Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:24 pm
Gary M
Well, that's the way I looked at it back then in 1989, 21 years ago and at 44 years since the end of WWII. It sounded very much to me like a staff transit move on Big Mac's pathway of leapfrogs back to Manila. The 5th Air Force on its' way out of New Guinea to be replaced by the 14th moving up from the Solomons.
The Internet was not in the picture then and we were using 286 PC's, the advanced 386 was another year or so away and I got my 486 in 1992 and the www. on the screen in 1993 !
Well the other thing about R-1340 S3H1 engines, even if the SWPA had any aircraft powered by the S3H1 (which my research says "No"), would be that they would not be sent against Fortress Rabaul. Earhart's aircraft was "the" only aircraft anywhere near New Guinea before, during and immediately after WWII that had R-1340 S3H1's as power. Lodestar's had a different engine anyway.
Well, the Japanese were confident enough at the start to fly around in natural finish but most aircraft in New Guinea were camouflaged.
Gillespie has painted himself into a corner with Gardner Island (Nikumaroro) and after spending US$5 Million there, it would be "jest a leeetle difficult" for him to do an about face and consider New Britain. I'm happy with that situation. What strikes me about the "1940 Bones" that led him there to Niku is that he completely disregards the fact that 11 Crew of the SS Norwich City died there in 1929 and only four bodies were buried there in shallow coral graves. A later visit by a New Zealand survey party reported bones all over the beach when they landed. Yet, to him they were Earhart's bones true enough. Nobody mentions that they could have been Fred's. Poor Fred seems to get forgotten somewhere along the line...... Dr. Hoodless's examination and measurements of the 1940 bones concluded with "They were of a Male, Pacific Islander origin, 5 feet 6 inches tall...". When TIGHAR finds the Hoodless measurements in English records, they are fed into a computer and emerge as: "Female, Nordic Origin, 5 feet 9 inches tall..." which broadly fits Earhart. The mind boggles......
Fleet 16B
The "alternate plan" was stated to Gene Vidal before she left on the RTW flight. He had asked her what she would do if she could not find Howland, to which she had replied "I will turn back for The Gilberts and find a place to put it down, a clear area, a beach, or close to shore". That is contained in a recorded statement by Vidal which is in his memorabilia bequeathed to the Uni of Wisconsin and the tape was found about five years ago (in Box 40, I believe). She was clearly not anticipating going into the Phoenix Group which was uninhabited at the time, except for a small outpost on Canton Island.
Of course she was looking for Howland but she never got there.
If you previously plan to return to The Gilberts, you have to have a cut-off at a certain level and I believe that level was 300 USG. "Fuel running low and getting to my cut-off before I have to turn back for The Gilberts..." would have been a better way of putting it, Yes, I would agree. Earhart was famous for "not" divulging what she was doing.
"If she was giving up looking for Howland and was going to an alternate, she would have radioed her intentions just as any other logical and responsible pilot would have and just as she had been doing thru the flight." Maybe she did radio her intentions and was not heard due to a radio glitch. Her Rx was definitely "out" and she would not know if any of her calls were acknowledged .... the famous exceptiion being the Letter "A's" that she did receive. Why she did not set up a TX in voice on the main aerial and an Rx in Morse on the Loop will forever be a conundrum that no-one can answer All she would have to do was request a single letter for "yes" and another letter for "no".
I don't have to convince you Fleet, you believe what you like.
"Writing around the edge of a page just is not proof that would counter what A.E. herself is telling people. The paper has not be 100% authenticated (?)" It's enough for me and that's all that matters.
"However, I would encourage you to keep investigating at the very least you may find a wartime aircrew that can be accounted for." Correct, even if it finally turns out to be a wartime aircraft, as you say, it will bring closure for some families.
"If Noonan's dead-reckoning did not bring the plane directly over Howland at the "line of position," Earhart would fly up and down the 337-157 degree line until she found the island." Bear in mind Fleet, that the 157-337 is in TRUE degrees and if converted to MAG with the 10 degree variation in that Pacific area, it goes nowhere near Gardner. There is a paper written by a man named Gary La Pook which proves beyond doubt that the 157-337 line supposedly cutting through Gardner actually cannot be used. The paper can be found by using the Google engine.
You yourself now mention a "five hour" fuel reserve which at low level equates to circa 300 USG. That's how I derived "my" 300 USG.
After recounting the histrionics, you then say: "Then the radio went silent."
Not quite Fleet, there were "other calls". The radio was not dead yet.....
Fred Goerner, in his 1st Edition of "The Search for Amelia Earhart" recounts finding a radio call heard by Nauru Radio at 1030, which was "Land in sight ahead", heard on 6210Kcs. The call was only heard by Nauru and therefore, the aircraft that made the call was out of range with the USCG ITASCA. The timing quoted by Goerner is obviously in relation to Local time on the USCG ITASCA for he says: "One and three-quarters of an hour after the last supposed call (at 0844L Itasca time), Nauru hears "Land in sight ahead" " That puts the time at 2200GMT or 22 Hours into the flight. If Earhart made that call, and it was on the frequency she stipulated, then if she had been heading for Gardner, ITASCA would have heard it, therefore, she had to be heading further away from ITASCA and if she was on her "Gilberts" plan, then the "Land" would have been The Gilberts, one of the atolls.
If AE turned for the Gilberts and "thought" she was at or close to Howland, she would not expect to see The Gilberts for four hours.
To travel the distance and see the atoll at say 15 miles in one and three quarters of an hour at her power setting to deliver 150 mph (as was her usual habit) and now with a tailwind of say 25 mph she will be doing 175mph over the ground and will have travelled 300 statute miles in the time. This means she would have been 200 Miles (at least) from Howland when she said "Must be on you...."
That was not the last Radio call either. Nauru Radio heard more calls at 0825GMT, 0831GMT, 0843GMT and the last at 0854GMT. I thought it was three only at this time, but Gillespie says there was also the 0825GMT call heard by Nauru. The Nauru Operator said the calls were unintelligible but sounded like the voice he had heard the night before but there was 'no hum of plane' in the background. So, who would be on 6210Kcs over the SW pacific at those GMT times which correspond to 1825 Local to 1854 Local New Britain time ?
J Boyle
"David..I didn't mean to sound like I'm going off on you, it's just that conspiracy theories are just silly."
No offence taken, I assure you, I enjoy "robust" interchange ! I completely agree about the conspiracy theories.
Earlier in the piece, I joined that "august" group known as "The Amelia Earhart Society" and conspiracy theories not only flourished, they were invented there !!! One contributor there wrote the awful book, "Amelia Earhart Lives", which he has had re-printed again and which has more holes than a colander.... Another wrote "Amelia Earhart Survived"....which also leaks like a sieve.... There was an erratic Monsignor featured on there who lived at Rumson NJ and who told everyone he had brought Amelia back from Japan, out of Horohito's Palace and had shaved her head to look for microchips of all things. Another told of AE being held at Weishien Concentration Camp in China and flown out by US Forces at the end of hostilities in a battered Betty Bomber, crewed by Japanese pilots under the command of a US Army major with a cocked .45..... Then there was the ex-USN guy who was on the USS Constellation and saw the Electra 10E and the missing Sikorsky S-42 being taken off a desert island and loaded onto the Glomar Explorer..... Astounding stories, good for a belly laugh but completely off the planet.
David Billings
Well, that's the way I looked at it back then in 1989, 21 years ago and at 44 years since the end of WWII. It sounded very much to me like a staff transit move on Big Mac's pathway of leapfrogs back to Manila. The 5th Air Force on its' way out of New Guinea to be replaced by the 14th moving up from the Solomons.
The Internet was not in the picture then and we were using 286 PC's, the advanced 386 was another year or so away and I got my 486 in 1992 and the www. on the screen in 1993 !
Well the other thing about R-1340 S3H1 engines, even if the SWPA had any aircraft powered by the S3H1 (which my research says "No"), would be that they would not be sent against Fortress Rabaul. Earhart's aircraft was "the" only aircraft anywhere near New Guinea before, during and immediately after WWII that had R-1340 S3H1's as power. Lodestar's had a different engine anyway.
Well, the Japanese were confident enough at the start to fly around in natural finish but most aircraft in New Guinea were camouflaged.
Gillespie has painted himself into a corner with Gardner Island (Nikumaroro) and after spending US$5 Million there, it would be "jest a leeetle difficult" for him to do an about face and consider New Britain. I'm happy with that situation. What strikes me about the "1940 Bones" that led him there to Niku is that he completely disregards the fact that 11 Crew of the SS Norwich City died there in 1929 and only four bodies were buried there in shallow coral graves. A later visit by a New Zealand survey party reported bones all over the beach when they landed. Yet, to him they were Earhart's bones true enough. Nobody mentions that they could have been Fred's. Poor Fred seems to get forgotten somewhere along the line...... Dr. Hoodless's examination and measurements of the 1940 bones concluded with "They were of a Male, Pacific Islander origin, 5 feet 6 inches tall...". When TIGHAR finds the Hoodless measurements in English records, they are fed into a computer and emerge as: "Female, Nordic Origin, 5 feet 9 inches tall..." which broadly fits Earhart. The mind boggles......
Fleet 16B
The "alternate plan" was stated to Gene Vidal before she left on the RTW flight. He had asked her what she would do if she could not find Howland, to which she had replied "I will turn back for The Gilberts and find a place to put it down, a clear area, a beach, or close to shore". That is contained in a recorded statement by Vidal which is in his memorabilia bequeathed to the Uni of Wisconsin and the tape was found about five years ago (in Box 40, I believe). She was clearly not anticipating going into the Phoenix Group which was uninhabited at the time, except for a small outpost on Canton Island.
Of course she was looking for Howland but she never got there.
If you previously plan to return to The Gilberts, you have to have a cut-off at a certain level and I believe that level was 300 USG. "Fuel running low and getting to my cut-off before I have to turn back for The Gilberts..." would have been a better way of putting it, Yes, I would agree. Earhart was famous for "not" divulging what she was doing.
"If she was giving up looking for Howland and was going to an alternate, she would have radioed her intentions just as any other logical and responsible pilot would have and just as she had been doing thru the flight." Maybe she did radio her intentions and was not heard due to a radio glitch. Her Rx was definitely "out" and she would not know if any of her calls were acknowledged .... the famous exceptiion being the Letter "A's" that she did receive. Why she did not set up a TX in voice on the main aerial and an Rx in Morse on the Loop will forever be a conundrum that no-one can answer All she would have to do was request a single letter for "yes" and another letter for "no".
I don't have to convince you Fleet, you believe what you like.
"Writing around the edge of a page just is not proof that would counter what A.E. herself is telling people. The paper has not be 100% authenticated (?)" It's enough for me and that's all that matters.
"However, I would encourage you to keep investigating at the very least you may find a wartime aircrew that can be accounted for." Correct, even if it finally turns out to be a wartime aircraft, as you say, it will bring closure for some families.
"If Noonan's dead-reckoning did not bring the plane directly over Howland at the "line of position," Earhart would fly up and down the 337-157 degree line until she found the island." Bear in mind Fleet, that the 157-337 is in TRUE degrees and if converted to MAG with the 10 degree variation in that Pacific area, it goes nowhere near Gardner. There is a paper written by a man named Gary La Pook which proves beyond doubt that the 157-337 line supposedly cutting through Gardner actually cannot be used. The paper can be found by using the Google engine.
You yourself now mention a "five hour" fuel reserve which at low level equates to circa 300 USG. That's how I derived "my" 300 USG.
After recounting the histrionics, you then say: "Then the radio went silent."
Not quite Fleet, there were "other calls". The radio was not dead yet.....
Fred Goerner, in his 1st Edition of "The Search for Amelia Earhart" recounts finding a radio call heard by Nauru Radio at 1030, which was "Land in sight ahead", heard on 6210Kcs. The call was only heard by Nauru and therefore, the aircraft that made the call was out of range with the USCG ITASCA. The timing quoted by Goerner is obviously in relation to Local time on the USCG ITASCA for he says: "One and three-quarters of an hour after the last supposed call (at 0844L Itasca time), Nauru hears "Land in sight ahead" " That puts the time at 2200GMT or 22 Hours into the flight. If Earhart made that call, and it was on the frequency she stipulated, then if she had been heading for Gardner, ITASCA would have heard it, therefore, she had to be heading further away from ITASCA and if she was on her "Gilberts" plan, then the "Land" would have been The Gilberts, one of the atolls.
If AE turned for the Gilberts and "thought" she was at or close to Howland, she would not expect to see The Gilberts for four hours.
To travel the distance and see the atoll at say 15 miles in one and three quarters of an hour at her power setting to deliver 150 mph (as was her usual habit) and now with a tailwind of say 25 mph she will be doing 175mph over the ground and will have travelled 300 statute miles in the time. This means she would have been 200 Miles (at least) from Howland when she said "Must be on you...."
That was not the last Radio call either. Nauru Radio heard more calls at 0825GMT, 0831GMT, 0843GMT and the last at 0854GMT. I thought it was three only at this time, but Gillespie says there was also the 0825GMT call heard by Nauru. The Nauru Operator said the calls were unintelligible but sounded like the voice he had heard the night before but there was 'no hum of plane' in the background. So, who would be on 6210Kcs over the SW pacific at those GMT times which correspond to 1825 Local to 1854 Local New Britain time ?
J Boyle
"David..I didn't mean to sound like I'm going off on you, it's just that conspiracy theories are just silly."
No offence taken, I assure you, I enjoy "robust" interchange ! I completely agree about the conspiracy theories.
Earlier in the piece, I joined that "august" group known as "The Amelia Earhart Society" and conspiracy theories not only flourished, they were invented there !!! One contributor there wrote the awful book, "Amelia Earhart Lives", which he has had re-printed again and which has more holes than a colander.... Another wrote "Amelia Earhart Survived"....which also leaks like a sieve.... There was an erratic Monsignor featured on there who lived at Rumson NJ and who told everyone he had brought Amelia back from Japan, out of Horohito's Palace and had shaved her head to look for microchips of all things. Another told of AE being held at Weishien Concentration Camp in China and flown out by US Forces at the end of hostilities in a battered Betty Bomber, crewed by Japanese pilots under the command of a US Army major with a cocked .45..... Then there was the ex-USN guy who was on the USS Constellation and saw the Electra 10E and the missing Sikorsky S-42 being taken off a desert island and loaded onto the Glomar Explorer..... Astounding stories, good for a belly laugh but completely off the planet.
David Billings
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:36 pm
this thread has gleaned some great info & theories, but is getting to the point of to much speculation. i'd like to see dr. ballard's opinion on what he thinks happened to her & the feasibility of an ocean bottom search. i'm sorry to say earhart as a topic always seems to get as lost as she is in any venue. it's always he said she said 
........ anybody have any connections to contact dr. ballard for his opinion??
........ anybody have any connections to contact dr. ballard for his opinion??
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:56 pm
Well David
All interesting theories and I try to keep an open mind but IMHO and being a pilot myself, many things change during a flight especially during long ones. The alternate that she told Gene about could just as well been said to ease his mind and to bolster his confidence in her attempt. A.E. was very driven and Gene very against it.
The Itasca was getting intelligible transmissions right up to her saying fuel was getting low. It would be hard to believe that she would have meant that the fuel she was allotting to find Howland was running low when she states her fuel situation. Reports indicate that the Itasca knew of no such alternate and that is something that they would have been made privy to. This is supported by the way and areas in which they set up their search. Sure they may not have rec'd her next transmission but it's pretty sketchy to think they rec'd many others then to not recieve that one crutial one. Too convenient.
As for the many many many other transmissions heard none have been confirmed as her. The transmission that were confirmed had dialogue that easily ID'd her ie: her name, pre planned radio freqs etc.
Unfortunately Dave , as you well know all your theories mean nothing without tangible proof so at this point you are in the same boat as TIGHAR and the rest theorists (no disrespect intended)
All in all I support your attempts to find the truth and hope you find the answer what ever it may be.
The big problem is time and if it may be too late to ever find evidence at this point.
All interesting theories and I try to keep an open mind but IMHO and being a pilot myself, many things change during a flight especially during long ones. The alternate that she told Gene about could just as well been said to ease his mind and to bolster his confidence in her attempt. A.E. was very driven and Gene very against it.
The Itasca was getting intelligible transmissions right up to her saying fuel was getting low. It would be hard to believe that she would have meant that the fuel she was allotting to find Howland was running low when she states her fuel situation. Reports indicate that the Itasca knew of no such alternate and that is something that they would have been made privy to. This is supported by the way and areas in which they set up their search. Sure they may not have rec'd her next transmission but it's pretty sketchy to think they rec'd many others then to not recieve that one crutial one. Too convenient.
As for the many many many other transmissions heard none have been confirmed as her. The transmission that were confirmed had dialogue that easily ID'd her ie: her name, pre planned radio freqs etc.
Unfortunately Dave , as you well know all your theories mean nothing without tangible proof so at this point you are in the same boat as TIGHAR and the rest theorists (no disrespect intended)
All in all I support your attempts to find the truth and hope you find the answer what ever it may be.
The big problem is time and if it may be too late to ever find evidence at this point.
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:42 pm
For Tom Friedman:
Tom, The Waitt Institute for Discovery spent a bundle of money scouring the Ocean floor off Howland Island back in 2009. Ted Waitt is a multi-millionaire who produced the "Amelia" film in late 2009. There has never been a figuire put on the cost (as far as I am aware) but the scan of the Ocean floor was quite extensive and they did not find anything.
The Waitt Discovery site can be Googled for the full story.
For Fleet:
Not only did the Itasca not know of her intentions, neither did anybody else until it was confirmed about turning onto her reciprocal and heading back to The Gilberts as found in Vidal's bequeath to the Uni of Wis. Itasca did not know her Rx & Tx freq's for sure either, the whole thing was a misadventure to put it mildly. Even the tuning on her DF Loop was a mismatch.
Well, Fleet, we are continuing. It's not the case of "tangible proof".... No-one in the World has "tangible proof" because no-one can reach out and touch the Electra 10E C/N 1055 at this point as no-one knows for sure where it is, if they could, that WOULD be tangible proof. We have documentary evidence and we have the words of the Veterans who did actually see the wreckage and which describe the wreckage and we know to a great extent "where" they were at 3:00pm on the afternoon of 17th April 1945. We do not know exactly as to a GPS point where that was but we are narrowing it down. We do know that there is an aircraft in there and that is the bottom line. Who it belongs to is pointed out for us on the map. If somehow, magically, it turns into a WWII aircraft then so be it.
We already have the funds for another attempt next year so with a bit of luck we may find something this time as there is one valley that we have not been into which has a lot of appeal as it does fit the scenario. If we do not find anything then no-one can say we didn't try. You had all better wish us luck as I am 70 now and this could be the last time in there for me. Those hills do beat the hell out of my legs worse each time I go. Maybe the coastal villagers will come in with us and carry me up in a chair......
Regards,
David Billings
Tom, The Waitt Institute for Discovery spent a bundle of money scouring the Ocean floor off Howland Island back in 2009. Ted Waitt is a multi-millionaire who produced the "Amelia" film in late 2009. There has never been a figuire put on the cost (as far as I am aware) but the scan of the Ocean floor was quite extensive and they did not find anything.
The Waitt Discovery site can be Googled for the full story.
For Fleet:
Not only did the Itasca not know of her intentions, neither did anybody else until it was confirmed about turning onto her reciprocal and heading back to The Gilberts as found in Vidal's bequeath to the Uni of Wis. Itasca did not know her Rx & Tx freq's for sure either, the whole thing was a misadventure to put it mildly. Even the tuning on her DF Loop was a mismatch.
Well, Fleet, we are continuing. It's not the case of "tangible proof".... No-one in the World has "tangible proof" because no-one can reach out and touch the Electra 10E C/N 1055 at this point as no-one knows for sure where it is, if they could, that WOULD be tangible proof. We have documentary evidence and we have the words of the Veterans who did actually see the wreckage and which describe the wreckage and we know to a great extent "where" they were at 3:00pm on the afternoon of 17th April 1945. We do not know exactly as to a GPS point where that was but we are narrowing it down. We do know that there is an aircraft in there and that is the bottom line. Who it belongs to is pointed out for us on the map. If somehow, magically, it turns into a WWII aircraft then so be it.
We already have the funds for another attempt next year so with a bit of luck we may find something this time as there is one valley that we have not been into which has a lot of appeal as it does fit the scenario. If we do not find anything then no-one can say we didn't try. You had all better wish us luck as I am 70 now and this could be the last time in there for me. Those hills do beat the hell out of my legs worse each time I go. Maybe the coastal villagers will come in with us and carry me up in a chair......
Regards,
David Billings
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:05 pm
Dave
I do wish you luck and admire your drive and passion
As my previous statement says and you confirm , time is the enemy now.
None of us are getting any younger and interest is waning in the newer generations
In my years of experience restoring vintage a/c , s/n's on old corroded parts are hard to read. Parts that have been exposed to salt air and jugle humidity will be even harder. Most of the time they are gone all together. I doubt there would be s/n's left to read which ofcourse will make it impossible to connect to A.E.
Good luck and keep us informed about your planning and progress.
I do wish you luck and admire your drive and passion
As my previous statement says and you confirm , time is the enemy now.
None of us are getting any younger and interest is waning in the newer generations
In my years of experience restoring vintage a/c , s/n's on old corroded parts are hard to read. Parts that have been exposed to salt air and jugle humidity will be even harder. Most of the time they are gone all together. I doubt there would be s/n's left to read which ofcourse will make it impossible to connect to A.E.
Good luck and keep us informed about your planning and progress.
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:57 am
For Fleet:
Oh there will be serial numbers alright, even if all else fails the prop blade stub ends will be stamped for sure and they will have been in grease. The engine data plates were not on the front so they will be on the blower housings which was the earlier positioning. The very configuration of the aircraft wreckage will give it away, as in the fuel tank filler necks for one thing and the set number of tanks in the fuselage. There will be no problem in identifying the Electra 10E in the long distance configuration. There were only two equipped for Long Distance and the other one, "The Daily Express" is said to be on the Russian Steppes somewhere. I would think that one could be eliminated, don't you ?
The jungle tends to keep aluminium aircraft fairly well as has been proven before. The Captain Harl Pease B-17 I mentioned before for example is basically corrosion free, has no remaining paint and the aluminium is clean as a whistle just sitting on the ground. If you recall, the Hellcat that was found about ten years ago high up in the hills between Wewak and Goroka still had the Navy Dark Blue paint on it. If a hull has not had trees fall on it, there have been examples where the inside is relatively clean as was the case with a B-17 outside of Moresby 15 years ago.
My problem will be if it is buried, ie; if we see a bit of metal sticking up above ground and the rest is buried then I will have to dig where I can positively identify it as "an Electra 10E" then get some equipment in there.
Regards,
David Billings
Oh there will be serial numbers alright, even if all else fails the prop blade stub ends will be stamped for sure and they will have been in grease. The engine data plates were not on the front so they will be on the blower housings which was the earlier positioning. The very configuration of the aircraft wreckage will give it away, as in the fuel tank filler necks for one thing and the set number of tanks in the fuselage. There will be no problem in identifying the Electra 10E in the long distance configuration. There were only two equipped for Long Distance and the other one, "The Daily Express" is said to be on the Russian Steppes somewhere. I would think that one could be eliminated, don't you ?
The jungle tends to keep aluminium aircraft fairly well as has been proven before. The Captain Harl Pease B-17 I mentioned before for example is basically corrosion free, has no remaining paint and the aluminium is clean as a whistle just sitting on the ground. If you recall, the Hellcat that was found about ten years ago high up in the hills between Wewak and Goroka still had the Navy Dark Blue paint on it. If a hull has not had trees fall on it, there have been examples where the inside is relatively clean as was the case with a B-17 outside of Moresby 15 years ago.
My problem will be if it is buried, ie; if we see a bit of metal sticking up above ground and the rest is buried then I will have to dig where I can positively identify it as "an Electra 10E" then get some equipment in there.
Regards,
David Billings
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:13 am
Well Dave
You are very optimistic, but in reality your site describes the rivetted engine cowl in the jungle as coroded.
If it was indeed coroded or had caught fire, I am afraid any aluminum at this point would be pie crust flakywith no readable s/n's.
None of this matters if you can't find the wreck. You can say you will but until........
At this point I have to ahree with tom d. friedman that this thread has pretty much run it's course
Good luck with the search
Fleet16b
You are very optimistic, but in reality your site describes the rivetted engine cowl in the jungle as coroded.
If it was indeed coroded or had caught fire, I am afraid any aluminum at this point would be pie crust flakywith no readable s/n's.
None of this matters if you can't find the wreck. You can say you will but until........
At this point I have to ahree with tom d. friedman that this thread has pretty much run it's course
Good luck with the search
Fleet16b
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:03 pm
I'm glad to see more conversation going on this topic. David, I like your tenacity with regards to searching New Britain. I agree with your concept of searching the island in order to a.) find EA airplane, or b.) eliminate New Britain as a crash site possibility.
If your search next year provides any airframe discoveries it will be a good thing. If not AE and Noonan's, then somebody else's family will have closure.
With regards to conspiracy theories... I am glad to see you not just mention a theory, but follow through with trying to prove it. And from the sounds of it, you'll be happy with whatever outcome you end up with. Be it, the discovery of AE's Lockheed, or the wreckage of another airplane.
By the way, are you going to be using any sort of metal detecting equipment on your search? What will your methods be during your ground search? Simply visual, or will you do much/any hacking and digging?
I wish you good luck with your upcoming search. Take lots of pictures!
Peace,
David M
If your search next year provides any airframe discoveries it will be a good thing. If not AE and Noonan's, then somebody else's family will have closure.
With regards to conspiracy theories... I am glad to see you not just mention a theory, but follow through with trying to prove it. And from the sounds of it, you'll be happy with whatever outcome you end up with. Be it, the discovery of AE's Lockheed, or the wreckage of another airplane.
By the way, are you going to be using any sort of metal detecting equipment on your search? What will your methods be during your ground search? Simply visual, or will you do much/any hacking and digging?
I wish you good luck with your upcoming search. Take lots of pictures!
Peace,
David M
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:54 pm
Although I got into this thread late, I have been fascinated by the mystery of AE since the late 60s when as a teen (and son of a WW 2 pilot), I read The Search For Amelia Earhart....... When I first "discovered" the Internet years later, one of the first "searches" I did was to look up AE, etc and I found Gillespie's web site and his "theories"........
Coincidentally, just today I re-watched a History Channel show about looking for AE, etc! Ric G claims that AE had 5 hours of gas left when she made her "running low on fuel" and as a retired airline pilot, I can understand that. That does not mean for SURE that she was then on fumes...... as a few people seem to think.
What I have a hard time wondering is why she wasn't singing like a canary on the radio right up until she finally went down. Radio failure takes care of that explanation I guess...... I also can't understand why, during all her "planning" with her team, that it was not well known to those left behind, just what she planned to do in the event that she couldn't find EVERY stop along the way of this trip............ multiply that times ten for the leg to Howland.....
The idea that David has discovered some pretty good signs of an airplane at least "similar" to a 10E in the jungle, to me, ought to generate a LOT more interest than it seems to be...... Too bad that my last name is not Gates!
Speaking of Bill Gates, has anyone contacted the Paul Allen people in the Seattle area? He's Bill Gate's former partner, mega-rich and owns a private collection/museum of flyable warbirds..... He might be the kind of guy that could "make" a thorough search in the jungle a reality....... if for no other reason than to add to his collection of warbirds!
Coincidentally, just today I re-watched a History Channel show about looking for AE, etc! Ric G claims that AE had 5 hours of gas left when she made her "running low on fuel" and as a retired airline pilot, I can understand that. That does not mean for SURE that she was then on fumes...... as a few people seem to think.
What I have a hard time wondering is why she wasn't singing like a canary on the radio right up until she finally went down. Radio failure takes care of that explanation I guess...... I also can't understand why, during all her "planning" with her team, that it was not well known to those left behind, just what she planned to do in the event that she couldn't find EVERY stop along the way of this trip............ multiply that times ten for the leg to Howland.....
The idea that David has discovered some pretty good signs of an airplane at least "similar" to a 10E in the jungle, to me, ought to generate a LOT more interest than it seems to be...... Too bad that my last name is not Gates!
Speaking of Bill Gates, has anyone contacted the Paul Allen people in the Seattle area? He's Bill Gate's former partner, mega-rich and owns a private collection/museum of flyable warbirds..... He might be the kind of guy that could "make" a thorough search in the jungle a reality....... if for no other reason than to add to his collection of warbirds!
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:05 pm
Mr. Billings,
Best of luck with your search for the mystery crash. I think we would all like to know what is sleeping in that jungle.
Kevin
Best of luck with your search for the mystery crash. I think we would all like to know what is sleeping in that jungle.
Kevin
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:39 pm
I agree, this is all fascinating. I too wish Mr Billings all the luck in the world in finding that aircraft, whether it turns out to be AE/FN or not. I hope you'll pop back in here and let us know about the trip!
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:08 pm
Mr. Billings,
I am very interested the Earhart, Noonan disappearance. I realize that since we were not there, some speculation has to be made. Since you have done much research, I've read your website and your discussions on another forum, plus read many other articles concerning THE flight.
They are a lot of "if" in these theories. Can we get some hard facts, first.
For example: How much fuel was on board at take-off at Lae? Does anybody actually know?
Is there a written record of it? I heard one report that she took off with 900 gallons.
IF no one really knows, fine; THEN we could speculate that she took off with full fuel.
But, I would like to know what are the facts, however limited they may be.
Another question: what is the documented fuel consumption of the Electra?
You state 20 gph. (per engine?) I have read it was 22gph per engine up to
25 gph for cruise flight.
There are many questions to be asked but, can we start with some basics?
To be objective about this I think stating the facts first and no other conjecture
would be best. Again, I think that speculation will have to play into this at some point just by nature of the span of time since 1937 and lack of documents.
I am very interested the Earhart, Noonan disappearance. I realize that since we were not there, some speculation has to be made. Since you have done much research, I've read your website and your discussions on another forum, plus read many other articles concerning THE flight.
They are a lot of "if" in these theories. Can we get some hard facts, first.
For example: How much fuel was on board at take-off at Lae? Does anybody actually know?
Is there a written record of it? I heard one report that she took off with 900 gallons.
IF no one really knows, fine; THEN we could speculate that she took off with full fuel.
But, I would like to know what are the facts, however limited they may be.
Another question: what is the documented fuel consumption of the Electra?
You state 20 gph. (per engine?) I have read it was 22gph per engine up to
25 gph for cruise flight.
There are many questions to be asked but, can we start with some basics?
To be objective about this I think stating the facts first and no other conjecture
would be best. Again, I think that speculation will have to play into this at some point just by nature of the span of time since 1937 and lack of documents.
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:48 pm
Cubs
I wrote a long answer for you only to lose it when the forum wanted me to sign in again so this will be brief and I'll try and get the full one to the thread later....
Consensus of opinion is there was 1100 USG on board.
However, the LAE refueller said at the time that he topped off all tanks before she left so it may have been 1151 USG
Lockheed Figures:
0-8000' 1 Hour using 100 USG
8000' 3 Hours at 60 USGPH
8000' 3 Hours at 51 USGPH
8000' 3 Hours at 43 USGPH
10000' Remainder of the flight at 38 USGPH.
Therefore, she is not supposed to be able to climb to 10 K until 10 hours have gone by when we do know from previous flights she climbed straight through. We also know that she had flown the Electra at 12,000 feet in the U.S. going from (I recall) NYC to Phoenix.
One flight from OAKLAND to Wheeler Field 2400 Statute Miles she carried 947 USG. She said when she got there that she had "over four hours of fuel left".
The flight intended from Luke Field to Howland of 1900 Statute Miles she had 900 USG on board (Groundlooped on T.O.)
This flight was intended to go to The Gilberts (Contingency) if she missed HOW making the total distance around 2500 Sm requiredon 900 USG.
The LAE-HOW flight with 1100 USG for 2556 plus a Gilberts contingency would make 3156 Sm.
The OAK-HNL flight can be shown to have used less gas than the Lockheed figures but I'll type that out in MS Word and then copy it to another post.
Hope this helps.
David Billings
I wrote a long answer for you only to lose it when the forum wanted me to sign in again so this will be brief and I'll try and get the full one to the thread later....
Consensus of opinion is there was 1100 USG on board.
However, the LAE refueller said at the time that he topped off all tanks before she left so it may have been 1151 USG
Lockheed Figures:
0-8000' 1 Hour using 100 USG
8000' 3 Hours at 60 USGPH
8000' 3 Hours at 51 USGPH
8000' 3 Hours at 43 USGPH
10000' Remainder of the flight at 38 USGPH.
Therefore, she is not supposed to be able to climb to 10 K until 10 hours have gone by when we do know from previous flights she climbed straight through. We also know that she had flown the Electra at 12,000 feet in the U.S. going from (I recall) NYC to Phoenix.
One flight from OAKLAND to Wheeler Field 2400 Statute Miles she carried 947 USG. She said when she got there that she had "over four hours of fuel left".
The flight intended from Luke Field to Howland of 1900 Statute Miles she had 900 USG on board (Groundlooped on T.O.)
This flight was intended to go to The Gilberts (Contingency) if she missed HOW making the total distance around 2500 Sm requiredon 900 USG.
The LAE-HOW flight with 1100 USG for 2556 plus a Gilberts contingency would make 3156 Sm.
The OAK-HNL flight can be shown to have used less gas than the Lockheed figures but I'll type that out in MS Word and then copy it to another post.
Hope this helps.
David Billings
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:27 pm
Cubs
The long answer to your queries:
There was no 100 Octane available at LAE so logically Earhart would not want to dilute this high Octane fuel used for Take-Off by completely filling the tank with lower grade fuel and as the gurus say she carried it in a 100 USG tank and it was “half-full” we can speculate a little.
There were 97 USG tanks and 102 USG tanks which fall into the “100 USG”. So we’ll stick with the 100 and say that tank carried 50USG remove that from the capacity of1151 USG and we end up with 1101 USG carried out of LAE.
However, the LAE refueller is reported to have said at the time that he topped off all tanks before she left so the Electra may have had 1151 USG on board when it taxied out.
This “may” explain why the take-off run was so long if the fuel was diluted as the Electra would not get the same performance out of say “90-ish Octane Fuel as it would out of 100 Octane. One pilot who was overhead in a Ju31 said that he could see a cloud of dust raised when the Electra hit the rise of the dirt road which was at the end of the seaward runway. I have stood on that perimeter road at LAE and it was right at the end of the available runway length on the old airport at LAE. So she used all the 3000 feet available. There then was a drop-off of about 20 feet to the level of the sea. Descriptions say the Electra descended down to sea level until it was obviously in ground effect whereupon the props left wakes in the water and was still only climbing very slowly out over the water when they lost sight of it.
So, on fuel carried, 1100 or 1151, take your pick.
Unlike the sister-ship, “The Daily Express”, which could be refueled from fuel cans which were taken aboard before flight, C/N1055 does not appear to have had this luxury available as no mention of it being capable of being refueled during flight has been mentioned.
“The Daily Express” was flown from the hard sand beach at Woodgate in Lancashire, in the U.K. to NYC by Merrill and Lambie, carrying film of the Coronation of King George VI. It flew across the North Atlantic, mainly at 5,000 feet to avoid icing and made a precautionary landing near Boston before continuing on to NYC without refueling.. Quite an achievement in itself. It landed in NYC with fuel to spare.
Lockheed Figures:
0-8000' 1 Hour using 100 USG
8000' 3 Hours at 60 USGPH
8000' 3 Hours at 51 USGPH
8000' 3 Hours at 43 USGPH
10000' Remainder of the flight at 38 USGPH.
On the Flight in March 1937 from OAKLAND to Wheeler Field on Oahu, HI; 947 USG were loaded. The Electra climbed through to 10,000 feet and remained there for all the flight until descent into Oahu. At one point the Groundspeed was 180 mph. The flight was going so well that Earhart realized they would be arriving in the dark so she slowed the Electra down by pulling back the power until as she says in her book: “Last Flight”, “….we are at 10,000 feet, indicated speed 120 mph, I am using less than 20 USG of gas”. The book indicates that she reduced power at the 14 hour point in a near 16 hour flight. The 120mph must have been “Corrected Indicated Airspeed”.
From the Lockheed figures, you can see then that they would expect the Electra to use 714 USG in that 14 hours.
We now have to work backwards from the known fuel load planned for the Luke Field to HOWLAND flight over 1900 Statute Miles which was 900 USG.
Paul Mantz bought 590 USG of hi-Octane fuel from the USAAC at Luke Field to make up the load to 900 USG. Therefore, there must have been 310 USG in the Electra when it landed at Luke.
Mantz had flown his Fiancee around the island after leaving Wheeler Field so let us say he would use 50 USG for that flight, in which case the Electra left Wheeler with 360 USG on board.
On arriving from OAK, the previous day fuelling had commenced but was stopped by Mantz because sediment showed up in the chamois filters when the Contractor tried to refuel the Electra. Let us say that a total of 40 USG went in through the filters before fuelling was stopped. That means that the Electra landed at Wheeler Field with 320 USG on board after the flight of near 16 hours.
If we add to that the 40 USG which would have been used in the last two hours of that flight according to Earhart’s own words on Page 37 of her book, then at the 14 Hour point, the Electra had 360 USG left, meaning it used 587 USG in the 14 Hours of Climb and Cruise. That is an average consumption of 42 USGPH when by the Lockheed figures it should have used 714 USG for an average consumption of 51 USGPH, quite a saving.
What I am trying to show here is that by Earhart’s “practical use” of the Electra, the fuel figures are better, there is less consumption in the way that she operated the aircraft.
There is also a planned flight as evidenced by Clarence Williams’ strip map for DAKAR-ADEN across Africa which is a distance of 4302 Statute Miles in a time of 28 Hours and 40 Minutes. Why Flight Plan it if the Electra cannot do it ? That time in Lockheed consumption figures means 1267 USG had to be carried but we know that only 1151 USG could be carried so how ? Well the time figure is in still air at 150 mph G/S so Earhart was obviously banking on a tailwind and my calculations show that she could do it even on the Lockheed figures if she did have 10 mph at the back. In the event she did not do this flight because of headwinds but did the distance in stages.
If we look at the HNL-HOW proposed flight over 1900 Sm and only 900 USG loaded, it tells us that Earhart cut down the required fuel to get to the “remote” island because as we have seen she would only require some 525 USG for the 12.5 Hours of flight (she always Flight Planned at 150mph G/S and adjusted for wind), leaving another 375 USG, for what ? She obviously had a contingency if she could not find Howland and that was to continue on to The Gilberts 600 miles further on. This means that 2500 Statute Miles was possible on 900 USG.
Looking at the LAE-HOW flight and her flight plan time into a 12 mph wind would work out to 18.5 Hours, then she needs on average 777 USG for that 18.5 hours but this flight turns out longer than the planned 18.5 hours as she called at 1912 GMT “Must be on you…etc” so she did consider that she was “at” or “lateral to” HOW at that point but the extra time would be taken up with the descent because we didn’t count that into the 18.5 hours.
The extended time of the flight could have been done at reduced speed also because Kelly Johnson’s advice was for Earhart to “lean off” ie; slow down slightly in the face of an increasing wind so less fuel than 777 USG would be the result. The Flight Manual for the Lockheed 10A I have has an amendment page inserted which is in “Courier” font which was not invented pre-WWII and therefore would not have been seen by Earhart and the amendment tells Pilots to “speed up” into an increasing headwind, not to “slow down”.
An MS Excel programme I made up for the early part of the flight LAE to the ONTARIO, where we do have a handle on times, locations and therefore distances flown has me “increasing” the headwind on the Electra in order to have it arriving at the Ontario at 1036GMT, six minutes after the 1030GMT call, “Ship in sight ahead…” There is evidence that the Flight was conducted by way of Choiseul Island to avoid the reported storm to the S-E of New Britain Island because the 0518GMT Lat/Long position heard by Harry Balfour in LAE and recorded by him is erroneous and the Longitude is incorrect. The dogleg adds only 37 Sm and is logical if one wishes to avoid a Tropical Storm. The distance from LAE-NUKUMAU then becomes 910 Sm and they were in the vicinity at 0718GMT and Earhart had reported a wind there at 7000 feet of 25 mph. Another 405 Sm sees them at the USCG Ontario and in order to get them overhead at 1036GMT, I have to wind up the headwind to a value of 35 mph. On the surface, the ONTARIO recorded a wind of 20 Knots at the time when Earhart would be going over.
So the wind value had obviously increased and that is why they were late.
I only state 20 USGPH as a setting if they use that setting in a return and to guarantee endurance.
My working shows them being 200 Statute Miles “short of” Howland. They searched for an hour, didn’t find anything and from what we have in the jungle, they did a turnback onto their reciprocal to invoke their Contingency Plan and head back to the Gilberts. As Earhart “thought” she was at or lateral to HOW, she would not expect to see The Gilberts for four hours.
We have Fred Goerner’s report of the Radio Call only heard by Nauru Island “Land in sight ahead” which can be shown to have been made at 2200 GMT, one and three quarters of an hour after the supposed last call at 2014GMT. If she had a contingency plan, she also had to have “contingency fuel” and it is my contention that this level is set at 300 USG and she turned back at that figure. In four hours she will use about 180USG climbing up to altitude again but if she sees ‘Land in sight ahead’ after 1 ¾ hours she will only use about 70 USG.
This then is “Big Decision” time. Put it down on an Atoll or “press on” to get closer to civilization.
Ocean Island is ahead, Nauru Island is ahead, Nukumanu Island is ahead and all can be easily reached on 230 USG. Why put it down now ? If we climb higher, pull the power back to a CIAS of 120 mph we can endure for 11 hours. If we now have a tailwind of 20-25 mph our Groundspeed will be 140-145 mph in 11 hours we can go 1540 to 1595 Statute Miles. Rabaul is 1580 Miles away, it has two airstrips.
At 0825GMT, 0831GMT, 0843GMT and 0854GMT on 3rd July 1937, Nauru Radio heard unintelligible calls on 6210Kcs and the Nauru Operator said it sounded like the same voice he had heard the night before but there was no hum of plane in the background.
In April 1945, an Australian Army patrol found an all-metal, twin-engined aircraft in the Jungle which carried no Nationality markings but which had Pratt & Whitney engines.
In 1993 a map used by this patrol and kept by a member of the same Company of the same Unit for 48 years turns up which has writing on the edge which says: “600H/P S3H1 C/N1055”.
Regards,
David Billings
The long answer to your queries:
There was no 100 Octane available at LAE so logically Earhart would not want to dilute this high Octane fuel used for Take-Off by completely filling the tank with lower grade fuel and as the gurus say she carried it in a 100 USG tank and it was “half-full” we can speculate a little.
There were 97 USG tanks and 102 USG tanks which fall into the “100 USG”. So we’ll stick with the 100 and say that tank carried 50USG remove that from the capacity of1151 USG and we end up with 1101 USG carried out of LAE.
However, the LAE refueller is reported to have said at the time that he topped off all tanks before she left so the Electra may have had 1151 USG on board when it taxied out.
This “may” explain why the take-off run was so long if the fuel was diluted as the Electra would not get the same performance out of say “90-ish Octane Fuel as it would out of 100 Octane. One pilot who was overhead in a Ju31 said that he could see a cloud of dust raised when the Electra hit the rise of the dirt road which was at the end of the seaward runway. I have stood on that perimeter road at LAE and it was right at the end of the available runway length on the old airport at LAE. So she used all the 3000 feet available. There then was a drop-off of about 20 feet to the level of the sea. Descriptions say the Electra descended down to sea level until it was obviously in ground effect whereupon the props left wakes in the water and was still only climbing very slowly out over the water when they lost sight of it.
So, on fuel carried, 1100 or 1151, take your pick.
Unlike the sister-ship, “The Daily Express”, which could be refueled from fuel cans which were taken aboard before flight, C/N1055 does not appear to have had this luxury available as no mention of it being capable of being refueled during flight has been mentioned.
“The Daily Express” was flown from the hard sand beach at Woodgate in Lancashire, in the U.K. to NYC by Merrill and Lambie, carrying film of the Coronation of King George VI. It flew across the North Atlantic, mainly at 5,000 feet to avoid icing and made a precautionary landing near Boston before continuing on to NYC without refueling.. Quite an achievement in itself. It landed in NYC with fuel to spare.
Lockheed Figures:
0-8000' 1 Hour using 100 USG
8000' 3 Hours at 60 USGPH
8000' 3 Hours at 51 USGPH
8000' 3 Hours at 43 USGPH
10000' Remainder of the flight at 38 USGPH.
On the Flight in March 1937 from OAKLAND to Wheeler Field on Oahu, HI; 947 USG were loaded. The Electra climbed through to 10,000 feet and remained there for all the flight until descent into Oahu. At one point the Groundspeed was 180 mph. The flight was going so well that Earhart realized they would be arriving in the dark so she slowed the Electra down by pulling back the power until as she says in her book: “Last Flight”, “….we are at 10,000 feet, indicated speed 120 mph, I am using less than 20 USG of gas”. The book indicates that she reduced power at the 14 hour point in a near 16 hour flight. The 120mph must have been “Corrected Indicated Airspeed”.
From the Lockheed figures, you can see then that they would expect the Electra to use 714 USG in that 14 hours.
We now have to work backwards from the known fuel load planned for the Luke Field to HOWLAND flight over 1900 Statute Miles which was 900 USG.
Paul Mantz bought 590 USG of hi-Octane fuel from the USAAC at Luke Field to make up the load to 900 USG. Therefore, there must have been 310 USG in the Electra when it landed at Luke.
Mantz had flown his Fiancee around the island after leaving Wheeler Field so let us say he would use 50 USG for that flight, in which case the Electra left Wheeler with 360 USG on board.
On arriving from OAK, the previous day fuelling had commenced but was stopped by Mantz because sediment showed up in the chamois filters when the Contractor tried to refuel the Electra. Let us say that a total of 40 USG went in through the filters before fuelling was stopped. That means that the Electra landed at Wheeler Field with 320 USG on board after the flight of near 16 hours.
If we add to that the 40 USG which would have been used in the last two hours of that flight according to Earhart’s own words on Page 37 of her book, then at the 14 Hour point, the Electra had 360 USG left, meaning it used 587 USG in the 14 Hours of Climb and Cruise. That is an average consumption of 42 USGPH when by the Lockheed figures it should have used 714 USG for an average consumption of 51 USGPH, quite a saving.
What I am trying to show here is that by Earhart’s “practical use” of the Electra, the fuel figures are better, there is less consumption in the way that she operated the aircraft.
There is also a planned flight as evidenced by Clarence Williams’ strip map for DAKAR-ADEN across Africa which is a distance of 4302 Statute Miles in a time of 28 Hours and 40 Minutes. Why Flight Plan it if the Electra cannot do it ? That time in Lockheed consumption figures means 1267 USG had to be carried but we know that only 1151 USG could be carried so how ? Well the time figure is in still air at 150 mph G/S so Earhart was obviously banking on a tailwind and my calculations show that she could do it even on the Lockheed figures if she did have 10 mph at the back. In the event she did not do this flight because of headwinds but did the distance in stages.
If we look at the HNL-HOW proposed flight over 1900 Sm and only 900 USG loaded, it tells us that Earhart cut down the required fuel to get to the “remote” island because as we have seen she would only require some 525 USG for the 12.5 Hours of flight (she always Flight Planned at 150mph G/S and adjusted for wind), leaving another 375 USG, for what ? She obviously had a contingency if she could not find Howland and that was to continue on to The Gilberts 600 miles further on. This means that 2500 Statute Miles was possible on 900 USG.
Looking at the LAE-HOW flight and her flight plan time into a 12 mph wind would work out to 18.5 Hours, then she needs on average 777 USG for that 18.5 hours but this flight turns out longer than the planned 18.5 hours as she called at 1912 GMT “Must be on you…etc” so she did consider that she was “at” or “lateral to” HOW at that point but the extra time would be taken up with the descent because we didn’t count that into the 18.5 hours.
The extended time of the flight could have been done at reduced speed also because Kelly Johnson’s advice was for Earhart to “lean off” ie; slow down slightly in the face of an increasing wind so less fuel than 777 USG would be the result. The Flight Manual for the Lockheed 10A I have has an amendment page inserted which is in “Courier” font which was not invented pre-WWII and therefore would not have been seen by Earhart and the amendment tells Pilots to “speed up” into an increasing headwind, not to “slow down”.
An MS Excel programme I made up for the early part of the flight LAE to the ONTARIO, where we do have a handle on times, locations and therefore distances flown has me “increasing” the headwind on the Electra in order to have it arriving at the Ontario at 1036GMT, six minutes after the 1030GMT call, “Ship in sight ahead…” There is evidence that the Flight was conducted by way of Choiseul Island to avoid the reported storm to the S-E of New Britain Island because the 0518GMT Lat/Long position heard by Harry Balfour in LAE and recorded by him is erroneous and the Longitude is incorrect. The dogleg adds only 37 Sm and is logical if one wishes to avoid a Tropical Storm. The distance from LAE-NUKUMAU then becomes 910 Sm and they were in the vicinity at 0718GMT and Earhart had reported a wind there at 7000 feet of 25 mph. Another 405 Sm sees them at the USCG Ontario and in order to get them overhead at 1036GMT, I have to wind up the headwind to a value of 35 mph. On the surface, the ONTARIO recorded a wind of 20 Knots at the time when Earhart would be going over.
So the wind value had obviously increased and that is why they were late.
I only state 20 USGPH as a setting if they use that setting in a return and to guarantee endurance.
My working shows them being 200 Statute Miles “short of” Howland. They searched for an hour, didn’t find anything and from what we have in the jungle, they did a turnback onto their reciprocal to invoke their Contingency Plan and head back to the Gilberts. As Earhart “thought” she was at or lateral to HOW, she would not expect to see The Gilberts for four hours.
We have Fred Goerner’s report of the Radio Call only heard by Nauru Island “Land in sight ahead” which can be shown to have been made at 2200 GMT, one and three quarters of an hour after the supposed last call at 2014GMT. If she had a contingency plan, she also had to have “contingency fuel” and it is my contention that this level is set at 300 USG and she turned back at that figure. In four hours she will use about 180USG climbing up to altitude again but if she sees ‘Land in sight ahead’ after 1 ¾ hours she will only use about 70 USG.
This then is “Big Decision” time. Put it down on an Atoll or “press on” to get closer to civilization.
Ocean Island is ahead, Nauru Island is ahead, Nukumanu Island is ahead and all can be easily reached on 230 USG. Why put it down now ? If we climb higher, pull the power back to a CIAS of 120 mph we can endure for 11 hours. If we now have a tailwind of 20-25 mph our Groundspeed will be 140-145 mph in 11 hours we can go 1540 to 1595 Statute Miles. Rabaul is 1580 Miles away, it has two airstrips.
At 0825GMT, 0831GMT, 0843GMT and 0854GMT on 3rd July 1937, Nauru Radio heard unintelligible calls on 6210Kcs and the Nauru Operator said it sounded like the same voice he had heard the night before but there was no hum of plane in the background.
In April 1945, an Australian Army patrol found an all-metal, twin-engined aircraft in the Jungle which carried no Nationality markings but which had Pratt & Whitney engines.
In 1993 a map used by this patrol and kept by a member of the same Company of the same Unit for 48 years turns up which has writing on the edge which says: “600H/P S3H1 C/N1055”.
Regards,
David Billings
Last edited by David Billings on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: dr. robert ballard / amelia earhart's lockheed 10???
Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:22 pm
Sir,
Thank you very much for your in depth reply. I had heard about the Lockheed consumption figures but, have not read the actual report. I will "chew on" the information you presented.
Concise information is hard to come by in this 'investigation'. Nice to see it laid out.
Just a side note, jumping now to conjecture: I asked someone about what they thought of AE
not broadcasting her plan B over the radio. His thoughts were that because she was such a prominent public figure and her 'ego' perhaps, that she would deliberately not broadcast her "failure": I can't find the island, I'm turning back. It's an interesting thought.
Thank you very much for your in depth reply. I had heard about the Lockheed consumption figures but, have not read the actual report. I will "chew on" the information you presented.
Concise information is hard to come by in this 'investigation'. Nice to see it laid out.
Just a side note, jumping now to conjecture: I asked someone about what they thought of AE
not broadcasting her plan B over the radio. His thoughts were that because she was such a prominent public figure and her 'ego' perhaps, that she would deliberately not broadcast her "failure": I can't find the island, I'm turning back. It's an interesting thought.