Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:40:16 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Ric wrote:

> I'm not aware of any previous
> circumstance during FN's career (although there may be one) where he had to
> find an island without help from DF.

This may well be true. However, it seems from Gary's analysis of the Oakland - Hawaii flight that they were prepared to ignore DF LOPs if the corresponding fix seemed more reliable. It also seems to me that on at least this leg (and admittedly since Manning was involved this may not have been unusual for Noonan) that the DF was used more for confirmation  of position and the last stage before arrival rather than having much impact on the method of navigation on the major part of the journey. Since they were unable (we assume) to use DF on the Lae - Howland leg, I am only really interested in the part of the Oakland - Hawaii leg where DF was not too important.

Regards Angus.

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

I think you guys are missing the point that Bob Brandenburg was trying to make.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:47:35 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

>then the strength of the receptions at other fixed
> points (Howland, Baker, Nauru, Hawaii, California) should remain relatively
> constant, being effected only by the changing propagation environment and
> possibly a degradation over time in the capability of the transmitter.

The propagation environment will change in so many ways that I don't think the strength of reception will remain "relatively constant" to any degree of precision that will allow any comparisons. The propagation environment changes with time of day, date, daylight path or nighttime path, ionization conditions, solar flares and magnetic environment, battery condition, dampness of the aerial and hence sea state, to name but a few.

Regards Angus.

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

That is all true, but it should also be true that the propagation environment in the region is the same for everyone at any given time - so perhaps we should pay special attention to those occasions when multiple stations hear what seems to be the same transmission at the same moment although at different strengths.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:48:33 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> My interpretation of Noonan's navigation in a nutshell:
>
> He sets out on the bearing to the target, assuming no wind.
> After a couple of hours, if possible, he determines a fix (either noon shot
> or multiple celestial body, or RDF bearing).
> If a large enough course deviation from actual to planned is found, he
> revises* the course heading back to the target, again assuming no wind.

Fine - *but how does he do it? I seem to remember you saying a while back that there was no evidence from the charts of wind triangle calculation. If so, did he merely alter course by the difference in angle between the bearing of their track and the bearing of the target?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:53:22 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

> Fine - *but how does he do it? I seem to remember you saying a while back
> that there was no evidence from the charts of wind triangle calculation. If
> so, did he merely alter course by the difference in angle between the
> bearing of their track and the bearing of the target?

PS or did he (as you seem to suggest), start again from scratch, ignore the wind information inherent in their new position and head direct for the target? This would seem crazy as even correcting their previous heading by the angle between their track and the direct line to their target would largely compensate for wind (assuming it and their air speed did not change).

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:54:40 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

My heartfelt thanks to our forum  navigation experts for their initial analyses of the Hono flight. For me, a neophyte navigator, it is food for thought.

I am hoping Gary, Angus, Randy, or someone else can answer a basic question for me.

I understand that the Altitude-Intercept method often used to determine position relies on determination of the difference between observed altitude and computed altitude  from almanac and sight reduction tables. The difference is laid off starting from the AP along the true azimuth line, marking this point and finally crossing this point with the LOP. 

However, some of FN's star azimuth lines, e.g., Capella 1007 or Antares 1023 (perhaps mislabeled in time?) seem to 'hang' in empty space with no AP point of origin. Am I misunderstanding the basic concept or is Fred perhaps using some variation of the AI method I am unaware of?

I have spent many hours with this chart and am puzzled by this area. Can someone enlighten me?

Thank you all again,

harvey #2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:00:35 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Winds and bearings

Am I right in thinking that surface winds were quoted in degrees magnetic in 1937 and winds aloft were true or were all wind directions true at that time?

Regards Angus

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

Good question.  It's my impression that everything was reported in magnetic. Randy?  Bob?
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:01:07 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: navigation web site

It was late at night. I should have said that the scale was 2,900,000 to one at the northern edge and 3,100,000 at the southern edge.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:32:40 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Raffle Results

The drawing has been made and the winner has won, but - sad to say - it is not anyone on the forum.  We've notified the winner by telephone message and by email but have not yet heard back, and we shouldn't release the name until we do.

By close of business yesterday 375 chances had been sold and we raised a total of $7,345.  There was a flurry of last minute buying but nobody missed the deadline and everybody who bought chances was included in the drawing.

A big Thank You to everyone who participated.  The Paradise Now/ Harbor Lights Villa raffle was a key element in making it possible for us to put together this year's field work in the Pacific.  There is more news on that front that I'll cover in a separate posting.

Again, Thank You to everyone who participated.  Both Niku Vp and Fiji Bone Search II will happen.  We all won.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:33:25 EST
From:         Skeet Gifford
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Angus asked:

>Am I right in thinking that surface winds were quoted in degrees magnetic
>in 1937 and winds aloft were true or were all wind directions true at that
>time?

Angus is correct, at least for the past 60 plus years. Runways are generally designated by magnetic orientation. There are exceptions, of course. LAX 25/07 L/R and 24/06 L/R, all of which have the same orientation. Winds transmitted to pilots at the airport are magnetic. Everything else is true.

************************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

All wind information provided was in True degrees, or at least it was inferred to me in True degrees.  Most wind information was only reported to 22.5* precision (e.g. NNW), so absolute accuracy is lacking.

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

Let me see if I understand what you guys are saying.  When the tower tells a pilot the wind direction ("November4353Quebec, you're cleared to land runway 33.  Wind 310 degrees at 12.") they're talking magnetic, naturally.  However, all other reports of wind direction, such as in weather forecasts or winds-aloft reports, is in True.

Randy believes, but doesn't know for sure, the it was also like that in 1937.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:34:10 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

One can easily and graphically determine a change in course from a known fix to a known position within a couple of degrees on a chart.  That's good enough to get you "on track" until the next time you make a fix.  There's really no need to do precise computation of a new track bearing, if you assume no wind, because the wind will change it inevitably.  As in the stock market, what winds have occurred in the past doesn't translate into what will happen in the future.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:35:18 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

AP points on the chart are usually at some integral latitude or longitude position, simply for ease of plotting.  At least, that is what I can infer. Since many of the AP's were not marked, FN must have simply known where they were in his head (or on a piece of scrap paper) and graphically used a straight edge to mark the line that would eventually intersect that point. There's no requirement to have the pencil mark actually go to that AP point if one knows where it is.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:40:34 EST
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      DF Question

Was DF used on any of the previous legs of the final flight as a navigational aid, or was this specifically for the Howland leg? I suspect spartan coverage limited its usefulness, but I thought I'd ask.

Bob
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm aware of no indication that DF was used or attempted on any previous leg of the World Flight (except, of course, the Oakland/Hono trip in March).

As far as I know, the test flight at Lae on July 1 is the only time we know of during the second world flight attempt that Earhart succeeded in establishing successful two way communication with the ground.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:41:15 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: navigation web site

Thanks Gary for explaining this  simple method to measure chart distances.

Harvey 2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:57:30 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

Ric wrote:

> That is all true, but it should also be true that the propagation environment
> in the region is the same for everyone at any given time - so perhaps we
> should pay special attention to those occasions when multiple stations hear
> what seems to be the same transmission at the same moment although at
> different strengths.

What if the receiving station was hearing her via ionospheric propagation ('skip'), rather than ground wave.  In that case, there could be times that a signal could be getting stronger (due to changes in the 'skip' conditions), yet the transmitting station be moving further away from the receiving station.

   John Rayfield, Jr.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll ask the radio experts to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understand that for a station to be hearing a post-loss signal from Earhart via ground wave, the station would have to be very close (within something like a couple hundred miles) of the airplane.

If any of the post-loss signals were genuine, they had to be coming from an island and there were no stations within ground wave distance of any island where the airplane could have been.  Ionospheric propagation - what you are calling "skip" - is the normal way that HF signals are heard.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:01:58 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

Angus wrote:

> This DR position seems to anticipate a GS of just 70 K (80.5 mph) from
> Farallon beacon, substantially slower than the 114 K anticipated for the
> next two DRs. Must this not indicate a measured change in headwind and
> therefore drift measurement and wind vector calculation?

Good point Angus,

Looking at the chart again, it is not completely clear what time they passed over (or abeam of) Farallon island. There are several lines on the chart in that vicinity that are not labeled and there are two different handwritings. There is a line labeled 0047 for passing the Golden Gate and a line offshore labeled 0054 but also with the notations "1252?" and "1254?" nearby in a different hand. Although it is not marked on the chart, we know that they departed OAK at 4:37 p.m. PST  , March 17, 1937 which is 0037 Z March 18, 1937 Z. It is about 15 NM "as the crow flies" to the Golden Gate which they passed at 0047 Z, 10 minutes after takeoff showing a GS of about 90 K. Farallon Island is 24 NM offshore so it would take about 16 more minutes to cover that distance so it is not likely that they were over Farallon at 0054 Z but closer to 0103 Z, nine minutes later.

There are DRs plotted for 0128, 0130, 0139 and 0145 showing a deviation to the south of the rumb line and then onto the RL at the 0200 Z DR. The straight line distance form Farallon to the 0200 Z DR is 83 NM but the path followed is actually 92 NM giving a GS of  97 K in the 57m period from 0103 to 0200 Z which is kind of slow but they were climbing and this is about the same speed from OAK to the Golden Gate so this might be reasonable. The higher anticipated GS after 0200 Z is probably is due to the level off at the top of  the climb which allows the plane for fly faster in level flight. This new estimate of the time over Farallon changes the GS calculated between Farallon Island at 0103 Z  and the 0317 Z fix  from 123 K to 131 K due to the shortening the time period from 2h23m to 2h14m but the rest of the calculation stay the same. I will post a corrected version of my previous post.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:43:14 EST
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Raffle Winner

The winner of the Paradise Now - Harbor Lights Villa raffle is Joshua King of Redmond, WA.

This is actually a bit embarrassing for us because Joshua's father is none other than our own Dr. Tom King.  Although technically permitted under Delaware law, we decided at the outset of the raffle that members of the TIGHAR board of directors were not eligible to win.  It just wouldn't look good.  So Tom, wanting to support the raffle even if he couldn't enter himself, started buying chances for his family and friends.  No harm in that.  Very early in the raffle he bought five chances for his son Joshua and, lo and behold, it paid off.

We're very happy for Joshua and his wife and they are, naturally, delighted at their good fortune.  Tom, on the other hand, is totally weirded out.

To top it off, because he "sold" the winning ticket, Tom (TIGHAR's Senior Archaelogist) gets to attend the next Introductory Course in Aviation Archaeology and Field School for free.

We want to thank Andrew McKenna for donating the week at Harbor Lights and thanks again to all of you who bought chances and helped make the Paradise Now raffle a success.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:43:20 EST
From:         Mike J.
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

The ground wave weakens above 500kc from many hundreds of miles at the lower frequencies to only a few miles at <10mc. If the skywave refracts off the ionosphere and returns to the earth and strikes a good conducting surface like salt water, it will refract back upward and take a double hop and may carry the signal a very long distance. When ground waves and skywaves arrive in phase the signal will be stronger. When they are out of phase they will be weaker or even cancel each other out.   This is called fading.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:55:47 EST
From:         John Rayfield
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

Ric wrote:

> I'll ask the radio experts to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my
> understand that for a station to be hearing a post-loss signal from Earhart
> via ground wave, the station would have to be very close (within something
> like a couple hundred miles) of the airplane.
>
> If any of the post-loss signals were genuine, they had to be coming from an
> island and there were no stations within ground wave distance of any island
> where the airplane could have been.  Ionospheric propagation - what you are
> calling "skip" - is the normal way that HF signals are heard.

Maybe I missed something here, but I thought that someone had suggested that some kind of 'distance and direction' might be determined from the locations and movement of stations that had received the post-loss signals.  Did I misunderstand or did I understand that 'suggestion' correctly?

By the way, I'm quite familiar with how HF signals are propagated (as well as many other frequency bands up to 900 mhz) - I've been using HF for over 28 years and have been doing commercial radio communications work for about 25 years.

    John Rayfield, Jr.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

You understood correctly.  It is my contention that it is possible to make reasonable inferences about the origin point (or points) of the post-loss signals by looking at the strength of the reported receptions and the location of the receiving stations, not as individual signals that may or may not be subjected to anomalous propagation phenomena, but as a body of information.  Of particular interest are occasions when more than one station reports hearing what appears to be the same transmission at the same moment.

I am not a radio expert but I do have enough of an understanding of HF propagation to know that, in general, the farther you get from the transmitter, the weaker the reception.  Sure, there are exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:09:43 EST
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

That's correct. Wind given by a tower is in mag while weather reports are given in true. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that the other winds are for "planning" and thus you use a map with "true" (which of course you have to correct for mag dev), but on landing approach, the mag wind is more important since you are landing on a runway that is given in mag (although the runways never move and mag drifts over time!).

And they wonder why pilots have accidents. We're too busy trying to convert this to that and that to something else and something else to whatever. They really should give everything in true and let us do all the math. Less confusing that way. Either that, or they need to mount the runways on ball bearings and keep them rotating into the wind!

LTM,
Dave Bush

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

We used to have airports that were just big open fields and a windsock.  Much simpler.

************************************************************************
From Gary LaPook

Yep, only the surface winds given at the airport on ATIS or from the tower are Magnetic. BUT  METARs , TAFs  etc. use true. See following excerpts from the AIM.

(Ric: not included)

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

If you could find an excerpt from the 1937 Airman's Information Manual it would be useful, but it hadn't been invented yet.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:13:04 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

FN did not label his Assumed Positions (AP)  as such nor did he use a standard symbol to denote them. In the Air Force the standard symbol is an upside down "v". It was not important to him since he knew his work. The more normal methods used by Air Force navs utilizing  standard symbols and labeling allows other navs to read the chart without the risk of a misunderstanding.

As for your specific questions, the AP for the 1007 Capella  line is 30-00 N /144-24 W and for the 1323 Antares line is 26-00 N / 152-56 W. ( Note, the Antares line is actually for 1323 not 1023, it was used for the 1328 fix so it was mislabeled on the chart.)  We know that these are the APs because the navigation table being used by FN, HO 208, Dreisenstok, requires that you use a whole degree of latitude for the AP. The longitudes are where the azimuth lines cross the whole degree of latitude and, if you look carefully, you will see that there are dots at those locations which were used by FN in plotting the azimuth lines.

BTW, the altitude intercept method was also known as the Marc Saint Hilaire method after the man who invented it.

gl
************************************************************************
From Ric

Sounds like there's a lot of mislabeling on the chart.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:15:56 EST
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Research needed

>I find it
> curious/interesting, that while the rise time changes by 5 min over 11
> days, the set time remains steady!

The explanation is due to the change in the "equation of time" during the same period. So what does this mean?

We all know that the day is 24 hours long based on our clocks that keep regular time. We would expect that the time from noon one day until noon on the next day should, therefor, be 24 hours. ( Noon is when the sun is on your meridian, bearing exactly south in the US and bearing exactly north in Australia, for example.) This in not the case because the speed of the earth in its orbit around the sun varies throughout the year due to its varying distance from the sun. This causes the period from noon to noon to vary by several  seconds per day and the effect adds up so that the time of noon varies + & - 16 minutes during different parts of the year.

Noon at Greenwich should be at 12:00 o'clock but in the middle of February it doesn't happen until 12:14 p.m. and in October it occurs at 11:44 a.m. The difference between the mean, or clock time, of noon and the actual time that the sun crosses the meridian is defined as the equation of time.

Look at :

http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/almanac-1937-22.JPG

in the equation of time column for July 2-12, 1937.  At noon at Greenwich on July 2nd it was -3 minutes and 47.4 seconds while at noon GMT on July 12th it had changed to -5 minutes and 25.1 seconds.

Applying the equation of time to we find that  noon GMT on July 2nd, 1937 happened at 12:03:47.3 p.m. while on July 12th it didn't occur until 12:05:25.1 p.m. 1 minute and 37.7 seconds later (about 2 minutes).

So how does this explain the times of sunrise and sunset? During the same period the length of daylight was getting shorter. On July 2nd the sun was up  0538 -    1930 a total of 13 hours and 52 minutes at St. Pete. Since this period is centered on local noon we can divide this period in half, 6 hours and 56 minutes, and add this to the time of sunrise to find the time of local noon, 12:34 p.m. On July 12th the the sun was up 0543 - 1930 a total of only 13 hours and 47 minutes about 5 minutes less. Doing the same computation you find that noon on July 12th happened at 12:36.5 p.m. about 2.5 minutes later. (Remember that the sunrise table is rounded off to the nearest whole minute.) This is what we would expect since we know the equation of time changed by 1 minute and 37.7 seconds, approximately 2 minutes.

So daylight got shorter by five minutes and noon shifted 2.5 minutes later. If there had been no change in the equation of  time then we would have expected the sun to rise about 2.5  minutes later and to set the same 2.5 minutes earlier. This shift of noon caused the whole change in the period of daylight to be accounted for by the change of sunrise with no change in sunset.

So why don't we see the same thing at Honolulu and L.A? Well, to the accuracy of the table the same thing occurred in Honolulu. It doesn't work out the same way in L.A. however because the length of daylight got shorter by 7 minutes so it was not completely compensated for by the change in the time of noon.

gl
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I think this same posting was put up a couple of weeks ago.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:54:27 EST
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Ric wrote:

> If you could find an excerpt from the 1937 Airman's Information Manual it
> would be useful, but it hadn't been invented yet.

  I don't have one of those, but I do have a copy of "Practical Air Navigation" by Thoburn C. Lyon.  Published by the US Department of Commerce, CAA, September 1940.   What with verification and publishing procedures this should be a pretty good snapshot of the state of the art in 1937.   It does confirm that airport winds were magnetic, winds aloft were true. It also covers then standard procedures for celestial navigation, determining a line of position and so on.  (It even includes a kit to build your own circular slide rule type navigation computer.)

Robert
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:55:35 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Research needed

Gary writes

> Noon at Greenwich should be at 12:00 o'clock but in the middle of February
>it doesn't happen until 12:14 p.m. and in October it occurs at 11:44 a.m.

This is pretty disturbing news. I thought if there was ONE thing I knew it was when noon was. Now I don't even know that.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:09:28 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Elgen Long, I gather, estimated the weight of the Electra sans fuel at about 350lb lighter at Lae than on the Oakland-Hawaii trip. Since there was about 947 gal fuel on board then vs 1100 at Lae, this suggests the aircraft at Oakland was 150 x 6 = 900lb heavier on fuel. The plane should thus have been about 550lb net lighter at Oakland.

Does this estimate seem reasonable? I wonder if he took into account the extra luggage and navigational paraphernalia that a crew of four would have compared with a crew of two.

Do we have any eye-witness account of the take-off at Oakland and how it compared to that at Lae? What were the wind strengths and directions for Oakland-Hawaii as deduced from the weather charts compiled after the event?

Regards Angus

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

I've never understood how Elgen justifies his sans fuel weight at Lae.  The empty weight of the airplane should have been influenced by several factors including:
- the removal of the trailing wire system
- some structural beefing-up of the center section during the repairs
- the removal or alteration of the "navigator's station" in the cabin
- the addition of the Bendix radios that Elgen (and Cam) say were installed in Miami.

The truth is that nobody has the data to make an informed guess about what the airplane weighed sans fuel at Lae.  I think there is probably about 500 pounds worth of uncertainty.

There is film of an Oakland takeoff but it's probably not THE Oakland takeoff.  It's probably the photo-op flight on the 16th.  The airplane just doesn't look heavy enough to me.

I don't know what the winds were later determined to have been.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:11:12 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

Ric, if I understand this at least somewhat if a number of receptions were received at about the same time, for example, very strong at Baker Island, less strong at Howland and weaker still by a ship say 300 miles further north then it is quite unlikely the message originated at Mili Atoll. OK, a little facetious but using that scenario a significant number of similar patterns should allow an educated guess as to where, generally, the signals originated. Am I on the right track?

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

Yes.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:22:38 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Take-off time

Do we know if the aircraft started moving on its take-off run at Lae at 0000 hrs GMT or did it actually leave the ground at the end of the runway at this time? Which time is usually used by navigators as zero hour? To explain a little further, I assume the time that the wheels leave the ground is the "time of departure" but to synchronise this to 0hrs GMT would not be so easy as it depends on wind strength, weight, rate of acceleration etc and an allowance for reaching take-off speed would have to be calculated. It would on the other hand be very easy to start the aircraft moving at 0hrs GMT.

Regards Angus.

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

There's really no need for that kind of precision. I can't speak for navigators but I usually noted the "gear up" time as the beginning of the flight and I'd try to make the notation accurate to the minute but certainly not to the second.  for one thing, you don't have time to make a notation until you get the airplane cleaned up and the climb established.  In the case of the Earhart Lae takeoff, all we know is that the departure time was reported by the authorities at Lae as 10 a.m. local time.  If that is the time they closed the hatch and started the engines, then gear-up was probably at least 20 minutes later.  If, instead, they wanted to make a big deal about actually departing at OO:OO GCT then they may have taxiied out to the end of the runway and waited until that moment to advance the throttles.  I just don't know any way to know.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:50:00 EST
From:         Herman DeWulf
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Runways on ball bearings? The Navy uses aircraft carriers. Makes more sense too: they're always steaming into the wind. And Ric is absolutely right about the pre-WW II grassfields. Only, they were larger than today's fields because they were offering 360* runway availability. This is a luxury nobody can afford anymore.

LTM

(Ric, In the course of my career I had the opportunity to land on USS Nimitz, USS Forrestal, USS Kennedy and HMS Hermes). The airplanes were Grumman C-1 and C-2. On HMS Hermes it was a CH-47 as the Brits operated VTOL Sea Harriers that need no arrester gear).
*************************************************************************
From Ric

One of my fondest memories is of flying a no-brakes, tail-skid equipped Tiger Moth from Fair Oaks flying field in Surrey.  You get a prop and, when the oil is warm, wave the chocks away.  Helpers have to walk your wingtips as you taxi out to the edge of the field and do the run-up, but then it's just a matter of pointing her into the wind and off you go.  Coming home you read the sock, line up into the wind, kick into a sideslip to adjust your approach, and plop her down.  Piece of cake.  The skid is a surprisingly effective brake, depending upon how much backpressure you hold on the stick. You taxi back to the line and boys run out to walk you in.  The year was 1967.  I was 19 years old. (sighhhhh)
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:52:57 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Each aircraft needs an airworthiness certificate before it is allowed to fly. I take it that was true in 1937 as well. Therefore, if Amelia Earhart took to the air in the repaired Lockheed Electra the FAA with all that special gear, the aircraft must have been weighed in again and an airworthiness certificate awarded and have all the necessary documents needed to be allowed to fly. The originals may have gone but if they were issued aren't there chances that copies somewhere survived?

LTM (who knows no flight is over until the paperwork is done, nor can it begin without it)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We have every scrap of surviving paperwork that the FAA has on that airplane, and there is quite a bit, but unfortunately no weight and balance data have survived.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:54:00 EST
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Take-off time

Some airports used to provide extra service over here and radio "time when airborne" after take off. You're right, you have no time to write it down but you can remember the time and fill out the navigation form accordingly some minutes later having reached cruising climb speed or cruising altitude. It is not over important but it helps dotting i's and crossing t's. In fact, today's GPS eliminates the need for that kind of precision paperwork...

LTM
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:11:57 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      CDR Werner Thompson/Research on

I am in search of a biographical data regarding Cdr Thompson, skipper of the Itasca in July 1937, whose role in the disappearance is somewhat controversial. We have his official report written shortly afterwards, but we do not have any material on his conversations with Henry Morgenthau, his boss, at the end of July in Hawaii when presumably he was debriefed.

Perhaps someone out there has already compiled some information about Cdr Thompson. We know that John P. Riley,Jr., wrote a rather scathing article on Thompsons search and decisions in the Naval History magazine, Aug 2000. Riley writes that CDR Thompson died of coronary thrombosis at age 53 in Sep  1939, in Ketchikan, Alaska.

I am wondering if he had any relatives and whether he donated any of his material , memos, original notes, documents to any archive, museum, so forth. They may contain some very valuable historical information relative to the disappearance. Did Cdr Thompson ever write any memoirs of his experiences, for example?

This may not be of general interest, so those that may wish to help please contact me at brightaway@aol.com.

LTM,
Ronald Bright
****************************************************************************
From Ric

It is very much of general interest and I second Ron's request for help in finding out anything we can about Commander Thompson (whose first name was Warner, not Werner).  I don't hold out much hope for anything significant to come out about any conversation he had with Morgenthau in Hawaii.  Morgenthau was there on vacation and I expect that Thompson gave him the same CYA story that he wrote in his report, and Riley's allegations about Thompson are unfounded and ludicrous, but I'd very much like to know more about the man
and what he was like.

Here's what we know from old Coast Guard Officers Registers:

Warner Keith Thompson
Born: in Utah, 27 March 1886
Died: 1 September 1939

Promotions:
Cadet - 8 November 1906
3rd Lieutenant (Ensign) - 22 December 1908
2nd Lieutenant (LTjg) - 31 December 1908
Lieutenant - 31 May 1920
Lt. Commander - 12 January 1923
Commander - 1 July 1929

Assignments:
CGC MANNING, Astoria, OR - 26 March 1912
CGC SNOHOMISH, Neah Bay, WA - 17 February 1915
CGC UNALGA, San Francisco, CA - 9 October 1917
CGC TAMAROA, Port Angeles, WA - 3 December 1921
CGC KANKAKEE, Evansville, IN - 11 July 1923 (CO)
Headquarters, Washington, DC - 20 June 1925
CGC McDOUGAL, Boston, MA - 23 August 1928 (CO)
CGC GRESHAM, Mobile, AL - 13 August 1930 (CO)
Navy Department, Washington, DC - 3 October 1932
CGC SARANAC, Galveston, TX - 11 may 1935 (CO)
CGC ITASCA, Honolulu, TH - 1 December 1936 (CO)
CGC INGHAM, Port Washington, WA - 20 August 1937 (CO)

It is interesting that most of his commands were for roughly 2 years but he was only with ITASCA for about 9 months.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:13:22 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Smoke at Lae

What can be inferred regarding surface wind speed and direction from the smoke seen adjacent to the runway on take-off at Lae? Smoke to me looks about parallel to the runway which I seem to remember was 150 degrees magnetic. Can anyone hazard a guess on windspeed?

Regards Angus.

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

3 to 5 knots.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:31:08 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Angus Murray wrote:

> Do we have any eye-witness account of the take-off at Oakland and how it
> compared to that at Lae.

 Earlier forum estimates of the takeoff distance and winds at Lae  are approx.  2850 ft.,5-7  knots,headwind

Long gives the takeoff distance at Oakland as 1897 ft. and the time as 25 seconds. The source is the Oakland Times. I realize that this information is from a secondary source, and that  Angus probably has this data, but I  wrote it up anyway in the hope it is of some use.

> What were the wind strengths and directions for Oakland-Hawaii as deduced
> from the weather charts compiled after the event?

info  from E.  Long for the winds at Oakland on page 75 of his book is "the 4 pm weather report showed the winds out of the south-west at 14 mph, with a temperature of 48 degrees F"(a headwind). He attributes the report to U.S. Weather Bureau observation, Oakland Airport,4:00 PM, March 17,1937.again,this is not precisely what you asked about, so just ignore it if it is not useful

Ric wrote:

>I've never understood how Elgen justifies his sans fuel weight at Lae.  The
>empty-weight of the airplane should have been influenced by several factors
>including:
>- the removal of the trailing wire system

Is there any evidence that the trailing wire system was in use (or was not) on the South Atlantic Crossing or the Hono trip? The reason I ask is that the airplane's drag is increased by this system and the airspeed should be lower with the deployed antenna.

harvey 2387
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know about the Hono trip but it could not have been used on the South Atlantic crossing because it wasn't there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:31:46 EST
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Winds or errors? a review of the chart to Hawaii

Thank you Gary and Randy for your answers to my questions concerning AP determination. That little dot on the chart identifying the AP was a revelation to me, and the specific lat and long numbers are a great help to my understanding of navigation.

I look forward to your further analyses of the hono chart.

harvey 2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:27:28 EST
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: CDR Warner Thompson/Research on

I seem to remember that Warner's son was also a coastie and was in contact with TIGHAR circa 1998 or so.  Ric, is my memory failing again?

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

One of us is losing it.  I have no recollection of any contact from Thompson's family.  You may be thinking of Leo Bellart's son.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:29:40 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Harvey,

Thanks very much for the information.

> Long gives the takeoff distance at Oakland as 1897 ft. and the time as 25
> seconds

What was flying speed for the Electra in terms of weight?  We should be able to get a rough take-off speed from the frame rate of the camera using the aircraft dimensions for scale and fixed background markers. I note the runway at Lae was about 3000ft and it would appear the Electra became airborne only near the end. Any ideas on the length needed for take-off on this occasion?

All this should give us an estimate of the relative weights (Oakland/Lae) taking into account wind speeds (12kt vs say 5kt) and even the actual weight at Lae with the appropriate acceleration algorithm. The formula could be checked against Oakland knowing the wind speed and direction and take-off distance and also take-off  performance figures for extant electras with similar props and engines, to see if the result is consistent. Oscar??

>The source is the Oakland times. I realize that this information is
> from a secondary source, and that  Angus probably has this data, but I
>wrote it up anyway in the hope it is of some use.

yes - indeed it is.

>> What were the wind strengths and directions for Oakland-Hawaii as deduced
>> from the weather charts compiled after the event?
> info  from E. Long for the winds at Oakland on page 75 of his book is "the 4
> pm weather report showed the winds out of the south-west at 14 mph,

Was this surface speed?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:30:42 EST
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: CDR Warner Thompson/Research on

I have requested biographical data from the US Coast Guard Historical Division, Wash DC. but it will take up to 12 weeks. The Div is open to the public and if any Tighar member is there, maybe they could take a look. 2100 2nd St S.W., Washington DC, (202) 267 1394.

In view of the significance that the Itasca played in the AE flight, I am guessing that he may have made some private notes, told a relative, etc., something more about the flight and the search.

 Howard Hanzlick's recollection of CDR Thompson was quite limited , but did see him in the radio room.

Some speculate that his reassignment from Itasca to Alaska , an out of the way post, was some sort of disciplinary matter, at least informally. I will see what I can dig up.

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 5 Apr 2003 10:32:08 EST
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Take-off distance and weight.

> Long gives the takeoff distance at Oakland as 1897 ft. and the time as 25
> seconds

using:

s = ut + 1/2ft*    and     v* = u*+ 2fs

where x* is x squared

s = distance

t = time

v = minimum flying speed

u = initial speed = 0

f = average acceleration

1897 = 1/2f x 625  hence f = 6.0704ft/sec*

v* = 12.1408 x 1897 = 23031

v = 151.76ft/sec = 103.47mph = 89.91kt

Interestingly this is the exact speed (90kt) deduced from the chart for the earliest stage between take-off and the  Golden Gate.

Ignoring density altitude, runway angle and winds, the difference in take-off distance between Oakland and Lae seems to indicate a bigger differential in weight than Long suggests even bearing in mind the exponential relationship between weight ratio and take-off distance ratio but I will wait for some feedback on take-off distance at Lae before going further. Anyone know the drag coefficient, frontal area etc for the Electra and runway angles, height, temps for Oakland and Lae in July?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 5 Apr 2003 10:53:22 EST
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Post-loss radio patterns

As an X-Air Force Pilot and Commercial Pilot who used HF  radios from 1965-1985, that statement is not entirely correct. Due to the Wave Bounce, what we called it, one could be heard just as strong 10,000 miles away as one hundreds of miles away. Most of the time in the Pacific we found that their was no degrading of the signal except in certain areas at different times of the day. Back to what we learned, the higher the Sun the higher the frequency.  ie: Over Wake IS. at noon the best frequency was in the 13000 or 15000 range. But back to 11176 was the common freq. thru out the Pacific. When I would run out of freq's in the Atlantic sometimes at night, 11176 would raise Hickam or Wake most of the time also 11179. Most of the time HF's were not good within 100 miles of a station but who cared as VHF or UHF was in range then.

Jim  Preston
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It's not clear to me what statement you're referring to, but I presume that you are taking issue with my statement that, generally speaking, the closer the station the stronger the signal.  My understanding is that the degrading of an HF signal depends upon how much time it spends in the layers of the ionosphere that have a degrading effect on the signal.  Signals received by closer stations go up and come back down at steep angles, minimizing the time spent in the layers. The layer that has the most degrading effect - the "D" layer - is a function of solar radiation and gets much stronger during daylight hours.  Higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) have a better ability to "survive" exposure to the D layer, hence your "higher the sun, higher the frequency" rule.

People, like yourself, have practical experience and know what works in particular situations.  It's not clear to me to what degree your experience with much higher frequencies applies to 3105 and 6210.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 5 Apr 2003 11:10:41 EST
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

> Long gives the takeoff distance at Oakland as 1897 ft. and the time as 25

Do any of you actually believe anyone could pin the take off roll right to the foot? If it was stated at 1900' I could buy it but not 1897. Think about it.

Go out to a small field and see if you can determine the take off roll accurately within 12 inches. I don't think so.

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

Well hell, Elgen has the headwind pinned down to the knot, the fuel consumption nailed down to the gallon, and the moment of fuel exhaustion calculated down to the minute.  That's how the Crashed-and-Sankers constrain their search area to a few hundred square miles.  Once you start questioning the precision of the calculations the whole thing unravels.

We start at the other end.  We say the clues suggest that they may have ended up on Gardner.  We don't need to know the unknowable precise details of the progress of the flight to determine that it should have been possible for them to reach Gardner.  That's all we need to justify an intense scrutiny of the island to see if there is additional evidence that the flight got there.

All of this agonizing over takeoff weights and en route weather and LOPs and Plan Bs is fun and keeps us off the street, but it is essentially irrelevant to the problem of proving what happened to Amelia Earhart.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:50:43 EDT
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Color photos of Electra on Ebay

This is probably not news to anyone else, but some color photos (copies actually) of AE's Electra are offered on Ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2168042238&category=419

LTM
JMH
0634C
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I see that the bidding has closed, so somebody got taken for a ride.  There are no color pictures of Earhart's Electra.  The two color photos are of Finch's replica.

Here's a quick way to spot Finch's Phony.  Look at the propeller hubs. NR16020 had non-feathering props with the counter-weights visible.  Finch's airplane has full-feathering props with a smooth dome at the hub.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:52:41 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Take off distances are published in aircraft manuals but one shouldn't always believe what they say. The figures in the manuals are calculated under ISA conditions and surfaced runways. Things look different when taking off from grass to begin with. As a rule of thumb one should add the standard 15 % take off run from dry grass. But don't you take this for granted! Taking off from a short field which according to the official figures is long enough, watch out if it has been raining recently: the ground may be sodden and that might add perhaps 30 % to your take off run. Which is further influenced by air temperature (ISA is 15?C), which in turn influences air density. On a hot day an aircraft will need a longer take off run than on a cold day. Not to mention the humidity of the air. We all know to watch out for "HHH" (high, hot, humid conditions) when looking at the take off distance. All this makes me think one shouldn't take Long's calculations too seriously. As Ric put it: it doesn't matter how long the Electra's take off run was. What we want to know is whether Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan did indeed land on Gardner Island. How long their take off run was at Lae is in my view irrelevant.

LTM (who used to take off from a taxiway when the grass runway was sodden)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:55:16 EDT
From:         Richard Metzger
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Ric,
After reading the forum for a month, you have made finally made a true investigative statement.

Thank you
Richard Metzger

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

I try to make one every once in a while just to stay in practice.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:00:39 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

> All of this agonizing over takeoff weights and en route weather and LOPs and
> Plan Bs is fun and keeps us off the street, but it is essentially irrelevant
> to the problem of proving what happened to Amelia Earhart.

Of course that is true and I see three areas of "agonizing." One, such as you note above, is the interesting task of filling in the pieces of the puzzle. Doesn't move the ball forward but it will make the final chapter much more interesting and I applaud all such efforts.

A second area is the dedicated effort to prove everything else wrong. It is not clear in my mind why but such occurs in every project. Perhaps there are little "I told you so" medals that can be awarded for whatever value.

The third area is the careful exploration of Niku diligently searching for clue after clue based on good reason to look at this island. This is the main purpose of our illustrious group and deserves the most emphasis.

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

The really ironic thing is that, once we have conclusively proved that the flight ended at Gardner, all of our rank speculation about how it got there will suddenly be seen as historical fact.  The puzzle pieces will be nicely filled in marshmallow fluff.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:01:14 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

The math is great, Angus and a precise answer can be obtained but it's the input that refutes the answer. The rule of course is GIGO. The input data cannot be precise but only the mathematical process.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:05:58 EDT
From:         Lawrence
Subject:      Off the wall question

What is the stall speed of an Electra 10E? I just wonder if it is possible for a pilot to view the flat reef ( and see details) north of the NC, prior to landing.

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

According to Lockheed specs, a standard 10E stalls at 65 mph, flaps down.  A low speed, low altitude pass over the proposed landing area (known as "dragging the field") has long been standard procedure prior to landing on a questionable surface.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:10:08 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Ship in sight ahead

At 10.30 GCT AE reported "Ship in sight ahead". Would it be possible to see the lights of a ship from 10,000ft in the dark? If so, would it be possible to know it was a ship and not an island? At what height would it be likely that one could identify it as a ship?

Regards Angus.

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

I've never done it but I can't imagine that it would be difficult.  Any light on a dark ocean would stand out and if there is any ambient light at (moon and stars) it should be possible to see breakers on a shoreline or a wake behind a moving ship.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:23:54 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Randy Jacobson writes:

> One can easily and graphically determine a change in course from a known fix
> to a known position within a couple of degrees on a chart.

Do you mean "a change in heading" - which allows for winds (as the desired change in projected course is obvious)? And did he do this in the ordinary way by set and drift? If so, how do you know he did if there no evidence of that on the chart?

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:28:14 EDT
From:         Matt M.
Subject:      Re: Color photos of Electra on Ebay

Is it me or does the right hand pitot tube in the picture of her sitting on the top of the plane not "look right", or is it just the picture?

Matt M
Michigan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

It's just the picture.  That picture was taken in July of '36 when the airplane was delivered.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:57:39 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Angus asked:

> Do you mean "a change in heading" - which allows for winds (as the desired
> change in projected course is obvious)?

No, I meant a change in course.  I believe FN did not account for winds in any projected flight path.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:58:36 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Winds and bearings

Herman writes

> Take off distances are published in aircraft manuals but one shouldn't
> always believe what they say.

That's certainly true, Herman and in addition to the factors you discussed it may surprise some who love precision to know that every aircraft is not the same. The performance of similar aircraft often varies to some degree.

When I flew B-47s, a Boeing aircraft, I preferred those made by Douglas rather than those made by Boeing or Lockheed. They performed better.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:05:40 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Alan wrote:

> The math is great, Angus and a precise answer can be obtained but it's the
> input that refutes the answer. The rule of course is GIGO. The input data
> cannot be precise but only the mathematical process.

Of course the input data CAN be precise! We don't KNOW that it's precise until we input the data into the physics, see what happens and see if the result is consistent with what else we know. Even then of course there may be multiple data sets that roughly fit the real world circumstances but none the less, one of those data sets (ie what actually took place) WILL be precise (to whatever level of precision you want to consider).

Now I don't know how Long got his data but I read in the Tighar archive that these figures are confirmed elsewhere. (Ric - what is the origin of these measurements 1897ft and 25sec?). If they were timed and measured by an observer, they may easily be sufficiently accurate to use usefully. Even if deduced from a film with a somewhat hazily known frame rate they could still be useful.

On this particular topic I am in any case looking to see if the information is consistent with my scenario, not to claim a critical importance to a hundredth of a knot.

You think the how and why of AE's disappearance can never be solved to most people's satisfaction as the information is too thin. I am quite sure you are wrong. I am already absolutely certain that they landed at Niku (and I will nail my colours to the mast on this one) and this is based on other evidence than the circumstantial evidence that Tighar has unearthed. I am also sure I have solved the problem of the how and am well advanced with working on the why although in this latter respect determining a unique scenario may well be a lot more difficult. Ric KNOWS that AE landed at Niku based on the diminishing probability that all the circumstantial evidence discovered could somehow have arisen from other causes. Each circumstance taken in isolation is fairly easily explained by an alternative believable scenario. It is the combination of circumstances that multiplies the probability of each being a coincidence to arrive at a very small chance that these circumstances together did not occur by chance.

In the same way one can become confident of  a mathematically based scenario in that if it satisfies all the conditions for what we do know and alternative scenarios that fit the facts are far fetched, the chances that it is wrong becomes small.

Regards Angus.

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

I don't know where Long's 1897 feet and 25 seconds come from.  Earhart was born in 1897 and learned to fly when she was 25 - maybe that's it.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:32:31 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

The 1897 feet and 25 second take-off data from Oakland was provided by Richard(?) Miller, who was present at that take-off and was an official of the Bureau of Air Commerce, and was AE's liaison with government.  He issued a number of telegrams immediately after the take-off.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:36:29 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> Angus asked:
> > Do you mean "a change in heading" - which allows for winds (as the desired
> > change in projected course is obvious)?
>
> No, I meant a change in course.  I believe FN did not account for winds in
> any projected flight path.

Thanks Randy,

I must say I am a little surprised by this. Surely half the point of getting a fix is to establish set and drift and once one has, the process of establishing a correct heading is perfectly simple. Admittedly winds change on a long flight but one has a much better chance of arriving at one's way-points (eg Nukumanu, Ontario, Tabiteuea) if your heading is based on your last wind determination from the last two fixes. One then has the advantage of further fixes from pilotage.

What, other than lack of indication of set and drift calculation on the charts leads you to believe this was the case?

Regards Angus.

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

Of the three "waypoints" you mention, only Ontario is known to have been used. 
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:38:13 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Ric wrote:

> I don't know where Long's 1897 feet and 25 seconds come from.  Earhart was
> born in 1897 and learned to fly when she was 25 - maybe that's it.

The 1897 feet and 25 seconds ("an excellent takeoff on a wet field") come from a telegram to FDR from the BAC representative at the field. The same information is repeated in LAST FLIGHT.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Did Miller really send the telegram to FDR?  Why would he care?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:39:59 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Motivations

Ric writes:

> All of this agonizing over takeoff weights and enroute weather and LOPs and
> Plan Bs is fun and keeps us off the street, but it is essentially irrelevant
> to the problem of proving what happened to Amelia Earhart.

Amen, brother. However....

Searching Niku is the province of only a few of us. I would think that members have diverse motives for coughing up a few dollars to join TIGHAR and provide that box lunch to the searchers. I rather enjoy the interplay of the various posters to the forum. I don't pretend to understand what some of the posters are chasing, but that doesn't mean that I should dismiss their interests. I realize that you're only trying to moderate the forum and keep us on track.

I think that we can all rest assured that we want to SOLVE the mystery as best we can. TIGHAR has a hypothesis -- and a damn good one -- that needs to be confirmed. That happens on the island.

What makes the Earhart story fascinating is that is has a little bit of everything -- aeronautics, navigation, radio, piloting skills, human failings and other unknown or unknowable failures. No wonder the forum generates so much noise. Keep up the good work everyone.

Bob
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:42:08 EDT
From:         Russ Matthews
Subject:      Re: Color photos of Electra on Ebay

Ric wrote:

>I see that the bidding has closed, so somebody got taken for a ride.
>There are no color pictures of Earhart's Electra.  The two color photos are of
>Finch's replica.

And somebody else is about to go for a ride.  I clicked on "view seller's other items" and found another set of 4 photos, including 3 color shots of the Finch Electra billed as "Amelia Earhart and her aircraft."  This time the give-away is even more obvious -- there's a guy with a video camera front and center.

Bidding closes in 28 hours!
LTM,
Russ
******************************************************************
From Ric

Is it possible that GP is still alive??

=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:33:42 EDT
From:         Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Ric wrote:

> Did Miller really send the telegram to FDR?  Why would he care?

"Apparently he did" answers both questions. (My recollection is that FDR's copy of the telegram is reproduced in AMELIA, MY COURAGEOUS SISTER.)

*************************************************************
From Randy Jacobson

Ack!  It was Bill Miller!

I know of no telegram from the archives from Bill Miller to FDR.  That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I never checked FDR's archival records, and no telegram copying FDR appears in the other archives.
***************************************************************
From Ric

Oscar is right.  The telegram, on White House stationery, addressed to "The President" and signed "W.T. Miller" is reproduced in AMELIA, MY COURAGEOUS SISTER (page 201).  I find it very odd.  From the contents of the telegram it is apparent that Miller does not expect FDR to know much of anything about the flight.  He tells him where they are going and who is aboard and that Mantz will leave the flight in Honolulu, Noonan will leave the flight at Howland and Manning will leave in Australia.

*********************************************************
From Alan Caldwell

Randy wrote:

> The 1897 feet and 25 second take-off data from Oakland was provided by
> Richard(?) Miller, who was present at that take-off .................

Randy, could you hazard a guess as to what method Miller used to determine the takeoff distance to the inch?

Angus, I defy anyone to give a believable explanation as to how someone in 1937 could have measured that takeoff distance down to the inch and what possible significance it could have.

Alan

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

Alan, I think you're making a mountain out of this molehill.  Miller probably timed the takeoff and then paced it off.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:34:53 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

I'll repeat this again: when navigating this way, the wind (or current, if you are a ship) drift and set predicted for the future may not necessarily be the same as that you have experienced.  If it changes significantly, accounting for the past set and drift may make things even worse than simply ignoring wind/current.  As they say in the stock market, which is an excellent analogy, past performance does not represent future performance.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:38:06 EDT
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Color photos of Electra on Ebay

Anyone wants color pictures of AE's L10E? I've got plenty. I took them at Le Bourget in 1997!

LTM (who loves color pictures)
********************************************************
From Jex

<<there's a guy with a video camera front and center.>>

Yeh! And he's wearing Nike's, 'bumbags' 'n' Levi 501's,??????
***********************************************************
From Dave in Fremont:

> Is it possible that GP is still alive??

It's possible, but GP would have faked AE's signature to drive the price up.

LTM (who also would have noticed Finch's jumpsuit and Staten Island hairdo in the color photo),

Dave in Fremont (#2585)
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:39:30 EDT
From:         Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Ship in sight ahead

Angus said

> to know it was a ship and not an island?
> At what height would it be likely that one could identify it as a ship?
>
> Regards Angus.

I was flying up the Georgia coast late one afternoon with a friend where there are lots of islands.  Suddenly my friend says "Hey, look at those ships, what are they doing that far up the river?" I thought he was joking, I strained to see what he was looking at, and all I could see were Islands, so I said what ships??  He says right there, straight ahead of us.  Suddenly the islands I was looking at turned into ships, long grey ghosts laying perpendicular to our flight.  I rubbed my eyes, and looked again,  they were islands.  I said Hey Larry, those are not ships they are islands.  Oh yeah he says, they're just islands.  We were only 5 miles away, but they really did look like ships after Larry mentioned it.  Although this was not at night, it was startling how easy it is to see an illusion.  In fact, the FAA put a chapter in one of my old manuals titled "flight illusions at night"  You have to be real careful about what you see over water, specially at night. 

regards, the Stoker #2535
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:41:25 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Angus writes:

> You think the how and why of AE's disappearance can never be solved to most
> people's satisfaction as the information is too thin.

Angus if you were addressing that comment to me you are far off base. I have never said that. On the contrary I think it will be solved and conclusively. I HAVE argued that the navigation evidence is thin. The puzzle will be solved on the ground some place not by celestial, fuel, gross weight or by any navigation replotting. There is insufficient evidence to refly the mission.

I don't think there is much prior to 8:43 L that has much significance. We know the distance flown and the time of flight and Noonan's belief he was in the vicinity of Howland. That gives a good fuel reserve estimate. The Niku theory has some evidence of whatever quality. No other theory has any evidence at all. The aircraft was fuel limited as to where it could go. To the Phoenix group or possibly to a Gilbert island but nowhere else. Certainly it could not reach the Marshall's.

There is no evidence that would lead one to search a Gilbert island, no practical way to search ocean and no evidence in any of the other Phoenix Islands. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:04:43 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

> The 1897 feet and 25 seconds ("an excellent takeoff on a wet field")

The comment is interesting. AE was flying a heavily loaded aircraft at Oakland and yet apparently pulls off fairly early considering the weight and the wet field but she had the advantage of fairly low temperatures (48 degreesF).

At the Luke Field debacle her comment was something along the lines of "I thought the take-off was over".  The witness Mr Berger thought she had "pulled off too soon".

One has to wonder if her ground-loop was as a result of her lack of familiarity with a high gross weight aircraft in ground effect. The aircraft reaches flying speed but only while it is in maximum ground effect, very close to the ground. She feels the vibration drop off as the wheels leave the ground  and pulls up at a rate consistent with a power to weight ratio she is used to. There is insufficient reserve power to keep the heavy aircraft accelerating sufficiently fast to overcome the drag caused by the increasing angle of attack. The aircraft stalls as the ground effect rapidly drops off with increasing height and drops back to the ground crooked, resulting in the ground loop.

Her use of virtually the whole runway at Lae may have had as much to do with trying to keep within ground effect as it was to do with high density altitude and high weight, especially as the aircraft momentarily becomes airborne and then is allowed to sink back before the end of the runway.

Comments?

Regards Angus
***********************************************************************
From Ric

That's not what the Army said happened.

"Miss Earhart paused very briefly in takeoff position then apparently opened the throttles wide.  From where the undersigned (Phillips Melville, Major, Air Corps, Operations Officer, Luke Field) was standing near the Southwest end of the mat the airplane seemed to gain speed quickly.  The wingtips were observed to wobble slightly as it ran over unevenesses in the mat.  Suddenly, the airplane was seen to be veering to the left with increasing rapidity as in the initial stage of a ground loop; as it swung it tilted with the outer (i.e., right hand) wing almost scraping the mat.  The right hand landing gear suddenly collapsed followed by the other and the airplane slid in an abrupt left hand skid on its belly.  A shower of sparks spurted from between the aircraft and the mat."

She never got anywhere close to being airborne, even in ground effect.  She just plain lost it.  It's hard to convey the feeling of what it's like to make a takeoff in an overloaded tailwheel airplane.  Once the tail is up it's like running down a steep hill with your hands tied to a very heavy wheelbarrow.  You're trying to keep the whole assembly moving in a straight line while dealing with tremendous forces by making tiny  corrections.  If you let it get away from you at all, thing go to hell in a handbasket in a big hurry.  In this case, I suspect that the seams in the pierced steep matting introduced  deflections that Earhart was simply not competent to handle.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:39:19 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Takeoff distance and weight

Alan wrote:

> Randy wrote:
> > The 1897 feet and 25 second take-off data from Oakland was provided by
> > Richard(?) Miller, who was present at that take-off .................
>
> Randy, could you hazard a guess as to what method Miller used to determine
> the takeoff distance to the inch?

Seeing as the distance is quoted in feet it seems reasonable to assume that the distance is quoted to the nearest foot rather than the inch.

> Angus, I defy anyone to give a believable explanation as to how someone in
> 1937 could have measured that takeoff distance down to the inch and what
> possible significance it could have.

It seems likely that some marker or alignment was used to estimate the point of take-off and that 1897ft was a best estimate of distance, measured after the event. There is nothing wrong with quoting a best estimate to the nearest foot. If you think it is closer to the correct distance than 1900ft it would be somewhat disingenuous to quote the latter figure merely because it was a round figure. It would, however, have been wise to qualify the statement by saying it was estimated as 1897ft rather than implying it was in fact exactly  that distance to the nearest foot. However I don't know the exact words used.

As to the significance I am not sure if you mean the significance of quoting to the nearest foot, the significance of the information to Miller , or the significance to us.

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:42:45 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Alan writes:

> Angus writes
>
> > You think the how and why of AE's disappearance can never be solved to most
> > people's satisfaction as the information is too thin.
>
> Angus if you were addressing that comment to me you are far off base. I have
> never said that. On the contrary I think it will be solved and conclusively.
>
> I HAVE argued that the navigation evidence is thin. The puzzle will be solved
> on the ground some place not by celestial, fuel, gross weight or by any
> navigation replotting. There is insufficient evidence to refly the mission.

You have not understood my terms. The "how and the why" are the result  of, and the reasons for the NAVIGATIONAL problems. I am arguing with your assertion that there is insufficient evidence to refly the mission and contrary to what you say, celestial, gross weight and navigation re-plotting all have their place - but there are other factors too.

> I don't think there is much prior to 8:43 L that has much significance. We
> know the distance flown and the time of flight and Noonan's belief he was in
> the vicinity of Howland. That gives a good fuel reserve estimate. The Niku
> theory has some evidence of whatever quality.
>
>No other theory has any evidence at all.

I am AGREEING with the Niku theory! But I am saying that there is a lot more to it than merely proving where they ended up! Even finding Electra parts on Niku would not be totally conclusive without the "how and the why". We know parts from other aircraft ended up there. Electra parts could, in theory, have been brought from another island or even drifted in with the tide. Even something as big as an engine could have been collected elsewhere and dumped on the reef as a boat anchor. (unlikely admittedly!) Re-plotting the navigation on the other hand (with sufficient evidence), provides satisfactory corroboration of the Niku circumstantial evidence, even if no other physical evidence is ever found.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:45:10 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

> That's not what the Army said happened.

OK I'm convinced.

Regards Angus.
***************************************************
From Ric

Isn't that against the forum rules??  <G>
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:54:06 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

Ric wrote:

> Of the three "waypoints" you mention, only Ontario is known to have been used.

Waypoints don't have to be beacons. Any readily identifiable feature whose position is known can be a waypoint. Obviously we can't be 100% sure of Fred's intended course but I think there is little doubt that he would have been on the lookout for such features which did occur on his intended course to assist with pilotage and hence the principle of my point that wind corrected navigation allows a better chance of establishing more fixes is sound.

Regards Angus
*****************************************************************
From Ric

I'm just cautioning against the tendency for accepted conjecture to evolve into "fact".  Earhart gave Lae a position that is near the Nukumanu Islands so - bingo - it is received wisdom that Earhart and/or Noonan "got a visual" on the Nukumanu Islands.  Nauru heard Earhart say "Ship in sight ahead" so - bingo - everybody knows that Earhart saw the Ontario, or the Myrtlebank, depending on who you talk to.  In 1940 the yacht YANKEE collects an anecdote from somebody on Tabituea who remembers hearing an airplane pass high overhead at night and - bingo - Earhart flew over Tabituea enroute to Howland.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:57:19 EDT
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Re: Color photos of Electra on Ebay

I figured... "what the heck?" and wrote the guy a nice note suggesting that possibly he was not aware that the color photos were of Linda Finch, and gave him a Linda Finch URL.

Here is his reply:

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003

Thanks, I opened your e-mail at 4:30EST and did not have time to end the auction due to work. I have ended this auction and will re-list correctly. I was under the impression that these photos where of Amelia as that is what I assumed Lockheed had sent me. My mistake and not fraud or deliberate mis-listing was intended on my part. I thank you for pointing out my mistake. I received another e-mail that I will respond to in a moment from another member that was quite nasty in his remarks. I don't think I will be so polite in my response. Thanks for your help. Richard Harris
*****************************************************************
From Ric

Same old lesson.  Never attribute malice that which can be explained by simple neglect or incompetence.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:15:23 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Three sheets to the wind.

>  Earhart gave Lae a position that is near the Nukumanu Islands
> so - bingo - it is received wisdom that Earhart and/or Noonan "got a visual"
> on the Nukumanu Islands.

Yes - an unwarranted conclusion.

If they had "got a visual" on Nukumanu, surely the easiest option would have been to fly right over the island and merely record the time if an exact timed fix was required. This would be a much better timed fix than via sights. And yet we are led to believe that Fred got a celestial fix, close to intended course, in the immediate vicinity. Why would he want to get a fix at this point if he already knew where they were? This makes it rather likely that they did NOT see Nukumanu, perhaps being above cloud at the time.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:16:19 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Angus writes

> Re-plotting the navigation on the other hand (with sufficient evidence),
> provides satisfactory corroboration of the Niku circumstantial evidence,
> even if no other physical evidence is ever found.

Angus, tell me what the sufficient evidence is to replot the flight.

What is needed is the Electra's TAS, headings and all the altitudes and winds enroute. If you know that information you are the only person on God's Little Green Earth who does. If you don't know ALL of that data you cannot replot
the flight.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:17:36 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      takeoff distance

Angus wrote

> As to the significance I am not sure if you mean the significance of quoting
> to the nearest foot, the significance of the information to Miller , or the
> significance to us.

Angus, I would not call 1897 an estimate. If Miller had said "around 1900 feet" I would call THAT an estimate. 1897 is pretty exact. Your explanation tells how one could make an estimate not how anyone could get an exact distance.

I don't see the significance to us. What do you see as the significance that I've missed?

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:21:15 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Latitude by Polaris

I picked this snippet up on the net - a supposed description of Noonan's navigation techniques. I quote:

"To use this method, you cruise to the latitude of the destination, turn toward the destination, maintaining this latitude by additional Polaris sights until you reach the destination. The altitude of the sun at noon gives the similarly usable information, and the calculation is very easy. This is called a landfall; why, I don't know. Fred Noonan, Amelia Earhart's navigator, always flew landfalls, but he is quoted by the people who talked to him just prior to his final flight " I am going to try a three star fix on this flight." He missed his destination".

The idea that Noonan could in his usual lazy way fly blindly north until he hit the latitude of Howland and then fly a constant latitude line towards Howland, guided only by Polaris was obviously a non-starter on such a long trip, planned to arrive in the early morning when neither Polaris or a noon sight would be available. However, it seems Fred had other ideas and intended to navigate by means of a single three star fix!

Since such apocryphal stories sometimes originate in fact, I wondered if there was any grain of truth in the idea that Fred did in fact intend to change his navigation technique at all - (perhaps taking three star instead of two star fixes) and is there any evidence any such conversation took place?

Regards Angus.

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

The whole thing is news to me.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:23:58 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Amelia at Saipan

Word comes from Saipan that the Chatauqua Society will bring "Amelia" to Saipan next week as part of a repersonification of famous Americans. A woman impersonates AE down to looks, speech, mannerisms, etc. [ Don't ask me what the Chatauqua Society is]. Lots of interest remains in Saipan, says the Society.

Maybe the forum has some questions for Amelia, such as what the heck happened after 0843, 2 July, 1937?

Ron Bright
****************************************************************
From Ric

"Repersonification" - that's a new one.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:00:51 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Amelia at Saipan

Maybe that is the process in which they freeze a body, like Ted Williams, then when new technology comes, thaws it out and presto, there is "Amelia". [Since there was no ice on Niku, this may casts some doubt on the Niku theory!!]

Ron Bright

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

It's probably something like the Nauticos "renavigation" process.  If we could "repersonify" AE we could just ask her what happened.  Maybe Carol Dow could help us.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:02:53 EDT
From:         Gary laPook
Subject:      Re: Latitude by Polaris

What you describe ( following a latitude to destination based on noon sun shots ) was a technique use by ships in the days before the invention of accurate chronometers (sea going clocks.) You don't need accurate time to determine your latitude by a noon sun sight, you only need a calendar so you can find the sun's declination in the almanac. This technique has no use in aerial navigation because noon only happens once a day  so you couldn't use a noon sight to ensure following a parallel of latitude to your destination especially since most flights last only a portion of a day. It was useful in a sailing ship that might follow a latitude line for several weeks taking a noon sight on each day.

Using Polaris is also useful at sea for following a parallel of latitude and accurate time is not necessary for its use either and can be useful in northern latitudes. But it would not have been available to Noonan because it would never have been  high enough in the sky to provide a useful sight at the latitude of Howland.  The declination of Polaris in 1937 was 88 degrees 57.5 minutes north which means that it was located 1* -  2.5 ' from the pole. (You just subtract its declination from 90 degrees which is the declination of the pole.) The highest Polaris would be in the sky as measured at the latitude of Howland island (0* -48 ' North)  can be computed by adding Howland's latitude to the distance that Polaris is from the pole. 48 ' plus  1* - 2.5 ' equals 1* -50.5 ' , less than 2* above the horizon.  During other parts of the day the star would be even lower and would be at a minus 14.5 ' at the lowest point. Noonan couldn't use a Polaris sight even when at its highest because his refraction table only had corrections for altitudes of 6* - 30 ' and higher and so he would not know the correction that would need to be applied to a Polaris sight in order to compute their latitude.

To understand Noonan's navigational techniques read his letter  in which he discusses his navigational techniques which is published on pages 422 through 425 of the 1938 edition of Weems "Air Navigation" available at:

http://www.geocities.com/phinneasbluster/weems-422-423.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/phinneasbluster/weems-424-425.JPG

You will see that he used stellar fixes during the night, sun lines crossed with radio bearings during the day (only when close to a radio station because he didn't like the accuracy of radio bearings at long distances) and he computed the wind by  comparing his "no wind" positions with his celestial fixes ( which is still the method used by Air Force navigators today.)

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:39:26 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Wind compensation

From Gary's post (thanks Gary) I quote Noonan:

"Consequently the difference between "no wind" positions and fixes established by observations were utilised entirely for determination of drift angle and, of course, wind velocity and direction for laying new courses".

Noonan here states that drift angle, wind velocity and direction were indeed used for "laying new courses".  Noonan  certainly didn't ignore the wind in deciding his new headings after fixes on this flight so why should we believe that he did so on the World Flight? Indeed, he states the method would not be so suitable in areas where sudden wind shifts could be expected. This would be irrelevant if he ignored the wind. The "no wind" position was purely a hypothetical position which predicted what their current position would have been on their current heading in still air and does not imply that he ignored the wind.

I also note that he used separate plotting sheets. Could this explain the lack of indications of wind related geometry on the ocean chart?

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:43:24 EDT
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Amelia at Saipan

I don't know about what's going on in Saipan, but here is the poop on Chautauqua in general.

 From the Boulder Colorado Chautauqua website:

On July 4, 1898, over 4,000 people gathered for the opening day of the Colorado Chautauqua.  Boulder civic leaders and Texas educators had joined together to create a cultural and educational summer retreat. Today, the Colorado Chautauqua is one of three remaining Chautauquas in the United States, and the only site west of the Mississippi River, in continuous operation, with its original structures intact.

Before radio and television, the Chautauqua movement united millions in common cultural and educational experiences. Orators, performers, and educators traveled a national Chautauqua circuit of more than 12,000 sites bringing lectures, performances, concerts, classes, and exhibitions to thousands of people in small towns and cities. Theodore Roosevelt called Chautauquas, "the most American thing in America."

A Very Brief History of the Chautauqua Movement

The word "chautauqua" is Iroquois, and means either "two moccasins tied together" or "jumping fish". Whatever the precise etymology, it's clear the word described a lake in western New York, which by the Civil War was known as Chautauqua Lake.

In 1874, John Heyl Vincent and Lewis Miller rented the site of a Methodist camp meeting to use in the post-camp meeting season as a summer school for Sunday school teachers; this became known as the Chautauqua Institution. This reflected a nation-wide interest in the professionalization of teaching. They were very clear that their intent was educational, rather than revivalist. It should be stressed that the Chautauqua Institution was never affiliated with any one denomination; pretty much every faith group in the US has a chapel or building on the grounds today. Still, the sort of mild Protestantism that has informed much of American culture was an underpinning of the Chautauqua Movement.

Within a few years, the scope of the Chautauqua Institution had broadened to include adult education of all kinds, as well as a correspondence course--the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle, designed to bring "a college outlook" to working and middle-class people. Along with the educational (and education was broadly defined to include the arts and public affairs) offerings at Chautauqua, its thousands of summer residents attended concerts and social activities. By the last decade of the nineteenth century, the Chautauqua Institution was nationally known as a center for rather earnest, but high-minded, activities that aimed at intellectual and moral self-improvement and civic involvement. Theodore Roosevelt said that Chautauqua was "typically American, in that it is typical of America at its best."

The Chautauqua Movement, with which the Chautauqua Institution has had a maternal interest but never a formal relationship, grew out of that Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle. As its members and graduates spread the Chautauqua idea, many towns--especially in rural areas where opportunities for secondary education were limited--established "chautauquas". These seasonal establishments were influenced as much by the athenaeums, mechanics' institutes, and lecture series "Back East" as they were by the Chautauqua Institution and reflected the intense desire for self-improvement through education that has always marked the American striver. "Chautauqua" had a degree of cache and became short hand for an organized gathering intended to introduce people to the great ideas, new ideas, and issues of public concern. "Independent chautauquas", those with permanent buildings and staff could be found throughout the US by 1900, with a concentration in the mid-West.

After 1900, the "circuit chautauqua" became the principle expression of the movement. The institutional chautauquas were somewhat wary of these travelling, tented chautauquas. Still, at the height of the Chautauqua Movement, about 1915, some 12,000 communities had hosted a chautauqua. Many of the lecturers and performers were contracted by chautauqua agencies--the most notable was the Redpath Agency in Iowa--and the quality of the offerings varied from Vassar-educated lectures and Shakespeare to animal acts and vaudeville farce.

The movement pretty much died out by the mid-1930s. Most historians cite the rise of the car culture, radio, and movies as the causes. There were several other important, yet subtle, reasons for the decline. One was the sharp increase in fundamentalism and evangelical Christianity in the 20s; the bland non-denominationalism exhibited at most chautauquas couldn't accommodate these impulses. Many small independent chautauquas became essentially camp meetings or church camps. Another--seemingly contradictory influence--was the rise of the liberated, educated woman. Chautauquas functioned for many lower- and middle-class women much as the elite women's colleges did for upper-class women. They were training grounds from which women could launch "real" careers. When professional and educational opportunities increased, interest in chautauquas dwindled. Finally, the Depression itself made chautauquas economically impossible for organizers and audiences.

Several independent chautauquas survived. Estimates vary about how many function today as they did in the late-19th century: offering summer-long educational, cultural, and recreational programs and accommodations. The Chautauqua Institution flourishes, offering a broad and dynamic program every summer. The Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle is alive and well. Boulder's is the only year-round chautauqua, and the only one whose grounds are free and open to the public. The Chautauqua Network is an informal alliance of institutions that range from church camps with chautauqua roots to weeklong revived chautauquas (Waxahatchie, TX and DeFuniak Springs, FL are examples).

Several state humanities councils have organized "Chautauquas" in the last decade. These are generally programs of performers who represent figures from the American past such as Mark Twain or Calamity Jane; many of the figures were not associated with the historical chautauquas. More closely carrying on the spirit of the Chautauqua Movement are programs for educators organized by universities (the National Science Foundation has been active in this) and even a chautauqua that travels around the mid-Atlantic states in the summers presenting everything from symposia to juggling. Jim Hightower, the Texas iconoclast and political commentator, is organizing a "Chautauqua Tour" to bring political/environmental/social activists together, an exciting revival of the chautauqua idea.

You never know what you'll learn on the all knowing Forum.

LTM (who's moccasins are tied together)
Andrew McKenna
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Swell.  So now the society is going to educate people about AE by repersonifying her on Saipan?
**************************************************************************
From Carol Dow

Ric,
Okay, I'll bite on this one. The movie moguls want to know who she is, where she is at, and does she have a biography and credits. Also, is she SAG (Screen Actor's Guild) and whom the agent is. Over to anyone who is watching. Carol Dow
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Oh God.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:06:56 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      GPS

Gary LaPook ALSO wrote:

>You will see that he used stellar fixes during the night, sun lines crossed
>with radio bearings during the day (only when close to a radio station
>because he didn't like the accuracy of radio bearings at long distances)
>and he computed the wind by  comparing his "no wind" positions with his
>celestial fixes ( which is still the method used by Air Force navigators today.)

I thought the Air Force navigators today used GPS fixes (of course the GPS satellites could be called "celestial"). Celestial is defined by my ancient Webster's as:

1. Of or pertaining to the sky or heavens. 2. Of heaven; divine  3. Of or pertaining to the former Chinese Empire or the Chinese people. - n. 1. A heavenly being. 2. A Chinese; a humorous term.

Being derived from Latin makes me wonder (or ponder): I don't think the Romans knew any Chinese, so how could they use it to mean Chinese? Surely this is an "occident"!

I once knew a Celeste who was heavenly, but she wasn't Chinese, but I'll save that for another letter.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:08:52 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Chautauqua

Regarding Chautauqua. Back to my antiquated Websters (actually it's the Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary) Chautauqua is defined as:

A summer resort town in western New york on Lake Chautauqua (18 miles long); seat of a summer educational association offering lectures, home study, concerts, etc: pop. 4,376.

Uncapitalized it is defined as:

An educational assembly resembling those held at Chautauqua, New York.

Thus the Chautauqua which is mentioned apparently has no ties in any respect with anything to do with AE or Boulder, Colorado but rather with "education". Thus, this erudite scholar believes that it is a code word for: "People with too much time on their hands and not enough sense to get in out of the rain." Sometimes also known in some circles as "Effete snobs." But mostly, it means people who try to put into a million words or more that which can be stated more clearly in a single sentence.

LTM,
Dave Bush

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

You wouldn't by an chance be...related....would you?
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:10:18 EDT
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Amelia at Saipan

Sometimes you get what you ask for... <grin>

LTM (who was in Actor's Equity, but never a SAG member)
Dave (#2585)
***********************************************************
From Ric

Ain't it the truth.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:11:01 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Wind compensation

All I can say is what I can infer from the charts that FN used and the notations on them.  Others have examined the maps and can add their $0.02 worth.  On the entire Oakland to Honolulu flight, there's only one or two course changes outside of the immediate area of Oakland and Honolulu, so there's really little information to base things on.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:13:18 EDT
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Amelia at Saipan

Carol wrote:

>The movie moguls want to know who she is, where she is at,...

Hi Ric,

She's behind the "at". Sigh!!!

Michael Haddock
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:22:49 EDT
From:         Richard Metzger
Subject:      Metal detectors

They took off in 1897.25 feet(sic.), headed for Howland, Got lost, possibly ran out of fuel. Landed on an island Or crashed into the ocean. Can any more be PROVEN! No charts, no eyewitnesses. Some evidence? Could be! You don't need to know HOW they got somewhere, just where!

Change of subject.

Ric,

What type of metal detectors were used on the TIGAR missions To Gardner Island?  Be very specific please.

Thanks
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We've used White's Electronics underwater pulse-induction metal detectors for both underwater and onshore work for the past 17 years.  White's donates several units of their newest model every time they upgrade the design.  Our current units, and the ones we used in 2001, are called "Surfmaster P.I. Plus".  We've been delighted with White's products and we're very appreciative of their faithful support of our work.

We actually now have more metal detectors than we need and we have several of the previous design (known as the P.I. 3000) in excellent condition that we're willing to sell for $200 each if anyone is interested.  They originally retailed for over $600.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:24:20 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Alan wrote:

> Angus, tell me what the sufficient evidence is to replot the flight.
> What is needed is the Electra's TAS, headings and all the altitudes and winds
> enroute. If you know that information you are the only person on God's Little
> Green Earth who does. If you don't know ALL of that data you cannot replot
> the flight.

OK so you cannot do it from scratch or  100% exactly. But I am not suggesting working from scratch. I have enough information to be able to reliably infer some parameters and make excellent guesses at the others based on good evidence. I'm making good progress and am confident that most people will agree my theory explains all the known facts about the disappearance. I'll give you the evidence when I've tied up all the loose ends.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:25:07 EDT
From:         Mary Ellen
Subject:      Chatauqua

I grew up in Chautauqua County.  Dave from Houston was correct when he said that Chautauqua was known for education. People come from all over the country to attend classes.  The music department is famous in the area. 
The word "Chautauqua" is Iroquois for "Bag tied in the middle"  The town and county were named from Lake Chautauqua.  It looks like a bag tied in the middle.

To the best of my knowledge, Amelia never visited Chautauqua.  I will consult with my parents to see if they are aware of any connection.

I realize this is off topic, but I wanted to clarify the knowledge of someone who got his information from a book.  If I find a connection, I'll let you know, but it will , of course, have nothing to do with finding Amelia or her aircraft.

Keep up the good work!  I look forward to the reports from your upcoming trip.

Mary Ellen
Formerly from Jamestown, NY
currently Utica, MI
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:26:48 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Chautauqua

> You wouldn't by an chance be...related....would you?<

In reply to your query. No, I am not related to AE, Chautauqua, Boulder or Colorado (the ship or the state), New York or any lakes of any size. And I only smoke my cigars - fully inhaling and enjoying the sensation. But only about once a year or so and preferably with a good - woops - can't use that stuff - Jack Daniels will have to do from now on.

LTM,
Dave Bush

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

You answered my question.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:28:13 EDT
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: GPS

Today is 12 April 2003. The current Air Force training on this subject is contained Air Force Pamphlet 11-216 dated 1 March 2001 entitled "Air Navigation" which superseded Air Force Manual 51-40 Dated 15 March 1983 with the same title. 1 March 2001 is a date which I still consider to be  "today."

Page 142 of AF Pam 11-216  still shows how to compute the wind based on  the difference in the "no wind" position  compared to a fix. This is still how GPS computes wind but it does it automatically based on measuring the direction and distance between fixes that it derives compared to inputs (either automatic or manual) of the heading and airspeed of the aircraft which allows it to also figure a "no wind" position. Low end GPSs do not do this computation and the pilot must still do the manual computation for wind.

Chapters 8 through 13 covering pages 197 through 295 are devoted to celestial navigation so the Air Force still considers it to be important. I also heard recently that the EC-135 aircraft are expected to use celestial for at least the next 15 years and still have the mount for the Kollsman parascopic sextant on the roof of these aircraft even though most other aircraft in the fleet are not expected to continue to use celestial.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:29:56 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

> I'll give you the evidence when I've tied up all the loose
> ends.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, Angus. I can track the flight up until 10:30 GMT fairly accurately but not beyond that. A year's later anecdote that someone heard the plane fly over Tabiteuea would be helpful if true but you can't hang your hat on that. The strength 5 radio transmissions are helpful but no one wants to commit they can put the plane less than 80 miles away in any direction. That's the sum of the evidence. Noonan thought he was over Howland. An hour later they indicated they were on a LOP and running north and south. They and the line could be anywhere within a strength 5 radio distance in any direction and we don't know what that is. And we don't know what they did or where they went after 8:43 L. For the life of me I can't imagine what starting point in the Howland area you could possibly use or where you would go from there or even when. I can make all kinds of guesses but there is nothing to base a guess on of a supportable nature.

I can guess they were slightly north and beyond Howland and drove down to Niku. But I sure couldn't take that guess to the bank.

I'll be interested in what you come up with.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:32:06 EDT
From:         Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

 Just a word of  encouragement and support for your quest to understand the airplane's performance. I too am engaged in very similar efforts. For example, I can duplicate within reasonable accuracy bounds the  take off performance for the Hono and Lae flights by driving the flight equations with a simulated real time clock using parameters taken  from Lockheed specifications, TIGHAR and other sources and assuming that these are basically correct. What stymies me thus far is the low IAS cruise speeds reported by various sources. (primarily Long).Typically, the TAS calculated from these IAS run about 150 mph,far below the 487 predictions of 170-180 mph. Oscar has pointed out this discrepancy  previously. I looked at possible changes to drag coefficients and thrust, but so far these changes  have not improved the overall match to the available real world data.

  Is it possible that the cruise airspeed indications for Amelia's plane were so far off? I realize that there are calibration errors to be taken into account, but the numbers seem very far apart.  Lockheed made it clear in R465-9 (1935) that errors in  airspeed indicator readings needed reduction and steps were being taken in that direction.

 harvey #2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:18:11 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

Mary Ellen wrote:

> I grew up in Chautauqua County.

I never have grown up.  I spent some of my early years in Cattaraugus County, which is next door to Chautauqua.  :o)

> To the best of my knowledge, Amelia never visited Chautauqua.

The artistic/academic community that grew up in Chautauqua sponsors events all around the nation. It is part of the Chautauqua culture to send out "re-enactors."  They take on the appearance, dress and mannerisms of the famous person whose life they are teaching about.  This is what the Chautauqua Amelia is doing--impersonating her as part of a lecture or presentation.

This is just one of many movements that the Burned-Over District has inspired.  Mormonism got its start in upstate New York, along with the Second Great Awakening.  This is also the home of Lillydale, a 19th-century spiritualist community.

                    Marty #2359
        From Ellicottville, Allegany, & Buffalo
********************************************************************
From Ric

Sending an Amelia re-enactor to Saipan is a sad commentary on their historical rigor.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:20:03 EDT
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Betty's Note Book?

Sorry I've been distracted by the urban renewal project in Iraq - Now with the recent revelation of the second coming of Amelia Earhart in Saipan I find it time to re-focus on th mystery flight of NR16020 and its aircrew - The following question pertains to Betty's note book - Did Betty's father take Betty's note book with him when he contacted the USCG air station in St. Petersburg?
Respectfully:Tom Strang

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

I think so, but I'm not sure.  I'll ask Betty.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:21:55 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Thanks Harvey. I am interested you think you have built an accurate simulation.

Where one runs into trouble here is the fact that the strip at Oakland was wet. Wet grass can increase the takeoff distance by up to 30% - an unknown difference which makes comparisons meaningless. I would be interested to know what you think about weight difference. I get the impression that it was not nearly as much as is often supposed. Figures for Lae bandied around are about 15,000lb and maybe 14350lb for Oakland. I would not be suprised if both were more like 14,800lb. The big difference in takeoff distance seems more related to density altitude difference rather than weight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:40:46 EDT
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      Merrill-Lambie radio communication

I was very favorably impressed with your brief indication a couple of weeks ago about the kinds of hypotheses that could be tested by using the post-0843 radio message matrix. It reminded me how the radio transmission data obtained during the Merrill-Lambie "Daily Express" flights could be useful as a comparison for such hypothesis testing. I don't recall much prior discussion of the similarities and differences on the forum, so the following is summarized from the reference cited below for general interest.

KHMER used a WECO 13C, crystal-controlled, three-frequency-channel (6590, 500, and 333 kc) transmitter. It employed five tubes ordinarily capable of a carrier power of 50 to 75 W but modified for the occasion to 100 W by Larry Campbell, an EAL technician, in an installation described as "rushed". The cw operation necessitated keying screens of the r-f tubes and having the oscillator running continually. A carbon microphone was used for telephone communications.

A transmitter switch carried the antenna from receiving to sending, with a side tone provided to allow voice monitoring during transmissions. Power was supplied by a WECO 4B unit, a dynamotor supplying 1050 V for the transmitter tubes. A 50 A generator driven by the engines kept the batteries charged.  A 12A revised receiver was used for two-way communication, powered by a small dynamotor. It operated on two frequencies by crystal control. The receiver was stationed aft in the plane and remote controlled from the cockpit. Beacon signals were received on a tunable WECO 14A type, ranging from 200 to 400 kc. Also a superheterodyne, it was located beneath the right-hand pilot's seat. An 8B type box housed transmitter switches and controlled both receiver volumes, providing an output from either receiver or mixed output for either or both pilots. A jack box behind each pilot held headphones and microphones.

A 4B power unit under the left-hand pilot's seat housed two battery-driven dynamotors. The transmitter dynamotor developed 1050 V at 0.4 A, the smaller dynamotor developing 200 V at 0.085 A. A cockpit-controlled RCA radio compass was located in the ship's nose. A shielded loop was mounted on the underside of the fuselage at the forward end. The 6590 kc "V" antenna was 28 feet 4 inches long and extended topside from a mast at the front center to the two rudder fins. About one-third of the way from the tail, a stub feeder connected with the antenna just above the transmitter station. Two antennas for beacon and radio compass were located beneath the fuselage at the forward end. A trailing antenna assembly, similar to that originally installed for KHAQQ, with a low-impedance antenna coupling system modified to between 1500 and 2000 ohms, was present but not used "much" because of the inconvenience in "scrambling back over the crowded cabin fuel tanks" and because the range was found too short for clear transmission.

Flight headquarters were at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City where listeners "sat glued to a receiver". On the east-bound flight, Lambie handled most radio contacts on a prearranged schedule. Radio station WOR broadcast phonograph records on 800 meters throughout the full flight to give radio compass bearings. Droitwich, England, had a regular daylight broadcast schedule. Four hours out of New York, flying in solid clouds between 4,000 and 8,000 feet, voice transmission over the 6590 band began to "distort and break" and communication was switched to code over the same band. KHMER's signals were missed by most U.S. stations as they neared the mid-Atlantic about 500 miles beyond Newfoundland, although ham radio operators in many parts of the world picked up 6590 kc signals during that period. KHMER, however, received clear signals on 6590 kc until the plane was about 800 miles beyond Newfoundland when reception "went dead". That condition lasted until the plane was about 350 miles from Ireland when they picked up British signals on 6590 which came in clearly thereafter. A British beacon led directly to London.  The east-bound flight took 21 hours, including 14 hours of "absolutely blind flying".

On the west-bound flight, British signals "dropped" about 550 miles off the coast. KHMER was received "spottily" in the U.S. at 6 a.m. and between 8 and 10 a.m. EST. Many messages came through clearer at flight headquarters than anywhere else. Mackay Radio, RCA Communications, Radio Marine, and Coast Guard stations around the world kept a constant check on messages and strength of signals, phoning the data to the Waldorf-Astoria, and also occasionally messages were relayed from ships at sea. Regular communication was hourly, but during its period of dead reception during mid-crossing KHMER signalled every 15 minutes and was picked up "at some point on the globe". The EAL stations at Newark, Washington, Miami, Atlanta, and New Orleans received signals with varying success. At one point when KHMER was over the mid-Atlantic, none of the eastern U.S. stations could pick up the transmissions, but New Orleans received the signals clearly. East (sic) of the mid-Atlantic, KHMER was picked up most consistently in Atlanta, although Rockaway got the most powerful reception at times.

Reference cited: McClary, T.C. 1937. Merrill-Lambie commercial trans-Atlantic flight. Communications, September 1937:38, cont. 62-63.

I'll reserve comment at this time regarding the implications of the above for certain hypotheses regarding the Lae-Howland flight you may wish to test by using the post-0843 radio message matrix. I wonder if any of the original records of the "Daily Express" radio transmissions were preserved or compiled in more detail. The comprehensive message analysis you are undertaking will be an impressive achievement worthy of publication in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

Thanks Dan. Excellent information.  The Merrill-Lambie flight is THE great untapped resource for information about the demonstrated performance of the Lockheed 10E Special on two nonstop flights of similar (actually greater) distance than the Lae/Howland hop.  There is, perhaps, less to be learned about radio performance that is analogous to Earhart's flight because the transmitter wattage was double Earhart's and the receiver was an entirely different set-up.  Still, there may be useful information there.

I'm curious about your cited souce.  Where did you find it?  Is there discussion of other aspects of the flight?  We've gleaned a number of articles from contemporay newspapers and periodicals but have been unable to find an authoritative "official" account of the flights.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:35:17 EDT
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

> Sending an Amelia re-enactor to Saipan is a sad commentary on their
> historical rigor.

True.

I don't think the Chautauqua Institute provides scripts or guarantees the historical accuracy of their re-enactors/impersonators.  When I saw a Chautauqua performance at University of Nevada in Reno, Nevada, the historical assertions depended on the performers themselves, some of whom were UNR faculty.  They gave a talk on their historical character "in character" and answered questions "in character", too.  That means that their is a high degree of imrovisation going on in any presentation. 

Perhaps we can hope that in some bright future, there will be a Ric Gillespie impersonator touring the South Pacific and explaining how he solved the mystery of the final flight and made the world safe for accurate and responsible historical investigation.  :o)

LTM & the boys.

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

ouch!
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:40:13 EDT
From:         Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: Merrill-Lambie radio communication

Very interesting.Is there a similar radio equipment list for 10E of AE/FN on the Howland flight?
LTM
Mike J.#2591 (still knee deep but walking towards shore.)

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

Like everything else about the Earhart flight, the radio set-up is a point of contention.  TIGHAR's Earhart Project Book (8th edition) contains an excellent chapter by Mike Everette detailing the known radios and antennas. The big point of contention is whether or not there was an additional Bendix DF receiver aboard the airplane.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:45:32 EDT
From:         Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Alan -- Your "guess" caught my attention.

I had "guessed" that the flight was actually to the south of Howland. The only real reason was the timeline with Betty's notebook. With a new theory that what Betty heard  may have taken place on Monday, it may change things.

My navigation skills and tools have proven over and over to be lacking, so.... Has anyone been able to follow a 157 heading to Niku from a point north of Howland and managed stay far enough from any of the other islands, yet still be close enough to Niku to see it?

Bob
************************************************************************
From Ric

I've always thought that the flight probably hit the LOP well south of Howland and the Monte Carlo simulation commissioned by the Navy also put it there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:46:47 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

> Perhaps we can hope that in some bright future,
> there will be a Ric Gillespie impersonator touring
> the South Pacific

There already IS a Ric Gillespie impersonator touring the South Pacific. The real one retired many years ago sitting in a rocker with the cat, occasionally going out to the back yard to pet the horse.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:52:02 EDT
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

Ric et al,

The appearance of the Chatauqua Amelia Earhart is of course a tourist/publicity deal for the Chamber of Commerce. After all they have the Garapan prison, where some anti-Tigharites, believe she was held by the Japanese as sort of a POW . You can see her intitials on the wall, some say.

My friend in Saipan will forward the news article and photos of her appearance for forum update.

The Earhart impersonator, overheard by some, said something like " With my compass and radio screwed up, I'll just head for Gardner Island by the Norwich City. .Fred do we have enough gas?" Hard to believe, eh. 
Ron B.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Nobody would buy such a story.

What do you wanna bet they have the impersonator wearing a leather flying helmet?  All Amelia impersonators wear flying helmets and leather jackets. That's how you know they're authentic.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:55:50 EDT
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      KJ's figures and navigation

KJ's advice infers continually varying airspeeds as fuel is used up on each rpm setting. What is the most likely scenario as to how AE made use of this information?

For any accurate form of wind based heading calculation, Fred needed to predict a constant airspeed or at least to be able to use an average airspeed. The problem then is that the average airspeed derived from the previous leg would be of little use when the settings and hence average airspeed were different.

Comments?
Regards Angus

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

Everything we have from Amelia suggests that she flightplanned 150 mph - period.  What speeds the aircraft actually flew on various legs is anybody's guess but it seems safe to assume that AE kept it simple.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:57:53 EDT
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Chatauqua

It ain't about historic rigor or accuracy - it's about "entertainment", theatrics and new age "feel good" education. The facts be damned, but maybe the folks in Saipan will get edicated.

LTM,
Dave Bush

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

I see.  Sort of like television news.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:05:45 EDT
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Monte Carlo simulation

The Monte Carlo simulation was performed my myself, and not sponsored by the Navy.

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

I guess I had an incorrect perception of that episode.  I was under the impression that you asked company that wanted to sell Monte Carlo simulation software to the Navy to use the Earhart flight as a demonstration of their product.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:08:31 EDT
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Take-off distance and weight.

Ric wrote:

> I've always thought that the flight probably hit the LOP well south of
> Howland and the Monte Carlo simulation commissioned by the
> Navy also put it there

I've probably guessed they were north, south, east, and west of Howland at one time or another for whatever value a guess is.

My reasoning for putting them north and east is this. If they actually over flew Tabiteuea during the night and knew where they were (two serious IFs) Noonan had been facing stronger headwinds and from the NE up to that point. The winds given by the Itasca that morning showed lighter winds and from the east, slightly off Noonan's starboard. If he took up a no wind heading to Howland from there the wind would have gently moved him north of course a little bit, not much, and the weaker headwinds would have put him past Howland when his LOP time was up.

Before anyone thinks too seriously about this keep in mind the required IFs.

1. Noonan overflew Tabiteuea.
2. He knew that.
3. He left Tabiteuea heading directly for Howland.
4. He didn't catch the wind shift or weaker headwind with his drift meter or otherwise.

If Noonan DID overfly Tabiteuea and knew it I can't think of a rational theory for them ending up south of Howland. They would have had to fly past Howland to get to the LOP and then turn NW or SE if they were really confused about where they were. I suppose the question is how bad do we think the navigation was.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:49:45 EDT
From:         Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Monte Carlo simulation

Doesn't the Monte Carlo simulation also have the plane turning onto a 337/157 heading at a point about 100 miles (nautical miles?) to the southwest of Howland, rather than intersecting a 337/157 line running through Howland at some point to the southeast of Howland?  If the plane turned onto this "Monte Carlo" 337/157 heading,  how far to the west of Niku would the plane be at the point of closest approach?

Incidentally, I spotted a book by Clive Cussler,  "Sea Hunters II",  I believe, which came out in 2002.  It mentions Cussler meeting up with TIGHAR's search for White Bird and makes for interesting reading.

--Chris Kennedy
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, the Monte Carlo simulation puts the highest area of probability at 08:43 south and west of Howland.  There is no set distance for how much the plane would miss Gardner because the simulation doesn't identify a single point but rather zones of probability.

Cussler never met up with TIGHAR's search for the White Bird in Maine, nor does he claim to.  In fact, he makes a big deal of the fact that he was apparently there looking for the plane at the same time we were but we didn't know it (like we would care). Clive's opinion of TIGHAR is similar to yours but at least you know how to spell the name of the organization.  You're also a much better writer.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:01:56 EDT
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      more Merrill-Lambie

More extracted from the September 1937 T.C. McClary article in Communications:

The technical supervisor of the Daily Express flights was Al Lodwick of Curtiss Wright. "Huntington, navigation man of EAL" had plotted the constant magnetic course and Jack Lambie the Lindbergh circle. The latter meant shifting bearings every twenty or twenty-five minutes, but had the Daily Express been flying with visibility and sufficient sky for celestial navigation, the shorter Lindbergh circle would have been followed. Eastbound, flying blind between 4,000 and 8,000 feet all the way across, they had only brief periods of visibility. There was no violent atmospheric disturbance, but there were solid cloud layers heavily charged and a series of minor storms.

EAL technician Larry Campbell a year earlier had studied the results of the Richman-Merrill flight tuned on 6590, 6210, and 500 kc. 6590, 500 (the