Amelia Earhart PNG Theory

[David Billings]

Food for Thought

I see no-one has ventured to provide a possibility of another type aircraft being lodged in the jungle as an alternate to an Electra 10E after over 350 views of the thread, since I posted the request for readers to do so if they wished…..

In regard to “possible” other aircraft types that the wreck “may be”, I recently went through the list again. I followed the Pratt & Whitney website which lists the Aircraft Types that Wasps were fitted to (all designations of Wasps that is) and I also followed the Wikipedia site which has the subject of P & W Wasp and which also contains list of aircraft types. I came to the same conclusion that I came to many years ago that there is no alternative aircraft type which could fit the wreck powered by two R1340 S3H1 “Civil” or “Commercial” engines as against the “Military” designation of AN-1.

The nearest example of an aircraft type that comes close is the Boeing Model 247 but it was powered by the R-1340 S1H1 or the AN-1 Wasp. There is no mention of S3H1’s being used to power the Boeing 247. The USAAF did use 27 of them which were impressed into service but 19 of those were returned “Surplus to Requirements” in 1944. No knowledge of what happened to the other eight…. (possible losses ?) but it does not fit anyway. In any case if used it would be camouflage painted. I can find no record of the type in New Guinea.

I also want to openly discuss here an alternative explanation of how “600 H.P. S3H1 C/N1055” came to be on the map. I do this so as to “get it out of the way” in case it is raised. This alternative explanation was given by “the Historic Aircraft Recovery Forum ” many years ago and the writer wrote that “The Americans” gave “The Australian Army” those numbers and letters as a means of identifying the wreckage they had seen in case it was Earhart’s.

Now before I discuss this, I will take you back to when I interviewed the man who found the Metal Tag: Keith Nurse. Keith said that when he found the tag hanging by wire from the engine mount tubing at the back of the detached engine, he took it off the tubing and looked at it and what he saw was “a string of letters and numbers” which did not mean anything to him so he put the tag in his shirt pocket, intending to hand it in with the patrol report. So, that little thought of: “a string of letters and numbers” was in his mind, on site, before any news was given to their Unit that they had found aircraft wreckage.

Now, if “the Americans” had received information about an engine being found and had NOT been sent “600 H/P S3H1 C/N1055” and then considered in the knowledge that the engine was just a “Pratt & Whitney engine” as the Warrant Officer had said he saw Pratt & Whitney somewhere but could not remember precisely where. Why then would the Americans Army say the engine was a “Wasp”, as they had done back in a signal to the Australian Unit….and it was not one of theirs. That is strange because the USAAF were using P&W Engines in New Guinea on many types of aircraft, they must have been sent some detail which allowed them to identify the engine as a "Wasp" and not a "Twin Wasp" as this was the powerplant for several aircraft types in use in New Guinea.

“IF” they had considered that it could be Earhart’s aircraft what would they do and what would they give as a request in any return signal ?

I suggest that if this thought had occurred in the minds of the American Military, they would gather information about the Earhart Electra and give as much detail as they could concerning salient features which would provide sufficient detail for the Australian Unit to properly identify the wreck and this would be accompanied by a request that if possible the Australian Unit go back and relocate the wreck and provide an answer for the American Military. IF that return back to find it was not possible, then the U.S. Army would send someone themselves.

IF the American Military did this, what would those details of the Aircraft encompass ?

I suggest the information would have been on these lines:
“The wreckage may be a Lockheed Electra aircraft bearing the Registration NR16020 in large black lettering and numbers on the wing top surface and bottom surface. This Registration is also on the two vertical fins at the back of the aircraft. The fuselage will have a plate in the cockpit with the Serial Number 1055. The aircraft has two engines and propellers. The Engines are Pratt & Whitney Wasp engines with Serial Numbers 6149 and 6150. The aircraft is unpainted except for some red paint on the front of the wings . A marked distinguishing feature is that the fuselage Cabin of the plane is filled with fuel tanks. There were two crew members on the aircraft.”

Would that be a fair appraisal of information to describe the Electra ?

If that had been so, then the members of “D” Company who were read the reply from the U.S. Army would not have been told, “The Americans say it is not one of their engines”.

I ask readers to compare that information with a string of letters and numbers such as “600 H/P S3H1 C/N1055” which does not contain the obvious recognition feature of the Registration NR16020 which is the Primary outside piece of identification for the Electra to anyone chancing upon the wreck and the Fuel Tanks in the fuselage being a dead giveaway…. which surely would be forwarded to anyone if it was suspected that Earhart’s Electra had been found.

David Billings