aviation history

new-amelia-earhart-bio-delves-into-her-unconventional-marriage

New Amelia Earhart bio delves into her unconventional marriage


more than a marriage of convenience

Author Laurie Gwen Shapiro chats with Ars about her latest book, The Aviator and the Showman.

Amelia Earhart. Credit: Public domain

Famed aviator Amelia Earhart has captured our imaginations for nearly a century, particularly her disappearance in 1937 during an attempt to become the first female pilot to circumnavigate the globe. Earhart was a complicated woman, highly skilled as a pilot yet with a tendency toward carelessness. And her marriage to a flamboyant publisher with a flair for marketing may have encouraged that carelessness and contributed to her untimely demise, according to a fascinating new book, The Aviator and the Showman: Amelia Earhart, George Putnam, and the Marriage that Made an American Icon.

Author Laurie Gwen Shapiro is a longtime Earhart fan. A documentary filmmaker and journalist, she first read about Earhart in a short biography distributed by Scholastic Books. “I got a little obsessed with her when I was younger,” Shapiro told Ars. The fascination faded as she got older and launched her own career. But she rediscovered her passion for Earhart while writing her 2018 book, The Stowaway, about a young man who stowed away on Admiral Richard Byrd‘s first voyage to Antarctica. The marketing mastermind behind the boy’s journey and his subsequent (ghost-written) memoir was publisher George Palmer Putnam, Earhart’s eventual husband.

The fact that Earhart started out as Putnam’s mistress contradicted Shapiro’s early squeaky-clean image of Earhart and drove her to delve deeper into the life of this extraordinary woman. “I was less interested in how she died than how she lived,” said Shapiro. “Was she a good pilot? Was she a good, kind person? Was this a real marriage? The mystery of Amelia Earhart is not how she died, but how she lived.”

There have been numerous Earhart biographies, but Shapiro accessed some relatively new source material, most notably a good 200 hours of tapes that had become available via the Smithsonian’s Amelia Earhart Project, including interviews with Earhart’s sister, Muriel. “I took an extra six months on my book just so that I could listen to all of them,” said Shapiro. She also scoured archival material at the University of New Hampshire concerning Putnam’s close associate, Hilton Railey; at Purdue University; and at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute, along with numerous in-person interviews—including several with authors of prior Earhart biographies.

Shapiro’s breezy account of Earhart’s early life includes a few new details, particularly about the aviator’s relationship with an early benefactor (Shapiro calls him Earhart’s “sugar daddy”) in California: a 63-year-old billboard magnate named Thomas Humphrey Bennett Varney. Varney wanted to marry her, but she ended up accepting the proposal of a young chemical engineer from Boston, Samuel Chapman. “Amelia could have had a very different life,” said Shapiro. “She could have gone to Marblehead, Massachusetts, where [Chapman] had a house, and become part of the yacht set and she still would have had an interesting life. But I don’t think that was the life Amelia Earhart wanted, even if that meant she had a shorter life.”

Shapiro doesn’t neglect Putnam’s story, describing him as the “PT Barnum of publishing.” The family publishing company, G.P. Putnam and Sons, was founded in 1838 by his grandfather, and by the late 1920s, the ambitious young George was among several possible successors jockeying for position to replace his uncle, George Haven Putnam. He had his own ambitions, determined to bring what he viewed as a stodgy company fully into the 20th century.

Putnam published Charles Lindbergh‘s blockbuster memoir, We, in 1927 and followed that early success with a series of rather lurid adventure memoirs chronicling the exploits of “boy explorers.” The boys didn’t always survive their adventures, with one perishing from a snake bite and another drowning in a Bolivian flood. But the books were commercial successes, so Putnam kept cranking them out.

After Lindbergh’s historic crossing, Putnam was eager to tap into the public’s thirst for aviation stories. It wouldn’t be especially newsworthy to have another man make the same flight. But a woman? Putnam liked that idea, and a wealthy benefactor, steel heiress Amy Phipps Guest, provided financial support for the feat—really more of a publicity stunt, since Putnam’s plan, as always, was to publish a scintillating memoir of the journey. During the Jazz Age, newspapers routinely paid for exclusive rights to these kinds of stories in exchange for glowing coverage, per Shapiro. In this case, The New York Times did not initially want to sponsor a woman for a trans-Atlantic flight, but Putnam’s connections won them over.

Love at first sight

Earhart, then a social worker living in Boston, interviewed to be part of the three-person crew making that historic 1928 trans-Atlantic flight, and Putnam quickly spotted her potential to be his new adventure heroine. Railey later recalled that, at least for Putnam—whose marriage to Crayola heiress Dorothy Binney was floundering—it was love at first sight.

At the time, Earhart was still engaged to Chapman, and George was still married to Binney, but nonetheless, he “relentlessly pursued” Earhart. Earhart ended her engagement to Chapman in November 1928. “There’s a tape in the Smithsonian archives that talks about his wife coming in and catching them in sexual relations,” said Shapiro. “But [Binney] was having an affair, too, with a young man named George Weymouth [her son’s tutor]. This is the Jazz Age, anything goes. Amelia wanted to be able to achieve her dreams. Who are we to say a woman can’t marry a man who can give her a path to being wealthy?”

The successful 1928 flight earned Earhart the moniker “Lady Lindy.” Putnam showered his mistress with fur coats, sporty cars, and other luxurious trappings—although as her manager, he still kept 10 percent of her earnings. That life of luxury fell apart in October 1929 with the onset of the Great Depression, and Putnam found himself scrambling financially after being pushed out of the family publishing company.

Earhart and Putnam in 1931. Public domain

After his rather messy divorce from Binney, Putnam married Earhart in 1931. Earhart held decidedly unconventional views on marriage for that era: They held separate bank accounts, and she kept her maiden name, viewing the marriage as a “partnership” with “dual control,” and insisting in a letter to Putnam on their wedding day that she would not require fidelity. “I may have to keep some place where I can go to be myself, now and then, for I cannot guarantee to endure at all times the confinement of even an attractive cage,” she wrote.

Since money was tight, Putnam encouraged Earhart to go on the lecture circuit. Earhart would execute a stunt flight, write a book about it, and then go on a lecture tour. “This is an actual marriage,” said Shapiro. “It might have started out more romantically, but at a certain point, they needed each other in a partnership to survive. We don’t have fairy tale connections. Sometimes we have a hot romance that turns into a partnership and then cycles back into intense closeness and mental separation. I think that was the case with Amelia and George.”

Then came Earhart’s fateful final fight. The night before her scheduled departure, a nervous Earhart wanted to wait, but Putnam already had plans in the works for yet another flight, financed through sponsorship deals. And he wanted to get the resulting book about the current pending flight out in time for Christmas. He convinced her to take off as planned. Her navigator, Fred Noonan, was good at his job, but he was a heavy drinker, so he came cheap. That decision was one of several that would prove costly.

Shapiro describes this flight as being “plagued with mechanical issues from the start, underprepared and over-hyped, a feat of marketing more than a feat of engineering.” And she does not absolve Earhart from blame. “She refused to learn Morse code,” said Shapiro. “She refused to hear that trying to land on Howland Island was almost a suicide mission. It’s almost certain that she ran out of gas. Amelia was a very good person, a decent flyer, and beyond brave. She brought up women and championed feminism when other technically more gifted women pilots were going for solo records and had no time for their peers. She aided the aviation industry during the Great Depression as a likable ambassador of the air.”

However, Shapiro believes that Earhart’s marriage to Putnam amplified her incautious impulses, with tragic consequences on her final flight. “Is it George’s fault, or is it Amelia’s fault? I don’t think that’s fair to say,” she said. In many ways, the two complemented each other. Like Putnam, Earhart had great ambition, and her marriage to Putnam enabled her to achieve her goals.

The flip side is that they also brought out each other’s less positive attributes. “They were both aware of the risks involved in what they were doing,” Shapiro said. “But I also tried to show that there was a pattern of both of them taking extraordinary risks without really worrying about critical details. Yes, there is tremendous bravery in [undertaking] all these flights, but bravery is not always enough when charisma trumps caution—and when the showman insists the show must go on.”

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban.

New Amelia Earhart bio delves into her unconventional marriage Read More »

get-into-the-cockpit-as-new-crop-of-“top-gun”-pilots-get-their-wings

Get into the cockpit as new crop of “Top Gun” pilots get their wings


NatGeo’s new documentary series, Top Guns: The Next Generation, shows the sweat behind the spectacle.

Credit: National Geographic

The blockbuster success of the 1986 film Top Gun—chronicling the paths of young naval aviators as they go through the grueling US Navy’s Fighter Weapons School (aka the titular Top Gun)—spawned more than just a successful multimedia franchise. It has also been credited with inspiring future generations of fighter pilots. National Geographic takes viewers behind the scenes to see the process play out for real, with its new documentary series, Top Guns: The Next Generation.

Each episode focuses on a specific aspect of the training, following a handful of students from the Navy and Marines through the highs and lows of their training. That includes practicing dive bombs at break-neck speeds; successfully landing on an aircraft carrier by “catching the wire”; learning the most effective offensive and defensive maneuvers in dogfighting; and, finally, engaging in a freestyle dogfight against a seasoned instructor to complete the program and (hopefully) earn their golden wings. NatGeo was granted unprecedented access, even using in-cockpit cameras to capture the pulse-pounding action of being in the air, as well as capturing behind-the-scenes candid moments.

How does reality stack up against its famous Hollywood depiction? “I think there is a lot of similarity,” Capt. Juston “Poker” Kuch, who oversees all training and operations at NAS Meridian, told Ars. “The execution portion of the mission gets focused in the movie so it is all about the flight and the dogfighting and dropping the bombs. What they don’t see is the countless hours of preparation that go into the mission, all the years and years of training that it took to get there. You see the battle scenes in Top Gun and you’re inspired, but there’s a lot of time and effort that goes in to get an individual to that point. It doesn’t make for good movies, I guess.”

Kuch went through the program himself, arriving one week before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. He describes the program as being deliberately designed to overwhelm students with information and push them to their limits. “We give them more information, more data than they can possibly process,” said Kuch. “And we give it to them in a volume and speed that they are not going to be capable of handling. But it’s incumbent on them to develop that processing ability to figure out what is the important piece of information [or] data. What do I need to do to keep my aircraft flying, keep my nose pointed in the right direction?”

Ars caught up with Kuch to learn more.

Essential skills

A crew member holds an inert dummy bomb for the camera. National Geographic/Dan Di Martino

Ars Technica: How has the Top Gun training program changed since you went through it?

Juston Koch: It’s still the same hangar that I was in 25 years ago, and the platforms are a little bit different. One of the bigger changes is we do more in the simulator now. The simulators that I went through are now what the students use to train on their own without any instructors, because we now have much newer, nicer, and more capable simulators.

The thing that simulators let us do is they let us pause. When you’re on flight, there’s no pause button, and so you’ve got to do the entire event. A lot of times when there’s learning moments, we’ll try to provide a little bit of debrief in real-time. But the aircraft is still going 400 miles an hour, and you’re on to the next portion of the mission, so it’s tough to really kind of drill down into some of the debrief points. That doesn’t happen in the simulator. You pause it, you can spend five minutes to talk about what just happened, and then set them back up to go ahead and see it again. So you get a lot more sets and reps working through the simulator. So that’s probably one of the bigger differences from when I went through, is just the quality and capability of the simulators.

Ars Technica: Let’s talk about those G forces, particularly the impact on the human body and what pilots can do to offset those effects.

Juston Koch: The G-force that they experienced in their first phase of training is about 2 to 3 Gs, maybe 4 Gs. On the next platform we’ll go up to 6.5  to 7 Gs. Then they’ll continue on to their next platform which gets up to 7.5 Gs. It’s a gradual increase of G-force over time, and they’re training the body to respond. There’s a natural response that your body provides. As blood is draining from your head down to your lower extremities, your body is going to help push it back up. But we have a G-suit, which is an inflatable bladder that is wrapped around our legs and our stomach, and it basically constricts us, our legs, and tries to prevent the blood from going down to the lower extremities. But you have to help that G-suit along by straining your muscles. It’s called the anti-G straining maneuver.

That is part of developing that habit pattern. We do a lot of training with a physiologist [who] spends a lot of time in the ground school portion of training to talk to them about the effects of G-force, how they can physically prepare through physical fitness activities, hitting the gym as they are going through the syllabus. Diet and sleep kind of go along with those to help make sure that they’re at peak performance. We use the phrase, “You got to be an athlete.” Much like an athlete gets a good night’s sleep, has good nutrition to go along with their physical fitness, that’s what we stress to get them at peak performance for pulling Gs.

Learning to dogfight

Capt. Juston “Poker” Kuch during a debriefing. National Geographic

Ars Technica: Those G forces can stress the aircraft, too; I noted a great deal of focus on ensuring students stay within the required threshold.

Juston Kuch: Yes, the engineers have figured out the acceptable level of threshold for Gs. Over time, if the aircraft stays under it, the airframe is going to hold up just fine. But if it’s above it to a certain degree, we have to do inspections. Depending on how much of an overstress [there is], an invasive level of inspection might be required. The last thing we want to do is put an aircraft in the air that has suffered fatigue of a part because of overstress, because that part is now more prone to failing.

Ars Technica: There is a memorable moment where a student admits to being a little scared on his first bombing dive, despite extensive simulator training. How do you help students make the switch from simulations to reality?

Juston Kuch: That’s why we do a mixture of both. The simulator is to help them develop that scan pattern of where to look, what are the important pieces of information at the right time. As they get into the aircraft the first time and they roll in, it’s a natural tendency to look outside at the world getting very big at you or the mountains off in the distance. But you need to take a breath and come back into that scan pattern that you developed in the simulator on what to look for where. It’s very similar as we go to the aircraft carrier. If you go to the aircraft carrier and you’re looking at the boat, or looking at the rest of the ship, you’re probably not doing well. You need to focus on the lens out there in the lineup.

It’s constant corrections that you’re doing. It is very much an eye scan. You have to be looking at certain things. Where is your lead indicator coming from? If you wait for the airspeed to fall off, it’s probably a little bit too late to tell you that you’re underpowered. You need to look for some of the other cues that you have available to you. That’s why there’s so many different sensors and systems and numbers. We’re teaching them not to look at one number, but to look at a handful of numbers and extrapolate what that means for their energy state and their aircraft position.

Ars Technica: All the featured candidates were quite different in many ways, which is a good thing. As one instructor says in the series, they can’t all be “Mavericks.” But are there particular qualities that you find in most successful candidates?

Juston Kuch: The individual personality, whether they’re extroverts, introverts, quiet, are varied. But there is a common thread through all of them: dedication to mission, hard work, willing to take failure and setbacks on board, and get better for the next evolution. That trait is with everybody that I see go through successfully. I never see somebody fail and just say, “Oh, I’m never going to get this. I’m going to quit and go home.” If they do that, they don’t finish the program. So the personalities are different but the core motivations and attributes are there for all naval aviators.

Getting their wings

Ars Technica: I was particularly struck by the importance of resilience in the successful candidates.

Juston Kuch: That is probably one of the key ingredients to our training syllabus. We want the students to be stressed. We want to place demands on them. We want them to fail at certain times. We expect that they are going to fail at certain times. We do this in an incredibly safe environment. There are multiple protocols in place so that nobody is going to get hurt in that training evolution. But we want them to experience that, because it’s about learning and growing. If you fall down eight times, you get back up eight times.

It’s not that you are going to get it right the first time. It’s that you are going to continue to work to get to the right answer or get to the right level of performance. So resiliency is key, and that’s what combat is about, too, to a certain degree. The enemy is going to do something that you’re not expecting. There is the potential that there will be damage or other challenges that the enemy is going to impact on you. What do you do from there? How do you pick yourself up and your team up and continue to move on?

Ars Technica: What do you see for the future of the program as technology continues to develop?

Juston Kuch: I think just continuing to develop our simulator devices, our mixed-reality devices, which are getting better and better. And also the ability to apply that to a debrief. We do a great job in the preparation and the execution for the flights. Right now we evaluate students with an instructor in the back taking notes in real time, then bringing those notes for the debrief. We have some metrics we can download from the planes, as well as tapes. But to be able to automate that over time, particularly in the simulators, is where the real value added lies—where students go into the simulations, execute the profile, and the system provides a real-time debriefing critique. It would give them another opportunity to have a learning evolution as they get to relive the entire evolution and pick apart the portions of the flight that they need to work on.

Top Guns: The Next Generation premieres on National Geographic on September 16, 2025, and will be available for streaming on Disney+ the next day.

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban.

Get into the cockpit as new crop of “Top Gun” pilots get their wings Read More »