving the Wright Day lecture to the Kansas City 99s in December. But here's a possibility: the Society for American Archaeology is having its annual meeting in Milwaukee in March or April of next year, and Gary Quigg and I are planning to pull together a "poster session" on the project. That's where you put up a sort of exhibit of what you're doing and stand around for a morning or afternoon answering questions about it. I could do a public talk while there, if folks in your neck of the woods would like to set something up. LTM (a great talker) Tom =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:30:36 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: engineering math model,Electra 10E Harvey wrote:- > 2.. the specific 10E wing section characteristics were not available.This > leads to some fuzziness in angle of attack.but its not critical. If anyone > knows the section 4 ,5 or 6 digit designation,I would appreciate it if they > contacted the forum or me.. My understanding is that the L10 has a simple Clark-Y section, not a NACA series one. LTM Simon Ellwood #2120 =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:40:08 EST From: Tom Strang Subject: Luke Field? Not to distract you folks from the fun your having riding what appears to be a blind folded dead horse into the ground of Saipan, but I have question on another subject - reference Luke Field crash site - Was AE's L10E moved from the actual crash site resting place to facilitate normal operation of the airfield or did it remain in place till crated up? Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************ From Ric According to the U.S. Army report, immediately after the accident Mantz removed some equipment form the plane, the electrical connections were disconnected, the airplane was de-fueled, and it was lifted by two cranes onto a trailer which was then towed to a hangar where it was secured. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:42:14 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Earhart Television show > The show started off saying Long flew to Howland regularly in his younger > years. I suppose that might be true but I don't know why he would do that. > Ric, did you know he did this? If so why? I did a quick search, and I can't find documentation that anyone ever landed at the airstrip on Howland. Baker was fairly active in WW 2, with 1200 marines on about 440 acres. I can find one "forced landing" in the "Howland lagoon" (it doesn't have a lagoon, maybe the reef?). Howland is also mentioned as a seaplane base, but I can't find good documentation of flights there. The Hawaiian "colonists" were evacuated in 1942, and they seem to have been supplied by ship. Not much of anything seems to have happened there since 1942, except for yearly visits from the Fish and Wildlife Service in more recent times. Although it was occupied as a site for a potential airfield, does anyone know if the airstrip built for the Earhart flight was ever used? Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ***************************************************** From Ric As Randy Jacobson said in an earlier posting, the runway at Howland was apparently never used. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:46:20 EST From: John Harsh Subject: Re: Hammer her or fly her? Is there interest from TIGHAR in recovery one of the other Greenland Lightnings? Their locations are known and Denmark wants one, presumably for preservation. It could be an interesting recovery of an internationally historic aircraft. LTM JMH 0634C *********************************************************************** From Ric It would also cost millions of dollars and I would be very surprised if the funding could be found for a true aviation historic preservation project of that magnitude. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:51:20 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Fifty seven degrees for Canton Bruce Yoho wrote: >What side of the island did I find the engine on? These directions are >tuff. I am stating it was on the left side of the island as we were heading >home and I sat on the right side of the aircraft in the door way looking at >the island. We always head northerly towards home - that means bottom of the >earth south pole to the top of the earth north pole. Whereabouts did Samtec do their thing on Niku? A course due north (let's assume the pilot was in the habit of heading roughly north when leaving other islands) would only allow a flight along the reef in the Tatiman passage / Nutiran area. However, a more direct route from any western shore of the island to Canton (including the above area) would involve crossing the island. It would thus seem that if the helo landing was not in the above area, (ie was further south) that the helo would have immediately have flown inland (rather than offshore and in the wrong direction, thereby allowing Bruce to see the engine) and followed the direct course of 57 degrees for Canton. It would be helpful if Bruce could remember whether they flew for some time along the reef before sighting the engine or whether he saw it almost immediately after take-off. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric <> That's one of the problems. There was no SAMTEC thing at Niku. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:56:24 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Noonan's plan I was ready to present my thoughts of where the Electra 10E ended up and have double-checked my info to make sure it was correct as possible. But I suddenly thought that i don't think there is any consensus of even what course Noonan might have taken. So I would rather just give my thoughts of what Noonan's flight plan would have been. So my question is: Is there any agreement of Noonan's preflight plan from Lae to Howland? What would his chart look like before they actually took off ? 1.Noonan must have considered the weather report from the previous day telling them of a storm about 300 miles to the east. 2. If there was any time that a navigator would plot an "offset navigation course" it would be here, over water, and knowing that three islands were on the 157/337 line. So for me, the question is if he charted an offset navigation line to the south or north of Howland. We have the Chater Report for the first 3 positions they called back to the Lae Operator, and we have a positon of where they were when they talked to Nauru putting them just west of the SS Myrtlebank. The first two positions shows that Noonan flew ESE or so to miss that storm that was 300 miles to the east, and also to miss the mountains on Papua New Guinea. The last three positions show that Noonan charted an offset line back to the north of Howland. Those positons line up perfectly. Knowing that he knew about the 157/337 line being at right angles to the sunrise at a certain time, then he could interpolate exactly when to turn onto 157/337 towards Howland. So, the course made good was south of the storm and mountains, then an offset navigation to the north side of Howland, turning onto the 157/337 line. is this already agreed upon? If so, then follow this further and make an assumption on just how far north they planned to fly. 100NM seems to be a nice round figure, but i suppose within reason it could be anything. Let's assume that he planned to end up on the offset line at 100NM. If you chart this planned Offset Navigation course along side the Course Made Good (from their reported positions) you will see that it puts them further out (about 190NM north on 157/337 line) than the 100NM he might have planned. This is explainable by the strong ESE winds pushing them further to the north. So, I think they would have crossed the 157/337 line about 190NM north of Howland turned south, flew 100NM then at 1000Ft called the Itasca at 0742L saying "Where are you, we cannot see you". Since Earhart and the Itasca were calling each other every 30 minutes then we can assume that they came down in the water within the next 30 minutes from the last time they were heard.(or the Itasca would have heard them call again.) Flying at a speed of approximately 130NM per hour then they would have continued south (or possibly north) for up to 30mins on the 137/337 line for up to 65NM. So the bottom line is that I think they went down 25NM - 90NM north of Howland Island on the 157/337 line - or use your own calculations in determining this. The main point for all this is that they must have used the offset navigation to the north of Howland, and not to the south and would not have had time to over fly Howland , Baker, or even Gardner Island. I don't think they would have been flying north or south on the 157/337 line as they have just flown 100 miles southwards, and if they were nearly out of gas, they would not want to waste it retracing the last 100NM - they would have continued south. After all, that is what the idea of using offset navigation in the first place - so they only have to fly in one direction. I also refute the thinking that Earhart was close to the Itasca because of their very strong signal heard from the Itasca. I have spent my entire life in communications and it is NOT UNCOMMON to hear very loud HF signals at the beginning of daytime. Sometimes our normal signals were knocking our socks off. (In the 60's it was normal for communications to be on low freqs during the night and switch to higher freqs during the daylight because of the D-layer in the atmosphere.) For example, I have driven up the East Coast from Florida to Boston back in the 60's and during the night WBZ radio AM from Boston was very strong. But the closer I got to Boston in the morning the poorer the reception got. All got to do with the D-Layer and skip zones. So I am not surprised to hear that her signals were very strong in the morning (but still could be a fair way off). Cheers from Bill Shea ************************************************************************ From Ric Okay....who wants him? =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:18:34 EST From: Carol Dow Subject: Re: 11/17 Talk For: Tom King Tom, I live in Kansas City and would like to hear your lecture. Can you fill me in with the details? I'm not a 99, but I could be. Time, place, address, etc. Carol Dow =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:23:06 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Noonan's plan haha, ok Ric, you did warn me. Thanks for letting me have my day (if only for today) haha. Cheers and thanks. ****************************************************************** From Ric It's okay Bill. You're a good sport. We kid around a lot but I'm sure you'll get a thoughtful and, I hope, helpful critique of your reasoning. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:35:26 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Fred's womanizing For Ron Bright I think that any fair-thinking person, especially in the 1930's, would have avoided putting anything in FN's personnel record about a drinking problem---if he had one at all. Had anything been put in his file, you can bet that it would have drastically affected his career---probably ruined it at best. As Keifer Sutherland said in "A Few Good Men", "I didn't think it necessary to trample on a man's grave". Let's not do it here. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:43:31 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Fifty seven degrees for Canton Ric wrote: >> Whereabouts did Samtec do their thing on Niku? > > That's one of the problems. There was no SAMTEC thing at Niku. Tom King made mention some time ago about the only evidence of SAMTEC activities having been in the SE of Niku. I'm sure, as well, that you, Ric, made a comment at some time (in support of the Gardner origin of the engine) to the effect that SAMTEC had been known to fly to Niku. I'm not suggesting there was any base there. I just want to know (if it is known) where they went on Niku or failing that, why they might have gone there. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric Yes, the one physical indication we have of SAMTEC activity at Gardner is a small antenna on the northern side of the southeast tip (near the old Loran station). On the shaft of the antenna was small piece of plywood with a sticker of the SAMTEC logo. Also at the southeast tip were several empty 55 gallon drums marked JP-4 (the military designation for jet fuel). We don't know what the antenna was for or when it was put there. The only time we know that helicopters from Canton visited the island was in 1975 (long after Bruce had gone home) as part of a biological survey. We don't know whether the fuel drums were from SAMTEC or from the 1985 Australina military survey of the island. But to answer your question: the only SAMTEC presence we know about was associated with the southeast end of the island. =============================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:44:11 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: 11/17 Talk For Carol Dow It's December 8, but I'm not up on particulars beyond that. Tell you what; I'll forward your note to Elaine Lueders of the KC 99s, who's making the arrangements, and ask her to contact you. LTM (who's doubtless a 99) Tom =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:57:45 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Fred's womanizing For Mike H. and Ric To your knowledge has anyone examined Noonan's PAA personnel file? Ron Bright ********************************************************************** From Ric No. The PAA archives do not include personnel files. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:59:05 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Earhart Television show Randy wrote: >One WWII plane had engine seizure and managed to ditch quite close to >Howland, but that was unplanned. Martin PBM-30 Mariner, 48199 (VP-16), burned 6-10-1944. Dan =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:05:53 EST From: David Subject: reef landing I was wondering if you had ever done any kind of experiment or theorized what the result would be when the Electra touched down on the coral reef? would it be solid enough to support the force of a landing?would it destroy the tires and flip the plane or could just the holes and roughness of the reef cause it to flip? I am totally unfamiliar with coral reefs and was just wondering if the Electra could land and come to a stop without such an event. david ************************************************************************ From Ric There are reefs and there are reefs. In many cases, including some places on the reef at Niku, you wouldn't want to land a helicopter, let alone an airplane. However, the section of reef on Niku where the availble evidence suggests the Earhart landing was made is hard, strong, and easily smooth enough for a distance of over 2,500 feet to accomodate the 35 inch tires of an Electra. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:16:03 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Radio Group - Collins [the post-loss messages] Ron - Yes, the Nauru signal was the one possible exception to the "no legitimate messages" determination, but did not survive careful scrutiny. (An unidentified moonlighting radio operator, a garbled, unreadable message that - sort of - sounded like Earhart, no confirmation, etc.) Even given the remote chance that an amateur COULD have intercepted a distress broadcast that nobody else heard (as happened in the NORGE crash in the Arctic), I remain convinced that the Coast Guard's assessment was accurate. Like the Colorado pilots, you can be sure the Aloha Tower monitoring crew were as anxious as George Putnam was to find Amelia. Even if you buy into the theory that the peacetime military were a bunch of "goof-offs", they certainly would have been inspired by the potential fame & fortune accruing to "the man who found Earhart". Cam ************************************************************************ From Ric It will be interesting to compare your study of the post-loss messages (I hadn't realized you had done one) with ours. You appear to have information that has eluded us. For example, you describe the operator at VKT (Nauru Radio) as "unidentified" and "moonlighting". If he is unidentified how do you know he was "moonlighting", and what do you mean by moonlighting? You also say that the Nauru intercepts "did not survive careful scrutiny." Careful scrutiny by who? Are you aware of an official investigation or are you just expressing your own opinion? You "remain convinced that the Coast Guard's assessment was accurate." Can you think of anything that would change your mind? =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:17:52 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Evidence > Maybe we should sell Earhart Execution Blindfolds on the website. Actually, the way things are nowadays, you'd probably make a bunch more by selling the samurai sword that was used... You could name a chicken "Amelia", and then... - well, you get the idea. At least that way it wouldn't be a lie - exactly... ltm jon ******************************************************************* From Ric Now, now....we all agreed that we wouldn't discuss the recent elections. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:18:52 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fred's womanizing From Alan Mike Haddock wrote: > I think that any fair-thinking person, especially in the 1930's, would have > avoided putting anything in FN's personnel record about a drinking > problem---if he had one at all. Had anything been put in his file, you can > bet that it would have drastically affected his career--- Mike, you're thinking 2002 not 1930s. Alan =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:47:05 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Noonan's plan Bill Shea wrote: > I was ready to present my thoughts of where the Electra 10E ended up and have > double-checked my info to make sure it was correct as possible. But I > suddenly thought that i don't think there is any consensus of even what > course Noonan might have taken. So I would rather just give my thoughts of > what Noonan's flight plan would have been. > > So my question is: Is there any agreement of Noonan's preflight plan from > Lae to Howland? What would his chart look like before they actually took off? > > 1.Noonan must have considered the weather report from the previous day > telling them of a storm about 300 miles to the east. > 2. If there was any time that a navigator would plot an "offset navigation > course" it would be here, over water, and knowing that three islands were on > the 157/337 line. Offset navigation is useful if you are not sure which side of the landfall you may find yourself. You err deliberately so as to be reasonably certain of the direction in which you need to turn on arrival at the advanced LOP. Noonan believed that they would be able to get a bearing from either or both their own and Itasca's RDF equipment and he would be confident they would because of this redundancy. If they received the accurate inbound bearing on Howland they were expecting, the advanced LOP would be hopefully superfluous as a course to fly. Offset navigation would be unneccessary. The position of LOPs would only be important in as far DR, groundspeed and ETA at howland were concerned and as a "safety net" for innaccurate DR after any breakdown in RDF communications is concerned. The minimum fuel and time would be spent by not deviating from a direct course. > So for me, the question is if he charted an offset navigation line to the > south or north of Howland. We have the Chater Report for the first 3 > positions they called back to the Lae Operator, and we have a positon of > where they were when they talked to Nauru putting them just west of the SS > Myrtlebank. Or Ontario - or any other ship within 100 miles or so for that matter. > The first two positions shows that Noonan flew ESE or so to miss > that storm that was 300 miles to the east, and also to miss the mountains on > Papua New Guinea. The last three positions show that Noonan charted an offset > line back to the north of Howland. Those positons line up perfectly. We have no exact idea of where they were at Nauru, estimates varying from only just off course to the north to many tens of miles to the north of course. We have no idea of their position at Tabiteuea as the atoll is 50 miles long. They could have approached the Howland area on a wide range of headings and could equally well have offset to the south. They could have adjusted their heading between Tabiteuea and Howland. It is also almost hopeless to extrapolate courses from such little information over such long distances. Changing factors such as drift, deliberate course changes and errors in maintaining heading mean that connecting the dots doesn't give you the course. All it gives you are those very uncertain positions. When you have lots of dots you can begin to put more faith in extrapolation but even then only a short distance. > Knowing that he knew > about the 157/337 line being at right angles to the sunrise at a > certain time, then he could interpolate exactly when to turn onto 157/337 > towards Howland. This is not really what you would characterise as an interpolation. He knew when to turn on to the line (if indeed he did) by calculating the projected time interval from the postion (and hence distance from Howland) given by the sun sight that produced the 67 degree azimuth and his groundspeed estimated from airspeed and drift. > So, the course made good was south of the storm and mountains, then an offset > navigation to the north side of Howland, turning onto the 157/337 line. > is this already agreed upon? I don't think so. > If so, then follow this further and make an > assumption on just how far north they planned to fly. 100NM seems to be a > nice round figure, but i suppose within reason it could be anything. The distance of any offset flown is always constrained by fuel. > Let's > assume that he planned to end up on the offset line at 100NM. If you chart > this planned Offset Navigation course along side the Course Made Good (from > their reported positions) you will see that it puts them further out (about > 190NM north on 157/337 line) than the 100NM he might have planned. This is > explainable by the strong ESE winds pushing them further to the north. If anything the winds were more likely from ENE in the vicinity of Howland but in any case they seem to have been light in that area. Randy's Monte Carlo analysis, taking into account believed and "actual" (as far as can be ascertained) wind vectors over the whole flight suggests a large deviation to the south rather than the north. > So, I think they would have crossed the 157/337 line about 190NM north of > Howland turned south, flew 100NM then at 1000Ft called the Itasca at 0742L > saying "Where are you, we cannot see you". Since Earhart and the Itasca were > calling each other every 30 minutes then we can assume that they came down in > the water within the next 30 minutes from the last time they were heard.(or > the Itasca would have heard them call again.) Although there were other occasions on which they were out of contact for more than 30 mins eg 6.45 -7.42 and 8.03-8.43. > Flying at a speed of > approximately 130NM per hour then they would have continued south (or > possibly north) for up to 30mins on the 137/337 line for up to 65NM. So the > bottom line is that I think they went down 25NM - 90NM north of Howland > Island on the 157/337 line - or use your own calculations in determining > this. The main point for all this is that they must Why Must??? > have used the offset > navigation to the north of Howland, and not to the south and would not have > had time to over fly Howland , Baker, or even Gardner Island. > > I don't think they would have been flying north or south on the 157/337 line > as they have just flown 100 miles southwards, and if they were nearly out of > gas, they would not want to waste it retracing the last 100NM - they would > have continued south. After all, that is what the idea of using offset > navigation in the first place - so they only have to fly in one direction. One should not perhaps confine oneself to flying in one direction on an LOP search. One can only estimate how far one needs to fly an offset in order to be reasonably sure which side of the target one is. Sure -you can put all your eggs in one basket and fly the largest offset that fuel allows to get to a point the same distance on the other side of where you expected to find the landfall. But this may allow you no alternate. It also does not allow you a second search of the area you thought most likely. That is not a good idea. An excellent rule for finding things that are lost is to merely look again (but harder) in the place that you first thought most likely. If the Colorado pilots had been instructed to follow this advice they might well have saved us some work. > I also refute the thinking that Earhart was close to the Itasca because of > their very strong signal heard from the Itasca. Whilst as you say, this is by no means conclusive, it certainly doesn't mean they were a long way off either. The signals were strongest at 8.43, well after dawn, the D layer was already half built and it seems likely that the propagation mode was much more by ground wave on 3105Kc/s. This would only be good for relatively short distances (even over the sea and from an aircraft with a low radiation angle antenna). This is one reason why Gardner, at 350 miles from Itasca and Howland, was out of their range during the day, if the post loss messages are to be given any weight. - (distance daylight path transmissions, such as to Betty, HAD to be on higher frequencies.). During daytime, skywave, by whatever mode of propagation could not reach the high signal strengths of the ground wave except at relatively short distances. In other words, if reception was LOUD it was because, either way, the transmitter was close. The skywave will only predominate over the groundwave at larger distances and then of course it becomes significantly attenuated. Its strength is great only in a relative sense. At night, of course, the skywave can effectively penetrate the vestigial D layer and make use of various bizzare modes of propagation if the conditions are right and so seem strong. (The skywave at AM broadcast frequencies can indeed actually become stronger with distance because the skywave reaching the receiver derives from increasingly lower radiation angles at the transmitter, angles at which the gain is greater for this type of antenna). Only skywave could significantly benefit from special propagation conditions and that only for the higher frequencies able to better pass the daytime D layer. The skywave and groundwave add vectorially to produce the signal at the receiver. When AE changed to 6210KC/s at 08.43, no doubt hoping to improve reception at the higher frequency, it is possible that the ground or skywave destructively interfered with whatever signal was dominant at that distance causing a cancellation of the signal. > I have spent my entire life > in communications and it is NOT UNCOMMON to hear very loud HF signals at the > beginning of daytime. But on what frequency and over what range? Regards Angus ********************************************************************** From Ric I'll add a minor point. Bill seems to have accepted a lot of mythology as fact. For example, he reasons that: >Noonan must have considered the weather report from the previous day >telling them of a storm about 300 miles to the east. There was no such report and no such storm. The forecast they received from Fleet Air Base, Pearl Harbor on the morning of July 1st (more than 24 hours before their departure) included a reference to "partly clouded (sic) rain squalls 250 miles east Lae..". The forecast that came in just as they were taking off on July 2nd (which they did not see but may have heard later via radio) said "...conditions appear generally average over route. No major storm. Apparently partly cloudy with dangerous local rain squalls about 300 miles east of Lae and scattered heavy showers remainder of route.." Other examples abound. Bill's problems are the same ones that plague most amateur Earhart researchers - lack of accurate information and lack of familiarity with sound investigative methodology They read the junk published in the various books and take it as gospel, then they apply their own experience (which, of course, is entirely out of context) and come up with a "solution". LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:55:05 EST From: Harvey Subject: Re: Electra on film? Thank you,Russ. The Beech 18 is somewhat smaller and lighter than the Lockheed model 10 and there are some differences in wing plan form, too. I see there was also a Super 18H powered by 2 P&W 450 HP/R985 radial engines. LTM harvey #2387 ************************************************************************ From Ric I think you'll find that all Beech 18s had/have R985s. The Twin Beech is ubiquitous while the Electra is quite rare. I don't think you'll find any post-WWII film that features a Model 10. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:56:04 EST From: Harvey Subject: Re: engineering math model,Electra 10E thank you alan and jerry for the information.I will look into this sim when time permits. alan,what specifically didnt you like about this sim? Do you think that the intent of the X plane sim is to provide a reasonable similarity to a given platform for entertainment purposes as with Microsoft's Flight Sim series or can it be used as a serious high accuracy performance evaluation tool for TIGHAR's purposes? I have written to the company and asked their opinion. LTM harvey #2387 =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:01:16 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Earhart Television show > The show started off saying There were many new things I learned from Elgin Long's video. For example, I learned that the last person to talk to AE was Eric Chater, the Lae airport radio operator. All this time I thought Chater was the airport manager and Balfour was the radio operator. How could I be so confused. In an Internet piece on AE at Lae I DID read that Chater flew with AE on the little 30 minute test hop where she was trying to check out the DF. Chater was quoted that it checked on only two headings but I think that was a ground check. The air check failed. I have no clue as to whether this info is correct nor do I think it could be substantiated though of little significance. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric If you have ever worked with the people who produce television documentaries it's hard to get excited or surprised when the "facts" don't come out right. These shows are entertainment programs that are made by entertainment people. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:02:39 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Earhart Television show > Nobody did, and I'm sure Elgen never claimed he did. It was probably just > an error by the script writer. That's correct. It was said in a voice over not by Elgin. Alan =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:07:19 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's plan Ric wrote: > Okay....who wants him? (Yeah! I know. No surprise. ) Ric, you sound like Caesar speaking to the lions at the Coliseum. Bill, I'm glad you took my advice and double checked your info. You did a very good job of expressing your opinion and that's what is valuable here on the forum. I don't know what happened to AE and Noonan so your opinion is as good as anyone's. I might make a couple points, however, about your posting. 1. I think you are correct that there isn't any consensus as to what course Noonan took. The simple answer is no one knows nor will ever know unless the Electra is found with his annotated maps. 2. The weather report from the previous day gave the position of the storm as 250 nm east not 300. The 300 figure was in the report sent to Lae just as AE took off. There is no way to know whether she ever received it. Minor point, of course. 3. The Chater report did not give three position reports. Only two. One at 5:19Z and one at 7:18Z. Three or more radio calls but only two positions. 4. If you'll look at the map you'll see the ESE course was most likely to miss the mountains on Bougainville Island not on Papua New Guinea. Lae airport was right on the coast but their route DID miss the New Guinea peninsula which DID have high terrain. 5. You said that, "The last three positions show that Noonan charted an offset line back to the north of Howland." Sorry, Bill there WERE no "last three positions." In the entire flight AE gave only two positions and those were the two I mentioned above. The rest of your post is based on this erroneous belief and so must fall of its own weight. 6. No one has a clue as to where the airplane was at any given moment once it broke ground at Lae. NO ONE. Even the two positions AE gave did not have a time associated with them and from then on there was no position given nor did anyone sight the plane or know where it was. 7. There is no evidence whatsoever of a planned or actual offset. No one knows if they flew north or south or directly over Howland. 8. So the answer is no, no one agrees on the course you suggest. There is no information on which to agree or disagree. 9. You can't chart the "planned Offset Navigation course along side the Course Made Good (from their reported positions)" for three reasons: a. There were no reported positions. b. No one knows anything about a "planned Offset Navigation course." c. No one knows what the "Course Made Good" was. 10. I know of no information giving "strong ESE winds" or that the Electra was pushed in any direction by anything. 11. No one knows what airspeed the Electra was flying once they got to the Howland area. All we know about airspeed is that they had planned to fly the route at 130 knots TAS. We don't even know if they did. 12. There is no information available as to why another radio call was not heard. There is only speculation that changing frequencies to one that seemed to have a very short transmission range might be a factor but there is no reason to think the plane suddenly went into the drink. 13. Your suggested calculations are based on erroneous information so there is no need to agree or disagree with them. 14. You say, "The main point for all this is they must have used the offset navigation to the north of Howland, and not to the south and would not have had time to over fly Howland, Baker, or even Gardner." The problem with your "main point" is that there is no reason to believe in or evidence for an offset navigation in the first place. If one was flown there is nothing to indicate where it would have been flown since no one knows where the plane was when it approached the Howland area. And I don't understand why you think they wouldn't have time to "over fly Howland, Baker, or even Gardner" since neither you nor anyone else knows how much fuel they had. We think they had about 3 or 4 hours of fuel based on the aircraft performance charts and info provided by Kelly Johnson. Only Elgin Long and a few followers believe they had no gas at that time. 15. As to your last paragraph you may be correct as to the reliability of "strong" radio signals. In 20 years of flying over the Pacific and Atlantic and using HF, UHF, VHF, FM and the ADF I can tell you I received strong and weak signals at random positions and random times of the day and night. There may be some rules of thumb but the reality belies those rules. I don't know how close to Howland they were or in what direction nor does anyone else. The best that can be said is that when the signals became stronger they were probably coming closer. PROBABLY. Otherwise, not bad, Bill. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************ From Ric These things are never pretty to watch. =============================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:17:57 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Fred's womanizing For Alan I disagree. But regardless, whether he was a drunk or womanizer has no bearing on that fateful day. If either of those conditions were criminal, our jails would be more overcrowded than they are. I know your intentions are probably honorable but I see no point in trying to dredge up something about a dead man that serves no useful purpose to solving the mystery of where they wound up. All we can do is assume what happened. I believe the answers lie somewhere in or around Niku and not in some dead man's personnel file. I mean no disrespect Alan. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric Our job is to figure out what happened. Preserving reputations and honoring memories is not our concern, neither do we go out of our way to debunk heroes or exonerate villains. We learn all we can about the players in the drama we're investigating because there's no way of knowing what may become important. If Fred was a habitual skirt-chaser I want to know about it, but I won't accept rumor and anecdote as evidence that he was. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:03:16 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Earhart Television show For Dan Postellon Are you sure the Martin Mariner ditched? Being a seaplane I understand it was designed to land on water. LTM (who loves flying in seaplanes) ************************************************************************ From Ric As I recall it was a forced landing. Howland, as you know, has no lagoon or protected water and an open-ocean landing in a flying boat is not done without a very good reason. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:04:58 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Earhart Television show If Amelia Earhart made a 30 minute test flight at Lae to check out the DF and found it wasn't working, I wonder why she took of for Howland. With Fred Noonan being dependent on DF to find Howland at the end of a DR navigation across the ocean, would anyone say it was sound reasoning to take off knowing the DF wasn't working? Why didn't she have the thing fixed before taking off? Herman ************************************************************************ From Ric She couldn't get it to work but assumed it was because she was too close to the station. It's all in the Chater Report on the website. http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:06:01 EST From: Bill Shea Subject: Re: Noonan's plan Alan, thanks for the critique. One thing I have learned from this is that there is just too many points to debate in one e-mail. Most of the disputes in my piece seem to all be based on my original positions. So, I will go back and see why I have one more postion that you have stated there is. It seems so important that if we can learn where they were during the first 3rd part of the flight then maybe a consensus can be agreed upon (but I know you chaps have already probably gone over this water many times). Cheers from Bill =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:11:05 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Earhart Television show Ric wrote: > If you have ever worked with the people who produce television documentaries > it's hard to get excited or surprised when the "facts" don't come out right. > These shows are entertainment programs that are made by entertainment people. You forgot to mention that first and foremost they are intended to sell advertising, and oh by the way, to be entertaining... ltm jon ************************************************************************ From Ric Same thing....to sell advertising you need good ratings. To get good ratings you have to hold on to viewers and keep them away from that remote. That means you have to give them a reason to suffer through the commercials and you do that by creating suspense and anticipation. That need is what drives the content of every show you see. =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:27:38 EST From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: Fred's womanizing I don't mean to sound argumentative, but what does Fred's skirt chasing have to do with our mystery? I must be missing something. Please enlighten me. LTM Mike Haddock #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric First of all, I don't have any idea whether Fred was a "womanizer" and, at this point, I don't have any reason to think he was. But as a matter of principle in historical investigation (or any investigation for that matter) you never refuse information on the basis that it is irrelevant. You never know what may be relevant. Looking for "occult" information (information that only Amelia or Fred would know) in post-loss radio reports is a classic example. What if, year's ago, we ran across a story about how AE kept her will in a suitcase in her closet. What bearing could that possibly have upon solving the mystery of her disappearance? Then along comes Betty's notebook with an alleged statement by Amelia "George, get the suitcase in my closet." Bingo. ( I wish we had such a story, but we don't.) LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:35:34 EST From: Angus Murray Subject: 2-3-V-1 coax Was it ever established if 2-3-V-1 could have been an HT lead? If the two parts once formed a single cable, a measurement of total length might be instructive. There may be some WWII recovered R1340s which could provide evidence of the length of the originals which would all have been made to the same length. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric What's an HT lead? =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:14:08 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Radio Group - Collins [the post-loss messages] Ric wrote: > You also say that the Nauru intercepts "did not survive careful scrutiny." > Careful scrutiny by who? Are you aware of an official investigation or are > you just expressing your own opinion? > > You "remain convinced that the Coast Guard's assessment was accurate." > > Can you think of anything that would change your mind? "Careful scrutiny" by Thompson, for one. Or are you suggesting he was guilty of dereliction of duty and brushed off what - at the time - was a very promising indication of Earhart's survival? And would Amalgamated Wireless casually let the matter drop if it had any faith in the report? Neither seems likely to me. As far as the VKT operator (working for Amalgamated Wireless of Australia); to the best of my knowledge he has never been identified. "Moonlighting" may not be exactly the right description, since he was not actually working a second job for another employer, but my use of quotes around the word was intended to indicate a slang interpretation. VKT was officially closed at the time of the intercept, but the unknown operator was voluntarily monitoring the Earhart frequencies. I don't doubt he heard something, and reported it in the sincere hope that it MIGHT have been from Earhart, but by his own admission he was unable to make positive identification. "Voice similar [to] that emitted by plane in flight last night" but "speech not intelligible" are scarcely conclusive evidence, as I'm sure you'll agree. And, as we both know, the operator was alone and there was no corroborating witness - and NO surviving log. As stated, I "remain convinced", but would be most happy to "change my mind" if you can offer any proof to the contrary. I haven't received a copy of Brandenburg's analysis, and have done nothing similar to compare it with. However, first hand experience, and some professional background in radio theory and operation, provides some insight into what could - or could not - have occurred with messages emanating from the Central Pacific, and I've already cited the dirigible NORGE incident. [Correction: Nobile's airship was the ITALIA. Sorry!] The reception distance was far less than Niku to the U.S., incidentally. Possible skip, signal-to-noise ratios, etc. are only partially predictable, no matter how many fancy charts or computer models are drawn. Skeptically, Cam Warren ************************************************************************ From Ric ITASCA commanding office Thompson's ability to "scrutinize" the Nauru intercepts would be pretty limited. He's on a boat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He pretty much had to take them at face value - possible transmissions from the Earhart aircraft - and that seems to be what he did. As it turns out, ITASCA was also hearing unintelligible voice at the same time but on 3105 (Nauru was listening on 6210). Earhart, of course, can only transmit on one frequency at a time but 6210 is the first harmonic of 3105 so it's entirely possible that ITASCA and Nauru are hearing the same tranmission. Thompson did not become dismissive of the post-loss receptions until after the search had failed. You say that the operator at VKT (Nauru Radio) was working for Amalgamated Wireless. I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know that? Similarly, how do you know that the VKT was officially closed at the time? And how do you know the operator was alone? TIGHAR's analysis of all of the alleged post-loss signals, when completed, will be the product of several years of work by many TIGHAR members including, but not limited to, Randy Jacobson, Bill Moffett, Bob Brandenburg and me, with peer review and critique by the 30 members of the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC). The volume of data that have been collected, quantified, and plotted is enormous and the result will, for the first time, make accessible to any researcher a major body of evidence in the Earhart disappearance that has previously been dealt with piecemeal or dismissed out of hand. Don't worry. Nobody will ask you to draw conclusions based on computer models that you don't understand. Once all the puzzle pieces are laid out I think you'll find that the picture will become very clear. LTM, Ric =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:18:15 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Beech 18 vs. Lockheed 10 The ubiquitous Beech has stood in for the elusive Electra on many occasions -- most notably in TNT's forgettable telefilm "Final Flight" and an extra-loopy episode ("The 37ers") of UPN's "Star Trek: Voyager." At a casual glance, the best way to differntiate between the two is the tail. On an Electra, the horizontal surface protrudes outboard of the vertical stabilizers, whereas on the Beech it does not (surprisingly well disguied by the ST: V Art Dept with a strategically placed bush). Also, the 18 has bigger cockpit windows with a more pronounced slope than on the 10. An infamous installment of "Unsolved Mysteries" employed a Beech 18 that had been refitted with tricycle gear and a set of modern airstairs to reach the now elevated cabin door. Another common stand-in has been the Lockheed Model 12 "Electra, Jr." There's a one not far north of LA that is oft-used for "POV" (Point of View) flying work and a static example even closer. ABC also used one of these "baby birds" in the 1976 mini-series "Amelia Earhart." LTM, Russ =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:31:47 EST From: Rich Young Subject: Glacier Girl I can't help but respond to the "archeology/preservationist" arguments that have recently surfaced on the forum. This is exactly the same attitude that resulted in the Monitor rotting away at the bottom of the ocean for 30 years, deteriorating to the point that only major components can be raised, as opposed to the largely intact ship it was at the time of discovery. But on to the chase - 1. Squadron markings, insignia, "nose art", kill markings, etc were painted in whatever paint could be locally procured, if a supply of "official" paint, (which would have been from various contractor/suppliers anyway), could not be procured, as was usually the case. Even factory-applied markings are sometimes wrong, or use substitute colors. So what do you hope to learn from "original" paint? 2. Had someone not spent the money, there would be nothing to argue over except the theoretical condition of the aircraft under the ice. Since someone did recover it, I'm sure samples of original paint, aluminum, wiring, etc are now available to the researcher that would otherwise be unobtainable. 3. The recent trend in aircraft restoration has been toward more authenticity, not less. Owners are beating the bushes for armor plate, (or making replicas), turrets, guns, (usually "de-milled" to non-firing status to avoid BATF troubles), ammo chutes, dummy ammo belts, original radios, survival kits, etc. One group went so far as to go to a crashed B-36 site in British Columbia, (a supposed "broken arrow" site at that) to get "period correct" oxygen bottles and other bits for a B-17. Another owner just completely gutted and rewired his P-51B because the wax-impregnated, color coded, cloth-insulated wire custom-ordered from the original manufacturer was accidentally marked with (same font and size) labels that were oriented differently from the original wire he had. Eventually you reach the point of Nichean Equivalence - a difference between a "restored" airplane, and a zero-time factory fresh original that was stored undisturbed for 50 years, that "makes no difference" - IS no difference. 4. There were a grand total of FIVE, count 'em, FIVE flying P-38s in the world,...BEFORE Lefty Gardner's recently made a forced landing with major damage - (a turbo blew, precipitating the incident, .. I guess he left his hooked up....). Glacier Girl's return brings us back up to five. 5. There's still four more crunched Lightning's - just go dig one up, (as soon as you raise the money). 6. Unlike the Pharaoh's war chariots, or Viking longboats, we have blueprints, diagrams, field erection and maintenance manuals, still photos and movies, and even some of the people who designed and built these items - the necessity for rigorous "preservation" simply isn't as acute, because we have other means of determining the information. 7. Even though the National Air & Space Museum's exhibits are not intended to ever fly again, they are restored to flight condition, (correctly, I think). Any part or component that has to be replaced is stamped "Replacement Part - NASM" with the date, to avoid misleading future researchers. 8. Maybe I'm just lucky - every plane with a turbo on it I've seen seemed to be working. The Confederate Air Force B-29 once made an extended stay in my hometown of Lawton, Ok after an air show here with a ..blown turbo. Mr. Gardner's were hooked up. There's a total of 2 semi-flyable semi-B-24's left - I've never got close enough to either one tell for sure about the superchargers. It seems to me very difficult on a design like a P-38 or P-47 to disable the turbo-supercharger, as it is very integrated into the induction/exhaust systems. 9. Fish belong in water -airplanes belong in the air. Thank God you can get a new FW-190, Me-262, Yak, or P-51 today, if you have enough money. Maybe these replicas will ease the pressure on originals to be returned to "zero-time" condition. 10. Lastly, when you have the item and the "pink slip" to it, you can restore it, preserve it, or make aluminum pots and pans and beer cans out of it, as you see fit. LTM, (who blows kisses, not turbos) Rich ************************************************************************ From Ric These are indeed the attitudes that prevail in the aviation community and are the reasons why very little aviation historic preservation is taking place. The one statement that puzzles me is Number 9. Everything else you say seems to justify the destruction of originals to create flyable reproductions, but then you note that the growing population of scratch-built replicas (which, I agree, is wonderful) may "ease the pressure on originals to be returned to 'zero-time' condition." =============================================================== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:32:44 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Fred's womanizing > I know your intentions are > probably honorable but I see no point in trying to dredge up something > about > a dead man that serves no usef