|
The airplane crash that changed his life
forever
The XF-11 was designed as a high-altitude
photo reconnaissance aircraft capable of speeds in excess of 450 mph.
Hughes selected the boon tail twin engine 3000 HP configuration with
revolutionary contra-rotating propellers for extra airspeed and efficiency
at high altitudes. Many believe this airplane was the forerunner of the
Lockheed U-2 spy plane and that Hughes had anticipated the Cold War build
up and the need for aerial surveillance and a strong stand on national
defense.
On July 7, 1946, Hughes had arranged a
test flight demonstration and hanger party with high-ranking military,
socialites and the media present with the hopes of selling this sleek
aircraft to the government. Hughes test flew the XF-11 over the Los
Angeles area for an hour and a half. The aircraft’s performance had
exceeded his expectations, when suddenly he ran into mechanical
difficulties. The governor mechanism on the right engine failed,
reversing the propeller pitch. Hughes attempted every possible flight
maneuver to maintain flight altitude. Hughes said; “it felt like a barn
door was hanging on my right-wing". Rapidly losing altitude, Hughes tried
to reach a golf course for an emergency landing. "I knew I wasn't going
to make it so I propped my feet on the dash panel and went in". The crash
destroyed several homes in Beverly Hills.
The recovered airspeed indicator had
stopped at 155 mph, an impact that would kill most men. A Marine
Sergeant, William Lloyd Durkin, reached Hughes in time to pull him from
the burning wreckage. For his heroic effort, Durkin received a weekly
paycheck until he died. Hughes was severely injured with a broken leg,
multiple cracked ribs on his left side, a dislodged heart, a fractured
skull, burns and abrasions over 65% of his body. He was given a 50-50
chance to survive. Glenn Odekirk, who was flying ‘chase plane’ during the
fateful test flight, was the only person other than medical personnel
allowed in his room. The first thing he asked Ode was; "What happened, Ode". They soon determined the propeller fault and filed a lawsuit
against the manufacturer and won. Hughes did not want to be blamed for
pilot error.
The military however found fault with
Hughes for not following proper flight test procedures. The flight was
only supposed to be for 15 minutes, with the landing gear extended,
minimal fuel on board, limited maneuvers and other stipulations. But
Hughes was a maverick test pilot. “It was his airplane, his money and it
was his intention to “wring it out” and to see how fast she would go”, Ode
said.
While Hughes was recovering in the
hospital, he instructed the medical staff that he was only to be given
fresh squeezed orange juice prepared while he watched. He also prepared
sketches for his engineers and designed what is now the modern-day
hospital bed so he could turn himself because of the burns.
Two months later, Howard Hughes
successfully flew a second XF-11 to prove the design and flight worthiness
of the airplane. He was truly a gutsy, fearless aviation pioneer. Hughes
is an honorary member of the elite Aircraft Test Pilots Association. On
November 2, 1947, he defied critics and successfully test flew his Hughes
Flying Boat, the largest airplane ever built and his last aviation
achievement.
That horrific crash literally zapped the
energy and life spirit from this truly ingenious and brilliant human
being. His gradual use of medications to the ease the pain of his
injuries became an addiction that fueled his need for seclusion and
absolute privacy. Contrary to the thousands of media reports and stories
about his reclusive behavior, Howard Hughes ran his empire until he broke
his hip in a fall two years before his death in 1976. Howard Hughes
lived to work and worked to live.
Bob McCaffery
XF-11 The Plane that Nearly Killed Him
In His Own Words
Hughes: I don't like this page at all. I think this page is misleading. I
suggest that in place of the first sentence you say something like the
following:
With respect to all the airplanes which Hughes had designed and built -
going clear back to his very first airplane, the H-1 - he had followed a
rigid policy of making the flying tests himself. When questioned about
this he always said, "If I have made a mistake in the design, then I'm the
one who should pay for it, and I certainly would not ask somebody else to
fly the plane if I were afraid to do it myself."
When we move into the second sentence on page 210, I want to suggest that
we delete what we have here completely, and that a scrutiny be made of my
testimony with respect to this incident, which was made before the Air
Force board of Inquiry. We have this somewhere. Miss Henley can probably
dig it out. I'm not talking about the Senate testimony. In other words, I
say that you should dig out my testimony which I made before the Board of
Inquiry down here in Los Angeles .
I notice here that in the later pages you have cited the Air Force
conclusion that it was pilot error, etc. I read the conclusion of this
Board of Inquiry very carefully, and I don't think it was quite what we
have summarized here. Secondly, I think that it was a very partial and
unfair conclusion, which I protested at the time
I don't say that my version and testimony should prevail over the
conclusion of this Board. But, likewise, I don't think it fair to say that
this was an impartial board; there were very strong indications that this
Board did not make a careful study of the accident. There was a great deal
of evidence which was not available at the time this conclusion was
reached. In fact, the Board if Inquiry was composed of a group of young
officers who were jealous, in the first place. Secondly, as I say, they
didn't have the facts. There was a strong doubt in the minds of the
officers on this Board as to whether there had really, in fact, been a
malfunctioning of the propeller. Their entire conclusion, as I say, was
one which I feel was loaded with partiality, and I think that one factor
influencing this report of this Board of Inquiry was that the government
had an enormous amount of money in this super hydromatic propeller which
was on this airplane. And the Air Force certainly did not want to see the
establishment of any proof that this propeller actually was a failure or
malfunctioned.
Now I feel there is no question but what had an impartial Board of Inquiry
met on this matter after it was thoroughly proven that this propeller was,
in truth, defective, that then the result would have been quite different.
Because the theory, that I should have known that this dissymmetry in the
airplane's flight tendencies and attitude was caused by the propeller, and
by some other structural failure. That theory is a very, very thin one,
because with a dual rotation propeller and only half of the propeller in
reverse - not all of it - it was very obvious that all instruments
indicated the power plant and the propeller to be functioning normally.
And I just don't think that a more thorough scrutiny of this matter would
lead anyone to the conclusion that the pilot had any rhyme or
reason or opportunity to believe that the trouble was caused by the
propeller.
And I think, Steve, if you want to give this fair treatment you ought to
consider my testimony as being pretty damned accurate, because I was the
only one there; and I think later evidence pretty well showed that it was
accurate, otherwise I'm sure the Air Force never would have permitted me
to fly the second F-11.
Just a couple of points here to illustrate what I feel we're off the beam
a little bit. You say, "He was trying to peer at the plane's under
carriage when he lost control entirely." Hell, there was no loss of
control. The airplane was completely under control right up to the time it
hit the house. There never was a semblance of any stall or spin or
anything of that kind at all. It was just a matter of a steady loss of
altitude, due to the fact that this right propeller was in reverse, and
the extreme throw of the controls, both the aileron and the rudder, was
necessary to keep the plane from falling into a spin to the right. But
there was never any slightest tendency - I wouldn't say tendency;
naturally it wanted to all the time, but there was never any slightest
indication that the airplane was out of control at any time. I mean its
flight path and the way it contacted the houses, and the entire, well, all
the facts involved, and the reports of all observers, and my report all
confirmed that the airplane at no time went out of control.
Incidentally, later scrutiny of the X-Rays showed that I broke 24 ribs;
every single rib, not eleven.
Stephen White deleted the story of the flight and
crash of the XF-11 in the final article
The 2nd version had a single propeller on each
engine, eliminating the problematical second propeller whose malfunction
caused the crash of the first XF-11. |