Amelia Earhart PNG Theory
Surely not BK, as Greg Daspit appears to be the king of estimation based on the following link, but yet constantly mocks David's facts and estimations.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/top....html#msg34984
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=1586.0
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/top....html#msg34984
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=1586.0
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Squawk7700....
"The MAGIC SCRAP"....
Indeed, another detective story... That period in mid-to-late 2014 was quite amusing when three persons demolished the "Magic Scrap".. artifact "2-2V-1" as coming from the Electra. I was one of two people from Australia involved, the second Australian was in MEL and another was an American in WA State who also contributed....
The idea that the "Magic Scrap" had come from the Electra started in1991 after it was found (some say in dubious circumstances) on Nikumaroro. No-one believed it as TIGHAR would not subject it intense examination and the markings on it had been said to be 1940's vintage. In 2014 it came up again as "coming from the Electra" as a brain snort from Jeffrey Neville who as a Moderator on the TIGHAR Forum had quite a sway of followers and some prestige. He proposed that it was a cover patch applied when a RHR window had been removed.
I was in SIN looking after F100s and had some time on my hands in the evenings and weekends and had with me some fuselage drawings of the Electra Fuselage structure and I could see that the insertion of a window into that RHR area would necessitate cutting through a longeron and would weaken the back end. Neville was proposing that when the window was removed and the covering plate riveted on that the structure had been beefed up inside which accounted for the four rows of horizontal rivet holes in the "Magic Scrap". The American guy in WA State sent me a photo of the Electra in the Hangar at DRW and I could see straight away that the lighting in the hangar showed that there was a big ding in the aluminium panel that had been hastily riveted in place in Miami, meaning that the missing piece of longeron had NOT been repaired and neither had the plate been reinforced behind, negating everything that Neville was saying. Luckily also I had a nice clear photo of part of the rear RHS fuselage showing the modified window as put in and the framing surrounding it. I enlarged the photo. I started drawing in a CAD programme on my laptop because I knew the rivet pitch was 1.5 inches and could assess what the dimensions of the aperture were from the numbered frame stations on the fuselage drawing and from astute scaling with a millimetre rule on the laptop screen !.
I contacted Jeffery Neville and told him what I was doing and sent him my drawing . The guy in Melbourne was doing the same thing at the same time and posting on WIX.. In Melbourne and Singapore two guys came to the same conclusion... the "Magic Scrap" dimensions was too big to fit the window aperture in accordance with what we were seeing in the rivet pattern and the subsequent dimensioning we were able to produce.
Jeffrey Neville had to agree, he was after all, a Quality Assurance Inspector and we were giving him the proof. Someone at his Forum was furious. Eventually this led him to resign from TIGHAR and I understand he took a few other people with him, out of communal thinking, I suppose. Neville now occasionally contributes to a website opposing his former abode.
Thanks for that, I didn't know Greg Daspit was on my rear, not that it matters much.....
Addendum: On 13th May, when I replied on the "Magic scrap", I forgot to add that the piece of aircraft skin 2-2-V-1 had been identified in mid-2017 by the New England Aircraft Museum as coming from the starboard outer upper wing skin of a C-47 A or B model as they held a template of the "scrap"and checked it against an old wing they were fitting onto a DC-3 they had at the Museum. They notified TIGHAR of this. Nothing has been said on the TIGHAR Forum about this as far as I am aware.. It is known that a C-47A crashed on SYDNEY Island in the Phoenix Group during WWII while doing a low pass over the island.....
@CONSO...
What do you say to propertee 64's suggestion ?
Regards,
David
"The MAGIC SCRAP"....
Indeed, another detective story... That period in mid-to-late 2014 was quite amusing when three persons demolished the "Magic Scrap".. artifact "2-2V-1" as coming from the Electra. I was one of two people from Australia involved, the second Australian was in MEL and another was an American in WA State who also contributed....
The idea that the "Magic Scrap" had come from the Electra started in1991 after it was found (some say in dubious circumstances) on Nikumaroro. No-one believed it as TIGHAR would not subject it intense examination and the markings on it had been said to be 1940's vintage. In 2014 it came up again as "coming from the Electra" as a brain snort from Jeffrey Neville who as a Moderator on the TIGHAR Forum had quite a sway of followers and some prestige. He proposed that it was a cover patch applied when a RHR window had been removed.
I was in SIN looking after F100s and had some time on my hands in the evenings and weekends and had with me some fuselage drawings of the Electra Fuselage structure and I could see that the insertion of a window into that RHR area would necessitate cutting through a longeron and would weaken the back end. Neville was proposing that when the window was removed and the covering plate riveted on that the structure had been beefed up inside which accounted for the four rows of horizontal rivet holes in the "Magic Scrap". The American guy in WA State sent me a photo of the Electra in the Hangar at DRW and I could see straight away that the lighting in the hangar showed that there was a big ding in the aluminium panel that had been hastily riveted in place in Miami, meaning that the missing piece of longeron had NOT been repaired and neither had the plate been reinforced behind, negating everything that Neville was saying. Luckily also I had a nice clear photo of part of the rear RHS fuselage showing the modified window as put in and the framing surrounding it. I enlarged the photo. I started drawing in a CAD programme on my laptop because I knew the rivet pitch was 1.5 inches and could assess what the dimensions of the aperture were from the numbered frame stations on the fuselage drawing and from astute scaling with a millimetre rule on the laptop screen !.
I contacted Jeffery Neville and told him what I was doing and sent him my drawing . The guy in Melbourne was doing the same thing at the same time and posting on WIX.. In Melbourne and Singapore two guys came to the same conclusion... the "Magic Scrap" dimensions was too big to fit the window aperture in accordance with what we were seeing in the rivet pattern and the subsequent dimensioning we were able to produce.
Jeffrey Neville had to agree, he was after all, a Quality Assurance Inspector and we were giving him the proof. Someone at his Forum was furious. Eventually this led him to resign from TIGHAR and I understand he took a few other people with him, out of communal thinking, I suppose. Neville now occasionally contributes to a website opposing his former abode.
Thanks for that, I didn't know Greg Daspit was on my rear, not that it matters much.....
Addendum: On 13th May, when I replied on the "Magic scrap", I forgot to add that the piece of aircraft skin 2-2-V-1 had been identified in mid-2017 by the New England Aircraft Museum as coming from the starboard outer upper wing skin of a C-47 A or B model as they held a template of the "scrap"and checked it against an old wing they were fitting onto a DC-3 they had at the Museum. They notified TIGHAR of this. Nothing has been said on the TIGHAR Forum about this as far as I am aware.. It is known that a C-47A crashed on SYDNEY Island in the Phoenix Group during WWII while doing a low pass over the island.....
@CONSO...
What do you say to propertee 64's suggestion ?
Regards,
David
Last edited by David Billings; 15th May 2018 at 00:48. Reason: More Information
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would like to, but as a SLF most of the nitty gritty details understanding of aircraft performance needed is way out of my wheelhouse/cockpit. However, I am considering putting together a tabulation of say 4 to 6 equivalent non real world numbers to show the possible way of using solver for a multi variable problem
And I found an interesting reportfrom tighar which I do not know if david has seen. It does what appears to be a great simulation of kelly johnson report data re range, etc handled via differential equations ( lat time I was involved with those was about 65 yrears ago ,
http://www.mantaro.com/downloads/Ele...ia_Earhart.pdf
Modeling the Range Performance of the Electra 10E –
Amelia Earhart’s Aircraft
Contact Information
Mantaro Product Development Services, Inc.
20410 Century Blvd, Suite 120
Germantown, MD 20874
301-528-2244
About TIGHAR
The white paper presented here was developed in cooperation with The International Group for Historic
Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR). TIGHAR is a non-profit foundation dedicated to promoting responsible
aviation archaeology and historic preservation. It has been involved since 1988 in investigating Amelia
Earhart’s last flight. More information about TIGHAR and the Earhart Project can be found on the web
at TIGHAR.
Abstract
A computer model is developed to simulate the flight time, distance and fuel usage of the Lockheed
Electra 10E aircraft under arbitrary conditions and pilot inputs. The model is based on engineering data
contained in Lockheed’s Maximum Range Report prepared by Kelly Johnson and W. C. Nelson in 1936.
These data are used to develop a set of differential equations which are then integrated to compute the
aircraft’s state at regular intervals during the flight. The results of the computer model are compared
with the Lockheed’s original calculations and are found to be in agreement.
Notice Copyright © 2009 By David Wheeler
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided
copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the
first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific written permission.
And I found an interesting reportfrom tighar which I do not know if david has seen. It does what appears to be a great simulation of kelly johnson report data re range, etc handled via differential equations ( lat time I was involved with those was about 65 yrears ago ,
http://www.mantaro.com/downloads/Ele...ia_Earhart.pdf
Modeling the Range Performance of the Electra 10E –
Amelia Earhart’s Aircraft
Contact Information
Mantaro Product Development Services, Inc.
20410 Century Blvd, Suite 120
Germantown, MD 20874
301-528-2244
About TIGHAR
The white paper presented here was developed in cooperation with The International Group for Historic
Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR). TIGHAR is a non-profit foundation dedicated to promoting responsible
aviation archaeology and historic preservation. It has been involved since 1988 in investigating Amelia
Earhart’s last flight. More information about TIGHAR and the Earhart Project can be found on the web
at TIGHAR.
Abstract
A computer model is developed to simulate the flight time, distance and fuel usage of the Lockheed
Electra 10E aircraft under arbitrary conditions and pilot inputs. The model is based on engineering data
contained in Lockheed’s Maximum Range Report prepared by Kelly Johnson and W. C. Nelson in 1936.
These data are used to develop a set of differential equations which are then integrated to compute the
aircraft’s state at regular intervals during the flight. The results of the computer model are compared
with the Lockheed’s original calculations and are found to be in agreement.
Notice Copyright © 2009 By David Wheeler
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided
copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the
first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific written permission.
I think sometimes I look at things to simply.....
The spreadsheets, the data, the what if’s.....
None of it really matters, there is an unknown aircraft located in an extreme environment that has been there for so long it’s been covered, moved, whatever. Reading the reported FACTS from the army unit there is an unidentified aircraft there.
As I said I’m a simple man, help David get the $ required to go find this downed bit of aviation history and put it to bed for good.
3 results...
Find it and it is the AE aircraft,
Find it and it is not the AE aircraft (finishes the argument but finds a missing aircraft),
Don’t find it and back to square one.
If I had the means I would not only donate more funds, I would do whatever I could to join the expedition. Call it the explorer, gambler, whatever in me.
Yes I have tried a few people to raise funds with no luck however I won’t stop trying to help. This has got me so intrigued!
So if we were to get enough people to put money in, I would up my ante by 10 shovels.......
The spreadsheets, the data, the what if’s.....
None of it really matters, there is an unknown aircraft located in an extreme environment that has been there for so long it’s been covered, moved, whatever. Reading the reported FACTS from the army unit there is an unidentified aircraft there.
As I said I’m a simple man, help David get the $ required to go find this downed bit of aviation history and put it to bed for good.
3 results...
Find it and it is the AE aircraft,
Find it and it is not the AE aircraft (finishes the argument but finds a missing aircraft),
Don’t find it and back to square one.
If I had the means I would not only donate more funds, I would do whatever I could to join the expedition. Call it the explorer, gambler, whatever in me.
Yes I have tried a few people to raise funds with no luck however I won’t stop trying to help. This has got me so intrigued!
So if we were to get enough people to put money in, I would up my ante by 10 shovels.......
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although it will be at least a week before I can try a crude layout as to what might be done via solver, a few rough- simple numbers would be of great help
all numbers rounded to nearest 10 miles or so
1) straight line ground milage from takeoff to howland
2) straitht line milage from howland to estimated crash site in new britian for assumed crash site
3) straignt line milage from takeoff to last ' known' position and time from takeoff
4) straight line milage between takeoff to estimated crash site in new britian
Again- what I hope to do is make a overly simplified solver matrix stuffed with simplified numbers- waypoints to show the process- and then email it to Dave. Any resemblence to most probable aircraft values will be accidental- and my example will be built backwards so that I will create the ' correct' answer that can only be found via application of solver
primarily aimed to supplement/answer/ derive if it was at all possible to fly two legs of a proportional ' triangle' within simple range calcs.
all numbers rounded to nearest 10 miles or so
1) straight line ground milage from takeoff to howland
2) straitht line milage from howland to estimated crash site in new britian for assumed crash site
3) straignt line milage from takeoff to last ' known' position and time from takeoff
4) straight line milage between takeoff to estimated crash site in new britian
Again- what I hope to do is make a overly simplified solver matrix stuffed with simplified numbers- waypoints to show the process- and then email it to Dave. Any resemblence to most probable aircraft values will be accidental- and my example will be built backwards so that I will create the ' correct' answer that can only be found via application of solver
primarily aimed to supplement/answer/ derive if it was at all possible to fly two legs of a proportional ' triangle' within simple range calcs.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although it will be at least a week before I can try a crude layout as to what might be done via solver, a few rough- simple numbers would be of great help
all numbers rounded to nearest 10 miles or so
1) straight line ground milage from takeoff to howland
2) straitht line milage from howland to estimated crash site in new britian for assumed crash site
3) straignt line milage from takeoff to last ' known' position and time from takeoff
4) straight line milage between takeoff to estimated crash site in new britian
Again- what I hope to do is make a overly simplified solver matrix stuffed with simplified numbers- waypoints to show the process- and then email it to Dave. Any resemblence to most probable aircraft values will be accidental- and my example will be built backwards so that I will create the ' correct' answer that can only be found via application of solver
primarily aimed to supplement/answer/ derive if it was at all possible to fly two legs of a proportional ' triangle' within simple range calcs.
all numbers rounded to nearest 10 miles or so
1) straight line ground milage from takeoff to howland
2) straitht line milage from howland to estimated crash site in new britian for assumed crash site
3) straignt line milage from takeoff to last ' known' position and time from takeoff
4) straight line milage between takeoff to estimated crash site in new britian
Again- what I hope to do is make a overly simplified solver matrix stuffed with simplified numbers- waypoints to show the process- and then email it to Dave. Any resemblence to most probable aircraft values will be accidental- and my example will be built backwards so that I will create the ' correct' answer that can only be found via application of solver
primarily aimed to supplement/answer/ derive if it was at all possible to fly two legs of a proportional ' triangle' within simple range calcs.
1. T.O. to HOW: 2629 Statute Miles with doglegs straightened.
2. How to crash site: 2209 Statute Miles.
3. Last known position has two choices:
a) Close to NUKUMANU 912 Sm as per the 0718 Tx but cannot be correct, the time is more likely at 0700 GMT..
b) Taking "my" Timing at the ONTARIO 1357 Sm at 1036 GMT
4. T.O. to site on ENB: 4838 Sm.
The AUW on T.O from LAE:
Greg47 is saying 15,750 lbs which would be a 50% overload figure. On the first attempt with four POB and all their baggage and the spares and engine covers Earhart says on Page 32 of "Last Flight" that the Electra lifted off at SFO at 14,000 lbs., with probably 937 USG after the Warm up and taxi usage, so if she was rounding off, probably 13,940 lbs., at lift off..
At DRW, Earhart and Noonan had packaged up what they didn't need and sent it by surface mail back to the States. A similar clean up took place at LAE with Earhart even giving her pistol to Harry Balfour. So, even if we take the SFO Lift off figure of 14,000 pounds and add the extra fuel we are only going to get an AUW of 15224 with the 'extra' 204 USG of an 1151 USG load. Take two persons out (figuratively speaking: Manning and Mantz) and their baggage and that AUW gets down to 14854 and take off the warm up and taxi fuel of ten gallons and we get 14,794 lbs as the lift off weight.
Rgds,
David
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Global Aviator:
Quite right.... I recalled the words of the Warrant Officer, Keith Nurse, this morning.....about the "Ugly Rivets" around the cowl ring on the engine they found on the jungle floor. There are pictures of the Electra cowl on my website and these show the "ugly rIvets". Today, I put "Images: B-17 Cowlings " in my top line and up came hundreds of pictures of B-17's and there is one close-up from "flickr" with the reference 40939 15528_60e2 42c556_b which is in full focus.... If anyone can see Ugly Rivets around the cowl ring on that Wright Cyclone cowling photo I'll buy them a dozen beers.
I think sometimes I look at things to simply.....
The spreadsheets, the data, the what if’s.....
None of it really matters, there is an unknown aircraft located in an extreme environment that has been there for so long it’s been covered, moved, whatever. Reading the reported FACTS from the army unit there is an unidentified aircraft there.
The spreadsheets, the data, the what if’s.....
None of it really matters, there is an unknown aircraft located in an extreme environment that has been there for so long it’s been covered, moved, whatever. Reading the reported FACTS from the army unit there is an unidentified aircraft there.
Quite right.... I recalled the words of the Warrant Officer, Keith Nurse, this morning.....about the "Ugly Rivets" around the cowl ring on the engine they found on the jungle floor. There are pictures of the Electra cowl on my website and these show the "ugly rIvets". Today, I put "Images: B-17 Cowlings " in my top line and up came hundreds of pictures of B-17's and there is one close-up from "flickr" with the reference 40939 15528_60e2 42c556_b which is in full focus.... If anyone can see Ugly Rivets around the cowl ring on that Wright Cyclone cowling photo I'll buy them a dozen beers.
Last edited by David Billings; 14th May 2018 at 01:08.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Greg47
Yes… of course 200 USG is not a 50% overload. What is an overload to you ? An overload to me is any weight over the normal maximum operating weight.
I recall that Noonan told Collopy from the DCA, that when they would be leaving LAE they would be about two Tons overweight. Two Tons Imperial is 4480 lbs but in the U.S. in the 30's a "Ton" could mean 2000 lbs,,,,ie 4000lbs overweight in that case...
Therefore, to straighten out what you mean by a 50% overload:
What ZFW are you working on and what Max Normal Operating Weight are you working on for a Model 10E please ? I get the feeling we are talking at cross-purposes....
As you probably know, the Electra was never flown at the 16,500 lb weight on which LR487 is based. With a maximum original fuel capacity of 1200 USG being 7200 lbs, the Zero Fuel weight would be 9300 lbs which in AE's use, it never was... and I am not saying that is the ZFW you are using. So what is your ZFW and Max normal operating weight ?
Yes… of course 200 USG is not a 50% overload. What is an overload to you ? An overload to me is any weight over the normal maximum operating weight.
I recall that Noonan told Collopy from the DCA, that when they would be leaving LAE they would be about two Tons overweight. Two Tons Imperial is 4480 lbs but in the U.S. in the 30's a "Ton" could mean 2000 lbs,,,,ie 4000lbs overweight in that case...
Therefore, to straighten out what you mean by a 50% overload:
What ZFW are you working on and what Max Normal Operating Weight are you working on for a Model 10E please ? I get the feeling we are talking at cross-purposes....
As you probably know, the Electra was never flown at the 16,500 lb weight on which LR487 is based. With a maximum original fuel capacity of 1200 USG being 7200 lbs, the Zero Fuel weight would be 9300 lbs which in AE's use, it never was... and I am not saying that is the ZFW you are using. So what is your ZFW and Max normal operating weight ?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answers from Google Earth this morning:
1. T.O. to HOW: 2629 Statute Miles with doglegs straightened.
2. How to crash site: 2209 Statute Miles.
3. Last known position has two choices:
a) Close to NUKUMANU 912 Sm as per the 0718 Tx but cannot be correct, the time is more likely at 0700 GMT..
b) Taking "my" Timing at the ONTARIO 1357 Sm at 1036 GMT
4. T.O. to site on ENB: 4838 Sm.
David
1. T.O. to HOW: 2629 Statute Miles with doglegs straightened.
2. How to crash site: 2209 Statute Miles.
3. Last known position has two choices:
a) Close to NUKUMANU 912 Sm as per the 0718 Tx but cannot be correct, the time is more likely at 0700 GMT..
b) Taking "my" Timing at the ONTARIO 1357 Sm at 1036 GMT
4. T.O. to site on ENB: 4838 Sm.
David
**** Item 4- need direct line distance from takeoff (LAE) TO crash site - not 'round trip ' to close ' triangle" This is to estimate the angle between straight line ( compass course ) to howland and straight line ( compass course ) from howland to crash site.
I get 397 SM ??
Last edited by CONSO; 14th May 2018 at 14:22.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She would have been about 14500 -15000 lbs . The auw was originally 10500lbs ?. To say in the air for some 35 plus hrs she would need to fly at endurance speed (best L/D plus an increment) . I would suggest this would be in the vicinity of 80-90 kts ,for 4000 miles is 44 plus hrs. She didnt do this she was using a TAS of 140-150mph outbound
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg47....and everyone...
Some data from the MS Excel file....
I used AUW 15000lbs. Fuel 1151 USG, ZFW 8094. Max. Nomal Operating Weight was 10,500lbs.
What I have up to NUKUMANU:
Hour 0-2.
Cr-Climb at 130 mph for 2.0 hours 60'/min to 7000". Power in climb uses Av. 58 USGPH. Fuel used Taxi/ T.O. /Climb is 144 USG.. Distance covered 250 miles. Wind goes from -3 to -9
Hour 2 - 4.36 Cruise at 145 mph TAS increasing to 150 mph at 7000'. Cruise power uses Av. 44 USGPH Total distance covered 572 miles. Radio Call at 0418GMT "making 140" G/S is 140 mph. wind is -10
Hour 4.36 - 5.0 ....at 60'/min, Climb to 10,000' at 151 mph TAS. 51USGPH Wind -16 at 10K.... Descend at 5.0 due cloud.. Radio call "At 10,000 but descending due cloud"
Hour 5.0 - 5.3. Descending to the PR given at 0518 GMT overhead Mount Maetambe (3,800 feet) [also known as Mount Gourdain]. Altitude now 8000'. Total miles 686.
Hour 5.3 - 7.0. Cruise at 8000' 146 mph TAS increasing to 149 mph by 0700 GMT. Radio call "Making 150" This was TAS as the G/S is only 127. In a quartering wind vectored at -18 to -21. 0700 GMT is considered by me to be the turnpoint where they saw NUKUMANU and turned onto the Easterly direct track towards Howland. Distance flown 912 miles. fuel used 347 USG
Hour 7.0 - 7.3 Climb commenced to 12,000 feet at 66.66'/minute 155 mph TAS wind -26, G/S 129 mph 50 USGPH. Radio Call at 0718 GMT. Distance covered 951 miles.
These hours from 0 to 7.3 (0000 - 0718 GMT) have used 22 Columns in Excel and about 25 lines., 7 columns for the initial climb out,
Some data from the MS Excel file....
I used AUW 15000lbs. Fuel 1151 USG, ZFW 8094. Max. Nomal Operating Weight was 10,500lbs.
What I have up to NUKUMANU:
Hour 0-2.
Cr-Climb at 130 mph for 2.0 hours 60'/min to 7000". Power in climb uses Av. 58 USGPH. Fuel used Taxi/ T.O. /Climb is 144 USG.. Distance covered 250 miles. Wind goes from -3 to -9
Hour 2 - 4.36 Cruise at 145 mph TAS increasing to 150 mph at 7000'. Cruise power uses Av. 44 USGPH Total distance covered 572 miles. Radio Call at 0418GMT "making 140" G/S is 140 mph. wind is -10
Hour 4.36 - 5.0 ....at 60'/min, Climb to 10,000' at 151 mph TAS. 51USGPH Wind -16 at 10K.... Descend at 5.0 due cloud.. Radio call "At 10,000 but descending due cloud"
Hour 5.0 - 5.3. Descending to the PR given at 0518 GMT overhead Mount Maetambe (3,800 feet) [also known as Mount Gourdain]. Altitude now 8000'. Total miles 686.
Hour 5.3 - 7.0. Cruise at 8000' 146 mph TAS increasing to 149 mph by 0700 GMT. Radio call "Making 150" This was TAS as the G/S is only 127. In a quartering wind vectored at -18 to -21. 0700 GMT is considered by me to be the turnpoint where they saw NUKUMANU and turned onto the Easterly direct track towards Howland. Distance flown 912 miles. fuel used 347 USG
Hour 7.0 - 7.3 Climb commenced to 12,000 feet at 66.66'/minute 155 mph TAS wind -26, G/S 129 mph 50 USGPH. Radio Call at 0718 GMT. Distance covered 951 miles.
These hours from 0 to 7.3 (0000 - 0718 GMT) have used 22 Columns in Excel and about 25 lines., 7 columns for the initial climb out,
Last edited by David Billings; 16th May 2018 at 23:16.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel to be remaining at what ever point location was at 1912GMT
I realise that if Earhart is to be at Howland at 1912 GMT that something has to be done about the Groundspeed....
If my timing at the ONTARIO is correct at 1036 GMT (just after the 1030 GMT "Ship in sight call, ie: 6 minutes and 12 miles later) then there is 8.6 hours (8:36) in time and 1267 miles to run.... That means the G/S must be increased to an average of 147.3 mph. I have a wind at the ONTARIO of -32 mph, meaning that the TAS average has to be 179.3 mph. say 180 mph to round it off.
The AUW at that point is 11.950 lbs and THP Required (at the props - 80%) for that speed of 180 mph TAS at 10,000 feet is 526 H.P meaning the Total H.P to be available is 657 H.P.. At an SFC of 0.45 that requires 296 lbs of fuel per hour or 49 USGPH. That will drop off somewhat as weight burns off and a projection would be that by 8.6 hours the AUW would be around 9700 lbs burning 267 lbs/hr or 45 USGPH at a power setting giving 594 H.P. total. That means an average usage over 8.6 hours of 47 USGPH... so, the 8.6 hours would use 387 USG.
In the back of AE's mind and in FN's mind would also be fuel for The Contingency Plan... a "must" if they miss Howland.
As they leave the ONTARIO my plot shows 644 USG Remaining. If the above power setting was used, then at 1912GMT the fuel remaining would be 257 USG. Big question is would they up the power and use an average 47 USGPH ? The throttles are already open, the power is now controlled by MAP. set by the propeller pitch levers...
The Engine Consideration
However, there is another consideration. On the P&W power curve chart that requirement for that power at 10,000 feet shows at 26.5 inches of MAP at 1800 rpm, which is near enough to "full power", way over MAX. Continuous.... and the required SFC shown is 0.52 which means 657 x 0.52 = 57 USGPH down to 594 x 0.52 = 52 USGPH at 9700 lbs AUW, ie, averaging near 55 USGPH, but the engines say "We can't do that.for 8.6 hours, we can only do that in short bursts..."
My conclusion is that Earhart would not risk an engine failure or even a double engine failure at that level of power setting...besides which.... the engines won't like it... at all.
WASP powered aircraft on ENB identification
That is what we have been saying and I cannot put my finger on any other aircraft it would be , given the map evidence and the description given by the Vets. That is the very reason why I bother with all this and the very reason why I seek funding...
I realise that if Earhart is to be at Howland at 1912 GMT that something has to be done about the Groundspeed....
If my timing at the ONTARIO is correct at 1036 GMT (just after the 1030 GMT "Ship in sight call, ie: 6 minutes and 12 miles later) then there is 8.6 hours (8:36) in time and 1267 miles to run.... That means the G/S must be increased to an average of 147.3 mph. I have a wind at the ONTARIO of -32 mph, meaning that the TAS average has to be 179.3 mph. say 180 mph to round it off.
The AUW at that point is 11.950 lbs and THP Required (at the props - 80%) for that speed of 180 mph TAS at 10,000 feet is 526 H.P meaning the Total H.P to be available is 657 H.P.. At an SFC of 0.45 that requires 296 lbs of fuel per hour or 49 USGPH. That will drop off somewhat as weight burns off and a projection would be that by 8.6 hours the AUW would be around 9700 lbs burning 267 lbs/hr or 45 USGPH at a power setting giving 594 H.P. total. That means an average usage over 8.6 hours of 47 USGPH... so, the 8.6 hours would use 387 USG.
In the back of AE's mind and in FN's mind would also be fuel for The Contingency Plan... a "must" if they miss Howland.
As they leave the ONTARIO my plot shows 644 USG Remaining. If the above power setting was used, then at 1912GMT the fuel remaining would be 257 USG. Big question is would they up the power and use an average 47 USGPH ? The throttles are already open, the power is now controlled by MAP. set by the propeller pitch levers...
The Engine Consideration
However, there is another consideration. On the P&W power curve chart that requirement for that power at 10,000 feet shows at 26.5 inches of MAP at 1800 rpm, which is near enough to "full power", way over MAX. Continuous.... and the required SFC shown is 0.52 which means 657 x 0.52 = 57 USGPH down to 594 x 0.52 = 52 USGPH at 9700 lbs AUW, ie, averaging near 55 USGPH, but the engines say "We can't do that.for 8.6 hours, we can only do that in short bursts..."
My conclusion is that Earhart would not risk an engine failure or even a double engine failure at that level of power setting...besides which.... the engines won't like it... at all.
WASP powered aircraft on ENB identification
That is what we have been saying and I cannot put my finger on any other aircraft it would be , given the map evidence and the description given by the Vets. That is the very reason why I bother with all this and the very reason why I seek funding...
Last edited by David Billings; 17th May 2018 at 06:46.