Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons

xb70 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:03 pm **Posts:** 36

David Billings wrote:

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.

Welcome back, Mr. Billings. The point quoted above is one I wish to inquire about. Is there any evidence that Fred Goerner actually found this signal in the records? And why has no one else ever seen it since? The "Japanese prisoner" theorists seize on the supposed disappearance of the message as proof of a government cover-up of her fate. Yet the similarity of this message to one reportedly overheard at Nauru wherein Amelia stated "A ship in sight ahead" on her trip to Howland (at 1030 PM or 1030 Greenwich time depending on the source) seems an awfully big coincidence. Isn't it more likely that Goerner saw this record from Nauru and misremembered what he'd read? And this is why he could not locate the reference upon later review of the records? He apparently had sufficient doubts about his memory that the subject was removed from the 2nd edition of his book. Therefore, it seems doubtful it ever existed in the first place.

David Billings · **Joined:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:56 pm **Posts:** 207

Goerner's Statement in his book "The Search for Amelia Earhart"

eljefe wrote:

Welcome back, Mr. Billings. The point quoted above is one I wish to inquire about. Is there any evidence that Fred Goerner actually found this signal in the records? And why has no one else ever seen it since? The "Japanese prisoner" theorists seize on the supposed disappearance of the message as proof of a government cover-up of her fate. Yet the similarity of this message to one reportedly overheard at Nauru wherein Amelia stated "A ship in sight ahead" on her trip to Howland (at 1030 PM or 1030 Greenwich time depending on the source) seems an awfully big coincidence. Isn't it more likely that Goerner saw this record from Nauru and misremembered what he'd read? And this is why he could not locate the reference upon later review of the records? He apparently had sufficient doubts about his memory that the subject was removed from the 2nd edition of his book. Therefore, it seems doubtful it ever existed in the first place.

I am not sure I did the right thing by being back, this takes too much time to repeat, when I have said all of this previously....

There is the evidence of the man who wrote the words in the above book in title of this post. What point would there be of making it up and inserting it in a book if he had not seen it ? I would hate to think that Goerner was other than a reputable person.

The message that he transcribed is not really similar "as you say" as you will read below, the time is wrong, the word "Land" is used and the radio frequency is also wrong for any similarities. The time of that Tx you refer, was 1030GMT/2nd July and in no way can be described as the morning of the disappearance... as you will see.

What it actually says in Goerner's book on Page 276 is this:

Near the bottom of the thick folder a terse, US Navy message with no heading had been added: "At 1030, the morning of the disappearance, Nauru Island radio station picked up Earhart on 6210Kcs saying, "Land in sight ahead"."
I blinked my eyes. Nearly two hours after Amelia had supposedly run out of gas, a radio station in the British-controlled Gilbert Islands had received her voice. Why had this message not been used as part of the 1937 search ? What land had she sighted ? What was the full extent of the message ?

Note: NAURU, although now a separate independent nation, was in 1937, part of The Gilbert Islands

The critical words in what Goerner wrote are these:

At 1030...

Which 1030 ? I have an extensive MS Excel file with all the times plotted for the Western Hemisphere, Eastern Hemisphere... for locations of ITASCA , USN Time, Howland Time, HNL TIme, LAX TIme, Lae Time, Rabaul Time, Nauru Times (Civil and Official) all against GMT and dates.

I can assure readers that the only 1030 which fits is the 1030 Local time on ITASCA which in GMT terms is 2200 GMT 2nd July.

the morning of the disappearance...

This statement "limits" the timing of the call Goerner reports in the book, not as the "Ship (or lights) in sight ahead" made on 3105Kcs at 1030GMT the night previous but as a call made after they thought Earhart had disappeared.

"Land"

Land is neither "ship" or "lights"

6210 Kcs...

In her supposed last message at 2014GMT, Earhart had said she was changing to 6210Kcs, her daytime frequency and the call was heard on 6210Kcs.

nearly two hours after Amelia had supposedly run out of gas...

It is supposed that Earhart ran out of gas just after 2014GMT and "nearly two hours" fits with the one hour forty-six minutes between 2014GMT and 2200GMT or one and three-quarters of an hour after 2014GMT.

There is also the saying that Goerner left this out of his Second Edition because by then he had moved onto the SAIPAN Theory and this call would not fit with that.... That has been said.

Of significance is that ITASCA did not hear this call. Years ago I sought the opinion of an experienced Radio professional, knowledgeable in the Radios of the era... as to whether Itasca would hear this call at the time of day if it was made near to the Gilbert islands main chain. His opinion was "no". Even if Itasca could have heard it, Itasca Radio surely was busy at this particular time and might well have blocked the Tx with a Tx of their own. The same Radio professional was of the opinion that NAURU would hear the call from near to The Gilbert Islands.

In a written passage "somewhere", maybe of an interview he gave..... Goerner did say he had seen it , why otherwise would he write it, but he did recall mentioning to the clerical person who had control of the file when he did read it; that it seemed a duplication of that 1030GMT call you have referred to. He later realised it was not and went back to see it again but possibly because of his remark, it had been pulled and he could not see it again.

I do not think an offhand dismissal of what Goerner wrote in his book is actually appropriate due to the non-similarities with the 1030GMT/2nd July call..

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1027

How far is it from the suspected crash site in ENB to the closest airfield they could have landed at (at the time)?

xb70 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:03 pm **Posts:** 36

Approximately 40 miles is what I recall from David's previous descriptions.

xb70 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:03 pm **Posts:** 36

David Billings wrote:

In a written passage "somewhere", maybe of an interview he gave..... Goerner did say he had seen it , why otherwise would he write it, but he did recall mentioning to the clerical person who had control of the file when he did read it; that it seemed a duplication of that 1030GMT call you have referred to. He later realised it was not and went back to see it again but possibly because of his remark, it had been pulled and he could not see it again.

Since no one else ever reported seeing this message, is it more likely that it was removed, lost, destroyed, etc. or that it simply did not exist in the first place? Why did Goerner remove it from the book? If he was truly convinced, you'd think he'd trumpet the missing message as proof of the vast conspiracy rather than simply delete the passage from the book.

I don't really see this issue as a requirement for the ENB theory. If the message did not exist, it does not invalidate the possibility of Earhart crashing in the jungle near Rabaul. However, there is so much uncertainty around the signal's existence that I do not see how its contents can be accepted as established fact. There ought to be warnings to the reader indicating this uncertainty when using the message as evidence supporting the theory.

David Billings · **Joined:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:56 pm **Posts:** 207

Goerner and S3H1 Engines

I just wrote a whole post and lost it during the "submit" stage.... so here goes again....

For Pinecastle: 45 Miles from VUNAKANAU, the nearest airfield on 1937

For Eljefe: You are granted my personal permission to erase Goerner's passage in the book, from your memory cells.

I have explained (valiantly) why this call cannot be confused with the 1030GMT Call heard when the Electra was in the vicinity of the USCG ONTARIO during the nightflying stage of the Flight LAE-HOW.. Goerner wrote it in his book, that is not disputed and it does tie-in with a turnback by a crew who could not find a destination and who invoked a Contingency Plan. Seeing land ahead totally unexpectedly and much earlier than calculated, must have been a supreme revelation of what for them "had gone wrong". What to do ?

Crashland now on that land ahead and possibly cause fatal injuries with no medical assistance ? Or proceed at a pace which will ensure "endurance" with the possibility of a landfall off to the right in OCEAN Island or NAURU and NUKUMANU Atoll is within range even with 150 USG in tanks at the low power setting she had previously experienced on the SFO-HI flight in March. I now expect some wag will say that Earhart couldn't possibly remember that......

S3H1 Engines:

It is correct that the obliteration of Goerner's passage in the book makes no difference to the fact that an all-metal-unpainted aircraft with two-S3H1-civilian designated engines-with nil military insignia lies on a hillside in East New Britain and was seen in 1945 by an Australian Patrol.

I have tried to find out if any other S3H1 "civilian designated" engines were ever in New Guinea prior to WWII and during WWII. The Royal Australian Air Force had single-engined Wirraway aircraft powered by the geared version of this engine (S3H1-G) which was licence built in Australia. Most of these were lost when the tourists arrived with fireworks in January 1942. They also had some single-engined fabric covered Noorduyn Norsemen with S3H1's and I would like for some enthusiast to try and tell me those went near to Fortress Rabaul during the years 1942 to 1945.

Two of the Lockheed Electra 10A's did go up to New Guinea during WWII on re-supply runs and the nearest they got to a fighting zone was when resupplying the furious battles at BUNA-GONA-SANANANDA, they do not come into the picture, being powered by R-985's not R-1340's. B-G-S is on the main island of New Guinea, not on New Britain Island.

There is a misconception by many in that they believe that the WASP engines produced in their thousands "must" at some stage have got to New Guinea. Mr. Gillespie thinks so because he says they were "ubiquitous" and we all know he is never wrong. When I spoke to Linda Finch on her arrival in Port Moresby, she told me Wasps were "oll overrr" (my spelling).

Many years ago I contacted the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AB and conversed by mail many times with a curator there named David Menard. David was a former USAF F100 Super Sabre Crew Chief with service in VN and an avid aircraft enthusiast. Sadly he left us a year or so ago. David researched the use of the P&W R-1340 S3H1 in military service (USAAC, USAAF, USAF, US Army, USN, USMC, USCG) for me and concluded that none reached New Guinea for most of the "military-in-service" R-1340 S3H1's had been the power for prototype aircraft consisting of biplanes and early monoplane aircraft from the late twenties and early thirties and used for evaluation by the Services prior to orders or production runs.

Clearly the standard R-1340 S3H1 designation was for a "civilian" engine.

The military version of the S3H1 in "Army" use is the "ubiquitous" AN-1 engine and I have not seen any records anywhere of their use in New Guinea before WWII and during WWII. I believe that the USN, USMC and USCG also had their own confusing lettered/numbered designations for this same engine.

The only aircraft with S3H1's that I can find which went anywhere near to New Guinea before the monumental event known as WWII was Earhart's Electra.

If anyone has information of an S3H1 powered twin-engined all-metal aircraft in New Guinea in the years 1937 to 1945 other than Earhart's Electra I surely would like to hear from them.

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."

gari · **Joined:** Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:43 pm **Posts:** 110

gary217 wrote:

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

"...it would have arrived at the east end of New Britain at the end of 20:13 (the proven endurance of the
plane)..."

Proven endurance? By whom?

I admire much of your work into this event, and respect your contribution, but you are always tainted by the dogma of the 'experts' advocating the mainstream crash-and-sank hypothesis.

NO ONE knows how AE flew that plane, we can only assume and presume, and Report 487 and AE herself give glimpses of an airplane capable of longer endurance/range than the dogmatic view of mainstream crash-and-sank YMMV, but it is NOT proven either way. The the appeal to authority -'most experts say that...' is a logical fallacy, and it is disingenuous to state as fact, something that is NOT a fact.

The Oxford dictionary gives this definition:

"Dogma:
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:"

Sound familiar?

Further, as we have no real idea of range, endurance and capabilities of both pilot and plane, we CANNOT know what the PNR was, can we?

I have no idea where NR16020 is, and I will never personally find it, but neither have the 'experts' after nearly 80 years of trying, maybe they are just wrong -but we know that no one has a bigger ego than an 'expert', so that circular logic will just make the circles they walk in smaller :-)

I think NR16020 is probably lost to mankind forever...but I do not know...and really no one knows. IF it is ever found, a lot of egos will be bruised...

gari · **Joined:** Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:43 pm **Posts:** 110

eljefe wrote:

David Billings wrote:

In a written passage "somewhere", maybe of an interview he gave..... Goerner did say he had seen it , why otherwise would he write it, but he did recall mentioning to the clerical person who had control of the file when he did read it; that it seemed a duplication of that 1030GMT call you have referred to. He later realised it was not and went back to see it again but possibly because of his remark, it had been pulled and he could not see it again.

Since no one else ever reported seeing this message, is it more likely that it was removed, lost, destroyed, etc. or that it simply did not exist in the first place? Why did Goerner remove it from the book? If he was truly convinced, you'd think he'd trumpet the missing message as proof of the vast conspiracy rather than simply delete the passage from the book.

I don't really see this issue as a requirement for the ENB theory. If the message did not exist, it does not invalidate the possibility of Earhart crashing in the jungle near Rabaul. However, there is so much uncertainty around the signal's existence that I do not see how its contents can be accepted as established fact. There ought to be warnings to the reader indicating this uncertainty when using the message as evidence supporting the theory.

Sceptics in all fields love to use Occam's Razor, but it can be just as flawed as any other thought process, I think that basically people like things pigeon-holed, and Occam's helps fill this need at times -the mind finds it easier to have a closed question than an open one; we like the finite, not the infinite lol

gari · **Joined:** Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:43 pm **Posts:** 110

David Billings wrote:

I just wrote a whole post and lost it during the "submit" stage.... so here goes again....
"

What I often do in forums, if I have a long post, is to either 1) type it out on notepad/textedit/word or whatever first or 2) copy the whole post to clipboard prior to hitting submit -then I can paste it back if it gets 'lost' lol

David Billings wrote:

Goerner and S3H1 Engines

I just wrote a whole post and lost it during the "submit" stage.... so here goes again....

For Pinecastle: 45 Miles from VUNAKANAU, the nearest airfield on 1937

For Eljefe: You are granted my personal permission to erase Goerner's passage in the book, from your memory cells.

I have explained (valiantly) why this call cannot be confused with the 1030GMT Call heard when the Electra was in the vicinity of the USCG ONTARIO during the nightflying stage of the Flight LAE-HOW.. Goerner wrote it in his book, that is not disputed and it does tie-in with a turnback by a crew who could not find a destination and who invoked a Contingency Plan. Seeing land ahead totally unexpectedly and much earlier than calculated, must have been a supreme revelation of what for them "had gone wrong". What to do ?

Crashland now on that land ahead and possibly cause fatal injuries with no medical assistance ? Or proceed at a pace which will ensure "endurance" with the possibility of a landfall off to the right in OCEAN Island or NAURU and NUKUMANU Atoll is within range even with 150 USG in tanks at the low power setting she had previously experienced on the SFO-HI flight in March. I now expect some wag will say that Earhart couldn't possibly remember that......

S3H1 Engines:

It is correct that the obliteration of Goerner's passage in the book makes no difference to the fact that an all-metal-unpainted aircraft with two-S3H1-civilian designated engines-with nil military insignia lies on a hillside in East New Britain and was seen in 1945 by an Australian Patrol.

I have tried to find out if any other S3H1 "civilian designated" engines were ever in New Guinea prior to WWII and during WWII. The Royal Australian Air Force had single-engined Wirraway aircraft powered by the geared version of this engine (S3H1-G) which was licence built in Australia. Most of these were lost when the tourists arrived with fireworks in January 1942. They also had some single-engined fabric covered Noorduyn Norsemen with S3H1's and I would like for some enthusiast to try and tell me those went near to Fortress Rabaul during the years 1942 to 1945.

Two of the Lockheed Electra 10A's did go up to New Guinea during WWII on re-supply runs and the nearest they got to a fighting zone was when resupplying the furious battles at BUNA-GONA-SANANANDA, they do not come into the picture, being powered by R-985's not R-1340's. B-G-S is on the main island of New Guinea, not on New Britain Island.

There is a misconception by many in that they believe that the WASP engines produced in their thousands "must" at some stage have got to New Guinea. Mr. Gillespie thinks so because he says they were "ubiquitous" and we all know he is never wrong. When I spoke to Linda Finch on her arrival in Port Moresby, she told me Wasps were "oll overrr" (my spelling).

Many years ago I contacted the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AB and conversed by mail many times with a curator there named David Menard. David was a former USAF F100 Super Sabre Crew Chief with service in VN and an avid aircraft enthusiast. Sadly he left us a year or so ago. David researched the use of the P&W R-1340 S3H1 in military service (USAAC, USAAF, USAF, US Army, USN, USMC, USCG) for me and concluded that none reached New Guinea for most of the "military-in-service" R-1340 S3H1's had been the power for prototype aircraft consisting of biplanes and early monoplane aircraft from the late twenties and early thirties and used for evaluation by the Services prior to orders or production runs.

Clearly the standard R-1340 S3H1 designation was for a "civilian" engine.

The military version of the S3H1 in "Army" use is the "ubiquitous" AN-1 engine and I have not seen any records anywhere of their use in New Guinea before WWII and during WWII. I believe that the USN, USMC and USCG also had their own confusing lettered/numbered designations for this same engine.

The only aircraft with S3H1's that I can find which went anywhere near to New Guinea before the monumental event known as WWII was Earhart's Electra.

If anyone has information of an S3H1 powered twin-engined all-metal aircraft in New Guinea in the years 1937 to 1945 other than Earhart's Electra I surely would like to hear from them.

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."

I do find ENB intriguing, I can understand why people have issues with it, especially the question of range/endurance, but that's dogma for you, I am just a dumb lettuce picking peon, and I can see leeway in the data to advocate a longer than generally accepted range for the plane; indeed, it puzzles me how people can just religiously stick to the dogma...which does amuse me when I see some people accusing the adherents of the Gardner hypothesis of following dogma and not thinking critically, when they too are as guilty lol

What happened to Fred and AE doesn't keep me awake at night, but if I were Bill Gates or someone with huge disposable income I'd be throwing money an many of the theories, just to satisfy my own curiosity; kind of irks me that that computer billionaire spent all that money looking for a 'lost' Japanese WW2 Battleship, when two of his 'own' are out there somewhere...that said, the world seems to think that Gardner Island is the solution, and that the case is 'solved'...

I have no idea where the plane is, for sure the 'greatest' navigator of his day messed up, and no one knows how far off Howland they were, despite the 'hard-on' many seem to have for an infallible, reliable FN, he so obviously failed, for whatever reason...sure AE as PIC takes ultimate responsibility -especially for not knowing how to use the DF- but if a PIC today failed to achieve a successful flight because one element failed, we'd be blaming the failed element...

gary217 · **Joined:** Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:08 pm **Posts:** 61

gari wrote:

gary217 wrote:

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.”

"...it would have arrived at the east end of New Britain at the end of 20:13 (the proven endurance of the
plane)..."

Quote:

Proven endurance? By whom?

.

Proven by the radio logs of Itasca. We know for sure that the plane had an endurance of 20:13 because Earhart was talking on the radio at that point. So by "proven" we know that the endurance was at least that long but any greater claim for her endurance is speculation. However, if you read the entire post you will see that I also did the calculation for a "speculated" 24 hour endurance and the plane still could not make it back to New Britain even with 24 hours of fuel on board.

And I put the standard navigation manuals for this on my website and invited everyone to do the calculations for themselves, you don't have to take my word for it, using any set of assumptions that your heart desires. So I don't know how you can claim that this is "dogma" when I provide the means and the invitation for you to do the research for yourself.

gl

AlanH · **Joined:** Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:57 am **Posts:** 214

David Billings wrote:

There is a misconception by many in that they believe that the WASP engines produced in their thousands "must" at some stage have got to New Guinea. Mr. Gillespie thinks so because he says they were "ubiquitous" and we all know he is never wrong. When I spoke to Linda Finch on her arrival in Port Moresby, she told me Wasps were "oll overrr" (my spelling).

Many years ago I contacted the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AB and conversed by mail many times with a curator there named David Menard. David was a former USAF F100 Super Sabre Crew Chief with service in VN and an avid aircraft enthusiast. Sadly he left us a year or so ago. David researched the use of the P&W R-1340 S3H1 in military service (USAAC, USAAF, USAF, US Army, USN, USMC, USCG) for me and concluded that none reached New Guinea for most of the "military-in-service" R-1340 S3H1's had been the power for prototype aircraft consisting of biplanes and early monoplane aircraft from the late twenties and early thirties and used for evaluation by the Services prior to orders or production runs.

Clearly the standard R-1340 S3H1 designation was for a "civilian" engine.

The military version of the S3H1 in "Army" use is the "ubiquitous" AN-1 engine and I have not seen any records anywhere of their use in New Guinea before WWII and during WWII. I believe that the USN, USMC and USCG also had their own confusing lettered/numbered designations for this same engine.

The only aircraft with S3H1's that I can find which went anywhere near to New Guinea before the monumental event known as WWII was Earhart's Electra.

If anyone has information of an S3H1 powered twin-engined all-metal aircraft in New Guinea in the years 1937 to 1945 other than Earhart's Electra I surely would like to hear from them.

There is a useful reference document at the "enginehistory.org" site HERE. It is a scan of a Pratt & Whitney internal index of Wasp engine development and applications, revised up through 1956. It's a little hard to decipher; I have tried to distill the applicable information below, i.e. that which pertains to the commercial/civilian S3H1 and the military "equivalents" to the S3H1. The document heading would seem to imply that the commercial/civilian engines were referred to as "Wasp" variants by P&W, and the military versions as variants in the "R-1340" series.

Aircraft Using Civilian Wasp S3H1
Bellanca Model 31-50
Canadian Car & Foundry C-64 Norseman
Fiat G49-A
Grumman G-73 Mallard
Lockheed 10E
Macchi MB-323
North American NA-15-3, NA-16-1
Piaggio P-150

Aircraft Using Air Force Wasps considered equivalent to S3H1 by P&W
R-1340-41: Bellanca L-11; Detroit ZC-23; North American Y1BT-10; Northrop A-17AS
R-1340-47: North American AT-6, BC-1, BC-1A, BC-11
R-1340-49: Lockheed UC-36B; North American AT-6A, BC-1A, BC-1B; Comm. Of Australia Wirraway
R-1340-51: Curtiss O-52

Aircraft Using Navy Wasps considered equivalent to S3H1 by P&W
R-1340-36: Boeing/Stearman YOSS-1; Curtiss XS02C-1 & SOC-4; N.A.F. XOSN-1; North American SNJ-2 & -3
R-1340-42: North American T-6G (Navy conversion of AN-1 engine)

Aircraft Using Joint Air Force/Navy Wasp considered equivalent to S3H1 by P&W
AN-1: Boeing XAT-15, AT-15BO; Bellanca AT-15BL; Cessna C-106A; Chase XPG-4; Fairchild XAT-13, AT-13; McDonnell AT-15MC; Noorduyn AS(?), AT-6, YC-64, C-64, C-64A, UC-64B, Harvard II(?); North American AT-6B, -6C, -6D, -6F, SNJ-2, -3, -4, -5, -6, T-6G; Piasecki HRP-1, -2 Rescuer

I don't claim to recognize every oddball a/c type in the lists above, but I would say generally that Mr. Billings is supported in that the civilian S3H1 was not at all "ubiquitous" in New Guinea, nor were the military variants (even if they are included). Also supported in that most of the above do appear to be single-engine prototypes and/or trainers.

Interestingly, there is a P&W Specification Number 1055 listed in the document, but it is for an S3H2 Wasp version intended for angled mounting in helicopters; and no engines were ever actually built to that spec.

David Billings · **Joined:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:56 pm **Posts:** 207

The Pratt & Whitney data for S3H1 use...

Thankyou Alan H, for displaying the P&W data of S3H1 use throughout aviation, particularly "civilian" or commercial use.

Maybe that will get some minds with fixed ideas to start thinking "outside the box" as Americans are wont to say.

The only two unaccounted for LR Lockheed 10E's are of course the Electra belonging to Earhart and navigated by Noonan and the one called "The Daily Express". This second one, was used by Dick Merrill and Jack Lambie to fly from the US to London with pictures of the Hindenburg disaster and return from near Blackpool in England to Boston and New York with pictures of the coronation of an English King (George VI ?). I have read that this aircraft was purchased by Russia and ended its' days there.

That flight alone is very interesting for they took off with 1200 USG of fuel from a beach at Woodvale and had some fuel in cans with which to put into the tanks during flight. It is not known accurately as far as I know, just how much fuel was in cans. Earhart's Electra did not have this facility AFAIK. The "Daily Express" was fitted with Leading Edge de-icing boots which degraded the performance and it flew mostly at 5000 feet over the North Atlantic to avoid icing up.

If anyone has a photo of an Electra with de-icing boots fitted, please post.

If anyone has more detail of his historic fight by Merrill and Lambie, please post, for as far as I can gather it still had plenty of fuel in it at NYC on arrival.

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."

AlanH · **Joined:** Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:57 am **Posts:** 214

David Billings wrote:

If anyone has a photo of an Electra with de-icing boots fitted, please post.

I think the Trans Canada Airlines* L-10A's had their boots on, so to speak. The forum can be the judge and correct me if wrong. (I suppose it could be just black paint but I don't think so.)

I don't want to post directly as the images may be copyrighted. Here are links:

Two views of TF-TCC as restored in 1986:

http://75.aircanada.com/assets/Uploads/1986-Sentimental-journey-L10A.gif

http://www.royalaviationmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lockheed-landing-gear.jpg

Also, if you freeze the following movie at 21 seconds you can see the wing of TCA's Lockheed 14 Super Electra as it was in the late 30's or 40's:

http://75.aircanada.com/landing/

* Ancestor of Air Canada

ArtATP · **Joined:** Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:44 am **Posts:** 23

David Billings wrote:

<....> the one called "The Daily Express". This second one, was used by Dick Merrill and Jack Lambie to fly from the US to London with pictures of the Hindenburg disaster and return from near Blackpool in England to Boston and New York with pictures of the coronation of an English King (George VI ?). I have read that this aircraft was purchased by Russia and ended its' days there.

That flight alone is very interesting for they took off with 1200 USG of fuel from a beach at Woodvale and had some fuel in cans with which to put into the tanks during flight. It is not known accurately as far as I know, just how much fuel was in cans. Earhart's Electra did not have this facility AFAIK. The "Daily Express" was fitted with Leading Edge de-icing boots which degraded the performance and it flew mostly at 5000 feet over the North Atlantic to avoid icing up.

If anyone has a photo of an Electra with de-icing boots fitted, please post.

If anyone has more detail of his historic fight by Merrill and Lambie, please post, for as far as I can gather it still had plenty of fuel in it at NYC on arrival.

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."

They were a little unsure of their fuel state on return and made a precautionary landing in Bridgeport, Connecticut (I believe) to add some fuel, turned out that they would have had enough for New York without the stop.

The flight was on May 14, 1937 and set the new record (westbound Atlantic crossing) at 24 hours, 25 seconds (at their Bridgeport arrival).
Art

gary217 · **Joined:** Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:08 pm **Posts:** 61

gary217 wrote:

Proven by the radio logs of Itasca. We know for sure that the plane had an endurance of 20:13 because Earhart was talking on the radio at that point. So by "proven" we know that the endurance was at least that long but any greater claim for her endurance is speculation. However, if you read the entire post you will see that I also did the calculation for a "speculated" 24 hour endurance and the plane still could not make it back to Bougainville even with 24 hours of fuel on board.

And I put the standard navigation manuals for this on my website and invited everyone to do the calculations for themselves, you don't have to take my word for it, using any set of assumptions that your heart desires. So I don't how you can claim that this is "dogma" when I provide the means and the invitation for you to do the research for yourself.

gl

In case you don't know where to find this information on my website here are the links:
https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/amelia-earhart-s-point-of-no-return

and:

https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/amelia-earhart-s-point-of-no-return

If we use the PNR formula and substitute in different assumed endurances we can determine how close the plane could have approached Howland and still made it back to New Britain.

With the 23 knot headwind measured and reported by Noonan, 33 hours of fuel would produce a PNR 2219 NM from Lae and just 3 NM short of Howland.
32 hour endurance = PNR 2156 NM, 66 NM short at 2006 Z.
31 hour endurance = PNR 2093 NM, 129 NM short at 1931 Z..
30 hour endurance + PNR 2030 NM, 192 NM short at 1858 Z.
(The diversion would have to be started no later than the time of the PNR.)

And we know that the plane arrived close to Howland based on the strength of the radio signals and also on the sunline LOP.

And we know the plane had not started a return to New Britain prior to 2013 Z and even with 32 hours of fuel on board it would have been too late to start such a diversion after 2013 Z. And we know that Noonan did this same computation for the original planned flight from Hawaii to Howland so it is a rational assumption that he would have done the same if contemplating a diversion to Rabaul and would have computed that it was not feasible.

You can substitute in different winds but you still have to come up with 30 or more hours of fuel for the plane to make it to New Britain from the vicinity of Howland, good luck with that.

And, one more point. To make a successful diversion you must start at the PNR at the PNR time, they didn't do this. They spent at least one hour, from 1912 to 2013 Z, burning fuel searching for Howland so you must add at least one more hour of fuel to these computations to account of that fuel consumption.So, can you find a place to put 34 hours of fuel on board, 41% more than anyone else's wildly optimistic speculation of a 24 hour fuel supply. The additional ten hours of fuel is 500 gallons weighing 3,000 pounds. There is not enough room in the plane for 500 gallon tanks nor could the plane takeoff with that additional weight.

But, as I said before, please do the computations for yourself.

gl

Warbird Information Exchange

Electra on New Britain theory - pros & cons

Who is online