Thankyou Cazalet33 for a very forceful explanation of your Hypothesis of what happened and what should not have happened during the Last Flight. It is sometimes pleasant to read of other Hypotheses.
The Lockheed Report you refer to was made and written in 1936 as evidenced by the page date. There are later telegrams from C.L. Johnson in 1937 which stipulate different Power regimes and different heights and your display of Page 7 of LR487 is for a Gross Weight of 16,500 pounds and unlikely that Earhart attempted that AUW.
There is a Lockheed Regime which has 8000' after two hours and 10,000 feet after ten but there is also a notation that 1000' either side is not important. Climb outs would waste fuel at high power and the term cruise-climb would be more likely.
The Chater Report records Noonan's Chronometer as three seconds slow from two time signals.
In referring to the 0519 GMT
PR call, I think you mean 7 deg 03' SOUTH 150 deg 07' E, instead of the North Latitude which would put them up in the Carolines. Can we then have a consideration by you that this recorded position included in The Chater Report is incorrect ?
NOTE: I work in Statute Miles (Sm) because by all accounts Earhart also did work in Statute Miles.
I recall that I measured this 7 deg 03' S, 150 deg 07' location on ONC M-14 as being only 215 Statute Miles from Lae (GE says 219) and at a position 60 Statute Miles south of the direct track line to Howland. If so, their G/S is only 42 Smph average, which surely cannot be correct unless they were going around in circles.....
In your consideration then, would it be possible for this particular
PR Longitude to have been heard as 150 deg 07' when in reality it could very well be 157 deg 0' making the distance after 5:19 (or thereabouts) as 686 Sm for an Av. G/S of 129 Smph. Would you consider that a scratchy HF Tx made with a low tone American accent and heard by Australian Radio Operator Harry Balfour in Lae could erroneously be recorded as 150 deg 07' East Longitude ? Say 150-7, 150-7 to yourself a few times, you get the drift...
I, personally, believe it was recorded incorrectly and should be 157 deg 0' E Longitude which coupled with the South Latitude sits the
PR very nicely over the landmark of Mount Maetambe on Choiseul Island.
Why fly ESE to Choiseul instead of ENE towards the Buka Gap ?
Well, for
one, it fits with Earhart and Noonan avoiding the reported LOW off the S.E. corner of New Britain Island. For
two, it also fits very nicely with the port drift off the N.E. Track to Nukumanu Island, an obvious drift caused by the Easterly wind which in turn caused one of the (as you say) "NAV busts" and which put the Electra 21 Sm to the West of the Nukumanu Atoll. However, I do not think that the
PR given by Earhart was a
PR at 0718 GMT. For the
third reason, you have to consider that if the reported LOW really was a bad tropical storm then they are headed towards the region of Mount Balbi (8,500') on Bougainville Island and unlikely to wish to be on instruments over there.
You mean that the Electra turned West and Noonan took a sunshot into the dying sun at that Lat/Long ?
I consider
(my consideration) that in respect to the 0718 GMT call, Noonan needed to know where he had been "when" they sighted NUKUMANU off to their right and made that a Turnpoint, so the Turnpoint needed to be fixed and the only way to do that is to time the run to the Main Island of Nukumanu to the abeam point or overhead and estimate his distance by the timed run. This would then give him the chance of working "what the wind had been" which had caused him to drift by 21 Sm. To do that he has to work it out ....so in my consideration the Turnpoint was at ~0705 GMT and the Tx on the normal time of 18 minutes past the hour then reported the
PR and the wind of 23 Knots. If you consider the context of Choiseul at 0518 GMT and the
PR of 0718 GMT for the distance of 224 Sm the G/S of 112 Smph (97 Kts) average is way too low, I recall I worked that it was too low to remain in the air in cruise power at the weight. If you include the 21 Sm and the Lagoon and accept another few miles while Noonan ran the numbers the G/S comes up to around the 130 Smph Av. mark. More likely in an abeam wind.
Yes, agreed, her reporting of
PR's was lousy.
Noonan had to have his distance from the Turnpoint at Nukumanu (the
PR Lat/Long) because he had already fixed the distance NUK to Ontario and the "extra bit" of the (as you say) NAV bust, was needed so that he could work his G/S NUK to Ontario.
Ontario decklog was recording 20 Knots of wind from 090 degrees at 1030 GMT when they were going over so who knows what the wind was at 10,000 feet ? Noonan had the distance in mind but there was another complication. Ontario was recording a position at 1030 GMT which was 29 Sm to the East of the U.S. Navy designated position.
Now Cazalet33.... what complication would that cause ?
At this point in the flight, my belief is they should have called a stopper on it, turned back, waited out the dawn and landed back at LAE.... but it was a record setting flight wasn't it ?
Take note Cazalet33 and anybody else: I have NEVER, EVER, said that Earhart did not know about speeding up into a headwind. What I have said is that there is a written statement by C.L. Johnson in a telegram that he sent to Earhart which advises to lean-off into a headwind. The telegram is dated March 11th 1937 and it says:
WIRE FROM MARSHALL CONFIRMS MY RECOMMENDATIONS OF POWER AND FUEL CONSUMPTION STOP REMEMBER TO LEAN MIXTURE VERY SLOWLY STOP NINE HUNDRED GALLONS FUEL AMPLE FOR FORTY PERCENT EXCESS RANGE TO HONOLULU FOR CONDITIONS GIVEN IN WIRE THIS MORNING STOP IF NECESSARY MIXTURE CAN BE LEANED TO ZERO SEVEN ZERO ON LAST HALF OF FLIGHT IF EXCEPTIONAL HEAD WINDS EXIST STOP CHECK SPARKPLUGS etc, etc, etc....
Cambridge 070 indicates a mixture ratio of 14.3: 1
...
and another thing: "Pulling Power Back, "Easing Throttles", "Retarding Throttles", "Throttling Back" "Reducing Power" will ALL cause less fuel to go into the engines and therefore less power produced. In the intended context that is what happens. Whether it will result in more fuel usage per Nautical Mile was not a mention in the context nor intended. I hope that is made clear.
Oh, by the way, can I have less of the bollocks please and more of your astute mind..... We are all interested in this Mystery but that expression serves no purpose. I deliberated long and hard before deciding to post and that sort of stuff turns me right off (as does arrogance).