Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:49:30 -0400
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Earhart's transmitter

The schematic diagrams for AE's transmitter, which I used in preparing my analysis of the equipment, are indeed not "originals;" rather, their source is the Morgan book from 1939.

Morgan, however, credits Western Electric, the equipment manufacturer, as the source of the diagram of the modified transmitter.

I have searched, without success, for an original Handbook of Maintenance Instructions for this equipment. I would have liked to have this original source, when doing my research.  Bob Brandenburg has also searched for it, unsuccessfully.  We wanted to find this in order to facilitate research into the circuit parameters that may have contributed to harmonic radiation from the transmitter, in connection with post-loss signal research.

If anyone has access to this Handbook, i would very much like to examine it, and would be happy to pay a reasonable fee for a complete copy.

When doing my research for the technical analysis in the 8th Edition, I used what was available -- the best I could find.  I still believe this information to be bona fide, in the absence of better evidence.

Having some years' hands-on experience with radio communications equipment, and seeing how technical documentation evolves (and by  extension, the pace of said evolution and publication), I present the following scenario.

The transmitter modifications were engineered and carried out in the late winter/early spring of 1937.

The documentation was formalized by WE, subsequent to the work being done; probably by the summer of 1937.

The Morgan book was compiled sometime between the spring and fall of 1938.  Western Electric submitted the information they had on hand at the time of the author's query.

WE, at least by some time in 1938, had begun to offer a CW-capable version of the 13-series transmitter to the market.  The modifications,  I believe, were substantially the same as, and probably identical to, those made to AE's transmitter.

Primary reason why I believe this:  If the modifications had been thorough and based upon the state of the art for CW-capable aircraft  transmitters of the period, they would have been better thought out with respect to transmitter keying and control.

Besides, this radio had originally been designed as a voice-only transmitter intended for domestic air-carrier use.  A version incorporating CW would mainly appeal to a "niche market," therefore there was little need to improve upon the original modifications.

The Morgan book was copyrighted and published some time during 1939... based upon information that was probably at least a year old.

Remember, preparing a book for publication was a lot more lengthy process in the pre-computer age.

For these reasons, I stand by my position on the validity of the information in these diagrams.

However, if antecedent evidence can be produced, in the form of an actual drawing with a date on it, I would love to examine it.  If the antecedent evidence indicates a need to revise my position and conclusions, I'll do so.  No problem.

My work is based upon the best information available to me.  And a diagram always carries more evidential weight than a letter written 25-30 years after the fact, no matter who the writer.

73
Mike E.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:09:25 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

This is where I picked up a picture of the skin.

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/41_WheelofFortune/41_Wheel.html

What I wanted to know is on the interior side of the skin, the framework to which this skin was attached, that perhaps it left an impression on the skin.  I was curious to know how wide the impression was to give an idea of what size framework the skin was attached to.

Another interesting piece of information would be about the remaining rivet.  How long was the rivet?  Is it possible to tell how thick the framework was it was attached to.

Regards  - Don I.
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, I see what happened.  The WOF Bulletin is actually double-loaded on the website.  We'll fix it.

To answer your question:

The "etching", such as it is, on the interior surface suggests that the skin was riveted to stringers that were one inch wide.  The stringers in the belly of the Lockheed 10 are channel sections that are one inch wide.

The length of the rivet shaft of the "AN455 AD 3/3" rivet is 3/32s of an inch long.  That what the "3/3" means.  The head is 3/32s of an inch in diameter and the shaft is 3/32s of an inch long.  In other words, these are itty-bitty rivets.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:18:21 -0400
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1


Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:

>From Ric (Re.Tom Strang's question)
>
>Don't feel bad.  It's a very complex subject.
>
>It was the opinion of the NTSB and a prominent FAA accident
>investigator that the interior surface of the skin was struck by a
>powerful fluid force thus blowing the fragment outward.

Would not this analysis rule out the possibility of artifact 2-2-V-1 coming from the nose area? A crash would have hamered the skin inwards against the stucture, not blown it out. Additionally, the skin would have been severely wrinkled, as if beaten with a large ball-peen hammer, on condition of a sufficiently high impact speed. Furthermore, such an impact speed would most likely have proven fatal to anybody in the cockpit, seeing as how the occupants' only restraint would have to come from near-useless lap belts. As far as I know, the L10's were not equiped with shoulder harnesses. A more gentle (survivable) nose-up ditching at the stall speed would not likely rip loose sheetmetal from the nose area, whichever the direction of the fluid force.

Nor could the item come from the aft fuselage or tail area since the hydrodynamic piston effect required to blow it outward would necessitate the massive high-velocity ingress of water through the fuselage. Had the L10E been equiped with a perspex nose like a bomber, which disintegrated on impact, this might be conceivable. But this was obviously not the case. Even if there had been such an unlikely ingress (through the cockpit?), the long-range tanks that took up much of the mid-fuselage volume would have acted as baffles, preventing any of the required ram effect.

Comments?
************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree.  If this skin came from the Electra then the aircraft neither crashed nose-first nor ditched in the ocean.  The apparent failure of this piece of skin requires that the aircraft be held relatively immobile while being struck by a considerable fluid force (i.e. water).

What is really neat about 2-2-V-1 is that it fits the very scenario that we have hypothesized from numerous independent sources.  The airplane was landed successfully on the reef flat, remained intact for several days while radio distress calls were sent,  and was subsequently pounded and washed off the reef by rising tides and surf.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:27:00 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Could it not be that the damaged fuselage part was simply covered by a new sheet to restore the airplane's streamline without removing the dented piece? I've seen this having been done on Boeings 737 and Airbus A320s that had been damaged on the apron by ground support (catering) vehicles.

LTM (who believes the most dangerous place for an airplane to be is on the ground)
****************************************************************
From Ric

The Repair Orders say what to do but not how to do it.

Under "Fuselage Repairs" they say:

"Replace entire right hand bottom skin from slanting bulkhead to Sta. 293 5/8."

(The "slanting bulkhead" is the bulkhead that divides the cockpit from the cabin.  Sta. 293 5/8 is just aft of the cabin door.)

The Repair orders also say:

"Replace inboard 8 inches of left hand bottom skin from main beam to Sta. 293 5/8.  Lap old and new skins at stringer."

So what you have are new belly skins on the right-hand side and a long 8 inch wide strip of new skin beside the keel on the left-hand side. There's no mention of replacing stringers and there are no specific instructions about how to rivet the new skins on to the old stringers.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:31:33 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: MCW?

Mike said:

> My work is based upon the best information available to me.  And a
> diagram always carries more evidential weight than a letter written
> 25-30 years after the fact, no matter who the writer.

You ignore the fact that protoype equipment is more often than not different in some respect from the production version. The WE13CB was made with commercial considerations of cost effectiveness, ease of use, and many other factors in mind. Many of these were matters of secondary consideration in modifying AE's equipment. There is simply no justification for assuming AE's transmitter was the same.

Moreover look again at what Tinus says:

"I had been a radio operator aboard ship in my younger days and knew the importance of being able to communicate at 500 kc over the oceans. It was my thought that many ships throughout the world had 500 kc radio compasses and could probably better obtain bearings if the key were held down for an extended period while radiating modulated CW (MCW)".

Note that Tinus does not mention the MCW modification casually in passing. He makes a specific point of explaining his reasoning as to why "modulated CW" was an advantage - ie for "better obtaining bearings". From his experience "in his younger days" he would have been similarly well aware at the time of making the modifications to AE's set, that MCW would be a distinct advantage over CW.

Again:

"A simple modification also enabled transmission to be made on CW or MCW, as well as voice, and a telegraph key was provided which could be plugged in, in addition to a microphone for voice communication."

He states that the modification was "simple".

Bell probably had off the shelf access to ready made sub-assemblies which were used in other equipment that Tinus could incorporate to achieve either modulation or chopping of the carrier without significant customisation. Whether that was so or not, if in Tinus's view this was a simple modification and it was one that experience told him was worthwhile, there would have been little reason not to incorporate it. DF, as AE was to discover to her cost, and as Tinus recognised, was a very important asset to the flight.

The upshot of all this is that it would be surprising after what Tinus said if he did not incorporate MCW into his modifications, whether or not his recollection was accurate.

Regards Angus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:29:53 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

There has to be some reason they used #3's in this area as opposed to using #4's.  In exterior skin sections if there's enough edge distance to use a beefier rivet over an itty bitty one, I think Id use the beefier one unless directed otherwise.  The exterior skin is subject to allot of stress and it does not seem rational to use such a small rivet although it is allowed.  It seems more like this piece of sheet metal would be like an interior door panel but you've concluded its exterior skin.

My conclusion:  A very interesting piece of sheet metal you have there.

Don I.
************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree with you that it's unusual, but all you have to do is crawl under the tail of any Lockheed Electra and you'll #3 rivets in .032 skin with the same parallel stringer structure we see evidenced on the artifact.

When we were initially trying to find alternative sources for 2-2-V-1 I haunted air museums with ruler in hand making an absolute pest of myself ("Excuse me but would it be possible to put a stepladder up next to this airplane? I need to measure something.").  If you do that enough you begin to get a feel for the rivet sizes and patterns used on various aircraft sizes and even by different manufacturers.  The more I looked the more convinced I became that we have a piece of a repair made to a Lockheed 10.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:40:29 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

As someone who does some of these repairs,  drilling out a bunch of rivets is not a big problem especially when they did the repairing in the factory where it was built and had the right repair parts and jigs there.

I'd believe in this case that they had the time to remove and replace the skin correctly.
******************************************************************
From Ric

Nobody said the original rivets were not drilled out and I agree that the factory should have been well-equipped to do the repairs, but photos of the assembly line for new construction show that the fuselages and center sections were built in separate jigs and then mated.  Re-jigging Earhart's airplane for repair was simply not an option.  Numerous photos of NR16020 under repair confirm this.

Time was also a factor.  There are lots of stories about how Earhart pushed Lockheed to get the work done quickly and made a royal pain of herself, frequently visiting the shop and pressuring the front office.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:06:13 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> ... there are no specific
> instructions about how to rivet the new skins on to the old stringers.

Would one want to hit or miss the old rivet holes on the existing stringers?

Marty #2359
************************************************************************
From Ric

Good question.  So you drill out the rivets and remove the damaged skin.  Now you want to rivet a new skin to the existing stringers. Having drilled out the rivets it seems like the old holes would now be too big to accept the same size rivet.  Seems like you either have to drill new holes or go to a rivet with a bigger shaft diameter.

I'm sure there's a standard procedure.  I just don't know what it is. What say ye A&Ps?  Let's have some Airplane Repair 101.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:47:06 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I've drilled out a few rivets. My experience was, I did not need to drill through the material that was being joined by the rivets. I only needed to drill enough of the rivet end away to render the rivet ineffective. Then, I pushed the old rivet out. There was no change to the hole size. A new rivet, the same size as the old one, could have been installed in the hole.

LTM, who, as you know, was really Rosie the Riveter,
Alfred Hendrickson, PE
TIGHAR Sponsor Member #2583
*******************************************************************
From Carl Peltzer

You drill the head of the old rivet using a smaller size drill than the shank [diameter] of the rivet.   Most of the time I can do it well enough that the old one will fall out. Also  there's a small centering dimple on the top of all rivets to make this easier to drill it out.
********************************************************************
From Ric

The dimple might serve well for that purpose but that's not why it's there.  A dimpled river head indicates a rivet made of A17ST alloy. Other materials are indicated by other marks, for example, a 17ST rivet has a raided dot.  A 56S rivet has a raised cross.  The A17ST dimpled rivets are, by far, the most common type used in primary structure. The existing rivet in 2-2-V-1 is a dimpled A17ST.
***************************************************************
From Don Iwanski

Replacing the skin and channel underneath. One would probably go with what was called out on the original drawing.

Replacing the skin and leaving the original channel.  You would probably want to step up your holes to the next oversize.

I was reading something before I left work today.  It had to do with typical skin and web repairs.  In .032 skin (or web) if you were to do a repair the minimum fastener requirement was a #5 rivet.  Now this is if you are using a filler and doubler, or just the doubler.  And you can do this repair using just one row of rivets. (Most repairs call out a double row of rivets.)

But then I got to thinking about how things were in the 1930's.  Were many of the standards that we use today in place back then?  I would seriously doubt it. There were probably allot less restrictions used back then and the mechanic who was making the repair most likely went with the original design if it was practicable, possibly not even needing any more authority than his own judgment. Today it's a more complicated process.

And some other things came to mind about this piece of sheet metal as well.  #3 fasteners were probably original design and not part of a repair process.  The #5 holes could be where the repair met the original design in some way or could be part of the original design as well where the skin crosses over onto a thicker frame.

The structure where this skin was attached which have the #3 holes.  I could be wrong here but it seems that structure couldn't be more than .032 thick as well or that size rivet would not fit. It would not be long enough to travel through the skin and through the channel and leave enough to be bucked. Even if it's a U-Channel, at .032 that is really thin stuff for structure.  Probably not from an area which makes up the aircraft's primary framework but possibly from and interior section underneath floor boards, inside of the wheel wells.  It really is hard to say.

And a last thought about  the remaining rivet, I think it was in an inaccessible area as to why it was improperly bucked.

Regards - Don I.
**********************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting comments.  I'll be very interested to hear what you think when we get the Research Bulletin up on the website and you see how the Lockheed 10 was put together and how the artifact compares with that structure. ************************************************************************
From Mark Guimond

If they are flush rivets, you have to drill them out. If they are protruding-head rivets, you can slice them off with a hammer and sharp chisel applied along the skin surface, then push the rivet shank through, preserving the original holes in the stringers or other underlying material.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:56:07 -0400
From:         Reno Lauro
Subject:      Possible problems

I have been following the most interesting forum ever. I am an Aerospace Education officer with Civil Air Patrol and work mostly with cadets. This forum is a gold mine! I have, just about in one sitting, read the book" Earhart's Shoes" and found it fascinating.

I have one comment to make.

A few weeks ago I found a paper back book called "The last flight" witch was a compilation of AE letters sent to her husband from every airport she could send cablegrams back to the states. These were published by AE husband after her disappearance.

I was intrigued to the fact that AE reported that, on her leg from Brazil to Africa they did not hit the targeted land mass at the planed spot but rather several hundred miles South. AE also reported that on her last leg in the pacific, her navigator had difficulties receiving the radio beacon signals, on the ground I presume, to properly set his chronometer to Zulu time.

I was thinking that, the first error of several hundred miles off course on AE's Atlantic crossing, then on the last and most crucial leg, the navigator could not set the chronometer to Zulu time, could be of crucial importance specially when time is the most important element for celestial navigation. AE did not elaborate whether on the Atlantic crossing,  the chronometer was a factor on the navigational error.

If in did the chronometer time was wrong, then the sunrise time and line of position would put them more than a few hundred miles off from where the thought they were. This may account for the very weak signals received by the navy at the expected contact time.

Humbly submitted,
Reno
PS: great job all of you!
************************************************************************
From Ric

"Last Flight" was creatively edited and expanded before publication. Using it as a source requires considerable caution and cross-checking with primary sources.

Little or no celestial was done on the South Atlantic crossing because the aircraft was in cloud for most of the trip.  The chart Noonan used on that flight is now at Purdue University and suggests that the navigation was entirely dead reckoning.

Noonan did have trouble while they were in Lae getting time signals with which to check his chronometer but he did succeed in getting two good time checks before they departed.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:58:10 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: MCW?

So far I am not seeing definitive proof as to what modifications were or were not made. I also have not found definitive proof the Electra did NOT have a key aboard. All I am seeing is "likelihood." There is no value to probabilities  in these issues. They make for good arguments but the bottom line has to be a  simple yes or no to these issues. Only then does the answer have significant  value.

For example there are keyed messages in the post loss group. If we can definitely prove AE did not have that capability we can dismiss those messages. Saying she likely did, probably did, rationally did doesn't permit a decision on the matter.

So far the answer is we don't know and all the rehashing of what almost certainly would have been done or not done doesn't help one iota. It's black or white and gray won't cut it.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:21:30 -0400
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Having trouble finding a pic of this item on the website.  Where can mere mortals see this panel?  And do I read this right that you believe the panel was blown off the Electra by the sea?

************************************************************************
From Ric

Mere mortals can see a small picture of 2-2-V-1 in the "Location, Location, Location" section of the "Wheel of Fortune" research bulletin
(http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/41_WheelofFortune/41_Wheel.html)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:22:47 -0400
From:         Rick Boardman
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

And do I read this right that you believe the panel was blown off the Electra by the sea?

************************************************************************
 From Ric

That's correct.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:25:09 -0400
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re; MCW?

Angus Murray wrote:

> Mike said:
>> My work is based upon the best information available to me.  And a
>> diagram always carries more evidential weight than a letter written
>> 25-30 years after the fact, no matter who the writer.>>
>
> You ignore the fact that prototype equipment is more often
> than not different in some respect from the production
> version.

I'm not "ignoring" anything.

I am saying, and I still maintain, that in the absence of better evidence, this looks like a pretty darn good record of what was done to that rig.

Nor do I disagree with you, that "prototype" equipment often differs from production versions.  But before you assume that this diagram reflects a later, "more refined"  production version, please consider these two points.

1.  The control circuitry is very awkward.  The radio does not incorporate "break-in" keying, but must be manually switched from receive to transmit condition before it is Morse-keyed; then it must be switched back to receive at the conclusion of a transmission.

Indeed, the control switch that performs this function is labeled "CW-Phone."  (see the diagram)  In other words, the operator is actually switching the radio from CW mode, back to voice mode, to receive.  The confusion potential is high, for an untrained operator.

2.  There is no circuitry provided to furnish a CW side tone, to allow the sending operator to monitor the keying.  (Nor is there any sort of source for a modulating tone, for MCW or tone modulated telegraphy). In the information available to me, I don't see a provision to "un-mute" the receiver, when the transmitter is keyed; so this form of signal monitoring isn't available either.  In fact, direct monitoring of the transmitted signal off-the-air was definitely not the practice in aircraft radio, most of the time.  The side tone was used for this.

Both break-in and CW side tone would have been standard features of an aircraft transmitter designed for CW use.

These mods are definitely add-ons.

In summation:

Please find me some better evidence, in the form of an actual Western Electric diagram or maintenance manual, and I will be more than happy to look at it.  I'd jump at the chance, in fact.  It would answer a number of questions.  If the evidence calls for a revision of conclusions, then I'll gladly do this.

Until such time as this surfaces, I don't see any point in debating this any more.  It's beginning to take on a tone that I don't find good; kind of akin to "a-c modulated" CW, in fact.

And a diagram STILL beats a letter.  No matter who wrote it. Especially if the letter isn't contemporaneous.

73
Mike E.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:29:09 -0400
From:         Davyflyer
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

HI, DavyFlyer  AMS2 from Navy with P5M Martins  1962.   When we had a skin damage to hull, we drilled only the heads out and not into the shank. So not much if any damage to hull ribs. Thus, the same size was used in replacement.
************************************************************************
From Ric

How did you line up the holes?  Was the new skin pre-drilled or did you drill the new skin by going in through the back (i.e. through the old holes)?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:35:30 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

For Rick Boardman

>And do I read this right that you believe the panel was
>blown off the Electra by the sea?
>
>************************************************************************
>From Ric
>
>That's correct.

But -- perhaps inaccurately reading some skepticism into Rick's query -- it's not so much a matter of being blown off (sorry, Mom) but blown OUT. Lots of water enters the airplane very fast, has to get out, blows out the spot represented by 2-2-V-1.

************************************************************************
From Ric

Let me be even more specific.  We're not talking about something like leaving a water balloon attached to the faucet until it bursts.  We're talking about something akin to hitting a particular part of the interior surface of the belly with a sudden blast from the world's biggest fire hose.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:36:29 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Possible problems

To Reno --

PS -- Thanks for your kind words of encouragement.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:54:07 -0400
From:         DavyFlyer
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

HI,   We used sheet stock, cut it for area, held it in area by hand to get 4 corners drilled to lock into place with fasteners, then drill back into panel from stringer side, using holes as a guide. Never took it to the bench to drill. to much chance of miss align drill, and also took extra time, because with these flying boats, a lot of work was done on the ramp.

DavyFlyer
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yeah, that makes sense.  In this case (if we're right about where this piece of sheet came from), the original skin was riveted in place along the keel of the airplane with a staggered double row of  #3 rivets with a pitch of 1.5 inches and was a riveted to four parallel stringers with a single row of #3s with a pitch of 1.5 inches.  When the damaged skin was removed and new skin put in place (so the theory goes) the staggered double row of  #3 rivets along the keel was replaced with a staggered double row of #5s.  The new skin was stitched to the four parallel stringers with single rows of #3s as before except the pitch was tightened to 1 inch.  Does that sound reasonable? ======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:09:10 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> ... In this case (if we're right about where this
> piece of sheet came from), the original skin was riveted in place along
> the keel of the airplane with a staggered double row of  #3 rivets with
> a pitch of 1.5 inches and was a riveted to four parallel stringers with
> a single row of #3s with a pitch of 1.5 inches.  When the damaged skin
> was removed and new skin put in place (so the theory goes) the
> staggered double row of  #3 rivets along the keel was replaced with a
> staggered double row of #5s.  The new skin was stitched to the four
> parallel stringers with single rows of #3s as before except the pitch
> was tightened to 1 inch.

It sounds as though that would mean hitting an old hole every third rivet (depending on the location of the first repair rivet):

1" -- new hole

2" -- new hole

3" -- hits second 1.5" rivet

4" -- new hole

5" -- new hole

6" -- hits fourth 1.5" rivet

Of course, if the first new rivet was drilled 1/4" away from an old rivet hole, all of the new 1" rivets would miss all the old holes.

Or so it seems to me.

Marty
************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:07:45 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Double rows of #5s?  I didnt see that in the picture.  I saw a single row.

I dont' know if any of the other AP's would agree but usually the staggering doesnt come from the factory but is part of the repair process when doing skin repairs and such.  Modern day SRM repairs call out to stagger the rivets which increases the strength of the repair as opposed to adding double rows.

************************************************************************
From Ric

The presence of a second, but staggered, row of #5s is strongly suggested by the failure pattern but none of the holes of a second row are actually present on the artifact.

Staggered rows of rivets are quite common on the Lockheed 10.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:50:11 -0400
From:         From David
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I do not generally comment until I see a point missed....

1. "A fluid force". Air is a fluid. An explosion involving combustible material is a fluid force. A "fluid" force does not necessarily involve liquid per se.

2. In sheet metal replacement holes in structure are located by means of a hole finder. Simply put, this is a tool "similar" to two 12" hacksaw blades held together with a rivet or screw through the two holes at one end of the of the two hacksaw blades while the lower hacksaw blade has a rivet bucked or epoxied through its' remaining hole. For instance a #3 (3/32") rivet would be bucked to present a #4 (1/8") shank for 1/8" holes to be found. The length of the legs of the "hole finder" depend on how far you have to "reach" into blank sheet metal. The lower hacksaw blade is then inserted under the replacement sheetmetal with the rivet entering the hole in the existing structure. Then the hole finder "legs" are held true and a pilot drilled through the remaining top hacksaw blade hole into the repair sheetmetal. Once drilled to size a Cleco will hold the replacement sheet metal in place while further holes are "found". Aircraft sheetmetal workers have a variety of tools of this kind of different lengths as a means of accomplishing or overcoming the "blind" problem.

3. Rivet heads should never be chiselled off as one of your scribes suggested. This leads to scratched skin and elongated rivet holes. This is especially true in pressurised aircraft where scratches on the skin would create stress risers and lead to skin failure. That would be very bad practice and is not acceptable.

4. Common practice is to drill rivet heads off until they flick off either using the dimple on so marked rivets or to use a spring loaded centre pop to lightly indent a rivet head as a guide while drilling. The same spring loaded centre pop will then be used to shock out the rivet tail leaving the original hole for a replacement rivet of the same size. Either that or a light blow to remove the rivet tail. Sometimes over-zealous bucking will have stretched the hole and in this case where several holes are stretched an assessment is done as to whether to "upgrade" to an oversize rivet.

Hope this helps your discussion.

Longtime Framie.
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Thanks.  Before long we'll all be able to repair our own airplanes.

From all of these discussions it appears evident that replacing damaged skin can often (but not always) be accomplished using the same stringer holes without "upgrading" to a larger size rivet.  The deciding factor seems to be how well the integrity of the original hole has been preserved and I would expect that depends to some degree on the nature of damage that caused the skin to need replacing in the first place.

In the case of NR16020, the groundloop in Hawaii and resultant gear failure slammed the airplane down on it's right-hand underside with sufficient force to require the replacement of the entire right wing outboard of the engine and the 180 degree skidding slide on the right-hand side of the belly meant that almost all of the skins on that side of the belly had to be replaced.  I wonder if that kind of side load on the rivet heads might produce the kind of elongation of the holes that you caution against in paragraph #3 above.

You are, of course, correct that a "fluid" force does not necessarily involve liquid.  Air is a fluid but the kind of force required to do the damage we see to the artifact must be truly explosive.  The metal exhibits none of the tell-tale pitting that results from the detonation of an explosive device.  We considered a fuel-air explosion but there's none of the discoloration that is typical of such events and it's hard to construct a scenario where an explosion due to, for example, a fuel leak would be so localized as to only blow out one small section of skin.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:01:06 -0400
From:         Seth
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I've been a lurker for several months now, and I've really enjoyed watching the forum. I hope I'm going about this in the right way to post a message....

This piece was not entirely blown out though, was it? more like one (or two) edge(s) were blown out, then some settler wanted the piece of metal and chiseled it to the point where they could bend it back and forth repeatedly until it broke off. That's how I understand it from what I've read on the website.

Also....I haven't heard much talk about the piece of plexiglass, the curvature of which matched up with Lockheed 10 specs. To me that is one of the pieces that is most supportive of Tighars theory. (Although it has been a while since I've read the website).

Anyway...hello to everyone...keep up the good work. I better get back to lurking....

Seth
************************************************************************
From Ric

You're correct that two edges of the piece failed virtually instantaneously from an explosive event.  The third may have torn from natural forces (surging water) or it may have been hacked free by human action.  We're not sure.  The fourth edge failed from fatigue after cycling back and forth (surging water or human action?).

In other words, we're not sure whether the piece tore completely loose from the plane or was salvaged from the plane by a person.  It's an important point because if we say that the piece was removed by someone other than AE and FN then the wreck must have been to some degree accessible at least a year and a half after July 1937.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:01:55 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I feel a need to correct myself here.  My statement regarding SRM repairs is not correct. Some repairs call out to stagger a single row of rivets, and other repairs call out using double rows.  A staggered row of rivets could offer much more strength in certain areas over a double row, just depends on the area.

Sorry about the misleading statement there.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 3 Jul 2004 09:13:57 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Have you considered this piece of sheet metal coming from any of the flight control surfaces?

************************************************************************ 
From Ric

We've considered every part of the Electra and every part of every other airplane that was anywhere near that part of the world. We've been struggling with this thing for 13 years.

************************************************************************ 
From Tom King

>It's an
>important point because if we say that the piece was removed by someone
>other than AE and FN then the wreck must have been to some degree
>accessible at least a year and a half after July 1937.

The wreck or SOME PART of the wreck.  It needn't have been a huge piece, and it could have been coughed up during a storm event and salvaged by the colonists shortly afterwards.  In other words, there doesn't have to have been some large part of the airplane lying around for Maude, Bevington, the Kiwis, et al to miss.
************************************************************************ 
From DavyFlyer

Ric, a lot of it I forget, sizes ect.  but the bottom line is, if what your saying would make it stronger, and felt for some reason to beef the area up, and is not restricted to tolerances for some reason, then we would do something like that for a repair. DaveFlyer

************************************************************************ 
From David

I am led to make a statement again......in response to the comment contained in the last paragraph of your reply where you say that:

>The metal exhibits none of the tell-tale pitting that results from
>the detonation of an explosive device. We considered a fuel-air explosion
>but there's none of the discoloration that is typical of such events and 
>it's hard to construct a scenario where an explosion due to, for 
>example, a fuel leak would be so localized as to only blow out one 
>small section of skin.

I once went to a crashsite and was faced with one huge expanse of sheetmetal about 25 feet or more across. For a moment I could not identify the aircraft until I found a distinctive gear leg and a distinctive vertical stabiliser. I realised then that the entire wing sheetmetal had blown apart at the trailing edge due to an explosion and rested on the ground basically flat except for the leading edge ripple. The aircraft had been a B-24 which had hit a hill on returning to base with low tanks. I recall that the metal had been flash seared but the exterior paint was still there and interior metal was in places, bright and shiny after 40-odd years.

You only have one small section of skin, there could have been other sections of skin which you have not found on Gardner or on Sydney for that matter. Was not the C-47 crash on Sydney accompanied by a fire and metal scavenged later by the occupants of the island ? The metal bookcase you found came from a B-24, what happened to that B-24 or if not fitted to a B-24, where is the rest of that particular aircraft or did the bookcase come from the C-47 ? Aircraft were also repaired at Canton whilst in transit to the SWPA.

Hope this helps your discussion.

Longtime Framie.
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

You raise some important points.

You're correct that 2-2-V-1 is the only relatively intact section of airplane skin we've found at Gardner.  We've found plenty of other bits of airplane aluminum but they're all clearly scraps left over from airplane debris that has been cut up and used for local purposes.  The few pieces we've been able to identify are all  B-24 parts.  Many of those pieces have coraline deposits on their surface that suggest that they were once submerged in relatively shallow water (less than 100 feet) for at least a year.

No B-24 ever crashed at Gardner but during WWII a B-24 crashed on the reef at Canton Island.  All aboard were killed and the wreck , in about 60 feet of water, was judged to be unsalvageable.  My best guess is that the B-24 parts we've found on Gardner are from pieces of wreckage that washed ashore on Canton after the war and were picked up and brought home to Gardner by some of the many Gardner residents who worked for the airlines on Canton in the early 1950s.

You're also correct that there was a wartime C-47 crash at Sydney Island.  The airplane burned and the wreck was reportedly scrapped-out by the locals.  As recently as 2000, a prop blade from that wreck was brought back to Tarawa (where it was shown to me by the Kiribati government in 2001).  Oddly enough, however, none of the identifiable airplane parts we've found on Gardner is from a C-47.

2-2-V-1 does not come close to fitting anywhere on either a B-24 or a C-47 nor, as far as we can tell, does it come close to fitting anywhere on any other types that came through Canton.  What is interesting, however, is that all three of the artifacts that seem to be from the Electra (2-2-V-1, the dados, and the piece of plexiglas) have coraline deposits like the B-24 pieces suggesting that they too were underwater for at least a year.

Returning to your original point:

>You only have one small section of skin, there could have been other
>sections of skin which you have not found on Gardner or on Sydney for
>that matter.

We've never been to Sydney, but we've spent rather a lot of time on Gardner.  If, in fact, 2-2-V-1 is only one of many such chunks of skin from an airplane that was shredded by the surf it strikes me as odd that we haven't found more.  It puzzles me even more that of theoretically dozens or even hundreds of such pieces that are supposedly kicking around we just happen to find the one that lines up with a place on the airplane where water could come crashing through the cabin door (or the window in the cabin door, fracture the plywood floor (with dados attached), and blow out the section of belly skin that most closely resembles the many aspects of 2-2-V-1.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:12:37 -0400
From:         David
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

You earlier posed the question of the reason for the replacement belly skins after the Luke Field groundloop and opined that the skins might have been replaced due to the 180=B0 slide causing elongation of the rivet holes by side loading. I suppose you also opined that this would cause an upgrade to a larger rivet size.

I am not too familiar or have knowledge of the structure of the fuselage of the Lockheed Model 10 except what I see in photographs. What I do know about that aircraft is that it has a massive centre section spar. To impart a side loading onto the fore and aft rivet lines in the belly skins and as per your question of whether this would elongate the holes in the skins, I would say "no". This due to the fact that to impart such elongation or tearing of the skins at the fore and aft rivet lines on the belly skins of the fuselage would require that the centre section spar be flexed in an upward manner and looking at the size and construction of the spar I would say that it would not flex in this manner even in the fall off its' perch and onto the stbd outer wing panel. Also with an upward flex, the centre section wing skins would have been buckled on their upper surfaces and looking at a photo in Carrington's book, those c/section skins look pretty thick to me (on Page 88) and it would be very expensive to replace those even on one side. Also note the half-pipe section reinforcing on the inside of the upper wing surface, also used to prevent flexing in that area.

The damage to the belly skins on the starboard side would be more likely done by debris impact from the No.2 nacelle and landing gear forks/mudguards or mainwheel if bits became detached. The photographs of the Model 10E display underslung engines whose nacelle lower limit dimensions (butt lines) are lower than the bellyskins of the fuselage. In fact the post groundloop photos show the aircraft belly just off the ground. It would take a lot of metal to be worn away from the No.2 nacelle, from the engine cylinder heads and from the landing gear pivot arrangement before the belly contacted the ground. Aerial mast rip-outs alone would cause a headache and it would be cheaper to replace a whole skin in those areas. Weight would have also been a consideration, repairs are heavier than original fit and six pounds is one gallon of gas.

If the Model 10 had light sheetmetal keelbeams instead of extruded al.alloy angle sections then it would be possible for the belly skins to have pulled some rivets and to have damaged the keelbeams as well leading to section replacements and possibly bigger rivets. Page 36 Carrington's book shows what look like channel section sheetmetal beams to me. I read that you have the repair orders. If keelbeams were replaced then it was a bigger job than I thought and well worth the money.

Hope this helps your discussion,

Longtime Framie.
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

To clarify my speculation:

I think the rivets along the keel beam were upgraded from #3s to #5s but I think the rivets used to attach the new skin to the parallel stringers were #3s, as in the original, but the pitch was tightened to one inch and the old rivet holes were not used.

Transcribed below are the repair orders for the fuselage (some of the numbers on the original are illegible).  The keel of the Model 10 was an I-beam with lightening holes as far back as Sta. 320 - the aft end of the lavatory.  As you can see, except for a piece of channel up forward of the main beam (what you refer to as the "centre section spar") the repair orders do not call for any of the stringers, much less the keel, to be replaced or repaired.

As to what caused the damage that necessitated the replacement of the right-hand belly skins, we have about a dozen photos of NR16020 on its belly at Luke Field.  The lower portion of the right-hand vertical stabilizer is clearly deformed inward toward the centerline of the aircraft.  I don't know any that can happen without the belly skins in the area we're talking about  also contacting the ground.

***   ***   ***   ***

FUSELAGE ASSEMBLY  Make following repairs:

1. Smooth dents in nose skin

2. Replace #42443 - Flare cover - 2 req'd.

3. Replace #41659 - Pitot masts - 1L-1R req'd.

4. Replace first and second panels of bottom skin from Sta. 66 to slanting bulkhead on right side only.

5. Replace entire right hand bottom skin from slanting bulkhead to Sta. 293 5/8.

6. Replace left hand bottom skin from a point 9 1/2" aft of slanting bulkhead to main beam - rivet new skin in place with double row of rivets similar to joint in slanting bulkhead.

7. Replace inboard 8 inches of left hand bottom skin from main beam to Sta. 293 5/8. Lap old and new skins at stringer.

8. Replace dump valve chutes.

9. Replace three antenna masts aft of main beam - 4??16, 4301V-1 each req'd, 41???-11 req'd.

10. Replace #42153 ventilator as required on bottom skin

11. Replace or straighten # 4???? - Channel - on right side forward of main beam.

12. Add .040 24 ST Alclad plate 3" wide on right side of fuselage running from the shear beam to a point 1/3 rivets; 1-1/4 C-C: 3/8 edge dist.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:24:51 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

You indicated that a bulletin will be posted concerning this  artifact.  When you do would you please add a sketch of where you think it  came from on the plane - to give us some idea of how accessible this panel would  have been from the inside of the plane in order to back drill the rivet holes into the new (repair) skin.  This would also allow us to hypothesize what  could have caused the burst of energy required to peel the skin back - for example:  If the skin area is fairly close to the area damaged (we  think) during the takeoff at Lea (see the film and the "puff" of dirt)  this may have provided a scoop for water entry during the landing at  Gardner.

Furthermore, I am still looking for something, not necessarily a fuel/air mixture, which could have caused a blast that damaged the skin from within the aircraft - like a ruptured oxygen tank, a ruptured hydraulic accumulator, a ruptured spare tire/wheel assembly, etc.  I would think that it would take  one heck of a blast of air or fluid to tear the panel off the ribs/stringers in the manner that has been described; subsequent to the landing at Gardner  sea water wave action just doesn't get me there.  I think that we have to come up with some ideas that create a "pressure vessel" between the cabin floor and the outer skin that can be pressurized to a point where skin failure is the result - a large scoop of water might do it.  Any "water  bomber" mechanics out there?  These guys might be able to give us an  insight to what forces are imposed on the water tanks during the filling  process.  I am talking about the aircraft that scoop up water from lakes  while fire fighting.

This thread has added zeal back into the forum.

Ted Campbell
************************************************************************
From Ric

The bulletin will include lots of photos and diagrams to illustrate the hypothesis, but I can tell you that there is no reason to think that there was any kind of pressure vessel under the floor of the aircraft in that area.

Any damage caused during takeoff would necessarily be from the outside inward.  I can't see any way that scooping action of water during landing would result in the damage we see on the artifact.

Whether or not the impact of sea water could do the job need not be a matter of debate.  The dimensions of the cabin door and the cabin window are known.  It should be possible to calculate the force of a known volume of sea water striking a known surface area and determine if that force would be sufficient to cause the failure of a known structure.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:30:25 -0400
From:         John Barrett
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Maybe a simpler way to describe the force of the water would be to look at the way a beach house gets destroyed during a storm. Water weighs 8 lbs per gallon. You take a few thousand gallons of water moving against a structure and you have a tremendous amount of force being applied instantaneously. I'm sure everyone has seen storm coverage on the news where a beach house disintegrates from wave action. In some that I've seen, the water will blast through the interior and out of the windows like a fire hose, tearing the structure apart. In the case of an airplane where the hull is pretty much sealed with the exception of the entry hatch and maybe a cockpit window, there is no where for that water pressure to exit. Even with smaller wave action, the cycling of pressure, no pressure, etc from the waves will eventually stress the skin until something weakens and fails. Once the piece is torn loose enough to hang in the water it would be moved back and forth by wave action until it breaks off. I would think a piece of the plane's belly skin would be a likely place for this to happen. For starters, it may have been damaged in the landing and already have been loosened. Second, if the plane is sitting on its gear and high enough above water to run an engine to charge a battery for the radio to be used, wouldn't it be logical to believe that with a worsening sea that the waves would also beat against the belly, furthering any damage? Then when a big wave gets in the cabin door....kaboom, your fluid explosion knocks the piece loose to hang in the wave action. I believe there were probably a lot more pieces with similar signs of failure. Too bad you can't conduct an experiment and put a similar plane on the reef flat where AE may have landed and test your theory. Too much cost  and too many environmental concerns along with the contamination of the area with extraneous airplane parts. It would be neat to see what happens though. Anyhow, back to my lurking. Keep up the good work.

LTM, who insists it isn't lurking until you've been caught.
John Barrett
************************************************************************
From Ric

An interesting point:

A belly skin can't be blasted out of an aircraft sitting on its belly on the reef.  There's nowhere for the skin to go.  The airplane must be held relatively immobile but the belly must not be tight up against a solid surface.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 5 Jul 2004 09:27:33 -0400
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Re:

>***   ***   ***   ***
>
>FUSELAGE ASSEMBLY  Make following repairs:
>
>1. Smooth dents in nose skin

etc...

So, are these repairs only for the fuselage? Is there another order(s) for other repairs? Weren't the engines upgraded? May be because the cylinder heads were damaged by ground contact? If all the plane weight had been taken by the belly, wouldn't the damage there be much more than just the skins? I.e. framing also?

My 2 cents.
Christian D
************************************************************************
From Ric

There were separate repair orders for the center section but nothing referring to the engines.  We know from the  Bureau of Air Commerce Inspection Report completed at the time the repairs were signed off on May 19, 1937 that the aircraft emerged with new propellers and new prop hubs but the engines were the same ones the airplane always had.   We don't know to what extent they had to be repaired but looking at the prop damage from the Luke Field wreck I would be very surprised if at least the starboard engine did not suffer crankshaft damage.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some stringer damage but the repair orders do not call any to be replaced.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:52:53 -0400
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

> An interesting point:
> A belly skin can't be blasted out of an aircraft sitting on its belly
> on the reef.  There's nowhere for the skin to go.  The airplane must be
> held relatively immobile but the belly must not be tight up against a
> solid surface.

I don't know anything about airplane construction, but as they are very lightly framed, I'm curious as to how likely a piece of skin could be "blown out"??? If there is enough force to break the sheet metal in tension (more or less), at both ends apparently, isn't that many times what it takes to first collapse all the framing and just crumple the whole thing like a ball of paper?

Also it is a bit hard to imagine how the fuselage (part of it) could be quite firmly held in place while wave action does its thing, and that again the whole structure is not just flattened FIRST?

Or could the fuselage have broken off just behind the main beam, and the rear part of the fuselage could have ended up wedged in the outer edge of the reef (in between the famous "fingers") with the open forward end facing the surf, like a funnel?

The airplane tail could have assured that the rear fuselage was upright, and then it was held by the sides in the reef crevice, while the belly skins were free to expand out...

Puzzling...

Another question is about geometry: if this panel is about rectangular, and assuming it is submitted to a somewhat uniform extreme pressure, which sides of the rectangle would give first? The short sides, or the long sides? I suppose it would also depends on how much the surrounding framing would distort. All of this is probably more likely if we have balanced blasting forces ALL ROUND the frames, i.e., the funnel position, as above...

The funnel position would pretty well ASSURE that the broken sides would be fore n aft.

As well: wouldn't there be a good chance one single side would give first, and then, because of a big gap there, relieving the blast pressure, the opposite side of the rectangle would never have to let go?

Is there any indication that the first side to let go was mostly under pure tension, while the second (opposite) side to let go had a fatigue (back n forth pull of the surf, once there was an opening at the first side) component to its failure mode??? A very slightly curled edge perhaps?

A last remark: of all the small bits of un-identified aluminum found, are there any that are possibly Electra skin, but also have the characteristic compound curvature? In the funnel position, there would have been lots of such scrap metal used by the colonists.

Christian D
***************************************************************
From Ric

We're getting an awful lot of speculation based upon one little photo. I'm working up a research bulletin for the website as quickly as I can and I'm trying to make sure that it includes all the maps and diagrams and photos everyone needs to make their own assessment.  There are features and aspects about this piece that we have not discussed and may have a significant bearing on any analysis.  I want to give everyone the complete picture, to the extent that we know it.  It's sort of a big job but I'm hoping to have it done later this week.

To answer Christian's last question, no, the little pieces of aluminum found in the village do not exhibit the compound curve seen in 2-2-V-1.
************************************************************************ 
From Dave Bush

Seems that some people are under the impression that this piece was blown out of an intact aircraft. It could just as easily have been ripped off after the aircraft had other water damage, leaving larger openings  allowing more water to enter in a shorter time span resulting in a greater force. PS - you said water weighs 8 pounds per gallon, but it is actually 8.345 pounds per gallon. The .345 may not seem like much, but multiplied by 1000 gallons it makes a 345 pound difference. Do you want a 345 pound weight dropped on you? Much less the other 8000 pounds.

Yours,
Dave Bush
************************************************************************ 
From Dan Postellon

Ric wrote:

>I think the rivets along the keel beam were upgraded from #3s to #5s
>but I think the rivets used to attach the new skin to the parallel
>stringers were #3s, as in the original, but the pitch was tightened to
>one inch and the old rivet holes were not used.

This might explain why that particular panel failed.  If extra rivet holes were drilled, you have a "tear along the dotted line" type of weakness in the keel beam, and the skin may be more likely to detach there, than on a section with fewer holes.

Dan Postellon
***************************************************************
From David

I have been looking at the Lombardo picture of the skin specimen on the "WoF" bulletin.

1. If that piece of 0.032" skin had been blown off in a fluid force explosion you would not be able to measure the rivet holes as 3/32" rivet holes. More like they would be 3/16" holes as the rivet heads would not let go without dimpling or "puckering" the skin surface as they pulled through. The holes would appear as dimpled holes and they do not look like that to me in the photo. The skin around the rivet holes looks unaffected as if the heads were removed, or, if it has been in the sea, corrosion could have weakened the rivets so that they would shear off under a side load with a sharp object (as per M. Guisson). Are there any scratch marks alongside the holes?

2. One hole in the top right hand quarter has cracks around it and the hole looks a little larger than the rest (2nd row from the right). This indicates to me that someone had a little bit of trouble getting that head off and wrastled the sheet loose. Do the cracks indicate outbound shear failure ? Betcha they do.

3. The right hand edge is not quite straight and I have to ask if there are machine marks on the edge because if someone used a hacksaw, heavy knife or a rotary saw to cut that edge there will be marks. The right hand edge looks to be consistent with a man made cut which is not straight. The RHS row of rivet holes do look larger, maybe up to #5 (5/32").

4. The left hand edge with the ragged "V" edges is consistent with someone trying to pull it off after removing some rivet heads just inboard from the edge but I disagree that the rivet lines were staggered. The indications to me were of two parallel lines of rivets at equal spacing and the same pitch without stagger, as the remnant which is outside of the obvious rivet line on the left hand side indicates (in the sawtoothed gaps) that rivets were there before it was torn off.

5. The top edge is also ragged and being 0.032 could have been torn off by strong hands once a crack had started. A microscopic exam would show if it failed in shear.

6. The bottom left hand edge is bent under and this indicates to me that this was the last attached point of the sheetmetal (not the LHS) and I would stretch my arm and say it failed in fatigue. A lab test would prove that by the intergranular structure effects.

7. I disagree that a massive wave force would remove this piece of skin. The pitch of the rivets would hold that skin on like Superglue, something else made those rivets let go. Looks to me more like a man made removal than anything else. Wrecks I have seen removed from the sea (and on beaches) after many years do not exhibit this kind of depiction as in the Lombardo photo. Rivets are strong, that's why they are there.

From experience, I conclude from viewing the small photograph that the removal was man-made.

In an explosion, possibly fuel/air (and we are taking here of pre-war aluminum not post war derivative alloys of higher strength), initially the heat generated would tend to blow the skin outwards between frames and stringers like a rising pie before the rivets let go. Then the rivets let go, enlarging the rivet holes and shear forces tear the skin outwards. The very fact that you have in "inward" bend in the bottom LH quarter is not consistent with that.

The biggest fire hose in the world (wave action) would not do to that sheetmetal as what is depicted in the Lombardo photo. The sheetmetal would first corrode by salt action and then the edges between heavier frames and stringers would fail in shear. Galvanic action, however minor, over the years in the differences between the rivet metal content and the sheetmetal content maybe would see the rivet heads pop off but the holes would also suffer and would not be able to be measured accurately as #3 holes (0.093"). Next size up is #4 (0.125").

It does not matter that it may have been in the sea for a short period, say one or two years, the salt would still be active unless the metal was treated chemically to arrest the salt action. What I see in the photo is not a piece of aluminum which has been in the sea for a long time. What I see is a piece of aluminum affected by exposure to salt air. Two different things.

Bear in mind that all natives in the South Pacific walk around with long steel bushknives which are great tools for opening cans to trimming beards.

Let's have a bigger picture of the artifact on your website so that all interested persons can have a better look.

Hope this helps your discussion.

Longtime Framie.
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

You make a lot of categorical statements about what would and would not happen under various conditions.  Maybe you're right.  I don't have any way to judge the validity of your opinions but, pending your examination of better photos, I can answer some of your questions.

>1. ... The skin around the rivet holes looks unaffected as if the 
>heads were removed

The resolution in the small photo is not sufficient to see it but there is significant dimpling around the rivet holes where the heads were blown off.  The size of the small rivets is not in question because one of them survived and is still present.

>...Are there any scratch marks alongside the holes ?

Yes there are, but only on the interior surface and only in a few places.  This is one of the aspects of the piece we have not yet discussed.  It does appear that the stringers, or broken sections of the stringers, were removed by human action.

>2. One hole in the top right hand quarter has cracks around it and 
>the hole looks a little larger than the rest (2nd row from the right).
>This indicates to me that someone had a little bit of trouble getting
>that head off and wrastled the sheet loose. Do the cracks indicate
>outbound shear failure ? Betcha they do.

There are three places where the skin surrounding a rivet hole is cracked.  Referring to the photo on the website, one place is at the seventh rivet down in the second row from the right.  At that point the skin has failed outward in what almost looks like an "exit wound".  Under low angle lighting it can be seen that there is an irregular line of dents and bulges running diagonally across the skin that gives the impression that the piece had something very heavy (a coral boulder?) land on it at some time AFTER the stringers were removed.  The "exit wound" is exactly in line with this line of damage and appears to be a dent that broke through. There are no scratches on the interior surface in this area. The other two cracks are in the third line of rivets (counting right to left.  Rivets #9, 10 and 11 (counting down from the top) are joined by a crack. Again, the row of dents runs right through this area and again there are no scratches on the interior surface.  Rivet hole #13, however, has cracks running diagonally across it and there are several deep scratches running across the hole on the interior surface.

>3. The right hand edge is not quite straight and I have to ask if
>there are machine marks on the edge because if someone used a hacksaw,
>heavy knife or a rotary saw to cut that edge there will be marks. The
>right hand edge looks to be consistent with a man made cut which is not
>straight. The RHS row of rivet holes do look larger, maybe up to #5 (5/32").

There is much more detail to that edge than you can see in the website photo.  Best to see what you think when you've had a closer look.  The rivet holes along that side are identical to the other rows of complete holes.

>4. The left hand edge with the ragged "V" edges is consistent with
>someone trying to pull it off after removing some rivet heads just 
>inboard from the edge but I disagree that the rivet lines were 
>staggered. The indications to me were of two parallel lines of rivets
>at equal spacing and the same pitch without stagger, as the remnant 
>which is outside of the obvious rivet line on the left hand side 
>indicates (in the sawtoothed gaps) that rivets were there before it was
>torn off.

You may be right about parallel rather than staggered lines of #5s but the NTSB metalugists were unequivocal in their judgment that the scalloped ripping pattern is very characteristic of sudden catastrophic failure, not man-made tearing.  I remember noting exactly the same kind of failure pattern on a much larger scale in a photo of the Aloha Airlines 737 that lost its cabin roof in flight.

>5. The top edge is also ragged and being 0.032 could have been torn 
>off by strong hands once a crack had started. A microscopic exam would 
>show if it failed in shear.

The NTSB examined it closely and determined that it failed in shear. As they described it to me at the time, the initial point of failure was in the upper left corner of the piece (as shown in the website photo) and progressed across the top and down the left side in a fraction of a second - BANG!

>6. The bottom left hand edge is bent under and this indicates to me
>that this was the last attached point of the sheetmetal (not the LHS)
>and I would stretch my arm and say it failed in fatigue. A lab test
>would prove that by the intergranular structure effects.>>

No question about it.  It failed in fatigue after cycling back and forth at least twice against a rigid edge.

>7. I disagree that a massive wave force would remove this piece of
>skin. The pitch of the rivets would hold that skin on like Superglue,
>something else made those rivets let go. Looks to me more like a man
>made removal than anything else. Wrecks I have seen removed from the
>sea (and on beaches) after many years do not exhibit this kind of
>depiction as in the Lombardo photo. Rivets are strong, that's why they
>are there.

We may have a two stage sequence of events - one natural and one human- that accounts for the removal of the skin.

I'll be interested to hear what you think after you have more information.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 5 Jul 2004 11:01:47 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      engine damage

I don't know about 1937 but if you smash your propellers they way AE did back then, you'd be  required to have your engines replaced or at least removed for crankshaft inspection.

LTM (who maintains airplanes are safer in the air than on the ground)
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't have any direct experience with R-1340s but I know that back when I was settling claims in gear-up landings there is no way I wouldn't insist that the crankshafts on those engines be "dialed" for any bending and X-rayed for cracks.  That starboard side prop in particular looks like big trouble, it's forward curl indicating that it was pulling lots of power when it hit the pavement.  I've never seen any records detailing whatever engine inspection and repairs were made but the engine serial numbers did not change.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 5 Jul 2004 11:19:02 -0400
From:         Mark
Subject:      other questions

1) Re. 2-2-V-1:  I think this poor horse has pretty much been beaten to death and back again. Short of another expedition to Gardner locating additional material that can be more definitely attributed to an L10, we seem doomed to never know for certain. Any trips planned?

2) There is still one thing that has retained my curiosity. You may have dealt with it in the past: the corroded 12-foot long steel item that Emily described as having come from the wrecked aircraft. There were no clear descriptions of the dimensions other than the length, or of the shape, as far as I recall. Is there any such steel item known to be in the L10 structure?

3) Was the tide known for certain to be low when the assumed landing took place?

4) Is the beach firm enough to allow a near empty L10 to land without ground looping, especially in the hands of a pilot who is exhausted, trying to control panic, and whose skills under the particular circumstances were not those of an old pro, according to many sources.

I know from watching many no-payload landings and takeoffs of CF-TCC (L10A No.1112) that with a good breeze down the runway it can almost float down. On t/o, by the time the throttles are all the way forward, the tail is up, and within seconds and what seems only a few times its own length, the wheels are off. My former boss use to fly it a lot in the 50's. He also came in one day, (that was 20-plus years ago), asked me if i had seen the documentary on Glenn Miller the night before, then said "I think I'm the one responsible for killing him" He was a Lancaster squadron leader, and gave the order to salvo the bombs in the Channel when the weather forced them to abort. Checked his logbooks: right place, right time. Eventually corroborating testimony came from other RAF vets around the world, and they did another documentary on it.

Have a good day, y'all.

************************************************************************
From Ric

>1. Any trips planned?

Niku V is tentatively planned for the summer of 2005.  It's always a question of funding.

>2. Is there any such steel item known to be in the L10 structure?

No, not exactly as she describes it, but if we say that her basic impressions are reliable (a rusty shaft with a round object on the end) but that her judgment of dimensions was a bit off (seeing at a distance of at least 600 feet away) what she describes is not unlike a landing gear leg with wheel still attached.

>3) Was the tide known for certain to be low when the assumed landing
>took place?

We've been able to determine that the tide was low during the window of time that the aircraft could have arrived at the island.  We're still refining the calculations of just how low the tide was and how long the reef flat was dry that morning.

>4) Is the beach firm enough to allow a near empty L10 to land without
>ground looping

It would depend upon how much sand there was on the beach at that time (it varies), but there is no reason to think that a landing was made or attempted on the beach.  All of the available evidence points to a landing on the reef flat.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:51:21 -0400
From:         Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Lets consider that the aircraft got down on the dry reef, and was able to taxi under very bad conditions, to an area that was fairly close to the beach. There something happened that got them stuck on the reef. The reason that I say taxi  is because they could not land straight in toward the beach, the reef is to narrow.  The aircraft then sits there a few days and the wave action from high tide is busy destroying it. My question is would the wave action have enough power to rip parts of the skin off of the ribs that they were attached to?  Another thing I would like to point out is that this airplane has been exposed to the  elements for a long time, and that damage could have occured anytime after the landing.

That airplane was designed to take off, and land, on rough runways. That is the reason it had the big, fat tires. The dust that is present on takeoff doesn't seem to have any big projectiles in it. It just looks like a dry spot on the runway.  Do we know if it rained that morning at the airport in Lea?   If so that could just be a deep pot hole full of loose dust that just got wet on the surface, and when the tail wheel hit it it broke the surface, and cause the dry dust to boil up.

LTM, mother could always find a little dust on everthing
Ron 2640
************************************************************************
From Ric

We have enough to deal with without digging up dead horses.

- Any taxiing on the reef flat has to be limited to the fairly narrow (ball park 100 foot wide) strip of "landable" reef surface near the ocean.  There is no reason to speculate that the aircraft got anywhere close to the beach.  It couldn't.  If it landed on the reef it stayed out near the reef edge where the waves break.

- Anybody who doesn't think that waves can tear an airplane apart needs to learn more about airplanes and waves.

- The puff of dust in the Lae (not Lea) takeoff film first erupts under the centerline of the airplane well ahead of the tail wheel.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:53:02 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re DeBisschop

Darryl

This quote may interest you:

from http://riptx.riptx.net/mermaids.htm

1956-57- In mid-1956 Eric de Bisschop, a 65-year-old adventurer, attempts to sail from Tahiti to Chili in a replica of an ancient Polynesian raft, a bamboo vessel christened Tahiti-Nui. He believes the ancient Polynesians crossed the Pacific and colonized South America , the opposite of what Thor Heyerdahl suggested with his Kon-Tiki. "At midnight on January 2, 1957, in latitude 32* South and longitude 144* 15' West," as he writes in Tahiti-Nui (1957), "I came off watch, handing over to my young friend Alain." The raft has been sitting dead in the water for twenty-four hours, "on a marvelously flat sea without a breath of wind." De Bisschop dozes for a while but returns to the deck to relieve himself. He finds crewman Alain staggering around and gibbering like a lunatic. The young sailor eventually
gathers his wits enough to say that "I heard a noise coming from forward, a fairly loud noise followed by others not so loud, exactly as if a large dolphin of the same size as those we tried to harpoon the other day had just accidentally jumped on board and was thrashing its tail trying to get back into the sea." Alain intends to spear the "dolphin" before it damages the bamboo railings, but "the large dolphin, or what I had thought to be a dolphin, had in one bound taken up a position that was quite abnormal for a fish, it was standing upright." The Creature leaps at Alain, knocking him down and plunging back into the sea. De Bisschop writes: "I could see, quite clearly, on his bare arms, sticky and luminous, the strange scales of a fish." He informs the press via radio that a "mermaid" has visited the raft. Sounds like de Bisschop had a fertile imagination.

Regards Angus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:07:12 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Do you have any info on what caused the dent in the right front nose section?

************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know what dent you're talking about.  The repair orders say "1. Smooth dents in nose skin" but the photos taken at the accident scene don't show any dents in the nose.  Perhaps the dents were caused during recovery and shipment of the aircraft back to California.  In any event, they had to very minor.  As I'm sure you know, dents in airplane skins don't usually get "smoothed".  You usually have to replace the skin.

There is an Earhart myth that says there was a dent in the Electra's nose but it's only a reflection of the engine cowling on the side of the nose.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:17:54 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: engine damage

At VT-27, Corpus Christi Texas 1982 we had a T-28 on landing have a false nose gear down indication and the Maintenace Officer who was the pilot sat the nose down on the prop.  We changed some cowling and the propeller but there was no engine change.  The T-28 was built like a Sherman tank. The propeller looked a mess, it was all bent up around the cowling but with minimal structural work, that aircraft was flying shortly thereafter.

**********************************************************************
From Ric

It's not uncommon for engines, especially big engines like the T-28's, to suffer "sudden stoppage" without bending or cracking the crankshaft PROVIDED that the crank was not delivering significant power to the prop at the time of the stoppage.  Props that hit the ground at idle thrust, as in a landing accident, curl backward.  Prop blades that contact the ground while "pulling" generally curl forward.  In the Luke Field wreck the prop blades on the left-hand engine are curled rearward and the blades on right-hand engine are curled forward.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:24:16 -0400
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Appears we are nit picking the small stuff with this panel project - The engines appeared to have been repaired and serviced well enough to get close to Howland on 2 July 1937 - Anybody can replace engine parts, as long as the structure that supports the ID plate is ok, then you can call it the same engine - As far as paperwork goes, old time recip mechs were never known for their paperwork skills, but they sure knew how to put the crap that came though their door back together.

Speaking of craftsmenship - Was NR16020 post Luke crash repair carried out on the regular Lockheed production line or on a service line? If only a few airframe mechs where assigned the repair task and they remained with the repair as a group, you may find an identifier because true craftsmenship leave footprints in the sand it touches.

Just food for thought.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang # 2559
********************************************************************* 
From Ric

The period during which NR16020 was under repair (April/May 1937) was one of Lockheed's busiest times for production of the Model 10 and the new Model 12.  Photos of Earhart's airplane under repair show it up on sawhorses in what appears to  be the right rear corner of the shop.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:33:24 -0400
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> 1. ... The skin around the rivet holes looks unaffected as if the
> heads were removed,...
> The resolution in the small photo is not sufficient to see it but there
> is significant dimpling around the rivet holes where the heads were
> blown off.  The size of the small rivets is not in question because one
> of them survived and is still present.

If the wave action was more like into a funnel (say directed into the rear end of the fuselage), the forces are more symmetric all around the circumference of the fuselage, and there is little side pull on the rivets. We mostly have a "slight" outward pull on the rivets coupled with major tension in the skin

> of dents and bulges running diagonally across the skin that gives the
> impression that the piece had something very heavy (a coral

Could this instead be the remaining signs (after someone had roughly flattened the piece) there had been a diagonal fold, after the 2 consecutive sides had let go?

> The NTSB examined it closely and determined that it failed in shear.
> As they described it to me at the time, the initial point of failure
> was in the upper left corner of the piece (as shown in the website
> photo) and progressed across the top and down the left side in a
> fraction of a second - BANG!

Well: if it failed in shear alone because of surf action, why would that panel, hanging on 2 consecutive sides, NOT fold over along some diagonal as soon as the next wave??? Or are we (again) talking about a ONE-TIME  explosion?

That's seems quite interesting to me: if that 2-sides instant failure happened under fluid pressure, wouldn't the rectangle fold over along the diagonal, and there should be some sort of crease left?

If no crease, then those 2 sides must have failed under plain tension in the skin (may be even diagonal tension, to get the ripping to start in that upper left corner)?!?!?! And NO fluid pressure/wave action that would surely have bent the rectangle soon after its 2 sides were free.

But then what? How to explain it? Some wave action for the oil-canning. Then the (piece of) wreck on the reef edge shifts and gets leveraged b the surf, and the skin lets go in pure tension because the WHOLE structure is stressed, not just that panel. And last the human salvage part.

Could we postulate the plane was pushed over the reef edge by some easterly (thunder) storm? Would the tail follow or lead? The tail surfaces remain jammed high up in one of the reef canyons, with the nose seaward and down? Some wave action for the oil canning, but ultimately the surf acting on the wings/fuselage front, would twist the structure and snap the skin in pure tension?  Some oil-canning would remain visible. If the plane got jammed in the reef more or less right side up, the twisting would be likely to induce diagonal stressing in the belly skins.

By the way, Ric: what is the depth of the dishing of that panel? Is it one single general dishing, or do we have signs of different "dishings" between all the rivet lines? May be some of the center lines of rivets popping earlier on?

Regards.
Christian D
************************************************************************
From Ric

Again I have to suggest that you save your speculation until you have some information to base it on. There is evidence of only one "dishing".  It is only along the longitudinal axis, is quite uniform, and it amounts to roughly 1.5 inches at the deepest point.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:37:15 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: engine damage - off topic

Further to bent propellers, I'd like to remind that during WW II British fighter planes s like the Spitfire, the Hurricane and other tail draggers had wooden propellers. They could be mass produced by thousands of cabinet makers throughout the country and offered the advantage of flying to splinters when an aircraft was inadvertently put on its nose in a bad landing. No time was lost in removing engines for crankshaft inspection. By the way the RAF TBO (Time Between Overhaul) specification was 250 hours only. You know why ? Because hardly an aircraft lasted that long in the war. And by that time more powerful models were available...

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:44:20 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: engine damage

Aha!  The bending of the props indicate that AE was giving full power to the RH engine while throttling back on the left, contributing to the right turn ground loop.  I never noticed the difference in prop bending.

************************************************************************
From Ric

Angus and I have been fighting about this off-forum.  He contends that the tips on the port-side engine were also bent forward.  He's correct that one of the tips on that engine (the outboard one) is bent forward  but I maintain that the other one  is bent backward a shown in twodifferent photos.  Moments after the crash AE told Air Corps Lt. David Arnold that "..the ship seemed to pull to the right.  I eased off the left engine and the ship started a long persistent left turn and ended up where it is now." (USAAC accident report, Exhibit "E", page 6)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:20:03 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: engine damage

The truth of the matter seems to be that the outboard tip of the port engine is bent forward, the inboard tip appears to be bent backwards but the main body of this inboard blade is bent forwards. The sequence of events regarding the bending of the propellers depends on exactly when the props came in contact with the ground.

Randy said:

> Aha!  The bending of the props indicate that AE was giving full power
> to the RH engine while throttling back on the left,

Because of the groundloop to the left, the starboard engine would have initially contacted the ground when the starboard gear collapsed, the port gear then being raised well off the ground. If the aircraft was travelling forward at this time we might conclude from the forward bending  that this engine was still under power. However, this is not at all necessarily the case and indeed is probably not the case. The aircraft may well have been travelling slightly or considerably backwards at this time (and the engine at reduced power or even idle) so bending both tips forward (ie away from the engine).

The port gear then collapsed but by this time the aircraft was almost certainly well into rotation and the forward bending tip on the port engine may likewise have been travelling backwards. As the aircraft further rotated and the direction of motion changed the other tip on the port engine was bent towards the engine. A further change of direction resulted in the second bend of the main body of this blade away from the engine (which would occur secondarily- being stronger than the tip - as the engine reached its lowest height) . It might be argued that there is very little time in half a rotation of the propeller for the plane's direction to change much but the prop was probably making intermittent contact with the ground as the reaction forces forced the wing away from the ground causing the aircraft to bounce. The plane may also have been moving fast enough for the port wing to retain some lift.

My guess is that the starboard gear collapsed when the wheel could no longer achieve rotation ie the aircraft was travelling completely sideways. The bending of the prop tips probably occurred after this, when the aircraft was starting to travel backwards.

One can therefore not conclude that the starboard engine was under power. Indeed Long says in effect that AE cut the power as the port wing rose (and the plane rotated in the vertical plane on the starboard  gear). I don't know his source for this but Ric may well know. AE is unlikely to have opened the throttle of the throttled back port engine after the blades hit the ground nor would it then make any difference, so the double bend in one blade is likely to be associated with the changing direction of motion after both gear legs had collapsed.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'll agree that your scenario offers a possible alternative to explain why three of the four blade tips are curled forward. I don't know how Elgen Long knows that AE cut the power as the port wing rose.  There's no mention of that in the Army report and AE did not claim to have closed throttles when she talked to Lt. Arnold immediately after the accident - but then Elgen  seems to know all kinds of unknowable things.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:34:30 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      groundloop

AE said:

"I eased off the left engine and the ship started a long persistent left turn and ended up where it is now."

So easing off on the left hand engine caused a left turn?  That seems counter-intuitive...I thought she had a right-hand ground loop.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's the entire statement:

"The ship functioned perfectly at the start.  As it gained speed the right wing dropped down and the ship seemed to pull to the right. I eased off the left engine and the ship started a long persistent left turn and ended up where it is now. It was all over instantly. The first thing I thought of was the right oleo or the right tire letting go. The way the ship pulled it was probably a flat tire."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:56:17 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: engine damage

Today's 4 and 6 cylinder aircraft engines have a relatively long crankshaft compared to a really short one on a P&W Wasp, so bending of something that short is most likely not a problem and I'll bet that a teardown wasn't necessary at all.

***********************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting point.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:11:23 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I can see some are having trouble visualizing how a small panel could "blow" off of the Electra. Most are probably thinking of an intact plane and struggling to see how this could occur.

The artifact 2-2-V-1 could have come off after the plane had been broken apart to even a great extent. For example assume the Electra was in many pieces scattered across the reef and a small section of maybe 4 or 5 feet, containing 2-2-V-1, was pinned against or between other objects and was pounded by heavy  waves, blowing the "patch" away.

HOW it happened is the least of our concerns.

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

The problem I have with any scenario that has the Electra blasted into many, many  2-2-V-1 -like pieces is that, for all of our searching, we've only found one piece of sheet metal on Nikumaroro - our old friend 2-2-V-1.  It is, of course, possible that lots other pieces of sheet metal came ashore and were found and cut up by the locals for fishing lures and inlays for carved wooden boxes and so forth  and all got used up except for 2-2-V-1 that didn't get used at all.  It's also possible that there are many more pieces of sheet buried along the shore or in the village that have somehow escaped our metal detectors. And it's also possible that of all the pieces of sheet metal, only 2-2-V-1 made it ashore and the rest were carried away to the briny deep.  But none of those possibilities strike me as very likely.

What makes more sense to me is that 2-2-V-1 is fairly unique and that relatively few pieces of sheet were blasted or torn from the aircraft. ======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:45:13 -0400
From:         Alan Messenger
Subject:      Re: groundloop

If you take the power off the left engine on a twin, its like giving the right engine more power and therefore you turn to the right. My experience is that groundloops caused by assymetric power tend to be quite gentle as compared to groundloops caused by a taildraggers natural tendency to swing on takeoff or landing. Its a bit odd that she would let a 'long persistant turn ' of any direction build up so that it became uncontrollable and ended in a groundloop.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:38:15 -0400
From:         Alan Messenger
Subject:      Re: Groundloop

That's not right either!

I meant to say, its like giving the right engine more power and therefore you turn to the left!
************************************************************************
From Ric

Too late Alan.  The forum takes no prisoners.  In the few hours between your first posting and your correction we received the following goose pile.

************************************************************************
From Oscar Boswell

That's not correct, is it?
************************************************************************
From Harvey Schor

I thought that,on a twin with the power off the left engine,the ship will tend to turn to the left.
harvey,2387.
************************************************************************
From Angus Murray

If you apply a forward force greater to the right wing than that to the left, the left wing will lag behind due to drag and the aircraft will turn to the left as its heading changes.

************************************************************************
From Alan Caldwell

No twin I've ever flown did that. Pull power back on the left engine and  the plane turns left. Most pilots I've flown with used engine differential to steer on the ground.

Alan
********************************************************************
From Marty Moleski

That doesn't sound right.

More power on the right should drag the right wing faster than the left, yawing the nose to the left.

Or so it seems to me.

Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:39:14 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

>What  makes more sense to me is that 2-2-V-1 is fairly unique and that
>relatively  few pieces of sheet were blasted or torn from the
>aircraft.

I tend to agree. I think the plane stayed basically intact. My scenario of  a multitude of pieces was solely to get folks to think outside the box on how the artifact separated from the plane. Visualizing a completely intact airplane  makes it harder to see how the part could have been blown out.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:08:44 -0400
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

One for the crashed-and-sankers.  Is it possible the sheet could have been loosened in a ditching and blown out by air pressure as the aircraft sank?
************************************************************************
From Ric

Not unless Earhart was really flying the XC-35, Army's experimental pressurized Electra.

Anyone who has ever flown an unpressurized airplane in a heavy rain storm can tell you that they're about as watertight as a screen door.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:50:11 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

John Harsh asked:

>One for the crashed-and-sankers.  Is it possible the  sheet could have been
>loosened in a ditching and blown out by air pressure as  the aircraft sank?

John, don't you think the radio messages from AE rule out a ditching since the plane could not transmit without the right engine running?

Now I understand the proponents of ditching or crash in the ocean are disregarding a great number of radio calls in order to keep their theory alive.  If you will read through the archives you will see their theory does not hold water. Pun intended.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:04:27 -0400
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> The artifact 2-2-V-1 could have come off after the plane had been broken
> apart to even a great extent. For example assume the Electra was in
> many pieces scattered across the reef and a small section of maybe 4 or 5
> feet, containing 2-2-V-1, was pinned against or between other objects and was
> pounded by heavy  waves, blowing the "patch" away.

I'd tend to disagree: although I don't quite know how "stiff" the Electra framing is by itself, I rather doubt the huge force necessary to "blow" one piece off would not just collapse/flatten/pancake/drape/fold the whole 5 feet section, against the underlying reef/whatever, WELL before all the rivets let go, or the skin snaps. According to the experts "bang" theory; now if the rivets corroded away or worked loose through years of fatigue stress, then it would be different.

Personally the only other 2 options are for that "funnel effect" where the force is balanced ALL around the framing, or some lab set up where there is a quite strong framework to act die-like in supporting precisely the 4 edges of the panel, while the center is punched out with several tons (off the cuff guesstimate) of force. This force on 22v1 alone; for the whole 5feet/whatever, we are talking many tons, and the section would have been draped on the coral like a wet tissue, well before any small panel was blown off -I think... What size exactly are them stringers?

> HOW it happened is the least of our concerns.

How it DID, may be, but what IS possible is quite interesting to evaluate!

> The problem I have with any scenario that has the Electra blasted into
> many, many  2-2-V-1 -like pieces is that, for all of our searching,
> we've only found one piece of sheet metal on Nikumaroro - our old
> friend 2-2-V-1.  It is, of course, possible that lots other pieces of
> sheet metal came ashore and were found and cut up by the locals for
> fishing lures and inlays for carved wooden boxes and so forth  and all
> got used up except for 2-2-V-1 that didn't get used at all.

That seems MOST likely to me, given 20 plus years of colonists presence; they could hardly get too much of it. I'd doubt they possessed 22v1 and didn't use it before long! Again: Niku wasn't cordonned off as a crime scene ever since 1937.

Regards

Christian D
************************************************************************
From Ric

If NR16020 was blown apart from "funnel effect" and lots and lots of pieces of sheet metal came ashore to be eventually cut up and used up by the locals (which is what I understand you are proposing), I wonder what happened to all the other junk that makes up an airplane? Stringers, ribs and bulkheads; miles of tubing, wiring and hoses; radios, fuel tanks and flooring.  I've seen several Electras under rebuild and have been astonished at the sheer volume of junk that is stuffed into overflowing cardboard boxes or just lies in piles around the periphery of the work area.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:49:18 -0400
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

> If NR16020 was blown apart from "funnel effect" and lots and lots of
> pieces of sheet metal

I don't know that lots of pieces would part at the very same instant (same surf wave), and the more the blown/split panels, the weaker the "ramming effect" would become...

> came ashore to be eventually cut up and used up
> by the locals (which is what I understand you are proposing), I wonder
> what happened to all the other junk that makes up an airplane?
> Stringers, ribs and bulkheads; miles of tubing, wiring and hoses;
> radios, fuel tanks and flooring.  I've seen several Electras under
> rebuild and have been astonished at the sheer volume of junk that is
> stuffed into overflowing cardboard boxes or just lies in piles around
> the periphery of the work area.

That's not what I am saying, Ric; I'm saying that whatever quantity of sheet metal ended up recovered would have been used up fairly rapidly, and I for one would not be surprised you could not find too many pieces left on the island. (Except for never-found hidden/buried stuff).

As for what happened to the stringers/skeleton, good point: I often wondered about it. If indeed the wreck had been accessible to the colonists, I can see them salvaging lots of pieces like the skin, but I would expect to have some of the less useable stuff like a skeleton left behind; but where would that have gone? STILL buried in the sand/vegetation somewhere? Unless it fell back over the reef edge...

By the way: what is the knowledgeable "framies" opinion on whether a big chunk of fuselage would be flattened by the force needed to blow a piece of skin off, before said piece gets punched out, OR, how likely it is for the structure to be quite strongly supported in its natural environment just right for 22v1 to be blown off?

Christian D
******************************************************************
From Ric

Good, informed speculation about what happened to the airplane is important to our planning.  If there is reason to believe that the airplane was blown or pounded into many pieces that subsequently washed ashore, or if there is reason to believe that the wreck remained somewhat accessible for a period of time after the island was settled and it was people, rather than wave action (or a combination of both), that tore it apart - then it would seem reasonable to devote considerable resources to searching the formerly-inhabited part of the island for surviving artifacts in the hope that one or more might be found that is conclusively identifiable.

If, on the other hand, analysis of the material that has been found gives us reason to believe that relatively few pieces of wreckage came ashore then a concentrated search of the village is a waste of time and resources which might be better spent elsewhere (at the Seven Site for example).  Following the same logic, if the few pieces of Electra-attributable wreckage we have found can be explained without theoretically ripping the airplane to pieces then it follows that the there may be much more of the airplane to find in the deep water immediately adjacent to the reef than we had previously assumed.  The prospect of a more or less intact fuselage and center section (as opposed to a scattering of aluminum confetti) opens new doors in the consideration of practicable search technology and technique.

In the course of seven expeditions to Nikumaroro we have spent many hours combing that village for anything of interest.  We have not, I hasten to say, subjected all or even a significant fraction of the village to a centimeter-by-centimeter, hands-and-knees inspection but it is fair to say that most of the formerly-inhabited ground has been closely eyeballed.  Very little aluminum has been found and the pieces that can be definitely identified as airplane debris number perhaps a dozen.  The place simply does not look to me like the site of a former aircraft salvage and disassembly operation, nor is the adaptive use of airplane parts something that many of the former residents recall, and of all the servicemen we've talked to who interacted with the local population before, during, and after WWII only one - John Mims - remembers anything about them having and using airplane parts.

For those reasons  I find myself leaning more and more toward the idea that the Electra went over the reef-edge pretty much in one piece.  If it then sank deep enough to be protected from waves and currents, even in storms, it follows that it should still be there.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:12:30 -0400
From:         Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric writes:

>For those reasons I find myself leaning more and more toward the idea
>that the Electra went over the reef-edge pretty much in one piece. If
>it then sank deep enough to be protected from waves and currents, even
>in storms, it follows that it should still be there.

Ric, this brings to mind some things I've wondered, but never asked about.

1. Do we have any knowledge or evidence concerning the density and/or rate of coral growth on Niku?

2. If your guess is correct, wouldn't coral growth have not only "welded" the remains to the existing reef but also, by this time, virtually obscured any "readily" visual evidence?

3. Regarding coral growth, have TIGHAR divers ever ventured near the Norwich City wreck to determine the effects/extent of coral growth over pieces of the ship's wreckage? I only mention this because of the relative close proximity of the loss of Norwich City (1929) and the Electra (1937).

I'm sure all this has been taken into consideration, but I've never seen it mentioned.

LTM,
Dave (#2585)
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Coral grows only in warm, sunlit, shallow water.  The TBD Devastators we recently surveyed in Jaluit lagoon (an environment not unlike that at Niku) have been in the water since February of 1942 and provide an informative example of what might be expected of Earhart's Electra under similar circumstances.  On of the TBDs is at a depth of about 50 feet.  There are a few large coral growths on the airplane but its shape and recognizability as an aircraft are by no means obscured.  The other TBD is at 125 feet.  At that depth the amount of sunlight is greatly reduced and coral growth is noticeably more stunted than on the shallower airplane.

My guess is that for the Earhart Electra to have sunk deep enough on the reef slope to have escaped the effects of storms it is, by definition, also deep enough to be subject to minimal coral growth.

Our divers have examined and filmed the Norwich City wreckage that is in shallow water (less than 100 feet).  The wreckage has some coral growth but is still recognizable.  What is surprising is how little wreckage there is.  The whole aft half of the ship broke off in a storm that hit the island in early January 1939 (as documented in before and after photos taken by the New Zealand survey party that was there at the time) but our divers have never seen anything but a few scattered pieces of debris.  We can only surmise that the stern traveled down the steep reef slope to depths we have never explored.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:13:18 -0400
From:         John Harsh
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

For Alan

I'm not necessarily a proponent of crashed and sank, I'm just wondering why the artifact is singular.

- JMH
0634C
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:32:59 -0400
From:         Troy Carmichael
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric, I think your theory of what happened to the Electra is actually a compromise that supports both the Niku and crash-and-sank theorists <grin>.  Yes, it crashed (on Niku reef) and, yes, it sank in the ocean. Now everyone except for the Japanese-capture theorists can be happy! (alas, if only.....)

Daniel Troy Carmichael
TIGHAR #Something
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence.
********************************************************************
From Ric

I guess the Japanese can still come to Niku and capture them after the airplane sinks.  Something for everyone.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:47:14 -0400
From:         Mark
Subject:      Wise sayings

Troy says;

>Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere
>incompetence.

"There are no great mysteries. There is only great ignorance"

(A word to the teen-aged rebels amongst our readers - never say that to a devout nun until AFTER she has graded you, trust me!)

************************************************************************
From Ric

I resisted (but only briefly) the temptation to point out that there appears to be such a thing as malicious incompetence.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:30:05 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

> I guess the Japanese can still come to Niku and capture them after the
> airplane sinks.

Or drop the Electra remains off the edge of the reef at Niku after they've killed AE & FN and stolen all of the military secrets from the Flying Laboratory.

[Just pretending, for a moment, to be a conspiracy nut.  There is no artifact that will keep people from clinging to weird theories.]

Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:39:00 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1


Ric wrote:

>I find myself leaning more and more toward the idea that
>the Electra went over the reef-edge pretty much in one piece.  If it then
>sank deep enough to be protected from waves and currents, even in storms, it
>follows that it should still be there.

I really like the idea of NR16020 sitting just off that reef in nearly one piece!

I (and many others, I'm sure) have wondered about this for a long time. I posted a question on the topic of searching underwater on 1-16-2003 (See Forum Archives for January 2003). Tom King gave a detailed answer to my post, which he began by stating "I'm sure Ric is tired of answering this one". I was left with the impression that an underwater search had already been thoroughly debated a long time ago, and was simply not practical.

Ric, the question I have is this; If there is a decent chance that this is worth checking out, does this cause you to consider directing effort to an underwater search?

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson, #2583
************************************************************************
From Ric

In a word, yes.  The cost is still a major concern but we're presently re-examining the options.

By the way, a TIGHAR team is presently in the wilds of northern Idaho examining the wreckage of a 1936 Electra crash.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:59:21 -0400
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Itasca log

Itasca's last recieved KHAQQ radio transmission at or about0843 2 July 1937 Howland time ends with "we are running north and south line" - Is this the correct word layout as written in the Itasca radio logs?

- Any ambiguity between the rough and smooth radio logs as to word layout?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

If you go to

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/37_ItascaLogs/PDF.html
you can download a PDF of the original rough log.  The entry you're  looking for is in Position 2 Page 3.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:11:46 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Bulletin #26 Lost Antenna II

Still trying to come up with an alternative to wave damage and  2-2-V-1.

When I looked at the above bulletin and tried to get a better understanding of when (and how) AE may have lost that belly antenna I see something that's a little puzzling.  In the photos used in the above bulletin you will note that the loop antenna is at right angles (loop faces the photographer) to the centerline of the aircraft.  However, if you go to the moving film of the take off at Lea the loop appears to be aligned (facing forward) with the centerline of the aircraft.

If you look carefully at the moving pictures you can see the loop facing forward during AE/FN getting into the plane, as they taxi out and I think as the plane passes at right angles to the photographer during takeoff.  This antenna orientation appears to be collaborated by Alan Board's photo shown in Bulletin #20 which also shows the takeoff at Lae.

If my view is correct then it seems that the photos used to argue the point that the antenna departed the aircraft at takeoff and also could have caused the  "puff of dirt" is a little hard to understand.  However, if the photos in Bulletin #26 were from an earlier period e.g. upon arrival at Lae -which seems to be collaborated by the photos in Bulletin #27 (the arrival and a right angle loop) -or some other time before the final takeoff then we may have another case  for Artifact 2-2-V-1 and the "puff of dirt."

Suppose that AE lost that belly antenna upon landing at Lae or during some other landing/takeoff and it was decided to fix it while at Lae - they had the Guinea Airways technician and the Chater Report indicates that they did carry out testing and calibration of the "long wave" in the hanger and in the air on July 1- could they also have used a piece of the onboard sheet metal i.e. artifact 2-2-V-1 during this process.  Could 2-2-V-1 have  come loose during takeoff and caused the "puff of dirt"?

It may be in order to revisit the photos that were used in the missing antenna analysis, also see if other photos of AE's arrival show there was indeed an antenna upon getting to Lae.  Finally, the original analysis of the pitot tube may correct after all - it could have been bent upon arrival.

Ted Campbell
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm afraid I don't follow you.  The loop antenna over the cockpit was rotatable using a knob on the cockpit ceiling.  The fact that its orientation is different in various photos means only that somebody turned the knob.  The belly antenna that was lost on takeoff was a wire that ran from the starboard pitot mast aft through a mast under the center section and terminated at another mast under the cabin.  It is that last aft-most mast that was apparently knocked off during taxiing and, we think, ended up being dragged along the ground by the wire. The puff of dust in the takeoff film may be the dragged mast snagging in the dirt and ripping the rest of the wire free.

The photos clearly show that all of the antennas and both pitot masts were intact and unbent when the airplane taxied out for departure and that the belly masts were gone and the pitots still unbent when the airplane came back by on its takeoff run.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:57:18 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Itasca log

Tom Strang wrote:

>Itasca's last recieved  KHAQQ radio transmission at or about 0843 2
>July 1937  Howland time ends with "we are running north and south
>line"

                                                      N  ES S"
The raw message actually reads, "WE ARE RUNNING ON LINE

As you can see the end of the line was typed at the end but above the first part.

My question is what does "N ES S" mean? What is the "ES" part? We have taken that to mean "and" but is that so?

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

"ES" is radio operator's shorthand for "and".  The way the log entry is written is ambiguous.  The entry can be interpreted as either "WE ARE RUNNING ON NORTH AND SOUTH LINE" or "WE ARE RUNNING ON LINE NORTH AND SOUTH".
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:58:37 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Lae takeoff

Let me try again.

TIGHAR explains that the "new" Alan Board photo (Bulletin #20) was taken at the same time of the motion picture Lae takeoff.  This "new" photo gives TIGHAR a better view of the underside of the plane and has been used to come to the conclusion that the antenna was lost at takeoff.

However, if you look at the loop antenna's orientation in the Alan Board photo and compare it with the antenna's orientation in the motion picture (at the same location on the runway) you will see that they are different.  Therefor, the Alan Board and the motion picture takeoff photos had to be  taken at different times.

What I asked was: 1) Is it possible that the Alan Board photo was taken during the arrival at Lae and therefore shows that the antenna was lost in an earlier flight?  2) Has TIGHAR analyzed any of the other photos taken upon  AE arrival at Lae to see if the antenna was there? 3) Given that AE had radio problems upon arrival at Lae - the Chater Report - and some  photos show there was no antenna at some time while at Lae (at arrival, while in  the hanger, etc. or during takeoff) is it possible that repairs to the belly  area were carried out at Lae using the artifact 2-2-V-1? 4) Should we  revisit the Lost Antenna analysis?

Ted Campbell
************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay.  I see what you're saying, but I disagree that the loop antenna is oriented differently in the still versus the motion picture photography.  The open end of the loop is facing forward.  The Alan Board takeoff photo that Photek analyzed shows the airplane in a three-quarter view and the loop appears as an ellipse.

That photo could not have been taken during landing because the airplane was never in that attitude during landings (numerous photos and newsreel films show that Earhart made full stall three-point landings like everyone else in those days).  Other photos show the Electra in the hangar at Lae and the belly antenna is clearly visible. Analysis of the film shows that the antenna is present when the airplane taxis out for the final takeoff but is not there when it comes back past the camera on the takeoff run.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:45:50 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Columbia, MO

I find that I'll be teaching in Columbia, Missouri on August 16-18.  If any Forumites (or others) in that area would like me to give my ever-popular 1-hour (plus Q and A) slide show on the Nikumaroro Hypothesis and TIGHAR's efforts to test it, I'd be happy to devote an evening to doing so.  I'll probably be flying in and out of St. Louis, so perhaps something could be arranged there, too.  Just let me know (at TFKing106@aol.com) before I make my reservations.

LTM
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:42:00 -0400
From:         Eric
Subject:      Two Amelias

One of the more intriguing threads in the Goerner book is the one about the two Marines Everett Henson, Jr. and Billy Burks who claimed that, under the direction of a Marine Field Intelligence Officer named Griswold, they dug up the remains of two people on Saipan in 1944. Before departing with the recovered bones, Griswold dropped the name Amelia Earhart and told them not to discuss this incident with anyone. Goerner goes to great lengths to explain how he cross-checked their individual accounts to verify that their statements matched.  (The two Marines had been out of touch with each other for 20 some years when Goerner first spoke with them and therefore could not have agreed in advance what they would tell him.) Using the information Henson and Burks provided, he located the Intel officer Tracy Griswold, who had recently retired as a Major from the Marine Corps Reserve. While Griswold claimed not to remember the grave incident or Henson and Burks, he did acknowledge that his family was connected with the Griswold Stove Manufacturing Company, a bit of trivia that Henson had remembered from the 1944 incident and passed along to Goerner. Griswold requested that Goerner come to his home in Erie, Pennsylvania to talk in person, but apparently Goerner never did so.   Ric has acknowledged that, in his opinion, Goerner was an honest man, so I think it is safe to assume that his interviews with Henson, Burks and Griswold took place as he described them.  If the accounts of the two Marines are to be believed, then it appears that, under some official directive, the remains of two people were recovered on Saipan in 1944 (The story about the finding of a grave containing a man and a woman was also told to Goerner by Marine Colonel Justin Chambers, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner who apparently heard about it while serving on Saipan at about the same time as Henson and Burks.)

Exhuming human remains under such circumstances would tend to indicate that the deceased had some connection to the U.S. Government either as employees, agents, or someone who had rendered the country a great service.  It would also tend to indicate that someone within the Government had knowledge that they were buried on Saipan and where they were buried.  (According to Henson and Burks, Griswold had notes or a map that showed where the graves could be found.) Since the Earhart family never acknowledged that Amelia's remains were repatriated, it is logical to assume that, if two bodies were in fact recovered on Saipan, they were NOT those of AE and FN. (This would account for researchers not finding any official supporting documents about this incident under Earhart's name.)

Working backwards, these remains might well be those of the two people that Josephine Blanco Akiyama and the rest of Goerner's witnesses claimed to have seen in Japanese custody on Saipan.  (It is unlikely  that, in 1937, any of these witnesses knew who Amelia Earhart was or what she looked like. And as Tom King has pointed out, there were no doubt other Americans in the vicinity of the Marshall Islands in 1937.)

In a separate, but perhaps not unrelated thread, Goerner describes interviewing another Marine named Jackson who had recovered a suitcase and a diary with Earhart's name on it on the Island of Namur, Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands.  These items were taken to the Regimental Command Post to be turned over to Military Intelligence.  The gist of Jackson's story was independently collaborated by Victor Maghokian, a former Marine Captain who had no connection to Jackson.  According to Maghokian, the natives told him that a white man and white woman had been on Kwajalein Atoll in 1937 and then were taken away by the Japanese.  Maghokian also heard that a diary and some other personal items had been found on Kwajalein that were supposed to have belonged to Earhart. Goerner also heard this from Chester Nimitz, who referred him to Marine General Harry Schmidt who had commanded a part of the Marine Forces during the invasion of Kwajalein in 1944.  After waffling back and forth, Schmidt ultimately declined to discuss what he knew with Goerner, implying that he was sworn to some code of silence. Since the Earhart family never acknowledged that any of her personal items were returned to them, it is logical to assume that, if these items were in fact recovered, they might not have been what they seemed to be.

Taking all of the above into consideration, here is a somewhat plausible scenario that might help to explain where most of the "Japanese capture" stories had their origin:

In 1937, at the time of the World Flight, two Americans, a man and a woman, were in the Marshall Islands, gathering intelligence on Japanese military activities.  Among her personal belonging, the woman had items that she could use to represent herself as Amelia Earhart if necessary.

The two ultimately ended up on Kwajalein, where they were arrested.

From there, they were taken to Saipan where they were seen by Josephine Blanco Akiyama and Goerner's other witnesses.  The Japanese determined that they were spies and the pair eventually died or were executed on Saipan.  They were buried in an unmarked grave near the cemetery south of Garapan.  News of their death and their burial site somehow reached the agency they were working for.  In 1944, after the Marines had taken Saipan, this agency, working through Marine Intelligence, recovered the remains of their two agents and their personal belongings.  It is possible that, to ensure military cooperation and/or to protect the identity of the deceased, the agency practiced some deception, implying that the remains were in fact those of AE and FN.  All of the Marines who had any direct knowledge of the recovery of the remains and personal belongings were sworn to secrecy.  The remains were returned to the U.S. and reburied under the agents' real names.  The "personal belongings" recovered on Kwajalein were destroyed.  Eyewitness accounts later collected in the Marshall Islands were (correctly) determined to have no connection to Amelia Earhart.

Having now just provided Clive Cussler with an idea for his next book,let me conclude by saying that I have no idea whether or not an official paper trail exists that details the recovery of human remains on Saipan in 1944.  I also realize that disproving the Japanese capture theory is not part of TIGHAR's Earhart Project.  But wouldn't it be nice if someone reading this posting was inspired to conduct research that ultimately verified that the story told to Goerner by Henson and Burks was based in truth?

LTM,
Eric, Naval Station San Diego (my new work location)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:21:34 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Two Ameliais

Eric wrote:

> Ric has
> acknowledged that, in his opinion, Goerner was an honest man, so I
> think it is safe to assume that his interviews with Henson, Burks and
> Griswold took place as he described them.

Unfortunately, one can't really draw this conclusion. Whilst Ric may believe Goerner was honest, there is no doubt that he also believes Goerner's conclusions are completely false and so for the record do I. Further, anyone who makes a study of Goerner's research methods will confirm that he made errors in stating his sources and was confused on a considerable number of matters. I have no difficulty in believing that the interviews took place but I would not put a great deal of faith in how accurately they were reported.

For instance - Goerner stated that he had seen information leading him to believe that AE had uprated military spec engines fitted to her plane, increasing the 550 hp by 50%. However there is not a shred of evidence to support this - on the contrary, there is evidence to refute it. He stated that Nimitz had agreed that AE had ended up being captured by the Japs. There is little doubt that Nimitz did not know this.

It is interesting to read Goerner's book in the light of what is now known and it is apparent that he was someone who relied very much on anecdotal evidence and was very ready to jump to unjustified conclusions. Whilst he undoubtedly did some original research and uncovered some little known facts, there is no doubt that his conclusions are largely completely erroneous.

Regards Angus.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:52:57 -0400
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Two Amelias

What if Amelia and her sidekick Fred or their stunt doubles had been on Saipan or any of the Marshall Islands in 1937?

Would it have made any difference to a country and it's people at war with the perceived evil Empire of Japan in the summer of 44 or even after the war for that matter?

Would Amelia and Fred have become more or less celebrated in myth?

Food for thought.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:39:01 -0400
From:         Jim Doughty
Subject:      Seven Site Rationale

Looking at the maps you've posted online, it seems to me that the "Seven Site" approximates, to within a few hundred yards, the location along the island's shoreline closest to the 157/337 LOP.

If a stranded person or persons knew that others might look for them on that LOP, it would make sense to go there - even if it meant bushwhacking through scaevola to get there from your landing site on the other side of the island. It's an especially likely place for you to head if your professional navigator is still functional enough to make the connection and communicate the advice.

I've never seen (or don't remember having seen) any other rationale proposed for why Earhart and Noonan might have gone to the Seven Site, so far from their presumed landing place. I don't believe the Norwich City cache was anywhere near there, but I could be mistaken.

Hoping that this lands in a useful place somewhere along the spectrum from "duh" to "Eureka!"-

Jim Doughty

New York, NY
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

You're right that the Seven Site is closer to the 157/337 line through Howland, and the equator is also exactly "281 north" (nautical miles that is) from that point, and the Norwich City ccahe was nowhere near there.

But, in my opinion, the attractions of the Seven site location to a castaway have to do with survival and rescue. It's the narrowest inhabitable strip of land on the atoll.  The land gets a little narrower just south of there but is desolate scrubland.

In 1937 the Seven Site was shady, open forest cooled by the easterly trades.  The narrowness of the land made for easy access to both the lagoon (clams, fish) and the ocean reef-flat (fish, eels, lobster).  The trees provided not only birds and eggs but could be climbed to maintain a lookout of both the northern and southern horizons.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:27:43 -0400
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Two Amelias?

> From Dave in Houston:

Ric:  Billie Burke (not Burks) was the name of the actress who played the part of the Good Witch in the "Wizard Of Oz".

FWIW
LTM,
Dave Bush
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:29:44 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Seven Site rationale

Some of us are sitting sipping Benedictine and reading this tonight......

I still wonder if that bottle of Benedictine might have been a present from a French official in Africa, but I can't find any reference to it in documents or Earhart's writings (those that are available anyway).

Can't see it in photos either.  I've been drinking Benedictine for over 30 years, so I think the bottle would catch my eye in a photo.

I believe you also have a bottle of the stuff Ric.  Can you really imagine that being carried on a freighter for "medicinal purposes"?

Perhaps as ananaesthetic for numbing the lips, but that's about all. Considering the number of French provinces she travelled through, it's one of the few reasons I can think of for a benedictine bottle to be there.

On the other hand - speculation, mere speculation....  <sigh>

Th' WOMBAT
*********************************************************************
From Ric

The Benedictine bottle is weird - no doubt about it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:41:37 -0400
From:         Mark
Subject:      Survival preparedness

Could you tell me if any of the following exists?

1. An itemized list of the survival gear and medical supplies aboard the aircraft.

2. Any record or anecdotal knowledge of AE & FN obtaining any training, or even any information with regards to survival in the various environments they would be overflying (jungle, desert, mountains, at sea, or what should have been their safest option, a tropic isle with support services waiting for them relatively nearby).

3. Any knowledge of AE & FN being up-to-snuff in - at the very least - basic first-aid practices.

4. Any other data re. preparations for the likelihood of an emergency set-down, which in those days was almost certain to occur at least once on such a lengthy trip.

I've never had the chance to read any truly detailed biographies of AE that might answer the above, nor recall seeing anything relevant in the website when I whipped through it a few months back.

Mark Guimond
Dorval
Canada
************************************************************************
From Ric

All of the information regarding survival concerns comes from newspaper interviews with AE that preceded the first World Flight attempt.  The inventory of the aircraft made after the Luke Field accident 
(http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Luke_Field.html)
itemizes the emergency equipment that was aboard at that time but there is no way to know what was aboard four months later when the plane left Lae.  Earhart did say that they had lightened the airplane as much as possible prior to the takeoff.

For what it's worth, she seemed to be more concerned about having to put down in the African desert than about landing on desert islands. She worked as a nurse's aid when she was young and, at one point, hoped to be a doctor but I'm aware of no evidence that she ever had any real medical or first aid training.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:51:54 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Benedictine bottle

Ric said:  "The Benedictine bottle is weird - no doubt about it."

For those of us among the lower classes and castes who've never imbibed Benedictine,  there a picture of a Benedictine bottle here

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=369&item=6108423837&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

For more of them, go to ebay/collectable/bottles and insulators and enter Benedictine in the search box.

Do we know for sure that ALL vintage Benedictine bottles had the word "Benedictine" cast into them?  (Just wanted to make sure Gallagher knew what he was talking about.)

LTM, a friend of Bill W.'s

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

Ahh, but Gallagher never said it was a Benedictine bottle.  The bottle is mentioned only twice.

On Sept. 23, 1940 Gallagher sends a telegram to the Acting Administrative Officer, Central  Gilbert Islands District, Tarawa (his buddy and fellow cadet officer David Wernham) in which he says: "Please obtain from Koata  (Native Magistrate Gardner on way to Central Hospital) a certain  bottle alleged to have been found near skull discovered on Gardner Island. Grateful you retain bottle in safe place for present and ask Koata not to talk about skull which is just possibly that of Amelia Earhardt." [sic]

A week later, on Sept. 30, Wernham replies:

"Your telegram 23rd September.  Koata has handed to me one Benedictine bottle. A.O.C.G.I.D."

That's it.  Gallagher never mentions the bottle to his boss, the Resident Commissioner on Ocean Island, nor to the brass in Fiji. The bottle does appear in the Floyd Kilts story as a "cognac bottle". The quote is, "Beside the body was a cognac bottle with fresh water in it for drinking."

So...was it really a Benedictine bottle or did Wernham make that assumption based on its shape?

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:46:08 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Benedictine botle

Ric said:  "So...was it really a Benedictine bottle or did Wernham make that assumption based on its shape?

Well, based on its shape perhaps, but also the fact it may have had the word "Benedictine" cast into the shoulder of the bottle.  That would be a subtle but important clue, I'd think. :-)

Well, darn it, Ric, now you went an opened up another can (bottle?) of worms.

The reason I posted the pix of the Benedictine bottle was because I don't recall ever having seen one and didn't know what was so distinctive about it that one could easily and readily identify it. It's shape is different but not THAT different from a lot of other brandy, cognac, aperitif bottles and other stuff I've visited in the past.  But the shape isn't all THAT memorable.   But having the brand name cast into the glass makes it hard to misidentify.

This gets hazier and hazier as we go along.  Anybody care to file an IFR flight plan? :-)

LTM, who dislikes IFR
Dennis McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

No, this is great.  I had not before noticed that it was actually Wernham, not Gallagher, who made the Benedictine identification.  And island tradition (as told to Kilts) has it as a "cognac" bottle.  Had the word "Benedictine" been molded into the bottle you might think that everyone would refer to it that way - but that's just speculation.

We have to constantly be on the lookout for things that we think we know but are really just old assumptions.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:48:22 -0400
From:         Edgard
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle

Please,
What does A.O.C.G.I.D stand for ?

Edgard
*********************************************
From Ric

Administrative Officer Central Gilbert Islands District  (Wernham's official title).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:49:18 -0400
From:         Gene Da'Angelo
Subject:      off topic witches

Yep, it was Billie Burke who played Glenda the Good Witch. She had been married to Florenz Ziegfeld (who died in 1932), the founder of the Ziegfeld Follies.

Best wishes to all!
Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:00:19 -0400
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: Survival preparedness

Thanks for the response to my previous inquiry. As soon as I clicked 'send' I remembered that at the end of the war she was in Toronto working at a veterans' hospital.

Looking at the inventory list, it is evident to me that they were barely prepared to survive anything more dangerous than a night in a third-class Turkish hotel. Aside from a lot of spare parts for the aircraft, all they had on board were a variety of snack foods to munch on during the flight. If they did survive unscathed a landing on Niku, I doubt they could have lasted much more than a week.

No life raft, no tent, no sleeping bags or blankets (even on the equator, you can darn near freeze at night in the desert and up in the mountains), no mosquito netting, no rifle or shotgun, no axe... a hatchet just won't cut it when it comes to chopping down palm trees, or even brush, as I'm sure you've already found out. Not even a decent pair of boots, a pocket compass or a roll of toilet paper. It boggles the mind.

Before getting into the aerospace industry, I spent many of my more  youthful years in the bush, in the mountains and the north of this country doing exploration work, and I never met a bush pilot who would even take off so unprepared for an emergency landing.

Several years ago I was somewhat taken aback when a friend, neighbor and old-time aviation pioneer who was around back then and had crossed paths with AE said, as best I can recall: "... I have no admiration for glory-seeking, disorganized individuals who exploit aviation for publicity with little knowledge of, or preparation for, the possible consequences. Hell, if she'd gotten lost again and had to land on a farm in Kansas, she'd probably have starved to death if no one was home to fix her a meal and drive her into town."  It seemed rather bitter then. Now I understand better.

A good day to you, Ric, and the members!

Mark Guimond   ("There are no great mysteries, only great ignorance")
Dorval
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:14:20 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle

This is a long post because I want to argue this bottle thing a bit. It is a highly speculative argument, but I think at least some of it has merit.

If nothing else, the link at the end might show why the mention of a Benedictine bottle aroused interest.

Now, let's see..

The Kilts story pointed you in the right direction, and has been proved to have a lot of correct generalisations that have also been proved to be factually inaccurate when it came to details.

The circumstances of Gallaghers death, if I remember correctly for one. The story said he was Irish, the facts showed that his nickname was Irish, things like that.

The kilts story says a bottle was found with the bones and suggests it was a cognac bottle.  The papers you dug out of archives confirm it was found but state that it was a Benedictine bottle.

I have only been sipping Benedictine since about 1968 or 69 but there were always benedictine, drambuie, cognac and many other types of wine and liquer (as distinct from liquor) in the house.

I would like to know how far back the benedictine bottle had name moulded into the bottle.  It should be easy to find out.  The D.O.M.  may have historical info.  Marty might be just the person who would have the contacts to find out, and I'm sort of surprised that the idea didn't take his fancy ages ago.

I have never seen a benedictine bottle without the distinctive shape and the spot for the wax seal.  I have however, seen other bottles that could at first glance be mistaken for a benedictine bottle.

On my shelf in this room next to a bottle of Benedictine, is a bottle that has a label "VAT 69 Finest Scotch Whisky".  Guess what?  If you turn the labels away, the only things that give the game away is that the Benedictine bottle has a sharper angle from the neck to the sides, while the VAT 69 bottle has a more definite curve there, and the whisky bottle is green.

The VAT 69 bottle is from around the 1930's/1940's.  I've had the thing for most of my life, as someone had turned it into a lamp.  It has a seal at the base of the neck, in exactly the same place as the Benedictine seal.  AND interestingly, it has the letters VAT 69 moulded into the glass!

Ric, you have a benedictine bottle - since the forum doesn't allow me to post a photo of the benedictine and vat bottles side by side, compare this 1937 advert for VAT69 and see what I mean:

http://store.pastpresent.com/vat69scotwhi.html

There are in fact Cognac bottles a similar shape to a Benedictine bottle.

http://cybercollector.free.fr/Buvards/Buv/Izzara-cognac.jpg

The other thing that fascinates me, as  mentioned, is that Benedictine is not something you would usually "drink".  It is not the sort of thing one would usually find aboard ship either.  Rum is a seaman's drink. Brandy, ordinary brandy that is, just maybe.  Medicinal brandy, well we discussed this ages ago.  Port?  for the captain's table perhaps, aboard the Norwich City, but Benedictine?  Unlikely.

Try swigging a glass of benedictine and see what your mouth feels like, quite aside from missing all the subtle flavours.  Also, Benedictine has probably rarely been a cheap drink.

I'm sure the Kilts story was right about "a bottle" and perhaps about it being French.  It's even more likely that, with the British  attention to detail in records, if a Benedictine bottle was noted as received from Koata, then it was in fact a Benedictine bottle.  It would have been much easier to say "A bottle" if it was a brandy bottle or any other type of liquor.

But there had to be a reason to state it was a Benedictine bottle. Think of being handed a liquor bottle.  There are many types, but if you had to think what might have been in it for a report, what would you write?  Who in thier right mind would think "Hmmm wonder if it contained benedictine"?  It's probably on the list of least likely to be drunk alcoholic beverages in the world, as well as not being on the list of frequently imbibed booze.

Until I mentioned that it was distinctive (both the bottle AND the contents) some years ago, I don't think most of the forum had heard of it, let alone tasted the stuff.

In fact, because a Benedictine bottle is very similar in shape (if you disregard the seal and the moulded letters) to a cognac if there or a whisky bottle, someone looking for a generic term to use to refer to the bottle in a report would be far more likely to use a more common drink.  In fact, as the British are very partial to Scotch Whisky, and as they would have been more familiar with that shape containing VAT69 or cognac, it HAD to have been a Benedictine bottle.

Another point though.  If you had to have a bottle to carry your ration of water around, what a perfect shape.  A long neck to make it easy to stop.  The bulk of the weight at the bottom so it is less likely to fall or be knocked over....

For anyone who doesn't know what the benedictine thing was all about, here is a link with some images of benedictine bottles and similarities to other bottles.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~rdevitt/earhartgrog/

Th' WOMBAT
************************************************************************
From Ric

>In fact, as the British are very partial to Scotch Whisky, and as
>they would have been more familiar with that shape containing VAT69 or
>cognac, it HAD to have been a Benedictine bottle.

If Daryll made a statement like that he'd be hanged, drawn and quartered faster than you can say A.O.C.G.I.D.

I think that all we can say with certainty is that the bottle had that characteristic shape.  Several years ago I got curious about Kilts' comment that the bottle still contained "water for drinking".  If true, I wondered how long would it take for water in a Benedictine bottle to evaporate away - assuming that the bottle was unstoppered.  So I got a bottle of Benedictine, drank it up (in the name of science, of course), refilled it half-way with tap water, and left it unstoppered on a shelf in a dry basement.  That was about five years ago and there has been no noticeable change in the water level.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:48:58 -0400
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle

Hmmmm, I wonder if it was a Benedictine and Brandy (B&B) bottle; same shape, also has "Benedictine" in raised letters on the neck/hip joint, in fact, it's the same bottle with the only difference being the paper label. It is a and fairly  common liqueur.........

LTM (who used to love B&B with her post-dinner coffee)
Art
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:24:33 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Benedictine bottle - the mystery dissolved

You may be interested to know that in 1937 at the "21 Club" in New York a new drink was invented, known as the B&B - Benedictine and Brandy. It was taken up by the Benedictine company using a mixture of Benedictine and - wait for it - Cognac.

Amelia had been in New York in 1937. Did she take the bottle on the World Flight as a publicity stunt to publicise the new drink? Had Fred Noonan been selected as a famous boozer to help market the new tipple?  If the bottle was indeed a B&B bottle there is realistically no otherway it could have reached Gardner Island except via NR16020! Ockhams razor doesn't shave much closer than this!

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

That's pretty interesting.  So there is a product that can accurately be described as both Benedictine AND cognac but it didn't appear on the market until 1937.  It is therefore possible that there was such a bottle aboard NR16020 but very unlikely that such a bottle would reach Nikumaroro by 1940 any other way.

Earhart was in New York in February 1937.  Noonan wasn't there and didn't join the team until mid-March.  I think that any official connection between B&B and the World Flight is pretty unlikely but the Benedictine/cognac coincidence is fascinating.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:26:06 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle

Re. how long Benedictine bottles have had the embossed name on them -- a couple of years ago I gave a talk on the project to the Northern Virginia bottle collectors' society, and they asked what they could give me as payment; I naturally specified a 1930s vintage Benedictine bottle.  They weren't much impressed with my choice in bottles, but gave one up, and it has the embossed name. Not to say that ALL Benedictine bottles had it, but I was assured that this particular one was of the correct vintage.

TK
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:39:51 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle - B&B

Amelia spent some time relaxing with pilot Jacqueline Cochran at her ranch in Califonia just before the World Flight. Jacqueline had at this time, an apartment in Manhattan where the "21 Club" restaurant was also situated. Could it have been a parting gift from Jacqueline Cochran? An email to the 21 Club elicits the response that AE is not known to have visited the 21 Club although she may well have. It was certainly the sort of place that celebrities ate out. What is interesting is that they also say that B&B had been invented not in 1937 but in the early thirties. However, Benedictine started bottling it in 1937!

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

This is great information Angus.  I do, however, think that the commercial availability of B&B in 1937 is more significant than the fact that Cochran's apartment and the 21 Club are both in Manhattan.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:02:11 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle

What a horrible thing to do to Benedictine!

Like mixing Coke with Bourbon.  Ruins a perfectly good Whiskey. Or mixing anything with Scotch.  Totally destroys a fine Whisky.

Oh, and the Benedictine monks apparently stopped making the stuff and it was produced again from the 1830's by a fellow called LeGrand after he found the "lost" original recipe.

Actually, Benedictine and Brandy came about as a result of one of his family tasting a Benedictine and Brandy cocktail at the 21 Club in New York.

He decided it would sell in the USA.  Coincidentally, B&B was first produced in 1937.

Just a little trivia.

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:25:50 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: B&B

> This is great information Angus.  I do, however, think that the
> commercial availability of B&B in 1937 is more significant than the
> fact that Cochran's apartment and the 21 Club are both in Manhattan.

Not necessarily. If this was indeed a B& B bottle brought by AE, one has to explain why AE would take it on the world flight. She was not a great drinker as far as I am aware but if it was a present from someone as close a friend as Jacqueline Cochran, she may have taken it along as some sort of a talisman or even been recommended it as a tonic. A bottle of liqueur is also the sort of present that might have been made to a woman. (It has of course been noted that Benedictine is a very strange brew for any other person, such as the crew of NC, to bring to Gardner Island). One has to remember that the bottled form of B&B was very new at that time and there is only any real likelihood of AE getting hold of such a bottle if she had the right contacts or was in the right place. I rather doubt it was widely available even in New York outside the 21 Club in 1937. There were at least two routes that AE may have received such a bottle. The gift scenario is by no means impossible. 

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

If Benedictine was bottling and selling B&B in 1937 I don't know why it couldn't have come from a liquor store in North Hollywood.  Elaborate speculative scenarios about friends and gifts are fun but if the stuff was commercially available then there could have been a bottle aboard the airplane.  That's about all we can say.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:49:54 -0400
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle

Gallagher sent the September 20 1940 telegram referencing the bottle from what location?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

It was September 23 and he sent it from Gardner Island.  He used the government transmitter on the island to communicate with  other government radio stations in the central Pacific.  The messages were delivered to the recipients as telegrams.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:54:22 -0400
From:         Bill Hillier
Subject:      Re: Benedictine bottle

Once we have general agreement, if that is possible, that the bottle was a Benedictine one, what will this tell us. All this speculation about the bottle is fascinating. Maybe Fred was the one who brought the bottle to Niku. I have never tried Benedictine but I assume it is rather potent so its potency could give the drinker a real charge. The drinker could get lots of real bangs from a small bottle.

LTM who never drank Benedictine directly from the bottle, always from a Benedictine glass?
Bill Hillier 2264
************************************************************************
From Ric

The bottle story is just one of many pieces of evidence that we periodically re-examine to see if there's anything there that we may have missed.  In this case, our re-examination has prompted some new research and led to some new observations that seem to connect the bottle more strongly to Earhart than previously.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:55:41 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Benedictine

Ross Devitt wrote:

> ... I would like to know how far back the benedictine bottle had name
> moulded into the bottle.  It should be easy to find out.  The D.O.M.
> may have historical info.  Marty might be just the person who would
> have the contacts to find out, and I'm sort of surprised that the idea
> didn't take his fancy ages ago.

I suppose your argument, in brief, goes like this:

         IF we could be sure it was Benedictine and
         IF we could establish a dateline for Benedictine bottles,

         THEN we might learn something about the date of the castaway's death.

If you're that sure I should be sent to France to scout old Benedictine bottles, en avant!  But the French Benedictine community has not produced the brandy since the Revolution (~1789) and I doubt that my collar would carry any weight with the present producers.  :o(

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:02:16 -0400
From:         Rich Young
Subject:      Re: Benedictine

Benedictine is an alcoholic elixir, (or liqueur, if you prefer) distilled from a secret recipe of 27 plants and spices.  It was originally developed by a Benedictine Monk named Dom Bernardo Vincelli for medicinal purposes, specifically as an aid to digestion and for relief of acute or chronic disorders of the digestive system.  (Please remember, this is in the days before Gaviscon, Alka-Seltzer, Pepto-Bismol, Milk of Magnesia, Mylanta, Kaopectate, Ex-Lax, etc.)  As such, it would not be unheard of, even today, for someone to keep a supply of Benedictine for such reasons.  In the days of spotty food inspection and more common intestinal parasites of the 1930's, such a provision as either Norwich City or Earhart "First Aid" supplies would not surprise me.  It also could have been added along the route, as a remedy for "la tourista" - if such occurred in French-controlled Africa, it well may have been the only remedy at hand, and probably NOT something that would be released to the press.  Further, anecdotal evidence of Noonan's fondness for strong drink continues to float around: "medicinal purposes" was one of the most exploited loopholes in the American experiment with prohibition of alcohol.  Put yourself in a mindset of what the world was like in the '30s - there isn't a 7-11 on every tenth corner where you can pop in and buy Rolaids, you are going on a world tour where you may not have money or speak the language to buy supplies even if they are available, you've traveled all over the world, (and picked up who knows what tropical parasites in your intestines...), you are going to be spending up to 24 hours in a airplane, (did the Electra even have a toilet?) bumping through turbulence, eating who knows what who knows when,... and you might need an excuse to smuggle your hooch through technically "dry" regions of the U.S. on your way through.  I would not rule out the Benedictine bottle - it's presence doesn't seem remarkable to me.

LTM, (who likes a nice cordial now & then)
Rich Young
************************************************************************
From Ric

All very true, but it's the information about B&B (which resolves the discrepancy between Werham's "Benedictine bottle" and Kilts' "cognac bottle") that is new and interesting.   If it was a B&B bottle, first available commercially in 1937,  you have a real hard time getting it to Niku beside a skull in 1940 without putting it aboard NR16020.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:32:48 -0400
From:         Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Plan B

For Mark Guimond:

"4. Any other data re preparations for the likelihood of an emergency set-down, which in those days was almost certain to occur at least once on such a lengthy trip."

Earhart's close friend and reputed lover, Gene Vidal, told of a conversation prior to the Last Flight in which Earhart said that if she was unable to locate Howland, when she got down to her last four hours of fuel she would turn around and head for the Gilberts. (Parenthetically to appease the Forum moderator, this could also indicate AE's belief that she would have at least four hours of fuel remaining when she arrived in the vicinity of Howland).

Vidal's comments are found in the transcript of an undated interview, probably from the 1960s, located among his papers at the University of Wyoming.  The Gilberts "Plan B" is mentioned at least three times, strongly suggesting the old boy didn't just make it up.

Allegedly, Fred's wife Mary Bea confirmed the Gilberts plan in post-loss comments to naval investigators.  Ric can probably give you the exact citation.  Of course it's double hearsay but does provide some support for Vidal's recollection.

Pat Gaston
************************************************************************
From Ric

If I tell you a 30 year old story three times does that increase the probability that I'm remembering it accurately?

I don't recall anything about Mary Bea supposedly confirming the plan to naval investigators, but maybe I've just forgotten.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:22:38 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Benedictine

It is rather flowery and sweet, even when mixed as B&B
Dan Postellon # 2263 LTM (Likes Tia Maria)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:58:28 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Benedictine

> It was September 23 and he sent it from Gardner Island.  He used the
> government transmitter on the island to communicate with  other
> government radio stations in the central Pacific.  The messages were
> delivered to the recipients as telelgrams.

Was this an old "spark gap" transmitter, or something of a more recent design?

Dan Postellon #2263
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know.  I also have no idea what possible difference it could make.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:35:05 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Benedictine

I've got my tongue stuck firmly in my cheek again. I should know not to try to make jokes on this forum, but I see you got it anyway.

I thought after I posted it that you may think I was making fun of your religious interests and was worried that I might upset you, but then I remembered you do have a sense of humour and realised you'd probably ask Ric for a ticket..

Cheers,
Th' WOMBAT.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:36:39 -0400
From:         Marcus
Subject:      Re: Benedictine

Angus Murray  wrote:

>Amelia spent some time relaxing with pilot Jacqueline Cochran
>at her ranch in Califonia just before the World Flight. Jacqueline had
>at this time, an apartment in Manhattan where the "21 Club" restaurant
>was also situated. Could it have been a parting gift from Jacqueline
>Cochran? -

   - looks a bit doubful, as AE always was convinced and even militant teetotaller who never used alcohol (it was because of her hard times in childhood as her father drunk heavily that created a hate to alcohol in her for all the following years). It was a characteristic feature of her that many people who knew her specially noticed.There is no doubts that AE's friend Jacqueline Cochran knew it well too. So such a gift looks not very probable.

     LTM - Marcus
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:30:03 -0400
From:         Daryll Bolinger
Subject:      Daryll solves the mystery

Ric wrote:

>>In fact, as the British are very partial to Scotch Whisky, and as they
>>would have been more familiar with that shape containing VAT69 or
>>cognac, it HAD to have been a Benedictine bottle.
>
>If Daryll made a statement like that he'd be hanged, drawn and quartered
>faster than you can say A.O.C.G.I.D.

I can see TIGHAR has resumed it's bar tending course.

If you want to solve the Benedictine bottle AND the sextant box issue look into your own archives. Mr. Hay was the one who brought the bottle ashore and left the Benedictine bottle on Gardner (NIKU) during the period of time the British were looking for a place to land their big flying boats so they too could have a Pacific route to compete with Pan Am. The sextant box belonged to an "...Englishman named Wimbush..."

Rats, NOT coconut crabs, reduced the the body of one of the missing Norwich crewman to a skelton by the time it was found.

Daryll
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Thanks for clearing that up.

Hay, in his later recollections, wrote, "I had two bottle of brandy in the stores --- for medical purposes but we decided that we would break out one bottle for X'mas day."

I guess if you can get Amelia to the Marshalls it's no problem to transform medicinal brandy into Benedictine. The NZ survey team may very well have had a sextant with them but there is no mention anywhere of one being lost or left behind.  Sextants are not the sort of thing most people would consider to be disposable. Rats were a big problem for the survey team but that's because they were on the island during a period of severe drought.  The rats on Niku are normally quite shy. I don't suppose you'd care to explain why the Norwich City crewman had a woman's shoe.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:37:33 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Benedictine

Marcus,

I have to admit that the house-of-cards speculations on the Benedictine bottle started out very tongue in cheek. However once the edifice had been successfully erected and enjoyed only light winds, I felt obliged to add some shoring to preseve such an excellent construction's stability.

You are very likely right in your observations and of course the argument could also be used to infer AE more than likely refusing to having anything to do with promoting sales of any sort of alcohol. (That being said, although she was not a smoker, she did, I believe, get involved in some shape or form in promoting tobacco so perhaps moral objections were no great impediment. Of course the evils of smoking were not either so widely recognised then or the consequences nearly so damaging as alcohol had been to AE's homelife.)

I also rather doubt that Kilts' description of the bottle as being a Cognac bottle is related to the bottle being a B&B bottle. The bottle itself, being the same shape as a Benedictine bottle, would almost certainly have been identified as such. It also seems unlikely that the bottle carried the word Cognac moulded into it although this is admittedly a possibility. It further seems unlikely that a paper label indicating Cognac would survive several years in the tropics. Further research on vintage B&B bottles might settle this point.

It is not impossible that a Benedictine bottle could have reached Gardner as flotsam and of course because the bottle was discovered in 1940 this could possibly also apply to a B&B bottle. The discovery of the bottle in association with the remains of the castaway would then have to be accidental and have occurred through some overwash event - not likely in my view.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Pat Gaston was kind enough to send me a photo of a 1930s vintage B&B bottle.  It has the word Benedictine deeply molded into the base of the neck and, below it but not as deeply molded, the the letters "B & B". There is no indication, and plenty of contra-indication, that items at the Seven Site were deposited by overwash events.  The bottle could have come ashore as flotsam and be beachcombed by the castaway.  In fact, several glass fragments found at the Seven Site appear to be beachcombed "tools".
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:06:21 -0400
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      bottle custody

Quoting the forum digest of 14-15 July 2004:

>"Ahh, but Gallagher never said it was a Benedictine bottle.... 
>Gallagher never mentions the bottle to his boss, the Resident 
>Commissioner on Ocean Island...."

   Quoting the Bones Chronology:

8a. October 6, 1940
Telegram No. 72
From Gallagher to RC at Ocean Island
Your telegram No. 66. ....
(g) "Benedictine" bottle but no indication of contents, .... This information derived from gossip only. Gallagher."

So Gallagher did say it was a Benedictine bottle, but I'm still not clear on whether or not Gallagher actually ever saw the bottle himself.

How do the forum's lawyers feel about the chain of custody of the bottle between Gardner and Tarawa? It seems Koata could have handed over almost any bottle to Wernham. Is it likely that Benedictine bottles were available on Tarawa?

Dan Brown, #2408
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Thanks Dan.  You're right, of course.  Gallagher did mention the bottle to the RC but neither he nor the RC mentioned it in their communications with Suva).

I seems pretty clear (to me anyway) that Gallagher never saw the bottle.  He says as much ("This information derived from gossip only."). His description of it as a Benedictine bottle on October 6 can be attributed to Wernham's telegram to him on Sept. 30.

I'm not a lawyer but the chain of custody seems pretty solid to me. Koata had no expectation that Wernham would accost him for the bottle and, having been there,  I'd be surprised if you could get a bottle of Benedictine in Tarawa today, let alone in 1940.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:41:29 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: bottle custody

>I'd be surprised if you could get a bottle of
>Benedictine in Tarawa today, let alone in 1940.

For a fairly hilarious (among other things) description of Tarawa today (or ca. 2000), see The Sex Lives of Cannibals: Adrift in the Equatorial Pacific, by J. Maarten Troost, Broadway Books, 2004 (I'm sending you a copy for the TIGHAR Library, Ric).  It's all Fosters and toddy.  But everyone says that things were better in the British days, and considering all the shirts Gallagher had on Niku, who knows?
****************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks.  Sounds like fun.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:35:29 -0400
From:         Walt Holm
Subject:      Results of the TIGHAR expedition to Kellogg, Idaho

Greetings Forum:

Last weekend seven TIGHAR members, accompanied by three representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, located the 1936 crash site of a Lockheed Electra near Kellogg, Idaho, with the hope of finding pieces in the wreckage similar to the "dados" that have been found on Nikumaroro.

Lockheed L10A #1024, registered as NC14935, crashed south of Kellogg, Idaho on December 18, 1935, while carrying mail from Missoula, Montana, to Spokane, Washington. Both pilots were killed and the wreckage burned somewhat, but records showed that roughly half the mail onboard did not burn, giving us hope that the fuselage was still intact. 

Over the last winter TIGHAR member Bill Carter did a significant amount of research on the wreck, digging up numerous newspaper articles, as well as excerpts from a book, that referred to the crash and its aftermath. Based upon this work, we submitted a proposal to the Forest Service to locate and map the wreck site, and potentially recover a dado if one could be found in the wreckage. The proposal  was accepted by the Forest Service, and last weekend we set about locating the wreckage.

The TIGHAR team flew into Spokane on Thursday, 8 July, and spent the night in Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, where we staged our gear. Early Friday morning we set off driving towards the crash site, which is located roughly 10 miles SSE of Kellogg near Cemetery Ridge. Three hours of driving brought us to the trail head, and another hour of packing gear in got us to our campsite. After briefly setting up camp we set off searching for the wreck.

Reports had conflicted as to where the wreck site was, so we had three potential areas to search. We picked a primary search area based upon the best newspaper account that we had, cut cross-country to that area, and began a line abreast search. Roughly twenty minutes later Tom King found a piece of aluminum, and a few minutes after that the main body of the wreckage was found- in a creek bed at essentially the exact position described by the newspaper.

Unfortunately the location was a little too easy to find, and the location of the wreck in a stream bed made it too easy to haul portions of the wreck up to the ridgeline and trail several hundred feet above.

It became clear that the wreck had been salvaged for aluminum at some point- there was very little aluminum left, while virtually all the ferrous material was still around. There were a number of signs that pointed definitvely to salvage- for instance, the remains of one of the engines had the piston pins pulled, in order to take the pistons.

While this result was disappointing, it was fun to have found the wreck based solely upon archival research, and the team members did get to see what pieces of a Lockheed 10 look like, which might come in handy at Nikumaroro. On Saturday we split into two teams, one to map the wreck site and one to hike (more like slash and crawl) down the streambed to make sure that no large chunks of aluminum had washed well downstream. No additional aluminum was found, but the mapping team did make an interesting discovery: in the few pieces of aluminum structure that were still at the crash site (principally portions of the inboard wing), one could see evidence of a bluish coating on the interior surfaces. This was probably some sort of anti-corrosion coating, much as zinc chromate would be used on later aircraft. With the permission of the Forest Service, we recovered a piece of wing structure that shows this blue interior coating, and shipped it to TIGHAR headquarters. Ric is now in the process of having it analyzed.

With our work in the field done a day early, the team packed out Saturday evening, drove to Spokane, and caught airline flights the next day. While we didn't find any dados, we accomplished our goal of finding and mapping the wreck site, the weather was beautiful, and it was fun to be in the field again. With luck the analyses of the blue coating will lead to some tests we can perform on aluminum material found at Niku to help identify its heritage.

I'd like to thank the other team members that worked to pull this all off: Bill Carter, John Clauss, Craig Fuller, Tom King, Andrew McKenna, and Gary Quigg. In the first part of August Bill, John, Gary, and I will be headed off to another Electra crash site in the wilderness of Alaska, for a second try at locating some original L-10 dados.

-Walt
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Let me add my thanks and appreciation to a top-notch field team.

The bluish coating Walt mentions is very interesting.  None of us has ever seen it before. Lockheed specs call for all interior surfaces of the aircraft to be painted. The blue color is only present in places that were shielded from the sun.   Exposure to prolonged sunlight appears to cause the coating to turn silvery gray in color. This could be aluminum paint but the blue color is surprising. If anyone has knowledge of this please let us know.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:36:07 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Benedictine

Dear Wombat,

> I've got my tongue stuck firmly in my cheek again.
> I should know not to try to make jokes on this forum, but I see you got
> it anyway.

I always enjoy your posts.  :o)

> I thought after I posted it that you may think I was making fun of your
> religious interests and was worried that I might upset you ...

Not at all.

The Benedictines would probably be insulted at the thought of some Jesuit-come-lately having any influence with them.  They outdate us by about 1000 years.

> ... but then I
> remembered you do have a sense of humour and realised you'd probably
> ask Ric for a ticket.

"Have vacation, will travel."  :-O

LTM.
Marty #2359
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:39:24 -0400
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric, I know you're very familiar with the wave action on Niku. I have no problem believing that wave action can rip anything man-made apart.Witness the Norwich City. Two years ago while in Estero Beach, Mexico,  I witnessed a 36 foot sailboat ripped to pieces over the span of 7 days in moderate surf. Consequently, I have no problem believing that the Electra could easily have been battered to pieces on the reef at Niku.

LTM,

Mike Haddock, #2438
************************************************************************
From Ric

As you know, that has been our working hypothesis for many years but I'm increasingly bothered by the fact that more debris has not turned up on the island.  We have a few pieces and the closer we look at them the better they look - but where's the rest of the stuff?  I'm beginning to suspect that he airplane did not break up nearly as much as we've been assuming it did.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:41:43 -0400
From:         Christian D.
Subject:      Re: bottle custody

For another opinion: I agree that the for-sale selection is extremely tiny, but glass bottles are still carefully saved, and I wouldn't be surprised that over the years a *few* Benedictine bottles made their way to the islands: whenever westerners go to Kiribati, they bring along as many "goodies" as they can carry, for visited hosts or for themselves. Remember also that for a long time all the Catholic missionaries in the Gilberts were coming from France. So Koata could have found some salvaged empty bottle at any friend's house in Tarawa -but why would he need to go to that trouble?
************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree.  How would Koata know that Wernham was laying for him?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:47:31 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Here we go again . . .

Rich Young said:  "Further, anecdotal evidence of Noonan's fondness for strong drink continues to float around . . . "

"Anecdotal evidence," rumor, and innuendo continue to "float" around only because people continue to prefer anecdotal evidence, rumor and innuendo to fact.  Extensive work by many forum members have not turned up a single event of Noonan being drunk on the job, being drunk at all, drinking on the job or, I believe, even drinking.

If we here on the Earhart Forum persist in repeating these unfounded rumors how can we ever expect to convince others to stop doing it? Let's lead by example.

LTM, who prefers short sermons :-)

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

We do have direct evidence that Noonan drank.  In his letter to Gene Pallette he looks forward to having a "highball" with him on his return.  I am not, however, aware of any contemporaneous letter that mentions Noonan's drinking being a problem, much less any Pan Am memo or letter censuring him for drinking.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:16:52 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Here we go again

Is the fact that I'm looking forward to having a beer with Ric when we meet one day "proof" that I have a drinking problem ? But for exceptional occasions I am in fact a teetotaller.

LTM (who since her flying days took to drinking coffee and coke)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:18:36 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

The fact that the Lockheed 10E could be (and almost certainly was) smashed to pieces by wave action does not exclude the possibility that most of it was eventually swallowed by the ocean, which around Gardner Island is very deep.

LTM
************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree that that's a possibility, but by what mechanism would some pieces of wreckage be washed ashore but not others?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:22:31 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Here we go again...

Dennis McGee wrote:

> ... Extensive work by many forum members have not turned
> up a single event of Noonan being drunk on the job, being drunk at all,
> drinking on the job or, I believe, even drinking.  ...

When Roger and I were in Fiji, we talked a lot with Ron Gatty, Harold Gatty's son.  Ron had met AE and FN when he was seven or eight years old.  Ron thought that his father may have helped teach AE navigation at some point.

Ron said, "All I remember of Amelia is a smile--charming and open."

I asked him if he knew anything about FN's drinking. Of course, a small boy wouldn't have been included in the adult's evening activities, but I thought that he might have heard his father comment on Fred in later years.  Ron noted that many folks drank heavily (by contemporary standards) in those days and said he didn't remember any criticism of Fred's drinking from his father.  He said that his father was not surprised that they got lost because of the difficulty of finding such a small target in such a huge ocean.

This interview took place in 2003, and Ron did not have any notes in hand that were taken in 1937, so these remarks do not meet TIGHAR's "gold standard" for excellent evidence.  I doubt very much that we will ever find a diary entry or a letter that will clear Fred of the charges against him.  Who would bother to write: "Saw Fred last night.  As always, he didn't drink any more than the rest of us and was just as bright and cheery as any of us the next day."

Contemporary attitudes toward alcohol have been shaped in some measure by the success of Alcoholics Anonymous and the myriad of 12-Step programs derived from AA.  AA began in June of 1935; the "big book" that described the program of recovery for the first time wasn't published until 1939, and the impact on our culture probably wasn't measurable until the late 1960s or thereabouts.  We have lots of jargon about "alcoholics" that would have been pretty much undefined or defined differently in the 1930s.

My impression from reading (I was born in 1952) is that pilots of the Golden Age of stunt-flying drank a lot, slept it off, and went flying shortly afterward, perhaps still under the influence of alcohol.  I'm moderately confident that they didn't have our contemporary awareness of how long it takes to metabolize alcohol and didn't have our tools for measuring blood-alcohol levels on the spot. I therefore wouldn't be surprised to learn that Fred drank "heavily" by our contemporary standards but that it was perfectly normal drinking by the standards of his day.

Even if Fred might have qualified for AA, a statement like that says nothing about his condition on the day of the fatal flight.  In fact, if he had gained tolerance for alcohol, he might have performed better with a few drinks in him than he would stone-cold sober.  Bill Wilson gave Dr. Bob Smith his last few beers on June 10, 1935, so that he would have a steady hand during surgery that morning.  Bob then went through the jitters of drying out and stayed sober until his death in 1950.

Bottom line: without a lot more reliable evidence that is very unlikely to appear, it's anybody's guess about what role Fred's drinking may have played in the radio and navigation errors that led to the loss of the aircraft--but it's just a guess.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:50:11 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Herman De Wulf said:  "The fact that the Lockheed 10E could be (and almost certainly was) smashed to pieces by wave action does not exclude the possibility that most of it was eventually swallowed by the ocean, which around Gardner Island is very deep."

Ric said:  "I agree that that's a possibility, but by what mechanism would some pieces of wreckage be washed ashore but not others?"

I say:  No one says the airplane was totally destroyed THEN washed away. Why couldn't the airplane suffer a few good, solids whacks that knocked off some big parts and then thes rest gets bounced around enough to let it slide into oblivion?  Under this scenario the plane or its major parts would be relatively intact except those parts knocked off during the initial wave action.  What am I missing here?

LTM, who misses much these days

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

That's pretty much where my head is these days.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:10:42 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Here we go again...

Marty, that was the best posting on the subject of Noonan drinking I have ever read. Amen! The old Auzzie tennis players of the Rod Laver era frequently mentioned their beer lunch before matches and in my early days of flying our guys would have been termed heavy drinkers by today's standards. We set records for partying. The joke was no smoking within 24 hours of flying and no drinking within 50 feet of an aircraft. <G>

In addition, Fred was Irish and the Irish weren't nor are they now thought of as teetotalers. Amelia could well have been irritated if Fred had a drink because of her father's drinking problems but she hired him to fly with her knowing he was Irish and if he had a reputation for drinking she would have known that too.

Personally, I think you have set the matter to rest.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:11:21 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re 2-2-V-1

Dennis your scenario seems most logical and it seems less likely the plane was smashed to pieces while sitting on the reef. It is hard to conjure up such a  situation although I am sure someone more knowledgeable than I am may do so. The  only other possibility I can imagine is the plane landing somewhere else, being  broken up and a piece somehow being carried away and washing up on Niku. I know  of nothing to support that possibility, however, and I can't visualize a  piece of aluminum such as 2-2-V-1 "floating"between islands.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:28:58 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I think it quiet possible that the airplane made a safe landing on the beach, ending up in the surf or being reached by it with the rising tide. Winds and waves helping it may gradually have been deteriorated by nature (the waves), especially if there were some tropical storms. This might explain why some pieces were found on the island while most of the aircraft has  been carried away by the sea and sank to the bottom of the ocean. This would explain why only few pieces could be found on the island. Those found thus far seem to prove this theory, as I see it. Remember the wheel. It was seen by one person but it had disappeared by the time TIGHAR went to investigate. Like the wheel, other pieces may have been on the beach that have disappeared since.

LTM
************************************************************************
From Ric

There were no tropical storms between July 2 when the airplane disappeared, and July 9 when the Colorado's planes flew over Gardner and did not see an airplane.  An airplane on the beach should have been visible to the search aircraft. An airplane back in the bushes should have been found by the NZ survey party the following year.  If the airplane landed at Gardner it had to somehow disappear from view before July 9.  As we have said many, many times - the best place to land an airplane at Gardner is on the dry reef at low tide.  The problem is that the only place smooth enough to land is also very near the edge of the reef where the ocean waves break.  You're okay as long as the sea is calm but a rising surf and deeper tides could very well knock some pieces off the aircraft while carrying it out over the edge.  There cannot be much, if any, airplane debris on the reef or beach when the NZ survey party is there in late 1938 or when the colony is being established up through 1941.  The earliest anecdotal account we have of airplane wreckage being used on the island comes from PBY pilot John Mims who saw aircraft debris being used by the colonists in late 1944 or early '45.  Other accounts and aerial photography that appears to show aluminum debris on the reef al date from the 1950s.

So, for Earhart to have landed at Gardner the airplane has to disappear entirely before July 9, 1937 and reappear as just a few pieces in the late 1940s and 1950s.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:07:46 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric, I am not comfortable with the "no tropical storms..." at the relevant time. I'm not familiar with that area for July but isn't it possible for squalls  to suddenly appear of significant intensity without there being a reportable  tropical storm?

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

Local squalls are certainly possible.  We've seen many while at Niku. We've also had the experience of witnessing a couple of tropical storms up close and personal.   Local squalls involve heavy rain, some wind, and increased chop on the lagoon and, too a lesser extent, on the ocean. They do not have a significant effect on the surf.  The height and violence of the surf is a function of the size of ocean swells which are, in turn, a function of big weather systems.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:11:55 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Here we go again

Alan wrote:

> Marty, that was the best posting on the subject of Noonan drinking I have
> ever read. Amen! The old Auzzie tennis players of the Rod Laver era frequently
> mentioned their beer lunch before matches and in my early days of flying our
> guys would have been termed heavy drinkers by today's standards. We set records
> for partying. The joke was no smoking within 24 hours of flying and no
> drinking  within 50 feet of an aircraft. <G>
> Personally, I think you have set the matter to rest.

There is no logic to this whatever. What is important is not whether Noonan was a heavy drinker by the standards of the time, but whether he was drinking enough to affect his performance as a navigator. Moreover if heavy drinking was the norm, anyone perceived to be a boozer in 1937 was very likely someone with a real alcohol problem.

In truth there is plenty of anecdotal evidence and some documented evidence to suggest Noonan had an alcohol problem. Since these accounts are independent, it seems unlikely they are all false. As regards contemporary documented evidence, CDE is a luxury and one has to bear clearly in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

1) Russell Brines describes him in CDE as "an accomplished six bottle man" and stated "I knew Fred". He also pointed out that alcohol as a cause of the navigation problem was not merely his own idea but that of others too. How did Brines know Fred? More than likely from partying with him. Brines certainly had a taste for Scotch.

2) Captain Almon Gray describes him as "usually looking a bit hung over" and needing coffee to sober up during a flight.

3) He is said (Ric will remember the source) to have once fallen asleep on a Pan Am flight and was found to be unwakeable.

4) He was similarly said to have fallen into the water "after mistaking a shadow for the dock"

5) He left Pan Am under unpublicised circumstances. Perhaps we should ask why the reason never became known?

6) He was described by Bertie Heath as drinking whisky and needing support from Collopy after an evening's drinking at Lae.

7) He had a head-on collision and got a ticket for driving in the wrong lane. (A fairly major mistake!)

8) Mary Bea informed Goerner that he had a severe alcohol problem ( almost 2 bottles of whisky a day) and related his conversation with Amelia on the subject. Why she would do this if it was untrue is difficult to imagine since it was an attack on the character of someone of whom she was evidently very fond.

Did drink have anything to do with the flight's disappearance? I do not believe significantly so. Noonan had successfully navigated many other flights where his life was much less at risk (as the aircraft had been a flying boat). Noonan must have been well aware of the dangers involved if they became lost and I very much doubt he was foolish enough to drink on the flight - especially considering AE's disapproval of alcohol. He appeared in good health when he boarded the flight and the duration of the flight was sufficient that even had he been slightly hung-over he had plenty of time to recover.

Nonetheless, I think it is important to recognise that there is every chance he did indeed have an alcohol problem. Alcoholics suffer chronic problems and these could still have affected him even if he had not been drinking for a day or so. Once they had become lost, Noonan had to make immediate decisions as to their best course of action. There may have been information relevant to this that he had to remember. Memory and decision making could well have been adversely affected even if, as I believe, it was not responsible for their non-arrival at Howland.

Regards Angus.
*******************************************************************
From Ric

Does it strike you as just a little bit suspect that every one of these allegations arises AFTER the Earhart disappearance?  Fred was already a famous navigator and a public figure when he joined AE's team in 1937, but in all the records of his long nautical career and all the publicity surrounding his work for Pan Am there is not one mention of an alcohol problem.

1)  The Brines letter is pure speculation.  He claims to "know Fred". He's a reporter in Honolulu.  How can he possibly "know Fred" except for a few brief encounters while Fred was in town during Pan Am layovers?

2) Grays' allegation are also after-the-fact.

3) Ric does not remember the source for this story except that, it too, is after-the-fact.

4) Another after-the-fact story.

5) The most contemporaneous explanation for Fred's departure from Pan Am is in "From Crate To Clipper with Captain Musick" by Pan Am captain William Grooch (Longman's, Green & Co., NY, 1939).  Grooch tells many tales about the exploits of Fred Noonan and Ed Musick but not once does he say or imply that Noonan had a drinking problem.  He does explain that Noonan's departure from the company was due to a dispute about company policy and working conditions.

6) Heath's story is long after-the-fact anecdote.

7) Noonan was not cited for drunk driving.  Goerner's allegation that the ticket had a hand-written notation "Driver had been drinking" has been shown to be almost certainly a fabrication.

8) Your charge that "Mary Bea informed Goerner that he (Noonan) had a severe alcohol problem" is not supported by anything I have seen.  In his book, Goerner claims that Fred could drink two bottles of whiskey in a day but he does not attribute that information to Mary Bea.  He does reproduce, ver batim complete with gestures, a long conversation between AE and Noonan which supposedly occurred aboard ship enroute home from Hawaii after the Luke Field accident.  He cites Mary Bea as his source, but of course Mary Bea wasn't there.  It's the sort of junk journalism that is widely practiced and widely condemned today.  Even so, the imagined conversation contains no reference to drinking.

You say that "one has to bear clearly in mind that absence of evidence  is not evidence of absence."  Remember the corollary:  "Absence of evidence is not proof of a cover-up." Simply put, the only evidence that Noonan had a drinking problem is after-the-fact anecdotal recollection that smacks of scape-goating. All you're doing is repeating the rumors.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:21:30 -0400
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Blue coating

Ric wrote:

>The bluish coating Walt mentions is very interesting.  None of us has
>ever seen it before. Lockheed specs call for all interior surfaces of
>the aircraft to be painted. The blue color is only present in places
>that were shielded from the sun.   Exposure to prolonged sunlight
>appears to cause the coating to turn silvery gray in color. This could
>be aluminum paint but the blue color is surprising. If anyone has
>knowledge of this please let us know.

Just for the record, though I don't know what record,  I have a small piece of a World War II Japanese "Betty Bomber" that exhibits the same bluish coating on its  inner surface.  This piece was picked up and saved by my Uncle Glenn Gash, who was onboard the cruiser "San Francisco" during the battle of Guadalcanal.  The Betty crashed into the deck during that famous night action.  He saved several pieces, which still have that airplane fuel and oil smell after all these years.  I always thought that only the Japanese planes had that bluish interior.  But I guess not!

Don Jordan
Cal City, CA
************************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting.  Let's swap photos.   I'll contact you off-forum.  I don't know anything about Japanese anti-corrosion treatments but it's certainly possible that they were using the same coating in 1941/42 that Lockheed was using in 1935.  These things weren't secret.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:09:55 -0400
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric: I still don't quite follow this with Emily's statements that  aircraft wreckage was visible on the reef in the early 1940's.  What am I missing here?

************************************************************************
From Ric

Recall that what Emily saw, as she described it to us, was a rust-colored "strut" with a dark round shape on the end.  It was her father who told her that it was from an airplane.  Rust color implies ferrous metal and there is relatively little ferrous metal on a Lockheed 10 (or any other aluminum aircraft for that matter).  If what Emily saw was really airplane debris it was probably a gear leg with the wheel still attached.

Hypothesis:

Airplane lands on reef, hits pothole, and left main gear collapses. Airplane ends up facing north, left side facing ocean, cabin door unusable and only the right engine operable. ( Evidence - post-loss radio signals indicate right engine is operable.  Betty's notebook suggests that Noonan is trying to exit through cockpit hatch. Apparently cabin door is not usable.)

Sometime around July 5 rising tide and surf force abandonment of the aircraft.  Force of breaking waves shatters cabin and door windows. Water entering through large window opening in cabin door fractures flooring and blows out section of belly (Evidence - that's where 2-2-V-1 fits best).

The airplane is washed over the reef edge and sinks out of sight onto the shelf that is about 40 feet down off the edge of the reef.  The only debris remaining on the reef are the left gear leg (hung up on the reef edge), the small piece of belly skin (which eventually washes up on the beach), pieces of broken plexiglas and some pieces of plywood flooring with dados attached that went out through the hole (and later washed up on beach to be found and used by the colonists).

Colonists fishing on or near the reef edge on calm days can look down and see the airplane, hence Emily's father's knowledge that the debris visible on the reef edge is from an airplane.

Sometime around 1944 a storm causes at least one outer wing panel to separate from the airplane and be thrown up onto the reef flat where it is found by the colonists who salvage the aileron control cables and various pieces of aluminum sheet which they use for local purposes. (Evidence - John Mim's account of seeing control cable used as fishing tackle and aluminum used as inlay in local crafts).

In 1953 a few pieces of aluminum sheet on the reef flat can be seen in aerial photos and as late as 1959 there is still a recognizable "piece of a wing" on the reef flat (as described by Tapania Taeke).

That's just a scenario that seems to account for the evidence we have so far.  It is almost certainly wrong in some (or maybe all) respects but it is the latest refinement in a process that has been going on for the last 15 years.  New information, when and if it becomes available,  will allow further refinements and direct further search efforts until, ultimately, (we hope) we'll be able to present conclusive evidence of what happened.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:13:54 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: Kellogg wreck

If I recall in the days gone by when a crash site was found and the recovery (of bodies, cargo, etc.) was completed the remaining aircraft parts were painted to indicate that wreak was an old one i.e. identified so as not to confuse any subsequent searchers of downed aircraft.  Perhaps some old CAP  (Civil Air Patrol) or some other search and rescue organization in the Kellogg, Idaho area could shed a little light on this issue.

Ted Campbell
***********************************************************************
From Ric

The blue coating on the Kellogg wreck was not put there to mark the wreck.  It appears only on interior surfaces and is on the underside of assembled structures.  Whatever the coating is, it was applied to the interior aluminum surfaces before the aircraft was assembled.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:19:31 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

How is your Research Bulletin on 2-2-V-1 coming along?  You indicated earlier that you just about had it done and would post it on the web.

Ted Campbell
************************************************************************
From Ric

I had to put that work on hold (which just about kills me) in order to finish the Final Report on the Jaluit Survey which, Lord willin' and the creek don't rise, I should have ready to give to Pat for lay-out and final production today.  The Jaluit Final Report will also be the basis for a special issue of TIGHAR Tracks which should be produced in the next couple weeks.

I'm hoping to get back on the 2-2-V-1 Research Bulletin tomorrow.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:31:27 -0400
From:         John Barrett
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Not to throw a wrench into this thinking, but if the plane is on the edge of the reef flat and is eventually swept off by the tide and waves, wouldn't it be logical to think it would float for some time (and distance) before sinking? If it is intact enough after landing to run an engine and use the radio I would have to believe that the tanks are intact enough to keep it bouyant for some time. That is not to say that the parts found thus far, 2-2-V-1 and the plexiglas window, could not have been knocked off and washed ashore before the big plunge off the reef. The other alternative though would be that the plane is floated off at high tide and surf and is then beaten against the reef until it sinks. This may account for the WOF, if that is what it is, having been left behind as well as other bits and pieces. I think it has been asked before, but is there any evidence in the coral growth on the reef of having been damaged, specifically in the area where the plane may have stopped after landing?

LTM, (who doesn't float well herself)

John Barrett
************************************************************************
From Ric

Good questions.  How long that airplane would float in the reef-edge environment is anybody's guess but (see today's reply to Art Carty) the available evidence suggests that it sank quite rapidly and not far from the edge.  It sure ain't there now and, at some time, must have gone over the edge of the shelf into deeper water.

Marks on the reef that may have been caused by the airplane?  That's a tough one.  I'd be willing to bet that I could take you out on that reef flat at low tide and we'd find marks that we could attribute to NR16020 (See? Here's the pothole they hit and here's where the gear leg collapsed and the strut gouged this groove as the airplane spun around.)  It would be fun but I'm not sure it would be meaningful. Nonetheless, I'd love to take a close look at the reef surface with that in mind.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:26:10 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re; Here we go again...

Ric wrote:

> Does it strike you as just a little bit suspect that every one of these
> allegations arises AFTER the Earhart disappearance?

Not at all. Only then was FN newsworthy. Until then he was just another of the many millions of heavy drinkers.

> Fred was already a
> famous navigator and a public figure when he joined AE's team in 1937,
> but in all the records of his long nautical career and all the
> publicity surrounding his work for Pan Am there is not one mention of
> an alcohol problem.

Its quite possible that many suspected but no-one was certain enough or sufficiently lacking in tact or brave enough ( there were libel laws even then) to say so. Noonan himself was hardly going to deliberately advertise the fact as it could lose him his job.

> 1)  The Brines letter is pure speculation.

I don't agree. There must have been some reason for Brines to have come up with the idea and the personal experience he infers would be an excellent reason. He attributes the same thinking to others.

> He claims to "know Fred".
> He's a reporter in Honolulu.  How can he possibly "know Fred" except
> for a few brief encounters while Fred was in town during Pan Am
> layovers?

The world of journalism is well known for alcoholics and I think it highly likely that Brines would have no difficulty spotting one even after only a brief acquaintance. He was trained as an observer and very likely interested in people as he had chosen a career as a reporter.

> 2) Grays' allegation are also after-the-fact.
> 3) Ric does not remember the source for this story except that, it too,
> is after-the-fact.
> 4) Another after-the-fact story.

After-the-fact diminishes the value of  reports but does not negate it especially when it comes from a wide variety of different sources.

> 5) The most contemporaneous explanation for Fred's departure from Pan
> Am is in "From Crate To Clipper with Captain Musick" by Pan Am captain
> William Grooch (Longman's, Green & Co., NY, 1939).  Grooch tells many
> tales about the exploits of Fred Noonan and Ed Musick but not once does
> he say or imply that Noonan had a drinking problem.  He does explain
> that Noonan's departure from the company was due to a dispute about
> company policy and working conditions.

I wonder if the company policy that was in dispute was that they would not employ navigators or pilots who appeared to drink to excess?

> 6) Heath's story is long after-the-fact anecdote.

Do you believe that he was mistaken or that he concocted it?

> 7) Noonan was not cited for drunk driving.>>

I never said he was. What I was pointing out is that a head-on collision caused by driving in the wrong lane is a surprising error for someone who was a "world class naviagtor".  Whether or not Goerner's allegation about the ticket is true, the fact remains that such gross errors are very often caused by drinking.

> Goerner's allegation that
> the ticket had a hand-written notation "Driver had been drinking" has
> been shown to be almost certainly a fabrication.
>
> 8) Your charge that "Mary Bea informed Goerner that he (Noonan) had a
> severe alcohol problem" is not supported by anything I have seen.

p 32 Search for Amelia Earhart;

"The conversation that follows was related to me by the woman who that day occupied Fred's thoughts" p33

"Does she know about your battle with the bottle" said Amelia. "Yes and she's willing to fight it with me"

> In
> his book, Goerner claims that Fred could drink two bottles of whiskey
> in a day but he does not attribute that information to Mary Bea.

Not directly but it seems very likely as Mary Bea had related the conversation about Fred's drinking problem to Goerner and if anyone knew, she did. This information appears in the book immediately before the reported conversation.

> He
> does reproduce, ver batim complete with gestures, a long conversation
> between AE and Noonan which supposedly occurred aboard ship enroute
> home from Hawaii after the Luke Field accident.  He cites Mary Bea as
> his source, but of course Mary Bea wasn't there.

You're struggling now. If Mary Bea reported the conversation at all then she did not have to be there to agree that Fred had a drinking problem. Nor apparently did she argue with Goerner's account after his book was published. If it was untrue, Goerner had made an outrageous and unjustified attack on her dead husband's character and I find it difficult to believe that she would have taken this lying down.

> It's the sort of junk
> journalism that is widely practiced and widely condemned today.  Even
> so, the imagined conversation contains no reference to drinking.

P33
"Does she know about your battle with the bottle" said Amelia.
"Yes and she's willing to fight it with me"

> You say that "one has to bear clearly in mind that absence of
> evidence
> is not evidence of absence."  Remember the corollary:  "Absence of
> evidence is not proof of a cover-up."

This is rather irrelevant as I am not suggesting a cover-up.

> Simply put, the only evidence that Noonan had a drinking problem is
> after-the-fact anecdotal recollection that smacks of scape-goating.
> All you're doing is repeating the rumors.

I think when the evidence is coolly weighed the balance of probability is that Noonan did indeed have a drinking problem and the evidence is far stronger than rumour.

Regards Angus
************************************************************************
From Ric

We clearly disagree on the credibility of after-the-fact anecdotes. What you see as a number of corroborating sources I see as piling-on to a scape-goat legend.

You're correct that the AE/Noonan conversation alleged in Goerner's book includes a reference to his "battle with the bottle" but you do admit that your statement that "Mary Bea informed Goerner that he had a severe alcohol problem" is your own speculation.  Personally, I think the entire conversation is highly suspect.  In it, Noonan supposedly says, "I'm just trying to decide if I should ask her to marry me."  At that time he was not even divorced from his first wife.

>If Mary Bea reported the conversation at all
>then she did not have to be there to agree that Fred had a drinking problem.
>Nor apparently did she argue with Goerner's account after his book was
>published. If it was untrue, Goerner had made an outrageous and unjustified
>attack on her dead husband's character and I find it difficult to believe that
>she would have taken this lying down.>>

So, is Muriel Morrissey's failure to sue Goerner an indication that his charges that her sister was a spy are true?

Referring to Noonan's departure from PanAm you ask:

>I wonder if the company policy that was in dispute was that they
>would not employ navigators or pilots who appeared to drink to excess?

No.  Grooch is very clear about that.  Page 213:

"There was growing unrest among the junior pilots (in the Pacific Division).  They contended that the work was far more difficult than other airlines; compensation was inadequate and the order of promotion vague. Ed (Musick) felt they had a just grievance.  He championed their cause with company officials, pointing out that his own promised salary had not materialized.  They shrugged and passed the buck to the New York office.  There the matter was pigeonholed.  Ed strove to convince the pilots that the delay was due to the press of more urgent business. "They're snowed under.", he argued. "We'll just have to be patient until they straighten out a few things in Alaska, China and South America." Fred Noonan said, " We've lived on promises for a year. I'm through." He resigned immediately.  The others grumbled but carried on."

I said:

> You say that "one has to bear clearly in mind that absence of evidence
> is not evidence of absence."  Remember the corollary:  "Absence of
> evidence is not proof of a cover-up."

You said:

>This is rather irrelevant as I am not suggesting a cover-up.

Of course you are.  You're saying that a serious condition existed for which there is no direct evidence.  The nautical licensing authorities never said Fred had a problem. Pan Amelia never said Fred had a problem.  Amelia never said Fred had a problem (unless you believe Goerner's  you-are-there recreation of the shipboard conversation). Apparently nobody said Fred had a problem while he was alive.  If Fred had a problem but nobody talked about it there was, by definition, a cover-up.  In fact, a whole bunch of cover-ups.

I think we have to leave it to forum subscribers to decide for themselves.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:43:38 -0400
From:         Niels
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I have always been puzzled by the little evidence found on Gardner. I had this post a year or so ago.

It all looks like if someone has tried to hide all the evidence away, and the little that was found (including by TIGHAR) is what may have been overseen and left behind.

How to explain that? I have no idea. But if I dare let my imagination go, I may come up with something approaching this:

AE did indeed miss Howland and followed the line until she found Gardner. She ditched the plane, managed to send a few radio messages before she run totally out of fuel or the generator got drowned or the plane washed away totally or in part.

On 9-July Lambrecht overflies the atoll and does not see the plane (maybe covered by tide) nor the castaways. Why is that?

Two possibilities:

1. AE and FN have gone exploring the island for a better place (more shade, fresh water?), and miss to signal their presence to Lambrecht. They may have been exploring the heart of the jungle for water at this very moment and had no time to run to the beach or lagoon when they heard the plane. They may even have not heard them due to wind and sound of waves covering the engine noise. Those who have been on the island, do you know how long it takes for someone in the middle of the bush to run either side to the open?). How strong is the sound of the waves when the sea is rough? Do we know for how long Lambrecht circled the island?

2. AE and FN were no longer on the island, and someone has erased all evidence of their presence. Who? Well, why not imagine that a Japanese "fishing boat" or submarine on a spying mission in the area stops at Gardner. The Japanese were potentially looking for or exploring strategic reefs or abandoned islands in US territory to use as possible bases in the event Japan were to invade Hawaii from the south. Their search brings them to Gardner and they find the castaways. They know they cannot leave witnesses behind, but they also know who the castaways are (they heard all radio exchanges for the search) and therefore decide not to kill them but to kidnap them. They take them onboard, comb the beach for all evidence, and sink the wreck or take it on board as well. And off they go to Saipan. As some witnesses saw them the Japanese pretended they found the castaways in the Marshalls as they did not want to reveal they were spying in the Phoenix isles.

Actually event 1. and event 2. above may even have happened in sequence. This is pure imagination of course, but this "theory" has the advantage to reconcile the Nikumaruru (my favorite) and the Marshall ditching theories. Both theories have troubling evidence, although the pane crash in the Marshall makes little sense.

It may well be the missing link between the two theories. It also explains why so little evidence has ever been found -- planes pieces, or clear evidence left behind by the castaways to mark their passage on the island.

Niels
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Whenever you don't find what you're sure must be there it is natural to jump to the conclusion that somebody stole it. (Mom!  somebody stole my socks!!)

Earhart and Noonan could have very easily missed the overflight of the Colorado's search planes and been missed by the pilot's and observers. That much is beyond debate.

Could the Japanese have somehow abducted Earhart and Noonan from Gardner and erased almost all evidence of their presence?  Sure, in theory.  But why on earth would they want to do that?  Gardner was deep in British territory.  Japan was at peace with the U.S. and Britain. The plane could not possibly have gone anywhere near Japanese installations (assuming there were any) and ended up at Gardner.  The plane itself was of no value (the Japanese had bought an Electra from Lockheed years before).

LTM
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:46:46 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I can't imagine the plane floating long (if at all) in the high-energy environment of the reef edge, especially if it had any significant amount of  water in it, or if it had a wheel hung up on the coral.  It's certainly possible to launch a canoe over the reef edge, if one knows what one's doing, and to cruise along just offshore fishing, but that sort of controlled floating  is a lot different from the uncontrolled movement of a large hollow object with holes in it.

As for marks on the reef, as Ric suggests, you might see things you could interpret as such marks, but I doubt if any marks left at the time would still be there.  Coral grows back, and while the reef flat is made up of pretty dead coral, I'd expect at least a lot of calcium carbonate deposition that would have wiped out any scrape marks.  I've seen reefs in Micronesia that took lots of bomb hits during WWII that look essentially pristine  today. ************************************************************************
From Ric

When Norwich City went aground her bow gouged a deep trench in the reef that is visible today, but she was a tad heavier than a Lockheed 10.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:52:38 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      RE; Here we go again...

Good one Alan. When I flew in the Viet Nam era it was the same, "no drinking within 50' of the plane and no smoking 24 hrs before flying". A lot of my friends who flew fighters and were FAC's sometimes flew after long nights of drinking because as they put it they were scared to death. After a mission it was standard practice to go to the Club to drink, a lot if it were a particular tough mission. At the Airlines it was cut back a lot but I flew with Captains who flew in and before WW II and they talked about the barnstormers and early flyers who drank a lot. Look at Paul Mantz who was notorious for his drinking while making movies and ended up flying into Saddleback Mtn. in Orange County while under the weather.  They drank because they were scared I believe.

Jim Preston
************************************************************************
From Ric

I think you're thinking of Frank Tallman.  Paul bit the big one in Buttercup Valley on July 8, 1965 flying a cobbled-together abomination he built for the film "Flight of the Phoenix".  There were widespread reports that he was more than a bit "impaired" at the time.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:04:37 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote: "It sure ain't there now and, at some time, must have gone over the edge of the shelf into deeper water."

I'm trying to get a feel for the underwater exploration. Suppose it was decided that taking a look down into that deeper water would be a worthwhile effort. What sort of depths are we dealing with? What sort of equipment is needed? Is it scanning for metallic "hits"? Or is it unmanned submersible cameras?

It would seem that the remoteness of Niku would, as ever, be a major hurdle. Getting equipment onto the site would be pretty expensive.

LTM, who'd be happy to fund the whole thing, I'm sure!

Alfred Hendrickson, #2583
************************************************************************
From Ric

You've got that right.  Getting equipment onto the site would be pretty expensive.  If all we had to look for were a couple of coral-encrusted engines the task would be pretty hopeless. However, the prospect - if  it's a reasonable prospect - of a beat up but more or less intactairplane being down there changes the formula somewhat. Depth?  Depends on how far away from the reef edge you go.  A couple hundred feet and you're looking at a depth of maybe 500 feet.  Another 500 feet out and you have maybe a thousand feet of water.  Keep going and you can get depth of many thousands of feet.  Take away the water and Nikumaroro would look like a mesa in the American southwest.

Technology to search the really deep water is out of the question, but we might be able to come up with a way to take a look at depths down to about a thousand feet.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:18:09 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

For Niels

Actually, assuming even half of the evidence we think indicates Earhart's presence really does, Nikumaroro isn't at all impoverished  in evidence of the event.  The sites of short-term events are notorious for  leaving very few traces, which are easily overwhelmed by the leavings of  subsequent events.

I spent a good deal of my archaeological youth working on projects that sought to establish where Francis Drake landed on the California coast in 1579. He'd camped with his crew for some weeks, careened and repaired his ship, abandoned a prize ship, traded with the Natives, and claimed the land for Queen Elizabeth I -- lots of opportunities to leave stuff around.  After some 60 years of research, it's been pretty well demonstrated (I think, though there remain those who disagree) that the event occurred in Drake's Bay in what is now Point Reyes National Seashore, but the physical evidence is thin -- mostly comprising the pattern of distribution of Ming porcelain sherds in Native American campsites along the shore.  As at Niku, part of the problem at Drakes Bay is the effect of subsequent events -- in that case the 1597 wreck of a Manila galleon with Ming porcelain aboard, to say nothing of subsequent Russian, Spanish, Mexican and American occupations.  Much of the argument about the Drakes Bay landing has been over which Ming sherds came from the galleon and which might have come from Drake.  Just as at Niku we can argue about which plane fragments may be from an Electra and which are from something else, and about who besides Earhart the skeletal castaway could have been.

Incidentally, of the 1597 event in Drakes Bay -- the galleon wreck -- the ONLY physical evidence that's been found are Ming porcelain shards and ship's spikes, and ONLY in campsites where they'd been left by the local Coast Mewuk folks who scavenged the wreck.  Sound familiar?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:19:39 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

The aircraft was not destroyed by wave action. It was dismantled and hauled away.  Earhart's aircraft was found by geologist during the late 1970's.  There was some sort of dispute over ownership over it between governments and the geologist who found it.  The one piece of metal left on the island is a mere calling card to the events that had taken place on this island 10 years prior to TIGHAR's arrival.

Thats all I'm going to say about that.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:21:41 -0400
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Dennis McGee wrote:  "I say:  No one says the airplane was totally destroyed THEN washed away. Why couldn't the airplane suffer a few good, solids whacks that knocked off some big parts and then thes rest gets bounced around enough to let it slide into oblivion?  Under this scenario the plane or its major parts would be relatively intact except those parts knocked off during the initial wave action.  What am I missing here?"

Why were none of these "big parts" seen by the Lambrecht squadron (6 pairs of eyes) or the Kiwis?

Ric wrote:  "We do have direct evidence that Noonan drank.  In his letter to Gene Pallette he looks forward to having a 'highball' with him on his return.  I am not, however, aware of any contemporaneous letter that mentions Noonan's drinking being a problem, much less any Pan Am memo or letter censuring him for drinking."

You guys also might want to revisit the Brines Letter, which is posted in the "documents" section of the TIGHAR website.  And there is a 1965 letter from Jim Collopy to Joe Gervais in which Collopy states:  "I feel I must mention this as an aid in your research, that is on the night they first landed at Lae, was the night A.E. stayed at the Pub, and it was the night FN and I really got stuck into the social whirl and after about 20 Scotches or thereabouts, I gleaned that FN had very little love for what he called 'the ball bearing bag in front of the great gas tank'.  I still remember his remarks, 'She can fly, I can navigate, but we both are bum W/T operators.'"

Now I assume Collopy was exaggerating about the number of drinks, and I'm skeptical of his ability to recall Fred's exact words 28 years later.  But it does seem plausible that he and Fred tied one on, and FN's tongue loosened up enough to express some of his frustrations.

I know, I know, it's "anecdotal evidence" but if you are looking for something more direct in the form of a DUI citation or an official reprimand, I doubt you'll ever find it.  As Marty points out, society was much more tolerant of overindulgence back then, and what were seen as character flaws tended to be hushed-up, not publicized.

Having said the foregoing, I agree that there's little if any evidence FN's tippling ever affected his job performance.  Take a look at the  chipper, bustling fellow in the Lae takeoff film.  He even does a graceful little pirouette on the wing in order to let AE get in the plane first.  If that's a guy suffering the effects of a King Hell hangover, then (to paraphrase Lincoln) I need to know what brand he drank so I can order a case.

Pat Gaston
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:24:06 -0400
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: Blue coating

Don Jordan is quite correct. The Japanese used a blue anti-corrosion treatment that was used nowhere else. A few years ago Air Classics featured the refurbishment of a Zero that had been one of the first captured and brought back to the U.S. for evaluation. It is still flying and is the only one still equipped with its original Sakae engine.  They insisted on total authenticity and had a hell of a time figuring out the formula but eventually succeeded. An analysis of the coating on the artifact, if it has not degraded too much over the years, can now be compared to a known baseline.

Mark Guimond
Dorval
************************************************************************
From Ric

Any idea who did the rebuild on the Zero and who it is that has this known baseline?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:30:37 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Mantz R.I.P.

Ric Gillespie writes:

> Paul bit the big one in Buttercup Valley on July 8, 1965 flying a
> cobbled-together abomination
> he built for the film "Flight of the Phoenix".

He flew that thing??  I though that was all special effects.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
************************************************************************
From Ric

He didn't fly the contraption that they used on the set.  The "flyable" Phoenix was, I believe, basically a BT-13 with skid landing gear and a weird tail.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:52:06 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Here we go again..

Ric wrote:

> We clearly disagree on the credibility of after-the-fact anecdotes.
> What you see as a number of corroborating sources I see as piling-on to
> a scape-goat legend.
>
> You're correct that the AE/Noonan conversation alleged in Goerner's
> book includes a reference to his "battle with the bottle"

That seems to me a rather important admission.  The consequence must either be, 1) Mary Bea and Goerner were both telling the truth or 2) Goerner was lying or mistaken.

According to you then, 2) is the only possible scenario. But you are on record as respecting Goerner's truthfulness. Consequently Goerner must have been mistaken. Almost as bad a mistake as driving in the lane for oncoming traffic I would say.

> but you do admit that your statement that " Mary Bea informed Goerner
> that he had a severe alcohol problem" is your own speculation.

No - I don't. If Mary Bea said that FN had a "battle with the bottle", to me that is synonymous with saying he had a severe alcohol problem (even if it is not a verbatim statement). This is far from speculation.

> Personally, I think
> the entire conversation is highly suspect.  In it, Noonan supposedly
> says, "I'm just trying to decide if I should ask her to marry me."  At
> that time he was not even divorced from his first wife.

Perhaps he was hedging his bets. However, there must be plenty of people who have proposed to another before making the break.

>> If Mary Bea reported the conversation at all then she did not have
>> to be there to agree that Fred had a drinking
>> problem. Nor apparently did she argue with Goerner's account after his
>> book was published. If it was untrue, Goerner had made an outrageous and
>> unjustified attack on her dead husband's character and I find it difficult to
>> believe that she would have taken this lying down.
>
> So, is Muriel Morrissey's failure to sue Goerner an indication that
> his charges that her sister was a spy are true?

I can't see that there is anything in the least reprehensible about being a government agent. Most people would love to have a relative who they could claim braved danger for the sake of the motherland. So why would she want to sue?

>Referring to Noonan's departure from PanAm you ask:
>
>> I wonder if the company policy that was in dispute was that they
>> would not
>> employ navigators or pilots who appeared to drink to excess?
>
> No.  Grooch is very clear about that.  Page 213
>
> "There was growing unrest among the junior pilots (in the Pacific
> Division).  They contended that the work was far more difficult than
> other airlines; compensation was inadequate and the order of promotion
> vague.
>
> Ed (Musick) felt they had a just grievance.  He championed their cause
> with company officials, pointing out that his own promised salary had
> not materialized.  They shrugged and passed the buck to the New York
> office.  There the matter was pigeonholed.  Ed strove to convince the
> pilots that the delay was due to the press of more urgent business.
> "They're snowed under.", he argued. "We'll just have to be patient
> until they straighten out a few things in Alaska, China and South
> America."
>
> Fred Noonan said, " We've lived on promises for a year. I'm through."
> He resigned immediately.  The others grumbled but carried on.

On the balance of probability I'll give you this one.

> I said:
>> You say that "one has to bear clearly in mind that absence of
>> evidence
>> is not evidence of absence."  Remember the corollary:  "Absence of
>> evidence is not proof of a cover-up."
>
> You said:
>> This is rather irrelevant as I am not suggesting a cover-up.
>
> Of course you are.

I think I am in a better position to judge that than you.

> You're saying that a serious condition existed for
> which there is no direct evidence.

But there is direct  evidence - Brines, Mary Bea! In any case I am not saying there is any reason to believe that anyone tried to hide that evidence - and that is what a cover-up is.

> The nautical licensing authorities
> never said Fred had a problem. Pan Amelia never said Fred had a
> problem.  Amelia never said Fred had a problem (unless you believe
> Goerner's  you-are-there recreation of the shipboard conversation).
> Apparently nobody said Fred had a problem while he was alive.  If Fred
> had a problem but nobody talked about it there was, by definition, a
> cover-up.  In fact, a whole bunch of cover-ups.

"Absence of evidence is not a cover-up". (Remember that one?) No way! There are a thousand other things we don't know about Fred Noonan. Is it a cover-up that we don't know if he was a republican or if he had smelly feet?

> I think we have to leave it to forum subscribers to decide for
> themselves.

At least we can agree on that.

Regards Angus.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:54:23 -0400
From:         Stretch (Roger Smith)
Subject:      Re: Mantz R.I.P.

I might beg to differ.  I have his biography at home and some of the pictures in it were taken during the accident sequence.  It definitely looks cobbled together and nothing like a BT-13.

With all due respects and I could be wrong too!

Stretch
*******************************************************************
From Ric

I have the same book.  No doubt somebody will dig out the facts.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:57:01 -0400
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Re: Mantz R.I.P.

On the issue of RIP for aviators, Charles Sweeney who flew "Bock's Car" that dropped the second A-bomb (on Nagasaki) died yesterday.  I think he also flew the recon airplane accompanying the "Enola Gay."   And he was - rightfully - unrepentant to the end for his war time activities.

LTM, who enjoys editorials

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
************************************************************************
From Ric

What is this?  Let's Start An Off-Topic Controversy Day?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:12:29 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Two possible blue coatings:  Dykem, a blue layout fluid, and alodine, a corrosion inhibiting "conversion coating" that was usually green or yellow,, but rarely blue.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263

************************************************************************
From Ric

The blue coating is on all surfaces of a stringer so I doubt that it's a layout fluid.  Alodine sounds like a possibility.

I just found this in a 1941 ALCOA booklet called "Aluminum in Aircraft". "Alclad sheet on the outside surface of commercial transports and U.S. Army airplanes is customarily left bare except for insignia, or where camouflage paint is applied.  The inside surface of the same sheet is frequently given one or more coats of paint applied after assembly.  In the case of commercial transports the shop coats intended to minimize scratching and marring are simply left intact on the inside surface."

It may be that the blue coating we see is the "shop coat". Unfortunately, there is no mention of what the "shop coat" is made of.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:13:25 -0400
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Possibly Fighter Rebuilders at Chino Airport in California, but that is a wild guess. If not them, they would certainly know who did it. I may have the Air Classics issue in question still around and will try to find the information for you, but don't hold your breath. Surely some other Forum regulars may recall the story and back me up. Will let you know as soon as I have gone thru the back issues I still have available.

Mark Guimond
Dorval
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:15:31 -0400
From:         Alexander
Subject:      Re: Here we go again....

I just thought that i would trawl the net [no pun] for info on NOONANS drinking... as you can see i found some things which are printed below along with the links to the sites they came from. I also noticed on one of them some stuff about ITASCA which may be interesting to those who have mentioned it in the past. I hope this is of help to others in the forum.

001 REF : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Noonan

1937 was a year of transition for Fred Noonan, whose reputation as an expert navigator, along with his role in the development of commercial airline navigation, had already earned him a place in aviation history. The tall, very thin, brown-haired and blue-eyed forty-three year old navigator was living in Los Angeles. He resigned from Pan Am because he felt he had risen through the ranks as far as he could as a navigator, and had interest in starting a navigation school. In March he obtained a divorce from his wife Josie in Juarez, Mexico. A short time later he married Mary Bea Martinelli (of Oakland, California). Noonan was rumored to be a heavy drinker, but this was fairly common during the era and there is no evidence it ever interfered with his reliability or accuracy as a navigator.

002 REF : http://www.bobdougherty.us/Parallax.html

I tell the pilot No Sweat this is an ideal day for celestial navigation without the APN-9 since both the sun and the moon will be up. We take off and I use my switchblade to open a can of beanie-weanies as I hum a tune. My first Sun/Moon fix after only an hour has us 75 miles off track. I start sweating bullets. I check the driftmeter and see no sign of strong crosswinds. If I miss Guam we will all die and all the USAF people will remember me in the same breath as Amelia Airheart's navigator, Fred Noonan, the drunk.

REF : http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/articles00/nhriley.htm

Gray told me that Noonan always showed up for a flight precisely on time but usually looking a bit hung over. Once aloft he would have some coffee and then do a superb job of navigation. He never drank during a flight. Unknown to many researchers, Noonan held a second class Commercial Radiotelegraph License, which he obtained two years before his death, and he often stood by for the Clippers' radio operators when needed. They worked in CW (continuous wave, i.e., Morse code)
exclusively.

**THERE IS ALSO SOME INTERESTING STUFF ON THIS SITE ABOUT ITASCA**

003 REF :
http://www.neptune.k12.nj.us/nhs/history/Women/ameliapage/Amelia%20page.html

Fred Noonan had worked in the past for Pan American Airlines until he was fired for a having a drinking problem. Although he was one of the best navigators of his time, his drinking problem prevented him from ever having a steady job. He charted many flights for Pan American, all around the world, before he was fired. Amelia gave him the chance to be the navigator on her expedition to help him get another good job. He seemed to have his drinking problem under control before they left the United States.

Alexander

LTM : sometimes i have too much time on my hands and it's good to put it to use.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:17:23 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Don Iwanski wrote: "The aircraft was not destroyed by wave action. It was dismantled and hauled away.  Earhart's aircraft was found by geologist during the late 1970's.  There was some sort of dispute over ownership over it between governments and the geologist who found it.  The one piece of metal left on the island is a mere calling card to the events that had taken place on this island 10 years prior to TIGHAR's arrival. Thats all I'm going to say about that."

We're still waiting for some evidence, Don. That's all I'm going to say about that.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson, #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:40:52 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Here we go again

Ric replies to Angus

>Simply  put, the only evidence that Noonan had a drinking problem is
>after-the-fact  anecdotal recollection that smacks of scape-goating.
>All you're doing is  repeating the rumors.

I thought Marty made a very logical accounting of the drinking issue and I think your rebuttal is equally logical.

Rumors should never be repeated, and after the fact anecdotes bear little credibility. Angus DOES make the point I think most would agree with that alcohol or not it probably had little or no bearing on the loss of the Electra, AE and Fred.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:39:16 -0400
From:         Edgard Engelman
Subject:      Re: Mantz R.I.P.

Concerning that aircraft, this page could be interesting:

http://home.earthlink.net/~eellbee/mantz2.html
*************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Edgard.  Stretch is right.  I was wrong.  Not a BT-13.

The article says that the NTSB determined that Mantz was intoxicated.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:08:55 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drake

Tom King writes:

>I  spent a good deal of my archaeological youth working on projects that
>sought to establish where Francis Drake landed on the California  coast
>in  1579.

Tom, you must also know there were many rumors of Drake's heavy drinking  and that being the primary reason he wrecked. He was actually aiming for Washington State, probably Seattle, but made a glaring navigation error.

Not finding much evidence is understandable but the absence of even one B&B bottle is a surprise.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:39:52 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Alodine is looking better and better.  It is basically a chromate coating, mainly used on aircraft aluminum. I can find several references on line to using it on alclad. It is usually yellow or a golden brown color, but I found one mention of it turning out blue of WW II vintage aircaft skin.
Dan Postellon
************************************************************************
From Ric

We'll need to confirm that alodine was around in 1935.  I wonder if alodine may have been used as a "shop coat".
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:09:38 -0400
From:         Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Mantz R.I.P.

Right Ric, got them mixed up. I was living in Orange County then and used to stop by the Tallmantz Museum now and again. I was sorry to hear about Frank's Crash but you are right, Paul built that strange bird for the Flight of the Phoenix and was kiled in front of the cameras.

Jimbo
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:17:41 -0400
From:         Alfred Henrickson
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Ric, help me understand this: "Shop coat" goes on immediately after the aluminum sheet is manufactured, and is intended to protect the aluminum from scratches during the fabrication, or shaping, process. Am I right? Is it basically a spray-paint sort of material, or is it more like anodizing?

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson, #2583
************************************************************************
From Ric

I really don't know much about it (yet).  I'm not sure whether it is put on by the manufacturer (ALCOA) or the customer (Lockheed). I'm not sure how it is applied but I am quite sure that it is not like anodizing which is an "anodic treatment" that produces an artificial oxide coating by making the aluminum the anode of an electrolytic cell in which the electrolyte is either chromic acid or sulfuric acid. "Anodized" aluminum has a dull gray appearance.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:24:52 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re; 2-2-V-1

Alfred:

I wish I had the funds and free time to do just that.  Go dig up everything I can get my hands on and present it to you.  Unfortunatley I have to work for a living and what I have done so far has been a slow process and a very interesting one I might add.  I enjoy bringing this event up to you and this forum.  Knowing that I was able to communicate to you the event my ship experienced, that theres a little known event which happened here on this island in the late 70's which for whatever reason not allot of people know about it, and those who did will deny it, possibly due to liability reasons, and that you scoffed at it just really makes me smile.  It's a modern day search of the Holy Grail, or in the geologist's term - the goose who laid the golden egg.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:27:49 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: blue coating

> We'll need to confirm that alodine was around in 1935.  I wonder if
> alodine may have been used as a "shop coat".

Alodine was invented 70 years ago by
Henkel Technologies
32100 Stephenson Highway
Madison Heights, MI 48071
USA Phone: 248-583-9300
Fax: 248-583-2976

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

1934, the year Lockheed introduced the Model 10.

Thanks Angus.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:37:36 -0400
From:         Niels
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

For Tom King

Actualy I was not only thinking about wreckage, but also on evidence that castaways would have wanted to leave on purpose, or parts of the aircraft they would have taken with them. Some solid sign that they have been there.

For example, if they left the crash site for another part of the island, they may have wanted to indicate somehow which direction they went. They may also have taken some parts of the plane with them to  help them surviving: some tools, broken glass, the compass, seatpillows, anything.

Then when you get nearer to the end, you want to leave a message, leave some proof that you have been there, and perhaps place it somewhere where it can be easily found, or with clear signs as to where it is sheltered.

But anyway, we shall never be able to prove any of this, so we may as well just drop it. Nontheless, if we somehow believe this is a possibility, it may help focussing the reseach somewhat.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:54:57 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Just curious on this subject.  While you are trying to get a handle on what was used, why it was used and who applied the "blue" coating to the Idaho wreak what significance does it have to the AE Gardner theory?

Have you seen the same blue coating on something found on Gardner or is it something to put into your database in the event of finding something at a later  date?

Thanks,
Ted Campbell
************************************************************************
From Ric

The exterior surface of 2-2-V-1 has a few remnants of some kind of coating - probably paint.  The color now is dark green but there's no telling what it may have been originally.  If it's military olive drab paint then, obviously, the skin cannot be from Earhart's Electra, but if it is military OD paint then the interior surface should show some sign of zinc chromate and it doesn't.

The exterior surface of 2-2-V-1 has the remains of the original ALCOA labeling.  Skins were traditionally installed with the labeling side on the interior.  We don't know why this one was installed "wrong-side out" but we do know that the skin was part of a repair.  The ALCOA labeling has been identified as labeling for aluminum sheet that was approved for repair but not for original construction.

We now wonder if the paint remnants on 2-2-V-1 are the remains of the "shop coat".  Naturally, if it turns out that the coating on c/n 1024 (the Kellogg wreck) and the coating on 2-2-V-1 are the same stuff that would be pretty interesting.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:55:32 -0400
From:         Alfred Henrickson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

For Don Iwanski:

Thanks, Don, for your reply. Please accept my apology for scoffing at you. I know you are sincere. I simply wish that you could produce a few things, even one thing, to corroborate your story.

LTM - Alfred Hendrickson, #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:57:04 -0400
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Following up yesterday's comment on the blue anti-corrosion treatment:

The Zero in question is located at the Planes of Fame Museum and Fighter Rebuilders is the 'in-house' restoration operation. They should be able to fill you in on the tech data you require.

The Air Museum - Planes of Fame
Headquarters
7000 Merrill Ave
# 17
Chino, CA 91710
(909) 597-3722
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mark.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:01:42 -0400
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Don,

Maybe someone on the forum does have the funds and the time to "go dig up everything" but we would need to know where to start looking and what is it we are looking for.

I am not sure, other than the thrill of seeing one's postings on the web, what value there is in just posting tidbits bits of information concerning this topic!

Ted Campbell
************************************************************************
From Ric

I can assure you that Don has posted far more than just tidbits.  If you'll check the forum archives you'll find his entire story.  What you won't find, unfortunately, is anything beyond Don's own recollections to support it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:16:20 -0400
From:         Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Several years ago as an Executive Recruiter I had an opening for a company who was looking for what is known as a "Coil Coating Chemist". This person develops the formulas for coatings applied to the coils of aluminum as they were manufactured. I don't know the history of coil coatings, but for this large manufacturer, the coatings were applied right after the aluminum had been formed into coils. Hope this is helpful.

LTM,
Mike Haddock, #2438
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:18:48 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

For Niels --

I understand your point, and of course some stuff was found at the SE end of the island (probably at the Seven Site) back in 1940 that may very well have been brought from the plane -- the sextant box, the corks on chains, the Benedictine bottle.  There are things we've found at the Seven Site that could have come from the plane -- the little aluminum latch-like gizmos, the button, maybe some of the glass.  And we've only scratched the surface at the Seven Site.

And I can assure you that when I fantasize about what I'd like to find at the Seven Site, a nice big bottle with Amelia's account of her adventure in it is at the top of my list.  But even if they left such markers, in order for us to find them they'd have to have been preserved somehow, and we'd have to be able to locate them, and understand them.

Example: There's a tree at Aukaraime South, near where the shoe parts were found in 1991, that has a number of names carved on it.  Nope, no Amelia, no Fred; they're I Kiribati names that someone carved there as a marker. But for what, and who did the carving?  We haven't been able to link the names with anybody in the colony, or in the late 1970s I Kiribati expedition that studied the island's flora and fauna and water resources.  But my point is that we noticed the carved tree only because we happened to be working at the Shoe Site.  There are trees all over the island that COULD have "AE  and FN" carved on them, and we haven't happened to see them.  There are also lots of dead, fallen, and rotten trees that could once have had such things carved on them. Lots of rocks under which there could be a bottle, and so on.

When we go back to the Seven Site, I hope we can spend some serious time looking under rocks and at tree trunks, but we'd have to be astoundingly lucky to find something deliberately left by Earhart and Noonan, even if it IS (or was) there.

Returning to my Drake example -- back in the 1940s a brass plate was found near San Francisco Bay that closely matched the description of one Drake had said he'd put up at his landing place -- a "Platte of Brasse" claiming "Nova Albion" for Her Majesty.  For years it was taken to be genuine -- the wording was right, it had a hole in which a coin could have been affixed as Drake said he'd affixed one -- and was taken as evidence that Drake had sailed in through the Golden Gate.  Then analysis showed that it was a clever fake. Frankly, if we found anything TOO obvious (like Amelia's journal in a big bottle), I'd be very suspicious.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:19:42 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

For Don Iwanski

And Don, if you're going to share your beliefs with us, it would be nice if you wouldn't present them as facts.  "I believe," "I think," and even "I'm bloody well SURE" are nice modifiers to use when sharing ideas for which you can't produce evidence.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:24:24 -0400
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Don Jordan and I have now swapped photos of our respective bits of aluminum with odd coatings.  Don's piece of aluminum from a Japanese "Betty" exhibits a coating that, although it is more greenish in color, has the same metallic sheen and flakes at the edges in just the same way as the coating we see on Lockheed c/n 1024 (the Kellogg wreck).  It's hard not to conclude that we're looking at two slightly different versions of the same stuff.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:08:59 -0400
From:         Colm O'Higgins
Subject:      Re: blue coating

In agreement with Dan...

During the 70's I worked as an assembler at deHavilland Aircraft in Toronto (Dash 7's and 8's) and the Alodine coatings were always GREEN in colour.  Virtually everything was coated in this GREEN Alodine.  The only brown was a vibration inhibiting and leak resistant mud which was slathered between skin panels.

Colm
************************************************************************
From Ric

Colm, I'm going to send you a couple of photos off-forum.  Please let me know if they look anything like Alodine to you.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:14:46 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

> ... We don't know why this one was installed "wrong-side
> out" but we do know that the skin was part of a repair.  ...

From my various hobbies, I'm accustomed to making use of various scraps of plywood, aluminum, and plastic.

It seems to me that I've often used the "wrong side" of material in order to make use of a piece that has already been shaped by previous cuts.

Just a theory--no facts to back it up for what happens in an aircraft repair shop.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:19:39 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Fellows:

Never put paint between two aluminum riveted surfaces as it will make the rivets loose over time, unless, of course, you use zinc chromate as a wash only and extremely thin.  Paint after assembly only. This is one of the rules of aircraft aluminum construction even way back then
************************************************************************
From Ric

Okay, but we clearly have a coating that is between two riveted surfaces.  It is not zinc chromate because the airplane was built in 1935 before zinc chromate wash was developed.  Logically then, we have a corrosion inhibitor that preceded zinc chromate - possibly alodine which was delevoped in 1934.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:54:25 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Tom King wrote:

> ... Frankly, if we found anything TOO obvious (like Amelia's journal
> in  a big bottle), I'd be very suspicious. ...

In my wholly imaginative replay of what AE "would have done", salvaging her journal and something to write with would have been at the top of her list.

I'm sure she had an eye for the market.  That's how she had made her living after the first trans-Atlantic flight.

Imagine what a best-seller her survival journal would have been if she had been rescued!  There were precedents for such journals in the history of arctic exploration from the early 20th-century, when she would have been a young girl.

I'm also going to speculate, without any evidence or research, that a "big bottle" would not have been her choice for preserving the record of the Lae-Howland flight or any subsequent notes made on Niku.  A sextant box may have made an attractive writing desk for her, especially if her navigator was no longer around to object.

All fantasy--all useless for guiding future searches.

LTM.
Marty #2359
************************************************************************
From Ric

If Betty's notebook is really a window into AE's state of mind I wonder if she would have been capable of devoting any attention to the commercially exploitable aspects of her dilemma.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:59:59 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Alodine is a spray or dip process.  Anodizing is as you described, and
is often dyed afterwards on decorative items.

Dan Postellon
************************************************************************
From Ric

I wonder if sheet was given a "shop coat" of alodine on both sides or just one.  If both, then the coating would need to be buffed off the exterior surface if the finished aircraft was to have a bare metal finish.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:00:04 -0400
From:         Greg Moore
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Good afternoon all,

I am just wondering if the artifact, with the "blue coating" which has been discussed, unless I am confusing the artifact with the Zero refurbish, wasn't coated with Glyptal.... This coating was used routinely in aerospace, though why a large sheet of Al would be so coated is a  mystery to me as well, I have used it extensively in avionica/instrumentation, and it is dilutable, and sprayable, but is usually used "out of the bottle" to coat terminals, etc.  Undiluted, it is fairly thick, but diluted, it gives a rather nice finish, as I discovered just "messing around" with an airbrush while doing "one off" prototypes....

It comes in 3 flavors, red and blue... and the blue will be shiny, plastic-like,  but DOESN'T crack, like the blue coating discussed in the forum.... OK, my field is radio/electronics/avionics, but at least the color and behavior of GE Glyptal are in the ball park

Greg Moore
************************************************************************
From Ric

There wasn't a whole lot of aerospace going on 1935.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:02:35 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Your right Tom, those are really good modifiers and I should be using them. I  typically don't speculate on an issue and present it as fact. Perhaps that is what I was doing here and completely wrong about. My apologies, I am    not very good at this.

Im bloody well sure this island in 1979 we spent the day sitting off it's coast observing was Niku...

Im bloody well sure one of the ships which was present that day was the Glomar Challenger....

Im bloody well sure that the shallow drilling barge seen ported just forward of the Challenger belonged to members of Geomarex

Im bloody well sure that whoever was on the island during this time frame was cutting the aircraft up and repositioning it for whatever reason

Im bloody well sure whoever was dismantling it ultimatley removed it from the island because it aint there today.

I think that perhaps there are some liability issues as to that event as to why it  was never made public and finding information regarding it today is perhaps closley guarded.

I don't like playing games but if TIGHAR is a whole heartly honest group of people who are zero'd in on this island and have no prior knowledge of the event my ship experienced in 1979....you all need to know this story.  Knowing how the aircraft arrived there on that island would ultimatley help solve many of the unanswered questions regarding what happened to Noonan and Earhart.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:04:43 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re; blue coating

Most typical SRM repairs call for putting the rivets in "wet", using sealant or primer.

************************************************************************
From Ric

This coating is not associated with the rivets and we're talking about 1935 procedures.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:06:37 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: blue coating

I've been doing more research on "conversion coatings", like alodine. For the years prior to and during WW II, aluminum conversion coatings would have been chromate based, though not necessarily zinc chromate.  Some were based on chromic acid.

Parkerization is a conversion coating for carbon-containing iron alloys, like steel.

Chromate is toxic, and is a big disposal problem.  Similar new coatings may be based on rare earths, like cerium, or have other exotic chemistry. There are now silver-colored coatings available.  I suppose that a good lab could tell you if the coating was chromate containing.  Old ones were chromate (VI), new coating may be chromate(III), which is less toxic. Maybe someone at Henkel can identify the coating? There were fewer types available for the years under concern.

Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (Let's try Molybdenum)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:08:45 -0400
From:         Dale Intolubbe
Subject:      Re: Kellogg crash

Ric:  Have you thought of having an article published in the Coeur d'Alene Press outlining your reason for the search near Kellogg and asking if anyone has any bits and pieces of aluminum which may have been collected by friends or relatives after the crash?

************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm thinking it would be a pretty long shot that somebody happened to pick up and save a dado as souvenir but there's no harm in asking.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:12:28 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: blue coating

As I understand it Alodine is a conversion coating designed to be applied over an acid-etch. The etching usually gives very good adhesion and a peeling film does not sound to me like Alodine as it ought to be applied. Sounds more like a lacquer. Since Alodine is a hexavalent chromium compound it would be easy to chemically test for. Incidentally some modern clear hexavalent chromium coatings have a blue tinge to them although I am not sure why this is. The hexavalent chromium ion Cr6+ imparts a yellow colour. Blue is characteristic of the chromous Cr 2+ oxidation state but since Cr6+ is more stable it is unlikely to be reduced to Cr2+.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Doesn't sound like alodine would be appropriate for a "shop coat" to protect against scratching and marring either. Maybe alodine is not the answer.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:53:40 -0400
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Kellogg wreck

>I'm thinking it would be a pretty long shot that somebody happened  to
>pick up and save a dado as souvenir but there's no harm in  asking.

At the request of the Forest Service, which doesn't want to encourage a lot of casual visitation to the site and collection of pieces, we've been real careful about releasing any locational information.  We'd want to be equally careful about publicity drawing attention to the site.  However, Forest Service folks are themselves getting in contact with local old timers  both in and out of the Service, to see what they can find  out.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:54:23 -0400
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: blue coating

The structure with the blueing retrieved from the L10 wreck near Kellogg Idaho, was it part of the aircrafts fuel tank assembly?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang # 2559
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

No.  It was a section of the trailing edge of the starboard wing just inboard of the joint between the center section and the outer wing panel.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:57:45 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Glomar Challenger

For Don:

The Glomar Challenger was the Deep Sea Drilling Vessel, run by the National Science Foundation from 1966 through 1983.  I was aboard for a couple of its "legs" or voyages.  The ship was under full contract to the NSF during that time, and the DSDP Drilling volumes (found in any good academic library) documents everywhere the ship went, including transit legs.  Literally hundreds of scientists were aware of each and every move of that ship, and any non-academic involvement would (and did!) raise hackles like nobody's business.  The demand for time aboard ship was fierce, and hundreds of other scientists never got their proposals for drilling funded.  The only non-academic expeditions were to place seismic sensors down boreholes, funded by DARPA, of which I participated.  We got hammered by the academic community for years, despite "academic involvement".  I'm Bloody Sure that there is no chance on this Earth that the Glomar Challenger was involved off of Gardner Island...I checked the archives when I first became interested in the Earhart disappearance and wanted to know if there were any cruises or pre-drilling investigations in the area of the Phoenix Islands: none, zippo, nada.

You might be thinking of the Glomar Explorer, which lifted a Soviet submarine off of the Pacific floor, sponsored by "dark and mysterious" agencies of the US Government.
************************************************************************
From Ric

The logs show that the aircraft carrier wasn't there either.  Randy, you just don't grasp the scope of the conspiracy.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:03:59 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I just read an article titled "When does garbage become archaeology?" The answer is apparently in about 50 years!  Maybe someone "cleaned up" the wreck site to be helpful, and restore the environment.

Daniel Postellon  TIGHAR#2263  LTM(love those middens)

********************************************************************
From Ric

Nobody has ever cleaned up anything on Nikumaroro, but there is little doubt that the colonists on Nikumaroro did not view the washed-up wreckage or the plane, if it was visible under water, as anything of particular interest.  The pristine TBD Devastators in the lagoon at Jaluit are perhaps the greatest unrecovered aviation archaeological treasures ever discovered but the local people think we're nuts for coming halfway around the world to look at them.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:09:08 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

> The color now is dark green but there's no
> telling what it may have been originally.  If it's military olive drab
> paint then, obviously, the skin cannot be from Earhart's Electra, but
> if it is military OD paint then the interior surface should show some
> sign of zinc chromate and it doesn't.

I disagree.  If it is military olive green drab, there is still a possibility it could be part of earhart's Electra?

> The exterior surface of 2-2-V-1 has the remains of the original ALCOA
> labeling.  Skins were traditionally installed with the labeling side on
> the interior.
>
> We don't know why this one was installed "wrong-side
> out" but we do know that the skin was part of a repair.

And there lies one possible answer.  If the Electra was repaired at, say, a military airfield some time, and "if" the repair piece was already painted in olive green paint, and "if" it just happened to be the right size for that repair, then it is possible (a long shot - yes, but possible) that it was used inside out BECAUSE there was paint on the outside so as to more closely match the exterior of earhart's plane.

Of course, they should have buffed off the old paint, but if they used etch primers in those days, as they do now - removing the paint would not be easy.

If the repair was done in a place where there were limited supplies of aluminium sheeting on hand, and there was not a lot of time to wait for a piece from the USA, they might have used any suitable piece in the  workshop, regardless of it having been painted for another purpose, or having been prepared for, or removed from another aircraft for some reason.

Which is another possible reason for small anomalies in rivet holes.

Just some more thoughts to go on with...

Th' WOMBAT
************************************************************************
From Ric

NR16020 was repaired in the Lockheed shop at Burbank.  The area in question was, according to the repair orders, part of those repairs. There is no record of the airplane sustaining skin damage and being repaired at any time after that.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:10:33 -0400
From:         Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Kellogg wreck

Over the last few years there was a project involved around the crash of a Flying Fortress at Bakers Creek, just a few miles from here (about 5 minutes).  The aircraft took off from Mackay (Queensland Australia) and crashed in a field just off the runway, killing all but one person aboard.

A memorial had been built and the crash commemorated over the years, then someone got the bright idea of tracking down the families involved in the USA as apparently they had never been told due to secrecy provisions.

A few years ago, it was discovered that the survivor was still alive, and if I remember correctly, his relatives were brought over for the commemoration service that year (I think he was too frail to travel).

Anyway, a plea was put out for artifacts that had been collected from the wreck site, and the local school kids went metal detecting in the field.

A lot of small objects turned up in the field that were left behind when the US military recovered the wreck.

As well, things like a crew member's seat and other larger items were handed in.  The seat, which appears to belong to pilot or co-pilot had been used as a stand for flower pots for around 60 years!

never underestimate what a call to the public might turn up.

Th' WOMBAT
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:12:02 -0400
From:         Jdubb
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Don't be too hasty to reject the "aerospace" coating Glyptal. Please see:
http://enhealth.nphp.gov.au/council/pubs/pdf/paint.pdf

It notes that Glyptal paints for vehicles were available in 1931.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:13:34 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: blue coating

The bluish zinc plated nuts bolts and screws that you can buy at your local "big box" store have a treatment similar to alodine that is chromic (Cr3+).  A blue color may indicate traces of zinc in the alloy, which seems unlikely for Alclad.

Daniel Postellon
======================================================================= 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:02:25 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Glomar Challenger

From 05/22/78  to 07/29/78  Glomar Challenger sailed on a course that took her through the heart of the Marshall Islands close to Ailinglaplap and not that far from Jaluit, Kwajalein and Mili. USS Constitution was also in the Pacific in the summer of 1978!!

See:

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/g/g6178np/html/g-61-78-np.meta.html

Not so suprising to see a Ki 54 in the Marshall Islands or ... was it an Electra he saw?? <G>

Its all so obvious now - Don just got the island group wrong and the Japanese capture theory was right all along!
************************************************************************
From Ric

But Don was on the USS Constellation (not Constitution) in 1979 and
1980 (not 1978).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:56:55 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Don's tale

Good thoughts, Angus. And the Wreck Photo (a Ki54, I'm sure) has to be a part of the story. I asked Don about this a while back, and he said it bore no resemblance to what he claims to have seen. I'm skeptical. A Ki54 wrecks  in the Marshalls, and the picture gets taken some years later. Then, later still, Don sees the recovery of the Wreck Photo wreck. It ends up in Vietnam in that museum.

I remain puzzled about the Ayatollah thing (remember that?) and why geologists would salvage a plane. But, hey, we can't win 'em all.

LTM - Alfred Hendrickson, #2583
************************************************************************
From Jim Preston

Angus

Did the USS Constitution sail from Boston Harbor to the SOPAC or was that a typo ?

Jim Preston, who's son was on the Connie.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Look, guys,  it never happened.  This story has been disproven six ways to Sunday. We're not going to waste time talking about it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:20:36 -0400
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

From the depths of my memory I seem to recall that 2-2-V-1 bore indicia of having been used as a cooking surface.  What effect would repeated exposure to high heat have on the various coatings under discussion?

LTM (who's throwing another shrimp on the barbie)
************************************************************************
From Ric

2-2-V-1 bears no indicia of having been used as a cooking service. What it does have is reduced ductility (flexibility) of the metal along one long edge extending about a third of the way across the sheet. ALCOA judged the damage to have been caused by the metal being heated to about 600 degrees F. - hotter than could be caused by just lying out in the sun but not hot enough to melt the aluminum (1,100 degrees).

Exposure to flame could do that.  In part because the heat seems to have been applied to the exterior (convex) surface there was some speculation that it had been used as a cooking surface but it's hard to explain why the heat damage would not be distributed across the entire piece rather than just along one edge.  Also, there is some indication that the damage occurred before the sheet failed.  In other words, whatever airplane this piece of skin came from seems to have had part, but not all, of its exterior surface exposed to flame or intense heat for a brief time.  The remnants of some kind of coating and the remnants of the original ALCOA labeling appear in the heat-damaged area, so your question about the effect of heat on coatings is apropos.

Recall also that NR16020 darn near burned up at Tucson, Arizona on May 21, 1937 when AE stopped to refuel on her way to Miami.  When she tried to start the left engine she overprimed it and the gas that had run out caught fire.  Ground personnel were unable to put out the fire with hand-held extinguishers and Amelia actually abandoned the aircraft until somebody told her get back in and pull the handle for the co2 fire bottle (LUX Aircraft Fire System) which apparently did the job.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:22:02 -0400
From:         Barry Robinson
Subject:      99s

Two years ago I tried to see the 99's museum in OK City only to be told it was closed until further notice.

I am back in OK City and after seeing flyers advertising the new museum of female aviators I e-mailed the 99's and asked to see the museum. I got a nice reply from Tonia Robinson (no relation) saying that I was welcome to visit the museum and to contact her when I got to OK City.

Today I tried to contact her and find she is on vacation, I drove to the museum but could not enter their parking lot because I am in a 40' RV pulling a 20' trailer. I parked on the grass and called them on the cell and told them of my problem. After a delay they said they could not help me, there is no parking at the airport for RV's and they did not know of any place for me to park. They did not offer any assistance of any kind. I tried to explain of the problem two years ago and they did not care.

So I am at the Flying J truck stop checking my e-mail and will once again pass through OK City without visiting the museum. Twice is enough...there will not be a third try or any donation of funds to support the museum.

Barry Robinson
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:23:13 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Don's tale

> But Don was on the USS Constellation (not Constitution) in 1979 and
> 1980 (not 1978).

Yeah, sorry about the typo - I'd forgotten the name. However, Don is advertising on the net for anyone who remembers the 1978-79 WESTPAC (western pacific deployment) so maybe he's not too sure of the year. That certainly seemed to be the case when it was pointed out some time ago that Constellation's movements were accounted for in the year he specified.

Regards Angus.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:25:57 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: blue coating

Thought I would share this.  I went out and talked with one of the senoir mechanics here and asked him if he remebered any type of coating they were using prior to alodine that would be blue in color and way back when.  Right away he told me that the blue stuff was engineerings ink. The engineers used to wipe down a piece of sheet metal and etch out the cutouts or whatever they were going to cut from the aluminum.  Not that I felt it's the same blue stuff you are looking for, but interesting that he mentioned that.  He said prior to alodine they used a green zinc chromate based which is no longer used (I even remember that from back in the late 70's) and before that he said we were talking dope and fabric.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Alodine was developed in 1934.  Zinc chromate didn't come into use until about 1939.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:00:04 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> Maybe someone "cleaned up" the
> wreck site to be helpful, and restore the environment.

I meant the Kellog site, but it might apply to Niku.  If I were living on Niku, i would probably think of an aircraft wreck as a potential convenient source of raw materials!
************************************************************************
From Ric

There is every indication that that was exactly the case, but the people who once lived there that we've talked to (and we've talked to quite a few) don't remember it as being a big deal, nor have we found lots and lots airplane scraps in the village.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:41:38 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> ALCOA judged the damage to have been caused by the metal being heated
> to about 600 degrees F.
>
> ...it's hard to explain why the heat damage would not be distributed
> across the entire piece rather than just along one edge.
>
> Also, there is some indication that the damage occurred before the
> sheet failed.
>
> In other words, whatever airplane this piece of skin came from seems
> to have had part, but not all, of its exterior surface exposed to
> flame or intense heat for a brief time.

All the above seem to gel with an aircraft that has been on fire and the failure of the sheet seems therefore more consistent with a fuel tank explosion than wave action. The likely cause of such an explosion would be a crash-landing and the resulting destruction would not likely fit with a scenario where AE was able to transmit after landing. A crash-landing of a military aircraft on eg Canton seems a very real possibility even if it has not yet been possible to match the panel to an aircraft. Since it is apparently a repair panel, this is not perhaps surprising.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

If the section of skin is close enough to the exploding tank to get partially blown out, why is only part of the skin damaged by the flames of this burning wreck?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:25:04 -0400
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

In reviewing TIGHAR's list of artifacts I see there was at least one other object -- a "riveted assembly" -- that was positively identified as originating from a Consolidated B-24 Liberator.

So now we have a bookcase; a "riveted assembly" (1990);  a "channel section" (1990); and an "aluminum plate" (1989) that either definitely or probably came from a B-24.

In most photos I have seen, the B-24 was painted olive drab.

Questions:

1.  Were B-24s stationed on Canton?

2.  Have you ever attempted to match 2-2-V-1 or the dados to a Liberator?

LTM
************************************************************************
From Ric

We've found about half a dozen parts on Niku that we can identify as B-24 components.  Liberators were based at Canton during Operation Galvanic (the invasion of the Gilberts) in 1943 and numerous B-24s and C-87s came through Canton later.  We've scoured the records for accident reports and have found only one B-24 wreck that could reasonably have resulted in B-24 debris on land at Canton (or anywhere else in the Phoenix Group).

We have examined several B-24s in great detail looking for a possible match for 2-2-V-1, including using a cherry-picker to inspect the upper surfaces of the B-24D "Strawberry Bitch" at the USAF Museum.  No part of the B-24 comes even close. The only military aircraft that might have had dados of some kind would be those set up as VIP transports.  No VIP transport version of the C-87 survives.

Oddly enough, none of the airplane parts we've found on Niku seems to be associated with the C-47 that we know crashed on Sydney Island during the war.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:36:18 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> If the section of skin is close enough to the exploding tank to get
> partially blown out, why is only part of the skin damaged by the flames
> of this burning wreck?

As I'm sure you are aware, large overpressures can result from explosions at considerable distances from the source of the explosion. The repair panel could have been on the edge of the fire zone, only partially damaged by heat, and then blown away from the rest of the burning wreckage by a subsequent explosion. The fire around it could even have been extinguished either deliberately or from the blast. It is a regular feature of aircraft accidents that some parts will show only slight or no damage whilst others directly adjacent in the undamaged plane, will show major damage. It is even possible that the panel was damaged by a munitions explosion caused by a crash. If shielded by eg a floor, it could have still been subject to high overpressure but protected from the pitting damage one might otherwise expect.

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm sure it is possible to construct a scenario that provides an alternate hypothesis to the damage we see on 2-2-V-1, but you still need to put it on some airplane.  Let's say it's a non-standard repair on some airplane other than a Lockheed 10.  You still have to find me an airplane that has skins and structure and a rivet pattern that comes even fairly close to what we see on 2-2-V-1.  Let me give you a place to start.  Find me a place on any airplane type that was anywhere near the central Pacific that has five parallel rows of rivets 24 inches long with no crossing line of rivets.  Okay, forget the five rows requirement.  Just find me a skin that goes 24 inches with no crossing line of rivets.

This is a very unusual piece of airplane skin.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:51:25 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

>This is a very unusual piece of airplane skin.

Just checking, brainstorming perhaps - and I'm sure we've asked this before; Is there any chance 2-2-V-1 is something else, and is not airplane skin at all?

LTM - Alfred Hendrickson #2583
************************************************************************
From Ric

Well, it's airplane aluminum sheet riveted with airplane rivets in airplane fashion.  NTSB thought it was an airplane skin.  An senior FAA accident investigator thought it was an airplane skin.  ALCOA metallurgists thought it was an airplane skin.  I think it's probably an airplane skin.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:00:10 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Could the skin be heated by a gasoline fire, then blown out by an air-fuel explosion of a nearby tank?  Each tank might have had a residual ullage, perhaps one enough to incur an explosion....just food for thought.  Is it possible, or is water pressure the only explanation at this point in time?

I'm not implying a mid-air explosion, but perhaps one after the plane has landed on the reef.
****************************************************************
From Ric

The trouble with making it an air/fuel explosion (assuming the piece is from the Electra) is that the only place it fits is on the belly way back opposite the cabin door.  The closest fuel tank is several feet farther forward.

Also, an air/fuel explosion should have left dark deposits on the interior surface.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:14:54 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> Find me a place on any airplane type that was anywhere near
> the central Pacific that has five parallel rows of rivets 24 inches
> long with no crossing line of rivets.  Okay, forget the five rows
> requirement.  Just find me a skin that goes 24 inches with no crossing
> line of rivets.
>
> This is a very unusual piece of airplane skin.

Have you looked at the B17? Eddie Rickenbacker's B17 crashed over 100 miles SW of Canton. By the way, what were the B24 serial numbers that you have on the other object(s)

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, we've looked at B-17s and every other type we can find.  I still can't walk past an airplane without checking out the rivet patterns.

I didn't say we have serial numbers.  We have part numbers for two artifacts. The navigator's bookcase ( Consolidated Part No. 28F4023) and the part lost by the NTSB which had a partially legible number  32B108(?).  That also is a Consolidated part number.  The "32"signifies the Model 32 (Liberator) and the "B" means fuselage structure. The other parts were identified by direct matching to existing aircraft.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:21:10 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

>Well, it's airplane aluminum sheet riveted with airplane rivets
>in airplane fashion.  NTSB thought it was an airplane skin.  An senior
>FAA accident investigator thought it was an airplane skin.  ALCOA
>metallurgists thought it was an airplane skin.  I think it's probably an airplane
>skin.

It would seem we have satisfied the "reasonable standard of care" requirement. I'm also inclined to think it's airplane skin, because I can't imagine how else it could have got way out there. I wonder if there is another explanation, though. I've seen riveted aluminum boats. Could it be part of a small boat, a dingy? The hull perhaps? Or cabin? Seat support? Maybe it's too thin, and has too many rivets, to be boat skin.

LTM - Alfred Hendrickson #2583
************************************************************************
From Ric

Boats, even aluminum boats,  aren't made like airplanes.  The rivets on this piece were a type of rivet used on the external skins of airplanes where drag was a big consideration.  Around 1940 this type of rivet, and several other specialty rivet types, were replaced by a single "universal" rivet type and this type of rivet was no longer in general use (although they are still being made today).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:22:41 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Tucson Arizona and coming close to burning the thing up? I've never heard of that before which means must have missed a few paragraphs in the research done over the last thirty five years or so.

Seems to me that maybe even with all those years of experience, She needed a lot more expertise, practice and experience in Aircraft operations-after all panic is not good procedure when operating machines which run on hi octane [read extremely flamible] 100 octane gasoline!   In that vein I realize that this is years before cockpit checklists,written procedures and poh"s  which kind of makes me wonder if she was so used to wooden structures in the Lockheed products which burn so well and she used in her past and simply forgot momentarily?

This is another  that somewhat takes away a little more from the Lady Lindy heroics and right stuff  scenerio which has arisen around her all these years.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:15:30 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

fyi;  the confederate air force aircraft of Midland Texas is not a bomber but one of the very early transport versions and is flown and displayed all over.  Perhaps that one could be inspected as libs had a different and longer fuselage  from early to late marks and some were built as US Navy purpose built and are a little different also.

Good lord, two of these in one day got to give Rick a break!
************************************************************************
From Ric

The Confederate Air Force is now the politically correct Commemorative Air Force.  Their Consolidated Model 32 is an LB-30 originally built for the British.  As far as I know it's the only LB-30 left.  We haven't had a chance to look it over closely but I also don't know of any LB-30s that served in the central Pacific, much less any that were lost in the Phoenix Islands.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:46:01 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re; Glomar Challenger

Almost right Ric - I was onboard the Connie during the 1978-79 cruise and 1980 cruise as well.

And I did have my time frames messed up, 25 years is a longtime.  But I have it narrowed down only because of a little incident that happened shortly afterwards I just absolutley forgot about.  When I realized my mistake I was pretty disappointed because of the long trek I had made to the Naval Historic Center back in January of this year.  So I guess I will have to go again.

Randy Jacobson:  When I first saw pictures of the Glomar Explorer I thought I had come across the vessel which was seen moored off the island that day.  But the ship seemed too big, and the derrick of the Explorer also seemed much larger in the picture. AG913 was painted on it's bow. But it did not totally fit my recollections.  As I continued searching and reading up on it was the first time I came across pictures of the Glomar Challenger and *bingo*, a perfect match.  BTW - were you part of a Scripps Institute expedition to the Indian Ocean during the 1978-79 time frame?

It's interesting to be able to look into this event and now I have found three, Randy, you are the third that not only has close ties to the Glomar Explorer but is also in a forum with interest in the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and what ties she may have had to Gardner Island.  It's sort of sad but interesting.

And Angus, both a Lockheed 10 and a KI-54 was present that day.  Too bad you weren't there.
************************************************************************
From Ric

The jig is up Jacobson.  Come clean.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:50:50 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: Don's tale

Ric wrote:

>Look, guys, it never happened. This story has been disproven six ways
>to Sunday. We're not going to waste time talking about it.

Ric: You are so wrong. Or corrupt.  I havent figured out which one yet.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Now Don, you know we don't discuss politics on the forum.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:56:40 -0400
From:         Seth Brenneman
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

>The trouble with making it an air/fuel explosion (assuming the piece is
>from the Electra) is that the only place it fits is on the belly way
>back opposite the cabin door.  The closest fuel tank is several feet
>farther forward.
>
>Also, an air/fuel explosion should have left dark deposits on the
>interior surface.

Suppose that enough water was in the cabin to cover 2-2-V-1 when an air-fuel explosion happened. There still could be the pressure to blow it out, but being covered by water it would not exhibit the dark deposits typical of such explosions. It's just an idea that came into  my mind...it's a theory that kind of reconciles between water pressure and explosion, but I don't have any idea how realistic a theory it is.

Seth
*******************************************************************
From Ric

With enough imagination we can probably think of a dozen ways to create the kind of damage we see on the sheet and I can't think of any way to decide which one is most likely to be true without first being able to  match the skin to a particular place on a particular airplane with some measure of credibility.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:29:29 -0400
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

In sum.what substantive, identifiable differences, if any, make it difficult or impossible to positively identify the artifact, repaired or not, from Aes Electra 10E? Rivet spacing? Metalurgical differences? Condition? Or ??

Ron Bright
***********************************************************************
From Ric

What is right (when compared to what we know about NR16020):

The type of aluminum is right.
The manufacturers labeling on the sheet is right (it's repair material)
The thickness of the sheet is right
The dimensions of the failed section are right
The lack of military anti-corrosion coating (zinc chromate) is right
The number of parallel rows of rivets are right
The evident width of the underlying stringers is right
The absence of a crossing row of rivets is right
The specific type and size of rivet are right

What is wrong (when compared to the standard Lockheed 10):

1.The rivet pitch on the four rows of #3 rivets is 1 inch instead of 1.5 inches.
2.The four parallel rows are nominally 4 inches apart instead of 3.5 inches apart.
3.The rivets in the fifth row (along the keel of the airplane) are #5s rather than #3s.

As you can see, it's a very close, but not perfect, match to the standard airplane. How closely it matches Earhart's repaired airplane is the big unknown.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:34:15 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric, I looked into the origin of Alodine a little more in depth. Angus said it was invented in 1934 by the Henkel company so I wrote Henkel. I thought they  possibly had records which might help. Unfortunately they did not. Tom Tull of  Henkel kindly replied and informed me that neither Henkel not Amchem had records  back that far. Henkel was not the origin of Alodine. Prior to Henkel two  companies (at least) were marketing conversion products, Parker and Amchem.  Amchem was located  in Ambler, Pennsylvania and marketed Alodine. At some point  they merged and were bought out by Henkel who continued to market Alodine.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Alodine was originally  formulated by the Boeing Aerospace Company but was licensed to Parker-Amchem  where development of the product and the total process package continued until  it was suitable for general commercial use. I found no  reference as to when Boeing formulated the product.

I'm not sure  of what significance this is but at least it gives us the correct originator of  Alodine if we need to pursue the matter further.

There WERE a  number of references to Henkel implying Alodine was their product but I accept  Henkel's word it was not. Whether the Wisconsin Department is accurate or not  could only be resolved by Boeing.

Alan
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Alan.  We have some good contacts at Boeing.  I'll see what I can find out.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:36:27 -0400
From:         Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

> This is another  that somewhat takes away a little more from the
> Lady Lindy heroics and right stuff  scenerio which has arisen
> around her all these years.

Let the one among us who has never had a brain fade under stress cast the first stone.

Sure, starting the fire and deplaning makes her look bad.  But once someone pointed her in the right direction, she got back into a burning aircraft and put the fire out.

On balance, I tip my hat to her.

LTM.
Marty #2359
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:45:21 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

I remember that C-87s were used both on transatlantic and transpacific flights in WW II, including flights over "the Hump" from India to China. At least one C-87 flew around the world during WW II. As I remember it crossed the Atlantic to Casablanca, flew on to Cairo and next to Baghdad and Teheran. It continued to India, eventually crossing the Pacific (via Australia I guess, to avoid unfriendly Japanese). Whether it had the dado we are looking for I don't know. But if it had such a piece it didn't lose it for it didn't crash. If we want to make sure about that dado in a C-87 we could locate a WW II pilot who flew C-87s. He might know the answer to our questions we are still asking.

LTM (who touched a real and shiny B-24 as recently as last week in England)
************************************************************************
From Ric

A C-87 set up as a VIP transport might conceivably have been equipped with dados of some sort, but there were very few of those variants and none is known to have been lost in the central Pacific.  Finding a pilot who flew C-87s would not answer our questions.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:50:07 -0400
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

A few points about Carl's post on the CAF LB-30.  It was originally a British contract LB-30 bomber.  It had a mild crash during it's delivery flight and was returned to the builder.  They repaired it and altered it to transport configuration for use as a company hack.  It approximated the C-87 appearance, but retained the early round engine cowls and short fuselage.     After some years as a civilian transport the CAF acquired it and have been slowly turning it into a simulated bomber.  Most of the additional bits are B-24D configuration.

What this all means is that while a match found on the CAF LB-30 would be significant, the lack of a match would not rule out the C-87 as the CAF aircraft is, both as built, and through it's many modifications, quite different.

A C-87 which might serve as the source of a match is the Knudsen aircraft in Alaska.  This is a crashed example that is quite complete.  Several groups have attempted to acquire the aircraft for rebuild, foiled by the state government who  considers this an historic artifact.  The advantage to TIGHAR in this aircraft is that it is in substantially original configuration, having gone straight from military transport use to civilian cargo carrying, to crash site.

C-87's were certainly used in the Central Pacific, my old squadron (40th TAS) operated three C-87's and one LB-30 transport out of Australia on trips that reached Hawaii and the Conus.  I'm not aware of any losses.

Robert Klaus
************************************************************************
From Ric

The Knudsen aircraft sounds very interesting.  Can you point us toward information about where it is?  Are there photos? Bless the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office for keeping the rebuilders at bay.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:52:46 -0400
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Glomar Challenger

For Don:

I have no ties whatsoever to the Glomar Explorer, nor have I had any in the past; only to the Glomar Challenger.  I know of the Glomar Explorer only from what has been published in the public domain about its exploits in the Central Pacific on recovery of the Soviet submarine.  I have no idea where the Glomar Explorer was in the world during the time frame you mention.

And yes, I was on a cruise to the Bay of Bengal for the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in February, 1979, aboard the R/V Washington.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:54:14 -0400
From:         Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Glomar Challenger

On the basis of my theory expounded some time ago that Don creates these scenarios from recycling Tighar posts and information, I thought it would be interesting to see if there was anything in the Tighar archive relating to Glomar Challenger recovering a Lockheed Electra. Well here it is, a post by Bob Brandenburg in March 01:

"For example, have they considered what they want to drag around looking for the aircraft at a depth of 17,000 feet, and how much the support cable, power cable, and communications/control cable, not to mention the towed body, will weigh - - - and what towing/lifting capacity they will require?

"Have they worked out how they will actually lift the aircraft from the bottom? Put slings under it? How? Using big grappling hooks? Or ....? Have they worked out a teleoperator rig that will do the job?

"Have they worked out how they will keep the aircraft intact while lifting it, and where they will put it on the ship when (if) they get it to the surface?

"Are they going to drag the Glomar Challenger out of mothballs for this?"

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************ 
From Ric

Fascinating....but I really don't think he does it consciously.  I think Don is entirely sincere.  In trying very hard to remember, he unconsciously draws on things he has read and consequently believes that something he has imagined is something that he has remembered.  I've watched his story evolve from his very first email to me on July 16, 2003.  Here is the original version.

> In 1978-81 I was stationed onboard the aircraft carrier Constellation
> and made two wespacs to asia.  On one of these cruises, it may have
> been the second one which would of been in 1980 sometime, we were
> coming back towards the US nearing the end of the cruise, heading to
> Hawaii and we actually passed Nikumaro.  At the time, I had no idea
> what this island was and we had been out at sea for sometime.  I can
> give you my thoughts as I remeber them when we passed this island.
>
> It was probably 2 in the afternoon and I was walking through the
> hangar deck from the aft mess deck back towards our shop located in
> the foward section.  As I looked out the hangar bay elevator door, I
> seen land.  Having been out at sea for sometime, the green colors
> become very striking.  I walked over and looked out.  As we approached
> the island closer I could make out trees and beaches which would be
> the western coastline looking north.  As we crusied along at a very
> slow pace we came around the western tip of island and I then saw a
> lagoon setting.  There was an aircraft foward section located in the
> water in the box area I marked on the photo.  I thought it was weird
> to see an aircraft in this situation, it appeared to have been there
> for sometime. It was the  left side of the cockpit and the waterline
> was right below the pilots window and the aircraft was facing west
> southwest. It seemed to be submerged right aft of the cockpit
> section because I dont recall seeing a fuselage but the foward section
> was definetly that of an aircraft.  There was some other debree as
> well which could of possibly been the tail section but the majority of
> the aircraft was under water. Was it an electra?  I have no idea.  I
> was 20 years old and had only been involved in avaition for a short
> time.  It was silver in color though.  Trying to think back not
> knowing aircraft that well and have gained considerable knowledge
> since...it seemd the cockpit windows were larger and rounder than the
> cockpit windows in an electra but its very hard to tell. I do remeber
> thinking about someone crashing there and what it might have happened
> to them.  It was very weird.  As we continued on, and please
> understand my view is that looking out the hangar bay door from the
> aft section so I am only seeing boxed sections at a time, my attention
> was driven to the lagoon area where I could see waves crashing on
> the eastern side of the lagoon.  It was very beautiful.  I remember
> thinking that for some reason the waves crashing there reminded of Sea
> Side Heights, NJ where I spent summers as a kid.  As we passed the
> lagoon's entrance, I lost sight of the waves because of tree tops and
> my attention was now driven to the big red ship parked on the beach.
> It looked so big and the red color was such a sight.  I wondered how
> it got there and how long it had been there.  I remember seeing the
> name of the boat, and it look like an english name, I had thought it
> was one of ours.  Amazingly, this boat was very intact compared to the
> recent pictures of it on your website.  The decay in the past 25 years
> is amazing.  We next turned north and continued our cruise towards
> Hawaii.  I think at this time I walked from the hangar deck up to the
> flight deck to get a broader view of the island.  By the time I got
> upstairs we were probably 3/4 of the way passing the island.  It was
> very dense and I got a better perspective of just how large the island
> was.  When we first came upon it I thought it was a major land mass.
> We then crusied pass the island an it eventually disappeared from view
> all together.
>
> I first came across your website in 1996 I guess when Amelia's
> reenactment flight was taking flight and I was looking for information
> on it.  When I first seen the picuture of Nikumaro I was stunned a bit
> where I thought, hey I been there, and my bits and pieces of memory
> started coming back.  My thoughts that I wrote to you is basically
> what I do remember as we passed the island.  I wish I would have known
> then what it was we were looking at.  Others must have seen the same
> thing, including the skipper of the ship.
>
> Working only from memory I would hate to get in a situation where I
> would have to debate what I remember seeing.  Or to have someone more
> credible than I deny it.  Maybe you have more information and my
> thoughts to you could possibly back it up.
>
****************************************

Please let's not have any critiques of the above.  There is plenty there to show that wherever he was, it was not Niku.  I only posted this to demonstrate that false memory is a process.

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:48:12 -0400
From:         Jackie
Subject:      Amelia bashing

To All Amelia Bashing Forum Members:

I am sick and tired of you guys always looking for reasons to make your cute little insults about Amelia's Pilot skills.  It seems to me that the "bashers" are always twisting things out of proportion to find AE negligent or panicking in crisis situations.

A prime example of this is Carl Peltzer's remark "Tucson Arizona and coming close to burning the thing up?"  Carl you've missed more than a few paragraphs in the research done...  This incident in no way came "close to burning the thing up". and AE was not known for "forgetting things momentarily".  In Elgen Longs book "Amelia Earhart The Mystery Solved" on page 120, the Tuscon incident is mentioned.  Here is an exerpt:

"The sun was low in the west when they touched down at Tucson Municipal Airport, some 3 hours and 20 minutes after takeoff from Burbank. Earhart temporarily parked the plane at the airport office to arrange for hangar space.  When she restarted the engines to move the plane for servicing, the left engine backfired.  The burst of flames set fire to accumulated excess fuel, and she immediately stopped the engine.  She pulled the engine fire extinguisher handle, which discharged the Lux fire bottle automatically into the engine compartment and smothered the flames.  There was no damage, and Earhart moved the plane to the municipal hangar."

Where in this incident did she "come close to burning the thing up or forget things momentarily and jump out of the plane?

As to calling her "Lady Lindy", just how did Charles Lindburgh get the nickname "Lucky Lindy"?  It was by crashing all the time and escaping in one piece each time...  Perhaps you are reflecting HIS pilot skills as well as his name to AE... I dunno,        I've read almost all of the books and research that can be found about Amelia and the last flight...   I may be guilty of  "AE obsession" and "hero worship", but I at least check out the facts before coming to conclusions.

My conclusion is that AE was an excellent pilot, and passed numerous flight tests by government officials and other Aeronautic Specialists.  She DID have some crashes, as did EVERY OTHER PILOT OF THE TIME.....

************************************************************************
From Ric

Here's Amelia's own account of the Tucson incident as it appeared in a testimonial advertisement for the Lux system which appeared in Aero Digest magazine in the summer of 1937.

"On May 21 the left motor of my Lockheed Electra caught fire at Tucson airport.  For a minute it looked as if the ship was doomed.  A couple of portable extinguishers seemed ineffective. I got back into the cockpit, pulled the Lux release, and the threatening fire was killed almost instantly."

So, according to AE,  the fire was serious and she did exit and then re-enter the airplane.  As Elgen Long is fond of saying. "We believe Amelia."

If it makes you feel any better, I've seen men do the same thing.  Long ago in a galaxy far, far away we had an ancient Beech T-34 in our Civil Air Patrol squadron. I had the requisite 200 hours to fly the thing  - 10 bucks an hour and no aerobatics (within sight of the field).  I was 17 years old and I loved that airplane, but looking back on it, I was a monkey with a straight razor. The airplane was tricky to start.  It had a rather vigorous electric boost pump and it was easy to overprime.  One day a bunch of us were standing around watching a local doctor have a devil of a time trying to start the engine.  Crank, crank, crank.. and a steady stream of gas running out the bottom of the cowl... then WHUMP, fire.  The good doctor stopped cranking the engine and started to hastily exit the cockpit.  Somebody grabbed a fire extinguisher and the rest of us ran up as close as we dared and communicated to the pilot in no uncertain terms that if he didn't get back in the airplane and re-engage the starter so as to suck the flames through the engine we were going to make sure that he burned up with the airplane.  He did as we suggested and the fire was quickly extinguished.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:50:07 -0400
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      C-87s

Ric and others,

I'm sending this information hoping it may help researching into the Knudsen C-87 crash in Alaska.

In all some 360 C-87 have been built during WW II. The first 73 examples were converted from existing B-24D bombers. The next 287 were built from scratch as dedicated transports by Consolidated at their Fort Worth, Texas plant. Called C-87 Liberator Express the type came in six versions. Six airplanes were special C-87A. They were VIP transports with seating for 16 in Pullman seats that could be converted into berths on long flights. Three of these went to the USAAF, three more to the US Navy. In Navy service they were called RY-1 and RY-2. One of the USAAF C-87A was used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during WW II, thus becoming the first "Air Force One". This was 41-24159, named "Guess Where II". Of the 360 built 24 went to the UK RAF Transport Command under the Lend Lease Agreement. In RAF service they were known as Liberator C.VII. They were mainly used on the transatlantic Ferry Service. Interestingly a number of C-87 were operated by four US airlines. American Airlines operated the C-87 on the North Atlantic and the South Atlantic and later also flew operations over the "Hump". United airlines was contracted by Air Transport Command to fly Pacific routes and also flew intra theatre leave shuttle services to Australia and New Zealand. TWA (then still called Transcontinental & Western Airlines at the time) used the aircraft for training purposes and in support of the USAAF Ferry Command. TWA operated three on the South Atlantic and to the Middle East. The fourth airline to operate C-87 was Consairways, a division of Consolidated. This airline operated a mix of LB30, C-87 and B-24. The airline carried USO shows to entertain US troops in the Pacific. All airline operated C-87 were painted like military airplanes but were flown by civilian crews. Some C-87 were used for training flight engineers and were therefore called AT-22. Hope this helps.

LTM (who always wants to be helpful)
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Herman.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:53:31 -0400
From:         Robert Klaus
Subject:      Knudson C-87

A quick check of the Internet turned up the following information:

The aircraft started as an RAF LB-30A "Liberator II" (Identical to the early B-24D except for installed equipment such as radios, instruments and gun mounts). Factory modified to C-87 configuration as a "Liberator Express". Served the RAF as AL-557 in 224 Sq, 120 Sq, 1445 Flt, 159 Sq.  Then to BOAC on military contract as G-AGZI, then Scottish Aviation.  To Hellenic Airways as SX-DAA "Maid of Athens".  To Morris-Knudson as N9981F, then N68735, then N92MK. Crashed at Kalikat Creek, Alaska in 1958.  Currently under jurisdiction of State of Alaska for possible recovery and display at Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum.

I first came across this aircraft in the mid '80s while looking for a B-24 for the Museum I worked with.  The site is remote but accessible on the ground.  Removing the aircraft would have been by heavy lift helicopter.  We later found a more complete aircraft (also in pieces) that was somewhat easier to transport.

I'm sure the Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum folks would be the ones to contact on this.

Robert Klaus
************************************************************************
From Ric

Many thanks.  We'll check into it.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:08:07 -0400
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: blue coating

For those who would like to see a photo of Don Jordan's piece of a Betty bomber, he has put a one on his website at
http://djordan.cyberlynk.com/wreckage.html

The blue coating on the Kellogg Electra wreck looks very much like this (although blue instead of green).
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:16:00 -0400
From:         Carl Peltzer
Subject:      Re: Amelia bashing

See, I'm not always wrong!

She was not really a great pilot in my estimation at all.

I've read enough to be a little bit up on a few subjects as a second generation pilot who has been around these things since I was 2 years old and no I haven't read everything available.

The idea of two Amelias and Fred's had not crossed my mind until the forum went there awhile ago and that intrigues me as it's possible for me to imagine our gov't doing something like that and it would give those of the Saipan crowd another chance but still doesn't end AE & FN'S  thread.

Off subject but also, like Ric was, am a member of the Civil Air Patrol for 25 years in active Emergency Services during which have seen a great many pilots do some really dumb things that had me out all over seeking them.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Two Amelias and Freds? Now you're back to being wrong again.

I'll confess that I only joined the CAP to get to fly the T-34.  They also had a ratty little Aeronca L-16 that you could fly for 3 bucks an hour.  Lots of fun, spun like a top, but it always felt like it was about ready to come apart.

To quote Victor MacLaughlin in She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, " The old days are gone forever."
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:55:34 -0400
From:         Don Iwanski
Subject:      Re: Glomar Challenger

You guys are so wrong. Let me ask you a question, and answer it honestly.  Do you think any progress could be made by either one or a bunch of ignorant people?

Because you are being ignorant.

I have mistaken you for intelligent people.

Because either you are ignorant or you have knowledge of what I presented to you and you are just milking the american public for everything you can get out of it. And that is wrong.

***********************************************************************
From Ric

End of thread.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:56:38 -0400
From:         Raymond Brown
Subject:      Re: Amelia bashing

I think the unfavourable criticism of Amelia's flying skills can be overdone sometimes.However,to describe her as an excellent pilot as Jackie does,is going to the other extreme IMO. My judgment of AE is that she was an individual of extraordinary courage and drive but her flying ability was only average.

Regards to all and LTM.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:59:03 -0400
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re; Amelia bashing

Jackie, I've been a pilot since 1955 and a long time instructor pilot. I have seen many excellent pilots have mishaps. I have no clue whether AE was a good pilot or not and would have had to fly with her to answer that question. I can tell you though that Elgin Long's book is not a quotable source. Very few are.

Alan
************************************************************************
To Carl Peltzer:

Please accept my apology for calling you an AE basher.  As Ric posted the Aero Magazine article in AE's own words, I was wrong, and I admit it. After all, if AE said it, it must be so....

LTM, who doesn't admit making mistakes, only to being temporarily confused...
Jackie Tharp #2440
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:05:21 -0400
From:         Mark Guimond
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Have you tried matching the item against a Lockheed L12? I'm sure you must have. I have just discovered the Forum Archives but as yet have found no reference to the L12.  As far as I know (which is not saying much), the nearest deployment of L12s was in the Dutch zone (closer to Singapore than Micronesia) in 1941/42 and therefore probably not even worth considering. But we cannot totally ignore the words of Sherlock Holmes: "...when we have exhausted all logical explanations, yada, yada...".

Had no idea there was so much material in the archives, and so much of it still being rehashed now, years later. You must have the patience of Job.

Regards,
Mark Guimond
Dorval

Oh, a P.S. for Jackie

We are not all Amelia-bashing misogynists; nor do we look at the world thru rose-colored glasses. Nobody, as far as I know, ever had anything but respect and admiration for her social endeavours. We all love the lady in our own way, or we would not be so determined to try and find the truth, whatever it may be. But we must also all realize that a lot of the information available today comes from interviews of AE, on the airwaves and in various publications, many owned by her own husband. When image is everything, and that is precisely what she was selling, nobody wants to come out and admit to sometimes simply getting in way over their head and screwing up under pressure. She screwed up more than just once... and I'm being kind. It happens to the best and the nicest. (It has also happened to me, with more than just my own life in the balance, and I'm happy to still be here to admit it.) But she was in many ways a disorganized amateur, and people should certainly put more credence in the opinions of professionals who were there at the time, at the place, and who had no vested interests to protect. I knew a couple of them, and being much younger, at first was taken aback by what they said. But further research proved them quite right. I just wish they were still here to share with the Forum their thoughts and what they said to me. They were true pioneers, and though bold, also survived to grow old because they were  professionals and knew their own limitations as well as that of the technology of the era.

This is NOT a case of "... only the evil that men (or women) do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones..."

'nuff sed.

A good day to all.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, we've looked a 12s.  There are similarities, especially in the use of #3 brazier head rivets in .032 skins, but the match isn't nearly as good as with the Model 10 and, as you say,  the closest "Electra Juniors" were about 3,000 miles away.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:43:04 -0400
From:         Christian Duretete
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric wrote:

> The trouble with making it an air/fuel explosion (assuming the piece is
> from the Electra) is that the only place it fits is on the belly way
> back opposite the cabin door.  The closest fuel tank is several feet
> farther forward.

Can we tell if the heated end of 22v1 was fwd or aft? Although again, the fire's flames were   *outside*  the craft. As well: a little difficult to envision a ground fire on that wet Niku reef?

Do them round engines ever throw real flames? A la "AE overpriming"? Or due to a quite leaning, damaged a/c (ie flooded carb...)?  Flames deflected to the belly by the wind?

Christian D
****************************************************************
From Ric

The heated portion is all along the edge that would be on and near the keel (centerline) of the aircraft.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:14:43 -0400
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric - could 2-2-V-1 have been a part of the extra fuel tanks in the fuselage of AE's L-10E?

PMB #0856C
************************************************************
From Ric

Not a chance.  We have good photos of the tanks and there is no resemblance.  Also, the sheet is way too heavy and the rivets are 2-2-V-1 are of a type that was only used on external skins.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:16:00 -0400
From:         John Barrett
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Just a thought and no way to prove anything, I'm not even sure if it would help but.... What if (that word again), AE didn't abandon the plane and stop transmitting because of the tide but because the plane caught fire as she tried to restart the right engine again. If she overprimed it and it lit off it might burn enough to damage 2-2-V-1 as seen and keep the engine from being run again. Then it eventually washes off the reef, etc, etc. It is also not too hard to imagine that after a rough landing and maybe sitting on only one gear some of whatever fuel is left may have leaked. If (the word again) some fuel  were to flow into the aft belly, would the plane's structure contain it to one side of a stringer and therefore limit the heat damage? All pure conjecture of course and just a thought.

LTM (who learned early on not to play with fire),
John Barrett
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:16:35 -0400
From:         Mike Everette
Subject:      Re" spark gap transmitters

For Dan Postellon

>> It was September 23 and he sent it from Gardner Island.  He used the
>> government transmitter on the island to communicate with  other
>> government radio stations in the central Pacific.  The messages were
>> delivered to the recipients as telegrams.
>
> Was this an old "spark gap" transmitter, or something of a more recent
> design?

This is kind of off topic, but:

Spark gap transmitters were outlawed under international radio regulations by 1935.  Just about all of that type equipment that was still around (if any actually were, and there may have been a very few) by that late date were old installations on board merchant ships.  The 1935 date was supposedly the final cutoff.  The date had been set in the early to mid 20s.

Mike E.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:17:21 -0400
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      Electra flying

For forum members: has anyone read "Electra Flying: The Lockheed 10 Electra in New Zealand and the Pioneering of the Main Trunk Air Service" by Richard J. Waugh?

Dan Brown, #2408
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:43:02 -0400
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: spark gap transmitters

For Mike Everette

Thanks!

Dan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:29:30 -0400
From:         Julie Cook
Subject:      Re: Electra flying

Regarding "Electra Flying".

I have a copy and it is a very interesting read. A lot of really good photographs also.

It's available from Airways Magazine  www.airwaysmag.com

Cheers.
Julie
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:24:34 -0400
From:         Brian
Subject:      Amelia soda

I recently bought some cheap soda that bears the name Amelia. The can has a picture of an airplane on it...a left handed tribute to Amelia???
Just curious
Brian
Nation of Lurker
************************************************************************
From Ric

I have no idea.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:30:20 -0400
From:         Mike Allen
Subject:      What was the tide?

I recall previous discussions of the  tide height at the time of AE's probable arrival time at Nikamaruro, but don't know if you have that pinned down yet or not.

Here is an interesting link to a tide expert who may be of service, if you don't have this solved yet.  The article includes a discussion of their computing the tide at the time of the Marine landing on Tarawa in 1942, which was a disaster as the military planners got it wrong.

http://davinci.mrp.swt.edu/mrp/relations/news/news24_nyt.html

Mike Allen
************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mike.  We have good tide data that is about to get a lot better. During last summer's expedition TIGHAR's coral reef geologist Howard Alldred collected detailed tidal and reef data that are presently being analyzed by our own tidal expert Bob Brandenburg.

BTW, the Marines landed at Tarawa in 1943.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:37:24 -0400
From:         Pat Gaston
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Okay, just for a sec, let's assume that 2-2-V-1 arrived on Niku along with the same "shipment" that contained a bunch of miscellaneous B-24 / PB4Y parts.  If this stuff all originated from the Canton scrap heap, then the "shipment" may not have been limited to B-24 residue.  Any other candidates among the various military aircraft that were stationed there during the war years?

PDG
************************************************************************
From Ric

We've identified something like 26 different airplane types, civilian and military, known to have come through Canton at one time or another. None seems to be a candidate as a source for 2-2-V-1.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:34:53 -0400
From:         Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: What was the tide?

Ric said:

>...BTW, the Marines landed at Tarawa in 1943.

The person who wrote said that the invasion was in 1942 and the tidal forecasts were way off. Maybe that's why - they, too, had the wrong year. Just a thought (well, I try to think at least once, in a while I even manage to).

LTM,
Dave Bush
************************************************************************
From Ric

It was a big screw-up but not THAT big.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:40:58 -0400
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Ric, you're right; 2-2-V-1 IS a very unusual piece of airplane skin! But, hey, what if it's a boat made with airplane skin and airplane rivets? Nah, that's way too nutty!

All right, all right, I'll stop . . .

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
************************************************************************
From Ric

Not as nutty as might think.  Grumman made aluminum canoes with materials and techniques that were very airplane-like, but 2-2-V-1 is not part of a canoe.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:30:20 -0400
From:         Dave Porter
Subject:      Re: 2-2-V-1

Regarding the heat/flame signature on 2-2-V-1: (From Ric - I'll reply in parentheses.)

1.  Is the location  you believe 2-2-V-1 to have come from on NR16020 within reach of the flames from the Tucson incident?

(Dunno.  We really don't have a good handle on the incident.  We have two descriptions, both by Amelia.  One in "Last Flight" and one in the Lux advertisement.  Either or both may have been edited and, as we've seen before, AE's version of events does not always square with the facts.  It would be great if somebody could check the Tuscon, Arizona newspaper(s) for June 21 and 22, 1937 for any coverage of the incident.)

2.  If so, in the configuration that you believe 2-2-V-1 to have been installed on NR16020 would the side exhibiting the heat/flame signature have been the side closest to the flame source, or in the flame path?

(IF the burning gasoline extended that far aft, then yes, the heat damaged part of the sheet would be closest to the flame path.

3.  Is the heat/flame signature on 2-2-V-1 on the side that has the "blown out" edge?

(Yes.)

4.  If so, is the heat/flame signature strong enough to have been a contributing factor in the blow out, by making the metal more brittle at that edge?

(Yes.)

If the above answers are yes, it would seem that the Tucson incident contributed to the structural failure which created 2-2-V-1, and that 2-2-V-1 is indisputably debris from NR16020.

(I'd agree that the coincidence is remarkable IF we can establish that there was sufficient flame in the right area associated with the Tucson incident to cause the damage.)

And now for something completely different...  Proof that not all share our passion for this quest:

One of the Privates in my platoon is from Atchison, Kansas.  When I asked him what famous American was also from Atchison, he immediately replied "Amelia Earhart, Drill Sergeant!"  Whilst the rest of the platoon murmured amongst themselves "who the ##*?@! is Amelia Earhart, I asked him if he knew where she ended up, and he forcefully replied "who cares, Drill Sergeant!"

(LOL)

LTM, who always cared about the whereabouts of her children,
Dave Porter, #2288, at Fort Benning, GA