Amelia Earhart PNG Theory

[Sam Asama]

Cazalet33

Have you actually read any of the relevant material? And I don't mean here on pprune, I mean all the other available material from David's website, from the Tighar folks, and the myriad other sources.

If not, why not do so before making such adamantly certain proclamations as to where Earhart and Noonan did or did not end their flight? If you have read much of the available material, tell us why you believe the Electra is, "crashed in the sea, probably somewhere to the Nor'ard of Howland".

Then, let's have a good old fashioned, friends sitting in the bar, debate about WTF happened way back then.

Sam

[angels one five]

Thanks for your detailed reply to my question, David.
I agree that the impact would have been serious and IMO not survivable. At least not for long.
Despite that impact the aircraft remained relatively intact, if Ken Backhouse's sketch is anything to go by, and I think it is. The fuselage forward section was crushed and one engine dislodged, possibly in the crash, but also possibly by removal by someone who was interested in it. Ken thought the tail section was gone but I suspect that due to the low profile of the vertical surfaces the tail was merely covered over by vegetation.

The USAAF had a chance to solve the mystery of the final landing place of Amelia Earhart's Electra in 1945. " It's not one of ours " they said, after examining the ID tag, and left it at that. Now, thanks to an amazing series of coincidences we have impressive evidence of where the plane came down and I think it is time for the US government to become involved again.

[David Billings]

A's 1-5

The lead Vet described broken branch stubs on the trees which were blackened, he thought with age, and tree debris lying around.

The Lieutenant not remembering seeing the empennage is not unusual from what I have seen previously at two B-24 Liberator crash sites. The tail units on those had been ripped off as they went into the trees. The same might very well have happened at the Patrol A1 wrecksite and the tail unit was laying off the immediate site and not seen although from the hole above it seems it went in vertical (no teardrop hole).

Yes, "not one of ours" ....but there was a war going in and senses would not be keyed up to an 8 year old loss but some interest was shown by the visit of the two US Army Officers which as I say in the website most likely came from the 594th EB&SR at Jaquinot Bay.

[propertee64]

Kelly Johnson 4500 miles range calculation

Mr Billings , Lockheeds Kelly Johnson did figures that showed the Electra, albeit he used 1200 gallons- not her actual 1150 gallons, had a range of 4,500 miles. If her return leg involved stronger tailwinds than the outgoing leg
would you expect this range calculation Kelly Johnson did to be valid in this case?

[greg47]

Kelly Johnsons figures show she would use 900 gallons to Howland. Leaving 250 gallons to fly say 15 hrs to ENB

[CONSO]

Originally Posted by greg47

Kelly Johnsons figures show she would use 900 gallons to Howland. Leaving 250 gallons to fly say 15 hrs to ENB

And YOUR assumption is that she was SO CLOSE to howland that she could not have flown back ? Head wind or tail wind ? Please show YOUR copy of kelly johnson calcs and YOUR assumption as to HOW close to HOWLAND, etc

And match it up with documented times and radio comm times and dates

And how do you explain a b-17 with 2 P&W Wasp engines ?

[David Billings]

Originally Posted by propertee64

Mr Billings , Lockheeds Kelly Johnson did figures that showed the Electra, albeit he used 1200 gallons- not her actual 1150 gallons, had a range of 4,500 miles. If her return leg involved stronger tailwinds than the outgoing leg would you expect this range calculation Kelly Johnson did to be valid in this case?

C.L. Johnson and W.C. Nelson wrote Lockheed Report 487 in June 1936 specifically for the two Long Range versions of the Model 10E, C/N 1055 (Earhart's) and C/N 1065 (The "Daily Express") and most of the 'extreme' range graphs are based on 1200 USG and starting with an AUW of 16,500 lbs.

The "Daily Express" retained the 1200 USG capacity while C/N1055 had the last aft tank of 49USG removed possibly because of "aft C.G." limitations" with Noonan's NAV position in the back by the RHS Rear window..

In LR487 we see various altitudes using stepped climbs and various power settings but what we see in actuality is Earhart climbing straight through to 10,000 feet (SFO-Hawaii March 1937) and not following the C.L. Johnson laid down regime on this "Last Flight" either, viz: the altitude of 10,000 feet to avoid cloud between LAE and CHOISEUL Island way before the 10 hour point (if accepted that she flew by way of Choiseul ...as I explain in detail).

The only way to tackle the fuel consumption (as I see it) is to do the flight at a desk using aerodynamic formulae and power equations in an "hour by hour" method in MS Excel subtracting the fuel used each half-hour and adjusting the AUW and moving the plot forward as you go. This is what I did for the HYPOTHESIS side of the website and it takes time.

That method takes time because of the varying ALT's used and the introduction of wind, climbs and descents until finally establishing a Cruise altitude from the run after the climb at NUKUMANU up until the time of 1912 GMT and the famous "Must be on you" call.

All of any calculations made must also be wound up in the Radio calls and the PR's and what Groundspeeds we can use which have credibility and any average G/S's used must have a "Start speed value" and an "End speed value" which is also credible.

I can't argue against Clarence Johnson's calculations at all. I can only say that Earhart did not follow the regime he laid down on the last LR flight so the fuel figures become a totally different ball game and have to be worked out as described above.

One thing I did yesterday was to plot the Electra Polar of Lift/Drag against Velocity of the three weights in LR 487 and the surprising thing about the result is that the tangent line hitting the Polar curve at best Lift Drag and the same line hitting the curve for Headwind and Tailwind shows that the speed variance for a 25mph HW or TW is only a few mph difference to either side of the Best L/D Speed. This indicates that Range speed and Best L/D speed have little variance only two or three mph. LR487 says that speed should be increased "about 4mph for a 20 mph headwind" and this is borne out in the Polar Plot that I did yesterday.

[propertee64]

Kelly Johnson range

Mr Billings - does that affect your website detailed spreadsheet calculations one way or another?

[David Billings]

propertee64

The "4 mph extra" you mean or the small variance shown either side of the Best L/D....?

The '4 mph ' would lessen the distance from HOW ...yes, say from 0800 GMT to 1912 GMT the "gap" between the Electra and Howland in the Hypothesis would lessen by 9 x 4 mph i.e; 36 miles makes a return 72 mile in distance more, "if" it was used...

The: "Range speed" being 3-4 mph more if flown also would lessen the gap in the Hypothesis... That said, the L/D Ratio does increase at altitude also, increasing speed (becomes more efficient due to lower air density)

What I have now is a HUGE MS Excel file showing the Coefficients of Lift and Drag, L/D Ratios, Total Drag values and Horsepower required all in the one file and set for AUW's from 15000 lbs down to 8000 pounds in increments of 100 pounds for each of the Cl, Cd, L/D, Drag and H.P. Required and at all speeds from 75 to 200 mph in 5 mph increments. The file was built at Sea Level but values for all the subjects at any speed or weight or height can be obtained by the setting of the Air Density, thereby giving "a figure for each" of the values required for S.L. and 1000', 7000', 8000', 10000' and 12000' altitudes flown.

I am already in trouble because the speeds for Best Lift/Drag on the sector LAE to CHOISEUL are way too fast to accommodate the 0518 GMT transmission giving the Lat/Long over Choiseul for instance, meaning that if best Lift Drag is used early in the flight and continues, then arrival at NUKUMANU and the ONTARIO will also be "too early". Being as the only "near accurate" PR was the 1030 GMT call on seeing ship in sight ahead , made on an "unscheduled" transmission time, that location and time has to be held if any attempt at tracing a credible Hypothetical sequence of the flight is made.

I am already beginning to think that my very early workings from over ten or fifteen years ago that the wind over the Ontario was higher than thought (at 35 mph) may well be correct. The ONTARIO was recording 20 knots at S.L which does not bode well for 10,000 feet or higher.

It is a huge conundrum....due to the "unknowns".... heaps of patience is required and a packet of Panadol.....

Never mind... we have the Factual side.

[CONSO]

DAVID - re your comments re excel

I am obviously late to the show as far as your fantastic efforts to ' solve" a multi-variable problem using excel iterations, etc. But perhaps - just perhaps the use of a unique addon to excel may help

Its called solver

https://support.office.com/en-us/art...B-F63E45925040

Applies To: Excel 2016 Excel 2013 Excel 2010 Excel 2007 Excel 2016 for Mac Excel for Mac 2011

Solver is a Microsoft Excel add-in program you can use for what-if analysis. Use Solver to find an optimal (maximum or minimum) value for a formula in one cell — called the objective cell — subject to constraints, or limits, on the values of other formula cells on a worksheet. Solver works with a group of cells, called decision variables or simply variable cells that are used in computing the formulas in the objective and constraint cells. Solver adjusts the values in the decision variable cells to satisfy the limits on constraint cells and produce the result you want for the objective cell.
Put simply, you can use Solver to determine the maximum or minimum value of one cell by changing other cells. For example, you can change the amount of your projected advertising budget and see the effect on your projected profit amount.

or

Introduction to what-if analysis

Show All
By using what-if analysis tools in Excel for Mac 2011, you can experiment with several different sets of values in one or more formulas to explore all the various results. For example, you can perform what-if analysis to build two budgets that each assumes a certain level of revenue. Or, you can specify a result that you want a formula to produce, and then determine what sets of values will produce that result. Excel provides several different tools to help you perform the type of analysis that fits your needs.
Overview



Use scenarios to consider many different variables



Use Goal Seek to find out how to get a desired result



Use data tables to see the effects of one or two variables on a formula



Prepare forecasts and advanced business models

use of the scenario or solver or goal seek stuff may save you a lot of time

just perhaps ???

[David Billings]

@ CONSO...

Thanks for the suggestion Conso but with this "complicated" problem there are too many variables and unknowns involved, including the 'impulsiveness shown and apparent in the mind of Earhart '....

After increasing the size of the MS Excel file to accommodate all the increments of weight and speed and then to include anther twist would tax me beyond comprehension !

What I am beginning to think is that Earhart set the power at what she thought was the right "amount" for the longest flight attempted which was only two hundred miles more than the SFO to Hawaii flight made earlier in the year and she had successfully "been there and done that".

Where the Electra arrived at after 19 Hours and 12 minutes (1912 GMT) all hinges on the meaning of "must" in "...must be on you".... that questioning and tantalising word "must" in that phrase says an awful lot for such a short word. In hindsight we know they didn't get there and Noonan surely would have known that they were not there....

Back to the plot.

[CONSO]

again suggest you take a closer look - the free- built in Solver re excel can handle at least 20 variables simultaneously with a variety of techniques. such that changing any one or two or more can list the effects on all the others. Years ago i used it to find how/what each of a half dozen very loosely related numbers had to be to get a specific set of numbers with a specific total in each of 4 categories- thus proving some book cooking had taken place that the so called auditor missed.

There were at least 6 factorial ( 720 ) times 4 factorial combinations possible, ( about 17, 280 possible ) only one of which was correct. Took me - not a math whiz about an hour to set up after short practice and a few seconds at most to get the answer.

[greg47]

TO power for as long as limited, then METO power at best rate to optimun, probably about 4000 ft. Then LRC. About 900 gallons to Howland. They had calculated they would have an hours fuel remaining on arrival Howland area. Cant see why Noonan with his experience could have not calculated there westing. Accurate time is required for longitude (delayed departure a day for accurate time check) and she to broadcast " must be on you" or words to that effect . I cant explain the aircraft in the bush in ENB but mistakes can be made. People can be dishonest and cruel. Apparently transmissions received, later established a hoax, pleading they are floating. This was equivalent to putting a man on the moon for the era with the publicity generated by her husband and his political pull.
It would be great to find this mystery aircraft and settle a great mystery

[Global Aviator]

So I wasn’t running any numbers or working out fuel.

What I’m still trying to work out is $... why will no major Corp individual or whatever support this?

At worst find -
A - nothing
B - an aircraft
C - the holy grail

I’m not in Aus but can someone run my numbers tomo night - 6,27,3,21,36,7,20

[David Billings]

The Flight Plot

Remember.... This is a Hypothesis....

I am now up to the 2015GMT point where the "search" over empty water has concluded and the Contingency Plan has to be invoked.

This has taken up a lot of my time because the cranium gears are running in old oil and I had to refresh myself with the formulae to be used and I also had to revisit the Lockheed Report again and satisfy myself that the mistakes on Page 30 had all been found and this involved re-writing the page in MS Excel and placing tha data into another file where the data could be expanded.

The Data:

The data arrived at from LR487 is now as correct as I can get it to three or four decimal places and is tabulated in five tables as Coefficient of lift CL and values of "e", Coefficient of Drag CD, Lift/Drag Ratios, Drag values in pounds and Horsepower Required HPR. If anyone wants this refreshed data (and knows how to use it...) I would consider requests on my email address. Those that know how to use it can then amuse themselves endlessly, as I have done over the last two weeks !

This data was then expanded in MS Excel to give values for Weights in one-hundred pound increments along the column line and for values of Velocity in Mph in five Mph increments on the line numbers which again was expanded into individual Mph single lines when required in the 140 to 160 Mph ranges and as required.

Then I could start the flight plot, using an old example to overwrite the new data.

The Conditions

The Flight Plot is not a direct Great Circle flight. The flight route is LAE-CHOISEUL-NUKUMANU-ONTARIO to the 1912 GMT position, wherever it belongs.

There were two speed callouts of "Making 140" and "Making 150", these also have to be there on the plot at the correct times.

This flight can be done going full power for T.O. but METO or Max. Cruise do not feature in the plot. Fair enough for T.O. but high power climbs are wasteful on gas and do not deliver miles in distance as would a Cruise Climb method.

The obvious picture I see is of the Electra still low over the sea until out of sight as was reported, that does not indicate a high power climb-out to me at all.

METO or Max Continuous do not work on this flight either as I have found out before when doing the plot.

This flight research has to be done to match distances at the correct or near correct times (0518, 0718 and ~1030 GMT). The en-Route times also have to match the Radio call times (0418, 0500, 0518, 0700, 0800, 1030 GMT). The onset of the stronger wind first mentioned at 0718GMT has to be before it was called and is evidenced by the drift to the PR West of Nukumanu on the sector Choiseul to Nukumanu. The vectored wind is 20 Mph from the East so the Electra must have been crabbing nose right to maintain the track.

In the main we can only follow what we know and what we heard as last mentioned reports, therefore, the wind figure of 23 Knots (26.5 mph) is used and as the mid-year wind drift across the Pacific is East to West and as indicated by the previously mentioned "drift" the wind is assumed to be from the East. At 0800 GMT the radio call made mention of 12,000 feet as the operating altitude so the climb after Nukumanu is made to that altitude and the Electra stays there. It is known that Earhart did fly the Electra at 12,000 feet in th U.S., however, I will run the plot at 10,000 feet also to see what difference it makes.

Density altitude was also taken into considertion on the plot which runs for about 75 columns in Excel. Obviously with Tropic daytime temperatures, the density altitude comes into play. Surprisingly the HP Required figures did not vary all that much.

Hypothetical Results so far.....

So far only to the 1912 GMT Point.

At TOC after the climb out of NUkumanu, the Electra has to be within sight of the USS ONTARIO by 1030 GMT.

Distance to run LAE-HOWLAND through two doglegs is 2627 Sm.

Times and Distance achieved to overhead the USS ONTARIO at 1036GMT after 1357 miles distance through two doglegs. This indicates an Av. G/S of 128 Mph, down 10 Mph on what was considered to be the average required.

Av. G/S at the Ontario over the 427 Sm for the 0718GMT PR reported (which occurred, probably, at 0700GMT) is only 122 Mph.

After the ONTARIO, the flight is conducted at Best Lift./Drag speeds and the 1912 GMT distance achieved is 2433 Miles leaving 194 miles to run.

Fuel Remaining at 2015GMT is 448 USG

More results in a few days.

[propertee64]

David, Thats a big difference on all the other fuel used figures we see. Only 662 gallons used to 2015GMT?

[David Billings]

propertee64

Yes, you are right, must put my glasses on before posting .... try 448 USG.

Also i.a.w. "last information"... the refuelling agent at LAE said he topped off all tanks in the morning before they left. ie: 1151 USG on start up....
Does anyone know if that was just the tanks or of it included the long necks of the filler tubes ?

David

[greg47]

Theory and calculations using Excel are fine but Erhart and Noonan didnt have this. An FMS with the standard software shows min fuel is maximun for TO max available climb power to optimun then LRC which is not best lift drag which is endurance to stay in the air longest not to cover the best distance with least fuel( ie LRC) and step climb as weight reduces to the new optimun. i stand by 900 gallons to Howland minimun

[CONSO]

Originally Posted by greg47

Theory and calculations using Excel are fine but Erhart and Noonan didnt have this. An FMS with the standard software shows min fuel is maximun for TO max available climb power to optimun then LRC which is not best lift drag which is endurance to stay in the air longest not to cover the best distance with least fuel( ie LRC) and step climb as weight reduces to the new optimun. i stand by 900 gallons to Howland minimun

But it seems probable to this SLF after looking at Kelly J data ( AnalysisRange
Prepared byC.L. Johnson
DateJune 4, 1936
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORP.
Page0
Model10E
Report No487 ) that at some point BEFORE reaching to NEAR howland, that realizing they were " off course" and not likely to find a flyspeck island in the ocean, they turned around ( plan B ) and headed back to a much larger land mass - ' wide' enough re their assumed course to compensate for drift and course errors-. So IMHO what is needed is to find the max point in a loop course they could have reached- and still had enough fuel to reach "somewhere" along NB. Based on IF the wasp engines found did belong to earhart-plane they either ran out of gas and or had to fly low enough to cfit into terrain due to clouds and weather. So in simple terms, is there a ' loop ' course and time location hacks that fit.

[David Billings]

The Earhart Search In PNG Project

Contains two distinct sides:

1. The Factual side
2. The Hypothesis of the flight

For interest: Content of the Robert Gross Letter to G.P. Putnam 5th March 1936

This is what was written to George Putnam before the Electra was purchased....

"Dear Mr. Putnam,

As promised in our wire of yesterday’s date, we hand you herewith, certain performance guarantees on the “special flight” airplane under discussion. For reasons stated below, we are making the guarantees with two different fuel capacities. Provided the airplane is built substantially in accordance with our previous letter to you dated J]February 21, we will guarantee that:-

A. With 1,050 Gallons of Fuel

The range will be – 4,000 miles
The maximum speed at 6,000 feet will be – 190 m.p.h.
The cruising speed at 4,000 feet for best range – 145 m.p.h.
The gross weight, depending in equipment, about – 15,500 lbs.

B. With 1,200 Gallons of Fuel

The range will be 4,500 miles
The maximum speed at 6,000 feet will be – 189 miles [sic: mph]
The cruising speed at 4,000 feet for best range – 145 m.p.h.
The gross weight, depending in equipment will be about 16,500 lbs.

We will not guarantee the takeoff distance because so much depends upon the condition of the runway, wind velocity, and the human element always resent in piloting. We believe, however, that the takeoff run with 1,050 gallons of fuel will, under favorable conditions, be about 3,000 feet and will [with] 1,200 gallons under the same conditions about 3,500 feet. We further believe that with a favorable runway and air conditions that are not too rough the structure of the airplane will satisfactorily carry the loads above mentioned. All takeoffs are contemplated with 100 Octane and full throttle setting.

When you were here before, we gave you our informal assurances that a range of 4,500 miles was possible with 1,050 gallons of gasoline. We still believe it is possible, but in order to achieve this range, the conditions would have to be perfect and the mixture control operation during the flight would demand the utmost care and attention. For our own protection, therefore, we feel it advisable to submit our guarantees on the basis of the extra fuel as well as the 1,050 gallons if the 4,500 miles range is essential.

Yours very truly
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
Robert B. Gross
President"

The document I have is a copy produced by Author Richard (Dick) Strippel dated Jan 14, 1974 and Notarised by M. Sohayda, of New Jersey.

The Excel Plot

The Excel plot is by no means finished but reflects Horsepower required to keep the Electra in the air over a long distance with data taken from Page 30 of LR487 when that data has been corrected for typos and then checked using performance formulae some of which is in the report itself. However the typos continue... Page 24 has a typo in the formula for Drag for example, the report obviously was not proof read by anyone from the Performance Dept.. .. An expanded Excel file of the "refreshed" data can be used to show H.P. required for any speed, Pressure altitude or altitude corrected for Density and for any gross weight . It matches the distance and the timings of what we do know.

In the old days they used slide rules, we can now use Excel.

When I have finished I will post the final results. It takes a long time to get these things done and to reflect credible results. I am using full fuel and a gross weight of 15,000 pounds. This is essentially where Excel comes into the fore because the expanded tables for any speed, weight or altitude show what is required and all the values.

One thing I will, say is that "Commercial" operations of aircraft is to get the passengers and freight to the destination as fast as possible, using lots of power and speed. The Earhart Long Range flights were not conducted with that maxim in mind, we are talking chalk and cheese. I repeat, METO or Max. Continiuous does not "fit" anywhere an any of the plots I have done, too much speed and too much gasoline used. Try thinking the other way around . "Best Lift./Drag" also does not feature totally in this latest plot, it (the plot) meets the time and distance constraints using far less power than you could think of in a "Commercial" operation.

Regard,
David