[CW] another earhart blurb

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

PLEASE REMEMBER TO CC MR. A. CALDWELL - he is the person that needed the
help. and some of the messages are not ALSO going to him.

>From reading the log sheets of the USCG Cutter it appears that the only
frequency that was heard was 3105 KC frequency.

The only frequency that was referred to in meters was 600 meters - but this
was ONLY in the radio logs of the Cutter Itasca - but it was very much
common knowledge that 600 meters and 500 kHz were the same wave.  This was
the frequency to use for SOS over sea - and I'm sure Earhart knew this and
wasn't confused by this.

73

DR
David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA

----- Original Message -----
From: "rb" <rbig@bellsouth.net>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:48 PM
Subject: [CW] another earhart blurb


> Think we should give a bit more credit to American aircraft radio
engineers
> of the mid to late 1930s.
> The ARC-5 transmitters are of that era, and there is no way they could be
> tuned up on second and third harmonics without extensive electrical and
> mechanical modifications.
> The crystal controlled transmitters of the day used in civil aircraft were
> channelised and fixed tuned with usually only antenna loading adjustable
> within the aircraft.
> They were set up before flight and operated by the pilot via a control
box.
> As you say, one can visualise scenarios whereby the radio was damaged in a
> forced landing and somehow came to put out signals on a harmonic but this
is
> stretching the bounds of plausibility.
> I am puzzled by hypotheses about running an engine to charge the batteries
> after a forced or crash landing.
> One would assume that the aircraft came down with the batteries fully
> charged.
> Assuming the batteries survived the landing, then there would have been
> capacity to run the radios for some time with full power from the tx.
> There were plenty of ships and aircraft around listening on known channels
> and it seems very unlikely that Earhart would not have been heard loud and
> clear if the equipment was intact.
> As I recall the note in Old Timer's Bulletin suggested that Earhart may
have
> been confused by procedural directions from the US Navy that used both
> frequencies and wavelengths with the consequence that she neither
> transmitted or listened on the correct frequencies.
> Earhart had learned to fly during the barnstorming era when flight
training
> was sloppy by modern standards.
> She never had experience as a pilot under discipline in either the
services
> or in scheduled airline operation.
> In these areas pilots learn that standardised procedures and drills are
> everything.
> Taking into account the accumulated fatigue, questions about Earhart's
state
> of health, (amongst other things, it has been suggested she might have
been
> pregnant at the time) and the lack of drills and rehearsals of radio
> procedure before she left Lae it is likely that pilot  error was a factor.
> If Noonan had been allocated the radio operating tasks things might have
> gone better, but this was impossible due to the layout of the Electra as
> modified. The actual navigation tasks were routine, no problem for Noonan,
> but pushing the limits of precision on a long flight.
> If the radio procedures had worked as planned then there would have been
no
> problems: the US Navy ships would have got a fix on them and they would
have
> been able to RDF on the homing beacon set up for them or on MF
transmissions
> from ships.  With good RT communications they would have been talked into
> their destination with the greatest of ease.
> Sad.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>