TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Aircraft & Powerplant, Performance and Operations => Topic started by: Bill Roe on July 07, 2012, 08:56:05 PM
-
Just curious - has any forum member flown this airplane? Heh, are there any air worthy Electras around?
What controls the airplane on the ground? - Some tail draggers by the stick as the tail wheel is free wheeling.
Here's a pic of her personpit (cockpit is such a sexist term - isn't it? ;) ) It's really filthy. A ton of dirt/dust on the console - I wonder if the filth could have affected any instruments?
(http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=808&DMSCALE=12.50000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%20electra&REC=11&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
That white wire looks like a mickey mouse job.
-
By the way - Amelia's personal car was a yellow Cord.
(http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=912&DMSCALE=12.50000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%20electra&REC=4&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
OOPS! Ground loop at Luke in Hawaii.
You know I've read some of the links given to me on the intro thread. Or the chatterbox..... Anyway, one of the more interesting discussed her abilities as a pilot. Diplomatically allowing the reader to judge that she had problems. Hell, she sucked, imho. Thus my question re ground maneuvering. If she landed on a smooth, wet reef with only stick control with power, she probably did end up in deep water?
(http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=242&DMSCALE=10.57455&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%20electra&REC=13&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
You know I've read some of the links given to me on the intro thread. ... Anyway, one of the more interesting discussed her abilities as a pilot. Diplomatically allowing the reader to judge that she had problems. Hell, she sucked, imho.
The list of her records and wrecks is in the Ameliapedia article on Earhart (http://tighar.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart).
It comes from Ric Gillespie's observation that AE tended to have trouble when she moved up in type, then became proficient later on.
The Luke Field accident (http://tighar.org/wiki/Luke_Field) fits this pattern. It happened early in her ownership of the Electra. After flying 22,000+ miles in it (http://tighar.org/wiki/Timeline), she made an absolutely masterful takeoff from Lae. I don't doubt that she was capable of making an equally masterful landing on the reef.
I don't know whether the tailwheel was actively controlled by the rudder pedals. My impression is that AE tried to control the aircraft by tweaking the throttles instead of being swift and decisive on the rudder--ground loops in tail draggers are quite common, and there really isn't a big mystery about what causes them and what avoids them.
-
My impression is that AE tried to control the aircraft by tweaking the throttles instead of being swift and decisive on the rudder........
I've been reading - trying to figger out how you got that impression. My understanding is that she was taking off on wet psp. Slippery stuff. Real slippery. My impression is that she tried to correct with the yoke. At least that would explain the eye witness account of the accident. She probably would not have ground looped had she provided some right rudder before lift off. I'll have to search and try to find her accident interview.
Maybe not - my experience with psp has been in a single engine (3400hp) tail dragger during the monsoon season at NKP, Thailand. Flying a multi-engine, lower hp may change my mind.
Nevertheless, I will respectfully disagree that she was "capable" of a decent landing on the reef. There's a whole bunch of difference between landing on a prepared field and setting down safely on an unknown surface - and I still think she should not have been flying outside her comfort zone - she was not that capable a pilot.
I hope that, once the Electra is located, a determination may be made as to a gear up or gear down landing.
And Marty - thank you for your reply. And links. And patience with this new comer.
-
My impression is that AE tried to control the aircraft by tweaking the throttles instead of being swift and decisive on the rudder........
I've been reading - trying to figger out how you got that impression.
Ric presented this quotation to the Forum in 1999: "Mantz certainly didn't shoulder any blame for the Luke Field wreck when he talked to his biographer Don Dwiggins (Hollywood Pilot, Doubleday, 1967), He blamed AE's throttle-jockeying on takeoff, a dangerous practice which he had often warned her about. As he put it "She didn't listen to Papa."
Asynchronous thrust is a great help with turns when taxiing in close quarters, when the rudders are ineffective. Once the tail comes up, the rudders gain authority--and it's time to use them.
My understanding is that she was taking off on wet psp. Slippery stuff. Real slippery.
I used to think that was the case, but the review board said that was not an issue. See references in the wiki article (http://tighar.org/wiki/Luke_Field).
My impression is that she tried to correct with the yoke. At least that would explain the eye witness account of the accident. She probably would not have ground looped had she provided some right rudder before lift off. I'll have to search and try to find her accident interview.
The review board says there was no accident interview.
Part of their finding (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldProceedings.htm) reads: "On reaching the end at the at Miss Earhart turned and after a brief delay opened both throttles. As the airplane gathered speed it swung slightly to the right. Miss Earhart corrected this tendency by throttling the left hand motor. The airplane then began to swing to the left with increasing speed, characteristic of a ground-loop. It tilted outward, right wing low and for 50 or 60 feet was supported on the right wheel only. The right-hand landing-gear suddenly collapsed under this excessive load followed by the left. The airplane spun sharply to the left sliding on its belly amid a shower of sparks from the mat and came to rest headed about 200 degrees from its initial course."
Nevertheless, I will respectfully disagree that she was "capable" of a decent landing on the reef. There's a whole bunch of difference between landing on a prepared field and setting down safely on an unknown surface - and I still think she should not have been flying outside her comfort zone - she was not that capable a pilot.
Once she left Miami, every airport she went to was "an unknown surface." Off-airport landings were not uncommon during her career (1921-1937). I think she could have made the landing without too much difficulty.
I hope that, once the Electra is located, a determination may be made as to a gear up or gear down landing.
It would take great luck to be able to determine that. You'd need a pretty intact wing.
And Marty - thank you for your reply. And links. And patience with this new comer.
You're welcome. :)
-
Good summation Marty. I also read the wiki article about the "Disaster at Luke Field" and found the interview with Gerald V. Berger very revealing. It's another one of those numerious things I had not seen before.
The Marbles No. 2 Hand Ax picture looks familiar. Is that the one I posted before?
-
"What controls the airplane on the ground? - Some tail draggers by the stick as the tail wheel is free wheeling."
I've not heard of any airplane that uses the yoke/stick for control on the ground, other than the Earcoupe (it had no rudder pedals). I've flown a few light aircraft with fully-swivelling tail wheels and they still require use of the rudder (controlled by pedals), along with differential braking (toe or heel operated), for ground control. Perhaps Gary or some other expert can clarify the point.
As I recall reading, the Lockheed used a separate hand lever for brakes, making its use during takeoff a 3-handed procedure - left hand on the yoke, right hand on the throttles/props/mixtures, 3rd hand on steering brakes, feet on rudder pedals. Once the tail is up, brakes wouldn't normally be used on takeoff, but the pilots hands are pretty busy up to that point. The controls may have been strictly designed for operation by two people. It was an airliner, after all.
-
Yupper, John -
A-1E Skyraiders, P-51s (just to name a couple) - maneuver under power with the rudder - blast of prop wash over the control surface. Oh fer Pete's sakes. Just noticed my goof - so sorry - not with the stick/yoke. These aircraft are single engine and very powerful. Heh, heh - lemme see here, what's my excuse? Would you believe that it's been awhile since I've had command of an airplane? That's a good one, let's use it.
-
Oh, and Marty -
A gear up landing could possibly be determined by the position of some of the moveable parts of the landing gear -
And - my reference to an unknown surface did not include friendly unknowns. She's out of gas, over a rather large expanse of water and lost.
Plus, and most people don't know this, but she had to pee real bad and needed to skid in someplace just to relieve herself. So there! ;) :D
-
I've been reading - trying to figger out how you got that impression. My understanding is that she was taking off on wet psp. Slippery stuff. Real slippery. My impression is that she tried to correct with the yoke. At least that would explain the eye witness account of the accident. She probably would not have ground looped had she provided some right rudder before lift off. I'll have to search and try to find her accident interview.
The photo you posted above (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,783.msg15895.html#msg15895) shows the runway at Luke to be turf, not PSP. I was at Luke Field on Ford Island last year and the runway is still turf.
gl
-
You know I've read some of the links given to me on the intro thread. ... Anyway, one of the more interesting discussed her abilities as a pilot. Diplomatically allowing the reader to judge that she had problems. Hell, she sucked, imho.
The list of her records and wrecks is in the Ameliapedia article on Earhart (http://tighar.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart).
It comes from Ric Gillespie's observation that AE tended to have trouble when she moved up in type, then became proficient later on.
The Luke Field accident (http://tighar.org/wiki/Luke_Field) fits this pattern. It happened early in her ownership of the Electra. After flying 22,000+ miles in it (http://tighar.org/wiki/Timeline), she made an absolutely masterful takeoff from Lae. I don't doubt that she was capable of making an equally masterful landing on the reef.
I don't know whether the tailwheel was actively controlled by the rudder pedals. My impression is that AE tried to control the aircraft by tweaking the throttles instead of being swift and decisive on the rudder--ground loops in tail draggers are quite common, and there really isn't a big mystery about what causes them and what avoids them.
Well Marty, I disagree with you an this one. She forgot (or otherwise failed) to follow the procedure from Lockheed and didn't extend the flaps to the proper position for takeoff which resulted in the overly long takeoff roll and could have resulted in disaster.
gl
-
"What controls the airplane on the ground? - Some tail draggers by the stick as the tail wheel is free wheeling."
I've not heard of any airplane that uses the yoke/stick for control on the ground, other than the Earcoupe (it had no rudder pedals). I've flown a few light aircraft with fully-swivelling tail wheels and they still require use of the rudder (controlled by pedals), along with differential braking (toe or heel operated), for ground control. Perhaps Gary or some other expert can clarify the point.
As I recall reading, the Lockheed used a separate hand lever for brakes, making its use during takeoff a 3-handed procedure - left hand on the yoke, right hand on the throttles/props/mixtures, 3rd hand on steering brakes, feet on rudder pedals. Once the tail is up, brakes wouldn't normally be used on takeoff, but the pilots hands are pretty busy up to that point. The controls may have been strictly designed for operation by two people. It was an airliner, after all.
I don't know if we discussed this before, if we did, I don't remember the answer. Most powerful taildraggers (P-51s, DC-3s, etc., I suspect William's Spad had one) have locking tailwheels, and that you lock in the straight ahead position for takeoff. You line up on the runway, taxi forward a bit to make sure the tailwheel is centered and then lock it in this position usually by holding the stick all the way back. Then by holding the stick back at the beginning of the takeoff roll you firmly plant the locked tailwheel on the ground and it keeps the plane going straight. Then when you have enough airspeed so that the airflow over the rudder is enough to assure directional control, you push the stick forward to raise the tail off the ground and then steer with the rudders. Did the L10E have a locking tailwheel?
gl
(BTW, I saw a show on the Military Channel several months ago and I was surprised to find out that Spads had shot down Migs over Viet Nam.)
-
The photo you posted above shows the runway at Luke to be turf, not PSP. I was at Luke Field on Ford Island last year and the runway is still turf.
Here's an interesting first few sentences from an article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on April 23 of this year.
The Navy wants to cover Ford Island's historic runway with photovoltaic panels — an addition the service said would "define and interpret" the original runway while providing environment-friendly power.
But the neighboring Pacific Aviation Museum calls the proposal an "atrocity" in light of the airfield's rich history.
-
Good sumation Marty. I also read the wiki article about the "Disaster at Luke Field" and found the interview with Gerald V. Berger very revealing. It's another one of those numerious things I had not seen before.
The site is "Buried Alive" with information! ???
The Marbles No. 2 Hand Ax picture looks familiar. Is that the one I posted before?
Of course it is. I'm a horder. I take pretty things back to the wiki. ::)
-
I've been reading - trying to figger out how you got that impression. My understanding is that she was taking off on wet psp. Slippery stuff. Real slippery. My impression is that she tried to correct with the yoke. At least that would explain the eye witness account of the accident. She probably would not have ground looped had she provided some right rudder before lift off. I'll have to search and try to find her accident interview.
The photo you posted above (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,783.msg15895.html#msg15895) shows the runway at Luke to be turf, not PSP. I was at Luke Field on Ford Island last year and the runway is still turf.
gl
Gary, I disagree with you. If you look closely at the area in front of the electra, see picture, that you referenced, below, there are many scars in the surface of the "Mat" where the aircraft came to rest. The accident report says "The airplane spun sharply to the left sliding on its belly and* amid a shower of sparks from the mat came to rest....". An aircraft sliding on turf does not normally produce sparks and usually rolls up a portion of the turf. There is no rolled up turf in the crash pictures.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldReport.htm
Further, the TIGHAR interview with Gerald V. Berger, a reported eye witness to the crash and the driver of the "crash truck" says "Newman" (Noonan) "was pretty uptight about his charts and insisted on getting them out of the airplane. We were all worried because there was gas all over the ground and puddling up where the hot bottom cylinders had dug gouges in the macadam.....".
http://tighar.org/wiki/Disaster_at_Luke_Field
I have seen some comments about the surface of Luke Field being linked steel plates (PSP) but from looking at the items here that also appears to be incorrect. It seems, from the information here, more likely that the surface may have been macadam (asphalt). This is not mentioned in the crash report, only that "approximately 50 square feet of the Luke Field landing mat was damaged necessitating replacement".
-
Good sumation Marty. I also read the wiki article about the "Disaster at Luke Field" and found the interview with Gerald V. Berger very revealing. It's another one of those numerious things I had not seen before.
The site is "Buried Alive" with information! ???
The Marbles No. 2 Hand Ax picture looks familiar. Is that the one I posted before?
Of course it is. I'm a horder. I take pretty things back to the wiki. ::)
Great! I'm a hoarder too. Just glad I was able to help a bit for once.
-
The photo you posted above (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,783.msg15895.html#msg15895) shows the runway at Luke to be turf, not PSP. I was at Luke Field on Ford Island last year and the runway is still turf.
The Board of Officers (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldProceedings.htm) seems to have been convinced that there was a mat on the field:
A special guard of enlisted men had previously been stationed at 200 feet intervals between the hangar line and the runway for the dual purpose of keeping the mat clear and to check the point at which the airplane left the ground. As Miss Earhart taxied down the mat a Navy "Grumman" airplane taxied out from the Navy side and in spite of efforts by a Naval Officer to wave him down, followed her to the end of the runway and parked off the mat out of her way. Flying conditions at this time were good; ceiling about 3000 feet; wind southerly, not exceeding 2 MPH; visibility at the surface about 3,500 feet rapidly increasing with advancing daylight. THE CRASH:
On reaching the end at the at Miss Earhart turned and after a brief delay opened both throttles. As the airplane gathered speed it swung slightly to the right. Miss Earhart corrected this tendency by throttling the left hand motor. The airplane then began to swing to the left with increasing speed, characteristic of a ground-loop. It tilted outward, right wing low and for 50 or 60 feet was supported on the right wheel only. The right-hand landing-gear suddenly collapsed under this excessive load followed by the left. The airplane spun sharply to the left sliding on its belly amid a shower of sparks from the mat and came to rest headed about 200 degrees from its initial course. The fire truck had followed along the side of the mat during the take-off and reached the scene within a few seconds as did the observers nearest the crash.
... All unauthorized persons were cleared from the mat and the work of salvage initiated by the Depot Engineering Officer without delay.
... Depot personnel then commenced to disassemble the airplane, preparatory to removing it from the mat.
... at this time it was announced by Mr. Mantz, technical advisor for Miss Earhart, that she would take-off from Luke Field as the mat afforded better conditions than Wheeler Field ...
... that after a run of approximately 1,200 feet the airplane crashed on the landing mat due to the collapse of the landing gear as the result of an uncontrolled ground loop ...
... approximately 50 square feet of the Luke Field landing mat was damaged necessitating replacement ...
Now, I know that people lie or make mistakes, alone and in groups; but the simplest explanation, to my taste, for the recurrence of the word "mat" in the report is that there was a "mat" of some sort on the field.
The word "mat" appears in a few of the witness reports as well.
I concede that none of this proves that there was a mat on the field. It only proves that a large number of people said there was a mat on the field.
-
... she made an absolutely masterful takeoff from Lae ...
Well Marty, I disagree with you an this one. She forgot (or otherwise failed) to follow the procedure from Lockheed and didn't extend the flaps to the proper position for takeoff which resulted in the overly long takeoff roll and could have resulted in disaster.
She may have decided to do that on purpose (she may have been mistaken in her purpose, but we don't know that it was carelessness). She controlled the plane well and didn't panic when it sank into ground effect over the water. Any takeoff you can fly away from is a good one. ::)
-
I may be wrong but PSP was not invented until later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsden_Matting
-
I may be wrong but PSP was not invented until later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsden_Matting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsden_Matting)
None of the Naval testimony used the term "PSP" or Marsden Matting.
It appears that other materials could be called "landing mats." "Work was completed on four double hangars, a paved 800 x 3,000-foot landing mat, dock, boathouse and mole, sewer system, fresh water system, radio building, operations building with a fenced magazine area, railroad and parallel highway by July 21, 1937. Navy censors blocked out Pearl Harbor. (http://hawaii.gov/hawaiiaviation/hawaii-airfields-airports/oahu-pre-world-war-ii/hickam-field-air-force-base/hickam-field-photos/1937-7-21%20Hickam.jpg/ha_image_view_fullscreen)"
Ah. This may be the explanation: "At Luke Field, Hawaii, workmen spread a six-inch layer of crushed rock, rolled it, oiled it, and covered it with fine stone. Reports from Hawaii within a few months told of weeds poking through the 'new and widely-advertised landing mat.' At Moffet Field, California, putting together a mat entailed hauling in rock, stabilizing it with emulsified asphalt, and finishing it with a coat of asphalt and sand. An asphalt runway built in 1938 permitted flying at Nichols Field, Philiippine Islands, regardless of the condition of the rest of the field" (Aviation in the U.S. Army, 1919-1939 (http://books.google.com/books?id=E1gGW_TqLawC&pg=PA370&lpg=PA370&dq=%22luke+field%22+%22landing+mat%22+1937&source=bl&ots=ytzasl1eP7&sig=rIaz6AwsXrAI7FXddmAz39f9MI0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gy76T7uSKqWf6wGZ_6nOBg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22luke%20field%22%20%22landing%20mat%22%201937&f=false)).
So there was a "mat" (as defined in the 1930s usage), but there was not a PSP or Marsden Mat.
-
Marty, see my #16 reply above.
-
Marty, see my #16 reply above.
I'm pretty sure you meant reply #15 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,783.msg15960.html#msg15960), which is about gouges in the macadam, rather than reply #16 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,783.msg15962.html#msg15962), which is about being a hoarder. :)
I think we've added a new factoid to the discussion. Whatever the "mat" was, it was not PSP or Marsden Matting.
-
And just to add to the mystery of just what the Luke Field runway surface was, Private Schultz (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldExhibitK.htm) in his statement used the word "concrete"! ???
-
Marty, correct as usual. You got me again.
I agree with your conclusion about not being PSP. That has both a very distinctive surface as well as distinctive joints. I am not familiar with Marsden Matting unless that is what we called SSP or solid steel planking, in which case it also has very distinctive joints.
-
Marty, correct as usual. You got me again.
I agree with your conclusion about not being PSP. That has both a very distinctive surface as well as distinctive joints. I am not familiar with Marsden Matting unless that is what we called SSP or solid steel planking, in which case it also has very distinctive joints.
Bruce, you just had to add to the intrigue, didn't you.
-
Perhaps the "mat" was solid coral? I've heard it makes one of the best landing surfaces known in the late 1930's ;)
(sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity.)
-
I don't think so but "poo" on you anyway. :D
-
CORALtm -- Concretion Of Rusted Aluminum Lattice
-
She may have decided to do that on purpose (she may have been mistaken in her purpose, but we don't know that it was carelessness). She controlled the plane well and didn't panic when it sank into ground effect over the water. Any takeoff you can fly away from is a good one. ::)
Whatever her purpose - she was careless. If not careless then inept.
Ya gotta point me to the link concerning her lack of panic experiencing ground effect. Here again, I'm at a loss. Ground effect is fun. It's good. Drag is dramatically decreased and lift - hell, you can go forever. True - you're somewhat lower than treetop.....well, a whole lot lower than treetop.........you know, you can pull up to avoid the waves? ;)
Sorry 'bout the psp reference. That came from experience and reading the report - making an assumption.
For Gary LaPook - yupper: A-1's - 3; Mig 17's - 0 before I rotated back. Then the North Viet Nam pilots got smart ...........
No fixed tail wheel - lotsa air from the prop wash past the rudder. The engine was so powerful, it was possible due to torque, to flip her on the runway. Hard right rudder, some stick. You're right in that we kept the tail on the ground for a good roll. 14,000 lb aircraft carrying 10,000 lbs ordnance, avfuel and me.
Well, lemme get back to some reading.
{and, by the way - for those combat pilots on the board, i just finished "Migs Over North Vietnam" by Roger Boniface. Written with the perspective of the enemy pilot against American pilots. Boniface went to Viet Nam and interviewed those guys then wrote, on their behalf a somewhat accurate (somewhat bullshit) account of their side. He does not include those 17's downed by our "Spads'.} Good read.
-
CORALtm -- Concretion Of Rusted Aluminum Lattice
Is that an Australian definition?
I won't blame you a bit if you come back with some type of put-down of us southerners.
-
Other than that it is quite straight forward and a joy to fly other than the roar of the engines in your ears.
Thanks for the info about the tail wheel and rudder management during takeoff.
Did you fly in the days before noise-canceling headsets?
Do you think your hearing would be affected by spending 20+ hours in the cockpit?
Did you ever experience any short-term degradation in your hearing after a long flight in the Beech?
-
Ya gotta point me to the link concerning her lack of panic experiencing ground effect.
From James A. Collopy's letter (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Collopy_Letter.html):
"The take-off was hair-raising as after taking every yard of the 1000 yard runway from the north west end of the aerodrome towards the sea, the aircraft had not left the ground 50 yards from the end of the runway.
"When it did leave it sank away but was by this time over the sea. It continued to sink to about five or six feet above the water and had not climbed to more than 100 feet before it disappeared from sight.
"In spite of this however, it was obvious that the aircraft was well handled and pilots of Guinea Airways who have flown Lockheed aircraft were loud in their praise of the take-off with such an overload."
-
Other than that it is quite straight forward and a joy to fly other than the roar of the engines in your ears.
Thanks for the info about the tail wheel and rudder management during takeoff.
Did you fly in the days before noise-canceling headsets?
Do you think your hearing would be affected by spending 20+ hours in the cockpit?
Did you ever experience any short-term degradation in your hearing after a long flight in the Beech?
Marty, I flew Army U-8Ds, civilian designation Beechcraft Twin Bonanza, for several hundred hours. These had a tricycle landing gear so takeoff was not a big problem nor was visibility over the nose.
Noise, however, was a problem and we did not have noise-canceling headsets. Our longest flights were about 3 hours but we had a lot of short-term hearing degradation. Sometimes it would carry over to the next day but it was usually greatly reduced by then. I can't imagine what it would be like to fly one for 20 hours. Probably wouldn't be able to hear much at all for several days.
I have a lot of permanent hearing loss from my military flying. But it was mostly because of the helicopters. They are really noisy.
-
Did you ever fly the army version?
-
Did you ever fly the army version?
No I haven't Woody and now that I think about it, I suppose the Army version was more stripped down with less insulation. So, I guess they would be much louder than the Civilian version I flew. In any event I guess the question is did the noise in the Electra inhibit communications to AE and FN?
Now you have it right about the Army version. Those twin augmenter tubes on each engine would really rattle your brain. If I remember correcty, they were only 340 hp but the higher operating RPM, about 2400/2600, I think, helped to increase the noise level over the Wasp Jr. too.
I think you are right about the real question and I have no doubt that the answer is YES, YES, YES.
By the way, I was not trying to compare the Twin Bonanza to the Twin Beech. I've never been inside of a Twin Beech and have never even seen an Electra.
-
Woody,
The U8D's had a service ceiling of 30,000 ft. so they must have been pressurized or did you have to be on oxygen?
No, they were not pressurized and we did not have oxygen. We rarely flew above 10,000 ft. We didn't worry about a 900 mile range either. We had so much heavy radio gear in them, if we filled the fuel tanks, we could carry two 170 lb crew members and 40 lbs of baggage. I never will forget those numbers.
-
I always thought the 18 to be one beautiful airplane and "lusted" for one. But it wasn't to be and then the spar problems came along.
Most airplanes get a little touchy in a 20 knot xwind, but especially the tail draggers.
But we drift again I fear.
-
No Marty, never had any short term hearing problems. Had noise cancelling headsets but the drone still came through. I can only speculate that after 20 hours of that drone there would be some hearing impairment especially if you are speaking of the headsets used in 1937.
I speculate that, too, having been in some small aircraft with and without Bose ANR headsets.
Hearing loss is cumulative. The longer the exposure to a loud sound, the more it affects the hearing.
-
Woody, they only built 149 Electras ..........
Here's a link to one being restored during 2000. Gives some specs on AE's airplane.
http://ind.gmnews.com/news/2000-11-08/Front_Page/19.html
Oh fer Pete's sakes - this is Grace McGuire - planning to recreate AE's fateful trip. Did she ever do it?
-
Marty, might I add that the Lockheed 10E Amelia flew had two Pratt & Whitney 600 HP engines as opposed to the Beech 18 with two 450 HP engines.
Our sources (http://tighar.org/wiki/Electra#Powerplants) indicated that the engine was rated at 550 HP in 1937. I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy in accounts about the rating.
I am sure those 9 cylinder smoke belching beasts in the Lockheed were considerably louder than the 450's in the 18. Surely could after hours of listening to them have had something to do with communications if I am getting what your questions infer.
Yes, that's the point (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate#Apparent_ignorance_of_the_limitations_of_her_equipment).
-
Emelia would have had to be as good as an Alaska bush pilot to land a tail dragger on a jagged water covered reef. I somehow doubt that she was that good.
Bingo - {this should be over in the "Electra Handling?" thread.......}
or even a smooth reef. Based on what I've read and what little I know of her, I doubt that she would consider a gear up landing.
It's difficult for me to set aside combat experience/training and put myself in her seat. But I'll say it again - she was out of her element and should not have been on this sortie. In addition to her lack of capability she appears to have been naive. Naive - stupid innocence.
Sorry for getting off track on this thread - can this be moved to Electra Handling?
-
A picture of the reef suspected to be landing spot.
-
I can post the link to my research but I am unable to figure out how to insert a link on this forum being so new to me. If you could help me with that I would appreciate it. Also, where the heck is the spell checker here? I hate making typos.
I suggest you (and everyone else who hasn't done so!) spend some time looking at the Forum FAQ (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/board,1.0.html) with lots of very succinct tips and techniques for inserting links, etc.
As for spellcheck, well, read this thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,282.msg2465.html#msg2465)... you're in luck if you're using Firefox. :D
-
A picture of the reef suspected to be landing spot.
Gregory, here is an overhead picture of the theorized landing area. The view is in nearly the same direction, toward the Norwich City, as your photo.
-
A picture of the reef suspected to be landing spot.
It looks very inviting Gregory, until the tide comes in. Take a look to the left, not much room to park a plane to avoid the water.
-
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/TidalStudy.htm
Link to a study of the tides and radio transmissions.
-
I believe the R-1430 is a transposition of R-1340-S1H1 which is the 600 HP Radial. I am more inclined to believe what I read as to which engine was in AE's Electra 10-E powered by Pratt & Whitney "R-1340" Wasp S3H1, 600 hp (450 kw) each; 15 produced. "The version used by Amelia Earhart."
OK, I've corrected the typo in view of the information given in the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-1340_Wasp).
I say this because there is a plethora of erroneous information on Wiki.
I'd be happy to correct errors, if you can show that they are, in fact, errors.
I can post the link to my research but I am unable to figure out how to insert a link on this forum being so new to me. If you could help me with that I would appreciate it.
How to insert links into posts (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html).
Meanwhile, here is the evidence that the engine only produced 550 HP in 1937 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights61_80/highlights69.html). Source: "Data for Dec '35 and May '41 are from P&W power curves for the S3H1/R-1340-AN-1 engines. The remaining three dates represent information taken from P&W data sheets for the S3H1 engine. With the advent of higher octane fuel, Pratt & Whitney was able to increase rated power from 550 to 600 horsepower (with one temporary excursion to 610 horsepower)."
-
I never got an answer for my question, did the L10E have a locking tailwheel?
gl
-
I say this because there is a plethora of erroneous information on Wiki.
Bob, I figure your use of the intensive word "plethora" was the trigger for Marty's response to you. He created the Ameliapedia wiki and fed into it much of the text, and if you've discovered a "plethora" of erroneous information, he as the editor (and I, playing his assistant -- think Marty Feldman in "Young Frankenstein" ;) ) would be very interested to learn what information needs to be examined for adjustment. As Marty noted, he has already corrected the typo concerning the transposition of the digits for the model number for the Wasp engines that you commented on.
-
I never got an answer for my question, did the L10E have a locking tail wheel?
Gary, according to this comment, it did not have a locking tail wheel.
Scroll down to Mon 3 Oct. 2005 17:05:44
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Forum_Archives/200510.txt (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Forum_Archives/200510.txt)
What that citation shows is that Herman de Wulf was speculating that the Electra might not have had a locking tail whee.
The next day, some dude by the name of "LaPook" asks whether anyone knows whether, in fact, the L10E had a locking tail wheel. ::)
-
After re-reading de Wulf's comment, I can see that he wasn't sure since he said "it could be". Guess now I will task myself to find the answer for sure. BTW, I have the latest version of Firefox and spell check ain't a workin' here.
Good luck with the tail wheel question. I searched for one minute, and decided that I wasn't going to find it. :(
Check to make sure that you have asked Firefox to check spelling (http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-use-firefox-spell-checker). I have Firefox 14.0 beta. It works.
-
BTW, I have the latest version of Firefox and spell check ain't a workin' here.
Bob, while editting a new post, right click on it and look at the context menu. You may need to click on "Check Spelling", and then the red squiggles will show up. Ah, I just did, and the third word of what I've typed is showing up as needing some attention. (Darn, I just think that it ought to have two t's.)
-
Our sources (http://tighar.org/wiki/Electra#Powerplants) indicated that the engine was rated at 550 HP in 1937. I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy in accounts about the rating.
Marty,
I believe the R-1430 is a transposition of R-1340-S1H1 which is the 600 HP Radial. I am more inclined to believe what I read as to which engine was in AE's Electra 10-E powered by Pratt & Whitney "R-1340" Wasp S3H1, 600 hp (450 kw) each; 15 produced. "The version used by Amelia Earhart." I say this because there is a plethora of erroneous information on Wiki. I can post the link to my research but I am unable to figure out how to insert a link on this forum being so new to me. If you could help me with that I would appreciate it. Also, where the heck is the spell checker here? I hate making typos.
Bob, TIGHAR has posted several other documents and/or references to documents that state that the P&W R-1340 S3H1 engines mounted on NR-16020, Serial No.(c/n) 1055, AE's ship, were 550 hp. The first of these is the Aircraft Inspection Report dated 5-19-37. This was the Bureau of Air Commerce report issued after the repairs necessitated by the Ford Island accident were completed. I have attached a copy of this report below and linked it here.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Reports/AircraftInspection.pdf
In the past, there has been considerable discussion of the aircraft in the thread Aircraft & Powerplant, Airworthiness Certificate(s); fuel capacity.
The first reference, link, was provided by Gary LaPook in Reply # 1 of this post on: November 24 2011.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/45417206/#45417206 (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/45417206/#45417206)
Here is a link, again from Gary LaPook in the same thread, to the documents mentioned in the above video. Each of the pictures here can be to stopped for a closer look. Page numbers 18 & 19 show the Application for an Aircraft License for the aircraft. Page # 20 is a copy of the Aircraft License issued, dated Aug 15, 1937. Note that these documents all list the engines having 550 hp.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/New-Amelia-Earhart-Photos-134331928.html (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/New-Amelia-Earhart-Photos-134331928.html)
In Reply # 12 of this thread, Ric Gillespie said "There is no mystery about the documents. We have copies of the same paperwork. We're still working along on getting the full file of BAC documents and correspondence relating to c/n 1055 rendered legible so that we can put it up on the TIGHAR website." Since this was dated November 25, 2011, I assume that Ric has been too busy with other things (symposium and new expedition) to complete this work or I have not been able to locate it.
Another comment about the horse power. The military uses the term METO power (maximum except take-off) to identify the absolute power setting to never exceed except for a very short time for emergency operations. I don't think this a term commomly used in civil aviation and I have never seen a civil aviation engine rated that way.
-
Good luck with the tail wheel question. I searched for one minute, and decided that I wasn't going to find it. :(
That guy named "LaPook" (again!), in a reply (#10) to a post about Octane Analysis last November (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,528.msg6842.html#msg6842), provided a PDF document attachment (TC590.pdf) which contains cryptic comments about "control wheel lock" and "Tail wheel centering lock control" -- under "Class II", items 33 and 34. Does this imply an add-on that "could" have been on NR16020, or does it mean standard equipment?
-
Bob, I agree that the 50 hp does not make much of a difference but it comes up frequently so I thought it might need to be addressed. In any case, the topic I brought up is very interesting reading, and the two videos may cause your eye brows to raise. You have to read almost everything to understand the videos completely.
Now you have scared me off with your title. :o
-
I agree Bruce. That "guy named LaPook" comes up everywhere.
-
Bob, the PDF is actually attached to Gary LaPook's Reply # 11.
-
Bruce, for some reason, I don't see a pdf attachment in reply #10. I would like to read it.
I don't know what you and Woody are looking at. As you can see (below), when I click on that link it clearly says reply #10.
-
Bruce, I don't know what is going on. When I click on the link in your original post, I see the same message you show here but the number is "Reply # 11". I have checked it several times and it's the same.
-
Bruce, I don't know what is going on. When I klick on the link in your original post, I see the same message you show here but the number is "Reply # 11". I have checked it several times and it's the same.
Channeling a sentiment expressed 2-3 days ago on the forum, pictures don't lie. :)
I guess it's one of those mysteries of life why I'm seeing it as reply #10 (repeatedly!) and you're both seeing it as reply #11. (If you then scroll up to the top, is Gary's post that started the thread numbered, too? Mine isn't, but that's no surprise, since it's not a reply.)
Mysterious. Sort of like, "How could Betty possibly hear that on a fourth harmonic?" or "How could AE & FN get to Niku when they splashed and sank because they clearly didn't have more than a half-hour's worth of fuel left?" and "Where are the bones that Gallagher found?" :D
-
Bruce, I don't know what is going on. When I klick on the link in your original post, I see the same message you show here but the number is "Reply # 11". I have checked it several times and it's the same.
Channeling a sentiment expressed 2-3 days ago on the forum, pictures don't lie. :)
I guess it's one of those mysteries of life why I'm seeing it as reply #10 (repeatedly!) and you're both seeing it as reply #11. (If you then scroll up to the top, is Gary's post that started the thread numbered, too? Mine isn't, but that's no surprise, since it's not a reply.)
Mysterious. Sort of like, "How could Betty possibly hear that on a fourth harmonic?" or "How could AE & FN get to Niku when they splashed and sank because they clearly didn't have more than a half-hour's worth of fuel left?" and "Where are the bones that Gallagher found?" :D
Bruce, for what it's worth, all of the original posts on my computer appear to be labeled # 1.
-
Jeff, the TCDS also gives the METO power as 450 HP. Don't ask me to explain it. ???
-
The next day, some dude by the name of "LaPook" asks whether anyone knows whether, in fact, the L10E had a locking tail wheel. ::)
Hey, that LaPook guy seems pretty sharp, he wrote:
"Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:56:44
From: Gary LaPook
Subject: Re: Asymmetrical thrust
Let's think this thing through.
Why would one use asymmetric power on takeoff?
Some basic flying discussion is in order. Tail dragger aircraft have the center of gravity located aft of the main wheels so there must be a tail wheel to support the tail of the aircraft. That arrangement was known as "conventional gear" in the past. Now it is much more common to have the main wheels located further aft so the COG is forward of the main wheels and a nose wheel is then needed to keep the airplane in a level attitude Ground loops result from having the COG behind the main wheels. If something causes the plane to start to swerve then the momentum of the COG rotating around the resistance from the wheels will cause the swerve to get more and more extreme and results in a loss of control on the ground. You can try this experiment when at the grocery store. Take a normal shopping cart which has castering wheels in front and fixed wheels in back Push it forward in the normal way and then give it a little turn and let go, the cart will straighten out and go straight ahead. Now turn the cart around and push it backwards and try the same experiment and you will see a ground loop and the cart might spin completely around if you had it going fast enough at the start.
If you look at any aircraft you will notice that there is much more of the aircraft fuselage aft of the main wheels than forward and this was even more pronounced in taildraggers since the main wheels are mounted further forward. Because of this, all airplanes have a weathervaning tendency which means that it will attempt to turn into the wind when in contact with the ground just like a weathervane. This is more pronounced with taildraggers but is still a problem with nosewheel airplanes. In order to keep the nose of the plane aimed down the runway when there is a cross wind you line up on the runway using differential braking to point the nose, taxi a little forward to straighten out the tailwheel, lock it in place, (in aircraft that have such locking capability, does the Electra?) hold rudder away from the wind, hold the stick all of the way back to hold the tailwheel in solid contact with the runway, add full power to accelerate. After you reach a speed where the rudder will give you sufficient directional control to hold the nose straight in spite of the weathervaning tendency you push the stick forward to raise the tail while applying rudder away from the wind to keep the nose going straight. You complete the acceleration to takeoff speed in this attitude and then raise the nose slightly and climb out. In airplanes that can't lock the tailwheel you must use taps of the brake on the downwind side to keep it going straight which delays the takeoff.
Asymmetric thrust will also cause the nose to yaw (swing) just like using the rudder and can be used to steer the plane on the ground. It is quite common to bring up the power on only one side to make a sharp turn while taxiing, it is like rowing a boat with only one oar in the water.
So, back to the question, why would you use asymmetric power on takeoff? The only reason would be to keep the plane from weathervaning into an extremely strong crosswind, a wind too strong to deal with by use of the rudder alone. This would require using full power on the upwind side and something less on the downwind side for less than full power in total which would lengthen the takeoff run which doesn't seem like a good idea. A better way would be to simply hold the tail down until a higher speed is obtained where the rudder would have more authority to maintain directional control.
And another basic question, is there any reason to think that there was an extremely strong crosswind for the takeoff from Hawaii?
Gary LaPook"
gl
-
And another basic question, is there any reason to think that there was an extremely strong crosswind for the takeoff from Hawaii?
(Gary--please trim quotes of quotes. Thanks.)
"Flying conditions at this time were good; ceiling about 3000 feet; wind southerly, not exceeding 2 MPH; visibility at the surface about 3,500 feet rapidly increasing with advancing daylight."
The Luke Field Crash Report: Proceedings (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldProceedings.htm).
-
He explained that the best technique he found was wheel landings to keep the rudders effective, and that when the tail settled you planted the tailwheel quickly and firmly to ensure continued firm control: it was the transition that got pilots into trouble.
AE's rudders were out of the prop wash, compared to the single-engine planes she had owned or flown earlier in her career.
The transition from tail-wheel control to rudder control may have been a little tricky for her on takeoff as well as the reverse transition on landing.
-
Jeff, the TCDS also gives the METO power as 450 HP. Don't ask me to explain it. ???
Excuse me on that - you are correct and I mis-spoke -
"Maximum, EXCEPT Take-off" is the key - and yes, it IS 450 H.P.
Bruce Thomas, if you are reading this, thanks again for getting pictures of 'Uncle BB's' grave at Arlington for me when we were in D.C. for the symposium. He is one and the same I've spoken of above.
LTM -
Quite OK about your "miss-spoke". I make worse mistakes than that all of the time. Marty and Bruce can vouch for that. ::)
Interesting story about your uncle. Thanks for sharing it.