Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: 10E c/n 1042  (Read 19584 times)

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 637
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: 10E c/n 1042
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2017, 10:25:33 PM »

For Gary Holbrook

Just so you know, what I did was request and pay for a copy of the FAA registration and airworthiness records that the FAA has, and then reviewed and reported what I found in those records.  The research on the Forum is a collaborative process, and anyone including yourself as well as Board members are free to participate as long as they follow the Forum rules.  If Board members, or anyone else for that matter, are expected to be perfect in all the research they contribute, no one would participate.  It is a bar that is too high to meet.  In the mean time, we try our best.

You wrote:
<<<<<<<<<
4.)   I am not disputing Mr. Andrew M McKenna’s statement that his 10-E information was “gleaned from the FAA registration records”, but I do dispute the implication of some of it’s information.  His post includes the line “10/1/77 - N355B Sold to Vikings of Denmark, Inc., Denmark SC”.  I know for a fact that Bobby Frierson (owner of “Vikings of Denmark”, a skydiving operation based out of Barnwell SC) already had possession of the 10-E as of April 16, 1977, because my friends and I made several skydives out of the 10-E on both the 16th and 17th, over Rocky Point, NC, during Wilmington’s (NC) Azalea Festival weekend. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Your post made me go back and review the information I got from the FAA, and indeed, I got the date of the sale to the Vikings of Denmark wrong.  It would appear that the bill of sale was dated 10/1/76, not 1977, and the registration by the Vikings in their name is dated 1/13/77.  I've edited my original post in this thread to reflect this correction.  Sometimes the photocopies are hard to read and in somewhat confusing order.  Copy attached.

You also said:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
5.)   Mr. McKenna states that “The last airworthiness record the FAA has was a major repair and alteration form 337 dated 4/14/1969 for an engine overhaul, so it would appear that nothing that has been done to the aircraft since has been reported to the FAA. The last application for an airworthiness certificate in the FAA records was submitted by Provincetown- Boston on 7/3/56.  Makes you wonder a bit about the records the FAA has, but my guess is that it is not in airworthy condition, and hasn't been for a while.”  Although I am not disputing what the FAA has in its current records, I find it hard to believe that it had not been deemed airworthy since 4/14/1969 (or was it 7/3/56?).  Mr. McKenna also states “makes you wonder a bit about the records the FAA has, but my guess is that it is not in airworthy condition, and hasn't been for a while.”  Mr. Gillespie agreed.  I can’t personally verify what date the 10-E was last used for skydiving, but my last skydive out of the 10-E was on February 17, 1979.
>>>>>

Note - I'm not an FAA Airworthiness Inspector, so what follows may not be 100% accurate.  The records for airworthiness at the FAA are not the same as the aircraft being in airworthy condition.  The FAA requires notification of any major repairs or changes to the original airworthy configuration.  If no major repairs are done, or if no one properly reports such repairs to the FAA, then their records would not contain any information.  In this case, it would appear that no one reported any modifications or major repairs after 4/14/1969.  That doesn't mean that the aircraft wasn't airworthy at anytime after that date, and it could easily have had annual inspections and remained in airworthy condition every year after 1969 including when you flew in it in 1979.

Did the Vikings modify the aircraft for skydiving?  Probably, but apparently they didn't report anything to the FAA.  We do know that Grace McGuire did quite a bit of work on this aircraft, but none of it seems to have been reported to the FAA.  Whether that was an oversight, or she never really intended to fly it again, I certainly don't know.  Given that the aircraft was in "rotten" condition when she got it, I find it hard to believe that the kind of work she would have had to do to get it back in airworthy condition would not have required filing multiple Form 337s, but that is just my opinion. In any case, no F337s were submitted to the FAA that are currently in their records. Either they were not filed, or simply are lost to the FAA's archive.  I don't know the answer.

I do object to your characterization that TIGHAR has "significantly misrepresented" the history of this aircraft.  We put out the info we think we have to the best of our knowledge, figure out what is wrong, and then improve the accuracy from that point forward, which was the whole point of this thread.  You have helped to clarify some of the history which is a great result, but I don't think you had to approach it with the level of animosity that is, in my opinion, contained in your postings.  I'm glad to see that you've cooled off a bit in later postings.

I hope that you now see that we are not trying to seriously misrepresent the history of CN 1042, but rather we're trying to put together a more accurate picture of that history. 

Thanks for your participation.

Best

Andrew
Logged

Gary Holbrook

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: 10E c/n 1042
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2017, 11:46:08 PM »

Hi Andrew,

I do appreciate your reply, along with the corrected information.  My biggest complaint, as originally stated was based on Ric Gillespie's comment in a previous thread about Lockheed 10-E c/n 1042; Forum entry:  In response to Greg Daspit’s post entry “a chance to look at a genuine 10E components in person is good news" Ric Gillespie (Executive Director/Administrator) replied “Yes and no, Grace McGuire has been rebuilding this beast since she bought it in the 1970’s after it had nearly burned up in a Florida hangar fire.”  Mr. Gillespie’s statement “it had nearly burned up in a Florida hangar fire” is grossly, and I mean grossly incorrect.  Mr. Gillespie made this statement as absolute fact, not even as a supposition, and that is truly unfortunate. None of the other “experts” that frequent this forum seem to step up to even challenge Mr. Gillespie’s misstatement.

The original post by Mr. Gillespie contained no documentation about any "hangar fire" that "nearly burned up" the 10-E, and there has been absolutely no documentation since that time that reinforces his original statement.  To me at least, that in itself is a huge, huge misrepresentation of the facts as they relate to this 10-E.  Once that misrepresentation had been stated, I believe that it helped set the tone for further comments concerning the 10-E and Grace McGuire.

I am also unfamiliar with FAA's inspection process, but it would make sense to me that any annual inspections that would have taken place would have deemed the aircraft airworthy, at least in the general sense.  The hand and foot rails were installed while the aircraft was based at Raeford, I remember and know that to be a fact.  If my memory serves me right, and once the hand and foot rails were installed, we had to wait for an FAA inspection before the 10-E was allowed to fly again.  It is my understanding that Gene Paul Thacker (owner of Skydive Raeford) was part owner of the 10-E.  He was a former Golden Knight, on the Board of Directors for USPA (United States Parachute Association), he was airport manager, and he also owned several 182s, a 185, and a Twin Beech.  He was a by-the-book guy, and it does not make any sense to me that we would have jumped the 10-E before some sort of an FAA inspection.

Also, I disagree with your statement "Did the Vikings modify the aircraft for skydiving?  Probably, but apparently they didn't report anything to the FAA."  The 10-E was already set up for skydiving from its days at Zephyrhills; no significant changes at all would have been necessary. 

In response to your statement "I do object to your characterization that TIGHAR has "significantly misrepresented" the history of this aircraft."  My main reasoning for choosing those words were (and are) based on the original "after it had nearly burned up in a Florida hangar fire" comment.  I believe that since Mr. Gillespie is Executive Director/Administrator of TIGHAR, my statement can be considered valid.  On a smaller note, I believe that Mr. Gillespie tended to flavor his original post in this thread by stating "I've been catching grief from an emailer (who won't give his name)".  Mr. Gillespie never asked for my name, and I have the emails to prove it.  I do want to give him credit, however, on taking the steps to try to rectify the the history of this particular 10-E, and I sincerely appreciate that.  Seriously.

In one email to Mr. Gillespie earlier this month, I also provided my cell number (I also asked him not to share it with others unless we discussed that in advance).

Despite all of the above, I was relatively cool on how things were progressing on this thread, that was until Mr. Moleski's (also a TIGHAR Administrator) comment "At least in the abstract, it seems conceivable that the "hangar fire," if any, could have happened in Orlando.  It seems to have been flying in 1979.  It seems then to have been in "awful condition and ... left to rot in the back lot," according to Grace McGuire."  Being "left to rot in the back lot" is world's away from being in a "hangar fire".  I am sure that most of us have seen aircraft that have been abandoned (for lack of a better word) at various airports, some of them may have also been stripped of parts.  Just because these aircraft have been left out in the elements, does not put them in the same category as one that would have "nearly burned up in a Florida hangar fire".  For Mr. Moleski (TIGHAR Administrator) to even suggest that possibility, without any sort of documentation whatsoever is irresponsible, at least in my book.

I hate to keep preaching, but I feel like I must add this as well; nowhere on this forum have I seen any mention about any credit that is due to Grace McGuire's restoration efforts.  Instead, there are times where she has been painted in a relatively negative light.  TIGHAR's mission is "dedicated to promoting responsible aviation archaeology and historic preservation", agreed?  Well, in my book, Grace McGuire didn't just talk about it, she physically did it.
Gary Holbrook
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: 10E c/n 1042
« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2017, 07:44:58 AM »

Despite all of the above, I was relatively cool on how things were progressing on this thread, that was until Mr. Moleski's (also a TIGHAR Administrator)

I am not a "TIGHAR Administrator."

I am a TIGHAR member.

I have run the web server since 2009.

I install and run software as needed on the server.

Quote
Just because these aircraft have been left out in the elements, does not put them in the same category as one that would have "nearly burned up in a Florida hangar fire".  For Mr. Moleski (TIGHAR Administrator) to even suggest that possibility, without any sort of documentation whatsoever is irresponsible, at least in my book.

I did not attempt to prove in any way that there WAS a fire between the time that you flew in it and the time when Grace found that it had been "left to rot."

All I said was that there was a three-year gap in your story.

IF there was a fire that contributed to the abandonment of the plane, then it MUST have happened in that 3-year period.

Your testimony does not contradict that argument.

There might have been a fire during that time. 

You believe that is impossible.

I do not share your belief.

And the whole issue is moot, which means "endlessly debatable and not relevant" to the question of whether looking inside the aircraft can help determine what was inside AE's aircraft.

As I said in my long post: "All I have attempted to do is to show that there is a time about which you do not have personal experience or witness testimony.  Furthermore, the decay of the ship at the museum in Florida seems to be beyond a 'reasonable' doubt.  You have described how it was 'gutted.'  Grace tells how it was left to 'rot' outdoors and was slated to be destroyed.  That, in turn, means that it is not an aircraft whose interior can answer questions that TIGHAR has about the original interior of NR16020."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary Holbrook

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: 10E c/n 1042
« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2017, 08:01:22 AM »

Mr Moleski, these are your exact words"

"There might have been a fire during that time. 
You believe that is impossible.
I do not share your belief."

Personally, I believe that you are grasping at straws here; do you have ANY evidence of ANY fire with ANY aircraft that was owned by the Wings & Wheels Museum during that time period, or any other time?  Have you tried to research any sort of a aircraft-related fire, in the Orlando FL area, during that time period?  (I have, and so far the answer is "no, nada, zilch").  You may want to check the image that is currently attached to your posts.  You say that you are "not a TIGHAR" Administrator", your image says otherwise:
Gary Holbrook
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5445
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: 10E c/n 1042
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2017, 09:46:18 AM »

Personally, I believe that you are grasping at straws here; do you have ANY evidence of ANY fire with ANY aircraft that was owned by the Wings & Wheels Museum during that time period, or any other time?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Marty is not saying there was a fire. He is merely saying the aircraft's history has not been fully documented so it's not possible to say for certain that there was no fire.  That's not grasping at straws. This is a basic principle of historical investigation - recognizing what can and cannot be said with certainty.

Marty is a Forum Administrator, not a TIGHAR Administrator.  There are no TIGHAR Administrators.
Once again, I was wrong in saying that the plane had been severely damaged in a hangar fire. I have admitted and corrected that error. Andrew had a date wrong. He has admitted and corrected that error.  The history of c/n 1042, your experience as a skydiver, and Grace McGuire's personality are not relevant to our investigation of the Earhart disappearance. Further back and forth about all this would be merely sound and fury signifying nothing.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: 10E c/n 1042
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2017, 10:40:44 AM »

Mr Moleski, these are your exact words"

"There might have been a fire during that time. 
You believe that is impossible.
I do not share your belief."

Yes, those are my exact words.

They express my convictions pretty accurately.

Quote
do you have ANY evidence of ANY fire with ANY aircraft that was owned by the Wings & Wheels Museum during that time period, or any other time?

I think I've made it pretty clear that I do not have any evidence of a fire during those three years.

Quote
You may want to check the image that is currently attached to your posts.  You say that you are "not a TIGHAR" Administrator", your image says otherwise:

Being an "administrator" on a "Special Machines Form" (the software that we use for this Forum) does not make me a "TIGHAR Administrator" (someone who has some authority for TIGHAR's operations).
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary Holbrook

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: 10E c/n 1042
« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2018, 04:40:03 PM »

Hello all,

I thought that I would post a photo in reference to our conversation(s) above.  The image itself is not that sharp, but it shows the condition of Lockheed 10E Electra c/n 1042 when Grace McGuire purchased it.  The handwritten caption above says "one of the first photos taken of Muriel after Grace purchased her.  Photo courtesy of Grace McGuire".  The large vinyl sticker that Gene Paul Thacker (previous co-owner) installed while the 10E was used for jumping at Raeford NC can still be seen just aft of the door.  Can we now all agree that this aircraft was not severely damaged in any sort of fire, or is this still an open issue?

Gary Holbrook
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP