I really don't think Camille was any where near 190 mph

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... amille.jpg

The first one shows a very intense hurricane. But I would not go higher then 180 mph. As you can see a very round CDO with broad and fat banding all the way around the system, that is a sign of a very intense system.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurr ... _2340Z.jpg

This image of Camille in the center of the gulf, shows a system with a pin hole eye,. Nice CDO. Kind of reminds me of Wilma a little with the fact of the pin hole eye. Maybe 175-180 mph.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurr ... _1957Z.jpg
Camille nearing landfall. As you can see nice outflow in all quads, with nice cdo. But eye is not clear on this image. It has a very small core of convection...The convection appears to be around minus 60-65c not the coldest for a hurricane that should have winds over 190+. I believe that I would say 155-160 mph...Real small innercore. But it appears to be slightly eroded on the southern quad, with less banding and convection.

Also feel that the 24 foot surge caused much of the damage of the system. The same as hurricane Katrina of 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurr ... arison.jpg

Katrina had a more clear eye wall for one as you observe in this satellite. Camille did have its western quad and was some what more compact. So it is likely that he/she/it was a good amount stronger Katrina. The "innercore" of both not to much differences. I could see Camille as no more then 150-160 mph at landfall after a EWRC. As seen in the above photo kind of as the eye clouded over. Remember katrina was still a cat4 or around 135 mph on that photo near that time. Yes the wind damage was stronger because Camille was a good amount stronger then Katrina, but it was no 190 mph storm. Also you can tell the difference between surge damage and wind damage...The surge has more wiped out; while on the other hand wind has bits and pieces every where. I maybe wrong here.

Andrews damage-Pure winds...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurr ... a_2563.jpg

Camille-I'm thinking water and wind. But correct me if I'm wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Afte ... School.jpg

I also have Question with Allen of 1980 having 190 mph winds. Wilma could not do it even with it being a much stronger hurricane, so can you tell me if Allen could be lowered down with its winds or not.

[Javlin]

Been debated too much Matt.While I was a young lad I did here of wind gust in excess off 200+ mph out at KAFB in Dolan Hall(thats were we stayed) over the radio.I would have too agree that they were probably just visible obs. and not accurate but Camille did not move any where the amount of water that Katrina did so maybe more did happen from wind.I can tell you that I feared the winds in Camille that night as those doors in what was suppose to be a fallout shelter shook violently all night long while Katrina seemed a very strong Georges or Elena wind wise.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Yeah, camille had by far the stronger landfall winds. A much more soild and compact innercore at landfall then Katrina had. Unless people were on that chain of "islands" that pokes out, no one seen cat4+ winds with Katrina. New orleans hardly seen cat2 winds, at least of what I heard. So people could easly have seen a difference in the effect it being a upper cat4 or lower cat5 at landfall. While Katrina being at least 30 mph weaker with overall winds. Huge difference in overall power.

[EDR1222]

190 mph does seem a bit high for Camille. On satellite, the most intense looking hurricane at landfall to hit the U.S., to my eyes, was Hurricane Andrew, followed by Hugo, then Charley, but the resolution on Satellite imagery was much different in 1969 than in the late 80's throught the present time.

Either way however, Camille was a monster and there appears to be extensive wind damage from the pictures taken. The pressure readings that we have from landfall and some of the radar shots do indicate a very intense system and perhaps the storm was strengthening immediately prior to landfall. Katrina, as we all know was weakening and eroding as it came ashore.

It would really be interesting if satellite imagery would have been around during the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane. I would love to see what that storm looked like when it came across the Florida Keys.

[AL Chili Pepper]

That picture from Andrew is of a trailor park....not very good for a comparison of wind damage. You can see the houses in the background are still standing.

I know it's been said before, but the storm surge from Camille wasn't as high as that of Katrina due to the relative sizes of the storm. Camille had a smaller wind field and therefore drew less water. Kat was also moving almost due north at landfall, allowing water to "pile up", while Camille was moving at more of an oblique angle. The symmetry of Camille suggests there was little shear and no dry air intrusion, unlike what we saw with Rita and Katrina. I also remember seeing a New Orleans radar picture of Camille's eye as it passed the mouth of the Mississippi river and it looked almost perfect. Any EWRC had surely been completed.

All that being said, I don't necessarily believe Camille had 190 sustained winds, but I do believe it was a strong Cat 5 in the 170+ range.

[PerryW]

1) while I don't believe Camille possessed 190 mph sustained winds at landfall, research I've conducted into the wind damage effects gives me confidence it was indeed a very intense category 5 hurricane......IMO sustained winds in the 165-175 mph range, with peak gusts of 200 mph or more. In a post storm survey, structural engineer Dr Herbert Saffir (of the Saffir-Simpson rating scale fame) stated wind damage was consistent with gusts of 190-200 mph or more in areas near the coast above the storm surge level; homes were "splintered" by wind speeds in a manner consistent with wind speeds of a "major tornado".

2) at peak intensity in the Gulf of Mexico and over the loop current (905 mb), I firmly believe Camille's sustained winds peaked in the 180-185 mph range (155-160 kts). At that time, Camille possessed a small, compact, and very violent core; so violent in fact that several Navy recon aircraft crews chose NOT to attempt penetrating the eyewall.

3) Don't let Camille's lower storm surge height when compared to Katrina mislead you about the hurricane's landfall intensity. Remember, hurricane Charley was near 150 mph at time of landfall in 2004, yet storm surge was nowhere near as significant as wind damage in Charlotte county, FL......because of the extremely small radius of the eyewall. IMO a very large 120 mph hurricane making landfall in the same area would create a much more devastating storm surge along the same coastline (south of Tampa Bay). In October 1873, a "weak" cat-3 (959 mb/ 115 mph) produced a 14' foot storm surge near Punta Rassa (north of Fort Myers Beach).

4) hurricane Allen's peak intensity of 190 mph was based on flight level winds....which (at the time) were reported in the media as near 215 mph; flight level winds stronger than either the 199 mph (173 kts) maximum value recorded during Gilbert or the 195 mph (168 kts) velocity measured during Wilma.

Also, while it is likely hurricane Camille underwent an eyewall replacement cycle the afternoon of August 17th, 1969........the recon plane still measured a pressure of 918 mb (corrected from 901 mb). That was over 10 hours before landfall occurred.......we know from barometer readings onshore (west end of the Bay St Louis bridge) that the hurricane had deepened back to at least 909 mb (possibly even lower IMO) at time of landfall. It's very possible IMO the eyewall cycle completed and the hurricane re-intensifying over the very warm waters at time of landfall (11 p.m. CDT).

I've seen radar shots of hurricane Camille near time of landfall, both from New Orleans and Jackson, MS.....and didn't observe the same eroded southern eyewall structure as was evident during Katrina's landfall. The eye of hurricane Camille at landfall was described by the late,great John Hope (whom I spoke at length with regarding hurricane Camille in the 1980's) as very tight and intense.....and only 11 statute miles in diameter at time of landfall.

Sadly, since the USAF recon aircraft was unable to remain inside the hurricane until time of landfall (due to mechanical problems/ lost one of the four engines), we'll never know for certain the true intensity at impact......but radar and surface data evidence, post storm structural engineering surveys, and the words of hurricane forecasters who forecast/ observed Camille's movement (and radar/ satellite presentations), it's a good bet IMO the hurricane was of category 5 intensity at time of landfall.

[DrewFL]

Discussions regarding windage are worthless. If you honestly experienced the storm and lived to tell....wind estimates are not even important.
The fact that you managed to find a safe haven is it.
Everything else is left to those that have never experienced the Hell of all this.
Being one that has survived....these discussions don't matter.
We clean up the mess and forget it as best we can.

[KWT]

IMO Camille was probably about the same strength as Dean at landfall, I reckon Dean will be adjusted at the end of the season with winds upto 175mph. Pressure was very close in both and both had a fairly tight inner core of high winds.

[Ixolib]

Regardless of the max winds in Camille, I can attest to the fact that her winds were absolutely the scariest I have ever been through. THAT was a long night.

Katrina's winds paled in comparison. I just wish her surge had paled as well.........

[weunice]

Do we know how accurate this might be?

Highest wind gust on record: 229 mph recorded in Biloxi 8/17/69 (Camille)
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jan/climate2.php

190 seems extreme to me but then again a nearly 230 mph wind gust does as well.

[Derek Ortt]

it is very important to know hoow intense previous canes are for planning purposes in future canes

Had it have been determiend that Camielle was a cat 4 at landfall not a 5, maybe additional people would have evacuated when they saw that Katrina was a 5. Something we will never know, but is important for EOM to have an idea about for future purposes

[Frank P]

Regardless of the max winds in Camille, I can attest to the fact that her winds were absolutely the scariest I have ever been through. THAT was a long night.

Katrina's winds paled in comparison. I just wish her surge had paled as well.........

Yeah its easy to second guess stuff 40 years later I guess... but I agree with you Ixolib, Camille's winds were ungodly, nothing like I've ever experienced and I've been thru several significant storms... Katrina's winds were nothing in comparison, acutally Elena's winds were a lot worse than Katrina's from my perspective... Camille's wind damage was much more significant as well compared to Katrina...

Sat presentations from 40 years ago don't tell nearly the detail of today.. so to make a guess on wind velocity on that is rather silly.... Camille will never be downgraded to a Cat 4 period.. not going to happen... so you can say what you want or believe what you want Camille will remain a Cat 5 and maintain her place in history as one of the strongest storms ever to hit the US..

Hopefully the MS coast has learned its lesson, don't think that because you survived one hurricane the next won't be as bad.. they are all bad and can all kill ya.. so we need to become more informed, prepare early, and leave when told... as I've learned going thru both Camille and Katrina, you can always buy more stuff...

[Berwick Bay]

What a great post Perry! I think I remember you from a couple of years ago at another site. You are one of the strongest posters ever on a tropical weather board, and I hope you stick around. Perry's Camille post below.
1) while I don't believe Camille possessed 190 mph sustained winds at landfall, research I've conducted into the wind damage effects gives me confidence it was indeed a very intense category 5 hurricane......IMO sustained winds in the 165-175 mph range, with peak gusts of 200 mph or more. In a post storm survey, structural engineer Dr Herbert Saffir (of the Saffir-Simpson rating scale fame) stated wind damage was consistent with gusts of 190-200 mph or more in areas near the coast above the storm surge level; homes were "splintered" by wind speeds in a manner consistent with wind speeds of a "major tornado".

2) at peak intensity in the Gulf of Mexico and over the loop current (905 mb), I firmly believe Camille's sustained winds peaked in the 180-185 mph range (155-160 kts). At that time, Camille possessed a small, compact, and very violent core; so violent in fact that several Navy recon aircraft crews chose NOT to attempt penetrating the eyewall.

3) Don't let Camille's lower storm surge height when compared to Katrina mislead you about the hurricane's landfall intensity. Remember, hurricane Charley was near 150 mph at time of landfall in 2004, yet storm surge was nowhere near as significant as wind damage in Charlotte county, FL......because of the extremely small radius of the eyewall. IMO a very large 120 mph hurricane making landfall in the same area would create a much more devastating storm surge along the same coastline (south of Tampa Bay). In October 1873, a "weak" cat-3 (959 mb/ 115 mph) produced a 14' foot storm surge near Punta Rassa (north of Fort Myers Beach).

4) hurricane Allen's peak intensity of 190 mph was based on flight level winds....which (at the time) were reported in the media as near 215 mph; flight level winds stronger than either the 199 mph (173 kts) maximum value recorded during Gilbert or the 195 mph (168 kts) velocity measured during Wilma.

Also, while it is likely hurricane Camille underwent an eyewall replacement cycle the afternoon of August 17th, 1969........the recon plane still measured a pressure of 918 mb (corrected from 901 mb). That was over 10 hours before landfall occurred.......we know from barometer readings onshore (west end of the Bay St Louis bridge) that the hurricane had deepened back to at least 909 mb (possibly even lower IMO) at time of landfall. It's very possible IMO the eyewall cycle completed and the hurricane re-intensifying over the very warm waters at time of landfall (11 p.m. CDT).

I've seen radar shots of hurricane Camille near time of landfall, both from New Orleans and Jackson, MS.....and didn't observe the same eroded southern eyewall structure as was evident during Katrina's landfall. The eye of hurricane Camille at landfall was described by the late,great John Hope (whom I spoke at length with regarding hurricane Camille in the 1980's) as very tight and intense.....and only 11 statute miles in diameter at time of landfall.

Sadly, since the USAF recon aircraft was unable to remain inside the hurricane until time of landfall (due to mechanical problems/ lost one of the four engines), we'll never know for certain the true intensity at impact......but radar and surface data evidence, post storm structural engineering surveys, and the words of hurricane forecasters who forecast/ observed Camille's movement (and radar/ satellite presentations), it's a good bet IMO the hurricane was of category 5 intensity at time of landfall.

[CrazyC83]

I doubt that 918 vs. 909 is correct and I think that 901 was accurate and even then it was not at peak intensity. I think Camille's peak intensity was lower than 905; I would guess it was around 895 mb.

[Ixolib]

...acutally Elena's winds were a lot worse than Katrina's from my perspective...

Yes - I agree with your perspective there. That was one c-r-a-z-y storm and the impact was more than I would have expected considering all her loop-de-loos. That is also the only storm where I can remember actually being in the eye. We stayed at the old phone company on Howard Avenue for that one!!

I still wonder if I am downplaying Katrina's winds because my mind was more concentrating on the sea water that was rising around my waist. Probably not, though. Katrina simply didn't have the umphh that I remember in so many other storms. Frederick was howling, Elena was relentless, Georges wasn't anything to smile about, and Camille - well, she was no lady (just to add an over-used cliche`!!)

[MGC]

Radar images from New Orleans reavealed that Camille had an intact eyewall at the time of landfall. She didn't open up like many of her later realtives have. Camille had a very compact wind field, simular to Andrew. I doubt the 229mph gust brought up earlier as Keesler AFB had only sustained Cat-1 winds. No way I believe the 190mph winds, I'd guess they were closer to 165mph or so based on recent Cat-5 recon obs. I'd also bet that Camille was stronger than the 905mb and likely was sub 900mb at the time of the sat picture with the pinhole eye. I sure do wish the reanalysis on Camille will get done soon and put this issue to rest. Hurricane Betsy was upgraded to Cat-4 at landfall at Grand Isle in reanalysis. So much for all NGOM hurricanes falling apart as they approach 30 degrees north......MGC

[Ixolib]

....Keesler AFB had only sustained Cat-1 winds.

If that's the case, then Katrina must have only been tropical storm strength as I was in the same neighborhood and same house (on the northern permiter of KAFB) for both storms and Camille did significantly more wind damage - and was significantly "louder" - then Katrina.

Agreeably, I was only 12 for Camille and 48 for Katrina, so my perspectives might have been a bit different. But, trees down, roofs damaged, power poles down, power lines down, windows blown out, etc., was notably worse in Camille.

[Berwick Bay]

Radar images from New Orleans reavealed that Camille had an intact eyewall at the time of landfall. She didn't open up like many of her later realtives have. Camille had a very compact wind field, simular to Andrew. I doubt the 229mph gust brought up earlier as Keesler AFB had only sustained Cat-1 winds. No way I believe the 190mph winds, I'd guess they were closer to 165mph or so based on recent Cat-5 recon obs. I'd also bet that Camille was stronger than the 905mb and likely was sub 900mb at the time of the sat picture with the pinhole eye. I sure do wish the reanalysis on Camille will get done soon and put this issue to rest. Hurricane Betsy was upgraded to Cat-4 at landfall at Grand Isle in reanalysis. So much for all NGOM hurricanes falling apart as they approach 30 degrees north......MGC

Yes MGC, this theory about NGOM hurricanes falling apart is a quite recent phenomenon. We have very few storms in which to base this on, and I would be quite skeptical of anyone who suggested that this is the norm (based on a relative hanful of storms over the past few years.)

[Hyperstorm]

Hurricane Camille has always intrigued me, since its estimated landfall intensity goes against recent theories of weakening hurricanes near landfall in the northern Gulf coast. I'd like to see a radar image of Camille near landfall to analyze. Does anyone know where I can find one?

[Category 5]

Sadly, since the USAF recon aircraft was unable to remain inside the hurricane until time of landfall (due to mechanical problems/ lost one of the four engines), we'll never know for certain the true intensity at impact......but radar and surface data evidence, post storm structural engineering surveys, and the words of hurricane forecasters who forecast/ observed Camille's movement (and radar/ satellite presentations), it's a good bet IMO the hurricane was of category 5 intensity at time of landfall.

And I believe there were other planes busy playing games with a fish storm (Stormfury)