Ahh, there's nothing like the use of an apostrophe to bring out the pedants. It's the literary equivalent of banging on an ants nest.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/...owing_omission
Of course, I'm also at liberty with modern English (according to Fowlers Modern English Useage - see number 9), to simply use the word "plane" to describe a missing Lockheed Electra L10E, without an apostrophe.
This is because the shortened version of aeroplane or airplane is already widely recognised as an alternative word to "aircraft"; as "aircraft" has a much wider level of descriptiveness, than the more specific word, "aeroplane".
apostrophe: Definition from Answers.com
Getting back onto the thread subject, I find it amazing how much interest there is in Earharts demise - and yet how little success there has been in finding any evidence - even despite nearly 76 years of searching involving many professionals, from the U.S. Navy on down to every amateur sleuth with a dream.
The following site is rather interesting, and provides a lot of very well-researched historical evidence.
It appears that the Electra was lucky to even get off the ground in Lae. The Electra bounced off the crown of a road that ran past the airfield boundary, before it became airborne.
THE ELECTRA PROJECT
Despite the apparent difficulty of finding a relatively small airframe (in comparison to a ships hull) in the waters around Howland or Nikimaroro, surely a couple of P&W Wasp engines would give a reasonable magnetometer return from a towed submersible?
It's not like there's a vast area to cover - the Electra's navigator was reputedly the "worlds best", and as such, you'd expect he had a reasonable handle on their whereabouts at all times?