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. <G>  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. <G>  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? <G>

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

<<Whereabouts did Samtec do their thing on Niku?>>

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. <G>)

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 useful purpose to solving the mystery of where
> they
> wound up.

You're confused Mike. I didn't and never have brought up anything about Noonan's personal life. My entire comment was that you were thinking in terms of today not 1930s. I have no idea who has been talking about Noonan and old unsupported allegations but it wasn't me.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:35:03 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: engineering math model,Electra 10E

Harvey asks:

> 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.

I didn't think the graphics were up to snuff, there was and is too little support for the sim and as a long time pilot didn't think the aircraft performance was good enough.

I don't think either or any sim I know of is usable in regard to the AE problem in TIGHAR. FS2002 itself is good enough to duplicate many aspects of the problem but not sufficiently to make any usable determinations. For example the question of how far from Howland could the island be spotted from 1,000 feet under the same circumstances as occurred on July 2, 1937? Here, the main problem is that we can't duplicate the circumstances of that fateful day because we don't know what they were. If we did there is no reason to believe FS can produce the exact same results to the point the information would be useful. As a further example of that let me say that the FS model Electra cockpit views would have to be duplicated with the same big engines out there on the wings and from the same perspectives that AE and FN had. The cloud deck is not known other than in general terms and the atmospheric (haze intensity) conditions are not known. The FS scenery rendition of Howland Island and of the associated body of water would have to be accurately duplicated and it is not. (I've flown in real life in similar conditions in both oceans and I can tell you FS is not sufficiently close for this kind of purpose.

Could we program the plane to recheck the fuel usage? Absolutely but it can be done with pencil and paper in a few minutes with the same accuracy. It's simple math.

Should all this stop us from recreating the flight in a simulator? Not at all. Who knows what ideas might come to light.

I'm doing it but building the correct airplane is a long and difficult process.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:36:36 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

> then they apply their
> own experience (which, of course, is entirely out of context) and come up
> with a "solution".

Exactly the point I've made several times. My own experiences did not occur in 1937 and much was different then. As I tried to point out to Mike in regard to his comment on someone's Noonan post, times were much different in 1937. Today a pilot going through security with an alcohol smell is virtually executed on the spot. The fact that someone drank in 1937 was not near that big of a concern. Today there is a serious concern what to write in someone's file for fear of litigation but that was not the case in 1937. Lawyers hadn't figured out that plum yet.

Many have not come to grips with the lack of significant radio position reports from AE. They are thinking 2002. In the 30s there wasn't much need to make positions reports. There were precious few planes flying so there wasn't much need for air traffic control. Had AE made a position report who would have cared other than GP, the Itasca and the media? Everyone knew when she took off and when she was due so what difference did it make what she did in between? What would anyone use the information for?

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:45:17 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Angus, thanks for the reply. I think i must have postulated too much in my original presentation, so I better back up and just concentrate on what Noonan would have been planning to fly just before they took off.

Here's a question: If Noonan didnt have any DF Radio working, just a HF radio , do you think he would have thought about an offset course knowing about the 157/337 line?
Cheers from Bill
************************************************************************
From Ric

In my opinion, no.  Remember that Earhart/Noonan did not even try to take a bearing with their own DF until every effort to get ITASCA to take a bearing had failed.  By then they were already on the advanced LOP.  Earhart knew that she didn't know how to work the DF very well.  That's why she tried so hard to get ITASCA to do it for her.  I expect that Noonan was confident of getting a bearing (and thus removing any need for an offset) even if he had little faith in AE's ability to get the loop to work (which, if he had any sense at all, he did).
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:03:46 EST
From:         Harvey
Subject:      Re: engineering math model,Electra 10E

Simon Ellwood #2120 wrote:

> My understanding is that the L10 has a simple Clark-Y section, not a NACA 
> series one.

thank you very much Simon for the specific information. If you recall the  source,it too will be appreciated.

LTM

Harvey 2387
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:05:02 EST
From:         Charles Opperman
Subject:      Re: 11/17 Talk

I got interested in AE and TIGHAR after attending a talk by Tom in Seattle earlier this year.  During the Flight Across America (www.flightacrossamerica.com) I got to visit Atchison, KS and the AE Birthplace Museum.

I highly recommend both Tom's talk and visiting the museum, along with the other AE related sights in Atchison.  It's about an hour's drive from downtown KC - shorter if going from the international airport.

Charles Oppermann
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:54:00 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Earhart Television show

>Are you sure the Martin Mariner ditched?

That is all the data I could find on the internet.  By the way, there were Superfund sites on both Howland and Baker, now resolved and archived.  I haven't found much on them, or ordered the documents, but I suspect they  were like the line in "Alice's Restaurant" "I just had to pay a fine and pick up the garbage." If you are very interested, I suppose an old plane  wreck could be a superfund site, with a potential for heavy metals and petroleum products leaks.   Dan
************************************************************************
From Ric

Heck, the whole island of Canton should be a superfund site. The toxic mess the USAF left behind there is a disgrace.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:58:30 EST
From:         Jonathan
Subject:      Re: 2-3-V-1 coax

> What's an HT lead? >

HT is British for a high-voltage wire, like a spark plug wire.

    -Jonathan.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Ah, thank you.

Here's Mike Everette's summary of the cables from July 2001:

The cables indeed look to be of a type that could be of the vintage we are interested in; however, such cables were also used in WW2-era equipment, such as might have been found at the LORAN station on Niku.

The connectors are of a type which first appeared circa 1936.  They are of American design and manufacture.  These connectors, Howard P. Jones 101 series, a common pre-war form of coaxial fitting, were indeed used in period avionics equipment; in fact, Bendix was quite fond of them.  We know that NR16020 carried some variety of "Bendix direction finder" but the exact type is far from established.

I made some inquiries a while back to Australian sources (radio museums) to try and determine whether the "Yank" connectors might be found in British or Australian gear, but had no success.

The cable itself is a type of shielded wire; the manufacturer may have been Belden, but this is not established for certain. One common use for this variety of cable, as described in period catalogs and specs,  was "auto-radio antenna lead-in."  Don't be quick to jump to conclusions, however.  It could have just as easily been used for audio wire or for instrumentation; or, (and probably likely) have been some kind of test cable or patch cord used in most any kind of electronic equipment.

The apparent length of one of the cables suggests to me that it probably was some sort of test cable or patch cord.

For example, one WW2-era application for the connectors in question was the Ferris Microvolter series of radio-frequency signal generators, which may well have been found among the test gear used in the LORAN station.  The Jones 101 series connector predates the Amphenol-designed "UHF" series of coaxial fittings and was used as the output connector on this pre-war design signal generator.  Two-way FM land-mobile radios made by the Link Radio Corporation, designed prior to the War, also used the Jones 101 as a coaxial antenna connector.  (Any LORAN veterans recall if any of the vehicles on Niku had two-way radios, and what general type?) These Jones connectors continued to be used by a number of manufacturers of radio equipment throughout the 1940s.  They were also found in audio equipment.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:21:00 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Bill Shea wrote:
>
> 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.

Thanks, Bill, for taking my comments in the spirit given. Everything we do here is to try and sort out the facts, evidence and implication into some kind of meaningful scenario.

The known positions of the Electra are, in order:

1.  Lae airport - the old one on the coast which is no longer there - not the new one about 30 or so miles inland.
2.  At 4:18Z the radio call only gave their altitude of 7,000' but no position.
3.  At 5:19Z AE gave their position as S 7.3, E 157 (or 150.7 as I believe it to be)
4.  At 7:18 Z she gave a position of S 4.33, E 159.7.

Those are the only positions ever given during the entire flight out of Lae. Also note that I show the positions in decimal form but in truth I don't know whether those were decimal or not. Ric may be able to shed light as to whether any other positions were given during the round the world flight and in what form they were given. I've never had reason to be concerned as to what form they were in as I've not tried to replot the flight since there were no other points to use after the 7:18 Z report.

There is some other indication of the Electra's whereabouts but not supported and so is unusable. That would be the possibility they over flew a ship near Nauru that evening but no one knows if this is so or what ship it might have been. There is also an insupportable report of an airplane over flying Tabiteua (I think I spell it different each time) in the Gilbert's at some unspecified time during the night. And of course there is AE saying they are about 200 miles out but not in what direction. Then she makes a comment about 100 miles out but to me it is not clear she is 100 miles out at the time. It may be she is saying she will whistle into the mike when she gets 100 miles out but I'm not sure about that. Finally she says she is on a line 157/337.

That's it for positions and there is nothing there that could be plotted for any usable purpose.

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

I'm not aware of any position reports made earlier in the World Flight.

During the Oakland/Honolulu flight in March Manning sent position reports in code which are transscribed in an Oakland newspaper article using colons, of all things, - such as "latitude 36:16 north".  Not much help, and of course Manning wasn't on the Lae/Howland flight.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:21:48 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Fred's womanizing

For Alan

I don't think I am confused. Being the son of a career combat pilot & a 62 year old man myself,  I can tell you that in FN's day and even worse today, one mention of a drinking problem in his personnel jacket would probably have spelled the end of his career---especially in today's environment. Ric made a good point why it is important that we consider all information about FN & AE. I stand corrected on that point. Oh well, what the hell. Are we having fun yet?
LTM (who really enjoys this forum)
Mike Haddock #2438
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:23:24 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Fred's womanizing

Both Noonan and Earhart are fair game when doing a biography of their lives as a background to the final leg of their flight and fate.  If Noonan drank heavily and on the night before the flight as reported by some (disputed of course) a hangover may well have played a role in the disappearance.

Perhaps Noonan may have disclosed mechanical problems in a letter to woman friend, unknown, and we recently learned of the affair. We would try to get the letters, as we have tried to review the letters he sent to his wife.

But Noonan and Earhart are both interesting people and the biographies of famous people often contain "irrelevant" tid bits of their personality unrelated to their contribution to history.

So Mike Haddock please forgive us for indulging in some references to personality traits, and foibles.

LTM,
Ron Bright
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:45:10 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Final Approach -for FREE

Thanks to Tom Van Hare of Historic Wings for posting Scott Allbee's print of AE on her approach to Niku.  It makes a GREAT desktop item for  viewing.  Go here http://www.historicwings.com/top-mainmenu.html to capture the image -- and browse Tom's great site.
I'll let Ric add his pitch for buying a copy of the print through TIGHAR . . . . 

LTM, a fan of all aircraft 
Dennis McGee #0149EC

************************************************************************
From Ric ( graciously taking the mic from Dennis)

...and do I have a deal for all you TIGHAR members out there. Now you can have your own copy of this magnificent and evocative piece of aviation art for FREE.  That's what I said...for FREE.  For a limited time only, add a year to your current TIGHAR membership at the Associate Member rate of $55 and we'll send you a print of Final Approach - a $50 value - absolutely free.  Or - look at it this way - buy a print and get a full year added to your current TIGHAR membership for five bucks.

Want a Limited Edition copy of the painting? (One of 200 numbered and signed by the artist and by yours truly.)  The regular price is $100, but for TIGHAR members - and for a limited time - add a year to your TIGHAR membership for $55 and get the Limited Edition of "Final Approach" for only $50.

Either way it's a great way to help your organization, extend your membership, and get a great piece of aviation art for FREE or half-price.

This deal is too good to last so act now.  We'll be mailing a notice to the membership next week.  Once everybody has had a chance to respond we'll cut it off.

You can take advantage of this special offer right now on the secure TIGHAR website.  Just go to the Membership page at

https://tighar.org/membernew.html

and select "Renewal Sale!" in the credit card section at the bottom.  We'll send you your print as soon as they come in.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:14:50 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum-only membership sale

For all you Forum subscribers who are not yet TIGHAR members, here's the best offer we've ever made - 2 for 1.  Join TIGHAR now at the regular Associate Member rate of $55 and get TWO YEARS of TIGHAR membership for the price of one.  That's two years of membership, two years of member-discounts on TIGHAR wearables and publications, and two years of TIGHAR Tracks, including the new magazine-size Special Report on the Post-Loss Radio Signals due out in a few weeks.

AND, as a TIGHAR member, you'll also be able to take advantage of the special offer on Scott Albee's new aviation art print Final Approach (see today's forum posting entitled "Final Approach - for FREE).

This special offer is open ONLY to Forum subscribers and will not be advertised anywhere but right here on the Earhart Forum - AND IT WILL END ON NOVEMBER 30th, so act now.  You can join via the secure TIGHAR website at

https://tighar.org/membernew.html

Just include the word "Forum" after your last name and we'll automatically give you two years for the price of one.  You can also print the form and fax your information to us at (302) 994-7945 or phone us at (302) 994-4410.  You can even send us a check at:
TIGHAR
Forum Membership Sale
2812 Fawkes Drive
Wilmington, DE  19808

Again, we'll only stay this crazy until November 30, so act now.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:46:37 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Alan, you're right, it didn't make much difference to them, but here we are trying to figure out where they came down and the only way we can begin to do that is plot the postions they reported. I still think they used a northern offset course but I can't begin to prove it until we have concensus on their reported positions.
Cheers from Bill
*******************************************************
From Ric

The very first thing you need to accept is that neither you nor anybody else is ever going to prove whether or not Noonan used an offset.  You can line up all the positions in the world - you can even find the airplane exactly where you think it is - and you're not going to prove how it got there unless you find Fred's chart with the pencil line that shows where he went.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:48:10 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Glacier Girl

Rich Young says:

>9. Fish belong in water -airplanes belong in the air.

This is where I would disagree with you.  Restoring the Glacier Girl to  flyable condition would be like patching up the Monitor to go tuna fishing.

Dan Postellon   TIGHAR#2263
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:58:41 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Bill Shea wrote:

> Here's a question: If Noonan didnt have any DF Radio working, just a HF radio,
> do you think he would have thought about an offset course knowing about  the 
> 157/337 line?

If by "any" you include Itasca's DF set, I'm sure he would have considered it as offset was a technique well known to him. If you look back over the  forum archive, its a matter which has been well discussed. However he  wouldn't have expected that Itasca's capability in that respect would be compromised. Nonetheless he must have considered the possibility that both their own HF transmitter and DF capability might fail and after failing to  establish two way communication with Itasca, he might have decided to deviate from their 78 degree course some time after 6.00 am in order fly an offset. From what we know, any bad weather was to the north and if such a weather system was visible to them in that direction, a deviation to the south would have actually been an advantage. After a short 337 leg north to pass the position of Howland, this would allow them to turn south again for another look, with Gardner as the longstop. A deviation to the north would both take them unnecessarily closer to the bad weather and only allow one pass of Howland before continuing south.

Incidentally Ric, just what evidence do we have for worse weather to the north and from who? "A US navy ship" seems to figure somewhere in the darkest recesses of memory (from dubious sources) - was this Itasca?

Regards Angus.

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

ITASCA was the only ship in the area.  The "bad weather" to the northwest is another myth.  The scattered cloud deck apparently looked less scattered to the northwest at the time ITASCA decided to go looking for Earhart (10:40 local). When they got to "the northwest" the deck log shows that the cloud cover there was denser than it had been at Howland but there was no "bad weather".
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:07:38 EST
From:         Chris in Petaluma
Subject:      Re: 2-3-V-1 coax @television

First, HT stands for high tension lead, usually referring to a spark plug wire. They are cut to specific lengths depending on the location of the cylinder.

Second, do you think PBS is the way to go for accurate documentaries?

Third,  are our membership numbers in  numerical order?

Chris#2511 (would Ric be Tighar#1?)
************************************************************************
From Ric

First - Got that. Thanks.

Second - No.  The main difference between most PBS documentaries and "commercial" documentaries is that they have bigger budgets and take longer to produce.  Anybody who thinks public broadcasting isn't commercial hasn't had a chance to look under the bed covers.

Third - TIGHAR membership numbers are generally chronological (although a few years ago we did have a "low number" sale).  Member number 0001 is held by a member of the board of directors. Pat and I do not have numbers.  We're employees.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:11:03 EST
From:         Brent
Subject:      Re: Evidence

As mentioned in archives it has been indicated that you are closer than ever to finding identifiable piece of aircraft or other. Could there be a situation where  you would know  something and not be advising the general public at this stage due to  political or other reasons until final expedition. 

Or am I reading into this too much.

Brent

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

Let me answer your question with a question.
If you were me what would you do if such a situation existed?
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:11:44 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: 2-3-V-1 coax

It is definitely not an HT lead (spark plug wire).  This is audio signal cable, or possibly radio frequency cable.  The connectors are a common American type.  More than likely this is Loran station residue.

The connectors, by the way, are definitely not a type used on spark plugs.

Mike E.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:12:40 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Earhart Television show

The plane that ditched had seized engines, and was forced to ditch just offshore of Howland.  I found some records of it in the National Archives in San Bruno, CA.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:18:18 EST
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Earhart Television show

Ric wrote:

>Heck, the whole island of Canton should be a superfund site.  The toxic mess
>the USAF left behind there is a disgrace.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: scratch a Government installation and you'll find a superfund site.

Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
***********************************************************************
From Ric

You don't have to scratch Canton.  It'll scratch you.  PCBs leaching into the ground from abandoned transformers, a derelict warehouse full of broken-open bags of pesticide, and cute little I-Kiribati kids running all around.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:34:52 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Radio Group - Collins [the post-loss mess

Sorry I don't have the time to look up and print out all the references to the Nauru messages, but have given you a brief summary to indicate there is additional information to what you seem to have. I've also given you may conclusions reached after considerable study over a decade. If you wish to brush them off as trivial and ill-conceived, that's your prerogative (and customary response.) I include myself amongst those providing "critical scrutiny', aligning myself with Comdrs. Anthony and Thompson, and even that evil Stanley Parker. (As someone who has long taken a firm position against conspiracy theorists, how do you square your implication that everybody involved in an official capacity during the Earhart flight were covering up for themselves and each other for gross negligence and dereliction of duty??)

You seek my answers to the following:

> 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?

VKT (a commercial station) was owned and operated by Amalgamated Wireless. (You could check this out easily enough). Their published schedule of watches was 0400-1030 (GMT) and they were closed Sundays and Holidays. (July 3, 1937 was a Saturday). They did not normally monitor aircraft frequencies, nor could they transmit on any, unless - in this case - you consider 500 kc. See Safford: Flight Into Yesterday, Table 12. Safford, incidentally, mentioned the recipient of the possible "Earhart" signals was "one of the native operators" which only makes sense, given the location. It's my impression the operator was alone, since he was at the station unofficially, and no corroborating witness has ever been mentioned. Maybe one of the Australian TIGHARs could check this all out with Amalgamated, whose home office was/is in Sydney.

This concludes my input in the matter, pending some new evidence. Maybe from the TIGHAR committee of busy beavers?

Cam Warren
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you.  Assuming that your information about VKT's published schedule is correct, the suspected Earhart signals were heard during their normal hours of operation at 08:31, 08:43, and 08:54GMT.

Apparently Safford was assuming that the operator was a "native", not that it makes any difference.  British-trained local radio operators were highly skilled.  Your allegation that the operator was alone and that no log was kept is apparently pure conjecture.

Various individuals covering their respective butts doth not a conspiracy make.

I won't bother you further on the matter.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:36:13 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fred's womanizing

Mike Haddock wrote:
>
> For Alan
> I don't think I am confused.

Mike, reread what I wrote. PLEASE. Our respective opinions on whether drinking was significant or not or anything in between is NOT the discussion I say you are confused about.

You're confused that I mentioned ANYTHING about the subject in the first place. I have never posted anything about Noonan's personal life and I said that. Did you miss it? I don't know whose post you were commenting on but it wasn't mine.

I have never believed those foolish unsupported allegations and have NEVER posted about them.

Reread the posts.

As I said in my post and I'll repeat it again is that I thought you were thinking in 2002 terms not 1930s terms. Maybe you aren't. I thought so but I don't know. But NOTHING I've posted has had anything to do with allegations about anything or anyone. WHAT do I have to do to get that through to you?

Alan, frustrated
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:37:14 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fred's womanizing

Just to make sure, I'll say it again. You're confused about who posted the Noonan allegation. NOT about our difference in the significance of what it would have meant in 1937. Are you on the same page with me yet?

My point on the 1937 significance was that in 1937 posting such information would not have instigated legal action to the extent it does now. We didn't do that much then. I make no comment on what it would have done to his employment status. I wouldn't have a clue. I was only 5 then.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:47:51 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio Group - Collins [the post-loss messages]

> 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.

Ric, could it also be she tried to transmit on first one then the other?

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

But there is at least one occasion, at 08:43Z on July 3, when Nauru heard unintelligible voice on 6210 and Itasca heard unintelligible voice on 3105.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:50:42 EST
From:         David C.
Subject:      Re: Fred's womanizing

looks like if we're going to think noonan was perhaps capable of being so  careless and addicted that he drank enough the night before the flight  to  jeopardize the whole mission then maybe we should just as well think he was  careless and addicted enough to drink DURING the flight also---which if he  wanted it bad enough Im sure he would have had no problem sneaking it on.  maybe even he had before and he and Earhart had argued about it but he did  it anyway. who knows? maybe they both drank some during the flight? Im sure  people much smarter than them fly planes or drive cars everyday and do  things just as stupid. seems like I read that causes a lot of the small  plane crashes--just like cars.  and supposedly the pilot, or pilots, of that commercial airline got caught  almost drunk here lately.  anything is possible it seems when it comes to people and alcohol---doesnt  matter their intelligence, exp. or age or the situation.  anyway, thats just  my 2 cents worth.  david c
*********************************************************
From Ric

Okay.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:45:13 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Fred's womanizing

I plead guilty to the post about Noonan, and Alan is innocent. However I was not making any allegations, but passing on a comment that Dutch Schildhauer made to Gordon Vaeth maybe in the late 1960's about Fred Noonan's performance at PAA. In view of the ubiquitous allegations of drinking, I thought it was of biographical importance for those interested in the life and times of Fred Noonan. Recall that noone could confirm Goerner's report that Noonan was drinking when an officer noted on the ticket he "had been drinking" somewhere around Fresno, California. Noone found that ticket or the officer. Not a big deal. I don't know if it was true or not. Schildhauer, correct spellling thanks to Jerry Hamilton, is deceased.

LTM,
Ron Bright

===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:46:25 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Earhart Television show

Ric wrote:

> You don't have to scratch Canton.  It'll scratch you.  PCBs leaching into the 
> ground from abandoned transformers, a derelict warehouse full of broken-open 
> bags of pesticide, and cute little I-Kiribati kids running all around. 

And some people believe these quaint people are not living in the 21st Century... 

LTM (who always kept the kids from licking abandoned leaky transformers)  
Dave
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:54:22 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

After reading all the Forum entries and email for quite a while, I have my own worthless opinion, that being that FN had a little too much faith in the DF capabilities and experience of the USCG, which proved disastrous in the long run. 

For Ric... I've been wondering about this for a while, but what are the reasons (if any) a USGG vessel was stationed off Howland rather than a USN vessel? 

LTM,
Dave
************************************************************************
From Ric

Very good reasons.  Howland and the other "American Equatorial Islands" (Baker, Jarvis, and Fanning) were being "colonized" with Department of Interior employees (some young men of Hawaiian and Asian descent from Hawaii) for the purpose of establishing U.S. sovereignty.  It was thought that the islands might become useful in transpacific air commerce.  The Coast Guard, part of the Treasury Department, was supporting those operations.  ITASCA had made several trips to Howland.  Supporting the Earhart flight was incidental to their primary mission.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:03:57 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Ric wrote:

> ITASCA was the only ship in the area.  The "bad weather" to the northwest is 
> another myth.  The scattered cloud deck apparently looked less scattered to 
> the northwest at the time ITASCA decided to go looking for Earhart (10:40 
> local). When they got to "the northwest" the deck log shows that the cloud 
> cover there was denser than it had been at Howland but there was no "bad 
> weather". 

What I was half remembering was a book review which I quote below - (hence  my earlier reference to dubious sources):
 
"In their book, Goldstein and Dillon propose the following scenario: Earhart  and Noonan were proceeding on course, several hundred miles from Howland, when they flew into towering black storm clouds (as reported by a U.S. Navy ship) and became disoriented about their location".

Remarkable how "denser cloud" can become "towering black storm clouds". Its certainly a good illustration of how myth develops and how sceptical of anything other than primary sources one should be. 

Regards Angus.

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

Occasional rain squalls become storms and denser cloud becomes towering black storm clouds.  Strong headwinds appear and hours of fuel disappear.  Japanese ships and fortifications materialize out of thin air.  Any study of the 65 year search for Amelia Earhart is a study in the propagation of folklore and mythology.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:08:02 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Radio Group - Collins [the post-loss messages]

> But there is at least one occasion, at 08:43Z on July 3, when Nauru heard
> unintelligible voice on 6210 and Itasca heard unintelligible voice on 3105.

I don't have that much faith in the accuracy of their time reporting.

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

You make an excellent point, but I'm not sure what we can do about it except acknowledge that everybody's clock might not be in agreement right to the minute.  Heck, from the logs it looks like the two clocks in the radio room aboard Itasca were two minutes apart.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:09:06 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Angus wrote:

> he might have decided to deviate from their 78 degree course some time after
> 6.00 am in order fly an offset.

Angus, what 78 degree course? No one knows what course they were on at any time after take off.  Making up "facts" will only confuse the new people and some of the old ones on the forum.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:10:14 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

From Alan

> I can't begin to prove it until we have concensus on their
> reported positions.

Bill, you don't need to have any kind of census or even worry about what opinions any one else has. Just go to the web site and look up the Chater report info. No one in TIGHAR wrote that. Chater did. Two positions reported and no others. I don't understand why you think there are more. In your posting you said there were three at the beginning and three near the end. What were they and where are you getting them?

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:13:27 EST
From:         Dean
Subject:      To Tell The Truth

Wild! I'm watching an old To Tell the Truth episode on The Game Show Network and there's Richard Gillespie!

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

Oh my God.........no.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:17:21 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      In case you missed it...

For TIGHAR members

Now you can have your own copy of the new Scott Allbee painting Final Approach...for FREE.  For a limited time only, add a year to your current TIGHAR membership at the Associate Member rate of $55 and we'll send you a print of Final Approach - a $50 value - absolutely free.  Or - look at it this way - buy a print and get a full year added to your current TIGHAR membership for five bucks.

Want a Limited Edition copy of the painting? (One of 200 numbered and signed by the artist and by yours truly.)  The regular price is $100, but for TIGHAR members - and for a limited time - add a year to your TIGHAR membership for $55 and get the Limited Edition of "Final Approach" for only $50.

Either way it's a great way to help your organization, extend your membership, and get a great piece of aviation art for FREE or half-price. 

This deal is too good to last so act now.  We'll be mailing a notice to the membership next week.  Once everybody has had a chance to respond we'll cut it off.

You can take advantage of this special offer right now on the secure TIGHAR website.  Just go to the Membership page at

https://tighar.org/membernew.html

and select "Renewal Sale!" in the credit card section at the bottom.  We'll send you your print as soon as they come in.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:19:49 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      For all not-yet TIGHARS...

In case you missed yesterday's notice...

For all you Forum subscribers who are not yet TIGHAR members, here's the best offer we've ever made - 2 for 1.  Join TIGHAR now at the regular Associate Member rate of $55 and get TWO YEARS of TIGHAR membership for the price of one.  That's two years of membership, two years of member-discounts on TIGHAR wearables and publications, and two years of TIGHAR Tracks, including the new magazine-size Special Report on the Post-Loss Radio Signals due out in a few weeks.

AND, as a TIGHAR member, you'll also be able to take advantage of the special offer on Scott Albee's new aviation art print Final Approach (see today's forum posting entitled "Final Approach - for FREE).

This special offer is open ONLY to Forum subscribers and will not be advertised anywhere but right here on the Earhart Forum - AND IT WILL END ON NOVEMBER 30th, so act now.  You can join via the secure TIGHAR website at

https://tighar.org/membernew.html

Just include the word "Forum" after your last name and we'll automatically give you two years for the price of one.  You can also print the form and fax your information to us at (302) 994-7945 or phone us at (302) 994-4410.  You can even send us a check at:
TIGHAR
Forum Membership Sale
2812 Fawkes Drive
Wilmington, DE  19808

Again, we'll only stay this crazy until November 30, so act now.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:22:53 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Ric wrote:

> ... Any study of the 65
> year search for Amelia Earhart is a study in the propagation of folklore and
> mythology.

And that is what makes TIGHAR's work of enduring educational interest, regardless of how the story ends.

LTM.
Marty #2359
**************************************************************
From Ric

Very true, but once you strip away the mythology you can begin to see the truth.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:39:02 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> > he might have decided to deviate from their 78 degree course some time after
> > 6.00 am in order fly an offset.
>
> Angus, what 78 degree course? No one knows what course they were on at any 
> time after take off.  Making up "facts" will only confuse the new people  and 
> some of the old ones on the forum. 

Yes of course you're right but it was just for ease of explanation. I wanted to distinguish between the course from Tabiteuea to Howland and the course on the 157/337 line through Howland and providing a nominal heading was the easiest way. I'd already made it pretty clear that we don't know the actual heading in that area.

Regards Angus.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:48:54 EST
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      UC-78

A naive but sincere question from a non-aviator: could the Wreck Photo be of a Cessna UC-78?

Earlier this year I visited the Muzeum Lotnictwa Polskiego (Polish Aviation Museum) in Krakow, Poland (http://www.muz-lotnictwa.krakow.pl) and asked the senior curator there if he knew anything about the fate of the Electra Model 10s formerly owned by the Polish airline LOT before 1939. He was familiar with the planes but all he knew was that they had been sent to Romania, which agrees with other published sources. The Muzeum Lotnictwa is modest and predominantly features rusted Soviet-era surplus but surprisingly has a nice-looking UC-78 on display, which prompted my question.

Dan Brown #2408
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Nice guess, but they called the UC-78 the "Bamboo Bomber" because it was made of wood.  The airplane in the Wrteck Photo is clearly a stressed-aluminum airframe.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:49:48 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Fred's womanizing

For Alan
I am sorry I seem so dense to you. There was a confession from Ron Bright that he made the posting about Noonan. Ric has clarified the importance of having all the facts, and I agree with his point. I'll be done with this posting about Noonan's drinking or womanizing or whatever. I suppose in knowing the truth about our fabled couple, one must look at everything. I'm just glad it's not up to me! Happy landings!
LTM
Mike Haddock #2438
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:49:11 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re the post-loss messages

Good Lord, the old time bugaboo strikes again! It always has been one of the most confusing aspects of the Earhart flight. I could legally qualify as an expert on time (40+ plus years dealing with it, communication with the Naval Observatory, Royal Observatory, British Admiralty, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, etc.), but still make goofs on a local level.

Greenwich Civil Time was originally cued to high noon - any dummy could tell (approximately!) when the sun was at its zenith. Greenwich Mean Time began at midnight. In 1925, GCT became the same as GMT, now "Coordinated Universal Time", "Zulu" in the military. (Safford WAS initially wrong about the GCT vs. GMT 12 hour difference, but was understandably confused by the practices of the U.S. Navy vs the Royal Navy.) And the "Research Edition" had the column for ITASCA labeled "Howland" for simplicity sake, since that was where the cutter was. (However, we'll correct that with a footnote in the hard cover edition.) "Scientific time" is easy to handle, "political time" is whatever the local government wants it to be. (Example: Attu, Alaska, is 350 miles WEST of the International Date Line, but it maintains GMT -24. And Randy Thompson was under the impression Nauru used both local and official time as the occasion demanded.)

Nauru (locally?) kept the same clock time as ITASCA, but was a day earlier. Sydney was 90 minutes EARLIER than Nauru. So Ric is correct saying the transmissions took place at 21:01, 21:13 and 21:24. But the whole point is, they were heard in the EVENING of July 2, ITASCA time. Which IF you think they were really from Earhart, would indeed "prove" she was alive twelve hours after her last signal to the ITASCA. (Which I doubt!)

Cam
******************************************************************
From Ric

The Nauru intercepts are interesting but are only a small part of the story. There's no way that the reported post-loss signals can prove that Earhart was alive or dead, but by looking at the entire body of information it IS possible to assess the probability that none of the signals were from Earhart.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:01:05 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: UC-78

I'm pretty sure the aircraft in the wreck photo is not AE's electra. The  lightening holes in the wing panels are not centred as they are in the internal wing photo on the tighar website, the panels on the top of the nose are more tapered and differently arranged from the electra shown on the tighar website, the bulkhead spacing in the nose is different from AE's and there is no evidence of the nose door that AE's electra has. The crankcase end cover behind the prop is a smooth dome on AE's aircraft - the wreck photo seems to have at least one rib. AE's electra had a ring shaped tube for the spark plug leads immediately above the cam ring position - there is no evidence of such on the wreck photo.

We must also take into account:

No anecdotal evidence of a relatively complete aircraft on Niku in spite of the fact that there is evidence of dismantling (leading edge of wing) No evidence of a weather event that could have moved the electra off the  reef and into the bush before the Colorado search and if it was moved later it is more likely that the Colorado pilots would have seen it. If it was moved by water without apparent damage to the gear, it seems suprising that it could not have been taxied to land and yet all the radio message evidence suggests that this was not possible.

The HMS Adamant story does not check out.

The two photos involved in the above story are of different places.

The person who produced the photo is either uncooperative or unable to give confirmable details of its origin. (ie the name of the person who supplied it to him). Why would anyone who took such a photo want to remain anonymous? Probably because they might have to answer some awkward questions and end up becoming known as a stranger to the truth.

Regards Angus.

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

First let me say that I would love to be able to dismiss the Wreck Photo. For the reasons you state, it's very hard to make it fit into our hypothesis without convolutions or even conspiracies for which we have no evidence.

I think you make some excellent observations but I'd be more comfortable if we could find an aircraft  type that DOES fit the photo.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:30:46 EST
From:         Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      Re: the post-loss messages

It only takes one post-loss message to indicate that Earhart & Noonan were safely down. That message was the "281 message" on the 5th. Because of atmospheric skip the message was described as "fragmentary" by the 3 (count'em) three Navy operators who logged the message. We only know about it because of the frenzy of the search. The message was acted on with all the speed the Navy could muster and security was not observed because the message included who had received it . The message was picked up at the Navy radio intercept station at Waliupe (sp?) as noted by the 3 man watch.  This station was part of the secret OP-20-G radio intercept network . This was the only OP-20-G reception that I know of that is a matter of record.

The fragmentary nature of the reception allows for different interpretations which was reflected in the initial search by the Itasca's and Swan's movements.

The "281 message" supports the Marshall Island scenario. A hint that the Navy did start to regard the numbers 281 were degrees in a compass heading and did search the fringes of the Marshalls are supposedly contained in the Hewitt Hearings transcript on Pearl Harbor not yet accessed.

Daryll
************************************************************************
From Ric

The message was described as "KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGMENTARY PHRASES".  Why do you attribute the poor quality of the signal to "atmospheric skip"?

U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe was simply the main USN communications facility near Honolulu.   This was the only message they reported hearing but we don't know when else they were listening.  The three operators who heard it were on duty on the night of the Fourth of July holiday so maybe they were just bored and decided to try to listen for Earhart.

As with the other reported intercepts, the credibility of the event can not be assessed individually.  You can't pick one message you like and say, "This one is credible."  You have to look at the entire phenomenon of the post-loss messages.

Let me try to explain it this way.  It's possible that one message out of 112 is genuine.  Weird things happen.  But if that's what we're dealing with there's no way to pick the one real event out of all the bogus ones. However, if there are lots and lots of reported events that have to either be genuine or weird, we have a different situation.  Weird things happen, but lots and lots of weird things usually don't happen at the same time.  We may not be able to say that any one message is genuine but with a big enough body of data we may be able to say there are so many events that are either genuine or highly unlikely (i.e. weird) that it is unreasonable to say that none of them is genuine.

And as you say, all it takes is one genuine message to crash and sink Crashed and Sank.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:32:55 EST
From:         Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      Re: Noonan's Plan

Alan wrote:

>...I've never had reason to be concerned as to what form they were in
>as I've not tried to replot the flight since there were no other points
>to use after the 7:18 Z report.....That's it for positions and there is
>nothing there that could be plotted for any usable purpose.

Why don't you plot it out and tell us where those positions are with your simulator?

>1. Lae airport - the old one on the coast which is no longer there -
>not the new one about 30 or so miles inland.
>2. At 4:18Z the radio call only gave their altitude of 7,000' but no
>position.
>3. At 5:19Z AE gave their position as S 7.3, E 157 (or 150.7 as I
>believe it to be)
>4. At 7:18 Z she gave a position of S 4.33, E 159.7.

I've read that you have the old Lae airport and the runway at Howland installed in FS 2002. Why don't you go into the Flight Planner and let the GPS plot a great circle route between Lae & Howland? Either hand fly it with your Electra or use an airplane with an auto-pilot to lock onto the GPS route. See how close that comes to the reported positions and print it out. Then make Tabiteuea a way-point and look at the course line again. Find the reported (logged) position of the Ontario in relation to the GPS route. Using a reasonable wind and True airspeed tell us the Lat & Long at 10,000 ft when the Sun's upper limb appears on July  2nd. How far is that from Howland?  Compare your flight profile to Howland with the Itasca's logged radio times. Describe the shape of the closet land mass to item 4.

>4. At 7:18 Z she gave a position of S 4.33, E 159.7.

It's not a matter of finding the exact positions or the exact track that AE&FN flew. It's getting close that counts and 50 miles is close in the Pacific after 2500 miles.

Daryll
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:35:25 EST
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Niku as a toxic waste site

All of the recent discussions about the toxic mess the U.S. Air Force left on Kanton has been interesting - you can bet your next pay check that if that had been Central Park in New York City instead of some out-of-the way Pacific atoll, it would have been cleaned up BEFORE the Air Force left.

But this has me wondering: What about those drums of JP-4 on Niku? How many are there? Are they covered or secured in some way, or are they just rusting away until they leak and pollute the groundwater there permanently?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, #2189
************************************************************************
From Ric

Ground water?  What ground water?  The drums were empty and rusted-through in 1989.  By now they're probably just little flakes of rust on the ground.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:38:03 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Alan, I had my last known position of the plane when they were reported to be just west of a ship. Then i read that it has later turned out to be the SS Myrtlebank, by Nauru. I take it that after AE was missing and suddenly everything about where they had been had become important that Nauru reported that the ship turned out to be 80 miles due south from Nauru. Not sure how they got this info unless they found the Myrtlebank had been at that position when AE called. So this is all bunk and I should disregard this?

Cheers from Bill
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:43:53 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

This may be a "useless posting," but:

Ric wrote:

>Very true, but once you strip away the mythology you can begin to see the
>truth.

Reminds me of a dialogue line from the movie, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance":

A newspaper man, interviewing Jimmy Stewart's character, says, "This is the West.  When the legend becomes fact -- print the legend!"

LTM (who never lets the truth stand in the way of a good story) 
and 
73 
Mike E.

Radio operator, radio historian, screenwriter, teacher, etc. etc.
************************************************************************
From Ric

That line has always bothered me.  When does the legend become fact?  When it has been repeated so many times that everyone accepts it as true?  Joseph Goebbels, as I recall, said something to the effect that if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will beleive it.  Anybody who doesn't think that's true needs only to pick up a newspaper.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:49:04 EST
From:         Eric
Subject:      Amelia's Electra as a scale model plastic kit

Can anyone tell me if a scale model plastic kit of the Electra was ever sold commercially?  (What with all the continuing interest in AE, you'd think that one of the big plastic model kit companies might have come out with one over the years.)  If not, what would be involved having such a kit commissioned? (There are at least two different kits for the TITANIC available.) 

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA.

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

Dredging up a posting from Mike Everette in 1998:

I was in the local hobby shop Monday afternoon, and the owner showed me an announcement of a plastic injection-molded kit of the "Lockheed 10 Electra" in (would you believe) 1/53 scale.  The kit is due out any time and the manufacturer is taking reservations for it as we speak.  It was billed for July 1998 release; but it is not out yet apparently.

The model supposedly is of Amelia's plane; but note, the ad said Lockheed 10, NOT 10E, so I don't know.... anyway, it supposedly comes with decals for AE's plane at the time of the 1937 flight, as well as for a "US Navy Command Transport" and for the "US Coast Guard".... funny that all these should end up in the same kit, ain't it???

Here is the information if you want to check it out.  I will get a copy of the ad today or tomorrow and Fax it to you if you'll pass along the TIGHAR fax number.

Williams Brothers, Inc.
181 Pawnee Street
San Marcos, CA 92069
Phone:  (619) 744-3082
Fax:  (619) 744-1899

The stock number of the Electra kit is #53198.  The advertised retail price is $27.50.

I have built a couple of Williams kits, a C-46 Commando and a Boeing 247. These kits are, as plastic models go, a bit of a challenge.  They definitely are not in the category of the "Skill Level 2" or even level 3 stuff that Revell/Monogram puts out.  The detail is pretty good.

Mike E. the Radio Historian
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:56:38 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Bill Shea wrote:

> So this is all bunk and I should disregard this?
 
I wouldn't go that far, Bill. The problem is that if it is true AE reported over a ship we don't know what ship it was. It could have been the Myrtle Bank, the Ontario or some other boat. That means there could be no position plotted unless we knew what ship and where it was. It is my recollection it is not clear whether the voice (presumably AE) said a ship ahead or lights ahead. So much more work needs to be done to determine the unanswered questions in order to make a position out of all this. 

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

Nauru reported hearing "a ship in sight ahead".  There's no debate about that.  But what ship it was remains open to question.  It also doesn't much matter.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:57:50 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Noonan'a plan

For Daryll, Did you see Tigher's pics for Old Lay Airport?
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/9_11_00bull.html
(By the way CFS2 has Old Lae Airport in it.) I studied these and made my own Old Lae Aerodrome for FS2002 but never published it. I used Microsoft's CFS2 position for Old Lae Aerodrome and the photos on Tigher for just making the aerodrome with a hangar on it.(I thought it was good. haha).  I did try to fly it using
http://www.daviator.com/aircraft/electra10e.zip
I actually tried trying my guess of a northern offset course. But Its really too much a guess, with all the gas tanks they had.

Imagine this ending, Earhart saying that they were low of fuel flying at 1000ft, probably got very little but the bilge in all tanks (Noonan trying to go back and use any remaining in each tank) and half that high octane tank, and all the fuel pipes and all the little brass off/on taps, and Noonan turning the wrong one and suddenly the engines sputter and stop. Thats my guess but that's all it is - a guess.

I imagine that there are tons of more people like me who gave it a college try to figure out just where they went down (besides Tigher, of course). Is there somewhere that these results are listed? Wouldn't it be a good idea of having a web page (like a guest book) that we could register our results. And, if and when the Electra is located, then the closest would win the bragging rights.

Cheers from Bill
 ************************************************************************
From Ric

The forum distribution software does not support attachments or "hot links" so if you want to refer to a url you need to include the full address.

Solving the mystery of the Earhart disappearance is not a guessing contest. You're correct that there are tons of people like you who have tried to figure out where the flight went down and they've all failed for the same reason - bad methodology.  Offering a "guest book" would be cruel.

I darkly suspect that you STILL don't understand that the reason that your results have not been accepted by this group is that it's apparent that you don't know how to go about conducting an investigation.  Cam Warren has the same problem.  He keeps thinking that we just pig-headedly refuse to accept his conclusions when what we really refuse to accept is his method of reaching them.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:05:20 EST
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Amelia's Electra as a scale model plastic kit

The Williams kit of the Lockheed 10 Electra is still out there as n.o.s. You might find one in a hobby shop or on eBay.  Don't break the bank in buying it though.  It's worth around $25-30 tops, in unopened/sealed condition.  The detail is indeed "pretty good" but it is not "excellent;" and like all Williams kits, it can stand some extra care in assembly and even detailing.  Some items, I think the loop antenna among them, will need to be scratch built if memory serves me.  I have one of these kits (bought in 1998) but haven't assembled it.

It is indeed a "bastard" scale of 1/53.

There was another Electra kit by Classic Airframes, in 1/72 scale, which came out about the same time as the Williams.  I never got one of these; can't say if it is a 10A or 10E, or whether it may have had optional parts to do either.  If memory serves me the kit had a set of British WW2 markings, among other choices on the decal sheet.  Or maybe the decals included markings for the Electra flown by Sidney Cotton, the British industrialist who took it upon himself to install cameras in the bird and fly all over pre-war Nazi Germany, even while carrying Luftwaffe officers along for joyrides in "das Kollosal Lockheed" (heh heh heh).  This model would look nice, next to my set of Academy/Minicraft Lockheed Vega Ventura PV-1s in 1/72, though.

Come to think of it... I wonder if the story of Cotton's a/c could have been blended with the AE story, and resulted in the tales of her carrying cameras in NR16020?

LTM (who knows a high concept story idea when she sees it) 
and 
73 
Mike E.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Cotton's "Electra" was a 12A Electra Junior c/n 1203.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:06:00 EST
From:         Bruce
Subject:      Re: Amelia's Electra as a scale model plastic kit

I believe that you can order the model online from William Brothers' web site, www.williamsbrosinc.com.

Bruce.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:06:59 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Amelia's Electra as a scale model plastic kit

The Williams Brothers kit has been out for a long time.  I've got one - one of these days I'm going to finish it.  Periodically you can find them on Ebay, and the last time I was in Thompson's Hobbies (Wadsworth just north of Colfax, Lakewood, CO), I think I saw one on their shelf.  Williams may be coming out with a re-release, but I've not heard of that.

In the "for what it's worth" department.

ltm
jon
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:08:28 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's Plan

From Alan

Daryll wrote:

> Why don't you plot it out and tell us where those
> positions are with your simulator?

Daryll, I don't understand what you want. Those positions are the same in the simulator as they are out in the ocean. S7.3 is S7.3.

The two positions AE gave show they flew slightly South of New Britain most likely to avoid high terrain. They did not fly a great circle route and so there is nothing to compare. A great circle route from Lae would not go through those two points. You can see that on any map without plotting anything. As to what the closest land mass is to S 4.33, E 159.7 you can look at a map and see that as well as I can. I don't see what significance the shape would be.

>Find the reported (logged) position of the Ontario in relation to the GPS
>route.

Since AE did not fly a great circle route I see no significance to a relation to the Ontario. No one knows whether she over flew the Ontario or any other ship or no ship. That would be a waste of time.

>Then make Tabiteuea a way-point and look at the course line again.

Tabiteuea is 50km north to south. What point would you use? No matter what point you use or what course you then plot to Howland no one knows what track toward Howland the Elecra flew.

I don't know what a reasonable wind is. Whatever velocity and direction you pick it's an assumption that doesn't get you anywhere. In order to determine at what point west of Howland a person at 10,000 feet would spot the upper limb of the sun is a project you can do yourself if you think it will tell you something worthwhile. You will need to pick various points and a ground speed you can't ever know. Then check sun rise at each of those points for 10,000 feet until you get an answer which will be based on guesses as to ground speed and atmospheric conditions such as cloud cover and haze and will be unusable information.

>Compare your flight profile to Howland with the Itasca's logged radio
>times.

 I assume you are referring to the times AE thought she was 200, 100 miles out and over Howland. First of all there is no flight profile to compare. The only time we have is take off at Lae. There is no information beyond that as to where the electra was at any specific time. I think I've said that about a hundred times. You cannot make a route, course, profile or anything else without any information. Assuming anything invalidates your ideas at once.

I do have the old Lae airport and the runway at Howland in my flight simulator. Both files are available to anyone on the Internet at www.flightsim.com. If you have FS you can install them and do whatever you wish with them.

Finally as to creating some kind of profile plus or minus 50 miles from various unknown points or ending up plus or minus 50 miles from Howland I don't see what that accomplishes. Suppose I concede they were 50 miles north or south of Howland, then what? What if they were 20 miles or 70 miles north or south? Can you see that it wouldn't make any difference in what we know? They got somewhere near Howland, probably turned and flew north and south on 157/337 then went some place else. If we magically knew their exact flight path and times it would not change a thing. If, for example they were over Howland when they thought they were and didn't see it for scattered CU in the way they still turned and flew north and south on 157/337 then went some place else.

If you decide to do all your suggested tasks yourself let me know what you find out that will help solve this puzzle.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:09:16 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Niku as a toxic waste site

For Monty Fowler

You might be amused (in a grim sort of way) to know that when we got back from Canton John Clauss (whose day job is environmental remediation) put together a report on what we'd seen and we sent it through channels I had access to, to the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence.  Never even got a response.  Like you say, it ain't Central Park.
==============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:11:12 EST
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Amalgamated Wireless

Cam, re your referance to checking out Amalgamated Wireless Australia. I believe they are now known as AWA Technology. I think their HQ is in Sydney but they have a Melbourne office which is where I am situated. I will contact them and see what I can find out about their operations in 1937. I doubt if we will get anything useful but it's worth a try. I will keep you posted.

              Jack Clark
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Jack, I too woud be interested to know just what "Amalgamated Wireless" was in 1937.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:13:06 EST
From:         Shane Brinkham
Subject:      Re: Amelia's Electra as a scale model plastic kit

http://www.williamsbrosinc.com/planes.html

53198 1/53 Scale Lockheed 10 Electra $27.50
********************************************************
From Suzanne:

Here is the model plane that Mike Everette wrote about in 1988:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1783665843

Other L10 kits are posted also.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:14:59 EST
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Sun Clock

Okay, I have to admit I don't follow this group like I would like to and, it  is up to you Ric, if you to pass this along, but I did find a useful piece  of free software, that is great for the Earhart forum, at least when it  comes to radio research, post transmission.  However sorry Ric, it won't  work on a Mac, PC, only.  Anyhow here is a link, to a page that offers a  program for a Sun Clock, it will give you current time anywhere in the world  and map showing where the sun is any time during the day, great for radio  DXing, but also useful for research.  Also of great use, with the Latitude  and Longitude, you can set this program up, (see the help section in the  clock program) to display the current time on any part of the globe,  including Niku.  It also has a built in Calendar , which you can change to  any year and any month, the calendar includes the moon phase.  Here is the URL,

http://www.electricscotland.com/shop/sun_clock.htm

Here is the page of the software developer and the same free software,

http://www.mapmaker.com/sunclock.asp  

Regards. 
Warren Lambing
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:19:12 EST
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Re: Niku as a toxic waste dump

I'm glad the drums were empty! The groundwater reference comes from several reports of the native colonists digging wells and, eventually, having some success.
**********************************************************************
From Ric

As with most coral atolls, Niku has a "lens" of fresh water down deep that varies with location and rainfall.  I'd be surprised if well-digging at the southeast tip (where the drums were) would be productive.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:20:26 EST
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Re the post-loss messages

Cam Warren says

>Example: Attu, Alaska, is 350 miles WEST of the  International Date Line,
>but it maintains GMT -24.
 
Attu is west of MOST of the International Date Line. The date line zig-zags west to include Attu in the western hemisphere time zones. According to the  US Naval Observatory, " Alaska, originally claimed by Russia, was to the west of the International Date Line because most travelers arrived there by  way of Siberia. When the United States bought Alaska in 1867 the line was moved to the east of it."  It is 2 hours "behind" Pacific Standard Time. 

Tim Smith 
1142 CE.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:33:25 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Altitude variation is no big deal in calculating range of 10E

My response to questions posed by an off-forum  correspondent has required that I address some issues with regard to the effect of altitude on range. I gave "rough" answers, but so long as they are taken with a grain of salt, I am satisfied enough to pass them on, after inserting a couple of second thoughts and editing out a typo and a personal reference or two, to anyone interested. The response follows.

You ask "have you strictly followed the heights given by AE and the times at those heights, in your fuel calculations?"

The answer is "No" because we know nothing about "the times at those heights". We know that she reported at 10,000 after 5 hours, and then reported that she had dropped to 7000 after 7 hours because of clouds. We don't know that she ever reported 12,000 after 8 hours (my recollection is that this assertion surfaces in a letter written by Balfour in 1969, not in the contemporaneous reports). Even if she did climb to 12000, it is "No Big Deal". 

Your point seems to be that we should assume that she stayed at 12,000 feet after the 8th hour until descending to 1000 when she approached Howland - (say after 18th hour). Assuming she did, what difference would the extra 2000 feet would have made in fuel consumption/range?  

The answer to the question can be found in the "Level Cruising Performance Chart" on page 10 of Report 465.(You say that you have the operating instructions on the 10A. In my copy of the 10A book, the chart on the page that has been renumbered "46" corresponds to this chart, though it is not is beautifully done as the chart in Report 465 on the 10E .)  

I'm not going to bother about precision, but I am going to give you a rough answer. The 38 gph setting corresponds to 250 hp per engine at an sfc around 0.46 lb/hr. (This is midway between the "conservative curve" - which shows an sfc of 0.48 - and the most economical curve - 0.44 - at 250 hp on the 'Fuel consumption" chart on page 13 of Report 487.) Let's assume that AE used a 250 hp setting during this time period.  

As you know, if horsepower is held constant, the speed of the aircraft will increase with altitude (there's an exception to this rule, see the discussion of V l/d below). The chart on R465 page 10 shows that at 250 hp per engine, normal gross weight and standard conditions, the 10E does 160 TRUE at sea level, 168 TRUE at 5000 feet, 170 TRUE at 6000 feet, 171 1/2 TRUE at 7000; 173 at 8000; 174 1/2 at 9000 feet; 175 1/2 at 10,000; 177 at 11,000; and 178 at 12,000. The 2 1/2 mph difference in speed between 10000 feet and 12000 feet may be taken fairly to indicate the difference in efficiency ( say 1 1/2 per cent) between the two altitudes. Over 10 hours, you can expect to cover an additional 25 miles at 12000 in 10 hours, if you hold horsepower constant. Or, if you hold speed constant (by reducing power) you can expect to gain additional endurance of 9 minutes (0.015 x 10(60) = 9), and pick up the same 25 miles by flying 10 1/4 hours on the same amount of fuel (more or less - we're not pretending to any precision here). 

In the altitude range in which leaning is normally applied (5000 feet and above) the fuel consumption of the engines AT A GIVEN HORSEPOWER should be relatively constant. (As you know, a setting of "X rpm" and "Y mp" DOES NOT give the same HP at all altitudes - but that's a separate issue, addressed below.)  

 Taking that consistency into account, we can calculate the rough difference in efficiency between 5000 and 8000, and between 8000 and 12000. Using 8000 as the standard for this portion of the flight, we reason as follows: speed at 5000 (168) shows a 5 mph reduction from speed at 8000 (173), which is a 2.8% reduction in efficiency (5 divided by 178 = .028089887). And since by happy coincidence speed increases 5 mph in going from 8000 to 12000, we know that the increase in effciency in going to 12000 from 8000 is about 2.8% as well. There's an effect - but as a practical matter, on a 20 hour flight like this, the total effect of such deviations from the norm in cruise is not lilkely to amount to more than 15 minutes/40 miles.  

If we consider cruise at 1000 feet rather than 10000, the difference is greater. The Level Cruising Performance chart (465-10) shows 162 1/2 mph at 1000 feet and 175 1/2 at 10,000 feet - a difference of 13 mph. In addition, we would expect fuel consumption at 250 hp to be a bit higher at 1000 feet, because of reduced leaning - say 40 gph rather than 38 gph. This is equal to 4.0625 miles per gallon at 1000 feet, rather than 4.6184 miles per gallon at 10,000, which means a 12% reduction in efficiency by dropping from 10000 to 1000. (I mentioned this in some of my earlier discussions.) 

Suppose the pilot (through laziness or incompetence) uses not the same Horsepower, but the same engine settings - ie, the 1600 rpm and 24 inches MP specified for 38 gph at 10,000 feet. As you know, in order to produce the 250 hp per engine of this setting at lower altitudes at 1600 rpm, MP would need to be increased (by - I estimate by eyeballing the charts - about 4/10 of an inch per 1000 foot reduction). (Page 11 of R465 is the P&W chart on the 10E's engines.)  

Let's consider a descent from 10000 to 8000. If the pilot maintains RPM and MP at 1600/24, the horsepower being produced will drop about 4% to around 240 per engine. At the same sfc, fuel consumption should drop from 38 gph to about 36.5. Speed would drop from 175.5 to perhaps 170 (I am eyeballing the charts, not just guessing) - because of the reduction in power this change produces an apparent slight increase in efficiency, from 4.6184 mpg at 10,000 to 4.6575 mpg at 8000. (It's only 8/10 %, and it might very well disappear in the normal decrease in engine efficiency - ie, slight increase in sfc - occuring with power reductions in the lower ranges.) No big deal. 

Consider going from 10,000 to 12,000, at 1600 rpm. Remember that KJ gave the 10,000 foot setting as "1600/24 OR FULL Throttle". Why? Because the 10E's engines may or may not - depending on atmospheric conditions - have been able to maintain 24 inches at 1600 rpm - they were running out of boost at this setting and altitude, and might only pull "23.8" or whatever. This means that at 12,000 feet, the engines will probably pull only 23 inches or so at 1600. Horsepower will increase to about 260 per engine. Fuel consumption will increase to about 39.5. Speed should be about 180 or 181. This is 4.5822 mpg, or a DECREASE of efficiency of about 8/10 % - again so little that it might disappear with a slightly decreased sfc - ie, a slight increase in engine efficiency, with the increase of power. Again, no big deal. 

I go through this to make a point. You can't simply talk of increases or decreases of efficiency with altitude change at the "same setting" - you have to specify WHAT setting you mean (ie, same horsepower, same control position, same engine instrument readings, etc., etc.) and you have to specify WHICH "efficiency" you are speaking of (engine sfc, miles per gallon, etc.) Many discussions wander around in a fog because of this. The Secondary point, of course, that none of this is going to affect range more than 2 or 3 % in any realistic scenario. The extra 100 miles is not worth the bother either in real life or discussions. 

BEST LIFT OVER DRAG SPEED: V l/d is the single unique INDICATED AIRSPEED (strictly speaking, Calibrated air speed) at which the airplane achieves the greatest efficiency in still air at a given weight. The TRUE airspeed for V l/d thus increases with altitude. If V l/d is 120 CAS, the true airspeed at Sea level will be 120; at 10,000 it will be (by rule of thumb) about 144 (2% x 1000 foot increase), or about 142 (by calculation in standard conditions.).  

AT VERY HEAVY WEIGHTS, THE CHANGE IN TRUE AIRSPEED REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN V l/d CAN INVERT THE NORMAL "INCREASE IN RANGE" expected with increased altitude. 

Think about it. As we have seen, TRUE airspeed increases perhaps 8/10% per 1000 foot increase in altitude with horsepower held constant in the 10E. This means that if a given power setting will maintain 120 (CAS and TRUE) at sea level, it will give about 130 TRUE at 10,000 feet, which corresponds to less than 110 CAS at 10,000 - with the increase in altitude, the speed of the airplane has fallen below V l/d, and POWER MUST BE INCREASED TO MAINTAIN EFFICIENCY. A problem arises when insufficient power is available to make this increase, because of heavy load. This is the reason that the "maximum range profile" in Report 487 provides for flying the first 9 or 10 hours at 2000 feet, followed by a climb to 4000 feet for the next segment of the flight. (They don't articulate it this way, but the effect is recognizable in the chart on page 34, showing speeds at their estimated maximum gross weight of 16500 pounds. At 350 hp/engine, speed at sea level is given at 144 TRUE , while speed at 5000 is shown as 128 TRUE. At 400 hp, speed at sea level is given as 162 TRUE ; speed at 5000 as 164 TRUE; and speed at 10,000 as 159 TRUE. This means to me that at 16500, V l/d is around 162 CAS. Because the airplane lacks power to maintain 162 CAS at 5000 (that would equal about 175 TRUE) range falls as altitude is increased at this weight.) 

Of course, AE's plane was considerably lighter than 16,500 pounds. My own estimate is 14,800 at Lae, and about 14,300 on takeoff for Hawaii (900 pounds less fuel than Lae, but two additional people,  and more baggage and spares on board). But the effect is still likely to be there - and that is now my working hypothesis to explain the low speeds early in the flight. 

I had planned a posting relating to this. Report 487 is not very satisfactory, and is internally inconsistent - but it represents LOCKHEED'S thinking about what the plane would do. I seems futile to substitute my speculations. I had intended to rework some of the numbers in 487 to correspond to the actual weight of the plane, and see what I come up with. Laziness and the pressure of other matters have delayed this. Another problem is that I think I understand the limited effect of all this well enough now, for my purposes, without the need to go through the tedious part. 

I have used Report 465 performance figures in the discussion above. I have my suspicions about some of them (which I have expressed on the Forum) because at low horsepower settings, the 10E is shown as being faster than the 10A at the same weight and horsepower. Report 465 speeds are also faster than what 487 seems to project at low weights. I have been unable to reconcile the inconsistencies (and there are more when you add P&W documents). Nevertheless, I believe the analysis set forth above to be correct in its rough outlines - that is, for speeds in the 150 mph range (say 140 to 160), I can draft a scenario for fuel exhaustion at 20+15 or at 29 hours, or anywhere in between. But I can't make the plane fly 2000 miles beyond Howland on the last 9 hours fuel without an unheard of tailwind, and varying the altitude a couple of thousand feet doesn't matter enough to worry about. 

You say: "I see mentioned that Clarence Williams expected the Electra to be at 8,000 feet after 22 minutes.  Other researchers and writers say the Electra would take three hours to climb to 10,000 feet.  We have AE at 5,000 feet out of HNL after 20 minutes (using 100/130)." I don't think Clarence Williams (AE's  navigation consultant) knew beans about the climb performance of the 10E.( I don't think he knew much about suggesting course changes, either, but that's another subject.) All this originates purely from speculation on the forum that the 22 minute first segment of the flight from Howland to Lae (as originally charted by Williams) corresponded to the climb segment of the flight. 

You also need to separate the questions of whether the 10E COULD climb to altitude X in Y minutes, from the question of whether it SHOULD make that climb. (In his advice on the Hawaii flight, Kelly Johnson first suggested an initial climb to 4000 feet, followed by three hours at 4000, three hours at 6000, three hours at 8000, and the remainder at 10000 feet. This corresponds rather well to the 2000 to 8000 foot profile in Report 487, after making allowance for the fact the airplane was perhaps 2000 pounds lighter than the 16500 pounds used in the calculations in Report 487. Apparently upon request from AE (or Paul Mantz) KJ sent a telegram with revised recommendations for engine settings "for 8000 feet at the beginning of the flight" giving two additional power settings for making, the first two 3 hour segments of the flight at 8,000, and then continuing for another 3 hours at 8000 before climbing to 10000. Most people assume (logically enough) that AE followed some similar procedure on later segments of the flight. (You can access the original telegrams on TIGHAR's website.) 

You also say: "the Electra would have gone in at Lae if it had not taken off over the sea.  ...  Eyewitness reports say the Electra sank down off the end until the prop tips  caused wakes in the water until the aircraft stabilised, the same reports put the Electra still low over the sea until out of sight." Have you looked at the takeoff film? (It's also on the website.) Not an easy takeoff, and certainly not much room to spare, but not quite as hairaising as the "eyewitnesses" make it either. The plane does not "bounce" off - it is pulled off, but it has a positive rate of climb as the 30 second clip ends. Perhaps she did drop back down, and certainly the idea of staying low makes sense - it was always the recommended procedure. 

You say: "I have yet to fully digest your postings .." I have the same problem. They are not written in stone, and there are quite a few mistakes in them. I'm always happy to hear someone else's comments on specific issues.  

You also say "In all the fuel postings I have seen on the Tighar Forum no mention is made of a climb out to 10,000 feet, no mention is made of a climb and cruise at 12,000 feet. There are no published fuel figures/prop RPM/MP figures for 12,000 feet. I do not see the point of estimating fuel use without following the heights she gave." Well, the question is "how do you use them?" If she was at 7000 at 0700 and at 12000 at 0800 this covers only one hour of the flight, and no matter what assumptions you make about speed and fuel consumption due to altitude, the variation in that one hour is not going to be more than (say) 6 % of a segment forming only 4 to 5% of the total flight. Six percent of 5 percent = 3/1000. I'm not excited. And even if you extend the effect by considering the difference between 10,000 feet and 12,000 feet for 10 hours (as I did above), the 9 minutes don't amount to a hill of beans.  

Did she continue at 12,000? I don't know. I doubt it for personal reasons, since I never cared to fly above 9000 (unpressurized). I have been to 13,500 for about 30 minutes exactly twice (unpressurized). Once I was in the co-pilot's seat, but not flying. I turned around, and everyone else on the plane (except the pilot) had gone to sleep ! (I was consciously fighting sleep - I mention the others to show that my fatigue was not psychologically induced by my ability to see the altimeter.) On the other occasion, while flying, I experienced not only fatigue, but a terrible headache. Of course, I never was in great shape; and in the thirties, men were men and all that - still, 12000 feet for 10 or 12 hours is a seriously bad idea. But then these people made a lot of mistakes.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Oscar.  It may be worth noting that significant portions of the successful transatlantic flights made by the other Lockheed 10E Special, NR16059, were made "down on the deck".
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:35:33 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Amelia's Electra as a scale model plastic kit

This kit's definitely out and must be reasonably freely available as I have one, here in the UK - bought from my local hobby store a year or so back.

It is indeed a rather strange 1/53 scale.

Can't really comment on it's accuracy as I haven't built it yet - I was going to build it and compare it with the super-accurate TIGHAR resin 1/48 model I purchased from Ric a few years ago. One of those things - when I get time............  

LTM (who doesn't know if 1/53 is larger or smaller then 1/48 ;-) 
Simon Ellwood #2120
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:36:56 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: UC-78

>I think you make some excellent observations but I'd be more comfortable if 
>we could find an aircraft type that DOES fit the photo.   

Ric's got a good point here - me and a host of other forumites have spent many hours pondering the wreck photo and we've debated and disputed the aircraft's identity many times on the forum, - and we've still to come up with a type that fits ALL the features we can see.

It's quite an enigma.

Unfortunately, some of the types we have considered no longer exist, or only do so in limited form - such as the fuselage only of the Tachikawa Ki-54 at the Point Cook museum in Austraila.  I'd love somebody to stumble across the wings to this survivor so we may clear up the "lightening holes disqualifier" issue (one way or the other) which Ric brought to light some time ago after some research into the Ki-54.  I still think it's the most likely contender. 

Interesting, but as Ric implies - not now central to our hypothosis. 

LTM 
Simon Ellwood #2120
==============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:39:40 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Final Approach Art

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there are only 34 shopping days before Christmas. In addition gracing your own hearth with this fine work, it would be an excellent gift for family, friends or business associates. It sure beats a fruit cake, and lasts almost as long ;-)
************************************************************************
From Ric

Shamelessly belaboring the obvious, here again is the great deal we're offering to TIGHAR members:

Now you can have your own copy of the new Scott Allbee painting Final Approach...for FREE.  For a limited time only, add a year to your current TIGHAR membership at the Associate Member rate of $55 and we'll send you a print of Final Approach - a $50 value - absolutely free.  Or - look at it this way - buy a print and get a full year added to your current TIGHAR membership for five bucks.

Want a Limited Edition copy of the painting? (One of 200 numbered and signed by the artist and by yours truly.)  The regular price is $100, but for TIGHAR members - and for a limited time - add a year to your TIGHAR membership for $55 and get the Limited Edition of "Final Approach" for only $50.

Either way it's a great way to help your organization, extend your membership, and get a great piece of aviation art for FREE or half-price.

This deal is too good to last so act now.  We'll be mailing a notice to the membership next week.  Once everybody has had a chance to respond we'll cut it off.

You can take advantage of this special offer right now on the secure TIGHAR website.  Just go to the Membership page at

https://tighar.org/membernew.html 

and select "Renewal Sale!" in the credit card section at the bottom.  We'll send you your print as soon as they come in.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:43:59 EST
From:         Brent
Subject:      Re: Plane Location

If Electra Did fall off reef and down oceanside , How deep could it go or how deep is the reef face to the sea bed.

If it is in that area is it a job for divers or are conditions too rough for this method.

Brent

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

If you took away the water, Niku would look something like a "mesa" in the American West.  The reef slope goes out and down at a steep angle to a depth of several thousand feet (we're not sure just how deep).  Scuba divers can only go safely to a depth of about 200 feet, slightly more under special conditions that don't exist at Niku.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:06:51 EST
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: Glacier Girl

For Rich Young

Rich, I appreciate your posting.  I had trusted NOAA et al to protect the Monitor.  The teeth of time are not always human.  I'm grateful that at least something will be saved for the future.  I'm curious about your opinion of the Hunley project?  From my perspective, it was a wonderful discovery and recovery, although I'm turned off by the current care-taker's attitude toward the interested public.  I could fill up a post on that topic.  I'm hoping we can see (and photograph and sketch) the Hunley once the current administration turns it over to a permanent home.

I supported the Greenland Expeditionary Society early on and am quite pleased with the result.  I would have been heartbroken if they had rolled out a polished aluminum example with a string of Japanese kill flags, or a two seater designed for joy rides.  From what I've heard and seen on the internet, the final result looks and feels authentic.  It is obvious that they have made an effort to perpetuate the original as much as possible.  My favorite museum is the USAFM at Wright-Patterson and I have dozens of photos of their P-38 sitting quietly in its dark gallery.  I can't wait to see Glacier Girl in flight to enjoy that perspective as well.

I realize it is unlikely, but I can't help but wonder if it would be possible for Tighar to offer a resource to such projects to ensure that the subject is properly documented and (to whatever extent possible) preserved. Maybe this could be a part of the Course(s) in Aircraft Archeology.  In the case of the Glacier Girl, Tighar could have overseen the recording of the locations of the remaining aircraft.  Some of the original material that could not have been used in the rebuild could possibly have been preserved.

As the project progressed, many areas and assemblies could have been studied, photographed and documented.  In this way, we would have both a flier and a body of information and artifacts.  Think of the impact if Tighar had been involved with "Kiwi Bird", the B-29 that shorted and burned during preparations to fly her off a frozen lake.  Note advocating, just asking "what if?"

It is late and I have rambled.

LTM whose membership pre-dates the Greenland Expeditionary Society, in case you wondered.

- JMH #0634C
Bridgewater, Virginia

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

The kinds of documentation activities you describe would be of great value but where there is no public interest there is no funding and where there is no funding nothing happens.

Something you wrote illustrates the problem eloquently:

>the final result looks and feels authentic.  It is obvious that
>they have made an effort to perpetuate the original as much as possible.

They did not perpetuate the original.  What they have done is destroy the original for the sake of building a memorial to the original.  Whether or not that was the right thing to do can be debated, but not the fact of what they did.

The exhibits at the USAFM are very attractive and I enjoy the collection immensely but, as the former director Col. Richard Uppstrom admitted publicly at a museum conference I attended there several years ago, "We have a handful of historic airplanes here but the rest are basically stage props."  It is worth noting that the United States Air Force Museum operates not under the oversight of the Office of Air Force History but under the Air Force Recruiting.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:24:23 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Ric wrote:

> Nauru reported hearing "a ship in sight ahead".  There's no debate about
> that.  But what ship it was remains open to question.  It also doesn't much
> matter

I thought i just got thru reading that Nauru said it ended up being the SS Myrtlebank which came into Nauru? I see two positons of being 60NM south of Nauru and 80 Miles south of Nauru. I wonder how they got that info unless Nauru actually bothered to ask the Myrtlebank to check it's logs to determine just where it was at that particular time.

To someone who is trying to find evidence that Noonan indeed took a northern offset course then this would matter. Lining up the positions we have with this would show it as a straight line (at least for the first half anyway).

Cheers from Bill
************************************************************************
From Ric

Nauru does say that the ship was the Myrtlebank but they don't say how they knew that.  How COULD they know that?  How could the Myrtlebank possibly know that it was the ship  Earhart referred to in the transmission even if somebody on the ship saw the airplane fly over?  You'd have to have two-way radio communication that went something like:

"This is KHAQQ. Ship in sight ahead."
"KHAQQ this is SS Myrtlebank.  We see (or hear) an aircraft.  Is that you?"
"KHAQQ to SS Myrtlebank.  Please turn your lights on and off three times to confirm identification."
"KHAQQ this is SS Myrtlebank.  Stand by."
"KHAQQ to SS Myrtlebank.  We confirm your lights on and off three times. Thank you."
"KHAQQ this is SS Myrtlebank. Our position (blahblahblah). Have a good trip."

Nothing like that apparently happened. Any discussion of 60 miles versus 80 miles relies upon the assumption that the Myrtlebank was the "ship in sight ahead" and there is no reason to make that assumption.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:17:28 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Niku as a toxic waste dump

You are probably right.  Salt water infiltrates into the lens from the edges.  Your best chance of locating usable fresh water is to dig your well as far as possible from both the ocean and the lagoon.  This can explain why the village was sited where it was, on the widest land mass.  Did the Loran site have a well?

Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263

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

No, even the wells in the village did not generally produce water that was considered "fit for Europeans".  The village relied primarily upon a cistern, as did the Loran station.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:31:28 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Ric wrote:

> Nauru does say that the ship was the Myrtlebank but they don't say how they
> knew that.  How COULD they know that?  How could the Myrtlebank possibly
> know

But that's my point, The Myrtlebank didn't have to know or see ANY plane. Nauru has the time the communication with Earhart was made. Then when the Myrtlebank came into Nauru, all they would have to do is ask the Myrtlebank where they were at that time. No?

When the search for Earhart began Nauru reported that that the Myrtlebank turned out to be that ship. Well, the only way they would have known that is to ASK the Myrtlebank when they came into Nauru. Because of the big search and the importance of Earhart, commonsense dictates that this is the least they would have done.

Cheers from Bill.
**********************************************************************
From Ric

>Well, the only way they would have known that is
>to ASK the Myrtlebank when they came into Nauru.

And my point is, how did the Myrtlebank know that it had been seen by Earhart or, for that matter, was the ONLY ship seen by Earhart?
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:32:11 EST
From:         Mike  Haddock
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan


I think you'll find the notion of telling a lie long enough until it's believable was first advanced by Machaivelli in the "Prince". And then we have modern day politics! Oh well.
LTM,
Mike Haddock #2438
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:41:00 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

Ric wrote:

>Cam Warren has the  same problem.  He keeps thinking that we just
>pig-headedly refuse to accept  his conclusions when what we really refuse to
>accept is his method of  reaching them.

I don't agree with your opinions concerning Cam Warren. Cam has been a big help to me, and he is a valuable asset to your forum. Cam and I have exchanged CD's and floppies, and some it I has never been seen on your forum. At least, I for one have never seen it. So what are the bones of contention? The weather? So you tell me why did the Itasca steam off to the north of Howland Island at the first thought that Earhart went down? As a matter of opinion I don't think Earhart had any idea the weather was clear at Howland and clear all the way to Gardner-Nikumoro. There's only one reason why Earhart was down to 1,000 ft. altitude in those final hours, and I doubt seriously if the method of dark shadow searching was known in those days.

The Coast Guard may have known about it, but did Earhart? It would be a good sized stretch of the imagination to say yes. So you're telling me Earhart went below the haze line looking for islands? I personally feel as if your arguments have as many problems as anyone else, and we all have the right to express our opinions on the forum, which makes it the great vehicle of discussion that it is. 

There's another problem with these weather issues. What affect did the tropical convergence zone have on the Earhart weather enroute? Heavy, hot, humid, tropical air is the breeding ground of thunderstorms. Look at the "mess" a Lt. Lawrence Harvey in a Navy PBY flew into a few hours after Earhart left the scene. The comments I have seen on weather conditions enroute for Earhart were heavy cumulus and dark storm clouds ahead. Look at the slow descent from optimum altitudes that AE and FN were forced to make inbound to Howland. Down, down, down they went. There was no weather avoidance Doppler radar in those days. Just flying cross country in a Bonanza, Flight Service Center has instructed me on several occasions to bust the clouds. There was nothing there, but that's not how it looked on my side of the equation. If you'll pardon me for saying it, they looked like black monsters. Not only that, but do you realize (and I am sure you do because you have more flying time and more ratings than I have) how fast those threatening thunderstorms can dissipate? Especially true in the early morning hours. So by the time the Itasca arrived on the scene the threatening storms had dissipated. That doesn't prove anything. In fact, I would say that was par for the course....now you see, now you don't. But that's not the point. What did Earhart see at the time Earhart was tracking in with radio communications that was picking up very heavy static (good evidence of thunderstorms in the area) and the potential of black monsters looming in her path THAT SHE COULD NOT SEE THROUGH. Now, I don't want to start an argument about static because there are too many reports that there was known static in the area, and it was heavy.

You want to take issue with Cam Warren's methodology, we'll, I'll tell you one thing. Cam has a transcribed report of Fred Goerner's opinion of the capabilities of Japanese radio systems vintage 1937. Goerner believed they were far ahead of the American Navy/Cost Guard, and, if anything, the Japanese had a better idea of where Earhart was than anyone else in the area. That is worrisome, to say the least. End of statement. It's a democracy, right?

Carol Dow #2524
************************************************************************
From Ric

Carol, the freedom of expression that you find on this forum has nothing to do with rights or democracy.  I'm delighted that you and Cam are sharing information.  I can't think of anything more appropriate.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:46:29 EST
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      tuna fishing

Dan Postellon wrote:

>This is where I would disagree with you.  Restoring the Glacier Girl to
>flyable condition would be like patching up the Monitor to go tuna fishing.

I'm not aware of any warships, (with the exception of some small auxillaries like minesweepers), ever being used in such a manner.  I AM familiar with both active warships, recently retired warships, (USS Texas, USS Alabama, USS Missouri, etc.), and even quite old warships, (USS COnstitution, confederate submarine Hunley), being displayed or recovered for display for recruiting/ educational/ research purposes.  The ships have to be painted and otherwise maintained - the wooden ones must periodically be retimbered.  The Texas recently had to have $5 million dollars worth of dry-dock work.  By painting them, and polishing them, are we "destroying" them?  Of course not! More accurately, restoring the Glacier Girl to flying condition is analagous to retimbering a wooden-hulled frigate, or repairing the leaking hull of the Texas, in order that it can continue to perform it's designed function, (fly/float).

In fact, the "Holy Grail" of a zero-time, unrestored airplane is largely a myth in the first place, and of less informational content than one actually deployed and used.  Many fighting aircraft were delivered straight from the factory to modification centers.  (So which is the "zero-time" bird?  The one from the factory?  Or the one from the modification center?  Block One mod?  Block 2 Mod?  Block 2-C Mod?  Example - a P- 51D leaces the assembly line, is flown to TIMCO for conversion to a photo-recon fighter, after some use in the field, (including battle damage repai), camaras and the fuselage tank are removed, and a jump seat fitted behind the pilot to give rides to the ground crew - while so configured, is used to give a general a tour of the Normandy beach head.  After the war, sold to Swededn.  Sweden sells it to Cavalier Aircraft Co. in the mid-60's, who strengthen the wing, rebuild the sirframe with surplus components, enlarge the tail, and supply it to Guatemala under the Military Assistance Program.  From there it goes to the Dominican Republic, after which a wealthy collector buys it and performs a 100% restoration to it's original factory specs.  Which one is the "Real" p-51?  They ALL are!).  Operational units often modified aircraft in the field.  (Disabling the "dive brakes" on the A-36 "dive bomber" version of the Mustang for example, or replacing the vibration -prone P-51K's propellor with the one from the D model.  Frequently, a different canopy, or other such part resulted in a different model/block number designation - spare parts to retain that identy weren't always available in the field - if a prt would fit and work, it would be fitted, rregardless of designation.  To my mind, ther eis more information to be retieved from a correctly repired, flying, veteran of actual service, preferably combat.  Information is available about not only the construction, but the use and maintenance of the item.  A "zero-time" bird has no secrets to reveal in the areas of batttle-damage repair, unit markings, part substitutions, ordinance load, etc.

Lastly, I mentioned the new built aircraft for two reasons: one, as a hope that all parties involved could get substatially what they want - if I had the money, and intended to build a racer for Reno, I would prefer to start with a historically-insignifigant replica airframe, for example, rather than, say a combat veteran with evidence of repaired battle damage. Two, if we can replicate exactly the item, in the same materials, with the same construction methods, to the same blueprints, to the point that replica assemblies and originals can be interchanged - we don't NEED to know any more from the "originals" because, in a sense, they are still in production!

LTM - (of whom there is only ONE original, if with modifications...)
Rich

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

I'm not going to go through it all again.  I'm sorry I let this thread get started.  Let's just drop it.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:53:06 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Amalgamated Wireless

Well, I know what it was - a commercial short wave network, similar to RCA  or Mackay (sp?) Radio, like Western Union or Postal Telegraph domestically. But it would be interesting to hear if they archived any message logs re Earhart.

Cam Warren
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:54:18 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Sun Clock

And, if you'd like a nice graphic rendition, 3x4' size, get the Standard Time Zone Chart of the World from the Defense Mapping Agency, 8613 Lee Hwy., Fairfax, VA 22031-2137. It doesn't tell you in what time zone is the North Pole, however.

Interesting to see how many places are on the 1/2 hour, or 45 minute. I was once advised that Cote d'Ivoire was GMT + 1 minute!

Cam (Father Time) Warren
=============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:56:38 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

Ric, how many stitches did your tongue need?

Dave
**********************************************************
From Ric

Carol's rants build character.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:57:16 EST
From:         Cam WArren
Subject:      Re: Re the post-loss messages

Tim Smith is right. I should have said "Attu is . . . west of the 180th parallel." But the point was an illustration of how time zones are jiggered for political purposes (or convenience).

Cam Warren
=============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:29:27 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

what are the possible reasons for going down to 1000ft?

- To get below the clouds to look?
- they thought they were getting close?
- if you knew you were very short of fuel wouldn't you go down to that height so you might be able to ditch in the sea if you had to?

i tried an interesting FS2002 flight sim project. I took photos looking over the panel of the Electra 10E at different heights and at different distances from Howland and compared them. It showed me that at 10,000ft they could be as far as 40 miles and see the reef around Howland. but at 1000ft I just could start seeing Howland and the reef at 12 miles. This is not very scientific at all but shows how different they can see at different heights and distances. 

Cheers from Bill
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:36:41 EST
From:         Dave
Subject:      Re: the post-loss messages

Are there any direct descendants of Earhart living?  David
********************************************************
From Ric

Earhart had no children except a son, born out of wedlock in January 1935, and quietly adopted by old family friends Vernon and Gladys Presley of Tupelo, Mississippi.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:02:12 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

> And my point is, how did the Myrtlebank know that it had been seen by
> Earhart
> or, for that matter, was the ONLY ship seen by Earhart?

Ric, one last stab at it.... Yes, agree that we dont know if it was the SS Myrtlebank Earhart saw - it might have been the SS Ontario (but I doubt it since the Myrtlebank was a ship and the Ontario was a tugboat.)  and Earhart said she was west of a SHIP, right?

Cheers from Bill.
*************************************************************
From Ric

Have you ever seen a picture of USS ONTARIO?  She was an ocean-going tug but she didn't look like Tuggy the Tugboat.  She was 185 feet long with a 34 foot beam and a very untugboat-like superstructure.  SS MYRTLEBANK was probably quite a bit larger, but that's speculation.  Both vessels were "ships".  I think you're dead in the water on this one.

There is also the point that whatever Earhart saw, she saw in the middle of the night with almost no moonlight so she had to be seeing only lights on the sea.  It also occurs to me that if Earhart was at altitude (10,000 feet or so) and was seeing the lights of a ship on the ocean ahead, she was not flying above significant cloud cover or experiencing bad weather.

Ric
==============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:09:51 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Of course, Nauru had no idea that the USS Ontario was only 60 miles to the west of the likely position of the Myrtlebank.  Since there is little in the amount of shipping in the area, Nauru likely concluded it HAD to have been the Myrtlebank.

BTW, the third mate of the Myrtlebank, who was standing watch that night of July 2nd, claimed that he heard a plane at about the right time.  This, however, is an anecdote related to TIGHAR researches in the late 1990's.
********************************************************************
From Ric

And as we noted at the time, the claim that somebody on the deck of a ship underway could here an airplane (unless it actually buzzed the ship) is less than credible.
=============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:27:53 EST
From:         Wes Smith
Subject:      Re: tuna fishing

It is nice to be a principled individual.  I for one, am very happy that lost warbirds are brought back, no matter the condition or the fate (as long as it doesn't get destroyed in the bargain).  At least we have them to display as theatrical props or fly as thrilling reminders of an age gone by.

If the Electra is ever found Ric, this thread will pop up again............just imagine!!!
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Ya know, honestly, it's not a matter of "principle" for me.  My alarm at the lack of genuine aviation historic preservation stems from the very practical frustration of, time and again, not being able to find reliable information and examples of structures and materials for comparison when trying to identify artifacts in historical investigations.   What you're looking for is entertainment and "warbirds" (that comic book label says it all) serve that purpose admirably.

Should enough of the Electra be found to give some idiot the idea that it could be "restored" to fly again I'm sure that there would be more than enough people eager to engage in the same willing suspension of disbelief that destroyed the Greenland P-38 to create "Glacier Girl".  TIGHAR would do whatever we could to stop it.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:30:29 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Repro vs 'rigo

Rich Young wrote:

> I AM familiar with
> both active warships, recently retired warships, (USS Texas, USS Alabama,
> USS Missouri, etc.), and even quite old warships, (USS COnstitution,
> confederate submarine Hunley), being displayed or recovered  for display for
> recruiting/educational/research purposes.

Ric, I know you want to drop this thread, I have been biting my tongue to keep from chiming in on another off topic one, but it IS relevant to TIGHAR's basic philosophy. Here's my two cents if you choose to print them.

Rich, since you mentioned the USS Constitution, I will use it for an example. The problem I have with the Connie is that the navy would have the world believe there is a 200 year old warship sitting in Boston harbor. There isn't. There is a wonderful reproduction of a 200 year old warship sitting in Boston harbor. It is a great symbol of the navy, a great educational tool, a great recruiting tool. It is a lot of things. What it is not, is 200 years old. I'm not saying anything different should have been done with the Constitution. In fact, there wasn't much else to do. By the time it was decided to "preserve" the ship (thank you Oliver Wendell Holmes) it was already too late. Like the analogy brought up earlier of my grandfather's hammer, in the case of the Constitution, the head was missing and the handle had been replaced.

There is a HUGE difference between reproductions and originals. The world needs reproductions. I'm all in favor of them. The more the better. But not at the expense of an original. To some of us (but apparently not everyone) there is a magic, even electrifying, connection with the past when we can see or touch something that was made/altered/used by humans umptisquatch years ago. Not something just like what was around then, but the real thing. It's OK that it is no longer all there, or is now oxidized, or that it doesn't work anymore. That's not the point. The point is that it is a genuine relic, artifact, object, whatever, that was held and used by our ancestors. Specific artifacts, by their very nature, are a limited resource. If one is destroyed in creating a reproduction, a hard link with the past is gone forever and an artificial one has replaced it.

For an example of preservation, the Swedish warship Vasa is a good one. What is left of the Vasa has been preserved. The real ship. They didn't repair it, they didn't replace what is missing, they saved for eternity a genuine link with the past. Someday, someone may build a reproduction of the Vasa so the world can see exactly what it looked like before it sank, but they won't destroy the original to build it.

I'll get off my soap box now. It just seems incredible to me that people have to be educated not to practice consumptive use of artifacts.

LTM (who is no reproduction)
Kerry Tiller
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:32:10 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

> I think you'll find the notion of telling a lie long enough until it's
> believable

And it works doesn't it Mike?

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

For a while anyway....
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:56:27 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

Ric wrote:

> Carol, the freedom of expression that you find on this forum has nothing to
> do with rights or democracy.  I'm delighted that you and Cam are sharing
> information.  I can't think of anything more appropriate.

Ric, maybe YOU can leave this alone but I have infinitely more time. <G>

Carol wrote:

>Cam and I have exchanged CD's and floppies, and some it has never been
>seen on your forum.

Carol, not speaking for Ric but I'm sure if there was anything on the CDs or floppies of significance to solving the mystery that was supportable other than by anecdote or opinion it would be posted.

>So you tell me why did the Itasca steam off to the north of Howland Island
>at the first thought that Earhart went down?

I don't know, Carol but maybe
1. Thompson made a mistake
2. He forgot to check the paper in his desk that said Port was left.
3. He didn't want to get involved
4. One message of dubious origin and content
Pick one.

>As a matter of opinion I don't think Earhart had any idea the weather was
>clear at Howland and clear all the way to Gardner-Nikumoro.

Carol, since she couldn't receive any radio transmissions that's a pretty safe bet. I'll go even farther. I'll bet she didn't know what the weather was any place in the world other than within visual range from the Electra cockpit.

>There's only one reason why Earhart was down to 1,000 ft. altitude in those
>final hours, and I doubt seriously if the method of dark shadow searching was
>known in those days........ So you're telling me Earhart went below the haze
>line looking for islands?

Carol, I don't know what you mean by "dark shadow searching" unless you are referring to trying to differentiate cloud shadows from islands. If so that's not a technique but a simple necessity. My guess is that AE descended to 1,000 feet simply to get below a deck of scattered CU the bases of which, I think, were about 2,400 feet so as to better see Howland. I CAN tell you she wasn't trying to get below a haze layer. Haze starts from close to the surface and goes up.

>...and we all have the right to express our opinions on the
>forum....

You know better than this, Carol. Forums are not democracies nor are anyone's free speech rights protected here. Fortunately.

>There's another problem with these weather issues. What affect did the
>tropical convergence zone have on the Earhart weather enroute?

How would anyone know the answer to this, Carol?  All I can tell you is that the Electra took 19.2 hours to go 2232 n.m. with an average headwind of 13+ knots so the weather couldn't have had any significant effect. Looks like a pretty normal and uneventful flight.

>The comments I have seen on weather conditions enroute for Earhart
>were heavy cumulus and dark storm clouds ahead.

If you have they were under your own byline. The forecast weather said, "CONDITIONS APPEAR GENERALLY AVERAGE OVER ROUTE NO MAJOR STORM...."  AE said, "CUMULUS CLOUDS EVERYTHING OK." No "heavy" cumulus was reported nor any "dark storm clouds ahead." You've been reading your play again.

>Look at the slow descent from optimum altitudes that AE and FN were forced
>to make inbound to Howland.

Pardon? Where do you get that? There is no such information. I'm sure you may have some good arguments, Carol but use the known facts. Don't make up stuff and think someone will discuss it with you.

>Flight Service Center has instructed me on several occasions to bust
>the clouds.

I presume you have an instrument rating or FAA violations pending.

>... do you realize ........how fast those threatening thunderstorms can
>dissipate?"

Who would know? My local meteorologist doesn't. Not only did the Itasca not see them but apparently neither did AE.

>What did Earhart see at the time Earhart was tracking in with radio
>communications that was picking up very heavy static (good evidence of
>thunderstorms in the area) and the potential of black monsters looming in her
>path THAT SHE COULD NOT SEE THROUGH. Now, I don't want to start an argument
>about static because there are too many reports that there was known static
>in the area, and it was heavy.

I don't know that she saw anything significant. She didn't report seeing anything. She DID say it was "partly cloudy" at 4:53 a.m. and the Itasca deck log reported, "clear skies with detached clouds."  I have seen no reports of "heavy static" except from you, Carol. I don't know where you're getting "many reports .... in the area" since only the Itasca and AE were in the area and I missed seeing either one report "heavy static." I would not doubt there was some degree of static in the radio receptions but AE's voice came through loud and clear. I can't remember NOT hearing HF static when I was flying and I was never in or near thunderstorms across either ocean.

>I'll tell you one thing. Cam has a transcribed report of Fred Goerner's
>opinion of the capabilities of Japanese radio systems vintage 1937.

Fred Goerner's OPINION??? You have to be kidding. Cam has a lot of good stuff but even Cam doesn't suggest anyone should fall over in awe of anyone's OPINION. Actually when I was growing up, "Made in Japan" was a joke. But I know nothing about their radios nor can I see any relevancy. If you're on your old kick the Japanese  were trying, for some inexplicable reason, to block AE's transmissions it's clear their "super" radios didn't do the trick. Also you probably need to decide whether you want the static to be caused by the Japanese or by thunderstorms.

>...and, if anything, the Japanese had a better idea of where Earhart was
>than anyone else in the area....

Let's see. We had people on Nauru and on Howland and on the Itasca and the Japanese had no one on any of those places nor any known ships in the area. What evidence do you have that leads you to believe your statement?

Carol, I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas but your lack of support for them and to point out the incorrectness of your statements. I don't want new folks to read things that they think are facts when they are not.

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

You're a better man than I am Gunga Din.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:59:34 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

> And my point is, how did the Myrtlebank know that it had been seen by
> Earhart
> or, for that matter, was the ONLY ship seen by Earhart?

Exactly. Plus, as I recall, it wasn't firmly established AE said she saw a ship ahead or lights. There is no straw to grasp here.

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

The only documented primary sources we have (a transmission to ITASCA and a telegram to the State Dept.) both agree that she said, "a ship in sight ahead".  I don't know where the "lights" thing came from.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:03:37 EST
From:         Brent
Subject:      Re: Island

So if wreck of plane did not fall down one of the crevasses it possibly could have slid down reef face and could be way down there ?.

If this is the case is there any way of looking for it or would you then turn attention to other sources of evidence.

Brent

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

Searching the deep water is several orders of magnitude more expensive than searching in shallow water or on land, and if there are a few big heavy pieces down deep there should be a whole bunch of smaller lighter pieces on shore (where we have found a few already).  What would you do?
=============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:06:22 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Amelia's Electra as a scale model plastic kit

> LTM (who doesn't know if 1/53 is larger or smaller then 1/48 ;-)

Smaller, Simon but I know you knew that. Reminds me of Steven Wright's monologue in which he says he "bought a map of the United States - life size. At the bottom it says one foot equals one foot."

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

You're referring to what we used to call a "Second Lieutenant's Map" - one to one scale - you just just roll it out on the ground.
==============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:30:40 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Altitude variation is no big deal in calculating range of 10E

Oscar Boswell wrote:

> Have you looked at the takeoff film? (It's also on the website.) Not an easy
> takeoff, and certainly not much room to spare, but not quite as hairaising as
> the "eyewitnesses" make it either. The plane does not "bounce" off - it is
> pulled off, but it has a positive rate of climb as the 30 second clip ends.
> Perhaps she did drop back down, and certainly the idea of staying low makes
> sense - it was always the recommended procedure.

Thanks for a great posting, Oscar. I think you clearly made my often made comments that there was really little significance in altitudes flown or any other known factor as to that leg of the flight. Wagging in the fuel usage is just not going to be that far off from any carefully computed data even if we knew the inputs which we don't.

Also I am glad to see someone refute the "hair raising take off" stories. As you say the actual film belies those myths. I'm sure they made good copy but the take off looks pretty normal to me. If the props had been as close to the water as implied the flight would have been about 30 seconds. <G>

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

At the risk of starting another round of "there I was" stories...in my experience, "hair-raising" is in the hair of the beholder.

Superintendent of Civil Aviation Collopy watched the takeoff and later described it this way:

"The take-off was hair-raising as after taking every yard of the 1000 yard runway from the north west end of the aerodrome towards the sea, the aircraft had not left the ground 50 yards from the end of the runway.

"When it did leave it sank away but was by this time over the sea. It continued to sink to about five or six feet above the water and had not climbed to more than 100 feet before it disappeared from sight."

The film exposes Collopy's hyperbole in describing the takeoff itself but ends before we can judge the accuracy of his description of what happened next.  Collopy was probably not a pilot.

Chater's description of the takeoff is far more laconic and agrees with what we see in the film:

"At 10:00 a.m. the machine was taken off, the actual take-off being satisfactory for a heavily loaded machine -- the run taken was approximately 850 yards."

Eric Chater was accustomed to flying often grossly overloaded airplanes off the strip at Lae, carrying people and equipment to the New Guinea gold mining fields.  A takeoff that looked "hair-raising" to Collopy looked pretty normal to Chater.

Was it "hair-raising" for Earhart?  It was the heaviest takeoff she had ever made and so I would be surprised if her adrenalin wasn't pumping pretty well, but the take off went well and was by no means a close call, so I would imagine that she felt good about it.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:32:02 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      L10E simulation

The link does actually work but the FS model is not usable for any purpose other than playing. Dave did a fine job of making this flight sim model but he got very few of the aircraft specifications correct and he didn't get the fuel tanks right. I don't know what you would use the plane for.

To have any chance you would need to start from scratch and build the plane from the ground up by using the templates Dave offers and correcting all the dimensions, redo the engines with the correct specs, and install fuel tanks where they should go all using FSDS Pro and Microsoft's appropriate SDKs. FSDS is available at ABACUS and the SDKs are free on the Microsoft web site.

THEN you will have do a little flight testing and tweaking for a few months. Piece of cake. <G>

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:32:53 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

> Nauru reported hearing "a ship in sight ahead".  There's no debate about
> that.

OK, I don't know where I got that. From Carol? <G> Just kidding. I repeated that again so everyone disregard.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:53:36 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Quoth Chairman Ric (attention Bill Shea) -

> I darkly suspect that you STILL don't understand that the reason that your
> results have not been accepted by this group is that it's apparent that you
> don't know how to go about conducting an investigation.  Cam Warren has the
> same problem.  He keeps thinking that we just pig-headedly refuse to accept
> his conclusions when what we really refuse to accept is his method of
> reaching them.

Let the Record show that Cam Warren's "crime" is an ongoing reluctance to accept Mr. Gillespie's fanciful story that Earhart & Noonan flew southeast to a place where no one was likely to look and there was no known civilization (Nikumaroro) without telling anyone, where they eventually died a miserable death as castaways, because the negligent and incompetent Navy and Coast Guard didn't really bother to look. But Mr. G.'s methods can indicate Amelia and Fred were probably there, because they seeded the island with a couple of handfuls of rather ordinary but significant junk, which a decade of careful analysis has yet to establish had the slightest connection to the missing couple. And I've got a problem?? Riposte!

Cam Warren (happy to be included with the "Splashed & Sank" crowd, who - incidentally - are not a bunch of armchair adventurers.)
**********************************************************************
From Ric

C'mon Cam.  Tell us what you really think.

This is a good sign.  I've often said that'll we'll know that we're really making our critics nervous when they start accusing us of "seeding the dig". If we were going to do that don't you think we could have come up with better junk?

I'll also be fascinated to hear how we managed to break into the Kiribati National Archives in Tarawa and the infinitely more secure Commonwealth and Foreign Office facility in Hanslope Park, England to plant the cleverly forged documents describing Gallagher's discovery of the castaway's bones. Real "Mission Impossible" stuff.  I love it.  Cue the music.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:55:22 EST
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Sun Clock

Cam Warren wrote:

> And, if you'd like a nice graphic rendition, 3x4' size, get the Standard
> Time Zone Chart of the World from the Defense Mapping Agency, 8613 Lee
> Hwy., Fairfax, VA 22031-2137. It doesn't tell you in what time zone is
> the North Pole, however.

Good to see your still at it, I will note the chart, but I bet it won't give me the sky chart  above any location at any specific time, not that it really matters, the stars or position of the sun over Gardner today is of no great help.  But I can't help to wonder if the sun clock software can be tweak, to be fooled into the date of the disappearance and also give the sky chart and all the rest of the information it has, like the angle of the sun and so forth, for that date over Niku, (for that matter would be of any value?).  I wouldn't do it to a good computer I liked, or one with any valuable data, but can't help to wonder , if you were to set the system clock back to the year and date of AE going down, if the software would, (probably crash and burn, but hey us windows users are use to that :-)

(perhaps the ini file could be tweak to do the same), simulate the conditions of that date, (but would it be of any value if it worked?).

Best wishes,
Warren Lambing
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:00:45 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: UC-78

Simon Ellwood if you would just clear your mind of everthing that you have heard about the wreck and look at it without input you might discover that the forward section is actually lying on its side. What is thought to be the center post for the windshield is the part of the insterment panel that the control switches are mounted on. This part of the insterment panel juts out, and would be exposed when the cabin is in the position that it is in.  The first reason is that the petot tube is in sight and looks to be in the correct position. Second the windshield on the Electra 10E is very pointed in the center, if one were to tie a line fron corner post to corner post then measure in the center from the string to the center post it would be somewhere around 15" inches.  What is suppose to be the windshield is almost is nearly flat, and no amount of disfiguring would change that.  Third the angled part at the back of the forward cabin on the left side, seems to be over looked as where the right hand corner post should be. Ric does not agree with this what I see. The rack part that has been left sitting on top of the main spar (beam) is another thing that makes this aircraft very special in my opinion.  I know this has been all hashed out before, but that does not mean that everything has been discussed.

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

Ron has tried his darndest to show me what he thinks he sees in the photo but I am apparently too dense to see the things he sees or understand what the heck he's talking about.  If anybody else has better luck, let me know.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:10:06 EST
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Longitude Latitude

What is the Longitude and Latitude of Niku?

Regards.

Warren Lambing
********************************************************************
From Ric

Just a second...I have it tattooed here someplace...

40 degrees South Lattitude, 174 degrees 32 minutes West Longitude

That's a point on the west end of the island near the village.
============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:22:42 EST
From:         John D.
Subject:      Amelia's son


Ric wrote:

> Earhart had no children except a son, born out of wedlock in January 1935,
> and quietly adopted by old family friends Vernon and Gladys Presley of
> Tupelo, Mississippi.

Elvis Presley was born in that Month.

    Regards, John
************************************************************************
From Ric

You're kidding, right?

************************************************************************
From Marty Moleski

Oooooooh, you had me going here!

> ... Vernon and Gladys Presley of
> Tupelo, Mississippi.

I hate to say how long it took to have the penny drop.  :o(

LOL!  I'll absolve you from your most recent sins now.  :o)

LTM.

                    Marty #2359
************************************************************************
From Ric

For some, the road to salvation is paved with the bones of the unwary.

************************************************************************
From David

and he's still alive!! someone  saw him in Ft Smith , Ark. the other day at Burger King. In between cheeseburgers he said something about being reunited with his momma, and doing a seance with John Edward  on Howland Is.

David
************************************************************************
From Mike H.

This is the guy who owns the gas station in Michigan, right?
************************************************************************
From Ric

You've seen him too?

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

Oh, God, Ric, what HATH thou wrought?
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:26:25 EST
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

>And as we noted at the time, the claim that somebody on the deck of a ship
>underway could here an airplane (unless it actually buzzed the ship) is less
>than credible.

Maybe less than credible, but not INcredible.  I'd say it depends on where you're standing.  If the engines are aft and you're on the bow, it's often pretty quiet, and I recall bridge watches on an LST underway as very quiet times, too.  Except when I was being sworn at for drifting a point or two off course.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Totally unscientific anecdoatl survey:

Has anybody had the experience of standing on the deck of a ship underway (no sailboats please) and hearing an airplane overhead?
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:34:53 EST
From:         Lee
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

Re the observation by Alan:  "My guess is that AE descended to 1,000 feet simply to get below a deck of scattered CU the bases of which, I think, were about 2,400 feet so as to better see Howland."  This raises an interesting, even though perhaps unanswerable question: If the CU bases were in the 2-3000-foot range (obviously we don't know, but one would think they wouldn't be lower) --  why would she have descended lower than just below their bases?  The difference in visual range between 1,000 feet and, say, 2,400 feet is considerable and would have been very important to her.

Lee
************************************************************************
From Ric

The observation of cloud bases at 2,650 feet was taken on Howland by weather balloon at local noon - more than four hours after the events in question. We don't know where the bases were when Earhart said she was at 1,000 feet, but I've personally seen scattered clouds out there at what appeared to be 1,000 or 1,200 feet first thing in the morning that rose to higher base-heights as the morning heated up.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:38:34 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: tuna fishing

And to your point about restoring the Electra, I would say "Amen". About reproductions, I noticed in the artist's rendering of the Electra landing on Niku that the plane is trimmed in bright orange. Is that historically accurate? Just curious. I'll be ordering a copy as soon as I receive the form. That's a great bargain for $55.00. LTM (who never could resist a bargain)
Mike Haddock #2438
************************************************************************
From Ric

Not only is the orange paint historically accurate but that PARTICULAR shade of orange paint is historically accurate.  We matched the color to an existing piece of skin from NR16020 that was replaced during the April/May repairs and saved as a souvenir.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:40:30 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

> if you knew you were very short of fuel wouldn't you go
> down to that height
> so you might be able to ditch in the sea if you had to?

Bill, I can ditch a plane starting out at 70,000 feet if I could get one that high. The pilot doesn't have to get down low in preparation.

Your exercise in FS2002 might have been interesting but has no bearing on reality. One of the most complained of features in Flight sim is cockpit view. It is not nor has it ever been realistic. That's why the virtual cockpit came into being. There isn't any way to accurately duplicate AE's view from HER real airplane in Flight Sim. If you could you wouldn't know you were correct.

Secondly, you can't know what the atmospheric visibility was on that day to set it up in FS. finally, after more than twenty years of flying, most of which was across both oceans I can tell you the FS doesn't clome close to what stuff out there really looks like. You're tilting at another windmill.

Alan
==============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:41:38 EST
From:         Larry Turner
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

Bill Shea wrote:

> what are the possible reasons for going down to 1000ft?
> - if you knew you were very short of fuel wouldn't you go down to that
> height so you might be able to ditch in the sea if you had to?

Bill are you saying that you can not ditch your plane from 10,000 feet if your engines quit?

(sorry Bill I just had to ask. <grin>)

Larry
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:43:04 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Hearing planes from ships

While aboard an oceanographic ship in the western Pacific, I would be on the Flying Bridge (just above the Bridge itself), and could hear a jet aircraft high overhead.  Happened a couple of times.
=============================================================
Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:52:14 EST
From:         David Evans Katz
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Ric responded to Cam Warren:

> "I've often said that'll we'll know that we're really
> making our critics nervous when they start accusing us of 'seeding the
> dig'."

As I read Cam's posting,

> "... But Mr. G.'s methods can indicate Amelia and Fred were probably there,
> because they seeded the island with a couple of handfuls of rather ordinary
> but significant junk..."

refers to Amelia and Fred, not to TIGHAR.

I have read virtually all of Cam Warren's postings to the TIGHAR forum, and I cannot recall him ever having accused anyone of deliberate dishonesty.  I don't believe that he did so in this instance.

David Evans Katz
************************************************************************
From Ric

If I've misread Cam's intention I apologize.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:09:11 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

> Totally unscientific anecdotal survey:
> Has anybody had the experience of standing on the deck of a ship underway
> (no sailboats please) and hearing an airplane overhead?

Yes I have, many times, and not just overhead.  When the weather is calm, or if one is standing on the lee side of the bridge under somewhat less than calm conditions, a radial engine can be heard several miles away. During the Vietnam fracas, while on combat patrol off the coast, it was routine to hear approaching Navy A-1 attack aircraft (which had a BIG radial engine), enroute to or returning from strike targets, at distances on the order of 5 miles or so (as confirmed by radar) under calm conditions.

I also recall how loud those airplanes were when they were revving up for catapult launch while I was alongside the carrier refueling - - but that's another story.

I believe the 3rd mate of the Myrtlebank heard what he said he heard.

LTM, who believes in standing an alert watch.
Bob
#2286
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks.  I stand corrected.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:12:50 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: tuna fishing

Ric wrote:
>I'm not going to go through it all again.  I'm sorry I let this thread get
>started.  Let's just drop it.

Those of us who ride Harley Davidson motorcycles have a saying - "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand" Seems like it sort of applies to this as well...

ltm
jon 2266
***********************************************************************
From Ric

There's a less polite saying that goes:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

***********************************************************************
From Rich Young

To Mr. John Harsh, (and any other interested parties) -

I don't want to further raise RG's hackles - my email is young5@sill.army.mil - (please be patient - I'm going goose hunting for a week), for those who wish to further discuss the Hunley, marine archeology, aviation archeology, Glacier Girl, etc.  After all, it's not directly related to the Earhart project, so lets take it off-line and give Ric's blood pressure a chance to settle down - I see no likelyhood of him convincing me or vice-versa, so lets drop it, forum-wise.

LTM, (who always said to "play nice")
Rich Young
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:26:20 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Gunga Din and the Black Monsters

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>Haze starts from close to the surface and goes up. 

Dear Alan "Gunga Din" Caldwell,

The haze line (when I was flying) was the point at which cloud formations begin. It's actually a temperature change line and anything above the haze line meant smooth air (usually). However, it applies to (primarily) summertime conditions. Take a look outside in the summertime at the base of the cloud formations, and it looks as if someone drew a line across the bottom portions of the cloud formations. I have to tell you these things Gunga Din? Smooth air probably didn't make any difference to B-47s because of their weight and their speed and their flex wings. I know what you are going to say...clear air turbulence ...no ....don't .... go away ....that's enough.

In answers to the rest of your questions, you raised so many issues, it would take half the day to unscramble what you said. I have my opinions, you have your opinions, everyone is entitled to think what they are comfortable with.

1. I thought the reasons you gave for the directions the Itasca steaming to the      North were very Gunga Din. As so, Saib, Noonan only knows how to navigate Eastbound. Cannot go Westbound because sun is on rear end. Is velly bad you see.

2.  Wondering I am is how Gunga Din knows what is in filing cabinets around the      world? Must be velly wise man. Yes?

3.  Weather, ah yes, weather, velly bad. Not have radar. Not know what to do. Is correct?

4.  Forum is not democracy? Therefore, will not express any difference of opinion for fear Gunga Din come running with Elephants and Guru's. Good place is not. Missy Carol must be velly careful in future.

5.  Japanese velly bad people only know how to make toys, but they learn to make Mitsubishi Zero fighter planes. Sometimes not so bad. Carol hear of Japanese radio stations in the Mandated Islands and Japanese preparations for war in the Marshalls. News velly bad, Gunga Din. Man's name is Vincent Astor. Send letter to F.D.R. You see letter? Fred Goerner say same thing. Many Japanese radio stations around.

6.  Ah so, is dark shadows. Man from Coast Guard tell everyone, uh Tigers, uh Tighar dark shadow appear when looking into sun and survivors in water or maybe a whole island, not know for sure, appears as black shadows. Otherwise, view from any other angle would reflect sunlight. Not be able to see anything, Gunga Din. Thinking I am must be correct.

7.  Not agree with your weather reports. Looking for new reports you should be.

8.  Static problems, not know where they come from. Official Navy report say heavy static in the area which Missy Carol has seen before. Not know how U.S. Navy decide Earhart have heavy static. Maybe Japanese Sandman? Maybe thunderstorms. Not knowing. You want official Navy report, Gunga Din? Will post if Mister Ric say okay.

Over to you, Gunga Din. Never a dull moment around here, you know? For anyone's information .....Carol Dow and Alan Caldwell are very good friends. We have our moments.

Carol Dow #2524
************************************************************************
From Ric

I have no objection to you quoting an excerpt from an official report if it's relevant to your argument but if you expect to be taken seriously you'll need to cite exacty which of the many offical reports you're quoting from.  I'd also suggest that you drop the attempt to sound like Sam Jaffe in the 1939 film.  Your English is broken enough already.
==============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:27:17 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan


> Totally unscientific anecdotal survey:
> Has anybody had the experience of standing on the deck of a ship underway
> (no sailboats please) and hearing an airplane overhead?

Absolutely. I can't think of a specific instance where I may have heard a big radial fly over, but jets, turbos and helicopters all the time. They just have to be low enough. The ship's engines aren't the main source of background noise, BTW, at least in 1980s and 90s US warships, the engineering spaces were heavily insulated. When out on deck, the loudest sound you hear is the wave action against the hull as the ship moves through the water.

LTM (whose Number 4 son spent thirteen years at sea)
Kerry Tiller
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:29:54 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

> Amelia
> and Fred were probably there, because they seeded the island with a
> couple of handfuls of rather ordinary but significant junk,

Ric - I think if you'll reread the message it says "Amelia and Fred ... were probably there, because THEY (i.e. A & F) seeded the island . . ."

Nobody (well, I didn't) accused you of doing that. Are you off your medication again??
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Sorry for misreading your intent.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:34:04 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

> Bill are you saying that you can not ditch your plane from 10,000 feet if
> you engines quit?

I dont know what a pilot could or could not do in an Electra 10E in 1937. But lets try to be in their shoes. You are over water, almost out of fuel flying at 10000ft. You think you are nearing the point on your chart where you want to be - What would a pilot do in that plane?

My guess is she went below the clouds (if theire were any) to 1000ft to prepare for landing on Howland - while she still had some fuel to land. She did sound almost surprised not to see the Itasca and Howland Island when she got there, didn't she?

Cheers from Bill
****************************************************************
From Ric

Bill, I don't think anybody is saying that it didn't make sense for Earhart to descend to 1,000 feet in order to look for Howland.  What was being challenged was your suggestion that she made the descent in case she had to ditch.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:37:41 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

> I can tell you the FS doesn't clome close to
> what stuff out there really looks like. You're tilting at another windmill.

to Alan.

Thanks for the reply, I accept what you say about FS not coming close to reality, if it did I would surely crash, haha.  But as far as "tilting at another windmill", I thought that what all of us are doing? 
Cheers from Bill
************************************************************************
From Ric

I can assure you that the members of TIGHAR have not donated hundreds of thousands of dollars, spent countless hours doing solid academic research and, in some cases, risked their lives to tilt at windmills. ===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:38:45 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: UC-78

Ron Berry wrote:-

>Simon Ellwood if you would just clear your mind of everthing that you have
>heard about the wreck and look at it without input you might discover that
>the forward section is actually lying on its side. What is thought to be the
>center post for the windshield is the part of the insterment panel that the
>control switches are mounted on. This part of the insterment panel juts out,
>and would be exposed when the cabin is in the position that it is in.  The
>first reason is that the petot tube is in sight and looks to be in the
>correct position. Second the windshield on the Electra 10E is very pointed

Okay Ron, I want to be objective about this - I'll take a another look at the photo with your comments in mind.

Do you have an electronic copy of the picture that you could perhaps email me a section of, showing just the nose annotated with some of the features you mention? It would be a help.

>What is suppose to be the windshield is almost is nearly flat, and no amount
>of disfiguring would change that.

Are you arguing for, or against the L10E, Ron ?  Or just commenting on the pros & cons ?

LTM
Simon Ellwood #2120
=============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:39:58 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Altitude variation is no big deal in calculating range of 10E

Alan wrote:-

>Also I am glad to see someone refute the "hair raising take off" stories. As
>you say the actual film belies those myths. I'm sure they made good copy but
>the take off looks pretty normal to me. If the props had been as close to the
>water as implied the flight would have been about 30 seconds. <G>

The film definitely shows the aircraft being piloted off the ground rather than bouncing off the end of the runway, but as it was grossly overweight, flight at the lift off speed obtainable from the field length may have been marginal (back side of the drag curve & all that). Maybe AE deliberately kept the L10 in ground effect low over the sea in order to accelerate to a more viable speed before climbing away. I'd certainly be looking for extra speed in that senario.

LTM (who's always on the right side of the drag curve (well, "beauty's in the eye of the beholder" :-))
Simon Ellwood
#2120
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:52:06 EST
From:         Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

For Alan

You seemed to have the tools but lack the imagination to use them. I did those things and I suggested that you try it thinking that you might just try it, but you seem to find some comfort in the unknowable. Did I learn anything? I watched the sun come up in the windshield of the Baron at 17:55 GMT and realized that AE's 17:45 GMT (06:15) "...ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT..." was maybe based on Noonan seeing the upper limb of the sun around that time.

For Bill;

In the FS 2002 flight planner use Menyama (N.G.) to Palmyra Island with Tabiteuea as a waypoint. When the route (red line) shows up on the map between Menyama and Palmyra you can grab the red course line with the arrow & mouse button and drag it to the Tabiteuea airport and drop it. That creates a waypoint at Tabiteuea.  You do have to start the flight at Menyama for the auto pilot to track the course though, just reset the clock at Lae.

What you have now is a course line that the auto pilot can lock onto in the GPS mode. The course line passes about 25 nm out in the Gulf, out from the old Lae airport and proceeds over Bougainville, Nukumanu island, 13 nm south of the Ontario's reported position, about 145 nm south of Nauru over Tabiteuea and then passes 37 nm NW of Howland on the LOP, which is basically is a 37 nm off-set.

For Ric;

With all the ways that you have figured out to extract donations, I can't believe you are missing the boat on this Flight Sim thing. I saw an estimate of 21 million Flight Simmers out there in the world. Please ! Somebody buy Oscar Boswell a plane ticket to Seattle to talk to the Microsoft Flight Sim design team. You wouldn't mind a little backing from Microsoft would you Ric? Heck,...you might even get a windows machine just to fly the Electra on.

Even I would send you (TIGHAR) some money for a truly accurate Earhart World Flight Research Flight Sim. Oscar Boswell would be crucial in the design of the computer flight model of the 10E. 

For Oscar;

I was flying Microsoft's Baron south of Nauru when the fuel got down into the yellow band. The auto pilot and altitude hold were on. I went into the fuel load window and filled the tanks back up to capacity. Back in the cockpit I saw the trim wheel being reset by the auto-pilot to compensate for the increased weight of the airplane in relation to the power setting. I mention this to demonstrate how well the microsoft simulator aircraft are designed. Your calculations and input could produce a very accurate simulated model of the Electra. As a matter of fact I used your hourly calculations in the "longer range plan" for a cruise profile as far as TAS and Altitude goes.

I think a flight sim could be a culmination of all the research put into an animated form that each person could manipulate as they wished. You guys could just as easily head the Electra down to Niku as we could turn it toward the Marshalls. Words no longer are the only tools to create pictures in a person's mind. The computer simulation is an engine that brings everything together.

The Ontario and Myrtle Bank can be put into simulation too. If microsoft can put a moving convoy on a road or moving ships in CFS 3, you can have the Myrtle Bank under-way on it's course.

We have been talking about a plastic model of a 10E by William's Brothers which I was very disappointed in. Why not a beautiful model of a 10E on a computer screen that you can get inside and fly. It takes my breath away to fly and watch the WWII aircraft in Microsoft's New Combat Flight Simulator 3 on the computer screen. You talk about the Glacier Girl story. Try climbing into the cockpit of microsoft's P-38 and turn the speakers all the way up and lay her down on the deck at full throttle.

It is not beyond microsoft's ability to computer model AE's & FN's image, they have an animated pilot now on the opening screen of CFS 3.

Ric, I will say it again, you're missing the boat on this Earhart Flight Sim stuff.

Daryll
************************************************************************
From Ric

A long time ago we looked into building and marketing a flight simulator game in whihc you could fly Amelia Earhart's last flight any way you wanted to. You could even put cameras aboard in Lae (but, of course, you'd have to carry less fuel) and head for the Marshalls or Saipan or Gardner or Canton or whatever hypothesis you wanted to "test".   We quickly discovered that the costs of developing an accurate product would be far greater than even the most optimistic sales projections.

If that situation has now changed through the availabililty of better software and the R&D done by individuals who would be willing to donate their work toward the production of a high-quality product we'd be willing to take a second look at the prospects.  But let's remember than nobody is ever going to prove anything about what happened in 1937 with a 2002 flight simulator.

LTM,
Ric
=============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:13:17 EST
From:         Bob Sherman
Subject:      Re: Sun Clock

A good planetarium will give you a view of the skies anywhere in the world at any date to whatever accuracy the specific instrument offers.  I believe that the good ones at least will divulge the 'numbers' for the the bodies you want.  Go to your local planeterium [which was named for the instrument that it houses] and ask about it.   Cheers,

RC
===============================================================

Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:12:23 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Only the Names have been changed......

From Angus Murray"CONSPIRACY THEORIES"

Editorial by Ric Gillespie - (Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent).

I began work on Wednesday by finding a large number of e-mail messages regarding the latest news surrounding the downing of Amelia Earhart in my mailbox. The Electra crashed into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Howland Island on 2 July and killed all 2 aboard.

The latest rumors were in regards to a reddish residue that was found on some recovered seats from the plane which are said by Mr Cam Warren to indicate the presence of solid-rocket fuel, which in-turn "proves" that a missile brought down the ill-fated plane.

Alan Caldwell, the chief law enforcement officer  on the forum, says that the residue found was from a blue kapok on the dado of the plane.

Many of the messages that I received on Wednesday also concerned a recent article from a person who I will not dignify by naming, who is thought to be an "foreign agent." That's okay, he laughingly calls Tighar a mouthpiece of U.S. intelligence. His cohort in the theory was recently interviewed on The March of Time recently and came off looking like a "nut case" that some say he is.

Tighar has many times stated its position in regards to the crash of Electra Flight 2. I will reiterate once again. We do not know what brought the plane down. We are open-minded to the four working theories that investigators are considering. Those theories are: 1. a mechanical malfunction (caused in part due to an empty fuel tank); 2. a bomb; 3. a anti-aircraft missile. There are not enough F-A-C-T-S known to the public or our agency to draw a firm conclusion about the exact cause of this tragedy.

Tighar only deals and bases its reports and analysis on known F-A-C-T-S. We do not and will not deal with wild conspiracy theories. That's not what we do here and will not do here as long as I have a say in the content of these reports.

In the past, we have examined the bomb theory considerably. Tighar counterterrorist analysts and virtually every other reputable counterterrorist, at first, highly suspected a bomb brought the plane down. There has only been one problem with the theory -- there's been no PROOF of a bomb. There has been NO evidence of a bomb -- as of yet.

This publication has also examined the missile theory. Again, there is NO EVIDENCE that a missile struck the aircraft and thus there is no proof -- as of yet.

Since  some of us at Tighar pretend to be airline maintenance experts or aeronautical engineers, we really have  examined the possibility of a mechanical malfunction in great depth. We won't leave that to the NTSB and others with the expertise - even if they promise not to "lose" anything again.

And, since Tighar does not currently have investigators working on the case in the Pacific, we must rely on the facts that are presented by federal investigators. I have checked into the background of  Director J Edgar Hoover and we have closely watched his demeanor in every interview of him that we have seen. We have come to the conclusion that the man has integrity "coming out of his ears." We have no reason not to believe the information that he offers.


We have no choice but to watch and wait for the investigation to reach its final conclusion. At that time, we will determine if all the facts "jive" and then will report the F-A-C-T-S accordingly. 

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

Just to be sure everybody is clear about this - Angus wrote all that, not me. I just scatched my head and posted it.  If anybody can figure out why he wrote it or what he meant by it, please enlighten me.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:15:23 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Ric wrote:

> If I've misread Cam's intention I apologize.

I misread that comment too and thought it was out of character so I'm glad to see it's cleared up.

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

We probably all get a little twitchy dealing with some of the postings that come through here.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:16:31 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Sun Clock

Warren, it isn't necessary to find anything new. Just go to the Naval Observatory site and it will tell you most all of what you want to know. All of that is probably in the archives someplace any way.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:20:33 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Altitude variation is no big deal in calculating range of 10E

> Was it "hair-raising" for Earhart?

Lot of difference in view point as to being on the ground watching and being in the airplane watching the ocean come up in front of you.  She was either numb or terrified. I would have been. I took off overloaded out of a tiny dirt strip in Vietnam pushing the throttles forward until my knuckles were white half way up my arm. I didn't have time to be terrified until a week later watching a mechanic's film of my take off. <G>

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:21:50 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

> You're a better man than I am Gunga Din

Not at all, Ric. It's just that Carol doesn't know where I live. <G> Actually she does but she's safely in another state.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:26:42 EST
From:         Bruce Yoho
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

From Bruce Yoho

It was 1964-65 in the South Pacific ocean aboard the USS Picking DD-685, Destroyer. Sea moderate, bow dips under every forth wave, Sky Clear no moon very dark. I am on watch about 2:00AM and went into CIC for some good old Navy coffee (mud). CIC watch tells me to go out and catch a glimpse of a recon plane about to Buzz us. Hurrying to the fantail (back of ship) for a clear view and wondering is he high! is he low! A recon plane is it a jet? is it big or is it small. I cannot see anything and I cannot hear anything, the next thing I remember is fear nothing but light and a lot of light not more than 100 ft altitude and about 1000 feet out is where all this light is. Still cannot hear anything, as the aircraft passes over head and standing there scared I saw more airplane than I ever wanted to see in my life time and sometimes a life time is only 3 seconds long. Turned out to be a P2V patrol plane. I finally realized I heard him as he passed directly overhead and for about another 15 seconds as he flew on past.

Keep in mind a ship is very noisy of itself so that could be one reason we could not hear it.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Wow!  What a story.  Sounds like some P2V driver was having some fun with you.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:29:53 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Longitude Latitude

Twice in one month, Ric?

Gallagher's grave: S4 40.168 W174 32.210

Perhaps you can get a refund at your local tattoo emporium.

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

Darn.  That tattoo is so old the 40 had faded.  We've been doing this too long.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:32:57 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Hearing planes from ships

Not to cross swords with Randy on matters nautical, but the amount of "white noise" evident on a vessel would determine whether or not an aircraft could be heard. The sources would include:

1) Sound of water on the hull.
2) Sound of mechanical components of the vessel, including the power plant.
3) Sound of air passing through the rigging and superstructure.

The Nai'a exhibits all three in abundance. My only other experience at sea was on a cruise ship, where I recall that "3)" was the only discernable noise. Bottom line--it depends.

LTM (who has been near too many aircraft engines)
************************************************************************
From Ric

It seems that you and I have both been unduly influenced by spending too much time on noisy little boats.  I wonder if the QEII is available for the next trip to Niku.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:37:03 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

So, we can assume that it is POSSIBLE that some plane flew over the SS Myrtlebank at the aproximately the same time as Earhart reported seeing a ship to Nauru. My question is  - how realistic would it be that it could be any plane, other than Earhart's, be flying out there at night, far from any airport? It must be a remote chance at best.

Cheers from Bill
***********************************************************************
From Ric

If somebody on the Myrtlebank heard a plane, it was Earhart's.  I think that's a very safe assumption.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:38:13 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

What is wrong with using CFS2 which has Old Lae Airport in it? Using its Mission Builder you can have Cargo ships, cruisers, and even tugboats programed to sail whereever you want, with any speed or direction. As I mentioned before, I used Daviator's 10E.which has a good panel as well.

What I didn't do is to setup the plane to be exactly like Earhart's. But this can be done. I didn't do this because there are too many varibles that are unknown about the fuel, how much , if any, did they get blown off course. I decided I would just try to stick to the known positions and the communications from Earhart to make a commonsense guess as to where the 10E went down.

Cheers from Bill
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:44:16 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Static and Weather

I'm a long way from being a radio expert, but I am constantly running into complaints about abnormal amounts of static, heavy weather, and dark storm clouds ahead on the Earhart flight. I have no idea of the source of the static or what the problem was except to say it was there.

Quoting two sources on the static: Goldstein and Dillon-- footnoted as follows Pg. 232:

"From this point the situation deteriorated rapidly. The first of Amelia's hourly broadcasts heard at Howland came through at 1415/2 GCT on 3105 KC; however, the only intelligible words were "Cloudy and overcast." Her 1515/2 broadcast came in with "signals weak and fragmentary." Itasca did not hear the 1615/2 broadcast, and while it picked up the 1715/2 broadcast, it was unintelligible. Safford found this strange: "The foregoing broadcasts came during hours of darkness, when reception of radio signals is much better as a general rule than in daylight. After sunrise, which at Howland came at 1740/2 GCT, although the static was logged as stronger than the signals." (Footnoted as "Flight into Yesterday," PP. 38-39)

Quoting another source on static, Official U.S. Navy - FBI report available as a CD on request.

Subject: Report of Earhart Search, 2-18 July, 1937 Excerpt from Pg. 4 of the Report:

            From: ITASCA
            TO: COMSANFRANCISCO DIVN
            INFO: COMHAWN SECTION

6002...Earhart only acknowledged receiving Itasca signals once and did not answer questions as to position, course, speed, or expected arrival time period. Earhart used voice entirely static interference heavy and Itasca reception fragmentary in early hours......1045

The ITASCA was covering an area along the probable Earhart track when apparently reliable radio intercepts indicated that the Earhart plane was 281 miles north of Howland. The SWAN was approaching that vicinity enroute to Howland and was directed to conduct coordinated search with the ITASCA. The steamship MOORSBY
also joined in the fruitless search of the area.

End of Quote.....
Comments from Carol Dow:
The Coast Guard report scaled down the 280 miles north of Howland estimate to a more reasonable amount in later quotations. Nonetheless, the estimate remained to the North of Howland Island. Please note Itasca complained of heavy static interference.

Comments by Fred Goerner available from the Nimitz Museum, Fredricksberg, Tx. as follows:

U.S. Intelligence knew a great deal more about Japan's activities in the mandates, particularly Saipan, Truk and the Marshalls than has ever been heretofore publicly revealed. The information was gathered from agents who were able to infiltrate the islands, one as late as 1938, and by submarine reconnaissance. The seaplane base on Saipan was begun in 1932. Aslito Field on Saipan was begun in 1933 and was virtually completed in 1935. The Japanese landing field on Eten Island in Truk Lagoon was begun in 1934, and it was well advanced by November 1936. There was a seaplane base at Jaluit by 1937 and IJN activity had begun at Kwajalein. There was, however, no Japanese construction activity at Mili Atoll in the Marshalls at the time of the Earhart flight in 1937, although Mili, Wotje and Maloelap had already been surveyed by the IJN for the construction of bases. Amelia Earhart was not asked by the U.S.N. or U.S. Army Air Corps to overfly the Japanese Mandates in 1937 (although I believed this to be a strong possibility at the time I wrote THE SEARCH FOR AE because NO CLASSIFIED RECORDS OF ANY KIND HAD BEEN RELEASED by 1966).

----break ----

One of the most important aspects of Japanese development of the mandated islands was the construction of radio stations with high frequency direction finding capabilities. As Vice Admiral Joseph Wenger told me, "By 1937, Japan had eleven (11) stations in the mandates. They were far better able to track the Earhart plane then we were." Admiral Wenger was an important part of OP-20-G (Naval Intelligence Communications) in the 1930's and during WWII. He later became Deputy director of NSA.

End of statement, over to you.

Gunga Din will you please stay out of this for once? Please? We're still friends.

Carol Dow #2524
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Carol, you keep coming up with this stuff from Goldstein and Dillon and I keep telling you that all they did was clean-up and rehash some out-of-date and very flawed research by Laurance Safford which he assembled into a manuscript he called "Flight Into Yesterday" before he died.

The "cloudy and overcast" bit first appears in Commander Warner Thompson's report "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight" dated 19 July 1937.  The phrase does not appear in the original radio log or even in the later re-typed ("smoothed") log.  Did Thompson, almost three weeks later, suddenly remember that she had said that?  No, that can't be it because, according to Chief Radioman Bellarts, at that time Earhart's transmissions were not going out over the ship's speakers.  Only Bellarts could hear them over his headphones and he never heard her say that.

The first very-early morning transmissions from Earhart heard by ITASCA were only partly understood due to static.  There is nothing unusual about that and it does not mean there were any thunderstorms around.  Her later transmissions closer in were heard very clearly.

None of the other stuff you quoted has any bearing on the discussion.

Do me a favor.  Take your copy of Goldstein and Dillon.  Take a crayon and cross the title "Amelia" on the cover and write "Little Red Riding Hood". Perhaps then you'll stop confusing it with a non-fiction book.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:47:11 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Only the Names have been changed......

Ric wrote:

> Just to be sure everybody is clear about this - Angus wrote all that, not me.
>  I just scatched my head and posted it.  If anybody can figure out why he
> wrote it or what he meant by it, please enlighten me.

He wanted you to laugh, Ric.  This involves crinkling up the skin around the eyes and nose, then emitting a rapid sequence of tones from your throat indicating pleasure, surprise, and receptivity to the point of view of the joker.  Studies have shown that this remarkable behavior lowers blood pressure and causes bonding among primates.  ;o)

LTM.
Marty #2359
************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay.  I guess it's British humor or something.  I just didn't get it.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:48:31 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Hearing planes from ships

Skeet wrote:

> Not to cross swords with Randy on matters nautical, but the amount of
> "white noise" evident on a vessel would determine whether or not an
> aircraft could be heard.  ...

Other factors influence propagation and perception of sound: temperature, humidity, wind direction, and local accoustic effects (barriers that block or buffers that collect sound). I wonder whether flying under, in, or over cloud cover might
also have an effect.

Famous examples: several battles in the civil war in which leaders did NOT hear the sound of canons and muskets, though under ordinary circumstances they should have.  Tour guides in an ancient Roman amphitheater like to seat their tourists in the back rows, then strike a match at center stage; they say the "pop" is audible all the way back. A similar sound effect is or was present in the Senate chambers, I think.  One Senator sitting at one focus of the elliptical room could eavesdrop on his colleague sitting at the other focus.

Why do I care about this stuff?  Some of the RC planes that I fly in competition have to meet sound requirements. We also have to worry about how much noise bothers our neighbors.

I completely agree with Skeet's bottom line.  When all relevant variables are taken into consideration and weighted, we can say with certitude that maybe someone could have heard the plane and maybe they couldn't have.  :o)

Marty #2359
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:51:09 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      Re: Earhart simulation

Alan wrote:

>...THEN you will have do a little flight testing and tweaking for
>a few months. Piece of cake. <G>
----
Alan also wrote:

Subject: Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

>...One of the most complained of features in Flight sim is cockpit
>view. It is not nor has it ever been realistic. That's why the virtual
>cockpit came into being. There isn't any way to accurately duplicate
>AE's view from HER real airplane in Flight Sim. If you could you
>wouldn't know you were correct....
>
>....Secondly, you can't know what the atmospheric visibility was on that
>day to set it up in FS. finally, after more than twenty years of flying,
>most of which was across both oceans I can tell you the FS doesn't come
>close to what stuff out there really looks like. You're tilting at
>another windmill.

Alan, what video card are you using in your computer? I ask because I can't agree with what you are saying. Let me just say that you do need a good 3D video card and it should give you very little (or none at all) of those little  steps you see in any of the diagonal lines.

If you are not comfortable with 150 miles of visibility as being real enough, you can certainly turn that visibility down to 50 miles or less. I agree with what Bill has experienced in the cockpit views except I don't have a 10E model to use. The altitude that you see things at is accurate because the formula that is used is in the simulation.

There is absolutely no reason why microsoft couldn't produce (model) a virtual  cockpit for the 10E with the same quality that they now have in FS 2002 airplanes.

While sitting in the left hand seat (of any of their FS 2002 airplanes) if you move the point of view in the virtual cockpit back to .50 or .31 this puts you in the position a normal person would view from while in the cockpit seat. The HAT switch on top of the stick allows you to swivel (in a smooth motion) your head (eyes) all over the cockpit for any point of view you want, including the seat you're sitting in. In their Lear jet you can see the seats and a big part of the back cabin. The 10E could show the fuel tanks and nav station. There is no reason why a slightly animated (head movements) Noonan could not be positioned in or out of the right hand seat back to the nav station. There is no reason why you could not have a simulated sextant to shoot the simulated stars out of a simulated window. You could go to a map view window at any time to do a nav plot of your own with tools that could be provided in the simulation. There is no reason why you couldn't have a cambridge analyzer readout for leaning the engines. Oscar's work the Lockheed reports (hp per engine, SFC, a/c weight, altitude etc) can model the performance end of the simulation while the microsoft people put it together. In the end result, you should be able to feel the weight of the airplane, through the control inputs, at different fuel loads, up to the max weight.

Think of the simulation as an engine that you start. This engine allows you to break the bounds of physics and time.

In the simulation, once you start the GMT clock at Lae for the take-off, other windows would become available, like the Ontario window showing the boat on station with local clock times ( a crew member on the Ontario recalled hearing AE's plane 10 ? something GMT). The Myrtle Bank window could show it getting under way from it's logged location at 00:00 GMT. Howland and the Itasca and Swan would have their own windows that would become available once the GMT clock started. These windows depict the researched activity that was going on at these locations WITH a local time clock or Itasca's logged times. The Itasca log could show the entries AS they were being made during the flight in real time.

Just my thoughts on the potential of a historically researched simulation.

Daryll
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:03:26 EST
From:         David Carmack
Subject:      Re: Earhart simulation

The Elvis connection to Amelia you discovered makes more sense now after reading a report on the take-off at Lae.....Amelia's last words after Noonan helped her up were reported to be---"Thank ya, thank ya very much.
****************************************************************
From Ric

Eric Chater is also reported to have announced that "Amelia has left the building."
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:04:31 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Earhart simulation

Ric,

Is there any real reason you're continuing this thread about a little computer game?

Dave
************************************************************************
From Ric

Only if it results in a fund-raising tool for TIGHAR.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:05:31 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Hearing planes from ships

A certitude of a "maybe"? What's the point? I can say maybe now without all the legwork. I don't really see what we're chasing here for a mere "maybe".

Dave
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:35:22 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Printing the legend

Seems to me that when the facts fail to produce anything dramatic, the facts must be discarded in favor of something more romantic or tragic.

I wonder if Tennessee Williams started like this.

Dave
************************************************************************
From Ric

The Earhart Legend has followed an interesting pattern. At the time of the original search just about everybody believed that she was about to be rescued from a desert island - pretty romantic stuff. Then the search failed to find her and the official word was that she went down at sea - oh well.

Then the Pacific war started and a new story got started about how she had been a spy - romance again. After the war the government and the press checked out the story and found it groundless - oh well.

Then along came Joe Gervais, Paul Briand, and Fred Goerner in 1960 and the spy story was off and running again - whoopee. By ten years later, with the publication of "Amelia Earhart Lives!", the spy story had gotten so ridiculous that there was a backlash by people like Laurance Safford and Elgen Long who insisted that the plane had simply gone down at sea - oh well.

Almost twenty years later TIGHAR revisited the original impression that the flight had reached an island and started to find evidence that it might be true - old romance revived. As publicity about TIGHAR's work reinvigorated interest in the Earhart story, Ballard's discovery of several sunken vessels popularized the idea that famous lost ships could be found. Elgen Long then introduced the notion that the Earhart airplane was intact and almost perfectly preserved on the ocean bottom, just waiting to be found, recovered and exhibited for fun and profit.  Suddenly what had been a downer "reality check" became a romantic treasure hunt. That's where we are today - dueling romantic endings to the Earhart mystery.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:40:07 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Only the Names have been changed.....

Ric wrote:

>Okay.  I guess it's British humor or something.  I just didn't get it.

Well, I didn't get it either and I'm a Brit, but an Englishman - maybe it's a Scottish thing.  :-)
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, but I'm a Scot.  Must be a Clan Murray thing.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:46:49 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Weather Problems and Misc.Including Black Monsters

For Bill Shea,

No one knows how she sounded, Bill, but thanks for weighing in with "almost surprised".

Dave
***********************************************************************
From Ric

New Thread Alert - Non Sequiturs We Know And Love

Here's a start:
free gift
totally destroyed
partially damaged
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:51:00 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Bruce Yoho wrote:

> It was 1964-65 in the South pacific ocean aboard the USS Picking DD-685,
> Keep in mind a ship is very noisy of itself so that could be one reason we
> could not hear it.
> **********************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> Wow!  What a story.  Sounds like some P2V driver was having some fun with
> you.

Item for the Small World department:  I was executive officer of the Picking from June 1965 to March 1967.  I don't recall if Bruce's tour of duty overlapped mine, but his description of the ship's behavior in even a moderate sea is accurate.

I suspect the incident he describes occurred in the South China Sea. Destroyers patrolled the coast  of Vietnam, with P2V surveillance support,  looking for North Vietnamese ships and sampans carrying supplies down the coast.  The bright light Bruce saw was from the aircraft's wing-mounted multi-million candle power searchlight.   It was not uncommon for a P2V to break the monotony of patrol by making a low altitude illumination run on a destroyer, but never without first getting permission from the ship to do so.

LTM, who thinks destroyer duty is the best.

Bob
#2286
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:54:23 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Earhart simulation

Daryll, I'm running on this computer (one of three) a 1.4gig amd, 262meg ram and a NVIDIA GeForce 4 128meg 3D video card.

My picture is outstanding and so is FS2002 scenery and planes.

I well know how to change views in FS and build planes, gauges, panels and scenery. Microsoft is not going to do it but you are correct they could build an Electra at least approaching the 10E and it's big engines. It wouldn't be too difficult to find out the height of AE and FN. No where will you find out what their eye level was sitting down.

You can make all kinds of adjustments in FS but to what? I have no clue what that day looked like from the Electra cockpit. There is no way to simulate what you don't know. You can guess all you want and all you will have is a guess.

As to the airplane performance I can program an air file and the aircraft.cfg file to anything I want. I have the performance charts and all the specifics of the aircraft dimensions. The problem is that I don't know the specific performance of her particular plane. I hope you don't think they are all the same.

As to building the plane the air file and aircraft.cfg are the keys. The plane itself could be a big fat cube. FS wouldn't know the difference.

Finally, FS is NOT a true representation of actual flying. Sorry to disappoint you. Check with the many aircraft designers and they will verify that reproducing exactly the dimensions and performance data of a particular plane does not mean it will ever fly in FS. Much tweaking may need to be done to make it eventually fly somewhere close to its real counterpart.

Bottom line is that no matter what you program into FS you don't have the actual data to do so nor would that necessarily duplicate real conditions on July 2, 1937 whatever they were. AND we don't know.  All you can do is simulate YOUR idea of what you THINK were the actual conditions.

For example

1. What was the actual density of the haze layer if there was one?
2.  What and where were the "detached clouds" and what was the actual coverage?
3. The bases four hours later were reported to be 2650' via balloon from Howland but what were they when AE arrived?
4. What were the tops?
5. When did AE start descent and where were they when they reached 1,000 feet?
6. What was the actual weather at that point?
7. What was the actual track inbound to Howland?

Tell me how you are going to simulate what they could or could not have seen without the answer to all of the above. you can make the simulator have the worst visibility you can make and you won't have a clue as to what it actual was on July 2, 1937. The real world does not use algorithms. I assume by formula you are referring to what distance one can see the horizon from a particular altitude. Common sense tells you that is simple math but that has nothing to do with reality. That's a triangle using an arc as one side. Great on paper.

My guess is that by doing all that you think you can compute their fuel reserve and proximity to Howland. You can figure the fuel close enough for all our purposes on a piece of paper. You cannot figure how close they came to Howland because you cannot duplicate unknown conditions. But for sake of argument let's say you can. what difference does it make? By radio strength we believe they were somewhere close and we already know they didn't see Howland. What would you do with the information that they were 50 mile NW or 20 miles SE or wherever? In all cases they had a LOP believed to be running through wherever they thought Howland was and they probably ran up and down that LOP and then left. You'll get exactly the same answer no matter where you want to think they were.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:55:58 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

> I used Daviator's 10E.which has a good panel as well.

Bill, you're right. That panel is great. Also the old Sperry "autopilot" you can add in.

FS is good enough as compared to CFS2 but if you're going to use CFS why not use CFS3? It's out but I don't know whether Lae is still there.

As to figuring where the Electra went down I'm not sure how you would do that. Upon arriving in the Howland area she should have had about 4 hours of fuel left. No one knows where she went from there so you will need to draw a circle based on 4 hours at what ever ground speed you want to pick and compute the area of that circle. Some place in that circle is where she most likely ended up. How would you decide where since you have no idea in which direction she departed Howland if in fact she ever left the area? Some think she went SE, some NW and some west.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:00:29 EST
From:         Dave bush
Subject:      Re: hearing an airplane overhead

Ric - Sure they heard airplanes overhead, but at what altitude. We're pretty sure that AE stayed above 10,000 thru most of the trip. A plane at 10,000 is a lot further away than one realizes and you can't compare the noise levels with one at only 1,000 feet!

LTM,
Dave Bush

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

Of course we don't know the alitiude of the plane and we don't know the conditions on the ship.  Maybe the plane could be heard.  Maybe not. I'm not sure I could hear a Lockheed 10 pulling 24 inches at 1600 rpm at 10,000 feet if I was standing on a hilltop on a quiet day.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:02:08 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

Daryll, that's all interesting but I have a few questions.

How do you know where the Electra was at 17:55GMT? No one else does. AE thought she was two hundred miles out ten minutes earlier but SHE didn't even know where she actually was. Proof? I'll let you figure that out.

Why do you think you exactly duplicated the fuel usage of AE's Electra when no one knows what it was?

Microsoft can build anything thye want and without knowing what happened on July 2, 1937 you get nothing. GIGO GIGO. Can you not get that. You have NO accurate input so you get no accurate output. You're making up everything out of your own head.

No matter what you do with FS or any other sim all you will ever get is that the Electra flew somewhere close to Howland and then went some place else. 

Alan, who has ended his participation in this useless nonsense.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:07:19 EST
From:         Mark
Subject:      Sam Jaffe

Actually, I preferred Sam Jaffe ( aka Gunga Din ) in the 50s version of Ben Hur. Also began wondering how Fred Noonan would have done navigating a Roman war galley; ramming speed versus normal cruise. Amelia to Fred..." Fred, we keep you alive to serve the Electra. Navigate well and live." Hats off to Jack Hawkins.

Mark 1214C
**********************************************************************
From Ric

I can match you quote for quote.  Don't get me started.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:18:52 EST
From:         Pat Reed
Subject:      Oh, oh

B-29 -- RESTORE AND REMEMBER: With an army of volunteers, Boeing has embarked on an ambitious project to return "Doc," the last B-29 Superfortress considered to be restorable, to flying status.  "The B-29 Restoration Project currently has about 900 volunteers on the books. About 200 of that 900 are 'regular' contributors to the restoration," Dick Ziegler, restoration project director, told AVweb.  "We're targeting December of 2003 to launch the airplane.  Any number of variables could have an effect on our ability to realize that goal, but December 2003 is our target."
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Whether or not "Doc" should be repaired and returned to service depends upon its current condition.  As far as I know, there is no preserved original WWII B-29 in existence (no, not "Enola Gay" or "Bock's Car").  The only surviving original Cold War B-29 ("Kee Bird") burned up before it could be destroyed by rebuilders.  If "Doc", by some chance, has survived with all or most of it's WWII equipment intact it would be a shame to lose that.  I think that's pretty unlikely so there's probably no harm in Boeing's project and it would be nice to have another B-29 flying.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:46:18 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

Professor Rick,

There is a huge gap which exists in the Earhart story concerning the sudden cessation of radio transmissions. If Earhart headed for Gardner-Nikumoro why didn't she announce her intentions? For as much trouble as that airplane was in you would think emergency pleas for help would have gone out all over the airways. The truth of the matter is there was nothing but stone silence. Based on the empirical evidence, you would have to conclude that one of three things happened:

                            1. Out of radio range,
                            2. Static interference,
                            3. Crashed and sank.

Sorry, but Elgen Long's theories of crashed and sunk are unacceptable to me. The Electra had 5,000 lbs. buoyancy over gross weight which I discovered on the Tighar network (assuming I have it right). There was a life raft and signal flares on board, and I assume they were wearing life preservers. So Elgen Long knocked out Earhart with an overhead radio and Noonan hit the instrument panel, and the dump valves flooded all the fuel tanks and down it went all in one piece. To tell you the truth I don't know of anyone except Nauticos who ever accepted such a storyline. The seas surrounding Howland on the day Earhart was lost were known to be calm, i.e. the winds were so calm in fact the smoke from the stack of the Itasca didn't even rise in the air. It simply settled down on the surface of the water. The same thing happened to the signal fires ashore on Howland. All of this points to a soft landing at sea (if it happened). There has never been any wreckage found, no oil slicks, no floating bodies, no life rafts, no floating wings....nothing. It does not compute.

So why did Earhart suddenly stop broadcasting? The area between Howland and Gardner was known to be clear excepting scattered CU. Are you going to argue that Earhart landed on a reef at Gardner Island, kept the right engine turning, and suddenly started broadcasting again? If this is what happened why didn't she announce her intentions enroute? It does not compute.

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am working on a screenplay about the Earhart flight. Right now it is sitting on the desk of two Hollywood producers. One of them is showing considerable interest. I decline to say who they are except that they are very well know in the industry. I also want to say the Tighar Network has been a tremendous help to me. One of the problems I have is why Earhart suddenly stopped broadcasting. The crashed and sunk people will dance up and down she crashed and sunk. However, if there is a possibility that Earhart was out of radio range or that there was static interference from thunderstorms or Japanese interference with radio broadcasts I would gladly take that route because it increases the value of the storyline. Diane Keaton recently did a teleplay, and it was crashed and sunk, and it was very boring. I wouldn't dare attempt something like that again. To tell you truth, I am not looking for suggestions on what to write. The storyline is already set in my mind and the studios seem to like what they are seeing.

What I am looking for is evidence of why Earhart suddenly stopped broadcasting. I don't care if it comes from Goldstein and Dillon, or Safford, or Thompson on the Itasca, or any other source (past or present). If there was static around and someone comments about it, that's exactly what I would like to hear. If there was a problem of Earhart being out of radio range I want to know about that.

I am a very good listener. Anyone who wants to talk with me, I will respond to your email. Off Forum the address is... Beardov@AOL.com. The Tighar group has top notch people, and I appreciate being part of the discussion. However, I'm the one who has to sort through the comments and make the final decision and submit to the studios on what I found. After that, it would be up to the studios as to whether they want to go ahead with the project. Right now it looks very good. End of statement and over to you. Gunga Din lets talk Off Forum.

Carol Dow #2524
************************************************************************
From Ric

What did Earhart say in the last transmission heard by ITASCA?
She said she was on the line 157 337 and that she was going to repeat the message on 6210 kilocycles.
What is it reasonable to assume that she did next?
Change frequencies and send the message on 6210 kilocycles.
Had Itasca ever heard her on 6210 kilocycles?
No.
When is she known to have previously used that frequency?
When transmitting back to Lae after her departure the previous day.
When did Lae expect to hear her on that freqency?
Eighteen minutes past each hour. (see the Chater Report)
When did Lae first here her on that frequency?
Four hours and eighteen minutes after she departed.
How many hundred miles away was she was before Lae could hear her on that frequency?
No way to say for sure but it was several hundred miles anyway.
Is there any reason to think that there may have been a problem with that frequency?
Report from Lae wireless operator who inspected Earhart's radios "Transmitter carrier wave on 6210 KC was very rough..." (see Chater Report).

So shortly after 08:43 Earhart swtiches to 6210 KC and ITASCA stops hearing her.  Given the history of the situation with that frequency and assuming that Earhart was within a couple hundred miles of ITASCA at that time it would be surprising if they DID hear anything.

A signal-to-noise ratio analysis by Bob Brandenberg has calculated the particulars of the problem but I won't confuse you with the technical stuff.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================

Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:56:24 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Earhart simulation

Ric wrote:

> Only if it results in a fund-raising tool for TIGHAR.

Hi Ric, There have been a few organizations that have created "shareware" airplanes to help their cause. Tigher might be able to have an exact Electra 10E made having exact specifications. then upload this to the largests of the Flight Simulation sites such as Avsim and Flightsim and even have it available on Tigher's site.You could also bundle that with some FS2002 scenery taking off from Old Lae Aerodrome. I think they get $10-$15 for it. 

Cheers from Bill Shea
************************************************************************
From Ric

The big question is whether it would bring in enough funding to justify the hassle of putting it together.   Assuming that the accurate 10E was available, what we'd really need is a volunteer or committee of volunteers knowledgable in the field who would develop the product and help us decide how best to market it.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:16:46 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Printing the legend

> Suddenly what had been a downer "reality check" became a romantic 
> treasure hunt. That's where we are today - dueling romantic endings to
> the Earhart mystery.

Ric, then probably the worse thing that could happen is that someone actually finds the Electra. POW!!! no more interest.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

That is certainly true of Splashed & Sank.  I think the treasure hunters have grossly over-estimated the money to be made from exhibiting Earhart's airplane.  Once the mystery is solved, how much would you pay to see the exhibit?  Ten bucks?  Thirty bucks?  More to the point, how much would the general public pay?  Are there millions to be made from the morbid curiousity of seeing the plane in which Amelia Earhart died?  I doubt it.

Niku is a different situation.  Proof that the flight ended there has been coming, and will probably continue to come, in little pieces.  Maybe we'll find some big smoking-gun hunk of something but it's more likely that public acceptance of the solution will come more gradually as the preponderence of evidence continues to grow and the deep sea searches continue to return empty-handed.

Will the public stay interested?  I think so.  You see, Splashed & Sank is a non-story.  Splash! the airplane hits the water, Glub! the people drown.  End of story.  The story emerging at Niku is far more complex and interesting. If we found a smoking-gun piece of the plane there on the next trip there would still be huge questions to answer about how and how long Earhart and Noonan survived.

So, from a strictly who-has-the-better-story standpoint it does look like truth beats fiction.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:17:56 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Non Sequiturs . . .

From a 1970-era denture cleaning ad where they soak a strand of "pearls made of denture material" in red wine and then cleaned them with their product.  Pearls made of denture materials, is that like diamonds made of dust bunnies?

LTM, who prefers irony
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:27:36 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Oh, oh

Coincidentally, I just finished reading "Duty" about Paul Tibbets & his mission. I have had the good fortune to know General Chuck Sweeney's son, Terry, who lives here in Southern California. I just mailed Terry the book. It's a great read. I hope it will help him better understand what his dad went thru three days later over Nagasaki. I highly recommend the book if you haven't read it.

LTM,
Mike Haddock #2438
************************************************************************
From Ric

For an eye-opening perspective on the subject try "The Decision To Drop The Atomic Bomb" by Dennis Wainstock (Amazon has it).  It's not light reading and the bargain price is $45, but it's a magificent piece of historical research.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:28:31 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

Another factor, Carol, is that the Itasca sometimes broadcast at the same time Earhart may have been transmitting, stepping on her toes, so to speak.

===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:47:21 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

> FS is good enough as compared to CFS2 but if you're going to use CFS why not
> use CFS3? It's out but I don't know whether Lae is still there.

I have CFS3 and it only seems to give you European areas and there is no Mission  Builder included with it. Right now Flight Simmers are still trying to figure out how to add planes to the program.


> As to figuring where the Electra went down I'm not sure how you would do
> that. Upon arriving in the Howland area she should have had about 4 hours
> of fuel left. No one knows where she went from there so you will need
> to draw a circle based on 4 hours at what ever ground speed you want
> to pick and compute the area of that circle. Some place in that circle is
> where she most likely ended up. How would you decide where since you have 
> no idea in which direction she departed Howland if in fact she ever left the
> area? Some think she went SE, some NW and some west.

I don't think she ever got to Howland. I think they came upon the 157/337 line about 190 NM north of Howland (that figure is based on drawing a line thru the 3 positions they called back to Lae and a possible position of the SS Myrtlebankand came down before reaching Howland. You will find them all in a straight line.- i just continued that  Course Made Good track to the 157/157 line - which to me proves that Noonan did fly a northern offset track. I believe they thought they were only 100 NM north of Howland and after flying that distance expected to see Howland and the Itasca , and that is when she called the Itasca and said Where are you we don't see you.

That would put them about 90NM still north of Howland. If that was the last time she was heard then they must have gone down within the next 30 minutes.or aprox 65NM.

So if I was to spend my hard earned money looking for the Electra I would first want them to search between 25NM - 90NM north on the 157/337 line.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Bill, it is abundantly clear that we're wasting our time and yours.  We've tried our best but you either can not or will not grasp the difference between a fact and an opinion.  Consequently, your opinons become facts to you and from them you derive proof that you are correct.  It's a circle no one can penetrate so we may as well stop trying.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:51:15 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      The change to 6210

Ric,

Re your reply to Carol, you might also have made the point (although I'm sure its been made before and you wished to avoid confusion re technical topics) that 6210 was her daylight frequency. Once having changed from 3105 to this higher frequency (theoretically more effective in daytime):

1) There was little incentive to change back if she knew (as she should) that conditions for propagation on lower frequencies worsened with time after dawn.

2) Even if she had eventually changed back to 3105 to try it again, the worsened propagation conditions (of increasing D layer ionisation and increasing distance) may have been sufficient to prevent reception on the lower frequency. It is pertinent to note that no reception was achieved on 3105 during daytime after 08.50hrs by Itasca in the post-loss messages and even on that occasion it was unintelligible.

By the time she changed back, if indeed she did, she was probably out of range to send signals by groundwave, the only effective mode left available at that late time for 3105. The fact that Itasca was able to receive her on 3105 at high signal strength until the presumed change of frequency  at 08.43 gives good indication of the fact that AE was still relatively close to Itasca at this time but at 120kt it would not take long to escape from the very local area of groundwave reception. It is also quite possible that groundwave and any remaining skywave destructively interfered at higher distances.

It is further relevant to note that not a single post-loss message, intelligible or otherwise, was heard by Baker/Itasca/Howland on 6210 at any time of day. Nauru, Hawaii, California, however, all allegedly heard her on this frequency. This dovetails nicely with Ric's observations on the quiet zones due to distance on the journey from Lae. All of these places are substantially greater distances from Gardner than is Howland.

Regards Angus

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

Exactly.  Bob Brandenberg's SNR analysis illustrates those points very nicely.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:53:35 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

Good point.

thanks Randy,
Carol
************************************************************************
From Ric

Or, as Emily Letitia (Gilda Radnor) used to say on Saturday Night Live. "Never mind."
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:20:39 EST
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: Oh, oh

Just  a note on "Doc".  I have the story of Doc on my web page at:

http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/doc.html

And the Boeing page can be viewed at:  http://b-29.boeing.com/

It's my understanding that this B-29 never saw combat.  Someone even told me that it was not built until just after the war.  I never verified that however. It was shot at several times while on "Target Duty" at China Lake, California. Fortunately the rounds missed!

I have many pictures taken inside the B-29 as they were preparing it for shipment to Boeing.  It looked just as it did in the early 60s. It was in remarkable condition!

I  agree with Ric completely that if this one was an original version of a World War II B-29, then it should not be restored to modern standards.  Fixed up maybe, but to W.W.II standards. The plan for Doc is to make it airworthy again, and have  it tour the country for all to see.  "Fifi" is the only other flying "29"

What happened to the "Kee Bird" was just horrible.  They should never have attempted to fly that thing out of there.  Just plain irresponsible if you ask me!

Don Jordan
Merced, CA
*****************************************************************
Al Jeffries

I "wept" when I saw the plane burn and still thrill to the engines deep powerful thrumming rhythm.

Al Jeffries
*****************************************************************
From Alan Caldwell

> Coincidentally, I just finished reading "Duty" about Paul Tibbets &his
> mission.

Tibbits was my commander when I was stationed at MacDill AFB. He was division commander there. He did a good job as a SAC commander other than getting in a small scrape for flying his sports car coast to coast in a 124. They made him pay for the gas but he kept his rank. <G>

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

Ric wrote :

>If "Doc", by some chance, has survived with all or most of its WWII
>equipment intact it would be a shame to lose that.  I think that's pretty
>unlikely so there's probably no harm in Boeing's project and it would be
>nice to have another B-29 flying.

Unlikely? See how close they came to losing the Boeing 307 when they ditched it in Seattle. It's still being repaired by Boeing again but they had been close to losing it. How could professional pilots ever run out of gas? But I guess that is an other story.

It is my firm belief that when only one airworthy example of a historic aircraft survives it shouldn't fly any more. In Britain they restored the only surviving WW II Messerschmitt Bf-109G to perfection. It would fly one season only and be put on static display at Duxford after that. Then it was decided to let it fly a couple of times in a second season. An experienced Vice Air Marshall was flying it when the Daimler Benz engine cooling system began to blow blew off steam (which was quite normal as it was designed to do so). The pilot saw the plume, told the pilot who believed to be on fire, panicked and put the aircraft down in a dive, giving him so much speed that he overshot the whole Duxford runway, bounced over the  adjoining freeway and landed on his back in a field. The precious aircraft's back was broken.

And still in Britain BAe restored to flying condition the one and only flying example of the WW II (wooden) de Havilland Mosquito. She was a beauty. They put the best pilot in it they could find and he flew it at every airshow until he made a stall turn, stalled the only surviving Mosquito and crashed it, killing both himself and his observer. I don't mind anyone flying Mustangs or Spitfires or Dragon Rapids or any old aircraft type of which there are still dozens available. But I think it is unwise to let a one and only surviving example fly.

LTM (who thinks that a thing of beauty should remain a joy forever)
**********************************************************************
From Ric

The important thing to remember is that those tragic crashes resulted in the damage or total loss of extremely rare and valuable reproductions but the historic originals had already been destroyed in the process of making the aircraft flyable.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:21:46 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Amelia's son

This explains the sequins found on Niku....

ltm
jon
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:27:25 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

I'd like to know where the liferaft and life vests came from.  I don't recall anything in the Luke Field inventory, nor in any other contemporary documentation.  There is evidence to support the existence of the Very pistol. 

There is one photo of AE in a life raft, but its on the tarmac next to the Vega, not the Electra.

The overhead control box Long is talking about is really nowhere near where AE's head would have been, particularly when wearing a lap belt, as I would presume she (and Fred) would when landing.  Where ever they landed.  Which I'm inclined to believe was the reef flat at Niku - but that's another post.

ltm
jon
************************************************************************
From Ric

Item No. 53 in the Luke Feld inventory is 4 ea. Life preserver vests, pneumatic.  No mention of a raft. What was aboard for the Lae/Howland leg is unknown.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:37:45 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

> ... So shortly after 08:43 Earhart swtiches to 6210 KC and ITASCA stops
> hearing her.  Given the history of the situation with that frequency and
> assuming that Earhart was within a couple hundred miles of ITASCA at that
> time it would be surprising if they DID hear anything.  ...

And the technical analysis offered by some people in the Forum's history suggests that the cause of the peculiar behavior with 6210 was the hatchet job done on the antenna in Miami by a helpful and industrious technician.  I can't explain it very well, but I know that the most desirable antenna is one that is an even fraction of the wavelength on which one is trying to transmit: 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8.  (If an antenna is like a guitar string, 1/3 and 1/5 might work well, too.)

The cool thing about the two fixed frequences AE used was that one was a multiple of the other (3105 x 2 = 6210). An antenna that was good for one frequency would be pretty good for the other, too.  Part of the problem of designing an antenna is figuring out what happens when you load it from the end or from somewhere in the middle.  I think that can have an influence on how well it radiates on the desired frequency.

The helpful and industrious technician tried to adjust AE's antenna to work with three frequencies: 500, 3105, and 6210.  I don't think we know exactly what he did, but, as Ric said, the transmitter seemed way out of tune on the test flight and on the first leg of the fatal flight.

Prior to the antenna mods, a separate trailing antenna was used to transmit on 500 kilocycles. Because of the low frequency, it had a long wavelength.  I think people said it was around 250 feet long, and it had to be wound in and out by hand before and after takeoff.  The other problem with it was that all communication on that frequency was using Morse Code ("continuous wave" or CW).  Since neither AE nor FN were good at CW, they decided to ditch the long antenna, save weight and complication, and let the tech guy play games with the antenna.

LTM.
Marty #2359
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Close.  The helpful and industrious technician was Joe Gurr and he worked his magic in Burbank during the repairs, not in Miami.  What he did was move the forward mast of the dorsal vee antenna several feet forward, thus creating an antenna with more length in an attempt to provide some transmission capability on 500 kcs and eliminate the need for the heavy and cumbersome trailing wire (which was electrically extended and retracted in its final incarnation before the first World Flight attempt).

What Joe accomplished was to totally screw up the radios so that nothing worked worth a darn.  In Miami, Pan American did what they could to fix the problem by internal modifications (probably a "loading coil") but the dorsal antenna remained at the inappropriate length.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:39:23 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Earhart simulation

> The big question is whether it would bring in enough funding to justify the
> hassle of putting it together.

No, it wouldn't. I asked a friend if he would do the old Lae airport and the Howland runway and he did it in a few minutes, sent me a copy and posted it on the net free. Dave Eckhert models 10As and Es and posts them free. I've redone the cfg and air files myself in an evening for an Earhart Electra. There's no money here.

There are many, many designers who do this as a hobby. They sometimes spend months but they still post them free. Flight sim itself has a design program in it called GMAX to make airplanes and then Abacus has FSDS Pro for about $40 that does an even better job.

Any designer can make her plane but I don't see the point. The model itself could be anything including a cube. It's the cfg and air file that makes it go and it's just a matter of having the correct data and plugging it in. I just don't see what can be learned. If anyone can think of a question it would answer please let me know.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:40:36 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

> but I won't confuse you with the technical stuff.

Ric, you were sucked in again. <G>

As long as Carol keeps reading Goerner and that vaudeville team, Dun and Bradstreet or whoever those two "authors" were she will not be able to think carefully about the known facts and understand them in the proper context whatever that means. <G>

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:44:27 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: hearing an airplane overhead

Dave wrote:

> We're pretty
> sure that AE stayed above 10,000 thru most of the trip.

Wow! That's new information, Dave. Good job. Where did you get that? Don't tell me you just guessed or that it seems reasonable because the new folks will take it as fact.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:52:28 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      NR16020 Antennas?

Comparing old photos of NR16020 I know is a hazard to one's health on this forum, but doing so still generates a question or two - Were the visible radio antennas configured differently on the first world flight attempt NR16020 than on the second world flight attempt NR16020 aircraft? - Was the top fuselage long wire antenna the transmission antenna on both flights? - Lastly does the forum still believe that the belly long wire antenna was lost on or before Lae T/O?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
************************************************************************
From Ric

>Were the visible radio antennas configured differently on the first world
>flight attempt NR16020 than on the second world flight attempt NR16020
>aircraft?

Yes.  On the first attempt the dorsal vee was shorter, there was a trailing wire that deployed from a shaft under the cabin, and there were two parallel belly antennas running from the pitot tubes under the chin to masts under the cabin.

For the second attempt the dorsal vee was lengthened, the trailing wire was eliminated, and the port side belly antenna went away.

>Was the top fuselage long wire antenna the transmission antenna on both
>flights?

Yes.

>Lastly does the forum still believe that the belly long wire antenna was
>lost on or before Lae T/O?

I can't speak for what the forum believes but I can tell you that the antenna is present when the airplane taxiis past the camera on its way to the end of the runway and is gone when it flies past the camera after takeoff. 

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:57:10 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

> It was not uncommon for a P2V to break the monotony of patrol by making a
> low altitude illumination run on a destroyer, but never without first
> getting permission from the ship to do so.

Bob, you got permission?  I chased trains here in Texas at night on the deck in T-33s, gear and flaps down so I could run head on and turn the landing lights on but I forgot to get permission.

Alan, feeling guilty
************************************************************************
From Ric

Bob was the buzzee not the buzzor (and was proably the villain on the bridge who gave permission for the P2V to conduct cardiac experiments on unsuspecting swabbies on the fantail). Somehow getting permission for flat-hatting seems like it would take the fun out of it.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:58:34 EST
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Re: Amalgamated Wireless

I have had  a reply from AWA Technology who have advised me that all data re Amalgamated Wireless Australia is held at HQ. in Sydney so I will have to re submit my enquiry to them which I will do today.    Will let you know of any outcome.

Jack Clark.
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you sir.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:10:22 EST
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Printing the legend

No offense, Ric, but I think P.T. Barnum was a better judge of human character. The actual airplane in which AE mysteriously disappeared and perished would make a ton of money on the show circuit. Think of the crowds that would swarm to see the Princess Diana Mercedes death car. It would, of course, be a tastefully done exhibit (and probably educational as well, according to the promoter).

The public will be interested in the answer to the Earhart mystery. They will watch the video. Buy the book. And pay to visit the plane if they could. They won't much care about some distant island in the Pacific, unless you erect an Earhart Amusement Sky Park. Now, if you could just get the box of bones.....

blue skies, jerry
**********************************************************************
From Ric

(sigh) You're probably right.

**********************************************************************
From Cam Warren

Ric says -

> So, from a strictly who-has-the-better-story standpoint it does look like
> truth beats fiction.
>

No argument there - "the Nikumaroro Castaways" is DEFINITELY a better story than "Crashed & Sank". But I think you've got the conclusion confused, since your Niku scenario still should be classified as "wishful thinking" rather than Truth.

Cam Warren
************************************************************************
From Ric

Wellll...some are convinced, some remain to be convinced, and some will never be convinced.  Most newspapers still carry horoscopes and the teaching of evolution must be balanced with "intelligent design" ( I could go on but I'd just get in trouble), so we may as well accept that we're never going to reach everybody.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:12:24 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

To Ric,  OK RIc, i hear ya. I tried to use deductive reasoning and common sense to suggest where I think they went down but I assume you guys have already been over many times what I think, so I will for now just Read and Learn. Cheers from Bill
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:13:14 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Oh, oh

Alan,
In about 1954 a B-47 from McDill AFB crashed in my hometown in Marianna,Florida. Do you have any information about that crash? Unfortiunately, I saw the plane coming down, and as a 13 year old it made a terrible impression.
LTM,
Mike Haddock #2438
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:40:45 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      New idea

To Alan and Ric, Maybe there is a better way for Tighar to raise funds... Since The 10E and its files seem to be free now, then try something different.

You can have a web page where guys who want to try AE's last leg can register their flight sim results. - using free plane and config and aircraft files acceptable to TIGHAR. For this you can ask for a $10 or $15 credit card donation. Just a suggestion from BIll
***********************************************************************
From Ric

You may be on to something here.  Let me expand on the concept.  If people will really PAY to express their own Earhart theory on the TIGHAR website we could certainly accommodate that desire.  We could have a separate section with appropriate disclaimers and charge by the amount of bandwidth/per quarter they wanted to use.  It would give everyone a chance to compare and contrast TIGHAR's work with that of other groups or individuals.  We would, of course, not edit or attempt to rebutt or correct any information someone wanted to publish and we can even offer web design services (we produce almost everything you see on the TIGHAR website in-house).  We would, however, need to make sure they weren't infringing on somebody else's copyright.

The TIGHAR website gets about a thousand individual visitors every day. Here's your shot at fame and fortune.  Carol could even plug her upcoming film.  If enough people are really interested in something like this we can work up some prices and protocols.

What do you guys think?

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:51:05 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Radio matters

Is it known for a fact that Colorado was listening on a 24hr basis on 6210 and 3105 on their run past Gardner on 9th July? Colorado was only 48 nm away from Gardner at 07.00 hrs, 1 hr 43min earlier than when they picked up AE at 08.43 on 2nd July and was less than 30 nm away at 10.45.

Did any other ships come close to Gardner during the search?

Regards Angus.

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

The official report by the captain of the COLORADO (13 July 1937) specifically states that radio watches were maintained on the night of the 3rd/4th and the night of the 4th/5th but there is no mention of "radio searches" made by COLORADO after those dates.

No other ships came within several hundred miles of Gardner during the search.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:55:32 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: The change to 6210

Ric,
The comments Angus made were right on. Do you have a URL or a ref. point for Brandendberg's SNR analysis on the Tighar website? Nice going. Technical but sounding very real.
Carol Dow
*********************************************************************
From Ric

The upcoming Special Report issue of TIGHAR Tracks will include Bob's SNR analysis.  Sounds like it's time for you to join TIGHAR.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:59:43 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

Bill Shea wrote:

> To Ric,  OK RIc, i hear ya. I tried to use deductive reasioning and common
> sense to suggest where I think they went down but

Bill, using deductive reasoning and common sense is sometimes rare with some folks here. We can use all we can get. That's far better than quoting out of books which we all do at one time or another. People here can get hard on each other at times so don't be put off.

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

Do you have any idea how tempting it is to subtly edit that last sentence?
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:00:17 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Amalgamated Wireless

> Amalgamated Wireless Australia is held at HQ. in Sydney

Jack, my daughter liives in Sydney. Is there anything we can do to help?

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:27:04 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: NR16020 Antennas?

> I can't speak for what the forum believes but I can tell you that the
> antenna is present when the airplane taxiis past the camera on its
> way to the end of the runway and is gone when it flies past the camera
> after takeoff.

Ric, you know better the results of the photo analysis than I do but was that a definite that the antenna was missing or it couldn't be seen in the take off photo? Personally I have little doubt as it seems to explain the loss of radio reception capability. I HAVE tried to imagine a scenario whereby the belly of the airplane could get so low as to snag the wire. Possibly it was snagged taxiing out and then ripped loose on T.O. as it appears in the video.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Jeff's forensic analysis of the photo established that:

- we should be able to see it if it was there (i.e. we can see other things that small)
- we can't see it

Does that mean it wasn't there?  You're the lawyer.  You tell me.

It probably wasn't the wire that snagged but rather the aft supporting mast. Under normal loads on a hard surface there was only about a foot of clearance between that mast and the ground.  As the plane taxis past the camera on the way out to the end of the runway it is very apparent that, with the very heavy load, the mast is barely clearing the turf. Aerial photos of the Lae airstrip from that time show a rather large overrun area at the inland end of the runway.  It's not hard to imagine Earhart going out onto the overun to get as much runway as possible.  The overun is not going to be as smooth as the main surface and in swinging the tail around to line up with the runway any dip could cause that aft mast to strike the ground with a sideload for which it was not stressed and break it off.  In the cockpit Earhart would probably feel nothing.  You'd then have a broken length of mast dragged along the ground by the wire.  The puff of dust we see erupt under the airplane during the takeoff run could be the mast snagging in the dirt and ripping the rest of the antenna free.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:28:11 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

Ric wrote:

> Close.  The helpful and industrious technician was Joe Gurr and he 
> worked his magic in Burbank during the repairs, not in Miami.

I shoulda looked it up first.

> ... electrically extended and retracted in its final
> incarnation before the first World Flight attempt.  ...

Shows how stuff creeps in through the imagination! I've always had this image of one of the guys going back to the tail to wind and unwind the thing.  :o(

> What Joe accomplished was to totally screw up the radios so that nothing
> worked worth a darn.
>
> ... the dorsal
> antenna remained at the inappropriate length.

There.  That's the point.  :o)

It's the most likely why behind the why they weren't heard after switching frequencies.  No need to imagine an immediate engine failure, splash landing, or alien abduction.

LTM.
Marty #2359
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:29:55 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: New idea

Ric wrote:

> ... If enough people are really interested in something like this we can
> work up some prices and protocols.
>
> What do you guys think?

OK by me.

Anything morally good that raises funds for TIGHAR is good.  ;o)

I will pass over your remarks about evolution in magnanimous Christian silence.  :-P

LTM.
Marty  #2359
==============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:30:50 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Earhart simulation

> That was easy.

Ric, surprisingly the plane was built with the help of a current or former TIGHAR member who did the textures on the model. There was an even earlier unsuccessful attempt at this in FS version 5 called the "Great Adventure." The plane was designed in Germany and they at least had all the correct input but Flight simulator was not very good then and we're only talking about 1997.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:33:15 EST
From:         Michael S.
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

Ric stated: 

>So shortly after 08:43 Earhart swtiches to 6210 KC and ITASCA
>stops hearing her.  Given the history of the situation with that
>frequency and assuming that Earhart was within a couple hundred 
>miles of ITASCA at that time it would be surprising if they DID hear anything.

Would not this explanation apply equally to the question of why no one heard a mayday call under the crash and sank theory?
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Sure, but there is still nothing to suggest that there was a mayday call.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:25:03 EST
From:         Chris in Petaluma
Subject:      The real story....

For Herman De Wulf and forum,

This is a letter I recieved from Dick Pingrey referring to that Boeing 307 that ditched in the water in Seattle.

------------------------

Chris,

       I got an e-mail from a friend associated with Boeing.  He explained what happened to the Boeing 307 that ditched at Seattle.  The inside story goes like this.  Two Boeing test pilots and two flight engineers decide they will fly the airplane from Boeing Field to Everett and do some touch and goes.  It is at their own expense so they only put in 300 gal of fuel because gas is 2 cents/gal cheaper at Everett.  They fly to Everett and do one touch and go.  During climb out with the gear up the number three engine surges so the elect to shut it down.  When then start their approach the right gear doesn't extend because it gets extension power from number three engine (hydraulic or electrical - I don't know which).  So they go out and hand crank down the right gear.  Then they elect to go back to Boeing Field and on the way they simply run out of gas having used up the 300 gal.  They simply lost track of how long they had been flying and no one was keeping track of the fuel supply.  When asked why they didn't land at Everett they said, "Well our cars were at Boeing Field".  Some on then asked them where they parked their boats.

       They are being nominated for the Darwin Award which usually goes to people who kill themselves by their stupid acts and thus remove themselves from the gene pool.  There was very extensive damage to the airplane and it is doubtful that it will be restored to flying condition.

Dick

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

(Dick Pingrey gave us permission to pass this along to the forum.)
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:25:53 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

> (that figure is based on drawing a line
> thru the 3 positions they called back to Lae

Bill, tell me what those three positions are.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:26:32 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

I wrote:

>...life vests came from.  I don't recall
> anything in the Luke Field inventory...

Ric wrote:

> Item No. 53 in the Luke Feld inventory is 4 ea. Life preserver vests,
> pneumatic.

Memory!  It's the second thing to go.  I don't remember what's first...

ltm
jon
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:30:42 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Waaay off topic

> I will pass over your remarks about evolution in
> magnanimous Christian silence.  :-P

Marty, did you know Darwin was adopted? <G>

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:34:02 EST
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: New idea

I think allowing other theories on the web site could very quickly and easily wind up being more hassle than it's worth.

And as long as I'm posting:

1) So there were no traces of blue suede on the shoe fragments?
2) Low-fat chocolate milk

--
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
************************************************************************

From Russ Matthews (#0509CE)
Hermosa Beach, CA

> What do you guys think?

I kinda doubt there is anyone (esp with a dissenting viewpoint) who would be willing to pay to have their theory posted on the TIGHAR website.  And what little revenue it might generate wouldn't be worth the hassle and confusion it would cause.  Put up as many disclaimers as you like, people will still come away saying things such as, "I read on the TIGHAR site that Earhart had super-secret radios that were jammed by the Japanese so that she crashed and sank in a thunderstorm 35.2 miles NW of Howland."

Better, I think, to let the TIGHAR website be the place folks can come to learn about TIGHAR and its work.

LTM,
Russ

************************************************************************
From Bill Shea

To Ric, I was thinking of something uncomplicated and easy to do. After donating , say $15 by credit card, then they can go to a Guestbook type webpage where chaps could have no more than a paragraph to add their results. To raise even more interest, all the entries could be plotted on a chart of the Howland area. Then, if and when, the Electra is ever located the closest would win all "bragging rights". Simple and very little cost. Cheers from Bill
**********************************************************************
From Dan Postellon

I'd be more interested in this than in a flight simulator.
Dan P.

TIGHAR#2263
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks to everyone for the input.  After careful consideration I have to agree with Russ and Amanda.  It's a crummy idea.  Never mind.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:39:47 EST
From:         Lee
Subject:      Re: NR16020 Antennas?

I'm new on the forum so pardon my ignorance, but regarding the belly antenna that may have been lost on the takeoff roll: what would it have been used for?

Lee
************************************************************************
From Ric

Boy, you sure know how to start a fight.  Short answer: no one really knows. My personal opinion is that it served as the primary voice receiving antenna. I think that, in part, because the lead from that antenna enters the fuselage under the nose right where the receiver was located (under the copilot's seat).  If I'm right, it rather conveniently explains why the only time Earhart is known to have heard anything from the receiver is when she swtiched to the loop antenna to try to take a bearing on the Itasca.
==============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:44:04 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Radio matters

Angus wrote:

>Colorado was only 48 nm away from Gardner at 07.00 hrs, 1 hr 43min earlier
> than when they picked up AE at 08.43 on 2nd July and was less than 30 nm
> away at 10.45.

Huh?  Colorado was in the Hawaiian Islands on the 2nd when AE was heard on 0843 on the 2nd, and was much further away than 48 or 30 nm!
************************************************************************
From Ric

I missed that.  Yes, COLORADO wasn't anywhere near the Phoenix Group until July 8.  On the 9th she came within something like 15 nm of Gardner and the lookout actually got a visual on the island with binoculars.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:49:58 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: She Wasn't in the Water

Ric,
I have been talking with Joe Davidson, and he is saying the words SOS KHAQQ were heard by amateur radio operators in Cincinnati, Wyoming, Seattle, San Francisco, the British Cruiser Achilles, and Pan Am in Hawaii. There's nothing new about this except to say it may prove she wasn't in the water. If I had to guess I would guess she was still flying. Am I safe in making an assumption such as that? The real question is the time of day those SOS calls were heard. I don't know. I don't know if there is any way of finding out. It's all past tense.
Carol Dow
************************************************************************
From Ric

Research 101

Carol, ask Mr. Davidson what his sources are for his allegations.  If he can't produce documents from 1937 that support his claims do not take them as accurate reports of what was heard in 1937, let alone accept them as fact.

Until you learn to insist on primary sources you will continue to buy into the theory of the last person you talked to.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:02:21 EST
From:         Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Noonan's plan

Alan wrote:

> Bob, you got permission?  I chased trains here in Texas at night on the deck
> in T-33s, gear and flaps down so I could run head on and turn the landing
> lights on but I forgot to get permission.
>
> ************************************
> From Ric
>
> Bob was the buzzee not the buzzor (and was proably the villain on the bridge
> who gave permission for the P2V to conduct cardiac experiments on
> unsuspecting swabbies on the fantail).
> Somehow getting permission for flat-hatting seems like it would take the fun
> out of it.

This was war time and the rules of engagement allowed ships to engage unidentified aircraft making hostile maneuvers - - which included flying at the ship.  It would have been a real bad idea for a friendly aircraft to make a surprise run on a destroyer in those circumstances.

As it happens I was on the bridge - - the captain was on the bridge during daylight hours and I had the nights - - so I'm sure I'm the "villain" who authorized the run.  I have a hunch that the guys in CIC, who had the aircraft under close control and knew the run was authorized, were having a little fun with Bruce when they told him to hurry to the fantail to watch.  Had I known that Bruce was going to be on the fantail, I would have delayed the run until we could get him inside the ship.  Being up close and personal with that bright searchlight was no laughing matter.

Bob
#2286
************************************************************************
From Ric

I recall a certain police chief in Fairfax Co., Virginia who insisted on a demonstration of the new, very expensive, gazillion candlepower searchlight recently installed on the department's Bell 206 Jetranger helicopter.  That night he instructed the pilot to come up overhead the parking lot in back of the police station and "illuminate" him.  The pilot said that might not be such a great idea but was admonished to just do as he was told.

When the chief heard the chopper he went outside and stood near a street light in the parking lot.  The chief looked up and, with a handheld radio, told the hovering pilot to "illuminate" him with the light.  The pilot hit the switch and the chief hit the pavement.  His vision returned about three days later.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:08:07 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      Yep, just a silly little game

Alan you're missing the whole idea. Everything you say about the great "UNKNOWABLE" is true. It would EVEN be true about an airplane flying 10 miles in trail of Earhart's Electra. No two objects can occupy the same space at the same time ergo no two experiences can be exactly the same. BUT a simulation can sample what Earhart >could< have experienced.

The simulation is not a tool to find the answer, it is a tool help in the >experience< of the search to find the answer. How many times has Ric said that he is not selling the answer to the Earhart mystery, but the search, (or was that someone else that said that?). If you're a good TIGHAR you'd better get on board for the sake of your organization.

My motives for spouting off about this simulation are entirely selfish in that I want a good (read that as a VERY GOOD) Simulation of the Earhart Mystery that I can participate in. My participation is the ability to fly the Electra anywhere I wanted to. I want to put the CD into the computer (not downloaded off the internet) and do everything we have talked about over these past years. I want to fly the Electra through those monsoonal down pours, around Rangoon wasn't it?

>....Microsoft is not going to do it but you are correct they
>could build an Electra at least approaching the 10E and its big
>engines......[AC]

That just it,...WHY can't TIGHAR go to Microsoft and say. Hey, we have all these years of research by hundreds of people, on the greatest aviation mystery of all time. TIGHAR believes that the world would be a better place if this research was preserved in the form of a flight simulation for the world market. Similar to their historically correct Pacific and European Combat Flight Simulators. TIGHAR would purpose that Microsoft organize a team of designers to start on the Earhart simulation with TIGHAR'S full cooperation and resources. Ron Reuther pointed out that it was Apple that used AE's image in one of their marketing campaigns. Would a Microsoft Earhart Flight Simulation be a "quid pro quo" ?

Microsoft has done most of the work already. All that's needed is a VERY good Electra. Put the airports back to 1937. AI (Artificial Intelligence) Navy and CG & Civilian Surface vessels. Island installations. A chronology. Logs. A Personality Profile of the key players ala CFS 2 & 3 combat pilots. I hate to say this but now Ric gets a cut of sales off the store shelves at Best Buy. Gee you might have to pay taxes.

>....The problem is that I don't know the specific performance of her
>particular plane.....[AC]

What do you think Oscar has been trying to do?? I think the Lockheed reports have the numbers to put into the simulation and Oscar has turned those numbers every which way but loose. Ask the Microsoft people what they need to know to make the Electra perform and feel like it should. If they can make their FS airplanes and the WWII fighters have different feels to them, then the Electra should have that feel too. TIGHAR could supply the names of a couple of 10A pilots from Canada to act as consultants on the feel or you know "who" could.  I'm sure TIGHAR has anything Microsoft would need know.

>...All you can do is simulate YOUR idea of what you THINK were the
>actual conditions....[AC]

Yes, and I found Howland by turning onto the 337/157 LOP 37 nm NW of Howland by using the continuous Lat & Long read-outs (Shift Z). It seemed that I was doing things (GMT) after they radioed they were doing things (GMT). I was using a geographical fix to make my turns and Noonan was using time to make their turns.

What's so nice about an Earhart simulation is that it has no official ending or winner. Joe Klaas could take-off at Lae to over-fly the Marshalls and take photos (shift + PIC).  TIGHAR could put the wreck of the Norwich City in the graphics and expose enough reef for a real hairy landing site at Niku. I would insist on some Japanese at Mili Atoll building a harbor with NO airport where the airport would become in '39' AND the Koshu. The Crash & Sankers,...what can I say,...they'll be tickled to death because THEY GET THE WHOLE OCEAN TO CRASH INTO ! :=)

Daryll

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

Thanks for all the advice but we'll continue to work on finding the conclusive answer to the riddle rather than finding ways for people to indulge their fantasies.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:09:31 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: NR16020 Antennas?

Ric said:
> You're the lawyer.  You tell me.

I'd feel comfortable using that explanation in court. End of the antenna thread. <G> Let's see how many other threads we can get rid of that easy. <G>
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:27:27 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

> What Joe [Gurr] accomplished was to totally screw up the radios so that nothing
> worked worth a darn.  In Miami, Pan American did what they could to fix the
> problem by internal modifications (probably a "loadng coil") but the dorsal
> antenna remained at the inappropriate length. [Who says???]

It's amazing that there was such a bunch of stumblebums involved in the Earhart flight, and that Ric has the remarkable ability to expose them all.

Let's see; there's all the members of the press, including C. B. Allen (Aviation Editor of the NY Herald Trib), the reporters aboard ITASCA, Lockheed employees, the Coast Guard radiomen, Comdr. Anthony, the PBY pilot, the COLORADO and LEXINGTON search pilots, Comdr. W. K. Thompson, Joe Gurr, the PanAm technicians who didn't know the first thing about aircraft antennas, etc. etc.

Beneath contempt are such writers as Goerner, Osborne, Rich, Dwiggins, Goldstein, the Longs, Lovell, Strippel, et al.

However, Guiding Lights are various sharp-eared and imaginative radio listeners (especially "Betty") and solid Niku citizen Emily, and a host of believers (expert and otherwise) on the Forum.

How comforting it is to have kindly old "Professor" Ric sorting everything out for us! He deserves a statue, even if only papier mache'!

Cam Warren
************************************************************************
From Ric

Replying to your question about who says the dorsal antenna remained at the inappropriate length after Miami: every photo of the airplane taken during the World Flight.

It's real easy Cam.  Just look at the location of the forward antenna mast. For the first WF attempt it was mounted at Fuselage Station 162 .  When it came out of the repair shop in Burbank and right up through the Lae takeoff photos the forward mast is at Fuselage Station 129 5/8.  Whatever Pan Am did in Miami, the outward appearance of the airplane did not change except for the skinning over of the big non-standard cabin window on the starboard side and the addition of two brackets on the fuselage just aft of the cabin door. ===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:30:24 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

Carol Dow wrote:

>There is a huge gap which exists in the Earhart story concerning the sudden
>cessation of radio transmissions. If Earhart headed for Gardner-Nikumoro why
>didn't she announce her intentions? For as much trouble as that airplane was
>in you would think emergency pleas for help would have gone out all over the
>airways. The truth of the matter is there was nothing but stone silence.

Okay let's take this point by point.

You say "If Earhart headed for Gardner-Nikumoro (sic)"

Earhart's intentions were not to find Gardner, so no need for her to broadcast that. Her intention was to find Howland. Big difference. Even as she flew southeast towards Gardner (if indeed that's what she did), she was still hoping to find Howland because she knew she was following the 157-337 line and perhaps she had been way far north of Howland, and circumstances led her to Gardner in her attempt to find Howland.

"why didn't she announce her intentions?"

She did. She told Itasca exactly what she was doing, that she was following the 157-337 line, in her continued attempt to find Howland. How much more specific can you be, given that Earhart clearly was lost?

"For as much trouble as that airplane was in you would think emergency pleas for help would have gone out all over the airways."

See Ric's explanation of why Earhart might have broadcast on 6210 and Itasca couldn't hear her. But ... she has already told Itasca she is lost ("We must be on you but cannot see you") and that her fuel is running low at 07:42 am, according to Itasca's log. She knows Itasca heard her because she hears Itasca broadcast to her in code.

"The truth of the matter is there was nothing but stone silence."

Okay, so Itasca has heard that Earhart is lost and low on fuel, and Earhart knows that Itasca heard. Her next broadcast heard by Itasca contains her emergency plan, they are looking for Howland along the 157-337 line. Instead of your interpretation of stone silence, it appears that Earhart is giving the world all the information that she can possibly give us, which is her current search plan. This is a key point, Carol, please don't overlook this, what more could she tell Itasca if she was lost?
--
Paige Miller
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:34:22 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: hearing an airplane overhead

In reply to Alan regarding my statement about 10,000 feet -

According to my research we have 4 sources giving AE's altitude (however, I have searched and searched the website and can't find the Itasca's Log references, so I have excluded them). The first reference I checked was Kelly Johnson's telegram which I have summarized below and which "recommends" that the first 9 hours of the flight be flown at ever increasing altitudes (but all below 10,000 feet) and that after 9 hours AE should fly at 10,000 feet for the remainder of the flight (we'll assume she knows to let down from 10,000 in order to land at Howland). Next, we have note from Chater which gives three positions from AE of 7,000 / 10,000 and 8,000. However, this does not agree with Collopy's account which stated that she was at 7,000 feet on the last report. Now, whether you buy Chater or Collopy, she was not typically at the altitudes recommended by Johnson, except at the last reported by Chater of 8,000 feet. In the other instances she was always higher. In the first report she was at 7,000 feet which is 3,000 feet higher than the recommendation. In the second report she is at 10,000 feet which is 4,000 feet higher than Johnson recommended, but then at the third she is back down at 8,000 feet (per Chater) which puts her back on the recommended altitude. Of course, she may have stayed at 8,000 for the rest of the flight, but IF she was attempting to stay with Johnson's figures, then she would have been at 10,000 from the ninth hour on. We can see from the reports that she is all over the sky, or she can't read an altimeter. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, but since I don't have any other sources of reports and she did seem to be trying for the higher altitude (second report of 10,000), I would say that she did fly at 10,000 for the majority of the course, unless she had to drop down to get under some clouds again.

However, the few weather reports that we had do not show any other significant weather. As a pilot, heck as a ground pounder, I know that it can be raining cats and dogs everywhere except the weather bureau and they'll tell us that it is severe clear. I've seen the local weather reported as less than 1/10 of an inch of rain at the "official" gauge at the airport and the news people will be showing localized street flooding for the rest of the city.

Finally, as stated above, I concluded that AE "probably" maintained 10,000 through the remainder of the flight and should have been at that altitude when she passed over any "ships in the night".

In Kelly Johnson's telegram, Mar 11, 1937 - he states (and I abridged):

3 hours 1800 rpm @ 28 inch - 4,000 feet - 073 = 58 gal/hr
3 hours 1700 rpm @ 26.5 inch - 6,000 feet - 073 = 49 gal/hr
3 hours 1700 rpm @ 25 inch - 8,000 feet - 072 = 43 gal/hr

After 9 hours -

1600 rpm @ 24 inch - 10,000 feet - 072 = 38 gal/hr

In Chater's report:  At 10:00 a.m. the machine was taken off -
He goes on to state that subsequently, AE reported the following:

2.18 p.m. (4 hours-18 min later)

The Lae Operator heard the following on 6210 KC -"HEIGHT

7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS

 3.19 pm (5 hours - 19 min later)

on 6210 KC- "HEIGHT 10000 FEET POSITION

5.18 p.m. (7 hours - 18 min later)

"POSITION 4.33 SOUTH 159.7 EAST HEIGHT 8000

Per Collopy's letter:

At about three p.m. a message came through to the effect that they were at 10,000 feet but were going to reduce altitude because of thick banks of cumulus clouds. The next and last message was to the effect that they were at 7,000 feet and making 150 knots, this message was received at approx. 5 p.m.

LTM,
Dave Bush
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:38:52 EST
From:         David Katz
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

From David Katz

> Or, as Emily Letitia (Gilda Radnor) used to say on Saturday Night Live.
> "Never mind."

Just so everyone keeps their snipes straight, it was Emily Litella, as portrayed by Gilda Radner (no relation to Amelia Earhart).

David Katz
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you, thank you.  Gotta keep this stuff accurate.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:43:07 EST
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

> People here can get hard on
> each other at times so don't be put off.
>
> Alan
> ********************************************************************
> From Ric
>
> Do you have any idea how tempting it is to subtly edit that last sentence?

Ric, you scare me when you start thinking like a sailor.

Kerry Tiller
************************************************************************
From Chris in Petaluma

Ha Ha!  I always suspected you were a pervert  Ric!  Funny I didn't catch it the first time.

Chris#2511  (just kidding)
*********************************************************************
From Ric

That's "prevert".
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:06:43 EST
From:         Herman
Subject:      Re: Oh, oh

Ric wrote:

>The important thing to remember is that those tragic crashes resulted in the
>damage or total loss of extremely rare and valuable reproductions but the
>historic originals had already been destroyed in the process of making the
>aircraft flyable.


Well Ric, for once I have to disagree. There are many replica flying in the US but the Messerschmitt Bf-109G was not a rare reproduction and the original had not been destroyed: it was the original airplane the British had captured in the North African campaign in 1943. It was brought to Britain, R.A.F roundels were painted on it to avoid being shot at by friendly fire and it was test flown, I believe at Boscombe Down, to find out the characteristics of this latest German fighter plane. Then it was stored. After the war it was moved to the Imperial War Museum which hangared it at its Duxford branch. In the Nineties it was decided to make it airworthy again. This means that the original Daimler Benz engine was overhauled and put back at zero time and the airplane next flew at several airshows as I wrote. It was not a reproduction. In my opinion neither was the Boeing 307 a reproduction after the original had been destroyed. It was (and still is) the only example remaining of ten that were ever built. Boeing polished it up, had the engines overhauled and made sure the instruments operated. Then it was flown by very experienced company pilots until they ran out of gas.

LTM     (who likes i's  dotted and t's crossed)
************************************************************************
From Ric

Herman, do you really think that returning those aircraft to safe flying condition involved only the overhauling of the engines?  After more than half a century in storage do think that they used the old control cables, fabric control surfaces, electrical wiring, hydraulic hoses, tires, radios, etc., etc, etc. ?  These airworthy rebuilds, even if they start with an undamaged, corrosion-free airframe, involve a complete gutting of the internal structure and its replacement with new material - in many cases better and safer than the original.  Do you suppose the rudders on those airplanes are covered with cotton or Ceconite?  Brakes are almost always upgraded - and rightly so.

A "restoration" is returning something to a previously known appearance through the minimal introduction of new material.  A "reproduction" is returning something to a previously known appearance through the significant introduction of new material.  There may be a restored historic aircraft flying somewhere, but I sure as heck don't want to fly it.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:36:51 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

From Bill Shea

> Thanks for all the advice but we'll continue to work on finding the
> conclusive answer to the riddle rather than finding ways for people to
> indulge their fantasies.

 I would suggest that Tighar would still continue to work on finding conclusive answers whether it added this new feature or not. If it's a bad idea and just would not work then fair enough. Tighar would be the only website in the world that would play host to everyone wanting to present their idea of where they think the 10E is located.

Look what it would do for Tigher:

1. It would keep the  "fantasies" off the Forum  Using a Guestbook form would add the inputs automatically. Not sure if plotting each entry on a chart with a mark could be done automatically, but I assume good website people can make it do this.(getting the data from each entry;s positon.)

2.Tighar would probably gain more membership and therefore more interest

3.Tighar would get, say, $15 per entry.

4. Most important, It encourages more debate on the Earhart Question which is what I thought all of this is about.

All it takes is to add a redisigned Guestbook for  showing name, position of the Electra, and a short paragraph to write why.). Tighar would have to set up software that would accept people's credit cards (maybe it already does this?), but once this is done, you could add more Tighar items for sale. (People like me are lazy, if i can order and pay via the internet I seem to buy more.)

Before you say no to this idea, take a look at the Mid Atlantic Air Museum's attempt to raise money to rebuild a DC3,s engine. They had volunteers create the planes textures, the panel, and the sounds, which turned out to be one of the best Flight Sim planes ever  created. The museum sold the CD of the DC3 to raise money, they also allowed downloads and accepted donations for it. Not sure how much they made but I believe they accomplished their goal and now use the same method for raising more money for newer projects.

Cheers from Bill
************************************************************************
From Ric

I see the problem...you're under the impression that our purpose is to encourage more debate on the Earhart Question.  Quite the reverse is true. There has been plenty of debate for 65 years.  Our purpose is to end the debate with conclusive evidence.

What we want to encourage is good, solid research and reasoning that will help us achieve that goal.  We're not interested in encouraging and publicizing bad research and flawed reasoning.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:39:50 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Radio matters

Randy, Ric,

Read it again:

Is it known for a fact that Colorado was listening on a 24hr basis on 6210 and 3105 on their run past Gardner on 9TH JULY? Colorado was only 48 nm away from Gardner at 07.00 hrs, 1 hr 43min earlier than when they picked up AE at 08.43 on 2nd July and was less than 30 nm away at 10.45.

To precis it says:

Was Colorado listening.... on July 9th?  Colorado was only 48nm away at 7.00 am  (at this date implied), 1hr 43min earlier (in the day) THAN they ( the ubiquitous "they" meaning someone, meaning Itasca) picked up AE on July 2nd. AND the Colorado was less than 30 nm away at 10.45 (on the 9th implied). Incidentally the track of Colorado drawn (presumably) by Lambrecht does not show it as close to Gardner as 15nm.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks for the clarification.  What map are you looking at that was presumably drawn by Lambrecht?
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:40:47 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

For: Paige Miller
Very good points. Appreciate your comments. Looking forward to seeing the Brandenburg SNR analysis from the Professor.
Carol Dow
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:42:01 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: hearing an airplane overhead

Dave, I'm aware of all that but you missed my point which I did not make very clear. You said, " We're pretty sure that AE stayed above 10,000 thru most of the trip."

You may be but I'm not. I'm being a stickler for accuracy here because in truth we don't know what altitudes she flew. As you pointed out, "We can see from the reports that she is all over the sky, or she can't read an altimeter. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, but since I don't have any other sources of reports and she did seem to be trying for the higher altitude (second report of 10,000), I would say that she did fly at 10,000 for the majority of the course, unless she had to drop down to get under some clouds again."

No one is sure what altitudes she flew other than the few times she reported an altitude.

Some forumites are trying to replot her flight in the hope of learning something new or useful but that can only be done if their inputs are accurate. I would rather they realize they might have to use various altitudes as they game this out rather than be misled into thinking all they need to do is plan a flight over 10,000 feet for the majority of its duration.

Alan
===============================================================

Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:43:45 EST
From:         Chris in Petaluma
Subject:      Re: NR16020 Antennas?

>I think that, in part, because the lead from that antenna enters the
>fuselage under the nose right where the receiver was located (under
>the copilot's seat).

Wow, just shows you what you can miss.  I had no idea that we didn't know for sure what that belly antenna did!  Maybe it helped hold the aircraft together.

Chris#2511
************************************************************************
From Ric

Hmmmm...external bracing.  Carol?  What do you think?
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:45:29 EST
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: The real story....

It is my information that the 307 the is being restored to static display condition and will never fly again.

LTM
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, it will be the centerpiece of the new Seattle Water Park.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:59:13 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Advice needed

TIGHAR will soon be introducing a major new feature on the TIGHAR website. The TIGHAR Marketplace will be a separate section that will accept advertising in the form of hotlinked banners from companies wishing to reach the website's more than 1,000 individual visitors per day.

This could be a significant source of funding for the organization and we want to make sure we do it right.  I'd like to ask anyone on the forum who currently buys or sells adevertising on the web to contact me off-forum at TIGHARIC@aol.com if you are willing to share with us any suggestions or information you have about pricing, marketing, banner design or other business-related aspects of web advertising.

Again, this will be a separate section of the TIGHAR website that we will encourage everyone to visit but we will not be inserting advertising into the research and information pages.

Thanks for your help,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 16 Nov 2002 13:00:41 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Radio matters

For Angus:

Ah...I now understand.  You're comparing transmissions at a particular time of day to when the Colorado passed Gardner at approximately the same time of day, but on a different day.

There is no evidence that the Colorado listened to 3105/6210 beyond approx. July 5th.  Not to say that they did or didn't, but there's no written evidence either way.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:05:46 EST
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

One unpleasant result of charging forumites for their postings would be that the forum woud dry up because people might prefer not to spend their money on other things. This is the most dangerous thread I've seen so far on this forum.

LTM (who grew up being taught not to throw money out of windows)
************************************************************************
From Ric

Settle down Herman.  I don't think I ever suggested that we should charge people to read or post on the forum.  We've considered proposals like making it a requirement to be a TIGHAR member to post, or setting a 30 day limit for free forum access after which you'd have to be member to stay on the forum - but ultimately we come down on the side of a free forum just the way it has been for the past six years now.

We don't want to coerce anyone into joining TIGHAR or contributing to our work.  Most people who like what they see here and get enjoyment and information from the forum and believe that there is value in the way we conduct our investigation, will join TIGHAR - not because they have to but because they want to.  There are some who have a real interest but just can't afford the $55 ($45 for students and seniors) and we certainly don't want to cut them out.  There are some who think it's clever to get something for nothing, and life is too short to worry about folks like that.  And there will always be a few who take advantage of the forum to try to advance their own agenda, and it's just a whole lot of fun to watch that backfire.

So put your mind at rest.  The forum will stay free.

Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:33:23 EST
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: Oh, oh

I think the term "restoration" has been hopelessly broadened to the point where it is no longer useful to describe true restorations.  I'd encourage Tighar to develop and advocate a new term for such projects.  At the very least, I think any description of a restoration should contain the context or date that the object has been returned to.  For example, I have "restored" my Grandfather's 1975 pickup truck to the condition and appearance of its use on his farm circa 1977, mainly by replacing rusted sheetmetal and repainting it the original color.  I get a lot of grief from fellow hobbyists who insist I have failed to "restore" it because this truck still includes circa 1975 aftermarket accessories installed by my Grandfather to make his vehicle more functional.  They also think I should seek out and add factory options that were never present on this particular truck to complete the "restoration".  I'm happy to keep it consistent with the old family photos.

LTM, who sighs when she is told of a "restored" 1951 Ford F-100 with a Chevy V-8, Mustang front clip, chrome wheels, and Corvette paint.
- JMH #0634C
************************************************************************
From Ric

John, you're absolutely right.  "Originals", "Restorations", and "Reproductions" are meaningless unless the context is specified.

We would never pretend to invent a new definition.  The definitions have already been fought out and agreed upon by preservationists over the last couple hundred years.  The problem has been that the aviation community doesn't know that.  Consequently, every old airplane museum and "restoration" shop has invented its own definitions designed to make their own airplanes look as good as possible.  The result, of course, is chaos.

Several years ago we researched and compiled a Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology.  A number of air museums, mostly small museums in Europe (Malta, Hungary, etc.) have offically adopted the TIGHAR standard, but the big museums have too much at stake to abandon their own definitions.  The aviation division of the International Association of Transportation Museums (IATM), the closest thing there is to an international aviation museum association, tried to develop standardized definitions that would be accepted by its members - and fell flat on its face. ("I have an original ME109 and I'm not about to let some committee tell me that it's a reproduction.")

We've long made the TIGHAR Guide available in printed form free to any air museum and sold it to individuals for $10.  As soon as we can find the time we'll put it up in the preservation section of the TIGHAR website so that everybody can ignore it for free.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:35:31 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

> Sorry, Daryll, you may find it insulting, but that's just what MS FS is, a
> game. Live with it.
>
> Dave

to Dave, maybe you should tell that to two of our armed forces who are making cadets use FS2002 prior to them actually flying in a plane...It seems their understanding of flying improves and their exam grades are higher.I would think being more aware of the problems of flight would help one in a forum like this one, but what do i know, I only play games of fantasy..

Ric wrote:

>I see the problem...you're under the impression that our purpose is to
>encourage more debate on the Earhart Question. Quite the reverse is true.
>There has been plenty of debate for 65 years. Our purpose is to end the
>debate with conclusive evidence."

From Bill,  Ah, now I understand where you're coming from. Cheers
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:36:42 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Daryll to Alan, Bill, Ric. Oscar

Alan wrote:

> >(that figure is based on drawing a line
> >thru the 3 positions they called back to Lae
>
> Bill, tell me what those three positions are.

Alan, I stand corrected, i drew the Course Made Good line thru the 2 positions they called back to Lae and thru the position of the SS Myrtlebank when AE talked to Nauru which turned out to be a straight line.
Cheers
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:55:11 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Radio matters

Angus' post about the radio reception times reminds me of a question I had in my mind a while back.

USS Colorado started from Hawaii, and so was presumably on Hawaii time at the beginning of the cruise.  Was the time on board changed when they got into the area so as to coincide with the Itasca's clocks, or with Howland time?

I did some research a while back and learned that customarily, when a ship moves into another time zone the time change is generally made early in the morning of the day it will be entering the new time zone.  According to the source (Navy training command)a notation would be made in the deck log of that time change.  Do you recall seeing any such notations in your copy of the Colorado's log, Ric?  My reason for asking is to try to clarify if chronological references in the Colorado records are consistent with chronological references made by Itasca, for example.  (In other words, does 07:00 hrs on the Colorado occur at the same time as 07:00 hrs on the Itasca).

As I recall (see my prior post regarding my memory!) Itasca time and Howland time were different.

ltm
jon
************************************************************************
From Ric

Excellent question.  There is a line called "zone description" at the top of each page of the log.  When COLORADO departs Hawaii on July 3rd the notation "plus 10 1/2" appears on that line.  On July 5th it changes to "plus 11" and on July 8th becomes "plus 11 1/2".

ITASCA was following the same protocol so when ITASCA and COLORADO are in the same Navy time zone their times should agree.  The Dept. of Interior guys on Howland stayed on Hawaii Time as a matter of convenience.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:56:12 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: hearing an airplane overhead

Alan, you are, of course, correct about being an absolute stickler for accuracy. And my comment about 10,000 feet for most of the trip is total conjecture. I was trying to make the point that those who are trying to say that they can hear an airplane from a ships deck have to clarify their statements by telling us at what altitude the other aircraft was being flown. Also, you have to take in to consideration the aircraft, as they don't all make the same level of noise. The 10E is noisy, but at 10,000 feet it may be quieter than a J-3 at 2,000 or less noisy than a F-16 on the deck!

I was, however, trying to point out that my conclusion of 10,000 was not just a shot in the dark, that there is "some" basis for justification. BUT NO ONE CAN SAY FOR CERTAIN WHAT ALTITUDE SHE FLEW AT - SHE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE DECK THE REST OF THE WAY OR AT 12,000 FOR ALL WE KNOW.

LTM,
Dave
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:00:09 EST
From:         Guus
Subject:      Re: yep, just a silly little game

OKEE Daryll, I agree what you have said, and Dave and Ric keep listening to all those millions of serious flight-simmers in the world, maybe lots of them (and I am one of them) are SERIOUS interrested in the appearance and (disappearance) of the wonderfull persons Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, and contribute the TIGHAR organisation with that same SERIOUS ATTITUDE.

I am collecting over THREE YEARS reliable real evidence to make THE flight of all flights (with ABACUS, Around the world)

And TIGHAR does, and I want to think SERIOUS with all off you.

Think SERIOUS about the simulations, the possibilitys are endless. (MS)

we are living in a simulated world, and do not deny that. NEVER.

Guus. #2527
************************************************************************
From Ric

Gulp.  I wonder who's manipulating my joystick.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:02:54 EST
From:         Chris
Subject:      Instrumentation

I have been following the forum for the past three months, and at the risk of looking like an amatuer, was there any reason to believe that there could have been problems with the airplane's instrumentation, causing the AE to believe she was flying on one line when she was actually flying on another.

Chris
************************************************************************
From Ric

Easy question.  No.

You can postulate all kinds of instrument failures or miscalibrations but there is no reason to believe anything like that happened.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:11:29 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Radio matters

Ric wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification.  What map are you looking at that was
> presumably drawn by Lambrecht?


Lt. John Lambrecht's Report on the Search of the Phoenix Islands - Tighar website - last page. This shows the track of Colorado (dotted) and, if it is to be believed, Colorado did not come as close as 15nm to Gardner.

 In 1840 USS Vincennes reported the island visible in clear weather at a distance of 15 miles, which seems to gel with the lookout's report, so the map may be at fault.

I did find a piece written by a marine on board Colorado who hung around the radio room during the aerial search and it would seem that the radio operators were busy communicating with the pilots rather than listening for messages from AE - which rather confirms what you allow - they weren't necessarily listening continuously, if at all, on 3105 and 6210. Doesn't tell us much but does allow the possibility, at least, that AE & Co were still transmitting late into the search.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks, I had forgotten about that map.  Remember that although we often refer to what Lambrecht wrote as his "report", it really wasn't.  It was an article he wrote for a Navy newsletter.  His map is more of a ballpark sketch than an actual chart of the search.  Randy Jacobson has plotted the actual path from the COLORADO's deck log.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:12:25 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Radio matters

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> Ah...I now understand.  You're comparing transmissions at a particular time
> of day to when the Colorado passed Gardner at approximately the same time of
> day, but on a different day.

You got it.

> There is no evidence that the Colorado listened to 3105/6210 beyond approx.
> July 5th.  Not to say that they did or didn't, but there's no written
> evidence either way.

Thanks for the info.

Regards Angus.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:49:35 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

Sigh! Whatever your qualifications as (self-appointed) world's greatest expert in the field of "Historic Aircraft Recovery" and Restoration (let's see, at last count, the total number of historic aircraft recovered by TIGHAR was reaching . . . . zero?) you need to brush up on radio theory and practice.

I don't believe I said anything about moving the antenna mast; I merely queried your statement indicating the ANTENNA was an inappropriate length. The physical location of the MOUNTING POINTS would determine the MAXIMUM length of RADIATING wire, but not a minimum (which could be almost zero).

Something over 40' was available, and ~40' would be an ideal length for a transmitting frequency of 6210 kc, and a less efficient - but certainly usable - length for 3105. You imply the antenna was too long. If so, it would be a simple matter to shorten it, by cut-and-try (and inserting an insulator) if no other means was available. I'm sure PanAm technicians were perfectly familiar with tuning an antenna, and had the equipment necessary to do a precise job. (Oh sorry, I forgot they were stumblebums!)

As for your notion that the belly antenna was for the communications receiver, "located under the co-pilot's seat", that's possible, but highly unlikely. Common practice in aircraft installations was to use the same antenna for transmit and receive, the appropriate switching being accomplished by an electrical relay. The reason being that a transmit antenna, resonant to (in this case), 6210/3105, is a highly efficient receiver for the same frequencies. Why use a short belly antenna, with a better one available?

My belief is - as previously stated more than once - that the belly antenna was intended as a "sense" antenna for the Bendix DF, which utilizes such an arrangement to A) eliminate the 180 ambiguity problem, and B) provide a more sensitive initial receptor to pick up the homing signal, prior to switching to the directional loop. Loss of this belly antenna on take off would be somewhat inconvenient in receiving a DF signal (7500 kc in this case) but would NOT totally incapacitate the DF receiver.

It's real easy, Ric!

Cam Warren
************************************************************************
From Ric

Show me the insulator that shortens the antenna.  The insulators that are there are easy to see - two at each attach point (mast and vertical fins). As I said before, whatever Pan Am did (if anything) had no visible effect on the physical antenna on the outside of the airplane.

You keep talking about what you believe and I keep talking about what we can see.

Show me where I ever claimed to be world's greatest expert in the field of "Historic Aircraft Recovery" and Restoration.  All I claim to be is the executive director of the world's leading aviation archaeological foundation and I'm very comfortable defending that statement (most because I can't think of any other aviation archaeologcal foundations).

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:04:36 EST
From:         David Kelly
Subject:      Re: Oh, oh

I have to disagree with some of your definitions.

Restoration is the maintenance of the existing fabric of an aircraft to a previously known state by removing any introduced material not associated with this previous state.

Reconstruction is the re-building of an aircraft to a known state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new materials.

Reproduction is an entirely new aircraft based on data from various sources.  If could be a aesthetic reproduction whereby it is designed to look like the original, or it could be a detailed reproduction whereby original materials, design, structure etc are reproduced.

These definitions are based on the international treaties for the historic buildings and monuments, however, they are just as relevant to aircraft as they are to a vase or a building or other such structure.

Regards
David
************************************************************************
From Ric

You caught me.  I said reproduction when I meant reconstruction.  We're actually in agreement. Here are the definitions from the TIGHAR Guide which are based, in part, on the same conventions you cite.

Restoration (means the same as "repair")
Returning the existing materials of an object to a known earlier state with minimal introduction of new material.

Reconstruction
Returning an object to a known earlier state by means of repair of the existing fabric and, to a substantial degree, its replacement with new materials. (Note: "Fabric" in this context means all of the physical material of an object.)

Reproduction
A copy of an existing object.

Replica
An object constructed to represent, to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy, an object which existed at some previous time.

There are many more definitions in the Guide.  We'll put it up on the website soon.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:06:50 EST
From:         David Kelly
Subject:      Re: Amalgamated Wireless

Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Ltd., better known as AWA, was formed in 1913 by Ernest Fisk.  He was apparently a friend of Marconi.  AWA sort of went quiet for a few years when wireless sets were banned during WW1.   However, in June 1921, they gave a wireless concert in Melbourne where the souvenir programme contained the message "quite unnecessary for any of the windows to be open as the wireless waves are not hindered by obstacles however thick".

These days, AWA have little to do with radio etc.  They have really become an investment house.

Regards
David Kelly
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:10:20 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Oh, oh

> A "restoration" is returning something to a previously known appearance
> through the minimal introduction of new material.  A "reproduction" is
> returning something to a previously known appearance through the significant
> introduction of new material.  There may be a restored historic aircraft
> flying somewhere, but I sure as heck don't want to fly it.

They must be everywhere.  The JFK assasination car was just sold at auction, "lightly restored"!  I guess that to someone, it is important that it is driveable.

Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263
***********************************************************************
From Ric

As noted in an earlier posting, I mispoke myself. I said "reproduction" when I meant "reconstruction".

The Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan had that car.  I'm kind of surprised they let it go.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:12:27 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      For Bill Shea

Bill provided this URL:

http://www.roychaffin.com/press.html

Thanks Bill for the reference on the DC-3 simulation. That's the kind of quality I was thinking of for the 10E. I will send them the $25 for their CD as opposed to downloading it for free. Come to think of it, it's a good thing that TIGHAR doesn't under take something like that on the 10E, it would end up costing $400 like the desk top model.

If you run across a 10E simulation with that kind of quality that the DC-3 has let me know at DaryllB25840@webtv.net (DaryllB25840@MSN.com). I'll will now get back to my airplane "fantasies" as opposed the the other fantasies taking place on this
Forum.

Daryll
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:34:36 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Landing distances.

What would one expect to be the approximate minimum desirable runway length for landing the Electra 10E at low fuel-load/payload, 80deg F, sea level, gentle braking and assuming the aircraft crosses the threshold at a height consistent with AE's likely usual practice:

a) assuming still air?
b) assuming light headwinds (say 5kt)?

How much more would one need for a touch and go?

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

This isn't science but I'll give it a shot.

Movie film of the airplane landing on the hard surface runway at Burbank in what appear to be no wind conditions suggests that airplane could get stopped in about 800 feet with no problem.  My guess would that a 5 kt headwind would shorten that distance by maybe a hundred feet.

The film shows a rather steep, full flaps, approach and a flare to a full-stall three point touch down.  Whether that was routine or not, I don't know.

Even a smooth reef is not like the runway at Burbank and I would expect the rollout distances to be shorter, and significantly shorter if there was any standing water on the reef.  More than six inches of so of standing water might make the landing distance REAL short when the plane flipped onto its back.

Touch and go?  Depends on how much you slow down after you touch before you decide to go but you have to select the flaps up and wait for the flaps to retract electrically before you goose it so my guess would be that you'd need at least 1,200 to 1,500 feet for the whole performance.
===============================================================
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:39:02 EST
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: yep, just a silly little game

Reference recent comments as to the value of computer AE World Flight Simulation - Is there a forumite or two working on Time Travel? - Maybe an author quoting forumite can reference a passage or two from H.G. Wells "Time Machine" - Just  having a lighter moment.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
************************************************************************
From Ric

You may be on to something. Some of the postings to this forum definitely originate in an alternative universe.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:20:48 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

Bill Shea wrote:

>to Dave, maybe you should tell that to two of our armed forces who are
>making cadets use FS2002 prior to them actually flying in a plane...It seems
>their understanding of flying improves and their exam grades are higher. I
>would think being more aware of the problems of flight would help one in a forum
>like this one, but what do i know, I only play games of fantasy.."

Which two services, may I ask? Now they use a computer game instead of spending time in a Link trainer, as they used to... so what? Problems of flight? Anyone who has had their butts stuck on the tarmac at SFO for over two hours trying to escape the People's Republic of San Francisco will be fully cognizant of the problems of flight.

My point is, any sim-generated solution to this specific problem will just be another wild ass guess. There are too many unknown variables to give a solution any validity.

I play flight sim games, too, but I realize that's just what they are -- games. What prompts my comments are the remarks from non-pilots who firmly believe that playing a simulation grants them some sort of "authority" to speak to real life situations and events. I am not a pilot; I do not pretend to be or fancy myself one. If you're a licensed pilot, please continue your analysis; if not, being the Wiley Post of your neighborhood doesn't bestow upon you any degree of expertise.

Happy computing, Poindexter!

LTM (who knows Tom Clancy for the dilettante he is),
Dave
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:22:43 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: yep, just a silly little game

Tom Strang wrote:

> Reference recent comments as to the value of computer AE World Flight
> Simulation - Is there a forumite or two working on Time Travel?

I'm working on time travel, Tom. So far I've been able to travel 70 years into the future. The only drawback is that I had to start in 1932. It has worked though.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:24:19 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Landing distances.

Angus asked:

> What would one expect to be the approximate minimum desirable runway length
> for landing the Electra 10E at low fuel-load/payload, 80deg F, sea level,
> gentle braking and assuming the aircraft crosses the threshold at a height
> consistent with AE's likely usual practice;

Angus, if your real question is "Could she land the Electra safely on Niku?" I can tell you my experience as an instructor pilot teaching short field landings tells me she would have had little trouble. If the landing area was wet or under a few inches of water it could have been a little touchy. You'll guess that I taught in C-130s which had reverse and that's true but I also flew C-45s which was somewhat similar though smaller than the Electra.

As Ric suggested it would have been a full flap landing but it would need have hung on the props for the last little stretch rather than a steep approach. At whatever point she didn't mind touching down she needed to be near stall.

The wind factor would alter the technique depending on what it was. If it was gusty she had to carry a slightly higher airspeed but in any case there was nothing sticking up she had to clear so she could get the plane down pretty low and drag it in.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:32:15 EST
From:         Joe Weber
Subject:      Re: Landing distances.

I'm new here, but I will put in my two cents

Ric wrote:

> Touch and go?  Depends on how much you slow down after you touch before you
> decide to go but you have to select the flaps up and wait for the flaps to
> retract electrically before you goose it so my guess would be that you'd need
> at 1,200 to 1,500 feet for the whole performance.

 Why retract the flaps?  When I was instructing in T-37s the only thing you retracted was the speed brake.  The T-38s didn't retract anything - ' course they had lots of power - which the '37 didn't/doesn't.   The only reason you might want to retract the flaps is if you are heavy - but then I would leave them at 1/4 to 1/2 for added lift.

FWIW

Joe Weber

Bedford, IN
************************************************************************
From Ric

Things are a wee bit different in a 1934 design.  My guess is that a 10E, empty, might get off with full flaps but you'd be staggering along in ground effect.  No fun.  I imagine that taking off in that airplane with flaps in transit would be a real interesting experience.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:42:41 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Airports and sharks.

Is AE ever known to have referred to Howland as Howland Airport? This seems a bit of a grandiose term for AE to use (in Betty's Notebook) for a temporary landing strip.

Would there be obvious danger from sharks in water "knee deep over" the reef? "Are you so scared (of a few sharks)", "we can't bail out", "I can't make it" "(if you don't) hear from me" seem to suggest there might be and explains AE's reluctance to leave the aircraft in spite of the heat.

If sharks come on to the reef in knee-deep water, a blooded Noonan might have been at considerable risk. I believe sharks can sense blood in the water at considerable distances and the mixing due to the surf would facilitate this.

Regards Angus
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't recall an instance when AE referred to Howland specifically in a radio message at all so I don't know aboput calling it "Howland Airport".  It does have a weird ring to it but what else would you call it?  Howland International?

Do sharks come up on the reef in knee-deep water?  You bet your kneecaps they do.  The Blacktips aren't very big.  They probably average about four feet in length.  They can scoot around in little more than ankle deep water with half their body out of the water if they're in hot pursuit of a school of fish. When the water on the reef is shallow like that you get these sudden explosions of thrashing and splashing when some Blacktip decides to make a play for dinner.  Heck of a show.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:47:41 EST
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Amelia's Electra: wood model

Pacific Aircraft (warplanes.com) has this entry:    "Lockheed Model 10, Amelia Earhart."    It's item number KLE, on page 18 of the current catalog.   Wingspan is 17 1/2 inches and length is 12 1/2 inches.     Price is $149.95.

I have no connection with this firm.  (For that matter, I have no connection with any company making money.  But that's another story.)   I'm not sure why I got the catalog.

LTM,
Mike H.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:51:23 EST
From:         Charles
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

>It's amazing that there was such a bunch of stumblebums involved in the
>Earhart flight, and that Ric has the remarkable ability to expose them
>all.

One thing I've noticed over the short few weeks of reading this forum is how other researchers are unfavorably characterized by forum regulars.

I got interested in TIGHAR and the AE search after attending a talk given by Tom King and subsequently reading the book he co-authored. Since then, I've read a few other AE books as well.

After his talk at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, I mentioned to Mr. King that I appreciated his fact-based approach to the mystery.  I'm impressed with TIGHAR's dedication to supportable facts and evidence.

However, I'm a little shocked at how some folks in this forum portray other researchers in the field as idiots, attention seekers or loons. The motivations of the folks who worked on the Glacier Girl are similarly 'dissed.

I'm not defending any of these folks, their theories or motivations. Rather, I wish to call out that TIGHAR gains nothing by having an adversarial attitude with other AE researchers.  Rather, TIGHAR comes across as arrogant and narrow minded.

Just a observation from a newbie.

-Charles
************************************************************************
From Ric

So noted.  Thank you for your candor.
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:57:40 EST
From:         Daryll
Subject:      I just can't pass this one up...

I'm not going to pass this one up. I only wish I could take credit for it. In the exchanges between Cam and Ric, someone picked up on this and we ALL had a good chuckle over it. Ric is quoted below;

>From Ric
>
>.....All I claim to be is the executive director of the world's leading
>aviation archaeological foundation....

Yes ! Ric Gillespie is executive director of "LAAF"!

Daryll
************************************************************************
From Ric

As Charles has said, "... TIGHAR gains nothing by having an adversarial attitude with other AE researchers."
===============================================================
Date:         Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:30:07 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Guide is up

The TIGHAR Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology is now up on
the website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/guide.html
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:30:17 EST
From:         Carol Dow
Subject:      Antenna

On the belly antenna, I talked with a man named Smith (something) quite some time ago at the old K.C. downtown, and he is an avionics expert from way back (so I was told). He works on the TWA Super "G" Constellation they have hangared out there. So Smith is telling me the position of the belly antenna(s) are exactly where a marker beacon antenna would be. Way back when pilots flew the "beam," they evidently used a marker beacon antenna to mark the center of the cone (low frequency) and radio navigation purposes. Smith was saying if he knew the exact length of the antenna, he could tell me exactly what is was used for. My old V-tail Bonanza had a marker beacon antenna in exactly in the same position as Earhart's Electra. However, that would be for outer marker, middle marker, inner marker ... ILS approach, and not the same thing. I don't know enough about flying "beams" except to say there was an "A" quadrant, an "N" quadrant, and a solid signal on the center of the beam. Can you tell the exact length of the torn antenna? Also, I am slightly confused (as usual) over whether there was one belly antenna or two belly antennas on Earhart's Electra. Smith (an old timer) is telling me belly antennas were used for marker beacon purposes only. That's all I know (so far).
Carol
************************************************************************
From Ric

The belly antenna ran from the starboard pitot tube at Station 31 to the aft mast at Station 254.  Fuselage stations in the Model 10 were numbered according to the number of inches from "datum" which was the tip of the nose, so Station 31 was 31 inches back from the tip of the nose.  You can see, therefore, that the belly antenna was 223 inches long (254 minus 31).  I think you'll find that marker beacon antennas are much, much shorter.

************************************************************************
From Ron Bright

Re: Location of the dorsal antenna

In Tighar's printed configuration of the Electra, the dorsal mast is at "Sta.125" on the center line.
This is closer to the 129 position.
Or is this a mistake in the schematic or am I reading it wrong?

RE Bright
********************************************************************
From Ric

Good catch.  That's a mistake on the schematic.  To be precise, the mast is at Station 129.5.
***********************************************************************
From Alan 

Cam, was the antenna setup on AE's Electra belly unique to her plane or were all 10Es built with a belly antenna? Secondly, were the 10As similarly outfitted?

Anyone can answer, of course.

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

Radios were not considered "standard equipment" and were installed at extra cost according to the customer's desires.

Lockheed specs (revised 5/1/36) include as part of the empty weight:
" 1 Complete Western Electric Two-Way Radio, with fixed trailing antenna."
***********************************************************************
From Cam Warren

Ric wrote:

> Show me the insulator that shortens the antenna.  The insulators that
> are there are easy to see - two at each attach point (mast and vertical
> fins). As I said before, whatever Pan Am did (if anything) had no
> visible effect on the physical antenna on the outside of the airplane. 
>
> You keep talking about what you believe and I keep talking about what
> we can see.

(An even longer sigh!!!!! or, why do I bother? "This fellow is dancing mad - he hath been bitten by the tarantula!")

Go to the blackboard, and write this 100 times: A radio antenna radiates most efficiently at a length directly proportional to the operating frequency.

Radio waves - like all physical waves - are sinusoidal, 360 degrees total, which is a positive "pulse" of 180 degrees followed by a negative one of the same length. To radiate a RF signal, an antenna equal to half the wavelength works just fine; a quarter wavelength (90 degrees) is acceptable.

If, for physical installation reasons, a quarter wave length is not possible you can get less ideal results by "fudging". That involves a loading coil, which electrically lengthens the wire, but not the actual radiating length. (And it's unlikely PanAm techs installed a loading coil, unless it was to be switched in for 500 kc, and for that, they'd need a BIG heavy one.)

If you look up the formula and do the math, you'll find a quarter wave at 6210 kc works out to be 39.62 feet, which can be accomplished quite comfortably with a dorsal "V" antenna on the Electra. There are three "stand-off" insulators, one at the forward mast, one each at the fins. Yes, I can see them in the photographs, and I'm happy that you recognize them for what they are. IF the antenna was too LONG, you merely chop the appropriate length of RADIATING wire from each aft end of the V, ADDING an appropriate length of "Dead" (NON-radiating wire) on the two aft
ends.

Are you still following me? Good! So that would have moved the two aft insulators forward by a few inches. IF that was necessary to do - I don't think it was - You could stare at photos all day long and probably not notice the insulators had been moved.

WHERE the dorsal antenna was tapped "is beyond the scope of this paper" as we say in scientific circles, since it doesn't really alter the length to frequency relationship.

Now, before you jump up and wave your hand, let me go on record that I spoke theoretically. In a practical installation, other electrical factors come into play - distance of radiating wire from the fuselage, length of the lead-in wire, etc. etc. - but such minor variations are counteracted by a bit of fine tuning (such as by electrical "trimming" at the transmitter and/or receiver).

Yes, I "keep talking what [I] believe" which is radio theory and practice, and you "keep talking about what we can see" in a fuzzy photo.

Cam Warren (former NBC network broadcast engineer, FCC First Radiotelephone Operator, National Association Broadcast Engineers & Technicians, charter member Audio Engineering Society, etc. etc.)
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you.  I apologize for my admitted ignorance in radio theory and for my annoying habit of insisting on hard evidence like documents and photographs. I remain puzzled by the fact that nobody can see the insulators that shorten the antenna even though you yourself have no trouble seeing the stand-off insulators.  I'm also puzzled by your reference to a fuzzy photo.  I would have thought that you knew that there are quite a number of photos of good, sharp quality that show the dorsal antenna during the World Flight.  I do, however, agree with you that installing a very heavy loading coil does not seem like something Earhart would condone.

It really leaves us with an interesting conundrum.  Mike Everette, whose expertise in radio theory is as superb as mine is abysmal, has calculated the dorsal antenna length at 54 feet - some 33 percent longer than the optimum length specified for the 13 series transmitter in the HF range.  You insist that Pan Am shortened the effective length to - what was it? - 39.62 feet? - by adding "dead" wire to the aft end of each leg of the vee.  Let's see, assuming they kept it symetrical, we should look for some change in the wire precisely 7.19 feet forward of the aft stand-off insulators.  Darned if I can see anything there, but then, you predicted that I wouldn't.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:32:16 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

Dave in Freemont asked:

>Which two services, may I ask?

I believe the Coast Guard began it, now it is being used by the US Navy. Air Cadets in Canada are getting it too. Not sure who else.

And I quote a bit from a CNN story: Cadets who used the Navy version of Flight Simulator in a test run this summer "had significantly higher flight scores...and fewer below average unsatisfactory flight scores,"

>What prompts my comments are the remarks from non-pilots who firmly believe
>that playing a simulation grants them some sort of "authority" to speak to
>real life situations and events

I dont think that anyone who has mentioned Flight Simulation here has ever said they were now "some sort of authority.....".  In fact, I mentioned before that while I can fly a simulation, if i was to jump into a real plane and took off I would be the first one to crash. The US forces seems to think that flight simulators adds to their programs, I just thought that Tighar might use it too, if only to raise funds. Lighten up.
Cheers from Bill
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:36:00 EST
From:         Pete
Subject:      Re: I just can't pass this one up...

Oh yeah, LAAF....Locators of Amelia AND Fred....I kind of like it!

Hey Ric, have you convinced your horse you exist yet?  :)

Love To Mother
Pete  #2419
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes.  He has developed a philosphical argument that goes (translating from the Latin), "He feeds therefore he is."
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:46:30 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

I think it was the Navy that first stumbled on this, when one of their aviation cadets who was flying the trainer on his computer in his spare time did significantly better than his peers.  They did a study and found that it did make a difference.

Personally, I really enjoy mine.

ltm
jon
************************************************************************
From Ric

Hey, I'm not knocking flight simulator games.  My stick is sitting right here.  It's great to roll inverted and not get a face full of dirt, cigaratte butts, and the occasional dead cat.  I don't doubt that there is some overlap of skills with real flying although desk-top flying should not be compared to the sort of simulator training done by Flight Safety or the airlines.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:02:58 EST
From:         David
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

I am one of those who read the forum everyday for all the information and various opinions on the Earhart mystery  submitted. I have always been keenly interested in the subject and glad TIGHAR is around to try and uncover the truth, and in the process debunk many of the myths we have all read about or saw on TV.

You are the only one who has gone to such great lengths to uncover evidence to support your idea of what happened and at the same time consider all other theories, past and present, and take time to post evidence suppporting or not supporting these theories in a very substantial way. While I am no expert in any technical area of this endeavor I do enjoy keeping up with all the ideas presented, as I am sure others like me do. I always try to encourage others I know to visit the forum, and I hope for a TIGHAR membership for the new year!

 By the way, will there be a TIGHAR Ebay store? David

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

Probably eventually, but right now we're developing some new ideas for the TIGHAR website which we think will be more beneficial to TIGHAR and to the membership.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:14:37 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Hooven Report up

There is a new document available in the Documents section of the TIGHAR
website at

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.htm 

Another way to find it is just go the Earhart Project main page and click on Documents.

Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:27:27 EST
From:         Brent
Subject:      Re: Other Expeditions

Have read on the internet of another Expedition that went to Niku and used underwater probe like machines to search reef etc.

Did this group have any success with finding info or not

Brent
************************************************************************
From Ric

Must be a reference to one of our earlier trips.  We've been there six times now and, yes, we've have great success finding info.  Nobody else has ever searched Niku for Earhart except a guy named Lambrecht and another fellow by the name of Gallagher.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:29:54 EST
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: Guide is up

I think John Dudley is confusing AE's Lockheed 10E with the Lockheed 12 used by Sydney Cotton, a British businessman who was actually a spy. His "business" (Aeronautical Sales & Research Corporation operated several aircraft on spy flights over Germany in 1939. Two were modified Lockheed 12. One aircraft was registered G-AFKR. It was fitted with a French 30 cm camera and used to photograph Krefeld, Hamm, Munster, the Dutch border, the Black Forest, Wurtemberg, Karlsruhe, Bruchsal, Heidelberg, Mannheim Ludwigshafen and Eberback from 15,000 ft. The aircraft later photographed the Italian port of Tripoli and the airfield at Castel Benito and was handed over to the French and registered F-ARQA. Two more Lockheed 12 were ordered, one for the French (F-ARPP) and one for the British. The latter was NC 16077. This aircraft was registered as G-AFTL in Britain and was operated by Aeronautical Sales & Research  Corporation, which was a front for Cotton's spying activities. The aircraft was flown by Sydney Cotton and  Canadian co-pilot Robert Niven. Cotton installed extra fuel tanks behind the cockpit and three F24 cameras in the fuselage, one vertical and two oblique, enabling an area 111 miles wide to be photographed from 21,000 ft. The cameras were concealed by sliding panels and the system was operated electrically from the cockpit. Cotton flew the aircraft from Heston to Berlin on a business trip on 26 July 1939. The aircraft had been modified to carry two cameras in the wings behind sliding panels. Later places of interest were photographed on business flights in July and August 1939 including Wilhelmshafen, Sylt, Berlin, Mannheim and the fortifications of the Siegfried Line.

LTM
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:29:12 EST
From:         Simon Ellwood
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

Well, similar to Ric, I both fly and "play" Flight Sims.

Where Flight Sims. score is really in teaching the basics - "push this forwards, nose goes down" etc. etc., and perhaps teaching skills such as navigating on instruments in IMC.

However, Flight Sims. are totally "feel-less". Every good pilot, even in a highly instrumented "glass" cockpit still uses bucket fulls of "seat of the pants" to fly that no Sim. can ever attempt to provide or match.

Even the multi-million dollar 6-axis airline sims., (those cockpits that move around on hydraulic jacks) can only simulate "feel" to a limited degree as they can't sustain a g-loading, although they use clever tilting to simulate accelerations under power/braking/banking etc. - the total g-loading can never total any value other than "one" - except very momentarily as the jacks change direction.

I don't agree that Flight Sims. are "silly little" games - but they are however to most people - entertainment, and so must be classed as games in that context.

LTM

Simon Ellwood #2120
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:38:54 EST
From:         Harvey
Subject:      Re: Antenna

Ron Bright wrote:

>...In Tighar's printed configuration of the Electra, the dorsal mast is
>at "Sta.125" on the center line.

can Ron or someone else please steer me to these configuration drawings? They would be useful to me when I have configuration related questions  as I develop the engineering model.

Also,Ric refers to " Lockheed specs (revised 5/1/36) include as part of the empty weight..." I realize that each 10E version had a unique empty weight but I would like to know for reference purposes what Lockheed quoted here. Thank you

Harvey,#2387
***********************************************************************
From Ric

The drawings Ron referred to are three-views we put out as an 11x17 stuffer in an issue of TIGHAR Tracks we put out several years ago.  We still have a few and I'll be happy to send one to any TIGHAR member who wants to contribute five bucks for postage and handling.

The Lockheed spec sheets show a standard empty weight for the Model 10E as 7,100 lbs.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:41:51 EST
From:         Carol
Subject:      Re: Antenna

Ric,

I'll talk to Smith later this week at the "Save a Connie" group and see if I can get him to write a blurb for the group. My personal opinion on the wire is that Earhart's engines picked up something off the ground on takeoff at Lae and threw it up in the air. Part of the maintenance procedure on aluminum propellers was to file the leading edge. They are forever nicked and gouged from flying junk off runways. In fact, if it's bad enough it means a new prop. Those engines act like giant vacuum sweepers as the plane moves down the runway...grass or asphalt or whatever...no difference. The question is if something went flying up in the air what was it? Will talk to Smith at "Save a Connie."
Carol Dow
************************************************************************
From Ric

The film clearly shows that the puff of dust erupts under the cabin of the aircraft AFTER the props are well past.  Maybe somebody flushed the toilet.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:51:54 EST
From:         Cam Warren
Subject:      Re: Antenna

Ric, you are either completely misreading what I wrote, or you are deliberately obfuscating the subject for your own purposes. I DID NOT "insist that Pan AM shortened the effective length [of the dorsal antenna] to - what was it? - 39.62 feet ...." That is the theoretical optimum length for 6210 kc. IF, as you keep insisting, the TOTAL wire was TOO LONG, Pan Am could easily have shortened it, by the obvious method of reducing the length of RADIATING wire. (If you'd paid attention during my previous lesson, you'd know that 2x39.62 would be optimum for 3105 kc, but that's about 79'. It would be counter-productive to fit a BIG loading coil to make up the difference between Mike's estimated 54' available in any event. I'm sure, by that time, the techs weren't trying to provide "more wire" for 500 kc. Forty feet would be just fine for 6210; reasonably adequate for 3105.)

As is all too often your response to any input contrary to your treasured beliefs, your statements are misleading and deceptive. Of course, when you can produce accurate, scaled photographic evidence, sworn testimony, or confirmed Pan Am work orders (or confessions of guilt!) to support your position, I'd be happy to concede the point. Until then, let's drop this discussion.

Cam Warren
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I'm happy to drop the subject if you like but I really don't understand your objection to what I said.  I think I can show you good sharp photos that show the entire length of the dorsal antenna with no hint of a break where anyone interupted the radiating length, but I somehow doubt that would convince you.  Sworn testimony?  From whom?  I can probably get sworn testimony that Amelia Earhart was Tokyo Rose.  I'd love to see Pan Am work orders for whatever they did in Miami but I doubt if work orders will ever surface describing what they didn't do.

I guess we should just drop it.
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:52:52 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Okay Let's Argue

For David -

Don't lament the fact that there's not going to be an Ebay store any time soon - all things TIGHAR can be ordered right from the website!

By the way Ric, I think my dog had the same Latin teacher...

ltm
jon
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:54:56 EST
From:         Alan
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

>  I don't doubt that there is some overlap
> of skills with real flying although desk-top flying should not be compared to
> the sort of simulator training done by Flight Safety or the airlines.

I think there's been a bit of misconception in regard to the value or lack thereof in the Flight simulator.

Daryll's advocacy of FS started out as an implication that we could refly the AE mission and learn something significant toward solving the mystery. Not a bad idea and Bill sort of joined in.

I have pounded the idea as is well known but in truth there may be some value for those who are not fliers or who have not flown in the conditions AE flew in. Flying the leg from Lae to Howland and then wherever one's inclination might take them might be an enlightening experience for some. Here's my suggestion. Set up the weather to be mildly hazy and with scattered CU. For those who think the plane went north to the Marshall's cross Tibiteaeu at the north end of the island and set a ESE wind of 15 Knots but take up a no wind Mag heading to Howland. Use AE's times and at the 157/337 radio call head NW toward the Marshalls. FN's strip map would not go that far so you will just have to meander up that way. See what happens.

For the "went back to the Gilbert's" folks do the same thing except at the proper time head West.

If you're part of the Phoenix group head SSE.

Have fun.

Now as to the value of the simulator vs real flying, of course there is. Whether it is FS or a real simulator they both teach proceedures. I flew many hours in real simulators and had check rides in them. They were procedural check rides checking emergency and instrument procedures. In no case did they subsitute for the same check rides in the actual airplane. They were merely supliments.

If the pilot has the various procedures down pat of course he or she will do better than those who do not. THAT'S the value of a simulator. It does not substitute for actual experience in a real airplane.

I would guess that a person who has a lot of Flight Sim experience in a particular plane would crash the real version less badly than someone who has NO FS experience.

Alan
===============================================================
Date:         Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:00:49 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Lockheed 12/spy

Herman,

Where were the Lockheed 12s modified for camera ports? Burbank? or someplace else.

Ron Bright
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:16:12 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Antenna

Guys, I hate to be dense but did all this answer my question of whether (and I modify) other 10Es or 10As had belly antennas? I understand your reply, Ric that they were individually ordered but otherwise I still don't know whether other Model 10s had belly antennas.

Cam, do YOU know?

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

Apparently belly antennas on Model 10s were quite rare. Francillon's "Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913" has 12 photos of various Electras.  Here's the antenna tally:

10A c/n 1001 X233Y (the prototype) - no dorsal, no belly, trailing wire unknown.
10A c/n 1063 CF-AZY (Canadian Airways) - no dorsal, belly unknown, trailing wire present.
10C c/n 1006 NC14259 ( PAA Alaska Div.) - no dorsal, no belly, trailing wire unknown.
10C - same airplane as above on skis.  No dorsal, no belly, no trailing wire.
10A c/n 1052 USN Bu. No. 0267 - very tall dorsal mast at Sta. 162, no belly, trailing wire unknown.
10E c/n 3501 USAAC XC-35 - no dorsal, no belly, no trailing wire
10B c/n 1040 NC14962 ( Chicago & Southern Airlines) - no dorsal, belly unknown, trailing wire present.
10A c/n 1026 N38BB (Provincetown-Boston Airlines, 1980 photo) - no dorsal, belly mast at Sta. 223, trailing wire unknown.
10E c/n 1055 NR16020 (Earhart Electra, March 1937) - loop, dorsal mast at Sta. 162, two parallel belly antennas with masts at Stas. 147 5/8 and 254, trailing wire from mast at Sta. 269 5/8.
10A c/n 1092 ZK-AFC (Union Airways, New Zealand) - no dorsal, belly mast at Sta. 147 5/8.
10A c/n 1147 CC-228 (LAN, Chile) - no dorsal, "football" loop under chin, belly unknown, trailing wire unknown.
10A c/n 1114 AX700 (RAF serving in India) - very tall dorsal mast at Sta. 93 5/8, no belly, no trailing wire.

In fact, the only Electra I can find with a belly antenna as long as Earhart's is the other 10E Special, c/n 1065, NR16059.  The "Daily Express" had a tall dorsal mast over the cockpit at Sta. 66 and parallel belly antennas set up exactly like Earhart's were before the Luke Field wreck.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:17:09 EST
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Guide is up

for John Dudley  check out the wreck photo update the enlargement of the forward cabin there is an oblong door on  what I claim in the bottom of the forward cabin. Ric claims that it's just sheet metal there. But I think he is wearing the Emperor's clothes.
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:20:13 EST
From:         Warren Lambing
Subject:      Re: Hooven Report up

Great report.  Let see if I follow him, he put the radio transmission time line completely in GMT right?  Ok I have not been reading the group at least not all the post (time keeps getting in the way), so I am not sure if Betty's radio has been dismissed or (what I suspect, just not conclusive), but this transmission in the report is similar to what Betty heard, quote from the report:

"1130-1230/5Navy Radio at Wailupe and SS. Moorby "281---north ----
KHAQQ ---be on --north--don't hold --- with us---much longer----above
water--shut" voice on 3105 2 "

and the time is more reasonable for that frequency, I know it is not anywhere near a match for Betty's notebook, as far as the time, 1130-1230 GMT,  which is 6:30 - 7:30 AM U.S. Eastern Standard Time, but I am willing to bet there would a great possibility to receive that Frequency at that time in the mourning, from Gardner in St. Petersburg FL.

Also he mentions quote:

"Two reports from dependable sources reported hearing Miss Earhart's voice after the end of the flight. One of these sources was the group of amateurs who had submitted their report to the Federal Communications Commission. Far from being a group of irresponsible "cranks" as the official report implied, this was a serious group of scientists, engineers and businessmen who had the best, state-of-the-art equipment."

Would the FCC still have that report?  Has anybody seen it?  And what if any details did it contain?  If nobody has seen it is it worth looking for it?

Regards.

Warren Lambing

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

Good catch Warren.  No, we have not seen that report.  Can somebody check with the FCC to see if it still exists?
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:25:11 EST
From:         Van Hunn
Subject:      PT109

Some time back when the forum was discussing the undersea search for the L10 by Nauticos(sp), someone mentioned that Bob Ballard had located JFK's PT109. For those interested, National Geographic will present "The Search for PT109" on MSNBC, Sunday, 24 Nov, 8PM ET/PT.  More information is on the web at nationalgeographic.com/pt109.

In this search, they finally found one torpedo and part of a launch tube in 1200 feet of water in the Guadalcanal battle area.  Smoking Gun that this is PT109?  Maybe the NG film will convince me.

Van
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:49:27 EST
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Hooven Report up

Ric,  I did look at the Hooven report that you posted on Tighar's website in the last day or two.

I am surprised and disappointed that you did not make mention in your "About This Report" which is your introduction to Hooven's Report, that Fred Goerner had written you about March/April 1989 saying he had  spoken with you and said, "that Hooven had discarded the idea of McKean and Gardner[Nikumororo] Islands as possible landing sites for AE's 10-E because additional research had indicated the islands had been searched, visited, surveyed and occupied many times since AE's 1937 flight.

Fred told me and I believe told you and many others and wrote that McKean and Gardner Islands were first overflown by the planes of U.S.S. COLORADO during the Earhart search in 1937.  In 1938, both islands were closely surveyed by U.S.S. BUSHNELL as possible U.S. bases.  The crew of BUSHNELL were surprised to find a colony of 80 Polynesians headed by a white magistrate from New Zealand living on Gardner.,  During WWII, the U.S. Coast Guard constructed a Loran staion on Gardner, and McKean was visited several times to make sure the Japanese were not up to something there.

Fred continued saying. that in the 1950's and 1960's, both islands were surveyed again by the U.S. as we were constructing tracking stations in the Phoenix Group for the Pacific missile range and for the space shots.  Both islands were visited and surveyed again in the 1970's, and the Smithsonian sent a bird-watching and counting expedition to McKean.

Goerner continued on to say Gardner is 3.8 miles long and 1.5 miles wide. McKean is lesss than one mile long and one-half mile wide.  Surely if the Earhart plane had been on either island, it would have been found by the myriad of service personnel and civilians who had visited and even lived on the islands."

 Fred said referring to considerable information in his letter dated march 1, 1990 to you, "The above information was what finally dissuaded Fred Hooven from the Gardner conclusion."  In the same letter Goerner said, "As I discussed with you by phone and as I wrote to Mr. Gerth, Fred Hooven and I dismisssed the possibility of Gardner or McKean because of the massive amount of information that made such a conclusion illogical.  We arrived at the conclusion that the most logical places to search were the tiny reefs which lie between Howland Island and the Phoenix Islands."

I believe that Fred Hooven himself, published another article after his 1982 article which acknowledged that he was mistaken in his earlier conclusion that they had come down on either Gardner or McKean, and that he then believed Earhart and Noonan had come down northwest of Howland Island. At the moment I can't put my finger on it.

I really think you should modify your About This Report to reflect Fred Hooven's later conclusion as to where Earhart and Noonan might have come down and his disavowal of his earlier conclusions.

Ron Reuther
************************************************************************
From Ric

We have presented what Fred Hooven wrote, not what Fred Goerner told me Hooven later came to believe.  Hooven says in his report that he thought the Japanese came and took Earhart and the plane away.  Why subsequently learning about later activity at Gardner would change that opinion is a bit baffling, especially because his conclusion that McKean or Gardner was the landing site was based on his analysis of the radio bearings - and they don't move.  But if you can produce further writings by Hooven that update his research we'll be happy to include them on the website as long as there is no copyright restriction.

Fred Goerner had lots of opinions about what could not possibly have happened on Gardner because so and so would have surely seen thus and so.  He was, for example, aware of the Floyd Kilts story about bones having been found on Gardner that were thought to be Earhart's.  I won't embarrass his memory by quoting the letters he wrote to me describing his own investigation of the Kilts story and his derisive dismissal of the possibility that there could be any element of truth in it.  As you know, TIGHAR has since uncovered solid documentation that proves that the basic elements of Kilt's story are, in fact, quite true.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:54:35 EST
From:         Guus
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

Alan wrote:

>I think there's been a bit of misconception in regard to the value or lack
>thereof in the Flight simulator 
>
>Daryll's advocacy of FS started out as an implication that we could refly the
>AE mission and learn something significant toward solving the mystery. Not a
>bad idea and Bill sort of joined in.

Okee, that's the point.

Lots of forum-people are arguing in there head, they read, they think, and set up conclusions. That's okee, every one does. (that's science) More scientific is to add experiments to your science. Take a ship and go to NIKU. That's the thing !!!

But in a semi-popualar science forum like TIGHAR is, you have to search for other "more realistic" issues. (A) Flight-Simulator probably will add more science   ;-)  to the main issue to solve the mystery of AE/FN.

 Guus Dekker #2527
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:52:56 EST
From:         Ross Dewitt
Subject:      Re: Fred and the bottle.

> 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.

Benedictine is would not be the choice of somebody with a drinking problem. Try the stuff!  I had two favourite liquers when I was around 20ish. Benedictine and Drambui.  neither are the kind of drink you sit and down to get drunk or to satisfy a habit.  Rum, whiskey etc and even wine are far superior for that.

On the other hand, Fred and Amelia were guests of the French on occasion in various locations and a bottle of Benedictine is just the sort of thing a French official might have given them as a souvenir.

Th' WOMBAT
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:55:57 EST
From:         Guus
Subject:      no FS experience ?

Alan wrote

>I would guess that a person who has a lot of Flight Sim experience in a
>particular plane would crash the real version less badly than someone who has
>NO FS experience.

Last week I step into a Cessna 172 for my FIRST introduction-flight. (with the instuctor) I take-off, flew, and set the plane on the ground. I did it (almost) myself. 3 years ago, I do not know anything about flying. What I have learned in FS "makes me fly".

Guus #2527
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:56:52 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Lockheed 12/spy

To Ron Bright

According to my information it was not in Burbank. But it might be interesting for someone to check with Lockheed Burbank. This was a secret operation. Sydney Cotton, who had bought rights to a method of color photography invented by Frenchman Louis Dulay in 1932, had formed a company called Dulaycolor Ltd. In September 1938 he was approached by one Alfred J. Miranda of the American Armaments Corporation, who was associated with Squadron Leader Fred W.Winterbotham of RAF Intelligence in the Air Ministry. The French "Deuxieme Bureau de l'Armee de l'Air" (French air force intelligence service) was collaborating with MI6 (the British Secret Intelligence Service) in developing espionage systems to be used over western Germany. Miranda and Cotton flew to Paris where they discussed matters with one Paul Koster, who was the European representative of the American Armaments Corporation and it was agreed that a civil aircraft should be used. Upon his return to London, Cotton met Winterbotham and the two decided that a Lockheed 12A would be  the most suitable aircraft if fitted with extra fuel tanks. One was sent from America, arriving (by sea) in Southampton in January 1939. The Aeronautical Sales & Research company was formed as a cover and the to men flew the Lockheed 12A to Tousus-le-Noble in France where French camera equipment was installed. I understand that the first modification was therefore done in France on the British aircraft. Later it was registered in France as were succeeding French Lockheed 12s The modifications to the British aircraft were done at Heston in Britain, which was the airfield where Aeronautical Sales &Research Corporation was operating from.

By the way, the Lockheed 12 were not the only aircraft used for the spy flights. When war broke out on 3 September 1939 Sydney Cotton's company was commandeered and became the Heston Flight, with Sydney Cotton its commanding officer with the rank of Squadron Leader. The flight then began to operate converted military types like the Bristol Blenheim bomber and the Spitfire fighter. In November the Heston Flight became the No 2 Camouflage Unit. After the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) had moved to France it became the Photographic Development Unit (PDU) and the overseas element became the Special Survey Flight, stationed at Meaux (France). On 10 February 1940 the overseas element became 212 Squadron RAF. At that time it was flying converted Spitfire C race planes. In June (when war was raging in France) it received both Blenheim IV and Lockheed Hudson I aircraft and was operating from Seclin airfield (near Lille) and Nancy.
LTM
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:57:46 EST
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: Lockheed 12/spy

I'm too quick at the trigger. 212 squadron was not operating Spitfire RACE planes but recce planes of course. I'm sending the corrected story again.

LTM
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:00:22 EST
From:         Jon Watson
Subject:      Electra 3 views

> From Ric
> The drawings Ron referred to are three-views we put out as an 11x17 stuffer
> in an issue of TIGHAR Tracks we put out several years ago.

For those who don't have one, they're nifty.  I had mine dry-mounted and it hangs on the wall above my monitor.  Well worth five bucks.

ltm
jon
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:59:33 EST
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: Bubble sextant

Some time ago there was a lot of comment on Fred Noonan's navigation technique, his accuracy and his use of the sextant. Incidentally I came across some comment from a navigator who is not  related to this forum but had a lot of experience with navigation and flying with the aircraft of the generation we are dealing with on this forum. I thought it might be interesting to read his comments (which are in reply to somebody from South Africa who has recently bought a bubble sextant).

----------------------------------------
Hello  I was a navigator with the RCAF in WWII and so had to learn how to use the "bubble" sextant to take angle of elevation measurements of stars as well sun and moon. Using that info and a book I could determine our position usually within 3 miles if all was done correctly. It was not exactly easy but I could get our position within 6 minutes. Not good by today's standards but adequate for some of our conditions.  Hope this answers your questions. Norm  (proud holder of the Burma Star medal).
===============================================================
Date:         Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:01:52 EST
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: bubble sextant

Further to my prevous posting I'm adding another comment from someone not related to this forum but illustrates the degree of tchnology used in the 30s and 40s when navigating over oceans. If anything it shows how ill prepared Amelea Earhart was for her flight across the Pacific.

--------------------------------------

Way back in the early 40s I was an Airborne Radio Operator and made several trips to Prestwick Scotland and North Africa via the N. Atlantic and the S. Atlantic. We always had a Navigator aboard and he used the Sextant for navigation. The big problem in using that devise was you had to be on top of any cloud formationms. As the Radio Operaator I had to take radio fixes periodically to back-up or augment the Navigators's position calculations.

===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:22:42 EST
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

Guus wrote:

> (A) Flight-Simulator probably will add more science   ;-)  to the main
> issue ...

"Garbage in, garbage out."

There is a flight-simulator already running on the TIGHAR web site.  It consists of the fuel calculations done by Oscar and others, the navigation data, and the boundaries set by the radio messages received in transit.  The flight simulator runs in people's heads.

Transferring that model of the flight to a game environment would not change the calculations of the odds one bit.  And it might induce errors, because the computer flight sims require more parameters than we have accurate measurements for.  The goal is not to model airplanes in general, but one particular airframe that is no longer avaiable for flight-testing.  No flight tests, no validation of the computer sim, no reasonable scientific results.

LTM.
Marty #2359
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:28:28 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Lockheed 12/spy

For Herman

Re: Electra modifications

Controversial reseacher Randall Brink writes [ p.109]  that a Robert T. Elliott, a veteran of Lockheed Aircraft Co., told him about modifications to Amelia's Electra after the Luke Field crash. Elliott claimed, Brink says, that he cut two 16-18 inch diameter holes for cameras [ Fairfchild arerial survey type] in the lower aft fuselage bay.  This was done at the old Lockheed Plant at Burbank, California. It was of course "secret".

Elliott says it was an "Electra" off the regular line. All of this infers it was of course Amelias 10E.

I don't know if any other researcher has interviewed Elliott,reportedly at Mt San Antonio College, in Cal.

Or maybe Herman this was an Electra 12 modified for England and or France as you described.

Brink further claims that Carol Harris, (deceased), former Highway patrolman and friend of Goerner's described seeing a huge file drawer of secret ONI material at Washington DC c. 1940s while working as a yeoman there for the Navy. One of the files, said Harris, described the secret camera modification. ( I found Mrs Harris, widow, still alive and well in Sacramento, but she knew nothing more and said she had no files, memos, etc to corroborate her husband's claim).

Anyone have any further details.

RON BRIGHT
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:29:12 EST
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Yep, just a silly little game

If I make a "flight" on the FS, and fly directly west of Lae, and crash in the Indian Ocean, does this make it any more likely that Earhart did this? I'm sorry, I just can't make this into science. 

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:01:05 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Hooven Report up

> "1130-1230/5Navy Radio at Wailupe and SS. Moorby "281---north ----
> KHAQQ ---be on --north--don't hold --- with us---much longer----above
> water--shut" voice on 3105 2 "

Interesting how this varies from the radio report from Wailupe as listed by Tighar corresponding to the above time. The above lacks "HOWLAND.....CALL" and "BEYOND" has become "BE ON". "SHUT OFF" is "SHUT" instead. This makes one wonder if the report is based more closely on what SS Moorby believed they received rather than Wailupe. (Of course it could be just poor reporting of the Wailupe radio log).

 It is also interesting because it appears to show the phrases, which are limited to either one or two words only, and shows how deceptive it is to string them together without the intervening words.

Has any search been made for the log of SS Moorby?

Regards Angus
************************************************************************
From Ric

Hooven was wrong.  SS MOORBY never heard the 281 message or any other post-loss transmission.  MOORBY was simply recruited to go look because she happened to be close to  281 miles north of Howland. Hooven footnotes his version of the message to Thompson's "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight" report but even Thompson's much-flawed report does not claim that MOORBY heard anything.  In fact Thompson specifically notes that neither ITASCA nor MOORBY heard what Wailupe heard and cites that as support of his opinion that the message was "faked".  Thompson accurately quoted the phrases heard by Wailupe:

FOLLOWING COPIED NAVY RADIO WAILUPE 1130 TO 1230 GCT QUOTE 281 NORTH HOWLAND
CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF
UNQUOTE  KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND CARRIER FRAGMENTARY
PHRASES BUT COPIED BY THREE OPERATORS.

Hooven simply got it screwed up.  There are several other errors in his paper.  For example, the 175 degree bearing from Wake (that passes right though Gardner on his map) was actually taken by PAA Mokapu in Hawaii.

This is one of the reasons we were a bit hesitant to publish Hooven's work. It's interesting as a historical document but it should not be taken as up-to-date research.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:02:30 EST
From:         Bill Shea
Subject:      Simulators again

Daryll wrote:

> If you run across a 10E simulation with that kind of quality that the
> DC-3 has let me know

I only know of two 10E's on Flight Simulator - the best one by Daviator.com. But if you really want a definitive 10E then you have to have a group of people who all pitch in and create these models. One such group is called The Old Geezers and you can check out their latest model - A B26 Invader at http://www.sim-outhouse.com/~dakota93/gzr/gzrindex.htm. They are very good at
what they do. Maybe they could be persuaded to create the Electra for Tighar to use in raising cash. 
Cheers from Bill
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:04:53 EST
From:         Chris in Petaluma
Subject:      Titanic/Glacier Girl

Just curious Ric on your thoughts on whether relics should have been raised from the Titanic for preservation or left on the bottom? Would we be ruining its historical significance by removing it from its historical resting place?

Chris#2511
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm rock solid with Bob Ballard on that one.  The TITANIC should have been left undisturbed.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:07:04 EST
From:         Jim W.
Subject:      Yep, just a silly little game

In an article titled Future Flight in the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association magazine, AOPA Pilot, April, 2000, pg. 127, there is a description of a student, who had never flown before, entering the U. S. Naval Academy with the hope of flight training.  To enhance his chances he used MS FS '98, modified it to create a Beech T-34C Mentor and local landmarks near Corpus Christi, Texas, practiced 40 hours, and graduated near the top of his class.  The Navy was impressed and experimented with its modified version for other entering candidates and liked the success, thus issuing it to all its flight students.

As the article states, simulation is good for teaching rote tasks and is not a substitute for being in an airplane.  It is a very useful tool to use to compliment in-flight training.  My personal experience as an instructor anecdotally verifies simulations usefulness.

Jim W.
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't think there is any question about the value of simulator training.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:23:27 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      The moon and Noonan

Navigators all,

If Noonan was unable to get any star fixes and only "fixed" his postion by way of a moon and/or Venus and sun cut after dawn, what degree of confidence could he have had in his latitude in terms of miles?

Regards Angus
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:42:22 EST
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Hooven Report up

First of all, I would like to apologize to Daryll and Bill regarding the simulator subject. I don't see what would be gained in the exercise, but to each his own, so please pardon me for overreacting.

Next, I'm a little confused on the subject of the "281" message.

1. If there is one, what is the TIGHAR position/opinion regarding the "281" message?

2. It seems to me a little odd that if AE couldn't find Howland, how would she know that she was 281 NM north of someplace she couldn't find?

I know this has been explained before, but I just can't recall the previous discussion.

LTM,
Dave
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, this message has been talked about a whole lot.  TIGHAR's position on the 281 message is that it is interesting for several reasons.

- It's the only occasion when an "official" station received meaningful (even though fragmented and cryptic) content in a transmission.

- Not many people knew that AE and FN were not adept at sending code so a hoaxer would have to be very well-informed to know to send "very poor keying".

- None of the searchers sent poorly keyed messages so the chance of a misunderstanding seems minimal.

- The fragmentary phrases "don't (probably actually "won't") hold with us much longer", "above water", and "shut off" fit very well with the hypothetical situation on the reef at Gardner.  The message was heard during a period of rising tide and marks the end of the three night flurry of post-loss signals heard by official stations.

- A noontime sun shot can give a navigator his latitude - that is, his distance from the equator.  The equator happens to be 281 nm north of Gardner.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:43:28 EST
From:         Herman de Wulf
Subject:      Re: Lockheed 12/spy

For Ron Bright

Neither the French nor the British Lockheed 12s were equipped with any Fairchild Aerial Survey Type equipment. According to the information available the French used 30 cm lens camera equipment of French origin in theirs. It was installed at Toussus-le-Noble airfield. The British Lockheed 12 was equipped with German Leica camera's. These were installed at Heston airfield where the Aviation Sales & Research Company was based. The whole idea of equipping Lockheed 12s for spy missions over Germany came into being only in September 1939. You may remember war broke out in Europe on 3 September 1939, two years after Amelia Earhart had disappeared. Both Great Britain and France had important national aviation industries that designed and built major aircraft types and were quite capable of equipping the Lockheed 12s or any aircraft for that matter with sliding panels and hidden camera's. In my view they had no reason to ask the United States for any "specially" equipped Lockheed 12s as the US was not involved in the war at that time and the whole operation was top secret.

LTM
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:44:26 EST
From:         Lee
Subject:      Re: The moon and Noonan

Re Angus Murray's question: Hope I'm not committing apostasy, but I think Elgin Long's book does offer a good discussion of this particular question in terms of the navigational techniques in use at the time, which led to an "area of uncertainty" that varied according to circumstances.

Lee
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:00:57 EST
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Hooven Report up

Ric,  In the Amelia Earhart Society Newsletter, March 1998, page 19, there is the following:

FOLLOW-UP ON
THE PAA POST-FLIGHT RADIO INTERCEPTS
by: Bill Prymak

You will recall in the last NEWSLETTER the PAA post-flight radio intercept reports were seized by representatives of the U.S. Naval Intelligence, and all existing copies of same ordered destroyed [however, Miss Ellen Belotti, a secretary of the PAA office at Alameda were the records were kept, kept a set for herself which she later gave I think to Joe Gervais, and which now are available and were printed in the previous issue of the AES Newsletter].  CHARLIE HILL has sent me a TEN PAGE REPORT on the above incident, revealing some astute detective work surrounding the PAA intercepts.  Much of his report reiterates the actual text of the intercepts, so, rather than redundantly reprint his report, I will high-light some of the starling new revelations by Mr. Hill, together with his computer generated Pacific Chart herewith reporouced in the center-fold of this issue.

The post-flight interecepts were received by PAA radio operators at Wake, Midway, and Mokapu Pt., Honolulu.  All bearings seem to converge in the Phoenix Islands, and this convergence was the basis of TIGHAR choosing NIKUMARORO as the final landing place of Earhart & Noonan.  But, wait!  Charlie questioned the MOKAPU Pt 215 & 213.5 bearings.  So did Commander Thompson of the ITASCA, who knew that Earhart had gone down somewhere northwest of Howland Island.  On July 5th, 9:45 PM, THOMPSON sent a message to San Francisco Division requesting "for purpose determining corrective factor on Earhart bearings request MOKAPU Pt. take bearing on ITASCA on 3105 kcs."

Charlie Hill's sleuthing of the radio transcripts prove that not only was this 'test' done, but that it showed the MOKAPU-ITASCA BEARING as taken by MOKAPU Pt. was 35.2 degrees in error!  Since both positions were accurately known (ITASCA & MOKAPU Pt.) the error at MOKAPU Pt. became obvious:  their bearings on the radio intercepts should have been instead of 215 & 213.5, corrected to read 250.2 & 248.7, putting all radio intercepts from WAKE, MIDWAY,  and MOKAPU Pt. crossing just east of Mili Atoll in the MARSHALL ISLANDS!

The extreme error at MOKAPU Pt. must be understood, that in order for this radio station to take bearings in the central Pacific, the signals had to pass not only through the KOOLAU Mt. Range of Oahu's northern coast, but also through whatever iron (in the way of vessels), might be found in or around Pearl Harbor or on the Honolulu waterfront.  Such was the poor location of MOKAPU Pt. for reading radio bearings from the central Pacific.

See the CORRECTED CHART on the following page. [the Chart of the Central Pacific Ocean is an Equatorial Perspective Projection copywrited 1987, C. Hill]

Ron Reuther
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Ron,

I'd be very interesting to see whatever evidence may exist to show that U.S. Naval Intelligence ever seized the PAA memos.  I'm also somewhat startled to learn that Commander Thompson of the ITASCA knew that Earhart had gone down somewhere northwest of Howland Island.  I wonder how he knew that.

It would be easier to assess Charlie Hill's ten page report if we knew who Charlie Hill is and had a copy of his ten page report.  Maybe you can help us there.

We're very familar with the PAA memos and the incident concerning Mokapu taking a bearing on what they believed to be ITASCA.  An objective assessment of that event and many others will be part of our upcoming Special Report.

LTM,
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:13:06 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Hooven Report up

Dave wrote:

> 2. It seems to me a little odd that if AE couldn't find Howland, how would
> she know that she was 281 NM north of someplace she couldn't find?

Easy - She couldn't find it a few days ago because she was under cloud and Noonan was unable to get a sight. At night when the weather cleared, Noonan got a good star fix and he knows Howland's position from the chart. There are several other explanantions that would fit. Another 281 message was believed to relate to degrees rather than miles but the same logic would also apply to this scenario.

That said, as far as I can see, the least likely scenario the message is likely to relate to is "281 miles north of Howland" bearing in mind:

1 That area was searched to some degree by Itasca
2 SS Moorby was up that way
3 The evidence points to Gardner (up to 632 miles away).
4 Winds probably gave a southerly offset rather than northerly.
5 The message was "fragmentary phrases" and is therefore easily misinterpreted.
6 Such accuracy to the nearest mile rather than " about 280 miles", would be out of place in a ditching scenario where the aircraft was drifting. (281 degrees from Howland is slightly more believeable).
7 To ditch 280 miles north of  Howland as a result of such bad navigation would not be the sort of result to be expected from one of the world's supposed top navigators. Landing on an island (at any distance) on the other hand, is far more believable of him.

I also think it is unlikely that 281 might have meant "281 MILES SOUTH OF EQUATOR". If Noonan had a sextant to get his latitude, he would have been able to fix his position just from his knowledge that he was close to the 157 line through Howland and he could have easily refined that (knowing the time of day and the sun's altitude/azimuth), to get a new LOP.). There were of course other celestial bodies (day and night) he could use to get a cut. With latitude and longitude known it would be a simple matter to identify Gardner from the chart and the name is far more valuable than position or bearings. All you need to transmit is KHAQQ GARDNER GARDNER GARDNER etc.

 It is possible, of course, that the island was unnamed on the charts, the chart was now pulp or both chronometers, his wristwatch and AE's Omega Chronograph had all stopped, but failing those problems the distance from Howland would seem a far more obvious distance to give than that from the equator and this was easily calculated.

Had he really wanted to say "281 miles south of the equator", I am sure he would have said 4:41'S or 4.683S.

Regards Angus
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm less sure than you are about what Noonan or Earhart would have sent out by awkwardly mashing the push-to-talk switch while probably trying to read a written out series of dots and dashes in a dark cockpit.  I'm also less sure than you are that whatever was sent was exactly what they intended to send and that it was heard correctly.  Further, if Earhart and Noonan had been sending "KHAQQ,  GARDNER, GARDNER, GARDNER" for the past three nights we wouldn't know it because none of the stations in the Central Pacific heard intelligible voice.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:14:31 EST
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      WWII

Herman said: "You may remember war broke out in Europe on 3 September 1939 . . . ."

    Germany invaded Poland on September 1 but war wasn't officially declared until September 3, right?  I guess its a technicality, but . . .

LTM, who's reverted to lurking
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm sure Herman will be more than happy to give you the details.
===============================================================
Date:         Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:18:46 EST
From:         Thomas Van Hare
Subject:      Re: PT-109

Van wrote:

> In this search, they finally found one torpedo and part of a
> launch tube in 1200 feet of water in the Guadalcanal battle area.
> Smoking Gun that this is PT109? Maybe the NG film will convince me.

I've seen the images -- it is very convincing that they've found the PT-109.

Thomas Van Hare
HistoricWings.com
***********************************************************************
From Ric

This forum is a tough bunch.  What's sauce for TIGHAR is sauce for National Geographic.  I'll be interesting to see what proof is offered, and considered conclusive, by Nat'l Geo.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:01:16 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: WWII

For Dennis McGee

You're absolutely right. The Germans invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Britain and France being the superpowers of their day, told Germany to withdraw its troops within the next 24 hours or would intervene. Germany continued its military operation against Poland and consequently first Britain, then France declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939.

LTM     (who was on the receiving end of the bombs ever after until 1944)
***********************************************************************
From Ric

To be precise, hostilities began at 04:34 (local time in Poland) when Oberluetnant Bruno Dilley , commanding Third Staffel, Stuka Geschwader 1, led a low level attack by three  Ju-87Bs against the Dirschau bridge over the Vistula River despite heavy ground fog int he target area.  In fact, ground fog delayed most of the Luftwaffe operations that morning and WWII got off to a late start.

The war was supposed to, and almost did, begin on August 26th.  The code word "Ostmarkflug" had been issued on the 25th for the assault to begin at 04:30 the next morning. The panzers were rolling and the Stuka Gruppen were being bombed up when the cancellation order reached the Luftwaffe at 8 p.m. Unfortunately the 10th Army commander, General Reichenau, was not in communication with headquarters and didn't get the word.  There followed a bizarre shouting match between Reichenau and the forward Luftwaffe commander, General Leutnant Freiherr (Baron) von Richtofen (same family) about whether World War II was on or off.  A phone call to Berlin settled the argument but it was 11 p.m. before the columns stopped moving toward the border.

(Source:  Angriffshohe 4000 by Cajus Bekker, Stalling Verlag, 1964.  English translation by Frank Ziegler titled "The Luftwaffe War Diaries", Doubleday, 1968)
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:22:21 EST
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Hooven Report up

Ric,   I believe there is evidence to show that U.S. Naval Intelligence seized the PAA memos.

Commander Thompson did state that his best estimate of where Earhart came down is northnorthwest of Howland Island within 100 miles.  That is still today the official Coast Guard position as described on their official Coast Guard Histroy website.

Charles Hill is the author of Fix on The Rising Sun, which is his description of what might have happened to the PAA Hawaii Clipper in 1938.  While his conclusion re the Hawaii Clipper might be controversial, his analysis of the Earhart PAA signals is worth verifying.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Like I said, please show us the evidence that U.S. Naval Intelligence seized the PAA memos.  A letter of protest from the airline would be good.  A FOIA declassified Navy memo woud be fine.  Even a personal letter or diary entry from the time would be good documentation.

Bill Prymak didn't say Thompson made a best estimate.  He said Thompson knew.  There's a rather big difference.  Thompson's best estimate that the plane came down northwest of Howland is well documented, as is his failure to find anything there.

Now I know who Charlie Hill is.  Thank you. I agree with you that this book about the Hawaii Clipper is controversial and that his analysis of the Earhart PAA signals is worth verifying.  Do you know where we could get a copy of his ten page report?
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:30:16 EST
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Ve, V l/d and Speed into a  Headwind

After he noticed my reference to a metric version of the Electra 10A Flight Manual, David Billings was kind enough to offer me a copy of a 10A Flight Manual with data in mph and feet, rather than metric units. I accepted his offer principally because I hoped that review of that version might explain some of the discrepancies in performance (specifically cruising speed at low HP) earlier noted between the 10A and the 10E - I thought that mistakes might have been made either by Lockheed or by me in converting to and from metric.

As it turns out,  examination of this new copy of the 10A Flight Manual does nothing to resolve those performance discrepancies (the data appear to be identical to those set forth in the metric manual), but it does serve to remind me that the numbers given for the 10E and 10A are very close to each other.


In addition, this version of the Flight Manual provides some very interesting extra information not included in my copy of the metric version, in the form of an supplementary page (numbered "35a") in the Operating Instructions section of the manual. That page is titled "MAXIMUM RANGE AND ENDURANCE".

The page contains a chart giving optimum INDICATED airspeed for maximum range at two weights (8500 and 10500 pounds). This speed is, of course, what we now call "V l/d". It is shown as 125 mph IAS at 8500 pounds, and 128 IAS at 10,500 pounds, at both sea level and 10,000 feet (True airspeed would, of course, increase by about 20% between sea level and 10000 feet at this IAS.)

Page 35a also gives us "Ve" - the IAS for maximum endurance - which is shown as 91 mph at 10500 pounds and 77 mph at 8500 pounds.

In addition to providing V l/d and Ve, page 35a gives the optimum IAS for maximum range into headwinds of 20, 40 and 60 mph at both weights and at sea level and 10,000 feet. (It also gives optimum IAS for tailwinds of the same velocities, but I'm going to bypass that for now.)

Because of my past bad luck in reproducing tables in emails, I'm going to summarize the results.

Optimum IAS at sea level and 10,500 pounds is given as 135 into a 20 mph headwind; 141 into a 40 mph headwind; and 148 into a 60 mph headwind.

At sea level and 8500 pounds, it is 130 into a 20 mph headwind; 137 into 40 mph; and 145 into 60 mph.

At 10,000 feet and 10500 pounds, it is 130 into 20 mph; 135 into 40 mph; and 138 into 60 mph.

At 10,000 feet and 8500 pounds, it is 128 into 20 mph; 133 into 40 mph; and 137 into 60 mph.

The last line of the page says "For gross weights or altitudes not shown above, extrapolate linearly."

What does this advice add up to into a 26.5 mph headwind? Take 10500 pounds at 10,000 feet as an example. Zero wind optimum is given as 128 IAS (around 152 mph true in standard conditions). Into 20 mph the table calls for 130 IAS, and into 40 mph it calls for 135 IAS. Interpolation gives us about 131.5 into 26.5 - about 156 True, or an increase of around 4 mph True. This is quite consistent with our reading of the 10E chart in Report 487, and not wit h the assertions that that chart calls for an 11.5 mph increase under such conditions.

Both the page numbering and the slightly different typeface indicate that Page 35a was added to the manual after it was first prepared. No date is given, but consider the following very interesting instructions on achieving maximum range:

    "adjust r.p.m. to the minimum which in combination with a reasonable manifold pressure will give the airspeed shown below. ... A 10% saving in fuel will  obtained by cruising at 1400 r.p.m. rather than at 1900 r.p.m at very low powers."

This is, of course, the technique used by Charles Lindbergh in his WW2
Pacific flying in fighters.

Oscar
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thank you Oscar.
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:04:00 EST
From:         Ron Reuther
Subject:      Almon Gray ""Where Did Amelia Land"

I have just reread the article "Where Did Amelia Land" by Capt. Almon A. Gray USNR (Ret) dated May 5, 1994, which appeared in the August 1994 AES Newsletter.

Capt Gray was highly qualified in aviation radio and direction finding. Gray received his Commercial Radio Operator's License in1930, enlisted in the navy, served as radioman in light cruiser aviation from 1931 to 1935, joined PAA in 1935, when they initiated trans-Pacific service, became a Flight Radio Officer on the Martin-130's, was also a ground Radio Officer, was promoted to Asst. Supt. of Communications for PAA in 1937, and was with PAA until 1942. He flew with Fred Noonan on flights across the Pacific. During WWII, he went on active duty with the Navy and dealt with Navy telecommunications and radio navigation throughout the Pacific Ocean area with the Naval Air Transport Service. He later served with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of Emergency Planning and the National Communications Agency, and helped develop the telecommunications that supported the first Moon landing.

Quoting Gray:

"By way of introduction it should be noted that in 1937 the Japanese had a fairly powerful radio broadcasting station near Jabor on Jaluit Atoll. It was there in 1935 when this writer was in charge of the PAA radio and direction finder station on Wake Island and, during hours of darkness, he frequently listened to entertainment programs from it and checked the DF calibration against it.

The station was a conventional AM plant, operating in the standard broadcast fequency band. Its relatively high power indicated that it was intended to provide coverage for a large geographical area and no other comparable station was heard in the eastern Marshall Islands. It appeared to operate continuously every day from early morning until very late at night. In other words it was an ideal radio beacon, instantly available for direction finding purposes any time it was in operation. It is not known whether Noonan was aware of this station prior to departing Lae." [other information seems to suggest that it is very likely Noonan was aware, as many PAA radio operators were - RR]

"When AE failed to contact ITASCA at 2013/2 it was obvious that the probability of their finding Howland with the amount of fuel left on board was virtually nil. They therefore probably headed for the Gilbert Islands immediately, hoping to find a place to set down on land before the fuel ran out. Fred turned his attention to the DF and began scanning the medium frequency bands for potentially useful signals. In a short while he picked up a broadcasting station signal. It soon grew strong enough to permit taking a bearing and he found that the station was located almost directly ahead. He knew it must be on land so he started homing on it with the DF. He continued homing until about 2330 GMT at which time land was sighted ahead. (This time is based on the time Nauru intercepted a transmission believed from the plane saying "Land in sight." The plane had crossed the Date Line and gained a day so the GMT date of the sighting would have been July 3.) It was obvious however that the land sighted was not that upon which the radio station was located. It was a small, barren reef, all by itself, with no other land in sight. A close-up look showed that while the surface was rough, a survivable landing probably could be made. With the gas tanks virtually empty and the prospects of an open sea ditching facing her, Amelia did not hestiate but went on in for a successful wheels-down landing. They were safely back on the ground, but neither knew where.

"Because there were no other stations of its kind in the area it is fairly certain that the broadcast station on which Fred homed was the Japanese station at Jaluit. That being the case the homing track would have taken the plane over or very close to Keats Reef. which is about 100 statute miles ESE of Mili Atoll, and well out of sight of any other and. An exposed portion of this reef probably was where Earhart and Noonan landed.

"The status of AE's radio and associated gear immediately prior to the landing probably was as follows:...4. The only way two-way communication could be conducted was by manipulating the receiver antenna selctor switch. Turn the switch to FIXED ANTENNA to send and back to DF to receive. (Probably AE was unaware of this technique a the time, but Fred obviously discovered it.)

"Probably it was about this time [Jul 5-6 GMT) that Amelia and Fred were "rescued" by the Japanese.

"It is believed however that it accurately may be said that the Lae-Howland Island leg of her flight terminated at Jaluit around the middle of July, 1937 with both persons apparently in good health.

"It is obvious that Amelia and Fred were much further North than they realized when the left what they believed to be the Howland area to seek survival in the Gilberts. In following a radio bearing which they believed would enhance their chances of survival they unintentionally and unwittingly entered airspace and landed on territory claimed by the Japanese. There was nothing clandestine about their flight and no espionage was involved. A detuning of the trasmitting antenna made it  impossible for them to communicate over the distances necessary to make their plight known to American search groups. Noonan did not know what was wrong with the transmitter and did not have the instruments to fix it if he had known. The Japanese rescued them promptly and gave them appropriate medical attention. However, for reasons of their own, they made no announcement of the recovery."
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Ron.

Almon Gray's qualifications and experience in radio are beyond question.  It would be nice if the same could be said for his understanding of historical investigation.   Like so many others, he does not seem to be able to keep straight what is fact and what is speculation.  He lists some known facts then he launches into a series of "must haves" and "would haves" and soon starts treating them as facts from which he deduces more "must haves" and "would haves" until he's making statements like:

"It is obvious that Amelia and Fred were much further North than they realized when the left what they believed to be the Howland area to seek survival in the Gilberts.

LTM
Ric
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:37:15 EST
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Questions about Hooven Report

I read the Hooven report, it is a fascinating study, given the evidence of the time. Nevertheless, there are some questions that I must ask to help me understand whether or not parts of Hooven's hypothesis make any sense.

Hooven says: "If the plane did land at McKean or Gardner the signals that were heard came from there, and the least bizarre explanation of the Navy's failure to find them there is that they were abducted by the Japanese, some time before the 9th of July when the Colorado search planes arrived. Their plane was then either hoisted aboard or dumped into the ocean."

(From Ric:  to save time I'll answer Paige's question as we go.)

Questions:

1. Is it possible for a Japanese ship, starting in Japanese controlled waters at 2014 GMT on July 3, 1937 (or later), to reach Gardner or McKean before Colorado reached the area?

(From Ric:  No problem.  A Japanese ship in the southern Marshalls (if there was one) would have to cover only about half the distance COLORADO covered. The 1,000 nm from the southern Marshals to Gardner would take a little over two days at 20 knots or almost tthree days at 15 knots.)  The earliest that Earhart could have sent messages that she was on Gardner Island was late morning on July 2nd.  The tough part is explaining how the Japanese could have heard and understood messages that were unheard or unintelligible to the American and British stations that were much closer.  Japanese radio technology lagged well behind the Americans and British in the pre-war years as is well illustrated by the fact that the Operation Hawaii (Pearl Harbor) attack force had no voice communication with the carriers only 300 miles away.  All communications were by morse.)

2. If it is possible, could they have done so undetected by Itasca, undetected by Colorado and undetected by the British ship located West of the Phoenix Islands (whose name I forget)? Could this happen if, as Hooven says elsewhere, "We do not know how successful the Navy program of surveillance of the Japanese activities in the Pacific was. We may presume, however, that the most sophisticated radio equipment was brought to bear in the monitoring of Japanese ship movements and eavesdropping on their communications."

(From Ric:  Personal opinion but, again, no problem.  There is no indication that any of the searchers were interested in the Japanese in the slightest, and the Pacific is an awfully big place.)

3. Would such a Japanese ship be able to take NR16020 and either hoist it aboard or dump it into the ocean, especially given what we know about the reef around Gardner?

(From Ric:  Recovery of the aircraft would, of course, depend upon where the plane was and what the sea conditions were like.  In theory, a line from the ship could drag the plane over the reef and into the water where it might float long enough to be hoisted aboard.)

4. What possible motive could the Japanese have for sending a ship on such a mission when they were being highly secretive about their activities in the Marshall Islands and elsewhere?

(From Ric: Beats me.)
--
Paige Miller
===============================================================
Date:         Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:07:08 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Hooven Report up

Ric wrote:

> I'm less sure than you are about what Noonan or Earhart would have sent out
> by awkwardly mashing the push-to-talk switch while probably trying to read a
> written out series of dots and dashes in a dark cockpit.  I'm also less sure
> than you are that whatever was sent was exactly what they intended to send
> and that it was heard correctly.

I don't claim to be sure of anything they did or of what was interpreted as a result. I made but one tentative assumption of their action in 6) which was a general observation in that any ditched flier would not likely specify a position to the nearest mile when drifting. The other evidence that they were not claiming to be 281 miles north of Howland was not related to what they sent or didn't send.

My second point was that IF they could get latitude, they could get longitude and the result would probably be to give a named  location if they were on an island, not a distance from the equator. In none of the post-loss messages is the word "Gardner" (apart from KHAQQ probably the most important word they could use) mentioned