TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on September 25, 2014, 02:00:25 PM
-
To get an accurate idea of how much fuel Earhart could have had after landing at Gardner we have to start from Lae and calculate how much fuel she should have used if she followed Kelly Johnson's recommendations. Bob Brandenburg is working on a paper on fuel consumption during the Lae/Howland(not) flight and, as often happens, his research has raised questions which have led us to an unrelated but rather startling discovery. Instead of just blurting it out, I'll give you the background information and ask a few questions that will let you connect the dots.
We have good primary source information for Kelly Johnson's recommendations for how Earhart should manage altitude/power settings/fuel consumption during each stage of the flight except the first hour. In his excellent 1989 article "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" published in Lockheed Corporation's internal magazine Lockheed Horizons, Lockheed executive Roy Blay wrote that, if Johnson's recommendations were followed, fuel consumption would be
1 hour - 100 gph
3 hours - 60 gph
3 hours - 51 gph
3 hours - 43 gph
Thereafter - 38 gph
These numbers track well with Johnson's telegrams except Johnson makes no mention of the first hour. To verify Blay's 100 gph figure, Bob began examining Lockheed's quaintly titled Report #487 "Range Study of Lockheed Electra Bimotor Airplane (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Report_487/Report487.html)".
Report #487 was in response to a request from Earhart.
In May 1936, while Earhart's 10E Special was being built, Lockheed ran flight tests on another 10E to determine whether it was possible for a 10E to fly 4,500 miles unrefueled - the distance Earhart, at that time, planned to fly solo from Hawaii to Tokyo. They loaded the airplane to 16,500 pounds and flew their tests. Of course, one of the biggest challenges was just getting the airplane off the ground. Take a look at Summary and Recommendations on page 1 of the report, then look at the film of the Lae takeoff. I've put it up on Youtube at http://youtu.be/ntkOyDanuRw
See anything interesting?
-
I'm not seeing the recommended 30 degrees of flap much less any deployment of flaps for takeoff. Quite a feat if that's true!
Hal
-
No flaps down!
-
Quite a feat if that's true!
Yes, if you want to call turning what should have been a difficult but safe takeoff into an unnecessarily hair-raising and nearly catastrophic debacle quite a feat. This appears to have been a piloting screw-up of the first magnitude.
-
Agreed. I'm guessing the use of a checklist wasn't a priority for Amelia. Amazing find, Ric.
-
So, I have to ask what's our confidence level that she would (or could) follow the rest of Kelly's recommendations, particularly concerning power settings and fuel consumption?
-
"What the heck is this lever down here used for? Haven't needed that one in awhile. Let's just go ahead and get this show in the roadddddddddddddddddddddddd ..."
*actual invented reconstructed dialog from the non-existent Earhart aircraft cockpit microphone and CVR*
LTM,
Monty Fowler,
TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Agreed. I'm guessing the use of a checklist wasn't a priority for Amelia.
Written checklists were not yet in common use but I doubt that this was a simple oversight. AE had a habit of simply blowing-off stuff like learning Morse code, learning how to use her RDF, or even translating radio frequencies from the British "meters" system to kilocycles. Flaps on takeoff? What sense does that make? Flaps are for landing. Did she even read Report 487 and if she did, did she understand it?
-
So, I have to ask what's our confidence level that she would (or could) follow the rest of Kelly's recommendations, particularly concerning power settings and fuel consumption?
Not great, but if she hadn't followed his recommendations fairly closely she should't have gotten as far as she did.
-
Amazing!
Do we have a photo of the aircraft configured at 30° Flaps for comparison?
Andrew
-
Thank you, Ric. Good points about the written checklists and her "success" to at least Lae. I continue to be amazed at the discoveries you've managed to reveal in this 77 year old accident investigation.
LOL Monty, "We don't need no stinkin' flaps!"
-
Quite a feat if that's true!
Yes, if you want to call turning what should have been a difficult but safe takeoff into an unnecessarily hair-raising and nearly catastrophic debacle quite a feat. This appears to have been a piloting screw-up of the first magnitude.
Could the omission of flaps have contributed to the belly antenna's becoming detached, as it's believed to have, due to delaying the takeoff? Or would the weight of the aircraft from a heavy fuel load be chiefly responsible?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078R
-
Agreed. I'm guessing the use of a checklist wasn't a priority for Amelia.
Written checklists were not yet in common use but I doubt that this was a simple oversight. AE had a habit of simply blowing-off stuff like learning Morse code, learning how to use her RDF, or even translating radio frequencies from the British "meters" system to kilocycles. Flaps on takeoff? What sense does that make? Flaps are for landing. Did she even read Report 487 and if she did, did she understand it?
Had she lived to make another take-off that last one might have gotten her attention, after she got through picking the seat cushion out of her backside...
-
I could be totally wrong here, but I find myself getting more and more an impression of AE being more interested in being a famous aviator than in being a really good aviator. When I compare what little I know of other aviators of the time, (for instance pilots like Jimmy Doolittle) she doesn't appear to be in the same league. Desire for fame and publicity seemed to trump the desire for increased skill and capabilities most, if not all, the time.
-
I could be totally wrong here, but I find myself getting more and more an impression of AE being more interested in being a famous aviator than in being a really good aviator.
Ya think?
-
Do we have a photo of the aircraft configured at 30° Flaps for comparison?
No. This is a screen capture of the airplane landing at Burbank in March 1937 after a test flight with Kelly Johnson.
The full 45° of flap appears to be deployed. As you can see, it's pretty obvious when the flaps are down. There were no flaps deployed at Lae.
Normal takeoff procedure for the 10E did not call for the use of flaps. Film of the takeoff from Oakland for the first world flight attempt shows no flaps deployed (and for that takeoff Paul Mantz was in the right seat and possibly making the takeoff). That was a heavy takeoff but Oakland had a long runway. It's all about speed. If the 3,000 foot runway at Lae had been maybe 500 feet longer she probably could have reached sufficient speed (around 100 mph) to rotate and establish a positive ,if shallow, rate of climb.
She's probably moving at about 95 mph when she sees the end of the runway approaching. (Collopy says she's 150 feet from the end.) Aborting the takeoff is not an option. She has no choice. In desperation she horses back on the yoke and the airplane lurches off the ground, but it won't climb out of ground effect. If she applies any further back pressure it shudders on the edge of a stall. Once she passes the drop off at the end of the runway the plane settles until it's back in ground effect over the water. It must have been awfully tempting to pull back on the yoke as it settled toward the water but if she had done that the flight would have ended then and there and we'd be trying to solve some other mystery.
According to Report 487, with 30° of flap the airplane should fly off at 90 mph after a run of 2,100 feet and climb at 500 fpm. The conditions at Lae were a bit different than at Burbank. Lighter weight but turf instead of a paved runway. Probably a little higher density altitude. I'm guessing the airplane would have come unstuck after a run of about 2,600 feet. Bob Brandenburg may be able to balance out all the variables and give a more informed estimate.
-
I could be totally wrong here, but I find myself getting more and more an impression of AE being more interested in being a famous aviator than in being a really good aviator.
Ya think?
I've just wondered for years why she's always portrayed as a great aviator when her career results would point the other way. Seems to me a case of "famous for being famous".
-
I could be totally wrong here, but I find myself getting more and more an impression of AE being more interested in being a famous aviator than in being a really good aviator.
Ya think?
I've just wondered for years why she's always portrayed as a great aviator when her career results would point the other way. Seems to me a case of "famous for being famous".
An interesting discussion of AE's piloting ability, written by Alex Mandel, can be found here-
http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A1012500/conversation/view/F119902/T1787262
-
I felt kind of stupid for not noticing this before, as a pilot myself... then it rang a bell - been a while, but it was touched on here before: a little challenge and some interesting back-up stuff posted a while back -
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,524.msg6877.html#msg6877
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,524.msg6881.html#msg6881
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,524.msg6884.html#msg6884
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg11673.html#msg11673
It now seems incredible that Earhart would have overlooked this, except for what Ric rightly pointed out about here, and yes - she seems to have been more occupied with fame than great flying, despite making peace with all the birds she first wrecked.
-
An interesting discussion of AE's piloting ability, written by Alex Mandel, can be found here-
http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A1012500/conversation/view/F119902/T1787262 (http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A1012500/conversation/view/F119902/T1787262)
I've done a listing of AE's records, accidents, and incidents in the Ameliapedia article on Earhart (http://tighar.org/wiki/Earhart).
Some old joke comes to mind. I think it was Mae West who said, "When I'm good, I'm very good, and when I'm bad, I'm better." When AE was good, she was very good, but when she was bad, she was really bad.
-
Great info Ric.
Many thanks.
-
I think the key here is that "Normal takeoff procedure for the 10E did not call for the use of flaps." and she followed the normal operating procedure, just as she / Mantz did in Oakland, rather than the procedure suggested in Report 487. Makes one wonder how familiar Earhart was with the Report 487, if at all.
The fact that she didn't yank it up into a departure stall is something of a testament to her ability to discern the ragged edge of what was flyable and what was not. She was good enough to recognize that she needed to stay in ground effect for enough time to gain the required airspeed. I'm not a proponent of AE as a great pilot, but she did manage to fly herself out of a potentially disastrous situation - yes perhaps sloppy and self created - but she dealt with it. How many of us would have done as well, given the mistakes and situation? Must have been some serious pucker factor involved.
Amazing that after all this time looking at that takeoff video, we're just now figuring this out. Something new every day.
Andrew
-
Old saying:
An exemplary pilot uses his exemplary judgement to avoid situations requiring his exemplary skill.
-
Yes, for sure, she was no Chuck Yeager, but also not a complete neophyte either as she avoided what would have been a typical mistake / response to the situation. What's interesting is that she thought nothing of applying "normal operating procedures" to what was obviously a non-normal situation, essentially ignoring the Report 487. Why?
amck
-
Because she seems to have suffered from a lack of attention to essential details?
Yes, she made it through - and I've credited her with good handling of that 'near thing' take-off. But as has been pointed out, she really almost blew that one with a very stupid oversight - it didn't have to be that close.
-
Because she seems to have suffered from a lack of attention to essential details?
It's another window into her character. She certainly invites amateur psychoanalysis, but one thing seems certain. The real Amelia Earhart was quite different from the Amelia Earhart of legend. That's not uncommon in folklore. Think Davy Crockett.
-
Ric,
Do we have any idea of the gross take off weight of AE's plane out of Hawaii and any pictures taken from the rear looking forward of the subsequent wreck to see what her flap setting might have been?
What I am looking for is more evidence that AE didn't read/nor adhere to the recommendations put forward by Lockheed.
Let's all remember that Kelly Johnson's recommendations weren't only how to get off the ground but to do it in such a way as to maximize range. Question is, did AE demonstrate that she read the report?
In summary, I would have to "guess" that AE just said "top it off" with fuel on each of her stops (knowing she had plenty of runway ahead of her to get off the ground) but her main concern was did she have enough fuel to reach her next destination. However, she muffed it going out of Lae! Did she do a weight and balance calculation on each of her stops?
Ted Campbell
-
In summary, I would have to "guess" that AE just said "top it off" with fuel on each of her stops (knowing she had plenty of runway ahead of her to get off the ground) but her main concern was did she have enough fuel to reach her next destination. However, she muffed it going out of Lae! Did she do a weight and balance calculation on each of her stops?
Ted Campbell
Mr. Campbell,
Found this in the crash report. Someone else will have to answer your other questions. I am only guessing, but I would bet that she expected the ground crew to pre-flight the aircraft.
"a total load of 900 gallons according to a statement made by Miss Earhart. At 4:45 A.M." From the Luke Field Crash Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field_Crash_Report/LukeFieldProceedings.htm). I can't find a picture of how much runway she had ahead of her after the crash.
-
Do we have any idea of the gross take off weight of AE's plane out of Hawaii and any pictures taken from the rear looking forward of the subsequent wreck to see what her flap setting might have been?
What I am looking for is more evidence that AE didn't read/nor adhere to the recommendations put forward by Lockheed.
The photos of the crash scene show the flaps in neutral position.
-
Does this have any effect on the fuel consumption estimates? Or would it relatively negligible in the grand scheme of things?
-
Does this have any effect on the fuel consumption estimates? Or would it relatively negligible in the grand scheme of things?
Not sure whether you mean flap position, Earhart's habits or the reliability of Report 487, but it could, IMO.
How well Johnson's estimates applied would depend on reasonable attention to EGT and power settings as proscribed by Johnson's report and his subsequent telegrams to Earhart that tweaked his suggested approach. Someone who overlooks flaps on take-off doesn't give me a high degree of confidence that she was all that strict about power management.
The question then is 'how significant' might that be. Perhaps not terribly. I suspect, having read Johnson's telegrams, that he realized Earhart needed a basic way to stay on top of fuel burn. Whether she heeded we don't know - but she made it to where she thought Howland was with some fuel to spare, we know that, and we have reason to believe there was good margin for Gardner (some disagree, I realize).
If you mean continuing flight with flaps partially extended, not too likely. The affect on airspeed should be noticeable, plus we now can all realize that she never extended flaps for take-off at Lae anyway...
As to Johnson's estimates, personally I have high confidence - but caveat that he was also accustomed to working with production test pilots who may have been more precise than the average L10 pilot. Hence, partly, I think, the telegrams.
Anybody's guess, but I suspect it was not a huge factor. The roundish terms Ric opened with here seem to be reasonable - and are actually very close to some paper and pencil estimates I once made myself, in fact. I think they block in the realistic expectations that Earhart could have met well enough.
-
As far as flaps go, she seemed to have made a habbit of not using flaps on takeoff. In the film of her taking off where she starts gear up before she begins to climb ( I can't find the link) I think its in CA. she doesn't use them there either.... :-\
-
I remember that clip of the Cowboy take-off, Brad - wheels coming up as you say; in fact, I seem to recall the bird taking one last bounce nano-seconds before the gear starts up.
I don't regard Earhart as the most rock-solid creature of habit where aviation is concerned. I do regard her as having been gutsy - maybe too much so at times.
-
LR487 is unequivocal.
(1.) Best take-off distance is obtained using a 30° wing flap setting. The tail of the airplane should be lifted off the ground as soon as possible and held up through the take-off run.
-
The first part of which she ignored.
Sorry for the digression - perhaps I should break that out into a chatterbox piece.
...which I've done -
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1561.0.html
-
It's another window into her character. She certainly invites amateur psychoanalysis, but one thing seems certain. The real Amelia Earhart was quite different from the Amelia Earhart of legend. That's not uncommon in folklore. Think Davy Crockett.
Think Abraham Lincoln for a 180 degree divergence of truth versus folklore. By comparison Davy Crocket folklore was gospel.
-
I have to say that the claims that Earhart disregarded the recommendations are rather thin. The fact that 30 degrees would provide the shortest takeoff doesn't mean that one would want to do that, especially if you aren't cramped for space. A typical takeoff requires no flaps. The runway, as everyone can see, was long enough (she lifted off OK) and quite a bit longer than the 2100 feet mentioned. If you wanted to save fuel, the last thing you would do is to extend flaps, and if you don't need to do so, you certainly would never extend flaps on takeoff - it's just too out of the ordinary. I have to assume that Amelia knew a lot more than anyone on this forum about how best to conduct a takeoff in an Electra on a runway like Lae. Another advantage of not using flaps is that you don't have to remember to retract them once airborne (and it is seldom the case that a pilot extend flaps for a takeoff so remembering to retract is not normal) and that is an easy mistake to make, what with everything that's going on - the need to retract landing gear, get the right bearing and so on. It's quite hectic as you take off, and anything that removes an unecessary task is highly recommended. I remain unconvinced that Amelia made any error on her takeoff. Too bad Amelia is not around to respond. I think that might prove interesting. Not to mention embarrassing.
-
I have to assume that Amelia knew a lot more than anyone on this forum about how best to conduct a takeoff in an Electra on a runway like Lae.
I think you have a few too many assumptions in there, Mr. Beuchert. The one I highlighted being one of the larger ones.
I'm not a pilot. Never claimed to be. But I do know a thing or two about reading and following manuals written by people who know a lot more about the subject than I ever will.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 218p ECSP
-
Mr. Beuchert,
I assume you disagree with Lockheed's Report No. 487 and the recommendations of Kelly Johnson. Strange.
-
I have to assume that Amelia knew a lot more than anyone on this forum about how best to conduct a takeoff in an Electra on a runway like Lae.
I think you have a few too many assumptions in there, Mr. Beuchert. The one I highlighted being one of the larger ones.
I'm not a pilot. Never claimed to be. But I do know a thing or two about reading and following manuals written by people who know a lot more about the subject than I ever will.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 218p ECSP
THIS
I have never even SEEN a 10E in person, let alone flown one, but Amelia, as far as I can tell, was a better celebrity than a pilot. Not that she wasn't a good pilot, but this was her first experience in a twin engine airplane, and she'd had minimal experience with it before she set off from Miami. Perhaps someone can get in touch with Air Canada. They have an operational 10E, and pilots with considerable more experience flying it than Earhart did. Maybe they could give us some insight.
-
I assume you disagree with Lockheed's Report No. 487 and the recommendations of Kelly Johnson.
I think Kent gave a pretty reasonable argument for why AE might have ignored the recommendation: she wanted to "keep it super-simple" (original Curtis sign on their shop floor in Buffalo).
I'm not saying it was a great decision. I can see how it simplified her takeoff preparation and the first few minutes of flight.
I think AE polished her technique in NR16020 on the 30 legs of the trip that she completed (http://tighar.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_second_round-the-world_attempt). I can see how she might have treated Johnson's note on the use of flaps as advice rather than something mandated.
Everything I've said here is, of course, speculation. We've got Report 487. The film shows that she didn't follow its guideline. She got the plane in the air and didn't panic when it sank down to ground effect. I find that pretty impressive, even if we know, in hindsight, that she made it harder on herself than she had to.
-
We've got Report 487. The film shows that she didn't follow its guideline. She got the plane in the air and didn't panic when it sank down to ground effect. I find that pretty impressive, even if we know, in hindsight, that she made it harder on herself than she had to.
Any professional pilot who made a gross error like that, then or now, would lose his/her job. But then, Amelia never held a paid flying job.
-
Ric and Ken are BOTH right.
Ken is right in that, regardless of how she did it, she did get that overloaded aircraft off of a less-than-ideal runway and headed in the right direction.
Ric is right in that if had been someone else's plane, she would have found herself out of a job at the next stop.
And TIGHAR is right to keep picking away at this mystery until all of the truths are know.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
I might be sorry I didn't just keep quiet...but when I flew a Twin Beech last (over 50 years ago) the twin tail was considered to make take-off's difficult with flaps...a little delicate because of flaps blanking out the rudders; driectional control being the consideration.
It seems to me AE had troubles on take-off a couple of times where she had trouble with directional control and some airplanes are like that...and once both throttles are full ahead you can only give away power to regain control...the result is a ground loop on take-off.
She might have considered she had adequate take off room ahead, and took the safer way to go (she did make it off ("which brings the avereage up")...
Who knows what alternative advice she was offered...and from who?
Even today75 or 80 years later, there are lots of theories on 'on how it should be done' about flying...and at that time, for her, there were lots of ways ro do it, and the penalty for being wrong very high.
She made mistakes, later on, and they cost her her life...but she got it off the ground at Lae, and on at Gardner...and she got very little help after that...
I have no Lockheed time, and no criticism to give...and I am proud of her for her bravery.
Probably would have been very hard to stop everything, and say"wait a minute; I need to cancel all this and study this a little longer!!"
She went for it!
Put yourself on that runway that morning, having been where she had been, and headed for where she was going... and talk of 'Judgement'.
In flying you live or die, by the decisions you make...doesn't matter where the flaps were, it turns out.
She made it off the runway and a lot further...
She was let down, in my opinion, ultimately.
-
Never flown one but am aware of the twin Beech's rudder blanking tendencies - my uncle instructed in C-45's and spoke of this in detail to me.
Never heard of that in the L10. Not to say it didn't happen to have similar characteristics - maybe so, maybe not. But among other things, Johnson was a consumate aero engineer for the day and I doubt he'd of given imperiliing advice. Earhart's mishap at Luke Field likely had far more to do with mishandling with differential power than with rudder blanking if Mantz's own observations and comments are to hold any weight (and I don't know that she'd used flaps there anyway).
I'm perplexed that anyone would suggest that 'flaps on takeoff' are an odd thing: that's a common take-off configuration for many types, especially where heavy loads, short fields and soft fields are concerned. I have flown a number of types where it was 'standard' - Cessna Cardinal RG: 10 degrees for take-off is normal; Maule M4-220C: 20 degrees normal, etc.
If anyone would like to have a brief and impressive study into "why this is so", have a gander at the excellent training film Tim Gard shared a few days ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdc8MJHB0Cc). It involves the B-17 and three point take-offs, but it is the aero/early lift vs. wheel drag equation that is so important here.
The B-17 is a different case (has to do with its design ground attitude more than flaps), but adding flaps provides a similar benefit in the equation: adding flaps increases camber and effective cord, which increases lift; in most types it adds earlier aero lift which = earlier weight off wheels (less wheel drag), and in turn = shorter ground roll. Stall margins are also typically improved (which fits the lift / drag / speed relationship). In short, the sooner the ship can gain ground effect and begin to accelerate more rapidly, the less field length that is needed for a safe take-off. Also, the more altitude as one leaves the end of the runway.
Gary LaPook wrote on this point several times - many times containing lots of fascinating detail. While Gary and I didn't always agree on every technical point, I respect that he's an experienced pilot and instructor, and in my view he nailed the flaps vs. no flaps equation in a number of posts, perhaps this one is a clear example (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,524.msg6902.html#msg6902) (you'll have to read through it to get to it, so I quoted it below as well).
Report 487 shows 2,100 feet for standard conditions, 30° of flaps, and 16,500 pounds using the full power of 600 horsepower from each engine, a total of 1,200 horsepower so taking off with a total of 1,100 hp gives a takeoff distance 9% longer, 2,290 feet. We adjust this for the takeoff weight of 15,300 pounds as we did before and find 1,970 feet. We then increase this by 6% to account for the density altitude so the complete calculation gives 2,088 feet compared to 1,914 for 1,200 hp (we could have just multiplied the 1,914 by 1.09 too), only 174 feet longer and with 912 foot safety margin, 44% extra runway available. Doing the same calculation for the flaps up scenario produces a takeoff run of 2,585 but this would be cutting it close so Earhart would have to have remembered to set the flaps correctly.
Who knows why Earhart didn't follow the recommendations of arguably the finest and most innovative aero engineer the industry saw for decades: could have been anything from simple oversight (which is so simply apparent I tend to believe it - and that's not to scathe the dead lady) to distrust of herself or the machine somehow. Judging by how long the ground roll was and her continued dependence on ground effect once past the end of the runway (by settling to that height above the water), I'd say she'd have been well served to have used flaps - just as Kelly believed. Looking at it anew, it was an unnecessarily close thing after all.
Yes, she pulled it off - it was gutsy, and she made it (I've given credit for that before this string somewhere); but as Ric noted earlier, the flight came very close to ending in the waters off the end of Lae's runway. Then we'd of had a very different story about her and wouldn't be here on this forum talking about her in all probability; not that we're not most all capable of arguing over that ending as well, had we no other hangar flying to do... ::)
-
All that said, if the use of flaps shortened the takeoff run, then the full length of the runway was not needed. Just maybe Ms Earhart could have chosen not to begin her takeoff run from the very end of the runway where it is suspected she snagged the belly antenna. ...for want of a nail the shoe is lost...
-
One would not ordinarily choose to 'leave runway behind', so to speak, but take full advantage (one may lose an engine on take-off and need the room to stop, for one example). Plus, whatever anomaly on the runway that may have dispatched the antenna might not have been so apparent; Earhart was using a runway that many others had been using.
-
Do we know the available runway length at Lae and the height and distance from the end of the runway of known obstacles? It seems to me that Report 487 was estabilshing the minimum runway length required for a maximum performance take-off given the wieght of the aircraft for that particular flight. Would most pilots have used the 30° flap setting if the runway was 50% or 100% longer (say, 3100' or 4200')? I would think not. Maximum performance (short field) takeoffs are used when required, but, you don't use them if you don't have to. Maximum performance takeoffs use more gas and have a higher pucker factor that longer, more gradual takeoffs. So, I'm back to: Do we know the runway length she had availalble?
-
So, I'm back to: Do we know the runway length shw had availalble?
ding, ding, ding, We have a winner! 3,000 feet. http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html). Ameliapedia is a beautiful thing.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP
And P.S. - the Lae Airport, per se, no longer exists. A road has been built through the middle of it and it looks like the majority of the surviving runway and taxiway area is being used for container storage and other light industrial uses.
-
Why NOT use them? I don't get the concern with flap use on take-off.
Why throw extra margins away in any situation? Howland would not have provided that breath-taking leap off the cliff that she had at Lae, for one, but a perhaps 'less settling' (inverted use the phrase here - meaning more to do with the mind and stomach than aerodynamics) dart off the end of a just-over 2000' runway (if E-W), across a short beach and out over the surf...
I'd use the flaps (especially if I'd left my stomach on the beach in Lae like she did) to get all the short-roll benefit possible. Besides, if you read up on the runway conditions at Howland, there was some soft field condition there in places. Flaps are a definite plus in soft-field conditions (again, early aero-lift = weight off wheels sooner).
The only good argument I've seen against use of flaps here is the known twin Beech issue of burbling the rudders out; I have no idea that the Lockheed suffered in the same way, but if it did perhaps someone can tune us up on that detail. The L10 has a cleaner airframe over all than the Beech, and is larger - more room for clear air behind the wing IMO, just looking at it. But I'd welcome any real knowledge of the L10's handling characteristics and any particulars about rudder limits.
-
Just because I can - here's a pic from the Purdue collection, ostensibly showing "Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra plane taking off from Miami, Florida, June 1937" - http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/905/rec/8 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/905/rec/8)
That wasn't a max distance flight leg, and I have no idea if it was anywhere near the total gross takeoff weight, but ... no flaps there either.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Doesn't look like any flaps in Oakland either.
-
Point?
I don't think it's been questioned whether take-offs were often done with no flaps - perhaps as a normal configuration at that.
A heavy-weight take-off at Lae is a different matter - not 'normal'; flaps give lift sooner and reduce ground friction.
So she made it at Lae with no flaps - but most assuredly would have (yes I say WOULD have - and Kelly Johnson believed the same thing or wouldn't have recommended it) been better off with flaps on that take-off. Showing lighter weight take-offs from better fields doesn't prove anything. There's no advantage to not using flaps - workload / pilot distraction is a stickman - it is a natural for a decent pilot to allow the airplane to accelerate and start retracting flaps during a positive climb.
We know she made it anyway, with no flaps - but despite all the thoughts about how good that take-off was, etc. it was a closer thing than it had to have been. A few yards difference or more rolling resistance over some loose soil could have turned it into a loss of the the airplane - and perhaps the occupants.
Noonan must have been a brave and patient man.
-
The point, to me, was to give a little more documentation to the belief that Earhart was anything but a "by the book" pilot. She seems (to this layman, at least) to have wanted to simplify the process of flying as much as possible, and eliminate as many steps as possible, so she could get in the air and get where she wanted to go. Flaps? That's "one less thing," as Forrest would say. Hooven radio compass? That's one less thing. Morse code, for pete's sake!?!?! That's one less thing.
The advantage of doing flying the same way every time is it helps insure that you don't forget that one Really Important Step; it also helps imbue a culture of safety above everything else.
The disadvantage to simplifying things down to the bare minimum is that if things hit the fan, you won't automatically go through the correct series of steps to solve the problem and stay alive.
LTM, who ponders the points of human nature,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP
-
Good point. I suspect, however, that our heroine aviatrix was more casual than deliberate in execution.
That said, I'd not deny what may have been a nearly morbid fixation on that in which she didn't like - such as extra weight, and an inexplicable belief in the odd things that she had supreme confidence in - such as her own press.
-
She stikes me as the "get in the plane, start it up, do a quick run up (maybe), turn and go! Not so flexible as to think...maybe I should use some "Short Field" and/or "Soft Field" technigue with this short-grassy-hot-heavy situation.
I agree....she was narcisistic. She didn't think she had to do (learn) most of that. I wonder how many "Short Field" practice takeoff's she performed in preparation for the "World Flight"?
I am reminded however, how even professional pilots can get distracted and bypass crutial things such as take off check lists. DC - 9, I believe, taking of from Detriot, I believe, flight crew talking it up with flight attendant(s), and forgeting to extend the slats and flaps for take off. Stalled it onto the freeway off the end of the runway.
-
Too casual, me thinks. I wasn't her, I wasn't there - but I know me -
If sitting on the end of the runway about to make the take-off of my life (heaviest load of fuel in my life, on a sod strip that abuts the sea at the far end - which ain't that far...) - time for care:
After a careful taxi during which I listen carefully to every creak, groan and pop the airframe can utter at me:
- CIGAR - Controls free/proper, Instruments - suction good, gyros and altimeter set - scan, Gas - ON, Attitude - set trim... and FLAPS, dumbass, Run-up - gages checked, smooth, power good
- That's a lot of gas aboard, so special check -
- Genuflection (watch, wallet, spectacles, testicals - one, two... three - OK), and
- And a big crowd, so -
- A brief aviator's prayer ("...please don't let me...")
- Make the traffic call and swivel the head to clear the area, and go.
Yes anybody can 'make a mistake' - but nah, I don't buy that - I think she was just too casual, probably almost all the time. I suspect she put a lot more into press presence and word 'bytes' than into her flying preparations and that she tended to take a lot of technical things for granted. In fact, I really think she was fairly technically ignorant - except for how to drive the plane. Tossing Hooven's RDF system for an antique to save a few pounds was just dumb, for one. So was disposing of the LF retractible antenna. I also don't think she respected a plane until it bit her, then she worked at overcoming the deficiency. I'd bet a box of donuts if she'd of survived to make another heavy take-off at Lae, she'd of used flaps because I'd also bet her butt was as puckered onto the seat cushion as mine WOULD have been on that take-off (I am well qualified to say "WOULD" with regard to my person in this instance). I'd bet on flaps at Howland, in fact, having survived a near thing at Lae.
I'm not a pro; but I don't think real pros are so casual - especially in that situation.
I don't condemn her for what I happen to believe about her - I think she was a great lady and a good flier in other respects, including some raw, gutsy ability to handle many things surprisingly well and calmly when things weren't so great. The Lae take-off is an oddly good example of just that: a lot of folks might have lost that bird on that take-off. Gutsy and well recovered - cool head and hands.
-
This may be a great place to mention this, there's an excellent (I'm not an aviator) show on the Smithsonian Channel called "Air Disasters" that delves into this same area, I haven't seen one on Amelia but they basically reenact major disasters that have happened over the years, usually involving large passenger jets. It's got a pretty high production value, so they reenact the scene inside the cabin, show all of the aftermath including interviews with the investigators, etc.
So each show is for instance, a large jet goes down outside Portland, they eventually figured out the pilot kept circling the airport trying to figure out why an indicator light wasn't working, and ran out of gas killing half the passengers.
Another episode, a pilot landed a smaller jet with 45 passengers onboard on a levee in a thunderstorm with no engines and no power. It even showed after they repaired the plane, they flew it off the levee back to the airport!
Another episode the rudder on a jumbo jet stuck hard to the side and the pilots limped it 1000 miles or so back to the airport in Alaska using variable engine thrust to fly straight, then killed the engines when they touched down and saved 400 people onboard!
if you're interested in this aspect of flying (mistakes made, moments when procedure is overlooked) I highly recommend it, it's a fantastic show (from a layman's perspective)... I have a suspicion it airs in other countries under a different name, it seems like it's a British show.
-
This may be a great place to mention this, there's an excellent (I'm not an aviator) show on the Smithsonian Channel called "Air Disasters" that delves into this same area, I haven't seen one on Amelia but they basically reenact major disasters that have happened over the years, usually involving large passenger jets. It's got a pretty high production value, so they reenact the scene inside the cabin, show all of the aftermath including interviews with the investigators, etc.
So each show is for instance, a large jet goes down outside Portland, they eventually figured out the pilot kept circling the airport trying to figure out why an indicator light wasn't working, and ran out of gas killing half the passengers.
Another episode, a pilot landed a smaller jet with 45 passengers onboard on a levee in a thunderstorm with no engines and no power. It even showed after they repaired the plane, they flew it off the levee back to the airport!
Another episode the rudder on a jumbo jet stuck hard to the side and the pilots limped it 1000 miles or so back to the airport in Alaska using variable engine thrust to fly straight, then killed the engines when they touched down and saved 400 people onboard!
if you're interested in this aspect of flying (mistakes made, moments when procedure is overlooked) I highly recommend it, it's a fantastic show (from a layman's perspective)... I have a suspicion it airs in other countries under a different name, it seems like it's a British show.
It´s not British, it´s Canadian. They air it here in Europe under the same name too. Great programme and certainly also the great source of the lesson.
-
Are there any new images in this group?
All photos credit due; The National Archives of Australia .... http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SessionTimeout.aspx
In photo search box ...type in Earhart ,( any words)... several photos appear...image M 119,3
image M 438,26
are ones I have not seen before.
In photo search box ..type in Noonan,( any words) ...one photo appears ...image M 119, 4
In photo search box type in lae airfield ( any words ) type in year 1920-1940,
three images of interest to me show up;
Image A 6510,1070 ( dated 1904 , unlikely) but seems to show prewar view...Y tree
Image A6510,2362 ( "" "" "" ) ...planes by hangers
Image A6510, 1083 ( "" "" "" ) ....side view of airfield ..note Y tree
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html
These photos appear to be pre war, though I can't say 100% that they are.
-
Are there any new images in this group?
Great post. Many thanks.
This link reports the session to have timed out.
All photos credit due; The National Archives of Australia .... http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SessionTimeout.aspx
-
Are there any new images in this group?
Great post. Many thanks.
This link reports the session to have timed out.
All photos credit due; The National Archives of Australia .... http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SessionTimeout.aspx
Thanks Tim,
The photos of the Lae airfield are the ones I enjoy the most , giving one a far away view, so as to see what the surrounding area looked like, ....that Y tree stands out in a couple of them.
On the link , click on guest highlighted in blue and it will time you back in, or one can go to their home page via a new search on google, yahoo, etc.
-
Yikes!
I was taught: Twin Beech: no flaps.... For reasons previously given.
DHC 3 Otter: Take-0ff always flaps; always (on wheels) wheel landings... ("or we'll buy your wreckage or sell you the parts to repaiir it..."
Haven't seen that in any manuals but after sitting in it wheels /floats for 24 years understand it completely (but will not enter in discussion no matter how unmanly it makes me seem)...
Grumman Goose: Air flaps; come up as you take off depending on airspeed on the water...
wheels:Flaps up and don't get into a situation where you are advancing throttles to maintain directional control ! ( Situation Amelia got herself into taking off in Hawaii...and evidentlyl she learned her expensive lesson
Point being:
When I am dead please do not judge my state of mind or my experience or my judgement of the weather conditions (including wind or the lack there-of) from old photographs...
Especially after so many years that all my friends are gone, and the hard-earned advice they gave me is forgotten...
Bill de Creeft ( In my eighties and...Sitting in the corner and holding my tongue as long as possible...but conjecture of this sort plagues this Forum; it's not Science, IMHO )
Give the Lady a break ...!?!
She made the Take-off. ...and maybe the best landing left to her.
-
Are there any new images in this group?
All photos credit due; The National Archives of Australia .... http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SessionTimeout.aspx
In photo search box ...type in Earhart ,( any words)... several photos appear...image M 119,3
image M 438,26
are ones I have not seen before.
In photo search box ..type in Noonan,( any words) ...one photo appears ...image M 119, 4
In photo search box type in lae airfield ( any words ) type in year 1920-1940,
three images of interest to me show up;
Image A 6510,1070 ( dated 1904 , unlikely) but seems to show prewar view...Y tree
Image A6510,2362 ( "" "" "" ) ...planes by hangers
Image A6510, 1083 ( "" "" "" ) ....side view of airfield ..note Y tree
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html
These photos appear to be pre war, though I can't say 100% that they are.
I received permission to share the images I was referencing before....all photo credits due ;
The National Archives of Australia
-
More Lae airfield views;
All Photos Courtesy;
The National Archives of Australia
-
I received permission to share the images I was referencing before....all photo credits due ;
Thanks for digging up the photos; thanks for getting permission; thanks for the posts!
-
You're Welcome, Martin,
It was well worth the wait, it makes for easier posting,.... a very nice archive.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/our-online-records.htm
As mentioned, only 5% of their collection is digitized, what else is in there?
Link to begin digitized photo search here;
http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SearchScreens/BasicSearch.aspx
I was also able to update the radio tower height on Nauru thread using permitted images.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1606.0.html
-
I was also able to update the radio tower height on Nauru thread using permitted images.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1606.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1606.0.html)
Very nice.
I think that pretty thoroughly debunks the mile-high theory. :o)
-
Pardon if any of these photos have been submitted on the forum, however: I thought I would share them here in the event they haven't. A friend of mine discovered them, and I think they are interesting, as they date from 1932-1943. The attachment labeled 30Mar43_Lae_OV, has description;....Viewing the port at Lae with the NADZAB road, Lae airstrip on left.
-
Pardon if any of these photos have been submitted on the forum,
Thank Jerry. They are new to me. I'll add them to our collection Lae photos.
-
Life magazine has put out one of its periodic specials, this one titled, Vanished: The Stories of Those Who Went Missing. You can imagine whose picture is on the cover, sitting at the controls of our favorite Lockheed Electra. The story on pages 42-45 is admittedly brief, but does give a nod to the TIGHAR hypothesis (while stating that two freckle cream jars were found on Nikumaroro).
What interested me was the photo on pages 4-5, captioned, Amelia Earhart takes off from Florida in June 1937 at the start of her ill-fated trip around the world. It shows an oblique rear three-quarters view of the left side of NR 16020 about 20 feet above the ground.
No flaps are in use.
LTM, who tries to keep his flaps flipped up at all times,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189EC
-
What interested me was the photo on pages 4-5, captioned, Amelia Earhart takes off from Florida in June 1937 at the start of her ill-fated trip around the world. It shows an oblique rear three-quarters view of the left side of NR 16020 about 20 feet above the ground.
No flaps are in use.
You made the same observation about this Purdue photo (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/earhart/id/905/rec/8) last November.
AE's failure to use flaps has been discussed here, on and off, since the fall of 2011, at least (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,524.msg6877.html#msg6877).
-
No flaps are in use.
Nor would they be recommended at that weight. She was only going as far as Puerto Rico.
The use of flaps was not standard procedure for takeoffs in the Model 10. Report 487 calls for flaps at the very high weights such as the Lae takeoff.
-
I see. You learn something new every day. Sorry for unduly taking up the forum's time. It won't happen again.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC