[Rhodes22-list] Believe it or not radar story

Mon Feb 7 22:25:23 EST 2005

Hey, Brad,
                A sorta small world addendum.  My Dad was involved with the
design and manufacture of the P38 A thru F models as I recall.  He decided
it would be more fun to fly them than to build them, but couldn't quit and
join the Air Corps because of his "critical status" job.   So he quit
Northrup and went to work in a foundry for 90days and then could join.
Never did get to fly the P38, seems they needed navigators for B-29's
instead.

Chris G
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Believe it or not radar story


> Jim,
>
> I smelled a rat on that myself but try to keep quiet
> on things I really do know something about, unlike
> boats and trucks.  Here's a couple of links for more
> info.
>
> http://www.aycsnetwork.com/lostsquadronp38.htm
>
> http://lost-squadron.org/index2.html
>
> Do your own Google search on "the lost squadron" and
> you'll get several different answers.  The story I've
> heard for over 30 years is they got lost, got low on
> fuel, and landed.  Period.  Frankly, I don't think
> they had radar altimeters in 1942.  Anybody got a
> spare hundred ya don't need?
>
> Brad
>
> Brad
>
>
> --- Jim Connolly <jbconnolly at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I am the skeptical sort, but these are the questions
> > I have:
> >
> > How did a propeller plane land safely with landing
> > gear in flying position
> > (i.e., up)?
> >
> > Alternatively, I cannot think of any large aircraft
> > (with a loadmaster) with
> > fixed landing gear of that vintage, can any of you
> > pilots?
> >
> > Jim Connolly
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On
> > Behalf Of Mark Kaynor
> > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 10:27 AM
> > To: 'The Rhodes 22 mail list'
> > Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Believe it or not radar
> > story
> >
> > I just received this on the Tayana list and thought
> > you lot might enjoy it -
> > it's an interesting read.
> >
> > Mark Kaynor
> > R22 "Raven"
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce [mailto:bcp at pappalini.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 8:56 AM
> > To: Tayana Owners Discussion List
> > Subject: [tayana] FW: Believe it or not radar story
> >
> > Okay, I know you guys are always up for a good
> > story.
> > On the Baba listserv, there has been a lot of
> > discussion about radar.
> > This story came out of that.
> > Enjoy.
> > --Bruce
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 12:15 AM
> > Subject: Believe it or not radar story
> > From: "Steven Hodge"
> > Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 07:57:47 -0800
> >
> > Well, heck, ok now that my arm is twisted.   I have
> > heard this story from 3
> > independent sources, on different continents in
> > fact.   After WWII the U.S.
> > was returning aircraft from U.K. and Europe.  The
> > shortest distance is a
> > great circle route and this typically took them
> > right over the Greenland Ice
> > Sheet.  A plane got caught in a storm over the ice
> > sheet so they forged on
> > ahead, confident in the fact that their
> > newly-developed radar altimeter
> > would keep them well away from the surface.  Sure
> > enough the measurements
> > indicated they were thousands of feet up.
> >
> > Little did they know at the time--no one knew--that
> > the particular frequency
> > band used for radar altimeters would penetrate cold
> > ice (ice that is well
> > below the freezing point and contains no liquid
> > water), and, in fact,
> > penetrates it quite well.  The reflection they were
> > using was from the
> > bottom of the ice sheet, not the top.  And the ice
> > sheet is about 3000 m
> > thick at the highest point of Greenland, so like I
> > said they thought they
> > were thousands of feet up.
> >
> > Well the storm was buffeting the plane around a lot,
> > visibility was zilch,
> > and they were going right into a strong headwind.
> > The cockpit crew was also
> > exhausted from long hours of flying.  It eventually
> > dawned on the cockpit
> > crew that the loadmaster was standing out in front
> > of them in the howling
> > wind, giving them the "cut-throat" signal that it
> > was ok to kill the
> > engines.  The cockpit crew thought they were
> > dreaming or hallucinating, but
> > eventually the loadmaster was able to convince them
> > he was for real, and
> > they responded and cut the engines.
> >
> > The Greenland ice sheet is a huge dome, with most of
> > the area being
> > essentially flat with most of the drop off near its
> > edges.  It turns out the
> > pilot had unknowingly gradually flown right onto the
> > surface of the ice
> > sheet, not being able to distinguish the bumpy
> > sastrugi surface from the
> > wind buffetting.  The combination of extremely
> > strong head wind, slow-flying
> > aircraft, and bumpy surface had in fact slowed the
> > aircraft to a stop and
> > the crew out back had thought the pilot has simply
> > decided to land and stick
> > out the storm, so they were merely doing what any
> > good crew would do at that
> > point.
> >
> > None of the stories, by the way, give any indication
> > of what happened after
> > that.  I presume they were able to take off again
> > once they realized their
> > situation.  However, it is known that there are
> > aircraft buried in the
> > Greenland ice sheet, and, in fact, some years ago
> > (10 or so?) there was a
> > big effort by some aircraft buffs to locate them and
> > dig them out.  I do not
> > know the results of that.
> >
> > Early ice-penetrating radars were in fact nothing
> > but slightly modified
> > aircraft radar altimeters.
> >
> > When liquid water is present in ice, which is the
> > case for temperate
> > glaciers, the RF energy is scattered to oblivion by
> > the cavities of liquid
> > water.  In technical jargon, that is because ice and
> > water have a difference
> > in dielectric constant of about 80x.  It was not
> > until the early 70's that
> > we (colleagues and myself) were able to develop an
> > alternate radar technique
> > to allow measuring the depth of temperate ("wet")
> > glaciers.
> >
> > Steve, Panda 40 Alcyon
> >
> >
> >
> > _/)  Get your Forum Sponsor T-Shirt to support this
> > list!
> > _/)  Visit http://www.sailnet.com/forumshirt.cfm for
> > details
> > _/)  Unsubscribe? Click Here -->
> > leave-tayana-200808P at list.sailnet.net
> > _/)  Need HELP? Visit
> > http://www.sailnet.com/listmgr/help/
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list