StormLover
Weather Watcher
Reged:
Posts: 32
|
|
What are some similarities and differences between Hurricane Camille and Andrew, both Cat 5s? What was Camille's lowest ever pressure? Which of the two had the strongest max sustained winds upon landfall. I heard somwhere Camille had a gust of 200mph when it landed. Wow!
|
danielw
Moderator
Reged:
Posts: 3525
Loc: Hattiesburg,MS (31.3N 89.3W)
|
|
I have a url for all the official reports on Hurricane Camille. I'll post it here as soon as I can relocate it.
|
Keith234
Storm Chaser
Reged:
Posts: 921
Loc: 40.7N/73.3W Long Island
|
|
I did find some websites that could anwser your question
Hurricane Andrew:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1992andrew.html
Hurricane Camille:
http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hurricanecamille
--------------------
"I became insane with horrible periods of sanity"
Edgar Allan Poe
|
palmetto
Verified CFHC User
Reged:
Posts: 23
Loc: Tallahassee, FL
|
|
I actually had a question about Camille. I've been looking at the satellite photos of this system, and it seems to me that there's the inner storm, which is round and symmetrical, and then there's like a break in the clouds and an outer storm, which isn't quite as smooth? Was there something unusual about Camille, or is it just the old photos?
I'm new at this, can you tell? 
|
Keith234
Storm Chaser
Reged:
Posts: 921
Loc: 40.7N/73.3W Long Island
|
|
I'm not actually sure about what that might be but from what it looks like is seems that as Camille intensified (very quickly) it didn't have time to shed it's outer rain bands fast enough, so what your seeing is the time it took to shed it's rain band. Another more logical theory, was that the clouds couldn't devlop in that area due to the subsiding of air because of the very strong convection.
Hope That Helps
--------------------
"I became insane with horrible periods of sanity"
Edgar Allan Poe
|
danielw
Moderator
Reged:
Posts: 3525
Loc: Hattiesburg,MS (31.3N 89.3W)
|
|
This is "The Link" I was telling you about the other day. It may take a while to download as it is a ftp-site.
ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/storm_archives/atlantic/prelimat/atl1969/camille/
Each page is a scan of the original information on Camille.
Some are from the , Mobile and New Orleans Weather Bureaus. It takes time to go thru them, but they are very informative. Note the names at the bottom of each statement.
Simpson-of the Saffar/Simpson scale
Frank-Dr Neil Frank, retired director of , now a Houston,TX TV met.
Hope-The Late Great John Hope of the , retired and worked at the Weather Channel prior to his death a couple of years ago.
There are other names, but those are the only ones that jump out at me.
|
nicole
Unregistered
|
|
you are right camille did get winds up to 200 mph at landfall.also the lowest barometric pressure was 26.84 inches
|
Perry
Registered User
Reged:
Posts: 4
Loc: Douglasville, Georgia
|
|
Both Camille and Andrew were small, compact hurricanes, but Andrew (at Florida landfall) was smaller in diameter. Camille paled in size comparism to near time of landfall....with 100+ mph gusts only occurring along the coast from just east of New Orleans to near Pascagoula...about 75 miles (compared to 's 130 mile long wind field of 100+ mph gust extending from west of Grand Isle to Mobile Bay),
The lowest measured central pressure of hurricane Camille by USAF reconniasance aircraft was 905 mb/ 26.73", but please bear in mind ONLY three eye penetrations were made while Camille was over the Gulf of Mexico between Cuba and the Gulf coast. As we witnessed with and last year, central pressure can change rapidly, especially while traversing the potent Loop Current. IMO it's likely hurricane Camille maxed out below 900 mb....and sub-890 mb isn't out of the question, at least for a short time (there was a 30 hour gap between recon eye penetrations while Camille was over the Loop Current....from evening of the 16th until early afternoon of the 17th; while over the same area where reached her peak).
In all honesty, we'll never know with certainty the exact wind force and central pressure of Camille at time of landfall. The final recon mission before landfall had to leave the hurricane after sustaining damage (lost one of the four engines), and so central pressure data was obtained as Camille approached the coast and moved inland.
The 909.3 mb/ 26.85" reading was reported by a private citizen with a barometer near the west end of the Bay St Louis bridge (IMO lowest surface pressure occurred a couple miles west of that location). As for sustained winds, an engineering report by Dr Herbert Saffir indicated wind speeds well in excess of 150 mph occurred.....IMO (based on size of the core and damage photos) Camille was in the 170 to 180 mph range sustained.....with peak gusts near 200 mph (final recon estimate of surface winds was 180 kt/ 207 mph.....but in those days, it was more guesswork than reliable data). The reason I believe firmly Camille's sustained winds were stronger than at landfall? 1) Camille's core was smaller.....thus producing a tighter wind gradient (same reason tiny hurricane possessed 150 mph winds @ 941 mb), 2) central pressure was lower than 's 920 mb....and 3) radar images of Camille I've seen show better organization/ less dry air intrusion....not surprising since Camille was much smaller than and .
PW
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/southernwx
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
