TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => News, Views, Books, Archival Data & Interviews on AE => Topic started by: Brad Beeching on June 03, 2012, 12:39:13 PM
-
I've had it in my mind that if Earhart & Noonan landed on the reef at Niku, it was somewhat less than a smooth landing and in fact may have been more along the lines of the Luke Field ground loop. Enough damage to cause injury, not enough to preclude running an engine.
Was anything presented during the symposium that discussed the condition of the plane on landing, and if so, could you please elaborate?
Brad
-
The question of how flat was the reef edge was the subject of a question yesterday. Ric and others present who have been to Niku said its very flat and smooth. Some compared it to an asphalt strip while others said concrete. The we're able to show a picture of how flat it was. Additional question was how much water was on the reef at the time of landing. Tide charts show it was only inches. Perhaps 6".
They also said its very slippery. With the big rough field tires the Electra had it is likely it was a reasonable landing. Perhaps not baby skin smooth but not with any likely damage. Remember this vintage of aircraft has lap belts only. Also remember that we don't know for sure as we have no witnesses or record.
-
Thanks, but there were two witnesses to the landing... but it is unfortunate that they couldnt be found in time to be interviewed! ;D
I was wondering though, is there any information regarding what the Electra might have weighed on landing, and what impact that might have on how the aircraft might have behaved on landing in some 6" of water on a slick surface? I think it was Ric who said it was somewhat akin to walking on ice didn't he? So I guess the question in my mind is, although the surface is very smooth, how probable is it that she slid off the smooth part of the reef and hung a wheel in a crevasse? Such a scenario could account for the reported injuries and other comments reported as well as a possible explanation for "Nessie" could it not?
Irv, you reminded me that the aircraft had big, high floatation tires. Not being a pilot, how would a rough field landing be in a large twin engined aircraft that is very light with big, wide tires on a very slick surface covered with 6" of ocean water?
Brad
-
Technicality Brad. LOL. Yes two witnesses were present but they had no one to tell. (If a witness falls in the forest and no one is present do they make a sound?)
Good question for some of the pilot types out there. Gary?
-
Or the question that begs an answer might be "If two witnesses fall on a beach, and only a retired lawyer and an archeologist saw it, would they be believed?" ;D
Brad
-
Or the question that begs an answer might be "If two witnesses fall on a beach, and only a retired lawyer and an archeologist saw it, would they be believed?" ;D
Brad
Aaah yes but only an archaeologist would have the appropriate background to assess the archaeological aspects of the falling witness and any traces such a fall may have left.
-
And only a lawyer qualified to argue the legal aspects of the fall, any injuries incured as a result of the placement of sand vs witness and damage to said sand as a result of any possible impact with witness both real and imagined! ;D
Brad
-
I'll leave it to GL and other, more experienced pilots to comment, but when I've landed a Cessna 152 on a rough "grass" strip, it had no difficulty dealing with a "rough" surface that appeared to me to be comparable to the good-parts of the coral surface shown at Niku. My Cessna only has small tires compared to AE's Lockheed, which looked to me to be able to handle a rough ploughed field without difficulty. If AE landed at Niku as proposed, the big tires would probably have delt with the best parts of the reef surface easily.
Consider this - Alaska bush planes commonly land on very rough surfaces using tires about the size AE had on her Lockheed. They land at speeds about the same as the Lockheed (<60 knots), and I would guess with approximately the same loading (I'm guessing here - Gary please fill in details). The idea that a Lockheed might be able to land on the best parts off the reef seems entirely within reason to me. The unknown part of the question is whether AE would have been able to do so, even assuming she made it to Niku. The best part of the reef might or might not have been obvious from a quick fly-over examination. I'm not aware of AE having any experience dealing with water landings, or the optical illusions they can present. That's pretty specialized training. Fred might have had some experience.
-
That is the question I am driving at. I would expect AE was fairly well versed in grass and other soft field landings, and Im sure the aircraft could handle the reef surface as it was rigged. Im curious about what happens when you land a lightly loaded 14,000 lb (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) balloon tired aircraft onto a very slick surface that is covered with a layer of ocean water? I would also question whether or not the 6in of water was moving from wave action or would would it have been static? I know what happens to my car when I hit a sheet of water at 70 mph (112.65 kph) in a West Texas frog strangler... the rudder and throttle controls cease to function! ;D
Brad
-
Brad---as we found out, there may have been little water on the reef landing area at the time. So handleing the water problem I personally think wasnt an issue. Other factors may have been-
-
My take-away is that the Electra should not have had a major problem landing on the area that's been suggested.
The big Good Year 'Air Wheels' are true flotation types - low PSI, big footprint - they absorb a lot of imperfections on a surface and shock very well. One huge reason for their existence on planes like NR16020 was precisely the problem at-hand - dealing with 'unimproved conditions' - runways with irregular surfaces.
Water and hydroplaning does raise issues, no doubt.
Here is a video of a water landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl8QjuPacro).
And another (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0fByofsZvo&feature=related).
I don't think that I have ever landed with six inches of water but I know that I have landed with at least three inches of water and slush.
gl
-
way cool Gary----Thanks for posting that! I'm with Jeff----these would be great down here!
-
Nice link. Thanks Gary. Are those tires similar to the Electras? And scale of aircraft the same as the Electra to size of tire?
-
Irv---I think the electra tires were something like 36" in diameter, so with the length of the plane, it didnt look out of place. I'm thinking about the size tire on a C47 (DC3). Made for rough, unimproved field landings, just about perfect for a reef landing.
Tom
-
Nice link. Thanks Gary. Are those tires similar to the Electra's? And scale of aircraft the same as the Electra to size of tire?
I have some photos of Electra tires in my Auckland album (https://plus.google.com/photos/113745695815582491141/albums/5444105547725857137?banner=pwa).
Jeff Glickman said that the Electra had 36" diameter tires.
I don't know how that compares to the tundra tires used in Gary's videos.
-
Thanks Tom and Marty. As the Electra was much larger than the aircraft in Gary's video I am trying to understand the relative scales of the two aircraft. In the video the smaller aircraft certainly doesn't appear to be out of control, hydro planing, or otherwise. Can we reasonably assume the Electra would have had a similar controlled landing like the one in the video?
-
The pilots in Garys videos were good and very skilled in the technique needed for that type of landing, they made it look very easy. Notice how they kissed the water surface with the wheels to get them up to speed and the use of the elevators to keep the tailplane down. Takes a lot of skill to do that, more so if you own the plane $+++++++
-
As the Electra was much larger than the aircraft in Gary's video I am trying to understand the relative scales of the two aircraft.
We have an estimate of a gross weight of 15,000 pounds (http://tighar.org/wiki/Electra#Weight_and_Fuel_Capacity) for the Electra with a full load of fuel.
Let's subtract 6,000 pounds for an approximation of an 80% burn of the fuel.
So the gross weight in the vicinity of Niku might be 9,000 pounds. Add or subtract weight as you desire. It's a ballpark figure.
The little aircraft in the videos are probably under 1100 pounds empty and under 2000 pounds fully loaded.
I would say that their tundra tires look oversize compared to the airframe. To my eye and taste, the balloon tires on the Electra seem to be proportionate to the airframe. It's a big plane, and they are big tires.
So, as a totally amateur guess, I doubt very much that you could get the Electra to hydroplane like the small high-wing aircraft do in the video.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that military pilots attempted something like this with Bamboo bombers or even C-47s. I don't have any such anecdotes at hand. It's the kind of thing that some military pilots do. Sometimes they succeed; sometimes they become an example of what not to do.
Were there films of hydroplaning in or before 1937 that might tempt AE to try such a landing? I don't know.
Were there stories of pilots making landings like this in or before 1937? I don't know.
-
Thanks Marty. Although you claim amateur status your experience and knowledge have provided an excellent answer. ;D
-
Thanks for the answers and videos! Interesting to say the least...
Please forgive my obstinate thinking here, I'm having fun trying to make sense off all this. ;D
So, IF our heroes landed on Niku, the possibility that a smooth landing could have been made is highly probable, correct? And a controlled rollout is possible on a water covered surface, correct?
So if it was such a smooth landing, how do we explain what Betty (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) wrote in her notebook? There are several references to injuries, rising water, and that the plane was "slipping". Other people (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID30800LE) who reported hearing Amelia also made references to "half on land, half in water. How do we explain all that? If the radio broadcasts are real (I personally think they are) How do we account for the credible broadcasts? I just have a hard time with a nice smooth landing and our hero's walking around on sunny Niku with a bump on the head and a cute little limp. Ric himself says in "Finding Amelia" that the transcript reads like a 9-1-1 call. Having said all that, I'm inclined to think she ran a wheel over the edge, either in a crack or just over the edge period. Such a predicament could account for the possible injuries and might also allow an engine to be run. It could also account for the "slipping" comment as well give a possible explanation for no airplane when Lambrecht (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html) flew over. When the subject came up at the symposium, did anyone speak of the condition of the aircraft during it's possible time on the reef?
Brad
-
Questions About The Landing
I assume these issues have been discussed before, but I have not found answers in my (admittedly incomplete) look through the archives. If answers exist, would someone please point me to them? Sincere thanks!
Jon Romig, first post
1. We have visual evidence that at some point the landing gear may have gotten caught in a fissure in the reef. I understand that the reef would have been covered by +/- 6" of water at the time of landing, which could have concealed a fissure or fissures. Is it reasonable, given a controlled landing, to think that the landing gear could have gotten caught during the rollout, "by accident" so to speak? Or are the fissures located (at least since 1990) so as to require a poor landing in the wrong place on the reef (due to fatigue, unplanned approach, reef slipperiness, hydroplaning, ground loop, etc.) to hit one?
2. Does the surf normally go all the way up the reef at high tide, and under normal conditions would it have been sufficient to shift the Electra at high tide on the fourth or fifth day? The tide heights that I have seen (associated with the radio schedule) do not seem all that high for a plane as large as the Electra, but surf could add many feet I assume.
3. Would it have been possible to maneuver the Electra up onto the beach, or is there a lagoon between the reef and the beach? If AE would not have been able to drive the Electra to a high spot near/on the beach, that would explain much, without requiring a stuck landing gear.
4. Do we have the tide tables for the days in question?
5. Do we have film of someone walking the length of the most likely landing path? I know that it would help my understanding a lot to see that. Maybe Discovery could do it for me? ;-)
6. Did the Electra have wheel brakes or did it depend solely on flaps, propeller pitch, etc. to slow down?
7. Assuming that the Electra was still usable after July 2, and that AE and FN were fit enough to scout around, is there anywhere else on the island that AE could have flown to that would be more protected from surf and tide than the reef? Even a controlled ditch in the lagoon might have been preferable, in retrospect.
-
Hi Jon, good to have you join us! I'll try to help answer some of these qustions, but my esteemed collegues can do a better job than me.
WE theorise that the landing took place at or near low tide, so there wasnt much water on ther reef at the time, maybe a couple of inches, but certainly less than 6. What happen this is a matter of debate, but it may have been possible that the Electra was NOT damaged during the initial landing and roll out. It is also possible that the left gear went into the fissure and doomed our heros. This was debated in DC.
At high tide the reef is cover with several feet of water. Obviously more near the edge. We do have tide tables figured out for the time frame in question.
No where else on Niku that I have seen--others may differ--have shown a suitable area for the electra to land, although at first glance it looks like there might have been. Our members that have been to Niku on previous expeditions report non-favorable conditions, except for the reef north of the Norwich City.
There is still some conjecture about this, and debate among my friends here, but eventually TIGHAR will piece this whole story together. Feel free to jump in!
Tom