Text 29544, 82 rader
Skriven 2012-06-07 06:27:44 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
  Kommentar till text 29531 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Re: Fidonews Vol 29 No 23 June 04, 2012 Page: 2
=======================================================
ml> you are assuming that the report of "running ouf of fuel" meant they were
ml> sputtering at that time... we don't know how much fuel they had when they
ml> made that report... they could easily have still had 5 or 10 gallons in
ml> the tanks after putting down on the island...
 
Correct.
 
ml> have you actually looked at photos of the island and the area where they
ml> could have set the plane down? it would have been rough but it could have
ml> been done...
 
I tend to differ on that matter. From what I understand about airplanes and
marine life, there's no way you can land an aircraft on a reef wheels-down and
walk away from it. No insult intended, Mark, but have you ever stood on a coral
reef? It is not a flat surface which could act as a runway.
 
ml> are you forgetting about the tides? low tide could easily have left the
ml> rock area exposed or at least shallow enough for them to have landed
ml> on...
 
1. There is no rock at Nikumaroro. It's an ancient eroded volcana.
 
2. Coral reef is not as hard as granite, but the edges will cut an aircraft
   tire to smithereens.
 
3. The landing-speed prior to stall of a Lockheed-10 is 180km/h, about
   110-115mph (statute)
 
4. The tidal activity is minimal, just south of the equator. For that area
   today NOAA announces between 2 and 3.5ft. That's the difference between
   getting your knees wet and your belly button.
 
ml>WD> If she really landed on Nikumaroro, the better option would have
ml>WD> been the lagoon ... no waves ... no gear ... nose up and surf to
ml>WD> the beach.
 
ml> and loose the radio...
 
... and survive ... plus salvage the fuselage to use as a relative comfortable
shelter.
 
The rules of being shipwrecked on a Pacific island are:
 
1) Build a shelter
2) Find water
3) Find food
 
... in that order.
 
ml>WD> None of that however. You fly at 1.000ft, your engines flame-out
ml>WD> and 30seconds later your feet are wet ... if you survive the crash
ml>WD> and make it out alive.
 
ml> you always were such the optimist...
 
It's simple math. A 1:4 glide-ratio at an altiture of 1,000ft will give you 4
times that number in feet to glide if you know what you're doing. So she could
travel another 4,000ft. As Earhart was not a glider pilot it was unlikely she'd
get that far. Either her nose-down would be too outspoken and instead of 30
seconds she'd have 20 but going way too fast for a landing. Or the nose would
not be down enough and the plane will stall. At 1,000ft impossible to recover,
remember ... both engines flamed-out in this hypothesis. Also, hand-crancking
the gear would take at least a minute.
 
If it looks like a duck, waggles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances
are it is a duck.
 
All elements point to a crash over water, Mark. We know the radio was working
... there was no distress call, there was no call she was going to land the
plance somewhere ... so there was an emergency, something dramatic and
immediate. The engines flamed-out at 1,000ft, hardly any time to assess the
situation, loss of altitude, stall and 10 seconds later she slammed the surface
of the ocean instantly killing herself and Noonan. The plane broke-up and
immediately sank to 11-18,000ft never ever to be found again.
 
If THIGAR really does find that plane at Nikumaroro this summer, I invite both
you and Janis for dinner at the UN's Embassador Club in NYC.
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.59
 * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)