Print

[Daniel Paul Cotts]

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...

[JNev]

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.

[Jay Burkett]

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? 

[Monty Fowler]

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. 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.

[JNev]

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.

[Monty Fowler]

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

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

[Dan Swift]

Doesn't look like any flaps in Oakland either. 

[JNev]

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.

[Monty Fowler]

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

[JNev]

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.

[Dan Swift]

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. 

[JNev]

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.

[Ron Lyons]

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. 

[Brano Lacika]

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.

[Jerry Germann]

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.