Print

[Chris Anderson]

Figured you guys would know.  Every site out there with this photo lists it as her arrival in MIA.  I imagine some site posted it incorrectly and the mistake cascaded on the Interwebz from there...

[Bill Mangus]

The two photos were taken at very nearly the same time.  Note the shape of the cloud formation nearly obscuring the sun, particularly the lighter area above the darker area over the sun; they're the same.  Also note the three trees bracketing the vehicle pulling away from the a/c in the Herald pic (start cart/fire extinguisher?).  Now find them in the mislabeled picture.  They're on the horizon just bracketing the left vertical stabilizer.  Since the vehicle is gone in the mislabeled picture, I'd say it was taken later.  In fact, I think the Herald photographer is the gentleman on the extreme left of the crowd being looked at by the official-looking gentleman in the officer's hat.  He's probably a policeman as there is another one just like him on the right end of the crowd.

Try looking at the two pictures side-by-side on your desktop.

Now the question becomes:  Who is this other photographer, who was he/she working for, were other pictures taken and where are they?

[Steve Lyle Gunderson]

I found this picture while Googleing Lockheed pictures. Looks like NR16040 before the window was installed. The caption say's 'Floyd Bennett' which I believe is an airfield in New York, no date is given but it doesn't look like any of the pictures 'after the window patch'.
I thought I would include it just for reference.

[Ric Gillespie]

I found this picture while Googleing Lockheed pictures. Looks like NR16040 before the window was installed. The caption say's 'Floyd Bennett' which I believe is an airfield in New York, no date is given but it doesn't look like any of the pictures 'after the window patch'.
I thought I would include it just for reference.

Yes, we have that photo. It was taken in early September 1936 at Floyd Bennett Field, NY just before the start of the Bendix cross-country race. Earhart flew the race with Helen Richey as "co-pilot" but it didn't go well. The lav window wasn't installed until February or March of '37.

[Ric Gillespie]

This just in from Jeff Glickman (you'll recall that I sent him the print we got from the Miami Herald many years ago):
" I have received the photo.  First, some good news: This photo appears to be a print from a negative, possibly a first generation print from an original negative, although this is yet to be conclusively determined.  The print does not suffer from a loss of information due to half-toning, nor does it have any digital compression artifacts.  However, given the time period for the photographic chemistry, the grain size is large relative to the rivets, which are the objects of interest.  I will be working over the next several days to determine what specific structures within the window patch can be discerned."

[Mark Appel]

In today's San Francisco Chronicle...

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Photo-may-offer-clue-to-Amelia-Earhart-mystery-5601582.php#page-1

[JNev]

This just in from Jeff Glickman (you'll recall that I sent him the print we got from the Miami Herald many years ago):
" I have received the photo.  First, some good news: This photo appears to be a print from a negative, possibly a first generation print from an original negative, although this is yet to be conclusively determined.  The print does not suffer from a loss of information due to half-toning, nor does it have any digital compression artifacts.  However, given the time period for the photographic chemistry, the grain size is large relative to the rivets, which are the objects of interest.  I will be working over the next several days to determine what specific structures within the window patch can be discerned."

Not bad for a start.  The grain size sounds daunting, though.

All it will take is one picture clearly revealing the rivet pattern and 2-2-V-1 is proven one way or the other - either of NR16020, or not - end of mystery.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Ric,
I guess you have asked Jeff the same question as I do now: Will he be able to "find" the rivets? Is it possible? Isn't it a mission impossible???
Oskar #4421A

[Ric Gillespie]

Isn't it a mission impossible???

Maybe, but we have to try.  We've actually gotten pretty good at accomplishing the impossible.

[Randy Conrad]

Hey Ric...On this latest vintage video of Amelia. It shows a set of bridges! Is that the San Francisco Bridge? Go to .52 of video! Anyway, it shows the window!

http://www.jump-in.com.au/show/today/videos/3661627397001/

[Jeff Carter]

Using the Model 10 skin diagrams (originally posted at https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30041.html#msg30041), it is fairly straightforward to calculate the width (i.e., height) of the original window frame.  As shown in the attached figure, the rivet spacing must almost certainly be 1 inch, which gives a total window frame width (i.e., height) of 18 inches.

[C.W. Herndon]

Jeff, I don't know how you were able to get such great detail in this picture. Thanks for the good work!

[JNev]

Using the Model 10 skin diagrams (originally posted at https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30041.html#msg30041), it is fairly straightforward to calculate the width (i.e., height) of the original window frame.  As shown in the attached figure, the rivet spacing must almost certainly be 1 inch, which gives a total window frame width (i.e., height) of 18 inches.

Very nice work!

[Ric Gillespie]

Using the Model 10 skin diagrams (originally posted at https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30041.html#msg30041), it is fairly straightforward to calculate the width (i.e., height) of the original window frame.  As shown in the attached figure, the rivet spacing must almost certainly be 1 inch, which gives a total window frame width (i.e., height) of 18 inches.

The graphic representation is excellent.  Thanks Jeff.   Using the same assumption that the rivet pitch on the window frame was one inch, I reached the same conclusion.  Next question is nailing down the width.  The distance between Stations 293 5/8 and 320 is 26 3/8" but it seems clear from the photo that the window frame is not riveted to the circumferential bulkhead at Station 293 5/8 but rather to another, specially added, internal structure about an inch aft of that bulkhead.  If we have the same situation at Station 320 the width of the window framing is about two inches less than the distance between the stations -in other words - 24 3/8."
Were the dimensions of the patch exactly the same as the window frame? They couldn't be less but was there some overlap?  In the taxiing-out photo you can clearly see the gap between the forward edge of the patch and skin borders at Sta. 293 5/8 but there does not seem to be a similar gap between the aft edge of the patch and the skin border at Sta. 320. The patch seems to be pretty tight to the skin border.
My best guess at this time is that the patch dimensions were not less and possibly a tad more than 18" x 25 3/8." Of course, better information could alter that estimate.

[Ric Gillespie]

We need better measurements for the dimensions of the artifact so, taking a deep breath, I squished 2-2-V-1 flat and took these photos.  The long dimension of the artifact appears to be just shy of 24 3/8."  The short dimension appears to be bang-on 17" to the first line of #5 rivets and 18 1/4" to the presumed location of the second line.  The finished edge of the sheet was probably at about 19."