Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:35 pm
As to range and the 487 report (thanks to TIGHAR's library for a convenient copy) (and Kelly Johnson's follow-up telegrams) -
I do not know of any objective evidence that Earhart was actually flying the plane to the optimum performance we see represented in Report 487 by Kelly Johnson. That is not to say that she did not learn it and apply it, but there is a huge grey area here that can leave wonder. Not to knock the lady, but we can observe some operational lapses that may raise a few reasonable questions about how attentive she was to detail at times:
- The 487 Report shows (Page 15, Fig. IX) that 30 degrees of flap on take-off would have provided a shorter ground roll, yet at Lae, Earhart used no flaps and nearly all the available runway, including dropping off the end to apparent ground effect over the waters below for some distance...
- Mis-matched information as to radio frequencies / capabilities in terms of working with Itasca at the end of the Lae-Howland leg: Earhart apparently did not realize that Itasca had no high-frequency equipment aboard capable of gaining a minimum on her plane at the frequencies she was using, nor that she was similarly without the ability to track to the ship's location. This proved fatal, apparently. Noonan himself had earlier, during his Pan Am experience, cited the use of celestial navigation to get close, then a dependence on radio navigation to close the gap at the end to find the destination. This implies an expectation of the same approach to clinch the Howland arrival, and the failure to positively establish a working arrangement lies primarily at Earhart's feet.
I am not pointing these things out to criticize the dead fliers, but to underscore that demonstrable and significant lapses do and did occur - so how well should we believe that Earhart did manage fuel burn?
The behavior of Kelly Johnson in aggressively providing so much data may suggest something else: there was an apparent concern about helping Earhart get range out of the beast, so was he working hard to encourage better management by Earhart?
What might Earhart have been doing to get his attention and bring his talents to bear on this aspect of flight management?
It is now anecdotally shared at TIGHAR by a recent post that Earhart may have been habitually burning around 52 gallons per hour. That's not proof of fuel mismanagement during the Lae-Howland leg, but it is not a comforting report. Nor are Johnson's efforts proof that she wasn't managing well - but that has come to raise an eyebrow with me in terms of what caused him to bear down so on her fuel management, and to wonder how much attention she was really paying to use of the Cambridge meter to fine-tune consumption rates, etc. At best, the fuel burn rate is a big, fat question in my mind.
If 52 GPH was the case, then 21 hours was about all she was going to get out of her 1100 gallons that she left Lae with - which means fuel exhaustion eerily close to the moment Long (and others) suggest(s) in his analysis of her last known message to Itasca, etc. That would almost certainly mean 'crashed at sea' (and apparently sank, given the lack of physical evidence).
But let us wonder that she might have managed her fuel consumption very nicely and was on her way to maximum range capability -
- One must consider how quickly she did manage to get to the Howland area - unless one decides the Itasca's reports of her radio strength (steadily growing as she approached from the wee hours until in the 'vicinity') are in error, somehow. By the radio reports of record, the flight was somewhere fairly near Itasca until that final call at nearly 21 hours into the flight.
- For a simple exercise, let's just say she burned something closer to 40 gallons per hour, on average - or around 840 gallons by the time of that last call; let us further assume, to concede something of an approach to Howland having actually been made, that she was actually within 100 miles of Howland - favorably in terms of reversing course: how far to get to ENB from there, and can one do it at, say, 160 MPH (with tail winds - I'm not being very precise...) and the remaining 260 gallons remaining (having burned 840 gallons at that point)?
These things are why I have harkened a bit on range, radio signals of record, time, and place (celestial navigation) - they form some hard points of consideration that are difficult to get around, with all due respect to ENB adherents. It is inconceivable to me that the flight would have thought itself close enough to Howland to say the things that were said, and for Itasca to coincidientally receive at the strength of signal she saw, with reasonably observant (not perfect - see above) people aboard who could time the sunrise within reason and have some notion of how far east they had come. It is equally as difficult for me to believe that the airplane had the range to fly back from the Howland vicinity - thus established if these points make any sense, to ENB, for reasons cited above.
The only computer I used for any of this, beyond that used by Johnson in creating his report and telegrams (slide rule and noggin) was my own brain - which is definitely suspect much of the time in such things, but this stuff seems simple enough. I am not proscribing 'what was' or trying to tell anyone that I am superior, etc. but merely trying to encourage thought along these lines, and the examination of the full scope of material available. I will also share that my gut is stained purple from that lovely drink that believers gorge themselves on and that I've learned to be very careful about anything approaching dogmatic acceptance of any theory.
Aside from all that, I love the ENB hypothesis for all the reasons Billings may find deplorable in me: that it is intriguing, that the story of those soldiers and the tag captivate me, that I see them as honorable and that something lies out there - I just don't know what it is. I also admire Billings' steadfast pursuit and that he defends the honor of those good men who, on a dangerous patrol, made the best report that they could at the time.
I do not know of any objective evidence that Earhart was actually flying the plane to the optimum performance we see represented in Report 487 by Kelly Johnson. That is not to say that she did not learn it and apply it, but there is a huge grey area here that can leave wonder. Not to knock the lady, but we can observe some operational lapses that may raise a few reasonable questions about how attentive she was to detail at times:
- The 487 Report shows (Page 15, Fig. IX) that 30 degrees of flap on take-off would have provided a shorter ground roll, yet at Lae, Earhart used no flaps and nearly all the available runway, including dropping off the end to apparent ground effect over the waters below for some distance...
- Mis-matched information as to radio frequencies / capabilities in terms of working with Itasca at the end of the Lae-Howland leg: Earhart apparently did not realize that Itasca had no high-frequency equipment aboard capable of gaining a minimum on her plane at the frequencies she was using, nor that she was similarly without the ability to track to the ship's location. This proved fatal, apparently. Noonan himself had earlier, during his Pan Am experience, cited the use of celestial navigation to get close, then a dependence on radio navigation to close the gap at the end to find the destination. This implies an expectation of the same approach to clinch the Howland arrival, and the failure to positively establish a working arrangement lies primarily at Earhart's feet.
I am not pointing these things out to criticize the dead fliers, but to underscore that demonstrable and significant lapses do and did occur - so how well should we believe that Earhart did manage fuel burn?
The behavior of Kelly Johnson in aggressively providing so much data may suggest something else: there was an apparent concern about helping Earhart get range out of the beast, so was he working hard to encourage better management by Earhart?
What might Earhart have been doing to get his attention and bring his talents to bear on this aspect of flight management?
It is now anecdotally shared at TIGHAR by a recent post that Earhart may have been habitually burning around 52 gallons per hour. That's not proof of fuel mismanagement during the Lae-Howland leg, but it is not a comforting report. Nor are Johnson's efforts proof that she wasn't managing well - but that has come to raise an eyebrow with me in terms of what caused him to bear down so on her fuel management, and to wonder how much attention she was really paying to use of the Cambridge meter to fine-tune consumption rates, etc. At best, the fuel burn rate is a big, fat question in my mind.
If 52 GPH was the case, then 21 hours was about all she was going to get out of her 1100 gallons that she left Lae with - which means fuel exhaustion eerily close to the moment Long (and others) suggest(s) in his analysis of her last known message to Itasca, etc. That would almost certainly mean 'crashed at sea' (and apparently sank, given the lack of physical evidence).
But let us wonder that she might have managed her fuel consumption very nicely and was on her way to maximum range capability -
- One must consider how quickly she did manage to get to the Howland area - unless one decides the Itasca's reports of her radio strength (steadily growing as she approached from the wee hours until in the 'vicinity') are in error, somehow. By the radio reports of record, the flight was somewhere fairly near Itasca until that final call at nearly 21 hours into the flight.
- For a simple exercise, let's just say she burned something closer to 40 gallons per hour, on average - or around 840 gallons by the time of that last call; let us further assume, to concede something of an approach to Howland having actually been made, that she was actually within 100 miles of Howland - favorably in terms of reversing course: how far to get to ENB from there, and can one do it at, say, 160 MPH (with tail winds - I'm not being very precise...) and the remaining 260 gallons remaining (having burned 840 gallons at that point)?
These things are why I have harkened a bit on range, radio signals of record, time, and place (celestial navigation) - they form some hard points of consideration that are difficult to get around, with all due respect to ENB adherents. It is inconceivable to me that the flight would have thought itself close enough to Howland to say the things that were said, and for Itasca to coincidientally receive at the strength of signal she saw, with reasonably observant (not perfect - see above) people aboard who could time the sunrise within reason and have some notion of how far east they had come. It is equally as difficult for me to believe that the airplane had the range to fly back from the Howland vicinity - thus established if these points make any sense, to ENB, for reasons cited above.
The only computer I used for any of this, beyond that used by Johnson in creating his report and telegrams (slide rule and noggin) was my own brain - which is definitely suspect much of the time in such things, but this stuff seems simple enough. I am not proscribing 'what was' or trying to tell anyone that I am superior, etc. but merely trying to encourage thought along these lines, and the examination of the full scope of material available. I will also share that my gut is stained purple from that lovely drink that believers gorge themselves on and that I've learned to be very careful about anything approaching dogmatic acceptance of any theory.
Aside from all that, I love the ENB hypothesis for all the reasons Billings may find deplorable in me: that it is intriguing, that the story of those soldiers and the tag captivate me, that I see them as honorable and that something lies out there - I just don't know what it is. I also admire Billings' steadfast pursuit and that he defends the honor of those good men who, on a dangerous patrol, made the best report that they could at the time.
Last edited by Ghost of Itasca on Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:43 pm
Jeffrey Neville wrote:- The 487 Report shows (Page 15, Fig. IX) that 30 degrees of flap on take-off would have provided a shorter ground roll, yet at Lae, Earhart used no flaps and nearly all the available runway, including dropping off the end to apparent ground effect over the waters below for some distance. That appears to be a lapse, in my view: the same chart shows that climb performance is improved with a lesser flap setting - but one must get into the air and establish a positive climb before that is useful. Flaps can be slowly retracted once a positive climb is established.
Captain Ted Lawson made the same mistake whilst taking off his B-25 from the Hornet on the way to Tokyo. Pilots sometimes make mistakes in their excitement.
Last edited by Tim Mellon on Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:34 am
I put on my website flight navigation manuals that describe the computation of the "'point of no return"' which is how to evaluate the possibility of a return to New Britain along with a description of the process at:
https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/amelia-earhart-s-point-of-no-return
Go to my website for a complete description where you will find enough information for you to do the calculation for yourself, you don't have to take my word for it.
Here is just an excerpt:
=======================================================
"'We have now looked at one simple example of the “point of no return” so this would be a good point to do some
more computations. There is also a theory that Earhart made it back to the island of New Britain and a point of no
return calculation may help in an analysis of this theory.
The PNR is a simple case of the “radius of action” calculation. These calculations determine how
far away you can fly and still make it back within the endurance of the aircraft. If you go beyond
the PNR or the “radius of action” then you can’t make it back to the departure airport, that’s why
it is called the “point of no return.”
Navy pilots flying off of aircraft carriers have to do a more complicated radius of action
calculation because if they just make it back to the point where they took off from, there won’t be
an airport there, the carrier has moved on. It should be obvious that if the carrier is steaming in
the opposite direction from the plane's outbound course that the plane will have to turn around
sooner to go back and chase after the carrier.
The way this “radius of action from a moving base” calculation is done is by drawing a vector
diagram including the normal wind vector and then adding a vector to represent the speed and
course of the carrier. Then the radius of action (PNR) calculation is done with the combined
effect of these two vectors. Conceptually, the calculation is done based on the wind that would
have been measured by the moving carrier.
We can use the “radius of action from a moving base” computation to look at the case of the
plane departing from Lae and returning to New Britain. We do this by using a “fictitious aircraft
carrier.” The east end of New Britain is 344 NM east of Lae on the course line to Howland. If a
fictitious carrier departed Lae at the same time as Earhart, steaming towards Howland, it would
have arrived at the east end of New Britain at the end of 20:13 (the proven endurance of the
plane) by steaming at 17 knots. Fortunately, the required vector diagram is as simple as it could
be since the plane and the ship were heading directly into the 23 knot headwind measured by
Noonan. So the fictitious carrier would have measured a direct headwind of 40 knots. We use
this 40 knot value instead of the true wind of 23 knots to do the calculation for the PNR for a
return to New Britain.
Doing the calculation:
TAS = 130 K (2 x TAS = 260 K)
Speed of relative movement out = 90 knots.
(The plane is moving away from the fictitious carrier at only 90 knots because the carrier is
chasing after the plane.)
Speed of relative movement return = 170 knots (130 K + 40 K)
PNR time = (20:13 x 170 K)/260
PNR time = 13:13
Multiplied by the speed of relative movement out of 90 K places the plane 1190 NM from the
fictitious carrier. But since the real ground speed was 107 K it would be 1414 NM from Lae.
This is 141 NM further and 1:19 later than in our first computation of PNR for a return to Lae.
To check our math we can subtract this 13:13 from the endurance of 20:13 giving us 7:00 hours
to return to New Britain. Seven hours multiplied by the actual return ground speed of 153 knots
means the plane will travel 1071 NM back towards Lae. Since it would be starting 1414 NM
from Lae it will end up 344 NM east of Lae at the eastern end of New Britain, just as we expected.
Doing the same computation using an endurance of 24 hours we use a slightly slower speed for
the fictitious carrier since it now has 24 hours to travel the 344 NM resulting in a fictitious speed
of 14.3 K and a relative wind of 37.3 K. The PNR for New Britain then occurs at 15:26 Z, 1653
NM from Lae. This is 1:19 later and 142 NM further from Lae than the similar calculation for the
return to Lae. So even using a 24 hour endurance and a planned return to New Britain, the
decision to turn around would have had to have been made prior to passing the Gilberts. Since
we know the plane went past this PNR and proceeded for at least 4:47 further, to the vicinity of
Howland, it would not have been possible for the plane to make it back to New Britain even with
a 24 hour endurance.
...
The second thing we can determine from these calculations is that they also could not return to New Britain from the vicinity of Howland thus making that theory very unlikely.
I have attached two charts depicting the PNRs I discussed in the two prior posts.
A and B are for a return to Lae and C and D are for return to New Britain.
PNR "A" is the first case, 20:13 fuel on board, time at PNR 1154 Z, 1273 NM from Lae and 949 NM short of Howland.
PNR "B" is 24 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1407 Z, 1511 NM from Lae and 711 NM short of Howland.
PNR "C" is 20:13 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1313 Z, 1414 NM from Lae and 809 NM short of Howland.
PNR "D" is 24 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1526 Z, 1653 NM from Lae and 569 NM short of Howland and only 50 NM short of the Gilberts."
See charts at:
PNR chart 1
PNR chart 2
gl
https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/amelia-earhart-s-point-of-no-return
Go to my website for a complete description where you will find enough information for you to do the calculation for yourself, you don't have to take my word for it.
Here is just an excerpt:
=======================================================
"'We have now looked at one simple example of the “point of no return” so this would be a good point to do some
more computations. There is also a theory that Earhart made it back to the island of New Britain and a point of no
return calculation may help in an analysis of this theory.
The PNR is a simple case of the “radius of action” calculation. These calculations determine how
far away you can fly and still make it back within the endurance of the aircraft. If you go beyond
the PNR or the “radius of action” then you can’t make it back to the departure airport, that’s why
it is called the “point of no return.”
Navy pilots flying off of aircraft carriers have to do a more complicated radius of action
calculation because if they just make it back to the point where they took off from, there won’t be
an airport there, the carrier has moved on. It should be obvious that if the carrier is steaming in
the opposite direction from the plane's outbound course that the plane will have to turn around
sooner to go back and chase after the carrier.
The way this “radius of action from a moving base” calculation is done is by drawing a vector
diagram including the normal wind vector and then adding a vector to represent the speed and
course of the carrier. Then the radius of action (PNR) calculation is done with the combined
effect of these two vectors. Conceptually, the calculation is done based on the wind that would
have been measured by the moving carrier.
We can use the “radius of action from a moving base” computation to look at the case of the
plane departing from Lae and returning to New Britain. We do this by using a “fictitious aircraft
carrier.” The east end of New Britain is 344 NM east of Lae on the course line to Howland. If a
fictitious carrier departed Lae at the same time as Earhart, steaming towards Howland, it would
have arrived at the east end of New Britain at the end of 20:13 (the proven endurance of the
plane) by steaming at 17 knots. Fortunately, the required vector diagram is as simple as it could
be since the plane and the ship were heading directly into the 23 knot headwind measured by
Noonan. So the fictitious carrier would have measured a direct headwind of 40 knots. We use
this 40 knot value instead of the true wind of 23 knots to do the calculation for the PNR for a
return to New Britain.
Doing the calculation:
TAS = 130 K (2 x TAS = 260 K)
Speed of relative movement out = 90 knots.
(The plane is moving away from the fictitious carrier at only 90 knots because the carrier is
chasing after the plane.)
Speed of relative movement return = 170 knots (130 K + 40 K)
PNR time = (20:13 x 170 K)/260
PNR time = 13:13
Multiplied by the speed of relative movement out of 90 K places the plane 1190 NM from the
fictitious carrier. But since the real ground speed was 107 K it would be 1414 NM from Lae.
This is 141 NM further and 1:19 later than in our first computation of PNR for a return to Lae.
To check our math we can subtract this 13:13 from the endurance of 20:13 giving us 7:00 hours
to return to New Britain. Seven hours multiplied by the actual return ground speed of 153 knots
means the plane will travel 1071 NM back towards Lae. Since it would be starting 1414 NM
from Lae it will end up 344 NM east of Lae at the eastern end of New Britain, just as we expected.
Doing the same computation using an endurance of 24 hours we use a slightly slower speed for
the fictitious carrier since it now has 24 hours to travel the 344 NM resulting in a fictitious speed
of 14.3 K and a relative wind of 37.3 K. The PNR for New Britain then occurs at 15:26 Z, 1653
NM from Lae. This is 1:19 later and 142 NM further from Lae than the similar calculation for the
return to Lae. So even using a 24 hour endurance and a planned return to New Britain, the
decision to turn around would have had to have been made prior to passing the Gilberts. Since
we know the plane went past this PNR and proceeded for at least 4:47 further, to the vicinity of
Howland, it would not have been possible for the plane to make it back to New Britain even with
a 24 hour endurance.
...
The second thing we can determine from these calculations is that they also could not return to New Britain from the vicinity of Howland thus making that theory very unlikely.
I have attached two charts depicting the PNRs I discussed in the two prior posts.
A and B are for a return to Lae and C and D are for return to New Britain.
PNR "A" is the first case, 20:13 fuel on board, time at PNR 1154 Z, 1273 NM from Lae and 949 NM short of Howland.
PNR "B" is 24 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1407 Z, 1511 NM from Lae and 711 NM short of Howland.
PNR "C" is 20:13 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1313 Z, 1414 NM from Lae and 809 NM short of Howland.
PNR "D" is 24 hours of fuel on board, time at PNR 1526 Z, 1653 NM from Lae and 569 NM short of Howland and only 50 NM short of the Gilberts."
See charts at:
PNR chart 1
PNR chart 2
gl
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:23 am
I have to believe all that you've put up there, Gary (gary217) - that's hard-nosed, thoroughly researched fact from the navigator's point of view.
For the flight to have arrived at ENB it could not have also approached Howland Island closely at all. In fact, it could not have gotten as far as the Gilbert Islands before turning back.
I don't doubt that the wreck, whatever it is, lies in that mud to this day in ENB. I do not doubt David Billings' sincerity in going after that wreck and his belief that it is that of Earhart's lost plane. But I do far more than doubt that it is that of Earhart's Electra.
For the flight to have arrived at ENB it could not have also approached Howland Island closely at all. In fact, it could not have gotten as far as the Gilbert Islands before turning back.
I don't doubt that the wreck, whatever it is, lies in that mud to this day in ENB. I do not doubt David Billings' sincerity in going after that wreck and his belief that it is that of Earhart's lost plane. But I do far more than doubt that it is that of Earhart's Electra.
Last edited by Ghost of Itasca on Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Thu May 07, 2015 11:09 pm
Seems Mr. Billings has gone thunderously silent on this exchange.
The time/distance/fuel problem of getting the Electra first near Howland, and then back to ENB seems extremely difficult in my opinion.
The anecdotal accounts, and cryptic notations are hardly better than similar "evidence" collected by others. There are a lot of assumptions embodied in this line of thinking.
Very tough to see ENB as a solution.
The time/distance/fuel problem of getting the Electra first near Howland, and then back to ENB seems extremely difficult in my opinion.
The anecdotal accounts, and cryptic notations are hardly better than similar "evidence" collected by others. There are a lot of assumptions embodied in this line of thinking.
Very tough to see ENB as a solution.
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Fri May 08, 2015 6:28 pm
Billings said his bit, threw his cards on the table. When you know you got it in the bag, debate loses it's charm. And attempts to spin-off from "AT IT AGAIN" pale in comparison. As brutal as it is to wade thru all 77 pages, it's more fun there, even though mentioning ENB is hijacking! Here goes dummy again: They obviously made it back somehow, despite the absolute impossibility ferociously being clung to. I think what is required here is to suspend the endless scientific analysis, and just go with the fact that the engine numbers and serial number were discovered some 20+ years ago, by freak chance, a near miracle. Not uncovered by $lick hoaxster$ but by honorable veterans. Jeff, when you said the metal tag could have been on there accidently and it is some other plane, I almost jumped out the window screaming. To deny the ENB theory, you first have to maintain that the claim of the SITREP on the edge of the map is an elaborate fabrication. Maybe after 30 years of that other guy, it is easy to believe that people are that deceptive. I want to believe, and I do, but not because I want to that badly. It's because the reveal seems quite clear, very solid. We're lucky we had Angwin and Billings to put it all together or else this whole thing would have been missed. If David has fallen silent, I'm hunching that it can only mean good things. I doubt he'll give us a day-by-day when he and his team go and dial in the coordinates. It will be followed by weeks of utter silencio....
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Sat May 09, 2015 5:53 am
Neither of the engine serial numbers on Earhart's plane was "c/n 1055". That was Lockheed's serial number for the airframe.
I have never implied that anyone fabricated anything - quite the opposite: as said above, I'm certain those were honorable men who accurately reported what they found, what they did, and how they did it, as best they understood it all. I've never said the markings on the map were a falsehood. I believe Billings to be honorable in his pursuits, as said many times. I just don't agree with his direction after having studied it.
I said early on when I started posting here that my hope was for a more vital Earhart seach community, and that in some small way our explorations here might contribute by fairly criticizing the things before us. To me, that means not just TIGHAR, but all ideas.
So I've tried to constructively say my piece now. Thanks to all for that.
I have never implied that anyone fabricated anything - quite the opposite: as said above, I'm certain those were honorable men who accurately reported what they found, what they did, and how they did it, as best they understood it all. I've never said the markings on the map were a falsehood. I believe Billings to be honorable in his pursuits, as said many times. I just don't agree with his direction after having studied it.
I said early on when I started posting here that my hope was for a more vital Earhart seach community, and that in some small way our explorations here might contribute by fairly criticizing the things before us. To me, that means not just TIGHAR, but all ideas.
So I've tried to constructively say my piece now. Thanks to all for that.
Last edited by Ghost of Itasca on Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Sat May 09, 2015 7:01 am
Jeff, it's me who is the one constantly demanding that this plane be taken to ENB! I'm the hijacker (on the other thread). I know it's uncool but I just can't seem to bite my tongue. I went for years without saying a word, now I'm a blabbermouth. I remember you have said before you aren't calling those guys liars. Nobody's said that, especially not you. But I imagine it's being thought by some, who can dismiss that cryptic writing. I'm just thinking the chance of the fabled metal tag with both C/N1055 and S3H1 on it, being swapped to another aircraft, is even more creative thinking than the thoughts that lead us to East New Britain. Even crazier odds. There are things I want and wanted to see in this life, like, say, a Beatles reunion. No go, there. The UFO thing to come clean. crickets. But with Amelia Earhart, confident I'll be around for some historic rewritings. I'm hoping sooner rather than later. There'll be some caretaker's grief when this subject is finally resolved. Much emotional investment. I want closure just for the peace it will bring. I'd be happy to be on the wrong side, I'd take my lumps like a man. But I believe it was seen in 1945 and again in 1997, and it may explain the presumed AE briefcase that found it's way into Japanese hands, from tribal hands(?). Now there's a longshot!
p.s. that top hatch to the Electra looks slim and flimsy! not as beefed-up as I was expecting in the close-up shots.
p.s. that top hatch to the Electra looks slim and flimsy! not as beefed-up as I was expecting in the close-up shots.
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Sat May 09, 2015 8:53 am
Thanks for the clarifications, Courier-Sportster, understood.
As to the stretch of a mismatch in component / airframe s/n's, not really. I've seen flight control surfaces and similar articles on transports that were serialized in a manner that was identical to the airframe, yet off by some number from the ship it was actually installed on. This typically happened due to some repair action or production sequencing that changed the order of things.
The longer shot might be whether another Electra was even in the area.
As to the stretch of a mismatch in component / airframe s/n's, not really. I've seen flight control surfaces and similar articles on transports that were serialized in a manner that was identical to the airframe, yet off by some number from the ship it was actually installed on. This typically happened due to some repair action or production sequencing that changed the order of things.
The longer shot might be whether another Electra was even in the area.
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Sat May 09, 2015 11:32 am
Was it established that the use of "c/n" on a tag was a Lockheed specific method? A Google search seems to point otherwise.Jeffrey Neville wrote:<....>
Conundrum.
I don't doubt that an intriguing wreck was spotted by that jungle patrol decades ago. I don't doubt that they believed it may have been related to Earhart. I also don't think they possessed the detailed understanding of Earhart's last flight that might have caused them to view the find more critically, had they even the time or had it occurred to them to do so.
I do believe they reported honestly what they had found, in the way soldiers tend to do. I do believe the tag with "c/n 1055" was harvested and turned over to the U.S. as reported, and certainly realize what a large coincidence that would be - to my knowledge, that was a Lockheed-peculiar way to identify parts ("c/n" seems arcane, but I could be wrong - it may have been an era practice).
I don't doubt that the wreck, whatever it is, lies in that mud to this day in ENB. I do not doubt David Billings' sincerity in going after that wreck and his belief that it is that of Earhart's lost plane. But I do far more than doubt that it is that of Earhart's Electra.
Coincidences do occur and there must be many aircraft wrecks out there with "c/n 1055 tags" hanging on them.
I can understand the devotion of theorists for their chosen beliefs; whether it's Rick Gillespie, David Billings or Gary LaPook, etc.. I would have to include many of the posters in this resource as well. I appreciate it when they post facts and hate it when they stoop to personal attacks.
If you were to investigate other charities in respect to the methods they use to raise funds or how those funds are distributed, you would not see TIGHAR to be even close to the worst examples. It will be interesting to see how the IRS responds to Tim Mellon's complaint.
My preference, just like I'm sure most of us would prefer (for many reasons) is that it be 'proven' that AE/FN's ending was quick and as painless as possible which favors Gary's theory. Proof of that is an even longer shot than TIGHAR's hypothesis though...
Art
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Sat May 09, 2015 6:01 pm
"People read but do not digest"
"Study, study and study", was one House Masters mantra for thoroughly digesting a paper or a lesson; when I went to Secondary School. By doing so, while in the Air Force, I could draw the De Havilland Comet 4 Hydraulic Systems from memory on a one metre wide piece of paper using double lines for the pipelines, similarly the memorising and drawing of fuel systems when I became a Flight Engineer.
People will read what someone else has written but their own idea of what should be written interferes with the appreciation of what the original writer wrote. By doing so they fail to grasp the intent and wander off into thoughts of their own which they later put down on paper such as this Forum, which then causes a flicker of an eyebrow in disdain from the originator.
My Brother used to call this: "People open their mouths and let the wind blow their tongues around", and so it is.
Yes, I have been silent because I no longer see the point of explaining myself again and again to people who read but do not digest .......and what I see developing is mutual back-slapping and the resultant smart comment.
There were no other Electras on New Britain. The LAE based Electra was evacuated in a hurry when the tourists came in 1942 .... Is it seriously thought that I would commit 20-odd years and lots of moolah to an indistinct missing Electra on a ferry flight or such flight of no importance ? Again,,, ALL Electras in this region, New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand are accounted for. Please don't mention the Dutch Electras... except with proof of their use in New Guinea.
The Chicago International Convention of Manufacturers which took place before the construction of C/N1055 in 1936, ruled that no two aircraft would carry the same Serial Number identifying system.
No one, not even expert Aerial Navigators know where on the trackline, between TABITUAEA and HOWLAND, the Electra was turned North and then South ....or South and then North ....to start the LOP in search of Howland or even if an LOP approach was done. If they do know (which they don't) they win the 64,000 dollar prize. Would anyone of their ilk be prepared to bet 500 dollars that the Electra reached a position lateral to Howland ? Mr. Gillespie says it is a fact but will any expert Aerial Navigator also say that ? Will any expert Navigator in the knowledge that Noonan did NOT find Howland, say that he had a good handle on the wind value ?
All I do know is that there was some very unusual weather out there in the Pacific at that time. The log of the ONTARIO shows a 20 Knot wind "on the surface" at the time they were going over. Care to hazard a guess what the wind was at 10,000 feet or at 12,000 feet [Lovell] ? Why did the SWAN do a racetrack manouevre at one stage? Why did the PBY turn back for Pearl a day so after the apparent loss ?
"Gari" is correct when he writes that the Lockheed Long Range Plan contains information in support of the ENB Project. So does the Lockheed President's letter to GPP guaranteeing "Range". Would the Lockheed President sign such a letter without the workings of the range being verified by his Performance Engineers and the Design Team ?
Clues are there in the World of Earhart and if read and digested will stick in the brain, as they have in mine. "Study, study and study".
David Billings
"Study, study and study", was one House Masters mantra for thoroughly digesting a paper or a lesson; when I went to Secondary School. By doing so, while in the Air Force, I could draw the De Havilland Comet 4 Hydraulic Systems from memory on a one metre wide piece of paper using double lines for the pipelines, similarly the memorising and drawing of fuel systems when I became a Flight Engineer.
People will read what someone else has written but their own idea of what should be written interferes with the appreciation of what the original writer wrote. By doing so they fail to grasp the intent and wander off into thoughts of their own which they later put down on paper such as this Forum, which then causes a flicker of an eyebrow in disdain from the originator.
My Brother used to call this: "People open their mouths and let the wind blow their tongues around", and so it is.
Yes, I have been silent because I no longer see the point of explaining myself again and again to people who read but do not digest .......and what I see developing is mutual back-slapping and the resultant smart comment.
There were no other Electras on New Britain. The LAE based Electra was evacuated in a hurry when the tourists came in 1942 .... Is it seriously thought that I would commit 20-odd years and lots of moolah to an indistinct missing Electra on a ferry flight or such flight of no importance ? Again,,, ALL Electras in this region, New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand are accounted for. Please don't mention the Dutch Electras... except with proof of their use in New Guinea.
The Chicago International Convention of Manufacturers which took place before the construction of C/N1055 in 1936, ruled that no two aircraft would carry the same Serial Number identifying system.
No one, not even expert Aerial Navigators know where on the trackline, between TABITUAEA and HOWLAND, the Electra was turned North and then South ....or South and then North ....to start the LOP in search of Howland or even if an LOP approach was done. If they do know (which they don't) they win the 64,000 dollar prize. Would anyone of their ilk be prepared to bet 500 dollars that the Electra reached a position lateral to Howland ? Mr. Gillespie says it is a fact but will any expert Aerial Navigator also say that ? Will any expert Navigator in the knowledge that Noonan did NOT find Howland, say that he had a good handle on the wind value ?
All I do know is that there was some very unusual weather out there in the Pacific at that time. The log of the ONTARIO shows a 20 Knot wind "on the surface" at the time they were going over. Care to hazard a guess what the wind was at 10,000 feet or at 12,000 feet [Lovell] ? Why did the SWAN do a racetrack manouevre at one stage? Why did the PBY turn back for Pearl a day so after the apparent loss ?
"Gari" is correct when he writes that the Lockheed Long Range Plan contains information in support of the ENB Project. So does the Lockheed President's letter to GPP guaranteeing "Range". Would the Lockheed President sign such a letter without the workings of the range being verified by his Performance Engineers and the Design Team ?
Clues are there in the World of Earhart and if read and digested will stick in the brain, as they have in mine. "Study, study and study".
David Billings
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Wed May 13, 2015 10:44 pm
I'm not sure if you intend it or not but you convey a very condescending attitude. It's unfortunate as the ENB hypothesis is compelling subject. It's difficult to invest thought or emotion in your position when you insult a significant portion of your audience.
David Billings wrote:"People read but do not digest"
"Study, study and study", was one House Masters mantra for thoroughly digesting a paper or a lesson; when I went to Secondary School. By doing so, while in the Air Force, I could draw the De Havilland Comet 4 Hydraulic Systems from memory on a one metre wide piece of paper using double lines for the pipelines, similarly the memorising and drawing of fuel systems when I became a Flight Engineer.
People will read what someone else has written but their own idea of what should be written interferes with the appreciation of what the original writer wrote. By doing so they fail to grasp the intent and wander off into thoughts of their own which they later put down on paper such as this Forum, which then causes a flicker of an eyebrow in disdain from the originator.
My Brother used to call this: "People open their mouths and let the wind blow their tongues around", and so it is.
Yes, I have been silent because I no longer see the point of explaining myself again and again to people who read but do not digest .......and what I see developing is mutual back-slapping and the resultant smart comment.
There were no other Electras on New Britain. The LAE based Electra was evacuated in a hurry when the tourists came in 1942 .... Is it seriously thought that I would commit 20-odd years and lots of moolah to an indistinct missing Electra on a ferry flight or such flight of no importance ? Again,,, ALL Electras in this region, New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand are accounted for. Please don't mention the Dutch Electras... except with proof of their use in New Guinea.
The Chicago International Convention of Manufacturers which took place before the construction of C/N1055 in 1936, ruled that no two aircraft would carry the same Serial Number identifying system.
No one, not even expert Aerial Navigators know where on the trackline, between TABITUAEA and HOWLAND, the Electra was turned North and then South ....or South and then North ....to start the LOP in search of Howland or even if an LOP approach was done. If they do know (which they don't) they win the 64,000 dollar prize. Would anyone of their ilk be prepared to bet 500 dollars that the Electra reached a position lateral to Howland ? Mr. Gillespie says it is a fact but will any expert Aerial Navigator also say that ? Will any expert Navigator in the knowledge that Noonan did NOT find Howland, say that he had a good handle on the wind value ?
All I do know is that there was some very unusual weather out there in the Pacific at that time. The log of the ONTARIO shows a 20 Knot wind "on the surface" at the time they were going over. Care to hazard a guess what the wind was at 10,000 feet or at 12,000 feet [Lovell] ? Why did the SWAN do a racetrack manouevre at one stage? Why did the PBY turn back for Pearl a day so after the apparent loss ?
"Gari" is correct when he writes that the Lockheed Long Range Plan contains information in support of the ENB Project. So does the Lockheed President's letter to GPP guaranteeing "Range". Would the Lockheed President sign such a letter without the workings of the range being verified by his Performance Engineers and the Design Team ?
Clues are there in the World of Earhart and if read and digested will stick in the brain, as they have in mine. "Study, study and study".
David Billings
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Thu May 14, 2015 7:10 pm
"Congratulations rwd in Fresno"
....for you have brought me out of the woodwork again....
Point 1: There is a wreck on East New Britain in the Wide Bay area that was seen by an Australian Patrol. This wreck has been described in numerous posts which have gone before. I say this wreck is the Electra because of the evidence written on a WWII map and because of the description given by the WWII Vets.
Point 2: I have a hypothesis about how the Electra could have got back to this area due to Earhart's operating knowledge of the aircraft and the weather at the time of the flight and because of certain radio calls that were heard by NAURU Radio Station. There is also a report of the sighting of an aircraft going overhead the Mortlock Islands way before WWII.
In reply to rwdfresno:
Not a condescending attitude at all and no insult intended, just trying to make people think before they make incorrect posts in regard to the ENB Project, my Project. The post was not aimed at a significant portion of my audience as you state, it was aimed at one or two persons who have posted regularly and who have stated that they have doubts about the hypothesis . They would know who they are.
My HYPOTHESIS
A hypothesis told by an person, is their thought on a matter of their interest.
I have explained quite a lot about the project within my website and it is obvious that in order to get back to the crash site on New Britain the Electra would have to be turned around at a stage in the flight "after" TABITUAEA.
Why after Tabituaea ? Because the aircraft was heard going overhead "in the early hours of the morning" by a Gilbertese.
Where on the trackline was it turned around ? No one knows of the particular point to an exact statute mile point but it would have to be at a time after searching for one hour (1912GMT to 2014GMT).
Why do I think Earhart headed back to the Gilberts Islands ? Because that was her stated plan, her Contingency Plan to turn back for the 500 mile line of The Gilberts which would be at 90 degrees to her reciprocal course on a turnback .....and put the Electra down on a clear area, a beach or ditch close to shore. Heading off to a more widely scattered group would not make sense.
Why do I think she saw one of the Gilbert Islands ? Because of a signal found by Fred Goerner in a USN File he examined where Nauru Radio heard "Land in sight ahead" on 6210Kcs at 1030 Local on the ITASCA (2200GMT 2nd July). Goerner wrote of this find in his book "The Search for Amelia Earhart " 1st Edition. It is on Page 267 or thereabouts.
Why is this important ? Because the supposed "Last Call" is generally spoken of as 2014GMT but here is another call on Earhart's frequency one and three quarters of an hour later at 2200GMT and this call was not heard by ITASCA indicating that the transmitting station was beyond the reception range of the ITASCA.
Why so important ? Because it means that in 1.75 Hours the Electra at CRUISE power could travel 300 miles with a tailwind on a reciprocal course. This would then mean that the Electra was turned around 300 miles from the sighting of an island in The Gilbert's chain meaning the Electra would have been a maximum of 300 miles from HOWLAND when it was turned around.
Why is this significant in itself ? Because it means that in order to carry out a Contingency Plan the Electra had to have "Contingency Fuel" and it the Contingency Fuel is sufficient to travel 600 miles to The Gilberts and only travel 300 miles maximum then there will be fuel unused.
At this stage the Crew are in a dilemma. They have fuel and there is an island ahead. What to do ?
Transport Pilots I have spoken to, tell me that they would NEVER Ditch with fuel remaining
SFO to WHEELER Field:
Going back to the SFO to HI flight in March 1937. Author Doris Rich found a Fuel Chit for the sale of 590 USG of fuel made out to the Electra when it was fuelled at Ford Island in preparation for the sector Hawaii to Howland Island on the "first attempt" in March 1937.
If it took 590 USG to fuel up the Electra to the fuel load of 900 USG (HI to HOW) then there must have been 310 USG in the Electra when it landed at Ford Island. Mantz flew around the island with his fiancee before this landing. Say he used 40 USG. The Electra was attempted to be refuelled at WHEELER Field by a contractor but Mantz stopped the refuel; he saw sediment or contamination in the chamois filter. Say the Contractor put in 40 USG before being stopped. That means that there would have been 310 USG in the Electra when it landed at Wheeler Field.
From the last two hours of this flight, the aircraft was slowed down because it was making too much Groundspeed and Earhart realised she would arrive in the dark. They had been achieving 180mph G/S. She therefore pulled the power back and she then says "10,000 feet, indicating 120 mph and using LESS than 20 USGPH". That is on Page 37 of "Last Flight".
Now, it cannot be 20 USGPH on each engine, ie: 40 USGPH total because at that stage in the flight the Lockheed figures alone say that the fuel consumption was 38USGPH in CRUISE Power. If it were 40 USGPH it would means the Electra would be going faster and the intention was to slow the ship down.
The flight "SFO to HI" took 15 Hours and 51 Minutes, say "16 Hours" and say that the low power started at the 14 Hour point and the aircraft arrived at Wheeler with no larger power setting. Lockheed say that for 14 Hours the Electra should use 714 USG. It left SFO with 947 USG. If it had 310 USG in tanks on landing at Wheeler and for the Last two hours used 20 USG per hour, then at the 14 Hour point it had 310 + 40 in tanks = 350 USG. If it started with 947 USG it has used 597 USG at the 14 Hour point, not 714 USG. Earhart herself was asked by the attendant Press at Wheeler, "If you had missed Hawaii how long could you have flown for to look for the island ?" She said, "I have over four hours of fuel left". But if she had flown the flight at Lockheed figures she should have only had 157 USG remaining or around 2.5 Hours remaining for searching a Low Level.
The Lockheed Long Range Report 487 supports this power setting at "Velocity 120 mph" at a low AUW approaching 8000 pounds the fuel usage is shown in the " J " curves extrapolation as 20 USGPH.
Therefore, we do know that the Electra can make 120 mph for a fuel usage of 20USGPH at a low All Up Weight (auw). Any TAILWIND will make the actual G/S higher then 120 mph and we dp know of the wind height actuals from ITASCA and from NAURU Wx reports. There was a wind shown as 25 mph from the East.
...and, to maintain the same speed as the weight decreases due to fuel burn, the power can be further reduced.
...and, by flying higher less fuel burn would result. Earhart had flown the Electra at 12,000 feet in the U.S.. Author Mary Lovell wrote that the Electra was at 12,000 feet on the outbound flight at 0800GMT.
USCG SWAN Made a racetrack ? Yes it did and this can be seen in the Lat/Long Positions in the Deck Log.
USCG ONTARIO showed a surface wind of 20 Knots from the East at around 1030GMT 2nd July ? Yes it did, in the Deck Log.
My MS Excel small programme which has stage targets and times to reach those targets with a wind which can be increased or decreased has the Electra overhead the USCG Ontario at 1036GMT 2nd July with a headwind of 35 mph. Any wind less than 35 mph the Electra overshoots the Target of the Ontario at 1278 Miles form LAE.
Theoretically, if you can do 145 mph G/S on 20 USGPH and have 240 Gallons left you can "Range" for endurance for 11 hours using 220 USG with 20 USG unusable fuel. At 145 mph G/S you can range for 1595 Statute Miles. Using CRUISE Power will not help you "ENDURE" and endurance relies upon flying at Vmd, "Velocity Minimum Drag".
What was the longest Flight Planned sector that Commander Clarence Williams prepared for Earhart ? This was the ADEN to DAKAR sector of 4307 Statute Miles for a flight time of 28 Hours and 40 Minutes.
The Electra is at The Gilberts at 2200 GMT, and 11 Hours totals a flight of 33 Hours. and a range needed of around 4200 SM to the crash site. Crash Site ? Not yet ! lt was possible that she intended to attempt RABAUL.
NAURU Radio heard three calls on 6210 Kcs which were not heard by any other radio station. These three calls were at 0831, 0843 and 0854 GMT / 3rd July. The Operator said it sounded like the voice he had heard the night before but with "no hum of the plane in the background".
What did Lockheed say about the Range ? The President of Lockheed signed a letter to George Palmer Putnam guaranteeing 4000 miles range on 1050 USG.
How much fuel was there in the Electra when it left Lae ? Generally accepted as 1100USG, but the LAE Refueller said that he "topped off all tanks" the morning that they left. 1100 USG or 1151 USG ?
That is the HYPOTHESIS involved with the East New Britain Project.
In addition: While I was working in Papua New Guinea, I was introduced to a Mortlock Islander. A friend of mine had been speaking to him the night before and the Mortlock had casually mentioned to my friend that his grandfather was the first man to see an aircraft overhead the Mortlock Islands. This sighting was said to have been well before WWII. The nearest airfield to the Mortlock Is is RABAUL and the main airstrip there was at Lakunai, "Well before WWII". WWII started on 23rd January 1942 in New Guinea. Before that time it is not likely that an aircraft would fly the 600 mile round trip from Rabaul to Mortlock just to look down on an island with no airstrip. We know that the "outbound" flight from LAE flew to a Lat/Long of 7 degrees S and 157 degrees E putting it over CHOISEUL Island in The Solomons Group. What about an "inbound" flight ?
On a return, it would make perfect sense to "island hop". NUKUMANU, MORTLOCK, CARTERET REEF..... from the radio call times starting at 0831GMT (6:31pm local at Rabaul), night is falling now and if that straight line is kept and the Electra continues West, the crash site we seek in the East New Britain Project lies beneath that line.
After that, I think I may call for donations from interested parties.... I am planning for a trip in July "if" I can get funding.
Regards....... and not condescendingly or insultingly (there have been far worse things said than what I have said ...on another thread lately...) and without swearing...
David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."
....for you have brought me out of the woodwork again....
Point 1: There is a wreck on East New Britain in the Wide Bay area that was seen by an Australian Patrol. This wreck has been described in numerous posts which have gone before. I say this wreck is the Electra because of the evidence written on a WWII map and because of the description given by the WWII Vets.
Point 2: I have a hypothesis about how the Electra could have got back to this area due to Earhart's operating knowledge of the aircraft and the weather at the time of the flight and because of certain radio calls that were heard by NAURU Radio Station. There is also a report of the sighting of an aircraft going overhead the Mortlock Islands way before WWII.
In reply to rwdfresno:
Not a condescending attitude at all and no insult intended, just trying to make people think before they make incorrect posts in regard to the ENB Project, my Project. The post was not aimed at a significant portion of my audience as you state, it was aimed at one or two persons who have posted regularly and who have stated that they have doubts about the hypothesis . They would know who they are.
My HYPOTHESIS
A hypothesis told by an person, is their thought on a matter of their interest.
I have explained quite a lot about the project within my website and it is obvious that in order to get back to the crash site on New Britain the Electra would have to be turned around at a stage in the flight "after" TABITUAEA.
Why after Tabituaea ? Because the aircraft was heard going overhead "in the early hours of the morning" by a Gilbertese.
Where on the trackline was it turned around ? No one knows of the particular point to an exact statute mile point but it would have to be at a time after searching for one hour (1912GMT to 2014GMT).
Why do I think Earhart headed back to the Gilberts Islands ? Because that was her stated plan, her Contingency Plan to turn back for the 500 mile line of The Gilberts which would be at 90 degrees to her reciprocal course on a turnback .....and put the Electra down on a clear area, a beach or ditch close to shore. Heading off to a more widely scattered group would not make sense.
Why do I think she saw one of the Gilbert Islands ? Because of a signal found by Fred Goerner in a USN File he examined where Nauru Radio heard "Land in sight ahead" on 6210Kcs at 1030 Local on the ITASCA (2200GMT 2nd July). Goerner wrote of this find in his book "The Search for Amelia Earhart " 1st Edition. It is on Page 267 or thereabouts.
Why is this important ? Because the supposed "Last Call" is generally spoken of as 2014GMT but here is another call on Earhart's frequency one and three quarters of an hour later at 2200GMT and this call was not heard by ITASCA indicating that the transmitting station was beyond the reception range of the ITASCA.
Why so important ? Because it means that in 1.75 Hours the Electra at CRUISE power could travel 300 miles with a tailwind on a reciprocal course. This would then mean that the Electra was turned around 300 miles from the sighting of an island in The Gilbert's chain meaning the Electra would have been a maximum of 300 miles from HOWLAND when it was turned around.
Why is this significant in itself ? Because it means that in order to carry out a Contingency Plan the Electra had to have "Contingency Fuel" and it the Contingency Fuel is sufficient to travel 600 miles to The Gilberts and only travel 300 miles maximum then there will be fuel unused.
At this stage the Crew are in a dilemma. They have fuel and there is an island ahead. What to do ?
Transport Pilots I have spoken to, tell me that they would NEVER Ditch with fuel remaining
SFO to WHEELER Field:
Going back to the SFO to HI flight in March 1937. Author Doris Rich found a Fuel Chit for the sale of 590 USG of fuel made out to the Electra when it was fuelled at Ford Island in preparation for the sector Hawaii to Howland Island on the "first attempt" in March 1937.
If it took 590 USG to fuel up the Electra to the fuel load of 900 USG (HI to HOW) then there must have been 310 USG in the Electra when it landed at Ford Island. Mantz flew around the island with his fiancee before this landing. Say he used 40 USG. The Electra was attempted to be refuelled at WHEELER Field by a contractor but Mantz stopped the refuel; he saw sediment or contamination in the chamois filter. Say the Contractor put in 40 USG before being stopped. That means that there would have been 310 USG in the Electra when it landed at Wheeler Field.
From the last two hours of this flight, the aircraft was slowed down because it was making too much Groundspeed and Earhart realised she would arrive in the dark. They had been achieving 180mph G/S. She therefore pulled the power back and she then says "10,000 feet, indicating 120 mph and using LESS than 20 USGPH". That is on Page 37 of "Last Flight".
Now, it cannot be 20 USGPH on each engine, ie: 40 USGPH total because at that stage in the flight the Lockheed figures alone say that the fuel consumption was 38USGPH in CRUISE Power. If it were 40 USGPH it would means the Electra would be going faster and the intention was to slow the ship down.
The flight "SFO to HI" took 15 Hours and 51 Minutes, say "16 Hours" and say that the low power started at the 14 Hour point and the aircraft arrived at Wheeler with no larger power setting. Lockheed say that for 14 Hours the Electra should use 714 USG. It left SFO with 947 USG. If it had 310 USG in tanks on landing at Wheeler and for the Last two hours used 20 USG per hour, then at the 14 Hour point it had 310 + 40 in tanks = 350 USG. If it started with 947 USG it has used 597 USG at the 14 Hour point, not 714 USG. Earhart herself was asked by the attendant Press at Wheeler, "If you had missed Hawaii how long could you have flown for to look for the island ?" She said, "I have over four hours of fuel left". But if she had flown the flight at Lockheed figures she should have only had 157 USG remaining or around 2.5 Hours remaining for searching a Low Level.
The Lockheed Long Range Report 487 supports this power setting at "Velocity 120 mph" at a low AUW approaching 8000 pounds the fuel usage is shown in the " J " curves extrapolation as 20 USGPH.
Therefore, we do know that the Electra can make 120 mph for a fuel usage of 20USGPH at a low All Up Weight (auw). Any TAILWIND will make the actual G/S higher then 120 mph and we dp know of the wind height actuals from ITASCA and from NAURU Wx reports. There was a wind shown as 25 mph from the East.
...and, to maintain the same speed as the weight decreases due to fuel burn, the power can be further reduced.
...and, by flying higher less fuel burn would result. Earhart had flown the Electra at 12,000 feet in the U.S.. Author Mary Lovell wrote that the Electra was at 12,000 feet on the outbound flight at 0800GMT.
USCG SWAN Made a racetrack ? Yes it did and this can be seen in the Lat/Long Positions in the Deck Log.
USCG ONTARIO showed a surface wind of 20 Knots from the East at around 1030GMT 2nd July ? Yes it did, in the Deck Log.
My MS Excel small programme which has stage targets and times to reach those targets with a wind which can be increased or decreased has the Electra overhead the USCG Ontario at 1036GMT 2nd July with a headwind of 35 mph. Any wind less than 35 mph the Electra overshoots the Target of the Ontario at 1278 Miles form LAE.
Theoretically, if you can do 145 mph G/S on 20 USGPH and have 240 Gallons left you can "Range" for endurance for 11 hours using 220 USG with 20 USG unusable fuel. At 145 mph G/S you can range for 1595 Statute Miles. Using CRUISE Power will not help you "ENDURE" and endurance relies upon flying at Vmd, "Velocity Minimum Drag".
What was the longest Flight Planned sector that Commander Clarence Williams prepared for Earhart ? This was the ADEN to DAKAR sector of 4307 Statute Miles for a flight time of 28 Hours and 40 Minutes.
The Electra is at The Gilberts at 2200 GMT, and 11 Hours totals a flight of 33 Hours. and a range needed of around 4200 SM to the crash site. Crash Site ? Not yet ! lt was possible that she intended to attempt RABAUL.
NAURU Radio heard three calls on 6210 Kcs which were not heard by any other radio station. These three calls were at 0831, 0843 and 0854 GMT / 3rd July. The Operator said it sounded like the voice he had heard the night before but with "no hum of the plane in the background".
What did Lockheed say about the Range ? The President of Lockheed signed a letter to George Palmer Putnam guaranteeing 4000 miles range on 1050 USG.
How much fuel was there in the Electra when it left Lae ? Generally accepted as 1100USG, but the LAE Refueller said that he "topped off all tanks" the morning that they left. 1100 USG or 1151 USG ?
That is the HYPOTHESIS involved with the East New Britain Project.
In addition: While I was working in Papua New Guinea, I was introduced to a Mortlock Islander. A friend of mine had been speaking to him the night before and the Mortlock had casually mentioned to my friend that his grandfather was the first man to see an aircraft overhead the Mortlock Islands. This sighting was said to have been well before WWII. The nearest airfield to the Mortlock Is is RABAUL and the main airstrip there was at Lakunai, "Well before WWII". WWII started on 23rd January 1942 in New Guinea. Before that time it is not likely that an aircraft would fly the 600 mile round trip from Rabaul to Mortlock just to look down on an island with no airstrip. We know that the "outbound" flight from LAE flew to a Lat/Long of 7 degrees S and 157 degrees E putting it over CHOISEUL Island in The Solomons Group. What about an "inbound" flight ?
On a return, it would make perfect sense to "island hop". NUKUMANU, MORTLOCK, CARTERET REEF..... from the radio call times starting at 0831GMT (6:31pm local at Rabaul), night is falling now and if that straight line is kept and the Electra continues West, the crash site we seek in the East New Britain Project lies beneath that line.
After that, I think I may call for donations from interested parties.... I am planning for a trip in July "if" I can get funding.
Regards....... and not condescendingly or insultingly (there have been far worse things said than what I have said ...on another thread lately...) and without swearing...
David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Thu May 14, 2015 11:44 pm
David, I'm glad you returned. Personally I think it is very compelling. No doubt there have been a lot of heated discussions about this in the past. Thanks for clearing up your intentions. Truly thanks, believe t or not it does make a difference.
Re: Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons
Fri May 15, 2015 7:27 am
It's all PROS. There are no CONS. Let's go get her. Prepared to donate. SO STOKED. Every time this info-data gets re-worded (which I never tire of, BTW) I always glean some aspect that further shores it all up. If this is condescension I will take heaping platefuls of it all day long. DB has more than earned the right to be just a little edgy at the strong, resistant headwinds he is always facing. Points 1 and 2? 'NUFF SAID!